CAR_Public/130723.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, July 23, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 143

                             Headlines


APOLLO GROUP: Appeal in "Investors Group" Suit Remains Pending
APOLLO GROUP: Appeal in "Teamsters Fund" Suit Remains Pending
APOLLO GROUP: Reverses Charges in Income Statements Ending May 31
APOLLO GROUP: TCPA Violations Complaint Voluntarily Dismissed
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Trial Begins in Suit Over Lead Paint Risks

AVANTAIR INC: Faces "Heisman" Class Action Suit in Oklahoma
BANK OF AMERICA: Disputes Allegations of Ex-Mortgage Employees
BAYER AG: Faces Product Liability Suit Over Mirena System
BEST BUY: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
CALIFORNIA: Class Action Over Parole Revocation System Dismissed

CANADA: "Sixties Scoop" Class Action Can Proceed to Trial
CANADA: "Sixties Scoop" Class Action Lawyer Seeks More Plaintiffs
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Royalties Class Action Arbitration Underway
COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: Plaintiffs Amend Securities Class Action
DANNY'S CABARET: Settles EEOC Gender Bias Suit for $50,000

EBIX INC: Has Terminated Merger Agreement With Goldman Sachs Unit
FORD MOTOR: Files Motion to Dismiss Sudden Acceleration Suit
FORD MOTOR: Recalls 12,569 Vehicles Over Faulty Child Locks
GARELICK FARMS: Truck Drivers Lose Class Certification Bid
GENERAL MOTORS: Retirees Win Class Action Over Insurance Benefits

GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Appeals Court Upholds Class Action Certification
H&R BLOCK: Appeal From Judgment in "Drake" Suit Remains Pending
H&R BLOCK: "Barrett" Class Suit Remains Pending in Massachusetts
H&R BLOCK: "Basile" Class Suit Still Pending in Pennsylvania
H&R BLOCK: Faces Suits by Form 8863 Filers During Tax Season 2013

H&R BLOCK: Motion to Compel Arbitration in Fee Litigation Pending
H&R BLOCK: "Petroski" Suit Plaintiffs Appealed Summary Judgment
H&R BLOCK: Plea to Compel Arbitration in RAL-Related Suit Pending
H&R BLOCK: Trial Date in "Ugas" Class Suit Set for October 21
H&R BLOCK: Trial in RSM McGladrey-Related Suit Set for Sept. 9

IEC ELECTRONICS: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action
INSTAGRAM LLC: Faces Class Action Over New User Policy
INSTAGRAM LLC: Judge Tosses Privacy Breach Class Action
JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Approves $546MM Class Action Settlement
LENOVO GROUP: Judge Trims Claims in Defective Laptop Class Action

LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Faces Shareholder Class Action
MADISON-KIPP CORP: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court OK
MEDTRONIC INC: Stockholders File Class Action Over Infuse
MEDTRONIC INC: USDA Recalls MiniMed Paradigm Insulin Pump
NEWCREST MINING: Slater & Gordon Gets Funding for Class Action

NVIDIA CORP: Sept. 30 Hearing Set to Approve Settlement Agreement
PAYDAY FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over High Interest Rates
PILOT FLYING J: Truck Driver & Two Law Firms File Class Action
PILOT FLYING J: Lawyer Opposes Fuel Rebate Class Action Settlement
PILOT FLYING J: Lawyer Says Fuel Rebate Settlement Intriguing

PILOT FLYING J: July 25 Judicial Panel Meeting in Rebate Suit Set
PORSCHE CARS: Settles Class Action Over Defective IMS
QUALITY EGG: Settles Lawsuit Over 2010 Salmonella Outbreak Recalls
RESPIRONICS CALIFORNIA: Recalls Nearly 19,200 V60 Ventilators
SAMSUNG: Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Action Over Energy Star Logos

SEARS: Recalls Nearly 800,000 Dehumidifiers Over Fire Risk
SHOPPERS DRUG: Franchisees Get Partial Certification Ruling
SKECHERS USA: Consumers Set to Get Shape-Ups Settlement Checks
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Faces Shareholder Class Action
THERATECHNOLOGIES INC: Court Nixes Motion to Dismiss Class Action

TITLE MAX: Wants to Move Truck Title Class Action to Federal Court
WORLD FUEL: Faces Class Action Over Lac-Megantic Train Derailment


                             *********


APOLLO GROUP: Appeal in "Investors Group" Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal filed by the "Apollo Institutional Investors Group" from
the dismissal of their consolidated securities class action
lawsuit remains pending, according to Apollo Group, Inc.'s
June 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2013.

On August 13, 2010, a securities class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona by Douglas
N. Gaer naming the Company, John G. Sperling, Gregory W. Cappelli,
Charles B. Edelstein, Joseph L. D'Amico, Brian L. Swartz and
Gregory J. Iverson as defendants for allegedly making false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business practices
and prospects for growth.  That complaint asserted a putative
class period stemming from December 7, 2009, to August 3, 2010.  A
substantially similar complaint was also filed in the same Court
by John T. Fitch on September 23, 2010, making similar allegations
against the same defendants for the same purported class period.
Finally, on October 4, 2010, another purported securities class
action complaint was filed in the same Court by Robert Roth
against the same defendants as well as Brian Mueller, Terri C.
Bishop and Peter V. Sperling based upon the same general set of
allegations, but with a defined class period of February 12, 2007,
to August 3, 2010.  The complaints allege violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  On October 15, 2010, three
additional parties filed motions to consolidate the related
actions and be appointed the lead plaintiff.

On November 23, 2010, the Fitch and Roth actions were consolidated
with Gaer and the Court appointed the "Apollo Institutional
Investors Group" consisting of the Oregon Public Employees
Retirement Fund, the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme, and Amalgamated
Bank as lead plaintiffs.  The case is now entitled, In re Apollo
Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case Number CV-10-1735-
PHX-JAT.  On February 18, 2011, the lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint naming Apollo, John G. Sperling, Peter V.
Sperling, Joseph L. D'Amico, Gregory W. Cappelli, Charles B.
Edelstein, Brian L. Swartz, Brian E. Mueller, Gregory J. Iverson,
and William J. Pepicello as defendants.  The consolidated
complaint asserts a putative class period of May 21, 2007, to
October 13, 2010.  On April 19, 2011, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss and oral argument on the motion was held before the
Court on October 17, 2011.  On October 27, 2011, the Court granted
the Company's motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to
amend.  On December 6, 2011, the lead plaintiffs filed an Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which alleges similar claims
against the same defendants.  On January 9, 2012, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint.  On June 22, 2012, the Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss and entered a judgment in the Company's favor.
On July 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and their appeal
remains pending before that Court.

If the plaintiffs are successful in their appeal, the Company
anticipates they will seek substantial damages.  Because of the
many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome of this
legal proceeding is uncertain at this point.  Based on information
available at present, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a
range of loss for this action and, accordingly, the Company has
not accrued any liability associated with this action.

Headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, Apollo Group, Inc. and its
wholly-owned subsidiaries has been an education provider since
1973.  The Company offers innovative and distinctive educational
programs and services both online and on-campus at the
undergraduate, master's and doctoral levels principally through
these wholly-owned subsidiaries: The University of Phoenix, Inc.,
Apollo Global, Inc., BPP Holdings Limited, Western International
University, Inc., Universidad Latinoamericana, Universidad de
Artes, Ciencias y Comunicacion, Institute for Professional
Development and The College for Financial Planning Institutes
Corporation.


APOLLO GROUP: Appeal in "Teamsters Fund" Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of the securities class action
lawsuit commenced by the "Teamsters Local 617 Pensions and Welfare
Funds," remains pending, according to Apollo Group, Inc.'s
June 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2013.

On November 2, 2006, the Teamsters Local 617 Pension and Welfare
Funds filed a class action complaint purporting to represent a
class of shareholders who purchased the Company's stock between
November 28, 2001, and October 18, 2006.  The complaint, filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, is entitled
Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc.
et al., Case Number 06-cv-02674-RCB, and alleges that the Company
and certain of its current and former directors and officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by purportedly
making misrepresentations concerning the Company's stock option
granting policies and practices and related accounting.  The
defendants are Apollo Group, Inc., J. Jorge Klor de Alva, Daniel
E. Bachus, John M. Blair, Dino J. DeConcini, Kenda B. Gonzales,
Hedy F. Govenar, Brian E. Mueller, Todd S. Nelson, Laura Palmer
Noone, John R. Norton III, John G. Sperling and Peter V. Sperling.
On September 11, 2007, the Court appointed The Pension Trust Fund
for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiff.  The Lead plaintiff
filed an amended complaint on November 23, 2007, asserting the
same legal claims as the original complaint and adding claims for
violations of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and allegations of breach of fiduciary duties and civil
conspiracy.  On April 30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Complaint, which alleges similar claims for alleged
securities fraud against the same defendants.

On March 31, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona dismissed the case with prejudice and entered judgment in
the Company's favor.  The Plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of this ruling, and the Court denied this motion
on April 2, 2012.  On April 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a
Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, and their appeal remains pending before that Court.  If
the plaintiffs are successful in their appeal, the Company
anticipates they will seek substantial damages.

Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the
Company says the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at
this point.  Based on the information available to it at present,
the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this
action.

Headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, Apollo Group, Inc. and its
wholly-owned subsidiaries has been an education provider since
1973.  The Company offers innovative and distinctive educational
programs and services both online and on-campus at the
undergraduate, master's and doctoral levels principally through
these wholly-owned subsidiaries: The University of Phoenix, Inc.,
Apollo Global, Inc., BPP Holdings Limited, Western International
University, Inc., Universidad Latinoamericana, Universidad de
Artes, Ciencias y Comunicacion, Institute for Professional
Development and The College for Financial Planning Institutes
Corporation.


APOLLO GROUP: Reverses Charges in Income Statements Ending May 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Group, Inc., reversed previously recorded charges
associated with the securities class action lawsuit brought by the
Policeman's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, which are
included in litigation credit on its condensed consolidated
statements of income during the nine months ended May 31, 2013,
according to the Company's June 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
May 31, 2013.

In January 2008, a jury returned an adverse verdict against the
Company and two remaining individual co-defendants in a securities
class action lawsuit entitled, In re Apollo Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. CV04-2147-PHX-JAT, filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona.  In September 2011, the Company
entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs to settle
the litigation for $145.0 million, which was approved by the Court
on April 20, 2012.  Under the settlement agreement and during
fiscal year 2012, the $145.0 million the Company had previously
deposited into a common fund account in December 2011 was paid to
the plaintiffs.

During fiscal year 2013, the Company resolved the dispute with its
insurers regarding the previously advanced defense costs for this
action.  As a result, the Company reversed previously recorded
charges associated with this dispute, which are included in
litigation credit on its Condensed Consolidated Statements of
Income during the nine months ended May 31, 2013.  The Company
does not believe it has any exposure associated with this matter
in the future.

Headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, Apollo Group, Inc. and its
wholly-owned subsidiaries has been an education provider since
1973.  The Company offers innovative and distinctive educational
programs and services both online and on-campus at the
undergraduate, master's and doctoral levels principally through
these wholly-owned subsidiaries: The University of Phoenix, Inc.,
Apollo Global, Inc., BPP Holdings Limited, Western International
University, Inc., Universidad Latinoamericana, Universidad de
Artes, Ciencias y Comunicacion, Institute for Professional
Development and The College for Financial Planning Institutes
Corporation.


APOLLO GROUP: TCPA Violations Complaint Voluntarily Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff of a purported class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act voluntarily
dismissed her complaint in April 2013, according to Apollo Group,
Inc.'s June 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended May 31, 2013.

On March 12, 2013, Del-Rio Swink filed a class action complaint
against University of Phoenix and Receivable Management Services
Corporation alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Action ("TPCA"). The complaint, which is captioned
Swink v. University of Phoenix et al., 4:13-cv-00461 and which was
filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri,
alleges that defendants, in seeking to collect tuition debt,
violated the TCPA by using automatic dialing systems to place
unsolicited telephone calls to the cellular telephones of
plaintiff and other former students. It seeks to recover damages
on behalf of plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals.
On April 9, 2013, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her complaint,
and the Company does not believe it has any exposure associated
with this matter in the future.

Headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona, Apollo Group, Inc. and its
wholly-owned subsidiaries has been an education provider since
1973.  The Company offers innovative and distinctive educational
programs and services both online and on-campus at the
undergraduate, master's and doctoral levels principally through
these wholly-owned subsidiaries: The University of Phoenix, Inc.,
Apollo Global, Inc., BPP Holdings Limited, Western International
University, Inc., Universidad Latinoamericana, Universidad de
Artes, Ciencias y Comunicacion, Institute for Professional
Development and The College for Financial Planning Institutes
Corporation.


ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Trial Begins in Suit Over Lead Paint Risks
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that in a trial that began on
July 15, 10 California cities and counties are seeking nearly
$1 billion from paint manufacturers to remove lead paint from
millions of older homes, arguing that they sold the product
despite being aware of its potential health effects.

The industry argues that it never deliberately sold a harmful
product to consumers and that the old paint is no longer a
significant public health risk.  The lawsuit, filed in 2000, named
five paint manufacturers, including Atlantic Richfield, NL
Industries and Sherwin-Williams.

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge James Kleinberg will
decide whether the manufacturers are responsible for the use of
lead-based paint in homes throughout the state decades ago.

Lead paint has been banned in California for decades but remains
in homes built before 1978, including an estimated 5 million in
the cities and counties that brought the lawsuit. Los Angeles
County, San Francisco and Oakland are among the parties in the
suit.

Exposure to lead is linked to learning disabilities and other
health problems, especially in children.

The case has taken 13 years to reach trial because of objections
from the industry, but appeals courts have allowed it to proceed.
It alleges the manufacturers knew of lead-paint dangers starting
in the 1890s but still sold it to consumers without health
warnings.

Former Iowa Attorney General Bonnie Campbell, who is working with
the industry, said the lawsuit is puzzling given the fact that
lead paint has been banned for so long and so much of it already
has been dealt with.

But those who work in local public health say the problem is far
from resolved.

"We've had a lot of success," Julie Twichell, an official with
Alameda County's lead poison prevention program, told the San Jose
Mercury News.  "But there is still a lot of work to do."


AVANTAIR INC: Faces "Heisman" Class Action Suit in Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------
Avantair, Inc., disclosed in its June 26, 2013, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it is facing
a class action lawsuit in Oklahoma.

On June 26, 2013, Avantair, Inc. commenced employee furloughs as
the Company addresses liquidity issues and seeks alternative
financing arrangements that it hopes will enable it to resume
operations as quickly and efficiently as possible. In addition, on
June 24, 2013, the Company received notice of service of a class
action lawsuit filed by Heisman Square, L.L.C. in Oklahoma County
District Court, Oklahoma.

On June 13, 2013, the Company also entered into a Forbearance
Agreement with Midsouth Services, Inc. and Clear Aircraft, Inc.
("Lessor") related to past due lease payments for certain core
fleet aircraft leased to the Company by the Lessor.  On June 18,
2013, and June 25, 2013, the Company was notified by the Lessor
that it was in breach of the terms of the Forbearance Agreement
and the Lessor has been exercising and will continue to exercise
all rights and remedies available under the Forbearance Agreement
and applicable law, including taking possession of its leased
aircraft and aircraft engines.

                       About Avantair Inc.

Headquartered in Clearwater, Florida, Avantair, Inc. --
http://www.avantair.com/-- sells fractional ownership interests
in, and flight hour card usage of, professionally piloted aircraft
for personal and business use, and the management of its aircraft
fleet.  Avantair also operates fixed flight based operations (FBO)
in Camarillo, California, and in Caldwell, New Jersey.  Through
these FBOs and its headquarters, Avantair provides aircraft
maintenance, concierge and other services to its customers as well
as to the Avantair fleet.


BANK OF AMERICA: Disputes Allegations of Ex-Mortgage Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam O'Daniel, writing for Charlotte Business Journal, reports
that Bank of America Corp. has attempted to discredit, debunk and
dissect allegations made by former mortgage employees.

In court filings on July 12, the Charlotte-based bank said sworn
statements from six ex-employees and one contractor contain "wild
misrepresentations" about the work they performed for the bank.
BofA also says most of the workers were fired, did not work in the
capacity they claim and overall have made false accusations about
their former employer, according to the court documents.

