CAR_Public/130618.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, June 18, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 119

                             Headlines


AETNA INC: Faces Class Action for Denying Benefits
ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC: Faces Suit Over Manhandling Disabled Students
AMGEN: Judge Revives Employees' ERISA Class Action
ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Cal. Securities Complaint Dismissed
AVIS BUDGET: May Face Claims on Secret Charges, Judge Rules

BECTON DICKINSON: Wins Final OK for $45MM Antitrust Suit Accord
BECTON DICKINSON: Faces N.J. Antitrust Suit Filed by Hospitals
BEST BUY: Appeals Court Upholds Privacy Class Action Dismissal
BP PLC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Reporting Agencies
BREASTSCREEN SA: South Australia to Be "Model Litigant" If Sued

BRIAD GROUP: Faces Class Action Over "Premium Liquor Brands"
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: N.J. Suit by Former Subscribers in Discovery
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Awaits Ruling in Suit Over Fox Shows
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Awaits Ruling in Motion to Junk NY Stock Suit
CALIFORNIA COLLEGE: Faces Class Action Over Unaccredited Program

CAPLEASE: Being Sold For Too Little, Suit Claims
CHARMING CHARLIE: Faces Class Action Over Gender Discrimination
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Appeals Court Reinstates Royalties Class Action
CHINA BISTRO: Faces Class Action Over Violation of Labor Laws
COMSCORE: Gets Ad Bodies' Support in Fight Against Class Action

CRANSTON, RI: Retirees Group May Opt Out of Pension Class Action
DUKE ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss N.C. Securities Suit Filed
EBAY INC: Class Action Over Good 'Til Canceled Feature Dismissed
EMERALD GRAIN: Law Firm Seeks Growers for Wheat Pool Class Action
ENERGY TRANSFER: June 26 Hearing to Approve Attorneys' Fees

ENERGY TRANSFER: Suit Over Southern Union Merger in Discovery
ENERGY TRANSFER: Panhandle Wants Dismissed From "Price" Suit
ENTERTAINMENT ARTS: Football Consumers to Get Triple Settlement
FLORIDA: Female Staff at Coleman Prison Obtain Class Action Status
GENESEE & WYOMING: Wins Initial OK for Settlement of Merger Suit

GEORGE SHARP: Xumanii(TM) Shareholder Launches Class Action
GROUPON: Faces Suit Over Increasing Annual Limit of Stock Grants
HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Overtime Class Action
JEFFERSON PARISH: Jan. 13 Trial Set for Flooding Class Action
JOE ARPAIO: Barred From Racially Profiling Latinos, Judge Rules

JOS. A. BANK: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Advertising
KAISER FOUNDATION: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Books $5MM Loss Provision for Labor Claims
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Facilities Face Minimum Staffing Lawsuits
KNIGHT CAPITAL: Continues to Face Suits Over KCA Brokering Errors

KNIGHT CAPITAL: Briefing on Bid to Dismiss Stock Suit to End Aug.
LADENBURG THALMANN: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
LADENBURG THALMANN: Securities Suit Accord Wins Court Approval
LADENBURG THALMANN: Amended Complaint Filed in Suit Over WEMU IPO
LENDER PROCESSING: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims

LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Award of Damages in Labor Suit
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Judge Issues Injunction v. Sheriff Arpaio
MONTEREY COUNTY: Faces Class Action Over Unsafe Jail
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Manatt Phelps, McKool Smith Ordered to Pay $3.5MM
NATIONAL FINANCIAL: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims

NATIONAL SECURITY: Wants to Defer Ruling on Wiretapping Program
NCAA: Challenges Validity of Class Status of College Athletes
NEW JERSEY: Gov. Christie Sued Over Closure of 2 Centers
NEW YORK: Faces Class Action Over Invading Cab Drivers' Privacy
NEW YORK: NYPD Sued Over Vehicles Destroyed by Sandy

NV ENERGY: Being Sold to MidAmerican for Too Little, Suit Claims
NYK LINE: Faces Suit Over Price-Fixing of Waterborne Vehicle
OMTHERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
OXFORD HEALTH: Supreme Court Maintains Class Arbitration Decision
PATH INC: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages

PEPPERIDGE FARM: Faces Suit for Using Unnatural Ingredients
PHILADELPHIA HOUSING: Tenants to Receive $2.65MM Settlement
PRICELINE.COM INC: Faces Suits Over Travel Transaction Taxes
PRICELINE.COM INC: Sued Over Alleged City Ordinance Violations
PRICELINE.COM INC: Appeals Class Certification of Pine Bluff Suit

PRICELINE.COM INC: Appealing Certification of Nassau County Suit
PRICELINE.COM INC: Bares Lawsuits Filed by Cities, Counties
PRICELINE.COM INC: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in Texas
RANGE RESOURCES: To Pay $87.5MM Settlement Over Gas Royalties
REMINGTON ARMS: Faces Class Action for Selling Defective Guns

RUE21: Being Sold to Apax Partners for Too Little, Suit Claims
SAN LEANDRO: Police Dept. Faces Suit Over Falsely Arresting Men
SHANGHUI INT'L: May Face Suit Over Smithfield Foods Buyout
STEEL DYNAMICS: Opposes Bid to Certify Antitrust Suit
SUBURBAN PROPANE: Settles Suit Over Fees, Anticipates No Loss

TARGET CORP: Faces Class Action Over Labor Complaints
TIME WARNER: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
TOWNSEND FARMS: Faces Class Action Over Organic Anti-Oxidant Blend
TRACY BARKALOW: Class Action Over Iowa Students' Leases Certified
UNIONBANCAL CORPORATION: BTMU Faces Suits Over Interbank Rates

UNITED HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Mail Order Program
UNITED STATES: Homeland Dept. Sued Over Deportation Program
UPPER CRUST: Class Action Attorney Hires Former Staff for New Shop
UTAH: Jail Guards Face Suit Over Abuse of Disabled Inmates
VISA INC: Sued Retailers and Restaurants

WARNER CHILCOTT: Doryx Purchasers Lose Class Certification Bid
WARNER CHILCOTT: Faces Antitrust Class Action
WEBSENSE: Being Sold to Vista Equity for Too Little, Suit Claims
WEST VIRGINIA: Appeals Court Faces Suit Over "Court-Ordered Rape"
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Discovery Starts in "Barlow" & "Reyes" Cases

* E-Book Suit Presents Model for Public-Private Partnership


                             *********


AETNA INC: Faces Class Action for Denying Benefits
--------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that Aetna
insurance wrongfully denied costly claims for a girl who tried to
kill herself three times and another girl who threatened to kill
her psychologist, the families say in a federal class action.

The families claim Aetna rebuffed their claims because the
licensed mental health facilities where the girls were staying did
not have "a licensed healthcare professional . . . on-site 24/7."

That's a bogus technicality, the families say.

"Under the [Aetna] plan language, if the residential treatment
facility is licensed under the law of the state in which it is
located to provide inpatient treatment, it qualifies as a facility
that is eligible for coverage by Aetna regardless of whether a
licensed healthcare professional is on site 24/7," the complaint
states.

But Aetna denied both families benefits by citing the staffing
provision.

"Aetna violates the terms and conditions of its own plans because
it denies claims from properly licensed residential treatment
facilities on the basis that the facilities do not have a licensed
healthcare professional on site 24/7," the complaint states.

Both children suffered from a complex of disorders, including
bipolarism, depression, anxiety and anorexia.

One tried suicide three times and was admitted into the New Haven
Residential Treatment Center in Utah between June 2010 and June
2012.  Her parents are from Santa Clara, Calif.

The other threatened to kill her psychiatrist and was admitted
into the Waterfall Canyon Academy in Utah from October 2011
through April 2013.  Her family is from Los Angeles.

Together, the families owe $248,000 in medical costs due to
Aetna's denials of claims.  They say other families have suffered
the same rebuffs.

"The plaintiffs and proposed class members are entitled to payment
for the expenses incurred arising out of the mental health care
provided at residential treatment facilities for which coverage
was improperly denied by Aetna," the complaint states.

Most of Aetna's health plan or health insurance policies,
including the health plans or policies covering the plaintiffs,
are provided through employer-sponsored welfare benefits plans
that are governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, according to the complaint.

Plaintiffs seek class certification, costs, declaratory judgment,
an injunction and damages.  They are represented by David
Lilienstein.


ALBUQUERQUE PUBLIC: Faces Suit Over Manhandling Disabled Students
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Prieskop at Courthouse News Service reports that Albuquerque
Public Schools and the state prosecutor's office manhandle,
arrest, criminally charge and imprison disabled students for
acting like disabled students, parents claim in a class action.

Three parents sued the Albuquerque Board of Education and the
Second Judicial District Attorney's Office for their own children
and on behalf of the class, in Bernalillo County Court.  They
claim, among other things, that the defendants unreasonably, and
illegally, handcuff special education students.

"School resource officers should not handcuff a child who is
receiving special education services," the parents say in the
complaint.

Education law requires schools to provide an Individualized
Education Plan (IEP) and in some cases a Behavioral Intervention
Plan (BIP) for disabled students.

A BIP may and sometimes does allow "therapeutic holds" and other
specifically outlined forms of physical restraint in the case of
extreme or violent outbursts from a child.

But the parents claim the school system ignores students' BIPs and
allows untrained personnel to grab, handle and pin students when
they act out, even when the behavior may be expected due to their
disabilities, as described in their IEPs.

The schools and prosecutors also violate the Individuals with
Disabilities Act and disabled students' civil rights by treating
their behavior as criminal, the parents say.  They claim that
disabled students have repeatedly been arrested, handcuffed and
sent to juvenile detention even though their tantrums and
misbehaviors were predictable, due to their disabilities.  They
seek declaratory judgment and an injunction restraining the
defendants and ordering them to improve training.

The parents are represented by Joseph P. Kennedy.


AMGEN: Judge Revives Employees' ERISA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports that the 9th
Circuit on June 4, 2013, revived a class action filed by Amgen
employees whose company stock took a hit following safety concerns
about Amgen's anemia drugs.

Employees sued the company under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, or ERISA, claiming Amgen should have yanked the
company stock option when its executives knew or should have known
that the stock was being sold at an artificially inflated price.

Amgen's problems first came to light in the late 1990s and early
2000s, when several clinical trials raised safety concerns about
the drugs Epogen and Aranesp, used to treat anemia caused by
cancer chemotherapy and chronic liver failure.  In 2006 the two
drugs made up about half of Amgen's $14.3 billion revenue.

One study showed higher rates of blood clotting. Others showed
lower survival rates for head, neck and breast cancer patients.

A Danish clinical trial was permanently halted after investigators
concluded that tumor growth was worse for patients who took
Aranesp than for those who did not.

Amgen stood by its drugs in public statements, calling them
"effective and safe medicines when administered according to the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) label."

It conducted its own clinical trial, but those results were not
exonerating.  The FDA said Amgen's study revealed "significantly
shorter" survival rates in cancer patients receiving the drugs
than in those receiving transfusions.

All the studies prompted the FDA in 2007 to issue a rare "black
box" warning -- the strongest warning the agency can require --
for off-label use of Aranesp and Epogen.

As the safety concerns became public, the price of Amgen stock
tanked by one third.

Investors filed two class actions against the company: one
claiming Amgen, its board of directors and a subsidiary violated
their fiduciary duty under ERISA; another claiming they violated
federal securities law by artificially inflating the company's
stock price.

The securities law case was recently heard by the U.S. Supreme
Court, which ruled in February to uphold class certification.

U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez dismissed Amgen from the
ERISA lawsuit on the basis that the company was not a fiduciary,
and rejected the remaining claims due to the "presumption of
prudence" outlined in a 2010 ruling.

"We held that a fiduciary is entitled to a presumption that he has
been a prudent investor 'when plan terms require or encourage the
fiduciary to invest primarily in employer stock,'" Judge William
Fletcher wrote, quoting the 2010 opinion.

But this presumption does not apply in Amgen's case, Fletcher
wrote, because the company's pension plans did not require or
encourage employees to invest in company stock.

"[I]n the absence of the presumption, plaintiffs have sufficiently
alleged violation of the defendants' fiduciary duties," the panel
concluded.

"We further conclude that Amgen is an adequately alleged fiduciary
of the Amgen Plan."


ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Cal. Securities Complaint Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
The US District Court for the Southern District of California
granted the motion of Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to dismiss a
consolidated amended securities complaint without prejudice,
according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

Beginning on September 20, 2010, a number of complaints were filed
in the US District Court for the Southern District of California
against the company and certain of the company's current and
former employees and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of
the company's common stock.

The complaints have been brought as purported stockholder class
actions, and, in general, include allegations that the company and
certain of the company's current and former employees and
directors violated federal securities laws by making materially
false and misleading statements regarding the company's BELVIQ
program, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's
common stock. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.

On November 19, 2010, eight prospective lead plaintiffs filed
motions to consolidate, appoint a lead plaintiff, and appoint lead
counsel. The Court took the motions to consolidate under
submission on January 14, 2011. On August 8, 2011, the Court
consolidated the actions and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. On November 1, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint. On December 30, 2011, the company
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

On March 28, 2013, the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint without prejudice, and
plaintiff has until May 13, 2013, to file a new consolidated
amended complaint.

In addition to the class actions, a complaint involving similar
legal and factual issues has been brought by at least one
individual stockholder and is pending in federal court. On
December 30, 2011, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
stockholder's complaint.

On March 29, 2013, the Court granted the company's motion to
dismiss, in part without prejudice, and plaintiff has until May
13, 2013, to file a new amended complaint. The company intends to
defend against any claims advanced in these proceedings and to
seek dismissal of any new amended complaints. Due to the early
stage of these proceedings, the company is not able to predict or
reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome or possible losses
relating to these claims.


AVIS BUDGET: May Face Claims on Secret Charges, Judge Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that the
parent company of Avis must face claims related to secret charges
customers allegedly incur while earning frequent flyer miles and
other reward points, a federal judge ruled.

In a 2011 class action, lead plaintiff Edward Schwartz claimed
that Avis Rent a Car Systems "makes customers believe that it will
provide them frequent-flyer miles or reward points at no
additional charge while unnoticeably charging them for these miles
or points" earned with vehicle rentals on the Avis website.  His
first amended complaint asserts violations of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, breach of contract and bad faith, and seeks
damages, an injunction and declaratory relief.

Daniel and Stephanie Klein filed similar claims against Budget
Rent a Car and its corporate stockholder, Avis Budget Car Rental,
in New Jersey about a year later.  They claimed that Budget's
website is designed to "bury" a 75-cent surcharge for earning
frequent flyer miles.

Though U.S. District Judge Jose Linares dismissed the claims
against Avis on May 2, he said the Kleins could carry on suing
Budget.

Schwartz's fraud claim is the sole count remaining against Avis
after surviving two attempts at dismissal.  With class
certification on the horizon, the company identified three
employees of its parent, Avis Budget Group Inc. (ABG), as persons
likely to possess discoverable information.  During their
depositions in February, Schwartz allegedly learned that the
employees were directly responsible for the Avis website, rental
agreement and frequent traveler program.

Although the court had previously set Sept. 15, 2012, as the
deadline to propose adding new defendants or amend the pleadings,
U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael Hammer authorized Schwartz to amend
his complaint a third time to add Avis Budget Group on May 20.

"The court finds that plaintiff acted with diligence in seeking
leave to amend to add ABG," Hammer wrote.  "Plaintiff did not know
at the outset of the litigation the relationship of ABG and Avis
as it is relevant to the facts of the case.  Defendant included
ABG employees in its Rule 26 disclosures and because discovery was
delayed, the depositions of those ABG employees only recently took
place.  It was during those depositions that plaintiff learned of
BG's oversight and management of the Avis.com website and the Avis
frequent traveler program. And only then did plaintiff have enough
information to bring a claim against ABG."

The judge held that Schwartz's proposed complaint "states the same
allegations, which the court has deemed sufficient, against an
additional, albeit related, party."

"Avis argues that by adding ABG, plaintiff is improperly
attempting to 'pierce the corporate veil,'" Hammer wrote.  "The
court disagrees.  The proposed third amended complaint does not
state a claim for indirect or vicarious liability against ABG
based on the actions of Avis Rent a Car System Inc.  Rather,
plaintiff alleges that ABG is directly liable for the same
misconduct he has alleged against Avis.  This conduct concerns the
Avis website, and plaintiff alleges that ABG controlled the
website with Avis from the corporate headquarters that they
shared.  As noted earlier, the website is central to the
plaintiff's allegations because the reservation process that he
used with Avis was web-based; indeed, '[t]his lawsuit currently
concerns only vehicle rentals made through http://www.avis.com'"

The judge later added: "Because plaintiff is alleging that ABG, as
well as Avis, had control over the website, and the content and
omissions of the website give rise to the alleged fraud, the
allegations of the proposed third amended complaint directly
implicate ABG."

Merits-based discovery has not begun, according to the ruling.


BECTON DICKINSON: Wins Final OK for $45MM Antitrust Suit Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company won final approval of the
$45,000,000 settlement agreement it entered with the Distributor
Plaintiffs, according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

The Company is named as a defendant in the following purported
class action suits brought on behalf of distributors and other
entities that purchase the Company's products (the "Distributor
Plaintiffs"), alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust
laws, resulting in the charging of higher prices for the Company's
products to the plaintiffs and other purported class members:

(1) Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, Inc., et al. vs. Becton
Dickinson and Company, U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey,
March 25, 2005;

(2) SAJ Distributors, Inc. et al. vs. Becton Dickinson & Co., U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, September 6,
2005;

(3) Dik Drug Company, et al. vs. Becton, Dickinson and Company,
U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey, September 12, 2005;

(4) American Sales Company, Inc. et al. vs. Becton, Dickinson &
Co., U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
October 3, 2005;

(5) Park Surgical Co. Inc. et al. vs. Becton, Dickinson and
Company, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
October 26, 2005;

These actions have been consolidated under the caption "In re
Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation."

On April 27, 2009, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the Distributor Plaintiffs in these actions. The settlement
agreement provides for, among other things, the payment by the
Company of $45,000,000 in exchange for a release by all potential
class members of the direct purchaser claims under federal
antitrust laws related to the products and acts enumerated in the
complaint, and a dismissal of the case with prejudice, insofar as
it relates to direct purchaser claims. The release does not cover
potential class members that affirmatively opt out of the
settlement or indirect purchaser claims.

The District Court preliminarily approved the settlement in
November 2012 and granted final approval in April 2013. The
settlement funds have been paid into escrow, subject to any
appeals. The Company currently cannot estimate the range of
reasonably possible losses with respect to these class action
matters beyond the $45,000,000 settlement.


BECTON DICKINSON: Faces N.J. Antitrust Suit Filed by Hospitals
--------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company faces a consolidated Multi-District
Litigation in Federal court in New Jersey filed by purchasers of
the Company's products, alleging violations of antitrust laws,
according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

The Company is named as a defendant in the following purported
class action suits brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's products, such as hospitals (the "Hospital Plaintiffs"),
alleging that the Company violated federal and state antitrust
laws, resulting in the charging of higher prices for the Company's
products to the plaintiffs and other purported class members.

