CAR_Public/130627.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, June 27, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 126

                             Headlines


AETERNA ZENTARIS: Class Action Dismissed With Prejudice
AMERICAN APPAREL: Faces Discrimination Charge Before EEOC
AMERICAN APPAREL: "Ruiz" Wage & Hour Lawsuit in Arbitration
AMERICAN APPAREL: "Partida" Labor Lawsuit in Arbitration
AMERICAN APPAREL: Suit Over Separation Paycheck in Arbitration

AMERICAN APPAREL: "Jessica Heupel" Labor Lawsuit in Arbitration
AMERICAN APPAREL: "Anthony Heupel" Labor Suit in Arbitration
AMERICAN APPAREL: Files Motion to Dismiss Cal. Securities Suit
AMERICAN SUZUKI: Faces Possible Recall Due to Air Bag Problems
ARKANSAS BLUE: Consumers File Insurance Antitrust Class Action

BARRICK GOLD: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
BELLA SHLOMKIN'S: Ordered to Pay NIS90,000 in Smoking Compensation
BICKERSTAFFE FARMS: Recalls The Spice Barn Brand Ground Ginger
CENTURYLINK INC: Awaits OK of Settlements in Rights-of-Way Suits
CENTURYLINK INC: Defends Remaining Claims in "Fulghum" Suit

CROWDFLOWER INC: Otey Plaintiffs May File Second Amended Complaint
CVB FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Granted in May
DENDREON CORPORATION: Aug. Hearing Set in Securities Suit Accord
DIODES INC: Defends Class Suit in Texas Filed by Local 731 I.B.
DREW EDMONSON: Dismissal of RLUIPA Violation Suit Upheld

DUKE ENERGY: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in Nev. Antitrust Suit
ELITE INT'L: Recalls Budweiser Sauce Over Gluten/Mustard Presence
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Court Issues Briefing Schedule in "Engquist" Suit
FIRST M&F: Defends "Zeng" Merger-Related Suit in Mississippi
FIRST MERCHANTS: Discovery in Suit Over Overdraft Fees Ongoing

FIRST MIDWEST: Appeal From Overdraft Fee Suit Dismissal Pending
FOLEY'S CANDIES: Recalls Dark Choco NN Wafers Over Milk Presence
HECLA MINING: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
INTERSECTIONS INSURANCE: Suit Over Death & Disability Plan Junked
JAN-PRO: Mass. Court Addresses Questions in "Depianti" Suit

JAYCO: Recalls WHITE HAWK TRAVEL TRAILERS Over Electrical Concern
JP MORGAN: Ct. Amends Order Approving "Villegas" Suit Settlement
MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls 10 SLK CLASS Cars Due to Airbag Issue
MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls 6 SLK CLASS Cars Due to Airbag Issue
MERRILL LYNCH: 2nd Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Antitrust Suits

MERRILL LYNCH: Consolidated Securities Suit Settlement Approved
MONSANTO CO: Faces Class Action Over Genetically Modified Wheat
MONSANTO CO: Tousley Brain, Hausfeld File Wheat Class Action
MUSKOKA MUNICIPALITY: Faces Class Action Over April Flooding
NANAIMO SAUSAGE: Recalls Polish Salami Sausage Over Health Hazard

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Balk at Delaney Statement
NESTLE S.A.: Faces Canadian Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing
NEW NEWSCORP: Still Awaits Decision on Bid to Junk "Wilder" Suit
NEW NEWSCORP: Still Defends Suits Over Ebooks vs. HarperCollins
NU-PHARM INC: Recalls Nu-Cephalex Tablets Over Rainwater Contact

OCLARO INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Amended Securities Suit
OFFICE DEPOT: Court Approves Stipulation in "Provine" Suit Deal
PATRIOT COAL: Complaints v. Former Executives Consolidated
PATRIOT COAL: Suit Over Employee Safety in Mine Dismissed
PEOPLE'S UNITED: Court Certifies FLSA Collective Action Class

PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Ameristar Stockholders Approved Purchase
POOLMAN OF WISCONSIN: Class Cert. Ruling in "UESCO" Suit Reversed
REMINGTON ARMS: Court Narrows Claims in "Pollard" Class Action
RIVERDALE PARK, MD: Judge Dismisses Speed Camera Class Action
STATE FARM: Settles Inspector Wage Class Action for $5 Million

STATE FARM: Judge Denies Motion to Stay Discovery in RICO Suit
TRICO BANCSHARES: Yet to File Settlement Docs in California Suit
UNI-PIXEL INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Texas
VALHI INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Lead Pigments vs. Unit
VERMEER: Recalls R9X12T Heavy Trailers Due to Brake Issues

VISTEON CORPORATION: Sued for "Anti-competitive" Acts in Canada
VITA HEALTH: Recalls Capsules of Safeway Extra Strength Ibuprofen
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Potential Deceleration Class Action

* Australia Sees Renaissance of Product Liability Class Actions
* EU Draft Rules to Allow Class Actions v. Price Fixing Cartels
* Mediators Must Expand Tool Kit in Class Action, MDL
* Non-U.S. Securities Settlements to Rise to $8.3BB By 2020


                             *********


AETERNA ZENTARIS: Class Action Dismissed With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------
Aeterna Zentaris Inc. on June 6 disclosed that the previously
disclosed purported class action lawsuit filed against the Company
and certain of its officers by Faruqi & Faruqi LLP in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York has
been entirely dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.
No payment was made by any of the Defendants to the plaintiff or
his counsel in connection with the lawsuit.  The plaintiff has 30
days from the docketing of the final judgment to file a notice of
appeal, if he determines to do so.

"We are extremely pleased that the Court recognized and confirmed
the Defendants' long-held view that the plaintiff's claims were
entirely without merit and granted in full and with prejudice our
motion to dismiss, producing the outcome that we had expected all
along", commented David Dodd, President and Chief Executive
Officer of Aeterna Zentaris.

                    About AeternaZentaris Inc.

Aeterna Zentaris -- http://www.aezsinc.com-- is an oncology and
endocrinology drug development company currently investigating
treatments for various unmet medical needs.  The Company's
pipeline encompasses compounds at all stages of development, from
drug discovery through to marketed products.


AMERICAN APPAREL: Faces Discrimination Charge Before EEOC
---------------------------------------------------------
American Apparel, Inc. continues to face a Charge of
Discrimination filed with the Los Angeles District Office of the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, according to the
company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On February 7, 2006, Sylvia Hsu, a former employee of American
Apparel, filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Los Angeles
District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
("EEOC") (Hsu v. American Apparel: Charge No. 480- 2006-00418),
alleging that she was subjected to sexual harassment by a co-
worker and constructively discharged as a result of the sexual
harassment and a hostile working environment.

On March 9, 2007, the EEOC expanded the scope of its investigation
to other employees of American Apparel who may have been sexually
harassed. On August 9, 2010, the EEOC issued a written
determination finding that reasonable cause exists to believe the
Company discriminated against Ms. Hsu and women, as a class, on
the basis of their female gender, by subjecting them to sexual
harassment. No finding was made on the issue of Ms. Hsu's alleged
constructive discharge.

In its August 19, 2010 written determination, the EEOC has invited
the parties to engage in informal conciliation. If the parties are
unable to reach a settlement which is acceptable to the EEOC, the
EEOC will advise the parties of the court enforcement alternatives
available to Ms. Hsu, aggrieved persons, and the EEOC.

The Company has not recorded a provision for this matter and is
working cooperatively with the EEOC to resolve the claim in a
manner acceptable to all parties. The Company does not believe at
this time that any settlement will involve a payment of damages in
an amount that would be material to and adversely affect the
Company's business, financial position, and results of operations
or cash flows.


AMERICAN APPAREL: "Ruiz" Wage & Hour Lawsuit in Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed by Guillermo Ruiz, a former employee of American
Apparel, Inc., before the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles is in arbitration,
according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On November 5, 2009, Guillermo Ruiz, a former employee of American
Apparel, filed suit against the Company on behalf of putative
classes of all current and former non-exempt California employees
(Guillermo Ruiz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. American Apparel, Inc., Case Number BC425487) in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, alleging the Company failed to pay certain wages due for
hours worked, to provide meal and rest periods or compensation in
lieu thereof and to pay wages due upon termination to certain of
the Company's employees.

The complaint further alleges that the Company failed to comply
with certain itemized employee wage statement provisions and
violations of unfair competition law.  The plaintiff is seeking
compensatory damages and economic and/or special damages in an
unspecified amount, premium pay, wages and penalties, injunctive
relief and restitution, and reimbursement for attorneys' fees,
interest and the costs of the suit. This matter is now proceeding
in arbitration.


AMERICAN APPAREL: "Partida" Labor Lawsuit in Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed by Antonio Partida, a former employee of American
Apparel, Inc., in the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Orange is in arbitration, according to the
company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On June 21, 2010, Antonio Partida, a former employee of American
Apparel, filed suit against the Company on behalf of putative
classes of current and former non-exempt California employees
(Antonio Partida, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. American Apparel (USA), LLC, Case No. 30-2010-
00382719-CU-OE-CXC) in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Orange, alleging the Company failed
to pay certain wages for hours worked, to provide meal and rest
periods or compensation in lieu thereof, and to pay wages due upon
separation.

The complaint further alleges that the Company failed to timely
pay wages, unlawfully deducted wages and failed to comply with
certain itemized employee wage statement provisions and violations
of unfair competition law. The plaintiff is seeking compensatory
damages and economic and/or special damages in an unspecified
amount, premium pay, wages and penalties, injunctive relief and
restitution, and reimbursement of attorneys' fees, interest and
the costs of the suit. This matter is now proceeding in
arbitration.


AMERICAN APPAREL: Suit Over Separation Paycheck in Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed by Emilie Truong, a former employee of American
Apparel, Inc., alleging the Company failed to timely provide final
paychecks upon separation, is in arbitration, according to the
company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On or about December 2, 2010, Emilie Truong, a former employee of
American Apparel, filed suit against the Company on behalf of
putative classes of current and former non-exempt California
employees (Emilie Truong, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. American Apparel, Inc. and American Apparel
LLC, Case No. BC450505) in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, alleging the Company
failed to timely provide final paychecks upon separation.

Plaintiff is seeking unspecified premium wages, attorneys' fees
and costs, disgorgement of profits, and an injunction against the
alleged unlawful practices. This matter is now proceeding in
arbitration.


AMERICAN APPAREL: "Jessica Heupel" Labor Lawsuit in Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
A labor suit filed by Jessica Heupel, a former retail employee of
American Apparel, Inc., in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Diego, is in arbitration,
according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On or about February 9, 2011, Jessica Heupel, a former retail
employee filed suit on behalf of putative classes of current and
former non-exempt California employees (Jessica Heupel,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
American Apparel Retail, Inc., Case No. 37-2011-00085578-CU-OE-
CTL) in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Diego, alleging the Company failed to pay certain
wages for hours worked, to provide meal and rest periods or
compensation in lieu thereof, and to pay wages due upon
separation.

The plaintiff is seeking monetary damages as follows: (1) for
alleged meal and rest period violations; (2) for alleged failure
to timely pay final wages, as well as for punitive damages for the
same; and (3) unspecified damages for unpaid minimum wage and
overtime.  In addition, Plaintiff seeks premium pay, wages and
penalties, injunctive relief and restitution, and reimbursement of
attorneys' fees, interest and the costs of the suit. This matter
is now proceeding in arbitration.


AMERICAN APPAREL: "Anthony Heupel" Labor Suit in Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed by Anthony Heupel, a former retail employee of
American Apparel, Inc., is in arbitration, according to the
company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On or about September 9, 2011, Anthony Heupel, a former retail
employee initiated arbitration proceedings on behalf of putative
classes of current and former non-exempt California employees,
alleging the Company failed to pay certain wages for hours worked,
to provide meal and rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof,
and to pay wages due upon separation.

The plaintiff is seeking monetary damages in an amount in excess
of $3,600, as follows: (1) for alleged meal and rest period
violations; (2) for alleged failure to timely pay final wages, as
well as for punitive damages for the same; and (3) unspecified
damages for unpaid minimum wage and overtime.  In addition,
Plaintiff seeks premium pay, wages and penalties, injunctive
relief and restitution, and reimbursement of attorneys' fees,
interest and the costs of the suit. This matter is now proceeding
in arbitration.


AMERICAN APPAREL: Files Motion to Dismiss Cal. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Apparel, Inc. is moving to dismiss In re American
Apparel, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. CV106352 MMM
(JCGx), which is pending in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, according to the company's May
9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Four putative class action lawsuits, (Case No. CV106352 MMM (RCx),
Case No. CV106513 MMM (RCx), Case No. CV106516 MMM (RCx), and Case
No. CV106680 GW (JCGx)) were filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California in the Fall of 2010
against American Apparel and certain of the Company's officers and
executives on behalf of American Apparel shareholders who
purchased the Company's common stock between December 19, 2006 and
August 17, 2010.

On December 3, 2010, the four lawsuits were consolidated for all
purposes into a case entitled In re American Apparel, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. CV106352 MMM (JCGx) (the
"Federal Securities Action").

The lead plaintiff alleges two causes of action for violations of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated under Section 10(b), arising out of alleged
misrepresentations contained in the Company's press releases,
public filings with the SEC, and other public statements relating
to (i) the adequacy of the Company's internal and financial
control policies and procedures; (ii) the Company's employment
practices; and (iii) the effect that the dismissal of over 1,500
employees following an Immigration and Customs Enforcement
inspection would have on the Company. Plaintiff seeks damages in
an unspecified amount, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and
equitable relief as the Court may deem proper.

The Company filed two motions to dismiss the Federal Securities
Action which the court granted with leave to amend. Plaintiffs
filed a Second Amended Complaint on February 15, 2013. The Company
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on March 15, 2013. The
hearing on the motion will be held June 3, 2013. The Federal
Securities Action is covered under the Company's Directors and
Officers Liability insurance policy, subject to a deductible and a
reservation of rights.


AMERICAN SUZUKI: Faces Possible Recall Due to Air Bag Problems
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Jensen, writing for The New York Times, reported that
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is
investigating whether air bag problems warrant recalling about
205,000 Suzuki vehicles, the 2006-11 Grand Vitara and the 2007-11
SX4, according to a report posted on the safety agency's Web site.

However, a federal bankruptcy court recently approved Suzuki's
Chapter 11 filing, the report pointed out.  The automaker plans to
withdraw from the American car market after it sells off the rest
of its inventory.  That poses a problem should N.H.T.S.A. decide a
recall is warranted.  If an automaker lacks assets, there is no
money to pay for repairs.

The safety agency says it has received 128 complaints from Suzuki
owners about warning lights indicating problems with the
passenger-side air bag, the report said.  The warning lights
suggest a malfunction of the occupant classification system, which
detects whether or not a small child is seated up front.  In that
case, it is supposed to turn off the air bag to prevent injuries
to the child.

The N.H.T.S.A. report says that Suzuki sent owners letters last
September informing them of an extended warranty available to
cover the systems and warning them that the front passenger air
bag would still deploy even if a small child was seated there, the
report added.  Many of the Suzuki owners who complained to the
agency said dealers told them their air bags wouldn't work and
that it would cost at least $1,000 for repairs.

A month after the letters were sent, Suzuki announced that it
would cease selling cars in the United States and file Chapter 11
bankruptcy, the report related.  Suzuki will continue selling
motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles and marine engines in the United
States.

                      About American Suzuki

Established in 1986, American Suzuki Motor Corporation is the sole
distributor of Suzuki automobiles and vehicles in the United
States.  American Suzuki wholesales its inventory through a
network of independently owned and unaffiliated dealerships
located throughout the continental United States.  The dealers
then market and sell the Suzuki Products to retail customers.
Suzuki Motor Corp., the Company's 100% interest holder,
manufactures substantially all of Suzuki products.


ARKANSAS BLUE: Consumers File Insurance Antitrust Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sistrunk and Daniel Wilson, writing for Law360, report that
Arkansas Blue Cross Blue Shield was slapped with an antitrust
class action in Arkansas federal court on June 6 by consumers who
accuse the company of conspiring to monopolize the state's health
insurance market and drive up premiums.

The plaintiffs -- four customers of Arkansas Blue Cross -- sued
the company on June 6 for violations of the Sherman Act, saying it
has conspired with the 37 other insurance companies that make up
the nationwide Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.  Through
licensing agreements with the association, the companies have
agreed not to compete, allowing each to achieve dominance in its
market, the complaint says.

"The defendants' illegal conspiracy has perpetuated BCBS-Arkansas'
monopoly in Arkansas, which has resulted in increased premiums for
BCBS-Arkansas enrollees for over a decade," the complaint said.

