---

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

             Tuesday, July 30, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 148

                             Headlines


ADAMIS PHARMACEUTICALS: In Settlement Talks With Shareholders
ALLY FINANCIAL: Appeal From Dismissal of "Rahman" Suit Pending
ALLY FINANCIAL: Calif. Court Refuses to Certify Wage, Hour Suit
AMEDISYS INC: Consolidated Securities Lawsuit Now Dismissed
ASIANA AIRLINES: Passengers May Be Barred From Suing in U.S.

AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Class Cert. Denial in Club Members' Suit Affirmed
BP PLC: Judge Denies Bid to Halt $7.8MM Settlement Payments
CHA HOLLYWOOD: 9th Cir. Reverses Remand Ruling in "Roth" Suit
CHINA-BIOTICS INC: Faces Three Shareholder Suits in Calif., N.Y.
CIGNA CORP: Insurer Not Obligated to Indemnify $140MM Settlement

CISCO SYSTEMS: Calif. Court Dismisses Shareholder Lawsuits
COMMERCIAL METALS: Oral Arguments in Direct Buyers' Suit Pending
COMMERCIAL METALS: Still Faces Lawsuits by Indirect Purchasers
COMMODITY ADVISORS: CGM Still Faces Claims in Adelphia Litigation
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Citigroup Awaits OK of Deal in Employee Suits

COMMODITY ADVISORS: Citigroup Subsidiary Faces LIBOR-Related MDL
COMMODITY ADVISORS: Provides Update on LIBOR MDL
COMMODITY ADVISORS: "Abu Dhabi" Suit Defendants Could Lose $638MM
CONSTILLIUM ROLLED: Sued Over Retiree Health Benefit Changes
CVS PHARMACY: Reconsideration Bid in Employees' Suit Gets Approval

DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Settlement Hearing Adjourned to Aug. 2
EVERGREEN RECREATIONAL: Recalls 38 ELEMENT, and EVER-LITE Models
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Motion for Arbitration in "Bueche" Suit Denied
FLORIDA GAMING: Expects Dismissal of "Jacobs" After Settlement
FTD COMPANIES: No Ruling Yet on Bid to Consolidate "Frank" Suit

GRUPO AVAL: Sued Over Alleged Damaged to Customers in Colombia
HEALTH NET: Obtains Final Approval of Workers' Suit Settlement
IEC ELECTRONICS: Expects Lawsuits After Financial Restatement
INDYMAC MBS: District Court Ruling in "Detroit PFRS" Suit Upheld
ISLE OF CAPRI: Hearing in TCPA Breach Suit Accord Later This Year

KNIGHT CAPITAL: Scheduling Order Entered in Suit Over Algorithm
KNIGHT CAPITAL: Merger With Knight Acquisition Pushes Through
L'OREAL USA: False Labeling Suit Gets Initial Court Approval
LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls 12,699 Tera Gear & PC Metal Garden Torch
LS DISTRIBUTION: Recalls 23,464 Mineraux du Monde" No. 1 ? Gold

MANDALAY DIGITAL: Faces Suit in Tel-Aviv Over Phone Call Overages
NEW YORK: Dismissal of WTC Office Cleaners' Suit Affirmed
OAKLAND COLISEUM: Magistrate Judge Orders Dismissal of Missud Suit
PCS EDVENTURES!.COM: Settlement in Idaho Securities Suit Now Paid
PENN STATE: Board Approves $60MM Sandusky Sexual Abuse Settlement

PFIZER INC: Judge Wants Lawyers to Pick Up Pace in Zoloft MDL
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: "Emmons" Suit to Return to Calif. County Court
QWEST COMMS: Easement Deed Entered Under "Smith" Suit Settlement
REXNORD CORP: Accord in Suit Over Fittings Approved in February
RITE AID: Certification Discovery in "Indergit" Suit Completed

RITE AID: Faces Wage & Hour Lawsuits in Calif. State Courts
ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT: $54MM Accord With TD Bank Investors Okayed
S. TALLERICO: Court Recommends Dismissal of Anderson Amended Suit
SIMPLEXGRINNELL LP: Court Denies Bifurcation Bid in "Bennett" Suit
SOCIETE DES ALCOOLS: Recalls Tenute Marchesi Antinori Dessert Wine

SQUARE MILE: Recalls 2,500 Cases of Apple Cider Products
STANDARD & POOR'S: Suit Over Inflated Credit Ratings Can Proceed
SUZUKI MOTOR: Recalls 59 GSX1300R - HAYABUSA Model Motorcycles
TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Finances Unaffected by Amiodarone Lawsuit
TOSHIBA CORP: TFT-LCD Screen Price-Fixing Trial Underway

TOYOTA MOTOR: Sudden Acceleration Settlement "Complex Undertaking"
UNITED STATES: Lannan Foundation Sues Over Indian Trust Case Award
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Pimiento Cheese Spread Due to Undeclared Egg
ZEP INC: Pegs Settlement of Two Labor Suits at $1.6 Million

* Dunn & Crutcher Sees Big Changes Ahead for Securities Litigation


                             *********


ADAMIS PHARMACEUTICALS: In Settlement Talks With Shareholders
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adamis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and plaintiffs in a securities
suit filed against the company have entered into preliminary
settlement negotiations, according to the company's July 3, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013.

On May 27, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification
seeking to certify a putative class of shareholders who purchased
stock pursuant to either or both of Adamis' 2006 and 2008 private
placement memoranda.

On June 28, 2011, the court issued an order denying the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification on the grounds that (1)
plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to show that there are
common issues of fact to certify the class and (2) the individual
plaintiffs were not adequate class representatives.

Plaintiffs appealed the court's order denying class certification.
The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on March 28, 2012.
In June 2013, the Company and plaintiffs entered into preliminary
settlement negotiations. There can be no assurances that the
lawsuit will be settled or concerning the terms of any such
settlement.

The Company continues to believe that the plaintiffs' allegations
are without merit and intends to defend against plaintiffs' claims
vigorously.

The litigation fees and costs have been submitted to the company's
insurance carrier, which has agreed to pay the fees and costs
pursuant to the terms of the company's insurance policy, subject
to a reservation of rights letter.


ALLY FINANCIAL: Appeal From Dismissal of "Rahman" Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal against the defendants' motion to dismiss Shah Rahman v.
Kid Brands, et al. is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, according to Ally Financial Inc.'s May 20,
2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange.

On March 22, 2011, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court, District of New Jersey, encaptioned Shah Rahman v.
Kid Brands, et al. (the "Putative Class Action"). The Putative
Class Action was brought by one plaintiff on behalf of a putative
class of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired KID's
common stock between specified dates. In addition to KID, various
executives, and members and former members of KID's Board, were
named as defendants.

The Putative Class Action alleged one claim for relief pursuant to
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and a
second claim pursuant to the Exchange Act, claiming generally that
the Company and/or the other defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements during the relevant time period
regarding compliance with customs laws, the Company's financial
reports and internal controls. The Putative Class Action did not
state the size of the putative class. The Putative Class Action
sought compensatory damages but did not quantify the amount of
damages sought. The Putative Class Action also sought unspecified
extraordinary and injunctive relief, the costs and disbursements
of the lawsuit, including attorneys' and experts' fees and costs,
and such equitable relief as the court deemed just and proper. By
order dated July 26, 2011, Shah Rahman was appointed lead
plaintiff pursuant to Section 21D (a) (3) (B) of the Exchange Act.

On September 26, 2011, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, which was dismissed without prejudice on March 7, 2012.
On May 7, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint that named the Company, Bruce G. Crain, Guy A. Paglinco,
and Raphael Benaroya as defendants. The second amended complaint
repeated the same claims for relief and many of the allegations of
the previous complaints in the action, but contained new
allegations that, among other things, the Company and/or the other
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
during the relevant time period regarding custom law violations
and safety violations regarding certain of its products. The
relief demanded and the class period were each the same as in the
first amended complaint.

All of the defendants in the Putative Class Action filed motions
to dismiss the second amended complaint on June 29, 2012. On
October 17, 2012, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
such complaint with prejudice. On November 14, 2012, plaintiff
filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit from the judgment of the U.S. District Court, which
appeal is currently pending.

The Company intends to continue to defend the Putative Class
Action vigorously. No amounts have been accrued in connection
therewith, although legal costs are being expensed as incurred. As
the Company has satisfied the deductible under its applicable
insurance policy, the Company has been receiving reimbursement of
substantially all of the legal costs being incurred, which
receivables are netted against the expense.


ALLY FINANCIAL: Calif. Court Refuses to Certify Wage, Hour Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles denied plaintiff's motion for class certification in
the suit Guadalupe Navarro v. Kids Line, LLC, according to Ally
Financial Inc.'s May 20, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange.

On November 3, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles,
encaptioned Guadalupe Navarro v. Kids Line, LLC (the "Wages and
Hours Action"). The Wages and Hours Action was brought by one
plaintiff on behalf of a putative class for damages and equitable
relief for: (i) failure to pay minimum, contractual and/or
overtime wages (including for former employees with respect to
their final wages), and failure to provide adequate meal breaks,
in each case based on defendant's time tracking system and
automatic deduction and related policies; (ii) statutory penalties
for failure to provide accurate wage statements; (iii) waiting
time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to
timely pay terminated employees; and (iv) penalties under the
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

Plaintiff seeks wages for all hours worked, overtime wages for all
overtime worked, statutory penalties under Labor Code Section
226(e), and Labor Code Section 203, restitution for unfair
competition under Business and Professions Code Section 17203 of
all monies owed, compensation for missed meal breaks, and
injunctive relief. The complaint also seeks unspecified liquidated
and other damages, statutory penalties, reasonable attorney's
fees, costs of suit, interest, and such other relief as the court
deems just and proper. Although the total amount claimed is not
set forth in the complaint, the complaint asserts that the
plaintiff and the class members are not seeking more than $4.9
million in damages at this time (with a statement that plaintiff
will amend his complaint in the event that the plaintiff and class
members' claims exceed $4.9 million).

On January 30, 2013, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification with respect to two of the proposed classes and
continued for further briefing the motion for class certification
with respect to the remaining proposed classes. The Company
intends to vigorously defend the Wages and Hours Action. Based on
currently available information, the Company cannot currently
estimate the amount of the loss (or range of loss), if any, in
connection therewith. As a result, no amounts have been accrued in
connection therewith, although legal costs are being expensed as
incurred.


AMEDISYS INC: Consolidated Securities Lawsuit Now Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
A court entered an order dismissing Consolidated Securities Class
Actions against Amedisys, Inc., according to Exhibit 99.1 of the
company's July 2, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

Four securities class actions were also filed against Amedisys and
officers of the Company and consolidated by the Court for trial on
October 21, 2010. They are: (a) Bach v. Amedisys, Inc., No. 10-
395-BAJ-CN (filed July 16, 2010); (b) Isman v. Amedisys, Inc., No.
10-464-BAJ-CN (filed July 14, 2010); (c) Dvinsky v. Amedisys,
Inc., No. 10-470-BAJ-CN (filed July 16, 2010); and (d) Brinkley v.
Amedisys, Inc., No. 10-497-BAJ-CN (filed July 28, 2010)
(collectively referred to as the "Consolidated Securities Class
Actions").

There were also two ERISA actions filed against Amedisys and
directors of the Company that were consolidated by the Court for
trial on December 10, 2010. They are: (a) Corbin v. Amedisys,
Inc., No. 10-642-BAJ-SCR (filed September 27, 2010); and (b)
Galimba v. Amedisys, Inc., No. 10-732-BAJ-SCR (filed October 22,
2010) (collectively referred to as the "Consolidated ERISA Class
Actions").

The Court consolidated the Consolidated Derivative Actions, the
Consolidated Securities Class Actions and the Consolidated ERISA
Class Actions on December 10, 2010 for pretrial purposes. On June
28, 2012, the Court entered an order dismissing the Consolidated
Securities Class Actions. The Consolidated Securities Class
Actions and the Consolidated ERISA Class Actions are not part of
the "Action" for purposes of this Settlement.

Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that: (i) the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties because they authorized
or caused the Company to engage in an allegedly fraudulent
Medicare billing scheme by directing or incentivizing Amedisys
employees to schedule medically unnecessary home therapy
appointments solely to trigger additional reimbursements from
Medicare; (ii) the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary
duty of loyalty by allegedly failing to ensure that an adequate
system of internal controls was in place; (iii) the Individual
Defendants reviewed and allegedly approved false and/or misleading
statements in Amedisys' public filings with the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC"), earnings conference calls, and press
releases; (iv) certain Individual Defendants engaged in allegedly
improper insider trading; (v) the Individual Defendants "wasted"
Amedisys assets approving allegedly undeserved incentive
compensation to certain of its executive officers; and (vi) the
Individual Defendants were unjustly enriched through their alleged
wrongful acts and omissions.

The July 2 8-K filing is a Notice of Settlement of Amedisys, Inc.
of the Derivative Litigation.


ASIANA AIRLINES: Passengers May Be Barred From Suing in U.S.
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that plaintiffs lawyers with expertise in airplane crash
litigation predict that most of the lawsuits over the Asiana
Airlines crash will name both the airline and The Boeing Co.,
which manufactured the aircraft.  But, under an international
treaty, most of the passengers aboard Asiana Airlines Flight 214
could be barred from suing the South Korean airline in U.S.
courts.


AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Class Cert. Denial in Club Members' Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California for the Fourth District,
Division Three, affirmed a trial court ruling denying class
certification in STEPHEN TROY THOMPSON, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Defendant and
Respondent, NO. G046759.

Plaintiff Stephen Thompson sued the Automobile Club of Southern
California (the Auto Club) in the putative class action. He
challenges the Auto Club's policies relating to renewal,
specifically, its practice of "backdating" late renewals to the
member's original expiration date if the renewal occurs within 95
days. He claims this practice results in late-renewing members
receiving less than a full year of services. The Auto Club
counters that the 95-day period is a "grace period" and that
members are generally permitted to continue receiving services,
particularly during the first 31 days. This practice, the Auto
Club further argues, prevents the member from incurring a $20 fee
to start a new membership.

Mr. Thompson moved for class certification, and the trial court
denied the motion. The court concluded, among other things, that
the proposed class was overbroad, lacked commonality, and that Mr.
Thompson's claims and defenses were not typical of the class.
Further, it ruled that a class action is not a superior method of
adjudication. Mr. Thompson appealed the trial court's decision,
arguing the court's decision was unsupported by substantial
evidence, contrary to established law, and was premised on the
trial court's misunderstanding of the plaintiff's claims. The Auto
Club argues the class certification motion was properly denied for
the reasons stated by the trial court.

The California Appeals Court held that based on the deferential
standard of review appropriate to a motion for class
certification, it finds no error. Contrary to Mr. Thompson's
arguments, the trial court's decision reflects that it understood
the facts and used appropriate criteria for its decision, the
decision added.

A copy of the Appeals Court's June 27, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/r4ZwPJfrom Leagle.com.

Robyn C. Crowther -- crowther@caldwell-leslie.com -- Eric S.
Pettit -- pettit@caldwell-leslie.com -- at Caldwell Leslie &
Proctor; Jeffrey I. Carton -- jcarton@mdpcelaw.com -- Michael A.
Berg -- mberg@mdpcelaw.com -- and Todd S. Garber --
tgarber@mpnsb.com -- at Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Berg & Eberz
for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Phillip R. Kaplan -- pkaplan@manatt.com -- Benjamin G. Shatz --
bshatz@manatt.com -- Adrianne E. Marshack -- amarshack@manatt.com
-- at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips; John K. Beckley for Defendant and
Respondent.


BP PLC: Judge Denies Bid to Halt $7.8MM Settlement Payments
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal judge overseeing the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
litigation has denied BP PLC's request to halt payments in a
$7.8 billion settlement pending an investigation into potential
corruption in the claims administration process.

Meanwhile, two New Orleans law firms at the center of that probe
have denied allegations that their attorneys were paying kickbacks
to a former senior lawyer for the claims administrator.

BP sought an emergency preliminary injunction halting payments
from the settlement, reached last year with individuals and
businesses claiming economic damages from the 2010 spill.  In a
July 16 motion, BP argued that the claims process was tainted,
citing claims administrator Patrick Juneau's termination of two
senior lawyers amid allegations that they received kickbacks for
claims paid to a New Orleans law firm, identified in court papers
as "Law Firm Y."

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier on July 2 hired former FBI
director and U.S. District Judge Louis Freeh to investigate the
matter.

The Andry Law Firm, identifying itself as Law Firm Y, responded
that the allegations are "baseless and cannot be supported by any
competent evidence," according to July 18 filing.  A lawyer for
another firm, Andry Lerner LLC, denied the same allegations.

During a hearing on July 19, Judge Barbier rejected BP's motion.

"BP is disappointed in the District Court's ruling, which we
believe is wrong under the law," BP spokesman Geoff Morrell wrote
in an emailed statement.

A lawyer for The Andry Law Firm -- Ian Atkinson -- ian@semmlaw.com
-- of Schonekas, Evans, McGoey & McEachin in New Orleans --
declined to comment.  But in court records, he wrote: "There is no
factual support for the allegations against The Andry Law Firm,
and no basis for continuing to withhold the funds unambiguously
due The Andry Law firm under the settlement."

James A. Cobb Jr., a solo practitioner in New Orleans representing
Andry Lerner, told The National Law Journal: "We look forward to
Judge Freeh's report, and Judge Freeh's findings, because when
these findings are made by Judge Freeh we're confident we'll be
fully exonerated having anything to do with any scheme as per BP's
allegations."

The injunction request represented BP's latest attempt to halt
payments under the deal, which Judge Barbier approved on
December 21.  The settlement, reached with BP Exploration &
Production Inc. and BP America Production Co., excludes claims by
government entities and those against other entities sued over the
spill, such as Transocean and Halliburton.

Soon after the deal was approved, BP began asserting that Juneau
was using inaccurate calculations to disperse payments to
participants in the settlement.  Such methods, BP alleged, allowed
some businesses to claim "fictitious losses" and had resulted in
"absurd" results and "windfall" awards.

Judge Barbier affirmed the distribution process on March 5 over
BP's objections and, on April 5, denied BP's request for a
permanent injunction that would have halted certain settlement
payments.  He dismissed a separate lawsuit BP filed alleging that
Juneau, through his policy decisions, had breached the settlement
agreement.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, after rejecting
BP's motion for an injunction pending its appeal, heard oral
arguments regarding the dispute on July 8.  BP retained Theodore
Olson -- tolson@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher to
handle its appeal.

Last month, Lionel "Tiger" Sutton III, one of Juneau's staff
attorneys, resigned after being placed on administrative leave
pending the outcome of an investigation into alleged kickbacks,
according to Nick Gagliano, a Juneau spokesman.  In its latest
motion, BP sought to halt payments until Freeh's investigation was
complete.

BP noted that Mr. Sutton's wife, Christine Reitano, another lawyer
working for Juneau, had been terminated.  Their terminations leave
Juneau with a single remaining attorney -- his own son, wrote BP
attorney Richard Godfrey -- richard.godfrey@kirkland.com -- a
senior partner at Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago.

