---

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

             Wednesday, May 29, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 105

                             Headlines


AFFINION GROUP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Add to Consolidated Suit
AFFINION GROUP: Webloyalty Continues to Defend Class Suits
ALIMENTATION NOUVELLE: Recalls Marinades Due to Allergens
ALTEC INDUSTRIES: Recalls 4 AC38 Model Telescopic Cranes
ANGIE'S LIST: Still Defends "Fritzinger" Class Suit in Indiana

APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Faulty iPhone 4 Power Button
AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over 2007 Equine Influenza Outbreak
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suit Over Monopolizing Credit Default
BRISTOL-MYERS: Oral Argument in AWP Suit to Take Place in May
BRISTOL-MYERS: Plea to Junk Abilify* Co-Pay Program Suit Pending

CASH STORE: To Amend Filings to Correct Class Action Accruals
CEDAR HILL: Parents Mull Class Action Over Sex Abuse of Students
CEQUENT PERFORMANCE: Recalls 107 Pro Series Translite Bike Racks
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Sued Over Royalty Payment Deductions
CHINA AGRITECH: Directors Lose Bid to Escape Shareholder Suit

COMPTON: Faces Class Action Over Harassing Latinos
CONCORDE CAREER: Faces Class Action for Defrauding Students
CONNECTICUT: Faces Class Action Over Medicaid Processing Delays
COSTAR GROUP: Court Refused to OK Deal in Merger-Related Suits
CVS CAREMARK: Faces Class Action for Blacklisting Dr. Roy Simon

ELECTRONIC ARTS: Ex-Rutgers Player Has Go Signal to Pursue Claims
EMUSIC.COM: Faces Class Action for Shortchanging Customers
ENVIVIO INC: Defends IPO-Related Class Suits in California
EXXONMOBIL: Faulkner County Major "Sacrifice Zone"
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Suit Over Illegal Wireless Spam Text Messages

FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Overtime Class Action
FLEETWOOD: Recalls American Revolution and Other Motorhome Models
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over "Ecoboost"
FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Faces Suit Over Unconscionable Clauses
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Won't Dismiss Suit Over Defective Washers

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Chevrolet Cruzes
GENZYME CORP: Investors Urge 1st Cir. to Revive Class Action
GOOGLE INC: Faces New Complaints From Android Users
GREAT PERFORMANCES: Faces Class Action Over Skimming Tips
INNOVATION VENTURES: May 30 Hearing Set for MDL Transfer Request

INTERNAP NETWORK: Defends 2 Remaining Claims in Securities Suit
JAMAICA PUBLIC SERVICE: Dec. 9 Hearing Set for Class Action Appeal
LES DISTRIBUTIONS: Recalls In Shell Hazelnuts or Mixed Nuts
LINN ENERGY: Continues to Defend Suit Over Royalty Payments
MAIN STREET: Tennessee Health Officials to Recall Sterile Products

METROPCS COMMUNICATIONS: Defends T-Mobile Merger Class Suits
NEPTUNE TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
NORTHGATE BAKERY: Recalls Cheese & Herb Bagels and Cheese Sticks
NOURISON INDUSTRIES: Recalls 1,400 Rugs Due to Fire Hazard
NOWADAY INT'L: Recalls Pura Milk Over High Levels of Bacteria

NVR INC: Littler Mendelson Discusses Court Ruling
OCEAN BRANDS: Recalls Chunk Light Tuna Due to Harmful Bacteria
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Bid to Dismiss Consumer Suit Remains Pending
OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Rehearing Bid in Facebook Beacon Suit Denied
PET VALU: Osler Hoskin & Harcourt Discusses Court Ruling

PILOT FLYING J: Faces Another Class Action Over Fuel Rebate Scheme
PREMIER GIFTS: Recalls BuckyBalls Magnet Spheres, Cubes and Rods
REED ELSEVIER: July Appeals Court Hearing in E-Filing System Case
ROYAL CANIN: Recalls Dog and Cat Heating and Cooling Mats
SAC CAPITAL: Elan Shareholders File Amended Class Action Complaint

SIM PROPERTIES: May 31 Hearing Set for Class Action Dismissal Bid
TILTWARE LLC: Seeks Class Action Discovery Protective Order
TIME WARNER: Appeal From "Fink" Suit Dismissal Remains Pending
TIME WARNER: Appeal From Dismissal of Set-Top Cable MDL Pending
TIME WARNER: Faces Three Suits Over High-Speed Data Modem Fee

TIME WARNER: Still Defends "Downs" Class Suit vs. Insight
TOWN SPORTS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Stay "Labbe" Class Suit
TOWN SPORTS: Dismissal of "Cruz" Class Allegations to Be Appealed
TOYOTA MOTOR: Defends Sudden Acceleration Class Action Settlement
UNITED STATES: IRS Faces Class Action Over Stolen Health Records

WASHINGTON: Court Hears Arguments in Home Care Aides' Class Action
WEST BANCORPORATION: Banking Unit Continues to Defend Iowa Suit
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Another Class Action for Dumping Toxins

* New Bill to Hold Foreign Cos. Accountable for Defective Products


                             *********


AFFINION GROUP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Add to Consolidated Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group Holdings, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on a
motion to consolidate a similar case to the consolidated lawsuit
pending in Connecticut, according to the Company's April 25, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On June 17, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and Trilegiant Corporation ("Trilegiant") in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut.  The
complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of a putative
nationwide class and a California-only subclass in connection with
the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs, including
claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, the Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organizations Act, the California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False
Advertising Law, and for unjust enrichment.  On September 29,
2010, the Company filed a motion to compel arbitration of all of
the claims asserted in this lawsuit.  On February 24, 2011, the
court denied the Company's motion.  On March 28, 2011, the Company
and Trilegiant filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit, appealing the district court's
denial of their motion to compel arbitration.  On September 7,
2012, the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the District
Court denying arbitration.  While that issue was on appeal, the
matter proceeded in the district court.  There was written
discovery and depositions.

Previously, the court had set a briefing schedule on class
certification that called for the completion of class
certification briefing on May 18, 2012.  However, on March 28,
2012, the court suspended the briefing schedule on the motion due
to the filing of two other overlapping class actions in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut.  The first
of those cases was filed on March 6, 2012, against the Company,
Trilegiant, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Capital
One Financial Corp., Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A., Apollo
Global Management, LLC, 1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc., United Online,
Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Int'l, Inc., FTD Group, Inc.,
Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corp., People
Finderspro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten USA,
Inc., IAC/InteractiveCorp., and Shoebuy.com, Inc.  The second of
those cases was filed on March 25, 2012, against the same
defendants as well as Adaptive Marketing, LLC, Vertrue, Inc.,
Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Wells Fargo & Co.  These two cases
assert similar claims as the claims asserted in the earlier-filed
lawsuit in connection with the sale by Trilegiant of its
membership programs.  On April 26, 2012, the court consolidated
these three cases.  The court also set an initial status
conference for May 17, 2012.  At that status conference, the court
ordered that Plaintiffs file a consolidated amended complaint to
combine the claims in the three previously separate lawsuits.  The
court also struck the class certification briefing schedule that
had been set previously.

On September 7, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting substantially the same legal claims.  The
consolidated amended complaint added Priceline, Orbitz, Chase
Paymentech, Hotwire, and TigerDirect as Defendants and added three
new Plaintiffs; it also dropped Webloyalty and Rakuten as
Defendants.  On December 7, 2012, all Defendants filed motions
seeking to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and to
strike certain portions of the complaint.  The Plaintiff's
response brief was filed on February 7, 2013, and the Defendants'
reply briefs were filed on April 5, 2013.  The Company says it
does not know when the court will rule on that motion.  Also, on
December 5, 2012, the Plaintiffs' law firms in these consolidated
cases filed an additional action in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut.  That case is identical in
all respects to this case except that it was filed by a new
Plaintiff (the named Plaintiff from the class action complaint
previously filed against the Company, Trilegiant, 1-800-
Flowers.com, and Chase Bank USA, N.A., in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on November
10, 2010).

On January 23, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate
that case into the existing set of consolidated cases.  The
Company does not know when the court will rule on that motion.  On
February 15, 2013, the Court entered an order staying the date for
all Defendants to respond to the Complaint until (1) the
resolution of the motion to consolidate the case into the existing
consolidated cases, or (2) April 1, 2013.  Because the motion to
consolidate has not been resolved, the stay remains in effect, and
the Defendants have informed the court of that fact and asked that
the stay continue to remain in effect pending resolution of that
motion.

Affinion Group Holdings, Inc., designs, markets and services
comprehensive customer engagement and loyalty solutions that
enhance and extend the relationship of millions of consumers with
many of the largest and most respected companies in the world.


AFFINION GROUP: Webloyalty Continues to Defend Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group Holdings, Inc., continues to defend its Webloyalty
subsidiary against class action lawsuits alleging violations of
the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, among other laws, according to
the Company's April 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On June 25, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Webloyalty and one of its clients in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California alleging, among
other things, violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, fraud,
civil theft, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act violations, false advertising and
California Consumer Business Practice violations.  This lawsuit
relates to Webloyalty's alleged conduct occurring on and after
October 1, 2008.  On February 17, 2011, Webloyalty filed a motion
to dismiss the amended complaint in this lawsuit.  On April 12,
2011, the Court granted Webloyalty's motion and dismissed all
claims against the defendants.

On May 10, 2011, plaintiff filed a notice appealing the dismissal
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The
Plaintiff filed its opening appeals brief with the Ninth Circuit
on October 17, 2011, and defendants filed their respective
answering briefs on December 23, 2011.  The Plaintiff filed its
reply brief on January 23, 2012.  On January 11, 2013, the Ninth
Circuit heard oral argument on the plaintiff's appeal and,
thereafter, took the matter under advisement.

On August 27, 2010, another substantially similar class action
lawsuit was filed against Webloyalty, one of its former clients
and one of the credit card associations in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging, among
other things, violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act,
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, civil
theft, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and Connecticut Unfair
Trade Practices Act violations.  This lawsuit relates to
Webloyalty's alleged conduct occurring on and after October 1,
2008.  On December 23, 2010, Webloyalty filed a motion to dismiss
this lawsuit, which had since been amended in its entirety.  The
court has not yet scheduled a hearing or ruled on Webloyalty's
motion.

On June 7, 2012, another class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
against Webloyalty that was factually similar to the California
and Connecticut actions.  The action claims that Webloyalty
engaged in unlawful business practices in violation of California
Business and Professional Code Section 17200, et seq. and in
violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act.  Both
claims are based on allegations that in connection with enrollment
and billing of the plaintiff, Webloyalty charged the plaintiff's
credit or debit card using information obtained through a data
pass process and without obtaining directly from plaintiff his
full account number, name, address, and contact information, as
purportedly required under Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence
Act.  On September 25, 2012, Webloyalty filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint in its entirety, scheduling a hearing on the motion
for January 14, 2013.  Webloyalty also sought judicial notice of
the enrollment page and related enrollment and account documents.
The Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 12, 2012, and
Webloyalty filed its reply submission on January 7, 2013.
Thereafter, on January 10, 2013, the Court cancelled the
previously scheduled January 14, 2013 hearing and indicated that
it would rule based on the parties' written submissions without
the need for a hearing, although it has not yet done so.

Affinion Group Holdings, Inc., designs, markets and services
comprehensive customer engagement and loyalty solutions that
enhance and extend the relationship of millions of consumers with
many of the largest and most respected companies in the world.


ALIMENTATION NOUVELLE: Recalls Marinades Due to Allergens
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:          May 23, 2013
Type of communication:  Recall
Alert sub-type:         Allergy Alert
Subcategory:            Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Mustard,
                        Allergen - Soy, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:  Class 1
Source of recall:       Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:         Alimentation Nouvelle Orleans
Distribution:           Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:           Retail
CFIA reference number:  8035

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Alimentation
Nouvelle Orleans are warning people with allergies to mustard,
milk, soy and/or wheat not to consume the Nouvelle Orleans brand
Marinades.  The affected products contain mustard, milk, soy
and/or wheat which are not declared on the label.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.

Consumption of these products may cause a serious or life-
threatening reaction in persons with allergies to mustard, milk,
soy and/or wheat.

The manufacturer, Alimentation Nouvelle Orleans, Hebertville-
Station, QC, is voluntarily recalling the affected products from
the marketplace.  The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the
recall.

Affected products:

Brand      Common
name       name       Size  Code(s) on product
----       ----       ----  ------------------
Nouvelle   Beef       360   All products where mustard, wheat
Orleans    Marinade   ml    and soy are not declared in the list
                             of ingredients
UPC: 6 20066 50598 3

Nouvelle   BBQ        360   All products where mustard and milk
Orleans    Marinade   ml    are not declared in the list of
                             ingredients
UPC: 6 20066 50603 4

Pictures of the recalled products' label are available at:
http://is.gd/g7Nhak


ALTEC INDUSTRIES: Recalls 4 AC38 Model Telescopic Cranes
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:              May 22, 2013
Type of communication:      Recall
Subcategory:                Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:          Safety Mfr
System:                     Structure
Units affected:             4
Source of recall:           Transport Canada
Identification number:      2013173
TC ID number:               2013173
Manufacturer recall number: CSN 576

On certain truck-mounted telescopic cranes equipped with a 9.5
meter (31 ft.) jib, the jib mounting bracket could fail.  This
could cause the jib assembly, or a load picked by the crane, to
fall, placing anyone near or beneath at risk of personal injury.
Correction: Altec will direct vehicle owners to inspect and, if
necessary, reinforce the jib mounting bracket.

Affected products:

             Makes and models affected
   -----------------------------------------------
   Make      Model          Model year(s) affected
   ----      -----          ----------------------
   ALTEC     AC38                 2010, 2011


ANGIE'S LIST: Still Defends "Fritzinger" Class Suit in Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit seeking class action status, Fritzinger v. Angie's List
Inc., was filed against the Company on August 14, 2012, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (the
"Court").  After the Court granted the Company's partial Motion to
Dismiss plaintiff's deception claims, the lawsuit currently
alleges claims for breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, and
requests certification of a class consisting of all current and
former Angie's List members whose membership was renewed between
August 14, 2006, and the present.  The plaintiff is seeking
unspecified compensatory damages and an award of treble damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company believes this lawsuit is
without merit and continues to defend itself vigorously in this
matter.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 25, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Indianapolis, Indiana-based Angie's List, Inc., --
http://www.angieslist.com/-- operates a consumer-driven service
for members to research, hire, rate and review local professionals
for critical needs, such as home, health care and automotive
services.  The Company's ratings and reviews, which are available
only to its members, help the members find the best provider for
their local service needs.


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Faulty iPhone 4 Power Button
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff John Roberts, writing for Gigaom, reports that a Florida
woman is seeking more than $5 million from Apple on behalf of
thousands of iPhone owners who allegedly bought phones with
defective power buttons that would not lock or turn off.

In a class action suit filed in San Jose, California, Debra Hilton
claims that Apple knew about a defect in a flex cable that
controls the on-off button, but chose to stay quiet about it so as
to sell more phones.

As evidence, she points to Apple discussion forums viewed by
hundreds of thousands of visitors on which users complain of
"wiggly" power buttons.  Ms. Hilton also points to a fix-it video
on YouTube and comments by a self-described iPhone repairman who
says the power button defect is prevalent on the iPhone 4 which
went on sale in 2010.

Apple did not immediately return a request for comment.

The lawsuit claims that the defect typically arises shortly after
one year at which point the warranty has expired, forcing
consumers to pay $149 for repairs.

Hilton is suing under the RICO statute, a federal racketeering law
that has become a vehicle for national class actions.  The lawsuit
also accuses Apple of violating California's unfair competition
laws.


AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over 2007 Equine Influenza Outbreak
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cassie Hough, writing for ABC Rural, reports that Australia's
Federal Government is facing a negligence claim over the
quarantine failure which led to the Equine Influenza (EI) outbreak
in 2007.

On May 15, law firm Maurice Blackburn filed the class action on
behalf of about 550 clients for losses arising from the EI
outbreak.

Equine Influenza affected about 70,000 horses on about 9,000
properties and cost the government and industry more than AUD350
million to eradicate.  The Callinan Inquiry into the outbreak
found a major contributing factor was the failure of the
quarantine systems.

The class action will allege the Commonwealth negligently caused
the horse flu outbreak after the virus escaped from the Eastern
Creek Quarantine Station in Sydney and spread across eastern
Australia.

Maurice Blackburn principal Damian Scattini says racehorse owners,
horse breeders, horse racing clubs, horse transporters, jockeys
and trainers have signed on to the claim.

"They want the Commonwealth to make good the damage that was
caused to their businesses by the negligent operation of the
quarantine stations," he said.

"It is certainly a very substantial claim that runs into the
hundreds of millions of dollars."


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suit Over Monopolizing Credit Default
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that more than a dozen banks
conspired to monopolize the credit default swaps market, damaging
investors by billions, a class claims.  The case was launched by
Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 33 Cleveland District Pension Plan
against Bank of America, UBS, among others.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Oral Argument in AWP Suit to Take Place in May
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument in the appeal in the average wholesale price
litigation is scheduled to take place this month, according to
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company's April 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

The Company, together with a number of other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, has been a defendant in a number of private class
actions as well as lawsuits brought by the attorneys general of
various states.  In these actions, plaintiffs allege that
defendants caused the Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) of their
products to be inflated, thereby injuring government programs,
entities and persons who reimbursed prescription drugs based on
AWPs.  The Company remains a defendant in two state attorneys
general lawsuits pending in state courts in Pennsylvania and
Wisconsin.  Beginning in August 2010, the Company was the
defendant in a trial in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
(Commonwealth Court), brought by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
In September 2010, the jury issued a verdict for the Company,
finding that the Company was not liable for fraudulent or
negligent misrepresentation; however, the Commonwealth Court judge
issued a decision on a Pennsylvania consumer protection claim that
did not go to the jury, finding the Company liable for $28 million
and enjoining the Company from contributing to the provision of
inflated AWPs.  The Company has appealed the decision to the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court and oral argument is scheduled to take
place in May 2013.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is a global biopharmaceutical company
whose mission is to discover, develop and deliver innovative
medicines that help patients prevail over serious diseases.  The
Company licenses, manufactures, markets, distributes and sells
pharmaceutical products on a global basis.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Plea to Junk Abilify* Co-Pay Program Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2012, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and its partner Otsuka
Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., were named as co-defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit filed by union health and welfare
funds in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York (SDNY).  The Plaintiffs are challenging the legality of the
Abilify* co-pay assistance program under the Federal Antitrust and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations laws, and
seeking damages.  The Company and Otsuka have filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint.  The Company says it is not possible at
this time to reasonably assess the outcome of this litigation or
its potential impact on the Company.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 25, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is a global biopharmaceutical company
whose mission is to discover, develop and deliver innovative
medicines that help patients prevail over serious diseases.  The
Company licenses, manufactures, markets, distributes and sells
pharmaceutical products on a global basis.


CASH STORE: To Amend Filings to Correct Class Action Accruals
-------------------------------------------------------------
On May 13, 2013, Cash Store Financial Services Inc. disclosed that
it will file amended financial statements to correct its accrual
for a settlement of a British Columbia class action lawsuit.  The
Company stated that the release of the financial statements for
the three and six month periods ended March 31, 2013 was delayed
due to a recently identified increase to the British Columbia
class action lawsuit settlement accrual which resulted in an
increase of $8.2 million.  The Company has advised that as a
result of this the Annual and Interim Filings should not be relied
upon.

The Alberta Securities Commission determined that on account of
this some of the Company's Annual and Interim filings were not
prepared in accordance with Alberta securities laws.  Under s.33.1
of the Alberta Securities Act the Commission has ordered that
trading and purchasing cease in respect of any security of Cash
Store Financial until the Commission's order has been revoked or
varied.

The Company anticipates that relevant amended financial statements
will be filed within two weeks of the date of this press release.

After filing the required continuous disclosure documents, the
Company will make an application to the Alberta Securities
Commission to obtain a revocation order.