The former workers filed statements last month in a three-year-old
lawsuit that is seeking class-action status.  Those workers
claimed BofA paid bonuses in the form of gift cards to encourage
employees to reject loan modification applications, steered
applicants into higher-priced loans to boost profits and lied to
homeowners seeking aid in order to reduce the bank's backlog.

The suit contends BofA wrongfully denied Home Affordable
Modification Program mortgage modifications to thousands of
homeowners.  The sworn statements were filed as exhibits in
federal court last month by the plaintiff's attorneys.

However, BofA is disputing the claims and discrediting the former
employees' statements.  "The declarants wildly misrepresented
their duties at the bank, and most had only minimal involvement
with HAMP -- or none at all," BofA says in its response.

The bank contends the allegations are no more than "statements
their lawyers have commissioned from a few ex-
employees/contractors, which were clearly drafted by plaintiffs'
counsel to support their theory that the outcomes they contest
reflect indiscriminate (and inexplicable) corporate malevolence."

Of the seven ex-workers, BofA says Simone Gordon, Theresa
Terrelonge and Recorda Simon "were call-center operators whose
only involvement with HAMP would have been to forward calls to
other departments."  BofA says Gordon even spent most of her
tenure in a credit-card department unaffiliated with the HAMP
efforts.

BofA says contractor Bert Sheeks was responsible for processing
customer complaints, not HAMP applications.  William Wilson, the
Charlotte-based worker, did not work as a loan underwriter as he
claimed, BofA says.

"The declarants' wild misrepresentations about their roles lead to
impossible claims about what they did and saw," the bank says.

Further, BofA in its filings tried to debunk the claims made by
the workers.  BofA filed statements from supervisors who claim
that bonuses and gift cards as incentives for rejecting
applications and pushing homeowners into foreclosure was never a
company policy.

In addition, ex-employee Wilson contended BofA held "blitzes" in
which workers were instructed to lie to applicants about which
paperwork had been received and reject hundreds of applications
with broad strokes.

BofA fired back: "Blitzes were used to help approve applications,
not deny them: A 'blitz' describes the use of overtime hours on
evenings and weekends (when CRMs had the greatest chance of
reaching borrowers) to call large numbers of borrowers to obtain
outstanding documentation needed to process their applications."

BofA also says Mr. Wilson's claim that the bank steered borrowers
into higher-priced internal refinancings instead of government
HAMP modifications is untrue -- and unlikely since federal
incentives made HAMP loans more profitable.

"In sum, the declarants could not have witnessed what they claim
to have witnessed because they were not in a position to do so --
and would not have witnessed such things in any event because Bank
of America's actual practices were diametrically opposite," the
bank says.

In the filings on July 12, BofA asked the court to reject class-
action status for the lawsuit.  The lender says the claims lack
the standing to be considered as a class action.

"On its face, this case is no different from the myriad cases
brought by individual plaintiffs claiming that mortgage servicers
breached trial loan modification agreements under the federal Home
Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) by not giving them
permanent modifications," BofA says.

"These cases have been dismissed by literally hundreds of courts
on a variety of grounds.  . . . The putative class thus amounts to
a hodgepodge of differently situated borrowers, including those
who cannot establish a contract, those who cannot establish their
own performance, those who cannot establish damages, and those who
can only try to establish these things with individualized
evidence of their personal course of dealings."

Bank of America says, despite the allegations, it has a track
record of helping distressed homeowners by offering more trial and
permanent HAMP modifications than any other loan servicer.  The
bank says complaints stem from problems with HAMP's guidelines,
not the bank's policies.

"The program has not been free of challenges, but Bank of America
has dedicated enormous resources to HAMP based on its commitment
to promoting modifications as an alternative to foreclosure that
benefits homeowners, investors, and servicers."


BAYER AG: Faces Product Liability Suit Over Mirena System
---------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that
Bayer Pharmaceuticals is facing yet another product liability
claim stemming from allegations that a woman was injured by her
use of the birth control system Mirena.

Lourdes Gonzalez claims in her newly filed federal civil action
that she became injured after the Mirena, which was inserted into
her body by a Pittsburgh doctor in early 2009, began to migrate
throughout her body by late June 2011.

The device ended up perforating the plaintiff's cervix, the suit
states.

Ms. Gonzalez had to undergo surgery in late July of that year to
have the medical product removed because it had migrated and was
no longer in its proper position.

The surgery to remove the device caused the woman to experience
pain, suffering, financial loss and caused permanent injury to
Gonzalez in the firm of scarring and a permanent risk of placenta
accreta, the complaint states.

Ms. Gonzalez says that she would never have elected to have had
the birth control system implanted inside of her body had she been
made aware of the true risks associated with the use of Mirena.

"In other words, Ms. Gonzalez would not have elected to have the
Mirena device implanted if she knew the true rate of migration,
embedment and perforation of the Mirena," the suit reads.

The complaint asserts that the plaintiff's doctors couldn't make
their patient aware of the injury risks associated with Mirena
implantation because they themselves had not been told of the
problems associated with the device.

Bayer and the other defendants in the suit have a history of
overstating the efficacy of Mirena and of understating the
potential safety concerns relating to the use of the device, the
complaint reads.

Mirena, which is an intrauterine contraceptive system made of
flexible plastic, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration
in 2000.

More than two million American women use the device today, and it
has been used by more than 15 million women worldwide to date,
according to the complaint.

Nevertheless, the suit claims, the defendants never placed a
warning on the device's label that tells of the potential for
Mirena to spontaneously migrate throughout the body; the label on
the product only states that migration may occur if the uterus is
perforated during insertion.

"Additionally, the Mirena label does not disclose the true risk of
Mirena, including, but not limited to, the risk of it becoming
embedded within the body, or the true risk of ectopic pregnancy,"
the suit states.

Bayer Pharmaceuticals and various company subsidiaries are listed
as defendants in the suit.

The complaint contains counts of defective manufacturing, design
defect, negligence, failure to warn, strict liability, breach of
implied and express warranties, negligent and fraudulent
misrepresentation, and fraud by concealment.

The plaintiff seeks more than $150,000 in compensatory, statutory
and punitive damages, in addition to interest, litigation costs,
attorneys' fees and other legal relief.

Ms. Gonzalez is being represented by attorneys from Philadelphia-
based NastLaw LLC.

The federal case number is 2:13-cv-04082-JP.


BEST BUY: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co., Inc., is still awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit,
according to the Company's June 21, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In February 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned, IBEW
Local 98 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed
against the Company and certain of its executive officers in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.  This federal
court action alleges, among other things, that the Company and the
officers named in the complaint violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act in
connection with press releases and other statements relating to
the Company's fiscal 2011 earnings guidance that had been made
available to the public.  Additionally, in March 2011, a similar
purported class action was filed by a single shareholder, Rene
LeBlanc, against the Company and certain of its executive officers
in the same court.  In July 2011, after consolidation of the IBEW
Local 98 Pension Fund and Rene LeBlanc actions, a consolidated
complaint captioned, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co.,
Inc., et al., was filed and served.  The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint in September 2011, and in March
2012, subsequent to the end of fiscal 2012, the court issued a
decision dismissing the action with prejudice.  In April 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the court's decision
on the Company's motion to dismiss.

In October 2012, the court granted plaintiff's motion to alter or
amend the court's decision on the Company's motion to dismiss in
part by vacating such decision and giving plaintiff leave to file
an amended complaint, which plaintiff did in October 2012.  The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in
November 2012 and all responsive pleadings were filed in December
2012.  A hearing was scheduled for April 26, 2013.  The court's
decision will be rendered thereafter.

In June 2011, a purported shareholder derivative action captioned,
Salvatore M. Talluto, Derivatively and on Behalf of Best Buy Co.,
Inc. v. Richard M. Schulze, et al., as Defendants and Best Buy
Co., Inc. as Nominal Defendant, was filed against both present and
former members of the Company's Board of Directors serving during
the relevant periods in fiscal 2011 and the Company as a nominal
defendant in the U.S. District Court for the State of Minnesota.
The lawsuit alleges that the director defendants breached their
fiduciary duty, among other claims, including violation of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in failing to
correct public misrepresentations and material misstatements
and/or omissions regarding the Company's fiscal 2011 earnings
projections and, for certain directors, selling stock while in
possession of material adverse non-public information.
Additionally, in July 2011, a similar purported class action was
filed by a single shareholder, Daniel Himmel, against the Company
and certain of its executive officers in the same court.  In
November 2011, the respective lawsuits of Salvatore M. Talluto and
Daniel Himmel were consolidated into a new action captioned, In
Re: Best Buy Co., Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, and a
stay ordered until after a final resolution of the motion to
dismiss in the consolidated IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund v. Best Buy
Co., Inc., et al. case.

The plaintiffs in the securities actions seek damages, including
interest, equitable relief and reimbursement of the costs and
expenses they incurred in the lawsuits.  The Company believes the
allegations in the securities actions are without merit, and the
Company intends to defend these actions vigorously.  Based on the
Company's assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the
securities actions, their respective procedural litigation
history, and the degree to which the Company intends to defend
itself in these matters, the amount or range of reasonably
possible losses, if any, cannot be estimated.

Best Buy Co., Inc. -- http://www.bestbuy.com/-- is a multi-
national, e-commerce and physical retailer of consumer
electronics, including mobile phones, tablets and computers, large
and small appliances, televisions, digital imaging, entertainment
products and related accessories.  The Richfield, Minnesota-based
Company also offers consumers technology services, including
support, repair, troubleshooting and installation, under the Geek
Squad brand.


CALIFORNIA: Class Action Over Parole Revocation System Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hanson Bridgett LLP on July 17 disclosed that it successfully
argued for decertification and termination of a nineteen-year-old
class action case that was brought against the State of California
challenging the constitutionality of California's adult parole
revocation process.  Judge Lawrence K. Karlton presided over the
matter in California's Eastern District Court.

The court originally found that the State did not provide adult
parolees with adequate due process and required the State to
overhaul its parole revocation system.  The State has made great
strides in transforming the system, including approving
legislation resulting in a dramatic reduction in the number of
adult parolees in California and requiring parole revocation
hearings to be adjudicated by State superior courts, rather than
the Board of Parole Hearings.  As a result of these legislative
changes, attorneys at Hanson Bridgett argued -- and the Court
agreed -- that the case was moot as of July 1, 2013.  The Court
decertified the class and ordered the case dismissed.

"We are extremely pleased that justice has been served in
terminating this case," said Paul B. Mello, Hanson Bridgett
Partner.  "Judge Karlton has rightly ordered that this case is
moot as a result of criminal justice realignment and that
Plaintiffs' counsel may not continue to litigate this case, and
monitor the superior courts, as they had requested."

Judge Karlton's order, issued on July 3, 2013, will terminate the
case in early August after resolution of administrative matters.


CANADA: "Sixties Scoop" Class Action Can Proceed to Trial
---------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a Toronto lawyer representing Aboriginal
people taken from their families during the so-called "Sixties
Scoop" say they deserve the same acknowledgement given to
residential school survivors.

On July 16, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled a class-
action lawsuit against the federal government can proceed to
trial.

Jeffery Wilson said about 16,000 Aboriginal children in Ontario
were sent to live in non-Aboriginal homes between 1965 and 1985.

"The motivating issue for the representative plaintiffs is less
about money and more about taking steps that assures this cannot
happen again."

Mr. Wilson said the children were robbed of their Aboriginal
culture, language and identity and are suffering the consequences
as adults.

               'What happened to them was wrong'

Beaverhouse First Nation Chief Marcia Brown Martel was one of
those thousands of children who were taken from their families.

"My biological family was given the information that I was
mentally handicapped," she said.

"That's what the social workers told my family."

Authorities sent Brown Martel to live with a non-Aboriginal family
in southern Ontario, where she grew up without any connection to
First Nations culture or language.

"I cannot be, nor am I, the person that I would have been," she
said.

Brown Martel and another plaintiff, Robert Commanda, began their
attempt to launch a class action lawsuit against the Attorney
General of Canada four years ago.

Mr. Wilson said his clients hope proceeding to trial will
ultimately result in "a ruling that really says that what happened
to them was wrong and shouldn't have occurred."

Like residential schools, the "Sixties Scoop" stole the Aboriginal
identity of an entire generation, he said.

"It's hard to reconcile how the Prime Minister or how Canada can
say 'we're sorry' for the effect in respect to the residential
schools case and not offer the same form of acceptance . . . of
these persons' harm and suffering."

Brown Martel said she hopes the trial will bring some assurance
"that this will never be, ever, ever allowed in this country to
. . . happen [to] any children."

Now that the lawsuit has been granted certification, Wilson said
he hopes other affected people will come forward.

"Any Aboriginal person who was placed in a non-Aboriginal home
between 1964 and 1985 . . . can register to be a participant in
this class action," he said.


CANADA: "Sixties Scoop" Class Action Lawyer Seeks More Plaintiffs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Aiken, writing for KenoraOnline.com, reports that the lead
counsel in a massive class action related to foster care says it's
not too late to join.  Jeffery Wilson estimates 16,000 applicants
in Ontario could eventually be part of the lawsuit, which is
focused on the deprivation of aboriginal culture for children in
care.

"People are still able to apply.  It's going to be, very likely, a
self-registration form of a class-action, which they can get by
going on-line," he says, referring to a web site created for the
purpose.

Mr. Wilson says the class of plaintiffs is defined as a person,
who would've been placed in foster care -- or placed for adoption
-- between 1965 and 1984.  They would've been placed with a non-
aboriginal person or family, while under the authority of a
children's aid or family services agency within the province of
Ontario.

He adds that the definition of aboriginal includes First Nations,
status or non-status, on or off-reserve, as well as Metis.  A
claimant would've been placed with a non-aboriginal family within
Ontario.  They could also have been transferred to a location
outside of the province or even outside of the country.  One of
the two main claimants, Wilson notes, was moved to a community in
the United States.

"Whether you were raised by loving non-aboriginal parents, who
showed tender care, or unfortunately if you were raised by people
who were not very kind, they were mean, that doesn't matter.  The
issue is, you as an aboriginal person, lost your culture," he
emphasized.

This is similar to the common experience claims under the
residential schools settlement agreement, which still allowed
individuals to file lawsuits for physical or sexual abuse.
Mr. Wilson agrees that claimants will be seeking a similar
agreement to the one reached in 2005 with residential school
survivors, except it would be for those who were apprehended from
their families during the 60's Scoop.

"So, we're hoping that if the prime minister was -- as I know he
was -- sincere -- or I hope he was in his apology -- that he will
cause some steps to be taken perhaps to embrace the action in the
sense of dialogue between the plaintiffs and defendants, and we
come up with some kind of common result.  A result that recognizes
their harm and makes sure it never happens again," he continued,
referring to the landmark 2008 Residential School Apology in
Ottawa.

"The prime minister made an apology in June of 2008 to the
children of the residential schools.  Part of that apology
included the acknowledgement of the harm caused by assimilation
policies that resulted in those children being deprived of their
culture, their religion, their customs," he said.

For the last four years, the law firm and plaintiffs have been
part of a long-term court battle, which has already seen its share
of ups and downs.

"Since 2009, we've been involved in procedural, highly-legalistic,
technical wrangling.  It's had its impact.  It's costly to
everybody concerned.  I think we should no go beyond the
wrangling," he stated.

By the end of September, Mr. Wilson hopes to receive a copy of the
court's reasons for its decision to go to trial.  The plaintiffs -
Chief Marcia Brown Martel of Beaverhouse and Robert Commanda --
are hoping to reach a negotiated agreement that ensures aboriginal
children aren't deprived of their cultural roots.  Mr. Wilson
notes agreements have been reached, which allow Jewish families to
care for their children, not to mention systems created for
Catholic children.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Royalties Class Action Arbitration Underway
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marie Cusick, writing for StateImpact Pennsylvania, reports that
an effort is underway to bring class action arbitration against
Pennsylvania's biggest gas driller -- Chesapeake Energy -- over
allegations the company is underpaying royalties.

About 60 people turned out to the Towanda Fire Department on
July 17 to hear a pitch from a group of attorneys seeking to bring
the case.