Blue Cross Blue Shield licensees nationwide have been hit with
similar cases in recent years alleging an overarching conspiracy
to boost health care premiums illegally in markets across the
country by barring competition between licensees.  In March, a
consumer filed a class action against California-based Anthem Blue
Cross, accusing it of perpetuating monopoly power in the state's
health insurance market through noncompetition agreements with its
fellow association members.  The U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation in December grouped nine pending
antitrust class actions against Blue Cross Blue Shield licensees
into a multidistrict litigation in Alabama.

The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association's 38 licensees
collectively insure more than 100 million people across the
country, according to the association's website.

Arkansas Blue Cross, the largest health insurer in the state, uses
its dominant market share to raise premiums and manipulate health
care providers, according to the complaint.  The company exploits
its monopoly power to force providers to contract with it at
below-market prices or else face the loss of its customer base,
the complaint alleges.

With few other health insurance plans available in Arkansas,
Arkansas Blue Cross faces "little pressure to constrain its own
costs," the complaint said.

"BCBS-Arkansas can raise premiums . . . without any concern that
its subscribers may switch to a rival insurance plan," the
complaint said.

The company's license agreement with the Blue Cross and Blue
Shield Association requires it to conduct the majority of its
business under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield marks, largely
preventing it from offering competing plans, and also requires it
not to compete with other association members, which is illegal
under the Sherman Act, according to the complaint.

"The rules and regulations of [the Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Association] . . . constitute horizontal agreements between
competitors, the individual Blue Cross and Blue Shield licensees,
to divide the geographic market for health insurance," the
complaint said.

In the absence of the anti-competitive stipulations in the Blue
Cross and Blue Shield Association's licensing agreements, the
licensees would be free to compete, the complaint says, possibly
resulting in lower health care costs and premiums in their
respective markets.  For example, Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Louisiana could offer services in Arkansas, according to the
complaint.

The plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of Arkansas Blue
Cross Blue Shield consumers who have paid premiums to the company
for either individual or small group insurance plans.

A representative of Arkansas Blue Cross did not immediately
respond to requests for comment on June 6, but Tilden Katz, a
spokesman for the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association,
denounced the allegations made by the plaintiffs in the Arkansas
case and similar lawsuits.

"Blue Cross Blue Shield companies are committed to keeping health
care costs as low as possible for our 100 million members," Katz
said in a statement.  "The system has worked well for decades in
keeping costs down, rewarding medical professionals for providing
quality care, better managing the care of patients with chronic
conditions and encouraging everyone to make healthier choices to
prevent disease."

The plaintiffs are represented by John Doyle Nalley of Lovell
Nalley & Ford.

Counsel information was not immediately available for the
defendants.

The case is Curtis et al. v. USAble Mutual Insurance Co. et al.,
case number 4:13-cv-00343, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division.


BARRICK GOLD: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Barrick
Gold Corporation, filed a class action lawsuit on June 5, 2013 in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of a class comprising all purchasers of Barrick
common stock between May 7, 2009 and May 23, 2013, inclusive.

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

The Complaint charges Barrick and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78j(b) and 78t(a)) and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (17 C.P.R. 240.10b-5).  The Complaint alleges that,
throughout the Class Period, the defendants made false and
misleading statements and concealed material information relating
to the cost and time-to-production projections for the Company's
Pascua-Lama Project, a property under development as an open-pit
gold and silver mine that straddles the mountainous border between
Argentina and Chile.

Barrick, based in Toronto, Ontario, is one of the world's largest
gold mining companies in terms of production, reserves and market
value.  The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
Barrick concealed from shareholders that: (1) the costs of
bringing Pascua-Lama into production far exceeded any of Barrick's
various publicly presented estimates; (2) Pascua-Lama presented no
reasonable expectation of coming into production within any of
Barrick's various publicly presented time horizons; (3) Pascua-
Lama's environmental impact presented significantly greater risks
to the Project and the Company than those disclosed by defendants;
and (4) as a result, defendants had no reasonable basis for their
statements regarding the cost, timing, and production estimates
for the Project, or the reserves and earnings guidance for the
Company.

The true state of the Pascua-Lama Project was revealed in part on
April 10, 2013, when news outlets reported that the Appeals Court
of Copiapo, Chile, had issued an order suspending work on Pascua-
Lama.  In reaction to this news, Barrick's stock price fell $2.23
per share, or 8.3 percent, to close at $24.46 per share on trading
volume of more than 40 million shares.

Then, on May 24, 2013, Chile's Superintendencia del Medio Ambiente
(Superintendency of the Environment) issued a resolution
suspending the Project pending compliance with an environmental
permit, and imposing a fine equivalent to $16 million -- the
maximum penalty possible under Chilean law.  In response to this
development, trading in Barrick stock was halted for approximately
three hours.  After the Company's shares resumed trading,
Barrick's share price closed at $19.16 per share, $0.39 per share,
or 1.9 percent, below the prior day's close.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court, no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice, to
serve as lead plaintiff; however, you must meet certain legal
requirements.  A lead plaintiff is a court-appointed
representative for absent Class members.  You do not need to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in
this action.  If you are a Class member and there is a recovery
for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class
member.  You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in
this action or take no action and remain an absent Class member.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles, California 90067, Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, or contact
Gregory Linkh, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP at 122 E.
42nd Street, Suite 2920, New York, New York 10168, at (212) 682-
5340, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at http://www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number
of shares purchased.


BELLA SHLOMKIN'S: Ordered to Pay NIS90,000 in Smoking Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Siegel-Itzkovich, writing for The Jerusalem Post, reports
that The Bella Shlomkin's club, which two years ago was ordered by
the Central District Court to pay the Israel Cancer Association
NIS90,000 for failing to ensure no smoking on the premises,
received an unpleasant surprise on June 6.

The Supreme Court, sitting as the Court of Civil Appeals, decided
to increase the Tel Aviv club's compensation payment in a class-
action suit to NIS1,160,000, "to be used to fight and prevent lung
cancer."

The unprecedented ruling, according to lawyer Amos Hausner,
chairman of the Israel Society for the Prevention of Smoking, is
likely to be used against all owners of premises that fail to
enforce no-smoking laws, including those related to illegal open-
air smoking.  Mr. Hausner presented the original case against the
club and appealed the relatively small size of the original
compensation.

Indoor workplaces and other public places -- including outdoors
such as bus stations and CityPass's Light Rail stations in
Jerusalem -- will have to become aware of the fact that this
ruling is a precedent and that they be the next one to be liable
for failing to enforce the law, Mr. Hausner said.

Mr. Hausner's case on the behalf of former Soviet immigrants was
recognized by Judge Michal Nadav of the Central District Court as
a class-action suit representing many nonsmoking customers who
suffered from cigarettes during their time at the club.

The massive hike in compensation was based on the calculation of
the number of people exposed to secondhand smoke -- 1,160 --
multiplied by the compensation of NIS 1,000 for each.  The consent
of the parties was obtained after a prolonged hearing by the
Supreme Court (which did not increase the compensation against an
active board member of the club).

The ICA, which was originally supposed to receive only NIS 90,000
plus lawyers' fees, warmly welcomed the Supreme Court ruling by
Justices Miriam Naor, Neal Hendel and Zvi Zylbertal on the basis
of a hearing held on May 20 of this year.  It said it would use
the money for expanding its broad activities against tobacco,
which is the No. 1 preventible cause of death in Israel.

In 2008, Mark and Yelena Litvin and Maxim Tutionik -- former
Russian immigrants who attended Friday-night, Russian-speaking
events at the club located on Noah Mozes Street -- sued the
establishment for not preventing illegal smoking on its premises
despite protests from three customers.

One witness testified that he was ejected from the club by manager
Ron Fire after asking that the incessant smoking of customers be
stopped.


BICKERSTAFFE FARMS: Recalls The Spice Barn Brand Ground Ginger
--------------------------------------------------------------
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:           Bickerstaffe Farms & Nurseries Ltd.
Distribution:             Newfoundland and Labrador
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8093

Affected products:

Brand name       Common name     Size   Code(s) on product
----------       -----------     ----   ------------------
The Spice Barn   Ground Ginger   32 g   Best Before dates
                                         May-21-17 and May-27-17
UPC: 0 850222 080393


CENTURYLINK INC: Awaits OK of Settlements in Rights-of-Way Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, Inc. awaits court approval of settlements in rights-
of-way lawsuits in 12 states, 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.

Several putative class actions relating to the installation of
fiber optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against
Qwest Communications International Inc. on behalf of landowners on
various dates and in courts located in 34 states in which Qwest
has such cable (Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.)  For
the most part, the complaints challenge the Company's right to
install the Company's fiber optic cable in railroad rights-of-way.
The complaints allege that the railroads own the right-of-way as
an easement that did not include the right to permit the Company
to install its cable in the right-of-way without the Plaintiffs'
consent.  Most of the currently pending actions purport to be
brought on behalf of state-wide classes in the named Plaintiffs'
respective states, although one action pending before the Illinois
Court of Appeals purports to be brought on behalf of landowners in
Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio and
Wisconsin.  In general, the complaints seek damages on theories of
trespass and unjust enrichment, as well as punitive damages.
After previous attempts to enter into a single nationwide
settlement in a single court proved unsuccessful, the parties
proceeded to seek court approval of settlements on a state-by-
state basis.

To date, the parties have received final approval of such
settlements in 22 states (Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York,
North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin), have
received preliminary approval of the settlements in eight states
(California, Kentucky, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina and Utah), and have not yet received either preliminary
or final approval in four states (Arizona, Massachusetts, New
Mexico and Texas).

The Company has accrued an amount that it believes is probable for
these matters; however, the amount is not material to the
Company's consolidated financial statements.

Headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana, CenturyLink, Inc. --
http://www.centurylink.com/-- is the third largest
telecommunications company in the United States.  The Company
provides broadband, voice, wireless and managed services to
consumers and businesses across the country.  The Company also
offers advanced entertainment services under the CenturyLink(TM)
Prism(TM) TV and DIRECTV brands.


CENTURYLINK INC: Defends Remaining Claims in "Fulghum" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, Inc., is defending the remaining claims in the class
action lawsuit initiated by William Douglas Fulghum, 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.

In William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al.,
filed on December 28, 2007 in the United States District Court for
the District of Kansas, a group of retirees filed a putative class
action lawsuit challenging the decision to make certain
modifications in retiree benefits programs relating to life
insurance, medical insurance and prescription drug benefits,
generally effective January 1, 2006, and January 1, 2008 (which,
at the time of the modifications, was expected to reduce estimated
future expenses for the subject benefits by more than $300
million).  The Defendants include CenturyLink, Inc.'s subsidiary
Embarq, certain of its benefit plans, its Employee Benefits
Committee and the individual plan administrator of certain of its
benefits plans.  Additional defendants include Sprint Nextel and
certain of its benefit plans.  The Court certified a class on
certain of the plaintiffs' claims, but rejected class
certification as to other claims.  Embarq and other defendants
continue to vigorously contest these claims and charges.

On October 14, 2011, the Fulghum lawyers filed a new, related
lawsuit, Abbott et al. v. Sprint Nextel et al. CenturyLink/Embarq
is not named a defendant in the lawsuit.  In Abbott, approximately
1,500 plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty in connection
with the changes in retiree benefits that also are at issue in the
Fulghum case.  The Abbott plaintiffs are all members of the class
that was certified in Fulghum on claims for allegedly vested
benefits (Counts I and III), and the Abbott claims are similar to
the Fulghum breach of fiduciary duty claim (Count II), on which
the Fulghum court denied class certification.  The Court has
stayed proceedings in Abbott indefinitely.

On February 14, 2013, the Fulghum court dismissed the majority of
the plaintiffs' claims in that case.

Embarq and the other defendants will continue to vigorously
contest any remaining claims in Fulghum and seek to have the
claims in the Abbott case dismissed on similar grounds.  The
Company has not accrued a liability for these matters because the
Company believes it is premature (i) to determine whether an
accrual is warranted and, (ii) if so, to determine a reasonable
estimate of probable liability.

Headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana, CenturyLink, Inc. --
http://www.centurylink.com/-- is the third largest
telecommunications company in the United States.  The Company
provides broadband, voice, wireless and managed services to
consumers and businesses across the country.  The Company also
offers advanced entertainment services under the CenturyLink(TM)
Prism(TM) TV and DIRECTV brands.


CROWDFLOWER INC: Otey Plaintiffs May File Second Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar approved a stipulation entered into by
parties in the lawsuit titled CHRISTOPHER OTEY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
CROWDFLOWER, INC., LUKAS BIEWALD AND CHRIS VAN PELT, Defendants,
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-05524-JST, (N.D. Cal.).

The Court grants the Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint to add Mary Greth as an additional named Plaintiff.
Upon the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, the Defendants
have 30 days thereafter to file a responsive pleading.

Ira Spiro, Esq. -- ira@spiromoore.com -- Jennifer Connor, Esq. --
jennifer@spiromoore.com -- Justin Marquez, Esq. --
justin@spiromoore.com -- at SPIRO MOORE LLP, in Los Angeles
California, Attorneys for Plaintiff CHRISTOPHER OTEY.

Jacqueline E. Kalk, Esq. -- jkalk@littler.com -- at LITTLER
MENDELSON, P.C., in Minneapolis, MN, Attorneys for Defendants,
CROWDFLOWER, INC., LUKAS BIEWALD, AND CHRIS VAN PELT.

William T. Payne, Esq. -- wpayne@fdpklaw.com -- Ellen M. Doyle,
Esq. -- edoylegfd@pklaw.com  -- at FEINSTEIN DOYLE, PAYNE &
KRAVEC, LLC, in Pittsburgh, PA, and Mark A. Potashnick, Esq. --
markpgwp@attorney.com -- at WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK, in St. Louis,
Missouri, Attorney for Plaintiff CHRISTOPHER OTEY.

Arthur M. Eidelhoch, Esq. -- aeidelhoch@littler.com -- Galen M.
Lichtenstein, Esq. -- glichtenstein@littler.com -- at LITTLER
MENDELSON, P.C., in San Francisco, California, and Kelly D. Reese,
Esq. -- kreese@littler.com -- at LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., in
Mobile, AL, Attorneys for Defendants, CROWDFLOWER, INC., LUKAS
BIEWALD, AND CHRIS VAN PELT.

A copy of the District Court's June 17, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/sesbHJfrom Leagle.com.


CVB FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Granted in May
------------------------------------------------------------
CVB Financial Corp.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated securities
class action lawsuit was granted 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 July 26, 2010, the Company received a subpoena from the Los
Angeles office of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
regarding the Company's allowance for credit loss methodology,
loan underwriting guidelines, methodology for grading loans, and
the process for making provisions for loan losses.  In addition,
the subpoena requested information regarding certain presentations
Company officers have given or conferences Company officers have
attended with analysts, brokers, investors or prospective
investors.  The Company has fully cooperated with the SEC in its
investigation, and it will continue to do so to the extent any
further information is requested.  The Company says it cannot
predict the timing or outcome of the SEC investigation.

In the wake of the Company's disclosure of the SEC investigation,
on August 23, 2010, a purported shareholder class action complaint
was filed against the Company in an action captioned Lloyd v. CVB
Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06256-MMM, in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
Along with the Company, Christopher D. Myers (President and Chief
Executive Officer) and Edward J. Biebrich, Jr. (the Company's
former Chief Financial Officer) were also named as defendants.  On
September 14, 2010, a second purported shareholder class action
complaint was filed against the Company, in an action originally
captioned Englund v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-
06815-RGK, in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  The Englund complaint named the same
defendants as the Lloyd complaint and made allegations
substantially similar to those included in the Lloyd complaint.

On January 21, 2011, the Court consolidated the two actions for
all purposes under the Lloyd action now captioned as Case No. CV
10-06256-MMM (PJWx).  That same day, the Court also appointed the
Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund (the "Jacksonville
Fund") as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action and approved
the Jacksonville Fund's selection of lead counsel for the
plaintiffs in the consolidated action.  On March 7, 2011, the
Jacksonville Fund filed a consolidated complaint naming the same
defendants and alleging violations by all defendants of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and violations by the individual defendants
of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose
conditions adversely affecting the Company throughout the
purported class period, which is alleged to be between October 21,
2009, and August 9, 2010.  The consolidated complaint seeks
compensatory damages and other relief in favor of the purported
class.

Following the filing by each side of various motions and memoranda
and a hearing on August 29, 2011, the District Court issued a
ruling on January 12, 2012, granting the defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint, but the ruling provided the
plaintiffs with leave to file an amended complaint within 45 days
of the date of the order.  On February 27, 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a first amended complaint against the same defendants, and
once again, following filings by both sides and another hearing on
June 4, 2012, the District Court issued a ruling on August 21,
2012, granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint, but providing the plaintiffs with leave to file another
amended complaint within 30 days of the ruling.  On September 20,
2012, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against the
same defendants, and the Company filed its third motion to dismiss
on October 25, 2012.

