CAR_Public/130715.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, July 15, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 137

                             Headlines


3M COMPANY: Settlement Papers Being Drafted in Merger Suits
3M COMPANY: Suit by Franklin County Resident Remains Stayed
3M COMPANY: Suits Over Perfluorochemicals Remain Pending in Ala.
ABIOMED INC: Plaintiffs Filed Amended Consolidated Suit in May
ACCESS PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss "Schmidt" Suit Pending

AMERICAN INT'L: Greenberg's Lawsuit v. Government Can Proceed
AMERIGAS PARTNERS: "Swigers" Suit Still Stayed in West Virginia
ARUBA NETWORKS: Facing "Mazzafero" Suit in N.D. California
BFC FINANCIAL: BBX's Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Litigation Pending
BFC FINANCIAL: Defends Two Consolidated Merger-Related Suits

BFC FINANCIAL: "Max" Acquisition-Related Suit Remains Pending
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Yet to File $97.5 Mil. Securities Suit Deal
COMVERSE INC: Continues to Defend Suits by Israeli Optionholders
ENERGY CONVERSION: Credit Suisse Sued Over Share Acquisition
FERRELLGAS LP: Kansas Suit Not Yet Certified for Class Treatment

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Facing "Skold" Class Suit in California
HAWTHORN BANCSHARES: Suit Over Overdraft Fees Remains Pending
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Facing Suits Over FLSA Violations
HEWLETT PACKARD: Saginaw Pension Fund Suit Still Pending
HEWLETT PACKARD: N.D. California Court Dismisses "Copeland" Suit

HEWLETT PACKARD: Court Dismisses Portions of "Gammel" Suit
HEWLETT PACKARD: "Espinoza" & "Gonzalez" Suits Still Pending
HEWLETT PACKARD: Bid to Nix Cement & Concrete Fund Suit Pending
HEWLETT PACKARD: Consolidated Complaint Filed Over Autonomy Deal
HEWLETT PACKARD: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Stay Shareholders' Suit

HEWLETT PACKARD: ERISA Litigation Still Pending
HOT TOPIC: Faces Suits in California Over Sycamore Acquisition
ISATORI INC: Continues to Defend "Tabibnia" Suit in California
ISATORI INC: Continues to Defend "Tawnsaura" Infringement Suit
MERRIMAN HOLDINGS: Defends "Howard" Class Suit in Florida

MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in "Silverman" Suit
MRI INTERNATIONAL: Accused of Running $1.4-Bil. Ponzi Scheme
NBT BANCORP: Yet to Submit Merger-Related Suit Settlement Docs
NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: Dist. Court Enters Case Management Order
OLD SECOND: Awaits Final Approval of ERISA Suit Settlement

RUE21 INC: To "Vigorously Contest" SPTA Suit Over Rhodes Merger
SAKS INC: To Defend Against Overtime Pay Suits in N.D. California
SIEBERT FINANCIAL: Unable to Determine Remaining Claims in Suit
SOUTH CAROLINA: Cleared From Charges Over Adoption Subsidy Cuts
STARBUCKS CORP: Shift Supervisors May Share in Tip Pool

STEC INC: Suit Seeks to Stop $340-Mil. Buyout by Western Digital
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Reglan Suit
THOR INDUSTRIES: Funded Settlements in FEMA-Related Litigation
UGI CORP: "Swigers" Class Suit Still Stayed in West Virginia
VERAMARK TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Merger-Related Suit in New York

VOLTARI CORP: 3rd Amended Complaint Filed in "Callan" Class Suit
WYNDHAM HOTELS: FTC's Power to Bring Data Breach Suits Scrutinized


                             *********


3M COMPANY: Settlement Papers Being Drafted in Merger Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
3M Company disclosed in its May 16, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that papers are presently
being drafted in connection with its settlement of merger-related
class action lawsuits.

In the fourth quarter of 2012, 3M acquired Ceradyne, Inc., which
develops and produces advanced technical ceramics for demanding
applications in the automotive, oil and gas, solar, industrial,
electronics and defense industries.

In October 2012, four plaintiffs filed purported class actions
against Ceradyne, its directors, 3M and Cyborg Acquisition
Corporation (a direct wholly owned subsidiary of 3M) in connection
with 3M's proposed acquisition of Ceradyne.  Two lawsuits were
filed in California Superior Court for Orange County and two were
filed in the Delaware Chancery Court.  The lawsuits seek
principally to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Ceradyne, and
allege that the defendants breached and/or aided and abetted the
breach of their fiduciary duties to Ceradyne by seeking to sell
Ceradyne through an allegedly unfair process and for an unfair
price and on unfair terms, and/or by allegedly failing to make
adequate disclosures to Ceradyne stockholders regarding the
proposed acquisition of Ceradyne.  The California court
consolidated the two California actions.  In the Delaware cases,
the plaintiffs' motions to expedite proceedings, which the
defendants have opposed, were denied by the Delaware Chancery
Court.  The parties reached a settlement of those matters for an
amount that is not material to the Company.  The settlement papers
are presently being drafted, and the settlement will be presented
to the California court for preliminary and final approval.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, 3M Company -- http://3M.com/
-- is a diversified technology company with a global presence in
these businesses: Industrial, Safety and Graphics, Electronics and
Energy, Health Care, and Consumer.  Most 3M products involve
expertise in product development, manufacturing and marketing.


3M COMPANY: Suit by Franklin County Resident Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed by a resident of Franklin County,
Alabama, remains stayed, according to 3M Company's May 16, 2013,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Franklin
County seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief based on
the application by the Decatur utility's wastewater treatment
plant of wastewater treatment sludge to farmland and grasslands in
the state that allegedly contain PFOA, PFOS and other
perfluorochemicals.  The named defendants in the case include 3M,
its subsidiary Dyneon LLC, Daikin America, Inc., Synagro-WWT,
Inc., Synagro South, LLC and Biological Processors of America.
The named plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons
within the State of Alabama who have had PFOA, PFOS and other
perfluorochemicals released or deposited on their property.  In
March 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the case transferred
from Franklin County to Morgan County.  In May 2010, consistent
with its handling of the other matters, the Morgan County Circuit
Court abated this case, putting it on hold pending the resolution
of the class certification issues in the first case filed there.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, 3M Company -- http://3M.com/
-- is a diversified technology company with a global presence in
these businesses: Industrial, Safety and Graphics, Electronics and
Energy, Health Care, and Consumer.  Most 3M products involve
expertise in product development, manufacturing and marketing.


3M COMPANY: Suits Over Perfluorochemicals Remain Pending in Ala.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuits alleging property damage from exposure
to certain perfluorochemicals at or near 3M Company's Decatur,
Alabama manufacturing facility remain pending, according to the
Company's May 16, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

A former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002
in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking unstated
damages and alleging that the plaintiffs suffered fear, increased
risk, subclinical injuries, and property damage from exposure to
certain perfluorochemicals at or near the Company's Decatur,
Alabama, manufacturing facility.  The Circuit Court in 2005
granted the Company's motion to dismiss the named plaintiff's
personal injury-related claims on the basis that such claims are
barred by the exclusivity provisions of the state's Workers
Compensation Act.  The plaintiffs' counsel filed an amended
complaint in November 2006, limiting the case to property damage
claims on behalf of a purported class of residents and property
owners in the vicinity of the Decatur plant.  Also, in 2005, the
judge in a second purported class action lawsuit (filed by three
residents of Morgan County, Alabama, seeking unstated compensatory
and punitive damages involving alleged damage to their property
from emissions of certain perfluorochemical compounds from the
Company's Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility that formerly
manufactured those compounds) granted the Company's motion to
abate the case, effectively putting the case on hold pending the
resolution of class certification issues in the first action filed
in the same court in 2002.  Despite the stay, the plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint seeking damages for alleged personal injuries
and property damage on behalf of the named plaintiffs and the
members of a purported class.  No further action in the case is
expected unless and until the stay is lifted.

Headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota, 3M Company -- http://3M.com/
-- is a diversified technology company with a global presence in
these businesses: Industrial, Safety and Graphics, Electronics and
Energy, Health Care, and Consumer.  Most 3M products involve
expertise in product development, manufacturing and marketing.


ABIOMED INC: Plaintiffs Filed Amended Consolidated Suit in May
--------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated amended complaint was filed in May 2013 by the
plaintiffs of a consolidated class action lawsuit, according to
ABIOMED, Inc.'s May 28, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended March 31,
2013.

On November 16, and 19, 2012, two purported class action
complaints were filed against the Company and certain of its
officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts by alleged purchasers of its common stock, on behalf
of themselves and persons or entities that purchased or acquired
the Company's securities between August 5, 2011, and October 31,
2012.  The complaints allege that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws in connection with disclosures related to
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") and the marketing
and labeling of the Company's Impella 2.5 product and seek damages
in an unspecified amount.  The Court has consolidated these
complaints.  A consolidated amended complaint was filed by the
plaintiffs on May 20, 2013.

Based in Danvers, Massachusetts, ABIOMED, Inc. --
http://www.abiomed.com-- is a provider of mechanical circulatory
support devices and offers a continuum of care to heart failure
patients.  The Company develops, manufactures and markets
proprietary products that are designed to enable the heart to
rest, heal and recover by improving blood flow and performing the
pumping function of the heart.


ACCESS PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss "Schmidt" Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a class action
lawsuit initiated by Alan Schmidt remains pending, according to
the Company's May 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

Alan Schmidt, a former shareholder of Genaera Corporation
("Genaera"), and a former unitholder of the Genaera Liquidating
Trust (the "Trust"), filed a purported class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in
June 2012.  The lawsuit named thirty defendants, including the
Company, MacroChem Corporation, which was acquired by the Company
in February 2009, Jeffrey Davis, the CEO and a director of the
Company, and Steven H. Rouhandeh and Mark Alvino, both of whom are
Company executives (the "Access Defendants").  With respect to the
Access Defendants, the complaint alleges direct and derivative
claims asserting that directors of Genaera and the Trustee of the
Trust breached their fiduciary duties to Genaera, Genaera's
shareholders and the Trust's unitholders in connection with the
licensing and disposition of certain assets, aided and abetted by
numerous defendants including the Access Defendants.  Schmidt
seeks money damages, disgorgement of any distributions received
from the Trust, rescission of sales made by the Trust, attorneys'
and expert fees, and costs.  On December 19, 2012, Schmidt filed
an amended complaint which asserts substantially the same
allegations with respect to the Access Defendants.  On February 4,
2013, the Access Defendants moved to dismiss all claims asserted
against them.  Schmidt has not yet responded to the Access
Defendants' motion to dismiss.  The Company intends to defend the
lawsuit vigorously.

Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.accesspharma.com/-- is
a Delaware corporation headquartered in Dallas, Texas.  The
Company is an emerging biopharmaceutical company focused on
developing a range of pharmaceutical products primarily based upon
the Company's nanopolymer chemistry technologies and other drug
delivery technologies.


AMERICAN INT'L: Greenberg's Lawsuit v. Government Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Wolfe, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
Maurice Greenberg's litigation crusade against the U.S. government
lives on.

In a ruling on June 26, U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Thomas
Wheeler once again refused to dismiss a suit by the former
chairman of American International Group Inc., who alleges that
the government's takeover of AIG during the financial crisis was
an illegal taking.  While Judge Wheeler did dismiss Greenberg's
derivative claims brought on behalf of AIG, he allowed direct
shareholder claims to proceed on behalf of a class that he
certified in March.

A similar case that Mr. Greenberg brought against the New York
Federal Reserve Bank in Manhattan was dismissed last November.

Through his company Starr International Company Inc., Mr.
Greenberg sued the U.S. in 2011 in Federal Claims Court.  Last
year, Judge Wheeler refused to dismiss the direct claims and
deferred ruling on the derivative claims.  AIG kicked off a media
frenzy in January when it contemplated joining Mr. Greenberg's
lawsuit, but decided not to.  In the wake of this board decision,
the court turned to the derivative claims and the government's
renewed motion to dismiss the direct claims.

Mr. Greenberg is represented by David Boies of Boies, Schiller &
Flexner and John Gardiner of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.

In support of the derivative claims, Mr. Greenberg's lawyers
argued that AIG's board hadn't made an informed and independent
decision when it rejected joining the lawsuit.  They pointed out
that two of the three law firms that advised the directors--Weil
Gotshal & Manges and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett--had also advised
AIG to take the bailout.  In addition, Mr. Greenberg's lawyers
argued that AIG was improperly influenced by public backlash and
threatening comments from government officials.

Judge Wheeler disagreed, writing that it was "eminently rational"
for AIG's board to be guided in part by public outcry.  And he
found no indication that Simpson or Weil had disabling conflicts.
AIG's board "conducted itself in an exemplary fashion, with an eye
toward thoroughness and transparency," he wrote.  The dismissal of
the derivative claims does not appear to be a big setback for
Greenberg, who can still claim many billions of dollars of damages
through the direct claims.

