CAR_Public/130617.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, June 17, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 118

                             Headlines


ALBERTA SCHOOL: Former Students Lose Bid Launch to Class Action
AMEDISYS INC: Bids to Dismiss ERISA and Derivative Suits Pending
AMEDISYS INC: Continues to Defend Wage & Hour Suit in Connecticut
AMEDISYS INC: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suit in Illinois
AMERICAN INT'L: Court of Federal Claims Certifies Class Action

APPLE INC: Settles Class Action Over iPhone, iPod Touch Warranties
AU OPTRONICS: Supreme Court to Review 5th Cir. Ruling
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL: Investors Launch AUD65-Mil. Class Action
AVON PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Consolidated Suit
AVON PRODUCTS: Still Awaits Decision on Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Suit

BANK OF QUEENSLAND: Settles Storm Investors' Class Action
BRAVO BRIO: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Class Suit in Iowa
BREASTSCREEN SA: May Face Class Action Over Missed Breast Cancers
CAMPBELL SOUP: Loses Bid to Dismiss False Labeling Class Action
CENCOSUD SA: Received Adverse Ruling in "SERNAC" Suit vs. CAT

CIBER INC: Plea to Dismiss "Weston" Class Suit Remains Pending
COMCAST SPECTACOR: Loses Bid to Dismiss Ticket Class Action
CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Trial in R.I. Suit May Be Set by December
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Still Defends "Bradley" Suit in California
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Still Defends "Steinfeld" Suit in California

DOW CHEMICAL: Motions in Antitrust Litigation Remain Pending
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Defends Eight MERS-Related Class Suits
EVERGREEN RECREATIONAL: Recalls BAYHILL Model of Travel Trailers
FTD COMPANIES: Awaits Rulings in RICO Suits vs. United Online
HICKORY HOLLOW: Recalls 1,800 Lbs. of Beef Jerky Products

IDAHO: Says Formula for State Medicaid Budget Trade Secret
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in California
INVACARE CORP: Faces Securities Class Action in Ohio Court
JINKOSOLAR HOLDING: Appeal From "Peters" Suit Dismissal Pending
JULIAN'S RECIPE: Withdraws European Style Pretzel Baguette Boxes

KINDER MORGAN: Signs MOU to Settle Copano Merger-Related Suits
M/I HOMES: Has Paid Obligations Under Drywall Global Settlement
MCGRAW-HILL COS: Justice Dep't Helps Investor in Class Action
MGIC INVESTMENT: Defends Eight RESPA Violation Suits vs. Unit
MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Awaits Ruling on Cert. Bid in "Hardy" Suit

MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Awaits Ruling on Petition in "Williams" Suit
NORTHERN TRUST: Defends Suits by Lending Program Participants
NORTHERN TRUST: Securities Suit in Illinois Dismissed in March
OFFICE DEPOT: Six Merger-Related Suits Consolidated in Illinois
PACCAR: Recalls 2014 T470 and T800 Models of Kenworth Trucks

POOL CORP: Direct Purchasers' Antitrust Claim Granted in Part
PORTUGAL TELECOM: Appeals in National Treasury AG Suit Pending
PORTUGAL TELECOM: Awaits Initial Decision in Prosecutor's Suit
RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: NJ Carpenters' Class Suit Bid Adjourned
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Seeks Dismissal of Inmates' Class Action

SALSA CYCLES: Recalls 1,700 Bicycle Forks Due to Fall Hazard
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Appeals From Approval of BP Settlements Pending
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Still Awaits Ruling on Summary Judgment Bids
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Defends Deepwater Horizon FLSA Suits vs. ORM
SEACOR HOLDINGS: "Robin" Plaintiffs Did Not Seek High Court Review

SEACOR HOLDINGS: "Wunstell" Suit Remains Pending in Louisiana
STM: Transit Users Launch Petition Over Repeated Metro Outages
SUNSPROUT NATURAL: Recalls Sunsprout/SproutsAlive Alfalfa Sprouts
TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls 678 Lbs. of BBQ Flavored Ranch Salad
TENET HEALTHCARE: To Seek Supreme Ct. Review of Appellate Ruling

TRIUMPH: Recalls Various STREET TRIPLE Models of Motorcycles
TUESDAY MORNING: Status Conference in "Randell" Suit on July 8
VERISK ANALYTICS: Awaits Certification Bid Ruling in "Roe" Suit
VERISK ANALYTICS: Continues to Defend "Johnson" Suit vs. iiX
VERISK ANALYTICS: Intellicorp Continues to Defend "Thomas" Suit

VODAFONE: More Than 10,000 Ex-Customers Join Class Action
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Recalls 25,928 Cars in Australia Over Gearboxes
WASHINGTON COUNTY: Lawyer Mulls Class Action Over Rental Ordinance


                             *********


ALBERTA SCHOOL: Former Students Lose Bid Launch to Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Mason, writing for iNews880.com, reports that after a five year
court battle, people who claim they were physically and sexually
abused at the Alberta School for the Deaf appear to have lost a
bid to launch a class action lawsuit.

The former students claimed they were abused by staff and other
students at the Alberta School for the Deaf well over a decade
ago.  One woman claimed she became pregnant and was forced to
undergo an abortion.  They also claimed additional students had
contacted them with similar complaints of abuse between 1955 and
1996.

Alberta Court of Queens Bench Justice John Rooke in a lengthy and
complicated judgment has declined certification of a class action
lawsuit for several reasons including the amount of time that has
passed.  In a second "provisional judgment" Justice Rooke ruled if
his decision is reversed on appeal, he would allow an action but
with several conditions.


AMEDISYS INC: Bids to Dismiss ERISA and Derivative Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amedisys, Inc. and other defendants' motions to dismiss ERISA and
derivative lawsuits remain pending, 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.

                Securities Class Action Lawsuits

On June 7, 2010, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Louisiana against the Company and certain of its current and
former senior executives.  Additional putative securities class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana on July 14, July 16, and July 28,
2010.

On October 22, 2010, the Court issued an order consolidating the
putative securities class action lawsuits and the Federal
Derivative Actions for pre-trial purposes.  In the same order, the
Court appointed the Public Employees Retirement System of
Mississippi and the Puerto Rico Teachers' Retirement System as co-
lead plaintiffs (together, the "Co-Lead Plaintiffs") for the
putative class.  On December 10, 2010, the Court also consolidated
the ERISA class action lawsuit with the putative securities class
actions and Federal Derivative Actions for pre-trial purposes.

On January 18, 2011, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended,
consolidated class action complaint (the "Securities Complaint")
which supersedes the earlier-filed securities class action
complaints.  The Securities Complaint alleges that the defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose
material facts about the Company's business, financial condition,
operations and prospects, particularly relating to the Company's
policies and practices regarding home therapy visits under the
Medicare home health prospective payment system and the related
alleged impact on the Company's business, financial condition,
operations and prospects.  The Securities Complaint seeks a
determination that the action may be maintained as a class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's securities
between August 2, 2005, and September 28, 2010, and an unspecified
amount of damages.

All defendants previously moved to dismiss the Securities
Complaint.  On June 28, 2012, the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Louisiana granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the Securities Complaint.  On July 26, 2012, the Co-Lead
Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration.  Through that
motion, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs have asked the Court to rescind its
June 28, 2012 dismissal order and to reverse its decision to grant
the defendants' motion to dismiss.  In the alternative, the Co-
Lead Plaintiffs have asked the Court to modify its dismissal order
to grant Co-Lead Plaintiffs permission to file a second amended
complaint.  The defendants filed a response in opposition to the
Co-Lead Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration in late August
2012.  The Court denied the Co-Lead Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration on April 9, 2013.

                       Derivative Actions

On July 2, 2010, an alleged shareholder of the Company filed a
derivative lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana, purporting to assert claims on
behalf of the Company against certain of its current and former
officers and directors.  Three similar derivative lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Louisiana on July 15, July 21, and August 2, 2010 (together,
the "Federal Derivative Actions").  The Company is named as a
nominal defendant in all of those actions.  As noted, on October
22, 2010, the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Louisiana issued an order consolidating the Federal Derivative
Actions with the putative securities class action lawsuits and for
pre-trial purposes.

On January 18, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Federal Derivative
Actions filed a consolidated, amended complaint (the "Derivative
Complaint") which supersedes the earlier-filed derivative
complaints.  The Derivative Complaint alleges that certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company by making allegedly false
statements, by allegedly failing to establish sufficient internal
controls over certain of the Company's home health and Medicare
billing practices, by engaging in alleged insider trading, and by
committing unspecified acts of waste of corporate assets and
unjust enrichment.  All defendants in the Federal Derivative
Actions, including the Company as a nominal defendant, have moved
to dismiss the Derivative Complaint.  That motion is fully briefed
and remains pending before the court.

On July 23, 2010, a derivative lawsuit was filed in the Nineteenth
Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of
Louisiana.  That action also purports to assert claims on behalf
of the Company against certain of its current and former officers
and directors.  On December 8, 2010, the Court entered an order
staying the action in deference to the earlier-filed derivative
actions pending in federal court.

                        ERISA Class Action Lawsuit

On September 27, 2010, and October 22, 2010, separate putative
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana against the Company,
certain of its current and former senior executives and members of
the Company's 401(k) Plan Administrative Committee.  The lawsuits
allege violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA") since January 1, 2006, and July 1, 2007, respectively.
The plaintiffs brought the complaints on behalf of themselves and
a class of similarly situated participants in the Company's 401(k)
plan.  The plaintiffs assert that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the 401(k) Plan's participants by causing the
401(k) plan to offer and hold Amedisys common stock during the
respective class periods when it was an allegedly unduly risky and
imprudent retirement investment because of the Company's alleged
improper business practices.  The complaints seek a determination
that the actions may be maintained as a class action, an award of
unspecified monetary damages and other unspecified relief.  As
noted, on December 10, 2010, the Court consolidated the putative
ERISA class actions with the putative securities class actions and
derivative actions for pre-trial purposes.  In addition, on
December 10, 2010, the Court appointed interim lead counsel and
interim liaison counsel in the ERISA class action.

On March 10, 2011, Wanda Corbin, Pia Galimba and Linda Trammell
(the "Co-ERISA Plaintiffs"), filed an amended, consolidated class
action complaint (the "ERISA Complaint"), which supersedes the
earlier-filed ERISA class action complaints.  The ERISA Complaint
seeks a determination that the action may be maintained as a class
action on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
participants in the Company's 401(k) plan from January 1, 2008,
through present.  All of the defendants have moved to dismiss the
ERISA Complaint.  That motion is fully briefed and remains pending
before the court.

Amedisys, Inc. -- http://www.amedisys.com/-- is one of America's
leading home health and hospice companies.  The Company is
headquartered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.


AMEDISYS INC: Continues to Defend Wage & Hour Suit in Connecticut
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amedisys, Inc., continues to defend itself against a wage and hour
class action lawsuit pending in Connecticut, 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 July 25, 2012, a putative collective and class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut against the Company in which three former employees
allege wage and hour law violations.  The former employees claim
they were paid on both a per-visit and an hourly basis, thereby
misclassifying them as exempt employees and entitling them to
overtime pay.  The plaintiffs allege violations of Federal and
state law and seek damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), as well as under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.  The
Plaintiffs seek class certification of similar employees and seek
attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back
three years under the FLSA and three years under the Pennsylvania
statute.

The Company says it is unable to assess the probable outcome or
reasonably estimate the potential liability, if any, arising from
the wage and hour litigation given the preliminary stage of the
matter.  The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend
itself in the wage and hour litigation matter.  No assurances can
be given as to the timing or outcome of the wage and hour
litigation or the impact of any of the inquiry, investigation or
litigation matters on the Company, its consolidated financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows, which could be
material, individually or in the aggregate.

The Company recognizes that additional putative securities class
action complaints and other litigation could be filed, and that
other investigations and actions could be commenced, relating to
matters involving the Company's home therapy visits and therapy
utilization trends or other matters.

Amedisys, Inc. -- http://www.amedisys.com/-- is one of America's
leading home health and hospice companies.  The Company is
headquartered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.


AMEDISYS INC: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Suit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amedisys, Inc., continues to defend itself against a wage and hour
class action lawsuit pending in Illinois, 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 September 13, 2012, a putative collective and class action
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against the Company in which a
former employee alleges wage and hour law violations.  The former
employee claims she was paid on both a per-visit and an hourly
basis, thereby misclassifying her as an exempt employee and
entitling her to overtime pay.  The plaintiff alleges violations
of Federal and state law and seeks damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.  The Plaintiff
seeks class certification of similar employees who were or are
employed in Illinois and seeks attorneys' fees, back wages and
liquidated damages going back three years under the FLSA and three
years under the Illinois statute.

The Company says it is unable to assess the probable outcome or
reasonably estimate the potential liability, if any, arising from
the wage and hour litigation given the preliminary stage of the
matter.  The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend
itself in the wage and hour litigation matter.  No assurances can
be given as to the timing or outcome of the wage and hour
litigation or the impact of any of the inquiry, investigation or
litigation matters on the Company, its consolidated financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows, which could be
material, individually or in the aggregate.

The Company recognizes that additional putative securities class
action complaints and other litigation could be filed, and that
other investigations and actions could be commenced, relating to
matters involving the Company's home therapy visits and therapy
utilization trends or other matters.

Amedisys, Inc. -- http://www.amedisys.com/-- is one of America's
leading home health and hospice companies.  The Company is
headquartered in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.


AMERICAN INT'L: Court of Federal Claims Certifies Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following is being released by the law firm of Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP.

PURSUANT TO RULE 23 of the Rules of the United States Court of
Federal Claims, you are hereby notified:

The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of a class action
lawsuit challenging the actions of the United States with regard
to American International Group, Inc. between September 2008 and
June 2009.  The United States Court of Federal Claims has
certified this case as a Class Action.  If you are eligible, you
have the right to elect to join this lawsuit.  Alternatively, you
can do nothing and remain outside the two Classes.

The United States Court of Federal Claims authorized this Notice
to inform AIG shareholders in the relevant time periods that this
Class Action lawsuit is ongoing and to provide information about
their options and rights to join or not join one or both Classes
so that AIG shareholders can make an informed decision.

By authorizing this Notice and agreeing that this lawsuit should
be a Class Action lawsuit, the Court of Federal Claims has not
decided whether the United States has any liability to the
certified classes; that will be determined at a trial.

Who is Included?

Two classes have been certified; you may be eligible to join one
or both.  If you owned AIG common stock on or before September 16,
2008 and owned those shares on September 22, 2008, you may be
eligible to join the Credit Agreement Class.

If you owned AIG common stock on June 30, 2009 and you were
eligible to vote that stock at the AIG annual meeting of
shareholders held on that day, you may be eligible to join the
Stock Split Class.

What is this Lawsuit About?

This lawsuit relates to certain actions taken by the United States
government between September 2008 and June 2009 with regard to
AIG. Starr International Company, Inc., the AIG shareholder that
initiated this lawsuit, alleges that these actions were
unconstitutional and illegal.  Specifically, Starr alleges that
the actions of the United States amounted to an illegal exaction
and/or taking of shareholder property ownership interests in AIG
without just compensation.  Starr seeks relief in the form of
Government compensation to AIG shareholders for the alleged
illegal acts.  The United States denies that it acted illegally or
unconstitutionally.

How Can I Join?

A detailed Notice which describes the consequences of a decision
to join or not join this Class Action can be found at:
http://www.starrtakingsclaim.com

If, after reading the Notice and the information on the website,
you decide you want to join one or both of the Classes, you can
obtain a Class Action Enrollment Form at:
http://www.starrtakingsclaim.comor by contacting the Claims
Administrator, Rust Consulting, Inc. at 1-877-497-5920 or
info@starrtakingsclaim.com

You must submit your consent form by September 16, 2013.

What are my Options?

If you qualify, you may join one or both of the Classes.  If you
join, you will be bound by any judgment, order, or settlement in
the lawsuit, both favorable and unfavorable.  You will have the
right to your share of any money that is recovered, if there is
any recovery.  You will not be allowed to sue the United States
separately if you join.

The Court has appointed Class Counsel, David Boies, to represent
all class members.  He will represent you if you choose to join
one or both of the Classes.  If you choose, you have the right to
have your own attorney represent you in this action or in a
separate action.  If you choose to hire your own attorney, you
will have to pay that attorney.  Class Counsel and the law firms
representing the Classes will ask the Court to allow them to take
a percentage of any money that is recovered as their fee.

You can do nothing.  You will not be a member of either Class.
You will not be bound by any judgment, and will not share in any
recovery.  You can sue the United States separately if you want,
at your expense.

For more information visit http://www.StarrTakingsClaim.comor
call 1-877-497-5920.

Attorneys for Plaintiff Starr International:

         David Boies, Esq.
         BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
         333 Main Street
         Armonk, NY 10504
         Tel: (914) 749-8200
         Fax: (914) 749-8300
         E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com

              - and -

         Robert J. Dwyer, Esq.
         Nicholas A. Gravante Jr., Esq.
         Alanna C. Rutherford, Esq.
         Julia C. Hamilton, Esq.
         575 Lexington Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Telephone: (212) 446-2300
         E-mail: rdwyer@bsfllp.com
                 ngravante@bsfllp.com
                 arutherford@bsfllp.com

              - and -

         Hamish P. M. Hume, Esq.
         Samuel C. Kaplan, Esq.
         5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
         Washington, DC 20015
         Telephone: (202) 237-2727
         E-mail: hhume@bsfllp.com
                 skaplan@bsfllp.com

              - and -

         SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
         John L. Gardiner, Esq.
         Four Times Square
         New York, NY 10036
         Telephone: (212) 735-3000
         E-mail: john.gardiner@skadden.com

Counsel to American International Group, Inc., are:

         Joseph S. Allerhand, Esq.
         Stephen A. Radin, Esq.
         Jamie L. Hoxie, Esq.
         WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
         E-mail: joseph.allerhand@weil.com
                 stephen.radin@weil.com
                 jamie.hoxie@weil.com


APPLE INC: Settles Class Action Over iPhone, iPod Touch Warranties
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Ribeiro, writing for IDG News Service, reports that Apple has
agreed to pay US$53 million to settle a class-action suit in
connection with warranties for its iPhone and iPod touch devices.