The District Court held a hearing on the Company's third motion to
dismiss on February 25, 2013, and subsequent to the end of the
first quarter of 2013, on May 9, 2013, the District Court issued
an order again dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint, but providing
the plaintiffs with leave to file a third amended complaint within
30 days.  The Company intends to continue to vigorously contest
the plaintiff's allegations in this case.

On February 28, 2011, a purported and related shareholder
derivative complaint was filed in an action captioned Sanderson v.
Borba, et al., Case No. CIVRS1102119, in California State Superior
Court in San Bernardino County.  The complaint names as defendants
the members of the Company's board of directors and also refers to
unnamed defendants allegedly responsible for the conduct alleged.
The Company is included as a nominal defendant.  The complaint
alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross
mismanagement and corporate waste. Specifically, the complaint
alleges, among other things, that defendants engaged in accounting
manipulations in order to falsely portray the Company's financial
results in connection with its commercial real estate portfolio.
The Plaintiff seeks compensatory and exemplary damages to be paid
by the defendants and awarded to the Company, as well as other
relief.  On June 20, 2011, the defendants filed a demurrer
requesting dismissal of the derivative complaint.  Following the
filing by each side of additional motions, the parties have
subsequently filed repeated notices to postpone the Court's
hearing on the defendants' demurrer, pending resolution of the
federal securities shareholder class action complaint, and these
postponements are currently extended to at least September 11,
2013.

Because the outcome of these proceedings is uncertain, the Company
says it cannot predict any range of loss or even if any loss is
probable related to the actions.

CVB Financial Corp. -- http://www.cbbank.com/-- is a bank holding
company incorporated in California in 1981 with headquarters
located in Ontario, California.  Citizens Business Bank is the
Company's principal asset.


DENDREON CORPORATION: Aug. Hearing Set in Securities Suit Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
An August 2, 2013 hearing is set to consider final approval of a
settlement reached in In re Dendreon Corporation Class Action
Litigation, Master Docket No. C 11-1291 JLR, according to the
company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

The Company and three current and former officers are named
defendants in a consolidated putative securities class action
proceeding filed in August 2011 with the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington (the "District
Court") under the caption In re Dendreon Corporation Class Action
Litigation, Master Docket No. C 11-1291 JLR.

Lead Plaintiff, San Mateo County Employees Retirement Association
purports to state claims for violations of federal securities laws
on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company's common
stock between April 29, 2010 and August 3, 2011. A consolidated
amended complaint was filed on February 24, 2012. In general, the
complaints allege that the defendants issued materially false or
misleading statements concerning the Company, its finances,
business operations and prospects with a focus on the market
launch of PROVENGE and related forecasts concerning physician
adoption, and revenue from sales of PROVENGE as reflected in the
Company's August 3, 2011 release of its financial results for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.

The Company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on April 27, 2012, and that motion
is fully briefed. With the motion pending, the parties elected to
try mediating the dispute. In March 2013, the Company announced an
agreement in principle to settle the securities litigation for a
payment to the plaintiff class of $40 million, $38 million of
which will be funded by the Company's directors' and officers'
liability insurance carriers.

On April 24, 2013, the parties entered into, and filed with the
District Court, a formal Stipulation of Settlement (the
"Stipulation") setting forth the terms of the settlement. As part
of the Stipulation, Defendants, including the Company, reiterated
their denial of Lead Plaintiff's claims and of any wrongdoing. On
April 26, 2013, the District Court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement and scheduled a hearing on August 2, 2013 to
consider final approval. The settlement is subject to the District
Court granting final approval to the settlement, as well as
certain other conditions.

The company cannot predict whether the settlement will receive the
necessary approval and otherwise become effective in accordance
with terms of the Stipulation. If the settlement becomes
effective, it will terminate the securities litigation with
prejudice. If the settlement does not become effective, the
parties will be returned to the positions they were in before
reaching the agreement in principle; should that occur, the
Company would expect the District Court to schedule argument on
the motion to dismiss. In the event the litigation proceeds, the
Company cannot predict the outcome of the motion to dismiss or of
the litigation generally; however, the Company believes the claims
lack merit and would intend to defend the claims vigorously.


DIODES INC: Defends Class Suit in Texas Filed by Local 731 I.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diodes Incorporated is defending a class action lawsuit brought by
Local 731 I.B. of T. Excavators and Pavers Pension Trust Fund,
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 currently a party to a putative securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, entitled Local 731 I.B. of T. Excavators and
Pavers Pension Trust Fund v. Diodes, Inc., Civil Action No. 6:13-
cv-247 (E.D. Tex. filed March 15, 2013), against the Company, Dr.
Lu and Richard White, in which plaintiff, purportedly on behalf of
a class of investors who purchased the Company's Common Stock
between February 9, 2011, and June 9, 2011, alleges that
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with allegedly public
statements made during the class period regarding the labor market
in China and its impact on the Company's business and prospects.
Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
("Reform Act"), motions for appointment of lead plaintiff were due
on May 14, 2013.

Pursuant to the Court's order dated April 26, 2013, (1) in the
event the putative class member ultimately appointed as lead
plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, lead plaintiff
shall do so no later than forty-five (45) days after entry of an
order appointing the lead plaintiff; (2) no later than fifteen
(15) days after entry of an order appointing the lead plaintiff,
lead plaintiff must file a notice with the Court indicating
whether it will file an amended complaint; (3) defendants shall
file an answer or motion directed to the operative complaint in
this action no later than forty-five (45) days after service of an
amended complaint or notice of lead plaintiff's decision not to
file an amended complaint, as applicable; and (4) in the event
defendants file a motion or motions directed to the operative
complaint in this action, (i) lead plaintiff shall file his, her
or its opposition, if any, within forty-five (45) days after
service of such motion(s) and (ii) defendants shall file their
reply, if any, within thirty (30) days after service of lead
plaintiff's opposition.  Pursuant to the Reform Act, all discovery
and other proceedings are stayed pending a ruling on any motion to
dismiss.

Diodes Incorporated -- http://www.diodes.com/-- is a global
manufacturer and supplier of high-quality, application specific
standard products within the broad discrete, logic and analog
semiconductor markets, serving the consumer electronics,
computing, communications, industrial and automotive markets
throughout Asia, North America and Europe.  Diodes was
incorporated in Delaware is headquartered in Plano, Texas.


DREW EDMONSON: Dismissal of RLUIPA Violation Suit Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Paul J. Kelly, Jr., of the United States Court of
Appeals, Tenth Circuit, affirmed the dismissal of the complaint
filed by Michael D. Lowery, along with two other inmates, alleging
that Drew Edmondson, former Attorney General for the State of
Oklahoma, and Justin Jones, Debbie Morton, and Leo Brown, three
Oklahoma Department of Corrections officials, violated their
rights to free exercise of religion and equal protection under the
First and Fourteenth Amendments and Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act.

The case is MICHAEL D. LOWERY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DREW
EDMONDSON; JUSTIN JONES; DEBBIE L. MORTON; LEO BROWN, Defendants-
Appellees, NO. 12-7076.

A copy of the Circuit Court's June 17, 2013 Order and Judgment is
available at http://is.gd/n0wcwu from Leagle.com.


DUKE ENERGY: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in Nev. Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the
decision of the federal court in Nevada to grant defendant's
motion for summary judgment in a suit alleging Duke Energy
Corporation manipulated natural gas markets, according to the
company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

A total of five lawsuits were filed against Duke Energy affiliates
and other energy companies and remain pending in a consolidated,
single federal court proceeding in Nevada.

Each of these cases contains similar claims, that the respective
plaintiffs, and the classes they claim to represent, were harmed
by the defendants' alleged manipulation of the natural gas markets
by various means, including providing false information to natural
gas trade publications and entering into unlawful arrangements and
agreements in violation of the antitrust laws of the respective
states. Plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts.

In November 2009, the judge granted defendants' motion for
reconsideration of the denial of defendants' summary judgment
motion in two of the remaining five cases to which Duke Energy
affiliates are a party. A hearing on that motion occurred on July
15, 2011, and on July 19, 2011, the judge granted the motion for
summary judgment. The Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals), which held argument on October 19, 2012.

On April 10, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the
lower Court's decision, and returned the case to the same Court
for further proceedings.


ELITE INT'L: Recalls Budweiser Sauce Over Gluten/Mustard Presence
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 19, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Gluten, Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Elite International Foods Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8076

Affected products:

  Brand name   Common name      Size     Code(s) on product
  ----------   -----------      ----     ------------------
  Budweiser    Sweet Barbecue   380 ml   All codes where neither
               Sauce                     mustard nor the source
                                         of gluten is declared
  UPC: 0 72736 04118 3                   in the "contains"
                                         statement.

  Budweiser    Steak Sauce      380 ml   All codes where mustard
                                         is not declared in the
  UPC: 0 72736 04119 0                   ingredient list.

  Budweiser    Honey Barbecue   380 ml   All codes where neither
               Sauce                     mustard nor the source
                                         of gluten is declared in
  UPC: 0 72736 04104 6                   the "contains"
                                         statement.

  Budweiser    Mild Wing Sauce  380 ml   All codes where the
                                         source of gluten is not
  UPC: 0 72736 04105 3                   declared in the
                                         "contains" statement.

  Budweiser    Hot Wing Sauce   380 ml   All codes where the
                                         source of gluten is not
  UPC: 0 72736 04106 0                   declared in the
                                         "contains" statement.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Court Issues Briefing Schedule in "Engquist" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., ruled that the
motion for class certification in ENGQUIST v. EXPRESS SCRIPTS,
INC., must be filed no later than December 20, 2013, which will be
noticed for hearing on the earliest available regularly scheduled
law and motion hearing date.

The Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference that was set for
June 24, 2013, has been continued to March 3, 2014, at 9:00 a.m.

A joint status report must be filed no later than 14 days prior to
the status conference.

The case is EDWARD ENGQUIST, individually, and on behalf of all
other members of the general public similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., a Delaware corporation;
EXPRESS SCRIPTS SERVICES COMPANY, a Delaware corporation,
Defendants, NO. 2:13-CV-00601-GEB-AC, (E.D. Cal.).

Edward V. Engquist is represented by Joshua David Carlon, Esq. --
joshua.carlon@capstonelawyers.com -- at Capstone Law APC &
Katherine Carol Denbleyker, Esq. --
Katherine.DenBleyker@CapstoneLawyers.com -- at Capstone Law APC.

Express Scripts, Inc., and Express Scripts Services Company
are represented by Christopher Smith, Esq. --
chris.smith@huschblackwell.com -- Erica Doerhoff, Esq. --
erica.doerhoff@huschblackwell.com -- Matthew D. Knepper, Esq. --
matt.knepper@huschblackwell.com -- at Husch Blackwell, LLP &
Richard Pachter, Esq. -- richard@pachterlaw.com -- at the Law
Offices Of Richard Pachter.

A copy of the District Court's June 17, 2013 ruling is available
at http://is.gd/3Bpr6Efrom Leagle.com.


FIRST M&F: Defends "Zeng" Merger-Related Suit in Mississippi
------------------------------------------------------------
First M&F Corporation is defending a merger-related class action
lawsuit styled Zeng vs. Hugh S. Potts, Jr. 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 February 6, 2013, First M&F Corporation (First M&F) and
Renasant Corporation (Renasant) entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger providing for the merger of First M&F with and into
Renasant, with Renasant the surviving corporation in the merger,
and the merger of Merchants and Farmers Bank with and into
Renasant Bank, with Renasant Bank as the surviving banking
corporation.  If the merger is completed, holders of First M&F's
common stock will receive 0.6425 of a share of Renasant common
stock in exchange for each share of First M&F common stock held
immediately prior to the merger, subject to the payment of cash in
lieu of fractional shares.  First M&F will hold a special
shareholder meeting in which holders of First M&F common stock
will be asked to vote to adopt and approve the merger agreement.
Consummation of the merger is contingent upon regulatory and both
First M&F and Renasant shareholder approval and other closing
conditions.

On March 5, 2013, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit,
Zeng vs. Hugh S. Potts, Jr. et al., was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi against
the Company, the members of its board of directors, M&F Bank,
Renasant Corporation and Renasant Bank.  This lawsuit is
purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of holders of
the Company's common stock and seeks a declaration that it is
properly maintainable as a class action.  The lawsuit alleges that
the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties and/or
violated Mississippi law in connection with the merger with
Renasant Corporation and Renasant Bank and that the Company, M&F
Bank, Renasant Corporation and Renasant Bank aided and abetted
those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by, among other things,
agreeing to consideration that undervalues the Company, agreeing
to deal protection devices that preclude a fair sales process, and
making inadequate disclosures to shareholders regarding the
merger.  Among other relief, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the
merger of the Company and M&F Bank with and into Renasant
Corporation and Renasant Bank.

Headquartered in Kosciusko, Mississippi, First M&F Corporation
operates as the holding company for Merchants and Farmers Bank
that provides community banking services to individuals, small
businesses, and various community groups.  The Company's deposit
products include checking accounts, savings accounts, certificates
of deposit, individual retirement accounts, time deposits, NOW and
money market deposits, and noninterest-bearing deposits.


FIRST MERCHANTS: Discovery in Suit Over Overdraft Fees Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the class action lawsuit against First
Merchants Corporation related to assessment of overdraft fees,
according to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On April 16, 2013, First Merchants was named in a class action
lawsuit in Delaware County Circuit Court challenging First
Merchant's checking account practices associated with the
assessment of overdraft fees.  The plaintiff seeks damages and
other relief, including restitution and injunctive relief.  First
Merchants believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims
brought by the plaintiff.  At this phase of the litigation, it is
not possible for management of First Merchants to determine the
probability of a material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate
the amount of any loss.  No class has yet been certified and
discovery is still ongoing.

First Merchants Corporation is a financial holding company
headquartered in Muncie, Indiana, and was organized in September
1982.  The Corporation has one full-service bank charter, First
Merchants Bank, National Association.  The Bank also operates
Lafayette Bank and Trust, Commerce National Bank and First
Merchants Trust Company.


FIRST MIDWEST: Appeal From Overdraft Fee Suit Dismissal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of their class action
lawsuit against a subsidiary of First Midwest Bancorp, Inc.,
remains pending, according to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In August of 2011, the Company's principal subsidiary, First
Midwest Bank, was named in a purported class action lawsuit filed
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, on behalf of
certain of the Bank's customers who incurred overdraft fees.  The
lawsuit is based on the Bank's practices relating to debit card
transactions, and alleges that these practices resulted in
customers being assessed excessive overdraft fees.  The plaintiffs
seek an unspecified amount of damages and other relief, including
restitution, and no class has been certified.  The Bank filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint and, on January 23, 2013, the
Circuit Court granted the Bank's motion and dismissed the
complaint with prejudice.  On February 20, 2013, the plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal with the Illinois Appellate Court.

The Company continues to believe that the Bank has meritorious
defenses to the claims made by the plaintiffs.

First Midwest Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.firstmidwest.com/-- is
a bank holding company headquartered in Itasca, Illinois, with
operations throughout the greater Chicago metropolitan area as
well as northwest Indiana, central and western Illinois, and
eastern Iowa.  The Company's principal subsidiary is First Midwest
Bank, which provides a broad range of commercial and retail
banking and wealth management services to consumer, corporate, and
public or governmental customers.


FOLEY'S CANDIES: Recalls Dark Choco NN Wafers Over Milk Presence
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 19, 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:           Foley's Candies Ltd.
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Warehouse
CFIA reference number:    8061

Affected products:

   Brand name    Common name       Size     Code(s) on product
   ----          -----------       ----     ------------------
   Foley's       Dark Chocolate    10 kg    Item# 3044-10K
                 NN Wafers                  Lot: 13041002

   UPC: (01)00061823030445(10)13041002


HECLA MINING: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hecla Mining Company is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a consolidated 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 February 1, 2012, a purported Hecla stockholder filed a
putative class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho against Hecla and certain of its officers, one
of whom is also a director.  The complaint, purportedly brought on
behalf of all purchasers of Hecla common stock from October 26,
2010, through and including January 11, 2012, asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks, among other
things, damages and costs and expenses.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges that Hecla, under the authority and control of
the individual defendants, made certain false and misleading
statements and allegedly omitted certain material information
related to operational issues at the Lucky Friday mine.  The
complaint alleges that these actions artificially inflated the
market price of Hecla common stock during the class period, thus
purportedly harming investors who purchased shares during that
time.  A second lawsuit was filed on February 14, 2012, alleging
virtually identical claims.  These complaints have been
consolidated into a single case, a lead plaintiff and lead counsel
has been appointed by the Court (Bricklayers of Western
Pennsylvania Pension Plan, et al. v. Hecla Mining Company et al.,
Case No. 12-0042 (D. Idaho)), and a consolidated amended complaint
was filed on October 16, 2012.  In January 2013, the Company filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint.

The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit or
estimate damages if plaintiffs were to prevail.  The Company
believes that these claims are without merit and intends to defend
them vigorously.

