---

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

            Wednesday, June 19, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 120

                             Headlines


ALBION FISHERIES: Recalls Mussels Over Shellfish Poisoning Toxin
ANTIGONISH ABATTOIR: Recalls Tony's Meats Liverwurst & Pate
ASBESTOS MDL: 3rd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Cascino Vaughan Cases
AU OPTRONICS: Seyfarth Shaw Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Robins Geller Files Securities Class Action

B & C FOOD: Recalls Mussels Due to Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning
BEAR STEARNS: Court Rejects Dismissal of Class Against Insurers
BIG TOBACCO: Canberra Refuses to Get Involve in Class Action
BLUE SHIELD: Faces Overtime Class Action
BRE-X: Alberta Court Approves C$5.2MM Class Action Settlement

BRIAD RESTAURANT: TGI Friday's Franchisee Responds to Class Suit
BUTTERFLY BAKERY: Issues Allergy Alert on Walnut in Berry Muffins
CENTENNIAL FOODSERVICE: Recalls Mussels Over Shellfish Poisoning
CINTAS CORP: Denial of Class Cert. Upheld in Gender Bias Suit
CITIBANK NA: Faces Class Action Over Monitoring Telephone Calls

CITIGROUP INC: Enters Into Settlement Deal With Opt-Out Plaintiffs
CVS CAREMARK: Pierce Atwood Discusses Class Action Ruling
DANNON CO: Court Tosses Class Action Over False Yoghurt Claims
DOLE FOOD: CEO Murdock Faces Suit Over $1.5BB Buyout
DYNEGY INC: Class Rep. Can't Object to Chapter 11 Confirmation

EAST ORANGE, NJ: Police Officers File Overtime Class Action
ECOLAB INC: Judge Delays Approval of $29MM Class Action Settlement
ENTERGY ARKANSAS: Awaits Order in Appeal From Certification Order
FOX SEARCHLIGHT: Should Have Paid Interns, Judge Rules
FOX SEARCHLIGHT: Antalik to Represent Plaintiff Class

GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 9 EXPRESS and SAVANA Light Trucks & Vans
GOOGLE INC: 9th Cir. Hears Arguments Over "Wireless Sniffers" Suit
GOOGLE INC: Resolves Shareholder Class Action Over Stock Split
GUITAR CENTER: Faces Zip Code Class Action in Massachusetts
HALLIBURTON CO: Mayer Brown Discusses Class Action Ruling

HARTZ MOUNTAIN: Recalls Wardley Betta Fish Food Over Health Risk
HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Loses Bid to Reverse TCPA Class Action Status
HERTZ CORP: Settles Class Action Over Excessive Fees for $11-Mil.
HOCKEYFEST: Number of Plaintiffs Not Enough to File Class Action
HONDA MOTOR: Recalls RSX and S2000 Models of Honda and ACURA Cars

HURONIA REGIONAL: Law Firm Balks at Ontario's Delaying Tactics
HURONIA REGIONAL: Abuse Victims Balk at Premier's Inaction
ILLINOIS: Prison Settlement Conference Scheduled for This Month
JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal in Class Suit vs. Bear Stearns Pending
JPMORGAN CHASE: Awaits Rulings in Certain Madoff-Related Suits

JPMORGAN CHASE: Awaits Rulings in Suits Over ARM Disclosures
JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend Class Suits Related to LIBOR
JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend Foreclosure Procedures Suits
JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend Municipal Derivatives Suits
JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend Various MBS-Related Suits

JPMORGAN CHASE: Facing CIO Investigations and Suits
JPMORGAN CHASE: Dismissal of ARS-Related Suits Affirmed in March
JPMORGAN CHASE: Hearing on $107.5-MM MF Global Deal Set for July
JPMORGAN CHASE: Interchange Suit Settlement Hearing Set for Sept.
JPMORGAN CHASE: Trial in Securities Lending Suit Begins Jan. 2014

KATHY'S CATERING: Recalls Salad/Quiche Over Undeclared Allergens
KELLOGG CO: Settles Factory Workers' Class Action for $550,000
LIPARI FOODS: Recalls Raw/Roasted Sunflower Seeds and Snack Mixes
MANITOBA: Disputes First Nations' Allegations in Flooding Suit
MARICOPA COUNTY: Wilcox Denies Conflict of Interest on Class

MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Appeals Court Allows Class Action to Proceed
MISSISSIPPI: Walnut Grove Sued Over Inhumane Prison Conditions
MOBILE COUNTY, AL: Hiring Bias Suit Denied Class Action Status
MONSANTO CO: Faces Class Action Over Roundup-Resistant GM Wheat
MOODY'S INVESTORS: Investment Agency Gets $9.5MM From Settlement

MULTICARE HEALTH: Crash Victims Sue Over Settlement Liens
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Two Plaintiffs Discuss Player Pay in Depositions
NOBEL BIOCARE: Settles Class Action Over Defective Implants
NOVA SCOTIA HOME: Former Residents Can Watch Case Via Webcast
OAK HARBOR: Faces Suit From Swinomish Tribe Over Road Project

OCEAN VIEW: Judge in Alleged Property Scam Class Action Removed
OLD NATIONAL: Appeals Court Allows Fee Class Action to Proceed
OSKRI CORP: Recalls Dark Chocolates Due to Undeclared Milk
PACIFIC RIM: Recalls Mussels; Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning Cited
PAYPAL INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Unwanted Text Messages

PILOT FLYING J: Shoreline Files Class Action Over Rebate Scheme
PILOT FLYING J: Ohio Auto Delivery Files Fuel Rebate Class Action
PRESSLER & PRESSLER: Loses Bid to Arbitrate Class Action
RAWSON-NEAL: Faces Class Action Over "Greyhound Therapy"
ST. LOUIS, MO: Court Says Red Light Cameras Are Reasonable

SEE'S CO: Recalls Milk & Dark Raisins Over Undeclared Nuts & Eggs
SEQUEL NATURALS: Recalls Vega One Bars & Vega Sport Protein Bars
STRIDE RITE: Recalls 7,500 Joanna Girl's Sandal Over Choking Risk
TEXSPORT: Recalls 325 Cedar Lake Heater/Cookers Due to Fire Risk
TWININGS NORTH AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Tea False Claims

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: June 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
VISA INC: West Va. Says Settlement May Set Dangerous Precedent
WARNER MUSIC: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Internships
WESTLAND, MI: Court Approves Flooding Class Action Settlement

* Bill to Curb Frivolous Class Actions Awaits Governor's Approval
* Data Breach Laws to Spur Class Actions, IIA Says
* High Court Justices Must Curb Class Action Abuses
* Justice Alito Orders Review of Pay-for-Delay Payment Deals
* Lawmakers Give Businesses Chance to Escape Class Actions

* Montgomery McCracken Says Spike Product Labeling Suits a Threat


                             *********


ALBION FISHERIES: Recalls Mussels Over Shellfish Poisoning Toxin
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 8, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Marine Biotoxin
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Albion Fisheries Ltd. (Richmond)
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional, Retail
CFIA reference number:    8077

Affected products:

  Brand
  name        Common name      Code(s) on product
  ----        -----------      ------------------
  Albion      Mussel n/shell   PACKED BY: BC0992SP
  Fisheries   saltspring ISL   ORIGINAL SHIPPER'S CERT NO:
  Ltd.                         BC 1905 SP
                               HARVEST DATE: 6/02/2013
  Size: 5 lb                   HARVEST LOCATION: BC AREA 13-15
  UPC: None                    P.O. NO: 10286


ANTIGONISH ABATTOIR: Recalls Tony's Meats Liverwurst & Pate
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 13, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Antigonish Abattoir Ltd
Distribution:             Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince
                          Edward Island, Newfoundland and
                          Labrador
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8075

Antigonish Abattoir Ltd., of Antigonish, Nova Scotia, is warning
consumers not to consume (Tony's Meats Brand:  Fine Herb
Liverwurst, Black Pepper Liverwurst, Fine Herb Pate and Black
Pepper Pate) because it may contain (Mustard) which is not
declared on the label.

The product being recalled is:

   (Tony's Meats Brand: 175g Fine Herb Liverwurst & Black Pepper
   Liverwurst best before date 13 MA 27, 13 JN 12, 13 JN 22,
   13 JL 24, 13 AU 14; 200g Fine Herb Pate & Black Pepper Pate
   Best Before 13 MA 25, 13 JN 05, 13 JN 26, 13 JL 18)

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:
http://is.gd/DT3ghD

The product is distributed in the Province of Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland.

Tony's Meats Brand: Fine Herb Liverwurst, Black Pepper Liverwurst,
Fine Herb Pate and Black Pepper Pate may cause a serious or life-
threatening reaction in persons with allergies to (MUSTARD).

Consumers should return to point of sale for a refund.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with this
product.

Consumers can contact Antigonish Abattoir Ltd. by calling (902)
863-1545


ASBESTOS MDL: 3rd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Cascino Vaughan Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has upheld a
multidistrict litigation judge's dismissal of a dozen asbestos
cases handled by one law firm for failure to provide the complete
history of the plaintiffs' exposure.

Judges Anthony J. Scirica, Marjorie O. Rendell and Thomas I.
Vanaskie said that U.S. District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania signaled the egregiousness of the
plaintiffs not coming forward with a complete exposure history
that could withstand a motion to dismiss and that the plaintiffs
were essentially holding up the progress of their cases.

The Third Circuit also elucidated for the first time how the
factors under Poulis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty should be
weighed when district courts dismiss cases spontaneously and when
district courts dismiss cases in which the plaintiffs were put on
notice and given the opportunity to oppose motions of dismissal.

Under Poulis, district courts must weigh six factors in dismissing
cases under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to
comply with judges' orders, including the extent of the party's
personal responsibility, the prejudice to the adversary caused by
the failure to meet scheduling orders and respond to discovery, a
history of dilatoriness, whether the conduct of the party or the
attorney was willful or in bad faith, the effectiveness of
alternative sanctions other than dismissal, and the
meritoriousness of the claim or defense.

Ms. Rendell, writing for the panel on May 31, advised: "We will
not hesitate to remand a case to the district court when the judge
dismisses a case sua sponte without an indication that Poulis was
considered. . . . However, we believe we should view dismissals
following a contested motion somewhat differently.  The dismissal
here was entered after an adversary vetting of its propriety
. . . . Here we believe the district court weighed the arguments
advanced by the parties along the lines of Poulis.  In the context
of a massive multidistrict litigation, our ability to satisfy
ourselves that the district court did not act arbitrarily, and did
consider the relevant factors, is made easier when the dismissal
resulted from the defendant's motion and was challenged by the
plaintiff before the district court ruled."

When the asbestos MDL was assigned to Judge Robreno in September
2008, he amended MDL administrative order 12 to require plaintiffs
to submit medical reports upon which the plaintiffs would rely to
withstand a dispositive motion.

The plaintiffs argued that the administrative order did not
require a complete history of exposure to asbestos, Judge Rendell
said.

Robert G. McCoy, counsel for the plaintiffs from Cascino Vaughan
Law Offices in Chicago and who argued before the Third Circuit,
said in a statement: "Appellants' counsel does not believe the
case has any significant impact on asbestos litigation.  The court
essentially held the revised AO12 order needs to be interpreted
consistent with the standards of medical professionals who
diagnose asbestos diseases.  Neither the district nor appellate
court opinions specify a specific standard to be followed for
diagnosis.  The issue remains open for rulings if such are needed
in future cases."

While the administrative order's plain language did not state that
the plaintiffs must provide a complete history of their exposure,
Judge Robreno, in a November 2011 order dismissing 47 of Cascino
Vaughan's cases, said that ordering plaintiffs to submit a medical
diagnosis report or opinion that was "'based upon objective and
subjective data which shall be identified and descriptively set
out within the report or opinion'" meant that the plaintiffs must
include exposure history that complied with "'generally accepted
medical standards [that] call for information regarding duration,
intensity, time of onset and setting of exposure to asbestos,'"
according to the opinion.

Further, Judge Rendell, writing in a footnote, said that, while
reasonable minds might differ on how clear it was that the
administrative order applied to all cases, any confusion was
cleared up with Judge Robreno's November 2011 order.

The plaintiffs could have supplemented their submissions, too,
Rendell said.

Daniel J. Mulholland -- mulhollanddj@fpwk.com -- counsel for the
defendants from Forman Perry Watkins Krutz & Tardy in Jackson,
Miss., and who argued before the Third Circuit, did not respond to
a request for comment.

Cascino Vaughan has 2,000 cases pending in the MDL and has the
second-largest group of land-based cases in the litigation.

The MDL once had more than 150,000 plaintiffs and more than eight
million claims.

Judge Robreno said earlier this year at Widener University School
of Law's "Perspectives on Mass Tort Litigation" symposium that he
envisions the federal asbestos litigation coming to an end.

The court will concentrate its efforts on litigation involving
maritime cases, and the court will definitely not play much of a
role in litigation involving land cases, Judge Robreno said.

There are 3,513 cases pending now with 3,064 of those being
maritime cases, Judge Robreno said at the symposium in April.


AU OPTRONICS: Seyfarth Shaw Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Stiehl, Esq., and Jeffrey P. Swatzell, Esq., at Seyfarth
Shaw LLP reports that on May 28, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court
granted certiorari in Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics
Corp., Docket No. 12-1036, a price-fixing case between the State
of Mississippi and a number of electronics companies.  The Supreme
Court agreed to determine whether a state's parens patriae action
is removable as a "mass action" pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act ("CAFA") when the state is the sole plaintiff, and
the claims arise under state law.  The case will be heard and
decided during the term beginning in October 2013.

Federal appellate courts are currently split on whether CAFA
should apply to lawsuits filed by state attorneys general on
behalf of state citizens.  This issue is of significance to
employers in workplace class action litigation, since
interpretations of the CAFA is important to defense strategy in
removal situations.

Background Of Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp.

In March 2011, Mississippi's Attorney General filed a complaint in
Mississippi state court, on behalf of Mississippi consumers,
alleging that defendants were price-fixing LCD panels.  The
lawsuit brought claims under the Mississippi Antitrust Act and the
Mississippi Consumer Protection Act.  Shortly after it was filed,
defendants removed the case to federal court on the grounds that
it was either a "class action" or a "mass action" under the CAFA.
The district court granted Mississippi's motion to remand,
however, finding that although the case constituted a "mass
action" under the CAFA, it fell into the "general public
exception" to the CAFA's mass action jurisdiction because the
claims were asserted on behalf of the general public, and not on
behalf of individual claimants.  Defendants appealed.

The Fifth Circuit's Opinion

In November of last year, the Fifth Circuit reversed the district
court's remand order, agreeing with the electronics companies who
argued that the lawsuit belonged in federal court and was
removable under the CAFA.  See Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU
Optronics Corp., 701 F.3d 796 (5th Cir. 2012).  In reaching its
decision, the Fifth Circuit agreed that the case was a "mass
action" within the meaning of the CAFA.  According to the Fifth
Circuit, the real parties-in-interest include not only the State
of Mississippi, but also individual consumers residing in
Mississippi.  However, the Fifth Circuit determined that, because
the claim was, at least in part, brought on behalf of individual
consumers, the general public exception did not apply, and
therefore that the CAFA mass action jurisdiction was proper.  Its
decision notwithstanding, the Fifth Circuit recognized that, by
finding the general public exception inapplicable, it essentially
read it out of the statue.

Circuit Split

Previously, three other courts of appeals addressed similar claims
involving the same jurisdictional question, and held that they
were not removable:

AU Optronics Corp. v. South Carolina, 699 F.3d 385 (4th Cir.
2012), petition for cert. filed, No. 12-911 (Jan. 23, 2013);

LG Display Co. v. Madigan, 665 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2011); and

Nevada v. Bank of America Corp., 672 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2011).

So while the Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits have found no
federal jurisdiction in these circumstances, the Fifth Circuit in
AU Optronics Corp. found federal jurisdiction as a CAFA mass
action.  In other words, cases involving the same claims and
arising out the same conduct by the same defendants have been
inconsistently resolved.  Notably, the same question presented in
currently pending before the Supreme Court in the certiorari
petition filed in AU Optronics Corp. v. South Carolina.

Implications

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to ensure that federal
jurisdiction over state parens patriae actions does not vary based
on the location of the federal court to which the lawsuit may be
removed.  Furthermore, because the Fifth Circuit's decision
essentially prevents a state attorney general from bringing a
parens patriae action in state court -- even when the state is the
plaintiff and the claims arise under state law -- it is likely
that the Supreme Court feels compelled to strike a balance between
principles of federalism and state sovereignty with CAFA.  The
Supreme Court's decision will serve as a barometer of its
hostility toward class actions.  When the CAFA was enacted in
2005, its goal was to give federal courts jurisdiction over
lawsuits involving large numbers of plaintiffs, and since it was
implemented, the Supreme Court has issued a number rulings that
have made it harder and harder for plaintiffs' lawyers to bring
class actions, especially in state court.  The decision in AU
Optronics Corp., however, given its implication of issues of state
sovereignty, could test just how far the Supreme Court is willing
to go to guard against potential class action abuses.


AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Robins Geller Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on May 31 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of AVEO
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. publicly traded securities during the period
between January 3, 2012 and May 1, 2013.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from May 9, 2013.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins
of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail
at djr@rgrdlaw.com.  If you are a member of this class, you can
view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action
online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/aveo/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges AVEO and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
AVEO is a biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering,
developing and commercializing cancer therapeutics.  The Company's
lead product is an oral inhibitor of the vascular endothelial
growth factor ("VEGF") receptors.

The complaint alleges that specifically, throughout the Class
Period, defendants violated the federal securities laws by
disseminating false and misleading statements to the investing
public about the viability of the Company's leading drug Tivopath,
or tivozanib, for the treatment of advanced kidney cancer.
Investors were led to believe that tivozanib would receive
approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration through
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Phase 3
trial design and results.  As a result of defendants' false
statements, AVEO's stock traded at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period, reaching a high of $14.97 per share on
January 12, 2012.

On April 30, 2013, the FDA released its Oncologic Drugs Advisory
Committee meeting briefing document that, among other matters,
took particular issue with the rigor of the tivozanib trial: "In
considering the results from a single randomized trial submitted
in support of marketing approval of a new molecular entity, FDA
expects that the trial will be adequately designed and well
conducted and that the results will be internally consistent.  We
are asking the ODAC's advice on whether this single trial is
sufficient to support approval of tivozanib for the indication of
treatment of patients with advanced renal cell cancer or whether
an additional trial is necessary before considering marketing
approval."

The Briefing Document also highlighted the regulatory history of
Tivopath, and the fact that the Company disregarded explicit FDA
recommendations for the Company to conduct an additional Phase 3
trial, "[a] pre-NDA meeting was held in May 2012.  Here, the FDA
expressed concern about the adverse trend in overall survival in
the single Phase 3 trial [TIVO-1] and recommended that the sponsor
[AVEO] conduct a second adequately powered randomized trial in a
population comparable to that in the US."

On this news, AVEO's stock plummeted $2.33 per share to close at
$5.11 per share on April 30, 2013, a one-day decline of 31% on
high volume of over 15 million shares.

On May 2, 2013, the Company and the FDA made presentations to the
ODAC regarding the new drug application of tivozanib.  The FDA
noted in its presentation to the ODAC that: (a) tivozanib was
studied in a Phase 3 trial with inconsistent results; (b)
tivozanib increased potential risk of death by 25% compared to the
control drug, sorafenib; (c) tivozanib therapy induced higher
rates of hypertension, hemorrhage and dysphonia than sorafenib;
(d) TIVO-1 had a flawed trial design; (e) TIVO-1 provided
internally inconsistent trial results; (f) TIVO-1 provided
uninterpretable overall survival results; and (g) TIVO-1 provided
inconclusive risk-benefit assessment data.

Then, on May 2, 2013, the ODAC voted not to recommend approval of
tivozanib, as AVEO reported in a press release that day: "[T]he
application for investigational agent tivozanib did not
demonstrate a favorable benefit-to-risk evaluation for the
treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in an adequate
and well-controlled trial."

On this news, AVEO's stock declined $2.61 per share to close at
$2.65 per share on May 2, 2013, a one-day decline of nearly 50% on
volume of over 15 million shares.

As a result of defendants' false statements, AVEO stock traded at
artificially inflated levels during the Class Period.  However,
after the above revelations seeped into the market, the Company's
shares were hammered by massive sales, sending them down 82% from
their Class Period high.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
AVEO publicly traded securities during the Class Period.  The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in
prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  With nearly 200 lawyers in
nine offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-
employer pension funds with combined assets under management in
excess of $2 trillion.  The firm has obtained many of the largest
recoveries in history and has been ranked number one in the number
of shareholder class action recoveries in MSCI's Top SCAS 50 every
year since 2003.

Contact:

        Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
        Darren Robbins, Esq.
        Telephone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
        E-mail: djr@rgrdlaw.com


B & C FOOD: Recalls Mussels Due to Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 8, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Marine Biotoxin
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           B & C Food Distributors Ltd.
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional, Retail
CFIA reference number:    8080

Affected products:

Brand name   Common name      Size       Code(s) on product
----------   -----------      ----       ------------------
B & C Food   Mussels          Variable   Processing dates:
                               kg         June 4, 2013, to
UPC: None                                June 7, 2013
                                          Area: 13-15
                                          Lot/Lease #: 445

Walcan       Aquacultured
Seafood Ltd. edulis mussels   5 lb       HARVEST DATE: 2013JN02
                                          HARVEST LOCATION: BC 13
UPC: None                                SUB AREA: 15
                                          PROCESS DATE: 2013JN03
                                          SITE IDENTITY:1401596
                                          LOT # 445  None

Walcan       Aquacultured     1.5 lb     HARVEST DATE: 2013JN02
Seafood Ltd. edulis mussels              HARVEST LOCATION: BC 13
                                          SUB AREA: 15
UPC: None                                PROCESS DATE: 2013JN03
                                          SITE IDENTITY:1401596
                                          LOT # 445


BEAR STEARNS: Court Rejects Dismissal of Class Against Insurers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marlene Kennedy at Courthouse News Service reports that Bear
Stearns can press its insurers to recover millions of dollars in
costs associated with securities law violations, New York's
highest court ruled.

The one-time broker-dealer, now part of J.P. Morgan, faced
investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in
2003 for trading practices that favored certain customers --
primarily large hedge funds -- in buying and selling mutual fund
shares.  The practices, known as late trading and market timing,
earned big profits for some clients at the expense of others.

When the SEC notified Bear Stearns that it would seek $720 million
in sanctions for willful violations of securities law, the company
objected, claiming no role in the mutual fund transactions --
other than clearing them -- and no share of the profits that
resulted.

Bear Stearns then proposed its own settlement, without admitting
or denying the agency's findings.  Under that settlement, which
the SEC adopted in 2006, Bear Stearns agreed to pay $160 million
as disgorgement -- return of ill-gotten gains -- and $90 million
in civil penalties.  The money created a $250 million fund to
compensate mutual fund investors whom Bear Stearns allegedly
harmed.

At the same time, Bear Stearns also spent $14 million settling a
number of private class-action lawsuits brought by mutual funds.
It calculated the cost of defending those lawsuits and the SEC
action at $40 million.

Bear Stearns then turned to its insurers to cover the
disgorgement, private settlement and defense costs as losses.

When prime insurer Vigilant Insurance Co. and six excess carriers
denied the claim, J.P. Morgan Securities -- the name Bear Stearns
took after its 2008 acquisition -- sued for breach of contract in
New York County Supreme Court.

Though a judge refused to dismiss the action against the insurers,
the Appellate Division's First Judicial Department in Manhattan
held that, as a matter of public policy, Bear Stearns could not
seek to recoup the $160 million disgorgement.

But the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, reinstated the
Bear Stearns complaint June 11, 2013, saying the insurers were not
entitled to a dismissal of the coverage claim.  "Although we
certainly do not condone the late trading and market timing
activities described in the SEC order, the insurers have not met
their heavy burden of establishing, as a matter of law on their
CPLR 3211 dismissal motions, that Bear Stearns is barred from
pursuing insurance coverage under its policies," Judge Victoria
Graffeo wrote for the mostly unanimous court.

The opinion notes that insurance contracts, like other agreements,
"will ordinarily be enforced as written" without anyone passing
judgment on their substance.

But insurance contracts have "public policy exceptions" that
prohibit indemnification for punitive damage awards and for
conduct intended to cause injury, according to the ruling.

The court rejected the claim that Bear Stearns triggered the
latter exception by willfully violating securities laws, as the
SEC had found.

"But the public policy exception for intentionally harmful conduct
is a narrow one, under which it must be established not only that
the insured acted intentionally but, further, that it acted with
the intent to harm or injure others," Graffeo wrote.

"The SEC order, while undoubtedly finding Bear Stearns' numerous
securities laws violations to be willful, does not conclusively
demonstrate that Bear Stearns also had the requisite intent to
cause harm," she added.

The insurers also claimed on public policy grounds that Bear
Stearns should not recover any portion of the $160 million
disgorgement.  The opinion notes that other courts have held that
the return of ill-gotten gains does not constitute a "loss" or
"damages" within the meaning of insurance policies.

"Bear Stearns does not disagree with these principles," Graffeo
wrote, "but urges that they do not prohibit coverage here since
the bulk of the disgorgement payment -- approximately $140 million
-- represented the improper profits acquired by third party hedge
fund customers, not revenue that Bear Stearns itself pocketed.

"Put differently, Bear Stearns alleges that much of the payment,
although labeled disgorgement by the SEC, did not actually
represent the disgorgement of its own profits," she added.

But "the SEC order does not establish that the $160 million
disgorgement payment was predicated on moneys that Bear Stearns
itself improperly earned as a result of its securities
violations," according to the ruling.

"Consequently, at this early juncture, we conclude that the
insurers are not entitled to dismissal of Bear Stearns' insurance
claims related to the SEC disgorgement payment," Graffeo added.

Judges Susan Read, Robert Smith, Eugene Pigott and Jenny Rivera
joined the lead opinion.  Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman and Judge
Sheila Abdus-Salaam took no part in the decision.

John Gross, Esq. -- jgross@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose in
New York argued for J.P. Morgan Securities.  Joseph G. Finnerty
III, Esq. -- joseph.finnertyIII@dlapiper.com -- of DLA Piper LLP
(US) in New York represented Vigilant.  Two of the excess carriers
also had counsel: Michael Gioia, Esq. -- mgioia@lcbf.com -- of
Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford in New York for American Alternative
Insurance Corp., and Edward Kirk, Esq. -- edward.kirk@clydeco.us
-- of Clyde & Co. US in New York for Certain Underwriters at
Lloyd's London.

The American Insurance Association submitted an amicus curiae
brief.


BIG TOBACCO: Canberra Refuses to Get Involve in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Parnell, writing for The Australian, reports that the federal
government has stubbed out a bid by the states to sue tobacco
companies for the cost of treating smoking-related diseases.

Last year, federal Health Minister Tanya Plibersek asked then
attorney-general Nicola Roxon for advice on a possible class
action against "Big Tobacco" and received a response from
Ms. Roxon's successor, Mark Dreyfus, in April.

While the advice has yet to be provided to the states -- it was
due to be discussed by health ministers in April until their
meeting was postponed indefinitely -- Mr. Dreyfus told The
Australian any lawsuit would be a matter for the states.

Some states have obtained their own legal advice, which they will
not release, and it appears the cost of mounting a class action
would require all governments to be committed.

The refusal of Canberra to be involved would scupper a class
action against cashed-up tobacco companies.

Latest estimates indicate that the annual cost of smoking to the
Queensland community alone is AUD6.14 billion in health costs,
lost productivity and premature death.  Nationally, that figure is
estimated to be AUD31.5 billion.

After the federal government introduced plain-packaging laws, it
endorsed a new National Tobacco Strategy that, for the first time,
lists its top priority as defending laws against tobacco company
interference, followed by stronger mass-media campaigns and
reducing the affordability of cigarettes through "regular staged
increases in tobacco excises as appropriate".

The rate of tobacco excise is likely to increase by 1.6 percentage
points each year under changes announced in the budget -- adding
about 7c to the cost of a packet of 25 cigarettes in the first
biannual increase.

Treasurer Wayne Swan promised a level of excise "more consistent
with consumers' purchasing power" through a new indexation formula
but the increase is far less than the 25% hike imposed in 2010.

Anti-smoking campaigner Simon Chapman from the University of
Sydney said the changes would only bring about "a derisory 0.4%
rise on the most popular brands".

"If the government had backed the recommendation of its Preventive
Health Task Force and gone with a second 25% tax increase they
would have pulled in about $1 billion and stimulated a lot of
quitting," Professor Chapman said.

"It is very disappointing from a government that has done so
much."

The government has set a target of lowering the smoking rate to
10% by 2018.  It is tracking slightly below expectations so the
annual targets have been made more ambitious in future years.


BLUE SHIELD: Faces Overtime Class Action
----------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Blue Shield of California
stiffs workers for overtime and expenses, a class action claims in
Federal Court.