(1) Jabo's Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Becton Dickinson & Company,
U.S. District Court, Greenville, Tennessee, June 3, 2005;

(2) Drug Mart Tallman, Inc., et al. v. Becton Dickinson and
Company, U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey, January 17,
2006;

(3) Medstar v. Becton Dickinson, U.S. District Court, Newark, New
Jersey, May 18, 2006;

(4) The Hebrew Home for the Aged at Riverdale v. Becton Dickinson
and Company, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York,
March 28, 2007;

The plaintiffs in each antitrust class action lawsuits seek
monetary damages. All of the antitrust class action lawsuits have
been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District
Litigation in Federal court in New Jersey.


BEST BUY: Appeals Court Upholds Privacy Class Action Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Alexander, writing for Star Tribune, reports that a two-
year-old potential class-action lawsuit against Best Buy Co. Inc.
has been tossed out by federal appeals court in San Francisco,
upholding a lower-court ruling.

A 2011 Florida lawsuit by Steven Siegler had alleged that Best Buy
violated privacy law when it swiped the driver's licenses of
customers who were returning purchases to a store.

Information services company LexisNexis reported on its "Law360"
website that the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with
the Florida lower court that the Drivers' Privacy Protection Act
doesn't apply to information supplied by a customer.  The law
forbids state motor vehicles employees from knowingly disclosing
personal information contained in state motor vehicle records.

"We're not commenting on the ruling and will let the court
documents speak for themselves," Paula Baldwin, a Best Buy
spokeswoman, said on May 29.

The lawsuit grew out of an October 2011 incident.  Mr. Siegler
returned a computer mouse to a Florida Best Buy store, and after a
clerk swiped the magnetic strip on his driver's license,
Mr. Siegler asked a manager to delete the information.  The
lawsuit said that Best Buy refused on the grounds that its return
policy warned that driver's license information might be
collected.  Mr. Siegler's lawsuit maintained that the warning was
printed on the back of his sales receipt, which he received only
after buying the product.


BP PLC: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Reporting Agencies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that BP, Shell and
Statoil fixed North Sea crude oil prices and restricted trade for
years by misleading reporting agencies, a trader claims in a
federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Prime International Trading sued BP, Royal Dutch
Shell and Norwegian oil company Statoil, in Federal Court.

Chicago-based Prime International is a member of the Chicago Board
of Trade, Chicago Mercantile Exchange, NYMEX (the New York
Mercantile Exchange) and ICE (the Intercontinental Exchange), the
world's largest energy futures exchanges.

Prime claims the defendants and unnamed co-conspirators
deliberately reported inaccurate information about North Sea sweet
light crude oil (a commodity known as Brent Crude oil) to Platts,
the leading reporting agency for the Brent Crude Oil commodity and
futures contracts traded on NYMEX and ICE, undermining the entire
pricing structure for the Brent Crude oil market since 2002.

Platts, a unit of McGraw Hill Financial, compiles and publishes
Brent Crude oil prices for traders in the United States.  Platts
is not a party to the complaint.

"As major producers and market participants in the Brent Crude oil
market, including contributors of Brent Crude oil prices to
Platts, defendants had and continued to have market power and the
ability to influence prices in the Brent Crude oil market," the
complaint states.  "By purposefully reporting inaccurate,
misleading and false Brent Crude oil trade information to Platts,
defendants manipulated and restrained trade in both the physical
(spot) Brent Crude oil market and the Brent Crude oil futures
market."

The European Commission confirmed in May that it is investigating
several companies that may have reported distorted prices for
crude oil and conspired to monopolize price-setting, according to
the complaint.

"Almost immediately following the European Commission's
announcement on May 14, defendants BP plc, Royal Dutch Shell plc
and Statoil ASA each confirmed they are the subject of the
European Commission investigation," the complaint states.  "In
particular, defendant Statoil confirmed that its office in
Stavanger (Norway) was subject to an inspection by the EFTA
Surveillance Authority, assisted by the Norwegian Competition
Authority.  Statoil acknowledged that the inspection was carried
out at the request of the European Commission.  Further, Statoil
confirmed that the scope of the European Commission's
investigation is 'related to the Platts' market-on-close price
assessment process, used to report prices in particular for crude
oil, refined oil products and biofuels' extending back to as early
as 2002.

"On May 17, 2013, the U.K. Serious Fraud Office announced that it
was 'urgently reviewing' the European Commission's allegations of
price-fixing in the oil markets and determining whether to accept
the case for 'criminal investigation.'  That same day, the United
States Senate called for the U.S. Department of Justice to join
the European Commission investigation."

Prime International claims it traded hundreds of thousands of
Brent Crude futures contracts at prices manipulated by the
defendants' price-fixing.  It claims to represent thousands of
traders who have been misled by the manipulated prices since 2002.

It claims the defendants knew that misreporting crude oil prices
to Platts would have a serious impact on the U.S. market for crude
oil, refined oil products, biofuels and futures contracts.

"The Brent oilfields in the North Sea currently have the highest
physical daily output of any of the world's recognized oil
benchmarks," the complaint states.  "Brent is the leading global
price benchmark for Atlantic basin crude oils and it is used to
price two-thirds of the world's internationally traded crude oil
supplies."

Prime International claims the defendants nonetheless continued
"their deliberate and systematic submission of false Brent Crude
oil trade information to Platts."

It seeks class certification, an injunction, restitution, and
damages for violations of the Commodity Exchange Act, the Sherman
Act, and unjust enrichment.

Prime International is represented by Vincent Briganti, Esq. --
vbriganti@lowey.com -- with Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart.


BREASTSCREEN SA: South Australia to Be "Model Litigant" If Sued
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that the South Australian
government will be a "model litigant" if sued over 72 breast
cancer cases that were potentially detectable earlier, Health
Minister Jack Snelling says.

On May 29, Mr. Snelling released a report into the re-reading of
53,104 digital breast screens, which found 72 cancer cases that
were "potentially detectable" at the initial screening.

Two of the 72 women have since died.

One was at a very advanced stage of cancer, while the second
woman's cause of the death cannot be confirmed.

The review was ordered in December, after health officials found a
fall in cancer detection rates between September 2010 and June
2012, during the changeover from analogue to digital screens.

Tim White, from law firm Tindal Gask Bentley, said the review
strengthened the possibility of a class action against the state.

The firm had been contacted by more than 60 women, more than half
of whom were screened within the period reviewed.

"Breast cancer treatment takes a huge physical, emotional and
financial toll, with ongoing treatment that can last for many
years," Mr. White said.

"Many of these women may have a right to be compensated for their
losses."

Mr. Snelling on May 30 told ABC radio that his immediate priority
was the welfare of the women, and to ensure others did not lose
confidence in BreastScreen SA.

He did not know whether the state had a legal liability in
relation to the 72 women.

"If we have a liability, the state has an obligation to act as a
model litigant," he said.

"If there are other ways we can facilitate things, then we will
look at that."

Mr. Snelling said he would be happy to meet the women and to
ensure they were getting whatever they needed, particularly the
appropriate medical treatment.


BRIAD GROUP: Faces Class Action Over "Premium Liquor Brands"
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Briad Group serves "cut-
rate liquor" under the guise of "premium liquor brands" at its 12
TGI Friday's restaurants in New Jersey, a class action claims in
Mercer County Court.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: N.J. Suit by Former Subscribers in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the suit Marchese, et al. v.
Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC, according
to Cablevision's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey by several present and former
Cablevision subscribers, purportedly on behalf of a class of iO
video subscribers in New Jersey, Connecticut and New York.

After three versions of the complaint were dismissed without
prejudice by the District Court, plaintiffs filed their third
amended complaint on August 22, 2011, alleging that the Company
violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly tying
the sale of interactive services offered as part of iO television
packages to the rental and use of set-top boxes distributed by
Cablevision, and violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act
by allegedly seeking to monopolize the distribution of Cablevision
compatible set-top boxes.

Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble monetary damages, attorney's
fees, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief.  On September
23, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint.  On January 10, 2012, the District Court issued a
decision dismissing with prejudice the Section 2 monopolization
claim, but allowing the Section 1 tying claim and related state
common law claims to proceed.  Cablevision's answer to the third
amended complaint was filed on February 13, 2012.  Discovery is
proceeding.  The Company believes that these claims are without
merit and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable
to predict the outcome of the lawsuit or reasonably estimate a
range of possible loss.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Awaits Ruling in Suit Over Fox Shows
---------------------------------------------------------
Motions for partial summary judgment in In re Cablevision Consumer
Litigation were fully briefed, and a decision by U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York is pending, according
to Cablevision Systems Corporation's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of
certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16,
2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming
feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and networks
were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems.

On October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement on
new affiliation agreements for these stations and networks, and
carriage was restored.  Several purported class action lawsuits
were subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's customers
seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming.  Those lawsuits
were consolidated in an action before the U. S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, and a consolidated complaint was
filed in that court on February 22, 2011.

Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and consumer fraud, seeking unspecified compensatory
damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees.  On March 28, 2012,
the Court ruled on the Company's motion to dismiss, denying the
motion with regard to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim, but
granting it with regard to the remaining claims, which were
dismissed.

On April 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
complaint, which asserts a claim only for breach of contract.  The
Company's answer was filed on May 2, 2012. On October 10, 2012,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and on December
13, 2012, a motion for partial summary judgment. Both motions have
been fully briefed, and a decision by the Court is pending.
Further discovery, if any, has been deferred until after the Court
rules on the pending motions.  The Company believes that this
claim is without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits
vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits
or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Awaits Ruling in Motion to Junk NY Stock Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion by Cablevision Systems Corporation to dismiss
Livingston v. Cablevision Systems Corporation, et al. has been
fully briefed, and a decision by the Court is pending, according
to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

On January 26, 2012, a securities lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against
Cablevision and certain current and former officers, by a
Cablevision shareholder, purportedly on behalf of a class of
individuals who purchased Cablevision common stock between
February 16, 2011, and October 28, 2011.

The complaint alleges that Cablevision and the individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
by allegedly issuing materially false and misleading statements
regarding (i) the Company's customer retention and advertising
costs, and (ii) the Company's loss of video customers, especially
in the New York area.

The complaint also alleges that the individual defendants violated
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act for the same alleged
conduct.  Plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages, attorneys'
fees, and equitable relief.  On March 26, 2012, the Iron Workers
Local No. 25 Pension Fund and the Alaska Electrical Pension Fund
submitted a joint application to serve as lead plaintiffs.  The
Court granted the application on April 13, 2012. On June 29, 2012,
the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On October 11, 2012, the Court issued a ruling permitting the
filing of a motion to dismiss and setting a briefing schedule. The
motion to dismiss has been fully briefed, and a decision by the
Court is pending. The Company believes that these claims are
without merit, but is unable to predict the outcome of this
lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.


CALIFORNIA COLLEGE: Faces Class Action Over Unaccredited Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that California College of
Vocational Careers duped students into taking out tens of
thousands of dollars in loans for its unaccredited ultrasound
technician program, a class action claims in Kern County Court.


CAPLEASE: Being Sold For Too Little, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that CapLease directors are
selling the company too cheaply through an unfair process to
American Realty Capital Properties, for $2.2 billion or $8.50 per
common share and $25 per preferred share, shareholders claim in
New York County Supreme Court.


CHARMING CHARLIE: Faces Class Action Over Gender Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Charming Charlie women's
store refused to hire a man though he said he would have no
problem with its dress code requiring him to wear six accessories
to work every day, the man claims in a federal class action.

Courtney Owen sued Charming Charlie for himself and all similarly
situated men.  Owen says he applied online for a sales job at a
Charming Charlie store in Bessemer, Ala., before the store opened.

Charming Charlie runs a chain of more than 200 stories, according
to the complaint.  The company is the only defendant.

Owen claims Charming Charlie manager Shannon Wells told him at his
Sept. 15, 2012 interview that "she rarely hires males."  She told
him "that men typically don't like the store's accessories
policy."

"Plaintiff told Mgr. Well that he did not have a problem with that
requirement," Owen says in the complaint.

"Ms. Wells, however, stated that men typically don't like the
company's accessories requirement and usually 'can't do the dress
code,' or something to that effect."

She didn't hire him.  He filed a discrimination charge with the
EEOC on Oct. 4, 2012, "relating Mgr. Wells's comments that 'men
typically don't like the company's requirement for employees to
wear six to seven "accessories,"'" and received a right-to-sue
letter, Owen says.

He seeks class certification, lost wages, a job, a corrective
injunction, punitive damages and costs.

He is represented by Jon Goldfarb, Esq. -- jgoldfarb@wcqp.com


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Appeals Court Reinstates Royalties Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Cronin Fisk, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that
Chesapeake Energy Corp. must face an Ohio lawsuit over allegations
the company underpaid gas royalties for years, an appeals court
said, reinstating the case.

The lawsuit, brought as a class action on behalf of Ohio
leaseholders, alleges that a Chesapeake predecessor company began
by 1993 to "deliberately and fraudulently underpay the full gas
royalty due" and that Oklahoma City-based Chesapeake continued the
practice after taking over the leases in 2005.

An Ohio trial court dismissed the lawsuit in 2010 citing a state
law that requires filing such claims within four years after the
cause of action occurs.  The U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati
reversed that decision on May 29, agreeing with the plaintiffs
that allegations of continuing underpayment meant the claims
aren't time-barred.

"The plaintiffs are permitted to pursue their breach of contract
claim pertaining to any underpayment of royalties that occurred
within four years prior to the filing of their complaint in
September 2009," the court said.

The leaseholders may also be allowed to pursue earlier claims if
they can prove they weren't able to discover underpayments before
the four-year period because of "fraudulent concealment" by
Chesapeake, according to the 23-page decision.

                            More Cases

The Ohio lawsuit isn't the only case against Chesapeake claiming
underpayment of royalties. Chesapeake's record in these disputes
has been mixed.  Courts in Kentucky and New York have rejected
such cases.  A suit in Virginia was allowed to proceed and the
parties settled.

Michael Kehs, a Chesapeake spokesman, declined to comment on the
decision.  James Lowe, an attorney for the leaseholders, didn't
immediately return a call and e-mail seeking comment.

The case is Lutz v. Chesapeake Appalachia, 10-4538/11-3034, U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Cincinnati).


CHINA BISTRO: Faces Class Action Over Violation of Labor Laws
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that P.F. Chang's China Bistro
stiffs workers for overtime and violates other labor laws, a class
action claims in Superior Court.


COMSCORE: Gets Ad Bodies' Support in Fight Against Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Tarran, writing for Research, reports that ad industry
bodies have filed an amicus brief in support of comScore as it
seeks to overturn the class action status granted to a lawsuit
that accuses the firm of "improperly" obtaining and using personal
information from their computers.

In the filing, the Direct Marketing Association (DMA), American
Association of Advertising Agencies and Association of National
Advertisers, among others, point to comScore's "standard-setting
role in internet commerce", with its data "used to establish
online advertising rates".

The parties state that: "In this particular case, an improper
certification order has the probable impact of not only harming
defendant comScore by chilling voluntary participation in its
market research, but also adversely impacting many of the amici's
members who rely on web rating services of the defendant and
companies like it."

In addition, the brief says that the parties are "alarmed by the
ease with which plaintiffs were allowed to suspend disbelief and
obtain certification of a class challenging disclosures that
plainly advise panelists that comScore's system will
comprehensively monitor all activity and configurations on the
computer to which it is downloaded".

Web users Mike Harris and Jeff Dunstan first sued comScore in
2011.  They allege that the company exceeded the scope of a
consumer's consent to monitoring by intercepting phone numbers,
social security numbers, usernames, passwords and credit card
numbers, among other personal information.

ComScore has said that the claims in the lawsuit are "without
merit".  However in April, Federal Judge James Holderman certified
a class of "all individuals who have had, at any time since 2005,
downloaded and installed comScore's tracking software onto their
computers via one of comScore's third party bundling partners".
Holderman also certified an additional subclass of "all class
members not presented with a functional hyperlink to an end-user
license agreement before installing comScore's software onto their
computers".  Estimates put the size of the class at up to a
million people.


CRANSTON, RI: Retirees Group May Opt Out of Pension Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schieldrop, writing for Cranston Patch, reports that the
landmark pension agreement reached between the city and the local
police and fire union is steadily moving through the courts, but a
roadblock could be on the horizon.

A group of retirees could soon opt out of a class action lawsuit
and ask a Superior Court judge to block the pension deal, claiming
the plan, which would freeze and limit cost of living increases
(COLAs) among other changes, violates collective bargaining
agreements.

Meanwhile, the entire group of active and former police and
firefighters are going through the motions in Superior Court, many
hoping to lock in the pension deal with the city to guarantee they
will get their pensions.  A big part of that is a stipulation in
the agreement that the city would be obliged to make full minimum
annual payments into the fund -- one of the root causes of the
problem in the first case.

The first step of the legal process was a class action lawsuit
filed on behalf of the Cranston Police Department Retirees
Association and the Local 1363 Retirees Association earlier in
May.

The retirees are asking for an injection that would stop the
agreement in its tracks as well as damages equivalent to the money
they'd lose from their pensions if the pension deal were to go
through.

Superior Court Judge Sarah Taft-Carter will then tell both sides
to try and reach a settlement.  And that's the pension deal
announced by the mayor and union officials in April, which will be
handed back to the judge.

Retirees opposed to the pension deal now have the opportunity to
opt out of the class action lawsuit and file for an injunction of
their own, which could delay final resolve on pensions as all
sides hammer out their arguments before the judge.

The suit alleges the city violated the Constitution when the City
Council in April passed a pair of amendments to the pension plan,
including the COLA changes, at a time when "the city had other
less drastic measures available to it to achieve a balanced budget
and increase pension funding that did not require the obligations
it agreed to under the [plan]."

The retirees claim that they are entitled to the COLAs because
their contracts were agreed upon through collective bargaining and
the city does not have a right to "unilaterally change pension
benefits" and by doing so, will "deprive the retirees of their
property rights."

The $300 million unfunded local pension liability has hung over
the city like a dark cloud in recent years and the annual required
contribution, or ARC, to keep it solvent has been increasing and
increasing -- and the city has been falling further and further
behind.

The pension deal is expected to save more than $6 million next
fiscal year and tens of millions over the next few decades. And
for the first time in years, the city will make the full ARC
payment in next year's budget.

All parties were due to appear in court sometime first week of
June.


DUKE ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss N.C. Securities Suit Filed
---------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss was filed in a consolidated securities lawsuit
pending in United States District Court for the Western District
of North Carolina against Duke Energy Corporation, according to
the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

Duke Energy served in July 2012 with three purported securities
class action lawsuits. These three cases (Craig v. Duke Energy
Corporation, et al.; Nieman v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al.;
and Sunner v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al.), have been
consolidated in the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina.