The proceeds of the cash settlement will be paid to over 153,000
owners of the devices who were denied warranty coverage while
Apple's "liquid damage policy" was still in force, according to a
joint filing on May 28 in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

Under the earlier warranty policy, Apple had installed a Liquid
Submersion Indicator (LSI), made from a water contact indicator
tape manufactured by 3M, on the devices.  Color changes in the
indicator from white to pink or red could be viewed externally.

Apple changed its Liquid Damage Policy as it pertained to the
iPhone in or around November 2009, while for the iPod touch it
continued till May 2010.

The company held that a red or pink external LSI was sufficient
proof that the device had been damaged by liquid, hence making the
warranty void in line with provisions that excluded coverage, for
example, for "liquid spill or submersion" or "abuse."

The plaintiffs contended that the change of color on the LSIs
merely indicated that device may have been exposed to liquid, but
did not establish that it was damaged by exposure to liquid or
that the exposure caused the specific malfunction in the device
the customer was seeking to repair or replace under warranty.

3M's testing and product instructions also stated that pink was
merely an indication of humidity, and did not indicate contact
with the liquid, according to the plaintiffs.  Apple contested
3M's results stating that the tests were conducted on indicator
tape open to the elements, and not contained inside a device, and
at unrealistic extremes of temperature and humidity.

The settlement still requires the approval of the court.
Customers whose warranty claims for iPhones were denied before
Dec. 31, 2009 because of the liquid damage policy, and claims for
iPod touch that were denied before June 30, 2010 are eligible for
settlement funds.  Up to 30 percent of the proceeds may be awarded
as attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses.


AU OPTRONICS: Supreme Court to Review 5th Cir. Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether federal courts have
jurisdiction over lawsuits filed in state courts by state
attorneys general on behalf of consumers.

The court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari in
Mississippi ex rel Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., according to a
12-page order list released on May 28.

Oral arguments will be scheduled for the fall term.

In February, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood submitted a
petition for a writ of certiorari with the court, arguing that a
November ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
"warrants plenary review."

The Fifth Circuit, in its Nov. 21 opinion, ruled that the removal
of a lawsuit involving liquid crystal display panels to a federal
district court was proper.

In Mr. Hood's lawsuit, several companies from Japan, Korea and
Taiwan were accused of fixing prices for thin film transistor LCD
panels from 1999 to 2006.

The Fifth Circuit found that the suit qualified as a "mass action"
under the Class Action Fairness Act.

The federal statute, passed in 2005, gives federal courts
jurisdiction to certain class actions in which the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million, and in which any of the members of
a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a state different from any
defendant, unless at least two-thirds or more of the members of
all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate and the primary
defendants are citizens of the state in which the action was
originally filed.

Business groups and tort reform supporters had lobbied for the
legislation, arguing that it was needed to prevent class-action
lawsuit abuse.

"After analyzing the complaint, the relevant statutes and the
parens patriae authority of the State, we hold that the real
parties in interest in this suit include both the State and
individual consumers of LCD products.  Because it is undisputed
that there are more than 100 consumers, we find that there are
more than 100 claims at issue in this case.  The suit therefore
meets the CAFA definition of a 'mass action,'" Judge E. Grady
Jolly wrote for the Fifth Circuit.

Mr. Hood, who sued several major suppliers of the LCD panels in
Hinds County Chancery Court in March 2011, argues that the suit
should remain in a state court.  The attorney general says he
filed the suit under his parens patriae powers -- to protect the
physical and economic well-being of the residents of his state.

"First, it is beyond reasonable dispute that the Fifth Circuit's
decision directly conflicts with the decisions of the Fourth,
Seventh and Ninth Circuits.  The Fifth Circuit's judgment also
conflicts with this court's precedent regarding the nature of
parens patriae actions, the real party in interest test, and the
requirement that removal statutes such as CAFA be strictly
construed," Mr. Hood wrote in his Feb. 19 petition.

"The decision below involves an important and recurring issue of
federal law and runs counter to deeply-rooted principles of
federalism.  The Fifth Circuit's decision will result in
additional, wasteful jurisdictional battles and administrative
complexity.  Review by this court is amply warranted."

Mr. Hood noted in his petition that there is a "clear and
substantial" circuit split regarding the interpretation of CAFA
with respect to parens patriae actions.

In fact, the same question presented is pending before the court
in a certiorari petition in AU Optronics Corp. v. South Carolina.

In that case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
held that two lawsuits filed by South Carolina's attorney general
can remain in state court.  The LCD makers are appealing the
Fourth Circuit's decision.

Mr. Hood, in a recent filing with the Supreme Court, argued that
the issue before the court now should be limited to whether the
case qualifies as a "mass action."

"This is the issue at the core of the circuit split," the attorney
general wrote in a 12-page reply brief in support of his petition,
filed earlier this month.

Mr. Hood added that the court should hold off on ruling in the
South Carolina case until a decision is made in his own.

Private firms hired to represent Mississippi in the LCD case are
Abraham & Rideout of Greenwood, Miss.; Zimmerman Reed of
Minneapolis; and Wise, Carter, Child & Caraway of Jackson.

A. Lee Abraham Jr. donated $1,000 to Mr. Hood's campaign fund in
2011, while three Zimmerman Reed attorneys each gave Mr. Hood
$1,000 in 2007.

The Zimmerman Reed firm gave Mr. Hood $11,250 from 2007-11.


AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL: Investors Launch AUD65-Mil. Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that investors in
Australian Capital Reserve have launched legal action to recover
more than AUD65 million, five years after the company collapsed.

Law firm Slater and Gordon has launched a class action in the
Federal Court on behalf of 1800 investors, many of whom are
retirees.  The investors say they have recovered only around half
the money lost in the collapse in 2007.

"Most of these people were mum and dad and other small investors
who lost their income and retirement nest eggs," Slater & Gordon
Practice Group Leader, Ben Whitwell said.  He may be reached at
BWhitwell@slatergordon.com.au

The legal action is to recover money invested after November 17,
2005.

Slater & Gordon said the Trust Company (Nominees) Limited failed
to exercise reasonable diligence and their actions, including
failing to ascertain whether ACR had sufficient property to repay
the amounts investors lent to it when they became due, eventually
led to the losses suffered by these investors.

Lead plaintiffs George and Ann Camilleri invested AUD510,000 in
the company.

"This was our life savings and was supposed to be for our
retirement," Mr. Camilleri said.

"Now my wife is unable to retire because we fear that we simply
can't afford it."


AVON PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Consolidated Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their consolidated class
action lawsuit, according to Avon Products, Inc.'s April 30, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In April 2012, several purported shareholders' actions were filed
against the Company and certain present or former directors of the
Company in New York Supreme Court, New York County (Pritika v.
Jung, et al., Index No. 651072/2012; Feinman v. Avon Products,
Inc., et al., Index No. 651087/2012; Gaines v. Jung, et al., Index
No. 651097/2012; Schwartz v. Avon Products, Inc., et al., Index
No. 651152/2012; Robaczynki, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of Avon
Products, Inc. v. Jung, et al., Index No. 651176/2012).  On
April 26, 2012, the actions were consolidated in New York Supreme
Court, New York County (In re Avon Products, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Consolidated Index No. 651087/2012E).  An amended
consolidated complaint was filed on May 18, 2012.  The amended
consolidated complaint asserts a derivative claim against the
individual defendants based on alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties in connection with indications of interest by Coty, Inc. in
acquiring the Company.  The Company is named as a nominal
defendant on the purported derivative claim, and no relief appears
to be sought against the Company on that claim.  The amended
consolidated complaint also asserts a purported direct claim on
behalf of a class of shareholders against the individual
defendants based on alleged breaches of such fiduciary duties.
The Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages as well as injunctive
relief.  On June 27, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated action.

By decision and order dated March 5, 2013, the court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.  On
April 1, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the
court's order dismissing the complaint.

The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome of this
matter.  However, it is reasonably possible that the Company may
incur a loss in connection with this matter.  The Company is
unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of such
reasonably possible loss.

Avon Products, Inc. -- http://www.avon.com/-- is a global
manufacturer and marketer of beauty and related products.  The
Company commenced operations in 1886 and was incorporated in New
York on January 27, 1916.  The New York-based Company conducts its
business in the highly competitive beauty industry and competes
against other consumer packaged goods and direct-selling companies
to create, manufacture and market beauty and non-beauty-related
products.


AVON PRODUCTS: Still Awaits Decision on Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 6, 2011, a purported shareholder's class action complaint
(City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., et
al., No. 11-CIV-4665) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against certain
present or former officers and/or directors of the Company.  On
September 29, 2011, the Court appointed LBBW Asset Management
Investmentgesellschaft mbH and SGSS Deutschland
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs and Motley Rice
LLC as lead counsel.  The Lead plaintiffs have filed an amended
complaint on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Avon's
common stock from July 31, 2006, through and including October 26,
2011.  The amended complaint names the Company and two individual
defendants and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or misleading statements
and omissions with respect to, among other things, the Company's
compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA"),
including the adequacy of the Company's internal controls.  The
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages as well as injunctive relief.
The Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June 14,
2012.

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.

The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome of this
matter.  However, it is reasonably possible that the Company may
incur a loss in connection with this matter.  The Company is
unable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of such
reasonably possible loss.

Avon Products, Inc. -- http://www.avon.com/-- is a global
manufacturer and marketer of beauty and related products.  The
Company commenced operations in 1886 and was incorporated in New
York on January 27, 1916.  The New York-based Company conducts its
business in the highly competitive beauty industry and competes
against other consumer packaged goods and direct-selling companies
to create, manufacture and market beauty and non-beauty-related
products.


BANK OF QUEENSLAND: Settles Storm Investors' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Wealth Professional reports that ASIC has settled legal
proceedings against Bank of Queensland, Senrac and Macquarie Bank
on behalf of two former Storm investors, Barry and Deanna Doyle.

Without admission, BOQ, Senrac and Macquarie have agreed to pay
AUD1,100,000, which will fully compensate Barry and Deanna Doyle
for their financial loss arising from their Storm investments, as
calculated by independent experts retained for the proceedings and
as calculated by ASIC.

A three-week trial was due to commence on June 3, 2013, in the
Federal Court of Australia, "to hold the banks accountable for
their role in the losses suffered by those who invested through
Storm and to establish a basis upon which the Doyles, and
ultimately other Storm investors, could achieve fair and adequate
compensation," said ASIC Chairman Greg Medcraft.

Allegations against BoQ and Macquarie were for breach of contract,
unconscionable conduct and liability as linked credit providers of
Storm.  Mr. Medcraft said the allegations had provided a template
for similar allegations that have been raised in class actions
brought on behalf of investors against BoQ, Macquarie and CBA.

"ASIC will continue its efforts to achieve fair compensation for
all former Storm investors," Mr. Medcraft said.

Claims similar to those made in the Doyle proceedings were made in
the Richards class action against Macquarie.

Under the class action settlement negotiated by solicitors of
Levitt Robinson and Macquarie, approximately 70% of class action
members would recover about 18% of their lost 'net equity' (as
estimated by Levitt Robinson).

The remaining class action members, who contributed in varying
amounts to the funding of the class action, would be reimbursed
their legal costs and also compensated for approximately 42% of
their lost 'net equity' (as estimated by Levitt Robinson).  In
return for receiving this compensation, members of the Richards
class action would be required to give up any further claims
against Macquarie in respect of Storm.

ASIC has appealed the Federal Court's approval of the Richards
class action settlement.  ASIC's appeal raises the question
whether the class action settlement was unfair to the 70% of class
action members who did not, or were unable to, contribute to the
funding of the action.

The Federal Court is yet to set a date for delivery of its
judgment in ASIC's unregistered managed investment scheme action
against Storm, BoQ and Macquarie.


BRAVO BRIO: Continues to Defend Wage and Hour Class Suit in Iowa
----------------------------------------------------------------
On May 24, 2012, Bravo Brio Restaurant Group, Inc., was named as a
defendant in a class action lawsuit alleging certain violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as certain Iowa wage and
hours laws.  The Company has answered the complaint and denied the
allegations.  The Company believes that it has meritorious
defenses to these allegations and intends to continue to
vigorously defend against them, including challenging the
plaintiffs' efforts to certify a class.  The Company believes that
the ultimate outcome of this matter will not be material to the
financial statements.

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.

Bravo Brio Restaurant Group, Inc. -- http://www.bbrg.com/-- owns
and operates two distinct Italian restaurant brands, BRAVO! Cucina
Italiana and BRIO Tuscan Grille.  The Company is headquartered in
Columbus, Ohio.


BREASTSCREEN SA: May Face Class Action Over Missed Breast Cancers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
News.com.au reports that on May 30, another nine women contacted
Adelaide law firm Tindall Gask Bentley, which plans a class action
lawsuit over [South Australia's] breast cancer screening scandal.

The State Government is facing one of its biggest class actions
following revelations that 72 potentially detectable breast
cancers were missed and two women died.

Tindall Gask Bentley is yet to ascertain if the women are among
the 72 who had breast cancers missed by BreastScreen SA.  The law
firm said a total of 70 women had now been in contact, at least 34
of whom were among the 72.  The cancers were missed during
BreastScreen SA's two-year changeover from analogue to digital
mammography.

A report into the review of 53,104 mammograms found the settings
and methods used to read the digital images resulted in fewer
women being recalled for further testing.

Adelaide law firm Tindall Gask Bentley has said the review
strengthens the potential for a class action against the state.

Health Minister Jack Snelling said he had not yet sought legal
advice.

Fatal breast cancer cases among those missed

"On my reading of the report which has come out, there seems to
have been some clear oversights and that's been admitted in this
document," said TGB partner Tim White -- twhite@tgb.com.au   He
said it was "extraordinary" that BreastScreen SA had allowed for a
"learning curve" during the transition from analogue to digital.

"Whether it's a class action or individual claims, the women that
we've talked to are very interested in pursuing their
entitlements," he said.

Legal action could cost the State Government millions of dollars.

The State Government faces a massive class action after the
cancers were missed.

Women could be entitled to costs for treatment, medication,
surgery, ongoing medical reviews as well as lost time from work
and physical and psychological effects.

A statistical anomaly forced the review of the 53,104 digital
mammograms for women who were initially screened between
September 6, 2010, and June 30 last year.

A further 570 women were recalled for further assessment and from
those, the 72 women with potentially detectable cancers were
identified and contacted.

Mr. White said medical experts would now be consulted.

"A delay of 12 months, 18 months in diagnosis I would expect could
have a considerable impact on a person's prognosis," Mr. White
said.

"If the medical evidence indicates that that delay is significant,
then I would expect that that person would be entitled to some
legal remedy."

He said it could take some time for any legal action to begin
because the outcomes for each woman would need to be considered.

One woman whose cancer had metastasized had contacted the law
firm, but Mr. White said he had not been in contact with the
families of either of the women who died.

They missed my cancer -- don't let it happen again

BreastScreen SA clinical director Associate Professor Gelareh
Farshid said one of the women who died had a detectable advanced
stage cancer, but the cause of death of the other woman, who was
elderly, could not be confirmed.  She said a death-matching
process was part of quality control procedures, which was how she
was aware of the women's deaths.

Professor Farshid said there was "no possibility at all" the woman
who was confirmed to have died from breast cancer could have been
saved.

"In this instance we do not believe the very short delay in
diagnosis would have made any difference," Professor Farshid said.

She said digital mammography remained the best method of detection
for breast cancer, and that detection rates had since increased to
expected levels.

The review found no fault with the screening technology but
recommended that future screening "be carried out at an increased
radiation dose" to improve the image quality.

Mr. Snelling on May 29 apologized to all women affected, saying he
assumed full responsibility and regretted any anxiety it had
caused women and their families.

"Our priority has always been to ensure that those women who
require treatment receive the right care as soon as possible," he
said.

Mr. Snelling said the State Government had not yet sought legal
advice on the matter, but expected an adequate insurance policy
was in place.  "If there is some liability then we will be a model
litigant," he said.

"It's very early days and my first priority is for these women who
have been affected."

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data shows about 55 per
cent of South Australian women aged 50-69 participated in
screening.

The review, conducted by NSW BreastScreen Associate Professor Lee,
says the lower detection rates under digital technology were "a
most unexpected outcome".

"Digital mammography has been shown to have comparable if not
better cancer detection rates," the report says.

It found the "discontinuity" during the transition period, left
"less opportunity to transition easily to the digital reading
environment", while the technology was not at fault.

Women can call BreastScreen SA on 13 20 50 to make an appointment.


CAMPBELL SOUP: Loses Bid to Dismiss False Labeling Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that a Florida judge on
May 24 rejected efforts by Campbell Soup Co. to scrap a class
action accusing it of falsely labeling soups with genetically
modified corn as 100% natural, saying federal approval of a
related product does not preempt claims against the soups at
issue.

