CAR_Public/130620.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, June 20, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 121

                             Headlines


1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Consolidate New Suit
AMERICAN REALTY: Inks MOU to Settle ARCT III Stockholders Claim
AMGEN INC: 9th Cir. Reinstates Consolidated ERISA Class Action
ARC DOCUMENT: Mediation Fails in Suit Over Labor Code Violation
ATLANTIC POWER: Discovery in Federal Securities Lawsuits Stayed

BANK OF THE OZARKS: Still Defends Suits Over Overdraft Fees
BARCLAYS PLC: Ct. Denies Reconsideration Bid in "Gusinsky" Suit
BEAR STEARNS: Judge Dismisses Big Chunk of MBS Class Action
BIOSANTE PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Awaits Ruling in "Lauria" Suit
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Court Narrows Damage Claims in Antitrust Suit

BLACKSTONE GROUP: "Landmen Partners" Suit in Expert Discovery
BMW AG: Recalls F700GS and F800GS Models of Motorcycles
CANADIAN RED CROSS: Judge May Sit Elsewhere to Hear Settlement
CHICAGO, IL: Police Applicants Sue Over Hiring Discrimination
CHINA AUTOMOTIVE: Investors' Suit Won't Proceed as Class Action

CME GROUP: MF Global Customers Sue Over Alleged CEA Violation
COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Labor Suits in Calif., Texas Courts
DIRECTV: Arbitration Okayed in Suit Over Early Cancellation Fees
ENCORE CAPITAL: "Brent" Suit Remanded Back to Ohio Dist. Court
EXELON CORP: Awaits Okay of Constellation Securities Suit Deal

EXELON CORP: Bid to Dismiss Zion Station Suit Remains Pending
GENTIVA HEALTH: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Dismissed in March
GENTIVA HEALTH: Received Final OK of "Wilkie" Suit Settlement
GENTIVA HEALTH: Summary Judgment Bids in "Rindfleisch" Suit Remain
GOLD RESOURCE: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Colorado

GREAT LAKES: Faces Securities Lawsuit in Illinois Court
HAMMACHER SCHLEMMER: Recalls 92 Teak Shower Stools Over Fall Risk
HANSEN MEDICAL: To Pay $8.5 Million to Settle Securities Suit
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Customer Sues Over ASB Overdraft Fees
HECKMAN CORPORATION: No Certification Hearing Yet in Stock Suit

INTERCONTINENTALEXCHANGE INC: Sued Over NYSE Euronext Merger
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Court Mulls Certification of VLT Gaming Suit
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Nev.
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Settlement of ERISA Suit in Final Stages
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces Shareholder Class Action

KEENAN & ASSOCIATES: Judge Denies Motion for Summary Judgment
KUM & GO: Faces Class Action Over ADA Violations
MAKO SURGICAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Junk Securities Suit
MATTLEMAN WEINROTH: Gets Partial Dismissal of "Wilson" Class Suit
MEDIVATION INC: Still Awaits Oral Argument Date in Securities Suit

MONSANTO CO: Idaho Farmers File Class Action Over GMO Wheat
NAM TAI: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action Over LCM Losses
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Class Action Hearing Scheduled for This Month
NCL CORPORATION: Sued Over Alleged Violation of Seaman's Wage Act
NORWEGIAN CRUISE: NCL Bahamas Sued for Alleged Wage Act Violation

NOVATEL WIRELESS: Conference in Securities Suit Set for Oct. 3
OCEAN VIEW: June 28 Hearing in Property Scam Suit
OFFICEMAX INC: Suits Over Office Depot Merger Consolidated
PACIFIC PREMIER: Continues to Defend "Baker" Class Suit in Mo.
PEOPLES BANCORP: Bank Unit Faces Class Suit in North Carolina

PERNIX THERAPEUTICS: Still Awaits Filing of Deal in Merger Suits
PHELAN HALLINAN: Court Tosses Class Action Over Foreclosures
PILOT FLYING J: Nebraska Trucker Files Fuel Rebate Class Action
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: High Court to Review of Injunction in "Meyer"
POWELL COMPANY: Recalls Anywhere Lounger Bean Bag Chairs

POWER-ONE: Faces Merger-Related Suits in Delaware and California
RAINFOREST CAFE: Fair Work Law Firm Files Wage Class Action
RBS CITIZENS: Enters Into Tentative OT Class Action Settlement
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Awaits Final OK of Suit by Fund Investors
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Stock Suit Stayed Pending Certification Review

REGIONS FINANCIAL: Still Faces Suit Over Morgan Keegan Bond Sales
ROSETTA STONE: Earmarks $600,000 for Labor Suit Settlement
ROYAL CANADIAN: Court Hears Arguments in Harassment Class Action
SAM'S WEST: Recalls 6,200 Sam's Club Outdoor Seating Groups
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Okla.

SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Plaintiff in TPG-Related Suit Raises New Claim
SEARS HOLDINGS: Appeals Court Ordered to Revisit Washer Suit
SHALIMAR KULFI: Recalls Authentic East Indian Style Ice Cream
SPICE AVENUE: Bid to Partially Dismiss "Martinez" Suit Okayed
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action

STANDARD FIRE: Attorneys Want Class Action Back in Texarkana
STATE UNIV OF NY: Equal Pay Act Claim in "Suzuki" Suit Dismissed
SUNSPROUT NATURAL: Recalls Sunsprout/SproutsAlive Alfalfa Sprouts
T-MOBILE US: Shareholders Sue Over Plan to Combine With MetroPCS
TIM HORTONS: Restaurant Owners to Appeal Dismissal of Claims

TOMPKINS FINANCIAL: Settles Merger-Related Suits for $250,000
TOWNSEND FARMS: Faces Class Action Over Hepa A-Linked Berry Mix
TOWNSEND FARMS: Marler Clark Retained in Hepatitis A Outbreak Suit
TRANSOCEAN LTD: Phase Two Trial in Macondo Well Suit in Sept.
TRANSOCEAN LTD: Lawsuits Over Macondo Well Joined With MDL

TRANSOCEAN LTD: Cross Claims Assigned to PSC Settlement Class
TRANSOCEAN LTD: NY Securities Suit Stayed Pending 2nd Cir Appeal
US NURSING: Littler Mendelson Discusses Class Action Settlement
VISA INC: $7.25-Bil. Swipe Fee Class Action Settlement Stalls
VISA INC: AGs Concerned About Pending Class Action Settlement

VITACOST.COM INC: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Stock Suit
WET SEAL: Settles Employment Class Action for $7.5 Million
WULIANGYE: 150+ People File Class Action

* Australian Data Breach Law May Spur Class Action Wave
* Courts Strike Down Unfair Arbitration Agreements


                             *********


1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Consolidate New Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on the
plaintiffs' motion to transfer and consolidate a new action to
their consolidated lawsuit pending in Connecticut, according to
the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

On November 10, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York naming the Company (along with Trilegiant Corporation,
Inc., Affinion, Inc. and Chase Bank USA, N.A.) as defendants in an
action purporting to assert claims against the Company alleging
violations arising under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act among other statutes, and for breach of contract and unjust
enrichment in connection with certain post-transaction marketing
practices in which certain of the Company's subsidiaries
previously engaged in with certain third-party vendors.  On
December 23, 2011, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal seeking to dismiss the entire action without prejudice.
The court entered an Order on November 28, 2012, dismissing the
case in its entirety.  This case was subsequently refiled in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

On March 6, 2012, and March 15, 2012, two additional purported
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut naming the Company and
numerous other parties as defendants in actions purporting to
assert claims substantially similar to those asserted in the
lawsuit filed on November 10, 2010.  In each case, plaintiffs seek
to have the respective case certified as a class action and seek
restitution and other damages, each in an amount in excess of $5.0
million.  On April 26, 2012, the two Connecticut cases were
consolidated with a third case previously pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut in which the
Company is not a party.  A consolidated amended complaint was
filed by the plaintiffs on September 7, 2012, purporting to assert
claims substantially similar to those originally asserted.  The
Company moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on
December 7, 2012.

On December 5, 2012, the same plaintiff from the action
voluntarily dismissed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut naming the Company and numerous other parties as
defendants, purporting to assert claims substantially similar to
those asserted in the consolidated amended complaint.  On
January 23, 2013, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed
a motion to transfer and consolidate the action filed on
December 5, 2012, with the consolidated action.  The Company
intends to defend each of these actions vigorously.

There are no assurances that additional legal actions will not be
instituted in connection with the Company's former post-
transaction marketing practices involving third party vendors nor
can the Company predict the outcome of any such legal action.  At
this time, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss or
range of possible loss for the actions for various reasons,
including, among others: (i) the damages sought are indeterminate,
(ii) the proceedings are in the very early stages and the court
has not yet ruled as to whether the classes will be certified, and
(iii) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending motions.
As a result, the Company has determined that the amount of
possible loss or range of loss is not reasonably estimable.
However, legal matters are inherently unpredictable and subject to
significant uncertainties, some of which may be beyond the
Company's control.

Headquartered in Carle Place, New York, 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc.,
is a florist and gift shop.  For more than 30 years, 1-800-
FLOWERS(R) (1-800-356-9377 or http://www.1800flowers.com/)has
been helping deliver smiles for its customers with gifts for every
occasion, including fresh flowers and the finest selection of
plants, gift baskets, gourmet foods, confections, candles,
balloons and plush stuffed animals.


AMERICAN REALTY: Inks MOU to Settle ARCT III Stockholders Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a suit filed against American Realty Capital
Properties, Inc. over its merger with American Realty Capital
Trust III, Inc. agreed to a memorandum of understanding regarding
the settlement of all claims asserted on behalf of the alleged
class of ARCT III stockholders, according to the audited
consolidated financial statements of ARCP and ARCT III as of
December 31, 2012 and 2011.

Since the announcement of the Merger Agreement on December 17,
2012, Randell Quaal filed a putative class action filed on January
19, 2013 against the Company, the ARC Properties Operating
Partnership, L.P. (OP), ARCT III, ARCT III OP, the members of the
board of directors of ARCT III and certain subsidiaries of the
Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the board of ARCT
III breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
transactions contemplated under the Merger Agreement. In February
2013, the parties agreed to a memorandum of understanding
regarding settlement of all claims asserted on behalf of the
alleged class of ARCT III stockholders.

In connection with the settlement contemplated by that memorandum
of understanding, the class action and all claims asserted therein
will be dismissed, subject to court approval. The proposed
settlement terms required ARCT III to make certain additional
disclosures related to the Merger, which were included in a
Current Report on Form 8-K filed by ARCT III with the SEC on
February 21, 2013.

The memorandum of understanding also added that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to
customary conditions, including confirmatory discovery and court
approval following notice to ARCT III's stockholders. If the
parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be
scheduled at which the court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement, that the court will approve any
proposed settlement, or that any eventual settlement will be under
the same terms as those contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding, therefore any losses that may be incurred to settle
this matter are not determinable.


AMGEN INC: 9th Cir. Reinstates Consolidated ERISA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that a
federal appeals panel has reinstated a consolidated class action
filed against Amgen Inc. on behalf of employees whose retirement
plans lost value following the disclosure that the company
promoted two anemia drugs for off-label uses.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on Tuesday
that Amgen did enjoy a "presumption of prudence" in continuing to
recommend the company's stock to employees despite knowing about
the impending revelation.  The court disagreed with the Amgen
defendants that they were entitled to the presumption under its
own 2010 precedent in Quan v. Computer Sciences Corp.

"We conclude that the presumption of prudence does not apply, and
that, in the absence of the presumption, plaintiffs have
sufficiently alleged violation of the defendants' fiduciary
duties," Judge William Fletcher wrote.

"In Amgen, the Ninth Circuit said that if a plan does not require
or strongly encourage employer stock, we will not apply the
presumption of prudence," said lead plaintiffs' attorney Mark
Rifkin -- rifkin@whafh.com -- a partner at New York's Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz.  "Just because they authorize
the fiduciaries to offer the company stock fund as an investment
option, that doesn't require them to do so nor encourage them to
do so."

Robert Davis, a partner at Mayer Brown -- rdavis@mayerbrown.com --
in New York who represents the Amgen defendants, referred
questions to company spokeswoman Christine Regan, who issued a
statement via email: "Amgen is currently in the process of
reviewing this decision.  We plan to vigorously defend against
these allegations."

The class action followed revelations about the safety of two
drugs used to treat anemia, Aranesp and Epogen.  Aranesp made up
about half of Amgen's $14.3 billion revenue in 2006, according to
the Ninth Circuit's opinion.

But in the years leading up to that, several clinical trials and
the FDA had raised concerns about the safety of the drugs. Amgen's
executives, including chief executive officer Kevin Sharer, a
defendant in the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act
action, assured the public that the drugs were safe.  According to
the opinion, Amgen also marketed Aranesp for off-label uses, or to
treat conditions for which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
had not approved their use, such as in HIV patients.

In 2007, the FDA mandated a "black box" warning against off-label
use of both drugs, citing studies that found that when given in
amounts above the recommended doses, they increased the risks of
death, blood clots, strokes and heart attacks in patients with
kidney failure and resulted in rapid tumor growth in head and neck
cancer patients, the opinion says.  Even at recommended doses, the
warning concluded, the drugs could cause death in cancer patients
not undergoing chemotherapy and blood clots in patients following
orthopedic surgery.

Following a congressional investigation into Amgen's off-label
marketing practices, an FDA advisory committee voted to expand the
warnings and conduct more studies. I n one year, sales of Aranesp
declined by half, according to the opinion. Amgen's stock
plummeted 33 percent in the 1 1/2 years leading up to the FDA's
expanded warnings.

On December 19, Amgen agreed to pay $612 million to resolve
criminal and civil claims over the marketing of Aranesp and five
other drugs for off-label uses.  The payment was the single
largest criminal and civil False Claims Act settlement involving a
biotechnology firm in U.S. history, according to the U.S. Justice
Department.  The deal includes $150 million to resolve criminal
liability; Amgen pleaded guilty in federal court in the Eastern
District of New York to a single misdemeanor count of off-label
marketing of the drug.

In 2007, an employee of Amgen and an employee of its Puerto Rican
subsidiary, Amgen Manufacturing Ltd., filed the class action,
alleging ERISA violations.  They named Amgen and its subsidiary,
as well as members of the board of directors and the fiduciary
committees of its retirement plans. In 2009, the Ninth Circuit
reversed a decision by U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez
dismissing the plaintiffs for lacking standing.

In the consolidated class action, which added three more
employees, the plaintiffs alleged six counts of violations of
fiduciary duty against the Amgen defendants.

In 2010, Judge Gutierrez dismissed Amgen from the suit, concluding
the company was not a plan fiduciary.  He dismissed the case
against the other defendants, concluding that the plaintiffs had
not overcome the "presumption of prudence."  In Quan, which was
decided later that year, the Ninth Circuit adopted the presumption
"when plan terms require or encourage the fiduciary to invest
primarily in employer stock."

Quan is the most recent and leading Ninth Circuit decision to
apply the presumption of prudence, a standard being addressed by
circuit courts across the nation, Mr. Rifkin said.

"There is a tension between the duty to follow the plan documents
scrupulously on the one hand and the general duty to be prudent on
the other," he said.  "To balance those duties, the courts over
the last several years have developed the presumption of prudence
when a company strongly encourages company stock."

In the Amgen case, the panel found that the plan terms did not
articulate such a requirement or encourage employees to invest in
its common stock.  Judge Fletcher wrote that "an explicit
statement that plan fiduciaries may offer a Company Stock Fund as
an investment to participants does not tell us that they were
encouraged to do so within the meaning of the presumption of
prudence," citing the Second Circuit's February 27 ruling in
Taveras v. UBS A.G.

The panel concluded that language in the plan -- limiting Amgen's
common stock to 50 percent of a participant's total holdings, for
example -- does more to discourage such investments.

"We conclude that defendants were neither required nor encouraged
by the terms of the Plans to invest in Amgen stock, and that they
are not entitled to a presumption of prudence," Judge Fletcher
wrote.

The panel also concluded that the class action had sufficiently
alleged that the defendants, as fiduciaries, had material
misrepresentations and omissions that inflated the company's stock
and later precipitated its downfall. They failed to remove the
company's stock from the plan's investment options once they knew
of the problems associated with Aranesp, the court said.

The panel reversed Judge Gutierrez's finding that Amgen was not a
fiduciary, concluding that under the plan's terms the fiduciary
committee acted on its behalf.

The duties of the plan fiduciaries are no fewer to employees than
to the general public, the panel concluded, citing a related
securities action.  In that case, Judge Gutierrez has certified
the class action and the Ninth Circuit affirmed in 2011.  The U.S.
Supreme Court affirmed that decision on February 27.


ARC DOCUMENT: Mediation Fails in Suit Over Labor Code Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arc Document Solutions, Inc. participated in a private mediation
session which did not result in resolution of the claim filed by a
former employee of who work or worked for American Reprographics
Company, L.L.C. and American Reprographics Company,
according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On October 21, 2010, a former employee, individually and on behalf
of a purported class consisting of all non-exempt employees who
work or worked for American Reprographics Company, L.L.C. and
American Reprographics Company in the State of California at any
time from October 21, 2006 through the present, filed an action
against the Company in the Superior Court of California for the
County of Orange.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company
violated the California Labor Code by failing to (i) provide meal
and rest periods, or compensation in lieu thereof, (ii) timely pay
wages due at termination, and (iii) that those practices also
violate the California Business and Professions Code.

The relief sought includes damages, restitution, penalties,
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees and such other relief as the
court deems proper. On March 15, 2013, the Company participated in
a private mediation session with claimants' counsel which did not
result in resolution of the claim.

Although the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to
the claim, the Company also believes that a loss is probable and
recorded a liability of $0.5 million as of March 31, 2013. The
case remains unresolved as of March 31, 2013. As such, the
ultimate resolution of the claim could result in a loss different
than the estimated loss recorded.


ATLANTIC POWER: Discovery in Federal Securities Lawsuits Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
All discovery is stayed in five District Court securities actions
filed against Atlantic Power Corp., according to the company's May
8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On March 8, 14, 15 and 25, 2013 and April 23, 2013, five purported
securities fraud class action complaints were filed by alleged
investors in Atlantic Power common shares in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "District
Court") against Atlantic Power and Barry E. Welch, President and
Chief Executive Officer and a Director of Atlantic Power, in each
of the actions, and, in addition to Mr. Welch, some or all of
Patrick J. Welch, the company's former Chief Financial Officer,
Lisa Donahue, former interim Chief Financial Officer, and Terrence
Ronan, current Chief Financial Officer, in certain of the actions
(the "Individual Defendants," and together with Atlantic Power,
the "Defendants") (the "U.S. Actions").

On March 19, 2013 and April 2, 2013, two notices of action
relating to Canadian securities class action claims against the
Defendants were also issued by alleged investors in Atlantic Power
common shares, and in one of the actions, holders of Atlantic
Power convertible debentures, with the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice in the Province of Ontario and on April 8, 2013, a similar
claim issued by alleged investors in Atlantic Power common shares
seeking to initiate a class action against the Defendants was
filed with the Superior Court of Quebec in the Province of Quebec
(the "Canadian Actions").

On May 2, 2013, a statement of claim relating to the April 2, 2013
notice of action was filed with the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice in the Province of Ontario.

The District Court complaints differ in terms of the identities of
the Individual Defendants they name, the named plaintiffs, and the
purported class period they allege (July 23, 2010 to March 4, 2013
in three of the District Court actions and August 8, 2012 to
February 28, 2013 in the other two District Court actions), but in
general each alleges, among other things, that in Atlantic Power's
press releases, quarterly and year-end filings and conference
calls with analysts and investors, Atlantic Power and the
Individual Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements and omissions regarding the sustainability of Atlantic
Power's common share dividend that artificially inflated the price
of Atlantic Power's common shares.

The District Court complaints assert claims under Section 10(b)
and, against the Individual Defendants, under Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The allegations in
the Canadian Actions are essentially the same as those asserted in
the District Court actions.

The parties to each District Court action have filed joint motions
requesting that the District Court set a schedule in the District
Court actions, including: (i) setting a deadline for the lead
plaintiff to file a consolidated amended class action complaint
(the "Amended Complaint"), after the appointment of lead plaintiff
and counsel; (ii) setting a deadline for Defendants to answer,
file a motion to dismiss or otherwise respond to the Amended
Complaint (and for subsequent briefing regarding any such motion
to dismiss); and (iii) confirming that Defendants need not answer,
move to dismiss or otherwise respond to any of the five District
Court complaints prior to the filing of the Amended Complaint.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
all discovery is stayed in the five District Court actions. As of
May 6, 2013, the plaintiffs have not specified an amount of
alleged damages in the respective U.S. and Canadian Actions other
than in the Canadian Actions filed on March 19, 2013 and April 2,
2013 (including the related statement of claim filed on May 2,
2013), in which the plaintiffs have alleged damages of
C$1,100,000,000 and C$208,500,000, respectively, plus interest and
costs.

However, because both the U.S. and Canadian Actions are in their
early stages, Atlantic Power is unable to reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from these
litigations. Atlantic Power intends to defend vigorously against
these actions.


BANK OF THE OZARKS: Still Defends Suits Over Overdraft Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bank of the Ozarks, Inc., continues to defend itself against class
action lawsuits over alleged excessive overdraft fees, according
to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

On January 5, 2012, the Company and the Bank were served with a
summons and complaint filed on December 19, 2011, in the Circuit
Court of Lonoke County, Arkansas, Division III, styled Robert
Walker, Ann B. Hines and Judith Belk vs. Bank of the Ozarks, Inc.
and Bank of the Ozarks, No. CV-2011-777.  In addition, on
December 21, 2012, the Bank was served with a summons and
complaint filed on December 20, 2012, in the Circuit Court of
Pulaski County, Arkansas, Ninth Division, styled Audrey Muzingo v.
Bank of the Ozarks, Case No. 60 CV 12-6043.  The complaint in each
case alleges that the Company and/or Bank have harmed the
plaintiffs, current or former customers of the Bank, by improper,
unfair and unconscionable assessment and collection of excessive
overdraft fees from the plaintiffs.  According to the complaints,
the plaintiffs claim that the Bank employs sophisticated software
to automate its overdraft system, and that this system unfairly
and inequitably manipulates and alters customers' transaction
records in order to maximize overdraft penalties, particularly
utilizing a practice of posting of items in "high-to-low" order,
despite the actual sequence in which such items are presented for
payment.  The Plaintiffs claim that the Bank's deposit agreements
with customers do not adequately disclose the Bank's overdraft
assessment policies and are ambiguous, deceptive, unfair and
misleading.  The Complaint in each case alleges that these actions
and omissions constitute breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionable conduct,
conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of the Arkansas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  The Complaint in the Walker case
also includes a count for conversion.