The plaintiff filed a Corrected Consolidated Complaint on January
28, 2013, alleging federal Securities Act and Exchange Act claims
based on allegedly materially false and misleading representations
and omissions made in the Registration Statement filed on July 7,
2011, and subsequently incorporated into other documents, all in
connection with the post-merger change in CEO.

The Corrected Consolidated Complaint names as defendants the
Legacy Duke Energy Directors and certain officers of the company.
The claims are purportedly brought on behalf of a class of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Duke Energy securities
between June 11, 2012 and July 9, 2012. The Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Consolidated Complaint was filed April 2, 2013.


EBAY INC: Class Action Over Good 'Til Canceled Feature Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge dismissed, with leave to amend, a class action claiming that
eBay should not have charged again every month it renewed listings
for sellers' products.

EBay introduced its Good 'Til Canceled feature in September 2008,
which automatically renewed an unsold product listing unless the
seller canceled the post or sold the item.  Every month that eBay
renewed the listing, it charged a 35-cent "insertion" fee, and
recharged for any of the extras that the seller chose when posting
the item.

Lead plaintiff Richard Noll sued eBay in September 2011, claiming
it did not make the recurring fees known when sellers signed up,
but advertised the Good 'Til Canceled feature as having "no extra
cost."

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila in April 2012 tossed Noll's
claims for fraud, unfair competition, false advertising and
consumer legal remedies.

Davila then did not dismiss Noll's claims for breach of contract,
unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment.  Davila said it was
unclear whether eBay incorporated its 2008 listing update into
sellers' contracts.

Noll filed an amended complaint in June 2012 and a consolidated
class complaint in October.

EBay moved to dismiss the complaint, which Judge Davila granted.
"Plaintiffs do not clearly delineate exactly what class periods
they are alleging, which plaintiff purports to represent the class
for each class period, which eBay entity is at issue in each
period, and what fees were improperly charged during each period,"
Davila wrote.

"The lack of clarity on these basic points alone is sufficient
ground on which to grant defendants' motion to dismiss."

Davila agreed with eBay that Noll's common law fraud claim is
based on the same alleged omissions as the claim for breach of
contract, and thus is barred.  Davila granted Noll leave to amend
four claims: unfair competition, false advertising, consumer legal
remedies and common law fraud.


EMERALD GRAIN: Law Firm Seeks Growers for Wheat Pool Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Hemphill, writing for Weekly Times Now, reports that a law
firm is seeking east coast grain growers interested in a class
action against Emerald Grain over its 2011-12 wheat pools.

Granich Partners is looking into Emerald's handling of the pool
after 70 WA growers provided the law firm with documents and
information.

Granich Partners associate Nathan Draper --
granich@granichpartners.com.au -- said growers had complained
their returns for wheat in the pool were about $65-$80 a tonne
less than what they expected.

Mr. Draper said no allegations were being made at this stage but
negligence, misrepresentation or breach of contract were being
investigated.

An Emerald spokesman said the company's contractual terms and
conditions made it clear an estimated pool return was only ever an
estimate.


ENERGY TRANSFER: June 26 Hearing to Approve Attorneys' Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing for the $950,000 payment to attorneys of
the plaintiffs in a suit against Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.
over its merger with Sunoco, Inc. is set for June 26, 2013,
according to Energy Tranfer's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

Following the announcement of the Sunoco Merger on April 30, 2012,
eight putative class action and derivative complaints were filed
in connection with the Sunoco Merger in the Court of Common Pleas
of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. Each complaint names as
defendants the members of Sunoco's board of directors and alleges
that they breached their fiduciary duties by negotiating and
executing, through an unfair and conflicted process, a merger
agreement that provides inadequate consideration and that contains
impermissible terms designed to deter alternative bids.

Each complaint also names as defendants Sunoco, ETP, ETP GP, ETP
LLC, and Sam Acquisition Corporation, alleging that they aided and
abetted the breach of fiduciary duties by Sunoco's directors; some
of the complaints also name Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. (ETE) as
a defendant on those aiding and abetting claims. In September
2012, all of these lawsuits were settled with no payment
obligation on the part of any of the defendants following the
filing of Current Reports on Form 8-K that included additional
disclosures that were incorporated by reference into the proxy
statement related to the Sunoco Merger. Subsequent to the
settlement of these cases, the plaintiffs' attorneys sought
compensation from Sunoco for attorneys' fees related to their
efforts in obtaining these additional disclosures.

In January 2013, Sunoco entered into agreements to compensate the
plaintiffs' attorneys in the state court actions in the aggregate
amount of not more than $950,000 and to compensate the plaintiffs'
attorneys in the federal court action in the amount of not more
than $250,000. The payment of $950,000 is pending approval by the
state court. A final approval hearing is set for June 26, 2013.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Suit Over Southern Union Merger in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit In re: Southern Union Company; Cause No. 2011-37091,
remains pending in the 333rd Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas and discovery is ongoing, according to the company's
May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In June 2011, several putative class action lawsuits were filed in
the Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas naming as
defendants the members of the Southern Union Board, as well as
Southern Union and ETE. The lawsuits were styled Jaroslawicz v.
Southern Union Company, et al., Cause No. 2011-37091, in the 333rd
Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas and Magda v.
Southern Union Company, et al., Cause No. 2011-37134, in the 11th
Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.

The lawsuits were consolidated into an action styled In re:
Southern Union Company; Cause No. 2011-37091, in the 333rd
Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. Plaintiffs allege
that the Southern Union directors breached their fiduciary duties
to Southern Union's stockholders in connection with the Merger and
that Southern Union and ETE aided and abetted the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty.

The amended petitions allege that the Merger involves an unfair
price and an inadequate sales process, that Southern Union's
directors entered into the Merger to benefit themselves
personally, including through consulting and noncompete
agreements, and that defendants have failed to disclose all
material information related to the Merger to Southern Union
stockholders. The amended petitions seek injunctive relief,
including an injunction of the Merger, and an award of attorneys'
and other fees and costs, in addition to other relief.

On October 21, 2011, the court denied ETE's October 13, 2011,
motion to stay the Texas proceeding in favor of cases pending in
the Delaware Court of Chancery.

Also in June 2011, several putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery naming as defendants the
members of the Southern Union Board, as well as Southern Union and
ETE. Three of the lawsuits also named Merger Sub as a defendant.
These lawsuits are styled: Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority, et al. v. Southern Union Company, et
al., C.A. No. 6615-CS; KBC Asset Management NV v. Southern Union
Company, et al., C.A. No. 6622-CS; LBBW Asset Management
Investment GmbH v. Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6627-
CS; and Memo v. Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6639-CS.

These cases were consolidated with the following style: In re
Southern Union Co. Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 6615-CS, in
the Delaware Court of Chancery. The consolidated complaint asserts
similar claims and allegations as the Texas state-court
consolidated action. On July 25, 2012, the Delaware plaintiffs
filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of all claims without
prejudice. In the notice, plaintiffs stated their claims were
being dismissed to avoid duplicative litigation and indicated
their intent to join the Texas case.

The Texas case remains pending, and discovery is ongoing.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Panhandle Wants Dismissed From "Price" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP has a pending request for
voluntary dismissal to the plaintiffs of the suit over alleged
mis-measurement of natural gas volumes and Btu content, according
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.'s May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

Will Price, an individual, filed actions in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas for damages against a number of
companies, including Panhandle, alleging mis-measurement of
natural gas volumes and Btu content, resulting in lower royalties
to mineral interest owners.  On September 19, 2009, the Court
denied plaintiffs' request for class certification.  Plaintiffs
have filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied on
March 31, 2010.

Panhandle believes that its measurement practices conformed to the
terms of its Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) natural
gas tariffs, which were filed with and approved by the FERC.  As a
result, Southern Union believes that it has meritorious defenses
to the Will Price lawsuit (including FERC-related affirmative
defenses, such as the filed rate/tariff doctrine, the
primary/exclusive jurisdiction of the FERC, and the defense that
Panhandle complied with the terms of its tariffs).  In the event
that Plaintiffs refuse Panhandle's pending request for voluntary
dismissal, Panhandle will continue to vigorously defend the case.
Southern Union believes it has no liability associated with this
proceeding.


ENTERTAINMENT ARTS: Football Consumers to Get Triple Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reports that
consumers who bought certain simulation football games from
Entertainment Arts will get three times as much from a settlement
as previously reported, a federal judge ruled.

In 2008, lead plaintiffs Geoffrey Pecover and Jeffrey Lawrence
claimed that EA killed off competing football video games by
partnering with the National Football League, the National
Collegiate Athletic Association, the Arena Football League and
Collegiate Licensing Co.  They claimed EA monopolized the market
for such games, letting it charge more "Madden NFL," "NCAA
Football" and "Arena Football League," and gouge customers.

When U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken initially approved a
settlement in the case last year, the deal provided $6.79 on each
game that a consumer bought for XBox, Playstation 2, PC or
GameCube between 2005 and 2012. Those who purchased the titles for
XBox 360, Playstation 3 or Wii platorms could claim up to $1.95
per game, according to that order.

Distribution of the $27 million settlement fund was modified in
April 2013.

In a final approval order on May 30, 2013, Wilken said the first
group of consumers can each receive payments of $20.37 for up to
eight games.  Those who purchased the games for Xbox 360,
Playstation 3 or Wii platforms can now claim $5.85 per title under
the final settlement.

Individual claims could be reduced if the total claims exceed that
amount.

Pecover and Lawrence will each get $5,000 for serving as lead
plaintiffs.  Their attorneys -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and
the Paynter Law Firm -- will get $7.29 million in fees, plus
$2 million in reimbursement of expenses.

Under the settlement, EA cannot renew its exclusive NCAA and CLC
football licenses for at least five years after they expire in
2014.  EA is also prevented from grabbing exclusive rights to the
AFL for five years.

EA's exclusive licensing with the NFL will not be affected, though
some class members objected to that provision.

Wilken said that by "achieving an agreement that prohibits
defendant from entering into a series of exclusive licenses,
plaintiffs have addressed the conduct that was the target of their
suit.  Further, the lack of exclusive license agreements with
other entities will allow competition to enter the marketplace for
football simulation games."


FLORIDA: Female Staff at Coleman Prison Obtain Class Action Status
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Doyle, writing for Miami Herald, reports that dozens of
female staffers say they regularly confront groping, rape threats,
public masturbation and other serious sexual harassment while
overseeing inmates at the large federal prison complex in Coleman,
Fla.

But though they say the Coleman prison environment is "saturated
with sexual abuse and assaults," the female workers also complain
that the federal Bureau of Prisons has failed to act.  In some
cases, the employees say, supervisors have simply thrown out
written complaints about inmate sexual misconduct.

Now, in an unusual battle that split the Justice Department, the
female workers at Federal Correctional Complex Coleman have won a
crucial legal victory.  With the Justice Department's eventual
support, but over the Bureau of Prisons' objections, a Miami-based
administrative judge has granted powerful class-action status to
the aggrieved employees.

"We have to make sure the inmates aren't running out of control,"
Washington-based attorney Cyrus Mehri, who represents the workers,
said in an interview on May 29, "and we have to make sure the
Bureau of Prisons takes care of its officers."

The class-action decision rendered April 9 by Administrative Judge
Joy R. Helprin, endorsed by the Justice Department, adds clout to
the complaint as it proceeds through the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission.

Tammy Padgett, for instance, was one of more than 60 female
workers to file an affidavit complaining about the Coleman
environment, saying she endures "masturbatory behavior
approximately once per week."  A Coleman teacher, Eva Ryles, said
an inmate in her classroom "masturbated to the point of
ejaculation," while others say inmates have placed sperm in public
places.

Vile language is commonplace, the women say, with Ms. Ryles adding
that "many women have resorted to wearing smocks, jackets or other
heavy clothing" even in hot weather in hopes of avoiding
harassment.

"I hear offensive sexual comments virtually every day at multiple
locations in the institution," Coleman treatment specialist
Taronica White declared in an affidavit.  "I routinely hear
comments such as, 'Ms. White, will you come (blank) my (blank.)"'

Ms. White added that she rarely experienced such treatment when
she worked at a federal facility in Miami "because it simply was
not tolerated."

Citing the "pending litigation," Bureau of Prisons spokeswoman
Traci Billingsley declined to comment on May 29.

Located in central Florida, about 50 miles northwest of Orlando,
the Coleman complex consists of low- and medium-security
facilities and two high-security penitentiaries.  All told, the
Coleman complex currently houses about 7,100 inmates.

Workers represented by Mr. Mehri's partner, Heidi R. Burakiewicz,
first filed the EEOC complaint in 2011.

The class-action certification is not the last word, and further
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission proceedings will continue.
The certification is important for several reasons, though;
notably, it means the complaint now covers more than 360 women who
have worked at the Coleman complex since February 2011.

More than 150 of the women already have sought equal opportunity
counseling at Coleman, and more than 200 already have contacted
legal counsel.  The numbers helped convince Judge Helprin, the
administrative judge, that the complaint met the standards for a
class action.

The decision was further underscored when the Justice Department
quietly agreed to accept Judge Helprin's class-action
determination.

"The core facts developed thus far, based in large measure on 64
different affidavits, show that women employees of FCC Coleman who
came into contact with inmates have been subjected to vulgar,
assaultive and graphic sex-based conduct by some inmates," the
Justice Department conceded in a memo dated May 22.

Though saying the class-action question was a "close call," the
Justice Department officials pointed out that many female Coleman
workers had recounted similar experiences about how, when they
complained, Bureau of Prisons managers "discouraged, destroyed or
in some instances downgraded the seriousness of disciplinary
reports."

The Bureau of Prisons had urged the Justice Department to appeal
the class-action decision, arguing in a May 15 brief that the
judge had "failed to apply the correct legal standard."  The
bureau also asserted that the judge "accepted as true, with no
evidence," claims made by the women about the Coleman environment.

Mr. Mehri countered on May 29 that "we think the evidence is so
overwhelming that we will prevail."  He said he hopes the case
leads to specific fixes at Coleman, as well as national standards
to protect female workers, in addition to payments for the Coleman
women.

"They were treated with the utmost indignity in the workplace,"
Mr. Mehri said.


GENESEE & WYOMING: Wins Initial OK for Settlement of Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Genesee & Wyoming Inc. obtained preliminary approval for the
settlement of Florida actions relating to its merger transaction
with RailAmerica, Inc., according to Genesse's May 9, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In connection with the Company's acquisition of RailAmerica, Inc.
five putative stockholder class action lawsuits were filed in
2012, three in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
(Delaware Court) and two in the Circuit Court of the Fourth
Judicial Circuit for Duval County, Florida, Civil Division
(Florida Circuit Court), against RailAmerica, the RailAmerica
directors and Genesee & Wyoming.

The two lawsuits filed in the Florida Circuit Court alleged, among
other things, that the RailAmerica directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with their decision to sell
RailAmerica to Genesee & Wyoming via an allegedly flawed process
and failed to obtain the best financial and other terms and that
RailAmerica and Genesee & Wyoming aided and abetted those alleged
breaches of duty.

The complaints requested, among other relief, an order to enjoin
consummation of the merger and attorneys' fees. On July 31, 2012,
plaintiffs in the Florida actions filed a motion to consolidate
the two Florida actions, appoint plaintiffs Langan and Sambuco as
lead plaintiffs and appoint lead counsel in the proposed
consolidated action.

Plaintiffs in the Florida actions also filed an emergency motion
for expedited proceedings on August 7, 2012 and an amended
complaint on August 8, 2012, which included allegations that the
information statement filed by RailAmerica on August 3, 2012,
omitted material information about the proposed merger. On August
17, 2012, the parties in the Florida actions submitted a
stipulation for expedited proceedings, which the Florida Circuit
Court ordered on August 20, 2012.

The three lawsuits filed in Delaware Court named the same
defendants, alleged substantially similar claims, and sought
similar relief as the Florida actions. The parties to the Delaware
actions submitted orders of dismissal in November 2012, which the
Delaware Court has granted.

On December 7, 2012, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, the Company and the other parties to the
Florida actions executed a Stipulation and Agreement of
Compromise, Settlement and Release to settle all related claims.

The settlement is not material and is subject to, among other
things, final approval by the Florida Circuit Court. On January
28, 2013, the Florida Circuit Court gave preliminary approval of
the settlement and scheduled a hearing on final approval of the
settlement for May 15, 2013.


GEORGE SHARP: Xumanii(TM) Shareholder Launches Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
LKP Global Law, LLP disclosed that on May 28, Waleed Ashari, a
private citizen and private shareholder of Xumanii(TM) stocks,
launched a Class Action lawsuit against George Sharp for illegal
market manipulation based on false and misleading statements Sharp
made about XUII.  The law firm of LKP Global Law, LLP filed the
Class Action Complaint on behalf of Mr. Ashari.

As alleged in the Class Action Complaint, filed on May 28 in the
San Diego County Superior Court, Case No. 37-2013-00050405-CU-SL-
CTL, Mr. Sharp owns and/or otherwise controls the online website
www.pumpsanddumps.com, which purports to maintain a so-called
"Pumps and Dumps Watch List" on which Sharp claims to identify
publicly traded companies engaging in the practice of "pumping and
dumping" of penny stocks.  The Class Action Complaint further
alleges that Mr. Sharp maintains Twitter(TM) accounts under the
screen names @PUMPSandDUMPS and @Goniffs to further disseminate
information on companies listed on Sharp's so-called "Pumps and
Dumps Watch List."

The Class Action Complaint also alleges that on or about May 1,
2013, after XUII stock began trading, Mr. Sharp listed XUII on his
"Pumps and Dumps Watch List" without basis for doing so and
"falsely claimed that XUII was engaged in an illegal pump and dump
scheme through the dissemination of misinformation or
misrepresentations."  The Class Action Complaint further alleges
that Sharp did so "in order to trigger the sale of XUII stock by
its shareholders to drive down the share price" so that "he and/or
related third-parties presently unknown to Plaintiff could, and
did, profit from shorting XUII stock."  The Class Action Complaint
seeks Compensatory Damages, Pre- and Post-Judgment Interest,
Attorney's Fees and Costs of Suit against Sharp.

In his most recent press release concerning the "potential" class
action lawsuit against him, Sharp contends that "It appears that
LKP Global Law is in the habit of providing aid and comfort to
penny stock companies with dubious characteristics."  Mr. Sharp
references two prior lawsuits against him in which LKP Global Law
represented Forex International Trading Corp and Eco-Trade
Corporation.  In the Forex International lawsuit, Mr. Sharp boasts
that he was awarded attorney's fees following a successful Anti-
SLAPP motion against Forex International.  Mr. Sharp, however,
fails to clarify that LKP Global Law no longer represented Forex
International in the lawsuit at that time.