Campbell sought to dismiss the suit on the grounds that the U.S.
Department of Agriculture approved the "100% Natural" label for
two of its chicken soups, both of which contain the same
genetically modified corn present in the vegetable soups.


CENCOSUD SA: Received Adverse Ruling in "SERNAC" Suit vs. CAT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cencosud S.A. disclosed in its April 30, 2013, Form NT 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012, that it received an adverse ruling in the
class action lawsuit filed by SERNAC against a subsidiary.

In December 2006, the Servicio Nacional del Consumidor (the
National Consumer Protection Agency, or "SERNAC"), a Chilean
government entity that enforces compliance with the Ley de
Proteccion al Consumidor (the Consumer Protection Law), filed a
class action lawsuit before the Courts of Justice against the
Company's subsidiary, Cencosud Administradora de Tarjetas S.A.
("CAT"), which was notified of the lawsuit in January 2007.  The
first instance court issued its decision on December 31, 2010,
ruling in the plaintiff's favor and sentencing the defendant to
return the excess money charged.  It accepted the statute of
limitations claim alleged by the Company's side only with respect
to charges made before 07/12/06; it sentenced the defendant to pay
each affected consumer one monthly tax unit and to pay the
government a fine of 50 monthly tax units.  As a result of legal
opinions from experts in the matter, CAT appealed the ruling.  On
October 3, 2011, the Santiago Court of Appeals issued its ruling,
upholding the statute of limitations argument and, as a result,
overturned the first instance ruling.

On April 24, 2013, the Supreme Court of Chile rendered its ruling
in a class action lawsuit filed by SERNAC determining that CAT
included certain clauses in its 2006 contracts with cardholders
that were abusive to consumers, said clauses allowing CAT to
charge incremental maintenance fees to cardholders, without the
written consent of said cardholders.  The ruling was final and
non-appealable, and requires CAT to reimburse certain cardholders
for excess monthly maintenance fees charged since 2006, plus
adjustments for inflation and interest, using a formula included
in the court's ruling.  The amount ultimately required to be paid
in respect of this matter will be determined by applying the
court's formula, for which agreement with SERNAC regarding the
mechanics and parameters to be used is needed.  In order for the
Company to make a proper good faith provision estimate of the
charges to its 2012 financial statements, discussions with SERNAC
on the preliminary interpretation of the court's ruling are
needed.  Until discussions with SERNAC regarding the assumptions
to be used take place, the Company will be unable to properly
determine the amount that needs to be provisioned in its audited
financial statements as required by International Financial
Reporting Standards issued by the International Accounting
Standards Board.  Initial meetings between the Company and SERNAC
are expected to occur in the upcoming days.

Cencosud S.A. -- http://www.cencosud.com/-- is a multi-brand
retailer in South America.  The Company operates through a number
of formats, including supermarkets, home improvement stores,
shopping centers and department stores.  The Company is
headquartered in Santiago, Chile, and has operations in Chile,
Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Peru.


CIBER INC: Plea to Dismiss "Weston" Class Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ciber, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit titled
Weston v. Ciber, Inc. et al., remains pending, 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 October 28, 2011, a putative securities class action lawsuit,
Weston v. Ciber, Inc. et al., was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado against Ciber, its
current Chief Executive Officer David C. Peterschmidt, current
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ("CFO")
Claude J. Pumilia and former CFO Peter H. Cheesbrough (the "Class
Action").  The Class Action purports to have been filed on behalf
of all holders of Ciber common stock between December 15, 2010,
and August 3, 2011, by alleged stockholder and plaintiff, Burt
Weston.  The Class Action generally alleges that defendants Ciber,
Mr. Peterschmidt, Mr. Pumilia and Mr. Cheesbrough (the "Class
Action Defendants") violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Class Action
Defendants disseminated or approved alleged false statements
concerning the Company's outlook and forecast for fiscal year 2011
in: (1) the Company's 8-K filed with the SEC and press conference
held with investors on December 15, 2010; (2) the Company's press
release and earnings conference call on February 22, 2011; (3) the
Company's 10-K for fiscal year 2010 filed with the SEC on February
25, 2011; and (4) the Company's press release, earnings conference
call, and Form 10-Q for first quarter 2011 filed with the SEC on
May 3, 2011.  The complaint also generally alleges that the Class
Action Defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Class Action
Defendants acted as controlling persons of Ciber within the
meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by reason of their
positions with the Company.  The Class Action seeks, among other
things:  (1) an order from the Court declaring the complaint to be
a proper class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and certifying plaintiff as a representative of
the purported class; (2) awarding plaintiff and the members of the
class damages, including interest; (3) awarding plaintiff
reasonable costs and attorneys' fees; and (4) awarding such other
relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

The Court appointed Mr. Weston and City of Roseville Employees'
Retirement System as lead plaintiffs and the law firms of Robbins,
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Robbins Umeda LLP as lead plaintiffs'
counsel on January 31, 2012.  The Lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint in early April 2012.  The Class Action Defendants have
filed a motion to dismiss, which is currently pending.  The
Company believes that the Class Action is without merit and
intends to defend against it vigorously.

The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome of this
litigation.

Based in Greenwood Village, Colorado, Ciber, Inc., is a leading
global information technology company with nearly 40 years of
proven IT experience, world-class credentials and a wide range of
technology expertise.  With 65 offices worldwide operating on four
continents and over 60 supplier partners, Ciber has the
infrastructure and expertise to deliver IT services to almost any
organization.


COMCAST SPECTACOR: Loses Bid to Dismiss Ticket Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ama Sarfo, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey federal
judge on May 27 refused to toss a proposed class action accusing
Comcast Spectacor LP, owner of the Philadelphia Flyers
professional hockey team, of misleading season ticket holders by
deceptively excluding the outdoor Winter Classic game from ticket
packages.

Comcast Spectacor LP, a Comcast Corp. subsidiary, sought the
suit's dismissal, arguing that event tickets are revocable
licenses that allow the Flyers to revoke game tickets at any time
for any reason, as long as ticket holders are compensated.


CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Trial in R.I. Suit May Be Set by December
-------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc., expects that a trial in the
lawsuit pending in Rhode Island may be scheduled not earlier than
December 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 was for some time a defendant in a class action (the
"Stanwich Case") brought in the California Superior Court, Los
Angeles County.  The original plaintiffs in that case were persons
entitled to receive regular payments (the "Settlement Payments")
pursuant to earlier settlements of claims, generally personal
injury claims, against unrelated defendants.  Stanwich Financial
Services Corp. ("Stanwich"), an affiliate of the former chairman
of the Company's board of directors, is the entity that was
obligated to pay the Settlement Payments.  Stanwich defaulted on
its payment obligations to the plaintiffs and in June 2001 filed
for reorganization under the Bankruptcy Code, in the federal
bankruptcy court in Connecticut.  By February 2005, the Company
had settled all claims brought against it in the Stanwich Case.

In November 2001, one of the defendants in the Stanwich Case,
Jonathan Pardee, asserted claims for indemnity against the Company
in a separate action, which is now pending in federal district
court in Rhode Island.  The Company has filed counterclaims in the
Rhode Island federal court against Mr. Pardee, and has filed a
separate action against Mr. Pardee's Rhode Island attorneys, in
the same court.  The litigation between Mr. Pardee and the Company
was stayed for several years through September 2011, awaiting
resolution of an adversary action brought against Mr. Pardee in
the bankruptcy court, which is hearing the bankruptcy of Stanwich.

Pursuant to an agreement with the representative of creditors in
the Stanwich bankruptcy, that adversary action has been dismissed.
Under that agreement, the Company paid the bankruptcy estate
$800,000 and abandoned the Company's claims against the estate,
while the estate has abandoned its adversary action against Mr.
Pardee.  With the dismissal of the adversary action, all known
claims asserted against Mr. Pardee have been resolved without his
incurring any liability.  Accordingly, the Company believes that
this resolution of the adversary action will result in limitation
of the Company's exposure to Mr. Pardee to no more than some
portion of his attorneys fees incurred.  The stay in the action
against the Company in Rhode Island has been lifted, and both the
Company and Mr. Pardee filed motions for summary judgment.  The
court ruled on those motions in February 2013, denying the
Company's motion, and granting Mr. Pardee's motion as to
liability.  The issues remaining for trial are the extent of the
Company's obligation to indemnify Mr. Pardee.  There is no trial
date set, but the Company's expectation is that a trial may be
scheduled not earlier than December 2013.

The reader should consider that an adverse judgment against the
Company in the Rhode Island case for indemnification, if in an
amount materially in excess of any liability already recorded in
respect thereof, could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial condition.

Formed in California in 1991, Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc.,
specializes in purchasing and servicing retail automobile
installment sale contracts originated by licensed motor vehicle
dealers located throughout the United States in the sale of new
and used automobiles, light trucks and passenger vans.  The
Company is headquartered in Irvine, California.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Still Defends "Bradley" Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
On November 30, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Discover Financial Services by a cardmember in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (Walter Bradley, et
al. v. Discover Financial Services).  The plaintiff alleges that
the Company contacted him, and members of the class he seeks to
represent, on their cellular telephones without their express
consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").  The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for alleged
negligent and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees,
costs and injunctive relief.  The TCPA provides for statutory
damages of $500 for each violation ($1,500 for willful
violations).

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.

Riverwoods, Illinois-based Discover Financial Services is a direct
banking and payment services company.  The Company is a bank
holding company and a financial holding company.  The Company
offers credit cards, student loans, personal loans and deposit
products through its Discover Bank subsidiary and home loans
through its Discover Home Loans, Inc.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Still Defends "Steinfeld" Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
On March 6, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Discover Financial Services by a cardmember in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (Andrew Steinfeld,
et al. v. Discover Financial Services, et al.). The plaintiff
alleges that the Company contacted him, and members of the class
he seeks to represent, on their cellular telephones without their
express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA").  The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for alleged
negligent and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees,
costs and injunctive relief.  The TCPA provides for statutory
damages of $500 for each violation ($1,500 for willful
violations).

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.

Riverwoods, Illinois-based Discover Financial Services is a direct
banking and payment services company.  The Company is a bank
holding company and a financial holding company.  The Company
offers credit cards, student loans, personal loans and deposit
products through its Discover Bank subsidiary and home loans
through its Discover Home Loans, Inc.


DOW CHEMICAL: Motions in Antitrust Litigation Remain Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company's motions to grant judgment in its favor,
to grant it a new trial and to decertify the class in the
consolidated antitrust litigation remain pending, 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 16, 2006, the Company, among others, received a
subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") as part of a
previously announced antitrust investigation of manufacturers of
polyurethane chemicals, including methylene diphenyl diisocyanate,
toluene diisocyanate, polyether polyols and system house products.
The Company cooperated with the DOJ and, following an extensive
investigation, on December 10, 2007, the Company received notice
from the DOJ that it had closed its investigation of potential
antitrust violations involving these products without indictments
or pleas.

In 2005, the Company, among others, was named as a defendant in
multiple civil class action lawsuits alleging a conspiracy to fix
the price of various urethane chemical products, namely the
products that were the subject of the DOJ antitrust investigation.
These lawsuits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas (the "District Court") or have been tolled.
On July 29, 2008, the District Court certified a class of
purchasers of the products for the six-year period from 1999
through 2004.  Shortly thereafter, a series of "opt-out" cases
were filed by a number of large volume purchasers; these cases are
substantively identical to the class action lawsuit, but expanded
the time period to include 1994 through 1998.  In January 2013,
the class action lawsuit went to trial in the District Court with
the Company as the sole remaining defendant, the other defendants
having previously settled.

On February 20, 2013, the jury in the matter returned a damages
verdict of approximately $400 million against the Company, which
would be trebled under applicable antitrust laws -- less offsets
from other settling defendants -- if the verdict is not vacated or
otherwise set aside by the District Court.  The Company filed
post-trial motions on March 5, 2013, requesting the District Court
grant judgment in favor of the Company, grant the Company a new
trial and/or decertify the class.

In addition to the antitrust matters in Kansas, there are two
separate but inter-related matters in Ontario and Quebec, Canada,
both of which are pending a decision on class certification.

The Company has concluded it is not probable that a loss will
occur and, therefore, a liability has not been recorded with
respect to these matters.

Based in Midland, Michigan, The Dow Chemical Company in the
business of specialty chemicals delivering products and solutions
to sectors such as electronics, water, energy, and coatings.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Defends Eight MERS-Related Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
EverBank Financial Corporation is defending eight class action
lawsuits filed against lenders and servicers that have held
mortgages through Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
(MERS), 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.

MERS, EverHome Mortgage Company, EverBank and other lenders and
servicers that have held mortgages through MERS are parties to
these class action lawsuits where the plaintiffs allege improper
mortgage assignment and, in some instances, the failure to pay
recording fees in violation of state recording statutes:

   (1) State of Ohio, ex. rel. David P. Joyce, Prosecuting
       Attorney General of Geauga County, Ohio v. MERSCORP, Inc.,
       Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc. et al.
       filed in October 2011 in the Court of Common Pleas for
       Geauga County, Ohio, and later removed to federal court
       and subsequently remanded to state court;

   (2) State of Iowa, by and through Darren J. Raymond, Plymouth
       County Attorney v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic
       Registration Services, Inc., et al., filed in March 2012
       in the Iowa District Court for Plymouth County and later
       removed to federal court;

   (3) Boyd County, ex. rel. Phillip Hedrick, County Attorney of
       Boyd County, Kentucky, et al. v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage
       Electronic Registration Services, Inc., et al. filed in
       April 2012 in the United States District Court for the
       Eastern District of Kentucky;
   (4) St. Clair County, Illinois v. Mortgage Electronic
       Registration Systems, Inc., MERSCORP, Inc. et al., filed
       in May 2012 in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial
       Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois;

   (5) Macon County, Illinois v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage
       Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al. filed in
       July 2012 in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial
       Circuit, Macon County, Illinois, and later removed to
       federal court;

   (6) County of Multnomah v. Mortgage Electronic Registration
       Systems, Inc., et al., filed in December 2012 in an Oregon
       state court and subsequently removed to the U.S. District
       Court for the District of Oregon;

   (7) County of Union Illinois, et al. v. MERSCORP, Inc.,
       Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc., et al.
       filed in April 2012 in the Circuit Court for the First
       Judicial Circuit, Union County, Illinois, and later
       removed to federal court and now pending on appeal in the
       United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit;
       and

   (8) County of Ramsey and County of Hennepin, Minnesota v.
       MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., et al. filed in February 2013 in
       the Second Judicial District Court and subsequently removed
       to the U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota.

In these class action lawsuits, the plaintiffs in each case
generally seek judgment from the courts compelling the defendants
to record all assignments, restitution, compensatory and punitive
damages, and appropriate attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company believes the plaintiff's claims are without merit and
intends to contest all such claims vigorously.  EverBank was
previously subject to two additional lawsuits: (1) Jackson County,
Missouri v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registrations
Systems, Inc., et al., filed in April 2012 in the Circuit Court of
Jackson County, Missouri, and later removed to federal court where
the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, and (2)
Christian County Clerk, et al. v. MERS and EverHome Mortgage
Company filed in April 2011 in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky, which was the subject of an
appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
that upheld the lower court's dismissal of the complaint.

Jacksonville, Florida-based EverBank Financial Corporation is a
thrift holding company with two direct operating subsidiaries,
EverBank Funding, LLC, and EverBank, a federally chartered thrift
institution with its direct banking services offered nationwide.


EVERGREEN RECREATIONAL: Recalls BAYHILL Model of Travel Trailers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 10, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Travel Trailer
Notification type:        Recalls Audit
System:                   Other
Units affected:           6
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013203
TC ID number:             2013203

On certain fifth wheel trailers, the electrical motor for the
awning could become damaged, allowing the awning to unfurl
unexpectedly.  As a result, the awning could strike another
vehicle, a stationary object, or a bystander, causing property
damage and/or personal injury.  Correction: Dealers will replace
the awning motor.

Affected products:

             Makes and models affected
   ---------------------------------------------
   Make        Model      Model year(s) affected
   ----        -----      ----------------------
   EVERGREEN   BAYHILL    2013, 2014


FTD COMPANIES: Awaits Rulings in RICO Suits vs. United Online
-------------------------------------------------------------
FTD Companies, Inc. is awaiting court decisions on pending motions
in the class action lawsuits alleging violations of the Racketeer
Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act against its parent and
others, according to the Company's April 30, 2013, Form 10-12B
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In March 2012, Hope Kelm, Barbara Timmcke, Regina Warfel, Brett
Reilly, Juan M. Restrepo, and Jennie H. Pham filed a purported
class action complaint (the "Kelm Class Action") in United States
District Court, District of Connecticut, against these defendants:
(1) Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Capital One
Financial Corporation, Citigroup, Inc., and Citibank, N.A.
(collectively, the "Credit Card Company Defendants"); (2) 1-800-
Flowers.com, Inc., United Online, Inc., the Company's parent,
Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates International, Inc., FTD Group Inc.,
Days Inns Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corporation,
PeopleFindersPro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten
USA, Inc., IAC/InterActiveCorp, and Shoebuy.com, Inc.
(collectively, the "E-Merchant Defendants"); and (3) Trilegiant
Corporation, Inc. ("Trilegiant"), Affinion Group, LLC
("Affinion"), and Apollo Global Management, LLC ("Apollo").  The
complaint alleges (1) violations of the Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") against all defendants, and
aiding and abetting violations of such act against the Credit Card
Company Defendants; (2) aiding and abetting violations of federal
mail fraud, wire fraud, and bank fraud statutes against the Credit
Card Company Defendants; (3) violations of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") against Trilegiant, Affinion,
and the E-Merchant Defendants, and aiding and abetting violations
of such act against the Credit Card Company Defendants; (4)
violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act against
Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, and the E-Merchant Defendants, and
aiding and abetting violations of such act against the Credit Card
Company Defendants; (5) violation of California Business and
Professions Code section 17602 against Trilegiant, Affinion,
Apollo, and the E-Merchant Defendants; and (6) unjust enrichment
against all defendants.  The plaintiffs seek class certification,
restitution, and disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to
and received from plaintiffs, damages, treble damages, punitive
damages, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys'
fees, costs of lawsuit, and pre- and post-judgment interest on any
amounts awarded.