Judge Wheeler did, however, express some qualms about the process
surrounding the board's decision not to join Greenberg's lawsuit.
He was "troubled" by how one of the U.S. Treasury Department's
outsider lawyers at Davis Polk & Wardwell, Frances Bivens, told
the board "AIG will be terminated . . . a decision [to join the
suit] could also lead to another wave of congressional
investigations, and AIG employees and AIG Board members could be
called to testify before Congress," according to the official
transcript.  Judge Wheeler also wasn't pleased with how Paul
Curnin of Simpson Thacher estimated Greenberg's odds of success.
(In case you're wondering, it was twenty percent with a five
percent margin of error.) "Although professionals surely can opine
on the pros and cons of a lawsuit, the Court cannot see how anyone
could have made a precise assessment of this fact-dependent case
without knowing what all the evidence would ultimately show," he
wrote.

Davis Polk's Ms. Bivens told The Litigation Daily in an e-mail
that there was a "transcription error" in the transcript of the
board meeting.  As a result, she said, Judge Wheeler interpreted
her as saying that "AIG will be terminated" if it joins
Greenberg's lawsuit.

Ms. Bevins told The Litigation Daily that, according to her notes
and recollection, what she said was "by signing on to the
litigation, AIG will be terminating the cooperative relationship
it has had" with the U.S. government.  Mr. Curnin of Simpson
Thacher declined to comment.

In a statement, Mr. Boies said he was pleased with the court's
ruling and looks forward to preparing for trial in the fall of
2014.


AMERIGAS PARTNERS: "Swigers" Suit Still Stayed in West Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
AmeriGas Partners, L.P.'s general partner, AmeriGas Propane, Inc.
(the "General Partner"), is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of
UGI Corporation ("UGI").  AmeriGas Propane, L.P. ("AmeriGas OLP")
is the Company's principal operating subsidiary.

In 2005, Samuel and Brenda Swiger (the "Swigers") filed what
purports to be a class action in the Circuit Court of Harrison
County, West Virginia, against UGI, an insurance subsidiary of
UGI, certain officers of UGI and the General Partner, and their
insurance carriers and insurance adjusters.  In this lawsuit, the
Swigers are seeking compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of
the putative class for alleged violations of the West Virginia
Insurance Unfair Trade Practice Act, negligence, intentional
misconduct, and civil conspiracy.  The Court has not certified the
class and, in October 2008, stayed the lawsuit pending resolution
of a separate, but related class action lawsuit filed against
AmeriGas OLP in Monongalia County, which was settled in Fiscal
2011.  The Company believes it has good defenses to the claims in
this action.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 15, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

AmeriGas Partners, L.P., is a publicly traded limited partnership
that conducts a national propane distribution business through its
principal operating subsidiary AmeriGas Propane, L.P. and prior to
its merger with AmeriGas OLP on October 1, 2010, AmeriGas OLP's
subsidiary, AmeriGas Eagle Propane, L.P.


ARUBA NETWORKS: Facing "Mazzafero" Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A purported stockholder class action lawsuit captioned Mazzafero
v. Aruba Networks, Inc., et al., was filed on May 23, 2013, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against the Company and certain of its officers,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended April 30, 2013, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 6.

The purported class action alleges claims for violations of the
federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief. The Company believes that it has
meritorious defenses to these claims and intends to defend the
litigation vigorously. Based on information currently available,
the Company has determined that the amount of any possible loss is
not reasonably estimable.

Aruba Networks provides next-generation network access solutions
for the mobile enterprise.  The Company's Mobile Virtual
Enterprise ("MOVE") architecture leverages its diverse products
(including its ArubaOS operating system, controllers, wireless
access points, switches, application software modules, access
management solution, and multi-vendor management solution
software) to unify wired and wireless network infrastructures into
one seamless access solution for its customers, enabling them to
provide network access to traveling business professionals, remote
workers and employees and guests of branch offices and corporate
headquarters.


BFC FINANCIAL: BBX's Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Litigation Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion filed by a subsidiary of BFC Financial Corporation to
dismiss an antitrust litigation remains pending, according to the
Company's May 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On December 21, 2012, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit known as In
re: New Jersey Tax Sales Certificates Antitrust Litigation v. BBX
Capital Corporation f/k/a BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., Fidelity
Tax, LLC, Gary I. Branse, Michael Deluca and BB&T Corporation, and
multiple other individuals and entities who purchased New Jersey
tax certificates between 1998 to February 2009, Case No. 12-CV-
01893-MAS-TJB, United States District Court, District of New
Jersey (Trenton), filed an Amended Complaint in an existing
purported class action filed in Federal District Court in New
Jersey adding BBX Capital Corporation and Fidelity Tax, LLC, a
wholly-owned subsidiary of BBX Capital Asset Management, LLC
("CAM"), among others as defendants.  BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax
were served with the complaint January 8, 2013.  The class action
complaint is brought on behalf of a class defined as "all persons
who owned real property in the State of New Jersey and who had a
Tax Certificate issued with respect to their property that was
purchased by a Defendant during the Class Period at a public
auction in the State of New Jersey at an interest rate above 0%."
The Plaintiffs allege that beginning in January 1998 and at least
through February 2009, the Defendants were part of a statewide
conspiracy to manipulate interest rates associated with tax
certificates sold at public auction from at least January 1, 1998,
through February 28, 2009.  During this period, Fidelity Tax was a
subsidiary of BankAtlantic.  Fidelity Tax was contributed to CAM
in connection with the sale of BankAtlantic in the BB&T
Transaction.  BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax filed a Motion to
Dismiss in March 2013.  BBX Capital believes the claims to be
without merit and intends to vigorously defend the actions.

Headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, BFC Financial
Corporation is a holding company whose principal holdings include
a direct controlling interest in BBX Capital Corporation, formerly
BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., and its subsidiaries and, through
Woodbridge Holdings, LLC, an indirect 54% interest in Bluegreen
Corporation and its subsidiaries.  BBX Capital's principal asset
until July 31, 2012, was its investment in BankAtlantic, a federal
savings bank.  Bluegreen is a sales, marketing and management
company primarily focused on the hospitality and vacation
ownership industries.


BFC FINANCIAL: Defends Two Consolidated Merger-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
BFC Financial Corporation continues to defend itself and its
subsidiaries against two consolidated merger-related lawsuits
pending in Florida and Massachusetts, according to the Company's
May 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On November 11, 2011, BFC entered into a definitive merger
agreement with the Company's indirect subsidiary, Bluegreen
Corporation, (the "2011 merger agreement").  Pursuant to the terms
of the 2011 merger agreement and subject to the conditions set
forth therein, if the merger contemplated by the 2011 merger
agreement (the "2011 merger") had been consummated, Bluegreen
would have become a wholly-owned subsidiary of BFC, and
Bluegreen's shareholders (other than BFC) would have been entitled
to receive eight shares of BFC's Class A Common Stock for each
share of Bluegreen's common stock that they held at the effective
time of the merger.  Consummation of the 2011 merger was subject
to certain closing conditions, including the listing of BFC's
Class A Common Stock on a national securities exchange at the
effective time of the merger.  Due to the inability to satisfy all
required closing conditions, specifically the listing of BFC's
Class A Common Stock on a national securities exchange, effective
November 14, 2012, the parties agreed to terminate the 2011 merger
agreement and entered into the 2012 merger agreement.

On November 14, 2012, the Company and Woodbridge Holdings, LLC, a
Company subsidiary, entered into a new definitive merger agreement
with Bluegreen (the "2012 merger agreement") providing for the
acquisition of Bluegreen by Woodbridge in a cash merger (the "2012
merger") pursuant to which Bluegreen's shareholders (other than
BFC, directly or indirectly through Woodbridge, and shareholders
of Bluegreen who duly exercise appraisal rights in accordance with
Massachusetts law) will receive consideration of $10.00 in cash
for each share of Bluegreen's common stock that they hold at the
effective time of the merger.  Consummation of the 2012 merger is
subject to, among other things, the parties obtaining the
financing necessary to consummate the transaction.  The aggregate
merger consideration is expected to be approximately $150 million.

On April 2, 2013, Bluegreen merged with a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Woodbridge Holdings, LLC, in a cash merger transaction (the
"Bluegreen merger").  Pursuant to the terms of the merger
agreement, Bluegreen's shareholders (other than Woodbridge)
received consideration of $10.00 in cash for each share of
Bluegreen's common stock that they held at the effective time of
the merger, including unvested restricted shares.  In addition,
each option to acquire shares of Bluegreen's common stock that was
outstanding at the effective time of the merger, whether vested or
unvested, was canceled in exchange for a cash payment to the
holder in an amount equal to the excess, if any, of the $10.00 per
share merger consideration over the exercise price per share of
the option.  The aggregate merger consideration was approximately
$149 million.  As a result of the merger, Bluegreen, which was the
surviving corporation of the merger, became a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Woodbridge.  Prior to the merger, Woodbridge owned
approximately 54% of Bluegreen's outstanding common stock.  These
shares were canceled upon consummation of the merger without any
payment therefor.

Between November 16, 2011, and February 13, 2012, seven purported
class action lawsuits related to the previously proposed 2011
merger between BFC and Bluegreen were filed against Bluegreen, the
members of Bluegreen's board of directors, BFC and BXG Florida
Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Woodbridge formed for
purposes of the merger ("Merger Sub").  Four of these lawsuits
have been consolidated into a single action in Florida, and the
other three lawsuits have been consolidated into a single action
in Massachusetts and stayed in favor of the Florida action.

The four Florida lawsuits, captioned and styled Ronald Kirkland v.
Bluegreen Corporation et al. (filed on November 16, 2011); Richard
Harriman v. Bluegreen Corporation et al. (filed on November 22,
2011); Alfred Richner v. Bluegreen Corporation et al. (filed on
December 2, 2011); and BHR Master Fund, LTD et al. v. Bluegreen
Corporation et al. (filed on February 13, 2012), were consolidated
into an action styled In Re Bluegreen Corporation Shareholder
Litigation.  On April 9, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint which alleged that the individual
director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by (i)
agreeing to sell Bluegreen without first taking steps to ensure
adequate, fair and maximum consideration, (ii) engineering a
transaction to benefit themselves and not the shareholders, and
(iii) failing to protect the interests of Bluegreen's minority
shareholders.  In the complaint, the plaintiffs also alleged that
BFC breached its fiduciary duties to Bluegreen's minority
shareholders and that Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties by Bluegreen's directors and BFC. In
addition, the complaint included allegations relating to claimed
violations of Massachusetts law.  The complaint sought declaratory
and injunctive relief, along with damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.  On September 13, 2012, Bluegreen's motion to dismiss the
action was denied.  Bluegreen subsequently answered the complaint.

Following the public announcement of the termination of the 2011
merger agreement and the entry into the currently proposed merger
agreement, the plaintiffs in the Florida action filed a motion for
leave to file a supplemental complaint on November 28, 2012 in
order to challenge the structure of, and consideration
contemplated to be received by Bluegreen's shareholders in, the
currently proposed merger.  On November 30, 2012, the Florida
court granted the plaintiffs' motion and the supplemental
complaint was deemed filed as of that date.   The supplemental
complaint alleges that the merger consideration remains inadequate
and continues to be unfair to Bluegreen's minority shareholders.

The three Massachusetts lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court
for Suffolk County in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and styled
as follows: Gaetano Bellavista Caltagirone v. Bluegreen
Corporation et al. (filed on November 16, 2011); Alan W. Weber and
J.B. Capital Partners L.P. v. Bluegreen Corporation et al. (filed
on November 29, 2011); and Barry Fieldman, as Trustee for the
Barry & Amy Fieldman Family Trust v. Bluegreen Corporation et al.
(filed on December 6, 2011).  In their respective complaints, the
plaintiffs alleged that the individual director defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell Bluegreen
without first taking steps to ensure adequate, fair and maximum
consideration.  The Fieldman and Weber actions contained the same
claim against BFC.  In addition, the complaints included claims
that Merger Sub, in the case of the Fieldman action, BFC and
Merger Sub, in the case of the Caltagirone action, and Bluegreen,
in the case of the Weber action, aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties.  On January 17, 2012, the three
Massachusetts lawsuits were consolidated into a single action
styled In Re Bluegreen Corp. Shareholder Litigation, which is
presently stayed in favor of the Florida action.

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

Headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, BFC Financial
Corporation is a holding company whose principal holdings include
a direct controlling interest in BBX Capital Corporation, formerly
BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., and its subsidiaries and, through
Woodbridge Holdings, LLC, an indirect 54% interest in Bluegreen
Corporation and its subsidiaries.  BBX Capital's principal asset
until July 31, 2012, was its investment in BankAtlantic, a federal
savings bank.  Bluegreen is a sales, marketing and management
company primarily focused on the hospitality and vacation
ownership industries.