In the second lawsuit, LKP Global Law successfully defended its
client, Eco-Trade, against a lawsuit filed by Mr. Sharp and
obtained a monetary judgment of $11,000 against Mr. Sharp for
breach of settlement agreement between the parties.  Judgment was
entered on July 28, 2011.  Mr. Sharp's recent press release
implies that LKP Global Law represented Eco-Trade when it was
recently suspended from trading by FINRA.  This, however, is an
inaccurate statement by Sharp, according to Luan K. Phan, Managing
Member of Litigation at LKP Global Law.  According to Mr. Phan,
LKP Global Law only represented Eco-Trade in the lawsuit against
Sharp and did not represent Eco-Trade in any corporate matters.


GROUPON: Faces Suit Over Increasing Annual Limit of Stock Grants
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that shareholders sued Groupon for
trying to increase the annual limit of stock grants per executive
from 1 million to 7.5 million, in a federal class action.


HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Overtime Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Herbalife International
stiffs workers for overtime, a class action claims in Superior
Court.


JEFFERSON PARISH: Jan. 13 Trial Set for Flooding Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Purpura, writing for The Times-Picayune, reports that almost
eight years after former Jefferson Parish President Aaron
Broussard's administration evacuated drainage pump operators as
Hurricane Katrina bore down on the region, a class-action lawsuit
filed by residents and property owners over widespread flooding is
heading to trial, court records show.  Judge John Peytavin has
signed an order setting a week-long trial to begin Jan. 13.

In the coming weeks, attorneys will be notifying the public of the
class action by publishing it in The Times-Picayune, "a newspaper
of widest local circulation," records show.  That will be done
because the plaintiffs' attorneys do not have a list of individual
residents and property owners who suffered losses.

Asked to estimate the number of properties that flooded, Carroll
Rogers, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys said, "We don't have any
idea."  She said, however, it's expected to be "quite a large
number."

The Broussard administration sent about 220 pump operators, and
other parish employees, to shelter in Washington Parish before the
Aug. 29, 2005 storm.  Mr. Broussard said the pump operators' lives
would have been at risk had they stayed in their stations.

The lawsuit, one of many arising over the evacuation, was filed in
October 2005.  Judge Peytavin, a retired jurist from Lutcher, was
appointed to preside over it in 24th Judicial District Court in
Gretna.  He certified it as a class action case in 2011, finding
that enough people had similar claims to make it impractical to
try their cases individually.

Two classes were created, for people in East Jefferson and those
in West Jefferson.  Areas excluded from the case are properties in
Old Jefferson and Old Metairie, the Hoey's Basin area that flooded
as a result of the 17th Street Canal breach and not because of the
pump operator evacuation.

The public notice of the case is to be published twice before
June 21.  It essentially alerts people who suffered losses because
of flooding that they must remove themselves from the class-action
suit by Aug 30 if they intend to pursue a suit on their own.

"If they want to be a part of the lawsuit, they do nothing," Ms.
Rogers said.  "If you don't want to be part of the class, then and
only then do you do something."

If the plaintiffs win the trial, people who opted to remain in
would request a "proof of claim form," Ms. Rogers said.  "That
would be way down the line," she said.  "That would be next year."

The lawsuit also alleges the Broussard administration did not
properly draft and implement its "doomsday plan," the policy
addressing how the parish responded to emergencies such as
Katrina.

The state Supreme Court appointed Judge Peytavin to the case after
al 16 judges of the 24th District Court sidestepped the legal
dispute.  The case names Broussard individually and as parish
president, and Jefferson Parish as defendants.

Since Katrina, the parish has built elevated and hardened "safe
rooms" at its pumping stations.  There operators can ride out the
storms while remotely operating the pumps.  Public tours of two
safe rooms were scheduled on May 29.

Mr. Broussard in April began serving a 46-month prison sentence
for political corruption.  The crimes had nothing to do with the
Katina flooding.


JOE ARPAIO: Barred From Racially Profiling Latinos, Judge Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge
on May 24, 2013, barred Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his
deputies from continuing their practice of racially profiling
Latinos during immigration patrols and traffic stops.

Five people and the organization Somos America (We Are America)
sued Arpaio and the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) in a
2007 class action, after the individual plaintiffs claimed they
were racially profiled by sheriff's deputies and detained during
crime suppression sweeps.

Arpaio instructs deputies to detain anyone believed to be in the
country illegally, contact the deputies' supervisors and then wait
to hear from Immigrations and Customs Enforcement on how to
proceed, according to the ruling.

That "results in an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth
Amendment to the Constitution," U.S. District G. Murray Snow wrote
in his opinion, issued about eight months after a seven-day trial.

Although the sheriff's office acknowledged during trial that
"Latino ancestry is not a factor on which it can rely in arriving
at reasonable suspicion or forming probable cause that a person is
in the United States without authorization," sheriff's deputies
continued to take Latino ancestry into account when encountering
suspects, Snow found.  He noted that "while the MCSO did prohibit
racial profiling, it understood racial profiling to mean making
law enforcement decisions based exclusively on racial factors.

"The MCSO did not understand this term, in an immigration context,
to prohibit the use of race as a factor among others in making a
law enforcement decision.  Thus, MCSO deputies could consider race
as one factor in stopping a vehicle or initiating an investigation
so long as race was not the sole basis on which deputies made that
decision," Snow wrote in the 142-page ruling.

Snow said that while factors other than race might be used to
establish reasonable suspicion that an immigration violation has
occurred, "that possibility does not justify the MCSO's systematic
policy in using race as a factor in forming reasonable suspicion."

"Further, it is apparent that allowing the MCSO to consider race
as one factor among others in forming reasonable suspicion will
produce irreparable injury to the Plaintiff class," Snow wrote.

The ruling bars the sheriff's office from "using Hispanic ancestry
or race as any factor in making law enforcement decisions
pertaining to whether a person is authorized to be in the
country." It also stops the agency from "unconstitutionally
lengthening stops."

Evidence presented "demonstrates that during many saturation
patrol stops, officers investigated the identities of and arrested
multiple passengers on immigration violations, while also being
responsible for issuing a citation to the driver," Snow found.

"[T]o the extent that officers considered race as a necessary
factor in forming the reasonable suspicion on which they prolonged
the stop, they had insufficient basis for both the reasonable
suspicion and the prolonged stop," Snow wrote.

The plaintiffs in the class action did not seek monetary damages.

"Singling people out for traffic stops and detentions because they
are Latino is unconstitutional and just plain un-American," said
Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project.
"Let this be a warning to any agency trying to enforce the 'show
me your papers' provision of SB 1070 and similar laws - there is
no exception in the Constitution for immigration enforcement."

The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office is expected to appeal the
ruling.


JOS. A. BANK: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------------
Spangenberg Shibley & Liber, LLP on May 30 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit was filed May 24 in the Northern District of Ohio
(Case # 1:13-cv-01175-LW, Northern District of Ohio, US District
Court) alleging that men's clothing retailer Jos. A. Bank has
engaged in deceptive and unlawful advertising, by falsely
promising free goods in combination with the purchase of suits,
sportcoats and dress pants at regular prices.

According to court documents, plaintiffs John Schneider, Andrew
Bucher and Robert Smith brought the lawsuit on behalf of all
individuals who purchased a suit, sport coat or dress pants from
Jos A. Bank where that garment purchased was advertised to either
be a certain percentage off of "regular price" or required the
purchase of one garment at "regular price" in order to get other
items for "free."  The lawsuit claims that Jos. A. Banks
drastically inflated its regular prices in order to pass along the
cost of the free goods to the customer, which is illegal in Ohio
according to the Complaint filed on May 24, 2013.  In addition to
the promotion of free goods, Jos. A. Banks also advertises false
price reduction from regular prices that don't truly exist.

The central allegation in the Complaint is that Jos. A. Bank
artificially inflates the "regular price" of their merchandise to
give consumers the impression that they are getting a "deal" or a
"bargain" when, in fact, they are not.  "Study upon study has
shown that this type of deceptive marketing is effective in
attracting consumers and increasing the likelihood they will buy a
given product," says Daniel Frech, an attorney for the Plaintiffs.
"They think they are getting a bargain because they are buying a
suit that other consumers paid $595 for a half or a third of that
price -- but, as the New York Attorney General's report makes
clear, almost no one ever actually pays $595 for that suit.'"

Ohio has very specific laws designed to protect consumers from
this sort of false and misleading advertising.  For example, the
Ohio Administrative Code specifically prohibits "the practice of
advertising or offering goods or services as "free" when in fact
the cost of the "free" offer is passed on to the consumer by
raising the regular (base) price of the goods or services that
must be purchased in connection with the "free" offer."

Ohio law requires that "regular price" claims in advertising and
marketing materials be "the price at which the goods or services
are openly and actively sold by a supplier to the public on a
continuing basis for a substantial period of time".  When then-New
York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer investigated Jos A.
Bank's sales practices in New York, however, he found that less
than 1% of Jos A. Bank's suits, formal wear, dress pants and sport
coats were sold at the advertised "regular price."  The
Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that a similarly tiny percentage of
garments Jos. A. Bank sells in Ohio are sold at "regular price."

The lawsuit seeks to prevent Jos. A. Banks from allegedly
continuing to use deceptive and illegal advertising in Ohio and to
recover damages based on the difference between the stated regular
price of Jos A. Banks suits, sport coats and dress pants and the
true "regular price."

The individual plaintiffs and the class are represented by
Cleveland, Ohio-based Spangenberg Shibley & Liber, LLP, 1001
Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700, Cleveland, OH, (216) 696-3232
Office, (216) 696-3924 Fax; Mayle, Ray & Mayle LLC, 210 South
Front Street, Fremont, OH 43420, (419) 334-8377 Office, (419) 355-
9698 Fax; and Tycko & Zavareei, LLP in Washington, D.C.  All three
firms have previously been involved in consumer class action
lawsuits in Ohio.


KAISER FOUNDATION: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik on May 29 disclosed that on
March 5, 2013, the San Francisco labor lawyers at the law firm
filed a class action on behalf of current and former Account
Managers, against Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. for failing
to pay the Account Managers overtime wages.  Coleman-Williams v.
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Case No. C13-998 is currently
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The lawsuit claims that under the California overtime pay laws,
Kaiser was required to pay its Account Managers overtime wages for
their time worked in excess of eight hours in a workday and hours
worked in excess of forty hours in any workweek.  The lawsuit
claims that the Account Managers working for Kaiser were managers
in name only and that these employees failed to meet all the
criteria under any of the exemptions to overtime pay in
California.  As a result, the lawsuit alleges that these employees
should have been paid for all the overtime hours they worked for
Kaiser.

Norman Blumenthal, the managing partner of Blumenthal Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik, stated, "a common example of misclassification involves
an employee who is a salaried manager with few management duties."

The San Francisco labor attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik represent employees in the State of California in various
lawsuits including class actions for unpaid overtime, unpaid
business expenses, and missed meal and rest breaks.  If you would
like free California labor law advice, call one of their
experienced attorneys today at (415) 935-3957.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Books $5MM Loss Provision for Labor Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare, Inc. recorded a $5 million loss provision in
the second quarter of 2012 in connection with employment-related
claims, according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

The Company's operations are subject to a variety of federal and
state employment-related laws and regulations, including but not
limited to the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act, regulations of the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Office of Civil
Rights and state attorneys general, federal and state wage and
hour laws and a variety of laws enacted by the federal and state
governments that govern these and other employment-related
matters.

Accordingly, the Company is currently subject to employee-related
claims, class action and other lawsuits and proceedings in
connection with the Company's operations, including but not
limited to those related to alleged wrongful discharge, illegal
discrimination and violations of equal employment and federal and
state wage and hour laws.

Because labor represents such a large portion of the Company's
operating costs, non-compliance with these evolving federal and
state laws and regulations could subject the Company to
significant back pay awards, fines and additional lawsuits and
proceedings. These claims, lawsuits and proceedings are in various
stages of adjudication or investigation and involve a wide variety
of claims and potential outcomes. Based upon available
information, the Company recorded a $5 million loss provision in
the second quarter of 2012 related to these claims, lawsuits and
proceedings, but the actual losses may be more than the provision
for loss.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Facilities Face Minimum Staffing Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Certain facilities of Kindred Healthcare, Inc. face minimum
staffing lawsuits, according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Various states in which the Company operates hospitals and nursing
centers have established minimum staffing requirements or may
establish minimum staffing requirements in the future. While the
Company seeks to comply with all applicable staffing requirements,
the regulations in this area are complex and the Company may
experience compliance issues from time to time.

Failure to comply with such minimum staffing requirements may
result in one or more facilities failing to meet the conditions of
participation under relevant federal and state healthcare programs
and the imposition of significant fines, damages or other
sanctions. Private litigation involving these matters also has
become more common, and certain of the Company's facilities are
the subject of a class action lawsuit involving claims that these
facilities did not meet relevant staffing requirements from time
to time since 2006.


KNIGHT CAPITAL: Continues to Face Suits Over KCA Brokering Errors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Knight Capital Group, Inc. is named in two putative class actions
relating to the installation of trading software that resulted to
its broker dealer subsidiary sending numerous erroneous orders,
according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

As disclosed in the Company's public filings, the Company
experienced a technology issue at the open of trading at the New
York Stock Exchange on August 1, 2012. This issue was related to
the installation of trading software and resulted in the Company's
broker dealer subsidiary, Knight Capital Americas LLC (KCA),
sending numerous erroneous orders in NYSE-listed and NYSE Arca
securities into the market.

As noted in the Company's Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2012, the Company has since been named in two putative class
actions and one derivative lawsuit relating to the technology
issue and has received several derivative demand letters and/or
requests for the inspection or production of certain books and
records pursuant to Delaware law related to the technology issue
and the August 2012 Recapitalization. In addition, the Company
and/or KCA are the subject of regulatory investigations.


KNIGHT CAPITAL: Briefing on Bid to Dismiss Stock Suit to End Aug.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on the motion to dismiss the suit Fernandez v. Knight
Capital Group, Inc. et al. in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey is expected to be complete in August 2013,
according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

Since the developments described in the Company's Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2012 and following the appointment of
a lead plaintiff and counsel, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on March 14, 2013, alleging generally that the
defendants made material misstatements and/or failed to disclose
matters related to the events of August 1.

More specifically, the plaintiff alleges that defendants made
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's risk
management procedures and protocols, available cash and liquidity,
Value at Risk and internal controls over financial reporting.

The plaintiff asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 and Rule
10b-5 of the federal securities laws, claiming that it and a class
of the Company's shareholders who purchased the Company's
securities between November 30, 2011 and August 1, 2012 paid an
inflated price. The Company intends to file a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint. Pursuant to the parties' scheduling order,
briefing on the motion to dismiss will be complete in August 2013.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The motion of the plaintiff in a securities suit against Ladenburg
Thalmann Financial Services Inc. to reconsider the dismissal of
the case is currently pending, according to the company's May 9,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In December 2011, a purported class action suit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against
FriendFinder Networks, Inc., various individuals, Ladenburg and
another broker-dealer as underwriters for the May 11, 2011
FriendFinder initial public offering.

The complaint alleges that the defendants, including Ladenburg,
are liable for violations of federal securities laws. On November
15, 2012, the court issued an order granting the defendants'
motion to dismiss, with leave to replead on specified grounds; the
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of that order is currently
pending. The Company believes that the claims are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend against them.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Securities Suit Accord Wins Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement agreement reached in a securities suit filed against
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc. was approved,
according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

In December 2011, a purported class action suit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against
HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries, Inc. ("HQS"), various
individuals, Ladenburg and another broker-dealer as underwriters
of 2009 and 2010 offerings of HQS common stock.

The complaint alleged that the defendants, including Ladenburg,
are liable for violations of federal securities laws. The
complaint sought unspecified damages. The parties' settlement
agreement, with no contribution from Ladenburg, was approved by
the court on March 21, 2013.


LADENBURG THALMANN: Amended Complaint Filed in Suit Over WEMU IPO
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint was filed in a lawsuit pending in the
Superior Court of California for San Mateo County against
Ladenburg Thalmann Financial Services Inc., according to the
company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In December 2012, a purported class action suit was filed in the
Superior Court of California for San Mateo County against
Worldwide Energy & Manufacturing, Inc. ("WEMU"), certain
individuals, and Ladenburg as placement agent for a 2010 offering
of WEMU securities.

The complaint alleges that the defendants, including Ladenburg,
are liable for violations of state securities laws relating to
purported failure to disclose certain agreements. An amended
complaint was filed in February 2013; the amount of damages sought
is unspecified. The Company believes the claims are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend against them.


LENDER PROCESSING: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Lender Processing Services is
selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Fidelity
National Financial, in a cash and stock deal valued at
$2.9 billion, shareholders claim in Chancery Court.


LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Award of Damages in Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal by Lexmark International, Inc. against a trial court
judge's award of damages and attorneys' fees to current and former
California employees who sued the company is pending before the
California Court of Appeals, according to the company's May 9,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On August 31, 2005 former Company employee Ron Molina filed a
class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court for Los
Angeles under a California employment statute which in effect
prohibits the forfeiture of vacation time accrued. This statute
has been used to invalidate California employers' "use or lose"
vacation policies.

The class is comprised of less than 200 current and former
California employees of the Company. The trial was bifurcated into
a liability phase and a damages phase. On May 1, 2009, the trial
court Judge brought the liability phase to a conclusion with a
ruling that the Company's vacation and personal choice day's
policies from 1991 to the present violated California law.

In a Statement of Decision, received by the Company on August 27,
2010, the trial court Judge awarded the class members
approximately $8.3 million in damages which included waiting time
penalties and interest but did not include post judgment interest,
costs and attorneys' fees.

On November 17, 2010, the trial court Judge partially granted the
Company's motion for a new trial solely as to the argument that
current employees are not entitled to any damages. On March 7,
2011 the trial court Judge reduced the original award to $7.8
million. On October 28, 2011, the trial court Judge awarded the
class members $5.7 million in attorneys' fees.

The Company filed a notice of appeal with the California Court of
Appeals objecting to the trial court Judge's award of damages and
attorneys' fees. The appeal is pending.

The Company believes an unfavorable outcome in the matter is
probable. The range of potential loss related to this matter is
subject to a high degree of estimation. In accordance with the
accounting guidance for contingencies, if the reasonable estimate
of a probable loss is a range and no amount within the range is a
better estimate, the minimum amount of the range is accrued.

Because no amount within the range of potential loss is a better
estimate than any other amount, the Company has accrued $1.8
million for the Molina matter, which represents the low-end of the
range. At the high-end of the range, the class has sought $16.7
million in damages along with $5.7 million in attorneys' fees,
plus post judgment interest. Thus, it is reasonably possible that
a loss exceeding the $1.8 million already accrued may be incurred
in this matter, ranging from $0 to $22.4 million, excluding post
judgment interest, costs and any additional attorneys' fees which
may be assessed against the Company.


MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Judge Issues Injunction v. Sheriff Arpaio
--------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Bentley, writing for Sonoran News, reports that on May 24,
U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow issued a 142-page order
granting a permanent injunction against Maricopa County Sheriff
Joe Arpaio (l) and MCSO, calling the agency's LEAR (Law
Enforcement Agency Response) policy unconstitutional.

