---

            C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, April 18, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 76

                             Headlines



AMERICAN EQUITY: No Formal Accord Yet in Sale Practices Suits
AMERICAN MANAGEMENT: Proskauer Rose Discusses Court Ruling
APPLE INC: Plaintiff Co-Lead Counsel Named in Anti-Poaching Suit
APPLE REIT EIGHT: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suit
APPLE REIT NINE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Consolidated Suit

ARLINGTON ASSET: Plaintiffs Refused to Settle "Hildene" Suit
BEEBE MEDICAL: More Abuse Victims Join Bradley Class Action
BEHRINGER HARVARD: Defends Consolidated Suit Over CMG Proposal
CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Northera-Related Suit
COLE CREDIT: Faces Suits Over Proposed Merger With Spirit

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Dismisses Consumer Class Action in Calif.
COWEN GROUP: Awaits Final Approval of Settlement in CalPERS Suit
DRESS BARN: Court Denies Approval of Plaisted and Taylor Accord
ELLIS HOSPITAL: Nurses Get Settlement Checks in Wage Class Action
FELTEX CARPETS: Supreme Court Grants Sellers Leave to Appeal Suit

FENWAY PARTNERS: Bus Operators' Suit Sent to Del. Bankr. Court
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Suit
FISKER AUTOMOTIVE: Faces WARN Class Action Over Mass Layoffs
H&R BLOCK: Appeal in "Drake" Class Action Suit Remains Pending
H&R BLOCK: "Barrett" Plaintiffs' Petition for Appeal Denied

H&R BLOCK: "Basile" Class Suit Remains Pending in Pennsylvania
H&R BLOCK: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Fee Litigation Pending
H&R BLOCK: Bid to Compel Arbitration in RAL-Related Suit Pending
H&R BLOCK: Class Certified in RSM McGladrey-Related Suit
H&R BLOCK: Wins Final OK of Settlement in One Employee Suit

ISRAEL ATOMIC: Committee Set Up for Reactor Employees' Lawsuit
MANDA PACKING: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products
MARCHESE PHARMACY: Ombudsman Probe Called on Diluted Cancer Drugs
MF GLOBAL: July 3 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
MOBCLIX INC: App Developers Mull Class Action Over Unpaid Ads

NAVISTAR INT'L: Ryan & Maniskas Files Fraud Class Action
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Recalls 539 Buckyballs High-Powered Magnets
ROSETTA STONE: Wage and Hour Suit Remains Pending in California
SANOFI: Awaits Ruling on Certification Bid in Securities Suit
SANOFI: Discovery Ongoing in MDL Over Merial Frontline(R) Ads

SANOFI: Unit Awaits Ruling in Suit Over Merial Heartgard Ads
SANOFI: Unit Settled DDAVP Indirect Purchasers' Claims for $0.8MM
TOYS R US: Recalls 60 Buckyballs High-Powered Magnet Sets
TRANS1 INC: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Securities Suit
VISA INC: Judge Mulls Expert in Antitrust Class Action

WINN-DIXIE: Recalls 64 Fl. Oz. Organic 100% Apple Juice

* Gov. Christie Signs N.J. Business Corporation Act Amendment
* Kate Gosselin's Ex-Husband Back in Spotlight After Class Action


                             *********


AMERICAN EQUITY: No Formal Accord Yet in Sale Practices Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Equity Investment Life Holding Company disclosed in its
March 7, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012, that a
formal settlement has not been reached in the class action
lawsuits alleging improper sales practices and similar claims.

In recent years, companies in the life insurance and annuity
business have faced litigation, including class action lawsuits,
alleging improper product design, improper sales practices and
similar claims.  The Company is currently a defendant in a
purported class action, McCormack, et al. v. American Equity
Investment Life Insurance Company, et al., in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Western
Division and Anagnostis v. American Equity, et al., coordinated in
the Central District, entitled, In Re: American Equity Annuity
Practices and Sales Litigation, in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, Western Division
(complaint filed September 7, 2005) (the "Los Angeles Case"),
involving allegations of improper sales practices and similar
claims.

The Los Angeles Case is a consolidated action involving several
lawsuits filed by individuals, and the individuals are seeking
class action status for a national class of purchasers of
annuities issued by the Company; however, no class has yet been
certified.  The named plaintiffs in this consolidated case are
Bernard McCormack, Gust Anagnostis by and through Gary S.
Anagnostis and Robert C. Anagnostis, Regina Bush by and through
Sharon Schipiour, Lenice Mathews by and through Mary Ann Maclean
and George Miller.  The allegations generally attack the
suitability of sales of deferred annuity products to persons over
the age of 65.  The plaintiffs seek rescission and injunctive
relief including restitution and disgorgement of profits on behalf
of all class members under California Business & Professions Code
section 17200 et seq. and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act; compensatory damages for breach of fiduciary
duty and aiding and abetting of breach of fiduciary duty; unjust
enrichment and constructive trust; and other pecuniary damages
under California Civil Code section 1750 and California Welfare &
Institutions Codes section 15600 et seq.

As previously reported, the Company participated in mediation
sessions with plaintiffs' counsel in 2011 and 2012 where potential
settlement terms continued to be discussed.  Based upon the
current status of those discussions, the $17.5 million litigation
liability represents the Company's best estimate of probable loss
with respect to this litigation.  However, a formal settlement has
not been reached, the potential settlement has not been reviewed
by the court and other factors could potentially result in a
change in this estimate as further developments take place.  In
light of the inherent uncertainties involved in the pending
purported class action lawsuit, there can be no assurance that
such litigation, or any other pending or future litigation, will
not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition, or results of operations.

American Equity Investment Life Holding Company --
http://www.american-equity.com/-- through its subsidiaries,
underwrites fixed annuity and life insurance products in the
United States and the District of Columbia.  The Company was
founded in 1995 and is based in West Des Moines, Iowa.


AMERICAN MANAGEMENT: Proskauer Rose Discusses Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Laura Reathaford, Esq. -- lreathaford@proskauer.com -- at
Proskauer Rose LLP reports that the California Court of Appeal has
rejected a class action waiver in an employment agreement on the
basis that the waiver (or agreement) was unconscionable.

The plaintiff in Compton v. American Management Services, LLC,
brought a putative class action for various wage and hour
violations under the California Labor Code.  During her
employment, Compton agreed that she would not assert a class
action against her employer and, instead, agreed to submit any
legal claims she had to binding arbitration.

The California Court of Appeal for the Second District held that
Compton was not bound by her agreement because the agreement was
unconscionable and one-sided.  For example, the agreement required
employees to arbitrate virtually all of their disputes but allowed
AMS to litigate in court claims that were important to it, such as
injunctive or equitable relief arising from alleged unfair
competition, trade secret violations or confidential information
disclosures.  The agreement also required employees to demand
arbitration within one year of the alleged illegal conduct, which,
in some cases, shortened the statutory limitations period on
certain employment-related claims.  At the same time, the
agreement allowed AMS to retain a four-year statute of limitations
on some of its court claims such as those under California's
unfair competition law.

Citing the United States Supreme Court's 2011 decision in AT&T
Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, the Court held that while the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts any state law prohibiting class
action waivers in arbitration agreements, it does not preempt
California state law's unconscionability rule under Armendariz v.
Superior Court.  According to the Court, Armendariz held that the
doctrine of unconscionability limits the extent to which a
stronger party may, through a contract of adhesion, impose the
arbitration forum on the weaker party without accepting that forum
for itself.  It then found that "Concepcion did not discuss the
modicum of bilaterality standard adopted by Armendariz . . . [a]nd
Concepcion did not overrule Armendariz."  Notably, the Court
stated that the class action waiver found in the agreement played
no part in its analysis.  Instead, its decision was based on the
"generally applicable contract defense of unconscionability in
light of the very one-sided nature of the arbitration provision"
which was established in Armendariz and its progeny.

While addressing the unique situation of bilaterality in
arbitration agreements, Compton follows other recent California
decisions which have rejected class action waivers in arbitration
agreements as unconscionable, even in light of Concepcion.
Compton therefore, reinforces that employers should take care to
craft arbitration agreements that are not unsconscionable and
should evaluate whether the agreement could be interpreted as one-
sided should it be subsequently challenged.


APPLE INC: Plaintiff Co-Lead Counsel Named in Anti-Poaching Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that a US judge ruled that a lawsuit alleging a
broad conspiracy among Silicon Valley companies not to poach each
other's employees cannot proceed as a class action for now, but
left the door open for workers to eventually sue as a group.

In a decision released on April 5, US District Judge Lucy Koh in
San Jose, California said the five software engineers suing Apple
Inc. Google Inc. and five other companies  have yet to show enough
in common among the proposed class members to allow them to sue
together.  But in deciding to give the plaintiffs another chance,
the federal judge said she was "keenly aware" new evidence had
recently become available that could support class certification.

She also said the nature of the "alleged overarching conspiracy"
and desire to litigate it all at once weighed "heavily" in favor
of certifying a class, which the plaintiffs' lawyers have said
could include tens of thousands of people.

The case has been closely watched in Silicon Valley, and much of
it has been built on emails among top executives, including the
late Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs and former Google Chief
Executive Eric Schmidt.  If the plaintiffs win class
certification, then they would have more leverage to extract large
financial settlements than if they were to sue individually.

Other defendants in the case include Adobe Systems Inc., Intel
Corp., Intuit Inc., and Walt Disney Co.'s Lucasfilm Ltd. and Pixar
units.

                   Plaintiffs to Press On

The defendants were accused of violating the Sherman Act and
Clayton Act antitrust laws by conspiring to eliminate competition
for labor, depriving workers of job mobility and hundreds of
millions of dollars of compensation.

These allegations are similar to those raised in a US Department
of Justice probe that ended in a 2010 settlement, which forbade
several of the defendants from entering an anti-poaching
conspiracy, such as through the use of "Do Not Cold Call" lists.

Judge Koh said she wants more evidence that a proposed class does
not include large numbers of people who suffered no harm.

She also expressed concern over whether evidence would show that
the defendants had "such rigid compensation structures" that would
have affected nearly everyone in a class.  But in a signal that
certification could be forthcoming, Judge Koh appointed Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and the Joseph Saveri Law Firm as co-
lead counsel for the plaintiffs.

"The court has invited us to provide further answers to certain
specific questions, which we are prepared to do," Mr. Saveri said
in an email.  "We are in the process of determining a schedule for
doing that as quickly as possible."

Apple spokeswoman Amy Bessette declined to comment. Google
spokesman Matt Kallman would not discuss the decision, but said
"we have always actively and aggressively recruited top talent."

Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy said the chipmaker opposes
certification, and believes the evidence will show its employees
"were fairly compensated in a highly competitive market."

Adobe spokeswoman Christie Hui declined to comment.  The other
companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

                          E-mail Trails

Among the revelations in the litigation was a 2007 e-mail trail
involving Messrs. Jobs and Schmidt, then an Apple director, over
Google's apparent effort to recruit an Apple engineer.

After Mr. Jobs e-mailed Mr. Schmidt that he "would be very pleased
if your recruiting department would stop doing this," Schmidt
forwarded the e-mail to others he urged to "get this stopped."

Judge Koh also cited a January 2007 email from Ed Catmull, then
Pixar's president and now president of Walt Disney and Pixar
Animation Studios, to the head of Disney Studios that suggested a
desire to avoid bidding up the price of talent.

"We have avoided wars up in Norther[n] California because all of
the companies up here -- Pixar, Dreamworks, and couple of smaller
places -- have conscientiously avoided raiding each other," he
wrote.