Cash Store Financial is the only lender and broker of short-term
advances and provider of other financial services in Canada that
is listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX: CSF).  Cash Store
Financial also trades on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: CSFS).
Cash Store Financial operates 513 branches across Canada under the
banners "Cash Store Financial" and "Instaloans".  Cash Store
Financial also operates 25 branches in the United Kingdom.

Cash Store Financial and Instaloans primarily act as lenders and
brokers to facilitate short-term advances and provide other
financial services to income-earning consumers who may not be able
to obtain them from traditional banks.  Cash Store Financial also
provides a private-label debit card (the "Freedom" card) and a
prepaid credit card (the "Freedom MasterCard") as well as other
financial services, including bank accounts.

Cash Store Financial employs approximately 1,900 associates and is
headquartered in Edmonton, Alberta.

Cash Store Financial is a Canadian corporation that is not
affiliated with Cottonwood Financial Ltd. or the outlets
Cottonwood Financial Ltd. operates in the United States under the
name "Cash Store."  Cash Store Financial does not do business
under the name "Cash Store" in the United States and does not own
or provide any consumer lending services in the United States.


CEDAR HILL: Parents Mull Class Action Over Sex Abuse of Students
----------------------------------------------------------------
North Dallas Gazette reports that in what is being classified as a
clear parallel to the Penn State University and Catholic Church
child sex scandals, parents in the Cedar Hill Independent School
(CHISD) have asked the president of the Texas Southern Christian
Leadership Conference (Texas SCLC) to lead an effort to "Repair
the Breach" of trust and safety for the children within the
district.

"The Cedar Hill ISD administration is allowing dirty teachers to
use our girls and boys as human sex toys and have turned our
public schools into cess pools," says the Rev. Kyev Tatum,
president of the Texas SCLC.

The community is concerned in light of the arrest last week of
Marlena Mints, a health class teacher at Bessie Colman Middle
School in district.  On May 8, 31-year-old Mints was arrested and
charged with aggravated sexual assault of a child and two charges
of improper relationship with a student.

"They refuse to take full responsibility for their employees,
their actions or their lack of protection for the safety of our
children.  This breach is criminally harmful and Spiritually
shameful," Rev. Tatum said.

Over fifty parents, teachers and concerned citizens met on May 13
at the Graceland Community Baptist Church to find ways to help
safeguard our children from these child sex predators within the
CHISD.

"Texas officials has allowed far too many public school officials
a free pass when it comes to sex predators in the classroom.  How
can we point our fingers at Penn State or the Catholic Church when
we have serial child sex predator working in our school buildings
everyday.  We are calling on Governor Rick Perry to call for a
statewide investigation into why so many of our Texas Teachers are
allowed to work with children and cause so much long term damage
to their Souls," Rev. Tatum said.

The group, Voices of Concerned Parents of Cedar Hill (VCP), was
set to meet again May 20 at 6:30 p.m. at the Graceland Community
Baptist Church in Cedar Hill at 310 South Clark Road, where Rev.
Cedric Stricklin is the Pastor.  Anna Green is the meeting
organizer and can be reached at 214-994-4951 for any questions.

"We are committed to exposing these child sex predators and the
sick administers who have covered up their crimes in an effort to
protect the public image of the school districts.  As a survivor
of childhood molestation, this is one of the worst forms of child
abuse one can imagine.  Without the proper Spiritual support, the
aftermath can have long term negative consequences for our
children.  This criminal behavior must come to an end," says Rev.
Tatum.


CEQUENT PERFORMANCE: Recalls 107 Pro Series Translite Bike Racks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:         May 23, 2013
Posting date:          May 23, 2013
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:           Sports/Fitness
Source of recall:      Health Canada
Issue:                 Product Safety
Audience:              General Public
Identification number: RA-31815

Affected products: Pro Series Translite Bike Racks

This recall involves Pro Series Translite Bike Racks.  The
affected product is Model Number 63144.  The product is a hitch-
mounted bicycle rack with dual arms, each having four rubber
cradles with hook and loop straps that hold the bicycle in place.
The rack is capable of carrying up to four bicycles.  The recalled
products can be identified by the absence of a green sticker on
the exterior surface of the product packaging or on the product
itself.  A green sticker identifies products that are not subject
to the recall.  Pictures of the recalled products are available
at: http://is.gd/VnM1dW

Some cradles used in the production of the bike carriers within
the recall population may tear during use or if excessive force is
applied to the cradle straps, potentially allowing a bike to
partially or fully disengage from the bike carrier.  If a bike
disengages from the carrier and falls onto the roadway, the
resulting road hazard may cause a motor vehicle accident or
property damage.

Neither Health Canada nor Cequent Performance Products, Inc. has
received reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of
this product.

Number sold: Approximately 107 units were distributed across
Canada.

The recalled product was distributed between March 2012 and August
2012.

The recalled products were manufactured in China.

Companies:

Distributor: Cequent Performance Products, Inc.
             Plymouth, Michigan
             UNITED STATES

Consumers are advised to call Cequent Customer Service at 1-800-
931-6689.  Customers will be sent a repair kit free of charge
which includes new extension arms and installation instructions.
Customers are asked to return the recalled product to Cequent.
For the most up-to-date information concerning this recall, visit
the firm's Web site (PDF - 201 KB) [http://is.gd/z9UXBf].


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Sued Over Royalty Payment Deductions
-------------------------------------------------------
Clearman | Prebeg, LLP on May 14 disclosed that Chesapeake Energy
is the owner of hundreds if not thousands of natural gas leases in
the Barnett Shale.  These leases state that the royalties paid to
the property owners will not be reduced by the costs of
compressing, dehydrating, marketing and transporting the natural
gas for sale.  Despite the clear lease language, certain royalty
owners in Johnson County allege that Chesapeake has made unlawful
deductions from the royalties and has even expressed an intent to
increase those deductions, according to court documents.

In 2006, Plaintiffs Charles and Robert Warren entered into an oil
and gas lease on property their family owns in Johnson County,
Texas, near Crowley and Cleburne.  The lease provides that no
deductions can be made from the royalties owed to the Warrens for
certain "post-production costs" such as transporting and marketing
the oil or gas, according to court documents.  On August 1, 2011,
Chesapeake Energy sent a letter to royalty owners regarding an
"adjustment in future royalty calculations", that meant they would
deduct post-production costs from royalties, which they had not
done in the past.

The Warrens in 2006 had leased other land to a different energy
company, XTO, as stated in court documents.  The Warrens assert
that in 2012 their Chesapeake payments were significantly less
than the royalties paid on the other property even though the
properties were similar and the leases contained the same "no
deducts" language.  "At first, the difference was small," said
Charles Warren, referring to the checks sent by Chesapeake
Entities.  He said that the disparity grew and grew until "it was
not a small amount," with the difference in the total payments
reaching a six-figure amount.

According to the Complaint, Four Seven Oil Co., Ltd. (FSOC)
approached landowners to sign more than 300 leases in Tarrant and
Johnson Counties, Texas that stated that no deductions could be
made to the royalty due the landowner.  All of the leases were
ultimately assigned to Chesapeake Energy, which is the largest
lessee in the "Barnett Shale," a formation that covers large
portions of northeast Texas and southern Oklahoma.

Chesapeake has responded by asking the Court to dismiss the
lawsuit, claiming that under the Texas Supreme Court's 1997
decision in Heritage Resources, Inc. v. Nationsbank, 939 S.W.2d
118 (Tex. 1997), that the "no deducts" language in each lease is
"mere surplusage" that should be ignored.

"Texas law is that normally the [parties] share the burden of
getting the gas to a marketable condition," said Bob O'Boyle, a
Dallas attorney with Strasburger & Price who is representing the
Johnson County landowners.  He said that's why knowledgeable
landowners, including his clients, signed leases with specific
language that prohibited such deductions.  "You can look at
publications and blogs from the time and see that anyone who asked
received a lease promising that the costs would not be deducted
from the royalties."

Co-counsel Scott Clearman says that the federal court will decide
whether the lease "means what it says" and what everyone knew it
to say when it was signed, or whether Chesapeake's lawyers will
convince the Court to ignore that plain language, as Attorney
Clearman describes it.  "All you've got to do is look at two
sentences in every lease and tell us what it means," Mr. Clearman
said, regarding the Court's role.  He expects this step to take a
month or two.

The plaintiffs are represented by Robert M. O'Boyle and Clinton A.
Rosenthal of Strasburger & Price, LLP, and by Scott M. Clearman of
Clearman | Prebeg, LLP. Clearman | Prebeg, LLP is a nationwide
contingent fee business and patent litigation law firm based out
of Houston, Texas.  The firm represents both domestic and
international clients in litigation throughout the United States
and the world.  The firm handles a broad range of patent and
commercial litigation matters including breach of contract, patent
infringement, class action lawsuits, insurance litigation and much
more.  The firm offers contingency fee arrangements and is
flexible to accommodate situations where there are multiple
plaintiffs, class actions or local counsel.  To contact an
attorney at the firm, please call (877) 610-1953 or visit their
firm's website online at http://www.clearmanprebeg.com


CHINA AGRITECH: Directors Lose Bid to Escape Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that China Agritech
Inc. directors lost a bid to escape a lawsuit by shareholders who
contend the company was a fraud, the latest setback delivered by
Delaware judges to defendants connected to Chinese reverse merger
companies.

In a ruling on May 21, Vice Chancellor Travis Laster of the
Delaware Chancery Court allowed an investor lawsuit to proceed
seeking damages over the alleged fraud and eventual delisting from
Nasdaq in 2011.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check and Prickett, Jones & Elliott
represents individual investor Albert Rish, who brought the case
in January 2012.  The China Agritech defendants are represented by
O'Melveny & Myers, Locke Lord and Ashby & Geddes.

The lawsuit is one of a number filed in the United States by
investors and enforcement agencies following accounting scandals
in 2010 and 2011 related to Chinese companies listed on U.S. stock
exchanges.

Like China Agritech, many of these companies entered the U.S.
markets through so-called reverse mergers, in which a company
merges with a U.S. shell company.

Two judges in Delaware have this year allowed similar shareholder
lawsuits to move forward against directors of Puda Coal Inc. and
Fuqi International Inc.

In all three of the cases, the plaintiffs accused the directors of
failing to properly oversee the company.  Such a claim, while hard
to establish, opens the door if proven to directors to be held
personally liable.

The latest case was sparked by an online report by a short-seller
describing China Agritech as a "scam."  The report claimed that a
visit to China Agritech's reported facilities "found virtually no
manufacturing underway," and that the company had no distribution
centers, "mysterious suppliers" and various "financial anomalies."

The company denied the allegations, but a month later its auditor,
Ernst & Young, met with China Agritech's audit committee to meet
to discuss potential violations of U.S. securities law.  A special
committee of the company's board was formed to investigate Ernst &
Young's claims, but days later the company fired Ernst & Young.

A parade of director resignations followed, and by May 2011 Nasdaq
delisted the company.

                    Problems 'On Their Watch'

The lawsuit seeks to recover damages stemming from events
including China Agritech's purchase of stock in a company owned by
co-founders Yu Chang and Xiao Rong Teng, Yinlong Industrial Co
Ltd.  It also requests damages for alleged misuse of money from a
$23 million stock offering and for alleged mismanagement that
resulted in not just Ernst's resignation but a prior auditor as
well.

Mr. Rish, in preparation for the lawsuit, made a demand under
Delaware law for books and records from the company.  While some
records were produced, the company provided no audit committee
minutes for 2009 or 2010.

In a 52-page opinion, Mr. Laster found that Mr. Rish could
represent China Agritech derivatively in the litigation despite
not making a demand on the directors to take legal action
themselves, given the number of directors who faced "substantial
liability" in the case.

In the case of three members of the audit committee, Mr. Laster
said the records and allegations supported an inference that the
defendants "acted in bad faith in the sense that they consciously
disregarded their duties."

"These directors could not validly consider a litigation demand
concerning the problems that occurred on their watch," he wrote.

Calls to two of the lawyers for the directors, Charles Bachman of
O'Melveny & Myers and Taylor Florence of Locke Lord, were not
returned Wednesday.  Eric Zagar -- ezagar@ktmc.com -- a lawyer for
the plaintiff at Kessler Topaz, also did not respond to a request
for comment.

The case is In Re China Agritech, Inc. Shareholder Derivative
Litigation, Delaware Court of Chancery, No. 7163.

For Mr. Rish: Eric Zagar, Robin Winchester -- rwinchester@ktmc.com
-- and Kristen Ross -- kross@ktmc.com -- of Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check and Gary Traynor, Paul Fioravanti --
pafioravanti@prickett.com -- and Laina Herbert --
lmherbert@prickett.com -- of Prickett, Jones & Elliott.

For the China Agritech directors: Charles Bachman --
cbachman@omm.com -- and Seth Aronson -- saronson@omm.com -- of
O'Melveny & Myers; Taylor Florence -- tflorence@lockelord.com --
and Wrenn Chais -- wchais@lockelord.com -- of Locke Lord; and
Richard Heins -- RHeins@ashby-geddes.com -- of Ashby & Geddes.


COMPTON: Faces Class Action Over Harassing Latinos
--------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn at Courthouse News Service reports that African
American-dominated Compton, its police and school district subject
Latino children to "unlawful arrest, excessive force, racial
profiling and racial discrimination," five families claim in a
federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Raquel Espinoza also sued 21 police officers,
Police Chief Hourie Taylor and the school board.

In a demand for $40 million, the plaintiffs claim: "Latino and
Hispanic schoolchildren and their parents were singled out for
arrest by police officers acting in concert with school security
guards, school board members, school district personnel, and in at
least one instance, a city of Compton code enforcement officer.
School police physically assaulted several of these persons for no
reason at all other than the color of their skin, their race
and/or voicing their concern against police and school abuses.
Several of the plaintiffs and others similarly situated were
racially profiled and then illegally deported, without due
process.  School police routinely and systematically threatened
others with deportation.  Similarly situated African American
students, in a school run predominantly by African American
leadership were not subjected to such treatment."

The plaintiffs claim Compton's harassment and abuse of Latinos
began in 2009 when Latino parents began protesting Compton's
failure to fund English as a Second Language classes.

During the protests, "school police, acting with the knowledge and
consent of CUSD and the school board, regularly acted to attack
protesters exercising basic constitutional rights," the complaint
states.

The families claim that Compton Unified has an "unwritten policy"
of violating Latinos' constitutional and civil rights, "including
beatings and the illegal deportation of persons of Hispanic and
Latino origin and descent."

The complaint continues: "This lawsuit details numerous instances
of . . . abuse against Latino parent peaceful protestors at
locations that are traditionally the site of public demonstrations
-- in places such as public sidewalks across the street from
Compton Schools.  For instance, at one incident, uninvolved
bystander and non-student photographer, plaintiff Victor Lopez,
was pepper-sprayed by the school police and certain Compton
officers at close range for 'illegally' videotaping school police
brutality of a Latino parent activist, plaintiff Espinoza.  Lopez
was incapacitated, but that didn't stop the officers who pepper-
sprayed Lopez from placing him in a chokehold, hitting Lopez with
batons, which sent Lopez to the ground, beating him in the head,
neck and upper torso and breaking his nose as he was slammed to
the ground.  It is unfathomable that plaintiff Lopez . . . could
pose a threat to heavily armed police officers from the
defendants' and school police.  That didn't stop the school police
from illegally arresting him and in the process, denying him
medical attention, all in an effort to silence him and to
brutalize him simply because he was Latino."

Compton Unified serves around 26,000 students at 40 schools in
South Central Los Angeles County, according to its website.  Its
jurisdiction includes the city of Compton and parts of Carson and
the city of Los Angeles.

The district says its mission is to "to empower leaders to lead,
teachers to teach and students to learn by fostering an
environment that encourages leaders and teachers to be visionary,
innovative and accountable for the achievement of all students."

But the plaintiffs say Compton and its school police
"systematically" violate the constitutional rights of Hispanic
parents and students by, among other things, planning a "hit" on
plaintiff Espinoza and her son; filing false police reports;
threatening to deport students who saw "acts of police brutality;"
and arresting Latino parents who asked the school board for ESL
classes.

Plaintiffs claim police deported plaintiff Catarino Garcia after
he filed a complaint against defendant Officer Porch, whose first
name is not mentioned in the complaint.

Soon after Garcia filed the complaint, Officer Porch and several
other school police followed Garcia and his wife home, "conducted
a retaliatory traffic stop without probable cause, ripped
plaintiffs' vehicle apart to 'search for drugs' and, of course, no
drugs were located.  In an effort to violate plaintiffs'
constitutional rights and to retaliate against plaintiffs,
defendants contacted ICE, waited at least 4 hours on the
department lawn, and deported and/or caused the deportation of
plaintiff Garcia in retaliation for plaintiffs exercising their
first amendment rights," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs claim that incident is just one of many. The 46-
page lawsuit details many other incidents of harassment, abuse and
assault.

The plaintiffs say the lawsuit "comes on the heels of a highly
critical report by the ACLU detailing unprecedented levels of
abuse and Latino civil rights violations by the CUSD [Compton
Unified School District]."

The ACLU sued the California Department of Education on April 24,
claiming Compton violates Latino students' rights to ESL classes,
"an essential component of their education."

When Latino parents "speak up as to the abuse, school police have
an unspoken pattern and practice of beating peaceful Latino parent
protesters and silencing the plaintiffs' voice," the complaint
states.

The plaintiffs say they have suffered "scarring, emotional
distress, anger, fear, trepidation and chagrin," in addition to
medical and psychiatric expenses.  They seek $41.4 million in
compensatory damages, plus special damages, punitive damages,
reimbursement for medical expenses, civil penalties and an
injunction against civil and constitutional rights violations.
They also seek "expungement of all law enforcement, youth court,
or discipline records of the adult plaintiffs and plaintiff
children related to the foregoing incident(s)," and a court order
that the defendants to adopt policies to "identify and correct"
discriminatory conduct.

They are represented by Martin J. Kaufman.

Here are the defendants: Compton Unified School District Police
Department; Compton Unified School District; Compton Unified
School District Board of Trustees; City of Compton; Police Chief
Hourie Taylor; Officer Porch; Officer Guillet; Officer Keith
Donahue; Officer Timothy Wilson; Officer L. Watkins; Officer M.
Venegas; Officer Salvador Villa; Officer J. Sanchez; Officer A.
Miller; Officer Reyes; Officer T. Wilson; Officer Kenneth R.
Bonner; Officer E. Robinson; Officer R. Garcia; Officer Lucas;
Officer L. Gray; Officer J. Ford; CSA Timothy Pernell Browdry; CSA
Larry Ventress; CSA Lamar Grady Walker; CSA Blunt; L. Henry;
Principal Letitia Bradley; Assistant Principal Laury Henry;
President Micah Ali; Vice President Margie Garrett; Clerk Satra
Zurita; Leg Rep Skyy Fisher; Member Emma Sharif' Member Marjorie
Shipp; Member Mae Thomas; and Superintendent Darin Bradwley.

Compton, pop. 96,500, was made famous in the 1980s by hip-hop
artists, including N.W.A., whose debut album was titled "Straight
Outta Compton.


CONCORDE CAREER: Faces Class Action for Defrauding Students
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn at Courthouse News Service reports that Concorde
Career Colleges lured respiratory therapy students to pay $40,000
tuition by boasting a 95 percent job placement rate within
6 months of graduation, but its real placement rate in that time
frame is "zero percent," eight students claim in a class action.

Lead plaintiff Nolan King and his seven co-plaintiffs claim they
each paid $40,000 to enroll in Concorde's respiratory therapy
program because Concorde claimed 95 percent of the program's
students found full-time jobs "within six months of graduating."

"(B)ut in reality, 0 percent of graduates from that respiratory
therapy program have such jobs within 6 months of graduation," the
complaint states in Orange County Court.

This is the latest in a string of lawsuits and class actions
against profit-seeking chain colleges such as Concorde. Congress'
General Accountability Office found widespread fraud in
recruitment for such colleges.