The class action complaint filed in 2007 by the ACLU on behalf of
a group of citizens and aliens in the country legally, claiming
they were targeted, detained or harassed based solely on their
ethnicity, stems from the case of Manuel de Jesus Ortega
Melendres.

In December 2011, Snow, a George W. Bush appointee, issued a
ruling stating any Hispanic stopped by MCSO deputies between
Jan. 1, 2007 and on into the future, could sue the sheriff's
office in a class-action lawsuit while enjoining MCSO from
stopping people for being under suspicion of human smuggling law
violations.

Janet Napolitano, Department of Homeland Security Secretary,
subsequently revoked MCSO's 287(g) MOA (Memorandum of Agreement)
that allowed Arpaio to enforce federal immigration laws.

Snow stated, "[T]he court is not enjoining MCSO from enforcing
valid state laws, or detaining individuals when officers have
reasonable suspicion that individuals are violating a state
criminal law.  Instead, it is enjoining MCSO from violating
federal rights protected by the United States Constitution in the
process of enforcing valid state law based on an incorrect
understanding of the law.

"A policy of detaining people pursuant to laws that MCSO has no
authority to enforce, or detaining them without reasonable
suspicion that they are violating laws it can enforce constitutes
'continuing, present adverse effects' and therefore merits
injunctive relief."

Plaintiff Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, a citizen and resident
of Mexico, was legally present in the United States on a visitor's
visa.

Mr. Melendres was arrested in September 2007, after he was picked
up as a day laborer from the Good Shepherd of the Hills Episcopal
Church parking lot in Cave Creek where it operated a day labor
center for illegal aliens.

MCSO had pulled over the driver on a traffic violation.

While Mr. Melendres, a retired school teacher, was in the country
legally, he did not have work visa.

The injunction issued by Snow prohibits MCSO from:

   -- Detaining, holding or arresting Latino occupants of vehicles
in Maricopa County based on a reasonable belief, without more,
that such persons are in the country without authorization.

   -- Following or enforcing its LEAR policy against any Latino
occupant of a vehicle in Maricopa County.

   -- Using race or Latino ancestry as a factor in determining to
stop any vehicle in Maricopa County with a Latino occupant.

   -- Using race or Latino ancestry as a factor in making law
enforcement decisions with respect to whether any Latino occupant
of a vehicle in Maricopa County may be in the country without
authorization.

   -- Detaining Latino occupants of vehicles stopped for traffic
violations for a period longer than reasonably necessary to
resolve the traffic violation in the absence of reasonable
suspicion that any of them have committed or are committing a
violation of federal or state criminal law.

   -- Detaining, holding or arresting Latino occupants of a
vehicle in Maricopa County for violations of the Arizona Human
Smuggling Act without a reasonable basis for believing that, under
all the circumstances, the necessary elements of the crime are
present.

   -- Detaining, arresting or holding persons based on a
reasonable suspicion that they are conspiring with their employer
to violate the Arizona Employer Sanctions.

Defense Attorney Timothy Casey stated the plaintiffs presented no
evidence that race played a factor in any of MCSO's traffic stops
and said race and ethnicity had nothing to do with any of the
individuals stopped.  Mr. Casey also stated MCSO has never engaged
in a saturation patrol that was not based on criminal activity.

While the sheriff's office will abide by the judge's ruling, Casey
said it will most likely appeal.

When Congress passed 8 USC Sec. 1252c, authorizing the arrest of
illegal aliens by state and local officers for violations of the
INA (Immigration and Nationality Act), it was to overcome a
perceived federal limitation on the ability of state and local
officers to arrest an alien known by them to be dangerous because
of past crimes committed in their jurisdiction"

And, in United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, the defendant,
government and court were all unable to identify any pre-Sec.
1252c limitations on the powers of state and local officers to
enforce federal law.

Section 1252c(b) also mandates cooperation between the U.S.
Attorney General and the states to assure that information in the
control of the AG, including information in the NCIC, which would
assist state and local law enforcement officials in carrying out
the duties of Sec. 1252c is made available to the states."

In United States v. Salinas-Calderon, a state trooper pulled over
the defendant for driving erratically but soon found six
individuals in the back of the defendant's truck.  Because the
defendant, who was eventually charged with the crime of illegally
transporting aliens did not speak English, the state trooper
questioned the passenger (the defendant's wife) and learned that
the driver and the other six individuals were in the country
illegally.  From this line of questioning, the Tenth Circuit Court
determined the trooper had probable cause to detain and arrest all
the individuals.

In addition to the probable cause conclusion, the Tenth Circuit
determined that a "state trooper has general investigatory
authority to inquire into possible immigration violations."

Congress also seems to have delegated arrest authority to local
law enforcement officers in 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1324 (INA Sec. 274),
which establishes a number of criminal penalties for the
smuggling, transporting, concealing, and harboring of illegal
aliens.

"Authority to Arrest," under Sec. 1324(c), states: "[n]o officer
or person shall have authority to make any arrest for a violation
of any provision of this section except officers and employees of
the Service designated by the Attorney General, either
individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers
whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws."

The plain language indicates local law enforcement officers are
empowered to make arrests for smuggling, transporting, and
harboring offenses.

And, the legislative history of Sec. 1324 confirms that
understanding. The Senate-passed version of this provision stated
arrests for violations only could be made by INS agents and "other
officers of the United States whose duty it is to enforce criminal
laws."

However, the House struck the words "of the United States."

The elimination of that limiting phrase makes it clear Congress
intended to authorize all criminal law enforcement officers,
federal or otherwise, to enforce Sec. 1324.68.

In other words, Sheriff Arpaio didn't need a 287(g) MOA for the
authority to enforce violations of the INA.

Snow's ruling has the appearance of elevating Latino/Hispanics and
illegal aliens of Latin decent to a preferred, untouchable class
of lawbreaker while in Maricopa County.

Founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, Attorney Larry
Klayman, who is representing Citizens for the Preservation of Fair
Election Results against Respect Arizona's unconstitutional recall
of Arpaio, called the ruling "a disgrace" from a legal standpoint.

Sheriff Arpaio announced on May 29, "We will appeal this ruling."


MONTEREY COUNTY: Faces Class Action Over Unsafe Jail
----------------------------------------------------
Angela Watkins at Courthouse News Service reports that the
Monterey County jail is unconstitutionally unsafe, overcrowded and
understaffed, threatening inmates and staff alike with injury and
death, the public defender claims in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Jesse Hernandez and four other named inmates sued
Monterey County, its Sheriff's Office, and the California Forensic
Medical Group, which provides medical services at the jail.

They are represented by the county's Public Defender James Egar
and his office, and by Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, Esq. --
ggrunfeld@rbgg.com -- with Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld, of San
Francisco.

The class claims the Monterey County Jail is "broken in every
way:" that violence is a regular occurrence and that the "causes
of the violence - understaffing, overcrowded housing units,
antiquated and poorly designed jail facilities, and an inadequate
prisoner classification system - are well-known to and tolerate by
defendants."

The jail houses 1,100 prisoners, which is 33 percent above its
rated capacity, yet is rarely staffed with more than 24 officers,
the complaint states.

The violence is exacerbated by prisoners' ability to "pop" open
their cell doors and the availability of weapons: many prisoners
use 13- to 19-inch-long copper pipes with razors at the end to
assault other prisoners, the complaint states.  It accuses the
county and sheriff of "deliberate indifference to prisoners'
safety, medical and mental health, and disability needs."

The 74-page complaint lists a litany of incidents in which jail
medical staff denied prisoners medical assistance or incorrectly
treated prisoners.

Plaintiff Hernandez claims he requested a colostomy reversal
surgery for eight months before it was granted, and that the jail
failed to provide him with proper post-operative follow-up care.

He suffered intestinal swelling, bleeding, severe stomach pain,
fevers, cold sweats, and obstructed bowels when the jail failed to
provide him with antibiotics after his surgery, he says in the
complaint.

A female prisoner claims she suffered a miscarriage and suffered
seven weeks of heavy vaginal bleeding before her request to see a
women's health specialist was granted.

Prisoners are denied all medication during a 90-day detoxification
process, the class claims.  Prisoners with mental health issues
often suffer relapses during this time, and if they act out, they
are placed in "rubber rooms" without beds or toilets.  The suicide
rate significantly exceeds the national average for local jails:
more than a dozen prisoners have killed themselves in three years,
the complaint states.

The class seeks declaratory relief and a corrective injunction.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Manatt Phelps, McKool Smith Ordered to Pay $3.5MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that two law firms
can pay $3.5 million to settle claims that they misrepresented
retired professional football players in a suit against the union,
a federal judge ruled.

The settlement also provides $750,000 in fees and litigation
expenses to the lawyers who represented the football players in
the legal malpractice suit, according to the tentative ruling by
U.S. District Judge William Alsup.

Bernard Parrish had led the class action, which also included John
Brodie and Paul Hornung among named plaintiffs, in July 2010
against the firms Manatt, Phelps and Phillips and McKool Smith.
They claimed that these lawyers had failed to get them the
settlement they deserved in an earlier lawsuit against the NFL
Players Association, which they accused of concentrating on
getting licensing deals for current players while leaving retirees
out in the cold.

Though the union settled that suit for $26 million, Parrish and
the others said they could have gotten more had their lawyers
presented an email exchange between the NFLPA and Electronic Arts
executive Jeremy Stauser showing that the NFLPA refused to permit
using the images of retired players in EA's "Madden NFL" video
game.

Alsup said a successful trial against the lawyers could have
yielded damages of $9.3 to $10.6 million, but he found the
$3.5 million to be fair and adequate, citing the "difficulties
plaintiffs would have faced if they had proceeded to trial."


NATIONAL FINANCIAL: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that National Financial Partners
Corp. is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to
(nonparties) Madison Dearborn Partners and its Patriot Corp.
affiliates, for $25.35 a share or $1.3 billion, shareholders claim
in Federal Court.


NATIONAL SECURITY: Wants to Defer Ruling on Wiretapping Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that the
National Security Agency asked a federal judge to defer ruling on
a 7-year-old case challenging an NSA wiretapping program, citing
media coverage of the government's surveillance activities.

A class of phone service customers led by Carolyn Jewel challenged
the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program, calling it an abuse of
executive privilege that spies on law-abiding customers.  They
claimed the NSA's implementation of the Terrorist Surveillance
Program, signed into law after the Sept. 11, 2011 terrorist
attacks, violates the Constitution and the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act.

The plaintiffs in October 2012 blasted Presidents Bush's and
Obama's "unprecedented assertions of power without regard to the
constitutional and statutory limits of its authority.  [The
government] has correspondingly sought to exclude the judiciary
from adjudicating whether these exercises of executive power have
stayed within the limits set by the Constitution and by Congress."

The government sought dismissal under the state-secrets privilege,
claiming that "privilege will only be asserted where necessary to
protect against significant harm to national security."

The 9th Circuit refused to dismiss the case in 2011.

On June 7, the NSA asked the San Francisco Federal Court to defer
ruling on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, after
the English newspaper The Guardian revealed that the NSA had
forced Verizon to hand over "all call detail records or 'telephony
metadata'" of U.S. customers placing international domestic and
local calls."

"In recent days there have been several media reports concerning
alleged surveillance activities, including in particular
concerning an Order of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court.  In response to these reports, the Director of National
Intelligence directed that certain information related to the
'business records' provision of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act be declassified and immediately released to the
public," Jewell said in the new motion.

Jewell et al. apparently have asked for copies of these records.

"In light of these developments, the government defendants request
that the Court defer further consideration of the pending motions
and grant the government time to consider the effect on the
pending motions of the government's decision to declassify certain
information, and to consult with plaintiffs concerning the
matter," the motion stated.

The order from the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,
signed by Judge Roger Vinson, excludes the "substantive contents
of any communication," and the "name, address, or financial
information of a subscriber or customer" from release to the NSA.

But Brett Kaufman, a national security fellow for the American
Civil Liberties Union, has told Courthouse News that these
provisions would not protect callers' identity.

"It is common for location data to be part of the metadata,"
Kaufman said.


NCAA: Challenges Validity of Class Status of College Athletes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reports that class
certification is improper for college athletes who say they were
denied a chance to license their names, images or likenesses, the
National Collegiate Athletic Association argued.

The federal antitrust case, led by former UCLA basketball star Ed
O'Bannon, accuses the NCAA, Electronic Arts and College Licensing
Co. of orchestrating a price-fixing conspiracy and group boycott.

Athletes say that the NCAA forces them to sign away the rights to
their own images, cheating them out of a share in the profits from
TV broadcasts and video game sales that used their names and
images.

A hearing on the athletes' motion for class certification is
scheduled for June 20 in front of U.S. District Judge Claudia
Wilken.

In its argument against class certification, the NCAA claim that
the athletes provided no evidence to support their claims "that
NCAA amateurism rules illegally 'restrain' current SAs [student
athletes] from selling broadcast or video game 'group licenses.'"

The NCAA says that the athletes have not shown that such
"licenses" actually exist or could even legally exist.  Nor have
the athletes provided any evidence that members of the putative
class would be paid for these licenses if the NCAA's amateurism
rules were eliminated, according to the NCAA's reply.

"Instead, APs [antitrust plaintiffs] argue that the lack of
evidence is immaterial, because the new liability theories do not
require evidence," the filing states.  "APs now claim
certification is warranted based solely on the hypothetical and
highly speculative opinions of their experts that, in the but-for-
world, the NCAA and/or its membership would have adopted rules
requiring that broadcast revenues be shared equally with class
members."

The court cannot, per the athletes' request, "certify a class of
all Division I men's basketball and FBS football SAs, regardless
of whether those SAs actually had any pertinent NIL [names,
images, or likenesses] rights under their states' laws, regardless
of whether those SAs' purported NIL rights were actually 'used,'
and regardless of whether defendants were responsible for SAs'
alleged failure to be paid for any purported use," the NCAA wrote
(emphasis in original).

The NCAA argues that the athletes lack common evidence to support
certification, and that "their failure to provide such evidence on
fundamental elements of the class members' antitrust claims is
fatal to their motion."


NEW JERSEY: Gov. Christie Sued Over Closure of 2 Centers
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action,
disabled adults claim Gov. Chris Christie is illegally closing the
North Jersey Developmental Center and Woodbridge Developmental
Center, without providing reasonable alternative care.


NEW YORK: Faces Class Action Over Invading Cab Drivers' Privacy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that New York City invades cab
drivers' privacy with warrantless searches, which are the GPS
tracking devices placed in their cabs, Hassan El-Nahal claims in a
federal class action.


NEW YORK: NYPD Sued Over Vehicles Destroyed by Sandy
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Local 983 of the Motor
Vehicle Operators Union, AFSCME sued the NYPD in a class action
for drivers whose vehicles were destroyed by Sandy because police
wouldn't let them move them from Hudson River Pier 76, in New York
County Supreme Court.


NV ENERGY: Being Sold to MidAmerican for Too Little, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that NV Energy is selling itself
too cheaply through an unfair process to MidAmerican Energy
Holdings, for $23.75 a share or $10 billion, shareholders claim in
Clark County Court.


NYK LINE: Faces Suit Over Price-Fixing of Waterborne Vehicle
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal antitrust class
action claims NYK Line at al. conspired to fix prices for
waterborne vehicle carrier service in the United States.

The parties to the vehicle carrier antitrust complaint are:

   -- F. Ruggiero & Sons Inc. and Robert Orourke on behalf of
      themselves and all others similarly situated, versus

   -- NYK Line (North America) Inc.; Nippon Yusen Kabushiki
      Kaisha; Wilh. Wilhelmsen Holding ASA; Wilh. Wilhelmsen ASA;
      Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd.; Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd.; "K"
      Line America Inc.; EUKOR Vehicle Carriers Inc.; Wallenius
      Wilhelmsen Logistics AS; Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics
      Americas LLC; Wallenius Lines AB; Compania Sud Americana De
      Vapores S.A.; Toyofuji Shipping Co. Ltd.; Nissan Motor Car
      Carrier Co. Ltd.


OMTHERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Omthera Pharmaceuticals is
selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to
AstraZeneca, for $12.70 a share and a limited stock purchase
option, or $323 million shareholders claim in Chancery Court.


OXFORD HEALTH: Supreme Court Maintains Class Arbitration Decision
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that a health
insurer that consented to letting an arbitrator assess the
possibility of class status has no basis to then fight the
decision, the Supreme Court ruled June 10.

Dr. Ivan Sutter sued Oxford Health Plans in 2002, claiming that it
had failed to make prompt and accurate reimbursement payments to
participating physicians.

Oxford moved to compel arbitration, as required by the parties'
contract, and both sides agreed to let the arbitrator determine
whether the contract likewise authorized class arbitration.

When the arbitrator determined that class arbitration was indeed
possible, Oxford condemned this decision as an abuse of his
powers.

A federal judge in New Jersey nevertheless refused to vacate the
decision, and arbitration proceeded after the 3rd Circuit
affirmed.

Oxford tried again in 2010 when the Supreme Court ruled on a
similar issue presented in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds
International Corp.

After the arbitrator concluded that Stolt-Nielsen had no effect on
the case, the 3rd Circuit again shot down Oxford's appeal.

The Supreme Court took up the case in December, only to likewise
support the class arbitration determination on June 10, 2013.

"The sole question for us is whether the arbitrator (even
arguably) interpreted the parties' contract, not whether he got
its meaning right or wrong," Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the
unanimous court.

Ultimately the arbitrator's decisions show that "they are, through
and through, interpretations of the parties' agreement," according
to the ruling.

Kagan also chided Oxford for its misreading of Stolt-Nielsen, in
which the court found that an arbitration panel exceeded its
powers under Section 10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act when
it ordered a party to submit to class arbitration.

"We overturned the arbitral decision there because it lacked any
contractual basis for ordering class procedures, not because it
lacked, in Oxford's terminology, a 'sufficient' one," according to
the ruling.

"The contrast with this case is stark," Kagan added. "In Stolt-
Nielsen, the arbitrators did not construe the parties' contract,
and did not identify any agreement authorizing class proceedings.
So in setting aside the arbitrators' decision, we found not that
they had misinterpreted the contract, but that they had abandoned
their interpretive role.  Here, the arbitrator did construe the
contract (focusing, per usual, on its language), and did find an
agreement to permit class arbitration.  So to overturn his
decision, we would have to rely on a finding that he
misapprehended the parties' intent.  But Sec. 10(a)(4) bars that
course: It permits courts to vacate an arbitral decision only when
the arbitrator strayed from his delegated task of interpreting a
contract, not when he performed that task poorly.  Stolt-Nielsen
and this case thus fall on opposite sides of the line that Sec.
10(a)(4) draws to delimit judicial review of arbitral decisions."

The opinion concludes with the justices refusing to consider
Oxford's claim that the arbitrator "badly misunderstood the
contract's arbitration clause."