Each of the complaints seek to have the cases certified by the
court as a class action for all Bank account holders similarly
situated, and seek a declaratory judgment as to the wrongful
nature of the Bank's overdraft fee policies, restitution of
overdraft fees paid by the plaintiffs and the putative class
(defined as all Bank customers residing in Arkansas) as a result
of the actions cited in the complaints, disgorgement of profits as
a result of the alleged wrongful actions and unspecified
compensatory and statutory or punitive damages, together with pre-
judgment interest, costs and plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.  The
Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are unfounded and intends
to defend against these claims.

Bank of the Ozarks, Inc., is a bank holding company headquartered
in Little Rock, Arkansas.  The Company owns a wholly-owned state
chartered bank subsidiary -- Bank of the Ozarks, four 100%-owned
finance subsidiary business trusts -- Ozark Capital Statutory
Trust II ("Ozark II"), Ozark Capital Statutory Trust III, Ozark
Capital Statutory Trust IV and Ozark Capital Statutory Trust V
and, indirectly through the Bank, a subsidiary engaged in the
development of real estate, a subsidiary that owns private
aircraft and various other entities that hold foreclosed assets or
tax credits or engage in other activities.


BARCLAYS PLC: Ct. Denies Reconsideration Bid in "Gusinsky" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin rejected a motion for
reconsideration of an order denying leave to amend in the lawsuit
captioned, VLADIMIR GUSINSKY, TRUSTEE, FOR THE VLADIMIR GUSINSKY
LIVING TRUST, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. BARCLAYS PLC, et al., Defendants, No. 12
Civ. 5329 (SAS), (S.D.N.Y.).

Judge Scheindlin granted on May 13, 2013, the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in its entirety on the
grounds that: (1) the Plaintiffs failed to allege that Barclays'
generic statements about its business practices were actionable
misstatements; (2) the Plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that
Barclays' contingent disclosures were materially misleading; and
(3) assuming that Barclays' LIBOR submissions were actionable
misrepresentations, the Plaintiffs did not adequately allege that
these statements, which occurred prior to 2009, caused the
Plaintiffs' losses in 2012.

Because Judge Scheindlin held that the Plaintiffs did not
adequately allege a primary violation of Section 10(b), the
Section 20(a) claims for control person liability was also
dismissed.  Judge Scheindlin denied leave to amend on the ground
that amendment would be futile, particularly in light of the fact
that the Plaintiffs were placed on notice of all the perceived
deficiencies in their Complaint and given the opportunity to
amend, and still had not plausibly alleged that Defendants' fraud
caused their losses.

The Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the denial of leave to
amend.

On June 12, 2013, Judge Scheindlin held that the Plaintiffs have
not cited any new facts, intervening change in law or possibility
of manifest injustice that meets the standard for reconsideration
of the Court's dismissal and denial of leave to amend.
Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk of the Court to close the
motion and the case.

David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. -- DRonsenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- Samuel
Howard Rudman, Esq. -- SRuman@rgrdlaw.com -- Christopher Michael
Barrett, Esq. -- cbarrett@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, in Melville, NY, and Gregory Mark Nespole, Esq. --
nespole@whafh.com -- Robert B. Weintraub, Esq. --
weintraub@whafh.com  -- of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
LLP, in New York, NY, represented the Plaintiffs.

Jonathan D. Schiller, Esq. -- jschiller@bsfllp.com -- James
Meadows, Esq. -- jmeadows@bsfllp.com -- of Boies Schiller &
Flexner LLP, in New York, NY, Michael Brille, Esq. --
mbrille@bsfllp.com -- of Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, in
Washington, D.C., David H. Braff, Esq. -- braffd@sullcrom.com --
Jeffrey T. Scott, Esq. -- scottj@sullcrom.com -- Matthew S.
Fitzwater, Esq. -- fitzwaterm@sullcrom.com -- Matthew J. Porpora,
Esq. -- porporam@sullcrom.com -- of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, in
New York, NY, Andrew J. Levander, Esq., of Dechert LLP, in New
York, NY, Cheryl A. Krause, Esq., of Dechert LLP, in Philadelphia,
PA represented the Defendants.

A copy of the District Court's June 12, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at http://is.gd/CxMIzpfrom Leagle.com.


BEAR STEARNS: Judge Dismisses Big Chunk of MBS Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Bario, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that over
the past year we've been watching a handful of financial crisis
class actions in which investors sued banks that served as
mortgage-backed securities trustees, rather than targeting the
banks that issued or underwrote the securities.  In addition to
bringing breach of contract claims, plaintiffs lawyers at Scott +
Scott dusted off a 1939 law called the Trust Indenture Act that
makes trustees liable for failing their duties to investors.  That
litigation campaign has so far survived motions to dismiss in
cases against Bank of New York Mellon, Bank of America, and U.S.
Bancorp's U.S. Bank National Association unit.

On June 3, the plaintiffs finally hit a snag.  Lawyers for U.S.
Bank at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius persuaded U.S. District Judge John
Koeltl in Manhattan to dismiss a big chunk of a case that Scott +
Scott brought on behalf of investors in mortgage-backed securities
issued by Bear Stearns.  The decision endangers hundreds of
millions of dollars in claims in the case before Judge Koeltl, and
if it holds up on appeal it could do the same to parallel claims
in other trustee suits.

A Scott + Scott team led by Beth Kaswan and David Scott brought
the case in 2011 on behalf of investors in 14 MBS trusts.  Their
complaint claims that U.S. Bank violated the Trust Indenture Act
by failing to police the mortgages underlying the securities for
inadequacies or defaults and by not forcing Bear Stearns to
repurchase loans that went sour.  The plaintiffs also claimed
breach of contract based on U.S. Bank's alleged failure to live up
to pooling and servicing agreements and indenture agreements that
together cover all 14 trusts. (The PSA-governed trusts issued
certificates; those covered by indenture agreements issued notes.)

Morgan Lewis's Michael Kraut -- mkraut@morganlewis.com -- and John
Vassos moved to dismiss the case last June on a host of grounds.
They argued that the investors, who only purchased securities in
two of the trusts, lacked standing to bring class claims over most
of the securities. And they targeted the plaintiffs' core theory
of liability under the TIA, arguing that they failed to state a
claim and that most of the trusts aren't covered by the statute.

Judge Koeltl sided with the plaintiffs on the standing issue,
citing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's
September 2012 ruling in NECA-IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v.
Goldman Sachs.  He also refused to throw out the investors' claims
for breach of contract, finding that they'd sufficiently made
their case that U.S. Bank skirted its obligations under the
governing agreements for the securities.

But the judge was swayed by Morgan Lewis's argument that the Trust
Indenture Act only applies to five of the 14 trusts in the case:
those that issued certificates rather than notes.  Judge Koeltl
agreed with U.S. Bank that an exemption to the TIA covers
securities that are governed by a pooling and servicing agreement
rather than an indenture, placing nine of the trusts beyond the
statute's reach.

"The certificates are exempt from the TIA pursuant to section
304(a)(2) because they are certificates of participation in two or
more securities with substantially different rights and
privileges," Judge Koeltl wrote.  "This conclusion is consistent
with the plain text of the TIA, the SEC's interpretation of the
TIA, and the legislative history of the TIA."

At first glance Judge Koeltl's ruling seems to be at odds with two
previous decisions in MBS trustee cases, since U.S. District
Judges William Pauley III and Katherine Forrest in Manhattan have
both ruled (here and here) that the TIA applies to MBS
certificates.  But as Judge Koeltl noted in the June 3 ruling, the
defendants in the case before Pauley relied on a different
exemption to the TIA in their motion to dismiss. (To be fair, Bank
of New York Mellon's lawyers at Mayer Brown did cite the second
exemption in a motion for reconsideration, but Judge Pauley ruled
they were too late.) Judge Forrest, meanwhile, concluded that
neither of the two TIA exemptions applied to MBS certificates in
trusts overseen by Bank of America and U.S. Bank.

On May 7 the Second Circuit agreed to hear an interlocutory appeal
of Pauley's ruling in the BNY Mellon case, so the issue of MBS
trustee liability under the TIA is already before the appeals
court.  Now that Judge Koeltl has handed a different trustee a
partial victory, we won't be surprised if the U.S. Bank case winds
up there as well.

David Scott -- drscott@scott-scott.com -- of Scott + Scott
acknowledged on June 4 that the plaintiffs suffered a blow on the
TIA exemption question, but he emphasized the bright side.  "The
ruling creates some open issues, but the bottom line is that the
case is going forward on the breach of contract claims, and we
have 14 trusts covered on class-wide standing," Mr. Scott told us.
"It shows the courts understand that these trustees have real
obligations and they have to be held to them."

Morgan Lewis's Kraut declined to comment.  A spokesman for U.S.
Bank had this statement: "We are pleased that the court held that
the TIA does not apply to PSA certificates and narrowed the
plaintiffs' key claims."


BIOSANTE PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Awaits Ruling in "Lauria" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
On February 3, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois under the caption Thomas Lauria, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. BioSante Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and Stephen M. Simes naming the Company and its President and
Chief Executive Officer, Stephen M. Simes, as defendants.  The
complaint alleges that certain of the Company's disclosures
relating to the efficacy of LibiGel and its commercial potential
were false and/or misleading and that such false and/or misleading
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the price of
the Company's securities resulting in violations of Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.  Although a substantially similar complaint was filed in the
same court on February 21, 2012, such complaint was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff in April 2012.  The plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of persons who purchased the Company's
securities between February 12, 2010, and December 15, 2011, and
seeks unspecified compensatory damages, equitable and/or
injunctive relief, and reasonable costs, expert fees and
attorneys' fees on behalf of such purchasers.  The Company
believes the action is without merit and intends to defend the
action vigorously.  On November 6, 2012, the plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint.  On December 28, 2012, the Company
and Mr. Simes filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint.  Briefing on the motion to dismiss is complete and the
parties await the Court's ruling.

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

BioSante Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a specialty pharmaceutical
company focused on developing products for female sexual health,
menopause, contraception and male hypogonadism.  The Company is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Lincolnshire, Illinois.


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Court Narrows Damage Claims in Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The number of transactions for which plaintiffs in an antitrust
suit against The Blackstone Group L.P. are seeking damages has
been reduced from 17 to eight transactions, according to the
company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In December 2007, a purported class of shareholders in public
companies acquired by one or more private equity firms filed a
lawsuit against a number of private equity firms and investment
banks, including The Blackstone Group L.P., in the United States
District Court in Massachusetts (Kirk Dahl, et al. v. Bain Capital
Partners, LLC, et al.).

The suit alleges that, from mid-2003 through 2007, eleven
defendants violated the antitrust laws by allegedly conspiring to
rig bids, restrict the supply of private equity financing, fix the
prices for target companies at artificially low levels, and divide
up an alleged market for private equity services for leveraged
buyouts.

After the conclusion of discovery, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint in June 2012, in which the plaintiffs sought damages on
behalf of public shareholders that tendered their shares in
connection with 17 leveraged buyouts. In March 2013, the court
denied defendants' joint motion for summary judgment and all but
one individual motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs'
overarching conspiracy claim but narrowed the scope of plaintiffs'
allegations.

Consequently, the number of transactions for which plaintiffs are
seeking damages has been reduced from 17 to eight transactions.
The court has previously dismissed claims against Blackstone with
respect to three of these eight transactions because Blackstone
was released from any and all claims by the same shareholders in
prior litigation.

The court also denied the motion by Blackstone and three other
defendants for summary judgment on plaintiffs' claim of a
conspiracy with respect to the Hospital Corporation of America
(HCA). Finally, the court ordered the defendants to file renewed
individual motions for summary judgment with respect to the
overarching conspiracy claim, and on April 16, 2013, Blackstone
filed a renewed motion.

The court has not yet established a schedule for determining
whether to certify the shareholder class proposed by plaintiffs.


BLACKSTONE GROUP: "Landmen Partners" Suit in Expert Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Expert discovery has commenced and is proceeding in the action
Landmen Partners Inc. v. The Blackstone Group L.P., et al. filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

In the spring of 2008, six substantially identical complaints were
brought against Blackstone and some of its executive officers
purporting to be class actions on behalf of purchasers of common
units in Blackstone's June 2007 initial public offering.

These suits were subsequently consolidated into one complaint
(Landmen Partners Inc. v. The Blackstone Group L.P., et al.) filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York in October 2008 against Blackstone, Stephen A. Schwarzman
(Blackstone's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer), Peter G.
Peterson (Blackstone's former Senior Chairman), Hamilton E. James
(Blackstone's President and Chief Operating Officer) and Michael
A. Puglisi (Blackstone's Chief Financial Officer at the time of
the IPO).

The amended complaint alleged that:

   (1) the IPO prospectus was false and misleading for failing to
disclose that (a) one private equity investment would be adversely
affected by trends in mortgage default rates, particularly for
sub-prime mortgage loans, (b) another private equity investment
was adversely affected by the loss of an exclusive manufacturing
agreement, and (c) prior to the IPO the U.S. real estate market
had started to deteriorate, adversely affecting the value of
Blackstone's real estate investments; and

   (2) the financial statements in the IPO prospectus were
materially inaccurate principally because they overstated the
value of the investments referred to in clause (1).

In September 2009, the District Court judge dismissed the
complaint with prejudice, ruling that even if the allegations in
the complaint were assumed to be true, the alleged omissions were
immaterial. Analyzing both quantitative and qualitative factors,
the District Court reasoned that the alleged omissions were
immaterial as a matter of law given the size of the investments at
issue relative to Blackstone as a whole, and taking into account
Blackstone's structure as an asset manager and financial advisory
firm.

In February 2011, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit
reversed the District Court's decision, ruling that the District
Court incorrectly found that plaintiffs' allegations were, if
true, immaterial as a matter of law. The Second Circuit disagreed
with the District Court, concluding that the complaint "plausibly"
alleged that the initial public offering documents omitted
material information concerning two of Blackstone funds'
individual investments and inadequately disclosed information
relating to market risks to their real estate investments.

Because this was a motion to dismiss, in reaching this decision
the Second Circuit accepted all of the complaint's factual
allegations as true and drew every reasonable inference in
plaintiffs' favor. The Second Circuit did not consider facts other
than those in the plaintiffs' complaint. On June 28, 2011,
defendants filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United
States Supreme Court, which was subsequently denied. On August 8,
2011, defendants filed their answer to the complaint and discovery
commenced. On March 29, 2013, the parties completed factual
discovery. Expert discovery has commenced and is proceeding in
this action.


BMW AG: Recalls F700GS and F800GS Models of Motorcycles
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 14, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Motorcycle
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Other
Units affected:           125
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013209
TC ID number:             2013209

On certain motorcycles, the side stand ignition cut-off switch
could loosen and become damaged.  As a result, the side stand
switch would fail to turn OFF the engine if the side stand is
extended while a drive gear is engaged.  If the motorcycle is
ridden with the side stand in the down position, the stand could
hit the ground during a turn, which could result in a loss of
vehicle control and a crash causing property damage and/or
personal injury.  Correction: Dealers will install bolts to
securely fasten the side stand switch (originally held by a
circlip).

Affected products:

   Brand     Common
   name      name       Code(s) on product
   ----      ----       ------------------
   BMW       F800GS     2011, 2012, 2013
   BMW       F700GS     2011, 2012, 2013


CANADIAN RED CROSS: Judge May Sit Elsewhere to Hear Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Gruber, writing for Law Times, reports that in an unusual
decision, the Superior Court has ruled that an Ontario judge may
sit outside the province to hear a motion regarding a class action
settlement agreement.  The lawsuit, certified by the courts in
Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec, relates to individuals
infected with Hepatitis C after receiving tainted blood between
January 1986 and July 1990.  Although the Ontario attorney general
objected to changing the location of the hearing, Ontario Chief
Justice Warren Winkler, ruling in Parsons v. the Canadian Red
Cross Society on May 24, held that the Ontario court's "inherent
jurisdiction to fully control its own process" permits it to
convene outside the province.

In 1999, the governments of Canada, all 10 provinces, and the
three territories agreed to be bound by the terms of a national
settlement agreement.  The settlement established a compensation
fund of about $1.1 billion for a class of more than 13,000 members
drawn from every province and territory, including approximately
5,200 Ontario residents.

Counsel for the plaintiff is hoping that all three supervising
judges from the superior courts of Ontario, British Columbia, and
Quebec will be able to sit together in the same physical location.
Rulings from British Columbia and Quebec are still pending. All
three jurisdictions will have to reach the same decision before
all of the judges are able to sit together in one location.

The three superior court judges had proposed to hear the motion
together in Edmonton, where they were already scheduled to travel
for a meeting of the Canadian Judicial Council.  But the court
adjourned the motion when the attorney general threatened to
challenge the court's jurisdiction.

Leading class action lawyer Harvey Strosberg, who represented the
plaintiff in Parsons, calls the decision "a big step in the right
direction."

"It's easier.  It's less costly.  Everybody will do it once," he
says.

In his ruling, Justice Winkler rejected the attorney general's
proposal to link the hearings using video-conferencing technology.
"The technology isn't good enough," says Mr. Strosberg.  "The
nuances of the submissions will not be as good as in person."

He adds: "There's a lot of interplay between the judges and the
lawyers, and it's easier to do it in person.  And the judges have
the opportunities to sit together, to interact with each other,
then discuss it amongst each other."

Justice Winkler noted that while it's within a court's discretion
to hold a hearing beyond its territorial borders, courts should
use it sparingly and only "where the court has subject matter and
personal jurisdiction over the proceeding."

In this case holding a single hearing instead of three will "save
expense and valuable resources," Justice Winkler wrote.  It will
also prevent inconsistent decisions, he suggested.

Mr. Strosberg notes that trying to get judges to make concurrent
orders can be problematic.  "It's costly to do that and very time-
consuming, expensive, and the risks are sometimes they don't do
it.  They sometimes don't agree."

Litigating interprovincial class actions has been an ongoing
problem in Canada.  In 2011, the Canadian Bar Association approved
part of a judicial protocol proposed by its national task force on
class actions.  It included standardizing settlement approval
notices and co-ordinating the court approval process for
multijurisdictional settlements.

Despite those developments, multiple courts may still have had to
hear the same motion based on similar submissions prior to Justice
Winkler's ruling.  "It is not sensible to litigate the same issues
over and over again," says Mr. Strosberg.

Mr. Strosberg speculates that the future will bring further
changes.  "In time, I think there'll be a rule that judges will
get together and decide where is the preferable place to do a
class action one time.  Maybe it'll be just like the U.S. rule.
They have a multidistrict, and the judges will decide where it's
going."

Justice Winkler's judgment emphasized the need for mobility across
provincial lines, noting that the common law rules don't
correspond to "modern realities of increasingly complex litigation
involving parties and subject matters that transcend provincial
borders."

If a joint hearing does take place, it won't be the first time
judges have crossed provincial borders in order to hear a class
action.  In Fontaine v. Canada (Attorney General), judges from
Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Alberta, and Saskatchewan
convened in Calgary to hear a motion on the Indian residential
schools settlement.  Judges from Manitoba and the territories
joined in via telephone.

In his decision, Justice Winkler stressed that court procedures
should work in the service of victims.

"The procedural vehicle of the class action has permitted these
victims to obtain redress for the harms they have suffered. The
tragic events that gave rise to the actions transcended provincial
borders and were national in scope."

For Barry Glaspell, a partner at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, the
decision reinforces the notion about judicial economy that's key
to class actions.

"If a judge is in Mombasa, Kenya, on a beach holiday with her or
his family and agrees to hear a motion, whether it's an Ontario
motion or whether it's a pan-Canadian motion," it's absolutely
fine, says Mr. Glaspell, a class actions litigator.

"A Canadian judge is perfectly capable of being judicial when she
or he is out of province, out of country or -- remember Commander
[Chris] Hadfield -- in outer space.  It doesn't matter where the
judge is.  So I would applaud the chief justice on this decision."


CHICAGO, IL: Police Applicants Sue Over Hiring Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leeann Shelton, writing for Chicago Sun-Times, reports that a
group of would-be candidates for the Chicago Police academy filed
a class-action lawsuit against the city on June 3, accusing city
hiring officials of unfairly discriminating against them.

Daniel Herbert, an attorney for the plaintiffs, claims the city's
hiring practices unfairly disqualified some applicants who are
military veterans or relatives of Chicago Police officers.

Some, including plaintiff Peter Slowik, were told they failed a
psychological assessment that they had already passed when
applying to their current jobs as civilian detention aides or
aviation police.

Mr. Slowik, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran, works as a detention aide
in the city's Lincoln District on the North Side.  The suit claims
that officials called him an "outstanding candidate" during his
psychological interview and said he could expect to enroll in the
police academy because he was on the "good list."

He later received an email telling him that he had failed the test
and was removed from the list of candidates eligible to become
police officers.

Another plaintiff, Matthew Bonnstetter, said his interviewer only
chatted with him for several minutes about current events after
seeing in his file that he is related to a police officer.

Even though the interviewer said he had "nothing to worry about"
and was "perfect," Mr. Bonnstetter also failed.

A third plaintiff, Alexander Muniz, says hiring officials unfairly
accused him of being uncooperative in a polygraph test that asked
about his relatives in law enforcement.

Mr. Muniz claims that a sergeant noted his breathing was "off,"
but that he cooperated the entire time and finished the test.

All three men already had passed written and physical tests and a
drug screening, the suit claims.  City officials have refused to
tell them specifically why they failed.

Unlike other candidates booted from the eligibility list, none of
the three plaintiffs was allowed to appeal the decision, and they
will not be recalled to receive a "second chance" at the tests.

They claim the inconsistent handling of their cases violates the
Shakman Decree governing political hiring and infringes on their
rights to equal protection.

A spokesman for the city's Law Department said officials have not
yet seen the suit as of June 3 and declined to comment on it.

The suit seeks class-action status, claiming that roughly 40 men
and women "with impeccable credentials and stellar character" were
unfairly disqualified, mostly during the psychological assessment,
Herbert said in a release.

They are asking a judge to allow all plaintiffs to enroll in the
police academy and award retroactive seniority and benefits, along
with back pay plus interest and attorney's fees.


CHINA AUTOMOTIVE: Investors' Suit Won't Proceed as Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge
has refused to allow investors suing China Automotive Systems Inc.
to pursue their securities fraud claims as a class action, in a
setback for one of a string of lawsuits against Chinese reverse
merger companies.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in New York
marked a rare instance of a judge denying class certification in a
lawsuit by shareholders, who courts typically presume have relied
on a company's alleged misstatements.

The ruling on May 31 came in one of a number of pending lawsuits
against Chinese companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges following
a series of accounting scandals in 2010 and 2011.  China
Automotive and many of the other companies entered U.S. markets
through reverse mergers, where a company merges with a U.S. shell
company.

