CAR_Public/130613.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, June 13, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 116

                             Headlines


013 NETVISION: Israeli Sup. Ct. Approves Class Action Settlement
ADOBE: Recalls 500 High-Powered Magnets in ConnectTM Promo Packs
AGL RESOURCES: Consolidated Suit vs. Nicor Units Remains Pending
ALDERMAN FARMS: Recalls Certified Organic Cherry Tomatoes
ALPHA MEAT: Recalls Chicken Breasts Over Ingesta/Viscera Presence

AQUA DIGITAL: Recalls 3 Models of Atman Protein Skimmer Pumps
AROMASOURCE INC: Recalls PURELIVING Reed Diffusers Over Warnings
AU OPTRONICS: Supreme Court to Decide on Bid to Transfer Suits
BANCOLOMBIA SA: "Aguilar" Class Suit Remains Pending in Colombia
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Dentons Canada Discusses Supreme Court Ruling

BLUE CROSS: Class Certification Hearing Scheduled for Sept. 18
BONDUELLE CANADA: Recalls 398 mL French-Style Cut Green Beans
CANADA: Groups Challenge Police's "Card" Practice in Court
CARBO CERAMICS: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Junk Securities Suit
CHOBANI: Mayer Brown Seeks Disqualification of Class Action Lawyer

CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 1,317 4500 and 5500 Models of RAM Vehicles
CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 1500, 2500, 3500 & 5500 RAM Truck Models
CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 1500, 2500 and 3500 Models of RAM Vehicles
CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 18,407 JEEP WRANGLER SUVs
CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 2500 and 3500 2013 Models of RAM Vehicles

CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 3,566 DART Model of DODGE Vehicles
CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 45,387 COMPASS and PATRIOT Vehicles
CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 15,000 New Dodge Dart Compact Cars
CITIGROUP INC: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Seek Approval for Settlement
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Tenn. Suit

CONVERGYS CORP: Status Conference in "Wheelock" Suit on July 9
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Appeal From Dismissal of Calif. Suit Pending
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Appeal in "Rivera" Suit Still Pending
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Harrington" Suit Still Pending in Calif.
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Madden" Class Suit Dismissed in February

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Montgomery" Suit Scheduled for Arbitration
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Still Defends Suits by Former Students
COUNTRY LIFE: Recalls 1,100 Target-Mins Iron Supplement Bottles
DELAWARE MANUFACTURED: Faces Class Action Over Assessment Fees
DOLLAR GENERAL: EEOC Files Suits Over Criminal Background Checks

EI DUPONT: Medical Panel Recommends Medical Monitoring Protocols
ELBIT IMAGING: Court Dismisses Application to Certify Class Action
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Cozen O'Connor Discusses Incentive Award
FELTEX: Forsyth Barr Opts in Clients in Class Action
FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA: Faces Class Action Over Loan Mismanagement

FISKARS CANADA: Recalls Stitched Sheaths for Gerber Bear Machete
FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. Units
FLAMEL TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Class Suit Dismissed in March
FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal From Hawaii Suit Dismissal Still Pending
FRESH DEL MONTE: Defends Extra Sweet Pineapples-Related Suits

FRESH DEL MONTE: Suit Over Extra Sweet Pineapples Pending in Fla.
G. WILLI-FOOD: Accused of Mislabeling Certain Imported Products
GENERAL MILLS: Recalls Cinnamon Toast Crunch Products
GERBER LEGENDARY: Recalls 91,000 Machetes With Stitched Sheaths
GOLD COAST: Beachfront Property Owners Mull Class Action

GREENBERG TRAURIG: Settles Gender Discrimination Class Action
GRUMA SAB: Unit Faces "Cox" Class Suit Over "All Natural" Label
HEALTHCARE FOOD: Recalls 8 x 260 g Curried Lentil Casserole
HERBALIFE LTD: Sales Increase Despite Pyramid Scheme Class Action
HUNTSMAN CORP: Faces Class Suit by Indirect Purchasers of TiO2

HUNTSMAN CORP: Hearing in TiO2 Direct Purchasers Suit on June 25
IKEA NORTH: Recalls 231,000 LYDA Jumbo Cups Due to Burn Hazard
KELLOGG CO: Settles Class Action Over Frosted Mini-Wheats for $4MM
LATAM AIRLINES: Defends Suits by Workers' Unions vs. Tam Linhas
LATAM AIRLINES: Defends Suits Over Price Fixing of Surcharges

LATAM AIRLINES: TAM Linhas Defends Suit Over 1996 Plane Crash
LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Joe Fresh Children's Short Sleepers
MACMILLAN GROUP: CEO Testifies in E-Book Price-Fixing Trial
MEILLEURES MARQUES: Recalls St-Hubert Brand Chicken Chowder
PACCAR: Recalls 17 T440 2013 and 2014 Models of KENWORTH Trucks

PET VALU: Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds Opt-Out Process
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Lawyers File Motion to Reopen 1986 Class Action
PHILLIPS AGENCY: Fisher & Phillips Discusses Court Ruling
PHILIPS LIGHTING: Recalls 8,100 Metal Halide Lamps Over Fire Risk
PILOT FLYING J: Seeks Dismissal of Suit on Technical Grounds

RIPLEY SCHOOL: Faces Class Action Over Plan to Transfer Students
SEARS CORP: Supreme Court to Weigh on Washer Class Action
SEQUEL NATURALS: Recalls Vega(R) Bars Due to Undeclared Milk
TGI FRIDAY'S: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action
TORONTO: Activists to Move Ahead With Police Carding Practice Suit

UNITED STATES: Group Seeks Class Action Status for Medicaid Suit
UNITED STATES: Number of Eligibility Workers at Issue in DSS Suit
VALENCIA HOLDING: Attorney Seeks to Limit Mandatory Arbitration
WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Action Over Suitable Cashier Seating
WAL-MART STORES: Seeks Dismissal of Wisconsin Gender Bias Suit

WALGREEN CO: Settles Suit Over Painkillers for $80 Million
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Residents Attend Meeting on Clyde Cancer Cluster
XUMANII: Private Investor Responds to Class Action Complaint
YAKIMA PRODUCTS: Recalls Whispbar Fitting Kit Top of Car System

* Appeals Courts Set to Decide on Two Consumer Class Actions

* Canada Recalls Apricot Halves Due to Extraneous Material
* Class Actions Challenge Church Pension Plan Status


                             *********


013 NETVISION: Israeli Sup. Ct. Approves Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. on May 27 disclosed that the Israeli Supreme
Court approved a settlement agreement executed and reported in
May 2012.

The settlement agreement related to a lawsuit approved as a class
action in November 2010 (and appealed to the Israeli supreme
Court) against 013 Netvision Ltd., or Netvision, a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company, and two other long distance operators,
for a total claimed amount of about NIS2.2 billion, of which
approximately NIS818 million was attributed to Netvision; and a
purported class action filed against the same defendants in
February 2012, for an amount of approximately NIS2.7 billion
claimed from each of the defendants.

The plaintiffs in both the class action and the purported class
action alleged that the defendants misled the purchasers of
certain long distance prepaid calling cards as to the amount of
minutes included in those cards.

As per the settlement agreement, Netvision and another defendant
will provide certain long distance prepaid calling cards, free of
charge, for an aggregate amount which is not material to the
Company, and will further provide certain information in relation
to the usage of the cards.  The third defendant is not a party to
the settlement agreement.


ADOBE: Recalls 500 High-Powered Magnets in ConnectTM Promo Packs
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Adobe, of San Jose, California, announced a voluntary recall of
about 500 High-Powered Magnets distributed with Adobe ConnectTM
"Effective Collaboration is Magnetic" Promotional Materials
Package.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

When two or more magnets are swallowed, they can link together
inside a child's intestines and clamp onto body tissues, causing
intestinal obstructions, perforations, sepsis and death.
Internal injury from magnets can pose serious lifelong health
effects.

The firm has received no reports of incidents or injuries.  CPSC
has received 80 reports of incidents involving ingestion of other
high powered magnets, resulting in 79 reports seeking medical
intervention.

This recall involves high-powered magnet sets distributed with
Adobe "Effective Collaboration is Magnetic" promotional materials.
The promotional materials were distributed in a green box with a
black lid and contain 12 high-powered magnets which are
magnetically affixed to a laminated green cardboard sheet.  The
spherical silver magnets are about 5 millimeter in diameter.  The
text "With Adobe Connect it all just clicks" is printed in a
circular shape around the magnets.  Picture of the recalled
products is available at: http://is.gd/qL5qm1

The recalled products were manufactured in China.  The magnets
were distributed nationwide by Adobe as part of a promotional
package for their Adobe Connect product during November 2012 at no
cost to consumers.

Consumers should immediately stop using the magnets and either
discard them or contact Adobe for instructions on returning the
magnets.  Adobe Recall may be reached collect at (503) 382-8500
between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, Eastern
Time or online at http://www.adobe.com/and click on "blog" for
more information.


AGL RESOURCES: Consolidated Suit vs. Nicor Units Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the first quarter of 2011, three putative class actions were
filed against Nicor Energy Services Company and Northern Illinois
Gas Company, doing business as Nicor Gas Company, and in one case
against Nicor Inc. -- an acquisition completed in December 2011
and former holding company of Nicor Gas.  In September 2011, the
three cases were consolidated into a single class action pending
in state court in Cook County, Illinois.  The plaintiffs purport
to represent a class of customers of Nicor Gas who purchased the
Gas Line Comfort Guard product from Nicor Services.  In the
consolidated action, the plaintiffs variously allege that the
marketing, sale and billing of the Nicor Services Gas Line Comfort
Guard violate the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, constitute common law fraud and result in unjust
enrichment of Nicor Services and Nicor Gas.  The plaintiffs seek,
on behalf of the classes they purport to represent, actual and
punitive damages, interest, costs, attorney fees and injunctive
relief.  While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of
these matters or to reasonably estimate its potential exposure
related thereto, if any, and have not recorded a liability
associated with this contingency, the final disposition of this
matter is not expected to have a material adverse impact on the
Company's liquidity or financial condition.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 30, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, AGL Resources Inc. is an energy
services holding company whose principal business is the
distribution of natural gas in seven states -- Illinois, Georgia,
Virginia, New Jersey, Florida, Tennessee and Maryland -- through
its seven natural gas distribution utilities.


ALDERMAN FARMS: Recalls Certified Organic Cherry Tomatoes
---------------------------------------------------------
Alderman Farms Sales Corporation, in Boynton Beach, Florida, is
recalling one pint containers of Certified Organic Cherry Tomatoes
because they have the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.  Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting
and abdominal pain.  In rare circumstances, infection with
Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream
and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections
(i.e. infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

This recall notice is being issued out of an abundance of caution.

An Alderman Farms' wholesale customer in Florida purchased
10 cartons containing 12 one-pint containers of the affected
cherry tomatoes on 5/22/13.  There were no other cherry tomatoes
sold from this lot.

The cherry tomatoes are packaged in square-shaped clear plastic
clamshell containers labeled as Alderman Farms Organic Cherry
Tomato, UPC number 6317195594, with a net weight of one pint and
an estimated shelf life of 10 days.  The carton lot number
affected by the recall is 13269.  The clamshell packages are
distributed in cartons labeled Alderman Farms.

No illnesses have been associated with the product.

Alderman Farms became aware of the contamination after the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration collected a sample of the cherry
tomatoes located at Alderman Farms' Packing facility located in
Boynton Beach, Florida.  The sample of lot number 13269 found the
cherry tomatoes to be contaminated with Salmonella.  Alderman
Farms is investigating the source of the contamination.  Alderman
Farms conducted an independent test on the lot and it was found to
be negative of Salmonella.

Consumers who have the affected product should either discard it
in the trash or return it to the point of purchase.  Consumers
with questions can leave a message on Alderman Farms' voice
mailbox at 561-369-2801 and they will return your call.


ALPHA MEAT: Recalls Chicken Breasts Over Ingesta/Viscera Presence
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 4, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Extraneous Material
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Alpha Meat Packers Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional,
                          Warehouse
CFIA reference number:    8039

Affected products:

                   Common
   Brand name       name     Code(s) on product
   ----------      ------    ------------------
   Alpha Meat      Chicken   3212P0310, 3212P0312, 3212P0316,
   Packers Ltd.    Breasts   3212P0317, 3212P0318, 3212P0319,
                             3212P0320, 3212P0322, 3212P0324,
                             3212P031, 3212P033, 3212P034,
                             3212P036

   Prepared for    Chicken   3212P0311, 3212P0315
   Alimplus Inc.   Breasts

   Prepared for    Chicken   3212P0313
   Ent. J. B.      Breasts
   Lauzon Inc.

Affected products are in variable sizes and UPCs.


AQUA DIGITAL: Recalls 3 Models of Atman Protein Skimmer Pumps
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 7, 2013
Posting date:             June 7, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Electronics
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-33949

Affected products: Atman protein skimmer pumps

This recall involves Atman skimmer pumps with model numbers
PH2500, PH2000, and PH1100.  The water pumps are used in Bubble
Magus NAC6, NAC7, NAC3.5 and NAC5E protein skimmers to maintain
water quality in a saltwater aquarium.

The affected products have not been tested to determine whether
they are compliant with the Canadian standards for product safety
and may pose a safety hazard.

Aqua Digital Inc. has received one reported incident of minor
property damage.  There were no injuries reported.  Health Canada
has not received any reports of incidents or injuries to Canadians
related to the use of these pumps.

Approximately 78 units of the affected products were sold at
various retailers, including:

   * Oakville Reef Gallery
   * Reef Aquatica
   * Aqua Giant
   * Bayside Corals
   * Blue World Aaquatics Edmonton
   * Concept Aquariums
   * Dereks Reef Shop
   * East West Marine
   * Fish Tails
   * Rays Ottawa
   * Forty Fathoms
   * Go Reef
   * Incredible Aquariums
   * Marine Aquaria
   * Ocean Abyss Aquatics
   * Peters Reef
   * Paws N Jaws
   * Critter Cove (pets and ponds)
   * Progressive Reef
   * Red Coral Aquariums
   * Reef Concept
   * Reef Shoppe
   * Zone Animal

Picture of the recalled products is available at:
http://is.gd/UsxOCX

The affected products were manufactured in China and sold from
January 2010 to June 2012.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Bubble Magus
                    Yuyao Ningbo City
                    CHINA

   Importer         Aqua Digital Inc.
                    Ottawa
                    Ontario, CANADA

Consumers should stop using the pump immediately and unplug it.
Consumers should contact a retailer in the list with the recalled
pump and proof of purchase.  The retailer will provide a
replacement pump.

For more information, consumers may contact Aqua Digital Inc. by
phone at 613-424-1679, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time Monday through Friday, by e-mail at sales@aqua-
digital.com, or online at the firm's Web site [http://www.aqua-
digital.com/].

Consumers may also view the recall notice on the Electrical Safety
Authority's Web site
[http://www.esasafe.com/pdf/Recall_Notices/RCL13-24.pdf].


AROMASOURCE INC: Recalls PURELIVING Reed Diffusers Over Warnings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 7, 2013
Posting date:             June 7, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-33845

Affected products: PURELIVING reed diffusers, from the Herbalcure
                   and CASA collections

This recall involves Pureliving reed diffusers from the Herbalcure
and Casa collections.  The set is made up of wooden sticks, a
refill bottle containing oil for filling and a decorative glass
container.

Diffusers affected by this recall:

Products                                              Item #
--------                                              ------
Reed diffuser - Lavender & Chamomile                  614
Diffuser refill - Lavender & Chamomile (125 ml)       839
Diffuser refill - Green Tea and Ginger (125 ml)       840
Reed diffuser - Green Tea and Ginger                  615
Casa fragrance diffuser - Mediterranean Mist          CASA650
Casa diffuser refill - Mediterranean Mist (125 ml)    CASA93
Casa diffuser refill - Tropical Grapefruit (125 ml)   CASA95
Casa fragrance diffuser - Tropical Grapefruit         CASA652
Casa fragrance diffuser - Fresh Basil & Olive         CASA654
Casa diffuser refill - Fresh Basil and Olive (125 ml) CASA97
Casa diffuser refill - Yellow Jasmine Tea (125 ml)    CASA98
Casa fragrance diffuser - Yellow Jasmine Tea          CASA655

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/Q32TbY

The product does not carry the mandatory labeling as required by
the Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations, 2001.  The
container lacks the symbol and warnings required for flammable and
irritant products.

The lack of labeling information, including appropriate warnings,
may cause serious injury.

Neither Health Canada nor Pureliving has received any reports of
injuries or incidents related to the use of these products.

Information on how to help keep children safe from unintentional
exposure to reed diffusers is available at Advising Canadians
about Reed Diffusers [http://is.gd/eYeEMt].

General safety information on household chemicals can be found at
Use household chemicals safely [http://is.gd/ptXjki].

Approximately 300 recalled products were sold in gift shops across
Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and were sold
from January 2011 to March 2013.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Aromasource Inc.
                    Montreal
                    Quebec, CANADA

Consumers should stop using the products immediately and dispose
of them.

For more information, consumers may contact Aromasource Inc. by
telephone at 1-866-879-5333.


AU OPTRONICS: Supreme Court to Decide on Bid to Transfer Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brent Kendall, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, the U.S. Supreme
Court on May 28 said it would decide whether companies facing
certain civil lawsuits brought by state attorneys general can
insist on moving the cases to federal courts.

The case could affect court venues for antitrust lawsuits that
some states have brought against makers of liquid-crystal-display
panels used in televisions and other electronic devices.  The
lawsuits seek to impose civil penalties and recover monetary
damages on behalf of government entities and state residents that
allegedly paid more for electronics because of industry price
fixing.

Several LCD makers, including LG Display Co. and Sharp Corp., have
pleaded guilty to price fixing and have paid combined fines of
more than $890 million.  Another company, AU Optronics Corp., was
convicted of price fixing last year and ordered to pay $500
million.

Separate from the federal criminal cases, several states brought
civil lawsuits over the same alleged conduct.

The Supreme Court will consider a legal question arising under the
Class Action Fairness Act, a 2005 federal law that changed rules
for class-action lawsuits.  LCD makers have argued that the law
gives them the ability to defend against the states' lawsuits in
federal court, instead of having the cases proceed in state
courts.

Businesses in general believe the federal court system is a more-
favorable venue in which to litigate cases.

Some states have sought to keep their lawsuits in their own
courts.

Lower courts have disagreed on whether state or federal courts
should hear the cases.

The Supreme Court will consider a lawsuit brought by the state of
Mississippi and will hear oral arguments during its next term,
which begins in October.

The case is Mississippi v. AU Optronics, 12-1036.


BANCOLOMBIA SA: "Aguilar" Class Suit Remains Pending in Colombia
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit initiated by Carlos Julio Aguilar and
others remains pending, according to Bancolombia S.A.'s April 30,
2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

A class action was filed by Carlos Julio Aguilar and others
arguing that the restructuring of the financial obligations of the
Departamento del Valle and the performance plan signed by the
plaintiff allegedly breached the collective rights to public
administration's morality and the protection of the public funds.
The proceeding is in the evidentiary stage, which was suspended
due to accumulation of proceedings with another constitutional
public interest action based on this same alleged grievance, filed
by Carlos Aponte.

As of December 31, 2012, the proceeding is pending the rendering
of an expert's opinion on the amount of interest charged to
Departamento del Valle by the financial institutions acting as
defendants.

Bancolombia S.A. -- http://www.grupobancolombia.com/-- is a
banking institution organized under the laws of the Republic of
Colombia and headquartered in Medellin.  Bancolombia is a full
service financial institution that offers a wide range of banking
products and services to a diversified individual and corporate
customer base of more than seven million customers.


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Dentons Canada Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Norm Emblem, Esq. -- norm.emblem@dentons.com -- and Marina
Sampson, Esq., at Dentons Canada LLP, report that the Supreme
Court recently provided clarity in two leading employment class
action cases for unpaid overtime.  Just over one year ago, the
Ontario Court of Appeal handed down two significant decisions
where employees claimed for unpaid overtime work.  The appeal
court had certified class action lawsuits against two of Canada's
largest and most prominent banks: the Bank of Nova Scotia
('Scotiabank') and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC).
In both cases -- Fulawka v Scotiabank and Fresco v CIBC -- the
banks commenced applications to the Supreme Court seeking leave to
appeal the decisions.  On March 21, 2013 the Supreme Court denied
the banks leave to appeal.  As is customary when the Supreme Court
denies leave to appeal, no reasons were given.

As a result, the two class actions will proceed to trial and will
be decided on their merits, unless a settlement is reached in the
meantime.

        A closer look: Ontario Court of Appeal decisions

Robert Frost said, "The world is full of willing people; some
willing to work, the rest willing to let them."  In the cases at
hand the plaintiffs sought redress for what they alleged was the
latter sort of willingness: that of the banks to have employees
work overtime without being properly compensated.

The two class actions date back more than five years and concern
federally regulated companies governed by the Canada Labour Code
(RSC 1985, c L-2).  At a minimum, the code mandates that employers
pay 1.5 times an employee's hourly rate for overtime hours that an
employee is "required or permitted" to work.  In both cases the
plaintiffs claimed that the overtime policies of the banks imposed
more onerous conditions than permissible under the code.  In
particular, it was alleged that the banks' policies required that
the employees have received prior approval from a bank manager in
order to qualify for overtime pay -- a requirement, the plaintiffs
alleged, which sought to avoid the banks' obligations under the
code.  In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that the banks failed
to implement proper systems for recording the overtime hours
worked by class members.

                          Fresco v CIBC

In June 2007 Ms. Fresco, a head teller at a CIBC branch in Toronto
and the representative plaintiff in CIBC, commenced a C$600
million class action on behalf of 31,000 current and former front-
line customer service employees across Canada.  Ms. Fresco alleged
that CIBC's system of compensation unlawfully restricted overtime
compensation, and that CIBC had been unjustly enriched by failing
to make overtime payments.

The motion judge refused to certify the action as a class
proceeding, holding that there was no evidence of a systemic
policy or practice of unpaid overtime.  The Ontario Divisional
Court, in a split decision, upheld the motion judge's order
refusing to certify the proceeding.  The Ontario Court of Appeal
granted leave to appeal the divisional court's decision. The
appeal court then heard and granted Fresco's appeal, overturning
the divisional court's decision.

                      Fulawka v Scotiabank

Approximately six months after CIBC, in December 2007,
Ms. Fulawka, a personal banker in Saskatchewan and the
representative plaintiff in Scotiabank, commenced a C$350 million
class action on behalf of more than 5,000 current and former full-
time sales staff across Canada -- principally personal banking
officers and financial advisers.  Ms. Fulawka alleged that
Scotiabank required the employees to work substantial amounts of
overtime while making it nearly impossible to claim overtime pay,
and that it failed to keep records of the hours actually worked by
employees.  In her amended statement of claim, Ms. Fulawka alleged
that Scotiabank's policies and practices for compensating overtime
work constituted a breach of class members' employment contracts
and a breach of Scotiabank's duty to act in good faith.

The motion judge certified the action as a class proceeding.  The
decision was upheld by a unanimous Ontario Divisional Court.  The
Ontario Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal the divisional
court's decision and then heard the appeal, ultimately upholding
the divisional court's decision.

A look back: motion judges' conflicting decisions

Many Canadian provinces have statutory criteria limiting the types
of claim that may be pursued as class actions.  These criteria
must be met on what is referred to as the certification motion in
order for the class proceeding to be certified.

The criteria for class action certification in Ontario are similar
to those in other provinces and include the following, all
pursuant to Section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act 1992 (SO
1992, c 6):

   -- The pleadings or notice of application discloses a proper
cause of action;

   -- There is an identifiable class of two or more persons which
would be represented by the representative plaintiff (or
defendant);

   * The claim or claims (or defenses) raise common issues;

   * A class proceeding is the preferable procedure to resolve the
common issues; and

   * There is an appropriate representative plaintiff (or
defendant) who:

       -- would fairly and adequately represent the interests of
the class;

       -- has produced a plan for the proceeding that sets out a
workable method of advancing the proceeding on behalf of the
class; and

       -- does not have, on the common issues for the class, an
interest in conflict with the interests of other class members.

On certification motions, the criterion of whether the claims
raise common issues is often the most contentious.

The motion judges in both Scotiabank and CIBC arrived at
conflicting conclusions as to whether the criteria for
certification set out under Section 5(1) of the act were
satisfied.

On the certification motion in CIBC, the principal claim advanced
by Fresco was that CIBC's pre-approval requirement in its overtime
policy was unlawful.  The motion judge concluded that the policy
was not unlawful, and that a determination of unlawfulness would
not necessarily advance the plaintiffs' claims for unpaid
overtime.  The motion judge found that although the plaintiffs
relied on common issues, these could not be resolved without an
examination of the employees' claims for unpaid overtime on an
individual basis.  However, such an individualized examination of
the claims would undermine the very purpose of a class action
proceeding.  In other words, the motion judge concluded that
whether an employee was paid properly was an individual issue and,
as a consequence, was not suited to a class action.  The motion
judge further determined that there was no evidentiary foundation
that supported the allegation of a systemic policy or practice of
unpaid overtime at CIBC.  The motion judge emphasized that there
were many individual circumstances that resulted in claims for
unpaid overtime which needed to be resolved individually.

The divisional court's decision was split: a majority of the
divisional court upheld the motion judge's decision in refusing to
certify the action as a class proceeding, while a single
divisional court judge gave detailed dissenting reasons in favor
of certifying the action.

