CAR_Public/130626.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, June 26, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 125

                             Headlines


AAA MID ATLANTIC: 3rd Cir. Affirms "Kaymak" Suit Dismissal
ANADIGICS INC: No Further Appeal Filed in Dismissal of Suits
ARBITRON INC: Has MOU to Settle Securities Suit Over Merger
ARIZONA: 9th Cir. Affirms Ruling in Suit Over Proposition 100
ARIZONA: Court Unwilling to Enact House Bill 2800

AT&T MOBILITY: Arbitration Ruling in "Short" Class Suit Upheld
ATLANTICUS HOLDINGS: "Knox" Suit Still Pending in North Carolina
AUSTRALIA: May Face Payout of AU$1+ Billion in Flooding Suit
BANKRATE INC: Continues to Defend "Speight" Suit in Colorado
BELO CORP: Being Sold to Gannett for Too Little, Suit Claims

BETA LABS: Recalls Oxyphen, Phentalene, Phen FX and Red Vipers
BP PLC: $573 Million in Oil Spill Claims Paid in Alabama
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Court Begins Hearing in Doctors' Fee Suit
BURLINGTON, WA: Trial in Suit Over Indigent Representation Begins
CANADA: Lawyer Says RCMP Suit May Face Delay Without Mediation

CFS: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over 2005 Bushfire
CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Sheppard Mullin Discusses Court Ruling
COLE CREDIT: Faces Class and Derivative Suits Over CHC Merger
CONDE NAST: Interns File Class Action Over Labor Law Violation
CONSOL ENERGY: "Hale" v. CNX in Discovery; No Certification Yet

CONSOL ENERGY: Court Allows "Addison" v. CNX; Discovery Ongoing
CONSOL ENERGY: CNX Settles Shareholder Suit for $42.73 Million
CONSOL ENERGY: Still Faces "Hall" Gas Lessors' Lawsuit
CONSOL ENERGY: "Comer" Plaintiffs File New, Nearly Identical Suit
COOPER TIRE: Faces Suit Over Proposed Acquisition by Apollo Tyres

DEWAAY FINANCIAL: Judge Approves $3MM Class Action Settlement
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: $79MM Accord in Securities Suit Deemed Final
EQT PRODUCTION: Court Recommends Class Status in Landowners' Suit
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action
FAT COW: Faces Overtime Class Action

FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS: Unit Still Faces Environmental Lawsuit
GREEN JACOBSON: Faces Class Action Over Breaching Duty
HAWAII: Disability Rights Center Launches 9th Cir. Appeal
HIGHER ONE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Consumer MDL
IMMERSION CORPORATION: Stockholders Appeal Dismissal of Suit

INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Denied in May
INVENTURE FOODS: Certification Hearing in Suit v. Jamba in Oct.
JM SMUCKER: False Ad Plaintiff Can Recover Fees, Judge Rules
KMART CORP: Delbridge to Represent Class for Cashiers, Judge Rules
KELLOGG CO: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Advertising

LIQUOR CONTROL: Recalls Nalewka Babuni Cherry Wine Over Color
MAPCO EXPRESS: Faces Class Action Over Hacked Credit Card System
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Concussion Lawsuit Faces Fewer Obstacles
NEVADA PROPERTY: Awaits Order on Bid to Junk Unlawful Taping Suit
NEVADA PROPERTY: Continues to Face Wage and Hour Suits in Nevada

NEW CENTURY: Recalls Loaf Cakes Due to Undeclared Milk and Wheat
NEW JERSEY: Faces Suit Over Plan to Close Development Centers
NEW YORK: Justice Dep't to Intervene on Stop-And-Frisk Program
NICK CASSAVETES: Faces Class Action Over Labor Violations
NORTHWEST BANCSHARES: "Daly" Suit Plaintiff Has Renewed Cert. Bid

NORTHWEST BANCSHARES: Awaits Opinion and Order in "Toth" Suit
NRG ENERGY: GenOn Suit Plaintiffs Want Case Dismissal Reviewed
NRG ENERGY: Cheswick Property Owners Appeal Dismissal of Suit
NRG ENERGY: July 16 Final Approval Hearing on Energy Plus Accord
NRG ENERGY: Settlement Hearing on Suit Over Merger in June

PILOT FLYING J: Gordon Ball Joins President's Defense Team
PLAINS EXPLORATION: Oral Arguments Heard in Suit Over Merger
PROSHARES TRUST: Oral Argument in Class Suit Appeal Held in May
PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
REMINGTON ARMS: Faces Class Action Over Model 700 Rifle Defect

RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: No Appeal Filed in Cal. Securities Lawsuit
RJ REYNOLDS: NELA Asks 4th Cir. to Revive Class Action
SASKATCHEWAN: McCarthy Discusses Class Action Ruling
SEQUEL NATURALS: Recalls Vega(R) Brand Bars Over Undeclared Milk
SOUTH CAROLINA: High Court Remands Ruling in DPPA Violation Suit

SOUTH CAROLINA: Lawyers Banned From Using Data in DMV
STELLARONE CORP: Being Sold to Union for Too Little, Suit Claims
TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls Black Forest Ham and Cheese on Pretzel Roll
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Still Faces Canadian Suit Over Lawnmower
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Antitrust Claims Remain in Compressor Lawsuit

TOWNSEND FARMS: Hepa A Victims in San Diego Increase
TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 242,000 Prius & Lexus Hybrid Vehicles
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: July 9 Oral Arguments in Securities Suit
UNCLE T: Recalls Taisun Pineapple Cakes
UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Slam Gov't Stay Motion in Suit v. NSA

URS CORPORATION: WGI Ohio Wins Favorable Ruling in "Levee" Suit
USEC INC: Former Plant Employees Appeal Dismissal of Suit
VENTRUS BIOSCIENCES: Faces "Davison" Class Suit in New York
WAL-MART STORES: Seeks Dismissal of Gas Discounts Class Action
WARD MANUFACTURING: Faces Class Action Over Defective CSST

WARNER CHAPPELL: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Licensing Fees
WARNER MUSIC: Faces Class Action Over Giving Minimum Wages
WASHINGTON POST: Colorado Court Junks Pension Fund's Lawsuit

* Counsel Trims N.J. Class Action Claims v. Flood Insurers


                             *********


AAA MID ATLANTIC: 3rd Cir. Affirms "Kaymak" Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for Third Circuit affirmed a
District Court judgment entered in THERESA J. HENSON KAYMAK, On
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Appellant, v.
AAA MID ATLANTIC, INC., JOHN DOES 1-10, NO. 12-3776.

Theresa Kaymak, a former plaintiffs' class action lawyer, took an
appeal from a judgment by the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania that dismissed her Complaint
against AAA Mid-Atlantic, Inc. for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. The Complaint, which alleges breach of contract and
unjust enrichment, was filed on behalf of Kaymak and a proposed
class of "[a]ll current and former members of AAA who paid a full
annual renewal fee to AAA after the expiration of their prior
membership term, and had their memberships backdated to the prior
expiration date."  The District Court concluded that Kaymak
suffered no "injury in fact" and therefore did not have standing
to bring her claim in federal court.

The Third Circuit held that the District Court was correct to
dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A copy of the Third Circuit's June 14, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/vRCqw6 from Leagle.com.


ANADIGICS INC: No Further Appeal Filed in Dismissal of Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
In connection with an order by the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit to dismiss with prejudice the Attias and
Kuznetz class actions, the plaintiffs did not seek further
appellate review, according to Anadigics Inc.'s May 6, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 30, 2013.

On or about November 11, 2008, plaintiff Charlie Attias filed a
putative securities class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Charlie
Attias v. Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 3:08-cv-05572, and, on or
about November 21, 2008, plaintiff Paul Kuznetz filed a related
class action lawsuit in the same court, captioned Paul J. Kuznetz
v. Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 3:08-cv-05750 (jointly, the "Class
Actions").  The Complaints in the Class Actions, which were
consolidated under the caption In re Anadigics, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 3:08-cv-05572, by an Order of the District Court
dated November 24, 2008, sought unspecified damages for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in
connection with alleged misrepresentations and omissions in
connection with, among other things, Anadigics's manufacturing
capabilities and the demand for its products.

On October 23, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint, (the "First Amended Complaint"), which named the
Company, a then-current officer and a former officer-director, and
alleged a proposed class period running from July 24, 2007 through
August 7, 2008.  On December 23, 2009, defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the First Amended Complaint.  After holding extensive
oral argument on defendants' motion, the District Court found
plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint to be deficient, but afforded
them another opportunity to amend their pleading.  The District
Court therefore denied defendants' motion to dismiss without
prejudice to defendants' renewing the motion in response to
plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, which plaintiffs filed on
October 4, 2010.

The Second Amended Complaint, which contained the same substantive
claims that were alleged in the First Amended Complaint, alleged a
proposed class period running from February 12, 2008 through
August 7, 2008.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
on December 3, 2010.  By an Opinion and an Order dated September
30, 2011, the District Court dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs'
Second Amended Complaint.  Shortly thereafter, plaintiffs appealed
the District Court's Opinion and Order to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On October 17, 2012, following
briefing and argument, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District
Court's dismissal with prejudice of plaintiffs' claims.


ARBITRON INC: Has MOU to Settle Securities Suit Over Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Parties to a shareholder action filed against Arbitron Inc. over a
merger agreement with TNC Sub I Corporation, an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of Nielsen Holdings N.V., entered into a
memorandum of understanding providing for a settlement,
according to the company's May 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On January 24, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware regarding the
proposed Merger. The complaint ("Complaint") was purportedly filed
on behalf of the public shareholders of the Company, and names as
defendants, the Company, each of the Company's directors, Merger
Sub, and Nielsen.

The Complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize
shareholder value in a proposed sale of the Company. The Complaint
further alleged that the Company's preliminary proxy statement
failed to provide material information and provided materially
misleading information relating to the Merger and that the Company
and Nielsen aided and abetted the alleged breaches by the
Company's directors.

The plaintiff sought, among other things, class action status, an
injunction preventing the completion of the Merger (or, if the
Merger were completed, rescinding the Merger or awarding
rescissory damages), and the payment of attorneys' fees and
expenses.

On March 7, 2013, the parties to the litigation entered into a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") providing for a
settlement, subject to court approval, of the action on behalf of
the named plaintiff and a class of the shareholders affected by
the transaction (the "Settlement"). The Settlement will be
submitted to the Court of Chancery for approval.

If approved by the Court of Chancery, the Settlement will resolve
all of the allegations and claims asserted by the plaintiff and
the class against all defendants in connection with the Merger and
will further provide for the release and settlement by the class
of the Company's shareholders of all claims against all of the
defendants and their affiliates in connection with the Merger.

As part of the MOU, all of the defendants denied all allegations
of wrongdoing and denied that the disclosures made by the Company
in the Company's preliminary proxy statement on Schedule 14A as
filed on January 18, 2013 were inadequate, but the Company agreed
to provide certain additional disclosures in its definitive proxy
statement relating to the Merger and to waive the "no-ask, no-
waiver" provision in the existing confidentiality agreements. The
Settlement will not affect the form or amount of consideration to
be paid to the Company's shareholders in the Merger.


ARIZONA: 9th Cir. Affirms Ruling in Suit Over Proposition 100
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that Arizona is not
trying to punish and control illegal immigration by denying bail
to illegal immigrants charged with a serious felony, the 9th
Circuit ruled June 18, 2013.

The federal appeals court in San Francisco found that the 2006
voter-approved law known as Proposition 100 is meant to further
"the legitimate goal of controlling flight risk," and does not
violate the U.S. Constitution.

Angel Lopez-Valenzuela, who was denied bail for a drug-smuggling
charge, and Isaac Castro-Armenta, who was denied bail for
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, kidnapping, and assisting
a criminal syndicate, had hoped to represent a class against
Maricopa County, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and others.

Their ACLU-filed 2007 complaint claimed that it violated their
due-process rights set down in the Sixth, Eighth and 14th
Amendments to prohibit bail for all suspected illegal immigrants
charged with certain felonies.

Phoenix-based U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton granted the
defendants summary judgment, and a divided three-judge panel of
the 9th Circuit affirmed June 18, 2013.

While illegal immigration definitely came up in the March 2005
committee meeting during which lawmakers discussed the bill that
eventually became Prop. 100, "the record as a whole does not show
that Proposition 100 was motivated by an improper punitive
purpose," Judge Richard Tallman wrote for the majority.

The bill's sponsor, then-Rep. Russell Pearce, who would later be
the driving force behind the state's controversial S.B. 1070,
"mentioned flight risk and public safety as the primary reasons
behind the Proposition 100 laws three different times" during the
meeting, Tallman found.

"Thus, while it is clear from the record that Arizona lawmakers
were concerned with the effects of illegal immigration when they
were debating the Proposition 100 laws, a fair reading of the
record does not support Plaintiffs-Appellants' argument that
Proposition 100's primary purpose is to punish and deter
immigration offenses," he wrote.

Dan Pochoda, legal director of the ACLU of Arizona, said his team
is discussing the ruling and "considering seeking en banc review."

Judge Raymond Fisher used a lengthy dissent to also single out
Pearce, who fell victim to a citizen recall effort in 2011.
Fisher noted that "Rep. Pearce promoted the bill on the ground
that 'all illegal aliens in this country ought to be detained,
debriefed and deported.'"

Such rhetoric shows a strong punitive approach to lawmaking, and
it reveals the philosophy behind a law that "contravenes the
Constitution's fundamental prohibition on punishment before
determination of guilt in a criminal trial," the dissent states.

"Arizona . . . has decided to deny pretrial bail to all persons
arrested for a range of felony crimes who are in the United States
without authorization, theorizing they are likely to flee the
country solely because of their immigration status," Fisher added.
"Without any evidence that unauthorized immigrants released on
bail have been or are less likely to appear for trial compared to
arrestees who are lawful residents, the majority accepts Arizona's
unsupported assertion that all unauthorized immigrants necessarily
pose an unmanageable flight risk, such that a blanket denial of
bail is not an 'excessive' tool to combat flight risk.  As
revealed by Proposition 100's legislative history and scope,
however, Arizona is plainly using the denial of bail as a method
to punish 'illegal' immigrants, rather than simply as a tool to
help manage arrestees' flight risk."


ARIZONA: Court Unwilling to Enact House Bill 2800
-------------------------------------------------
Dave Tartre at Courthouse News Service reports that the 9th
Circuit seemed unwilling two weeks ago to let Arizona enact
legislation intended to deprive funding from Medicaid providers
who perform abortions.

House Bill 2800, which Arizona voters passed last year, said the
state "may not enter into a contract with or make a grant to any
person that performs non-federally qualified abortions or
maintains or operates a facility where non-federally qualified
abortions are performed for the provision of family planning
services."

Planned Parenthood of Arizona, Eric Reuss M.D. and several Jane
Does sued that summer, saying the law would deprive women in
Arizona of federally protected rights to family planning services.

The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Medicaid Act allows
patients to receive services from the qualified, willing provider
of their choice.  Their lawsuit also said that Arizona's bill
violates the "Equal Protection Clause because it distinguishes,
without adequate justification, between family planning providers
who provide abortion outside the Medicaid program and those who do
not."

U.S. District Judge Neil Wake halted enactment of the law earlier
this year after finding that Arizona had overreached its authority
under the U.S. Medicaid Act to place the condition on the
provision of Medicaid services.

"[HB 2800] impermissibly disqualifies a class of providers from
the state's Medicaid program for reasons unrelated to provider
qualifications," Wake wrote.

"Defendants present a strained interpretation of the word
"qualified" that would include any reasonable criteria a state
sees fit to impose, regardless of whether the criteria relates to
the ability to provide Medicaid services," Wake said.

Arizona's attorney told a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit on
June 12, 2013, however, that his state could define the term
"qualified" as it sees fit.

"The definition of 'qualified,' according to the statutory
framework and the explicit regulation, is supplied by the states,"
said Steven Aden of the Alliance Defending Freedom, who appeared
in the 9th Circuit as a special attorney general for Arizona.

"They have the authority to impose reasonable qualifications.  The
only serious question left is whether HB 2800 is a reasonable
qualification on providers, and the state maintains that it is."

Judge Jay Bybee was incredulous.  "What's rational about it?" he
asked. "What's reasonable about it?"

Aden cited "a couple of reasons."

"The state of Arizona has a longstanding policy against
subsidizing elective abortions," he noted.

Bybee, though, doubted that the word "qualified" as used in the
Medicaid Act gives states the authority to place requirements on
providers beyond the licensing requirements that health care
facilities and medical professionals must already meet.

"Arizona hasn't disqualified the providers at Planned Parenthood
from practicing medicine in Arizona," he noted.

Planned Parenthood attorney Alice Clapman said that Judge Wake had
correctly found that there is nothing vague about the Medicaid
Act's qualification requirements.

"Despite defendant's best efforts, the term qualified in the
statute does have a specific meaning," she said.  "What Congress
had in mind when it referred to qualified providers were providers
who are competent, who are professionally qualified."

"Congress was referring only to professional qualifications, not
to some free-floating state authority to pick and choose which
providers could participate," Clapman added.

Judge Marsha Berzon asked Clapman whether states could add any
additional requirements, for example involving criminal background
checks or proof of financial responsibility.

Clapman replied that states could individually disqualify
providers in cases of fraud or abuse under a separate section of
the statute than the free-choice provision.

She said that even Arizona had not questioned whether the
plaintiffs, Planned Parenthood of Arizona and Dr. Reuss, were
professionally qualified under any ordinary sense of the term.

"The free-choice provision is enforceable and it prohibits
measures such as Arizona's that attempt to restrict patient choice
for reasons that have no relationship a provider's professional
fitness to provide the services needed," Clapman said.


AT&T MOBILITY: Arbitration Ruling in "Short" Class Suit Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charlene Shorts, by counsel Christopher J. Regan, appealed from an
order entered July 25, 2011, by the Circuit Court of Brooke County
which granted AT&T Mobility, LLC and AT&T Mobility Corporation's
Motion to Compel Arbitration. Ms. Shorts asserts that: the circuit
court erred in applying the wrong in granting AT&T Mobility's
Motion to Compel Arbitration; the contract which the circuit court
should have applied was unconscionable; the contract provisions
applied by the circuit court were also unconscionable and the
circuit court failed to allow discovery regarding this issue; and
the circuit court erred in requiring the parties to arbitrate the
claims involving Palisades Collection, LLC. The appeal was timely
perfected by counsel, and the appendix record accompanied the
petition. AT&T Mobility filed its response.

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia finds that the
circuit court did not err in granting AT&T Mobility's Motion to
Compel Arbitration. The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the
the underlying decision saying it finds that the case presents no
new or significant questions of law, and, thus, will be disposed
of through a memorandum decision as contemplated by Rule 21 of the
Rules of Appellate Procedure.

The case is CHARLENE A. SHORTS, Petitioner Below, Petitioner, v.
AT&T MOBILITY and AT&T MOBILITY CORPORATION and, PALISADES
COLLECTION, LLC, Respondents Below, Respondents, NO. 11-1649.

A copy of the Supreme Court's June 17, 2013 Memorandum Decision
is available at http://is.gd/jkb8Sl from Leagle.com.


ATLANTICUS HOLDINGS: "Knox" Suit Still Pending in North Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit entitled Knox, et al., vs. First
Southern Cash Advance, et al., No. 5 CV 0445, filed in the
Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina, on
February 8, 2005, named CompuCredit Corporation (now known as
Atlanticus Services Corporation) and five of Atlanticus Holdings
Corporation's other subsidiaries as defendants.  The plaintiffs
allege that in conducting a so-called "payday lending" business,
certain subsidiaries within the Company's former Retail Micro-
Loans segment (the operations of which were sold in October 2011,
subject to the Company's retention of liability for this
litigation) violated various laws governing consumer finance,
lending, check cashing, trade practices and loan brokering.  The
plaintiffs further allege that CompuCredit Corporation was the
alter ego of the subsidiaries and is liable for their actions.
The plaintiffs are seeking damages of up to $75,000 per class
member, and attorney's fees.  These claims are similar to those
that have been asserted against several other market participants
in transactions involving small-balance, short-term loans made to
consumers in North Carolina.

On January 23, 2012, among other orders, the trial court denied
the defendants' motion to compel arbitration, and granted the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The Company says it
is vigorously defending this lawsuit.

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.

Atlanticus Holdings Corporation -- http://www.Atlanticus.com-- a
Georgia Corporation headquartered in Atlanta, provides financial
services.  Through its subsidiaries, the Company offers financial
products and services to a market represented by credit risks that
regulators classify as "sub-prime."  On November 30, 2012, the
Company changed its name from CompuCredit Holdings Corporation to
Atlanticus Holdings Corporation.


AUSTRALIA: May Face Payout of AU$1+ Billion in Flooding Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Foley, writing for Caboolture News, reports that Ipswich
councilor Paul Tully says the State Government faces a payout of
more than AUD1 billion if it is proven Wivenhoe Dam was
negligently managed in the lead-up to the 2011 flood.

Cr Tully said Australia's largest class action was going ahead
against the State Government over the 2011 Brisbane River flood.

He said Maurice Blackburn Lawyers confirmed they will be
proceeding with the lawsuit in the Queensland Supreme Court on
behalf of victims of the flood which affected 29,000 homes and
businesses in Brisbane and Ipswich.

The announcement, he said, was the "best news for flood victims
since January 2011".

"I am urging all flood victims, including home and business
owners, renters and anyone else who has suffered losses as a
result of the 2011 flood, to sign up for the class action," Cr
Tully said.

"This is likely to be the first and only opportunity for flood
victims to recover the losses they suffered in the flood.  Flood
victims have nothing to lose and everything to gain by signing up
for the no-win, no-fee class action."

Cr Tully who lost his home at Goodna said it was hardest-hit
suburb in south-east Queensland with 600 properties destroyed.

"The Floods Commission of Inquiry specifically found the Wivenhoe
Dam had not been managed in accordance with the official operating
manual from 8am on the Saturday preceding the flood on Tuesday,
January 11, 2011," he said.  "I am confident the class action will
be successful.

"I am urging the State Government to act as a model litigant in
this matter and not rely on legal technicalities to resist the
legitimate claims of flood victims who have suffered enough."

A Maurice Blackburn spokeswoman said: "Maurice Blackburn will be
providing an update to people and businesses who have registered
for the floods class action shortly, and we will be making an
announcement on the status of the action after that."


BANKRATE INC: Continues to Defend "Speight" Suit in Colorado
------------------------------------------------------------
Bankrate, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit commenced by Stephanie Speight in Colorado, 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 October 5, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit styled
Stephanie Speight v. Bankrate, Inc. was filed against the Company
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and
seeking statutory damages, injunctive relief and attorney fees.
The plaintiff alleges that the Company contacted her and the
members of the class she seeks to represent on their cellular
telephones without their prior express consent.  The Company says
it will vigorously defend this lawsuit.  The Company cannot
presently estimate the amount of loss, if any, that would result
from an adverse resolution of this matter.

Based in North Palm Beach, Florida, Bankrate, Inc. is a publisher,
aggregator and distributor of personal finance content on the
Internet.  The Company provides consumers with personal finance
editorial content across multiple vertical categories, including
mortgages, deposits, insurance, credit cards, and other
categories.


