---

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

              Monday, April 22, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 78

                             Headlines



AMERICAN INT'L: Judge Approves $115M Class Action Settlement
APPLE INC: To Pay $53MM to Settle Consumer Warranty Class Suits
ARKANSAS: Sheriff Receives Kickback for Commissary Agreement
BORGATA HOTEL: Faces Class Action Over Waitresses' "Weigh In"
BP PLC: Loses Bid to Halt Oil Spill Settlement Payments

CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Awaits Ruling in Gas Mismeasurement Suits
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Petition in Suit Over Gas Markets Pending
COMCAST CORP: Jones Day Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
CONNAUGHT GROUP: Court Certifies Class in "Schuman" WARN Act Suit
DAVID LERNER: Court Ruling Highlights Insurance Coverage Limits

DEL MONTE: Judge Consolidates Class Suits Over Dog Treats
FINISAR CORP: Renews Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit in Calif.
GERBINGS LLC: Recalls 9,900 Heated Jacket Liners Due to Burn Risk
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Defends Product Liability Class Suits
GOOGLE INC: AdWords Class Suit Survives Dismissal Bid

HUFFY CORP: Recalls 5,040 2012 Huffy(R) 20-Inch Slider Tricycles
INTEGRITY STAFFING: 9th Cir. Reinstates Warehouse Workers' Suit
JOHN MALLOZZI: Faces Suit Over Violating Tip-Appropriation Law
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Action Over "Anti-Gravity" Claims
MEDIACOM LLC: "Ogg" Class Suit Filed in Missouri Now Concluded

MICHAEL ENGELMAN: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Kosher Food
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Concussion Injury Litigation Goes to Court
NEW YORK: Former NYPD Chief Testifies in Stop-and Frisk Suit
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Still Awaits Order on Suit Dismissal Bid
PATHEON INC: Defends Suits Over Recall of Defective Products

PLAZA MEXICO: To Be Reinstated as Defendant in Workers' FLSA Suits
PRIME FOOD: Recalls Latis Herring and Salmon Fillet Products
RJ REYNOLDS: Tobacco Cos. Accountable for Conspiracy, Jurors Say
SPARK NETWORKS: Defends "Kirby" Class Action Suit in California
SUPPORT.COM INC: Awaits Final Okay of Consumer Suit Settlement

TASER INT'L: "Katiki" Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice in March
TRUGREEN LANDCARE: Bid to Dismiss Claim in "Teoba" Suit Denied
US AIRWAYS: Faces Class Action Over Racial Discrimination
V.M. TRUCKING: Sued for Withholding Wages From Drivers' Paychecks
VITALIZE LABS: Faces Class Action Over EBoost Products

YAHOO! INC: Dismissal of Class Claims in SCA Violation Suit Upheld
YAHOO! INC: Faces Class Action Over Sending Spam Messages
WALGREENS CO: Faces Overtime Class Action
WASHINGTON DC: Cop Faces Class Suit for Assaulting 10-Yr. Old
ZALE CORP: Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed With Prejudice

ZALE CORP: Received $1.9-Mil. Settlement in Suit vs. De Beers

* California Lawyer Takes Stand in Investment Scam Suit


                             *********


AMERICAN INT'L: Judge Approves $115M Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a
federal judge in Manhattan on April 10 approved a $115 million
settlement reached by former American International Group Inc. CEO
Maurice "Hank" Greenberg and other former AIG executives to
resolve a shareholder class action.

Southern District Judge Deborah Batts ruled from the bench in In
re American International Group Securities Litigation, 1:04-cv-
08141, that the settlement was "fair, reasonable and adequate,"
overruling the sole objection by an investor, which did not appear
in court.

The ruling also rejected an argument made by New York Attorney
General Eric Schneiderman in an amicus brief that the parties must
renegotiate the settlement because of a math error.  The attorney
general originally tried to object to the settlement, but Judge
Batts ruled he lacked standing to do so and treated the objection
as an amicus brief.

Up to 13.5% of the settlement will go to attorney fees, and the
rest will be distributed to investors, either in the full amount
of their losses if there is enough money, or on a pro rata basis
if there is not.

The class action lawsuit, brought by three Ohio public employee
retirement funds, alleged that AIG misled investors with sham
accounting.  When the company eventually had to restate several
years of finances in 2005, investors lost money.  Mr. Greenberg
left shortly thereafter.

The New York attorney general is pursuing a case based on the same
allegations against Mr. Greenberg and former CFO Howard Smith, who
is also a defendant in the class action.  The case, People v.
Greenberg, 401720/2005, was originally filed by Eliot Spitzer
under New York's Martin Act, which gives the attorney general
broad authority to investigate securities fraud.

Messrs. Greenberg and Smith have argued that the law is preempted
by federal securities law, and have won the support of prominent
figures, including former U.S. Attorney General Richard
Thornburgh, former Governor George Pataki, former Mayor Rudolph
Giuliani and others who filed an amicus brief.

The Martin Act case is on appeal to the New York State Court of
Appeals, which is set to hear arguments on April 29.
Messrs. Greenberg and Smith are appealing an Appellate Division,
First Department, ruling allowing the case to go forward.

The settlement approved on April 10 may knock out much of that
case, however.

Messrs. Greenberg and Smith have argued that the settlement
renders the attorney general's case moot.  Their argument rests on
the Court of Appeals' 2008 decision in People v. Applied Card
Systems, 11 NY3d 105, which held that a nationwide class action
settlement in a credit card marketing fraud case precluded the
attorney general from seeking recovery on the same claims under
the principle of res judicata.

As in Applied Card, the settlement of the shareholder case against
Greenberg and the other defendants "effectively extinguishes all
damages claims against Messrs. Greenberg and Smith in the Martin
Act case brought by the attorney general's office," said Robert
Dwyer, a partner at Boies Schiller & Flexner, who represents
Greenberg.

The attorney general's office does not agree. In a brief filed
with the Court of Appeals in November, it said that even if the
settlement was approved -- as it was on April 10 -- it "would not
preclude the Attorney General from obtaining other remedies,
including an injunction, disgorgement, attorney's fees, and costs,
as well as damages for injuries to any class members who opt out
of the settlement."

Messrs. Greenberg and Smith countered in a reply brief filed in
December that there could be no disgorgement because the
defendants had not sold any stock during the relevant time period.
They also said that legal fees are limited by law to $2,000 per
defendant, rendering that claim trivial.

Still, the attorney general plans to continue with the case.

"The consequences of the settlement remain to be determined, but
no matter the outcome our office intends to continue to pursue
this case," said Damien LaVera, a spokesman for the attorney
general's office.

Vincent Sama at Kaye Scholer represents Smith.

Thomas Dubbs -- tdubbs@labaton.com -- a partner at Labaton
Sucharow, who represents the plaintiffs, could not be reached for
comment.


APPLE INC: To Pay $53MM to Settle Consumer Warranty Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that Apple has
agreed to pay $53 million to settle class actions claims that it
failed to honor consumer warranties on iPhones and iPod Touches.

Christopher Corsi and Charlene Gallion had claimed that Apple
denied their warranty claims if a strip of paper on the bottom of
their devices had turned pink or red, indicating that the device
had been submerged in water.  They said the chemically sensitive
paper could change color based on humidity or sweat.

After seven months of mediation, Apple agreed to the settlement,
which could mean payments of up to $300 to hundreds of class
members, depending on the type of device.  Devices covered under
the proposed settlement are the original iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone
3GS, and the first, second and third-generation iPod Touch.


ARKANSAS: Sheriff Receives Kickback for Commissary Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------
Erik De La Garza at Courthouse News Service reports that an
Arkansas sheriff received kickbacks from a company hired to
convert cash seized from county jail inmates to prepaid debit
cards "with numerous exorbitant fees," a federal class action
claims.

More than 2,200 people who were arrested or booked in Benton
County Jail claim their cash was seized and later returned as
prepaid debit cards that charged them fees of $1.50 to $38 per
transaction.

According to the lawsuit, Sheriff Kelley Cradduck hired co-
defendant Keefe Commissary Network to provide jail commissary
services "for specified inflated prices and upon certain terms."

"One of these terms was that defendant Keefe would pay a kickback
to defendant Cradduck of 34% of 'adjusted gross sales' of gross
commissary sales, less certain noncommissioned items," the
complaint states.  "This kickback is expressly identified and
referred to as a 'service fee' in the contract between
defendants."

The contract was allegedly signed last April.

"Under this contract and the policy, defendant Cradduck has agreed
with defendant Keefe that money seized from arrestees and/or
inmates is to be involuntarily placed into a 'designated account.'
Defendant Cradduck has purported to authorize defendant Keefe to
withdraw and convert funds properly belonging to the class members
from this designated account, to the injury of the class members,"
the lawsuit states.

"This agreement is part of the quid pro quo for the kickback that
defendant Cradduck receives under the commissary agreement.  This
agreement includes a schedule of fees that are involuntarily
charged to inmates for the use (and failure to use) the prepaid
debit card." (Parentheses in complaint.)

Lead plaintiff Yves Adams was arrested in February on suspicion of
public intoxication, according to the complaint. Sheriff's
deputies allegedly seized his $613 in cash.

After spending the night in jail, Adams was issued "an unwanted
prepaid debit card rather than the currency which he legitimately
owned and possessed and which was seized from him by defendant
Cradduck's deputies when he was released from the Benton County
Jail," he claims.

He says he asked for his cash, but the prepaid debit card was "the
only way that he could receive his money . . . under defendant
Cradduck's policy."

"As a result of this policy and practice, the $613 in cash
(currency) that was seized by defendant Cradduck from Mr. Adams
when he was arrested was never returned to him," the lawsuit
states. (Parentheses in complaint.)  "Instead, he was issued a
prepaid debit card in the amount of $613, which he used to
withdraw money from an ATM in order to pay for his bond, a
transaction that improperly and illegally cost him $2.75 according
to the schedule of fees to complete."

The average amount placed on a prepaid debit card upon an inmate's
release from jail is $88.74, according to the lawsuit.

The class seeks punitive damages for alleged civil rights
violations, conversion and trespass.

They are represented by Charles M. Kester and Monzer Mansour of
Fayetteville.


BORGATA HOTEL: Faces Class Action Over Waitresses' "Weigh In"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Borgata Hotel Casino and Spa
makes waitresses -- but not waiters -- "weigh in" and fires them
if they gain more than 7% of their starting body weight, a class
action claims in Atlantic County Court.


BP PLC: Loses Bid to Halt Oil Spill Settlement Payments
-------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal judge has refused BP's request to halt payments to
some businesses allegedly claiming "fictitious losses" from the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  The judge ordered all parties to
adhere to the method he'd established last month for calculating
damages under the $7.8 billion settlement reached last year with
individuals and businesses asserting economic damages caused by
the 2010 spill.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Awaits Ruling in Gas Mismeasurement Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. is still awaiting a court
decision on its motion to dismiss two class action lawsuits
alleging mismeasurement of gas, according to the Company's
March 8, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (CERC Corp.) and certain of its
subsidiaries are defendants in two mismeasurement lawsuits brought
against approximately 245 pipeline companies and their affiliates
pending in state court in Stevens County, Kansas.  In one case
(originally filed in May 1999 and amended four times), the
plaintiffs purport to represent a class of royalty owners who
allege that the defendants have engaged in systematic
mismeasurement of the volume of natural gas for more than 25
years.  The plaintiffs amended their petition in this lawsuit in
July 2003 in response to an order from the judge denying
certification of the plaintiffs' alleged class.  In the amendment,
the plaintiffs dismissed their claims against certain defendants
(including two CERC Corp. subsidiaries), limited the scope of the
class of plaintiffs they purport to represent and eliminated
previously asserted claims based on mismeasurement of the Btu
content of the gas.  The same plaintiffs then filed a second
lawsuit, again as representatives of a putative class of royalty
owners in which they assert their claims that the defendants have
engaged in systematic mismeasurement of the Btu content of natural
gas for more than 25 years.  In both lawsuits, the plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages, along with statutory penalties, treble
damages, interest, costs and fees.  In September 2009, the
district court in Stevens County, Kansas, denied plaintiffs'
request for class certification of their case and, in March 2010,
denied the plaintiffs' request for reconsideration of that order.
In July 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss certain
defendants from both lawsuits, including the remaining CERC Corp.
defendants.

CERC believes that there has been no systematic mismeasurement of
gas and that these lawsuits are without merit.  CERC does not
expect the ultimate outcome of the lawsuits to have a material
impact on its financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.

Houston, Texas-based CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. --
http://www.centerpointenergy.com/-- and its subsidiaries own and
operate natural gas distribution systems in six states.
Subsidiaries of CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (CERC Corp.)
own interstate natural gas pipelines and gas gathering systems and
provide various ancillary services.  A wholly owned subsidiary of
CERC Corp. offers variable and fixed-price physical natural gas
supplies primarily to commercial and industrial customers and
electric and gas utilities.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Petition in Suit Over Gas Markets Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S.
Supreme Court in a lawsuit over the operation of the natural gas
markets in 2000 to 2002 remains pending, according to CenterPoint
Energy Resources Corp.'s March 8, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

CenterPoint Energy, CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC
(CenterPoint Houston) or their predecessor, Reliant Energy,
Incorporated (Reliant Energy), and certain of their former
subsidiaries have been named as defendants in certain lawsuits.
Under a master separation agreement between CenterPoint Energy and
a former subsidiary, RRI (RRI Energy, Inc., Reliant Energy, Inc.
and Reliant Resources, Inc.), CenterPoint Energy and its
subsidiaries are entitled to be indemnified by RRI and its
successors for any losses, including attorneys' fees and other
costs, arising out of these lawsuits.  In May 2009, RRI sold its
Texas retail business to a subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc. (NRG)
and RRI changed its name to RRI Energy, Inc.  In December 2010,
Mirant Corporation merged with and became a wholly owned
subsidiary of RRI, and RRI changed its name to GenOn Energy, Inc.
(GenOn).  In December 2012, NRG acquired GenOn through a merger in
which GenOn became a wholly owned subsidiary of NRG.  None of the
sale of the retail business, the merger with Mirant Corporation,
or the acquisition of GenOn by NRG alters RRI's (now GenOn's)
contractual obligations to indemnify CenterPoint Energy and its
subsidiaries, including CenterPoint Houston, for certain
liabilities, including their indemnification obligations regarding
the gas market manipulation litigation, nor does it affect the
terms of existing guaranty arrangements for certain GenOn gas
transportation contracts.

A large number of lawsuits were filed against numerous gas market
participants in a number of federal and western state courts in
connection with the operation of the natural gas markets in 2000-
2002.  CenterPoint Energy's former affiliate, RRI, was a
participant in gas trading in the California and Western markets.
These lawsuits, many of which were filed as class actions, allege
violations of state and federal antitrust laws.  The Plaintiffs in
these lawsuits are seeking a variety of forms of relief,
including, among others, recovery of compensatory damages (in some
cases in excess of $1 billion), a trebling of compensatory
damages, full consideration damages and attorneys' fees.
CenterPoint Energy and/or Reliant Energy were named in
approximately 30 of these lawsuits, which were instituted between
2003 and 2009.  CenterPoint Energy and its affiliates have since
been released or dismissed from all but two of such cases.

CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc. (CES), a subsidiary of CERC
Corp., is a defendant in a case now pending in federal court in
Nevada alleging a conspiracy to inflate Wisconsin natural gas
prices in 2000-2002.  In July 2011, the court issued an order
dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against the other defendants in
the case, each of whom had demonstrated Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission jurisdictional sales for resale during the relevant
period, based on federal preemption.  The plaintiffs have appealed
this ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  Additionally, CenterPoint Energy was a defendant in a
lawsuit filed in state court in Nevada that was dismissed in 2007,
but in March 2010 the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the
Nevada Supreme Court.  In September 2012, the Nevada Supreme Court
affirmed the dismissal.  In October 2012, the Nevada Supreme Court
granted the plaintiffs' motion to stay the dismissal of this case
pending the filing and final disposition of their petition for a
writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States.

In December 2012, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of
certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States.  On
January 4, 2013, the Supreme Court removed the case from its
docket since the plaintiffs' petition exceeded the applicable word
limit.  In February 2013, the plaintiffs filed a corrected
petition with the Supreme Court.

CenterPoint Energy believes that neither it nor CES is a proper
defendant in these remaining cases and will continue to pursue
dismissal from those cases.  CenterPoint Energy does not expect
the ultimate outcome of these remaining matters to have a material
impact on its financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.

Houston, Texas-based CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. --
http://www.centerpointenergy.com/-- and its subsidiaries own and
operate natural gas distribution systems in six states.
Subsidiaries of CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. (CERC Corp.)
own interstate natural gas pipelines and gas gathering systems and
provide various ancillary services.  A wholly owned subsidiary of
CERC Corp. offers variable and fixed-price physical natural gas
supplies primarily to commercial and industrial customers and
electric and gas utilities.


COMCAST CORP: Jones Day Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------
Paula W. Render, Esq., John M. Majoras, Esq. and Jeffrey A. LeVee,
Esq., at Jones Day write that the U.S. Supreme Court has
reaffirmed that courts must conduct a "rigorous analysis" to
determine whether antitrust class action plaintiffs meet the
requirements for class certification, even when that requires
inquiry into the merits of the underlying claims, and individual
issues of damages may preclude class certification.  The recent
decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, No. 11-864 (U.S. Mar. 27,
2013), affirms that plaintiffs must prove that damages for the
class as certified are in fact capable of proof on a class-wide
basis.

                           Background

Comcast provides cable services to businesses and residences.
Starting in 1998, Comcast began efforts to increase its market
share of cable television services in the Philadelphia Designated
Market Area.  One of these efforts was a "clustering" strategy in
which Comcast purchased competitor cable providers in the
Philadelphia DMA and then swapped their cable systems outside the
region for competitor systems located in the region.  As a result
of nine clustering transactions, Comcast's share of subscribers in
the Philadelphia DMA allegedly increased from 24 percent in 1998
to 70 percent in 2007.

In 2003, the named plaintiffs, subscribers to Comcast's cable-
television services, filed a class action antitrust suit against
Comcast, claiming that Comcast entered into unlawful swap
agreements, in violation of Sherman Act Sec. 1, and monopolized or
attempted to monopolize services in the cluster, in violation of
Sec. 2.  The proposed plaintiff class included nearly all Comcast
non-basic cable television customers in the Philadelphia area
since December 1999, who purportedly paid too much for their
subscriptions as a result of Comcast's conduct.  In 2007, the
District Court certified the proposed class pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), which requires that "questions
of law or fact common to class members predominate over any
questions affecting only individual members."  Following the Third
Circuit's late 2008 decision in In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust
Litigation, the District Court granted Comcast's motion to
reconsider its class certification decision.  In clarifying the
appropriate standard of proof for class certification
determinations in Peroxide, the Third Circuit had stated that it
is proper for a district court to inquire into the merits of a
suit to the extent necessary to determine if a requirement under
Rule 23 is met.

In 2010, following evidentiary hearings and oral argument, the
District Court recertified the proposed class.  In doing so, the
District Court accepted the testimony of plaintiffs' damages
expert and found that plaintiffs had demonstrated that they would
be able to establish antitrust damages for the entire class using
common evidence on a class-wide basis.  However, the District
Court accepted only one of the plaintiffs' four theories of
antitrust impact, namely that Comcast's clustering strategy in the
Philadelphia DMA had deterred the entry of "over builders"
(companies that build competing networks in areas where an
incumbent cable company already operates).  The District Court
certified the class despite the expert's acknowledgement that the
model "did not isolate damages resulting from any one theory of
antitrust impact," but instead included damages for all four
theories of liability, including the three that had been rejected
by the District Court.

A divided panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
On appeal, Comcast argued the class was improperly certified
because the model failed to attribute damages resulting from over
builder deterrence, the only theory of injury remaining in the
case.  The court refused to consider the argument because, in its
view, such an "attac[k] on the merits of the methodology [had] no
place in the class certification inquiry."  The Court of Appeals
emphasized:  "At the class certification stage," plaintiffs were
not required to "tie each theory of antitrust impact to an exact
calculation of damages."  According the court, it had "not reached
the stage of determining on the merits whether the methodology is
a just and reasonable inference or speculative."  Rather, the
court said, plaintiffs must "assure us that if they can prove
antitrust impact, the resulting damages are capable of measurement
and will not require labyrinthine individual calculations."  In
the court's view, that burden was met because plaintiffs' model
calculated "supra-competitive prices regardless of the type of
anticompetitive conduct."  In this respect, the Third Circuit
appeared to go back on its decision in Peroxide, where the Third
Circuit ruled that the decision whether to certify a class
requires a rigorous analysis of the evidence and arguments, which
may include an inquiry into the merits of the claim.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari and, on March 27, 2013, ruled
in favor of Comcast, holding the Third Circuit should have taken a
closer look at the plaintiffs' damages model before certifying the
class.  Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the Third
Circuit's decision contradicted precedents, including the Supreme
Court's 2011 Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes decision, that require
courts facing a class certification question to "probe behind the
pleadings" and conduct a "rigorous analysis" that "will frequently
entail 'overlap with the merits of the plaintiff's underlying
claim.'"

In particular, the Court ruled that courts must conduct a rigorous
analysis to determine whether the damages model supporting
plaintiff's damages theory is consistent with its liability case.
"By refusing to entertain arguments against [plaintiffs'] damages
model that bore on the propriety of class certification simply
because those arguments would also be pertinent to the merits
determination, the Court of Appeals ran afoul of our precedents
requiring precisely that inquiry."  In doing so, it appears that
the Supreme Court affirmed the standard set forth in Peroxide.

In addition, the Supreme Court found that, because only one of
Plaintiffs' theories of antitrust impact had been accepted by the
District Court, a model purporting to serve as evidence of damages
must measure only those damages attributable to that specific
theory.  Since Plaintiffs' expert admitted that his model did not,
the Supreme Court found that Plaintiffs' model "falls far short of
establishing that damages are capable of measurement on a class
wide basis," which precluded Plaintiffs from demonstrating Rule
23(b)(3) predominance.

The Supreme Court thus reversed the Third Circuit's class
certification order.

Importance of Comcast for antitrust class actions
There are some important lessons in the Supreme Court's Comcast
ruling:

District courts facing a class certification question must
undertake a "rigorous analysis" of whether Rule 23(b)(3)'s
predominance requirement is satisfied, even if that analysis
overlaps with the merits of Plaintiffs' underlying claims.

A plaintiff seeking class certification in federal court must
demonstrate that damages can be established on a class-wide basis.
This means that defendants may be able to defeat class
certification by demonstrating individualized proof of damages.

Expert evidence offered by the proponent of class certification
may be insufficient if it is not reasonably tied to plaintiff's
liability theory.

At bottom, the Supreme Court's decision is the latest in a line of
cases from the Supreme Court and lower courts demonstrating that
district courts facing a class certification question must conduct
a rigorous analysis to determine if Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirements
are met, and that individualized proof of damages may preclude
class certification.


CONNAUGHT GROUP: Court Certifies Class in "Schuman" WARN Act Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Judge Stuart M. Bernstein issued a memorandum decision
on April 16, 2013, granting a motion for class certification in
the lawsuit captioned MARTINA SCHUMAN, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE CONNAUGHT GROUP,
LTD., Defendant, Case No. 12-10512 (SMB), Substantively
Consolidated, Adv. Proc. No. 12-01051 (SMB), (S.D.N.Y.).

Ms. Schuman filed the adversary proceeding on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated persons asserting claims under
the Federal and New York State Workers Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Acts.  Ms. Schuman, along with the employment of 67
people at the Company's East 52nd Street facility and
approximately 27 employees at the Company's Long Island City
facility were terminated on January 30, 2012.  According to the
plaintiff, she did not receive at least 60 days' written notice of
termination and neither did any of the other former employees. The
plaintiff calculates that an award of 60 days' pay would come to
$6,720, not including benefits.

The Connaught Group filed Chapter 11 petitions on February 9,
2012, and the Plaintiff commenced the class adversary proceeding
five days later.  The putative class includes Connaught's former
employees "who worked at or reported to one of Defendant's
Facilities and was terminated without cause on or about January
30, 2012, and within 30 days of that date, or was terminated
without cause as the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the
mass layoffs and/or plant closings ordered by Defendant on or
about January 30, 2012."

Representatives of the Plaintiff and the Debtors agreed to stay
the adversary proceeding for 90 days to allow counsel to discuss
the financial condition of the Debtors' estates.  After the
conclusion of the stay, the parties presented a stipulation that
the Court "so ordered," setting a deadline of October 12, 2012,
for the plaintiff to file a motion to certify the class.

The Debtors confirmed a liquidating plan on October 10, 2012, two
days before the deadline for the certification motion. The
plaintiff failed to make the certification motion by the deadline,
and the failure prompted the Trust to move to dismiss the
adversary proceeding for disobeying the scheduling order. The
Court refused to dismiss the Complaint, noting that the
noncompliance with the scheduling order was solely the fault of
the Plaintiff's attorney and the attorney should bear the brunt of
any sanction.

The Plaintiff made the certification motion on December 6, 2012,
approximately seven weeks after the deadline. The Connaught Group
Creditors' Liquidating Trust, the successor to the Debtors under
their confirmed plan, opposes the motion arguing that the
Plaintiff is not an adequate class representative because she
holds, at best, a priority claim, while other members of the class
who were fired after the petition date may hold administrative
claims.

Judge Bernstein granted class certification saying that although
not challenged by the Trust, the plaintiff has satisfied the
requirements for numerosity, FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(1),
commonality, FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(2), and typicality, FED. R.
CIV. P. 23(a)(3).  He further notes that the Debtors' confirmed
plan treats administrative and priority claims in the same manner.
Consequently, the administrative and priority creditors have the
same rights to distribution, and a member of either class can
adequately represent the interests of both classes.

"[I]f I deny the class certification and extend the bar date for
the WARN Act claimants, the delay may be as great or greater than
if I grant the motion," Judge Bernstein added.

Jack A. Raisner, Esq., Rene S. Roupinian, Esq., at Outten & Golden
LLP, at 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor, in New York, represent the
Plaintiff.

Bruce Buechler, Esq.-- bbuechler@lowenstein.com -- Shirley Dai,
Esq. -- sdai@lowenstein.com -- at Lowenstein Sandler LLP, at 1251
Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor, in New York, represent the
Defendant.

A copy of the Bankruptcy Court's April 16, 2013 Memorandum
Decision is available at http://is.gd/5OsCqLfrom Leagle.com.

                      About Connaught Group

The Connaught Group, Ltd. and four of its affiliates, Limited
Editions for Her of Nevada LLC; Limited Editions for Her of
Branson LLC; Limited Editions for Her LLC; and WDR Retail Corp.
filed separate Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
Lead Case No. 12-10512) on Feb. 9, 2012.

New York-based Connaught Group designs and has manufactured high-
end women's wear and then sells the finished clothing through an
innovative sales system outside the normal retail chain originally
created in 1981 by the Debtors' founder and iconic designer,
William D. Rondina.  The Company's sales are made primarily
through independent contractors who sell the clothing to their own
clients in private showings.  Through the Wardrobe Consultants,
the Debtors are able to offer the personalized service and
attention to detail absent from the conventional shopping
experience.  As of the Petition Date, the Debtors are affiliated
with more than 1,300 Wardrobe Consultants.  The Debtors also
operate 10 outlet stores throughout the country, but the Debtors
primarily only sell last season's clothing and other merchandise
to be liquidated at these stores.

A non-debtor Canadian subsidiary, The Connaught Group ULC, sells
the Debtors' clothing in eight outlet stores in Canada.  Three of
the Canadian stores are leased by The Connaught Group, Ltd.

Judge Stuart M. Bernstein presides over the case.  David L.
Barrack, Esq., Paul Jacobs, Esq., and Warren J. Nimetz, Esq., at
Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., serve as the Debtors' counsel.  Maury
Satin at Zygote Associates serves as the CRO.  Richter Consulting
acts as financial advisor and Consensus Advisory Services and
Consensus Securities LLC serve as financial advisors, consultants
and investment bankers.  Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC serves as
administrative agent, and claims and noticing agent.

JPMorgan Chase is represented in the case by Andrew C. Gold, Esq.,
at Herrick, Feinstein LL.  Citibank is represented by Boris I.
Mankovetskiy, Esq., at Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors is represented by
Lowenstein Sandler, PC.

The Connaught Group disclosed $50,644,694 in assets and
$61,303,340 in liabilities.  Limited Editions for Her LLC
disclosed $3,339,174 in assets and $15,888,714 in liabilities.
Limited Editions for Her of Nevada LLC disclosed $979,926 in
assets and $12,395,949 in liabilities.  Limited Editions for Her
of Branson LLC disclosed $3,339,174 in assets and $15,888,714 in
liabilities.  WDR Retail Corp. disclosed $0 in assets and
$12,395,949 in liabilities.  Connaught Group Limited was the 100%
shareholder of each of LEFH Nevada, LEFH Branson, LEFH, and WDR.

On Oct. 10, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Debtors'
Chapter 11 plan, which would pay unsecured creditors as much as
64%.  Unsecured claims were projected to total as much as $20
million.  A joint venture between Royal Spirit Group and Tom James
Co. acquired the Debtors' business in April for $20 million in
cash and assumed the lease for the Debtors' Manhattan
headquarters.  Royal Spirit, a non-insider with the largest claim,
waived a $5.4 million claim.  Secured claims were paid when
the sale was completed.


DAVID LERNER: Court Ruling Highlights Insurance Coverage Limits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Barlyn, writing for Reuters, reports that choosing
professional liability insurance is often a daunting process for
financial advisory firms, leading many to gloss over the fine
print or skimp on coverage.  That can prove to be a costly
misstep.

Coverage limits and exceptions may be tricky to decipher.  What's
more, steep premiums may tempt some firms to buy cheaper, less
comprehensive coverage.

But making a mistake can ultimately leave brokerages and other
investment advisory firms holding the bag for hefty legal expenses
if problems with regulators crop up or clients sue.

A federal court ruling that recently went against David Lerner
Associates, a New York-based brokerage, illustrates what could go
wrong if a firm fails to line up proper coverage.

Judge Joseph Bianco of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York found that the firm's policy from the
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co did not cover claims stemming
from performance of "professional services," according to a March
29 opinion.  The company is a unit of the Philadelphia Insurance
Cos, which is owned by Tokio Marine Holdings Inc.

As a consequence, the court said the insurer had no obligation to
pay for the firm's legal defense in a class action lawsuit and
separate regulatory action that led to a $12 million settlement to
customers who bought into a $2 billion real estate investment
trust.

In essence, the court said the Lerner firm's responsibility to
conduct due diligence on the REITs it sold -- which regulators and
plaintiffs said was not adequate -- was a type of "professional
service" excluded by the coverage.  The insurance covered only
misdeeds by company officials.

Philadelphia Indemnity declined to comment.  A Lerner spokesman
said the firm is considering whether to appeal.

It is uncertain whether Lerner misunderstood its policy or it was
simply trying to save money.  What's clear is that many small
brokerages face challenges when selecting coverage.

Securities industry rules require brokerages to buy a fidelity
bond, insurance that protects customer assets in limited
circumstances, such as employee theft.

But it will not cover legal expenses for regulatory actions or
rulings to pay customers in arbitration and court cases, said Joel
Beck, a Lawrenceville, Georgia, lawyer who advises brokerages on
regulatory issues.

That is when a type of policy known as errors and omissions
coverage, or professional liability insurance, can help.  While no
policy is air-tight, some cover more than others.

Make no mistake, brokerages that commit fraud or illegal acts
should not expect any slack.  "No one is going to insure you for
your own deliberate conduct," said Matthew Farley --
Matthew.Farley@dbr.com -- a lawyer for Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
who advises brokerages on regulatory issues.

But other areas are less clear-cut, and sparring with an insurer
in court after a firm rings up big legal fees is no way to
determine what is covered.  Legal defense bills for a regulatory
enforcement action can set a firm back $500,000 or more, say
lawyers.  And fighting a class-action can run into the millions --
that does not even account for any damage awards.

Certain policies make a poor fit for some firms.  They may
exclude, for example, coverage for selling privately traded
securities, said Jessica Thayer, senior vice president at Theodore
Liftman Insurance Inc., a Boston-based insurance broker.

Brokerages may also need to ask insurers to change certain
boilerplate language, Ms. Thayer said.  The standard policy, for
example, may not spell out that the insurance pays for defense
costs through the final outcome of a legal proceeding.  In many
cases, insurers will agree, she said.

Some firms find insurance contracts so puzzling they decide to
skip professional liability coverage altogether.

For other small brokerages -- typically those with 100 brokers or
less -- high premiums and limits on coverage can deter them from
buying insurance, said Frank Vento, head of the investment
management practice for Marsh Inc., a global insurance broker and
unit of Marsh & McLennan Cos.

Premiums for $1 million of coverage -- the minimum a firm should
consider -- vary depending on many factors but can run as high as
$50,000 per year, said Mr. Vento.  Even then, firms usually have
to pick up the first $100,000 of legal defense costs.  Some small
brokerages are not able to get coverage, depending on factors such
as previous insurance claims, Mr. Vento said.

Premiums generally cost less for registered investment advisers
(RIAs), which typically charge a flat fee for services based on a
client's assets under management.

RIAs that manage $1 billion or less can pay under $20,000 a year
for coverage because their work is typically less risky than
selling individual securities, Mr. Vento said.

That's because RIAs must recommend what is in their clients' best
interests, whereas brokers can recommend what is "suitable" based
on factors such as risk tolerance and age.  But what is "suitable"
may not turn out to be best for clients, leading to more frequent
claims against brokers, say lawyers.

Some smaller firms often cut corners by buying only a policy that
covers misdeeds by the management, known as directors and officers
liability insurance, instead of professional liability coverage
for the firm's actions, said Mr. Vento.  But the potential savings
of tens of thousands of dollars will not matter if coverage does
not kick in when a problem crops up.

The court ruling against David Lerner Associates spotlights those
limits.  The firm had directors and officers insurance but not
professional liability coverage for the matters at issue in its
legal woes, its spokesman said.


DEL MONTE: Judge Consolidates Class Suits Over Dog Treats
---------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge agreed to let one court handle several new class actions
concerning dogs poisoned by Chinese chicken jerky treats sold by
Del Monte subsidiary Milo's Kitchen.

Maxine Ruff, of North Carolina, and Mary Emily Funke, of
California, had each filed separate federal class actions against
Del Monte and Milo's Kitchen in October 2012 after their dogs
became sick and died from eating chicken jerky treats.

The complaints in the Northern District of California accused Del
Monte and Milo's of misrepresenting the treats as wholesome and
nutritious when they knew that the products were actually
contaminated.

Ruff seeks to represent those who bought the treats for their own
or personal, household, or family use, rather than for resale or
distribution, as well as two proposed sub-classes.  Funke seeks to
represent those who bought the treats from 2007 to the present, as
well as four sub-classes.

Del Monte is one of a dozen manufacturers that participated in a
$24 million settlement in 2011 over wet pet food that had
allegedly been contaminated with melamine and cyanuric acid.

That deal, however, did not mark the end to lawsuits against Del
Monte.

Lisa Mazur filed a July 2012 federal class action against Del
Monte and Milo's in the Western District of Pennsylvania.  She
claimed that her healthy 7-year-old dog, Riley Rae, suffered
kidney failure and had to be euthanized after eating Del Monte
treats from time to time for about a month.

Christopher V. Langone filed similar claims in San Francisco in
September, but voluntarily dismissed his case on Feb. 21.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White has agreed to transfer the Ruff
and Funke cases to Pittsburgh where Mazur's is pending.

The chronology of the two actions and the similarity of the
parties and issues favored transferring the case, according to the
judgment.

"Each of these three factors weigh in favor of applying the first-
to-file rule," White wrote.  "First, it is undisputed that the
Mazur case was the first of these three cases filed.  Second,
although there are three different plaintiffs, defendants are
named in all three suits.  Further, all three plaintiffs bring
their claims on behalf of nationwide classes that are
substantially similar in scope.  Thus, the parties are
substantially similar.  Third, the issues in each of the three
cases are similar.  Each of the three cases raise similar claims
based on allegations that the defendants misrepresented the
wholesome nature of the dog treats and failed to adequately warn
consumers of the alleged dangers involved."

The case met all convenience factors for transfer, as well.

"The court is aware that, in its discretion, it could relax the
first-to-file rule if the traditional Section 1404(a) factors
weighed against transfer," White wrote.

Noting "the potential for conflicting rulings, duplicative
discovery, and the potential costs to the parties and to potential
witnesses," White said the court would not "exercise its
discretion to relax the first-to-file rule in this case."

White said the defendants can try again to consolidate or dismiss
the action in Pennsylvania.


FINISAR CORP: Renews Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Finisar Corporation has filed a renewed motion to dismiss a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in
California, according to the Company's March 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended January 27, 2013.

Several securities class action lawsuits related to the Company's
March 8, 2011 earnings announcement alleging claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 have been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a purported class of persons
who purchased stock between December 1 or 2, 2010, through March
8, 2011.  The named defendants are the Company and its Chairman of
the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer.
To date, no specific amount of damages has been alleged.  The
cases have been consolidated, lead plaintiffs have been appointed
and a consolidated complaint has been filed.  The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the case.

On January 16, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss and granted the lead plaintiffs leave to amend
the consolidated complaint.  An amended consolidated complaint was
filed February 6, 2013.

The Company has filed a renewed motion to dismiss the case and
this motion is pending.

Finisar Corporation was incorporated in Delaware and headquartered
in Sunnyvale, California.  The Company is a provider of optical
subsystems and components that are used in data communication and
telecommunication applications.


GERBINGS LLC: Recalls 9,900 Heated Jacket Liners Due to Burn Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Gerbings, LLC, of Stoneville, North Carolina, announced a
voluntary recall of about 9,900 12-volt heated jacket liners.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

A defective wire connector can cause the jacket liner to overheat,
posing a burn hazard to consumers.

Gerbings has received two reports of the jacket liners
overheating, causing minor dime-sized burns to consumers' backs,
resulting in blisters.

This recall involves Gerbings and Harley-Davidson(R) black nylon,
12-volt, heated jacket liners.  The jacket liners heat up when
plugged into a vehicle, such as a motorcycle or snowmobile.
"Gerbing's Heated Clothing" or "Harley Davidson(R)" is printed on
the front left chest of the jacket liners.  The Gerbing's jacket
liners have model number JKLN and PO# 3796 and Harley-Davidson(R)
jackets have model number 98324-09VM and GM32873, GM32874,
GM34188, GM34189, GM34190 or GM34191.  The model number, PO number
and "Use only 12 Volts" are printed on a label sewn inside next to
the jacket liner's front zipper.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at: http://is.gd/6ZdXTP

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Harley-Davidson(R) dealerships, Eagle Leather and other sporting
goods, retail stores and motorcycle shops nationwide from April
2011 through December 2012 for between $200 and $240.

Consumers should immediately stop using the jacket liners and
contact Gerbings, LLC for a free repair or replacement liner.
Gerbings LLC may be reached toll-free at (877) 242-5595 from 8:00
a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday and on
Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Harley-
Davidson(R) at (800) 258-2464 from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Central
Time Monday through Friday, or online at http://www.gerbing.com/
and click on the Recalls & Warnings link for more information.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Defends Product Liability Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
GlaxoSmithKline plc is defending itself and its subsidiaries from
class action lawsuits alleging product liability, according to the
Company's March 8, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

Pre-clinical and clinical trials are conducted during the
development of potential pharmaceutical, vaccine and consumer
healthcare products to determine the safety and efficacy of the
products for use by humans following approval by regulatory
authorities.  Notwithstanding the efforts GlaxoSmithKline plc and
its subsidiaries (the "Group") make to determine the safety of its
products through regulated clinical trials, unanticipated side
effects may become evident only when drugs and vaccines are widely
introduced into the marketplace.

In other instances, third-parties may perform analyses of
published clinical trial results which, although not necessarily
accurate or meaningful, may raise questions regarding the safety
of pharmaceutical, vaccine or consumer healthcare products which
may be publicized by the media and may result in product liability
claims.  The Group is currently a defendant in a substantial
number of product liability lawsuits, including class actions,
that involve significant claims for damages related to the Group's
pharmaceutical and consumer healthcare products.  The Company says
litigation, particularly in the U.S., is inherently unpredictable.
Class actions that sweep together all persons who were prescribed
the Group's products can inflate the potential liability by the
force of numbers.  Claims for pain and suffering and punitive
damages are frequently asserted in product liability actions and,
if allowed, can represent potentially open ended exposure and,
thus, could materially and adversely affect the Group's financial
results.

Based in Brentford, England, GlaxoSmithKline plc is a
pharmaceutical firm with products including central nervous system
therapies, respiratory and cardiovascular drugs, and antivirals,
as well as vaccines.  The Company's top product is asthma
medication Advair, which combines two of the Company's other
products, Flovent and Serevent.


GOOGLE INC: AdWords Class Suit Survives Dismissal Bid
-----------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that Google
cannot scuttle a class action over allegedly unfair pricing
practices connected to its advertising service, AdWords, a federal
judge ruled.

Lead plaintiff and Arkansas attorney Rick Woods said he pulled the
plug on his account after 17 months because Google denied him
certain discounts, placed his advertising on websites he found ill
suited, and failed to restrict the ads to predesignated
geographical locations.

AdWords allows users to display advertisements on Google and other
websites that belong to Google's partners, charging the advertiser
a fee for each ad "click," Woods explained in his 2011 complaint.
Though the service offers a discount feature called Smart Pricing,
Woods said Google failed to apply the discount formula to about 60
percent of the "Display Network" clicks his ads received.  Woods
filed a second amended complaint in 2012, paring his original nine
claims down to four: breach of contract, bad faith, violation of
the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and violation of the
California False Advertising Law.

Google then moved to dismiss, but U.S. District Judge Edward
Davila upheld most claims in San Jose, Calif.

"The court finds that Woods has sufficiently alleged that in
several instances Google failed to Smart Price on the Display
Network, thus constituting a breach of the agreement," Davila
wrote.

Woods can also advance his claim for breach of implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, according to the ruling.  He had
claimed that the Smart Price failures amounted to fraudulent,
unfair and unlawful business practices of the UCL, but Davila said
the complaint failed to meet the standards of the last prong.

"Woods has not "identified a statute independent of the UCL which
he claims that Google has violated so as to underlie his
'unlawful' UCL claim," the ruling states.  "Accordingly, Woods has
not sufficiently pleaded a violation of the UCL's 'unlawful'
prong."

Davila dismissed that claim with prejudice but preserved Woods'
false-advertising claim as well as his claim that the geographic
or location targeting failures amounted to a UCL violation.

The parties face a case-management conference on May 17.


HUFFY CORP: Recalls 5,040 2012 Huffy(R) 20-Inch Slider Tricycles
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Huffy Corp. of Centerville, Ohio, announced a voluntary recall of
about 5,040 2012 Huffy(R) 20-Inch Slider Tricycles.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The handlebar can unexpectedly loosen while in use, causing the
rider to lose control.  This poses crash and fall hazards for the
rider.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The recalled product is 2012 model year 20-inch, three-wheeled
Slider.  The tricycle has a white frame with a black seat and
black handlebars.  "Huffy" is printed on the front of the frame;
"Slider" is printed on the frame's side.  The model number, 98682,
is located on the frame under the seat.  Picture of the recalled
products is available at: http://is.gd/ynB0Ah

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Toys R Us nationwide from January 2013 through
February 2013 for about $100.

Consumers should immediately stop using the tricycle and contact
Huffy for instructions on how to obtain a refund.  Huffy may be
reached toll-free at (888) 366-3828 from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Eastern Time Monday through Friday or online at
http://www.huffybikes.com/and click on "Product Recall" on the
bottom of the page.


INTEGRITY STAFFING: 9th Cir. Reinstates Warehouse Workers' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that warehouse workers
who filled Amazon orders do not face a conflict in pursuing class
and collective claims over unpaid security checks, the 9th Circuit
ruled.

Jesse Busk and Laurie Castro, both of Nevada, worked in Las Vegas-
area warehouses of Integrity Staffing Solutions where they filled
orders for Amazon.com.  Every day at quitting time, Integrity
forced the workers to wait in a long line while each employee was
thoroughly searched and walked through a metal detector.

Integrity said that the searches were necessary to cut down on
employee theft.  The checks could take nearly half an hour at the
end of the working day and the employees were not paid for the
time.

Busk and Castro filed a federal class action against Integrity in
2010, alleging that the unpaid security sweeps violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state law.  They also claimed
that the company refused to pay them for their 30-minute lunches,
10 minutes of which they spent walking to and from a cafeteria and
going through a security check.  Even at lunch managers allegedly
harassed them to "finish their meal period quickly so that they
would clock back in on time," the plaintiffs claimed, as it took
about 10 minutes out of their lunchtime to do so.

U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt dismissed the case after finding
that the plaintiffs had failed to state a valid claim for
compensation.  Hunt cited several out-of-circuit cases in finding
that time spent going through security does not qualify for
compensation under the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947.  Hunt also
found that the state-law claims presented conflicting class
certification mechanisms since plaintiffs must opt into a
collective action under FLSA, plaintiffs must opt out of a class
action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit partly reversed that
ruling, saying "such actions can peacefully coexist."  Turning to
the merits, the panel also found no issue with the Portal-to-
Portal Act, which amended FLSA to generally preclude compensation
for activities that are "preliminary" or "postliminary" to the
"principal activity or activities" that the employee "is employed
to perform."

This act contains an exception the act gives for such activities
that are "integral and indispensable" to an employee's principal
duties, according to the ruling.

"Here, Busk and Castro have alleged that Integrity requires the
security screenings, which must be conducted at work," Judge
Sidney Thomas wrote for the panel.  "They also allege that the
screenings are intended to prevent employee theft -- a plausible
allegation since the employees apparently pass through the
clearances only on their way out of work, not when they enter.  As
alleged, the security clearances are necessary to employees'
primary work as warehouse employees and done for Integrity's
benefit.  Assuming, as we must, that these allegations are true,
the plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim for relief."

The employees cannot claim, however, that their lunch breaks
violated federal labor law, according to the ruling.  The Fair
Labor and Standards Act does not require employers to pay their
workers for lunch breaks, and the plaintiffs failed to show that
they were made to do work during their lunch breaks, according to
the ruling.

"The relatively minimal time expended on the clearance in this
context differs from the 25-minute delay alleged for employees
passing through security at day's end," Thomas wrote.

State law may still provide relief for the workers, however,
"Nevada Revised Statute S 608.140 does provide a private right of
action to recoup unpaid wages."

"The plaintiffs raised for the first time on appeal their argument
that Nevada defines 'work' differently than federal law, such that
their lunch periods might be compensable under state law even if
they were not compensable under federal law," Thomas wrote.

"Because the district court has not considered this argument, we
remand for it to do so in the first instance."


JOHN MALLOZZI: Faces Suit Over Violating Tip-Appropriation Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marlene Kennedy at Courthouse News Service reports that a class
action claims an upstate New York restaurant and caterer cheated
its workers out of more than $1 million in tips.  The defendants
added a 20 percent "service personnel charge" to all its banquet
hall bills, but servers never saw dime one of it, lead plaintiff
Ryan Picard claims in Albany County Supreme Court.  Picard claims
the family-owned businesses ran the game for 6 years, at the
expense of more than 100 workers.

Named as defendants are six entities associated with the Mallozzi
family of suburban Schenectady, who operate bakery, restaurant,
hotel and catering businesses in Albany and Schenectady counties.

Defendants John and Joseph Mallozzi run the day-to-day operations,
which date back to the opening of an Italian bakery in the 1960s.
The family offers banquet services at country club and golf course
clubhouses, and at the Italian American Community Center in
Albany, which a local business newspaper ranked as among the
leading meeting and banquet venues in the area.

Picard, who worked as a Mallozzi server for nearly two years,
claims the defendants violated New York's tip-appropriation law.
The law says employers cannot "demand or accept, directly or
indirectly, any part of the gratuities received by an employee, or
retain any part of a gratuity or of any charge purported to be a
gratuity for an employee."

Picard says servers were paid a flat hourly rate and got none of
the surcharge.  A "reasonable customer" would have believed the
surcharge to be a gratuity, he says in the complaint.

And, Picard says, if customers asked if the waiters and waitresses
got tips, they were ordered "to respond, as instructed by
defendants, that they did receive tips."

"By defendants' knowing or intentional demand for, acceptance of,
and/or retention of the mandatory charges paid by customers when
contracting with defendants, when such customers were led to
believe that such mandatory charges would be paid to plaintiff,
defendants have willfully violated" New York law, the complaint
states.

Picard seeks class certification, restitution of the tips, and
costs.  He also seeks an injunction barring the Mallozzi
businesses from continuing the surcharge.

Picard is represented by D. Maimon Kirschenbaum with Joseph &
Kirschenbaum, of New York City.

Here are the defendants: Bigsbee Enterprises Inc. dba Mallozzi's
Restaurant; Fairway View LLC dba The Clubhouse at Western
Turnpike; JRC of Rotterdam LLC; Golden Toque Inc.; Mallozzi
Distributing LLC dba Mallozzi's at Colonie Country Club; Morelli
Importers and Distributors LLC; The Mallozzi Group LLC; John
Mallozzi; and Joseph Mallozzi.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Action Over "Anti-Gravity" Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Johnson & Johnson
fraudulently claims its LIFT products have "anti-gravity" effects
on skin, a class action claims in Superior Court


MEDIACOM LLC: "Ogg" Class Suit Filed in Missouri Now Concluded
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Gary Ogg and Janice Ogg v.
Mediacom LLC is now concluded, according to the Company's
March 8, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company was named as a defendant in the putative class action,
captioned Gary Ogg and Janice Ogg v. Mediacom LLC, originally
filed in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, in April
2001.  The lawsuit alleged that the Company, in areas where there
was no cable franchise, failed to obtain permission from
landowners to place the Company's fiber interconnection cable
notwithstanding the possession of agreements or permission from
other third parties.

In 2009, a jury trial commenced solely for the claim of Gary and
Janice Ogg, the designated class representatives, and the jury
rendered a verdict in favor of Gary and Janice Ogg setting
compensatory damages of $8,863 and punitive damages of $35,000.
The Court did not enter a final judgment on this verdict and
therefore, the amount of the verdict could not at that time be
judicially collected.

On April 22, 2011, the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri,
issued an opinion and order decertifying the class in this
putative class action.  On August 7, 2012, the Missouri Court of
Appeals, Western District affirmed the court's decertification of
the class and reversed the court's refusal to award prejudgment
interest on the Ogg judgment.  The Missouri Supreme Court refused
to review the Missouri Court of Appeals decision, which is now
final.

In February 2013, the Company made a payment of approximately
$55,000 to Gary and Janice Ogg, thereby concluding this case.

Mediacom LLC -- http://www.mediacomcc.com/-- a New York limited
liability company wholly owned by Mediacom Communications
Corporation, is involved in the acquisition and operation of cable
systems serving smaller cities and towns in the United States.
The Company is headquartered in Middletown, New York.


MICHAEL ENGELMAN: Faces Class Action Over Mislabeled Kosher Food
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that two class
actions claim that a private eye discovered, and videotaped, a
kosher butcher delivering non-kosher food to his market.  Two
class actions and a third, individual complaint, were filed
against Michael Engelman and Doheny Glatt Kosher Meat Market, in
Superior Court.

Engelman owns and runs the kosher market on West Pico Boulevard.
The allegations in this complaint come from lead plaintiff Joshua
Fard's class action.

The Rabbinical Counsel of California revoked the market's kosher
certification this month after (nonparty) private investigator
Eric Agaki's March 7 video surfaced on a local news station,
according to the Los Angeles Times.

Fard says in his complaint: "The certification was revoked when
Michael Engelman was allegedly videotaped by a private
investigator unloading boxes of food into the store without the
supervision of the kosher overseer or mashgiach."

Glatt is German and Yiddish for "smooth." Glatt kosher foods
conform to the Jewish Halakhic regulations of kosher meat, which
required that the internal organs be smooth and unblemished.

Glatt kosher meat is more expensive than nonkosher, or treif,
meat.

Fard and the other plaintiffs claim the events captured on video
were "not an isolated incident but in fact it was the custom and
practice of defendants to advertise their products as 'glatt
kosher' when in fact they were not, thus commanding higher
prices."

Fard claims his unwitting consumption of treif meat caused him
continuing "extreme emotional anguish, mental suffering,
headaches, nausea, loss of sleep, mental anguish, stress, anxiety
and tension.

A second class action also names the Rabbinical Council of
California as a defendant.

This complaint, from lead plaintiff Mehri Kohan-Ghadosh, claims
the Rabbinical Council "was negligent in inspecting and certifying
food products sold by defendants Doheny in certifying as glatt
kosher food products which do not meet the standards for such a
designation."  It adds: "Such negligence includes inspectors
falling asleep during the period of inspection such that food
products were mislabeled as glatt kosher.

"Plaintiffs suffered property damage in that they were required by
the tenants of their religion to destroy their dinnerware and
cutlery which had come in contact with non-kosher meat."

Agaki told the Times he investigated Engelmen at the behest of a
rabbi who suspected Doheny of undercutting other Kosher meat
markets.

The video aired on Los Angeles station KTLA and is still online.

It depicts an alleged colleague of Engelman's loading a car with
repacked glatt kosher boxes.  He takes them to Engelman at a
McDonald's.

The plaintiffs claim that Engelman then is depicted unloading them
into his market without an overseer.  The plaintiffs seek damages
for negligence, unfair competition, false advertising, and
intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Fard is represented by Raymond Zolehian with Hanasab & Zolekhian.

Kohan-Ghadosh is represented by Andre Jardini with Knapp, Petersen
& Clarke, of Glendale.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Concussion Injury Litigation Goes to Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Jill Lieber Steeg, writing for U-T San Diego, reports that after
nearly two years of a seemingly endless stream of lawsuits piling
up in the NFL Concussion Injury Litigation, the first oral
arguments was set to be heard April 9 by Judge Anita B. Brody in
the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in
Philadelphia, in what is now considered to be the largest class-
action lawsuit in sports history.

Billions of dollars in potential damages -- and the future of the
sport of football -- are at stake.

According to the NFL Concussion Injury Litigation database,
compiled by the Washington Times, to date there are 4,286 named
player-plaintiffs in 226 lawsuits, including 308 former San Diego
Chargers, suing the NFL, accusing the league of purposely
concealing known medical information that linked football-related
concussions and chronic brain trauma to permanent brain injuries.

Many of those named player-plaintiffs, retired NFL players who are
living or deceased, and their spouses, claim that because of the
chronic brain trauma they sustained while playing football, they
now suffer from depression, dementia, Alzheimer's disease and
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) and/or are at increased risk
of experiencing impulsive, destructive and suicidal behaviors.

The massive class-action litigation also includes two wrongful
death lawsuits brought by the family of Junior Seau, the former
Chargers linebacker who died May 2 of a self-inflicted gunshot
wound at the age of 43.  Eight months after Mr. Seau's death,
neuropathologists reported that they'd discovered chronic
traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in his brain tissue.

His children Tyler, Sydney, Jake and Hunter, along with Bette
Hoffman, the former director of the Junior Seau Foundation and the
trustee of Mr. Seau's estate, filed a wrongful-death suit against
the NFL and official helmet maker Riddell on Jan. 23 in California
Superior Court in San Diego.  A day later, Mr. Seau's parents,
Tiaina and Luisa, filed a wrongful-death suit against the NFL and
Riddell, also in Superior Court in San Diego.

Although Mr. Seau never was diagnosed with a concussion, his
survivors allege that throughout his 20-year NFL career with the
Chargers, Miami Dolphins and New England Patriots, he sustained
violent hits that caused traumatic brain injury, depression,
insomnia, alcoholism, sex and gambling addiction, emotional
detachment from his children, violent mood swings, inexplicable
personality change and, ultimately, his untimely death.

"This success comes at a price to the players who make the game
great," Mr. Seau's parents said in their lawsuit.

The two Seau wrongful death lawsuits seek an unspecified monetary
amount for compensatory and other damages.

According to Nathan Fenno, the reporter in charge of the
Washington Times database, Tiaina and Luisa Seau are believed to
be the only parents to have filed a wrongful-death suit against
the NFL and Riddell and, thus, the only parents involved in the
massive class-action suit against the NFL.

Tiaina and Luisa Seau's suit claims that at the time of their
son's death they were "dependent upon him for the necessities of
life, including food, clothing, shelter and medical treatment." As
a direct result of his death, Mr. Seau's parents claim that they
have been "deprived of the earnings, financial security,
maintenance, guidance, support, companionship and comfort that
they would have received for the rest of their natural lives."


NEW YORK: Former NYPD Chief Testifies in Stop-and Frisk Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
New York Law Journal reports that testifying at a trial where
plaintiffs are attempting to prove the New York Police Department
has an intentional, top-down directed policy of stopping hundreds
of thousands of minority New Yorkers without reasonable suspicion
of criminal activity, former Chief of Department Joseph Esposito
insisted that racial profiling never came up during regular crime
control meetings of NYPD top officials and precinct commanders.


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Still Awaits Order on Suit Dismissal Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On October 26, 2011, the first of several putative class action
complaints was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against OmniVision Technologies,
Inc., and three of its executives, one of whom is a director.  All
of three complaints alleged that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by making misleading statements or
omissions regarding the Company's business and financial results,
in particular regarding the use of its imaging sensors in Apple
Inc.'s iPhone.  These actions have been consolidated as In re
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. Litigation, Case No. 11-cv-5235
(RMW) (the "Securities Case").  On April 23, 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a consolidated complaint on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between August 27, 2010,
and November 6, 2011, seeking unspecified damages.  On June 25,
2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint.
The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this
action and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor
estimate the loss or a range of possible loss.

No further updates were reported in the Company's March 8, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended January 31, 2013.

OmniVision Technologies, Inc., designs, develops and markets high-
performance, highly integrated and cost-efficient semiconductor
image-sensor devices.  The Company's main products, image-sensing
devices referred to as CameraChip(TM) image sensors, capture an
image electronically and are used in a number of consumer and
commercial mass-market applications.


PATHEON INC: Defends Suits Over Recall of Defective Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Patheon Inc. is defending itself and a customer against lawsuits
over recall of defective products, according to the Company's
March 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January 31, 2013.

A putative class action and two individual plaintiff actions are
pending in the United States against one of the Company's
customers in connection with the recall of certain lots of
allegedly defective products manufactured by the Company for the
customer.  The Company has also been named in the putative class
action and in one of the individual plaintiff actions.  The
customer has given the Company notice of its intent to seek
indemnification from the Company for all damages, costs and
expenses, pursuant to the manufacturing services agreement between
the customer and the Company.  As these cases are at an early
stage, the Company is unable to estimate the number of potential
claimants or the amount of potential damages for which the Company
may be directly or indirectly liable in the actions.

Patheon Inc. is a provider of contract manufacturing and
development services to the global pharmaceutical industry,
offering a wide range of services from developing drug candidates
at the pre-formulation stage through the launch, commercialization
and production of approved drugs.  The Company is based in Durham,
North Carolina.


PLAZA MEXICO: To Be Reinstated as Defendant in Workers' FLSA Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Two related actions were filed by current and former "front-of-
the-house workers" and "back-of-the house workers" of "Mama Mexico
restaurants" in 2009.  The actions allege various violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-219,
and state laws by corporate employers Plaza Mexico, Inc.,
Piramides Mayas Inc., Mama Mexico Midtown Realty LLC, Shaddai Inc,
Mama Mexico Englewood Realty LLC and their two officers, Juan
Rojas Campos and Laura Chavez.

Plaza Mexico filed for Chapter 11 in December 2009. The assigned
district judge directed the Plaintiffs to file a motion to sever
Plaza Mexico, which was granted.  The assigned district judge
stated that the Plaintiffs have 20 days to amend their complaints,
without prejudice to reinstating Plaza Mexico as a named
defendant, depending on the outcome of the Bankruptcy Court
proceedings.

On October 6, 2010, the plaintiffs filed their amended complaints:

* TERESA LARA BENAVIDEZ, MARIA DE LOURDES GALVEZ, JAMIE HUERTA,
  FLORA ZURITA, MARIA DE LOURDES VASCONEZ ALARCON, LABRARMY
  GARCIA, and ESTEBAN NADER, on behalf of themselves and all
  others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PIRAMIDES MAYAS INC.,
  MAMA MEXICO MIDTOWN REALTY LLC, SHADDAI INC., MAMA MEXICO
  ENGLEWOOD REALTY LLC, JUAN ROJAS CAMPOS, and LAURA CHAVEZ,
  Defendants, No. 09 Civ. 5076 (KNF), (S.D.N.Y.).

* GUILLERMO PAEZ, EMILIANO ESPINOZA, and PEDRO NASARIO, on behalf
  of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
  v. PIRAMIDES MAYAS INC., MAMA MEXICO MIDTOWN REALTY LLC, SHADDAI
  INC., MAMA MEXICO ENGLEWOOD REALTY LLC, JUAN ROJAS CAMPOS, and
  LAURA CHAVEZ, Defendants, No. 09 Civ. 9574 (KNF), (S.D.N.Y.)

The magistrate judge authorized the FLSA collective action notice
on June 29, 2011. The notices to potential plaintiffs were mailed
on August 5, 2011, making November 3, 2011, the last day to
postmark signed opt-in consent forms to join the lawsuits.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on
December 16, 2011, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of
Civil procedure, against Piramides, Shaddai and Campos.  On
February 15, 2012, the magistrate judge granted the plaintiffs'
motion, finding that: (a) the "Defendants failed to pay overtime,
spread-of-hours pay, and uniform-related pay, including
reimbursement for purchasing and maintaining uniforms"; (b) the
"Defendants failed to inform Plaintiffs of the minimum wage laws,
their relation to the tip credit, and of their intention to take a
tip credit"; (c) the Defendants' violations were willful; (d) the
plaintiffs are entitled to liquidated damages under both FLSA and
New York law; and (e) Campos is the plaintiffs' employer under
FLSA.

Although the magistrate judge noted in a footnote that, "with
respect to the corporate Defendants, [the plaintiffs] contend that
they are in default," he did not make any determination on that
issue.

In May 2012, the Plaintiffs made a motion for an award of damages,
attorneys' fees and costs against Piramides, Shaddai and Campos.
Thereafter, the cases were reassigned to Magistrate Judge Kevin
Nathaniel Fox.  A damages inquest hearing was conducted on October
16 and 24, 2012.

On November 30, 2012, the plaintiffs requested that the Clerk of
Court "enter the attached Certificate of Default against
Defendants Piramides Mayas Inc., Mama Mexico Midtown Realty LLC,
Shaddai Inc., and Mama Mexico Englewood Realty LLC."  On the same
day, the Clerk of Court entered the default of the "Corporate
Defendants," based on their failure to engage counsel by December
5, 2011.

On March 6, 2013, the Court raised certain issues of concern with
the plaintiffs, namely: (a) the liability of Mama Mexico Midtown,
Mama Mexico Englewood and Chavez; (b) the exact number of opt-in
plaintiffs; (c) the status of an opt-in plaintiff, Kevin Santa;
and (d) the late opt-in notices.

On March 13, 2013, the Plaintiffs made a motion for judgment by
default, pursuant to Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, against Mama Mexico Midtown and Mama Mexico Englewood.
On the same date, the plaintiffs submitted a letter to the Court,
stating that: (i) the "correct number of Plaintiffs is seventy-
four"; (ii) the opt-in plaintiff Kevin Santa was reinstated after
he was erroneously terminated; and (iii) opt-in consent notices
for five plaintiffs should be deemed timely submitted; and (iv)
although Juan Chino and Nestor Sanchez did not submit timely opt-
in consent forms, the Court should exercise its discretion to
extend their filing deadlines.

The Plaintiffs made a "Motion to Amend the Complaints to Reinstate
Plaza Mexico, Inc. as a Defendant, . . . pursuant to Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), 20(a)(2), and 21," on March 19, 2013,
because the Bankruptcy Court dismissed Plaza Mexico's petition on
March 6, 2013. Thereafter, the plaintiffs made a motion to dismiss
claims against Laura Chavez.

On April 16, 2013, Magistrate Judge Fox ruled that the amended
complaints supersede the third-amended complaint and the first-
amended complaint; and the February 15, 2012 Memorandum and
Opinion and Order granting partial summary judgment to the
plaintiffs, based on the superseded complaints, is void.

Magistrate Judge Fox granted the Plaintiffs' motion to amend the
complaints, and directed the Plaintiffs to file and serve the
amended complaints on all Defendants named in the amended
complaints.

The Court further held that the Plaintiffs' motions for judgment
by default; to dismiss claims against Laura Chavez; and for an
award of damages, attorneys' fees and costs, are moot.

A copy of the Court's April 16, 2013 Memorandum and Order is
available at http://is.gd/kY5Wutfrom Leagle.com.


PRIME FOOD: Recalls Latis Herring and Salmon Fillet Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Prime Food USA, at 50st & 1st Ave Building # 57, in Brooklyn, New
York 11232, is recalling Latis Brand Herring Fillet "Matiej",
Salmon Fillet Slices and Herring Fillet "Forelka" in Oil due to
contamination with listeria monocytogenes.  Listeria can cause
serious complications for pregnant women, such as stillbirth.
Other problems can manifest in people with compromised immune
systems.  Listeria can also cause serious flu-like symptoms in
healthy individuals.

The recalled Latis Brand Herring Fillet "Matiej" is packaged in
17.64 oz (500 grams) in plastic containers.  The 17.64 oz (500
gram) container has a partial code: 01.14 and UPC Number
7541004076916.  Salmon Fillet Slices packaged in 7.5 oz plastic
container and has a code 15.07.13(17JL), Herring Fillet "Forelka"
in Oil 11.64 oz (330 gram) is packaged in plastic oval type
containers.  The 11.64 oz (330 gram) container has a code
07.01.14(09JR).  The products were sold in New York State.  They
are products of Latvia.  Pictures of the recalled products' labels
are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm348515.htm

The recall initiated after routine sampling by New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel
found the product to be positive for Listeria monocytogenes.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.  Consumers who have purchased Latis Brand Herring Fillet
"Forelka" in Oil, Herring Fillet "Matiej"and Salmon Fillet Slices
should not consume it, but should return it to the place of
purchase.  Consumers with questions may contact the Company at
718-439-0376.


RJ REYNOLDS: Tobacco Cos. Accountable for Conspiracy, Jurors Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn E. Barnett of the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, announced April 19 that a jury
in federal court in Florida Thursday returned a verdict of $5.9 in
compensatory damages against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company to
Thelma Ruth Aycock for the wrongful death of her husband of 53
years, Richard "Buck" Aycock.

Earlier, on April 1, 2013, another jury in federal court in
Florida also held R.J. Reynolds, along with Philip Morris USA,
Inc., liable for the wrongful death of Carol LaSard.  The jury
awarded $26 million in damages to Mrs. LaSard's daughter Cheryl
Searcy, as representative of Mrs. LaSard's estate.  The verdict
included $20 million in punitive damages.

"We are honored to have represented the families of Mr. Aycock and
Mrs. LaSard in their courageous and hard-fought efforts to hold
the cigarette companies accountable for decades of deceit and
manipulation," stated Ms. Barnett.  "We are grateful that the
juries delivered justice and have allowed closure for both
families."

"The jury held R. J. Reynolds responsible for its choices," stated
Norwood S. "Woody" Wilner of the Wilner Firm, P.A.  "This victory
is significant not just for the Aycock family, but also for the
hundreds and hundreds of other families who have been harmed by
the same conduct and are still awaiting their day in court."
Mr. Aycock began smoking cigarettes in his late teens in the
1930s.  He smoked two to three packs of cigarettes a day for more
than five decades and was unable to stop due to his nicotine
addiction.  Mr. Aycock died from lung cancer, leaving behind his
wife, children and grandchildren.

Mrs. LaSard began smoking cigarettes as a teenager in the late
1940s, triggering a lifelong addition to nicotine until she died
from lung cancer in 1996.  Mrs. LaSard tried to quit smoking
numerous times during her lifetime, including under the care of a
physician and with nicotine gum and patches, yet was never
successful.  Her addiction was so great that she was unable to
quit smoking successfully even after she was hospitalized and
underwent painful treatment for her lung cancer.

Mrs. LaSard smoked cigarettes marketed as "filtered" and "low
tar," believing they were safer when, as the cigarette company
defendants knew, these cigarettes were no safer.  Commenting on
the trial, Cheryl Searcy stated, "It was an extremely powerful
experience to tell the story of how my mother struggled for
decades to overcome her nicotine addiction and was unsuccessful.
She was a warm, loving mother and grandmother whose golden years
were taken away by cigarettes and cancer.  I hope the cigarette
companies will finally stop hurting people and that this case
makes a difference for other families."

Kathryn E. Barnett, Sarah R. London and Kenneth S. Byrd of Lieff
Cabraser represented the LaSard family at trial.  Mrs. Aycock's
counsel at trial was Norwood S. "Woody" Wilner and Richard
Lantinberg of the Wilner Firm, P.A., and Lieff Cabraser's Kenneth
S. Byrd.


SPARK NETWORKS: Defends "Kirby" Class Action Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Networks USA, LLC is defending a class action lawsuit
brought by Kristina Kirby, et al., according to the Company's
March 8, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On October 16, 2012, Kristina Kirby, Christopher Wagner and Jamie
Carper (collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs"), on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated, filed a putative
class action Complaint, captioned Kirby, et al. v. Spark Networks
USA, LLC, in the Superior Court for the State of California,
County of Los Angeles (Case No. BC493892) alleging claims against
Spark Networks USA, LLC for violations of California Business &
Professions Code section 17529.5.  Plaintiffs allege that certain
e-mail communications advertising Web sites of Spark Networks USA,
LLC and received by Plaintiffs violate a California statute
prohibiting false and deceptive e-mail communications (namely,
California Business & Professions Code section 17529.5).  The
Plaintiffs generally allege that they seek damages in excess of
$25,000.

The Company says it intends to defend vigorously against the
lawsuit.  However, no assurance can be given that these matters
will be resolved in the Company's favor and, depending on the
outcome of these lawsuits, the Company may choose to alter its
business practices.

Headquartered in Beverly Hills, California, Spark Networks USA,
LLC -- http://www.spark.net/-- is a global media business,
focused on creating iconic niche-focused brands that build and
strengthen the communities they serve.  The Company's core
properties are primarily online singles desktop and mobile Web
sites that enable adults to meet, participate in a community and
form relationships with like-minded individuals.


SUPPORT.COM INC: Awaits Final Okay of Consumer Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Support.com, Inc. is awaiting final approval of its settlement of
a class action lawsuit alleging that the design of one its
software products and the method of promotion to consumers
constitute fraudulent inducement, according to the Company's March
8, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended December 31, 2012.

On February 7, 2012, a lawsuit seeking class-action certification
was filed against the Company in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, No. 12-CV-00609, alleging
that the design of one the Company's software products and the
method of promotion to consumers constitute fraudulent inducement,
breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, and
unjust enrichment.  On the same day, the same plaintiffs' law firm
filed another action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, No. 12-CV-0963, involving similar
allegations against a subsidiary of the Company and one of the
Company's channel partners who distributes the Company's software
products, and that channel partner has requested indemnification
under contract terms with the Company. The law firm representing
the plaintiffs in both cases has filed unrelated class actions in
the past year against a number of major software providers with
similar allegations about those providers' products.  On June 18,
2012, the Company entered into a settlement which remains subject
to final court approval.  Under the terms of the settlement, the
Company would offer a one-time cash payment, which is covered by
the Company's insurance provider, to qualified class-action
members.  In addition, the Company would offer a limited free
subscription to one of its software products.  In accordance with
Accounting Standard Codification (ASC) 450, Contingencies, the
Company has estimated and recorded a charge against earnings in
general and administrative expense in the second quarter of 2012
of $57,000 associated with the limited free software subscription.
The Company denies any wrongdoing or liability and entered into
the settlement to minimize the costs of defense.

Support.com, Inc. -- http://www.support.com/-- is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Redwood City, California.
Support.com is a provider of cloud-based services and software
designed to enhance a customer's experience with technology.  The
Company's solution includes, the cloud-based Nexus(R) Service
Delivery Platform, a scalable workforce of technology specialists,
mobile and desktop applications for end-users and expertise in
program design and execution.


TASER INT'L: "Katiki" Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice in March
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Chiko Katiki v. TASER
International, Inc., was dismissed without prejudice in March
2013, according to the Company's March 8, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended December 31, 2012.

In September 2012, the Company was served with a complaint in the
matter of Chiko Katiki v. TASER International, Inc. that was filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Sonoma, which alleges that the TASER conducted electrical weapons
(CEWs) are firearms under California law and that TASER sold
consumer model CEWs in California in violation of state laws.  The
Plaintiff seeks class action status, an injunction, declaratory
relief, and an award for damages, punitive damages, costs,
expenses, and attorneys' fees.  TASER removed the matter to U.S.
District Court, Northern Division court and in February 2013, the
Judge granted TASER's Motion to Dismiss without prejudice.  The
Court issued an order for dismissal without prejudice in March
2013.

TASER International, Inc. -- http://www.TASER.com/-- develops,
manufactures and sells conducted electrical weapons designed for
use in law enforcement, military, corrections, private security
and personal defense.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware
and headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona.


TRUGREEN LANDCARE: Bid to Dismiss Claim in "Teoba" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
OTONIEL SOSA TEOBA, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRUGREEN LANDCARE LLC, et al., Defendants,
No. 10-CV-6132 CJS (JWF), (W.D. N.Y.), asserts claims for, inter
alia, unpaid wages pursuant to the Federal Fair Labor Standards
Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and the minimum wage laws of
the States of New York and New Hampshire.

TruGreen filed a motion to dismiss the fourth cause of action in
the Second Amended Complaint for breach of contract, pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), 12(b)(1) and 12(f), as
well as 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(c).

In an April 10 ruling, District Judge Charles J. Siragusa denied
the motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiff argued, and Judge Siragusa agreed, that the Court
should not consider the Defendant's motion, since the Defendant
already unsuccessfully opposed the Plaintiff's motion to amend the
Complaint to add the breach of contract claim, on many of the same
grounds being raised, and then failed to file objections to the
Magistrate Judge's decision granting the motion to amend.

Judge Siragusa said the Defendant's motion for an expedited
hearing and the Plaintiff's motion to file a response are also
denied as moot. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate
those motions.

Dan Getman, Esq., at Getman & Sweeney, PLLC, in New Paltz, New
York, and Edward Tuddenham, Esq., in Washington, D.C., represent
the Plaintiff.

Brett C. Bartlett, Esq., at Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in Atlanta,
Georgia, and Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq., at Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in New
York, New York, represent the Defendants.

A copy of the District Court's April 10, 2013 Decision and Order
is available at http://is.gd/RXO9P3from Leagle.com.


US AIRWAYS: Faces Class Action Over Racial Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that US Airways
refused to honor two black men's first-class tickets unless they
removed their baseball caps, changed from jeans into slacks and
put on button-up shirts, the men say in a federal discrimination
complaint.

MacCraig Warren of Compton and Miles Warren of Long Beach seek
punitive damages for four counts of discrimination and emotional
distress.  They also want the airline enjoined from doing it
again.

The Warrens claim they had first-class tickets from Denver to Los
Angeles when US Airways rejected them in August 2012.  They say an
unidentified ticket counter employee told them they would have to
change clothes to sit in first class.

"Doe employee informed plaintiffs that it was US Airways policy
that everyone in first class is required to wear slacks, button up
shirts and no baseball caps.  Doe employee demanded plaintiffs to
change from jeans into slacks, a button-up shirt and told
plaintiffs to remove their baseball caps," the complaint states.

Mac Warren says he changed near the ticket counter.  Miles says he
went to a restroom to change.  In the restroom, Miles spoke to a
white passenger, (nonparty) Michael Heffernan, who told him he was
worried "that he would not be able to catch the flight because he
was in first class as well and had on jeans and a hooded
sweatshirt," according to the complaint.

The Warrens say they boarded the flight to find Heffernan sitting
in first class.

"Much to plaintiffs' amazement, Heffernan was sitting in first
class wearing jeans and a hooded sweatshirt, not the 'required'
slacks and button up shirt," according to the complaint.

Heffernan was traveling with his Filipino friend, (nonparty)
Edward DeLeon, who was dressed in rolled-up jeans, no socks on,
and a hooded sweatshirt, according to the complaint.

"Heffernan and DeLeon were not instructed to change their clothes
prior to boarding, nor at any time during the flight," the Warrens
claim.

After their plane landed in Los Angeles, Heffernan and DeLeon told
the plaintiffs that US Airways never told them that "it was
'policy' or that they were 'required' to change clothes prior to
boarding the plane," the complaint states.

The Warrens are represented by Robert McNeill with Ivie, McNeill &
Wyatt.


V.M. TRUCKING: Sued for Withholding Wages From Drivers' Paychecks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Gonzales, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
1025 E. Jersey Street, Apartment B-17, Elizabeth, NJ 07201, and
Julio Escoto, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
53 Sherman PI 2nd Floor, Garfield, NJ 07206 v. V.M. Trucking, LLC,
185 Foundry Street, Newark, NJ 07105, and John Does 1-10, Case No.
L-002804-13 (N.J. Super. Ct., Essex Cty., April 8, 2013), accuses
the Defendants of violating the New Jersey Wage Payment Law and
the common law of New Jersey.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants unlawfully designated
the Plaintiffs and the proposed class as independent contractors.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants required the Plaintiffs
and Class members to lease the Defendants' trucks upon being
hired, and the Defendants, then, withheld wages from the
Plaintiffs' paychecks as payment for the required leases and
associated fees.

Luis Gonzales is a resident of Elizabeth, New Jersey, while Julio
Escoto is a resident of Newark, New Jersey.  The Plaintiffs and
the proposed class worked or work as truck drivers for the
Defendants.

VMT is a trucking company that operates in New Jersey.  The Doe
Defendants are presently unknown persons, who directly or
indirectly, directed, aided, abetted, and assisted with creating
and executing the policies and practices of the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
         Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
         SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
         1878 Marlton Pike East, Suite 10
         Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
         Telephone: (856) 685-7420
         Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
         E-mail: rswartz@swartz-legal.com
                 jswidler@swartz-legal.com


VITALIZE LABS: Faces Class Action Over EBoost Products
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Vitalize Labs falsely claims
its EBoost products "boost immunity," a class action claims in
Federal Court.


YAHOO! INC: Dismissal of Class Claims in SCA Violation Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fayelynn Sams took an appeal from a district court order
dismissing her putative class claims against Yahoo! Inc. with
prejudice.  Ms. Sams alleges Yahoo! violated the Stored
Communications Act (SCA), 18 U.S.C. Sections 2701-2712, when it
disclosed some of her noncontent subscriber information to the
government pursuant to allegedly invalid subpoenas. Ms. Sams
further argues that even if the subpoenas were valid, Yahoo!
failed to comply with their terms when it produced the requested
documents prior to the deadline set in the subpoenas.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
the District Court ruling on April 15, 2013.

Circuit Judges Dorothy W. Nelson, Stephen Reinhardt, and Milan D.
Smith, Jr., held that the District Court properly dismissed Ms.
Sams' SCA claims because Yahoo! is statutorily immune from the
suit. Yahoo!'s early compliance with the subpoenas did not vitiate
Yahoo!'s immunity, the Ninth Circuit panel added.

"Because the SCA provides a 'complete defense to any civil or
criminal action' where the defendant can demonstrate that it
produced documents in 'good faith reliance on . . . a grand jury
subpoena,' we affirm the district court's order dismissing Sams'
claims," ruled the Circuit Court.

Joshua A. Millican, Esq. -- joshua.millican@lawofficepc.com -- at
the Law Office of Joshua A. Millican, P.C., in Atlanta, Georgia;
Laurence D. King, Esq. -- lking@kaplanfox.com -- and Mario M.
Choi, Esq. -- MChoi@kaplanfox.com -- at Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer
LLP, in San Francisco, California, represent the Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Marc J. Zwillinger, Esq. -- marc@zwillgen.com -- and Jacob A.
Sommer, Esq. -- jake@zwillgen.com -- at Zwillgen PLLC, in
Washington, D.C., represent the Defendant-Appellee.

The case is FAYELYNN SAMS, Individually, and on behalf of a class
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. YAHOO!
INC., Defendant-Appellee, No. 11-16938.

A copy of the Appeals Court's April 15, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/9EdSVUfrom Leagle.com.


YAHOO! INC: Faces Class Action Over Sending Spam Messages
---------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that Yahoo!
refuses to stop spamming people who get wireless phone numbers
from previous customers, sending 4,700 useless messages to one man
alone, he claims in a class action.

Lead plaintiff Bill H. Dominguez sued Yahoo! in Federal Court.
When he complained, he says, Yahoo! told him it wouldn't cancel
the spam deluge without a request from its previous customer --
whom Dominguez never met and has no way of contacting.  He wants
statutory damages of $500 for each violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, and treble damages, which would come to
more than $7 million.

Yahoo! offers its customers free email and text message alerts,
and "is aware that 'it is possible for users who purchase new
phones to receive alerts that the previous owner had subscribed to
. . . [because] . . . phone companies recycle phone numbers,'"
Dominguez says in the complaint.

"Despite this knowledge, defendant does not have an effective
method for stopping Mail Alerts from being sent to the cellular
phones of new owners who have not consented to receipt of such
messages when the phone companies recycle a phone number."

Dominguez claims he bought a phone in December 2011 and was
assigned a phone number that "had been previously held by a Jose
Gonzalez.  Plaintiff has never met Jose Gonzalez and has no
knowledge concerning his whereabouts.

"Shortly after purchasing his new phone, plaintiff began receiving
unsolicited text messages from defendant Yahoo! advising him that
he had received an e-mail.

"Plaintiff never consented to the receipt of the text messages
sent by defendant.

"The unsolicited text messages were in SMS text messages and were
sent to plaintiff's new telephone by means of a device that made
automated telephone calls.  This device could send and did send
dozens of messages per day to plaintiff's telephone.

"By March 2012, plaintiff was receiving approximately 50 to 60
unsolicited text messages from defendant every day, and at all
times of day and night."

When he called Yahoo! to complain, Dominguez says, he was told
"there was nothing that could be done to stop the texts unless the
former owner of the telephone number accessed the password-
protected account and authorized Yahoo! to stop the messages."

"Plaintiff asked the representative to speak with a supervisor.
The supervisor, who identified himself as Castro, told plaintiff
the same thing -- that the unsolicited text messages would only
stop if the former owner of the account so authorized.  Plaintiff
did not know the whereabouts of the former owner of the telephone
number, and suggested that litigation might be his only option.
Castro replied 'so sue me."

So he did.

Dominguez claims he filed complaints with the Federal
Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, but
"despite all his efforts, plaintiff has not been successful in
stopping the unsolicited text messages sent to him daily by
Yahoo!"

"During the months of November 2012 through approximately April 5,
2013, defendant sent in excess of 4,700 unsolicited text messages
to plaintiff."

Dominguez is represented by James Francis with Francis and Mailman
in Philadelphia.


WALGREENS CO: Faces Overtime Class Action
-----------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Walgreens stiffs pharmacists
for overtime and makes them work off the clock, a class action
claims in Superior Court -- the 9th labor class action against the
chain in the past year.


WASHINGTON DC: Cop Faces Class Suit for Assaulting 10-Yr. Old
-------------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that a police
officer slammed a 10-year-old student's head on a table,
concussing him, while talking to students about "behaving in
class," the boy's mother claims in court.

Chante Price sued Metropolitan Police Officer David Bailey Jr. and
the District of Columbia, in Federal Court.  She claims Bailey
assaulted her son while the boy was discussing a book with a
classmate, at Wilkinson Elementary School in Southeast Washington.

Moten Elementary students were temporarily assigned to Wilkinson
because of renovations, Price says in the complaint.  She claims
Bailey's assault gave her 80-lb., 4-foot 10-inch son headaches for
two weeks and made him afraid to go to school.

"On April 19, 2012, T.P. was in music class," the complaint
states.  "T.P.'s teacher sent him to the cafeteria because he
wasn't participating adequately in the class.  In the cafeteria,
he sat at a lunch table with a few other classmates who were also
being disciplined.  Officer Bailey was present in the cafeteria.
There were no other adults in the immediate vicinity.

"On information and belief, Officer Bailey regularly stopped in
Moten Elementary School at Wilkinson as part of his routine
patrol.

"Officer Bailey lectured the children about behaving in class.
T.P. quietly discussed the book he was reading with a classmate.

"Officer Bailey approached T.P. and said, 'Stop playing with me.'
T.P. responded that he was 'not playing.'  Officer Bailey grabbed
T.P. by the back of his head and slammed T.P.'s head forward into
the table.  Officer Bailey then grabbed T.P. by the shirt and
forcefully lifted him off his chair.  Officer Bailey threatened,
'Play with me again, I'll take you to 7D [the Seventh District
police station].'  Officer Bailey dropped T.P. back onto his
chair.

"T.P.'s teacher entered the cafeteria shortly after the incident,
and T.P. reported the incident to her.  The teacher responded that
she could not do anything because Officer Bailey was a police
officer." (Brackets in complaint).

In addition to the concussion and headaches, the assault injured
her son's chest, Price says in the complaint.  She claims says her
son now is afraid to go to school, where he "feels insecure in his
classroom, even with a teacher present."

Price says she filed a complaint against Bailey with the District
of Columbia Office of Police Complaints, which is investigating,
but the U.S. Attorney's Office declined to prosecute Bailey.

D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said in a statement that "police
officers should be afforded due process just like anyone else,
before judgment is passed.  It should also be noted that criminal
charges were declined in this matter."

Price seeks compensatory and punitive damages for constitutional
violations, assault and battery.  She is represented by Arthur
Spitzer with the American Civil Liberties Union.


ZALE CORP: Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities lawsuit filed in Texas was dismissed
with prejudice, according to Zale Corporation's March 8, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended January 31, 2013.

In November 2009, the Company and four former officers, Neal L.
Goldberg, Rodney Carter, Mary E. Burton and Cynthia T. Gordon,
were named as defendants in two purported class-action lawsuits
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas.  On August 9, 2010, the two lawsuits were
consolidated into one lawsuit, which alleged various violations of
securities laws arising from the financial statement errors that
led to the restatement completed by the Company as part of its
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 31,
2009.  The lawsuit requested unspecified damages and costs.  On
August 1, 2011, the Court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.
The plaintiffs appealed the decision and on November 30, 2012, the
United States Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's decision
and affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff's case.  The plaintiffs
did not appeal this ruling and the matter was, therefore,
dismissed with prejudice.

Zale Corporation -- http://www.zales.com/-- is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Irving, Texas.  The Company is,
through its wholly owned subsidiaries, a specialty retailer of
fine jewelry in North America with more than a thousand specialty
retail jewelry stores and hundreds of kiosks located mainly in
shopping malls throughout the United States of America, Canada and
Puerto Rico.


ZALE CORP: Received $1.9-Mil. Settlement in Suit vs. De Beers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zale Corporation disclosed in its March 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended January 31, 2013, that it received proceeds totaling $1.9
million as a result of a settlement reached in the antitrust class
action lawsuits against De Beers group.

Beginning in June 2004, various class-action lawsuits were filed
alleging that the De Beers group violated U.S. state and federal
antitrust, consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws.  During
the first quarter of fiscal year 2013, the Company received
proceeds totaling $1.9 million as a result of a settlement reached
in the lawsuit.

Zale Corporation -- http://www.zales.com/-- is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Irving, Texas.  The Company is,
through its wholly owned subsidiaries, a specialty retailer of
fine jewelry in North America with more than a thousand specialty
retail jewelry stores and hundreds of kiosks located mainly in
shopping malls throughout the United States of America, Canada and
Puerto Rico.


* California Lawyer Takes Stand in Investment Scam Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Max Taves, writing for The Recorder, reports that a California
lawyer took the stand on April 9 to defend himself against state
bar charges that he misappropriated millions put up by an elderly
man who thought he was investing in a sure-thing class action.  "I
don't intend to sit here as a wallflower," the lawyer, who is
representing himself, said in his opening statement.  True to his
word, he was a combative witness.


                             *********

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  * * *