Chesapeake leaseholders in particular have been alleging the
company is underpaying royalties by deducting the costs of moving
the gas from the well to the market, for things like pipelines and
compressor stations.

Scranton-area lawyer Doug Clark is heading up the group of
attorneys.  He says while some leases do allow for these types of
deductions, other contracts explicitly prohibit the practice.

"We're seeking to identify these landowners and let them know they
have these rights and pursue claims on their behalf," says
Mr. Clark.

Mr. Clark is working with another Scranton lawyer and two New York
City-based attorneys to file class action arbitration against
Chesapeake.  Mr. Clark says many leases require disputes to be
dealt with through arbitration and not in a traditional courtroom.

He says his group has already started the process and is looking
for more clients.

David Moon was among the landowners in the audience.  He owns
about 200 acres in New Albany.

Mr. Moon says three of the four companies involved in his property
are taking deductions out of his royalty payments, including
Chesapeake. He's anxious for some legal action on the issue.

"[The deductions are] extremely substantial when you start adding
it up," he says, "I don't believe these companies are entitled to
it."

Under Pennsylvania law, an oil and gas lease must provide a
minimum 12.5% royalty in order for the contract to be valid.

However, in a unanimous 2010 decision, the State Supreme Court
held that since the word royalty was not defined in the law, the
industry could rely on its own interpretation, which allowed for
subtracting the costs of moving the gas to market.

The state legislature recently passed a law requiring more
transparency from companies about royalty check deductions.

A spokesman for Chesapeake did not respond to a request for
comment.


COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: Plaintiffs Amend Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia Laboratories, Inc. on July 17 disclosed that plaintiffs
in the putative class action lawsuit filed against the Company,
Actavis, Inc. and certain officers of both companies in the United
States District Court, District of New Jersey, entitled In re
Columbia Laboratories, Inc., Securities Litigation, which on June
10 was dismissed without prejudice, have filed an amended
complaint.  The Company continues to believe the case is without
merit.

                   About Columbia Laboratories

Columbia Laboratories, Inc. -- http://www.columbialabs.com-- is a
publicly traded specialty pharmaceutical company with a successful
history of developing proprietary, vaginally administered products
for women's health indications.  The Company receives sales and
royalty revenues from CRINONE(R) (progesterone gel), which is
marketed by Actavis, Inc. in the United States and by Merck Serono
S.A. in over 60 foreign countries.


DANNY'S CABARET: Settles EEOC Gender Bias Suit for $50,000
----------------------------------------------------------
A Jackson, Miss., "gentlemen's club" which features "adult
entertainment" will pay $50,000 and furnish other relief to settle
a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit by the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced on
July 8.

The EEOC's charged that Danny's Cabaret violated federal law when
it subjected four black female entertainers to less advantageous
terms and conditions of employment than white entertainers,
including openly segregated work schedules.  The EEOC also charged
that Danny's retaliated after one of the entertainers complained
about discrimination by reducing the work hours for each of the
entertainers and forcing one of the entertainers to quit to escape
the mistreatment.

Race discrimination and retaliation against employees who report
or complain about unlawful discrimination in the workplace violate
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The EEOC filed suit
(No. 3:10-CV-00681) in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi, Jackson Division, after first attempting
to reach a pre-litigation settlement through  its conciliation
process.

The court issued a two-year consent decree settling the litigation
on June 28.  Under the decree, Danny's will implement new policies
and practices designed to prevent racial discrimination and
retaliation, conduct supervisor and employee training on anti-
discrimination and retaliation laws and establish a confidential
process for persons to submit discrimination and retaliation
complaints.  The process will include employer protections of non-
retaliation and requirements for a prompt, thorough and impartial
investigation.  Danny's will also post notices at the work site
and provide other injunctive relief, including providing reports
to the EEOC on new allegations of race discrimination and
retaliation during the two-year period.

"Employers who allow their workplaces to be havens for racial
harassment and retaliation are not meeting their obligations under
federal law," said Delner Franklin-Thomas, district director for
the EEOC's Birmingham District Office.  "When employers choose not
to meet those obligations, the EEOC is prepared to pursue all
appropriate means to hold them accountable."

Steven Murray, senior trial attorney for the EEOC's Birmingham
District Office, said, "This action demonstrates the EEOC's broad
commitment to eradicating racial discrimination and retaliation in
all workplaces.  We are pleased that Danny's has resolved this
matter early in the litigation and will be a leader in
implementing better policies and procedures to eliminate
discrimination."

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting
employment discrimination.  The EEOC's Birmingham District
consists of Alabama, Mississippi (except 17 northern counties) and
the Florida Panhandle.


EBIX INC: Has Terminated Merger Agreement With Goldman Sachs Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ebix, Inc., terminated in June 2013 its merger agreement with an
affiliate of Goldman, Sachs & Co., according to the Company's
June 21, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Ebix, Inc. a leading international supplier of On-Demand software
and E-commerce services to the insurance industry, has announced
that it and an affiliate of Goldman, Sachs & Co. ("Goldman Sachs")
have agreed to terminate their previously announced merger
agreement.  The merger agreement, announced on May 1, 2013, had
provided for Ebix to be acquired by an affiliate of Goldman Sachs.

The decision to terminate the merger agreement was the result of a
letter received by the Company on June 14, 2013, from the U.S.
Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia that it had opened
an investigation into allegations of intentional misconduct that
had been brought to its attention from the pending shareholder
class action lawsuits against the Company's directors and
officers, the media and other sources.  The pending shareholder
class action lawsuits and an SEC investigation involving the same
subject matters as these lawsuits were previously disclosed by the
Company in its periodic reports filed with the SEC.  The Company
has been informed by the office of the U.S. Attorney that their
investigation is in its preliminary stages and that it is too
early to make a determination of whether any violation of the
securities laws or other laws has occurred, or whether any
individual or entity could be considered a target, subject or
witness in the investigation.  The merger agreement is being
terminated without payment of a termination fee by either party
and each party and certain significant shareholders of the Company
and each of their respective affiliates have agreed to release
each other from all claims arising under or related to the
terminated merger agreement and related transaction agreements.

"We believe the allegations in the class action suits are without
merit." said Robin Raina, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
Ebix.  "We want to thank Goldman Sachs for their interest in
acquiring Ebix and we are naturally disappointed that we could not
complete a transaction at this time.  The Company remains focused
on running its business and continuing to provide its customers
with the high quality products and services on which they rely.
The Company's balance sheet remains strong and we believe the
Company is well positioned for future growth and success."

Mr. Pavan Bhalla, Chairman of the Special Committee of the Board
of Directors said, "We are committed to fully cooperate with all
the regulatory authorities, as they conduct their investigations
and believe that the allegations in the class action lawsuits,
which we have understood to form the basis of these investigations
are without any merit.  We look forward to what we expect will be
a favorable resolution of these matters.  We are committed to the
highest standards of integrity in our business and have confidence
in the ability of the Ebix management team to lead the Company
forward."

The Company Board of Directors also announced that it intends to
continue to evaluate strategic options for the Company.

On May 10, 2013, the Company announced results for the first
quarter of 2013.  Total first quarter 2013 revenue was $52.6
million, an increase of 20% on a year-over-year basis, as compared
to first quarter 2012 revenue of $43.8 million.

Diluted earnings per share ("EPS") for the first quarter 2013 rose
13% year-over-year to $0.45, as compared to $0.40 in the first
quarter of 2012.  For purposes of the first quarter 2013 EPS
calculation, there was an average of 38.8 million diluted shares
outstanding during the quarter, as compared to 39.5 million
diluted shares outstanding in first quarter 2012.

Ebix continues to have highly diversified revenue streams across
thousands of clients, with the largest client accounting for only
2.5% of the Company's first quarter 2013 revenues.

                        About Ebix, Inc.

A leading international supplier of On-Demand software and E-
commerce services to the insurance industry, Ebix, Inc., (NASDAQ:
EBIX) provides end-to-end solutions ranging from infrastructure
exchanges, carrier systems, agency systems and BPO services to
custom software development for all entities involved in the
insurance industry.

With 30+ offices across Brazil, Singapore, Australia, the US, New
Zealand, India and Canada, Ebix powers multiple exchanges across
the world in the field of life, annuity, health and property &
casualty insurance while conducting in excess of $100 billion in
insurance premiums on its platforms.  Through its various SaaS-
based software platforms, Ebix employs hundreds of insurance and
technology professionals to provide products, support and
consultancy to thousands of customers on six continents.  For more
information, visit the Company's Web site at http://www.ebix.com/


FORD MOTOR: Files Motion to Dismiss Sudden Acceleration Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that
Ford Motor Company has filed a response to a class action lawsuit
that alleges its vehicles suffer from sudden acceleration
problems.

Ford is moving to dismiss the lawsuit, filed earlier this year in
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,
and is seeking to have certain "objectionable" paragraphs in the
complaint stricken.

Ford filed the motions on June 27 in the first of two class
actions that have been filed in the court.  The company is seeking
to have them consolidated.

The class actions do not allege any physical injuries.  Instead,
they say purchasers of Ford vehicles would not have bought them --
or paid as much -- if they knew the vehicles had sudden
acceleration problems.

"Plaintiffs seek a court-ordered recall and monetary damages in
connection with nearly every Ford Motor Company vehicle sold in
the United States between 2002 and 2010 . . . because the vehicles
lack a particular driver-assistance feature referred to as Brake
Over Accelerator or Brake-Throttle Override, which depowers the
engine if the gas pedal is trapped by a floor mat and the driver
engages the brake," the memorandum in support of the motion to
dismiss says.

"Notably, as conceded by Plaintiffs, a BTO feature does not
prevent an unwanted acceleration resulting from a trapped gas
pedal, but it may assist the driver in overcoming such a situation
if it does occur.

"Although Ford never marketed the vehicles at issue as having a
BTO feature, Plaintiffs contend that its absence from their
vehicles diminishes their value, and that Ford's failure to
disclose that absence was fraudulent."

The two complaints include plaintiffs from several states who
purchased a variety of Ford, Mercury and Lincoln vehicles.
Several attorneys nationwide combined efforts on the complaint.

From West Virginia are Niall A. Paul of Spilman Thomas & Battle in
Charleston; Guy Bucci, Timothy Bailey and Lee Javins of Bucci
Bailey & Javins in Charleston; and Edgar F. Heiskell III of
Charleston.

The paragraphs Ford finds "objectionable" allege that in the
1980s, the company intentionally disposed of internal reports
regarding sudden acceleration events and that it concealed the
information from the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.

Ford says those allegations have already been rejected by the
NHTSA and a Florida appellate court.

"Second, the allegations are simply irrelevant to Plaintiffs'
claims and, therefore, immaterial and impertinent," the memorandum
in support says.

"The allegations in the Objectionable Paragraphs are scandalous,
injurious to Ford's reputation, and have no bearing on Plaintiffs'
present claims. The allegations are clearly designed only to
inflame the jury and the public.

"Moreover, the continued presence of these objectionable
allegations of decades-old conduct will prejudice Ford by
requiring extensive and unnecessary expenditures of resources in
litigation."

The out-of-state firms on the second complaint are: Grant &
Eisenhofer of Chicago; The DiCello Law Firm of Mentor, Ohio;
Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson & Gorny of Leawood, Kan.; Murray
and Murray of Sandusky, Ohio; Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart &
Shipley of West Palm Beach, Fla.; Siprut P.C. of Chicago; Bremer,
Whyte, Brown & O'Meara of Newport Beach, Calif.; The Miller Law
Firm of Rochester, Mich.; Davis, Bethune & Jones of Kansas City,
Mo.; Isaac, Wiles, Burkholder & Teetor of Columbus, Ohio; Gomez &
Iagmin of San Diego; Laffey, Bucci & Kent of Philadelphia.

The last three firms listed were not on the March complaint.

Grant & Eisenhofer filed another class action in California
federal court over Ford's MyFord Touch, a dashboard interface that
allows the vehicle owner to operate the audio systems, GPS
navigation, climate systems and a Bluetooth enabled mobile device.

The lawsuit claims MyFord Touch has been plagued with serious
defects.

Adam Levitt, a director with Grant & Eisenhofer and head of the
firm's Consumer Practice group, said: "The MyFord Touch problems
in Ford vehicles are legion and now well-documented.  Had
consumers known about the numerous and widespread issues with the
system in Ford's cars, they would not have purchased or leased
these vehicles.  We intend to see that they are properly
compensated for defective systems, and will call on Ford take
affirmative steps to see that customers' expectations are met."


FORD MOTOR: Recalls 12,569 Vehicles Over Faulty Child Locks
-----------------------------------------------------------
James R. Healey, writing for USA Today, reports that Ford Motor is
recalling 12,569 cars and SUVs because the child locks on the rear
doors could fail, allowing kids to unlock and open the back doors
from the inside when parents thought they couldn't.

Affected are 2013 Ford Explorer, Taurus, and Lincoln MKS vehicles
that were built Nov. 29 through Dec. 12, 2012.

The potentially faulty pats were made in Mexico and supplied to
Ford by Brose, NA of Auburn Hills, Mich., according to Ford's
recall filing with the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.

Opening and closing the doors enough times can move the mechanism
from locked to unlocked without warning, Ford says.

That could "lead to personal injury to an unrestrained child,"
NHTSA says in its recall notice.

The locks, found on any modern vehicle, are simple sliding
mechanisms that can be set to allow the doors to only be opened
from the outside.  The thinking is that using the locks prevents
kids from accidentally or impulsivley opening the back doors while
the car is moving or at other times when it could be dangerous.

Dealers will replace faulty locks free.  Ford says it will begin
the recall Aug. 5.

Ford says owners can determine if their vehicles are involved by
calling Ford's toll-free line at 1-866-436-7332, or by contacting
a local Ford or Lincoln dealer who can obtain specific information
regarding the vehicles from the Ford On-line Automotive Service
Information System (OASIS) database.


GARELICK FARMS: Truck Drivers Lose Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Egan, writing for Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, reports that
where plaintiff truck drivers, claiming to be owed compensation
for unpaid meal breaks which they did not take, have requested
that the court certify a class consisting of "all individuals who
have worked as delivery drivers for Garelick Farms in
Massachusetts since Sept. 27, 2005," the plaintiffs have not
satisfied the commonality element and as a result the
certification request must be denied.


GENERAL MOTORS: Retirees Win Class Action Over Insurance Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gray, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that about
3,000 salaried retirees have won a class-action case against their
former employer, General Motors of Canada Ltd., after the auto
giant slashed their health and life insurance benefits as it
scrambled to stay afloat during the financial crisis.

The ruling could cost the company hundreds of millions of dollars
in past and future benefits that it tried to clear from its books
as it teetered toward insolvency five years ago.  The final bill
must still be worked out, but the plaintiffs' statement of claim
initially demanded C$350-million.

Faye Roberts, a spokeswoman for GM, said the company was
disappointed with the decision and planned to file an appeal.

In a judgment released on July 17, Mr. Justice Edward Belobaba of
the Ontario Superior Court ruled that GM's contract language was
not "sufficiently clear and unambiguous" to enable it to slash
most of its retirees benefits unilaterally.

However, the judge ruled that in the case of a smaller group of
retirees, 67 former executives, GM was entitled to deny them an
enhanced set of benefits they were promised.

As outlined in the ruling, during the two-year financial meltdown
from 2007 to 2009 GM slashed the benefits it was paying to its
non-unionized salaried retirees and executive retirees, affecting
semi-private hospital coverage, drug costs, and dropped the basic
life insurance benefit to $20,000 from $100,000 or more.

GM argued that its benefit documents allowed it to "amend, modify,
suspend or terminate" benefits "at any time," but the judge ruled
this only applied to employees, not retirees.

"The salaried employees, some of whom had worked for decades at
[GM Canada] and were told repeatedly in the benefit documents that
they could rely on the promised health care and life insurance
benefits, were stunned," the judge writes.

The class action case was originally launched by GM retiree Joseph
O'Neill, who retired in 2002 and then saw his health and life
insurance benefits slashed in 2007-2009.  But he died last year,
and another retiree was named as the representative plaintiff in
his place.

A lawyer for the retirees, Louis Sokolov, said the plaintiffs were
pleased with the decision: "These are people who were planning
their retirement based on what was promised to them."