BELO CORP: Being Sold to Gannett for Too Little, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Belo Corp. is selling its
20 TV stations too cheaply to Gannett for an unfair price, for the
benefit of insiders, for $13.75 per share or $1.5 billion,
shareholders claim in a class action in Dallas County Court.


BETA LABS: Recalls Oxyphen, Phentalene, Phen FX and Red Vipers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beta Labs, LTD ("Beta"), dietary supplement retailer, is recalling
Oxyphen XR Lot #s 200910 and 200911, Phentalene Lot # 58800512,
Phen FX Lot # 1205129, and Red Vipers Lot # 1205128 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Products").  The recall was initiated on June
15, 2013, after a review of recent FDA communications related to
1,3 dimethylamylamine ("DMAA").  The Products contain DMAA.

The UPC codes for each of the products are: Oxyphen XR, 70541
59974; Phentalene, 70541 59982; Phen FX, 29882 55980; Red Vipers,
29882 55981.  The Products are all in capsule form.  DMAA is
commonly used as a stimulant, pre-workout, and weight loss
ingredient in dietary supplement products.  The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) has warned that DMAA is potentially dangerous
to health.  See
http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm347270.htm
Ingestion of DMAA can elevate blood pressure and lead to
cardiovascular problems.  A number of adverse effects associated
with DMAA containing dietary supplements have been reported to the
FDA.  The FDA has also warned that DMAA is not a dietary
ingredient and thus, is not Dietary Supplement Health and
Education Act (DSHEA) compliant.

This recall affects Oxyphen XR Lot #s 200910 and 200911,
Phentalene Lot # 58800512, Phen FX Lot # 1205129, and Red Vipers
Lot # 1205128.  The products are in capsule form.  Pictures of the
Products are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm358237.htm

Beta distributes dietary supplements to retailers.  The Products
were sold via telephone in all fifty (50) United States.  There
have been no reports of adverse events associated with these
Products to date.  No other products distributed by Beta are
subject to recall.

Consumers who may have purchased the affected lot numbers of
Oxyphen, Phentalene, Phen FX, and/or Red Vipers should immediately
discontinue using the products and contact their health care
professional if they have experienced any adverse effects.
Consumers can contact Beta at accounting@betalabs.net or call
1-877-283-1742, Monday - Friday, 10:00 a.m. - 5 p.m. Central
Standard Time to receive further instructions for returning the
product(s), refunds, or with any questions.  The Company sincerely
regrets any inconvenience to consumers.  This is a voluntary
recall.  This recall is being made in cooperation with the US Food
and Drug Administration.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
these product(s) may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse
Event Reporting program online, by regular mail, or by fax.  The
form and instructions for the form may be found at
http://www.fda.gov/Medwatch/getforms.htm


BP PLC: $573 Million in Oil Spill Claims Paid in Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------
Stan Diel, writing for Al.com, reports that more than 32,367
individuals and businesses in Alabama have filed claims in a class
action lawsuit against BP over its 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill,
but many who might qualify for settlement funds have yet to file,
Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange and a court-appointed
settlement fund administrator said on June 5.

Of the claims filed thus far in Alabama, about 9,600 have been
declared eligible and $573 million has been paid to Alabama
claimants.

"That's in excess of half a billion dollars in Alabama so far,"
said Patrick Juneau -- paj@juneaudavid.com -- the Louisiana
attorney administering $7.8 billion in settlement funds for claims
filed in five states.  The team of administrators and accountants
assessing claims has thousands of Alabama claims it has yet to
consider, he said.

In total, 172,000 claims have been filed in five states, and
administrators have paid $3.5 billion.

Merss. Juneau and Strange met with business leaders and attorneys
in Birmingham, Huntsville and Cullman on June 5 in a series of
meetings Luther arranged to spread the word and help businesses
that lost revenue to the oil spill recover their losses.
Businesses don't have to be located on the coast to qualify, they
said.

To qualify for funds businesses must use a system designed
specifically for the case to demonstrate that they lost revenue to
the oil spill.  Businesses must demonstrate that their revenue
during three consecutive months between May and December of 2010
was 15 percent lower than during a benchmark period from before
the oil spill, and that revenue over the same three month period
in 2011 was at least 10 percent higher than during the oil spill
months.

Claims must be accompanied by documents including federal tax
returns.

Much of the class action lawsuit that spawned the settlement
agreement for affected businesses and individuals has not been
resolved, but the window for business claims covered by the deal
will close in April of next year.

Many businesses not located near the coast have failed to file
claims because they assumed they would not qualify, and owners of
such businesses should take a closer look at the terms of the
settlement, Messrs. Juneau and Strange said.

"My recommendation is to at least do that," Mr. Strange said.  "It
doesn't cost anything."

The BP Deepwater Horizon spill in April of 2010 dumped 5.9 million
barrels of oil into the Gulf, more than 17 times the amount of
crude that was spilled by the wreck of the Exxon Valdez tanker in
1989.  In the lawsuit for which Juneau is administering claims
Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Texas and Mississippi sued BP and
seven other defendants.  Mr. Strange said it would be a mistake
for the state to leave settlement money on the table in light of
the severity of the disaster.

"The entire coastline of Alabama was covered in oil," he said.
"There was tremendous damage done to the state of Alabama."

Claims can be filed, and more information found, on a website
established by the fund administrator.


BRITISH COLUMBIA: Court Begins Hearing in Doctors' Fee Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
CMAJ reports that Madam Justice Elaine Adair of the BC Supreme
Court has begun hearing a class action lawsuit involving 7000
doctors, including the province's former health minister, who are
trying to recover fees they claim British Columbia owes them.

Dr. James Halvorson, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, is suing
the Medical Services Commission over fees the doctors say they
should have received from 1992 to 1996, when the province
cancelled the enrolment of BC residents who did not pay Medical
Service Plan premiums.

The problems for physicians arose when they tried to bill the
province after treating patients whose membership in the Medical
Service Plan had been cancelled, unbeknownst to the doctors, who
had no way of checking the patients' status.  The doctors' payment
claims were rejected.

Dr. Halvorson, an emergency physician from Duncan, British
Columbia, says emergency doctors were hit hardest, because
patients without coverage were often referred to them.  As a
policy, they did not turn emergency cases away.

Dr. Halvorson says he alone is owed upwards of C$100 000.  The
lawsuit, which Justice Adair began hearing Apr. 22 to 24, seeks
about C$100 million in unpaid fees for close to 400,000 uninsured
patients.

"The medical care for all of those people was strictly on the
backs of the medical physicians involved," says Dr. Halvorson.
"It was not an insignificant problem."

During the period that the lawsuit covered, BC collected transfer
payments from the federal government to cover the cost of
uninsured patients, which Dr. Halvorson says the province did not
pass on to the physicians.

The government contends it had the legal authority to cut
residents from the health insurance plan if they had failed to pay
their premiums.

The cost of premiums varies in British Columbia, from C$64 a month
for an individual to C$128 for a family of three.  Government
subsidies of between 20% and 100% are available to individuals
earning an annual income of less than C$30 000.

Dr. Halvorson initially brought suit in October 1998, but it has
taken until now, through a series of decisions and appeals, to get
certified as a class action and to finally get a hearing in the
province's top court.

"We had a lot of procedural roadblocks in the way," says Arthur
Grant, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs.  He hopes the suit
will be resolved by fall.

The class action applies, by court order, to all doctors
practicing in BC between July 23, 1992 and Apr. 30, 1996 --
including Dr. Margaret MacDiarmid, a family doctor who served as
BC's health minister from the fall of 2012 until her defeat in the
provincial election May 14.  Facing a potential conflict of
interest, Dr. MacDiarmid had written to Justice Adair asking to be
excluded from the lawsuit.  It is unclear whether she will still
opt out now that her conflict of interest no longer exists.

On June 6, the Medical Service Plan system is computerized, so
doctors can check a patient's status before they treat them.  In
2012, nearly 1 million British Columbians received premium
assistance, and more than 800,000 of them did not pay any
premiums.

"I think we would be better served by not having a premium-based
system," says Dr. Halvorson, who feels health care should be
universal, and paid for out of general funds.

"It's a mindset that I would love to see changed," he says.


BURLINGTON, WA: Trial in Suit Over Indigent Representation Begins
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that trial to determine whether two
Washington cities provide adequate legal representation to poor
charged with crimes begins.

Elia Bright, who has a long history of legal scrapes, sat in the
Skagit County Jail in September 2010 and wrote her court-appointed
lawyer a couple of urgent messages.

First, she said she wanted to know why her release date had been
delayed by 10 days.  Then, two days later, she sent him another
missive.

"My uncle just passed away last night.  Can you please contact me
ASAP so I can see if I can get out for a couple hours for his
funeral?" she wrote, signing it "XOXO, Elia."

The lawyer, Morgan Witt, never responded to either note -- an all-
too-typical response from the public defenders representing poor
people who are accused of crimes in the Skagit County cities of
Burlington and Mount Vernon, according to a class-action lawsuit
that was set to head to trial in federal court on June 3.  The
trial, before U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik, comes as
Washington's Supreme Court is taking steps to improve the
representation of indigent defendants across the state.

The high court last year adopted new caseload limits for public
defenders in an effort designed to make sure the lawyers have
enough time to devote to their clients.  The justices acknowledged
the financial burden their decision would place on cash-strapped
cities and counties, but said the move is essential in
guaranteeing that everyone has adequate legal representation.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington sued Burlington
and Mount Vernon two years ago, alleging a litany of shortcomings
that systematically violated poor defendants' constitutional
rights to effective lawyering.  From April 2005 to 2012, the
organization noted, those services were provided by just two part-
time lawyers, Witt and Richard Sybrandy, who combined handled more
than 2,000 cases a year.

The lawyers virtually never visited with their clients in jail,
investigated their cases or did much of anything besides urge them
to plead guilty, the lawsuit claims.  The plaintiffs are seeking a
permanent injunction and the appointment of a part-time public-
defense supervisor to ensure basic legal standards are met.

The cities deny that they ever systematically violated the rights
of defendants and say they've already made vast improvements, as
Burlington and Mount Vernon judges, prosecutors and others will
testify, Andrew Cooley, a lawyer for the cities, wrote in a trial
brief.

"The cities will show a complete overhaul of their public defense
system in compliance with new Washington Supreme Court standards,"
Mr. Cooley wrote.  "The cities now welcome the opportunity to
present the real people doing the work on the ground level to make
the cities' public defense system a model of medium-sized
municipal criminal justice."

Among the changes the cities cite is that a new firm now holds the
public defense contract for the city, with four lawyers handling
the cases at double the pay rate.  They lawyers also use an
improved case-tracking system and are already certifying that they
are abiding by the state Supreme Court's new caseload limits,
which take effect this fall, the cities say.

Mr. Cooley said an injunction would pose a severe burden on the
cities -- and, significantly, allow the plaintiffs to seek to have
the cities pay their attorneys' fees.

In declining to rule on the merits of the case before trial, Judge
Lasnik noted that the defendants had "taken significant steps to
change their system of public defense, including hiring additional
public defenders and paying them more for their services."
Nevertheless, he said, "the record contains evidence from which a
reasonable jury could conclude that indigent defendants in Mount
Vernon and Burlington are currently being deprived of counsel in
violation of constitutional mandates."

The ACLU says it believes the current public defenders continue to
be greatly overworked and to handle more cases than allowed by the
Supreme Court's new standards -- 400 misdemeanor cases per full-
time lawyer per year.

The firm's attorneys opened more than 2,000 cases during an eight-
month period last year, and yet only hired a defense investigator
four times and brought only seven cases to trial, the plaintiffs'
attorneys wrote in a trial brief.

"The public defenders in Mount Vernon and Burlington have had
grossly excessive caseloads and spend too little time on each
case, which makes it impossible for them to represent their
clients.  The cities are not meeting their duty to ensure that
low-income individuals have a fair chance to defend themselves in
court," Sarah Dunne, legal director at the ACLU of Washington,
said in a statement.

Opening statements were scheduled for June 3.  The trial set to
last up to 15 days, is being heard by the judge without a jury.


CANADA: Lawyer Says RCMP Suit May Face Delay Without Mediation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Smith, writing for Thunder Bay News, reports that a local
lawyer who is part of a class action lawsuit against the RCMP says
the case should be in front of a judge or the force needs to start
mediating.

Sandy Zaitzeff -- szaitzeff@watkinslawtbay.com -- is part of a
class action suit from nearly 300 current and former female RCMP
officers who allege discrimination, sexual harassment and abuse
from coast-to-coast.  On June 4, the case of RCMP veteran Janet
Merlo was heard in a B.C. courtroom where lawyers argued the suit
should go ahead.  But Mr. Zaitzeff said Crown attorneys filed a
motion that would set the case back.

"For one reason," he said in Thunder Bay on June 5.  "Delay,
delay, delay."

Mediation could have the suit wrapped up in as little as a year.
But if the government continues to try and delay the proceedings,
Mr. Zatizeff said it could take a decade.

"We won't shrug our shoulders and walk away it'll just take longer
and that's what they want," he said.

In the meantime, Mr. Zaitzeff said victims and their families,
some who suffer from post-traumatc stress disorder and are without
income, continue to suffer.

"The longer this takes the tougher it is," he said.

"We're talking about ruined relationships, lost marriages,
children that are suffering PTSD."

While there is compensation involved, Mr. Zaitzeff said the
victims want the truth about the RCMP and the way it has
functioned for more than 50 years to come to light and significant
changes made.

"What the women want first and foremost is that it becomes a
matter of public record, that everybody knows about the abuses,
the bullying, the harassment, the sexual innuendos, the sexual
assaults that everybody knows about this.  That Canada knows," he
said.

But that won't happen until evidence on both sides can be
presented either in court or through mediation Mr. Zaitzeff said.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.


CFS: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over 2005 Bushfire
-------------------------------------------------------
Sean Fewster, writing for adelaidenow, reports that the deadly
Black Tuesday bushfires were beyond anyone's capacity to control
and the CFS is therefore not liable for the damage they caused, a
court has heard.

Lawyers for the CFS on June 6 asked the Supreme Court to throw out
a multimillion-dollar class action lawsuit filed by Eyre Peninsula
farmers.

Grazier Robert Proude and his peers claim the volunteer
organization mis-managed the 2005 fires that destroyed their land
and livestock, and want compensation.

The fires killed nine people, burned 77,000ha and destroyed 93
homes near Port Lincoln.

On June 6, Dick Whitington, QC, for the CFS, said that claim could
not succeed at trial.

"This is a plain case where the CFS had no practical capacity to
control this sort of risk," he said.

"The CFS could have stayed home during the bushfires, or the state
could have never have established the CFS, and the fire would
still have spread in the way it did.

"The CFS had no practical capacity to control the fire."

In December 2007, Deputy State Coroner Anthony Schapel found the
CFS had mismanaged the fires, which were started by the exhaust of
Marco Visic's 4WD.

Mr. Proude filed action against Mr. Visic and the CFS. He claimed
the total value of his destroyed property, including 2205 sheep,
was $1,862,795.

Other graziers subsequently joined his claim, turning it into a
class action.

Mr. Visic, meanwhile, filed his own action against the CFS.  He
said any award of compensation should come from CFS coffers, not
out of his wallet, because of the organization's "misfeasance".
He said the CFS failed to deploy waterbombing aircraft, preferring
to hold them in reserve in case of fire in the Adelaide
metropolitan area.

The hearing, before Justice Malcolm Blue, is expected to take
three days.


CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Sheppard Mullin Discusses Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Brian D. Murphy, Esq., and Jonathan Sokolowski, Esq., at Sheppard,
Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, report that on May 29, 2013, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its
opinion in Cuevas v. Citizens Financial Group, Inc. and RBS
Citizens, N.A., Case No. 12-2832, reversing the Eastern District
of New York's grant of Rule 23 class certification to a putative
class of Assistant Branch Managers ("ABMs") alleging that they
were denied overtime.  In a summary order, the Court held that the
District Court failed to resolve factual disputes concerning the
duties performed by putative class members, which were material to
its ability to issue a ruling concerning commonality under Rule
23(a) and predominance under Rule 23(b)(3).

The plaintiff commenced an action in the Eastern District of New
York alleging that he and other ABMs were misclassified as exempt
and denied overtime in violation of the New York Labor Law.  The
plaintiff moved pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for an order certifying the class.  The District Court
granted the motion, rejecting the defendant's reliance on
declarations demonstrating a significant variance in the duties
performed from one ABM to the next in favor of "company-wide
policy documents" that contemplated the performance of uniform
duties.  According to the Hon. Frederic Block, the variations did
not preclude the plaintiff from establishing commonality or
predominance because of the existence of uniform job descriptions,
performance expectation guidelines, and performance evaluations.

The Second Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the case for
further proceedings.  Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) and Comcast
Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013), the Court explained that
a class may not be certified unless a "rigorous analysis"
demonstrates that each prerequisite to maintaining a class action
has been satisfied.  Moreover, such determinations cannot be made
without resolving factual disputes relevant to each prerequisite.

More specifically, the Court first reviewed the District Court's
determination as to commonality and held that, prior to analyzing
commonality, the District Court should have resolved factual
disputes concerning the primary duties of the ABMs because they
"are relevant to the determination whether Cuevas has presented a
claim that is capable of classwide resolution."  For similar
reasons, the Court vacated the District Court's determination as
to Rule 23(b)(3) predominance because it failed to resolve
"material factual disputes arising from the conflicting
declarations" prior to a rigorous application of the predominance
inquiry.  That is, the Court held that factual disputes concerning
the violations alleged must be resolved prior to the Rule 23
analysis instead of merely being a factor as to whether the
certification requirements are met.

Notably, while vacating the district court's certification order
and remanding for further consideration, the Second Circuit also
reaffirmed its dicta in Myers v. Hertz Corp. stating that
exemption is not an "inherently individualized inquiry, such that
class treatment will never be appropriate in exemption cases."
Nonetheless, before certifying a class in such cases, the court
explained that district courts must "rigorously analyze[] the
record, weigh[] the conflicting evidence, resolve[] material
factual disputes, and determine[]that subsidiary questions
involved in resolving exemption will be answerable through
evidence generally applicable to the class."

The Second Circuit's decision to vacate the district court's
certification order for failing to sufficiently analyze the
evidence is a positive development for employers faced with wage
and hour claims premised on misclassification.  In particular, the
Court's reliance on Dukes and Comcast indicates a growing
receptiveness among the Courts to the utility of such cases in
defeating certification.  Accordingly, an appropriate discovery
strategy that accounts for these developments can equip an
employer to either defend against Rule 23 certification motions or
to offensively move to deny Rule 23 certification.


COLE CREDIT: Faces Class and Derivative Suits Over CHC Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cole Credit Property Trust III, Inc., is facing class action and
derivative lawsuits arising from its merger with Cole Holdings
Corporation, according to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 8-K/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On March 5, 2013, Cole Credit Property Trust III, Inc. ("CCPT
III"), Cole Holdings Corporation ("CHC" or "Holdings"), Cole
Capital Advisors, Inc. ("CCA"), CRE Investments, LLC, a Maryland
limited liability company and a wholly owned subsidiary of CCPT
III ("Merger Sub"), and Christopher H. Cole (the "Holdings
Stockholder") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the
"Merger Agreement").  The Merger Agreement provides for the merger
of CHC with and into Merger Sub (the "Merger"), with Merger Sub
surviving and continuing its existence under the laws of the state
of Maryland as a wholly owned subsidiary of CCPT III.

On April 5, 2013, the merger of Holdings, a real estate investment
management firm that specializes in investing in and managing real
estate and related assets and sponsoring private and public real
estate investment programs, with and into a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company, was consummated.

In connection with the Merger, on March 20, 2013, a putative class
action and derivative lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, Maryland against and purportedly on behalf of CCPT
III captioned Strub, et al. v. Cole Holdings Corporation, et al.
("Strub").  The complaint names as defendants Holdings; Cole REIT
Advisors III, LLC ("CR III Advisors"); Merger Sub; CCA, Equity
Fund Advisors, Inc. ("EFA"), Cole Capital Corporation ("CCC") and
Cole Realty Advisors, Inc. ("CRA") (together, "Cole Holding
Entities"); each of the directors of CCPT III; and CCPT III.
Among other allegations, Strub alleges that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, candor and due care by
causing CCPT III to enter into the Merger Agreement, failing to
implement appropriate measures to ensure that CCPT III's
relationship with CR III Advisors did not become a vehicle for
wrongful self-dealing, failing to consider and explore strategic
alternatives to the Merger, failing to seek stockholder approval
of the Merger, and by engaging in self-interested and otherwise
conflicted actions.  Strub seeks, among other relief, a
declaration that the conduct of the defendants is a breach of
fiduciary duty or aiding and abetting such breaches and that the
Merger Agreement is null and void; awarding damages and
restitution, and disgorgement by each director; and an award of
the plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees.  On March 28, 2013,
Strub sought a temporary restraining order against the Merger
closing until stockholder approval was obtained.  The court denied
the motion for injunction on April 5, 2013, finding that
stockholder approval was not required in order for the Merger to
be consummated.

On March 25, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland captioned Rodgers
v. Cole Credit Property Trust III, et al. ("Rodgers").  This
complaint names as defendants CCPT III; Cole REIT III Operating
Partnership, LP ("CCPT III OP"); CR III Advisors; Merger Sub; and
each of CCPT III's directors.  Among other allegations, Rodgers
alleges that CCPT III's directors breached their fiduciary duties
by entering into the Merger Agreement, failing to provide
transparency and a stockholder vote, structuring the transaction
to prevent other potential buyers from buying CCPT III, and
failing to disclose to stockholders a third party's interest in
acquiring CCPT III.  Rodgers seeks, among other relief, a
declaration that the defendants have committed a gross abuse of
trust and have breached and/or aided and abetted breach of
fiduciary duties; that the Merger is therefore unlawful and
unenforceable, and that the Merger and any related agreements
should be rescinded and invalidated; imposing a constructive trust
in favor of the plaintiff and class on any
benefits, property or value improperly received by defendants as a
result of wrongful conduct; enjoining defendants from consummating
the Merger until CCPT III has a process to obtain a merger
agreement providing best possible terms to stockholders;
rescinding the Merger to the extent implemented or granting
rescissory damages; awarding compensatory damages and interest;
awarding costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees; and granting
further equitable relief that is deemed just and proper.

On March 27, 2013, a putative derivative action was filed in the
US District Court, Arizona District, captioned Carter v. Cole
Holdings, et al. ("Carter").  This complaint names as defendants
the Company; CR III Advisors; Merger Sub; each of the CCPT III's
directors, and CCPT III as nominal defendant.  Carter alleges,
among other claims, breach of fiduciary duty; against CCPT III's
directors, abuse of control, corporate waste, and unjust
enrichment; against the Company and Merger Sub, aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty; and against CR III Advisors,
breach of contract/implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.  Carter seeks, among other relief, a declaratory judgment
that none of CCPT III's directors were independent and therefore
lacked authority to approve the Merger, and that the defendants
were required to seek stockholder approval of the Merger and the
proposals from American Realty Capital Properties, Inc.; damages
against all defendants; restitution, disgorgement of all illicit
proceeds generated as a result of the alleged wrongful conduct,
and punitive damages.