"Nothing we say in this opinion should be taken to reflect any
agreement with the arbitrator's contract interpretation, or any
quarrel with Oxford's contrary reading," Kagan wrote.  "All we say
is that convincing a court of an arbitrator's error - even his
grave error -- is not enough.  So long as the arbitrator was
'arguably construing' the contract -- which this one was -- a
court may not correct his mistakes under Sec. 10(a)(4).  The
potential for those mistakes is the price of agreeing to
arbitration. . . . The arbitrator's construction holds, however
good, bad, or ugly.

"In sum, Oxford chose arbitration, and it must now live with that
choice."

In a concurring opinion that put the merits of this issue on the
table, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas found that the
decision to order class arbitration was erroneous.

"Unlike petitioner, absent members of the plaintiff class never
conceded that the contract authorizes the arbitrator to decide
whether to conduct class arbitration.  It doesn't," Alito wrote,
joined by Thomas.  "If we were reviewing the arbitrator's
interpretation of the contract de novo, we would have little
trouble concluding that he improperly inferred '[a]n implicit
agreement to authorize class-action arbitration . . . from the
fact of the parties' agreement to arbitrate.'"

"It is true that they signed contracts with arbitration clauses
materially identical to those signed by the plaintiff who brought
this suit," Alito added.  "But an arbitrator's erroneous
interpretation of contracts that do not authorize class
arbitration cannot bind someone who has not authorized the
arbitrator to make that determination."

Here, however, Oxford "consented to the arbitrator's authority by
conceding that he should decide in the first instance whether the
contract authorizes class arbitration," the opinion states.

"In the absence of concessions like Oxford's, this possibility
should give courts pause before concluding that the availability
of class arbitration is a question the arbitrator should decide,"
Alito added.  "But because that argument was not available to
petitioner in light of its concession below, I join the opinion of
the court."


PATH INC: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Path promotes its social
network and smartphone app application by sending unsolicited text
messages, a class claims.


PEPPERIDGE FARM: Faces Suit for Using Unnatural Ingredients
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Pepperidge Farm promotes its
Goldfish Crackers as natural though they contain genetically
modified soy and other unnatural ingredients, a class action
claims in Federal Court.


PHILADELPHIA HOUSING: Tenants to Receive $2.65MM Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that thousands
of public housing tenants will receive $2.65 million to settle
16-year-old claims that the Philadelphia Housing Authority failed
to factor rising gas rates into utility allowances.

Jackie McDowell had led the 1997 class action, which alleged
violations of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937.

Although the parties stipulated to settlement and consent decree
in January 1998, the housing officials allegedly failed again to
factor in rising gas rates, as required under the consent decree
and federal law, in the period of July 1, 1999, through Dec. 21,
2002, and from Oct. 31, 2005, to Nov. 30, 2006.

The Eastern District of Pennsylvania appointed Harris T. Bock as
master in August 2010, giving him the authority to make reports
and recommendations concerning the identification of class members
and the proper calculation and payment of compensation by the
defendants.

Negotiations between the parties kicked off in March 2011, with
help from U.S. Magistrate Judge L. Felipe Restrepo.

This culminated in a settlement of $2.65 million to be distributed
among 5,642 class members.  Housing officials also agreed not to
oppose paying the plaintiffs' counsel $730,000 in costs and fees.

With the court's preliminary approval of the settlement on
Jan. 28, 2013, the parties informed the class about a hearing for
deal and posted notice of it in the Philadelphia Daily News,
Philadelphia Tribune, Al Dia, and the housing authority's offices.

Interested parties did not raise objections to the proposed
settlement within the notice-provided 30-day period or at the
fairness hearing on April 15.

U.S. District Judge Mitchell Goldberg granted final approval
Friday - 16 years since the initial filing of the complaint.

"After careful consideration, we conclude that the parties'
proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate," Goldberg
wrote.  "The settlement reflects good faith, arms-length
negotiations between the parties as to the reasonable valuation of
plaintiffs' claims and the attorneys' fees expended.  It was
reached with the assistance of Judge Restrepo and contemplated the
risks related to establishing liability and damages, the
complexity of outstanding issues and the expense and delay
attendant in fully litigating the case.  We also note that
plaintiffs were represented by experienced and reputable counsel.
Plaintiffs' attorneys are staff members at Community Legal
Services, an institution dedicated to representing low income
residents of Philadelphia.  Further, the settlement fund is
adequate and will provide recovery for all of the class members
without delay or the risk of an adverse determination.  Moreover,
no class member has objected to the settlement."

The Philadelphia Housing Authority is the nation's fourth largest
with more than 14,000 affordable housing units serving nearly
80,000 tenants, and $250 million in redevelopment projects
citywide, according to its website.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Faces Suits Over Travel Transaction Taxes
------------------------------------------------------------
priceline.com Incorporated and certain third-party defendant
online travel companies ("OTCs") are currently involved in
approximately 40 lawsuits, including certified and putative class
actions, brought by or against states, cities and counties over
issues involving the payment of travel transaction taxes (e.g.,
hotel occupancy taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, etc.), according
to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

The Company's subsidiaries Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC
are named in some but not all of these cases.  Generally, each
complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective relevant travel
transaction tax ordinance with respect to the charges and
remittance of amounts to cover taxes under each law.  Each
complaint typically seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement,
penalties available by law, attorneys' fees and other relief.

In addition, approximately 75 municipalities or counties, and at
least thirteen states, have initiated audit proceedings (including
proceedings initiated by more than forty municipalities in
California), issued proposed tax assessments or started inquiries
relating to the payment of travel transaction taxes.  Additional
state and local jurisdictions are likely to assert that the
Company is subject to travel transaction taxes and could seek to
collect such taxes, retroactively and/or prospectively.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Sued Over Alleged City Ordinance Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Priceline.com Incorporated faces a suit filed on behalf of the
City of Warrenville, Illinois and certain other municipalities in
Illinois, alleging violation of the municipalities' respective
accommodations ordinances, conversion, civil conspiracy and unjust
enrichment, according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In the quarter ending March 31, 2013, two new actions commenced.
Fargo v. Expedia, Inc., et al., (filed February 2013) is an action
brought by the City of Fargo, North Dakota against the Company and
other OTC defendants asserting violation of the city's lodging and
sales tax ordinances, as well claims for conversion, unjust
enrichment and seeking injunctive relief.

Warrenville, et al. v. Priceline.com Incorporated, et al., (filed
April 2013) is a putative class action filed on behalf of the City
of Warrenville, Illinois and certain other municipalities in
Illinois. Although the Company is a named defendant in the action,
it has not yet received service on the matter. The complaint
alleges violation of the municipalities' respective accommodations
ordinances, conversion, civil conspiracy and unjust enrichment,
and seeks a declaratory judgment. The Company intends to
vigorously defend these claims.

In addition, on March 27, 2013, the Company and other OTCs filed a
petition for judicial review of the findings of fact, conclusions
of law, decision and order of the Wyoming State Board of
Equalization (issued February 28, 2013), finding that OTCs are
subject to that state's accommodations tax. On April 23, 2013, the
Wyoming Supreme Court accepted the OTC's appeal from the Board's
decision.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Appeals Class Certification of Pine Bluff Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
priceline.com Incorporated filed a notice of appeal against a
decision certifying as a class action the suit filed by Pine Bluff
Advertising and Promotion Commission, Jefferson County, Arkansas,
et al., according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

On February 9, 2013, in Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion
Commission, Jefferson County, Arkansas, et al. v. Hotels.com, LP,
et al. (filed in September 2009), the trial court certified the
action as a class action. The Company and other defendants filed a
notice of appeal of that decision on March 8, 2013.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Appealing Certification of Nassau County Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
priceline.com Inc. filed a notice of appeal against a decision
certifying the suit County of Nassau v. Expedia, Inc., et al.,
according to priceline.com's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On April 11, 2013, in County of Nassau v. Expedia, Inc., et al.
(filed September 2011), the trial court certified the action as a
class action. The Company and other online travel company
defendants filed a notice of appeal of that decision on April 26,
2013.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Bares Lawsuits Filed by Cities, Counties
-----------------------------------------------------------
In its May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013,
priceline.com Incorporated disclosed it faces these statewide
Class Actions and Putative Class Actions:

(1) City of Los Angeles, California v. Hotels.com, Inc., et al.
(California Superior Court, Los Angeles County; filed in December
2004);

(2) City of Rome, Georgia, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.
(U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia; filed
in November 2005); (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
appeal filed in September 2012);

(3) City of San Antonio, Texas v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. (U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas; filed in May
2006);

(4) City of Gallup, New Mexico v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. (U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico; filed in July 2007)
); (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; appeal filed in
April 2013);

(5) Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission, Jefferson
County, Arkansas, et al. v. Hotels.com, LP, et al. (Circuit Court
of Jefferson County, Arkansas; filed in September 2009); (Arkansas
Supreme Court; appeal filed in March 2013);

(6) County of Lawrence, Pennsylvania v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.
(Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania; filed
Nov. 2009); (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania; appeal filed in
November 2010);

(7) Elizabeth McAllister, et al. v. Hotels.com L.P., et al.,
(Circuit Court of Saline County, Arkansas; filed in February
2011);

(8) Town of Breckenridge, Colorado v. Colorado Travel Company,
LLC, et al. (District Court for Summit County, Colorado; filed in
July 2011);

(9) County of Nassau v. Expedia, Inc., et al. (Supreme Court of
Nassau County, New York; filed in September 2011); ); (Appellate
Division, Second Department; appeal filed in April 2013); and

(10) Warrenville, et al. v. Priceline.com Incorporated, et al.
(U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois; filed
in April 2013; Company not served).


PRICELINE.COM INC: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits alleging that priceline.com Incorporated and other hotels
violated federal and state laws by entering into a conspiracy to
enforce a minimum resale price maintenance were consolidated
before Judge Boyle in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On August 20, 2012, one complaint was filed on behalf of a
putative class of persons who purchased hotel room reservations
from certain hotels (the "Hotel Defendants") through certain
online travel company defendants, including the Company.  The
initial complaint, Turik v. Expedia, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-4365,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleges that the Hotel Defendants and the OTC
defendants violated federal and state laws by entering into a
conspiracy to enforce a minimum resale price maintenance scheme
pursuant to which putative class members paid inflated prices for
hotel room reservations that they purchased through the OTC
defendants.

Thirty-one other complaints containing similar allegations have
been filed in a number of federal jurisdictions across the country
and one of them in Minnesota state court (which was then removed
to federal court, the "Mooney Action"). Plaintiffs in these
actions seek treble damages and injunctive relief.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") heard
arguments on a motion for consolidation and transfer of pretrial
proceedings under 28 U.S.C. 1407 on November 29, 2012.  Pursuant
to JPML orders, all of the cases other than the Mooney action were
consolidated before Judge Boyle in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.  On May 1, 2013, an amended
consolidated complaint was filed. On January 29, 2013, plaintiff
in the Mooney Action filed a voluntary notice of dismissal with
prejudice. The case was dismissed with prejudice on January 31,
2013.


RANGE RESOURCES: To Pay $87.5MM Settlement Over Gas Royalties
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee at Courthouse News Service reports that oil and gas
company Range Resources will pay $87.5 million to settle a class
action in Oklahoma over natural gas royalties.

The 2010 complaint in Grady County District Court accused the
independent energy firm of short-changing property owners on
royalties through the alleged costs of making the gas drilled from
their properties "marketable."

The class members demanded $160 million from the Fort Worth,
Texas-based company.

Under the terms of the settlement, Range will pay $87.5 million in
cash regarding the calculation, reporting and payment of royalties
previous to May 31, according to a June 3 filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The company had previously disclosed that it spent $35 million
litigating the case in the first quarter of the year.  It says it
will make an incremental charge of $52.5 million in the second
quarter as a result of the settlement.

The company also previously announced the sale of properties in
Delaware and the Permian Basin for $87 million, which will be
recorded in the second quarter, as well.

In 2011, Range sold its massive holdings in the Barnett Shale in
Texas for $900 million, according to its website.

It used the money to fund its growing operations in the Marcellus
Shale in the eastern United States, resulting in the doubling of
its daily net production from the year before.


REMINGTON ARMS: Faces Class Action for Selling Defective Guns
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Remington Arms, DuPont et al.
sold rifles with a defective Walker Fire Control trigger assembly
that lets the gun fire without a trigger pull, a class action
claims in Federal Court.


RUE21: Being Sold to Apax Partners for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling rue21,
a clothier, too cheaply through an unfair process to Apax
Partners, for $42 a share or $1.1 billion, shareholders claim in
Chancery Court.


SAN LEANDRO: Police Dept. Faces Suit Over Falsely Arresting Men
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reports that San Leandro
Police conspire to lure men into stalls in public restroom to bust
them for seeking consensual sex, two men claim in a civil rights
class action.

Lead plaintiffs Steven Mengel and Michael Woody sued San Leandro,
its Police Department and Police Chief Sandra Spagnoli, and four
officers, in Federal Court.

The class "consists of all men who have been falsely arrested for
soliciting or engaging in lewd conduct by San Leandro Police
acting as decoys, because they are perceived to be interested in
meeting in public, men interested in non-monetary intimate
association with other men," according to the complaint.

Mengel claims he was arrested in 2012 after agreeing to perform a
sexual act on undercover defendants Officer Matthew Barajas and
Det. Morgan.

"On June 12, 2012, plaintiff Mengel, in his 60s with white hair,
was parked on the street near . . . a restroom with a reputation
as being a place where men meet other men for intimate sexual
conduct," the complaint states.

"He was approached by defendant Matthew Barajas, in his late 20s
or early 30s, in plain clothes, in an unmarked vehicle, acting as
a decoy, pretending to be a person interested in intimate sexual
conduct.

"He asked defendant Mengel if Mengel was 'looking for anything.'
This is a code expression to indicate an interest in intimate
conduct.

"Mengel replied, 'Not right now.'

"Barajas then said he was new at this and asked if Mengel was
'looking for anything later' to which Mengel replied: 'Possibly.'

"Barajas then suggested noon of the following day to which Mengel
said: 'That's fine.'"

Mengel claims Barajas, accompanied by Morgan, met him in the same
place the next day.

"After a brief conversation, Mengel agreed to give Barajas and
Morgan a 'hand job' which is a code word for manually stimulating
Barajas' penis," the complaint states.

"The three entered the restroom with Morgan acting as a 'lookout'
to prevent others from entering the restroom, possibly observing
the conduct, and thereby being offended.  At all times Mengel
reasonably believed that his conduct would not offend anyone
present.

"Mengel and Barajas entered a toilet stall which did not contain a
door.  Mengel then reached for Barajas' zipper but Barajas pushed
his hand away.

"Barajas then said: 'You're sure you don't want any money for
this?'

"At this point defendant Morgan accompanied by [defendant] Sgt.
Anthony, and [defendant] detective Clifford entered the restroom
and arrested Mengel, charging him with a violation of Penal Code
section 647(d) loitering around a toilet."

Mengel claims it was a false arrest: that he did not "loiter with
the specific intent to engage in any sort of lewd conduct, nor did
he solicit any act intending to perform it in a public place where
he knew or should have known that there were persons present who
were likely to be offended."

He claims that San Leandro Police do not use women decoy officers
to arrest men for similar conduct, nor do male decoys arrest women
for it.

Criminal charges against Mengel were dismissed pursuant to a
demurrer.

Nonetheless, Mengel says he "has become mentally upset, distressed
and aggravated, and suffered great humiliation, embarrassment, and
mental anguish."

He claims the city police policy violates the equal protection
clause of the 14th Amendment.

Woody was arrested after a plainclothes officer approached him in
a separate restroom, then "followed him aggressively urging him to
stay," the complaint states.

While waiting for a stall, the unnamed defendant officer (Doe I)
"was very friendly, asking plaintiff Woody if he had ever visited
the restroom before. Plaintiff said, 'Yes.'

"A few minutes later, the occupants of the restroom left.
Plaintiff then entered intending to use a stall for elimination.
However, when he observed that Doe I had followed him into the
bathroom, plaintiff changed his mind and left.

"Doe I followed him aggressively urging him to stay.  Plaintiff
said he might return later. Doe I said he only had 20 minutes.

"Plaintiff started his car as if to drive off.  At this point Doe
I showed plaintiff a police badge and stated he was under arrest
for a violation of Penal Code section 647(a), lewd conduct," the
complaint states.

Woody claims that no charges were ever filed against him, but
Police Chief Spagnoli issued a press release stating that he had
been arrested for "loitering with intent."

Woody suffered distress, humiliation and embarrassment.

The plaintiffs estimate that "hundreds" of men have been falsely
arrested on charges of "soliciting or engaging in lewd conduct."

"The membership of the defined class is so numerous that joinder
of all members is impractical," the 16-page lawsuit states.
"(T)here are hundreds of men who have been illegally arrested for
violations of California law by the SLPD because they were
perceived to be interested in meeting in public, men interested in
non-monetary intimate association with other men."

San Leandro, pop. 85,000, is on the eastern shore of San Francisco
Bay, between Oakland and Hayward.

The plaintiffs seek costs and damages for conspiracy to violate
civil rights, and want the defendants enjoined from targeting,
harassing or arresting men who are perceived to be interested in
meeting in public other men interested in "non-monetary intimate
association."

They are represented by Bruce Nickerson, of San Carlos.


SHANGHUI INT'L: May Face Suit Over Smithfield Foods Buyout
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Shanghui International, of
China, will buy Smithfield Foods for $4.7 billion, the company
said on May 29, 2013, another major move into the U.S. economy.

In discussing the deal, analysts cited the Chinese love of pork --
China is the world's biggest consumer of the meat, and third-
largest buyer of U.S. pork.

The deal will be reviewed by the U.S. Committee on Foreign
Investment.

Like virtually all corporate buyouts of this size, it also will
probably have to face shareholder class action lawsuits, though
Shanghui offered $34 a share, 31 percent over Smithfield's closing
price on May 28, 2013.  Shanghui also will assume $2.4 billion in
Smithfield's debt.

China has faced several meat scandals recently, including 16,000
dead pigs found floating in a river that provides Shanghai's
drinking water, and the busting of a ring that sold rat meat and
other small-animal meat for more than $1 million, as mutton.

Shares of Smithfield jumped more than 25 percent on the news on
the morning of May 29, 2013, up $6.57 to $32.53 just before
10:30 a.m.


STEEL DYNAMICS: Opposes Bid to Certify Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Steel Dynamics, Inc. and other defendants in an antitrust suit
over steel products filed their Joint Memorandum in Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, according to the
company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

The company is involved, along with eight other steel
manufacturing companies, in a class action antitrust complaint
filed in federal court in Chicago, Illinois in September 2008,
which alleges a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize
the price at which steel products were sold in the United States
starting in 2005, by artificially restricting the supply of such
steel products.

All but one of the Complaints were brought on behalf of a
purported class consisting of all direct purchasers of steel
products between January 1, 2005, and the present.  The other
Complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of
all indirect purchasers of steel products within the same time
period.  In addition, in December 2010, the company and the other
co-defendants were served with a substantially similar complaint
in the Circuit Court of Cocke County, Tennessee, purporting to be
on behalf of indirect purchasers of steel products in Tennessee.