BFC FINANCIAL: "Max" Acquisition-Related Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The acquisition-related class action lawsuit brought by J. Phillip
Max remains pending, according to BFC Financial Corporation's
May 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On July 31, 2012, the Company's subsidiary, BBX Capital
Corporation, completed the sale to BB&T Corporation of all of the
issued and outstanding shares of capital stock of BankAtlantic,
the former wholly-owned banking subsidiary of BBX Capital (the
"BankAtlantic Sale" or the "BB&T Transaction").  The BankAtlantic
Sale was consummated pursuant to the terms of a definitive
agreement, dated November 1, 2011, between BBX Capital and BB&T,
as amended on March 13, 2012 (the "Agreement").  The March 13,
2012 amendment amended the previously contemplated terms of the
transaction to, among other things, provide for the assumption by
BB&T of BBX Capital's $285.4 million in principal amount of then-
outstanding trust preferred securities ("TruPS") obligations.

On April 5, 2012, J. Phillip Max filed a class action complaint in
the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in Broward
County, Florida, against Alan Levan, Jarett Levan, John Abdo,
Steven Coldren, D. Keith Cobb, Charles C. Winningham III, Bruno Di
Giulian, Willis Holcombe, David Lieberman, BankAtlantic Bancorp,
Inc., BFC Financial Corporation, and BB&T Corporation.  The
complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties of care, good faith and loyalty by causing or
permitting BBX Capital to sell BankAtlantic.  The complaint
further alleges that BBX Capital Corporation, BFC and BB&T aided
and abetted these breaches of fiduciary duty.  The complaint seeks
declaratory and equitable relief, including an injunction against
the proposed transaction between BBX Capital and BB&T, as well as
seeking damages.  As a consequence of the consummation of the sale
of BankAtlantic to BB&T much of the complaint was rendered moot
and BBX Capital believes the remainder of the claims to be without
merit and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

Headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, BFC Financial
Corporation is a holding company whose principal holdings include
a direct controlling interest in BBX Capital Corporation, formerly
BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc., and its subsidiaries and, through
Woodbridge Holdings, LLC, an indirect 54% interest in Bluegreen
Corporation and its subsidiaries.  BBX Capital's principal asset
until July 31, 2012, was its investment in BankAtlantic, a federal
savings bank.  Bluegreen is a sales, marketing and management
company primarily focused on the hospitality and vacation
ownership industries.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Yet to File $97.5 Mil. Securities Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Corporation is yet to file for approval its
$97.5 million settlement of a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit, according to the Company's May 15, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended March 29, 2013.

Between June 3, 2011, and July 21, 2011, four putative class
action complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, entitled City of Roseville
Employee's Retirement System v. Computer Sciences Corporation, et
al. (No. 1:11-cv-00610-TSE-IDD), Murphy v. Computer Sciences
Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-00636-TSE-IDD), Kramer v.
Computer Sciences Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-00751-TSE-IDD)
and Goldman v. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-
777-TSE-IDD).  On August 29, 2011, the four actions were
consolidated as In re Computer Sciences Corporation Securities
Litigation (No. 1:11-cv-610-TSE-IDD) and Ontario Teachers' Pension
Plan Board was appointed lead plaintiff.  A consolidated class
action complaint was filed by plaintiff on September 26, 2011, and
names as defendants CSC, Michael W. Laphen, Michael J. Mancuso and
Donald G. DeBuck.  A corrected complaint was filed on October 19,
2011.  The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities
laws in connection with alleged misrepresentations and omissions
regarding the business and operations of the Company.
Specifically, the allegations arise from the Company's disclosure
of the Company's investigation into certain accounting
irregularities in the Nordic region and its disclosure regarding
the status of the Company's agreement with the U.K. National
Health Service (NHS).  Among other things, the plaintiff seeks
unspecified monetary damages.

The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification with the
court on September 22, 2011, and the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss on October 18, 2011.  A hearing was held on November 4,
2011.  On August 29, 2012, the court issued a Memorandum Opinion
and Order granting in part and denying in part the motion to
dismiss.  The court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to
the plaintiff's claims in connection with alleged
misrepresentations and omissions concerning the Company's
operations in the Nordic Region.  The court granted in part and
denied in part the motion to dismiss with respect to the
plaintiff's claims in connection with alleged misrepresentations
and omissions concerning the Company's internal controls and the
Company's contract with the NHS.  The court also granted the
plaintiff leave to amend its complaint by September 12, 2012, and
maintained the stay of discovery until the sufficiency of the
amended complaint had been decided.  The court further denied
plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice.

On September 12, 2012, the plaintiff filed a notice advising the
Court that it had determined not to amend its complaint and
renewed its motion for class certification.  On September 21,
2012, the court issued an Order setting the hearing on the motion
for class certification for October 12, 2012, directing the
parties to complete discovery by January 11, 2013, and scheduling
the final pretrial conference for January 17, 2013.  On October 9,
2012, the defendants filed their answer to the plaintiff's
complaint.  On October 12, 2012, the hearing on the motion for
class certification was rescheduled to November 1, 2012.  On
October 31, 2012, the parties filed a joint motion with the court
requesting that the hearing on the motion for class certification
be rescheduled to a later date.  On November 1, 2012, the court
issued an order setting the hearing for class certification for
November 15, 2012.  On November 30, 2012, the court granted
plaintiff's motion for class certification.

On December 14, 2012, the defendants filed with the Fourth Circuit
a petition for permission to appeal the class certification order
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f).  The
Plaintiff's response to the petition was filed on February 20,
2013.  On March 5, 2013, the Fourth Circuit denied the petition
for permission to appeal the class certification order.  On
December 14, 2012, the court issued an order extending the expert
discovery deadline to February 25, 2013.  On December 20, 2012,
the court issued an order extending the fact discovery deadline to
February 11, 2013, and the expert discovery deadline to March 25,
2013.  On January 13, 2013, the court issued an order extending
the expert discovery deadline to April 1, 2013.  Motions for
summary judgment were filed on March 18, 2013.

On May 15, 2013, the Company entered into a stipulation and
agreement of settlement with the lead plaintiff to settle all
claims in the lawsuit for $97.5 million, which was accrued for as
of March 29, 2013, and included in accrued expenses and other
current liabilities on the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet.
As of March 29, 2013, the Company has also recorded a receivable
of $45 million, which represents the amount recoverable under the
Company's corporate insurance policies, and is included in
receivables on the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet.  The
agreement is subject to approval by the court.

Founded in 1959, Computer Sciences Corporation --
http://www.csc.com/-- is a global leader of information
technology and professional services and solutions.  CSC provides
IT and business process outsourcing, consulting, systems
integration and other IT services to its customers.  The Company
is headquartered in Falls Church, Virginia.


COMVERSE INC: Continues to Defend Suits by Israeli Optionholders
----------------------------------------------------------------
Comverse, Inc., continues to defend itself against class action
lawsuits brought by optionholders in Israel, according to the
Company's May 16, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended January 31, 2013.

The Company's parent, Comverse Technology, Inc. (CTI) and certain
of its subsidiaries, including Comverse Ltd. (a subsidiary of the
Company), were named as defendants in four potential class action
litigations in the State of Israel involving claims to recover
damages incurred as a result of purported negligence or breach of
contract due to previously-settled allegations regarding illegal
backdating of CTI options that allegedly prevented certain current
or former employees from exercising certain stock options.  The
Company intends to vigorously defend these actions.

Two cases were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against CTI on
March 26, 2009, by plaintiffs Katriel (a former Comverse Ltd.
employee) and Deutsch (a former Verint Systems Ltd. employee).
The Katriel case (Case Number 1334/09) and the Deutsch case (Case
Number 1335/09) both seek to approve class actions to recover
damages that are claimed to have been incurred as a result of
CTI's negligence in reporting and filing its financial statements,
which allegedly prevented the exercise of certain stock options by
certain employees and former employees.  By stipulation of the
parties, on September 30, 2009, the court ordered that these
cases, including all claims against CTI in Israel and the motion
to approve the class action, be stayed until resolution of the
actions pending in the United States regarding stock option
accounting, without prejudice to the parties' ability to
investigate and assert the unique facts, claims and defenses in
these cases.  On May 7, 2012, the court lifted the stay, and the
plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint and motion to certify a
class of plaintiffs in a single consolidated class action.  The
defendants responded to this amended complaint on November 11,
2012, and the plaintiffs filed a further reply on December 20,
2012.  A pre-trial hearing for the case was held on December 25,
2012, during which all parties agreed to attempt to settle the
dispute through mediation.  On February 28, 2013, a preliminary
mediation meeting was held with the mediator, during which the
mediator met with all parties together and with the defendants
separately.  The mediation process is currently ongoing.

Separately, on July 13, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion
seeking an order that CTI hold back $150 million in assets as a
reserve to satisfy any potential damage awards that may be awarded
in this case, but did not seek to enjoin the Share Distribution.
The Company does not believe that the motion has merit.  On
July 25, 2012, the court indicated that it will not rule on the
motion until after it rules on plaintiffs' motion to certify a
class of plaintiffs.  On August 16, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for leave to appeal the court's order to the Israeli
Supreme Court and on November 11, 2012, CTI responded to
plaintiff's motion.  The parties are awaiting a decision.

Two cases were also filed in the Tel Aviv Labor Court by
plaintiffs Katriel and Deutsch, and both sought to approve class
actions to recover damages that are claimed to have been incurred
as a result of breached employment contracts, which allegedly
prevented the exercise by certain employees and former employees
of certain CTI and Verint stock options, respectively.  The
Katriel litigation (Case Number 3444/09) was filed on March 16,
2009, against Comverse Ltd., and the Deutsch litigation (Case
Number 4186/09) was filed on March 26, 2009, against Verint
Systems Ltd.  The Tel Aviv Labor Court has ruled that it lacks
jurisdiction, and both cases have been transferred to the Tel Aviv
District Court.  These cases have been consolidated with the Tel
Aviv District Court cases.

Additional cases have been filed by individual plaintiffs
similarly seeking to recover damages up to an aggregate of $3.6
million allegedly incurred as a result of the inability to
exercise certain stock options.  The cases generally allege the
same causes of actions alleged in the potential class action.

On August 12, 2012, CTI entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the Verint Merger Agreement) with Verint Systems Inc., its
then majority-owned publicly-traded subsidiary, providing for the
merger of CTI with and into a subsidiary of Verint and becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Verint (the Verint Merger).

On February 4, 2013, Verint and CTI completed the Verint Merger.
As a result of the Verint Merger, Verint assumed certain rights
and liabilities of CTI, including any liability of CTI arising out
of the actions.  However, under the terms of the Distribution
Agreement between CTI and the Company relating to the Share
Distribution, Verint, as successor to CTI, is entitled to
indemnification from the Company for any losses it suffers in its
capacity as successor-in-interest to CTI in connection with these
actions.

Comverse, Inc. -- http://www.comverse.com/-- is a provider of
telecom business enablement solutions for communication service
providers through a portfolio of product-based solutions and
associated services in these domains: Business Support Systems,
Digital and Value Added Services, Data Management and Monetization
Solutions and Professional and Managed Services.  The Company is
headquartered in Wakefield, Massachusetts.


ENERGY CONVERSION: Credit Suisse Sued Over Share Acquisition
------------------------------------------------------------
Nassiri & Jung LLP on July 2, 2013, disclosed that a class action
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired Energy Conversion Devices,
Inc. common stock on or after June 18, 2008.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from July 2.  Any member of the putative class
may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of
their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member.

The complaint charges defendants Credit Suisse International and
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC with violations of Section 9
and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants,
through two prospectus supplements filed with the SEC, issued
materially false and misleading statements concerning a public
offering of 4,714,975 shares of Energy Conversion Devices common
stock on June 18, 2008.  The common stock prospectus supplement,
along with a "3.00% Convertible Senior Notes due 2013" prospectus
supplement, disclosed that some investors might take advantage of
a share lending agreement to short Energy Conversion Devices
common stock as a "hedge" against their investment in convertible
notes.

According to the complaint, defendants' statements were false and
misleading because defendants knew or deliberately disregarded and
failed to disclose that the convertible notes were in fact
designed to facilitate market manipulation and a net short
position by some investors participating in the notes offering.
The Plaintiff alleges that as a result of these misrepresentations
and/or omissions, Energy Conversion Devices common stock traded at
artificially-inflated prices during the Class Period.  The
Plaintiff alleges that the manipulative short selling caused the
stock price to drop from $72 per share in June 2008 to less than
$1 per share in February 2012, when Energy Conversion Devices was
finally forced into bankruptcy.

The lawsuit is entitled Leevan v. Credit Suisse International et
al., Case No. 13-cv-2783-SBA, filed June 17, 2013.  A copy of the
complaint can be obtained from the Court clerk, or online through
PACER.