Both Mr. Sutton and Ms. Reitano, who had "extensive involvement"
in developing claims policy, and Juneau, as administrator and
settlement trustee, breached their fiduciary duties to BP by
failing to conduct background checks to prevent fraud and
corruption within the claims process, the company said.

According to BP's motion, Sutton intervened in the claims process,
requesting payments from Law Firm Y, to which he had referred oil-
spill claimants.  Ms. Reitano also represented clients with claims
and passed along at least one to Law Firm Y, the motion says.

In addition to filing 675 claims on behalf of clients, Law Firm Y
also had a pending $7.6 million claim on behalf of its own losses,
BP's motion says.  Mr. Juneau later placed on hold all claims
brought by the law firm.

The co-lead counsel of the plaintiffs' steering committee, in
opposing the injunction request, argued that BP has yet to
identify any act of corruption or fraud in the claims process and
had had numerous opportunities to administratively appeal any
claims decisions.

"Both the Claims Administrator and this Court have acted swiftly
and appropriately in response to the initial rumors relating to
the two former employees," Stephen Herman --
sherman@hhklawfirm.com -- and James Roy -- jimmyd@wrightroy.com --
co-lead counsel on the plaintiffs' steering committee, wrote in
its July 18 motion.  "The Law Firm Y Claim and those of all of its
clients were immediately placed on hold, and the employees in
question were placed on administrative leave."

Mr. Herman is with New Orleans-based Herman, Herman & Katz and
Mr. Roy is from Domengeaux, Wright, Roy & Edwards in Lafayette,
La.

Mr. Juneau, in his own motion, called BP's request "completely
overbroad in its scope" and based on "premature speculation."

For one thing, Law Firm Y could be two firms.  Andry Lerner's
attorney, Cobb, told the NLJ that Andry Lerner and The Andry Law
Firm are separate from each other.  Brothers Gibby Andry and
Jonathan Andry split up after being partners amid disagreements
over whether to file claims following the oil spill, he said. He
said his client, Jonathan Andry, set up the Andry Law Group to
handle oil spill claims.

Mr. Sutton, he acknowledged, had "some legitimate business
connection" to Andry Lerner before going to work for Juneau, but
he could not say whether he had been employed as an associate or
was a referral source.

"They're saying this guy who used to be in some fashion with Andry
Lerner has put his finger on the scale to benefit Andry Lerner,"
he said of BP's allegations.  "Nothing could be further from the
truth."

The Andry Law Firm's attorney, Mr. Atkinson, wrote in court
records that the firm does not represent any oil spill claimants.
The only claim his client made was for its own economic losses
attributable to the spill.  That claim has gone through the review
process and, despite BP's appeal of the award, was found to be
accurate and payable last month, Mr. Atkinson wrote.

He insisted that The Andry Law Firm has no financial interest in
Andry Law Group and Andry Lerner.  Furthermore, The Andry Law Firm
has not received any referrals from Sutton or paid fees to him and
has no financial interest in any of his claims, he wrote.  At no
time did anyone at the firm, he continued, "ask Mr. Sutton to do
anything improper, illicit, or illegal in processing the . . .
claim filed by The Andry Law Firm LLC.  And, at no time did
Mr. Sutton have any involvement in the processing or handling of
The Andry Law firm claim."

"B.P. has engaged in a multi-faceted legal and public relations
campaign challenging the settlement agreement and this Court's
interpretation of it," Mr. Atkinson wrote.  "BP's spurious attacks
against The Andry Law Firm LLC are simply its latest attempt to
avoid the deal it made."


CHA HOLLYWOOD: 9th Cir. Reverses Remand Ruling in "Roth" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In AMY ROTH; SHANA EKIN, as individuals and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-
Appellees, v. CHA HOLLYWOOD MEDICAL CENTER, L.P., DBA CHA
Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center and Hollywood Presbyterian
Medical Center; CHS HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., Defendants-
Appellants, NO. 13-55771, the Defendants took an appeal from a
district court ruling remanding the case to state court under the
Class Action Fairness Act.

The District Court construed 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(1) and
(b)(3) to permit removal only during the two 30-day periods
specified in those subsections. It held that removal was improper
because defendants had not sought removal during either such
period.

Upon review, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed the District Court ruling.

According to the Ninth Circuit, Section 1446(b)(1) and (b)(3)
specify that a defendant must remove a case within thirty days of
receiving from the plaintiff either an initial pleading or some
other document, if that pleading or document shows the case is
removable. However, these two periods do not otherwise affect the
time during which a defendant may remove. That is, the two periods
specified in Section 1446(b)(1) and (b)(3) operate as limitations
on the right to removal rather than as authorizations to remove.

"We hold that a defendant who has not lost the right to remove
because of a failure to timely file a notice of removal under
Section 1446(b)(1) or (b)(3) may remove to federal court when it
discovers, based on its own investigation, that a case is
removable," says the Ninth Circuit decision.  "We remand to the
district court for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion."

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's June 27, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/GbzJtXfrom Leagle.com.

Karin L. Bohmholdt -- bohmholdtk@gtlaw.com -- Mark D. Kemple --
kemplem@gtlaw.com -- and Bryan J. Lazarski -- lazarskib@gtlaw.com
-- at Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Los Angeles, California, for
Defendants-Appellants.

Louis M. Marlin -- louis.marlin@marlinsaltzman.com -- and Kristen
Marquis Fritz -- kfritz@marlinsaltzman.com -- at Marlin &
Saltzman, LLP, Irvine, California; Donald C. Potter, at Law Office
of Donald C. Potter, Pasadena, California, for Plaintiffs-
Appellees.


CHINA-BIOTICS INC: Faces Three Shareholder Suits in Calif., N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
China-Biotics, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers
and directors have been named as defendants in three putative
shareholder class action lawsuits, according to the company's May
20, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

One case is in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California (Mohapatra v. China-Biotics, Inc., et al.,
No. 10-cv-6954 (C.D. Cal.), the "Mohapatra case"), and two in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Hill v. China-Biotics, Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-7838 (S.D.N.Y.),
the "Hill case", and Casper v. Jinan, et al, No.
12-cv-4202 (S.D.N.Y), the "Casper case").

After certain shareholders filed motions for appointment as lead
plaintiff, the plaintiff in the Mohapatra case voluntarily
dismissed its case and the plaintiff in the Hill case, together
with another shareholder, were appointed as lead plaintiffs. The
lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in which they allege
that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making material misstatements
or failing to disclose certain material information regarding,
among other things, the Company's financial condition, operations,
and future business prospects, and the quality, nature, and
quantity of the Company's retail outlets. The lead plaintiffs seek
to represent a class of shareholders who bought the Company's
securities between July 10, 2008 and August 27, 2010.

On August 18, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the lead
plaintiffs' amended complaint. The court dismissed the lead
plaintiffs' Section 11 claim, but gave them leave to replead. The
court did not rule on the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b)
claim. On January 9, 2012, the lead plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint that included a new named plaintiff and new
allegations for the Section 11 claim. On February 27, 2012, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended Section 11 claim.
Both that motion and the original motion to dismiss the Section
10(b) and Section 20(a) claims are currently pending before the
court. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

In the Casper case, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by making material misstatements and seeks to represent a
class of stockholders who bought the Company's securities between
February 9, 2011 and July 1, 2011. On October 18, 2012, the Hill
case and the Casper case were consolidated, but no consolidated
amended complaint has yet been filed. The Company intends to
defend this action vigorously.


CIGNA CORP: Insurer Not Obligated to Indemnify $140MM Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel, writing for Law360, reports that the Pennsylvania
Superior Court on July 18 absolved Cigna Corp.'s excess insurer of
any obligation to indemnify the company for the $140 million in
settlements to doctors' class action claims for violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and breach of
contract.

The appeals court upheld a 2010 trial court ruling favoring
Executive Risk Indemnity Inc., in which a Philadelphia Court of
Common Pleas judge found that the insured, not the insurer, must
prove how settlement funds were allocated.  The RICO claims were
covered by the policy held by Cigna, but the breach of contract
claims were not.

"In the instant case, the parties were equally sophisticated
entities, Cigna drafted the settlement agreement, chose counsel to
participate in the settlement negotiations, controlled the
underlying litigation and defense and had better access to the
relevant information and intentions of the parties in the
deliberative settlement process," Judge Anne Lazarus said in the
opinion.  "Therefore, it is not only reasonable, but logical, that
the insured bears the burden to allocate."

Cigna settled the class action claims -- originating in
multidistrict litigation in which doctors across the country sued
HMOs, claiming that the providers had been systematically
underpaying claims by billions of dollars for over a decade -- in
2003, according to the opinion.

Cigna then sought to force Executive Risk, its excess insurer, to
cover the settlement payments and defense costs, but the insurer
fought back, arguing that the settlements fell within the breach
of contract exclusion in its policy.

A Philadelphia judge ruled in Executive Risk's favor in 2008, but
a Superior Court panel then reversed the summary judgment finding,
determining that while the breach of contract claims were
excluded, the RICO claims were covered, according to the opinion.

The appeals court remanded the case back to Philadelphia Court of
Common Pleas for an allocation trial, to determine which share of
the settlement belong in which class of claims.

At the trial, Judge Mark Bernstein determined that it was Cigna's
responsibility to prove the allocation of the settlements.  After
neither side produced any expert testimony, Bernstein ruled in
favor of Executive Risk, concluding that Cigna failed to meet its
burden.

The company then appealed the decision, arguing that the insurer
must prove the claims that are excluded from coverage -- in this
case, the breach of contract claims.

But the three-judge panel rejected the argument, concluding that
since the insured has access to the evidence and the parties'
intent underpinning the settlement process, it is in the best
position to show why certain proportions of claims belong in
different categories.

But Senior Judge Eugene Strassburger dissented from the ruling,
finding that the trial court had decided on the wrong issue.  He
said that since allocation question did not arise during the
original settlement between Cigna and the doctors, the
machinations behind the settlement were useless in determining the
ultimate allocation.

"Cigna could have inserted a provision in the settlement agreement
that the entire payment was on the RICO claims.  The doctors would
not have cared," Judge Strassburger said.  "But guaranteed,
Executive Risk would be here arguing that the appropriate question
is how the settlement funds should have been allocated."

An attorney for Cigna declined to comment on the ruling on Monday,
citing the company's policy of not addressing pending litigation.

An attorney for Executive Risk did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.

Cigna is represented by Maureen McBride --
mmcbride@lambmcerlane.com -- and James Sargent --
jsargent@lambmcerlane.com -- of Lamb McErlane PC and Peter Hoffman
of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC.

Executive Risk is represented by Ronald Schiller --
rschiller@hangley.com -- and Daniel Layden -- dlayden@hangley.com
-- of Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller PC.\

The case is Executive Risk Indemnity Inc. v. Cigna Corp, case
number 1117 EDA 2012, in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.


CISCO SYSTEMS: Calif. Court Dismisses Shareholder Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed purported shareholder class action lawsuits
filed against Cisco Systems, Inc., according to the company's May
20, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended April 27, 2013.

On March 31, 2011 and April 12, 2011, purported shareholder class
action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors. The lawsuits were
consolidated, and an amended consolidated complaint was filed on
December 2, 2011. The consolidated action was purportedly brought
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's publicly traded
securities between February 3, 2010 and May 11, 2011.

Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made false and misleading
statements, purported to assert claims for violations of the
federal securities laws, and sought unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief. On February 12, 2012, the Company filed
a motion seeking to dismiss all claims in the amended complaint.

On March 29, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion and
dismissed the amended complaint, finding no facts or inferences to
support the plaintiffs' allegations. Plaintiffs chose not to file
an amended complaint and not to pursue an appeal. The Court
dismissed the entire lawsuit with prejudice on April 29, 2013.

Beginning on April 8, 2011, a number of purported shareholder
derivative lawsuits were filed in both the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California and the California
Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara against the Company's
Board of Directors and several of its officers. The federal
lawsuits have been consolidated in the Northern District of
California. Plaintiffs in both the federal and state derivative
actions allege that the Board allowed certain officers to make
allegedly false and misleading statements.

The complaint includes claims for violation of the federal
securities laws, breach of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate
assets, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California
Corporations Code. The complaint seeks compensatory damages,
disgorgement, and other relief. In light of the United States
District Court's dismissal of a purported shareholder class
action, all of the federal and state derivative lawsuits have been
voluntarily dismissed.


COMMERCIAL METALS: Oral Arguments in Direct Buyers' Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments related to the class certification of a suit filed
on behalf of all those who purchased steel products directly from
Commercial Metals Company are pending before the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, according to
the company's July 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

On September 18, 2008, the Company was served with a class action
antitrust lawsuit alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, brought by Standard Iron Works of Scranton, Pennsylvania,
against nine steel manufacturing companies, including CMC. The
lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, alleges that the defendants
conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which
steel products were sold in the United States by artificially
restricting the supply of such steel products.

The lawsuit, which purports to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all purchasers of steel products directly from the
defendants between January 1, 2005 and September 2008, seeks
treble damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees and
pre- and post-judgment interest. Motions for and against class
certification have been filed. Oral arguments related to class
certification are pending. Discovery on  the case merits remains
pending. The Company believes the case is without merit and
intends to defend it vigorously.


COMMERCIAL METALS: Still Faces Lawsuits by Indirect Purchasers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Metals Company continues to face lawsuits filed by
indirect purchasers of metal products in several states, according
to the company's July 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31,
2013.

Since the filing of the direct purchaser lawsuit, a case has been
filed in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of a class of indirect purchasers in approximately 28
states naming the same defendants and containing allegations
substantially identical to those of the Standard Iron Works
complaint. That case has in effect been stayed.

Another indirect purchaser action was filed in Tennessee state
court, again naming the same defendants but contending that the
conspiracy continued through 2010. The case has been removed to
federal court, and plaintiffs have moved to remand. The motion to
remand has not yet been decided, and no motion practice or
discovery has taken place. The Company believes that the lawsuits
are without merit and plans to defend them vigorously. Due to the
uncertainty and the information available at this time, the
company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss relating to
these cases.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: CGM Still Faces Claims in Adelphia Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (CGM) still faces claims in In Re
Adelphia Communications Corporation Securities And Derivative
Litigation, according to Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s May 2013
Form 10/A filing (Amendment No. 3 to Form 10 Filed on June 29,
2012, as amended on November 7, 2012 and April 24, 2013) with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (CGM) is among the underwriters
named in numerous civil actions brought to date by investors in
Adelphia debt securities in connection with Adelphia
Communications Corporation securities offerings between September
1997 and October 2001.

Three of the complaints assert claims against Citigroup Inc. and
Citibank, N.A.

All of the complaints allege violations of federal securities
laws, and certain of the complaints also allege violations of
state securities laws and the common law. The complaint seeks
unspecified damages.

In December 2003, a second amended complaint was filed and
consolidated before the same judge of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. In February 2004,
motions to dismiss the class and individual actions pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
were filed.

In May and July of 2005, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted motions to dismiss several
claims, based on the running of applicable statute of limitations,
asserted in the alleged class and individual actions being
coordinated under IN RE ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. With the exception of one
individual action that was dismissed with prejudice, the court
granted the alleged class and individual plaintiffs leave to re-
plead certain of those claims the court found to be time-barred.

Without admitting any liability, CGM and numerous other financial
institution defendants settled IN RE ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS
CORPORATION SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE LITIGATION for a total of
$250 million, and the settlement was approved in November 2006.
Two of the additional remaining individual complaints have been
settled.

Following settlements of the class action, which is pending
appeal, and other individual actions, two cases remain
outstanding. The Second Circuit is considering whether the
plaintiff in one has proper standing to sue.

In September 2007, motions to dismiss in the other case were
granted in part and denied in part.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Citigroup Awaits OK of Deal in Employee Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Advisors Fund L.P. disclosed on its May 2013 Form 10/A
filing (Amendment No. 3 to Form 10 Filed on June 29, 2012, as
amended on November 7, 2012 and April 24, 2013) with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that numerous financial
services firms, including Citigroup Inc. and its affiliates, were
named in alleged class actions alleging that certain present and
former employees in California were entitled to overtime pay under
state and federal laws; were subject to certain allegedly unlawful
deductions under state law; or were entitled to reimbursement for
employment related expenses incurred by them.

The first of these class actions filed in the Fall of 2004 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, BAHRAMIPOUR v. CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., sought
damages and injunctive relief on behalf of an alleged class of
California employees.

Similar complaints have been subsequently filed against CGM on
behalf of certain statewide or nationwide alleged classes in (i)
the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New
York, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of New
York, the District of Massachusetts, and the Middle District of
Pennsylvania; and (ii) the New Jersey Superior Court.

Without admitting any liability, CGM reached an agreement in
principle, which is subject to court approval, to a nationwide
settlement for up to approximately $98 million of various class
actions asserting violations of state and federal laws relating to
overtime and violations of various state laws relating to alleged
unlawful payroll deductions. Additional alleged class action
lawsuits alleging a variety of violations of state and federal
wage and hour laws have been filed against various other Citigroup
businesses.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Citigroup Subsidiary Faces LIBOR-Related MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Citigroup Inc. subsidiary, along with certain banks that served
on the LIBOR panel, faces alleged class action, which was
consolidated into the multi district litigation proceeding before
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
according to Commodity Advisors Fund L.P.'s May 2013 Form 10/A
filing (Amendment No. 3 to Form 10 Filed on June 29, 2012, as
amended on November 7, 2012 and April 24, 2013) with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Beginning in April 2011, a number of purported class actions and
other private civil suits were filed in various courts against
banks that served on the LIBOR panel and their affiliates,
including certain Citigroup subsidiaries. The actions, which
assert various federal and state law claims relating to the
setting of LIBOR, have been consolidated into a multidistrict
litigation proceeding before Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in the
Southern District of New York.

On February 9, 2012, an additional alleged class action was filed
against certain of the banks that served on the LIBOR panel,
including a Citigroup subsidiary. That action has been
consolidated into the multi district litigation proceeding before
Judge Buchwald in the Southern District of New York. A number of
additional alleged class actions were filed in the Southern
District of New York against banks that served on certain
interbank offered rates panels and certain of those banks'
affiliates, including Citigroup affiliates.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: Provides Update on LIBOR MDL
------------------------------------------------
Commodity Advisors Fund L.P. disclosed on its May 2013 Form 10/A
filing (Amendment No. 3 to Form 10 Filed on June 29, 2012, as
amended on November 7, 2012 and April 24, 2013) with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that Citigroup Inc. and
Citibank, N.A., along with other U.S. Dollar (USD) LIBOR panel
banks, are defendants in the multidistrict-litigation ("MDL")
proceeding before Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned IN
RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
appearing under docket number 1:11-md-2262 (S.D.N.Y.).

Judge Buchwald has appointed interim lead class counsel for, and
consolidated amended complaints have been filed on behalf of,
three separate alleged classes of plaintiffs: (i) over-the-counter
("OTC") purchasers of derivative instruments tied to USD LIBOR;
(ii) purchasers of exchange-traded derivative instruments tied to
USD LIBOR; and (iii) indirect OTC purchasers of U.S. debt
securities.

Each of these alleged classes alleges that the panel bank
defendants conspired to suppress USD LIBOR in violation of the
Sherman Act and/or the Commodity Exchange Act, thereby causing
plaintiffs to suffer losses on the instruments they purchased.