In this class action, the students also claim that Concorde lied
about its certification: "Defendants made false claims to the
named plaintiffs and the plaintiff class that the college had all
the proper certifications and the reputation necessary for
graduates of the Respiratory

Therapy Program at the college to obtain full-time employment as a
respiratory therapist within 6 months of graduation, but in
reality the college did not have all such necessary
certifications, and when graduates of the program sought a
respiratory therapist position, they found out too late that their
degree is essentially useless because the college's Respiratory
Therapy Program is widely discounted and otherwise unrecognized in
the real world," the complaint states.

The class claims that Concorde promised to give them a
"performance fact sheet" before they enrolled, the college's
completion, placement and licensing rates and its graduates'
average salaries, but it never gave them the data.  They seek
$40,000 in restitution for each named plaintiff and for each of
the estimated 150 class members, plus punitive damages for breach
of contract, deceit, negligent misrepresentation and business code
violations.

They are represented by Mark Mazda of Irvine.

Concorde Career Colleges is a Delaware corporation founded in 1988
and headquartered in Mission, Kan., according to its website.  It
claims to offer more than 20 nationally accredited vocational
healthcare programs such as nursing, massage therapy and dental
hygiene at 16 campuses in eight states, including four campuses in
California, according to its web page, checked this morning.

The company states on its website that its mission is to prepare
"committed students for successful employment in a rewarding
healthcare profession through high-caliber training, real world
experience and student-centered support."


CONNECTICUT: Faces Class Action Over Medicaid Processing Delays
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Weir, writing for The Hartford Courant, reports that the
state Department of Social Services is either understaffed,
overworked and unable to process Medicaid applications on time, or
just starting to recover from a few rough years of layoffs,
depending on who was speaking on May 14 in the first day of a
trial in U.S. District Court.

The New Haven Legal Assistance Association charges in a lawsuit
that the state regularly fails to process applications to Medicaid
within the federally mandated time period -- 45 days, in most
cases -- and has kept thousands from receiving benefits in a
timely manner.

The suit, which was brought as a class action but not yet
certified as one, seeks to bring the department in compliance.

According to the lawsuit, the department's staff has decreased by
20 percent in the past 10 years, while the number of Connecticut
residents enrolled in Medicaid has increased by 52 percent.

Donna Velardi, an eligibility supervisor for the social services
department, testified that workers have caseloads of about 1,300
applicants, plus about 80 pending applications.  In November last
year, she said, the department began allowing employees to work
overtime, which she said is "the only thing that's keeping us
afloat."

Even with the overtime, though, Ms. Velardi said processing
paperwork on time is a challenge.  Sheldon Toubman, attorney for
the New Haven Legal Assistance Association, asked her why.

"The reality is, we don't have the people to process the volume we
receive," she said.

Ten years ago, she said, it wasn't a problem because there were
more people working to process the applications.

In his opening statement, Hugh Barber, an assistant attorney
general representing the social services department, said it's
understandable that the department has had trouble.  It has felt
the effects of a bad economy in recent years, he said, and layoffs
and early retirement incentives have taken their toll.  But the
department has made efforts to get up to speed, including the
recent hiring of 220 new employees.  And with overtime pay the
department is spending, he said, work has stayed on pace in recent
months.

"The agency is actually processing more applications each month
than what is coming in," he said.

Leeann Blakely, a paralegal acting on behalf of man with
Alzheimer's disease who is applying for Medicaid, testified that
it took about 45 days just to hear back from the department.  From
there, she said, requests for more documentation -- including
paperwork that would account for an overlooked bank account of
about $5 -- held up the process for about six months.  Other cases
she has worked on have taken up to eight months.

Communication with social services employees is unwieldy and
usually done by mail, she said.  "On occasion, we try to get them
on the phone, but it's difficult," she said.

During her testimony, Ms. Velardi said, it's common for workers'
voice mail accounts to be filled up in a single day.  "It's hard
to call every single person back," she said.

Barber noted that once they're trained, the department's
additional 220 employees will be focusing on answering calls,
allowing case workers to focus on other work.

The trial, with U.S. District Judge Alvin Thompson presiding, was
slated to continue May 15.


COSTAR GROUP: Court Refused to OK Deal in Merger-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
A California court declined in March 2013 to grant preliminary
approval to CoStar Group, Inc.'s proposed settlement of merger-
related class action lawsuits, according to the Company's
April 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On April 30, 2012, the Company acquired 100% of the outstanding
stock of LoopNet, Inc. ("LoopNet") pursuant to an Agreement and
Plan of Merger dated April 27, 2011, as amended May 20, 2011 (the
"Merger Agreement").  LoopNet owns and operates an online
marketplace for commercial real estate in the U.S.  The online
marketplace enables commercial real estate agents, working on
behalf of property owners and landlords, to list properties for
sale or for lease and submit detailed information on property
listings to find a buyer or tenant.  The acquisition combines the
research capabilities of the Company with the marketing solutions
offered by LoopNet to create expected efficiencies in operations
and provide more opportunities for the combined company's
customers.

In May 2011, LoopNet, the Board of Directors of LoopNet ("the
LoopNet Board") and/or the Company were named as defendants in
three purported class action lawsuits brought by alleged LoopNet
stockholders challenging LoopNet's proposed merger with the
Company.  The stockholder actions alleged, among other things,
that (i) each member of the LoopNet Board breached his fiduciary
duties to LoopNet and its stockholders in authorizing the sale of
LoopNet to the Company, (ii) the merger does not maximize value to
LoopNet stockholders, (iii) LoopNet and the Company have made
incomplete or materially misleading disclosures about the proposed
transaction and (iv) LoopNet and the Company aided and abetted the
breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the members of
the LoopNet Board.  The stockholder actions sought class action
certification and equitable relief, including an injunction
against consummation of the merger.  The parties have stipulated
to the consolidation of the actions, and to permit the filing of a
consolidated complaint.  In June 2011, counsel for the parties
entered into a memorandum of understanding in which they agreed on
the terms of a settlement of this litigation, which could result
in a loss to the Company of approximately $200,000.

On March 20, 2013, the California Superior Court declined to grant
preliminary approval to the proposed settlement.  As of March 31,
2013, the plaintiffs have not appealed the ruling or indicated to
the defendants that they intend to proceed with litigating the
case.

CoStar Group, Inc. -- http://www.costar.com/-- provides
information/marketing services to the commercial real estate
industry in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France.
The Company was founded in 1987 and is headquartered in Bethesda,
Maryland.


CVS CAREMARK: Faces Class Action for Blacklisting Dr. Roy Simon
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn at Courthouse News Service reports that CVS Caremark
and Target pharmacies blacklisted a doctor, won't fill his
patients' prescriptions and falsely told them he is on a federal
"watch list," the doctor claims in a class action.

Dr. Roy H. Simon sued CVS Caremark, CVS Pharmacy, Target, and Rite
Aid, in Superior Court.  He claims there are hundreds of doctors
in the class.  Simon describes himself in the complaint as a "pain
management physician." The California Medical Board placed his
medical license on probation on April 12, 2011, but the Sacramento
Superior Court overturned the suspension on Sept. 4, 2012, Simon
says in the complaint.  He claims he "never lost his license to
practice medicine in the State of California and has not otherwise
met any criteria for inclusion on the Medi-Cal Ineligible and
Suspended Providers List."

Simon claims he was blacklisted due to claims-processing software
pharmacies use that has access to the Medi-Cal Ineligible and
Suspended Providers List.  He claims: "The defendant pharmacies
use the Medi-Cal Suspended and Ineligible Provider List to bar
hundreds of listed doctors' patients from legally obtaining
prescription medication, despite the fact that those patients are
not Medi-Cal beneficiaries."

He claims the defendant pharmacies can correct errors by "cross-
checking" the Medi-Cal list with other medical databases, but they
choose not to.

"To make matters worse, the defendant pharmacies are providing
false and misleading information to patients about the reasons
their prescriptions cannot be filled, including claims that the
patients' physicians are on state and federal 'watch lists,' have
been sanctioned by the Medical Board, are under investigation, and
that they have been convicted of a felony, or are not licensed to
practice medicine in California," Simon says in the complaint.

Simon claims he does not treat Medi-Cal patients and did not know
about the list until pharmacies started denying his patients'
prescription requests in late 2012.

In November 2012, Simon claims, a CVS pharmacist in Gardena told
one of his patients "that he could not fill a prescription for a
controlled substance because Roy Simon is a felon without a
license in California to practice medicine."

Six other pharmacists refused to fill patients' prescription and
told them that Simon was "not licensed to practice medicine," or
"sanctioned by the state" or was a felon, he says in the
complaint.

He says the pharmacies' false claims that he lost his medical
license hurt his professional reputation and cost him business.

He seeks restitution and compensatory and punitive damages for
slander and unfair competition.  He also wants the pharmacies
restrained from "making any statements of any kind whatsoever
concerning any physician's listing on the Medi-Cal Suspended and
Ineligible Provider List".

He is represented by Matthew Rifat of San Diego.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Ex-Rutgers Player Has Go Signal to Pursue Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reports that a former
college quarterback may pursue claims against Electronic Arts for
using his likeness in the best-selling video game "NCAA Football,"
the 3rd Circuit ruled.

Ryan Hart, quarterback from 2002 to 2005 for Rutgers State
University in New Jersey, sued the California-based game developer
in New Jersey Superior Court in 2009, claiming the company used
his name and likeness without permission.

Hart said Electronic Arts created a virtual player with his exact
attributes in four versions of the popular game, including height
and weight, home state, skills and on-field accessories.

"NCAA Football," released annually, features more than 100
Division I college football teams and thousands of players from
the National Collegiate Athletic Association.  The game identifies
players by jersey number and position, but not by name.

The virtual player in question wore Hart's actual jersey number,
13, a left wrist band and helmet visor -- all attributes shared by
the real life Hart -- and even hailed from Florida.

In September 2011, a federal judge dismissed Hart's right of
publicity class action, citing First Amendment protection.

"Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them,
video games communicate ideas - and even social messages - through
many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue,
plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium
(such as the player's interaction with the virtual world).  That
suffices to confer First Amendment protection," Judge Freda
Wolfson wrote.

Wolfson found that there were "sufficient elements of EA's own
expression found in the game that justify the conclusion that its
use of Hart's image is transformative and, therefore, entitled to
First Amendment protection," including "virtual stadiums,
athletes, coaches, fans, sound effects, music, and commentary, all
of which are created or compiled by the games' designers."

"Whatever First Amendment protection is afforded to commercial
speech, 'NCAA Football' is not commercial speech," Wolfson added.
"Defendant's First Amendment right to free expression outweighs
plaintiff's right of publicity."

On appeal, the 3rd Circuit reversed the decision and remanded the
case to district court.

Citing the copyright-based "Transformative Use Test," the three-
judge panel found that Electronic Arts did not "sufficiently
transform [Hart's] identity to escape the right of publicity
claim."

"The digital Ryan Hart does what the actual Ryan Hart did while at
Rutgers: he plays college football, in digital recreations of
college football stadiums, filled with all the trappings of a
college football game.  This is not transformative; the various
digitized sights and sounds in the video game do not alter or
transform [Hart's] identity in a significant way," the 73-page
ruling states.

"Appellant's overall claim for violation of his right of publicity
should have survived appellee's motion for summary judgment,"
Judge Joseph Greenaway Jr. wrote.

Judge Thomas Ambro said he sympathized with college athletes
featured in "NCAA Football," but sided with the district court.

"EA's use of actual college athletes' likenesses motivates buyers
to purchase a new edition each year to keep up with their teams'
changing rosters.  The burn to Hart and other amateur athletes is
that, unlike their active professional counterparts, they are not
compensated for EA's use of their likenesses in its video games,"
Ambro wrote in dissent.  "Were this case viewed strictly on the
public's perception of fairness, I have no doubt Hart's position
would prevail."

"I sympathize with the position of Hart and other similarly
situated college football players, and understand why they feel it
is fair to share in the significant profits produced by including
their avatar likenesses into EA's commercially successful video
game franchise," Ambro added.  "I nonetheless remain convinced
that the creative components of 'NCAA Football' contain sufficient
expressive transformation to merit First Amendment protection."

Hart holds the Scarlet Knights' records for career attempts,
completions and interception.  He led the team to the Insight Bowl
during his senior season, Rutgers' first bowl game since 1978.

"NCAA Football" was launched in 1993 as "Bill Walsh College
Football." The latest edition of the game is scheduled to be
released July 9.


EMUSIC.COM: Faces Class Action for Shortchanging Customers
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that eMusic.com sold prepaid music
download cards, 30 tunes for $15, then changed the price per song
and shortchanged customers, a class action claims in New York
County Supreme Court.


ENVIVIO INC: Defends IPO-Related Class Suits in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Envivio Inc. is defending itself against class action lawsuits
related to its initial public offering, according to the Company's
April 25, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended January 31, 2013.

On October 5, 2012 a complaint captioned Wiley v. Envivio, Inc.,
et al. CIV-517185 was filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of San Mateo, naming as defendants the Company, each of its
directors, its chief executive officer, its chief financial
officer, and certain underwriters of its initial public offering.
The lawsuit purports to be a class action on behalf of purchasers
of shares issued in the IPO and generally alleges that the
registration statement for the IPO contained materially false or
misleading statements.  The complaint purports to assert claims
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seeks
unspecified damages and other relief.  On October 19, 2012, a
similar complaint captioned Toth v. Envivio, Inc. et al. CIV-
517481 was filed in the same court.  On November 2, 2012, the
defendants removed the cases to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California where they were assigned
case numbers 12-cv-05637-CRB and 12-cv-05636-CW.  A similar
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on December 20, 2012, entitled
Thomas v. Envivio, Inc., et al. C 12-06464.

The actions have only recently been filed and there has been no
discovery or other proceedings.  Accordingly, the Company is not
in a position to assess whether any loss or adverse effect on its
financial condition is probable or remote or to estimate the range
of potential loss, if any.

San Francisco, California-based Envivio Inc. is a provider of
software-based IP video processing and distribution solutions that
enable the delivery of high-quality video to consumers.  The
Company's research and development center is located in the
metropolitan area of Rennes, France, and it has a presence in
Australia, Austria, Brazil, China, England, India, Japan,
Singapore and the United Arab Emirates.


EXXONMOBIL: Faulkner County Major "Sacrifice Zone"
--------------------------------------------------
Steve Horn, writing for DeSmogBlog, reports that there are few
better examples of a "sacrifice zone" for ExxonMobil and the
fossil fuel industry at-large than Faulkner County, Arkansas and
the counties surrounding it.

Six weeks have passed since a 22-foot gash in ExxonMobil's Pegasus
tar sands Pipeline spilled over 500,000 gallons of heavy crude
into the quaint neighborhood of Mayflower, AR, a township with a
population of roughly 2,300 people.  The air remains hazardous to
breathe in, it emits a putrid strench, and the water in Lake
Conway is still rife with tar sands crude.

These facts are well known.

Less known is the fact that Faulkner County -- within which
Mayflower sits -- is a major "sacrifice zone" for ExxonMobil not
only for its pipeline infrastructure, but also for the
controversial hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") process.  The
Fayetteville Shale basin sits underneath Faulkner County.

ExxonMobil purchased XTO Energy for $41 billion in Dec. 2009 as a
wholly-owned subsidiary.  XTO owns 704,000 acres of land in 15
counties in Arkansas.  Among them: Faulkner.

"Private Empire" ExxonMobil is now the defendant in a class action
lawsuit filed by the citizens of Mayflower claiming damages caused
in their community by the ruptured Pegasus Pipeline.  ExxonMobil's
XTO subsidiary was also the subject of a class action lawsuit
concerning damages caused by fracking in May 2011 and another
regarding fracking waste injection wells in Oct. 2012.

This isn't the naturalist novelist William Faulkner's Faulkner
County, that's for certain.

                 A Fracking Class-Action Lawsuit

In May 2011, James and Mindy Tucker filed a class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
Among the defendants was XTO.

"This action is being brought against the Defendants for the
creation of a noxious and harmful nuisance, contamination,
trespass and diminution of property values that the Gas Wells have
caused and continue to cause," explained the complaint.  "This
action seeks . . . injunctive relief in the form of monitoring of
air quality, soil quality and water quality on Plaintiffs'
property . . .[and] to have their property monitored for the
harmful effects of the Gas Wells owned and operated by the
Defendants."

Like many others, those living in the vicinity of the industry's
fracking wells saw their drinking water become contaminated and
lost forever for consumption purposes.  The complaint says the
Plaintiffs noticed their water began to smell like "cotton
poison."

"After the water had acquired this smell, the Plaintiffs had to
discontinue use of their water for normal household uses," reads
the complaint.

A subsequent well water test revealed massive levels of alpha-
Methylstyrene, a flammable and poisonous chemical and a known
component found within fracking fluid.

"Each of these suits asks for establishment of a fund for
monitoring environmental contamination, a medical monitoring fund,
$1 million in compensatory damages, and $5 million in punitive
damages," explains a press release from the law firm that brought
the suit.

     Epicenter of Fracking Wastewater Injection Earthquakes

About a year and a half after the first class action lawsuit,
Arkansas citizens brought forward a second suit in Oct. 2012, the
first ever pertaining to waste injection wells.  Five of the nine
plaintiffs live in Faulkner County.

"This action is being brought against the Defendants for trespass,
theft of property, and unjust enrichment that the oilfield waste
wells have caused and continue to cause," the complaint for the
class-action lawsuit reads.

XTO owns the 7,035-foot Ferguson waste injection well in nearby
Independence County, which it created in 2010.  The class bringing
the suit described the public notice XTO presented announcing its
Ferguson well's entrance into the County as "misleading."

"The notice specifies the latitude and longitude of the injection
well itself," explains the complaint.  "It does not reveal that
the fluid, once injected at that specific location, would flow
away from the injection site and onto the property of others in
the area."

At the time of the complaint, XTO had injected 84 million gallons
of fracking waste into the Ferguson well.

"They are seeking $2 million in compensatory damages and $15
million in punitive damages for each plaintiff, plus an order
requiring the defendants' disposal wells to be monitored for
migration of waste fluids," the Log Cabin Democrat wrote.

Dozens of fracking waste injection-caused earthquakes have occured
in Faulkner County, with 12 small quakes in a 5-day period back in
Oct. 2010, another ten quakes in a single day in Nov. 2010 and a
sizeable 4.7 magnitude quake shaking things up in Feb. 2011.

Due to the regular seismic activity, the Arkansas Oil and Gas
Commission ordered two wastewater injection corporations to shut
down their wells in April 2011.

           Life Unconventionally Turned Upside Down

Those living in Faulkner County find themselves caught in the
crosshairs of the industry in the age of "extreme energy."  That
is, unconventional fossil fuel extraction and transportation has
become the norm and the hazards of the North American energy boom
are being felt by these citizens first-hand.

"Whether it be to inject toxins under our communities or to have
toxins rupture onto the surface it is very clear that we have some
work to do to ensure the safety of our residents in the midst of
all this industry activity," April Lane, the president of the
University of Central Arkansas Environmental Alliance told
DeSmogBlog in an interview.  "We are dealing with a major public
health issue and we must as a state and community really begin to
work together and address these problems for the benefit of all of
those who have been and are continuing to be impacted."


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Suit Over Illegal Wireless Spam Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Facebook annoys people with
illegal wireless spam text messages, a class action claims in
Federal Court.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Overtime Class Action
------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Family Dollar Stores stiff
managers for overtime for working on nonmanagerial duties, a class
action claims in Superior Court.


FLEETWOOD: Recalls American Revolution and Other Motorhome Models
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:              May 22, 2013
Type of communication:      Recall
Subcategory:                Motorhome
Notification type:          Safety Mfr
System:                     Other
Units affected:             6
Source of recall:           Transport Canada
Identification number:      2013172
TC ID number:               2013172
Manufacturer recall number: 130517FRV

On certain motorhomes, the fasteners which secure the 20W solar
panel to the roof-mounted air conditioner may loosen over time.
This could allow the solar panel to separate from the vehicle and
strike another vehicle, a stationary object, or a bystander,
causing property damage and/or personal injury.  Correction:
Dealers will install locking nuts and apply thread locking
compound in order to secure the solar panel.