BRE-X: Alberta Court Approves C$5.2MM Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hugh McKenna, writing for Canadian Press, reports that the lengthy
battle by Bre-X investors to recover billions in Canada's largest
mining fraud appears to be over in what one of the original
plaintiff lawyers in the case called a "sad day" for
accountability in Canada.

Under a settlement approved on May 30 by the Alberta Court of
Queens Bench, the remaining class-action suits were dismissed
against the main defendants in the case, the estate of Bre-X's
late founder and CEO, David Walsh, and chief geologist John
Felderhof.

The Calgary court made the ruling at the request of bankruptcy
trustee Deloitte and Touche, which said there was no realistic
prospect of realizing any significant recovery through the
litigation and that the costs of proceeding were prohibitive.

As a result, all parties agreed to a payment of C$5.2-million to
be divided among investors who apply for a settlement.

Courts in Ontario and the Texas had earlier agreed to the
settlement.  The money will be divided between plaintiffs in the
Ontario and Texas class actions on the basis of 67% to the Ontario
class and 33% to the Texas class, Deloitte said in an emailed
statement.

Bre-X became known as the largest mining fraud in Canadian history
back in 1997 when its claim of a major gold discovery in Indonesia
proved to be a fake.  Investors around the world lost an estimated
$3-billion in the resulting collapse of the company's share price.

Lawyer Clint Docken of Docken Klym, a law firm that represented a
number of individual investors and originally led the case in
Alberta, wasn't happy with the outcome but agreed little more
could be done.

"Unfortunately, things have languished and languished to the
extent that recovery possibilities aren't promising," said
Mr. Docken, who was in the Calgary court on May 30.

"It's a sad day . . . . We have arguably Canada's largest (ever)
fraud and no accountability.  There's no criminal accountability,
there's no regulatory accountability and (now) there doesn't
appear to be any civil accountability."

Mr. Docken said there remain a few plaintiffs in Ontario who were
not part of the settlement, but said he didn't know the status of
those cases.

Deloitte and Touche was appointed as trustee in bankruptcy of Bre-
X Minerals Ltd. by the Alberta court in November 1997 after the
company was hit with several multibillion-dollar shareholder
lawsuits.

The trustee sought to recover insider trading profits from several
of Bre-X's former executives in Ontario and an action was pursued
in Alberta against Bre-X's sister company, Bresea Resources Inc.
Cases was also pursued in the Cayman Islands, the Bahamas and
Philippines and efforts were undertaken to recoup money that had
been deposited in a Channel Island Trust.

But in the end, the action from 1998 through to 2011 recovered
only $5-million from the Channel Island Trust and a further
$2-million in the settlement of the action against Bresea.

With court approval, the funds were added to the cash on hand and
used to fund ongoing recovery efforts.  However, Deloitte said
that by 2011 it had become apparent no further recoveries were
possible.

Part of the reason was that funds frozen under various injunctions
had been spent under the terms of those orders that permitted
payment of the defendants' living expenses and legal costs,
Deloitte said at the time.

As well, one of the principal targets of the litigation, Bre-X's
geologist, John Felderhof, was acquitted after a lengthy Ontario
Securities Commission trial.


BRIAD RESTAURANT: TGI Friday's Franchisee Responds to Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Barbrick, President and COO of The Briad Restaurant Group,
the T.G.I. Friday's franchisee that operates 16 T.G.I. Friday's
restaurants in New Jersey, on May 30 issued the following
statement in response to the class action lawsuit:

Mr. Barbrick said "We have not yet reviewed the complaint and
therefore are not clear regarding its merits.  However, we
reiterate our ongoing mission to ensure that all of our strict bar
and beverage standards are being followed and that our commitment
to integrity is being adhered to in all actions.  Briad will take
the steps necessary to correct issues identified through our
investigation including the complete retraining of our teams so
that guests have full confidence in the quality of our food, drink
and service."


BUTTERFLY BAKERY: Issues Allergy Alert on Walnut in Berry Muffins
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Butterfly Bakery issues allergy alert on undeclared Walnuts in
14.5 ounce Butterfly Bakery Whole Grain Harvest Berry Muffins, UPC
6 43482 60014 8.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to Walnuts (a
type of tree nut) run the risk of serious or life threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.  This product
has not been produced since November 26, 2012.

The product is packed in a clear clam-shell type package with a
label which also serves to seal the item.  Picture of the recalled
products' label is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm356650.htm

No illnesses have been reported to date.

This recall was initiated after it was discovered that the product
was still available and being sold at a single Price Chopper store
located in Schenectady, New York.  Management had believed that
there was no more of this product in circulation since it had not
been produced in more than five months and there was no existing
stock of the product in possession of the bakery.

At this point all of this product has been removed from the
shelves and is no longer available at retail.  Butterfly bakery
management indicated the problem with this specific retail label
was that walnuts had not been included among the ingredients.
Corrective steps to prevent a re-occurrence of this type of
situation have been put into place.

Consumers are urged to return the product to the place of purchase
for a full refund.

Additional information is available by contacting the company at
(973) 815-1501 or better to e-mail questions or concerns to
qc@thebutterflybakery.com


CENTENNIAL FOODSERVICE: Recalls Mussels Over Shellfish Poisoning
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 8, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Marine Biotoxin
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Centennial Foodservice
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional, Retail
CFIA reference number:    8079

Affected products:

   Brand
   name    Common name       Size    Code(s) on product
   ----    -----------       ----    ------------------
   None    Aquacultured      5 lb    HARVEST DATE: 2013JN02
           edulis mussels            HARVEST LOCATION: BC 13
                                     SUB AREA: 15
   UPC: None                         PROCESS DATE: 2013JN03
                                     SITE IDENTITY:1401596
                                     LOT # 445


CINTAS CORP: Denial of Class Cert. Upheld in Gender Bias Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Zillman, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
Paul Hastings partners Nancy Abell and Heather Morgan have spent
close to a decade chipping away at a once-massive discrimination
lawsuit against corporate work uniform manufacturer Cintas.  The
case began as a nationwide class action alleging bias against
African American, Hispanic, and female employees and job
applicants.  By this year, all that remained was an appeal by a
female job applicant who hoped to revive her own case and that of
her class.

Now not even that much is left of the case.  On May 30 the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit refused to overturn a
Detroit federal judge's decision denying class certification to a
class of female applicants, finding that the plaintiffs couldn't
survive the U.S. Supreme Court's 2011 ruling in Wal-Mart v. Dukes.
The panel also threw out one of two individual disparate treatment
claims brought by plaintiff Tanesha Davis, though another of Ms.
Davis's disparate treatment claims survived.

"I think that justice has finally been served," Ms. Abell told The
Litigation Daily on May 31.

Ms. Davis, a Milwaukee, Wisc., resident, sued Mason, Ohio-based
Cintas on behalf of herself and a class of female job applicants
who'd been denied employment as entry-level sales representatives.
Her lawyers at Chicago's Miner, Barnhill & Galland alleged that
Cintas's hiring practices discriminated against women and caused
Cintas to reject Ms. Davis's job application twice, once in 2003
and again in 2004.  Ms. Davis's own suit wasn't filed until 2006,
when her case joined sprawling class action litigation over
Cintas's hiring practices that first started in San Francisco
three years before.

U.S. District Judge Sean Cox in Detroit denied class certification
in 2009, and all the remaining plaintiffs except Davis eventually
withdrew their individual and class claims.  The Sixth Circuit
backed Cox's class cert ruling in the May 30 decision, concluding
that Ms. Davis couldn't satisfy the commonality requirements set
forth in Dukes.  Her lawyers, the panel ruled, "could not show
that a number of women, who failed to obtain employment at many
places, over a long time, under a largely subjective hiring
system, shared a common question of law or fact."  The appeals
court also agreed with Judge Cox that Ms. Davis couldn't cite
aggregate statistics to establish a pattern of discrimination at
the company.

The only bit of the case that the Sixth Circuit didn't snuff out
is Ms. Davis's disparate-treatment claim arising from 2003, which
the panel revived.  But according to Ms. Abell and Ms. Morgan at
Paul Hastings, Ms. Davis's lawyers had already withdrawn that
claim in a letter to the court in August 2011.  Miner Barnhill's
Judson Miner didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

"This was an important and aggressive piece of litigation," said
Ms. Morgan.  "From our perspective, it's finally over."


CITIBANK NA: Faces Class Action Over Monitoring Telephone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Citibank does not seek
consent before monitoring telephone calls made to 800-745-1534, a
class claims.


CITIGROUP INC: Enters Into Settlement Deal With Opt-Out Plaintiffs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Wolfe, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that a
coalition of about 20 institutional investors have wrested a
settlement from Citigroup Inc. in a long-running suit over the
banks' role in the financial crisis.

In a 2-page stipulation filed on May 31, the institutional
investors -- mainly European pension funds like the U.K.'s
Mineworkers' Pension Scheme and Dutch Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP
-- agreed to drop claims that Citi misrepresented its exposure to
a panoply of subprime investments.

Stuart Grant -- sgrant@gelaw.com -- of Grant & Eisenhofer, who
represented the funds, declined to say how much Citi must pony up
in the confidential deal, but he said his clients "got a very good
result and are satisfied with the resolution."

The plaintiffs covered by the settlement chose not to join a pair
of class actions raising more-or-less identical claims. One of
those cases, In re Citigroup Bond Litigation, settled for $730
million in March.  The other, In re Citigroup Securities
Litigation, settled for $590 million in August 2012.  Both
settlements have yet to be approved by U.S. District Judge Sidney
Stein in Manhattan.   Class members have objected to the $590
million settlement, arguing that plaintiffs counsel at Kirby
McInerney inflated their $100 million fee request by billing
contract layers at a rate of $300-$350 per hour.

Citi announced in November 2007 that it would write down between
$8 billion and $11 billion over its exposure to subprime mortgage-
backed securities.  Securities fraud class actions immediately
followed.  Between 2009 and 2011, Grant & Eisenhofer helped a wave
of institutional investors opt out of the litigation and bring
securities fraud complaints of their own against Citi and its
directors.  Grant & Eisenhofer targeted Citi over a wide range of
investments, including collateralized debt obligations,
residential mortgage-backed securities, and auction rate-
securities.

Citi's lawyers at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison moved
to dismiss in February 2011, arguing that some of the claims are
time-barred.  Judge Stein rejected that argument, but in March he
allowed Paul Weiss to file an interlocutory appeal at the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Litigation Daily hoped to ask Citi counsel Brad Karp why his
client opted to settle before the Second Circuit weighed in, but
the Paul Weiss partner didn't get back to us before our deadline.

Citi also reached a confidential settlement in mortgage-backed
securities litigation brought by the Federal Housing and Finance
Agency, the conservator to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.


CVS CAREMARK: Pierce Atwood Discusses Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Mark B. Rosen, Esq., at Pierce Atwood LLP reports that in Mass.
Ret. Sys. v. CVS Caremark Corp., the First Circuit recently
revived a shareholder securities fraud class action stemming from
the 2006 merger of retail pharmacy chain, CVS, and prescription
benefits manager (PBM), Caremark.  The First Circuit joined other
circuits in holding that a "corrective" disclosure -- a public
disclosure by the defendant that reveals a prior misrepresentation
to investors -- need not be a "mirror-image" disclosure in order
to establish loss causation, a key element of a Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 securities-fraud claim.  Loss causation is the causal
connection between the defendant's material misrepresentation and
the drop in the company's stock price, and it is commonly
established by alleging that a corrective disclosure coincided
with a drop in the company's stock price.

The lead plaintiff alleged that CVS Caremark misled investors
about the success of the merger and the post-transaction company's
ability to integrate the businesses and systems of CVS and
Caremark.  Specifically, it alleged that CVS Caremark touted the
success of the merger, stating that it had quickly and
successfully integrated CVS's and Caremark's systems within just
one year after the announcement of the merger, and that as a
result of the successful merger, CVS Caremark predicted
substantial earnings growth.  In reality, according to the lead
plaintiff, the merger was a disaster and CVS Caremark's inability
to integrate caused serious service issues which, in turn, caused
the company's PBM business to lose billions in customer accounts.

The issue before the court was whether the CEO's disclosure on a
November 2009 earnings call -- two years after the company
declared that the systems integration was completed successfully
-- of "big client losses" totaling over $4 billion, in part due to
"service issues," could amount to a corrective disclosure
sufficient to establish loss causation.  On the same call, the
company's CEO announced that CVS Caremark would not hit its prior
forecasts and that the company was actually facing a 12% decline
in earnings.  The CEO also announced the resignation of Caremark's
president, who was one of the "chief architects of the CVS
Caremark integrated model."  After the call, analysts reported
that the magnitude of the loss, disclosed on the call and not in
the company's earnings release, raised management "credibility
issues" and showed that the merger was a failure.

The district court dismissed the lead plaintiff's complaint for
failure to adequately allege loss causation, reasoning that the
November 2009 call did not amount to a disclosure of the truth
about CVS Caremark's failure to integrate the merged entity.  The
district court focused on the CEO's denials that there was
anything wrong with the CVS Caremark business model and that the
"service issues," which led to client losses, were attributable to
the integration of CVS and Caremark.  In short, the district court
held that the November 2009 call was not a corrective disclosure
and that therefore the lead plaintiff's complaint did not
plausibly allege loss causation.

The First Circuit disagreed and held that the lead plaintiff
adequately alleged loss causation based on the November 2009 call
and associated drop in CVS Caremark's stock price.  Citing 2009
decisions of the Fifth and Tenth Circuits, the First Circuit held
that "a corrective disclosure need not be a 'mirror-image'
disclosure -- a direct admission that a previous statement is
untrue."  The court reasoned that if a fact-for-fact disclosure
were required to establish loss causation, a defendant could
defeat liability by refusing to admit the falsity of its prior
misstatements.

Instead, the court held, "the appropriate inquiry is whether the
November [2009] call, as a whole, plausibly revealed to the market
that CVS Caremark had problems with service and the integration of
its systems."  When viewed holistically, the November 2009 call --
including the disclosure of "service issues," the magnitude of the
losses reported, and the resignation of the "chief architect" of
the combined company's integration model -- revealed the truth
about the failure of the CVS-Caremark merger.  The court also
endorsed the use of analyst reports to allege loss causation:
"When a plaintiff alleges corrective disclosures that are not
straightforward admissions of a defendant's previous
misrepresentations, it is appropriate to look for indications of
the market's contemporaneous response to those statements."

The First Circuit's decision means that pleading loss causation is
not as high a hurdle as some defendants might wish.  A plaintiff
can meet the loss causation burden by alleging a disclosure (and
coinciding stock price drop) that is not directly corrective of a
prior statement, so long as the disclosure, as a whole, plausibly
reveals the alleged fraud to the market.  However, other elements
of a securities-fraud claim that are definitively subject to the
heightened pleading standards of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act, such as falsity and scienter, remain significant
obstacles to maintaining a 10b-5 claim.


DANNON CO: Court Tosses Class Action Over False Yoghurt Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn G. Lammi, writing for Forbes, reports that a yogurt-related
class action suit claiming that the use of milk protein
concentrate (MPC) rendered Activa yogurt misbranded, recently
reached a welcome end in the Southern District of New York (Conroy
v. The Dannon Company, Inc.).

Conroy alleged injury under a number of state common law theories
as well as provisions of New York General Business Law.  None of
those theories or laws are referenced beyond the opinion's first
page; instead, Judge Vincent Briccetti devoted his analysis
entirely to whether MPC is an allowable "other optional
ingredient" under Food and Drug Administration (FDA) standards for
"yogurt."  If it wasn't, Conroy's claims would no doubt have
proceeded.

Had one started reading in the middle of the opinion, one would
fairly think the complaining entity was FDA, not a random yogurt
consumer.  Judge Briccetti found that FDA's views on yogurt were
that MPC was permitted as an "other optional ingredient." FDA's
views, Judge Briccetti wrote, were contained in "a FDA-issued
memorandum from the Milk Safety Branch to all Regional Food and
Drug Directors."  The document memorialized an answer given by an
FDA employee at a Regional Milk Seminar to a question specifically
on MPC.

A memo restating the answer to a question at an obscure seminar in
2004 circulated among regional FDA directors -- not exactly our
idea of good federal rulemaking practice, but enough, it seems to
get a class action suit dismissed.  That is what Judge Briccetti
ultimately did do: grant Dannon's motion to dismiss as well as its
request that the plaintiff be prohibited from amending her
complaint.


DOLE FOOD: CEO Murdock Faces Suit Over $1.5BB Buyout
----------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that that
shareholders challenge Dole Food Chairman and CEO David Murdock's
attempt to buy the company for $1.5 billion.

Lead plaintiff Salvatore Toronto filed the class action June 12,
2013, in Superior Court, the day after reports that 90-year-old
Murdock, Dole's controlling shareholder, wants to buy the Westlake
Village-based company for $12 per share.

The class claims the billionaire Murdock is buying the company on
the cheap, using his influence to muscle through an offer "plagued
by substantial conflicts of interest."

Dole, the world's largest producer of fruit and vegetables,
reported $4.2 billion in revenue in 2012, according to the
complaint.

The shareholders claim Murdock has "opportunistically timed" his
offer to coincide with a recent drop in demand for bananas, and a
corresponding dip in Dole's share price.

"It's Like Deja Vu All Over Again," the shareholders say in the
complaint, claiming that Murdock, who owns 40 percent of Dole
shares, used similar tactics to take Dole private in 2002.

Back then, shareholders forced the billionaire to raise his buyout
price from $29.50 to $33.50 by taking him to court, according to
the complaint.

"Murdock, who is now 90 but claims to want to live to 125, is
pursuing the same game plan he executed in 2002.  As with the 2002
transaction, the present offer from Murdock, who is the majority
and controlling shareholder in addition to being chairman and CEO,
is plagued by substantial conflicts of interest, and Murdock is
attempting to prevent the minority public shareholders from
realizing fair value for their shares," the complaint states.

The class accuses Murdock of accelerating the deal before an
alternative buyer can be found, and doubts that the Dole board
will rein in the influential CEO.

"In 2002, he took the company private, saying that was the best
course.  But it did not take long for Murdock to bring the company
public again, and he filed for an IPO in August 2009," the
complaint states.  "Now, less than four years after Dole's second
IPO, Murdock has changed his story again and is telling
shareholders that his lowball going-private $12 per share offer is
in their best interests, at the same time his best interests are
obviously served by acquiring such shares at the lowest possible
price since he is the buyer."

Stock in Dole traded at up to $12.58 on June 12, 2013,
shareholders say, "reflecting the market's belief that Murdock's
offer is inadequate and will have to be raised to convince
shareholders to sell to Murdock."

The shareholders say Murdock "opportunistically timed" the buyout
because while his offer is a "slight premium," it falls short of a
52-week high in Dole's share price.

"Murdock has just announced his offer, yet has threatened to
terminate the offer if not accepted by the board within a month
and a half.  Murdock's message is clear: 'Give me what I want and
give it to me now,'" the lawsuit says.

According to the complaint, Murdock has instructed Deutsche Bank
to complete the deal by July 31.

Moody's ratings agency downgraded the outlook on Dole from stable
to negative in reaction to Murdock's offer, the Wall Street
Journal reported.

The class wants the buyout enjoined, and damages for breach of
fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty.

Named as defendants are Murdock and Dole directors Michael Carter,
Elaine Chao, Andrew Conrad, David Delorenzo, Rolland Dickson,
Sherry Lansing, and Dole Food.

The plaintiffs are represented by Francis Bottini, Esq. --
mail@bottinilaw.com -- with Bottini & Bottini, of La Jolla.


DYNEGY INC: Class Rep. Can't Object to Chapter 11 Confirmation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce M. Sabados, Esq. -- bruce.sabados@kattenlaw.com -- and Dean
N. Razavi, Esq. -- dean.razavi@kattenlaw.com -- at Katten Muchin
Rosenman LLP reports that the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York affirmed an order rejecting an objection to
the confirmation of a Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization for
Dynegy, Inc. and Dynegy Holdings, LLC (together, Dynegy) for a
lack of standing.

In March 2012, a putative securities class action was filed
against Dynegy and its officers.  A lead plaintiff was appointed
in that action in July.  Contemporaneously, Dynegy filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy, staying the securities litigation against
itself, but not the individual defendants.  The US Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York approved a disclosure
statement which included releases of claims against the individual
defendants in the securities action.  The lead plaintiff in the
securities action, Stephen Lucas, opted out of the release. Lucas
also objected to the release on behalf of the putative class in
the securities action.  The bankruptcy court overruled his
objection.

The District Court affirmed, holding that Mr. Lucas did not have
standing to object to the release.  Mr. Lucas could not object on
his own behalf; having already opted out, the issue was moot as to
him.  Additionally, Lucas lacked standing to object in the
bankruptcy action on behalf of the putative securities class
because he never attempted to certify that class before the
bankruptcy court.  Mr. Lucas could not use his status to "have his
cake and eat it too -- to opt out of the [r]elease personally but
also to challenge its validity in the separate bankruptcy
proceeding."

In re Dynegy Inc., No. 12 Civ. 8908(JGK), 2013 WL 2413482
(S.D.N.Y. 2013).


EAST ORANGE, NJ: Police Officers File Overtime Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eunice Lee, writing for The Star-Ledger, reports that a group of
East Orange police officers who previously filed suit over unpaid
overtime are seeking to bring a class-action lawsuit against the
city, according to an attorney for several officers.

So far, 21 officers have joined the suit and are claiming up to
$8 million in unpaid overtime, attorney Andrew Glenn said.
In March, several East Orange officers criticized Mayor Robert
Bowser's administration and claimed that officers were forced to
abide by a ticket quota.  Both Mayor Bowser and police chief
William Robinson have vigorously denied that any quota policy
exists.

Mayor Bowser, who is seeking a fifth term in a hotly contested
race against rival Lester Taylor, has touted public safety and
decreased crime as a major accomplishment of his tenure as voters
prepare to head to the polls on the June 4 primary election.

East Orange councilwoman Alicia Holman, who heads the public
safety committee and seeking re-election on the same ticket as
Mr. Taylor, called for an investigation and also said she would
write a letter to the attorney general regarding the matter.

Mr. Glenn filed a motion in federal court in Newark asking U.S.
Court Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh for class certification in order
to take collective action representing current and former East
Orange officers alleging unpaid overtime since Sept. 24, 2009.
Several officers complained in the suit that the police department
simply takes attendance and "does not keep accurate track of the
time that the officers work."

The suit claims that the city violated federal statutes under the
Fair Labor Standard Act by requiring hourly paid officers like
Stephen Rochester to start work before the start of his shift and
stay after his shift ended.  Mr. Rochester and officers Jermaine
Wilkins and Raymond Donnerstag are named as the three lead
plaintiffs in the suit, which was initially filed Sept. 24, 2012.

East Orange officials responded by saying they would "seek to
dismiss this lawsuit in its entirety."

"The City values the hard work and contribution of the dedicated
members of the East Orange Police Department," the city said in a
statement.  "Certain officers have filed a lawsuit alleging that
they are entitled to additional overtime compensation.  There is
an agreement in place with the Fraternal Order of Police that
governs their compensation which includes overtime.  The City has
adhered to the specific terms contained in this agreement."

A federal statute was violated, Glenn noted, which he said
supersedes negotiated terms in a union contract.

The deadline seeking class certification was May 30, said
Mr. Glenn of the Jaffe Glenn Law Group, which is based in New
Jersey, Florida and South Carolina and specializes in overtime
cases.  He said filing the motion was unrelated to the primary
race or the ticket quota controversy.  To his knowledge, none of
the officers who have joined the overtime suit were among those
who had also alleged that the department had a quota policy, he
said.

According to an internal memo from Chief Robinson provided to The
Star-Ledger, officers were ordered to report "ten (10) minutes
prior to the beginning of the tour of duty" for roll call but also
to "Review, analyze and discuss data gathered concerning crimes,
quality of life concerns -- giving a breakdown by patrol zones"
and to communicate with the chief or deputy chief.

The memo is dated Jan. 1, 2010, but Rochester, a 10-year veteran
currently working for the city police department, says the
practice was in place since he arrived. Officers were routinely
ordered to stay late to finish reports and even told not to park
their patrol vehicles until after their shift ended, according to
the suit.  Some officers complained to their supervisors to no
avail while others feared retribution, the suit says.

According to Mr. Rochester's estimates, he's worked more than 400
hours in unpaid overtime.  If an officer didn't arrive early, he
said, they could eventually face discipline for tardiness.

"When you first start, you think that's just the way things are,
but when you realize you're not getting paid for it, you smarten
up," Mr. Rochester, 40, said.

Tamieka Dwyer, a 12-year veteran of the city police department,
said that she routinely worked at least 10 to15 minutes before her
shift and 20 to 30 minutes after.  But in one specific instance, a
lieutenant ordered to finish a report for three hours after she
was off the clock.  "I complained to the Chief, but nothing was
done about it," Ms. Dwyer said in the suit.


ECOLAB INC: Judge Delays Approval of $29MM Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Reilly, writing for Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal,
reports that a California judge has delayed approval of a $29
million class-action settlement between Ecolab Inc. and hundreds
of exterminators who say they're owed overtime pay.

Law 360 reports that U.S. District Judge Fernando M. Olguin denied
preliminary approval of the deal until he gets a better
explanation of why class representatives (the lead plaintiffs,
basically) deserve incentive payments.  Judge Olguin said he
thinks the settlement is a good one, but noted that appellate
courts are scrutinizing class-action deals to a greater degree.

St. Paul based Ecolab (NYSE: ECL) was sued in 2011 by employee
Doug Ladore, who argued that the company had improperly
categorized 400 pest-control workers as exempt from overtime.  The
parties reached a settlement deal in April that includes payment
of overtime by Ecolab, a payment of $750,000 to the California
Labor and Workforce Development Agency and the reclassification of
pest-elimination specialists and other affected workers as non-
exempt (meaning they qualify for future overtime).

Battles over employee classification rose markedly throughout the
recession; the Business Journal spoke in 2011 with Clayton
Halunen, managing partner at Minneapolis law firm Halunen &
Associates, about the issue.


ENTERGY ARKANSAS: Awaits Order in Appeal From Certification Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Entergy Arkansas, Inc., is awaiting a court decision in its and
other defendants' appeal from class certification order, according
to the Company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

In August 2003, a lawsuit was filed in the district court of
Chambers County, Texas, by Texas residents on behalf of a
purported class of the Texas retail customers of Entergy Gulf
States, Inc. who were billed and paid for electric power from
January 1, 1994, to the present.  The named defendants include
Entergy Corporation, Entergy Services Inc., Entergy Power, Entergy
Power Marketing Corp., and Entergy Arkansas.  Entergy Gulf States,
Inc. was not a named defendant, but was alleged to be a co-
conspirator.  The court granted the request of Entergy Gulf
States, Inc. to intervene in the lawsuit to protect its interests.

The Plaintiffs allege that the defendants implemented a "price
gouging accounting scheme" to sell to the plaintiffs and similarly
situated utility customers higher priced power generated by the
defendants while rejecting less expensive power offered from off-
system suppliers.  In particular, the plaintiffs allege that the
defendants manipulated and continue to manipulate the dispatch of
generation so that power is purchased from affiliated expensive
resources instead of buying cheaper off-system power.

The Plaintiffs stated in their pleadings that customers in Texas
were charged at least $57 million above prevailing market prices
for power.  The Plaintiffs seek actual, consequential and
exemplary damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and disgorgement of
profits.  The plaintiffs' experts have tendered a report
calculating damages in a large range, from $153 million to $972
million in present value, under various scenarios.  The Entergy
defendants have tendered expert reports challenging the
assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions of the plaintiffs'
expert reports.

The case is pending in state district court, and in March 2012 the
court found that the case met the requirements to be maintained as
a class action under Texas law.  On April 30, 2012, the court
entered an order certifying the class.  The defendants have
appealed the order to the Texas Court of Appeals -- First
District.  The appeal is pending and proceedings in district court
are stayed until the appeal is resolved.

Oral arguments before the court of appeals were conducted on
April 23, 2013, and the matter awaits that court's decision.

Based in Little Rock, Arkansas, Entergy Arkansas, Inc., generates,
transmits and distributes electric power primarily to retail
customers in Arkansas.  Entergy Arkansas is a subsidiary of
Entergy Corporation, a Delaware corporation.


FOX SEARCHLIGHT: Should Have Paid Interns, Judge Rules
------------------------------------------------------
Steven Greenhouse, writing for The New York Times, reports that a
Federal District Court judge in Manhattan ruled on June 10 that
Fox Searchlight Pictures had violated federal and New York minimum
wage laws by not paying production interns, a case that could
upend the long-held practice of the film industry and other
businesses that rely heavily on unpaid internships.

In the decision, Judge William H. Pauley III ruled that Fox
Searchlight should have paid two interns on the movie "Black
Swan," because they were essentially regular employees.

The judge noted that these internships did not foster an
educational environment and that the studio received the benefits
of the work.  The case could have broad implications.  Young
people have flocked to internships, especially against the
backdrop of a weak job market.