Hecla Mining Company -- http://www.hecla-mining.com/-- and its
subsidiaries have provided precious and base metals to the U.S.
economy and worldwide since 1891.  The Company discovers,
acquires, develops, produces and markets silver, gold, lead and
zinc.  Hecla Mining is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.


INTERSECTIONS INSURANCE: Suit Over Death & Disability Plan Junked
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a suit filed against Intersections Insurance
Services Inc. over a sale of an accidental death and disability
program filed a notice of appeal before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit against the dismissal of the case,
according to Intersections Inc.'s May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

On May 21, 2012, Intersections Insurance Services Inc. was served
with a putative class action complaint (filed on May 14, 2012)
against Intersections Insurance Services Inc. and Bank of America
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The complaint alleges various claims based on the sale of an
accidental death and disability program. Intersections Insurance
Services Inc. and Bank of America moved to dismiss the claims and
to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.

The motion to transfer to the Central District was granted, and
Intersections Insurance Services Inc. and Bank of America then
moved to dismiss the claims. The motion to dismiss was granted
with prejudice on October 1, 2012. The plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal, which appeal is pending before the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


JAN-PRO: Mass. Court Addresses Questions in "Depianti" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Giovani Depianti, a janitorial cleaning services franchisee, along
with franchisees from other States, filed a putative class action
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc.,
alleging that Jan-Pro misclassified him as an independent
contractor and committed various wage law violations.  A judge of
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
certified these questions to the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts, Suffolk:

"[1.] Whether a plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative
remedies pursuant to [G.L. c. 149, Section 150,] by filing a
complaint with the Attorney General deprives a court of
jurisdiction to consider the plaintiff's claims under [G.L. c.
149, Sections 148, 148B, and 150,] and under [G.L. c. 151,
Sections 1 and 1A].

"[2.] Whether and how to apply the 'right to control test' for
vicarious liability to the franchisor-franchisee relationship. . .

"[3.] Whether a defendant may be liable for employee
misclassification under [G.L. c. 149, Section 148B,] where there
was no contract for service between the plaintiff and defendant."

The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts answer the first
question, "No"; the second question, "Yes," with further
discussion concerning the application of the "right to control
test" to the franchisor-franchisee relationship; and the third
question, "Yes."

Justice Robert J. Cordy dissented in part saying he concurs with
the court's answers and analysis with respect to the first two
certified questions but disagrees on the third certified question.

The case is Giovani DEPIANTI & others vs. JAN-PRO FRANCHISING
INTERNATIONAL, INC., NO. SJC-11282.

Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. and Stephen S. Churchill, Esq.
represented the plaintiffs.

Jeffrey M. Rosin, Esq. and Christopher M. Pardo, Esq. represented
the defendant.

Benjamin B. Reed, Esq. & James C. Rubinger, Esq. of Virginia,
represented the International Franchise Association.

Catherine Ruckelshaus, Esq., of New York, Eunice Hyunhye Cho,
Esq., of California, & Audrey Richardson, Esq. represented the
Brazilian Immigrant Center & others.

A copy of the Supreme Judicial Court's June 17, 2013 Decision is
available at http://is.gd/H9zxKY from Leagle.com.


JAYCO: Recalls WHITE HAWK TRAVEL TRAILERS Over Electrical Concern
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 4, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Travel Trailer
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Accessories
Units affected:           6
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013192
TC ID number:             2013192

On certain travel trailers, the voltage converter may not have
been properly grounded to the trailer frame.  This could cause a
buildup of heat and melting of wiring insulation, possibly
resulting in a fire causing injury and/or property damage.
Correction: Dealers will add a ground wire.

Affected products:

               Makes and models affected
   -------------------------------------------------
                                          Model year
   Make      Model                        affected
   ----      -----                        --------
   JAYCO     WHITE HAWK TRAVEL TRAILER      2014


JP MORGAN: Ct. Amends Order Approving "Villegas" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Saundra B. Armstrong entered an amended order and
judgment granting a motion for final approval of class action
settlement and a motion for approval of attorneys' fees and costs,
and class representative enhancement in NICOLE VILLEGAS, as an
individual and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., a Delaware corporation; J.P. MORGAN
CHASE BANK, N.A., a national association; CHASE BANK USA, N.A., a
national association; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, CASE NO. CV 09-00261 SBA, (N.D. Cal.).

Among other things, the Amended Order provides that the Settlement
Agreement is APPROVED as fair, reasonable, adequate, and payment
of these amounts is approved:

* Class Representative Enhancement Award to Nicole Villegas in the
  amount of $5,000.00.

* Attorneys' Fees in the amount of $2,306,250.00 and Costs in the
  amount of $60,000.00 to Class Counsel.

* Fees to the Claims Administrator, CPT Group, Inc. for
  administration of the Settlement in the amount of $110,000.

* $50,000.00 to the California Labor Workforce & Development
  Agency for settlement of the Private Attorney General Act
  Penalties.

PETER M. HART, Esq. -- hartpeter@msn.com -- AMBER S. HEALY, Esq.,
KATHERINE M. COPELAND, Esq., at the LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART,
in Los Angeles, California and ERIC HONIG, Esq., at the LAW OFFICE
OF ERIC HONIG, in Marina del Rey, California are the Attorneys for
Plaintiff Nicole Villegas.

LARRY W. LEE, Esq. -- lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- at the DIVERSITY
LAW GROUP, A Professional Corporation, in Los Angeles, CA, Kenneth
H. Yoon, Esq. at the LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH H. YOON, in Los
Angeles, California are additional counsel for the Plaintiff.

A copy of the District Court's June 17, 2013 Amended Order and
Judgment is available at http://is.gd/DMijAbfrom Leagle.com.


MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls 10 SLK CLASS Cars Due to Airbag Issue
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 3, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Airbag
Units affected:           10
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013190
TC ID number:             2013190

On certain vehicles, the passenger seat Occupant Classification
System may malfunction and could misinterpret a child seat as a
small stature person, thereby not deactivating the passenger
frontal airbag and not illuminating the "PASSENGER AIRBAG OFF"
warning light.  This could result in an unwarranted airbag
deployment in a crash, increasing the risk of personal injury to a
child located in the passenger seating position.  Note: Within 50
meters of driving distance, the occupant classification system
would automatically reevaluate the occupant classification and
correct the issue.  Correction: Dealers will verify the proper
operation of the Occupant Classification System, and affect
repairs if necessary.

Affected products:

          Makes and models affected
   ----------------------------------------
                                 Model year
   Make             Model        affected
   ----             -----        --------
   MERCEDES-BENZ    SLK CLASS      2012


MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls 6 SLK CLASS Cars Due to Airbag Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 4, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Airbag
Units affected:           6
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013191
TC ID number:             2013191

On certain vehicles, the passenger seat Occupant Classification
System may malfunction and could misinterpret a small stature
person as a child seat, thereby deactivating the passenger frontal
airbag and illuminating the "PASSENGER AIRBAG OFF" warning light.
This could result in the airbag not deploying when warranted in a
crash, increasing the risk of personal injury.  Note: Within 50
meters of driving distance, the occupant classification system
would automatically re-evaluate the occupant classification and
correct the issue.  Correction: Dealers will verify the proper
operation of the Occupant Classification System, and affect
repairs if necessary.

Affected products:

          Makes and models affected
   ----------------------------------------
                                 Model year
   Make             Model        affected
   ----             -----        --------
   MERCEDES-BENZ    SLK CLASS      2012


MERRILL LYNCH: 2nd Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Antitrust Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in March
2013 the dismissal of antitrust class action lawsuits involving
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., according to the Company's May 10,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On September 4, 2008, two putative antitrust class actions were
filed against ML & Co., Bank of America and other financial
institutions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.  The Plaintiffs in both actions assert federal
antitrust claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act based on
allegations that defendants conspired to restrain trade in auction
rate securities ("ARS") by placing support bids in ARS auctions,
only to collectively withdraw those bids in February 2008, which
allegedly caused ARS auctions to fail.  In the first action, Mayor
and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland v. Citigroup, Inc., et
al., plaintiff seeks to represent a class of issuers of ARS that
defendants underwrote between May 12, 2003, and February 13, 2008.
This issuer action seeks to recover, among other relief, the
alleged above-market interest payments that ARS issuers allegedly
have had to make after defendants allegedly stopped placing
"support bids" in ARS auctions.  In the second action, Mayfield,
et al. v. Citigroup, Inc., et al., plaintiff seeks to represent a
class of investors that purchased ARS from defendants and held
those securities when ARS auctions failed on February 13, 2008.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover, among other relief, unspecified
damages for losses in the ARS' market value, and rescission of the
investors' ARS purchases.  Both actions also seek treble damages
and attorneys' fees under the Sherman Act's private civil remedy.
On January 25, 2010, the court dismissed both actions with
prejudice and the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.

On March 5, 2013, the Second Circuit affirmed the January 25, 2010
dismissal of the antitrust actions.

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. -- http://www.ml.com/-- is a holding
company that, through its subsidiaries, is one of the world's
leading capital markets, advisory and wealth management companies.
Merrill Lynch is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina, and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Bank of America Corporation.


MERRILL LYNCH: Consolidated Securities Suit Settlement Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., received in April 2013 final approval
of its settlement of a consolidated 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.

Beginning in January 2009, Bank of America, ML & Co. and/or
certain of their current and former officers and directors, among
others, were named as defendants in a variety of securities
actions filed in federal courts in connection with securities
filings by Bank of America and Merrill Lynch.  The securities
filings contained information with respect to events that took
place from September 2008 through January 2009 contemporaneous
with Bank of America's acquisition of Merrill Lynch (the
"Acquisition").  Certain federal court actions were consolidated
and/or coordinated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under the caption In re Bank of America
Securities, Derivative and Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) Litigation (the "Consolidated Action").

The claims in these actions generally concern alleged material
misrepresentations and/or omissions with respect to: (i) the
Acquisition; (ii) the financial condition of and 2008 fourth-
quarter losses experienced by Bank of America and Merrill Lynch;
(iii) due diligence conducted in connection with the Acquisition;
(iv) the terms of the Acquisition agreements regarding Merrill
Lynch's ability to pay bonuses to Merrill Lynch employees of up to
$5.8 billion for the year 2008; (v) Bank of America's discussions
with government officials in December 2008, regarding Bank of
America's consideration of invoking the material adverse change
clause in the Acquisition agreement; (vi) Bank of America's
discussions with government officials in December 2008 regarding
the possibility of obtaining government assistance in completing
the Acquisition; and/or (vii) the proxy statement and related
materials for the Acquisition.

The Plaintiffs ("Securities Plaintiffs") in the securities class
action in the Consolidated Action (the "Consolidated Securities
Class Action"), a consolidated class action pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserted
claims under Sections 14(a), 10(b), and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act") and asserted damages based on the drop in the stock price
upon subsequent disclosures.  In February 2012, the court granted
a motion for class certification.  On November 30, 2012, the
parties entered into a settlement agreement.  The agreement, which
is subject to court approval, provides for a payment by Bank of
America of $2.425 billion, and the institution and/or continuation
of certain Bank of America corporate governance enhancements until
the later of January 1, 2015, or eighteen months following the
court's final approval of the settlement.  In exchange, Securities
Plaintiffs released their claims against all defendants and
certain other persons or entities affiliated with defendants.  On
December 4, 2012, the court issued an order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement and scheduling a final hearing for
April 5, 2013.

On April 5, 2013, the court granted final approval to the
settlement of the Consolidated Securities Class Action.

Certain shareholders have opted to pursue Acquisition-related
claims under the Exchange Act and/or Securities Act apart from the
consolidated class action, and these individual actions have been
coordinated for pre-trial purposes in the Consolidated Securities
Class Action.  These individual plaintiffs assert substantially
the same facts and claims as the class action plaintiffs.

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. -- http://www.ml.com/-- is a holding
company that, through its subsidiaries, is one of the world's
leading capital markets, advisory and wealth management companies.
Merrill Lynch is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina, and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Bank of America Corporation.


MONSANTO CO: Faces Class Action Over Genetically Modified Wheat
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Learn, writing for The Oregonian, reports that several
Washington wheat growers and the Center for Food Safety filed a
class-action lawsuit on June 6 against Monsanto after unapproved
genetically modified wheat was found in an eastern Oregon field.

The lawsuit claimed the discovery damaged the sale of exports.
Japan suspended some imports and South Korea said it would
increase its inspections of U.S. wheat following the announcement
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

"We farmers cannot stand idly by while companies like Monsanto
destroy our export markets and our economy," said Tom Stahl, a
fourth-generation Washington wheat farmer Tom Stahl said in the
news release.  Mr. Stahl, part of the suit, is from Waterville and
an opponent of genetically modified food.

The genetically modified wheat matched one designed by seed giant
Monsanto to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup, which was
tested through 2005 in Oregon and other states.  No genetically
modified wheat has been approved for U.S. farming.

On June 5, Monsanto called the wheat an isolated occurrence and
blamed it on an accident or deliberate mixing of seeds.  The St.
Louis-based company added on June 6 that the lawsuits were
premature given that the strain was limited to one field in Oregon
and that none of the wheat had entered commerce.  Kyle McClain,
Monsanto chief litigation counsel, said the company's process for
closing out its wheat development program was government directed,
rigorous and well documented.

"Given the care undertaken, no legal liability exists and the
company will present a vigorous defense," he said in a statement.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Spokane and also
named Joe Ludeman of Waterville, Dreger Enterprises of Creston,
Wahl Ranch of Lind, and The Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit
that also opposes genetic modified food.


MONSANTO CO: Tousley Brain, Hausfeld File Wheat Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC and Hausfeld LLP on June 6 disclosed
that they filed a class action against Monsanto Company on behalf
of soft white wheat farmers.

Two Eastern Washington State farms that grow soft white wheat have
filed a class action lawsuit on June 6 in Spokane federal court
against Monsanto.  The lawsuit, the first class action against
Monsanto over its release of unauthorized genetically engineered
wheat, was filed on behalf of all domestic soft white wheat
farmers.  More than 46% of U.S. soft white wheat comes from
Washington state.

Monsanto field tested genetically-engineered wheat resistant to
the herbicide Roundup in 16 states from 1998 and 2005.  This wheat
has never been approved for planting in the United States.
Although Monsanto indicated that it halted its trials nine years
ago, its genetically-engineered wheat was discovered on an Eastern
Oregon farm last month.  The lawsuit contends that the discovery
of Monsanto's unapproved wheat has detrimentally affected the
ability of soft white wheat farmers to sell their wheat into
export channels as many countries, such as Japan and South Korea,
are cancelling orders and refusing to accept imports of domestic
soft white wheat.  These import restrictions could prove
financially devastating to soft white wheat farmers in the Pacific
Northwest.  Nearly 90 percent of the Pacific Northwest's soft
white wheat crop is exported to Asian nations, where it is used to
make noodles and crackers.

The Complaint alleges that Monsanto and its field trial operators
knew that conventional wheat could become contaminated with
Monsanto's genetically-engineered wheat through commingling and
other means during the harvest, storage, transport, and disposal
process, yet failed to take the necessary steps to prevent this
from occurring.  The lawsuit further contends that Monsanto knew
that the existence of genetically-engineered wheat commingled
within the general wheat supply would cause significant
disruptions in the wheat export market and financially damage
wheat farmers.

Mark Deife, a partner with Tousley Brain Stephens, noted,
"Monsanto's genetically engineered seed discovered in Oregon may
have been sold through normal commercial channels.  My family has
been growing soft white wheat in Eastern Washington for over a
century and if Monsanto's unauthorized wheat has entered the
stream of commerce, it could be devastating for all soft white
wheat exports."

James Pizzirusso, a partner with Hausfeld LLP, stated, "Monsanto
is playing with the economic livelihood of all wheat farmers.
Their assurances of the contamination in Oregon as being an
'isolated occurrence' ring hollow."

The Seattle-based Tousley Brain Stephens offers an active national
class action litigation practice as well as a regional business
and real estate practice.  Hausfeld LLP has an active
environmental tort litigation practice and its attorneys
previously served as co-lead counsel representing corn farmers in
a national class action against the manufacturer of genetically-
modified StarLink corn, which resulted in $110 million settlement.

A copy of the Complaint is available at http://www.hausfeldllp.com

Tousley Brain Stephens and Hausfeld urge soft white wheat farmers
to contact the firms to learn more about their legal rights.  For
additional inquiries -- Monsantowheat@Tousley.com


MUSKOKA MUNICIPALITY: Faces Class Action Over April Flooding
------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Ingram, writing for Minden Times, reports that a Muskoka
attorney is launching a class action lawsuit against the
provincial government in the wake of flooding in that municipality
in April.

Bracebridge-based attorney Michael Anne MacDonald has given notice
to the government and is taking aim at the Ministry of Natural
Resources for flooding that occurred in the areas of Huntsville,
Muskoka Lake and its watershed and other areas April 18, 19 and
20.