In spite of the strong similarities between the two cases, the
motion judge in Scotiabank concluded that the plaintiffs had met
the criteria for certification.  The motion judge held that there
was an evidentiary basis to support the plaintiffs' claim that
Scotiabank's failure to pay overtime was attributable to systemic
conditions -- namely, the pre-approval requirement to receive
overtime pay and the failure to have in place a proper system to
record overtime.  The motion judge further concluded that a class
action was the preferable procedure to resolve the class members'
claims.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, recognizing the similarities in the
two cases and the incongruity of the lower court decisions,
concluded that both certification motions should either succeed or
fail together.  They succeeded.  In CIBC the appeal court
disagreed with the merits-based approach taken by the lower courts
with respect to whether CIBC's overtime policy had breached the
code; whether CIBC's overtime policy was unlawful was found to be
an issue for trial and not for the certification motion.  As in
Scotiabank, the appeal court concluded that a trial judge may find
an evidentiary basis allowing him or her to determine that all
uncompensated hours were "required or permitted" by CIBC.  The
appeal court would not accept the argument that the case was about
thousands of individual claims: there were common issues raised
with respect to allegedly unlawful and systemic policies and
practices which were not dependent on individual circumstances.
Although the appeal court accepted that the claims raised common
issues, it rejected the plaintiffs' claims for an aggregate
assessment of damages, should the banks be found to be liable at
trial.  Therefore, proving entitlement to compensation would still
have to be done on an individual basis.

All of this was upheld by the Supreme Court in denying the banks
leave to appeal.

                             Comment

With these class actions certified as against two prominent
Canadian banks and upheld by the Supreme Court, a rash of similar
claims for unpaid overtime might be expected.  However, it remains
to be seen whether other employees can overcome arguments that
being properly paid for overtime is an individual, rather than a
class, issue.  Further, these decisions were made under the code
and are therefore more directly applicable to non-unionized,
federally regulated businesses.

It should also be kept in mind that these cases have likely been
on the radar of major Canadian employers for the more than five
years since their inception.  Therefore, employers have had time,
and would have been well advised, to review and update overtime
policies to ensure that they comply with employment contracts and
meet applicable statutory requirements.

Far from being the end of the road for Scotiabank and CIBC, in
many respects this is just the beginning.  The clarity provided by
the Supreme Court's denial of leave to appeal now allows these
cases to move to trial. Doubtless employers across Canada will
watch with interest as the litigation progresses.


BLUE CROSS: Class Certification Hearing Scheduled for Sept. 18
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Longstreth, writing for Reuters, reports that a class
action in Michigan, which is scheduled to go to trial next year,
offers a rare opportunity for a jury to weigh the competitive
effects on healthcare of contract provisions known as most-
favored-nation clauses.

Under these clauses, a health insurance plan often demands that
hospitals guarantee them that their competitors will not receive a
better rate.  Over the last decade, regulators, legislators and
prosecutors have taken action to limit these provisions, concerned
that they limit competition in the $900 billion health insurance
market.  Earlier in May, North Carolina became the latest state to
outlaw the provisions.

While the provisions in healthcare contracts have been addressed
through legislation and enforcement actions, they have rarely been
tested in court.

The lawsuit alleges that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan's use
of MFN clauses limited competition in the health insurance market
and caused consumers to pay more.  The lawsuit seeks an
unspecified amount for overcharges paid by purchasers of hospital
services in Michigan as a result of the alleged anticompetitive
conduct.  A similar lawsuit was filed by Aetna Inc.

Both lawsuits were filed on the heels of a similar action by the
U.S. Department of Justice.  The government voluntarily dismissed
its case in March after Michigan passed a law banning MFN clauses.

But the private lawsuits, which are seeking money damages,
continue.  Mark Botti of Squire Sanders, an antitrust lawyer who
specializes in the healthcare industry, said he is not aware of a
lawsuit over MFN clauses that has resulted in a health insurance
company paying damages.  A judgment against Blue Cross could add
to the growing concern over MFN clauses, he said.

"Significant damages, whether from a verdict or a settlement, will
be a big moment in the legal movement against MFNs," Mr. Botti,
who is not involved in the case, said in an email.  "It certainly
should change the calculation for Blue Cross plans using these
clauses."

A spokeswoman for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Helen
Stojic, said in a statement to Reuters that the lawsuits are
meritless.

"Our customers expect that BCBSM negotiates the best prices for
them," Mr. Stojic said.  "We won't apologize for advocating for
our members.

                         "Standard Devices"

MFN clauses, which are used in a variety of industries, are not
per se illegal.  Under antitrust law, they are analyzed under the
rule of reason, a doctrine established by the U.S. Supreme Court
that requires judges and juries to look at whether a particular
act restricts competition.

MFN clauses used by health insurance plans have been scrutinized
by regulators since at least the 1990s, but there have been
relatively few court decisions considering them.  In one, in 1995,
the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a challenge to an
MFN clause contained in an agreement between a health insurance
organization and a group of physicians.

The court called MFN clauses "standard devices by which buyers try
to bargain for low prices" and that their use in that case was
"the sort of conduct that the antitrust laws seek to encourage."

Health plans defend MFN clauses as pro-competitive because they
ensure that their customers receive the lowest possible rates.
But competitor plans argue that those provisions make it harder
for them to get better rates for their customers.  Each case turns
on the facts of the MFN clauses at issue.

"There's a lot of gray area," said Jonathan Lewis, an antitrust
attorney at Baker & Hostetler.  "It's not black-and-white."

The class action alleges that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
used MFN clauses to require agreeing hospitals to charge its
competitors as least as much as they charge Blue Cross.

In exchange for the MFN clauses it obtained from hospitals, the
lawsuit claimed Blue Cross actually agreed to pay hospitals a
higher rate.  Blue Cross agreed to do so because the MFN clauses
raised prices on its competitors, according to the lawsuit.

"BCBSM has effectively purchased protection from competition by
causing hospitals to raise the prices they charge to BCBSM's
competitors," the lawsuit alleges.  "The suppression of
competition caused by this scheme was so valuable to BCBSM that it
was willing to pay higher prices for hospital services itself."

Last November, U.S. District Judge Denise Hood denied Blue Cross's
motion to dismiss. Both sides are now taking discovery over
whether the case can proceed as a class action.  A hearing on
class certification is scheduled for Sept. 18.

The case is The Shane Group Inc v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Michigan, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, No.
10-14360.

For Plaintiffs: E. Powell Miller of The Miller Law Firm; Mary Jane
Fait of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz; Daniel Small of
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; and Daniel Gustafson of Gustafson
Gluek.

For Blue Cross: Todd Stenerson of Hunton & Williams.


BONDUELLE CANADA: Recalls 398 mL French-Style Cut Green Beans
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            May 31, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Bonduelle Canada Inc.
Distribution:             Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8041

Affected products:

                                                 Code(s) on
   Brand name      Common name         Size      product
   ----------      -----------         ----      -------
   PC Blue Menu    French-Style Cut    398 ml    00922 GHFDB
                   Green Beans

   UPC: 0 60383 87406 3

   Compliments     Salt-Free
   Balance         French-Style Cut    398 ml    00922 GHFDB
                   Green Beans

   UPC: 0 55742 52116 0


CANADA: Groups Challenge Police's "Card" Practice in Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Patty Winsa, writing for Toronto Star, reports that a coalition of
community activists and lawyers will challenge the controversial
practice of carding in court.

The diverse grassroots group, which numbers around 30 and includes
youth outreach workers, academics, activists and members of the
Ontario Law Union, was set to decide at a meeting on May 27
between a Charter challenge, a class action lawsuit or small
claims court.

Some members are advocating all three.

"It's really about, as a community, deciding which way we want to
go," said Cutty Duncan, a community worker in Weston Mt. Dennis,
an area of the city that has been heavily "carded" by police.

"We want to make sure that there are options for people who find
themselves in conflict," he said.  "And we want to explore how we
can fight back a bit.  This meeting really is about launching that
legal option."

Toronto police stop, question and document -- or card -- hundreds
of thousands of people every year.  Most have done nothing wrong,
yet their personal information, and that of those they're with,
ends up in a massive database that police use to investigate
crimes.  Police also record an individual's race as black, brown,
white or other.

Several Star investigations have shown police card black and brown
people at disproportionately high rates.  Police contend they card
in violent areas of the city and have every right to be there.

Race has become a divisive issue for activist groups such as Black
is Not a Crime and Rights Watch Network, which have appealed to
the board to limit carding.

The force maintains carding is legal.

"There have been a number of deputations (at the board) that have
said various things from it's entirely illegal to challenging
parts of it," said police spokesperson Mark Pugash.  "That's not
what our view is."

However, some legal experts disagree.

Former prosecutor Howard Morton, a member of the law union, says
there are very narrowly defined situations where police can ask
for identification.  They include when officers pull over a driver
or stop someone they believe is drinking underage.

A third category, called "investigative detention" was set out by
a court of appeal about 10 years ago and allows police to briefly
detain and question an individual when they "believe a person has
a link to the offence, either as a suspect or a witness," says
Morton.

"The big block of what happens in this city and elsewhere does not
fit into any of those three," he says.

Summer is when officers with the Toronto Anti-Violence
Intervention Strategy, or TAVIS, blanket high-crime areas; the
Star's research found those officers card at the highest rates.
The force hasn't announced where TAVIS will be deployed this year.

Morton thinks arguing the practice is a violation of Charter
rights is the best way forward. The case could be resolved in a
couple of years and the law union is offering to do some of the
work pro bono.

"The application would have a high evidentiary burden," Morton
told the group at a meeting earlier this year.  "We would need
young people to come forward -- 30 to 40 of them -- to show how
prevalent the practice is.  But with this we have a shot.  A good
shot," he said.

But, he says, a Charter challenge wouldn't rule out the other two
options.

The group is considering small claims court, which is relatively
inexpensive, as a way to target individual officers who card at
high rates.

A class action suit would be lengthy and expensive and even if
successful, would rarely, if ever, result in the police being
ordered to change their practice, says Murray Klippenstein, a
Toronto lawyer involved in various public interest cases.

But he says, "by declaring a practice to be illegal and awarding a
significant amount of money to a group of people as compensation,
the incentive or pressure to change the practice becomes pretty
substantial."

The legal move here comes just as a historic class action law suit
challenging a New York police practice called "stop and frisk"
wrapped up in the U.S.

Statistics show New York police primarily stop black and Latino
people, but defend the practice by saying they target violent
neighborhoods where those groups live.  They also say the practice
has reduced crime and taken guns off the street.

Critics such as the Center for Constitutional Rights, whose
lawyers argued the case in court, describe the stops as
"unreasonable, suspicionless and racially discriminatory."
Officers list "furtive movement" as the justification more than 50
per cent of the time.

And guns are recovered in 0.15 per cent of cases, which according
to the center, is "lower than the rate of gun seizures at random
checkpoints, suggesting both that it is an ineffective way to try
to get guns off the street and that seizing weapons is not really
the reason people are being stopped."

Lawyers argued the practice violates the fourth amendment's
protection of unreasonable search and seizure and in doing so,
contravenes the fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause
under the law.

Shira Scheindlin, the judge in the case, is expected to issue her
ruling later this year.

Here, the Toronto Police Services Board has responded to the Star
series, and complaints about carding by passing motions asking for
external audits, as well as requesting that officers start handing
out receipts, which could happen as early as next month.  It's
thought the receipts will make officers more accountable for who
they stop and why.

The city's director of litigation, Albert Cohen, was also asked by
the board to weigh in, but he can't proceed until police finish an
internal audit of the practice that he says he needs to inform his
legal opinion.

Board chair Alok Mukherjee says the board "must be satisfied that
any collection of data and the manner and circumstances in which
this is done are not only operationally justified and legitimate
but are also respectful of individual rights and free from any
discriminatory impact."

But Ms. Duncan worries the board won't go far enough.

"At the end of the day, what you have to do is limit their
options," he says.  "And if we make it very clear that carding is
not an option for them, then it will force them to look at another
way to do their policing where the community feels that they're
not being victimized."


CARBO CERAMICS: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Junk Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CARBO Ceramics Inc. is still awaiting a court decision on a motion
to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit,
according to the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On February 9, 2012, the Company and two of its officers, Gary A.
Kolstad and Ernesto Bautista III, were named as defendants in a
purported class-action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York (the "February SDNY
Lawsuit"), brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
Company's Common Stock between October 27, 2011, and January 26,
2012 (the "Relevant Time Period").  On April 10, 2012, a second
purported class-action lawsuit was filed against the same
defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or sold CARBO Ceramics Inc. option contracts during the
Relevant Time Period (the "April SDNY Lawsuit", and collectively
with the February SDNY Lawsuit, the "Federal Securities Lawsuit").
In June 2012, the February SNDY Lawsuit and the April SDNY Lawsuit
were consolidated, and will now proceed as one lawsuit.  The
Federal Securities Lawsuit alleges violations of the federal
securities laws arising from statements concerning the Company's
business operations and business prospects that were made during
the Relevant Time Period and requests unspecified damages and
costs.  In September 2012, the Company and Messrs. Kolstad and
Bautista filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit.  Response and
reply briefs on this motion were filed during the fourth quarter
of 2012, and a decision from the Court is pending.

While the Federal Securities Lawsuit is in its preliminary stage,
the Company does not believe it has merit, and plans to vigorously
contest and defend against it.  The Company says it cannot predict
the ultimate outcome or duration of the lawsuit.

CARBO Ceramics Inc. is a supplier of ceramic proppant and, during
2010, commenced the sale of resin-coated sand in order to broaden
its proppant suite of products.  The Company is the provider of
the industry's most popular fracture simulation software, and a
provider of fracture design and consulting services, and a broad
range of technologies for spill prevention, containment and
countermeasures.  The Company was incorporated in 1987 in Delaware
and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.


CHOBANI: Mayer Brown Seeks Disqualification of Class Action Lawyer
------------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Blum, writing for The Recorder, reports that if Mayer
Brown gets its way, it could be savoring a sweet win for yogurt
maker Chobani.

L.A. partner Dale Giali contends his opposing counsel in a food
labeling class action should get the boot because they consulted
with an expert previously retained by the defense.  Plaintiffs
lawyers, he says, now find themselves in a "legally impermissible
position."

It's one of dozens of food labeling cases brought by the same
consortium of plaintiffs counsel pending in the Northern District
of California but the only one where they are facing
disqualification.

"Chobani seeks disqualification, not to gain a tactical
advantage," Mr. Giali wrote in a March court filing, "but to
ensure a level playing field, stop the ongoing harm plaintiffs'
counsel caused by their own willful and wrongful conduct, and
protect the integrity of the judicial system."

A motion to disqualify counsel is a nuclear option.  It can stop a
case in its tracks, particularly in a class action where
individual plaintiffs are ill-equipped to simply hire new lawyers.
The tussle in the Chobani case before U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh
in San Jose raises questions about the standard for ejecting
attorneys when they court an expert witness working for the other
side.

To be fair, that is closer to Chobani's version of events;
plaintiffs attorneys insist they did not know a former U.S. Food
and Drug Administration official they hired to consult on a swath
of litigation had previously advised Chobani's defense team.
Since no confidential information was exchanged, there is no
grounds for disqualification, plaintiffs contend.

"Chobani seeks to have this court not only disqualify an expert,
an act which the Ninth Circuit has found to be a 'drastic
measure,' but to disqualify counsel as well," plaintiffs attorneys
Pierce Gore of Pratt & Associates in San Jose and Robert Clifford
of Clifford Law Offices in Chicago wrote in a response brief.
"Motions to disqualify opposing counsel must be closely
scrutinized because of a significant possibility that the motion
is brought for tactical reasons."

Between the two sides, six legal ethics experts have a weighed in
either to support the lawyers' disqualification or to oppose it.
Mr. Gore, lead local counsel for the plaintiffs consortium,
declined comment, as did Mr. Giali, Chobani's lead lawyer.

In Kane v. Chobani, 12-2425, plaintiffs accuse Chobani of
misleading customers with "all natural" labeling and by listing
"evaporated cane juice" as an ingredient rather than sugar.
Plaintiffs lawyers are seeking monetary damages and an injunction
blocking sales and advertising of the yogurt as currently labeled.

The case is part of a string of similar class actions filed in the
Northern District by Mr. Gore's group, which is led nationally by
Clifford and Mississippi plaintiffs lawyer Don Barrett, a veteran
of litigation against Big Tobacco.  The district has become known
as "food court" for the prevalence of such litigation, and defense
lawyers have had a hard time knocking out the labeling claims.

A hearing on Chobani's motion to disqualify counsel is set for
July and the parties' dueling briefs present the following
timeline: In May 2012, within days of being sued, Chobani lawyers
contacted food labeling expert Elizabeth Campbell of EAS
Consulting Group in Alexandria, Va.  The defense team continued to
consult with Campbell in "repeated, detailed, and confidential
strategy sessions" until January, according to Chobani's motion.

Plaintiffs lawyers say they hired EAS Consulting and Campbell to
work on their litigation team in October.  EAS chairman Edward
Steele informed the team that EAS would be unable to work on the
Chobani case but did not provide details, explaining only that EAS
would not perform work against a former or current client.

"Campbell never disclosed that she had been engaged by Chobani on
any matter and never disclosed that she was serving in any
capacity in this case," Messrs. Gore and Clifford wrote in their
response brief.

Two plaintiffs-side lawyers met in October with Campbell and
Steele and discussed the group's litigation.  "They never asked
for or received any information on how food manufacturers might
defend these lawsuits," Messrs. Gore and Clifford wrote.  "Nothing
was discussed at all regarding Chobani, the company or this case."

Following the October meeting, plaintiffs claim all discussions
with Campbell pertained to a suit against Del Monte Foods and that
contact ended in late January after defense lawyers Mr. Giali and
Mayer Brown partner Michael Resch notified Mr. Gore of the
potential conflict.  On Feb. 1 EAS terminated its agreement with
plaintiffs.

Mr. Giali insists opposing counsel did not meet their obligation
to probe the possible conflict with Chobani.  That plaintiffs did
not specifically discuss the Chobani case with Campbell is
irrelevant, because the food cases involve very similar legal
theories, Mr. Giali argues.

"The notion that Ms. Campbell never technically worked for
plaintiffs on this case is a legal construct," he wrote. "She
certainly worked for plaintiffs on the misbranding theories they
are alleging in this case."

Messrs. Gore and Clifford see the issue differently and have four
legal experts backing them up.

"It is hard to imagine what harm, if any, Chobani would suffer if
the case were simply to go forward," wrote Joshua Davis, director
for the Center for Law and Ethics at the University of San
Francisco.  "The advice EAS gave plaintiffs counsel seems quite
straightforward and unrelated to any confidences Chobani might
have shared with EAS."

Drinker Biddle & Reath partner Lawrence Fox, who lectures on legal
ethics at Yale Law School, submitted a declaration accusing
defense lawyers of a "shocking attempt to secure draconian relief"
and opined that disqualification would be "the death of the
action."  It was Chobani's lawyers, Fox asserted, who violated
rules of civil procedure by intimidating Campbell into ending her
contract with plaintiffs counsel.

Plaintiffs' views are also buttressed with declarations from
Fordham University law professor Bruce Green and former State Bar
prosecutor Ellen Pansky.  Mr. Green said Chobani's logic would bar
experts for the defense in a single lawsuit from working as
plaintiffs experts in other cases based on similar theories, a
result he called economically unfair.

Chobani has its own experts: UC-Hastings law professor Geoffrey
Hazard Jr. and Ellen Peck, a former State Bar judge and past chair
of its Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct.

Hazard said failing to ascertain the nature of Campbell's conflict
in the Chobani case amounted to "a flagrant violation" by
plaintiffs counsel of recognized standards of professional
conduct.  Relying on assurances from EAS, which had a financial
motive to downplay the conflict, was not enough, Hazard stated in
a four-page declaration.

Peck concurred that disqualification of counsel "would be more
than justified in these circumstances."

Chobani's lawyers cite the 1994 California Court of Appeal case
Shadow Traffic Network v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.App.4th 1067,
which established a rebuttable presumption that an expert witness
who switches sides has shared their inside knowledge.

In that case, the court affirmed the disqualification of Latham &
Watkins, after Latham hired an expert who previously attended a
one-hour meeting with the firm's opposing counsel.  Plaintiffs say
Shadow Traffic's presumption should not be applied because nothing
prevents Chobani's lawyers from questioning Campbell to find out
whether she disclosed confidential information.

Chobani insists it doesn't have that burden.  The company's legal
team conveyed sensitive information to EAS with the expectation of
confidentiality. Under Shadow Traffic, Chobani does not have to
prove Campbell in turn transmitted her knowledge to plaintiffs
lawyers, Mr. Giali argues.

"They must be disqualified," he stated in Chobani's motion, "and
they have absolutely no one to blame but themselves."


CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 1,317 4500 and 5500 Models of RAM Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 7, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D., Light Truck & Van
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Powertrain
Units affected:           1,317
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013196
TC ID number:             2013196
Manufacturer recall no.:  N26

On certain four-wheel drive vehicles, due to insufficient welding
of the front differential housing to the axle tubes, the housing
may rotate relative to the axle tubes while the vehicle is
operated in four wheel drive.  This could allow the front
driveshaft to bind up and fracture, causing a loss of motive power
and damage to surrounding components if the driveshaft continues
to spin.  This could increase the risk of a crash causing personal
injury and/or damage to property.  Correction: dealers will repair
or replace the front axle assembly on affected vehicles.

Affected products:

      Makes and models affected
   -------------------------------
                        Model year
   Make      Model      affected
   ----      -----      --------
   RAM       4500       2012
   RAM       5500       2012


CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 1500, 2500, 3500 & 5500 RAM Truck Models
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 7, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D., Light Truck & Van
Notification type:        Compliance Mfr
System:                   Lights And Instruments
Units affected:           590
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013198
TC ID number:             2013198
Manufacturer recall no.:  N30

Certain vehicles may not comply with Canada Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (CMVSS) 101 - Controls and Displays and CMVSS 105 - Brake
Systems.  The brake malfunction/parking brake indicator may
display the word "BRAKE" instead of the required symbol.
Correction: Dealers will reprogram the instrument cluster in
affected vehicles.

Affected products:

    Makes and models affected
   ---------------------------
                    Model year
   Make    Model    affected
   ----    -----    --------
   RAM     1500       2013
   RAM     2500       2013
   RAM     3500       2013
   RAM     5500       2013


CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 1500, 2500 and 3500 Models of RAM Vehicles
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:               June 7, 2013
Type of communication:       Recall
Subcategory:                 Light Truck & Van
Notification type:           Compliance Mfr
System:                      Lights And Instruments
Units affected:              11,545
Source of recall:            Transport Canada
Identification number:       2013201
TC ID number:                2013201
Manufacturer recall number:  N35

Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 -- Lighting and Retroreflective
Devices.  The vehicles may not give notification of a turn signal
malfunction, as is required by the standard.  The absence of
notification of a turn signal malfunction could, in conjunction
with traffic and road conditions, and driver reactions, increase
the risk of a crash causing personal injury and/or damage to
property.  Correction: Dealers will reconfigure the central body
controller for proper headlamp shutter function during high-beam
mode.

Affected products:

     Makes and models affected
   -----------------------------
                      Model year
   Make      Model    affected
   ----      -----    --------
   RAM       1500      2013
   RAM       2500      2013
   RAM       3500      2013


CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 18,407 JEEP WRANGLER SUVs
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date:               June 7, 2013
Type of communication:       Recall
Subcategory:                 SUV
Notification type:           Safety Mfr
System:                      Steering
Units affected:              18,407
Source of recall:            Transport Canada
Identification number:       2013197
TC ID number:                2013197
Manufacturer recall number:  N28

On certain vehicles, the power steering return line may wear
against the automatic transmission oil cooler line, causing a
transmission fluid leak.  This would result in a loss of
transmission fluid, potentially causing damage to the transmission
and resulting in a loss of motive power.  This could increase the
risk of a crash causing personal injury and/or damage to property.
Correction: Dealers will either add a protective sleeve or replace
the transmission line.

Affected products:

             Makes and models affected
   -----------------------------------------------
   Make      Model          Model year(s) affected
   ----      -----          ----------------------
   JEEP      WRANGLER       2012, 2013


CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 2500 and 3500 2013 Models of RAM Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:               June 7, 2013
Type of communication:       Recall
Subcategory:                 Light Truck & Van
Notification type:           Compliance Mfr
System:                      Lights And Instruments
Units affected:              167
Source of recall:            Transport Canada
Identification number:       2013200
TC ID number:                2013200
Manufacturer recall number:  N33

Certain vehicles may be equipped with headlight high-beams that do
not comply with the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard 108 - Lighting and Retroreflective Devices.  This could
compromise driver down-road visibility and, in conjunction with
traffic and road conditions, and driver reactions, could increase
the risk of a crash causing personal injury and/or damage to
property.  Correction: Dealers will reconfigure the central body
controller for proper headlamp shutter function during high-beam
mode.

Affected products:

        Makes and models affected
     ------------------------------
                         Model year
     Make      Model     affected
     ----      -----     --------
     RAM       2500        2013
     RAM       3500        2013


CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 3,566 DART Model of DODGE Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:               June 7, 2013
Type of communication:       Recall
Subcategory:                 Car
Notification type:           Safety Mfr
System:                      Engine
Units affected:              3,566
Source of recall:            Transport Canada
Identification number:       2013199
TC ID number:                2013199
Manufacturer recall number:  N32

Certain vehicles equipped with 1.4L MultiAir turbo engines may
experience engine stalling at ambient temperatures of -6.5 degrees
celsius or colder.  This would result in the loss of motive power,
which in conjunction with traffic and road conditions, and driver
reactions, could increase the risk of a crash causing personal
injury and/or damage to property.  Correction: Dealers will
reprogram the powertrain control module.

Affected products:

        Makes and models affected
   ----------------------------------
                        Model year(s)
   Make      Model      affected
   ----      -----      --------
   DODGE     DART       2013


CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 45,387 COMPASS and PATRIOT Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 7, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car, SUV
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Airbag
Units affected:           45,387
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013195
TC ID number:             2013195

On certain vehicles, due to a software error in the occupant
restrain control (ORC) module, side curtain airbag and seatbelt
pretensioner deployment could be delayed or not occur in slower-
developing rollover events.  This could increase the risk of
personal injury in a crash.  Correction: Dealers will reprogram
the module.