Contact: Nassiri & Jung LLP
         Kassra Nassiri
         Telephone: (415) 762-3100
         Web site: http://www.njfirm.com/

                     About Energy Conversion

Energy Conversion Devices -- http://energyconversiondevices.com/-
- has a renowned 51 year history since its formation in Detroit,
Michigan, and has been a pioneer in materials science and
renewable energy technology development.  The Company has been
awarded over 500 U.S. patents and international counterparts for
its achievements.  ECD's United Solar wholly owned subsidiary has
been a global leader in building-integrated and rooftop
photovoltaics for over 25 years.  The Company manufactures, sells
and installs thin-film solar laminates that convert sunlight to
clean, renewable energy using proprietary technology.


FERRELLGAS LP: Kansas Suit Not Yet Certified for Class Treatment
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2013,
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6 for
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P.; Ferrellgas Partners Finance Corp.;
Ferrellgas, L.P.; and Ferrellgas Finance Corp., disclosed that
Ferrellgas, L.P. has been named as a defendant in a class action
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court in Kansas.  The
complaint alleges that Ferrellgas, L.P. violates consumer
protection laws in the manner Ferrellgas, L.P. sets prices and
fees for its customers.

Based on Ferrellgas, L.P.'s business practices, Ferrellgas, L.P.
believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend
the claims vigorously.  The court has permitted limited discovery
into an individual claim and the case has not been certified for
class treatment.  Ferrellgas, L.P. does not believe loss is
probable or reasonably estimable at this time related to this
class action lawsuit.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Facing "Skold" Class Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Skold, et al. v. Intel Corporation and Hewlett-Packard Company is
a lawsuit filed against HP on June 14, 2004 that is pending in
state court in Santa Clara County, California. The lawsuit alleges
that Intel Corporation ("Intel") concealed performance problems
related to the Intel Pentium 4 processor by, among others things,
the manipulation of performance benchmarks. The lawsuit alleges
that HP aided and abetted Intel's allegedly unlawful conduct. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, restitution, attorneys' fees
and costs.

On April 19, 2012, the court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide
class asserting claims under the California Unfair Competition
Law. As to Intel, the court certified a nationwide class excluding
residents of Illinois. As to HP, the court certified a class
limited to California residents who purchased their computers
"from HP" for "personal, family or household use." As required by
the same order, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that
limits their claims against HP to a California class while
reserving the right to seek additional state-specific subclasses
as to HP.

No further updates were reported in the Company's Form 10-Q report
for the quarter ended April 30, 2013, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6.

Hewlett-Packard Company is a global provider of products,
technologies, software, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses, and large
enterprises, including customers in the government, health and
education sectors.  The core of the Company's business is its
hardware products, which include its PC, server, storage,
networking, and imaging and printing products.  The Company is
based in Palo Alto, California.


HAWTHORN BANCSHARES: Suit Over Overdraft Fees Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit over overdraft fees remains pending in
Missouri, according to Hawthorn Bancshares, Inc.'s May 15, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On November 18, 2010, a lawsuit was filed against the Company and
its subsidiary, Hawthorn Bank (the Bank), in the Circuit Court of
Jackson County for the Eastern Division of Missouri state court by
a customer alleging that the fees associated with the Bank's
automated overdraft program in connection with its debit card and
ATM cards constitute unlawful interest in violation of Missouri's
usury laws.  The lawsuit seeks class-action status for Bank
customers who have paid overdraft fees on their checking accounts.
The lawsuit seeks forfeiture and refund of twice the amount of
improper overdraft fees assessed and collected.  The court has
denied the Bank's motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

At this stage of the litigation, the Company says it is not
possible for management of the Bank to determine the probability
of a material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of
any potential loss.

Hawthorn Bancshares, Inc., through its subsidiary, Hawthorn Bank,
provides a broad range of banking services to individual and
corporate customers located within the communities in and
surrounding Jefferson City, Clinton, Warsaw, Springfield, Branson,
and Lee's Summit, Missouri.  The Company is headquartered in
Jefferson City, Missouri.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Facing Suits Over FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarter ended April 30, 2013, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 6, that it remains involved in several
lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime
compensation and other damages based on allegations that various
employees of Electronic Data Systems or HP have been misclassified
as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or in
violation of the California Labor Code or other state laws.

Those matters include:

     * Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic Data
Systems Corporation is a purported collective action filed on May
10, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York claiming that current and former EDS
employees allegedly involved in installing and/or maintaining
computer software and hardware were misclassified as exempt
employees. Another purported collective action, Steavens, et al.
v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, which was filed on October
23, 2007, is also now pending in the same court alleging similar
facts. The Steavens case has been consolidated for pretrial
purposes with the Cunningham case. On December 14, 2010, the court
granted conditional certification of a class consisting of
employees in 20 legacy EDS job codes in the consolidated
Cunningham and Steavens matter. Approximately 2,600 current and
former EDS employees have filed consents to opt in to the
litigation. Plaintiffs had alleged separate "opt-out" classes
based on the overtime laws of the states of California,
Washington, Massachusetts and New York, but plaintiffs have
dismissed those claims.

     * Salva v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported collective
action filed on June 15, 2012 in the United States District Court
for the Western District of New York alleging that certain
information technology employees allegedly involved in installing
and/or maintaining computer software and hardware were
misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards
Act. On August 31, 2012, HP filed its answer to plaintiffs'
complaint and counterclaims against two of the three named
plaintiffs. Also on August 31, 2012, HP filed a motion to transfer
venue to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Texas. A hearing on HP's motion to transfer venue was scheduled
for November 21, 2012, but was postponed by the court.

     * Heffelfinger, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation
is a class action filed in November 2006 in California Superior
Court claiming that certain EDS information technology workers in
California were misclassified as exempt employees. The case was
subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, which, on January 7, 2008,
certified a class of information technology workers in California.
On June 6, 2008, the court granted the defendant's motion for
summary judgment. The plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal with
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On June
7, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for two of
the named plaintiffs, but reversed summary judgment on the third
named plaintiff, remanding the case back to the trial court and
inviting the trial court to revisit its prior certification order.
On February 26, 2013, the trial court issued a final order and
opinion granting the defendant's motion to decertify the class.
Another purported class action originally filed in California
Superior Court, Karlbom, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems
Corporation, which was filed on March 16, 2009, alleges similar
facts and is pending in San Diego County Superior Court.

     * Blake, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported
nationwide collective action filed on February 17, 2011 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
claiming that a class of information technology support personnel
were misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act. On February 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion
requesting that the court conditionally certify the case as a
collective action. HP has opposed plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification, and the court has taken the motion
under advisement. Only one opt-in plaintiff had joined the named
plaintiff in the lawsuit at the time that the motion was filed.

     * Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported
collective action filed on January 10, 2013 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California alleging
that certain technical support employees allegedly involved in
installing, maintaining and/or supporting computer software and/or
hardware for HP were misclassified as exempt employees under the
Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiff has also alleged that HP
violated California law by, among other things, allegedly
improperly classifying these employees as exempt.

Hewlett-Packard Company is a global provider of products,
technologies, software, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses, and large
enterprises, including customers in the government, health and
education sectors.  The core of the Company's business is its
hardware products, which include its PC, server, storage,
networking, and imaging and printing products.  The Company is
based in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Saginaw Pension Fund Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Saginaw Police & Fire Pension Fund v. Marc L. Andreessen, et al.
is a lawsuit filed on October 19, 2010 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California alleging,
among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties and were unjustly enriched by consciously disregarding
Hewlett-Packard Company's alleged violations of the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act.  On August 15, 2011, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  On March 21, 2012, the court
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, and the court entered
judgment in the defendants' favor and closed the case on May 29,
2012.  On June 28, 2012, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's Form 10-Q report
for the quarter ended April 30, 2013, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6.

Hewlett-Packard Company is a global provider of products,
technologies, software, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses, and large
enterprises, including customers in the government, health and
education sectors.  The core of the Company's business is its
hardware products, which include its PC, server, storage,
networking, and imaging and printing products.  The Company is
based in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT PACKARD: N.D. California Court Dismisses "Copeland" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A California court on May 6, 2013, granted motions to dismiss with
prejudice and entered judgment in the defendants' favor, in the
case, A.J. Copeland v. Raymond J. Lane, et al., according to
Hewlett-Packard Company's Form 10-Q report for the quarter ended
April 30, 2013, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 6.

A.J. Copeland v. Raymond J. Lane, et al., is a lawsuit filed on
March 7, 2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California alleging, among other things, that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties and wasted corporate
assets in connection with HP's alleged violations of the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act, HP's severance payments made to Mark
Vincent Hurd, HP's past chairman, chief executive officer, and
president, and HP's acquisition of 3PAR Inc.

The lawsuit also alleges violations of Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act in connection with HP's 2010 and 2011 proxy
statements.

On February 8, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit. On October 10, 2012, the Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss with leave to file an amended complaint. On
November 1, 2012, plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding an
unjust enrichment claim and claims that the defendants violated
Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with HP's 2012 proxy statement. On
December 13, 14 and 17, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint.

Hewlett-Packard Company is a global provider of products,
technologies, software, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses, and large
enterprises, including customers in the government, health and
education sectors.  The core of the Company's business is its
hardware products, which include its PC, server, storage,
networking, and imaging and printing products.  The Company is
based in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Court Dismisses Portions of "Gammel" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
A California court on May 8, 2013, granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss, in part, and denied, in part, the case, Richard Gammel
v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al., according to Hewlett-Packard
Company's Form 10-Q report for the quarter ended April 30, 2013,
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6.

Richard Gammel v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al., is a putative
securities class action filed on September 13, 2011, in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
alleging, among other things, that from November 22, 2010 to
August 18, 2011, the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act by concealing material information
and making false statements about HP's business model, the future
of the webOS operating system, and HP's commitment to developing
and integrating webOS products, including the TouchPad tablet PC.

On April 11, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit. On September 4, 2012, the court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss and gave plaintiff 30 days to file an amended
complaint. On October 19, 2012, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint that asserts the same causes of action but drops one of
the defendants and shortens the period that the alleged violations
of the Exchange Act occurred to February 9, 2011 to August 18,
2011. On December 3, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint.

On May 8, 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss in part and denied it in part.  As a result of the court's
ruling, HP said the alleged class period in the action runs from
June 1, 2011 to August 18, 2011.

Hewlett-Packard Company is a global provider of products,
technologies, software, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses, and large
enterprises, including customers in the government, health and
education sectors.  The core of the Company's business is its
hardware products, which include its PC, server, storage,
networking, and imaging and printing products.  The Company is
based in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT PACKARD: "Espinoza" & "Gonzalez" Suits Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
In its Form 10-Q report for the quarter ended April 30, 2013,
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6,
Hewlett-Packard Company provided updates to two pending
consolidated lawsuits in California:

     -- Ernesto Espinoza v. Leo Apotheker, et al. and Larry Salat
v. Leo Apotheker, et al. are consolidated lawsuits filed on
September 21, 2011 in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California alleging, among other things, that
the defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act by concealing material information and making false
statements about HP's business model and the future of webOS, the
TouchPad and HP's PC business.  The lawsuits also allege that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties, wasted corporate
assets and were unjustly enriched when they authorized HP's
repurchase of its own stock on August 29, 2010 and July 21, 2011.
The lawsuits are currently stayed pending developments in the
matter, Richard Gammel v. Hewlett-Packard Company, et al.

     -- Luis Gonzalez v. Leo Apotheker, et al. and Richard Tyner
v. Leo Apotheker, et al. are consolidated lawsuits filed on
September 29, 2011 and October 5, 2011, respectively, in
California Superior Court alleging, among other things, that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties, wasted corporate
assets and were unjustly enriched by concealing material
information and making false statements about HP's business model
and the future of webOS, the TouchPad and HP's PC business and by
authorizing HP's repurchase of its own stock on August 29, 2010
and July 21, 2011.  The lawsuits are currently stayed pending
resolution of the Espinoza/Salat consolidated action in federal
court.

Hewlett-Packard Company is a global provider of products,
technologies, software, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses, and large
enterprises, including customers in the government, health and
education sectors.  The core of the Company's business is its
hardware products, which include its PC, server, storage,
networking, and imaging and printing products.  The Company is
based in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Bid to Nix Cement & Concrete Fund Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A California court has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss the
case, Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund v.
Hewlett-Packard Company, et al., according to the Company in its
Form 10-Q report for the quarter ended April 30, 2013, filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6.

Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund v.
Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. is a putative securities class
action filed on August 3, 2012, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among
other things, that from November 13, 2007 to August 6, 2010 the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act by making statements regarding HP's Standards of
Business Conduct ("SBC") that were false and misleading because
Mr. Hurd, who was serving as HP's Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer during that period, had been violating the SBC and
concealing his misbehavior in a manner that jeopardized his
continued employment with HP.  On February 7, 2013, the defendants
moved to dismiss the amended complaint.  The Court has not yet
ruled on the motion.

