CAR_Public/130711.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, July 11, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 135

                             Headlines


ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Nov. 1 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
AES CORPORATION: Court to Name Who Owns Pole Facility Contaminant
AES CORPORATION: Dismissal of Environmental Suit Under Appeal
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Settles FX Fee Litigation for $7.4 Million
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Pierce Atwood Discusses Supreme Court Ruling

APPLIANCE RECYCLING: Still Faces Suit Over ENERGY STAR Rating
AUSTRALIA: Victims of Mishandled Child Sex Abuse Cases Sue
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violation
BP PRODUCTS: Settles Tainted Gasoline Class Action for $7 Million
BUCKEYE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Beckett" Stock Suit in Del. Court

CANADIAN NAT'L RAILWAY: McKercher Violates Duty of Loyalty
CNX GAS: Files Objection to Gas Royalties Class Actions
COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in N.J.
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Citigroup Still Faces Crisis-Related Suits
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Settles American Home Mortgage-Related Suits

COMMODITY ADVISORS: Citigroup Faces Countrywide-Related Suits
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Pact in Lehman-Related Securities Suit Okayed
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Faces Discrimination-in-Lending Lawsuits
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Dismissal of ARS-Related Suit Affirmed
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Appeal From Antitrust Suit Dismissal Pending

COMMODITY ADVISORS: Citigroup Still Suits Over Falcon, ASTA Funds
CONCEPTUS INC: Faces Calif. Suit Over Bayer Healthcare Merger
CORR-JENSEN INC: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action
DEL MONTE: Judge Tosses Unjust Enrichment Claim in Class Action
E-SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT: Sets Up Claims Process in Bitcoin Scandal

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Judge OKs $150MM Flonase Class Action Settlement
GOLDMAN SACHS: Reserves Payment for Settlement of Suit v. Spear
GOLDMAN SACHS: GS&Co. Still Faces Securities Suit in Columbia
GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Claims Over CDO Market Disclosures
GOLDMAN SACHS: Supreme Court Declines to Review 2nd Cir. Ruling

GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Suit by Hudson Mezzanine Noteholders
GOLDMAN SACHS: Sued in N.Y. Over Litton-Related Transactions
GOLDMAN SACHS: N.Y. Court Orders Mediation in Suit v. GS&Co
GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Reinstates Claims in RALI-Related Lawsuit
GOLDMAN SACHS: GS&Co. Enters Mediation in MF Global Stock Suit

GOLDMAN SACHS: N.Y. Court Junks Claims in Discrimination Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Illinois Antitrust Over Credit Derivatives
GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces One Remaining Price-Fixing Suit in Calif.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of Suit Over Auction Securities Upheld
GULF RESOURCES: Enters Settlement in "Lewy" Securities Lawsuit

HOLOGIC INC: Del. Court Okays Settlement in Gen-Probe Stock Suit
HUGOTON ROYALTY: Wins Final Approval for Fankhouser Lawsuit
HUGOTON ROYALTY: Class Certification in "Roderick" Under Appeal
INUVO INC: Fla. Shareholder Suit Against Vertro Continues
INUVO INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Merger Suit

INUVO INC: Faces Illinois Suit Alleging TCPA Violations
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Faces Another Class Action Over Yoga Pants
MADISON, IL: Seeks Dismissal of Tax Auction Class Suits
MIRVAC GROUP: Waverley Park Residents Mull Powerline Class Action
MONSANTO CO: Faces Third Suit Over Genetically Engineered Wheat

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: O'Bannon Can Add Current Student Athlete to Suit
NEW DEWEY BEACH, DE: Defends Business License Fees in Class Action
NOCHI DANKNER: Partners Return NIS74 Million in Dividends
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: SEPTA Has Until July to Oppose Dismissal Bid
SCHNUCK MARKETS: Seeks Dismissal of Security Breach Class Actions

SEARS CANADA: 260 Hometown Store Dealers File Class Action
SOTHEBY'S INC: Artists Appeal Dismissal of Suit Over Royalties
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Suit Over FUSILEV PR
STATE AUTO: Sued Over "Improper" Increases in Insurance Premiums
STERICYCLE INC: Customer Sues Over Alleged Excessive Prices

TOYOTA MOTOR: July 19 Hearing Set for Acceleration Settlement
TREE.COM INC: HLC Enters Settlement in Suit Over ARM Loan
TREE.COM INC: Opposes Appeal by Former Network Lenders Suing HLC
TREE.COM INC: Suit v. HLC Escrow Gets Conditional Certification
UNITED STATES: Fort Hood Shooting Victims File Class Action

* B.C. High Court Judge Can Preside Joint Hearing Outside Province
* Minister to Initiate Disciplinary Action in Sex Abuse Probe
* Virtual World Activities May Lead to Property Rights Dispute


                             *********


ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Nov. 1 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Summary Notice of Proposed Partial Settlement of Class Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION        03 MD 1529 (JMF)
SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE LITIGATION              Civil Case No.:
03 Civ. 5785

IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SECURITIES ISSUED BY
ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES BETWEEN
AUGUST 16, 1999, AND JUNE 10, 2002, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS
PERIOD"), YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE A PAYMENT IN A PROPOSED
PARTIAL CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT.

Please read this notice carefully and in its entirety.  Your
rights may be affected by the proposed settlement described in
this notice.  A hearing will be held with respect to the proposed
settlement on November 1, 2013, at 11:00 a.m. before the Honorable
Jesse M. Furman in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, in courtroom 1105, at the Thurgood
Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New York, New
York 10007.

The settlement resolves certain claims asserted in a Class Action
against Adelphia's legal counsel defendant Buchanan Ingersoll &
Rooney PC (formerly known as Buchanan Ingersoll P.C.).

The settlement consists of twelve million dollars ($12,000,000) in
cash.

The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether the proposed
settlement pursuant to which Buchanan will pay the above amount
into a Settlement Fund in exchange for a release of claims against
them, should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable,
adequate and in the best interests of the Class.  At the hearing,
the Court will also consider whether judgment should be entered
dismissing all claims in the litigation against Buchanan with
prejudice, and approving a Plan of Allocation to distribute the
proceeds of the settlement, a request by Lead Counsel for
attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed 21.4% of the Settlement
and reimbursement of expenses of no greater than $40,000, plus
interest on such amounts at the same rate earned by the Settlement
Fund, and any other matters that may properly be brought before
the Court in connection with the settlement.

A description of the settlement and the rights of Class Members
with respect to the settlement, along with a Proof of Claim and
Release Form, are contained in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Partial Settlement of Class Action, which has been mailed to all
identifiable potential Class Members.  If you are a member of the
Class, you may be entitled to share in the distribution of the
Settlement Fund by filing a Proof of Claim and Release Form no
later than December 16, 2013.  If you already filed a Proof of
Claim and Release Form in connection with an earlier partial
settlement in this Consolidated Class Action and that claim was
not rejected, you do not have to file another proof of claim to
participate in this Settlement.  The trading information you
already provided in your prior claim form will be used to
determine your claim in this Settlement with Buchanan.  You also
have the right to exclude yourself from the proposed settlement or
object to the proposed settlement or the other matters to be
considered by the Court at the hearing, in accordance with the
procedures described in the Notice.  If you did not receive a copy
of the Notice by mail, you may obtain a copy and a Proof of Claim
and Release Form, or other information, by writing to the
following address, calling the following telephone number, or on
the Internet at:

          ADELPHIA CLAIMS
          c/o Valley Forge Administrative Services
          One Aldwyn Center, Third Floor
          P.O. Box 220
          Villanova, PA 19085-0220
          Telephone: 877-965-3300
          Web site: http://www.adelphiasettlement.com

If you are a member of the Class and do not exclude yourself from
the Class and do not submit a proper Proof of Claim and Release
Form (or have not previously submitted a Proof of Claim Form in an
earlier partial settlement in this action), you will not share in
the Settlement Fund but you will be bound by the Order and Final
Judgment of the Court entered with respect to the Settlement.

Please do not call the Clerk of the Court or Judge Furman for
information.

Dated: July 8, 2013

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Southern District of New York


AES CORPORATION: Court to Name Who Owns Pole Facility Contaminant
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case filed by the State Prosecution office of Rio Grande do
Sul, Brazil, over contamination in a pole factory now operated by
AES Florestal, Ltd., is in the evidentiary stage awaiting the
production of the court's expert opinion on several matters,
including which among the operators of the factory utilized the
products found in the area, according to The AES Corporation's May
9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

AES Florestal, Ltd. ("Florestal"), had been operating a pole
factory and had other assets, including a wooded area known as
"Horto Renner," in the State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
(collectively, "Property").

Florestal had been under the control of AES Sul ("Sul") since
October 1997, when Sul was created pursuant to a privatization by
the Government of the State of Rio Grande do Sul. After it came
under the control of Sul, Florestal performed an environmental
audit of the entire operational cycle at the pole factory. The
audit discovered 200 barrels of solid creosote waste and other
contaminants at the pole factory.

The audit concluded that the prior operator of the pole factory,
Companhia Estadual de Energia Eletrica ("CEEE"), had been using
those contaminants to treat the poles that were manufactured at
the factory. Sul and Florestal subsequently took the initiative of
communicating with Brazilian authorities, as well as CEEE, about
the adoption of containment and remediation measures.

The Public Attorney's Office has initiated a civil inquiry (Civil
Inquiry n. 24/05) to investigate potential civil liability and has
requested that the police station of Triunfo institute a police
investigation (IP number 1041/05) to investigate potential
criminal liability regarding the contamination at the pole
factory. The parties filed defenses in response to the civil
inquiry. The Public Attorney's Office then requested an injunction
which the judge rejected on September 26, 2008, and the Public
Attorney's office no longer has a right to appeal the decision.

The environmental agency ("FEPAM") has also started a procedure
(Procedure n. 088200567/059) to analyze the measures that shall be
taken to contain and remediate the contamination. Also, in March
2000, Sul filed suit against CEEE in the 2nd Court of Public
Treasure of Porto Alegre seeking to register in Sul's name the
Property that it acquired through the privatization but that
remained registered in CEEE's name. During those proceedings, AES
subsequently waived its claim to re-register the Property and
asserted a claim to recover the amounts paid for the Property.
That claim is pending. In November 2005, the 7th Court of Public
Treasure of Porto Alegre ruled that the Property must be returned
to CEEE. CEEE has had sole possession of Horto Renner since
September 2006 and of the rest of the Property since April 2006.
In February 2008, Sul and CEEE signed a "Technical Cooperation
Protocol" pursuant to which they requested a new deadline from
FEPAM in order to present a proposal.

In March 2008, the State Prosecution office filed a Class Action
against AES Florestal, AES Sul and CEEE, requiring an injunction
for the removal of the alleged sources of contamination and the
payment of an indemnity in the amount of R$6 million ($3 million).
The injunction was rejected. The proposal to FEPAM with respect to
containing and remediating the contamination was delivered on
April 8, 2008. FEPAM responded by indicating that the parties
should undertake the first step of the proposal which would be to
retain a contractor. In its response, Sul indicated that such step
should be undertaken by CEEE as the relevant environmental events
resulted from CEEE's operations.

In October 2011, the State Prosecution Office presented a new
request to the court of Triunfo for an injunction against
Florestal, Sul and CEEE for the removal of the alleged sources of
contamination and remediation, and the court granted the
injunction against CEEE but did not grant injunctive relief
against Florestal or Sul. CEEE appealed such decision, and the
State of Rio Grande do Sul Court of Appeals upheld the decision.
As required by the injunction, CEEE has started the removal and
disposal of the contaminants, which is ongoing, and Sul is not at
risk to bear any of such remediation costs, which are estimated to
be approximately R$49.0 million ($24 million).

In November 2012, the inspections performed by the court expert
and supervised by Sul confirmed that CEEE is fulfilling the
injunction by removing the contaminants. The case is in the
evidentiary stage awaiting the production of the court's expert
opinion on several matters, including which of the parties had
utilized the products found in the area.


AES CORPORATION: Dismissal of Environmental Suit Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a suit filed against The AES Corporation over
"greenhouse gas emissions that increased the destructive capacity
of Hurricane Katrina" are appealing the dismissal of the suit to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 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 May 2011, a putative class action was filed in the Mississippi
federal court against the Company and numerous unrelated
companies. The lawsuit alleges that greenhouse gas emissions
contributed to alleged global warming which, in turn, allegedly
increased the destructive capacity of Hurricane Katrina. The
plaintiffs assert claims for public and private nuisance,
trespass, negligence, and declaratory judgment. The plaintiffs
seek damages relating to loss of property, loss of business,
clean-up costs, personal injuries and death, but do not quantify
their alleged damages. The Company is unable to estimate the
alleged damages at this time.

These and other plaintiffs previously brought a substantially
similar lawsuit in the federal court but failed to obtain relief.
In October 2011, the Company and other defendants filed motions to
dismiss the lawsuit. In March 2012, the federal court granted the
motion and dismissed the lawsuit. The plaintiffs appealed to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeal is fully
briefed and oral argument occurred on May 1, 2013. The Company
believes it has meritorious defenses and will defend itself
vigorously in this lawsuit; however, there can be no assurances
that it will be successful in its efforts.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Settles FX Fee Litigation for $7.4 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
According to Alpha Consumer's Kimberly Palmer, if you received a
check in the mail that says it's from a litigation settlement, you
might naturally be a little suspicious.  After all, many
unexpected windfalls are thinly disguised scams.  But if your
check comes from the American Express FX Fee Litigation Settlement
Fund, then it's probably legitimate, and you can cash it without
worrying.

Here's the background: A class action lawsuit against credit card
companies has resulted in settlement checks for about 7.4 million
consumers who made foreign transactions on their credit cards
between 1996 and 2006.  The latest round of settlement checks were
mailed starting in mid-May; consumers will continue to receive
them through the middle of this month. (The checks are valid for
90 days, so anyone who receives a check should deposit it within
that time frame.)

The checks have unnerved many recipients, leaving some wondering
if they should cash the check or if it's some kind of scam. After
all, one popular online scam involves sending someone a fake check
and then asking them to wire a portion of it back, or collecting
personal information before the check can be cashed.

While the foreign currency fee litigation settlement fund in
legitimate, Gerri Detweiler of Credit.com warns that scammers
often take advantage of these types of events.  She writes, "I
haven't heard of any scams coming out of this settlement yet, but
if you receive an email or phone call from someone offering to
help you process a refund, ignore it.  You will not receive phone
calls or emails from the settlement administrators."

The Better Business Bureau similarly vouches for the legitimacy of
the settlement fees, but also warns it could spark "look-alike"
scams that try to fool consumers into giving up their personal
information or money.  The bureau recommends verifying the
authenticity of any check claiming to be from the fund.

Here are some other basic tips on protecting yourself from mail
fraud:

Ignore false threats. Mail marked with intimidating language, such
as, "2nd Attempt," "Request for Immediate Action" and "$2,000
fine, 5 years imprisonment, or both for any personal interfering
or obstructing with delivery of this letter" isn't necessarily
from a government source.  In fact, such letters are often
advertising extended service contracts for vehicles, and can be
safely ignored.

Beware of official-looking mail.  According to the Federal Trade
Commission, which protects consumers from deceptive business
practices, impersonating the government is a common technique
among fraudsters, even though it's illegal to do so.  The FTC has
brought cases against companies that use letterheads designed to
fool consumers into thinking it came from a government agency,
such as the FBI or U.S. Postal Service.

Make sure you're receiving all your mail.  If mail goes missing,
especially statements from financial institutions, then it could
be a sign that a fraudster has intercepted your deliveries.  In
the past, the FTC has warned the identity thieves sometimes fill
out "change of address" forms for victims and then collect the
diverted mail, which allows them to co-opt financial accounts.
Anyone who thinks they are missing mail should contact their
financial companies to double check they have the correct address.

Don't believe "you won."  Fraudsters might claim that the
recipient "won" a free vacation or a sweepstakes, but these types
of claims are often false and connected to fraud.  The recipient
might be asked to give up personal information or even pay before
collecting the "prize."  Similarly, chain letters that ask the
recipient to send money in return for future payback are illegal.

Being vigilant against this kind of "prize" fraud is what has led
some people to inadvertently discard their American Express FX Fee
Litigation Settlement Fund money.  But a true scam usually lures
its victims with much bigger rewards.  The check from the fund
won't take you to another income level -- for many people, it's
just $8.23.  Still, that's enough to buy coffee, and maybe a
cookie.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Pierce Atwood Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donald R. Frederico, Esq. -- dfrederico@pierceatwood.com -- at
Pierce Atwood LLP, reports that just over two years ago, the
Supreme Court issued its decision in AT&T Mobility, LLC v.
Concepcion, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted a
state rule that class action waivers are unconscionable.  Since
that time, some courts have sought to limit that decision, either
by finding that Concepcion is limited to state law claims or by
concluding that Concepcion does not apply if plaintiffs can
demonstrate that the high cost of individual arbitration and the
limited nature of any award would effectively prevent plaintiffs
from vindicating their rights.  For instance, as described more
fully in an earlier post by my colleague Don Frederico, the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently issued its decision
in Feeney v. Dell, Inc., in which it concluded that Concepcion
does not foreclose courts from "invalidating a class waiver where
a plaintiff can demonstrate that he or she effectively cannot
pursue a claim against the defendant in individual arbitration."
Just days later, the Supreme Court not only squarely rejected that
conclusion but also applied Concepcion to a federal claim in
American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant.

American Express involved an alleged violation of federal
antitrust laws.  The defendant, American Express, moved to compel
individual arbitration, but the plaintiffs -- a group of merchants
-- argued that the cost of proving an individual antitrust claim
vastly exceeded the potential recovery, and that, as a result,
application of the arbitration clause would prevent the merchants
from effectively vindicating their federal rights.  The Second
Circuit agreed, and concluded that individual arbitration could
not be compelled.

The Supreme Court reversed in a 5-to-3 decision (Justice Sotomayor
was recused). The Court first concluded that the principle that
arbitration agreements should be "rigorously enforced" applies
even when federal statutory rights are involved, absent a contrary
congressional command.  Finding no such congressional command in
the antitrust laws or in Rule 23, the Court then went on to
conclude that the "effective vindication" exception does not
invalidate the class action waiver simply because it would be
expensive to prove an individual claim. According to the Court,
the effective vindication exception only protects a party's right
to pursue a statutory remedy, and "the fact that it is not worth
the expense involved in proving a statutory remedy does not
constitute the elimination of the right to pursue that remedy."
To hold otherwise, the Court concluded, would be contrary to the
spirit of the FAA.  As the Court observed, requiring a federal
court to determine, prior to arbitration, the legal requirements
for success on the merits, the evidence necessary to meet those
requirements, the cost of developing that evidence, and the likely
damages would "undoubtedly destroy the prospect of speedy
resolution that arbitration . . . was meant to secure."

Justice Kagan, in a strongly worded dissent, argued that the
"effective vindication" exception barred enforcement of any
provision in an arbitration agreement that would effectively
"confer immunity fom potentially meritorious federal claims."  In
the dissent's view, an "arbitration clause may not thwart federal
law, irrespective of exactly how it does so."  Further, as the
majority found in Feeney, the dissent concluded that the
plaintiffs had proved that the cost of pursuing individual claims
was "prohibitive" in light of the potential recovery.