Employment experts estimate that undergraduates work in more than
one million internships a year, an estimated half of which are
unpaid, according to Intern Bridge, a research firm.

"Employers have already started to take a hard look at their
internship programs," said Rachel Bien, a lawyer for the
plaintiffs.  "I think this decision will go far to discourage
private companies from having unpaid internship programs."

Chris Petrikin, a spokesman for 20th Century Fox, said: "We are
very disappointed with the court's rulings.  We believe they are
erroneous, and will seek to have them reversed."

Eric Glatt and Alexander Footman, production interns on "Black
Swan," sued Fox Searchlight in September 2011.  In the suit, Mr.
Glatt and Mr. Footman said they did basic chores, usually
undertaken by paid employees.  Like their counterparts in other
industries, the interns took lunch orders, answered phones,
arranged other employees' travel plans, tracked purchase orders,
took out the trash and assembled office furniture.

"I'm absolutely thrilled," said Mr. Glatt, who has an M.B.A. from
Case Western Reserve University.  "I hope that this sends a very
loud and clear message to employers and to students doing these
internships, and to the colleges that are cooperating in creating
this large pool of free labor -- for most for-profit employers,
this is illegal.  It shouldn't be up to the least powerful person
in the arrangement to have to bring a lawsuit to stop this."

In the ruling, the judge said unpaid internships should be allowed
only in very limited circumstances.

Judge Pauley rejected the argument made by many companies to adopt
a "primary benefit test" to determine whether an intern should be
paid, specifically whether "the internship's benefits to the
intern outweigh the benefits to the engaging entity." Judge Pauley
wrote that such a test would be too subjective and unpredictable.

Instead, the judge forcefully called for following criteria that
the Department of Labor has laid out for unpaid internships.
Those rules say unpaid internships should not be to the immediate
advantage of the employer, the work must be similar to vocational
training given in an educational environment, the experience must
be for the benefit of the intern and the intern's work must not
displace that of regular employees.

Some employers have asserted that they have free rein not to pay
interns as long as the interns are receiving college credit.  But
Judge Pauley said receiving academic credit was of little
importance in determining whether interns should be paid.

"Undoubtedly Mr. Glatt and Mr. Footman received some benefits from
their internships, such as resume listings, job references and an
understanding of how a production office works," Judge Pauley
wrote.  "But those benefits were incidental to working in the
office like any other employees and were not the result of
internships intentionally structured to benefit them."  Judge
Pauley added that "Searchlight received the benefits of their
unpaid work, which otherwise would have required paid employees."

The "Black Swan" case was the first in a series of lawsuits filed
by unpaid interns.

In February 2012, a former Harper's Bazaar intern sued Hearst
Magazines, asserting that she regularly worked 40 to 55 hours a
week without being paid.  Last July, a federal court ruled that
the plaintiff could proceed with her lawsuit as a collective
action, certifying a class of all unpaid interns who worked in the
company's magazines division since February 2009.  This February,
an unpaid intern sued Elite Model Management, seeking $50 million.

After a lawsuit brought by unpaid interns, Charlie Rose and his
production company announced last December that they would pay
back wages to as many as 189 interns.  The settlement called for
many of the interns to receive about $1,100 each -- amounting to
roughly $110 a week in back pay, for a maximum of 10 weeks, the
approximate length of a school semester.

As part of his ruling on June 11, Judge Pauley also granted class
certification to a group of unpaid interns in New York who worked
in several divisions of the Fox Entertainment Group.


FOX SEARCHLIGHT: Antalik to Represent Plaintiff Class
-----------------------------------------------------
Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service reports that two unpaid
interns on the film "Black Swan" were actually Fox Searchlight
employees, and a third intern can represent a class, a federal
judge ruled.

Eric Glatt and Alexander Footman sued Searchlight and its parent
company, Fox Entertainment Group, in October 2011 under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Both men worked on production of "Black Swan" in New York without
pay or college credit.  Two other unpaid Fox interns who did not
work on that film later joined the suit.  Kanene Gratts, an unpaid
intern in California on the film "500 Days of Summer, alleged a
separate claim for violations of California Unfair Competition
Law.

The fourth unpaid intern, Eden Antalik, worked at Searchlight's
corporate offices in New York.

Antalik will get to represent a class alleging violation of New
York Labor Law, U.S. District Judge William Pauley III ruled on
June 11, 2013.

The judge also conditionally certified a collective action on
Antalik's claims under the federal labor law. Outten & Golden will
serve as class counsel.

Glatt and Footman meanwhile won summary judgment, with Pauley
finding that they are "employees" covered by federal and New York
labor laws.

Searchlight is their joint employer, according to the ruling,
because it worked on "Black Swan" with the production company Lake
of Tears.  Pauley found that "Searchlight also exercised
significant functional control.  And in the end, it is all about
control."

Though Searchlight argued for the trainee exception to federal and
New York labor law, Pauley found it inapplicable.

"Undoubtedly, Glatt and Footman received some benefits from their
internships such as resume listings, job references and an
understanding of how a production office works," the 36-page
decision states.  "But those benefits were incidental to working
in the office like any other employee and were not the result of
internships intentionally structured to benefit them.  Resume
listings and job references result from any work relationship,
paid or unpaid, and are not the academic or vocational training
benefits envisioned by this factor.

"On the other hand, Searchlight received the benefits of their
unpaid work, which otherwise would have required paid employees,"
Pauley continued.  "Even under Defendants' preferred test, the
defendants were the 'primary beneficiaries' of the relationship,
not Glatt and Footman."

The court also cited evidence that Glatt and Footman performed
tasks "that otherwise would have been done by a paid employee."

"Glatt and Footman understood they would not be paid," Pauley
wrote. "But this factor adds little, because the FLSA does not
allow employees to waive their entitlement to wages."

"Considering the totality of the circumstances, Glatt and Footman
were classified improperly as unpaid interns and are 'employees'
covered by the FLSA and NYLL," Pauley wrote.  "They worked as paid
employees work, providing an immediate advantage to their employer
and performing low-level tasks not requiring specialized training.
The benefits they may have received -- such as knowledge of how a
production or accounting office functions or references for future
jobs -- are the results of simply having worked as any other
employee works, not of internships designed to be uniquely
educational to the interns and of little utility to the employer.
They received nothing approximating the education they would
receive in an academic setting or vocational school."

The four-year statute of limitations has run, however, on the
California claim advanced by Gratts, according to the ruling.
Evidence showed that filming of "500 Days of Summer" ended before
the cutoff date she needed -- Aug. 2, 2008 -- the court found.

Pauley concluded the ruling with a denial of Gratts' motion for
summary judgment.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 9 EXPRESS and SAVANA Light Trucks & Vans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:               June 12, 2013
Type of communication:       Recall
Subcategory:                 Light Truck & Van
Notification type:           Safety Mfr
System:                      Fuel Supply
Units affected:              9
Source of recall:            Transport Canada
Identification number:       2013206
TC ID number:                2013206
Manufacturer recall number:  13139

On certain vehicles, underbody shut-off solenoid connectors for
the compressed natural gas (CNG) fuel tanks may corrode and form a
high-resistance short.  This could result in a vehicle fire
causing property damage and/or personal injury.  Correction:
Dealers will replace the solenoid at the fuel tanks and the
regulator, and the 30 amp fuel pump fuse will be replaced with
either a 7.5 amp fuse (for the four tank configuration) or a 5.0
amp fuse (for the three tank arrangement).  In addition, the
wiring routing will be adjusted, if necessary, to eliminate any
undue tension on the connector, and anti-corrosion sealing plugs
will be installed into the valve body.

Affected products:

        Makes and models affected
   ------------------------------------
                             Model year
   Make          Model       affected
   ----          -----       ----------
   GMC           SAVANA         2012
   CHEVROLET     EXPRESS        2012


GOOGLE INC: 9th Cir. Hears Arguments Over "Wireless Sniffers" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Tartre at Courthouse News Service reports that Google's use
of Street View vehicles to collect unencrypted WiFi data
jeopardized constitutional privacy protections, class counsel told
the 9th Circuit.

A three-judge panel heard arguments on the case June 10, 2013,
after Google failed to secure dismissal of a class action led by
Benjamin Joffe.  The class accuses Google of creating an illegal
data-collection system that used so-called "wireless sniffers" to
ferret out personal emails, passwords and other personal data from
unsuspecting users on non-password-protected WiFi networks in more
than 30 countries.

Consumers have decried the snooping as a violation of the Wiretap
Act, which Congress passed as part of an omnibus crime bill in
1968 and last amended in 1986 through the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act (ECPA).

Google had told the court that it could not be accused of
wiretapping because the WiFi networks it allegedly accessed were
open and unencrypted, but Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware
called this argument "misplaced."

Picking up on this thread at the appellate hearing on June 10
class counsel Elizabeth Cabraser said the Wiretap Act aims to
ensure that citizens are protected under the Fourth Amendment
against searches of electronic communications "into the future,
including emerging technologies that Congress could not then
imagine specifically, but that it hoped to encourage in terms of
innovation."

The WiFi transmissions that antennas on Google's vehicles picked
up are not the type of radio communications that Congress meant to
exempt from sanctions when it included language in the Wiretap Act
that says transmissions are fair game if they are "readily
accessible," the Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein attorney
added.

"If this is excused, the loophole is big enough for massive
government intrusion," Cabraser said.

But Google's lawyer, Michael Rubin with Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati, insisted that this is "a private litigation."

"There is no government involvement whatsoever, and the Wiretap
Act speaks in this context to radio communications by a private
actor," Rubin said.

Cabraser called Google's interpretation of the act "unclear,
dangerous in terms of the privacy rights and an invitation for the
government to intrude."

Recent U.S. Supreme Court cases show that the Fourth Amendment
must guard against intrusions from innovative technology that can
compromise the privacy of a home or building, Cabraser added.

"Technology evolves, but privacy endures," she said.  "That is the
promise of the Fourth Amendment as upheld by the Supreme Court in
the 21st Century."

If businesses or individuals can intercept WiFi communications,
people will be reluctant to use WiFi networks, the lawyer
continued.

"It may be odd" to see Google presenting "an anti-innovation
interpretation," Cabraser conceded, but "that's exactly what
happened here."

Rubin, the Google lawyer countered: "I'm a bit surprised to hear
arguments about innovation because what I think ultimately chills
innovation is a lack of clarity."

Joffe's class action blamed Google for the "systematic
misappropriation . . . of private electronic information belonging
to tens of thousands of individuals throughout the United States."
The technology used to collect the WiFi data goes by different
names, including packet analyzer, wireless sniffer, network
analyzer, packet sniffer or protocol analyzer.

"Google, via its Street View Wi-Fi data collection practices,
intentionally intercepted and collected the electronic information
and communications contained on the Wi-Fi networks of plaintiff
and the class, without their authorization, knowledge, or consent,
while the communications were en route," the complaint stated.

Joffe noted that communications sent via Wi-Fi are no intended to
be public, "unlike in the traditional radio services context."

"Rather, as alleged, Wi-Fi technology shares a common design with
cellular phone technology, in that they both use radio waves to
transmit communications, however they are both designed to send
communications privately, as in solely to select recipients, and
both types of technology are architected in order to make
intentional monitoring by third parties difficult," the complaint
stated.

Rubin, the Google lawyer, argued to the 9th Circuit that Congress
has never prohibited the reception of unencrypted radio
transmissions.  He said WiFi communications are carried by radio
waves, and are therefore radio communications under the Wiretap
Act.

Ware misinterpreted the law by "arbitrarily defining 'radio
communications' as being limited to an unstated set of
'traditional radio services,' a meaning that bears no resemblance
to term's ordinary meaning and is not supported by the text or
history of the Act," Ware argued.

In Google's brief to the court, it said Ware's "approach defies
basic canons of statutory construction and is irreconcilable with
how the term 'radio communication' is used throughout the Wiretap
Act."

"The court's interpretation also introduced significant
ambiguities into the statute that improperly leave the public to
guess, on pain of criminal liability, which radio-based
communications are lawful to acquire," the brief continued.

Judge Jay Bybee, one of three members on the panel hearing,
challenged Rubin on his claim that the plain language of the
Wiretap Act allowed Google's activities.  Their back-and-forth
exchange was punctuated with long silences as the judges read
their notes.

Calling Rubin's interpretation of the way Congress wrote the law
"a pretty cumbersome plain text argument," Bybee asked why
Congress failed to make clearer distinctions about which types of
communications were subject to the Act.

Rubin replied: "I don't think anyone would argue that the Wiretap
Act is the model of clarity."


GOOGLE INC: Resolves Shareholder Class Action Over Stock Split
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Liedtke, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Google has resolved a shareholder lawsuit blocking a long-delayed
stock split, clearing the way for the Internet search leader to
issue a new class of non-voting shares later this year.

The settlement announced on June 17 came on the eve of a scheduled
Delaware chancery court trial that threatened to cast an
unflattering light on Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey
Brin.

The class-action by the Brockton Retirement Board in Massachusetts
and another Google shareholder, Philip Skidmore, alleged that
Meesrs. Page and Brin engineered the stock split in a way that
unfairly benefits them while shortchanging the rest of the
company's shareholders.

Google denied the allegations and maintained that the proposed
stock split announced 14 months ago would benefit shareholders by
ensuring that Messrs. Page and Brin would preserve the power that
has enabled them to make the same kinds of bold bets on technology
that has helped increase the company's market value by more than
$260 billion during the past nine years.

The split calls for a new class of "C" stock with no voting power
to be issued for each share of an existing category of "A'' voting
stock.  The structure is designed to ensure that Messrs. Page and
Brin retain control over the company, even though they only
currently own about 15 percent of Google's outstanding stock,
combined.

Mr. Page, Google's CEO, and Mr. Brin, an executive who oversees
special projects in the company's secret X Lab, hold 56 percent of
Google's voting power through a "B" class of stock that gives them
10 votes per share.  By creating a new class of non-voting shares,
Google will be able to keep rewarding other employees with more
stock and financing potential acquisitions of stock without
undermining the voting power of Messrs. Page and Brin.

The co-founders began pushing for the stock split three years ago,
according to court and regulatory documents.  Google shareholders
approved the split a year ago, but the lawsuit had prevented the
company from issuing the new shares.

The settlement still requires final court approval after
shareholders have an opportunity to file any further objections.
That means it will be at least several more weeks before the split
can occur.

The legal truce will require Google Inc. to compensate owners of
the new class of if stock if it's worth less than the existing
class of stock after one year of trading.  If the Class C stock is
one percent to five percent below the price of the Class A shares,
investors will receive a fraction of the difference in cash or
additional Google stock.  The maximum payments will be made if
Class C stock lags the Class A price by five percent or more.

Google's Class A shares gained $8.54 to $883.58 in the June 17
afternoon trading.  Based on that price, the Class C stock would
have to be trading at $839.40 or lower to receive the maximum
payment outlined in the settlement.  In this scenario, the Class C
stockholders would receive $44.18 per share.

If the split takes place, the trading price of Google's stock will
probably fall dramatically to reflect a nearly doubling in
outstanding shares.  Google is expected to issue more than 271
million C shares, based on how many Class A shares were
outstanding as of April 18.

Google, which is based in Mountain View, Calif., is betting there
won't be a substantial gap between the trading prices of the Class
A and Class C shares because investors backing the company have
always known Messrs. Page and Brin had the power to trump all
other shareholders.  That arrangement seems to have worked out
well, given that Google's A shares have risen 10-fold from their
initial public offering price of $85.

Another provision of the settlement requires Google's board to do
a special review assessing how Class A shareholders will be
affected if a future company acquisition is financed with more
than 10 million shares of Class C stock.


GUITAR CENTER: Faces Zip Code Class Action in Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amy Malone, Esq. -- ALMalone@mintz.com -- at Mintz, Levin, Cohn,
Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., reports that another class action
suit has been filed in Massachusetts in the zip code wars.  This
time, the target is instrument retailer Guitar Center for
allegedly requesting customers to provide their zip codes when
making purchases with a credit card in contravention of Mass. Gen
Laws ch. 93 Sec. 105(a).  Zip code class action suits started in
California against retail giant Williams-Sonoma, and last year
they found their way to Massachusetts in a case filed against
national craft retailer, Michaels Stores.

The Massachusetts Michaels case was dismissed from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts in January of
2013, but questions of law were sent from the federal court to the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.  The big questions referred
to the SJC for determination under Massachusetts law, were (1)
whether a zip code is personal identification information ("PII")
under Sec. 105 (a) and (2) whether a complainant could state a
cognizable claim under that section without suffering identity
theft.   The court ruled that zip codes are personal information
under the law and identity theft is not a necessary element in
arguing a valid claim.

The SJC ruling kicked opened the door for lawsuits in
Massachusetts against major retailers that collect zip codes when
processing credit cards.  Currently there are two class actions
pending against Bed, Bath and Beyond (complaints are here and
here) and recently a filing against Guitar Center.  The complaint
is very similar to the Bed, Bath and Beyond complaints: claiming
that Guitar Center harmed plaintiffs by unnecessarily collecting
zip codes when customers completed purchases with credit cards.
Credit card companies do not require zip codes to be collected in
order to process transactions.

The plaintiffs claim they suffered injury due to (1) receiving
unwanted marketing material and (2) through Guitar Center's
misappropriation of their economically valuable PII without
consideration.  The SJC listed receiving unwanted marketing
material and the sale of a customer's PII as two possible injuries
under a merchant's violation of Sec. 105(a).

Plaintiffs in the Bed, Bath, and Beyond cases as well as the
Guitar Center litigation are requesting statutory damages of $25
per violation as well as treble damages.


HALLIBURTON CO: Mayer Brown Discusses Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Joshua D. Yount, Esq. -- jdyount@mayerbrown.com -- at Mayer Brown
reports that in Section 10(b) securities-fraud cases based on
affirmative misrepresentations, a class action cannot be certified
unless investor reliance is presumed under the fraud-on-the-market
theory of Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988).  In Erica
P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 131 S. Ct. 2179 (2011), the
Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff does not need to establish
loss causation at the class-certification stage in order to invoke
the fraud-on-the-market presumption.  On remand from that ruling,
Halliburton argued that it should be permitted to rebut that
presumption and defeat the request for class certification with
evidence that the alleged misrepresentations had no impact on
Halliburton's stock price.  Based largely on the Supreme Court's
intervening decision in Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans
& Trust Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184 (2013), the Fifth Circuit rejected
Halliburton's argument, holding that price impact is not properly
considered at the class-certification stage.  Erica P. John Fund,
Inc. v. Halliburton Co. (pdf), -- F.3d -- 2013 WL 1809760 (5th
Cir. Apr. 30, 2013).

The Fifth Circuit acknowledged that when the Supreme Court adopted
the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance in Basic, it made
the presumption rebuttable.  The Fifth Circuit likewise recognized
that establishing that a misrepresentation had no price impact
would rebut the presumption of reliance by severing the link
between the alleged misrepresentation and the price paid by the
plaintiffs.  The Fifth Circuit further noted that, even though
Halliburton offered its price-impact evidence only for rebuttal
purposes, such evidence also could be probative on the market-
efficiency, public-statement, and materiality elements of the
fraud-on-the-market presumption.

Despite this settled law, the Fifth Circuit understood Amgen to
make questions about price impact off limits at the class-
certification stage.  The Supreme Court held in Amgen that
immateriality is not a proper ground for refusing to presume
reliance at the class-certification stage because it turns on
objective evidence common to the class and is an element of
securities fraud.  As a result, the Court reasoned, a lack of
materiality would lead to judgment for the defendant rather than
individual inquiries that would defeat class certification.

The Fifth Circuit concluded that price impact should be treated
like materiality. Proof of price impact is common class-wide
evidence, in the court's view.  And, even though price impact
itself is not an element of a securities-fraud claim, the court
ruled that proof that there was no price impact would mean that a
plaintiff could not establish loss causation -- which is an
element of securities fraud.  Thus, a victory for Halliburton on
price impact, the court explained, "will not result in the
possibility of individual claims continuing."  As the Fifth
Circuit understood Amgen, those conclusions meant that
"Halliburton's price impact evidence does not bear on the question
of common issue predominance, and is thus appropriately considered
only on the merits after the class has been certified."

The Fifth Circuit's ruling represents an unfortunate misreading of
the Supreme Court's troubling Amgen decision.  Under these
decisions, the limited fraud-on-the-market inquiry at the class-
certification stage is a slender reed on which to presume reliance
for class certification purposes and thereby allow sprawling and
coercive securities-fraud class actions.  From my perspective,
this is all the more reason to reconsider whether the economic and
other premises of the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance
are faulty, as four Justices suggested in Amgen.


HARTZ MOUNTAIN: Recalls Wardley Betta Fish Food Over Health Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartz Mountain Corporation, located in Secaucus, New Jersey,
is voluntarily recalling one specific lot of Wardley Betta Fish
Food 1.2 oz. size due to concerns that one or more containers
within the lot may have been potentially contaminated with
Salmonella.  Hartz is fully cooperating with the US Food and Drug
Administration in this voluntary recall.

Salmonella is a bacterial organism that can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in people, particularly young children,
frail or elderly people, and those with weakened immune systems.
Salmonella can affect animals eating the product and there is risk
to humans from handling contaminated products, especially if they
have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with
the product or any surfaces exposed to these products.  Some
healthy individuals infected with Salmonella may experience fever,
diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe or
chronic illness.

The product was shipped nationwide from May 13, 2013, through
June 4, 2013.  In total, 8,112 1.2-oz. plastic containers of
Wardley Betta Fish Food, UPC number 0-43324-01648, isolated to the
lot code PP06331 (located on the bottom), which were packaged by
Hartz at its Pleasant Plain, Ohio facility from a single
production run, were shipped.  Routine sample testing conducted by
Hartz as part of its quality control procedures detected the
presence of Salmonella in the lot specified.  Hartz is
aggressively investigating the source of the problem.  Picture of
the recalled products' label is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm356573.htm

Although Hartz has not received any reports of illness to date in
animals or humans as a result of coming into contact with this
product, Hartz is taking immediate steps to remove the product
from all retail stores and distribution centers.  Fish owners who
have purchased this product should check the lot code on their
containers.  If the code is not visible, or if the container has
the following lot code PP06331 imprinted on it, they should
immediately discontinue use of the product and discard in the
trash.

Consumers can contact Hartz Consumer Affairs at 1-800-275-1414 (24
hours/day 7 days/week) with any questions they may have and to
obtain reimbursement for purchased product.


HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Loses Bid to Reverse TCPA Class Action Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Lunsford, writing for insideARM.com, reports that a
District Court judge in Florida on May 30 rejected a collection
agency's motion to reconsider his earlier decision to certify a
class of defendants in a case seeking damages under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

In his order, U.S. District Judge Robert N. Scola Jr. wrote,
"Reconsideration is appropriate only in very limited
circumstances, none of which are presented here."

Judge Scola used sharper language later in the order, noting, "The
Defendants may not present arguments, lose, and then say, 'wait,
actually, here's another reason why class certification is
improper.'  The parties' arguments should not be moving targets,
like clay pigeons, that the Court is forced to repeatedly chase
after and shoot down.  The reconsideration device is not designed
'to permit losing parties to prop up arguments previously made or
to inject new ones,' nor 'to relieve a party of the consequences
of its original, limited presentation.'"

The case, Stephen M. Manno, et al. v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery
Group LLC, et al., was filed in 2011 and also names the hospital
operator as a defendant.

Stephen Manno, the proposed class representative, received medical
treatment in the emergency room at Memorial Hospital Pembroke.
While at Memorial, Mr. Manno was treated by the hospital's agent,
an attending physician of Inphynet, the hospital's operator.
During the admissions process, Mr. Manno filled out paperwork and
provided a cellular telephone number to the hospital.  Mr. Manno
claims that he did not expressly consent to use of the telephone
number for debt collection purposes.

Medical services obtained from Inphynet are billed through a
billing company, Health Care Financial Services (HCFS) and are
referred to Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group (HRRG) for
collection if the bill is not paid. All of the debts that HRRG
collects for Inphynet are medical debts.

Mr. Manno did not pay for the services he received at Memorial,
the debt went into default, and was referred to HRRG for
collection.  HRRG, in an effort to collect the hospital debt owed
to Inphynet, called Manno using the telephone number he provided
during the emergency room admissions process.  The telephone
number was in the name of his girlfriend, now wife, Shantal
Surprenant.

On June 17, 2010, HRRG, on behalf of Inphynet, allegedly left the
following prerecorded voicemail message for Mr. Manno in which it
failed to identify itself as a debt collector:

"This is HRRG calling.  We look forward to helping you.  Please
return our call at 1-800-984-9115.  Thank you."

This was allegedly the standard message HRRG was using in June of
2010 to contact consumers.

So Mr. Manno sued HRRG and Inphynet on June 15, 2011. He sought
class action certification for the suit claiming that the
conditions were right for such a ruling.

Judge Scola agreed with Mr. Manno in March, ruling that the class
met the prerequisites for certification.

On May 30, Judge Scola did agree to tweak the class definitions to
allow only former patients that provided Florida addresses to the
hospital at time of admission.  He also permited the Plaintiff to
withdraw his request for willful and knowing damages on behalf of
the TCPA class.


HERTZ CORP: Settles Class Action Over Excessive Fees for $11-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ama Sarfo, writing for Law360, reports that Hertz Corp. and an
electronic toll company have agreed to pay $11 million to settle a
proposed class action contending they conspired to impose
excessive fees and charges against customers, according to a
proposed settlement filed on May 30 in New Jersey federal court.

In a joint motion, Hertz, American Traffic Solutions Inc. and the
named plaintiffs asked the court for preliminary approval of their
settlement, saying the agreement comes after years of contentious
litigation.  The proposed settlement also seeks conditional
certification of a nationwide class of customers.


HOCKEYFEST: Number of Plaintiffs Not Enough to File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Gamble, writing for Brantford Expositor, reports that
Lindsay McMahon is not your typical concert-goer.  But last year
he arranged to book a big campsite at Brant Park for a friend's
birthday party.  When he was told all the spots had been reserved
for Hockeyfest, Mr. McMahon and his friends decided to add
Brantford's biggest outdoor concert to their weekend.

"I bought three tickets for myself and six others in my group
bought three tickets each.  We got the first pick of the
campsites.  I rented a Winnebago for the weekend. I never dreamed
it would be cancelled."

As concerns mounted that Hockeyfest was cancelled, McMahon wanted
to get the news straight from promoter Mr. Spoltore.

When Mr. Spoltore called a news conference just two days before
the concert was to begin, McMahon showed up at the Best Western.

Mr. Spoltore had been hoping to announce a new venue had been
found and that the musical weekend was rescued but minutes before
the conference began, his hopes were dashed.

"We had figured we were covered, although, right off the hop, I
wondered why the store was only taking cash.  I should have looked
deeper."

McMahon and each of his friends were out $225.  He was fortunate
to get most of his Winnebago deposit back and the group held the
party at a friend's home.

"It very much left a sour taste in my mouth, especially for my
friends.

"I'm not a young fella so I remember the concert with (Arthur J.)
Kelly and the Boston Pops and how Brantford got a bad rap for
that.  I never thought it would happen again in my lifetime."

Mr. McMahon might have been the first to get his campsite for
Hockeyfest but Lynn Sault and her family probably have the
distinction of being out of pocket the most funds.

"It was going to be a local family event and my mom decided to
fork out for the whole family to go and we invited friends too: a
big weekend concert in Brantford!"

Ms. Sault paid $2,800 at Sunrise Records for tickets for the
weekend Ms. Sault and her stepsister purchased three campsites.
People took time off work and friends from Cambridge and Toronto
made plans to come.  When the event was postponed the family was
"not impressed," said Ms. Sault.

But when they found out they couldn't get a ticket refund they
were angry.

"I spoke to Ralph (Spoltore) at one point and he said to hold on
to the tickets because he was putting another concert together.
Then he went into hiding."

Despite being out such a substantial amount of money, there's
little determination in Ms. Sault's family for going after
Hockeyfest in small-claims court because of locating Mr. Spoltore,
who is from Kitchener, or the Hockeyfest signatories.  And, even
if Sault were to win a judgment, she noted: "How do you get your
money?"

Like Mr. McMahon, Ms. Sault is also not a regular concert-goer.
Hockeyfest was going to be a special weekend of family, fun and
music.

"I would never try to go to another concert like this in
Brantford," said Ms. Sault.

Many of those who are holding the useless tickets commiserate with
each other on a Facebook site called: "I want my money back
Brantford Hockeyfest."

They encourage each other to fill out a Hockeyfest form asking for
refunds, which sometimes accepts the information and sometimes
doesn't seem to work, and they make angry noises about suing the
promoter.

Barb Beke, from Cambridge, hoped that the group would grow large
enough that the ticket-holders could launch a class-action suit
against Hockeyfest and Spoltore, but it just hasn't materialized.

"Everyone was interested in it but when I emailed back and forth
with a lawyer I found we weren't out enough collectively to make
an effective suit," she said.  "We only have 191 members."