             Makes and models affected
   -----------------------------------------------
   Make        Model          Model year(s) affected
   ----        -----          ----------------------
   FLEETWOOD   BOUNDER                2014
   FLEETWOOD   SOUTHWIND              2014
   FLEETWOOD   EXPEDITION             2014
   FLEETWOOD   AMERICAN REVOLUTION    2014


FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over "Ecoboost"
----------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Ford cars with "Ecoboost"
shake, misfire and lose power during acceleration, a class action
claims in Federal Court.


FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Faces Suit Over Unconscionable Clauses
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Fry's Electronics' contracts
contain unconscionable clauses prohibiting vendors from charging
Fry's for late payments, Phoebe Micro claims in a federal class
action.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Won't Dismiss Suit Over Defective Washers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that General
Electric cannot dismiss nationwide class allegations that its
front-loading washers accumulate mold, mildew and foul odors, a
federal judge ruled.

Stanley Fishman, Suzanne Bowser and Vicki Plunkett are the lead
plaintiffs in a New Jersey federal class action alleging that
defects in the drums, doors, and door seals of GE's front-loading
washer machines build up moisture, residue, and bacteria, which in
turn form mold, mildew, and foul odors that permeate clothing.

GE allegedly concealed the defects by making "affirmations of fact
and promises including those found in its advertisements,
promotional and marketing materials, point-of-sale displays,
product specifications, and within the washing machine manuals."

Fishman, Bowser and Plunkett hope to represent a nationwide class
and a subclass of "all persons in Missouri, New Jersey, and
Pennsylvania who own a washing machine for personal, family, or
household purposes."  They claimed to have paid far too much --
from nearly $600 to over $2,000 -- for the supposedly Energy Star-
certified machines, which began to mold within months.  GE
allegedly recommended that Bowser and Fishman keep their machine
doors open to prevent molding, and even gave Bowser a box of Tide
washing machine cleaner to remedy the problem, but the measures
were unsuccessful, according to the complaint.

The consumers also said that GE owner's manual specifically warns
that leaving the washer door open creates a risk of injury to
children and pets who might be enticed to hang on the door or
crawl inside the washer.

GE ultimately gave Fishman a $75 check for the inconvenience.

U.S. District Judge William Martini concluded last week that the
plaintiffs cannot recover for unjust enrichment because they did
not purchase their washing machines directly from GE, but he
refused to dismiss the nationwide class allegations at this stage
of the proceedings.

The decision also states that the plaintiffs failed to plead
plausible warranty claims.

"In this case, the amended complaint fails to describe the most
important part of the express warranty claim: the express
warranty," Martini wrote.  "Plaintiffs allege that 'GE has
breached its written warranty,' but plaintiffs do not identify the
actual language or source of this written warranty, or specify
when the warranty was in effect."

The fraud claims furthermore lack the particularity required by
Rule 9(b), according to the ruling.

"Despite filing a 39-page, 152-paragraph amended complaint,
plaintiffs failed to provide basic information about key aspects
of their claims," Martini wrote.  "For example, plaintiffs do not
specify which washing machines they are talking about.  Plaintiffs
do not provide model numbers, dates of manufacture or any other
information identifying precisely which products are at issue in
this litigation.  Further, plaintiffs failed to provide essential
dates, such as the dates on which Bowser and Plunkett discovered
the alleged defect in their washing machines.  Finally, plaintiffs
assert that 'GE . . . made express representations about the
quality of its washing machines,' but do not identify what these
representations were or when they were made.  Without this basic
information, the allegations in the amended complaint are not
sufficient 'to place the defendant [or the court] on notice of the
precise misconduct . . . charged.'"


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Chevrolet Cruzes
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that General Motors makes
defective Chevrolet Cruzes whose radiators leak antifreeze,
filling the passenger compartment with fumes, a class action
claims in Federal Court.


GENZYME CORP: Investors Urge 1st Cir. to Revive Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wilson, writing for Law360, reports that a group of Genzyme
Corp. investors on May 13 urged the First Circuit to revive a
putative consolidated class action accusing the company of lying
about contamination at a key production plant, arguing a federal
judge had wrongly ignored discounted evidence backing their
securities fraud claims.

The lead plaintiffs are Deka International SA Luxembourg, the city
of Edinburgh as administrator of the Lothian Pension Fund and the
Government of Guam Retirement Fund.


GOOGLE INC: Faces New Complaints From Android Users
---------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reports that
Android users who say Google invaded their privacy by collecting
and distributing personal information now claim that the company
also shared their names and contact information with app
developers.

The original complaint accused Google of using hidden code in
programs such as Angry Birds and Foursquare to collect information
about the app users to build behavioral profiles of the users for
the purposes of targeted advertising.  Among other things, Google
allegedly collected users' zip codes, application activity,
geolocation data and unique device identifiers.

In March, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White found that the
consumers in the multidistrict privacy litigation failed to
adequately support their claims under the federal Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act and California's Unfair Competition Law.  He granted
the consumers the right to amend their complaint.

The new complaint includes added allegations that Google provided
app developers with personally identifying user information,
including names, email addresses and home addresses after the user
purchased the developer's app.

In addition, the suit claims that Google "has taken affirmative
steps to decrease users' ability to limit the amount of personal
and location data that is shared.  In March 2013, Google removed
from Google Play AdBlock Plus, an app that limited access to
private data of Android users.  Previously available on Google
Play, AdBlock Plus allowed users to block ads and prevent third
party tracking of their phones."

The users allegedly did not provide consent for third parties to
collect their personal and personally identifiable information,
and relied on Google's statements that their personal information
would be kept secure.

"Based on the representations in Google's Terms of Service and
Privacy Policies, plaintiffs and other class members did not
expect that their personal information, including their phone use
habits and their location, would be collected and shared.." the
complaint states.

"Defendants failed to abide by its own Terms of Service and
Privacy Policies and allowed plaintiffs' and other class members'
personal information to be accessed for inappropriate purposes and
by third parties," it continues.

The complaint also clarifies how Google's sharing of information
with app developers depletes Android batteries and consumes data.
Google allegedly determines an Android's location data with GPS
satellite position data, a process that "is resource intensive and
consumes battery life on Android mobile phones," the complaint
states.

"Not only did defendant's actions cause plaintiffs and other class
members' Android Mobile Phone batteries to discharge more quickly,
rendering the Android Mobile Phones less useful given their
unexpected power consumption, but they interrupted plaintiffs' and
class members' services," the complaint states.

Google's actions also cause the phones' batteries to discharge
more quickly and shorten the life of the batteries, necessitating
their earlier replacement.  The cost of new batteries is as much
as $70, according to the complaint.


GREAT PERFORMANCES: Faces Class Action Over Skimming Tips
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Great Performances/Artists as
Waitresses and its CEO Lizbeth Neumark skim the tips from their
employees, a class action claims in New York County Supreme Court.


INNOVATION VENTURES: May 30 Hearing Set for MDL Transfer Request
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record,
reports that the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(JPML) will hear arguments later this month and decide whether it
should transfer nine lawsuits over the allegedly deceptive
advertising of an energy drink to California.

One of the nine suits that could be transferred comes from the
Southern District of Illinois, where Thomas Guarino in January
filed a class action complaint against Innovation Ventures, a
Michigan corporation doing business as Living Essentials.

Through distributors and retailers, Mr. Guarino's suit states that
Innovation Ventures sells and advertises 5-Hour ENERGY as a
dietary supplement with a label stating, "Hours of energy now - No
crash later."  He, along with the plaintiffs in the other suits,
accuse the company of engaging in unfair and deceptive acts and
practices in its advertising and labeling of the product in
violation of the state's Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices
Act.

"The display and label presents a clear message to consumers of
the Product: a message that just two ounces of the Product will
provide five hours of sustained energy within minutes, without
negative 'crash' side effects later," Mr. Guarino asserts in his
suit.

Mr. Guarino, however, contends that "the claim that the Product
has 'no crash later' is not true, as admitted on the Defendant's
website and hidden behind the bottles in the display, which reads:
'No crash means no sugar crash.'"

Not only does he claim that the labeling is deceptive and untrue,
but Mr. Guarino asserts that Innovation Ventures has knowledge of
studies refuting its claim that its product "will provide five
hours of energy with no crash later."

Mr. Guarino contends in his suit that he bought 5-Hour ENERGY
instead of other similar products based on the allegedly deceptive
labeling of the product and "did experience a crash."

Besides Mr. Guarino's suit, there are eight other similar suits
pending in federal courts in Alabama, California, Florida,
Louisiana, Missouri and Ohio.

Innovation Ventures in February asked the JPML to transfer all
nine of the suits to the Central District of California, where two
class action complaints are pending.

The JPML is scheduled to hear arguments over the transfer request
on May 30 in Kentucky.

In its memorandum in support of its transfer motion, Innovation
Ventures asserts that consolidation of the cases is appropriate
and requested that they be transferred to U.S. Judge Philip S.
Gutierrez of the Central District of California.

"Each of the nine complaints alleges similar factual allegations
and each of them asserts nearly identical claims," the company
states in its February motion.  "They implicate common legal and
factual issues that, absent consolidation, would entail
substantial duplication of effort."

The company further asserts that California's federal court would
be the most appropriate forum because Judge Gutierrez "is an
experienced jurist, and he is familiar with the core facts giving
rise to the actions because he already is supervising two of the
cases, including the earliest filed case."

The company states in its memo that in the earliest-filed case in
California, Judge Gutierrez has already ruled on a motion to
dismiss and discovery has begun, though no depositions have been
taken.

That, plus "the media time from filing to disposition of civil
cases in  the Central District of California, and its
accessibility, would  make it an efficient and convenient forum
for all parties," the company asserts.

After Innovation Ventures petitioned the JPML for the transfer of
these cases, U.S. Chief Judge David Herndon in March granted the
company's motion for a stay in Mr. Guarino's case pending the
panel's decision.

D. Todd Mathews with Gori, Julian & Associates in Edwardsville
represents Mr. Guarino and Alison C. Conlon of Barnes & Thornburg
in Chicago represents Innovation Ventures in the Southern District
of Illinois case.

The company's memo in support of its transfer request was
submitted to the JMPL by Los Angeles attorneys Gerald E.
Hawxhurst, Daryl M. Crone and Jason M. Zoladz.


INTERNAP NETWORK: Defends 2 Remaining Claims in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Internap Network Services Corporation continues to defend two
remaining claims in a securities class action lawsuit pending in
Georgia, according to the Company's April 25, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On November 12, 2008, a putative securities fraud class action
lawsuit was filed against the Company and its former chief
executive officer in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, captioned Catherine Anastasio and
Stephen Anastasio v. Internap Network Services Corp. and James P.
DeBlasio, Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-3462-JOF.  The complaint
alleges that the Company and the individual defendant violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") and that the individual defendant also violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as a "control person" of
Internap.  The Plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf
of a class of the Company's investors, who purchased its common
stock between March 28, 2007, and March 18, 2008.

The Plaintiffs allege generally that, during the putative class
period, the Company made misleading statements and omitted
material information regarding (a) integration of VitalStream,
which the Company acquired in 2007, (b) customer issues and
related credits due to services outages and (c) the Company's
previously reported 2007 revenue that the Company subsequently
reduced in 2008 as announced on March 18, 2008.  The Plaintiffs
assert that the Company and the individual defendant made these
misstatements and omissions to maintain the Company's share price.
The Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other relief.

On August 12, 2009, the Court granted the plaintiffs leave to file
an Amended Class Action Complaint ("Amended Complaint").  The
Amended Complaint added a claim for violation of Section 14(a) of
the Exchange Act based on alleged misrepresentations in the
Company's proxy statement in connection with its acquisition of
VitalStream.  The Amended Complaint also added the Company's
former chief financial officer as a defendant and lengthened the
putative class period.

On September 11, 2009, the Company and the individual defendants
filed motions to dismiss.  On November 6, 2009, the plaintiffs
filed a Corrected Amended Class Action Complaint.  On December 7,
2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a Second
Amended Class Action Complaint to add allegations regarding, inter
alia, an alleged failure to conduct due diligence in connection
with the VitalStream acquisition and additional statements from
purported confidential witnesses.

On September 15, 2010, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss and denied the individual defendants' motion to dismiss.
The Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims under Section 14(a) of
the Exchange Act.  With respect to the plaintiffs' claims under
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, the Court held that the Amended
Complaint failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, but allowed the
plaintiffs' one final opportunity to amend the complaint.  On
October 26, 2010, the plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Class
Action Complaint.  On December 10, 2010, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss this complaint.  On September 30, 2011, the
Court granted in large part the motion to dismiss.  The two
remaining claims involve certain alleged misstatements concerning
the progress of the integration of VitalStream and the stability
of the Company's content delivery network ("CDN") platform.

The Company says that while it will vigorously contest the
securities class action, it cannot determine the final resolution
of the lawsuit or when the lawsuit might be resolved.  In addition
to the expenses incurred in defending this litigation and any
damages that may be awarded in the event of an adverse ruling, the
Company's management's efforts and attention may be diverted from
the ordinary business operations to address these claims.
Regardless of the outcome, this litigation may have a material
adverse impact on the Company's financial results because of
defense costs, including costs related to its indemnification
obligations, diversion of resources and other factors.

Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, Internap Network Services
Corporation provides intelligent information technology
infrastructure services that combine superior performance and
platform flexibility to enable customers to focus on their core
business, improve service levels and lower the cost of IT
operations.


JAMAICA PUBLIC SERVICE: Dec. 9 Hearing Set for Class Action Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Go-Jamaica reports that the Government's appeal against the class
action suit brought against the Jamaica Public Service Company
Limited (JPS) is to be heard on December 9.

The date was set during a case management hearing on May 14.

The appeal hearing is expected to last for a week.

The Government is challenging the July 2011 order by Justice Bryan
Sykes who ruled that the energy minister does not have the power
to grant an exclusive license to the JPS.  Justice Sykes further
ruled that the JPS license was invalid.

The government is contending, among other things, that Justice
Sykes erred in his ruling and has maintained that the law gives
the minister the power to grant an exclusive license.  Against
that background, it's seeking an order to set aside the ruling by
Justice Sykes and to get an order that the JPS license is valid.

The class action suit was filed by Dennis Meadows, Betty Ann
Blaine and Cyrus Rousseau.

JPS has also filed an appeal.


LES DISTRIBUTIONS: Recalls In Shell Hazelnuts or Mixed Nuts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:          May 23, 2013
Type of communication:  Recall
Alert sub-type:         Updated Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory:            Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:  Class 2
Source of recall:       Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:         various retailers
Distribution:           New Brunswick, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:           Retail

The public warning issued on May 22, 2013, has been updated to
include additional product and distribution information.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is warning the public
not to consume certain in shell hazelnuts or mixed nuts in shell
described below because the products may be contaminated with
Salmonella.

The following products were sold in packages of various weights or
in bulk at the locations indicated below.  Consumers who are
unsure if they have affected product are advised to check with
their retailer.

Product name    Store name           Location
------------    ----------           --------
"Avelines en    Fruiterie Potager    539 Boul. Arthur-Sauve,
  ecales"        Saint-Eustache       St-Eustache, QC

Dates Sold: April 10, 2013, to May 15, 2013

"Noisettes en   L'Intermarche        134 Boul. Bellerose Est,
  ecale"         Bellerose            Laval, QC

Dates Sold: November 13, 2012 to February 13, 2013

"Avelines"      Club Cooperatif de   88 Avenue du Parc,
                 Consommation de la   Amqui, QC
                 Vallee

Dates Sold: March 20, 2013, to May 10, 2013

"Avelines"      Magasin CO-OP        15, 7e Avenue,
                 de St-Fabien         St-Fabien, QC

Dates Sold: April 9, 2013, to May 10, 2013

Hazelnuts       La Cooperative de    121 Boul. St. Pierre West
(PLU code 4929) Caraquet             Caraquet, NB

Dates Sold: March 27, 2013, to May 14, 2013

Mixed nuts      La Cooperative de    121 Boul. St. Pierre West
(PLU code 4929) Caraquet             Caraquet, NB

Dates Sold: March 27, 2013, to May 22, 2013

The following hazelnut product, packaged in clear plastic bags,
was distributed in New Brunswick by Coop St-Quentin, St-Quentin,
NB.

                          Product
Product name   Size       code     Dates Sold
------------   ----      -------   ----------
Hazelnuts      variable    4924    April 4, 2013 to May 13, 2013

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.

These recalls are part of an on-going food safety investigation
associated with a recall of bulk hazelnuts from USA.  The CFIA is
working with the recalling firms and distributors to identify all
affected products.

The importer, distributers, and retailers are voluntarily
recalling the affected products from the marketplace.  The CFIA is
monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.


LINN ENERGY: Continues to Defend Suit Over Royalty Payments
-----------------------------------------------------------
Linn Energy, LLC, has been named as a defendant in a number of
lawsuits, including claims from royalty owners related to disputed
royalty payments and royalty valuations.  The Company has
established reserves that management currently believes are
adequate to provide for potential liabilities based upon its
evaluation of these matters.  For a certain statewide class action
royalty payment dispute where a reserve has not yet been
established, the Company has denied that it has any liability on
the claims and has raised arguments and defenses that, if accepted
by the court, will result in no loss to the Company.  Discovery
related to class certification has concluded.  Briefing and the
hearing on class certification have been deferred by court order
pending the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals' resolution of
interlocutory appeals of two unrelated class certification orders.
As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss, or
range of possible loss, if any.  In addition, the Company is
involved in various other disputes arising in the ordinary course
of business.  The Company is not currently a party to any
litigation or pending claims that it believes would have a
material adverse effect on its overall business, financial
position, results of operations or liquidity; however, cash flow
could be significantly impacted in the reporting periods in which
such matters are resolved.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 25, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Linn Energy, LLC, is an
independent oil and natural gas company.  The Company's properties
are located in the United States, primarily in the Mid-Continent,
the Permian Basin, Michigan, California and the Williston Basin.


MAIN STREET: Tennessee Health Officials to Recall Sterile Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Perrone and Mike Stobbe, writing for The Associated Press,
report that government health officials are investigating cases
involving patients who suffered complications after being injected
with potentially contaminated medications made by a Tennessee
specialty pharmacy.

The Food and Drug Administration said on May 24 the problems
involve seven patients who received steroid injections from Main
Street Family Pharmacy, a compounding pharmacy in Newbern, Tenn.

Tennessee health officials said the pharmacy has agreed to recall
all of its sterile products, which are generally injectable
prescription drugs.  Officials from the FDA and the Tennessee
Department of Health have been inspecting the Newbern pharmacy
since May 22.

"The pharmacy staff and management have been cooperative," state
regulators said in a news release.

An employee reached at Main Street Family Pharmacy on May 24 could
not immediately provide comment.

The injections contain methylprednisolone acetate, the same drug
at the center of last year's deadly outbreak of fungal meningitis.
More than 55 people have died and over 740 others have been
sickened after receiving contaminated injections from a
Massachusetts compounding pharmacy.  The steroids are typically
used to treat pain.

Federal authorities have identified five cases in Illinois and two
more in North Carolina.  The five patients from Illinois had skin
infections in the hips and buttocks while at least one patient in
North Carolina appears to have a fungal infection, according to
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"There's no indication at this time of meningitis or other life
threatening infection," said Joseph Perz, a health-care
epidemiologist helping to lead the CDC's investigation.

The FDA recommends doctors stop using any sterile drugs
distributed by the pharmacy immediately.

Main Street Family Pharmacy is a compounding pharmacy, which means
it mixes custom formulations of drugs based on doctors'
specifications.  Compounding pharmacies have long operated in a
legal gray area between state and federal regulations.  Since last
year's outbreak, the FDA has stepped up inspections of compounding
pharmacies across the country, triggering several national recalls
of potentially contaminated medications.