All of the defendants are based in California: Adobe in San Jose;
Apple in Cupertino; Google and Intuit in Mountain View; Intel in
Santa Clara; Lucasfilm in San Francisco; and Pixar in Emeryville.
Walt Disney is based in Burbank.

According to PC World's John Ribeiro, the software engineers had
proposed two classes, the first consisting of all employees,
except for retail employees, corporate officers, members of the
boards of directors and senior executives, that were employed at
the seven companies in the U.S. on salaries during the periods
under consideration.  Alternately, it was proposed to have a
"technical class" consisting of "persons who work in the
technical, creative, and/or research and development fields" in
the seven companies during the same periods.  The first class
would likely have over 100,000 members, while the second class was
expected to have over 50,000 members.

The lawsuit has served to highlight ways in which top executives
allegedly tried to make deals and impose their will on other top
executives, including allegedly with threats.  Mr. Jobs is said to
have threatened Palm with a patent lawsuit in 2007 if it did not
enter into an agreement in which the companies pledged not to hire
employees from each other, according to a written affidavit made
public in the court.

The seven companies were also investigated in this connection by
the U.S. Department of Justice, and they settled in 2010 while
admitting no wrongdoing, but agreed not to ban cold calling and
not to enter into any agreements that prevent competition for
employees.  The employees have held that the DOJ ultimately put an
end to the allegedly illegal agreements, but the government was
unable to compensate the victims of the conspiracy.  The
plaintiffs brought the lawsuit as private attorneys general "to
pick up where the DOJ left off, to seek damages for themselves and
for the Class."

"The Court is most concerned about whether the evidence will be
able to show that Defendants maintained such rigid compensation
structures that a suppression of wages to some employees would
have affected all or nearly all Class members," Judge Koh of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Jose division, wrote in her ruling.

"The Court is also concerned that Plaintiffs' proposed classes may
be defined so broadly as to include large numbers of people who
were not necessarily harmed by Defendants' allegedly unlawful
conduct," she added, while agreeing with the employees that a
class action would be a more effective way than alternate
adjudication from a number of aspects including manageability.

"The sustained personal efforts by the corporations' own chief
executives, including but not limited to Apple CEO Steve Jobs,
Google CEO Eric Schmidt, Pixar President Ed Catmull, Intuit
Chairman Bill Campbell, and Intel CEO Paul Otellini, to monitor
and enforce these agreements indicate that the agreements may have
had broad effects on Defendants' employees," Judge Koh wrote in
her ruling, citing mails between some of the chief executives.
Based on the evidence, it appears that the defendant companies
recognized that eliminating the anti-solicitation agreements would
lead to greater competition for employees and require enhanced
incentives for retaining employees, she added.


APPLE REIT EIGHT: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Apple REIT Eight, Inc., is still awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit, according
to the Company's March 7, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On December 13, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York ordered that three putative class
actions, Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et
al., Kowalski v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et al., and Leff v. Apple
REIT Ten, Inc., et al., be consolidated and amended the caption of
the consolidated matter to be In re Apple REITs Litigation.  The
District Court also appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for
the consolidated action and ordered lead plaintiffs to file and
serve a consolidated complaint by February 17, 2012.  The Company
was previously named as a party in the Kronberg, et al. v. David
Lerner Associates, Inc., et al, putative class action lawsuit,
which was filed on June 20, 2011.

On February 17, 2012, lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the In
re Apple REITs Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02919-KAM-JO,
filed an amended consolidated complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the
Company, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors,
Inc., Apple Nine Advisors, Inc., Apple Ten Advisors, Inc., Apple
Fund Management, LLC, Apple REIT Six, Inc., Apple REIT Seven,
Inc., Apple REIT Nine, Inc. and Apple REIT Ten, Inc., their
directors and certain officers, and David Lerner Associates, Inc.
and David Lerner.  The consolidated complaint, purportedly brought
on behalf of all purchasers of Units in the Company and the other
Apple REIT Companies, or those who otherwise acquired these Units
that were offered and sold to them by David Lerner Associates,
Inc., or its affiliates and on behalf of subclasses of
shareholders in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Florida,
asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933.  The consolidated complaint also asserts claims for
breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
duty, negligence, and unjust enrichment, and claims for violation
of the securities laws of Connecticut and Florida.  The complaint
seeks, among other things, certification of a putative nationwide
class and the state subclasses, damages, rescission of share
purchases and other costs and expenses.

On April 18, 2012, the Company, and the other Apple REIT
Companies, served a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
in the In re Apple REITs Litigation.  The Company and the other
Apple REIT Companies accompanied their motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint with a memorandum of law in support of
their motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  The briefing
period for any motion to dismiss was completed on July 13, 2012.

The Company believes that any claims against it, its officers and
directors and other Apple entities are without merit, and intends
to defend against them vigorously.  At this time, the Company
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or
provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.

Apple REIT Eight, Inc. -- http://www.applereiteight.com/-- is a
Virginia corporation that was formed to invest in hotels and other
income-producing real estate in the United States.  The Richmond,
Virginia-based Company has elected to be treated as a real estate
investment trust for federal income tax purposes.


APPLE REIT NINE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Consolidated Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple REIT Nine, Inc. is still awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit, according
to the Company's March 7, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On December 13, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York ordered that three putative class
actions, Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et
al., Kowalski v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et al., and Leff v. Apple
REIT Ten, Inc., et al., be consolidated and amended the caption of
the consolidated matter to be In re Apple REITs Litigation.  The
District Court also appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for
the consolidated action and ordered lead plaintiffs to file and
serve a consolidated complaint by February 17, 2012.  The Company
was previously named as a party in all three of the class action
lawsuits.

On February 17, 2012, lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the In
re Apple REITs Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02919-KAM-JO,
filed an amended consolidated complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the
Company, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors,
Inc., Apple Nine Advisors, Inc., Apple Ten Advisors, Inc., Apple
Fund Management, LLC, Apple REIT Six, Inc., Apple REIT Seven,
Inc., Apple REIT Eight, Inc. and Apple REIT Ten, Inc., their
directors and certain officers, and David Lerner Associates, Inc.
and David Lerner.  The consolidated complaint, purportedly brought
on behalf of all purchasers of Units in the Company and the other
Apple REIT Companies, or those who otherwise acquired these Units
that were offered and sold to them by David Lerner Associates,
Inc., or its affiliates and on behalf of subclasses of
shareholders in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Florida,
asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933.  The consolidated complaint also asserts claims for
breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
duty, negligence, and unjust enrichment, and claims for violation
of the securities laws of Connecticut and Florida.  The complaint
seeks, among other things, certification of a putative nationwide
class and the state subclasses, damages, rescission of share
purchases and other costs and expenses.

On April 18, 2012, the Company, and the other Apple REIT
Companies, served a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
in the In re Apple REITs Litigation.  The Company and the other
Apple REIT Companies accompanied their motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint with a memorandum of law in support of
their motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.  The briefing
period for any motion to dismiss was completed on July 13, 2012.

The Company believes that any claims against it, its officers and
directors and other Apple entities are without merit, and intends
to defend against them vigorously.  At this time, the Company
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or
provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.

Headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, Apple REIT Nine, Inc. --
http://www.applereitnine.com/-- is a Virginia corporation that
was formed in November 2007 to invest in income-producing real
estate in the United States.  The Company has elected to be
treated as a real estate investment trust for federal income tax
purposes.


ARLINGTON ASSET: Plaintiffs Refused to Settle "Hildene" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Arlington Asset Investment Corp. disclosed in its March 7, 2013,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
that the plaintiffs in a lawsuit styled Hildene Capital
Management, LLC v. Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group, Inc., et al.,
no longer wished to resolve the matter.

On August 19, 2011, Hildene Capital Management, LLC filed a
purported class action complaint captioned Hildene Capital
Management, LLC v. Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group, Inc. (d/b/a
Arlington Asset Investment Corp.), FBR Capital Trust VI, FBR
Capital Trust X, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee, and John and
Jane Does 1 through 100, No. 11 Civ. 5832, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The
Complaint alleged unlawful acts by the Company in connection with
its purchase of preferred securities issued by FBR Capital Trust
VI and FBR Capital Trust X (the "FBR Trusts") from two CDOs,
Tropic IV CDO Ltd. and Soloso CDO 2005-1 Ltd., in September 2009.

On November 9, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint on the Company's own behalf and on behalf of the FBR
Trusts.  On December 14, 2011, the Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint.  In the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff added Hildene
Opportunities Master Fund, Ltd. as a plaintiff.  The Plaintiffs no
longer asserted class action claims, but asserted direct and
derivative claims against the Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
as trustee for Tropic III CDO Ltd., Tropic IV CDO Ltd., and Soloso
CDO 2005-1 Ltd.  On January 20, 2012, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss the Amended Complaint on the Company's own behalf and
on behalf of the FBR Trusts.  On April 25, 2012, the Court held a
hearing on that motion.  On August 15, 2012, the Court issued an
order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss.
Specifically, the Court dismissed all of the derivative claims
with prejudice and without leave to amend, but permitted certain
of the direct claims to proceed against the Company and Wells
Fargo.  The Company filed its Answer to the Amended Complaint on
September 17, 2012, which asserted various defenses to the
remaining direct claims.

As the Company announced in its Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2012, which was filed on February 8, 2013, the
parties had reached an agreement in principle to resolve this
matter on terms that would not have had a material impact to the
Company's financial position.  When the Company filed this Form
10-K, the parties were working to finalize a written agreement
memorializing their agreement in principal.

On February 20, 2013, the Hildene plaintiffs informed the Company
that they no longer wished to resolve the matter.  On March 4,
2013, two additional parties, claiming to be investors in Tropic
III CDO Ltd., Tropic IV CDO Ltd., and Soloso CDO 2005-1 Ltd.,
filed motions to intervene in the lawsuit, seeking to assert
derivative claims.  Even if the Court does not permit these
entities to intervene in this lawsuit, these entities may still
bring separate lawsuits relating to these transactions.  The Court
is also considering the Hildene plaintiffs' request that the
discovery period be reopened and extended for some period of time,
whether or not such intervention motions are granted.

The Company says it is currently incurring legal expenses in
connection with this matter.  The Company's insurance carriers
have informed it that potential losses related to this matter
based on current claims will not be covered by the Company's
insurance policies.

Headquartered in Arlington, Arlington Asset Investment Corp. --
http://www.arlingtonasset.com/-- is a principal investment firm
that acquires and holds mortgage-related and other assets.


BEEBE MEDICAL: More Abuse Victims Join Bradley Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Mavity, writing for CapeGazette.com, reports that nearly
1,300 victims are seeking compensation in the $123 million class-
action civil suit against convicted pedophile Earl Bradley and
Beebe Medical Center.

Beebe Medical Center attorney Mike Mustokoff set the total number
of victims at 1,272.  The class has increased by more than 300
since November, when about 900 people had joined the suit.

Plaintiffs' attorney Bruce Hudson said no timetable has been set
for victims to receive compensation.

Plaintiffs' attorney Chase Brockstedt said arbiters Thomas Rutter
and Dr. Anne Steinberg have begun evaluating the class, under the
supervision of the Court of Chancery.  Victims are entitled to
interviews with Mr. Rutter and Dr. Steinberg and some already have
scheduled them, Mr. Brockstedt said.