Mr. Sokolov said the ruling could affect retirees at other
companies in distress, depending on how their contracts are
worded.


GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Appeals Court Upholds Class Action Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DeAnn Komanecky, writing for SavannahNow.com, reports that the
Georgia Court of Appeals, in a 4-3 vote, has upheld the class
action certification of a lawsuit against Georgia-Pacific.

Kirbi and Aaron Ratner and David and Kathy McDonald, who live near
the Fort Howard Road plant, originally filed the suit against
Georgia-Pacific's Savannah River Mill Plant in 2010.

Class action certification was granted by Effingham County
Superior Court Chief Judge William E. Woodrum in July of 2012.
The class-action certification will allow lawsuit members to
include owners of 116 properties that neighbor the plant.  The
properties include an area west of Fort Howard Road, south of the
railroad line and east of Rincon-Stillwell Road.

The lawsuit presents claims of nuisance, trespass and negligence,
alleging that sludge dumped in disposal cells at the plant release
hydrogen sulfide, a gas that causes egg-like smells and is
corrosive to metal.  The property owners claim the gas has caused
loss of property values and physical damage to homes.

Much of the reported damage has been from corrosion to air-
conditioning systems.

As of last summer Georgia-Pacific has paid to replace a portion of
20-30 of the air-conditioning systems, mainly in the Mallard
Pointe Subdivision, according to court documents.

Ben Perkins, a Savannah attorney representing the plaintiffs, said
that practice has continued while both sides have waited on the
appeal ruling.

"Georgia-Pacific has replaced a number of units (since last
year)," Mr. Perkins said.

GP has said they are aware of odor issues and a project to close
the three landfill sludge cells most responsible for odor issues
has recently been completed.

The GP disposal area is on about 170 acres.  The site currently
has one closed sludge cell, two active cells and the three cells
that have been closed, Carrie Thompson, spokesman for GP said.
The waste comes from the remnants of GP's manufacturing process
that chiefly uses recycled paper and cardboard.

The cells have been capped and have a gas collection system.

GP assertions in their appeal of Judge Woodrum's ruling included
that the trial court abused its discretion in certifying the
class.

The appeals court ruled the plaintiff's met class certification
requirements of Georgia law and the court's certification would
not be reversed unless factual findings were "clearly erroneous."

The justices noted that the defendants did not list any errors of
factual findings by the trial court.

Mr. Perkins said the Court of Appeals ruling sends the right
message.

"My clients and their entire legal team are very pleased that the
Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Woodrum's thoughtful and well-
reasoned decision to certify this property damage case as a class
action," Mr. Perkins said.  "In reaching its decision, the Court
of Appeals made it clear that property owners in Georgia are
entitled to, and deserve, protection of their property rights."

Ms. Thompson said GP officials had just received the appeal
ruling, handed down on July 16.

"We are evaluating it and the impact it will have," Ms. Thompson
said. "It's one step in the legal process and we will continue to
move forward in that process and be a good neighbor," Ms. Thompson
said.

Mr. Perkins said once the case has been returned to Superior
Court, Judge Woodrum will be asked to sign an order to approve a
class notice.

The notice will be sent to property owners in the impacted area
informing them of their right to opt out of the suit.

"We are eager to give our clients the long-awaited opportunity to
have their day in Court," Mr. Perkins said.  "We look forward to
presenting our clients' claims to a jury as soon as possible."

The Savannah River Mill has been in operation over 25 years and
employs 1,200.


H&R BLOCK: Appeal From Judgment in "Drake" Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc.'s affiliate, Sand Canyon Corporation (SCC),
previously known as Option One Mortgage Corporation, ceased
originating mortgage loans in December 2007 and, in April 2008,
sold its servicing assets and discontinued its remaining
operations.  Mortgage loans purchased by H&R Block Bank (HRB Bank)
from SCC represent 57% of total loans held for investment at
April 30, 2013.

On December 9, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California against SCC and H&R Block, Inc. styled Jeanne Drake, et
al. v. Option One Mortgage Corp., et al. (Case No. SACV09-1450
CJC).  The Plaintiffs allege breach of contract, promissory fraud,
intentional interference with contractual relations, wrongful
withholding of wages and unfair business practices in connection
with not paying severance benefits to employees when their
employment transitioned to American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.
(now known as Homeward Residential, Inc. (Homeward)) in connection
with the sale of certain assets and operations of SCC.  The
Plaintiffs seek to recover severance benefits of approximately $8
million, interest and attorney's fees, in addition to penalties
and punitive damages on certain claims.  On September 2, 2011, the
court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all
claims.  The Plaintiffs filed an appeal, which remains pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 26, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended April 30, 2013.

The Company says it has not concluded that a loss related to this
matter is probable nor has it established a loss contingency
related to this matter.  The Company believes it has meritorious
defenses to the claims in this case and intends to defend the case
vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome or
its impact on the Company's consolidated financial position,
results of operations and cash flows.

Headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, H&R Block, Inc. --
http://www.hrblock.com/-- and its subsidiaries provide tax
preparation and banking services.  The Company's Tax Services
segment provides assisted income tax return preparation, digital
tax solutions and other services and products related to income
tax return preparation to the general public primarily in the
United States, and also in Canada and Australia.


H&R BLOCK: "Barrett" Class Suit Remains Pending in Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Cecil Barrett, et al. v. Option
One Mortgage Corp., et al., remains pending, according to H&R
Block, Inc.'s June 26, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 30,
2013.

H&R Block's affiliate, Sand Canyon Corporation (SCC), previously
known as Option One Mortgage Corporation, ceased originating
mortgage loans in December 2007 and, in April 2008, sold its
servicing assets and discontinued its remaining operations.
Mortgage loans purchased by H&R Block Bank (HRB Bank) from SCC
represent 57% of total loans held for investment at April 30,
2013.

On February 1, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against SCC and other related entities styled Cecil Barrett, et
al. v. Option One Mortgage Corp., et al. (Civil Action No. 08-
10157-RWZ).  The Plaintiffs allege discriminatory practices
relating to the origination of mortgage loans in violation of the
Fair Housing Act and Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and seek
declaratory and injunctive relief in addition to actual and
punitive damages.  The court dismissed H&R Block, Inc. from the
lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction.  In March 2011, the
court issued an order certifying a class, which the defendants
sought to appeal.  On August 24, 2011, the First Circuit Court of
Appeals declined to hear the appeal, noting that the district
court could reconsider its certification decision in light of a
recent ruling by the United States Supreme Court in an unrelated
matter.  SCC subsequently filed a motion to decertify the class,
which the court granted.  The Plaintiffs' petition for appeal was
denied.

The Company says a portion of its loss contingency accrual is
related to this lawsuit for the amount of loss that it considers
probable and reasonably estimable.  The Company believes SCC has
meritorious defenses to the claims in this case and it intends to
defend the case vigorously; however the Company does not currently
believe this case is material.

Headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, H&R Block, Inc. --
http://www.hrblock.com/-- and its subsidiaries provide tax
preparation and banking services.  The Company's Tax Services
segment provides assisted income tax return preparation, digital
tax solutions and other services and products related to income
tax return preparation to the general public primarily in the
United States, and also in Canada and Australia.


H&R BLOCK: "Basile" Class Suit Still Pending in Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
On April 23, 1993, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against H&R Block, Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas, First
Judicial District Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia County,
styled Sandra J. Basile, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et al. (April
Term 1992, Civil Action No. 3246).  The plaintiffs allege
inadequate disclosures with respect to the refund anticipation
loan (RAL) product and assert claims for violation of consumer
protection statutes, negligent misrepresentation, breach of
fiduciary duty, common law fraud, usury, and violation of the
Truth in Lending Act (TILA).  The Plaintiffs seek unspecified
actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees
and costs.  A Pennsylvania class was certified, but later
decertified by the trial court in December 2003.  The intermediate
appellate court subsequently reversed the decertification
decision.  On September 7, 2012, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
reversed the decision of the intermediate appellate court, thereby
allowing the trial court's decertification ruling to stand.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 26, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended April 30, 2013.

The Company has not concluded that a loss related to this matter
is probable, nor has it accrued a loss contingency related to this
matter.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to this
case and intends to defend the case vigorously, however, the
Company does not currently believe this case is material.

Headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, H&R Block, Inc. --
http://www.hrblock.com/-- and its subsidiaries provide tax
preparation and banking services.  The Company's Tax Services
segment provides assisted income tax return preparation, digital
tax solutions and other services and products related to income
tax return preparation to the general public primarily in the
United States, and also in Canada and Australia.


H&R BLOCK: Faces Suits by Form 8863 Filers During Tax Season 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc., is facing class action lawsuits brought by those
who filed Form 8863 during tax season 2013 through an H&R Block
office and other services, according to the Company's June 26,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended April 30, 2013.

A series of putative class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company in various federal courts and one state court beginning on
March 13, 2013 (including, by way of example, Danielle Pooley v.
H&R Block, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-01549-JBS-KMW (D.N.J. Mar. 13, 2013);
Arthur Green and Amy Hamilton v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., No.
4:13-cv-11206 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 19, 2013); Juan Ortega v. H&R
Block, Inc., et al., No. 2:13-cv-02023-MMM-RZ (C.D. Cal. Mar. 20,
2013); and Nikki R. Nevill v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., No. 1316-
CV07264 (Jackson Cnty., Mo. Cir. Ct. Mar. 21, 2013)).  Taken
together, the plaintiffs in these actions purport to represent
clients nationwide who filed Form 8863 during tax season 2013
through an H&R Block office or using H&R Block at Home(R) online
tax services or tax preparation software, and allege breach of
contract, negligence and violation of state consumer laws in
connection with transmission of the form.  The plaintiffs seek
damages, pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company says it has not concluded that a loss related to these
lawsuits is probable, nor has it accrued a liability related to
these lawsuits.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses
to the claims in these cases and intends to defend the cases
vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of
these cases or their impact on the Company's consolidated
financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

Headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, H&R Block, Inc. --
http://www.hrblock.com/-- and its subsidiaries provide tax
preparation and banking services.  The Company's Tax Services
segment provides assisted income tax return preparation, digital
tax solutions and other services and products related to income
tax return preparation to the general public primarily in the
United States, and also in Canada and Australia.


H&R BLOCK: Motion to Compel Arbitration in Fee Litigation Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On April 16, 2012, and April 19, 2012, putative class action
lawsuits were filed against H&R Block, Inc. in Missouri state and
federal courts, respectively, concerning a compliance fee charged
to retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons.  These
cases are styled Manuel H. Lopez III v. H&R Block, Inc., et al.,
in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri (Case #
1216CV12290), and Ronald Perras v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri
(Case No. 4:12-cv-00450-DGK).  Taken together, the plaintiffs seek
to represent all retail tax clients nationwide who were charged
the compliance fee, and assert claims of violation of state
consumer laws, money had and received, and unjust enrichment.  The
Company is seeking to compel arbitration of certain claims.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 26, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended April 30, 2013.

The Company says it has not concluded that a loss related to these
lawsuits is probable, nor has it accrued a liability related to
either of these lawsuits.  The Company believes it has meritorious
defenses to the claims in these cases and intends to defend the
cases vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome
of these cases or their impact on the Company's consolidated
financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

Headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, H&R Block, Inc. --
http://www.hrblock.com/-- and its subsidiaries provide tax
preparation and banking services.  The Company's Tax Services
segment provides assisted income tax return preparation, digital
tax solutions and other services and products related to income
tax return preparation to the general public primarily in the
United States, and also in Canada and Australia.


H&R BLOCK: "Petroski" Suit Plaintiffs Appealed Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Petroski, et al., appealed from a summary judgment issued
in favor of H&R Block, Inc., according to the Company's June 26,
2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended April 30, 2013.

On January 25, 2010, a wage and hour class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Missouri styled Barbara Petroski, et al.
v. H&R Block Eastern Enterprises, Inc., et al., (Case No. 10-
00075-CV-W-DW).  The plaintiffs generally allege failure to
compensate tax professionals nationwide for training that is
required to be eligible for rehire the following tax season, and
seek compensatory damages, liquidated damages, statutory
penalties, pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs.  A
conditional class was certified under the Fair Labor Standards Act
in March 2011 (consisting of tax professionals nationwide who
worked in company-owned offices and who were not compensated for
such training on or after April 15, 2007).  Two classes were also
certified under state laws in California and New York (consisting
of tax professionals who worked in company-owned offices in
California and New York and who were not compensated for such
training on or after March 4, 2006, and on or after March 4, 2004,
respectively).  The Company filed a motion to decertify the
classes, along with a motion for summary judgment on all claims.

On April 8, 2013, the court granted summary judgment in the
Company's favor on all claims.  The plaintiffs filed an appeal,
which remains pending.

The Company says it has not concluded that a loss related to this
matter is probable, nor has it accrued a loss contingency related
to this matter.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses
to the claims in this matter and intends to defend them
vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of
the matter or its impact on the Company's consolidated financial
position, results of operations and cash flows.

Headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, H&R Block, Inc. --
http://www.hrblock.com/-- and its subsidiaries provide tax
preparation and banking services.  The Company's Tax Services
segment provides assisted income tax return preparation, digital
tax solutions and other services and products related to income
tax return preparation to the general public primarily in the
United States, and also in Canada and Australia.


H&R BLOCK: Plea to Compel Arbitration in RAL-Related Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A series of putative class action lawsuits were filed against H&R
Block, Inc. in various federal courts beginning on November 17,
2011 concerning the anticipation loan (RAL) and refund
anticipation check (RAC) products.  The plaintiffs generally
allege the Company engaged in unfair, deceptive or fraudulent acts
in violation of various state consumer protection laws by
facilitating RALs that were accompanied by allegedly inaccurate
Truth in Lending Act (TILA) disclosures, and by offering RACs
without any TILA disclosures.  Certain plaintiffs also allege
violation of disclosure requirements of various state statutes
expressly governing RALs and provisions of those statutes
prohibiting tax preparers from charging or retaining certain fees.
Collectively, the plaintiffs seek to represent clients who
purchased RAL or RAC products in up to forty-two states and the
District of Columbia during timeframes ranging from 2007 to the
present.  The plaintiffs seek equitable relief, disgorgement of
profits, compensatory and statutory damages, restitution, civil
penalties, attorneys' fees and costs.  These cases were
consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial
proceedings, styled IN RE: H&R Block Refund Anticipation Loan
Litigation (MDL No. 2373).  The Company filed a motion to compel
arbitration, which remains pending.

The Company says it has not concluded that a loss related to this
matter is probable, nor has it accrued a loss contingency related
to this matter.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses
to the claims in these cases and intends to defend the cases
vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome of
these cases or their impact on the Company's consolidated
financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 26, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended April 30, 2013.

Headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, H&R Block, Inc. --
http://www.hrblock.com/-- and its subsidiaries provide tax
preparation and banking services.  The Company's Tax Services
segment provides assisted income tax return preparation, digital
tax solutions and other services and products related to income
tax return preparation to the general public primarily in the
United States, and also in Canada and Australia.


H&R BLOCK: Trial Date in "Ugas" Class Suit Set for October 21
-------------------------------------------------------------
A trial date has been set for October 21, 2013, in the wage and
hour class action lawsuit initiated by Delana Ugas, et al.,
according to H&R Block, Inc.'s June 26, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended April 30, 2013.

On July 13, 2009, a wage and hour class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California styled Delana Ugas, et al. v. H&R
Block Enterprises LLC, et al. (Case No. BC417700).  The plaintiffs
generally allege failure to compensate tax professionals in
California for all hours worked and to provide meal periods.  The
plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, pre-judgment interest,
statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and costs.  The court
initially certified a class on the claim for failure to provide
meal periods (consisting of tax professionals who worked in
company-owned offices in California from 2006 to 2011), but
subsequently decertified the class in a ruling dated July 9, 2012.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to hear an appeal.
The court also certified a class on the claim for failure to
compensate tax professionals for all hours worked (consisting of
tax professionals who worked in company-owned offices in a single
district in California from 2006-2009).  That class remains
pending.  A trial date has been set for October 21, 2013.

The Company says it has not concluded that a loss related to this
matter is probable, nor has it accrued a loss contingency related
to this matter.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses
to the claims in this case and intends to defend them vigorously,
however, the Company does not currently believe this case is
material.

Headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, H&R Block, Inc. --
http://www.hrblock.com/-- and its subsidiaries provide tax
preparation and banking services.  The Company's Tax Services
segment provides assisted income tax return preparation, digital
tax solutions and other services and products related to income
tax return preparation to the general public primarily in the
United States, and also in Canada and Australia.


H&R BLOCK: Trial in RSM McGladrey-Related Suit Set for Sept. 9
--------------------------------------------------------------
A trial date has been set for September 9, 2013, on the remaining
claims in the lawsuit commenced by Brian P. Menezes, et al.,
according to H&R Block, Inc.'s June 26, 2013, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year
ended April 30, 2013.

On April 17, 2009, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed by
Brian Menezes, derivatively and on behalf of nominal defendant
International Textile Group, Inc. against McGladrey Capital
Markets LLC (MCM) in the Court of Common Pleas, Greenville County,
South Carolina (C.A. No. 2009-CP-23-3346) styled Brian P. Menezes,
Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant, International Textile
Group, Inc. (f/k/a Safety Components International, Inc.) v.
McGladrey Capital Markets, LLC (f/k/a RSM EquiCo Capital Markets,
LLC), et al.  The Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in October
2011 styled In re International Textile Group Merger Litigation,
adding a putative class action claim.  The Plaintiffs allege
claims of aiding and abetting, civil conspiracy, gross negligence
and breach of fiduciary duty against MCM in connection with a
fairness opinion MCM provided to the Special Committee of Safety
Components International, Inc. (SCI) in 2006 regarding the merger
between International Textile Group, Inc. and SCI.  The Plaintiffs
seek actual and punitive damages, pre-judgment interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.  On February 8, 2012, the court
dismissed plaintiffs' civil conspiracy claim against all
defendants.  A class was certified on the remaining claims on
November 20, 2012.

The court granted summary judgment in favor of MCM on June 3,
2013, on the breach of fiduciary duty claim.  A trial date has
been set for September 9, 2013 on the remaining claims.

The Company says it has not concluded that a loss related to this
matter is probable, nor has it established a loss contingency
related to this matter.  The Company believes it has meritorious
defenses to the claims in this case and intends to defend the case
vigorously, but there can be no assurances as to its outcome or
its impact on the Company's consolidated financial position,
results of operations and cash flows.

In connection with the sale of RSM and MCM, the Company
indemnified the buyers against certain litigation matters.  The
indemnities are not subject to a stated term or limit.  A portion
of the Company's accrual is related to these indemnity
obligations.

Headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, H&R Block, Inc. --
http://www.hrblock.com/-- and its subsidiaries provide tax
preparation and banking services.  The Company's Tax Services
segment provides assisted income tax return preparation, digital
tax solutions and other services and products related to income
tax return preparation to the general public primarily in the
United States, and also in Canada and Australia.


IEC ELECTRONICS: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Securities lawyers at Deans & Lyons announced a class action
against the board of IEC Electronics, Corp.  Concerned IEC
investors who purchased between February 8, 2012 and May 21, 2013
are encouraged to contact securities attorney Hamilton Lindley at
877-819-8033 or hlindley@deanslyons.com about their rights and
remedies before August 27, 2013.

"The suit filed against IEC accuses the company of misconstruing
inventory and thus overstating gross profits, a clear violation of
securities law standards," said Mr. Lindley.  "Our potential
securities fraud lawsuit will seek to restore value at the
company."

Deans & Lyons has significant experience representing shareholders
in securities lawsuits nationwide.  IEC stockholders -- or anyone
with knowledge about this situation -- should contact lawyer
Hamilton Lindley at hlindley@deanslyons.com or 877-819-8033 with
questions or concerns.

Contact: Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
         DEANS & LYONS LLP
         325 North Saint Paul Street, Suite 1500
         Dallas, TX 75201
         Tel: 214-736-7861
         Fax: 214-965-8505
         Toll-free: 877-819-8033
         E-mail: hlindley@deanslyons.com
         Web site: http://www.deanslyons.com


INSTAGRAM LLC: Faces Class Action Over New User Policy
------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee and Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, report
that Instagram LLC was hit with a proposed class action in
California state court on July 16 over the site's new policy that
allows it to hang on to users' photos after they delete their
accounts, just days after a federal judge tossed similar claims
for lack of jurisdiction.

The complaint comes just three days after a California federal
judge tossed a proposed class action alleging Instagram has rules
that violate California privacy laws by giving broad rights over
users' personal pictures, saying there is no federal court
jurisdiction in the matter.

That lawsuit was filed in December in response to Instagram's
changes to its user agreement, which triggered widespread backlash
because of the company's allegedly overreaching claims to the
rights of posted photos as well as liability conditions that
purportedly restricted users' ability to seek damages through
lawsuits or other means.

The new suit, brought by plaintiff Lucy Rodriguez on behalf of
Instagram's users who entrusted their photos to Instagram prior to
the announcement of the changes in December, says the new terms
allow the company to commercially exploit and sublicense users'
property in perpetuity.

"When a user deletes their Instagram profile, Instagram keeps all
property that was previously uploaded to Instagram's servers, even
though the user no longer has access to it," the complaint says.
"Instagram does not purge user photographs after they delete their
Instagram account, and does not segregate property uploaded prior
to notice of the new terms from property uploaded after the new
terms came into effect."

The Facebook-owned photo-sharing application allows its users to
take, edit and share images. Users can take photographs from their
Apple- or Android-powered mobile devices, apply artistic filters
to the images and upload the results to their Instagram profile.

Instagram announced the changes to its user policy in December and
they went into effect on Jan. 19.  Even though the new terms
significantly expand the scope of the license granted to Instagram
as to its users' photos, Instagram doesn't purge users' data if
they delete their account or provide a mechanism to opt out of the
new terms, according to the complaint.

Ms. Rodriguez argues that, based on statements made by the company
and the language of Instagram's new terms granting the site
"transferrable and sublicensable" worldwide license to the
photographs and likeness of its users, Instagram is negotiating
contracts with advertisers or other third parties to sublicense
class members' property for the purposes of advertising.

Ms. Rodriguez seeks an order declaring the suit is properly
maintained as a class action, a temporary restraining order
enjoining Instagram from enforcing the new terms, an order for
injunctive, declaratory and other equitable relief, and an order
awarding attorneys' fees and costs of suit.

Representatives for the parties didn't immediately return requests
for comment on July 17.

Ms. Rodriguez is represented by Jeffrey R. Krinsk --
jrk@classactionlaw.com -- Mark L. Knutson --
mlk@classactionlaw.com -- and William R. Restis of Finkelstein &
Krinsk LLP.

Counsel information for Instagram wasn't immediately available on
July 17.

The case is Lucy Rodriguez v. Instagram LLC, case number CGC-13-
532875, in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco.


INSTAGRAM LLC: Judge Tosses Privacy Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that a federal
judge on July 12 tossed a proposed class action alleging
Instagram, the Facebook Inc.-owned photo sharing application, has
rules that violate California privacy laws by giving it broad
rights over users' personal pictures, saying there is no federal
court jurisdiction in the matter.

The lawsuit was filed in December in response to Instagram's
changes to its user agreement.  When the changes were announced,
it triggered widespread backlash because of the company's
allegedly overreaching claims to the rights of posted photos as
well as liability conditions that purportedly restricted users'
ability to seek damages through lawsuits or other means.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup said on July 12 that he agreed
with Instagram's motion to dismiss and declined to exercise
jurisdiction based on the "home-state controversy" exception to
Class Action Fairness Act.

"This order also determines that leave to amend should not be
granted since, among other things, the sole purpose of the
amendment would be to contrive federal subject-matter
jurisdiction," Judge Alsup said.

He said the complaint asserts a class of California residents, and
noted CAFA contains an exception for home-state controversies.

"District courts 'shall decline to exercise jurisdiction' under
[the act] where 'two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed
plaintiff classes in the aggregate, and the primary defendants,
are citizens of the state in which the action was originally
filed,'" the judge said.  "The home-state controversy exception
plainly applies."

He said a consumer class defined as California residents is, by
and large, a class of people who actually live in California, and
that the unusual case in which a California resident actually
lives in another state "is so rare as to fall far short of the
one-third needed to defeat the exception."

"The aberrated case could be, for example, a soldier stationed in
California (and thus a resident) but whose domicile is New Mexico.
Yes, there will be some of those but they will be few and far
between.  The idea that at least one-third of all California
residents claim a domicile elsewhere is fanciful," Judge Alsup
said.

And he said the proposed second amended complaint would "skirt
around" the home-state controversy exception by alleging a
nationwide class, while still asserting California law claims.

"The amendment in question is not aimed at the merits.  Instead it
is aimed at contriving subject matter jurisdiction where none
previously existed.  The contrived character of the amendment
seems plain.  It is one thing to apply California law to
adjudicate the claims of a California class (this is a normal
occurrence) but quite another to apply California law to
adjudicate the rights of the residents of the other 49 states,"
the judge said.

The judge said he has worked through that same issue in many
previous proposed nationwide class actions.

"When the claims are based on state law, as here, the law of 50
states is likely to apply (in absence of a choice-of-law
provision) and it is unmanageable. And, a single resident in
California with standing to assert California claims is not an
adequate representative of residents, say, in Hawaii, who might be
better off having their rights adjudicated under their own state
law," he said.

He said the lawsuit would likely require a choice-of-law analysis
for all 50 states and would further necessitate the application of
contract law for all 50 states.

"We've read over the opinion of the judge and we'll respect the
holding indicating uncertainty as to federal jurisdiction and
we'll refile in state court," plaintiffs' attorney Jeffrey R.
Krinsk of Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP said on July 16.

Counsel for Instagram declined to comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by William R. Restis, Jeffrey R.
Krinsk and Mark L. Knutson of Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP.

Instagram is represented by Mazda K. Antia -- mantia@cooley.com --
Michael G. Rhodes -- rhodesmg@cooley.com -- and Matthew D. Brown
-- brownmd@cooley.com -- of Cooley LLP.

The case is Lucy Funes v. Instagram Inc. et al., case number 3:12-
cv-06482, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Approves $546MM Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that customers of MF
Global's failed broker-dealer unit and the trustee overseeing its
liquidation won court approval on July 3 for a $546 million
settlement with JPMorgan Chase & Co.

The settlement, announced in March, resolved claims levied by
James Giddens, the trustee winding down MF's broker-dealer unit MF
Global Inc., and by the broker's former customers, who are
pursuing a federal class action over MF Global's collapse in 2011.

MF Global, the commodities brokerage headed by ex-New Jersey
Governor Jon Corzine, filed for bankruptcy amid concerns by
investors about its exposure to $6.3 billion in sovereign debt.

Approval of the JPMorgan settlement comes a week after the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission sued Gov. Corzine over the
collapse and announced a $100 million settlement with MF's broker-
dealer.

At a rare joint hearing in Manhattan, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Martin
Glenn, who is overseeing the liquidation, and U.S. District Judge
Victor Marrero, who presides over the class action, approved the
JPMorgan accord.

"I find the proposal fair, reasonable and in the best interests of
the class," Mr. Marrero said.

Mr. Giddens has said the settlement will allow him to eventually
return 100 percent of customers' money, which was frozen when MF
Global went bankrupt.  Most customers have already recovered
around 90 percent of their funds.

JPMorgan had been the lead on a $1.2 billion revolving credit
facility to MF Global's parent and one of its primary clearing
banks leading up to its bankruptcy.

Under the settlement, JPMorgan will pay $100 million to benefit
former customers.  It has also agreed to return more than $29
million in brokerage funds and to release claims on $417 million
it earlier returned to Mr. Giddens.

The latest settlement also ties up a loose end in Mr. Giddens'
settlement with MF Global's UK unit, announced earlier this year.
That settlement, expected to bring in $500 million to $600 million
for the broker-dealer's estate, required a resolution of
JPMorgan's claims.

"The overall settlement unlocks over $1 billion for customers and
other creditors," James Kobak, the lead attorney for Giddens, said
at the July 3 court hearing.

The bank will make a separate $7.5 million payment for attorneys'
fees and expenses to lawyers representing the customers in the
class action, court papers show. Marrero approved the fees
Wednesday.

The cases are In re: MF Global Inc, U.S. Bankruptcy Court,
Southern District of New York, No. 11-2790, and Deangelis v.
Corzine, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No.
11-7866.


LENOVO GROUP: Judge Trims Claims in Defective Laptop Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Drew Singer, writing for Law360, reports that a federal judge in
California trimmed a class action lawsuit against computer maker
Lenovo on July 16 that claims some of its laptops connect to
wireless Internet slowly or don't connect at all, but he left
intact some of the suit's most crucial components.

U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney refused to dismiss the lawsuit's
request for a permanent injunction requiring Lenovo to establish a
common fund for repairs of its U Series laptops, despite argument
from the computer company that its defects were public knowledge
prior to their sale.  The judge also left intact claims under
California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.

"The fact that information about consumer complaints may have been
available on the Internet does not negate a claim for fraudulent
omission," Judge Carney wrote.

Lenovo had cited customer complaints posted on its website and
Facebook page, reviews on Amazon.com and other online retailers,
plus a negative review from an online publication as forms of
disclosure that would have exempted the manufacturer from
liability.

But by dismissing some of lead plaintiff Garrett Kacsuta's claims,
Judge Carney may have reduced the statutory damages Lenovo will
ultimately pay if the plaintiff's other claims succeed.

Judge Carney dismissed a claim against Lenovo for breach of an
express warranty, because Mr. Kacsuta filed the lawsuit before
giving Lenovo a chance to repair or otherwise correct its alleged
mistake.

Another claim was dismissed that alleged a breach of an implied
contract, because there was an actual contract governing the
purported implications.

"Kacsuta's complaint acknowledges the existence of an express
enforceable contract between the parties, the warranty, governing
their rights and responsibilities with respect to his laptop,"
Judge Carney wrote.  "There are no allegations in the complaint to
suggest that the warranty is unenforceable."

In February, Mr. Kacsuta asked a federal judge for the injunction
plus an award for actual, statutory and punitive damages because
the company's laptops allegedly had a design flaw that made the
Wi-Fi cards ineffective for standard Web browsing.

Lenovo's $50 million advertising campaign told customers that the
U Series computers could "handle any mobile computing task" and
are "dependable enough to use whenever you want," the complaint
says.

Attorneys for the parties could not be reached for comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Paul Paradis --
pparadis@hhplawny.com -- Gina Tufaro -- gtufaro@hhplawny.com --
and Mark Butler -- MButler@hhplawny.com -- of Horwitz Horwitz &
Paradis.

Lenovo is represented by Allan Gabriel -- agabriel@dykema.com --
Vivian S. Lee -- vlee@dykema.com -- and Daniel Stephenson --
dstephenson@dykema.com -- of Dykema Gossett LLP.

The case is Garrett Kacsuta v. Lenovo, case number 8:13-cv-00316,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Faces Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Securities lawyers at Deans & Lyons announced a class action
against Lululemon Athletica.  Concerned LULU investors who
purchased between March 21, 2013 and June 10, 2013 are encouraged
to contact securities attorney Hamilton Lindley at 877-819-8033 or
hlindley@deanslyons.com about their rights and remedies by
September 3, 2013.

"The complaint accuses Lululemon and its directors with issuing
misleading and potentially false statements in regards to future
business and existing product quality," said Mr. Lindley.  "Our
potential shareholder lawsuit will seek to ensure that all
relevant information is disclosed to shareholders."

Deans & Lyons has significant experience representing shareholders
in securities lawsuits nationwide.  LULU stockholders -- or anyone
with knowledge about this situation -- should contact lawyer
Hamilton Lindley at hlindley@deanslyons.com or 877-819-8033 with
questions or concerns.

Contact: Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
         DEANS & LYONS, LLP
         325 North Saint Paul Street, Suite 1500
         Dallas, TX 75201
         Toll-free: 877-819-8033
         Tel: 214-965-8500
         Fax: 214-965-8505
         E-mail: hlindley@deanslyons.com
         Web site: http://www.deanslyons.com


MADISON-KIPP CORP: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Simmons, writing for Wisconsin State Journal, reports that a
Dane County judge on July 17 gave initial approval of the $2.6
million settlement reached between Madison-Kipp Corp. and 52
neighboring homeowners on South Marquette, Waubesa, Dixon and
Fairview streets to settle an environmental impact lawsuit.