The Tennessee Department of Health said it's too early to tell how
many people may have received the injections under scrutiny.
According to pharmacy records the drug was shipped to medical
facilities in 13 states: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida,
Kentucky, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas

The Main Street Family Pharmacy was licensed by the Tennessee
board of Pharmacy in 1985, and later licensed as a manufacturer
and distributor in 2010.

Compounding pharmacies have long been overseen by state pharmacy
boards, with regulations varying widely from state to state.  Over
the last 20 years some compounding pharmacies have grown into
larger business, operating more like manufacturers by shipping
thousands of doses of drugs across state lines.  The FDA has
occasionally tried to assert its authority over these operations,
though it has repeatedly been challenged in court by pharmacy
owners.

Legislation moving through Congress would give the FDA direct
oversight over these so-called compounding manufacturers, with the
aim of preventing future national outbreaks tied to compounded
medications. While Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have
coalesced around a bill, the House has not reached any such
agreement.


METROPCS COMMUNICATIONS: Defends T-Mobile Merger Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
MetroPCS Communications, Inc., continues to defend itself from
class action lawsuits arising from its proposed business
combination with T-Mobile Global Zwischenholding GmbH, according
to the Company's April 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On October 3, 2012, the Company entered into the Business
Combination Agreement (as previously amended, the "Business
Combination Agreement") with Deutsche Telekom AG, ("Deutsche
Telekom"), T-Mobile Global, a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of
Deutsche Telekom ("T-Mobile Global"), T-Mobile Global Holding, a
direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Global ("T-Mobile Holding") and
T-Mobile USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly-
owned subsidiary of T-Mobile Holding ("T-Mobile").

Pursuant to the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in
the Business Combination Agreement, the following transactions,
among others, are proposed to occur (collectively referred to as
the "Proposed Transaction" or the "T-Mobile Transaction"): (1) the
Company has agreed to effect a recapitalization that includes a
(i) reverse stock split (the "Reverse Stock Split") of the
Company's common stock, par value $0.0001 per share (the "Common
Stock") prior to the completion of the Proposed Transaction and
will have a par value $0.00001 per share ("New Common Stock")
following the completion of the Proposed Transaction, pursuant to
which each share of Common Stock outstanding as of the effective
time of the Reverse Stock Split (the "Effective Time") will
thereafter represent one-half of a share of New Common Stock and
(ii) a payment in cash (the "Cash Payment") in an amount equal to
$1.5 billion, without interest, in the aggregate to the Company's
stockholders of record immediately following the Effective Time;
(2) immediately following the Cash Payment, T-Mobile Holding will
deliver to the Company all of its interest in T-Mobile (the "T-
Mobile Stock Acquisition") and the Company will issue and deliver
to T-Mobile Holding, or its designee, shares of New Common Stock
equal to 74% of the fully-diluted shares of New Common Stock
outstanding immediately following the Cash Payment (with the
percentage ownership of fully diluted shares of New Common Stock
being calculated pursuant to the Business Combination Agreement
(i) under the treasury method based on the average closing price
of a share of Common Stock on the New York Stock Exchange for the
five trading days immediately preceding the date of the closing
under the Business Combination Agreement after taking into account
the Reverse Stock Split, the Cash Payment and before taking into
account subsequent cash-out of stock options, if any, in
connection with the Proposed Transaction, and (ii) on a grossed up
basis to take into account the number of shares of New Common
Stock so issued to T-Mobile Holding or its designee) (the "Stock
Issuance"); and (3) on the business day immediately following the
closing of the Proposed Transaction (the "Closing"), MetroPCS,
Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company ("HoldCo"), will
merge with and into MetroPCS Wireless, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of HoldCo ("Wireless"), with Wireless continuing as the
surviving entity.  Immediately thereafter, Wireless will merge
with and into T-Mobile, with T-Mobile continuing as the surviving
entity.

Since the announcement on October 3, 2012, of the execution of the
Business Combination Agreement, MetroPCS, Deutsche Telekom, T-
Mobile Global, T-Mobile Holding, T-Mobile (Deutsche Telekom, T-
Mobile Global, T-Mobile Holding and T-Mobile, collectively,
referred to herein as the T-Mobile defendants) and the members of
the MetroPCS board, referred to as the MetroPCS board members,
including an officer of MetroPCS and in some cases, Deutsche
Telekom and its affilitates, have been named as defendants in
multiple putative stockholder derivative and class action
complaints challenging the Proposed Transaction.  The lawsuits
include:

   * a putative class action lawsuit filed by Paul Benn, an
     alleged MetroPCS stockholder, on October 11, 2012, in the
     Delaware Court of Chancery, Paul Benn v. MetroPCS
     Communications, Inc. et al., Case No. C.A. 7938-CS, referred
     to as the Benn action;

   * a putative class action lawsuit filed by Joseph Marino, an
     alleged MetroPCS stockholder, on October 11, 2012, in the
     Delaware Court of Chancery, Joseph Marino v. MetroPCS
     Communications, Inc. et al., Case No. C.A. 7940-CS, referred
     to as the Marino action;

   * a putative class action lawsuit filed by Robert Picheny, an
     alleged MetroPCS stockholder, on October 22, 2012, in the
     Delaware Court of Chancery, Robert Picheny v. MetroPCS
     Communications, Inc. et al., Case No. C.A. 7971-CS, referred
     to as the Picheny action;

   * a putative class action filed by James S. McLearie, an
     alleged MetroPCS stockholder, on November 5, 2012, in the
     Delaware Court of Chancery, James McLearie v. MetroPCS
     Communications, Inc. et al., Case No. C.A. 8009-CS, referred
     to as the McLearie action, and together with the Benn
     action, the Marino action and the Picheny action, the
     Delaware actions;

   * a putative class action and shareholder derivative action
     filed by Adam Golovoy, an alleged MetroPCS stockholder, on
     October 10, 2012, in the Dallas, Texas County Court at Law,
     Adam Golovoy et al. v. Deutsche Telekom et al., Cause No.
     CC-12-06144-A, referred to as the Golovoy action; and

   * a putative class action and shareholder derivative action
     filed by Nagendra Polu and Fred Lorquet, who are alleged
     MetroPCS stockholders, on October 10, 2012, in the Dallas,
     Texas County Court at Law, Nagendra Polu et al. v. Deutsche
     Telekom et al., Cause No. CC-12-06170-E, referred to as the
     Polu action, and together with the Golovoy action, the Texas
     actions.

The various plaintiffs in the lawsuits allege that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
failing to (i) obtain sufficient value for the MetroPCS
stockholders in the Proposed Transaction, (ii) establish a process
that adequately protected the interests of the MetroPCS
stockholders, and (iii) adequately ensure that no conflicts of
interest occurred.  The plaintiffs also allege that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to certain
terms in the Business Combination Agreement that allegedly
restricted the defendants' ability to obtain a more favorable
offer from a competing bidder and that such provisions, together
with including certain of the provisions together with the voting
support agreement and the rights agreement amendment constitute
breaches of the individual defendants' fiduciary duties.  The
plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, unspecified damages, an order
rescinding the Business Combination Agreement, unspecified
punitive damages, attorney's fees, other expenses, and costs.  All
of the plaintiffs seek a determination that their alleged claims
may be asserted on a class-wide basis.  In addition, the
plaintiffs in the Texas actions assert putative derivative claims,
as stockholders on behalf of MetroPCS, against the individually
named defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control,
gross mismanagement, unjust enrichment and corporate waste in
connection with the Proposed Transaction.

In addition, an action was filed on March 28, 2013, by The Merger
Fund, The Merger Fund VL, GS Master Trust, MLIS Westchester merger
Arbitrage UCITS Fund, and Dunham Monthly Distribution Fund,
alleged MetroPCS stockholders, in the United States District Court
in New York, The Merger Fund, et al. v. MetroPCS Communications,
Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 13-CV-2066 (AJN), which the Company
refers to as the New York Action, alleging: (a) violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 by
misstating or omitting material facts from the MetroPCS proxy
statement; and (b) that certain members of the Company's board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties.  The plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief, an order rescinding the Proposed Transaction if
it is consummated, unspecified damages, and costs of the
litigation.

On November 5, 2012, the plaintiff in the Golovoy action filed a
motion seeking to restrain and enjoin MetroPCS and the MetroPCS
board members, referred to collectively as the MetroPCS
defendants, from complying with the "force-the-vote" provision in
the Business Combination Agreement and from declaring a
distribution date under, or issuing rights certificates in
conjunction with, MetroPCS' rights agreement, referred to as the
Texas TRO motion.  On November 12, 2012, the MetroPCS defendants
filed a motion to dismiss or stay the Texas actions based on a
mandatory forum selection provision in the MetroPCS bylaws, which
requires that all derivative claims and all claims for breach of
fiduciary duty against the MetroPCS board members must be filed
and litigated only in the Delaware Court of Chancery, and sought
dismissal for failure to plead standing to pursue derivative
claims on behalf of MetroPCS.

On November 16, 2012, the trial court in the Golovoy action,
referred to as the Texas trial court, issued a temporary
restraining order, which the Company refers to as the TRO order,
restraining the MetroPCS defendants from complying with the "force
the vote" provision in the Business Combination Agreement and from
declaring a distribution date under, or issuing rights
certificates in conjunction with, MetroPCS' rights agreement, and
set a temporary injunction hearing for November 29, 2012.

On November 19, 2012, the MetroPCS defendants and the T-Mobile
defendants filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion to
stay, referred to as the Texas mandamus petition, with the Court
of Appeals for the Fifth District at Dallas, referred to as the
Texas appellate court, to stay and overturn the TRO order based on
the mandatory forum selection provision in the MetroPCS bylaws,
which requires that the claims in the Texas actions must be
dismissed and pursued only in the Delaware Court of Chancery, and
on a lack of evidence supporting the findings in the TRO order or
establishing a basis for such TRO order, and to stay the temporary
injunction hearing.  On November 20, 2012, the Texas appellate
court stayed the Texas trial court's ruling, canceled the
scheduled temporary injunction hearing, and ordered briefing on
the issues raised in the petition for writ of mandamus.

On November 28, 2012, the plaintiff in the Marino action filed an
amended class action complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duty
by the MetroPCS board members in connection with the terms of the
Business Combination Agreement, as well as alleging that MetroPCS
has failed to make full and fair disclosure in the Company's
preliminary proxy, for the special meeting of its stockholders to
approve the Proposed Transaction, of all information and analyses
presented to and considered by the MetroPCS board members, and
alleging that the T-Mobile defendants aided and abetted such
claimed breaches of fiduciary duty, and motions seeking expedited
proceeding and discovery and to enjoin the defendants from taking
any action to consummate the business combination between MetroPCS
and the T-Mobile defendants.  No hearing has been set on these
motions.  On November 30, 2012, all of the Delaware actions were
consolidated into a single action, now captioned MetroPCS
Communications, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.
7938-CS.  The Company and the plaintiffs in the Marino action
entered into a discovery stipulation under which the Company
produced certain documents by January 25, 2013, and the plaintiff
conducted depositions of a corporate representative of Evercore
Group, L.L.C., or Evercore, the Chairman of the Special Committee
and the Company's Chief Executive Officer, which depositions were
completed by February 14, 2013.  The Delaware Court of Chancery
had set the preliminary injunction hearing on February 28, 2013,
with plaintiffs' brief due on February 15, 2013.  On February 15,
2013, rather than file their brief, plaintiffs sent a letter to
the Delaware Court of Chancery notifying the Court that plaintiffs
did not intend to file a brief, that their disclosure claims had
become moot based on revised proxy materials MetroPCS had filed
with the SEC which contained additional disclosure, and that the
preliminary injunction hearing should be removed from the Court's
docket.

On January 8, 2013, the Texas appellate court conditionally
granted the Texas mandamus petition and ordered the Texas trial
court to vacate the TRO order, render an order denying the Texas
TRO motion, and render an order granting the MetroPCS defendants'
and T-Mobile defendants' motion to stay the action until MetroPCS
defendants' and T-Mobile defendants' motion to dismiss or stay the
action is decided by the Texas trial court.  A hearing was set on
such motion on May 3, 2013.

On March 4, 2013, the trial court in the Polu action set a non-
jury trial date of July 24, 2013.  The Company has set a hearing
on the Company's motion to dismiss the Polu action for June 7,
2013.

On April 15, 2013, the trial court in the New York action entered
an order requiring the plaintiffs to submit a status letter on May
12, 2013.  On April 18, 2013, the Defendants, while not admitting
proper service, moved the Court to extend the deadline to answer,
plead or otherwise respond to the Complaint from
April 19, 2013, to May 20, 2013.  That motion was granted on April
19, 2013.

The MetroPCS defendants plan to defend vigorously against the
claims made in the Delaware actions, New York actions and the
Texas actions.

MetroPCS Communications Inc. -- http://www.metropcs.com/-- is a
wireless telecommunications carrier that currently offers wireless
broadband mobile services primarily in selected major metropolitan
areas in the United States.  MetroPCS is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Richardson, Texas.


NEPTUNE TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Neptune Technologies & Bioressources Inc. on May 15 disclosed that
the previously announced class action lawsuit filed against
Neptune and certain of its officers on December 19, 2012 by
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York was voluntarily
dismissed by the plaintiffs, without prejudice.  No payment was
made by any of the defendants in connection with the dismissal.

The complaint alleged that the defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  More specifically, it alleged that between
December 12, 2011 and November 8, 2012 the defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations and financial prospects.  "We are pleased the
plaintiffs recognized their claims were without merit and moved
for dismissal," commented Mr. Harland, President and CEO of
Neptune.

         About Neptune Technologies & Bioressources Inc.

Neptune is a biotechnology company engaged primarily in the
development and commercialization of marine-derived omega-3
polyunsaturated fatty acids, or PUFAs.  Neptune has a patented
process of extracting oils from Antarctic krill, which omega-3
PUFAs are then principally sold as bulk oil to Neptune's
distributors who commercialize them under their private label
primarily in the U.S., European and Asian neutraceutical markets.
Neptune's lead products, Neptune Krill Oil (NKO(R)) and ECOKRILL
Oil (EKO(TM)), generally come in capsule form and serve as a
dietary supplement to consumers.

Through its subsidiaries Acasti Pharma and NeuroBioPharm, in which
Neptune respectively holds 57% and 96% of the voting rights,
Neptune is also pursuing opportunities in the medical food and
prescription drug markets.  Acasti and NeuroBio respectively focus
on the research and development of safe and therapeutically
effective compounds for highly prevalent atherosclerotic
conditions, such as cardiometabolic disorders and cardiovascular
diseases, and for neurodegenerative and inflammation related
conditions.  A casti's lead prescription drug candidate is
CaPre(R), a purified high omega-3 phospholipid concentrate derived
from Neptune krill oil being developed to address the prevention
and treatment of cardiometabolic disorders, including
hypertriglyceridemia, which is characterized by abnormally high
levels of triglycerides.


NORTHGATE BAKERY: Recalls Cheese & Herb Bagels and Cheese Sticks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:          May 22, 2013
Type of communication:  Recall
Alert sub-type:         Notification
Subcategory:            Extraneous Material
Hazard classification:  Class 2
Source of recall:       Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:         Northgate Bakery
Distribution:           Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:           Retail
CFIA reference number:  8026

Affected products:

Brand name   Common name      Size     Code(s) on product  UPC
----------   -----------      ----     ------------------  ---
Northgate    Cheese and Herb  6 Count  Best before MA 17   None
Bakery       Bagels

Northgate    Cheese Sticks    1 Dozen  Best before MA 17   None
Bakery


NOURISON INDUSTRIES: Recalls 1,400 Rugs Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Nourison Industries Inc., of Saddle Brook, New Jersey, announced a
voluntary recall of about 1,400 Area Rugs.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The rugs fail to meet federal flammability standards, posing a
fire hazard to consumers.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves Nourison-branded I-CANDI collection polyester
shag rugs.  They were sold in one color, denim, consisting of a
mix of dark blue, light blue and grey shades.  The rugs measure 5-
by 7-feet and 7-feet 6-inches by 9-feet 6-inches.  "ICANDI
COLLECTION" and "Nourison" are printed in black on a label affixed
to the back of the rug.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at:

   http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls/2013/Nourison-Recalls-Rugs/

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at The Home Depot stores in the following regions:
Washington D.C.; San Diego, Calif.; San Francisco, Calif.; Las
Vegas, Nev. and Houston, Texas in September 2012 for between $179
and $389.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled rugs and
contact Nourison for instructions on how to return the rug for a
full refund or replacement, including shipping.  Nourison may be
reached at (800) 223-1110 ext. 2358 from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Eastern Time Monday through Friday or online at
http://www.nourison.com/,then click on Recall Information at the
bottom of the page for more information.


NOWADAY INT'L: Recalls Pura Milk Over High Levels of Bacteria
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chester Yung of The Wall Street Journal reports that a batch of
skimmed milk from Australia has been found to contain high levels
of bacteria and is being recalled by its sole importer in Hong
Kong, the city's health authorities said Thursday, May 23, 2013.

The Centre for Food Safety said it had discovered during sample
testing that the batch of Pura slim milk, a popular brand among
consumers in Hong Kong, who are worried about food safety in
China, had a bacterial count a thousand times above the legal
limit.  The importer, Nowaday International Development Ltd.,
stopped selling the affected product and has begun recalling it
but didn't provide details on the total volume involved.

The Centre for Food Safety said the affected milk was being sold
at several supermarket chains.  It advised the public not to
consume Pura slim milk in one-liter packs with an expiration date
of May 26.

The city's two largest supermarket chains -- ParknShop and
Wellcome -- said they had received notices from Nowaday
International earlier this week and had stopped selling the milk
but gave no details on how much had already been sold.

"The total bacterial count exceeding the legal limit indicates
unsatisfactory hygienic conditions but doesn't mean it would lead
to food poisoning," a Centre for Food Safety spokesman said in the
statement.

The health authority said it had informed the Australian
authorities and that it would monitor the recall of the affected
product and take appropriate action if needed.

Lion, which was acquired by Japan's Kirin Holdings Co. in 2009 and
makes Pura milk, said there is no evidence of any food safety
hazard despite the test results from the Hong Kong authorities.

"A trade withdrawal of Pura milk in Hong Kong has been initiated
due to alleged product spoilage.  However, testing results at the
time of manufacture and conducted on retention samples from the
batch in question have not revealed any out-of-specification
results to date," Lion said in a statement.

"We are working closely with our distributor to manage the
withdrawal and continue testing to determine where any spoilage
may have occurred while in the supply chain," it said, adding that
anyone who wanted a refund could return the product to its point
of purchase.


NVR INC: Littler Mendelson Discusses Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------
Stephen A. Fuchs, Esq., at Littler Mendelson, reports that in a
welcome decision for employers, Tracy v. NVR Inc., the federal
District Court for the Western District of New York granted the
employer's motion to decertify a collective action under the FLSA
and denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The
case involved a putative class of Home Sales and Marketing
Representatives (SMRs) who claimed they were misclassified as
exempt outside sales representatives.

The key issue in the case was whether the SMRs satisfied the
outside sales exemption requirement that they work away from the
employer's business for the requisite period of time each week.
In denying certification of the Rule 23 state law class action,
the Tracy court cited the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decisions in
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, which held that class certification
requires a classwide method of measuring damages, and Dukes v.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which held that commonality requires not
only common questions, but also common answers to those questions.
Applying these principles, the court found that because the SMRs
worked in different locations, under different supervisors, and
performed duties outside of their offices in varying degrees and
in different ways, their claims "as well as any determinations to
be made concerning damages -- are too highly individualized to
form the basis for a class action."  Moreover, the court
concluded, "the interests of judicial economy would not be served
by the hundreds of fact-intensive 'mini-trials' that a class
action of this nature would require."