Affected products:

             Makes and models affected
   -----------------------------------------------
   Make      Model          Model year(s) affected
   ----      -----          ----------------------
   JEEP      PATRIOT        2010, 2011, 2012
   JEEP      COMPASS        2010, 2011, 2012


CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls 15,000 New Dodge Dart Compact Cars
----------------------------------------------------------
Christina Rogers of The Wall Street Journal reports that Chrysler
Group LLC said on Monday, June 10, 2013, it is recalling nearly
15,000 of its new Dodge Dart compact cars to fix engine controls
that could malfunction and cause the car to stall.

The Dart recall is Chrysler's second since its refusal last week
to comply with a request by U.S. safety regulators that it recall
2.7 million older-model Jeep Grand Cherokee and Liberty sport-
utility vehicles to modify fuel tanks the government said posed an
outsize risk of fire in rear-end crashes.  Chrysler said that
request wasn't justified by accident data.

The June 10 action affects 2013 model-year Dodge Darts with a 1.4-
liter engine and dual-clutch transmission, the Company said.
Chrysler said it isn't aware of any injuries or accidents related
to the stalled cars.

The Auburn Hills, Michigan company, which is majority owned by
Italian auto maker Fiat SpA, said it discovered the problem when a
vehicle it was testing stalled as it was being brought to a stop
after driving only a short distance.

The test vehicle had been parked for about eight hours in a 20-
degree chamber.  Chrysler later found dealers had recorded similar
incidents.

Chrysler said it would recalibrate the powertrain controls at no
cost to customers.

The Dodge Dart went on sale last summer and is a crucial new entry
for Chrysler, which for years trailed its rivals in the industry's
vast market for compact cars.

About 12,900 Darts affected by the recall are in the U.S., 1,900
are in Canada, five in Mexico and 16 outside of North America.
Chrysler has built 108,863 Darts since the start of production in
May 2012.

Sales of the Dart have lagged expectations since its launch.  Last
month, Chrysler sold about 7,448 Darts, far behind top-selling
Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla, and the Dart's main Detroit
rivals, the Chevrolet Cruze and Ford Focus.

On June 6, 2013, in a separate action, Chrysler said it was
recalling 254,000 2010-2012 model-year Patriot and Compass
vehicles to fix problems with the air bag.

Additionally, it said it would recall 180,000 2012-2013 Jeep
Wrangler vehicles to repair a potentially leak fluid line
connected to the transmission.


CITIGROUP INC: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Seek Approval for Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that lawyers who
secured a $730 million class action settlement for Citigroup Inc.
investors have asked a federal judge to approve $146 million in
fees.

The fees, requested by Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann,
would be the 10th largest ever awarded to lawyers in a federal
securities class action, according to NERA Economic Consulting.

The award would also be the latest big payout for Bernstein
Litowitz in a case stemming from the financial crisis, after a
federal judge in April approved $160.5 million in fees and
expenses for the law firm and two others in a $2.43 billion
settlement with Bank of America Corp.

The Citigroup fee request amounts to 20 percent of the settlement,
according to a motion filed Friday in Manhattan federal court.
The lawyers are also seeking $7.29 million in expenses.

The settlement resolves claims by investors in Citigroup bonds and
preferred stock.  The investors accused the bank of misstating the
value of its collateralized debt obligations and understating its
loss reserves by tens of billions of dollars between 2006 and mid-
November 2008.

Citigroup announced the settlement in March and U.S. District
Court Judge Sidney Stein granted preliminary approval a week
later.  A hearing on final approval of the settlement is set for
July 23.

Bernstein Litowitz filed a motion seeking approval of the fee
award on June 7.  It called the $730 million settlement "an
outstanding result" for its clients, representing a "substantial
percentage" of the investors' likely recoverable damages.

The settlement ranked as the second largest in a class action by
debt holders and the third largest in a case that did not involve
a financial restatement, Bernstein Litowitz said.

It is also among the 15 largest securities class action
settlements in U.S. history, the firm said in its motion.

Part of the requested fees would go to firms that represented
other groups of investors, including Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
and Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross.

Bernstein Litowitz partners Max Berger and Steven Singer declined
to comment.

The settlement on behalf of bondholders is separate from a $590
million accord reached by Citi shareholders stemming from similar
claims. In that case, Stein is weighing a $100 million fee request
by Kirby McInerney.

The case is In re Citigroup Inc Bond Litigation, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York, No. 08-09522.

For the plaintiffs: Max Berger, Steven Singer, John Browne and
John Rizio-Hamilton of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann.

For Citigroup: Brad Karp, Richard Rosen, Charles Davidow and
Susanna Buergel of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Tenn. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Community Health Systems, Inc. is still awaiting a court decision
on its motion to dismiss a consolidated securities lawsuit,
according to the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee;
namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health
Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community
Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis
Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
et al., filed June 21, 2011.  All three seek class certification
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between
July 27, 2006, and April 11, 2011, and allege that misleading
statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for the
Company's common stock.  In December 2011, the cases were
consolidated for pretrial purposes and NYC Funds and its counsel
were selected as lead plaintiffs/lead plaintiffs' counsel.  The
Company's motion to dismiss this case has been fully briefed and
is pending before the court.  The Company believes this
consolidated matter is without merit and will vigorously defend
this case.

Community Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.chs.net/-- is a
publicly-traded operator of hospitals in the United States.  The
Company provides healthcare services through the hospitals that it
owns and operates in non-urban and selected urban markets.  The
Company generates revenues by providing a broad range of general
and specialized hospital and other outpatient healthcare services
to patients in the communities in which it is located.  The
Company is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.


CONVERGYS CORP: Status Conference in "Wheelock" Suit on July 9
--------------------------------------------------------------
A status conference is scheduled for July 9, 2013, in the
purported class action lawsuit styled Brandon Wheelock,
individually and on behalf of a class and subclass of similarly
situated individuals, v. Hyundai Motor America, according to
Convergys Corporation's April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

In November 2011, one of the Company's call center clients
tendered a contractual indemnity claim to Convergys Customer
Management Group, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, relating to a
putative class action captioned Brandon Wheelock, individually and
on behalf of a class and subclass of similarly situated
individuals, v. Hyundai Motor America, Orange County Superior
Court, California, Case No. 30-2011-00522293-CU-BT-CJC.  The
lawsuit alleges that Hyundai Motor America violated California's
telephone recording laws by recording telephone calls with
customer service representatives without providing a disclosure
that the calls might be recorded.  The Plaintiff is seeking, among
other things, an order certifying the lawsuit as a California
class action, statutory damages, payment of attorneys' fees and
pre- and post-judgment interest.  Convergys Customer Management
Group, Inc. is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit and has not
agreed to indemnify Hyundai.  On March 5, 2012, the court
sustained a demurrer filed by Hyundai to one of the Plaintiff's
causes of action, but overruled the demurrer as the Plaintiff's
other cause of action.  On March 15, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint.  Hyundai answered the amended complaint on
April 16, 2012, by generally denying the allegations and asserting
certain affirmative defenses.  On May 7, 2012, Hyundai filed a
motion for summary judgment based on Hyundai's claim that an
exemption under the California recording laws was intended to
exempt the type of recording done by Hyundai's call centers.

On January 10, 2013, the court heard arguments on Hyundai's motion
for summary judgment.  On February 5, 2013, the court denied the
motion.  On March 6, 2013, Hyundai filed a petition for writ of
mandate with the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate
District, requesting that the court of appeal issue a petition
directing the trial court to vacate its prior order and enter a
new order granting Hyundai's motion for summary judgment.  On
March 20, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a preliminary opposition to
Hyundai's petition for writ of mandate, and on March 27, 2013,
Hyundai filed its preliminary reply in support of its petition for
writ of mandate.  The court of appeal has not yet ruled on
Hyundai's petition for writ of mandate, and at a status conference
on April 10, 2013, the trial court continued a previously granted
stay on formal discovery and motions and scheduled a status
conference on July 9, 2013.

Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc. is not named as a
defendant in the lawsuit, and there has been no determination as
to whether Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc. will be
required to indemnify Hyundai.  The Company believes Convergys
Customer Management Group, Inc. has meritorious defenses to
Hyundai's demand for indemnification and also believes there are
meritorious defenses to the Plaintiff's claims in the lawsuit.
The likelihood of losses that may become payable under such
claims, the amount of reasonably possible losses associated with
such claims, and whether such losses may be material cannot be
determined or estimated at this time.  For these reasons, the
Company has not established a reserve with respect to this matter.

Convergys Corporation -- http://www.convergys.com/-- is a global
leader in customer management, focused on bringing value to its
clients through every customer interaction.  The Company is
headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Appeal From Dismissal of Calif. Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit in California remains pending, according to
Corinthian Colleges, Inc.'s April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On August 31, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Jimmy Elias Karam v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The complaint is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired shares of the Company's common stock from October 30,
2007, through August 19, 2010, against the Company and Jack
Massimino, Peter Waller, Matthew Ouimet and Kenneth Ord, all of
whom are current or former officers of the Company.  The complaint
alleges that, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
defendants made certain material misrepresentations and failed to
disclose certain material facts about the condition of the
Company's business and prospects during the putative class period,
causing the plaintiffs to purchase the Company's common stock at
artificially inflated prices.  The plaintiffs further claim that
Messrs. Massimino, Waller, Ouimet and Ord are liable under Section
20(a) of the Act.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified amounts in
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, as well as other
relief.

On October 29, 2010, another putative class action complaint
captioned Neal J. Totten v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al. was
filed by the same law firm that filed the Karam matter in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.  The Totten
complaint is substantively identical to the Karam complaint.
Several other plaintiffs intervened in the lawsuit and petitioned
the Court to appoint them to be the lead plaintiffs.  On March 30,
2011, the Court appointed the Wyoming Retirement System and
Stichting Pensioenfonds Metaal en Technieklead as lead plaintiffs,
and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as counsel for lead
plaintiffs, in the consolidated action.  The Lead plaintiffs
thereafter filed a second amended consolidated complaint, and the
Company moved to dismiss the second amended consolidated
complaint.  On January 30, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted
the Company's motion to dismiss, with leave to amend.  On
February 29, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint
(the "TAC") in U.S. District Court, and, on March 30, 2012 the
Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
On August 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted the Company's
and the individual defendants' motion to dismiss, with prejudice.

The plaintiffs have appealed that dismissal to the U.S. Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Company will continue to defend
itself and its current and former officers vigorously.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondary
career education companies in North America.  The Company offers a
variety of diploma programs and associate's, bachelor's and
master's degrees, concentrating on programs in allied health,
business, technology, and criminal justice.  The Company also
offers exclusively online degrees, primarily in business and
criminal justice.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Appeal in "Rivera" Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
On May 28, 2008, a putative class action demand in arbitration
captioned Rivera v. Sequoia Education, Inc. and Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. was filed with the American Arbitration
Association.  The plaintiffs are nine current or former HVAC
(heating, ventilation and airconditioning system) students from
the Company's WyoTech Fremont campus.  The arbitration demand
alleges violations of California's Business and Professions Code
Sections 17200 and 17500, fraud and intentional deceit, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of contract and unjust
enrichment/restitution, all related to alleged deficiencies and
misrepresentations regarding the HVAC program at these campuses.
The plaintiffs seek to certify a class composed of all HVAC
students in the Company's WyoTech Fremont and WyoTech Oakland
campuses over the prior four years, and seek recovery of
compensatory and punitive damages, interest, restitution and
attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company never operated any HVAC
programs at the Company's WyoTech Oakland campus during its
ownership of that campus.  The arbitrator ruled that the
arbitration provision in the former students' enrollment agreement
is not susceptible to class-wide resolution.  On November 22,
2011, a California state court judge refused to confirm the
arbitrator's clause construction decision and remanded the matter
to the arbitrator for further consideration.  The Company has
appealed the state court order.  The Company believes the
complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself
against these allegations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 30, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondary
career education companies in North America.  The Company offers a
variety of diploma programs and associate's, bachelor's and
master's degrees, concentrating on programs in allied health,
business, technology, and criminal justice.  The Company also
offers exclusively online degrees, primarily in business and
criminal justice.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Harrington" Suit Still Pending in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
On September 13, 2011, an action captioned Michael Harrington,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v.
Corinthian Schools, Inc., et al., was filed in California's
Alameda Superior Court.  A virtually identical action with the
same caption was filed by different plaintiff's counsel on
September 15, 2011, in California's Orange County Superior Court.
The plaintiff is a former admissions representative at Corinthian
Colleges, Inc.'s Fremont and Hayward campuses and the two actions
allege violations of California's Business and Professions Code
Section 17200 and the California Labor Code for alleged failure to
pay for all hours worked, purported denial of meal periods, and
alleged failure to pay wages upon termination.  The Alameda
complaint has since been voluntarily dismissed.  While the scope
of the putative class is not clear, the remaining Orange County
action appears to seek certification of a class of current and
former admissions representatives over the last four years at the
Company's California campuses.  The Company believes the
allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
itself.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 30, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondary
career education companies in North America.  The Company offers a
variety of diploma programs and associate's, bachelor's and
master's degrees, concentrating on programs in allied health,
business, technology, and criminal justice.  The Company also
offers exclusively online degrees, primarily in business and
criminal justice.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Madden" Class Suit Dismissed in February
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Mary Credille and Roger Madden, on
behalf of all similarly situated current and former employees, v.
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al., was closed in February 2013,
according to the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On November 17, 2008, an action captioned Mary Credille and Roger
Madden, on behalf of all similarly situated current and former
employees, v. Corinthian Colleges et al., was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The two originally-named plaintiffs are former employees of the
Company's Chicago campus, and allege failure to receive proper
compensation for all overtime hours allegedly worked in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Plaintiff Credille has
voluntarily dismissed her claims against the Company.  On
December 8, 2009, the Court granted Plaintiff Madden's motion to
conditionally certify a collective action to include those current
and former admissions representatives at the Company's Chicago
campus who also satisfy additional requirements.  A total of three
former employees, including Madden, have elected to participate in
the lawsuit.  On the eve of trial, the Plaintiff dismissed the
case with prejudice and the trial court closed the case on
February 10, 2013.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondary
career education companies in North America.  The Company offers a
variety of diploma programs and associate's, bachelor's and
master's degrees, concentrating on programs in allied health,
business, technology, and criminal justice.  The Company also
offers exclusively online degrees, primarily in business and
criminal justice.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: "Montgomery" Suit Scheduled for Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit commenced by Alisha Montgomery, et al.,
is now again being scheduled for individual arbitrations,
according to the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On November 23, 2010, a putative class action complaint captioned
Alisha Montgomery, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. and Corinthian
Schools, Inc. d/b/a Everest College and Olympia College, was filed
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.  Corinthian
Schools, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company.  The
Plaintiffs were thirty-three individuals who purport to be current
and/or former students of the Company's Medical Assistant Program
at the Everest College campus in Merrionette Park, Illinois.  The
complaint alleged breach of contract, violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and unjust
enrichment, all related to alleged deficiencies and
misrepresentations regarding the Company's medical assisting
program at the Merrionette Park campus.  The plaintiffs sought to
certify a class composed of all persons who enrolled in the
Company's Medical Assisting program at the Everest College
Merrionette Park campus during the four years preceding the filing
of the lawsuit, and sought actual and compensatory damages on
behalf of such persons, costs and attorneys' fees, punitive
damages, disgorgement and restitution of wrongful profits, revenue
and benefits to the extent deemed appropriate by the court, and
such other relief as the court deemed proper.  The Company removed
the case to federal court and moved to compel individual
arbitrations, which the court granted.  Thirty-one plaintiffs
filed individual demands in arbitration, and individual
arbitration hearings commenced during the quarter ended June 30,
2012.  The Company and the plaintiffs agreed to hold the hearings
in abeyance to engage in settlement discussions, which were
unsuccessful.  These matters are now again being scheduled for
individual arbitrations.

The Company continues to believe these matters are without merit
and will continue to defend itself vigorously.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondary
career education companies in North America.  The Company offers a
variety of diploma programs and associate's, bachelor's and
master's degrees, concentrating on programs in allied health,
business, technology, and criminal justice.  The Company also
offers exclusively online degrees, primarily in business and
criminal justice.


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Still Defends Suits by Former Students
-----------------------------------------------------------
Corinthian Colleges, Inc., continues to defend itself against
class action lawsuits initiated by former students in California,
according to the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

During fiscal 2011, the Company experienced an unprecedented
increase in putative class action lawsuits by former students.  In
many of these cases, the plaintiffs and their counsel sought to
represent a class of "similarly situated" people as defined in the
complaint.  The Company believes these lawsuits are largely the
result of negative publicity -- and aggressive lawyer recruitment
of potential clients -- surrounding the Department of Education's
("ED's") rulemaking efforts, the Senate HELP Committee hearings,
the Government Accountability Office ("GAO") report, and other
related matters that occurred during that time period.  Most of
the cases filed during that time have since been dismissed.  In
virtually all of the following remaining cases, the plaintiffs
cite testimony from the HELP Committee hearings, the GAO report,
public statements by elected officials and/or other negative media
coverage in their complaints, although the locations of the
students, the specific allegations, and the nature of their claims
differ.  The Company believes all of the following complaints are
contractually required to be resolved in individual arbitrations
between the named students and the Company, and the Company has
moved to compel these cases to arbitration.

A brief summary of such matters are:

(I)  Dated Filed: January 24, 2011, and February 17, 2011

     Plaintiffs and Date Attended: Kevin Ferguson; Everest
      Institute in Miami, Florida; and Sandra Muniz; Heald College
      campuses in Rancho Cordova and Roseville, California
      (initially filed as separate actions, but subsequently
      consolidated)

     Venue: U.S. District Court, Central District of California

     Nature and Basis of Alleged Claims; Relief Sought: Alleged
      misrepresentations by specific admissions representative at
      a specific campus regarding accreditation, transferability
      of credits, cost of attendance, eligibility for
      certifications, and career placement opportunities; Causes
      of action alleging breach of implied contract, breach of
      implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation
      of California's Business and Professions Code, violation of
      California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, negligent
      misrepresentation and fraud; Complaint seeks class
      certification, injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement,
      punitive damages, attorneys' fees and cost of lawsuit.

     Description of Putative Class: All persons who attended any
      Everest institution in the United States or Canada from
      January 2005 to the present; all persons, who attended any
      Heald institution from January 2009 to the present

     Status Update: District court compelled all non-injunctive
      claims to arbitration and permitted all injunctive claims to
      remain before the court; the Company appealed the order as
      it relates to the injunctive claims, and the court of appeal
      stayed the district court action pending the appeal.

(II) Date Filed: March 11, 2011

     Plaintiffs and Date Attended: Noravel Arevalo and fourteen
      former students at the Company's Everest College location in
      Alhambra, California

     Venue: American Arbitration Association

     Nature and Basis of Alleged Claims; Relief Sought: Alleged
      misrepresentations by specific admissions representatives at
      a specific campus and unlawful business practices in the
      licensed vocational nursing program in Alhambra, California;
      Causes of action alleging violation of the California
      Consumer Legal Remedies Act, fraud, breach of contract,
      violation of California's former Private Postsecondary and
      Vocational Education Reform Act, violation of the Racketeer
      Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, violation of
      California's Business and Professions Code; Complaint seeks
      class certification, injunctive relief, damages, restitution
      and disgorgement, civil penalties, punitive damages, treble
      damages, attorneys' fees and expenses, costs of lawsuit and
      other relief.

     Description of Putative Class: The matters are proceedings on
      a individual basis.

     Status Update: Individual arbitration demands have been
      filed, and arbitration hearings began during the quarter
      ending March 31, 2013.

The Company says it intends to defend itself and its subsidiaries
vigorously in all of these matters.

Corinthian Colleges, Inc. is one of the largest post-secondary
career education companies in North America.  The Company offers a
variety of diploma programs and associate's, bachelor's and
master's degrees, concentrating on programs in allied health,
business, technology, and criminal justice.  The Company also
offers exclusively online degrees, primarily in business and
criminal justice.


COUNTRY LIFE: Recalls 1,100 Target-Mins Iron Supplement Bottles
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Country Life LLC, of Hauppauge, New York, announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,100 Target-Mins(TM) Iron Supplement Bottles.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The packaging is not child-resistant as required by the Poison
Prevention Packaging Act.  The supplement tablets inside the
bottle contain iron, which can cause serious injury or death to
young children if multiple tablets are ingested at once.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Country Life Target-Mins 25 mg iron
supplements bottles.  The bottle is brown with a black top and has
a white label with a yellow banner at the top and a green banner
at the bottom.  The words "IRON," "Country Life" and "90 tablets"
are printed on the label.  Bar code 015794024927 and Lot Number
13A866B are printed on the far left side of the front label.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/BD64kO

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at New Seasons, Sprouts Farmers Market, Vitamin
Cottage, Whole Foods Market and other natural food stores
nationwide from January 2013 to May 2013 for about $10.

Consumers should immediately place recalled bottles out of the
reach of children and return them to the place of purchase for a
full refund or a replacement bottle.  Country Life may be reached
at (800) 645-5768, from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday
through Friday, by e-mail at salesadmin@countrylifevitamins.com or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.countrylifevitamins.com/
and click on the "Contact Us" icon, then "Product Questions" for
more information.


DELAWARE MANUFACTURED: Faces Class Action Over Assessment Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kara Nuzback, writing for CapeGazette.com, reports that a class
action complaint, filed by tenants and landlords of manufactured
housing communities, claims Delaware Manufactured Housing
Relocation Authority has been illegally collecting monthly
assessments for seven years.

A bill pending in the General Assembly would require landlords to
get approval from a state agency to increase lot rents for
manufactured homeowners.  But the agency that would approve such
requests is being sued by landlords and tenants of manufactured
housing communities who say the agency has been illegally charging
a monthly fee for more than seven years and has paid out no
benefits since 2009.

Senate Bill 33 would require owners of manufactured home parks to
seek approval from Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Authority
if they wanted to raise rents for park tenants by more than the
three-year average increase in the consumer price index.

To gain approval, landowners would have to prove the additional
increase would compensate for the cost of operating, maintaining
and improving the manufactured housing community.

The authority was created in 2003 to assist landlords and tenants
financially when they are forced to relocate, abandon or remove a
manufactured home from its lot.

Three landlords and two tenants of manufactured home parks in
Delaware filed a class-action complaint against DEMHRA in the
Court of Chancery.  The plaintiffs claim the authority's right to
collect $3 per month in fees for each manufactured home lot in the
state expired in 2006, but the authority continues to collect the
fees.

According to the complaint, the General Assembly gave the
authority the right to adjust, eliminate or reinstate the
assessment fee by Jan. 31, 2006.  "A review of DEMHRA's board
minutes between 2004 and Jan. 31, 2006, reveals that DEMHRA never
adjusted the amount of the trust fund assessment," attorney
John Paradee wrote.

The plaintiffs also say the authority holds $5.5 million in the
Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Trust Fund, but it has paid
out only $570,000 in benefits and spent $880,000 in administrative
costs.  "For every $100 in benefits provided, DEMHRA has spent
$153.69 on administration and overhead," Mr. Paradee wrote.
"Since April of 2009, no benefits whatsoever have been paid out of
the trust fund."

Ridgewood Manor, a manufactured housing community in Smyrna; Dover
Park, a manufactured housing community in Dover; Richard Thomas,
owner of Kings Cliffe Mobile Home Park in Dover; Patty Weyl, a
manufactured home tenant at Bay City in Millsboro; and Christopher
Zmijewski, a tenant of Ridgewood Manor, filed the suit on behalf
of all manufactured housing landlords and tenants in the state
May 6.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs want the authority to
cease collection of its monthly assessments and refund all
assessments collected after January 2006 to tenants and landlords.

A bill to extend the relocation trust fund for another five years
-- House Bill 65 -- was released from committee May 1, and awaits
a vote in the House.

                    Authority denies charges

Mitch Crane, board chairman of DEMHRA, argues the authority voted
to adjust the monthly fee in 2004, thereby complying with the
General Assembly's requirement to take action by 2006.  "And that
fee has been approved on an annual basis since then," he said.
"There is no merit to the claims in the lawsuit."

Mr. Crane said the 2004 vote is reflected in meeting minutes.
"They had not been posted at the time the lawsuit was filed," he
said.

Mr. Crane also said it would be contrary to the best interests of
landlords and tenants to eliminate a $5 million safety net in case
some communities are subject to a change of use.  "If that $5
million is returned, there would be no relief for these people,"
he said.

The lawsuit is an effort to stop the rent justification bill from
becoming law, Mr. Crane said.  "I'm not speaking for or against
the bill," he said.  "I would think the timing of it is to affect
SB 33."

Sen. Bruce Ennis, D-Smyrna, introduced SB 33 April 30 at
Legislative Hall in Dover.  The bill was released from the Senate
Small Business Committee May 8, and the Senate will likely vote on
the bill after the General Assembly reconvenes Tuesday, June 4.

Another version of the bill -- Senate Bill 205 -- was approved in
the Senate in the last General Assembly, but it failed to pass the
House.


DOLLAR GENERAL: EEOC Files Suits Over Criminal Background Checks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Hananel, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed lawsuits on June 11
against discount retailer Dollar General Corp. and a BMW
manufacturing plant in South Carolina over their use of criminal
background checks to screen out job applicants or fire employees.

In both cases, the agency claims the practice discriminates
against African-Americans, who have higher arrest and conviction
rates than whites.

The two lawsuits are the first since the agency issued revised
guidance last year to warn employers against using overly broad
criminal checks in a way that could limit job opportunities for
people with past convictions.  The commission says it wants to
reduce barriers to employment for those with past criminal records
who "have been held accountable and paid their dues."

The EEOC alleges that BMW's policy affected dozens of employees
working for a contractor that staffed a BMW warehouse in
Spartanburg, S.C.  The contractor's policy was not to employ
anyone with a criminal record within the past seven years.  When a
new contractor took over the company, BMW ordered a new round of
criminal background checks and fired anyone with a criminal record
from any year.