The majority's holding in American Express appears to implicitly
overrule the Massachusetts' court's decision in Feeney, giving
that case -- and others like it -- a short life.  While the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court may well have to address
Feeney again in light of American Express, one thing is certain:
the Supreme Court is serious about enforcing arbitration
agreements, including those containing class action waivers.
American Express is perhaps the clearest indication yet from the
Supreme Court to state courts and lower federal courts that the
FAA mandates that parties are free to agree that class arbitration
is prohibited.


APPLIANCE RECYCLING: Still Faces Suit Over ENERGY STAR Rating
-------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Recycling Centers Of America, Inc. continues to face a
suit over alleged improper labeling of appliances with the ENERGY
STAR qualification rating, 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.

In February 2012, various individuals commenced a class action
lawsuit against Whirlpool Corporation ("Whirlpool") and various
distributors of Whirlpool products, including Sears, The Home
Depot, Lowe's and the company, alleging certain appliances sold by
Whirlpool through its distribution chain, which includes the
company, were improperly designated with the ENERGY STAR
qualification rating established by the U.S. Department of Energy
and the Environmental Protection Agency.

The claims against the company include breach of warranty claims,
as well as various state consumer protection claims.  The amount
of the claim is, as yet, undetermined.  Whirlpool has offered to
fully indemnify and defend its distributors in this lawsuit,
including the company, and has engaged defense counsel to defend
itself and the distributors.  The company is monitoring
Whirlpool's defense of the claims and believe the possibility of a
material loss is remote.


AUSTRALIA: Victims of Mishandled Child Sex Abuse Cases Sue
----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Martin, writing for The Australian, reports that victims of
mishandled child sex abuse cases are suing the South Australian
Education Department, as the fallout from the Debelle royal
commission continues to rock the state Labor government.

Families involved in two cases investigated by former Supreme
Court judge Bruce Debelle are now seeking damages for the
financial and psychological impact of the government's bungled
response.

One family has issued formal proceedings, while a second has met
lawyers and is expected to begin the formal process against the
department this week.

The Australian can also reveal that parents at the western suburbs
school at the center of the Debelle inquiry are considering a
class action, with as many as 27 people understood to have been
identified as victims of the pedophile school career.  The father
who is suing the state government for its handling of a sexual
assault against his 11-year-old daughter said on July 7 he wanted
to see government accountability.

"The damage psychologically and financially has been quite
considerable.  We think it is only reasonable to expect families
who have suffered to seek compensation," he said.

A parent of another child who was raped by an older student at a
regional school said she had met with lawyers about the
department's failure in its duty of care for her child.  "I think
it is going to get quite messy for them," she said.  "This was
something so serious and they got it so wrong."

The legal action will deepen the crisis engulfing the state Labor
government over its responses to the Debelle inquiry, which has
yet to result in any disciplinary action against bureaucrats, or
the advisers of Premier Jay Weatherill, who was then education
minister.  The two cases now the subject of legal action were
investigated after Mr. Debelle widened his inquiry beyond the
western suburbs school where parents were not informed that a
pedophile had worked as an out-of-hours school worker.

Former governing council secretary of the school Danyse Soester
said parents were considering legal action.  "The moment the
government and the department knew that what they were doing was
wrong but chose to keep on doing it, that was the moment they
actively, knowingly, broke the law," she said.  "That class action
would be very strong."

Ms. Soester is campaigning for substantial policy change from
Mr. Weatherill, including the establishment of an education
ombudsman.

Another parent from the school, whose daughter was a victim,
confirmed legal action was being considered by the school
community.  "Absolutely it is something we are are exploring."

Class action lawyer Peter Humphries said the case was more suited
to multiple individual actions against the department, with the
precedent of St Ann's special school serving as a guide.

In that case, four families filed claims of up to AUD4 million,
accusing the school and church of failing to protect children from
a pedophile bus driver.

A government spokeswoman said the education department had civil
liability insurance.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
BigClassAction.com reports that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Bank of America (BoFA) by a Florida resident, over
allegations America's biggest bank is in violation of the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act.

Filed by Broward County resident Marc Katz, the lawsuit, entitled,
Marc Katz v. Bank of America NA, case number 0:13-cv-61372, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleges
BoFA uses automated dialers to call the cellphones of people who
have debt with the bank.  In the putative class action, Mr. Katz
claims that in 2010 BoFA launched a mortgage foreclosure action
against him in Florida state court.  The bank then continued to
call his cellphone using automated dialing systems in an effort to
try and collect the purported debt.  This occurred even after the
bank was told to contact Katz's attorney for anything related to
the foreclosure action, according to the lawsuit.

"Despite receipt of a letter of representation, and its inherent
cease communication directive, defendant's continued collection
efforts involved the placement of autodialed calls and/or recorded
messages to the cellular telephones of allegedly delinquent
consumers," the class action lawsuit states.

Further, Mr. Katz claims that when he answered the calls a
machine-operated voice would advise him to "please hold for the
next available representative," forcing him to wait and listen to
music or "dead air" before an actual person came on the line, the
lawsuit states.  "Defendant's persistent and unlawful calling
campaign was carried out with the intent to abuse and harass the
plaintiff," the lawsuit claims.

Mr. Katz launched the class action lawsuit on behalf of a putative
class consisting of all individuals in Florida who were the
subject of Bank of America's debt collection activities related to
their residential property in Florida and who were represented by
counsel with respect to said debt and still received pre-recorded
or auto-dialed calls on their cellphones from the bank over the
past four years.

"The defendant's policy and practice of refusing to acknowledge
attorney letters of representation is so pervasive that the class
of affected consumers is so numerous that joinder of all members
of the class is impracticable," the lawsuit states.

The complaint seeks statutory and actual damages, a permanent
injunction barring the bank and any other party from calling Katz
regarding the alleged debt, as well as a court declaration that
the bank's practices violated both the TCPA and the FCCPA.

Mr. Katz is represented by Bret L. Lusskin Jr. of Bret Lusskin PA
and by Scott D. Owens.


BP PRODUCTS: Settles Tainted Gasoline Class Action for $7 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BigClassAction.com reports that petrochemical giant BP Products
North America Inc., has reached a $7 million defective product
class action lawsuit settlement concerning allegations it sold
contaminated gasoline.

According to a statement issued on the settlement, the lawsuit was
filed after BP recalled approximately 4.7 million gallons of
contaminated gasoline, which it distributed from its Whiting,
Indiana, refinery to more than 575 retail outlets in Indiana,
Illinois, Wisconsin and Ohio.

Various problems, ranging from engine issues to damaged fuel
systems, resulted from the use of the contaminated gasoline,
affecting thousands of customers.  According to the statement,
people who are eligible for a portion of the settlement will be
notified in the near future.


BUCKEYE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Beckett" Stock Suit in Del. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Buckeye Technologies Inc. faces a securities suit in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware, 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 May 1, 2013, a putative stockholder class action complaint was
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned
James Beckett, Jr. v. Buckeye Technologies Inc., et. al., Case No.
8519-.  The complaint names as defendants Buckeye, each member of
the Buckeye board of directors (the "Individual Defendants"),
Georgia-Pacific LLC and GP Cellulose Group LLC.  The complaint
generally alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties and that Georgia-Pacific LLC and GP Cellulose
Group aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary
duties.

The complaint includes, among other allegations, that the
Individual Defendants failed to act in good faith and with due
care to maximize the value of Buckeye to its stockholders.  The
relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction
prohibiting the completion of the proposed transaction, rescission
(to the extent the proposed transaction has been completed), and
the payment of plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs.  Buckeye
believes the complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously
defend the action.  Additional lawsuits may be filed against
Buckeye in connection with the proposed merger with Georgia-
Pacific.


CANADIAN NAT'L RAILWAY: McKercher Violates Duty of Loyalty
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gray, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that the
Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a Saskatchewan law firm
retained by Canadian National Railway Co. violated its duty of
loyalty when it surprised the railroad and filed a potential
C$1.75-billion class action alleging that CN and other defendants
overcharged 100,000 Western farmers to transport their grain.

Legal observers said the July 5 unanimous decision in the case,
closely watched by lawyers across the country, clarifies the murky
rules that govern law firms and conflicts of interest.

At issue was the question of when a law firm can act against an
existing client.  In its ruling, the Supreme Court overturned a
Saskatchewan Court of Appeal decision and declared that McKercher
LLP was in a conflict of interest when it launched the massive
class action in 2008 while it was still working for CN on three
unrelated legal files, a move the railway called a "betrayal."

But the Supreme Court declined to endorse CN's call for McKercher
to be thrown off the class-action case, instead sending the
dispute back to Saskatchewan's Court of Queen's Bench, which
originally agreed with CN and disqualified McKercher, for
reconsideration.

The profession has been debating the issue of conflict-of-interest
for more than a decade, after the Supreme Court's 2002 ruling in a
case called R v. Neil established a so-called "bright-line rule"
banning law firms from acting for any client with an immediate
legal interest in direct conflict with that of an existing client,
unless both clients consent.

Critics said the Neil decision created confusion.  It sparked a
battle between the Canadian Bar Association, which argued for more
flexible rules, and the country's law societies, which regulate
lawyers.

In the July 5 decision, written by Chief Justice Beverley
McLachlin, the court stopped short of throwing McKercher off the
class action itself, saying the law firm had no access to relevant
confidential information from CN.  And the ruling says other
factors, such as whether the law firm in a conflict believed it
was acting in good faith, need to be considered in any move to
disqualify a client's legal counsel.

Malcolm Mercer, a lawyer with McCarthy Tetrault LLP who acted for
the Canadian Bar Association in its intervention in the case, said
the Supreme Court's ruling wisely limits the scope of the conflict
rules by requiring courts to consider whether or not a client
should have had the "reasonable expectation" that a law firm would
not act against it: "It addresses many of the concerns that the
CBA had. . . . Clients won't lose their lawyers without there
being a good reason."

Allan Hutchinson, a law professor at York University's Osgoode
Hall Law School in Toronto, said the Supreme Court failed to take
into account the power that huge clients like CN -- which consults
more than 50 law firms -- can wield.  By retaining so many law
firms, a large company can make it difficult for potential
opponents to find suitable lawyers to take on their case, he said.

"From an access-to-justice point of view, it is problematic,
because more vulnerable plaintiffs are going to be left out in the
cold, unable to find sophisticated and experienced counsel,"
Prof. Hutchinson said.

Adam Dodek, a professor at the University of Ottawa's faculty of
law who advised the Federation of Law Societies of Canada on its
intervention in the case, said such concerns were a red herring,
noting the number of class-action firms acting for plaintiffs
across the country.

He said the decision makes clear that the so-called "bright line
rule" for lawyers on conflicts remains in force: "I think the
court has adopted a stricter legal standard . . . and that should
give the public confidence in the duty of loyalty that they are
owed, and can expect from, their lawyer."

Lawyers for CN and McKercher could not be reached.

According to Legal Feeds' Heather Gardiner, McKercher should have
obtained its client's consent before agreeing to represent an
employee suing the company the firm was already working for on a
variety of cases.

The Supreme Court ruled the Saskatchewan law firm should have
asked for consent from client before accepting class action
retainer.

In Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, the Supreme
Court of Canada ruled that McKercher breached the bright line rule
when it accepted Gordon Wallace's retainer.

In 2008, Wallace retained McKercher to represent him as the
leading plaintiff in a class action lawsuit on behalf of Prairie
farmers against CN Rail, Canadian Pacific Railway, and others for
allegedly overcharging them for grain transportation over 25
years.

When the class action was launched, McKercher was also acting for
CN Rail in a number of other unrelated matters.  CN only found out
McKercher was acting against it in the class action when it was
served with the statement of claim.  As a result of the class
action, McKercher hastily terminated all retainers with CN, except
for one which CN terminated.  Due to the previous relationship, CN
sought to have McKercher removed from the class action.

The case went before the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench where
Chief Justice M.D. Popescul ordered McKercher be disqualified from
acting on the class action.  On appeal, the court reversed the
lower court's ruling and permitted McKercher to continue to act on
the class action.

"I conclude that McKercher's termination of its existing retainers
with CN breached its duty of commitment to its client's cause, and
its failure to advise CN of its intention to accept the Wallace
retainer breached its duty of candor to its client. However,
McKercher possessed no relevant confidential information that
could be used to prejudice CN," Justice McLaughlin wrote on behalf
of a unanimous court.

According to Legal Feeds, the bright line rule was established in
the SCC's landmark 2002 decision R. v. Neil, which stated that "a
lawyer may not represent one client whose interests are directly
adverse to the immediate interests of another current client --
even if the two mandates are unrelated -- unless both clients
consent after receiving full disclosure (and preferably
independent legal advice), and the lawyer reasonably believes that
he or she is able to represent each client without adversely
affecting the other."

The rule "recognizes that it is difficult -- often impossible --
for a lawyer or law firm to neatly compartmentalize the interests
of different clients when those interests are fundamentally
adverse," wrote Justice McLaughlin.

She went even further to clarify the scope of the bright line
rule.

"First, the bright line rule applies only where the immediate
interests of clients are directly adverse in the matters on which
the lawyer is acting. . . . Second, the bright line rule applies
only when clients are adverse in legal interest. . . . Third, the
bright line rule cannot be successfully raised by a party who
seeks to abuse it," she wrote

Gavin MacKenzie argued the case for McKercher and Wallace at the
Supreme Court.

She also wrote the rule applies in both related and unrelated
client matters.

In an e-mail to Legal Feeds, Gavin MacKenzie, a partner at Davis
LPP who represented McKercher and Wallace in the case, said, "It
is appropriate that the court remitted the question whether the
firm should be disqualified to the Queen's Bench in light of the
court's recasting of the legal framework, which differs from the
framework that was in place in 2008 when the Wallace action was
commenced.

"It is significant that one important consideration when the issue
of remedy is considered will be the good faith of the law firm in
believing that it was not reasonable for CN to expect that the
firm would not act against it in an unrelated matter in light of
CN's status as a professional litigant and the importance of the
western grain growers' right to be represented by counsel of their
choice."

As interveners in the case, the Canadian Bar Association and the
Federation of Law Societies of Canada presented their take on
national conflict rules, but the SCC refused to "mediate the
debate."

The top court awarded costs to CN Rail and sent the case back to
the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench to determine the
appropriate remedy, according to Legal Feeds.


CNX GAS: Files Objection to Gas Royalties Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
Menafn reports that CNX Gas Co., a subsidiary of CONSOL Energy,
has filed an objection to a federal judge's recommendation that
class-action lawsuits be permitted in the case of Southwest
Virginia landowners who claim energy companies have cheated them
out of natural gas royalties.

"CNX Gas does not believe the class action litigation mechanism or
the process contemplated by the court in this specific litigation
will achieve this goal [releasing money from escrow] effectively
or as promptly as it could be achieved by a change in both the
statutory and the administrative process by which escrowed
royalties are distributed," according to a written statement
released by CONSOL on July 5.

It went on to read that the "pending class action lawsuit is not a
fair or appropriate mechanism" for releasing landowners' escrowed
royalties to them.

For nearly three years, lawyers have fought in federal court to
challenge CNX Gas and EQT Production in class-action lawsuits.
Federal Judge Pamela Meade Sargent recommended last month that the
class-action suits be permitted.

EQT Production lawyers earlier filed an objection to the
recommendation.  CNX filed one last week in U.S. District Court in
Abingdon, Va.

Federal Judge James P. Jones will have the final say on whether
class-action suits are allowed.

"Class actions are appropriate only when there are uniform answers
to questions common to all class members," the CNX statement said.

But CNX officials contend that there are no "common answers" as to
who owns the royalties because of variations in the language of
the deeds and other land documents, and because "an accounting of
hundreds of subaccounts with thousands of potential owners with
thousands of different ownership percentages cannot yield a common
answer."

CNX officials appear instead to want legislators to enact laws to
expedite determinations of ownership of the money in escrow.

"If legislation had passed in 2011, the citizens of Southwest
Virginia would be more than two years closer to seeing more funds
released from the escrow account," according to the statement.
"It is CNX Gas' hope that lawmakers from both sides of the
political aisle will join together to assist the people of
Southwest Virginia to receive the escrowed royalty amounts to
which they are entitled."

The Virginia Attorney General's Office recently got involved in
the case after Sargent questioned the motives behind Assistant
Attorney General Sharon Pigeon's emails with EQT and CNX lawyers.

EQT lawyers defended the attorney general's office, and in its
objection, CNX appears to have followed suit.

"The Virginia Attorney General's office has an interest in
defending the constitutionality of the Virginia Gas and Oil Act
against attack and, as a result, has a continuing interest in
defending the Virginia Gas and Oil Board's compliance with the
statute," the statement said, referring to the statute that
prohibits companies from releasing money from escrow without a
court order, an arbitrator's order or an agreement of the
claimants.


COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia Laboratories, Inc. faces In re Columbia Laboratories,
Inc., Securities Litigation in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, 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.

Between February 1, 2012 and February 6, 2012, two putative
securities class action complaints were filed against Columbia and
certain of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.  These actions were
filed under the captions Wright v. Columbia Laboratories, Inc., et
al., and Shu v. Columbia Laboratories, Inc., et al and assert
claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act on behalf of an alleged
class of purchasers of the Common Stock during the period from
December 6, 2010 through January 20, 2012.

Both actions have been consolidated into a single proceeding
entitled In re Columbia Laboratories, Inc., Securities Litigation,
under which Actavis, Inc., and one of its officers have been added
as defendants. The complaint alleges that Columbia and one of its
officers and a director omitted to state material facts that they
were under a duty to disclose, and made materially false and
misleading statements that related to the results of Columbia's
PREGNANT study and the likelihood of approval by the FDA of an NDA
to market progesterone vaginal gel 8% for the prevention of
preterm birth in women with premature cervical shortening.

According to the complaint, these alleged omissions and misleading
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Common Stock. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages
on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and
expenses, including attorney's fees. Columbia believes that this
action is without merit, and intends to defend it vigorously. At
this time it is not possible to determine the likely outcome of,
or estimate the liability related to, this action and Columbia has
not made any provision for losses in connection with it.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Citigroup Still Faces Crisis-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Advisors Fund L.P. disclosed in its 10/A filing
(Amendment No. 3 to Form 10 Filed on June 29, 2012, as amended on
November 7, 2012 and April 24, 2013) with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission that:

Citigroup and certain of its subsidiaries have been named as
defendants in numerous legal actions and other proceedings
asserting claims for damages and related relief for losses arising
from the global financial credit and subprime-mortgage crisis that
began in 2007. Such matters include, among other types of
proceedings, claims asserted by:

     (i) individual investors and purported classes of investors
in Citigroup's common and preferred stock and debt, alleging
violations of the federal securities laws, foreign laws, state
securities and fraud law, and the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA");

    (ii) individual investors and purported classes of investors
in, and issuers of, auction rate securities alleging violations of
the federal securities and antitrust laws;

   (iii) counterparties to significant transactions adversely
affected by developments in the credit and subprime markets;

    (iv) individual investors and purported classes of investors
in securities and other investments underwritten, issued or
marketed by Citigroup, including securities issued by other public
companies, collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs"), mortgage-
backed securities ("MBS"), auction-rate securities ("ARS"),
investment funds, and other structured or leveraged instruments,
which have suffered losses as a result of the credit crisis;

     (v) municipalities, related entities and individuals
asserting public nuisance claims; and

    (vi) individual borrowers asserting claims related to their
loans.