"My position is the Ministry of Natural Resources has, in its
mandate, taken control of the waterways and watersheds and having
taken control of the waters and damming them up, they're
responsible if they open those dams negligently and cause damage
to people's property," Ms. MacDonald told the Times, calling the
damage massive.  "I don't think anybody has an estimate yet, but
its clearly in the millions and perhaps up to a billion dollars."

It's yet unclear how many people the suit will represent.

"A number of people approached me to see if I would make an
action," Ms. MacDonald said.  "I was very concerned about the
responsibility of the government for damage."

Ms. MacDonald, who described herself as a local girl who's lived
on the water most of her life, said that area lakes such as Lake
Rosseau that are not on the system didn't flood, while Lake
Muskoka rose by seven to eight feet.

She was asked whether she thought the suit would be successful.

"I never predict success or lack of success, but I wouldn't
commence something this onerous without a very strong belief in
the rightness of the cause," she said.


NANAIMO SAUSAGE: Recalls Polish Salami Sausage Over Health Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 14, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Staphylococcus aureus
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Nanaimo Sausage House
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8056

Affected products:

   Brand
   name    Common name      Size           Code    UPC
   ----    -----------      ----           ----    ---
   None    Polish Salami    Variable kg    None    None
           Sausage


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Balk at Delaney Statement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA TODAY Sports, reports that
lawyers for the plaintiffs in an antitrust lawsuit pertaining to
the use of college athletes' names, likeness and images said in a
filing on June 6 that Big Ten Conference Commissioner Jim Delany
"did not draft a single word" of a statement in which he suggested
that the schools in his conference would depart the NCAA's
Division I and downsize their athletics programs if the
association's current amateurism rules were lifted, as proposed in
the lawsuit.

In the filing with a federal court in California, the plaintiffs'
lawyers said counsel for the Big Ten played a "major role" in
drafting Mr. Delany's statement and counsel for the NCAA played
such a role in the drafting of similar statements by other
conference and university executives.  Consequently, the
plaintiffs lawyers argued, it "obviously bears on the weight that
this Court should accord" the statements.

On June 7, the Big Ten's attorney, Andrew Rosenman, took issue
with the plaintiffs' portrayal of the manner in which Mr. Delany's
statement was crafted and whether that should have any bearing on
the statement's validity with the court.

"It is completely irrelevant and meaningless that Mr. Delany did
not draft the declaration himself," Mr. Rosenman said via e-mail"
. . . Mr. Delany carefully read and reviewed the declaration
before he signed it."

The declaration "was explicitly signed, in accordance with federal
court procedural rules, 'under penalty of perjury'," Mr. Rosenman
said.  "Mr. Delany would not have signed the declaration if he
determined that any portions of the document were inaccurate."

Mr. Rosenman added that the plaintiffs' filing conveys "the
absolutely false impression that Mr. Delany simply rubber-stamped
a statement that the Big Ten's counsel drafted."

In March, lawyers for the NCAA -- a defendant in the case, along
with video-game maker Electronic Arts and the nation's leading
collegiate trademark licensing and marketing firm, Collegiate
Licensing Co. -- filed a set of written statements from Delany and
a group of conference and university executives, including the
University of Texas' top athletics officials, the chancellor of
the California State University system and the presidents of Utah
State and Wake Forest.

In slightly varied ways, those statements said the financial and
legal burdens that schools would face from needing to share
revenue with football and men's basketball players would prompt
schools to exit Division I or Bowl Subdivision football.

Delany's statement said: ". . . it has been my longstanding belief
that the Big Ten's schools would forgo the revenues in those
circumstances and instead take steps to downsize the scope,
breadth and activity of their athletic programs.  Several
alternatives to a 'pay for play' model exist, such as the Division
III model, which does not offer any athletics-based grants-in-aid
and, among others, a need-based financial aid model."

Such assertions -- and the plaintiffs' counter-argument on June 6
-- are part of the legal maneuvering connected to whether the case
should be certified as a class action.  If the case is certified
as a class action, it likely would bring thousands of current and
former college football and men's basketball players into the case
and potentially place billions of dollars in damages at stake.

For that to occur, however, the plaintiffs' lawyers must convince
U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken that their prospective, larger
group of athlete plaintiffs would have common claims.  Judge
Wilken was scheduled to conduct a hearing on the matter June 20.

At issue in the case overall is whether the defendants have
illegally used the names and likenesses of college football and
men's basketball players.  Initially filed in May 2009, its named
plaintiffs include former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated antitrust law
by conspiring to fix at zero the amount of compensation athletes
can receive for the use of their names, images and likenesses in
products or media while they are in school and by requiring
athletes to sign forms under which they allegedly relinquish in
perpetuity all rights pertaining to the use of the names, images
and likenesses in ways including TV contracts, rebroadcasts of
games, and video game, jersey and other apparel sales.

In seeking certification of their suit as a class action, the
plaintiffs' lawyers said that while they are seeking monetary
damages on behalf of former athletes, they "do not seek
compensation to be paid to current student-athletes while they
maintain their eligibility" but rather "a less restrictive system,
namely that monies generated by the licensing and sale of class
members' names, images and likenesses can be temporarily held in
trust" until their end of their college playing careers.

If, as Mr. Delany and other college officials asserted in March,
some schools would leave Division I or FBS rather than sharing
revenues with the athletes, then some athletes potentially would
be better off if the current system was left unchanged.  And thus,
the defendants' lawyers argued in March, class certification
should not be granted.

But lawyers for the plaintiffs then asked for, and received,
permission from the court to conduct depositions of Mr. Delany and
three other college officials for whom statements were submitted:
Fresno State University President John Welty, Horizon League
Commissioner Jon LeCrone and NCAA vice president of championships
and alliances Mark Lewis.

In their filing on June 6, the plaintiffs' lawyers' wrote that in
a deposition on May 29 Mr. Delany "noted that others within the
Big Ten would disagree with his view."  In an excerpt of the
deposition also filed on June 6, Mr. Delany said that among Big
Ten school presidents and chancellors "some probably would -- may
be disagreeable" with Mr. Delany's statement about how the schools
would respond if they had to share considerable revenue with
athletes.

Details of the depositions of Messrs. Welty, LeCrone and Lewis
were heavily redacted from the June 6 filing.

However, it appears that Mr. Welty's deposition touched on
California State University system chancellor Timothy White's
statement in March that Title IX compliance would be an issue if
schools had to compensate football and men's basketball players.

While discussing Mr. Welty's deposition, the plaintiffs' lawyers
argued that it is not clear that "group licensing fees would be
considered financial assistance with the meaning of Title IX
regulations."


NESTLE S.A.: Faces Canadian Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Independent reports that two of the world's biggest chocolate
companies, Nestle and Mars, have been charged in Canada with
price-fixing.

The charges come after a five-year investigation by the
Competition Bureau in Canada and follows a class action in which
the confectionary companies agreed to pay compensation.

In a statement it announced: "The Bureau's investigation uncovered
evidence suggesting that the accused conspired, agreed or arranged
to fix prices of chocolate products, resulting in a referral of
evidence to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) and
charges against the accused."

John Pecman, the Bureau's Interim Commissioner, said he was
determined to stamp out "egregious anti-competitive behavior".  He
added: "Price-fixing is a serious criminal offence and [Thurs]
day's charges demonstrate the Competition Bureau's resolve to stop
cartel activity in Canada."

The Canadian arms of Mars and Nestle, along with the Canadian
branch of Hershey and the distributor ITWAL, are alleged to have
colluded to keep the price of chocolate confectionary artificially
high.

ITWAL was charged along with Mars and Nestle but the Competition
Bureau has recommended leniency against Hershey because it co-
operated with the inquiry.

Three senior executives were charged individually.  They are
Robert Leonidas, former President of Nestle Canada, Sandra
Martinez, former President of Confectionery for Nestle Canada, and
David Glenn Stevens, President and CEO of ITWAL.

Each of them faces a maximum jail sentence of five years and could
be fined up to $10 million.  Had the alleged offences been
committed after new laws were introduced they would have faced
fines of up to $25m and 14-year prison terms.

Nestle said in a statement: "Nestle Canada will vigorously defend
these charges.  At Nestle Canada, we pride ourselves on operating
with the highest ethical business standards."  Mars issued a
similar promise to fight the allegations.

Hershey released a statement expressing regret for its actions and
laying the responsibility at the feet of now-departed employees.


NEW NEWSCORP: Still Awaits Decision on Bid to Junk "Wilder" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Wilder v. News Corp., et al. was filed on behalf of all purchasers
of common stock of New Newscorp LLC's parent, News Corporation
("Parent") between March 3, 2011, and July 11, 2011, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
plaintiff brought claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act, alleging that false and misleading
statements were issued regarding alleged acts of voicemail
interception at The News of the World.  The lawsuit named as
defendants Parent, Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah
Brooks, and sought compensatory damages, rescission for damages
sustained, and costs.

This litigation and certain other Parent stockholder lawsuits are
all now before the same judge.  On June 5, 2012, the court issued
an order appointing the Avon Pension Fund ("Avon") as lead
plaintiff in the litigation and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as
lead counsel.  Thereafter, on July 3, 2012, the court issued an
order providing that an amended consolidated complaint was to be
filed by July 31, 2012.  Avon filed an amended consolidated
complaint on July 31, 2012, which among other things, added as
defendants the Company's subsidiary, NI Group Limited, and Les
Hinton, and expanded the class period to include February 15,
2011, to July 18, 2011.  The Defendants filed their motion to
dismiss on September 25, 2012, and the parties have completed
briefing on the motion.  The motion is pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 10, 2013,
Form 10-12B/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Parent and New News Corporation management believe these Parent
stockholder claims are entirely without merit and intend to
vigorously defend this action.

New York-based New Newscorp LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of News Corporation.  The
Company will hold these Parent's businesses: newspapers,
information services and integrated marketing services, digital
real estate services, book publishing, digital education and
sports programming and pay-TV distribution in Australia.


NEW NEWSCORP: Still Defends Suits Over Ebooks vs. HarperCollins
---------------------------------------------------------------
New Newscorp LLC continues to defend a subsidiary against
antitrust lawsuits and investigations related to ebooks, according
to the Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-12B/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Commencing on August 9, 2011, twenty-nine purported consumer class
actions have been filed in the U.S. District Courts for the
Southern District of New York and for the Northern District of
California, which relate to the decisions by certain publishers,
including HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C. ("HarperCollins"), to
begin selling their eBooks pursuant to an agency relationship.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has transferred the
various class actions to the Honorable Denise L. Cote in the
Southern District of New York.  On January 20, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, again alleging
that certain named defendants, including HarperCollins, violated
the antitrust and unfair competition laws by virtue of the switch
to the agency model for eBooks.  The actions seek as relief treble
damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees.  On June 25, 2012,
Judge Cote issued a scheduling order for the multi-district
litigation going forward.  Additional information about In re MDL
Electronic Books Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 11-md-
02293 (DLC), can be found on Public Access to Court Electronic
Records (PACER).  While it is not possible to predict with any
degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of these class actions,
HarperCollins believes it was compliant with applicable antitrust
and competition laws.

Following an investigation, on April 11, 2012, the Department of
Justice (the "DOJ") filed an action in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against certain publishers,
including HarperCollins, and Apple, Inc.  The DOJ's complaint
alleges antitrust violations relating to defendants' decisions to
begin selling eBooks pursuant to an agency relationship.  This
case was assigned to Judge Cote.  Simultaneously, the DOJ
announced that it had reached a proposed settlement with three
publishers, including HarperCollins, and filed a Proposed Final
Judgment and related materials detailing that agreement.  Among
other things, the Proposed Final Judgment requires that
HarperCollins terminate its agreements with certain eBook
retailers and places certain restrictions on any agreements
subsequently entered into with such retailers.  On September 5,
2012, Judge Cote entered the Final Judgment.  A third party has
filed a motion to intervene in the case for the purpose of
appealing Judge Cote's decision entering the Final Judgment to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On March 26, 2013,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
dismissed his appeal.  Additional information about the Final
Judgment can be found on the DOJ's Web site.

Following an investigation, on April 11, 2012, 16 State Attorneys
General led by Texas and Connecticut (the "AGs") filed a similar
action against certain publishers and Apple, Inc. in the Western
District of Texas.  On April 26, 2012, the AGs' action was
transferred to Judge Cote.  On May 17, 2012, 33 AGs filed a second
amended complaint.  As a result of a memorandum of understanding
agreed upon with the AGs for Texas and Connecticut, HarperCollins
was not named as a defendant in this action.  Pursuant to the
terms of the memorandum of understanding, HarperCollins entered
into a settlement agreement with the AGs for Texas, Connecticut
and Ohio on June 11, 2012.  By August 28, 2012, forty-nine states
(all but Minnesota) and five U.S. territories had signed on to
that settlement agreement.  On August 29, 2012, the AGs
simultaneously filed a complaint against HarperCollins and two
other publishers, a motion for preliminary approval of that
settlement agreement and a proposed distribution plan.  On
September 14, 2012, Judge Cote granted the AGs' motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and approved the
AGs' proposed distribution plan.  Notice was subsequently sent to
potential class members, and a fairness hearing took place on
February 8, 2013, at which Judge Cote gave final approval to the
settlement.  The settlement is now effective, and the final
judgment bars consumers from states and territories covered by the
settlement from participating in the class actions.

On October 12, 2012, HarperCollins received a Civil Investigative
Demand from the Attorney General from the State of Minnesota.
HarperCollins complied with the Demand on November 16, 2012, and
is cooperating with that investigation.  While it is not possible
to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of
the inquiry, HarperCollins believes it was compliant with
applicable antitrust laws.

The European Commission conducted an investigation into whether
certain companies in the book publishing and distribution
industry, including HarperCollins, violated the antitrust laws by
virtue of the switch to the agency model for eBooks.
HarperCollins settled the matter with the European Commission on
terms substantially similar to the settlement with the DOJ.  On
December 13, 2012, the European Commission formally adopted the
settlement.

Commencing on February 24, 2012, five purported consumer class
actions were filed in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia,
Quebec and Ontario, which relate to the decisions by certain
publishers, including HarperCollins, to begin selling their eBooks
in Canada pursuant to an agency relationship.  The actions seek as
relief special, general and punitive damages, injunctive relief
and the costs of the litigations.  While it is not possible to
predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of these
class actions, especially given their early stages, HarperCollins
believes it was compliant with applicable antitrust and
competition laws and intends to defend itself vigorously.

In July 2012, HarperCollins Canada, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
HarperCollins, learned that the Canadian Competition Bureau
("CCB") had commenced an inquiry regarding the sale of eBooks in
Canada.  HarperCollins currently is cooperating with the CCB with
respect to its inquiry.  While it is not possible to predict with
any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of the inquiry,
HarperCollins believes it was compliant with applicable antitrust
and competition laws.

On February 15, 2013, a purported class of independent bricks-and-
mortar bookstores filed an action in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York entitled The Book House of
Stuyvesant Plaza, Inc, et. al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et. al, which
relates to the digital rights management protection ("DRM") of
certain publishers', including HarperCollins', e-books being sold
by Amazon.com Inc.  The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on
March 21, 2013.  The case involves allegations that certain named
defendants in the book publishing and distribution industry,
including HarperCollins, violated the antitrust laws by virtue of
requiring DRM protection.  The action seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.  On
April 1, 2013, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint.  The court heard oral argument on the Defendants'
motion to dismiss on April 25, 2013.  While it is not possible to
predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of this
class action, HarperCollins believes it was compliant with
applicable antitrust laws and intends to defend itself vigorously.

The Company says it is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or
cost of the HarperCollins matters.  During the nine months ended
March 31, 2013, and 2012, the legal and professional fees and
settlements incurred in connection with these matters were not
material, and as of March 31, 2013, the Company did not have a
material accrual related to these matters.

New York-based New Newscorp LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of News Corporation.  The
Company will hold these Parent's businesses: newspapers,
information services and integrated marketing services, digital
real estate services, book publishing, digital education and
sports programming and pay-TV distribution in Australia.


NU-PHARM INC: Recalls Nu-Cephalex Tablets Over Rainwater Contact
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 3, 2013
Posting date:             June 20, 2013
Type of communication:    Drug Recall
Subcategory:              Drugs
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-34267

Recalled products: A. Nu-Cephalex

Tablets may have come into contact with rain water.

Depth of distribution: Wholesalers, Pharmacies -- ON, MB, SK.

Affected products: A. Nu-Cephalex
                   DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
                   DIN 00865885

Dosage form: Tablet

Strength: 500 mg

Lot or serial number: JP1015

Companies:

   Recalling Firm     Nu-Pharm Inc.
                      2 - 1165 Creditstone Road
                      Vaughan
                      L4K 4N7
                      Ontario, CANADA

   Marketing          Nu-Pharm Inc.
   Authorization      2 - 1165 Creditstone Road
   Holder             Vaughan
                      L4K 4N7
                      Ontario, CANADA


OCLARO INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Amended Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oclaro, Inc. moved to dismiss a third amended complaint in a
securities lawsuit filed against it in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, according to the
company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2013.