Under a settlement approved by Delaware Superior Court Judge
Joseph Slights III in November 2012, victims will be placed in
categories based on the level of abuse suffered and will have an
opportunity to appeal where they are placed, Mr. Brockstedt said.
Once the number of victims in each category is established by the
arbiters, each category will be allocated a dollar amount.  The
total amount available for victims is $89 million; attorneys
received 22.5 percent of the $123 million settlement.

Mr. Hudson said Mr. Rutter and Dr. Steinberg have a monumental
task ahead of them, going through the details of each class
member's abuse and assigning them into categories.  He said he
suspects there are even more than the nearly 1,300 victims, but
some parents may be unaware their child was victimized or may have
decided not to become part of the class.

John Culhane, professor at Widener University School of Law, said
assigning victims compensation based on the level of injury is
unusual in a class-action case, but the real difficulty is in
figuring out how to compensate victims using the $89 million
available.

Mr. Culhane said one thing that is not clear is whether everyone
will get something.  Referring to the two lowest levels of injury
-- those who have no evidence of abuse and those who were likely
not abused -- Mr. Culhane said those categories may get little if
anything.

While the process of establishing settlements will take time,
Mr. Culhane said the settlement is a much better alternative for
the victims, because details will be handled privately and not in
open court.  He also said victims are much more likely to see
compensation more quickly than if they had to go through
litigation, which could take years.

The $123 million settlement is believed to be the third largest in
U.S. history.  Victims had until Dec. 14 to join the suit.

Mr. Bradley is serving 14 life sentences and 164 years in prison
for assault, rape and sexual exploitation of a child in the abuse
of 86 patients.

"Hopefully this will bring a close to one of the darkest chapters
in Delaware medical history," Mr. Hudson said.


BEHRINGER HARVARD: Defends Consolidated Suit Over CMG Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Behringer Harvard REIT I, Inc. is defending a consolidated class
action lawsuit arising from tender offers made by CMG Partners,
LLC and its affiliates, according to the Company's March 7, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On each of September 17 and November 28, 2012, lawsuits seeking
class action status were filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division).  On January
4, 2013, these two lawsuits were consolidated by the Court.  The
plaintiffs purport to file the lawsuit individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, referred to herein as
"Plaintiffs."

The Plaintiffs named the Company, Behringer Harvard Holdings, LLC
("BHH"), the Company's previous sponsor, as well as the directors
at the time of the allegations: Robert M. Behringer, Robert S.
Aisner, Ronald Witten, Charles G. Dannis and Steven W. Partridge
(individually a "Director" and collectively the "Directors") and
Scott W. Fordham, the Company's President and Chief Financial
Officer, and James E. Sharp, the Company's Chief Accounting
Officer (collectively, the "Officers"), as defendants.  In the
amended complaint filed on February 1, 2013, the Officers were
dismissed from the consolidated lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Directors each individually
breached various fiduciary duties purportedly owed to Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs allege that the Directors violated Sections 14(a) and
(e) and Rules 14a-9 and 14e-2(b) of and under federal securities
law in connection with (1) the recommendations made to the
shareholders in response to certain tender offers made by CMG
Partners, LLC and its affiliates and (2) the solicitation of
proxies for the Company's annual meeting of shareholders held on
June 24, 2011.  The Plaintiffs further allege that the defendants
were unjustly enriched by the purported failures to provide
complete and accurate disclosure regarding, among other things,
the value of the Company's common stock and the source of funds
used to pay distributions.

The Plaintiffs seek the following relief: (1) that the court
declare the proxy to be materially false and misleading; (2) that
the filings on Schedule 14D-9 were false and misleading; (3) that
the defendants' conduct be declared to be in violation of law; (4)
that the authorization secured pursuant to the proxy be found null
and void and that the Company be required to re-solicit a
shareholder vote pursuant to court supervision and court approved
proxy materials; (5) that the defendants have violated their
fiduciary duties to the shareholders who purchased the Company's
shares from February 19, 2003, to the present; (6) that the
defendants be required to account to Plaintiffs for damages
suffered by Plaintiffs; and (7) that Plaintiffs be awarded costs
of the action including reasonable allowance for attorneys and
experts fees.

Neither the Company nor any of the other defendants believe the
consolidated lawsuit has merit and each intends to defend it
vigorously.

Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, Behringer Harvard REIT I, Inc. --
http://www.behringerharvard.com/reit1/-- was incorporated in June
2002 as a Maryland corporation and has elected to be taxed, and
currently qualifies, as a real estate investment trust for federal
income tax purposes.  The Company primarily owns institutional
quality office properties.


CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Northera-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Therapeutics International, Ltd. continues to defend
itself against a consolidated class action lawsuit related to its
Northera product, according to the Company's March 7, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012.

Following the receipt of the complete response letter (CRL) from
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding the New Drug
Application (NDA) for Northera(TM) (droxidopa) in March 2012 and
the subsequent decline of the price of the Company's common stock,
two purported class action lawsuits were filed on April 4, 2012,
and another purported class action lawsuit was filed on
May 1, 2012, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of North Carolina against the Company and certain of its executive
officers.

The complaints generally allege that, during differing class
periods, all of the defendants violated Sections 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 and the individual defendants violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in making various statements
related to the Company's development of Northera for the treatment
of symptomatic neurogenic OH and the likelihood of FDA approval.
The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, and other costs.  Following consolidation of the three
lawsuits and the appointment of a lead plaintiff, a consolidated
complaint was filed on October 5, 2012, on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock from November 3, 2008, through March
28, 2012.  The Company and its officers intend to vigorously
defend against this lawsuit but are unable to predict the outcome
or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time.

Chelsea Therapeutics International, Ltd. --
http://www.chelseatherapeutics.com/-- is a Delaware corporation
based in Charlotte, North Carolina.  The Company is a development
stage pharmaceutical company that seeks to acquire, develop and
commercialize innovative products for the treatment of a variety
of human diseases.


COLE CREDIT: Faces Suits Over Proposed Merger With Spirit
---------------------------------------------------------
Cole Credit Property Trust II, Inc. is facing lawsuits arising
from its proposed merger with Spirit Realty Capital, Inc.,
according to the Company's March 7, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On January 22, 2013, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Spirit Realty
Capital, Inc. ("Spirit"), a publicly-listed real estate investment
trust.  The Merger Agreement provides for the merger of Spirit
with and into the Company, with the Company as the surviving
corporation (the "Merger").

In connection with the Company's Merger with Spirit, on March 5,
2013, a putative class action and derivative lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland against and
purportedly on behalf of Spirit captioned Kendrick, et al. v.
Spirit Realty Capital, Inc., et al.  The complaint names as
defendants Spirit, the members of the board of directors of
Spirit, Spirit Realty, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the
"Spirit Partnership"), the Company and Cole OP II, and alleges
that the directors of Spirit breached their fiduciary duties by
engaging in an unfair process leading to the Merger Agreement,
agreeing to a Merger Agreement at an opportunistic and unfair
price, allowing draconian and preclusive deal protection devices
in the Merger Agreement, and by engaging in self-interested and
otherwise conflicted actions.  The complaint alleges that the
Company, Cole OP II and the Spirit Partnership aided and abetted
those breaches of fiduciary duty.  The complaint seeks a
declaration that defendants have breached their fiduciary duties
or aided and abetted such breaches and that the Merger Agreement
is unenforceable, an order enjoining a vote on the transactions
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, rescission of the
transactions in the event they are consummated, imposition of a
constructive trust, an award of fees and costs, including
attorneys' and experts' fees and costs, and other relief.

Headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, Cole Credit Property Trust II,
Inc. is a Maryland corporation that elected to be taxed, and
currently qualifies, as a real estate investment trust for federal
income tax purposes.  The Company was organized to acquire and
operate commercial real estate primarily consisting of
freestanding, single-tenant, retail properties net leased to
investment grade and other creditworthy tenants located throughout
the United States.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Dismisses Consumer Class Action in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward J. Davila dismissed an amended class action
complaint in KAREN THOMAS and LISA LIDDLE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COSTCO
WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 5:12-CV-02908 EJD,
(N.D. Cali.).

Karen Thomas and Lisa Liddle filed the putative class action
against Costco alleging that several of Costco's food products
have been improperly labeled so as to amount to misbranding and
deception in violation of several California and federal laws.

The Defendant sought dismissal of the Plaintiffs' Amended Class
Action Complaint.

Judge Davila held that while the Amended Complaint contains much
detail about the California and federal labeling laws and
regulations that are alleged to have been violated by Costco, it
fails to state with the necessary clarity which products violated
which provisions of law.  "In its lacking specificity and
precision, the Amended Complaint would require Defendant and the
Court to draw their own conclusions and inferences about which
products match up with which allegations of unlawful labeling."

The Court granted Costco's Motion to Dismiss. The Court concluded
that the Plaintiffs' breach of warranty claims of violation of the
Song-Beverly Act and Magnuson-Moss Act will be dismissed with
prejudice.  The remainder of Ms. Thomas' claims will be dismissed
without prejudice for lack of standing while the remainder of Ms.
Liddle's claims will be dismissed without prejudice.

If the Plaintiffs wish to file an amended complaint, the Court
said it be pleaded in compliance with the pleading standards of
Rules 8 and 9 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and filed
within 15 days of the Court's Order.

Because the Complaint is presently dismissed in its entirety, the
Court declined to set a case management schedule at this time.
However, the Court said it will address scheduling issues as
raised by the parties should it become necessary.

A copy of the District Court's April 9, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/gssssE from Leagle.com.


COWEN GROUP: Awaits Final Approval of Settlement in CalPERS Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cowen Group, Inc. is awaiting final approval of its settlement of
the class action lawsuit initiated by the California Public
Employees' Retirement System, according to the Company's March 7,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On or about October 16, 2003, through December 16, 2003, four
purported class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York by persons or entities
who purchased and/or sold shares of stocks of NYSE listed
companies, including Pirelli v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No.
03 CV 8264, Marcus v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8521,
Empire v. LaBranche & Co Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 8935, and
California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) v. New
York Stock Exchange, Inc., et al., No. 03 CV 9968.  On March 11,
2004, a fifth action asserting similar claims, Rosenbaum Partners,
LP v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc., et al., No. 04 CV 2038, was
also filed in the SDNY by an individual plaintiff who does not
allege to represent a class.

On May 27, 2004, the SDNY consolidated these lawsuits under the
caption In re NYSE Specialists Securities Litigation, No. CV 8264.
The court named the following lead plaintiffs: CalPERS and Empire
Programs, Inc.

On December 5, 2011, CalPERS and the defendants entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) reflecting an agreement in
principle to settle the action.  On October 26, 2012, a proposed
settlement agreement was submitted to the Court, subject to notice
to the class and approval by the Court.  On November 19, 2012, the
Court preliminarily approved the settlement.  A portion of the
settlement amount allocated to LaBranche & Co Inc., LaBranche &
Co. LLC and Mr. LaBranche pursuant to a confidential allocation
agreement entered into by the defendants was paid by the Company
and amounts were received from one of the Company's insurers.  Any
remaining amounts due will be paid during the year ended December
31, 2013, and are not expected to have a material result on the
Company's results of operations.

New York-based Cowen Group, Inc. -- http://www.cowen.com/-- a
Delaware corporation formed in 2009, is a diversified financial
services firm and, together with its consolidated subsidiaries,
provides alternative investment management, investment banking,
research, and sales and trading services through its two business
segments: Ramius LLC and Cowen and Company, LLC.