Hewlett-Packard Company is a global provider of products,
technologies, software, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses, and large
enterprises, including customers in the government, health and
education sectors.  The core of the Company's business is its
hardware products, which include its PC, server, storage,
networking, and imaging and printing products.  The Company is
based in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Consolidated Complaint Filed Over Autonomy Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In re HP Securities Litigation consists of two consolidated
putative class actions filed on November 26 and 30, 2012 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging, among other things, that from August 19, 2011
to November 20, 2012, the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act by concealing material
information and making false statements related to HP's
acquisition of Autonomy and the financial performance of HP's
Enterprise Services business.

Hewlett-Packard disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarter
ended April 30, 2013, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 6, that the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint on May 3, 2013, alleging that, during that same period,
all of the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5(b) by concealing material
information and making false statements related to HP's
acquisition of Autonomy Corporation and that certain defendants
violated SEC Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) by engaging in a "scheme" to
defraud investors.

HP acquired Autonomy, a multinational enterprise software company,
for about $11 billion in October 2011.  In November 2012, HP
announced it wrote off $8.8 billion of Autonomy's value, after
discovering it had been misled about Autonomy's finances.

Hewlett-Packard Company is a global provider of products,
technologies, software, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses, and large
enterprises, including customers in the government, health and
education sectors.  The core of the Company's business is its
hardware products, which include its PC, server, storage,
networking, and imaging and printing products.  The Company is
based in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Stay Shareholders' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In re Hewlett-Packard Shareholder Derivative Litigation consists
of seven consolidated lawsuits filed beginning on November 26,
2012 in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California alleging, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
by concealing material information and making false statements
related to HP's acquisition of Autonomy Corporation and the
financial performance of HP's Enterprise Services business. The
lawsuits also allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties, wasted corporate assets and were unjustly enriched in
connection with HP's acquisition of Autonomy and by causing HP to
repurchase its own stock at allegedly inflated prices between
August 2011 and October 2012.

One lawsuit further alleges that certain individual defendants
engaged in or assisted insider trading and thereby breached their
fiduciary duties, were unjustly enriched and violated Sections
25402 and 25403 of the California Corporations Code.

Hewlett-Packard disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarter
ended April 30, 2013, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 6, that the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint on May 3, alleging, among other things, that the
defendants concealed material information and made false
statements related to HP's acquisition of Autonomy and Autonomy's
IDOL technology and thereby violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, breached their fiduciary duties, engaged in
"abuse of control" over HP and corporate waste and were unjustly
enriched.

On May 10, 2013, HP moved to stay the litigation until HP's Board
of Directors decides whether to pursue any of the claims asserted
in the litigation or the court resolves HP's anticipated motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint in In re HP Securities
Litigation.  The court has not yet ruled on the motion.

HP acquired Autonomy, a multinational enterprise software company,
for about $11 billion in October 2011.  In November 2012, HP
announced it wrote off $8.8 billion of Autonomy's value, after
discovering it had been misled about Autonomy's finances.

Hewlett-Packard Company is a global provider of products,
technologies, software, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses, and large
enterprises, including customers in the government, health and
education sectors.  The core of the Company's business is its
hardware products, which include its PC, server, storage,
networking, and imaging and printing products.  The Company is
based in Palo Alto, California.


HEWLETT PACKARD: ERISA Litigation Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------
In re HP ERISA Litigation consists of three consolidated putative
class actions filed beginning on December 6, 2012 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
alleging, among other things, that from August 18, 2011 to
November 22, 2012, the defendants breached their fiduciary
obligations to HP's 401(k) Plan and its participants and thereby
violated Sections 404(a)(1) and 405(a) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, by concealing negative
information regarding the financial performance of Autonomy
Corporation and HP's Enterprise Services business and by failing
to restrict participants from investing in HP stock.

No further updates were reported in the Company's Form 10-Q report
for the quarter ended April 30, 2013, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6.

Hewlett-Packard Company is a global provider of products,
technologies, software, solutions and services to individual
consumers, small- and medium-sized businesses, and large
enterprises, including customers in the government, health and
education sectors.  The core of the Company's business is its
hardware products, which include its PC, server, storage,
networking, and imaging and printing products.  The Company is
based in Palo Alto, California.


HOT TOPIC: Faces Suits in California Over Sycamore Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hot Topic, Inc., is facing class action lawsuits arising from its
proposed acquisition by an affiliate of Sycamore Partners
Management, L.L.C., according to the Company's May 28, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended May 4, 2013.

On March 6, 2013, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger, or the Merger Agreement, providing for its acquisition
by an affiliate of Sycamore Partners Management, L.L.C., or
Sycamore.  Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, which was
unanimously approved by the Company's Board of Directors, or the
Board, Sycamore will acquire all of the outstanding shares of the
Company's common stock for $14.00 per share in cash.  The
transaction, which is structured as a one-step merger with the
company as the surviving corporation, or the Merger, is subject to
customary closing conditions, including receipt of regulatory
approvals and the approval of the holders of a majority of the
Company's outstanding shares.

Between March 2013 and May 2013, seven putative class action
complaints were filed in the Superior Court of California, County
of Los Angeles, and three putative class action complaints were
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California, each in connection with the proposed acquisition of
the Company by an affiliate of Sycamore.  Each lawsuit names the
Company, its board of directors, Sycamore and related entities as
defendants.  The lawsuits generally allege that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in a flawed
sales process, by approving an inadequate price, by agreeing to
provisions that would allegedly preclude another interested buyer
from making a financially superior proposal to acquire the
Company, and by disseminating misleading proxy disclosures.  The
lawsuits also allege that one or more of the Company, Sycamore and
related entities aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties by the directors.  The federal complaints also
allege that the Company and the directors violated Section 14 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by omitting material facts
from the preliminary proxy statement and failing to provide all
material information necessary for shareholders to cast an
informed vote in connection with the proposed transaction.  Among
other things, the plaintiffs seek an injunction (to prevent
consummation of the transaction), damages, declaratory relief, and
attorneys' fees.  The Company believes these lawsuits are without
merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.

Headquartered in City of Industry, California, Hot Topic, Inc., is
a mall and Web-based specialty retailer of apparel, accessories,
music and gift items for young men and women whose lifestyles
reflect a passion for music, fashion and pop culture.  The Company
primarily operates under two concepts: Hot Topic and Torrid.
Music and pop culture are the overriding inspirations at Hot
Topic, and Torrid is focused on providing the best in fashion to
young plus-size women.


ISATORI INC: Continues to Defend "Tabibnia" Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
iSATORI, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit filed by Arya Tabibnia over the sale of its hCG Activator
natural hCG alternative, according to the Company's May 15, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Arya Tabibnia brought a class action complaint against the Company
which was filed on August 6, 2012, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California (the "Tabibnia
Action"), claiming the Company's sale of its hCG Activator natural
hCG alternative (the "Product") violated the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act and certain other provisions of California
state law.  The Company also received letters from GNC, Corp. and
Vitamin Shoppe, Inc., demanding the Company indemnify them
pursuant to their respective vendor agreements.  The Company is
contractually obligated to indemnify both GNC, Corp. and Vitamin
Shoppe, Inc. and will fulfill those responsibilities.  The Company
believes that there is reasonable possibility, as defined by FASB
ASC 450-20, of an unfavorable outcome.  However, the range of any
possible loss cannot be reasonably estimated as of the date of the
financial statements.

iSATORI, Inc., is engaged in researching, designing, developing,
contracting for the manufacture of, marketing, selling and
distributing of various nutritional and dietary supplement
products for the general nutrition market.  The Company was
incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in Golden, Colorado.


ISATORI INC: Continues to Defend "Tawnsaura" Infringement Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
iSATORI, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit brought by D. Tawnsaura alleging patent infringement,
according to the Company's May 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

D. Tawnsaura brought a class action complaint against the Company
and 56 other retailers/distributors for infringement of a patented
ingredient "Citriline Malate."  This ingredient is utilized by the
Company in certain of its product formulations.  The court ordered
the plaintiffs to resubmit their complaint and make it legally
sufficient, which occurred on October 31, 2012.  The Company and
many of the other defendants are contesting the alleged patent
position of the plaintiff; accordingly, discovery in this matter
has been stayed pending the resolution of this issue.  The Company
believes that there is a reasonable possibility, as defined by
FASB ASC 450-20, of an unfavorable outcome.  However, the range of
any possible loss cannot be reasonably estimated as of the date of
the financial statements.

iSATORI, Inc., is engaged in researching, designing, developing,
contracting for the manufacture of, marketing, selling and
distributing of various nutritional and dietary supplement
products for the general nutrition market.  The Company was
incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in Golden, Colorado.


MERRIMAN HOLDINGS: Defends "Howard" Class Suit in Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
Merriman Holdings, Inc., defends a class action lawsuit styled
Howard v. Chanticleer Holdings, Inc., et al., in Florida,
according to the Company's May 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

A complaint was filed in federal court for the Southern District
of Florida on October 15, 2012, by Francis Howard against
Chanticleer Holdings, Inc., certain of its officers, Merriman
Capital, Inc., Dawson James Securities, Inc., and Creason &
Associates P.L.L.C.  The Plaintiff alleges violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 in connection with a public offering by
Chanticleer Holdings, Inc. and seeks class action status and
unspecified damages.  Since the Company believes that the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome in the case is remote,
management has not provided an accrual for this lawsuit as of
March 31, 2013.

San Francisco, California-based Merriman Holdings, Inc., is a
financial services holding company that provides capital markets
services, corporate services, and investment banking through its
wholly-owned operating subsidiary, Merriman Capital, Inc.  MC is
an investment bank and securities broker-dealer focused on fast
growing companies and institutional investors.


MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in "Silverman" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit on behalf of the purchasers of
Motorola Solutions, Inc. securities between July 19, 2006, and
January 5, 2007, Silverman v. Motorola, Inc., et al., was filed
against the Company and certain current and former officers and
directors of the Company on August 9, 2007, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The
complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as, in the case of
the individual defendants, the control person provisions of the
Securities Exchange Act.  The operative amended complaint
primarily alleges that the defendants knowingly made incorrect
statements concerning Motorola's projected revenues for the third
and fourth quarter of 2006.  The complaint also challenges
Motorola's accounting and disclosures for certain transactions
entered into in the third quarter of 2006.  The complaint seeks
unspecified damages and other relief relating to the purported
inflation in the price of Motorola shares during the class period.
On August 25, 2009, the district court granted plaintiff's motion
for class certification.

On February 1, 2012, the parties in the Silverman litigation
signed a settlement agreement to resolve all claims in that case
for $200 million, $150 million of which is being paid by the
Company's insurance carriers.  The district court approved the
settlement agreement on May 9, 2012.  Two appeals have been filed
from the judgment entered pursuant to the settlement -- one
challenging the court's approval of certain terms of the
settlement, and the other challenging the fee award to the
attorneys for the class.  The court has heard the appeals but has
not issued a decision.

The Company is a defendant in other various lawsuits, claims and
investigations that arise in the normal course of business.  In
the opinion of management, the ultimate disposition of the
Company's pending legal proceedings will not have a material
adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position,
liquidity or results of operations.  However, an unfavorable
resolution could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of
operations in the periods in which the matters are ultimately
resolved, or in the periods in which more information obtained
changes management's opinion of the ultimate disposition.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 28, 2013,
Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2013.

Motorola Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.motorolasolutions.com/--
is a provider of mission-critical communication infrastructure,
devices, software and services.  The Company was incorporated in
Delaware and is headquartered in Schaumburg, Illinois.


MRI INTERNATIONAL: Accused of Running $1.4-Bil. Ponzi Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
Shige Takiguchi, Fumi Nonaka, Yozo Skiki, Kaoruko Koizumi and
Tatsuro Sakai v. MRI International, Inc., Edwin J Fujinaga, Junzo
Suzuki and Paul Musashi Suzuki, LVT, Inc. dba Sterling Escrow,
Case No. 2:13-cv-01183 (D. Nev., July 5, 2013) accuses the
Defendants of running a $1.4 billion Ponzi scheme.

According to a Courthouse News Service report, MRI International
(Medical Receivables International) defrauded the Plaintiffs of
$7.8 million in the $1.4 billion Ponzi scheme.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter M. Angulo, Esq.
          OLSON, CANNON, GORMLEY, ANGULO & STOBERSKI
          9950 West Cheyenne Avenue
          Las Vegas, NV 89129
          Telephone: (702) 384-4012
          Facsimile: (702) 383-0701
          E-mail: pangulo@ocgas.com


NBT BANCORP: Yet to Submit Merger-Related Suit Settlement Docs
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties are yet to submit for approval documents with respect
to their settlement of a consolidated merger-related lawsuit,
according to NBT Bancorp Inc.'s May 16, 2013, Form 8-K/A filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

NBT Bancorp Inc. entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated as of October 7, 2012, for the acquisition of Alliance
Financial Corporation.  In the transaction, NBT issued
approximately 10,346,363 shares of its common stock, valued at
approximately $225.6 million, in exchange for all of the issued
and outstanding shares of Alliance common stock and Alliance was
merged with and into NBT, with NBT surviving the merger.  On
March 8, 2013, the merger was completed.