On May 19, 2011, Curtis and Charlotte Westley filed a purported
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, against the company and certain
of the company's officers and directors. The Court subsequently
appointed the Connecticut Laborers' Pension Fund (Pension Fund) as
lead plaintiff for the putative class.

On April 26, 2012, the Pension Fund filed a second amended
complaint, captioned as Westley v. Oclaro, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 2448
EMC, allegedly on behalf of persons who purchased the company's
common stock between May 6 and October 28, 2010, alleging that the
company and certain of the company's officers and directors issued
materially false and misleading statements during this time period
regarding the company's current business and financial condition,
including projections for demand for the company's products, as
well as the company's revenues, earnings, and gross margins, for
the first quarter of fiscal year 2011 as well as the full fiscal
year.

The complaint alleges violations of section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission
Rule 10b-5, as well as section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act. The complaint seeks damages and costs of an unspecified
amount. On September 21, 2012, the Court dismissed the second
amended complaint with leave to amend.

After the Pension Fund moved for reconsideration, on January 10,
2013, the Court allowed plaintiffs to take discovery regarding
statements made in May and June 2010. The Court also ordered
defendants to move for summary judgment by June 13, 2013 on the
issue of defendants' scienter with respect to statements made in
May and June 2010, and further ordered that the motion be heard on
July 18, 2013.

On March 1, 2013 the Pension Fund filed a third amended complaint,
attempting to cure pleading deficiencies with regard to statements
allegedly made from July to October 2010. On April 1, 2013,
defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint with
respect to the statements made from July to October 2010. Oral
argument on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for May 16, 2013.
Discovery has commenced, and no trial has been scheduled in this
action.  The company intends to defend this litigation vigorously.
The company is unable at this time to estimate the effects of this
lawsuit on the company's financial position, results of operations
or cash flows.


OFFICE DEPOT: Court Approves Stipulation in "Provine" Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned HOWARD DAVID PROVINE, individually and on
behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OFFICE
DEPOT, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, CASE NO. CV 11-
00903 SI, (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Susan Illston approved
plaintiff Howard David Provine and defendant Office Depot, Inc.'s
Stipulation re Amended Class Notice and Amended Order Granting
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement as directed by the Court.

A copy of the District Court's June 17, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/O6giW1from Leagle.com.

Gregory N. Karasik, Esq. -- greg@karasiklawfirm.com -- at Karasik
Law Firm, Los Angeles, CA, Ira Spiro, Esq. -- ira@spiromoore.com
-- at Spiro Moore LLP, in Los Angeles, California, Alexander I.
Dychter, Esq. -- Alex@DychterLaw.com -- at Dychter Law Offices,
APC, in San Diego, California, are the attorneys for Plaintiff,
HOWARD DAVID PROVINE.

Jennifer L. Bradford, Esq. -- jbradford@morganlewis.com -- at
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, is the attorney for the Defendant.


PATRIOT COAL: Complaints v. Former Executives Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------
Complaints in a purported class action filed against a former
Chief Executive Officer of Patriot Coal Corporation, Richard M.
Whiting, and former Chief Financial Officer, Mark N. Schroeder
were consolidated and a lead plaintiff was appointed, according to
the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

During the second half of 2012 and subsequent to the filing of the
Chapter 11 Petitions of Patriot Coal Corporation and wholly-owned
subsidiaries, three class action complaints were filed against a
former Chief Executive Officer, Richard M. Whiting, and former
Chief Financial Officer, Mark N. Schroeder (the Class Action
Complaints).

The Class Action Complaints contain nearly identical allegations
including that the defendants made or allowed false and misleading
statements related to Patriot's selenium water treatment liability
and Patriot's financial condition. The Class Action Complaints
were consolidated and a lead plaintiff was appointed during
January 2013. The Class Action Complaints can proceed during the
pendency of the Bankruptcy Case as Patriot was not named as a
defendant.


PATRIOT COAL: Suit Over Employee Safety in Mine Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action alleging intentional violation of
employee safety at Patriot Coal Corporation's Federal No. 2 mine
was dismissed, according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In late January 2010, the U.S. Attorney's office and the State of
West Virginia began investigations relating to one or more of the
company's employees making inaccurate entries in official mine
records at the company's Federal No. 2 mine.  The company
terminated one employee and two other employees resigned after
being placed on administrative leave.

The terminated employee subsequently admitted to falsifying
inspection records and has been cooperating with the U.S.
Attorney's office. In April 2010, the company received a federal
subpoena requesting methane detection systems equipment used at
the company's Federal No. 2 mine since July 2008 and the results
of tests performed on the equipment since that date.  The company
provided the equipment and information as required by the
subpoena.  The company has not received any additional requests
for information. In January 2012, the terminated employee filed a
civil lawsuit against the company alleging retaliatory discharge
and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Additionally, in January 2012, five employees filed a purported
class action lawsuit against the company and the terminated
employee seeking compensation for lost wages, emotional distress,
and punitive damages for the alleged intentional violation of
employee safety at the mine. However, in late March 2013, the
court dismissed the purported class action lawsuit.

The company continues to vigorously defend the remaining civil
lawsuit, the potential impact of which cannot be estimated at this
time. The remaining civil lawsuit is currently stayed due to the
bankruptcy of one or more defendants.


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Court Certifies FLSA Collective Action Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Janet D. Hall granted in part and denied in part
plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification in the
lawsuit captioned TRACY FRACASSE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PEOPLE'S
UNITED BANK, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-670 (JCH), (D.
Conn.).

Tracy Fracasse and K. Lee Brown brought the action alleging
unlawful denial of overtime pay under both the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq., and the Connecticut
Minimum Wage Act, General Statutes Sections 31-58 et seq.
Plaintiffs moved the court for conditional certification under the
collective action provision of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b),
and for certification as a class under Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ. P.

Judge Hall granted the Motion for Conditional Certification of the
FLSA collective action class and denied without prejudice the
plaintiff's Motion for Certification of the Rule 23 class.
Plaintiffs' proposed FLSA class contemplates all underwriters who
worked out of PUB's Bridgeport office since May 3, 2009. To
facilitate the issuance of notice, the court ordered PUB to
disclose potential opt-in plaintiffs' names, addresses, employment
locations, and dates of employment. The parties were referred to
the court's instructions at the hearing on the Motion regarding
notice, and were ordered to submit a joint form of notice within
seven days of the date of the ruling or, if they are unable to
agree on a single form, to submit competing notices within the
same time period.

The parties were further ordered to confer and submit a proposed
amended scheduling order within five court days of the Ruling.

Tracy Fracasse and K. Lee Brown are represented by Elizabeth R.
McKenna, Esq., Kevin C. Shea, Esq., William H. Clendenen, Jr., at
Clendenen & Shea; and Kaitlin A Halloran, Esq., & R. Bartley
Halloran, at Halloran & Halloran.

People's United Bank is represented by David R. Golder, Esq. --
GolderD@jacksonlewis.com -- Kristi M. Rich, Esq. --
RichK@jacksonlewis.com -- & William Joseph Anthony, Esq. --
AnthonyW@jacksonlewis.com -- at Jackson Lewis.

A copy of the District Court's June 17, 2013 Ruling is available
at http://is.gd/9AM1iZfrom Leagle.com.


PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Ameristar Stockholders Approved Purchase
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc., disclosed in its May 10, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013, that its proposed acquisition of
Ameristar Casinos Inc. was approved in April 2013 by Ameristar's
stockholders.

In December 2012, the Company entered into a definitive agreement
to acquire all of the outstanding common shares of Ameristar
Casinos Inc. ("Ameristar") in an all cash transaction valued at
$26.50 per share representing total consideration of $2.8 billion,
including assumed debt.  Ameristar operates the following casinos:
Ameristar Casino Resort Spa St. Charles; Ameristar Casino Hotel
Kansas City; Ameristar Casino Hotel Council Bluffs; Ameristar
Casino Resort Spa Black Hawk; Ameristar Casino Hotel Vicksburg;
Ameristar Casino Hotel East Chicago; and Cactus Petes Resort
Casino and The Horseshu Hotel and Casino in Jackpot, Nevada.

On December 24, 2012, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit
related to the Company's proposed acquisition of Ameristar was
filed in Nevada District Court for Clark County, captioned Joseph
Grob v. Ameristar Casinos, Inc., et al. (the "Grob action").  The
complaint names Ameristar and members of Ameristar's Board of
Directors (the "Ameristar Defendants"); and Pinnacle
Entertainment, Inc., PNK Holdings, Inc., and PNK Development 32,
Inc. as defendants (the "Pinnacle Defendants").  The complaint
generally alleges that the Board of Directors of Ameristar, aided
and abetted by Ameristar and the Pinnacle Defendants, breached
their fiduciary duties owed to Ameristar's stockholders in
connection with Pinnacle's proposed acquisition of Ameristar.  The
action includes claims for, among other things, an injunction
halting the proposed acquisition of Ameristar by Pinnacle, and an
award of costs and expenses to the putative plaintiff stockholder,
including attorneys' fees.  Thereafter, other plaintiffs filed
additional complaints in the same court making essentially the
same allegations and seeking similar relief to the Grob action.
On January 15, 2013, the court issued an order consolidating the
actions, and any subsequently filed actions, into a single,
consolidated action.

On April 16, 2013, the Nevada District Court heard the plaintiffs'
motion for a preliminary injunction and denied the plaintiffs'
request.  On April 25, 2013, the stockholders of Ameristar
approved the Merger Agreement at a special meeting of
stockholders.

The Company believes that the allegations directed against it lack
merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.

Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.pnkinc.com/-- is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada.  Pinnacle
is an owner, operator and developer of casinos and related
hospitality and entertainment facilities.


POOLMAN OF WISCONSIN: Class Cert. Ruling in "UESCO" Suit Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division
reversed the decision of the Circuit Court of Cook County granting
plaintiff's motion for class certification in UESCO INDUSTRIES,
INC. v. POOLMAN OF WISCONSIN, INC.

The Appellate Court held that as a result of applying the improper
legal standard, the circuit court erred in its finding that
defendant was liable for all fax advertisements sent on its behalf
by B2B, which exceeded the scope of its authority to send faxes to
small electric motor repair and service companies. The plaintiff
has not stated a valid claim against the defendant and, therefore,
is not an adequate class representative of the March 2006 fax
recipients. The Appellate Court also found that the plaintiff is
not an appropriate class representative for those who received
unsolicited faxes from the defendant in December 2006. As a
result, says the Appellate Court, the circuit court abused its
discretion by granting class certification.

The issue of whether plaintiff's counsel is adequate to represent
the class is moot, and the Appellate Court remands the case.

Justice Delort delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Presiding Justice Hoffman and Justice Cunningham concurred in the
judgment and opinion.

The case is UESCO INDUSTRIES, INC., an Illinois Corporation,
Individually and as the Representative of a Class of Similarly
Situated Persons, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. POOLMAN OF WISCONSIN,
INC., Defendant-Appellant, NO. 1-11-2566.

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


REMINGTON ARMS: Court Narrows Claims in "Pollard" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Ortrie D. Smith granted in part and denied
in part defendants' motion to dismiss claims in the lawsuit
captioned IAN POLLARD, Plaintiff, v. REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, LLC,
et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-0086-CV-W-ODS, (W.D. Mo.).

The Plaintiff filed the putative class action suit on January 28,
2013, against Remington Arms Company, Inc., Sporting Goods
Properties, Inc., and E.I. DuPont Nemours and Company, after his
Remington Model 700 rifle fired without a trigger pull. The
Plaintiff's nine-count Complaint asserts the following claims:

Count I?   "Violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act
Count II?  "Strict Products Liability
Count III? "Negligence
Count IV?  "Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
Count V    "Breach of Express Warranty
Count VI?  "Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability
Count VII  "Fraudulent Concealment
Count VIII "Unjust Enrichment
Count IX ? "Declaratory Relief.

The Plaintiff sought a declaration that all Remington Model 700
rifles using the Walker fire control are defective, that
Defendants knew of the defect, and that Defendants should issue a
recall of the Model 700 rifles.

Judge Smith ruled that the Motion to Dismiss Count I is granted to
the extent Count I relies on fraudulent misrepresentation. To the
extent Count I relies on fraudulent concealment, the Defendants'
Motion is denied. The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Counts II,
III, IV, V, VI is granted. The Motion to Dismiss Count VII, VIII,
and IX is denied.

Ian Pollard is represented by Timothy W. Monsees, Esq., at Monsees
& Mayer PC, W. Mark Lanier, Esq., at The Lanier Law Firm, P.C.,
Andrew S. LeRoy, Esq., at Monsees & Mayer PC, Charles E. Schaffer,
Esq., at Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman, Christopher Ellis, Esq.,
at Bolen Robinson & Ellis LLP, Eric D. Holland, Esq., at Holland
Groves Schneller & Stolze LLC, John R. Climaco, Esq., at Climaco
Law Firm, John A. Peca, Esq., at Climaco Wilcox Peca Tarantino &
Garofoli Co., LPA, Jon D. Robinson, Esq., at Bolen Robinson &
Ellis LLP, Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq., at Parker Waichman LLP,
Richard J. Arsenault, Esq., at Neblett Beard & Arsenault, Richard
Ramler, Esq., at Ramler Law Office PC & R. Seth Crompton, Esq., at
Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze.

Remington Arms Company, LLC is represented by John K Sherk, Esq.,
at Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP-KCMO, Amy Crouch, Esq., at Shook,
Hardy & Bacon, LLP-KCMO, Andrew A Lothson, Esq., at Swanson,
Martin & Bell, LLP & Dale G Wills, Esq., at Swanson, Martin &
Bell, LLP.

Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., is represented by John K Sherk,
Esq., at Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP-KCMO, Amy Crouch, Esq., at
Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP-KCMO, Andrew A Lothson, Esq., at
Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP & Dale G Wills, Esq., at Swanson,
Martin & Bell, LLP.

E.I. Du Pont Nemours and Company is represented by John K Sherk,
Esq., at Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Amy Crouch, Esq., at Shook,
Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Andrew A Lothson, Esq., at Swanson, Martin &
Bell, LLP & Dale G Wills, Esq., at Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.

A copy of the District Court's June 17, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/dDOTwifrom Leagle.com.


RIVERDALE PARK, MD: Judge Dismisses Speed Camera Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jenni Pompi, writing for Patch, reports that a $5 million class
action lawsuit filed against the Town of Riverdale Park regarding
speed camera tickets was dismissed by a circuit court judge after
the claims of the plaintiffs were found to be without merit.

The lawsuit, filed in August of 2012, alleged that plaintiffs were
given $40 speeding tickets by cameras with technology that did not
comply with state law.  Maryland's speed camera law dictates that
there be a fixed object in speed camera photographs to better
allow for observers to determine how fast a driver is going.  The
suit alleges that there was no such point of reference in
Riverdale Park where the tickets were issued.

The lawsuit also contended that one of the three drivers that
filed suit was issued a ticket with a forged signature.  According
to the suit, former Riverdale Park Police Cpl. Clay Alford -- the
only officer permitted to sign the speed camera tickets -- was out
of town when the citation was signed.

According to the judge, the defendants had 180 days to challenge
the speed camera tickets in court to take up the matter of the
equipment used by the town, but they did not take that course of
action.

Because they chose not to assert their right to a hearing when the
tickets were issued, the judge determined that they did not have
grounds to file suit against Riverdale Park more than a year after
the tickets were issued.  For this reason, the judge found this
claim of the suit had no merit.

The judge also found that the plaintiff that claimed a speed
camera ticket was fraudulently signed should also have challenged
the ticket within 180 days.  Had the plaintiff done so, Alford
could have been called to the stand to testify about the ticket.
Since the plaintiff did not follow this course of action, this
claim was also found to be without merit.

Councilman Jonathan Ebbeler (Ward 1) said he was pleased with the
outcome of the case.

"Although town leadership could not comment on the case when it
was filed, we were cautiously optimistic throughout the process
that the rule of law would prevail and the case would be
dismissed," Mr. Ebbeler said.

"The town continues to support public safety programs that target
motorists egregiously exceeding the speed limit within a block
from an elementary school," he added.


STATE FARM: Settles Inspector Wage Class Action for $5 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben James, writing for Law360, reports that State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Co. has agreed to shell out $5 million to put
the brakes on a putative class action accusing the company of
failing to pay vehicle damage inspectors in California for all the
time they spent working, the plaintiff said on June 5.

Named plaintiff Bryan Shiosaka filed a motion urging Los Angeles
federal court to grant preliminary approval to the $5 million deal
and conditionally certify a class of State Farm employees who
worked as hourly, nonexempt automotive estimatics inspectors in
the Golden State between Dec. 23, 2007 and May 31, 2013.