Similarly, as to the FLSA collective claims, the court reasoned
that the broad variations in the SMRs' work activities made it
"impossible to make a blanket determination concerning the FLSA
exempt status of the entire class of putative plaintiffs in this
case . . . ." In this regard, the court noted that the evidence
demonstrated a wide variety of employment practices and time
management requirements among the SMRs so that dozens of mini-
trials would be required to determine whether individual SMRs
satisfied the outside sales exemption.

The Tracy decision is significant for a number of reasons.  First,
the decision is a notable exception to the many decisions by the
district courts in the Second Circuit, which have generally
granted certification in both FLSA collective actions and Rule 23
class actions.  Although the court specifically noted that "it
seems beyond peradventure that the Second Circuit's general
preference is for granting rather than denying class
certification," the court relied on Comcast and Dukes to buck the
trend. In doing so, the Tracy court joins the court in Roach v.
T.L. Cannon Corp., the only other decision to date within the
Second Circuit to apply Comcast to deny class certification in a
wage and hour case.

Second, the decision is important because of its potential
application to other outside sales misclassification cases in
other industries, in which sales and marketing representatives who
call on customers typically engage in varied activities, in
different locations, for varied periods of time outside of the
office.

While it remains to be seen how the Second Circuit and courts in
the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York will apply Comcast
to Rule 23 wage and hour class actions, and how all courts will
apply Comcast to FLSA collective actions, so far Comcast has
raised the burden on plaintiffs seeking class certification to
show not only commonality as to their claims but also that their
damages must be measurable on a classwide basis.

Littler attorneys represented the defendant in that case.


OCEAN BRANDS: Recalls Chunk Light Tuna Due to Harmful Bacteria
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:           May 22, 2013
Type of communication:   Recall
Alert sub-type:          Notification
Subcategory:             Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification:   Class 3
Source of recall:        Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:          Ocean Brands
Distribution:            Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:            Retail
CFIA reference number:   7978

Affected products

Brand
name      Common name        Size      Code(s) on product
----      -----------        ----      ------------------
Ocean's   Chunk Light Tuna   1.88 kg   M9E4NNACBBXF45MP1B

UPC: 0 65302 01215 1


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Bid to Dismiss Consumer Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Overstock.com, Inc.'s motions to dismiss and to decertify the
class in the class action lawsuit alleging breach of Utah's
consumer protection statute remain pending, according to the
Company's April 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
March 31, 2013.

On March 10, 2009, the Company was sued in a class action filed in
the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York.
Cynthia Hines, the nominative plaintiff on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, seeks damages under claims for breach
of contract, common law fraud and New York consumer fraud laws.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to properly disclose
its returns policy to her and that the Company improperly imposed
a "restocking" charge on her return of a vacuum cleaner.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss based upon assertions that its
agreement with its customers requires all such actions to be
arbitrated in Salt Lake City, Utah.  Alternatively, the Company
asked that the case be transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of Utah, so that arbitration may be
compelled in that district.

On September 8, 2009, the motion to dismiss or transfer was
denied, the court stating that the Company's browsewrap agreement
was insufficient under New York law to establish an agreement with
the customer to arbitrate disputes in Utah.  On October 8, 2009,
the Company filed a Notice of Appeal of the court's ruling.  The
appeal was denied.  On December 31, 2010, Hines filed an amended
complaint.  The amended complaint eliminated common law fraud
claims and breach of contract claims and added claims for breach
of Utah's consumer protection statute and various other state
consumer protection statutes.  The amended complaint also asks for
an injunction.  The Company filed motions to dismiss and to
decertify the class.  The court has not ruled on these motions.

The nature of the loss contingencies relating to claims that have
been asserted against the Company.  However, no estimate of the
loss or range of loss can be made.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend this action.

Overstock.com, Inc. -- http://www.overstock.com/-- is an online
retailer offering discount brand name, non-brand name and closeout
merchandise, including furniture, home decor, bedding and bath,
housewares, jewelry and watches, apparel and designer accessories,
electronics and computers, and sporting goods, among other
products.  The Company sells the products and services through its
Internet Web sites located at http://www.overstock.com/,
http://www.o.co/and http://www.o.biz/.


OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Rehearing Bid in Facebook Beacon Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appealing parties' petition for a rehearing in connection with
the approval of Overstock.com, Inc.'s settlement of a class action
lawsuit related to its use of a product known as Facebook Beacon
was denied in February 2013, according to the Company's April 25,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On August 12, 2008, the Company along with seven other defendants,
were sued in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, by Sean Lane, and seventeen other
individuals, on their own behalf and for others similarly in a
class action lawsuit, alleging violations of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Video
Privacy Protection Act, and California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act and Computer Crime Law.  The complaint relates to the
Company's use of a product known as Facebook Beacon, created and
provided to the Company by Facebook, Inc.  Facebook Beacon
provided the means for Facebook users to share purchasing data
among their Facebook friends.  The parties extended by agreement
the time for defendants' answer, including the Company's answer,
and thereafter, the Plaintiff and Facebook proposed a stipulated
settlement to the Court for approval, which would resolve the case
without requirement of financial contribution from the Company.
On March 17, 2010, over objections lodged by some parties, the
Court entered an order accepting settlement.

Various parties appealed and on September 20, 2012, the Federal
Appeals Court for the 9th Circuit upheld the settlement.
Appealing parties have petitioned for a rehearing.  On
February 26, 2013, the Court denied the petition.

Overstock.com, Inc. -- http://www.overstock.com/-- is an online
retailer offering discount brand name, non-brand name and closeout
merchandise, including furniture, home decor, bedding and bath,
housewares, jewelry and watches, apparel and designer accessories,
electronics and computers, and sporting goods, among other
products.  The Company sells the products and services through its
Internet Web sites located at http://www.overstock.com/,
http://www.o.co/and http://www.o.biz/.


PET VALU: Osler Hoskin & Harcourt Discusses Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Dolman, Esq., Gillian Scott, Esq., and Mary Paterson,
Esq., at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, report that the Ontario
Court of Appeal, in reversing a controversial decision that
re-opened the opt-out period in a certified class action, has
confirmed that class members have "an unassailable right to speak
out in opposition to the class proceeding in an attempt to
convince other class members to opt out" of the class action, as
long as the individual decisions to opt out are not coerced and
remain voluntary and informed.

        The Lower Court Decision Invalidates the Opt-Outs

On January 14, 2011, Justice Strathy certified a class action
against franchisor Pet Valu for a narrow set of claims relating to
allegations that Pet Valu had failed to pass on to its franchisees
the benefits of volume rebates granted by the franchisor's
suppliers.  The certification order approved notice to all class
members and advised that they had from July 15, 2011 to September
15, 2011 to opt out of the class action.

The relationship between the parties to the class action was
acrimonious, and both sides were concerned that potential class
members could be exposed to unfair or misleading communications
from their opponents throughout the opt-out process.  The
certification order therefore incorporated a Plan of Proceeding
that required court approval of the parties' communications with
class members during the opt-out period.

Near the end of the opt-out period, a group of Pet Valu
franchisees -- calling themselves the Concerned Pet Valu
Franchisees (CPVF) -- started a campaign to persuade franchisees
to opt out of the class action.  The CPVF's central tenet was that
franchisees should give the franchisor's new management team a
chance to deal with the volume rebates issue, and that a class
action would be harmful to Pet Valu's business.  A substantial
number of class members opted out during and following the CPVF's
campaign.  Following the opt-out period, the representative
plaintiff sought a court order invalidating these opt-outs,
alleging that they were the result of the CPVF's campaign and that
the CPVF had provided misleading information about the class
action and had coerced franchisees to opt out.  Justice Strathy
granted the order and invalidated the opt-outs.

The Court of Appeal Overturns the Decision and Validates the Opt-
Outs

On May 3, 2013, in 1250264 Ontario Inc. v. Pet Valu Canada Inc.,
the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned Justice Strathy's decision
and held that the opt-out notices from former class members were
not coerced and were valid.

Both the Court of Appeal and Justice Strathy stated that class
members must be permitted to make informed and voluntary decisions
about participation in class actions.  Both agreed that it was
appropriate to scrutinize the CPVF's conduct using the fully
informed and voluntary test from the A&P decision.  However, the
Court of Appeal held that the evidence did not support a
conclusion of coercion, noting the following:

   -- There was no direct evidence that any class member had been
coerced, felt misled or felt intimidated.
   -- There was evidence from class members who opted out that
they did not experience such pressure or coercion.

   -- Class members had access to neutral information about the
class action through the court-ordered notices and class counsel's
website.

   -- The evidence established that Pet Valu was not linked to the
CPVF or its communications and that Pet Valu had not exerted any
sort of pressure on class members.

   -- Because Pet Valu was not implicated in the conduct, any
vulnerability inherent in the franchise relationship should not
have been considered.

   -- The CPVF had voiced its opinion about the advisability of
the class action from a business perspective, not from a legal
perspective.

   -- The CPVF was permitted to communicate persuasively (but not
coercively), and there were no grounds to hold them to a standard
of objective neutrality in their communications.

The Court of Appeal's decision makes it clear that class members
can express their opinions about whether or not class members
should opt out of the class action as long as there is no
coercion.

In addition, the Court of Appeal commented that the representative
plaintiff had delayed in bringing the motion and ought to have
raised his concern about the CPVF's communications with the
supervising judge during the opt-out period.  Had the
representative plaintiff done so, the supervising judge could have
arranged for alternative measures to increase the representative
plaintiff's participation in the debate.

Finally, the Court of Appeal stated that the number of opt-outs
does not affect the viability of the class action except in
extreme cases, noting that certification is not determined by a
referendum of class members.  A class action whose class size is
reduced through opt-outs can still proceed.
Implications

This landmark decision highlights class members' rights to debate
whether or not to opt out of a class action and provides further
clarity on the line between persuasive debate and coercive
communication.


PILOT FLYING J: Faces Another Class Action Over Fuel Rebate Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------------
Knoxville News Sentinel reports that another class-action lawsuit
has been filed against Pilot Flying J in the continuing fallout
from a federal investigation into claims of fuel-rebate fraud.

The lawsuit filed by Osborn Transportation of Gadsden, Ala., marks
the sixth such case since federal agents raided Pilot's corporate
headquarters in Knoxville last month.  Federal search warrants lay
out claims of a vast scheme to cheat trucking customers on diesel
rebates that spanned at least five years.

Pilot has denied any wrongdoing.

The new lawsuit doesn't ask for a specific amount of damages but
estimates the loss at more than $75,000.  The company asks for
restitution, punitive damages and interest on the money lost.

Four other companies -- one in Illinois, one in Arkansas, one in
Mississippi and one other in Alabama have sued Pilot in federal
court as well.  A Georgia company has sued in Knox County Circuit
Court.

According to CSP Daily News, so far, five other lawsuits have been
filed:

Atlantic Coast Carriers Inc., Hazlehurst, Ga., filed a lawsuit on
April 20 against Pilot Flying J in Knox County Circuit Court in
Knoxville.  Attorneys charged that Mr. Haslam was trying to short
circuit Atlantic Coast Carriers' class-action lawsuit and asked a
Knoxville judge to order Mr. Haslam to cease contacting trucking
firms that may be victims of the alleged rebate scheme.  The judge
has denied the charge of witness tampering and a request for a
restraining order that would have prevented Pilot Flying J from
contacting customers.

National Trucking Financial Reclamation Services, Little Rock,
Ark., filed a suit on April 24 citing the evidence in an FBI
affidavit that Pilot reduced promised rebates to some of it
customers who received monthly rebate checks.

W.T.W. Enterprises, Roanoke, Ala., and its owner, Charles E.
Winborn, another Pilot customer, filed a suit April 25, charging
that the alleged rebate "skimming scheme" cost trucking firms in
excess of $5 million; it charges breach of contract and violations
of Tennessee's Consumer Protection Act.

Bruce Taylor, a trucker, filed a class-action suit in Jackson,
Miss. According to the complaint Taylor, a trucker, was a Pilot
customer since 2005 and had been promised rebates by Pilot.  His
suit cited the allegations in the FBI affidavit.  The suit said
Pilot and it agents engaged in fraud, deceptive trade practices
and breach of contract.

Edis Trucking Inc., Franksville, Wis., filed a suit on May 1 in
Chicago that accuses the company, Haslam, president Mark Hazelwood
and other executive of racketeering. The company is also seeking
unspecified money damages including a punitive award and other
relief.

Meanwhile, Mr. Haslam has agreed to address a Scopelitis, Garvin,
Light, Hanson & Feary transportation seminar in Indianapolis where
he was set answer questions put to him in advance by trucking
company executives, reported The Plain Dealer.

The law firm, whose client base includes more than 5,000
transportation-related companies, contacted Haslam about speaking
at the 2013 Scopelitis Transportation Seminar set to be held on
May 23 and May 24 in Indianapolis.

"We were invited and considered it a good opportunity to
communicate with the trucking industry," Pilot Flying J
spokesperson Alan Carmichael told the newspaper,

And possibly as an antidote to the scandal, Knoxville-based The
Massey Group took out a full page advertisement in Sunday's News
Sentinel praising the Haslams. The Massey Group, however, said the
ad is not in response to the federal investigation into Pilot.
"If this city ever had a family that we owe appreciation to, it's
the Haslams," Randy Massey of The Massey Group said.

The ad says in part, "Thank you to the Halsam family for the many
years of support for Knoxville and East Tennessee.  . . . Please
know that you have the appreciation of the community to which you
have contributed so much."

Massey said the point of the ad is simply to show the Haslam's
appreciation for their help shaping our community.  "If you look
at the great families that have made this a great community, we
have a lot of things that communities our size don't have, and a
great deal of that is due to the Haslams," Massey told WBIR-TV.
"And I said on Mother's Day I think I would like to put ad in that
just said to the Haslam's 'Thank you very much.  How can we thank
you enough for what you've done to our community?'"

The ad also lists companies and individuals who support the Haslam
family.  That list includes Knoxville Mayor Madeline Rogero, who
told WBIR, "I hope that the investigations don't drag on and
things get worked out soon so that the family can go back to doing
what they do best, and that's just caring about Knoxville."

Pilot Flying J has more than 650 retail locations and is the
largest operator of travel centers and travel plazas in North
America.  Its network provides customers with access to more than
60,000 parking spaces for trucks, more than 4,400 showers and more
than 4,000 diesel lanes, of which more than 2,800 offer diesel
exhaust fluid (DEF) at the pump.


PREMIER GIFTS: Recalls BuckyBalls Magnet Spheres, Cubes and Rods
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:         May 22, 2013
Posting date:          May 22, 2013
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:           Children's Products, Household Items, Toys
Source of recall:      Health Canada
Issue:                 Product Safety
Audience:              General Public
Identification number: RA-29247

Affected products: BuckyBalls magnet sets (spheres, cubes, rods)

Product description

Small powerful, rare earth, magnetic balls and cubes that can be
used to build sculptures, puzzles, patterns, shapes, etc.,
including any of the following models:

   * BuckyBalls Magnetic Building Spheres
   * BuckyBalls BuckyBars Magnetic Building Rods
   * BuckyBalls BuckyBigs XL Magnetic Building Spheres
   * BuckyBalls BuckyCubes Magnetic Building Cubes
   * BuckyBalls Chromatics Magnetic Building Spheres
   * BuckyBalls Sidekick Magnetic Building Spheres

They are available in a range of shapes, sizes and colours
(chrome, gold, silver, pink, blue, green, black).  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/shJ9QS

Distributors of Buckyballs are voluntarily recalling these
products from the market in response to a risk assessment
conducted by Health Canada.

The risk assessment on these magnet sets has informed Health
Canada's determination that they are a danger to human health and
safety because they contain small powerful magnets which can be
easily swallowed or inhaled by children.  Unlike other small
objects that would be more likely to pass normally through the
digestive system if swallowed, when more than one small powerful
magnet is swallowed, the magnets can attract one another while
travelling through the digestive system.  The magnets can then
pinch together and create a blockage and slowly tear through the
intestinal walls, causing perforations.

The results of swallowing small powerful magnets can be very
serious and life-threatening.  Swallowing incidents have often
resulted in considerable damage to the gastrointestinal tissues
and required emergency surgical treatment.  For survivors, there
can be serious long-term health consequences.

For more information on the danger of swallowing magnets, please
see Magnets [http://is.gd/kdS3Y0]

Number sold: Unknown.

Time period sold: Sold online in Canada since 2009 and through
Canadian retailers since 2010.

Distributors may have directly contacted their Canadian customers
to advise of this recall.

The recalled products were manufactured in China.

Companies:

Manufacturer: Maxfield and Oberton Holdings LLC
              New York, NY
              UNITED STATES

Distributor:  Premier Gifts Ltd.
              Mississauga
              Ontario, CANADA

Distributor:  Marbles the Brain Store
              Chicago, Illinois
              UNITED STATES

Distributor:  ThinkGeek Inc.
              Fairfax, Vermont
              UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled magnet sets
and contact their municipality for instructions on how to dispose
of or recycle the recalled products.

The Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products
from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada.


REED ELSEVIER: July Appeals Court Hearing in E-Filing System Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline J. Holness at Courthouse News Service reports that a
class action claim that Fulton County, Ga. and Reed Elsevier
conspired to create an unconstitutional, mandatory e-filing system
appears to be on its last legs.

Attorney Steven J. Newton has taken his case to the Court of
Appeals for the State of Georgia after a string of rulings against
his remaining client.

Several class actions challenged the mandatory e-filing.  Many
plaintiffs dropped out during the more than two years of
litigation, leaving the Best Jewelry Manufacturing Co. as the
lone class representative.  It claims challenges the mandatory
e-filings in Fulton County State and Superior Courts, filed
through Reed Elsevier's LexisNexis File & Serve system.

Such filings can cost up to $11 apiece when electronic filing is
mandated by orders from Fulton County State and Superior Courts
and authorized by the Fulton County Board of Commissioners.

In Fulton County State Court, cases with damage claims of more
than $50,000 and cases in which a dollar amount has been not been
specified must be electronically filed.

Also subject to mandatory e-filing are cases involving asbestos,
Fen-Phen, mercury and lead, silicosis, welding rod, medical
malpractice, legal malpractice, torts, personal injury cases and
civil cases with four or more parties.

The scope of cases that must be electronically filed in Fulton
County Superior is less broad, covering only asbestos, Fen-Phen
and silicosis.

According to Fulton County's appellate brief, on Dec. 18, 2012,
the trial court entered an order granting its motion to strike and
Lexis' motion to dismiss, and denied plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration.

The trial court also ruled that Fulton County is entitled to
sovereign immunity and granted Fulton County's motion for summary
judgment on the pleadings, according to the county.

In addition, the trial court ruled that O.C.G.A. 15-6-77 does not
apply to e-filings.  Best Jewelry claimed that e-filing fees are
higher than the filing fee schedule described in the statute.  But
the county said the filing fee schedule applies only to fees
described in the statute, and that e-filing fees are not included.

The trial court ruled that e-filing fees are separate from the
mandated fees clerks charge litigants, that defendants do not
share e-filing fees and that e-filing fees are permissible,
according to the briefs in the case.

The trial court also ruled that Fulton County does not collect any
of the filing fees.  Finally, Fulton County rebutted plaintiff's
allegations that there has been no final judgment, because "the
order granting judgment on the pleadings only disposed of
plaintiffs' damage claims."

Fulton County claimed that "plaintiff has failed to allege any new
facts that would lead to a different ruling on a subsequent motion
for judgment on the pleadings."

Lexis performed according to its contract with Fulton County and
as a result is entitled to the protection of the county immunity,
according to the company's appellate brief.  It claims that the
plaintiff failed to prove Lexis' contract with Fulton County was
part of a conspiracy.  As a result of its acquired immunity, it
says, the trial court's decision to grant Lexis' motion to dismiss
the case should be the final rendering in this case.

The Court of Appeals scheduled oral arguments for July 17.

                           *     *     *

Lisa Coston at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action
challenging Fulton County's mandatory e-filing of lawsuits through
Lexis Nexis Courtlink is sluggishly making its way to a possible
conclusion before the Court of Appeals for the State of Georgia.