In March 2012, Debra Miller and William Thompson filed a purported
class action complaint (the "Miller Class Action") in United
States District Court, District of Connecticut, against these
defendants: (1) Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, Vertrue, Inc.,
Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Adaptive Marketing, LLC (collectively,
the "Membership Companies"); (2) 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., Beckett
Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Classmates International, Inc., Days Inn
Worldwide, Inc., FTD Group, IAC/Interactivecorp, Inc., Memory
Lane, Inc., Peoplefinderspro, Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc.,
Shoebuy.com, Inc., United Online, Wells Fargo & Company, and
Wyndham Worldwide Corporation (collectively, the "Marketing
Companies"); and (3) Bank of America, N.A., Capital One Financial
Corporation, Chase Bank USA, N.A., and Citibank, N.A.
(collectively, the "Credit Card Companies").  The complaint
alleges (1) violations of RICO against all defendants, and aiding
and abetting violations of such act against the Credit Card
Companies; (2) aiding and abetting violations of federal mail
fraud, wire fraud, and bank fraud statutes against the Credit Card
Companies; (3) violations of the ECPA against the Membership
Companies and the Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting
violations of such act against the Credit Card Companies; (4)
violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act against
the Membership Companies and the Marketing Companies, and aiding
and abetting violations of such act against the Credit Card
Companies; (5) violation of California Business and Professions
Code section 17602 against the Membership Companies and the
Marketing Companies; and (6) unjust enrichment against all
defendants. The plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution,
and disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received
from plaintiffs, damages, treble damages, punitive damages,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
costs of lawsuit, and pre- and post-judgment interest on any
amounts awarded.

In April 2012, the Kelm Class Action and the Miller Class Action
were consolidated with a related case under the case caption In re
Trilegiant Corporation, Inc.  In September 2012, the plaintiffs
filed their consolidated amended complaint and named five
additional defendants.  The defendants have responded to the
consolidated amended complaint.  No trial date has been set.

In December 2012, David Frank filed a purported class action
complaint (the "Frank Class Action") in United States District
Court, District of Connecticut, against the following defendants:
Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo (collectively, the "Frank Membership
Companies"); 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com,
Inc., Classmates International, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc.,
FTD Group, Hotwire, Inc., IAC/Interactivecorp, Inc., Memory Lane,
Inc., Orbitz Worldwide, LLC, PeopleFindersPro, Inc.,
Priceline.com, Inc., Shoebuy.com, Inc., TigerDirect, Inc., United
Online Inc., and Wyndham Worldwide Corporation (collectively, the
"Frank Marketing Companies"); Bank of America, N.A., Capital One
Financial Corporation, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Chase Paymentech
Solutions, LLC, Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, Inc., and Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. (collectively, the "Frank Credit Card Companies").  The
complaint alleges (1) violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") by all defendants; (2) aiding
and abetting violations of such act by the Frank Credit Card
Companies; (3) aiding and abetting commissions of mail fraud, wire
fraud, and bank fraud by the Frank Credit Card Companies; (4)
violation of the ECPA by the Frank Membership Companies and the
Frank Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting violations of
such act by the Frank Credit Card Companies; (5) violations of the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by the Frank Membership
Companies and the Frank Marketing Companies, and aiding and
abetting violations of such act by the Frank Credit Card
Companies; (6) violation of California Business and Professions
Code section 17602 by the Frank Membership Companies and the Frank
Marketing Companies; and (7) unjust enrichment by all defendants.
The plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, and
disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received
from plaintiff, damages, treble damages, punitive damages,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
costs of lawsuit, and pre- and post-judgment interest on any
amounts awarded.

On January 23, 2013, the plaintiff moved to consolidate the Frank
Class Action with the In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. action.
In response, the court ordered the plaintiff to show cause as to
why, among other things, the plaintiff should be afforded named
plaintiff status.  The plaintiff filed his response to the order
to show cause on February 15, 2013.  The court has not yet ruled
upon the request for consolidation or the order to show cause.

FTD Companies, Inc. -- http://www.ftd.com/-- is a floral and gift
products and services company.  The Company provides floral, gift
and related products and services to consumers and retail
florists, as well as to other retail locations offering floral and
gift products primarily in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and the
Republic of Ireland.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware and
is headquartered in Downers Grove, Illinois.


HICKORY HOLLOW: Recalls 1,800 Lbs. of Beef Jerky Products
---------------------------------------------------------
Hickory Hollow Jerky, LLC, a Eufaula, Alabama establishment, is
recalling approximately 1,800 pounds of flavored beef jerky
products because of misbranding and an undeclared allergen.  The
products contain Worcestershire sauce, and fish (anchovy paste) is
a subcomponent.  Fish is a known allergen, which is not declared
on the product label.

The products subject to recall include:

   * 3-oz. Original Recipe "HICKORY HOLLOW BEEF JERKY" bearing
     the establishment number "EST. 34550" inside the USDA mark
     of inspection on the label.

   * 3-oz. Sweet Heat BBQ "HICKORY HOLLOW BEEF JERKY" bearing the
     establishment number "EST. 34550" inside the USDA mark of
     inspection on the label.

   * 3-oz. Hot Shot "HICKORY HOLLOW BEEF JERKY" bearing the
     establishment number "EST. 34550"inside the USDA mark of
     inspection on the label.

The products were produced on various dates between December 4,
2012, and June 4, 2013, and were sold nationwide.  The product was
sold at retail and over the Internet.

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

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

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

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Russ Robbins, a company consumer contact, at hhjerky@gmail.com.

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


IDAHO: Says Formula for State Medicaid Budget Trade Secret
----------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Boone, writing for 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.

A judge already had ordered the state to either restore the
plaintiffs' Medicaid budgets or fix the process it uses to notify
them of cuts while the lawsuit proceeds.

But Ritchie Eppink, an attorney with the ACLU of Idaho who is
representing the group, said he requested class-action status
because the Department of Health and Welfare was still using the
old notification process for everyone else in the program.

"What the department has done instead is to try to wiggle out by
saying, 'OK, we won't send these faulty notices out to your
clients, but we will send them out to everyone else in the
program," Mr. Eppink said.

If the judge agrees to make the case a class-action and stop the
budget cuts while it moves forward, the state could be forced
restore the budget back to 2011 levels.  That's an increase of
roughly $3.1 million in state dollars, and more than $10 million
when the federal match is added in.

All of the plaintiffs have multiple medical or mental health
problems or developmental disabilities, and all of them need
supervision.  Some require 24-hour care.

Normally, the state assigns those clients an "individual budget"
for the year, which is essentially a cap on how much each client
may spend on medical needs or other care.  But the plaintiffs say
that in 2011, their budgets were cut dramatically, leaving them
without enough funds to get the care they need.  They also say the
state doesn't give clients adequate notice of the cuts or how they
can appeal the decisions.

The plaintiffs say that because the state refuses to reveal the
method it uses to set the budget, it's nearly impossible to fight
the decision.

Those recipients who do file an appeal with the state must argue
their case before a hearing officer who is hired and paid for by
the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, and the plaintiffs say
that means the hearing officers have a built-in bias in favor of
the state.

The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare has maintained that the
formula for computing the budgets is a trade secret.

Health and Welfare spokesman Tom Shanahan said the department's
attorneys were still reviewing the motion for a class action and
so were not ready to comment.  But Mr. Shanahan also said that
sometimes individual budgets are cut because the client doesn't
use all the money they were budgeted the previous year.  For
instance, if a recipient was budgeted $50,000 but only spent
$45,000 on services, the next year they could likely expect to see
their new budget set at $45,000.

Still, he acknowledged the department has faced steep cuts since
the economic downturn, including cuts to Medicaid.  Those cuts
have been the subject of multiple lawsuits in recent years, from
recipients, their legal guardians and the health care businesses
that serve residents with severe developmental disabilities.

The state has not yet issued its response to Mr. Eppink's class-
action request, and it could be months before a judge issues a
decision on the matter.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Intuitive
Surgical, Inc., on May 28 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a class comprising
all purchasers of Intuitive common stock between October 19, 2011
and April 18, 2013, inclusive.

A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IS AVAILABLE FROM THE COURT OR FROM GLANCY
BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP. PLEASE CONTACT US TOLL-FREE AT (888) 773-
9224, OR AT (212) 682-5340, OR BY EMAIL TO
SHAREHOLDERS@GLANCYLAW.COM   IF YOU INQUIRE BY EMAIL PLEASE
INCLUDE YOUR MAILING ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER AND NUMBER OF
SHARES PURCHASED.

Intuitive designs, manufactures and markets da Vinci robotic
surgical systems.  The Complaint alleges that defendants
misrepresented or failed to disclose material adverse facts about
the da Vinci system, including that: (1) defects in the system had
caused a substantial number of patient injuries resulting in
adverse incident reports prior to and during the Class Period; (2)
not all of these adverse incident reports were being reported to
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), exposing the Company
to significant regulatory risk and potential criminal sanctions;
(3) Intuitive knew there was a substantial risk that the FDA might
limit or restrict sales and marketing of the system; (4) Intuitive
was engaging in sales practices that violated community standards
and their own protocol agreed upon with the FDA; (5) Intuitive was
exposed to substantial potential civil liability to injured and
deceased patients and their families; (6) Intuitive failed to
properly reserve for potential civil liability; and (7) as a
result, defendants lacked a reasonable basis to make positive
statements about the safety and effectiveness of the da Vinci
Surgical System, the Company's business metrics and its Class
Period financial results and outlook.

If you are a member of the Class described above you may move the
Court no later than June 25, 2013 to serve as lead plaintiff;
however, you must meet certain legal requirements.  If you wish to
learn more, or if you purchased Intuitive stock prior to the Class
Period, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow
& Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles,
California 90067, Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, or contact Gregory
Linkh, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP at 122 E. 42nd
Street, Suite 2920, New York, New York 10168, at (212) 682-5340,
by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com

If you inquire by email please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.


INVACARE CORP: Faces Securities Class Action in Ohio Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on May 24, 2013, a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio against Invacare Corporation.  The
complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material or
false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is July 22, 2010 through December 7, 2011.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Invacare
Corporation shareholders who purchased common stock during the
Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described
above. You may move the Court no later than Tuesday, July 23, 2013
to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class.  However, in
order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:

          K. Lynn Nunn
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          E-mail: kln@federmanlaw.com
          Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com


JINKOSOLAR HOLDING: Appeal From "Peters" Suit Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit commenced
by Marco Peters in New York remains pending, according to
JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd.'s April 30, 2013, Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

On October 11, 2011, JinkoSolar was named as a defendant in a
putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
captioned Marco Peters v. JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd., et al.,
Case No. 11-CV-7133 (S.D.N.Y.) (the "U.S. Securities Action").  In
addition to JinkoSolar, the complaint also names as defendants
Xiande Li, Kangping Chen, Xianhua Li, Wing Koen Siew, Haitao Jin,
Zibin Li, Stephen Markscheid, Longgen Zhang or the Individual
Defendants, and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering in May 2010.  The plaintiff in the U.S. Securities Action
seeks to represent a class of all purchasers and acquirers of
American depositary shares ("ADSs") of JinkoSolar between May 13,
2010, and September 21, 2011, inclusive.  The plaintiff alleges
that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, by making material
misstatements or failing to disclose material information
regarding, among other things, JinkoSolar's compliance with
environmental regulations at its Haining facility.  The complaint
also asserts claims against the Individual Defendants for control
person liability under Section 15 of the Securities Act and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks, among
other things, certification of the putative class, unspecified
compensatory damages (including interest), and costs and expenses
incurred in the action.  On March 19, 2012, the court entered an
order appointing lead plaintiffs in the U.S. Securities Action.

On June 1, 2012, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint") asserting similar
allegations and the same causes of action as in the original
complaint and naming one additional underwriter as a defendant.
On August 1, 2012, JinkoSolar filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, as did Stephen Markscheid, who was the only
Individual Defendant to have been served in the action.  On the
same date, the underwriter defendants filed a joinder to
JinkoSolar's motion to dismiss.

On January 22, 2013, the court issued a Memorandum and Order
granting JinkoSolar's and Stephen Markscheid's motions to dismiss
in their entirety and dismissing the Amended Complaint as against
all defendants.  The Court entered judgment in favor of the
defendants on the same date.  On February 19, 2013, the lead
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with respect to the court's
January 22, 2013 Memorandum and Order and Judgment.  The Lead
plaintiffs' appeal is currently pending in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Company says it is unable to reliably estimate the probability
of the case and the range of any exposure if any.

JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd. -- http://ir.jinkosolar.com/-- is a
global solar power product manufacturer based in Jiangxi Province
and Zhejiang Province in China.  The Company has built a
vertically-integrated solar power product value chain from
recovered silicon materials to solar modules with the solar module
as the Company's principal product.


JULIAN'S RECIPE: Withdraws European Style Pretzel Baguette Boxes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julian's Recipe, LLC, in cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), is voluntarily withdrawing its European
Style Pretzel Baguette packages from HEB Stores in Texas.  Certain
packages of Pretzel Baguettes may contain Julian's European Style
Multigrain Garlic Baguettes, which are made with soy flour.  The
affected boxes of European Style Pretzel Baguettes were only
shipped to HEB Stores in Texas.

The Pretzel Baguettes come in a white box containing two Baguettes
- net weight 11.3 oz (320g). Consumers can identify the affected
packages by the UPC Code, Lot Code and Best Before Date, which are
located on the bottom right hand corner of the box.  The voluntary
withdrawal is limited to Pretzel Baguettes bearing the following
lot code and best before date only:

          Julian's Recipe European Style Pretzel Baguettes,
          Net Wt. 11.3 oz (320g)
          Unit UPC: 8 55971 00226 9
          Lot Code: L2312
          Best Before: 02/10/2014

The removal was initiated after a consumer discovered Garlic
Baguettes in a Pretzel Baguette package.  This product is only a
safety concern for consumers who are allergic to soy.  People who
have an allergy or severe sensitivity to soy run the risk of a
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products.  No illnesses have been reported to-date in
connection with this problem.

Julian's Recipe has taken the precautionary measure of contacting
the FDA and voluntarily removing the product from HEB Stores.

Consumers who have purchased the mislabeled Pretzel Baguette boxes
may return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the Julian's Recipe Customer
Service Department at 888-640-8880 x 1, Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. -
5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.


KINDER MORGAN: Signs MOU to Settle Copano Merger-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle merger-related class action lawsuits,
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 January 29, 2013, the Company and Copano Energy, L.L.C.,
announced a definitive agreement whereby the Company will acquire
all of Copano's outstanding units, including convertible preferred
units, for a total purchase price of approximately $5 billion,
including the assumption of debt.

Three putative class action lawsuits are currently pending in
connection with the Company's proposed merger with Copano: (i)
Schultes v. Copano Energy, L.L.C., et al. (Case No. 06966), in the
District Court of Harris County, Texas, which is referred to as
the Texas State Action; (ii) Bruen v. Copano Energy, L.L.C., et
al. (Case No. 4:13-CV-00540) in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, which is referred to as the
Texas Federal Action; and (iii) In re Copano Energy, L.L.C.
Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 8284-VCN in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware, which is referred to as the Delaware
Action, which reflects the consolidation of three actions
originally filed in the Court of Chancery.  The Texas State
Action, the Texas Federal Action and the Delaware Action are
collectively referred to as the "Actions."

The Actions name Copano, R. Bruce Northcutt, William L. Thacker,
James G. Crump, Ernie L. Danner, T. William Porter, Scott A.
Griffiths, Michael L. Johnson, Michael G. MacDougall, Kinder
Morgan GP, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners and Merger Sub as
defendants.  The Actions are purportedly brought on behalf of a
putative class seeking to enjoin the merger and allege, among
other things, that the members of Copano's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell Copano for
inadequate and unfair consideration and pursuant to an inadequate
and unfair process, and that Copano, Kinder Morgan Energy
Partners, Kinder Morgan GP and Merger Sub aided and abetted such
alleged breaches.  In addition, the plaintiffs in each of the
Texas State Action and the Delaware Action allege that the Copano
directors breached their duty of candor to unitholders by failing
to provide the unitholders with all material information regarding
the merger and/or made misstatements in the preliminary proxy
statement.  The plaintiffs in the Texas Federal Action also assert
a claim under the federal securities laws alleging that the
preliminary proxy statement omits and/or misrepresents material
information in connection with the merger.

On April 21, 2013, the parties in all the Actions executed a
Memorandum of Understanding by which, in exchange for the full
settlement and dismissal with prejudice of each of the Actions,
Copano agreed to make certain additional disclosures concerning
the merger in a Form 8-K filed by Copano on April 22, 2013.  The
parties are in the process of preparing and filing a Stipulation
of Settlement and such other additional documents as may be
required to in the Delaware Chancery Court for approval of the
settlement.