Judge Forrest's decision came in a short two-page order following
two days of argument earlier in May on the motion for class
certification.  She did not explain her reasoning, saying she
would issue a longer opinion "as soon as reasonably possible."
She said she was issuing her order now in light of China
Automotive's concerns about a significant amount of discovery
coming up.

"The Court agrees that an immediate ruling prior to a full opinion
is appropriate in light of impending resource expenditure,"
Forrest wrote.

Neal Marder, a lawyer for China Automotive at Winston & Strawn,
said it was one of only two decisions he was aware of where an
investor class asserting securities fraud claims against a Chinese
reverse merger company wasn't certified.

"Most of these cases it is very difficult for defendants to defeat
class certification," he said.

As a result of the decision, depositions in the case have been
postponed or canceled, he said.

Marc Gross -- migross@pomlaw.com -- a lawyer for the plaintiffs at
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross, did not respond to
requests for comment.

                       Objection to Class

Filed in 2011, the lawsuit alleged that the automotive part
company misled investors by improperly accounting for its
convertible notes and not properly accounting for expenses against
income.

The company announced in March 2011 it would restate its financial
statements for 2009 and the first three quarters of 2010 as a
result of the convertible note accounting errors.

The plaintiffs said that in the wake of that announcement, China
Automotive's stock fell $1.42, almost 14 percent, on March 17,
2011.

The lawsuit followed, naming China Automotive and Schwartz
Levitsky Feldman, its former auditor.  In August, Forrest denied a
motion to dismiss, allowing the case to move forward.

In objecting to the class being certified, China Automotive noted
that the name plaintiffs -- Nancy George, Robert George and
Randall Whitman -- all made purchases of stock after the
restatement.  Those purchases undermined the typical presumption
that the plaintiffs rely on a stock's market price in making their
decisions, the company argued.  The purchases also called into
question the plaintiffs' claim that any misrepresentations were
material to them, it said.

Even if the name plaintiffs were typical and adequate class
representatives, they had failed to submit sufficient evidence
that the stock traded in an efficient market, China Automotive
argued.  An efficient market is normally necessary for a
presumption that any information or misinformation was reflected
in a stock's price.

The case is George v. China Automotive Systems Inc, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-07533.

For the plaintiffs: Marc Gross, Jeremy Lieberman and Patrick
Dahlstrom of Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross and
Peretz Bronstein of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman.

For China Automotive Systems Inc: Neal Marder and Jeffrey Burke of
Winston & Strawn.

For Schwartz Levitsky Feldman: Lee Dunst -- ldunst@gibsondunn.com
-- and Aric Wu -- awu@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.


CME GROUP: MF Global Customers Sue Over Alleged CEA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
CME Group Inc. faces lawsuits alleging that it violated the
Commodity Exchange Act, according to the company's May 8, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

A number of lawsuits were filed in federal court in New York on
behalf of all commodity account holders or customers of MF Global
who had not received a return of 100% of their funds. These
matters have been consolidated into a single action in federal
court in New York, and a consolidated amended class action
complaint was filed on November 5, 2012.

The class action complaint alleges that CME violated the Commodity
Exchange Act (CEA), aided and abetted violations of the CEA by
other defendants, and aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty
by certain officers and directors of MF Global.

The class complaint also alleges that CME Group aided and abetted
CME's violation of the CEA. The complaint does not allege the
amount of damages sought, but rather seeks compensatory and
exemplary damages to be determined at trial. Based on the initial
analysis of the class complaint, the company believes that it has
strong legal and factual defenses to the claims. In addition to
the class complaint, the company is aware of two plaintiffs who
intend to pursue their claims individually.


COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Labor Suits in Calif., Texas Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cogent Communications Group, Inc. faces labor lawsuits in the
Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California and in United
States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division, according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

Certain former sales employees of the Company filed a collective
action against the Company in December 2011 in the United States
District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division
alleging misclassification of the Company's sales employees
throughout the U.S. in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The lawsuit seeks to recover pay for allegedly unpaid overtime and
other damages, including attorney's fees. In January 2013, a
former sales employee filed in the Superior Court of Santa Clara
County, California a lawsuit alleging misclassification of sales
employees under California wage and hour laws. The lawsuit seeks
certification as a class action and seeks to recover pay for
allegedly unpaid overtime and other damages, including attorney's
fees. The Company denies both claims and believes that the claims
for unpaid overtime in each case are without merit. The Company
believes its classification of sales employees is in compliance
with applicable law.


DIRECTV: Arbitration Okayed in Suit Over Early Cancellation Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Directv's motions to compel arbitration in federal cases over its
early cancellation fees have been granted, according to the
company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In 2008, a number of plaintiffs filed putative class action
lawsuits in state and federal courts challenging the early
cancellation fees the company assesses its customers when they do
not fulfill their programming commitments.

Several of these lawsuits are pending, some in California state
court purporting to represent statewide classes, and some in
federal courts purporting to represent nationwide classes. The
lawsuits seek both monetary and injunctive relief.

While the theories of liability vary, the lawsuits generally
challenge these fees under state consumer protection laws as both
unfair and inadequately disclosed to customers. The company's
motions to compel arbitration have been granted in all of the
federal cases, except as to claims seeking injunctive relief under
California statutes. The denial of the company's motion as to
those claims is currently on appeal.


ENCORE CAPITAL: "Brent" Suit Remanded Back to Ohio Dist. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Brent v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al., was remanded back to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, according to Encore
Capital Group, Inc.'s May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

On May 19, 2008, an action captioned Brent v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio Western Division, in which
the plaintiff filed a class action counter-claim against two of
the Company's subsidiaries (the "Midland Defendants").  The
complaint alleged that the Midland Defendants' business practices
violated consumers' rights under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA") and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.
The plaintiff sought actual and statutory damages for the class of
Ohio residents, plus attorney's fees and costs of class notice and
class administration.  The dollar amount of damages originally
sought in the case was an unspecified amount in excess of $25,000.
On August 12, 2011, the court issued an order granting final
approval to the parties agreed upon settlement of this lawsuit, as
well as two other pending lawsuits in the Northern District of
Ohio entitled Franklin v. Midland Funding LLC and Vassalle v.
Midland Funding LLC, on a national class basis, and dismissed the
cases against the Midland Defendants with prejudice.  That order
was subsequently appealed by certain objectors to the settlement,
and on February 26, 2013, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit reversed the district court's order approving the
settlement, vacated the judgment certifying a nationwide
settlement class, and remanded the case back to the Northern
District of Ohio for further proceedings consistent with the Sixth
Circuit's ruling, where it remains pending.

Based in San Diego, California, Encore Capital Group, Inc.,
provides debt management and recovery solutions for consumers and
property owners across a broad range of financial assets.  The
Company purchases portfolios of defaulted consumer receivables at
deep discounts to face value and manages them by working with
individuals as they repay their obligations and work toward
financial recovery.


EXELON CORP: Awaits Okay of Constellation Securities Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation is awaiting preliminary court approval of its
$4 million settlement of a consolidated securities lawsuit brought
by debenture holders of a subsidiary, according to the Company's
May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On March 12, 2012, Exelon completed the merger contemplated by the
Merger Agreement among Exelon, Bolt Acquisition Corporation, a
wholly owned subsidiary of Exelon (Merger Sub), and Constellation
Energy Group, Inc.  As a result of that merger, Merger Sub was
merged into Constellation (the Initial Merger) and Constellation
became a wholly owned subsidiary of Exelon.  Following the
completion of the Initial Merger, Exelon and Constellation
completed a series of internal corporate organizational
restructuring transactions.  Constellation merged with and into
Exelon, with Exelon continuing as the surviving corporation (the
Upstream Merger).  Simultaneously with the Upstream Merger,
Constellation's interest in RF HoldCo LLC, which holds
Constellation's interest in Baltimore Gas and Electric
Company(BGE, a Company subsidiary), was transferred to Exelon
Energy Delivery Company, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Exelon
that also owns Exelon's interests in Commonwealth Edison Company
(ComEd) and PECO Energy Company (PECO).  Following the Upstream
Merger and the transfer of RF HoldCo LLC, Exelon contributed to
Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Generation) certain subsidiaries,
including those with generation and customer supply operations
that were acquired from Constellation as a result of the Initial
Merger and the Upstream Merger.

Three federal securities class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Courts for the Southern District of New
York and the District of Maryland between September 2008 and
November 2008 against Constellation.  The cases were filed on
behalf of a proposed class of persons who acquired publicly traded
securities, including the Series A Junior Subordinated Debentures
(Debentures), of Constellation between January 30, 2008, and
September 16, 2008, and who acquired Debentures in an offering
completed in June 2008.  The securities class actions generally
allege that Constellation, a number of its former officers or
directors, and the underwriters violated the securities laws by
issuing a false and misleading registration statement and
prospectus in connection with Constellation's June 27, 2008
offering of the Debentures.  The securities class actions also
allege that Constellation issued false or misleading statements or
was aware of material undisclosed information which contradicted
public statements, including in connection with its announcements
of financial results for 2007, the fourth quarter of 2007, the
first quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2008 and the
filing of its first quarter 2008 Form 10-Q.  The securities class
actions seek, among other things, certification of the cases as
class actions, compensatory damages, reasonable costs and
expenses, including counsel fees, and rescission damages.

The Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion
to transfer the two securities class actions filed in Maryland to
the District of Maryland, and the actions have since been
transferred for coordination with the securities class action
filed there.  On June 18, 2009, the court appointed a lead
plaintiff, who filed a consolidated amended complaint on
September 17, 2009.  On November 17, 2009, the defendants moved to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety.  On
August 13, 2010, the District Court of Maryland issued a ruling on
the motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs failed to state
a claim with respect to the claims of the common shareholders
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and limiting the lawsuit
to those persons who purchased Debentures in the June 2008
offering.  In August 2011, plaintiffs requested permission from
the court to file a third amended complaint in an effort to
attempt to revive the claims of the common shareholders.
Constellation filed an objection to the plaintiffs' request for
permission to file a third amended complaint and, on March 28,
2012, the District Court of Maryland denied the plaintiffs'
request for permission to revive the claims of the common
shareholders.

On March 22, 2013, the lead plaintiff submitted a motion seeking
the District Court of Maryland's preliminary approval of a
proposed class action settlement resolving the Debenture holder
claims for approximately $4 million and dismissal of the
complaint.  Upon preliminary approval of the settlement by the
Court, notice will be provided to the Debenture holders of the
settlement terms and final court approval will be required for the
settlement to become effective.

Exelon Corporation, incorporated in Pennsylvania in February 1999,
is a utility services holding company engaged, through its
principal subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company LLC, in the energy
generation business, and through its principal subsidiaries
Commonwealth Edison Company, PECO Energy Company and Baltimore Gas
and Electric Company, in the energy delivery businesses.  Exelon's
principal executive offices are located in Chicago, Illinois.


EXELON CORP: Bid to Dismiss Zion Station Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
On September 1, 2010, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Generation),
a subsidiary of Exelon Corporation, completed an Asset Sale
Agreement (ASA) with EnergySolutions Inc. and its wholly owned
subsidiaries, EnergySolutions, LLC (EnergySolutions) and
ZionSolutions under which ZionSolutions has assumed responsibility
for decommissioning Zion Station, which is located in Zion,
Illinois, and ceased operation in 1998.  On January 7, 2013,
EnergySolutions announced that it had entered a definitive
acquisition agreement to be acquired by another Company.
Generation reviewed the acquisition as it relates to the ASA to
decommission Zion Station.  Based on that review, Generation
determined that the acquisition will not adversely impact
decommissioning activities under the ASA.

On July 14, 2011, three people filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois naming ZionSolutions and Bank of New York
Mellon as defendants and seeking, among other things, an
accounting for use of Nuclear Decommissioning Trust (NDT) funds,
an injunction against the use of NDT funds, the appointment of a
trustee for the NDT funds, and the return of NDT funds to
customers of ComEd to the extent legally entitled thereto.  If the
plaintiffs prevail on the merits of their claims, some or all of
the NDT funds may no longer be available to ZionSolutions for
decommissioning Zion Station, in which case, the contractual
arrangement would require ZionSolutions to utilize a line of
credit to complete the decommissioning.  In addition, the
appointment of a NDT fund trustee in this matter could impact
Generation's future decommissioning activities at other stations
by setting a precedent for the appointment of trustees for NDT
funds.

On July 20, 2012, ZionSolutions and Bank of New York Mellon filed
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failing to state a
claim. The matter is currently under review by the court.

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

Exelon Corporation, incorporated in Pennsylvania in February 1999,
is a utility services holding company engaged, through its
principal subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company LLC, in the energy
generation business, and through its principal subsidiaries
Commonwealth Edison Company, PECO Energy Company and Baltimore Gas
and Electric Company, in the energy delivery businesses.  Exelon's
principal executive offices are located in Chicago, Illinois.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Consolidated Shareholder Suit Dismissed in March
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
granted in March 2013 Gentiva Health Services, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss a consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit, according
to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

Between November 2, 2010, and October 25, 2011, five shareholder
class actions were filed against Gentiva and certain of its
current and former officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  Each of
these actions asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the
Company's participation in the Medicare Home Health Prospective
Payment System ("HH PPS").  Following consolidation of the
actions, and the appointment of Los Angeles City Employees'
Retirement System as lead plaintiff and Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer
LLP as lead counsel, on April 16, 2012, a consolidated shareholder
class action complaint, captioned In re Gentiva Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 10-CV-5064, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  The
complaint, which named Gentiva and certain current and former
officers and directors as defendants, asserted claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as well as Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, in
connection with the Company's participation in the HH PPS.  The
complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company's public
disclosures misrepresented and failed to disclose that the Company
improperly increased the number of in-home therapy visits to
patients for the purposes of triggering higher reimbursement rates
under the HH PPS, which caused an artificial inflation in the
price of Gentiva's common stock during the period between July 31,
2008, and October 4, 2011.  On June 15, 2012, the defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint.

On March 25, 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss with leave to amend the complaint in accordance with the
court's rulings as set forth in its March 25 order.

Given the preliminary stage of the action, the Company is unable
to assess the probable outcome or potential liability, if any,
arising from the action on the business, financial condition,
results of operations, liquidity or capital resources of the
Company. The Company does not believe that an estimate of a
reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made for the
action at this time. The defendants intend to defend themselves
vigorously in the action.

Gentiva Health Services, Inc. -- http://www.gentiva.com/-- is a
provider of home health services and hospice services serving
patients through approximately 430 locations in 40 states.  The
Company provides a single source for skilled nursing; physical,
occupational, speech and neurorehabilitation services; hospice
services; social work; nutrition; disease management education;
help with daily living activities; and other therapies and
services.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware and
headquartered is in Atlanta, Georgia.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Received Final OK of "Wilkie" Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gentiva Health Services, Inc., received in March 2013 final
approval of its settlement of the class action lawsuit initiated
by Catherine Wilkie, according to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On June 11, 2010, a collective and class action complaint entitled
Catherine Wilkie, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc. was filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California against the Company in which a former employee alleged
wage and hour violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and California law.  The complaint alleged that the
Company paid some of its employees on both a per visit and hourly
basis, thereby, voiding their exempt status and entitling them to
overtime pay.  The complaint further alleged that California
employees were subject to violations of state laws requiring meal
and rest breaks, overtime pay, accurate wage statements and timely
payment of wages.  The plaintiff sought class certification,
attorneys' fees, back wages, penalties and damages going back
three years on the FLSA claim and four years on the state wage and
hour claims.  The parties held mediation discussions on August 3,
2011, and March 7, 2012.  The parties have finalized the terms of
a monetary settlement, and the Company has paid $5 million in
escrow to settle all claims in the lawsuit, including the
plaintiff's attorney's fees and costs.  The court granted final
approval of the settlement on March 25, 2013.  Once the parties
provide the court with a final accounting regarding distribution
of the settlement, the case should be dismissed.  The court set a
status conference for March 3, 2014, in the event that the case
has not been dismissed by then.

Gentiva Health Services, Inc. -- http://www.gentiva.com/-- is a
provider of home health services and hospice services serving
patients through approximately 430 locations in 40 states.  The
Company provides a single source for skilled nursing; physical,
occupational, speech and neurorehabilitation services; hospice
services; social work; nutrition; disease management education;
help with daily living activities; and other therapies and
services.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware and
headquartered is in Atlanta, Georgia.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Summary Judgment Bids in "Rindfleisch" Suit Remain
------------------------------------------------------------------
Motions for summary judgment in the class action lawsuit filed by
Lisa Rindfleisch, et al., remain pending, according to Gentiva
Health Services, Inc.'s May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On May 10, 2010, a collective and class action complaint entitled
Lisa Rindfleisch et al. v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc., was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York against the Company in which five former employees
("Plaintiffs") alleged wage and hour law violations.  The former
employees claimed they were paid pursuant to "an unlawful hybrid"
compensation plan that paid them on both a per visit and an hourly
basis, thereby, voiding their exempt status and entitling them to
overtime pay.  The Plaintiffs alleged continuing violations of
federal and state law and sought damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), as well as under the New York Labor Law
and North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA").  On October 8,
2010, the Court granted the Company's motion to transfer the venue
of the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia.  On April 13, 2011, the Court
granted Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the
FLSA claims as a collective action.  On May 26, 2011, the Court
bifurcated the FLSA portion of the lawsuit into a liability phase,
in which discovery closed on January 15, 2013, and a potential
damages phase, to be scheduled pending outcome of the liability
phase.

Following a motion for partial summary judgment by the Company
regarding the New York state law claims, the Plaintiffs agreed
voluntarily to dismiss those claims in a filing on December 12,
2011.  The Plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of a North
Carolina state law class for NCWHA claims on January 20, 2012.  On
August 29, 2012, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
certification of a North Carolina state law class.  The Company
filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the Plaintiffs'
claims under the NCWHA on March 22, 2012, which the Court granted
on January 16, 2013.  The parties' deadline for filing dispositive
motions related to the liability phase of the lawsuit was
February 14, 2013.  On February 14, 2013, the Company filed two
motions for partial summary judgment with regard to the Company's
liability for the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims.  On the same day, the
Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment in their
favor with regard to the Company's liability.  While these cross
motions and the related briefing are currently before the Court,
the Plaintiffs continue to maintain class certification of
allegedly similar employees and seek attorneys' fees, back wages
and liquidated damages going back three years under the FLSA.

Based on the information the Company has at this time in the
Rindfleisch lawsuit, the Company is unable to assess the probable
outcome or potential liability, if any, arising from this
proceeding on the business, financial condition, results of
operations, liquidity or capital resources of the Company.  The
Company does not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible
loss or range of loss can be made for this lawsuit at this time.
The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this lawsuit.

Gentiva Health Services, Inc. -- http://www.gentiva.com/-- is a
provider of home health services and hospice services serving
patients through approximately 430 locations in 40 states.  The
Company provides a single source for skilled nursing; physical,
occupational, speech and neurorehabilitation services; hospice
services; social work; nutrition; disease management education;
help with daily living activities; and other therapies and
services.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware and
headquartered is in Atlanta, Georgia.


GOLD RESOURCE: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gold Resource Corporation faces a consolidated securities lawsuit
In re Gold Resource Corp. Securities Litigation, No.1:12-cv-02832
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado,
according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On October 25, 2012, a purported securities class action lawsuit
captioned Scott Cantor, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Gold Resource Corporation et al., was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado and on
November 13, 2012, a similar case captioned Robert Rhodes, on
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Gold
Resource Corporation et al., was filed in the same court.

The cases were subsequently consolidated into In re Gold Resource
Corp. Securities Litigation, No.1:12-cv-02832. This federal court
action names the Company and certain of its executive officers
individually as defendants and alleges, among other things, that
the company and those officers violated Section 10(b) and Rule
10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
statements relating to its annual production targets and mine
operations.

The plaintiffs seek damages, including interest, equitable relief
and reimbursement of the costs and expenses they incur in the
lawsuit. The Company believes the allegations are without merit
and that it has valid defenses to such allegations. The Company
intends to defend this action vigorously.


GREAT LAKES: Faces Securities Lawsuit in Illinois Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation faces several securities
lawsuit filed in the Northern District of Illinois, according to
the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

On March 19, 2013, the Company and three of its current and former
executives were sued in a securities class action in the Northern
District of Illinois captioned United Union of Roofers,
Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 v. Great Lakes
Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02115.

The lawsuit, which was brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's securities between August 7, 2012 and March 14, 2013,
primarily alleges that the defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding the recognition of revenue in the demolition
segment and with regard to the Company's internal control over
financial reporting.

This suit was filed following the Company's announcement on March
14, 2013 that it would restate its second and third quarter 2012
financial statements.

Two additional, similar lawsuits captioned Boozer v. Great Lakes
Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02339, and
Connors v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No.
1:13-cv-02450, were filed in the Northern District of Illinois on
March 28, 2013, and April 2, 2013, respectively. The Company
denies liability and intends to vigorously defend these actions.


HAMMACHER SCHLEMMER: Recalls 92 Teak Shower Stools Over Fall Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
retailer, Hammacher Schlemmer store in New York City; and
importer, Taymor Industries, of Hayward, California, announced a
voluntary recall of about 92 Teak Shower Stools.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The wood seat of the shower stool can break, posing a fall hazard
to consumers.

The firm has received 11 reports of stools breaking during set up
or normal use.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled teak shower stools have four metal legs with a teak
wood top and two metal grate shelves.  The stool model number,
02D8092, and UPC, 06301370069, appear on the packaging.  Picture
of the recalled products is available at: http://is.gd/eamENh

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Hammacher Schlemmer store in New York City, their
catalog and online at http://www.hammacher.com/.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled stool,
disassemble and discard all parts except for one leg.  Hammacher
Schlemmer is sending a prepaid mailer to known customers to return
the stool leg.  Customers who haven't received a prepaid mailer
should contact Hammacher Schlemmer.  Upon receipt of a stool leg,
Hammacher Schlemmer will issue a full refund to the payment card
used to purchase the stool and send a $25 Hammacher Schlemmer gift
certificate to the customer.  Hammacher Schlemmer may be reached
at (800) 440-4030 Ext. 3156 anytime, e-mail
customerservice@hammacher.com, or go online to
http://www.hammacher.com/recalls/. Consumers can also contact
Taymor Industries at (800) 388-9887, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
PM Monday through Friday, or online at http://www.taymor.com/and
click the words "Product Recall" at the bottom of the main page
for more information.