In the latest appellant brief, filed May 13, attorneys for Best
Jewelry Manufacturing claim the lower court erred when it ruled
that Fulton County has sovereign immunity from challenges to state
laws that govern access, filing fees and how those fees are
imposed.

Lexis Nexis' corporate parent Reed Elsevier also is a defendant.

In the original complaint, filed in 2007, and in subsequent
refilings, a dwindling list of plaintiffs accused Reed Elsevier,
Lexis Nexis Courtlink and Fulton County of an unfair monopoly:

"This class action arises from an illegal scheme perpetuated by
defendant Reed Elsevier Inc. dba Lexis-Nexis Courtlink Inc. to
impose an unlawful, mandatory e-filing system upon litigants in
Fulton County State and Superior Courts and to charge excessive
and unauthorized fees in connection therewith," the complaint
states.  "Defendant Fulton County has participated in Lexis'
illegal scheme by promulgating a 'pilot program' authorizing
Lexis' unlawful mandatory e-filing scheme and excessive fees
without the statutory authority to do so."

The class seeks repayment of alleged overcharges for filing fees.

Filing documents through Fulton County State and Superior Courts
using the LexisNexis File & Serve system costs from $7 to $11
apiece, for mandatory e-filing cases imposed by orders from Fulton
County State and Superior Courts and authorized by Fulton County.

In Fulton County State Court, cases with damages totaling more
than $50,000, or cases with no specific dollar amount, must be
electronically filed.  Cases involving asbestos, fen-phen, mercury
and lead, silicosis, health problems from breathing fumes of
welding rods, medical malpractice, legal malpractice, tort,
personal injury cases and civil cases with four or more parties
must be filed electronically.

Fulton County Superior Court demands e-filing only for cases
involving asbestos and silicosis.

The trial court denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration,
ruled that Fulton County is entitled to sovereign immunity and
granted summary judgment against plaintiffs.

It also ruled that state laws on pricing and collection of court
fees do not apply to electronic filing; that the e-filing fees are
separate from the mandated fees clerks charge litigants; that the
defendants do not share e-filing fees; and that e-filing fees are
permissible.

In previous appellee briefs, Fulton County claimed it does not
actually collect the filing fees, and the trial court agreed.

The latest brief addressed the sovereign immunity ruling; and
plaintiff's attorneys claim the defendants interpretation of
O.C.G.A. Sec. 15-6-77(n) is flawed.

The brief states: "O.C.G.A. Sec. 15-6-77(n) satisfies the Georgia
Constitution's waiver requirements by providing: 1) a waiver of
sovereign immunity (with respect to refunds for the overpayment of
filing fees); and 2) the extent of the waiver (limits refunds to
overpayments of $15.00 or more) Fulton's argument that section
15-6-77(n) does not apply to e-filing is unavailing."

"Fulton cannot ignore the directive of O.C.G.A. Sec. 15-6-77(k)
which provides that "[n]o fees, assessments, or other charges may
be assessed or collected except as authorized in this Code section
or some other general law expressly providing for same."  Fulton
fails to point to any general law authorizing the assessment of
filing fees for mandatory electronic filing."

Though defendants claim that anyone can avoid paying the fees by
filing a complaint in person, plaintiffs say there is a "Catch-22"
to that assertion.

"The filing fees are not separate from the mandated fees that the
clerks charge litigants.  Defendants concede that the only way to
avoid paying the illegal fees is to file in-person in Fulton
County using the court's public access terminals ("PATs")," the
brief states.

"Filing in person, however, is so costly and burdensome so as to
constitute no alternative to e-filing at all.2 (Vol. 1, R-24).  In
fact, the PATs are often inoperable for days or weeks at a time.
(Vol. 5, R -1482, ~ 11 ).  Thus, litigants are forced to use File
and Serve and the pay the illegal fees. (Vol. 1, R-24).
Accordingly, the trial court erroneously held that the illegal
filing fees are not mandated by the clerks and that Sec. 15-6-77
does not apply to e-filing."

In response to Fulton County's claim that it is not responsible
for collecting the "illegal fees," plaintiff counterclaims that
Lexis Nexis and Fulton County share in setting fees and pocketing
the profits.

"Fulton attempts to distance itself from its e-filing scheme by
arguing that the Lexis is responsible for collecting the illegal
fees.  Fulton ignores the fact that Lexis acts as its authorized
agent in assessing and collecting the fees," the latest brief
states.

It adds: "Each party derives a benefit therefrom and is unjustly
enriched.  Lexis collects revenue from the illegal and excessive
fees.  Fulton unlawfully passes off its operating costs to the
public."

The brief claims that even though Lexis is an independent
contractor, hired by Fulton County, that is no reason that the
public should pay for the independent contractor.

"This is a distinction without a difference. Fulton is prohibited
from passing these costs off to the public, either directly or
indirectly," the brief states.

"It is no different than if Fulton hired a private contractor to
make improvements to the courthouse and, rather than paying the
contractor, authorized the contractor to charge a toll to the
public to enter the courthouse.  Absurd as this may sound, this is
precisely what defendants are doing.  Lexis operates a tollgate to
file pleadings in Fulton County.  Thus, the trial court erred in
holding that the fees are not shared."

Only if a private or state contractor is engaged in a public works
project can it claim immunity from damages, according to the
Abercrombie rule, used by the trial court to show Fulton County
has sovereign immunity, according to the plaintiffs.

"File and Serve is not a structure built by the government nor is
it paid for by public funds.  Thus, the rule does not apply," the
brief states.

"Lexis has not made even a colorable argument that this rule
applies.  Lexis is liable to plaintiff for a refund of illegal
filing fees because: a) File and Serve is not a public works
project; b) Plaintiff does not allege trespass resulting in damage
to private property; c) Defendants committed willful torts; d)
Fulton does not direct or control File and Serve; and e)
Defendants' contract is ultra vires and void.

"Lexis is equally accountable for its illegal acts as any other
private entity doing business in this State.  Lexis is not above
the law because it provides electronic filing services."

Finally, plaintiffs claim that Fulton County's assertion that its
court-mandated e-filing orders trump the state's "paper filing
statute," and that the statute prohibits court clerks from
refusing filings, is erroneous.

"A trial court order does not supersede a legislative act. Brown
v. Hutcheson, 167 Ga. 451 (1928)," the brief states.

It adds: "According to Fulton, the statute prohibits the clerks
from refusing filings for the reason that they are on 'letter
sized paper,' but permits them to refuse filings for the reason
that they are on paper (letter size included).  Thus, according to
Fulton, the statute permits the very thing it prohibits. Rules of
statutory construction preclude this nonsensical interpretation."

Fulton County is represented by Larry W. Ramsey Jr., Kaye Woodard
Burwell and Kristen B. Williams of the Office of the Fulton County
Attorney.

Reed Elsevier is represented by J. Allen Maines and Leland H.
Kynes of Holland & Knight.

The putative class is represented by Steven Newton and Shuli Green
of Atlanta.


ROYAL CANIN: Recalls Dog and Cat Heating and Cooling Mats
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:          May 22, 2013
Posting date:           May 22, 2013
Type of communication:  Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:            Miscellaneous
Source of recall:       Health Canada
Issue:                  Product Safety
Audience:               General Public
Identification number:  RA-29281

Affected products: Dog and cat heating and cooling mats

This recall involves Royal Canin branded heating/cooling mats for
dogs and cats.  The mats consist of a plastic sheet made of nine
gel pockets and an outer, removable red fabric cover with the
Royal Canin logo on one corner.  Picture of the recalled products
is available at: http://is.gd/PolsT0

Royal Canin has determined that the mats contain diethylene
glycol.  This potentially dangerous chemical can be released from
the mat if it is damaged and can cause illness to both pets and
children if ingested.

Neither Health Canada nor Royal Canin Canada has received any
reports of incidents or injuries to consumers related to the use
of these mats in Canada.

Approximately 465 of the recalled mats were distributed in Canada
as promotional items at dog and cat shows.  They were also made
available to members of the Royal Canin Elite Breeders Club via
the firm's website.

The recalled mats were distributed from January 27, 2011, to April
1, 2013.

The recalled mats were manufactured in China.

Companies:

Distributor: Pearlink International
             Grange Rouge - Les Plots
             FRANCE

Importer:    Royal Canin Canada
             Guelph, Ontario
             CANADA

Consumers should stop using the recalled mats immediately and
return them to Royal Canin free of charge.  Consumers will not
receive a replacement mat, since this was a promotional item,
however, any member of the Royal Canin Elite Breeder Club who
redeemed points to purchase the mat online will have their points
reimbursed upon return of the mat.

For more information, consumers may contact Royal Canin Customer
Care by telephone at 1-800-527-2673, by e-mail or through
Facebook.


SAC CAPITAL: Elan Shareholders File Amended Class Action Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaja Whitehouse, writing for The New York Post, reports that a
group of burned investors wants Steve Cohen's SAC Capital to fork
over nearly $1 billion -- cash the hedge-fund giant earned by
trading on alleged inside information of drug company Elan Corp.

The Elan shareholders filed an amended and consolidated class
action complaint in Manhattan federal court on May 14, and said
they are able to pinpoint their damages because the Securities and
Exchange Commission, in its civil settlement with SAC, did all the
legwork.

"By trading while in possession of material, nonpublic
information, the SAC defendants . . . illegally obtained at least
$549 million," the lawsuit charges.  The suit also seeks interest
of $396 million, for a total of $945 million.

Ethan Wohl, one of the lawyers who wrote the complaint, said SAC's
$602 million settlement with the SEC helped to put a dollar figure
on the losses.

"Normally, you don't get to the issue of calculating damages until
later in the case," Mr. Wohl told The Post.  "Here, the SEC
settlement put damages front and center early on."

An SEC spokesperson declined to comment.

In March, the SEC set the record settlement with Cohen's $14
billion hedge fund over allegations that a former trader helped
the Stamford, Conn., firm earn a whopping $276 million trading on
inside tips about a busted clinical drug trial.

SAC settled the SEC's claims without admitting or denying
wrongdoing.  Ex-portfolio manager Mathew Martoma has been indicted
and is set to go to trial as early as this year.

The class action complaint includes only losses suffered by
shareholders of Elan, which was working on the drug together with
Madison, NJ-based Wyeth.

According to prosecutors, Mr. Martoma was paying an Alzheimer's
expert overseeing the clinical trials for information about the
results.

The doctor, Sidney Gilman, allegedly told Mr. Martoma the trial
had hit a brick wall ahead of a presentation about the poor
results in July 2008.  In the week leading up to the bad news
going public, SAC dumped its Elan and Wyeth shares and shorted the
two stocks, prosecutors said.

SAC sold as much as $500 million in Elan shares, representing or
more than 20 percent of the stock's trading volume, according to
the criminal complaint.

The amount of damages sought may also be offset by the SEC
settlement, the amended complaint said.

Elan shareholders could get some $259 million from the SEC's deal
with SAC. If that happens, the damages would be reduced to $685
million.

In a hearing to discuss the settlement in April, lawyers for the
regulator agreed to put aside some of the settlement money for
burned shareholders on Mr. Wohl's request.


SIM PROPERTIES: May 31 Hearing Set for Class Action Dismissal Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Maher, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reports that
a hearing on a defense motion to dismiss a proposed class action
lawsuit against SIM Properties of Edwardsville has been reset to
May 31.

Plaintiffs Ronald and Dorothy Jones sued SIM Properties and its
employee Idrees Muhammad in January claiming their home in the 600
block of Chapman Street in Edwardsville had been entered into
without their consent and their possessions had been unlawfully
removed.  In addition, the Joneses, individually and on behalf of
other SIM tenants, accuse the company of unlawful penalty after it
charged them $5 per day in late fees.

They are represented by Peter J. Maag and Thomas G. Maag of Wood
River and Brian Wendler of Edwardsville.

SIM Properties, represented by Jeffery A. Cain of Freeark, Harvey
& Mendillo in Belleville, filed a motion to dismiss March 21,
stating the complaint fails to identify by location or address the
"residential property" allegedly involved.  SIM also says the
complaint fails to contain a plain and concise statement as to
whether the plaintiffs are attempting to state a cause of action
for trespass to personal property or real property.

The case is assigned to Madison County Circuit Judge William
Mudge.

Madison County Circuit Court Case No. 13-L-161


TILTWARE LLC: Seeks Class Action Discovery Protective Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Krajelis, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record,
reports that some of the defendants in a lawsuit that seeks to
recover gambling losses asked a federal judge this month for a
protective order against class action discovery.

In the alternative, Tiltware LLC and five other defendants
requested an order staying discovery until the federal court for
the Southern District of Illinois rules on their pending motions
to dismiss.

Judy Fahrner in January filed a class action suit against 26
defendants, both individuals and companies associated with Full
Tilt Poker, a website that offers online poker rooms.

She claims that she and other Illinois residents invested money
into the site's poker games and lost it all in 2011 when the
Department of Justice shut down the card rooms.  Her suit requests
class action status to recover gambling losses and up to three
times the amount of losses in damages under the Illinois Loss
Recovery Act (LRA), 720 ILCS 5/28-8.

The LRA provides that "any person who by gambling shall lose to
any other person, any sum or money or thing of value, amounting to
the sum of $50 or more . . . may sue for and recover the money or
thing of value, so lost and paid or delivered, in a civil action
against the winner thereof, with costs, in the circuit court."

The statute further states that if a person entitled by the LRA to
initiate such an action doesn't do so within six months, "any
person may initiate a civil action against the winner."

In the motion they filed in an attempt to halt discovery, the
defendants assert that Ms. Fahrner's claim for relief can't
proceed as a class action because the LRA doesn't provide for
class action recovery for third-parties seeking to recover losses
sustained by others.

"There does not appear to be any authority or case law in Illinois
or from any other jurisdiction with similar gambling-loss recovery
statutes to support the notion that a gambling-loss recovery case
instituted by a third-party may be proceed as a class action," the
defendants contend.

Although they note that there appears to be one instance in which
an Alabama court recently allowed a group of plaintiffs to proceed
as a class, the defendants stress in their motion that unlike
Ms. Fahrner's proposed class, the putative class in that case
"consisted of actual losers who allegedly lost money playing
electric bingo."

"The reason for absence of class action cases involving third
parties is simple -- a third party instituting a claim under the
LRA may only recover on behalf of herself, although she may
recover losses sustained by multiple losers," the defendants state
in their motion.

Pointing to the language of the LRA, they assert that the statute
"limits third-party actions to 'any person', in the singular form,
meaning that it does not contemplate multiple recoveries by
multiple persons."

As such, the defendants contend that "class certification in this
case would be inappropriate, vexatious, and completely
unnecessary."

Ms. Fahrner, however, argued in her April 18 response to the
defendants' March motion to dismiss that the LRA provides for the
recovery of gambling losses by either the loser herself or by
another individual.

"The text of this statute does not require a loser to file a
lawsuit on his own behalf," Ms. Fahrner asserts.  "It provides
that the loss can be recovered by any person."

Saying that the defendants misunderstand her complaint and its
basis, Ms. Fahrner asserts that she qualifies as "any person"
under the LRA and "is also 'directly related and impacted by
someone who lost money gambling on Full Tilt Poker."

Ms. Fahrner states that she brought her class action complaint "on
behalf of similarly situated Illinois residents who are likewise
closely related to gambling losers and are thus able to recover
under the statute."

In her April court filing, Ms. Fahrner argued that the defendants'
motion to dismiss should fail because her suit states a plausible
claim, the court has jurisdiction over the defendants and a prior
court-ordered settlement does not bar the suit.

To bolster support for their motion to dismiss, the defendants
pointed to a court-entered settlement in a 2011 Cook County
Circuit Court case brought by Cassandra Sobota (the defendants use
this spelling of the plaintiff's name, while Ms. Fahrner spells it
Ms. Sabota in her court filings).

Ms. Sobota made similar claims under the LRA and last year, filed
a motion to voluntarily dismiss her suit with prejudice.

A judge granted her motion and wrote in an order that the LRA gave
Ms. Sobota standing to initiate civil action on behalf of all
persons who suffered gambling losses of $50 or more if they failed
to pursue their remedy under the LRA within six months, but that
she failed to do so within six months.

The order also barred any and all future claims under the LRA
against the defendants, the majority of whom are named in
Ms. Fahrner's suit, pursuant to the settlement in Ms. Sobota's
case.

Ms. Fahrner argues that "the doctrine of res judicata does not
apply here as the" order in Ms. Sobota's case is "not a final
adjudication on the merits, nor is Judy Fahrner in privity with
the Plaintiff in the Sabota state action."

The defendants note in their motion for a protective order against
class action discovery that Magistrate Judge Stephen Williams held
a telephone hearing last month to discuss scheduling and
discovery.

In advance of that hearing, the defendants assert that their
attorneys initiated a conference with plaintiff's counsel so they
could submit a joint report and proposed scheduling and discovery
order to Judge Williams.

Given the differences in their positions on class action
certification and discovery, both sides ended up submitting their
own proposed orders to Judge Williams, according to the
defendants' motion.

Judge Williams, the defendants assert, didn't have their
submission at the April hearing and entered the plaintiff's
proposed dates with some modifications and recommended that that
they file the instant motion.

As of May 14, no order on the defendants' motion for a protective
order had been entered.

Belleville attorneys William J. Niehoff and Laura E. Schrick
submitted the motion on behalf of six of the named defendants:
Tiltware LLC, Erik Seidel, Howard Lederer, Jennifer Harmon-
Traniello and Rational FT Enterprises Ltd.

Belleville attorney Lloyd M. Cueto represents Ms. Fahrner.


TIME WARNER: Appeal From "Fink" Suit Dismissal Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
On August 7, 2009, the plaintiffs in Jessica Fink, et al. v. Time
Warner Cable Inc. filed an amended complaint in a purported class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York alleging that the Company uses a throttling technique which
intentionally delays and/or blocks a user's high-speed data
service.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.  On December 23, 2011, the
district court granted with prejudice the Company's motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' second amended complaint.  On January 23,
2012, the plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The Company says it intends to
defend against this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict
the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of
possible loss.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 25, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

New York-based Time Warner Cable Inc. is a provider of video,
high-speed data and voice services in the U.S., with
technologically advanced, well-clustered cable systems located
mainly in five geographic areas -- New York State, the Carolinas,
the Midwest (including Ohio, Kentucky and Wisconsin), Southern
California (including Los Angeles) and Texas.


TIME WARNER: Appeal From Dismissal of Set-Top Cable MDL Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable Inc. is the defendant in In re: Set-Top Cable
Television Box Antitrust Litigation, ten purported class actions
filed in federal district courts throughout the U.S. These actions
are subject to a Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") Order
transferring the cases for pretrial proceedings to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. On July 26,
2010, the plaintiffs filed a third amended consolidated class
action complaint (the "Third Amended Complaint"), alleging that
the Company violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
various state antitrust laws and state unfair/deceptive trade
practices statutes by tying the sales of premium cable television
services to the leasing of set-top converter boxes.  The
plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, unspecified treble
monetary damages and an injunction to cease such alleged
practices.  On September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, which the court granted on
April 8, 2011.  On June 17, 2011, the plaintiffs appealed this
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Company says it intends to defend against this lawsuit
vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit
or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 25, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

New York-based Time Warner Cable Inc. is a provider of video,
high-speed data and voice services in the U.S., with
technologically advanced, well-clustered cable systems located
mainly in five geographic areas -- New York State, the Carolinas,
the Midwest (including Ohio, Kentucky and Wisconsin), Southern
California (including Los Angeles) and Texas.


TIME WARNER: Faces Three Suits Over High-Speed Data Modem Fee
-------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable Inc. is facing class action lawsuits alleging
breach of contract and violation of various state consumer
protection statutes in connection with its high-speed data modem
fee, according to the Company's April 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

The Company is the defendant in three purported class action
lawsuits alleging breach of contract and violation of various
state consumer protection statutes in connection with the
Company's high-speed data modem fee.  On November 30, 2012, the
plaintiffs in Fred W. Elmore v. Time Warner Cable Inc. filed a
complaint in a purported class action in the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina alleging that the Company
breached its contract with customers and violated South Carolina
state consumer protection statutes by charging a fee for the
provision of a high-speed data modem.  On February 4, 2013, the
plaintiffs in Mark Cox v. Time Warner Cable Inc. filed an amended
complaint in a purported class action in the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina alleging that the Company
breached its contract with customers whose high-speed data service
is provided as part of a promotional package by charging a fee for
the provision of a high-speed data modem.