On March 28, 2013, a putative class action and derivative action
was filed in the circuit court for Baltimore City, Maryland
captioned Fortner v. Andruskevich, et al. ("Fortner").  This
complaint names as defendants the directors of CCPT III, Merger
Sub, the Company, and CCPT III as nominal defendant.  Fortner
alleges, among other causes of action, breach of fiduciary duty
and aiding and abetting of breach of fiduciary duty; and unjust
enrichment.  Fortner seeks, among other relief, class
certification; an injunction against transactions contemplated by
the Merger; an injunction against any agreements or acquisitions
that inhibit maximization of shareholder value; any acquisition of
a related entity without shareholder vote; damages, restitution;
and certain costs and expenses.

On April 8, 2013, a putative class action and derivative action
was filed in the US District Court, Arizona District, captioned
Schindler v. Cole Holdings Corporation, et al. ("Schindler").
Schindler names as defendants the Company; CR III Advisors: Merger
Sub; the directors of CCPT III; and CCPT III as nominal defendant.
The complaint alleges, among other causes of action, violations by
the CCPT III's directors of Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (relating to proxy solicitation); by CCPT
III's directors, CR III Advisors and the Company of Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (relating to controlling
person liability and aiding and abetting); breaches of fiduciary
duty; unjust enrichment; and corporate waste.  Schindler seeks,
among other relief, class certification; a declaration that CCPT
III's proxy statements are false and misleading; disclosure
changes in proxy materials and an injunction regarding the
shareholder vote until such changes are made; changes in corporate
governance; and restitution.  On April 19, 2013, Schindler filed a
motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin CCPT III from
proceeding with the shareholder votes scheduled to take place on
June 19, 2013.  On May 6, 2013, defendants responded by opposing
the motion for a preliminary injunction and by partially moving to
dismiss Plaintiff's complaint.

On May 1, 2013, the plaintiff in the Carter action filed a motion
to designate the Schindler action as a related action pursuant to
Arizona local rules.

On April 17, 2013, all parties in the Strub, Rodgers, and Fortner
actions stipulated that, except for allegations pertaining to the
plaintiffs, the actions are substantially similar, and jointly
sought consolidation of the actions in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City.  On April 30, 2013, the actions were consolidated
by order of the Court and now are named In Re Cole Credit Property
Trust, III, Inc. Derivative And Class Litigation.  On May 8, 2013,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action and
derivative complaint.  The consolidated complaint names as
defendants the Company; CR III Advisors; Merger Sub; the Cole
Holding Entities; each of the directors of CCPT III; and CCPT III
as a nominal defendant.  The consolidated amended complaint
includes claims against the defendants including breaches of
fiduciary duties; aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties;
unjust enrichment; corporate waste; breaches of the charter and
advisory agreement; and, breach of the duty of candor.  The
plaintiffs seek, among other relief, class certification; an
injunction against defendants from taking any action to make
additional Merger consideration payments that are contingent upon
CCPT III's listing; an injunction against defendants from entering
into any contractual agreements or acquisitions that would inhibit
defendants' ability to maximize shareholder value, an injunction
against the June 19, 2013 shareholder vote until the defendants
have made full disclosure of the Merger and related matters
pertinent to the charter amendment; compensatory damages, together
with pre- and post-judgment interests; restitution from the
directors; and plaintiffs' costs, expenses, and disbursements.

The Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit and
will present a vigorous defense, but the ultimate outcome of these
matters cannot be predicted.  While losses and legal expenses may
be incurred, at this time no provisions for losses have been
recorded in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

Cole Credit Property Trust III, Inc., is a Maryland corporation
headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, that was formed on January 22,
2008.  The Company has elected to be taxed, and currently
qualifies, as a real estate investment trust for federal income
tax purposes.  Substantially all of the Company's business is
conducted through Cole REIT III Operating Partnership, LP, a
Delaware limited partnership.  Cole REIT Advisors III, LLC, the
advisor to the Company, is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of
Cole Holdings Corporation, and is the sole limited partner and
owner of an insignificant noncontrolling partnership interest of
CCPT III OP.


CONDE NAST: Interns File Class Action Over Labor Law Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that Conde Nast
publications paid interns "a dollar an hour, if that," in
violation of labor law, two former interns claim in a federal
class action.

Lauren Ballinger and Matthew Leib sued Advance Magazine Publishers
dba Conde Nast Publications, for a class of interns who were paid
poorly, if at all.  Ballinger claims she worked at W Magazine, in
its accessories and jewelry departments, packing and unpacking
stuff, "running errands, filling out insurance forms, and doing
other productive work."

The complaint continues: "Leib worked for Conde Nast at The New
Yorker, reviewing submissions and passing on those that he
recommended to his supervisors, responding to readers' emails,
proofreading, line editing, and relaying pieces between writers,
cartoonists, and editors.  Conde Nast paid Ballinger and Leib less
than the minimum wage for the hours they worked, usually about a
dollar an hour, if that.

Both workers say that Conde Nast "relies on a steady stream of
interns to perform entry-level work that contributes to its
magazines' operations and reduce its labor costs."

However, they say: "The Fair Labor Standards Act ('FLSA') does not
contain an exception for interns.  In 1947, in Walling v. Portland
Terminal Co., the U.S. Supreme Court carved out a narrow exception
from the FLSA's broad definition of 'employee' for participants in
an employer's brief 7-to-8 day training program whose work
provided no 'immediate advantage' to the employer.  The Supreme
Court cautioned against using the decision to allow employers to
do what Conde Nast and many other employers have done in recent
years" 'accept[] the services of beginners to pay less than the
legal minimum[.]'" (Brackets as in complaint. Footnote omitted.)

Citing a U.S. Labor Department fact sheet on internships,
Ballinger and Leib say: "interns who work for private employers
are presumed to be covered by the FLSA.  Interns who 'are engaged
in the operations of the employer or are performing productive
work' must be paid the minimum wage even if they 'receiv[e] some
benefits in the form of a new skill or improved work habits'
because the employer 'benefits from the interns' work.'"

Ballinger says she interned at W Magazine from June to October
2009.

Leib claims he had two internships at The New Yorker, one from
June to late August 2009, then again from June to early September
2010.

They seek declaratory judgment and an injunction, unpaid minimum
wages, liquidated damages and damages for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

They are represented by Adam Klein, Esq. -- atk@outtengolden.com
-- at with Outten & Golden.


CONSOL ENERGY: "Hale" v. CNX in Discovery; No Certification Yet
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in a suit against CNX Gas Company, a
wholly owned subsidiary of CONSOL Energy Inc., after a judge
presiding over the case heard oral arguments on plaintiff's motion
for class certification, CONSOL disclosed on its May 7, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2010
in the U.S. District Court in Abingdon, Virginia styled Hale v.
CNX Gas Company, et. al. The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff
class consists of forced-pooled unleased gas owners whose gas
ownership is in conflict, the Virginia Supreme Court and General
Assembly have decided that coalbed methane (CBM) belongs to the
owner of the gas estate, the Virginia Gas and Oil Act of 1990
unconstitutionally provides only a 1/8 net proceeds royalty to CBM
owners for gas produced under the forced-pooled orders, and CNX
Gas Company relied upon control of only the coal estate in force
pooling the CBM notwithstanding decisions by the Virginia Supreme
Court.

The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of ownership of the CBM
and that the entire net proceeds of CBM production (that is, the
1/8 royalty and the 7/8 of net revenues since production began) be
distributed to the class members. The lawsuit also alleges CNX Gas
Company failed to either pay royalties due conflicting claimant,
deemed lessors or paid them less than required because of the
alleged practice of improper below market sales and/or taking
alleged improper post-production deductions.

The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which
she recommended that the District Judge decide that the deemed
lease provision of the Gas and Oil Act is constitutional as is the
1/8 royalty. The Magistrate Judge recommended against the
dismissal of certain other claims. The District Judge affirmed the
Magistrate Judge's recommendations in their entirety.

An amended complaint was filed, which added additional allegations
that include gas hedging receipts should have been used as the
basis for royalty payments, severance tax should not be allowed as
a post-production deduction from royalties, and damages incurred
because gas was produced prior to the entry of pooling orders.

A motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint was filed and denied.
The Magistrate Judge heard oral arguments on plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification on November 30, 2012 and has not yet
issued a Report and Recommendation. Discovery is proceeding in
this litigation.


CONSOL ENERGY: Court Allows "Addison" v. CNX; Discovery Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in a suit over royalty payments filed by
gas lessors against CNX Gas Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Consol Energy Inc., after a motion by the defendant to dismiss the
suit was denied, CONSOL Energy disclosed on its May 7, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2010 in
the United States District Court in Abingdon, Virginia styled
Addison v. CNX Gas Company, et al.  The lawsuit alleges that the
plaintiff class consists of gas lessors whose gas ownership is in
conflict.

The lawsuit alleges that the Virginia Supreme Court and General
Assembly have decided that the plaintiff owns the gas and is
entitled to royalties held in escrow by the Commonwealth of
Virginia or CNX.  The lawsuit also alleges CNX Gas failed to
either pay royalties due these conflicting claimant lessors or
paid them less than required because of the alleged practice of
improper below market sales and/or taking alleged improper post-
production deductions.

Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment regarding ownership, an
accounting and compensatory and punitive damages for breach of
contract; conversion; negligence (voluntary undertaking) for
improperly asserting that conflicting ownership exists, negligence
(breach of duties as an operator); breach of fiduciary duties; and
unjust enrichment.

The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending dismissing some claims and allowing others to
proceed. The District Judge affirmed the Magistrate Judge's
recommendations in their entirety. An Amended Complaint was filed
which added an additional allegation that gas hedging receipts
should have been used as the basis for royalty payments.

A motion to dismiss those claims was filed and was denied. The
Magistrate Judge heard oral arguments on plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification on November 30, 2012 and has not yet issued a
Report and Recommendation. Discovery is proceeding in this
litigation.


CONSOL ENERGY: CNX Settles Shareholder Suit for $42.73 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
An agreement in principle was reached for the resolution of the
class actions brought by shareholders of CNX Gas Company
challenging the tender offer by CONSOL Energy Inc. to acquire all
the shares of CNX Gas common stock that CONSOL Energy did not
already own, according to CONSOL's May 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

CONSOL Energy was named as a defendant in four putative class
actions brought by alleged shareholders of CNX Gas challenging the
tender offer by CONSOL Energy to acquire all of the shares of CNX
Gas common stock that CONSOL Energy did not already own for $38.25
per share. The two cases filed in Pennsylvania Common Pleas Court
have been stayed and the two cases filed in the Delaware Chancery
Court have been consolidated under the caption In Re CNX Gas
Shareholders Litigation (C.A. No. 5377-VCL).  (A third case filed
in Delaware was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff in 2010.)

All four actions generally allege that CONSOL Energy breached
and/or aided and abetted in the breach of fiduciary duties
purportedly owed to CNX Gas public shareholders, essentially
alleging that the $38.25 per share price that CONSOL Energy paid
to CNX Gas shareholders in the tender offer and subsequent short-
form merger was unfair. Among other things, the actions sought a
permanent injunction against or rescission of the tender offer,
damages, and attorneys' fees and expenses.

Following a mediation, the parties to the Delaware litigation have
agreed in principle to a settlement and release of all of the
claims of the plaintiff class (as defined in a January 20, 2011
order of certification) in exchange for defendants' agreement to
establish a settlement fund in the amount of $42.73 million for
distribution to class members, of which CONSOL Energy is
responsible for $20.20 million.

This settlement agreement is subject to the execution of
definitive documentation and to judicial approval.


CONSOL ENERGY: Still Faces "Hall" Gas Lessors' Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Gas Company continues to face a lawsuit over royalty
payments filed by a purported class of all Pennsylvania oil and
gas lessors to Dominion Exploration and Production Company,
according to CONSOL Energy's May 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed on December 23, 2010
styled Hall v. CONSOL Gas Company in Allegheny County Pennsylvania
Common Pleas Court.  The named plaintiff is Earl D. Hall.  The
purported class plaintiffs are all Pennsylvania oil and gas
lessors to Dominion Exploration and Production Company, whose
leases were acquired by CONSOL Energy.

The complaint alleges more than 1,000 similarly situated lessors.
The lawsuit alleges that CONSOL Energy incorrectly calculated
royalties by (i) calculating line loss on the basis of allocated
volumes rather than on a well-by-well basis, (ii) possibly
calculating the royalty on the basis of an incorrect price, (iii)
possibly taking unreasonable deductions for post-production costs
and costs that were not arms-length, (iv) not paying royalties on
gas lost or used before the point of sale, and (v) not paying
royalties on oil production. The complaint also alleges that
royalty statements were false and misleading.

The complaint seeks damages, interest and an accounting on a well-
by-well basis.


CONSOL ENERGY: "Comer" Plaintiffs File New, Nearly Identical Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal was lodged against the dismissal of a suit making nearly
identical allegations to another dismissed suit Comer, et al. v.
Murphy Oil, et al. filed against a number of companies in energy,
fossil fuels and chemical industries, according to CONSOL Energy
Inc.'s May 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In 2005, plaintiffs Ned Comer and others filed a purported class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi against a number of companies in energy,
fossil fuels and chemical industries, including CONSOL Energy
styled, Comer, et al. v. Murphy Oil, et al.

The plaintiffs, residents and owners of property along the
Mississippi Gulf coast, alleged that the defendants caused the
emission of greenhouse gases that contributed to global warming,
which in turn caused a rise in sea levels and added to the
ferocity of Hurricane Katrina, which combined to destroy the
plaintiffs' property.

The District Court dismissed the case and the plaintiffs appealed.
The Circuit Court panel reversed and the defendants sought a
rehearing before the entire court. A rehearing before the entire
court was granted, which had the effect of vacating the panel's
reversal, but before the case could be heard on the merits, a
number of judges recused themselves and there was no longer a
quorum.

As a result, the District Court's dismissal was effectively
reinstated. The plaintiffs asked the U.S. Supreme Court to require
the Circuit Court to address the merits of their appeal.

On January 11, 2011, the Supreme Court denied that request.
Although that should have resulted in the dismissal being final,
the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit on May 27, 2011, in the same
jurisdiction against essentially the same defendants making nearly
identical allegations as in the original lawsuit. The trial court
has dismissed this case. The dismissal is being appealed.


COOPER TIRE: Faces Suit Over Proposed Acquisition by Apollo Tyres
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Booth Family Trust, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Company, Roy V. Armes, Thomas P.
Capo, Steven M. Chapman, John J. Holland, John F. Meier, Cynthia
A. Niekamp, John H. Shuey, Richard L. Wambold, and Robert D.
Welding, Case No. 8668- (Del. Ch. Ct., June 20, 2013), is a
stockholder class action brought by The Booth Family Trust on
behalf of the public stockholders of the Company against the
Company and its Board of Directors in connection with the proposed
acquisition of Cooper by Apollo Tyres Ltd. through its wholly
owned subsidiaries.

The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from pursuing the
Proposed Transaction, or in the event that the Proposed
Transaction is consummated, recover damages resulting from the
Defendants' alleged wrongful conduct.  In pursuing the Proposed
Transaction, the Plaintiff contends, each Defendant has violated
applicable laws by directly breaching fiduciary duties of loyalty,
good faith, independence, fair dealing, and due care owed to the
Plaintiff and the proposed class.  The Plaintiff adds that the
merger consideration agreed to by the Board is grossly unfair.

As widely reported, Gurgaon, India-based Apollo has agreed to
acquire Cooper Tire for about $2.5 billion.  Apollo Tyres will pay
$35 a share to Cooper Tire's shareholders.  The amount is 43%
higher than the June 11 closing price of $24.56 of Cooper Tire's
shares, according to a Bloomberg News report.

The Plaintiff owns Cooper common stock.

Cooper is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Findlay, Ohio.  Cooper is the parent company of
a global family of companies that specialize in the design,
manufacture, marketing and sales of passenger car and light truck
tires.  Cooper has joint ventures, affiliates and subsidiaries
that also specialize in medium truck, motorcycle and racing tires.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
          O'KELLY ERNST & BIELLI, LLC
          901 North Market Street, Suite 1000
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 778-4000
          Facsimile: (302) 295-2873
          E-mail: rernst@oeblegal.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.
          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
          E-mail: jweiss@weisslawllp.com
                  racocelli@weisslawllp.com
                  mrogovin@weisslawllp.com


DEWAAY FINANCIAL: Judge Approves $3MM Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kent Darr, writing for Business Record, reports that Decatur
County Judge John Lloyd on June 4 filed the final order approving
a $3 million class-action settlement of claims against broker-
dealer Donald DeWaay and his affiliated investment companies.

Judge Lloyd consolidated two cases that were filed in January 2012
by DeWaay clients who were sold private placement investments,
primarily in entities related to a now-bankrupt Idaho-based real
estate investment company and a Texas company that sold shares in
oil and gas leases.

The settlement could affect nearly 5,000 DeWaay clients who put
their money into 199 separate investments, all but one of which
that has lost value or is worthless.  Those clients are prohibited
under the settlement from taking additional action to collect
their money.

It has been estimated that DeWaay and his DeWaay Financial Network
LLC brokerage faced at least $20 million in claims related to
investments it sold in the Idaho company.

Judge Lloyd approved a settlement that includes $925,000 in
DeWaay's personal funds.  That figure could be increased by net
proceeds from the sale of the Clive businessman's Lake Okoboji
vacation home, vacation lodges, a strip center and farmland.

Plaintiffs' lawyers will receive $750,000 from the settlement.

The settlement is the most the investors can expect to receive
from DeWaay, Judge Lloyd said, whose broker-dealer business is
shuttered.  His lawyers have claimed that attempting to settle
with each investor would bankrupt DeWaay, who also has seen the
majority of his $20 million financial counseling campus return to
lenders.

Judge Lloyd said 26 individuals or entities such as trusts that
are related to them are excluded from the case because they had
previously settled their claims.

Named plaintiffs will receive an additional $2,500 each.
Settlement funds will be based on a prorated share of each
client's initial investment.

Judge Lloyd will continue to oversee the case and hear any
disputes that arise from its administration.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: $79MM Accord in Securities Suit Deemed Final
---------------------------------------------------------------
A $79.0 million settlement of a consolidated securities suit filed
against E*Trade Financial Corporation is deemed final as all
appeals and requests for attorneys' fees have been resolved as of
January, according to the company's May 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

On October 2, 2007, a class action complaint alleging violations
of the federal securities laws was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and its then Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer by Larry Freudenberg on his own behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated (the "Freudenberg Action").

On July 17, 2008, the trial court consolidated this action with
four other purported class actions. Plaintiffs contended, among
other things, that the value of the Company's stock between April
19, 2006 and November 9, 2007 was artificially inflated because
the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose that the Company was experiencing a rise in
delinquency rates in its mortgage and home equity portfolios;
failed to timely record an impairment on its mortgage and home
equity portfolios; materially overvalued its securities portfolio,
which included assets backed by mortgages; and based on the
foregoing, lacked a reasonable basis for the positive statements
made about the Company's earnings and prospects.

The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement on May 17,
2012, which was submitted to the Court for approval. The
settlement was approved by the Court and the class was certified
by a final judgment and order of dismissal dated October 22, 2012.
Under the terms of the settlement, the Company and its insurance
carriers paid $79.0 million in return for full releases.
Approximately $11.0 million of the total settlement figure was
paid by the Company, which was expensed in the year ended December
31, 2011. As of January 14, 2013, all appeals and requests for
attorneys' fees have been resolved and the settlement is final.


EQT PRODUCTION: Court Recommends Class Status in Landowners' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Szkotak, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
federal magistrate judge recommended class-action status on June 5
for thousands of landowners in southwest Virginia who contend two
energy companies cheated them out of tens of millions of dollars
in royalty payments for natural gas they extracted from their
properties.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent's recommendation now
goes to a district judge in Abingdon for the final judgment on the
proposed class action.

Judge Sargent certified the class action claims of four of five
landowners.  They are among 10,000 or more landowners in a
potential class action against EQT Production Co. and CNX Gas Co.,
Pittsburgh-area energy companies that have thousands of natural
gas wells in Appalachia.

The companies have denied the allegations in the past.

CNX did not respond to The Associated Press, but EQT said in a
statement: "We have reviewed the magistrate's recommendation and
while we are pleased with some parts of the recommendation" others
we take exception to.

They have two weeks to appeal.

One of the attorneys for the landowners called the opinion a
"blowout win."

"It is a catastrophic defeat for these two major energy companies,
which have been cheating these landowners and small royalty owners
for decades, with impunity," Don Barrett said.  He added that a
district judge is all but assured of heeding Judge Sargent's
opinion, as he has done in other stages of the action.

Attorneys for the landowners allege EQT and CNX drilled thousands
of wells in southwest Virginia's coal bed to remove methane gas
without obtaining valid leases.  They argued the mineral rights
were held by the coal companies.

The Virginia Gas and Oil Board ultimately granted conditional
leases and placed royalties in an escrow account because of
conflicting claims.  The royalties placed in the account amounted
to one-eighth of net proceeds of the drilling.

Attorneys for the landowners said the state panel subjected the
landowners to "an involuntary lease" and established a below-
market royalty rate.

The Virginia Supreme Court, in a 2004 ruling, found that the
methane gas is a "distinct mineral estate" from coal, concluding
the landowners owned the rights to natural gas removed from their
properties.

In her opinion, Judge Sargent wrote, "Quite frankly, I am of the
opinion that the Virginia Supreme Court has decided this issue."

Mr. Barrett estimated that the royalties held in escrow are
approaching $30 million, but the wells are expected to remain in
operation for years.  Attorneys are also seeking punitive damages.

"This has been misconduct -- flagrant misconduct -- and bullying
of these little people for decades," he said.  "Now they have to
pay."

The Bristol Herald Courier won a Pulitzer Prize for Daniel
Gilbert's reporting on the mismanagement of natural gas royalties
owed to landowners in Virginia.


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Federman & Sherwood Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
On June 4, 2013, Federman & Sherwood filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California against Exide Technologies, with a greatly expanded
class period, seeking to pursue remedies under -- 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  Plaintiffs in this action seek to recover damages on
behalf of all Exide Technologies shareholders who purchased common
stock during the Class Period as set forth below.

If you purchased Exide Technologies shares between June 1, 2011
and April 24, 2013, have losses as a result of your trades during
this time period, and wish to join this litigation as a member of
the class, please contact Federman & Sherwood.  Investors have
until Friday, June 14, 2013 to move the court for consideration as
a court-appointed lead plaintiff, but in order to do so, you must
meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Our firm seeks to recover damages and losses on behalf of the
entire Class, and has extensive nationwide experience and
expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving financial
fraud.  If you wish to join this class action, please contact: K.
Lynn Nunn at kln@federmanlaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.federmanlaw.comto download a Plaintiff's Certification
of Investment to join this class action lawsuit.

Contact:

          Federman & Sherwood
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Fax: (405) 239-2112


FAT COW: Faces Overtime Class Action
------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Gordon Ramsay Los Angeles
LP's restaurant The Fat Cow stiffs workers for overtime, according
to a class action in Superior Court.