Ms. Beke has successfully contacted Mr. Spoltore several times and
says the promoter was helpful in ensuring people could put their
information into the Hockeyfest claim form.

"He says he looks forward to winning the lawsuit and making sure
the ticket-holders are paid but there's no guarantee," she said.

"I'm just hoping that if he wins, he'll do the right thing."


HONDA MOTOR: Recalls RSX and S2000 Models of Honda and ACURA Cars
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 12, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           779
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013207
TC ID number:             2013207

On certain vehicles, the brake booster may have been manufactured
incorrectly and could develop a leak.  As such, the booster may be
unable to maintain vacuum when the brake pedal is depressed.  Loss
of brake power assist could occur, which may result in a crash
causing property damage and/or personal.  Correction: Dealers will
inspect and, if necessary, replace the brake booster assembly.

Affected products:

           Makes and models affected
   ------------------------------------------
   Make      Model     Model year(s) affected
   ----      -----     ----------------------
   HONDA     S2000     2006, 2007
   ACURA     RSX       2006

                           *     *     *

The Associated Press reports that Honda is recalling more than
18,000 cars in the U.S. to fix problems with the brakes.

The recall affects more than 13,000 Acura RSX compact cars from
2006 and the Honda S2000 sports car from the 2006 and 2007 model
years.

Honda says some power brake booster parts weren't made to
specifications.  That could cause a decrease in braking power over
time and could increase the risk of a crash.  But the company says
it doesn't know of any accidents or injuries from the problem.

Honda found the problem by watching warranty claims.  Owners will
be notified by mail in mid-July.  Dealers will replace the brake
booster if needed.


HURONIA REGIONAL: Law Firm Balks at Ontario's Delaying Tactics
--------------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky LLP on May 30 disclosed that victims of
institutional abuse in Ontario are dying before seeing the justice
they deserve, and it is time for the Wynne government to stop
dragging its feet.  Plaintiffs in a C$2-billion dollar class
action lawsuit against the province of Ontario have been subjected
to extraordinary government delays that their attorney Kirk Baert
-- kbaert@kmlaw.ca -- of Koskie Minsky LLP says he has never seen
in 20 years of practice.

Earlier in May, the province refused to agree to terms of
mediation, and has continually refused to admit that the
government owed a duty of care whatsoever to the children who were
placed in its care -- disgracefully re-victimizing the victims of
Huronia Regional Centre (HRC).  Crown attorneys have even tried to
pass the buck to the federal government, saying that the
conditions at HRC were the result of a lack of funding from
"higher levels of government".  A trial date is set for September
30 in Toronto and is expected to last 10 weeks.  However, the
Wynne government's delay tactics continue.

The class action arises from alleged abuses suffered by former
residents of HRC, a government institution in Orillia, Ontario
that was closed in 2009 after 133 years of so-called "treatment"
for people with intellectual disabilities.  Patricia Seth went to
live at HRC when she was just six years old and was not discharged
from the institution until 17 years later.  Ms. Seth said: "Living
[at HRC] was like being in jail.  We had no freedom.  We had no
hope."  Marie Slark, who resided at HRC from the age of seven
until 16 said: "When I lived at [HRC] I never had any control of
my life. I hated it there."

Ms. Slark, Ms. Seth and many others are proceeding with a class
action lawsuit against the Ontario government to seek justice and
compensation for the abuse and maltreatment they endured while
residing at HRC.  HRC opened in 1876, housing people who were
deemed to have cognitive and other disabilities.  At its peak,
more that 2,500 people lived at HRC and by the mid-1970s, the
Ontario government operated 16 such facilities.  The McGuinty
government closed the last of these institutions on March 31,
2009.

Since the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified their
lawsuit as a class action on July 30, 2010, government lawyers
have delayed by missing deadlines, making no offers to settle and
failing to meaningfully participate in mediation before a judge.
The government is now insisting that each plaintiff in the class
be assessed one by one, requiring plaintiffs to prove their
damages individually.  Not only is a class action supposed to
avoid this scenario, but many of the survivors have major
communicative disabilities, making the process much more
difficult.

These tactics have been emotionally devastating for the
plaintiffs, many of whom are now elderly and find it painful to
relive the memories of their years at Huronia.  People with
intellectual disabilities often don't have the same life
expectancy as the general population.  "Many of us will pass away
before we see justice," said Ms. Slark.  "But we won't give up.
What they did to us was wrong."

Koskie Minsky LLP is representing the former HRC residents
involved in the C$2-billion class action lawsuit against the
province of Ontario.

The class action alleges residents of the HRC suffered inhumane
treatment from 1945 until its closure in 2009 and that the
province of Ontario failed to properly care for, and protect,
those under its care.


HURONIA REGIONAL: Abuse Victims Balk at Premier's Inaction
----------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky LLP on May 31 disclosed that survivors of the
Huronia Regional Centre (HRC) have followed up on the May 30
dramatic Queen's Park press conference, demanding to know why --
after a full year -- Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne has yet to
make good on a personal promise she made to address the horrific
abuse they suffered.

Patricia Seth and Marie Slark, plaintiffs in a class action
lawsuit against HRC and the province of Ontario, met with Wynne at
a Truth and Reconciliation gathering in Toronto -- exactly a year
ago -- and told her about the abuse they endured by those
entrusted to care for and protect them.  Ms. Seth and Ms. Slark
were impressed with the attention the Premier paid to their
plight.  "She really seemed to care about us," recalls Ms. Slark
of the meeting.  Ms. Slark added, "Kathleen looked us right in the
eye and said she would help us.  But she hasn't.  Nothing has
happened and we never heard from her again.  Justice seems so far
away."

The institutional survivors followed up on their meeting with
Wynne.  In January 2013, Ms. Seth and Ms. Slark wrote to the then-
Minister during the Ontario Liberal leadership race, imploring
Wynne to help them and all the other victims receive justice in a
fair and timely manner.  "She never really responded to that,"
said Ms. Slark.

Ms. Slark was sent to HRC when she was just six years old and was
not discharged from the institution until 17 years later.
Patricia said: "Living there was like being in jail and our only
crime was being disabled.  I thought I would die in there." Marie,
who was institutionalized at HRC from the age of seven until 16
said: "When I lived at Huronia I never had any control of my life.
I hated it there."  Both women recollect a childhood filled with
abuse and fear.

Ms. Slark and Ms. Seth are proceeding with a class action lawsuit
against the Ontario government to seek justice and compensation
for the severe abuse they endured while residing at HRC. HRC
opened in 1876, housing people who were deemed to have cognitive
and other disabilities.  At its peak, more that 2,500 people lived
at HRC and by the mid-1970s, the Ontario government operated 16
such facilities.  The Liberal government closed the last of these
institutions on March 31, 2009.

Victims of institutional abuse in Ontario are dying before seeing
the justice they deserve, and they say it is time for the Wynne
government to stop dragging its feet.  Plaintiffs in a class
action lawsuit against the province of Ontario have been subjected
to extraordinary government delays that their lawyer -- Kirk Baert
of Koskie Minsky LLP -- says he has never before seen in 20 years
of practice.  "Premier Wynne and her Attorney General must stop
playing politics with these victims' lives and finally give them
the justice they deserve," stated Mr. Baert.

Koskie Minsky LLP is representing the former HRC residents
involved in the $2-billion class action lawsuit against the
province of Ontario.

The class action alleges residents of the HRC suffered inhumane
treatment from 1945 until its closure in 2009 and that the
province of Ontario failed to properly care for, and protect,
those under its care.

ONTACT: Celeste Poltak
        Koskie Minsky LLP
        E-mail: cpoltak@kmlaw.ca
        Telephone: (416) 595-2701


ILLINOIS: Prison Settlement Conference Scheduled for This Month
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Wildeboer, writing for WBEZ, reports that a lawsuit over
health care in prisons in Illinois is getting a boost from the
American Civil Liberties Union.  The federal class action lawsuit
charges the Department of Corrections and Wexford Health Sources,
a private healthcare company, with providing wholly inadequate
health care to inmates.

The suit was filed by Alan Mills who runs the Uptown People's Law
Center, which focuses on prison issues.  Mr. Mills says the ACLU
is joining the case and brings lots of experience to the table in
civil rights and class action cases.

His own group, Mr. Mills says, is a very small operation.

"We have lots of expertise in the way the prisons work," he said,
"but don't have the horses to do this alone, so I think everybody
brings to the table here some really good skills which will allow
us to bring this case through to a verdict in the plaintiff's
favor."

Mr. Mills says, so far, Wexford, the private health care company
with a contract to care for the inmates, and the Department of
Corrections have refused to sit down and discuss a possible
settlement.  Wexford and the Department of Corrections did not
immediately have a comment on the lawsuit.

The Illinois Department of Corrections and attorneys for
plaintiffs say they have a settlement conference scheduled for
late June.  The date for that settlement conference was set
several weeks ago.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Appeal in Class Suit vs. Bear Stearns Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Various shareholders of The Bear Stearns Companies LLC, formerly
The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. ("Bear Stearns"), a subsidiary of
JPMorgan Chase & Co., have commenced purported class actions
against Bear Stearns and certain of its former officers and/or
directors on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired common stock of Bear Stearns between December 14, 2006,
and March 14, 2008 (the "Class Period").  The actions alleged that
the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding Bear Stearns' business and financial results and that,
as a result of those false statements, Bear Stearns' common stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
In November 2012, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted final approval of a $275
million settlement.  Certain investors have elected not to
participate in the class settlement, and therefore may proceed
separately with individual actions or arbitrations.

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

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

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com/-- is a
financial holding company incorporated under Delaware law in 1968
and headquartered in New York.  JPMorgan is a global financial
services firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the
United States of America, with operations worldwide.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Awaits Rulings in Certain Madoff-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. is awaiting court decisions in few of the
various lawsuits related to Bernard L. Madoff Investment
Securities LLC, according to the Company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC, and J.P. Morgan Securities plc have been named as
defendants in a lawsuit brought by the trustee (the "Trustee") for
the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC
("Madoff").  The Trustee has served an amended complaint in which
he has asserted 28 causes of action against JPMorgan Chase, 20 of
which seek to avoid certain transfers (direct or indirect) made to
JPMorgan Chase that are alleged to have been preferential or
fraudulent under the federal Bankruptcy Code and the New York
Debtor and Creditor Law.  The remaining causes of action involve
claims for, among other things, aiding and abetting fraud, aiding
and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, contribution
and unjust enrichment in connection with Madoff's Ponzi scheme.
The complaint asserts common law claims that purport to seek
approximately $19 billion in damages, together with bankruptcy law
claims to recover approximately $425 million in transfers that
JPMorgan Chase allegedly received directly or indirectly from
Bernard Madoff's brokerage firm.  In October 2011, the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted JPMorgan Chase's motion to dismiss the common law claims
asserted by the Trustee, and returned the remaining claims to the
Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings.  The Trustee appealed
this decision and oral argument on the appeal was held in November
2012.  The Firm is awaiting the Court's decision.

Separately, J.P. Morgan Trust Company (Cayman) Limited, JPMorgan
(Suisse) SA, J.P. Morgan Securities plc, Bear Stearns Alternative
Assets International Ltd., J.P. Morgan Clearing Corp., J.P. Morgan
Bank Luxembourg SA, and J.P. Morgan Markets Limited (formerly Bear
Stearns International Limited) were named as defendants in
lawsuits filed in Bankruptcy Court in New York arising out of the
liquidation proceedings of Fairfield Sentry Limited and Fairfield
Sigma Limited (together, "Fairfield"), so-called Madoff feeder
funds.  These actions are based on theories of mistake and
restitution, among other theories, and seek to recover payments
made to defendants by the funds totaling approximately $155
million.  Pursuant to an agreement with the Trustee, the
liquidators of Fairfield have voluntarily dismissed their action
against J.P. Morgan Securities plc without prejudice to refiling.
The other actions remain outstanding.  In addition, a purported
class action was brought by investors in certain feeder funds
against JPMorgan Chase in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, as was a motion by separate
potential class plaintiffs to add claims against JPMorgan Chase &
Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and
J.P. Morgan Securities plc to an already pending purported class
action in the same court.  The allegations in these complaints
largely track those raised by the Trustee.  The Court dismissed
these complaints and the plaintiffs have appealed.  Oral argument
on the appeal was held in April 2013 and the Firm is awaiting the
Court's decision.

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

The Firm is also responding to various governmental investigations
relating to Madoff, including by the Department of Justice and
other regulators.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com/-- is a
financial holding company incorporated under Delaware law in 1968
and headquartered in New York.  JPMorgan is a global financial
services firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the
United States of America, with operations worldwide.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Awaits Rulings in Suits Over ARM Disclosures
------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. is awaiting court decisions in two of four
pending class action lawsuits related to disclosures in Option
Adjustable Rate Mortgage loans, according to the Company's May 8,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

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

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com/-- is a
financial holding company incorporated under Delaware law in 1968
and headquartered in New York.  JPMorgan is a global financial
services firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the
United States of America, with operations worldwide.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend Class Suits Related to LIBOR
----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to defend various lawsuits,
including class actions, alleging manipulation of the London
Interbank Offered Rate, according to the Company's May 8, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

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

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

In 2011, a number of class actions were filed against LIBOR panel
banks, including the Firm, asserting various federal and state law
claims relating to the alleged manipulation of U.S. dollar LIBOR.
These purported class actions were consolidated for pre-trial
purposes in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, where the Court has appointed interim lead
counsel for three proposed classes: (i) direct purchasers of U.S.
dollar LIBOR-based financial instruments in the over-the-counter
market; (ii) purchasers of U.S. dollar LIBOR-based financial
instruments on an exchange; and (iii) purchasers of debt
securities that pay an interest rate linked to U.S. dollar LIBOR.
In March 2013, the District Court granted in part and denied in
part the defendants' motions to dismiss the claims asserted in the
three putative class actions, as well as in three related
individual actions brought by various Charles Schwab entities.
The Court dismissed with prejudice all plaintiffs' federal and
state antitrust law, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization
Act and New York unjust enrichment claims, as well as certain
claims under the Commodities Exchange Act (the "CEA").  The Court
declined to dismiss certain other CEA claims and declined to
exercise jurisdiction over certain state and common law claims.
All of the actions pending before this Court that were not the
subject of the defendants' motion to dismiss have been stayed.

Since April 2012, a number of additional U.S. dollar LIBOR
putative class actions and individual actions have been filed in
various courts.  The Defendants have moved to transfer each of
these cases to the consolidated action pending in the Southern
District of New York.  To date, all but two of these actions have
been transferred.  The first is an individual action asserting
federal and New York State antitrust law claims and claims under
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"),
based upon the defendant banks' alleged upward manipulation of
U.S. dollar LIBOR.  The defendants' response to the complaint is
due in June 2013.  The second case is an individual action brought
by Freddie Mac in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, seeking damages for antitrust violations and
fraud for alleged U.S. dollar LIBOR manipulation.

In August 2012, a shareholder derivative action was filed in New
York state court, purportedly on behalf of the Firm, against
certain of the Firm's current and former directors and officers
for alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties in connection with
the alleged manipulation of LIBOR.  In April 2013, the court
granted defendants' motion to dismiss the action.

The Firm also has been named as a defendant in a purported class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York which seeks to bring claims on behalf of
plaintiffs, who purchased or sold exchange-traded Euroyen futures
and options contracts.  In April 2013, the plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint.  The Defendants' response to that
pleading is due in June 2013.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com/-- is a
financial holding company incorporated under Delaware law in 1968
and headquartered in New York.  JPMorgan is a global financial
services firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the
United States of America, with operations worldwide.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend Foreclosure Procedures Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to defend various mortgage
foreclosure-related investigations and litigation, according to
the Company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

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

The Firm is named as a defendant in three purported class action
lawsuits relating to its mortgage foreclosure procedures.  Two of
the actions are in the discovery phase and in the remaining
action, the court granted in part the Firm's motion to dismiss,
and denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Two shareholder derivative actions have been filed in New York
Supreme Court against the Firm's Board of Directors alleging that
the Board failed to exercise adequate oversight as to wrongful
conduct by the Firm regarding mortgage servicing.  These actions
seek declaratory relief and damages.  In July 2012, the Court
granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the first-
filed action and gave the plaintiff 45 days in which to file an
amended complaint.  In October 2012, the Court entered a
stipulated order consolidating the actions and staying all
proceedings pending the plaintiffs' decision whether to file a
consolidated complaint after the Firm completes its response to a
demand submitted by one of the plaintiffs under Section 220 of the
Delaware General Corporation Law.

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

On January 7, 2013, the Firm announced that it and a number of
other financial institutions entered into a settlement agreement
with the Comptroller of the Currency (the "OCC") and the Federal
Reserve providing for the termination of the Independent
Foreclosure Review programs that had been required under the
Consent Orders with such banking regulators relating to each
bank's residential mortgage servicing, foreclosure and loss-
mitigation activities.  Under this settlement, the Firm will make
a cash payment of approximately $750 million into a settlement
fund for distribution to qualified borrowers.  The Firm has also
committed an additional $1.2 billion to foreclosure prevention
actions under the settlement, which will be fulfilled through
credits given to the Firm for modifications, short sales and other
types of borrower relief.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com/-- is a
financial holding company incorporated under Delaware law in 1968
and headquartered in New York.  JPMorgan is a global financial
services firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the
United States of America, with operations worldwide.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend Municipal Derivatives Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to face various municipal
derivatives investigations and litigation, according to the
Company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

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

In addition, civil actions have been commenced against the Firm
relating to certain Jefferson County, Alabama (the "County"),
warrant underwritings and swap transactions.  In November 2009,
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC settled with the SEC to resolve its
investigation into those transactions.  Following that settlement,
the County filed an action against the Firm and several other
defendants in Alabama state court.  An action on behalf of a
purported class of sewer rate payers has also been filed in
Alabama state court.  The lawsuits allege that the Firm made
payments to certain third parties in exchange for being chosen to
underwrite more than $3 billion in warrants issued by the County
and to act as the counterparty for certain swaps executed by the
County.  The complaints also allege that the Firm concealed these
third-party payments and that, but for this concealment, the
County would not have entered into the transactions.  The Court
denied the Firm's motions to dismiss the complaints in both
proceedings.  In November and December 2011, the County filed
notices of bankruptcy with the trial court in each of the cases
and with the Alabama Supreme Court stating that it was a Chapter 9
Debtor in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of
Alabama.  Subsequently, the portion of the sewer rate payer action
involving claims against the Firm was removed by certain
defendants to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama.  In its order finding that removal of this
action was proper, the District Court referred the action to the
District's Bankruptcy Court, where the action remains pending.
Limited discovery has taken place in the County's action and
additional discovery may take place in 2013.

In September 2012, another group of sewer ratepayers from the
County initiated an adversary proceeding and filed a purported
class action complaint alleging that certain warrants were issued
unlawfully and were thus null and void and seeking $1.6 billion in
damages from the Firm and other defendants involved in the
Jefferson County financing transactions.  The Firm, along with a
number of other defendants, moved to dismiss the complaint in
November 2012.  The Plaintiffs subsequently agreed to dismiss
their tort claims seeking damages and are solely pursuing their
claims relating to the validity of the warrants.  At a hearing on
the motions to dismiss, the Bankruptcy Court gave the plaintiffs
leave to replead their claims.  The Plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint in April 2013, which names only Jefferson County
and the indenture trustee as defendants and does not name the Firm
as a defendant, and thus no longer seeks affirmative damages from
the Firm.  The Plaintiffs do still seek a declaration that certain
warrants are null and void.  Motions to dismiss the second amended
complaint were filed in April 2013, and remain pending.

Two insurance companies that guaranteed the payment of principal
and interest on warrants issued by the County have filed separate
actions against the Firm in New York state court.  Their
complaints assert that the Firm fraudulently misled them into
issuing insurance based upon substantially the same alleged
conduct and other alleged non-disclosures.  One insurer claims
that it insured an aggregate principal amount of nearly $1.2
billion and seeks unspecified damages in excess of $400 million as
well as unspecified punitive damages.  The other insurer claims
that it insured an aggregate principal amount of more than $378
million and seeks recovery of $4 million allegedly paid under the
policies to date as well as any future payments and unspecified
punitive damages.  In December 2010, the court denied the Firm's
motions to dismiss each of the complaints.  The Firm filed a
cross-claim and a third party claim against the County for
indemnity and contribution.  The County moved to dismiss, which
the court denied in August 2011.  In consequence of its November
2011 bankruptcy filing, the County has asserted that these actions
are stayed. In February 2012, one of the insurers filed a motion
for a declaration that its action is not stayed as against the
Firm or, in the alternative, for an order lifting the stay as
against the Firm.  In April 2013, the Bankruptcy Court denied the
insurer's motion and ruled that the insurer's action is stayed
against the Firm and that cause does not exist to lift the stay.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com/-- is a
financial holding company incorporated under Delaware law in 1968
and headquartered in New York.  JPMorgan is a global financial
services firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the
United States of America, with operations worldwide.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Continues to Defend Various MBS-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to defend itself and its
subsidiaries against various lawsuits related to mortgage-backed
securities, according to the Company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

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

In the actions against the Firm as an MBS issuer (and, in some
cases, also as an underwriter of its own MBS offerings), three
purported class actions are pending against JPMorgan Chase and
Bear Stearns, and/or certain of their affiliates and current and
former employees, in the United States District Courts for the
Eastern and Southern Districts of New York.  Motions to dismiss
have been largely denied in these cases, although in certain cases
defendants have sought to appeal aspects of the decision, and they
are in various stages of litigation.

In addition to class actions, the Firm is also a defendant in
individual actions brought against certain affiliates of JPMorgan
Chase, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual as issuers (and, in some
cases, as underwriters) of MBS.  These actions involve claims by
or to benefit various institutional investors and governmental
agencies.  These actions are pending in federal and state courts
across the United States and are in various stages of litigation.

In actions against the Firm solely as an underwriter of other
issuers' MBS offerings, the Firm has contractual rights to
indemnification from the issuers.  However, those indemnity rights
may prove effectively unenforceable where the issuers are now
defunct, such as in a pending case where the Firm has been named
involving affiliates of IndyMac Bancorp.  A settlement of a
purported class action involving Thornburg Mortgage MBS offerings
that was pending against the Firm has received final court
approval.  The Firm may also be contractually obligated to
indemnify underwriters in certain deals it issued.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com/-- is a
financial holding company incorporated under Delaware law in 1968
and headquartered in New York.  JPMorgan is a global financial
services firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the
United States of America, with operations worldwide.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Facing CIO Investigations and Suits
---------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase & Co. continues to cooperate and defend
investigations and litigations relating to losses in the synthetic
credit portfolio managed by its Chief Investment Office, according
to the Company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

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

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

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

Nine shareholder derivative actions have also been filed,
purportedly on behalf of the Firm, against certain of the Firm's
current and former directors and officers for alleged breaches of
their fiduciary duties.  These actions generally allege that
defendants failed to exercise adequate oversight over CIO and to
manage the risk of CIO's activities, which allegedly led to CIO's
losses.  Two of these actions have been consolidated.

The consolidated securities action, the consolidated ERISA action,
the consolidated shareholder derivative action and one of the
derivative actions are pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, and the other six
derivative actions are pending in New York State court.  In April
2013, a New York State court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
one of the shareholder derivative actions on the ground that the
plaintiff failed to make a demand on the Firm's Board of Directors
or adequately allege demand futility, as required by applicable
Delaware law.  The Defendants have not yet responded to the
complaints in any of the other actions.

In January 2013, JPMorgan Chase & Co. entered into a Consent Order
with the Federal Reserve and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. entered
into a Consent Order with the OCC arising out of the Federal
Reserve's and the OCC's reviews of the CIO, including the
synthetic credit portfolio previously held by the CIO.  The
Consent Orders relate to risk management, model governance and
other control functions related to CIO and certain other trading
activities at the Firm.  Many of the actions required by the
Consent Orders have already been, or are in the process of being,
implemented by the Firm.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com/-- is a
financial holding company incorporated under Delaware law in 1968
and headquartered in New York.  JPMorgan is a global financial
services firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the
United States of America, with operations worldwide.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Dismissal of ARS-Related Suits Affirmed in March
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed
in March 2013 the dismissal of class action lawsuits against
JPMorgan Chase & Co. in connection with the sale of auction-rate
securities, according to the Company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

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

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

The Firm also was named in two putative antitrust class actions.
The actions alleged that the Firm, along with numerous other
financial institution defendants, colluded to maintain and
stabilize the ARS market and then to withdraw their support for
the ARS market.  In January 2010, the District Court dismissed
both actions.  In March 2013, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the cases with
prejudice.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com/-- is a
financial holding company incorporated under Delaware law in 1968
and headquartered in New York.  JPMorgan is a global financial
services firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the
United States of America, with operations worldwide.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Hearing on $107.5-MM MF Global Deal Set for July
----------------------------------------------------------------
A joint hearing to consider approval of JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s
$107.5 million settlement to resolve all claims that have been or
could be asserted by the customer class and the MF Global SIPA
Trustee has been set for July 2013, according to the Company's
May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. was named as one of several defendants in a
number of putative class action lawsuits brought by former
customers of MF Global in federal District Courts in New York,
Illinois and Montana.  The lawsuits were consolidated before the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The actions alleged, among other things, that the Firm
aided and abetted MF Global's alleged misuse of customer money and
breaches of fiduciary duty and was unjustly enriched by the
transfer of certain customer segregated funds by MF Global.

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

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

In March 2013, the Firm entered into a settlement agreement with
the customer class plaintiffs and the SIPA Trustee, pursuant to
which the Firm has agreed to pay a total of $107.5 million to
resolve all claims that have been or could be asserted by the
customer class and the SIPA Trustee against the Firm and any of
its affiliates or employees.  In addition, under the proposed
settlement, the Firm has agreed to release certain liens and set-
off rights it had retained in certain MF Global proprietary funds
that were previously remitted to the SIPA Trustee, and to remit
certain additional MF Global proprietary funds that the Firm held
to secure potential obligations under certain agreements with MF
Global and its U.K. affiliate.  The settlement remains subject to
approval by both the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court.  A
joint hearing to consider approval of the settlement by those
Courts has been set for July 2013.

The Firm is also continuing to respond to inquiries from the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC"), SEC and Bankruptcy
Trustee concerning MF Global.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com/-- is a
financial holding company incorporated under Delaware law in 1968
and headquartered in New York.  JPMorgan is a global financial
services firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the
United States of America, with operations worldwide.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Interchange Suit Settlement Hearing Set for Sept.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing on final approval of a settlement of class action
lawsuits over interchange fees is scheduled for September 2013,
according to JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

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

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

In April 2013, Class Plaintiffs moved for final approval of the
settlement.  The hearing on final approval is scheduled for
September 2013.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com/-- is a
financial holding company incorporated under Delaware law in 1968
and headquartered in New York.  JPMorgan is a global financial
services firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the
United States of America, with operations worldwide.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Trial in Securities Lending Suit Begins Jan. 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
scheduled a trial to begin January 2014 in the class action
lawsuit against a subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co. brought by
participants in its securities lending business, according to the
Company's May 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., was named as a defendant in a putative
class action pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York brought by participants in the
Firm's securities lending business.  The action relates to
investments of approximately $500 million in Lehman Brothers
medium-term notes.  The Court granted the Firm's motion to dismiss
all claims in April 2012.  The plaintiff filed a third amended
complaint, which the Firm also moved to dismiss.  In March 2013,
the Court denied the motion to dismiss and scheduled a trial to
begin January 2014.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com/-- is a
financial holding company incorporated under Delaware law in 1968
and headquartered in New York.  JPMorgan is a global financial
services firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the
United States of America, with operations worldwide.


KATHY'S CATERING: Recalls Salad/Quiche Over Undeclared Allergens
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 12, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Mustard,
                          Allergen - Soy, Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Kathy's Catering Service
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8065

Affected products:

  Brand
  name       Common name             Size    Code(s) on product
  ----       -----------             ----    ------------------
  Kathy's    Broccoli Salad          454 g   BBD June 9, 2013
  Catering                                   BBD June 13, 2013

  Kathy's    Potato Salad            454 g   BBD June 9, 2013
  Catering                                   BBD June 11, 2013
                                             BBD June 13, 2013

  Kathy's    Tuna Macaroni Salad     454 g   BBD June 12, 2013
  Catering

  Kathy's    Cold Bean Salad         454 g   BBD June 16, 2013
  Catering

  Kathy's    Garden Fresh Bowtie     454 g   BBD June 19, 2013
  Catering   Salad

  Kathy's    Tomato and Spinach      475 g   None
  Catering   Quiche

  Kathy's    Bacon and Tomato        475 g   None
  Catering   Quiche

  Kathy's    Bacon and Mushroom      475 g   None
  Catering   Quiche

  Kathy's    Broccoli Quiche         475 g   None
  Catering

  Kathy's    Asparagus Quiche        475 g   None
             Catering

  Kathy's    Ham and Spinach Quiche  475 g   None
  Catering

  Kathy's    Bacon Quiche            475 g   None
  Catering

  Kathy's    Ham Quiche              475 g   None
  Catering

  Kathy's    Macaroni and Cheese     454 g   None
  Catering   Casserole

  Kathy's    Perogies with Bacon,    454 g   None
  Catering   Cheese, and Onion


KELLOGG CO: Settles Factory Workers' Class Action for $550,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Prochilo, writing for Law360, reports that Kellogg Co. agreed
to pay $550,000 to resolve a 5-year-old suit by workers at five
factories who alleged the company broke federal labor law by not
paying them for time spent walking from the changing rooms where
they put on their uniforms to the time clocks where they punched
in and out, according to a motion filed on May 29.