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., is a pipeline transportation
and energy storage company in North America.  The Company owns an
interest in or operates approximately 44,000 miles of pipelines
and 180 terminals.  The Company's pipelines transport natural gas,
refined petroleum products, crude oil, carbon dioxide and other
products, and the Company's terminals store petroleum products and
chemicals, and handle such products as ethanol, coal, petroleum
coke and steel.


M/I HOMES: Has Paid Obligations Under Drywall Global Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
M/I Homes, Inc. disclosed in its April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013, that its total obligation as a defendant
under the global settlement resolving claims arising from the use
of defective drywall was not material and has been paid.

On March 5, 2009, a resident of Florida and an owner of one of the
Company's homes filed a complaint in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated owners and residents of homes in the
United States or alternatively in Florida, against the Company and
certain other identified and unidentified parties (the "Initial
Action").  The plaintiff alleged that the Company built his home
with defective drywall, manufactured and supplied by certain of
the defendants, that contains sulfur or other organic compounds
capable of harming the health of individuals and damaging
property.  The plaintiff alleged physical and economic damages and
sought legal and equitable relief, medical monitoring and
attorney's fees.  The Company filed a responsive pleading on or
about April 30, 2009.  The Initial Action was consolidated with
other similar actions not involving the Company and transferred to
the Eastern District of Louisiana pursuant to an order from the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings (collectively, the "In Re:
Chinese Manufactured Drywall Product Liability Litigation").  In
connection with the administration of the In Re: Chinese
Manufactured Drywall Product Liability Litigation, the same
homeowner and nine other homeowners were named as plaintiffs in
omnibus class action complaints filed in and after December 2009
against certain identified manufacturers of drywall and others
(including the Company), including one homeowner named as a
plaintiff in an omnibus class action complaint filed in March 2010
against various unidentified manufacturers of drywall and others
(including the Company) (collectively, the "MDL Omnibus Actions").
As they relate to the Company, the Initial Action and the MDL
Omnibus Actions address substantially the same claims and seek
substantially the same relief.

The Company has entered into agreements with several of the
homeowners named as plaintiffs pursuant to which the Company
agreed to make repairs to their homes consistent with repairs made
to the homes of other homeowners.  As a result of these
agreements, the Initial Action has been resolved and dismissed,
and seven of the nine other homeowners named as plaintiffs in
omnibus class action complaints have dismissed their claims
against the Company.  One of the two remaining plaintiffs has also
filed a complaint in Florida state court asserting essentially the
same claims and seeking substantially the same relief as asserted
in the MDL Omnibus Actions.  The court in the MDL Omnibus Actions
has entered an order and judgment certifying various settlement
classes and granting final approval of various class settlements,
including a global class action settlement, which is intended to
resolve all Chinese drywall-related claims of and against those
who participate in the settlement.  The time to appeal that order
and judgment lapsed without any appeals.  The Company has elected
to participate in the global settlement.  Further, to the
Company's knowledge none of its homeowners elected to opt out of
the class and, therefore, the Company believes the global
settlement resolves all claims against the Company.  The Company's
total obligation as a defendant under the global settlement was
not material and has been paid.  The Company expects to receive
proceeds under some of the settlements based on repairs it made to
homes impacted by defective drywall.  The Company also continues
to pursue recovery against various manufacturers, suppliers,
insurance companies and others for damages resulting from the
defective drywall.

M/I Homes, Inc. -- http://www.mihomes.com/-- and its subsidiaries
are builders of single-family homes.  The Company was
incorporated, through predecessor entities, in 1973 and commenced
homebuilding activities in 1976.  The Company is headquartered in
Columbus, Ohio.


MCGRAW-HILL COS: Justice Dep't Helps Investor in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that lawyers seeking to
revive a shareholder class action over ratings of mortgage-backed
securities by Standard & Poor's have found an unusual source of
help: the U.S. Justice Department.

The department has handed over transcripts of depositions it took
from two former S&P employees as it was building its own lawsuit
against the ratings agency, according to a recent court filing.

The testimony is now being used by plaintiffs' lawyers to try to
persuade a federal judge in New York to revive a securities fraud
class action against S&P's parent company, McGraw-Hill Financial
Inc., that was dismissed on appeal last year.

Legal experts said they were unaware of a recent case where
prosecutors had provided previously undisclosed investigatory
material to private lawyers for use in a class action.

A spokeswoman for S&P denounced the move.

"We are disturbed by the selective disclosure to plaintiffs'
attorneys of investigative materials obtained by DOJ under
restrictions of confidentiality," Catherine Mathis said in a
statement.

A spokeswoman for the Justice Department declined to comment.

The Justice Department's lawsuit and the class action both center
on the accuracy of S&P's ratings of mortgage products.

The Justice Department case, filed in February, said that while
S&P represented its ratings as objective, it became so worried
about its profits and its share of the ratings market between 2004
and 2007 that it adjusted models used to assess the risks of the
mortgage products.

S&P has denied the accusations and is seeking dismissal of the
lawsuit, which is pending in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.
A hearing on the motion to dismiss is set for July 8.

                         The Second Case

The class action, filed in 2008 in U.S. District Court in
Manhattan and led by the Boca Raton Firefighters and Police
Pension Fund, accused McGraw-Hill of misrepresenting to investors
the integrity of S&P's credit rating services from 2004 to 2008.

The case was almost dead after the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed a dismissal in December, finding that many of the
statements regarding the objectivity of S&P's ratings amounted to
"puffery" that could not form the basis of a lawsuit.

But when the Justice Department unveiled its own lawsuit, lawyers
for the plaintiffs at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd moved on March
28 for U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein to grant relief from the
final judgment in light of recently discovered evidence.

The case was bolstered, they argued in the May 22 motion, by
deposition transcripts that the Justice Department provided on
May 13.

"Those executives, who were in a position to know, testified that
S&P's ratings were driven by its desire for market share," the
plaintiffs' lawyers said in the motion.

The depositions are by Richard Gugliada, McGraw-Hill's former
global practice leader for collateralized debt obligations, and
Elwyn Wong, a former managing director in the CDO group.

Both depositions, the pension fund contends, "directly contradict"
statements McGraw-Hill made in the period the lawsuit says
investors were defrauded, October 2004 to March 2008.  They also
show McGraw-Hill's statements weren't puffery but were "materially
false," the lawyers said.

Mr. Gugliada testified that it would be "correct" to say that
unti1 2001, the effect of profits and market share on McGraw-Hill
wasn't a factor in how the firm updated its CDO evaluation model.

Wong, meanwhile, answered that it was "fair" to say S&P would
sometimes adjust its assumptions if bankers said they wouldn't
work with the economics of their deals.

Asked if it was also fair to say she and others in S&P's CDO group
didn't believe its ratings in subprime mortgage-backed securities,
Wong said: "That would be correct."

                       'Pressure Point'

While federal prosecutors often share information with other
government agencies conducting related investigators, it is
unusual for them to share information with private lawyers, said
Jeffrey Manns, an associate professor at George Washington
University Law School.

The reasons for the Justice Department's disclosure are unclear.
Samuel Rudman, Esq. -- SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- a lawyer at Robbins
Geller, declined to comment.

The Justice Department may have sought to provide the information
as part of an overall strategy to go after S&P on multiple fronts,
Mr. Manns said.  He noted that state attorneys general have filed
17 lawsuits against S&P, most on the same day the Justice
Department announced its case.

"It creates another pressure point," Mr. Manns said.

Still, Mr. Manns said it was unlikely the new material would do
the plaintiffs' lawyers any good at this point. Reversing a final
judgment of dismissal in this case would require showing that the
newly discovered evidence couldn't have been discovered in time
before judgment was entered, a high bar to overcome, he said.

"It is interesting and intriguing the government shared this
information, but it may be too late for this case," he said.

The case is Reese v. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 08-07202.

For Boca Raton Firefighters and Police Pension Fund: Samuel
Rudman, David George, Robert Robbins and Susan Alexander of
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd.

For McGraw-Hill:

          Floyd Abrams, Esq.
          Susan Buckley, Esq.
          Tammy Roy, Esq.
          Jason Hall, Esq.
          CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL
          E-mail: fabrams@cahill.com
                  sbuckley@cahill.com
                  troy@cahill.com
                  jhall@cahill.com


MGIC INVESTMENT: Defends Eight RESPA Violation Suits vs. Unit
-------------------------------------------------------------
MGIC Investment Corporation continues to defend a subsidiary
against eight remaining class action lawsuits alleging violations
of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, according to the
Company's April 30, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Beginning in December 2011, Mortgage Guaranty Insurance
Corporation ("MGIC") together with various mortgage lenders and
other mortgage insurers, have been named as defendants in twelve
lawsuits, alleged to be class actions, filed in various U.S.
District Courts.  Four of those cases have previously been
dismissed.  The complaints in all eight of the remaining cases
allege various causes of action related to the captive mortgage
reinsurance arrangements of the mortgage lenders, including that
the defendants violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act,
which is commonly known as RESPA, by paying excessive premiums to
the lenders' captive reinsurer in relation to the risk assumed by
that captive.  MGIC denies any wrongdoing and intends to
vigorously defend itself against the allegations in the lawsuits.
The Company says there can be no assurance that it will not be
subject to further litigation under RESPA (or the Fair Credit
Reporting Act) or that the outcome of any such litigation,
including the class action lawsuits, would not have a material
adverse effect on the Company.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, MGIC Investment Corporation
-- http://www.mgic.com/-- is a holding company and through its
wholly-owned subsidiaries, the Company is a large private mortgage
insurer.  In addition to mortgage insurance on first mortgage
loans, the Company, through its subsidiaries, provides lenders
with various underwriting and other services and products related
to home mortgage lending.


MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Awaits Ruling on Cert. Bid in "Hardy" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc., is awaiting a court
decision on a motion for class certification in the class action
lawsuit commenced by Ozetta Hardy, 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.

Ozetta Hardy v. Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC, et al., a civil
action, was filed against Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC (an entity
that does not exist), Cornerstone Community Outreach, Inc., and
Freedom Trail Ventures, Ltd., in the Circuit Court of Lowndes
County, Alabama.  On June 3, 2010, the Company and other
manufacturers were added.  The plaintiffs, who claim to have been
patrons of White Hall, allege that the Company participated in
gambling operations that violated Alabama state law by supplying
to White Hall purportedly unlawful electronic bingo machines
played by the plaintiffs and seek recovery of the monies lost on
all electronic bingo games played by the plaintiffs in the six
months prior to the complaint based on Ala. Code, Sec 8-1-150(A).
The plaintiffs have requested that the court certify the action as
a class action.  On July 2, 2010, the defendants removed the case
to the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Alabama, Northern Division.  The court has not ruled on the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Company continues to vigorously defend this matter.  Given the
inherent uncertainties in this litigation, however, the Company is
unable to make any prediction as to the ultimate outcome.  A
finding in this case that electronic bingo was illegal in Alabama
during the pertinent time frame could have adverse regulatory
consequences to the Company in other jurisdictions.

Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc. and its subsidiaries
design, manufacture and supply innovative standalone and networked
gaming systems to Native American and commercial casino operators
in North America, domestic and selected international lottery
operators, and commercial bingo gaming facility operators.  The
Company is headquartered in Austin, Texas.


MULTIMEDIA GAMES: Awaits Ruling on Petition in "Williams" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc., is awaiting a decision on
its and other defendants' joint petition seeking permission to
appeal a ruling certifying a class in the "Williams" 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.

Dollie Williams, et al., v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc., et
al., a civil action, was filed on March 8, 2010, in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Eastern
Division, against the Company and others.  The plaintiffs, who
claim to have been patrons of VictoryLand, allege that the Company
participated in gambling operations that violated Alabama state
law by supplying to VictoryLand purportedly unlawful electronic
bingo machines played by the plaintiffs and seek recovery of the
monies lost on all electronic bingo games played by the plaintiffs
in the six months prior to the complaint under Ala. Code Sec. 8-1-
150(A).  The plaintiffs have requested that the court certify the
action as a class action.  On March 16, 2012, Walter Bussey and
two other named plaintiffs were voluntarily dismissed.  On
March 29, 2013, the court entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On April 12, 2013,
the defendants jointly filed a petition with the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals seeking permission to appeal the court's ruling
on class certification.

The Company continues to vigorously defend this matter.  Given the
inherent uncertainties in this litigation, however, the Company is
unable to make any prediction as to the ultimate outcome.  A
finding in this case that electronic bingo was illegal in Alabama
during the pertinent time frame could have adverse regulatory
consequences for the Company in other jurisdictions.

Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc. and its subsidiaries
design, manufacture and supply innovative standalone and networked
gaming systems to Native American and commercial casino operators
in North America, domestic and selected international lottery
operators, and commercial bingo gaming facility operators.  The
Company is headquartered in Austin, Texas.


NORTHERN TRUST: Defends Suits by Lending Program Participants
-------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Trust Corporation continues to defend itself against
class action lawsuits brought by participants of its securities
lending program, 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.

As previously disclosed, a number of participants in the Company's
securities lending program, which is associated with the
Corporation's asset servicing business, have commenced putative
class actions in which they claim, among other things, that the
Company failed to exercise prudence in the investment management
of the collateral received from the borrowers of the securities,
resulting in losses that they seek to recover.  The cases assert
various contractual, statutory and common law claims, including
claims for breach of fiduciary duty under common law and under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).  Based on the
Company's review of these matters, the Company believes it
operated its securities lending program prudently and
appropriately.  At this stage of these proceedings, however, it is
not possible for management to assess the probability of a
material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any
potential loss.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, Northern Trust Corporation is
a provider of asset servicing, fund administration, asset
management, fiduciary and banking solutions for corporations,
institutions, families, and individuals worldwide.  Northern Trust
focuses on servicing and managing client assets through its two
primary business units, Personal Financial Services and Corporate
& Institutional Services.


NORTHERN TRUST: Securities Suit in Illinois Dismissed in March
--------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class action lawsuit against Northern Trust
Corporation was dismissed in March 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 August 24, 2010, a lawsuit (hereinafter referred to as the
"Securities Class Action") was filed in federal court in the
Northern District of Illinois against the Corporation and three of
its present or former officers, including the present and former
Chief Executive Officers of the Corporation, on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of Corporation stock during the
period from October 17, 2007, to October 20, 2009.  The amended
complaint alleges that during the purported class period the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
by allegedly taking insufficient provisions for credit losses with
respect to the Corporation's real estate loan portfolio and
failing to make sufficient disclosures regarding its securities
lending business.  The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount.

In March 2013, the court dismissed the Securities Class Action
with leave to amend.  At this stage of the lawsuit, the Company
says it is not possible for management to assess the probability
of a material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of
any potential loss.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, Northern Trust Corporation is
a provider of asset servicing, fund administration, asset
management, fiduciary and banking solutions for corporations,
institutions, families, and individuals worldwide.  Northern Trust
focuses on servicing and managing client assets through its two
primary business units, Personal Financial Services and Corporate
& Institutional Services.


OFFICE DEPOT: Six Merger-Related Suits Consolidated in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The six merger-related class action lawsuits against Office Depot,
Inc., have been consolidated in Illinois, 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 30,
2013.

On February 20, 2013, Office Depot and OfficeMax Incorporated
announced a definitive agreement under which the companies would
combine in an all-stock merger-of-equals transaction.  Between
February 25, 2013, and March 29, 2013, six putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth
Judicial Circuit in Dupage County, Illinois, alleging that the
defendant companies and individual members of OfficeMax's Board of
Directors violated applicable laws by directly breaching and/or
aiding and abetting breaches of the fiduciary duties of loyalty
and due care owed to the plaintiff and the proposed class and
self-dealing.  The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief rescission,
as well as fees and costs.  The lawsuits have been consolidated as
Venkata S. Donepudi v. OfficeMax Incorporated et al., and are in
very early stages.

Office Depot, Inc. -- http://wwww.officedepot.com/-- together
with its subsidiaries, supplies office products and services.  The
Company's North American Retail division sells an assortment of
merchandise, such as general office supplies, computer supplies,
business machines and related supplies, and office furniture under
various labels, including Office Depot, Viking Office Products,
Foray, and Ativa through its chain of office supply stores. The
Company also provides printing, reproduction, mailing, shipping,
and other services, as well as personal computer support and
network installation service.  The Company was founded in 1986 and
is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida.


PACCAR: Recalls 2014 T470 and T800 Models of Kenworth Trucks
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                June 10, 2013
Type of communication:        Recall
Subcategory:                  Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:            Safety Mfr
System:                       Powertrain
Units affected:               8
Source of recall:             Transport Canada
Identification number:        2013204
TC ID number:                 2013204
Manufacturer recall number:   13KWH

On certain trucks equipped with an Allison automatic transmission,
the neutral start switch may have been incorrectly programmed
during vehicle assembly.  As such, the engine may be started when
the transmission is in gear, which would allow the vehicle to move
unexpectedly.  This could result in property damage, or cause the
vehicle to strike a bystander, potentially resulting in personal
injury.  Correction: Dealers will reprogram the Cab Electrical
Control Unit to enable the start-in-gear protection feature.

Affected products:

             Makes and models affected
   -----------------------------------------------
                         Model year
   Make         Model    affected
   ----         -----    --------
   KENWORTH     T800       2014
   KENWORTH     T470       2014


POOL CORP: Direct Purchasers' Antitrust Claim Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pool Corporation disclosed in its April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013, that in April 2013, the Company and other
defendants' motions to dismiss the direct purchasers' antitrust
claim were granted in part.