Also consolidated into the MDL proceeding are individual civil
actions commenced by various Charles Schwab entities alleging that
the panel bank defendants conspired to suppress the USD LIBOR
rates in violation of the Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), and California state law,
causing the Schwab entities to suffer losses on USD LIBOR-linked
financial instruments they owned. Plaintiffs in these actions seek
compensatory damages and restitution for losses caused by the
alleged violations, as well as treble damages under the Sherman
Act. The Schwab and OTC plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief.

Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., along with other defendants, have
moved to dismiss all the actions that were consolidated into the
MDL proceeding as of June 29, 2012. Briefing on the motion to
dismiss was completed on September 27, 2012. Judge Buchwald has
stayed all subsequently filed actions that fall within the scope
of the MDL until the motion to dismiss has been resolved.
Citigroup and/or Citibank, N.A. are named in the 17 such stayed
actions that have been consolidated with or marked as related to
the MDL proceeding.

Eleven of these actions have been brought on behalf of various
alleged plaintiff classes, including (i) banks, savings and loans
institutions and credit unions that allegedly suffered losses on
loans they made at interest rates tied to USD LIBOR, (ii) holders
of adjustable-rate mortgages tied to USD LIBOR, and (iii)
individual and municipal purchasers of various financial
instruments tied to USD LIBOR. The remaining six actions have been
brought by individual plaintiffs, including an entity that
allegedly purchased municipal bonds and various California
counties, municipalities, and related public entities that
invested in various derivatives tied to USD LIBOR. Plaintiffs in
each of the 17 stayed actions allege that the panel bank
defendants manipulated USD LIBOR in violation of the Sherman Act,
RICO, and/or state antitrust and racketeering laws, and several
plaintiffs also assert common law claims, including fraud, unjust
enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, interference with
economic advantage, and/or breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and,
where authorized by statute, treble damages and injunctive relief.

In addition, on August 8, 2012, a new alleged class action
captioned LIEBERMAN ET AL. V. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG was filed in
the Southern District of New York against various USD LIBOR panel
banks, including Citibank, on behalf of purchasers who owned a
preferred equity security on which dividends were payable at a
rate linked to USD LIBOR. Plaintiffs in this action assert unjust
enrichment and antitrust claims under the laws of various states,
alleging that the panel banks colluded to artificially suppress
USD LIBOR, thereby lowering the dividends plaintiffs received on
their securities.

On October 4, 2012, another new alleged class action captioned
ADAMS ET AL. V. BANK OF AMERICA CORP. was filed in the Southern
District of New York against various USD LIBOR panel banks and
their affiliates, including Citigroup and Citibank, N.A., on
behalf of an alleged class of individual adjustable rate mortgage
borrowers. Plaintiffs allege that the panel banks manipulated USD
LIBOR to raise rates on certain dates in order to increase
plaintiffs' payment obligations, in violation of federal and New
York state antitrust law.

The plaintiffs in these actions seek compensatory damages, treble
damages, and injunctive relief. Judge Buchwald has consolidated
these cases into the MDL proceeding.

In addition, on November 27, 2012, an action captioned MARAGOS V.
BANK OF AMERICA CORP. ET AL. was filed on behalf of the County of
Nassau against various USD LIBOR panel banks, including Citibank,
N.A., and the other defendants with whom the plaintiff had entered
into interest rate swap transactions. The action was commenced in
state court and subsequently removed to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiff asserts
claims for fraud and deceptive trade practices under New York law
against the panel bank defendants based on allegations that the
panel banks colluded to artificially suppress USD LIBOR, thereby
lowering the payments the plaintiff received in connection with
various interest rate swap transactions. The plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages and treble damages. The defendants have
sought consolidation of this action with the MDL proceeding.

Separately, on April 30, 2012, an action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of an alleged class of persons and entities who transacted
in exchange-traded Euroyen futures and option contracts between
June 2006 and September 2010. This action is captioned LAYDON V.
MIZUHO BANK LTD. ET AL. The complaint names as defendants banks
that are or were members of the panels making submissions used in
the calculation of Japanese Yen LIBOR and the Tokyo Inter-Bank
Offered Rate (TIBOR), and certain affiliates of some of those
banks, including Citibank, N.A. and Citibank, Japan Ltd. The
complaint alleges that the plaintiffs were injured as a result of
purported manipulation of those reference interest rates, and
asserts claims arising under the Commodity Exchange Act, the
Sherman Act, and state consumer protection statutes. Plaintiffs
seek compensatory damages, treble damages under the Sherman Act,
and injunctive relief. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
November 30, 2012, naming as defendants banks that are or were
members of the panels making submissions used in the calculation
of Japanese yen LIBOR and TIBOR, and certain affiliates of some of
those banks, including Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, CJL and CGMJ.
The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs were injured as a result
of purported manipulation of those reference interest rates, and
asserts claims arising under the Commodity Exchange Act and the
Sherman Act and for unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages, treble damages under the Sherman Act, and
injunctive relief.


COMMODITY ADVISORS: "Abu Dhabi" Suit Defendants Could Lose $638MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MS & Co. believes that the defendants in Abu Dhabi Commercial
Bank, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. could incur a
loss up to approximately $638 million, according to Commodity
Advisors Fund L.P.'s May 2013 Form 10/A filing (Amendment No. 3 to
Form 10 Filed on June 29, 2012, as amended on November 7, 2012 and
April 24, 2013) with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On August 25, 2008, MS & Co. and two ratings agencies were named
as defendants in a purported class action related to securities
issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne Finance
PLC and Cheyne Finance LLC (together, the "Cheyne SIV").  The case
is styled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan Stanley &
Co. Inc., et al. and is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY"). The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned
to the securities issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and
misleading, including because the ratings did not accurately
reflect the risks associated with the subprime residential
mortgage backed securities held by the Cheyne SIV.

The plaintiffs currently assert allegations of aiding and abetting
fraud and negligent misrepresentation relating to approximately
$852 million of securities issued by the Cheyne SIV. The
plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied in June
2010. The court denied MS & Co.'s motion for summary judgment on
the aiding and abetting fraud claim in August 2012. MS & Co.'s
motion for summary judgment on the negligent misrepresentation
claim, filed on November 30, 2012, is pending.

The court set a trial date of May 6, 2013. There are currently 14
named plaintiffs in the action claiming damages of approximately
$638 million. Plaintiffs are also seeking punitive damages. Based
on currently available information, MS & Co. believes that the
defendants could incur a loss up to approximately $638 million,
plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs.


CONSTILLIUM ROLLED: Sued Over Retiree Health Benefit Changes
------------------------------------------------------------
On February 20, 2013, five retirees of Constellium Rolled
Products-Ravenswood LLC and the United Steelworkers union filed a
class action lawsuit against Constellium Rolled Products-
Ravenswood LLC in a federal district court in West Virginia,
alleging that Ravenswood improperly modified retiree health
benefits, according to Constellium's May 21, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Constellium Rolled
Products-Ravenswood LLC was obligated to provide retirees with
health benefits throughout their retirement at no cost, and that
the company improperly capped, through changes that went into
effect in January 2013, the amount it would pay annually toward
those benefits. In 2013, the caps will result in additional costs
of $5 per month for approximately 1,800 retiree health plan
participants.  The company believes that these claims are
unfounded, and that Constellium Rolled Products-Ravenswood LLC had
a legal and contractual right to make the applicable
modifications.


CVS PHARMACY: Reconsideration Bid in Employees' Suit Gets Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Anthony W. Ishii issued an order granting a
motion for reconsideration in LETICIA CEJA-CORONA, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CVS PHARMACY,
INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants,
CASE NO. 1:12-CV-01868-AWI-DLB, (E.D. Cal.)

The Plaintiff filed the class action complaint on October 9, 2012.
The sixth cause of action alleged that Defendants failed to pay
employees at CVS distribution centers nationwide for passing
through security and for donning and doffing aprons, in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On March 4, 2013, the Court
granted Defendant CVS's motion to dismiss both claims. It
dismissed the security claim without leave to amend and the
donning and doffing claim with leave to amend within 30 days.

Before the Court is Plaintiff's motion, filed April 25, 2013, to
reconsider its decision on the security claim. The motion is based
on newly published legal authority -- the opinion in Busk v.
Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., 713 F.3d 525 (9th Cir. 2013),
filed April 12, 2013.  On reconsideration, Plaintiff asks the
Court to deny Defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the
alternative, to grant leave to amend.

Judge Ishii ruled that the security screening claim, formerly
dismissed with prejudice, is dismissed with leave to amend within
30 days of service of the order.

A copy of the District Court's June 27, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/7GCub0from Leagle.com.

Leticia Ceja-Corona, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Joshua
Orshansky -- anthony@oyllp.com -- at Orshansky & Yeremian LLP,
David Harmik Yeremian -- david@oyllp.com -- at Orshansky &
Yeremian LLP, Hugo Ernesto Gamez, at Orshansky & Yeremian LLP &
Justin Kachadoorian -- justin@oyllp.com -- at Orshansky & Yeremian
LLP.

CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Defendant, represented by Caryn M Anderson --
cmanderson@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson & Jody Landry,
Littler Mendelson.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Settlement Hearing Adjourned to Aug. 2
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey S. White issued an order regarding a motion
for preliminary approval of a class action settlement in ANDREW
STEINFELD and WALTER BRADLEY, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DISCOVER FINANCIAL
SERVICES, et al., Defendants, NO. C 12-01118 JSW, (N.D. Cal.).

In the order, Judge White held that the Court has some concerns
regarding the proposed settlement.  First, he said, the proposed
release includes a requirement that class members release claims
relating to the administration of the settlement, which involves
events that have not occurred yet, in addition to that arise out
of or relate to the claims of this lawsuit. It is not clear why
class members should be required to release claims relating to the
administration of the settlement as a condition of participating
in the class.

Second, the settlement agreement provides that direct notice be
provided within 60 to 90 days from the Court's preliminary
approval and that the deadline to submit a claim form is one
hundred and twenty days from the Court's preliminary approval.
Therefore, class members may have as little as 30 days to submit a
claim. The Court is concerned that this time period is
unnecessarily brief.

Third, although the settlement agreement makes clear that any
incentive awards and attorneys' fees and costs are not conditions
of the settlement, Plaintiffs appear to request approval of these
amounts as part of the Court's preliminary approval of the class
action settlement.

The Court directed the Plaintiff to submit, by no later than
July 11, 2013, a supplemental brief to address the Court's
concerns.  The Court continued the hearing on the motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement to August 2,
2013, at 9:00 a.m.

If Plaintiffs clarify that they intend to file a separately
noticed motion for attorneys' fees and incentive awards, this
Order is without prejudice to Plaintiffs doing so, Judge White
said.

A copy of the District Court's June 27, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/ArP3hjfrom Leagle.com.

Andrew Steinfeld, Plaintiff, represented by David P. Meyer --
dpmeyer@meyerlaw.com -- at David P. Meyer & Associates Co., LPA,
Jonathan David Selbin -- jselbin@lchb.com -- at Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Kristen Law Sagafi -- ksagafi@lchb.com --
at LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP, Matthew R. Wilson,
Meyer Wilson Co., LPA, Matthew Ryan Wilson --
mwilson@meyerwilson.com -- at Meyer Wilson Co., LPA, Beth E.
Terrell -- bterrell@tmdwlaw.com -- at Terrell Marshall Daudt &
Willie PLLC, Daniel M. Hutchinson -- dhutchinson@lchb.com -- Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Mark Daniel Ankcorn --
mark@cglaw.com -- at Ankcorn Law Firm.

Discover Financial Services, Defendant, represented by Julia B.
Strickland -- jstrickland@stroock.com -- at Stroock & Stroock &
Lavan LLP, Jason S Yoo -- jsyoo@stroock.com -- at Stroock &
Stroock & Lavan LLP, Lisa Marie Simonetti --
lsimonetti@stroock.com -- at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP &
Shannon E. Ponek -- sponek@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock &
Lavan LLP.

DFS Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Julia B. Strickland,
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Jason S Yoo, Stroock & Stroock &
Lavan LLP, Lisa Marie Simonetti, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP &
Shannon E. Ponek, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP.

Discover Bank, Defendant, represented by Julia B. Strickland,
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Jason S Yoo, Stroock & Stroock &
Lavan LLP, Lisa Marie Simonetti, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP &
Shannon E. Ponek, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP.


EVERGREEN RECREATIONAL: Recalls 38 ELEMENT, and EVER-LITE Models
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 19, 2013
Starting date:            July 18, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Travel Trailer
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Other
Units affected:           38
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013248
TC ID number:             2013248

Affected products:

   Make          Model          Model year(s) affected
   ----          -----          ----------------------
   EVERGREEN     EVER-LITE      2010, 2011, 2012
   EVERGREEN     ELEMENT        2010, 2011, 2012

On certain travel trailers, the Liquid Propane (LP) cylinders
could fail.  A propane gas leak, in the presence of an ignition
source, could result in a fire or an explosion, which could cause
property damage and/or personal injury.

Dealers will replace the composite LP cylinders with steel
cylinders.

Note: This campaign involves composite cylinders manufactured by
the Lite Cylinder Company.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Motion for Arbitration in "Bueche" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John A. Mendez denied a motion to compel
arbitration in LAURIE BUECHE, an individual, on behalf of herself,
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
FIDELITY NATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants,
NO. 2:12-CV-1114-JAM-EFB, (E.D. Cal.).

According to Judge Mendez, the applicability of Plaintiff's
employment contract to this dispute must be determined first. If
the contract does not apply to disputes arising after the
contract's expiration, Defendant's motion must be denied.

Judge Mendez further notes that there is no evidence in the case
that Plaintiff's claims arise from her expired employment
contract. She is not contesting the compensation she received
under that contract or claiming that Defendant violated any
provision of the contract. Her claims are limited to the time
period after the contract expired when she was an at-will
employee. Her claims, therefore, do not arise from the expired
contract and its arbitration agreement does not apply to her
claims, he said. Since the contract's expiration is dispositive,
the Court finds it is not necessary to discuss the additional
arguments raised by the parties related to enforceability and
interpretation of the arbitration agreement generally. Defendant's
motion to compel arbitration is accordingly denied, concluded
Judge Mendez.

Moreover, "[b]ased on the Court's holding that the arbitration
agreement does not apply to this suit, the arbitration agreement
cannot limit Plaintiff's representative claims. Defendant's motion
to dismiss these claims is denied," he added.

A copy of the District Court's June 27, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/bvPiwJfrom Leagle.com.

Laurie Bueche, Plaintiff, represented by Aparajit Bhowmik, at
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Kyle R. Nordrehaug, at
Blumenthal Nordrehaug and Bhowmik, Norman Blumenthal, at
Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik & Ruchira Piya Mukherjee, at
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Fidelity National Management Services, LLC, Defendant, represented
by Kevin Dennis Sullivan -- KSullivan@fordharrison.com -- at Ford
& Harrison, LLP, Curtis Alan Graham -- CGraham@fordharrison.com --
at Ford & Harrison LLP & Michelle Rapoport --
MRapoport@fordharrison.com -- at Ford & Harrison, LLP.


FLORIDA GAMING: Expects Dismissal of "Jacobs" After Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Gaming Corporation expects a dismissal of the suit over
its Stock Purchase Agreement with Silvermark, LLC after a
settlement was reached in the case, according to the company's May
20, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Coby Jacobs v. Florida Gaming Corporation, W. Bennett Collett, W.
Bennett Collett, Jr., George Galloway, Jr., William Haddon,
Florida Gaming Centers and Silvermark, LLC; Miami-Dade County,
Florida Circuit Court Case #: 12-48014 CA 21.

On December 11, 2012, Jacobs, a shareholder of Florida Gaming
Corp. ("Corp"), filed a class action suit alleging W. Bennett
Collett, W. Bennett Collett, Jr., George Galloway, Jr., and
William Haddon (deceased), as directors of Corp., breached their
fiduciary duties with respect to entering into a Stock Purchase
Agreement with Silvermark, LLC.

The suit also alleged Florida Gaming Centers, Corp. and
Silvermark, LLC aided and abetted these breaches. The Defendants
denied all allegations of wrongdoing and moved to dismiss the
complaint. No class was certified, and the suit has since been
resolved and the parties expect an order of dismissal to be
entered in the near future.


FTD COMPANIES: No Ruling Yet on Bid to Consolidate "Frank" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
is yet to rule on a motion filed by plaintiff David Frank to
consolidate his case against FTD Group, among others, with the In
re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. action, according to Exhibit 99.1
of FTD Companies, Inc.'s July 1, 2013, Amendment no. 1 to Form 10
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

                        Kelm Class Action

In March 2012, Hope Kelm, Barbara Timmcke, Regina Warfel, Brett
Reilly, Juan M. Restrepo, and Jennie H. Pham filed a purported
class action complaint (the "Kelm Class Action") in United States
District Court, District of Connecticut, against the following
defendants:

(1) Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Capital One
Financial Corporation, Citigroup, Inc., and Citibank, N.A.
(collectively, the "Credit Card Company Defendants");

(2) 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., United Online, Memory Lane, Inc.,
Classmates International, Inc., FTD Group, Days Inns Worldwide,
Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, PeopleFindersPro, Inc.,
Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc.,
IAC/InterActiveCorp, and Shoebuy.com, Inc. (collectively, the "E-
Merchant Defendants"); and

(3) Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. ("Trilegiant"), Affinion Group,
LLC ("Affinion"), and Apollo Global Management, LLC ("Apollo").

The complaint alleges (1) violations of the Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") against all defendants, and
aiding and abetting violations of such act against the Credit Card
Company Defendants; (2) aiding and abetting violations of federal
mail fraud, wire fraud, and bank fraud statutes against the Credit
Card Company Defendants; (3) violations of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") against Trilegiant, Affinion,
and the E-Merchant Defendants, and aiding and abetting violations
of such act against the Credit Card Company Defendants; (4)
violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act against
Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, and the E-Merchant Defendants, and
aiding and abetting violations of such act against the Credit Card
Company Defendants; (5) violation of California Business and
Professions Code section 17602 against Trilegiant, Affinion,
Apollo, and the E-Merchant Defendants; and (6) unjust enrichment
against all defendants.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, and
disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received
from plaintiffs, damages, treble damages, punitive damages,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts
awarded.

                        Miller Class Action

In March 2012, Debra Miller and William Thompson filed a purported
class action complaint (the "Miller Class Action") in United
States District Court, District of Connecticut, against the
following defendants:

(1) Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, Vertrue, Inc., Webloyalty.com,
Inc., and Adaptive Marketing, LLC (collectively, the "Membership
Companies");

(2) 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc.,
Classmates International, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., FTD
Group, IAC/Interactivecorp, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc.,
Peoplefinderspro, Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc., Shoebuy.com, Inc.,
United Online, Wells Fargo & Company, and Wyndham Worldwide
Corporation (collectively, the "Marketing Companies"); and

(3) Bank of America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corporation,
Chase Bank USA, N.A., and Citibank, N.A. (collectively, the
"Credit Card Companies").