FIRSTENERGY SOLUTIONS: Unit Still Faces Environmental Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
FirstEnergy Generation, LLC (FG), a subsidiary of Firstenergy
Solutions Corp., continues to face a lawsuit seeking damages based
on air emissions from the coal-fired Bruce Mansfield Plant,
according to the company's May 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

In July 2008, three complaints representing multiple plaintiffs
were filed against FG in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania seeking damages based on air emissions
from the coal-fired Bruce Mansfield Plant. Two of these complaints
also seek to enjoin the Bruce Mansfield Plant from operating
except in a "safe, responsible, prudent and proper manner."

One complaint was filed on behalf of twenty-one individuals and
the other is a class action complaint seeking certification as a
class with the eight named plaintiffs as the class
representatives.


GREEN JACOBSON: Faces Class Action Over Breaching Duty
------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action
plaintiff turned the tables on a law firm, claiming in another
class action that the firm breached its duty to him in a $490
settlement from which the attorneys got $60 million in fees.

David Oetting sued Green Jacobson PC and its attorneys Martin
Green, Joe Jacobson and Jonathan Andres, in Federal Court.

Oetting claims the defendants sought to maximize their cut and
minimize their work while representing him in a securities class
action against BankAmerica Corporation in 1998.  The case was
consolidated in a class action along with NationsBank, and settled
in 2002.

Oetting claims the defendants hired the nonparty CPA firm of
Heffler, Radetich & Saitta without seeking competitive bids,
without inquiring about the amount of professional and fidelity
insurance coverage Heffler carried, and without considering
Heffler's financial strength.

"After giving the proper notice to the class and conducting a
fairness hearing as to the proposed settlement, on September 30,
2002, the court issued an order approving the terms of the
settlement and revised the plan of allocation for the plaintiff
classes against BankAmerica Corporation," the complaint states.
"The total settlement fund was $490 million ($333.2 million to the
NationsBank class and $156.8 million to the BankAmerica class).
These sums were deposited into separate accounts.  Despite notice
and inquiry by Plaintiff Oetting, Green Jacobson continues to
cause excessive bank fees to be charged against the NationsBank
settlement fund account." (Parentheses in complaint.)

Oetting claims Heffler failed to process class settlement claim
properly.

"In 2008, it was discovered through a criminal investigation
conducted by the U.S. Attorney's office in Philadelphia that one
of Heffler's employees, Christian Penta ('Penta'), while serving
as a senior accountant in 2002-04, working with others outside
Heffler, fraudulently submitted some 15 claims totaling
approximately $5.8 million," the complaint states.  "Green
Jacobson should have detected the fraudulent claims, including
because (a) they were for large amounts, (b) the claimants were
not their clients, (c) the claimants were foreign entities with
unusual names and (d) the claimants had no federal identification
numbers.  For example, 'Companhia Interamerican' submitted a claim
saying that it was the holder of 3,870,000 shares of NationsBank
stock.  Without any investigation as to what this entity was it
was sent a check for $1,904,171.64.  Another claim submitted was
by 'FBO Asia Reserve', a 'foreign entity'.  It claimed to own
2,919,160 shares.  It received a check for $1,436,326.02.  Neither
of these entities existed; however, Green Jacobson did not detect
any of these fraudulent claims -- or any other fraudulent claims
-- and instead allowed the $5.8 million to be diverted from the
NationsBank settlement fund.  It appears that Green Jacobson
performed no substantive review of the list submitted to the
Court.

"Although Green Jacobson (and Heffler) did little or nothing to
detect or prevent the fraudulent scheme, the U.S. Attorney later
notified Green Jacobson that these monies had been stolen from the
NationsBank settlement fund.  The U.S. Attorney's office has since
been able to recover only a small amount of the $5.8 million.
Green Jacobson has made no real effort on its own to recover and
has recovered no portion of the $5.8 million stolen from its
clients." (Parentheses in complaint.)

Oetting claims the defendants breached their duty to him by
failing to try to recover the $5.8 million from Heffler.

"Green Jacobson ultimately filed a motion for leave to file a
'Supplemental Complaint' [Doc 749] against Heffler in the Action
making the allegations that the class was due to be reimbursed by
Heffler due to Penta's actions," the complaint states.  "The court
denied the motion on the grounds that the action against Heffler
was a separate claim that had to be filed in a completely new
lawsuit.  Upon denial of Green Jacobson's motion, Green Jacobson
seemed satisfied to take no further action against Heffler.  Green
Jacobson also attempted to frustrate Oetting's efforts to do
something further to recover the $5.8 million taken from the
NationsBank class, Green Jacobson's clients, including Green
Jacobson refused to file a separate action with Oetting as the
lead plaintiff and proceeded to negotiate a settlement with
Heffler without the knowledge or consent of Oetting or the class.

"Plaintiff Oetting, having been frustrated at every turn as to the
inactions of Green Jacobson, filed his own complaint in St. Louis
seeking damages against Heffler for improperly authorizing and
paying on false claims in the Action.  The case was transferred to
Philadelphia on venue grounds.  It is now pending in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:11-cv-04757-JD) ('Heffler
Case')."

Oetting claims Green Jacobson failed to monitor Heffler and
breached their duty to class members by hiring Heffler in the
first place.  He claims the defendants also failed to keep Oetting
informed, failed to take appropriate steps to try to recover the
stolen money, negotiated a settlement without the informed consent
of their clients and took action hostile to the interests of their
clients.

The class consists of all members of the NationsBank class who
have or who are to receive a payout from the 2002 settlement.
Oetting seeks damages for legal malpractice, negligent hiring,
negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.  He also seeks
disgorgement of $60 million Green Jacobson was awarded in
attorney's fees.

He is represented by Frank H. Tomlinson in Birmingham, Ala.


HAWAII: Disability Rights Center Launches 9th Cir. Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that the Hawaii
Disability Rights Center went to the 9th Circuit two weeks ago to
challenge a state law preventing disabled students from receiving
special education services after turning 20.

Two related cases challenged Hawaii's Act 163, which bars any
student from attending public school if they are 20 or older on
the first day of the school year.

R.T.D. sued the Hawaii Department of Education in 2010, claiming
that the law denied him the free appropriate public education he
used to receive up to age 22.  He later joined a class action
filed the same year that made similar claims.

Non-disabled students can continue their education in General
Education Development and competency-based diploma programs.  But
no such option was available to disabled students who require
special education services.

R.T.D. asked the court to overturn rulings by administrative
hearing officers who refused to extend special education services
to plaintiffs at their public schools until they were 22.

U.S. District Judge David Alan Erza rejected the class claims in
March 2012, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA).  Erza found that the class failed to show that Hawaii has
"a state law or practice whereby non-disabled students between the
ages of 20 and 22 are being provided the functional equivalent of
a secondary school education" in adult community schools.  Erza
also sided with Hawaii on the plaintiffs' claims under the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.

"Plaintiffs have not met their burden of producing evidence that
there exists a reasonable accommodation that will allow plaintiffs
to derive a meaningful benefit from adult education programs,"
Erza wrote.

A month later, U.S. District Judge Leslie Kobayashi relied on
Erza's order to dismiss R.T.D.'s complaint against the Hawaii
Department of Education.

Two weeks ago, attorney Jason Kim, Esq. --
jkim@schneiderwallace.com -- with the San Francisco law firm
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky, asked a three-judge
panel of the 9th Circuit to overturn Erza's ruling.  Kim said
Hawaii was offering what amounted to secondary public education
for non-disabled students in community schools for adults.
Continuing education programs should be made available to disabled
students until they turn 22, the attorney said.

"The fact that they have chosen to offer secondary education
through something that is innovative and different shouldn't
affect their obligations under the IDEA because state law requires
them to provide secondary education, elementary education, to
adults," Kim said.

Judge Joseph Farris wondered if discrimination was the issue, if
disabled students were not "precluded from entering" community
schools.  "He is precluded not by anybody, but by whatever causes
him to have whatever problems he's got from taking advantage of
the program," Farris said of R.T.D.  "But it's there, and
otherwise he could do it, couldn't he?  There's no barrier to his
entering the second program, except his inability to take
advantage of it."

Kim called that argument incompatible with the IDEA's mandate to
"affirmatively provide services to ensure meaningful opportunity."

"It would be contrary to the IDEA if the result of this case is
someone who is heavily disabled can go into one of those
classrooms with no supportive services, and just sit there all
day.  That kind of conduct is exactly what the IDEA was enacted to
prevent," Kim said.

What the case boils down to, Kim said, is that Act 163 is "an
outright exclusion and a segregation."

"If you're a 21-year-old student in Hawaii who wishes to continue
their public education but requires support services to do so, as
a practical matter you can't," Kim said.

Deputy Attorney General Carter Siu said the court should affirm.
He said the IDEA applied to secondary public education for
children, not to adult classes in community schools.

Judges Dorothy Nelson and Jacqueline Nguyen questioned Siu's
reasoning.  Nguyen asked: "Why doesn't that violate the IDEA, in
that Hawaii has chosen to make available to non-disabled students
this option of pursuing alternative programs through the community
schools for adults, but for disabled children there's no similar
provision; no ability to put an IEP [individualized education
program] in place, or extend IEP type services?"

Siu said the state made clear that individualized education
programs for community schools are not "appropriate," and that
programs in those schools were for adults only.

Judge Nelson asked: "Isn't it true that in 2010 and 2011, four 20-
year-old students transitioned straight from high school to the
adult education degree programs? Isn't this proof that for at
least some, although a few students, the adult schools are really
a form of continuing education?"

Siu responded that there is "no transition" between high school
and community school, and that it was an individual student's
"choice."

"It's up to you to decide what your course in life is," Siu said.
He said only 4 percent of non-disabled high school students
entered General Education Development programs at community
schools.

"The IDEA applies to school-age children, within traditional
secondary schools," Siu said. "They're for adults; they're totally
separate programs, funded separately."

During rebuttal, Kim claimed that programs offered at community
schools are public education under the IDEA.

"There's no way that the term 'public education' as used in the
IDEA is limited to a conventional high school education, because
the IDEA wouldn't make any sense," Kim said.

He urged the court to examine the IDEA on procedural, rather than
substantive grounds.

In another 9th Circuit hearing before the panel, Deputy Attorney
General Gary Suganuma challenged an October 2012 order granting a
disabled student's request to stay at the school where he is
receiving special education services.

John Dellera of Honolulu argued on behalf of his client, A.D.


HIGHER ONE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Consumer MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------
Higher One Holdings, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a multidistrict litigation alleging violations
of state consumer protection statutes, 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.

The Company is a defendant in a series of putative class action
lawsuits.  The cases are as follows: Ashley Parker, et al. v.
Higher One Holdings, Inc. et al., filed on July 3, 2012, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Mississippi, Eastern Division; Jeanette Price et al. v. Higher One
Holdings, Inc. et al., filed on July 27, 2012, in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut; John
Brandon Kent et al. v. Higher One Holdings, Inc. et al., filed on
August 17, 2012, in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division; Jonathan Lanham et
al. v. Higher One Holdings, Inc. et al., filed on October 2, 2012,
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky, Louisville Division; Aisha DeClue et al. v. Higher One,
Inc., et al., filed on November 5, 2012, in the St. Louis County
Circuit Court of Missouri; and Jill Massey et al. v. Higher One
Holdings, Inc. et al., filed on November 6, 2012, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, East
Saint Louis Division.  The Company filed a motion with the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, or JPML, asking the
Panel to transfer to a single court the first three cases (and any
additional tag-along cases) for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.

On December 11, 2012, and December 21, 2012, the JPML ruled in the
Company's favor and the Parker, Kent, Price, Lanham, and Massey
actions were transferred to the District of Connecticut.  This
consolidated case is captioned In re Higher One OneAccount
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, or the MDL.  The
Plaintiffs have since filed a consolidated amended complaint in
the MDL.  It generally alleges, among other things, violations of
state consumer protection statutes (predicated, in part, on
alleged violations of Department of Education rules and violations
of the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act) and various common
law claims.  On April 22, 2013, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the case.  Discovery has commenced in the MDL.

On December 21, 2012, Higher One removed the DeClue case to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
On December 27, 2012, the JPML issued a conditional transfer order
with respect to the DeClue action, which the DeClue plaintiffs
have opposed.  The JPML overruled that opposition and the DeClue
case has been transferred to the District of Connecticut to
proceed as part of the MDL.  In DeClue, the plaintiff has filed a
motion to remand the case to state court, but the court has stayed
any briefing on this motion until the MDL Court lifts the stay and
enters a scheduling order.

The Company believes the claims in each of these actions to be
without merit.  Although the Company plans to defend these matters
vigorously, there can be no assurances of the Company's success in
these matters.

Higher One Holdings, Inc. -- http://ir.higherone.com/-- is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in New Haven, Connecticut.  The
Company is a provider of technology-based refund disbursement,
payment processing and data analytics services to higher education
institutions and students.  The Company also provides campus
communities with convenient and student-oriented banking services,
which include extensive user-friendly features, through the
Company's bank partners.


IMMERSION CORPORATION: Stockholders Appeal Dismissal of Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the suit In Re Immersion Corporation Securities
Litigation are appealing the dismissal of the case to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
according to the company's May 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

In September and October 2009, various putative shareholder class
action and derivative complaints were filed in federal and state
court against the Company and certain current and former Immersion
directors and officers.

On September 2, 2009, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers. Over the following five
weeks, four additional class action complaints were filed. (One of
these four actions was later voluntarily dismissed.)

The securities class action complaints name the Company and
certain current and former Immersion directors and officers as
defendants and allege violations of federal securities laws based
on the Company's issuance of allegedly misleading financial
statements. The various complaints assert claims covering the
period from May 2007 through July 2009 and seek compensatory
damages allegedly sustained by the purported class members.

On December 21, 2009, these class actions were consolidated by the
court as IN Re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation. On the
same day, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel.

Following the Company's restatement of its financial statements,
lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on April 9, 2010.
Defendants moved to dismiss the action on June 15, 2010 and that
motion was granted with leave to amend on March 11, 2011. Lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 29, 2011. Defendants
moved to dismiss the amended complaint on July 1, 2011. On
December 16, 2011, the motion to dismiss was granted with
prejudice and on December 19, 2011, judgment was entered in favor
of defendants. On January 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In May 2012,
plaintiff filed his opening appeals brief. On July 13, 2012, the
Company filed its response brief. On September 4, 2012, plaintiff
filed his reply.


INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Denied in May
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Intralinks Holdings, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit was denied in May 2013, 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 December 5, 2011, the Company became aware of a purported class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the "SDNY" or the "Court") against the
Company and certain of its current and former executive officers.
The complaint (the "Wallace Complaint") alleges that the
defendants made false and misleading statements or omissions in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The
plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages for the purported
class of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the
period from February 17, 2011, through November 10, 2011 (the
"Allegation Period").  On December 27, 2011, a second purported
class action complaint, which makes substantially the same claims
as, and is related to, the Wallace Complaint, was filed in the
SDNY against the Company and certain of its current and former
executive officers seeking similar unspecified compensatory
damages for the Allegation Period.  On April 3, 2012, the Court
consolidated the actions and appointed Plumbers and Pipefitters
National Pension Fund as lead plaintiff, and also appointed lead
counsel in the consolidated action ("Consolidated Exchange Act
Class Action").  On June 15, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint, that in addition to the original allegations
made in the Wallace Complaint, alleges that the Company, certain
of its current and former officers and directors, and the
underwriters in the Company's April 6, 2011 stock offering issued
a registration statement and prospectus in connection with the
offering that contained untrue statements of material fact or
omitted material information required to be stated therein in
violation of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.  The
defendants filed their motion to dismiss the action on July 31,
2012, and, in response to the lead plaintiff opposition to the
defendants' motions filed on September 17, 2012, the defendants
filed their replies to plaintiff's opposition on October 10, 2012.

On May 8, 2013, the Court issued an opinion dismissing claims
based on certain allegations in the complaint, but otherwise
denied defendants' motions to dismiss.

The Company believes that these claims are without merit and
intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously.

Based in New York, IntraLinks Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.intralinks.com/-- together with its subsidiaries,
provides software-as-a-service (SaaS) solutions for securely
managing content, exchanging critical business information, and
enabling inter-enterprise collaboration worldwide.


INVENTURE FOODS: Certification Hearing in Suit v. Jamba in Oct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the motion for class certification in a suit filed
against Jamba Juice Company with which Inventure Foods, Inc. has a
license agreement, is on October 17, 2013, according to
Inventure's May 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2013.

Inventure said, "In March 2012, we learned that the Jamba Juice
Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed
in the Federal Court for the North District of California and
captioned Kevin Anderson v. Jamba Juice Company which claims that
the use of the words "all natural" to describe the Smoothie Kits
is misleading and deceptive to consumers and violates various
California consumer protection statutes and unfair competition
statutes."

"The suit is one of several 'all natural' lawsuits recently
brought against various food manufacturers and distributors in
California.  In an amended complaint the plaintiff also alleged
violations of the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, but the
court dismissed those claims in a ruling issued in August 2012.

"In a second amended complaint filed in September 2012, we were
added as a defendant.  Under the company's license agreement with
the Jamba Juice Company, we are obligated and have agreed to
indemnify and defend Jamba Juice in the suit, and Jamba has
tendered defense of the claim to us.  While we currently believe
the "all natural" claims on the Smoothie Kits are not misleading
and in full compliance with FDA guidelines, we are investigating
the claims asserted in the action, and intend to vigorously defend
against them.

"The plaintiff is seeking to certify a class of all persons in
California who bought certain of the Jamba Juice Smoothie Kits,
and the plaintiff's deadline for filing a motion for class
certification is May 31, 2013. The company's opposition to the
motion for class certification is due on July 30, 2013 and the
court has schedule a hearing on the motion for class certification
on October 17, 2013."


JM SMUCKER: False Ad Plaintiff Can Recover Fees, Judge Rules
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Heller of BankruptcyLaw360 reported that a California
federal judge ruled that the lead plaintiff in a false advertising
class action against The J.M. Smucker Co. is entitled to an award
of millions of dollars in attorneys' fees even though she was
removed from the case after filing bankruptcy.

According to the report, U.S. District Judge George H. King agreed
with Mary Henderson that she had standing to claim attorneys' fees
as the "successful" or "prevailing" party in the lawsuit, which
alleged Smucker falsely marketed products full of hydrogenated
oils as healthy.

The case is Mary Henderson v. The J. M. Smucker Company, Case No.
2:10-cv-04524 (GHK)(C.D. Calif.).

J. M. Smucker Co. is a multi-billion dollar North American food
corporation based in Orrville, Ohio.  The Defendant manufactures,
markets, and sells cooking oils nationwide from its manufacturing
plant in Orrville, Ohio, including Crisco Natural Blend Oil,
Crisco Pure Corn Oil, Crisco Pure Canola Oil, and Crisco Pure
Vegetable Oil.


KMART CORP: Delbridge to Represent Class for Cashiers, Judge Rules
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reports that a Kmart
cashier who worked at a store in Southern California can represent
a class who were denied seats, but there will be no statewide
class, a federal judge ruled.

Collette Delbridge is now the class representative for cashiers at
a Kmart in Redlands, Calif., according to the ruling.  She had
intervened after a federal judge found that Kmart did not violate
the rights of a class, led by Lisa Garvey, by failing to provide
seating at a location in Tulare, Calif.

Garvey had noted that California's wage order, 7-2001(14),
provides: "All working employees shall be provided with suitable
seats when the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of
seats."

U.S. District Judge William Alsup concluded in that December 2012
ruling, however, that modifying the store to give cashiers seats
would be "too unsafe, too inefficient, and too inconvenient to
customers and cashiers."

Though Alsup certified Delbridge as a class representative for a
new arm of the lawsuit last week, Sabrina Cline, who worked at a
Kmart in Petaluma, Calif., was less successful.

Cline lacks standing because she failed to list and disclose her
claim against Kmart in a 2012 bankruptcy proceeding, according to
the ruling.

"As a result, her claim in this action belongs to the bankruptcy
estate," the 14-page ruling states.

As for Delbridge's representation of a Redlands class, Alsup said
he would not "stretch the Tulare trial over the entirety of these
proceedings."

"The Tulare trial record is not representative of other stores,"
Alsup wrote.  "It otherwise suffices to note that plaintiffs have
submitted a declaration from plaintiff Delbridge stating that she
believes that she could have performed her cashiering duties while
seated.  This creates genuine issues of material fact on the
issues raised by Kmart as to cashiers who worked at the Redlands
store."

Delbridge meanwhile objected to 400 declarations Kmart provided
from cashiers about the nature of their work.  Most of the
declarations are surveys pairs with disclosure forms, and another
15 are "Day in the Life" statements.

Alsup seemed sympathetic to Delbridge's objections.

"The disclosure forms used by Kmart were, at best, a half-hearted
attempt to convert legal language into a format comprehensible to
a layperson," he wrote.  "The surveys appear to have been
collected from the cashiers at their place of work, rather than in
a neutral environment.  Although the disclosure forms stated that
filling them out was voluntary and no adverse action would be
taken against the declarants, the context could have encouraged
Kmart's employees to overstate their zeal for their work.  Thus,
given the manner in which the surveys were collected, the accuracy
of the information is suspect. And, the 'Day in the Life'
declarations are particularly problematic since they attempt to
convey that Kmart cashiers work long and hard without ever wishing
for a stool -- but were clearly drafted by attorneys."

He refused to strike the declarations, however, after concluding
that "Kmart's method of gathering and preparing the cashier
declarations and surveys was not fundamentally coercive or
misleading."

Alsup nevertheless barred the company from further communicating
with class members regarding the lawsuit and from engaging in
evidence-gathering involving communications with them until after
judgment.

In certifying Delbridge as representative for other workers at the
Kmart in Redlands, Alsup noted that Kmart had devoted "its class
certification opposition to battling a potential statewide class.
To the extent that its arguments can be translated to a class
limited to a single store, they fall flat."

Counsel had until June 20 to identify class members and submit a
list of names, agreed-on form of class notice, and plan of
dissemination and time table.


KELLOGG CO: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Advertising
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Kellogg Co. deceptively
advertises its Super Mario Fruit Snacks and Pop Tarts as made with
"real fruit," three class actions claim in Federal Court.


LIQUOR CONTROL: Recalls Nalewka Babuni Cherry Wine Over Color
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 20, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Chemical
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Liquor Control Board Of Ontario
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    7933

Affected products:

Brand name       Common name      Size     Code(s) on product
----------       -----------      ----     ------------------
Nalewka Babuni   Dessert Cherry   750 ml   L2352, L3010, L3028
Wine

UPC: 5901064000720


MAPCO EXPRESS: Faces Class Action Over Hacked Credit Card System
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that MAPCO Express let hackers
into its credit card system, exposing millions of people to fraud,
theft and ID theft, a class action claims in Federal Court.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Concussion Lawsuit Faces Fewer Obstacles
----------------------------------------------------------
Marc Edelman, writing for Forbes, reports that it has already been
quite the spring for the NCAA.

First, on May 21, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
held that the First Amendment does not definitively protect
Electronic Arts's unlicensed use of college football players'
likenesses in commercial video games -- potentially marking the
end to one NCAA revenue stream.