DRESS BARN: Court Denies Approval of Plaisted and Taylor Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Otis D. Wright II denied a joint motion for
preliminary approval of a class-action settlement and related
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) settlement in ALEXIS
PLAISTED, Plaintiff, v. THE DRESS BARN, INC., and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, and PATRICIA TAYLOR; LINDA REAVIS; and PAUL
LAFAVE, Plaintiffs, v. THE DRESS BARN, INC., and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, No. 2:12-CV-10451-ODW (SHx), (C.D. Cal.).

Judge Wright said the joint motion is denied without prejudice as
it fails to provide the Court with adequate information by which
to determine the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the
settlement.

Under the proposed the settlement, Dress Barn will not oppose the
request of the Plaintiffs' counsel for attorneys' fees up to
33.33% of the $300,000 Taylor settlement and 50% of the $100,000
Plaisted settlement.  The Court says the fees request appears
excessive.

"Review of the parties' proposed class-settlement notice to
putative class members reveals that should the Court grant a fees
award less than the requested amounts, the savings will not inure
to the benefit of putative class members; instead, "[i]f lesser
amounts are awarded by the Court, Dress Barn will retain the
savings," notes Judge Wright. "The Court views the parties'
omission of this important fact in their joint motion for
preliminary approval less than forthright and as cause for
concern. Further, the combination of Plaintiffs' large request and
the fact that any savings go to the Defendant instead of the class
suggests collusion."

Judge Wright further held that there is absolutely no indication
how the $400,000 aggregate settlement will adequately compensate
class members for their harm.  While the joint motion estimates
that the proposed class contains "approximately 300 class
members," it fails to identify the harm to these members (e.g.,
approximately how much each class member was allegedly underpaid),
he says.

According to the Court, any renewed request for preliminary
approval must include estimated damages figures for at least each
of the named Plaintiffs. Based on these estimates, the parties
should attempt to estimate a general range of damages sustained by
each class member during the class period.  For comparison
purposes, the Court asks that the parties also estimate how much
each claiming class member will receive under the settlement
assuming various claim rates.

Judge Wright further added that the Court is troubled by the
Plaisted settlement. The Court has already granted a motion for
summary judgment against Plaisted. Yet the $100,000 Plaisted
settlement anticipates that only $5,000 be paid to settle Ms.
Plaisted's representative PAGA claims, while Ms. Plaisted herself
pockets $15,000 in incentive fees ($10,000 more than each named
Plaintiff in Taylor) and her attorneys haul away with $80,000 in
fees and costs.  These proportions seem askew, the court says.

The parties may renew their request no later than May 6, 2013. If
the Court does not receive an amended joint motion for preliminary
approval by May 6, it will reset the trial and pretrial dates in
this matter and proceed with the litigation.

A copy of the District Court's April 8, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/jSXab5 from Leagle.com.


ELLIS HOSPITAL: Nurses Get Settlement Checks in Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Sweeney, writing for The Record, reports that nurses at
five hospitals across the Capital District are getting something
extra this pay period, after a settlement was reached in a lawsuit
that alleged wage fixing by administrators.

"The last holdout was Ellis Hospital, most of the others settled
by 2011," according to Lisa Brown, executive vice president at
1199SEIU.

The suit, brought against five hospitals, alleged that
administrators conspired to keep wages for nurses artificially low
during a period ranging from 2002 through 2006.

"Through research we were able to prove that management tries to
suppress wages, and not for any other reason than to increase
profits," Ms. Brown said.  "I think it's a great victory for the
nurses."

This settlement affects approximately 3,200 registered nurses in
the area.  Each is expected to receive a check for $1,732.00.

Ms. Brown said the suit's outcome is a victory for quality health
care.  "Proper wages allows for the recruitment and retention of
quality nurses," she said.  "And that translates to better health
care overall."

Despite 199SEIU's pivotal role in joining the suit, almost all the
nurses affected by the wage fixing were not union members.
"Laying the foundation for this class action lawsuit was part of
our role as industry watchdogs and leading patient advocates,"
said George Gresham, president of 1199SEIU.

He said the suit, and the eventual settlement, "put employers on
notice that they will be held accountable to nurses, caregivers,
communities and patients."

The suit charged Albany Medical Center Hospital, Ellis Health,
Northeast Health, Seton Health (St. Mary's Hospital) and St.
Peter's Health with sharing confidential registered nurse wage
information.

Checks started going out on March 29.

According to 1199SEIU, the suit was part of a national effort, and
similar lawsuits have been launched in Detroit, Chicago, San
Antonio and Memphis.


FELTEX CARPETS: Supreme Court Grants Sellers Leave to Appeal Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Business Review reports that the Supreme Court has
granted the sellers of failed carpet maker Feltex leave to appeal
a class action being led by former shareholder Eric Houghton over
whether some or all of the 3000 investors who have joined the
action were time-barred.

Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias and Justice Robert Chambers on
April 8 granted Credit Suisse Private Equity and Credit Suisse
First Boston Asian Merchant Partners leave to appeal a ruling
which paved the way for a class suit over the way Feltex was
floated on the stock market in mid-2004.

The investment bank can re-litigate whether some or all of the
shareholders represented by Mr. Houghton are time-barred from
joining the action, according to a judgment published on April 8.

Last November the Court of Appeal turned down an attempt by Credit
Suisse, Feltex's former directors and executives and joint lead
managers Forsyth Barr and First NZ Capital to throw out the case.

The appeals in the lower court fell broadly into three categories:

   * The way the case was being managed should not be allowed.

   * Statute of limitation rules should prevent shareholders
seeking redress.

   * That some claims were not sufficiently made out to pass tests
of arguability.

Feltex collapsed in 2006 owing creditors between $30 million and
$40 million, and destroying some $254 million in shareholder
value.

The company's directors at the time of the offer were Tim
Saunders, Sam Magill, John Feeney, Craig Horrocks, Peter Hunter,
Peter David and Joan Withers.

If the case finally gets to court, the Feltex action will be
divided into two stages.  The first will hear Mr. Houghton's
entire case, with the second using the first for binding rulings
on common claims.


FENWAY PARTNERS: Bus Operators' Suit Sent to Del. Bankr. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES JACKSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FENWAY PARTNERS, LLC, LAURA HENDRICKS,
GEORGE MANEY, and DOES 1-20, Defendants, is a putative class
action complaint filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the City and County of San Francisco on December 3,
2012.  On January 2, 2013, the Defendants removed the action to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
On January 3, 2013, Mr. Jackson filed a first amended complaint.

Mr. Jackson alleges that Fenway employed him as a bus operator,
and he seeks to represent a class of former operators providing
fixed route shuttle services. Mr. Jackson and a number of other
class members who have consented to suit are residents of
California.  According to Mr. Jackson, Fenway failed to provide
meal and rest breaks and failed to pay its operators for all
compensable work, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 28
U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq., California Labor Code, California
Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq., and the
California Industrial Welfare Commission Order 9-2001.

Fenway is a limited partner of Coach America Group Holdings, L.P.
Holdings is the parent of Coach America Group Holdings II.
Holdings II, in turn, is the parent of Coach Am Group Holdings
Corp.  On January 3, 2012, Coach, Coach America and a number of
other related entities filed voluntary Chapter 11 petitions in the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The
Bankruptcy Proceedings are on-going.

Coach employed Mr. Maney as the Debtors' President and Chief
Financial Officer from September 2007 to February 2012, and he was
a member of the Debtors' Board of Directors during that time.
Coach employed Ms. Hendricks as the Debtors' President and Chief
Executive Officer from February 2012 to October 2012, and she was
a member of the Debtors' Board of Directors during that time. Mr.
Maney is a resident of Texas, and Ms. Hendricks is a resident of
Tennessee.

The Defendants have filed a third-party complaint -- FENWAY
PARTNERS, LLC, LAURA HENDRICKS, and GEORGE MANEY, Third-Party
Plaintiffs, v. COACH AM GROUP HOLDINGS, CORP., et al., Third-Party
Defendants -- against Coach America and the other Debtors in which
they allege that Coach America is obligated both expressly and
equitably to indemnify Defendants for any judgment and all costs
incurred in defending the action.

The Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs Fenway Partners, Ms.
Hendricks and Mr. Maney filed a motion to transfer the action to
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1412, so that it may be referred to
the Bankruptcy Proceedings.

District Judge Jeffrey S. White granted the transfer saying the
home court in the case is the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, the court
in which the Debtor's bankruptcy case is pending. He added that
although Mr. Jackson has not sued the Debtors, the matter is
"related to" the Bankruptcy Proceedings and, thus, the economics
of estate administration weigh in favor of transfer. In light of
the claims for indemnification, judicial efficiency also favors
transfer because all claims can be administered in the same
district, Judge White noted.

A copy of the District Court's April 8, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/JLelC9from Leagle.com.

                      About Coach America

Coach America -- http://www.coachamerica.com/-- was the largest
tour and charter bus operator and the second largest motorcoach
service provider in the U.S.  Coach America operated the second
largest fleet in the U.S. with over 3,000 vehicles, including over
1,600 motorcoaches, primarily under the Coach America, American
Coach Lines and Gray Line brands.

Coach America Holdings Inc. and its U.S.-based subsidiaries filed
to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr.
D. Del. Lead Case No. 12-10010) on Jan. 3, 2012.  Judge Kevin
Gross presides over the case.  Coach America's investment banker
is Rothschild Inc., legal counsel are Lowenstein Sandler PC and
Polsinelli Shughart, and its financial advisor is Alvarez & Marsal
North America LLC.  BMC Group Inc. serves as the Debtors' notice,
claims and balloting agent.

Coach America disclosed $274 million in assets and $402 million in
liabilities as of Nov. 30, 2011.  Liabilities include $318.7
million owing on first-lien debt with JPMorgan Chase Bank NA as
agent.  Second-lien debt, with Bank of New York Mellon Corp. as
agent, is $30.5 million.

Attorneys for JPMorgan, as Prepetition First Lien Agent and DIP
Agent, are Brian M. Resnick, Esq., at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP;
and Mark D. Collins, Esq., at Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.

In February 2012, Coach America named Laura Hendricks, the
company's vice president for business development, as its new
chief executive.


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. continues to defend itself against a
consumer class action lawsuit pending in Kansas, according to the
Company's March 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 31, 2013.

Ferrellgas 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 violates consumer protection
laws in the manner Ferrellgas sets prices and fees for its
customers.  Based on Ferrellgas' business practices, Ferrellgas
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 does not believe loss is probable or
reasonably estimable at this time related to this class action
lawsuit.

Overland Park, Kansas- based Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. --
http://www.ferrellgas.com/-- is a holding entity that conducts no
operations and has two subsidiaries, Ferrellgas, L.P. (the
operating partnership) and Ferrellgas Partners Finance Corp.  The
operating partnership distributes propane and related equipment
and supplies in the United States.  Ferrellgas Partners Finance
acts as the co-issuer and co-obligor of any debt issued by
Ferrellgas Partners.


FISKER AUTOMOTIVE: Faces WARN Class Action Over Mass Layoffs
------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Fehrenbacher, writing for Gigaom, reports struggling
electric car maker Fisker Automotive has yet another thing in
common with infamous solar panel maker Solyndra.  Shortly after
Fisker laid off 160 of its workers -- or 75 percent of its staff
-- on April 5, law firm Outten & Golden hit the company with a
class action lawsuit alleging that Fisker violated the Warn Act,
which requires companies with 100 or more employees to provide at
least 60-days notice before conducting mass layoffs or closing
plants.

Outten & Golden won a $3.5 million settlement against Solyndra
using a similar suit.