Of that amount, $226,246 will be paid to the 398 production
workers who worked at Kellogg manufacturing plants in Tennessee,
Michigan, Pennsylvania and Nebraska since October 2008.


LIPARI FOODS: Recalls Raw/Roasted Sunflower Seeds and Snack Mixes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lipari Foods of Warren, Michigan, is recalling Raw Sunflower
Seeds, Roasted Sunflower Seeds and Snack Mixes, because they have
the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems.  Although healthy individuals may suffer only
short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache,
stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection
can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

Raw Sunflower Seeds, Roasted Sunflower Seeds, and Snack Mixes were
distributed from April 5, 2013, to June 11, 2013, to manufacturers
and retailers in the following states: Ohio, Michigan, West
Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Illinois,
and Indiana.

In total there are 52 items affected by this recall.  A complete
list of products including UPC and lot codes is given below.
Detailed information will be mailed out to each store affected by
the recall.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was the result of a routine sampling program by the
Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) which revealed that
retail packaged raw sunflower seed products contained Listeria
monocytogenes.  These findings led to an investigation by Lipari
Foods concluding that bulk raw sunflower seeds purchased from a
supplier was the source of the contamination and that these
sunflower seeds had also been used in other snack mix products and
may have also resulted in cross contamination to roasted sunflower
seeds and snack mix products during production.  Lipari Foods has
ceased the procurement, processing, and distribution of the
product as the FDA and Lipari Foods continue their investigation
as to what caused the problem.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at (586)447-3500
Monday to Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard
Time.

Recalled Item List for possible contamination of Listeria
monocytogenes:

   * Item Number: 101643
     Item Description: TUB CHOC DD PEANUTS
     Brand: ZOPPITTY
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 8 OZ 2-Piece Clear Tub (Zoppity Label on Top,
                   Nutritional Label on Bottom)
     UPC Number: 094776095575
     Lot Number: 22201304
     Best By Date: 4/22/2014

   * Item Number: 192772
     Item Description: BAG CLR SUNFLOWER R/SEA SALT
     Brand: PIC-A-NUT
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 11 OZ Clear Plastic Bag (Pic-A-Nut Label on
                   Front, Nutritional Label on Back)
     UPC Number: 070207018849
     Lot Number: 23201305
     Best By Date: 5/23/2014

   * Item Number: 192806
     Item Description: BAG CLR PUMPKIN SD R/SEA SALT
     Brand: PIC-A-NUT
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 9 OZ Clear Plastic Bag (Pic-A-Nut Label on
                   Front, Nutritional Label on Back)
     UPC Number: 070207018832
     Lot Number: 23201305
     Best By Date: 5/23/2014

   * Item Number: 192874
     Item Description: BAG CLR SUNFLOWER MEAT W/SLT
     Brand: PIC-A-NUT
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 7 OZ Clear Plastic Bag (Pic-A-Nut Label on
                   Front, Nutritional Label on Back)
     UPC Number: 070207000424
     Lot Number: 15201304
     Best By Date: 4/15/2014

   * Item Number: 192959
     Item Description: BAGS SM PEPITA SEEDS R/S
     Brand: PIC-A-NUT
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 2.75 OZ Clear Plastic Bag (Pic-A-Nut Label on
                   Front, Nutritional Label on Back)
     UPC Number: 070207022501
     Lot Number: 23201305
     Best By Date: 5/23/20142

   * Item Number: 192976
     Item Description: BAG CLR SUNFLOWER MEAT RAW PP
     Brand: Pic-A-Nut
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 7 OZ Clear Plastic Bag (Pic-A-Nut Label on
                   Front, Nutritional Label on Back)
     UPC Number: 070207000202
     Lot Numbers: 08201304, 15201304, 23201305, 03201306,
                   06201306
     Best By Dates: 4/8/2014, 4/15/2014, 5/23/2014, 6/3/2014,
                   6/6/2014

   * Item Number: 192993
     Item Description: BAG CLR SESAME STX OAT BRAN PP
     Brand: PIC-A-NUT
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 4.75 OZ Clear Plastic Bag (Pic-A-Nut Label on
                   Front, Nutritional Label on Back)
     UPC Number: 070207000011
     Lot Number: 23201305
     Best By Date: 5/23/2014

   * Item Number: 193010
     Item Description: BAGS SM CASHEW JUMBO R/S
     Brand: PIC-A-NUT
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 1 OZ Fully Preprinted Old Style Pic-A-Nut Bag
     UPC Number: 070207022068
     Lot Number: 23201305
     Best By Date: 5/23/2014

   * Item Number: 193044
     Item Description: BAGS LG PECAN PIECES
     Brand: PIC-A-NUT
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 4 OZ Fully Preprinted Old Style Pic-A-Nut Bag
     UPC Number: 070207016227
     Lot Number: 08201304
     Best By Date: 4/8/2014

   * Item Number: 193061
     Item Description: BAG CLR ALMOND SLICED RAW PP
     Brand: PIC-A-NUT
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 9 OZ Clear Plastic Bag (Pic-A-Nut Label on
                   Front, Nutritional Label on Back)
     UPC Number: 070207000110
     Lot Numbers: 08201304, 23201305, 03201306
     Best By Dates: 4/8/2014, 5/23/2014, 6/3/20143

   * Item Number: 193078
     Item Description: BAGS SM SUNFLOWER SHELLED R/S
     Brand: PIC-A-NUT
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 4 OZ Fully Preprinted Old Style Pic-A-Nut Bag
     UPC Number: 070207029029
     Lot Number: 23201305
     Best By Date: 5/23/2014

   * Item Number: 193095
     Item Description: BAGS LG SESAME STIX HONEY
     Brand: PIC-A-NUT
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 4.5 OZ Fully Preprinted New Style Pic-A-Nut
                   Bag
     UPC Number: 070207004484
     Lot Numbers: 15201304, 23201305
     Best By Dates: 4/15/2014, 5/23/2014

   * Item Number: 193129
     Item Description: BAGS LG CASHEW JUMBO R/S
     Brand: PIC-A-NUT
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 6 OZ Fully Preprinted New Style Pic-A-Nut Bag
     UPC Number: 070207022853
     Lot Numbers: 15201304, 23201305
     Best By Dates: 4/15/2014, 5/23/2014

   * Item Number: 193282
     Item Description: BAG CLR CASHEW JUMBO N/SALT PP
     Brand: PIC-A-NUT
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 9 OZ Clear Plastic Bag (Pic-A-Nut Label on
                   Front, Nutritional Label on Back)
     UPC Number: 070207000288
     Lot Number: 06201306
     Best By Date: 6/6/2014

   * Item Number: 193333
     Item Description: BAGS LG WALNUT HALVES & PIECES
     Brand: PIC-A-NUT
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 6.5 OZ Fully Preprinted Old Style Pic-A-Nut
                   Bag
     UPC Number: 070207015206
     Lot Numbers: 08201304, 06201306
     Best By Dates: 4/8/2014, 6/6/20144

   * Item Number: 193435
     Item Description: BAGS LG PUMPKIN SEEDS I/S R/S
     Brand: PIC-A-NUT
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 7 OZ Fully Preprinted New Style Pic-A-Nut Bag
     UPC Number: 070207025151
     Lot Number: 23201305
     Best By Date: 5/23/2014

   * Item Number: 193673
     Item Description: BAGS SM PEPITA SEEDS R/S
     Brand: PIC-A-NUT
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 1.75 OZ Fully Preprinted New Style Pic-A-Nut
                   Bag
     UPC Number: 070207025106
     Lot Number: 23201305
     Best By Date: 5/23/2014

   * Item Number: 193775
     Item Description: BAGS SM ALMOND SLIVERED
     Brand: PIC-A-NUT
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 1.75 OZ Fully Preprinted Old Style Pic-A-Nut
                   Bag
     UPC Number: 070207018412
     Lot Numbers: 08201304, 23201305
     Best By Dates: 4/8/2014, 5/23/2014

   * Item Number: 193843
     Item Description: BAGS SM ALMONDS SLICED RAW
     Brand: PIC-A-NUT
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 1.75 OZ Fully Preprinted Old Style Pic-A-Nut
                   Bag
     UPC Number: 070207018351
     Lot Numbers: 08201304, 03201306, 06201306
     Best By Dates: 4/8/2014, 6/3/2014, 6/6/2014

   * Item Number: 193894
     Item Description: BAGS SM ALMONDS WHOLE RAW
     Brand: PIC-A-NUT
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 1.75 OZ Fully Preprinted New Style Pic-A-Nut
                   Bag
     UPC Number: 070207018405
     Lot Number: 06201306
     Best By Date: 6/6/20145

   * Item Number: 196274
     Item Description: BAGS LG ALMOND SLICED
     Brand: PIC-A-NUT
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 3.25 OZ Fully Preprinted New Style Pic-A-Nut
                   Bag
     UPC Number: 070207018207
     Lot Numbers: 08201304, 23201305
     Best By Dates: 4/8/2014, 5/23/2014

   * Item Number: 196291
     Item Description: BAGS SM WALNUT HALVES & PIECES
     Brand: PIC-A-NUT
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 1 OZ Fully Preprinted Old Style Pic-A-Nut Bag
     UPC Number: 070207015121
     Lot Number: 08201304
     Best By Date: 4/8/2014

   * Item Number: 196325
     Item Description: BAG CLR ALMOND SLIVERED
     Brand: PIC-A-NUT
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 9 OZ Clear Plastic Bag (Pic-A-Nut Label on
                   Front, Nutritional Label on Back)
     UPC Number: 070207000127
     Lot Number: 06201306
     Best By Date: 6/6/2014

   * Item Number: 201612
     Item Description: BAGS SM PISTACHIO SHELLED R/S
     Brand: PIC-A-NUT
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 0.75 OZ Fully Preprinted New Style Pic-A-Nut
                   Bag
     UPC Number: 070207020217
     Lot Numbers: 15201304, 23201305
     Best By Dates: 4/15/2014, 5/23/2014

   * Item Number: 204128
     Item Description: TUB PAN MD ALMOND ROASTED N/S
     Brand: PIC-A-NUT
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 11 OZ 2-Piece Clear Plastic Tub (Pic-A-Nut
                   Label on Top, Nutritional Label on Bottom)
     UPC Number: 070207005030
     Lot Number: 30201305
     Best By Date: 05/30/20146

   * Item Number: 204145
     Item Description: TUB PAN MD CASHEW JUMBO N/S
     Brand: PIC-A-NUT
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 10 OZ 2-Piece Clear Plastic Tub (Pic-A-Nut
                   Label on Top, Nutritional Label on Bottom)
     UPC Number: 070207005061
     Lot Number: 30201305
     Best By Date: 05/30/2014

   * Item Number: 208903
     Item Description: TUB SM PEPITA ROASTED W/SALT
     Brand: JLM TUB
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 8 OZ 2-Piece Clear Plastic Tub (No Label on
                   Top, Nutritional Label on Bottom)
     UPC Number: 760208113017
     Lot Number: 09201305
     Best By Date: 5/9/2014

   * Item Number: 224411
     Item Description: MIX CHERRY BERRY DELITE
     Brand: JLM Mix
     Case Pack: 1
     Package Size: 25# Cardboard Box with Plastic Liner
     UPC: 094776121793
     Lot Number: 15201304
     Best By Date: 04/15/14

   * Item Number: 333803
     Item Description: TUB SM PISTACHIO MEAT RAW
     Brand: JLM TUB
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 9 OZ 2-Piece Clear Plastic Tub (No Label on
                   Top, Nutritional Label on Bottom)
     UPC Number: 760208123818
     Lot Numbers: 23201305, 24201305
     Best By Dates: 05/23/2014, 05/24/2014

   * Item Number: 357642
     Item Description: TUB SM ALMOND WHOLE RAW
     Brand: JLM TUB
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 10 OZ 2-Piece Clear Plastic Tub (No Label on
                   Top, Nutritional Label on Bottom)
     UPC Number: 760208107450
     Lot Numbers: 23201305, 24201305
     Best By Dates: 05/23/2014, 05/24/2014

   * Item Number: 364761
     Item Description: BAGS SUNFLOWER KERNEL RAW PP
     Brand: JLM Valued Bags
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 12 OZ Clear Plastic Bag (Black Label on Front,
                   Nutritional Label on Back)
     UPC Number: 094776110452
     Lot Numbers: 08201304, 30201304, 05201306
     Best By Dates: 4/8/2014, 4/30/2014, 6/5/2014

   * Item Number: 364773
     Item Description: BAGS PUMPKIN SEEDS NATURAL PP
     Brand: JLM VALUED BAGS
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 9 OZ Clear Plastic Bag (Black Label on Front,
                   Nutritional Label on Back)
     UPC Number: 094776110353
     Lot Number: 05201306
     Best By Date: 6/5/2014

   * Item Number: 364926
     Item Description: BAGS PEAS WASABI PP
     Brand: JLM VALUED BAGS
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 10 OZ Clear Plastic Bag (Black Label on Front,
                   Nutritional Label on Back)
     UPC Number: 094776110582
     Lot Number: 08201304
     Best By Date: 4/8/2014

   * Item Number: 364932
     Item Description: BAGS PRETZELS YOGURT PP
     Brand: JLM VALUED BAGS
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 10 OZ Clear Plastic Bag (Black Label on Front,
                   Nutritional Label on Back)
     UPC Number: 094776110599
     Lot Number: 08201304
     Best By Date: 4/8/2014

   * Item Number: 365163
     Item Description: BAGS BANANA CHIPS PP
     Brand: JLM VALUED BAGS
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 10 OZ Clear Plastic Bag (Black Label on Front,
                   Nutritional Label on Back)
     UPC Number: 094776110186
     Lot Numbers: 08201304, 30201304
     Best By Dates: 4/8/2014, 4/30/20148

   * Item Number: 365172
     Item Description: BAGS MIX CHERRY BRRY DELITE PP
     Brand: JLM Valued Bags
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 9.5 OZ Clear Plastic Bag (Black Label on
                   Front, Nutritional Label on Back)
     UPC Number: 094776110209
     Lot Numbers: 08201304, 30201304
     Best By Dates: 4/8/2014, 4/30/2014

   * Item Number: 366568
     Item Description: TUB LG MIX DIET DELIGHT
     Brand: JLM TUB
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 14 OZ 2-Piece Clear Plastic Tub (No Label on
                   Top, Nutritional Label on Bottom)
     UPC Number: 094776081769
     Lot Numbers: 09201304, 20201305
     Best By Dates: 4/9/2014, 05/20/2014

   * Item Number: 368712
     Item Description: TUB MD GOOD & PLENTY
     Brand: JLM TUB
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 16 OZ 2-Piece Clear Plastic Tub (No Label on
                   Top, Nutritional Label on Bottom)
     UPC Number: 094776110032
     Lot Number: 30201305
     Best By Date: 05/30/2014

   * Item Number: 368729
     Item Description: TUB MD HAZELNUT/FILBERT RAW
     Brand: JLM TUB
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 9 OZ 2-Piece Clear Plastic Tub (No Label on
                   Top, Nutritional Label on Bottom)
     UPC Number: 094776110049
     Lot Number: 30201305
     Best By Date: 05/30/2014

   * Item Number: 368768
     Item Description: TUB LG SUNFLOWER MEAT R/NS
     Brand: JLM TUB
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 14 OZ 2-Piece Clear Plastic Tub (No Label on
                   Top, Nutritional Label on Bottom)
     UPC Number: 094776081752
     Lot Numbers: 09201304, 24201304, 20201305, 30201305
     Best By Dates: 4/9/2014, 04/24/2014, 05/20/2014, 05/30/2014

   * Item Number: 373703
     Item Description: TUB LG ALMOND ROASTED N/SLT
     Brand: JLM TUB
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 15 OZ 2-Piece Clear Plastic Tub (No Label on
                   Top, Nutritional Label on Bottom)
     UPC Number: 094776076116
     Lot Number: 01201305
     Best By Date: 05/01/2014

   * Item Number: 374103
     Item Description: TUB LG ALMOND WHOLE RAW
     Brand: JLM TUB
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 15 OZ 2-Piece Clear Plastic Tub (No Label on
                   Top, Nutritional Label on Bottom)
     UPC Number: 094776081820
     Lot Number: 09201304
     Best By Date: 4/9/2014

   * Item Number: 374903
     Item Description: TUB LG MIXED NUTS DELUXE W/S
     Brand: JLM TUB
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 13 OZ 2-Piece Clear Plastic Tub (No Label on
                   Top, Nutritional Label on Bottom)
     UPC Number: 094776081707
     Lot Number: 24201304
     Best By Date: 04/24/2014

   * Item Number: 379235
     Item Description: BAG CLEAR PINE NUTS
     Brand: PIC-A-NUT
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 3 OZ Clear Plastic Bag (Pic-A-Nut Label on
                   Front, Nutritional Label on Back)
     UPC Number: 094776110087
     Lot Number: 03201306
     Best By Date: 6/3/2014

   * Item Number: 392103
     Item Description: TUB LG CASHEW RAW WHOLE 320
     Brand: JLM TUB
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 14 OZ 2-Piece Clear Plastic Tub (No Label on
                   Top, Nutritional Label on Bottom)
     UPC Number: 760208124983
     Lot Number: 09201304
     Best By Date: 4/9/2014

   * Item Number: 395203
     Item Description: TUB LG SUNFLOWER MEAT RAW
     Brand: JLM Tub
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 14 OZ 2-Piece Clear Plastic Tub (No label on
                   Top, Nutritional Label on Bottom)
     UPC Number: 094776081738
     Lot Numbers: 09201304, 24201304, 01201305, 20201305,
                   30201305
     Best By Dates: 4/9/2014, 4/24/2014, 5/1/2014, 5/20/2014,
                   5/30/2014

   * Item Number: 461564
     Item Description: TUB PL LG SUNFLOWER SEED RAW (Private
                   Label)
     Brand: JLM Tub (Private Label)
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 14 OZ 2-Piece Clear Plastic Tub (Private Label
                   on Top, Nutritional Label on Bottom)
     UPC Number: 094776081738
     Lot Numbers: 09201304, 24201304, 01201305, 20201305,
                   30201305
     Best By Dates: 4/9/2014, 4/24/2014, 5/1/2014, 5/20/2014,
                   5/30/2014

   * Item Number: 423622
     Item Description: TUB MD MIX CHERRY BERRY
     Brand: Lipari
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 12 OZ 2-Piece Clear Plastic Tub ('Cherry'
                   Label on Top, Nutritional Label on Bottom)
     UPC Number: 094776111404
     Lot Number: 16201305
     Best By Date: 5/16/2014

   * Item Number: 545303
     Item Description: NATURAL GINGER CRYSTALLIZED
     Brand: ALEX'S NATURAL
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 7 OZ 2-Piece Clear Plastic Tub (Alex's Natural
                   Label on Top, Nutritional Label on Bottom)
     UPC Number: 094776082940
     Lot Number: 09201305
     Best By Date: 5/9/2014

   * Item Number: 545603
     Item Description: NATURAL ALMONDS DARK CHOC
     Brand: ALEX'S NATURAL
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 11 OZ 2-Piece Clear Plastic Tub (Alex's
                   Natural Label on Top, Nutritional Label on
                   Bottom)
     UPC Number: 094776082971
     Lot Number: 08201304
     Best By Date: 4/8/201411

   * Item Number: 545803
     Item Description: NATURAL SUNFLOWER KERNEL
     Brand: Alex's Natural
     Case Pack: 12
     Package Size: 9 OZ 2-Piece Clear Plastic Tub (Alex's Natural
                   Label on Top, Nutritional Label on Bottom)
     UPC Number: 094776082995
     Lot Numbers: 08201304, 22201304, 08201305, 09201305,
                   23201305, 24201305
     Best By Dates: 4/8/2014, 4/22/2014, 5/8/2014, 5/9/2014,
                   5/23/2014, 5/24/2014

   * Item Number: 631215
     Item Description: SUNFLOWER SEED KERNELS RAW
     Brand: PK Sunflower
     Case Pack: 1
     Package Size: 50# Brown Bag
     UPC Number: 079348999086
     Lot Numbers: PRO-1346, PRO-1349
     Best By Date: April 2014

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm356773.htm


MANITOBA: Disputes First Nations' Allegations in Flooding Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie McLaren, writing for CBC News, reports that the Manitoba
government is suing several First Nations that were hardest hit by
the 2011 flood, responding to a C$950-million potential class-
action lawsuit with legal action of its own.

In a statement of defense filed on April 17, the provincial
government denies responsibility for damages arising from severe
flooding in the spring of 2011.

However, the province has also filed third-party claims against
the four First Nations where the class-action participants are
from, as well as the federal government.

The lawsuit was filed in April 2012 on behalf of residents from
the Dauphin River, Little Saskatchewan, Pinaymootang and Lake St.
Martin First Nations.  It claims the province was negligent in its
operation of a number of water-control structures, including the
Shellmouth Dam and the Portage Diversion, causing excessive
flooding on their reserves as a result.

Russell Raikes, one of the lawyers involved in the lawsuit, says
the government's response seems to be to turn around and sue the
First Nations.

"The Government of Manitoba says, 'Firstly, we didn't do anything
wrong,'" Mr. Raikes told CBC News.

"Then they say, 'Secondly, if we did do something wrong and we're
responsible to pay, you have to contribute.'"

In court documents, the government states, "If the plaintiffs have
suffered losses or damages as alleged, which is not admitted, such
losses or damages were caused or contributed as a result of the
collective or individual negligence of the Government of Canada,
the First Nations or the plaintiffs."

The province goes on to cite "housing and infrastructure which
they knew or ought to have known was not suitably constructed" and
building on lands "that they knew or ought to have known was or
would continue to be prone to flooding," as well as "failing to
properly protect . . . property during the course of the flooding"
and "failing to mitigate any damage to property."

Mr. Raikes said he is outraged.

"Essentially, what the province does is they say, 'Look, if
there's flooding here, and if we caused it, it was made a whole
lot worse by you.'  Which is nonsense," he said.

The allegations contained in the lawsuits have not been proven in
court.

A Manitoba government spokesperson told CBC News the legal action
does not aim to re-victimize flood victims, but it's an attempt to
point out that Ottawa is responsible for infrastructure and flood
protection on First Nations.

The province feels that First Nations deserve better, the
spokesperson added.

Premier Greg Selinger defended the move on May 31, saying the
province had no choice but to respond to the potential class
action.

"Every time a statement of claim is made, you have to file a
statement of defense.  The lawyers can work on that," he said.

"What we want to do is get people home safely. We want them in
communities that will not flood in the future."

Mr. Selinger said the new Lake St. Martin channel and Lake
Manitoba outlet announced it will help prevent future flooding on
the First Nations.

"Any time you get litigation, you can strain relationships, which
is why we've put our exclusive focus on working with people to
build their communities for safety for the future," he said.

But when asked by the CBC's Ryan Hicks why the First Nations are
also being sued, the premier did not give a direct answer.

"So if the problem is the federal government, why are the First
Nations also named in this lawsuit?" Mr. Hicks asked.

"Again, lawsuits are for lawyers," Mr. Selinger replied. "What
we're interested in is safe communities for the future."
'A slap in the face'

The Lake St. Martin First Nation was one of the hardest-hit
communities in the 2011 flood.

Band spokesman Dennis Cameron said Chief Adrian Sinclair and
councilors were stunned to hear of the government's allegations
against them.

"They're a little bit distraught and dumbfounded as to how they
are all of a sudden being targeted or being blamed for . . . being
responsible for such actions," he said.

"How does one go about pointing the finger at Lake St. Martin when
they have no control over the water control levels? They have no
authority whatsoever to determine when to release water, where to
release it.  That all lies within the hands of the province."

Mr. Cameron said the province's latest action is "ironic and a
slap in the face."

The province has also filed third-party claims against the Little
Saskatchewan and Dauphin River First Nations.

"It's actually astounding and reprehensible and, quite frankly,
just plain wrong," said Winnipeg lawyer Harley Schachter, who is
representing both communities.

"For the province to . . . allege that chief and council are
somehow at fault for what has befallen them is actually bordering
on abusive," he added.

"It reminds me, quite frankly, of the guy who abuses his wife,
hits her all the time, and blames her for having her face in front
of his fist when he swings."

Mr. Schachter said fair-minded Manitobans know that First Nations
in the Interlake were "sacrificed to save the homes and personal
belongings of tens of thousands of Manitobans and sacrificed to
save the farmers' fields, all of which would have been flooded."

Little Saskatchewan First Nation Coun. Al Shorting said he was
taken aback to learn of the government's lawsuit.

"Well, that's pretty stupid because they're the ones that are
creating the damage," he said.

"They're the ones that created the Portage Diversion.  Those are
the people responsible for the flooding!"

The province has also filed a claim against the Pinaymootang First
Nation, also known as the Fairford First Nation.

Cliff Anderson, who was the First Nation's flood co-ordinator
during the 2011 flood, said when it comes to the government's
claim, he'll keep his response to himself.

"I have my own thoughts on that, but it's not something that's
printable," he said.

Anderson, who is also the lead plaintiff in the potential class-
action lawsuit, said it isn't as if First Nations were calling the
shots during the flood -- it was the government.

"I think they came back three times, revising how high the water
was going to be," he said.

"In the end, after a while, we couldn't get back to the sites to
re-top the dikes that we had."

Mr. Anderson said he doesn't disagree that things might have been
different for everyone concerned.

"If they had given us a good answer right at the start [on] how
high the water was going to be . . . maybe we would have had
proper flood protection in place," he said.

Mr. Raikes said the province's strategy of filing five separate
claims makes things more complicated than they need to be.

"They're just trying to play divide and conquer," he said, adding
that the strategy means one First Nation could be played off
against another, allowing separate deals to be cut.

The province is also opposing the motion to certify the class
action.

Mr. Raikes said he is still hopeful they may be in court this
fall, but he admits it may be late this year or the beginning of
next year before things get moving.

Below are the court documents the Manitoba government has filed in
response to the $950-million potential class action involving
residents of four flooded First Nations.

Included are the province's statement of defense and its third-
party claims against the Dauphin River, Little Saskatchewan,
Pinaymootang and Lake St. Martin First Nations and the federal
government.


MARICOPA COUNTY: Wilcox Denies Conflict of Interest on Class
------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross at Courthouse News Service reports that a Maricopa
County Supervisor claims there is no conflict of interest in her
participation in discussions of a class action involving racial
profiling by the sheriff's office, despite her own lawsuit against
Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox sued the county and Maricopa County
Attorney William Montgomery, in Maricopa County Court, seeking
declaratory judgment.

Wilcox claims that she participated in discussions with other
members of the Board of Supervisors, without any objections, while
the class action Melendres v. Arpaio played out in Federal Court.

But on June 6, County Attorney Montgomery "issued an opinion
advising Supervisor Wilcox that she had a conflict of interest in
participating in the Board of Supervisor's discussions and
decisions regarding the Melendres case," the complaint states.

Wilcox acknowledges that she "has spoken out publicly, opposing an
appeal of the Melendres decision," after U.S. District Judge G.
Murray Snow found in May "that Sheriff Arpaio's immigration-
enforcement policies and practices unconstitutionally targeted
people by reason of their color."

Wilcox says in the complaint: "County Attorney Montgomery's
opinion is poorly reasoned, and its conclusion is incorrect."

She claims the county attorney's letter is meant to "force
Supervisor Wilcox out of discussions regarding the Melendres case
at the behest of Sheriff Arpaio," who wants to appeal.

Wilcox sued Arpaio and then-County Attorney Andrew Thomas in 2011,
"alleging that they had committed civil rights violations and
state-law torts against her" by twice indicting her for
"participating in decisions of the Board of Supervisors when she
had a conflict of interest," according to the new complaint.

The charges against Wilcox were dismissed.  Thomas was disbarred
in 2012, and the county settled with Wilcox on her lawsuit.

That case, however, is pending before the 9th Circuit: Montgomery
refused to honor the $975,000 settlement with Wilcox, according to
the complaint.

Wilcox claims that if she "is prevented from participating in
discussions and decisions regarding the Melendres case, her
constituents will be deprived of a voice on issues of central and
immediate concern to the Latino community."

Wilcox is the only woman, the only Democrat, and the only Hispanic
on the five-person Board of Supervisors.