HANSEN MEDICAL: To Pay $8.5 Million to Settle Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hansen Medical, Inc. (NASDAQ: HNSN), a global leader in
intravascular robotics, reached an agreement in principle to
settle the consolidated securities class-action lawsuit related to
the restatement of Hansen Medical's financial statements that was
first announced in October 2009. Upon final court approval, all
defendants, including Hansen Medical, will receive a full and
complete release of all claims in the previously disclosed
securities class action.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs will
receive an aggregate of $8.5 million, $4 million of which will be
funded in cash by Hansen Medical's insurers and other sources. The
Company will fund the remaining portion by issuing $4.25 million
worth of its common stock, the number of shares to be determined
based on the average closing price of the Company's stock for the
10 trading days preceding final court approval of the settlement
of the class action, and paying $250,000 in cash.

The settlement agreement contains no admission of liability by
Hansen Medical or any other defendant. The Company believes this
settlement is in the best interest of Hansen Medical and its
stakeholders, as it eliminates the uncertainties, burden and
further expense associated with this litigation. The settlement is
subject to the satisfaction of various conditions, including
execution of final settlement documents and approval by the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
which the Company expects to receive within approximately six
months.

Previously, in October 2011, the Company entered into a settlement
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
that fully resolved the SEC investigation of Hansen Medical
related to the issues surrounding the October 2009 financial
restatements. The settlement with the SEC did not impose any
monetary penalty or fine on the Company. In accepting that
settlement, the SEC recognized the Company's remedial actions,
including the change of personnel since the events related to the
restatement surfaced, and the substantial cooperation Hansen
Medical provided in connection with the SEC investigation.

       About Hansen Medical, Inc.

Hansen Medical, Inc. -- http://www.hansenmedical.com/-- based in
Mountain View, California, is the global leader in intravascular
robotics, developing products and technology designed to enable
the accurate positioning, manipulation and control of catheters
and catheter-based technologies. The Company's Magellan Robotic
System, Magellan Robotic Catheter and related accessories, which
are intended to facilitate navigation to anatomical targets in the
peripheral vasculature and subsequently provide a conduit for
manual placement of therapeutic devices, have undergone both CE
marking and 510(k) clearance and are commercially available in the
European Union, and the U.S. In the European Union, the Company's
Sensei X Robotic Catheter System and Artisan Control Catheter are
cleared for use during electrophysiology (EP) procedures, such as
guiding catheters in the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF),
and the Lynx(R) Robotic Ablation Catheter is cleared for the
treatment of AF. This robotic catheter system is compatible with
fluoroscopy, ultrasound, 3D surface map and patient
electrocardiogram data.

In the U.S. the Company's Sensei X Robotic Catheter System and
Artisan Control Catheter were cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration for manipulation and control of certain mapping
catheters in EP procedures. In the United States, the Sensei
System is not approved for use in guiding ablation procedures;
this use remains experimental. The U.S. product labeling therefore
provides that the safety and effectiveness of the Sensei X System
and Artisan Control Catheter for use with cardiac ablation
catheters in the treatment of cardiac arrhythmias, including AF,
have not been established.


HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Customer Sues Over ASB Overdraft Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
In March 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the
First Circuit Court of the State of Hawaii by a customer who
claimed that American Savings Bank, F.S.B. had improperly charged
overdraft fees on debit card transactions. The lawsuit is still in
its preliminary stage, thus, the probable outcome and range of
reasonably possible loss are not determinable at this time,
according to Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc.'s May 8, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013.


HECKMAN CORPORATION: No Certification Hearing Yet in Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
There is no hearing yet to certify a class and appoint class
representatives and class counsel in the suit In re Heckmann
Corporation Securities Class Action (Case No. 1:10-cv-00378-JJF-
MPT), according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

On May 21, 2010, Richard P. Gielata, an individual purporting to
act on behalf of stockholders, served a class action lawsuit filed
May 6, 2010 against the Company and various directors and officers
in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
captioned In re Heckmann Corporation Securities Class Action (Case
No. 1:10-cv-00378-JJF-MPT) (the "Class Action").

On October 8, 2010, the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed an
Amended Class Action Complaint which adds China Water as a
defendant. The Class Action alleges violations of federal
securities laws in connection with the acquisition of China Water.
The Company responded by filing a motion to transfer the Class
Action to California and a motion to dismiss the case.

On March 31, 2011, the District Court adopted the Magistrate
Judge's report and recommendation to deny the motion to transfer.
On May 25, 2012, the court entered a memorandum order adopting the
Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation denying the Company's
motion to dismiss. On June 25, 2012, the court entered a
scheduling order setting forth a schedule for, among other things,
discovery and dispositive motions, and document discovery
commenced.

On July 9, 2012, the Company filed its Answer to the Amended Class
Action Complaint. On September 19, 2012, the Company filed a
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and a Motion for Proposed
Briefing Schedule. The Magistrate Judge denied the Motion for
Proposed Briefing Schedule on October 4, 2012 and the Company
filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's ruling.

On January 16, 2013, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's
ruling and denied the Company's request for a briefing schedule on
its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. On October 19, 2012,
plaintiff filed a motion to certify a class and appoint class
representatives and class counsel.

On January 18, 2013, the Company filed its opposition and a motion
to exclude the declaration of plaintiff's class certification
expert. On February 19, 2013, plaintiff filed a reply brief. A
hearing on plaintiff's motion to certify a class and appoint class
representatives and class counsel has not been scheduled.


INTERCONTINENTALEXCHANGE INC: Sued Over NYSE Euronext Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Intercontinentalexchange, Inc. faces consolidated lawsuits in
Delaware and New York over a proposed merger with NYSE Euronext,
according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On December 20, 2012, the company announced an agreement to
acquire NYSE Euronext in a stock and cash transaction. Under the
agreement, which was amended and restated on March 19, 2013, the
company will acquire NYSE Euronext under a newly formed holding
company, IntercontinentalExchange Group, Inc., or ICE Group.
Following successive merger transactions, the company and NYSE
Euronext will become wholly owned subsidiaries of ICE Group.

Beginning in December 2012, twelve complaints were filed in the
Chancery Court of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Actions")
and in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (the "New York
Actions") on behalf of a putative class of NYSE Euronext
stockholders challenging the proposed merger.

Also, on February 4, 2013, a similar putative stockholder class
action complaint was filed by a purported stockholder in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

On January 29, 2013, the Chancery Court consolidated the Delaware
Actions and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On January
31, 2013, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.
On March 13, 2013, the Chancery Court certified the consolidated
Delaware Actions as a class action. The parties completed
discovery in the consolidated Delaware Actions on April 12, 2013,
and on April 16, 2013, the Delaware plaintiffs filed their opening
brief in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction. On
May 2, 2013, the Company filed its opposition to plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary injunction. The Chancery Court has set a
hearing on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction for May
10, 2013.

On January 28, 2013, the Supreme Court of the State of New York
entered an Order consolidating the New York Actions, and on
February 7, 2013, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint in the New York Actions. On March 1, 2013, the New York
court denied defendants' motion to dismiss or stay the New York
Actions, which defendants have appealed to the Appellate Division,
First Department. Defendants moved for a stay of the action
pending appeal and, on March 15, 2013, the New York appeals court
granted defendants motion to stay the New York Actions on an
interim basis, and adjourned for 60 days the motion for a stay
pending appeal. The appeal and stay motion remain pending.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Court Mulls Certification of VLT Gaming Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador has decided to
address the motion for certification of a suit over VLT gaming in
two phases, according to International Game Technology's May 8,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In an action brought in the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and
Labrador by Babstock and Small as representatives of a purported
class of persons allegedly harmed by VLT gaming in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. Atlantic Lottery Corporation has
impleaded VLC, Inc. IGT-Canada, Inc., International Game
Technology and other third party defendants seeking
indemnification for any judgment recovered against Atlantic
Lottery Corporation in the main action.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class action certification on
September 17, 2012. The Court has decided to address the motion
for certification in two phases. Under Phase 1, the Court will
determine whether the Plaintiffs have pleaded a cause of action.
Hearings on Phase 1 were scheduled to be heard on June 6 and 7,
2013. Should the Court conclude that Plaintiffs have pleaded a
cause of action, then, under Phase 2, the Court would determine
the appropriateness of certification of the putative class.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Nev.
------------------------------------------------------------
International Game Technology settled a securities lawsuit filed
against it in the US District Court for the District of Nevada,
according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 30, 2013.

On July 30, 2009, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Local 697 filed a putative securities fraud class action in the US
District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging causes of
action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against
IGT and certain of its current and former officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that between November 1, 2007 and October
30, 2008, the defendants inflated IGT's stock price through a
series of materially false and misleading statements or omissions
regarding IGT's business, operations, and prospects. In April
2010, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  In March 2011,
defendants' motion to dismiss that complaint was granted in part
and denied in part.

The Court found that the allegations concerning statements about
the seasonality of game play levels and announcements of projects
with Harrah's and City Center were sufficient to state a claim.
Plaintiffs did not state a claim based on the remaining statements
about earnings, operating expense, or forward-looking statements
about play levels and server-based technology.

The parties have settled this action.  On February 1, 2012, at the
direction of the Court, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Pending
Settlement. On March 28, 2012, the parties submitted to the Court
a stipulation to settle the litigation for a payment of $12.5
million. On March 30, 2012 the Court issued an order of
preliminary approval and the settlement was paid into escrow by
insurance in April 2012. The Court approved the stipulated
settlement on October 19, 2012.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Settlement of ERISA Suit in Final Stages
------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement in the consolidated lawsuit alleging violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act against International Game
Technology is at its final stages of being completed,
according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 30, 2013.

On October 2, 2009, two putative class action lawsuits were filed
on behalf of participants in the Company's employee pension plans,
naming as defendants the Company, the IGT Profit Sharing Plan
Committee, and several current and former officers and directors.
The actions, filed in the US District Court for the District of
Nevada, are captioned Carr et al. v. International Game Technology
et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00584, and Jordan et al. v. International
Game Technology et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00585. The actions were
consolidated.  The consolidated complaint (which seeks unspecified
damages) asserts claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, 29 U.S.C 1109 and 1132.

The consolidated complaint is based on allegations similar to
those in the securities and derivative lawsuits, and further
alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to plan
participants by failing to disclose material facts to plan
participants, failing to exercise their fiduciary duties solely in
the interest of the participants, failing to properly manage plan
assets, and permitting participants to elect to invest in Company
stock.

In March 2011, defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint was granted in part and denied in part.  On March 16,
2012, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification.
On December 21, 2012, the parties submitted a stipulation to
settle the litigation for a payment of $500,000 and up to $25,000
towards settlement administrative expenses, which was accrued for
in the company's 2013 first quarter. On January 22, 2013, the
Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. A hearing
for final approval of the settlement has been set for June 3,
2013.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Faces Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Arezu Sarvestani, writing for MassDevice, reports that Intuitive
Surgical shareholders file a class action lawsuit accusing the
company of hiding negative information while reaping hundreds of
millions through "fraud-inflated" stock.

Shareholders of Intuitive Surgical late last month filed a class
action lawsuit accusing the robot-assisted surgery giant and its
executives of artificially inflating the company's stock price
with misleading statements and "disreputable" sales practices.


KEENAN & ASSOCIATES: Judge Denies Motion for Summary Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
On May 28, 2013, the Honorable Judge Michelle Rosenblatt adopted
her previous tentative ruling and denied Keenan & Associates'
motion for summary judgment in a class action lawsuit alleging
that Keenan failed to pay their Claims Examiners overtime wages.
See Gentile v. Keenan & Associates, currently pending in the Los
Angeles Superior Court for the State of California, Case No.
BC471005.

The Los Angeles employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
& Bhowmik filed a brief opposing Keenan's motion for summary
judgment, arguing that Keenan failed to carry their burden that
Plaintiff came within the California overtime exemptions.  The
Court agreed with the Plaintiff's attorneys stating that there is
a triable question about whether the plaintiff's day-to-day
responsibilities involved enough independent judgment to exempt
her from overtime pay.

The purported class action lawsuit will now continue to proceed in
the Los Angeles Superior Court before the Honorable Judge Michelle
Rosenblatt.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a Los Angeles employment law
firm with offices located in San Diego, San Francisco and Los
Angeles.  The firm dedicates its practice to contingency fee
employment law work for issues involving overtime pay, wrongful
termination, discrimination and other California labor laws.


KUM & GO: Faces Class Action Over ADA Violations
------------------------------------------------
Bailey Deitz, writing for KWQC, reports that fighting to end a
different kind of pain at the pump, one local disabled man is
taking a major company to court hoping to pave the way for change.
The Americans with Disabilities Act has regulations in place to
help disabled drivers at gas stations but, despite the law, many
say it's an uphill battle.

Gary McDermott drives on a daily basis.  It's one of many
obstacles he has overcome since a neck injury confined him to a
wheelchair 40 years ago.  What continues to daunt the Clinton man
when driving on a regular basis is getting fuel.

"Unable to reach the button if there is even a button on the pump,
trying to get somebody to come out.  The ADA recommends if you
need fuel to honk your horn," said Mr. McDermott.

Mr. McDermott has shown KWQC how ineffective that can be before.
In 2010 we road along as he tried to get assistance, which is
mandated when more than one clerk is on duty.  The following year
we found out that many stations around the area don't measure up
to the ADA's newly passed reach requirements.

It's issues like these that led him to file a class action lawsuit
against Kum & Go, LC which is the fifth largest privately-held,
company operated convenience store chain in the U.S.  Court
documents show that McDermott in one day visited several Kum & Go
stations in the Iowa City area and was unable to get fuel thanks
to several ADA violations he says he found consistent with the
company.

"Had the same issues so it looked like a pattern," added
Mr. McDermott, "Inaccessible parking, no access aisles with them,
ramps aren't done correctly."

Mr. McDermott brought this to Kum & Go's attention more than a
year ago.  Days later, company representatives responded in a
letter, "we are taking ADA compliance very seriously and are
actively addressing ADA compliance in a number of ways."

But KWQC crews found out May 31 that the problems at the pump
remain.  "It comes down to an issue of training, an issue of
buying the right type of equipment that does comply with the law.
These are not difficult fixes," said Tim Semelroth --
tsemelroth@riccololaw.com -- an attorney for RSH Legal in Cedar
Rapids representing Mr. McDermott.

ADA enforcement is mostly complaint driven. Here and there
complaints result in stations getting slapped with fines. Lawsuits
like this are few and far between, though Kum & Go is not the only
company with these violations.

"Maybe it will open the eyes at other stores knowing that people
need the service," said Mr. McDermott.  He says all he wants is
for stores to follow the laws that are in place for a reason.  In
the lawsuit he is requesting the company fix the violations and
award him attorney's fees, costs and litigation expenses.

Kum & Go has more than 400 convenience stores in eleven states.
KWQC reached out to company officials for a comment and this the
response from Megan Elfers, Director of Marketing &
Communications.

"Kum & Go does not respond to requests for information on pending
litigation.  Kum & Go is committed to accessibility for all of our
customers and takes all such issues very seriously."


MAKO SURGICAL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Junk Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida is
yet to rule on a motion by MAKO Surgical Corp. to dismiss in its
entirety an amended complaint in In re MAKO Surgical Corp.
Securities Litigation, No. 12-60875-CIV-Cohn/Seltzer,
according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

In May 2012, two shareholder complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors as purported
class actions on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common
stock between January 9, 2012 and May 7, 2012.

The cases were filed under the captions James H. Harrison, Jr. v.
MAKO Surgical Corp. et al., No. 12-cv-60875 and Brian Parker v.
MAKO Surgical Corp. et al., No. 12-cv-60954. The court
consolidated the Harrison and Parker complaints under the caption
In re MAKO Surgical Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 12-60875-CIV-
Cohn/Seltzer, and appointed Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and
Retirement System and Baltimore County Employees' Retirement
System to serve as co-lead plaintiffs.

In September 2012, the co-lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that expanded the proposed class period through July 9,
2012. The amended complaint alleges the Company, its Chief
Executive Officer, President and Chairman, Maurice R. Ferre, M.D.,
and its Chief Financial Officer, Fritz L. LaPorte, violated
federal securities laws by making misrepresentations and omissions
during the proposed class period about the Company's financial
guidance for 2012 that artificially inflated the Company's stock
price.

The amended complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, interest, attorneys' and expert fees, and costs. In
October 2012, the Company, Dr. Ferre, and Mr. LaPorte filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety. The court
has not ruled on that motion.


MATTLEMAN WEINROTH: Gets Partial Dismissal of "Wilson" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Joseph E. Irenas granted, in part, and
denied, in part, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
the lawsuit captioned MONIQUE WILSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
MATTLEMAN, WEINROTH & MILLER, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO.
13-0237 (JEI/KMW), (D. N.J.).

This is a debt collection case arising under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.  Plaintiff Monique Wilson alleges that
Defendants Mattleman, Weinroth & Miller, P.C. and Executive
Management, Inc. failed to fully satisfy the notice requirements
set forth in 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(3) of the FDCPA and
thereby engaged in deceptive debt collection practices in
violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(10).

Ms. Wilson brought the lawsuit as a putative class action pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of herself and all consumers and
their successors in interest who have received debt collection
letters or notices from the Defendant, which are in violation of
the FDCPA.

Judge Irenas ruled that Mattleman's Motion to Dismiss will be
granted with respect to the Section 1692e(10) claim and denied
with respect to the Section 1692g(a)(3) claim.

Joseph K. Jones, Esq., of the LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC,
in Fairfield, N.J. and Laura S. Mann, Esq. -- laura@mannlegal.biz
-- of the LAW OFFICES OF LAURA S. MANN, LLC, in West Milford, N.J.
represented the Plaintiff.

Alison B. Weinroth-Shaw, Esq. -- ashaw@mwm-law.com -- of
MATTLEMAN, WEINROTH & MILLER, P.C., in Cherry Hill, N.J.,
represented the Defendant.

A copy of the District Court's June 12, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/7QoktAfrom Leagle.com.


MEDIVATION INC: Still Awaits Oral Argument Date in Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Medivation, Inc. is still awaiting oral argument date related to
an appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities class
action complaint filed in California, according to the Company's
May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In March 2010, the first of several putative securities class
action lawsuits was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, naming as defendants the Company
and certain of its officers.  The lawsuits are largely identical
and allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.  The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the
defendants disseminated false and misleading statements about the
effectiveness of dimebon for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.
The plaintiffs purport to seek damages, an award of their costs
and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of stockholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
September 21, 2006, and March 2, 2010.  The actions were
consolidated in September 2010 and, in April 2011 the court
entered an order appointing Catoosa Fund, L.P. and its attorneys
as lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  Thereafter, the lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, which was
dismissed without prejudice as to all defendants in August 2011.
The lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint in November
2011.  In March 2012, the court dismissed the second amended
complaint with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of
defendants.  The Lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in April 2012.
The appeal is fully briefed, and the Company is awaiting notice of
the date for oral argument.

While the Company believes it has meritorious positions with
respect to the claims asserted against it and intends to advance
its positions in these lawsuits vigorously, including on appeal,
the process of resolving matters through litigation or other means
is inherently uncertain, and it is not possible to predict the
ultimate resolution of any such proceeding.  The actual cost of
defending the Company's position may be significant, and the
Company may not prevail.  The Company believes it is entitled to
coverage under its relevant insurance policies with respect to the
putative securities class action lawsuits, subject to a $350,000
retention, but coverage could be denied or prove to be
insufficient.

Medivation, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the
rapid development and commercialization of novel therapies to
treat serious diseases for which there are limited treatment
options.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in San Francisco, California.


MONSANTO CO: Idaho Farmers File Class Action Over GMO Wheat
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Boone, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
farmers in Idaho have filed a potentially class action lawsuit
against seed giant Monsanto after genetically engineered wheat was
found in an eastern Oregon field.

The farmers, represented by a Boise law firm, filed the federal
lawsuit on June 7 contending that Monsanto's development of
Roundup Ready wheat resulted in increased production costs and
lowered prices because the genetically engineered wheat is likely
to infiltrate the non-genetically engineered wheat supply.

No genetically engineered wheat has been approved for U.S.
farming, and the discovery of the Roundup Ready wheat growing in
Oregon in May prompted Japan to suspend some wheat imports.

Monsanto didn't immediately respond to a request for comment, but
the company has said a similar lawsuit filed in Kansas was done so
prematurely and without any evidence of fault, and that it plans
to present a vigorous defense.

Already a handful of lawsuits have been filed in other courts
around the country over the same issue.  The lawsuit in Boise's
U.S. District Court was filed on June 7 by Behrend, Behrend &
Knittel Farms and CoMa Farms, both in Aberdeen, and County Line
Farms in American Falls.  The Idaho farmers are asking for class-
action status on behalf of thousands farmers of soft white wheat
in Idaho, Oregon, Washington and other states.

Monsanto began in 1997 to develop a strain of wheat that is
resistant to the company's popular pesticide, Roundup.  The
result, dubbed Roundup Ready wheat, was field tested in 16 states
between 1998 and 2005, including fields owned by CoMa Farms in
Aberdeen, according to the lawsuit.  At the time Monsanto had
applied to USDA for permission to develop the engineered wheat,
but the company later pulled its application.

The farmers contend that Monsanto failed to take steps to make
sure the genetically engineered plants didn't contaminate regular
wheat through cross-pollination, mixing of seeds or other means.
Because the wheat industry uses a system that gathers and
commingles wheat from thousands of farms for sales and shipping,
the farmers contend Monsanto should have known that it would be
virtually impossible to prevent the Roundup Ready wheat from
infiltrating the non-genetically engineered wheat supply.

"Monsanto knew, or should have known, that the existence of
genetically-engineered wheat -- commingled with the general wheat
supply -- would cause significant disruptions in the wheat export
market, and that such a situation could involve huge disruptions
in the wheat trade while imposing additional costs on U.S. wheat
farmers and specifically Pacific Northwest soft white wheat
farmers.  These costs eventually would detrimentally impact
worldwide prices for Pacific Northwest soft white wheat, causing
significant financial damage to wheat farmers," attorney Benjamin
Schwartzman wrote in the lawsuit.

The farmers say the discovery of the genetically engineered wheat
growing in Oregon has diminished prices for all soft white wheat
because of the loss of export and domestic markets, and that it
has also increased costs for growers who must go through extensive
testing to prove the wheat from their fields isn't contaminated
with genetically engineered wheat before they can sell to some
buyers.

They are asking for compensatory and punitive damages in an amount
to be determined at trial, and they want a judge to order Monsanto
to decontaminate the farmland and transportation and harvesting
equipment of all affected farmers.


NAM TAI: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action Over LCM Losses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Buetow, writing for Circuits Assembly, reports that a
national law firm has filed a class action suit against Nam Tai
Electronics alleging that the EMS company made false and
misleading statements regarding the nature of its customers and
business.

Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross also alleges that the
contract assembler failed to disclose material adverse facts about
the company's business, operations, and prospects.