The complaint alleges (1) violations of RICO against all
defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act against
the Credit Card Companies; (2) aiding and abetting violations of
federal mail fraud, wire fraud, and bank fraud statutes against
the Credit Card Companies; (3) violations of the ECPA against the
Membership Companies and the Marketing Companies, and aiding and
abetting violations of such act against the Credit Card Companies;
(4) violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act
against the Membership Companies and the Marketing Companies, and
aiding and abetting violations of such act against the Credit Card
Companies; (5) violation of California Business and Professions
Code section 17602 against the Membership Companies and the
Marketing Companies; and (6) unjust enrichment against all
defendants.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, and
disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received
from plaintiffs, damages, treble damages, punitive damages,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts
awarded.

In April 2012, the Kelm Class Action and the Miller Class Action
were consolidated with a related case under the case caption In re
Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. In September 2012, the plaintiffs
filed their consolidated amended complaint and named five
additional defendants. The defendants have responded to the
consolidated amended complaint. No trial date has been set.

                        Frank Class Action

In addition, in December 2012, David Frank filed a purported class
action complaint (the "Frank Class Action") in United States
District Court, District of Connecticut, against the following
defendants: Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo (collectively, the "Frank
Membership Companies"); 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., Beckett Media
LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Classmates International, Inc., Days Inn
Worldwide, Inc., FTD Group, Hotwire, Inc., IAC/Interactivecorp,
Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Orbitz Worldwide, LLC, PeopleFindersPro,
Inc., Priceline.com, Inc., Shoebuy.com, Inc., TigerDirect, Inc.,
United Online, and Wyndham Worldwide Corporation (collectively,
the "Frank Marketing Companies"); Bank of America, N.A., Capital
One Financial Corporation, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Chase Paymentech
Solutions, LLC, Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, Inc., and Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. (collectively, the "Frank Credit Card Companies").

The complaint alleges (1) violations of RICO by all defendants;
(2) aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Frank Credit
Card Companies; (3) aiding and abetting commissions of mail fraud,
wire fraud, and bank fraud by the Frank Credit Card Companies; (4)
violation of the ECPA by the Frank Membership Companies and the
Frank Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting violations of
such act by the Frank Credit Card Companies; (5) violations of the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by the Frank Membership
Companies and the Frank Marketing Companies, and aiding and
abetting violations of such act by the Frank Credit Card
Companies; (6) violation of California Business and Professions
Code section 17602 by the Frank Membership Companies and the Frank
Marketing Companies; and (7) unjust enrichment by all defendants.

The plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, and
disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received
from plaintiff, damages, treble damages, punitive damages,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts
awarded.

On January 23, 2013, the plaintiff moved to consolidate the Frank
Class Action with the In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. action.
In response, the court ordered the plaintiff to show cause as to
why, among other things, the plaintiff should be afforded named
plaintiff status. The plaintiff filed his response to the order to
show cause on February 15, 2013. The court has not yet ruled upon
the request for consolidation or the order to show cause.


GRUPO AVAL: Sued Over Alleged Damaged to Customers in Colombia
--------------------------------------------------------------
Grupo Aval Acciones Y Valores S.A., its banking subsidiaries,
Porvenir and Corficolombiana are party to collective or class
actions ("acciones populares" or "acciones de grupo,"
respectively), according to the company's July 3, 2013, Amendment
No. 1 to Form F-1 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Collective actions are court actions where an individual seeks to
protect collective rights and prevent contingent damages, obtain
injunctions and damages caused by an infringement of collective
rights of which the following are the most significant.

All pension and severance fund administrators in Colombia,
including Porvenir and Horizonte, are subject to at least two
class actions in which certain individuals are alleging that the
pension and severance funds administrators have caused damages to
their customers by (1) paying returns earned by the severance and
pension funds below the minimum profitability certified by the
Superintendency of Finance, and (2) making payments to its
customers?under the scheduled retirement system?below the
established standards.

Additionally, Porvenir, Horizonte and certain other pension and
severance funds are subject to a constitutional action relating to
charging commissions above the legally established limits for
contributions to mandatory pension funds. These constitutional
actions are seeking the payment of the alleged damages caused to
fund managers' customers. No provisions have been established in
connection with these three constitutional actions because the
amount is unquantifiable, and the company consider the probability
of loss to be remote.


HEALTH NET: Obtains Final Approval of Workers' Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Josephine Staton Tucker granted final approval of
a settlement agreement resolving the class action captioned
SHAUNETTA EDDINGS, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. HEALTH NET, INC.;
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; HEALTH NET FEDERAL SERVICES, LLC;
MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK, INC.; HEALTH NET OF THE NORTHEAST, INC.;
HEALTH NET PHARMACEUTICAL SERVICES, INC., Defendants, CASE NO.
10-CV-01744 JST (RZ), (C.D. Cal.).

Under the Settlement, the Defendants will pay $600,000 as the
total settlement fund without admitting any liability and will
deposit the money with the settlement administrator, Simpluris no
later than 20 days after the Effective Date of the Settlement
Agreement.  The Defendants will also pay the employer's portion of
applicable payroll taxes.

The Settlement Class Members will release the Defendants and
Released Parties from wage and hour claims only as they relate to
rounding of time and will not release all potential employment
claims.

The Plaintiff's counsel will receive an award of attorneys' fees
of $150,000.00 from the settlement fund as is appropriate under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(h) and applicable law. The
Plaintiff's counsel will also receive an amount of $130,174.43 out
of the settlement fund as reimbursement for their costs and
expenses incurred prosecuting the lawsuit. Additionally,
$25,000.00 of the settlement fund is to be reserved for Simpluris,
the Settlement Administrator in the lawsuit.

Plaintiff Shaunetta Eddings will receive a $6,000.00 incentive
award out of the settlement fund for her services in initiating,
maintaining, and assisting counsel in the litigation.

Each Settlement Class Member who did not opt-out of the settlement
will receive a share of the settlement fund based on the time
worked within the relevant time period, the employee's rate of
pay, and various multipliers as defined in paragraph 45(d) of the
Settlement Agreement.

Any funds remaining from the total settlement fund after payment
of Plaintiff's counsel's fees and expenses and the distribution of
the shares of the settlement fund to class members who did not
opt-out of the settlement -- including checks uncashed after 320
days, checks returned as undeliverable, and any unused portion of
the $25,000 allocated to cover the Settlement Administrator's
costs -- will be distributed in cy pres to the Legal Aid Society -
Employment Law Center.

A copy of the District Court's June 27, 2013 final judgment is
available at http://is.gd/VkqCX1from Leagle.com.

Shaunetta Eddings, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson
-- hanson@stuevesiegel.com -- at Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason
M Lindner -- lindner@stuevesiegel.com -- at Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Marcus Boyd, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Julio Carmona, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Patricia Chojnowski, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Jaiden Cirillo, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Theodore Cleary, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Melissa Cruz, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Erica DeShurley, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Trina Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Betty Josue, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Michael King, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Shelea King, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Isidore Kouvdos, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Akilah Morales, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Meghan Mowder, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Marco Parra, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

James Pedersen, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Wendy Velasquez, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Beverly Way, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Shylisle Wescott, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Velda Williams, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Barbara Medrano, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Latonya Smith, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Roxanne Aguilar-Ramirez, Plaintiff, represented by George A
Hanson, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel
Hanson LLP.

Raynishia Anderson, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Danielle Bird, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Sade Kellog-Tharp, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Terrence Latson, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Veronica Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Tynisha Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Danielle Silva, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Christina Wheeler, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Sylvia Williams, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Alicia Wise, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Phyllis Yarborough, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Natalie Barnett, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Herbert Billiot, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Sakenna Cox, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Kathy Elmer, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Ruben Najera, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

David Rock, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Meuy Saephan, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Denice Sherwood, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Sandy Stewart, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Sabrina Sydnor, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Stacy Tang, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Tomika Taylor, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Lori Walsh, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Shelita Washington, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Martin P Araujo, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Florlinda R Ayala, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Libra Baker, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Elaina Canavero, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Robert T Clark, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Tina M Comroe, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Tamara D Davis, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Angela C Droogmans, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Rosalind Edwards, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Bret Frederick, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Margaret Galardi, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Bonnie M Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Ruth E Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Siu Nie Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Deborah D Gilbert, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Judith Grossman, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Tracey E Herring, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Michael A James, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Michelle D Jenkins, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Brian Karolkowski, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Baljinder Kaur, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Anthony D Leger, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Amanda Lemm, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Brian A Mapp, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

LaQuita A Mcclarin, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Monique A Moreno, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Carlo Ruiz, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Brian Sukenik, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Shelley M Uram, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Dion Williams, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Jacqueline Woodley, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Janel Yarbrough, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Christine G Zevallos, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Tiffany Blue, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Barbara Cathcart, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Sean Collier, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Jacqueline Evans, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Bianca Galvan, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Michael Haight, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Judy Long, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Sarah McKinzie, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Stephanie Platt, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Cynthia Poly, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Nikywa Prevost, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Sophia Reynolds, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Sonja Ricci, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Max Ross, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve Siegel
Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Kitty Toomer, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Yolanda Torres, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Maria Vannewkirk, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Kimberly White, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Heather Larkins, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Louise Bonner, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Kathryn Bovee, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Heather Brown, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Angel Burt, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Aimee Busath, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Teresa Conteh, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Vivian Crews, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Luz Cruz, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve Siegel
Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Violet Flores, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Judith Gelpi, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Maryann Ghafouri-Javadi, Plaintiff, represented by George A
Hanson, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel
Hanson LLP.

Elizabeth Givens, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Adrienne Hardt, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Stephanie Howling, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Jamie Hutcheson, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Shanita Joiner, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Tracy Lundin, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Annalisa Mayer, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Minor Miller, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Krista Mincolla, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Artemeius Moye, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Jennifer Muniz, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Leticia Ramos, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Anthony Ross, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Leslie Santana, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Lavonne Sconce, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Ramona Skattebo, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Eliza Tugadi, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Gene Viola, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Lizett Vives, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Marilyn Bartlett, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Vanessa Brooks, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Susan Cordova, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Steve Dickinson, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Kathleen Goins, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Matthew Goldberg, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Lisa Hubert, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Norma Moscoso, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Natalie Potts, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Cathy Pressley, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Robert Rivera, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Shawna Roderick, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L Dirks, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP, George A Hanson, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP &
Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Ina Rosson, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Kathy Stewart, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L Dirks, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP, George A Hanson, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP &
Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Neu Thao, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve Siegel
Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Kymberly Akens, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L Dirks, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP, George A Hanson, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP &
Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Bella Alcedo, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Fortain Bradley, Plaintiff, represented by Eric L Dirks, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP, George A Hanson, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP &
Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Angel Espinosa, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Victor Granados, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Corinne Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Shanon Jemison, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Robinah Kayongo, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Robin Kitt, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Crystal Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Michelle Ramirez, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Melinda Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

LaShaun Abraham, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Patricia Babcock, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Edward Batres, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Rose Boothe, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Tiffany Brooks, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Lakeysha Coryatt, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.
Malinda Cousins, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Margaret Cox, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Catrina Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Victor Gomez, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Monty Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Valerie Goode, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Carol Holland, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Jacquelyn Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Vanessa Lagares, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Latoya Lee-Usher, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Yvonne Mancilla, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Britany Mann, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Arelis Margarito, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Dana McCandless, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Pang Moua, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Henry Nathaniel, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Maria Ochoa, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Jennifer Overton, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Krishna Reed, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Shannon Rouchon, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Bernice Sharpe, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Monique Shields, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Marie St. Clair, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Carol Tison, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Diana Vargas, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Charlette Washington, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Michele Williamson, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Aubrey Wright, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Karen Henry, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

La Khamphanh, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Maiseo Brazelton, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Rachel Brown, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Dominique Cervantes, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Connie Clapton, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Patrick Gladney, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

La Twoise Haney, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Roseanne Holmes, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Chadetra Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Shelly Johnson-Smith, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Celeste Pettway, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Carlos Ramirez, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Shawtue Shelby, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Maura Sullivan, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Rachelle Bryant, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Debra Butler, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Andy Holmes, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Lora Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Jason Lowery, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Brenda Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Jessica Roy, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Veronica Berry, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Yolanda Glenn, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Jervonya Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Candise Kirkpatrick, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Karen Starkes, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Richard Carew, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Lorraine Eagins, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Jevon Franklin, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Martin Gamino, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Veronica Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Chantelle Gordon, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Tanika Kincy, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Neronda Langley, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Jessica Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Taalia Loggins, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Charles Pochard, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Lisa Rosario, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Faith Singleton, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Marlana Whitt, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Deborah Williams, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Ernestine Woodard, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Leslie Calderwood, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Alisha Diaz, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Kimberly DuBreucq, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Swanetta English, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Melissa Lapp, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Elijah Lessey, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Tiffany Powell, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Maxine Ross, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Maycelynn Russel, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Natasha Sandeford, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Laura Signore, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Angoli Whisenant, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Takisha Willis, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

LaVern Carson, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Latisha Barker, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Latonya Collins, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Shikira Harper, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Janisse Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Jesse Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Kendrix Myers, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Sainairia Parker, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Brenda Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

Rita Sharma, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Bryan Wamunga, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Rhianna White, Plaintiff, represented by George A Hanson, Stueve
Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Raquel Thomas, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by George A
Hanson, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Jason M Lindner, Stueve Siegel
Hanson LLP.

Health Net, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy J Long --
tjlong@orrick.com -- at Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP, Tina
M Tran -- ttran@orrick.com -- at Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe &
Mary K Dubose -- mdubose@orrick.com -- at Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP.

Health Net of California Inc, Defendant, represented by Tina M
Tran, Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe, Mary K Dubose, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & Timothy J Long, Orrick Herrington and
Sutcliffe LLP.

Health Net Federal Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Tina M
Tran, Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe, Mary K Dubose, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & Timothy J Long, Orrick Herrington and
Sutcliffe LLP.

Managed Health Network Inc, Defendant, represented by Tina M Tran,
Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe, Mary K Dubose, Orrick Herrington
& Sutcliffe LLP & Timothy J Long, Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe
LLP.

Health Net of the Northeast, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tina
M Tran, Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe, Mary K Dubose, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & Timothy J Long, Orrick Herrington and
Sutcliffe LLP.

Health Net Pharmaceutical Services, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Tina M Tran, Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe, Mary K Dubose,
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & Timothy J Long, Orrick
Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP.


IEC ELECTRONICS: Expects Lawsuits After Financial Restatement
-------------------------------------------------------------
IEC Electronics Corp. said on its July 3, 2013, amendment No. 1 to
Form 10-Q/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2013 that a restatement
of its financial statement could result in actions against it.

The Company has restated its financial statements. In connection
with the restatement, the Audit Committee conducted an independent
review of the underlying facts and circumstances, the Company is
reporting to NYSE MKT under its formal plan to regain compliance,
the Company is responding to an informal inquiry from the staff of
the SEC and the restatement could result in other actions
(including a shareholder class action filed June 28, 2013 in the
United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
against the Company and its CEO and CFO).

From time to time, the Company may be involved in other legal
actions in the ordinary course of its business, but management
does not believe that any such other proceedings commenced through
the date of these financial statements, individually or in the
aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial position.


INDYMAC MBS: District Court Ruling in "Detroit PFRS" Suit Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed
a June 21, 2011 District Court Order partially denying motions to
intervene by proposed intervenors in the case captioned POLICE AND
FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, individually,
POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, on
behalf of all others similarly situated, WYOMING STATE TREASURER,
WYOMING RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiffs, GENERAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM
OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, LOS ANGELES COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT
SYSTEM aka "LACERA," PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF
MISSISSIPPI "PERS," Proposed Intervenors-Appellants, v. INDYMAC
MBS, INC., DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., GOLDMAN, SACHS &
COMPANY, MORGAN STANLEY & COMPANY, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA)
LLC, Defendants-Appellees, RESIDENTIAL ASSET SECURITIZATION TRUST
2006-A5CB, et al., Defendants.

The appeal presents an unsettled question of law: whether the
tolling rule set forth by the Supreme Court in American Pipe &
Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) ("American Pipe") --
that "the commencement of a class action suspends the applicable
statute of limitations as to all asserted members of the class who
would have been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as
a class action," id. At 554 --?applies to the three-year statute
of repose in Section 13 of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities
Act"), 15 U.S.C. Section 77m.  The Second Circuit is also called
upon to decide whether non-party members of a putative class can
avoid the effect of a statute of repose using the "relation back"
doctrine of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) to amend the
class complaint and intervene in the action as named parties.

The Second Circuit holds that: (1) American Pipe's tolling rule
does not apply to the three-year statute of repose in Section 13;
and (2) absent circumstances that would render the newly asserted
claims independently timely, neither Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 24 nor the Rule 15(c) "relation back" doctrine permits
members of a putative class, who are not named parties, to
intervene in the class action as named parties in order to revive
claims that were dismissed from the class complaint for want of
jurisdiction. In practical terms, the proposed intervenors may not
circumvent Section 13's statute of repose by invoking American
Pipe or Rule 15(c), notes the 2nd Circuit decision.

The appeal came to the Second Circuit from an order of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
denying, in relevant part, proposed intervenors-appellants'
motions to intervene.  The lead plaintiff and other putative class
members alleged that defendants had made fraudulent
misrepresentations and omissions in the offering and sale of
certain financial instruments which they purchased.  Following the
District Court's dismissal of certain claims, as well as the
expiration of the three-year statute of repose under Section 13,
several putative class members sought to intervene in the action
to revive the dismissed claims on either of two theories: (1) that
the American Pipe tolling rule operated to preserve their right to
sue, or (2) that Rule 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure allowed them to "relate back" their otherwise untimely
claims to the surviving claims in the class complaint. The
District Court rejected these two theories and denied the motions
to intervene as barred under Section 13's statute of repose. The
appeal by proposed intervenors-appellants followed.

A copy of the Second Circuit's June 27, 2013 Decision is available
at http://is.gd/bbBfXifrom Leagle.com.

Robin F. Zwerling -- rzwerling@zsz.com -- Jeffrey C. Zwerling --
jzwerling@zsz.com -- Justin M. Tarshis -- jtarshis@zsz.com --  at
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, New York, NY, for Proposed
Intervenor-Appellant General Retirement System of the City of
Detroit.

Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr. -- jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com -- Patrick
T. Egan -- PEgan@BermanDeValerio.com -- at Berman DeValerio,
Boston, MA, for Proposed Intervenor-Appellant Los Angeles County
Employees Retirement System.

Michael J. Miarmi -- mmiarmi@lchb.com -- Joy A. Kruse --
jkruse@lchb.com -- at Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
New York, NY, for Proposed Intervenor-Appellant Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi.

William R. Stein -- stein@hugheshubbard.com -- Scott H.
Christensen -- christensen@hugheshubbard.com -- at Hughes Hubbard
& Reed LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee IndyMac MBS,
Incorporated.

Robert F. Serio -- rserio@gibsondunn.com -- Aric H. Wu --
awu@gibsondunn.com -- Jason W. Myatt -- jmyatt@gibsondunn.com --
Dean J. Kitchens -- dkitchens@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.,
Goldman, Sachs & Co., and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC.

Lawrence M. Rolnick -- lrolnick@lowenstein.com -- Thomas E.
Redburn, Jr.-- tredburn@lowenstein.com -- Sheila Sadighi --
ssadighi@lowenstein.com -- at Lowenstein Sandler PC, New York, NY,
for Amicus Curiae W.R. Huff Asset Management Co., LLC in support
of Intervenors-Appellants.