That case has been removed to the federal court in Chicago that is
hearing the main complaint. All Complaints seek treble damages and
costs, including reasonable attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment
interest and injunctive relief.  In January 2009, Steel Dynamics
and the other defendants filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss all of
the direct purchaser lawsuits, but this motion was denied in June
2009.

Following a period of preliminary discovery relating to class
certification matters, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification in May 2012, and on February 28, 2013, Defendants
filed their Joint Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification, together with joint motions to exclude
the expert opinions of both of Plaintiffs' two retained experts.

Additional briefing is anticipated on all issues related to the
pending motions.  Due to the uncertain nature of litigation, the
company cannot presently determine the ultimate outcome of this
litigation. However, the company determined, based on the
information available at this time, that there is not presently a
"reasonable possibility" (as that term is defined in ASC 450-20-
20), that the outcome of these legal proceedings would have a
material impact on the company's financial condition, results of
operations, or liquidity.


SUBURBAN PROPANE: Settles Suit Over Fees, Anticipates No Loss
-------------------------------------------------------------
Suburban Propane Partners, L.P. has decided it is not necessary
that Suburban make a reserve for a loss contingency other than for
legal defense fees and expenses in a suit that was settled in
November 2012 over fees charged by the Partnership in connection
with its residential propane business in California, according to
Suburban's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2013.

The Partnership's operations are subject to operating hazards and
risks normally incidental to handling, storing and delivering
combustible liquids such as propane. The Partnership has been, and
will continue to be, a defendant in various legal proceedings and
litigation as a result of these operating hazards and risks, and
as a result of other aspects of its business.

In this last regard, the Partnership currently is a defendant in
commercial suits in two states, including one class action and
another putative class action in which the court has denied class
certification without prejudice. The Partnership believes both
such suits are without merit.

The class action alleges several claims relating to two fees
charged by the Partnership in connection with its residential
propane business in California. During the fourth quarter of
fiscal 2012, to avoid both the continued expenses and burden of
defending that action and the uncertainty inherent in all
litigations, the Partnership entered into an agreement to settle
that California action on a class-wide basis in return for the
payment of a monetary sum and certain non-monetary consideration,
and established an accrual of $4,500 for the estimated cost of the
settlement.

The court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement
on November 19, 2012. In the putative class action, the
Partnership has been successful in eliminating several of the
claims such that only certain contractual and consumer statute
claims remain. The Partnership is contesting this putative class
action vigorously and has determined, based on the allegations and
discovery to date, that no reserve for a loss contingency other
than for legal defense fees and expenses is required. The
Partnership is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, arising from this litigation.


TARGET CORP: Faces Class Action Over Labor Complaints
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Target does not provide
workers with meal breaks or accurate wage statements, a class
claims.


TIME WARNER: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a New
Jersey attorney cannot sue Time Warner Cable for failing to
broadcast MSG Network sports shows for seven weeks, a federal
judge ruled.

Harold Hoffman, of Englewood, claimed that Time Warner induced him
to subscribe to cable TV and video services in November 2008,
promising him receive MSG and MSG+ sports programming.

But after Time Warner's right to carry these networks expired in
January 2012, they were unavailable for 49 days, until the
companies reached a new agreement.

Hoffman filed a class action Newark Federal Court, claiming the
seven-week hiatus brought "a significant financial windfall for
defendant," which did not have to pay MSG for those seven weeks,
though it continued to charge customers.

The amended complaint claims that 14 million Time Warner
subscribers "paid hard earned money" for the programs they never
received, which had been "promised by defendant."

Hoffman claimed he had to continue his subscription for those
seven weeks because the town lacks other cable services, and he
could not install a satellite dish because he was not a property
owner.  He sought damages for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, unconscionable commerce, deception, fraud,
misrepresentation, and knowing omission.

Time Warner moved to dismiss in April, and Senior U.S. District
Judge Dickinson Debevoise granted the motion on June 6, finding
Hoffman's allegations "steeped in threadbare recitals of the
elements and conclusory statements."

Hoffman's consumer fraud claim lacks particularity the judge
found.

"[D]etail as to the nature, date, time, place, method, and terms
of the promise to the class are entirely absent," Debevoise wrote.
"As to the solicitation individually directed to him, the
allegation similarly fails for lack of particularity.  Mr. Hoffman
fails to include the nature of the telephone communication; the
identity of the representative with whom he spoke; how the
solicitation arose; that the solicitation was expressly for line-
itemed sports programming or a part of a bundled package; whether
or not the promise was for a fixed menu of programming; and
whether or not such programming was to evolve or remain stagnant
over time.  Similarly, Mr. Hoffman does not submit any details at
all as to his unlawful omissions claim, and simply lists it in
connection with the supposed fraud."

Debevoise also tossed Hoffman's breach of contract claim.

"Mr. Hoffman's allegations do not meet the pleading requirements
to assert that a promise was made at any time by TWC [Time Warner
Cable], by phone or by written instrument, that the specific
sports channels were to be fixed as a part of the programming over
time," Debevoise wrote.  "Indeed, the written agreement does not
list which channels are to be offered, and clearly indicates the
flexible nature of the bundled package over time.  A breach of
contract does not exist here as a matter of law."

Hoffman may not amend his complaint a second time.

Hoffman is a frequent flyer in courts.  He has been a plaintiff in
more than 75 lawsuits since 2010, many of them class actions,
according to the Courthouse News database.


TOWNSEND FARMS: Faces Class Action Over Organic Anti-Oxidant Blend
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Townsend Farms' Organic Anti-
Oxidant Blend, mixed berries, caused 30 hepatitis A cases in five
Western states, a class action claims in Orange County Court.


TRACY BARKALOW: Class Action Over Iowa Students' Leases Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Iowa Court of Appeals has
certified a class-action lawsuit that seeks to invalidate
provisions that are routinely included in apartment leases signed
by University of Iowa students.

The court ruled on May 30 that tenants of landlord Tracy Barkalow
can have a trial to challenge lease provisions that critics say
are illegal and unfairly shift costs and liability from landlords
to tenants.

The provisions being challenged include fees that are deducted
from security deposits for cleaning regardless of an apartment's
condition and requirements that tenants pay for damage in common
areas and routine repairs.

The Iowa City Tenants Project, which is representing the
plaintiffs, has said the class could include 240 tenants but the
case will have a broader reach since those provisions are the
"industry standard."


UNIONBANCAL CORPORATION: BTMU Faces Suits Over Interbank Rates
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd. (BTMU) and other panel
members have been named as defendants in a number of civil
lawsuits, including putative class actions, in the United States
relating to interbank offered rates, according to UnionBanCal
Corporation's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

UnionBanCal is a California-based financial holding company and
bank holding company whose principal subsidiary is Union Bank,
N.A. (the Bank). It provides a wide range of financial services to
consumers, small businesses, middle-market companies and major
corporations, primarily in California, Oregon, Washington, Texas,
New York and Illinois, as well as nationally and internationally.
The company had consolidated assets of $97 billion at March 31,
2013.

References to the privatization transaction in this report refer
to the transaction on November 4, 2008, when UnionBanCal became a
privately held company. All of its issued and outstanding shares
of common stock are owned by BTMU.

BTMU has received requests and subpoenas for information from
government agencies in some jurisdictions, including the United
States, Europe and Japan, which are conducting investigations into
past submissions made by panel members, including BTMU, to the
bodies that set various interbank offered rates.

BTMU is cooperating with these investigations and has been
conducting an internal investigation. Union Bank is not a member
of any of these panels. In addition, BTMU and other panel members
have been named as defendants in a number of civil lawsuits,
including putative class actions, in the United States relating to
similar matters. It is currently not possible for the company to
predict the scope and ultimate outcome of these investigations or
lawsuits, including any possible effect on the company as a member
of MUFG.


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Mail Order Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that United
Healthcare Insurance subjects thousands of HIV-positive
Californians to "potentially life-threatening" delays by making
them get their prescription drugs through the mail, a class action
claims in Federal Court.

John Doe sued United Healthcare Insurance, mail order pharmacy
OptumRx, Pacificare Life and Health Insurance, and UnitedHealth
Group on five counts, including unfair competition, breach of
faith and violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The insurer requires that HIV/AIDS patients buy OptumRx-supplied
"'specialty medications'" by mail order, according to the
complaint.  Doe claims that patients' only alternative is to spend
thousands of dollars on retail pharmacy medications not covered by
their insurance plans.

"For all but the wealthiest HIV/AIDS patients, such dramatic cost
increases are untenable and thus many class members are left with
no choice at all," the complaint states.

Doe claims the program violates the "fundamental and inalienable
right to privacy" of thousands of patients.

"HIV/AIDS specialty medications often are delivered in
refrigerated containers," the complaint states.  "Class members
who live in apartment buildings or have medications delivered to
their work place have expressed alarm that neighbors and co-
workers, who do not know that the recipient has HIV/AIDS, would
come to suspect that they are seriously ill.  Mail-order shipment
also presents the risk of lost or stolen medications.
Alternatively, requiring the recipient to be present when the
package is delivered forces the patient to obtain needed
medications on the schedule of the delivery person as compared to
their own, and raises further privacy concerns."

The mail order program deprives patients of "essential counseling"
from clinical pharmacists who know their patients' medical
histories, and can discuss the side effects and risks of taking
certain medications, the class claims.

In contrast, "OptumRx will not have a full and accurate record of
all the medications the patient is prescribed and therefore cannot
anticipate or warn against potential adverse drug interactions,"
Doe claims in the complaint.

HIV/AIDS requires "constant monitoring" because "the virus
continually mutates around the medications prescribed to treat
it," Doe says.  So patients must stop their old drug regimen
before taking new medications.

OptumRx has "incorrectly dispensed both the new medication and the
old medication" or the "incorrect dosage," the class claims.

"Mail order providers such as OptumRx also run the very real risk
of delayed, lost or stolen shipments, resulting in dire
consequences for many patients who must adhere to strict
medication regimes or face serious illness or death.  Yet,
defendants appear to have no fail-safe procedure in place to allow
consumers to purchase medications at retail pharmacies in the
event that mail-order shipments are delayed, lost, or stolen,"
according to the complaint.

Patients must call a 1-800 number each month to renew their
prescriptions, increasing "stress and fatigue for patients who are
literally fighting to stay alive," the class claims.

An OptumRx call center representative told one patient that he
should try his luck at the emergency room, Doe says.

"'It is not my problem,'" the representative is alleged to have
told the patient. "'(I)t is your responsibility to make sure you
get your lifesaving drugs on time.'"

Doe claims that his interactions with OptumRx "confirmed his worst
fears."  He calls OptumRx customer service "poor," and claims that
on one occasion he received his medications with just a few days
left on his previous prescription.  He claims that United
Healthcare has "specifically targeted" HIV/AIDS patients, denying
them "full and equal access" to retail pharmacies.

"When patients attempt to opt out of the program they are told
they have no choice.  But secretly, defendants have granted some
enrollees who complain enough or threaten to take action the
ability to not participate in the program.  Plaintiff believes all
similarly situated people should be given that same opportunity,"
the complaint states.

Doe seeks actual, compensatory, statutory and exemplary damages
for unfair competition, common counts and assumpsit/common law
restitution, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and an
injunction.

He is represented by Harvey Rosenfield with Consumer Watchdog, of
Santa Monica.


UNITED STATES: Homeland Dept. Sued Over Deportation Program
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that Uncle Sam
uses threats and deception to force Mexicans to accept deportation
in "a regime of unlawful coerced expulsion," a class action claims
in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Isidora Lopez-Venegas sued the Department of
Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Bureau
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and their top officials.
Joining as plaintiffs are six other de facto deportees, the
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, and the
Pomona Economic Opportunity Center.

They seek a court order stopping the defendants' "voluntary
departure" program and rescinding the deportations.

Voluntary departure, also known as voluntary repatriation, is
technically different from deportation though its effect is the
same.  Deportation, however, requires legal process, which may be
time-consuming and may, at the discretion of immigration
officials, involve detention in an immigration prison or contract
prison, which may be lengthy. People who accept "voluntary
departure" are expelled from the country quickly, with or without
a simple signature.

The advantage for ICE, DHS and Customs is efficiency.  The
advantage for immigrants is that re-entry after deportation may
bring a felony charge punishable by years in federal prison. Re -
entry after voluntary departure is generally treated as a civil
infraction or a misdemeanor.

The ACLU, lead counsel for the class, claims in the complaint that
immigration officials use the voluntary departure process to
"pressure, deceive, and threaten Mexican nationals" into "signing
their own expulsion orders."

It claims the de facto policy violates the Administrative
Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and
constitutional due process.

"These abusive and illegal practices rob victims of their right to
seek relief from removal.  As administered and practiced in
Southern California, the 'voluntary departure' program has become
a regime of unlawful coerced expulsion - one which tears numerous
families apart every year," the complaint states.

Though the voluntary repatriation "must be accepted knowingly and
voluntarily," the ACLU says, immigration officers in Southern
California tell people "they will be incarcerated for months" if
they do not accept voluntary departure.

Immigration officers also tell people, falsely, that they can
adjust immigration documents back in Mexico for a swift and legal
return to the U.S, the ACLU claims.

"Such statements are patently false and fail to convey the
consequences of taking voluntary departure.  Immigrants who elect
not to pursue voluntary departure are not automatically or
necessarily detained pending a hearing before an immigration
judge.  Moreover, obtaining a visa to return to the United States
from Mexico after a voluntary departure can be slow and difficult,
if not entirely impossible," the complaint states.

It can take up to 10 years to return to the U.S. on a legally
obtained visa, the ACLU says.  It claims that ICE and DHS pressure
people into accepting voluntary departure without conferring with
an attorney, and are expelled "as rapidly as logistically possible
-- in many instances, on the same day."

"This practice violates the agencies' governing regulations, which
require that immigration officers exercise discretion to determine
whether to allow an individual who has taken voluntary departure a
period of up to 120 days to leave the United States," the
complaint states.  "Thus, individuals who have been in the United
States for decades are unlawfully ripped from their families and
established lives for up to ten years without having time to
consider their other legal options, put their affairs in order, or
even say goodbye to family members."

The process deprives people who may qualify for immigration
relief, such as political asylum, suspension of deportation for
longtime residents, and other legal protections.

Lopez-Venegas claims that her coerced voluntary departure in 2011
forced her 11-year-old son, a U.S. citizen with Asperger's
syndrome, to move to Mexico with her.

The 53-page complaint is replete with stories of other Mexican
nationals who were forced to leave behind their lives and
families.

"Plaintiff Samuel Nava is a native of Mexico who lived in the
United States for more than a decade before an unlawful voluntary
departure in March 2011.  Mr. Nava has a U.S. citizen wife who has
been effectively forced to move to Mexico as a result of the
government's unlawful conduct.  He remains in Mexico with his
wife," the complaint states.

"Plaintiff Alejandro Serrato is a native of Mexico who lived in
the United States for more than a decade before an unlawful
voluntary departure in October 2012.  Mr. Serrato has a U.S.
citizen wife and son who have been effectively forced to move to
Mexico as a result of the government's unlawful conduct.  He
remains in Mexico with his wife and son."

ACLU attorney Sean Riordan said in a statement: "It's
unconscionable that immigration agents perpetually fail to tell
individuals with the most to lose that there are direct and
certain consequences of taking voluntary departure.  One of the
most serious of those consequences is a ten-year bar prohibiting
return to the United States.  No one should have to make such a
critical decision without knowing all the repercussions."

Illegal re-entry has become the most common criminal charge filed
by federal prosecutors under the Obama administration, according
to Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access
Clearinghouse.

"It accounted for just under a quarter (23 percent) of overall
criminal prosecutions, surpassing illegal entry (Title 8, Section
1325) as the most frequently cited federal lead charge," Syracuse
said in a 2011 report .

Co-counsel for the class is Anthony Stiegler, Esq. --
astiegler@cooley.com -- with Cooley LLP of San Diego.


UPPER CRUST: Class Action Attorney Hires Former Staff for New Shop
------------------------------------------------------------------
Taryn Luna, writing for the Boston Globe, reports that the lawyer
who represents more than 100 immigrant workers in a class-action
lawsuit against the bankrupt Upper-Crust pizzeria chain is opening
a new Harvard Square pizza shop at a former location of the
business she accused of exploiting employees.

Shannon Liss-Riordan, the attorney representing workers who say
Upper Crust's owners overworked and underpaid them, named her
restaurant The Just Crust.  It was expected to open on May 30.

The Upper Crust filed for bankruptcy protection in October.  It
closed most of its shops the following month.

Ms. Liss-Riordan purchased the lease of the Brattle Street pizza
shop at auction in December with the aim of hiring back immigrant
workers who were allegedly exploited by the chain.  She said more
than half of her employees are former Upper Crust workers, led by
whistleblower and now operations manager Patrick Joyce.

The US Department of Labor investigated Upper Crust in 2009 and
ordered the owners to pay overtime wages workers were owed.

Ms. Liss-Riordan's clients allege the owners later recouped that
money by deducting it from their paychecks.

But the attorney's plan has not quite come full circle yet because
many of the immigrants are undocumented.  Immigration issues have
barred her from hiring back any of the five plaintiffs in the
class action, which is scheduled to go to trial in August.

"The spirit of it is there, and I'm extremely excited that most of
our staff are [former] Upper Crust workers," Ms. Liss-Riordan
said.  "I'm hoping when and if immigration reform goes through we
can hire back the immigrant employees involved in the case."

She also intends to share a portion of the pizza shop's profits
with employees.

After the first six months of operation, The Just Crust will allot
25% of profits to full-time, part-time, and management employees
on a monthly or quarterly basis, she said.

Ms. Liss-Riordan said she will share the remaining 75% of the
profits with her husband, Kevin Riordan, and Joyce.

A Just Crust grand opening celebration will take place in June.


UTAH: Jail Guards Face Suit Over Abuse of Disabled Inmates
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reports that prison guards
shut the doors and windows and pumped tear gas into a building
housing disabled inmates and called them "sissies" as they
screamed for help and "thought they were going to die," prisoners
say in a class action.

Lead plaintiff Timothy Redmond sued three officials at the Utah
State Prison in Draper: Warden Alfred Bigelow, Capt. Robert Powell
and Sgt. Anderson.

In their federal complaint, Redmond and four other named
plaintiffs claim guards ignored inmates' screams during the
gassing, which lasted for about 30 minutes during a summer
afternoon, and that many prisoners "thought they were going to
die."

"The prisoners in the Olympus wing of the Utah State Prison in
Draper, Utah, all suffer from physical and mental health
conditions," the complaint states.  "On Aug. 3, 2011, prisoners
housed in this wing were locked in their fully enclosed cells (no
windows/no bars/no openings) while their cells were pumped with
air contaminated with CS gas (commonly known as tear gas).
Immediately upon being exposed to the gas, prisoners felt burning
in their eyes, lungs, and skin. The prisoners began desperately
trying to get the attention of prison officials by, among other
things, kicking, screaming, and repeatedly pressing their
emergency response buttons.  However, no response was made to
prisoners' emergency calls.  Many of the prisoners thought they
were going to die.   Adding to the prisoners' distress, prison
officials came into the Olympus wing wearing gas masks and at
least one official laughed at the prisoners' inability to breathe.