She seeks declaratory judgment stating that she "does not have any
conflict of interest in participating in Maricopa County Board of
Supervisor discussions and decisions regarding Melendres v.
Arpaio."

She is represented by Colin Campbell and Kathleen Brody O'Meara --
ccampbell@omlaw.com and komeara@omlaw.com -- with Osborn Maledon
P.A.


MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Appeals Court Allows Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Katzanek, writing for The Press-Enterprise, reports that a
federal appeals court has reversed a lower court decision and
ruled that a wage-and-hour case filed by an Inland Southern
California warehouse worker will go forward as a class action, a
case that will now include more than 500 workers.

The case was filed more than two years ago by an employee of
Medline Industries' distribution center in San Bernardino. The
lawsuit alleged that employees' pay was rounded off in increments
that would be stretched by as much as 29 minutes.  That would mean
a worker who clocked in between 7:31 and 8:00 a.m. would not be
paid until the top of the hour, even if the worker performed work-
related tasks during those 29 minutes

The suit also alleges that when employees received performance
bonuses, that money should have been included when time-and-a-half
pay for overtime hours were computed, said N. Nick Ebrahimian, one
of the plaintiff's attorneys.

"If you're an hourly employee and get a bonus tied to performance,
that bonus has to be factored in if you're computing hourly pay,"
Mr. Ebrahimian said in a Friday, May 31 interview.  "That's the
law in California."

Medline, based in Mundelein, Ill., is a leading manufacturer and
distributor of medical supplies.  The company has more than two
dozen distribution facilities across North America and is one of
the most successful privately held companies in the United States,
with more than $5 billion in sales in 2012.

The lawsuit will now cover an estimated 538 employees who have
worked in the San Bernardino warehouse and two distribution
facilities in Lathrop, Mr. Ebrahimian said.

John Marks, director of public relations for Medline, said in an
emailed statement that the company disagrees with the decision
that certified a class action and pointed out that no legal
determination has been made about the merits of the case.

"Medline is evaluating its legal options at this time and remains
optimistic that it ultimately will prevail on the merits," Marks'
statement said in part.  "Medline has endeavored to compensate
employees properly and in good faith."

The plaintiffs requested the creation of a class action in July
2011, but that was turned down by a U.S. District Court Central
District judge.  Medline had argued there was not enough
commonality among the workers to certify a class.

However, a three-judge panel in federal court in Riverside
announced earlier that the lower court erred in its judgment.  The
opinion was that "the only individualized factor that the district
court identified was the amount of pay owed."

Mr. Ebrahimian said the case would now move forward, although he
could not guess when it might go to trial.

Medline moved to a 400,000-square-foot warehouse in San Bernardino
about seven years ago.  Last year the company leased a smaller
facility in Redlands to handle additional business.


MISSISSIPPI: Walnut Grove Sued Over Inhumane Prison Conditions
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that on May 30, family members of
prisoners kept at East Mississippi and Walnut Grove correctional
facilities gathered outside the state Department of Corrections
headquarters in downtown Jackson to protest what they called
inhumane treatment.  Among them is Katie Autry, at the podium, who
said her son's condition has deteriorated since entering EMCF in
2011.

Inmates in a Mississippi prison are isolated for long periods in
"barbaric" conditions, sometimes in filthy cells with rats and
broken toilets, and they are denied access to medical and mental
health care, a federal lawsuit filed on May 30 said.

The class-action suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties
Union and the Southern Poverty Law Center on behalf of prisoners
at the East Mississippi Correctional Facility near Meridian.  It
names the Mississippi Department of Corrections and agency
officials as defendants.

Tara Booth, an agency spokeswoman, said the department had not
been served with the complaint and would respond to the
allegations in court.

The lawsuit said rats climb over prisoners' beds and mice crawl
out of broken toilets.

"The extreme deprivations and extraordinarily harsh conditions at
EMCF have even fostered commerce in rats: Some prisoners capture
rats, put them on improvised leashes, and sell them as pets to the
seriously mentally ill," the lawsuit said.

The complaint said the prison houses some of the state's most
severely mentally ill prisoners, including juveniles, and many of
them aren't receiving proper care.  A 16-year-old inmate was put
in a cell with an adult and sexually assaulted, the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit also said rapes, stabbings and beatings were
"rampant."

"Prisoner-on-prisoner stabbings and beatings are frequent because
the locking mechanism on the cell doors can readily be defeated,
and some officers are complicit in unlocking doors to allow
violence to occur," the lawsuit said.

Some prisoners are denied care for so long that they set fires in
their cells to get attention, the lawsuit said.  It also said
broken toilets force some prisoners to use the restroom on trays
or in plastic bags, which they then toss through slots in their
cell doors.

The prison has a capacity of 1,362 male inmates and is run by
Management and Training Corp., based in Centerville, Utah.

MTC spokesman Issa Arnita said in would be inappropriate for the
company to comment on the lawsuit since it's not named as a
defendant.  Ms. Arnita said MTC took over operation of the
facility in July 2012.

"We are working very hard to improve the conditions and have made
a lot of progress over these past 10 months," Ms. Arnita said.

The lawsuit said a prison official ignored one inmate's pleas for
help until one of his testicles swelled to the size of a softball
in June 2012.  By the time he received an ultrasound, testicular
cancer had spread to his abdomen, the lawsuit said.

During a news conference on May 30, Jody Owens, a Mississippi-
based lawyer for the SPLC, called conditions at the prison "a
shock to the conscience of a humane society."

"Enough is enough," Ms. Owens said.  "It is time to stop the abuse
of our loved ones, our brothers, our sons and fathers."

Ms. Owens said advocates asked to meet with the state more than a
year ago about conditions but he said they declined.

Terry A. Kupers, a psychiatrist who studied the facility for the
ACLU, issued a report in February 2011 that said inadequate
staffing, poor mental health programs and an overburdened prison
psychiatrist were major problems.

Some mentally ill patients tried to avoid the prison psychiatrist
for fear of being injected with powerful drugs that made them
vulnerable to thefts and attacks, while others saw their diagnosis
downgraded and were taken off medications, Mr. Kupers' report
said.

Mr. Kupers also said the inmates aren't getting enough food.

"All inmates report significant weight loss since arriving at
EMCF, from ten to 60 pounds, and from my direct observation it is
clear that all the men are much thinner, almost emaciated, in
comparison to old snapshots I viewed in their charts or on their
identity cards showing them much heavier" Mr. Kupers wrote.


MOBILE COUNTY, AL: Hiring Bias Suit Denied Class Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Kirby, writing for AL.com, reports that seven former
Mobile County principals who allege racial discrimination in
hiring cannot represent all similar black employees who did not
get promotions, a federal judge ruled.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs had sought to certify the civil
complaint as a class-action lawsuit, which could have forced the
Mobile County Public School System to pay damages to any black
applicant who was denied a job because of race, as well as those
who did not even apply for principal jobs because of a race-based
hiring scheme.

But Chief U.S. District Judge William Steele ruled that the issues
are too different from plaintiff to plaintiff to handle as one
large group.

"The plaintiffs identify the common question as whether the
(school board) engaged in a pattern or practice of assigning
principals based on race," Judge Steele wrote.  "There are in
addition, however, a number of individualized questions --
addressing both liability and damages -- that prevent this single
common question from predominating."

The plaintiffs could ask the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals to overturn Steele's decision.  Attorneys for the
plaintiffs -- Douglas July, Donald Mitchell, Yvonne Matthews,
Gloria Burks, Grace Reese, Cheryl Poe and Jataun Dudley-Lewis --
could not be reached for comment.

If the plaintiffs do not appeal, they had until June 18 to respond
to the school system's argument that Judge Steele should rule in
its favor on grounds that the plaintiffs have presented no
evidence that race was a factor in any of the principal hirings.

All seven of the plaintiffs had been principals at one point in
their careers.  But the school board failed to renew their
contracts for various reasons.  The plaintiffs argue that they
failed to win principal jobs at predominantly white schools
because the school system has a practice of reserving those jobs
only for white administrators.

"Some of them never even applied for any of these open positions,"
said Paul Carbo, an attorney for the school system.  "We have
legitimate reasons for each principal selected, and none of the
principals were selected based on race."

The judge has not ruled on the merits of the case.  But in his
order on the class-action issue, he cited the school system's
defense as a reason for siding against the plaintiff.

Judge Steele wrote that each plaintiff will have to individually
establish that he or she did not get a promotion because of
discriminatory practices.  He noted that the school board could --
and has asserted it would -- present evidence that each decision
was made for lawful reasons.

The judge rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the law requires
a finding of liability on behalf of all members of the class
before the issue of damages can be addressed.

"These questions are precursors to damages in the sense that all
questions concerning liability are, but they are not 'damages
issues' any more than is the color of the traffic light in a
personal injury case," he wrote.

Steele noted that the school board has argued that each candidate
is different and the factors associated with each principal
position vary from school to school.

"The plaintiffs do not challenge this assertion, which suggests an
almost endless procession of evidence, unique to each class member
and to each decision, thereby amplifying the individual liability
determinations that must be made," he wrote.


MONSANTO CO: Faces Class Action Over Roundup-Resistant GM Wheat
---------------------------------------------------------------
June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that Monsanto's
genetically engineered Roundup-resistant wheat contaminated
natural soft white wheat and hurt farmers' export business,
growers claim in two class actions.

Genetically modified (GM) wheat found growing in an Oregon field
in May is resistant to Monsanto's herbicide Roundup, and not
approved for commercial planting or sale.  The farmers claim
Monsanto failed to control the spread of its GM wheat during field
tests in the Pacific Northwest.

Dreger Enterprises and Wahl Ranch are named plaintiffs in one
case.  Plaintiffs in the other class action are Clarmar Farms,
farmer Tom Stahl and the Center for Food Safety. Citations in this
article are taken from the Dreger-Wahl lawsuit.

Monsanto tested its transgenic "Roundup Ready" wheat from 1998
through 2005 but abandoned the project due to farmers' concerns,
according to the complaint.

"Monsanto dropped the project and never sought approval based on
concerns from U.S. farmers that genetically engineered wheat would
endanger wheat exports.  Although most American soybeans and corn
are genetically engineered, these crops are largely consumed by
livestock, used to make biofuels, or made into processed foods.
Wheat products, in contrast, are consumed directly by people, and
many consumers around the world reject genetically engineered
products.  A 2005 study estimated that the national wheat industry
could lose $94 million to $272 million annually if genetically
engineered wheat were approved," the complaint states.

The farmers say genetically engineered wheat and/or pollen escaped
from the trials and contaminated conventional wheat.

"In the planting, growing, harvesting, transporting, storing
and/or disposing of the genetically engineered wheat field tested
between 1998 and 2005 by Monsanto and its field trial operators,
some genetically engineered wheat escaped to contaminate
conventional wheat.  Monsanto knew, or should have known, that it
was impossible to completely isolate the genetically engineered
wheat from other varieties of soft white wheat and that the
genetically engineered wheat would inevitably cross-pollinate,
commingle with other conventional wheat seeds and/or find its way
into the food chain through other Monsanto acts or omissions as it
has now done, according to the complaint.

An Oregon wheat farmer discovered modified wheat in his field in
May after noticing that plants sprayed with glyphosate, the active
ingredient in Roundup, had not died.

"The farmer who discovered the genetically engineered wheat
reported the finding to an Oregon State University researcher, who
tested plant samples using 'Roundup Ready' quick test strips and
genetic analysis.  The results confirmed that the plants were from
Monsanto's unapproved seeds and contained transgenic constructs
making them resistant to glyphosate.  The farmer's field was never
used for trials of Monsanto's Roundup-resistant wheat," the
complaint states.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced confirmation of the
results on May 28 and is investigating how the test wheat spread.

Farmers say Japan immediately canceled import of soft white wheat
after the announcement.

"The announcement led to immediate concern that the development
could disrupt exports of soft white wheat from the Pacific
Northwest.  For example, on May 28, 2013, the Japanese Ministry of
Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (MAFF) canceled its soft white
wheat order, but did purchase its regular allotment of red spring
wheat and red winter wheat.  An official with the Japanese Embassy
stated that the country would cancel orders for Pacific Northwest
soft white wheat because Japanese people were 'concerned about the
discovery of unapproved wheat,'" according to the complaint.

"Similarly, it was reported on May 31, 2013 that Japan had
postponed a 25,000-ton order of soft white wheat from a Portland,
Oregon grain shipper and that South Korea and the European Union
have called for tests of American wheat.  In particular, South
Korea has increased inspections of incoming American wheat.
Chinese officials said they would be 'monitoring the situation'
and Japan's consul general in Portland said on May 31 that his
country would need assurance that Oregon wheat is safe before
continuing to import the soft white wheat variety.  Japan's
decision to suspend soft white wheat imports from the Pacific
Northwest led traders to forecast potential long-term effects on
the wheat industry: 'Nobody's going to want to buy wheat from the
PNW (Pacific Northwest) for a while,' said an analyst with the
Linn Group."

The farmers say Monsanto was aware of the "potential detrimental
market effects arising from the use of such crops" but failed to
use adequate safeguards.

"Due to Monsanto's wrongful conduct, soft white wheat destined for
export markets for use in food products has been rejected for the
purposes for which it was intended.  Because scheduled shipments
already have been postponed and canceled, the presence of
genetically engineered wheat has detrimentally impacted the
domestic and global wheat markets and damaged plaintiffs and other
wheat farmers," the complaint states.

The farmers seek compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages for
negligence, nuisance and product liability.  They also want
Monsanto to decontaminate farmland, equipment and storage
facilities.

Dreger and Wahl are represented by Kim Stephens, Esq. --
contact@tousley.com -- with Tousley Brain Stephens.

Clarmar Farms, Tom Stahl and the Center for Food Safety are
represented by Beth Terrell, Esq. -- bterrell@tmdwlaw.com -- with
Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie.


MOODY'S INVESTORS: Investment Agency Gets $9.5MM From Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that a Florida state
investment agency received nearly $9.5 million from a settlement
in April that resolved a closely watched case against Moody's
Investors Service and Standard & Poor's.

The disclosure on June 17, which came in response to a public
records request by Reuters, marks the first time one of the
plaintiffs in the lawsuit has released a settlement agreement.

The lawsuit was filed in 2008 in U.S. District Court in New York
against Moody's, a unit of Moody's Corp, and S&P, a unit of
McGraw-Hill Financial Inc.  The plaintiffs, who sought $638
million, were represented by Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd.

The lawsuit alleged the rating agencies made negligent
misrepresentations in their credit ratings for a structured
investment vehicle (SIV) known as Cheyne.  Cheyne, which had
subprime mortgage debt as collateral, went bankrupt in August
2007.

Terms of the settlement were considered confidential, but some
details have already emerged.

McGraw Hill has said it paid $77 million to settle the two
lawsuits.  Moody's, meanwhile, on May 3 said it would take a
charge of $0.14 a share related to the settlement.  And The Wall
Street Journal, citing an anonymous source, has said the overall
settlement was for $225 million.

While the papers disclosed on June 17 only give the amount
recovered by one of the 14 settling investors, they gave a glimpse
into the potential rate of recovery.

                    Other Settlement Figures

The Florida State Board of Administration, the agency that invests
state employee retirement funds, said it gained $9.47 million from
the settlement, a little under one-fifth of the $50 million the
board had invested in Cheyne.

Moody's, S&P and Morgan Stanley did not admit wrongdoing as part
of the settlement, the papers said.

Representatives of Moody's and McGraw-Hill declined to comment on
June 17, as did a representative of Morgan Stanley, which marketed
the SIV and which also settled before the trial was set to start
on May 6.

While the Florida agency was the first investor to release its
full settlement agreement, some others have said how much they
gained from the case.

SEI Investments Co, one of the plaintiffs, said in a quarterly
report on April 26 that it would receive $43 million after fees
and expenses.

Bank of N.T. Butterfield & Son Limited, another investor, said in
its quarterly report it reached a settlement in April 2013 in a
case it could not name that would result in a net gain of $8
million to $12 million. A spokesman for the bank did not respond
to a request for comment.

A related case by two investors seeking $70 million over a
different SIV called Rhinebridge also settled at the same time.

The case is Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 08-07508.

For the plaintiffs: Daniel Drosman -- dand@rgrdlaw.com -- Luke
Brooks -- LukeB@rgrdlaw.com -- Michael Dowd -- miked@rgrdlaw.com
-- and Samuel Rudman -- SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd.

For Morgan Stanley: James Rouhandeh --
rouhandeh@davispolk.com -- and Antonio Perez-Marques --
antonio.perez@davispolk.com -- of Davis Polk & Wardwell.

For Moody's Investors Service: Mark Kirsch --
mkirsch@gibsondunn.com -- Joel Cohen -- jcohen@gibsondunn.com --
Lawrence Zweifach -- lzweifach@gibsondunn.com -- and Christopher
Joralemon -- cjoralemon@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher and Joshua Rubins -- jrubins@ssbb.com -- James Coster --
jcoster@ssbb.com -- and Mario Aieta -- maieta@ssbb.com -- of
Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke.

For Standard & Poor's: Floyd Abrams -- fabrams@cahill.com -- Dean
Ringel -- dringel@cahill.com -- Charles Gilman --
cgilman@cahill.com -- Tammy Roy and Jason Hall -- jhall@cahill.com
-- of Cahill Gordon & Reindel.


MULTICARE HEALTH: Crash Victims Sue Over Settlement Liens
---------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Vedder, writing for KOMO News, reports that a class action
against MultiCare Health System alleges that car crash victims are
getting tricked out of millions of dollars in lawful settlements
at the hands of local hospitals.

The suit claims the scheme involves local hospitals, an out-of-
state collection company and fraudulent liens.

Melanie Smallwood still gets nervous remembering the day in
November 2010 when two cars rear ended her.

"I tense up and I wind up having an anxiety attack," she said.

Ms. Smallwood's car was totaled and she underwent elbow surgery
and weeks of painful physical therapy.  And then she learned that
MultiCare had placed a lien on the $40,000 left of her settlement.

"I was devastated because I was looking forward to having money .
. . for Christmas, and I was counting on that," she said.

Ms. Smallwood is one of five named plaintiffs in a class action
suit filed against MultiCare -- which operates many of Pierce
County's major hospitals -- and a California collection company
called Hunter Donaldson.

Attorney Darrell Cochran said beginning three years ago, MultiCare
stopped billing accident victims' insurance companies and began
slapping liens on the their potential settlements, demanding
thousands more than insurance would ever pay.

"Literally thousands of people have been strong-armed by Hunter
Donaldson over the last three years," Mr. Cochran said.  "We pay
for our medical insurance to cover this situation.  We work to get
our medical insurance and that's what should be taking care of
this."

Even worse, Mr. Cochran alleges the liens against patients like
Ms. Smallwood aren't even legal, because Washington liens must be
executed and notarized in this state.

The notary on the MultiCare liens -- Rebecca Rohlke -- lists a Gig
Harbor home as her residence, but it turns out she doesn't
actually live there.

The address Ms. Rohlke claims is actually the home address of
Jason Adams, the president of MultiCare Consulting and the man who
hired the California collection company that hired Ms. Rohlke.

Mr. Adams also signed Ms. Rohlke's notary application, endorsing
her integrity and good moral character.

Neither Mr. Adams nor any representative from MultiCare would
speak about the story, but MultiCare did release a statement on on
May 31 saying it is company policy to only file liens when the
patient's insurance is Medicare or Medicaid.  Mr. Cochran disputes
that claim.  The company is also reviewing Hunter-Donaldson's
lien-filing practices.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Two Plaintiffs Discuss Player Pay in Depositions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA TODAY Sports, reports that two of
the named plaintiffs in an anti-trust lawsuit concerning the use
of college athletes' names and likenesses said in respective
depositions that, in the absence of NCAA rules barring
compensation of athletes, the better players on teams should be
paid more than the lesser players.

Former Connecticut men's basketball team guard Tate George and
former Alabama wide receiver Tyrone Prothro were deposed by
various lawyers representing the defendants in the case -- the
NCAA, video game manufacturer Electronic Arts and Collegiate
Licensing Co., the nation's leading collegiate trademark licensing
and marketing firm.  Mr. George was questioned in March 2012,
Mr. Prothro in November 2011.

Their statements create one of many fatal flaws in the plaintiffs'
bid to have the case certified as a class action, lawyers for the
defendants argued in documents filed on May 30 in a U.S. District
Court in California.

If the case is certified as a class action, it likely would bring
thousands of current and former college football and men's
basketball players into the case and potentially place billions of
dollars in damages at stake.

However, before that can occur, lawyers for the plaintiffs must
convince a judge that their named clients have claims that would
be typical of those for the entire prospective class.  Judge
Claudia Wilken is scheduled to conduct a hearing on the matter
June 20.

At issue is whether the defendants have illegally used the names
and likenesses of college football and men's basketball players.

George, Prothro and the other plaintiffs, including former UCLA
basketball star Ed O'Bannon, allege that the defendants violated
anti-trust law by conspiring to fix at zero the amount of
compensation athletes can receive for the use of their names,
images and likenesses in products or media while they are in
school and by requiring athletes to sign forms under which they
allegedly relinquish in perpetuity all rights pertaining to the
use of the names, images and likenesses in ways including TV
contracts, rebroadcasts of games, and video game, jersey and other
apparel sales.

The plaintiffs' lawyers have written that one of their experts,
Roger Noll -- an economics professor emeritus at Stanford who has
written on the business of sports -- has provided a method of
determining how revenue would allocated between colleges an
athletes "in the absence of the restrictions that the NCAA
imposes."

Noll's method, according to the plaintiffs, "is based on a 50-50
split for telecasts and a one-third split for video games, based
on recognized economic principles, examples from professional
sports, and examples from music artists' licensing."  It then
entails "equal allocations among all members of a team in a given
year, and these team members are then further divided according to
whether they were current or former players at the time that the
revenue was generated."

Messrs. George's and Prothro's statements, the defendants' lawyers
wrote on May 30, show that there would be differences not only in
the potential monetary claims that various potential plaintiffs
would have in the case, but also that there would be differences
in the claims of the named plaintiffs -- who had varying degrees
of prominence and played in different eras.

In a portion of Mr. Prothro's deposition that was filed on May 30,
Mr. Prothro said: "I feel like everybody in some sort of way
should be compensated in some kind of way, but maybe the ones that
played, played a little more or, you know, are the stars maybe
should be, you know, compensated a little differently."

Shortly thereafter, Mr. Prothro was asked: "But not all players
ought to get the same, right?"

He replied: "I mean, I don't think so."

In a portion of George's deposition that was filed in March but
specifically referenced in the documents submitted on May 30,
Mr. George was asked: "So if you paid the stars more at the
college level . . . and the real stars might get a lot more, you
would agree with that?"

Mr. George replied: "Again, I don't know how to structure it, but
ideally . . . that's this country.  The best get paid the most."


NOBEL BIOCARE: Settles Class Action Over Defective Implants
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sony Salzman, writing for MassDevice, reports that Nobel Biocare
Holding may be able to settle a class action lawsuit involving
1,000s of dentists over allegedly defective dental implants for
$1.3 million after a federal judge tentatively OK'd the deal.  The
class action, headed by Dr. Jason Yamada, includes any U.S.
dentists who bought Nobel implant products (except the company's
NobelDirect Groovy device) -- more than 2,900 dentists.


NOVA SCOTIA HOME: Former Residents Can Watch Case Via Webcast
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eva Hoare, writing for The Chronicle Herald, reports that Nova
Scotians will get a chance to watch a proposed class action case
underway in the province's highest court starting June 10.

The province's judiciary announced on May 30 that the case by 140
former residents from the Nova Scotia Home for Colored Children
against the Nova Scotia government will be webcast.

The former residents hope the Supreme Court will certify their
case as a proper class action.  The former wards of the Dartmouth
orphanage allege they underwent severe physical, sexual and
psychological abuse at the home over a period of decades and
contend the province did little or nothing to stop it.

Their lawyers, from Wagners law firm in Halifax, will argue for
the certification, while the province has already indicated it
would oppose certification.

The province has filed papers asking a justice to strike out all
or portions of the former residents' affidavits, a move that has
been called "extreme" by legal experts.

The application for certification, which could run up to a maximum
of eight days, will be heard by Justice Arthur LeBlanc.  The
proceedings are listed as June Elwin, Harriet Johnson and Deanna
Smith vs. The Nova Scotia Home for Colored Children, a body
corporate, and The Attorney General of Nova Scotia, representing
the province.  Ms. Elwin, Ms. Johnson and Ms. Smith are all lead
plaintiffs in the case against the province.

The home itself has already settled with the residents group,
agreeing to pay out C$5 million.  But the court has to rubber-
stamp that settlement, which it is expected to do during the
course of the certification hearing.

The proceedings will be webcast live on http://www.courts.ns.ca


OAK HARBOR: Faces Suit From Swinomish Tribe Over Road Project
-------------------------------------------------------------
June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that the
Swinomish Tribe sued the Seattle suburb of Oak Harbor, claiming it
refused to stop a road project after uncovering a burial ground
and outrageously offered the excavated soil, filled with bones and
grave goods, as "free dirt."

The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community filed the federal class
action against Oak Harbor and three construction firms: Strider
Construction Co., Perteet Inc. and KBA Inc.

The federally recognized tribe in Skagit County has just under
3,000 members.  Their historical lands include areas near the San
Juan Islands, including tourist mecca Whidbey Island.

Oak Harbor has a population of 23,000.

The tribe claims the defendants offered the "free dirt" for
landscaping projects, though state law requires stopping
construction if grave goods or remains are found.  But the city
has a "financial incentive" to complete the project, according to
the complaint.

The tribe claims that city officials knew the road project would
traverse the site of an ancient village that had existed "for
hundreds if not thousands of years."

The Swinomish left the village, called Tequcid, to move to their
reservation in 1855, "leaving behind generations of their
ancestors who were buried there," according to the complaint.

"The location and nature of Tequcid is well known and well
documented," the complaint states.  "Archaeologists or
anthropologists documented the village and burial ground in the
1920s, 1950s, and 1980s.  In 1953, the site was formally
registered as a state archaeological site.  In 1988, an updated
state archaeological site form was prepared.  Firsthand or press
accounts of the presence of Indian burials at the site were made
in the 1850s, 1910s, 1920s, 1940s, 1960s, and 1980s.  In 1983, the
Whidbey News Times published pictures of Indian burials being
removed from the site after construction work along SE Pioneer Way
had disturbed them."

The city began road improvements at the site in 2008 and consulted
with the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation (DAHP) before construction.

The tribe says DAHP presented a long list of recommendations the
city should follow to assure that no burial remains or cultural
artifacts were damaged, and that officials agreed to hire an on-
site archaeologist who would monitor activities and consult with
the tribe.

But the city reneged to save money, the trice claims.

"Defendants knew that if human remains or cultural or
archaeological resources were discovered, the project would likely
be shut down at a considerable financial loss to the defendants.
This knowledge gave the defendants a financial incentive not to
employ an archeologist at the site to ascertain the presence of
shell midden, burial artifacts and human remains there prior to
large scale construction and digging activities," the complaint
states.

Major demolition at the site started March 7, 2011 and the next
day the city engineer reported encountering a "native burial
ground."

Instead of stopping work, as contractually and legally required,
workers continued to "uncover, remove, and desecrate human
remains, artifacts, and other sacred cultural resources associated
with plaintiffs' ancestral burials," the complaint states.

The tribe says it was not notified of the discovery of remains and
neither were the coroner or law enforcement, until June 16, 2011.
Several days later, the DAHP ordered the city to stop work.  By
then, the excavated dirt had been removed to various locations,
including a dump site.

"Many of the Tribe's ancestors have been dug up from their final
resting places (often by backhoes or other heavy machinery),
broken apart, separated from the family members and precious grave
goods with which they were laid to rest in sacred ceremonies, and
scattered among hundreds of piles of 'dirt' the City took to its
'disposal sites,' which are or were unsecured and exposed to the
elements.  Some of the 'dirt' was advertised by the City as 'free
dirt' and delivered to private landowners for use in landscaping
projects.  Other ancestors laid exposed in the middle of a road in
downtown Oak Harbor for weeks, next to passing traffic during the
day and directly in front of a busy tavern at night," the
complaint state.

Since then, tribal members have been working "daily with the
broken remains of their ancestors, have had to hire a coffin maker
to make new cedar boxes in which to reinter their ancestors, and
have had to consider acquiring land suitable for reburial,"
according to the complaint.

The tribe seeks damages for violation of Washington's Indian
Graves and Records Act, breach of contract, violation of the
Shoreline Management Act, negligence, tortious interference with a
dead body and emotional distress and outrage.

They are represented by Michael Withey.


OCEAN VIEW: Judge in Alleged Property Scam Class Action Removed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Belfast Telegraph reports that more than 50 Northern Irish
property investors in an alleged GBP9.2 million overseas property
scam have had the judge presiding over their class action lawsuit
removed.

Three former British property magnates are now to appear in a
Madrid court next month.