Of the 88 workers fired, 70 were black.  Some had worked for BMW
-- through the contractor -- for more than a decade, the EEOC
alleged in a lawsuit filed in federal district court in
Spartanburg.  The commission claims the BMW policy is a "blanket
exclusion" without any regard for the nature and gravity of the
crimes, how old they are, or whether they are relevant to the type
of work being performed.

BMW spokeswoman Sky Foster said the company "believes that it has
complied with the letter and spirit of the law and will defend
itself against the EEOC's allegations of race discrimination."

In the Dollar General case, the EEOC filed a nationwide lawsuit in
federal district court in Chicago based on charges of
discrimination filed by two rejected black job applicants.  One
applicant was offered employment even though she disclosed a 6-
year-old conviction for possession of a controlled substance, the
EEOC said.  But her job offer was allegedly revoked because Dollar
General's policy was to disqualify anyone who had that type of
conviction within the past 10 years.

Another applicant to Dollar General was fired by the company
despite the fact that a report showing she had a felony conviction
was wrong, the EEOC said.  Even after she advised Dollar General
of the mistake, the company did not reverse its decision to fire
her, the agency claimed.

"Overcoming barriers to employment is one of our strategic
enforcement priorities," EEOC spokeswoman Justine Lisser said.
"We hope that these lawsuits will further educate the public and
the employer community on the appropriate use of conviction
records."

A Dollar General spokesman did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.

The EEOC says it attempted to resolve both cases through
settlement before filing lawsuits.  It is seeking back pay for the
rejected applicants and for those fired, as well as injunctive
relief to prevent future discrimination.

The new EEOC guidelines issued last year urge employers to give
job applicants a chance to explain past criminal misconduct before
they are rejected. It also recommends that employers stop asking
about past convictions on job applications.

Some employers see the checks as a way to weed out unsavory
workers and prevent negligent hiring claims.


EI DUPONT: Medical Panel Recommends Medical Monitoring Protocols
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a panel of doctors has released
its recommended protocols for medical monitoring of mid-Ohio
Valley residents exposed to a chemical used by a DuPont plant in
West Virginia.

The three-member C8 Medical Panel was formed as part of a 2005
class-action settlement of a lawsuit that claimed water supplies
in Ohio and West Virginia were contaminated with perfluorooctanoic
acid, also known as C8.  DuPont uses C8 at its Washington Works
plant near Parkersburg.

A separate C8 Science Panel formed under the settlement has found
probable links between C8 and six health issue, including thyroid
disease, high cholesterol, testicular and kidney cancers,
pregnancy-induced hypertension and ulcerative colitis.  Its
findings were based on studies of data collected from about 70,000
residents.

The medical panel's report, filed on May 24 in Wood County Circuit
Court, addresses protocols for initial screening and diagnostic
testing.  It also recommends that data be collected on the medical
monitoring program's implementation and findings to determine
whether any future changes are needed, said Harry Deitzler, an
attorney for Parkersburg-area plaintiffs.

The medical panel also plans to create educational materials about
the benefits and harms of screening to help residents who are
eligible for the program, Mr. Deitzler said in a news release
issued on May 25.

A plan and process to implement the screening and testing program
will be developed by Michael Rozen, the court-appointed director
medical monitoring, and Brookmar, Inc.

Under the settlement, DuPont agreed to pay as much as $235 million
on medical monitoring programs to help detect the onset of C8-
linked diseases among eligible residents.  The company also agreed
to provide treatment to remove the chemical from local water
systems.

"On behalf of the impacted residents, we thank the Medical Panel
for its significant efforts to provide this important new medical
information and testing program to the community so quickly after
the final list of diseases linked to PFOA exposure was released,"
attorney Robert Bilott, who also represents plaintiffs in the
case, said in the news release.

The science panel released its final report in October 2012.


ELBIT IMAGING: Court Dismisses Application to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Elbit Imaging Ltd. on May 26 disclosed that the Israeli Supreme
Court dismissed an appeal on the District Court decision not to
certify claims against Elscint Ltd., Elbit Imaging and others, as
a class action due to the fact that the appellant failed to pay
court fees.  Elscint Ltd. is a former wholly owned subsidiary of
the Company which was merged to the company.

This case was initially filed in the District Court of Haifa,
Israel in September 2006 by Mr. Beeri against Elscint, the
Company, their controlling shareholders (Europe Israel (MMS) Ltd.
and Control Centers Ltd.) and past and present officers and
directors of such companies and certain unrelated third parties.


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Cozen O'Connor Discusses Incentive Award
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald F. Wick, Esq., at Cozen O'Connor, reports that it is not
uncommon for class action settlements to include an "incentive
award" for class representatives for their service to the class in
bringing the lawsuit.  Neither is it uncommon for courts to
approve such settlements, so long as the incentive award is not so
large as to undermine class representatives' adequacy to represent
the class.

A recent settlement approved by a Los Angeles federal court,
however, added another dimension to incentive awards.  In
Radcliffe v. Experian Information Solutions, a settlement
agreement with three credit reporting bureaus not only included a
$5,000 incentive award to each class representative, but also
conditioned that award on the class representative's support of
the settlement.  If a class representative objected to the
settlement, he or she would forfeit the $5,000 incentive award and
recover the same proceeds as the represented class members --
which worked out to between $26 and $750, depending on the type of
damages incurred by the class member.

The Ninth Circuit reversed the settlement approval.  By explicitly
conditioning the incentive award on the class representatives'
support for the settlement, the court held, the settlement
agreement undermined the adequacy of the class representatives and
class counsel.  "Instead of being solely concerned about the
adequacy of the settlement for absent class members," the panel
held, "the class representatives now had a $5,000 incentive to
support the settlement regardless of its fairness and a promise of
no reward if they opposed the settlement."  The conditional awards
thus "removed a critical check on the fairness of the class-action
settlement, which rests on the unbiased judgment of class
representatives similarly situated to absent class members."

The court also criticized the amount of the incentive award,
suggesting that even if the award's conditionality had not doomed
the settlement, its magnitude would have: "There is a serious
question whether class representatives could be expected to fairly
evaluate whether awards ranging from $26 to $750 is a fair
settlement value when they would receive $5,000 incentive awards."
Although the court held only that the amount of the awards
"exacerbated the conflict of interest" created by their
conditional nature, the language of the opinion strongly suggests
that the court would have rejected the settlement even if the
payments had not been conditional.

With respect to class counsel, the court held that counsel's
adequacy was undermined because once the conditional incentive
award "divorced the interests of the class representatives from
those of the absent class members, class counsel was
simultaneously representing clients with conflicting interests."
However, because the conflict developed late in the
representation, the panel directed the district court to
determine, on remand, the extent to which class counsel should be
permitted to participate in any fee award.  (The majority reached
this determination over the objections of a concurring judge, who
argued that class counsel's role in the creation of the
conditional incentive award should disqualify them from any fees
awarded as part of the settlement agreement).

The moral: in negotiating a class action settlement, counsel must
not only ensure that any incentive award to class representatives
is not so excessive as to create a disincentive for them to fairly
evaluate the settlement.  Attorneys must also ensure that any
incentive award, no matter how small, is independent of the class
representatives' ultimate position on the settlement.


FELTEX: Forsyth Barr Opts in Clients in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Duncan Bridgeman, writing for The National Business Review,
reports that some clients of broker Forsyth Barr are being
automatically opted in to the Feltex class action through a
nominee company.

Feltex collapsed in 2006, wiping out shareholder investments of
about NZD250 million just 21 months after it floated on the stock
exchange.

Former shareholder Eric Houghton is mounting a civil case on
behalf of investors against Feltex's former directors, two broking
firms, First NZ Capital and Forsyth Barr, and the promoter and
vendor, Credit Suisse Private Equity and Credit Suisse First
Boston Asian Merchant Partners.

Feltex's directors at the time of the offer were Tim Saunders, Sam
Magill, John Feeney, Craig Horrocks, Peter Hunter, Peter David and
Joan Withers.

So far about 3000 former shareholders have joined the claim and
Mr. Houghton's lawyer, Austin Forbes QC, says final opt in for
qualifying shareholders was set to close on May 30.

In the last few days some opt in forms have started coming in from
clients of the fifth defendant, Forsyth Barr, Mr. Forbes says.

Forsyth Barr has written to those 2004 clients because in many
cases their investment in shares in the Feltex float was first
registered into the name of their nominee company, Forsyth Barr
Custodians Limited.

As a result Mr. Houghton has not been able to contact these
potential claimants directly to offer representation.

Mr. Houghton's solicitors, Wilson McKay, have been told by lawyers
for Forsyth Barr that it is intending to opt in any Forsyth Barr
Custodian managed clients who invested in June 2004, Mr. Forbes
says.

Any qualifying shareholder opted in by Forsyth Barr Custodians can
opt out by June 21, 2013, and be excluded from the final claimant
group to be filed with the High Court.


FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA: Faces Class Action Over Loan Mismanagement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ThisDayLive reports that Former President of the Nigeria Bar
Association (NBA), Mr. Olisa Agbakoba (SAN), and other aggrieved
customers of First Bank of Nigeria Plc, have filed a class action
against the bank at the Federal High Court in Lagos, claiming
gross mismanagement of his margin loan running into millions of
naira.

The plaintiffs are claiming that the bank failed to use its
professional expertise and skills to manage, operate and control
the loans.  They averred that it was the responsibility of the
bank to manage the risks of the loans and that its failure made
him to lose huge sums of money.

The plaintiffs stated that although other aggrieved customers of
banks and investment houses in the country have found it difficult
to successfully prosecute their claims in relation to injuries
occasioned by margin loan agreements because of the nature and
structure of the contracts entered into, this case appears to be
different on the evidence seen thus far.

They specifically alleged that in their case, the bank took the
contractual responsibility to manage the risks associated with the
margin loans that it was its failure to manage the loans in
accordance to the contract that led to their losses.

In his statement of claim, Agbakoba stated that as a result of the
banker/customer relationship between him and bank, the bank in
2008 introduced its margin trading facility to him and requested
that he take a margin loan contract, which he accepted.

He stated that the defendant explained to him that its customers
were to purchase shares with the advanced margin trading facility
and pledge the shares to it.  He contended that the defendant, for
a management fee, was to professionally manage the advanced
facility by selecting the broker and securities the facility would
be invested into.

The former NBA boss said the defendant was to also prepare all the
paper work needed, provide information about the fund's holdings
and performances and reserved the power to exit should the fund
diminish to a threshold that could impair the economic
underpinnings of the investment and left the bank's exposure
uncovered.

He said he was also servicing the margin trading facility by
paying interests on the facility as and when due.  "In fact, the
defendant always deducted the interests due on the facility from
the plaintiff's Operative Account with the Defendant (Current
Account Number 5072010001816) as and when due.

"The defendant issued a statement of plaintiff's Operative Account
with the defendant.  All the payments made by the plaintiff
(interests and loan repayment are disclosed in the statement of
account.  The entries in the statement of Account were made by the
defendant in the usual and ordinary course of its banking
business."

Agbakoba is claiming that in the transaction, the principal sum of
N200,000,000 was completely lost.  He said he paid a total sum of
N250,434,639.13 in liquidation of the Margin Loan Account;
excluding interests and other charges.

He said his 30 per cent equity contribution valued at N60 million
was completely lost, adding that N40 million out of this would
have been saved if the shares were sold at the Second Trigger
Point.

Agbakoba is therefore seeking a general damages of N500 million
for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of the margin loan
agreement by the bank.  He also wants the bank to pay him the sum
of N301.76 million as special damages.


FISKARS CANADA: Recalls Stitched Sheaths for Gerber Bear Machete
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 6, 2013
Posting date:             June 6, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Miscellaneous, Outdoor Living
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-33639

Joint recall with Gerber Legendary Blades, Health Canada and the
United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (US CPSC)

Affected products: Stitched sheaths for Gerber(R) Bear Grylls
                   Parang Machete

This recall involves the stitched sheaths sold with curved blade
Parang machetes.

The recalled stitched sheath is made of black nylon, with only
stitching on the curved side.  There are five rivets on the bottom
of the sheath and two rivets bordering the strap on top.  The
machete measures 50 centimetres (19.5 inches) with a blade length
of 34 centimetres (13.5 inches).  The sheath measures 40
centimetres (16 inches) long and 9 centimetres (3.5 inches) wide,
and has "GERBER" printed in gray and two Bear Grylls logos in
orange.

The machetes with sheaths were sold as a set or as part of
Gerber's Apocalypse Survival Kit, which includes a Parang machete
among other items in a foldable black cloth case with "GERBER"
printed on the inside right.  The stitched sheath has a total of
seven rivets and is the only one of the three styles of sheaths
sold with the Parang machete included in this recall.  The other
two types of Parang sheaths, one of which has nine rivets and two
snap buttons, and the other of which has twelve rivets, are not
being recalled.

The model numbers are on the package and include 31-000698, 31-
000986, 31-001111, 31-002290 and 31-002289.  Model number 30-
000601 is on the package for the Apocalypse Survival Kit.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/H36ntZ

The Parang machete can cut through the stitching of the sheaths
when the blade is taken from or replaced in the sheath, posing a
laceration hazard.

Gerber has received eight reports of lacerations to the user's
hands or fingers, including three injuries that required stitches.
There have been no reports of injuries in Canada.

Health Canada has received no reports of incidents or injuries
related to the use of the stitched sheaths.

Approximately 11,542 of the recalled stitched sheaths were sold in
Canada and approximately 80,000 were sold in the United States.

The recalled products were sold from February 2012 to February
2013 in Canada and the United States at sporting goods stores and
online.

The recalled products were manufactured in China.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     JinHeng Factory
                    Yangjiang
                    CHINA

   Distributor      Fiskars Canada Inc.
                    Markham
                    Ontario, CANADA

Consumers should stop using the stitched sheaths immediately and
store the Parang machete in a safe area away from children.
Contact Gerber Legendary Blades to receive a free replacement
fully-riveted sheath.

For additional information, consumers may contact Gerber Legendary
Blades toll-free at 1-877-314-9130 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Pacific Time Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site
[http://www.gerbergear.com/]and click on "Product Notifications"
at the bottom of the page.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
Web site [http://is.gd/uGEPHC].


FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suit vs. Units
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its motion
to dismiss a class action lawsuit against its subsidiaries,
according to the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

In May 2012, Flagstar Bank, FSB, and Flagstar Reinsurance Company
were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, alleging a violation of Section 2607 of the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA").  Section 2607(a) of
RESPA generally prohibits anyone from "accept[ing] any fee,
kickback or thing of value pursuant to any agreement or
understanding, oral or otherwise, that business related incident
to or part of a real estate settlement service involving a
federally related mortgage loan shall be referred to any person."
Section 2607(b) of RESPA also prohibits anyone from "accept[ing]
any portion, split, or percentage of any charge made or received
for the rendering of a real estate settlement service in
connection with a federally related mortgage loan other than for
services actually performed."  The lawsuit specifically alleges
that the Bank and Flagstar Reinsurance Company violated Section
2607 of RESPA through a captive reinsurance arrangement involving
(i) allegedly illegal payments to Flagstar Reinsurance Company for
the referral of private mortgage insurance business from Bank to
private mortgage insurers to Flagstar Reinsurance Company, and
(ii) Flagstar Reinsurance Company's purported receipt of an
unlawful split of private mortgage insurance premiums.

In January 2013, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint
identifying new plaintiffs.  The Company has filed a motion to
dismiss the First Amended Complaint based upon the statute of
limitations and equitable tolling and awaits the court's ruling on
that motion.

Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.flagstar.com/-- is a Troy,
Michigan-based savings and loan holding company founded in 1993.
The Company's business is primarily conducted through its
principal subsidiary, Flagstar Bank, a federally chartered stock
savings bank.


FLAMEL TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Class Suit Dismissed in March
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed with prejudice and costs in March 2013 a securities
class action lawsuit against Flamel Technologies S.A., according
to the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

On November 9, 2007, a putative class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
entitled Billhofer v. Flamel Technologies, et al.  By Order dated
March 8, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
and the action was dismissed with prejudice and costs.

The complaint purported to allege claims arising under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on certain public statements
by the Company concerning, among other things, a clinical trial
involving Coreg CR and seeks the award of damages in an
unspecified amount.  By Order dated February 11, 2008, the Court
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the action. On
March 27, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint that
continued to name the Company and two previously named officers as
defendants and asserted the same claims based on the same events
as alleged in the initial complaint.  On May 12, 2008, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the action, which the Court denied by
Order dated October 1, 2009.  On April 29, 2010, the lead
plaintiff moved to withdraw and substitute another individual as
lead plaintiff and to amend the Case Management Order.  On
June 22, 2010, the lead plaintiff voluntarily agreed to dismiss
the action against one of the previously named officers.  On
September 20, 2010, the Court granted the lead plaintiff's
withdraw and substitution motion and the parties proceeded to
engage in fact discovery.  On March 6, 2012, the Court issued its
opinion granting the lead plaintiff's motion for class
certification, which was originally filed in October 2010 and
opposed by the Company.  On July 30, 2012, the Court issued an
opinion denying the lead plaintiff's motion, filed on December 15,
2011, to further amend his complaint, which motion sought to
substantially revise plaintiff's asserted basis for contending
that the defendants should be found liable for the statements at
issue.  In its opinion, the Court held that the proposed amended
complaint failed to properly plead a viable claim.

Flamel Technologies S.A. -- http://www.flamel.com/-- is a
specialty pharmaceutical company.  The Company is focusing on (1)
the development and licensing of five versatile, proprietary drug
delivery platforms, (2) the development of novel, high-value
products based on the Company's drug delivery platforms, and (3)
as a result of the Company's acquisition of Eclat Pharmaceuticals,
LLC, the development, approval, and commercialization of niche
branded and generic pharmaceutical products in the U.S.  The
Company is headquartered in Venissieux Cedex, France.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal From Hawaii Suit Dismissal Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in December 1993, certain of Fresh Del Monte Produce
Inc.'s U.S. subsidiaries were named among the defendants in a
number of actions in courts in Texas, Louisiana, Hawaii,
California and the Philippines involving claims by numerous non-
U.S. plaintiffs alleging that they were injured as a result of
exposure to a nematocide containing the chemical
dibromochloropropane ("DBCP") during the period 1965 to 1990.  As
a result of a settlement entered into in December 1998, the
remaining unresolved DBCP claims against the Company's U.S.
subsidiaries are pending or subject to appeal in Hawaii,
Louisiana, California, Delaware and the Philippines.

In 1997, the plaintiffs from Costa Rica and Guatemala named
certain of the Company's U.S. subsidiaries in a purported class
action in Hawaii.  On June 28, 2007, the plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed the Company's U.S. subsidiaries named in the action
without ties to Hawaii.  At a hearing held on June 9, 2009, the
court granted summary judgment in favor of the Company's remaining
U.S. subsidiaries with ties to Hawaii, holding that the claims of
the remaining plaintiffs are time-barred.  A final judgment
dismissing all remaining claims and terminating the action was
entered on July 28, 2010.  On August 24, 2010, the plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal.  The appeal is fully briefed and remains
pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 30, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 29, 2013.

Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. is a vertically integrated producer,
marketer and distributor of high-quality fresh and fresh-cut fruit
and vegetables, as well as a producer and marketer of prepared
fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages and snacks in Europe,
Africa, the Middle East and countries formerly part of the Soviet
Union.  The Company markets its products worldwide under the DEL
MONTE(R) brand, a symbol of product innovation, quality, freshness
and reliability since 1892.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Defends Extra Sweet Pineapples-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. continues to defend itself against
lawsuits over its Del Monte Gold(R) Extra Sweet pineapples,
according to the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 29, 2013.

On March 5, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative
class action complaint against certain of the Company's
subsidiaries in the state court of Tennessee on behalf of
consumers who purchased (other than for resale) Del Monte Gold(R)
Extra Sweet pineapples in Tennessee from March 1, 1996, to May 6,
2003.  The complaint alleges violations of the Tennessee Trade
Practices Act and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.  On
February 18, 2005, the Company's subsidiaries filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint.  On May 15, 2006, the court granted the
motion in part, dismissing the plaintiffs' claim under the
Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.

Between March 17, 2004, and March 18, 2004, three alleged
individual consumers separately filed putative class action
complaints against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries in
the state court of California on behalf of residents of California
who purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra
Sweet pineapples between March 1, 1996, and May 6, 2003.  On
November 9, 2005, the three actions were consolidated under one
amended complaint with a single claim for unfair competition in
violation of the California Business and Professional Code.  On
September 26, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
class action.  On August 20, 2009, the court denied class
certification.  On October 19, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal of the court's order denying class certification.  On
February 29, 2012, the oral argument hearing on the appeal was
held.  On March 7, 2012, the appeal was rejected and the denial of
class certification was upheld.

Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. is a vertically integrated producer,
marketer and distributor of high-quality fresh and fresh-cut fruit
and vegetables, as well as a producer and marketer of prepared
fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages and snacks in Europe,
Africa, the Middle East and countries formerly part of the Soviet
Union.  The Company markets its products worldwide under the DEL
MONTE(R) brand, a symbol of product innovation, quality, freshness
and reliability since 1892.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Suit Over Extra Sweet Pineapples Pending in Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On April 19, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative
class action complaint against Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc.'s
subsidiaries in the state court of Florida on behalf of Florida
residents who purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold(R)
Extra Sweet pineapples between March 1, 1996, and May 6, 2003.
The only surviving claim under the amended complaint alleges
violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
relating only to pineapples purchased since April 19, 2000.  The
Company's subsidiaries filed an answer to the surviving claim on
October 12, 2006.  On August 5, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a
motion to certify a class action.  The Company's subsidiaries
filed an opposition on January 22, 2009, to which the plaintiffs
filed a reply on May 11, 2009.  On November 29, 2011, the court
denied the motion to certify a class action.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 30, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 29, 2013.

Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. is a vertically integrated producer,
marketer and distributor of high-quality fresh and fresh-cut fruit
and vegetables, as well as a producer and marketer of prepared
fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages and snacks in Europe,
Africa, the Middle East and countries formerly part of the Soviet
Union.  The Company markets its products worldwide under the DEL
MONTE(R) brand, a symbol of product innovation, quality, freshness
and reliability since 1892.


G. WILLI-FOOD: Accused of Mislabeling Certain Imported Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
G. Willi-Food International Ltd. and a subsidiary are defending
themselves against class action lawsuits alleging they mislabel
some of the products that the Company imports, according to the
Company's April 30, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

In December 2012, the Company and its subsidiary, Gold Frost Ltd.,
were served with three purported class action lawsuits alleging
that it misled its customers by mislabeling some of the products
that the Company imports.  The lawsuits seek to represent any
Israeli resident, who bought those products during the last seven
years.  The plaintiffs appraise total group damages at
approximately NIS33 million (approximately $8.8 million).  At this
preliminary stage, the Company's management and legal counsel are
not able to assess the chance of success of the claims.

G. Willi-Food International Ltd. -- http://www.willi-food.com/--
is an Israeli company engaged in the development, import, export,
marketing and distribution of a wide variety of over 600 food
products world-wide.  The Company is headquartered in Yavne,
Israel.


GENERAL MILLS: Recalls Cinnamon Toast Crunch Products
-----------------------------------------------------
Nathalie Tadena, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that
General Mills Inc. (GIS) is voluntarily recalling a small quantity
of single-serve reduced-sugar Cinnamon Toast Crunch "bowlpaks"
after a supplier recalled an ingredient due to the possible
presence of salmonella.

The packaged-food maker said no illnesses have been associated
with this finding and that the recall is being taken as a
precaution.

The recall affects approximately 168 cases of the product with
"Better if Used By" dates of Aug. 31 and Sept. 2.  No other
varieties or sizes of Cinnamon Toast Crunch or other General Mills
products are affected.

Food-service operators or consumers who have the affected product
are urged to dispose of it and contact General Mills at 1-800-328-
1144 for a replacement.

The maker of Cheerios cereal, Betty Crocker baking products and
Green Giant frozen vegetables has struggled to mitigate higher
raw-material costs with price increases as pushback from budget-
conscious consumers challenged sales volume.  But General Mills'
profit has improved in recent quarters due in part to the
performance of newly acquired businesses overseas and improving
results in its home market.

In March, General Mills reported its fiscal third-quarter earnings
rose 1.8% as the company sold more products in its base business,
as measured by weight, for the first time in two years, a sign the
packaged-food industry is continuing its steady, but, slow
improvement.


GERBER LEGENDARY: Recalls 91,000 Machetes With Stitched Sheaths
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in conjunction with
Health Canada and in cooperation with Gerber Legendary Blades, of
Portland, Oregon, announced a voluntary recall of about 80,000
Gerber(R) Bear Grylls Parang Machete with stitched sheaths in the
United States of America and 11,000 in Canada.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The Parang machete can cut through the stitching of the sheaths
when the blade is taken from or replaced in the sheath, posing a
laceration hazard.

Gerber has received eight reports of lacerations to the user's
hands or fingers, including three injuries that required stitches.

This recall involves stitched sheaths sold with curved blade
Parang machetes.  The stitched sheath is made of black nylon, with
only stitching on the curved side.  There are five rivets on the
bottom of the sheath and two rivets bordering the strap on top.
The machete measures 19.5 inches with a blade length of 13.5
inches.  The sheath measures 16 inches long and 3.5 inches wide
and has "GERBER" printed in gray and two Bear Grylls logos in
orange.  The machetes with sheaths were sold as a set or as part
of Gerber's Apocalypse Survival Kit, which includes a Parang
machete among other items in a foldable black cloth case with
"GERBER" printed on the inside right.  The model numbers are on
the package. Model numbers are: 31-000698, 31-001507 and 31-
002289.  Model number 30-000601 is on the package for the
Apocalypse Survival Kit.  The stitched sheath is the only one of
three styles of sheaths sold with the Parang machete included in
this recall.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/uGEPHC

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
sporting goods stores nationwide and online from February 2012
through February 2013 for about $43 for the machete and sheath
set, and $349 for the Survival Kit.