"After twenty to thirty minutes of being 'gassed,' some of the
prisoners were released from their cells and taken to an outside
courtyard.  On information and belief, other prisoners were left
in their cells to sit amidst the lingering gas.  Some of those
prisoners allowed access to clean air were called 'sissies' for
complaining.  Defendants assured prison administrators that those
affected would have access to medical treatment, but prisoners
were told that they should only seek medical attention if it was
an emergency and that prisoners would be responsible for paying
for any medical care received.  Additionally, prison officials
threatened inmates with future 'gassings' and told them that 'this
is what you get for misbehaving.'"

There are at least 150 inmates in the Olympus wing, according to
the complaint.

It adds: "(P)rison policy does not prohibit the use of tear gas
canisters in the circumstances described herein, that is, to
respond to misconduct by a single prisoner.  Moreover, on
information and belief, it is also currently the policy of the
prison to use chemical agents on a smaller scale against
individual prisoners.  Moreover, plaintiffs are unaware of any
policy that requires prison officials in the Olympus wing to
adequately respond to prisoners in distress when chemical agents
are used in the prison, whether it is the targeted individual or
prisoners who are not specifically targeted but exposed to the
agents nonetheless."

Redmond is no longer an inmate at the prison.  The co-plaintiffs
are still behind bars, the complaint states.

The complaint lists the named plaintiffs' medical conditions,
among which are schizophrenia, depression with attempted suicide,
and obsessive-compulsive disorder with psychosis; one prisoner is
on dialysis.

They seek damages for constitutional violations, a protective
injunction, corrective policies, and costs.

They are represented by John Mejia with the ACLU and Karra Porter,
Esq. -- karra.porter@chrisjen.com -- with Christensen and Jensen.


VISA INC: Sued Retailers and Restaurants
----------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Visa and MasterCard sued
nationwide grocers, convenience stores, restaurants and pharmacies
as the opt-out period for two class actions expired, insisting it
did not violate antitrust laws, and if it did, it settled.

Dozens of major retailers sued Visa and MasterCard in May 2013 in
Manhattan Federal Court, claiming the two dominant credit card
companies colluded to impose virtually identical rules on banks,
stifling competition and forcing merchants to pay millions of
dollars in exorbitant "swipe" fees.

On May 24, 2013, Visa, MasterCard and six major banks sued the
National Association of Convenience Stores et al., seeking "a
declaration that from January 1, 2004 to November 27, 2012 (the
'Damages Period'), the time period for which the defendants may,
as opt-outs, seek damages under the Interchange Settlement, Visa's
and MasterCard's conduct in, among other things, continuing to set
their respective 'default interchange' rates, maintaining their
respective 'honor all cards' rules, enforcing their respective
rules relating to merchants ('Merchant Rules'), and restructuring
themselves did not violate federal antitrust law or the antitrust
laws of the several States or the District of Columbia."

The opt-out deadline was May 28, according to Visa and
MasterCard's complaint.  The complaint states: "Plaintiffs bring
this action for declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec.
2201 to resolve disputes that have embroiled certain of the
parties, and this Court, in antitrust litigation for almost twenty
years and that have outlasted two settlements.  On November 27,
2012, this Court preliminarily approved the second of these
settlements (the 'Interchange Settlement') in In re Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, 05-md-
1720 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2012) (Gleeson, J.) (Orenstein, M.J.) (the
'Interchange Fee Litigation') and provisionally certified two
nationwide settlement classes under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure ('FRCP') 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3).  As of the filing of
this complaint, defendants, each of which was a named plaintiff in
the Interchange Litigation and participated in the negotiations
that led to the Interchange Settlement, have opted out or have
made clear their intention to opt out of the 23(b)(3) Settlement
Class before the applicable deadline of May 28, 2013.  To
expeditiously and finally resolve their disputes with the
Defendants, who are among the most vocal opponents of the
Interchange Settlement, Plaintiffs here seek" the declaration
cited above.

As the merchants claimed that Visa and MasterCard stifled
competition by imposing virtually identical rules on banks that
use their endorsements, the merchants may or may not find amusing
a footnote to the Visa/MasterCard complaint, which states: "In
this Complaint, Visa does not make any allegations as to
MasterCard-related conduct and MasterCard does not make any
allegations as to Visa-related conduct in support of their
respective claims for declaratory judgment."

Visa and MasterCard's complaint continues: "A declaration in
Plaintiffs' favor against the Defendants is necessary to prevent
the continuation of endless, wasteful litigation between
Defendants and Plaintiffs.  In fact, the Interchange Settlement is
not the first settlement between Visa and MasterCard and the
merchant community. In 2003, Plaintiffs Visa and MasterCard
settled the In re Visa Check/MasterMoney

Antitrust Litigation (the 'Visa Check Litigation' or 'Visa Check),
in exchange for payment of a substantial sum of money.  Despite
that settlement, the Interchange Fee Litigation was initiated,
thereby subjecting Visa and MasterCard and the Bank Plaintiffs to
yet a further class action challenging essentially the same
conduct.

"In both the Visa Check Litigation and the Interchange Fee
Litigation, merchants who accept Visa- and MasterCard-branded
credit and/or debit cards commenced putative plaintiff class
actions against Visa, MasterCard, and, with respect to the
Interchange Fee Litigation, against their respective customer
banks, alleging a purported conspiracy to fix interchange rates
and to perpetuate Visa's and MasterCard's respective rules that
are purportedly anti-competitive.  When, in 2006, MasterCard
became a public company through an initial public offering (the
'MasterCard IPO'), merchants in the putative plaintiff class for
the Interchange Fee Litigation brought additional claims alleging
that the MasterCard IPO itself violated various antitrust laws.
Merchants in the putative plaintiff class in the Interchange Fee
Litigation brought similar claims against Visa following its 2008
initial public offering in which Visa became Visa Inc. (the 'Visa
IPO').

"The claims against Visa, MasterCard, and the Bank Plaintiffs in
both of these litigations have included claims that they (and
Visa's and MasterCard's other bank customers) have entered into
agreements to establish default interchange rates at artificially
high levels, that Visa's and MasterCard's respective Merchant
Rules constitute unlawful restraints, and therefore that the
merchant discount fees that merchants pay to acquiring banks have
been artificially inflated to supra-competitive levels.  The
merchant and merchant trade association plaintiffs in the
Interchange Fee Litigation alleged that Visa's and MasterCard's
respective IPOs each perpetuated the same anti-competitive
practices that purportedly preceded them.  The Defendants herein,
in making clear their intention to bring opt-out actions against
Plaintiffs, intend to assert, and have in their objections to the
Interchange Settlement and elsewhere suggested they will assert,
essentially the same claims with respect to the Damages Period.

"Plaintiffs have maintained, and continue to maintain, that
Defendants' claims lack merit for several reasons.

   -- "(i) Visa's and MasterCard's respective default interchange
      rules and the manner in which each of them established
      default interchange for their respective networks during the
      Damages Period did not violate the Sherman Act, any other
      federal antitrust law, or the antitrust laws of the several
      States or the District of Columbia;

   -- "(ii) Visa Merchant Rules and MasterCard Merchant Rules,
      each standing alone or viewed together with each network's
      other such rules and/or default interchange rules, did not
      violate the Sherman Act, any other federal antitrust law, or
      the antitrust laws of the several States or the District of
      Columbia during the Damages Period;

   -- "(iii) The MasterCard IPO did not violate the federal
      antitrust law or the antitrust laws of the several States or
      the District of Columbia;

   -- "(iv) The Visa IPO did not violate the federal antitrust law
      or the antitrust laws of the several States or the District
      of Columbia.

   -- "(v) Merchants are indirect purchasers who cannot recover
      antitrust damages under Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431
      U.S. 720 (1977);

   -- (vi) There was no concerted action among the Bank
      Plaintiffs, Visa, MasterCard, and other of Visa's and
      MasterCard's customer banks regarding Visa Merchant Rules,
      MasterCard Merchant Rules, and/or the Visa and MasterCard
      respective interchange rules or rates during the Damages
      Period that could support a claim under the Sherman Act,
      either before or after the respective MasterCard IPO in May
      2006 and Visa IPO in March 2008; and

   -- "(vii) The Visa Check release bars Defendants' claims with
      respect to the Damages Period."

Visa and MasterCard's lead counsel is Michael Shuster with Holwell
Shuster & Goldberg. Co-counsel includes members of Arnold &
Porter; Willkie Farr & Gallagher; Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton &
Garrison; Morrison & Foerster; O'Melveny & Myers; Skadden Arps
Slate Meagher & Flom; Sidley Austin, and others.

Here are the parties to the complaint:

Visa U.S.A. Inc.; Visa Inc.; Visa International Service
Association; Mastercard Inc.; Mastercard International Inc.; JP
Morgan Chase & Co.; Chase Bank USA N.A.; Chase Paymentech
Solutions LLC; JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.; Bank of America N.A.;
Bank of America Corp.; FIA Card Services N.A.; Citibank N.A.;
Citigroup Inc.; Fifth Third Bancorp.; Capital One Bank (USA) N.A.;
First National Bank of Omaha; Suntrust Banks Inc.; Suntrust Bank;
Texas Independent Bancshares Inc.; Wells Fargo & Company; and
Wells Fargo Bank N.A.

v. National Association of Convenience Stores; Nasto Inc.;
National Cooperative Grocers Association; National Community
Pharmacists Association; National Grocers Association; National
Restaurant Association; Affiliated Foods Midwest Cooperative;
Coborn's Inc.; D'Agostino Supermarkets Inc.; Jetro Holdings Inc.;
and Jetro Cash & Carry Enterprises LLC.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Doryx Purchasers Lose Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law360, reports that an antitrust
lawsuit accusing Warner Chilcott PLC of attempting to stymie a
generic version of the acne medication Doryx "falls woefully
short" of the requirements for class action certification, the
company told a Pennsylvania federal court on May 29.

Warner Chilcott filed separate opposition filings railing against
class certification bids from direct and indirect purchasers
alleging the company made minor tweaks to Doryx, an antibiotic
used to treat severe acne, in an effort to unfairly keep lower-
priced generics off the market.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Faces Antitrust Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Warner Chilcott paid off
Watson Pharmaceuticals et al. to keep generic Loestrin oral
contraceptives off the market, a drug co-op claims in a federal
antitrust class action.


WEBSENSE: Being Sold to Vista Equity for Too Little, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Websense are
selling it too cheaply through an unfair process to Vista Equity
Partners, for $24.75 a share or $906 million, shareholders claim
in Superior Court.


WEST VIRGINIA: Appeals Court Faces Suit Over "Court-Ordered Rape"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that West Virginia
unconstitutionally requires sexual assault victims to submit to
body cavity exams at the behest of their assailants -- "court-
ordered rape" -- a woman claims in a federal class action.

Quincy Gray McMichael Lewis sued the West Virginia Supreme Court
of Appeals, asking that the state be enjoined from enforcing the
law.

"In 2009, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals issued a
decision authorizing state criminal courts to order private third-
party victims in criminal sexual violence matters to submit to
non-consensual penetrating pelvic examinations, at the behest of
the accused, to enable the accused to conduct 'discovery' of the
condition of the victim's internal genitalia.  State ex rel. J.W.
v. Knight, 679 S.E.2d 617 (W.Va. 2009) (hereafter 'J.W .')," the
complaint states.  "This ruling is broadly applicable to adult and
child victims and presumably also authorizes forced examinations
of male victims' anal cavities."

McMichael Lewis claims the law violates her constitutional rights
and those of other potential victims of sexual violence by
subjecting them to "court-ordered rape."

She claims the law disproportionately affects women and makes
victims less likely to report sex crimes to police.

"Subjecting a victim of penetrating sexual violence to a court-
ordered re-enactment of the crime shocks the conscience," the
complaint states.  "Even if such an order were not enforced by
means of forced submission, the issuance of such an order under
threat of sanction for noncompliance shocks the conscience.

"A state court judge in a criminal matter lacks authority to order
a private third-party victim of penetrating sexual violence to
submit to a genital examination, at the behest of the accused, for
the purpose of conducting 'discovery' of the interior of the
victim's genitalia.

"Private persons who participate in the criminal justice system as
victims of penetrating sexual violence do not stand in privity
with the state and lack formal party standing to be heard and/or
to seek redress for injuries sustained in connection with criminal
justice proceedings.  The prosecutor cannot ethically advance a
victim's personal or constitutional legal interests.

"The accused in a criminal matter has no constitutional or other
right to seek court-ordered 'discovery' of the interior of his
victim's genitalia.

"Internal injuries are rarely present in the genitalia of victims
of penetrating sexual crimes.  A leading study of pregnant
adolescents found that almost all study subjects had intact hymens
despite sexual penetration.

"If J.W. is not enjoined from enforcement, victims of penetrating
sexual crimes in West Virginia will be forced to submit to
forcible sexual penetration by court order, or forced to choose
between submission and sanctions for non-compliance, such as
contempt of court, suppression of evidence, dismissal of charges
and/or a jury instruction undermining the victim's credibility for
noncompliance.

"If J.W. is not enjoined from enforcement, victims of penetrating
sexual crimes in West Virginia will be deterred from reporting
rape and participating in the criminal justice system.  In a
recent survey of 20 female West Virginia residents, nearly 90
percent said the risk of being ordered to submit to a forced
vaginal exam at the behest of the accused would affect their
willingness to report rape and participate in the criminal justice
system.  When asked to rate their reluctance on a scale of 1 to
10, with 10 being the highest, the average response was 7.8, with
a median response of 9.  After J.W. was decided, the National
District Attorneys' Association (NDAA) issued a statement in
connection with federal litigation filed by the victim in J.W. in
an attempt to prevent enforcement of that state court ruling
against her and similarly situated others.  The NDAA expressed
grave concern that the ruling set a dangerous precedent that would
significantly undermine their efforts to prosecute and prevent
sexual violence.

"Because the vast majority of victims of sex crimes are female,
failure to enjoin enforcement of J .W. will disproportionately
harm females by inhibiting effective legal response." (Citations
omitted).

McMichael Lewis seeks class certification, an injunction, and
wants the law declared unconstitutional.

She is represented by Wendy Murphy with New England Law, of
Boston, and Brandon Johnson with Stroebel & Johnson, of Lewisburg,
W. Va.


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Discovery Starts in "Barlow" & "Reyes" Cases
------------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery commenced in the suits "Barlow, et al. v. Zions First
National Bank and Zions Bancorporation" and "Reyes v. Zions First
National Bank, et al.," according to Zions' May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Current putative class actions and similar claims against Zions
include:

(1) two complaints relating to allegedly wrongful acts in the
company's processing of overdraft fees on debit card transactions
in which the plaintiffs seek monetary awards on the basis of
various common law claims;

(2) Barlow, et al. v. Zions First National Bank and Zions
Bancorporation, pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Utah; and

(3) Sadlier, et al. v. National Bank of Arizona, pending in the
Superior Court for the State of Arizona, County of Maricopa;

(4) a complaint relating to the company's banking relationships
with customers that allegedly engaged in wrongful telemarketing
practices in which the plaintiff seeks a trebled monetary award
under the federal RICO Act, Reyes v. Zions First National Bank, et
al., pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania; and

(5) a complaint arising from the company's banking relationships
with Frederick Berg and a number of investment funds controlled by
him using the "Meridian" brand name, in which the liquidating
trustee for the funds seeks an award from us, on the basis of
aiding and abetting liability, for monetary damages suffered by
victims of a fraud allegedly perpetrated by Berg, In re
Consolidated Meridian Funds a/k/a Meridian Investors Trust, Mark
Calvert as Liquidating Trustee, et al. vs. Zions Bancorporation
and The Commerce Bank of Washington, N.A., pending in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Washington.

Discovery has commenced in the Barlow and Reyes cases, but not in
the Sadlier or Meridian Funds cases. Motions for and against class
certification have been made in the Reyes case.


* E-Book Suit Presents Model for Public-Private Partnership
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Longstreth, writing for Reuters, reports that when private
and government lawyers target the same defendants, tensions can
rise over control of the case and any potential spoils.  But the
e-books price-fixing litigation has presented a model for a
public-private partnership, says Jeff Friedman of the class action
firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.

For over a year, a class of consumers, state attorneys general and
the U.S. Justice Department have been litigating against five
major publishers and Apple Inc., accusing them of colluding on
prices as part of an effort to fight online retailer Amazon.com
Inc.'s dominance of the e-book market.

Attorneys general from 33 states and a class of consumers from
other states, represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll and
Hagens Berman, reached a $75 million settlement with British
publisher Pearson's Penguin unit.

The settlement followed a similar agreement reached in April with
Macmillan, which agreed to pay $26 million in a deal with the 33
states and the consumer class.

The 33 states who signed on to the Penguin and Macmillan
settlements represent consumers who have carried out 60 percent of
all e-book transactions, while the private attorneys represent
consumers responsible for about 40 percent of all e-book
transactions.

"This was really a very unique and unprecedented level of
coordination between the Department of Justice, the 33 states, and
the class," Mr. Friedman said.

Both the Penguin and the Macmillan settlements must be approved by
U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in Manhattan.  If she approves the
settlements, lawyers for the states and counsel for the class at
Cohen Milstein and Hagens Berman will be able to seek approval for
their attorneys' fees, which would be paid by the defendants on
top of the settlement sums.  The attorneys general and the
consumer class have been ordered to file motions for preliminary
approval of the settlements by June 21.

                       All Except Minnesota

For months, lawyers from Hagens Berman and Cohen Milstein have
been working alongside attorneys from the states and the Justice
Department.  Decisions ranging from what documents to review to
which witnesses to depose had to be coordinated.

"It was very complicated to coordinate and yet we did it,"
Friedman said.

The goodwill among the public and private lawyers did not come
easy.  In August 2011, Hagens Berman filed the first class action,
seeking to represent a nationwide class of e-book purchasers.  But
roughly six months later, 33 attorneys general filed a similar
case and reached settlements with three of the publisher
defendants.

Sixteen other states joined the settlements reached by the 33
attorneys general.  Of the 50 states, only Minnesota failed to
join.  At that point, the role of Hagens Berman in the litigation
was thrown into doubt.

"That clearly was a tension point amongst the state AGs and the
class," Mr. Friedman said.

But the case continued against Penguin, Macmillan and Apple.  And
the 16 states that signed on to settlements reached by the 33
attorneys general with the first three defendants did not file
lawsuits against the remaining three defendants.  That left an
opportunity for Hagens Berman and Cohen Milstein to represent
consumers in those states and to litigate alongside the 33
attorneys general.

"What evolved was very good level-headed discussions about how to
most powerfully balance and effectively balance public and private
enforcement," Mr. Friedman said.


                             *********

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  * * *