The firm says Nam Tai did not acknowledge that intense competition
had forced it to lower unit sales prices, threatening future
profitability, and anticipated cancellation and fluctuation of
orders by key customers would cause it to halt capital investment
into technology platforms, and that declining margins and
volatility would force the halt of its best quality LCM production
operations services in Shenzhen and Wuxi.

The law firm seeks unspecified damages from the contract assembler
and certain of its officers and directors.

The class action was filed in the Southern District of New York
court on behalf of all purchasers or acquirers of Nam Tai
securities between Aug. 6, 2012, and April 26, 2013.  A copy of
the complaint can be obtained at http://pomerantzlaw.com


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Class Action Hearing Scheduled for This Month
---------------------------------------------------------------
John B. Farmer, a lawyer with Leading-Edge Law Group, PLC, in
article for Richmond Times Dispatchy, says if you want to ignite a
flame war on a sports message board, start a discussion about
whether college athletes deserve to get paid.

The courts are about to make big decisions in this area.  While
it's unlikely, the results could transform college sports.

The headline lawsuit is a class action filed by former UCLA
basketball player Ed O'Bannon against the NCAA and videogame maker
EA Sports.

Mr. O'Bannon and several other athletes are seeking court approval
to represent thousands of current and former Division I football
and men's basketball players.  They claim their rights of
publicity were violated because they were not paid either for TV
broadcasts of their games or for college sports video games that
use similar-looking avatars.  They also claim the defendants
violated antitrust laws by conspiring to not pay current and
former players for these uses of their likenesses.

Mr. O'Bannon's lawyers seek to recover half of all the money paid
and to be paid by TV networks to broadcast their games, in
addition to other damages.  That's billions of dollars.

In June, a federal trial court will hold a hearing on whether the
case can proceed as a class action or, instead, whether each
athlete would have to sue on his own.  Specifically, the court
will decide whether the athletes have enough in common to make a
class action workable.

That ruling could be decisive.  In class-action cases, getting the
class certified often leads to a lucrative settlement, while
certification rejection often makes the individual cases
uneconomic to pursue.

The NCAA paints a doomsday picture of what would happen if the
plaintiffs won the suit.  They predict that a big drop in TV
revenue paid to colleges would cause the schools to cut many non-
revenue sports and could make many athletic departments insolvent.
The Big Ten Conference threatened the possibility of ending
athletic scholarships, although that's probably a bluff.

The athletes counter that colleges are getting rich off a gusher
of TV money, as evidenced by soaring, multimillion-dollar coaching
salaries and posh football and basketball facilities.

Related cases could make an impact too, albeit smaller.

Two former college quarterbacks are each trying to lead class
actions aimed just at the "NCAA Football" video game made by EA
Sports.  They, too, claim their rights of publicity are being
violated.

In that game, entire NCAA football teams are replicated but the
names and faces of the individual players are not used.  Yet, the
game uses the same jersey numbers and athletic skills as the
players, and often the same physical appearance, such as hair and
skin color.

So far, the quarterbacks are marching down the legal field.  Ryan
Hart, a former Rutgers player, is seeking to lead a class action,
while Sam Keller, who played at Arizona State and Nebraska, is
seeking in another court to lead essentially the same class
action.

Each quarterback has defeated (for now at least) the argument that
the First Amendment protects EA Sports' ability to use, without
permission, avatar replicas of him.  The players each still have
to win class-action certification and to prove that their rights
of publicity were violated, even though their names and faces were
not used.

"In the big case -- Mr. O'Bannon's suit against the NCAA -- I
predict the court will deny class-action status because of the
variety of situations of college athletes.  Right of publicity
laws vary from state to state, and star athletes have high
publicity value while others turn out to not even be worth the
cost of their college scholarships," Mr. Farmer said.

The smaller suits against just EA Sports over videogames are
harder to call.

"Based upon rulings so far, I predict the courts will hold that
these avatars usually are too similar to the former college
players and, thus, that the players' rights of publicity were
violated," Mr. Farmer said.

"The decisions could go the other way because usually a right-of-
publicity claim is based upon use of a person's picture, name,
signature or voice.  College athletes don't own their jersey
numbers -- the college controls that.

"Even if the athletes win against EA Sports, we're talking only
about video game revenue and not the big kahuna -- TV money.

"Video game makers could probably protect themselves going forward
by just making the player avatars less suggestive of the real
players.

"So, will it be the end of college sports as we know it? Probably
not.

But, like the monster Apophis asteroid that probably will just
miss the Earth in 2029, there is a small probability of a major
impact, so it's worth watching."


NCL CORPORATION: Sued Over Alleged Violation of Seaman's Wage Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NCL Corporation Ltd. is facing lawsuits alleging inappropriate
deductions of crew wages pursuant to the Seaman's Wage Act,
according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

In July 2009, a class action complaint was filed against NCL
(Bahamas) Ltd. in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida, on behalf of a purported class of crew
members alleging inappropriate deductions of their wages pursuant
to the Seaman's Wage Act and wrongful termination resulting in a
loss of retirement benefits.

In December 2010, the Court denied the plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification. In February 2011, the plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Reconsideration as to the Court's Order on Class
Certification which was denied. The Court tried six individual
plaintiffs' claims, and in September 2012 awarded wages
aggregating approximately $100,000 to such plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' have filed an appeal of the Court's decision in
the individual actions as well as the denial of the Class
Certification. The company intends to vigorously defend this
appeal and are not able at this time to estimate the impact of
these proceedings.

In May 2011, a class action complaint was filed against NCL
(Bahamas) Ltd. in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida, on behalf of a purported class of crew
members alleging inappropriate deductions of their wages pursuant
to the Seaman's Wage Act and breach of contract. In July 2012,
this action was stayed by the Court pending the outcome of the
litigation commenced with the class action complaint filed in July
2009.


NORWEGIAN CRUISE: NCL Bahamas Sued for Alleged Wage Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NCL (Bahamas) Ltd. faces lawsuits in the United States District
Court, Southern District of Florida alleging violation of the
Seaman's Wage Act, according to the Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings
Ltd.'s May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In July 2009, a class action complaint was filed against NCL
(Bahamas) Ltd. in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida, on behalf of a purported class of crew
members alleging inappropriate deductions of their wages pursuant
to the Seaman's Wage Act and wrongful termination resulting in a
loss of retirement benefits.

In December 2010, the Court denied the plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification. In February 2011, the plaintiffs filed a
Motion for Reconsideration as to the Court's Order on Class
Certification which was denied. The Court tried six individual
plaintiffs' claims, and in September 2012 awarded wages
aggregating approximately $100,000 to such plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' have filed an appeal of the Court's decision in
the individual actions as well as the denial of the Class
Certification. The company intends to vigorously defend this
appeal and are not able at this time to estimate the impact of
these proceedings.

In May 2011, a class action complaint was filed against NCL
(Bahamas) Ltd. in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida, on behalf of a purported class of crew
members alleging inappropriate deductions of their wages pursuant
to the Seaman's Wage Act and breach of contract. In July 2012,
this action was stayed by the Court pending the outcome of the
litigation commenced with the class action complaint filed in July
2009.


NOVATEL WIRELESS: Conference in Securities Suit Set for Oct. 3
--------------------------------------------------------------
A pretrial conference is currently set for October 3, 2013, in the
consolidated securities lawsuit against Novatel Wireless, Inc.,
according to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On September 15, 2008, and September 18, 2008, two putative
securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf
of persons who allegedly purchased the Company's stock between
February 5, 2007, and August 19, 2008.  On December 11, 2008,
these lawsuits were consolidated into a single action entitled
Backe v. Novatel Wireless, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-CV-01689-H
(RBB) (Consolidated with Case No. 08-CV-01714-H (RBB)) (U.S.D.C.,
S.D. Cal.).  In May 2010, the district court re-captioned the case
In re Novatel Wireless Securities Litigation.  The plaintiffs
filed the consolidated complaint on behalf of persons who
allegedly purchased the Company's stock between February 27, 2007,
and November 10, 2008.  The consolidated complaint names the
Company and certain of its current and former officers as
defendants.  The consolidated complaint alleges generally that the
Company issued materially false and misleading statements during
the relevant time period regarding the strength of the Company's
products and market share, the Company's financial results and its
internal controls.  The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified
amount of damages and costs.  The court has denied the defendants'
motions to dismiss.

In May 2010, the court entered an order granting the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and certified a class of purchasers
of the Company's common stock between February 27, 2007, and
September 15, 2008.  On February 14, 2011, following extensive
discovery, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment on all
of the plaintiffs' claims.  A trial date had been set for May 10,
2011.  On March 15, 2011, the case was reassigned to a new
district judge, the Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia.  Following the
reassignment, the court vacated the trial date pending the court's
consideration of dispositive motions.  Oral argument on the motion
for summary judgment was heard by the court on June 17, 2011.  On
November 23, 2011, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the motion for summary judgment.  On July 9, 2012,
the court vacated the final pretrial conference date.  On
December 14, 2012, the court issued an order denying the
defendants' motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs'
loss causation expert.  The court set a pretrial conference for
March 8, 2013, and a trial date of June 3, 2013.

On February 7, 2013, the court reconsidered its December 14, 2012
order and granted the defendants' motion to exclude the
plaintiffs' expert on loss causation.  The court, however, gave
the plaintiffs the opportunity to provide a new report from the
expert seeking to cure the deficiencies in the expert's testimony.
The court provided a schedule for the cure process and ordered the
plaintiffs to bear the burden of the defendants' expenses incurred
in this process.  The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the
court's February 7, 2013 order.  On March 6, 2013, the court
denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration with respect to
the plaintiffs' expert report, but granted the motion with respect
to shifting the costs of the defendants' expenses.  The parties
have briefed the court on this issue.

On May 1, 2013, the court issued an order setting the pretrial
conference for October 3, 2013, and a trial date of January 6,
2014.

The Company says it intends to defend this litigation vigorously.
At this time, there can be no assurance as to the ultimate outcome
of this litigation.  The Company has not recorded any significant
accruals for contingent liabilities associated with this matter
based on the Company's belief that a liability, while possible, is
not probable.  Further, any possible range of loss cannot be
estimated at this time.

Novatel Wireless, Inc. -- http://www.novatelwireless.com/-- is a
provider of intelligent wireless solutions for the worldwide
mobile communications market.  The Company's broad range of
products principally includes intelligent mobile hotspots, USB
modems, embedded modules for machine-to-machine and mobile
computing original equipment manufacturers, integrated asset-
management M2M devices, and communications and applications
software.  The Company was incorporated in 1996 in Delaware and is
headquartered in San Diego, California.


OCEAN VIEW: June 28 Hearing in Property Scam Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Colin Thomas, writing for Burton Mail, reports that a court date
has finally been set for a case concerning an alleged multi-
million pound oversees scam involving a Yoxall businessman.

More than a hundred British investors who lost GBP9.2 million in
the alleged scam have had the judge presiding over their class
action lawsuit removed after corruption fears.

Three former British property magnates, including Colin Thomas, of
Town Hill, are now to appear in a Madrid court this month after a
two-year delay.  The investigating judge was removed from
proceedings following a legal petition by the group's lawyers
after his brother was found to have held senior positions in a
Dominican Republic company headed by the main accused, Spanish
developer Ricardo Miranda Miret.

A criminal claim for fraud and misappropriation of funds was
lodged in February 2011 in a bid to recover deposits paid by
investors to Ocean View Properties (OVP).  The company was set up
in 2001 by buy-to-let millionaire Thomas, other businessmen and
his friend Sean Woodhall, a convicted fraudster.  It operated
successful overseas property enterprises but floundered after it
began acting as UK agent for Miranda.

Buyers were persuaded to pay deposits of around GBP85,000, for
'off-plan' properties that were never built at the Estepona
Country Club on the Costa del Sol, and a planned prestigious
property development, Punta Perla, in the Dominican Republic.

Thomas, 53 claims Miranda never returned investors' deposits,
which is disputed by the Spanish developer.

More than 1,000 British investors, who paid a total of GBP45
million for overseas property developments, lost their money when
OVP was formally dissolved in 2009 with the appointment of
liquidators Grant Thornton.

Former OVP boss Thomas, others accused and Miranda have all
'strongly denied' any wrongdoing.  Mr. Thomas has been summoned to
Madrid's Court of Investigation on June 28.


OFFICEMAX INC: Suits Over Office Depot Merger Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits over an agreement by Officemax Incorporated to merge with
Office Depot, Inc. have been consolidated and a consolidated
amended complaint was filed, according to the company's May 8,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2013.

On February 20, 2013, OfficeMax entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Office Depot, Inc., Dogwood Merger Sub Inc., a
wholly owned direct subsidiary of Office Depot, Dogwood Merger Sub
LLC, a wholly owned direct subsidiary of Office Depot, Mapleby
Holdings Merger Corporation, a wholly owned direct subsidiary of
OfficeMax, and Mapleby Merger Corporation, a wholly owned direct
subsidiary of New OfficeMax, pursuant to which, through a series
of transactions, OfficeMax will become an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of Office Depot and OfficeMax stockholders will become
stockholders of Office Depot.

Eight putative class action lawsuits challenging the Merger
Transactions have been filed to date on behalf of a putative class
consisting of OfficeMax stockholders.

Six lawsuits have been filed in the Circuit Court of the
Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of DuPage County, Illinois: (i)
Venkata S. Donepudi v. OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number
2013L000188), filed on February 25, 2013; (ii) Beth Koeneke v.
OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 2013CH00076), filed on
February 28, 2013; (iii) Marc Schmidt v. Saligram, et al. (Case
Number 2013MR000411), filed on March 13, 2013; (iv) The Feivel &
Helene Gottlieb Defined Benefit Pension Plan v. OfficeMax
Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 2013L000246), filed on March 14,
2013; (v) Norman Klumpp v. Bryant et al. (Case Number 2013CH1107),
filed on March 28, 2013; and (vi) J. David Lewis v. OfficeMax
Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 2013CH001123), filed on March
29, 2013.

These lawsuits name OfficeMax, Office Depot, Inc., and the
directors of OfficeMax, among others, as defendants. Each of the
lawsuits is brought by a purported holder or holders of OfficeMax
common stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class
of OfficeMax stockholders. The lawsuits generally allege, among
other things, that the directors of OfficeMax breached their
fiduciary duties to OfficeMax stockholders by agreeing to a
transaction with inadequate and unfair consideration and pursuant
to an inadequate and unfair process.

The lawsuits further allege that OfficeMax and Office Depot, Inc.
among others aided and abetted the OfficeMax directors in the
breach of their fiduciary duties. The lawsuits seek, in general,
(i) injunctive relief enjoining, preliminarily and permanently,
the Merger Transactions, (ii) in the event that the Merger
Transactions are consummated, rescission or an award of rescissory
damages, (iii) an award of plaintiffs' costs, including fees and
expenses of attorneys and experts, and (iv) imposition of a
constructive trust on behalf of the putative class members upon
any benefits improperly received by defendants. All six lawsuits
have been consolidated and a consolidated amended complaint was
filed on April 26, 2013.

Two additional putative class action lawsuits challenging the
Merger Transactions were filed in the United States District
Court, Northern District of Illinois: (i) Eric Hollander v.
OfficeMax Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 1:13cv3330), filed on
May 2, 2013; and (ii) Thomas DeFabio, et al. v. OfficeMax
Incorporated, et al. (Case Number 1:13cv3385), filed on May 6,
2013.

OfficeMax, Office Depot, Inc., and the OfficeMax board of
directors believe that these lawsuits are without merit and intend
to defend against them vigorously.


PACIFIC PREMIER: Continues to Defend "Baker" Class Suit in Mo.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc., continues to defend a subsidiary
against a class action lawsuit commenced by James Baker, according
to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

In February 2004, the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, Pacific
Premier Bank, was named in a class action lawsuit titled "James
Baker v. Century Financial, et al", alleging various violations of
Missouri's Second Mortgage Loans Act by charging and receiving
fees and costs that were either wholly prohibited by or in excess
of that allowed by the Act relating to origination fees, interest
rates, and other charges.  The class action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri.  The complaint seeks
restitution of all improperly collected charges, interest thereon,
the right to rescind the mortgage loans or a right to offset any
illegal collected charges and interest against the principal
amounts due on the loans and punitive damages.  In March 2005, the
Bank's motion for dismissal due to limitations was denied by the
trial court without comment.  The Bank's "preemption" motion was
denied in August 2006.  The Bank has answered the plaintiffs'
complaint and the parties have exchanged and answered initial
discovery requests.  When the record is more fully developed, the
Bank intends to raise the limitations issue again in the form of a
motion for summary judgment.

Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.ppbi.com/-- is a
California-based bank holding company incorporated in Delaware and
registered as a bank holding company.  The Company's wholly owned
subsidiary, Pacific Premier Bank, is a California state chartered
commercial bank.


PEOPLES BANCORP: Bank Unit Faces Class Suit in North Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peoples Bancorp of North Carolina, Inc.'s subsidiary is facing a
class action lawsuit in North Carolina, according to the Company's
May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On April 2, 2013, the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, Peoples
Bank (the "Bank"), received notice that a lawsuit was filed
against it in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court
Division, Lincoln County, North Carolina.  The complaint alleges
(i) breach of contract and the covenants of good faith and fair
dealing by the Bank, (ii) conversion, (iii) unjust enrichment and
(iv) violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act in its assessment and collection of overdraft fees.
It seeks the refund of overdraft fees, treble damages, attorneys'
fees and injunctive relief.  The Plaintiff seeks to have the
lawsuit certified as a class action.  The Bank believes that the
allegations in the complaint are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend the lawsuit, including the request that the
lawsuit be certified as a class action.

Peoples Bancorp of North Carolina, Inc.'s business consists
principally of attracting deposits from the general public and
investing these funds in commercial loans, real estate mortgage
loans, real estate construction loans and consumer loans.  The
Company is headquartered in Newton, North Carolina.


PERNIX THERAPEUTICS: Still Awaits Filing of Deal in Merger Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court
of California County of San Diego by Daniele Riganello, who, prior
to the consummation of the merger between Pernix Therapeutics
Holdings, Inc., and Somaxon on March 6, 2013 (the "Merger"), was
an alleged stockholder of Somaxon (Riganello v. Somaxon, et al.,
No. 37-201200087821-CU-SLCTL).  A second purported class action
was also filed in the court by another alleged stockholder
(Wasserstrom vs. Somaxon, et al., No. 37-2012-00029214-CU-SL-CTL).
Both plaintiffs filed amended complaints on January 18, 2013.  The
lawsuits were consolidated into a single action captioned In re
Somaxon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Shareholder Litigation (Lead Case
No. 37-201200087821-CU-SLCTL).  The operative complaint named as
defendants Somaxon, Pernix, Pernix Acquisition Corp. I, as well as
each of the former members of Somaxon's board of directors (the
"Individual Defendants").  It alleged, among other things, that
(i) the Individual Defendants breached fiduciary duties they
assertedly owed to Somaxon's former stockholders in connection
with the Merger (ii) Somaxon and Pernix aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duty; (iii) the merger
consideration was unfair and inadequate; and (iv) the disclosures
regarding the Merger in the Registration Statement on Form S-4,
initially filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 7, 2013 (the "Proxy Statement/Prospectus"), were
inadequate.

On January 24, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, Pernix and the other named defendants in
such litigation signed a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU")
to settle such litigation.  Confirmatory discovery was completed
by April 2013.  Subject to court approval and further definitive
documentation in a stipulation of settlement, the MOU resolves the
claims brought in such litigation and provides a release and
settlement by the purported class of Somaxon's former stockholders
of all claims against the defendants and their affiliates and
agents in connection with the Merger.  The asserted claims will
not be released until such stipulation of settlement is approved
by the court.

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

The Company says there can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
court will approve such settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such stipulation.  Additionally, as part of the MOU,
Pernix made certain additional disclosures related to the Merger
in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus.  Finally, in connection with
the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs in such litigation intend
to seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount to
be approved or determined by the court.

Pernix Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.pernixtx.com/--
is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on the sales,
marketing, manufacturing and development of branded, generic and
over-the-counter pharmaceutical products for pediatric and adult
indications in a variety of therapeutic areas.  The Company is
headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas.


PHELAN HALLINAN: Court Tosses Class Action Over Foreclosures
------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports
that a putative class action for civil racketeering against a law
firm and bank over allegedly improper foreclosure practices was
thrown out of federal court on June 4.  Chief U.S. District Judge
Jerome Simandle said Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg or Wells Fargo Bank
were shielded by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which protects the
First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of
grievances.  But New Jersey's litigation privilege did not shield
the defendants, he held in Giles v. Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg,
11-cv-6239.  Whether the state privilege or the federal doctrine
applied were novel questions within the Third Circuit.


PILOT FLYING J: Nebraska Trucker Files Fuel Rebate Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Walter F. Roche Jr., writing for The Tennessean, reports that a
Nebraska trucker has filed a class-action suit in Nashville
charging that Pilot Flying J, the national truck-stop chain,
secretly reduced promised rebates since 2005.

The suit filed on May 31 in U.S. District Court charges that Pilot
reduced the rebates for Paul Otto of Wisner, Neb., and other
truckers in a scheme by the company's top sales executives.

Like more than a dozen other suits filed throughout the country in
state and federal courts, the 22-page complaint cites a 120-page
affidavit filed in U.S. District Court in Knoxville after an April
15 raid on Pilot's Knoxville headquarters by FBI and IRS agents.

The affidavit includes transcripts of secretly taped meetings of
Pilot sales executives in which they discussed the plan to reduce
promised rebates to truckers who were not likely to notice.

The suit charges that the scheme violated consumer protection
statutes and amounted to fraud.

"Defendants misled and deceived plaintiff and class members by
reducing diesel fuel rebates and discounts without their knowledge
or consent," the complaint states.

Other nearly identical suits have been filed by Pilot customers in
Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois and Florida. Otto's suit is the first
to be filed in Nashville.

James A. Haslam III, Pilot's CEO, has denied any knowledge of the
rebate-cutting scheme and has vowed to repay truckers with
interest for anything they are owed.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: High Court to Review of Injunction in "Meyer"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to decide whether or not it will
review a lower court ruling in Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC, prohibiting Portfolio Recovery Associates, Inc.
from using its Avaya Proactive Contact Dialer to place calls,
according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative
class action cases, each alleging that the Company violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by calling consumers' cellular
telephones without their prior express consent.

On December 21, 2011, the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-
District Litigation entered an order transferring these matters
into one consolidated proceeding in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California.

On November 14, 2012, the putative class plaintiffs filed their
amended consolidated complaint in the matter, now styled as In re
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection
Act Litigation, case No. 11-md-02295 (the "MDL action").  The
Company has filed a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint.