Consumers should immediately store the covered Parang machete in a
safe area away from children.  Contact Gerber Legendary Blades to
receive a free replacement fully-riveted sheath.  Gerber Legendary
Blades may be reached toll-free at (877) 314-9130 from 9:00 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time Monday through Friday or online at
http://www.gerbergear.com/and click on "Product Notifications" at
the bottom of the page.


GOLD COAST: Beachfront Property Owners Mull Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Greg Stolz, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports that Gold Coast
beachfront property owners have accused the city council and State
Government of abandoning them to the sea, and are threatening a
legal class action as severe erosion gouges away their properties.

For the second time this year, big swells and high tides have
stripped away millions of tonnes of sand from the Glitter Strip's
beaches, leaving some oceanfront homes teetering on the brink of
steep cliffs.  Beach stairs and viewing platforms have collapsed
into the ocean, and sand the council spent tens of thousands of
dollars replenishing after ex-Cyclone Oswald battered the coast in
January has been washed away.  That erosion was described as the
worst the Coast has seen in 40 years but locals say even more sand
is now disappearing.

Businessman Terry Taylor said he and fellow residents of a Mermaid
Beach unit complex had been forced to spend thousands of dollars
sandbagging the property to protect it from voracious erosion.
Mr. Taylor said the council and State Government had refused to
help, even though the beach was a "public asset".

"We're starting to get worried.  It's affecting us -- one of the
ladies that lives here has been in tears," he said.

"I'll have to keep sandbagging because the council has its head in
the sand and has made it clear they're not going to help us.  Is
it going to take a home to fall into the sea before they act? Or
will it take a class action?"

Mr. Taylor said beachfront residents were seen as wealthy people
who should pay their own way.  But he said many had already
outlaid tens of thousands of dollars on boulder walls because the
council and government would not pay.

"I pay nearly AUD60,000 a year in rates and have got nothing out
of it," he said.

Mr. Taylor said while the council had repaired Surfers Paradise
beach in time for Easter, it had done "nothing" to restore badly
eroded Mermaid and Nobby beaches.  He said the land value of his
unit block had slumped from AUD19.8 million to AUD9.8 million.

"When you've got yards slipping into the sea, people are scared
(of buying beachfront property)," he said.

One long-time Albatross Ave resident, who is trying to sell her
property, said she was worried the erosion would affect her
property values.

"With the amount of rates we pay, the council should be doing
something," she said.

The council has asked the State Government for half the estimated
AUD30 million cost of a long-term erosion solution but the plea
has so far fallen on deaf ears.


GREENBERG TRAURIG: Settles Gender Discrimination Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Sullivan, writing for Reuters, reports that a proposed
$200 million gender discrimination class action against the large
Florida law firm Greenberg Traurig was settled on May 24,
concluding the lawsuit five months after it was filed, according
to court documents.

In December, former Greenberg Traurig shareholder Francine
Friedman Griesing filed a 52-page complaint in New York federal
court claiming the 1,700-lawyer firm violated the Equal Pay Act,
the federal law that prohibits wage disparity based on sex.  The
lawsuit sought to represent 215 current and former Greenberg
Traurig shareholders.

Ms. Griesing, who worked at the firm in Philadelphia from April
2007 through January 2010, claimed that the firm underpaid women
lawyers and was governed by an "old boys club."  She claimed
further that she was underpaid by at least $200,000.

In her lawsuit, she pointed to an alleged incident in 2009, when
she complained to managers about the size of her annual bonus.
According to her complaint, she was told by compensation committee
member Michael Lehr that the men had families to support and that
she did not need the money.

In a single-paragraph order on May 24, New York federal Judge
William Pauley dismissed the case after Ms. Griesing and Greenberg
Traurig worked out a settlement.  In his order, Judge Pauley said
that "all claims that were or could have been brought in the . . .
litigation are hereby withdrawn and shall be and hereby are
dismissed in their entirety, with prejudice, and without
attorney's fees, costs, or disbursement to any party."

David Sanford, the lawyer who brought the lawsuit for
Ms. Griesing, declined to comment.

A Greenberg Traurig spokeswoman said that "the matter was
concluded amicably" but declined to elaborate on terms of the
settlement.  Multiple Greenberg Traurig representatives, including
CEO Richard Rosenbaum and Michael Lehr, did not immediately
respond to requests for comment.

The lawsuit came after Ms. Griesing filed a complaint with the
federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which
subsequently found that it had "reasonable cause to believe" the
firm discriminated against its female lawyers by underpaying and
"treating them less favorably" than men, according to court
records.  The EEOC finding was limited to the firm's Philadelphia
office, according to a Greenberg Traurig spokeswoman.

It is rare for the EEOC to find "reasonable cause" when complaints
are filed.  Only 3.8 percent of complaints receive that
determination, according to EEOC statistics.


GRUMA SAB: Unit Faces "Cox" Class Suit Over "All Natural" Label
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gruma, S.A.B. de C.V.'s principal U.S. subsidiary is facing a
class action lawsuit titled Cox v. Gruma Corporation, according to
the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

On or about December 21, 2012, a consumer filed a putative class
action against Gruma Corporation claiming that Mission tortilla
chips should not be labeled "All Natural" if they contain certain
non-natural ingredients.  The plaintiff seeks restitution or other
actual damages including attorneys' fees.  Gruma Corporation
believes that the claims have no merit and filed a motion to
dismiss.  In response to the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff
filed a First Amended Complaint.  Gruma filed a motion to dismiss
the First Amended Complaint on April 10, 2013.  The Company says
it intends to vigorously defend against this action.  It is the
opinion of the Company that the outcome of this proceeding will
not have a material adverse effect on the financial position,
results of operations or cash flows of the Company.

Founded in 1949, Gruma, S.A.B. de C.V. -- http://www.gruma.com/--
is a publicly held corporation organized under the laws of Mexico
and headquartered in Nuevo Leon.  Gruma is a holding company and
conduct its operations through subsidiaries.  The Company produces
and sells corn flour as an alternative raw material for producing
tortillas.  The Company has diversified its product mix to include
wheat flour in Mexico and Venezuela, and other types of
flatbreads, such as pita, naan, chapatti, pizza bases and piadina,
mainly in Europe, Asia and Oceania.


HEALTHCARE FOOD: Recalls 8 x 260 g Curried Lentil Casserole
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 6, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Extraneous Material
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Healthcare Food Services Inc.
Distribution:             Alberta, Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    8000

Affected products:

Brand name       Common name     Size     Code(s) on product
----------       -----------     ----     ------------------
Healthcare Food  Curried Lentil  8x260 g  Day Codes: 3035, 3045,
Services Inc.    Casserole                3063, 3077, 3084, 3101

UPC: (01) 1 0062373 99596 0


HERBALIFE LTD: Sales Increase Despite Pyramid Scheme Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heide Malhotra, writing for Epoch Times, reports that despite
multiple accusations of running a pyramid scheme, Herbalife Ltd.,
reported in its first quarter 2013 earnings release, Apr. 29, a
17 percent increase in sales over the same period in 2012 and
announced a dividend of $0.30 per share, payable on May 28.

Bill Ackman, hedge fund manager and founder of Pershing Square
Capital Management, has accused Herbalife of running a pyramid
scheme, with supporting documentation published on the Fact About
Herbalife website.

Mr. Ackman began his attack on Herbalife with a detailed
presentation at a Sohn Conference Foundation event Dec. 20, 2012,
which concludes with the accusation of Herbalife being a pyramid
scheme that has hurt "the most vulnerable communities in the U.S.
and around the world."

"Pershing Square believes Herbalife is a pyramid scheme because,
among other reasons, distributors earn more than 10 times as much
from recruitment as they do by selling the company's overpriced
products to bona fide retail customers," said Mr. Ackman in his
presentation.

Herbalife Ltd., is a global nutrition company that sells its
products through a multilevel marketing (MLM) business model
utilizing independent distributors in more than 75 countries.  Its
products are said to help people improve their nutritional intake,
develop healthy skin, and lose weight.

On Dec. 20, Herbalife responded to Mr. Ackman's presentation with
a press release, calling it "a malicious attack on Herbalife's
business model based largely on outdated, distorted, and
inaccurate information."

Mr. Ackman is a noted short seller of Herbalife's stock, which
means he stands to profit from a decline in the share price.

                  Facing Continued Confrontation

In 2012, the Commercial Court in Brussels, Belgium, ruled that
Herbalife runs a pyramid scheme in violation of the act governing
such schemes.  It reasoned that this company pays for bringing in
distributors instead for selling its products.  The company was
fined $6,467 (5,000 euros) for each violation up to a total of
250,000 euros.

On April 8, attorneys for Dana Bostick of California and on behalf
of others filed a class action complaint against Herbalife in the
United States District Court Central District of California,
accusing the company of running an illegal pyramid scheme.

The above "real numbers are in direct contrast to the deceptive
earning claims referenced in Herbalife's promotional materials,
including videos on Herbalife's website, YouTube, and Herbalife
distributor's websites," states the complaint.

On April 29, Pyramid Scheme Alert (PSA), an international
association, sent a detailed open letter of protest to the Direct
Selling Association (DSA) in Washington, D.C., for its defense of
Herbalife.  It asked that DSA justify its support of Herbalife and
explain its statement that a "large number of people" live off
their earnings from that company.

                      Stock Market Reaction

Herbalife's stock initially reacted to Mr. Ackman's accusations by
dropping from $33.70 on Dec. 20, 2012, to $27.27 the next day -- a
19 percent plunge.

However, the company's stock has largely had a reversal of fortune
this year, thanks at least in part to support from two of
Mr. Ackman's fellow billionaires, Daniel Loeb of Third Point
Partners and activist-investor Carl Icahn, both of whom have taken
the opposite position from Mr. Ackman and made considerable bets
in favor of the company.

So far in 2013, Herbalife's stock is up 45 percent, or $14.71, as
of close of trading May 24.  It is rumored that a group of
investors may be accumulating shares with the intention taking the
company private again.

Despite rumors and the recovery of Herbalife's stock, experts
concerning such accusations suggest that since Mr. Ackman was
quite detailed and convincing in his accusations, the future for
Herbalife is still uncertain.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Faces Class Suit by Indirect Purchasers of TiO2
--------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit brought by
purchasers of products made from titanium dioxide, according to
the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a class action civil
antitrust lawsuit filed on March 15, 2013, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California by purchasers of
products made from titanium dioxide (the "Indirect Purchasers")
making essentially the same allegations as the Plaintiffs in the
Direct Purchasers' lawsuit.

The plaintiffs in the Indirect Purchasers' action seek to recover
on behalf of their class injunctive relief, treble damages or the
maximum damages allowed by state law, costs of lawsuit and
attorneys fees.  The Company is not aware of any illegal conduct
by it or any of its employees.  Nevertheless, the Company has
incurred costs relating to these claims and could incur additional
costs in amounts material to the Company.  Because of the overall
complexity of the case, the Company is unable to reasonably
estimate any possible loss or range of loss associated with these
claims and the Company has made no accruals with respect to these
claims.

Headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, Huntsman Corporation is a
global manufacturer of differentiated organic chemical products
and of inorganic chemical products.  The Company's products
comprise a broad range of chemicals and formulations, which the
Company markets globally to a diversified group of consumer and
industrial customers.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Hearing in TiO2 Direct Purchasers Suit on June 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing on Huntsman Corporation's motion for summary judgment in
the consolidated class action lawsuit brought by direct purchasers
of titanium dioxide is scheduled for June 25, 2013, according to
the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

The Company has been named as a defendant in two class action
civil antitrust lawsuits filed on February 9, and 12, 2010, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging that the
Company and its co-defendants and other asserted co-conspirators
conspired to fix prices of titanium dioxide sold in the U.S.
between at least March 1, 2002, and the present.  The lawsuits
were subsequently consolidated.  The other defendants named in
this matter are DuPont, Kronos and Millennium.  On August 28,
2012, the court certified a class consisting of all U.S. customers
who purchased titanium dioxide directly from defendants (the
"Direct Purchasers") since February 1, 2003.  A hearing to
consider the Company's motion for summary judgment is scheduled
for June 25, 2013, and trial is set to begin September 9, 2013.

The plaintiffs in the Direct Purchasers' action seek to recover on
behalf of their class injunctive relief, treble damages or the
maximum damages allowed by state law, costs of lawsuit and
attorneys fees.  The Company is not aware of any illegal conduct
by it or any of its employees.  Nevertheless, the Company has
incurred costs relating to these claims and could incur additional
costs in amounts material to the Company.  Because of the overall
complexity of the case, the Company is unable to reasonably
estimate any possible loss or range of loss associated with these
claims and the Company has made no accruals with respect to these
claims.

Headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, Huntsman Corporation is a
global manufacturer of differentiated organic chemical products
and of inorganic chemical products.  The Company's products
comprise a broad range of chemicals and formulations, which the
Company markets globally to a diversified group of consumer and
industrial customers.


IKEA NORTH: Recalls 231,000 LYDA Jumbo Cups Due to Burn Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
IKEA North America Services LLC, of Conshohocken, Pennsylvania,
announced a voluntary recall of about 11,000 LYDA jumbo cups in
the United States and 220,000 worldwide.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

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

No incidents of injuries have been reported in the United States.
There have been 20 incidents reported worldwide, including 10
scalding injuries.

This recall involves IKEA's LYDA jumbo coffee/tea cups.  The 20-
ounce cups are four inches tall and are white with a pink rose and
green leaves.  Printed on the bottom of the cup is the following
information: Model number 302.033.7; Supplier number 10866; the
IKEA logo; the words "IKEA of Sweden Design and Quality," and
"Made in Thailand."  Picture of the recalled products is available
at: http://is.gd/jcc2Fu

The recalled products were manufactured in Thailand and sold
exclusively at IKEA stores nationwide and on the firm's Web site
at http://www.ikea-usa.com/from August 2012 through April 2013
for about $5.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled LYDA jumbo
cups and return them to any IKEA store for a full refund.  IKEA
may be reached toll-free at (888) 966-4532 anytime or online at
http://www.ikea-usa.com/and click on the recall link on the home
page.


KELLOGG CO: Settles Class Action Over Frosted Mini-Wheats for $4MM
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Kellogg has agreed to pay
$4 million to settle a class-action lawsuit over the marketing
claims it made for Frosted Mini-Wheats.

The company, which also makes Frosted Flakes, Eggo waffles and Pop
Tarts, was sued for saying that the cereal improved children's
attentiveness, memory and other cognitive functions.

Kellogg says in a statement that the ad campaign in question ran
about four years ago and that it has since adjusted its messaging
to incorporate guidelines set by the Federal Trade Commission.
The company, based in Battle Creek, Mich., also noted that is "has
a long history of responsible advertising."

On its website, Kellogg now says that Frosted Mini-Wheats are full
of fiber and that they "fill you up first thing and help keep you
focused all morning."

If approved by the court, the law firm representing consumers says
the settlement will result in cash refunds for up to three boxes
of cereal purchased during the time of the advertising in
question.  People may seek reimbursement of up to $5 per box, with
a maximum of $15 per customer, according to the settlement.

Kellogg Co. said customers can visit www.cerealsettlement.com to
submit a claim for a refund.  The claims are for boxes of Frosted
Mini-Wheats purchased from Jan. 28, 2009 to Oct. 1, 2009.


LATAM AIRLINES: Defends Suits by Workers' Unions vs. Tam Linhas
---------------------------------------------------------------
LATAM Airlines Group S.A. continues to defend a subsidiary against
class action lawsuits brought by workers' unions, according to the
Company's April 30, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

Class Suits Against Tam Linhas Aereas S.A.
------------------------------------------
Court            Case No.     Origin             Stage of Trial
-----            --------     ------             --------------
Labour Ct. of    0000504-    Class action by     Process in the
Porto Alegre.    79.2010.    the Union of        last instance,
                  5.04.0014   Aviation Workers    waiting judgment
                              of Porto Alegre,    of appeal.
                              which requires
                              payment of the bond risk for
                              maintenance employees.

Amount Committed: $5.046 million (Approximate value/Estimated)

Labour Justice   0000728-    Class action by     Process in the
Guarulhos/SP -   47.2010.    the Union of        second instance,
Jurisdiction     5.02.0313   Aviation Workers    awaiting the
of Labor                     of Guarulhos/SP,    judgment of the
Guarulhos.                   which requires      appeal on both
                              payment of risk     parts.
                              bonus for all
                              workers of the base.

Amount Committed: $53.020 million (Approximate value/Estimated)

Labour Justice   0000033-    Class action by     Process in the
Salvador/BA -    78.2011.    the National Union  first instance.
Labor            5.05.0021   of Aviation         Awaiting
Jurisdiction                 workers, which      sentencing.
Salvador/BA.                 requires payment
                              of risk bonus for
                              all employees of
                              the SSA base.

Amount Committed: $13.010 million (Approximate value/Estimated)

In order to deal with any financial obligations arising from legal
proceedings outstanding at December 31, 2012, whether civil, labor
or tax, LATAM Airlines Group S.A., has made provisions, which at
the end of these financial statements, reached the sum of $466.848
million.

The Company says it has not disclosed the individual probability
of success for each contingency in order to not negatively affect
its outcome.

LATAM Airlines Group S.A. -- http://www.latamairlinesgroup.net/--
is a Santiago, Chile-based airline holding company formed by the
merger of LAN Airlines S.A. of Chile and TAM S.A. of Brazil in
2012.  LATAM is primarily involved in the transportation of
passengers and cargo, and operates as one unified, merged business
enterprise with two separate brands: LAN and TAM.


LATAM AIRLINES: Defends Suits Over Price Fixing of Surcharges
-------------------------------------------------------------
LATAM Airlines Group S.A. continues to defend itself and its
subsidiaries against class action lawsuits alleging price fixing
of cargo fuel surcharges, according to the Company's April 30,
2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In February 2006, the European Commission ("EC"), in conjunction
with the Department of Justice of the United States ("DOJ"),
initiated a global investigation of a large number of
international cargo airlines (among them LAN Cargo S.A., a Company
subsidiary) for possible price fixing of cargo fuel surcharges and
other fees in the European and United States air cargo markets.
On December 26, 2007, the European competition authorities
notified LAN Cargo and LATAM of the initiation of proceedings
against twenty-five cargo airlines, among them LAN Cargo, for
allegations of anti-competitive behavior in the airfreight
business.

On January 21, 2009, LAN Cargo announced that it had reached a
plea agreement with the DOJ in relation to the DOJ's ongoing
investigation regarding price fixing of fuel surcharges and other
fees for cargo shipments.  Under the plea agreement, LAN Cargo
agreed to pay a fine of $88 million.  In addition, Aerolinhas
Brasileiras S.A. ("ABSA") also reached a plea agreement with the
DOJ and agreed to pay a fine of $21 million.  These amounts were
stipulated to be paid over a five-year payment schedule starting
in 2009.  As of December 31, 2012, the pending amount to be paid
during the next two years is approximately $22 million and has
been recorded within "Other Accounts Payable."

On November 9, 2010, the EC imposed fines on 11 air carriers for a
total amount of EUR800 million (equivalent to approximately $1.1
billion).  The fine imposed against LAN Cargo and its parent
company, LAN Airlines S.A. ("LAN"), totaled EUR8.2 million
(equivalent to approximately $10.9 million).  The Company
provisioned $25 million during the fourth quarter of 2007 for such
fines, and maintained this provision until the fine was imposed in
2010.  In 2010, the Company recorded a $14.1 million gain (pre-
tax) from the reversal of a portion of this provision.  This was
the lowest fine applied by the EC, which includes a significant
reduction due to the Company's cooperation with the Commission
during the course of the investigation.  In accordance with
European Union law, on January 24, 2011, this administrative
decision was appealed by LAN Cargo and LAN to the General Court in
Luxembourg.  Any judgment by the General Court may also be
appealed to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The investigation by the DOJ prompted the filing of numerous civil
class actions by freight forwarding and shipping companies against
many airlines, including LAN Cargo and LATAM Airlines Group,
including fifty-four in the United States.  The cases filed in the
United States were consolidated in the United States District
Court, Eastern District of New York and the original complaint was
subsequently amended to include additional airlines, including
ABSA.  On May 11, 2011, LAN Cargo announced that it had reached a
settlement agreement with the class action plaintiffs in relation
to this litigation.  As per the settlement agreement, LAN Cargo
agreed to pay $59.7 million.  Furthermore, ABSA also reached a
settlement agreement with class action plaintiffs and agreed to
pay $6.3 million.  The amounts were paid to the plaintiffs'
counsel escrow account in 2011.  DHL, a former member of the civil
class action plaintiffs, timely opted out of the settlements
agreement.  LAN Cargo recently reached a settlement agreement with
StarBroker A.G., on behalf of DHL Global Forwarding, whereby LAN
Cargo agreed to pay $8.2 million, of which $7.1 million shall be
recovered by LAN Cargo from the escrow amount set aside in the
class action settlement previously paid by LAN Cargo for opt out
plaintiffs.

The Canadian Competition Bureau ("CCB"), in conjunction with the
DOJ, also initiated a global investigation of a large number of
international cargo airlines (among them LAN Cargo) for possible
price fixing of cargo fuel surcharges and other fees in the
Canadian air cargo markets in 2006.  The CCB's investigation
prompted the filing of four separate civil class actions by
freight forwarding and shipping companies against many airlines,
including LAN Cargo and LAN, in Canada.  On January 31, 2012, LAN
and LAN Cargo approved a settlement agreement with the class
actions plaintiffs for an amount of CAD$700,000 (Canadian
Dollars), which is pending court approval.

On April 5, 2008, Brazilian authorities notified ABSA of the
initiation of administrative proceedings before the Conselho
Administrativo de Defesa Economica (the Brazilian Antitrust
Authority) against several cargo airlines and airline officers,
among them ABSA, for allegations of anticompetitive practices
regarding fuel surcharges in the air cargo business.  Given the
current stage of the proceedings, it is not possible at this time
to anticipate with any precision the outcome of this matter,
although it is expected to be a lengthy process.

LATAM Airlines Group S.A. -- http://www.latamairlinesgroup.net/--
is a Santiago, Chile-based airline holding company formed by the
merger of LAN Airlines S.A. of Chile and TAM S.A. of Brazil in
2012.  LATAM is primarily involved in the transportation of
passengers and cargo, and operates as one unified, merged business
enterprise with two separate brands: LAN and TAM.


LATAM AIRLINES: TAM Linhas Defends Suit Over 1996 Plane Crash
-------------------------------------------------------------
LATAM Airlines Group S.A.'s subsidiary is defending itself against
lawsuits arising from an October 1996 plane crash, according to
the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

TAM Linhas Aereas S.A. is party to three actions filed by
relatives of victims of an accident that occurred in October 1996
involving one of its Fokker 100 aircraft, which crashed during
departure, in addition to 27 actions filed by residents of the
region of where the accident occurred, who are claiming pain and
suffering, and a class action related to this crash.  Any damages
resulting from the aforementioned legal claims are covered by the
civil liability guarantee provided for in TAM's insurance policy
with ItauUnibancoSeguros S.A.  The Company believes that the cap
of $400 million in that insurance policy is sufficient to cover
any potential penalties and judicial or extrajudicial agreements
arising as a result of this matter.

LATAM Airlines Group S.A. -- http://www.latamairlinesgroup.net/--
is a Santiago, Chile-based airline holding company formed by the
merger of LAN Airlines S.A. of Chile and TAM S.A. of Brazil in
2012.  LATAM is primarily involved in the transportation of
passengers and cargo, and operates as one unified, merged business
enterprise with two separate brands: LAN and TAM.


LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls Joe Fresh Children's Short Sleepers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 6, 2013
Posting date:             June 6, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products, Clothing and
                          Accessories
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-33859

Affected products: Joe Fresh Children's Short Sleeper

This recall involves the Joe Fresh Children's Short Sleeper, style
number BGU3SL3813.  The sleeper has short sleeves and comes in a
pink heart print and a purple floral print.  The UPC for each size
are:

            Sleepers affected by this recall
   ------------------------------------------------
   Print                   Size             UPC
   -----                   ----        ------------
   Pink Heart Print        0-3M        057846349671
   Pink Heart Print        3-6M        057846349688
   Pink Heart Print        6-12M       057846349695
   Pink Heart Print        12-18M      057846349701
   Pink Heart Print        18-24M      057846349718
   Purple Floral Print     0-3M        057846385402
   Purple Floral Print     3-6M        057846385433
   Purple Floral Print     6-12M       057846385440
   Purple Floral Print     12-18M      057846385419
   Purple Floral Print     18-24M      057846385426

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

There is a potential that the snaps on the sleepwear could come
loose, posing a choking hazard.

Loblaw Companies Limited has received one report of the snaps
detaching from the garment after overnight wear.  No injury was
incurred.

Health Canada has not received any reports of incidents or
injuries related to the use of this sleepwear.

Approximately 9800 of the recalled sleepers were sold across
Canada at various Loblaw banner stores selling Joe Fresh apparel.

The recalled sleepers were sold from March 2013 to May 2013.

The recalled products were manufactured in China.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Sammart Fashion Co., Ltd.
                    Kwai Chung
                    HONG KONG

   Importer         Loblaw Companies Ltd.

Consumers should stop using the recalled sleepers immediately and
return them to any Loblaw banner store where Joe Fresh apparel is
sold.  The customer service desk will provide a full refund (even
without a receipt).

For more information, consumers may contact Loblaw Companies
Limited customer service at 1-800-296-2332 or by email.


MACMILLAN GROUP: CEO Testifies in E-Book Price-Fixing Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hillel Italie, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Macmillan CEO John Sargent, who testified this week at a trial
over alleged price-fixing of e-books, was no one's idea of a
friendly witness.