"I do find it is fair, just, reasonable and adequate," Dane County
Circuit Judge Richard Niess said of the settlement, which would
give each property in the class-action suit about $32,000 in
addition to other measures.  The settlement now goes to the
homeowners for review, with a hearing to make the settlement final
scheduled for Sept. 19, also before Judge Niess.

In the settlement, Kipp agreed to continue to investigate and
remediate environmental conditions.  The company will also pay for
each home to receive a sub-slab depressurization system, similar
to those used in radon remediation, which draws gases out from
under the homes, along with a soil vapor extraction system.

Chicago lawyer Michael Hayes, one of the lawyers for homeowners in
this lawsuit plus others in a separate federal suit, said the
promise of a sub-slab depressurization system was particularly
important, as only about 8 of the 52 homes have those systems
currently.

Mr. Hayes said he had met on July 15 with some of the 52
homeowners in the state case and the settlement was "extremely
favorably received."  Another meeting will occur soon, he said.

Under questioning from Judge Niess, Mr. Hayes said, "there's
absolutely no reason to believe" any of the neighbors will oppose
the settlement.

The other suit, involving a $4.6 million settlement that
encompasses a separate set of 33 homes adjacent to Kipp's Waubesa
Street plant on South Marquette and Waubesa streets, will have a
hearing on final approval before U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb
on Oct. 28.  Homeowners in that suit have until Aug. 23 to file a
claim or opt out.


MEDTRONIC INC: Stockholders File Class Action Over Infuse
---------------------------------------------------------
Nathaniel Zimmerman, writing for Injury Lawyer News, reports that
on June 27, a Medtronic Infuse class action lawsuit was filed by
stockholders alleging that misleading statements about the safety
and efficacy of Infuse led them to buy stock in the company at
inflated prices.  The plaintiffs claim that they bought the stock
because they believed that Infuse was a safe and effective bone
graft product, based on information provided by the company to the
public and to government regulatory agencies.  When information
later surfaced showing that Medtronic may have covered up Infuse
bone graft problems, company stock prices plummeted and investors
lost money as a result.

Infuse bone grafts

When a patient must undergo bone surgery, the traditional method
often involved removing some bone tissue from one part of the
patient's body and grafting it into the surgical site.  Often, the
bone tissue was taken from the hip.  The removal of bone tissue
from the hip or another body part can result in numerous
complications and side effects, including pain, infection, and a
lengthy recovery period.

Medtronic introduced Infuse in 2002 with FDA approval and marketed
it to patients as a better alternative to bone removal and
grafting.  Instead of using bone tissue, Infuse contains a protein
that causes the body to grow new bone. The Infuse bone graft is
placed at the surgical site and the new bone grows into the
implant over time.  Infuse is approved for use in spinal surgery
in the lower back, for tibial fractures, and for two dental
procedures.

Infuse bone graft problems

Although initial studies certified the safety and efficacy of
Infuse, it was later revealed that Medtronic may have influenced
the results of the study by paying a total of $210 million to
researchers investigating the product.  Congressional
investigators found that the company appeared to have deliberately
removed or left out information about the risks and side effects
of Infuse, which include back and leg pain, extra unwanted bone
growth, male sterility, and infection.  Infuse has also been
linked to a higher risk of cancer.

Recent studies reviewed all data on clinical trials of Infuse and
found that in addition to producing side effects and a possibly
increased cancer risk, Infuse is also no more effective than
traditional bone graft surgery.  Some researchers claim that in
light of this information, the balance of risk and reward no
longer favors the use of Infuse bone grafts.

In addition to these problems, Medtronic has also been accused of
marketing Infuse for off-label uses.  The product has not been
approved for these uses, and in some cases, patients receiving
Infuse off-label have experienced more severe side effects or
complications than patients who received Infuse for approved
surgeries.

Medtronic Infuse bone class action lawsuit

According to the Medtronic Infuse class action lawsuit, many
stockholders bought Medtronic stock at inflated prices due to the
false information available about Infuse and then lost money when
the truth about Infuse came to light.  The West Virginia Pipe
Trades Health & Welfare Fund filed the complaint on behalf of all
such stockholders.  The complaint says prices were elevated
between December 8, 2010 and August 3, 2011.  Stock prices dropped
over $10 per share between May 18, 2011 and August 4, 2011 as a
result of a series of academic papers and news articles addressing
the problems with Infuse.


MEDTRONIC INC: USDA Recalls MiniMed Paradigm Insulin Pump
---------------------------------------------------------
James Walsh, writing for Star Tribune, reports that the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration on July 12, announced the recall of a
Medtronic Inc. product used with the company's Paradigm insulin
pump, saying the product could result in diabetes patients
dangerously getting too much -- or too little -- insulin.

The Class I recall involves Medtronic's MiniMed Paradigm Insulin
Infusion Sets.  Last month, Medtronic sent an urgent safety
notification to doctors and other health care professionals
warning that if insulin or other fluids come into contact with the
inside of the device's tubing connectors, it could temporarily
block the vents that allow the pump to properly prime.  If that
happens, the patient may receive too much or too little insulin,
potentially leading to serious illness, the FDA said.

A Class I recall is issued on products when "there is a reasonable
chance that they could cause serious health problems or death."

Amanda Sheldon, a Medtronic spokeswoman, said on July 12 that the
company has received some reports of hospitalizations that may be
related to this problem, although those cases have not been
confirmed. She said she cannot confirm any deaths in connection to
the problem.

Medtronic's diabetes-related products accounted for about 9
percent of the company's $16.4 billion revenue last year.

Fewer than 500,000 patients worldwide use the Paradigm pump and
customers generally replace their infusion sets every two to three
days.  Customers could have several months' worth of supplies.
Affected models were manufactured from October 2001 through
June 2013 and distributed from December 2001 through June 2013.  A
list of affected models can be found online on the FDA's website.

Patients also can contact Medtronic's 24-hour helpline at 1-888-
204-7616.  In a message to patients on its website, Medtronic said
there is no need to replace the infusion sets in question.

Insulin pumps have been around for about 30 years and are an
alternative to injections for diabetes patients who need insulin
to maintain healthy blood glucose levels.  They pump tiny amounts
of insulin into the body all day long.  Patients can keep it in
their pocket, clipped to their belt or hidden under their clothes.
A tiny tube goes from the pump to a smaller tube, called the
cannula, that is just beneath the patient's skin.  This tubing is
the infusion set.

In its message, Medtronic recommends to patients that if they
notice anything unusual during the infusion set prime process --
such as the insulin continuing to drip from the tip of the
infusion set cannula when priming has been completed -- it may
mean the connector vents are not working properly.  If this
occurs, Medtronic said to not insert the infusion set but
immediately call the helpline for assistance.

"As long as liquid does not get on the inside of the tubing
connector, your infusion set should work as it's supposed to," the
company wrote.  "We are reminding customers of the instructions
for filling their reservoir, and asking them to pay particular
attention to making sure the vial of insulin is held upright when
removing the reservoir from the blue transfer guard.  If you do
see any liquid on the top of the reservoir or inside of the tubing
connector, be sure to start over with a new reservoir and infusion
set."

Also on July 12, Medtronic announced it is recalling certain
manufacturing lots of Paradigm reservoirs that may have the
potential to leak.  The reservoir is the part of the pump that
contains the insulin.  A leak in the reservoir may result in
delivery of less insulin than intended.  Medtronic said it will be
contacting patients and asking them to check the lot numbers on
the reservoirs they have on hand, and to stop using reservoirs
from the recalled lot numbers immediately.


NEWCREST MINING: Slater & Gordon Gets Funding for Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Fitzgerald, writing for The Australian, reports that
law firm Slater & Gordon has secured litigation funding from the
US group Comprehensive Legal Funding for a potential class action
against Newcrest over its continuous disclosure controversy.

Slater & Gordon have been investigating whether Newcrest
shareholders have any causes of action arising from the heavy
share price falls posted by the goldminer as a result of its
market update on June 7, which revealed up to AUD6 billion in
writedowns, a production downgrade and cancellation of its final
dividend.

While CLF has agreed to fund both the investigation and any
follow-up litigation against Newcrest, it is likely to be on the
basis that a sufficient number of shareholders first sign up to
funding agreements for any action.

Just how Slater & Gordon's round-up of interested investors has
gone could not be ascertained on July 18.

CLF is best known in this market for having funded the Slater &
Gordon class action against Sigma Pharmaceuticals.  That action
was settled in December last year for AUD57.7 million.

Newcrest's June 7 market update came almost eight weeks after the
gold price suffered its biggest one day loss in 33 years.  So
while Newcrest's share price was under pressure, anyway, the
shares did fall heavily in the days immediately before the market
update, prompting accusations of the selective briefings of
analysts.

The accusations were a response to the flurry of negative broker
reports ahead of the market update.

Newcrest has denied it has done anything wrong, saying in response
to a query from the ASX after the June 7 update that it treats its
"disclosure obligations seriously and engages with the investment
community in a manner consistent with these obligations".

ASIC is investigating whether Newcrest has a case to answer under
section 674 of the Corporations Act.  ASIC has the power to issue
infringement fines and can pursue criminal and civil penalty
actions while Newcrest has called in former ASX chairman Maurice
Newman to conduct an internal probe.

Announcing the probe last month, Newcrest chairman Don Mercer
said: "We don't think we've done anything wrong.  Let's be quite
clear about that."  But he added that if Newcrest had done
something wrong it would "hold people accountable from top to
bottom".

Another law firm, Maurice Blackburn, has said previously it was
also investigating a class action against Newcrest for potential
breaches of continuous disclosure laws.

Meanwhile, Newcrest executive general manager Peter Smith
yesterday echoed previous comments by Newcrest managing director
Greg Robinson that the group's Lihir goldmine in PNG -- acquired
for AUD10 billion and now the subject of a AUD3.6 billion
impairment charge -- was one of the group's top assets.


NVIDIA CORP: Sept. 30 Hearing Set to Approve Settlement Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harrison Pensa LLP on July 18 disclosed that a settlement has been
reached with NVIDIA Corporation in a class action lawsuit brought
on behalf of Canadians who purchased a computer for use and not
for resale equipped with a defective NVIDIA graphics card known as
either a Graphics Processing Unit or a Media Communications Chip
("GPUs").  The proposed settlement is subject to court approval.

Under the terms of the settlement, NVIDIA will pay CAD$1,900,000
for the benefit of those Canadians who purchased an "Affected
Computer" that experienced a "Qualifying Symptom": (a) distorted
or scrambled video on the computer screen; (b) no video on the
screen even when the computer is on; (c) random characters, lines
or garbled images on the computer screen; (d) intermittent video
issues; or (e) failure to detect wireless adaptor or wireless
networks. Not all computers contain the defective NVIDIA GPU.  The
exact dates of sale and qualifying symptoms vary by computer
manufacturer.

Qualifying class members will receive cash compensation based on
the severity of the Qualifying Symptoms experienced, the loss of
use of the computer, the age of the Affected Computer, any out-of-
pocket repair expenses, any loss of use, and other relevant
factors.  Information about how to submit a claim will be provided
once the settlement has been approved.

Class members who fall within the definition of the class and who
want to participate as a class member in the NVIDIA Graphics
Processing Units Class Action, need not do anything to continue to
be included as a class member.  They will be entitled to
participate in the Settlement and will be legally bound by the
result of the NVIDIA Graphics Processing Units Class Action.

Class members who do not want to be part of the NVIDIA Graphics
Processing Units Class Action must exclude themselves by
September 16, 2013.

A hearing to approve the settlement agreement will take place in
London, Ontario on September 20, 2013 at 9:30 AM.


PAYDAY FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over High Interest Rates
-------------------------------------------------------------
Timberlakesouthdakota.com reports that Timber Lake's largest
employer, Payday Financial/Lakota Cash, is facing a class action
lawsuit filed in US District Court in Pierre.

Attorney Wade Fischer of Pierre filed the suit against Payday
owner and president Butch Webb of Isabel on behalf of clients who
say they received loans from Webb's companies and were charged
interest rates higher than allowed in their states.

Legal counsel for Webb had this comment: "While it would be
inappropriate for Mr. Webb or his legal counsel to discuss an
ongoing proceeding, we look forward to correcting the record in
this matter.  This litigation is a direct attack against on-
reservation economic development opportunities and if successful
may result in a loss of tribal member jobs."

In September, 2011 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a
complaint against Webb for allegedly attempting to garnish
clients' wages illegally.  That case is still pending, as are
actions in several states, including Colorado, West Virginia,
Maryland and Washington.

Mr. Webb has argued that only the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe has
jurisdiction over his company, as he is a CRST member operating on
the reservation.

Payday Financial is headquartered in Timber Lake and also has a
call center in Eagle Butte.  Over 100 people are employed at the
two locations.


PILOT FLYING J: Truck Driver & Two Law Firms File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Sanders, writing for New Hampshire Business Review, reports
that a New Hampshire truck driver and two local law firms have
filed yet another class action suit against Pilot Corp. and Pilot
Travel Centers (known as Pilot Flying J), accusing the national
truck stop chain of shorting its customers on fuel rebates.

The suit was filed a week before Pilot announced the preliminary
court approval of national settlement.

Fred Woodward, a long-distance trucker from Epping, filed suit in
U.S. District Court in Concord on July 9, aided by four law firms,
including Dover-based Shaheen and Gordon and Bonsignore and Brewer
of Belmont.  William Shaheen, husband of U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen,
was one of the lawyers listed in the filing.

The suit echoes many of the 20 (and counting) lawsuits filed since
April against the nation's largest truck stop operator.  They were
filed after the FBI and IRS raided the company's Knoxville, Tenn.,
headquarters as part of an ongoing federal probe into the rebate
scheme.

The New Hampshire lawsuit, citing secretly made recordings based
on FBI affidavits used to justify the April 15 raid, said the
company paid "unsophisticated customers" less in rebates than
others, sometimes by manually changing spreadsheets.

Informants also allegedly recorded training sessions during which
sales representatives were advised to commit the fraud and were
told how to determine which customers would have more difficulty
discovering the price discrepancies.

The suit charges that Pilot executives discussed teaching the
"rebate fraud system" at Pilot's sales meetings as well as how to
deflect questions by blaming any error on a computer glitch.

Pilot CEO James Haslam III, President Mark Hazelwood and Chief
Financial Officer Mitch Steenrod were aware of the fraud and
consented to it, according to the suit.

The New Hampshire suit class would include all truckers -- not
limited to those in New Hampshire -- receiving rebates dating back
to 2005. It does not spell out a figure, but said that at least
1,000 truckers would be affected and the amount to be over $5
million.

There is one Pilot truck stop in New Hampshire, located on Route
3A in Bow near Interstate 93.

No information about Woodward is provided in the New Hampshire
lawsuit, and he could not be reached for comment.  Calls to all
plaintiff law firms involved in the suit (including one in Georgia
and another in Ohio) were not returned by NHBR deadline.

It is unclear how the class action settlement filed on July 16 in
Little Rock, Ark., would affect the New Hampshire litigation.
Although the Arkansas settlement only involved the eight firms
involved in that lawsuit -- first filed on April 24, nine days
after the FBI raid -- it includes all truckers who received a
discount from 2008 forward.

The settlement offers a full rebate, plus 6 percent interest, plus
attorney's fees.  The settlement does not spell out the fees, but
USA Today reported the deal enables attorneys to receive one-third
of the settlement amount, capped at a total of $14 million.

Such an early settlement that includes attorney's fees is unusual.

Some observers credit the firm with quick damage control.
Mr. Haslam -- who's also majority owner of the Cleveland Browns --
released a statement saying that the company was settling in order
to "do the right thing" so that customers "are made whole as soon
as possible with interest," without them "incurring extraordinary
legal or investigation expenses."

"Customers who are concerned about their accounts may join the
class by simply doing nothing," Mr. Haslam said.

Pilot has 600 retail locations, sells 9 billions gallons of
petroleum annually and employs 25,000 people.