A number of purported antitrust class action lawsuits have been
filed against the Company in various United States District
Courts.  The cases were transferred and consolidated before the
Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation, MDL Docket No. 2328,
and are presently pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana.
On June 14, 2012, indirect purchaser plaintiffs, purporting to
represent indirect purchasers of swimming pool products in
Arizona, California, Florida and Missouri, filed a first amended
class action complaint.  On September 5, 2012, they filed a second
amended complaint.  On June 29, 2012, direct purchaser plaintiffs,
who are current or former customers, filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint, which added three defendants, Hayward
Industries Inc., Pentair Water Pool and Spa, Inc. and Zodiac Pool
Systems, Inc.  The amended complaints seek unspecified
compensatory and enhanced damages, interest, costs and fees and
other equitable relief.

On April 11, 2013, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss the direct purchasers'
antitrust claim.

Pool Corporation -- http://www.poolcorp.com/-- is a large
wholesale distributor of swimming pool supplies, equipment and
related leisure products.  The Covington, Louisiana-based Company
is also a distributor of irrigation and landscape products.  The
Company was incorporated in Delaware in 1993 and has grown from a
regional distributor to a multi-national, multi-network
distribution company.


PORTUGAL TELECOM: Appeals in National Treasury AG Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals in class action lawsuits filed by the Attorney General of
the National Treasury against a subsidiary of Portugal Telecom,
SGPS S.A., remain pending, 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.

Oi is a defendant in 69 civil class actions filed by the Attorney
General of the National Treasury jointly with certain consumer
agencies demanding the re-opening of customer service centers.
The lower courts have rendered decisions in all of these
proceedings, some of which have been unfavorable to the Company.
All of these proceedings are currently under appeal.  As of
December 31, 2012, Oi had recorded provisions in the amount of
R$12 million for those claims in respect of which it deemed the
risk of loss as probable.

Portugal Telecom, SGPS S.A. -- http://www.telecom.pt/-- provides
telecommunications services in Portugal, in Brazil through its
strategic partnerships with Oi S.A. and Contax S.A., and in
certain countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia.  The Company is
based in Lisboa, Portugal.


PORTUGAL TELECOM: Awaits Initial Decision in Prosecutor's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Portugal Telecom, SGPS S.A.'s subsidiary is awaiting an initial
decision in the class action lawsuit filed by the Federal
Prosecutor's Office, 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.

Oi S.A. is a defendant in a civil class action lawsuit filed by
the Federal Prosecutor's Office (Ministerio Publico Federal)
seeking recovery for alleged collective moral damages caused by
the alleged non-compliance of Tele Norte Leste Participacoes S.A.
("TNL") with the Customer Service (Servico de Atendimento ao
Consumidor -- SAC) regulations established by the Ministry of
Justice (Ministerio da Justica).  TNL presented its defense and
asked for a change of venue to federal court in Rio de Janeiro,
where Oi is headquartered.  Other defendants have been named and
await service of process.  The amount involved in this action is
R$300 million.  As a result of the corporate reorganization of Oi,
Oi S.A. has succeeded to TNL's position as a defendant in this
action.  As of December 31, 2012, Oi deemed the risk of loss as
possible with respect to these lawsuits and had not made any
provisions with respect to this action because it was awaiting the
court's initial decision.

Portugal Telecom, SGPS S.A. -- http://www.telecom.pt/-- provides
telecommunications services in Portugal, in Brazil through its
strategic partnerships with Oi S.A. and Contax S.A., and in
certain countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia.  The Company is
based in Lisboa, Portugal.


RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: NJ Carpenters' Class Suit Bid Adjourned
------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund's motion for
order certifying class for purposes of its class claim is
adjourned to July 10, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. (ET), before Judge
Martin Glenn of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York.  Objections are due July 3.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
January 3, 2013, entered a revised order certifying the proposed
class in the lawsuit filed by NJ Carpenters Health Fund against
Residential Capital LLC, et al.  The Certified Class is defined as
"initial purchasers who bought the securities directly from the
underwriters or their agents no later than ten trading days after
the offering date."

The NJ Carpenters Health Fund subsequently filed a motion for
class certification with the Bankruptcy Court for purposes of
filing class claims.

The Lead Plaintiff filed separate class proofs of claims against
each of Debtors Residential Capital, LLC, Residential Funding
Company, LLC, and Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., for damages
resulting from violations of Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, Sections 77K, 71(a)(2) and 77o of Title 15
of the U.S. Code, in connection with the purchase of the subject
mortgage-backed securities certificates and the Debtors' conduct
in connection to the securitization deals.

The class action lawsuit is New Jersey Carpenters Health Fund, et
als. v. Residential Capital, LLC, et al.

The Lead Plaintiff is represented by Ira M. Levee, Esq., and
Michael S. Etkin, Esq., at Lowenstein Sandler LLP, in New York;
and Joel P. Laitman, Esq., Christopher Lometti, Esq., and Michael
B. Eisenkraft, Esq., at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, in New
York.

                    About Residential Capital

Residential Capital LLC is one of the country's largest mortgage
originators and servicers.  The Company, a subsidiary of Ally
Financial Inc., filed for bankruptcy protection on May 14, 2012,
in New York.


RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CA: Seeks Dismissal of Inmates' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard K. De Atley, writing for Press Enterprise, reports that
Riverside County has asked a judge to dismiss a civil rights
class-action lawsuit filed against its jail system, saying the
inmates who complained about inadequate health care had declined
to take prescribed medicine and refused or failed to attend
medical appointments while in custody.

In a May 23 response to the cruel-and-unusual punishment complaint
filed by four inmates, the county says three of them are no longer
incarcerated and lack standing to sue -- and that the plaintiffs
had not exhausted available grievance procedures before filing the
lawsuit.

The county's five jails are overseen by the Sheriff's Department
and house about 3,900 inmates.

The response contends the suing inmates "failed to take steps for
their own medical care" by refusing to take prescribed medicine or
go to medical appointments.  The inmates, the county alleges, also
provided "inaccurate and incomplete information about their
medical history and conditions" when they first arrived at the
jail and later during meetings with medical personnel.

An attorney for the inmates said the health care complaints have
not stopped.

"We continue to hear from people every day about the very
troubling failures in their health care delivery system," said
attorney Sara Norman of the Prison Law Office in Berkeley, which
filed the suit.

"We look forward to having substantive conversations with the
county about what they can and will do to improve health care,"
she said Tuesday, May 28.

Since state prison realignment began Oct. 1, 2011, the county has
had to release more than 10,000 inmates early because Riverside
County jails are under a longtime federal court order to control
population.

Realignment, in part, calls for people convicted of non-violent,
non-serious and non-sexual crimes to be sentenced to county jail
rather than state prison.

That has swollen the inmate population in jails. Some convicts
have sentences of several years.

Riverside County Sheriff Stan Sniff has said the goals of
realignment -- to reduce the population of state prisons -- has
instead transferred the same problems of overcrowding to the
state's 58 counties and their jail systems, none of which were
designed for long-term prisoners.

The lawsuit, filed in March, asked U. S. District Judge Virginia
A. Phillips to order the county to make a laundry list of fixes,
such as increased staffing, timely access to care, reliable
screening and emergency-response procedures, and timely and
adequate medication, supplies and mental health treatment.

The legal action was filed by the same attorneys who prevailed in
a years-long prison population reduction fight with California
over similar issues.

It does not seek money.

The county, in addition to asking for the lawsuit to be tossed,
wants to be reimbursed for its costs if it prevails.

The complaint asks Judge Phillips to declare the lawsuit a class
action that would include all inmates.  The plaintiffs also want
her to order the county to develop and put in place "as soon as
practical, a plan to eliminate the substantial risk of serious
harm that Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff class suffer due
to Defendant's inadequate medical and mental health care."

Judge Phillips has not issued any rulings in the case.

The county's response says the Sheriff's Department already has
taken action by soliciting recommendations for medical care in
jails and made changes based on those suggestions, and "has an
established plan for additional changes for medical care in
jails."

The response did not outline a specific health care plan.

Generally, a 1,250-bed expansion of the Indio jail is expected to
be ready by late 2016 or early 2017 at a projected cost of $237
million, and officials are seeking $80 million from the state to
expand Larry D. Smith Correctional Facility in Banning.

Norman, of the Prison Law Office, said the county response "did
not tell us anything we did not know.  We told them over a year
ago, in a demand letter, about the health care problems. So if
they are only now coming up with a plan, that's a disappointing
lapse in time."

Her office has filed a similar lawsuit against Fresno County.

Judge Phillips has set an Aug. 12 scheduling conference for the
attorneys.


SALSA CYCLES: Recalls 1,700 Bicycle Forks Due to Fall Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Salsa Cycles, of Bloomington, Minnesota, a wholly-owned
brand of Quality Bicycle Products, Inc.; and manufacturer, CWI, of
Taiwan, announced a voluntary recall of about 1,700 Salsa Bicycle
Forks.  Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The bicycle fork can bend above the disc brake mount, posing a
fall hazard to the rider.

Salsa Cycles has received eight reports of forks bending above the
disc brake mount.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves all Salsa Vaya bicycle forks stamped with the
batch codes 2011 02 21, 2011 04 11, 2011 06 14 and 2011 09 09 and
all Salsa La Cruz bicycle forks stamped with the batch codes 2011
03 01, 2011 04 08, 2011 05 30 and 2011 09 09.  The batch code is
stamped on the steerer tube.  The forks are made of tubular
chromoly steel and can be installed on any bicycle that takes a
threadless 1 1/8 inch steerer tube.  They were sold individually
and as original equipment on Salsa Vaya bicycles and framesets.
Salsa Vaya bicycle forks are orange or dark gray.  La Cruz bicycle
forks are black.  The manufacturer's insignia "CWI" is stamped on
the steerer tube.  "Salsa" is printed on the bicycle's frame.
Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/tM4EWr

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
bicycle stores nationwide and on various websites from February
2011 through June 2012 for about $100 individually for La Cruz
forks and on Salsa Vaya bicycles for between $1,300 and $1,600.

Consumers should immediately stop using bicycles equipped with the
recalled Salsa Vaya and La Cruz bicycle forks and contact a Salsa
dealer for a free inspection, replacement fork or a full refund.
Salsa Cycles may be reached toll-free at (877) 774-6208 from 8:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Central Time, Monday through Friday, or online
at http://www.salsacycles.com/and click on the Fork Recall button
for more information.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Appeals From Approval of BP Settlements Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from approval of class action settlements remain pending,
according to SEACOR Holdings 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 April 22, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon, a semi-submersible
deepwater drilling rig operating in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, sank
after an apparent blowout and fire resulting in a significant flow
of hydrocarbons from the BP Macondo well (the "Deepwater
Horizon/BP Macondo Well Incident").

On March 2, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana announced that BP Exploration & Production, Inc. ("BP
Exploration") and BP America Production Company ("BP America")
(collectively "BP") and certain plaintiffs had reached an
agreement on the terms of two proposed class action settlements
that will resolve, among other things, the plaintiffs' economic
loss claims and clean-up related claims against BP.  The parties
filed their proposed settlement agreements on April 18, 2012,
along with motions seeking preliminary approval of the
settlements.  The Court held a hearing on April 25, 2012, to
consider those motions and preliminarily approved both settlements
on May 2, 2012.  A final fairness hearing took place on
November 8, 2012.  The Court granted final approval to the
Economic and Property Damages Class Action Settlement on
December 21, 2012, and granted final approval to the Medical
Benefits Class Action Settlement on January 11, 2013.

Notices of Appeal to the Fifth Circuit with respect to both class
action settlements have been filed by various objectors.  Although
neither the Company nor its subsidiary, O'Brien's Response
Management Inc., and former subsidiary, National Response
Corporation ("NRC"), are parties to the settlement agreements, the
Company, ORM, and NRC are listed as released parties on the
releases accompanying both settlement agreements.  As the releases
for both settlements have been deemed valid and enforceable by the
district court, if the Fifth Circuit affirms these decisions,
class members who did not file timely requests for exclusion will
be barred from pursuing economic loss, property damage, personal
injury, medical monitoring, and/or other released claims against
the Company, ORM, and NRC.  At this time, the Company expects
these settlements to reduce ORM's potential exposure, if any, from
some of the pending actions related to the Deepwater Horizon/BP
Macondo Well Incident, but is currently still evaluating the
settlements' impacts on these cases.

On January 29, 2013, HEPACO, LLC ("HEPACO"), served a demand for
arbitration upon ORM, in which HEPACO claims that ORM owes HEPACO
an additional fee of $20,291,178.92 under the parties' Management
Services Agreement ("MSA"), dated June 1, 2010.  According to
HEPACO, the MSA requires ORM to pay HEPACO an additional fee of
30% of total charges paid under the MSA ("Surcharge") to
compensate HEPACO for U.S. Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers'
insurance or Jones Act insurance and related risks attendant to
the work when contract requires labor to be performed over,
adjoining and/or in water. ORM denies liability for the Surcharge,
intends to vigorously defend against the claim, and has sought
indemnity for any resulting judgment and related attorneys fees
from BP America and BP Exploration. ORM has advised BP that,
pursuant to the Bridge Agreement HOU-WL4-3066 between BP and ORM,
effective as of June 1, 2010, under which ORM managed and oversaw,
for BP, subcontractors, such as HEPACO, in connection with on-
shore services related to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, BP
ultimately is responsible for the payment of the Surcharge should
HEPACO be determined to be entitled to recover it under the MSA.

In the course of the Company's business, it may agree to indemnify
a party.  If the indemnified party makes a successful claim for
indemnification, the Company would be required to reimburse that
party in accordance with the terms of the indemnification
agreement.  Indemnification agreements generally are subject to
threshold amounts, specified claim periods and other restrictions
and limitations.

SEACOR Holdings Inc. was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.  The Company's
operations are divided into four main business segments --
Offshore Marine Services, Inland River Services, Shipping
Services, and Ethanol and Industrial Alcohol.  The Company also
has activities that primarily include Emergency and Crisis
Services, Agricultural Commodity Trading and Logistics, various
other investments in joint ventures and lending and leasing
activities.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Still Awaits Ruling on Summary Judgment Bids
-------------------------------------------------------------
On April 22, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon, a semi-submersible
deepwater drilling rig operating in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, sank
after an apparent blowout and fire resulting in a significant flow
of hydrocarbons from the BP Macondo well (the "Deepwater
Horizon/BP Macondo Well Incident").

SEACOR Holdings Inc. reported its environmental activities under
Environmental Services, which was conducted through SEACOR
Environmental Services Inc. ("SES") and O'Brien's Response
Management Inc. ("ORM").  SES included National Response
Corporation ("NRC"), one of the largest providers of oil spill
response services in the United States; nd industrial services on
the West Coast of the United States; SEACNRC Environmental
Services Inc., a leading provider of environmental aOR Response
Ltd., which provides oil spill response and emergency response
services to customers in international markets; and certain other
subsidiaries (collectively the "SES Business").  On March 16,
2012, the Company sold the SES Business (the "SES Business
Transaction") to J.F. Lehman & Company ("JFL"), a leading, middle-
market private equity firm.

On December 31, 2012, the Company contributed its interest in
O'Brien's Response Management Inc. ("ORM") to Witt Group Holdings,
LLC ("Witt") in exchange for an equity interest in Witt Group
Holdings, LLC, which was renamed Witt O'Brien's, LLC (the "ORM
Transaction").

On December 15, 2010, ORM and NRC, subsidiaries of the Company
prior to the ORM Transaction and SES Business Transaction,
respectively, were named as defendants in one of the several
consolidated "master complaints" that have been filed in the
overall multi-district litigation, In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig
"Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179 ("MDL").  The master complaint
naming ORM and NRC asserts various claims on behalf of a putative
class against multiple defendants concerning the clean-up
activities generally, and the use of dispersants specifically.  By
court order, the class action lawsuit captioned John Wunstell, Jr.
and Kelly Blanchard v. BP, et al. (the "Wunstell Action"), has
been stayed as a result of the filing of the referenced master
complaint.

The Company believes that the claims asserted against ORM and NRC
in the master complaint have no merit and on February 28, 2011,
ORM and NRC moved to dismiss all claims against them in the master
complaint on legal grounds.  On September 30, 2011, the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted in
part and denied in part the motion to dismiss that ORM and NRC had
filed (an amended decision was issued on October 4, 2011, that
corrected several grammatical errors and non-substantive
oversights in the original order).  Although the Court refused to
dismiss the referenced master complaint in its entirety at that
time, the Court did recognize the validity of the "derivative
immunity" and "implied preemption" arguments that ORM and NRC
advanced and directed ORM and NRC to (i) conduct limited discovery
to develop evidence to support those arguments and (ii) then re-
assert the arguments.  The Court did, however, dismiss all state-
law claims and certain other claims that had been asserted in the
referenced master complaint, and dismissed the claims of all
plaintiffs that have failed to allege a legally-sufficient injury.
A schedule for limited discovery and motion practice was
established by the Court and, in accordance with that schedule,
ORM and NRC filed for summary judgment re-asserting their
derivative immunity and implied preemption arguments on May 18,
2012.  Those motions were argued on July 13, 2012, and are still
pending decision.  In addition to the indemnity provided to ORM,
pursuant to contractual agreements with the responsible party, the
responsible party has agreed, subject to certain potential
limitations, to indemnify and defend ORM and NRC in connection
with these claims in the MDL.

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.