These matters have been filed in state and federal courts across
the U.S. and in foreign tribunals, as well as in arbitrations
before Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") and other
arbitration associations.

In addition to these litigations and arbitrations, Citigroup
continues to cooperate fully in response to subpoenas and requests
for information from the SEC, FINRA, the Federal Housing Finance
Agency ("FHFA"), state attorneys general, the Department of
Justice and subdivisions thereof, bank regulators, and other
federal and state government agencies and authorities in
connection with various formal and informal (and, in many
instances, industry-wide) inquiries concerning Citigroup's
subprime and other mortgage-related conduct and business
activities, as well as other business activities affected by the
credit crisis. These business activities include, but are not
limited to, Citigroup's sponsorship, packaging, issuance,
marketing, servicing, and underwriting of CDOs and MBS, and its
origination, sale or other transfer, servicing, and foreclosure of
residential mortgages.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Settles American Home Mortgage-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Advisors Fund L.P. disclosed in its 10/A filing
(Amendment No. 3 to Form 10 Filed on June 29, 2012, as amended on
November 7, 2012 and April 24, 2013) with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission that:

On March 21, 2008, 19 alleged class actions brought by
shareholders of American Home Mortgage Investment Corp., pending
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, were consolidated under the caption IN RE AMERICAN HOME
MORTGAGE SECURITIES LITIGATION.

On June 3, 2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, alleging violations of Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended arising out of allegedly false
and misleading statements contained in the registration statements
and prospectuses issued in connection with two offerings of
American Home Mortgage securities underwritten by CGM, among
others. Defendants, including Citigroup and CGM, filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint on September 12, 2008. On July 7, 2009, lead
plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of settlements
reached with all defendants (including Citigroup and CGM). On July
31, 2009, the District Court entered an order preliminarily
approving settlements reached with all defendants (including
Citigroup and CGM).

On July 27, 2009, UTAH RETIREMENT SYSTEMS v. STRAUSS, ET AL. was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York asserting, among other claims, claims under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended and Utah state law arising out
of an offering of American Home Mortgage common stock underwritten
by CGM. This matter has been settled.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Citigroup Faces Countrywide-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Advisors Fund L.P. disclosed in its 10/A filing
(Amendment No. 3 to Form 10 Filed on June 29, 2012, as amended on
November 7, 2012 and April 24, 2013) with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission that:

Citigroup has been named in several alleged class actions lawsuits
alleging violations of Section 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended relating to its role as one of numerous
underwriters of offerings of securities and mortgage pass-through
certificates issued by Countrywide. The lawsuits include a
consolidated action filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California and two other lawsuits pending
in the Superior Court of the California, Los Angeles County.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Pact in Lehman-Related Securities Suit Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Advisors Fund L.P. disclosed in its 10/A filing
(Amendment No. 3 to Form 10 Filed on June 29, 2012, as amended on
November 7, 2012 and April 24, 2013) with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission that:

Citigroup has been named in several alleged class action lawsuits
alleging violations of Section 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended relating to its role as one of numerous
underwriters of offerings of securities issued by Lehman Brothers.
The lawsuits are currently pending in the United States District
Courts for the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District
of New York and the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas. On
May 2, 2012, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York entered a judgment approving a stipulation of
settlement with the underwriter defendants, including Citigroup,
in In Re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Faces Discrimination-in-Lending Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Advisors Fund L.P. disclosed in its 10/A filing
(Amendment No. 3 to Form 10 Filed on June 29, 2012, as amended on
November 7, 2012 and April 24, 2013) with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission that:

Two alleged class actions have been filed alleging claims of
racial discrimination in mortgage lending under the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act, and/or the Civil Rights
Act. The first action, PUELLO, ET AL. v. CITIFINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC., ET AL., was filed against Citigroup and its affiliates in
the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

The second action, NAACP v. AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE CO., ET AL., was
filed against one of Citigroup's affiliates in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. In each
action, defendants' motions to dismiss have been denied. On
September 21, 2009, the United States District Court for the
Central District of California denied defendant CitiMortgage's
motion for summary judgment and granted its motion to strike the
jury demand.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Dismissal of ARS-Related Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Advisors Fund L.P. disclosed in its 10/A filing
(Amendment No. 3 to Form 10 Filed on June 29, 2012, as amended on
November 7, 2012 and April 24, 2013) with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission that:

Beginning in March 2008, Citigroup, Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
(CGM) and their affiliates and certain current and former
officers, directors, and employees, have been named as defendants
in several individual and alleged class action lawsuits related to
auction-rate securities (ARS). These alleged securities class
actions have been consolidated in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, as IN RE CITIGROUP AUCTION
RATE SECURITIES LITIGATION.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on August 25, 2008,
asserting claims for market manipulation under Sections 10 and 20
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, violations of the
Investment Advisers Act and various state Deceptive Practices
Acts, as well as claims for breach of fiduciary duty and
injunctive relief. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on October 24, 2008, which was fully briefed on January
23, 2009.

On September 11, 2009, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. On October 15, 2009,
plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint, which defendants
also have moved to dismiss. On March 1, 2011, the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed
plaintiffs' fourth consolidated amended complaint in IN RE
CITIGROUP AUCTION RATE SECURITIES LITIGATION.

Plaintiffs-appellants have appealed to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit from the order entered on March 1,
2011 by the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York in IN RE CITIGROUP AUCTION RATE SECURITIES LITIGATION
dismissing their fourth consolidated amended complaint.

Several individual ARS actions also have been filed in state and
federal courts, asserting, among other things, violations of
federal and state securities laws. Citigroup has moved the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer all of the
individual ARS actions pending in federal court to the Southern
District of New York for consolidation or coordination with IN RE
CITIGROUP INC. AUCTION RATE SECURITIES LITIGATION.

On June 10, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
granted CGM's motion to transfer AMERICAN EAGLE OUTFITTERS, INC.,
ET AL. v. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC. from the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, where it will be coordinated with IN RE CITIGROUP INC.
AUCTION RATE SECURITIES LITIGATION and FINN v. SMITH BARNEY, ET
AL.

On June 17, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order conditionally transferring three other individual
auction rate securities actions pending against CGM in other
federal courts to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs in those actions have
opposed their transfer.

On April 1, 2009, TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC. v. CITIGROUP GLOBAL
MARKETS INC., ET AL. was filed in Texas state court asserting
violations of state securities law by CGM, B NY Capital Markets,
Inc. and Morgan Stanley and Co., Inc. Defendants removed the case
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, and plaintiff has moved to have it remanded to state court.
On May 8, 2009, CGM filed a motion to sever the claims against it
from the claims against its co-defendants. On May 17, 2011, the
District Court of Dallas County, Texas, dismissed plaintiff's
complaint in TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC. v. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS
INC., ET AL, following the settlement of the matter.

On July 23, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
issued an order transferring K-V PHARMACEUTICAL CO. v. CGM from
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York for coordination with IN RE CITIGROUP
AUCTION-RATE SECURITIES LITIGATION. On August 24, 2009, CGM moved
to dismiss the complaint.

On October 2, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multi-district
Litigation transferred OCWEN FINANCIAL CORP., ET AL. v. CGM to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
for coordination with IN RE CITIGROUP AUCTION RATE SECURITIES
LITIGATION.

On March 27, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of
plaintiffs' complaint in IN RE CITIGROUP AUCTION RATE SECURITIES
LITIGATION.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Appeal From Antitrust Suit Dismissal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Advisors Fund L.P. disclosed in its 10/A filing
(Amendment No. 3 to Form 10 Filed on June 29, 2012, as amended on
November 7, 2012 and April 24, 2013) with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission that:

Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, Maryland v. Citigroup Inc., et
al. and Russell Mayfield, et al. v. Citigroup Inc., et al., are
lawsuits filed in the Southern District of New York on behalf of a
purported class of ARS issuers and investors, respectively,
against Citigroup, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (CGM) and various
other financial institutions.

In these actions, plaintiffs allege violations of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act arising out of defendants' alleged conspiracy to
artificially restrain trade in the ARS market. On January 15,
2009, defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaints in these
actions.

On January 26, 2010, both actions were dismissed. The actions are
now pending on appeal.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Citigroup Still Suits Over Falcon, ASTA Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Advisors Fund L.P. disclosed in its 10/A filing
(Amendment No. 3 to Form 10 Filed on June 29, 2012, as amended on
November 7, 2012 and April 24, 2013) with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission that:

Beginning in April 2008, Citigroup has been named as defendant in
various complaints filed by investors in the Falcon and ASTA/MAT
funds seeking recoupment of their alleged losses. Although most of
these investor disputes have been resolved, some remain pending.

   (A) In re MAT Five Securities Litigation

Three actions asserting claims for alleged violations of Section
12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, as well as
violations of the Delaware Securities Act and breach of fiduciary
duty under Delaware law, were filed by investors in MAT Five LLC
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

These actions were consolidated under the caption IN RE MAT FIVE
SECURITIES LITIGATION. A consolidated class action complaint was
filed on October 2, 2008. On December 4, 2008, defendants filed a
motion in the District Court to dismiss the complaint in this
consolidated action brought by investors in MAT Five LLC.

On February 2, 2009, lead plaintiffs informed the court they
intended to dismiss voluntarily this action in light of the
settlement in MARIE RAYMOND REVOCABLE TRUST, ET AL. v. MAT FIVE
LLC, ET AL. in the Delaware Chancery Court, which is currently
being appealed. On April 16, 2009, lead plaintiffs requested that
the action be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal in the
Delaware case. On July 8, 2009, the District Court approved the
voluntary dismissal of this action.

   (B) Zentner v. Citigroup Inc. et al.

On June 26, 2008, an investor in Falcon Strategies Plus LLC filed
an alleged class action complaint in New York state court,
asserting claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation under
New York law, and breach of fiduciary duty under Delaware law,
relating to the marketing of shares and the management of the
Falcon fund. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
November 28, 2008. On May 19, 2009, the New York Supreme Court
issued a letter order, stating that it would approve a settlement
of plaintiff's individual claims. Plaintiff filed a stipulation
dismissing this action on July 6, 2009.

Zentner v. Citigroup Inc. et al.: On June 26, 2008, an alleged
class action was filed in New York state court by investors in MAT
Two, Mat Three, and MAT Five, against Citi, CGM, and various
related entities, alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation
under New York law and breach of fiduciary duty under Delaware law
related to the marketing of shares and management of the funds. On
July 3, 2008, defendants removed the action to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 28, 2008. The
alleged class action was consolidated with IN RE MAT FIVE
SECURITIES LITIGATION. On July 8, 2009, the District Court
dismissed this action, without prejudice, in connection with the
dismissal of IN RE MAT FIVE SECURITIES LITIGATION.

   (C) Puglisi v. Citigroup Alternative Investments LLC, et al.

On October 17, 2008, an investor in MAT Five LLC filed an alleged
class action complaint in New York state court, alleging breaches
of fiduciary duty relating to the marketing of shares and the
management of the MAT Five fund. On November 11, 2008, defendants
filed a notice of removal to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York. On December 1, 2008, the
District Court accepted the case as related to IN RE MAT FIVE
SECURITIES LITIGATION, and consolidated PUGLISI with that action.
On January 9, 2009, plaintiff filed a motion to remand this action
to New York Supreme Court. On May 29, 2009, the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York denied
plaintiff's motion to remand this action to state court. On July
8, 2009, the District Court dismissed this action without
prejudice in connection with the dismissal of IN RE MAT FIVE
SECURITIES LITIGATION.

   (D) Goodwill v. MAT Five LLC, et al.

On June 26, 2008, an investor in MAT Five LLC filed an alleged
class action complaint in California state court, alleging
violations of Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
relating to marketing of shares of MAT Five LLC. On September 2,
2008, defendants filed a motion to stay this action pending the
resolution of IN RE MAT FIVE SECURITIES LITIGATION. A settlement
of this action was approved by the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, and this action was
dismissed on March 12, 2009.


CONCEPTUS INC: Faces Calif. Suit Over Bayer Healthcare Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Conceptus, Inc. is facing a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Santa Clara over its merger
agreement with Bayer HealthCare LLC and Evelyn Acquisition
Company, according to Conceptus' May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

On May 1, 2013, a putative class action complaint captioned
Strauss v. Conceptus, Inc., et al., No. 1-13-CV-245627 was filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara. The complaint names as defendants the Company, the members
of the company's board of directors, Bayer HealthCare LLC
("Parent") and Evelyn Acquisition Company ("Purchaser") and
alleges that the company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties by entering into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as
of April 28, 2013, by and among the Company, Parent and Purchaser
(the "Merger Agreement") at an unfair price and through a flawed
process and that Parent and Purchaser aided and abetted those
breaches of fiduciary duty.

The complaint seeks a declaration that the case is maintainable as
a class action, an injunction against Purchaser's cash tender
offer to purchase all of the outstanding shares of common stock of
the Company (the "Offer") and Purchaser's merger with and into the
Company following the consummation of the Offer and subject to the
satisfaction or written waiver of certain conditions set forth in
the Merger Agreement (the "Merger"), or rescission in the event
the Offer or the Merger are consummated, unspecified damages and
an award of attorneys' and experts' fees and costs and other
relief.


CORR-JENSEN INC: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
BigClassAction.com reports that Kendra Wilkinson, the former star
of "The Girls Next Door" and "Kendra," is facing a consumer fraud
class action lawsuit over allegations she advertised a fat loss
supplement that is ineffective and possibly dangerous to people's
health.  The other named defendants in the consumer fraud lawsuit
are marketer Corr-Jensen Inc., and nutritional supplement retailer
GNC Corp.

Filed by Adam Karhu, the lawsuit, entitled Karhu v. Corr-Jensen
Labs Inc. et al., Case No. 13-cv-03583, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, claims the diet supplement
"Ab Cuts" (Abdominal Cuts) fat loss supplement was advertised by
Wilkinson as a "a health supplement, not a diet pill," which was
false and misleading.

Ms. Wilkinson promotes Ab Cuts on her website and through Facebook
and Twitter, in addition to appearing on almost all product
promotions, including appearances on talk show appearances and in
celebrity magazines.  According to the lawsuit, Ms. Wilkinson
makes paid appearances at GNC stores across the country, claiming
that Ab Cuts is her "I-Cheat-Every-Day Diet."

The Ab Cuts product line has 11 different dietary supplement
products all made with the same active ingredient, conjugated
linoleic acid ("CLA").  According to the product advertising, CLA
promotes fat and weight loss.

Further, the lawsuit alleges the defendants claim that Ab Cuts
will deliver a "3.1% reduction in body fat percentage," "amplified
metabolism," and "overall physique enhancement."  According to the
official Ab Cuts website the products are a healthy supplement
that can "assist with body-fat reduction (particularly in the
abdominal area), healthy metabolism, antioxidant supply and anti-
inflammatory assistance."  The lawsuit alleges these claims are
false and misleading, and that CLA may actually increase the risk
of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and hypertension.

Putative members of the lawsuit include anyone in the US who
bought Ab Cuts, excluding people who purchased the products for
resale. The lawsuit alleges breach of express warranty, breach of
the implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment,
violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, and for violation of
New York's consumer protection laws.

The plaintiffs are represented by Scott A. Bursor --
scott@bursor.com -- Joseph I. Marchese -- jmarchese@bursor.com --
Neal J. Deckant -- ndeckant@bursor.com -- and Yitzchak Kopel --
ykopel@bursor.com -- of Bursor & Fisher PA.


DEL MONTE: Judge Tosses Unjust Enrichment Claim in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for Pennsylvania Record, reports that a
federal judge in western Pennsylvania has agreed to dismiss one
count in a putative class action involving allegations that Del
Monte Corp. and Milo's Kitchen made false and misleading
representations relating to the Chicken Jerky Dog Treats pet
snack.

In a June 25 order, U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon, of the
Western District of Pennsylvania, tossed an unjust enrichment
count in the class action brought by plaintiff Lisa Mazur,
although the jurist refused to dismiss the balance of the claims
in the complaint.

The Pennsylvania Record reported on the case back in April after a
federal judge sitting in the Northern District of California
transferred the litigation to the U.S. District Court in
Pittsburgh.

The case was initiated close to a year ago by Ms. Mazur, whose
suit contained allegations similar to those contained within
complaints filed by plaintiffs in North Carolina and California.

The judge who granted the transfer to Pennsylvania wrote at the
time that the lawsuits raise similar claims based on allegations
that Del Monte and Milo's Kitchen misrepresented the wholesome
nature of the dog treats and failed to properly warn consumers of
the supposed contamination.

The website Courthouse News Service previously reported that
Del Monte was one of a dozen pet food manufacturers who
participated in a $24 million settlement two years ago over
allegations that wet dog food had been tainted with melamine and
cyanuric acid.

As for granting a defense motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment
count in the class action, Judge Bissoon, the federal judge from
Pittsburgh, wrote that she acted on a May 24 recommendation by
Magistrate Judge Maureen Kelly.

In her May report, Judge Kelly cited a defense argument that the
claim should be dismissed because the plaintiff has an adequate
remedy at law and thus is not entitled to an equitable remedy.

The defendants also asserted that the claim should be tossed
because Mazur has failed to allege the elements necessary to state
a claim for unjust enrichment.

Judge Kelly ended up agreeing with the defendants, writing in her
report that it is apparent from Mazur's allegations in the
complaint that "while she is dissatisfied with the chicken jerky
treats, she nevertheless purchased, received and used the product.
It therefore cannot be said that the benefit bestowed on
Defendants in the form of a profit from the sale was 'wrongly
secured.'"

Judge Bissoon adopted Judge Kelly's recommendation that the
remaining claims be allowed to proceed.

Those claims include negligence, strict liability, breach of
warranty, fraud, and violations of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

As for Ms. Mazur, the lead plaintiff in the case, she claims she
had to have her otherwise healthy 7-year-old dog euthanized in
early 2012 after the animal was diagnosed with kidney failure
following its ingestion of the defendants' product, which Mazur
purchased at a store in New Kensington, Pa. back on Dec. 12, 2011.

Ms. Mazur and the other plaintiffs contend that the chicken treats
are neither wholesome nor nutritious, despite claims to the
contrary by the defendants.


E-SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT: Sets Up Claims Process in Bitcoin Scandal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Owen Good, writing for Kotaku, reports that three gamers have sued
the ESEA League, one of the largest PC gaming leagues, for the
surreptitious installation on their computers of malware that
"mined" the virtual currency called bitcoins, netting a rogue ESEA
employee some $3,700 back in April.  Their lawsuit seeks class
action status.

The suit was filed in San Francisco on July 3 in California state
court.  The plaintiffs, Kevin Gallette, Jackson Smith and Roy Han,
allege that the bitcoin-mining malware required so much of their
computers' processing power that it damaged their video cards.
Several allegations of GPU damage were made in the ESEA League's
official forums as the scandal unfolded.