The suit, filed on April 5 in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana,
Calif., against Fisker alleges that the company violated both
federal and California state WARN acts, and the class action
lawsuit was filed on behalf of lead plaintiff and former Fisker
employee Sven Etzelsberger.  The suit is asking for an unspecified
amount of damages including unpaid wages and accrued holiday pay
for 60 days, as well as legal fees.

Fisker has laid off 160 employees and kept 53 around to negotiate
with the Department of Energy and to work on selling its assets.
Fisker owes the DOE the first loan repayment at the end of this
month for its $193 million loan.  The company hasn't made a car
since the Summer of 2012, reportedly saw potential acquisition and
investment bids from two Chinese auto makers fall through in
recent months, and announced last month that its founder design
Henrik Fisker had left the company over disagreements.

Filing for bankruptcy is a very real next possible step for the
company.  Fisker has reportedly hired a bankruptcy lawyer to look
at its options.

Fisker has raised over a billion dollars in private funds,
including money from Valley venture capitalists Kleiner Perkins
and NEA.  The company has sold a couple thousand of its $100,000
electric hybrid Fisker Karmas to customers, including celebrities
like Al Gore, Matt Damon, Leonardo DiCaprio, Justin Bieber and the
Game.


H&R BLOCK: Appeal in "Drake" Class Action Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
On December 9, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California against Sand Canyon Corporation and H&R Block, Inc.
styled Jeanne Drake, et al. v. Option One Mortgage Corp., et al.
(Case No. SACV09-1450 CJC).  The Plaintiffs allege breach of
contract, promissory fraud, intentional interference with
contractual relations, wrongful withholding of wages and unfair
business practices in connection with not paying severance
benefits to employees when their employment transitioned to
American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. (now known as Homeward
Residential, Inc. (Homeward)) in connection with the sale of
certain assets and operations of SCC.  The Plaintiffs seek to
recover severance benefits of approximately $8 million, interest
and attorney's fees, in addition to penalties and punitive damages
on certain claims.  On September 2, 2011, the court granted
summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims.  The
Plaintiffs filed an appeal, which remains pending.

The Company has not concluded that a loss related to this matter
is probable, nor has it established a loss contingency related to
this matter.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to
the claims in this case and intends to defend the case vigorously,
but there can be no assurances as to its outcome or its impact on
the Company's consolidated financial position, results of
operations and cash flows.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 7, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended January 31, 2013.

Kansas City, Missouri-based H&R Block, Inc. and its subsidiaries
provide tax preparation and banking services.  The Company's Tax
Services segment provides assisted income tax return preparation,
digital tax solutions and other services and products related to
income tax return preparation to the general public primarily in
the United States, and also in Canada and Australia.


H&R BLOCK: "Barrett" Plaintiffs' Petition for Appeal Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. disclosed in its March 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended January 31, 2013, that Cecil Barrett, et al.'s petition for
appeal has been denied.

H&R Block's subsidiary, Sand Canyon Corporation (SCC), previously
known as Option One Mortgage Corporation, ceased originating
mortgage loans in December 2007 and, in April 2008, sold its
servicing assets and discontinued its remaining operations.
Mortgage loans purchased by H&R Block Bank (HRB Bank) from SCC
represent 57% of the total loan portfolio at January 31, 2013.

On February 1, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against SCC and other related entities styled Cecil Barrett, et
al. v. Option One Mortgage Corp., et al. (Civil Action No. 08-
10157-RWZ).  The Plaintiffs allege discriminatory practices
relating to the origination of mortgage loans in violation of the
Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and seek
declaratory and injunctive relief in addition to actual and
punitive damages.  The court dismissed H&R Block, Inc. from the
lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction.  In March 2011, the
court issued an order certifying a class, which defendants sought
to appeal.  On August 24, 2011, the First Circuit Court of Appeals
declined to hear the appeal, noting that the district court could
reconsider its certification decision in light of a recent ruling
by the United States Supreme Court in an unrelated matter.  SCC
subsequently filed a motion to decertify the class, which the
court granted.  The Plaintiffs' petition for appeal was denied.

The Company says a portion of its loss contingency accrual is
related to this lawsuit for the amount of loss that the Company
considers probable and reasonably estimable.  The Company believes
SCC has meritorious defenses to the claims in this case and it
intends to defend the case vigorously, but there can be no
assurances as to its outcome or its impact on the Company's
consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash
flows.

Kansas City, Missouri-based H&R Block, Inc. and its subsidiaries
provide tax preparation and banking services.  The Company's Tax
Services segment provides assisted income tax return preparation,
digital tax solutions and other services and products related to
income tax return preparation to the general public primarily in
the United States, and also in Canada and Australia.


H&R BLOCK: "Basile" Class Suit Remains Pending in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sandra J. Basile, et al. v. H&R
Block, Inc., et al., remains pending, according to the Company's
March 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2013.

The Company has been named in a putative class action styled
Sandra J. Basile, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., April Term
1992 Civil Action No. 3246 in the Court of Common Pleas, First
Judicial District Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County,
instituted on April 23, 1993.  The plaintiffs allege inadequate
disclosures with respect to the refund anticipation loan (RAL)
product and assert claims for violation of consumer protection
statutes, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty,
common law fraud, usury, and violation of the Truth in Lending Act
(TILA).  The Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual and punitive
damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.  A
Pennsylvania class was certified, but later decertified by the
trial court in December 2003.  The intermediate appellate court
subsequently reversed the decertification decision.

On September 7, 2012, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the
decision of the intermediate appellate court, thereby allowing the
trial court's decertification ruling to stand.

The Company has not concluded that a loss related to this matter
is probable, nor has it accrued a loss contingency related to this
matter.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to this
case and intends to defend the case vigorously, but there can be
no assurances as to the outcome of this case or its impact on the
Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations
and cash flows.

Kansas City, Missouri-based H&R Block, Inc. and its subsidiaries
provide tax preparation and banking services.  The Company's Tax
Services segment provides assisted income tax return preparation,
digital tax solutions and other services and products related to
income tax return preparation to the general public primarily in
the United States, and also in Canada and Australia.


H&R BLOCK: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Fee Litigation Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
On April 16, 2012, and April 19, 2012, putative class action
lawsuits were filed against H&R Block, Inc. in Missouri state and
federal courts, respectively, concerning a compliance fee charged
to retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons.  These
cases are styled Manuel H. Lopez III v. H&R Block, Inc., et al.,
in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri (Case #
1216CV12290), and Ronald Perras v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri
(Case No. 4:12-cv-00450-DGK).  Taken together, the plaintiffs seek
to represent all retail tax clients nationwide who were charged
the compliance fee, and assert claims of violation of state
consumer laws, money had and received, and unjust enrichment.  The
Company is seeking to compel arbitration on certain claims.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 7, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended January 31, 2013.

The Company has not concluded that a loss related to these
lawsuits is probable, nor has it accrued a liability related to
either of these lawsuits.  The Company believes it has meritorious
defenses to the claims in these cases and intends to defend the
cases vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome
of these cases or their impact on the Company's consolidated
financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

Kansas City, Missouri-based H&R Block, Inc. and its subsidiaries
provide tax preparation and banking services.  The Company's Tax
Services segment provides assisted income tax return preparation,
digital tax solutions and other services and products related to
income tax return preparation to the general public primarily in
the United States, and also in Canada and Australia.


H&R BLOCK: Bid to Compel Arbitration in RAL-Related Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A series of class action lawsuits were filed against H&R Block,
Inc. in various federal courts beginning on November 17, 2011,
concerning the anticipation loan (RAL) and refund anticipation
check (RAC) products.  The plaintiffs generally allege the Company
engaged in unfair, deceptive and/or fraudulent acts in violation
of various state consumer protection laws by facilitating RALs
that were accompanied by allegedly inaccurate Truth in Lending Act
(TILA) disclosures, and by offering RACs without any TILA
disclosures.  Certain plaintiffs also allege violation of
disclosure requirements of various state statutes expressly
governing RALs and provisions of those statutes prohibiting tax
preparers from charging or retaining certain fees.  Collectively,
the plaintiffs seek to represent clients who purchased RAL or RAC
products in up to 42 states and the District of Columbia during
timeframes ranging from 2007 to the present.  The plaintiffs seek
equitable relief, disgorgement of profits, compensatory and
statutory damages, restitution, civil penalties, attorneys' fees
and costs.  These cases were consolidated by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation into a single proceeding in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for
coordinated pretrial proceedings, styled IN RE: H&R Block Refund
Anticipation Loan Litigation (MDL No. 2373).  The Company filed a
motion to compel arbitration, which remains pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 7, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended January 31, 2013.

The Company has not concluded that a loss related to this matter
is probable, nor has it accrued a loss contingency related to this
matter.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the
claims in these cases and intend to defend the cases vigorously,
but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of these cases or
their impact on the Company's consolidated financial position,
results of operations and cash flows.

Kansas City, Missouri-based H&R Block, Inc. and its subsidiaries
provide tax preparation and banking services.  The Company's Tax
Services segment provides assisted income tax return preparation,
digital tax solutions and other services and products related to
income tax return preparation to the general public primarily in
the United States, and also in Canada and Australia.


H&R BLOCK: Class Certified in RSM McGladrey-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
A class was certified in November 2012 on the remaining claims in
the lawsuit related to RSM McGladrey, according to H&R Block,
Inc.'s March 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2013.

On April 17, 2009, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed by
Brian Menezes, derivatively and on behalf of nominal defendant
International Textile Group, Inc. against McGladrey Capital
Markets LLC (MCM) in the Court of Common Pleas, Greenville County,
South Carolina (C.A. No. 2009-CP-23-3346) styled Brian P. Menezes,
Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant, International Textile
Group, Inc. (f/k/a Safety Components International, Inc.) v.
McGladrey Capital Markets, LLC (f/k/a RSM EquiCo Capital Markets,
LLC), et al.  The Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in October
2011 styled In re International Textile Group Merger Litigation,
adding a putative class action claim. Plaintiffs allege claims of
aiding and abetting, civil conspiracy, gross negligence and breach
of fiduciary duty against MCM in connection with a fairness
opinion MCM provided to the Special Committee of Safety Components
International, Inc. (SCI) in 2006 regarding the merger between
International Textile Group, Inc. and SCI.  The Plaintiffs seek
actual and punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, attorneys'
fees and costs.  On February 8, 2012, the court dismissed
plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim against all defendants.  A
class was certified on the remaining claims on November 20, 2012.

The Company has not concluded that a loss related to this matter
is probable, nor has it established a loss contingency related to
this matter.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to
the claims in this case and intends to defend the case vigorously,
but there can be no assurances as to its outcome or its impact on
the Company's consolidated financial position, results of
operations and cash flows.

In connection with the sale of RSM McGladrey, Inc. (RSM) and MCM,
the Company indemnified the buyers against certain litigation
matters.  The indemnities are not subject to a stated term or
limit.  A portion of the Company's accrual is related to these
indemnity obligations.

Kansas City, Missouri-based H&R Block, Inc. and its subsidiaries
provide tax preparation and banking services.  The Company's Tax
Services segment provides assisted income tax return preparation,
digital tax solutions and other services and products related to
income tax return preparation to the general public primarily in
the United States, and also in Canada and Australia.


H&R BLOCK: Wins Final OK of Settlement in One Employee Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. received final approval of its settlement of one
of three pending wage and hour class action lawsuits, according to
the Company's March 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
January 31, 2013.