ISLE OF CAPRI: Hearing in TCPA Breach Suit Accord Later This Year
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The final settlement hearing in a lawsuit alleging that Isle of
Capri Casinos, Inc. sent unsolicited fax advertisements in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 is
expected to occur in late calendar 2013, according to the
company's July 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 28, 2013

The company was named as a defendant in a complaint filed in the
Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida. The complaint alleges
the company sent unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the
Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the "TCPA"), and seeks to certify
a class action.

The complaint seeks statutory damages for alleged negligent and
willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees, costs and
injunction relief. In April 2013, the company entered into a
settlement agreement with the plaintiff and on May 22, 2013, the
Court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the
settlement.

The settlement is subject to further consideration by the Court at
the final settlement hearing, which is expected to occur in late
calendar 2013. While the ultimate outcome is unknown, the company
accrued $1 million as the company's current estimate of the most
probable outcome of this matter.


KNIGHT CAPITAL: Scheduling Order Entered in Suit Over Algorithm
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in Fernandez v. Knight Capital Group, Inc., which is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,
have entered into a scheduling order, according to Exhibit 99.4 of
the company's July 1, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On August 17, 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in an
action entitled Osgood v. Knight Capital Group, Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. Generally,
this putative class action complaint alleged that Knight failed to
disclose both its intention to install a new algorithm and the
risks associated with such an algorithm.

The plaintiff asserted claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
of the federal securities laws and Tennessee statutes and common
law, claiming that he and a class of Company stockholders who
purchased the Company's Class A common stock between February 29,
2012 and August 1, 2012, paid an inflated price. On December 20,
2012, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Osgood action in favor
of the Fernandez action.

              Fernandez v. Knight Capital Group, Inc.

On October 26, 2012, the Company, its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Thomas M. Joyce, and its Executive Vice President, Chief
Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer, Steven Bisgay, were
named as defendants in an action entitled Fernandez v. Knight
Capital Group, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

Generally, this putative class action complaint alleges that the
defendants made material misstatements and/or failed to disclose
matters related to the events of August 1, 2012. The plaintiff
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 and Rule 10b-5 of the
federal securities laws, claiming that he and a class of the
Company's stockholders who purchased the Company's Class A common
stock between January 19, 2012 and August 1, 2012 paid an inflated
price.

The parties have entered into a scheduling order and expected the
plaintiff to file an amended complaint in March 2013.


KNIGHT CAPITAL: Merger With Knight Acquisition Pushes Through
-------------------------------------------------------------
Knight Capital Group, Inc. disclosed on its July 1, 2013, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013 that:

"On July 1, 2013 (the "Effective Date"), Knight Capital Group,
Inc. ("Knight") merged with and into Knight Acquisition Corp, a
wholly owned subsidiary of KCG Holdings, Inc. ("KCG"), with Knight
surviving the merger (the "Knight Merger"), GETCO Holding Company,
LLC ("GETCO") merged with and into GETCO Acquisition, LLC, a
wholly owned subsidiary of KCG, with GETCO surviving the merger
(the "GETCO Merger") and GA-GTCO, LLC ("GA-GTCO"), a unitholder of
GETCO, merged with and into GA-GTCO Acquisition, LLC, a wholly
owned subsidiary of KCG, with GA-GTCO Acquisition, LLC surviving
the merger (the "GA-GTCO Merger" and, together with the Knight
Merger and the GETCO Merger, the "Mergers"), in each case,
pursuant to the Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger,
dated as of December 19, 2012 and amended and restated as of April
15, 2013 (the "Merger Agreement"). Following the Mergers, each of
Knight and GETCO became wholly owned subsidiaries of KCG."

                       Delaware Litigation

On December 28, 2012, a purported stockholder class action
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, captioned Ann Jimenez McMillan v. Thomas M. Joyce, et
al., Case No. 8163-VCP.

The complaint names as defendants the Company, each member of the
Company's Board of Directors (the "Individual Defendants"), GETCO,
and GA-GTCO, LLC. The complaint generally alleges, among other
things, that the Individual Defendants violated their fiduciary
duties by accepting an inadequate merger price, approving the
transaction despite material conflicts of interest, and agreeing
to a number of improper deal protection devices and voting
agreements, which allegedly make it less likely that other bidders
would make successful competing offers for Knight.

The complaint also alleges that the Company, GETCO, and GA-GTCO,
LLC aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary
duties. The relief sought includes, among other things, an
injunction prohibiting consummation of the Merger, rescission of
the Merger (to the extent the Merger has already been
consummated), and attorneys' fees and costs.

On December 28, 2012, a purported stockholder class action
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, captioned Chrislaine Dominique v. Thomas M. Joyce, et
al., Case No. 8159-VCP. The complaint names as defendants the
Company, the Individual Defendants, GETCO, and GA-GTCO, LLC.

The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the
Individual Defendants violated their fiduciary duties by accepting
an inadequate merger price, approving the transaction despite
material conflicts of interest, including that they were appointed
by an investor group that included GETCO, and agreeing to a number
of improper deal protection devices, which allegedly make it less
likely that other bidders would make successful competing offers
for Knight.

The complaint also alleges that the Company and GETCO aided and
abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The relief
sought includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting
consummation of the Merger, rescission of the Merger (to the
extent the Merger has already been consummated), and attorneys'
fees and costs.

On January 31, 2013, the Court of Chancery consolidated for all
purposes the McMillan and Dominique actions into a single action
captioned In re Knight Capital Group, Inc. Shareholder Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No. 8159-VCP.

                       New Jersey Litigation

On December 31, 2012, a purported stockholder class action
complaint was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery
Division of Hudson County, NJ, captioned Charles Bryan v. Knight
Capital, et al., Case No. HUD-C-001-13.

The complaint names as defendants the Company, the Individual
Defendants, Jefferies & Company, Inc., Jefferies High Yield
Trading, LLC, TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., Blackstone Capital
Partners VI L.P., Blackstone Family Investment Partnership VI-ESC
L.P., Blackstone Family Investment Partnership VI L.P., Stephens
Investments Holdings LLC, Stifel Financial Corp., GETCO Strategic
Investments, LLC, GETCO Holding Company LLC, and GA-GTCO, LLC.

The complaint generally alleges that the Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by accepting an inadequate merger
price, agreeing to a number of improper deal protection devices
and voting agreements, which allegedly make it less likely that
other bidders would make successful competing offers for Knight
and approving the transaction despite material conflicts of
interest, including that they were appointed by an investor group
that included GETCO.

The complaint further alleges that the entity defendants (except
for Knight and GA-GTCO, LLC) breached alleged fiduciary duties in
connection with the Individual Defendants' approval of the Merger.
The complaint also alleges that GETCO and GA-GTCO, LLC aided and
abetted the Individual Defendants' purported breaches of fiduciary
duty. The relief sought includes, among other things, an
injunction prohibiting the consummation of the Merger, rescission
of the Merger (to the extent the Merger has already been
consummated) and attorneys' fees and costs.

On December 31, 2012, a purported stockholder class action
complaint was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery
Division of Hudson County, NJ, captioned James Ward v. Knight
Capital, et al., Case No. HUD-C-0003-13. The complaint names as
defendants the Company, the Individual Defendants, Jefferies &
Company, Inc., Jefferies High Yield Trading, LLC, TD Ameritrade
Holding Corp., Blackstone Capital Partners VI L.P., Blackstone
Family Investment Partnership VI-ESC L.P., Blackstone Family
Investment Partnership VI L.P., Stephens Investments Holdings LLC,
Stifel Financial Corp., GETCO Strategic Investments, LLC, GETCO
Holding Company LLC, and GA-GTCO, LLC.

The complaint generally alleges that the Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by accepting an inadequate merger
price, agreeing to a number of improper deal protection devices
and voting agreements, which allegedly make it less likely that
other bidders would make successful competing offers for Knight
and approving the transaction despite material conflicts of
interest, including that they were appointed by an investor group
that included GETCO. The complaint further alleges that the entity
defendants (except for Knight and GA-GTCO, LLC) breached alleged
fiduciary duties in connection with the Individual Defendants'
approval of the Merger.

The complaint also alleges that GETCO and GA-GTCO, LLC aided and
abetted the Individual Defendants' purported breaches of fiduciary
duty. The relief sought includes, among other things, an
injunction prohibiting the consummation of the Merger, rescission
of the Merger (to the extent the Merger has already been
consummated), and attorneys' fees and costs.

                         New York Litigation

On January 15, 2013, the Company, the Individual Defendants, GETCO
Holding Company LLC, GA-GTCO, LLC and General Atlantic were named
as defendants in an action entitled Joel Rosenfeld v. Thomas M.
Joyce, et al., Case No. 6540147/2013, in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York (New York County).

The plaintiff, Joel Rosenfeld, is one of the shareholders
mentioned above who previously sent the Company a derivative
demand letter. Generally, this complaint asserts both derivative
and class action claims.

First, it purports to assert derivative claims, which allege,
among other things, that the seven Knight directors who were
serving as of August 1, 2012 breached their fiduciary duties and
wasted corporate assets by failing to erect and oversee effective
safeguards to prevent against trading incidents, such as the one
that occurred on August 1, 2012, for which Knight incurred a
realized pre-tax loss of approximately $457.6 million.

Second, it asserts putative class action claims resulting from the
proposed Merger for (1) breach of fiduciary duty against the
Individual Defendants; and (2) aiding and abetting the purported
breach of fiduciary duty against GETCO, GA-GTCO, LLC, and General
Atlantic. In particular, the complaint generally alleges that the
Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by approving
the Merger at an inadequate price, agreeing to a number of
improper deal protection devices and voting agreements, which
allegedly make it less likely that other bidders would make
successful competing offers for Knight, and that certain of
Knight's directors have conflicts of interest in connection with
the transaction, including that certain directors sought to enter
into the transaction to avoid potential liability relating to the
derivative claims asserted in the complaint. Plaintiff seeks,
among other things, to enjoin the proposed Merger, rescission of
the proposed Merger (to the extent it has already been
consummated), and attorneys' fees.

With respect to the derivative claims, Plaintiff seeks, among
other things, an order requiring Knight directors who were serving
as of August 1, 2012 to pay restitution and/or compensatory
damages in favor of Knight and/or the proposed class of Knight
shareholders.


L'OREAL USA: False Labeling Suit Gets Initial Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John D. Bates issued a memorandum opinion holding
that the Court will preliminarily approve a proposed settlement
and class certification in the Lawsuit captioned ALEXIS
RICHARDSON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. L'OREAL USA, INC., Defendant,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-508 (JDB), (D.D.C.).

In this case, plaintiffs allege that defendant L'Oreal USA, Inc.,
falsely and deceptively labeled several products as available
exclusively in salons.

The proposed settlement defines the Settlement Class as "all
consumers nationwide who purchased the L'Oreacute;al Products for
personal, family or household use on or after August 30, 2008."

The settlement provides for injunctive relief only. L'Oreal will
remove the contested claims from U.S. advertising and from
labeling on products for U.S. distribution, except for certain
products also sold or distributed in European countries using the
same packaging; L'Oreal will not use the claims for at least five
years, and, after five years, it may resume using the claims in
markets with a 60% reduction from 2012 levels of non-salon sales;
L'Oreal will cease manufacturing labels for U.S. products that
carry the claims and will remove the claims from websites and
promotion materials shortly after the agreement becomes effective,
but it will not destroy products or product packaging in its
inventory.

The Court set a Fairness Hearing for October 11, 2013, at 9:00
a.m.

A copy of the District Court's June 27, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
is available at http://is.gd/C4gZK1 from Leagle.com.

ALEXIS RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, represented by Clayton D. Halunen --
halunen@halunenlaw.com -- at HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES & Michael D.
Lieder -- mlieder@sprengerlang.com -- at SPRENGER & LANG, PLLC.

JAY SANDLER, Plaintiff, represented by Clayton D. Halunen, HALUNEN
& ASSOCIATES & Michael D. Lieder, SPRENGER & LANG, PLLC.

LUBNA PESHIMAM, Plaintiff, represented by Clayton D. Halunen,
HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES & Michael D. Lieder, SPRENGER & LANG, PLLC.

TRACEY ANN BERTRAND, Plaintiff, represented by Clayton D. Halunen,
HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES & Michael D. Lieder, SPRENGER & LANG, PLLC.

MOLLIE KRENGEL, Plaintiff, represented by Clayton D. Halunen,
HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES & Michael D. Lieder, SPRENGER & LANG, PLLC.

NANCIE LIGON, Plaintiff, represented by Clayton D. Halunen,
HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES & Michael D. Lieder, SPRENGER & LANG, PLLC.

L'OREAL USA, INC., Defendant, represented by Daniel Seth Ruzumna
-- druzumna@pbwt.com -- at PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER, LLP &
Frederick B. Warder, III -- fbwarder@pbwt.com -- at PATTERSON
BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP.


LOBLAW COMPANIES: Recalls 12,699 Tera Gear & PC Metal Garden Torch
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 19, 2013
Posting date:             July 19, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Chemicals, Outdoor Living
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety, Labelling and Packaging
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-34587

Affected products: Tera Gear Metal Garden Torch and PC Metal
Garden Torch

The recall involves stainless steel garden torches intended for
outdoor use only.  The torches were sold under the names Tera Gear
Metal Garden Torch and PC Metal Garden Torch, UPC number
058703047990.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/tnenZZ

The recalled products do not meet the labeling requirements for
consumer chemical products under Canadian Law.

The lack of labeling information, including appropriate warnings,
may lead to serious injury or property damage.

There were three reported incidents for this item in Canada.

Approximately 12,699 units of the metal garden torches were sold
in Canada.

The affected products were manufactured in China and sold in
Canada from March 2012 to July 2013.

Companies:

   Manufacturer:     Test Rite International Co., Ltd.
                     Zhejiang
                     China

   Distributor:      Loblaw Companies Ltd.
                     Brampton
                     Ontario
                     Canada

Consumers should stop using the recalled products immediately.
Products can be returned to any Loblaw banner store where the
customer service desk will provide a full refund, or contact
customer service by telephone at 1-800-296-2332 or by email.


LS DISTRIBUTION: Recalls 23,464 Mineraux du Monde" No. 1 ? Gold
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            July 19, 2013
Posting date:             July 19, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Hobby/Craft Items, Chemicals
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety, Flammability Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-34527

Affected products: Mineraux du Monde" No. 1 Issue - Gold

The recall involves a 6 mL vial of gold flakes preserved in an
alcohol solution.  The recalled product, "Le No. 1: L'Or", is the
first issue of a mineral collection called "Mineraux du Monde".
The vial of gold can either be identified by the barcode number:
0 65385 89527 6 01 on the exterior packaging or there is a
manufacturer reference: ES 37618799E, which can be found on a tag
accompanying the vial.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at: http://is.gd/0YMH7c

The recalled products do not meet the packaging and labeling
requirements for Consumer Chemical Products under Canadian Law.
The containers lack the symbol and warnings required for flammable
products.

The lack of labeling information, including appropriate warnings,
may cause serious injury.

Neither Health Canada nor RBA France has received any reports of
injuries or incidents related to the use of these products.

Approximately 23,464 recalled products were sold in Canada via
kiosk locations and subscriptions.

The recalled products were manufactured in Spain and sold from
September 2012 to December 2012.

Companies:

   Manufacturer:     Opalo Minerales
                     Barcelona
                     Spain

   Distributor:      LS Distribution North America
                     Anjou
                     Quebec
                     Canada

                     RBA France Canada
                     Paris
                     France

Consumers should stop using the recalled product immediately.

The product can be returned in person at the place of purchase or
it can be sent to the following address so that it can be disposed
of properly:

                     LS Distribution North America
                     8155 Larrey Street
                     Anjou, Quebec
                     H1J 1L5


MANDALAY DIGITAL: Faces Suit in Tel-Aviv Over Phone Call Overages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mandalay Digital Group, Inc. disclosed on its July 1, 2013, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013, that on May 30, 2013, a
class action suit in the amount of NIS 19.2 million or $5.3
million was filed in the Tel-Aviv Jaffa District Court against
Coral Tell Ltd. an Israeli company which owns and operates a
website offering advertisements and who is currently being sued in
a class action lawsuit regarding phone call overages served a
third party notice against Logia and two additional companies for
the company's alleged involvement in facilitating the overages.
The company believes the lawsuit is without merits and a finding
of liability on the company's part remote. After conferring with
advisors and counsel, management believes that the ultimate
liability, if any, in the aggregate will not be material to the
financial position or results or operations of the Company for any
future period; and no liability has been accrued.


NEW YORK: Dismissal of WTC Office Cleaners' Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
According to Justia, plaintiffs, office cleaners in buildings
surrounding the World Trade Center disaster site on and after the
September 11th terrorist attacks, appealed the district court's
order denying their motion for an extension of time to comply with
the district court's prior order requiring them to submit properly
certified discovery responses, and dismissing their complaint with
prejudice for failure to prosecute their cases.  Plaintiffs
alleged injuries resulting from exposure to toxic materials from
the World Trade Center site.  The court concluded that the
district court acted well within its discretion in dismissing
certain plaintiffs' complaints for failure to comply with repeated
court orders despite numerous extension of time to do so.  The
court also concluded that the district court did not err as a
matter of law in interpreting 28 U.S.C. 1746 to require that a
certification be made "under penalty of perjury."  Therefore, the
district court properly rejected the interrogatory answers of
certain plaintiffs that omitted that language.  Accordingly, the
court affirmed the judgment.


OAKLAND COLISEUM: Magistrate Judge Orders Dismissal of Missud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero dismissed without leave to amend
the putative class action captioned JULIE E. MISSUD, Plaintiff,
v. OAKLAND COLISEUM JOINT VENTURE, et al. Defendants, CASE NO.
12-02967 JCS, (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs in the case alleged causes of action for (1)
violations of the Clean Water Act; (2) violations of the Resource
Conservation and Reclamation Act; (3) violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act; (4) violations of the National Highway
Safety and Traffic Act; (5) violations of the requirements
established by Cal-trans; (6) negligence; (7) breach of contract;
(8) fraudulent inducement; and (9) unfair business practices in
violation of California Business and Professions Code section
17200.

The Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' first amended complaint with prejudice, and denied the
Defendants' motion to strike portions of the first amended
complaint as moot.

Judge Spero directed the Clerk of Court to close the file.

A copy of the District Court's June 27, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/GvMkrkfrom Leagle.com.

Patrick Alexandre Missud, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick
Alexandre Missud -- missudpat@yahoo.com

Julie E. Missud, and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Oakland Coliseum Joint Venture, Defendant, represented by Stephen
Alter Scott -- sscott@hayesscott.com -- at Hayes Scott Boniono
Ellingson & McLay, LLP, Austin W Manes -- amanes@hayesscott.com --
at Hayes Scott Bonino Ellingson and McLay & Mary Colleen Ryan,
Department of Industrial Relations.

City of Oakland, Defendant, represented by Stephen Alter Scott,
Hayes Scott Boniono Ellingson & McLay, LLP, Austin W Manes, Hayes
Scott Bonino Ellingson and McLay & Mary Colleen Ryan, Department
of Industrial Relations.

Alameda County, Defendant, represented by Stephen Alter Scott,
Hayes Scott Boniono Ellingson & McLay, LLP, Austin W Manes, Hayes
Scott Bonino Ellingson and McLay & Mary Colleen Ryan, Department
of Industrial Relations.