In a statement provided on July 7 to Kotaku, Craig Levine, a co-
owner of E-Sports Entertainment Association, the league's parent
company, said the league set up a claims process to reimburse
anyone in the ESEA League community whose hardware was damaged by
the malware.  So far, this process has resolved about 270 claims
without going to court; another 20 or so are left to be dealt
with.  Additionally, said Mr. Levine, ESEA League gave all members
a free month of Premium service.

Bitcoins are a virtual currency that are "mined" by resolving a
very complex cryptographic equation, taking large and prolonged
amounts of processing.  Compiling a large network of computers,
either knowing or unknowing, to divide the workload is one way of
doing that more efficiently.  The concept is that a computer
sitting idle gives its GPU over to the mining application.

In a statement on May 1, ESEA League's parent company, E-Sports
Entertainment Association, admitted to the installation of
bitcoin-mining code on users' computers through the ESEA League
client that handles matchmaking and other functions.  ESEA accused
an unnamed employee of doing so for personal gain.  ESEA donated
all money made from the mining, plus a matching amount, to
charity, increased prize pools, asked any users who suffered
hardware damage to file a support ticket, and promised to sanction
the employee responsible.

"The person responsible for releasing the unauthorized Bitcoin
mining code has been terminated," Mr. Levine said in a July 7
statement.

ESEA League has been in existence for about 10 years, supporting
games such as Counter-Strike, Team Fortress 2, and League of
Legends.

ESEA said the bitcoin-mining project began as an internal
experiment to see how mining worked, and whether it could become a
feature that added value.  This was around the time bitcoins'
exchange rate soared past $260 per 1.  It's now around $70.

Management ordered the mining experiment scrapped, the ESEA said,
but an unnamed employee still inserted the code into an update for
the ESEA client that all users later downloaded.  From about April
13 to the end of the month, $3,713.55 worth of bitcoins were mined
by ESEA League users.  ESEA said this employee did so without
authorization and for personal gain.

Some users complained the malware fried their video cards, causing
them to operate at extreme temperatures for prolonged times,
resulting in video errors.  Plaintiffs Gallette, Smith and Han all
allege the same thing; Messrs. Gallette and Smith say they paid
$500 for their video cards; Han said he paid $70 for his.  They
paid about $300 each to replace them.  Further, the three say
their electricity bills jumped an extra $30 in the month their
computers were running the bitcoin mining malware.

The three plaintiffs seek class action status for their complaint,
the return, to users, of any funds made from bitcoin mining
performed by their computers, compensatory damages for the cost of
their ruined hardware and electric bills, legal fees and
unspecified punitive damages.

Mr. Levine said ESEA could not comment directly on the lawsuit,
but noted "We have been dealing with the entire situation in a
responsible fashion to remedy those impacted and take steps to
prevent this from happening again."

The case is Kevin Gallette et al. vs. E-Sports Entertainment, LLC,
number CGC-13-532593.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Judge OKs $150MM Flonase Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that a federal judge has approved a $150 million settlement by
GlaxoSmithKline of a 33-member direct purchaser class action over
allegations the drugmaker monopolized the market for its nasal
spray Flonase.

On June 14, U.S. District Senior Judge Anita B. Brody of the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania also approved the payment of $50
million in attorney fees for plaintiffs class counsel.

Thomas Sobol -- tom@hbsslaw.com -- of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
in Cambridge, Mass., and Joseph Meltzer -- jmeltzer@ktmc.com -- of
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check in Radnor, Pa., are co-lead counsel
for the direct purchaser class.

"We are very pleased with Judge Brody's decision to approve the
settlement on behalf of direct purchasers of Flonase," Mr. Meltzer
said in an email.  "The settlement is an excellent result
following more than four years of hard-fought litigation.  We also
recognize and appreciate all of the hard work that Judge Brody in
deciding difficult motions and overseeing a complex case."

The plaintiffs argued that GSK delayed the entry of generic
Flonase into the market, which led to direct purchasers being
overcharged, according to court papers.  The plaintiffs also
argued that "this allowed GSK to unlawfully maintain monopoly
power in the American [Flonase] market; maintain the price of
Flonase at above-competitive levels; and overcharge the direct
purchasers millions of dollars by blocking unrestricted
competition and access to less expensive generic versions," Brody
said.

GSK said in a statement, however, that it agreed to the settlement
"in order to avoid the protracted disruption, expense and
uncertainty of continuing litigation.  It's important to note that
in reaching the settlement, the parties have agreed that it is not
an admission or evidence of any violation of any statute or law,
or any liability or wrongdoing by GSK."

The case settled shortly before going to trial and after Judge
Brody denied GSK motions for summary judgment, including one on
causation and one on Noerr-Pennington immunity, which immunizes
private entities from liability under antitrust laws.

"A proposed settlement totaling $150 million cash is reasonable
both in absolute terms and in light of the circumstances of this
litigation, particularly the risks of establishing liability at
trial," Judge Brody said in analyzing the reasonableness of the
settlement fund in light of the risks of litigation and the best
possible recovery for the class, among other factors in favor of
approving the settlement.  "Under this settlement, each class
member can benefit from the $150 million fund immediately, and
avoid the uncertainties and delay inherent in continuing to
litigate this complex class action."

Among other risks, there was no guarantee the jury would have
found GSK liable or a guarantee on how the jury would have
responded to the "complicated economic data necessary to show
damages," the judge reasoned.

Class counsel reported they spent more than 41,000 hours
litigating this case over almost five years, Judge Brody said in
her opinion.

The average billable rate is $407 per hour, according to the
judge's opinion.  The lodestar multiplier is calculated by
dividing the attorney fees of $50 million by the total amount of
hours devoted to the litigation times the $16.75 million in class
counsel's hourly rates.  There is a multiplier of 2.99 in the case
under the calculation, Judge Brody said, and it is within the
"generally acceptable range and provides additional support for
approving the attorneys' fees request."

Once all the claims are submitted, payments will be distributed
based on each class member's percentage of the total market
purchases, Judge Brody said.

Judge Brody also approved $2.1 million from the settlement fund
for the plaintiffs counsel's expenses in prosecuting the class
action.

She also approved $50,000 to class representative American Sales
and $40,000 to class representative Meijer in recognition of the
work they took in representing the class.  The plaintiffs had
sought larger incentive awards of $95,000 for American Sales and
$75,000 to Meijer.  American Sales filed the first complaint and
litigated its case for a year before Meijer filed its own action.

There is another indirect purchaser class action involving a
proposed $35 million settlement that is still pending before
Judge Brody.

The plaintiffs in that case are both consumers and third parties
who paid for or reimbursed consumers' use of Flonase or its
generic equivalents.

GSK also agreed to settle for $11 million claims from over 30
large commercial health insurers, and those insurers have agreed
to give $1 million of their recovery in fees to the indirect
purchaser class action counsel for "having created the benefits to
be received by the SHPs (settling health plans) and/or under
certain conditions for payment to the settlement class."


GOLDMAN SACHS: Reserves Payment for Settlement of Suit v. Spear
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Group Inc.) has reserved the full
amount of its proposed contribution to a settlement or a
securities suit against Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Specialists LLC,
Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, L.P. and the Group Inc., according to
Goldman Sachs' May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

Spear, Leeds & Kellogg Specialists LLC, Spear, Leeds & Kellogg,
L.P. and Group Inc. are among numerous defendants named in
purported class actions brought beginning in October 2003 on
behalf of investors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging violations of the federal securities
laws and state common law in connection with NYSE floor specialist
activities.

On October 24, 2012, the parties entered into a definitive
settlement agreement, subject to court approval.  Goldman has
reserved the full amount of its proposed contribution to the
settlement.


GOLDMAN SACHS: GS&Co. Still Faces Securities Suit in Columbia
-------------------------------------------------------------
GS&Co., a subsidiary of The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., continues
to face a securities suit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, 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.

GS&Co. was added as a defendant in an amended complaint filed on
August 14, 2006 in a purported class action pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint asserts
violations of the federal securities laws generally arising from
allegations concerning Fannie Mae's accounting practices in
connection with certain Fannie Mae-sponsored REMIC transactions
that were allegedly arranged by GS&Co. The complaint does not
specify a dollar amount of damages. The other defendants include
Fannie Mae, certain of its past and present officers and
directors, and accountants.

By a decision dated May 8, 2007, the district court granted
GS&Co.'s motion to dismiss the claim against it. The time for an
appeal will not begin to run until disposition of the claims
against other defendants. A motion to stay the action filed by the
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which took control of the
foregoing action following Fannie Mae's conservatorship, was
denied on November 14, 2011.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Claims Over CDO Market Disclosures
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. continues to face remaining claims
arising out of a securities suit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, challenging the adequacy of
Group Inc.'s public disclosure of, among other things, the firm's
activities in the CDO market, according to the company's May 9,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Beginning April 26, 2010, a number of purported securities law
class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York challenging the adequacy of Group
Inc.'s public disclosure of, among other things, the firm's
activities in the CDO market and the U.S. Securities and Exchange
investigation that led to the SEC Action.

The purported class action complaints, which name as defendants
Group Inc. and certain officers and employees of Group Inc. and
its affiliates, have been consolidated, generally allege
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
seek unspecified damages. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint on July 25, 2011. On October 6, 2011, the defendants
moved to dismiss, and by a decision dated June 21, 2012, the
district court dismissed the claims based on Group Inc.'s not
disclosing that it had received a "Wells" notice from the staff of
the SEC related to the ABACUS 2007-AC1 transaction, but permitted
the plaintiffs' other claims to proceed.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Supreme Court Declines to Review 2nd Cir. Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari filed by
GS&Co., Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company (GSMC) and GS Mortgage
Securities Corp. (GSMSC) in relation to a decision by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to affirm a dismissal of
claims brought on behalf of certain certificate purchasers,
according to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s May 9, 2013, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

GS&Co., Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company (GSMC) and GS Mortgage
Securities Corp. (GSMSC) and three current or former Goldman Sachs
employees are defendants in a putative class action commenced on
December 11, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York brought on behalf of purchasers of various
mortgage pass-through certificates and asset-backed certificates
issued by various securitization trusts established by the firm
and underwritten by GS&Co. in 2007.

The complaint generally alleges that the registration statement
and prospectus supplements for the certificates violated the
federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and rescission or rescissionary damages. Following
dismissals of certain of the plaintiff's claims under the initial
and three amended complaints, on May 5, 2011, the court granted
plaintiff's motion for entry of a final judgment dismissing all
its claims, thereby allowing plaintiff to appeal.

The plaintiff appealed from the dismissal with respect to all 17
of the offerings included in its original complaint. By a decision
dated September 6, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's
claims with respect to 10 of the offerings included in plaintiff's
original complaint but vacated the dismissal and remanded the case
to the district court with instructions to reinstate the
plaintiff's claims with respect to the other seven offerings.

On March 18, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the defendants'
petition for certiorari from the Second Circuit decision.

On October 31, 2012, the plaintiff served a fourth amended
complaint relating to those seven offerings, plus seven additional
offerings.

On June 3, 2010, another investor (who had unsuccessfully sought
to intervene in the action) filed a separate putative class action
asserting substantively similar allegations relating to one of the
offerings included in the initial plaintiff's complaint.

The district court twice granted defendants' motions to dismiss
this separate action, both times with leave to replead. On July 9,
2012, that separate plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
and the defendants moved to dismiss on September 21, 2012. On
December 26, 2012, that separate plaintiff filed a motion to amend
the second amended complaint to add claims with respect to two
additional offerings included in the initial plaintiff's
complaint, which defendants have opposed.

The securitization trusts issued, and GS&Co. underwrote,
approximately $11 billion principal amount of certificates to all
purchasers in the fourteen offerings at issue in the complaints.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Still Faces Suit by Hudson Mezzanine Noteholders
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. continues to face a suit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of investors in $821 million of notes issued by two
synthetic CDOs, according to the Group, 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 September 30, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
GS&Co., Group Inc. and two former GS&Co. employees on behalf of
investors in $821 million of notes issued in 2006 and 2007 by two
synthetic CDOs (Hudson Mezzanine 2006-1 and 2006-2).

The complaint, which was amended on February 4, 2011, asserts
federal securities law and common law claims, and seeks
unspecified compensatory, punitive and other damages. The
defendants moved to dismiss on April 5, 2011, and the motion was
granted as to plaintiff's claim of market manipulation and denied
as to the remainder of plaintiff's claims by a decision dated
March 21, 2012. On May 21, 2012, the defendants counterclaimed for
breach of contract and fraud. On December 17, 2012, the plaintiff
moved for class certification.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Sued in N.Y. Over Litton-Related Transactions
------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was added as a defendant in a suit
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York alleging violations of federal and state laws by failing
to modify the mortgage loans of homeowners participating in the
federal Home Affordable Modification Program, according to the
Group Inc.'s May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

Group Inc., Litton and Ocwen are defendants in a putative class
action filed on January 23, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York generally challenging the
procurement manner and scope of "force-placed" hazard insurance
arranged by Litton when homeowners failed to arrange for insurance
as required by their mortgages.

The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty, misappropriation, conversion, unjust enrichment
and violation of Florida unfair practices law, and seeks
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages as well as
declaratory and injunctive relief.

On February 25, 2013, Group Inc. was added as a defendant through
an amended complaint in a putative class action, originally filed
on April 6, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, against Litton, Ocwen and Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC (Ocwen Servicing). The amended complaint generally
alleges that Litton and Ocwen Servicing systematically breached
agreements and violated various federal and state consumer
protection laws by failing to modify the mortgage loans of
homeowners participating in the federal Home Affordable
Modification Program, and names Group Inc. based on its prior
ownership of Litton. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages as well as declaratory and
injunctive relief. On April 29, 2013, Group Inc. moved to dismiss.

The firm has also received, and continues to receive, requests for
information and/or subpoenas from federal, state and local
regulators and law enforcement authorities, relating to the
mortgage-related securitization process, subprime mortgages, CDOs,
synthetic mortgage-related products, particular transactions
involving these products, and servicing and foreclosure
activities, and is cooperating with these regulators and other
authorities, including in some cases agreeing to the tolling of
the relevant statute of limitations.

The firm expects to be the subject of additional putative
shareholder derivative actions, purported class actions,
rescission and "put back" claims and other litigation, additional
investor and shareholder demands, and additional regulatory and
other investigations and actions with respect to mortgage-related
offerings, loan sales, CDOs, and servicing and foreclosure
activities.


GOLDMAN SACHS: N.Y. Court Orders Mediation in Suit v. GS&Co
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
stayed the IndyMac Pass-Through Certificates Litigation, which
names GS&Co. as defendant, and directed the parties to mediate,
according to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s May 9, 2013, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

GS&Co. is among numerous underwriters named as defendants in a
putative securities class action filed on May 14, 2009 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

As to the underwriters, plaintiffs allege that the offering
documents in connection with various securitizations of mortgage-
related assets violated the disclosure requirements of the federal
securities laws. The defendants include IndyMac-related entities
formed in connection with the securitizations, the underwriters of
the offerings, certain ratings agencies which evaluated the credit
quality of the securities, and certain former officers and
directors of IndyMac affiliates.

On November 2, 2009, the underwriters moved to dismiss the
complaint. The motion was granted in part on February 17, 2010 to
the extent of dismissing claims based on offerings in which no
plaintiff purchased, and the court reserved judgment as to the
other aspects of the motion. By a decision dated June 21, 2010,
the district court formally dismissed all claims relating to
offerings in which no named plaintiff purchased certificates
(including all offerings underwritten by GS&Co.), and both granted
and denied the defendants' motions to dismiss in various other
respects.

On November 16, 2012, the district court denied the plaintiffs'
motion seeking reinstatement of claims relating to 42 offerings
previously dismissed for lack of standing (one of which was co-
underwritten by GS&Co.) without prejudice to renewal depending on
the outcome of the now-denied petition for a writ of certiorari to
the U.S. Supreme Court with respect to the Second Circuit's
decision described under "Mortgage-Related Matters".

By an order dated March 26, 2013, the district court stayed the
action for 60 days and directed the parties to mediate.

On May 17, 2010, four additional investors filed a motion seeking
to intervene in order to assert claims based on additional
offerings (including two underwritten by GS&Co.). The defendants
opposed the motion on the ground that the putative intervenors'
claims were time-barred and, on June 21, 2011, the court denied
the motion to intervene with respect to, among others, the claims
based on the offerings underwritten by GS&Co. Certain of the
putative intervenors (including those seeking to assert claims
based on two offerings underwritten by GS&Co.) have appealed.
GS&Co. underwrote approximately $751 million principal amount of
securities to all purchasers in the offerings at issue in the May
2010 motion to intervene.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Reinstates Claims in RALI-Related Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted in part a request by plaintiffs in a securities suit
against GS&Co. to reinstate a number of the claims, including
claims related to seven offerings underwritten by GS&Co, according
to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

GS&Co. is among numerous underwriters named as defendants in a
putative securities class action initially filed in September 2008
in New York Supreme Court, and subsequently removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

As to the underwriters, plaintiffs allege that the offering
documents in connection with various offerings of mortgage-backed
pass-through certificates violated the disclosure requirements of
the federal securities laws. In addition to the underwriters, the
defendants include Residential Capital, LLC (ResCap), Residential
Accredit Loans, Inc. (RALI), Residential Funding Corporation
(RFC), Residential Funding Securities Corporation (RFSC), and
certain of their officers and directors.

On March 31, 2010, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted
in part and denied in part by the district court, resulting in
dismissal on the basis of standing of all claims relating to
offerings in which no plaintiff purchased securities. In June and
July 2010, the lead plaintiff and five additional investors moved
to intervene in order to assert claims based on additional
offerings (including two underwritten by GS&Co.). On April 28,
2011, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss as to
certain of these claims (including those relating to one offering
underwritten by GS&Co. based on a release in an unrelated
settlement), but otherwise permitted the intervenor case to
proceed.

By an order dated January 3, 2013, the district court denied the
defendants' motions to dismiss certain of the intervenors'
remaining claims as time barred. Class certification of the claims
based on the pre-intervention offerings was initially denied by
the district court, and that denial was upheld on appeal; however,
following remand, on October 15, 2012, the district court
certified a class in connection with the pre-intervention
offerings.

By an order dated January 3, 2013, the district court granted
plaintiffs' application to modify the class definition to include
only initial purchasers who bought the securities directly from
the underwriters or their agents no later than ten trading days
after the offering date (rather than just on the offering date).

On March 26, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit denied the defendants' petition seeking leave to appeal
the district court's class certification orders. On April 30,
2013, the district court granted, in part, plaintiffs' request to
reinstate a number of the claims, including claims related to
seven offerings underwritten by GS&Co., that were previously
dismissed on March 31, 2010.

GS&Co. underwrote approximately $5.51 billion principal amount of
securities to all purchasers in the offerings for which claims
have not been dismissed or which have been reinstated. On May 14,
2012, ResCap, RALI and RFC filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York and
the action has been stayed with respect to them, RFSC and certain
of their officers and directors.