In connection with the pending merger with NBT, three plaintiffs
filed purported class action lawsuits against Alliance, Alliance's
directors and NBT.  All three purported class actions were brought
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, in the County of
Onondaga, or the Court, and are captioned Oughterson v. Alliance
Financial Corporation, et al. (No. 2012EF73, filed October 11,
2012), Stanard v. Alliance Financial Corporation, et al. (No.
2012EF75, filed October 22, 2012) and The Wire Family Trust of
1997 v. Alliance Financial Corporation et al. (No. 2012-5950,
filed November 1, 2012).  By Order dated December 10, 2012, the
three cases were consolidated by the Court into a single action.
The lawsuits allege that the Alliance directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Alliance's shareholders by seeking to sell
Alliance through an allegedly unfair process and for an unfair
price and on unfair terms, by soliciting shareholder approval of
the proposed transaction through a Form S-4 that was alleged to be
materially misleading, and that Alliance and NBT aided and abetted
that breach.  The lawsuits seek, among other things, equitable
relief that would enjoin the merger, damages, and attorneys' fees
and costs.  The plaintiffs also seek rescission of the merger (to
the extent it has already been completed at the time that the
court grants any relief).

The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle these
cases and entered into a memorandum of understanding on
January 15, 2013.  As part of this memorandum of understanding,
NBT and Alliance agreed to disclose additional information in the
joint proxy statement/prospectus on Form S-4 with NBT, including
information about matters discussed between the parties during the
process of negotiating the merger, as well as information about
the data that was analyzed and presented to the Alliance Board of
Directors by its financial advisor.  No substantive terms of the
merger agreement will be modified as part of this settlement.  The
settlement is subject to review and approval by the Court.  The
range of reasonably possible loss for this matter related to
litigation costs was between $300,000 and $500,000 as of
December 31, 2012.  Alliance has insurance coverage that limits
its liability to $75,000.

NBT Bancorp Inc. -- http://www.nbtbancorp.com/-- is a registered
financial holding company incorporated in Delaware in 1986, with
its principal headquarters located in Norwich, New York.  The
Company's principal assets consist of all of the outstanding
shares of common stock of its subsidiaries, including NBT Bank,
National Association, NBT Financial Services, Inc., NBT Holdings,
Inc., Hathaway Agency, Inc., and CNBF Capital Trust I, NBT
Statutory Trust I and NBT Statutory Trust II.


NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: Dist. Court Enters Case Management Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts District Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV, entered a case
management order dated June 28 in In re New England Compounding
Pharmacy, Inc. Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 1:13-md-2419-
FDS.  A copy of the CMO is available at http://is.gd/ycPpHmfrom
Leagle.com.

The order applies to all actions transferred to the Massachusetts
District Court by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
pursuant to its February 12, 2013 order; any tag-along actions
transferred to the District Court by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation pursuant to Rule 7.4 of the Rules of
Procedure of that Panel; any related actions originally filed in
the District Court or transferred or removed to the District
Court; and any related actions subsequently filed in the District
Court or otherwise transferred or removed to the District Court.
Judge Saylor expects to conduct a status conference about once a
month, on such dates and at such times as it deems appropriate.
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, the defendants, the trustee
appointed in the chapter 11 case of NECC, the official committee
of unsecured creditors in the chapter 11 case, and any other
interested parties may participate in the status conferences.

The NECC trustee is currently engaged in settlement discussions
with NECC and the affiliated defendants, pursuant to the Agreed-
Upon Order Establishing Protocol for Settlement Negotiations and
Communications entered in the chapter 11 case.  The Plaintiffs'
lead counsel and the Creditors' Committee should be kept apprised
of the status of that process to the extent permitted by the
Bankruptcy Court.

The Plaintiffs' Steering Committee may nonetheless commence formal
discovery against any one or more affiliated defendants upon a
showing of good cause to the District Court.

The Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, the trustee, and the
Creditors' Committee shall confer and shall submit to the Court
within 30 days a proposed mediation order to be entered in this
Court and the Bankruptcy Court concerning all unaffiliated
defendants and non-parties.

The Plaintiffs' Steering Committee shall file a master complaint
by September 5, 2013, after meeting and conferring with the
defendants and the trustee.  This deadline is intended to permit
the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee a period of time to conduct
discovery and incorporate the fruits of that discovery into the
master complaint.  The Plaintiffs' Steering Committee shall also
provide a short form complaint by September 5, 2013, after meeting
and conferring with the defendants and the trustee.  The filing of
a master complaint or short form complaint will not render the
motions to dismiss of Alaunus Pharmaceutical, LLC or any other
defendant moot.  The Defendants may move to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6) against plaintiffs' original complaints.

By October 1, 2013, MDL plaintiffs who have already filed a
complaint as of the filing of the master complaint may file short
form complaints or, with leave of the Court, amended complaints.

The Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, the trustee, and the
Creditors' Committee should confer regarding formulation of a
chapter 11 plan in the NECC bankruptcy case.  This order does not
withdraw the reference to the Bankruptcy Court in connection with
the chapter 11 case, including but not limited to negotiation and
formulation of a bankruptcy plan, plan issues, plan disclosure
requirements, plan confirmation, and Plan implementation or
enforcement.  The parties may seek, or oppose, in whole or in
part, withdrawal of the reference to the Bankruptcy Court.

Judge Saylor set this timeline: "Fact discovery as to NECC and the
affiliated Temporarily stayed.  defendants Fact discovery as to
unaffiliated defendants Open, subject to any proposed mediation
order and non-parties that is entered by the Court.  Motion(s) for
entry of a confidentiality order July 3, 2013 filed Plaintiffs'
Steering Committee, defendants, July 9, 2013 Trustee, and
Creditors' Committee to meet and confer about scope of initial
discovery of plaintiffs Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, Trustee,
and July 3, 2013 Creditors' Committee to propose mediation order
for unaffiliated defendants Fact discovery as to unaffiliated
defendants July 30, 2013 and non-parties returnable by Discovery
depositions as noted August 1, 2013 Depositions as to unaffiliated
defendants and August 15, 2013 non-parties complete Master
complaint filed September 1, 2013 Deadline to file amended
complaints for cases Fall 2013 filed before September 1, 2013
Case-specific discovery of plaintiffs Fall 2013 Summary judgment
briefing Fall 2013 Expert reports exchanged and depositions Fall
2013 conducted Trial(s) Summer 2014"

New England Compounding Pharmacy Inc., filed a Chapter 11 petition
in Boston, Massachusetts, in December 2012, after a meningitis
outbreak linked to an injectable steroid, methylprednisolone
acetate, manufactured by NECC, killed 39 people and sickened 656
in 19 states, though no illnesses have been reported in
Massachusetts.  The Company owns and operates the New England
Compounding Center located in Framingham, Massachusetts.  In
October 2012, the Company recalled all its products, not just
those associated with the outbreak.


OLD SECOND: Awaits Final Approval of ERISA Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Old Second Bancorp, Inc., is awaiting final approval of its
settlement of a class action lawsuit in Illinois, according to the
Company's May 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On February 17, 2011, a former employee filed a purported class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of participants and beneficiaries
of the Old Second Bancorp, Inc. Employees' 401(k) Savings Plan and
Trust alleging that the Company, the Bank, the Employee Benefits
Committee of Old Second Bancorp, Inc. and certain of the Company's
officers and employees violated certain disclosure requirements
and fiduciary duties established under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA").  The complaint
sought equitable and monetary relief.  Though the Company believes
that it, its affiliates, and its officers and employees have
acted, and continue to act, in compliance with ERISA with respect
to these matters, without conceding liability, the named
defendants negotiated a settlement in principle with the
plaintiffs.  On March 1, 3013, the Court preliminarily approved
the parties' settlement agreement.  The Court scheduled the
hearing on June 14, 2013, to make a final determination on the
settlement.  The Company and its legal counsel expect that the
Court will have issued a final approval of the settlement
agreement after the June 14th hearing and that the plaintiffs will
therefore dismiss the litigation with a release of all claims.  If
approved, the settlement agreement will not have a material
adverse effect on the financial statements of the Bank or on the
consolidated financial position of the Company because the entire
settlement amount will be paid by the Company's insurers.

Old Second Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.oldsecond.com/-- was
organized under the laws of Delaware in 1981 and is based in
Aurora, Illinois.  The Company conducts a full service community
banking and trust business and provides financial services through
its 27 banking locations that are located throughout the Chicago
metropolitan area.


RUE21 INC: To "Vigorously Contest" SPTA Suit Over Rhodes Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, on behalf
of itself and a putative class of public stockholders of rue21
Inc. filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery in the State of
Delaware on May 30, 2013, against the Company, the directors of
the Company, Apax Partners L.P., and several funds affiliated with
Apax, and Apax-affiliated entities participating in a proposed
merger.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and
its directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
public stockholders by authorizing the Merger for inadequate
consideration, without a reasonable independent process and
without a fair opportunity to seek and secure the best sale price
for stockholders; that Apax, Apax affiliated members of the
Company's board of directors and the Company's chief executive
officer breached their duty of loyalty and entire fairness to the
Company through causing or supporting the Merger which plaintiff
alleges does not include a fair price and was not the result of
fair dealing; and that the Apax Entities aided and abetted the
other defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

The plaintiff seeks, among other things, a judgment determining
that the action is a proper class action and that the plaintiff is
a proper class representative; enjoining the defendants from
taking steps to implement the acquisition of the Company at a
price that is not fair and equitable and under terms presently
proposed; rescinding the Merger (or awarding damages to the class)
in the event of its consummation prior to the entry of final
judgment; enjoining any material transactions or changes to the
Company's business and assets until a proper process is conducted
to evaluate strategic alternatives; and awarding compensatory
damages and fees, expenses and costs of attorneys and experts.

On May 23, 2013, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Rhodes Holdco, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
("Parent"), and Rhodes Merger Sub, Inc., a newly formed Delaware
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger
Sub"), providing for the merger (the "Merger") of Merger Sub with
and into the Company, with the Company surviving the Merger as a
wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.  Parent and Merger Sub are
affiliates of Apax Partners L.P. ("Apax").

Under the Merger Agreement, the Company's stockholders will
receive $42 per share in cash, without interest. The transaction
is subject to approval by the Company's stockholders, receipt of
regulatory approvals and other customary closing conditions.

News reports value the deal at about $1.1 billion.

Concurrently with the execution and delivery of the Merger
Agreement, the SKM Funds, which collectively own approximately 30%
of the outstanding shares of the Company entered into a support
agreement with the Company and Apax to vote their shares in favor
of the transaction with Apax. Pursuant to the terms of the Support
Agreement, if the agreement with Apax is terminated and the
Company terminates the Merger Agreement to accept an all-cash
superior proposal of at least $42 per share, the SKM Funds have
agreed to vote their shares in favor of such superior proposal on
the same pro rata basis as unaffiliated stockholders (although SKM
Funds can choose to vote all, or an amount between the applicable
pro rata proportion and all of their shares in favor of a superior
proposal).

rue21 believes that the Merger Agreement and the proposed Merger
are fair to its stockholders (excluding certain funds affiliated
with Apax) and intends to vigorously contest the complaint, the
Warrendale, Pennsylvania-based company said in its Form 10-Q
report for the quarterly period ended May 4, 2013, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 6.

One of the conditions to the closing of the Merger is that no
injunction, judgment or ruling by a court or other governmental
entity shall be in effect that enjoins, restrains, prevents or
prohibits consummation of the Merger or that makes the
consummation of the Merger illegal. Therefore, if the plaintiff in
the litigation, or plaintiffs in any similar action that may be
filed, are successful in enjoining the relevant parties from
completing the Merger on the agreed-upon terms, the Merger may not
become effective within the expected timeframe or thereafter.

The Company suspended its stock repurchase program as of May 23,
2013 in connection with the proposed Merger Agreement.

rue21 is a specialty retailer of girls and guys apparel and
accessories with 918 stores as of May 4, 2013, respectively, in
various strip centers, regional malls and outlet centers
throughout the United States.


SAKS INC: To Defend Against Overtime Pay Suits in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in Dawn Till and Mary Josephs v. Saks Incorporated et
al., filed a complaint on February 2, 2011, with which the Company
was served on March 10, 2011, in a purported class and collective
action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.  The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs were
improperly classified as exempt from the overtime pay requirements
of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the California Labor
Code and that Saks failed to pay overtime, provide itemized wage
statements and provide meal and rest periods.

On March 8, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
a claim for penalties under the California Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004.  The plaintiffs seek to proceed collectively
under the FLSA and as a class under the California statutes on
behalf of individuals who have been employed by OFF 5TH as Selling
and Service Managers, Merchandise Team Managers, or Department
Managers and similar titles.