The investigating judge was removed following a legal petition
after his brother was found to have held senior positions in a
Dominican Republic firm headed by accused, Spanish developer
Ricardo Miranda Miret.

A criminal claim for fraud and misappropriation of funds was
lodged in February 2011 in a bid to recover deposits paid by
investors to Ocean View Properties (OVP).  It now has 120 British,
Irish and American claimants for GBP9.2 million.

Many Northern Irish investors remortgaged homes to finance their
dream luxury buys.  One victim from Co Armagh said he invested in
the proposed Estepona development with his family.

More than 1,000 British investors, who paid a total of GBP45
million for overseas property developments, lost money when OVP
was formally dissolved in 2009.


OLD NATIONAL: Appeals Court Allows Fee Class Action to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Wilson, writing for Evansville Courier & Press, reports that
the Indiana Court of Appeals has cleared the way for a lawsuit
against Old National Bank to go forward as a class action.

Originally filed in December 2010 by several Old National
customers, the lawsuit charges that the bank's policy for posting
debit card and ATM transactions was purposefully structured to
increase overdraft fees by processing them from highest to lowest
amount instead of in the order they were made.

As a result, it unfairly cost them large overdraft fees that could
have been avoided, according to the lawsuit.

As a class action, any number of qualifying people could
potentially have those fees refunded if there is a settlement or
jury trial resulting in an award.  Evansville attorney Scott Danks
-- sdanks@danks-danks.com -- said the lawsuit could result in a
large payout for Old National if the bank loses.

Mr. Danks and Chicago lawyer William Sweetnam --
wms@sweetnamllc.com -- represent three former Old National
customers for the lawsuit: Steven Kelly, Jon Cook and Rebecca
Cook.

"Conservatively, we are talking tens of millions of dollars,"
Mr. Danks said.

In March, Vanderburgh Circuit Court Judge David Kiely certified
the lawsuit as a class action involving Old National customers who
had accounts charged overdraft fees through Aug. 15, 2010.

Old National sought to appeal that decision but was denied by the
Indiana Court of Appeals in April.  An entire week is set aside
for a jury trial in Circuit Court beginning Oct. 7.

"Our position is there is no merit to the case," said Scott
Evernham, the bank's assistant general counsel.  "We plan to
vigorously defend it."

The case revolves around banking practices before Aug. 15, 2010,
when a federal regulation took effect.

Called "Regulation E," the new rule requires banks to give
customers a choice as to whether or not they want to opt in to
"overdraft courtesy" policies.

"When I think of something that is a courtesy, it doesn't cost
anything," Mr. Danks said.

The customers in the lawsuit were charged multiple $35 overdraft
fees on everyday debit card purchases as a result of the bank's
practice of posting transactions in order of high to low, Mr.
Sweetnam said.

He said the problem was made worse by Old National's use of a
courtesy line of credit.

As an example, the lawsuit alleges the Cooks were charged five
overdraft fees totaling $175 in November 2009 for five debit card
purchases totaling $106.49.  In another example from the lawsuit,
Kelly was charged $70 in fees for two debit card uses totaling
$30.65.

"I wonder how many people would have bought that lunch from
McDonald's if they knew it was going to cost them $40?" Mr. Danks
said.

Mr. Evernham said the policy of posting transactions from high to
low actually predates electronic banking.

"We post debit card transactions the same way we post checks.
That's consistent with federal law.  Generally items are posted
high to low," he said.  "The process dates way back before debit
cards.  Many customers prefer it that way."

Mr. Evernham said that in the days of paper checks, the policy
ensured that important checks such as rent, mortgage and car
payments were paid first.

The issue has been the subject of numerous such lawsuits
nationwide.  Mr. Sweetnam said several other financial
institutions, including Fifth Third, have settled similar
lawsuits.

Fifth Third agreed to a $9.5 million settlement of a class-action
lawsuit over its debit card policies in November 2010.


OSKRI CORP: Recalls Dark Chocolates Due to Undeclared Milk
----------------------------------------------------------
OSKRI Corp. of Lake Mills, Wisconsin, is recalling "Coconut Bar
Dark Chocolate", "Coconut Bar Dark Chocolate Minis", "Fig Dark
Chocolate Bars" and "Almond Dark Chocolate Bars" because the dark
chocolate contains milk.  People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The recalled "Coconut Bar Dark Chocolate", "Coconut Bar Dark
Chocolate Minis", "Fig Dark Chocolate Bars" and "Almond Dark
Chocolate Bars" was distributed nationwide to retail stores.

The product comes in a 1.9 ounce, flexible plastic wrapper, UPC
666016-300703 (Coconut Bar Dark Chocolate), UPC 666016-400311
(Coconut Bars Dark Chocolate Minis), UPC 666016-300307 (Fig Dark
Chocolate Bars) and UPC 666016-300420 (Almond Dark Chocolate Bars)
marked with the following stamp, which can be found on the front
of the wrapper:

         P 1/1/13 through 6/6/13
         EXP 7/7/14 through 12/12/14
         LOT 001 through 154

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm357115.htm

There have not been any complaints of allergic reactions to this
product.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the "Coconut
Bar Dark Chocolate", "Coconut Bar Dark Chocolate Minis", "Fig Dark
Chocolate Bars" and "Almond Dark Chocolate Bars" may contain milk
in the product.  Subsequent investigation indicates the problem
was caused by a temporary breakdown in the Company's production
process.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged to return it
to Oskri for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact
Laura Pineda at Oskri's Quality Department by emailing
quality@oskri.com

Please return products to: Oskri, 528 E. Tyranena Park Road, Lake
Mills, WI 53551.


PACIFIC RIM: Recalls Mussels; Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning Cited
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            June 8, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Marine Biotoxin
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Pacific Rim Shellfish (2003) Corp.
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional, Retail
CFIA reference number:    8078

Affected products:

   Brand
   name    Common name    Size    Code(s) on product
   ----    -----------    ----    ------------------
   None    Mussels        5 lb    LOT: 13060401
                                  HARVEST DATE: JUNE 2, 2013
   UPC: None                      HARVEST LOCATION: BC 13-15


PAYPAL INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Unwanted Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal
judge on May 30 dismissed a class action alleging PayPal Inc. sent
unsolicited text messages that violated federal laws, deciding the
plaintiff had consented to receive texts when he voluntarily gave
his cellphone number to the company.

Plaintiff David Roberts argued that he hadn't given PayPal prior
express consent to text him, which the e-commerce website
allegedly did in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.


PILOT FLYING J: Shoreline Files Class Action Over Rebate Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Lockridge, writing for Truckinginfo, reports that litigation
against the truckstop chain Pilot Flying J continues to mount,
while company officials have hired some big guns amid expectations
the probe may soon widen.

Trucking company Shoreline Transportation, based in Alabama, has
filed a lawsuit in federal court in Alabama under the Racketeering
and Corrupt Organizations Act, according to published reports.
Shoreline is based in Greenville, southwest of Montgomery, with
federal records showing it has about 160 trucks in its fleet with
nearly the same number of drivers.

Unlike other lawsuits that have been filed against Pilot Flying J
since IRS and FBI allegations surfaced of a cheating customers out
of fuel purchase rebates, this one is the first to involve alleged
RICO violations and does not seek class action status.  By
alleging racketeering, it seeks to triple damages for any money
the truckstop operator wrongly kept.

This is believed to be the ninth federal lawsuit against Pilot
Flying J.  Some of the lawyers in earlier lawsuits have retained
the services of former FBI director Louis Freeh and his firm as
part of their own investigation.

Two Pilot Flying J employees have pleaded guilty to charges in
federal court over their involvement in a scheme.  A regional
sales director along with an account executive have yet to be
sentenced and are believed to be working with investigators, which
could result in a lighter punishment.  So far these are the only
convictions.

The Commercial Appeal newspaper in Memphis reports this could be
just the beginning of the effort by federal officials to prosecute
the company further, with court documents claiming sales people
were trained in how to defraud customers.

The Associated Press talked with one former federal prosecutor, Ty
Howard, along with Nashville attorney David Raybin, both of whom
are not involved in the Pilot Flying J case.  Mr. Raybin said the
two people who admitted guilt could be powerful witnesses for the
government, who likely has its sights on those at the top of the
alleged scam.  Mr. Howard said he expects prosecutors to seek
information from lower-level employees that will allow them to go
after those at the top.

Pilot CEO Jimmy Haslam, brother to Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam, has
denied any wrongdoing or any knowledge of such a plot, but has
also said the company will work with anyone who feels they may be
due money.  Gov. Haslam still holds a significant stake in the
company, which reportedly did more than $31 billion in business
last year, but says he hasn't had a role in operations in many
years.

Meantime Pilot Flying J president Mark Hazelwood has hired a big-
name attorney, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper.

Former prosecutor Rusty Hardin, who was the lead attorney for the
so-called "Big Five" accounting firms, including Arthur Anderson,
following the collapse of Enron, is representing Hazelwood.
Mr. Hardin previously represented former Major League Baseball
player Roger Clemens, who was found not guilty of charges that he
lied to Congress about use of performance enhancing drugs.

Mr. Hazelwood is also being represented by another former
prosecutor, now currently a Knoxville attorney, Gordon Ball, who
was the attorney for the Butcher brothers and the bank scandal
they were involved in, resulting in both eventually being
convicted and going to prison in the 1980s.

Pilot Flying J vice president of sales, John Freeman, the
newspaper reports, has hired Chattanooga attorney Roger Dickson.
He represented Tyson Foods over charges it knowingly hired illegal
immigrants, in which all charges against his clients were found
not guilty.  Mr. Freeman was alleged taped having conversations
about Pilot Flying J's alleged illegal practices.

Edward Yarbrough, attorney for Arnold Ralenkotter, the regional
sales director who admitted guilt on May 29, says about 25
attorneys, mostly on the criminal side, have been hired to defend
Pilot Flying J or its employees.


PILOT FLYING J: Ohio Auto Delivery Files Fuel Rebate Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Lindgren, writing for WKYC-TV, reports that Ohio Auto
Delivery Inc. has filed the 10th lawsuit against Jimmy Haslam's
Pilot Flying J regarding an alleged mishandling of a fuel rebate
program.

Mr. Haslam is CEO of Pilot Flying J and also owner of the
Cleveland Browns.

While this is the 10th lawsuit against Pilot in the wake of the
FBI's investigation in the truck stop rebate scam, Ohio Auto
Delivery is the first company to file suit in Ohio.

The trucking company, based in Grove City, filed the class action
lawsuit in the US District Court in Toledo, on May 30.

The lawsuit alleges, "[Pilot Travel Centers] engaged in an
unlawful and intentional scheme to defraud and cheat [Ohio Auto
Delivery] and class members by depriving them of their proper fuel
rebates and discounts for the purpose of increasing its
profitability, increasing its return on investment, and increasing
the compensation of [Pilot's] executives."

The claims include breach of contract, violation of Ohio's trade
practice, unjust enrichment and common law fraud.

Also attached to the Ohio affidavit, is a copy of the contract
with Pilot from August 2004.

Ohio Auto Delivery says the fraud by Pilot began at least as far
back as 2005, three years earlier than the time period in a plea
deal recently made by two Pilot employees.

A few days ago, an Alabama trucking company filed against Pilot
Flying J aka Pilot Travel Centers, alleging violations of the
federal racketeering statute.

Both Ohio Auto delivery and Shoreline Transportation of Alabama
USA Inc.'s lawsuits allege breach of contract and fraud.

J. Michael Bowling -- mbowling@friedman-lawyers.com -- the
attorney for Shoreline Transportation, spoke with WTAM Radio on
May 31, about the lawsuit.

"From the evidence and the facts that are now coming out, it
appears that a lot of people at Pilot knew what was going on with
the rebate program. [The trucking companies] feel like they should
be treated like they were supposed to be treated under the
agreement they had with Pilot Flying J," Mr. Bowling told WTAM.

In response to the latest allegations, Pilot Flying J spokesman
Tom Ingram made this statement:

"We've been advised by counsel that class action lawsuits in a
matter like this are expected and no surprise.  Our counsel will
review them as they come, and defend them properly."

"The statements released by the federal court do not come as a
surprise, given what we've been learning in our own internal
investigation, but are nonetheless disappointing.  We want to
assure our customers that we are taking every step to correct any
wrongdoing that has occurred and to make certain that it does not
happen again," Ingram said.


PRESSLER & PRESSLER: Loses Bid to Arbitrate Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Martin Bricketto, writing for Law360, reports that The New Jersey
Appellate Division on May 31 refused Pressler & Pressler LLP's bid
to arbitrate a putative class action accusing the debt collection
firm of filing false and deceptive complaints, finding that it
couldn't invoke that right as part of underlying credit card
agreements.

The Parsippany, N.J.-based firm lodged the contested complaints
for Midland Funding LLC, which acquired Chase Bank USA accounts on
which class plaintiffs owed money, according to the May 31
opinion.  Plaintiffs have accused the firm of violating the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.


RAWSON-NEAL: Faces Class Action Over "Greyhound Therapy"
--------------------------------------------------------
Megan Gallegos at Courthouse News Service reports that calling it
"Greyhound therapy," a Las Vegas psychiatric hospital drugs
patients and sends them on buses out of state to cities where they
know no one, without medical instructions or anyone to care for
them, one such patient claims in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff James Flavy Coy Brown claims the hospital's illegal
policies are "sometimes referred to as 'Greyhound therapy.'"

He sued Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital, Southern Nevada Adult
Mental Health Services, the Nevada Bureau of Health Care and
Quality and Compliance, Dr. Anurag Gupta, his psychiatrist at
Rawson-Neal, and others.

The complaint states: "Plaintiffs are former psychiatric patients
at defendant Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital (hereinafter
'Rawson-Neal') who, while still in need of psychiatric care, were
involuntarily discharged from the facility by defendants and their
agents and employees, and sent to out-of-state destinations where
defendants knew said patients would be unable to obtain proper
treatment, care and housing.  Plaintiffs were medicated before
their discharge and required to leave the facility under the
influence of powerful anti-psychotic/tranquilizing medication.
While plaintiffs were in a drugged state, and incompetent to give
informed consent, the standard procedure was for institution staff
to physically escort plaintiffs from the facility and place them
in taxis bound for the Greyhound Bus Station in Las Vegas, Nevada.
They were directed and required to travel on pre-paid tickets
which had been previously ordered and paid for by Defendants
Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services (hereinafter
'SNAMHS') and Rawson-Neal."

Brown, 48, says he was admitted to Rawson-Neal on Feb. 9.  The
hospital is run by Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services.
He was given "a diagnosis of psychosis, hearing voices, and
thinking of suicide," he says in the complaint.

He was discharged on Feb. 11.

"Defendants knew he was penniless and homeless and defendant
Rawson-Neal knew or acted in reckless disregard of the fact that
he would be unable to care for himself during the journey or upon
his arrival," the complaint states.  "Before he was discharged, he
was started on Thorazine, Cymbalta and Klonopin, all psychotropic
medications which affect thinking and judgment.  While Defendant
Rawson-Neal had developed a written treatment plan which included
assisting him to locate a group home placement and locating a case
worker for him, this treatment plan was intentionally disregarded
and violated by his involuntary discharge contrary to the plan.

"On February 13, defendant psychiatrist Dr. Anurag Gupta
(hereinafter 'Gupta') ordered Brown discharged, physically
escorted from the facility, and placed in a taxi which had been
ordered by the defendants.  Plaintiff Brown was then transported
to the Greyhound Bus Station, where a pre-paid ticket had been
purchased by the defendants to take Brown to Sacramento,
California, a city which he had no prior contact, and where he
knew no one.  There was no follow-up plan and no prior contact had
been made with any institutions in Sacramento from which Brown
could obtain medical and psychiatric care.  He was given three
days of powerful anti-psychotic medications and bottle of Ensure
for the 15 hour bus ride.

"Plaintiff Brown arrived in Sacramento, homeless, confused and
anxious.  He was taken by police to a local homeless service
center, Loaves and Fishes, which could provide no housing, medical
care or transportation. After his arrival at that location, he was
directed to the U.C. Davis Medical Center's emergency department
which, after three days, arranged for Brown to be treated by
Heritage Oaks psychiatric facility.  From there he was discharged
to a group home in Sacramento."

Brown claims he's one of more than 1,500 patients the defendants
have treated this way, sent dazed and confused to nearly every
state in the union.

"After learning of the 'dumping' of Brown in Sacramento by
defendants, the Sacramento Bee newspaper began to investigate the
circumstances which led to Brown's arrival in Sacramento and
discovered that since the year 2008 approximately 1,500 patients
of the Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital in Las Vegas, Nevada, have
been transported by Greyhound Bus to almost every state in the
country, all with minimum provisions to sustain them during
protracted bus rides.

"A random survey by Nevada's Bureau of Health Care Quality and
Compliance (hereinafter 'NBHCQC') of 30 discharges of psychiatric
patients from Rawson-Neal revealed discharges in violation of
policy and procedures of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid and
the facility's own policies occur frequently.  Patients, such as
Brown, were involuntarily placed on Greyhound buses and sent out
of state without prior arrangements having been made for follow-up
care.  These patients were not informed where they should go to
receive continuing care upon arrival at their destinations.
Discharge orders did not specify the amount of nutritional
supplements to be provided to the patients for their extended bus
trips; and appropriate and necessary prescription medications were
not provided.  Furthermore, necessary information was not provided
on discharge documentation."

Brown seeks punitive damages for civil rights violations,
constitutional violations including cruel and unusual punishment,
medical malpractice, negligence, gross negligence and breach of
fiduciary duties.

He is represented by Allen Lichtenstein with the ACLU of Nevada.


ST. LOUIS, MO: Court Says Red Light Cameras Are Reasonable
----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that red light
cameras will not bend to criticism that such systems represent
"the elusive goose that lays the golden egg" for cash-strapped
cities, a Missouri appeals court ruled.

St. Louis launched its program in May 2007 through a contract with
American Traffic Solutions. Drivers who violate a red light camera
receive a $100 fine in the mail.  The red light camera takes a
picture of the vehicle and the vehicle's license plate, but not
the driver.

The city brought in $5.4 million last year, with $3.7 million
going to the city's general revenue fund and $1.7 million to
American Traffic Solutions, the mayor's office told the St. Louis
Post-Dispatch.

A trio of drivers who received red-light camera tickets filed a
class action, and Judge Mark Neill with the St. Louis Circuit
Court agreed that the city had been unjustly enriched while
violating the protections against self-incrimination and right to
due process, among other things.

Neil ruled in February 2010 that St. Louis lacked the authority to
regulate red light cameras and that current law provided no way
for someone to contest the violation, except to claim that someone
else was driving.

A three-judge panel of the appellate court's Eastern District
reversed on June 11, 2013, concluding that reasonable traffic
regulations are a proper exercise of a city's police power.

"We are not blind to the criticism that municipalities use
automated red light enforcement systems to generate substantial
revenue to fund their municipal operations," Judge Kurt Odenwald
wrote for the court.  "Indeed, a common sense understanding of the
implementation of the automated system strongly suggests cities
employing automated red light cameras within their municipal
boundaries may have discovered the elusive goose that lays the
golden egg.  However, by analogy, is the automated red light
enforcement system fundamentally different from radar guns used by
law enforcement, which when first introduced, represented a
significant technological advance that aided law enforcement and
municipalities enforce existing traffic regulations?  It seems
logical that the use of radar similarly may have resulted in
increased revenues to municipalities due to more aggressive and
accurate enforcement of existing traffic regulations made possible
by new technology."

"As disconcerting as it may seem, the financial windfall enjoyed
by municipalities implementing the automated camera system does
not diminish the benefits to public safety occasioned by any
potential reduction in traffic accidents within their municipal
boundaries," Odenwald wrote.

The appellate panel affirmed, however, on the point that St. Louis
fails to provide cited drivers with notice of their right to plead
not guilty and contest the violation in court.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that
he plans to seek a rehearing and transfer.  The issue could end up
in the Missouri Supreme Court.

Judges Clifford Ahrens and Lawrence Mooney concurred with
Odenwald.


SEE'S CO: Recalls Milk & Dark Raisins Over Undeclared Nuts & Eggs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
See's Company of San Francisco is recalling all Milk and Dark
Raisins because it may contain undeclared tree nuts and eggs.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to tree nuts
(e.g.: almonds, walnuts, pecans, cashews) and/or eggs run the risk
of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products.

Product was distributed nationwide through See's Candies Retail
Stores, Licensees and Mail Order.  The product is sold bulk and
packaged at the stores in 8 oz clear cellophane bags.  No
illnesses have been reported to date.  The product UPCs are: Milk
Raisins UPC: 737666083060 and Dark Raisins UPC: 737666083053.

Picture of the recalled products' labels is available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm357121.htm

The recall was initiated after a retail store discovered a
chocolate covered pecan in the raisin bulk pack.  Subsequent
investigation indicates the problem was caused because of shared
lines that produce nut containing candies.  There is a potential
that nut and egg residue may be present in some of the chocolate
enrobed raisins.

Consumers who have purchased Sees' Candies Milk or Dark Raisins
and are sensitive to nuts and eggs are urged to return the raisins
to the place of purchase for a full refund or exchange.  Consumers
with questions may contact the Company at 1-800-789-7337 (Monday
thru Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time).


SEQUEL NATURALS: Recalls Vega One Bars & Vega Sport Protein Bars
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sequel Naturals Ltd., doing business as "Vega," is voluntarily
recalling a limited quantity of nutrition bars due to finding
trace amounts of milk in some lot codes.

People who have severe sensitivity or allergies to milk may run
the risk of a serious or life threatening allergic reaction if
they consume these products.  There has been one reported allergic
reaction.

The bars are sold nationwide.  They do not pose any risk to the
general population without milk allergies.

While the products are labeled with a precautionary statement
"Made in a facility that processes peanuts, tree nuts, sesame,
dairy, and soy", Vega will be revising our packaging to expand the
current precautionary allergen labeling information to include
"May Contain Dairy. . . ."

For more information, please visit Vega's Web site:
http://www.myvega.com/

Vega is voluntarily recalling bars from these lot codes:

                                                      Expiry
  Product name          Size   UPC            Lot      Date
  ------------          ----   ---            ---      ----
  Vega ONE Bar -        63 g   838766070049   13028U   14-Feb
  Chocolate Almond

  Vega ONE Bar -        63 g   838766070056   13032U   14-Mar
  Chocolate Cherry

  Vega ONE Bar -        63 g   838766070032   13026U   14-Feb
  Double Chocolate

  Vega Sport Protein    60 g   838766008301   12100U   13-May
  Bar - Chocolate
  Coconut

  Vega Sport Protein    60 g   838766008301   12170U   13-Jul
  Bar - Chocolate
  Coconut

  Vega Sport Protein    60 g   838766008301   12238U   13-Sep
  Bar - Chocolate
  Coconut

  Vega Sport Protein    60 g   838766008301   12296U   13-Nov
  Bar - Chocolate
  Coconut

  Vega Sport Protein    60 g   838766008301   12346    Jan-14
  Bar - Chocolate
  Coconut

  Vega Sport Protein    60 g   838766008301   13037U   14-Mar
  Bar - Chocolate
  Coconut

  Vega Sport Protein    60 g   838766008318   12095U   13-May
  Bar - Chocolate
  Saviseed

  Vega Sport Protein    60 g   838766008318   12172U   13-Jul
  Bar - Chocolate
  Saviseed

  Vega Sport Protein    60 g   838766008318   12235U   13-Sep
  Bar - Chocolate
  Saviseed

  Vega Sport Protein    60 g   838766008318   12295U   13-Nov
  Bar - Chocolate
  Saviseed

  Vega Sport Protein    60 g   838766008318   12349    Jan-14
  Bar - Chocolate
  Saviseed

  Vega Sport Protein    60 g   838766008318   13038U   14-Mar
  Bar - Chocolate
  Saviseed

Pictures of the recalled products' labels are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm356774.htm

This voluntary recalling does not apply to any other Vega products
distributed anywhere in the United States.

If you have purchased a product from any of the lot codes below
and wish to return it, please call or email Vega for a full
refund: 1-866-839-8863 or questions@myvega.com.


STRIDE RITE: Recalls 7,500 Joanna Girl's Sandal Over Choking Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Stride Rite Children's Group LLC, of Lexington, Massachusetts,
announced a voluntary recall of about 7,500 "Joanna" Girl's
Sandals.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The metal flower on the shoe can detach, posing a choking hazard.

The firm has received six reports of the flowers detaching and
eleven reports of flowers loosening.  No injuries have been
reported.

The "Joanna" girl's sandals have an ankle strap, three bands and a
flower on top.  They were sold in white with a silver-colored
metal flower and brown with a copper-colored metal flower in
girl's sizes 8.5 through 10.  The name "Joanna," the style number
CG40723 (white shoe) or CG40725 (brown shoe) and the size are
printed on the underside of the front shoe strap.  "StrideRite"
appears on the bottom of the shoe.  Pictures of the recalled
products are available at: http://is.gd/ORDg4q

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at tride
Rite stores and other department stores nationwide and online at
striderite.com and various online retailers from December 2011
through May 2013 for between $30 and $42

Consumers should immediately take the recalled shoes away from
children and contact Stride Rite to receive a prepaid envelope for
the return of the shoes.  Upon return, customers will receive a
voucher for the purchase price redeemable at Stride Rite stores or
striderite.com.  Stride Rite may be reached at (800) 365-4933,
from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday,
online at http://www.striderite.com/and click on Product Safety
Information under Customer Service for more information or e-mail
JoannaReturns@striderite.com


TEXSPORT: Recalls 325 Cedar Lake Heater/Cookers Due to Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Texsport, of Houston, Texas, announced a voluntary recall of about
325 Cedar Lake Propane Heaters/Cookers.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The regulator on the heater/cooker malfunctions when a user
switches from a cooking to heating option, or vice versa, the gas
propane turns to liquid, which can flare easily and pose a fire
hazard.

There was one incident of fire reported.  No injuries were
reported.

The dual use heater/cooker consists of a single large ceramic
burner with a metal stand.  It measures 9 inches by 10.25 inches
by 4.5 inches.  It has a fitting below the burner for a propane
bottle of either 16.4 oz. or 14.1 oz. sizes.  The heater/cooker
comes with a hose and regulator for connecting the propane bottle.
The heater/cooker's product number #14219 is printed on the
packaging.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/y2ANek

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
various sporting goods, outdoor and Army/Navy stores nationwide,
and online at Sears.com, Kmart.com and Amazon.com from May 2012 to
February 2013 for about $37.

Consumers should immediately stop using the product and contact
the company for information about how to return the product and
receive a full refund.  Texsport may be reached at (800) 231-1402
from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Time Monday through Friday or
online at http://www.texsport.com/and click on RECALL link.


TWININGS NORTH AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Tea False Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reports that a consumer fraud class
action against Twinings North America claims the tea company has
falsely represented the health benefits of more than 50 different
blends of its teas.

Lead plaintiff Nancy Lanovaz, who filed the lawsuit, claims she
paid a premium price for Twinings' green and black tea and would
not have purchased it without the allegedly unlawful labeling that
the tea is a "natural source of antioxidants."

Twinings filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, however, US
District Judge Ronald M. Whyte has now ruled that the potential
class action may move forward stating that that 51 of the 53 tea
blends that Ms. Lanovaz claims are falsely labeled are made from
the same camellia sinensis plant and are therefore the same
product.

"Because the claims for 51 of the varieties of tea are based upon
the exact same label describing the same product, camellia
sinensis, the court finds that Lanovaz has standing to sue on
behalf of the purchasers of these teas and thus denies Twinings'
motion with respect to these products," Judge Whyte wrote.  "Red
tea, on the other hand, is made from a different plant and is thus
a significantly different product."

The consumer fraud class action lawsuit alleging false advertising
of Twinings teas claims the company violated California's Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law and the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: June 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reports that May 31 was the deadline set
to object to or drop out of a class action against Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International Inc., and GlaxoSmithKline.

An $11.75 million settlement has been tentatively agreed in the
Wellbutrin XL antitrust class action filed against Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International Inc., and GlaxoSmithKline.  If you
bought Wellbutrin XL(R)or its Generic equivalent, the proposed
class action settlement could affect you.

This matter is a lawsuit against Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
formerly Biovail Corp., and SmithKline Beecham Corporation doing
business as GlaxoSmithKline and GlaxoSmithKline plc, the companies
that manufactured and marketed the antidepressant Wellbutrin XL.

The lawsuit, entitled In re: Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Litigation,
Case No. 8-cv-2433, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, alleges the pharmaceutical manufacturers worked
together to delay the availability of less expensive, generic
versions of Wellbutrin XL.  Anyone who purchased Wellbutrin XL or
its generic equivalent in the following states may be eligible to
claim part of the settlement, if it is approved: California,
Florida, Nevada, New York, Tennessee and/or Wisconsin.

For additional information regarding this lawsuit, proposed
settlement, and for obtaining a Claim, visit:
http://www.wxlclassaction.com/

Claim form submissions for this class action are due July 12,
2013.

A fairness hearing is set for June 18 at which time the proposed
settlement will either be approved or not.