GOLDMAN SACHS: GS&Co. Enters Mediation in MF Global Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
GS&Co. commenced mediation relating to various MF Global Holdings
Ltd.-related proceedings, according to The Goldman Sachs Group,
Inc.'s May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

GS&Co. is among numerous underwriters named as defendants in class
action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York commencing November 18, 2011. These
complaints generally allege that the offering materials for two
offerings of MF Global Holdings Ltd. convertible notes
(aggregating approximately $575 million in principal amount) in
February 2011 and July 2011, among other things, failed to
describe adequately the nature, scope and risks of MF Global's
exposure to European sovereign debt, in violation of the
disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws.

On August 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint and on October 19, 2012, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaint. Numerous parties, including GS&Co.,
have commenced a mediation relating to various MF Global-related
proceedings. GS&Co. underwrote an aggregate principal amount of
approximately $214 million of the notes. On October 31, 2011, MF
Global Holdings Ltd. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan, New York.

GS&Co. has also received inquiries from various governmental and
regulatory bodies and self-regulatory organizations concerning
certain transactions with MF Global prior to its bankruptcy
filing. Goldman Sachs is cooperating with all such inquiries.


GOLDMAN SACHS: N.Y. Court Junks Claims in Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District for the Southern District of New York issued a
decision granting in part The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.'s and
GS&Co.'s motion to strike plaintiffs' class allegations in a suit
filed by former female employees alleging discrimination,
according to Goldman Sachs' May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District for the Southern District of New York by three
former female employees alleging that Group Inc. and GS&Co. have
systematically discriminated against female employees in respect
of compensation, promotion, assignments, mentoring and performance
evaluations.

The complaint alleges a class consisting of all female employees
employed at specified levels by Group Inc. and GS&Co. since July
2002, and asserts claims under federal and New York City
discrimination laws. The complaint seeks class action status,
injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory,
punitive and other damages. Group Inc. and GS&Co. filed a motion
to stay the claims of one of the named plaintiffs and to compel
individual arbitration with that individual, based on an
arbitration provision contained in an employment agreement between
Group Inc. and the individual.

On April 28, 2011, the magistrate judge to whom the district judge
assigned the motion denied the motion, and the district court
affirmed the magistrate judge's decision on November 15, 2011. On
March 21, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
reversed the district court's decision, holding that arbitration
should be compelled.

On June 13, 2011, Group Inc. and GS&Co. moved to strike the class
allegations of one of the three named plaintiffs based on her
failure to exhaust administrative remedies. On September 29, 2011,
the magistrate judge recommended denial of the motion to strike
and, on January 10, 2012, the district court denied the motion to
strike. On July 22, 2011, Group Inc. and GS&Co. moved to strike
all of the plaintiffs' class allegations, and for partial summary
judgment as to plaintiffs' disparate impact claims. By a decision
dated January 19, 2012, the magistrate judge recommended that
defendants' motion be denied as premature.

The defendants filed objections to that recommendation with the
district judge and on July 17, 2012, the district court issued a
decision granting in part Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to
strike plaintiffs' class allegations on the ground that plaintiffs
lacked standing to pursue certain equitable remedies and denying
in part Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike plaintiffs'
class allegations in their entirety as premature.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces Illinois Antitrust Over Credit Derivatives
---------------------------------------------------------------
GS&Co. is among the numerous defendants in a putative antitrust
class action filed on May 3, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, according to The Goldman Sachs
Group, Inc.'s May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

The complaint generally alleges that defendants violated federal
antitrust laws by conspiring to inflate bid-ask spreads for credit
derivatives. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief
as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces One Remaining Price-Fixing Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was voluntarily dismissed in all but
one action alleging it conspired to arrange bids, fix prices and
divide up the market for derivatives used by municipalities in
refinancing and hedging transactions from 1992 to 2008, 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.

Group Inc., Goldman Sachs Mitsui Marine Derivative Products, L.P.
(GSMMDP) and GS Bank USA are among numerous financial services
firms that have been named as defendants in numerous substantially
identical individual antitrust actions filed beginning on November
12, 2009 that have been coordinated with related antitrust class
action litigation and individual actions, in which no Goldman
Sachs affiliate is named, for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The plaintiffs include individual California municipal entities
and three New York non-profit entities. All of these complaints
against Group Inc., GSMMDP and GS Bank USA generally allege that
the Goldman Sachs defendants participated in a conspiracy to
arrange bids, fix prices and divide up the market for derivatives
used by municipalities in refinancing and hedging transactions
from 1992 to 2008.

The complaints assert claims under the federal antitrust laws and
either California's Cartwright Act or New York's Donnelly Act, and
seek, among other things, treble damages under the antitrust laws
in an unspecified amount and injunctive relief. On April 26, 2010,
the Goldman Sachs defendants' motion to dismiss complaints filed
by several individual California municipal plaintiffs was denied.
On August 19, 2011, Group Inc., , Goldman Sachs Mitsui Marine
Derivative Products, L.P. (GSMMDP) and GS Bank USA were
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice from all actions except
one brought by a California municipal entity.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of Suit Over Auction Securities Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the
dismissal of the suit alleging that The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
engaged in a conspiracy to manipulate the auction securities
market, 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 September 4, 2008, Group Inc. was named as a defendant,
together with numerous other financial services firms, in two
complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging that the defendants engaged in a
conspiracy to manipulate the auction securities market in
violation of federal antitrust laws.

The actions were filed, respectively, on behalf of putative
classes of issuers of and investors in auction rate securities and
seek, among other things, treble damages in an unspecified amount.
Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted on January 26, 2010 and,
by an order dated March 5, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit upheld the dismissal. Plaintiffs have agreed not to
seek further review of that decision.


GULF RESOURCES: Enters Settlement in "Lewy" Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the suit Lewy, et al. v. Gulf Resources, Inc., et al.,
No. 11-cv-3722 ODW (MRWx) filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, executed a
stipulation and agreement of settlement, 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 certain of its officers and directors (Ming Yang,
Xiaobin Liu, and Min Li, collectively, the "Individual
Defendants") have been named as defendants in a putative
securities class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.

That action, which is now captioned Lewy, et al. v. Gulf
Resources, Inc., et al., No. 11-cv-3722 ODW (MRWx), was filed on
April 29, 2011 in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The lead plaintiffs, who seek to represent
a class of all purchasers and acquirers of the Company's common
stock between March 16, 2009 and April 26, 2011 inclusive, filed
an amended complaint on September 12, 2011.

Lead plaintiffs assert claims for violations of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
The amended complaint alleges the defendants made false or
misleading statements in the Company's Annual Reports on Form
10-K for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2009, and 2010, and in
interim quarterly reports by, among other things, overstating
revenue and net income and failing to disclose material related
party transactions and certain facts about the CEO's prior
employment at another company.

The amended complaint also asserts claims against the Individual
Defendants for violations of Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The amended complaint seeks damages in an
unspecified amount.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On
May 15, 2012, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On April 30, 2013, the parties executed a
stipulation and agreement of settlement. The proposed settlement
is subject to review and approval of the Court. The Company
currently cannot estimate the amount or range of  the overall
costs in connection with this litigation. The Company believes
that such costs will be reimbursed by the insurance company to the
extent covered by the insurance policies.

General and Administrative Expenses General and administrative
expenses of Gulf Resources, Inc. were $1,969,217 for the three-
month period ended March 31, 2013, a decrease of $142,988 (or 7%)
as compared to $2,112,205 for the same period in 2012. The
decrease of $142,988 was primarily due to the decrease in legal
cost in connection with the Class Action case from $411,289 for
the three-month period ended March 31, 2012 to $93,200 for the
same period in 2013 since workload was reduced in settlement stage
discussion, partially offset by an increase in the depreciation of
the newly acquired office units in a commercial building in
September 2012.


HOLOGIC INC: Del. Court Okays Settlement in Gen-Probe Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery approved a proposed settlement of
the consolidated action In re: Gen-Probe Shareholders Litigation,
according to Hologic, Inc.'s May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

A number of lawsuits were filed against the Company, Gen-Probe,
and Gen-Probe's board of directors related to the Company's
acquisition of Gen-Probe. These include:

     (1) Teamsters Local Union No. 727 Pension Fund v. Gen-Probe
Incorporated, et al. (Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of San Diego);

     (2) Timothy Coyne v. Gen-Probe Incorporated, et al. (Delaware
Court of Chancery); and

     (3) Douglas R. Klein v. John W. Brown, et al. (Delaware
Chancery Court).

The two Delaware actions have been consolidated into a single
action titled: In re: Gen-Probe Shareholders Litigation. The suits
were filed after the announcement of the company's acquisition of
Gen-Probe on April 30, 2012 as putative stockholder class actions.
Each of the actions assert similar claims alleging that Gen-
Probe's board of directors failed to adequately discharge its
fiduciary duties to shareholders by failing to adequately value
Gen-Probe's shares and ensure that Gen-Probe's shareholders
received adequate consideration in the company's acquisition of
Gen-Probe, that the acquisition was the product of a flawed sales
process, and that the Company aided and abetted the alleged breach
of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs demand, among other things, a
preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the company's
acquisition of Gen-Probe and rescinding the transaction or any
part thereof that has been implemented.

On May 24, 2012, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action filed an
amended complaint, adding allegations that the disclosures in Gen-
Probe's preliminary proxy statement were inadequate. The
defendants in the Delaware action answered the complaint on June
4, 2012. On July 18, 2012, the parties in the Delaware action
entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding a proposed
settlement of the litigation. The proposed settlement was
conditioned upon, among other things, the execution of an
appropriate stipulation of settlement, consummation of the merger,
and final approval of the proposed settlement by the Delaware
Court of Chancery.

On April 10, 2013, the Delaware Court of Chancery approved the
proposed settlement and the consolidated action in Delaware was
dismissed with prejudice. On July 9, 2012, the plaintiffs in the
California action filed a motion for voluntary dismissal without
prejudice. On July 12, 2012, the California Superior Court entered
an order dismissing the California complaint without prejudice.


HUGOTON ROYALTY: Wins Final Approval for Fankhouser Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Texas County, Oklahoma, granted final
approval to the $37 million settlement of the lawsuit filed by
certain royalty owners of natural gas wells in Oklahoma and Kansas
against XTO Energy Inc., according to Hugoton Royalty Trust's May
9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

An amended petition for a class action lawsuit, Beer, et al. v.
XTO Energy Inc., was filed in January 2006 in the District Court
of Texas County, Oklahoma by certain royalty owners of natural gas
wells in Oklahoma and Kansas.

The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has not properly accounted
to the plaintiffs for the royalties to which they are entitled and
seek an accounting regarding the natural gas and other products
produced from their wells and the prices paid for the natural gas
and other products produced, and for payment of the monies
allegedly owed since June 2002, with a certain limited number of
plaintiffs claiming monies owed for additional time.

XTO Energy removed the case to federal district court in Oklahoma
City. In April 2010, new counsel and representative parties,
Fankhouser and Goddard, filed a motion to intervene and prosecute
the Beer class, now styled Fankhouser v. XTO Energy Inc. This
motion was granted on July 13, 2010. The new plaintiffs and
counsel filed an amended complaint asserting new causes of action
for breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment.

On December 16, 2010, the court certified the class. Cross motions
for summary judgment were filed by the parties and ruled on by the
court. XTO Energy has informed the trustee that after
consideration of the rulings by the court in March and April of
2012, some benefiting XTO Energy and some benefiting the
plaintiffs, and with due regard to the vagaries of litigation and
their uncertain outcomes, XTO Energy and the plaintiffs entered
into settlement negotiations prior to trial and reached a
tentative settlement of $37 million on April 23, 2012. XTO has
advised the trustee that $1.4 million of the settlement is
attributable to Kansas claims which predate the Trust and
therefore XTO Energy will not charge to the Trust.

The settlement also includes a new royalty calculation for future
royalty payments. The hearing for formal court approval of the
settlement was conducted on June 21, 2012 and preliminarily
approved by the court on June 29, 2012. A fairness hearing was
conducted on October 10, 2012 and the settlement was given final
approval by the court. The court's order sets out the amount of
attorneys' fees and costs awarded to the plaintiffs' counsel from
the $37 million settlement. A third party administrator will make
the distribution to the royalty owners as set out in the order
approving the settlement.


HUGOTON ROYALTY: Class Certification in "Roderick" Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is yet to rule on an appeal
against the class certification in the case Wallace B. Roderick
Revocable Living Trust, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc., according to
Hugoton Royalty Trust's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

In September 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against XTO
Energy styled Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living Trust, et al.
v. XTO Energy Inc. in the District Court of Kearny County, Kansas.
XTO Energy removed the case to federal court in Wichita, Kansas.

The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has improperly taken post-
production costs from royalties paid to the plaintiffs from wells
located in Kansas, Oklahoma and Colorado. The plaintiffs have
filed a motion to certify the class, including only Kansas and
Oklahoma wells not part of the Fankhouser matter. After filing the
motion to certify, but prior to the class certification hearing,
the plaintiff filed a motion to sever the Oklahoma portion of the
case so it could be transferred and consolidated with a newly
filed class action in Oklahoma styled Chieftain Royalty Company v.
XTO Energy Inc. This motion was granted.

In December 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against XTO
Energy styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc. in Coal
County District Court, Oklahoma. XTO Energy removed the case to
federal court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The plaintiffs
allege that XTO Energy wrongfully deducted fees from royalty
payments on Oklahoma wells, failed to make diligent efforts to
secure the best terms available for the sale of gas and its
constituents, and demand an accounting to determine whether they
have been fully and fairly paid gas royalty interests. The case
expressly excludes those claims and wells being prosecuted in the
Fankhouser case.

The Roderick case now comprises only Kansas wells not previously
included in the Fankhouser matter. The case was certified as a
class action in March 2012. XTO Energy has filed an appeal of the
class certification to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on April
11, 2012, believing the class certification was not proper. The
appeal was granted on June 26, 2012. The matter has been fully
briefed, and oral argument occurred May 8, 2013. The court will
rule at a time of its discretion.


INUVO INC: Fla. Shareholder Suit Against Vertro Continues
---------------------------------------------------------
Vertro Inc. which previously combined with Inuvo Inc., continues
to face a consolidated shareholder lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, according to
Inuvo's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

In 2005, five putative securities fraud class action lawsuits were
filed against Vertro Inc. and certain of its former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, which were subsequently consolidated.

The consolidated complaint alleged that Vertro and the individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and that the
individual defendants also violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act as "control persons." Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages
and other relief alleging that, during the putative class period,
Vertro made certain misleading statements and omitted material
information. The court granted Defendants' motion for summary
judgment on November 16, 2009, and the court entered final
judgment in favor of all Defendants on December 7, 2009.

Plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment ruling and the court's
prior orders dismissing certain claims. On September 30, 2011, the
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal
of 9 of the 11 alleged misstatements and reversed the court's
prior order on summary judgment and the case has been remanded to
the District Court.  In October 2012 the District Court entered an
order maintaining the existing stay on discovery and setting forth
a schedule for briefing by the parties on the defendants' renewed
motion of summary judgment.


INUVO INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Merger Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
A ruling on a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York over the merger
of Inuvo, Inc. and Vertro, Inc. is pending, according to Inuvo's
May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On October 27, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of New York against Vertro, its
directors, Inuvo, and Anhinga Merger Subsidiary, Inc. on behalf of
a putative class of Vertro shareholders (the "New York Action").

Two other complaints, also purportedly brought on behalf of the
same class of shareholders, were filed on November 3 and 10, 2011,
against these same defendants in Delaware Chancery Court and were
ultimately consolidated by the Court (the "Delaware Action").

The plaintiffs in both the New York and the Delaware Actions
alleged that Vertro's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties regarding the merger with Inuvo and that Vertro, Inuvo, and
Anhinga Merger Subsidiary, Inc. aided and abetted the alleged
breach of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs asked that the merger
be enjoined and sought other unspecified monetary relief.

Defendants in the Delaware Action moved to dismiss plaintiffs'
complaint, but before the briefing of that motion was complete the
plaintiffs filed a notice and proposed order of voluntary
dismissal without prejudice, which was entered by the Delaware
Court on March 20, 2012.

The defendants in the New York Action also moved to dismiss the
complaint, or in the alternative to stay proceedings.  The New
York Court granted Defendants' motion to stay on February 22, 2012
and, as a result of this ruling, the Court denied without
prejudice defendants' motion to dismiss and the plaintiff's
pending request for expedited discovery.

Plaintiffs in the New York action then filed a Second Amended
Complaint on June 19, 2012 and, on July 9, 2012, Defendants moved
to dismiss that complaint for failure to state a claim. A hearing
was held on January 31, 2013, regarding Defendants' motion to
dismiss. A ruling on the motion to dismiss is pending.


INUVO INC: Faces Illinois Suit Alleging TCPA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Inuvo, Inc. faces "Sabota Class Action" Case No.: 1:13-cv-01963 in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, 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 March 13, 2013, the plaintiff filed this purported class action
against the company and a number of other defendants alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Illinois
Prizes and Gifts Act and seeking unspecified damages. The case is
in the initial stages and Inuvo is vigorously defending the
matter.


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Faces Another Class Action Over Yoga Pants
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that Lululemon Athletica Inc. is facing
another legal proceeding in the U.S. related to the controversial
recall of its too-sheer black Luon yoga pants.

Like the other suits, the new filing announced on July 5 in New
York alleges disclosure shortcomings that artificially inflated
the stock price of the Vancouver-based retailer of high-end active
wear.

Morgan & Morgan, a major American law firm, launched its action in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of investors who bought Lululemon stock between March 21
and June 10.

The securities fraud class-action suit claims, among other things,
that defects that made the pants see-through resulted in part from
the company's alleged attempts to raise profit margins by cutting
costs.  It also alleges that Lululemon stock was artificially
inflated as a result of the defendants' positive statements, that
the company was forced to sell product at a discount to obtain
sales and protect market share and that discussions had been under
way concerning the possible replacement of CEO Christine Day.

Ms. Day announced she was stepping down on June 10, the same day
the company released its first-quarter results.  The next day,
shares of Lululemon fell $14.43, or 17.5 per cent, to close at
$67.85 (U.S.).

Earlier last week, a similar class action was filed in New York
District Court on behalf of plaintiff Houssam Alkhoury.

A third suit was filed in the Court of Chancery in Delaware by the
Hallandale Beach Police Officers and Firefighters' Personnel
Retirement Fund in May.

The pension fund filed suit over Lululemon's decision to increase
potential bonuses for executives prior to announcing the recall.
It said it wanted to examine the company's corporate books and
records to investigate whether the maker of trendy workout gear
breached their duties to protect the interests of their
shareholders.

The fund alleged Lululemon had suffered "several quality control
issues" this year, with the most recent recall of its Luon pants
estimated to have cost the company approximately $60 million.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.


MADISON, IL: Seeks Dismissal of Tax Auction Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Mike Fitzgerald, writing for News-Democrat, reports that Madison
County's problem-plagued delinquent tax auction system has become
a magnet for lawsuits, and State's Attorney Tom Gibbons is
signaling that he plans to fight hard against each one of them.

Earlier last week Mr. Gibbons' office filed motions in Madison
County Circuit Court to dismiss three class action lawsuits filed
against the county.  The lawsuits were filed in the wake of former
treasurer Fred Bathon's guilty plea in federal court to rigging
the county's annual delinquent tax lien auction for personal gain
from 2004-2009.