"The class representative and class counsel have concluded, after
taking into account sharply disputed factual and legal issues
involved in this litigation, the risks attending further
prosecution and the substantial benefits received and to be
received pursuant to the compromise and settlement of the
litigation, that settlement on the terms hereinafter set forth is
in the best interest of the class members," Mr. Shiosaka said in a
memorandum supporting his preliminary approval bid.

Mr. Shiosaka lodged the lawsuit in state court in 2011, claiming
that he and other inspectors, who work in the field inspecting
damage and estimating repair costs, weren't paid all the wages --
including overtime wages -- that they were due.  State Farm
removed it to federal court in 2012.

In a May 2 first amended complaint, Mr. Shiosaka said that State
Farm inspectors should have gotten paid for time spent at home
getting their daily work schedules and answering email, as well as
driving from home to their first assignment and traveling from
their last assignment back home.  State Farm regularly paid those
workers for 7.75 hours per day when they averaged 9.5 hours per
day, the complaint alleged.

In addition to giving a preliminary okay to the settlement and the
class, Mr. Shiosaka asked the court to approve him as class
representative and confirm his lawyers at The Law Office of
Joseph Antonelli and Conforti & Carras APC as class counsel.  He
also sought to have a final hearing on the settlement set for
October.

The $5 million settlement is fair and reasonable, and comes after
extensive research and written discovery, the June 3 memorandum
said.  The memorandum included a breakdown of the proposed deal,
showing $1.5 million allocated for attorneys' fees and up to
$15,000 for costs, a $20,000 litigation enhancement to
Mr. Shiosaka, an $11,250 payment under the Private Attorney
General Act to the California Labor and Workforce Development
Agency, $165,000 going toward the employer's share of taxes and
$25,000 in settlement administration costs.

That leaves $3,263,750 for the class, the plaintiff said.

State Farm said in the settlement agreement that it denied the
claims in the lawsuit, and noted that further litigation would be
"protracted and expensive."

Attorneys for both sides could not be reached for comment.

Joseph Antonelli, Janelle Carney and Jason Hatcher of the Law
Office of Joseph Antonelli and Michael Carras and Daniel Conforti
of Conforti & Carras APC are proposed class counsel.

State Farm is represented by Douglas Hart -- dhart@sidley.com --
Geoffrey DeBoskey -- gdeboskey@sidley.com -- Sheryl Horwitz --
shorwitz@sidley.com -- and Erica Parks -- eparks@sidley.com -- of
Sidley Austin LLP.

The case is Bryan Shiosaka v. State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company et al., case number 2:12-cv-01268 in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.


STATE FARM: Judge Denies Motion to Stay Discovery in RICO Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record,
reports that a lawsuit alleging fraudulent activity in Avery v.
State Farm is moving forward as a federal judge last month denied
the defendants' motion to stay to discovery.

And it appears that the plaintiffs -- Mark Hale, Todd Shale and
Carly Vickers Morse -- are preparing for a battle as court records
show more than 20 attorneys are now representing them.

The trio of plaintiffs, all of whom were plaintiffs in the 1997
nationwide class action Avery v. State Farm, filed a federal
lawsuit in May 2012 against State Farm, William Shepherd, an
attorney at the insurance company, and Ed Murnane, president of
the Illinois Civil Justice League (ICJL).

They accuse the defendants of violating the Racketeer Influenced
and Corruption Organizations (RICO) Act by creating an enterprise
"to enable State Farm to evade payment of a $1.05 billion judgment
affirmed in favor of approximately 4.7 million State Farm
policyholders."

The plaintiffs assert that the defendants implemented their scheme
in two phases, the first of which involved recruiting, financing
and electing a candidate to the Illinois Supreme Court who would
vote to overturn the judgment against State Farm once elected.

That phase, the suit contends, was completed when Lloyd Karmeier
won the 2004 race for the Fifth District seat on the state high
court and nine months later, voted in favor of overturning the
billion-dollar judgment against State Farm.

The suit goes on to claim that the second phase took place in 2005
and 2011, when State Farm filed alleged misrepresentations to the
Supreme Court in response to the plaintiffs' requests for the
justices to vacate their decision overturning judgment.

The defendants asked U.S. Chief Judge David Hernon to dismiss the
suit, arguing that federal courts don't have jurisdiction to
review civil judgments of state courts under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine and that the plaintiffs failed to prove their RICO claims
in a timely matter.

Herndon in a March 28 order denied the motion, determining that he
did have subject-matter jurisdiction, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine
didn't apply and that the RICO claims were brought before the
statute of limitations expired.

In April, the defendants asked Judge Herndon to alter or amend his
order and sought a stay of discovery until that motion was
resolved, arguing that they presented strong arguments for Herndon
to think about in their motion to reconsider.

Magistrate Judge Stephen Williams in a May 21 order denied the
defendants' motion to stay discovery.

"Although Defendants contend that they have strong arguments which
will likely convince the District Court to reconsider its findings
on the motion to dismiss, Defendants have failed to offer any new
arguments or insight to suggest that Chief Judge Herndon will
grant their motion to reconsider," Judge Williams wrote.

Although the defendants argued that Herndon failed to consider
their exhibits, take notice of certain documents and overlooked
Seventh Circuit precedent, Judge Williams wrote in his order that
they offered nothing in support of their arguments.

"Instead," Judge Williams wrote, "it appears to the undersigned
that Chief Judge Herndon gave substantial consideration, in his
forty-three page opinion, to the arguments presented in the
briefs, and rejected Defendants' position."

He added, "Nothing the Defendants present now gives the
undersigned any confidence that the District Court will reconsider
its prior ruling, especially given the high bar that Defendants
must meet in seeking to overturn the Court's prior ruling."

On June 3, State Farm filed an appeal over Williams' order, saying
that it is "clearly erroneous and should be overturned."  Messrs.
Murnane and Shepherd joined that appeal.

State Farm asserts in its June 3 appeal that it "ordinarily would
be reluctant to seek review of a discovery-related ruling by the
Magistrate."

"However," it contends, "this is not a typical case, and State
Farm will be significantly prejudiced by the denial of the stay
motion."

State Farm also argues that its pending motion to alter or amend
Judge Herndon's March order "presents an extraordinarily
compelling case for interlocutory review now of the Court's denial
of the dismissal motions."

It further asserts that Judge Williams did not address privilege
issues it previously raised, issues State Farm contends "may be
better framed or avoided altogether if interlocutory review of
this Court's dismissal order is allowed to run its course before
discovery is permitted to begin."

These privilege issues, State Farm claims, are "of a scale and
variety unlike those found in nearly any other litigation."

In addition to the privilege issues that State Farm claims would
arise in discovery, the insurance company argues that staying
discovery "is particularly appropriate in light of the
inflammatory nature of Plaintiffs' allegations."

The lawsuit, State Farm states in its appeal, "impugns the
integrity of a Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court, asserts that
the Avery rulings of the entire Illinois Supreme Court were
tainted and makes baseless allegations that State Farm and the
other Defendants have engaged in mail and wire fraud as part of an
alleged RICO enterprise."

"There is no question that this case ultimately will be resolved
on appeal, regardless of which side prevails in motion practice
and/or trial," State Farm asserts.

The plaintiffs on June 4, the day after State Farm appealed, asked
the federal court to certify a class in the suit that would
include all persons who were members of the certified class in
Avery v. State Farm.

In their motion for class certification, the plaintiffs state
their proposed class consists of about 4.7 million State Farm
policyholders across the nation.

They assert that class certification is appropriate in this case
because the suit satisfies the numerosity, commonality,
typicality, adequacy, predominance and superiority requirements
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs' motion was submitted by Mississippi attorney Don
Barrett, Tennessee attorneys W. Gordon Ball and Charles Barrett,
Louisiana attorneys Patrick Pendley and Nicholas Rockforte and
Alabama attorneys Tom Thrash, Steven Martino, Richard Taylor and
Lloyd Copeland.

Court records show Judge Herndon last month appointed Ball as
interim lead counsel for the plaintiffs and proposed class.

State Farm's appeal was submitted by Edwardsville attorney Patrick
Cloud and Chicago attorneys Joseph Cancila Jr., J. Timothy Eaton
and James Gaughan.

Chicago attorneys Richard O'Brien and David Greenfield represent
Murnane and Belleville attorneys Russell Scott and Laura Oberkfell
represent Shepherd.  Both joined State Farm's appeal.

Records also show that several attorneys last month filed notices
of appearance in the case and filed motions to appear pro hac
vice, both of which have brought the total number of attorneys
representing the plaintiffs to more than 20.

Chicago attorneys Robert Clifford and Michael Krzak, both of
Clifford Law Offices, filed notices of appearances and Judge
Herndon granted at least 10 attorneys' motions to appear pro hac
vice.


TRICO BANCSHARES: Yet to File Settlement Docs in California Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
TriCo Bancshares has not yet filed with the court its settlement
of a class action lawsuit filed in California, according to the
Company's May 10, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On September 27, 2012, the Company announced that its subsidiary,
Tri Counties Bank, entered into a tentative settlement with a
former employee who filed a class action lawsuit against the Bank
in the Superior Court of California, Kern County, on behalf of
herself and a putative class of current and former Bank employees
serving as assistant branch managers seeking undisclosed damages,
alleging that the Bank improperly classified its assistant branch
managers as exempt employees under California laws.  The lawsuit
alleges claims for: failure to pay overtime compensation; failure
to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure
to provide accurate wage statements; failure to provide suitable
seating; declaratory relief; accounting; and unfair business
practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code
section 17200.  On September 26, 2012, after efforts to mediate
the claim, the Bank and the former employee agreed to settle the
case in an amount ranging from $2,039,500 to $2,500,000, depending
primarily on the number of class participants who file claims, and
pending approval by the court, including determination of the
method to allocate settlement payments among current and former
employees who are members of the defined settlement class, and the
portion of the total settlement allocable to attorney's fees and
costs to the plaintiff's counsel.  On September 26, 2012, the Bank
recorded a $2,090,000 expense and accrued liability in
anticipation of approval of this settlement by the court and
estimated related payroll taxes.

TriCo Bancshares -- http://www.tcbk.com/-- is a bank holding
company incorporated in California in 1981 and headquartered in
Chico, California.  The Company's principal subsidiary is Tri
Counties Bank, a California-chartered commercial bank that offers
banking services to retail customers and small to medium-sized
businesses through 66 branch offices in Northern and Central
California.


UNI-PIXEL INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit against Uni-Pixel, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of Texas, and docketed under 13-cv-01649,
is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Uni-Pixel between
December 7, 2012 and May 31, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This
class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged
violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Uni-Pixel securities during
the Class Period, you have until August 5, 2013 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, number of shares
purchased, and losses.

Uni-Pixel manufactures fingerprint-resistant and hard coat
protective cover films for touch screen-enabled devices.  The
Company's key product is UniBoss, a copper-mesh film that sits
under the glass in touch-sensitive devices, which the Company
claims is cheaper to manufacture and more responsive than other
competing technologies.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
adverse facts concerning: (1) the nature and commercial potential
of the agreements recently entered into by Uni-Pixel with other
companies to develop, manufacture and distribute UniBoss; and (2)
Uni-Pixel's ability to successfully produce UniBoss in
commercially meaningful volumes without serious mechanical
failures, and at the price points and margins, projected by
management.

On May 20, 2013, after the market closed, the Company disclosed
that a PC manufacturer with whom it is collaborating recently
reported delays with associated operating system software that
would delay the appearance of products utilizing UniBoss
technology from the third quarter into the fourth quarter of 2013.
On this news, Uni-Pixel securities declined $2.48 per share over
9.5%, to close at $23.47 per share on May 21, 2013.

On May 31, 2013, Seeking Alpha published an article in which the
author stated, among other things, that he had spoken with two
former Uni-Pixel sales employees who told him that Uni-Pixel had
yet to prove the viability of UniBoss by the time they had left
the company, and expressed significant skepticism about Uni-
Pixel's ability to successfully produce UniBoss.  One of these
employees predicted that "Uni-Pixel would ultimately fail when it
came time to produce UniBoss in material volumes and in a real-
life setting outside of the lab."  On this news, Uni-Pixel
securities declined $4.57 per share over 23%, to close at $15.21
per share on May 31, 2013.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates
its practice the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  The firm has offices in New York, Chicago,
Florida, and San Diego.


VALHI INC: Continues to Defend Suits Over Lead Pigments vs. Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valhi, Inc., continues to defend a subsidiary against lawsuits
relating to the manufacture of lead pigments for use in paints,
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.

NL Industries, Inc.'s former operations included the manufacture
of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based paint.  NL, other
former manufacturers of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-
based paint, and the Lead Industries Association (which
discontinued business operations in 2002), have been named as
defendants in various legal proceedings seeking damages for
personal injury, property damage and governmental expenditures
allegedly caused by the use of lead-based paints.  Certain of
these actions have been filed by or on behalf of states, counties,
cities or their public housing authorities and school districts,
and certain others have been asserted as class actions.  These
lawsuits seek recovery under a variety of theories, including
public and private nuisance, negligent product design, negligent
failure to warn, strict liability, breach of warranty,
conspiracy/concert of action, aiding and abetting, enterprise
liability, market share or risk contribution liability,
intentional tort, fraud and misrepresentation, violations of state
consumer protection statutes, supplier negligence and similar
claims.

The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the
defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health
concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including
damages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnification
for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for
educational programs.  To the extent the plaintiffs seek
compensatory or punitive damages in these actions, such damages
are generally unspecified.  In some cases, the damages are
unspecified pursuant to the requirements of applicable state law.
A number of cases are inactive or have been dismissed or
withdrawn.  Most of the remaining cases are in various pre-trial
stages.  Some are on appeal following dismissal or summary
judgment rulings in favor of either the defendants or the
plaintiffs.  In addition, various other cases (in which the
Company is not a defendant) are pending that seek recovery for
injury allegedly caused by lead pigment and lead-based paint.
Although NL is not a defendant in these cases, the outcome of
these cases may have an impact on cases that might be filed
against NL in the future.

The Company believes that these actions are without merit, and it
intends to continue to deny all allegations of wrongdoing and
liability and to defend against all actions vigorously.  The
Company does not believe it is probable that it has incurred any
liability with respect to all of the lead pigment litigation cases
to which the Company is a party, and liability to the Company that
may result, if any, in this regard cannot be reasonably estimated,
because:

   * NL has never settled any of the market share, risk
     contribution, intentional tort, fraud, nuisance, supplier
     negligence, breach of warranty, conspiracy,
     misrepresentation, aiding and abetting, enterprise liability,
     or statutory cases;

   * no final, non-appealable adverse verdicts have ever been
     entered against NL; and

   * NL has never ultimately been found liable with respect to any
     such litigation matters, including over 100 cases over a
     twenty-year period for which NL was previously a party and
     for which NL has been dismissed without any finding of
     liability.

Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any amounts for any of
the pending lead pigment and lead-based paint litigation cases.
In addition, the Company has determined that liability to it which
may result, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated because there
is no prior history of a loss of this nature on which an estimate
could be made, and there is no substantive information available
upon which an estimate could be based.

Valhi, Inc. is a holding company and operates through its wholly-
owned and majority-owned subsidiaries, including NL Industries,
Inc., Kronos Worldwide, Inc., CompX International Inc., Tremont
LLC and Waste Control Specialists LLC.  The Company is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


VERMEER: Recalls R9X12T Heavy Trailers Due to Brake Issues
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                June 20, 2013
Type of communication:        Recall
Subcategory:                  Heavy Trailer
Notification type:            Compliance Mfr
System:                       Brakes
Units affected:               1
Source of recall:             Transport Canada
Identification number:        2013214
TC ID number:                 2013214
Manufacturer recall number:   IK00-1843

Certain drilling fluid reclaimer trailers fail to conform to the
requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121 Air Brake
Systems.  The brake booster valve may have been installed
incorrectly during vehicle assembly.  As such, the brake actuation
timing slightly exceeds the allowable limit, which could result in
less efficient braking performance.  In the event of an emergency
stop, the vehicle's stopping distance would be increased, which
could result in a crash causing property damage and/or personal
injury.  Correction: Dealers will correct the air brake booster
valve installation.

Affected products:

        Makes and models affected
    ---------------------------------
                           Model year
    Make        Model      affected
    ----        -----      --------
    VERMEER     R9X12T       2013


VISTEON CORPORATION: Sued for "Anti-competitive" Acts in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
In February 2013, three putative class action complaints were
filed in the Superior Courts of Justice in Ontario against the
Company and several other global suppliers of automotive
instrument panel clusters, heater control panels and electronic
control units, alleging violations of Canadian laws related to
competition, according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Plaintiffs purport to be direct and indirect purchasers of
automotive instrument panel clusters, heater control panels and
electronic control units supplied by the Company and/or the other
defendants during the relevant period. The complaints allege,
among other things, that the defendants conspired to fix prices
and allocate the market and customers for instrument panel
clusters, heater control panels and/or electronic control units in
North America resulting in plaintiffs paying supra-competitive
prices for instrument panel clusters, heater control panels and
electronic control units or vehicles containing instrument panel
clusters, heater control panels and electronic control units.