Of the five publishers the U.S. Justice Department sued last year,
Macmillan was the last to settle and the most defiant.  The
government alleged that Macmillan, HarperCollins, Simon &
Schuster, Penguin Group (USA) and Hachette Book Group illegally
conspired to raise wholesale prices in an effort to help Apple
make headway against Amazon in the e-books market.  Speaking last
month at BookExpo America, the publishing industry's annual
convention, Mr. Sargent labeled the government's view of the
e-market as "extraordinarily myopic."

"They carried the water for Amazon, when it had 92 percent of the
market," he said, criticizing the justice department for caring
more about price than a possible monopoly.  "The senior guys,
(Attorney General) Eric Holder, are just incompetent."

Apple is the only defendant left in the antitrust suit, filed in
response to the 2010 launch of the iBookstore and a new "agency"
pricing system.  Publishers, who had worried that Amazon's pricing
of some new e-book releases at $9.99 was crippling to the
industry, welcomed the arrival of Apple and an "agency" model that
allowed publishers, not retailers, to set the cost of e-books.
Many new releases were sold for $12.99 or $14.99, a change the
government has cited as unfair to consumers.

Apple has insisted that its entrance into the e-book market
improved the online book industry and stabilized prices for the
long term.

Mr. Sargent, 56, has said he only settled because Macmillan, owned
by the German-based Holtzbrinck Publishers, was "not large enough
to risk a worst-case judgment," an opinion he clearly still held
on the stand.  Whether under direct or cross testimony in U.S.
District Court on Monday and Tuesday, the lean, graying
Mr. Sargent changed neither his posture nor manner of speaking.
His dark, deep-set eyes stared right at the questioning attorney,
his head was erect, chin upturned, his answers crisp and often
terse.

"What I'm doing here is negotiating," he said in response to
questions from Justice Department lawyer Mark Ryan about exchanges
he had with Apple over contract terms.

Mr. Sargent is seasoned in conflict.  In January 2010, soon before
Apple announced its e-book store, Mr. Sargent became the point man
in the publishers' dispute with Amazon when the online retailer
disabled the "buy" tabs for releases by Bill O'Reilly, Jonathan
Franzen and other Macmillan authors.

Mr. Sargent said that he had proposed that Amazon either accept
the agency model or face a "window" of seven months before new
e-books would become available -- a policy that had become common
among publishers in 2009 because of fears that cheap e-books of
new releases were harming the hardcover market.  The standoff
ended after a few days with Amazon agreeing to the agency system.

Mr. Sargent acknowledged that his initial discussions with Amazon
did not "go well" and that having four other major publishers sign
with Apple would strengthen Macmillan's position in negotiations.
But he resisted suggestions by Justice Department lawyer Mark Ryan
that he had forced Amazon to adopt the agency system.  When Mr.
Mr. Ryan suggested that Apple pressured Mr. Sargent into making
Amazon accept agency, the Macmillan CEO said that such a scenario
was "completely alien" to him.

Mr. Sargent also denied that he consulted with Apple on his
negotiations with Amazon. He said that the practice of telling one
client about his talks with a rival client was bad business and
bad ethics, if only because an executive for one retailer might
take a job with another retailer and reveal what Sargent had said.

"There's no trust left (if that happens)," Mr. Sargent explained.

The rise of e-books is the trial's backdrop, from Amazon's
introduction of the Kindle reading device in 2007, to the
explosive growth of digital sales in 2008 and 2009.  All the
while, publishers' feared that Amazon was dominating the market
and selling books at unsustainable prices.

Both Mr. Ryan and Apple attorney Orin Snyder noted a Macmillan
strategic memo from 2009 that referred to the e-book market as
"fluid" and to the likely emergence of Barnes & Noble, Google and
other new competitors.  Asked by Mr. Ryan whether the memo
contradicted Mr. Sargent's pre-trial testimony that Amazon was
consolidating its hold, Sargent said it didn't.  He called Barnes
& Noble's entry a question mark because the superstore chain had
no experience designing electronic devices. Sony, an early maker
of e-readers, was "clearly failing."  And Google, he said, has
never showed a knack for retail.

"They're very good at running search engines," Mr. Sargent said.

With publishers accused of collusion on prices, Mr. Sargent found
himself discussing the shifting relationships among rival houses.
They might fight to sign up a given author, or juggle release
schedules of popular books in hopes of gaining a coveted No. 1
spot on one of the New York Times' best-seller lists.  At other
times, they are business partners with common goals, whether
fighting piracy or censorship.

Overall, publishers do not view the market as a zero sum game in
which the purchase of a Macmillan book comes at the expense of one
from Simon & Schuster or Random House.  They are more likely to
see a sale for one publisher as helpful to others, what economists
might call a "multiplier effect." Just as reading often begets
more reading, the sale of a book, hopefully, leads to the sale of
more books.

Referring to Amazon's disabling of the "buy" tabs in 2010, Mr.
Ryan asked Mr. Sargent whether he was worried a customer who might
have bought a Macmillan book would instead buy one from a
different publisher.

No, Mr. Sargent responded, he worried only that the customer
didn't buy a Macmillan book.


MEILLEURES MARQUES: Recalls St-Hubert Brand Chicken Chowder
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 5, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Meilleures Marques Limitee
Distribution:             Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8059

Affected products:

Brand name    Common name        Size     Code(s) on product
----------    -----------        ----     ------------------
St-Hubert     Chicken Chowder    540 ml   BB/MA 2015 AL 19
                                           EST 142 214 12 110
UPC: 0 66701 00408 2


PACCAR: Recalls 17 T440 2013 and 2014 Models of KENWORTH Trucks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:               June 7, 2013
Type of communication:       Recall
Subcategory:                 Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:           Safety Mfr
System:                      Other
Units affected:              17
Source of recall:            Transport Canada
Identification number:       2013202
TC ID number:                2013202
Manufacturer recall number:  13KWG

On certain trucks, the slip-resistant surface of the cab access
step is not aligned with the cab door opening.  This could allow
the user to slip and fall from the vehicle, which may result in
personal injury.  Correction: Dealers will replace the step
assembly.

Affected products:

            Makes and models affected
   --------------------------------------------
   Make        Model     Model year(s) affected
   ----        -----     ----------------------
   KENWORTH    T440      2013, 2014


PET VALU: Ontario Court of Appeal Upholds Opt-Out Process
---------------------------------------------------------
Kirk Baert, writing for The Canadian Lawyer, reports that in May,
the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the validity of a class action
opt-out process in which a group of class members engaged in a
concerted attempt to pressure other class members to opt out of
the action through the use of misinformation and pressure.

Section 9 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 permits class members
to opt out of a class proceeding during a finite period after
certification of an action in a manner specifically set out in the
court-approved notice.  It is left to the courts to police the
conduct of the class during the opt-out period in order to ensure
class members are free to exercise their right to participate in
or abstain from the class action on an informed, voluntary basis,
free from undue influence.  Judicial intervention in the opt-out
process is necessary where defendants, class members, or other
persons engage in misinformation, threats, intimidation, or
coercion and the integrity of the process becomes compromised.

1250264 Ontario Inc. v. Pet Valu Canada Inc. concerned an appeal
from an order made by the court addressing the validity of the
opt-out process in a certified class proceeding.  The action was
brought on behalf of franchisees of the Pet Valu chain who claimed
Pet Valu had a duty to share with its franchisees the volume
discounts and rebates it received from suppliers.  Communication
with class members became an extremely contentious subject in this
action and by order of the court, neither side was permitted to
communicate with the class without court approval.

Following the certification of the action, a group of franchisees
who did not want to participate in the class action began to wage
a concerted campaign to convince other franchisees to opt out.
The franchisees waging the opt-out campaign conducted a telephone
blitz, calling every franchisee to encourage them to opt out, and
launching a web site voicing strong opposition to the class
action.  The result of this campaign was dramatic: 65 per cent of
current franchisees and 10 per cent of former franchisees opted
out of the class action, drastically reducing the size of the
class but not gutting it.

In response to the opt-out war waged by the dissident franchisees,
the representative plaintiff moved to set aside certain opt-out
notices.  The motions judge identified many specific concerns with
the information published on a web site, finding it both
misleading and intimidating. Given the representative plaintiff
was not permitted to communicate with other class members to
correct this misleading information, it was reasonable to seek the
court's directions.

The motion judge found this behavior constituted a well-organized,
systematic, and highly effective campaign to deal a "death blow"
to the class action.  Recognizing the impropriety of this conduct,
the motion judge granted the motion in part by invalidating any
opt-out notices received following the campaign and provided for a
new opt-out period to take place following the final disposition
of the action.

On appeal, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the order
invalidating the opt-out notices.  The Court of Appeal recognized
that class members ought to participate in or abstain from a class
action on an informed, voluntary basis, free from undue influence.
In this case, the court found this particular opt-out campaign did
not cross the line.  The court made that other cases, arising on
different facts, and on a different record, may raise different
considerations.

For example, in 1176560 Ontario Ltd. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific
Co. of Canada Ltd., the court held that an opt-out war has the
potential to frustrate an important goal of the Class Proceedings
Act, namely, access to justice.  In that case, the defendant
franchisor used various techniques to attempt to scare off class
members. The court recognized in Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. that
class actions, by their nature, can overcome economic barriers to
redress by aggregating individual claims.

Given the high cost of class action litigation, where the size of
a class is dramatically reduced through defense coercion and
intimidation, the entire calculus of the viability of the action
comes into question.  Moreover, significant time and expense will
be required to combat the tactics used in the opt-out campaign
maintained by a well-financed defendant.

In Great Atlantic & Pacific Co., the court used s. 12 of the act
to nullify the inappropriate steps the defendant had taken to
"gut" the class action. In Pet Valu, the Court of Appeal confirmed
that case-management judges do indeed have such powers and that
they should exercise those powers in clear cases and on a clear
record.

More importantly, in Pet Valu, the Court of Appeal also confirmed
that certification is not, and should not, be turned into a poll
on the class actions.  Accordingly, evidence going to whether
class members do or do not favor the class action will almost
always be irrelevant at the certification stage.


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Lawyers File Motion to Reopen 1986 Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that
more than a quarter-century may have passed since the case of Y.S.
v. School District of Philadelphia first made its way into the
courts, but as lawyers representing similar present-day plaintiffs
tell it, not much has changed in the district's policies regarding
foreign-language students.

Attorneys from Drinker Biddle & Reath and the Public Interest Law
Center of Philadelphia recently announced that they have filed a
motion to reopen the class action dating back to 1986, litigation
that was initiated by a then-teenage high-schooler from Cambodia
who claimed he was misidentified as needing special education
services because of the fact that school district officials failed
to communicate with him in his native tongue.

The 16-year-old, identified as "Y.S." in the original complaint,
was labeled as "mentally retarded," and placed in isolation in a
special education classroom where he fell even further behind
academically, according to the Public Interest Law Center of
Philadelphia, which filed to reopen the case in late April.

The plaintiff's school at the time failed to provide translation
or interpretation services to the boy's parents, who also did not
speak English, during his evaluation and placement process,
according to the Public Interest Law Center.

The attorneys stated that they had no choice but to seek to reopen
the case since the school district has allegedly failed to meet
the requirements of a 2010 stipulation amendment arising out of
the original litigation in which the district would provide
translation and interpretation services during IEP meetings and in
special education documents, according to the Law Center.

The term IEP stands for Individualized Education Program, which is
something that all teachers of students with special needs must
prepare in concert with a student's parents to address an
individual student's academic goals.

"Y.S. and his family are just one of thousands of families in
Philadelphia who have been discriminated against by the District's
failure to systematically address communication issues with non-
English-speaking students and their families," the Law Center's
attorneys stated in announcing their desire to reopen the 1986
case.  "In spite of years of compliance monitoring and
intervention, the District has persisted in its failure to provide
the language support services mandated by federal law and mandates
that came out of the original case."

The original complaint, filed at the federal court in Philadelphia
in late August 1986 by Education Law Center attorneys Leonard
Rieser and Janet F. Stotland, alleged that the Philadelphia School
District "failed to take sufficient steps to address the problems
resulting from these students' and parents' limited proficiency in
English," and as a result left the students without adequate
services in areas including school counseling, English language
and/or bilingual instruction, and special education.

The plaintiff, "Y.S.," brought suit on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated. The case was eventually given class
certification by a federal judge.

The initial complaint accused the district of violating the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights
Act, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, and various state
statutes.

In their May 13 memorandum in support of their motion to reopen
the case, the attorneys -- they include Sonja Kerr and Michael
Churchill of the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, Maura
McInerney of the Education Law Center, and Paul H. Saint-Antoine
and Chanda A. Miller of Drinker Biddle & Reath -- wrote that the
plaintiffs in the original lawsuit received only minimal English
as a Second Language instruction each school day, and as a result,
students with limited English proficiency fell "significantly
behind their native-English speaking peers in their educational
progress."

The issue was even more pronounced in students with special needs,
the lawyers wrote, "because the District's lack of interpretation
and translation services meant that the family members could not
effectively participate in their child's education," something
that is required by law.

Throughout the course of the litigation, the attorneys wrote in
their memorandum, various remedial orders and stipulations were
entered to address the claims, and on Feb. 18, 2009, in an effort
to bring a closure to the litigation's remedial process, the
parties entered into a stipulation dealing with the district's
English as a Second Language program, an amended stipulation of
which was entered in October 2010, the record shows.

Now, the plaintiffs' attorneys are claiming that the district has
failed to comply with the stipulation, which included things like
requiring the district to provide specific services to class
members.

The amended stipulation also obligates the district to provide
"promptly, upon Plaintiffs' counsel's request, all documents
generated or maintained in connection with the implementation of
Amended Stipulation," the memorandum reads.

The attorneys are now alleging that since the spring of 2011,
advocates who regularly attend IEP team meetings for district
students have reported that parents of students with IEPs are
being denied equal access to the IEP team process."

The lawyers claim that despite attempts during the past two years
to obtain information and documents relating to the district's
compliance with the stipulation, the district has "failed to
cooperate in any meaningful way, as outlined by the history of the
parties' communications over the course of the last two years."

In a four-page response filed on May 16, attorney Miles H. Shore,
who represents the district, requested that the court deny the
plaintiffs' attorneys motion to reopen the case, writing that
"attorneys should not pursue education reform by civil litigation
unless they currently represent clients who have standing to
pursue the claims."

"The named plaintiffs may no longer have standing as class
representatives to pursue enforcement of claims against the School
District," Ms. Shore wrote.  "The School District does not know if
the named plaintiffs are alive and well and whether they are
currently represented by the attorneys who entered their
appearances for them."

Ms. Shore also wrote that the district is requesting that the
court order the plaintiffs' attorneys to produce current
authorizations, powers of attorney, engagement letters or fee
agreements signed by the named plaintiffs in the 1986 case or
their parents, authorizing the lawyers to represent the clients in
this case.

Ms. Shore also noted that, due to the district's current
"severely-distressed financial condition," and the fact that major
changes have taken place in the governance and management of the
district since the amended stipulation was agreed to in 2010, the
district is now considering to move to vacate the stipulation.


PHILLIPS AGENCY: Fisher & Phillips Discusses Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Andria L. Ryan, Esq., at Fisher & Phillips LLP, reports that in
Farmer v. The Phillips Agency, the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia denied a plaintiff's motion to
certify a class action, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
consisting of all individuals who had been the subject of an
adverse criminal-background report, whether accurate or
inaccurate, generated by defendant The Phillips Agency.  In doing
so, the Northern District of Georgia became the first court to
explicitly state that a plaintiff bringing claims under the FCRA
must establish that the underlying consumer report was not
"complete and up to date."

The defendant, The Phillips Agency, is a small, family-owned
consumer reporting agency.  It has an impressive record for
accuracy -- over a five-year period, The Phillips Agency generated
nearly 15,000 consumer reports that contained some adverse
information, ranging from serious felony convictions to minor
traffic and other summary infractions.  During the same period,
the agency received just four consumer disputes, and each of these
was promptly resolved.

In December 2010, plaintiff Cynthia Gale Hamilton Farmer's
employer engaged the agency to conduct a criminal background
search on her for employment purposes.  The search disclosed three
"possible" matches, including one individual with the same first
and maiden name as the plaintiff.  That individual had been
convicted of two felonies and one misdemeanor.  The Phillips
Agency followed its established quality-control procedures to
ensure that the information was complete and up to date, and
released the "possible match" report to Farmer's employer.  The
employer notified Farmer of the adverse information and Farmer
ultimately resolved the matter with her employer and suffered no
loss of pay.

Despite this resolution, Ms. Farmer filed a putative class action
against The Phillips Agency under the FCRA.  Ms. Farmer sought
$1,000 for every individual who in the past five years had been
the subject of a consumer report that contained any adverse
criminal or public-record information -- which would have been
some number less than the 15,000 adverse reports generated during
that time.  Ms. Farmer sought to certify an expansive class that
included individuals who had been the subject of adverse reports
involving matters including bankruptcies, civil judgments or tax
liens, as well as criminal reports.  She also sought to include
individuals who had been the subject of accurate consumer reports
and made no attempt to limit her class to people who had been the
subject of inaccurate consumer reports.

In a decision of first impression, the court rejected the
plaintiff's argument, holding that the FCRA section required a
threshold showing of "inaccuracy."  The court first looked to the
statute's text.  According to the court, the very fact that the
statute included language establishing a standard for when a
consumer report is "complete and up to date" suggested that the
consumer report must be inaccurate to establish a cause of action.

The court's decision not only clarifies the essential elements of
a cause of action under the FCRA section, it makes it considerably
more difficult for plaintiffs to certify class actions under the
provision.  Whereas plaintiffs previously relied on the supposed
uniformity of a consumer reporting agency's procedures alone to
satisfy Rule 23, they can no longer do so.  Under Farmer, the
parties must instead conduct "a highly individualized inquiry into
the content of each consumer's report in order to determine if the
adverse information is complete and up to date."  In nearly every
instance, this will prevent plaintiffs from satisfying the
typicality and predominance requirements necessary to certify a
class under Rule 23.

The effects of the Farmer decision likely will be felt well
outside the Northern District of Georgia and, in the absence of
any contrary authority, restrict plaintiffs' ability to maintain
class action lawsuits under Section 1681k of the FCRA.


PHILIPS LIGHTING: Recalls 8,100 Metal Halide Lamps Over Fire Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Philips Lighting Company, of Bath, New York, announced a voluntary
recall of about 8,100 Metal Halide Lamps.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The internal wiring can arc causing the lamp to catch fire or the
glass to shatter.  This poses fire and laceration hazards.

Philips has received one report of a failure that damaged a lamp.
The Company has received no reports of injury or property damage.

The recalled items are egg-shaped, clear glass, 150-watt
industrial metal halide lamps.  They are about five inches long
and have a medium base.  Recalled lamps were manufactured between
November 2012 and March 2013.  "Philips," "150W" "ALTO M142/0,"
"Hg," "USA 3A-1" and "MHC150/U/MP/4K" are stamped on the lamp.
Each lamp comes in a protective cardboard sleeve.  The Philips
logo appears at the top of the protective sleeve on all sides.
"MasterColor," "Ceramic Metal Halide ED-17 Protected," "Hg - Lamp
Contains Mercury" are on the side of the sleeve.  "MHC150/U/MP/4K
ALTO" and Universal Product Code (UPC) "46677 37724" are on a
label on the side of the sleeve.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at: http://is.gd/x3LUSM

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of
America and sold at professional electrical wholesale supply
distributors for use by industrial and commercial property owners
from November 2012 to April 2013 for about $20.  The lamps have
been installed in retail stores and recreational facilities.

Consumers should immediately stop using the lamps and contact
Philips for a full refund or a replacement.  Philips will issue a
refund as a credit to all distributors with recalled lamps in
their inventories and will replace recalled lamps that have been
installed at no cost to the consumer.  Philips Lighting Company
may be reached at (800) 372-3331, from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Central Time Monday through Friday, at e-mail
qualityadvisory2013@philips.com, or online at
http://www.philips.com/recall/for more information.


PILOT FLYING J: Seeks Dismissal of Suit on Technical Grounds
------------------------------------------------------------
Walter F. Roche Jr., writing for The Tennessean, reports that a
Mississippi trucker has joined 10 others and filed a class action
suit against Pilot Flying J in federal court charging fraud and
deceptive sales practices based on allegations in an affidavit
filed by an FBI agent.

The suit -- filed on May 24 in Jackson, Miss. -- charges that
Pilot secretly reduced rebates that had been promised to Mike
Campbell by Pilot sales executives.  It states that he has been a
Pilot customer since Jan. 1, 2005.

The suit, like others filed in state and federal courts, bases the
charges on an affidavit filed in U.S. District Court in Knoxville
following an April 15 raid on Pilot's Knoxville headquarters by
FBI and IRS agents.

The affidavit, which was attached to Mr. Campbell's suit, quotes
from the transcripts of secretly taped meetings of Pilot sales
executives in which they discussed the scheme to secretly reduce
the rebates promised to truckers who they thought would not
notice.

"Defendants knowingly engaged in the deceptive practices, which
constitute unfair and deceptive conduct in trade or commerce," the
22-page complaint states.

The suit charges that the amount owed to the truckers exceeds
$5 million.

James A. Haslam III, Pilot's chief executive officer, has denied
any knowledge of the rebate-skimming scheme and has vowed to repay
with interest any amounts owed to the trucking firms.

The suit is similar to ones filed by truckers in Florida, Georgia,
Arkansas and Alabama.  A suit filed in circuit court in Knoxville
was originally filed by a Georgia trucking firm and it has now
been joined by three other trucking firms.

Lawyers for Pilot have asked that the latest amended complaint in
that case be thrown out on technical grounds.


RIPLEY SCHOOL: Faces Class Action Over Plan to Transfer Students
----------------------------------------------------------------
WIVB.com reports that dozens of parents are filing a class-action
lawsuit against a school district in Chautauqua County.  They're
fighting to block a plan that will send more than a hundred
students to a different high school.

Come September, Ripley High School students will be sent to a
different school.  The community recently voted to send grades
7-12 to Chautauqua Lake, effectively closing Ripley High School.

Wanda Bentley believes she and other neighbors have been deceived.

"They were told it would be a 20-minute bus ride, now it's turned
into an hour.  They were told they'd get huge tax savings, now the
board president says we'll be lucky if we break even," Wanda
Bentley said.

She is part of a group bringing a class-action lawsuit against the
Ripley School District.  The group is looking to nullify the
contract signed by board president Bob Bentley this past April.
She claims some voters were disenfranchised.

"The main goal here is to look out for the students in the school
who are not given a fair chance to stay in their district because
of, how do I want to say it, deceit on behalf of the school
board," Wanda Bentley said.

This lawsuit also seeks to remove Bob Bentley and three others
from the school board, claiming election law violations.

Steven Cohen is representing Wanda Bentley and her group.

"Because of funneling of funds away from the high school, it was
able to go into receivers of money that we believe benefited Mr.
Bentley and other board members," Mr. Cohen said.

The contract explains, the Ripley School District would pay
Chautauqua Lake about $7,000, per student, through 2015.  But the
contract expires in 2018, and fees still have to be worked out for
the following three years.

It could all be voided if school districts are consolidated or a
regional high school is built.

The lawsuit is expected to play out in the months to come.


SEARS CORP: Supreme Court to Weigh on Washer Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Times reports that the final weeks of a Supreme
Court's term tend to be the most provocative.  Hotly debated
issues can take the longest to decide.  When the court meets in
conference on May 30, it should exploit another opportunity to
crack down on greedy class-action trial lawyers.

In March, the justices decided by a vote of 5 to 4 to restrain the
ability of lawyers to sue in the name of a large group of people
who may or may not want to participate in a lawsuit.  Winning
lawyers often pocket millions from their slice of the judgment,
and "victims" walk away with a few dollars and a discount coupon.

The court has this second chance to strike a blow against jackpot
justice by agreeing to hear Sears v. Butler, the second case of
smelly washing machines to make its way to the Supreme Court.

Consumers who can't or won't read the manufacturer's instructions
before using Whirlpool washing machines can in rare circumstances
detect a moldy odor.  Once trial lawyers learned this, they set
out to find clients, dreaming of fat settlements.  They obtained
certification for class action from judges in the 6th and 7th U.S.
Circuit Courts of Appeals.

Taking the issue to court often has little to do with resolving an
actual problem.  The lawyer for Sears, Timothy Bishop, argued that
the moldy scent is rare.  "There's no class here," says Mr.
Bishop.  "Fewer than 3 percent of buyers noticed a musty smell in
the first five years of machine ownership.  But the manufacturer's
warranty is explicitly designed to address those cases and any
others in which consumer products unexpectedly malfunction."

Judge Richard A. Posner of the 7th Circuit nevertheless ruled that
it was more convenient to consider the lawsuits all at once.  Only
a small number of consumers were actually affected, but everyone
within a certain geographic area who owned one of the machines was
drawn into the suit, like it or not.  In granting class-action
certification, Judge Posner ignored the Supreme Court's guidance
on class certification, which was handed down in a 2011 sex-
discrimination case against Wal-Mart.  Justice Antonin Scalia
warned in that lawsuit that parties to class actions "must be
prepared to prove that there are in fact . . . common questions of
law or fact."

Judge Posner said it was "a question of efficiency" to certify,
with the common issue being whether the machines were defective,
leaving the facts of the defect to be determined during the trial.

The Supreme Court should weigh in on this crucial point, the point
about leverage.  Once a trial lawyer gets class certification, his
ability to extract a large settlement increases manyfold.  Given
the risk of losing such a suit, manufacturers choose to settle and
pay huge sums to make the case go away.

The high court should raise the bar for class certification.
Otherwise, manufacturers will continue to settle when they
shouldn't, the price of appliances will increase, and only greed
wins.  That's what stinks.


SEQUEL NATURALS: Recalls Vega(R) Bars Due to Undeclared Milk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 6, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Sequel Naturals Ltd.
Distribution:             National

The public warning issued on May 25, 2013, has been updated to
include additional products.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Sequel Naturals
Ltd. are warning people with allergies to milk not to consume the
Vega(R) brand bars.  The affected products may contain milk which
is not declared on the label.

There has been one reported allergic reaction.