Gibbons also plans to mount a vigorous defense against a pair of
lawsuits filed in Madison County Circuit Court by two of the
metro-east's most prominent taxbuyers.  The lawsuits allege the
plaintiffs suffered severe financial harm as a result of botched
tax lien sale in February 2012 that was later invalidated, forcing
the county to refund all fees collected and absorb at least
$150,000 in losses.

The class action lawsuits, whose plaintiffs are a handful of
county taxpayers, allege that Mr. Bathon, during his last six
years as treasurer, conspired with his unnamed co-defendants to
change the bidding process to require "a one-time, simultaneous
bidding -- a so-called 'no trailing bid' policy," according to one
of the lawsuits.

Named as defendants in the lawsuits are Madison County Board
Chairman Alan Dunstan and Circuit Clerk Mark Von Nida.  Other co-
defendants include Mr. Bathon; Jim Foley, a former investment
officer in the treasurer's office; and 13 individuals and firms
that specialize in buying up delinquent taxes and making money off
the penalty interest.

In his motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit, Mr. Gibbons
rejected the plaintiffs' contention that county officials, like
Mr. Von Nida, had an obligation to stop the fraud that Mr. Bathon
and his co-conspirators had generated.

"But the problem is the plaintiffs haven't alleged any facts to
support that.  They've just simply made allegations," Mr. Gibbons
said.  "You have to allege a person did a certain thing, which
they failed to do."

Mr. Gibbons assailed the notion that Mr. Von Nida or any other
county official could have stopped a conspiracy that "took place
under cover of darkness" and away from the tax auction venue.

"So alleging that someone would have known a thing that was deeply
hidden by Fred Bathon, it simply doesn't stand up to logical or
legal muster," Gibbons said.

Mr. Bathon, 58, pleaded guilty to a single count of bid-rigging in
February in federal court in East St. Louis.  Mr. Bathon, who left
office at the end of 2009, faces up to 10 years in prison when he
appears at his sentencing hearing scheduled for late next month.

Collinsville attorney Steven Giacolletto, who filed one of the
class action lawsuits, said he wasn't surprised that Gibbons is
seeking to dismiss the class action lawsuits, calling it "not
something I didn't expect."

Mr. Giacolletto said he expected important evidence and testimony
will arise as the pre-trial discovery process unfolds.

Meanwhile, the county has engaged the law firm of Sandberg
Phoenix, of St. Louis, to contest the taxbuyer lawsuits filed
earlier this year after the county took the extraordinary step of
invalidating 2,700 tax sales from the February 2012 tax auction.

The county took this step after it was discovered, in May of that
year, that Treasurer Kurt Prenzler had failed to obtain a required
circuit court order allowing the tax lien auction to proceed.

The lawsuits, which were both filed in February, claim their
plaintiffs suffered severe economic harm from the botched tax
sale.  They were filed by eight taxbuying firms associated with
taxbuyer Scott McLean, of East St. Louis, who is seeking nearly
$5.6 million in damages, and by taxbuyer John Vassen, of
Belleville, who is seeking more than $421,000 in damages plus
costs.

Gibbons rejected the rationale behind both lawsuits. McLean and
Vassen received the same the same type of compensation as the
other taxbuyers.

"They received what they were entitled to under the law," he said.
"I don't believe any further compensation is appropriate."


MIRVAC GROUP: Waverley Park Residents Mull Powerline Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Gardiner, writing for Waverley Leader, reports that a
Monash councillor is calling for an independent referee to manage
the showdown brewing between Waverley Park Estate developer Mirvac
Group and residents, irate over plans to retain high-tension
powerlines at the estate.

The Leader attended Mirvac's three community briefings over the
past fortnight, where staff explained plans to raise the estate's
34m pylons by about 10m and build parkland underneath.

Councillor Robert Davies criticized the developer's process and
said residents had a right to be skeptical of the proposed
community benefits package that included AUD8.5 million in cash
offers to 1100 homeowners.

"The offers that have been made are based on a formula and I think
it would be worthwhile if there was an independent review of that
process," Cr Davies said.

Mirvac's proposed plans need to be approved by Planning Minister
Matthew Guy.

Mirvac expects to lodge paperwork in July and receive an answer in
October.

Mr. Guy's spokeswoman Rochelle Jackson said Mr. Guy's position had
not changed because the developer's 2002 planning permit clearly
stated the powerlines would be moved underground.

"The Minister expects that commitment to be honored and has stated
this a number of times in the past," Ms. Jackson said.

Monash Mayor Micaela Drieberg said that although the developer had
invested time and energy in speaking with the community, there was
"a lot of smoke and mirrors".

"Unless they (Mirvac) can clearly demonstrate on planning grounds
why an amendment is necessary, I can't see us changing our
stance," Cr Drieberg said.

She said the council would be notified once Mirvac proceeded with
its amendment application.

Meanwhile, the Waverley Park Residents Action Group is contacting
lawyers to discuss a class action.

Mirvac did not answer questions about whether compensation offers,
believed to range from AUD3000 to more than AUD100,000, would be
conditional on homeowners making no further claims against the
developer.

Its 2002 planning permit allows 15 years to move the pylons, but
an extension could be granted.


MONSANTO CO: Faces Third Suit Over Genetically Engineered Wheat
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that another Kansas farmer has filed
suit against seed giant Monsanto over the discovery of an isolated
field of genetically engineered wheat in Oregon.

Harvey County wheat grower Bill Budde sued Monsanto on July 5 in a
lawsuit seeking class-action status.  It's at least the third such
lawsuit filed in federal court in Kansas against St. Louis-based
Monsanto since the discovery of the field in May.

Similar lawsuits have also been filed in Idaho and Washington
state.

Monsanto has said none of the genetically modified wheat entered
the commercial market.  The company contends no legal liability
exists given the care undertaken, and it has vowed to present a
vigorous defense to the lawsuits.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: O'Bannon Can Add Current Student Athlete to Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenblatt, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Ed
O'Bannon, the college basketball player of the year in 1995, won
court permission to add a current student athlete to his antitrust
lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken in Oakland, ruled on July 5 in
a one-page order that the former University of California, Los
Angeles forward "may add a new named plaintiff who is a current
student-athlete" to the case.  The filing doesn't identify the
athlete.

Mr. O'Bannon is challenging the right of college sports' governing
body, conferences and schools to keep proceeds from selling the
rights to athletes' likenesses to be used in such things as
television broadcasts, videogames and clothes.  The plaintiffs say
the case may reduce the $6.4 billion in annual revenue
universities get from athletics by as much as 50%.

A victory for Mr. O'Bannon, 40, might upend the model that has
developed since Rutgers College defeated what is now Princeton
University in the first college football game 144 years ago.
Schools would have to share revenue with athletes and possibly
drop money-losing sports to offset the cost.

                          Class Action

Last month, Judge Wilken heard arguments whether O'Bannon's suit,
now combined with a lawsuit filed by former Arizona State
University quarterback Sam Keller, should become a class action,
allowing the plaintiffs' attorneys to sue on behalf of all college
football and basketball players.

The plaintiffs are asking to represent and seek damages for all
former student athletes in the U.S. who competed in Division I
basketball or NCAA football's top echelon and whose images or
names have been included in game footage or video games since
July 2005.

The lawsuit began almost four years ago when Mr. O'Bannon sued the
NCAA and its licensing company, claiming that they agreed to block
him and other former college athletes from getting paid for their
likenesses in Electronic Arts Inc. (sports videogames after they
left college.

Rocky Unruh, a lawyer representing the NCAA, didn't immediately
return a call seeking comment on the judge's ruling.

The case is Keller v. Electronic Arts Inc., 09-cv-01967, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California (Oakland).

Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA TODAY Sports, reports that
lawyers representing the plaintiffs in an antitrust suit
concerning college athletes' names, images and likenesses will be
allowed to amend their complaint against the NCAA and two co-
defendants and to add a new named plaintiff who is a current
college athlete, Judge Wilken ruled on July 5.

Judge Wilken discussed granting permission for these moves during
a hearing June 20 on whether to certify the suit as a class
action.

The July 5 officially gives the plaintiffs' lawyers two weeks to
make the adjustments to their documents and their lineup of
plaintiffs.

Following the hearing, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs,
Michael Hausfeld said: "We've been anticipating this for quite
some time and there are a number of current athletes who have
expressed a desire and an interest in joining the case."

On July 5, Mr. Hausfeld reiterated that, as well as his worry that
a current college athlete might have to deal with retribution for
joining the case.

"We expressed concern during the hearing that a current student-
athlete might face retaliation, intimidation, coercion," he said.
"We want to eliminate that."

Said NCAA spokeswoman Stacey Osburn via text message on July 5:
"We don't have a comment at this time beyond our previous
statements." NCAA executive vice president and general counsel
Donald Remy has said the defendants believe they are right on the
facts, right on the law and ultimately will prevail in the case.

Judge Wilken's decision to allow the plaintiffs to make these
modifications could be viewed as indication she is leaning toward
certifying the case as a class action in some form.

"I wouldn't say for sure this means it will be certified, but the
odds are better now than they were before," said Steve Williams --
swilliams@cpmlegal.com -- an attorney who handles anti-trust and
complex civil litigation for the Bay Area-based firm Cotchett,
Pitre and McCarthy and has appeared before Judge Wilken but is not
involved in this case.  "She could have said it's too late to fix
the complaint or the set of named plaintiffs."

Her order expressly lets lawyers for the plaintiffs address some
of the arguments made by lawyers for the NCAA and video game
manufacturer Electronic Arts and the nation's leading collegiate
trademark licensing and marketing firm, Collegiate Licensing Co.
The order also somewhat limited what the defendants' lawyers will
be able to say immediately in response to the plaintiffs' change.

In addition, it also likely will result in the plaintiffs'
formally clarifying a point that Mr. Hausfeld made during and
after the hearing: that the plaintiffs aren't concerning
themselves with the use of athletes' names, images and likenesses
in regard to jersey and other apparel sales.  That puts the case
on the areas of: TV broadcast and re-broadcast, video games and
other digital and electronic media.

However, Mr. Hausfeld said his side will not dramatically alter
its case.  Judge Wilken "was very clear that she wants the minimum
of change in the complaint."

Lawyers for the defendants have contended that one of the reasons
the case should not be certified as a class action is that the
plaintiffs' lawyers had made improper and unfair changes in their
legal strategy, trying change the case from being one exclusively
about former athletes to one that includes current athletes.

Judge Wilken indicated during the hearing June 20 that she was not
very concerned about the case having become, as practical matter,
one that includes current athletes.  But she did ask about the
absence of a current college athlete from the list of named
plaintiffs.

The order gave a clear indication that the judge expects the
defendants will seek to have the case dismissed through summary
judgment -- a request to have the case decided in their favor
based on the filings to that point in the case, rather than
through a trial.

"Defendants need not file new answers to the amended pleading
unless they would like to respond to specific new allegations made
by Antitrust Plaintiffs," Judge Wilken wrote.  "Defendants shall
not file an additional motion to dismiss or for judgment on the
pleadings and shall instead include any arguments they would have
made therein in their future motions for summary judgment."

Currently the case involves former UCLA basketball star Ed
O'Bannon and more than a dozen other former college football and
men's basketball players taking on the NCAA and its co-defendants.
The former athletes have alleged the defendants violated antitrust
law by not giving them compensation 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
forever relinquish all rights pertaining to the use of the names,
images and likenesses.

However, if Judge Wilken certifies the suit as a class action, it
could allow thousands of former and current football and men's
basketball players to join the case.  That could create the
possibility of a damages award in the billions of dollars.  In
addition, if the plaintiffs were to get everything they have said
they are seeking, it would force the establishment of an entirely
new compensation arrangement for current NCAA Bowl Subdivision
football players and Division I men's basketball players -- one
under which "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.


NEW DEWEY BEACH, DE: Defends Business License Fees in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
James Fisher, writing for The News Journal, reports that New Dewey
Beach's government is defending its business license fees in a
civil lawsuit filed by attorney and businessman Alex Pires.

Mr. Pires, who manages or owns six Dewey businesses, brought a
class-action suit against the beach town earlier this year,
complaining Dewey was treating its business license fee like a tax
and it was far above the cost that nearby towns charge.  He asked
the Chancery Court to order refunds for all the companies that
paid the fee since 2007.

According to Mr. Pires's complaint, while the average annual fee
to license a business in Rehoboth Beach or Bethany Beach is around
$360, the average fee paid by his six Dewey businesses this year
was $4,997, with one of his establishments, The Rusty Rudder,
paying more than $10,000.

Money from business licenses is an important part of Dewey Beach's
budget, accounting for 12 percent of all its revenue.  Mr. Pires's
lawsuit could cripple that funding source if he wins.  Even as
Mr. Pires presses the lawsuit, his businesses have remained open
for the busy summer season.

"If necessary, the town will demonstrate that its business license
fee raises no more revenue than is necessary to regulate the
plaintiffs," Dewey's June 28 reply said.

The Pires complaint alleges Dewey Beach's charter "does not allow
it to impose taxes on businesses," only certain specified license
or permit fees, and it contended Dewey was effectively taxing
businesses with high fees, in violation of its charter.

Dewey Beach's response argued it doesn't matter if the town uses
fee or tax in setting the cost to operate a business because the
town "enjoys broad powers of taxation" based on its charter.

Dewey's charter specifically prevents it from imposing a beach-
access tax, a personal property tax or taxes on long-term
apartment and condominium rentals.  All other kinds of taxes are
fair game, the legal brief argues, citing an "all powers" clause
in the town's 1981 charter that arguably provides general taxing
powers.

Only the three specific taxes mentioned are prohibited, the town
contends.

"If the all powers clause does not give the town the power to
impose any tax not prohibited or limited by the Constitution,
state law or other provision in the charter, why would other
provisions in the charter specifically prohibit certain types of
taxes?" Dewey's memo says.


NOCHI DANKNER: Partners Return NIS74 Million in Dividends
---------------------------------------------------------
Menafn reports that The Livnat and Manor families, Nochi Dankner's
partners in the controlling core of IDB Holding Corp. Ltd., on
July 7 signed a precedent-setting settlement in a class-action
suit, and will return part of the dividends they received from the
company in the past few years.  The two families will return
NIS74 million in equal shares.  The suit against Dankner will
continue.

Most of the money will be returned in cash, about NIS20 million by
each family.  The remaining NIS16.8 million per family will be
returned in IDB Holding shares, which the Livnat and Manor
families bought in IDB's offering in 2012 (known as the "friends
of Dankner offering").

The class-action suit was filed a year ago.  The petitioners
demanded that IDB Holding's controlling shareholders should return
the money they withdrew from the company as dividends in 2008-10.
The company distributed NIS1.8 billion in dividends, of which the
share of the Livnat and Manor families was NIS489 million.  The
petitioners claimed that the distribution was illegal because it
was made even though the company did not meet the solvency test.

In addition to the restitutions by the Livnat and Manor families,
the settlement states that if the families sell IDB Holding shares
in the coming years (each family own 11 percent of the company),
they will return 25 percent of the proceeds to the company.  The
settlement also states that if IDB signs a debt settlement, the
share of the Livnat and Manor families will be limited to the
money they returned and will return under the agreement.

The settlement also states that Yaron Zelekha provided the
financial opinion to the petitioners, and was paid NIS125,000,
excluding VAT, for his work.  The petitioners' lawyers will
receive 10 percent of the amounts that will be transferred to IDB.

During the ten years in which the Livnat and Manor families were
part of IDB's controlling core, they were the main beneficiaries,
alongside Dankner, from the billions of shekels in dividends that
it distributed in its good years. (The dividends reportedly
returned most of their investment in buying IDB shares).  The
Livnat and Manor families' fortunes are estimated at hundreds of
millions of shekels each, which they built up in their traditional
businesses: infrastructures for the Livnat family, and banking and
vehicles for the Manor family.


ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: SEPTA Has Until July to Oppose Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) has
until July 22, 2013 to file its oppositions to motions to dismiss
a securities suit filed against Orrstown Financial Services, Inc.,
according to the company's May 9, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On May 25, 2012, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority ("SEPTA") filed a putative class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania against the Company, Orrstown Bank and certain
current and former directors and executive officers (collectively,
the "Defendants").

The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i) in connection
with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated
February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated March 23,
2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of March 24, 2010
through October 27, 2011, the Company issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's lending practices
and financial results, including misleading statements concerning
the stringent nature of the Bank's credit practices and
underwriting standards, the quality of its loan portfolio, and the
intended use of the proceeds from the Company's March 2010 public
offering of common stock.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and seeks class certification, unspecified money
damages, interest, costs, fees and equitable or injunctive relief.
Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
("PSLRA"), motions for appointment of Lead Plaintiff in this case
were due by July 24, 2012. SEPTA was the sole movant and the Court
appointed SEPTA Lead Plaintiff on August 20, 2012.

Pursuant to the PSLRA and the Court's September 27, 2012 Order,
SEPTA was given until October 26, 2012 to file an amended
complaint, and the Defendants until December 7, 2012 to file a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. SEPTA's opposition to the
Defendants' motion to dismiss was originally due January 11, 2013,
and Defendants' reply brief in further support of its motion to
dismiss was originally due on January 25, 2013.

Under the PSLRA, discovery and all other proceedings in the case
are stayed pending the Court's ruling on the motion to dismiss.

The September 27, 2012 Order specified that if the motion to
dismiss were denied, the Court would schedule a conference to
address discovery and the filing of a motion for class
certification. On October 26, 2012, SEPTA filed an unopposed
motion for enlargement of time to file its amended complaint in
order to permit the parties and new defendants to be named in the
amended complaint time to discuss plaintiff's claims and
defendants' defenses.

On October 26, 2012, the Court granted SEPTA's motion, mooting its
September 27, 2012 scheduling Order, and requiring SEPTA to file
its amended complaint on or before January 16, 2013 or otherwise
advise the Court of circumstances that require a further
enlargement of time. On January 14, 2013, the Court granted
SEPTA's second unopposed motion for enlargement of time to file an
amended complaint on or before March 22, 2013.

On March 4, 2013, SEPTA filed an amended complaint. The amended
complaint expands the list of defendants in the action to include
the Company's independent registered public accounting firm and
the underwriters of the Company's March 2010 public offering of
common stock. In addition, among other things, the amended
complaint extends the purported 1934 Exchange Act class period
from March 15, 2010 through April 5, 2012 .

On March 28, 2013, the Court issued a Second Scheduling Order
requiring defendants to file their motions to dismiss the amended
complaint by May 28, 2013. The Order gives SEPTA until July 22,
2013 to file its oppositions to defendants' motions to dismiss,
and requires defendants to file reply briefs in support of their
motions to dismiss by August 23, 2013. The Second Scheduling Order
stays all discovery in the case pending the outcome of the motions
to dismiss, and informs the parties that a telephonic conference
to address discovery and the filing of SEPTA's motion for class
certification will be scheduled after the Court's ruling on the
motions to dismiss.

The Defendants believe that the allegations in SEPTA's complaint
are without merit, and intend to defend vigorously against those
claims.


SCHNUCK MARKETS: Seeks Dismissal of Security Breach Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Georgina Gustin, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that
Schnuck Markets Inc. is seeking to have two lawsuits, filed in
connection with a recent payment card security breach, dismissed
in federal courts.