On February 26, 2013, the plaintiffs in Lorraine Damato, et al. v.
Time Warner Cable Inc. filed a complaint in a purported class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York alleging that the Company breached its contract with
customers and violated New York, New Jersey and California state
consumer protection statutes by charging a fee for the provision
of a high-speed data modem.  In each case, the plaintiffs are
seeking, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and an
injunction to prevent the Company from charging a fee for the
provision of a high-speed data modem.

The Company says it intends to defend against these lawsuits
vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of the lawsuits
or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

New York-based Time Warner Cable Inc. is a provider of video,
high-speed data and voice services in the U.S., with
technologically advanced, well-clustered cable systems located
mainly in five geographic areas -- New York State, the Carolinas,
the Midwest (including Ohio, Kentucky and Wisconsin), Southern
California (including Los Angeles) and Texas.


TIME WARNER: Still Defends "Downs" Class Suit vs. Insight
---------------------------------------------------------
On August 9, 2010, the plaintiffs in Michelle Downs and Laurie
Jarrett, et al. v. Insight Communications Company, L.P. filed a
second amended complaint in a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky alleging that
Insight Communications Company, L.P. violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act by tying the sales of premium cable
television services to the leasing of set-top converter boxes,
which is similar to the federal claim against Time Warner Cable
Inc. in In re: Set-Top Cable Television Box Antitrust Litigation.
The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, unspecified treble
monetary damages and an injunction to cease such alleged
practices.  The Company says it intends to defend against this
lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this
lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 25, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

New York-based Time Warner Cable Inc. is a provider of video,
high-speed data and voice services in the U.S., with
technologically advanced, well-clustered cable systems located
mainly in five geographic areas -- New York State, the Carolinas,
the Midwest (including Ohio, Kentucky and Wisconsin), Southern
California (including Los Angeles) and Texas.


TOWN SPORTS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Stay "Labbe" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Town Sports International Holdings, Inc., is awaiting a court
decision on a motion to stay the class action lawsuit commenced by
James Labbe, et al., according to the Company's April 25, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On October 4, 2012, in an action styled James Labbe, et al. v.
Town Sports International, LLC, the plaintiff commenced a
purported class action in New York State court on behalf of
personal trainers employed in New York State.  Labbe is seeking
unpaid wages and damages from Town Sports International, LLC
("TSI, LLC"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, and
alleges violations of various provisions of the New York State
labor law with respect to payment of wages and TSI, LLC's
notification and record-keeping obligations.  On December 18,
2012, TSI, LLC filed a motion to stay the class action pending a
decision on class certification in the Cruz case and to dismiss
the Labbe action if the Cruz case is certified.  On January 29,
2013, Labbe responded to the motion to stay and filed a cross-
motion to consolidate the Labbe case with the Cruz case.  On
February 11, 2013, following the dismissal of the class claims in
Cruz, Labbe withdrew the cross-motion to consolidate.  Oral
arguments to stay the action until a decision is made on the
appeal in the Cruz case was heard on April 10, 2013.  While it is
not possible to estimate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome
or a range of loss in the case of an unfavorable outcome to TSI,
LLC at this time, TSI, LLC intends to contest this case
vigorously.

New York-based Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.mysportsclubs.com/-- owns and operates fitness clubs
in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions of the United States of
America.


TOWN SPORTS: Dismissal of "Cruz" Class Allegations to Be Appealed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Cruz, et al., served a notice of their intent to appeal the
dismissal of their class allegations against a subsidiary of Town
Sports International Holdings, Inc., according to the Company's
April 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

On March 1, 2005, in an action styled Sarah Cruz, et al v. Town
Sports International, d/b/a New York Sports Club, plaintiffs
commenced a purported class action against Town Sports
International, LLC ("TSI, LLC"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Company, in the Supreme Court, New York County, seeking unpaid
wages and alleging that TSI, LLC violated various overtime
provisions of the New York State Labor Law with respect to the
payment of wages to certain trainers and assistant fitness
managers.  On June 18, 2007, the same plaintiffs commenced a
second purported class action against TSI, LLC in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, New York County, seeking unpaid
wages and alleging that TSI, LLC violated various wage payment and
overtime provisions of the New York State Labor Law with respect
to the payment of wages to all New York purported hourly
employees.  On September 17, 2010, TSI, LLC made motions to
dismiss the class action allegations of both lawsuits for
plaintiffs' failure to timely file motions to certify the class
actions.  The court granted the motions on January 29, 2013,
dismissing the class action allegations in both lawsuits.  On
March 4, 2013, the plaintiffs served notice of their intent to
appeal that dismissal.  The court has stayed the remaining,
individual claims in each action pending resolution of the
plaintiffs' appeal.

New York-based Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.mysportsclubs.com/-- owns and operates fitness clubs
in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions of the United States of
America.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Defends Sudden Acceleration Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Shepardson, writing for The Detroit News, reports that a
federal judge will decide next month whether to grant final
approval to a class-action settlement covering as many as 22
million current and former Toyota owners over sudden acceleration
claims valued at as much as $1.63 billion.

The settlement is "a landmark, if not a record, settlement in
automobile defects class action litigation in the United States,"
said Steve Berman, a lawyer for the owners, in a recent court
filing.

Preliminary notices have been sent to 22.6 million current and
former Toyota owners that were identified through R.L. Polk & Co.
data.

Some safety advocates are objecting to a plan to spend $30 million
on an automobile safety research and education fund.

The settlement includes $14.2 million for a driver education media
campaign, $15 million for research into active safety features and
$800,000 for a consumer study on defense driving and proper use of
vehicle safety systems.

Toyota spokeswoman Celeste Migliore defended the agreement.

"This agreement is structured in ways that we believe provide real
value to our customers and demonstrate that they can count on
Toyota to stand behind our vehicles.  We believe that approval of
this settlement is in the best interests of all affected parties,"
she said.

Benjamin Kelley, a former U.S. auto safety and vice president at
the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said the settlement
"would pursue long-discredited approaches for changing the
behavior of drivers, rather than the safety performance levels of
vehicles 'rendered unsafe.'"

Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that electronic defects were to
blame for some of the incidents of sudden acceleration.  Toyota
executives point to a report by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration and NASA released in 2011 that found no
evidence of electronic failures.

Mr. Kelley argues that "somehow 'educating' drivers will solve the
problems brought on by Toyota's misbehavior.  This is a dangerous
and dishonest assumption."

Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety,
argued it is "far better to cure unintended acceleration rather
than targeting the symptoms of unintended acceleration."  He wants
the research program focused on "underlying issues of failures in
electronic systems and controls in modern research."

But Mr. Berman said the $30 million fund "will significantly
advance vehicle and driver safety" and will fund research at five
universities, including the University of Michigan.

The U-M Transportation Research Institute will conduct a three-
year project to help drivers avoid crashes and "provide new
knowledge, models, and tools to enable improved designs of
automotive crash avoidance systems and more effective deployment
strategies."

Any cash not claimed by Toyota owners will be used for additional
auto safety research by the five schools.

Mr. Berman said the driver education campaign will be guided by
the $800,000 study that will ask drivers about unintended
acceleration.  U.S. District Judge James Selna will hold a June 14
"fairness hearing" in California on the settlement.  It doesn't
cover wrongful death lawsuits that are pending against Toyota.

About 9 million owners are eligible for payments that will range
from $37.50 to $125.

The settlement also includes $200 million in lawyers fees that
Toyota will pay to the owners and $27 million in costs.


UNITED STATES: IRS Faces Class Action Over Stolen Health Records
----------------------------------------------------------------
Healthcare IT News reports that the Internal Revenue Service could
now be facing a class action lawsuit over allegations that it
improperly accessed and stole the health records of some 10
million Americans, including medical records of all California
state judges.

According to a report by Courthousenews.com, an unnamed HIPAA-
covered entity in California is suing the IRS, alleging that some
60 million medical records from 10 million patients were stolen by
15 IRS agents.  The personal health information seized on March
11, 2011, included psychological counseling, gynecological
counseling, sexual/drug treatment and other medical treatment
data.

"This is an action involving the corruption and abuse of power by
several Internal Revenue Service agents," wrote Robert E. Barnes,
attorney representing the John Doe Company, in the official
complaint.  "No search warrant authorized the seizure of these
records; no subpoena authorized the seizure of these records; none
of the 10,000,000 Americans were under any kind of known criminal
or civil investigation and their medical records had no relevance
whatsoever to the IRS search.  IT personnel at the scene, a HIPAA
facility warning on the building and the IT portion of the
searched premises, and the company executives each warned the IRS
agents of these privileged records," the complaint continued.

According to the complaint, the IRS agents obtained a search
warrant for financial data pertaining to a former employee of the
John Doe Company, however, "it did not authorize any seizure of
any healthcare or medical record of any persons, least of all
third parties completely unrelated to the matter," the complaint
read.

The IRS did not respond to multiple inquiries regarding the case.

"If the allegations are true, the IRS is in trouble," wrote Jim
Pyles, Washington-based healthcare privacy lawyer, in a statement
to Healthcare IT News.  "By both constitutional law and HIPAA,
then I think we have a problem."

Mr. Pyles added that the Fourth Amendment was drafted in response
to the General Warrants issued by the King of England under which
his officers could search for any evidence of crime without
showing probable cause.  "The drafters expressly sought to curb
that practice in the 4th Amendment which guarantees the 'right of
the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,'" he
explained.  If the allegations are true, "they way overstepped the
limits of the search warrant."

The Department of Health and Human Services recently stated that
the ACA does not grant the IRS open access to Americans' medical
records with no cause.  "The Affordable Care Act maintains strict
privacy controls to safeguard personal information.  The IRS will
not have access to personal health information," said HHS
spokesperson Erin Shields Britt, to Kaiser Health News.


WASHINGTON: Court Hears Arguments in Home Care Aides' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Olympian's Brad Shannon and The Associated Press report that
the Washington Supreme Court heard arguments on May 14 in a class-
action case brought by live-in home care aides against the state
Department of Social and Health Services that could cost taxpayers
$95 million or more.

The 22,000 workers in the suit assist disabled clients and saw
their work hours cut by an average of 15 percent during 2003-07
under a "shared living" rule adopted by the state agency for
caregivers living with the people they cared for.

The department reasoned that if the caregivers lived at the home,
then some amount of the work the caregivers performed -- cooking,
for example -- would benefit the caregiver, who shouldn't be paid
for it.  The rule was jettisoned after the state Supreme Court
invalidated it in 2007.

"The bottom line is DSHS shortchanged these people," Kirkland-
based lawyer John J. White Jr. said after the arguments.

The federal-state program provides low-income Medicaid clients
with assistance that includes help with washing, laundry, cooking,
shopping and medicines.  The in-home help lets the clients remain
in their own homes and saves the public money, but the caregivers
contend they ended up working unpaid hours.  The state refused to
pay up, even after the Supreme Court ruled it was inconsistent
with federal Medicaid rules.

In a December 2010 ruling, a Thurston County Superior Court jury
awarded $57 million to the workers, who belong to Service
Employees International Union 775 Northwest.  Judge Thomas McPhee
awarded another $38 million in prejudgment interest.

But in court on May 14, Deputy Solicitor General Jay Geck of the
attorney general's office argued that the lower court judgment was
in error and that there was no breach of contract because workers
agreed to accept whatever hours were authorized for clients under
Medicaid.  Mr. Geck said the court had given misleading and
incorrect jury instructions.

Mr. Geck also said the claims should have been barred in the first
place by Judge McPhee because the claimants had not challenged the
department's rulings within 90 days as required under law.

"People have a right to appeal and they did not.  The client class
had no excuse for not coming in earlier," he told the nine
justices.

After the court hearing, Mr. White said DSHS had actually done
away with an appeals process when it adopted its "shared living
rule" so administrative judges declined jurisdiction.

The case has implications for state budget writers, and not just
because of the costs involved.  Letting claimants come back up to
six years later to make claims "will hobble public assistance
programs," Mr. Geck said.

House Majority Leader Pat Sullivan, D-Covington, said he and other
budget writers are aware of the potential liability of this case
-- but it is one of many financial risks that lurk for the state.

"Depending on where you cut, you face liabilities all the time.
Something we do take into consideration when we are making
reductions is how likely is it you will be sued," Mr. Sullivan
said in an interview.  "But more importantly how likely is it that
you'll be sued and lose? There's a risk to every decision we
make."

The justices did not tip their hand on how they might rule.  Any
ruling may not come for six to nine months, based on the court's
practice in past cases.

Dmitri Iglitzin, a lawyer for SEIU 775NW, told the court said the
state had acted unjustly to reduce paid hours knowing all along
that the live-in workers would provide the care without pay.  He
said it would have been a different story if DSHS had done
assessments that looked at the range of help available from
relatives to decide case-by-case that fewer hours were merited.

After the 2003 rule was invalidated, DSHS provided those
assessments.

In a media briefing provided by the attorney general's office, the
state said the jury verdict was unprecedented and would have the
effect of giving care workers new contract rights.


WEST BANCORPORATION: Banking Unit Continues to Defend Iowa Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
On September 29, 2010, West Bank, a subsidiary of West
Bancorporation, Inc., was sued in a purported class action lawsuit
that, as amended, asserts that nonsufficient funds fees charged by
West Bank to Iowa resident noncommercial customers on bank debit
card transactions, but not checks or Automated Clearing House
items, are usurious under Iowa law, rather than allowable fees,
and that the sequence in which West Bank formerly posted items for
payment in consumer demand accounts violated various alleged
duties of good faith.  West Bank believes the allegations in the
lawsuit are factually and legally incorrect in multiple material
ways.  West Bank is vigorously defending the action.  The amount
of potential loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated now
because there are substantial and different defenses concerning
the various claims of potential liability, class certification and
damages.

No further updates were reported in the Company's April 25, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

West Bancorporation, Inc. -- http://www.westbankiowa.com/-- is an
Iowa corporation and a bank holding company.  The Company,
headquartered in West Des Moines, Iowa, was formed in 1984 to own
West Des Moines State Bank, an Iowa chartered bank, which is now
known as West Bank.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Another Class Action for Dumping Toxins
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kristina Smith, writing for The Marion Star, reports that families
of children who died in the local cancer cluster filed a
$5 million class-action lawsuit against Whirlpool Corp. on May 14,
alleging the company is responsible for the cluster.

This is the second class-action lawsuit regarding the cluster
filed by people affected against the company this year.

The Eastern Sandusky County Cancer Cluster affected at least
35 children in a 6.7-mile radius including Clyde, Green Creek
Township and much of Fremont, according to the Ohio EPA.

The latest lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Toledo,
alleges Whirlpool dumped toxins at the now-closed Whirlpool Park
near Green Springs and that cancer-causing materials were found in
high levels at other sites it alleges Whirlpool used to dump
materials.

The 29 plaintiffs on the lawsuit include Warren Brown of Clyde,
Steven Keller of Sandusky and Trina Donnersbach of Clyde, all of
whom have been outspoken regarding the cancer cluster.  Messrs.
Brown's and Donnersbach's daughters died of cancer, and Mr. Keller
lost a grandson.

Others are family members of cancer victims, people who developed
cancer or other diseases or are mentally disabled, according to
the lawsuit.

They allege Whirlpool Corp. dumped toxins in the Clyde area that
caused the illnesses and disabilities.  Their property values also
have declined because of contamination, according to the lawsuit.

"We will vigorously defend Whirlpool, its employees, and the
community against these allegations," Whirlpool spokeswoman
Kristine Vernier said in a statement.  "Whirlpool has been part of
the fabric of the Clyde community for more than 60 years and we
remain committed to acting responsibly."

There was a news conference at 10:00 a.m. on May 15 at the Charles
E. Boyk Law Offices, one of the firms representing the families
who filed the suit.

The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit as individuals and as a class-
action suit because there are at least 100 class members,
according to the lawsuit.

The other plaintiffs are Cinda McGilton of Clyde, Teresa Bruggeman
of Fremont, David and Donna Hisey of Clyde, Tyler Hisey Smith of
Clyde, Robert and Kathleen Caster of Green Springs, Jeremy
Lunsford of Bellevue, Brian and Angie McGrady of Clyde, Sherri
Walden of Gibsonburg, Diane Weiker of Green Springs, Mark Weiker
of Green Springs, Dustin Weiker of Green Springs, Brian Weiker of
Green Springs, Joyce and Carlos Weiker of Green Springs, Phoebe
and Teddy Pinion of Green Springs, Norma and Gary Meade of Clyde,
Jami and David Bettinger of Green Springs, Larry Ross Jr. of Green
Springs and Herbert Lee and Renee Farley of Green Springs.

Another class-action suit is pending against Whirlpool in Sandusky
County Common Pleas Court.

In that suit, Fremont law firm Albrechta and Coble represents
other people affected by the cancer cluster.  The $750 million
lawsuit alleges toxins at Whirlpool Park are the cause of the
cancer cluster and that Whirlpool Corp. knowlingly dumped them
there.

Whirlpool operated the park, which included a pool and basketball
and tennis courts and was open to friends and family members of
Whirlpool Corp. workers, until 2006.  Current owner Grist Mill LLC
also is named as a defendant in the Albrechta and Coble suit.


* New Bill to Hold Foreign Cos. Accountable for Defective Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Cochran, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reports
that every day, American consumers are vulnerable to injury or
death from dangerous foreign products manufactured abroad.

"We've read and seen numerous stories about poisonous drywall and
toys manufactured overseas, with no compliance with our consumer
products standards.  While U.S. manufacturers must comply with our
laws, safety regulations, and judicial system, foreign
manufacturers can skimp on safety in order to rush a product to
market, knowing there is little to no threat of legal recourse for
an unsafe product sold in the United States," Mr. Cochran said.

American businesses have an incentive to produce quality goods
because they will be held liable by our civil justice system.
Foreign companies, on the other hand, have no such incentive
because it is often difficult or impossible to subject them to the
jurisdiction of U.S. courts.  These manufacturers are able to
avoid accountability to U.S. consumers while continuing to line
their pockets with profits and export billions of dollars worth of
merchandise to all 50 states.

Foreign manufacturers should have to play by the same rules as
American manufacturers and not be able to escape responsibility
because they are beyond the reach of our judicial system.  There's
a new push by Congress to change the status quo and hold foreign
manufacturers accountable.

The "Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act" was
introduced on May 17 by Congressmen Matt Cartwright (D-PA) and
Mike Turner (R-OH), with Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) as an original
cosponsor.

The bill would make it easier for an injured consumer to serve the
foreign manufacturer with notice of pending claims, so the
consumer can proceed with a lawsuit.  Foreign manufacturers or
producers of covered products would be required to register an
agent, located in a state where the company does business, who
would be able to accept service of process for civil and
regulatory claims.  By registering the agent, the foreign
manufacturer or producer also consents to state and federal
jurisdiction for civil and regulatory claims.  Covered products
include drugs, devices, cosmetics, biological products, consumer
products, chemical substances, and pesticides manufactured or
produced outside of the United States.

The bill is good for U.S. businesses and consumers.  Our companies
should not be forced to unfairly compete against foreign
businesses that can easily skirt the law.  As in the case of toxic
drywall, U.S. businesses also end up shouldering monetary losses
when they cannot hold foreign suppliers accountable for dangerous
products.  The bill would make it easier for U.S. consumers
injured in the United States to hold foreign manufacturers
accountable for the injuries they cause.  Why should a consumer
have to travel to China to serve the defendant when the defendant
does business in the U.S. and has an agent-importer located here?
Why should Chinese law apply to a U.S. consumer injured in their
own home?

The "Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act" addresses
those problems.


                             *********

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  * * *