SMG Corporation, Defendant, represented by Stephen Alter Scott,
Hayes Scott Boniono Ellingson & McLay, LLP, Austin W Manes, Hayes
Scott Bonino Ellingson and McLay & Mary Colleen Ryan, Department
of Industrial Relations.


PCS EDVENTURES!.COM: Settlement in Idaho Securities Suit Now Paid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
All settlement funds in Niederklein v. PCS Edventures!.com, Inc.,
et al. were paid on or before February 29, 2012, according to the
company's July 1, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013.

The Company, along with its former CEO and former CFO, was named
in a class action lawsuit (Niederklein v. PCS Edventures!.com,
Inc., et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, Case
1:10-cv-00479-CWD).

The class action was brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period
between March 28, 2007 and August 15, 2007.  In September, the
Company announced that it had entered into an agreement to settle
the class action lawsuit, subject to further proceedings and
approval by the Court.

While the Company denies the allegations made in the class action
lawsuit, the settlement was entered to eliminate the burden and
expense of further litigation.  On October 5, 2011, the Court
granted preliminary approval to the settlement, and approved the
notices that were sent to potential class members.

At the Settlement Fairness Hearing on February 22, 2012, the Court
gave final approval to the settlement and entered the Final
Judgment and Order of Dismissal With Prejudice.  The class action
was settled for $665,000 with the Company's insurance carrier
providing most of the settlement funds.  In accordance with the
Court ordered settlement, all settlement funds were paid on or
before February 29, 2012.


PENN STATE: Board Approves $60MM Sandusky Sexual Abuse Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Present, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the Penn State board of trustees has approved a number around
$60 million to settle a majority of the claims made by people
claiming convicted serial child molester Jerry Sandusky sexually
abused them, sources have told The Legal.

The Legal had initially reported that the board had approved a
figure in excess of $30 million but significantly short of $100
million to resolve the claims.  However, numerous sources familiar
with the negotiations have confirmed that the board has authorized
a number somewhere in the close proximity of $60 million to settle
with most of the plaintiffs.

Penn State confirmed that its board approved tentative settlements
reached with some of the claimants at a board meeting on July 12,
voting unanimously to greenlight the accords.  However, the
university is not expected to announce an overall dollar amount
until it has settled with everyone.

There are believed to be 32 plaintiffs who have contacted Penn
State about resolving claims stemming from allegations that
Sandusky abused them.

A "majority" of those 32 total claims, sources said at the
beginning of the week, were in the following posture: Penn State
has posed an amount of money that lawyers agreed their client
would accept, but papers are not signed yet. There was no
indication from sources or media reports that any deals had been
inked Wednesday.

A number of claims, meanwhile, likely 10 or fewer, are not at the
stage where an offer has been tentatively accepted, either because
attorneys representing the accusers have rejected the university's
offer or the negotiations have not gotten to the point of final
offers, sources said.  Those final negotiations could mean Penn
State pays out more than $60 million or possibly less than that
figure.

Sources involved in the negotiations have also said Penn State's
legal team has made offers to some of the claimants who would have
likely been time-barred from successfully bringing suit based on
the statute of limitations.  Those claims, sources said, are not
among the most substantial tentative agreements, but have also not
been dismissed by the university's representatives.

Last September, the university hired Ken Feinberg --
kfeinberg@feinbergrozen.com -- and his partner, Michael K. Rozen
-- mkrozen@feinbergrozen.com -- to handle negotiations with
claimants and their attorneys.  Mr. Feinberg and Mr. Rozen,
nationally-recognized mediators from the Feinberg Rozen firm, have
worked on the 9/11 victim fund, settlements related to the BP
Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and other massive victim-compensation
plans.

Sources say the university has a good chance of resolving all of
the outstanding claims by the end of the summer.

If the matter plays out along that timeline, Messrs. Feinberg and
Rozen will have worked for just less than a year on the
compensation package.

Reached for comment on July 15, Mr. Rozen said: "Negotiations have
been proceeding in good faith and I'm optimistic that resolutions
of many of the claims can be obtained in near-term future."

Mr. Rozen declined further comment and there was no indication of
what certain cases were settling for.

The claimants' attorneys, when contacted by The Legal, declined to
comment on the values their clients have accepted.  Attorneys also
declined to speculate on the number approved by the board.

However, on July 15, several of the plaintiffs' lawyers commended
Penn State's legal representation for its approach to the
negotiations.

"My law firm and Mr. Rozen have worked very closely, particularly
in recent days, to make the best efforts to resolve our clients'
claims and we are in the process of reaching the very final stages
of the negotiations," said Matthew Casey of Ross Feller Casey.

Casey and his partner, Joel Feller, have been negotiating on
behalf of three victims who testified at Sandusky's trial, who are
known as Victim 3, Victim 7 and Victim 10.  They also represent
Victim 2, whose story was conveyed through the testimony of former
Penn State graduate assistant Mike McQueary, along with three
claimants who were not part of indictments against Sandusky,
including Sandusky's adopted son, Matt Sandusky.

Thomas R. Kline, who represents a man known as Victim 5, said his
client was close to settling as well, and commended the Penn State
negotiators for bringing most of the claims nearly to completion.

"The board action was one more positive step in the series of
steps that are needed to reach a final settlement," Mr. Kline
said. "There have been negotiations for months which have now, to
my understanding, resulted in tentative agreements with many if
not most counsel representing the Sandusky victims who have claims
against Penn State, including Victim 5, who I represent."

Mr. Kline, declining to comment on the value of either his
individual settlement or the global number, noted all of the
negotiations have had a requirement of confidentiality to his
understanding, and that a "large majority" of the negotiations, as
he understands it, have been productive.

"I expect that the cases can be now finalized within weeks based
upon the necessary documentation and paperwork," Mr. Kline added.
"The Penn State negotiators, in particular Michael Rozen, have
been constructive and productive in moving this process to the end
stage, which we are now approaching."

Slade McLaughlin represents Aaron Fisher, the Clinton County
teenager whose allegations are credited with launching the
investigation that led to Sandusky's prosecution, and is working
on other claimants' cases.

Mr. McLaughlin declined to comment on any specifics, but commended
Penn State for its approach.

"Our negotiations for our clients have been ongoing," Mr.
McLaughlin said.  "There has been a spirit of cooperation in the
negotiations and we look forward to the resolution of these cases
at some point in the future."

Mr. Sandusky, the longtime defensive coordinator of Penn State's
football team, was convicted on 45 of 48 counts of child sex abuse
in June of last year.  Eight victims testified against Mr.
Sandusky and the accounts of two other victims were elucidated
through witness testimony.  All of the victims who testified
against their former abuser have been negotiating with the
university.  A man known as Victim 2, who Mr. McQueary said he saw
Sandusky molest in a shower in 2001, also has legal representation
and has been negotiating with the university.  Others, including a
man named Travis Weaver who went public after testimony closed in
Sandusky's trial, and Matt Sandusky, Sandusky's adopted son, have
also been negotiating settlements with Penn State.

Penn State, meanwhile, has been in an ongoing legal battle over
coverage with its primary liability insurance carrier during the
relevant time period, Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association
Insurance Co.  The litigation is over the extent to which PMA has
to cover Penn State in both defense costs and damages payouts but,
to this point, has mostly been battles over venue.  PMA contends
the insurance litigation should play out in Philadelphia while
Penn State has tried more than once to move it to Centre County.


PFIZER INC: Judge Wants Lawyers to Pick Up Pace in Zoloft MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that the Zoloft MDL is going to have to pick up its pace if it's
going to usher the way for state courts that are hearing similar
cases, the federal judge presiding over the case told a room full
of attorneys in federal court in Philadelphia during a status
conference on July 18.

The multidistrict litigation, which was consolidated in the court
of U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania in the spring of 2012, now includes about 450 cases
in which plaintiffs allege that their ingestion of Pfizer's
antidepressant drug, Zoloft, caused birth defects in the babies
they were pregnant with while they took the drug.

"We're supposed to be leading the discovery," Judge Rufe said.

"I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that if we don't
move a little faster in the course of discovery and selection of
cases and get the trial dates that we have already put in place
. . . we're going to be the tail that's wagging, or trying to wag,
this dog."

Most eligible cases have been filed in the MDL, Judge Rufe said,
but there remain a handful of stray cases that were filed in
various state courts.

"I don't ever rely on a state court holding back, they shouldn't
have to," she said, noting that a single case has much faster legs
on its way to trial than a lumbering MDL with hundreds of cases.
"Those few cases that remain can speed," Judge Rufe said of
pending state court actions.

She warned the dozens of lawyers, from Pfizer's defense team and
the plaintiffs' steering committee, "if we are going to determine
true issues of science, of liability, and then of damages, I would
hope that we would be speeding along.  It's time to speed."

Judge Rufe favors coordinating with other judges presiding over
similar cases and has been in touch with judges hearing Zoloft
cases.

As she was presiding over the recent Avandia MDL, which included
thousands of claims, she said to TheLegal for an article last
month that it was necessary to coordinate on discovery.

"It was not only courteous to consult other judges, it's mandatory
because you can't have conflicting decisions and rulings in the
same area all over the country," Judge Rufe said.

She also said that the discussions between judges have to be
confidential and cannot cover any substantial matters.

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Sandra Mazer Moss said in
the same article that picking the same master that Judge Rufe had
picked and having joint hearings with Judge Rufe on the science
led to the litigation resolving successfully in the Avandia case.

"I don't think we could have done what we did without joint
coordination," Judge Moss said in June.  "Otherwise we would have
been on the rocky shoals."

But judges remain sensitive to their jurisdictions, Judge Moss
said.  "I'm not going to coordinate and cooperate myself out of
existence," she said.

Judge Moss is also hearing a Zoloft case and has set a trial date
for it in April of next year, said Andrew Chirls --
achirls@finemanlawfirm.com -- of Fineman Krekstein & Harris, who
is serving as special master for discovery in the Zoloft MDL.

On the pace of discovery, he told Judge Rufe on July 18 that he's
heard concerns from both sides and he said, "It's always true that
discovery could go faster."  Mr. Chirls said he is planning to
initiate weekly telephone conferences with the defense and
plaintiffs' steering committee.

As each side has undertaken selecting cases for the discovery
pool, the defense, led by Mark Cheffo of Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom, expressed frustration that half of the cases they
had initially selected were dismissed by the plaintiffs. Each side
picks 12.

Dianne Nast of RodaNast, who is co-lead counsel for the
plaintiffs' steering committee, suggested that they reduce the
number of cases each side picks.  During the Avandia case, which
had many more claims than the Zoloft case does, they arrived at
that number, she said, but in this case they've been stymied by
the fact that doctors and hospitals typically maintain patient
records for only seven years.

Of the practice from both sides of dismissing cases after they've
been selected for the discovery pool, Judge Rufe said, "I'm
troubled by that maneuvering."

After some discussion, Judge Rufe said, "Ten on each side, if
that's where we end up, seems logical, but, in getting there, you
might need the extra numbers, just to whittle it down."


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: "Emmons" Suit to Return to Calif. County Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe issued findings and
recommendations granting plaintiffs' motion to remand in DOROTHEA
EMMONS and LISA STAPELTON, Plaintiffs, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS
CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO.
1:13-CV-0474 AWI-BAM, (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Dorothea Emmons and Lisa Stapelton's filed a Motion to
Remand for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.  They argued that
Defendants Quest Diagnostic Clinical Laboratories, Inc., Quest
Diagnostics Incorporated, and Quest Diagnostics Nichols Institute
have failed to meet their burden of proving that the amount in
controversy in the case exceeds $5 million.

"In sum, Defendants failed to prove to a legal certainty that the
amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. As a result, CAFA does
not provide a proper basis for subject matter jurisdiction," ruled
Judge McAuliffe.

The Court recommends that the action be remanded to the Stanislaus
County Superior Court of California for all further proceedings.

The Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations are submitted
to the district judge assigned to the action, pursuant to Title 28
of the United States Code section 636(b)(1)(B) and the Court's
Local Rule 304.

A copy of the Magistrate Judge's June 27, 2013 Dindings and
Recommendations is available at http://is.gd/06KURYfrom
Leagle.com.

Dorothea Emmons, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandria Marie Witte
-- alexandria.witte@capstonelawyers.com -- at Capstone Law APC,
Nathan Thomas Lowery ?- nathan.lowery@capstonelawyers.com -- at
Capstone Law APC & Raul Perez -- Raul.Perez@CapstoneLawyers.com --
at Capstone Law APC.

Lisa Stapleton, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandria Marie Witte,
Capstone Law APC, Nathan Thomas Lowery, Capstone Law APC & Raul
Perez, Capstone Law APC.

Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Erica C. Parks -- eparks@sidley.com -- at Sidley
Austin LLP & Jonathan M Brenner -- jbrenner@sidley.com -- at
Sidley Austin LLP.

Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Erica C.
Parks, Sidley Austin LLP & Jonathan M Brenner, Sidley Austin LLP.

Quest Diagnostics Nichols Institute, Defendant, represented by
Erica C. Parks, Sidley Austin LLP & Jonathan M Brenner, Sidley
Austin LLP.


QWEST COMMS: Easement Deed Entered Under "Smith" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A California Class Settlement Agreement, dated September 5, 2012,
in the lawsuit entitled TODD SMITH, DIRK REGAN and CAROL REGAN,
JACQUELYN SHELDRICK, GLENN L. BOOM, and WILLIAM NELSON and LINDA
NELSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF A CLASS OF PERSONS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. QWEST COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY,
LLC; SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P.; LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS,
LLC; and WILTEL COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:11-CV-
02599-THE, (N.D. Cal.), provides for the entry of an "Easement
Deed by Court Order in Settlement of Landowner Action" by which
the Settling Defendants acquire, to the extent that Class Members
have the right to transfer it, a permanent telecommunications
easement in the Right of Way adjacent to the property of each
Class Member.

On June 27, 2013, District Judge Thelton E. Henderson entered an
order which provides, among other things, that:

* To the extent that each Class Member owns rights in the Easement
  Premises, the Class Member (the "Grantor") grants to whichever
  of Sprint Communications Company L.P., Qwest Communications
  Company, LLC, Level 3 Communications, LLC, and WilTel
  Communications, Inc. has Designated for inclusion under a
  Settlement Agreement the Right of Way which adjoins, underlies
  or includes Covered Property owned by the Class Member, together
  with its successors, assigns, and licensees (the "Grantee"), a
  permanent telecommunications easement in the Easement Premises.

* The Easement includes all rights necessary to the lawful
  occupation of the Easement Premises by an existing
  Telecommunications Cable System, and by any additional
  Telecommunications Cable System that is constructed and
  installed by or on behalf of Grantee in the Easement Premises
  and that is owned or operated by either (a) Grantee or (b) any
  person or entity to which Grantee sold, granted, leased, or
  otherwise transferred or may hereafter sell, grant, lease,
  assign, or otherwise transfer, all or any part of the rights in
  or use of such Telecommunications Cable System.

* The Easement, however, does not apply to any Telecommunications
  Cable System that existed on November 21, 2012, but that was
  acquired by Grantee after that date (unless such
  Telecommunications Cable System or component thereof was
  acquired from any of Sprint Communications Company L.P.; Qwest
  Communications Company, LLC, f/k/a Qwest Communications
  Corporation; Level 3 Communications, LLC, Level 3
  Communications, Inc., and Level 3 Telecom Holdings, Inc.; WilTel
  Communications, Inc.; WilTel Communications, LLC; and Williams
  Communications, LLC, f/k/a Williams Communications, Inc., f/k/a
  Vyvx, Inc.).

A copy of the District Court's June 27, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/CKwfLRfrom Leagle.com.

Todd Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Eric E Caugh --
ecaugh@zelle.com -- at Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Jeffrey
Mark Forster, at Forster & Segal, Arthur T. Susman --
asusman@shhllp.com -- at Susman Heffner & Hurst LLP, Craig C.
Corbitt -- ccorbitt@zelle.com -- at Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason
LLP, Kathleen Clubb Kauffman, at Ackerson Kauffman Fex, PC, Steven
R. Levy, Law Office of Steven R. Levy & William Ted Gotfryd --
wgotfryd@shhllp.com -- at Susman Heffner Hurst LLP.

Carol Regan, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Mark Forster,
Forster & Segal, Arthur T. Susman, Susman Heffner & Hurst LLP,
Craig C. Corbitt, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Daniel Millea
-- dmillea@zelle.com -- at Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Eric
E Caugh, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Kathleen Clubb
Kauffman, Ackerson Kauffman Fex, PC, Steven R. Levy, Law Office of
Steven R. Levy & William Ted Gotfryd, Susman Heffner Hurst LLP.

Jacquelyn Sheldrick, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Mark
Forster, Forster & Segal, Arthur T. Susman, Susman Heffner & Hurst
LLP, Craig C. Corbitt, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Daniel
Millea, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Eric E Caugh, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Kathleen Clubb Kauffman, Ackerson
Kauffman Fex, PC, Steven R. Levy, Law Office of Steven R. Levy &
William Ted Gotfryd, Susman Heffner Hurst LLP.

Glenn L. Boom, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Mark Forster,
Forster & Segal, Arthur T. Susman, Susman Heffner & Hurst LLP,
Craig C. Corbitt, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Daniel
Millea, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Eric E Caugh, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Kathleen Clubb Kauffman, Ackerson
Kauffman Fex, PC, Steven R. Levy, Law Office of Steven R. Levy &
William Ted Gotfryd, Susman Heffner Hurst LLP.

William Nelson, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Mark Forster,
Forster & Segal, Arthur T. Susman, Susman Heffner & Hurst LLP,
Craig C. Corbitt, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Daniel
Millea, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Eric E Caugh, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Kathleen Clubb Kauffman, Ackerson
Kauffman Fex, PC, Steven R. Levy, Law Office of Steven R. Levy &
William Ted Gotfryd, Susman Heffner Hurst LLP.

Linda Nelson, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Mark Forster,
Forster & Segal, Arthur T. Susman, Susman Heffner & Hurst LLP,
Craig C. Corbitt, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Daniel
Millea, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Eric E Caugh, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Kathleen Clubb Kauffman, Ackerson
Kauffman Fex, PC, Steven R. Levy, Law Office of Steven R. Levy &
William Ted Gotfryd, Susman Heffner Hurst LLP.

Qwest Communications Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Molly
Newland Tullman -- mnewland@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard,
Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP, Christopher J. Koenigs --
ckoenigs@sah.com -- at Sherman and Howard L.L.C., James Joseph
Mittermiller -- Jmittermiller@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Joseph Edward Jones --
jjones@fslf.com -- at Fraser Stryker PC LLO & Michael Brian
Carroll -- mcarroll@sah.com -- at Sherman and Howard L.L.C.

Sprint Communications Company L.P., Defendant, represented by
Molly Newland Tullman, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP,
James Emmett Logan -- elogan@stinson.com -- at Stinson Morrison
Hecker LLP, James Joseph Mittermiller, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP & Joseph Edward Jones, Fraser Stryker PC LLO.

Level 3 Communications, LLC, Defendant, represented by Molly
Newland Tullman, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP, James
Joseph Mittermiller, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP &
Joseph Edward Jones, Fraser Stryker PC LLO.