On February 8, 2012, the same plaintiffs' counsel from the Till
case filed a complaint, with which Saks was served on March 2,
2012, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, alleging essentially the same FLSA claim and related claims
under New York state law (Tate - Small et al v. Saks Incorporated
et al).  This case was subsequently transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

"We believe that our managers at OFF 5TH have been properly
classified as exempt under both federal and state law and we
intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously. It is not possible to
predict whether the courts will permit these actions to proceed
collectively or as a class. We cannot reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may arise from these
matters," Saks Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended May 4, 2013, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 6.


SIEBERT FINANCIAL: Unable to Determine Remaining Claims in Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Siebert Financial Corp. said in its May 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013, that it is unable to determine the potential
liability, if any, in the remaining claims not covered by its
subsidiary's settlement of a class action lawsuit.

In a prior year, Muriel Siebert & Co., Inc. ("Siebert"), a wholly
owned subsidiary of the Company, was named as one of the
defendants in a class action pending in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York.  The complaint was brought
on behalf of a class of purchasers in a public offering by Lehman
Brothers Holdings, Inc. of $1,500,000,000 of 6.75% Subordinated
Notes due 2017 (the "Notes") as to Siebert and certain smaller
issuances of other securities.  Siebert had agreed to purchase $15
million of the Notes and $462,953 of the other securities as an
underwriter in the offerings.  Siebert and the plaintiffs' class
resolved all claims against Siebert in consideration of a $1
million payment by Siebert which was paid in a prior year.  As
certain plaintiffs did not agree to a settlement or purchased
securities were not covered by the settlement, additional
liability to Siebert is possible.  At present, Siebert is unable
to determine the potential liability, if any.

Siebert Financial Corp. -- http://www.siebertnet.com/-- provides
Internet and traditional discount brokerage and related services
to retail investors and, through its wholly owned subsidiary,
Siebert Women's Financial Network, Inc., provides products,
services and information devoted to women's financial needs.
Through its Capital Markets division, Siebert also offers
institutional clients equity execution services on an agency
basis, as well as equity and fixed income underwriting and
investment banking services.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Cleared From Charges Over Adoption Subsidy Cuts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that South Carolina
did not violate a federal law intended to protect adopted and
foster children when it reduced adoption assistance subsidies by
$20 a month, the 4th Circuit ruled.

The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act is a federal law
setting forth specific requirements governing foster care
maintenance payments.

States that wish to receive funding under the act must win U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services approval of their plans
for a subsidy and maintenance program.

A key provision of the act prohibits adoption assistance subsidies
that exceed foster care maintenance payments.

South Carolina determines the subsidies and maintenance payments
it allots after consulting with the adoptive or foster parents,
and after taking into consideration such factors as the specific
needs of the particular child and the parents' circumstances.

In June 2002, the state's Department of Social Services announced
that it would reduce both adoptive- and foster-care-support
payments by $20 a month because of a budget crisis.

Thought the state rescinded the reduction to foster care
maintenance in 2004, it never made a commensurate adjustment to
the adoption assistance subsidies.

Kenneth and Angela Hensley, the adoptive parents of a special
needs child identified in the court record only as BLH, quickly
filed a class action.

The Hensleys had adopted BLH in 1999 after serving as her foster
parents for two years.  If they had stayed on as BLH's foster
parents, the Hensleys would have continued receiving a $674
subsidy, which factored in an upward "difficulty of care rate."
As adoptive parents, however, they were now entitled only to $655.

In addition to monetary damages, the Hensleys sought declaratory
and injunctive relief from aid-reduction decisions of the current
and former Social Services directors.

Although Senior U.S. District Judge G. Ross Anderson Jr. certified
the class, be declined to grant either side summary judgment.

A three-judge panel of the Richmond, Va.-based 4th Circuit
reversed, saying the four directors deserved immunity.

The federal law "establishes a right to parental concurrence in
subsidy readjustment determinations except when the subsidy must
be reduce due to reductions in foster care maintenance payments,"
Judge Diana Motz wrote for the panel.

When South Carolina reduced all foster care maintenance payments
by $20 in 2002, federal law compelled it to reduce BLH's adoption
assistance subsidy by the same amount, according to the ruling.

"For these reasons, the Hensleys cannot establish that the
directors violated the Hensleys' rights under the act and
therefore the directors are entitled to qualified immunity."

The Plaintiffs/Appellees are represented by:

          Timothy Ryan Langley, Esq.
          Charles J. Hodge, Esq.
          HODGE & LANGLEY LAW FIRM, P.C.
          229 Magnolia Street
          Spartanburg, SC 29306
          Toll Free: 1-888-333-3518
          Telephone: (864) 585-3873
          Facsimile: (864) 585-6485
          E-mail: RLangley@hodgelawfirm.com
                  kelly@hodgelawfirm.com

               - and -

          James Fletcher Thompson, Esq.
          JAMES FLETCHER THOMPSON, LLC
          302 East St. John Street, P.O. Box 1853
          Spartanburg, SC 29304
          Telephone: (864) 573-5533
          Facsimile: (864) 327-5139
          E-mail: jamesfletcherthompson@gmail.com

The Defendants/Appellants are represented by:

          Andrew Lindemann, Esq.
          William H. Davidson, II, Esq.
          Joel S. Hughes, Esq.
          DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, P.A.
          1611 Devonshire Drive, Second Floor
          Columbia, SC 29204
          Telephone: (803) 806-8222
          Facsimile: (803) 806-8855
          E-mail: alindemann@dml-law.com
                  wdavidson@dml-law.com
                  jhughes@dml-law.com

The case is Hensley, et al. v. Koller, et al., Case No. 12-02147
(4th Cir., September 20, 2012).


STARBUCKS CORP: Shift Supervisors May Share in Tip Pool
-------------------------------------------------------
John Del Signore, writing for Gothamist, reports that Starbucks
shift supervisors are entitled to their fair share of the tip pool
that baristas enjoy, the New York Court of Appeals ruled on
June 26.  In 2008, a group of disgruntled Queens baristas sued the
popular purveyor of coffee and generic soullessness on the grounds
that shift supervisors should not share in the tips, because they
are paid more and perform certain managerial functions. But the
law still maintains the baristas MUST share.

A lower court previously ruled in favor of Starbucks, which argued
that shift supervisors are not managers (though they're in charge
when managers are away and can evaluate baristas in performance
reviews) and are entitled to tips because they often do the same
work as baristas.  And the pay isn't much better: In 2008, a Union
Square barista told the Times she earned $10.03/hour after three
years on the job, while a shift supervisor made $10.25, also after
three years.

But one of the baristas' lawyers argued that there's no reason for
shift supervisors to dip into baristas' tips: "It's been argued
that the shift supervisors do not make a lot of money and that
somehow it's justifiable that they should share in the tips.
That's just beyond ridiculous and, in fact, it's incriminating
towards Starbucks. It puts the brunt of paying these people on the
baristas."

The June 26 ruling, embedded below, sides once again with
Starbucks, noting that "We cannot agree with [the baristas']
contention that even the slightest degree of supervisory
responsibility automatically disqualifies an employee from sharing
in tips . . . The [Department of Labor] has consistently and, in
our view, reasonably, maintained that employees who regularly
provide direct service to patrons remain tip-pool eligible even if
they exercise a limited degree of supervisory responsibility."

In a separate decision, the court also ruled against assistant
store managers who sued Starbucks arguing that they should be
eligible for tips. (They're currently not included in the tip
pool.) The court decided that the assistant store managers, who
are one level up from shift supervisors, do have "meaningful
authority" that justifies their exclusion from the tip pool.

The court did not say anything on the ethics of tip pooling in
general -- the policy of pooling tips has long divided servers
throughout the restaurant industry.  Gothamist turned to former
waiter Christopher Robbins for insight.

"To the Section Shark, tip pooling may seem like a fool's game.
Why would you let some slob take your hard-earned money?" Robbins,
the president of the Retired Servers Union Local 442, said in an
email.  "But pooling tips makes you work as a team, and decreases
the likelihood that someone is going to 'forget' to water the
table you asked them to, or leave you high and dry when you're in
the weeds. When one person succeeds, everyone succeeds.  Until
restaurants just start charging more for food and foregoing tips
altogether, this is the best system we have."


STEC INC: Suit Seeks to Stop $340-Mil. Buyout by Western Digital
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vijaya Pilly, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. sTec, Inc., Kevin C. Daly, Rajat Bahri, F. Michael
Ball, Christopher W. Colpitts, Manouch Moshayedi, Mark Moshayedi,
Matthew L. Witte, Western Digital Corporation and Lodi Ventures,
Inc., Case No. 30-2013-00659340-CU-SL-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange
Cty., June 26, 2013), is brought on behalf of holders of the
Company's common stock to enjoin the acquisition of the Company by
Western Digital for $340 million in cash, wherein sTec
shareholders will receive $6.85 per share.

In facilitating the acquisition of sTec by Western Digital for
inadequate consideration and through a flawed process, each of the
Defendants breached and aided the other Defendants' breaches of
their fiduciary duties, Mr. Pilly alleges.  He adds that the
consideration is unfair and grossly inadequate because, among
other things, the intrinsic value of the Company's common stock is
materially in excess of the amount offered in the Proposed
Transaction.

Mr. Pilly is a stockholder of the Company.

sTec, a California corporation, is a global provider of
enterprise-class, solid-state storage solutions designed to the
ever-growing performance, reliability and endurance requirements
of today's advanced data centers.  Headquartered in Santa Ana,
California, sTec also serves the embedded and military/aerospace
segments with SSDs for industrial and rugged environments.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.
Western Digital is a Delaware corporation.  Merger Sub is a
subsidiary of Western Digital.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 834-2590
          Facsimile: (310) 247-0160
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com

               - and -

          Brian C. Kerr, Esq.
          BROWER PIVEN, A Professional Corporation
          475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 501-9000
          E-mail: kerr@browerpiven.com


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Reglan Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Li, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that a
Florida woman who claims that she was injured by Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.'s generic version of a brand-name
drug manufactured by Wyeth LLC and Schwarz Pharma Inc. can't sue
any of the companies, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit panel ruled on June 25.  The panel unanimously found that
the woman's claims against Teva were barred by the U.S. Supreme
Court's 2011 ruling in Pliva v. Mensing (which placed limits on
suits against generic drug makers), and that her claims against
Wyeth and Schwarz were barred by Florida state law.

The ruling added to what has already been a banner week for Teva
counsel Jay Lefkowitz -- lefkowitz@kirkland.com -- the Kirkland &
Ellis partner already known for winning Mensing.  On June 24,
Mr. Lefkowitz racked up another Supreme Court victory in Mutual
Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett.

Florida resident Andrea Guarino filed her suit in December 2010,
claiming that she developed involuntary and repetitive body
movements after taking Teva's generic version of Reglan, a
gastrointestinal drug made by Wyeth and Schwarz.  Ms. Guarino
accused Teva of failing to reach out to doctors about the dangers
of its generic version.  She also claimed that Wyeth and Schwarz
were liable because they too had an obligation to warn doctors and
consumers.  A U.S. district judge in Tampa dismissed Ms. Guarino's
claims against Teva in November 2011, and granted summary judgment
to Wyeth and Schwarz in April 2012.

Ms. Guarino and her lawyers -- attorney David Sales and the law
firm of Abrahamson & Uiterwyk, both based in Florida -- appealed
to the Eleventh Circuit in June 2012.  They argued that Mensing
didn't apply to their client's case.  In Mensing, the Supreme
Court ruled that all state failure-to-warn claims against generics
are preempted by federal law, because generic drug companies are
required under the Hatch-Waxman Act to have the same warning
labels as their brand name counterparts.  Ms. Guarino's lawyers
maintained that generics like Teva still have an obligation to
send letters to doctors warning them of dangerous side-effects of
their drugs.

Teva's counsel countered that these so-called "dear doctor"
letters are really an extension of the warning label, and generics
could not send them to doctors unless their branded counterparts
sent them first.  In addition to Mr. Lefkowitz, Teva was
represented by Goodwin Procter.  Wyeth and Schwarz were
represented by Bradley Arant Boult Cummings; Mayer Brown; and
Williams & Connolly.

The Eleventh Circuit panel sided with Teva in its 18-page opinion,
ruling that Ms. Guarino's case is controlled by Mensing.
"Guarino's attempt to elude Mensing by clothing her allegations as
'failure-to-communicate' claims rather than failure-to-warn claims
does not alter our analysis," Judge Charles Wilson wrote in the
opinion, which was joined by judges Frank Hull and Jerome Farris.

The panel added that Wyeth and Schwarz were not liable in
Guarino's case because she did not ingest their products. As such,
they could not be sued under Florida law. "[N]o Florida court has
recognized a potential cause of action against a branded
manufacturer by the consumers of a generic product," wrote Wilson.