On October 12, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, affirmed the decision of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California in the matter of
Meyer v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 11-cv-01008,
which imposed a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Company
from using its Avaya Proactive Contact Dialer to place calls to
cellular telephones with California area codes that were obtained
through skip-tracing.

On December 28, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit denied the Company's petition seeking a rehearing en
banc. Thereafter, the Company filed a Petition for Writ of
Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court on March 28, 2013.
The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether or not it will review
this matter.   Meyer is one of the cases included in the MDL
action. Both Meyer and the MDL action are ongoing and no final
determination on the merits in either has been made.


POWELL COMPANY: Recalls Anywhere Lounger Bean Bag Chairs
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 17, 2013
Posting date:             June 17, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-34135

Affected products: Anywhere Lounger bean bag chairs

The recalled "Anywhere Lounger" bean bag chairs are 100% polyester
or 100% cotton and measure about 129.5 centimetres (51 inches) in
height with a 109 centimetres (43 inch) wide base.  Recalled
colours include:

   * Bayou blue (item 199-B006)
   * Pink (item 199-B007)
   * Black and white (item 199-B012)
   * Striped black and white (item 199-B014)
   * Lime green (item 199-B008)
   * Denim (item 199-B009)
   * Natural (item 199-B016)
   * Camo (item 199-B017)
   * Purple (item 199-B004)
   * Chocolate (item 199-B005)

The item number is printed on the product packaging and Powell
Company is printed on the label on the bean bag chairs.  Pictures
of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/Gcc9PI

Bean bag chairs that are without a permanent zipper closure allow
young children to unzip, ingest or inhale the small beads inside
of the bean bag chair, posing a suffocation and strangulation
hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor Powell Company has received reports of
incidents or injuries related of the use of these chairs.

Approximately, 91 units of the affected bean bag chairs were sold
in Canada.

The recalled products are manufactured in China and were sold from
June 2012 to February 2013.

Companies:

   Manufacturer    L. Powell Acquisition Corp.
                   Culver City, California
                   UNITED STATES

   Distributor     The Home Depot Canada
                   Mega Group
                   Ontario
                   CANADA

   Importer        Powell Company
                   Culver City, California
                   UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately take the Anywhere Lounger away from
young children, inspect the bean bag chair to see if the exterior
zipper can be opened.  If the zipper on your chair can open,
contact the Powell Company to receive a free Safety Enhancement
Repair Kit.

Consumer may contact Powell Company at 1-800-622-4456 from 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time, or visit the firm's Web
site and click on "Anywhere Lounger Safety Enhancement Kit" for
more information.


POWER-ONE: Faces Merger-Related Suits in Delaware and California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Power-One, Inc., is facing merger-related class action lawsuits in
Delaware and California, according to the Company's May 10, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On April 21, 2013, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with ABB Ltd, a corporation
organized under the Laws of Switzerland ("ABB"), Verdi Acquisition
Corporation, a Delaware corporation and an indirect wholly-owned
subsidiary of ABB, pursuant to which Verdi Acquisition Corporation
will be merged with and into the Company, with the Company
surviving as an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of ABB (the
"Merger").

Beginning on April 22, 2013, and through May 6, 2013, 11 separate
class action lawsuits were filed against the Company, each of its
directors, ABB and Verdi Acquisition Corporation, by purported
stockholders of the Company.  Three of those lawsuits were filed
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, and the other
eight were filed in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Ventura.  Each of those lawsuits purports to
be brought individually and on behalf of the public stockholders
of the Company and alleges claims for breaches of fiduciary duties
against the Company's directors in connection with the Merger and
that the Company and ABB aided and abetted the purported breaches
of fiduciary duties.  Each lawsuit seeks, among other things,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relieve prohibiting
consummation of the Merger, rescission of the Merger Agreement,
damages, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company believes that it has substantial and meritorious
defenses to the plaintiffs' claims in these lawsuits and intends
to vigorously defend its position.  However, a negative outcome in
any of these lawsuits could, therefore, have a material adverse
effect on the Company if it results in preliminary or permanent
injunctive relief or rescission of the Merger Agreement.  In
addition, although the Company has directors and officers
liability insurance, the Company has incurred and anticipates that
it will continue to incur significant expense within its self-
insured retention under that insurance.  The Company is not
currently able to estimate the potential outcome of any of these
lawsuits.

Power-One, Inc. -- http://www.power-one.com/-- is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Camarillo, California.  The Company
is organized into two strategic business units: Renewable Energy
Solutions, which offer inverters, management systems, accessories
and services for the renewable energy marketplace; and Power
Solutions, which are used in computer servers, data storage,
networking, telecommunications and industrial applications.


RAINFOREST CAFE: Fair Work Law Firm Files Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Taryn Luna, writing for The Boston Globe, reports that a Boston
law firm filed a suit seeking class-action status on June 3
against one of the nation's largest restaurant groups alleging the
company's Rainforest Cafe in Burlington violated state wage laws.

Two servers employed at the Rainforest Cafe since 1998 are named
plaintiffs in the case.  Hundreds of workers might qualify for
damages, according attorney Hillary Schwab -- hschwab@llrlaw.com
-- of Fair Work, P.C.

The defendant, Landry's Inc., is the Houston parent company of
more than 40 restaurants chains across the county with total US
sales of about $1.67 billion last year, according to restaurant
industry research firm Technomic.  Landry's, run by chief
executive Tilman J. Fertitta, a Houston billionaire, owns a number
of restaurants groups with a presence in Massachusetts, including
Morton's The Steakhouse, Chart House, McCormick & Schmick's, and
the Oceanaire Seafood Room.

The suit filed in Middlesex Superior Court alleges that a
Rainforest Cafes policy illegally required servers to share their
tips with some employees who were not part of the wait staff.
Schwab said the Rainforest Cafe forced her clients to split tips
with hosts, who do not qualify as wait staff because they do not
serve food or beverages, or clear tables.

As a result of the Rainforest Cafe policy, Ms. Schwab says the
restaurant failed to satisfy tip-credit standards that must be met
to legally pay servers an hourly rate of $2.63.  The general
minimum wage in Massachusetts is $8 per hour.  "They should have
paid the minimum wage in full," Ms. Schwab said.  "Judicial
rulings have decided that if you don't do everything you are
supposed to in order to pay the very low minimum wage, then your
right to take the tip credit is invalidated."

She alleges that the restaurant further benefited by lowering the
hourly wage of hosts, then supplementing their pay with the
servers' tips.

Ms. Schwab's clients, Monica Cormier, 33, of Everett, and Holly
Peterson, 51, of Billerica, said this tip policy has been in
effect for at least a year and a half.

The suit also targets a "discount program" at Rainforest Cafe that
deducts a flat fee from employee paychecks to cover any drinks
consumed at work and provides a discount on food.  Ms. Schwab said
the deduction is too high and violates state law by requiring
employees to pay more for food than it costs the employer.

Landry's did not return calls seeking comment about the lawsuit on
June 3.

The plaintiffs are seeking restitution for all gratuities not
received, wages not paid in full, money deducted from pay, and all
court and attorney fees.

Ms. Schwab said she will attempt to determine whether the tip
practice is limited to the Rainforest Cafe or is a Landry's
corporate policy that might affect other restaurants in the state.

The Rainforest Cafe suit is the latest in a long list of
Massachusetts cases alleging tip and wage violations.  Ms. Schwab
and her law partner, Steve Churchill -- schurchill@llrlaw.com --
both formerly worked at Lichten & Liss-Riordan of Boston, which
has litigated high-profile tip and wage cases against defendants
such as Starbucks Corp., Harvard University, Dunkin' Donuts, and
Hard Rock Cafe International Inc.

In addition to filing a suit against Landry's, Ms. Schwab also
filed an unrelated lawsuit on June 3 against Delta Air Lines on
behalf of flight attendants at Logan Airport.

The attendants claim the airline doesn't pay them for all hours
worked or provide overtime compensation.


RBS CITIZENS: Enters Into Tentative OT Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben James, writing for Law360, reports that RBS Citizens NA said
on May 31 that it reached a tentative settlement in an overtime
class action in which the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the Seventh
Circuit to reconsider whether class certification was appropriate
in light of the high court's Comcast decision from March.

Both sides -- RBS and two classes of bank workers who were
allegedly stiffed on overtime pay -- filed a joint motion asking
the Seventh Circuit for a stay while they finalized a deal to
resolve the litigation.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Awaits Final OK of Suit by Fund Investors
------------------------------------------------------------
Regions Financial Corporation is awaiting a ruling that will
finally approve a settlement in the closed-end Regions Morgan
Keegan Select Funds class action, according to the company's
May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Beginning in December 2007, Regions and certain of its affiliates
have been named in class-action lawsuits filed in federal and
state courts on behalf of investors who purchased shares of
certain Regions Morgan Keegan Select Funds (the "Funds") and
shareholders of Regions.

These cases have been consolidated into class-actions and
shareholder derivative actions for the open-end and closed-end
Funds. The Funds were formerly managed by Regions Investment
Management, Inc. ("Regions Investment Management"). Regions
Investment Management no longer manages these Funds, which were
transferred to Hyperion Brookfield Asset Management ("Hyperion")
in 2008. Certain of the Funds have since been terminated by
Hyperion.

The complaints contain various allegations, including claims that
the Funds and the defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose
material facts relating to the activities of the Funds. Plaintiffs
have requested equitable relief and unspecified monetary damages.

These cases are in various stages and no classes have been
certified. Settlement discussions are ongoing in certain cases,
and the Court has granted preliminary approval of a settlement in
the closed-end Funds class-action and shareholder derivative case.

A hearing for final approval of the closed-end Funds class actions
was held on April 12, 2013. As of May 6, 2013, a final order was
pending. Certain of the shareholders in these Funds and other
interested parties have entered into arbitration proceedings and
individual civil claims, in lieu of participating in the class
actions. These lawsuits and proceedings are subject to the
indemnification agreement with Raymond James.

Regions closed the sale of Morgan Keegan and related affiliates to
Raymond James. In connection with the sale, Regions agreed to
indemnify Raymond James for all legal matters related to pre-
closing activities, including matters filed subsequent to the
Closing Date that relate to actions that occurred prior to
closing.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Stock Suit Stayed Pending Certification Review
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed against Regions Financial Corporation is stayed
pending a review of an order certifying the case as a class
action, according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

In October 2010, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed by
Regions' stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama against Regions and certain former officers of
Regions. The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities
laws, including allegations that statements that were materially
false and misleading were included in filings made with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). The plaintiffs have
requested equitable relief and unspecified monetary damages.

On June 7, 2011, the trial court denied Regions' motion to dismiss
this lawsuit. On June 14, 2012, the trial court granted class
certification. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is reviewing
the trial court's grant of class-action certification. The case is
now stayed pending that review.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Still Faces Suit Over Morgan Keegan Bond Sales
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Regions Financial Corporation continues to face a purported class
action brought on behalf of retail purchasers of municipal bonds
sold by Morgan Keegan, according to Regions' May 8, 2013, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and states of Missouri
and Texas are investigating alleged securities law violations by
Morgan Keegan in the underwriting and sale of certain municipal
bonds.

An enforcement action was brought by the Missouri Secretary of
State on April 4, 2013, seeking monetary penalties and other
relief. A civil action was brought by institutional investors of
the bonds on March 19, 2012, seeking a return of their investment
and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. A class action
was brought on behalf of retail purchasers of the bonds on
September 4, 2012, seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages. These actions are in the early stages. These matters are
also subject to the indemnification agreement with Raymond James.

Regions closed the sale of Morgan Keegan and related affiliates to
Raymond James. In connection with the sale, Regions agreed to
indemnify Raymond James for all legal matters related to pre-
closing activities, including matters filed subsequent to the
Closing Date that relate to actions that occurred prior to
closing.


ROSETTA STONE: Earmarks $600,000 for Labor Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosetta Stone Inc. reserved $0.6 million for a proposed settlement
of a lawsuit filed by salaried managers in its retail locations in
California, according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In April 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Alameda for damages, injunctive relief and restitution
in the matter of Michael Pierce, Patrick Gould, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rosetta Stone Ltd.
and DOES 1 to 50.

The complaint alleges that plaintiffs and other persons similarly
situated who are or were employed as salaried managers by the
Company in its retail locations in California are due unpaid wages
and other relief for the Company's violations of state wage and
hour laws. Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to include a
nationwide class in January 2011.

In March 2011, the case was removed to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California. In November 2011,
the parties agreed to the mediator's proposed settlement terms,
and as a result, as of September 30, 2011, the Company reserved
$0.6 million for the proposed settlement amount. The Company
disputes the plaintiffs' claims and it has not admitted any
wrongdoing with respect to the case.


ROYAL CANADIAN: Court Hears Arguments in Harassment Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
CTVNews.ca reports that lawyers were in a B.C. courtroom on June 4
to argue that a lawsuit filed by a female RCMP officer should be
declared a class-action and go before a judge.

The suit, brought forward by RCMP veteran Janet Merlo, alleges
that she and other female members faced gender-based
discrimination and the force failed to do anything about it.  The
women allege they were bullied and harassed on the job.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

Ms. Merlo's lawsuit is just one of a number that the RCMP is
facing that allege harassment or sexual abuse within the force.

Cpl. Catherine Galliford, a former RCMP spokesperson in Vancouver
who was a very public face of the force during the Air India and
Robert Pickton cases, filed a lawsuit last year alleging she was
subject to years of abuse.  Const. Karen Katz has filed two
lawsuits: one in which she alleges she was harassed and sexually
assaulted by a colleague, and another in which she alleges abuse
that spanned her career.

The RCMP has issued denials in several of the cases.

An internal report released last year found that gender-based
harassment was common among female officers who participated in
the study.  The Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP
made several recommendations for changing the way the force
handles internal grievances about harassment, including making the
process more independent, imposing strict timelines for dealing
with allegations, and relevant training for all members of the
force.

In response to that report, Deputy Commissioner Craig Callens
announced that the Mounties would establish an investigative team
devoted solely to harassment complaints.

On June 3, RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson told a Senate committee
probing harassment and bullying that the force is making several
changes in order to address and eradicate abuse of all kinds.

"The vast majority of my members and employees are out there every
day, every night, all the time, busting their humps at delivering
a safe Canada for Canadians because they love the work and they
love this country," Mr. Paulson said.

"These are the people I'm beholden to.  And these are the people
that deserve a respectful, supportive and enabling workplace."
At the committee hearing, Mr. Paulson did, however, criticize some
members who have gone public with their allegations.

"We are progressing, honorable senators, believe me.  But like any
workforce or workplace, we have people who, for one reason or
another, will not get on board with the mission of the
organization and are looking for easy street," Mr. Paulson said.

"I can't be continually defending against outlandish claims that
have not been tested or established, but yet are being put forward
as though they are gospel and representative of the modern
workplace experience of the RCMP, because they are not."


SAM'S WEST: Recalls 6,200 Sam's Club Outdoor Seating Groups
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
importer, Sam's West Inc., of Bentonville, Arkansas; and
manufacturer, Heshan Camis Industrial Co. LTD, of Guangdong,
China, announced a voluntary recall of about 6,200 units of Metro
6-piece Outdoor Seating Group and Montero 4-piece Outdoor Seating
Group.  Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The swivel bases on the chairs in the seating groups can break,
posing a fall hazard to consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall includes the Metro 6-piece and Montero 4-piece outdoor
seating groups.  The Metro 6-piece seating set includes two swivel
glider rockers, a sofa, two ottomans made from woven wicker and a
coffee table/trunk with basket weave trim.  The set has Jockey Red
Sunbrella cushions and four red and tan fabric toss pillows.  The
Montero woven wicker 4-piece Seating Set includes two swivel
glider rockers, a sofa, and a porcelain tile top coffee table.
This set has Linen Straw Sunbrella cushions and two toss pillows
in a tan geometric fabric pattern.  The item names are printed on
hangtags on both seating groups and the Sunbrella brand name is
sewn-in on tags on the cushions.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at: http://is.gd/lasfBX

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Sam's Club retail stores nationwide and online at
samsclub.com from March 2013 through April 2013.  The Metro
Seating Group sold for about $1,600 and the Montero Seating Group
sold for about $1,400.

Consumers should immediately stop using these seating groups and
return to a Sam's Club location or call Sam's Club to receive a
full refund and schedule a pick-up of the products.  Sam's Club
has notified all known purchasers of the recalled products.  Sam's
Club may be reached toll-free at (888) 746-7726 from 7:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. Central Time Saturday, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Central
Time Sunday or anytime online at http://www.samsclub.com/and then
click "Contact Us" for more information.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Okla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in the In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities
Litigation has until July 23, 2013 to file a consolidated amended
complaint, according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On December 5, 2012, James Glitz and Rodger A. Thornberry, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against
SandRidge Energy, Inc. and certain of the Company's executive
officers.

On January 4, 2013, Louis Carbone, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated stockholders, filed a substantially
similar putative class action complaint in the same court and
against the same defendants.

In each case, the plaintiffs allege that, between February 24,
2011, and November 8, 2012, the defendants made false and
misleading statements, and omitted material information,
concerning the Company's oil reserves and business fundamentals,
and engaged in a scheme to deceive the market.

The plaintiffs seek, among other relief, unspecified damages. On
March 6, 2013, the court consolidated these two actions under the
caption "In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation" and
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. By order dated April
10, 2013, the court granted the lead plaintiff until July 23, 2013
to file a consolidated amended complaint in the action.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Plaintiff in TPG-Related Suit Raises New Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware has not yet ruled
on a motion by plaintiff in a suit by shareholders against
Sandridge Energy, Inc. to assert a new claim after the company and
TPG-Axon entered into a settlement agreement, according to the
company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On January 7, 2013, Gerald Kallick, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated stockholders, filed a putative class
action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against SandRidge Energy, Inc., and each of the Company's current
directors.

On January 31, 2013, the plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint. In his amended complaint, the plaintiff seeks:

   (i) declaratory relief that certain change-in-control
provisions in the Company's indentures and credit agreement are
invalid and unenforceable,

  (ii) declaratory relief that the directors breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to approve the slate of directors
proposed by TPG-Axon in its consent solicitation in order to
disable the change-in-control provisions,

(iii) a mandatory injunction requiring the directors to approve
nominees for the Board of Directors (the "Board") submitted by
TPG-Axon,

  (iv) a mandatory injunction prohibiting the Company from paying
the Company's CEO his change-in-control benefits under his
employment agreement in the event the CEO is removed as a
director, but remains employed as the Company's CEO,

   (v) a mandatory injunction enjoining the defendants from
impeding or interfering with the dissident stockholder's consent
solicitation,

  (vi) a mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to disclose
all material information related to the change-in-control
provisions in the Company's indentures and credit agreement; and

(vii) an order requiring the Company's current directors to
account to the plaintiff and the putative class for alleged
damages.

On March 8, 2013, the court granted plaintiff's motion for a
preliminary injunction, enjoining the Board, unless and until it
approved the TPG-Axon nominees for purposes of the change-in-
control provisions of the Company's outstanding debt agreements,
from (i) soliciting any further consent revocations in opposition
to TPG-Axon's consent solicitation, (ii) relying upon or otherwise
giving effect to any consent revocations received by the Company
as of March 11, 2013, and (iii) impeding the dissident
stockholder's consent solicitation in any way.

On March 9, 2013, the Board approved TPG-Axon's nominees for
purposes of the change-in-control provisions in the Company's debt
instruments.

On March 13, 2013, TPG-Axon and the Board entered into a
settlement agreement under which TPG-Axon's consent solicitation
was withdrawn. As a result of these actions, the Company believes
that many of the claims asserted by the plaintiff in the Kallick
action have been rendered moot. On April 9, 2013, however, the
plaintiff filed a motion to supplement his complaint to assert a
new claim. The court has not yet ruled on the motion.


SEARS HOLDINGS: Appeals Court Ordered to Revisit Washer Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Stohr, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Sears
Holdings Corp. won a round in a legal clash over moldy washing
machines, as the U.S. Supreme Court ordered reconsideration of a
decision letting consumers in six states press a class-action suit
against the retailer.

The justices on June 3 told a federal appeals court to revisit the
case in light of a Supreme Court opinion issued in March that
threw out a class-action case against Comcast Corp.

A Chicago-based federal appeals court let the claims against Sears
go forward, saying a class action would be the most efficient way
to resolve the dispute.

The suing consumers say their front-loading Kenmore washers, made
by Whirlpool Corp. starting in 2001, didn't clean themselves
adequately, causing a smelly buildup of mold.  The customers also
say many of the washers had a defective control unit that caused
the machines to shut down.

Sears, controlled by hedge fund manager Edward Lampert, contends a
class action is inappropriate under the rules governing federal
lawsuits because the mold problem affected only a small fraction
of the washers.

The lawsuit covers breach-of-warranty complaints by consumers in
six states -- California, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota
and Texas.

Sears, based in the Chicago suburb of Hoffman Estates, Illinois,
is one of at least eight sellers or manufacturers of front-loading
washers to be sued.  Together the lawsuits involve tens of
millions of consumers and virtually every front-loading machine
sold for more than a decade, Sears said in its Supreme Court
appeal.

                          Comcast Case

In the Comcast case decided in March, the Philadelphia-based cable
provider was accused of monopolizing its hometown market.  The
customers who sued said Comcast swapped territories and
subscribers with competitors to ensure that it could control the
market and charge higher prices.  Comcast, the largest U.S. cable
company, has denied the allegations.

The high court, ruling 5-4, said the customers didn't meet
requirements for outlining a common method that could be used to
set financial damages for each of the thousands of individual
parties to the lawsuit.

The case is Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Butler, 12-1067.


SHALIMAR KULFI: Recalls Authentic East Indian Style Ice Cream
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 14, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Tree Nut
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Shalimar Kulfi
Distribution:             Alberta
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8081

Affected products:

Brand name   Common name      Size   Code(s) on product
----------   -----------      ----   ------------------
Shalimar     Authentic East   75 g   All packages where milk and
Kulfi        Indian Style            pistachios are not declared
              Ice Cream -             in the ingredient list.
              "Pistacho"

UPC: 1512147261

Shalimar     Authentic East   75 g   All packages where milk
Kulfi        Indian Style            is not declared in the
              Ice Cream -             ingredient list.
              Mango

UPC: 1512147261

Shalimar     Authentic East   75 g   All packages where milk
Kulfi        Indian Style            is not declared in the
              Ice Cream -             ingredient list.
              Malai Mawa

UPC: 1512147261


SPICE AVENUE: Bid to Partially Dismiss "Martinez" Suit Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert W. Sweet ruled that the amended complaint in
JUAN CARLOS GOMEZ MARTINEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SPICE AVENUE
INC., et al., Defendants, NO. 12 CIV. 503, (S.D. N.Y.), is
dismissed to the extent it asserts claims seeking collective
action or class action certification for any period of time prior
to December 11, 2009.