Wiltel Communications, LLC, Defendant, represented by Molly
Newland Tullman, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP, James
Joseph Mittermiller, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP &
Joseph Edward Jones, Fraser Stryker PC LLO.


REXNORD CORP: Accord in Suit Over Fittings Approved in February
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of suits over Rexnord Corporation's Zurn brass
fittings on PEX plumbing systems received final court approval in
February 2013, according to the company's May 20, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013.

The Company's subsidiaries, Zurn PEX, Inc. and Zurn Industries,
LLC were named as defendants in a number of individual and class
action lawsuits in various United States courts. The plaintiffs in
these suits claimed damages due to the alleged failure or
anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on the PEX plumbing
systems in homes and other structures.

In July 2012, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle the liability underlying this litigation.  The settlement
is designed to resolve, on a national basis, the Company's overall
exposure for both known and unknown claims related to the alleged
failure or anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on PEX
plumbing systems, subject to the right of eligible class members
to opt-out of the settlement and pursue their claims
independently.

The settlement received final court approval in February 2013, and
utilizes a seven year claims fund, which is capped at $20 million,
and is funded in installments over the seven year period based on
claim activity and minimum funding criteria.

The settlement also covers class action plaintiffs' attorneys'
fees and expenses in an amount not to exceed $8.5 million and
related administrative costs, which has been paid.


RITE AID: Certification Discovery in "Indergit" Suit Completed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery as to certification issues in Indergit v. Rite Aid
Corporation et al. has been completed, according to the company's
July 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 1, 2013.

The Company has been named in a collective and class action
lawsuit, Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation et al pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, filed purportedly on behalf of current and former store
managers working in the Company's stores at various locations
around the country.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to pay overtime to
store managers as required under the FLSA and under certain New
York state statutes. The lawsuit also seeks other relief,
including liquidated damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees,
costs and injunctive relief arising out of state and federal
claims for overtime pay.

On April 2, 2010, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide
collective group of individuals who worked for the Company as
store managers since March 31, 2007. The Court ordered that Notice
of the Indergit action be sent to the purported members of the
collective group (approximately 7,000 current and former store
managers) and approximately 1,550 joined the Indergit action.

Discovery as to certification issues has been completed. The
parties have fully briefed the issues of Rule 23 class
certification of the New York store manager claims and
decertification of the nationwide collective action claims and are
awaiting a ruling from the Court.

At this time, the Company is not able to either predict the
outcome of this lawsuit or estimate a potential range of loss with
respect to the lawsuit. The Company's management believes,
however, that this lawsuit is without merit and not appropriate
for collective or class action treatment and is vigorously
defending this lawsuit.


RITE AID: Faces Wage & Hour Lawsuits in Calif. State Courts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation is currently a defendant in several putative
class action lawsuits filed in state courts in California alleging
violations of California wage and hour laws, rules and regulations
pertaining primarily to failure to pay overtime, pay for missed
meals and rest periods and failure to provide employee seating,
according to the company's July 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
1, 2013. These suits purport to be class actions and seek
substantial damages.

At this time, the Company is not able to either predict the
outcome of these lawsuits or estimate a potential range of loss
with respect to the lawsuits. The Company's management believes,
however, that the plaintiffs' allegations are without merit and
that their claims are not appropriate for class action treatment.
The Company is vigorously defending all of these claims.


ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT: $54MM Accord With TD Bank Investors Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Kay, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that U.S.
Bankruptcy Judge Raymond Ray approved a $54 million settlement
between TD Bank and Scott Rothstein investors represented by law
firms Conrad & Scherer and Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton.

The approval on July 17 was the last hurdle for a final
liquidation plan for Rothstein's defunct law firm, Rothstein
Rosenfeldt Adler, clearing the way for the distribution of a total
of $80 million to investors by Labor Day.

TD Bank was the primary bank used by Rothstein for his $1.2
billion Ponzi scheme and has been chastised by a federal district
judge for aiding and abetting the settlement funding fraud.

The action ends four years of messy and expensive litigation
involving a host of parties who were damaged financially by
Mr. Rothstein's fraud.

But the mood in Judge Ray's courtroom was jovial as once-warring
parties joked and shook hands.

"We're pleased that Dion Hayes is sitting at our table," said
Charles Throckmorton of Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, referring to
a TD Bank lawyer.

Standing before Judge Ray, Mr. Hayes deadpanned: "Some seats cost
more than others."

Added Paul Singerman of Berger Singerman, who represents trustee
Herbert Stettin, "I'm not going to comment on the seating, but
from a metaphysical perspective, hell has frozen over."

Mr. Rothstein is serving a 50-year sentence for masterminding his
scheme from his opulent law office on Las Olas Boulevard in
downtown Fort Lauderdale.  The 70-attorney firm collapsed after
its chairman flew to Morocco with millions of dollars, only to
return to face federal prosecutors and an involuntary bankruptcy
petition.


S. TALLERICO: Court Recommends Dismissal of Anderson Amended Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston issued an order dismissing a
first amended complaint with leave to amend, and a finding and
recommendation that plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief be
denied, in the lawsuit captioned DION ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. S.
TALLERICO, Defendant, CASE NO. 1:13-CV-00507 LJO JLT, (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Dion Anderson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and
in forma pauperis in a prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 1983.  The Court dismissed the Plaintiff's original
complaint on May 7, 2013, but granted him leave to file an amended
complaint.  Mr. Anderson also has a pending civil rights matter
before the Court in which he attempts to assert a class action.

Magistrate Judge Thurston said the Court has informed Plaintiff on
two separate occasions of the standard needed to assert a
cognizable First Amendment claim of denial of access to the Court.
Despite his knowledge, Plaintiff again fails to state a cognizable
First Amendment claim of denial of access to the courts. Thus, the
Court recommends that Plaintiff's claim be dismissed without leave
to amend for failure to state a claim.

A copy of the District Court's June 27, 2013 Order and Finding and
Recommendation is available at http://is.gd/5vSrRYfrom
Leagle.com.


SIMPLEXGRINNELL LP: Court Denies Bifurcation Bid in "Bennett" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar issued an order denying a motion to
bifurcate, and granting a stipulation to extend case deadlines, in
DON C. BENNETT, et al. Plaintiffs, v. SIMPLEXGRINNELL LP,
Defendant, CASE NO. 11-CV-01854-JST, (N.D. Cal.).

In this putative class action for violations of California's labor
laws, the Plaintiffs moved for an order bifurcating the case such
that all discovery and litigation with respect to liability would
be completed before discovery and litigation as to damages can
resume. The Plaintiffs additionally requested that the Court rule
on a motion for partial summary judgment on the question of
whether the California Labor Code requires payment of prevailing
wages for code-driven testing and inspection work before
Plaintiffs file a motion for class certification.  The Defendant
opposed both requests.

Judge Tigar held that the Court is not convinced that the proposed
bifurcation would promote judicial economy or advance the
resolution of the action. The Court ruled that:

(1) the Plaintiffs' request to bifurcate discovery and trial into
     a liability phase and a damages phase is denied. All
     discovery, including that pertaining to damages, will be
     completed in accordance with set deadlines.  The Plaintiffs
     may move for bifurcation of the liability and damages
     portions of the case for trial in their motion for class
     certification.

(2) the Plaintiffs' request for a ruling on a partial summary
     judgment motion on the question of whether the California
     Labor Code requires payment of prevailing wages for code-
     driven testing and inspection work before they file a motion
     for class certification is granted. The Plaintiffs may file
     the motion no later than August 28, 2013.

(3) The parties' stipulated request for an extension of the
     deadlines in the case by 60 days is granted.  No further
     extensions will be granted given that the case has been
     pending for more than two years and the Court already has
     extended the deadlines multiple times. All disputes
     pertaining to the timing and adequacy of responses to
     discovery requests must be addressed well before the new
     discovery deadline.

A copy of the District Court's June 27, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/awAJhUfrom Leagle.com.

Don C. Bennett, Plaintiff, represented by Laura L. Ho --
LHO@GBDHLEGAL.COM -- at Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho, Bruce E.
Menken -- bmenken@bmbblaw.com -- at Beranbaum Menken LLP, James
Kan -- JKAN@GBDHLEGAL.COM -- at Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & HO,
Jason Rozger -- jrozger@bmbblaw.com -- at Beranbaum Menken LLP,
Karla A. Gilbride -- kgilbride@findjustice.com -- at Mehri &
Skalet PLLC & Raymond C. Fay -- rfay@findjustice.com -- at Mehri &
Skalet PLLC.

Comerlis Delaney, Plaintiff, represented by Laura L. Ho, Goldstein
Borgen Dardarian & Ho, Bruce E. Menken, Beranbaum Menken LLP,
Jason Rozger, Beranbaum Menken LLP, Karla A. Gilbride, Mehri &
Skalet PLLC & Raymond C. Fay, Mehri & Skalet PLLC.

Gary Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Laura L. Ho, Goldstein
Borgen Dardarian & Ho, Bruce E. Menken, Beranbaum Menken LLP,
Jason Rozger, Beranbaum Menken LLP, Karla A. Gilbride, Mehri &
Skalet PLLC & Raymond C. Fay, Mehri & Skalet PLLC.

Darren Scott, Plaintiff, represented by Laura L. Ho, Goldstein
Borgen Dardarian & Ho, Bruce E. Menken, Beranbaum Menken LLP,
Jason Rozger, Beranbaum Menken LLP, Karla A. Gilbride, Mehri &
Skalet PLLC & Raymond C. Fay, Mehri & Skalet PLLC.

Jon Hotzler, Plaintiff, represented by Laura L. Ho, Goldstein
Borgen Dardarian & Ho & Karla A. Gilbride, Mehri & Skalet PLLC.

Simplexgrinnell LP, Defendant, represented by Dominick C Capozzola
-- dominick.capozzola@ogletreedeakins.com -- at Ogletree Deakins
Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, Carolyn Blecha Hall --
carolyn.hall@ogletreedeakins.com -- at Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, P.C., David A. Copus --
david.copus@ogletreedeakins.com -- at Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak, and Stewart, P.C. & Jocelyn A. Merced --
jocelyn.merced@ogletreedeakins.com -- at Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak, and Stewart, P.C.


SOCIETE DES ALCOOLS: Recalls Tenute Marchesi Antinori Dessert Wine
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                        July 17, 2013
Type of communication:                Recall
Alert sub-type:                       Notification
Subcategory:                          Chemical
Hazard classification:                Class 3
Source of recall:                     Canadian Food Inspection
                                      Agency
Recalling firm:                       Societe des Alcools Du
                                        Quebec
Distribution:                         Quebec
Extent of the product distribution:   Retail
CFIA reference number:                8154

Affected products:

   Brand name
   Product                       Common Name
   -------                       -----------
Tenute Marchesi Antinori      Vin Santo del Chianti Classico 2007
                              Dessert Wine


SQUARE MILE: Recalls 2,500 Cases of Apple Cider Products
--------------------------------------------------------
Square Mile Cider Company (SMCC) announced the voluntary recall of
2,500 cases "Square Mile Original Hard Apple Cider" and "Square
Mile Spur & Vine Hopped Apple Cider."

The recalled product was sold in retail locations in California,
Oregon and Washington.  It is limited to the following two
products packaged on or before May 15, 2013:

   -- 22 ounce bottles of "Square Mile Original Hard Apple Cider"
      with the markings "Hand Picked" and "Hand Pressed" on either
      side of the logo.

   -- 22 ounce bottles of "Square Mile Spur & Vine Hopped Apple
      Cider" with the markings "Hand Picked" and "Hand Pressed" on
      either side of the logo.

SMCC is voluntarily recalling the products due to concerns that
cider from the company's first production run may be refermenting
in the bottle, which may cause the bottles to burst under certain
circumstances and can lead to potential flavor inconsistencies.
Consumers who may have purchased the affected product should
dispose of it immediately in an outdoor trash receptacle.

"As a handcrafted, small batch cider maker, we take all packaging
and product quality concerns very seriously.  We are working with
our wholesalers and retail partners to remove all affected product
from store shelves as quickly as possible.  We are also confident
that we have identified the problem and want to reassure our
consumers that we stand by the quality of our products,? said
Lorin Gelfand, brand manager for SMCC.

To date, no consumer illnesses or injuries have been reported.

Consumers with questions about the quality of their SMCC products
may call the company toll-free at 1-855-371-0895 (8am to 4pm PST),
visit our website at http://squaremilecider.com/contact,or write
us at 929 N. Russell St., Portland, OR 97215.


STANDARD & POOR'S: Suit Over Inflated Credit Ratings Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Zillman, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that the
news just keeps getting worse for Standard & Poor's Financial
Services.

Setting in stone a tentative decision, a federal judge in Santa
Ana, Calif. refused on July 16 to toss a Justice Department
lawsuit accusing S&P of duping investors with inflated credit
ratings for financial products backed by subprime securities.
U.S. District Judge David Carter rejected arguments by S&P's
lawyers at Cahill Gordon & Reindel and Keker & Van Nest that the
company's statements about the integrity of its rating process are
mere "puffery," allowing the government's potentially
groundbreaking case to move forward.

In its Feb. 4 complaint, the DOJ accused S&P of presenting its
ratings as objective and independent even as it catered to the
whims of bankers, slapping top ratings on ill-fated securities
that helped sink the economy.  The DOJ is seeking $5 billion in
civil penalties under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery
and Enforcement Act of 1989, a law passed in the wake of the
savings and loan crisis.

Following a July 8 hearing attended by The National Law Journal's
Amanda Bronstad, Judge Carter issued a tentative order concluding
that statements S&P made about its ratings prior to the crash were
plausibly relied upon by investors.  S&P counsel John Keker had
argued that the government's complaint rested on company
statements that amounted to no more than "puffery" under the law.
Given the generic nature of S&P's statements, Mr. Keker said, the
allegations could pertain to as many as 5,000 securities offerings
that S&P rated during in the run-up to the financial crisis.
Assistant U.S. attorney George Cardona in Los Angeles countered
that investors relied on S&P's statements as "material and
important."

Judge Carter forcefully rejected S&P's arguments in the July 16
decision.  Addressing S&P's contention that its statements were
just corporate boilerplate, Judge Carter wrote that S&P's
statements on the objectivity of its ratings were not "the mere
aspirational musing of a corporation setting out vague goals for
its future." Rather, Judge Carter wrote, they outlined "current
and ongoing policies that stand in stark contrast to the behavior
alleged by the government's complaint."

"The court finds that the government has sufficiently pleaded the
intent required to support its fraud claims," the judge wrote.

S&P said in a statement that Judge Carter's decision isn't based
on the merits of the case.  "We firmly believe S&P's ratings were
and are independent and expect to show just that in court," the
company said.

Mr. Keker declined to comment through a firm spokesperson.
Cahill's Floyd Abrams, who also represents S&P, did not
immediately respond to a request for comment.

The ruling continues S&P's recent reversal of fortune in financial
crisis litigation.  Prior to this year, S&P and other ratings
agencies had defeated similar claims by casting their ratings as
opinions and invoking their First Amendment rights.  But in April,
that streak started to sour when S&P and Moody's Investors Service
paid a reported $225 million to settle two defective ratings suits
brought by private plaintiffs lawyers in New York.  The DOJ's suit
before Judge Carter relies partly on discovery material marshaled
by plaintiffs lawyers at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in that
case.

The day after prosecutors filed their complaint in February, 14
states and the District of Columbia filed their own cases against
S&P over allegedly inflated credit ratings.  Those state suits
have since been consolidated in Manhattan federal court.  The
agency is also contesting a California False claims Act lawsuit
filed by the California Public Employees' Retirement System and
the California State Teachers Retirement System. And the suits
don't seem to be letting up: Just last week, the liquidators of
two Bear Stearns hedge funds filed suit in New York state court,
accusing S&P, Moody's, and Fitch Ratings of misrepresenting the
accuracy of their ratings.


SUZUKI MOTOR: Recalls 59 GSX1300R - HAYABUSA Model Motorcycles
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                July 17, 2013
Type of communication:        Recall
Subcategory:                  Motorcycle
Notification type:            Safety Mfr
System:                       Brakes
Units affected:               59
Source of recall:             Transport Canada
Identification number:        2013247
TC ID number:                 2013247
Manufacturer recall number:   96

Affected products:

   Make         Model           Model year(s) affected
   ----         -----           ----------------------
   SUZUKI       GSX1300R        HAYABUSA 2013

On certain motorcycles, the Anti-Lock Brake System (ABS) modulator
may have been manufactured incorrectly and could fail.  Loss of
ABS function would allow the front and/or rear wheel to lock under
braking which, in conjunction with traffic and road conditions,
and the riders reactions, could increase the risk of a crash
causing property damage and/or personal injury.

Dealers will replace the ABS modulator.


TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Finances Unaffected by Amiodarone Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The agreement to resolve an alleged personal injuries suit against
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. has no material impact on the
company's financial position, according to the company's July 2,
2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2013.

On November 10, 2004, the Company was sued in the Superior Court
of New Jersey in Atlantic County along with other defendants in a
purported class action lawsuit for alleged personal injuries
related to defendants' sale of amiodarone.

On June 9, 2010, the class action case was dismissed with
prejudice, with a window of 150 days for individual claimants to
file lawsuits. Only one suit was commenced against the Company. In
early 2011, an agreement to resolve this matter was reached which
had no material impact on the Company's financial position.


TOSHIBA CORP: TFT-LCD Screen Price-Fixing Trial Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Max Taves, writing for The Recorder, reports that the latest trial
over price-fixing in the market for TFT-LCD screens is getting
underway before a federal judge who has been enmeshed for years in
the sprawling and complicated case.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, who gave lawyers some
stern advice at a pretrial hearing earlier this month, seated a
10-member jury July 22, setting the stage for opening statements
to begin July 23.

This is the fourth LCD price-fixing trial Judge Illston has
presided over.  Earlier this month, she placed a 50-hour time
limit on each side and encouraged the parties to settle.

At least one company seems to have taken heed.  Target Corp.
notified Judge Illston last week that it has reached agreements in
principle with all the defendants.

With last minute settlements still shaking out, the trial looks to
pit mega-retailer Best Buy Co. and now-bankrupt camera designer
Eastman Kodak Co. against a trio of LCD screen manufacturers.

Plaintiffs accuse the screen makers of conspiring to fix prices
for LCD panels and overcharging them more than $400 million
between 1998 and 2006.  They also seek nearly $4 billion in
damages under the federal Sherman Antitrust Act and various state
laws.

Best Buy is represented by a legal team from Robins, Kaplan,
Miller & Ciresi led by L.A.-based partner Roman Silberfeld --
rmsilberfeld@rkmc.com

Nixon Peabody partner Karl Belgum is leading Eastman Kodak's case.
Crowell & Moring's Janet Levine represents Target.

On the defense side, Toshiba Corp.'s lead lawyer is White & Case
partner Christopher Curran -- ccurran@whitecase.com

Munger, Tolles & Olson is representing LG Display Co.; and Freitas
Tseng & Kaufman is representing HannStar Display Corp.  AU
Optronics Corp., which had been part of the case, settled last
week with Kodak.

Attorneys on both sides ended the day wrangling over the rules for
the July 23 opening statements.