In late June the company filed two motions to dismiss lawsuits,
which seek class-action status, against it, saying the plaintiffs
didn't have standing to sue and couldn't prove they suffered any
harm.  One suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago; the
other in U.S. District Court in St. Louis.

The company is facing a handful of lawsuits in which the
plaintiffs claim that the breach cost them money.

In late March, Schnucks announced that hackers had accessed their
system and were stealing payment card data.  The company later
said that 2.4 million cards, used at 79 stores from December to
late March, were impacted and could potentially cost the company
$80 million in compensatory damages in Illinois alone.

The company has said it became aware on March 15 of questionable
activity on 12 cards used at its stores.  On March 19, it hired a
forensics firm to conduct an investigation.  On March 30, it issue
its first news release on the subject, saying the problem was
"found and contained."

Lawsuits filed against the company allege that the grocer knew
about the breach and didn't tell customers in a timely manner.
The suits also allege that customers lost money because of the
breach and had to spend hours canceling cards and resetting
automatic payments.

But in its motions to dismiss, Schnucks points out that card
users, by law, are required to be compensated for any fraudulent
activity.  Because they were compensated, the company says, they
didn't suffer the economic loss the plaintiffs allege in their
suits.

Lawsuits against the company have also alleged that the hacker
breached personal information, making them vulnerable to identity
theft.  But, the company says, only financial information from the
cards' magnetic stripes was stolen, not personal information such
as names or Social Security numbers.


SEARS CANADA: 260 Hometown Store Dealers File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Sotos LLP disclosed that a "Sears Hometown" store owner in
Woodstock, Ontario, launched a class action lawsuit on July 5 on
behalf of approximately 260 Sears Hometown dealers across Canada
against Sears Canada Inc. and its American affiliate, Sears,
Roebuck and Co.  Sears Canada Inc. and Sears, Roebuck and Co. are
subsidiaries of US-parent company Sears Holding Corporation, a
company guided by U.S. billionaire and founder and CEO of hedge
fund ESL Investments, Inc., Edward S. Lampert.

The lawsuit alleges that Sears has breached its legal obligations
by depriving the dealers of the realistic opportunity to earn a
living wage and make a reasonable profit from their Hometown store
businesses.  At the same time, Sears reaps the benefits of the
dealers' hard work and investment and enjoys significant profits
from the dealer network.

Sears Hometown dealers are independent franchise operators in
smaller markets in every province and territory of Canada.  For
millions of Canadians, they are the face of the colossal Sears
brand.

The dealer agreement is structured so that Sears sets dealers'
compensation and work conditions, without regard to either minimum
labor standards or franchise protection laws.

Over the past 3 years, Sears Hometown store dealers have seen a
continuous erosion of sales and profits.  Meanwhile, Sears is
making substantial profits from each and every Hometown store.

As dealers across Canada exhaust their savings, struggle to stay
in business, or close down and face personal financial ruin, Sears
has responded by: lowering dealers' commissions, reducing local
store advertising, and bypassing dealers' stores altogether by
selling directly to customers located within the dealers'
contractually protected market areas.  This story repeats across
the country, with approximately 70% of dealer stores being
unsustainable.  Dealers typically work 50-60 hour weeks and are
liable to landlords, employees, etc. for all costs associated with
running their businesses.

Dealers have pleaded for meaningful changes, and worked to improve
the model, to no avail.

Jim Kay, the class representative and owner of the Sears Hometown
store in Woodstock, Ontario, describes the dealers' desperate
situation this way: "We put our heart and soul into this business
and the community it serves.  We supported local charities,
serviced our customers, and wore the Sears name with pride, all on
a subsistence wage, often injecting money to meet payroll and keep
the doors open."

"We are tired of losing money.  We are tired of disappointing our
customers because we lack the resources to serve them properly.
We are tired of facing the public without a smile, because we know
there is no paycheck at the end of the week.  We are tired of
being fed scraps for the benefit of a U.S. hedge fund
billionaire."

The representative plaintiff brought the action under Ontario's
Class Proceedings Act, 1992.  The claim seeks court certification
on behalf of all Sears Hometown store dealers in Canada.

A copy of the court filed statement of claim is available at:
http://www.sotosllp.com/class-actions/sears/

The dealers are represented by the Toronto law firm of Sotos LLP
-- http://www.sotosllp.comon the case, contact David Sterns at
dsterns@sotosllp.com or (416) 977-5229.

                           *     *     *

Tara Bowie, writing for QMI Agency, reports that the owner of the
Sears Hometown store in Woodstock has launched a $100 million
class action lawsuit on behalf of approximately 260 Sears Hometown
dealers across Canada against Sears Canada Inc., and its American
affiliate Sears, Roebuck and Co.

The Chatham Sears Hometown store on St. Clair Street is included
in the class action lawsuit.  However, local ownership declined
comment when contacted by The Chatham Daily News on Sunday, due to
the pending lawsuit.

"I can say it does include/affect us," said the local owner,
adding that's all he would say about it.

Jim Kay, owner of the Sears Hometown store in Woodstock said he's
been pushed too far by Sears Canada and with regret is pursuing
legal options to recoup losses.

Mr. Kay bought the small retail store and delivery depot on Dundas
Street six years ago.  He was able to whether recession fairly
well but over the last three years his business and personal life
has suffered at the hands of Sears Canada, he said.

"Basically our story here is that simply we've done everything we
can over the last two or three years to improve the business and
to make it sustainable and we just came to a point where we just
cannot do it," he said.  "We've just run out of money.  Sears is
not responding to any of our requests for additional income and in
fact they have reduced our commission in many areas."

Mr. Kay launched the class action lawsuit on July 5 on behalf of
approximately 260 Sears Hometown dealers across Canada, which
alleges Sears breached its legal obligations by depriving dealers
of a realistic opportunity to earn a living wage and make a
reasonable profit from their Hometown store businesses.

Mr. Kay said over the last few years he's tried to speak to Sears
management repeatedly about the problems occurring in almost every
hometown store across the country.

Dealer committees he's been apart of have also brought forward a
variety of ideas to make their stores profitable, but almost
everyone has been turned down.

"We're not the type to file suits. It wasn't easy for us," he
said.  "We don't want to be unreasonable but we have to put some
kind of stake in the ground to force them to sit down.  We are
open to any discussions they want to go into."

On average a hometown store owner works between 50 to 60 hours a
week.  Mr. Kay's store sells a variety of appliances and
mattresses and also takes orders for items out of the catalogue,
acting as a depot.

Although he didn't want to talk specifically about his own
financial situation Kay did say he's run out of money.

"It's between us and Sears.  We hope it doesn't affect the
customers and we hope it doesn't affect the Sears business but it
took a long time to get to this point," he said.

Mr. Kay brought the action under Ontario's Class Proceedings Act,
1992.  The claim seeks court certification on behalf of all Sears
Hometown store dealers in Canada.

The Toronto law firm of Sotos LLP represents the dealers.

Sears Canada Inc. and Sears, Roebuck and Co. are subsidiaries of
US-parent company Sears Holding Corporation, a company guided by
U.S. billionaire and founder and CEO of hedge fund ESL
Investments, Inc., Edward S. Lampert.


SOTHEBY'S INC: Artists Appeal Dismissal of Suit Over Royalties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the suit captioned, Estate of Robert Graham, et al.
v. Sotheby's, Inc. is appealing the dismissal of the case by the
U.S. 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.

Estate of Robert Graham, et al. v. Sotheby's, Inc. is a purported
class action commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California in October 2011 on behalf of U.S. artists
(and their estates) whose artworks were sold by Sotheby's in the
State of California or at auction by California sellers and for
which a royalty was allegedly due under the California Resale
Royalties Act (the "Resale Royalties Act").

Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, punitive damages and
injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Resale Royalties
Act and the California Unfair Competition Law. In January 2012,
Sotheby's filed a motion to dismiss the action on the grounds,
among others, that the Resale Royalties Act violates the U.S.
Constitution and is preempted by the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976.

In February 2012, the plaintiffs filed their response to Sotheby's
motion to dismiss. The court heard oral arguments on the motion to
dismiss on March 12, 2012. On May 17, 2012, the court issued an
order dismissing the action on the ground that the Resale
Royalties Act violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S.
Constitution. The plaintiffs have appealed this ruling. Sotheby's
believes that there are meritorious defenses to the appeal. It is
currently not possible to make an estimate of the amount or range
of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome of this
matter.


SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Suit Over FUSILEV PR
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. faces numerous securities suits as
a result of its March press release in which it announced that it
anticipated a change in ordering patterns of FUSILEV, 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.

John Perry v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (Filed March
14, 2013 in United States District Court, District of Nevada; Case
Number 2:2013-cv-00433-LDG-CWH); Junqian Carroll v. Spectrum
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (Filed March 22, 2013 in United
States District Court, District of Nevada; Case Number 2:2013-cv-
00498-RBJ-CF); Gary Santi v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
(Filed March 22, 2013 in United States District Court, District of
Nevada; Case Number 2:2013-cv-00502-LDG-CWH); William Skene v.
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (Filed April 10, 2013 in
United States District Court, District of Nevada; Case Number
3:2013-cv-00175-RBJ-VPC); and Rubin v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. et al. (Filed April 24, 2013 in the United States District
Court, District of Nevada; Case Number 3:2013-cv-00212-RCJ-VPC).

These putative class actions raise substantially identical claims
and allegations against defendants Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Dr. Rajesh C. Shrotriya, Brett L. Scott, and Joseph Kenneth
Keller. The alleged class period is August 8, 2012 to March 12,
2013. The lawsuits allege a violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against all defendants and control
person liability, as a violation of Section 20(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against the individual
defendants.

The claims purportedly stem from the Company's March 12, 2013
press release, in which it announced that it anticipated a change
in ordering patterns of FUSILEV. The complaints allege that, as a
result of the March 12, 2013 press release, the Company's stock
price declined. The complaints further allege that during the
putative class period certain defendants made misleadingly
optimistic statements about FUSILEV sales, which inflated the
trading price of Company stock. The lawsuits seek relief in the
form of monetary damages, costs and fees, and any other equitable
or injunctive relief that the court deems appropriate.


STATE AUTO: Sued Over "Improper" Increases in Insurance Premiums
----------------------------------------------------------------
State Auto Financial Corporation faces a lawsuit in Federal
District Court in Ohio relating to its homeowners insurance to
value ("ITV") program, 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 April 2013, a putative class action lawsuit (Schumacher vs.
State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, et al.) was filed
against State Auto Mutual, State Auto Financial and State Auto P&C
in Federal District Court in Ohio.

Plaintiffs' claims relate to State Auto's homeowners insurance to
value ("ITV") program and allege that their homeowners policy
limits and premiums were improperly increased, causing them to
purchase coverage in excess of that which was necessary to insure
them in the event of loss. Plaintiffs' claims include breach of
good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation and
fraud, violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and
fraudulent inducement. Plaintiffs are seeking class certification
and compensatory and punitive damages to be determined by the
court. The Company intends to deny any and all liability to
plaintiffs or the alleged class and to vigorously defend this
lawsuit.


STERICYCLE INC: Customer Sues Over Alleged Excessive Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, Inc. faces a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania by a customer alleging
unauthorized or excessive price increases, 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 was served on March 12, 2013, with a class action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania by an individual plaintiff for itself and
on behalf of all other "similarly situated" customers. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the company imposed
unauthorized or excessive price increases and other charges on the
company's customers in breach of the company's contracts and in
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act. The complaint seeks certification of the lawsuit as
a class action and the award to class members of appropriate
damages and injunctive relief.

The Pennsylvania class action complaint was filed in the wake of
the company's recent settlement with the State of New York of an
investigation under the New York False Claims Act (which the class
action complaint describes at some length). The New York
investigation arose out of a qui tam (or "whistle blower")
complaint under the federal False Claims Act and comparable state
statutes which was filed under seal in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois in April 2008 by a former
employee of the Company.

The complaint was filed on behalf of the United States and 14
states and the District of Columbia. Tennessee, Massachusetts and
Virginia have issued civil investigative demands to explore the
allegations made on their behalf in the qui tam complaint but have
not yet decided whether to join the Illinois action.

Following the filing of the Pennsylvania class action complaint,
the company served with class action complaints filed in federal
court in Florida and Illinois and in state court in California.
These complaints assert claims and allegations substantially
similar to those made in the Pennsylvania class action complaint.
All of these cases appear to be follow-on litigation to the
company's settlement with the State of New York that the company
expects to be consolidated into a single action.

The company believes it operated in accordance with the terms of
the company's customer contracts and that these complaints are
without merit.  The company intends to vigorously defend itself
against each of these lawsuits.


TOYOTA MOTOR: July 19 Hearing Set for Acceleration Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that concerns about the allocation of possible excess cash appear
to have held up for now the proposed $1.6 billion settlement
between Toyota and consumers asserting economic damages tied to
sudden acceleration defects.

U.S. District Judge James Selna in Santa Ana, Calif., concluded in
a tentative order that the deal was "fair, adequate, and
reasonable," but said that "certain difficulties in the plan of
allocation of the settlement funds preclude the Court's final
approval of the proposed settlement at this time."

He also denied the plaintiffs' steering committee's proposed $227
million in attorney fees and costs, since he hadn't approved the
deal.  He scheduled a new hearing for July 19.

Judge Selna said his conclusions were based on his own assessment
of the way leftover cash in two funds totaling $500 million would
be handled following distribution to class members.

In a separate tentative order on June 14, Judge Selna addressed
concerns that the attorney fees and costs were excessive.  The
payouts, amounting to 12.3 percent of the settlement value,
appeared to be "fair, reasonable, and adequate," he wrote.  But he
declined to complete his analysis until after the proposed
settlement is approved.  The plaintiffs' steering committee has
asked for $200 million in attorney fees and $27 million in
expenses for 31 firms.

"By any measure, the results achieved by class counsel are
exceptional," he wrote.

In an emailed statement, Steve Berman, co-lead plaintiffs' counsel
for the economic damages claims against Toyota, looked on the
bright side.  He was "extraordinarily pleased" with the judge's
ruling, he said, which "characterized the results of the
settlement as exceptional."

Mr. Berman, of Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, said that he
had not expected final approval of the settlement so soon.  "This
is a very complex settlement agreement and we anticipated that we
might have additional work to do to answer the court's questions
regarding the allocation plan."

He anticipated obtaining court approval during next month's
hearing. "I know that millions of current and former Toyota owners
are watching this closely, and we hope to have a final settlement
agreement buttoned up for them very soon."

Toyota spokesman Celeste Migliore also defended the deal.  "This
agreement is structured in ways that we believe provide
significant value to our customers and demonstrate that they can
count on Toyota to stand behind our vehicles," she wrote in a
prepared statement.  "We believe that approval of this settlement,
as amended, is in the best interests of all affected parties."

The deal aims to resolve claims that certain Toyota vehicles lost
value due to the recalls.  In particular, the settlement covers
class members who own or lease 16 models of Toyota, including the
Camry and the Corolla, nine Lexus models and three Scion models.
The model years range from 1998 to 2010.

Judge Selna had granted preliminary approval of the deal on
December 28.

According to Judge Selna's order, about 2,000 class members opted
out of the settlement and 77 objections were filed over problems
including a $30 million cy pres award for automotive research and
the potential release of claims in companion litigation over anti-
lock braking system defects in Priuses.

Judge Selna called those numbers small, given that more than
422,000 claims were at issue.

The settlement carries a total estimated value of $1.63 billion,
according to plaintiffs' attorneys.  Among its provisions are two
cash funds worth $250 million each.  One fund would be earmarked
for class members whose vehicles lost value due to the recalls,
while the other would pay class members whose vehicles are
ineligible for installation of a brake override system.

Some objectors argued that the research fund, which would go to
five universities for studies on automotive safety, was improper
because it focused on driver safety and not sudden acceleration
defects.  A cy pres distribution is a way to dispose of money
unclaimed after class members have been paid.  Such funds have
been under scrutiny by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, which last year threw out a class action settlement with
Kellogg Co. because a cy pres fund had no "nexus" to the consumer
claims, for example.

Judge Selna said the research fund did not amount to a cy pres
contribution because it would not come out of the cash portions of
the settlement.  "It is not made in lieu of any payments to the
class," he wrote.  "Instead, it is simply one part of a multi-part
settlement of complex litigation that the Court must consider as a
whole."  In any event, the payouts would appear to comply with
Ninth Circuit precedent, he said.

The judge took issue, however, with a related provision in which
excess funds from the cash portions of the deal would go to
reimburse Toyota for administering the settlement, with an equal
amount going to the research fund.  Judge Selna estimated that
such costs could amount to $20 million.

"A cy pres contribution in the amount equal to the settlement
administration costs does not meet the cy pres requirements in the
Ninth Circuit," he wrote.

He also had reservations about a provision for cash payments to
nonclaimants.  That was added to the settlement after the
plaintiffs' steering committee projected that distributions to
class members would equal less than $80 million in one fund and
$59 million in the other, Judge Selna wrote.

"Before any excess funds can be transferred to a cy pres, the
Court needs to ensure that class member [sic] are compensated to
the maximum degree possible, whether through distribution to non-
claimants or increased payments to class members with diminished
value claims or cash payment in lieu of BOS [brake override
system] claims," Judge Selna wrote.  "The Court cannot make a
final judgment at this time."

But he emphasized that the allocation issues in such a large
settlement were "unsurprising."

"The present case involves millions of class members, and the
claims filing deadline of July 29, 2013, has not yet passed," he
wrote.  "Thus, the Court does not fault the parties, their
counsel, or the settlement administrator on this point."

He rejected all other objections.  As for the separate litigation
over Prius antilock braking systems, Judge Selna acknowledged the
possibility of some overlap of claims in the settlement's release
and invited both sides to address the matter during the next
hearing.


TREE.COM INC: HLC Enters Settlement in Suit Over ARM Loan
---------------------------------------------------------
During the second quarter of 2013, a tentative settlement
agreement was reached in a suit related to the sale of option
"ARM" (adjustable-rate mortgage) loan by Home Loan Center, Inc., a
subsidiary of Tree.com, Inc., according to Tree.Com, Inc.'s
May 20, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On May 25, 2007, Plaintiffs filed the putative class action
Boschma v. Home Loan Center, Inc., No. SACV07-613 (U.S. Dist. Ct.,
C.D. Cal.) against HLC in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California. Plaintiffs allege that HLC sold them an
option "ARM" (adjustable-rate mortgage) loan but failed to
disclose in a clear and conspicuous manner, among other things,
that the interest rate was not fixed, that negative amortization
could occur and that the loan had a prepayment penalty.

Based upon these factual allegations, Plaintiffs asserted
violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act, violations of the
Unfair Competition Law, breach of contract, and breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs purport to
represent a class of all individuals who between June 1, 2003 and
May 31, 2007 obtained through HLC an option ARM loan on their
primary residence located in California, and seek rescission,
damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs have
not yet filed a motion for class certification.

Plaintiffs have filed a total of eight complaints in connection
with this lawsuit. Each of the first seven complaints has been
dismissed by the federal and state courts. Plaintiffs filed the
eighth complaint (a Second Amended Complaint) in Orange County
(California) Superior Court on March 4, 2010 alleging only the
fraud and Unfair Competition Law claims. As with each of the seven
previous versions of Plaintiffs' complaint, the Second Amended
Complaint was dismissed in April 2010.

Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and on August 10, 2011, the
appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal and directed
the trial court to overrule the demurrer. The case was remanded to
superior court.  During the second quarter of 2013, the parties
have reached a tentative settlement agreement with respect to this
matter. Accordingly, a provision was included in current
liabilities of discontinued operations as of March 31, 2013. The
impact of the settlement was not material.


TREE.COM INC: Opposes Appeal by Former Network Lenders Suing HLC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tree.com Inc., whose subsidiary faces a suit filed by former
network lenders, is opposing Plaintiffs' appellate brief in
relation to the latter's appeal against a summary judgment ruling,
according to the parent company's May 20, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

On November 30, 2006, The Mortgage Store, Inc. and Castleview Home
Loans, Inc. filed this putative class action against HLC in the
California Superior Court for Orange County. Plaintiffs, two
former network lenders, alleged that HLC interfered with
LendingTree's contracts with network lenders by taking referrals
from LendingTree without adequately disclose the relationship
between them and that HLC charged Plaintiffs higher rates and fees
than they otherwise would have been charged.

Based upon these factual allegations, Plaintiffs assert claims for
intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional
interference with prospective economic advantage, and violation of
the California Unfair Competition Law and California Business and
Professions Code Section 17500. Plaintiffs purport to represent
all network lenders from December 14, 2004 to date, and seek
damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and punitive damages.

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted April 29,
2010. On October 17, 2011, the Court granted HLC's motion for
summary judgment. Judgment was entered in favor of HLC on April 9,
2012. On June 15, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal.
Plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief on December 17,
2012.  The company filed the company's  opposition to Plaintiffs'
appellate brief in April 2013.  The company believes Plaintiffs'
allegations lack merit and the company intends to defend against
this action vigorously.


TREE.COM INC: Suit v. HLC Escrow Gets Conditional Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court granted conditional class certification to a suit
filed against Harry Carenbauer, Home Loan Center, Inc., HLC
Escrow, Inc. et al., according to Tree.com's May 20, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On November 7, 2008 Plaintiff filed this putative class action in
Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia against Harry
Carenbauer, Home Loan Center, Inc., HLC Escrow, Inc. et al.

The complaint alleges that HLC engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law in West Virginia by permitting persons who were
neither admitted to the practice of law in West Virginia nor under
the direct supervision of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law
in West Virginia to close mortgage loans.

Plaintiffs assert claims for declaratory judgment, contempt,
injunctive relief, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of
fiduciary duty, intentional misrepresentation or fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit
and Protection Act (CCPA), violation of the West Virginia Lender,
Broker & Services Act, civil conspiracy, outrage and negligence.

The claims against all defendants other than Mr. Carenbauer, HLC
and HLC Escrow, Inc. have been dismissed. The case was removed to
federal court in October 2011. On January 3, 2013, the court
granted a conditional class certification only with respect to the
declaratory judgment, contempt, unjust enrichment and CCPA claims.

The conditional class includes consumers with mortgage loans in
effect any time after November 8, 2007 who obtained such loans
through HLC, and whose loans were closed by persons not admitted
to the practice of law in West Virginia or by persons not under
the direct supervision of a lawyer admitted to the practice of law
in West Virginia. Discovery in this matter is ongoing. The Company
believes that Plaintiff's allegations lack merit and the company
intends to defend against this action vigorously.


UNITED STATES: Fort Hood Shooting Victims File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Schwartz, writing for American-Statesman, reports that
running parallel to the Maj. Nidal Hasan court-martial is a class-
action civil lawsuit, in which more than 180 victims, witnesses
and family members are suing the federal government, arguing that
officials missed signs of Mr. Hasan's growing radicalization and
that they should call the shootings a terror attack.

Federal officials have classified the attack as workplace violence
-- a distinction that is at the heart of the wrongful death suit.
The plaintiffs are seeking both monetary damages and Purple Hearts
for military victims, which would give them enhanced medical and
retirement benefits.  Government officials have invoked a strict
interpretation of the rules governing Purple Hearts, which are
awarded only to service members wounded by "enemy combatants."


* B.C. High Court Judge Can Preside Joint Hearing Outside Province
------------------------------------------------------------------
Randy C. Sutton, Esq. -- randy.sutton@nortonrosefulbright.com --
at Norton Rose Fulbright, reports that on June 19, the British
Columbia Supreme Court accepted that in certain circumstances B.C.
law permits a British Columbia Supreme Court judge to preside over
a hearing conducted outside the province as part of a joint
hearing in the context of a pan-Canadian class action.

The court accepted that the court's inherent jurisdiction permits
a provincial court to consider if it should exercise its
discretion to hold a hearing outside its home province, if such a
hearing promotes the interests of justice in the particular case.
The decision illustrates the flexibility Canadian courts are
prepared to adopt in dealing with multi-jurisdictional class
proceedings.

Background facts

The British Columbia Supreme Court made the ruling in the context
of pan-Canadian class proceedings arising out of the infection of
persons with hepatitis C by the Canadian blood supply.  The
actions in various provinces were settled by way of a pan-Canadian
settlement agreement approved in 1999 by orders of the courts in
British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario.  The court in British
Columbia was asked, by way of a motion for directions, whether a
superior court judge in British Columbia could sit with other
provincial court judges in another province to hear applications
under the settlement agreement.

The question had been raised because the Chief Justice of Ontario,
the Chief Justice of the Quebec Superior Court, and the former
Chief Justice of the British Columbia Supreme Court (now Chief
Justice of the Court of Appeal) sought to hear three distinct
applications concurrently brought in the three courts while they
were in another province for other meetings.

Court's reasoning

In accepting that the British Columbia Supreme Court had the
necessary jurisdiction, the court noted that the British Columbia
Supreme Court Civil Rules encourage the just, speedy and
inexpensive determination of every proceeding on its merits, in a
manner proportional to the amount involved, the importance of the
issues in dispute and their complexity.

These general considerations supported the view that such a
hearing could be held outside the province if appropriate and
there are no constitutional principles or rule of law preventing
such a hearing.  Further, given the use of videoconferences
permitting submissions and testimony from counsel and witnesses
anywhere in Canada, the next logical step, according to the court,
would be for the court to physically join the parties there.

The B.C. Supreme Court noted that there was no question it had the
subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the parties and that
the court is vested with a general jurisdiction at law and equity
to deal with the matter before it.  Hearing the underlying
application outside British Columbia would simply be an exercise
of the court's jurisdiction for its territory, over persons and a
subject matter within its jurisdiction.  The court adopted the
analysis of Chief Justice Winkler of the Ontario Court, who had
rendered a similar decision, stating:

41. A court should exercise its discretion to hold a hearing
outside its home province sparingly.  However, the interests of
justice may in certain situations be such that the court is
entitled -- indeed, perhaps even required -- to exercise its
jurisdiction to hold a hearing outside its home province.  When
the exercise of this discretion takes place in the context of a
class proceeding, the recognized goals of achieving judicial
economy and enhancing access to justice must be taken into
account.  Therefore, these goals must be considered in determining
the location of the hearing.

Issues arising from multi-jurisdictional class proceedings
continue to challenge Canadian provincial courts.  The Ontario
Superior Court and British Columbia Supreme Court decisions
demonstrate the courts' willingness to take steps to ensure multi-
jurisdictional litigation can be flexibly and efficiently managed
in this new age of multi-jurisdictional litigation.


* Minister to Initiate Disciplinary Action in Sex Abuse Probe
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wills, writing for The Advertiser, reports that education
officials named in an inquiry over the handling of a school sex
abuse case will receive "please explain letters" -- the first step
towards disciplinary action that could include sacking.

Education and Child Development Minister Jennifer Rankine on
July 8 said the head of her department, Keith Bartley, had
received advice from the Crown Solicitor's Office and Public
Sector Employment Commissioner Warren McCann and would write to
the employees.

The letters will detail concerns over their performance and seek a
response, Ms. Rankine said.  However, Ms. Rankine would not reveal
how many officials were to be contacted.  Nor was she prepared to
outline a timeframe for receiving the responses or ultimate
Government action.

"They are serious allegations and we hope to go through a speedy
but fair and just process," she said.

"There will be a process of outlining what the concerns are and
seeking a response.

"Quite rightly, the community have high expectations that these
matters will be investigated."

Ms. Rankine said she had "no indications" of what the result of
the process was likely to be.

However, she said Mr. Bartley had powers ranging from warnings to
dismissal.

Earlier on July 8, the crusading mother from the school at the
centre of the child sex abuse investigation confronted ministers
at Cabinet -- as it was revealed Premier Jay Weatherill has gone
on holidays.

School governing council member Danyse Soester, whose persistence
helped trigger the Debelle inquiry, this morning met State
Government ministers filing into the weekly meeting at Victoria
Square's State Administration Centre.

She implored them to take firm action in response to the Debelle
inquiry released last week, which detailed departmental failures
to properly respond to sex abuse claims.

Opposition education spokesman David Pisoni on July 8 said he
believed Mr. Weatherill had flown to Queensland.  "He should be
here, dealing with this crisis," Mr. Pisoni said.

Mr. Weatherill was education minister in 2010 when an arrest at
the school was made.  His office was alerted but there is no
evidence Mr. Weatherill was told of the case.

However, parents were not told of the case for almost two years
and the Government has since been accused of mishandling other
cases involving accused child sex offenders.

On July 8, it emerged Mr. Weatherill had taken leave and would not
return to official duties until next Monday, as the Opposition
called for two members of his staff to be sacked.

Acting Premier John Rau said he did not know where Mr. Weatherill
was.

Ms. Soester on July 8 made her case to Police Minister Michael
O'Brien, Transport Services Minister Chloe Fox, Small Business
Minister Tom Kenyon and Youth Minister Tony Piccolo.

Ms. Soester told journalists that Mr. Weatherill's absence
appeared to be a case of "bullies running away" and immediate
attention was needed to ensure implementation of the report's
findings.

Ms. Soester said earlier calls for change had been ignored and the
same could not happen again.

"We're talking about children's safety," she said.

"It's an important situation. Our children and our grandchildren
are depending on us getting this right."

              Education officials to be disciplined

Ms. Soester said she wanted to meet Mr. Weatherill "on fair
ground" to "talk rationally" about changes needed within
Government to ensure similar incidents did not occur again.

"This needs to be fixed and if you're not going to fix it Jay . .
. then please move along," she said. "We need people in positions
of power that are actually going to see to this matter."

Ms. Soester told Mr. O'Brien she wanted to be sure ministers were
responding to the report.

"I'm not looking after my two children, I'm looking after all
children today", she said.

Mr. O'Brien responded: "Good line, good line."

Last week, Ms. Soester unexpectedly attended an education forum to
tell Mr. Weatherill an education ombudsman must be appointed to
review future complaints.

Acting Premier John Rau told journalists the Government would do
"every single thing that Mr. Debelle has recommended" and defended
Mr. Weatherill's decision to take leave.

"He made it very clear last week that we are embracing what
Mr. Debelle had to say," Mr. Rau said.  "We, as a Government, are
supporting Mr. Debelle's recommendations.

"We are getting on with the job, whether the Premier is present or
not."

Mr. Rau, also Attorney-General, said the Government would be a
"model litigant" if legal cases were brought by families involved
in cases investigated by Mr. Debelle.

"That means no sharp or tricky points, no deep pocket defenses,
but not a pushover in the sense of paying money when there is no
claim to be paid on," he said.

Mr. Rau said Mr. Weatherill's leave had been planned for weeks,
but did not know where he was.

"I can't see anything bizarre about a person who is doing a very
demanding job spending a week or a period of the school holidays
with his children.  I can't see what's weird about that," he said.

Mr. Kenyon told Ms. Soester he had not read the Debelle report but
"the Government is implementing the recommendations (and) I'm very
pleased to be part of that".

Mr. Piccolo insisted he was late for the meeting and stopped only
briefly.

He did not comment on Mr. Weatherill's decision to take leave.

Ms. Fox said she was "so sorry" for everything Ms. Soester had
been through.

"What you did, to step forward in the way that you did, was
extraordinary," Ms. Fox said.

"Not many people would have the courage to do that.  As a parent
and as a teacher, I think you did . . . a strong thing and a brave
thing."

Former judge Bruce Debelle last week issued his long-awaited
report into the handling of sex abuse cases in schools, which
found significant failures to inform parents.

Adelaide class-action lawyer Peter Humphries said the education
department could be hit with multiple law suits over its
mishandling of child sex abuse cases but a class action was
unlikely.


* Virtual World Activities May Lead to Property Rights Dispute
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter S. Vogel, writing for E-Commerce Times, reports that virtual
world activities can lead to disputes that end up in real-world
court rooms.  Ownership of property rights is one issue that has
been litigated with respect to Second Life, for example.  U.S.
Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu, who presided over the settlement of
a class action case, said last year that "Second Life users own
copyrights in the virtual land and items that they purchase or
create."

Millions of people have created avatars that live in Internet
virtual worlds.  Those virtual worlds include Second Life and
Maple Story, as well as video games.

Although these virtual worlds and games are used regularly by
individuals around the world, few consider the ownership and other
legal rights associated with their virtual activities.  There has
been some interesting litigation, particularly with Second Life,
that sheds some light on those rights, and brings these issues out
of the virtual world and into the real world.

Big Business in Second Life

Second Life celebrated its 10th anniversary in June.  Some readers
may think Second Life is nothing but a game, but Second Life
claims that there are more than "50 million user hours a month and
over (US)$500 million user transactions each year."

In the first 10 years of Second Life, "36 million accounts were
created, $3.6 billion (that is real money!) was spent on virtual
assets and the . . . total time users spent on SL is 217,266
years," according to Wikipedia.

Contract Terms in Second Life

We all know there are laws that address the use of Internet
activities.  For example, the 1998 Children's Online Privacy
Protection Act would preclude any child under age 13 from
participating in Second Life.  Since there are regions in Second
Life that have "Adult Only" content, Second Life goes further by
including in its Terms of Service this provision: "You affirm that
you are at least 18 years of age, or the age of legal majority
where you reside if that jurisdiction has an older age of
majority."

Of course, younger children can affirm that they are 18; it is not
really possible for Second Life to know for sure the age of the
person registering.  I still enjoy the 1993 New Yorker cartoon
that has two dogs sitting in front of a computer.  One dog says to
the other "On the Internet nobody knows you're a dog!" So how can
Second Life really know?

There are a number of real life businesses that are active in
Second Life, including Dell, IBM, Unilever, BP and ManPower.  For
instance, Dell and IBM sell computers to avatars in the hope that
their real-world counterparts will be inclined to buy the real
Dell and IBM computers.  The U.S. Army recruits avatars with the
hope of convincing their counterparts to join the real Army.  Most
avatars have active lives in Second Life and purchase virtual
islands, houses, offices, animals, apparel and automobiles.

The monetary system is Linden dollars, or L$, since Second Life is
owned by Linden Research.  Second Life allows users to buy Linden
dollars so their avatars can buy and sell virtual property and
goods. Since Linden dollars are virtual currency, the ToS
provision Second Life relies on to protect itself states the
following:

"You acknowledge that Linden Dollars are not real currency or any
type of financial instrument and are not redeemable for any sum of
money from Linden Lab at any time.  You agree that Linden Lab has
the right to manage, regulate, control, and/or modify the license
rights underlying such Linden Dollars as it sees fit and that
Linden Lab will have no liability to you based on its exercise of
this right.  Linden Lab makes no guarantee as to the nature,
quality or value of the features of the Service that will be
accessible through the use of Linden Dollars, or the availability
or supply of Linden Dollars."

Second Life ToS expressly define "Linden dollars" as nothing more
than virtual tokens purchased from Linden Labs for real dollars
and exchangeable in Second Life for ownership of virtual property.
However, since the Linden dollars are licensed to the avatars in
the form of computer software, the valuation of Linden dollars is
more complex than that of real money.

All of Second Life is actually computer software created and owned
by Linden Research, which claims ownership of all intellectual
property.  Interestingly, since the virtual property in Second
Life is actually software, one might wonder whether Second Life
users could actually acquire any rights at all other than a
limited license to use Second Life's intellectual property.

There are also ToS provisions dealing with gambling.  Second Life
limits gambling with the following:

"It is a violation of this policy to wager in games in the Second
Life environment operated on Linden Lab servers if such games:

    1. Rely on chance or random number generation to determine
       a winner, OR

    2. Rely on the outcome of real-life organized sporting events,

    AND provide a payout in

    1. Linden Dollars (L$) OR

    2. Any real-world currency or thing of value.

This includes (but is not limited to), for example, Casino Games
such as: Baccarat, Blackjack, Craps, Faro, Keno, Pachinko, Pai
Gow, Poker . . . ."

These and other provisions make the contractual obligations
imposed on users of Second Life extremely complicated.  Do users
actually read the ToS? I addressed the issue of most users
ignoring ToS in a previous article entitled "Who Reads Terms of
Service, Privacy Policies or Click Agreements?"

Where do you bring a dispute in Second Life?

Marc Bragg was a real estate lawyer in Philadelphia who joined
Second Life to develop a virtual real estate business.  Mr. Bragg
acknowledged that Second Life consisted of Linden's computer code,
but he claimed that he received "title and ownership rights
separate and apart from the code itself."

Further, Mr. Bragg distinguished the property right from its
material manifestation by claiming that members' valuables in
Second Life are "stored as electromagnetic records" on Linden's
servers.

Linden Research claimed that Bragg could not convey title to any
property and that it had merely granted him "a license to access
Linden's proprietary server software, storage space, and
computational power that enabled the experience of the 'virtual
land' in Second Life."

Linden Research froze Mr. Bragg's account for allegedly violating
the ToS.  Mr. Bragg claimed that Second Life had improperly seized
his property.

In 2006, Bragg filed a lawsuit -- Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc.
-- in federal court in Pennsylvania.

Linden Research claimed that its ToS required all disputes be
arbitrated in California.  Ultimately the judge ruled that federal
court in Pennsylvania was proper because the avatar of Phillip
Rosedale (founder of Second Life) invited residents of
Pennsylvania to attend town hall meetings in Second Life.
Second Life Avatar Class Action Settles

In November 2012, U.S. Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu (Northern
District of California) in the case of Evans v. Linden Research,
certified a class of "persons whose assets, including virtual
items, virtual land, and/or currency in lindens and/or U.S.
dollars, have been deliberately and intentionally converted by
Defendant Linden's suspension or closure of their Second Life
accounts."

The class included at least 57,000 Second Life property owners who
lost their virtual property.  The case eventually settled for
$172,000 of real money (43 million Linden dollars) according to
the American Lawyer.

Since all property in Second Life is actually computer software,
Linden Research argued against the notion that virtual property
was real ownership of tangible property.  Judge Ryu devoted a
great deal of time to analyzing the meaning of ownership of
virtual property and ruled that "Second Life users own copyrights
in the virtual land and items that they purchase or create."

Conclusion: As virtual worlds and video games become more
entrenched in society, there will be more lawsuits addressing
virtual money and property, because that virtual money and
property were purchased with real money.  Stay tuned for further
cases.


                             *********

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  * * *