The Company has been named in several wage and hour class action
lawsuits throughout the country, including:

   * Alice Williams v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, Case No.
     RG08366506 (Superior Court of California, County of Alameda,
     filed January 17, 2008) (alleging improper classification
     and failure to compensate for all hours worked and to
     provide meal periods to office managers in California);

   * Delana Ugas, et al. v. H&R Block Enterprises LLC, et al.,
     Case No. BC417700 (United States District Court, Central
     District of California, filed July 13, 2009) (alleging
     failure to compensate tax professionals in California for
     all hours worked and to provide meal periods); and

   * Barbara Petroski, et al. v. H&R Block Eastern Enterprises,
     Inc., et al., Case No. 10-CV-00075 (United States District
     Court, Western District of Missouri, filed January 25, 2010)
     (alleging failure to compensate tax professionals nationwide
     for off-season training).

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek actual damages, pre-judgment
interest, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees.

A class was certified in the Williams case in March 2011
(consisting of office managers who worked in company-owned offices
in California from 2004 to 2011).  To avoid the cost and inherent
risk associated with litigation, the Company reached an agreement
to settle the case in February 2012, subject to approval by the
court.  The settlement provided for a maximum payment of $7.5
million, with the actual cost of the settlement dependent on the
number of valid claims submitted by class members.  The court
granted final approval of the settlement on November 8, 2012.  An
appeal was filed, but subsequently withdrawn, rendering the
settlement final.  The Company previously recorded a liability for
its estimate of the expected loss under the settlement.

In the Ugas case, the court initially certified a class on the
claim for failure to provide meal periods (consisting of tax
professionals who worked in company-owned offices in California
from 2006 to 2011), but subsequently decertified the class in a
ruling dated July 9, 2012.  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
declined to hear an appeal.  The court also certified a class on
the claim for failure to compensate tax professionals for all
hours worked (consisting of tax professionals who worked in
company-owned offices in one district in California from 2006-
2009).  That class remains pending.  A trial date has been set for
October 21, 2013.  The Company has not concluded that a loss
related to this matter is probable, nor has it accrued a loss
contingency related to this matter.  The Company believes it has
meritorious defenses to the claims in this case and intends to
defend them vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the
outcome of the case or its impact on the Company's consolidated
financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

In the Petroski case, a conditional class was certified under the
Fair Labor Standards Act in March 2011 (consisting of tax
professionals nationwide who worked in company-owned offices and
who were not compensated for certain training courses occurring on
or after April 15, 2007).  Two classes were also certified under
state laws in California and New York (consisting of tax
professionals who worked in company-owned offices in those
states).  The Company filed motions to decertify the classes,
along with motions for summary judgment, which remain pending.  A
trial date has been set for June 10, 2013.  The Company has not
concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor has
it accrued a loss contingency related to this matter.  The Company
believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims in this matter
and intends to defend them vigorously, but there can be no
assurances as to the outcome of the matter or its impact on the
Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations
and cash flows.

Kansas City, Missouri-based H&R Block, Inc. and its subsidiaries
provide tax preparation and banking services.  The Company's Tax
Services segment provides assisted income tax return preparation,
digital tax solutions and other services and products related to
income tax return preparation to the general public primarily in
the United States, and also in Canada and Australia.


ISRAEL ATOMIC: Committee Set Up for Reactor Employees' Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aviel Magnezi, writing for Ynetnews, reports that the class-action
suit on behalf of the Dimona nuclear reactor employees against the
Israel Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) has led to the
establishment of a public committee.

Justice Minister Tzipi Livni appointed on April 4 a public
committee, headed by Supreme Court Deputy President Judge Eliezer
Rivlin, whose role is to make recommendations to the government
regarding a special agreement to recompense the IAEC center
workers who contracted malignant diseases.

Recommendations will be submitted within a year of work and the
due date is set for mid-2014.  The committee was established in
order to propose a model that will be used in the future to assess
individual appeals for workers who contracted malignant diseases.

Aside from Chairman Rivlin, the members of the committee are: Ben
Gurion University President Professor Rivka Carmi; Professor Ariel
Porat, the former head of the Tel Aviv University's Faculty of
Law; Dr. Nir Peled, an expert on internal medicine and thoracic
oncology and the head of the Research and Detection Unit for
Thoracic malignancies at the Chaim Sheba Medical Center at Tel
Hashomer, Finance Ministry Accountant-General Michal Abadi-
Boiangiu and Deputy Attorney General Avi Licht.

An announcement said that "over the years, the IAEC has put a
great emphasis upon the prevention of illness and safety of its
workers.  Surveys conducted regarding malignant diseases have
proven that the morbidity rate among its workers is not higher
than the morbidity rate amongst Israel's Jewish population.

"With that, over the past years, court proceedings have been held
in law suits by employees who worked at the IAEC.  The suits are
still in legal proceedings and it was recently clarified that
their management will involve unique and sensitive issues which
touch upon the State's vital interests."

The IAEC general manager, who wants to prevent discussing these
issues publicly, advised Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and
former ministers Dan Meridor and Yaakov Ne'eman, to formulate an
alternative model for recompensing the employees who contracted
malignant diseases -- even in cases that it is not necessarily
provable that there is an environmental, legal connection between
the exposure and the illness.

"This is a voluntary arrangement that will provide the employees
and their families with an additional and alternative route for
receiving damages that will apply to those who prefer a special
and speedy process as opposed to legal proceedings."


MANDA PACKING: FSIS Lists Stores That Received Recalled Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service disclosed that certain stores in various states received
meat and poultry deli products (roast beef, ham, turkey breast,
tasso pork, ham shanks, hog head cheese, corned beef, and
pastrami) that have been recalled by Manda Packing Company.

The FSIS says the list of store locations may not include all
retail locations that have received the recalled product or may
include retail locations that did not actually receive the
recalled product.  Therefore, the FSIS says, it is important that
consumers use the product-specific identification information
available at http://is.gd/CDvWNw(and http://is.gd/IAZCqo),in
addition to the list of retail stores, to check meat or poultry
products in the consumers' possession to see if they have been
recalled.

    Retailer Name               City and State
    -------------               --------------
    Ben E. Keith                Stores in AR
    Brookshire Brothers         Stores in LA and TX
    Dollar General              Stores in LA
    Kroger                      Stores in TX
    Piggly Wiggly               Stores in LA
    Walmart                     Stores in AL, FL, GA, KY, LA,
                                MO, and TX


MARCHESE PHARMACY: Ombudsman Probe Called on Diluted Cancer Drugs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Elliott, writing for TheSpec.com, reports that the
Ombudsman should probe fiasco on diluted cancer drugs in Canada.

How do you put a price tag on broken trust?  That's what lawyers,
plaintiffs and others will be thinking about as the first class-
action suit develops, launched by patients who received diluted
cancer drugs at several Ontario hospitals, plus another in New
Brunswick.  It's estimated as many as 1,100 cancer patients were
underdosed.  Components of the drug treatment they received were
from Hamilton-based Marchese Pharmacy.

It's too early to draw conclusions about who's to blame and who
did what wrong.  The government has pledged a full investigation,
and all patients impacted have been advised to see their
oncologist.

But it's not premature to reflect on what the poor souls who
received watered-down drugs must be feeling.  They're already in a
vulnerable state, fighting a debilitating and deadly disease and
often illness-inducing treatment.  Their future is uncertain and
they -- and their families and friends -- are wrestling with
extreme anxiety and a host of other emotional issues.

Now, in addition to all that, they have to cope with the knowledge
that medication critical to defeating their cancer was flawed in a
potentially harmful way.  They literally got drugs with too much
saline and too little -- up to 20 per cent less -- of the
important stuff. Did that improper medication hinder their
recovery?  Will it in the future?

Some doctors are saying that in most cases the difference is small
enough that it probably won't have negative impact.  But already
there are stories emerging of people who were underdosed and whose
cancer has returned.  An Ingersol man is one who received improper
chemotherapy after a tumor between his heart and lungs was
removed, and is now awaiting a prognosis of a new lump found
growing on his thyroid.  Did his diluted therapy have anything to
do with the new growth?

Hamilton patients can take some comfort in the knowledge that
local hospitals mix their own drug cocktails and have not had
similar problems reported.  Did outsourcing drug preparation play
a role?

Who should do the investigation?  The New Democrats have suggested
the provincial ombudsman be given that job.  Andre Marin's office
has a solid track record and a culture of objectivity and
investigative rigor.

He has argued that the ombudsman be given authority to investigate
hospitals.  This could be a good opportunity to test Marin's
abilities to conduct an expedient investigation with existing
infrastructure.  The NDP is right in this case and the ombudsman's
office should get the job.

Let that happen soon.  And let the process and results be
transparent.

Freshly assaulted cancer patients deserve no less.


MF GLOBAL: July 3 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------
The following Notice has been issued by THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT NEW YORK, IN RE MF GLOBAL HOLDINGS LTD.
INVESTMENT LITIGATION (Case No. 12-MD-2338 (VM))

JOSEPH DEANGELIS, et al., Plaintiffs, against JON S. CORZINE, et
al., Defendants. (Case No. 11-Civ-7866 (VM)).

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: The Commodity Customer Class Actions

SUMMARY NOTICE

To: All persons or entities who held money, property, and/or
securities at MF Global Inc. as of the bankruptcy of MFGI on
October 31, 2011.  This includes all commodities and securities
customers of MFGI, including but not limited to each of the
customer account classes identified in 17 C.F.R. Section 190.01(a)
(i.e., futures, foreign futures, leverage, delivery, and cleared
swaps accounts) and any customer for whose benefit MFGI was
required by law to maintain segregated, secured, or other
dedicated accounts or funds, including without limitation under 17
C.F.R. Secs. 1.20, 30.7, and/or 240.15c3-3 (the "Class" or "Class
Members" or "Settlement Class"1).

You are hereby notified that pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a
hearing will be held on July 3, 2013, at 2:00 p.m., before the
Honorable Victor Marrero, at the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S.
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007, for the
purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement with
JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. and its parents, subsidiaries and
affiliates, including a $100,000,000.00 (one hundred million)
Distribution Cash Payment to the Settlement Class, should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2)
whether JPMorgan should be released from all claims and potential
claims, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement dated as of March
19, 2013; (3) the reasonableness of the application of Lead
Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred
in connection with this Customer Class Action Litigation, together
with interest thereon; and (4) the reasonableness of the Trustee's
Plan of Allocation.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights may be
affected by this Settlement with JPMorgan.  If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Proposed Partial Settlement of Class
Action and a copy of the Proof of Claim, you may obtain copies by
writing to MF Global Inc.  Claims Processing Center, c/o Epiq
Bankruptcy Solutions, LLC, FDR Station, P.O. Box 5011, New York,
NY 10150-5011, calling (888) 236-0808 ((503) 597-5173 for
international callers), or by downloading this information at
www.mfglobaltrustee.com.  If you are a Settlement Class Member you
will automatically share in the Distribution Cash Payment if you
have submitted a claim form in the MFGI bankruptcy.  If you have
not submitted a claim form in the MFGI bankruptcy, in order to
share in the Distribution Cash Payment, you must submit a Proof of
Claim postmarked no later than June 10, 2013.  You will be bound
by any Judgment rendered in the Customer Class Action Litigation
unless you request to be excluded, in writing, to the above
address, received by June 12, 2013.