Mr. Lefkowitz told The Litigation Daily that the ruling was
clearly consistent with Mensing.  "The Supreme Court said in
Mensing that a generic company must fit into the [Food & Drug
Administration's] labeling regime," Mr. Lefkowitz said.  "Any
communication about a drug from a generic company implies that
there is some kind of difference with the branded drug, provided
that the branded company did not send a letter, too."  Mr.
Lefkowitz added that forcing generics to send letters every time
there was a change by the brand names was impractical. Kevin
Newsom, who represented Wyeth and Schwarz, did not respond to a
request for comment.

Mr. Sales, one of Ms. Guarino's lawyers, disagreed that Mensing
forced generics to remain forever quiet.  "Generics can only say
what brand names secure the right to say, we obviously have to
accept that," said Mr. Sales.  "But this decision says they are
not allowed to speak or communicate in any way even if it is to
say something that is exactly identical to what's already on the
label.  That's unfortunate."  Mr. Sales added that in his view,
state law allows for branded companies to be sued even if a
customer consumed the generic version of their product.


THOR INDUSTRIES: Funded Settlements in FEMA-Related Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elkhart, Indiana-based Thor Industries, Inc., and all of its
subsidiaries involved in the so-called FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde
Litigation have fully funded settlements by depositing agreed upon
amounts into the Registry of the United States District of
Louisiana, the Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2013, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 6.

Beginning in 2006, a number of lawsuits were filed against
numerous trailer and manufactured housing manufacturers, including
complaints against the Company.  The complaints were filed in
various state and federal courts throughout Louisiana, Alabama,
Texas and Mississippi on behalf of Gulf Coast residents who lived
in travel trailers, park model trailers and manufactured homes
provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA")
following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005.

The complaints generally alleged that residents who occupied FEMA
supplied emergency housing units, such as travel trailers, were
exposed to formaldehyde emitted from the trailers. The plaintiffs
alleged various injuries from exposure, including health issues
and emotional distress. Most of the initial cases were filed as
class action suits. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(the "MDL panel") had the authority to designate one court to
coordinate and consolidate discovery and pretrial proceedings in a
proceeding known as multidistrict litigation ("MDL"). The MDL
panel transferred the actions to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the "MDL Court") because
the actions in different jurisdictions involved common questions
of fact. The MDL Court denied class certification in December
2008, and consequently, the cases were administered as a mass
joinder of claims (the "MDL proceeding").

On December 21, 2011, the MDL Court issued an Order that, among
other matters, mandated certain manufacturing defendants in the
litigation, including the Company and several of its RV
subsidiaries, to participate in mediation in January 2012. The
Company's Heartland subsidiary participated in mediation on
January 27, 2012 and reached an agreement in principle to resolve
the pending claims against it on February 2, 2012. The other Thor
RV subsidiaries involved in the MDL proceeding collectively
participated in mediation on January 19, 2012 and during a second
mediation session held on February 10, 2012 reached an agreement
in principle to resolve the litigation.

On March 27, 2012, Heartland and its insurance carriers entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") memorializing the
February 2, 2012 settlement. On March 30, 2012, Thor Industries,
Inc., for itself and on behalf of its other RV subsidiaries
involved in the MDL proceeding, and its insurance carriers,
entered into an MOU memorializing the settlement reached on
February 10, 2012.

The Company and its RV subsidiaries involved in the MDL
proceeding, their respective insurance carriers, several
unaffiliated manufacturers of RVs and their insurers, and legal
representatives of the plaintiffs each executed a Stipulation of
Settlement in April 2012.

On June 1, 2012, the Company paid $4,700 into the Registry of the
United States District of Louisiana. This payment represents full
payment of the Company and its subsidiaries' obligation under the
Stipulation of Settlement.

On September 27, 2012, after counsel for the plaintiffs produced
the list of members of the class who requested exclusion from the
proposed settlement, the MDL Court conducted a Fairness Hearing
during which final approval of the proposed settlement was
evaluated.  On that same date, the Court approved the settlement
and entered a final, appealable order dismissing all of the claims
pending in the MDL litigation. Because no plaintiffs with claims
against the Company or any of its subsidiaries opted out of the
settlement, this order, assuming no appeal is taken, effectively
ends the litigation against the Company and its subsidiaries.

No appeal was taken in relation to the claims against the Company
or its subsidiaries. The MDL Court then appointed a Special Master
to allocate all pending settlements. On March 29, 2013, the MDL
Court approved a methodology pertaining to the allocation of the
settlements. On April 2, 2013, the Special Master filed a motion
before the MDL Court seeking to establish an allocation and
objection procedure.

Thor Industries was founded in 1980 and, through its subsidiaries,
manufactures a wide range of recreation vehicles ("RVs") and small
and mid-size buses at various manufacturing facilities across the
United States.


UGI CORP: "Swigers" Class Suit Still Stayed in West Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------
In 2005, Samuel and Brenda Swiger (the "Swigers") filed what
purports to be a class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of
Harrison County, West Virginia, against UGI Corporation, an
insurance subsidiary of UGI, certain officers of UGI and the
General Partner, and their insurance carriers and insurance
adjusters.  In this lawsuit, the Swigers are seeking compensatory
and punitive damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged
violations of the West Virginia Insurance Unfair Trade Practice
Act, negligence, intentional misconduct, and civil conspiracy.
The Court has not certified the class and, in October 2008, stayed
the lawsuit pending resolution of a separate, but related, class
action lawsuit filed against AmeriGas Propane, L.P. ("AmeriGas
OLP") in Monongalia County, which was settled in Fiscal 2011.  The
Company believes it has good defenses to the claims in this
action.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 15, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Headquartered in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, UGI Corporation is
a holding company that, through subsidiaries and affiliates,
distributes and markets energy products and related services.  In
the United States, the Company (1) is the general partner and own
limited partner interests in a retail propane marketing and
distribution business; (2) owns and operates natural gas and
electric distribution utilities; (3) owns all or a portion of
electricity generation facilities; and (4) owns and operates an
energy marketing, midstream infrastructure, storage, natural gas
gathering and energy services business.  Internationally, the
Company markets and distributes propane and other liquefied
petroleum gases in Europe and China.


VERAMARK TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Merger-Related Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Veramark Technologies, Inc., is facing a merger-related class
action lawsuit in New York, according to the Company's May 15,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On May 1, 2013, the Company announced that it has entered into a
definitive merger agreement with Varsity Acquisition LLC
("Varsity") and All Big Ten Holdings, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Varsity ("Merger Sub") under which Merger Sub will
acquire all of the outstanding common stock of the Company, par
value $0.10 per share, for $0.98 per share in cash.  The $0.98 per
share price represents a 38% premium over the 90-day average of
the Company's shares and a 29% premium to the closing price of the
Company's shares on April 30, 2013.

On May 7, 2013, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of Nassau, Penelope Horn filed a class action complaint and
demand for jury trial, index number 601167/2013 (the "Complaint")
against the Company, the Board of Directors, Varsity Acquisition
LLC, and All Big Ten Holdings, Inc., (collectively the
"Defendants"), in response to the definitive merger agreement.
The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Defendants
violated their fiduciary duties of candor, loyalty, due care,
independence, good faith, and fair dealing and, in doing so, that
they did not obtain adequate, fair and maximum consideration.  The
Company says it intends to vigorously defend against the
allegations in this lawsuit.  Given that this lawsuit is in its
early stages, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or
determine the potential impact, if any, that could result from its
final resolution.

Veramark Technologies, Inc., provides innovative enterprise
solutions for Telecom Expense Management and call accounting
solutions.  Veramark solutions help organizations reduce
operational expenses associated with telecommunications and
information technology by providing visibility into their usage
and telecom spend and enable best practices for managing unified
communications networks.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware
and is headquartered in Rochester, New York.


VOLTARI CORP: 3rd Amended Complaint Filed in "Callan" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A third amended complaint in the securities class action lawsuit
filed by Joe Callan was filed in April 2013, according to Voltari
Corporation's May 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

Joe Callan filed a putative securities class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle
on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
common stock of the Company's subsidiary, Motricity Inc., between
June 18, 2010, and August 9, 2011, or in the Company's initial
public offering.  The defendants in the case are Motricity,
certain of the Company's current and former directors and
officers, including Ryan K. Wuerch, James R. Smith, Jr., Allyn P.
Hebner, James N. Ryan, Jeffrey A. Bowden, Hunter C. Gary, Brett
Icahn, Lady Barbara Judge CBE, Suzanne H. King, Brian V. Turner;
and the underwriters in the Company's IPO, including J.P. Morgan
Securities, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Deutsche Bank Securities
Inc., RBC Capital Markets Corporation, Robert W. Baird & Co
Incorporated, Needham & Company, LLC and Pacific Crest Securities
LLC.  The complaint alleges violations under Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, (the "Securities Act") and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act (the "Exchange Act")
by all defendants and under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act by
Motricity and those of the Company's former and current officers
who are named as defendants.  The complaint seeks, inter alia,
damages, including interest and plaintiff's costs and rescission.

A second putative securities class action complaint was filed by
Mark Couch in October 2011 in the same court, also related to
alleged violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act,
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  On November 7,
2011, the class actions were consolidated, and lead plaintiffs
were appointed pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act.  On December 16, 2011, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint which added a claim under Section 12 of the Securities
Act to its allegations of violations of the securities laws and
extended the putative class period from August 9, 2011, to
November 14, 2011.  The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
May 11, 2012, and a second amended complaint on July 11, 2012.  On
August 1, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint, which was granted on January 17, 2013.  A third
amended complaint was filed on April 17, 2013.

New York-based Voltari Corporation empowers mobile operators,
brands and advertising agencies to maximize the reach and economic
potential of the mobile ecosystem through the delivery of
relevance-driven merchandising, marketing and advertising
solutions.  Voltari leverages advanced predictive analytics
capabilities to deliver the right content, to the right person at
the right time.


WYNDHAM HOTELS: FTC's Power to Bring Data Breach Suits Scrutinized
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports
that the Federal Trade Commission's power to bring consumer
protection lawsuits against businesses whose computer systems are
hacked is under scrutiny in federal court in Newark, N.J.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rachel Jane Gallagher, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          301 Carnegie Center, Suites 303 and 304
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 750-7700
          E-mail: rgallagher@blankrome.com

               - and -

          Stephen M. Orlofsky, Esq.
          BLANK ROME, LLP
          301 Carnegie Center, 3rd Floor
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 750-2646
          E-mail: orlofsky@blankrome.com

               - and -

          Jehan Aslam Patterson, Esq.
          PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP
          1600 20th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 588-1000
          E-mail: jpatterson@citizen.org

               - and -

          Katherine Elizabeth McCarron, Esq.
          FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
          600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
          Mail Stop NJ-8100
          Washington, DC 20580
          Telephone: (202) 326-2333
          E-mail: kmccarron@ftc.gov

               - and -

          Kevin Hyland Moriarty, Esq.
          FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
          600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
          Mail Drop NJ-8100
          Washington, DC 20580
          Telephone: (202) 326-2949
          E-mail: kmoriarty@ftc.gov

               - and -

          Kristin Krause Cohen, Esq.
          FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
          600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
          Mail Stop NJ-8100
          Washington, DC 20580
          Telephone: (202) 326-2276
          E-mail: kcohen@ftc.gov

               - and -

          Andrea Vanina Arias, Esq.
          FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
          600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
          Mail Stop NJ-8100
          Washington, DC 20580
          Telephone: (202) 326-2715
          E-mail: aarias@ftc.gov

               - and -

          John Andrew Krebs, Esq.
          FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
          600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
          Mail Stop: NJ-8100
          Washington, DC 20580
          Telephone: (202) 326-2692
          E-mail: jkrebs@ftc.gov

               - and -

          Jonathan Eli Zimmerman, Esq.
          FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
          600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
          Mail Drop - NJ8100
          Washington, DC 20580
          Telephone: (202) 326-2049
          E-mail: jzimmerman1@ftc.gov

               - and -

          Lisa Naomi Weintraub Schifferle, Esq.
          FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
          600 Pennsylvania Avenue Nw
          Mailstop NJ-8122
          Washington, DC 20580
          Telephone: (202) 326-3377
          E-mail: lschifferle@ftc.gov

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jennifer A. Hradil, Esq.
          GIBBONS, PC
          One Gateway Center
          Newark, NJ 07102-5310
          Telephone: (973) 596-4500
          E-mail: jhradil@gibbonslaw.com

               - and -

          Justin Taylor Quinn, Esq.
          GIBBONS PC
          One Gateway Center
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 596-4781
          E-mail: jquinn@gibbonslaw.com

               - and -

          Rachel L. Weiner, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (212) 230-8800
          E-mail: rachel.weiner@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Sean Michael Marotta, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          555 Thirteenth Street NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-4881
          E-mail: sean.marotta@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Jacqueline Gail Veit, Esq.
          GOLENBOCK, EISEMAN ASSOR BELL & PESKOE LLP
          437 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 907-7300
          E-mail: jveit@golenbock.com

The case is Federal Trade Commission v. Wyndham Worldwide
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-01887-ES-SCM (D. N.J.,
March 26, 2013).


                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman,
Editors.

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *