---

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

              Friday, April 26, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 82

                             Headlines


AMERICAN HONDA: Settles Class Action Over Defective Civic Parts
APPLE INC: To Settle iPhone Warranty Class Action for $53MM
ATLANTIC POWER: Struggles Following Class Actions
BANK OF MONTREAL: Top Court to Hear Appeal of Quebec Court Ruling
CERTAINTEED: Siren Village Hall to Get New Shingles This Year

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Judge Dismisses Shareholder Class Action
CHRYSLER GROUP: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Defective Engines
COMCAST CORP: McDermott Discusses Class Certification Ruling
CR ENGLAND: Challenges $1.3MM Judgment in OOIDA Suit
CR INTRINSIC: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action

DOW CHEMICAL: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Pesticide
EI DUPONT: EMU Golf Course to Get $165K Share From Settlement
HANNAFORD: Consumers Ask Judge to Allow Class Action to Proceed
HARD ROCK: Faces Class Action Over Misuse of Association Fees
HARVEST NATURAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

JON BURGE: Special Prosecutor to Be Appointed in Torture Cases
JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal From ARS-Related Suit Dismissal Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Plaintiffs Had Until March 1 to Reinstate Appeal
JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend CIO-Related Class Suits
JPMORGAN CHASE: Still Awaits Final OK of Interchange Suit Pact

JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend LIBOR-Related Class Suits
JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend Madoff-Related Class Suits
JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend MF Global-Related Suits
JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend MBS & Repurchase Litigation
JPMORGAN CHASE: Still Defends Suits Over Foreclosure Procedures

JPMORGAN CHASE: Still Defends Suits Over Municipal Derivatives
JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend Suits Over ARM Disclosures
JPMORGAN CHASE: Got Final Okay of Overdraft Fee Suit Settlement
JPMORGAN CHASE: Discovery Still Stayed in Securities Lending Suit
LAZIO: Codacons File Class Action Over Arsenic-Tainted Water

LM INVESTMENT: Investors Mull Class Action Over Collapse
MAGELLAN HEALTH: Continues to Defend Various Class Suits
MALLOZZI GROUP: Servers File Class Action Over Stolen Tips
MCKENZIE CHECK: Fla. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Arbitration
NAVISTAR INT'L: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in Illinois

NY STOCK EXCHANGE: Settlement Fairness Hearing Moved to May 22
ONTARIO: Judge Has Yet to Decide on Mississauga Flooding Suit
OREGON: Aims to Move More Disabled Into General Workforce
PELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS: Tel Aviv Court Dismisses Class Action
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: CR to Get $250K Share From Settlement

STATE UNIV OF NY: Students Set to Get Refunds Under Accord
THERATECHNOLOGIES INC: Fasken Martineau Discusses Court Ruling
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Suit to Set Mental Health Coverage Precedent
VISA INC: Judge Orders Anti-Settlement Groups to Correct Websites
VISA INC: RILA Opts Out of Swipe-Fee Class Action Settlement

* Australia Gov't Warned on Commercializing Class Actions
* C4C Launches No FEAR Campaign Against Federal Workplace Abuse
* Fen-Phen Lawyer to Pay Disbarment Investigation Costs
* France Wants to Adopt US-Style Class Action Lawsuits
* Japan Mulls Legislation to Enable Consumer Group Class Action

* Securities Class Action Filings in State Court Increase


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yarway Corp. Files Chapter 11
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Cases in MDL Remanded to N.D. Cal. Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Griffin Wheel Wins Dismissal of Exposure Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Superior Court Reverses Mistrial Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Faulted for Health Studies Completion Delays

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Alert to Hampshire Bldg. Site Burglars
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reporting Fibro in Public Bldgs. Now Mandatory
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Montvale to Have Fibro Removed From Middle School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Companies to Clean Up Contaminated Chicago Hotel
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MarketPublishers Explores Fibro Market

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Still an Issue at Nunavut Gold Mine
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hoboken PBA to be Evacuated for Fibro Cleaning
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Construction Halted at URMC Over Fibro Concerns
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Traces of Fibro Found in Scunthorpe Flats
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wife Sues Over Husband's Meso-Caused Death

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Study to be Done on Condemned Buildings


                             *********


AMERICAN HONDA: Settles Class Action Over Defective Civic Parts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that a California judge
on April 11 approved a deal allowing American Honda Motor Co. Inc.
to shut down a nationwide class action in exchange for replacing
allegedly defective Civic parts and prematurely worn tires, and
reimbursing consumers who have already paid out of pocket.  The
deal, which plaintiffs call "the product of 10 years of
investigation" into the issue, resolves allegations that Honda
knowingly sold Civics with a major tire defect in violation of its
warranties and consumer protection laws.


APPLE INC: To Settle iPhone Warranty Class Action for $53MM
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Kravets, writing for Wired.com, reports that Apple is
agreeing to pay $53 million to settle a class action accusing the
company of failing to honor warranties on iPhones and iPod
Touches, according to an agreement obtained on April 11 by Wired.

The settlement, set to be filed in a San Francisco federal court
in the coming weeks, provides cash payouts to potentially hundreds
of thousands of iPhone and iPod Touch consumers who found Apple
unwilling to repair or replace their faulty phones under Apple's
one-year standard, or a two-year extended, warranty.  Apple chief
litigation counsel Noreen Krall signed the agreement on April 10.
Apple admits no wrongdoing in the settlement, which needs a
judge's approval.

According to several lawsuits combined in San Francisco, no matter
what the problem, Apple refused to honor warranties if a white
indicator tape embedded in the phone near the headphone or
charging portals had turned pink or red.  However, the tape's
maker, 3M, said humidity, and not water contact, could have caused
the color to at least turn pink.

Affected devices include the original iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone
3GS, and the first-, second and third-generation iPod Touch.
Payouts are around $200 and could be less or double based on the
number of claims submitted.

Lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Jeffrey Fazio, declined to be
quoted on the deal because the settlement is not public.  Apple
did not immediately respond to a telephone inquiry late on
April 11.


ATLANTIC POWER: Struggles Following Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------
GuruFocus reports that Atlantic Power has really been struggling
the past few months.  They have been accused of hiding
information, had several class action law suits filed against
them, and now the company's price has dropped drastically since
the beginning of the year.  Despite these problems several
directors have been buying back into the company while it is
sitting at a three-year low price.  Director Duncan Foster has
added 7,000 shares this month at an average price of $4.78 per
share.  His total amount on these transactions was $33,280.
Mr. Foster now holds on to 8,700 shares of Atlantic stock.

Director John McNeill added 12,000 shares at $5.11 per share for a
total of $61,320.  Mr. McNeill now holds on to 24,500 shares.

Lastly, Director Irving Gerstein bought 9,400 shares at $5.16 per
share.  He spent $48,504 on this transaction.  Mr. Gerstein now
holds 19,800 shares.

The company's price plummeted in January of this year as several
class action lawsuits were initiated against Atlantic Power.
These lawsuits allege that Atlantic Power issued materially false
and misleading statements regarding the company's business
practices and financial results.  The time frame being
investigated is between July 23, 2010 and March 4, 2013.

In an attempt to salvage some of the public relations problems
Atlantic Power is currently facing, the company adopted an Advance
Notice Policy.  This policy gives a deadline in which shareholders
are required to notify the corporate secretary of their
nominations for the board of directors prior to any annual or
special meeting of a shareholders.  The policy also includes
updates to other policies that the company already has in place.

Atlantic Power owns and operates power generation and
infrastructure assets in the US and Canada.  The Company's power
generation projects sell electricity to utilities companies as
well as other large entities that disperse electricity.

According to the GuruFocus analysis, Atlantic Power's revenue has
been in a decline for the past five years.  Also, the operating
margin has been a five-year decline as well.  The average rate of
decline per year is -48.5%.  On the other hand, the dividend yield
of the company is near a 3-year high of 23.37%.


BANK OF MONTREAL: Top Court to Hear Appeal of Quebec Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Vieira, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Canada's top court agreed on April 11 to resolve a decade-long
legal battle that could have major implications for consumers
seeking recourse from their banks for alleged wrongdoing.

The Supreme Court of Canada said it will hear an appeal of a
Quebec court ruling which found Canada's banks did nothing wrong
when calculating foreign-exchange conversions on credit-card
transactions.  Interestingly, both the banks that benefited from
the ruling, and the plaintiffs in the associated class-action
lawsuit, asked the Supreme Court of Canada to review the findings.

The Supreme Court didn't provide reasons for its decision to
review the ruling, or say when it will hear the case.

A class action was filed 10 years ago by Real Marcotte, a Bank of
Montreal customer in Quebec, who argued that nine Canadian lenders
violated rules set out in Quebec's consumer-protection laws
regarding the calculation of foreign-exchange conversions on
credit cards.  The plaintiffs also alleged the transactions
weren't properly disclosed.

The banks argued that, as federally regulated entities, they
weren't subject to varying provincial rules governing consumer
protection.

Quebec's Superior Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in 2009,
ordering the nine banks to pay damages of roughly 200 million
Canadian dollars (C$197.2 million).  But in August 2012, the
Quebec Court of Appeal overturned key elements of that decision,
ruling that while the banks were indeed subject to provisions of
Quebec's consumer code, they didn't violate the law as alleged.
Claims against four of the banks were set aside entirely, while
damages against Bank of Montreal National Bank of Canada and
Citibank were reduced to a combined total of about C$13 million.

The banks appealed to Canada's Supreme Court, arguing the appeal
judges erred in ruling that lenders were subject to provincial
consumer law.  "Banking activities in Canada are under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government and we hope that
this case will result in some clarity and consistency for the
protection of Canadian consumers," the Canadian Bankers
Association said in reaction to the Supreme Court's decision to
hear the case.

Bruce Johnston, the Montreal lawyer representing the class-action
plaintiffs, said his clients also appealed to the top court, in
part to ensure the penalties were restored.

"This is going to be a very important case regarding the
interaction between provincial legislation, which is designed to
protect consumers, and the activities of banks," Mr. Johnston said
in an interview.


CERTAINTEED: Siren Village Hall to Get New Shingles This Year
-------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Beckmann, writing for Sentinel News, reports that the roof of
the Siren Village Hall will get new shingles this year following
recent action at the village board meeting.  The board awarded the
$7,850 contract to Sportsmen Builders of Frederic, the low bid of
the three received.

The bid specs only covered removal of old shingles, prepping the
roof for the new shingles and installing the new shingles.

Clerk Ann Peterson said the village was part of a class-action
lawsuit against Certainteed for the failure of the current
shingles.

"Rather than take money from the claim, the village took shingles
and has been storing them at Johnson Lumber," she explained.
"Johnson wants them moved out of their building and rather than
store them, the village decided to re-roof."

But even without having to supply the shingles, the bid was
surprisingly low.

"He was thousands cheaper," trustee Dave Alden exclaimed.  "To the
point where it sends up red flags."

But fellow trustee Peggy Moore eased the tension.

"He has done my house, he did our office -- he's done work all
over town," she pointed out.

Ms. Peterson said any contractor would have to provide proof of
insurance before any work was done.

While there is no set timeline for the job, Ms. Peterson said it
has to be complete by Oct. 18 and that Sportsmen Builders has two
weeks to finish the job once they begin.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Judge Dismisses Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Longstreth, writing for Reuters, reports that Chesapeake
Energy Corp has won the dismissal of a securities class action
lawsuit over allegations the company misled investors about its
financial condition.

The lawsuit claimed that Chesapeake had failed to disclose
financial obligations by the company and its former chief
executive, Aubrey McClendon.

But in an order issued on April 10, Chief U.S. District Judge
Vicki Miles-LaGrange in Oklahoma City wrote that the allegations
failed to present facts showing the company or other company
officers and directors named in the complaint likely intended to
mislead investors.

The decision comes at a challenging time for the natural gas
giant.  Last year Reuters wrote a series of stories outlining
Ms. McClendon's complex financial relationship with the company.
Regulatory scrutiny and lawsuits against the company ensued.

The departure of Ms. McClendon as CEO was announced by the company
in late January.

The case dismissed on April 10 was filed on behalf of investors
who purchased Chesapeake shares between April 30, 2009 and May 11,
2012.  It alleged that the company and its management team did not
disclose more than $1 billion in personal debt accumulated by
McClendon that was backed by future production of Chesapeake's
wells.

When investors learned the truth of Ms. McClendon's dealings with
the company, the lawsuit claimed that the price of Chesapeake's
shares tumbled.

But in her opinion, Judge Miles-LaGrange found that the complaint
did not give rise to a "strong inference that McClendon knew that
not disclosing his personal loans would somehow mislead
investors."

Robert Varian, an attorney for Chesapeake, applauded the decision
in a statement.

"We are pleased with the court's complete rejection of the claims,
which were based on unfounded accusations that were given
widespread attention in the media," he said.

An attorney for the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board, the lead
plaintiff in the case, did not return a message seeking comment.

The case is Dvora Weinstein v. Aubrey McClendon, U.S. District for
the Western District of Oklahoma, No. 12-465.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Defective Engines
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ama Sarfo, writing for Law360, reports that a Florida federal
judge on April 11 dismissed a proposed class action alleging
Chrysler Group LLC's 2010-2013 Dodge Ram trucks have defective
engines that cause the vehicles to lose power, ruling the
plaintiffs haven't adequately shown the federal court has
authority to hear the case.  The plaintiffs said that since they
are Florida residents, and since Chrysler's principal place of
business and incorporation is in Michigan, the federal court can
hear the case because it involves citizens of different states.


COMCAST CORP: McDermott Discusses Class Certification Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
David L. Hanselman, Esq., Stefan M. Meisner, Esq., and Daniel
Powers, Esq., at McDermott Will & Emery report that the Supreme
Court's decision in Comcast Corporation v. Behrend, an antitrust
case involving a class of more than two million current and former
cable television subscribers in the Philadelphia area, raises the
bar for plaintiffs to obtain certification of antitrust class
actions.

On March 27, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States issued
an opinion in an antitrust case that will make it more difficult
for plaintiffs to obtain certification of antitrust class actions.
In future cases, plaintiffs seeking class certification must
present a method for proving damages on a class-wide basis, and
that method must be tied to the plaintiffs' theory of liability.
Failure to do that can preclude class certification.

                  Decision a Decade in the Making

The case, Comcast Corporation v. Behrend, has been closely watched
by the defense and plaintiffs' bar as well as the business
community.  In 2003, a group of cable subscribers filed a
complaint alleging that Comcast's "clustering" of its
Philadelphia-area operations deterred entry and increased cable
subscription prices.  Years of struggle ensued as the cable
provider fought class certification.  In 2010, the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania certified a class
of more than two million current and former cable television
subscribers in the Philadelphia area.  Significantly, the district
court rejected three of plaintiffs' four theories of antitrust
impact, but it accepted a fourth.  Comcast appealed, contending
that the class was improperly certified because the damages model
developed by the plaintiffs' expert failed to isolate the damages
that could be attributed to the only remaining theory of antitrust
impact.

In 2011, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit, relying on dicta from the Supreme Court's 1974
Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin decision, ruled that Comcast's
challenge to the expert testimony prematurely reached the merits
of the case.  The Third Circuit panel expressly rejected Comcast's
argument that more recent Supreme Court jurisprudence permitted
the court to disregard the expert report.  On appeal to the
Supreme Court, Comcast highlighted the conflict between the Third
Circuit's opinion and the more recent Supreme Court cases.
Comcast asked the Supreme Court to decide whether a class could be
certified without resolving "merits arguments" that bear on Rule
23's prerequisites for certification.

The Supreme Court accepted Comcast's appeal but reformulated the
question to focus on whether the admissibility standard
established in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals should apply
to expert testimony at the class certification stage.  The Supreme
Court's opinion, however, did not ultimately answer that question.
Rather, the Supreme Court addressed the merits of the district
court's class certification decision and broader issues relating
to the proper standard to be applied by district courts under
Rule 23.  The Supreme Court has long held that district courts
must conduct a "rigorous analysis" of the requirements of Rule 23
before certifying a class.  Comcast reaffirmed that principle.
Breaking New Ground

But the Supreme Court went further.  In three major respects, it
raised the bar for plaintiffs to obtain class certification in
antitrust class actions.  First, plaintiffs must satisfy "by
evidentiary proof" that they meet one of the prerequisites of Rule
23(b)(3).  Second, district courts may not decline to resolve
issues bearing on Rule 23 even if those issues overlap with the
merits of the plaintiffs' underlying claims.  Third, and perhaps
most important, individualized questions of damages can defeat
class certification.

This last point represents the key innovation and the most far-
reaching aspect of the Supreme Court's opinion.  Recognizing this,
the dissent tries to minimize the impact of the holding by
claiming that the majority's opinion "breaks no new ground."  The
decision, however, does just that.

The elements of a class action antitrust claim are (1) a violation
of the antitrust laws, (2) individual injury (also known as
antitrust impact) resulting from that violation and (3) measurable
damages.  Prior to the Supreme Court's opinion in Comcast,
challenges to class certification generally focused on (2), the
antitrust impact prong, and some cases held that issues regarding
the amount of damages suffered by individual members of the class
were not sufficient to defeat class certification.  Indeed, as the
dissenting opinion claimed, "[r]ecognition that individual damages
calculations do not preclude class certification under Rule
23(b)(3) is well nigh universal."  Comcast calls that "universal"
recognition into question.  Now, failure of plaintiffs to
demonstrate a way to prove damages on a class-wide basis alone can
defeat class certification.

In this case, the Supreme Court ultimately held that the district
court should not have certified the class because the expert's
model failed to measure damages resulting from the particular
antitrust injury on which liability was premised.

The reach of Comcast will be heavily litigated in the lower
courts.  Plaintiffs will argue, like the dissent, that the Supreme
Court's ruling "breaks no new ground" or "is good for this day and
case only."  For defendants trying to defeat class certification,
however, the language of Comcast is broad and potentially
applicable to a broad array of class actions.  The Supreme Court
held that "under the proper standard for evaluating
certification," plaintiffs must "establish[] that damages are
capable of measurement on a classwide basis."  If a plaintiff does
not present such a methodology, then "[q]uestions of individual
damage calculations will inevitably overwhelm questions common to
the class."  The Supreme Court left no doubt as to its holding
when it wrote in footnote 4, "[Comcast] argued below, and
continue[s] to argue here, that certification was improper because
[the plaintiffs] had failed to establish that damages could be
measured on a classwide basis.  That is the question we address
here."

In the last several years, federal courts have required greater
scrutiny of expert opinion at the class certification stage.
Comcast represents an important continuation of this trend.  While
the Supreme Court did not address whether district courts must
conduct a full-fledged Daubert analysis, it held that plaintiffs
must put forward a methodology for proving damages on a class-wide
basis that is tied to the plaintiffs' theory of liability.  Prior
to Comcast, some courts held that individualized questions
regarding the amount of damages suffered by members of the class
should not preclude certification.  After Comcast, individualized
proof of damages can, in appropriate cases, preclude class
certification.  In this regard, Comcast provides defendants with a
new line of argument in existing and future class certification
battles.


CR ENGLAND: Challenges $1.3MM Judgment in OOIDA Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Jill Dunn, writing for Commercial Carrier Journal, reports that
after a federal court ruled in an 11-year-long class-action
lawsuit that C.R. England owes members of the Owner-Operator
Independent Driver Association $1.3 million, the Salt Lake City-
based carrier is challenging the judgment, continuing the ongoing
case between the two parties.

The case was set to see minor action April 22 -- the deadline set
by the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals for attorneys
representing C.R. England to appear or submit their transcripts.

A federal district court in 2007 ruled that C.R. England had
violated the Truth-in-Leasing regulations between 1998 and 2002
when it did not comply with the charge-back, forced-purchase and
escrow provisions of the law, according to court documents.

Of the 6,000 members being represented by OOIDA's class-action
suit, 1,000 appeared eligible for a cash settlement.  OOIDA said
was set to file a counter-claim to C.R.E.


CR INTRINSIC: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP on April 12 disclosed that it
has filed a class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Wyeth (formerly nyse:WYE) between July 21, 2008 and July 29, 2008,
inclusive.  The action seeks remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased Wyeth common stock during the Class Period and
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you must move the
Court no later than June 11, 2013.  Any member of the investor
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of its choice or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this action or have
questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact
Scott+Scott -- scottlaw@scott-scott.com -- (800) 404-7770, (860)
537-5537) or visit the Scott+Scott website for more information.
There is no cost or charge to you for contacting Scott+Scott.

The securities class action complaint alleges that CR Intrinsic
Investors, LLC, together with its affiliates, including but not
limited to SAC Capital Associates, LLC and SAC Capital Advisors,
L.P., violated the securities laws by trading Wyeth shares based
on material, non-public information ahead of a July 29, 2008
announcement disclosing disappointing clinical trial results for
the drug bapineuzumab (AAB-001).  Bapi was an Alzheimer's disease
treatment that was being jointly developed by Wyeth and Elan
Corporation, plc.

On June 17, 2008, Wyeth released top-line summary results from the
Phase 2 clinical trial of bapi.  The market's reaction was
favorable, and Wyeth's common stock rose 10.7% after the
announcement.  Detailed trial results were to be released at a
conference on July 29, 2008.

Shortly before the July 29, 2008 conference, Defendants obtained
material, non-public information, pursuant to which they learned
that the final results from the bapi drug trials were a
disappointment.  Defendants began aggressively selling their
positions in Wyeth, and over the seven trading days leading up to
the July 29, 2008 announcement, Defendants completely liquidated
their positions in Wyeth, worth over $335 million.  In addition,
Defendants opened large short positions in Wyeth.

On July 29, 2008, after the close of the U.S. securities markets,
the detailed Phase II clinical results of bapi were presented.
The results of the Phase II clinical trial were strongly and
unexpectedly negative.  On July 30, 2008, the next trading day,
Wyeth's share price fell 41.8% from its prior close on July 29th.

In total, by trading on material, non-public information related
to Wyeth during the week before the July 29th presentation,
Defendants avoided approximately $40.4 million in losses on their
long positions, and secured a $16 million profit from the short
positions they opened during the same week.  Conversely, it is
alleged in the complaint that Plaintiff and other members of the
Class suffered damages under the federal securities laws when they
purchased Wyeth common stock during the Class Period.

Scott+Scott has significant experience prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact:

          Michael Burnett, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          Telephone: (800) 404-7770
                     (860) 537-5537
          E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com
                  mburnett@scott-scott.com


DOW CHEMICAL: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Pesticide
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that attorneys for U.S. food giant
Dole and Dow Chemical Co. asked the Delaware Supreme Court on
April 10 to overturn a lower court judge's refusal to dismiss a
lawsuit involving a now-banned pesticide linked to sterility.

The lawsuit was filed in 2011 by Jose Rufino Canales Blanco, who
claims he was injured by exposure to dibromochloropropane, or
DBCP, while working on Costa Rican banana plantation from 1979 to
1980.  The pesticide has been the subject of several lawsuits in
U.S. and foreign courts over the past two decades.

Attorneys for Dole and Dow argued on April 10 that Blanco's
Superior Court lawsuit is barred by the passage of time.

Delaware has a two-year statute of limitations for filing personal
injury lawsuits, but that two-year period can be halted, or
"tolled" in some circumstances if the plaintiff is involved in
class action litigation that is still pending.

Blanco, one of thousands of people allegedly injured by exposure
to DBCP, was involved in a purported class-action lawsuit filed in
Texas in 1993.  While the Texas action was still pending, he also
filed, then voluntarily dismissed, a similar lawsuit in Florida in
1995.  Blanco filed the Delaware lawsuit after a state judge in
Texas in 2010 refused to certify a class-action in the litigation
that began there in 1993.

Dow and Dole argue that Delaware's two-year time limit was
triggered by a federal judge's 1995 decision to dismiss the Texas
case after he determined that the Texas court was not the proper
forum.  But the judge did not rule on the issue of class
certification, and the case was later resurrected and remanded to
the state court in Texas.

In a case of first impression, a Superior Court judge ruled last
year that Delaware's two-year clock did not begin ticking until
the 2010 decision by the state judge in Texas.  The ruling by
Judge Jerome Herlihy was noteworthy in declaring that Delaware's
statute of limitations could be halted, or tolled, by class-action
litigation in another jurisdiction.

Attorneys for Dole and Dow argue that Judge Herlihy erred in
recognizing such "cross-jurisdictional class action tolling" and
that Blanco improperly turned to Delaware in an attempt to press
his claims.

Dole attorney Andrea Neuman said Blanco had "slept on his rights,"
by waiting until 2011 to file a lawsuit in Delaware.

"Plaintiff Blanco came to Delaware on a reconnaissance mission,"
Ms. Neuman said, arguing that if the Superior Court decision
stands, it could lead to a flood of "forum shopping" lawsuits in
Delaware.

"Plaintiffs can't come to Delaware shopping for a longer statute
of limitations," she argued.

Attorneys for Dow argued in court papers that any decision to
adopt cross-jurisdictional class action tolling in Delaware should
be made by the General Assembly, not the courts.  But Jonathan
Massey, an attorney for Blanco, urged the justices not to get
"bogged down in drawing territorial distinctions."

The court is expected to issue its ruling within 90 days.


EI DUPONT: EMU Golf Course to Get $165K Share From Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Perkins, writing for AnnArbor.com, reports that Eastern
Michigan University's Eagle Crest Golf Course will receive
$165,000 as part of a settlement in a class action lawsuit filed
against DuPont in federal court in Pennsylvania.

The lawsuit was filed after a DuPont herbicide, Imprelis, killed
trees at Eagle Crest and at least 300 other golf courses, homes
and businesses across the country. Lawn-care companies also were
part of the suit.

Around 140 trees were either killed or damaged at Eagle Crest.
About half must be removed but haven't been yet because the course
has to wait until the lawsuit is finalized.

Wes Blevins, director of golf at Eagle Crest, said course staff
noticed in June 2011 that some of the white pines and Norway
spruce trees had an orange tinge on the needles.  By October, the
tops of the trees were starting to curl.  Those affected the worst
have lost all their needles.

But Mr. Blevins said the affect on Eagle Crest's overall
appearance hasn't been significant.

"There are only a couple of areas on the course where the infected
trees will have an impact on the course," he said.  "Most of the
infected trees are intermingled with healthy trees, therefore the
impact is minimal."

Imprelis is designed to kill weeds by being absorbed into the
ground and destroying their root systems.  But the herbicide also
left trees with shallow root systems open to exposure from the
chemical.

The award amount for each member of the suit was determined by a
formula agreed upon by the plaintiffs and DuPont.

Because Ypsilanti Township owns the course and leases it to
Eastern Michigan University for $1 annually, the Board of Regents
had to approve the settlement, which it did unanimously at its
March 25 meeting.

Some of the affected trees were removed by the golf course last
year without the township's permission.  That caused some friction
between the course and township officials.

Golfers played more than 32,000 rounds of golf at Eagle Crest last
year.


HANNAFORD: Consumers Ask Judge to Allow Class Action to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Schuman, writing for Storefront Backtalk, reports that
lawyers for consumers affected by a huge data breach involving the
Hannaford grocery chain have asked a federal judge to reverse
himself and to allow a class-action lawsuit against the grocer to
proceed.  In a twist, the attorneys are asking that any awarded
money be given to bank officials, who would then -- in theory --
distribute it to victim consumers.

Lawyers wrote to U.S. District Court Judge D. Brock Hornby that
the Hannaford case provides "an opportunity for the use of
contemporary technology to ensure a very wide and complete
distribution of the proceeds of any judgment or settlement
directly to the persons harmed.  Based on class certification
discovery, it appears that the identity of each Class Member and
the amount of his/her mitigating expenditure is recorded in
electronic form by each of the card-issuing banks.  In the event
of a judgment or settlement, the recovery can be paid pro-rata to
the banks, which can then electronically pro-rata credit the
accounts of the Class Members, subject to a recipient's right to
reject the credit and opt out at the time of distribution.  This
can all be done without disclosure of the actual identity of any
bank customer.  It is hard to imagine that a card-issuing bank
would not cooperate in a process that would provide cash benefits
to its customers."

No, it's really not at all hard to imagine the likes of Chase
Manhattan and Fifth Third not being at all cooperative with a new
and untested method.  This is especially true given that the
consumer recipients are not likely to be expecting the payments
nor would they likely know the exact size of those payments.
Therefore, the normal emergency-backup way banks can learn of
discrepancies -- such as when customers call up screaming that
their paycheck is 9 cents lower than it should be -- might apply
here.

But that all deals with handling the money from a successful
class-action lawsuit.  The only ruling the court has made on this
thus far is to deny that class-action from even being formed.

A federal appellate panel has already weighed in on the original
case, with more good news for retailers.  The breach itself
happened back in 2008 and was believed to have exposed some 4.2
million credit and debit cards and led to 1,800 initial reported
cases of fraud.

The new argument the consumers' lawyers made is that Hornby had
declined the class certification because, in part, the lawyers'
points were not supported by expert testimony or expert evidence.
The new filing argues that such expert testimony is not needed
here.

"Plaintiffs submit that expert testimony is not necessarily needed
to make the connection between the breach, its announcement, and
the card cancellations and purchases of credit security products.
That is a matter of common sense inference," the filing said.
"This is not like a medical causation case, where the causative
relationship between exposure to a particular substance and
subsequent medical harm must be established by expert testimony.
The only reason advanced why an unusually large number of
compromised cardholders cancelled their cards and bought credit
security products right after becoming aware of the Hannaford
breach is that they did so for the same reasons the Plaintiffs
did, to mitigate the dangers of harm from fraudulent charges.
Expert testimony will enable a degree of refinement and precision
in the estimates, but is not required to establish the
connection."

The lawyers added: "In the absence of any other likely reason for
the dramatic increase in insurance purchases and card
cancellations, it is reasonable to infer that a large portion of
these purchases and cancellations were efforts by the respective
cardholders and their financial institutions to do the same thing
that the Plaintiffs did, namely mitigate the effects of the breach
on them.  Hannaford has certainly had the opportunity to
demonstrate that there were other explanations for dramatically
increased insurance purchases or card cancellations for this
particular customer group during these time periods and has failed
to do so."

Plaintiffs ask that the judge suspend his order denying the class
certification and give them 60 days to prepare new evidence.


HARD ROCK: Faces Class Action Over Misuse of Association Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Weisberg, writing for The San Diego Union-Tribune, reports
that more than 500 investors who purchased condominium-style units
at downtown San Diego's Hard Rock Hotel were notified that they're
being represented in a class-action lawsuit alleging misuse of
association fees they paid.

The suit, filed by the law firm of former City Attorney Mike
Aguirre, is one of two that are targeting the principals involved
in developing and managing the 420-unit hotel project that opened
in 2007.  The letters sent to both current and former investors
follow a Superior Court judge's ruling late last year certifying
the suit as a class action.

"This is good news in that the Hard Rock Hotel room owners don't
have to worry that their interests are not covered," said attorney
Maria "Mia" Severson, a partner in Aguirre's firm.  "We're hoping
to get to trial this year."

The suit alleges that monies collected by the association on
behalf of the individual unit owners improperly diverted the funds
by using them for the overall operation of the hotel rather than
exclusively for maintenance of the common areas serving the rooms,
like the hallways and elevators.  The association's directors,
Severson said, are employed by the original developer, then known
as Tarsadia Hotels.

The lawsuit also claims that a larger percentage of the investors'
share of room revenues is going toward room rental management than
what they had been led to believe under their management contract,
Severson explained.

Moving forward on a separate track is a second suit that seeks to
recover millions of damages for buyers under the umbrella of
securities laws.  That suit alleges that Tarsadia Hotels never
filed its offering of investment agreements with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission and the California Department
of Corporations because the company wanted to avoid scrutiny of
the deal.

The lawsuit was dismissed two years ago by a federal judge but
Aguirre appealed and has since secured the support of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, which has filed a brief in the
case.  It is scheduled to be heard in early June.  Both
Mr. Aguirre and the SEC are seeking to reinstate the lawsuit.

Aguirre has argued that buyers purchased one or more of the hotel
studios and suites, priced from $350,000 to more than $1 million,
with the understanding that revenue from renting out the units to
hotel guests would be sufficient to cover their monthly payments.
That hasn't happened, he alleges.

At the time the securities suit was dismissed, attorney
Rick Kranz, representing Tarsadia, said it was not the alleged
lack of regulatory oversight that led to investor losses but
rather a deep recession that devastated the real estate and
tourism industries.


HARVEST NATURAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on April 12 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased the
securities of Harvest Natural Resources, Inc. during the period
between May 7, 2010 and March 18, 2013, seeking to recover damages
for violations of the federal securities laws.

To join the Harvest Natural class action, visit the firm's
Web site at http://rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Timothy Brown, Esq., toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also
email pkim@rosenlegal.com or tbrown@rosenlegal.com for information
on the class action.  The lawsuit filed by the firm is pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION.  UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN
AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The lawsuit claims that Harvest Natural and certain of its
officers and directors issued materially false and misleading
statements about its revenue and operations.  According to the
Complaint: (a) Harvest Natural wrongfully capitalized certain
lease maintenance costs and certain internal selling, general and
administrative costs; (2) Harvest Natural wrongfully presented
certain cash flow items and caused certain long-lived assets to be
impaired; (3) Harvest Natural was unable to sell its interests in
Petrodelta S.A. to PT Pertamina (Persero); (4) Harvest Natural
lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Harvest
Natural were materially false and misleading.  The complaint
alleges that these misstatements caused investors significant
damages.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 21, 2013.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-
3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's Web site at http://rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.

CONTACT: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
         Timothy W. Brown, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Kevin Chan, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel:  (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 tbrown@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 kchan@rosenlegal.com
         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com


JON BURGE: Special Prosecutor to Be Appointed in Torture Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Meisner, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a special
prosecutor will be appointed in five new cases for men alleging
torture under the watch of disgraced former Chicago police Cmdr.
Jon Burge, as well as for scores of others seeking class-action
status for similar claims, the presiding judge at the Leighton
Criminal Court Building ruled on April 11.

Judge Paul Biebel ruled that the Cook County state's attorney's
office has an inherent conflict of interest going back to former
Mayor Richard Daley, who was the county's top prosecutor when
allegations of torture first came to light.

State's Attorney Anita Alvarez had argued that her office should
be allowed to stay on as prosecutor because unlike her
predecessor, Dick Devine, who had once represented Mr. Burge as a
private attorney, she has had no personal involvement in the Burge
matters.

But Judge Biebel noted that Ms. Alvarez was employed as a top
Devine deputy before her election and therefore has the same
ethical issues.

Judge Biebel's 17-page ruling has an immediate effect on the cases
of Shawn Whirl, George Anderson, Robert Smith, Darryl Christian
and Gerald Reed, who were granted hearings last year after lengthy
investigations by the Illinois Torture Relief and Inquiry
Commission.

The new special prosecutor could also be appointed for dozens of
others who claim to have at least some evidence that their
confessions were coerced by Burge's crew.

The class-action petition, filed last September, was billed as the
first of its kind in Cook County and is being watched closely by
prosecutors around the state.  Judge Biebel acknowledged in his
ruling that it could have "a significant impact" on how
allegations of police misconduct are handled in the future.

After court, Locke Bowman, director of the Northwestern
University's MacArthur Justice Center, called Judge Biebel's
decision sensible given the "abysmal" track record of the state's
attorney's office on Burge-related cases.

"They've never acknowledged that Jon Burge injured anyone," he
said.  "They've never taken any steps to address any of the flawed
prosecutions on which his actions turned, and as a result they are
tainted."

Mr. Burge, 65, was convicted in 2010 on federal charges for lying
under oath about the torture allegations and is serving a 41/2-
year prison sentence.  Meanwhile, the seemingly never-ending legal
wrangling has continued to strain the loved ones of those still in
prison, including Jeannete Plummer, whose son, Johnny, was
arrested at 15 and allegedly beaten with a flashlight by two of
Mr. Burge's men until he confessed to murder.

After the brief hearing on April 11, Ms. Plummer stood in the
courthouse lobby wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with her son's
photo.  She said she was "fed up" with the system but hopeful that
he would win a new trial.

"I'm just tired of it," said Ms. Plummer, her eyes downcast.  "It
should have been over a long time ago."


JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal From ARS-Related Suit Dismissal Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal is pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit from the dismissal of class action lawsuits against
JPMorgan Chase & Co. in connection with the sale of auction-rate
securities, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

Beginning in March 2008, several regulatory authorities initiated
investigations of a number of industry participants, including the
Firm, concerning possible state and federal securities law
violations in connection with the sale of auction-rate securities
("ARS"). The market for many such securities had frozen and a
significant number of auctions for those securities began to fail
in February 2008.

The Firm, on behalf of itself and affiliates, agreed to a
settlement in principle with the New York Attorney General's
Office which provided, among other things, that the Firm would
offer to purchase at par certain ARS purchased from J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC, Chase Investment Services Corp. and Bear, Stearns
& Co. Inc. by individual investors, charities and small- to
medium-sized businesses. The Firm also agreed to a substantively
similar settlement in principle with the Office of Financial
Regulation for the State of Florida and the North American
Securities Administrators Association ("NASAA") Task Force, which
agreed to recommend approval of the settlement to all remaining
states, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Firm has
finalized the settlement agreements with the New York Attorney
General's Office and the Office of Financial Regulation for the
State of Florida. The settlement agreements provide for the
payment of penalties totaling $25 million to all states and
territories. To date, final consent agreements have been reached
with all but three of NASAA's members.

The Firm also was named in two putative antitrust class actions.
The actions allege that the Firm, along with numerous other
financial institution defendants, colluded to maintain and
stabilize the ARS market and then to withdraw their support for
the ARS market. In January 2010, the District Court dismissed both
actions. An appeal is pending in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Plaintiffs Had Until March 1 to Reinstate Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Various shareholders of Bear Stearns have commenced purported
class actions against Bear Stearns and certain of its former
officers and/or directors on behalf of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired common stock of Bear Stearns between
December 14, 2006, and March 14, 2008 (the "Class Period"). The
actions alleged that the defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding Bear Stearns' business and
financial results and that, as a result of those false statements,
Bear Stearns' common stock traded at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period. In November 2012, the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted final
approval of a $275 million settlement.

Bear Stearns, former members of Bear Stearns' Board of Directors
and certain of Bear Stearns' former executive officers have also
been named as defendants in a shareholder derivative and class
action suit which is pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs assert claims
for breach of fiduciary duty, violations of federal securities
laws, waste of corporate assets and gross mismanagement, unjust
enrichment, abuse of control, and indemnification and contribution
in connection with the losses sustained by Bear Stearns as a
result of its purchases of subprime loans and certain repurchases
of its own common stock. Certain individual defendants are also
alleged to have sold their holdings of Bear Stearns common stock
while in possession of material nonpublic information. Plaintiffs
seek compensatory damages in an unspecified amount. The District
Court dismissed the action in January 2011, and plaintiffs have
appealed.

The appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to a stipulation that gives
plaintiffs until March 1, 2013 to reinstate, according to JPMorgan
Chase & Co.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend CIO-Related Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012, disclosed it continues to defend class action
lawsuits related to its Chief Investment Office.

The Firm is responding to a consolidated shareholder class action,
a consolidated class action brought under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act ("ERISA"), shareholder derivative actions,
shareholder demands and government investigations relating to
losses in the synthetic credit portfolio managed by the Firm's
Chief Investment Office ("CIO"). The Firm has received requests
for documents and information in connection with governmental
inquiries and investigations by Congress, the OCC, the Federal
Reserve, the U.S. Department of Justice (the "DOJ"), the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (the "CFTC"), the UK Financial Services
Authority, the State of Massachusetts and other government
agencies. The Firm is cooperating with these investigations.

Four putative class actions alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder were filed on behalf of purchasers of the Firm's common
stock. The cases were consolidated, lead plaintiffs were appointed
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed in November 2012 that
defines the putative class as purchasers of the Firm's common
stock between February 24, 2010 and May 21, 2012. The consolidated
amended complaint alleges that the Firm and certain current and
former officers made false or misleading statements concerning
CIO's role, the Firm's risk management practices and the Firm's
financial results, as well as in connection with the disclosure of
losses in the synthetic credit portfolio in 2012.

Separately, two putative class actions were filed on behalf of
participants who held the Firm's common stock in the Firm's
retirement plans. These actions assert claims under ERISA for
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Firm, certain
affiliates and certain current and former directors and officers
in connection with the management of those plans. The complaints
generally allege that defendants breached the duty of prudence by
allowing investment in the Firm's common stock when they knew or
should have known that such stock was unsuitable for the plans and
that the Firm and certain current and former officers made false
or misleading statements concerning the Firm's financial
condition. These actions have been consolidated, and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed in December 2012 which
alleges a class period of December 20, 2011 to July 12, 2012. The
consolidated amended complaint contains allegations similar to
those in the original complaints, but now asserts claims only on
behalf of participants in the Firm's 401(k) Savings Plan.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Still Awaits Final OK of Interchange Suit Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. is still awaiting final court approval of
a settlement of class action lawsuits over interchange fees,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

A group of merchants and retail associations filed a series of
putative class action complaints relating to interchange in
several federal courts. The complaints allege, among other claims,
that Visa and MasterCard, as well as certain other banks,
conspired to set the price of credit and debit card interchange
fees, enacted respective rules in violation of antitrust laws, and
engaged in tying/bundling and exclusive dealing. All cases were
consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York for pretrial proceedings.

In October 2012, Visa, Inc., its wholly-owned subsidiaries Visa
U.S.A. Inc. and Visa International Service Association, MasterCard
Incorporated, MasterCard International Incorporated and various
United States financial institution defendants, including JPMorgan
Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Chase Bank USA, N.A.,
Chase Paymentech Solutions, LLC and certain predecessor
institutions, entered into a settlement agreement (the "Settlement
Agreement") to resolve the claims of the U.S. merchant and retail
association plaintiffs (the "Class Plaintiffs") in the multi-
district litigation. In November 2012, the Court entered an order
preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, which provides
for, among other things, a cash payment of $6.05 billion to the
Class Plaintiffs (of which the Firm's share is approximately 20%),
and an amount equal to ten basis points of credit card interchange
for a period of eight months to be measured from a date within 60
days of the end of the opt-out period. The Settlement Agreement
also provides for modifications to each credit card network's
rules, including those that prohibit surcharging credit card
transactions. The rule modifications became effective in January
2013. The Settlement Agreement is subject to final approval by the
Court.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend LIBOR-Related Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to defend various lawsuits,
including class action, alleging manipulation of the London
Interbank Offered Rate, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

JPMorgan Chase has received subpoenas and requests for documents
and, in some cases, interviews, from federal and state agencies
and entities, including the DOJ, CFTC, SEC, and various state
attorneys general, as well as the European Commission, UK
Financial Services Authority, Canadian Competition Bureau, Swiss
Competition Commission and other regulatory authorities and
banking associations around the world. The documents and
information sought relate primarily to the process by which
interest rates were submitted to the British Bankers Association
("BBA") in connection with the setting of the BBA's London
Interbank Offered Rate ("LIBOR") for various currencies,
principally in 2007 and 2008. Some of the inquiries also relate to
similar processes by which information on rates is submitted to
European Banking Federation ("EBF") in connection with the setting
of the EBF's Euro Interbank Offered Rates ("EURIBOR") and to the
Japanese Bankers' Association for the setting of Tokyo Interbank
Offered Rates ("TIBOR") as well as to other processes for the
setting of other reference rates in various parts of the world
during similar time periods. The Firm is cooperating with these
inquiries.

In addition, the Firm has been named as a defendant along with
other banks in a series of individual and class actions filed in
various United States District Courts in which plaintiffs make
varying allegations that in various periods, starting in 2000 or
later, defendants either individually or collectively manipulated
the U.S. dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR and Euroyen TIBOR rates by
submitting rates that were artificially low or high. Plaintiffs
allege that they transacted in loans, derivatives or other
financial instruments whose values are impacted by changes in U.S.
dollar LIBOR, Yen LIBOR, or Euroyen TIBOR and assert a variety of
claims including antitrust claims seeking treble damages.

In 2011, a number of class actions were filed against LIBOR panel
banks, including the Firm, asserting various federal and state law
claims relating to the alleged manipulation of U.S. dollar LIBOR.
These purported class actions were consolidated for
pre-trial purposes in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York before District Judge Buchwald, who
appointed interim lead counsel for three proposed classes: (i)
direct purchasers of U.S. dollar LIBOR-based financial instruments
in the over-the-counter market; (ii) purchasers of U.S. dollar
LIBOR-based financial instruments on an exchange; and (iii)
purchasers of debt securities that pay an interest rate linked to
U.S. dollar LIBOR. The defendants moved to dismiss all claims in
these three putative class actions and three related individual
actions pending before the Court. The Court has not yet ruled on
the defendants' motions to dismiss.

Since April 2012, a number of additional U.S. dollar LIBOR
putative class actions and individual actions have been filed in
various courts. Defendants have moved to transfer each of these
cases to the consolidated action pending in the Southern District
of New York. To date, all but three of these actions have been
transferred. The actions that have been transferred are stayed
until the Court rules on the defendants' pending motions to
dismiss.

The Firm also has been named as a defendant in a purported class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York which seeks to bring claims on behalf of
plaintiffs who purchased or sold exchange-traded Euroyen futures
and options contracts. The plaintiff has been granted leave to
file a Second Amended Complaint, and defendants will have 60 days
after the filing of that amended pleading to respond.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend Madoff-Related Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to defend various lawsuits,
including class actions, related to Bernard L. Madoff Investment
Securities LLC, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2012.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC, and J.P. Morgan Securities plc have been named as
defendants in a lawsuit brought by the trustee (the "Trustee") for
the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC
("Madoff"). The Trustee has served an amended complaint in which
he has asserted 28 causes of action against JPMorgan Chase, 20 of
which seek to avoid certain transfers (direct or indirect) made to
JPMorgan Chase that are alleged to have been preferential or
fraudulent under the federal Bankruptcy Code and the New York
Debtor and Creditor Law. The remaining causes of action involve
claims for, among other things, aiding and abetting fraud, aiding
and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, contribution
and unjust enrichment in connection with Madoff's Ponzi scheme.
The complaint asserts common law claims that purport to seek
approximately $19 billion in damages, together with bankruptcy law
claims to recover approximately $425 million in transfers that
JPMorgan Chase allegedly received directly or indirectly from
Bernard

In October 2011, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted JPMorgan Chase's motion to dismiss
the common law claims asserted by the Trustee, and returned the
remaining claims to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings.
The Trustee appealed this decision and oral argument on the appeal
was held in November 2012. The Firm is awaiting the Court's
decision.

Separately, J.P. Morgan Trust Company (Cayman) Limited, JPMorgan
(Suisse) SA, J.P. Morgan Securities plc, Bear Stearns Alternative
Assets International Ltd., J.P. Morgan Clearing Corp., J.P. Morgan
Bank Luxembourg SA, and J.P. Morgan Markets Limited (formerly Bear
Stearns International Limited) have been named as defendants in
lawsuits presently pending in Bankruptcy Court in New York arising
out of the liquidation proceedings of Fairfield Sentry Limited and
Fairfield Sigma Limited (together, "Fairfield"), so-called Madoff
feeder funds. These actions are based on theories of mistake and
restitution, among other theories, and seek to recover payments
made to defendants by the funds totaling approximately $155
million. Pursuant to an agreement with the Trustee, the
liquidators of Fairfield have voluntarily dismissed their action
against J.P. Morgan Securities plc without prejudice to refiling.
The other actions remain outstanding. In addition, a purported
class action was brought by investors in certain feeder funds
against JPMorgan Chase in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, as was a motion by separate
potential class plaintiffs to add claims against JPMorgan Chase &
Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and
J.P. Morgan Securities plc to an already-pending purported class
action in the same court. The allegations in these complaints
largely track those raised by the Trustee. The Court dismissed
these complaints and plaintiffs have appealed.

The Firm is a defendant in five other Madoff-related actions
pending in New York state court and one purported class action in
federal District Court in New York. The allegations in all of
these actions are essentially identical, and involve claims
against the Firm for, among other things, aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and unjust enrichment. The
Firm has moved to dismiss both the state and federal actions.
The Firm is also responding to various governmental inquiries
concerning the Madoff matter.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend MF Global-Related Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to defend various lawsuits,
including class actions, related to MF Global, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. was named as one of several defendants in a
number of putative class action lawsuits brought by former
customers of MF Global in federal District Courts in New York,
Illinois and Montana. The lawsuits have been consolidated before
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. The actions alleged, among other things, that the Firm aided
and abetted MF Global's alleged misuse of customer money and
breaches of fiduciary duty and was unjustly enriched by the
transfer of certain customer segregated funds by MF Global. The
Firm has entered into a tolling agreement with counsel for the
customer class plaintiffs and an individual plaintiff, pursuant to
which the plaintiffs have agreed not to pursue any such claims
against the Firm in these actions for so long as the tolling
agreement remains in effect.

J.P. Morgan Securities LLC has been named as one of several
defendants in a number of purported class actions filed by
purchasers of MF Global's publicly traded securities, including
the securities issued pursuant to MF Global's June 2010 secondary
offering of common stock and February 2011 and August 2011
convertible note offerings. The actions have been consolidated
before the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York. In August 2012, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint which asserts violations of the Securities Act of 1933
against the underwriter defendants and alleges that the offering
documents contained materially false and misleading statements and
omissions regarding MF Global's financial position, internal
controls and risk management, as such topics relate to its
exposure to European sovereign debt. Defendants moved to dismiss
in October 2012. Those motions remain pending.

In June 2012, the Securities Investor Protection Act ("SIPA")
Trustee issued a Report of the Trustee's Investigation and
Recommendations, and stated that he is considering potential
claims against the Firm with respect to certain transfers
identified in the Report. Discussions regarding possible
resolution of potential SIPA Trustee claims and customer claims
against the Firm are ongoing.

The Firm has responded to and continues to respond to inquiries
from the CFTC, SEC, SIPA Trustee and Bankruptcy Trustee concerning
MF Global.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend MBS & Repurchase Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to defend various mortgage-backed
securities and repurchase litigation, including class actions,
according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

JPMorgan Chase and affiliates, Bear Stearns and affiliates and
Washington Mutual affiliates have been named as defendants in a
number of cases in their various roles as issuer, originator or
underwriter in MBS offerings. These cases include purported class
action suits, actions by individual purchasers of securities or by
trustees for the benefit of purchasers of securities, an action by
the New York State Attorney General and actions by monoline
insurance companies that guaranteed payments of principal and
interest for particular tranches of securities offerings. Although
the allegations vary by lawsuit, these cases generally allege that
the offering documents for securities issued by numerous
securitization trusts contained material misrepresentations and
omissions, including with regard to the underwriting standards
pursuant to which the underlying mortgage loans were issued, or
assert that various representations or warranties relating to the
loans were breached at the time of origination. There are
currently pending and tolled investor claims involving
approximately $170 billion of such securities. In addition, there
are pending and threatened claims by monoline insurers and by and
on behalf of trustees that involve some of these and other
securitizations.

In the actions against the Firm as an MBS issuer (and, in some
cases, also as an underwriter of its own MBS offerings), three
purported class actions are pending against JPMorgan Chase and
Bear Stearns, and/or certain of their affiliates and current and
former employees, in the United States District Courts for the
Eastern and Southern Districts of New York. Motions to dismiss
have been largely denied in these cases, although in certain cases
defendants have sought to appeal aspects of the decision, and they
are in various stages of litigation. A settlement of a fourth
purported class action that is pending in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington against
Washington Mutual affiliates, WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. and WaMu
Capital Corp. and certain former officers or directors of WaMu
Asset Acceptance Corp., has received final court approval.

In addition to class actions, the Firm is also a defendant in
individual actions brought against certain affiliates of JPMorgan
Chase, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual as issuers (and, in some
cases, as underwriters) of MBS. These actions involve claims by or
to benefit various institutional investors and governmental
agencies. These actions are pending in federal and state courts
across the United States and are in various stages of litigation.
In actions against the Firm solely as an underwriter of other
issuers' MBS offerings, the Firm has contractual rights to
indemnification from the issuers. However, those indemnity rights
may prove effectively unenforceable where the issuers are now
defunct, such as in pending cases where the Firm has been named
involving affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp. A settlement of a
purported class action involving Thornburg Mortgage MBS offerings
that was pending against the Firm has received preliminary court
approval. The Firm may also be contractually obligated to
indemnify underwriters in certain deals it issued.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Still Defends Suits Over Foreclosure Procedures
---------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to defend various mortgage
foreclosure-related investigations and litigation, including class
actions, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

The Attorneys General of Massachusetts and New York have
separately filed lawsuits against the Firm, other servicers and a
mortgage recording company asserting claims for various alleged
wrongdoings relating to mortgage assignments and use of the
industry's electronic mortgage registry. The court granted in part
and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the
Massachusetts action and the Firm has moved to dismiss the New
York action.

Six purported class action lawsuits were filed against the Firm
relating to its mortgage foreclosure procedures. Two of the class
actions have been dismissed with prejudice and one settled on an
individual basis. Of the remaining active actions, two are in the
discovery phase and a motion to dismiss is pending in the
remaining action. Additionally, a purported class action brought
against Bank of America involving an EMC loan has been dismissed.
Two shareholder derivative actions have been filed in New York
Supreme Court against the Firm's Board of Directors alleging that
the Board failed to exercise adequate oversight as to wrongful
conduct by the Firm regarding mortgage servicing. These actions
seek declaratory relief and damages. In July 2012, the Court
granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the first-
filed action and gave plaintiff 45 days in which to file an
amended complaint. In October 2012, the Court entered a stipulated
order consolidating the actions and staying all proceedings
pending the plaintiffs' decision whether to file a consolidated
complaint after the Firm completes its response to a demand
submitted by one of the plaintiffs under Section 220 of the
Delaware General Corporation Law.

The Civil Division of the United States Attorney's Office for the
Southern District of New York is conducting an investigation
concerning the Firm's compliance with the requirements of the
Federal Housing Administration's Direct Endorsement Program. The
Firm is cooperating in that investigation.

On January 7, 2013, the Firm announced that it and a number of
other financial institutions entered into a settlement agreement
with the OCC and the Federal Reserve providing for the termination
of the Independent Foreclosure Review programs that had been
required under the Consent Orders with such banking regulators
relating to each bank's residential mortgage servicing,
foreclosure and loss-mitigation activities. Under this settlement,
the Firm will make a cash payment of $753 million into a
settlement fund for distribution to qualified borrowers. The Firm
has also committed an additional $1.2 billion to foreclosure
prevention actions under the settlement, which will be fulfilled
through credits given to the Firm for modifications, short sales
and other types of borrower relief.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Still Defends Suits Over Municipal Derivatives
--------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to face various municipal
derivatives investigations and litigation, including class
actions, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012.

Purported class action lawsuits and individual actions have been
filed against JPMorgan Chase and Bear Stearns, as well as numerous
other providers and brokers, alleging antitrust violations in the
market for financial instruments related to municipal bond
offerings referred to collectively as "municipal derivatives." In
July 2011, the Firm settled with federal and state governmental
agencies to resolve their investigations into similar alleged
conduct. The municipal derivatives actions were consolidated
and/or coordinated in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. In December 2012, the District
Court granted final approval of a settlement calling for payment
of approximately $43 million. Certain class members opted out of
the settlement, including 27 plaintiffs named in individual
actions already pending against JPMorgan.

In addition, civil actions have been commenced against the Firm
relating to certain Jefferson County, Alabama (the "County")
warrant underwritings and swap transactions. In November 2009,
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC settled with the SEC to resolve its
investigation into those transactions. Following that settlement,
the County filed an action against the Firm and several other
defendants in Alabama state court. An action on behalf of a
purported class of sewer rate payers has also been filed in
Alabama state court. The suits allege that the Firm made payments
to certain third parties in exchange for being chosen to
underwrite more than $3 billion in warrants issued by the County
and to act as the counterparty for certain swaps executed by the
County.  The complaints also allege that the Firm concealed these
third-party payments and that, but for this concealment, the
County would not have entered into the transactions. The Court
denied the Firm's motions to dismiss the complaints in both
proceedings.

In November and December 2011, the County filed notices of
bankruptcy with the trial court in each of the cases and with the
Alabama Supreme Court stating that it was a Chapter 9 Debtor in
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Subsequently, the portion of the sewer rate payer action involving
claims against the Firm was removed by certain defendants to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
In its order finding that removal of this action was proper, the
District Court referred the action to the District's Bankruptcy
Court, where the action remains pending. Limited discovery has
taken place in the County's action and additional discovery may
take place in 2013.

In September 2012, a group of purported creditors of the County
initiated an adversary proceeding and filed a purported class
action complaint alleging that certain warrants were issued
unlawfully and were thus null and void and seeking $1.6 billion in
damages from the Firm and other defendants involved in the
Jefferson County financing transactions. The Firm, along with a
number of other defendants, moved to dismiss the complaint in
November 2012. Plaintiffs subsequently agreed to dismiss their
tort claims seeking damages and are solely pursuing their claims
relating to the validity of the warrants. The motion to dismiss
these claims remains pending.

Two insurance companies that guaranteed the payment of principal
and interest on warrants issued by the County have filed separate
actions against the Firm in New York state court. Their complaints
assert that the Firm fraudulently misled them into issuing
insurance based upon substantially the same alleged conduct
described and other alleged non-disclosures. One insurer claims
that it insured an aggregate principal amount of nearly $1.2
billion and seeks unspecified damages in excess of $400 million as
well as unspecified punitive damages. The other insurer claims
that it insured an aggregate principal amount of more than $378
million and seeks recovery of $4 million allegedly paid under the
policies to date as well as any future payments and unspecified
punitive damages. In December 2010, the court denied the Firm's
motions to dismiss each of the complaints. The Firm has filed a
cross-claim and a third party claim against the County for
indemnity and contribution. The County moved to dismiss, which the
court denied in August 2011. In consequence of its November 2011
bankruptcy filing, the County has asserted that these actions are
stayed. In February 2012, one of the insurers filed a motion for a
declaration that its action is not stayed as against the Firm or,
in the alternative, for an order lifting the stay as against the
Firm. The Firm and the County opposed the motion, which remains
pending.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend Suits Over ARM Disclosures
--------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to defend class action lawsuits
related to Option Adjustable Rate Mortgage, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.





The Firm is defending one purported and three certified class
actions, all pending in federal courts in California, which assert
that several JPMorgan Chase entities violated the federal Truth in
Lending Act and state unfair business practice statutes in failing
to provide adequate disclosures in Option Adjustable Rate Mortgage
("ARM") loans regarding the resetting of introductory interest
rates and that negative amortization was certain to occur if a
borrower made the minimum monthly payment. With respect to the
former Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns defendants who purchased
Option ARM loans from third-party originators, plaintiffs allege
that those entities aided and abetted the original lenders'
alleged violations. Classes have been certified in three of the
actions. In one of the certified class actions, the Firm has moved
for decertification of the class and for summary judgment. The
Firm was unsuccessful in seeking permission to appeal the
remaining class certification decisions.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Got Final Okay of Overdraft Fee Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. has been named as a defendant in several
purported class actions relating to its practices in posting debit
card transactions to customers' deposit accounts. Plaintiffs
allege that the Firm improperly re-ordered debit card transactions
from the highest amount to the lowest amount before processing
these transactions in order to generate unwarranted overdraft
fees. Plaintiffs contend that the Firm should have processed such
transactions in the chronological order in which they were
authorized. Plaintiffs seek the disgorgement of all overdraft fees
paid to the Firm by plaintiffs since approximately 2003 as a
result of the re-ordering of debit card transactions. The claims
against the Firm have been consolidated with numerous complaints
against other national banks in multi-District litigation pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida. The Firm reached an agreement to settle this matter in
exchange for the Firm paying $110 million and agreeing to change
certain overdraft fee practices. In December 2012, the Court
granted final approval of the settlement, according to JPMorgan
Chase & Co.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Discovery Still Stayed in Securities Lending Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. was named as a defendant in a putative
class action asserting ERISA and other claims pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
brought by participants in the Firm's securities lending business.

The action concerns investments of approximately $500 million in
Lehman Brothers medium-term notes. The Court granted the Firm's
motion to dismiss all claims in April 2012. The plaintiff filed a
third amended complaint, and the Firm's motion to dismiss this
complaint is pending. Discovery has been stayed until the Firm's
motion to dismiss is decided, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.


LAZIO: Codacons File Class Action Over Arsenic-Tainted Water
------------------------------------------------------------
ANSA reports that Italian consumer group Codacons on April 12
called for businesses affected by arsenic-contaminated drinking
water around Viterbo to be suspended, and submitted a class-action
lawsuit on behalf of the same businesses against the surrounding
Lazio region.

The suit is asking for damages of up to one million euros for
bakeries, restaurants, cake makers, and other businesses that
depend upon water from the faucet.

On April 12, a study showed that the level of arsenic found in
people who have drunk water in and around Viterbo is twice that
found among the general population of Italy.

Dangerous levels of the poison were also found in the local bread
supply.


LM INVESTMENT: Investors Mull Class Action Over Collapse
--------------------------------------------------------
Larry Schlesinger, writing for Smart Company, reports that a
"steady stream" of investors are adding their names to what could
become a Slater & Gordon class action against financial planners
who recommended they invest in mortgage funds issued by collapsed
Gold Coast-based fund manager and developer LM Investment
Management (LMIM).

Slater & Gordon had already issued legal proceedings against
financial advisors on behalf of a number of those investors and
says more proceedings will be issued in coming weeks.

LMIM was placed into voluntary administration last month with
initial reports suggesting there may be irregularities in how some
of the funds operated.  Administrators John Park and Ginette
Muller from FTI Consulting have applied to become the receivers of
the AUD400 million LM Managed Performance Fund, which has the AUD1
billion Maddison Estate on the Gold Coast as its primary
investment asset.  The application has the backing of ASIC, The
Australian Financial Review reported.

Another Gold Coast residential development backed by the same LMIM
fund, the 271-unit Rhodes apartment development on Mount Cotton
Road at Capalaba is caught up in the collapse of LMIM.  The
administrators revealed the business loaned AUD17 million to its
founder, Peter Drake.

Slater & Gordon commercial litigation lawyer Mark Walter has told
Property Observer the firm continues to field inquiries from
investors and is confident of commencing proceedings in the "near
future".  The exact form they will take has not been decided but
it could a class action with Slater & Gordon specialists in this
area.

Previous class actions have included litigation on behalf of
investors against financial planners who recommended investments
in Basis Capital Funds; a fund linked to the US sub-prime market,
Premium Income Fund and collapsed Gold Coast property and
financial services group MFS.

Mr. Walter says some investors have up to AUD1 million invested in
LMIM mortgage funds, but have little prospect of getting any of
their money back.  Instead investors will seek to reclaim their
money from financial advisers -- LMIM used as many as 250
different financial advisory firms.

"Any advisor needs to have a reasonable basis for their
recommendations," says Mr. Walter.  He says the timing and the
circumstances of these recommendations have been called into
question with queries about the appropriate of recommending these
product types for investors.

"Planners are required under the corporations act to be able to
match up their recommendations with their clients' objectives," he
says.

Mr. Walter warns that a six-year time limit generally applied for
anyone wanting to sue, meaning anyone who invested in 2007 during
the pre-GFC boom period needed to obtain immediate legal advice.

"We believe there is a large number of viable claims against
financial advisors who recommended this and other high-risk
products that will be affected by the time limit," Mr. Walter
says.

"It's important that people exercise their right to hold their
advisors to account and seek legal advice before it is too late.

"We have found that funds like LM were particularly popular among
financial planners in communities where there are large
populations of retirees with money to invest.

"The people we are talking about are typically risk averse and
conservative and have relied on the professional advice of
financial advisors to invest in these funds.  It is debatable
whether these funds were appropriate for them given their
conservative needs."

Another law firm, Piper Alderman, has also been assisting unit
holders who invested in the LM First Mortgage Fund in respect of a
class action.  Piper Alderman partner Amanda Banton and her team
are investigating claims against the responsible entity of the
Fund, LM Investment Management Limited, its directors and other
third parties, including advisors, associated with the fund's
demise with a view to bringing a class action or any other
appropriate action.

"Those actions will seek to recover the losses sustained by unit
holders, many of whom are elderly persons who invested their life
savings," says Piper Alderman.


MAGELLAN HEALTH: Continues to Defend Various Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Magellan Health Services, Inc., in its Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2012, disclosed it is subject to class action and
other lawsuits that could result in material liabilities to the
Company or cause the Company to incur material costs, to change
the Company's operating procedures in ways that increase costs or
to comply with additional regulatory requirements.

Managed healthcare companies and PBM companies have been targeted
as defendants in national class action lawsuits regarding their
business practices. The Company has in the past been subject to
such national class actions as defendants and is also subject to
or a party to other class actions, lawsuits and legal proceedings
in conducting the Company's business. In addition, certain of the
Company's customers are parties to pending class action lawsuits
regarding the customers' business practices for which the
customers could seek indemnification from the Company. These
lawsuits may take years to resolve and cause the Company to incur
substantial litigation expense, and the outcomes could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's profitability and
financial condition. In addition to potential damage awards,
depending upon the outcomes of such cases, these lawsuits may
cause or force changes in practices of the Company's industry and
may also cause additional regulation of the industry through new
federal or state laws or new applications of existing laws or
regulations. Such changes could increase the Company's operating
costs.


MALLOZZI GROUP: Servers File Class Action Over Stolen Tips
----------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Bump, writing for The Daily Gazette, reports that a former
server for the Mallozzi Group has accused the Rotterdam-based
restaurant and catering empire of cheating its servers out of more
than $1 million worth of tips over the last two years, possibly
more.

The accusation was lodged in a 12-page class action complaint
filed March 29 in Albany County Supreme Court by Ryan Picard, of
Albany County.  Mr. Picard was employed as a Mallozzi's server for
most of 2011 and all of 2012, and he claims that a mandatory 20
percent "service personnel charge" tacked onto customer's bills
was never distributed to him and at least 100 other servers.

Employees were apparently paid a flat hourly rate, according to
the suit, and were told by Mallozzi management that when a
customer asked if they received tips to respond that they did.

"Mallozzi's and all of our companies adhere to all of the New York
Labor Law and its guidelines with the utmost strictness," said
co-owner Bobby Mallozzi on April 11.  "But that doesn't prevent
former disgruntled employees from making wrongful accusations or
claims.  I want to be clear that this lawsuit has absolutely no
merit, and we will vigorously fight it."


MCKENZIE CHECK: Fla. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Farrington, writing for Associated Press, reports that
citing a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year, the state high
court sided with a payday-loan company on April 11 in a ruling
that keeps customers from banding together to sue the company.

The ruling means that anyone signing contracts with small print
that says disputes must be settled through arbitration rather than
through lawsuits can't later get together with other unhappy
customers and file class action lawsuits.

The decision overturns lower court rulings in a dispute with
McKenzie Check Advance and its customers who claimed the payday-
loan company was using a check cashing service to charge
exorbitant interest rates.  Circuit Judge Elizabeth Maass called
the arbitration clause in McKenzie's contracts "unconscionable"
when she ruled the customers could sue.

Judge Maass invalidated the contracts, saying borrowers in Palm
Beach County were unable to seek justice because they couldn't
find lawyers willing to pursue individual claims for relatively
small amounts of money.

An appeals court upheld the decision, but since then the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled last year that California law couldn't
invalidate language in AT&T Mobility cellphone contracts that
calls for disputes to be settled through arbitration rather than
lawsuits.  It cited the Federal Arbitration Act.

The Florida Supreme Court said that ruling also applies in the
McKenzie case.

Paul Bland, who represented the loan company's customers before
the state high court, said hundreds of class action lawsuits
nationally have been thrown out since the U.S. Supreme Court
ruling.  "This case really shows how disastrous for consumers that
interpretation is," said Mr. Bland, a lawyer with Washington,
D.C.-based Public Justice.  "The harm to consumer protection is
unbelievable."  He said Public Justice settled three similar cases
before the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that ended up winning nearly
$20 million combined for tens of thousands of customers.  Now,
though, consumers don't have a legal remedy, he said.

The Florida case is McKenzie Check Advance of Florida LLC, et al.
v. Wendy Betts, et al., SC11-514.

                      Court Cites Concepcion

Carolina Bolado, writing for Law360, reports that citing the U.S.
Supreme Court's landmark Concepcion decision, the Florida Supreme
Court on April 11 deemed a class action waiver in an arbitration
agreement signed by customers of a check cashing company valid and
enforceable.  The state high court quashed the Fourth District
Court of Appeals decision that had ruled the class action waiver
in McKenzie Check Advance LLC's arbitration agreements with
customers violated Florida public policy by leaving individual
customers without an adequate recourse against the company.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Navistar
International Corporation, has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
on behalf of a class comprising all purchasers of Navistar
securities between November 3, 2010 and August 1, 2012, inclusive.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period the Company
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial condition and future prospects.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP.  Please contact us by phone to discuss this
action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150 or
Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, or by e-mail at
shareholders@glancylaw.com

Navistar is a holding company whose subsidiaries and affiliates
produce commercial and military trucks, buses, diesel engines,
recreational vehicles and chassis, as well as provide parts and
service for trucks and trailers through its subsidiaries,
manufactures and sells commercial and military trucks, buses,
diesel engines and recreational vehicles, and provides service
parts for trucks and trailers worldwide.  The Complaint alleges
that throughout the Class Period the Company misrepresented and/or
failed to disclose that: (a) Navistar's attempted methods for
compliance with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines
had failed and Navistar would be forced to revise its plan to meet
guidelines, incurring enormous costs to the Company; (b) Navistar
did not timely have engines available to meet the 2010 EPA
standards; (c) Navistar's filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) contained incomplete and misleading disclosures,
including statements about the costs of recalls and details of
various debts; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, defendants
lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the
Company and its revenue outlook.

Then, on August 2, 2012, Navistar announced it was withdrawing its
full-year fiscal 2012 guidance until the release of its third
fiscal quarter 2012 results in September.  Further, the Company
disclosed receiving a formal letter of inquiry from the SEC
involving an investigation of various accounting and disclosure
matters dating back to November 2010.  As a result of this news,
the price of Navistar's common stock dropped from a closing price
of $24.77 per share on August 1, 2012 to $21.44 per share on
August 2, 2012, a decline of approximately 13% in one trading day
on volume of nearly 7.6 million shares.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members and
is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with
significant experience in prosecuting class actions and
substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court, no later than May 20, 2013 to serve as lead plaintiff;
however, you must meet certain legal requirements.  If you wish to
learn more about this action or have any questions concerning this
Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters,
please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles,
California 90067, by telephone at (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at
(888) 773-9224, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit
our Web site at http://www.glancylaw.com


NY STOCK EXCHANGE: Settlement Fairness Hearing Moved to May 22
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement pursuant to an
order of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York:

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO SUBMITTED ORDERS (DIRECTLY OR
THROUGH AGENTS) TO PURCHASE OR SELL NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE-LISTED
SECURITIES DURING THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1999 THROUGH OCTOBER 15,
2003, THAT WERE LISTED ON THE SPECIALISTS' DISPLAY BOOK (i.e.,
submitted electronically via the DOT or Super DOT systems).

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a
hearing previously scheduled for March 13, 2013 will be held on
May 22, 2013, at 12:00 p.m., before the Honorable Robert W. Sweet,
at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
Street, New York, New York, for the purpose of determining (1)
whether the proposed settlement of the claims in the Litigation
for the total principal amount of $18,500,000 in cash plus accrued
interest, should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (2) whether the final orders and judgments should be
entered by the Court dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3)
whether the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate
and therefore should be approved; and (4) whether the application
of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses
should be approved.

If you submitted orders (directly or through agents) to purchase
or sell New York Stock Exchange-listed securities during the
period January 1, 1999 through October 15, 2003, that were listed
on the Specialists' display book (i.e., submitted electronically
via the DOT or Super DOT systems), your rights may be affected by
the settlement of this Litigation.  In the unlikely event that
100% of the Compensable Transactions incurred by Class Members
that are entitled to a distribution under the Plan of Allocation
described below participate in the settlement, the average payment
will be approximately $4.00 per Compensable Transaction, assuming
that each Compensable Transaction is the same size and amount.
This amount may need to be allocated if more than one Class Member
is associated with the particular Compensable Transaction.  The
actual amount may change based on the number of shares and the
display book price in each Compensable Transaction.  If you have
not received a detailed Revised Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action, you may obtain copies by writing to
NYSE Specialist Securities Litigation, c/o Heffler Claims
Administration, P.O. Box 240, Philadelphia, PA 19105-0240 or on
the internet at http://www.NYSESpecialistsLitigation.com

If you are a Class Member, but if you desire to be excluded from
the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion postmarked by
April 19, 2013 (previously due by February 6, 2013) in the manner
and form explained in the detailed Notice referenced above.  All
Members of the Class who have not timely and validly requested
exclusion from the Class will be bound by any judgment entered in
the Litigation pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement dated
October 24, 2012 and the Van der Moolen Settlement.  If you wish
to object to the settlement you must do so by April 29, 2013
(previously due by February 18, 2013).  The detailed Notice
explains how to exclude yourself or object.

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

DATED: FEBRUARY 4, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


ONTARIO: Judge Has Yet to Decide on Mississauga Flooding Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Clay, writing for Mississauga, reports that a public meeting
on April 16 at City Hall was scheduled where residents in the
Lisgar community were expected have an opportunity to find out
what's behind the flooding they've experienced.

The flooding, which occurred between 2009 and 2011, prompted a
group of residents to launch a $200-million class action lawsuit
against the City of Mississauga, Region of Peel, Halton Regional
Conservation Authority and Ontario's Environment Ministry over
damage to their homes.  The lawsuit must still go before a judge,
who'll decide if it will proceed as a class action.

The meeting was set to start at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers.

Ward 10 Councillor Sue McFadden, who represents the area, will
provide opening remarks followed by the City's commissioner of
transportation and works Martin Powell.

There will be a presentation by Ron Scheckenberger from consulting
firm AMEC about a study the company conducted into the flooding.
His presentation will deal with the technical aspects of storm
sewers, foundation drain collectors and the Sixteen Mile Creek
while also touching on activities undertaken by the City in the
past year or so to stop further flooding in the area.
David Boghosian, external legal counsel hired by the City, will
speak to issues of evidence of negligence, claims and
compensation.

The presentations were to be followed by a question and answer
session.

To help deal with the flooding, the City has conducted
topographical surveys and vegetation has been removed along
Sixteen Mile Creek.  Sediment was dredged from a number of storm
sewer channels to the creek and the sewers have been flushed and
inspected.

City crews also cleared materials accumulating in the bottom of
manholes and sealed up some isolated manholes where water might
enter.  Staff also found there has been illegal dumping of garbage
in the creek.


OREGON: Aims to Move More Disabled Into General Workforce
---------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Denson, writing for The Oregonian, reports that Gov. John
Kitzhaber on April 11 announced plans to move more Oregonians with
severe disabilities into the general workforce and gradually
decrease state funding to nonprofit sheltered workshops.

The governor, facing a class-action lawsuit by critics of the
workshops, issued an executive order affirming Oregon's plan to
help the disabled find and keep jobs in mainstream workplaces.

A key goal of the state's Employment First plan is to halt a cycle
in which special education students graduate high school and
immediately take jobs in sheltered workshops that, by U.S. law,
are allowed to pay less than the federal minimum wage.

Kitzhaber also announced he was appointing Mike Maley, deputy
director of the state's Office of Developmental Disabilities
Services, as Oregon's first Statewide Employment Coordinator for
people with intellectual or developmental disabilities.
Mr. Maley, a lifelong Oregonian who has spent his career working
with the disabled, will help implement the executive order.

The governor's 15-page order comes two weeks after the U.S.
government joined a class-action lawsuit, Lane v. Kitzhaber, which
alleges the state is violating the federal Americans with
Disabilities Act.  The lawsuit accuses Oregon of unlawfully
segregating disabled laborers in workshops instead of integrating
them into mainstream jobs.

Bob Joondeph, executive director of Disability Rights Oregon, said
Kitzhaber's plan includes some acceptable remedies for the routine
segregation of the disabled into sheltered workshops.

Mr. Joondeph, an attorney, also represents plaintiffs in the
lawsuit: eight people with disabilities and United Cerebral Palsy
of Oregon and Southwest Washington.

Kitzhaber's order "sets forth a plan to both close the front door
into sheltered work and to move a certain number of people out of
sheltered workshops into employment situations over the next nine
years," Mr. Joondeph said in an interview.  "Obviously, if the
state were to succeed in doing that, it would be a positive
development."

But Mr. Joondeph said he was concerned about the enforceability of
the governor's plan and whether it would allow employers to pay
workers below the federal minimum wage.

Oregon once was a leader in providing job coaches and other
workplace supports designed to move people with significant
developmental or intellectual disabilities into the general
workforce.

Today, just 16 percent of those workers labor in the general
workforce, while 61 percent toil in sheltered workshops, the
Justice Department reported.  The number of Oregonians working in
those sheltered workshops, sometimes earning pennies an hour at
piece-work jobs, has nearly doubled to 2,600 since the 1990s.

Gov. Kitzhaber's executive order said the state is neither
admitting such measures are legally required nor making admissions
"on any legal issue" in the class-action lawsuit or a related
investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice.

The executive order sets benchmarks for the Department of Human
Services as the state moves to integrate people with disabilities
into the mainstream, including a Nov. 1 requirement by DHS to
adopt an integrated employment plan.

Gov. Kitzhaber's order states that by July 1, 2015, the state's
offices of Developmental Disability Services and Vocational
Rehabilitation Services will no longer fund workshop placements
for workers already laboring in them or those eligible for those
services.

"I think it's a very positive development that Oregon has an
Employment First policy," Mr. Joondeph said.  "But when it gets
down to the details of the policy -- and the implementation of the
policy -- those are questions that still remain."


PELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS: Tel Aviv Court Dismisses Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bezeq the Israeli Telecomunictn Corp Ltd. on April 11 disclosed
that on March 3, 2013, the Company received notice from its
subsidiary, Pelephone Communications Ltd. regarding a decision by
the Tel Aviv District Court to dismiss, for lack of prosecution,
the motion to certify a class action against Pelephone for its
failure to include a detailed breakdown of calls to the telephone
bill.  As stated in the aforementioned immediate report, a claim
is already pending against the Company on grounds similar to those
specified in the motion to certify the class action which was
dismissed.


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: CR to Get $250K Share From Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
The Times-Standard reports that a Eureka law firm recently
announced it received court approval to direct $250,000 from a
successful class action lawsuit against Skilled Healthcare's
nursing homes in California to College of the Redwoods.

CR's Health Occupations Programs will receive funds to incorporate
updated gerontology, or senior care, into the curriculum and
clinical courses for nursing and allied health college students
and working health professionals, according to a press release.

Michael Crowley and Tim Needham of Janssen Malloy were two of the
four lead trial counsel in representing 42,000 residents,
including those in Humboldt County, in a class action lawsuit
against 22 Skilled Healthcare nursing homes in California, five
located in Humboldt County.  The original jury decision in the
six-month trial resulted in a $677 million verdict against Skilled
Healthcare.  It was later settled post-trial for $62.8 million,
according to the release.

The settlement required that Skilled Healthcare comply with a
court injunction requiring the company to meet legally mandated
minimum staffing levels.


STATE UNIV OF NY: Students Set to Get Refunds Under Accord
----------------------------------------------------------
WIVB reports that a class action settlement could lead to big
refunds for some SUNY college students.  It appears that some SUNY
students were charged the out of state tuition rates even though
they were in state residents.

Sara Strum and Lauren Beer, two former students at Binghamton
University brought this lawsuit as a class action suit, on behalf
of themselves and other students.

You could be eligible for a refund if you attended a SUNY school
between the fall semester of 2007 and the spring semester of 2011.

There are specific criteria that must be reached to qualify for
the refunds.

                              Notice


You May be Eligible for a Tuition Refund from SUNY if you

   * Graduated from a New York State High School or Received a GED
in New York State, and

   * Attended a SUNY School at any time from the Fall 2007 to the
Spring 2011 terms, and

   * Paid the Non-Resident Tuition Rate (also called the out-of-
state rate)

To receive any money you must send in a Claim Form by: September
4, 2013

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE?
The purpose of this notice is to inform you that a New York State
court has granted class action status in this case, Strum v. SUNY,
and that you have been identified as a possible Settlement Class
member.  This notice will also describe who is included in the
Settlement Class, what to do if you are a member of the Settlement
Class and what to do if you want to object to or be excluded from
the settlement.

WHO BROUGHT THIS LAWSUIT?

Sara Strum and Lauren Beer, two former students at Binghamton
University are bringing this lawsuit as a class action, on behalf
of themselves and all other people in a similar situation.

WHO IS THE LAWSUIT AGAINST?

The lawsuit is against the State University of New York ("SUNY")
and certain officials from SUNY.

WHAT IS THE LAWSUIT ABOUT?

The two students bringing this lawsuit were residents of New
Jersey and paid the non-resident tuition rate when they attended
Binghamton University.  But the students argue that SUNY should
have charged them the resident tuition rate (also called the "in-
state" rate) because they met certain requirements under the law
for students who graduated from New York high schools as they did.
The details of these requirements are found in New York Education
Law, section 355(2)(h)(8).

Based in law and SUNY policies, SUNY has raised defenses to the
former students' claims, but has agreed to make tuition refunds
according to the settlement.

AM I A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS?

Read this section carefully.  It will tell you whether you are
member of the Settlement Class and perhaps eligible to receive a
refund. You must satisfy requirements numbered 1, 2, 3 and either
4A or 4B.  Certain other exclusions apply.  You need not have
graduated from SUNY.

1. You attended one of the eligible SUNY schools for any period of
time during:

    Fall 2007 term
    Any time in 2008
    Any time in 2009
    Any time in 2010
    Spring 2011 term

AND

2. You or your parents paid the non-resident tuition rate. (Also
called the "out-of-state" rate).

AND

3. You were not a resident of New York State at that time.

AND EITHER

4A. You attended a New York high school for two or more years and
applied for attendance at SUNY within five years of graduating
from a New York high school.

OR

4B. You attended a New York state GED program and applied for
attendance at SUNY within five years of receiving your GED.

YOU ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR A REFUND:

    If you were a non-immigrant alien under federal law.
    If your high school or GED program is not recognized by the
NYS Department of Education.
    If you do not send in a Claim Form by September 4, 2013.
    If you exclude yourself from this settlement.
    For tuition refunds at the SUNY Community Colleges.
    For tuition refunds at Cornell University and Alfred
University.

HOW MUCH MONEY WILL I GET?

A few things have to happen first.  First, this settlement will
have to be approved by a judge. Second, you must meet all of the
requirements.  Third, you must fill out and return a Claim Form by
September 4, 2013.

Finally, after receiving your Claim Form, SUNY will check its
records and any information you provide to see if you overpaid.
If you are entitled to a refund, SUNY will direct that the NYS
Office of the Comptroller mail a check to you.  The exact amount
of your refund will depend on several factors and you may not be
entitled to a refund. You will not receive a refund for
scholarship or grant money that you did not have to pay back.

Refund payments may include interest.  Note that interest payments
are considered taxable income under the Internal Revenue Code
and/or your state Tax Law.  Interest paid to class members in any
calendar year will be reported to the Internal Revenue Service on
Form 1099 as required by law.  Payments to be made pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement will be issued by the NYS Office of the
Comptroller and are subject to audit by that Office.

WHICH SUNY SCHOOLS ARE ELIGIBLE?

Binghamton University
College of Environmental Science and Forestry
College of Optometry
Downstate Medical Center
Stony Brook University
University at Albany
University at Buffalo
Upstate Medical University
Buffalo State College
Empire State College
Purchase College
State University of New York at Geneseo
State University of New York at New Paltz
State University of New York at Oswego
State University of New York at Potsdam
SUNY College at Oneonta
SUNY Cortland
SUNY Fredonia
SUNY Plattsburgh
The College at Brockport
The College at Old Westbury
Alfred State College
Farmingdale State College
Maritime College
Morrisville State College
SUNY Canton
SUNY Cobleskill
SUNY Delhi
SUNY Institute of Technology

* The SUNY Community Colleges, Cornell University and Alfred
University are NOT part of this settlement.

WHO ARE THE LAWYERS FOR THE CLASS?

The judge has approved Andrew L. Lee, Esq. and Peter Mustalish,
Esq. of the law firm ALL COUNSEL P.C., to be the lawyers for the
class.  They are located at 680 Fifth Avenue, 5th Floor, New York
NY 10019.  They are also called "Class Counsel."

DO I HAVE TO PAY ANY LAWYERS?

Settlement Class members will not pay any money directly to Class
Counsel.  A portion of any refund you receive will go directly to
Class Counsel as compensation for their services.  Class Counsel
will ask the judge to be compensated based on the total benefit
achieved by the Settlement.  The judge will decide what amount is
fair.

HOW DO I BECOME A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS?

You are automatically a member of the Settlement Class if you meet
the criteria unless you specifically request to be excluded in the
manner described below.  However, in order to receive a refund you
must fill out the Claim Form and return it by September 4, 2013.
Your claim is subject to verification by SUNY.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS?

You will be represented by the Representative Students and Class
Counsel.

You will receive notice of any ruling or judgment affecting your
status in this lawsuit.  You will be bound by any judgment,
settlement or other final disposition of the class lawsuit.  You
cannot bring your own lawsuit.

For purposes of this case you will be deemed to have consented to
SUNY disclosing certain personally identifiable information about
you from their records to Class Counsel, the judge, the NYS Office
of the Comptroller, the NYS Office of the Attorney General, SUNY
and SUNY staff participating in the claims process.

WHAT IF I WANT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT?

As a Settlement Class member, you may appear, with or without your
own counsel, at the Fairness Hearing held on July 18, 2013 in
Binghamton, New York, to be heard in opposition to the terms of
the settlement, provided that you send a written Notice of
Objection entitled:

"Objection to the Settlement in Strum, et al. v. SUNY, et al.
(Index No. 2011/00064), postmarked by June 28, 2013 to the
following: (i) Andrew L. Lee, Esq., ALL COUNSEL P.C., 680 Fifth
Avenue, 5th Floor, New York NY 10019 (Class Counsel); and (ii) NYS
Office of the Attorney General, Laura Barnhill, 44 Hawley Street,
17th Floor, Binghamton, New York 13901 (Respondents' Counsel).

Your written objection must include: (a) your name, address and
social security number; (b) a notice of intention to appear and
whether you will appear with or without an attorney retained by
and paid for by you; (c) a detailed statement of each objection
asserted; (d) the grounds on which you desire to appear and be
heard; and (e) any documents and writings which you desire the
Court to consider and a list of witnesses you may call by live
testimony.  If you object but the court nonetheless approves the
settlement, you will be barred from bringing your own lawsuit
asserting individual claims related to the matters referred to in
the class action lawsuit, and you will be bound by the judgment
and releases in the settlement and all orders entered by the
court.  Settlement Class members who do not make known their
objections in this manner will be deemed to have waived all
objections and shall not be heard or have the right to appeal the
approval of the settlement.

WHAT IF I WISH TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS?

If you wish to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
send a written notice to: (i) Andrew L. Lee, Esq., ALL COUNSEL
P.C., 680 Fifth Avenue, 5th Floor, New York NY 10019 (Class
Counsel); and (ii) NYS Office of the Attorney General, Laura
Barnhill, 44 Hawley Street, 17th Floor, Binghamton, New York 13901
(Respondents' Counsel) by June 28, 2013.  You must include your
full name, social security number, address, telephone number, e-
mail address and a statement that you wish to exclude yourself
from the Strum v. SUNY lawsuit.

If you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, (i) you will
not be bound by any settlement, judgment or disposition of this
case; (ii) you will retain any claims you may have against
respondents (i.e SUNY); (iii) you will not share in the benefits
of any settlement, judgment or disposition of this case; and (iv)
you will not be able to object to this settlement and be heard at
the fairness hearing.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

There will be a hearing on July 18, 2013 in Binghamton, New York
in front of the Honorable Ferris D. Lebous in New York State
Supreme Court, to determine: (i) whether this settlement should be
approved as fair and reasonable; (ii) whether to approve the
attorneys' fees and expenses to Class Counsel.  You are not
required to attend unless you are filing an objection, but you may
do so if you wish.

IF I AM MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, CAN I STILL BRING MY OWN
LAWSUIT?

NO.  Unless you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class you
will be barred forever from bringing a lawsuit asserting claims
related to the matters referred to in this lawsuit.

HOW DO I GET MORE INFORMATION?

Do Not Call or Write the Court or the Judge or SUNY or any of its
campuses.  This notice is a general description of the case and
does not cover all the issues in detail.  You may review the
pleadings, the full settlement agreement and all other court
documents at the office of the Clerk of the Court of Broome
County, Supreme Court who will make the file available to you for
inspection and copying at your expense during regular office
hours.  Some of these documents may be available online at
http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/iscroll/index.jsp

If you have any questions concerning the matters in this notice,
or if you have corrections or changes to your name or address,
please contact Class Counsel at suny@all-counsel.com


THERATECHNOLOGIES INC: Fasken Martineau Discusses Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pierre Y. Lefebvre, Esq., and Philippe Charest-Beaudry, Esq., at
Fasken Martineau report that on February 24, 2012, the Superior
Court rendered the first decision in Quebec on the application of
the new provisions of the Securities Act regarding secondary
market liability (121851 Canada Inc. c. Theratechnologies Inc.).
With this decision, the Plaintiff, 121751 Canada Inc., was granted
the authorization to bring an action for damages under section
225.4 of the Act and to do so by way of a class action.

In this case, the Plaintiff alleges that the Respondent,
Theratechnologies, failed to disclose a material change in its
business, operations or capital in the course of the approval
process surrounding its lead drug, tesamorelin, by the Food and
Drugs Administration.

Theratechnologies sought from the Court of Appeal permission to
appeal this judgment on the grounds that the Superior Court, even
though it acknowledged that the authorization mechanism provided
in the Act differs from that governing class actions, failed to
apply it correctly.  Indeed, section 225.4 of the Act provides
that an authorization must be applied for prior to bringing an
action under the secondary market liability regime set out in
sections 225.2 ss. of the Act.  In order to obtain such court
authorization, the plaintiff must demonstrate that "the action is
in good faith and there is a reasonable possibility that it will
be resolved in favor of the plaintiff".

Given the obvious attention generated by this matter, the motion
seeking permission to appeal was exceptionally referred to a
three-judge bench, that will have to decide whether to grant the
motion or not and, if applicable, to pass upon the merits of the
appeal.

On January 24, 2013, the Court of Appeal heard the parties, both
on the leave to appeal from a judgment rendered under section
225.4 of the Act and on the merits of the appeal of the trial
decision.

If leave to appeal is granted, the Court of Appeal will be called
upon to decide upon the following issues, which will certainly
garner the attention of relevant authorities in other Canadian
jurisdictions:

   * Can a judgment authorizing the institution of an action under
section 225.4 of the Act be appealed with leave (s. 29 and 511
C.c.p.)?

   * Must the analysis of the evidence under the authorization
mechanism provided for in section 225.4 of the Act show more than
a mere color of right?

   * What constitutes a "material change" triggering a reporting
issuer's continuous disclosure obligation?

   * Does 121751 Canada Inc. have a reasonable chance of proving
that a material change occurred in the business, operations or
capital of Theratechnologies which triggered its continuous
disclosure obligation?


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Suit to Set Mental Health Coverage Precedent
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Spencer, writing for Minneapolis Star Tribune, reports that in
2012, college professor Michael Kamins faced one of a parent's
worst nightmares.  The psychiatrist treating his son for bipolar
disorder believed the young man needed two psychotherapy sessions
per week to treat the anxiety, psychosis, mania and depression
that came with his mental illness.  But after paying for several
weeks of therapy, Mr. Kamins' insurance company, Minnetonka-based
UnitedHealth Group Inc. in Minnesota, decided it would cover only
two sessions per month, according to a recent lawsuit.

The prospect of watching his son stop progressing against a
disease that had led to suicide attempts because an insurance
company wanted to second-guess a physician angered Mr. Kamins.  So
he joined a nationwide class-action case that charges UnitedHealth
with violating a federal law named for the late U.S. Sen. Paul
Wellstone of Minnesota.  That law forbids insurance companies from
treating mental health claims differently from medical and
surgical claims.

Experts say the suit, brought by Mr. Kamins, two other individuals
and the New York State Psychiatric Association, could set a major
precedent for mental health coverage in the era of health care
reform.  "It has a pretty broad sweep," said Ira Burnim, legal
director of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law in
Washington.  "It's a big deal."

UnitedHealth Group declined to discuss the suit, which was filed
in New York on March 11.  "We are committed to helping people with
mental health issues reach long-term recovery," the company said
in a statement.  "We have received the complaint and are currently
reviewing it."

So-called "mental health parity" suits have been filed before,
explained Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at
George Washington University.  But they are usually individual
claims based on state laws.

The suit against UnitedHealth asks for legal relief under a parity
law in New York, but it relies heavily on the federal parity law,
as well as the federal Affordable Care Act.  "There has been
nothing like it on the class-action level before," Ms. Rosenbaum
said.  She predicted that the case against UnitedHealth will "rise
and fall" based on the 2008 Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici
Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act.

The law, which applies to employers with 50 or more workers,
doesn't force employers to offer mental health or substance abuse
coverage in their employee insurance programs.  But if they choose
to offer those benefits, they must treat them the same way they
treat medical and surgical benefits when it comes to out-of-pocket
costs, benefit limits, pre-approval for treatment and reviews of
claims.

UnitedHealth violated those rules, according to a 102-page legal
filing by Mr. Kamins, the New York State Psychiatric Association,
CBS Sports Network marketing director Jonathan Denbo, and Brad
Smith, the father of a mentally ill teenager.

Chief among their accusations is that UnitedHealth required pre-
approvals of talk therapy treatments for mental illness that were
far more restrictive than for medical and surgical treatments or
even drug therapy for mental health issues.

The suit also accused UnitedHealth of refusing to pay for the
extended hospitalization of the mentally ill teen because he had
not gone through enough outpatient therapy.  The teen, the suit
claims, lives on a small island off Washington state where
outpatient therapy is unavailable for hundreds of miles.

Experts believe these and other points of law in the suit are
particularly important in light of the 2010 passage of the
Affordable Care Act.  The new health law established mental health
coverage and addiction treatment as an essential benefit for all
health insurance policies offered by national health care
exchanges and by some small-employer and individual plans.

"Over 40 percent of Minnesotans are on a self-insured plan," said
Sue Abderholden, director of the National Alliance on Mental
Illness' Minnesota chapter.  "So this law is very important."

U.S. Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., has taken up Wellstone's crusade to
end double standards in the treatment of mental illness.  "It's
important that health insurers are following our parity laws and
providing the mental health care people are entitled to," Franken
said.  "This lawsuit will run its course, and I hope it will give
clarification to how our insurers can comply with our parity
laws."

Even with implementation of the Wellstone-Domenici act, large
group insurance plans may still choose not to offer mental health
benefits rather than meet parity requirements, said Holly Merbaum,
a spokeswoman for the Parity Implementation Coalition, but most
have not done so.

Rules for applying the parity law languished in regulatory limbo
for two years after its passage.  Even today the rules are labeled
"interim final rules," which some experts say could undermine the
law's enforcement.  The suit against UnitedHealth marks the first
significant test of those rules, experts agree.

"Often a big first case affects perception and then action," said
the Bazelon Center's Ms. Burnim.  "If the plaintiffs win, alarms
will go off in the insurance industry."

Ms. Burnim warned that parity cases could discourage employers
from offering mental health and substance abuse benefits or make
them change rules for medical and surgical treatments.

"There are two ways to achieve parity," he said.  "You can make
mental health benefits more generous or you can make physical
health benefits more restrictive."


VISA INC: Judge Orders Anti-Settlement Groups to Correct Websites
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew R. Johnson, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that a
federal judge on April 11 ordered merchant trade groups to correct
information on websites intended to drum up retailer opposition to
a multi-billion-dollar class-action settlement with Visa Inc.,
MasterCard Inc. and several large banks.

At a hearing in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, Judge John
Gleeson said the groups in question, which are plaintiffs in suits
against the payment networks, must add a banner to their websites
stating that Judge Gleeson has determined prior information on the
sites to be misleading, according to people who attended the
hearing. They must also include a link to a court-approved website
with information about the settlement.

Judge Gleeson also ordered the counsel for the trade groups to
meet with attorneys representing a proposed class of eight million
merchants within a week to determine a plan for fixing the
information on the sites, according to the people.

Jeff Shinder, a managing partner with law firm Constantine Cannon
LLP who is representing several of the dissenting plaintiffs,
didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on April 11.

At issue are websites that trade groups including the National
Association of Convenience Stores, National Grocers Association
and other plaintiffs have launched encouraging retailers to object
to or opt out of a settlement struck in July that would end years
of litigation against Visa, MasterCard and credit-card issuers
including Bank of America Corp. and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

The litigation, which dates back to 2005, was brought by some of
those same merchant trade groups, arguing Visa, MasterCard and
large banks conspire to set transaction fees that retailers pay at
arbitrarily levels.  The fees, known as interchange, are set by
Visa and MasterCard but collected by the banks that issue their
cards each time a customer makes a purchase.

The merchants also alleged the defendants have limited their
ability to drive down costs by forcing them to abide by rules that
have prevented them from surcharging customers who pay with credit
cards.

Under the settlement, the defendants have proposed paying $6.05
billion to a class of eight million merchants and temporarily
reducing interchange fees by an amount equal to $1.2 billion.  In
addition, Visa and MasterCard agreed to drop their bans on
surcharging, a change that took effect in January and allows
merchants to add an extra fee to customers who pay with a credit
card.

Judge Gleeson granted preliminary approval to the settlement in
November.  A hearing on final approval is set for Sept. 12.

The deal has sparked opposition from large merchants like Wal-Mart
Stores Inc., Target Corp. and Home Depot Inc., as well as several
trade groups that are named plaintiffs in the litigation,
including the National Association of Convenience Stores, National
Grocers Association and National Restaurant Association.

They argue the settlement will do little to keep the cost of
interchange fees from rising and worry the deal grants overly
broad releases from future litigation to the defendants.  Under
the deal, merchants can opt out of the monetary portion of the
settlement but are unable to opt out of the rule changes Visa and
MasterCard have made.

Some of the groups have posted information on Web sites in recent
weeks urging merchants to file objections to the deal in U.S.
District Court as well as opt out of the settlement.  For example,
the National Association of Convenience Stores, National Grocers
Association, National Restaurant Association and other groups urge
merchants to file opt-out letters that can be filled out and
submitted to the court through the website merchantsobject.com.

But class attorneys argued the Web sites contain erroneous
information and mislead retailers about their rights under the
settlement.  In a court filing last month, they asked Judge
Gleeson to order the trade groups to correct the information in
question and confer with them in the future before disseminating
information to the proposed class.

"These unauthorized and misleading communications from the trade
association plaintiffs pose a real threat of confusing class
members and undermining the court-approved notice processes," the
class counsel said in their filing.


VISA INC: RILA Opts Out of Swipe-Fee Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Convenience Store News reports that as a proposed settlement to a
class-action suit aimed at swipe fees charged by major credit
companies and financial institutions winds through the court
system, more retailers are raising their voices in opposition of
the deal.

The Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) said on April 11 it
is opting out of the deal currently on the table.  The settlement,
pegged at more than $7 billion, is pending before the U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of New York.

"RILA and the overwhelming majority of our members agree that the
proposed class-action settlement is a bad deal for retailers,"
said Deborah White, executive vice president and general counsel
for RILA.  "The proposed settlement undermines merchants' legal
rights forever and fails to restrain the continued growth of swipe
fee increases."

By opting out of the settlement, RILA registers its opposition to
the terms and also rejects the financial reward available to it
under the terms of the proposed settlement.  Arlington, Va.-based
RILA represents more than 200 retailers, product manufacturers and
service suppliers.

Specifically, RILA believes the proposed settlement is
unacceptable because it locks in the Visa/MasterCard duopoly;
provides no relief from interchange rate setting or other rules;
denies all current and future retailers their right to bring
future legal action related to interchange rules and rate setting
-- among other things -- against Visa, MasterCard and the banks;
and could limit emerging innovations that can bring meaningful
competition to the marketplace, such as mobile payments.

Approximately 8 million merchants have until May 28 to opt out or
object to the deal before a Sept. 12 hearing in federal district
court.

This is the not the first time the association has expressed its
opposition to the settlement, which was announced in July.  In
November, RILA joined a majority of named class plaintiffs and
nearly 1,200 others in urging the court to deny preliminary
approval of the proposed deal.  But despite the objections, U.S.
District Court Judge John Gleeson gave the deal preliminary
approval.

The decision was immediately challenged by NACS, the Association
for Convenience & Fuel Retailing, and other plaintiffs in the 2005
lawsuit, as CSNews Online previously reported.


* Australia Gov't Warned on Commercializing Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Chris Merritt, writing for The Australia, reports that one of the
leaders of the US business community has warned that Australia's
decision to commercialize civil litigation means this country is
well on the way to adopting America's worst excesses.

Lisa Rickard, executive vice-president of the US Chamber of
Commerce, believes the main problem is the federal government's
decision not to regulate the financing of class actions by outside
companies.

"Australia has clearly made its choice and you are racing down the
path -- and are leading globally (after the US) in class action
litigation and funding," said Ms. Rickard, who is also president
of the US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, an affiliate of the
Chamber of Commerce.  She believed that after the US, Australia
had the world's most active class action industry followed by
Canada.  "The UK common law countries are all growing in this
space," she said.

Ms. Rickard was speaking in Sydney during a visit aimed at
alerting government officials and the Coalition about the concerns
of the US business community.  She said the Chamber Institute for
Legal Reform feared the growth of class actions in Australia
because many American companies were doing business in the
country.  She was also concerned about the global impact of
Australia's embrace of "the commercialization of the civil justice
system".

"Australia is a leader in this space.  If Australia doesn't do
anything about it, it makes it harder to make the case that the UK
and others should.

"By having the leader -- Australia -- take a step back and examine
some of the areas we are really most concerned about -- conflicts
and control of litigation -- it is clear that it really does make
a difference and impacts the debate globally," she said.

Ms. Rickard said she would prefer to see litigation funding
companies regulated and licensed by the federal government.  But
that should be accompanied by changes to the Federal Court Act and
the Corporations Act dealing with associated issues such as the
control of civil litigation and fiduciary duties in funded class
actions.

Ms. Rickard said more disputes should be sent for alternative
dispute resolution instead of being taken to court.  "That is what
we are trying to promote globally -- to say there are other ways
of getting to an outcome."  She warned that in the US litigation
had descended into what she labeled "the extortion model".

In the US, firms were being confronted by well-funded class
actions, supported by extensive PR campaigns -- "like you are
starting to see here" -- and briefings to financial analysts, all
aimed at applying pressure for a settlement, Ms. Rickard said.


* C4C Launches No FEAR Campaign Against Federal Workplace Abuse
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Coalition For Change, Inc. (C4C), a civil rights group and
support network, recently launched its "Unleash No FEAR" campaign.
The social media initiative serves to raise public awareness about
how federal workplace abuse endangers the lives and well-being of
U.S. citizens.  C4C asserts that long-standing and costly class
action lawsuits against federal entities like the U.S. Department
of Agriculture -- Love v. Vilsack and the U.S. Secret Service --
Moore et. al v. Napolitano reveal government's tolerance of abuse
by public officials.

On May 15, 2002, Congress passed the Notification and Federal
Anti-Discrimination and Retaliation (No FEAR) Act after hearing
testimony that federal workforce abuse reduces government's
ability to effectively execute with integrity essential programs
such as waste management, pollution prevention, water treatment,
food inspection, medicare, social security and disaster
assistance.  President George W. Bush signed the Act into law.
The No FEAR Act, Public Law 107--174, was to "put the bite into
federal employment discrimination" by making federal managers and
agencies more accountable to their employees when allegations of
discrimination, retaliation, and harassment are made.  Despite the
No FEAR Act's intent, several years after passing the law the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reported that
public officials continue to engage in retaliation.

Of course, C4C members are not surprised by EEOC reports of surges
in federal discrimination complaints.  Afterall, the group says
"agencies are more inclined to reward No FEAR Act lawbreakers
rather than to punish them."  C4C cites the case of Pierre vs.
Salazar.  In the aftermath of Pierre vs. Salazar, the U.S.
Department of Interior rewarded Craig Littlejohn, who served as
Interior's Chief Information Officer, with a pay increase.  The
increase was awarded less than two weeks after the EEOC found
Littlejohn "guilty of discrimination."

Unleash No FEAR campaign organizers also point to the individual
cases of Fogg and Mogenhan.  Both lawsuits lasted years until
ending with findings of discrimination against the federal
government. [Fogg v. Gonzales spanned over 23 years.  Mogenhan v.
Homeland Security spanned over 19 years.]

C4C members say they are deeply committed to exposing
discriminatory practices of public officials for such abuse
"endangers the nation's security, impedes agency productivity and
leaves taxpayers with a hefty price to pay due to years of costly
litigation."  Class action lawsuits against Agriculture (Pigford
vs. Vilsack) and Interior (Cobell vs. Salazar) have cost taxpayers
in the "billions."  Still, rather than provide for any mandatory
corrective disciplinary measure for civil rights violations,
lawbreakers are predictably afforded free attorneys and routinely
given professional liability insurance.

Hence, a key campaign goal of "Unleash No FEAR" is to close what
C4C members view as a "loophole" in No FEAR.  With respect to
discipline for violations, No FEAR only requires agencies to
report to Congress any discipline taken against an official who
breaks the law.  It does not require agencies "to impose
discipline" when a public official breaks the law.

"You cannot have a corrective measure in place without an
enforceable rule, law or regulations to encourage everyone to
follow," said Michael Castelle, C4C's Diversity Chair.

"Federal managers, who are in positions of power and authority,
too often inflict egregious acts because they can do so without
facing any consequences," said Paulette L. Taylor, the class agent
of the Social Security Administration race discrimination
complaint (Taylor et. al. vs. Astrue).  Ms. Taylor also serves as
C4C's Civil Rights Chair.

"Race discrimination in the federal government is a covert form of
domestic terrorism which continues to silently have a devastating
impact on the livelihoods and the psyche of many hard-working, and
highly skilled African-Americans," said David Grogan, a Deputy
U.S. Marshal and lead plaintiff in a race-based class action
against the U.S. Department of Justice's Marshal Service (Grogan
et. al v. Holder). As C4C's Social Media Chair, Mr. Grogan raises
public awareness that conscientious civil servants (i. e.,
marshals, analysts, census workers, claims examiners, air traffic
controllers) often endure long suffering in a retaliatory culture
of mistreatment.

In promoting its Unleash No FEAR campaign, C4C has produced an
informational video highlighting the toxic federal sector culture.
The employee advocacy group has also initiated a petition.  The
petition calls for President Obama, as head of the executive
branch, to establish fairness within the federal workforce by
"Mandating Discipline for Public Officials Who Break Civil Rights
Laws."  Joining the petition to end abuse by public officials are
concerned citizens, civil servants, and community group leaders of
organizations including, but not limited to, the No FEAR
Coalition, Broken Covenant, Brown Center For Public Policy, Blacks
In Government, Federal Employed Women, Government Accountability
Project, International Association of Whistleblowers, MSPB Watch,
National Whistleblowers Center, Whistle Watch, U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Coalition of Minority Employees, Acorn 8, Social
Security Administration Black Females for Justice II and National
Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Inc. (NJCDLP).


* Fen-Phen Lawyer to Pay Disbarment Investigation Costs
-------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that an Ohio attorney known as the
godfather of the modern class-action lawsuit has paid $88,579 to
cover the cost of an investigation leading to his disbarment in
Kentucky.

In a filing with the Kentucky Supreme Court, the Kentucky Bar
Association wrote that Stanley Chesley of Cincinnati paid the
money on April 10, closing his case.

In March, the high court ordered Mr. Chesley disbarred in Kentucky
after finding that he acted unethically in a $200 million
settlement involving the makers of the diet drug fen-phen.

Five other attorneys connected to the case also were banned from
practicing law.

Mr. Chesley has been involved in an $85 million settlement with
the Roman Catholic Diocese of Covington, Ky., over sexual abuse by
priests, and cases against Toyota over allegations that cars
unintentionally accelerated.


* France Wants to Adopt US-Style Class Action Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------
Dan MacGuill, writing for The Local, reports that French
government wants to adopt American-style "class action" lawsuits,
designed to give consumers "effective weapons against fraudulent
companies".  The reform will be proposed at a cabinet meeting on
May 2.

France's Minister of Consumer Affairs Benoit Hamon, announced on
April 11 that he will propose the introduction of US-style class
action lawsuits at the government's May 2 cabinet meeting.

Mr. Hamon labeled the legal instrument a "weapon of mass
deterrence" against fraud, price-fixing and other consumer
violations, in an interview with French daily L'Express on
April 10.

"For 20 years, employers' organizations have been blocking this
democratic progress, and for 20 years the French consumer has been
under-protected," Mr. Hamon told L'Express.

During their tenures, former Presidents Jacques Chirac and Nicolas
Sarkozy both unsuccessfully attempted to establish class action
lawsuits, which allow groups of individuals to collectively sue a
defendant or group of defendants, without separately having to
file a case and hire a lawyer.

The minister's planned legislation will offer a more limited
version of class action litigation than is found in the United
States, for example.

Firstly, under the proposals collective lawsuits will have to be
brought through one of France's 16 officially recognized consumer
associations, and secondly, compensation would only be able to be
sought for material damages arising from a company's legal or
contractual violation.

Furthermore, whereas in the United States, class action suits are
often pursued over public health scandals, under Mr. Hamon's plan
collective litigation would be limited to grievances over
competition and consumer breaches.

However, there would be no minimum number of plaintiffs required
to bring a case, and perhaps most significantly, no upper limit to
financial damages.

Employer groups, led by the national Medef union, have reacted
critically to the plan, in particular the increase in possible
damages for cases of consumer violations.

Mr. Hamon, however, offered a staunch defense of the proposal, "Is
it really shocking to increase sanctions for companies who lie,
cheat and can bring down entire industries with them? I don't
think so."

For its part, France's biggest consumer group, UFC Que Choisir,
has cast doubt on the potential effectiveness of Mr. Hamon's plan.

"The process [of claiming damages] can take a very long time.
Consumers who are notified 15 years later won't have the evidence
or their receipts anymore," Alain Bazot from UFC Que Choisir told
Europe 1 radio on April 11.

"We have to set clear deadlines, so that justice can be delivered
swiftly," he added.


* Japan Mulls Legislation to Enable Consumer Group Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
4-Traders reports that CI member Nippon Consumer Voice for Better
Standards (NCOS) has been helping fellow Japanese consumer group
Kansai Consumer's Support Organization (KC's) in their struggle to
improve consumer redress in Japan.

Following pressure from consumer groups, the Japanese Consumer
Affairs Agency agreed to draft new legislation enabling designated
consumer groups to bring group actions against companies.  Similar
group action systems are already in place in the EU, and the USA
has a class action system that is widely regarded as highly
effective.

According to KC's sources, the draft will probably go before the
Japanese Cabinet in the near future, who will vote to decide
whether to introduce it into Parliament.  Under the current
system, consumers who have suffered considerable loss or damage
may only seek redress by pursuing individual claims, a costly and
time consuming process that ultimately deters many.

Since 2006, selected consumer groups have been able to apply for
injunctions on behalf of consumers, but this provides little in
the way of redress and still leaves the consumer having to fight
their claim alone.  While clearly a positive step for consumer
rights in Japan, a group of powerful business lobbying groups
opposed the move and issued an "Urgent Proposal" on March 25,
2013, in an attempt to delay the introduction of the draft.

The seven organizations concerned are: the American Chamber of
Commerce in Japan; U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal
Reform; European Business Council in Japan; BUSINESSEUROPE; as
well as leading Japanese business groups the Keidanren, Japan
Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Japan Association of
Corporate Executives.  They argue that the new legislation has
been hastily drafted and would be harmful to the recovery of the
Japanese economy.

Consumer groups strongly refute this, pointing out that this new
legislation has clearly been several years in the making and is
not the hastily-drafted text its critics would suggest.  Whilst
this draft legislation is fairly recent, there has been scope for
new legislation regarding consumer damages since 2006, and at its
creation in 2009, the Consumer Affairs Agency had a three-year
plan to improve consumer redress.  Additionally, the OECD
published a recommendation for consumer redress systems back in
July 2007 for member countries to adopt.

Even prior to the urgent proposal being issued, the American
Chamber of Commerce in Japan had been particularly critical of the
Consumer Affairs Agency's proposal, citing alleged abuses of the
US system, despite the fact that the Japanese proposal is not for
a US style class action system.

Consumer interest groups say this ignores the fact that the
Japanese proposal is completely different from the US system, and
that the Japanese system would have features specifically designed
to prevent abuse.  They have also objected to interference in
Japanese consumer policy from European and US business groups.

KC's, along with many consumer groups in Japan, including CI
members Shodanren and NCOS, are demanding that the government
considers the legislation as proposed by the Consumer Affairs
Agency.

According to KC's: "The Japanese consumer movement shares the
desire for the economy to recover quickly, but consumer rights
should not be sacrificed in this process.  This attempt to thwart
the proposed bill by using groundless fears is not the attitude
society expects from responsible business groups."

CI's recent report "The State of Consumer Protection Around the
World" found that there is still much room for progress in
developing consumer redress mechanisms in many countries.

CI members around the world support group action systems, as these
mechanisms are more efficient and effective than individual legal
procedures for dealing with damages involving many consumers.


* Securities Class Action Filings in State Court Increase
---------------------------------------------------------
Jodi Kleinick and Mor Wetzler, writing for New York Law Journal,
report that in their Securities Law column, Jodi Kleinick, a
partner at Paul Hastings, and Mor Wetzler, an associate at the
firm, write that for decades, the volume of securities class
actions has grown, and while initially most were filed in federal
court, the number of securities class actions filed in state court
has increased steadily and in 2010 surpassed the number of federal
court filings.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yarway Corp. Files Chapter 11
----------------------------------------------
Yarway Corporation sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. D. Del.
Case No. 13-11025) on Monday to deal with claims arising from
asbestos containing products it allegedly sold as early as the
1920s.

Yarway was founded in 1908 by Robert Yarnall and Bernard Waring as
the Simplex Engineering Company and originally manufactured pipe
clamps, steam traps, valves and controls.  Based in Pennsylvania,
Yarway was a privately owned company until 1986 when KeyStone
International, Inc. bought equity in the company.  Yarway became a
unit of Tyco International Ltd. when Tyco purchased KeyStone in
1997.

Yarway continued its manufacturing operations until 2003, when it
sold its manufacturing facility in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania to
BT Blue Bell and other assets to third parties.  Following the
transactions, Yarway remained in existence as a separate corporate
entity, and continued to defend against, process and satisfy
asbestos-related claims asserted against it.  Yarway maintained
its own insurance assets, some of which were the subject of state
court litigation in California from 2005 until the last of its
insurance policies known to provide coverage for asbestos-related
claims were settled in 2012.

In 2013, Yarway acquired a 49% interest in STI Properties, LTd., a
member in a joint venture that owns and operates a five-story
commercial office building in the Cleveland, Ohio area.

The Debtor estimated at least $100 million in assets and
liabilities as of the bankruptcy filing.

Yarway commenced the Chapter 11 case due to the continuing
assertion of claims by personal injury plaintiffs alleging that
Yarway is liable for damages caused by exposure of asbestos-
containing products.  Yarway's asbestos-related liabilities derive
from Yarway's (i) purported use of asbestos-containing gaskets and
packing, manufactured by others, in its production of steam valves
and traps from the 1920s to 1970s, and (ii) alleged manufacture of
expansion joint packing that was allegedly made up of a compound
of Teflon and asbestos from the 1940s to the 1970s.  Yarway's
alleged manufacture, distribution, and or/sale of asbestos-
containing materials ceased entirely by 1988.

Over the past five years, about 10,021 new asbestos claims have
been asserted against Yarway, including 1,014 in Yarway's 2013
fiscal year ending March 31, 2013.  Over the past five years,
Yarway has incurred and paid $129 million in settlement costs on
account of the asbestos claims, including $18 million over the
past year.

With diminishing insurance coverage and the continued assertion of
asbestos claims, Yarway sought relief under Chapter 11.  Yarway's
goal is to negotiate, obtain approval of, and consummate a plan of
reorganization that establishes an appropriately funded trust to
provide for the fair and equitable payment of legitimate current
and future Yarway asbestos claims.

                       Plan Negotiations

To facilitate negotiations regarding a potential reorganization
plan and the creation of an asbestos trust, Yarway engaged in
discussions prepetition with an ad hoc committee of law firms
representing current asbestos claimants.  The discussions did not
result in an agreement regarding the terms of the plan or the
structure of the asbestos trust.

The ad hoc committee of law firms representing asbestos claimants
tapped the law firm of Caplin & Drysdale during prepetition
negotiations with the Debtor.

James L. Patton, Jr., named by Yarway as representative of future
asbestos claimants.  Mr. Patton retained the law firm of Young
Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP as counsel.

Attorneys at Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard, P.A. and
Sidley Austin LLP serve as the Debtor's counsel in the Chapter 11
case.  Logan and Co. is the claims and notice agent.

                       First Day Motions

On the first day of the bankruptcy case, Yarway filed a motion to
file a list of 20 law firms representing the largest numbers of
asbestos plaintiffs asserting claims against the Debtor in lieu of
a list of the holders of the 20 largest unsecured claims.  The
Debtors said that because the majority of asbestos claimants hold
unliquidated claims against the Debtor, it is difficult to
determine which individual asbestos claimants may hold the largest
unsecured claims.

The Debtor also seeks approval to continue using its existing bank
account and business forms.  There is $14.28 million in a bank
account with Bank of New York Mellon.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4 Cases in MDL Remanded to N.D. Cal. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in IN
RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. VI), No. 4-10-cv-
00405-PJH, remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California the claims asserted in four actions, except
for the claims for punitive and exemplary damages, which will
remain with the MDL.

The remanded cases are:

     -- FIELDS et al v. GENERAL ELECTRIC,
     -- DYE v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY et al,
     -- DAVIDSON v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY et al, and
     -- JOHNSON v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY et al.

A full-text copy of the JPM's Order dated April 15, 2013, is
available at http://is.gd/wpimMVfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Griffin Wheel Wins Dismissal of Exposure Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In an April 11, 2013, decision and order, Judge Sherry Klein
Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, granted defendant
Griffin Wheel Company's motion for summary judgment dismissing the
asbestos-related personal injury action against it on the ground
that plaintiff has produced no evidence to show that the Company
contributed to the plaintiff's decedent's asbestos-related
injuries.

Donald Rollock worked for the New York City Transit Authority from
1947 to 1978 as car inspector.  Many years after, he was diagnosed
with mesothelioma and died of the disease in May 2005.  Donald's
daughter, Muriel, filed the action on behalf of his deceased
father.  The complaint asserted, among other things, that the
deceased contracted mesothelioma as a result to exposure from
brake shoes manufactured by Griffin.

The Plaintiff introduced the 2003 deposition testimony of John
Caputo, a consultant who testified in a group of New York City
Asbestos Litigation cases that Griffin's brake shoes were used at
the site where the deceased used to work from 1981 and 1985.  The
Plaintiff thus contends that if the NYCTA was using the brakes by
the mid-1980s, that type of brake could have been among the
unnamed brands another witness alluded to seeing on the site
between 1967 and 1979.

Judge Heitler ruled that insofar as Mr. Caputo started working at
the site in 1981, two years after Mr. Rollock retired, his
testimony does not provide, nor can it be reasonably inferred
therefrom, that Mr. Rollock was exposed to Griffin's brake shoes
at any point during his tenure at NYCTA.

The case is MURIEL ROLLOCK, as Administratrix of the Estate of
DONALD ROLLOCK, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants,
Docket No. 105851/07, Motion Seq. No. 001 (N.Y.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/B8JzISfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Superior Court Reverses Mistrial Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Company, Pneumo Abex, LLC, and Honeywell International,
Inc., appeal from a trial court's order opening and vacating a
judgment entered by the prothonotary.  The Appellants appeal from
the trial court's order granting a mistrial.

The appeals arise from a personal injury action against multiple
defendants, alleging that the defendants' asbestos-containing
products caused Mr. Webber's peritoneal mesothelioma.  At trial,
the Webbers proceeded only against Appellants.  The verdict slip
contained the names of four additional defendants who had settled
with the Webbers before trial.  During the five-week trial, Mr.
Webber testified about his exposure to the Appellants' asbestos-
containing products during the numerous times throughout his life
when he changed brakes alongside his father and his friends.
Conversely, the Appellants adduced testimony that Mr. Webber's
peritoneal mesothelioma was more likely caused by amphobile
asbestos than by chrysotile asbestos.  The Appellants' expert
explained that the Appellants' brake products contained chrysotile
asbestos.

After careful review, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed
the orders and denied the motion to quash these appeals filed by
George Webber, and his wife, Tina Webber.  The Superior Court held
that the jury's composition was not improper.  Moreover, the
Superior Court found that the jury gave clear answers to the four
liability questions on the verdict slip.  Thus, there could be no
basis for the trial court to refuse to accept the jury's verdict,
the Superior Court said.  In all, the Superior Court found that
the verdict in the case was recorded and the judgment was properly
entered by the prothonotary.

The case is GEORGE WEBBER AND TINA WEBBER, H/W, Appellees, v. FORD
MOTOR COMPANY, PNEUMO ABEX, LLC, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO ABEX
CORPORATION, AND HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., AS SUCCESSOR IN
INTEREST TO ALLIED SIGNAL, INC., AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO
BENDIX CORPORATION, Appellants, Consolidated Appeals Nos. 1960 EDA
2012 and 1961 EDA 2012 (Pa.).  A full-text copy of the Decision
dated April 16, 2013, is available at http://is.gd/f46Vdgfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Faulted for Health Studies Completion Delays
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that internal investigators faulted
the Environmental Protection Agency over years of delays in
completing health studies needed to guide the cleanup of a Montana
mining town where hundreds of people have died from asbestos
exposure.

According to AP, the EPA's Office of Inspector General said in a
report that the studies are necessary to determine whether
expensive, ongoing cleanup efforts are working in the town of
Libby.

AP related that the area near the northwest corner of the state,
about 50 miles from the U.S.-Canada border, was declared a public
health emergency in 2009, a decade after federal regulators first
responded to concerns over asbestos dust that came from a W.R.
Grace vermiculite mine.  The vermiculite was used as insulation in
millions of U.S. homes.

AP further related that at least $447 million has been spent on
the cleanup, and the town remains under a first-of-its kind public
health emergency declaration issued by then-EPA administrator Lisa
Jackson in 2009. The deaths are expected to continue for decades
due to the long latency of asbestos-related diseases.

For his part, EPA Acting Regional Administrator Howard Cantor said
the agency strongly disagrees with much of the Inspector General's
conclusions, AP reported.  Cantor said the risk and toxicity
studies are complex endeavors that need to be done properly to
make sure Libby's residents are protected.

AP said he added that the cleanup has already addressed 1,700
homes and commercial properties and 1.2 million tons of
contaminated soil have been removed.

"The rigor with which we're undertaking efforts to protect public
health and the environment have not been affected by these
delays," he told AP.

Meanwhile, the cleanup grinds on, AP added.  At least 80 and up to
100 properties in town are queued up for work this year, according
to the EPA.

Several hundred properties still need to be addressed, and that
list could grow significantly, the AP report said.

Work on the mine site outside town has barely begun, the report
related. It closed in 1990 and remains the responsibility of W.R.
Grace.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exposure Alert to Hampshire Bldg. Site Burglars
----------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that burglars who broke into a decontamination
caravan in Eastleigh are being urged by police to seek medical
help after they were exposed to potentially lethal asbestos.

According to the report, police said the thieves forced the doors
of the locked caravan and opened sealed bags.  The bags contained
blue, brown and white asbestos-contaminated clothing.

Labourers working on the demolition of the former Pirelli site in
the town had worn the clothing, the report related.  The break-in
caused about GBP5,000 damage to the caravan.

                       'Costly and pointless'

The report also related that PC Ella Knight branded the crime
"costly and pointless" and urged people not to enter the site.

Appealing to the burglars, she said: "Our prime concern is your
safety and that of your families.  If you entered this unit, you
are likely to have been contaminated by asbestos and should seek
medical attention, if you touched or stole any items within this
unit," the report related.

Asbestos comes in six forms and is a known cause of the rare
cancer mesothelioma, BBC News explained.  The blue and brown
varieties are considered the most dangerous.  It is banned in more
than 50 countries and its removal is a specialised task.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Reporting Fibro in Public Bldgs. Now Mandatory
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reported that the province has passed a bill that will
make Saskatchewan the first province in Canada to require
mandatory reporting of asbestos in public buildings.

According to the report, under the new legislation, information
about asbestos will have to be disclosed in a public registry.

"People want and deserve to have easier access to information
about the presence of asbestos in public buildings," Dustin
Duncan, the minister of health for the province, told CBC News.

Last November the province launched a voluntary registry and
posted an online asbestos information guide, CBC related.

The new legislation will require that any buildings owned by the
province, such as hospitals, schools, or those used by crown
corporations, must be listed in the registry if there is asbestos
present, CBC said.  More buildings will be added to the registry
as regulations become better defined.

The legislation, according to CBC, comes in response to the
efforts of Howard Willems who died from a form cancer caused by
asbestos fibres. Willems was a strong advocate of asbestos
reporting.

"This registry is an important step forward in protecting
Saskatchewan workers," Don Morgan, the provincial minister of
labour relations and workplace safety, told CBC News.  "We are
approaching the Day of Mourning when we remember those injured or
lost through workplace injury and disease. All of us need to work
together to make sure that all of our workers come home safe every
day," he added.

Asbestos is a heat-resistant fibrous mineral that can be woven
into fabrics, used in fire-resistant and insulating materials, CBC
explained.  According to Health Canada, asbestos has health risks
only when fibres are present in the air.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Montvale to Have Fibro Removed From Middle School
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lianna Albrizio, staff writer for Pascack Valley Community Life,
reported that an asbestos abatement project is scheduled to take
place at Fieldstone Middle School in the summer, Business
Administrator Marian Latz announced at the April 15 Board of
Education meeting.

According to the report, the asbestos, which Latz said is
currently not airborne and of no danger to the children and staff,
is located in an "undisturbed, inaccessible area" in between the
ceiling and the roof in the hallway near the entrance of the
school on Spring Valley Road in the "oldest section" of the
building, Latz said.

The report related that it was discovered in January by the Karl
Environmental Group, a Pennsylvania-based company offering a
variety of consulting and contracting services for industry,
schools, offices, and homes, to name a few. Latz said they tested
for the substance in December in preparation for the roof
replacement project that will take place in the school in July,
Latz said. She added the company returns to the school every six
months to examine every area that may contain asbestos.

The asbestos, she added, is only exposed if the access panel that
serves as the barrier is poked, Latz said, according to the
report.

"It's all wrapped and covered over," Latz told the news agency.
"Unless you physically poked it, [there's] no disturbing of the
product," said Latz.

The news agency also related that two asbestos-trained custodians
will remove the material at the end of July or early August, Latz
said, adding they will be the only two people in the building at
the time of the abatement. During abatement, Latz said the
hallways will be lined with "multiple levels of plastic so that
nothing can escape." She added the process involves wetting the
material, taking it down, bagging it, and brining it out of the
building where it will be taken away to an appropriate disposal
site.

"It's a very regulated process," she said, adding the removal is
required by the state, the report cited.

The board is currently accepting bids on the removal, which will
cost roughly $450,000 to $500,000, and was already budgeted for in
the 2013-14 spending plan, Latz said, the report added.

"We're very proactive," Latz further told the news agency.  "If we
identify it, we remove it. We don't want it around our children."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Companies to Clean Up Contaminated Chicago Hotel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that three companies accused of
improperly handling asbestos at an old Chicago hotel will halt
renovations at the 9-story building until contamination is cleaned
up.

According to the AP report, the Illinois attorney general's office
and the city of Chicago took legal action after officials
discovered the companies failed to follow proper asbestos-handling
procedures, leading to unsafe levels of the mineral in the
building.

An agreed order requires Zidan Management Group, Dubai, Inc. and
Somerset Place Realty to cease all asbestos removal at the 1923
building, which formerly housed a hospital and hotel, the AP
report said.  It also requires them to post notices at every
entrance and bar unauthorized access.

Attorney General Lisa Madigan's office, the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency and the City of Chicago must approve any future
plans for the removing asbestos and remediating contamination, the
report added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MarketPublishers Explores Fibro Market
-------------------------------------------------------
The global asbestos industry is dominated by Russia, being the top
manufacturer of the product and holding a share of about 50
percent of the total production, MarketPublishers.com reported in
a press release.  Kazakhstan, China, Brazil and Canada are other
prominent asbestos producers. Meantime, the USA stopped mining
asbestos in 2002. The country is fully dependent on imports and
its asbestos consumption is around 1,100 tonnes. In 2012, the US
asbestos consumption decreased by one tenth. Brazil was the sole
asbestos supplier for the country in the same year. In 2013, the
US consumption of asbestos is expected to be approximately 1,000
tonnes.

In 2012, the global asbestos production dropped by over 1.3
percent y-o-y, while the demand lowered to the largest extent.

Market research report "Asbestos Market Review" developed by
Merchant Research & Consulting offers in-depth examination of the
market for asbestos. The study provides detailed overview of the
market, including data on asbestos reserves, production,
consumption and prices. The report covers past and current
industry trends, supply-demand balance, imports and exports
trends, regional and country markets. The research study reviews
the competitive landscape and profiles manufacturers. Future
market outlook up to 2017 is available in the report too.

Regions covered in the study: North America, Latin America,
Europe, Asia and the Middle East, Africa.

Countries reviewed in the report: the USA, Canada, Argentina,
Brazil, Columbia, Russia, China, India, Kazakhstan, Zimbabwe.

Report Details:

Title: Asbestos Market Review

Published: March, 2013

Pages: 72

Price: US$ 1,290.00

http://marketpublishers.com/report/industry/raw_materials_fillers/
asbest os_market_review.html

Report Contents:

DISCLAIMER

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

1. WORLD ASBESTOS MARKET

1.1. Asbestos in global industry

1.2. Asbestos market overview

1.3. Asbestos prices

2. NORTH AMERICAN MARKET

2.1. USA

2.2. Canada

3. LATIN AMERICAN MARKET OF ASBESTOS

3.1. Argentina

3.2. Brazil

3.3. Columbia

4. EUROPEAN MARKET OF ASBESTOS

4.1. Russia

5. ASIAN AND MIDDLE EAST MARKET OF ASBESTOS

5.1. China

5.2. India

5.3. Kazakhstan

6. AFRICAN MARKET OF ASBESTOS

6.1. Zimbabwe

7. ASBESTOS MARKET FORECAST UP TO 2017

...

More new market research reports by Merchant Research & Consulting
can be found at
http://marketpublishers.com/members/mcgroup/info.html

CONTACT: The Market Publishers, Ltd.
Tanya Rezler
Tel: +44 208 144 6009
Fax: +44 207 900 3970
Email: ps@marketpublishers.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Still an Issue at Nunavut Gold Mine
----------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Dawson, writing for Nunatsiaq News, reported that more
than a year after Agnico-Eagle Mines Ltd. first detected
naturally-occurring asbestos found at its Meadowbank gold mine
near Baker Lake, the company continues to deal with asbestos at
the mine site.

Asbestos is often associated with gold-rich rocks, the report
said.

The problem is that asbestos is also linked to a variety of lung
ailments and cancers, mainly affecting those who have worked or
used asbestos in their everyday jobs for many years, according to
the Mesothelioma and Asbestos Awareness Center, the report
related.

After finding asbestos in samples taken from the mill's crusher
plant, "we took this issue very seriously and immediately notified
regulators," Norm Ladouceur, the mine's health and safety
superintendent, said at the recent Nunavut Mining Symposium in
Iqaluit, the report further related.

But Agnico Eagle was first "caught off guard" when the asbestos
was found, he said, the report added.

Since asbestos was discovered at the Meadowbank mine, 1,400 dust
samples have been taken, the report said.

The type of asbestos found is called amosite, the second-most
hazardous form of asbestos, the Mesothelioma and Asbestos
Awareness Center says, the report related.  However, not all
samples at the mine show traces of asbestos, Ladouceur said.

Drillers and truck drivers at Meadowbank appear to be more at risk
to asbestos exposure than anyone else, Mr. Ladouceur told the news
agency.  Now, "dust swipes" are taken from their equipment several
times a day, the report said.

The report also related that all 1,000 or so workers on site also
wear disposable coveralls and slippers over their boots to prevent
the spread of any asbestos dust to non-affected areas.  Workers in
the mill and crusher plant also take off their protective gear
before they leave those areas and use specialized "hepa" vacuums
to clean their work clothes.  That's because mill remains the
place where most of the asbestos has been found.

"It's a constant barrage of dust," Ladouceur said about the
atmosphere there, the report further related.  A full-time
industrial hygienist now works at the mine site, and engineering
controls have been put in place in the crusher plant to improve
airborne dust levels, he said.

While dust contamination remains an issue, trying to tell when
dust contains asbestos can be a difficult task because "it's very
sporadic -- it's not like we can really pinpoint where it's coming
from," Ladouceur said, the report cited.

The management plan for asbestos at Meadowbank also includes a
medical surveillance program for workers involved in jobs which
may bring them into contact with asbestos, the report related.
That includes medical examinations such as pulmonary function
testing and respirator fit testing.  Workers also receive
information sessions about asbestos, Ladouceur said.

Any asbestos that's found is "disposed in a proper
environmentally-friendly way," he told the news agency.

The report said asbestos has been linked to:

* asbestosis, where the asbestos fibres scar and damage the lungs;
* lung cancer related to the degree of asbestosis in the lungs;
* mesothelioma, a cancer of the lung's lining, and,
* cancer of the gastrointestinal tract and larynx.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hoboken PBA to be Evacuated for Fibro Cleaning
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Hack, writing for The Jersey Journal, reported that
Hoboken Police Benevolent Association President Vincent Lombardi
is calling on the city to clear police headquarters on Hudson
Street of personnel while contractors remove asbestos-tainted
tiles from the lobby.

According to the report, a contractor has begun removing the
tiles.

The report said police personnel who have remained at headquarters
during the renovations were notified by an environmental
consultant that "emergency asbestos abatement" work would begin in
the lobby.  While most departments have been moved into a trailer,
some bureaus remain open at 102 Hudson St., including the
detectives, traffic, identification, and the vice squad, as well
as the Office of the Chief of Police and dispatch center.

The report added that signs at the front headquarters entrance
door warn that respirators and protective clothing must be worn in
the abatement area in the ground floor lobby.

Curtains of black bags draped from the ceilings separate police
officers and the public from the work site, the report related.

Lombardi, according to the report, said the asbestos was
discovered after he and Police Superior Officers Association
President John Petrosino asked the state environmental agency to
inspect the work site because of concerns about dust in the air.

"The building is safe and all precautions are being been taken,"
city spokesman Juan Melli said in an email to the news agency.
"Trace amounts of asbestos were detected in the mastic (adhesive
for the tiles) which is currently being removed from the building.
Air quality sampling was performed to ensure that the environment
adjacent to the work zone was in fact safe for occupancy by Police
Department personnel, and the results came back negative for
asbestos."

Lombardi is not convinced, according to the report.  "It's nice
for the mayor and public safety director to say it's safe when
they are not in the building," he said. "Why did they post a sign
saying there is a hazardous material if it's not dangerous?"


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Construction Halted at URMC Over Fibro Concerns
----------------------------------------------------------------
Geoff Redick, writing for Your News Now, reported that positive
tests for asbestos at various construction sites have forced the
University of Rochester Medical Center to shut down all
construction involving interior drywall on its property,
indefinitely.

According to the report, now, OSHA and the New York State
Department of Labor are on-site, investigating a potential
asbestos exposure to construction workers.

The report related that asbestos was discovered in February and
March, where construction crews were actively working on a
renovation project inside URMC's former Blood and Bone Marrow
Wing. According to asbestos survey data obtained by YNN, asbestos
chemicals chrysotile and anthophyllite were discovered in drywall,
caulk, spackle, cement and fire stop materials. Only chrysotile
was disturbed demolition, with amounts ranging from as little as
two percent to as much as 6.7-percent of bulk samples.

According to an official from the EMSL Analytical, Inc. asbestos
survey lab in Depew, N.Y., any amount more than one percent must
be considered hazardous under New York State guidelines, and be
removed under the provisions of NYS Code Rule 56, the report
related.

The University says the asbestos was disturbed during demolition
work, which may have caused it to become airborne, though air
tests performed two days after the second potential exposure
returned negative, the report further related.

Construction workers who have been on the project for months
maintain that the air tests were taken too late to tell whether
asbestos was an airborne threat, the report said.  The workers
tell YNN they are worried for their health and safety.

"We just don't want to see this get pushed under the rug," one
worker, who wished to remain anonymous, told YNN. "It's affected a
lot of local construction workers."

The University confirms that construction workers on a number of
interior demolition projects were most at risk for low-percentage
exposures to asbestos, YNN reported. However, University officials
did say they cannot be sure exactly how much asbestos the workers
were exposed to, or for how long those exposures may have taken
place.

"They as the owners had the responsibility," the anonymous
construction worker, further told YNN. "And they hadn't been doing
what they needed to do."

The University admits that on any project involving demolition of
old facilities, its crews are required to test for asbestos, the
report related. In this project, the University relied heavily on
historical records and assumptions about which materials were
contaminated. In fact, because of those historical records,
asbestos-laden flooring was removed from the project area in
January.

However, the drywall surfaces in the facility were not included on
the list of possible asbestos-containing materials, the report
related. As workers tore out drywall using saws and hammers, they
notified safety officials of a strange material coating the
drywall joints and duct work. That material tested positive for
asbestos.  Similar materials already torn out and stored in
covered dumpsters were later tested, and also received positive
results for asbestos.

"I believe it was a surprise," Jose Fernandez, the University's
Director of Campus Planning, Design & Construction, told YNN. "We
have always acted as if there was no asbestos material in there."

According to the report, historical records reportedly did not
account for the possibility of past construction crews using
asbestos-containing construction materials. Fernandez points out
that it is still a legal and unregulated practice to use asbestos-
containing materials in construction in New York State. But those
materials must be identified before any demolition and removal.

In a meeting with construction workers earlier this month,
Fernandez told workers about the issue with the University's
historical records, the report further related.  YNN obtained an
audio recording of that meeting, taken by a worker. The worker
identified one of the University speakers as industrial hygienist
Bob Passalugo. On the recording, the man identified as Passalugo
admits that the University's first asbestos survey contained
errors.

"He (the University-employed asbestos surveyor) uses institutional
knowledge for the other wall surfaces," the man identified as
Passalugo says on the recording, YNN related. "And again, because
of the date it was installed, it should have been asbestos-free."

"Our asbestos person got egg on his face," the man further told
YNN.  A worker on the tape says later: "Your historical
information was wrong."  The man identified as Passalugo replies:
"That's correct."

Because the historical asbestos records proved inaccurate, the
University says it cannot trust any of its old asbestos records
for the Medical Center campus, the report related. In response,
URMC has now shut down any construction project where workers are
demolishing drywall -- including the Blood and Bone Marrow Wing,
the Inpatient Rehab area, and the Wilmot Cancer Center expansion,
among others. All of those areas are now being re-tested for
asbestos.

In the meantime, the University has issued an apology to the
possibly-affected construction workers, the report added.
Fernandez insists that University asbestos-survey protocols will
be changed in the future.

"Moving forward, we will be doing more robust material sampling
and surveying, to ensure this doesn't happen again," he told YNN.
But the anonymous construction worker who spoke with YNN, says
there must be more effort to placate construction crews.

"If . . . they actually acknowledge that the amount of exposure is
significant, and do not deny it, that would definitely help," he
told YNN.

According to the report, when asked about possible asbestos
exposure for those who have spent time at the hospital recently,
the University was extremely open and transparent with YNN.
Officials say the only chance that patients or workers could have
been contaminated is if asbestos dust was tracked through common
areas by the construction workers. The University believes it has
taken measures to prevent that from happening. However, officials
do admit that there is a small chance that patients or employees
could have been exposed.  Because of the measures taken to protect
common areas from dust and debris, University officials maintain
that any chance for civilian exposure to asbestos is very small.
They say if it did happen, the exposure levels would have been
very minute.

The report added that there is also no chance that patients or
employees could have been exposed to asbestos-containing material
at anytime before construction and demolition began. The
University tells YNN that all asbestos-containing material was
held inside the walls, and the only way it can become a risk is
when it's disturbed. At the time construction workers actively cut
and hammered through those walls, no patients were in the
construction areas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Traces of Fibro Found in Scunthorpe Flats
----------------------------------------------------------
Scunthorpe Telegraph reported that traces of asbestos have been
discovered in the Albert Marson Court block of flats in
Scunthorpe.  The tenants have, however, been assured by their
landlords there is no concern for alarm.

The asbestos was discovered in the block -- which dates back to
1967 -- as a result of a series of routine gas service checks
carried out on behalf of owners at North Lincolnshire Homes, the
report related.  It is not yet known how many people were
affected.

The report further related that a spokeswoman for the housing
association said: "During a series of gas service checks at Albert
Marson Court, a small amount of asbestos insulation board was
found which has been used to box in the gas flues.  "This was
installed when asbestos products were widely used and poses no
danger to tenants if the board is in good condition and not
disturbed.  "This year, the regulations around gas boiler flues
were changed and when carrying out a gas service, the flue has to
be inspected throughout its length and all joints checked."

The housing association will now carry out work to remove the
boxing from other homes to check the flue and fit inspection
hatches, the report added.  The spokeswoman added: "Some of the
homes on Albert Marson Court have flues which are boxed in.

"We will now be removing the boxing to check the flue and fit
inspection hatches so it can be easily checked in future years,"
the report added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wife Sues Over Husband's Meso-Caused Death
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Keahey, writing for The Louisiana Record, reported that
claiming her husband died from asbestos exposure, Carol Phillips
and the Estate of Robert Lee Phillips filed suit against ABB
Combustion Engineering Inc., Centerpoint Energy Inc., Associated
Electric Cooperative Inc., Nebraska Public Power District, and
City of Grand Island in St. John the Baptist District Court.

The defendant removed the case to federal court in New Orleans on
April 2, the report said.

The report related that Phillips worked for the defendants for
various times from 1956 until 1980. The lawsuit argues that he was
exposed, on numerous occasions, to asbestos or asbestos-containing
products and inhaled great quantities of asbestos fibers. Phillips
developed mesothelioma and ultimately died as a result of his
alleged exposure, the suit claims.

The defendants are accused of negligence and premises liability
for failing to provide a safe place to work, failing to inspect,
approve, and supervise the work of Philips and his co-workers,
failing to provide adequate warnings, physical examinations,
safety equipment, ventilation, and breathing apparatus to prevent
Phillips from being harmed by exposure to asbestos, failing to
comply with the applicable regulations regarding workplace
exposure to asbestos, failing to provide adequate safety
equipment, and failing to protect Phillips from any asbestos
exposure, the report further related.

The lawsuit is seeking an award of wrongful death and survival
damages for physical pain and mental anguish, pain, medical
expenses, physical impairment, total disability, loss of earning
capacity and wages, expenses for domestic help and nursing care,
loss of love and affection, loss of services, medical expenses,
funeral expenses, attorney's fees, interest, and court costs, the
report added.

The plaintiff is represented by LaPlace attorney Leandre M.
Millet.

U.S. District Judge Martin L. C. Feldman is assigned to the case.

The case number is 2:13-cv-00594.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Study to be Done on Condemned Buildings
--------------------------------------------------------
Bryant Thigpen, writing for Suwannee Democrat, reported that the
Live Oak Community Redevelopment Agency met with an agenda to get
one step further in purchasing two buildings in downtown Live Oak
that were damaged by Tropical Storm Debby in late June and later
condemned. The CRA has agreed to accept the deeds to the condemned
buildings contingent on multiple stipulations. The building owners
must be willing to render the funds provided to them by the
insurance companies for demolition to the CRA and the estimated
fee to remove hazardous materials (such as asbestos) from the
buildings must be "reasonable."

According to the report, at last meeting, Live Oak's Public Works
Director Brent Whitman was asked to generate bids from three
companies to perform an environmental study, with an approved
amount of $2,500 or less, to determine the amount of hazardous
materials located inside the condemned buildings.

He was also asked to see if CH2M Hill OMI, the company that
performs the city's public works duties, to see if they could
provide the services for the city, the report related.

OMI contacted PSI industries to do an environmental survey, the
report further related. The cost to do the survey is $3,900.

Since the cost of the survey exceeded Whitman's approval amount of
$2,500, it had to come back before the board for approval, the
report said.  Whitman shared good news with the board that OMI
said they will donate $3,900 to the city for the survey.

"Essentially, the CRA won't have to pay for the report because
CH2M Hill will credit us back the same amount that we're paying
for it," CRA Chairman Jacob Grantham, told the news agency.

The buildings on West Howard Street and the corner of Pine Avenue
have been condemned since TS Debby visited Live Oak in June 2012,
leaving a 160-foot sinkhole partially underneath them, according
to the report. The buildings are leaning in toward each other and
have noticeable cracks on the outside. The properties are owned by
John Chambliss and John Robinson. Once the contract is executed,
PSI will present a report in 20 days from the time the contract is
initiated. The result of the study will provide the CRA with an
estimate of how much it would cost to remove the hazardous
material from the buildings, should it be required to be extracted
separately.

The board voted unanimously to pursue a contract with PSI for
$3,900 and for OMI to credit the CRA, the report related.  Based
on PSI's findings, the CRA will then make their decision to accept
or decline the deed to the properties.


                             *********

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  * * *