Then, on June 3 University of Miami defensive end Dyron Dye went
to the police detailing how an NCAA investigator coerced
information from him.

Now, the NCAA may face a class-action lawsuit filed against it by
concussed former college football players.

By now, most sports fans are familiar with the class-action
concussion lawsuit against the National Football League, which
accuses the NFL, among things, of having negligently failed to
warn players about the risks of concussions and concealed
informational studies about the long-term effects of concussions.

There is also a similar lawsuit making its way through the court
system against the NCAA -- Arrington v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association.  However, many of the potentially mitigating
factors that could reduce the NFL's legal exposure do not seem to
avail themselves to the NCAA.

First, there is the issue of "duty of care" -- the standard of
legal obligation placed on a given entity to prevent negligent
acts.  Although the NFL may owe a duty of care to protect its
athletes from head injuries, one would surmise this duty to be far
greater in the context of the NCAA, which, according to its own
website, was founded in 1905 "to protect young people from the
dangerous and exploitive (sic) athletic practices of the time."
These practices specifically included risks of head and neck
injuries.

In addition, the NFL defendants might be able to reduce their
exposure because during at least part of the relevant period in
question the NFL players union served in the direct capacity of
protecting professional football players' interests.  However,
once again such a defense clearly does not extend itself to the
NCAA.  Quite to the contrary, the NCAA has not permitted its
workforce to form an organized body to negotiate against it.

Then, there is the temporal factor that may work against the NCAA.
While the NFL may attempt to argue in its litigation that many of
the players' head injuries occurred before they entered the NFL,
the NCAA cannot so easily try to place blame on earlier injuries.

Currently, most of the legal discussion surrounding concussions in
football remains tied to the NFL litigation.  However, perhaps the
NCAA should be looking carefully over its shoulder.

A similar lawsuit against the NCAA could provide much needed
relief to the many college athletes that have been victims of head
injuries -- some of whom are even denied workmen's compensation.

In addition, a concussion lawsuit against the NCAA faces far fewer
obstacles based on the unique structure and history of the NCAA.


NEVADA PROPERTY: Awaits Order on Bid to Junk Unlawful Taping Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Property 1 LLC is awaiting a court decision on its motion
to dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging unlawful taping or
recording of calls, 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.

A class action lawsuit was filed during the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2012, in the Superior Court in the State of
California against the Company, alleging violation of the
California Penal Code regarding the unlawful taping or recording
of calls.  This matter is in the earliest stages of proceedings.
Meaningful discovery has not commenced, no depositions have
occurred, and no motions to certify a class or subclasses have
been filed.  Substantial questions of law and fact are unresolved.
Specific additional factors applicable to this case that prevent
the Company from providing an estimate of reasonably possible loss
or range of loss include, but are not limited to: (1) whether
class certification will be granted and the scope of any class or
subclass; (2) the quantification of highly variable damages
claimed by the purported class are unspecified or indeterminate;
and, (3) the outcome of any future settlement negotiations, should
they occur, as they may apply to limit the class or eliminate all
class claims.  As a result, the Company cannot at this time
determine the potential impact of the lawsuit on the consolidated
financial position, cash flows, or results of operations of the
Company.  The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses
with respect to this matter and intends to defend its position
vigorously.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit in
October 2012 and is awaiting a ruling from the Superior Court in
the State of California.

Given the uncertainty of the procedural and substantive legal and
factual matters, no estimate of the reasonably possible loss or
range of loss in excess of amounts accrued, if any, can be made at
this time with respect to the wage and hour and alleged unlawful
taping/recording purported class action lawsuits, nor can the
Company determine when it will be able to make such an estimate.
The Company's assessment of these matters may change based on
future unexpected events.  An unexpected adverse judgment could
cause a material impact on the Company's business operations,
results of operations or financial position.  Unless otherwise
expressly stated, the Company believes costs associated with
litigation will not have a material impact on its financial
position or liquidity, but may be material to the results of
operations in any given period.

Nevada Property 1 LLC -- http://www.cosmopolitanlasvegas.com/-- a
limited liability company organized in Delaware, owns and operates
The Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas.  The Cosmopolitan comprises
approximately 8.7 acres of land and is located on the Las Vegas
Strip directly between MGM Resorts International's Bellagio and
City Center properties.  The Cosmopolitan is connected to City
Center to the south via an elevated pedestrian bridge and to the
east side of the Las Vegas Strip via a second pedestrian bridge,
as well as ground floor public access from Bellagio to the north.


NEVADA PROPERTY: Continues to Face Wage and Hour Suits in Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Property 1 LLC continues to face class action lawsuits
alleging violations of wage and hour laws, 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.

During late 2012, the Company was put on notice and or served with
two separate class action lawsuits related to alleged unpaid
compensation for time incurred by CoStars (the Company identifies
its staff as "CoStars") while on property for donning and doffing
of the CoStars required uniform, alleged improper rounding of time
for hours worked and various other claims related to alleged
unpaid compensation.  One of the purported wage and hour class
action lawsuits is pending in state court, and one is pending in
federal court.  These matters are in the earliest stages of
proceedings with meaningful discovery just commencing.  No
depositions have occurred.  No motion to certify a class has been
filed in the state court action.  A motion to conditionally
certify certain classes of employees was filed in the federal
court action, but that motion has been denied in part and stayed
in part.  In addition, substantial questions of law and fact
remain unresolved in both cases, and motion practice may
ultimately result in dismissal of the federal court case.

The Company is in the process of evaluating the lawsuits and
cannot at this time determine the potential impact of the lawsuits
on the condensed consolidated financial position, cash flows, or
the results of operations of the Company.  Specific additional
factors applicable to each case that prevent the Company from
providing an estimate of reasonably possible loss or range of loss
include, but are not limited to: (1) whether class certification
will be granted and the scope of any class or subclass; (2) the
quantification of highly variable damages claimed by the purported
classes and subclasses asserted in separate, but overlapping
litigation are unspecified or indeterminate; and (3) the outcome
of any future settlement negotiations, should they occur, as they
may apply to limit the class or eliminate all class claims.

A third purported wage and hour class action was filed in state
court in January 2013.  This matter is in the earliest stages of
proceedings with substantial unresolved questions of law and fact.
Specific additional factors applicable to this case that prevent
the Company from providing an estimate of reasonably possible loss
or range of loss include, but are not limited to: (1) whether
class certification will be granted and the scope of any class or
subclass; (2) the quantification of highly variable damages
claimed by the purported classes and subclasses asserted in
separate, but overlapping litigation are unspecified or
indeterminate; and (3) the outcome of any future settlement
negotiations, should they occur, as they may apply to limit the
class or eliminate all class claims.

On May 7, 2013, the Company was served with a fourth complaint,
naming the Company, another Las Vegas Strip property and a vendor
of the Company as defendants in a wage and hour class action,
regarding alleged unpaid wages for time incurred by certain of the
vendor's employees.  The Company is evaluating the claims and
assessing its defenses, including whether it has applicable
insurance and/or indemnification rights and therefore is unable to
currently provide an estimate of reasonably possible loss or range
of loss.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses with respect
to these matters and intends to defend its positions vigorously.

Nevada Property 1 LLC -- http://www.cosmopolitanlasvegas.com/-- a
limited liability company organized in Delaware, owns and operates
The Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas.  The Cosmopolitan comprises
approximately 8.7 acres of land and is located on the Las Vegas
Strip directly between MGM Resorts International's Bellagio and
City Center properties.  The Cosmopolitan is connected to City
Center to the south via an elevated pedestrian bridge and to the
east side of the Las Vegas Strip via a second pedestrian bridge,
as well as ground floor public access from Bellagio to the north.


NEW CENTURY: Recalls Loaf Cakes Due to Undeclared Milk and Wheat
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 21, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           New Century Food Inc.
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8118

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and New Century Food
Inc. are warning people with allergies to milk and wheat not to
consume the New Century Food brand loaf cakes.  The affected
products contain milk and wheat which are not declared on the
label.

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

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

The manufacturer, New Century Food Inc., Scarborough, ON, is
voluntarily recalling the affected products from the marketplace.
The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.

Affected products:

Brand name    Common name   Size      UPC       Additional Info
----------    -----------   ----   ----------   ---------------
New Century   Butter Loaf   350 g  0 776544 9   Expiry dates:
Food          Cake                              10/06-13 to
                                                 28/06-13

New Century   Butter Loaf   400 g  0 776583 7   Expiry dates:
Food          Cake                              10/06-13 to
                                                 28/06-13

New Century   Mango Loaf    400 g  0 776581 4   Expiry dates:
Food          Cake                              10/06-13 to
                                                 28/06-13

New Century   Banana Loaf   400 g  0 776584 7   Expiry dates:
Food          Cake                              10/06-13 to
                                                 28/06-13

New Century   Lemon Loaf    400 g  0 776582 3   Expiry dates:
Food          Cake                              10/06-13 to
                                                 28/06-13

Picture of the recalled products' labels is available at:
http://is.gd/lDqzJt


NEW JERSEY: Faces Suit Over Plan to Close Development Centers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Kitchenman, writing for NJ Spotlight, reports that families
of intellectually disabled residents are trying to stop the state
from closing developmental centers in Woodbridge and Totowa,
filing a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Newark on June 5.

The class-action lawsuit filed by 38 families alleges that the
state violated the constitutional rights of center residents and
also broke a series of federal laws by closing the facilities,
forcing their families to either move them to smaller group homes
or to more distant developmental centers.

"We really feel the state's not listening to us and we needed to
do it to really preserve and enforce the civil rights of the
families," said Joanne St. Amand, whose sister, Rosemary
Sciarillo, has lived at the Woodbridge center for 38 years.

A state panel voted last July to close Woodbridge Developmental
Center and the North Jersey Developmental Center in Totowa], the
only two of the state's seven centers located in heavily populated
northeastern New Jersey.

Family members protested that residents would be harmed by moving
to group homes -- which family members say are incapable of
providing the level of service profoundly disabled residents
require -- or to other centers that are far from the families.

Governor Chris Christie has said he will not reverse the decision
made by the panel, which was convened after state officials
recommended closing a center in Vineland.  Group-home supporters
have said they can provide the appropriate level of services to
developmental center residents.

"We worked hard, we held hearings, and these are the
recommendations that came out, and I have no interest in
reinventing the wheel," Gov. Christie said of the closures during
a March 7 press conference at a group home in Robbinsville.

The lawsuit seeks to keep the developmental centers open, to
restore staffing levels to what they were before the decision to
close the facilities, and to require residents' consent to move
from the centers.  It alleges that the state has violated the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act and
Medicaid law.

The lawsuit asserts that medical staff recommended that residents
stay in the centers until the state decided to close them, when
they then began to "routinely and inappropriately" say that many
residents would be best served in other locations including group
homes that don't provide the constant level of medical care that
the developmental centers provide.

The suit also alleges that state officials are pressuring family
members to choose group homes and have mischaracterized residents'
ability to live in group homes.  The developmental centers have
had to reduce staff and services as residents have left the
facilities, putting the remaining residents in danger, according
to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit notes the severe disabilities that most of the
residents have, including Ms. Sciarillo, who is unable to
communicate and depends on center staff "to initiate and complete
all activities of daily living," and Jackie Friedman, who cannot
speak and requires constant care.

Sam Friedman, Jackie's brother, said it was easy for the families
to decide to file the lawsuit, considering the pressures they
face.

"The whole process has been fraught with coercion from the
beginning," he said, adding that state officials have consistently
suggested that there is little room for new residents at the
nearest developmental center to northern New Jersey, which is in
Hunterdon County.

Mr. Friedman said some families have agreed to allow residents to
move only after months of pressure from the state.

Ms. St. Amand said it would be tragic to move residents 100 miles
from their families and from the places where some of them have
lived for decades.

"That's just unconscionable to force the family" to drive to
centers in Vineland or New Lisbon.  "Especially if their parents
are alive, they're elderly, they'll never make that trip."

Ms. St. Amand said the need to file the lawsuit grew as staffing
levels at the centers fell.  She said residents may not understand
what is happening, "but they know that there is an environment of
stress.  We're just worried for them."

Family members have praised the level of care that residents
received at the centers before the closure decision, including the
constant medical care and other services.

Advocates for group homes have said that the same level of
services can be provided in those facilities, a claim disputed by
family members of developmental center residents.

Both the developmental centers and group homes are funded through
the state's limited allotment of Medicaid funding.

Alison Lozano, executive director of the New Jersey Council on
Developmental Disabilities, said advocates believe all people with
disabilities "have a civil right to live among us and receive
services in home setting."  The council is a state-supported
nonprofit that advocates for community placement in group homes.

"The reality is that there will never be enough resources to meet
the needs of a growing and aging population of residents with
developmental disabilities within our state if our limited public
funds continue to be used to maintain seven large developmental
centers with dwindling populations," Ms. Lozano said.

Both Ms. Lozano and Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak referred
to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1999 Olmstead decision, which requires
that disabled residents live in the least restrictive appropriate
setting.

Ms. Lozano quoted the decision: "Segregation perpetuates
unwarranted assumptions that institutionalized people are
incapable or unworthy of participating in community life . . .
Confinement in an institution severely diminishes the everyday
life activities of individuals."

The families that filed the lawsuits noted that the Supreme Court
decision doesn't require that developmental centers be closed or
that residents be forced to move against their will.  Instead, it
allows less profoundly disabled residents to live in the
community.

"For my sister there is no benefit whatsoever that could accrue
from community placement and she has lived in North Jersey
Developmental Center for 47 years," Mr. Friedman said.


NEW YORK: Justice Dep't to Intervene on Stop-And-Frisk Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that with a
federal judge expected to order sweeping reforms to the New York
Police Department's stop-and-frisk program, the Justice Department
reportedly plans to intervene.

Trial completed in late May in the case of Floyd v. The City of
New York, a class action to determine whether the NYPD's stop,
question and frisk tactic unconstitutionally targets blacks and
Latinos.

Under the Supreme Court's decision in Terry v. Ohio, police cannot
stop and search a suspect without reasonable suspicion that he is
about to commit, is committing or has committed a crime.

But the court heard NYPD data, memorialized on so-called "UF-250"
forms, suggesting that street stops correspond more closely with
race than criminal suspicion.

Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Fagan's study of those forms
indicated that roughly 87 percent of the roughly 5 million people
who have been stopped were black or Latino.  Police seized guns in
only 0.15 percent of all stops, and found "contraband" in general
in 1.75 percent of all stops.

Lawyers for the stop-and-frisk challengers noted that this "hit
rate" was lower than in the case of a car random checkpoint
protested in Indianapolis v. Edmonds, in which police seized drugs
in 5 percent of all vehicles.

U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin, who heard Floyd without a
jury, has not indicated how she will rule, but observers expect
the civil libertarian judge to appoint a monitor to oversee the
NYPD.

The Center for Constitutional Rights, representing the Floyd
plaintiffs, welcomed the Justice Department's expected support of
such a measure, first reported by the New York Daily News.

"The DOJ has put in place similar agreements with other cases
alleging widespread unconstitutional policing practices," the
rights group said in a statement.  "It is high time the city of
New York and its police department stop their obstinate non-
compliance with the law and accept that the kind of significant
change necessary to fix the problems with the NYPD's stop-and-
frisk practices will require outside monitoring."

The parties filed post-trial submissions on June 12, 2013.


NICK CASSAVETES: Faces Class Action Over Labor Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in a federal class action,
five crew members claim Nick Cassavetes, Medient Entertainment,
Yellow Productions et al. stiffed them for minimum wages and
overtime.


NORTHWEST BANCSHARES: "Daly" Suit Plaintiff Has Renewed Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit styled Daly v. Northwest
Savings Bank has filed a renewed motion for class certification,
according to Northwest Bancshares, 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 July 11, 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in an
alleged class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, captioned as Daly
v. Northwest Savings Bank, No. 2:11-cv-00911-DSC.  The Complaint
challenges the credit disclosures provided to residential mortgage
loan applicants and the policies related to the residential
mortgage loan application process and the prequalification request
process.  The Complaint asserts statutory claims under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681g(g), and seeks statutory
damages and attorneys' fees.  The Company filed a motion for
summary judgment and the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification, which the Company opposed.  By way of Opinion and
Order dated March 20, 2013, the Court denied the Company's motion
for summary judgment as to plaintiff's individual claims, but also
denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Plaintiff has filed a renewed motion for class certification
and the Company says it will continue to vigorously defend against
the plaintiff's claims and any effort to certify a class in this
case.  At this stage of the lawsuit, it is not yet possible to
estimate potential losses, if any.  Although it is not possible to
predict the ultimate resolution or financial liability with
respect to this litigation, management, after consultation with
legal counsel, currently does not anticipate that the aggregate
liability, if any, arising out of this proceeding will have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, or
cash flows; although, at the present time, the Company is not in a
position to determine whether such proceeding will have a material
adverse effect on its results of operations in any future
quarterly reporting period.

Warren, Pennsylvania-based Northwest Bancshares, Inc. --
http://www.northwestsavingsbank.com/-- was incorporated in
September 2009 to be the successor corporation to Northwest
Bancorp, Inc., the former stock holding company for Northwest
Savings Bank.  The Bank is a Pennsylvania-chartered stock savings
and is a community-oriented financial institution offering
personal and business banking solutions, investment management and
trust services and insurance products.


NORTHWEST BANCSHARES: Awaits Opinion and Order in "Toth" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Northwest Bancshares, Inc., is awaiting an Opinion and Order in
the class action lawsuit titled Toth v. Northwest Savings Bank,
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 May 7, 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in an alleged
class action lawsuit filed in the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, captioned as Toth v. Northwest
Savings Bank, No. GD-12-8014.  The Complaint challenges the manner
in which debit card transaction overdraft fees were charged and
the policies related to the posting order of debit card
transactions.  The Complaint asserts various claims under state
law and seeks compensatory damages and attorneys' fees.  The
Company filed preliminary objections seeking dismissal of the case
on June 29, 2012.  In response, the plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint on September 6, 2012.  On November 5, 2012, the Company
filed preliminary objections to the Amended Complaint.  The
Plaintiff filed her opposition to the Company's preliminary
objections on December 6, 2012, and the Company filed its reply in
support of the preliminary objections on January 3, 2013.
Subsequent briefing has been filed as directed by the Court and
the Company awaits an Opinion and Order.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against the
plaintiff's claims and to oppose any effort to certify a class in
this case.  At this stage of the lawsuit, it is not yet possible
to estimate potential losses, if any.  Although it is not possible
to predict the ultimate resolution or financial liability with
respect to this litigation, management after consultation with
legal counsel, currently does not anticipate that the aggregate
liability, if any, arising out of this proceeding will have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, or
cash flows; although, at the present time, the Company is not in a
position to determine whether such proceeding will have a material
adverse effect on its results of operations in any future
quarterly reporting period.

Warren, Pennsylvania-based Northwest Bancshares, Inc. --
http://www.northwestsavingsbank.com/-- was incorporated in
September 2009 to be the successor corporation to Northwest
Bancorp, Inc., the former stock holding company for Northwest
Savings Bank.  The Bank is a Pennsylvania-chartered stock savings
and is a community-oriented financial institution offering
personal and business banking solutions, investment management and
trust services and insurance products.


NRG ENERGY: GenOn Suit Plaintiffs Want Case Dismissal Reviewed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the Natural Gas Litigation filed a petition for
certiorari to the United States Supreme Court after the dismissal
of all claims against GenOn Energy, Inc., according to the
company's May 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

NRG's subsidiary, GenOn, is party to five lawsuits, several of
which are class action lawsuits, in state and federal courts in
Kansas, Missouri, Nevada and Wisconsin. These lawsuits were filed
in the aftermath of the California energy crisis in 2000 and 2001
and the resulting FERC investigations and relate to alleged
conduct to increase natural gas prices in violation of antitrust
and similar laws.

The lawsuits seek treble or punitive damages, restitution and/or
expenses. The lawsuits also name as parties a number of energy
companies unaffiliated with NRG.

In July 2011, the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada, which is handling four of the five cases, granted the
defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims
against GenOn in those cases. The plaintiffs appealed to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth
Circuit has reversed the decision of the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada.

In September 2012, the State of Nevada Supreme Court, which is
handling the remaining case, affirmed dismissal by the Eighth
Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada of all
plaintiffs' claims against GenOn. In February 2013, the plaintiffs
filed a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme
Court. GenOn has agreed to indemnify CenterPoint against certain
losses relating to these lawsuits.


NRG ENERGY: Cheswick Property Owners Appeal Dismissal of Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a suit against NRG Energy, Inc. over alleged
property damage are appealing the dismissal of the suit to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, according to the
company's May 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In April 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania alleging
that emissions from the Cheswick generating facility have damaged
the property of neighboring residents. The Company disputes these
allegations. Plaintiffs have brought nuisance, negligence,
trespass and strict liability claims seeking both damages and
injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs seek to certify a class that consists of people who own
property or live within one mile of the Company's plant. In July
2012, the Company removed the lawsuit to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. In
October 2012, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss,
which Plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit.


NRG ENERGY: July 16 Final Approval Hearing on Energy Plus Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing is set July 16, 2013, for a settlement
that Energy Plus Holdings, LLC entered into to settle a suit
alleging improper sales, marketing and business practices,
according to NRG Energy, Inc.'s May 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

Energy Plus Holdings, LLC, a subsidiary of NRG, is a defendant in
six purported class action lawsuits, two in New York, two in New
Jersey, and two in Pennsylvania. On February 28, 2013, Energy Plus
entered into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs which resolves
all of the claims in the six pending suits, subject to court
approval.

On March 26, 2013, the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York entered an order preliminarily approving the
settlement and scheduling a final approval hearing for July 16,
2013.  Energy Plus continues to cooperate with the Connecticut
Attorney General and Office of Consumer Counsel and the State of
New York Office of Attorney General to resolve issues related to
Energy Plus's sales, marketing and business practices raised by
the class actions.  Energy Plus and the Connecticut Attorney
General and Office of Consumer Counsel have been involved in
settlement discussions and their efforts to reach a resolution
continue.


NRG ENERGY: Settlement Hearing on Suit Over Merger in June
----------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on the class action settlement of an action filed
against NRG Energy, Inc. over its merger with GenOn Energy, Inc.
is scheduled for June 3, 2013, according to NRG's May 7, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

NRG has been named as a defendant in eight purported class actions
pending in Texas and Delaware, related to its announcement of its
agreement to acquire all outstanding shares of GenOn. These cases
have been consolidated into one state court case in each of
Delaware and Texas and a federal court case in Texas. The
plaintiffs generally allege breach of fiduciary duties, as well as
conspiracy, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties.

Plaintiffs are generally seeking to: be certified as a class;
enjoin the merger; direct the defendant to exercise their
fiduciary duties; rescind the acquisition and be awarded
attorneys' fees costs and other relief that the court deems
appropriate. Plaintiffs also demanded that there be additional
disclosures regarding the merger terms.

On October 24, 2012, the parties to the Delaware state court case
executed a Memorandum of Understanding to resolve the Delaware
purported class action lawsuit. In March 2013, the parties
finalized the settlement of the Delaware action. The hearing on
the class action settlement of the Delaware action is scheduled
for June 3, 2013.