SEACOR Holdings Inc. was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.  The Company's
operations are divided into four main business segments --
Offshore Marine Services, Inland River Services, Shipping
Services, and Ethanol and Industrial Alcohol.  The Company also
has activities that primarily include Emergency and Crisis
Services, Agricultural Commodity Trading and Logistics, various
other investments in joint ventures and lending and leasing
activities.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Defends Deepwater Horizon FLSA Suits vs. ORM
-------------------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings Inc. continues to defend its subsidiary against
collective action lawsuits asserting failure to pay overtime,
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 April 22, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon, a semi-submersible
deepwater drilling rig operating in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, sank
after an apparent blowout and fire resulting in a significant flow
of hydrocarbons from the BP Macondo well (the "Deepwater
Horizon/BP Macondo Well Incident").

The Company reported its environmental activities under
Environmental Services, which was conducted through SEACOR
Environmental Services Inc. ("SES") and O'Brien's Response
Management Inc. ("ORM").  SES included National Response
Corporation ("NRC"), one of the largest providers of oil spill
response services in the United States; nd industrial services on
the West Coast of the United States; SEACNRC Environmental
Services Inc., a leading provider of environmental aOR Response
Ltd., which provides oil spill response and emergency response
services to customers in international markets; and certain other
subsidiaries (collectively the "SES Business").  On March 16,
2012, the Company sold the SES Business (the "SES Business
Transaction") to J.F. Lehman & Company ("JFL"), a leading, middle-
market private equity firm.

On December 31, 2012, the Company contributed its interest in
O'Brien's Response Management Inc. ("ORM") to Witt Group Holdings,
LLC ("Witt") in exchange for an equity interest in Witt Group
Holdings, LLC, which was renamed Witt O'Brien's, LLC (the "ORM
Transaction").

In connection with the SES Business Transaction and the ORM
Transaction, the Company remains contingently liable for certain
obligations, including potential liabilities relating to work
performed in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
response.  In the case of the SES Business Transaction, such
potential liabilities may not exceed the purchase consideration
received by the Company for the SES Business Transaction and in
the case of the ORM Transaction are subject to a negotiated cap.
The Company currently is indemnified under contractual agreements
with BP Exploration & Production, Inc. and BP America Production
Company (collectively "BP").

ORM is defending against four collective action lawsuits, each
asserting failure to pay overtime with respect to individuals who
provided service on the Deepwater Horizon spill response (the "DPH
FLSA Actions") under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  These
cases -- Dennis Prejean v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc.
(E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01045) (the "Prejean Action"); Baylor
Singleton et. al. v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc. et. al.
(E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01716) (the "Singleton Action");
Himmerite et al. v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc. et al.
(E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01533) (the "Himmerite Action"); and
Chann Chavis v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc. et al. (S.D.
Tx., Case No.: 4:12-cv-02045) (the "Chavis Action") -- were each
brought on behalf of certain individuals who worked on the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill response and who were classified as
independent contractors.

The Prejean, Himmerite and Singleton Actions were each filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana and then subsequently consolidated with the overall
multi-district litigation, In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig
"Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179 ("MDL").  The Himmerite and
Singleton Actions have since been automatically stayed pending
further scheduling by the Court, pursuant to the procedures in the
MDL.  In the Prejean Action, ORM has answered the complaint, a
scheduling order has been issued, and plaintiffs have, among other
things, filed a Motion for Conditional Certification, which has
been stayed pending further scheduling by the Court in accordance
with the procedures of the MDL.  The limitations periods for
potential plaintiffs to opt-in to the Prejean, Himmerite and
Singleton actions have all been tolled pending further action by
the Court.

The Chavis Action was filed on July 7, 2012, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas.  On
December 20, 2012, the parties in the Chavis Action entered into a
full and final settlement agreement with respect to all of the
Plaintiff's individual and class claims, and the Court issued an
order approving this settlement on March 11, 2013.

The Company says it is unable to estimate the potential exposure,
if any, resulting from any of these DPH FLSA Actions, but believes
they are without merit and will continue to vigorously defend
against them.

SEACOR Holdings Inc. was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.  The Company's
operations are divided into four main business segments --
Offshore Marine Services, Inland River Services, Shipping
Services, and Ethanol and Industrial Alcohol.  The Company also
has activities that primarily include Emergency and Crisis
Services, Agricultural Commodity Trading and Logistics, various
other investments in joint ventures and lending and leasing
activities.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: "Robin" Plaintiffs Did Not Seek High Court Review
------------------------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings Inc. said in its April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013, that Terry G. Robin, et al., did not
petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

On April 22, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon, a semi-submersible
deepwater drilling rig operating in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, sank
after an apparent blowout and fire resulting in a significant flow
of hydrocarbons from the BP Macondo well (the "Deepwater
Horizon/BP Macondo Well Incident").

On July 14, 2010, a group of individuals and entities purporting
to represent a class commenced a civil action in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Terry G. Robin, et
al. v. Seacor Marine, L.L.C., et al., No. 2:10-cv-01986 (E.D. La.)
(the "Robin Case"), in which they asserted that support vessels,
including vessels owned by the Company, responding to the
explosion and resulting fire that occurred aboard the semi-
submersible drilling rig, the Deepwater Horizon, were negligent in
their efforts to save lives and put out the fire and contributed
to the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon and subsequent oil spill.
The action was part of the overall multi-district litigation, In
re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179
("MDL").  The complaint sought compensatory, punitive, exemplary,
and other damages.  In response to this lawsuit, the Company filed
petitions seeking exoneration from, or limitation of liability in
relation to, any actions that may have been taken by vessels owned
by the Company to extinguish the fire.  On June 8, 2011, the
Company moved to dismiss these claims (with the exception of one
claim filed by a Company employee) on various legal grounds.  On
October 12, 2011, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss in its entirety, dismissing with prejudice all claims that
had been filed against the Company in the limitation actions (with
the exception of one claim filed by a Company employee that was
not subject to the motion to dismiss).  The Court entered final
judgments in favor of the Company in the Robin Case and each of
the limitation actions on November 21, 2011.  On December 12,
2011, the claimants appealed each of those judgments to the Unites
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  The claimants'
opening brief was submitted on May 7, 2012, and the claimants
filed a reply brief on June 1, 2012.  Oral argument was not
requested by the Fifth Circuit.  On December 13, 2012, the Fifth
Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court.  The
claimants have not petitioned the United States Supreme Court for
a writ of certiorari and their deadline to do so has expired.

With respect to the one claim filed by a Company employee, that
individual also commenced a separate action in the MDL entitled
DuWayne Mason v. Seacor Marine, LLC, No. 2:11-CV-00826 (E.D. La.),
in which he alleges sustaining personal injuries not only in
connection with responding to the explosion and fire, but also in
the months thereafter in connection with the clean-up of oil and
dispersants while a member of the crew of the M/V Seacor Vanguard.
Although the case is subject to the MDL Court's stay of individual
proceedings, on July 16, 2012, the employee sought to sever his
case from the MDL.  On March 5, 2013, the Court denied the motion,
and on April 2, 2013, the employee filed a motion asking the Court
to reconsider.  The Company's response was due on April 30, 2013.

The Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure, if any,
resulting from this matter and intends to vigorously defend the
action should it ever proceed.  The Company does not expect this
matter will have a material effect on the Company's consolidated
financial position or its results of operations.  In addition, the
responsible party has agreed, subject to certain potential
limitations, to indemnify and defend the Company in connection
with this matter.

SEACOR Holdings Inc. was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.  The Company's
operations are divided into four main business segments --
Offshore Marine Services, Inland River Services, Shipping
Services, and Ethanol and Industrial Alcohol.  The Company also
has activities that primarily include Emergency and Crisis
Services, Agricultural Commodity Trading and Logistics, various
other investments in joint ventures and lending and leasing
activities.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: "Wunstell" Suit Remains Pending in Louisiana
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled John Wunstell, Jr. and Kelly
Blanchard v. BP, et al., remains pending in Louisiana, according
to SEACOR Holdings 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 April 22, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon, a semi-submersible
deepwater drilling rig operating in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, sank
after an apparent blowout and fire resulting in a significant flow
of hydrocarbons from the BP Macondo well (the "Deepwater
Horizon/BP Macondo Well Incident").

On December 31, 2012, the Company contributed its interest in
O'Brien's Response Management Inc. ("ORM") to Witt Group Holdings,
LLC ("Witt") in exchange for an equity interest in Witt Group
Holdings, LLC, which was renamed Witt O'Brien's, LLC (the "ORM
Transaction").

On July 20, 2010, two individuals purporting to represent a class
commenced a civil action in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana, John Wunstell, Jr.
and Kelly Blanchard v. BP, et al., No. 2010-7437 (Division K) (the
"Wunstell Action"), in which they assert, among other theories,
that Mr. Wunstell suffered injuries as a result of his exposure to
certain noxious fumes and chemicals in connection with the
provision of remediation, containment and response services by
O'Brien's Response Management Inc. ("ORM"), a subsidiary of the
Company, prior to the ORM Transaction.  The action now is part of
the overall multi-district litigation, In re Oil Spill by the Oil
Rig "Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179 ("MDL").  The complaint also
seeks to establish a "class-wide court-supervised medical
monitoring program" for all individuals "participating in BP's
Deepwater Horizon Vessels of Opportunity Program and/or Horizon
Response Program" who allegedly experienced injuries similar to
those of Mr. Wunstell.

The Company believes this lawsuit has no merit and will continue
to vigorously defend the action.  Pursuant to contractual
agreements with the responsible party, the responsible party has
agreed, subject to certain potential limitations, to indemnify and
defend ORM in connection with the Wunstell Action and claims
asserted in the MDL.

SEACOR Holdings Inc. was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.  The Company's
operations are divided into four main business segments --
Offshore Marine Services, Inland River Services, Shipping
Services, and Ethanol and Industrial Alcohol.  The Company also
has activities that primarily include Emergency and Crisis
Services, Agricultural Commodity Trading and Logistics, various
other investments in joint ventures and lending and leasing
activities.


STM: Transit Users Launch Petition Over Repeated Metro Outages
--------------------------------------------------------------
CTV Montreal reports that helpless transit users irritated by
repeated metro outages have flocked to an on-line petition meant
to pressure transit authorities to provide more reliable metro
service.

The recently launched petition appears to be slowly gaining steam,
and has topped 3,200 signatures toward its stated goal of 25,000.

The meandering note, destined to Mayor Applebaum and written in
French, bemoans the inconvenience suffered by those trying to ride
the rails underground.

The author and the petition signatories feel that they deserve
better service for their almost-$80 monthly pass.

And although entitled, "Class action suit against the STM," the
petition, written by someone named maxime b., makes no financial
demands and threatens no legal action.

The system has been closed in whole or in part many times in
recent months, including on May 27 on the green line.

It was also shut for three hours on February 4, as well as for
periods on March 13, April 2, April 17, May 5, among others.

In many cases the computer system was deemed to be to blame for
the stoppages.


SUNSPROUT NATURAL: Recalls Sunsprout/SproutsAlive Alfalfa Sprouts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 12, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Sunsprout Natural Foods
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Sunsprout Natural
Foods are warning the public not to consume the Sunsprout and
SproutsAlive brand alfalfa sprouts described below because they
may be contaminated with Salmonella.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.

The manufacturer, Sunsprout Natural Foods, Brantford, Ontario, is
voluntarily recalling the affected products from the marketplace.
The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.

Affected products:

  Brand name     Size    UPC               Additional Info
  ----------     ----    ---               ---------------
  Sunsprout      140 g   0 57621 13501 7   Best before Code:
                                           BB JUN 13

  SproutsAlive   140 g   0 69022 00030 6   Best before Code:
                                           BB JUN 13

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/64nmjY


TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls 678 Lbs. of BBQ Flavored Ranch Salad
----------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Farms Pacific, a Tracy, California establishment, is
recalling approximately 678 pounds of BBQ Flavored Ranch Salad
with Chicken product because of misbranding and an undeclared
allergen.  The salad dressing packaged with the salad contains
egg, a known allergen, which is not declared on the product label.

The product subject to recall includes:

   * 12.25-oz. plastic trays of "Signature Cafe BBQ Flavored
     Ranch Salad with Chicken"

The product subject to recall bears the establishment number "P-
34013" inside the USDA mark of inspection on the label and a use-
by date of "June 14, 13," which is located on the top label of the
package.  The product was produced on June 7, 2013, and was sold
to retail stores in California and Nevada.  Picture of the
recalled products' label is available at: http://is.gd/33Q1Ju

The problem was discovered by the Company during a document review
and occurred because the Company inadvertently used labels that
were designed for another salad product it produces that does not
contain egg.  Concurrently, the Company was also notified by a
customer who rejected the product because of the mislabeling.
FSIS and the Company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS Web site at:
http://is.gd/Mxp5ng

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Andy
Foster, Director of Technical Services, at 209-830-3186.  Media
with questions about the recall should contact Alan Applonie,
Chief Operating Officer, at 209-830-3107.

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

        FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received
"Signature Cafe BBQ Flavored Ranch Salad with Chicken" products
that have been recalled by Taylor Farms Pacific.

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product.  Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at http://is.gd/33Q1Ju,in addition to the list of
retail stores, to check meat or poultry products in the consumers'
possession to see if they have been recalled.

    Nationwide, State-Wide, or Area-Wide Distribution
    -------------------------------------------------
    Retailer Name      Location
    -------------      --------
    Pavilions          Stores in CA
    Safeway            Stores in CA, HI, and NV
    Vons               Stores in CA and NV


TENET HEALTHCARE: To Seek Supreme Ct. Review of Appellate Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation said in its April 30, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013, that it intends to seek review of
the court of appeal's adverse decision by the Louisiana Supreme
Court.

The Company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit in which the
plaintiffs claim that in April 1996 patient identifying records
from a psychiatric hospital that the Company closed in 1995 were
temporarily placed in an unsecure location while the hospital was
undergoing renovations.  The lawsuit, Doe, et al. v. Jo Ellen
Smith Medical Foundation, was filed in the Civil District Court
for the Parish of Orleans in Louisiana in March 1997 and is
currently pending.  The plaintiffs' claims include allegations of
tortious invasion of privacy and negligent infliction of emotional
distress.  The plaintiffs contend that the class consists of over
5,000 persons; however, only eight individuals have been
identified to date in the class certification process.  The
plaintiffs have asserted each member of the class is entitled to
common damages under a theory of presumed "common damage"
regardless of whether or not any members of the class were
actually harmed or even aware of the incident.

The Company believes there is no authority for an award of common
damages under Louisiana law.  In addition, the Company believes
that there is no basis for the certification of this proceeding as
a class action under applicable federal and Louisiana law
precedents.  However, the trial court has denied the Company's
motions for summary judgment and its motion to decertify the
class.  In March 2012, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied the
Company's interlocutory appeal of the trial court's decision on
summary judgment based on procedural grounds, noting that the
Company retains an adequate remedy to appeal any adverse judgment
that might be rendered by the trial court.  In April 2012, the
Company filed a notice of appeal of the trial court's denial of
its motion to decertify the proceeding as a class action.  The
notice of appeal was granted, and the trial was stayed pending the
outcome of the appeal.

On April 24, 2013, the court of appeal affirmed the trial court's
denial of the Company's motion to decertify the proceeding as a
class action.  The Company says it intends to seek review of the
court of appeal's decision by the Louisiana Supreme Court.  The
trial remains stayed.  At this time, the Company is not able to
estimate the reasonably possible loss or reasonably possible range
of loss given: the small number of class members that have been
identified or otherwise responded to the class certification
process; the novel theories asserted by the plaintiffs, including
their assertion that a theory of presumed common damage exists
under Louisiana law; uncertainties as to the timing and outcome of
the appeals process; and the failure of the plaintiffs to provide
any evidence of damages.  The Company intends to vigorously
contest the plaintiffs' claims.

Based in Dallas, Texas, Tenet Healthcare Corporation is an
investor-owned health care services company whose subsidiaries and
affiliates primarily operated hospitals, outpatient centers and
Conifer Health Solutions, which provides business process
solutions to more than 600 hospitals and other clients nationwide.


TRIUMPH: Recalls Various STREET TRIPLE Models of Motorcycles
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 11, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Motorcycle
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Other
Units affected:           192
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013205
TC ID number:             2013205

On certain motorcycles, bolts securing two cable guides to the
mainframe (in the headstock area) could loosen and restrict
handlebar travel range.  Reduced handlebar travel would affect
handling and manoeuvrability of the motorcycle, which could
increase the risk of a crash causing property damage and/or
personal injury.  Correction: Dealers will replace the cable guide
bolts with bolts that contain a thread locking compound.

Affected products:

                 Makes and models affected
   ------------------------------------------------------
   Make      Model                 Model year(s) affected
   ----      -----                 ----------------------
   TRIUMPH   STREET TRIPLE         2013, 2013, 2013
   TRIUMPH   STREET TRIPLE R ABS   2013


TUESDAY MORNING: Status Conference in "Randell" Suit on July 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
A status conference has been set for July 8, 2013, in the class
action lawsuit initiated by Julia Randell, et al., according to
Tuesday Morning Corporation'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 is defending against a class action lawsuit filed in
California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, on December 5, 2008
-- Julia Randell, et. al., v. Tuesday Morning, Inc., No. BC403298
(Cal. Super. Ct.) -- in which the original complaint alleged
violations of California's meal and rest period laws.  The named
Plaintiffs, who are former employees of the Company, subsequently
amended the complaint three times.  Narrowing their class
allegations, the two named Plaintiffs moved on March 14, 2012, to
certify a class on the issue of whether the Company's alleged
practice of providing "on-duty" meal periods to Senior Sales
Associates violates the California Labor Code.  The Court granted
that motion on June 20, 2012, certifying a class comprised of
current and former Senior Sales Associates who worked for the
Company in California, and who were required to take meal breaks
"on duty" at any point from April 1, 2005, to the present.  The
Company filed motions to decertify the class and for summary
judgment on January 4, 2013, which the Court denied on March 29,
2013.  Discovery is continuing and a status conference has been
set by the Court for July 8, 2013.