Consumption of these products may cause a serious or life-
threatening reaction in persons with allergies to milk.

The distributor, Sequel Naturals Ltd., Burnaby, BC, is voluntarily
recalling the affected products from the marketplace.  The CFIA is
monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.

Affected products:

Brand name    Common name          Size   Code(s) on product
----------    -----------          ----   ------------------
Vega(R)       Sport Protein Bar    60 g   From 12100-C to 13037C
               Chocolate Coconut

UPC: 8 38766 10830 8
Best By date: From 10-MAY-13 to 06-MAR-14

Vega(R)       Sport Protein Bar    60 g   From 12095-C to 13038C
               Chocolate Saviseed

UPC: 8 38766 10831 5
Best By date: From 01-MAY-13 to 07-MAR-14

Vega(R)       Sport Endurance Bar  50 g   From 12184 C to 12327C
               Acai Berry

UPC: 8 38766 10731 8
Best By date: From 01-AUG-13 to 01-DEC-13

Vega(R)       Sport Endurance Bar  50 g   12185C, 12217C,
               Mocha                       12328C, 13064C, 22273C

UPC: 8 38766 10730 1
Best By date: 01-AUG-13, 01-SEP-13, 01-OCT-13, 01-DEC-13,
               01-APR-13

Vega(R)       One Bar All-in-one   63 g   13026C
               nutrition Double
               Chocolate

UPC: 8 38766 17003 9
Best By date: 26-FEB-14

Vega(R)       One Bar All-in-one   63 g   13028C, 13095C
               nutrition Chocolate
               Almond

UPC: 8 38766 17004 6
Best By date: 28-FEB-14, 04-MAY-14

Vega(R)       One Bar All-in-one   63 g   13032C, 13071C
               nutrition Chocolate
               Cherry

UPC: 8 38766 17005 3
Best By date: 01-MAR-14, 07-APR-14

Vega(R)       Vibrancy Bar Berry   50 g   From 12182 C to 13153C
               Bliss

UPC: 8 38766 14001 8
Best By date: From 01-JUL-13 to 01-JUL-14

Vega(R)       Vibrancy Bar         50 g   From 12180 C to 13053C
               Wholesome Original

UPC: 8 38766 14006 3
Best By date: From 01-JUL-13 to 01-MAR-14

Vega(R)       Whole Food Energy    63 g   From 22141 to 22321
               Bar Berry Flavour

UPC: 8 38766 00582 9
Best By date: From 01-JUN-13 to 01-DEC-13

Vega(R)       Whole Food Energy    63 g   From 22322 to 32271
               Bar Chocolate
               Flavour

UPC: 8 38766 00581 2
Best By date: From 01-JUN-13 to 01-DEC-13

Vega(R)       Whole Food Energy    63 g   From 12141 to 22320
               Bar Natural Flavor

UPC: 8 38766 00583 6
Best By date: From 01-JUN-13 to 01-DEC-13

Vega(R)       Whole Food Vibrancy  50 g   32139
               Bar Chocolate
               Decadence

UPC: 8 38766 00550 8
Best By date: 01-JUN-13

Vega(R)       Whole Food Vibrancy  50 g   42139
               Bar Green Synergy

UPC: 8 38766 00551 5
Best By date: 01-JUN-13

Vega(R)       Whole food Vibrancy  50 g   22139
               Bar Wholesome
               Original

UPC: 8 38766 00552 2
Best By date: 01-JUN-13

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/i3CHHl


TGI FRIDAY'S: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports
that a putative consumer fraud class action accuses 13 T.G.I.
Friday's restaurants in New Jersey of selling cheap liquor
masquerading as high-end brands like Grey Goose Vodka and Cuervo
Gold Tequila and charging premium prices.

The suit, Pasieka v. Briad Restaurant Group, MER-L-1151-13, was
filed in Mercer County Superior Court on May 24, two days after
the state Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control raided 29
establishments in the culmination of a year-long investigation
dubbed "Operation Swill."

Plaintiffs Kristi Pasieka and Nicole Ruglio, of Monmouth County,
seek to represent an estimated class of more than 5,000 people
who, between May 22, 2012 and May 22, 2013, ordered and were
charged for premium liquors at any one of the raided T.G.I.
Friday's, located in Old Bridge, West Orange, East Windsor, North
Brunswick, Piscataway, Freehold, Marlboro, Hazlet, East Hanover,
Linden, Hamilton, Springfield and Clifton.

The plaintiffs claim that owner and operator Briad Group, of
Livingston, runs the franchises according to a uniform set of
procedures and policies, including a "concerted and deliberate
policy . . . to inflate its profits from liquor sales by charging
customers premium prices for allegedly premium liquor and then
substituting a cheaper, cut-rate brand for the premium liquor
brand ordered by the customer."

They say the fact that the ABC found the same practice occurred at
multiple franchise locations on more than one occasion and after
several rounds of tests shows that the substitutions were not the
work of a rogue bartender or bar manager, "but rather was a common
course of conduct and uniform policy implemented by the Briad
Group" and consistently followed at all of the raided locations.

Both named plaintiffs claim they were scammed at the T.G.I.
Friday's in Hamilton.  Ms. Pasieka says she bought a purported
Grey Goose vodka in March 2013, while Ms. Ruglio claims she
purchased what she thought was Cuervo Gold Tequila on one visit
and Kettle One Vodka on another.

They allege the uniform policy or common course of conduct
constituted an unconscionable commercial practice under the
Consumer Fraud Act and that they each suffered an ascertainable
loss, as required by the statute: the difference between the
premium price they paid and the lesser value of the cut-rate
liquor they were served.

The suit seeks reimbursement, treble damages and legal fees.

The case has been assigned to Judge Darlene Pereksta.

The plaintiff's lawyer, Stephen DeNittis, of DeNittis Osefchen in
Marlton, says "this is classic consumer fraud."  He calls the
estimate of a 5,000-member class "conservative," adding that he
would be open to extending the class period if he obtains
information indicating the practice went on longer than one year.

Other potential plaintiffs have contacted him and he is
contemplating adding more locations, he says.

Briad president Rick Barbrick released a statement saying the
company had not yet reviewed the complaint and was thus, "not
clear regarding its merits," but "we reiterate our ongoing mission
to ensure that all of our strict bar and beverage standards are
being followed and that our commitment to integrity is being
adhered to in all actions."

Mr. Barbrick also said: "Briad will take the steps necessary to
correct issues identified through our investigation, including the
complete retraining of our teams so that guests have full
confidence in the quality of our food, drink and service."

In a separate statement, T.G.I. Friday's president Ricky
Richardson called the ABC allegations "very disturbing" and, if
true, "a violation of our company's values and our extensive bar
and beverage standards which are designed to deliver the highest
guest experience in our restaurants."

Richardson further stated, "We have zero tolerance for actions
that undermine the trust of our guests and call into question the
reputation we have built up over the past 48 years."

Operation Swill began with customer complaints and a confidential
informant and involved sending investigators to 63 licensed
establishments throughout the state where they ordered drinks
"neat" -- with no ice or mixer -- and tested 150 samples with a
portable device that can provide quick preliminary results.
Suspect samples were then sent to the brand manufacturers for
further testing.  Thirty samples were found to be misbranded.

The ABC claims one drink was rubbing alcohol with caramel coloring
but did not identify the source or if it was a T.G.I. Friday's.

The May 22 raids were carried out by more than 100 state
employees, who seized all open bottles of more than 20 premium
brands, about 1,000 bottles in all.

The attorney general's office and ABC decline comment through
spokeswoman Rachel Goemaat.

DeNittis says he is helped by a 2011 Appellate Division ruling, in
Dugan v. T.G.I. Friday's, that allowed a putative class action
under the Consumer Fraud Act to go forward against T.G.I. Friday's
over its alleged practice of charging more for drinks in the
dining area than at the bar.  Customers allegedly experienced
sticker shock when they got the check because drink prices were
not listed on the menu.

The court rejected T.G.I. Friday's argument that the Consumer
Fraud Act did not apply because alcoholic beverage sales are
regulated by state alcohol laws, finding no conflict between the
statutory schemes.  The case is ongoing.


TORONTO: Activists to Move Ahead With Police Carding Practice Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Patty Winsa, writing for Toronto Star, reports that community
activists and lawyers are moving ahead with plans to launch a
Charter challenge as well as a class action lawsuit to try to stop
the controversial Toronto police practice known as "carding."

The group has been meeting since a Toronto Star investigation
published last year showed that officers stop and document -- or
card -- black and brown people at disproportionately high rates.

The series led to criticism of the practice by activists such as
the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Law Union of Ontario
and the Toronto Police Accountability Coalition led by former
mayor John Sewell.

The Toronto Police Service maintains that carding is legal.  The
police board has asked the city's auditor general to conduct an
independent review of the data kept by police, who record race
along with other personal information when they stop and document
an individual.  But that review, as well as a legal opinion from
the city, are months away.


UNITED STATES: Group Seeks Class Action Status for Medicaid Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that 13 severely disabled residents
who sued the state last year after their Medicaid budgets were
dramatically cut are asking a federal judge to make the case a
class-action lawsuit on behalf of the roughly 3,600 people who
receive medical care through Idaho's Developmentally Disabled
Medicaid Wavier program.


UNITED STATES: Number of Eligibility Workers at Issue in DSS Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Stuart, writing for CT News Junkie, reports that at the
heart of the argument in a class action lawsuit set to resume on
May 9 in U.S. District Court is whether the state Department of
Social Services has enough workers to process Medicaid eligibility
applications in a timely manner.

Arguing for the plaintiffs, New Haven Legal Assistance Association
attorney Sheldon Toubman questioned Astread Ferron-Poole, chief of
staff to Commissioner Roderick Bremby, about the number of
eligibility workers.

In July 2002, before the 2003 layoffs under former Gov. John G.
Rowland, Mr. Toubman said there were 845 eligibility workers.
Today, there are 881 and that includes the 220 new hires created
under last year's state budget.

"What has happened to enrollment during that time?" Mr. Toubman
asked.

"It's gone up," Ms. Ferron-Poole testified.

Mr. Toubman pointed out that as of May 2, 2013, there were 619,579
individuals enrolled in the program.  Almost double the nearly
346,000 who were enrolled in the program in 2002.

"So, you're still basically flat?" Mr. Toubman asked Ms. Ferron-
Poole.

"I don't think that's the correct question to ask," she replied.

She said it ignores the modernization effort the department has
undertaken to upgrade its technology and phone system -- changes
designed to speed up application processing.  Currently, all
applications are submitted on paper and hardly any of the
eligibility work is being done online.  There is a pilot program
in Waterbury where the applications are being scanned and turned
into a digital documents, but the other 11 DSS regional offices
have yet to employ the technology.

"Eighteen months from now it will be replaced," Ms. Ferron-Poole
said of the old eligibility system.  But she said some of the
other improvements are scheduled to begin in two or three months.

Ms. Ferron-Poole also testified that it takes between eight to 10
months to train eligibility workers, so the 120 people hired last
summer are just now able to process applications on their own.

"We will begin to see they are making a difference," Ms. Ferron-
Poole testified.

U.S. District Court Judge Alvin Thompson seemed surprised that it
would take a worker eight to 10 months to be able to begin
processing applications.

"I guess I'm not understanding," Judge Thompson said.  "My law
students are doing research on their first day."

Ms. Ferron-Poole, who has worked for the department for 25 years,
said it takes a college degree to be an eligibility worker, but
"it's not routine work."  She said workers are generally not
productive at all until they've been on the job for at least six
months. Eligibility workers process applications for Medicaid,
food stamps, and long-term care.

A memo from Darlene Klase, the director of training for DSS, said
the department needed an additional 540 employees on top of the
661 it had at the time -- for a total of 1,201.  DSS was given 220
more for a total of 881.  Mr. Toubman says department still is
short about 676 additional employees if it wants to keep up with
demand.  He tried to ascertain from Ms. Ferron-Poole the
likelihood of the department's ability to hire more workers under
a statewide hiring freeze.

Ms. Ferron-Poole said the commissioner requested more hiring after
Office of Policy and Management Secretary Ben Barnes announced a
statewide hiring freeze on Jan. 22.

"What I do know is we are in the process of filling 35 eligibility
positions," Ms. Ferron-Poole said on May 20.  "We requested those
35 positions."

She couldn't recall the total number requested, but she recalled
that the 35 the department received was less than what had been
requested.

According to DSS spokesman David Dearborn, those 35 positions are
not new positions to be added to the 220.  Rather, he said, they
were new vacancies "because of staff departures."

Mr. Toubman said the revelation that the department had to request
permission to even hire 35 workers to fill vacancies demonstrates
that the department is in the unsatisfactory position of having no
autonomy over hiring.

But the department maintains that Mr. Toubman seems to want to
ignore the technology improvements on the horizon for the agency.

A report by a consultant called First Data suggests that the
planned technological upgrades will save the agency the labor of
about 395 workers under the best case scenario.

Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Callahan argued that First
Data's conclusion means the department will have enough workers
processing applications within the 220 new hires.

Ms. Ferron-Poole testified that the department hired an outside
contractor to look at how it's operating before the technological
upgrades are in place.  She said she expects that the contractor's
assessments will help the DSS increase efficiencies and improve
processing times.

Mr. Toubman estimated the department would still be about 290
workers short even if it was able to achieve greater efficiencies
by employing technology.

"The question of liability in this case is what is happening today
to comply with the law, not what will happen or what they hope
will happen in the future," he said.

Mr. Toubman pointed out that the percentage of "unexcused delays"
in processing Medicaid applications has gone up since the start of
this year.  At the end of April, the number of "unexcused delays"
was 26 percent, which was up from 12 percent in March.  The total
number of overdue applications in April was 43 percent and 39
percent in March.

Federal law says the applications must be processed within 45 days
and many are languishing well-beyond that time period, which is
why Mr. Toubman filed the lawsuit back in January 2012.


VALENCIA HOLDING: Attorney Seeks to Limit Mandatory Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
Will Carless, writing for Voice of San Diego, reports that in a
case pending before the California Supreme Court, Hal Rosner, an
attorney with the Auto Fraud Legal Center, is seeking to limit the
scope of mandatory arbitration clauses.

Mr. Rosner was apoplectic.

The Scripps Ranch lawyer turned ever-darker shades of pink as he
outlined what he called the U.S. Supreme Court's war against
consumers.  He was brandishing a 28-inch, yellow automobile
purchase contract and waving it like a pennant.

"It's a basic, fundamental attack on the United States
Constitution, and it's why our Supreme Court should walk around
with shame," Mr. Rosner said.  "Our Supreme Court violated the
United States constitutional right to jury trial like a group of
little whores."

Mr. Rosner's a trial lawyer, so it's fair to chalk up some of his
outrage down to the natural theatrics of his profession.  But he's
also got good reason to be mad. And so do consumers.

In a game-changing 2011 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a
huge blow to consumer advocates.  In a 5-4 ruling, the court
essentially said that not only is it OK for companies to put
clauses in their contracts forcing customers to settle disputes in
private arbitration, but they can also bar customers from bringing
class action lawsuits against them or even arbitrating their
disputes as a class.

The decision in the case, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, a class
action lawsuit that originated in San Diego, involved customers
who had been charged small amounts for phones advertised as
"free," overturned years of law developed in the California
Legislature and upheld by its courts to protect consumers against
a seemingly unstoppable trend.

For decades, businesses across the country have increasingly been
writing their way out of the judicial system.  By inserting
"mandatory arbitration clauses" into their contracts, companies
ranging from auto dealers to cell phone companies to health care
providers have cut off their customers' access to the courts,
forcing them instead to settle disputes in private arbitration.

That has long concerned consumer advocates and even some industry
insiders, who say arbitration is biased in favor of big business.
But, for many observers, those worries are nothing compared with
the U.S. Supreme Court's 2011 decision.

"It's earth-shattering.  It takes away your right to hold
companies accountable for transactions that we all engage in every
day," said Deepak Gupta, one of the attorneys who represented the
plaintiffs in the Concepcion case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
"We all assume that we have a right to hold a company accountable
if they're cheating us.  We assume the consumer protection laws
will apply.  What's frustrating is the average person doesn't know
that when they take out a contract . . . they've given away their
rights."

The Golden State for Consumer Protection

Historically, California hasn't been a bad place to be a consumer.

The Legislature in the Golden State has spent the last few decades
trying to protect the little guys, and successive big court
decisions have upheld consumer rights.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, as mandatory arbitration clauses
became all the rage for corporations across the country, the
California Legislature pounced, passing a slew of laws in 2002
aimed at protecting consumers from the ever-growing trend toward
private justice. (Though one of the key laws has since been widely
ignored by much of the arbitration industry).

The activism wasn't limited to lawmakers. Several high-profile
lawsuits concerning arbitration clauses found their way to the
California Supreme Court.  The granddaddy of these was a case
called Discover Bank v. Superior Court, in 2005.

The California Supreme Court ruled in that case that companies
couldn't put blanket bans on class action lawsuits in their
contracts.  To do so was "unconscionable" in legalese. It wouldn't
fly.

Over the next few years, at least 13 other states ruled that
blanket class action bans by companies were illegal, according to
a research paper by Myriam Gilles of the Cardozo School of Law and
Gary Friedman, a New York attorney.

Then, in 2011, California's groundbreaking rules were put to the
ultimate legal test.

The Concepcion case originated in 2006, when a San Diego couple,
Vincent and Liza Concepcion, signed a deal offered by AT&T to
receive a "free" phone if they signed a two-year cell phone
contract.  The couple was later charged $30.22 in sales tax for
the phone, and they sued AT&T in a class action.

But AT&T had a mandatory arbitration clause in its contract with
the Concepcions and other customers barring them from suing the
company in court.  The clause also said that each customer had to
arbitrate his or her case individually, and that groups of
consumers couldn't come together to fight their cases as a class
arbitration.

AT&T asked the U.S. District Court in San Diego to dismiss the
class action based on that clause.  But the court refused, citing
the rule that had been established in the Discover Bank case.
AT&T appealed to the 9th Circuit and eventually, the U.S. Supreme
Court agreed to hear the case in 2010.

The high court's ruling -- which found that the Federal
Arbitration Act trumped individual states' decisions to forbid
class action bans -- largely dismantled California's years of
consumer protection efforts.

The impact of the ruling was swift and far-reaching.

A 2012 report by Public Citizen, an advocacy group, and the
National Association of Consumer Advocates, found that judges
nationwide had struck down 76 potential class action cases since
the ruling.

"These cases undoubtedly would have included the claims of
thousands -- if not hundreds of thousands -- of consumers," the
report states.

F. Paul Bland, a senior attorney at Public Justice, a public
interest law firm in Washington, D.C., and one of the country's
leading consumer advocates, said the U.S. Supreme Court took away
the only method by which consumers can get justice when they've
been bilked out of small amounts of money.

Companies are now free to scam their customers out of small
amounts, Mr. Bland said, and even if the customers realize they're
being scammed, they're almost certainly not going to bother
fighting the company in an individual arbitration.

And, even if they wanted to challenge the company, few lawyers
would be willing to take on such small cases, he said.

"Concepcion is being interpreted in a way that lets corporations
get away with cheating people, in complicated ways, out of sums of
money that aren't that big to the individual, but add up to
hundreds of millions of dollars to the company," Mr. Bland said.
"Concepcion is being interpreted in a way that lets corporations
get away with cheating people, in complicated ways, out of sums of
money that aren't that big to the individual, but add up to
hundreds of millions of dollars to the company," Mr. Bland said.

                    Creating a Better System

Andrew Pincus, the attorney who argued the Concepcion case on
AT&T's behalf, said the shift away from class actions is actually
good for consumers.

Mr. Pincus said AT&T's mandatory arbitration clause provides
excellent remedies for consumers who have been legitimately
wronged. Consumers can recoup bonuses from the company worth
thousands of dollars more than their claim, he said, and lawyers
have impetus to fight arbitrations, since they're entitled to
double their fees if they win.

Mandatory arbitration clauses like AT&T's are a much better way to
filter out frivolous claims against companies, Mr. Pincus said.

Mr. Pincus' arguments would have more merit in a world where every
business has an arbitration clause that provides legitimate,
generous bonuses to successful plaintiffs, Gupta countered.  But
many arbitration clauses don't, and only allow wronged consumers
to recoup the small amounts of money they have lost, he said.

And Gupta argued there's no incentive for companies to provide
such bonuses in their contracts.

                The End for Consumer Class Actions?

Jeremy Robinson, a class action attorney at San Diego firm Casey
Gerry, said the Concepcion decision has undoubtedly had a
dampening effect on his firm's class action business.

But that doesn't mean consumer class actions are dead, Robinson
said.  His firm's lawyers still look closely at all potential
class actions brought to them, even if the consumers have signed a
contract that bars class actions.

That's because the U.S. Supreme Court left another door for
consumers open just a crack.

At its core, the Concepcion case was all about the legal concept
of "unconscionability."  The key question was whether it was
unconscionable for companies to flat-out bar class actions in
their contracts.  The U.S. Supreme Court said no, it wasn't.

But in the same decision, the court left open the possibility that
mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts can be found
unconscionable for other reasons.

There are all sorts of ways that mandatory arbitration clauses
can, and are, struck down by the courts.  A company is unlikely,
for example, to get away with a mandatory arbitration clause that
includes a $10,000 bill to consumers for arbitrating the case.

That's where Mr. Rosner, in Scripps Ranch, comes in.

Mr. Rosner currently has a big case pending before the California
Supreme Court.  The lawsuit hinges on that long, yellow contract
that Mr. Rosner is fond of waving about.

Mr. Rosner's case, Sanchez v. Valencia Holding Co. LLC, argues
that the standard-issue contract long used by California car
dealerships is unconscionable for a number of reasons, including
the fact that the mandatory arbitration clause is printed on the
back of the form.

The lawsuit is significant because it's an opportunity for the
California Supreme Court to further define what is allowable in a
contract, Mr. Bland said.

But it's also limited -- if the court finds that the specific form
of contract the car dealers were using was not allowed, they can
simply rewrite the contract, he said.

To avoid class action lawsuits, then, all big companies need to do
is to bar customers from bringing such lawsuits in their
contracts, and make sure the contracts are otherwise legally
airtight, Mr. Bland said.

Mr. Rosner's case illustrates the remarkable sea change that's
taken place in consumer laws in California: Not long ago,
California was pioneering measures that enshrined consumers'
rights.  Now consumer attorneys must pore through corporate
contracts, picking apart clauses or insertions that might be
unfair and asking courts to toss them out in a piecemeal attempt
to regain some of those rights.

                    All Eyes on Washington

For consumer advocates, this issue has pretty much hit a dead end
in the judicial branch of the American political system.

Unless the U.S. Supreme Court makes a U-turn on arbitration
clauses, advocates like Mr. Bland are only going to get
incremental help from the court system.

That leaves the legislative branch and executive branches.

"Until something comes out of Washington, D.C., consumers,
workers, patients, investors, are in a lot of trouble," said San
Francisco attorney Cliff Palefsky, a longtime opponent of
mandatory arbitration.

On the legislative side, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) re-introduced
legislation he wrote in response to the Concepcion ruling.  But
several consumer advocates said the Arbitration Fairness Act is
dead in the water, given that the Republican House majority is
unlikely to even consider the bill.

That leaves the executive branch.

Last year, President Obama's newly minted Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau launched a public inquiry into arbitration
clauses.

That was more than a year ago, and there's been little movement
from the agency since.

Without action from the very top, Californians will just have to
live with the fact that a longtime remedy against the companies
they spend their money on is rapidly disappearing.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Action Over Suitable Cashier Seating
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Farfan, writing for About.com, reports that in May
Wal-Mart found itself on the defending end of another massive
employee class action suit in California when a California judge
certified a class of 10,000 employees who think Wal-Mart broke the
law when it refused to provide suitable seating for its cashiers
who requested it.

Wal-Mart's response to this latest class action certification was
not that it provided appropriate seating within parameters of
existing laws.  Instead the response from Wal-Mart's legal team
was that the class shouldn't have been certified at all, and
instead, each cashier should have to file and fight an individual
lawsuit.

Publicly Wal-Mart is not denying that it has consciously chosen to
deny seating to its cashiers.  Reportedly Wal-Mart's argument
against providing seating is that cashiers need to be able to move
around to look inside carts, stock shelves, and greet customers.

In addition to the suitable seating lawsuit, the perpetually busy
Wal-Mart legal team is currently defending itself against an
individual employee lawsuit filed recently for malicious
prosecution and against a suit filed by a group of warehouse
workers claiming poor working conditions and safety violations.  A
judge recently ruled that even though Wal-Mart does not directly
employ the warehouse workers, the company could still be named as
part of the lawsuit because it owns and/or leases the warehouse
facilities where the bad working conditions allegedly exist.

Wal-Mart is also on the legal offensive with employees, filing
lawsuits against groups that are daring to protest against Wal-
Mart's working conditions and employment policies.  A suit against
the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UCFW)
in March, and a separate suit filed this month against OUR Walmart
group organizers both seek injunctions to stop protest activities
from happening in and around Wal-Mart stores and at the upcoming
Wal-Mart shareholders' meetings.  Wal-Mart leaders don't really
address the issues fueling the protests are valid.  They just want
the courts to help them shut the protestors up.  That seems right.

And then there's the tragic Bangladesh factories where employees
burned to death while creating the garments that would stock Wal-
Mart shelves.  The Bangladesh tragedy is not a legal battle as
much as it is a moral debate.  Wal-Mart's stance is that they
weren't Wal-Mart's employees, so what happened at the factory is
neither Wal-Mart's fault nor responsibility.  So . . . the
official ethical position from the world's largest retail chain is
. . . What happens in Bangladesh stays in Bangladesh? It's so
curious that Wal-Mart has never earned a spot on the Most Ethical
Retail Companies list.