Defendants Spice Avenue Inc., Bangkok Palace II, Inc., Spice City,
Inc., Spice West, Inc., Spice Thai Hot & Cool LLC, Kitlen
Management, Inc., Spice Corner 236 Inc., Kittigorn Lirtpanaruk and
Yongyut Limleartvate have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint
in part pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Michael A. Faillace, Esq. -- michael@faillacelaw.com -- of MICHAEL
FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., in New York, NY, represented the
Plaintiffs.

Richard E. Signorelli, Esq. -- rsignorelli@nyclitigator.com --
Bryan Ha, Esq. -- bhanyc@gmail.com ? of the LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD
E. SIGNORELLI in New York, NY, and Robert D. Lipman, Esq., of
LIPMAN & PLESUR, LLP, in Jericho, NY, represented the Defendants.

A copy of the District Court's June 12, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/vEpwsDfrom Leagle.com.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit against Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. and
certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States
District Court, District of Kansas, and docketed under 13-cv-
02261, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Spirit
AeroSystems between May 5, 2011 and October 24, 2012 both dates
inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors as a result of
alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Spirit AeroSystems
securities during the Class Period, you have until August 2, 2013
to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.
A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, number of shares
purchased, and losses.

Spirit AeroSystems designs and manufactures aerostructures
fuselages, propulsion systems and wing systems for commercial and
military aircrafts.  The Company's main customers are The Boeing
Company and Airbus SAS.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company was having
difficulties in executing its diversification and growth strategy
as it expanded its customer-base, manufacturing sites, and product
design capabilities, while managing multiple development programs
with significant design changes and schedule delays; (ii) the
Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls,
specifically adequate controls over cost overruns on its 787
program, G650 Wing program, BR725 program and the G280 Wing
program; and (iii) as a result of the above, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On October 25, 2012, the Company disclosed for the first time that
it expected to record charges against 2012 earnings, and to future
years' earnings, totaling $590 million, attributed to significant
operational problems across multiple product lines.  Analysts
immediately voiced suspicions that defendants had misled investors
regarding the profitability of the 787 program, sustained free
cash flows and the fact that there was an impending write-down
which accounted for nearly 20% of Spirit AeroSystems' contractual
revenues.  On this news, Spirit AeroSystems stock declined $6.55
per share or 30%, to close at $15.11 per share on October 25,
2012.

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

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


STANDARD FIRE: Attorneys Want Class Action Back in Texarkana
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Friedman, writing for Arkansas Business News, reports that a
loss at the U.S. Supreme Court in March isn't stopping plaintiffs'
attorneys from fighting to return a potential class-action lawsuit
to the friendly confines of Miller County Circuit Court.

John Goodson of the Texarkana firm of Keil & Goodson is one of the
attorneys representing Greg Knowles in his case against Standard
Fire Insurance Co. and wants the lawsuit back in Miller County
instead of U.S. District Court in Texarkana.

U.S. District Court Judge P.K. Holmes III of Fort Smith recently
ordered Standard Fire to file its response to Mr. Goodson's motion
by June 10.

Standard Fire's attorney Lyn Pruitt of Little Rock didn't return a
call for comment.

The stakes are high for Mr. Goodson and his co-counsels, the Texas
law firms of Nix Patterson & Roach and Crowley Norman.  The firms
extracted more than $420 million in attorneys' fees in recent
years tied to out-of-court settlements in 23 lawsuits, nearly all
of them in Miller County, according to court documents filed in
the U.S. Supreme Court appeal.

Mr. Goodson didn't return a call for comment.

When the Mr. Knowles lawsuit was filed in 2011 in Miller County
Circuit Court, the plaintiffs' attorneys stipulated in the
complaint that Mr. Knowles and the rest of the class would not
seek more than $5 million in damages and fees for the Arkansas
policyholders.

Those points were key under the Class Action Fairness Act that
Congress passed in 2005.

Under CAFA, a lawsuit involving a class of plaintiffs from
multiple states can be moved out of a state court and into federal
court by a motion of the defendants.  The defendants also can move
a class-action case into federal court if the plaintiffs claim
damages, including attorneys' fees, of more than $5 million.

Standard Fire wanted no part of Miller County, where class-action
defendants were pummeled with requests to produce -- at their own
expense -- thousands or even millions of pages of documents.  The
discovery costs alone could run into the millions, so most
defendants decided to settle.

Standard Fire attempted to move the case to U.S. District Court in
2011, where it thought it would have an impartial court
experience.  In order to get the case moved out of Miller County
Circuit Court, however, the company was placed in the
uncomfortable position of having to argue that the damages were
more than the plaintiffs were seeking.

Judge Holmes sent it back to Miller County because of Mr. Knowles'
stipulation.

Standard Fire appealed, and the case made it to the U.S. Supreme
Court.  On March 19, the high court issued a unanimous decision in
favor of Standard Fire. It said the plaintiffs can't say from the
get-go that they aren't seeking more than $5 million in fees and
damages.  The Knowles case was sent back to U.S. District Court.

                          Fresh Review

On March 28, just nine days after the Supreme Court ruling,
attorney W.H. Taylor of the Fayetteville law firm Taylor Law
Partners, Keil & Goodson and the two Texas firms filed a motion
asking Judge Holmes to reconsider whether the $5 million damages
threshold had been met in the Knowles case.

Judge Holmes had ruled in 2011 that the case was worth more than
$5 million, but since Goodson and the other plaintiffs' attorneys
stipulated that they wouldn't seek more than $5 million, Judge
Holmes believe he had no choice but to send the case back to
Miller County.

The plaintiffs' attorneys argued that Judge Holmes' finding is no
longer binding and the court should take a "fresh review of
Standard Fire's evidence," according to the motion.  The
plaintiffs' attorneys would like to conduct a limited discovery to
show that the case is worth less than $5 million.

What sparked the lawsuit in the first place was hail damage to
Mr. Knowles' Miller County home.  He claimed in the lawsuit that
Standard Fire didn't pay enough of his claim to cover a general
contractor's overhead and profit, which is 20% of an estimated
job.  Mr. Knowles said his Standard Fire agent never told him he
was entitled to receive the money for the contractor.

Mr. Taylor said in the filing that Standard's total amount of
damages and attorneys' fees of $5,024,150 for the proposed class
is wrong.  He calculated it at $4,997,837, a dispute of just
$26,313 but huge in that the lower figure would allow the
plaintiffs to keep the case in the county court that has been so
lucrative in the past.


STATE UNIV OF NY: Equal Pay Act Claim in "Suzuki" Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas C. Platt granted a motion for partial
dismissal of a First Amended Complaint (FAC) in the case captioned
RISTINA ABREU SUZUKI, Plaintiff, v. STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
COLLEGE AT OLD WESTBURY, Defendant, NO. 08-CV-4569 (TCP),
(E.D. N.Y.)

Judge Platt held that the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's individual Equal Pay Act (EPA) claim is granted
because the claim is unsupported by factual allegations making it
plausible that the Defendant violated the EPA and, consequently,
the FAC does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

According to Judge Platt, the Defendant's motion is granted on the
Plaintiff's proposed class EPA claim because (1) the allegations
in the complaint are vague and conclusory and therefore do not
state a claim; (2) Federal Rule of Procedure 23 is an improper
mechanism for bringing a class action in an EPA case; (3) no
written consents from potential plaintiffs were filed; and (4) the
collective EPA claim is time barred.

Christina Abreu Suzuki is represented by Suzanne Tongring, Esq. --
stongring@tongringlaw.com -- of Tongring Law Offices and Terrence
Buehler, Esq.  -- tbuehler@touhylaw.com -- of Touhy,Touhy, Buehler
& Williams LLP.

SUNY Old Westbury is represented by Ralph Pernick, Esq. --
ralph.pernick@ag.ny.gov -- New York State Attorney General.

A copy of the District Court's June 13, 2013 Memorandum and Order
is available at http://is.gd/OnHGkyfrom Leagle.com.


SUNSPROUT NATURAL: Recalls Sunsprout/SproutsAlive Alfalfa Sprouts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 14, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Sunsprout Natural Foods
Distribution:             Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador,
                          Nova Scotia, May be National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8068

The public warning issued on June 12, 2013, has been updated to
include additional distribution information.

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

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

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

Affected products:

   Brand name     Size         UPC         Code(s) on product
   ----------     ----    ---------------   -----------------
   Sunsprout      140 g   0 57621 13501 7   Best before Code
                                            BB JUN 13

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

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


T-MOBILE US: Shareholders Sue Over Plan to Combine With MetroPCS
----------------------------------------------------------------
T-Mobile US, Inc. faces class action complaints in relation to a
combination agreement with MetroPCS Communications, Inc.,
T-Mobile disclosed in its Consolidated Financial Statements for
December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2013.

Since the announcement on October 3, 2012 of the execution of the
business agreement to combine T-Mobile USA, Inc. and MetroPCS
Communications, Inc., MetroPCS, Deutsche Telekom AG (and certain
of its subsidiaries), T-Mobile and the members of the MetroPCS
board, including an officer of MetroPCS, have been named as
defendants in multiple stockholder derivative and class action
complaints challenging the transaction.

The lawsuits generally allege, among other things, that the
transaction fails to properly value MetroPCS and that the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in approving
the business combination agreement and, in some of the lawsuits,
that those breaches were aided and abetted by Deutsche Telekom
(and certain of its subsidiaries), and T-Mobile.

The lawsuits seek, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining
the defendants from completing the transaction on the agreed-upon
terms, monetary relief and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously.
For the year ended December 31, 2012, T-Mobile incurred $7 million
costs associated with this transaction included in general and
administrative, primarily consisting of professional service fees.

In an 8-K filing on the same day, T-Mobile said it is involved in
six putative stockholder derivative and class action lawsuits
challenging the business combination with MetroPCS Communications,
Inc. These lawsuits include:

Paul Benn v. MetroPCS Communications, Inc. et al., Case No. C.A.
7938-CS filed on October 11, 2012 in the Delaware Court of
Chancery;

Joseph Marino v. MetroPCS Communications, Inc. et al., Case No.
C.A. 7940-CS filed on October 11, 2012 in the Delaware Court of
Chancery;

Robert Picheny v. MetroPCS Communications, Inc. et al., Case No.
C.A. 7971-CS filed on October 22, 2012 in the Delaware Court of
Chancery;

James McLearie v. MetroPCS Communications, Inc. et al., Case No.
C.A. 8009-CS filed on November 5, 2012 in the Delaware Court of
Chancery;

Adam Golovoy et al. v. Deutsche Telekom et al., Cause No. CC-12-
06144-A filed on October 10, 2012 in the Dallas, Texas County
Court at Law; and

Nagendra Polu et al. v. Deutsche Telekom et al., Cause No. CC-12-
06170-E filed on October 10, 2012 in the Dallas, Texas County
Court at Law.

The lawsuits allege that the various defendants breached fiduciary
duties, or aided and abetted in the alleged breach of fiduciary
duties, to the MetroPCS stockholders by entering into the
transaction. In addition, on March 28, 2013, another lawsuit
challenging the transaction and related disclosures, and alleging
breaches of fiduciary duty to MetroPCS shareholders was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
entitled The Merger Fund et al. v. MetroPCS Communications, Inc.
et al.


TIM HORTONS: Restaurant Owners to Appeal Dismissal of Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by franchisees of Tim Hortons
Inc. are seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada a
ruling that dismissed all claims against the company, according to
the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

On June 12, 2008, a claim was filed against the Company and
certain of its affiliates in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
(the "Court") by two of its franchisees, Fairview Donut Inc. and
Brule Foods Ltd., alleging, generally, that the Company's Always
Fresh baking system and expansion of lunch offerings have led to
lower franchisee profitability.

The claim, which sought class action certification on behalf of
Canadian restaurant owners, asserted damages of approximately
$1.95 billion. Those damages were claimed based on breach of
contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing,
negligent misrepresentations, unjust enrichment and price
maintenance.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of the putative
class in May 2009, and the Company filed its responding materials
as well as a motion for summary judgment in November 2009. The 2
motions were heard in August and October 2011. On February 24,
2012, the Court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment
and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims in their entirety. The Court
also found that certain aspects of the test for certification of
the action as a class proceeding had been met, but all of the
underlying claims were nonetheless dismissed as part of the
aforementioned summary judgment decision.

While the Court found in favor of the Company on all claims, the
plaintiffs appealed from the summary judgment decision with
respect to some of the claims for breach of contract and with
respect to the claim for breach of the duty of good faith. The
appeal was heard in December 2012 at which time the Court of
Appeal for Ontario dismissed all claims in their entirety.

The plaintiffs have filed an application to seek leave to appeal
to the Supreme Court of Canada. If leave is granted and the appeal
determined adversely to the Company, the matter could ultimately
proceed to trial. The Company continues to believe that it would
have good and tenable defenses if leave to appeal were granted,
the plaintiffs were successful in the appeal, and the matters were
to proceed to trial. However, if the matters were determined
adversely to the Company at trial and that determination was
upheld after all avenues of appeal were exhausted, it is possible
that the claims could have a material adverse impact on the
Company's financial position or liquidity.


TOMPKINS FINANCIAL: Settles Merger-Related Suits for $250,000
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tompkins Financial Corporation settled two merger-related class
action lawsuits for $250,000, according to the Company's May 10,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On January 25, 2012, Tompkins Financial Corporation ("Tompkins"),
TMP Mergeco, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), a wholly owned acquisition
subsidiary of Tompkins, and VIST Financial Corp. ("VIST") entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement")
pursuant to which VIST will be merged with and into Merger Sub
(the "Merger").  As a result of the Merger, the separate corporate
existence of VIST will cease and Merger Sub will continue as the
surviving corporation in the Merger.

On May 16, 2012, Tompkins and VIST filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") a definitive Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus (the "Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus") in
connection with the proposed Merger.

On April 1, 2013, the Company settled two putative class action
lawsuits brought by former VIST shareholders, each alleging
various disclosure deficiencies in the proxy materials provided to
VIST shareholders in connection with the VIST special meeting to
consider the merger with Tompkins.  The amount of the settlement,
which covered both actions, was $250,000, and it consisted
entirely of fees paid to the plaintiffs' attorneys.  The entire
cost of the settlement was covered by the Company's and VIST's
insurance carriers.

Based in Ithaca, New York, Tompkins Financial Corporation is a
registered financial holding company incorporated in 1995 under
the laws of New York.  The Company is a locally-oriented,
community-based financial services organization that offers a full
array of financial products and services, including commercial and
consumer banking, leasing, trust and investment services,
financial planning and wealth management, insurance and brokerage
services.


TOWNSEND FARMS: Faces Class Action Over Hepa A-Linked Berry Mix
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Will, writing for Food Poisoning Bulletin, reports that
Hepatitis A lawyers are representing people who contracted
Hepatitis A infections after eating Townsend Farms Organic Anti-
Oxidant Blend purchased at Costco, the berry mix associated with a
Hepatitis A outbreak that has sickened people in at least 7
states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico
and Utah.  Attorneys Fred Pritzker, Brendan Flaherty and Ryan
Osterholm are lead lawyers for these cases.

There has been a recall of the Costco berries associated with this
outbreak.  Townsend Farms, Inc., an Oregon company, recalled
Townsend Farms Organic Antioxidant Blend, 3 lb. bag, sold at
Costco with UPC 0 78414 404448.  The recalled codes are located on
the back of the package with the words "BEST BY" followed by the
code T012415 sequentially through T053115, followed by a letter.
The company also recalled product sold at Harris Teeter, Harris
Teeter Organic Antioxidant Berry Blend, 10 oz. bag UPC 0 72036
70463 4.  The "Lot" and "best by" codes are as follows: Lot Codes
T041613E, T041613C and a "BEST BY" code of 101614.

Lawyers Fred Pritzker, Brendan Flaherty and Ryan Osterholm are
helping people who may have contracted Hepatitis A from Costco-
Townsend Farms berries.


TOWNSEND FARMS: Marler Clark Retained in Hepatitis A Outbreak Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Clark, writing for Food Poison Journal, reports that since
the announcement of the Hepatitis A outbreak from Townsend Farms
Organic Antioxidant Blend sold at Costco, people sickened by the
product, and those who have received Hepatitis A vaccines or IG
shots in an attempt to not become ill, have retained Bill Marler
at Marler Clark.

The Hepatitis A lawyers of Marler Clark have represented thousands
of victims of Hepatitis A and other foodborne illness outbreaks
since 1993 Jack in the Box E. coli Outbreak.

Marler Clark is the only law firm in the nation with a practice
focused exclusively on foodborne illness litigation.  Marler Clark
has litigated Hepatitis A cases stemming from outbreaks traced to
a variety of sources, such as green onions, lettuce and restaurant
food, including:

   -- 1,300 persons as part of a class action on behalf of persons
who received IG shots due to an Hepatitis A outbreak in June and
July, 2000 in Spokane, Washington, which was associated with food
served at a Carl's Jr. fast food restaurant there.

   -- 1,500 individuals in a class action related to an Hepatitis
A outbreak at the D'Angelo's in Swansea, Massachusetts in 2001.

   -- 9,000 persons who received IG shots due to an outbreak of
Hepatitis A at a Chi-Chi's restaurant near Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania in 2003.

   -- 3,800 persons as part of a class action on behalf of persons
who received IG shots due to an Hepatitis A exposure in June, 2004
at a Friendly's restaurant in Arlington, Massachusetts.

   -- 850 persons as part of a class action on behalf of persons
who received IG shots due to an Hepatitis A exposure at a Quizno's
in Boston, Massachusetts in 2004.

   -- 3,000 persons who received IG shots due to potential
Hepatitis A exposure in January 2007 at a Houlihan's restaurant in
Geneva, Illinois.

   -- 5,000 persons who were required to get vaccinations against
Hepatitis A following exposure at a McDonald's restaurant in
Milan, Illinois.

   -- 3,000 persons who received Hepatitis A vaccines in 2011 due
to exposure at a Fayetteville, North Carolina Olive Garden.

   -- 450 persons who recently received Hepatitis A vaccines in
2013 due to exposure at New York's Alta restaurant.

In addition, Marler Clark has represented hundreds of those who
unfortunately became ill with Hepatitis A, including one who died
and one who required a life-saving liver transplant, in the
following outbreaks:

Carl's Jr. Hepatitis A Outbreak Lawsuits - Washington (2000)
Chi-Chi's Hepatitis A Outbreak Lawsuits ? Pennsylvania (2003)
Chipotle Grill Hepatitis A Outbreak Lawsuits ? California (2008)
D'Angelo's Deli Hepatitis A Outbreak Lawsuits ? Massachusetts
(2001)
Maple Lawn Dairy Hepatitis A Outbreak Lawsuit ? New York (2004)
McDonald's Hepatitis A Outbreak Lawsuit ? Washington (1998)
McDonald's Hepatitis A Outbreak Lawsuits ? Illinois (2009)
Soleil Produce Hepatitis A Outbreak Lawsuits ? California (2005)
Subway Hepatitis A Outbreak Lawsuits ? Washington (1999)
Taco Bell Hepatitis A Outbreak Lawsuits ? Florida (2000)

If you or a family member received a Hepatitis A vaccine or IG
short, or became ill with a Hepatitis A infection after consuming
Townsend Farms Organic Antioxidant Blend sold at Costco, and you
are interested in pursuing a legal claim, contact the Marler Clark
Hepatitis A attorneys.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Phase Two Trial in Macondo Well Suit in Sept.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
scheduled a trial date of September 16, 2013 for the second phase
of the trial in a suit filed against Transocean Ltd. in relation
to Macondo well claims, according to the company's May 8, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On April 22, 2010, the Ultra-Deepwater Floater Deepwater Horizon
sank after a blowout of the Macondo well caused a fire and
explosion on the rig.  Eleven persons were declared dead and
others were injured as a result of the incident.

Many of the Macondo well related claims are pending in the U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana (the "MDL Court").
In March 2012, BP America Production Co. and the Plaintiff's
Steering Committee (the "PSC") announced that they had agreed to a
partial settlement related primarily to private party
environmental and economic loss claims as well as response effort
related claims (the "BP/PSC Settlement").

The BP/PSC Settlement agreement provides that (a) to the extent
permitted by law, BP will assign to the settlement class certain
of BP's claims, rights and recoveries against the company for
damages with protections such that the settlement class is barred
from collecting any amounts from the company unless it is finally
determined that the company cannot recover such amounts from BP,
and (b) the settlement class releases all claims for compensatory
damages against the company but purports to retain claims for
punitive damages against us.

On December 21, 2012, the MDL Court granted final approval of the
economic and property damage class settlement between BP and the
PSC.  In December 2012, in response to the settlements, the
company filed three motions seeking partial summary judgment on
various claims, including punitive damages claims.  If successful,
these motions would eliminate or reduce the company's exposure to
punitive damages.  In the first motion, the company sought
judgment on both compensatory and punitive damages claims, as well
as any contribution claims, based on oil discharged below the
surface of the water, on the grounds that the MDL Court had ruled
in the suit brought by the U.S that the company were not a
responsible party under Oil Pollution Act of 1990 for this
subsurface discharge.

In the second motion, the company sought judgment on claims for
punitive damages by all members of the settlement classes on the
grounds that these plaintiffs cannot pursue punitive damages
because they no longer have compensatory damages claims against
the company.  The company further argued that even if these
settling class members could seek punitive damages, the MDL Court
cannot rely on the value of any settlement payments in making any
punitive damages award.

In the third motion, the company sought judgment on all claims for
contribution that BP purported to assign to the settlement classes
as part of the settlement on the grounds that this type of
assignment is invalid because, inter alia, BP did not obtain a
complete release of claims against the company and the
contribution claim would result in an impermissible double
recovery by class members.  The MDL Court has not ruled on these
motions.

The first phase of the trial commenced on February 25, 2013.
Pursuant to the MDL Court's order, the trial will address fault
issues that have not previously been disposed of or resolved by
settlement, summary judgment, or stipulation and that may properly
be tried by the MDL Court without a jury, including negligence,
gross negligence, or other bases of liability of the various
defendants with respect to the issues, and limitation of liability
issues.

The MDL Court has stated that, after this phase of the trial is
concluded, the MDL Court will ask the parties to submit post-trial
briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.  The
MDL Court has ordered post-trial briefs be submitted by June 21,
2013, and that reply briefs be filed by July 12, 2013.