PILOT FLYING J: Lawyer Opposes Fuel Rebate Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Walter F. Roche Jr., writing for The Tennessean, reports that a
Knoxville attorney for a trucking firm suing Pilot Flying J said
he is advising his clients and others not to join a settlement
with the truck stop chain that was approved earlier last week by a
federal judge.

Drew McElroy, one of the attorneys for Georgia-based Atlantic
Coast Carriers, said the eight firms that have accepted the offer
will be getting little more than what had already been promised by
Pilot CEO Jimmy Haslam to all companies that were shorted rebates.

Under the settlement, the trucking companies would get the amount
they were shorted plus 6 percent interest.  Mr. Haslam for several
weeks has said publicly that his company would pay back any money
owed with interest, and on July 15 he shared with news media a
letter sent to customers that promised interest at 6 percent.

Mr. McElroy said it was astonishing that a settlement would come
before there was any gathering of evidence, or questioning of
witnesses in depositions.

The proposed settlement was approved on July 16 by U.S. District
Judge James M. Moody in Little Rock, Ark.

Mr. McElroy noted that under the 38-page agreement, Pilot did not
admit to any wrongdoing and the victims will get no payments for
punitive damages.

"Pilot rebate fraud occurred on top of the toughest economic times
for the trucking industry," he said, adding it was understandable
that some victims "will accept these terms simply because of
economic pressure."

But, he said, it is "hard to comprehend how breaking even with a
company that has perpetrated fraud is a good deal."

Defending the settlement was Elizabeth A. Alexander, a Nashville
attorney whose law firm represents a Nebraska trucker, Paul Otto,
who has agreed to the settlement.

She noted that the agreement also calls for audits to ensure that
the calculations by the Pilot audit team are accurate.  The
agreement calls for Horne LLP to perform audits on a sample of the
accounts.

"It also includes an agreement that Pilot will not engage in those
practices in the future," she said.  "Pilot's commercial customers
will get every penny they are owed."

                       Legal fees separate

Dennis Francis, another Knoxville attorney, noted that the
settlement provides for the attorneys to get a payment equal to
one-third of the settlement amount or $14 million, whichever is
smaller.

"It looks to me like all the money is going to the lawyers,"
Mr. Francis said.  "How do you settle something without doing
anything?"

The legal fees will be paid by Pilot and are separate from the
estimated $42 million set aside for trucking firms owed rebates.

The settlement stems from a practice within Pilot in which sales
staff promised certain rebates to truckers on diesel fuel
purchases, but then reduced those rebates for customers they
thought wouldn't realize the discrepancy.  Five Pilot employees
have pleaded guilty to the scheme in plea bargains with
prosecutors, and a federal investigation that could result in
charges against the company or more executives remains under way.


PILOT FLYING J: Lawyer Says Fuel Rebate Settlement Intriguing
-------------------------------------------------------------
WBIR-Knoxville reports that in the three months since the FBI raid
at Pilot Flying J headquarters on April 15, lawsuits against the
fuel company related to allegations of rebate fraud have come out
of the woodwork.  As of last week there were 21 lawsuits against
Pilot Flying J.

Now eight of the suing law firms and Pilot Flying J have worked
out a class action settlement agreement in federal court.  On
July 16, a federal judge in Arkansas gave his preliminary approval
to the plan.  The agreement says Pilot will audit itself to
determine how much it underpaid each of its customers, have the
results certified by a court-approved accountant, and repay every
company that was short-changed what they are owed plus six percent
interest.  Pilot also agrees to cover all legal costs and fees.
Clients have the right to dispute any audit results.

The agreement is also noteworthy for what it does not include.
Pilot specifically states it does not admit any wrong-doing.  The
agreement also does not include any punitive damages.  The use of
a court-approved accountant while Pilot self-audits also means the
private fuel company does not open its financial records to the
public.

Knoxville lawyer and WBIR Inside Tennessee panelist Dennis Francis
says the agreement is intriguing because it was apparently
arranged without any of the suing law firms digging through
Pilot's financial records.

"There has been absolutely no discovery done in this case, best I
know," said Mr. Francis.  "There has been no depositions,
interrogatories, or review of documents.  So it is quite
interesting that there would be a settlement proposal made without
anybody talking about it."

While the agreement says Pilot does not admit to doing anything
wrong, it also includes a provision where Pilot agrees not to
engage in any deceptive practices or rebate fraud in the future.

"They [Pilot] are agreeing whatever they've done wrong, even
though they don't admit they've done anything wrong, they're not
going to do in the future," said Francis.

The proposed agreement says more than 4,000 Pilot Flying J
customers may qualify for the settlement.  Customers are
automatically included in the class action settlement, unless the
companies seek an exclusion.

Knoxville lawyer Drew McElroy was one of the first to file a
lawsuit against Pilot in the wake of the FBI raid.  Mr. McElroy
told 10News he will advise his clients to opt out of the class
action settlement and continue with their lawsuits.

"They make no provision for punitive damages," said Mr. McElroy.
"It is a case of fraud.  We will advise our clients to opt out of
the class."

Mr. McElroy said he does not fault those who decide to take the
quick settlement because some trucking companies need the money
sooner than later.

Pilot CEO Jimmy Haslam issued a statement to that end, saying the
settlement allows the fuel company and plaintiffs "to avoid
further expense, inconvenience, and the distraction of burdensome
and protracted litigation."

Statement by Pilot Flying J CEO Jimmy Haslam: "[July 16] in the
United States District Court, Western Division of the Eastern
District of Arkansas, our attorneys, working together with
attorneys for eight of the companies that have filed class action
lawsuits against Pilot Flying J, agreed to a plan to pay all
customers who join the class 100% of the money they are owed, plus
6% interest, as soon as possible and without the need for
unnecessary time in court, plaintiff legal fees or out of pocket
costs.  I commend all of these individuals for their hard work and
dedication to ensuring our customers are paid back quickly and
fairly for any potential discrepancies found in their accounts.

"Customers who already received checks with interest based on our
internal field audit team's ongoing review will receive
supplemental checks for any additional interest not included in
the original calculation.  In addition, all of our customers, as
defined by the court agreement, may join the class and have a free
independent accountant, approved by the court, validate Pilot
Flying J's internal audit process of the customer's account.

"In addition, Pilot Flying J will pay all court, administrative,
accounting, mailing, processing and legal costs incurred as part
of the procedure approved by the court [July 16], ensuring our
customers will get every dollar they are owed, with interest,
without protracted legal battles, time delays or costly legal
expenses.

"Under the court agreement, Pilot Flying J will distribute a
statement to all of its customers and to the media as part of
notice provision to ensure all of our customers have the
opportunity to resolve any concerns they may have in this fashion.
We also will make available to attorneys for the class a mailing
of all of our customers.

"Customers who are satisfied with their accounts may continue with
business as usual, and we assure them our utmost attention, 24-7,
365 days a year, serving them and their drivers.  Customers who
are concerned about their accounts may join the class by simply
doing nothing.  Their accounts will be audited free to the
customer.  Finally, customers have the right to opt out and pursue
their own legal objectives at their own expense, which can be
significant.

"This is an unfortunate time for our customers and our company,
but we remain committed to making things 100% right with our
customers, to put systems in place to help ensure this does not
happen again, and to re-earn our customers trust."


PILOT FLYING J: July 25 Judicial Panel Meeting in Rebate Suit Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Convenience Store News reports that Pilot Flying J's legal
troubles continue in the criminal courts -- with a federal grand
jury currently investigating the company's alleged rebate fraud --
but things could be moving toward a resolution on the civil front.

According to a news release from Pilot Flying J, a motion was
filed in Arkansas federal court regarding a proposed class
settlement that could resolve the more than 20 lawsuits filed
against the company since the April 15 raid on its Knoxville,
Tenn., headquarters.  National Trucking Financial Reclamation
Services, Bruce Taylor, Edis Trucking, Jerry Floyd, Mike Campbell,
Paul Otto, Townes Trucking and R&R Transportation are involved in
the settlement.

The terms of the settlement include:

   -- An audit of accounts of all customers who received a rebate
and/or discount from Pilot Flying J dating back to 2008.

   -- All customers will receive 100 percent of any money owed,
with 6 percent interest, as soon as discrepancies are verified.

   -- An independent accountant, approved by the court and paid
for by Pilot Flying J, will validate Pilot Flying J's internal
audit process.

   -- The right to dispute audit results.

   -- Customers have the opportunity to opt out because they do
not like the agreement or because they simply do not want to
participate in the class action.

   -- Pilot Flying J will pay all costs related to the process of
the customer claims and the litigation, which includes audit costs
(both internal and external), administrative costs and legal fees,
saving customers significant time and money.

A judge has granted preliminary approval to the settlement,
according to a report by WBIR-TV. More than 4,000 Pilot Flying J
customers fall into the settlement class.  Each one will
automatically be included in the class settlement unless the
companies seek an exclusion, the news report noted.

In a statement, Pilot Flying J CEO Jimmy Haslam commended the
individuals who worked hard toward settling the issues.  "This is
an unfortunate time for our customers and our company, but we
remain committed to making things 100 percent right with our
customers, to put systems in place to help ensure this does not
happen again and to re-earn our customers trust," he said.

The company's legal troubles stem from allegations of fraud around
its rebate fuel program.  After a two-year investigation, federal
officials raided Pilot Flying J's headquarters in mid-April.  In
the two months since the raid, five former employees have pleaded
guilty in connection with the alleged rebate fraud and more than
20 lawsuits have been filed against the company, many of them
seeking class-action status.

Las Cruces, N.M.-based Triple D Supply became the 21st company to
bring a lawsuit against Pilot Flying J, filing in federal court.
It is the first company from New Mexico to sue the retailer, WBIR-
TV reported.  The news station noted that the federal lawsuits are
expected to merge into one large lawsuit when a judicial panel
meets July 25.

Since the raid, several Pilot Flying J employees have left the
company -- either by their choice or the company's -- and checks
have been sent to all customers who had a discrepancy with their
rebate discounts, according to an update letter sent to customers
by Mr. Haslam.  In the letter, he said Pilot Flying J's audit team
has completed its initial review of manual diesel discounts and
sent checks to customers who had a discrepancy, in their favor.
In addition, six sales team members have resigned or been
terminated.

The letter also reports that Pilot Flying J has hired Scott Nelson
as a vice president and brought on Dave Rewers to lead the inside
sales department.  Mr. Nelson was formerly president and CEO of
Premier Trailer Leasing Solutions.  Mr. Rewers was previously
group vice president for fleet sales at Fleet One LLC in
Nashville.

In addition, the company appointed David Hughes as its new vice
president of sales.  Mr. Hughes, who previously worked for
Covenant Transportation, joined Pilot Flying J last year,
according to media reports.

Pilot Flying J is still working to fill the role of chief
compliance officer.  Mr. Haslam said it has taken longer than
expected due to the importance of getting the right person for the
job.


PORSCHE CARS: Settles Class Action Over Defective IMS
-----------------------------------------------------
Planet 9 reports that Porsche Cars North America agrees to
reimburse current and prior 2001 through 2005 Porsche 911 and
Boxter owners and lessees for out-of-pocket money spent on IMS
engine failure repairs.

The law firm of Knapp Petersen & Clarke announces that a
settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit filed on
behalf of certain Porsche owners and lessees who have faced or
will face expensive Porsche engine failure repairs because of a
defective component part, known as the IMS.

The settlement reached in Eisen v. Porsche Cars North America.,
Inc. will reimburse present and former owners and lessees of
Porsche Boxster and 911 cars, model years 2001 through 2005, for
money they spent to repair their vehicle due to a failure of the
Intermediate Shaft (IMS), an engine component whose failure can
lead to catastrophic engine failure and thousands of dollars in
repair bills.

Porsche owners and lessees may be reimbursed up to 100% of their
out-of-pocket costs, depending upon the mileage on the vehicle at
the time of repair.  The reimbursement includes all out-of-pocket
engine damage and replacement costs, up to ten years from the
vehicle first being placed in service, regardless of whether such
damage or loss occurs before or after the notice of this
settlement.  The Porsche owners and lessees are also entitled up
to $200.00 in expenses for mileage and towing.

Class Counsel Stephen M. Harris, of Knapp, Petersen & Clarke is
pleased to have achieved a settlement that allows class members to
recover their out-of-pocket losses as soon as possible, rather
than having to wait through years of litigation and face the
potential risks present in any trial.

"This settlement represents a wonderful result on behalf of
current and former Porsche owners and lessees who had had to pay
out-of-pocket costs related to repairing or replacing an engine
which sustained damage as a result of a defective IMS,"
Stephen Harris said.

Informative Website Established for Class Members: A website has
been established for class members and members of the public to
find out more information about the settlement.  Please visit
http://www.IMSPorscheSettlement.comto determine whether you are
covered by the settlement, obtain a claim form, communicate with
Class Counsel, or to learn more about the class action and its
resolution.

             About Class Counsel, Stephen M. Harris

Stephen M. Harris is a Director of Knapp Petersen & Clarke with
over 30 years in the practice of law.  Mr. Harris was appointed by
the court as Class Counsel in the IMS Porsche Litigation.  He
attended DePaul University School of Law, receiving a Juris Doctor
degree in 1983.

Contact Information

Stephen M. Harris, Esq.
Knapp Petersen & Clarke, a Professional Corporation
Telephone: 818-547-5100


QUALITY EGG: Settles Lawsuit Over 2010 Salmonella Outbreak Recalls
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan J. Foley, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
Iowa egg producers blamed for a 2010 salmonella outbreak have
settled a lawsuit brought by a California distributor that lost
profits from the foodborne illnesses and the resulting product
recalls, court records show.

Quality Egg and Hillandale Farms reached the settlement on July 11
with NuCal Foods Inc., ending three years of litigation in federal
court in Sacramento that shed light on the outbreak and its
aftermath.  Financial terms were not immediately released.

Quality Egg was based in Galt, Iowa, and owned by Jack DeCoster,
who built one of the nation's largest egg production empires while
amassing a long history of violating food safety, labor and
environmental rules.  Hillandale Farms had ties to Mr. DeCoster's
operations, processing and marketing shell eggs from some Quality
Egg plants.

The companies issued recalls covering 550 million eggs in 2010,
after scientists traced illnesses back to their farms in northern
Iowa, which were described by investigators as having filthy
conditions.  The government has estimated that up to 62,000 people
were sickened in the outbreak.

An attorney representing NuCal, Jason Takenouchi, declined to
comment Monday on the settlement, which was reached during a
conference in the chambers of U.S. Magistrate Judge Edmund
Brennan.  Attorneys for Quality Egg and Hillandale Farms did not
return messages.  Hillandale Farms had filed counterclaims against
Mr. DeCoster, blaming his operations for the outbreak.

Ripon, Calif.-based NuCal sued the companies and Mr. DeCoster,
contending they were aware their farms were contaminated with
salmonella but continued marketing their eggs as safe.

Citing documents that its lawyers obtained, NuCal alleged that
testing by an Iowa State University lab had found salmonella in up
to 43 percent of Mr. DeCoster's poultry houses and in the internal
organs of their birds, which were dying at high rates and likely
laying tainted eggs.  A consultant had proposed steps to clean up
the conditions, warning, "We have to get this level of
(salmonella) knocked down!"

NuCal said it purchased millions of eggs in 2010 from the Iowa egg
producers, then distributed those eggs to retail customers. After
the companies announced the recalls in August 2010, NuCal had to
recall the eggs it bought, which led to demands for refunds and
lawsuits from those who fell sick.  The outbreak also led to a
reduced demand for eggs, which hurt NuCal's sales, the lawsuit
contended.

The case exposed the existence of a federal grand jury
investigation in Iowa examining the outbreak, which remains
active.  Lawyers for Jack DeCoster and his son, Peter, said in
court documents they were targets of the criminal investigation
and therefore could not be deposed in the civil case.  Quality
Egg's attorneys said in a court filing July 5 that the DeCosters
remained under investigation.

One DeCoster supervisor who played a key role in responding to the
outbreak, Tony Wasmund, has pleaded guilty to bribing a federal
inspector and is facing sentencing next month.  He is the only
person charged so far.

Jack DeCoster and Peter DeCoster, who ran day-to-day operations,
were blasted for the outbreak when they testified in front of a
congressional panel.  Jack DeCoster said he was horrified to learn
of the tainted products and apologized.  Hilldandale's chief
executive, Orland Bethel, cited his Fifth Amendment right against
self-incrimination and remained silent.