VISA INC: West Va. Says Settlement May Set Dangerous Precedent
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parkersburg News and Sentinel reports that the state of West
Virginia has joined 47 other states and the District of Columbia
in a friend of the court brief about a pending $7.25 billion
class-action settlement involving the MasterCard and VISA payment
networks, Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said on May 30.

Terms in the proposed settlement as written may release or
interfere with the states' authority to bring antitrust claims on
behalf of citizens, Mr. Morrisey said.

"This settlement could set a dangerous precedent of private
parties using a lawsuit to insulate themselves from future efforts
by my office to enforce state and federal antitrust laws on behalf
of West Virginians who may have been harmed," Mr. Morrisey said.

The antitrust class-action lawsuit by private merchants is pending
before a federal judge in Brooklyn, N.Y., over interchange fees
credit card companies charged to process transactions.  The
proposed settlement was announced last summer and it was
preliminarily approved by the district court in November.

The states, which are not parties to the suit, say the proposed
settlement eliminates a state right to sue on behalf of its
citizens.  The brief asks the district court to ensure that the
settlement does not release or interfere with any governmental
entities' enforcement authority.

States are continuing discussions with the parties in an attempt
to resolve these concerns without court intervention.  The
district court is not expected to consider final approval of the
settlement agreement until September.


WARNER MUSIC: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Internships
--------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a former intern filed a class-
action lawsuit on June 17 against Warner Music Group and Atlantic
Records over his unpaid internship, similar to a spate of recent
lawsuits in other industries pushing back against the widespread
practice.

In the filing in state Supreme Court in Manhattan, plaintiff
Justin Henry says he was never paid for the office work he
performed from October 2007 through May 2008 but should have been
under state labor law.

The suit alleges there was no academic or vocational training as
part of the internship, and that employees would have needed to be
hired to do the work if Henry wasn't doing it for free.  The suit
claims Henry routinely worked more than 40 hours a week, but never
got any overtime wages.

Atlantic is part of Warner Music Group. Warner declined to comment
on pending litigation.

Although Henry is the only plaintiff, attorney Maurice Pianko said
it was filed as a class-action suit because there could be others
in the same position who decide to join.

Similar lawsuits over unpaid internships have been filed in other
industries.

In one lawsuit filed last week, two former interns who worked at W
Magazine and The New Yorker sued parent company Conde Nast
Publications for allegedly failing to pay them the minimum wage.
Another lawsuit has been filed against Hearst Magazines.

A federal judge last week ruled in a case over unpaid internships
in the film industry.  U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III
ruled that Fox Searchlight Pictures violated minimum wage and
overtime laws by not paying interns who worked on production of
the 2010 movie "Black Swan."

In the ruling, Judge Pauley said Fox should have paid the two
interns who filed the lawsuit because they did the same work as
regular employees, provided value to the company and performed
low-level tasks that didn't require any specialized training.


WESTLAND, MI: Court Approves Flooding Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Macuga, Liddle & Dubin, P.C., an environmental class action law
firm, on May 30 announced important information for Westland
basement flooding victims.

On May 15, 2013, a Wayne County Circuit Court Judge has approved a
$5,147,500 class action settlement between the City of Westland,
Wayne County and Westland residents who suffered basement flooding
on June 5-6, 2010 and May 25, 2011. (Case No. 10-009993-NZ)

Judge Brian R. Sullivan approved the settlement which involves
more than 700 homes and businesses that suffered flooding in the
City of Westland.

The settlement arose from class action lawsuits filed by residents
against the City of Westland and Wayne County seeking compensation
for property damage and clean up expenses as a result of the
flooding of their properties by raw, untreated sewage.

According to the settlement, each approved claim will receive a
pro rata share of the settlement based on the amount of their
claimed damages.  Class members were to submit their claim form
and supporting paperwork to Macuga, Liddle & Dubin on or before
June 3, 2013.

Distribution of the settlement proceeds is scheduled to occur in
the end of July 2013.

"This case disproves a common misconception that the government is
not responsible for basement flooding or when sewers backup
because of rain.  A properly maintained sewer system should not
flood homes," said Steve Liddle -- SLiddle@mldclassaction.com --
lead counsel for the homeowners.

Mr. Liddle also indicated that in addition to providing
compensation, the settlement serves as a warning to government
officials that they can be held accountable for failing to
properly maintain their sewers.

Macuga, Liddle & Dubin, P.C. has represented thousands of
individuals complaining of damages arising from the flooding or
invasion of private property by a sewer backup.  These cases
resulted in settlements where the defendants agreed to pay
millions of dollars in damages.  The firm also focuses on cases
involving environmental contamination, governmental liability and
complex consumer class actions.


* Bill to Curb Frivolous Class Actions Awaits Governor's Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Barnett, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a bill
that would change the requirements for certification in class
action lawsuits has passed both the Senate and House unanimously
and is headed to the governor's desk.

HB472 was authored by first term Representative Jay Morris
(R-Monroe) who said the legislation would tighten the
certification process for class action lawsuits.

Mr. Morris said the high cost associated with defending class
action certification was the reason he put the bill forward.

"Defendants who typically pay by the hour spend anywhere from
$50,000 to $3-4 million defending class certification and I think
that this bill would say 'Wait a minute.  These claims really have
to be identical for a class to be certified,'" he said.  "The bill
doesn't eliminate class actions, but I think it will help reduce
the possibility of highly questionable class actions that are
certified.  Because that is where the big fight is . . .
certification."

The bill would require defendants in class action lawsuits to
prove their class members have identical claims before certifying
a class.

"What plaintiff's attorneys hope for is to extract a settlement
because once a class is certified huge amounts of pressure get put
on defendants, even if they think the claim is valueless of
worthless, because of the possibility of an adverse judgment," he
said.

Mr. Morris said he made a slight change in the language of the
bill at the request of the trial lawyer-comprised Louisiana
Justice Association, however, he does not expect the amendment
will change the original intent of the bill.

"The Louisiana State Bar Association and the trial lawyers thought
that, wrongfully in my opinion, if that became law it would
effectively end class actions in Louisiana, which actually it
would be ok with me if it did that, but it didn't do that," he
said.

Although there were still some opponents to the bill within the
Louisiana Justice Association, Morris said his concession stopped
any major opposition and allowed the legislation to sail through
the legislature without a single vote against.

As an example of class action certification run amok Morris
mentioned a lawsuit against an Anytime Fitness location in Baton
Rouge that would likely not have been certified if his law were in
place.

"A rogue employee at a health club was videoing the girl's
bathroom and locker room, which is an egregious behavior, and they
sued the health club and the employee. Of course the health club
owners didn't know this was going on," he said.  "They sued on
behalf of every girl that went to the health club and there wasn't
any evidence put on that each lady was actually damaged by the
actions of that employee."

The case was turned over earlier this year when the class was
decertified by the Louisiana Supreme Court.

"If my law would have been in effect it wouldn't have gone all the
way to the Supreme Court and gotten reversed," he said. "Under our
current system everyone pays their own attorney's fees so the
defendant in that case had to pay all of this money for each class
member even though they had no proof and all of the class
certification process."

Mr. Morris said he expects Gov. Jindal will sign the bill into
law.

"Gov. Jindal has not made tort reform one of his pillars of his
admin but he hasn't actively opposed it either.  I don't think it
will be a problem," he said.


* Data Breach Laws to Spur Class Actions, IIA Says
--------------------------------------------------
Allie Coyne, writing for ITnews, reports that a growth in class
action lawsuits against companies revealing data breaches is a
likely outcome of the Government's new laws governing data breach
notification, according to the chairman of the Internet Industry
Association.

Patrick Fair, also a partner at law firm Baker & McKenzie, told
iTnews the mandatory data breach notification legislation
introduced into Parliament on May 29 and set to go live next March
would potentially open up companies to class action lawsuits.

"[Affected companies] have to write a notice and send it to each
data subject and the Privacy Commissioner and anybody else at
serious risk of harm, and those notices provide an immediate class
of people who might want to seek compensation through a class
action," he said.

"It facilitates a claim against the organization.

"It'll depend on the breach, but it's certainly going to be
something that gets tried out in a way that it hasn't before,
because organizations have been able to manage the issue in
private."

The Government is aiming to make the new mandatory data breach
notification legislation live in March next year alongside the
introduction of the new Privacy Act 2012.

The data breach laws would force companies to notify the Federal
Privacy Commissioner and affected consumers when data breaches
occur, or when an organization is at "real risk" of a breach.

Those organizations that fail to take "reasonable steps" to secure
customer data prior to a breach could face penalties of up to
$1.17 million for repeat and serious offenders.  Serious
individual offenders face fines of up to $340,000.

Small-scale offenders face fines of up to $170,000 for
organizations and $34,000 for individuals.

Fair said the legislation was fairly ambiguous as to what
constituted "real risk" of harm -- defined in the legal documents
as "not remote".

The draft legislation categorizes harm in three categories:
financial, economical or reputational.

Fair said there would be many instances, such as a breach
involving credit card details, where there would be no question of
a risk.  But the wording of the legislation was murky enough to
make it difficult for organizations to decide whether they needed
to make notification.

"It's particularly problematic with this law where the penalties
are very high and the threshold is quite low," he said.

"If you hear the phrase 'real risk', you think probable or likely
risk.  Or some serious possibility of it.  But the definition of
the act is 'not remote'.

"So they mean 'real' in the other sense, in that it's just 'not
remote'.  And boy that's a pretty low threshold as well."


* High Court Justices Must Curb Class Action Abuses
---------------------------------------------------
The Intelligencer Wheeling-News Register reports that many of us
have received the class-action settlement notices in the mail.
They inform us that because we bought a certain product or
service, we are entitled to share in the proceeds of a lawsuit
settlement on behalf of our class.

But we didn't ask to be included in the lawsuit.  We don't recall
being displeased with the product in question.  And we wonder who
decided we ought to be offered a settlement consisting of a couple
of bucks off our next purchase of said product.

It happens all the time -- and safeguarding you has nothing to do
with it.  No, the scheme involves lawyers virtually inventing
classes of people on whose behalf they can file consumer lawsuits.
The more people in the class, the fatter the attorneys' cut of the
settlement.

Supreme Court justices are considering a case involving just such
a situation (washing machines, in this case).  They have an
opportunity in their ruling to curb unscrupulous lawyers who file
class-action lawsuits that are, by definition, self-serving.
While the attorneys may walk away from such cases with millions of
dollars, consumers end up paying higher prices for goods and
services, to offset companies' costs of the settlements.

High court justices should curb lawyers' ability to invent such
classes.  People with legitimate complaints should be allowed to
sue -- but greedy attorneys should not be permitted to inflate
their fees artificially.


* Justice Alito Orders Review of Pay-for-Delay Payment Deals
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Longstreth, writing for Reuters, reports that when the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled on June 17 that payments made by brand-name
drug companies to generic rivals to keep cheaper drugs off the
market may be anticompetitive, it ensured that the spigot of
private lawsuits over those deals will not be shut off anytime
soon.

In a 5-3 opinion, with Justice Samuel Alito recused, the court
found so-called pay-for-delay payment deals should be reviewed
under the rule of reason doctrine, which requires an analysis of
the competitive justifications to determine their legality.

The ruling was widely considered a victory for the Federal Trade
Commission, which has been challenging the deals for more than a
decade.  The ruling will also serve to keep alive private lawsuits
brought in the wake of government investigations.

"Plaintiffs should be confident that they can show the court or
the jury that the pro-competitive justifications for these deals
are weak," said Joseph Saveri -- jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com -- of
the Joseph Saveri Law Firm, a plaintiffs' law firm specializing in
antitrust lawsuits.

Some plaintiffs' lawyers say the decision could encourage
additional lawsuits.  In January, the FTC said that brand-name
pharmaceutical companies reached agreements with generic
manufacturers 40 times in the past year, up from 28 the previous
year.

Some of those deals could be the subject of new litigation, said
Steve Shadowen -- steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com -- of Hilliard &
Shadowen, who has represented plaintiffs in pay-for-delay cases.

"You'll see another group of cases brought," Mr. Shadowen said.
"There's a lot of money at stake."

Pay-for-delay agreements are made to resolve patent infringement
lawsuits. Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, a prospective generic maker
must indicate to the Food and Drug Administration that its drug
will not infringe the brand-name company's patents.  Those
declarations prompt lawsuits by the brand-name companies over the
validity of the brand-name company's patents.

The settlements result in payments made by the brand-name
companies to the generics in exchange for a generic's promise to
delay entry of its drug.

Pay-for-delay deals have pitted the virtues of patent public
policy, which seeks to encourage innovation by granting companies
temporary monopolies for their inventions, against antitrust
policy, which is meant to encourage competition.  The deals also
have the advantage of advancing a public policy favoring out-of-
court settlements.

                    Not Total Victory for FTC

Over the last decade, private plaintiffs, such as national
drugstores, have filed lawsuits challenging such deals.  The
lawsuits seek damages for the alleged overpayments they made for
the brand-name drugs due to lack of competition from a generic
version.

Some lawsuits have ended in significant settlements.  Last week a
federal district court judge in Pennsylvania approved a $150
million settlement over a lawsuit involving a deal to delay
generic alternatives to GlaxoSmithKline's Flonase nasal spray.

Pay-for-delay lawsuits and settlements were in jeopardy in the
case before the Supreme Court.  The case involved a challenge by
the FTC of a deal made by brand-name drug maker Solvay
Pharmaceuticals Inc., now owned by AbbVie, and generic makers
Actavis Inc. (previously Watson Pharmaceuticals), Paddock
Laboratories Inc. (now part of Perrigo Co.) and Par Pharmaceutical
Cos.

In that case, the FTC had appealed a decision by the 11th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that, with few exceptions,
pay-for-delay should be considered presumptively lawful.

If the Supreme Court had adopted that approach, it likely would
have ended most antitrust lawsuits challenging pay-for-delay
deals, say legal experts.

The Supreme Court's decision was not a total victory for the FTC
and private plaintiffs, however.  The court also rejected an
approach sought by the FTC, which argued that pay-for-delay deals
should be viewed as presumptively illegal.

In an opinion for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that
under a rule of reason analysis, defendants could offer pro-
competitive justifications for reverse-payment deals, such as a
promise by the generic firms to render services to the brand-name
company in exchange for the payment.

Many existing pay-for-delay deals already include such features,
said Steven Bradbury of Dechert, a defense attorney.

"Are those justifications well grounded? That will be a subject
for litigation," Mr. Bradbury said.

Eric Cramer, a plaintiffs' attorney at Berger & Montague, said in
an email the limited rule of reason inquiry proposed by Breyer
suggests a "legal framework will help private plaintiffs
demonstrate the anticompetitive character of most reverse payment
agreements currently being challenged, and many yet to be
challenged."

Unlike the FTC, private plaintiffs that challenge pay-for-delay
deals often have to overcome procedural hurdles like standing. If
private plaintiffs can overcome those, they will put defendants in
an uncomfortable position.

"Few defendants relish facing a rule of reason antitrust
challenge," Mr. Bradbury said.  "They'd much rather have a basis
to defeat a lawsuit on a motion to dismiss."

Antitrust lawsuits under a rule of reason are famously complicated
and expensive.  New challenges of pay-for-delay deals will be no
different.

In a dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts alluded to the
complications that await lower courts that must weigh them.

"Good luck to the district courts that must, when faced with a
patent settlement, weigh the 'likely anticompetitive effects,
redeeming virtues, market power, and potentially offsetting legal
considerations present in the circumstances,'" he wrote.


* Lawmakers Give Businesses Chance to Escape Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Howard Fischer, writing for Arizona Daily Sun, reports that state
lawmakers voted on May 30 to give businesses a chance to escape
from class-action lawsuits before the legal bills -- and potential
verdict against them -- gets too large.

On a voice vote, with Republicans in favor, the House approved SB
1346 which permits a party to a lawsuit to file an appeal the
moment a trial judge decides whether a lawsuit can be maintained
as a class action.  Now, whichever side loses must wait until the
end of the case to argue that the trial judge was wrong.

Rep. Justin Pierce, R-Mesa, said that difference is significant.
More to the point, he said it could decide whether a company
decides to fight the case or simply settles to avoid future costs.

Most lawsuits are brought by individuals or companies who say they
have been damaged by the acts of others.

In a class-action lawsuit, one or more people seek to represent
the interests of everyone else who has been similarly affected by
a defendant's conduct, especially when everyone cannot be
individually identified at the time the suit is filed.  That
might, for example, include everyone who bought a particular
product.

The advantage is not just in avoiding multiple trials.  It also
means that individuals whose own claims may be too small to be
worth fighting in court -- perhaps just $50 -- can unite their
efforts.

Mr. Pierce said, though, there is a flip side to the issue.

"Class-action litigation is exorbitant in its expense," he said.

"Where the expense comes in is in discovery," Mr. Pierce
explained, the pretrial activities where each side does its own
investigation as well as takes sworn depositions and seeks
documents from those on the other side of the case.  And the costs
of that, he said can reach into the millions.

"That is usually what drives a settlement in a case, not based on
the merits, but because the defendant . . . is faced with the
potential of millions and millions of (legal) fees," Mr. Pierce
said.  "And so they may be driven to settle the case unfairly."

Allowing someone -- presumably a defendant -- to immediately
appeal a judge's certification of a class-action claim gives that
party a chance to escape those costs if the appellate court
overturns the order.  Otherwise, the case goes along as a class-
action matter, with the issue of whether the trial judge was wrong
decided only at the end.

That's exactly what happened two years ago when the U.S. Supreme
Court, on a 5-4 vote, threw out what had been certified by a lower
court judge as a class-action lawsuit against retail giant
Wal-Mart.  The lawsuit had sought billions of dollars on behalf of
about 1.5 million female employees, charging they were the victims
of system-wide discriminatory practices and pay.

Justice Antonin Scalia said federal rules require class-action
lawsuits to have "questions of law or fact common to the class."
In this case, he said, the allegations failed to provide
"convincing proof of a companywide discriminatory pay and
promotion policy," meaning the trial judge should never have
granted class-action status in the first place.

Rep. Debbie McCune Davis, D-Phoenix, said she fears the
legislation will undermine the ability to pursue class-action
lawsuits.  She said there are legitimate reasons for combining all
affected plaintiffs under a single legal umbrella.

As an example she cited the fertilizer explosion earlier this
month in West, Tex.

"If you look at this bill in the context of the damage done to a
single community by a single entity, you really can see the
importance of being able to proceed forward to hold the party
responsible through a class action," she said.  McCune Davis said
180 people were hospitalized and a "substantial" part of housing
was wiped out.

"People are going to want to know what caused the explosion, who
was responsible, was their negligence," she said.  "And if, in
fact, there is, it's really better for the community to proceed as
a class action to seek that remedy than to have individuals pursue
it individually."

But Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, said nothing in the
legislation alters the standards a trial judge will use to
determine whether a claim merits class-action status.  The only
difference, he said, is it permits whoever does not agree with the
judge's ruling to seek immediate appeal rather than have to wait
until the trial is over -- or to settle beforehand.

The merits of the change aside, Rep. Martin Quezada, D-Phoenix,
said lawmakers may be treading where they are not allowed.  He
said the rules of when a judge's decision can be appealed are set
by the Arizona Supreme Court and beyond the authority of the
Legislature.

Mr. Farnsworth disagreed, saying lawmakers have "some purview"
over how cases are handled.

A final roll-call vote is needed to send the measure to the Senate
which has never considered the language now in the bill.


* Montgomery McCracken Says Spike Product Labeling Suits a Threat
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen E. Polovoy, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that
spiking over the past two years, product labeling class actions
invoke state consumer protection statutes (usually in New Jersey
or California) and allege that an advertisement's or label's
language is false, misleading, or deceptive, and that consumers
would not have purchased the item without it.  Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages (e.g., purchase price, trebled in many
states), the value difference between the as-received and as-
advertised product, attorneys' fees, and various equitable relief
(e.g., changes to labels and ads).  For nationwide classes, the
alleged damages could be crippling to many companies.

Be prepared . . . "for any old thing," advised Boy Scouts of
America founder Robert Baden-Powell.  Over 100 years later, those
words are more than insightful scoutcraft recommendations.  In
today's burgeoning consumer fraud/product labeling class action
environment, they are a mandate for companies' management, in-
house counsel, and marketing departments that want to survive the
sharp uptick in suits premised upon consumer product labels'
language, such as "organic," "natural," "healthy," "clinically
proven," and "pure."  Sunscreen, yogurt, cereal, baby shampoo,
deodorant, orange juice, milk, soap, toothpaste, vitamins,
margarine, sneakers, granola bars, baby food, ice cream, diet
margarita drink mix, bottled water, cosmetics -- even cranberries
and cat litter -- have been targets.  Labeling litigation has
indeed, grown to encompass "any old thing."

While companies cannot block these filings outright, here are a
few issues that general counsel should be thinking about -- now --
in order to better position the organization, should it become a
defendant:

E-Discovery

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure -- Benjamin
Franklin's advice rings true as ever in litigation's digital age.
Pre-suit e-discovery preparation is preferable to post-suit
scrambling to locate relevant e-data. An adverse inference
sanction for e-discovery missteps can ring a case's death knell,
even if the substantive or class action defenses have merit.  In a
product labeling class action context, e-discovery involves a
number of significant considerations:

Removal: To remove a plaintiff's state case to federal court
(i.e., most defendants' preferred venue) under the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 (28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d), 1453, and 1711-
1715), defendants must file for removal within 30 days after
receiving service of the complaint (28 U.S.C. 1446(b)), and the
amount in controversy must exceed $5 million.  Knowing where the
sales data are for a given product with the particular label
language at issue (and for the pertinent state[s] and class period
at issue -- and how to access this information quickly -- is
imperative.

Hold Trigger: Keep in the company's fold experienced outside
counsel who are well-versed in the pertinent states' laws,
especially as to when document-preservation obligations arise
(e.g., cease routine e-record destruction and preserve hard-copy
documents).  For example, the duty to preserve evidence almost
everywhere arises "when a party reasonably believes that
litigation is foreseeable" and may arise many years before
litigation commences.  Consumer-plaintiffs often file private
lawsuits after seeing Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning
letters or Federal Trade Commission (FTC) action against
companies, products, or labels posted on agency websites.  Since
plaintiffs so frequently piggyback private class actions after FDA
or FTC web postings, query whether governmental agency action
within the food industry could trigger the litigation hold duty
before a complaint or subpoena is even received.

"Predominance": Opposing certification of class action consumer
fraud product labeling claims almost always involves arguments
that individualized questions of law or fact unique to each class
member predominate over common ones, thereby failing Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(b).  To equip their certification opposition arsenal, a
company should retain in a systematic and defensible manner the
documents that illustrate differences in consumers' individualized
exposure to and reliance upon its labels and advertisements --
which can vary across the board in significant ways, including:
the content, time period, and geographic reach of TV and radio
commercials for the product at issue; the content and time period
of website ads for the product; and the specific language and
timeframe of specific product labeling.  In other words, not every
proposed class member might have been exposed to the same ads and
labels.  Variations across print and television advertising,
labels, websites, and other communications suggest absence of Rule
23 predominance. Moreover, specificity-in-pleading requirements
like that of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) require complaints to say which
particular labels and ads class members saw and when; deficient
pleadings are subject to motions to dismiss.  Of course, effective
use of these strategies depends upon retaining a company's
substantive history of ads and labels.

Organizational Knowledge: Effective record retention policies will
keep institutional knowledge alive no matter how often employees
move on.  Defensible e-discovery practices consider, for example:
(1) The files of employees who have transferred departments within
the company but know all successive iterations of the relevant
time period's labels and TV, radio, Internet, and print ads for a
challenged product.  Such knowledge can provide a keyword list to
run searches for relevant e-discovery in the corporation's records
(i.e., the adjectives in various versions of ads about the
challenged product). (2) The files of employees who have left the
company but knew about previous scientific studies undertaken by
the company that would substantiate the claims on a challenged
label. (Counsel should also be involved in the regular and
consistent pre-suit practice of maintaining the records on which
labels are based, to more efficiently demonstrate those practices
were in place as of the times the labels were used.)

Costs: The costs of getting to the e-discovery finish line can be
large, but consulting with e-discovery and consumer fraud class
action outside counsel who know the current law in your
jurisdiction is indispensable.  See, e.g., Boeynaems v. LA Fitness
International, LLC, 285 F.R.D. 331 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (holding that
plaintiffs who were seeking broad e-discovery regarding class
certification issues should share in the production costs because
"discovery burdens should not force either party to succumb to a
settlement that is based on the cost of litigation rather than the
merits of the case").

Be Proactive, Not Reactive

To say that consumer fraud product labeling class actions disrupt
a business is like saying that a rattlesnake bite "stings a
little."  For example, time spent identifying relevant documents
and devoting personnel to depositions means resources diverted
from the company's "real business," especially when plaintiffs
pursue certification of nationwide classes.  Targeted companies
will perceive use of state consumer fraud statutes in the product
labeling context as unfair and frustrating, and upper management
with a strong sense of pride in their companies' products might
take these suits personally, but organizations that want to
weather this storm will still prepare now.  Since nationwide
classes have the potential to bring even large corporations to the
financial brink, a company that contemplates now how to oppose
class certification and defend labeling claims on the merits will
yield investment returns later if the storm hits close to home.
Here are some proactive best practices to keep in mind:

The right hand should know what the left is doing: Intra-company
education and communication go hand-in-hand with a defensible
record retention policy.  Marketing departments should have
regular dialogue with in-house legal departments that are up-to-
date with the latest developments in this area of class action
litigation so that, for example, a company's upcoming ad campaign
does not contain certain words or phrases that have been trending
in the recent consumer fraud filings over labels' and ads'
language.  Counsel's involvement in product label development now
must go beyond issues such as regulatory compliance and into areas
such as close examination of labels' "capacity to mislead"
consumers -- especially since literal truth is not always an
absolute defense in this arena.  Counsel should work with
marketing personnel to perform internal review of label language
from a consumer fraud law vantage point and to ensure there is a
good faith, sound, and substantiated basis for the labels that is
documented and retained in the company's records.  Risk management
here means that selection of product labels' language should not
be the sole election of marketing departments that might not be
sensitive to these issues and to the latest case law and
complaints.  Marketing departments may understandably perceive
other departments' commentary about product label development as
invasion of their territory, especially if a company decides to
reconsider and redo their most recent labels that use language
identical or similar to others that were targets in recent
lawsuits.  However, without consistent dialogues (preferably oral,
not written, for obvious discovery reasons) among advertising
departments, in-house counsel and outside counsel experienced in
this trend, a company's product label could make the organization
a target for the next class action.

Keep track of the changing landscape: Internal company task forces
should: (i) inventory the organization's current advertising, (ii)
compare it to existing case law, FDA and FTC regulations and
warning letters, and FTC Green Guides, and (iii) collaborate among
legal, marketing and upper management to evaluate risks posed by
the company's current advertising and identify steps to lessen or
eliminate those risks.  Critical to the task force's work would be
either (i) preparation of a 50-state survey (assuming a national
customer base) of court decisions (wherever the company sells or
markets its product) dealing with product labeling claims against
advertising language similar to the company's labels, or (ii)
adoption of a stringent jurisdiction's consumer fraud labeling
claim standards for similar products.  This inventory of benchmark
analogous examples of labeling claims can assist the executive and
advertising teams in collaboratively understanding the applicable
law and weighing the risks of the company's existing or
contemplated product label language.  With new product labeling
suits filed every week, the parameters of what constitutes non-
actionable "promotional puffery" (e.g., "unique features") versus
potential litigation targets (e.g., "clinically proven") can
change. So the intra-company task force should constantly strive
to remain up-to-date and cognizant of specific jurisdictions,
while simultaneously making their knowledge part of the marketing
and sales evolution of a product.  For subsequent discoverability
reasons, the task force should involve counsel in its
communications.

Gather your cache of nuts for the long, tough winter: Build into
the company's litigation budget now the foreseeable continuation
of labeling class actions in the coming five or more years. For
example: (i) purchase insurance that provides coverage if the
company is sued for misrepresenting its own (versus competitors')
products; (ii) retain outside counsel knowledgeable about
litigation hold triggers in these labeling class action contexts;
(iii) invest in e-data capabilities to make immediately accessible
information to remove a case to federal court, fight class
certification, defend the suit on the merits, or put a realistic
dollar value on it to meaningfully negotiate settlement; and (iv)
consult with outside counsel in the relevant jurisdictions to
advise, with a fresh perspective, on your current labels -- and
revamp them, if necessary.  Yes, these steps could require
considerable investment of financial resources.  Yet the
reputational harm to a company's brand and its product's
reputation from even frivolous suits could push organizations over
their own fiscal cliff.  Here, a penny spent could be many pennies
saved.

Kristen E. Polovoy -- kpolovoy@mmwr.com -- is of counsel to
Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads in Cherry Hill, New Jersey,
and serves as chairperson of the Camden County Bar Association's
Class Action Practice Committee.  Her practice concentrates on
class action defense.


                             *********

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  * * *