If the MDL Court finds in this phase of the trial that the company
was grossly negligent, the company will be exposed to at least
three litigation risks: (1) the MDL Court could award punitive
damages under general maritime law to plaintiffs who own property
damaged by oil and to plaintiffs who are commercial fishermen; (2)
the MDL Court could find that the company's gross negligence voids
the release BP gave the company in the drilling contract for
direct claims by BP, which BP has assigned to the plaintiffs in
the BP/PSC settlement; and (3) the company could be liable for all
other oil pollution damages claims, including claims for natural
resource damages, if the MDL Court were to go beyond gross
negligence and find a "core breach" of the drilling contract, or
if the court of appeals were to reverse a prior ruling that BP
owes the company indemnity for these claims even in the event of
gross negligence.

The company's three pending motions for partial summary judgment,
if successful, could reduce or eliminate the company's exposure to
these claims.

The MDL Court has scheduled a trial date of September 16, 2013 for
the second phase of the trial, which will address conduct related
to stopping the release of hydrocarbons between April 22, 2010 and
approximately September 19, 2010 and seek to determine the amount
of oil actually released during the period.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Lawsuits Over Macondo Well Joined With MDL
----------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits pending in the federal and state courts against
Transocean Ltd. over alleged potential economic losses as a result
of environmental pollution arising out of the Macondo well
incident were transferred to the Multi-District Litigation,
according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

As of March 31, 2013, Transocean Ltd. and certain subsidiaries
were named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in 161
pending individual complaints as well as 190 putative class-action
complaints that were pending in the federal and state courts in
Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Florida and possibly other courts.

The complaints generally allege, among other things, potential
economic losses as a result of environmental pollution arising out
of the Macondo well incident and are based primarily on the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) and state OPA analogues.  The
plaintiffs are generally seeking awards of unspecified economic,
compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.
These actions have been transferred to the Multi-District
Litigation.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Cross Claims Assigned to PSC Settlement Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the settlement of claims between BP America Production
Co. and Plaintiff's Steering Committee (BP/PSC Settlement) related
to the Macondo well blowout, one or more cross-claims, counter-
claims, and third party claims against Transocean Ltd. were
assigned to the PSC settlement class, according to the company's
May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In March 2012, BP America Production Co. and the Plaintiff's
Steering Committee (the "PSC") announced that they had agreed to a
partial settlement related primarily to private party
environmental and economic loss claims as well as response effort
related claims.

In April 2011, several defendants in the MDL litigation filed
cross-claims or third-party claims against the company and certain
of its subsidiaries, and other defendants.  BP America Production
Co. filed a claim seeking contribution under the Oil Pollution Act
of 1990 (OPA) and maritime law, subrogation and claimed breach of
contract, unseaworthiness, negligence and gross negligence.  BP
also sought a declaration that it is not liable in contribution,
indemnification, or otherwise to us.

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation ("Anadarko"), which owned a 25
percent non-operating interest in the Macondo well, asserted
claims of negligence, gross negligence, and willful misconduct and
is seeking indemnity under state and maritime law and contribution
under maritime and state law as well as OPA.

MOEX Offshore 2007 LLC ("MOEX"), which owns a 10 percent non-
operating interest in the Macondo well, filed claims of negligence
under state and maritime law, gross negligence under state law,
gross negligence and willful misconduct under maritime law and is
seeking indemnity under state and maritime law and contribution
under maritime law and OPA.

Cameron, the manufacturer and designer of the blowout preventer,
asserted multiple claims for contractual indemnity and
declarations regarding contractual obligations under various
contracts and quotes and is also seeking non-contractual indemnity
and contribution under maritime law and OPA.  As part of the
BP/PSC Settlement, one or more of these claims against the company
and certain of its subsidiaries have been assigned to the PSC
settlement class.

Halliburton Company ("Halliburton"), which provided cementing and
mud-logging services to the operator, filed a claim against the
company seeking contribution and indemnity under maritime law,
contractual indemnity and alleging negligence and gross
negligence.  Additionally, certain other third parties filed
claims against the company for indemnity and contribution.

In April 2011, the company filed cross-claims and counter-claims
against BP, Halliburton, Anadarko, MOEX, certain of these parties'
affiliates, the U.S. and certain other third parties.  The company
seeks indemnity, contribution, including contribution under OPA,
and subrogation under OPA, and it asserted claims for breach of
warranty of workmanlike performance, strict liability for
manufacturing and design defect, breach of express contract, and
damages for the difference between the fair market value of
Deepwater Horizon and the amount received from insurance proceeds.

The Consent Decree limits the company's ability to seek
indemnification or reimbursement with respect to certain of these
matters against the owners of the Macondo well.  The company is
not pursuing arbitration on the key contractual issues with BP;
instead, it is relying on the court to resolve the disputes.

With regard to the U.S., the company is not currently seeking
recovery of monetary damages, but rather a declaration regarding
relative fault and contribution via credit, setoff, or recoupment.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: NY Securities Suit Stayed Pending 2nd Cir Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted a motion by Transocean Ltd. to stay a securities suit
pending a decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in an
unrelated action that could be relevant to the disposition of the
case, according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

A federal securities class action is currently pending in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, naming the company
and former chief executive officers of Transocean Ltd. and one of
the company's acquired companies as defendants.  In the action, a
former shareholder of the acquired company alleges that the joint
proxy statement related to the company's shareholder meeting in
connection with the company's merger with the acquired company
violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"), Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The plaintiff claims that the acquired company's shareholders
received inadequate consideration for their shares as a result of
the alleged violations and seeks compensatory and rescissory
damages and attorneys' fees.  In addition, the company is
obligated to pay the defense fees and costs for the individual
defendants, which may be covered by its directors' and officers'
liability insurance, subject to a deductible.

On October 4, 2012, the court denied the company's motion to
dismiss the action.  On October 5, 2012, the company asked the
court to stay the action pending a decision by the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals in an unrelated action involving other parties on
the grounds that the Second Circuit's decision could be relevant
to the disposition of this case.  On October 10, 2012, the court
stayed discovery pending a decision on the motion to stay.

On February 19, 2013, the court granted the company's motion to
stay the action pending the decision of the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals.  On March 27, 2013, this matter was reassigned to the
Southern District of New York.  The parties have been directed to
submit a joint summary of the case during the second quarter of
2013.


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

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

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

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


VISA INC: $7.25-Bil. Swipe Fee Class Action Settlement Stalls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Bjorhus, writing for Star Tribune, reports that legal
settlements usually settle disputes, but a proposed $7.25 billion
class-action settlement involving Visa and MasterCard appears to
be erupting into a whole new battle over the fees retailers have
to pay when consumers pull out their plastic.

Scores of angry retailers -- from Wal-Mart and Starbuck's to
Target and Domino's Pizza -- opted out of the historic settlement
within the deadline and filed formal objections for U.S. District
Judge John Gleeson in Brooklyn to consider.  Some, such as
Minneapolis-based Target Corp. and Macy's Inc., already have
struck back with a new lawsuit seeking damages.

They are walking away from what's regarded as the largest private
antitrust class-action settlement in U.S. history, one that
involves more than 7 million U.S. businesses -- just about every
entity that swiped a Visa or MasterCard credit or debit card since
2004.

"It's extraordinarily rare for a class settlement to be rejected
because of concerns raised by class members," said David Fink --
dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com -- of Fink and Associates Law in
Bloomfield Hills, Mich., who specializes in class-action
litigation.

At the heart of the battle are allegations that Visa, MasterCard
and a group of card-issuing banks illegally colluded since 2004 to
fix the swipe fees merchants pay to process cards.  The
interchange fees average about 2% of every purchase at the
register, and total about $30 billion a year.

Many retailers say the swipe fees rival their health care costs as
a significant operating expense.  The National Retail Federation
estimates the swipe fees drive up consumer costs by more than $250
a year per average household.

"[The settlement] fails to address the price fixing that harms
merchants and their consumers.  It takes away retailers' legal
rights to ever try again, and it offers virtually nothing in
return," said Mallory Duncan, the retail federation's general
counsel, in a news release.

Visa and MasterCard say there has never been a finding of
antitrust violations, and the swipe fees are justified for
providing a valuable service that boosts retailers' sales.  Trish
Wexler, spokeswoman for the Electronic Payments Coalition, said
her group is confident the settlement will be approved, as it was
the result of years of legal wrangling plus two years of court-
appointed mediation.

The objecting retailers "are not raising anything new that hasn't
already been discussed and over-discussed for seven years," she
said.

Ultimately, control over the U.S. interchange system for
processing cards is at stake, and the outcome of the settlement
dispute could have far-reaching consequences for Visa and
MasterCard, which dominate the credit card industry, said Patricia
Hewitt, a payments analyst at Boston-based Mercator Advisory
Group.  Consumers could see the costs for their credit cards
climb, too, she said.

"We can see that interchange as a system is being examined and
analyzed and modified all over the world," Hewitt said.  "This
industry is evolving. This is likely another evolutionary turn of
the industry."

Just how many businesses dropped out of the swipe-fee agreement
won't be known for some time.  If merchants accounting for more
than 25% of the total credit-card volume from 2004 through 2012
opt out, which is highly unlikely, the defendants can walk away.

All eyes are on the judge, who must decide whether the deal is
"fair, reasonable and adequate" for the vast class of businesses.
He could reject the deal or take some other course of action.  If
the settlement fails, the dispute could proceed to trial.

Some Main Street retailers say the interchange fees are excessive,
but they are too busy making a living to give the brouhaha much
attention.

"I'm kind of a blue-collar kind of guy. I do my 10 hours a day
here," said Ken Herren, owner of Your Art's Desire Gallery of Art
and Framing in Minnetonka.  "I'll take whatever I can get," he
said of the settlement, adding that "If it hurts [the credit card
companies], I'm happy about that."

If the settlement is approved, payments are expected to amount to
about two to three months worth of a business's interchange tab.
For a very small businesses, it might be a few hundred dollars or
less.

The settlement stems from lawsuits merchants filed in 2005, and
attorneys for the huge class of merchants say that after more than
seven years of wrangling it's the best deal possible.  It
abolishes the Visa and MasterCard "no surcharge" rules, permitting
merchants to pass their fees on to customers.  Experiences in
other countries such as Australia shows that merchants can drive
down interchange fees by surcharging, attorneys supporting the
deal say.

The deal also allows merchants to form buying groups to negotiate
better interchange rates, and requires Visa and MasterCard to
negotiate in good faith with them.  It cements reforms from a
consent decree between Visa/MasterCard and the U.S. Department of
Justice, as well as the Durbin Amendment, which capped debit-card
swipe fees.

Responding to media inquiries about the opposition, K. Craig
Wildfang -- kcwildfang@rkmc.com -- the Minneapolis lawyer who
helped broker the deal as co-lead counsel for the class of
retailers, has challenged the objecting retailers to present some
sort of viable Plan B.

Doug Kantor, a lawyer for the National Association of Convenience
Stores, a group at the forefront of the revolt, said there is no
procedure for producing a Plan B.

"Settlements get negotiated between parties," Mr. Kantor said.
"We have looked at many different permutations, but there is no
benefit whatsoever to publicly having a discussion only with
ourselves.  The defendants have made clear they are not discussing
or negotiating anything.  They are in take-it-or-leave-it mode."

Among other things, objecting retailers argue that the deal
doesn't reform the broken interchange system and leaves Visa and
MasterCard and the banks far too much power to set high rates,
costing retailers.

The retailers also say it contains a provision preventing
retailers from suing Visa and MasterCard over price-fixing in the
future, which some argue violates their constitutional right to
due process.

Target and a group of more than three dozen major retailers
escalated the fight on May 23, filing their own lawsuit against
Visa and MasterCard for damages from illegal price-fixing since
2004.

In a move to head off that and similar lawsuits, Visa and
MasterCard asked Judge Gleeson to declare once and for all that,
as it relates to the named defendants in the settlement that opted
out, Visa, MasterCard and the card-issuing banks did not violate
federal antitrust laws between 2004 and November 2012.

A fairness hearing is slated for Sept. 12.  Most observers say any
conclusive action is likely months away.


VISA INC: AGs Concerned About Pending Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
attorneys general of 48 states and the District of Columbia, in an
amicus brief recently filed in a federal court, said they are
concerned about a pending $7.25 billion class-action settlement
involving MasterCard and VISA payment networks.

The 31-page statement of objections was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York on May 28.  In their
brief, the attorneys general argue that the language in the
settlement -- as it is currently written -- may release or
interfere with their states' rights to bring antitrust cases on
behalf of consumers.

The antitrust, class-action lawsuit by private merchants, In re
Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust
Litigation, was filed over so-called interchange fees credit card
companies charged to process transactions.  The proposed
settlement was announced last summer, and it was preliminarily
approved by the federal court in November.

The states filed their brief at the deadline set by the court for
formal objections.

"This settlement could set a dangerous precedent of private
parties using a lawsuit to insulate themselves from future efforts
by my office to enforce state and federal antitrust laws on behalf
of West Virginians who may have been harmed," West Virginia
Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said in a statement on May 30.

The states, which are not parties to the suit, are concerned that
the proposed settlement seeks to release "parens patriae" powers
and other claims that belong exclusively to the states.

"Parens patriae" refers to a circumstance in which a state sues on
behalf of its people to protect their physical and economic well-
being.

The attorneys general assert that because these claims and
remedies are not available to the private merchants that filed the
class action, they cannot be released in the settlement.

"Defendants are not entitled to, and Class Plaintiffs cannot
provide, a release encompassing state law enforcement or parens
patriae claims," they wrote.

"All references to parens patriae, and to fines and civil or other
penalties, must be deleted from the release language, and the
Settlement Agreement should state expressly that no state or local
governmental entity or official (including state attorneys
general) that acts in a law enforcement or parens patriae capacity
is a Settlement Class Releasing Party."

The states said they have alerted the settling parties, met with
the defense counsel and communicated with all parties' counsel on
"several occasions" about the issue.

However, because they are "unwilling" to modify the release
language in the agreement to exclude the parens patriae
references, they were forced to submit their brief.

The attorneys general said they are continuing discussions with
the parties in an attempt to resolve the matter without court
intervention.

The federal court is not expected to consider final approval of
the settlement agreement until September.


VITACOST.COM INC: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued its
opinion affirming a dismissal of a second amended complaint in a
securities lawsuit filed against Vitacost.com, Inc. in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
according to the company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On May 24, 2010, a punitive class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida against the Company and certain current and former
officers and directors by a stockholder on behalf of herself and
other stockholders who purchased Vitacost common stock between
September 24, 2009 and April 20, 2010, captioned Miyahira v.
Vitacost.com, Inc., Ira P. Kerker, Richard P. Smith, Stewart
Gitler, Allen S. Josephs, David N. Ilfeld, Lawrence A. Pabst, Eran
Ezra, and Robert G. Trapp, Case 9:10-cv-80644-KLR.

After being appointed to represent the purported class of
shareholders, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder against Vitacost, its current and former
officers and directors, and the underwriters of its initial public
offering ("IPO").

On December 12, 2011, the Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint, and granted plaintiffs leave to amend.

On January 11, 2012, lead plaintiff filed its second amended
complaint asserting claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 against Vitacost, its current and
former officers and directors, and its underwriters. Lead
plaintiff purports to bring its action on behalf of investors who
purchased stock in connection with or traceable to the Company's
IPO between September 24, 2009 and April 20, 2010.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws during the period by, among other things,
disseminating false and misleading statements and/or concealing
material facts concerning the Company's current and prospective
business and financial results. The complaint also alleges that as
a result of these actions the Company's stock price was
artificially inflated during the class period. The complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory damages, costs, and expenses.

On June 25, 2012, the Southern District of Florida entered its
order granting defendants' motion to dismiss in full and
dismissing the second amended complaint with prejudice. On July
23, 2012, lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Eleventh
Circuit of the order granting defendants' motion to dismiss. On
May 5, 2013, the Eleventh Circuit issued its opinion affirming the
dismissal. The deadline for lead plaintiff to file a petition for
writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court is August 5, 2013.


WET SEAL: Settles Employment Class Action for $7.5 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Kawahito Shraga & Westrick, LLP on June 4 disclosed that
California-based retailer Wet Seal has agreed to settle an
employment class-action lawsuit alleging racial discrimination for
$7.5 million dollars.  The success of the plaintiffs' claim shows
how class-action lawsuits can help individuals work together to
make a greater impact than they could alone.

The lawsuit was filed in California federal court in 2012, and it
accused Wet Seal of discriminating against employees based on
their race.  The Los Angeles Times reports that the lawsuit
claimed that company executives did not provide promotion
opportunities and equal pay to black store managers.  It also
alleged that some black managers were fired only to be replaced
with white workers.

Further, the lawsuit stated that Barbara Bachman, Wet Seal's Vice
President of Store Operations, wrote an email after visiting some
stores that said, "African Americans dominate -- huge issue."  In
addition, it claimed Bachman instructed a district manager to fire
black managers and "clean the entire store out" in 2008, according
to a report by Southern California Public Radio.

In January 2013, Wet Seal hired a new chief executive officer and
replaced its board with new members.  On May 9, 2013, the company
agreed to settle the class-action lawsuit, pending approval of the
settlement by the judge, according to the Los Angeles Times.
According to the terms of the proposed settlement, Wet Seal will
pay $7.5 million.  At least $5.58 million will be put into a fund
to pay damages to current and former Wet Seal managers who
experienced racial discrimination.  In addition, Wet Seal said it
will make changes such as expanding its human resources
department, tracking applications to ensure diversity in hiring
and using an advisory council to help with equal employment
matters, as reported by the Los Angeles Times.

This lawsuit demonstrates how class-action lawsuits can help
employees who have been discriminated against at work.  When
someone is fired or denied promotion opportunities because of his
or her race, gender or other protected characteristic, the worker
may feel it would not be effective or time- or cost-efficient to
bring a legal claim against the company.  However, when several
workers from the same company have experienced similar
discrimination, they may be able to make a joint effort with a
greater likelihood of bringing about change and obtaining redress
for the company's wrongdoing.

Racial discrimination in employment is illegal and should not be
allowed to happen.  If you have been denied a promotion or equal
pay or have been fired because of your race, contact a
knowledgeable employment attorney to discuss your legal options.


WULIANGYE: 150+ People File Class Action
----------------------------------------
Wang Wei, writing for Xinhua, reports that more than 150 people
have collectively filed a lawsuit against China's Wuliangye, the
company said in a statement on June 4.  They are seeking over 19
million yuan (3.1 million U.S. dollars) in compensation from the
distillery, it said.

The plaintiffs have accused the Shenzhen Stock Exchange-listed
company of "false representation," as a sanction against Wuliangye
was meted out by China's securities watchdog in 2011.

In a report about the sanction, the China Securities Regulatory
Commission said that Wuliangye omitted or failed to immediately
disclose several issues that could affect investors.

The court notified Wuliangye of the lawsuit on May 31, the
statement said.


* Australian Data Breach Law May Spur Class Action Wave
-------------------------------------------------------
Allison Grande, writing for Law360, reports that the Australian
government proposed legislation that would require companies to
tell affected consumers and the federal privacy commissioner if
they experienced a serious data security breach, a measure that
attorneys say would open companies up not only to regulatory fines
but also to class actions from consumers armed with previously
undisclosed information about losses of their personal data.

The legislation was introduced in Parliament on May 29.


* Courts Strike Down Unfair Arbitration Agreements
--------------------------------------------------
According to HR.BLR.com, when it comes to the enforceability of
arbitration agreements, it's hard for California employers to know
what to expect these days.  One thing is certain, though: Courts
will still strike down arbitration agreements they find to be
unfair or one-sided.

Employer requests arbitration

In February 2006, "Diana" applied for the job of property manager
with American Management Services, California, Inc. (AMS).  To
have her application considered, she was required to sign an
8-page arbitration agreement that called for arbitration of
various disputes that might arise between her and AMS and barred
arbitration of class claims.

Diana worked for AMS from March 2006 until August 2009.  In
October 2010, Diana filed a class action complaint against the
employer, alleging that it violated various state Labor Code
provisions regarding minimum and overtime wages, rest and meal
breaks, and reimbursement of expenses.

While the case was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its
ruling in AT&T Mobility, LLC v. Concepcion that overturned
California's law (known as the Discover Bank rule), which had
provided that class action waivers in consumer arbitration
agreements are generally unenforceable or unconscionable.

In July 2011, AMS asked the trial court to compel arbitration,
citing the Concepcion decision.  After the trial court ruled for
the employer, Diana appealed.

Court finds agreement one-sided

On appeal, Diana argued that the arbitration agreement was
unenforceable because it was unconscionable, or extremely unfair
or one-sided.  The California Court of Appeals agreed that the
agreement lacked "bilaterality."

The court noted that under the agreement, all claims arising under
state and federal law -- except for workers' compensation,
unemployment benefit, and disability claims under state law --
must be arbitrated.  That would include claims employees might
bring related to discrimination, federal labor standards, and
pensions.  But claims that the employer might bring against the
employee -- related to alleged unfair competition, trade secrets,
or disclosure of confidential information -- were exempted from
arbitration.

Moreover, the agreement imposed a 1-year time limit on demands for
arbitration, a period substantially shorter than the statutory
limitations period for many claims covered by the agreement.  For
example, an employee must demand arbitration within 1 year of an
allegedly discriminatory act, which is one-third of the time
potentially available under the state Fair Employment and Housing
Act.

At the same time that the agreement stripped employees of these
longer limitations periods, it retained for the employer the 4-
year statutory period for unfair competition claims and the 3-year
statutory period for trade secret violations.  Additionally, the
court faulted the agreement for suggesting that the arbitrator had
discretion to award attorneys' fees that are actually mandatory
under the Labor Code and other statutory laws.

The court found the agreement wasn't enforceable.  It was a one-
sided agreement that requires employees to arbitrate those claims
most important to them within a significantly abbreviated time
period, while leaving the employer free to litigate those claims
most important to it within the far longer statutory periods.
Concepcion was no help

The employer contended that Concepcion preempted the bilaterality
requirement, just as it did the Discover Bank rule.

The Court of Appeals rejected this argument.  It explained that
Concepcion overturned the Discover Bank rule as hostile to
arbitration because it required parties to an arbitration
agreement to arbitrate class claims even when the agreement
specifically excluded class action claims.

According to the appellate court, that wasn't the case with the
bilaterality requirement.  If anything, the court said, the rule
as applied in this case promotes arbitration because the chief
problem with the AMS agreement was that it excluded certain claims
from arbitration.

Entire agreement was unenforceable

The employer urged the court to simply sever the unacceptable
parts of the arbitration agreement and enforce the remaining
provisions.  The court declined, noting that the agreement's
multiple defects showed a systematic effort to impose arbitration
on employees as an inferior forum that worked to the employer's
advantage.  As a result, the agreement was "permeated by
unconscionability," and severance wasn't possible. Compton v.
Superior Court, Calif. Court of Appeals (Dist. 2) No. B236669
(2013).


                             *********

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  * * *