Any objection to any aspect of this Settlement must be filed with
the Clerk of the Court and received by the following no later than
June 12, 2013:

          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA  19103

               - and -

          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
          Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
          280 Park Avenue
          26 Floor West,
          New York, NY 10017

          Lead Counsel for Customer Representative Plaintiffs

          WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
          John F. Savarese, Esq.
          51 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY  10019

          Counsel for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.,

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED:  March 28, 2013, BY ORDER OF THE COURT, UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

1 The Class includes MFGI's former 4d and 30.7 Customers.  4d
Customers are those customer-members of the proposed Settlement
Class who engaged in commodity transactions on domestic exchanges
and whose property MFGI and its management was required to hold in
segregated accounts pursuant to Section 4d of the Commodity
Exchange Act. 30.7 Customers are those customer-members of the
proposed Settlement Class who engaged in commodity transactions on
foreign exchanges and whose property MFGI and its management was
required to secure pursuant to 17 CFR Section 30.7.

Paul Mesches Porte Advertising 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2905 New
York, NY 10123 pmesches@porteadvertising.com 212-354-6906


MOBCLIX INC: App Developers Mull Class Action Over Unpaid Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
prMAc.om reports that Indie developer Jeff Sherk announces a group
of indie developers that have not been payed by Mobclix are
preparing for a class action suit against Mobclix.

Mobclix Inc -- mobclix.com -- is a mobile ad exchange network that
was acquired by Velti in 2010, but apparently its keeping the
money it makes to itself, and not paying the app developers that
have been displaying ads in their mobile apps on behalf of
Mobclix.  Mobclix Terms of Service -- available on their website
at mobclix.com -- clearly state that they will pay developers Net
90 from the end of each month for ad impressions and ad clicks
displayed in theirs apps during that month.

There are already dozens of developers lining up for the class
action suit, with over $100,000 claimed owing going back as far as
early 2012.

Here are some comments posted by some of the developers facing
this issue with Mobclix:

"They have never paid me anything, and they currently owe me over
$2800 from May 2012 thru to Dec 2012, and I am also in touch with
two other indie developers that are in a similar situation and are
both owed over $2000 each."

"They owe me over $17,000."


NAVISTAR INT'L: Ryan & Maniskas Files Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Evan Lockridge, writing for Truckinginfo, reports that a class
action lawsuit was announced on April 5 against truck and engine
manufacturer Navistar International, alleging the company misled
investors about its finances as well as problems meeting federal
regulations with its diesel engines.

The law firm representing the plaintiffs, Ryan & Maniskas, says in
a statement that the suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of common
stock of between Nov. 3, 2010 and Aug. 1, 2012.

The complaint alleges that throughout the period, Navistar issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding its business
and financial prospects.  Specifically it says that Navistar's
attempted methods to achieve compliance with U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency emissions guidelines had failed and Navistar
would be forced to revise its plan to meet them, incurring
enormous costs to the company.

The suit also alleges Navistar did not have engines ready to meet
the 2010 EPA standards, and that Navistar's filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission contained incomplete and
misleading disclosures, including statements about the costs of
recalls and details of various debts.

Last year Navistar International announced it was abandoning its
go-it-alone approach in being the only engine maker in North
America to use only exhaust gas recirculation technology in order
to comply with U.S. emissions rules.  The company announced it was
joining all other diesel engine makers in using selective
catalytic reduction technology, which requires the use of diesel
exhaust fluid.

The company worked out an agreement where it would once again
offer Cummins engines in its trucks and announced a fourth quarter
net loss of $2.8 million, partially due to a spike in warranty
costs along with declining sales.

When contacted for comment about the lawsuit, Navistar spokesman
Steve Schrier responded: "as a matter of policy, Navistar does not
comment on pending litigation."

The law firm representing shareholders has set up a special
website for plaintiffs who want to join the suit or be considered
a lead plaintiff.

Navistar also has also gone through various management changes,
including naming Lewis Campbell as interim CEO to replace
Dan Ustian, who retired after coming under criticism for his role
in the company's strategy for meeting 2010 EPA emissions rules,
and promoting Troy Clarke to president and chief operating
officer.


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Recalls 539 Buckyballs High-Powered Magnets
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Overstock.com Inc. and importer, Maxfield & Oberton LLC, announced
a voluntary recall of about 539 Buckyballs high-powered magnet
sets.  Consumers should stop using this product, which is being
recalled voluntarily, unless otherwise instructed.

When two or more magnets are swallowed, they can link together
inside a child's intestines and clamp onto body tissues, causing
intestinal obstructions, perforations, sepsis and death.  Internal
injury from magnets can pose serious lifelong health effects.

Overstock has received no reports of injuries.  CPSC has received
54 reports of incidents involving children ingesting high-powered
magnets resulting in 53 reports of medical intervention.

This recall involves high-powered magnets sets with the brand name
Buckyballs.  The sets contain 216 silver-colored, spherical rare
earth magnets, each about five millimeters in diameter.  Picture
of the recalled products is available at: http://is.gd/LQy2yW

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Overstock.com and retailers nationwide from November 2010 through
July 2012 for about $20.

Overstock.com will contact each purchasing customer directly to
coordinate the recall.  Consumers should stop using the recalled
high-powered magnet sets immediately, take all associated
individual magnets away from children and teenagers, and contact
Overstock.com for a full refund.  Overstock.com Inc. may be
reached at e-mail miscellaneous@overstock.com or online at
http://www.overstock.com/for more information.


ROSETTA STONE: Wage and Hour Suit Remains Pending in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Michael Pierce, Patrick Gould,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Rosetta Stone Ltd. and DOES 1 to 50 remains pending, according to
Rosetta Stone Inc.'s March 7, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

In April 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Alameda, for damages, injunctive relief and restitution
in the matter of Michael Pierce, Patrick Gould, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rosetta Stone Ltd.
and DOES 1 to 50.  The complaint alleges that plaintiffs and other
persons similarly situated who are or were employed as salaried
managers by the Company in its retail locations in California are
due unpaid wages and other relief for the Company's violations of
state wage and hour laws.  The Plaintiffs moved to amend their
complaint to include a nationwide class in January 2011.  In March
2011, the case was removed to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.  In November 2011, the
parties agreed to the mediator's proposed settlement terms, and as
a result, as of September 30, 2011, the Company reserved $0.6
million for the proposed settlement amount.  The Company disputes
the plaintiffs' claims and it has not admitted any wrongdoing with
respect to the case.

Rosetta Stone Inc. -- http://www.rosettastone.com/-- together
with its subsidiaries, provides technology-based language-learning
solutions in the United States and internationally.  The Company
develops, markets, and sells language-learning solutions, such as
software, online services, mobile applications, and audio practice
tools in approximately 30 languages primarily under the Rosetta
Stone brand.  The Company was founded in 1992 and is headquartered
in Arlington, Virginia.


SANOFI: Awaits Ruling on Certification Bid in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi is awaiting a court decision on a motion for class
certification in the securities lawsuit pending in New York,
according to the Company's March 7, 2013, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

In November 2007, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of Sanofi shares.  The complaint charged Sanofi and
certain of its current and former officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint
alleged that defendants' statements regarding rimonabant (a
product withdrawn from the market, formerly registered under the
trademark Acomplia(R) in Europe and Zimulti(R) in the U.S.) were
materially false and misleading when made because defendants
allegedly concealed data concerning certain alleged secondary
effects of rimonabant, in particular, suicidality in patients
suffering from depression.  In September 2009, the motion was
dismissed with prejudice.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration.  On July 27, 2010, the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York granted plaintiff's motion to
reconsider and authorized plaintiffs to submit an amended
complaint.  In November 2010, the District Court heard arguments
on Sanofi's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint.  By
Order dated March 31, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York dismissed a number of individual
defendants, however, denied Sanofi's request to dismiss the
Company, as well as one of its current officers and one of its
former officers.

On November 11, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  Oral argument on plaintiff's motion for class
certification took place on September 19, 2012.  Discovery is on-
going.

The Company says a reliable measure of potential liabilities
arising from this purported class action is not possible at this
stage of the litigation.

Sanofi -- http://www.sanofi.com/-- is incorporated under the laws
of France, with securities listed on regulated public markets in
the United States (New York Stock Exchange) and France (Euronext
Paris).  Sanofi, together with its subsidiaries, is a diversified
global healthcare leader engaged in the research, development and
marketing of therapeutic solutions focused on patient needs.  The
Company is headquartered in Paris, France.


SANOFI: Discovery Ongoing in MDL Over Merial Frontline(R) Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the multidistrict litigation relating to
Merial Frontline(R) advertisements, according to Sanofi's
March 7, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

From October 2011 through January 2012, ten putative class actions
were filed against Merial Limited in various U.S. federal courts,
each alleging that the plaintiffs sustained damages after
purchasing the defendants' products (Merial's Frontline(R) and /or
Certifect(R) brands and Bayer's Advantage(R) and Advantix(R)
brands) for their pets' flea problems.  These actions have been
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio and consolidated in a multi-district litigation.

The complaints seek injunctive relief and contain counts for
violations of consumer protection or deceptive trade practices
acts, false advertising, breach of implied and express warranty
and violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.  Four of the
complaints seek $32 billion in damages, two complaints seek
greater than $4 billion in damages, and the remaining four
complaints seek damages in excess of $5 million.  No class has
been certified yet.  In October 2012, the defendants filed a
motion for summary judgment.  Discovery is ongoing.

The Company says a reliable measure of potential liabilities
arising from this putative class action litigation is currently
not possible.

Sanofi -- http://www.sanofi.com/-- is incorporated under the laws
of France, with securities listed on regulated public markets in
the United States (New York Stock Exchange) and France (Euronext
Paris).  Sanofi, together with its subsidiaries, is a diversified
global healthcare leader engaged in the research, development and
marketing of therapeutic solutions focused on patient needs.  The
Company is headquartered in Paris, France.


SANOFI: Unit Awaits Ruling in Suit Over Merial Heartgard Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi's subsidiary is awaiting a court decision on its motion for
summary judgment in a class action lawsuit pending in Mississippi,
according to the Company's March 7, 2013, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On August 31, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Merial Limited before the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Mississippi, alleging that Merial engaged in
false and misleading advertising of Heartgard(R) and Heartgard(R)
Plus by claiming 100% efficacy in the prevention of heartworm
disease, as well as the prevention of zoonotic diseases.
Plaintiffs also request punitive damages and a permanent
injunction with respect to the alleged advertising.  The
proceedings are ongoing and the class has not been certified yet.
Merial filed a motion for summary judgment.

The Company says a reliable measure of potential liabilities
arising from this putative class action is not possible at this
stage of the litigation.

Sanofi -- http://www.sanofi.com/-- is incorporated under the laws
of France, with securities listed on regulated public markets in
the United States (New York Stock Exchange) and France (Euronext
Paris).  Sanofi, together with its subsidiaries, is a diversified
global healthcare leader engaged in the research, development and
marketing of therapeutic solutions focused on patient needs.  The
Company is headquartered in Paris, France.


SANOFI: Unit Settled DDAVP Indirect Purchasers' Claims for $0.8MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi's subsidiary reached in December 2012 an $800,000
settlement with the indirect purchasers in the DDAVP(R) Antitrust
Litigation, according to the Company's March 7, 2013, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

Subsequent to the decision of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in February 2005 holding the patent
rights at issue in the DDAVP(R) tablet litigation to be
unenforceable as a result of inequitable conduct, eight putative
class actions have been filed claiming injury as a result of
Ferring B.V. and Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s alleged scheme to
monopolize the market for DDAVP(R) tablets in violation of the
Sherman Act and the antitrust and deceptive trade practices
statutes of several states.  In August 2011, Aventis
Pharmaceuticals and Ferring reached an agreement with direct
purchaser plaintiffs resolving their claims.  Aventis
Pharmaceuticals Inc. agreed to resolve these claims for U.S. $3.5
million.  In December 2012, Aventis Pharmaceuticals reached a
settlement with the indirect purchasers for U.S. $800,000.