The screen makers asked Judge Illston to restrict what plaintiffs
may tell jurors about criminal convictions and prior settlements
related to price fixing in the LCD industry.

The defendants have already paid out hefty sums to settle civil
class actions.  And except for Toshiba, each has either admitted
to or been convicted of criminal antitrust violations.

Judge Illston drew the line at one plaintiff slide.  However, she
said she would allow plaintiffs to use the terms "a judgment of
guilt" and "convicted" to describe the past criminal actions
against the LCD makers.

The trial is expected to last roughly six weeks.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Sudden Acceleration Settlement "Complex Undertaking"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal judge on July 19 approved a $1.6 billion settlement
between Toyota Motor Corp. and consumers of its vehicles who
alleged they suffered economic losses because of the sudden
acceleration recalls.

After raising questions last month about the deal, U.S. District
Judge James Selna in Santa Ana, Calif., gave his final approval
during a hearing.

"This settlement is extraordinary in that every single dollar of
the class funds will go to class members," Judge Selna said.  That
is not always true in class action settlements, and this case was
a "complex undertaking," he said.

"This plan is focused on getting the maximum amount to our
customers," said Toyota attorney John Hooper --
jhooper@reedsmith.com -- a partner at Reed Smith in New York.  Mr.
Hooper and J. Gordon Cooney -- jgcooney@morganlewis.com --
managing partner of the Philadelphia office of Morgan Lewis &
Bockius, represented Toyota in settlement discussions.

Judge Selna, who gave his final approval after issuing a tentative
order late July 18, also approved $200 million in fees and $27
million in expenses for 31 plaintiffs' firms.  The payouts amount
to 12.3 percent of the settlement value.

During the July 19 hearing, lawyers described a revised plan that
would give more cash to class members -- especially those who
actually submitted claims.  In June, Judge Selna raised concerns
about what would happen to an estimated $350 million that could be
leftover after distributions were made to class members.  The
excess funds became an issue because so few class members
submitted claims in the case.

The low participation rate in the claims process came up several
times on July 19.  According to Steve Berman of Seattle's Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro, a member of the plaintiffs' steering
committee, an estimated 22.5 million people received class notices
of the settlement, but only 500,000 made claims.

Mr. Berman said he was surprised at the low turnout, particularly
since some Toyota owners could recover as much as $10,000.  The
matter necessitated weekly discussions with the claims
administrator and two amendments to the settlement.  Following
Friday's hearing, he said the attorneys planned to reach out to
large fleet operators and hoped to see 1 million claims by the
July 29 deadline.

But he said he would ask five law schools, including Yale Law
School and Harvard Law School, to accept money for a fellowship to
research low participation rates in class action settlements.

The Toyota deal aims to resolve claims by consumers that their
cars lost value following the highly publicized recalls of nearly
10 million vehicles for floor mat and accelerator pedal defects
associated with sudden acceleration.  In particular, the
settlement covers class members who own or lease 16 models of
Toyota, including the Camry and the Corolla, nine Lexus models and
three Scion models.  The model years range from 1998 to 2010.

Judge Selna granted preliminary approval of the deal on
December 28.

In June, Judge Selna found the settlement to be "fair, adequate
and reasonable" but held off approving it due to concerns about
how anticipated excess cash would be allocated.

At issue were two cash funds worth $250 million each.  One fund
would be earmarked for class members whose vehicles lost value due
to the recalls, while the other would pay class members whose
vehicles are ineligible for installation of a brake override
system.

The original settlement had earmarked excess cash from those funds
to pay administration costs associated with the deal.  It also
would have added cash to a $30 million fund to research automotive
safety.  The revised deal, submitted on July 12, continued to
allocate $25 million to administration costs, with Judge Selna's
approval, but eliminated the research fund as a recipient of any
excess cash.

Objectors had complained the project was inappropriate because it
focused on driver safety, not sudden acceleration defects.  Judge
Selna rejected those concerns last month. The new deal contains
the $30 million research fund.

Another change encourages participation in the settlement by
boosting recoveries to consumers who make claims.  Under the
revised settlement, they are eligible to recover 100 percent of
their losses; previously, they might have recovered as little as
30 percent, depending on the state in which they live.

"Those who took the effort to claim get 100 percent," Mr. Berman
said.  He estimated claimants in the lost-value fund would receive
between $125 to $10,000 a piece, and those in the brake-override
fund $125 each.

For those who do not make claims, the new deal will compensate
them at between 30 to 100 percent, depending on their state, but
will issue checks directly to them.  If those consumers don't cash
the checks, another check will be sent followed by a reminder
notice.  Any un-cashed checks will go to through an escheatment
process.

Three lawyers representing objectors during the July 19 hearing
raised concerns for consumers who were left out of the settlement,
such as those whose vehicles had floor mat defects.

"This is disregarding a significant portion of the class who are
the only ones with a defective product in the claims," said
Ben Barnow of Barnow and Associates in Chicago, who represents
three objectors.  He estimated nearly 5 million had been left out
of the settlement, which releases all claims relating to floor
mats.  Mr. Barlow is seeking $8.25 million in fees.

Mr. Berman called Mr. Barlow's complaint "sour grapes."
Mr. Cooney said the floor mat problems were addressed through the
recalls.

Judge Selna agreed, overruling the objections.

A previous objection involved the potential release of claims in
companion litigation over anti-lock braking system defects in
Priuses.  In that case, also pending in Santa Ana, U.S. District
Judge Cormac Carney approved a stipulation resolving that matter
on June 17.  Judge Carney heard arguments on July 15 for
certification the class in that case.

The $1.6 billion settlement, reached after a year and a half of
discussions, came more than three years after hundreds of lawsuits
were filed on behalf of consumers following Toyota's recalls.  The
negotiations took place before Patrick Juneau, who also is
administrator of the claims in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
case in New Orleans.

"These settlement negotiations were like a boxing match," Frank
Pitre -- fpitre@cpmlegal.com -- of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy in
Burlingame, Calif., a member of the plaintiffs' steering
committee, said on July 19.  "It isn't perfect.  No settlement is.
But it is the best settlement considering all the claims."


UNITED STATES: Lannan Foundation Sues Over Indian Trust Case Award
------------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Zoe Tillman at The Blog of Legal
Times, a nonprofit that said it gave millions of dollars in grants
to support the massive Indian trust litigation in Washington
federal court is suing for $4.5 million of the $99 million awarded
in attorney fees.

The Lannan Foundation, a New Mexico-based charitable organization,
claimed that when it gave more than $6 million in grants to
support the litigation, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs
agreed to repay those grants using money recovered from the
government.  Since receiving a $99 million fee award -- part of a
$3.4 billion settlement -- the foundation said plaintiffs' lawyers
had refused to pay $4.54 million they owed.

The foundation filed the complaint on July 16 in U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia against solo practitioner
Dennis Gingold and the law firm Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton.
Mr. Gingold said he couldn't comment because he hadn't seen the
complaint.  In a statement, Kilpatrick partner and general counsel
Susan Cahoon said the firm expected "to defend the suit
vigorously."

"We do not believe that our firm has any responsibility for
assuring repayment of grants that the Lannan Foundation may have
made to the Blackfeet Reservation Development Fund," she said, a
reference to the organization that received grants from the Lannan
Foundation to support the litigation.

In a statement, foundation President J. Patrick Lannan said the
plaintiffs' lawyers had "chosen to disregard their promises to
repay the Foundation."  The foundation is being represented by
Mayer Brown litigation partner Reginald Goeke.

"Lannan Foundation regrets that it is necessary to bring this
lawsuit against the attorneys of the plaintiffs to recover the
unpaid balance of the refundable grants-up to $4 million of which
the Foundation intends to dedicate to a scholarship endowment in
honor of Elouise Cobell," Mr. Lannan said, adding that the amount
the group was seeking was less than five percent of the overall
fee award.

In the mid-1990s, a class of Native Americans sued the U.S.
Department of the Interior, accusing officials of mismanaging
Native American trust accounts.

As the litigation picked up, the Lannan Foundation, according to
its complaint, agreed to provide financial support to the
plaintiffs.  Between 1998 and 2009, the foundation said, it gave
11 grants totaling $7.825 million to the Blackfeet Reservation
Development Fund, a nonprofit created by the lead plaintiff in the
trust litigation, Elouise Cobell.

Of the total grant money, the foundation claimed it gave $6.425
million through refundable grant agreements.  Under those
agreements, according to the complaint, the plaintiffs and their
lawyers agreed to repay the grants from any attorney fees, costs
or expenses they received as part of a settlement or judgment in
the case.

Following an award of interim attorney fees in late 2005, the
foundation said they encountered pushback from Mr. Gingold when
they asked for part of the award to satisfy the grant agreements.
Eventually, according to the complaint, the group received $1.8
million.

The U.S. Department of Justice reached the $3.4 billion settlement
with the class in late 2009.  It was officially approved by the
court in the summer of 2011.  The court denied a request by the
class for $10.5 million in expenses, an amount that would have
included the money owed to the foundation for the grants, the
foundation said.  According to the complaint, a motion for
reconsideration of that order with the respect to the foundation's
money is still pending.

After appeals related to the settlement resolved, the foundation
said it contacted Mr. Gingold in late 2012 about the repayment of
its grant money.  Mr. Gingold, the foundation claimed, appeared to
take the position that the foundation's only chances to recover
the money would be if the court granted the motion for
reconsideration or if the group tried to recover it directly from
class representatives.

Kilpatrick also denied the foundation's request for funds, saying
it had no obligation under the grant agreements signed by
Mr. Gingold.  The foundation argued Mr. Gingold signed the
agreements on behalf of all class counsel and that Kilpatrick
acknowledged the agreements when it approved paying the foundation
$1.8 million from the interim attorney fee award.

The defendants, the foundation claimed, "have unjustly and
unlawfully deprived the Foundation of millions of dollars in funds
to which it has a legal right and that the Foundation could be
using to assist other worthy causes."

The case is before U.S. District Senior Judge Thomas Hogan, who
also presided over the underlying Indian trust litigation.


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Pimiento Cheese Spread Due to Undeclared Egg
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market's Mid-Atlantic Region is recalling the pimiento
cheese spread because it contains eggs, an undeclared allergen.

The recalled pimiento cheese spread was sold with a Whole Foods
Market scale label reading "pimiento cheese spread" with a UPC of
< 0 00000 23480 1 >, is 7 ounces and includes a "use by" date of
7/29/13, which is noted on the scale label.  Pictures of the
Products are available at:

           http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm361268.htm

People who have an allergy or sever sensitivity to eggs run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.

The pimiento cheese spread was distributed in Kentucky, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Washington D.C. and New Jersey
(Princeton store only).

To date, no illnesses have been reported.

Signage is posted in all Whole Foods Market Mid Atlantic stores to
notify customers of this recall.  Customers who have purchased
this product from Whole Foods Market should discard it, and may
bring in their receipt for a full refund.  Consumers with
questions may call 512-477-5566, extension 20060, Monday through
Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Daylight Time.


ZEP INC: Pegs Settlement of Two Labor Suits at $1.6 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zep Inc. said its current accrual of $1.6 million continues to
represent its best estimate of the probable settlement cost
related to two labor lawsuits by current and former sales
representatives of the company's subsidiary, according to Zep's
July 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2013.

The company is a defendant in Britto and Cowan v. Zep Inc. and
Acuity Specialty Products, Inc., a lawsuit that was commenced in
December 2010, and a lawsuit known as Aguilar, et al v. Zep Inc.
and Acuity Specialty Products, Inc. that was commenced in December
2012.

The Britto lawsuit is pending in the Superior Court in Alameda
County, California.  The Aguilar lawsuit was filed in the Superior
Court in Alameda County; however, the company removed it to
federal court.  The plaintiffs, who are current and former sales
representatives employed by Acuity Specialty Products, Inc., a
subsidiary of ours ("Acuity"), allege that Acuity failed to
reimburse them for work-related expenses and failed to pay their
wages by assessing unlawful deductions from commissions.  Messrs.
Britto and Cowan are also seeking to recover statutory and/or
civil penalties pursuant to the California Private Attorney
General Act ("PAGA").

The lawsuit filed by Britto and Cowan was brought on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of a putative class that includes all of
Acuity's current sales representatives based in California and all
former sales representatives based in California who were employed
by Acuity on December 30, 2006 or thereafter.

Approximately 171 persons were employed by Acuity in California as
sales representatives on December 30, 2006 and thereafter and, are
therefore, potential members of the putative class proposed by
Britto and Cowan.

On May 7, 2012, the Court issued a ruling with respect to Britto
and Cowan's motion for class certification in which it denied the
motion with respect to all causes of action asserted.  At the same
time, the Court denied another motion filed by Britto and Cowan in
which they sought leave to amend their complaint to add a claim
based on the company's alleged failure to comply with requirements
of the California Labor Code relating to the form of wage
statements.  On June 1, 2012, Britto and Cowan filed a motion for
leave to intervene in the suit on behalf of 54 individual
plaintiffs and a motion for reconsideration of the Court's
decision denying class certification.

On July 30, 2012, the Court granted Messrs. Britto and Cowan's
motion for leave to permit individual plaintiffs to intervene in
their lawsuit.  The Court also denied a motion for reconsideration
of the Court's decision denying class certification.  After the
Court's action, 55 plaintiffs intervened in the lawsuit.  The
interveners asserted, in addition to the claims related to expense
reimbursement and commission deductions, a claim based on the
company's alleged failure to comply with requirements of the
California Labor Code relating to the form of wage statements.

The company appealed the Court's July 30, 2012 decision granting
the motion for leave to intervene.  On December 20, 2012, the
Court of Appeal upheld the Company's appeal of the trial court's
decision to permit individual plaintiffs to intervene in the
lawsuit filed by Messrs. Britto and Cowan.  The decision of the
Court of Appeal directs the trial court to deny the motion for
leave to intervene and directs the plaintiffs to reimburse the
Company for its costs of the appeal.  As a result of the Court of
Appeal's decision, the purported class-action lawsuit filed by
Messrs. Britto and Cowan now involves only Messrs. Britto and
Cowan and the claims for PAGA penalties.

However, on December 24, 2012, 54 of the current and former sales
representatives who sought to intervene in the lawsuit filed by
Messrs. Britto and Cowan filed the Aguilar lawsuit in which they
asserted against the Company on behalf of themselves individually
the same claims that they sought to assert by intervening in the
lawsuit filed by Messrs. Britto and Cowan.  This lawsuit seeks to
put the named plaintiffs in the same position they would have
occupied if they had been allowed to intervene in the lawsuit
filed by Messrs. Britto and Cowan. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on March 14, 2013, adding an additional plaintiff for a
total of 55 plaintiffs.

During the week of February 24, the Company filed a motion for
summary judgment against Mr. Britto, in which it asserted, among
other things, that Mr. Britto should not be permitted to recover
unreimbursed business expenses because his personal bankruptcy
discharged the credit card debt he incurred with respect to the
business expenses and that he lacks standing to bring such claims
because his claims passed to the bankruptcy trustee.

On May 13, 2013, the court tentatively granted in part the
Company's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Mr. Britto
cannot pursue claims for commission deductions and unreimbursed
business expenses incurred prior to the time he filed his
bankruptcy petition.  This ruling would eliminate approximately
70% of his claim.

In the Aguilar case, the court ruled that the eight plaintiffs who
signed arbitration agreements must arbitrate their claims.
Accordingly, these eight plaintiffs are no longer parties to the
Aguilar case.  The arbitrations have not yet been scheduled;
however, the Company expects to conduct them during the fourth
quarter of fiscal 2013.

During the third quarter of fiscal 2013, the Company settled with
17 of the Aguilar plaintiffs.  As a result of the settlements, the
Company has now settled with well over half of the members of the
putative class alleged by Messrs. Britto and Cowan in their
original lawsuit.  The Company plans to continue negotiating
settlements with Plaintiffs on an individual basis.

During the company's fiscal year ended August 31, 2011, the
company established a $1.8 million accrual with respect to the
company's potential liability to the plaintiffs in the Britto
lawsuit.  During the third quarter of fiscal 2013, the company
reevaluated the adequacy of this reserve based on the settlements
the company reached with plaintiffs during that period.

The company reduced the reserve by approximately $0.3 million,
reflecting the amounts paid in settlement during the period.  The
company increased the reserve by approximately $0.1 million,
reflecting the accrual of additional pre-judgment interest on the
liability that the company think is probable.  Based on the facts
known as of the time of filing of this Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q, the company's current accrual of $1.6 million continues to
represent the company's best estimate of the probable settlement
cost related to the Britto lawsuit and the Aguilar lawsuit.


* Dunn & Crutcher Sees Big Changes Ahead for Securities Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Reisinger, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that a look
at securities litigation in the first six months of 2013 suggests
some interesting developments for general counsel are on their
way, said Monica Loseman, a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's
Denver office.  The law firm released its securities lit update
last week.

At the top of Ms. Loseman's high-impact list was the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision in February in the class-action lawsuit Amgen
Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds.  "Clearly
the biggest development in many years," she said.

In the Amgen case, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, who
filed a securities fraud action based on a false statement by the
drug company.  The decision upheld the "fraud on the market"
theory -- that is, that the materiality of a misstatement can be
presumed when a company makes public statements in an "efficient
securities market" or a market that reflects all publicly
available information about a company.

However, Ms. Loseman noted, a number of the Justices still
questioned the ongoing viability of reliance on the presumption of
fraud on the market.

"Security litigators should expect to see a growing number of
defendant challenges to the [theory] early on in the case or at
the class certification stage," she said.  "There will be an
increased focus like we have not seen before," she added.

The next big development, in Ms. Loseman's view, is the increasing
amount of merger and acquisition litigation "that shows no sign of
stopping."

She added, "We saw some interesting signs out of the Delaware
Court [of Chancery] that they are showing increased scrutiny of
litigation, especially in those cases where the plaintiff's bar is
looking for a disclosure-only settlement," which allow attorneys
to collect hefty fees, while the plaintiffs only receive
additional disclosure of information.

In a related development, Ms. Loseman said the volume of M&A suits
have encouraged plaintiffs to expand that litigation model to
proxy disclosures.  The plaintiffs file for injunctions to prevent
votes at annual shareholder meetings, while requesting additional
materials.

"It usually results in a quick settlement and fees for the
plaintiffs bar," Ms. Loseman said.  "We think that trend in proxy
litigation will continue to increase," she predicted.

In other predictions, the law firm said it expects the new
leadership at the Securities and Exchange Commission "will be
striking an aggressive tone.  For the first time in the
commission's history, the chairman and the enforcement division
leadership are all former criminal prosecutors."

The SEC, according to the update, is expected soon to start
seeking party admissions of wrongdoing as a condition of some
settlements.  "Though it is unclear how far reaching this change
will be, an internal email . . . to the Enforcement Division staff
stated admissions might be required in cases of 'egregious
intentional misconduct,' where the conduct harmed large numbers of
investors, or where the defendant had obstructed the
investigation."

The law firm also said it expects a renewed SEC focus on public
company accounting and reporting fraud.  "The agency is said to be
developing computer programs to help sift through SEC filings for
signs of irregularities, including both quantitative financial
anomalies and suspicious word choice in management discussion and
analysis," the report states.

Other areas cited in the report include developments in insider
trading, investment advisers, and broker-dealers.


                             *********

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  * * *