The plaintiffs in these proceedings seek injunctive relief and
recovery of an unspecified amount of damages, as well as
investigative costs and costs relating to the proceedings. The
ultimate outcome of this litigation, and consequently, an estimate
of the possible loss, if any, related to this litigation, cannot
reasonably be determined at this time.

However, the Company believes the plaintiffs' allegations against
it are without merit and otherwise would be barred following the
Company's emergence from bankruptcy and it intends to vigorously
defend itself in these proceedings. In addition, the Company has
not been contacted by any U.S. or Canadian governmental
organization indicating that it is the subject of any
investigation relating to anti-competitive conduct in respect of
automotive instrument panel clusters, heater control panels and
electronic control units.


VITA HEALTH: Recalls Capsules of Safeway Extra Strength Ibuprofen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 5, 2013
Posting date:             June 19, 2013
Type of communication:    Drug Recall
Subcategory:              Drugs
Hazard classification:    Type I
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-34255

Recalled products: A. Safeway Extra Strength Ibuprofen

The inner label states the bottle has a child resistant cap.  The
cap used is not child resistant.

Depth of distribution: 26,979 units of this product were
distributed nationally to the retail level.

Affected products: A. Safeway Extra Strength Ibuprofen
                   DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
                   DIN 02357283

Dosage form: Liquid Capsule

Strength: 400 mg

Lot or serial number:

   * 1I0802CCY
   * 1I0812CCY
   * 1I0812KK2
   * 2A1432NWR
   * 2A1442NWR
   * 2C0702S11
   * 2F0982V0U
   * 3B2062XRR
   * 3D2692Z58

Companies:

   Recalling Firm     Vita Health Products Inc.
                      150 Beghin Ave.
                      Winnipeg
                      R2J 3W2
                      Manitoba, CANADA

   Marketing          Vita Health Products Inc.
   Authorization      150 Beghin Ave.
   Holder             Winnipeg
                      R2J 3W2
                      Manitoba, CANADA


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Potential Deceleration Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Deutsche Presse-Agentur reports that the Australian affiliate of
German automaker Volkswagen Group was warned of a possible class
action on June 7 by motorists unhappy with its response to
complaints that some cars decelerate without warning.

Saunders & Saunders Legal spokesman Brett Sanders said the firm
was "currently investigating a potential class action" but would
not say how many had come forward to join in any court case.

Volkswagen Australia has sought to placate anxious motorists with
a promise of free inspections at its dealerships.

"We continue to stand by the quality of our cars and the integrity
of our engineering excellence in meeting this responsibility,"
Volkswagen Group Australia Managing Director John White said in a
posting on the company's Facebook page.

The company insisted it would not recall any vehicles in light of
allegations made last week at a coroner's investigation into the
death of Melissa Ryan, killed when her Volkswagen Golf was hit
from behind by a truck in Melbourne.

The truck driver claimed the car suddenly slowed before the
collision.

"There is no correlation between the inquest and the customer
reports presented in the media regarding issues with diesel
engines and DSG (Direct-Shift Gearbox) transmissions," the Company
said in a statement.


* Australia Sees Renaissance of Product Liability Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Clark, Esq. -- sclark@claytonutz.com -- and Ross McInnes,
Esq. -- rmcinnes@claytonutz.com -- at Clayton Utz, report that the
Australian class action regime has become a key feature of the
Australian legal landscape.  Barely a day goes by without the
press reporting the threat of a new class action.  Australia has
also made its mark on the class-action stage worldwide, with its
plaintiff-friendly regime and a thriving class action industry
driven by an active litigation funding sector.  As a result,
outside of North America, Australia is the place where a
corporation is most likely to find itself defending a class
action.

First introduced in 1992, class actions were slow to take hold.
However, lawyers acting for plaintiffs eventually began to
recognize the benefits offered by the new class action procedure
and the rate of filings increased.  While there was an initial
emphasis on product liability claims, a number of well-publicized
and expensive defeats saw the leading plaintiffs' firms transfer
their attention away from product claims to focus on shareholder
and financial services-based claims.  More recently, the pendulum
has started to swing back again with increasing interest in
product liability-based class actions.

Class actions in Australia ? a plaintiff-friendly model

The Australian class action regime comprises essentially identical
rules in the federal court system and the courts of Australia's
two biggest states, New South Wales and Victoria.  On any view, it
is a more plaintiff-friendly procedure than the class action rules
found in the United States.

First, the Australian class action procedure has no certification
requirement -- that is, there is no threshold requirement that the
proceedings be judicially certified as appropriate to be brought
as a class action.  Once a class action has been commenced it
continues until finally resolved by judgment or settlement, unless
the defendant can convince the court to terminate the proceedings
on certain limited grounds.

Second, there is no requirement that common issues predominate
over the individual issues.  In reality it is sufficient for the
representative plaintiff to show that there is at least one
substantial common issue of fact or law.  It does not matter that
the common issue or issues are insignificant when compared with
the individual issues.

Third, the Australian rules, unlike those in the United States,
expressly allow for the determination of "sub-group" or even
individual issues as part of a class action.  This means
Australian courts have generally declined to discontinue a class
action simply because it is more properly described as a mass of
individual claims with some common connections.  The classic
example of this type of action is one involving a drug or medical
device.  In the United States, courts have been reluctant to allow
such actions to proceed as class actions given the unique issues
of causation usually raised by individual class members.  As a
consequence, an Australian representative plaintiff can commence a
class action claiming damages for injuries allegedly suffered as a
result of their use or exposure to an allegedly defective product
-- for example, a drug or medical device -- notwithstanding the
fact that there will be myriad individual facts and circumstances
that must be taken into account before any individual group member
can be found to be entitled to recover damages, let alone
determine the quantum of those damages.

Fourth, a representative plaintiff can define the class members by
description.  This means that a person who meets the criteria set
out in the class definition will be a class member unless they
"opt out" of the proceedings.  This is done by providing the Court
with a written notice that the particular person wants to opt out
by a specific deadline (which is set by the Court).  If a class
member fails to opt out by the specified date, they are a class
member in the proceedings.  Thus, a person may be a class member
and thus bound by the outcome of the proceedings without their
knowledge or consent, simply on the basis that they fall within a
class definition that may be as broad as "all Australian consumers
who suffered personal injury as a consequence of their consumption
of [a particular product]".

The Australian courts have tried a number of class actions
involving product liability claims to final judgment over the past
few years.  These include class actions involving medical devices
and pharmaceuticals.  In each case the trial proceed by way of a
trial of the representative plaintiff's claims by a judge sitting
alone.  However, each of these trials only finally resolved the
claims of the representative plaintiff.  In Courtney v Medtel Pty
Limited & Others, for example, the Court found in favor of the
representative plaintiff and made an award of damages in his
favor.  However, that trial and verdict, ultimately confirmed in
the High Court of Australia (the country's ultimate appellate
court) only resolved the representative plaintiff's claim.  The
parties were then faced with the prospect of either negotiating a
"global settlement" or resolving each subsequent claim by way of a
hearing or other method of adjudication.  Not surprisingly, a
negotiated "global settlement" was achieved.  Where the defendant
is successful at the trial of the representative plaintiff's
claim, final resolution is usually a little easier but still
requires further proceedings or negotiation to finally resolve the
matter.

Litigation funding

Two uniquely Australian initiatives have driven the growth of what
is best described as the Australian "class action industry".
These are the plaintiff law firms styled on their US counterparts,
a number of which now operate as publicly listed corporations and
the recent emergence of the litigation funding enterprises.

Australian lawyers are prohibited from entering into contingency
fee arrangements with their clients under which their professional
fees are calculated by reference to the amount of any judgment or
settlement received by the client.  However, the prohibition only
applies to lawyers.  Litigation funders are not so constrained,
and have found a very profitable role in the class action market.

Litigation funding agreements are commercial arrangements under
which the funder agrees to pay the fees and out of pocket expenses
of the lawyer representing the plaintiffs.  The funder will also
agree to satisfy any adverse costs orders that may be made against
an unsuccessful class plaintiff as a consequence of Australia's
"loser pays" rule.  In return for accepting this risk, the funder
will take a portion of any judgment or settlement, usually one-
third to two-thirds, calculated after the cost of the proceedings
have been reimbursed.

It has proved to be a popular enterprise -- particularly in light
of the financial success of a series of shareholder-based class
actions which delivered very significant profits to the litigation
funders.  Australia is now home to a number of publicly listed
litigation funders, as well as numerous private enterprises.  A
number of overseas funders have also entered the domestic market.
Australian plaintiff law firms have combined with funders from the
United States and other jurisdictions to pursue claims, and
principals associated with some of Australia's leading plaintiff
lawyers have ventured into the litigation funding business
themselves as shareholders.

Renaissance of product liability litigation in Australia

The impact of litigation funding on the class action industry has
been profound, and the class action landscape has moved well
beyond anything that was imagined when the regime was introduced
in 1992.

Over the past 20 years the subject matter of Australian class
actions has varied.  Although traditionally a forum for settling
mass tort or product liability disputes, the start of the new
millennium saw a trend towards class actions being commenced to
settle shareholder and financial services disputes.

Some predicted that interest in product liability class actions
would wane.  However, in the last few years Australia has seen a
renaissance of product liability claims with recent filings
focusing on medical devices and prescription medications.  There
are two possible reasons for this.

First, the major plaintiff firms and litigation funders have
focused their attention on the shareholder and financial services
claims to become the dominate players in that field.  This has
left a gap in the market for emerging firms to pursue product
liability claims.  The up-skilling of a greater number of firms in
class action litigation has resulted in more claims being
commenced by different plaintiff law firms.

Second, ongoing tort reform in Australia has continued to reduce
the availability of personal injury, motor vehicle and industrial
claims.  As a consequence, an increasing number of plaintiff
lawyers, particularly the larger firms, have turned their
attention to exploring product-based class actions.

Australia as the class action jurisdiction of choice

The Australian class action industry is ever-expanding, with some
of its key players extending their interests to overseas
jurisdictions.  For example, the leading litigation funder, IMF
(Australia) Ltd, is funding litigation commenced in a number of
other jurisdictions.  It has also established a wholly owned
subsidiary -- Bentham Capital LLC -- in New York.  Slater &
Gordon, one of Australia's leading plaintiff law firms in the
class action industry and a publicly listed corporation, has also
extended its reach in the international arena, purchasing a large
plaintiff law firm in the United Kingdom.

As members of the Australian class action industry expand their
international reach, there has been a corresponding increase in
the presence of international participants in the local industry.
This may be due to the plaintiff-friendly regime.  It could also
be attributed to developments in other jurisdictions, for example,
the recent ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States of
America which limited the ability of non-US investors to pursue
claims for compensation from foreign companies through the
American legal system.  This has resulted in Goal Group Ltd, a
London-based class action consultancy firm which recently opened
an Australian office, estimating that the income from class action
settlements in Australia will reach US$3.4 billion annually by
2020.  There can be little doubt that the Australian class action
industry will look to extend this newfound foreign interest to
products claims.

Quo vadis?

Class actions are still a (relatively) new feature of the
Australian legal landscape, and are yet to see their full
potential.  That said, the class action industry has matured
rapidly over the last 20 years, and is now a significant feature
on the Australian legal landscape.

As class actions come of age in Australia, the country's courts
have the potential to become the jurisdiction of choice outside
the United States for plaintiffs, lawyers and funders promoting
class actions.  The potential implications for the global business
community led to the US Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Legal
Reform entering the debate in Australia earlier this year, arguing
in favor of greater regulation of Australia's litigation funders
as one way to curb the growth of the class action industry.  This
is not something that will be resolved in the short term and
manufacturers and distributers would be wise to follow
developments in Australia closely.


* EU Draft Rules to Allow Class Actions v. Price Fixing Cartels
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lianna Brinded, writing for International Business Times, reports
that the European Union will pave the way for private individuals
to file class action lawsuits against companies that are found to
be fixing prices but will put safeguards in place to avoid a
mirror image of the US' litigation culture.

In draft rules set to be unveiled by EU Competition Commissioner
Joaquin Almunia on June 11, potential victims in sixteen Eurozone
countries will be able to sue for damages, from any company that
is seen to have fixed prices, in any market.

The countries that are being given the greenlight include Britain,
Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Poland.

Regulators around the world have either settled with a number of
banks that fixed or colluded to rig benchmark interbank lending
rates, such as Libor.

EU watchdogs are also investigating a handful of energy companies
for allegedly fixing oil prices.

While these are large scale probes, there are a number of other
alleged price-fixing scandals, occurring in the energy markets.

The draft proposal will set out common standards and minimum
requirements in a bid to harmonize differing class action lawsuit
legislation in different countries, say media agencies who have
seen the report.

In Europe, large scale private lawsuits are rare because of
fractured cross border legislation, while in the US is a much more
common occurrence.

However, in a bid to avoid opening the floodgates to potential
claims and erroneous lawsuits, the draft proposal will contain a
set of safeguards.

Among the draft rules will be stoppers against law firms and third
party funders hunting for potential claims and claimants.

It will also include rules against abusive litigation and massive
payouts.

In lieu of claim hunters, Brussels will only allow state-appointed
non-profit bodies or public agencies to act on behalf of the
individuals.

The draft rules propose an opt-in principle, which enables the
claimants to decide whether they would like to join forces with
other victims to file a class action lawsuit.

Brussels will also force a "loser pays principle", which will mean
strict regulation on contingency fees - the amount put aside to
prove that the party in a lawsuit can pay the other side's costs
should it lose.

It will also place a ban on punitive damages in order to deter
frivolous and abusive lawsuits.

The relevant EC spokesperson wasn't immediately available for
comment.


* Mediators Must Expand Tool Kit in Class Action, MDL
-----------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that mediators must expand their tool kit when
attempting to mediate a class action or multidistrict litigation
case.  There are, of course, no "typical" complex litigation
cases.  Each is unique.  But a mediator needs to recognize the
special issues involved in these cases.


* Non-U.S. Securities Settlements to Rise to $8.3BB By 2020
-----------------------------------------------------------
A new forecast study from GOAL Group, the leading global class
action services specialist, predicts that settlements in
securities class actions outside the U.S. will rise to $8.3
billion per year by 2020.  GOAL Group's study also identifies that
if non-participation rates seen in U.S. class actions are
experienced in non-U.S. activity, by the end of the decade
$2.02 billion of investors' rightful returns will be left
unreclaimed each year.

Furthermore, the report also warns that because non-U.S.
legislatures require participants to register at the beginning of
a case, investors need to participate now to receive their
rightful returns.  Any level of non-participation presents
fiduciaries, such as fund managers and custodians, with a
potential legal risk.  Experience in the U.S., along with emerging
contractual obligations, suggests that fiduciaries may be sued if
they do not ensure investors participate in class actions to
recoup a proportion of their investment losses.

This is a wake-up call to fiduciaries, as growth in non-U.S.
collective actions and evidence that some custodians are
restricting the geography of their class action service level,
indicate that non-participation rates are likely to be at least at
current U.S. case levels, and probably considerably higher.
Moreover, evidence is emerging that funds are now including the
responsibility for class action identification and participation
in contractual agreements with their custodians.

Stephen Everard, CEO, GOAL Group, comments, "Until recently, the
main focus of securities class actions was on the U.S. as the most
developed legislature in this respect.  However, class action
growth outside the U.S. is now increasing rapidly, and is
predicted to mirror the growth of the U.S. class action scene in
the early part of the 21st century.  The root of this
international diversification seems to have been a combination of
restrictions on jurisdiction definitions in the U.S. Federal
courts, along with a growing desire to develop domestic class
action procedures in many countries around the globe.  Moreover,
certain legislatures -- currently The Netherlands and Canada --
have defined and admitted the idea of a global 'class' where non-
U.S. investors in shares listed on a non-U.S. exchange can pursue
their securities class actions in those countries' courts.  There
is no viable excuse for non-participation as a number of
specialist service providers can now perform this function at
relatively low cost."

Methodology

Predicted annual settlement volumes for non-U.S. legislatures have
been modeled through to a forward date of 2020, the end of the
decade.  Using GOAL's proprietary data and insights, combined with
corroborative third party sources, the model utilizes the U.S.
class actions experience to estimate the size of annual
settlements in other world markets after a further eight years of
class actions development in these countries and in legislatures
that accept international plaintiff representation and reparation.
GOAL's predictive model adopts a conservative positioning,
factoring out the major peaks of settlement values seen in the
U.S. experience to date.


                             *********

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  * * *