Sanofi -- http://www.sanofi.com/-- is incorporated under the laws
of France, with securities listed on regulated public markets in
the United States (New York Stock Exchange) and France (Euronext
Paris).  Sanofi, together with its subsidiaries, is a diversified
global healthcare leader engaged in the research, development and
marketing of therapeutic solutions focused on patient needs.  The
Company is headquartered in Paris, France.


TOYS R US: Recalls 60 Buckyballs High-Powered Magnet Sets
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Toys R Us and importer, Maxfield & Oberton LLC, announced a
voluntary recall of about 60 Buckyballs high-powered magnet sets.
Consumers should stop using this product, which is being recalled
voluntarily, unless otherwise instructed.

When two or more magnets are swallowed, they can link together
inside a child's intestines and clamp onto body tissues, causing
intestinal obstructions, perforations, sepsis and death.  Internal
injury from magnets can pose serious lifelong health effects.

Toys R Us has received no reports of injuries.  CPSC has received
54 reports of incidents involving children ingesting high-powered
magnets resulting in 53 reports of medical intervention.

This recall involves high-powered magnets sets with the brand name
Buckyballs.  The sets contain 216 silver-colored, spherical rare
earth magnets, each about five millimeters in diameter.  Picture
of the recalled products is available at: http://is.gd/X4USij

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
ToysRUs.com and retailers nationwide from November 2010 through
July 2012 for about $40.

Consumers should stop using the recalled high-powered magnet sets
immediately, take all associated individual magnets away from
children and teenagers and contact Toys R Us as listed above for a
full refund.  Toys R Us will contact each purchasing customer
directly to coordinate the recall.  Returns of the magnet sets
will not be accepted in stores.  Toys R Us may be reached at (800)
869-7787 from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through
Saturday and 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Sundays, or
online at http://www.toysrus.com/,then click on About Us, then
select "Safety" at the top of the page, and then "Click here"
under Product Recalls.


TRANS1 INC: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
TranS1 Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss
a securities class action lawsuit, according to the Company's
March 7, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On January 24, 2012, the Company received notice that a putative
class action lawsuit had been filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina, on behalf of all persons,
other than defendants, who purchased TranS1 securities between
February 21, 2008, and October 17, 2011.  The complaint alleges
violations of the Exchange Act based upon purported omissions
and/or false and misleading statements concerning TranS1's
financial statements and reimbursement practices.  The complaint
seeks damages sustained by the putative class, pre- and post-
judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and other costs.  On
September 7, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for failure to meet the heightened pleading requirements
of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, among
other grounds; the motion is pending.

The Company says it is unable to predict what impact, if any, the
outcome of this matter might have on its consolidated financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows.

TranS1 Inc. -- http://www.trans1.com/-- is a medical device
company focused on designing, developing and marketing products to
treat degenerative conditions of the spine affecting the lumbar
region.  The Company is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Raleigh, North Caroline.


VISA INC: Judge Mulls Expert in Antitrust Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
According to Mayer Brown's Kevin S. Ranlett, Esq., it's rare for a
court to appoint its own expert in a class action.  But Judge
Gleeson of the Eastern District of New York is poised to do
precisely that in order to help him decide whether to grant final
approval to the $7.25 billion proposed class settlement of
antitrust claims by retailers challenging Visa's and MasterCard's
interchange fees.  Some observers say that the proposed class
settlement in the case -- In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and
Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:05-md-01720 -- would
be the largest class settlement of private antitrust claims in
U.S. history.

In November, Judge Gleeson granted preliminary approval to the
proposed settlement, which reportedly calls for $6.05 billion to
be distributed to class members and for a $.12 billion reduction
in future interchange fees.  Several major retailers and trade
associations are expected to object to final approval of the
settlement, after having objected to preliminary approval.

Judge Gleeson recently asked the parties if they had any objection
to having law professor Alan Sykes -- a leading law-and-econ
scholar -- advise the court "with respect to any economic issues
that may arise in connection with the forthcoming motion for final
approval of the proposed settlement."

The complexity and multi-billion-dollar stakes of this case may
have motivated Judge Gleeson to seek guidance from an independent
expert regarding whether the proposed class settlement should be
approved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e).  Proskauer
hasn't seen judges evaluating other class action settlements --
which generally present less complicated issues than this
settlement appears to raise -- consider appointing their own
experts to assess the settlement's fairness.

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal
practices that are separate entities.  The Mayer Brown Practices
are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe - Brussels LLP, both
limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer
Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership
incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the
Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and
Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in
France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its
associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a
Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated.
"Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the
Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.


WINN-DIXIE: Recalls 64 Fl. Oz. Organic 100% Apple Juice
-------------------------------------------------------
Winn-Dixie announced an immediate voluntary recall of 64 FL OZ
Winn-Dixie Organic 100% Apple Juice.  The product is being
recalled as a precaution because it could have levels of "patulin"
that exceeds FDA limits.  Winn-Dixie has received no reports of
any issues associated with Winn-Dixie Organic 100% Apple Juice
consumption.

Patulin is a mycotoxin, a by-product of some molds that can grow
in fruits and vegetables.  The possibility of adverse health
consequences resulting from this product is very remote.  However,
the FDA has determined that products made from concentrate with a
patulin level of over 50 parts per billion are subject to a
voluntary recall.

Out of an abundance of caution for customers, Winn-Dixie is
immediately recalling "64 FL OZ Winn-Dixie Organic 100% Apple
Juice from Concentrate with Added Ingredient."  The recall is
companywide for Winn-Dixie stores in the states of Florida,
Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana.

    Recalled Item         UPC          Size
    -------------         ---          ----
    Winn-Dixie Organic    2114021626   64 FL OZ
    100% Apple Juice

    Exp. Dates: Between 1/15/2014 and 3/25/2014

Picture of the recalled products' label is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm347992.htm

"We encourage customers in possession of any of the recalled item
to immediately discard the product or bring it back to their
store," said Brian Wright, senior director of Winn-Dixie Corporate
Communications.  "Customers who have purchased the product may
visit their neighborhood Winn-Dixie to request a full refund, no
questions asked."

To receive the refund, customers may present proof of purchase
through a receipt or the product packaging label.

Consumers with questions about the recalled products may contact
the Winn-Dixie Customer Service Center toll free at 1.866.WINN-
DIXIE (866.946.6349) Mon. - Fri., 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time; and Sat., 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard
Time.

                        About Winn-Dixie

Winn-Dixie is a subsidiary of BI-LO Holding, which is the ninth-
largest traditional supermarket chain in the United States.  Under
the banner names of BI-LO and Winn-Dixie, the Company employs
nearly 60,000 associates who serve customers in 686 grocery stores
and 484 in-store pharmacies throughout the eight southeastern
states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee.  BI-LO and Winn-Dixie are
well-known and well-respected regional brands with deep heritages,
strong neighborhood ties, proud histories of giving back, talented
and loyal associates, and strong commitments to providing the best
possible quality and value to customers.  For more information,
please visit http://www.bi-lo.com/and http://www.winn-dixie.com/

To find the closest Winn-Dixie store, visit
http://www.winndixie.com/Store_Locations/Search.asp


* Gov. Christie Signs N.J. Business Corporation Act Amendment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael T. Rave, Esq. -- mrave@daypitney.com -- Ronald H. Janis,
Esq. -- rjanis@daypitney.com -- at Day Pitney, report that on
April 1, Gov. Chris Christie signed legislation amending the New
Jersey Business Corporation Act.  The legislation was drafted by
the New Jersey Corporate and Business Law Study Commission. [1] As
discussed in more detail, certain New Jersey corporations must
take action by June 30 if they wish to opt out of the New Jersey
Shareholders' Protection Act.

The legislation:

Creates a new section regarding shareholder derivative litigation
that, if adopted in the certificate of incorporation, allows
independent board members greater flexibility to move to dismiss
litigation they deem is not in the best interests of the
corporation and implements fee shifting and other provisions in
the context of derivative and shareholder class action
proceedings.

Amends the Shareholders' Protection Act (the SPA) to make all
publicly traded New Jersey corporations subject to the SPA and to
allow certain business transactions to take place that previously
would have been prohibited under the SPA, if the requisite
approvals are obtained. [2]

Amends the dissenters' rights section to provide that such section
is the exclusive remedy absent fraud or material
misrepresentation.

Allows remote participation by shareholders in annual or special
shareholders' meetings.

Shareholders' Protection Act -- Immediate Action May Be Necessary

The Shareholders' Protection Act was amended to be applicable to
all New Jersey corporations.  Previously, it was applicable only
to those New Jersey corporations that had principal executive
offices or "significant business operations" in New Jersey.
However, the amendment provides an opt out for those corporations
that were not previously subject to the SPA but will be as a
result of the amendments, i.e., those corporations that do not
have principal executive offices or "significant business
operations" in New Jersey.  For these newly covered New Jersey
corporations, the amendments provide an opt-out period of 90 days
from the date of enactment, or by June 30.  The board of directors
of a newly covered corporation that wishes to opt out must amend
its bylaws before June 30 to specifically provide that the
corporation is not subject to the SPA.

Any newly covered New Jersey corporation that does not opt out
should note in its records the identity of any 5 percent
stockholder as of 180 days after enactment.  The amendment to the
SPA exempts such stockholders from the SPA's limitations on
business combinations with an interested stockholder of a newly
covered corporation.

This exemption makes it important for each publicly traded New
Jersey corporation to determine and document whether it is newly
covered -- in other words, whether its executive offices are in
New Jersey or it had significant business operations in New Jersey
as of June 30.

Other Action Items

Management and the boards of directors of New Jersey corporations
should consider the following potential action items in response
to these amendments:

Consider the new statute governing shareholder derivative and
class actions and determine whether to opt in to coverage under
that statute.  If the decision is made to opt in, the
corporation's certificate of incorporation will need to be
amended, which will necessitate shareholder approval.

Consider the advisability of permitting participation in
shareholders' meetings by means of remote communication, including
the feasibility, logistics and implications of implementation of
remote participation.  Adopt any bylaw amendments or board
resolutions that may be needed to authorize remote participation.


* Kate Gosselin's Ex-Husband Back in Spotlight After Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Examiner reports that Kate Gosselin recently got caught up in some
legal drama, as she was getting support from Bullyville, who filed
a class action lawsuit against her bullies online.  Bullyville
also went further and exposed the identities of the people who
were behind the harassing tweets, some of which went too far.
However, now a report is claiming that Kate's ex-boyfriend Jon
Gosselin may have played a role in the very public drama, as Jon
and an anti-Kate book author have been linked to a scheme to
spread lies about the mother of eight for a profit.  According to
a new Radar Online report released on April 5, Kate Gosselin may
be in the media for quite some time, as she is now dealing with
the drama of her ex-husband and more people who are trying to
bring her down.

According to the report, James McGiney, the person behind
Bullyville, is now exposing the relationship between Jon and
Robert Hoffman, a person who isn't a big fan of Kate.  Given that
the bullying issue is now making headlines, Mr. Hoffman is now
putting his book about Kate back online, even though it was once
banned.  "You had your chance to come clean about all the lies and
deceit you based the book off of but you are such a narcissist you
and Jon decided to just go ahead," Mr. McGiney said about the
re-release of the book in defense of Kate.

Of course, Hoffman and Jon are claiming that they just want the
truth out.  Do you think these two are just using the fame
temporarily to sell more copies of the book?


                             *********

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  * * *