A judge had ordered Mr. DeCoster and Bethel to attend the July 11
settlement conference, but it's unclear whether they did.


RESPIRONICS CALIFORNIA: Recalls Nearly 19,200 V60 Ventilators
-------------------------------------------------------------
Respironics California, Inc., a Philips Healthcare business, on
June 25 disclosed that the company's worldwide recall of
approximately 19,200 Philips Respironics V60 Ventilators has been
designated a Class I recall by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA).

On June 4, Respironics initiated a voluntary recall to correct a
software issue that may cause the V60 ventilator device to shut
down.  Following FDA review, Respironics was notified on June 17
of the Class I designation, as a situation in which there is a
reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to a violative
product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.

The Philips Respironics V60 ventilator is an assist ventilator and
is intended to augment patient breathing.  It is intended for
spontaneously breathing individuals who require mechanical
ventilation: patients with respiratory failure, chronic
respiratory insufficiency, or obstructive sleep apnea in a
hospital or other institutional settings under the direction of a
physician.

The recall was initiated to correct an issue with the V60
Ventilator Power Management (PM) Printed Circuit Board Assembly
(PCBA) PlC software that was discovered through routine product
monitoring.  If the issue were to occur, there is a possibility
that the V60 Ventilator could cease functioning during use,
resulting in the loss of ventilator support, potentially with no
audible alarm from the ventilator.

Respironics has notified all United States distributors,
providers, sales personnel and customers that may have devices
subject to this recall.  The PM PCBA PIC software issue has been
corrected, and Respironics will update the software on all V60
ventilators shipped from the manufacturer prior to April 1, 2013.

Customers who have questions about the recall or require further
information or support concerning this issue, may contact their
local Respironics representative via the Customer Care Center
phone number: 800-722-9377, which is active 24/7.

Any adverse events experienced with the use of this product should
be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Program by phone at 1-800-FDA-
1088, by fax at 1-800-FDA-0178, by mail at MedWatch, HF-2, FDA,
5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852-9787, or on the MedWatch
Web site at http://www.fda.gov/medwatch


SAMSUNG: Loses Bid to Dismiss Class Action Over Energy Star Logos
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Susanna Kim, writing for ABC News, reports that a lawsuit against
Samsung and Lowe's is moving forward after a judge ruled the
companies can't dismiss allegations they used Energy Star logos on
refrigerators that didn't meet federal energy-efficiency standards
though selling them at higher prices.

"Overall, we're pleased with the judge's decision," said
Anthony Vozzolo, an attorney for the two plaintiffs who will ask a
judge to certify their case as a class action suit.
"Qualification under the Energy Star program is a significant
marketing tool for companies and one of the most highly recognized
symbols for marketing purposes.  Companies need to know they will
be held accountable if they fail to live up to their promise to
consumers."

The complaint alleges that damages are in excess of $5 million.

A statement from Samsung stated, "It is Samsung's policy to not
comment on pending litigation."

A spokeswoman for Lowe's said the company is unable to comment on
pending litigation.

U.S. District Judge Kevin McNulty in New Jersey sustained a number
of complaints from the plaintiffs' original claims, originally
filed in Nov. 2011.

Plaintiffs Lynne Avram and Margaret Lark each bought Samsung
RF26VAB model refrigerators with the U.S. Department of Energy's
Energy Star label from Lowe's Home Centers in Scottsdale, Ariz.,
and Maryland in 2009.  The suit explains that they paid a premium
for what they believed were energy-efficient fridges.  On Feb. 18,
2010, the Energy Department alerted Samsung that the refrigerators
did not meet the Energy Star efficiency requirements under the
Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Avram looked only at Energy Star models when she purchased her
refrigerator at a Lowe's store in Scottsdale, Ariz. for $1,213.20
plus tax on June 26, 2009.  As part of the voluntary Energy Star
program, to earn the Energy Star label, refrigerators and freezers
must be at least 20 percent more energy efficient than the minimum
mandated by federal law.

That purchase price included a "substantial premium" based on
claims that the refrigerator was energy efficient and met the
qualifications of Energy Star program, the suit states, adding
that Avram would not have purchased the refrigerator had she known
it was not Energy Star-compliant.

"When you sell an Energy Star appliance, you command a premium in
the marketplace," Mr. Vozzolo said, adding that people often look
for the Energy Star logo when they purchase appliances.

Ms. Lark bought a refrigerator on Nov. 1, 2009 in Maryland for
$2,100.

"As a result, Avram and Lark did not receive the benefit of the
Energy Star bargain.  They paid a price premium for what purported
to be an Energy Star product but did not receive the energy
savings they had paid for," the plaintiffs claim in their lawsuit.

Now that the judge has dismissed many of the defendants' motion to
dismiss, Mr. Vozzolo said he will engage in discovery along with
Lowe's and Samsung to ascertain additional facts, including how
many of those refrigerator models were sold, thereby expanding the
class.  Mr. Vozzolo and his clients will later move to certify the
class.

The plaintiffs allege breach of express warranty and implied
warranty of merchantability, violations of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, unjust enrichment, and consumer fraud under New
Jersey and Maryland law.

Similar lawsuits related to Energy Star status for appliances have
been dismissed, including a case involving a Maytag Centennial
MVWC6ESWW1 washing machine whose energy-efficiency status was
later revoked.  The defendants were Home Depot U.S.A. and
Whirlpool Corporation, both of which had moved to dismiss the
lawsuit.

A judge in Ohio dismissed that case last August, ruling, in part,
that the plaintiff's claim for damages was barred by the statute
of limitations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.

In addition, the judge for the U.S. District Court in the Northern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, said "the plaintiff's failure
to allege that any connection between his decision to purchase the
washer and either the Energy Star logo or an advertisement is
fatal to his claim."


SEARS: Recalls Nearly 800,000 Dehumidifiers Over Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Sears is re-announcing the
recall of nearly 800,000 dehumidifiers because of new reports of
fires and because so few consumers have responded to the first
recall.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission says Sears has received
seven additional reports of shorting and fire linked to the
Kenmore dehumidifiers.  One case resulted in severe burns to a
person's foot.  Three of the fires caused more than $300,000 in
property damage.

During the original recall last year, CPSC said Sears had more
than 100 reports of problems with the dehumidifiers, including
property damage and several cases of smoke inhalation.

The recall involves 35-, 50- and 70-pint dehumidifiers with a
Kenmore logo.  They were manufactured by LG Electronics Appliance
Co. between 2003 and 2005.

Consumers can call 855-400-4641 or visit
http://www.Kenmoredehumidifierrecall.comfor more information.


SHOPPERS DRUG: Franchisees Get Partial Certification Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Drew Hasselback, writing for Financial Post, reports that
disgruntled Shoppers Drug Mart franchisees received another
judicial thumbs up in their efforts to mount a $1-billion class
action lawsuit against the corporate owner of the pharmacy chain.

Mr. Justice Paul Perell of the Ontario Superior Court issued a
ruling on July 9 that adds to the partial certification he granted
in the case last October.  The partial certification prompted the
plaintiffs to file a fresh as amended statement of claim in March.
This resulted in the July 9 decision.

The case is brought by representative plaintiffs John Spina and
Romeo Vandenburg, two pharmacists who own and run Shoppers Drug
Mart franchises in the Toronto area.  Kenneth Rosenberg --
ken.rosenberg@paliareroland.com -- of Paliare Roland is
representing the plaintiffs.

Mark A. Gelowitz -- mgelowitz@osler.com -- Jennifer Dolman --
jdolman@osler.com -- and Evan Thomas -- ethomas@osler.com -- of
Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP represent the defendants.

The franchisees claim a variety of breaches in their agreements
with Shoppers Drug Mart.  A key allegation is that the corporation
didn't pass on to franchisees so-called "professional allowances"
that the chain had received from drug makers.  The defendants deny
the allegations, which have yet to be proven in court.

The class includes all current and former Shoppers "associates"
resident in Canada, save for those in Quebec.  The term
"associate" is the word Shoppers uses for its franchisees.

Shoppers, of course, recently became the subject of a friendly
$12.4-billion takeover by Loblaw Co. Ltd.


SKECHERS USA: Consumers Set to Get Shape-Ups Settlement Checks
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Skechers Lawsuit Lawyers at Wright & Schulte LLC report that
consumers who participated in a class-action Skechers lawsuit
should expect to receive a Skechers settlement check within the
coming week, as a settlement administrator has recently started
mailing out refund checks to the more than 509,000 plaintiffs in
this case. Consumers who receive these Skechers lawsuit settlement
checks will have until October 10, 2013 to cash them, and the
specific amounts of the checks will depend on the precise portion
of their claim that was approved.  In general, however, consumers
involved in this Skechers Lawsuit case are eligible to receive a
full refund for the purchase of their Skechers Shape-Ups (up to
$80), their Resistance Runner shoes (up to $84), their Podded Sole
shoes (up to $54) and their Tone-Ups (up to $40) as part of this
Skechers lawsuit settlement.

In May 2013, Federal Judge Thomas B. Russell of Louisville
approved a deal that granted a $40 million settlement to the
hundreds of thousands of consumers in this class-action Skechers
lawsuit.  This case consolidated more than 70 Skechers lawsuits
throughout the U.S., and the judge's approval of the $40 million
settlement in this class-action Skechers lawsuit had been handed
down just about one year after Skechers and the plaintiffs had
initially agreed upon it.

While the two primary plaintiffs in this Skechers lawsuit will
receive $2,500, the attorneys representing the consumers have been
awarded a total of $5 million to split, which will not come out of
the $40 million awarded to consumers.  Once all of the other
consumers who were plaintiffs in this case have received their
refund checks, any remaining money will be sent to the FTC,
according to Judge Russell's ruling.

Wright & Schulte, LLC specializes in defending the rights of those
who have suffered severe injuries after using products with
defective or dangerous designs experienced Skechers attorneys have
a proven track record of successfully going up against large
corporations.  We are here for individuals who think that they
have been injured due to these toning shoes to speak to our
Skechers lawyers by visiting yourlegalhelp.com or by calling 1-
800-399-0795.

                 Deceptive Advertising Regarding
              Skechers Toning Shoes Alleged Benefits

At the heart of this recently settled class-action Skechers
lawsuit was the claim that Skechers intentionally misled consumers
in advertising for its toning shoes by claiming that these shoes
provided health benefits that had not been substantiated by
scientific evidence.  Specifically, Skechers toning shoes ads
claimed that wearing these shoes could tone leg and buttocks
muscles, tighten abdominal muscles, and reduce knee joint stress.

However, an independent study conducted by the American Council on
Exercise (ACE) and published in June 2010 found that, "there is
simply no evidence to support the claims that these shoes will
help wearers exercise more intensely, burn more calories or
improve muscle strength and tone."

Although Skechers has denied allegations of falsely advertising
the health benefits of its toning shoes, company representatives
have stated that Skechers ultimately decided to settle this case
to avoid having to a endure a long, expensive trial.  In fact,
when the $40 million settlement was first reached in May 2012,
Skechers' chief financial officer, David Weinberg, stated that,
"while we vigorously deny the allegations made in these legal
proceedings and looked forward to vindicating these claims in
court, Skechers could not ignore the exorbitant cost and endless
distraction of several years spent defending multiple lawsuits in
multiple courts across the country."

                   About Wright & Schulte LLC

Wright & Schulte LLC, is a personal injury firm.

Contact:

Wright & Schulte LLC
812 East National Road
Vandalia, Ohio 45377
1-800-399-0795
http://www.yourlegalhelp.com


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Faces Shareholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Securities lawyers at Deans & Lyons, LLP announced a class action
against the board of Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc.  Investors
who purchased between May 5, 2011 and October 24, 2012 are
encouraged to contact securities attorney Hamilton Lindley,
Esq. at 877-819-8033 or hlindley@deanslyons.com about their rights
and remedies by August 2, 2013.

"Spirit AeroSystems is accused of failing to carry out its growth
and diversification strategy," said Mr. Lindley.  "The complaint
alleges that the company lacks proper internal financial controls
in relation to several programs.  Our potential shareholder
lawsuit will seek to ensure that all relevant information is
disclosed and available to shareholders."

Deans & Lyons has significant experience representing shareholders
in securities lawsuits nationwide.  SPR stockholders -- or anyone
with knowledge about this situation -- should contact lawyer
Hamilton Lindley at hlindley@deanslyons.com or 877-819-8033 with
questions or concerns.

Contact: Hamilton Lindley, Esq.
         DEANS & LYONS LLP
         325 North Saint Paul Street, Suite 1500
         Dallas, TX 75201
         Tel: 214-736-7861
         Fax: 214-965-8505
         Toll-free: 877-819-8033
         E-mail: hlindley@deanslyons.com
         Web site: http://www.deanslyons.com


THERATECHNOLOGIES INC: Court Nixes Motion to Dismiss Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Theratechnologies Inc. on July 17 disclosed that the Court of
Appeal of Quebec has dismissed Theratechnologies' motion to
dismiss the authorization to institute a class action and an
action based on the secondary market liability provisions of the
Securities Act (Quebec) against Theratechnologies, a former Chair
of the Board of Directors and a former president and chief
executive officer.

The Court of Appeal decision confirms a decision issued by the
Superior Court of Quebec on February 24, 2012 which granted an
authorization to the representative of persons who were
shareholders at May 21, 2010 and who sold their common shares of
the Company on May 25 or 26, 2010 to institute a class action
against the Company, a former Chair of the Board of Directors and
a former president and chief executive officer.

Theratechnologies intends to contest any class action that the
shareholders' representative could institute as a result of this
decision since we consider that it would be without merit.

                      About Theratechnologies

Theratechnologies is a biopharmaceutical company that specializes
in innovative therapeutic peptide products, with an emphasis on
growth-hormone releasing factor peptides.


TITLE MAX: Wants to Move Truck Title Class Action to Federal Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Peggy Heinkel-Wolfe, writing for DentonRC.com, reports that Title
Max answered the class action lawsuit filed by Christman Kelley PC
on behalf of several Denton residents who had borrowed against
their car or truck title.

In addition to denying the allegations in the lawsuit, the company
filed to move the case to federal court, in the Eastern District
of Texas, U.S. District Court.

DentonRC.com's Ms. Wolfe called the plaintiff's firm to find out
whether they would go along with the change or file a motion to
remand it back to state district court in Denton.  Attorney Kenton
Brice said they are still investigating the matter.  However, in
general, plaintiffs have a harder time in federal court than in
state court, he said.

The firm has about 30 days to respond with a motion to remand.


WORLD FUEL: Faces Class Action Over Lac-Megantic Train Derailment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rochon Genova LLP on July 18 disclosed that the class action
proceeding (motion for authorization) issued on July 15 relating
to the Lac-Megantic train derailment and subsequent devastation
suffered by the community was amended on July 17 to include
further defendants, including World Fuel Services Corp., Dakota
Plains Holdings, Irving Oil Limited, and their subsidiaries.
World Fuel Services is a publicly traded U.S. corporation and
Irving Oil is one of Canada's largest oil companies.

The claims made against the newly added defendants include the
allegation that they failed to ensure that the highly flammable
contents of the DOT-111 tankers that derailed in Lac-Megantic's
downtown area in the early morning hours of July 6, 2013 were
properly contained and safely transported.  The Motion to
authorize was amended to reflect the fact that the liability for
the accident is spread across a broader network of involved
corporations.  As the facts develop additional entities may be
implicated.

The class action is being pursued to ensure that the victims of
the July 6, 2013 derailment and all those affected obtain
compensation for their substantial losses.  The proposed
representative plaintiffs are Guy Ouellet, whose partner, Diane
Bizier, died in the explosion and Yannick Gagne, the owner of the
popular restaurant, Musi-Cafe, which was destroyed as a result of
the derailment and ensuing explosions.

A team of class action lawyers has been assembled to assist the
Lac-Megantic community to litigate the action, and consists of
Lac-Megantic lawyer Daniel E. Larochelle, Consumer Law Group Inc.
in Montreal, Rochon Genova LLP of Toronto and Lieff Cabraser
Heimann and Bernstein LLP of New York and San Francisco.


                             *********

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  * * *