PILOT FLYING J: Gordon Ball Joins President's Defense Team
----------------------------------------------------------
MetroPulse reports that Gordon Ball is known these days for being
a class-action attorney who wins multi-million dollar judgments,
some of them against paper companies polluting the Pigeon River.
But Mr. Ball has joined the defense team for Mark Hazelwood,
president of Pilot Flying J.  The company is under federal
investigation for shorting trucking company customers of rebates.

Mr. Ball is back in defense mode because Mr. Hazelwood is a
longtime personal friend.

Mr. Ball started out as a federal prosecutor, but became a defense
attorney.  During the Butcher banking scandals, Mr. Ball won a
surprise not-guilty verdict for Jim Steiner, who had been
president of the Butcher-owned Southern Industrial Banking
Company, a non-FDIC insured institution.

During the pardon and paroles scandal during the Blanton
administration, people were convicted for selling "get out of jail
free" cards, with one notable exception.  Mr. Ball got a not-
guilty verdict for his friend Charley Benson -- who was in charge
of the paroles department.

Meanwhile, locals are spending some time on the Cleveland Plain
Dealer website.  The paper has been all over the story because
Pilot Flying J CEO Jimmy Haslam owns the Cleveland Browns. This
week the paper reported that Pilot board member Brad Martin, who
the company put in charge of an internal investigation, once got
in trouble when he headed the Saks Fifth Avenue department store
chain.  The company paid a massive fine after being accused of
shorting vendors.

Gov. Bill Haslam, Jimmy's brother, once worked for Martin as head
of the Saks online sales department.


PLAINS EXPLORATION: Oral Arguments Heard in Suit Over Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware heard oral
arguments on the injunctive relief requested by the plaintiffs in
the consolidated a consolidated securities suit against Plains
Exploration & Production Company, but no decision was entered by
the court at such hearing, according to the company's May 6, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Beginning on December 5, 2012, 27 purported shareholder class
actions were filed challenging the merger of PXP with Freeport-
McMoRan and the MMR Merger. The lawsuits were filed against PXP,
Freeport-McMoRan and McMoRan and the boards of these companies as
well as certain other named individuals. The shareholder class
actions generally allege that the boards of these companies
breached fiduciary duties and adversely affected shareholders by
approving the merger and the MMR Merger.

On December 5, 2012, PXP entered into the Freeport-McMoRan Merger
Agreement with Freeport-McMoRan and the Merger Sub, pursuant to
which Freeport-McMoRan will acquire PXP. On December 5, 2012,
Freeport-McMoRan agreed to acquire McMoRan. Between December 11,
2012 and December 20, 2012, three putative class actions
challenging the merger were filed on behalf of PXP stockholders in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware: Rice v. Plains
Exploration & Production Co. et al., No. 8090-VCN, filed on
December 11, 2012; MARTA/ATU Local 732 Employees Retirement Plan
v. Plains Exploration & Production Co. et al., No. 8135-VCN, filed
on December 20, 2012; and Louisiana Municipal Police Employees'
Retirement System v. Arnold et al., No. 8141-VCN, also filed on
December 20, 2012. The actions name as defendants PXP, the
directors of PXP, Freeport-McMoRan, and a Freeport-McMoRan
subsidiary.

The actions allege that PXP's directors breached their fiduciary
duties because they, among other things, pursued their own
interests at the expense of stockholders, failed to maximize
stockholder value with respect to the merger and failed to
disclose material facts regarding the merger, and that Freeport-
McMoRan and a Freeport-McMoRan subsidiary aided and abetted the
breach of fiduciary duties by PXP's directors. The actions seek as
relief an injunction barring or rescinding the merger, damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs. On January 7, 2013, the MARTA/ATU
Local 732 Employees Retirement Plan action was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiff. On January 15, 2013, the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware entered an order consolidating
the two remaining actions under the caption In re Plains
Exploration & Production Company Stockholder Litigation, No. 8090-
VCN, and appointing co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs.

In addition, fourteen derivative actions challenging both the
merger and/or the MMR Merger have been filed on behalf of
Freeport-McMoRan by purported Freeport-McMoRan stockholders.

Eleven of these actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware: Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund v.
Moffett et al., No. 8110-VCN, filed on December 14, 2012; Sklar v.
Moffett et al., No. 8126-VCN, filed on December 19, 2012; Gaines
v. Adkerson et al., No. 8139-VCN, filed on December 20, 2012;
Rosenzweig v. Adkerson et al., No. 8140-VCN, filed on December 20,
2012; Lang v. Moffett et al., No. 8142-VCN, filed on December 21,
2012; Dauphin County Employee Retirement Fund v. Moffett et al.,
No. 8145-VCN, filed on December 21, 2012; Anthony Newman v. James
R. Moffett, et al., No. 8156-VCN, filed on December 28, 2012;
State-Boston Retirement System v. Moffett, et al., C.A. No. 8206-
VCN, filed on January 11, 2013; Inter-Local Pension Fund of the
Graphic Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters v. Moffett, et al., C.A. No. 8207-VCN, filed on
January 11, 2013; and United Wire Metal and Machine Pension Fund
v. Moffett, et al., C.A. No. 8208-VCN, filed on January 11, 2013;
and Stephen Blau MD Money Purchase Pension Plan Trust v. Moffett
et al., No. 8384-VCN, filed on March 5, 2013. Three were filed in
the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, County of Maricopa:
Liberatore v. Moffett et al., No. CV2012-018351, filed on December
14, 2012; Teich et al. v. Moffett et al., No. CV2012-018403, filed
on December 17, 2012; and Jeffery Harris v. Richard C. Adkerson,
et al., CV2013-004163, filed on January 16, 2013.

The actions name some or all of the following as defendants: the
directors and certain officers of Freeport-McMoran, two Freeport-
McMoRan subsidiaries, PXP and certain of its directors and McMoRan
and certain of its directors.

The actions allege that the Freeport-McMoran directors breached
their fiduciary duties because they, among other things, pursued
their own interests at the expense of Freeport-McMoran
stockholders in approving the merger and the MMR Merger, and
further allege that some or all of the other defendants aided and
abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties.

On January 25, 2013, the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware entered an order consolidating ten of the eleven actions
pending in that court under the caption In re Freeport-McMoRan
Copper & Gold Inc. Derivative Litigation, No. 8145-VCN, and
appointing co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs. The Arizona
Superior Court consolidated the Arizona actions into In re
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. Derivative Litigation, No.
CV2012-018351. The parties to the consolidated Delaware action
have stipulated to allow the Arizona plaintiffs to intervene in
the consolidated Delaware action, and the court granted that
stipulation on March 18, 2013. The Arizona plaintiffs have agreed
to seek a permanent stay of the Arizona actions.

The actions seek as relief, among other things, an injunction
barring or rescinding both the merger and the MMR Merger and
requiring submission of the proposed merger and MMR Merger to a
vote of Freeport-McMoRan stockholders, damages and attorneys' fees
and costs. The plaintiffs in the consolidated Delaware action
informed the Court on March 21, 2013 that they will not seek a
preliminary injunction barring either the merger or the MMR
Merger.

In addition, ten putative class actions challenging the MMR Merger
have been filed on behalf of McMoRan stockholders. Nine of these
actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware: Krieger v. McMoRan Exploration Co. et al., No. 8091-VCN,
filed December 11, 2012; Steven Kosoff IRA v. McMoRan Exploration
Co. et al., No. 8100-VCN, filed December 12, 2012; Barasch v.
McMoRan Exploration Co. et al., No. 8106-VCN, filed December 13,
2012; Berstein v. Moffett et al., No. 8107-VCN, filed December 13,
2012; Curalov v. McMoRan Exploration Co. et al., No. 8115-VCN,
filed December 17, 2012; Purnell et al. v. Adkerson et al., No.
8117-VCN, filed December 17, 2012; Yagoobian v. McMoRan
Exploration Co. et al., No. 8128-VCN, filed December 19, 2012;
Davis v. McMoRan Exploration Co. et al., No. 8132-VCN, filed
December 20, 2012; and Seidlitz v. Adkerson et al., No. 8151-VCN,
filed December 26, 2012. One was filed in the Civil District Court
for the Parish of Orleans of the State of Louisiana: Langley v.
Moffett et al., No. 2012-11904, filed December 19, 2012. Each of
the actions names the McMoRan directors as defendants, as well as
some or all of the following: Freeport-McMoRan, subsidiaries of
Freeport-McMoRan, and PXP.

The actions allege that McMoRan's directors breached their
fiduciary duties because they, among other things, pursued their
own interests at the expense of the stockholders, failed to
maximize stockholder value with respect to the MMR Merger and
failed to disclose material facts with regard to the MMR Merger,
and further allege that some or all of the other defendants aided
and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. One of the lawsuits
also asserts breach of contract claims against Freeport-McMoRan
and PXP derivatively on behalf of McMoRan.

The actions seek, among other things, injunctive relief barring or
rescinding the MMR Merger, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
On January 9, 2013, the Krieger action was voluntarily dismissed
by the plaintiff. On January 25, 2013, the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware entered an order consolidating the remaining
eight actions pending in that court under the caption In re
McMoRan Exploration Co. Stockholder Litigation, No. 8132-VCN, and
appointing co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs. On March 28, 2013,
Defendants moved to stay the Louisiana action.

On May 1, 2013, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
heard oral arguments on the injunctive relief requested by the
plaintiffs in the consolidated PXP action, but no decision was
entered by the court at such hearing. The hearing in the MMR
Merger consolidated action was postponed per agreement of the
parties.


PROSHARES TRUST: Oral Argument in Class Suit Appeal Held in May
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument on the plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of
their class action lawsuit against ProShares Trust II was held in
May 2013, 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.

ProShares Trust II (the Trust) and certain principals of ProShare
Capital Management LLC (the "Sponsor") have been named as
defendants (along with several other parties) in a consolidated
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, styled In re ProShares Trust
Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 09-cv-6935.  The complaint, as
amended, alleged that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 by including untrue statements of
material fact and omitting material facts in the Registration
Statement for one or more ProShares ETFs and allegedly failing to
adequately disclose the Funds' investment objectives and risks.
The six Funds of the Trust named in the complaint were ProShares
Ultra Silver, ProShares UltraShort Gold, ProShares Ultra Gold,
ProShares UltraShort DJ-UBS Crude Oil, ProShares Ultra DJ-UBS
Crude Oil and ProShares UltraShort Silver.  On September 10, 2012,
the District Court issued an Opinion and Order dismissing the
class action lawsuit in its entirety.  On December 17, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed an appeal brief to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Oral argument on plaintiffs' appeal before the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit was held on May 2, 2013.

The Trust believes the complaint is without merit and that the
anticipated outcome will not adversely impact the operation of the
Trust or any of its Funds.  Accordingly, no loss contingency has
been recorded in the balance sheet and the amount of loss, if any,
cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.

ProShares Trust II, formerly known as the Commodities and
Currencies Trust -- http://www.ProShares.com/-- is a Delaware
statutory trust formed on October 9, 2007, and currently organized
into separate series.  As of March 31, 2013, 21 series of the
Trust have commenced investment operations.


PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prosper Marketplace, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
securities 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.

On November 26, 2008, the plaintiffs, Christian Hellum, William
Barnwell and David Booth, individually and on behalf of all other
plaintiffs similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit
against Prosper Marketplace, Inc. ("PMI") and certain of its
executive officers and directors in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco, California.  The lawsuit was
brought on behalf of all promissory note purchasers on the
platform from January 1, 2006, through October 14, 2008.  The
lawsuit alleges that PMI offered and sold unqualified and
unregistered securities in violation of the California and federal
securities laws.  The lawsuit seeks class certification, damages
and the right of rescission against PMI and the other named
defendants, as well as treble damages against PMI and the award of
attorneys' fees, experts' fees and costs, and pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest.

On February 25, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Third Amended
Complaint, which removed David Booth as a plaintiff and added
Brian Russom and Michael Del Greco as plaintiffs.  The new
plaintiffs are representing the same class and prosecuting the
same claims as the previously named plaintiffs.  On February 29,
2012, the court issued a procedural order granting the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  On October 4, 2012, PMI and the
other named defendants filed a motion for summary judgment seeking
dismissal of the lawsuit.  On January 17, 2013, the motion for
summary judgment was denied.

                        Greenwich Action

PMI's insurance carrier with respect to the class action lawsuit,
Greenwich Insurance Company ("Greenwich"), denied coverage.  On
August 21, 2009, PMI filed a lawsuit against Greenwich in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, California.
The lawsuit sought a declaration that PMI was entitled to coverage
under its policy with Greenwich for losses arising out of the
class action lawsuit as well as damages and the award of
attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment interest.

On January 26, 2011, the court issued a final statement of
decision finding that Greenwich has a duty to defend the class
action lawsuit, and requiring that Greenwich pay PMI's past and
future defense costs in the class action lawsuit up to $2 million.
Greenwich subsequently made payments to PMI in the amount of $2
million to reimburse PMI for the defense costs it had incurred in
the class action lawsuit.  As a result, Greenwich has now
satisfied its obligations with respect to PMI's defense costs for
the Hellum lawsuit.  On October 22, 2012, Greenwich made an
additional payment of $142,585 to PMI for pre-judgment interest.
As a result, Greenwich has now satisfied its obligations with
respect to PMI's defense costs for the Hellum lawsuit.

On July 1, 2011, PMI and Greenwich entered into a Stipulated Order
of Judgment pursuant to which PMI agreed to dismiss its remaining
claims against Greenwich.  On August 12, 2011, Greenwich filed a
notice of appeal of the court's decision regarding Greenwich's
duty to defend up to $2 million.

PMI says it intends to vigorously defend the class action lawsuit.
PMI cannot, however, presently determine or estimate the final
outcome of the lawsuit, and there can be no assurance that it will
be finally resolved in PMI's favor.  If the class action lawsuit
is not resolved in PMI's favor, PMI might be obliged to pay
damages, and might be subject to such equitable relief as a court
may determine.   Accordingly, the PMI Group has not recorded an
accrued loss contingency in connection with PMI's sale of notes
through the platform prior to November 2008.  Accounting for loss
contingencies involves the existence of a condition, situation or
set of circumstances involving uncertainty as to possible loss
that will ultimately be resolved when one or more future event(s)
occur or fail to occur.  An estimated loss in connection with a
loss contingency shall be recorded by a charge to current
operations if both of the following conditions are met: first, the
amount can be reasonably estimated; and second, the information
available prior to issuance of the financial statements indicates
that it is probable that a liability has been incurred at the date
of the financial statements.

As of March 31, 2013, the probable outcome of the class action
lawsuit cannot be determined, nor can the amount of damages or
other costs that might be borne by the PMI Group be estimated.

San Francisco, California-based Prosper Marketplace, Inc. --
http://www.prosper.com/-- operates as a peer-to-peer lending
marketplace in the United States.  The Company connects
prospective borrowers with people, who have money and a
willingness to lend through an online community.  The Company
handles funding and servicing of the loan on behalf of the matched
borrowers and investors.


REMINGTON ARMS: Faces Class Action Over Model 700 Rifle Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eve Byron, writing for Independent Record, reports that a class-
action lawsuit was filed on June 4 in federal court in Montana
against gun manufacturer Remington Arms Company, claiming that it
knew since the 1940s that its Model 700 rifle had a faulty
mechanism that allowed the gun to discharge without a trigger
pull, but failed to notify the public of the defect.

This lawsuit, filed by Richard Ramler on behalf of Eric Huleatt
and Allen Bowker, is different than previous lawsuits filed in the
state because it's not focusing on allegations that the plaintiffs
were seriously injured or killed by their gun's misfiring.

Instead, Mr. Ramler writes that Remington knew the Model 700
rifles were defective, yet the company failed to warn people who
purchased the weapon, failed to remedy the situation and required
gun owners to pay a fee for both shipping and a replacement
trigger once they notified Remington of the defect.

The gun maker "put profit over the health and safety of the
public," Mr. Ramler wrote in the lawsuit.

Mr. Ramler said this is the fourth class-action lawsuit filed
against Remington in recent years. Others were filed in Florida,
Washington and Missouri.

"Our goal is to try to have those rifles recalled and the firing
control or trigger mechanism replaced with a safe mechanism, so it
won't fire without the trigger being pulled," Mr. Ramler said.
"We're trying to provide notice to the public because these guns
are dangerous.

"This isn't about an individual injury . . . this is about a
defective rifle."

Along with the Remington Arms Co., Mr. Ramler named E.I. DuPont
DeNemours and Co., and Sporting Goods Properties as defendants.
DuPont owned all of Remington's stock before 1993 and Sporting
Goods Properties is the name by which Remington is now known.

The plaintiffs want Remington to acknowledge the defect in the
Model 700 bolt-action rifles that carry the Walker Fire Control
and that they knew about it; recall the guns and fix them; and
enter an award to Messrs. Huleatt and Bowker, as well as any other
Montanan who joins the class-action lawsuit, for compensatory,
punitive and statutory damages.  It also seeks any of the "ill-
gotten profits" from the sales of the gun to be disbursed among
the plaintiffs.

Remington's attorney, Dale Wills, couldn't be reached for comment
on June 5.  However, in previous lawsuits the company claims that
misuse or abuse of the rifle by its handler has caused any alleged
malfunctions.  In a written statement for a CNBC documentary about
possible defects with the Model 700, Remington stated that "the
gun's use by millions of Americans has proven it to be a safe,
trusted and reliable rifle."

According to the most recent lawsuit, Remington developed the
patented Walker Fire Control mechanism and introduced it in 1948.
The firing mechanism is found in more than 5 million Remington
firearms.  But Mr. Ramler writes that even before their use, an
internal inspection in 1947 found dangerous design flaws with the
Walker Fire Control trigger assembly.

"The rifles will fire without a trigger pull under a variety of
circumstances due to the faulty design," Mr. Ramler wrote.  "All
of the Model 700 rifles are defective and unreasonably dangerous.

"Despite decades of knowledge related to the dangerous conditions
of the Model 700 rifles, defendants never issued an adequate
warning or recall of the Model 700 rifles.  Remington continues to
falsely represent to the public that the rifles are safe and
reliable."

He notes that the Model 600 series also incorporated the basic
Walker Fire Control design, and it was only after one of the
largest settlements ever awarded at the time to an accident victim
by a firearm manufacturer's insurance carrier in 1978 that
Remington recalled those firearms.  In that case, Remington agreed
to pay $6.8 million to an Illinois man who was paralyzed from the
waist down in a hunting accident.

The Walker Fire Control is still used in the Model 700 rifles.

Mr. Huleatt, who lives in Missoula County, purchased his Remington
in 2000.  Mr. Bowker, a Roosevelt County resident, bought his in
2006.  Both said they did so believing it was a reliable, high-
quality firearm.

Mr. Ramler wrote that Mr. Bowker contacted Remington in 2010 after
watching the CNBC documentary that outlined alleged defects with
the Model 700.

"Bowker was told by a Remington representative that there was
nothing wrong or defective with this rifle or any of the Model 700
rifles," Mr. Ramler wrote.

Yet Mr. Bowker was closing the bolt on his firearm one day and the
rifle allegedly "suddenly and unexpectedly fired" without a
trigger pull.

Mr. Ramler said that the defendants acknowledged receiving 3,273
customer complaints about the Model 700 firing without a trigger
pull between 1992 and 2004.

"This is an average of almost five unintended firings per week for
this 12-year period," Mr. Ramler wrote.

He said that Remington engineers first started developing
alternate designs for a trigger block in 1948, but that it cost
too much -- $21,380 -- to make the conversion, which would have
added about five cents then to the cost of the rifle.  Mr. Ramler
wrote that according to internal Remington documents, they
considered a recall of the Model 700 in 1978, but with 2 million
already sold, it was deemed too expensive.

He said that in 1994, after a jury rendered a $17 million verdict
against Remington because of Model 700 defects, the company again
questioned its safety, according to internal documents.

"At that time, Remington accountants determined that if only 30
percent of its customers actually returned the rifles as part of a
nationwide recall of the Model 700 rifles, it would cost Remington
$22 million to conduct the recall," Mr. Ramler wrote.  "Remington
decided against the proposed recall."

According to Mr. Ramler, more than 140 lawsuits have been filed
against Remington involving serious injuries or death, including
at least three lawsuits in Montana.

In one of the Montana cases, Richard Barber's family settled with
Remington for an undisclosed amount after his 9-year-old son Gus
was killed when his mother moved the safety on her Model 700 to
the off position in order to unload her rifle and the gun went
off.  The company also agreed to the family's request for a safety
modification program, but Mr. Ramler alleges that only addresses
one of the issues with the Model 700's unexpected firings.

The newest lawsuit asserts Remington is guilty of strict liability
for its failure to warn about the design defect; negligence;
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act, which says retailers must
comply with warranties; breach of both expressed and implied
warranties; fraudulent concealment; and unjust enrichment.


RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: No Appeal Filed in Cal. Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a securities suit filed against Rigel
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. did not file a writ of certiorari as of a
January deadline, according to the company's May 7, 2013, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On February 6, 2009, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, naming the company as defendants and
certain officers, directors and underwriters for a February 2008
public offering of common stock. The

lawsuit alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (Securities Act) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (Exchange Act) in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by the company related to the results
of the Phase 2a clinical trial of the company's product candidate,
fostamatinib.

On November 5, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals entered
judgment in the company's favor. The plaintiff had until January
23, 2013 to seek a writ of certiorari from the United States
Supreme Court, but did not do so.


RJ REYNOLDS: NELA Asks 4th Cir. to Revive Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Ben James, writing for Law360, reports that the National
Employment Lawyers Association urged the Fourth Circuit on June 4
to revive a class action against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. over
$50 million allegedly lost to retirement plan mismanagement,
claiming the trial court erred in letting the company off the
hook.

The NELA, along with the AARP, lodged a brief arguing that the
trial court dropped the ball in February when it ruled against
retiree Richard Tatum and in favor of R.J. Reynolds.


SASKATCHEWAN: McCarthy Discusses Class Action Ruling
----------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Thompson, Esq. -- kithompson@mccarthy.ca -- at McCarthy
Tetrault LLP report that In Precision Contractors Ltd v Government
of Saskatchewan, 2013 SKCA 57, the Court of Appeal found that a
common issue of constitutional validity did not, in and of itself,
make a class action not the "preferable proceeding".

The Court of Appeal held that there was no absolute rule that a
class action was perforce ill-suited to a claim for a declaration
that a provincial taxing enactment was unconstitutional.  In
addition, the Court of Appeal noted the certification judge's next
step, bifurcating the proceedings by conditionally adjourning the
certification application pending the determination of the
constitutional issue in a separate declaratory proceeding outside
the framework of The Class Actions Act, SS 2001, c C-12.01, would
create procedural and substantive inequities.

Background

Precision Contractors Ltd.  applied to have a proposed action
certified as a class action pursuant to the Act.  At issue was the
constitutional validity of provincial legislation and/or
regulations imposing provincial sales tax on construction vehicles
and equipment brought into Saskatchewan from Alberta for temporary
use in PC's business.

The certification judge identified three common issues, the first
of which was whether sections of the Provincial Sales Tax
Regulations, RRS c E-3 Reg 1 ultra vires the legislative or
regulatory powers of the Province of Saskatchewan.