The Company believes the claims are without merit and will
continue to vigorously defend against them.

Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, Tuesday Morning Corporation
operates discount retail stores in 43 states.  The Company sells
upscale, decorative home accessories, housewares, and famous maker
gifts, which the Company purchases at below wholesale prices.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Awaits Certification Bid Ruling in "Roe" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on a motion
for class certification in the lawsuit filed by Jane Roe,
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 April 20, 2012, the Company was served with a class action
complaint filed in Alameda County Superior Court in California
naming the Company's subsidiary, Intellicorp Records, Inc.
("Intellicorp"), titled Jane Roe v. Intellicorp Records, Inc.  The
complaint alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA") and claimed that Intellicorp failed to implement
reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the
adverse information contained in the background reports, failed to
maintain strict procedures to ensure that criminal record
information provided to employers is complete and up to date, and
failed to notify class members contemporaneously of the fact that
criminal record information was being provided to their employers
and prospective employers.  Intellicorp removed the case to the
United States District Court of the Northern District of
California.  The California Court later granted Intellicorp's
motion to transfer the case, which is now pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.  On
October 24, 2012, the plaintiffs served their First Amended
Complaint (the "Roe Complaint") alleging a nationwide putative
class action on behalf of all persons who were the subject of a
Criminal SuperSearch or other "instant" consumer background report
furnished to a third party by Intellicorp for employment purposes,
and whose report contained any negative public record of criminal
arrest, charge, or conviction without also disclosing the final
disposition of the charges during the 5 years preceding the filing
of this action through the date class certification is granted.
The Roe Complaint seeks statutory damages for the class in an
amount not less than one hundred dollars and not more than one
thousand dollars per violation, punitive damages, costs and
attorneys' fees.

On February 4, 2013, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
amend the Roe Complaint to eliminate the named plaintiff's
individual claim for compensatory damages.  This amendment did not
change the breadth or scope of the request for relief sought on
behalf of the proposed class.  The Plaintiffs later amended their
class definition in their motion for class certification to
include only those consumers whose (1) Criminal SuperSearch
returned results, but Single County search returned no result; (2)
Criminal SuperSearch returned one or more criminal charges without
a disposition, but the Single County search returned a disposition
other than "conviction" or "guilty," and (3) Criminal SuperSearch
returned a higher level of offense (felony or misdemeanor) for one
or more criminal charges than the Single County search
(misdemeanor or infraction.)  This amendment reduces the size of
the potential class, but does not alter the time period for which
the plaintiffs seek to certify a class or the scope of the request
for relief sought on behalf of the proposed class.  The
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was fully submitted on
March 18, 2013.

At this time, the Company says it is not possible to determine the
ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to the
matter.

Headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey, Verisk Analytics, Inc.
provides its customers proprietary data that, combined with
analytic methods, create embedded decision support solutions.  The
Company offers solutions for detecting fraud in the U.S. property
and casualty insurance, financial services, and healthcare
industries and sophisticated methods to predict and quantify loss
in diverse contexts ranging from natural catastrophes to supply
chain to health insurance.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Continues to Defend "Johnson" Suit vs. iiX
------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc., continues to defend a subsidiary against a
class action lawsuit brought by Mark A. Johnson, 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 January 3, 2013, the Company received service of a complaint
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio naming the Company's subsidiary, Insurance
Information Exchange ("iiX"), titled Mark A. Johnson v. Insurance
Information Exchange, LLC (the "Johnson Complaint") .  The Johnson
Complaint alleges a nationwide putative class action on behalf of
"[a]ll natural persons residing in the United States who were the
subject of a consumer report prepared by iiX for employment
purposes within five (5) years prior to the filing of this
Complaint and to whom iiX did not provide notice of the fact that
public record information which is likely to have an adverse
effect upon the consumer's ability to obtain employment, is being
reported by iiX, together with the name and address of the person
to whom such information is being reported at the time such public
record information is reported to the user of such consumer
report."  Similar to the Thomas matter, the Johnson Complaint
alleges violations of section 1681k(a) of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act ("FCRA") claiming that iiX failed to notify
customers contemporaneously that criminal record information was
provided to a prospective employer and failed to maintain strict
procedures to ensure that the information reported is complete and
up to date.  The Johnson Complaint seeks statutory damages for the
class in an amount not less than one hundred dollars and not more
than one thousand dollars per violation, punitive damages, costs
and attorneys' fees.

At this time, the Company says it is not possible to determine the
ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to the
matter.

Headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey, Verisk Analytics, Inc.
provides its customers proprietary data that, combined with
analytic methods, create embedded decision support solutions.  The
Company offers solutions for detecting fraud in the U.S. property
and casualty insurance, financial services, and healthcare
industries and sophisticated methods to predict and quantify loss
in diverse contexts ranging from natural catastrophes to supply
chain to health insurance.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Intellicorp Continues to Defend "Thomas" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. continues to defend a subsidiary against a
class action lawsuit initiated by Michael R. Thomas, 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 1, 2012, the Company was served with a complaint filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio naming the Company's subsidiary, Intellicorp Records, Inc.,
titled Michael R. Thomas v. Intellicorp Records, Inc.  On
January 7, 2013, the plaintiff served its First Amended Complaint
(the "Thomas Complaint") to add Mark A. Johnson (the plaintiff in
the Johnson v. iiX matter) as a named plaintiff.  The Thomas
Complaint alleges a nationwide putative class action for
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") on behalf of
"[a]ll natural persons residing in the United States (a) who were
the subject of a report sold by Intellicorp to a third party, (b)
that was furnished for an employment purpose, (c) that contained
at least one public record of a criminal conviction or arrest,
civil lien, bankruptcy or civil judgment, (d) within five years
next preceding the filing of this action and during its pendency,
and (e) to whom Intellicorp did not place in the United States
mail postage-prepaid, on the day it furnished any part of the
report, a written notice that it was furnishing the subject report
and containing the name of the person that was to receive the
report."  The Thomas Complaint proposes an alternative subclass as
follows: "[a]ll natural persons residing in Ohio or Tennessee (a)
who were the subject of a report sold by Intellicorp to a third
party, (b) that was furnished for an employment purpose, (c) that
contained at least one public record of a criminal conviction or
arrest, civil lien, bankruptcy or civil judgment, (d) within five
years next preceding the filing of this action and during its
pendency, (e) when a mutual review of the record would reveal that
the identity associated with the public record does not match the
identity of the class member about whom the report was furnished,
and (f) to whom Intellicorp did not place in the United States
mail postage pre-paid, on the day it furnished any part of the
report, a written notice that it was furnishing the subject report
and containing the name of the person that was to receive the
report."  Similar to the Roe action, the Thomas Complaint alleges
that Intellicorp violated the FCRA, asserting that Intellicorp
violated section 1681k(a)(1) of the FCRA because it failed to
provide notice to the plaintiffs "at the time" the adverse public
record information was reported.  The named plaintiffs also allege
individual claims under section 1681e(b) claiming that Intellicorp
failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible
accuracy in the preparation of the consumer report it furnished
pertaining to plaintiffs.  The Thomas Complaint seeks statutory
damages for the class in an amount not less than one hundred
dollars and not more than one thousand dollars per violation,
punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, as well as
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the named
plaintiffs.

At this time, the Company says it is not possible to determine the
ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to the
matter.

Headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey, Verisk Analytics, Inc.
provides its customers proprietary data that, combined with
analytic methods, create embedded decision support solutions.  The
Company offers solutions for detecting fraud in the U.S. property
and casualty insurance, financial services, and healthcare
industries and sophisticated methods to predict and quantify loss
in diverse contexts ranging from natural catastrophes to supply
chain to health insurance.


VODAFONE: More Than 10,000 Ex-Customers Join Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie McDonald, writing for Computerworld, reports that more
than 10,000 disgruntled ex-Vodafone customers have signed up for
the class action against the telco, according to the company
funding the case.

Patrick Coope -- pcoope@lcmlitigation.com.au -- managing director
at LCM Litigation Fund, which is providing the financial backing
for the case, told Computerworld Australia that while it had a
policy of not disclosing exact numbers of claimants signed on for
the case, it's "lots of people".

"We're not unhappy with numbers," he said.  "It's in the tens [of
thousands] . . . not in the hundreds."

Mr. Coope confirmed there are more than 10,000 signed up and said
the class action is now past a minimum number of claimants and the
case will go ahead.

Law firm Piper Alerman announced in February this year that it
would serve a class action on Vodafone after years of collecting
information about customers' experiences with the telco via an
online survey.  Around 23,000 Vodafone customers initially
expressed interest in joining the class action.

LCM stepped in after Piper Alderman initially failed to secure
funding for the class action.

The class action relates to network problems at Vodafone which
dogged the telco in 2010 and 2011, with the telco losing more than
1 million customers since 2010.

Despite network guarantees, the telco is still shedding customers,
losing another 108,000 mobile customers in Australia in the
quarter ending March 31.

So far LCM has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in the
case, according to Mr. Coope.  This includes legal fees for Piper
Alderman and also print and radio advertising costs associated
with looking for former Vodafone customers to sign up for the
class action.

While Mr. Coope said there was no cap on how much the fund would
provide, he said it did have a budget that LCM is "comfortable"
with, which he would not disclose.

"If the lawyers go through the budget we'll be unhappy with them,
[but] they're lawyers -- they're used to people being unhappy with
them," Mr. Coope said.

LCM provides funding for litigation and also to solvent companies
and individuals with commercial legal claims, with capital for
cases provided by investors.

Mr. Coope said LCM decided to back the class action because it is
a litigation funder and "we expect that we will make money out of
it".

LCM's stake in any winnings will be 33 per cent.  It was pegged to
receive 15% of winnings if the case settled prior to May.

Its website says it prefers to be involved with cases where the
legal claim is at least AUD2.5 million, but Mr. Coope would not
disclose how much in damages were being sought for the class
action.  Tens of millions in compensation was originally being
sought.

"It's currently being worked on.  The reason it's difficult to
answer is that there are people with individual circumstances that
[have] different damages numbers, but we're working on trying to
fix a figure that applies to everyone and the lawyers are
[working] on that at the moment," Mr. Coope said.

If the class action is successful, Mr. Coope said the courts would
determine how much each claimant will receive.

"The starting point is it would have to be on some sort of pro
rata basis so that everyone equally benefits, but whether that's
done on the basis of what they spent or some other figure, I'm not
sure," Mr. Coope said.

"Ultimately, the court will have to make that decision."

Mr. Coope said Piper Alderman is currently working on the
documents that need to be filed with the Federal Court to start
the case, which he expects to happen in weeks.

"I kind of hoped we'd be further advanced, but these things always
take longer than you think. But within weeks that should be done
and then we need to engage, under the Federal Court rules, with
Vodafone before any claim is actually filed, and that will take a
handful of weeks," he said.

To date, Mr. Coope said LCM has not had contact with Vodafone.
While the case could be settled out of court, Mr. Coope said that
"doesn't usually happen".

"We are confident we're going to win," he said.

According to Australian IT's Andrew Colley, a spokeswoman for
Vodafone Hutchison Australia encouraged dissatisfied customers to
deal with the carrier directly if they had concerns about their
service.

"We're yet to be contacted by Piper Alderman and we're focused on
the wellbeing of our customers here and now.

"We have invested heavily and we are a very different company to
the one we were in 2010," the spokeswoman said.

The class action could potentially lead to a compensation bill for
Vodafone in the tens of millions of dollars.

It follows widely publicized allegations of major problems with
Vodafone's mobile service since 2010 and a grassroots campaign by
web-based consumer action group, Vodafail, which prompted 23,000
consumers to informally express interest with Piper Alderman in
being part of a class action.

VHA has lost over 1.5 million customers since 2010.

However, the decision to go ahead immediately attracted a rebuke
from the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACCAN)
chief Teresa Corbin.

"This class action will take a long time to play out and consumers
are not guaranteed any compensation.  Our fear is that the action
could turn into a lawyer's picnic; consumers are likely to be
better served by Vodafone investing the money into its network as
opposed to fighting this class action," Ms. Corbin said.

Under the terms of the class action, LCM stands to claim up to
33 per cent of any compensation claim the action generated.

ACCAN prompted consumers to take their complaints to
Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman rather than pursue the class
action.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Recalls 25,928 Cars in Australia Over Gearboxes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Kelly of The Wall Street Journal reports that Volkswagen AG,
Europe's largest auto maker by revenue, said June 13, 2013, that
it is recalling 25,928 vehicles in Australia to replace faulty
gearboxes that cause some cars to lose power.

The move heaps new pressure on the German car company, which
earlier this year recalled 384,181 vehicles in China, and has also
recalled cars sold in Japan and Singapore, all over gearbox
issues.

Volkswagen's Australian sales have been rising as it takes market
share from rivals, particularly Ford MotorCo. and Holden, a unit
of General Motors Co.  Last year, Volkswagen sold nearly 55,000
vehicles, good enough for eighth place in Australia.

Volkswagen said the recall involves Golf, Jetta, Polo, Passat and
Caddy models produced between June 2008 and September 2011.  The
Company said no new cars currently at dealerships are affected by
the gearbox issue.

Volkswagen said the gearbox problem is an internal electronic
malfunction that can cause a loss of power.  It doesn't affect
other systems such as braking or steering, so motorists are able
to maintain control until they bring the car to a halt.

The recall will begin in July and gearboxes will be replaced on
all the vehicles at no cost to customers, the Company said.

Australia's Department of Infrastructure and Transport has said
previously that it's investigating claims of safety defects in
Volkswagen vehicles.  Department representatives were unavailable
to comment Wednesday, June 13, 2013, on the investigation's
progress.

A Sydney-based Volkswagen spokesman declined to comment on whether
product recalls will extend to any other countries.


WASHINGTON COUNTY: Lawyer Mulls Class Action Over Rental Ordinance
------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Miller, writing for Observer.com, reports that a local
attorney who also is a landlord has appealed to Washington County
Court a ruling by a district judge related to the city rental
ordinance, and, in addition to demanding a jury trial, is claiming
false arrest and seeking to have the issue become a class action.

Charles E. Kurowski, a Canton Township resident, claims he
purchased permits for his rental properties in 2010 and 2011 but
never received them.  When payments for the 2012 permits were due,
he informed the city of this and noted that he "was not going to
pay what (he) viewed as an illegal tax," he wrote in his appeal.
The city then filed criminal charges against Mr. Kurowski for
collection of money it said it was due, Mr. Kurowski said.

Mr. Kurowski claims that, in addition to not issuing the permits,
he believes the city did not maintain a separate fund for the sale
of the rental ordinance permits, did not notify police and
firefighters and enacted "a tax upon a special class of persons,
namely, landlords."

Mayor Brenda Davis said former solicitor Lane Turturice met with
Mr. Kurowski after she took office in 2012.  "He wasn't treated
any differently than anyone who does business with the city, but
he did not complete tenant information or (identify) a property
manager, which you must do to be entitled to your rental permit.

"We let the magistrate know he didn't receive permits because he
didn't fill out the paperwork," Ms. Davis said.

Attempts to reach Mr. Kurowski by phone and by email on May 28
were unsuccessful.

On Feb. 13 of this year, Mr. Kurowski paid for previous years'
delinquencies, 2010 through 2012, the mayor said.  Notices this
year won't be mailed until July 1, Ms. Davis said.

Mr. Kurowski asked in his appeal that the city cooperate with his
request for a class-action suit by providing a list of landlords.
He also claimed he was subject to false arrest and called the city
"negligent, wanton, reckless, malicious and vexatious," acting
with "callous indifference" to his rights.

"We have turned this lawsuit over to our new city solicitor," Ms.
Davis said of Jack Cambest.  "I'll let the solicitor answer the
complaint on this.  With me taking over last year, I can't explain
what the previous administration did."

Online court records show that more than a dozen summary citations
filed by city zoning officer Ron McIntyre against Mr. Kurowski
with District Judge Robert Redlinger were withdrawn in January.
The charges had the potential, Mr. Kurowski wrote, to lead to
fines and incarceration.

In the same month, Mr. Kurowski filed a claim of $336 against the
city, saying he incurred damages and reasonable attorney's fees as
a result of the city's "unwarranted filing."  Judge Redlinger
decided April 22 in the city's favor.  It was this judgment that
Mr. Kurowski appealed to Washington County Court.

The 2009 ordinance initiated the Residential Housing Rental Permit
Program for the city's estimated 2,500 rental properties, 389 of
which were not legally registered in the city in 2012.

Under the ordinance, landlords are required to pay a $12 fee to
register the name, address and telephone number of any tenant.
Landlords also are required to furnish occupants with the latest
inspection report of the property, and their rental agreement must
be placed in writing.

The $12 permit fee covers the cost of running the program, Ms.
Davis said, such as the mailing of forms.  "It is a much cleaner
database than I was dealt when I took over," the mayor said.

The ordinance also includes a provision for disruptive tenants.
If police receive three nuisance calls to a rental property in a
one-year period, the owner must take action to repossess that
rental unit.

The registration ordinance applies to all rental properties,
including rooming houses, personal care homes and hotels.


                             *********

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  * * *