Certainly Wal-Mart is not the only major U.S. retail chain that is
being taken to court by its employees.  Just this month, the Wet
Seal (WTSL) chain agreed to pay $5.5 million to settle a racial
discrimination lawsuit that had been filed by three of its former
black managers.  A wage-and-hour lawsuit against Russell Stover
was also filed this month by current and former Russell Stover
employees who claim they have been misclassified as "exempt"
employees and should be paid overtime.  Rite Aid (RAD) already
settled an employee lawsuit earlier this year similar to the
Russell Stover suit after assistant store managers claimed they
were misclassified as "exempt" and were due overtime pay.

Retailers large and small must pay attention to employee legal
actions large and small because each legal battle sets a precedent
for every retail company in the world doing business in the U.S.
But because Wal-Mart is the defendant more often than any other
retail company, the Wal-Mart legal team has the most influence in
defining labor laws for the entire U.S. retail industry.  In
essence, with every lawsuit that Wal-Mart defends, the entire U.S.
retail industry is being aligned behind the ethics, human
resources philosophy, and employment practices that Wal-Mart is
willing to fight for.


WAL-MART STORES: Seeks Dismissal of Wisconsin Gender Bias Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Kase, writing for Lawyers.com, reports that Wal-Mart is
hoping to get a gender bias class action suit in Wisconsin thrown
out of court, thanks to the reversal of a new rule imposed by the
National Labor Relations Board.

Five women are trying to make the retail giant answer their claims
that they were paid less and had fewer opportunities for
promotions than their male counterparts.  Several other similar
suits have been filed in other states following a 2011 Supreme
Court ruling that disallowed a national class action against
Wal-Mart.

The Wisconsin suit's efforts were bolstered by a 2011 decree by
the NLRB that suspended a six-month statute of limitations for
unfair labor practice charges, among other new rules.  However,
the NLRB rules were tossed out by the District of Columbia U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals earlier in May, creating a fresh hurdle
for the class action.

                        Equitable Tolling

The appeals court ruling also stated that there was no basis for
asserting that "ignorance of the law should warrant equitable
tolling of a statute of limitations."

"Tolling refers to a suspension of the running of a period of
limitations," explains Richard Esenberg, a professor at the
Marquette University School of Law.  "There is a rule that, when a
class action has been filed and class certification has been
subsequently denied, the running of the limitations period for
individual class members is suspended from the date of filing to
the date of denial."

"So if there is a two year statute of limitations and a class
action is filed after two months, the statute stops running on the
individual claim of Mary Smith as a potential class member,"
Mr. Esenberg says.  "If class certification is denied three years
later, the statute starts to run on Mary's claim again and she has
ten months to file."

However, the class suing Wal-Mart had to re-form as a smaller
entity after the nationwide lawsuit was thrown out in the Supreme
Court's anti-consumer Dukes v. Wal-Mart ruling, which stated that
the women did not have enough in common to meet eligibility
standards to form a class.

"The question in the Wal-Mart cases is whether this tolling also
applies to new class actions in which the class is defined in a
different way that the plaintiffs hope can be certified," says
Mr. Esenberg.  "In the Wal-Mart cases, having failed to certify a
national class, they seem to be attempting to certify smaller
classes of regional employees."

                          Denied a Jury

The NLRB rule would have made the tolling dispute effectively moot
by suspending the statute of limitations entirely, but since it
has been invalidated the class members are now facing a litigation
battle just to get their complaint heard in court.

"This holding [by the D.C. court] directly refutes plaintiffs'
argument that the plaintiffs here should be excused from the
statute of limitations and [U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission] charge requirements due to their ignorance of the
relevant deadlines," Wal-Mart wrote in a letter to the judge.

The allegations leveled in the suit are quite serious: Women claim
that men with less experience and responsibility nevertheless
earned more money than they did, and that "women at Wal-Mart were
told by management that women deserved less pay and fewer
promotions than men because men had families to support,"
according to the plaintiff's lawyer.

So far, the company has prevented any trial on the actual merits
of the lawsuit.  If the retail giant is successful in its latest
effort, the women will be running out of options.

"If this doesn't work," Mr. Esenberg says, "I guess the plaintiffs
could try to bring individual claims."


WALGREEN CO: Settles Suit Over Painkillers for $80 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Timothy W. Martin, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports
that Walgreen Co. reached an $80 million settlement with federal
authorities on June 11 over the drugstore chain's distribution of
highly addictive painkillers in Florida, long the nation's
epicenter of illicit prescription drug sales.

It is the largest fine related to the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration's strategy of cracking down on rampant prescription
drug abuse by targeting large corporations like Walgreen.  As part
of the settlement, Walgreen admitted it hadn't upheld its
obligations as a DEA registrant, which requires the company to
flag suspicious sales of prescription painkillers.

The DEA alleged that Walgreen, the nation's largest pharmacy
chain, had committed an "unprecedented number" of record-keeping
and prescription dispensing violations.  The DEA licenses retail
pharmacies that want to distribute controlled substances like
opioid painkillers.

Walgreen had "negligently allowed" prescription painkillers "to be
diverted for abuse and illegal black market sales," the DEA said.
The June 11 settlement covers six Walgreen pharmacies in Florida
and a Jupiter, Fla., distribution facility, which will be blocked
from shipping controlled substances until September of 2014.

"National pharmaceutical chains are not exempt from following the
law," said Mark R. Trouville, head of Miami DEA office, in a
statement.

"As the largest pharmacy chain in the U.S., we are fully committed
to doing our part to prevent prescription drug abuse," said Kermit
Crawford, a Walgreen president, in a statement.  The settlement
and associated costs will have an impact of four cents to six
cents per share in its fiscal third quarter, Walgreen said.

The settlement also resolves civil investigations involving
Walgreen by U.S. attorneys' offices in Colorado, New York and
Michigan, as well as other DEA branches.

Other national pharmacy companies, like CVS Caremark Corp. and
Cardinal Health Inc., have recently been targeted over pain pills
by the DEA. Cardinal, one of the nation's largest drug
wholesalers, reached a settlement last year with the DEA to halt
controlled-substance shipments from a Lakeland, Fla., facility.
In August, two subpoenas were issued by federal prosecutors and
agents against a major wholesaler, AmerisourceBergen Corp.

The DEA said Walgreen's civil penalty was its largest-ever
settlement, topping CVS's $75 million payment in 2010 over charges
it illegally sold cold and cough medicines that were used to make
methamphetamine, an agency spokeswoman said.

Oxycodone, hydrocodone and other prescription painkillers are
legal drugs. Addicts and abusers like them because when consumed,
via injecting, swallowing or inhaling, the pills can release a
heroinlike high.  In recent years, manufacturers like Purdue
Pharma LP have launched reformulated versions of their pain drugs
that make them harder to crush open or inject.

As part of the settlement, Walgreen promised to create a
pharmaceutical integrity department intended to ensure regulatory
compliance and monitor for potential controlled-substance
diversion, according to the DEA release.  Walgreen will also boost
its training and no longer tie pharmacist compensation to
prescription volume, the DEA said.  The six Walgreen pharmacies in
Florida targeted by federal agents won't be allowed to dispense
painkillers or other controlled medications until May 2014, the
company said.

Overdose deaths from painkillers totaled more than 16,500 in 2010,
more than heroin and cocaine combined, according to government
data.

The investigation was jointly conducted by the DEA's Miami field
office and the U.S. attorney's office for the Southern District of
Florida.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Residents Attend Meeting on Clyde Cancer Cluster
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Valdez, writing for FOX8.com, reports that dozens of people
turned out at Fremont High School on May 27 for a town hall
meeting on the alleged Clyde cancer cluster.

"The last seven years has been hell. It's been horrible," said
Clyde resident Dave Hisey.

Mr. Hisey said two of his children had cancer.  He is a plaintiff
in one of two class action lawsuits filed against Whirlpool
Corporation over the alleged cancer cluster in eastern Sandusky
County.

The suit alleges Whirlpool intentionally dumped toxic, cancer-
causing materials at the former Whirlpool Park in Sandusky County.

According to the Ohio Department of Health, 35 children in eastern
Sandusky County have been diagnosed with various types of cancer
since 1996.  Four kids have died.

"It's very frustrating; it's very sad. You just get tired, worn
down," Mr. Hisey said.

Many people who turned out on May 27 have loved ones who lived in
the area, died from cancer or have children suffering from cancer
or other diseases.

"Our first granddaughter has been diagnosed with Crohn's Disease.
She's 10, and the four-year-old, her little sister, has been
diagnosed with immune deficiencies," attendee Penny Foos said.

Attorney Alan Mortensen filed the second lawsuit.  He claims the
cancer-causing substance is benzaldehyde.

"It's a known hazardous substance by the EPA," Mr. Mortensen said.

FOX8.com called Whirlpool for their response, but their office was
closed for the holiday.

In a previous statement they said: "We are currently reviewing the
lawsuit filed.  As a member of the community for over 60 years,
with more than 3,000 employees in the area, we are also very
interested in figuring out the facts behind this ongoing issue.
We are working closely with the current property owner, the U.S.
EPA and the Ohio EPA to address the issues at the former Whirlpool
Park through the Ohio EPA Voluntary Action Program.  We have
submitted a Phase I Property Assessment Report and Phase II Work
Plans for comment and approval by both agencies."

The suit asks for a jury trial.  The plaintiffs are seeking $750
million in damages. It asks that a medical monitoring fund and a
clean-up fund are created, as well.


XUMANII: Private Investor Responds to Class Action Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Private citizen, George Sharp, responds to the draft of the
proposed class action complaint, being distributed to potential
plaintiffs who allegedly incurred losses as a result of
Mr. Sharp's announcement of his litigation against current Pump &
Dump subject, Xumanii, for the dissemination of spam emails and
his admonitions to the general public regarding tremendous losses
to those participating in Awesome Penny Stocks promotions.  The
draft complaint is being distributed by law firm, LKP Global Law,
LLP.

According to Mr. Sharp, LKP attempted previous litigation against
him on behalf of another of its clients, Forex International
Trading Corp.  That litigation was immediately abandoned after Mr.
Sharp filed a Motion to Strike the Complaint under California
Civil Code of Procedure Sec. 426.15, commonly known as the anti-
SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute,
designed to protect the First Amendment rights of those seeking
litigation privilege.  "SLAPP" suits are commonly used to attempt
to get righteous litigants like Mr. Sharp to abandon their right
to free speech and their litigation.  Those found in violation of
the anti-SLAPP statute are required to pay the attorney's fees of
the defendant, as was the case of LKP's client Forex
International. Mr. Sharp strongly feels that the proposed case, if
actually filed, will end up in a similar result, "This is
obviously just another attempt by some nefarious characters to try
and get me to be quiet," he stated.

In the past, LKP Global Law has also represented Eco-Trade
Corporation, an issuer recently suspended by FINRA during a
suspected Pump & Dump, and since relegated to trading on the
little-followed Grey Sheets.  Mr. Sharp commented, "It appears
that LKP Global Law is in the habit of providing aid and comfort
to penny stock companies with dubious characteristics."

Within the draft complaint, LKP Global Law refers to a number of
Mr. Sharp's past and current litigations, not one of which has
ever proved to be without merit.  In the ongoing case of Sharp v
Arena Pharmaceuticals (US Southern District of California Case
3:10-cv-2111-BTM), Mr. Sharp's case was one of a dozen filed
against the company for the same allegations of fraud.  In Sharp v
Aniko Kaye (Los Angeles County Division of California Superior
Court Case No. BC381214), the case was settled in his favor in the
amount of $1.6 million.  As a result of Mr. Sharp's efforts,
Ms. Kaye was later denied a bankruptcy discharge (US Bankruptcy
Court Central District of California Case No. 2:09-bk-38287-BR)
for committing what the court determined was "massive fraud and
deception."  All of the other cases referenced by LKP Global Law
are either ongoing, or were litigated, or settled in Mr. Sharp's
favor.

Mr. Sharp further stated, "I am proud of the hundreds of emails
I've received from past victims of Awesome Penny Stock frauds,
thanking me for my efforts to put an end to all of this, and for
seeking my counsel.  I must remind all that I am not qualified to
be giving legal advice and strongly recommend that victims seek
the advice of an attorney, as I cannot add Plaintiffs to my case.
This is NOT a class action lawsuit."

Named as defendants in the litigation (San Diego County Division
of California Superior Court Case No. 37-2013-00048310-CU-MC-CTL)
for violations of California Business and Professions Codes
17529.5 (Anti-Spam) are: Degroupa Tenner Morales Media Corp. and
Centro Azteca S.A., the current and former publishers of the
Awesome Penny Stocks series of newsletters; and, Victory Mark Corp
Ltd., the publisher of newsletters Select Penny Stocks, Preferred
Penny Stocks and Penny Stock Heroes; as well as the subjects of
several of their promotions, including: VuMee, Inc.; Amwest
Imaging, Inc.; Goff Corporation; Swingplane Ventures, Inc.
(OTCQB:SWVI); World Moto, Inc.; Taglikeme Corp.; and, Pharmagen,
Inc.

Mr. Sharp, reminds those considering an investment in Xumanii,
that every single Awesome Penny Stock Ponzi-scheme style
promotion, has left a trail of those whom have lost almost their
entire investment, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars in
losses.

Investors should remember that it is never a good idea to invest
in stocks advertised in any manner, including email tout sheets,
conventional mail brochures, and newspaper/magazine ads, nor is it
wise to rely on the advice posted on the internet message boards
which are controlled by shills for the promoters.  These deceiving
promotional campaigns always invoke ridiculous and outright
fabricated projections, such as those in the case of Xumanii,
which suggest that Google, Inc., Hulu, LLC., and NetFlix, Inc.
could be involved in a bidding war for the company or that a
Barclays Bank fund could be buying up shares.  Having contacted
these companies, Mr. Sharp reports that all deny having ever heard
of Xumanii and are dismayed at the invoking of their brands to
promote the stock.

Mr. Sharp holds no interest in any of the stocks mentioned and has
never participated, directly or indirectly, in the shorting of any
stock.

Updates to this litigation may be viewed by following Mr. Sharp's
tweets at www.twitter.com/goniffs and his website at
www.AwesomePennyScams.com.

CONTACT: George Sharp
         E-mail: george@clippercp.com


YAKIMA PRODUCTS: Recalls Whispbar Fitting Kit Top of Car System
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 7, 2013
Posting date:             June 7, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Miscellaneous
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-33875

Affected products: Whispbar fitting kit top of car system

This recall involves the Whispbar fitting kit top of car system,
which consists of four mounting bases and brackets with necessary
fasteners used to attach the Whispbar Crossbar/Rack systems that
are sold separately.

The following fitting kit models are included and noted are the
specific vehicle types with which they are intended to be used.

  Whispbars affected by this recall
  ---------------------------------
  Model   Part No.   Vehicle Type
  -----   --------   ------------
  K393    8051393    Audi Q7 2007-2013
  K480    8051480    Toyota Matrix 2009-2013
  K580    8051508    Mitusbishi Outlander Sport 2011-2013
  K543    8051543    Kia Sportage with flush rails 2011-2013

The fit kits do not attach to the roofline or raised rail properly
which prevents the crossbar from securely attaching to the vehicle
roof, resulting in the racks becoming loose or separating from the
vehicle.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/uNOyDg

Neither Yakima Products Inc. nor Health Canada has received any
reports of incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use
of the recalled fitting kits.

Approximately 23 units of the recalled fitting kits were sold in
Canada.

The recalled fitting kits were manufactured in China and sold from
May 2011 to April 2013.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Kemflo Environmental Technology Co., Ltd.
                    Nanjing
                    CHINA

   Distributor      Yakima Products Inc.
                    Beaverton
                    Oregon, UNITED STATES

   Importer         The Hitch Company
                    Burnaby
                    British Columbia, CANADA

   Importer         LTP Sports
                    Port Coquitlam
                    British Columbia, CANADA

Consumers should stop using the racks immediately and contact
Yakima Products Inc. for a replacement Yakima rack or full refund.

For more information, consumers may contact Yakima Products Inc.
by telephone at 1-888-925-4621, from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Pacific Standard Time Monday through Friday, or by e-mail.


* Appeals Courts Set to Decide on Two Consumer Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that a pair of cases
before the 6th and 7th Circuit Courts of Appeals could signal
whether it will become more difficult to certify product liability
and consumer actions in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's
recent ruling in Comcast v. Behrend.

The cases, Sears Roebuck & Co v. Butler and Whirlpool v. Glazer,
were brought by consumers who claimed they bought washing machines
with an alleged design defect that caused some machines to develop
a moldy odor.

After the 6th and 7th Circuits in 2012 allowed plaintiffs to
proceed as a class, Sears and Whirlpool both appealed to the
Supreme Court.

The companies argued that plaintiffs' alleged injuries were too
dissimilar to be tried as a class.

While their petitions were pending, the Supreme Court handed down
Comcast, in which it decertified a class of Comcast subscribers
that had accused the company of monopolizing the cable market in
Philadelphia.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the 5-4 majority Comcast opinion
that plaintiffs had failed to show that damages could be
accurately measured on a classwide basis.  In a joint dissent,
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer said the majority
decision should not disturb the "well-nigh universal" recognition
by courts that individual damages calculations do not preclude
class certification.

In a one-paragraph order on April 1 in Whirlpool and a nearly
identical June 3rd order in Sears, the Supreme Court vacated the
judgments and remanded the respective cases to the 6th and 7th
Circuit to decide the class certification question in the wake of
Comcast.

The outcome in both cases could help clarify whether judges will
apply Comcast beyond the antitrust arena to product liability and
other types of class action cases.

"You can read Comcast narrowly, or you can read it broadly," said
Sergio Campos, an associate professor at the University of Miami
School of Law who specializes in civil procedure and torts.  "The
appeals courts have the opportunity to pick the reading they like
the best."

Stephen Shapiro, a partner at Mayer Brown who represented the
Sears and Whirlpool defendants, said he believed the lower courts
should use Comcast to decertify classes where individual issues
outweigh the common ones.

"It isn't enough to just have an abstract question about whether a
product is defective, or if the warranty service was denied," Mr.
Shapiro said.

But Jonathan Selbin, a lawyer at Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein who represented the Sears and Whirlpool classes, said he
thought Comcast was meant to be applied narrowly and not to the
product liability claims in Whirlpool and Sears.

"What courts have always said is that the fact damages are going
to necessarily have some individual aspects to them can't preclude
class cert," Mr. Selbin said.

The Product Liability Advisory Council, a nonprofit group of
manufacturers that advocate on liability issues, filed an amicus
brief on behalf of Sears and Whirlpool, as did the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit legal
foundation.

John Beisner, who leads the mass tort practice at Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom and wrote the Product Liability Advisory
Council's amicus brief, agreed that such a ruling could make
classes more difficult to certify, but said that was precisely
what the Supreme Court intended to underscore in Comcast.

Reading between the lines, the Supreme Court in Sears and
Whirlpool sent a message to the lower circuits, Mr. Beisner said:
"We've spoken our piece on Comcast, now go apply it."

Regardless of how the 6th and 7th Circuits ultimately rule, the
stakes of each case could prompt the losing parties to appeal once
again to the Supreme Court, said William Narwold, who heads Motley
Rice's securities and consumer fraud practice groups.

While he thought the lower courts would be likely to let
certification stand in Whirlpool and Sears, "Were the courts to
say you have to prove damages on a classwide basis, that would be
a serious issue for consumer cases."

Mr. Campos agreed.

"Courts are already kicking out consumer class actions because
there are individual issues of injury," he said. A broad
application of Comcast "would make it that much harder to certify
classes."

The cases are Sears Roebuck & Co v. Butler and Whirlpool Corp v.
Glazer, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-1067, No. 12-322.

For the plaintiffs: Jonathan Selbin, Mark Chalos and Jason
Lichtman of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and Samuel
Issacharoff of New York University Law School.

For the defendants: Michael Williams, Galen Bellamy and Allison
Cohn of Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell and Stephen Shapiro, Timothy
Bishop, Jeffrey Sarles and Joshua Yount of Mayer Brown.

The cases are Sears Roebuck & Co v. Butler, U.S. Supreme Court,
No. 12-1067 and Whirlpool Corp v. Glazer, U.S. Supreme Court, No.
12-322.

For the plaintiffs: Jonathan Selbin, Mark Chalos and Jason
Lichtman of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and Samuel
Issacharoff of New York University Law School.

For the defendants: Michael Williams, Galen Bellamy and Allison
Cohn of Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell and Stephen Shapiro, Timothy
Bishop, Jeffrey Sarles and Joshua Yount of Mayer Brown.


* Canada Recalls Apricot Halves Due to Extraneous Material
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 6, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Extraneous Material
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Distribution:             National
CFIA reference number:    7992

Affected products:

Brand name   Common name      Size     Code(s) on product
----------   -----------      ----     ------------------
No Name      Apricot halves   398 ml   10F10 B
              in light syrup            AH 2 SL PN
                                        BB/MA 2013 DE 10
UPC: 0 60383 05927 9


* Class Actions Challenge Church Pension Plan Status
----------------------------------------------------
Hazel Bradford, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that
the IRS' long-term trend of allowing church-affiliated defined
benefit pension plans to be exempt from federal pension rules
could reverse course after an unusual decision by the agency and a
flurry of lawsuits.

One sign of that change came in late March when the Internal
Revenue Service took the unusual step of revoking a church plan
status ruling issued a decade ago to the now-closed Hospital
Center at Orange in Orange, N.J., whose plan had a $30 million
funding deficit.  The IRS move led the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corp., whose officials supported the reversal, to announce May 10
that it would cover the pension benefits for nearly 800 former
employees.

Between March and now, five major class-action lawsuits were filed
in separate jurisdictions against some of the biggest names in
health care -- Dignity Health, San Francisco; Ascension Health
Alliance, St. Louis; Catholic Health Initiatives, Englewood,
Colo., Catholic Health East, Newtown Square, Pa.; and Saint
Peter's Healthcare System, New Brunswick, N.J. -- now operating
their pension plans under church plan status.

The lawsuits, filed by ERISA law firms Keller Rohrback LLP in
Seattle and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC in Washington, are
collectively seeking more than $2 billion in missed pension
contributions and other damages.  Among other claims, the lawsuits
challenge the interpretations made by the IRS and the Department
of Labor that allowed the hospitals, which have varying degrees of
church associations, to be exempt from the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

St. Peter's Healthcare System spokesman Phil Hartman said
officials there consider the lawsuit to be without merit because
the hospital was established by nuns more than a century ago and
is affiliated with a local Catholic diocese.  Despite having
operated as an ERISA plan until seeking church plan status in
2006, "we've always been overseen by a religious entity,"
Mr. Hartman said.

Dignity Health spokeswoman Tricia Griffin declined to comment on
the lawsuit, but said in a statement, "We remain committed to
ensuring our retirees and beneficiaries receive the benefits they
have earned.  We believe we have complied with the law, including
the applicable requirements for our retirement plans."

Catholic Health Initiatives spokesman Michael Romano and Ascension
Health spokeswoman Trudy Hamilton declined to comment.  Calls to
Catholic Health East and attorneys for the plaintiffs were not
returned.

                     Tide may be changing

The lawsuits could be changing the tide of plans seeking to be
exempted from ERISA.  "It's certainly plausible there will be more
cases filed if success is seen as likely," said Thomas E. Clark
Jr., chief compliance officer at FRA PlanTools, a fiduciary
consulting firm in Charlotte, N.C.  "The stature of the
plaintiffs' (law) firms involved, combined with the amount of
alleged damages, and the severity of the long-term harm to the
participants makes this a hot topic," said Mr. Clark, a former
ERISA litigator.

Pension plans run by church-affiliated organizations are not
required to be covered by ERISA.  In recent years, opting out of
ERISA coverage has appealed to many such organizations.

Liz Sweeney, health-care credit analyst at Standard & Poor's
Rating Services in Timonium, Md., said church plan status means
the organizations "have substantially more flexibility as to how
and when they fund their plans."  But, she added, "They take their
stewardship seriously."

An April 22 S&P report on pension funding in the non-profit
health-care sector showed 2012 funding levels for Ascension Health
Alliance, Catholic Health Initiatives and Dignity Health at 93.1%,
75.2% and 65.5%, respectively, down from 94.1%, 88.6% and 75% in
2011.  The report also noted a general downward trend in funding
status despite higher contributions, mainly because of lower
discount rates.

Plans opting for church plan status can stop paying premiums to
the PBGC and can get up to six years of PBGC premiums refunded.

One indicator of the trend comes from PBGC documents obtained by
the Pension Rights Center, Washington, which show that 85 plan
sponsors, at least 60% of them not-for-profit health-care
companies, received premium refunds from 1999 until 2007.

                          Raising alarms

That level of activity raised alarms among pension advocates that
the church-affiliation status was being too loosely interpreted,
and in some cases, abused.

"I have been concerned for years that companies only loosely
affiliated with religious institutions are trying to use a
loophole in federal law to get out of having to fund their plans,"
said Sen. Tom Harkin D-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.  "ERISA was put in place
for a reason -- to protect participants.  In the past, there have
been too many instances where pensions went broke, leaving
employees and retirees with nothing," Mr. Harkin said.

"We were the poster child for the most egregious example," said
Mary Rich, a former hospital vice president and nurse with the
Hospital Center at Orange, who helped wage a 10-year campaign by
former employees and the Pension Rights Center to challenge the
IRS ruling and put the participants back under PBGC protection.

The unique circumstances at Hospital Center at Orange -- a defunct
employer; a pension plan likely to run out of assets by the end of
this year; and an unusual collaboration between the IRS, the PBGC
and the Pension Rights Center -- make further IRS reversals
unlikely in the short term.  But many observers think it does put
pressure on the IRS to take a stronger position, rather than just
issue individual rulings.

"It certainly casts a shadow," said James Keightley, a former PBGC
general counsel and IRS official now a partner in the Washington
law firm Keightley & Ashner LLP.  He believes the IRS' shift in
the Hospital Center at Orange case will be seen as setting a
precedent, but IRS officials are "not going to take on this issue
until the courts step in."

IRS officials declined to comment.


                             *********

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  * * *