The Act sets out five requirements that must be met in order for a
class action to be certified.  The certification judge ruled that
the first three requirements for class certification were met, but
then found that a class action was not the preferable procedure --
the fourth requirement for certification -- for addressing the
constitutional validity of the legislation.

In coming to this conclusion, the certification judge relied upon
the decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada in Guimond v.
Qu‚bec (Attorney General), 1996 CanLII 175 (SCC), and Marcotte v.
Longueuil (City), 2009 SCC 43 in holding that it was "generally
undesirable" to pursue a class action to obtain a declaration of
constitutional validity.

As a result, the certification judge reasoned that PC should
commence a judicial review application to determine the
constitutional issue with leave to bring the certification
application back after the constitutional question had been
determined so the remaining common issues could potentially be
certified.

Analysis

The Court of Appeal found that the certification judge had erred
in his reading of Guimond.  While acknowledging that the Supreme
Court had said that ". . . it is not necessary to pursue a class
action to obtain a declaration of constitutional invalidity and
therefore, that it is generally undesirable to do so . . .", the
Court of Appeal noted that this was said in obiter dictum. The
Court of Appeal held that Guimond could not be viewed as
unequivocally standing for the general proposition that class
actions as such are perforce ill-suited to the resolution of
litigation seeking a declaration that an enactment is
unconstitutional.

The Court of Appeal also reviewed the certification judge's
analysis of the Supreme Court's decision in Marcotte, a case
dealing with an allegation that a municipal property tax by-law
was ultra vires the enabling legislation.  In Quebec, a class
action procedure is not available to challenge the validity of a
municipal by-law.  The reason for this is that a declaration of
nullity obtained by an individual ratepayer in an individual
proceeding is binding on all ratepayers.

The plaintiffs in Marcotte appealed to the Supreme Court of
Canada.  Five members of the Court were of the opinion the appeal
should be dismissed, whereas four were of the view it should be
allowed.  The Court of Appeal, noting that the case was of
"considerable complexity", held that much of the decision was tied
into the Qu‚bec Code of Civil Procedure and held that it was of
limited application in Saskatchewan.

However, the Court of Appeal felt that Marcotte had some
instructive value and found, contrary to the view of the
certification judge, that it did not support the notion that a
class action in and of itself was unsuited to a claim for a
declaration declaring a provincial taxing enactment to be
unconstitutional.

After determining that a class action was not the preferable
procedure, the certification judge did not dismiss the
certification application but rather adjourned the certification
motion until the constitutional question had been addressed with
leave to bring it back to address the remaining issues.

The Court of Appeal found that this was not appropriate for a
number of reasons.  The bifurcation of the proceedings would
likely increase costs and require more by the way of judicial
resources than by having all three common issues determined and
dealt with at the same time and in the same process.  A common
proceeding would also ensure that all class members are treated
fairly and have adequate notice of all aspects of the litigation.
It would also treat PC fairly and not require it to launch a
separate proceeding outside the framework of the Act that would
expose it to costs.

As a result, the appeal was allowed although the Court of Appeal
declined the appellant's request to certify the class action in
that court.  The case was remitted to the certification judge to
conclude the certification hearing.


SEQUEL NATURALS: Recalls Vega(R) Brand Bars Over Undeclared Milk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 21, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Sequel Naturals Ltd.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

The public warning issued on June 6, 2013, has been amended to
correctly identify the affected lot codes and associated Best By
dates for the Vega(R) Sport Endurance Bar Mocha product.

There has been one reported allergic reaction.

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

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

Affected products:

   Brand
   name      Common name       Size   Lot Code   Best By Date
   ----      -----------       ----   --------   ------------
   Vega(R)   Sport Endurance   50 g   12185C     01-AUG-13
             Bar Mocha                12217C     01-SEP-13
                                      22273C*    01-OCT-13
   UPC: 8 38766 10730 1               12328C*    01-DEC-13
                                      13064C*    01-APR-14*

   The corrections for this product are marked by an asterisk (*)

Picture of the recalled products' label is available at:
http://is.gd/L7KAx8


SOUTH CAROLINA: High Court Remands Ruling in DPPA Violation Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In EDWARD F. MARACICH, ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. MICHAEL EUGENE
SPEARS, ET AL, NO. 12-25, the petitioners are South Carolina
residents whose personal information was obtained by respondents
from the South Carolina state motor vehicle department (DMV) and
used without their consent to send solicitation letters asking
them to join the lawsuits against car dealerships.  Petitioner
Edward Maracich received one of the letters in March 2007.  While
his personal information had been disclosed to respondents because
he was one of many buyers from a particular dealership, Maracich
also happened to be the dealership's director of sales and
marketing.  Petitioners Martha Weeks and John Tanner received
letters from respondents in May 2007.  In response to the letter,
Tanner called Richard Harpootlian, one of the respondent attorneys
listed on the letter. According to Tanner, Harpootlian made an
aggressive sales pitch to sign Tanner as a client for the lawsuit
without asking about the circumstances of his purchase.

In 2009, petitioners filed a putative class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of South Carolina.
The complaint alleged that respondents had violated the DPPA by
obtaining, disclosing, and using personal information from motor
vehicle records for bulk solicitation without the express consent
of petitioners and the other class members.

Respondents moved to dismiss.  The information, they contended,
was subject to disclosure because it falls within two statutory
exceptions in the DPPA: (b)(1), pertaining to governmental
functions, and (b)(4), pertaining to litigation.  On cross-motions
for summary judgment, the District Court held as a matter of law
that respondents' letters were not solicitations and that the use
of information fell within the (b)(4) litigation exception.  The
District Court also found that respondents' use of personal
information was permitted under the (b)(1) governmental-function
exception.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed.  Unlike the
District Court, it found that the letters were "solicitation[s]"
within the meaning of the DPPA; but it held further that when
"solicitation is an accepted and expected element of, and is
inextricably intertwined with, conduct satisfying the litigation
exception under the DPPA, such solicitation is not actionable."

The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to
address whether the solicitation of clients is a permissible
purpose for obtaining personal information from a state DMV under
the DPPA's (b)(4) exception.

On June 17, 2013, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy ruled that
the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is
remanded for further proceedings.  Justice Kennedy held that
solicitation of prospective clients is not a permissible use "in
connection with" litigation or "investigation in anticipation of
litigation" under (b)(4) of the DPPA. As a result, the Court of
Appeals erred in granting respondents summary judgment without
first determining whether the communications had the predominant
purpose of solicitation. And since the solicited persons did not
give express consent to the disclosure or use of their personal
information for this purpose, the (b)(12) exception does not
apply.

Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Scalia, Justice Sotomayor, and
Justice Kagan join, dissented.

"The Court today exposes lawyers whose conduct meets state ethical
requirements to huge civil liability and potential criminal
liability.  It does so by adding to the DPPA's litigation
exception a solicitation bar Congress did not place in that
exception. Because the respondent lawyers' use of DMV information
fits within the exception delineated in Section 2721(b)(4), I
would affirm the Fourth Circuit's judgment," Justice Ginsburg
said.

A copy of the Supreme Court's June 17, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/VXn0I4 from Leagle.com.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Lawyers Banned From Using Data in DMV
-----------------------------------------------------
Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports that lawyers
cannot use confidential information from state motor vehicle
records to solicit clients, the Supreme Court ruled June 17, 2013,
in a 5-4 opinion.

The high court reversed the 4th Circuit's ruling for a group of
South Carolina lawyers who used data gleaned from Department of
Motor Vehicle records to target potential plaintiffs for lawsuits
against car dealerships.

Citing the "litigation exception" to the Driver's Privacy
Protection Act of 1994, trial lawyers retrieved the names,
addresses and phone numbers of thousands of car buyers.

The buyers filed a federal class action, claiming the
mailings they received from lawyers violated their privacy rights.

The high court narrowly agreed.

"[A]n attorney's solicitation of clients is not a permissible
purpose covered by the (b)(4) litigation exception," Justice
Anthony Kennedy wrote for the 5-4 majority.

The lawyers claimed that the law allowed them to use the protected
information "in connection with any civil, criminal,
administrative, or arbitral proceeding," including "investigation
in anticipation of litigation."

But the justices said solicitation "is distinct from other aspects
of the legal profession," a view that's backed up "by the words of
the statute itself; by formal rules issued by bar organizations
and governing boards; and by state statutes and regulations that
govern and direct attorneys with reference to their duties in
litigation, to their clients, and to the public."

"An additional reason to hold that (b)(4) does not permit
solicitation of clients is because the exception allows use of the
most sensitive kind of information, including medical and
disability history and Social Security numbers," Kennedy wrote.
"To permit this highly personal information to be used in
solicitation is so substantial an intrusion on privacy it must not
be assumed, without language more clear and explicit, that
Congress intended to exempt attorneys from DPPA liability in this
regard."

The majority also rejected the attorneys' claim that the
litigation exception could be used to solicit new clients for
existing litigation.  This would have allowed lawyers to file
"placeholder" lawsuits to retrieve personal DMV information solely
to solicit clients for those actions.

"Drawing the line between solicitations related to an existing
proceeding and those that are not is not a tenable distinction,"
Kennedy wrote.  "The proper solution is to draw the line at
solicitation itself."

Justices Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito, and
Chief Justice John Roberts joined the majority opinion.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the
lawyers' use of the information "fell squarely within the
litigation exception."

"This court's holding, exposing respondents not only to
astronomical liquidated damages, but to criminal fines as well, is
scarcely what Congress ordered in enacting the DPPA," she wrote.

The dissenting opinion was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia,
Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.


STELLARONE CORP: Being Sold to Union for Too Little, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling
StellarOne Corp. too cheaply through an unfair process to Union
First Market Bankshares Corp. in a 1-for-0.9739 share stock swap
valued at $445 million, shareholders claim in Federal Court.


TAYLOR FARMS: Recalls Black Forest Ham and Cheese on Pretzel Roll
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Farms New Jersey, Inc., of Swedesboro, New Jersey, is
voluntarily recalling a limited quantity of Black Forest Ham and
Cheese on a Pretzel Roll with Swiss Cheese and Country Dijon Honey
Mustard because they have the potential of containing an
undeclared tree nut allergen.

People who have severe sensitivity or allergies to tree nuts may
run the risk of a serious or life threatening allergic reaction if
they consume these products.  They do not pose any risk to the
general population without tree nut allergies.

The sandwiches are sold to a limited number of Wawa stores in New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, and Maryland.  The
recalled products include 529 units of the Black Forest Ham and
Cheese on a Pretzel Roll with Swiss Cheese and Country Dijon Honey
Mustard which have the code date of "sell by" 06/23/13 TFNJ 170
5:00 a.m. packaged in an 8.7 oz. plastic container.  The affected
product was distributed to stores on 6/19/13 and was discovered by
a store associate.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The Black Forest Ham and Cheese on a Pretzel Roll sandwich
includes a country Dijon honey mustard packet that was
inadvertently replaced with a green pesto aioli packet containing
pine nuts in a limited number of units.

This voluntary recall does not apply to any other Wawa products
distributed anywhere in the United States.

Consumers who have purchased Wawa Black Forest Ham and Cheese on a
Pretzel Roll with Swiss Cheese and Country Dijon Honey Mustard are
urged to discard the product and contact the Wawa Call Center at
1-800-444-9292 24 hours a day 7 days a week for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact Taylor Farms New Jersey at
856-294-4181 Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Still Faces Canadian Suit Over Lawnmower
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tecumseh Products Company continues to face lawsuits alleging,
among others, that defendants conspired to fix prices of lawn
mowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, according to the
company's May 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On March 19, 2010, Robert Foster and Murray Davenport filed a
lawsuit under the Class Proceedings Act in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against the company and several other defendants
(including Sears Canada Inc., Sears Holdings Corporation, John
Deere Limited, Platinum Equity, LLC, Briggs & Stratton
Corporation, Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, MTD Products Inc., The
Toro Company, American Honda Motor Co., Electrolux Home Products,
Inc., Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products N.A., Inc. and Kohler
Co.), alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices of lawn
mowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, to lessen competition in
lawn mowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, and to mislabel the
horsepower of lawn mower engines and lawn mowers in violation of
the Canadian Competition Act, civil conspiracy prohibitions and
the Consumer Packaging and Labeling Act.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons in Canada who
purchased, for their own use and not for resale, a lawn mower
containing a gas combustible engine of 30 horsepower or less
provided that either the lawn mower or the engine contained within
the lawn mower was manufactured and/or sold by a defendant or
their predecessors between January 1, 1994 and the date of
judgment.

Plaintiffs seek undetermined money damages, punitive damages,
interest, costs and equitable relief. In addition, Snowstorm
Acquisition Corporation and Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers
of Tecumseh Power Company and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in
November 2007, have notified the company that they claim
indemnification with respect to this lawsuit under the company's
Stock Purchase Agreement with them.

At this time, we do not have a reasonable estimate of the amount
of the company's ultimate liability, if any, or the amount of any
potential future settlement, but the amount could be material to
the company's financial position, consolidated results of
operations and cash flows.

On May 3, 2010, a class action was commenced in the Superior Court
of the Province of Quebec by Eric Liverman and Sidney Vadish
against the company and several other defendants (including those
listed in the other action) advancing allegations similar to those
outlined in the previous action.

Plaintiffs seek undetermined monetary damages, punitive damages,
interest, costs, and equitable relief. As stated, Snowstorm
Acquisition Corporation and Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers
of Tecumseh Power Company and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in
November 2007, have notified the company that they claim
indemnification with respect to this lawsuit under the company's
Stock Purchase Agreement with them.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Antitrust Claims Remain in Compressor Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan court
dismissed majority of the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' remaining
claims in a suit against Tecumseh Products Inc. over the sale of
compressors, leaving only claims under the antitrust laws and the
consumer protection laws, according to the company's May 6, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

"On February 17, 2009, we received a subpoena from the United
States Department of Justice Antitrust Division ("DOJ") and a
formal request for information from the Secretariat of Economic
Law of the Ministry of Justice of Brazil ("SDE") related to
investigations by these authorities into possible anti-competitive
pricing arrangements among certain manufacturers in the compressor
industry. The European Commission began an investigation of the
industry on the same day.

"We have entered into a conditional amnesty agreement with the DOJ
under the Antitrust Division's Corporate Leniency Policy. Pursuant
to the agreement, the DOJ has agreed to not bring any criminal
prosecution or impose any monetary fines with respect to the
investigation against us as long as we, among other things,
continue our full cooperation in the investigation. We have
received similar conditional immunity from the European Commission
and the SDE, and have received or requested immunity or leniency
from competition authorities in other jurisdictions.
"On December 7, 2011, the European Commission announced it had
reached a cartel settlement under which certain of our competitors
received fines for the conduct investigated. As a result of our
conditional immunity, we were not assessed any fine.

"While we have taken steps to avoid fines, penalties and other
sanctions as the result of proceedings brought by regulatory
authorities, the amnesty grants do not extend to civil actions
brought by private plaintiffs. The public disclosure of these
investigations has resulted in class action lawsuits filed in
Canada and numerous class action lawsuits filed in the United
States, including by both direct and indirect purchaser groups.

"All of the U.S. actions have been transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under
Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") procedures.

"Tecumseh Products Company, Tecumseh Compressor Company, Tecumseh
do Brasil, Ltda, and Tecumseh do Brasil U.S.A. LLC entered into a
settlement agreement with the direct-purchaser plaintiffs on June
24, 2010 to resolve claims in the action in order to avoid the
costs and distraction of this ongoing class action litigation.

"On June 13, 2011, the Court issued an order denying without
prejudice a motion for preliminary approval of our proposed
settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs because the time
frame and products covered by the proposed settlement class were
inconsistent with the Court's rulings of the same date granting,
in part, a motion by the other defendants to dismiss claims by the
direct purchaser plaintiffs.

"The direct purchaser plaintiffs subsequently filed a Second
Amended Master Complaint to reflect the court's rulings on the
motion to dismiss which allowed them to cover fractional
compressors, or compressors of less than one horsepower, used for
refrigeration purposes (but excluding those used for air
conditioning) purchased from February 25, 2005 to December 31,
2008 (the "Covered Products").

"On October 15, 2012 we entered into a new settlement agreement
with the direct-purchaser plaintiffs (the "Settlement Agreement"),
which must be approved by the court. The Settlement Agreement was
made by and between us and our subsidiaries and affiliates, and
plaintiffs, both individually and on behalf of a class of persons
who purchased the Covered Products in the United States, its
territories and possessions, directly from a defendant.

"Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, in exchange for
plaintiffs' full release of all U.S. direct-purchaser claims
against us relating to refrigeration compressors, we agreed to pay
a settlement amount of $7.0 million and, in addition, agreed to
pay up to $150,000 for notice and administrative costs associated
with administering the settlement. These costs were recorded as an
expense in the second quarter ended June 30, 2010 (and paid in the
third quarter of 2010) in the line item captioned "Impairments,
restructuring charges, and other items". Under the original
agreement, administrative costs were $250,000; however upon
signing the new settlement, the difference was refunded to
Tecumseh Products Company.

"For the remaining indirect purchaser class actions in the U.S., a
consolidated amended complaint was filed on June 30, 2010, and we
filed a motion to dismiss the indirect purchaser class action on
August 30, 2010. On June 7, 2012, the court partially granted a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint with regard
to claims for purchasers in several states in which the complaint
identified no named plaintiff. On April 9, 2013, the court
dismissed the majority of the indirect purchaser plaintiffs'
remaining claims leaving only claims under the antitrust laws of
North Carolina and Minnesota and the consumer protection laws of
California, Massachusetts, New Mexico and Rhode Island. In Canada,
the class actions are still in a preliminary stage.

"Persons who engage in price-fixing in violation of U.S. antitrust
law generally are jointly and severally liable to private
claimants for three times the actual damages caused by the joint
conduct. As a conditional amnesty recipient, however, our civil
liability will be limited pursuant to the Antitrust Criminal
Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, as amended (ACPERA).
As long as we continue to cooperate with the civil claimants and
comply with the requirements of ACPERA, we will be liable only for
actual, as opposed to treble, damages and will not be jointly and
severally liable for claims against other participants in the
alleged anticompetitive conduct being investigated."


TOWNSEND FARMS: Hepa A Victims in San Diego Increase
----------------------------------------------------
Michael Chen, writing for 10News.com, reports that the number of
San Diegans sickened by a frozen berries product bought at Costco
is growing, along with the legal fallout.

San Diego County health officials say eight people have contracted
Hepatitis A after eating the berries.  In all, more than 50 people
in seven states have been sickened in the outbreak.

In mid-May, Jake Petersen made a trip to Costco and bought a
$10 package of organic frozen berries.  He made smoothies almost
daily for the next two weeks.

When he heard about the Hepatitis A outbreak, he went right for
his freezer.

"To my horror, it was the Townsend Farms bag," he said.

Mr. Petersen, who lives in Irvine, got a sinking feeling.

"It's kind of like watching a car crash happen," he said.  "You
can't really help it.  You've already eaten it."

Because Hepatitis A has an incubation period -- as short as two
weeks -- Mr. Petersen got a quick-acting, immune-boosting,
immunoglobulin shot and plans to get the vaccine later.  He said
the total bill was probably $350 to $400.

Mr. Petersen is part of a new class-action suit filed by San Diego
attorney Frederic Gordon against Townsend Farms.  The suit is
filed on behalf of anyone who ate those berries and had to get
medical care to prevent sickness.  Mr. Gordon has filed a separate
lawsuit for a local woman who got sick.

In San Diego alone, 36,000 bags of berries have been sold since
January.

"When suppliers are sued on a class-action basis, they take note,"
said Mr. Gordon.  "They take note by changing their policies and
procedures."

Pomegranate seeds from Turkey are being looked at as a possible
source of the outbreak.

Mr. Gordon said legal pressures are sometimes required to make
sure foreign exporters abide by testing and oversight programs.

"Anytime we're importing food products from around the world, they
really need to take testing more seriously and looking into these
types of things," said Mr. Petersen.

Mr. Petersen has insurance.  For those who do not, county health
officials say free vaccinations and treatments are available.  The
health department says they are receiving almost 100 calls a day
on the topic of the frozen berries.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 242,000 Prius & Lexus Hybrid Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Corp. on June 5 announced a recall of 242,000 Prius
and Lexus hybrid vehicles due to braking system defects.

Merchant Law Group LLP has been pursuing Canada-wide class action
lawsuits against Toyota since early 2010 seeking financial
compensation and safety repairs for Prius/Lexus hybrid vehicles
owners due to problems with their braking systems.

"[The] recall appears to be a good initial step in terms of Toyota
recognizing the safety concerns of certain Prius and Lexus braking
systems but there are many issues that will still need to be
addressed through our class action lawsuits, including
compensation for Prius and Lexus vehicle owners." stated Tony
Merchant, Q.C. earlier on June 5.

For more information on the Toyota Prius and Lexus Class Action,
please visit:
https://www.merchantlaw.com/classactions/toyotabrakes.php

Merchant Law Group LLP is a Canadian class action firm, with 12
offices across Canada from Montreal to Victoria.


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: July 9 Oral Arguments in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments on Ubiquiti Networks, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit have been scheduled
for July 9, 2013, 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.

Beginning on September 7, 2012, two shareholder class action
complaints were filed against the Company, certain of its officers
and directors and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  On January 30, 2013, the plaintiffs filed
an Amended Consolidated Complaint, which alleges claims under the
Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of a purported class of those who
purchased the Company's common stock between October 14, 2011, and
August 9, 2012, and/or acquired the Company's stock pursuant to or
traceable to the registration statement for the initial public
offering.  The Amended Consolidated Complaint alleges that the
defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing false
or misleading statements regarding the sale of counterfeit Company
products.  The consolidated complaint seeks, among other things,
damages and interest, rescission, and attorneys' fees and costs.
On March 26, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  On April 30, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an opposition
to the Company's motion to dismiss.

A date for oral arguments for the motion to dismiss has been
scheduled for July 9, 2013.

The Company believes that the allegations in the consolidated
complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously contest the
litigation.  However, there can be no assurance that the Company
will be successful in its defense.  Because the case is at a very
early stage, the Company cannot currently estimate the loss or the
range of possible losses the Company may experience in connection
with this litigation.

Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., was incorporated in California in 2003 as
Pera Networks, Inc.  In 2005 the Company changed its name to
Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. and commenced its current operations.  In
June 2010, the Company was re-incorporated in Delaware.  Ubiquiti
is a product driven company that leverages innovative proprietary
technologies to deliver networking solutions to both startup and
established network operators and service providers.  The Company
is headquartered in San Jose, California.


UNCLE T: Recalls Taisun Pineapple Cakes
---------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 20, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Uncle T Food Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8051

Affected products:

Brand
name     Common name             Size    Code(s) on product
----     -----------             ----    ------------------
Taisun   Taiwan pineapple cake   250 g   Up to and including
                                          EXP2014.02.19
UPC: 4 710095 805164


UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Slam Gov't Stay Motion in Suit v. NSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that citizens
trying to dismantle the National Security Administration's
wiretapping program denounced the government's motion for a stay
as the "latest attempt to delay public scrutiny, judicial
oversight, and justice."

The NSA had asked a San Francisco federal judge on June 7, 2013,
to defer ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment in the
7-year-old case challenging an NSA wiretapping program.

The government said that it needed time to consider its position
in light of a recent revelation by The Guardian that the NSA had
forced Verizon to hand over "all call detail records or 'telephony
metadata'" of U.S. customers placing international domestic and
local calls.

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

The plaintiffs, a class of phone service customers led by Carolyn
Jewel, claim that the NSA's implementation of the Terrorist
Surveillance Program, signed into law after the Sept. 11, 2011
terrorist attacks, violates the Constitution and the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act.

In their opposition to the government's request for a stay on
June 14, 2013, the plaintiffs slammed the maneuver as one that
seeks to avoid judicial review.

"For over seven years during the pendency of this case, the
government has engaged in a massive, indiscriminate domestic
spying dragnet, sucking in billions of telephone and internet
communications of ordinary Americans," the motion states.  "Not
just metadata, but Americans' actual 'communications on fiber
cables and infrastructure as data flows past' -- their phone calls
and email.  The government used every possible tactic to delay
this case, filing state secrets motions to dismiss not once, not
twice, but now three times.  Even as it violated the law for seven
years, the government successfully prevented any court review of
this breathtaking scheme."

The median time in the Northern District of California from filing
to close of a case is 6.4 months, but this case has not even
approached resolution after 84.9 months of litigation, the
plaintiffs said.

"President Obama stated he 'welcome[s] this debate' about NSA
surveillance of millions of Americans," they added.  "The place to
debate the legality and constitutionality of government action is
here, in a court of law.  If the president truly welcomes the
debate, the president's Justice Department should no longer
obstruct this case.  It should no longer obstruct legal review of
the NSA's conduct. It should not assert alleged 'state secrets'
featured on the covers of hundreds of newspapers around the world.
The government's latest attempt to delay public scrutiny, judicial
oversight, and justice should be soundly rejected."

Ilann Maazel, Esq., and Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Esq. --
imaazel@ecbalaw.com and mbrinckerhoff@ecbalaw.com -- at Emery
Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP in Manhattan signed the motion.


URS CORPORATION: WGI Ohio Wins Favorable Ruling in "Levee" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana ruled in favor of Washington Group International, Inc.,
an Ohio company (WGI Ohio), a wholly owned subsidiary of URS
Corporation, in a suit in relation to its work building hurricane
protection levees and floodwalls in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Plaintiffs failed to prove that WGI Ohio's or the Army Corps of
Engineers' actions caused the failure of the Industrial Canal
floodwall during Hurricane Katrina, according to URS's May 7,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2013.

From July 1999 through May 2005, Washington Group International,
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary acquired by the company on
November 15, 2007, performed demolition, site preparation, and
environmental remediation services for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers on the east bank of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal
(the "Industrial Canal") in New Orleans, Louisiana.

On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans.  The
storm surge created by the hurricane overtopped the Industrial
Canal levee and floodwall, flooding the Lower Ninth Ward and other
parts of the city.  Fifty-nine personal injury and property damage
class action lawsuits were filed in Louisiana State and federal
court against several defendants, including WGI Ohio, seeking
$200.0 billion in damages plus attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiffs are residents and property owners who claim to have
incurred damages from the breach and failure of the hurricane
protection levees and floodwalls in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

All 59 lawsuits were pleaded as class actions but none have yet
been certified as class actions.  Along with WGI Ohio, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the Board for the Orleans Levee District,
and its insurer, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company were
also named as defendants.  At this time WGI Ohio and the Army
Corps of Engineers are the remaining defendants.  These 59
lawsuits, along with other hurricane-related cases not involving
WGI Ohio, were consolidated in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana ("District Court").

Plaintiffs allege that defendants were negligent in their design,
construction and/or maintenance of the New Orleans levees.
Specifically, as to WGI Ohio, plaintiffs allege that work WGI Ohio
performed adjacent to the Industrial Canal damaged the levee and
floodwall, causing or contributing to breaches and flooding.  WGI
Ohio did not design, construct, repair or maintain any of the
levees or the floodwalls that failed during or after Hurricane
Katrina.  Rather, WGI Ohio performed work adjacent to the
Industrial Canal as a contractor for the federal government.

WGI Ohio filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal on
grounds that government contractors are immune from liability.  On
December 15, 2008, the District Court granted WGI Ohio's motion
for summary judgment, but several plaintiffs appealed that
decision to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on
April 27, 2009.  On September 14, 2010, the Court of Appeals
reversed the District Court's summary judgment decision and WGI
Ohio's dismissal, and remanded the case back to the District Court
for further litigation.

On August 1, 2011, the District Court decided that the government
contractor immunity defense would not be available to WGI Ohio at
trial, but would be an issue for appeal.  Five of the cases were
tried in District Court from September 12, 2012 through October 3,
2012.  On April 12, 2013, the District Court ruled in favor of WGI
Ohio and the Army Corps of Engineers finding that the five
plaintiffs failed to prove that WGI Ohio's or the Army Corps of
Engineers' actions caused the failure of the Industrial Canal
floodwall during Hurricane Katrina.  The plaintiffs will have the
right to appeal the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals.


USEC INC: Former Plant Employees Appeal Dismissal of Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a labor lawsuit filed against USEC Inc. in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division are appealing the dismissal of the suit,
according to the company's May 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On June 27, 2011, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division, against USEC by a former Portsmouth gas diffusion plant
employee claiming that USEC owes severance benefits to him and
other similarly situated employees that have transitioned or will
transition to the DOE D&D contractor.

The plaintiff amended its complaint on August 31, 2011 and
February 10, 2012, among other things, to limit the purported
class of similarly situated employees to salaried employees at the
Portsmouth site who transitioned to the D&D contractor and are
allegedly eligible for or owed benefits.

On October 11, 2012, the United States District Court granted
USEC's motion to dismiss the complaint and dismissed Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification as moot.  The plaintiffs filed an
appeal on January 18, 2013.


VENTRUS BIOSCIENCES: Faces "Davison" Class Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ventrus BioSciences Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit brought
by Ted Davison, et al., 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 May 9, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company, two of its executive officers and the lead
underwriter of its initial public offering: Ted Davison, William
Gould and Ray Lenci, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. Ventrus Biosciences, Inc., et
al., 13CIV 1319.  The complaint generally alleges that, during the
class period between December 17, 2010, and June 25, 2012,  the
Company and its two executive officers violated Sections 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 and the
executive officers and the lead underwriter violated Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act in making various statements related to the
Company's product, iferanserin (VEN 309), a topical treatment for
symptomatic hemorrhoids, including but not limited to the market
for the product, the potential competitors, and the results of
clinical trials.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs.

The Company and its officers believe that all of the claims in
this lawsuit are without merit and the Company intends to
vigorously defend against these claims, but is unable to predict
the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

Ventrus BioSciences Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company
currently focused on the development and commercialization of
late-stage prescription drugs addressing gastrointestinal
problems, specifically anal disorders.  Ventrus was incorporated
in Delaware in October 2005 and is headquartered in New York.


WAL-MART STORES: Seeks Dismissal of Gas Discounts Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Bolado, writing for Law360, reports that Wal-Mart Stores
Inc. and gas station operator Murphy Oil USA Inc. on May 31 asked
a Florida state court to toss a putative class action claiming
that they failed to provide advertised discounts to customers on
gasoline purchases, saying that a review of the sale records shows
that every eligible customer received the discount.


WARD MANUFACTURING: Faces Class Action Over Defective CSST
----------------------------------------------------------
John D. Oravecz, writing for Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, reports
that during a June 2007 thunderstorm, a lightning strike energized
a natural gas line beneath the first floor of Terence and Judith
Tincher's home in Chester, Pa.

A resulting electrical arc created a hole in the piping and
ignited natural gas, the Tinchers allege in court papers. Their
home was a total loss.

After an eight-day trial in October 2010, a jury found corrugated
stainless steel tubing (CSST) used in the gas line to be
defective.  Jurors awarded a $1 million judgment against the
manufacturer.

Similar incidents nationwide prompted the filing of two class-
action lawsuits on June 4 against manufacturers of corrugated
stainless steel tubing on behalf of thousands of Pennsylvania home
and business owners.

"Thousands of homes in Pennsylvania are at risk of fire because of
CSST that has not been properly grounded," said Rob Peirce, a
Downtown attorney representing the plaintiffs.  "Even with proper
grounding, experts do not agree that the risk of arcing is
completely eliminated."

Before corrugated stainless steel tubing became popular about a
decade ago, rigid iron pipe was used to supply natural gas and
propane in homes and businesses.  Mr. Pierce said it was used
without incident and estimated the cost to replace CSST with iron
pipe at more than $3,000 per home.

The ultrathin flexible tubing is routed through homes and
buildings in lengths that avoid joints required by rigid pipe.
Its ease of use and lower total cost of installation has changed
the business, the lawsuits said.  The tubing is manufactured by
about 10 companies in the United States, and has been installed in
more than 5 million homes, according to industry reports.

Regis McQuaide, owner of Master Remodelers Inc. in Castle Shannon,
said CSST is being used more by remodelers and builders because of
its low cost and fast installation.  But he wasn't aware of
problems with the product.

One lawsuit was filed in Lawrence County Common Pleas Court by
Pipsqueaks Child Care Center of Ellwood City against Ward
Manufacturing Inc. of Blossburg, Pa., a manufacturer of corrugated
stainless steel tubing sold under the brand name Wardflex.

A second lawsuit was filed in federal court in Pittsburgh by
Michael Hower of Clinton, Armstrong County, who has corrugated
stainless steel tubing installed in his home, against Titeflex
Corp. of Springfield, Mass., a manufacturer that is part of Flex-
Tek Group in Greenwood, S.C.

Shan Hood, vice president at Flex-Tek said in recent years
Titeflex has received a number of claims for damage allegedly
caused by lightning strikes.  "Titeflex believes that its products
are a safe and effective means of delivering natural and propane
gas when installed in accordance with the manufacturer's
instructions and all local and national codes."  The lawsuit is
without merit, he said.

Bill Williams, a spokesman for Ward Manufacturing, did not
immediately return calls for comment.

The lawsuits allege that both companies failed to properly test
their product's resistance to lightning strikes, and that both
defendants developed new and improved versions of their products
with advanced lightning protection after problems surfaced.

From 1996 to August 2011, 141 fires involving lightning and
corrugated stainless steel tubing were reported in the United
States, according to a report by the Fire Protection Foundation of
Quincy, Mass., cited in the lawsuits.

There have been other class-action lawsuits nationwide.  One in
Arkansas in 2004 against Titeflex and other manufacturers was
settled with Titeflex agreeing to pay for installation of a
lightning protection system or grounding of its product, according
to the lawsuit.

Corrugated stainless steel tubing was introduced in the United
States in 1989.  In 2003, the International Association of
Plumbing and Mechanical Officials in Ontario, Calif., approved it
for its Uniform Plumbing Code.  The product was developed in Japan
in the early 1980s to withstand damage from earthquakes, the
lawsuits say.


WARNER CHAPPELL: Faces Class Action Over Unlawful Licensing Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn at Courthouse News Service reports that
Warner/Chappell Music has "extracted millions of dollars in
unlawful licensing fees" for the 120-year-old "Happy Birthday"
song, which is in the public domain, Good Morning to You
Productions claims in a federal class action.

There is no question that the song is in the public domain; the
only question is how Warner/Chappell has bullied people into
paying for it, Good Morning to You says in the complaint.

Good Morning is making a documentary about the Happy Birthday
song, which, not surprisingly, will include the tune.  It claims
it succumbed to Warner/Chappell's demand for a $1,500 licensing
fee, but balked upon receiving a second letter from
Warner/Chappell, warning that it could face a $150,000 statutory
penalty for copyright infringement.

The complaint states: "More than 120 years after the melody to
which the simple lyrics of 'Happy Birthday to You' is set was
first published, defendant Warner/Chappell boldly, but wrongfully
and unlawfully, insists that it owns the copyright to 'Happy
Birthday to You,' and with that copyright the exclusive right to
authorize the song's reproduction, distribution, and public
performances pursuant to federal copyright law.  Defendant
Warner/Chappell either has silenced those wishing to record or
perform 'Happy Birthday to You' or has extracted millions of
dollars in unlawful licensing fees from those unwilling or unable
to challenge its ownership claims.

"Irrefutable documentary evidence, some dating back to 1893, shows
that the copyright to 'Happy Birthday to You,' if there ever was a
valid copyright to any part of the song, expired no later than
1921 and that if defendant Warner/Chappell owns any rights to
'Happy Birthday to You,' those rights are limited to the extremely
narrow right to reproduce and distribute specific piano
arrangements for the song published in 1935.  Significantly, no
court has ever adjudicated the validity or scope of the
defendant's claimed interest in 'Happy Birthday to You,' nor in
the song's melody or lyrics, which are themselves independent
works.

"Plaintiff GMTY, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, seeks a declaration that 'Happy Birthday to You' is
dedicated to public use and is in the public domain as well as
monetary damages and restitution of all the unlawful licensing
fees that defendant Warner/Chappell improperly collected from GMTY
and all other class members."

Good Morning, based in New York City, claims that it paid
Warner/Chappell $1,500 in April for a "synchronization license
agreement" for "Happy Birthday."

On its website, checked this morning, Warner/Chappell claims to
have copyrights to more than 1 million tunes.

"The Warner/Chappell Music catalog includes standards such as
'Happy Birthday To You' . . ." the company says in its "About Us"
web page.

There is no mention of Good Morning's lawsuit on the
Warner/Chappell "News" web page.

Good Morning's 28-page lawsuit includes a detailed history of the
origins of the Happy Birthday song, from which the following
summary is taken.

Sometime before 1893, sisters Mildred and Patty Hill wrote words
and music for 73 songs, composed or arranged by Mildred, with
words by Patty.  They sold or assigned their rights to it to
Clayton F. Summy on Feb. 1, 1893, for 10 percent of retail sales.
The songs included "Good Morning to All."

Summy published the songbook that year under the title "Song
Stories for the Kindergarten," and filed a copyright application
on Oct. 16, 1893, in which he claimed to own the copyright, but
not to be the author.

The lyrics to "Good Morning to All" were set to the melody now
known as "Happy Birthday."

     The lyrics were:
     Good morning to you
     Good morning to you
     Good morning dear children
     Good morning to all.

     The "Happy Birthday" lyrics were not published in the
songbook.

Summy republished the songbook twice before 1900, never with the
Happy Birthday lyrics.

The complaint states: "Even though the lyrics to 'Happy Birthday
to You' and the song 'Happy Birthday to You' had not been fixed in
a tangible medium of expression, the public began singing 'Happy
Birthday to You' no later than the early 1900s.

"For example, in the January 1901 edition of 'Inland Educator' and
'Indiana School Journal,' the article entitled 'First Grade
Opening Exercises' described children singing the words 'happy
birthday to you,' but did not print the song's lyrics or melody."

Then in 1907, according to the complaint: "Fleming H. Revell Co.
('Revell') published the book 'Tell Me a True Story,' arranged by
Mary Stewart, which instructed readers to:

"Sing: 'Good-bye to you, good-bye to you, good-bye dear children,
good?bye to you.' Also: 'Good-bye dear teacher.' (From 'Song
Stories for the Sunday-School,' published by Summy & Co.)

"Sing: 'Happy Birthday to You.' (Music same as 'Good-bye to
You.')"

Finally, the complaint states: "Upon information and belief, the
lyrics to 'Happy Birthday to You' (without the sheet music for the
melody) were first published in 1911 by the Board of Sunday
Schools of the Methodist Episcopal Church ('Board of Sunday
Schools') in 'The Elementary Worker and His Work,' by Alice Jacobs
and Ermina Chester Lincoln, as follows:

"Happy birthday to you, Happy birthday to you, Happy birthday,
dear John, Happy birthday to you. (Sung to the same tune as the
'Good Morning')

"[NOTE: The songs and exercises referred to in this program may be
found in these books: . . . 'Song Stories for the Sunday School,'
by Patty Hill.]

"On or about January 6, 1912, the Board of Sunday Schools filed a
copyright application (Reg. No. A303752) with the Copyright Office
for 'The Elementary Worker and His Work.'"

The copyrights to Summy's song books expired by the mid 1920s and
he did not renew them.

"In or around March 1924, the sheet music (with accompanying
lyrics) to 'Happy Birthday to You' was in a songbook titled
Harvest Hymns, published, compiled, and edited by Robert H.
Coleman ('Coleman').  Upon information and belief, 'Harvest Hymns'
was the first time the melody and lyrics of 'Happy Birthday to
You' were published together.

"Coleman did not claim authorship of the song entitled 'Good
Morning to You' or the lyrics to 'Happy Birthday to You.'
Although 'Harvest Hymns' attributed authorship or identified the
copyrights to many of the works included in the book, it did not
attribute authorship or identify any copyright for 'Good Morning
to You' or 'Happy Birthday to You.' . . .

"The sheet music (with accompanying lyrics) to 'Happy Birthday to
You' was again published in 1928 in the compilation 'Children's
Praise and Worship,' compiled and edited by A.L. Byers, Bessie L.
Byrum, and Anna E. Koglin ('Byers, Byrum & Koglin').  Upon
information and belief, 'Children's Praise and Worship' was the
first time the song was published under the title 'Happy Birthday
to You.'

"On or about April 7, 1928, Gospel Trumpet Co. ('Gospel') filed a
copyright application (Reg. No. A1068883) with the Copyright
Office for 'Children's Praise and Worship.'

"'Children's Praise and Worship' attributed authorship or
identified the copyrights to many of the works included in the
book.  Significantly, it did not attribute authorship or identify
any copyright for the song 'Happy Birthday to You.'"

There was no litigation involving the Happy Birthday song until
1934, when Jessica Hill, Mildred and Patty's sister, sued Broadway
show producer Sam Harris.  Harris in 1933 produced the Broadway
show "As Thousands Cheer," with music and lyrics by Irving Berlin.
The show included the tune "Happy Birthday."

Hill also sued the Federal Broadcasting Corp. in 1935.  Both
claims alleged infringement of the 1893 and 1896 copyrights of
"Good Morning to All."

Summy, with a reconstituted corporation, applied for a copyright
for a republished musical composition with new copyright matter on
Dec. 29, 1934, for the song "Happy Birthday."

We are not yet halfway through the 28-page complaint. Suffice it
to say that more litigation ensued, from more parities, including
Hill Foundation v Summy Co. III, in 1942, seeking an accounting
and royalties; Hill Foundation v Postal Telegraph-Cable Co., in
1943, for copyright on "Good Morning to All."

There has never been a judicial determination on the copyright of
"Good Morning to All," according to the complaint.  But Summy Co.
III, renamed as Summy-Birchard Co., filed more copyright
applications and renewals for "Happy Birthday," and "Good Morning
to All," though none of them claimed authorship of the tunes.

Summy-Birchard Co. was renamed Birch Tree Ltd. in the 1970s, and
Warner/Chappell bought it in 1998.

This brings us to today, and Good Morning's lawsuit.

It states: "According to a 1999 press release by ASCAP, Happy
Birthday to You was the most popular song of the 20th Century.

"The 1998 edition of the 'Guinness Book of World Records'
identified 'Happy Birthday to You' as the most recognized song in
the English language.

"Defendant Warner/Chappell currently claims it owns the exclusive
copyright to

'Happy Birthday to You' based on the piano arrangements that Summy
Co. III published in 1935.

"Plaintiff GMTY is producing a documentary movie, tentatively
titled 'Happy Birthday,' about the song 'Happy Birthday to You.'

"In one of the proposed scenes to be included in 'Happy Birthday,'
the song 'Happy Birthday to You' is to be sung.

"During the production process, plaintiff GMTY learned that
defendant Warner/Chappell claimed exclusive copyright ownership to
'Happy Birthday to You.'

Accordingly, in September 2012, plaintiff requested a quote from
Warner/Chappell for a synchronization license to use 'Happy
Birthday to You' from Warner/Chappell's website.

"On or about September 18, 2012, defendant Warner/Chappell
responded to plaintiff GMTY's inquiry by demanding that GMTY pay
it the sum of $1,500 and enter into a synchronization license
agreement to use 'Happy Birthday to You.'

"On or about March 12, 2013, defendant Warner/Chappell again
contacted plaintiff GMTY and insisted that GMTY was not authorized
to use 'Happy Birthday to You' unless it paid the licensing fee of
$1,500 and entered into the synchronization license that
Warner/Chappell demanded.

"Because defendant Warner/Chappell notified plaintiff GMTY that it
claimed exclusive copyright ownership of 'Happy Birthday to You,'
GMTY faced a statutory penalty of $150,000 under the Copyright Act
if it used the song without Warner/Chappell's permission and
Warner/Chappell, in fact, owned the copyright that it claimed.

"Faced with a threat of substantial penalties for copyright
infringement, on or about March 26, 2013, plaintiff GMTY was
forced to and did pay defendant Warner/Chappell the sum of $1,500
for a synchronization license and, on or about April 24, 2013,
GMTY was forced to and did enter into the synchronization license
agreement to use 'Happy Birthday to You.'"

Warner/Chappell's demand, however, is bogus, Good Morning claims.

It seeks declaratory judgment that "Happy Birthday" is in the
public domain, class certification, it wants its money back, an
accounting, restitution of money for the class, damages for unfair
competition, and costs.

It is represented by Randall Newman, Esq. -- RSN@RANDALLNEWMAN.NET
-- with Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz.


WARNER MUSIC: Faces Class Action Over Giving Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Warner Music Group and
Atlantic Recording Corp. stiffed interns for minimum wages and
overtime, a class action claims in New York County Supreme Court.


WASHINGTON POST: Colorado Court Junks Pension Fund's Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a
securities case filed against The Washington Post Company by the
Plumbers Local #200 Pension Fund, according to the company's
May 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

A purported class-action complaint was filed against the Company,
Donald E. Graham and Hal S. Jones on October 28, 2010, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, by the Plumbers Local
#200 Pension Fund. The complaint alleged that the Company and
certain of its officers made materially false and misleading
statements, or failed to disclose material facts relating to KHE,
in violation of the U.S. Federal securities laws.

The complaint sought damages, attorneys' fees, costs and
equitable/injunctive relief. The Company moved to dismiss the
complaint, and on December 23, 2011, the court granted the
Company's motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. On January
25, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a motion seeking leave to amend or
alter that final judgment, which the court granted in part on
March 13, 2012 by allowing the Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint.

On May 11, 2012, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. On March 19, 2013, the court granted the Company's
motion and dismissed the case.


* Counsel Trims N.J. Class Action Claims v. Flood Insurers
----------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that conceding it may be difficult to proceed
with his case as a class action, the attorney who sued several
insurers for wrongfully denying flood claims following Hurricane
Irene and Superstorm Sandy has agreed to dismiss certain claims
that were the subject of a pending motion to dismiss filed
recently by defendants.

In a May 21 letter to the judge presiding over the case in U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, attorney Jeffrey
Bronster indicated the decision was based on conversations with
potential class members.

Associated Law Firms

Jeffrey A. Bronster PC
McMahon, Martine & Gallagher
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo
Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young
Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan


                             *********

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  * * *