CAR_Public/130806.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, August 6, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 153

                             Headlines


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Womble Carlyle Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
AMERICAN GREETINGS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
ATHENAHEALTH INC: Defends IPO-Related Class Suit vs. Epocrates
ATHENAHEALTH INC: Yet to File "Bushansky" Class Suit Settlement
AUTOLIV INC: Continues to Defend "Construction Laborers" Suit

AUTOLIV INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Antitrust Violations
BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Dismissal of Loan Modification Class Action
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Shareholder Class Suit in Colorado Terminated
CONAGRA FOODS: Awaits Approval of Accord in Merger-Related Suits
CONAGRA FOODS: Defends Environmental Suit vs. Beatrice in Ill.

CONAGRA FOODS: Ralcorp Paid $3.3-Mil. Under Employees Suit Deal
COSTAR GROUP: Show Cause Hearing in Merger Suit Reset to October
EBAY INC: Continues to Defend Fund Transfer Act Violations Suits
EBAY INC: Continues to Defend TCPA Suits v. PayPal, Bill Me Later
EBAY INC: Suit vs. StubHub Remains Pending in North Carolina

EI DU PONT: Doctors Name Eligible Class in Drinking Water Actions
EI DU PONT: September Trial in Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Suit
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Unhappy Gamer's Class Suit in New York
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: American Medical Faces Labor Suits in Calif.
FANNIE MAE: Faces Suit Filed by Junior Preferred Stockholders

FORD MOTOR: Faces "Brandon" Suit Over Defective Throttle Control
GALEMMO INVESTMENT: Sued Over Loss of $300-Mil. Investors' Fund
HEALTHWAREHOUSE.COM: Plaintiff in Ad Fax Suit Withdraws Claims
INGRAM MICRO: Gets $18MM From LCD Suit Settlement
K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Still Defends 2011 Securities Litigation

K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Still Defends Class Suits Over FDA Inspection
K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Still Defends PPFG Securities Litigation
MCKESSON CORP: Court Stays "Aud" Suit Pending Transfer Bid Ruling
MCKESSON CORP: Oakland County Recovers $362,018 in Class Action
MF GLOBAL: Files Class Antitrust Suit Against Swap Banks

MGM INVESTMENT: Still Faces Lawsuits Over RESPA Violations
OVERHILL FARMS: Inks MOU to Settle Suit Over Bellisio Merger
PNC BANK: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Predatory Lending
RADIOSHACK CORPORATION: "Brookler" Plaintiffs Amend Labor Suit
RADIOSHACK CORPORATION: Deposition Done in "Ordonez" Labor Suit

RADIOSHACK CORPORATION: Wins Approval of "Sosinov" Suit Accord
RADIOSHACK CORPORATION: FACTA Suit Settlement Hearing in Sept.
RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Settles Class Action Over Mortgage Loans
RESTAURANT.COM: Class Action Over Gift Certificates Can Proceed
RESTORATION HARDWARE: Stiffs Hourly Workers for OT, Suit Claims

SANDISK CORP: "Giuliano" Plaintiffs May File Amended Complaint
SCBT FINANCIAL: Inks MOU to Settle Suit Over 1st Financial Merger
SPORTS AUTHORITY: Settlement of Wage and Hour Suit Has Initial OK
SYDNEY UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Racism Law Violations
TAYLOR FARMS: Parties in Wage & Hour Suit to Proceed to Discovery

TRAVELERS COS: Awaits Supreme Court Decision on Appeal
TRAVELERS COS: Ill. Court to Administer Accord in Safeco v. AIG
TRI-VALLEY CORP: Officers Sued Over Sale of Opus Securities
UNION PACIFIC: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Review Cert. Ruling
UNITED STATES: Sued Over Illegal Charges in Uniform Purchases

VIRGINIA: Faces Class Action Over Gay-Marriage Ban
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Continues to Defend Product Liability Class Suits
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Still Awaits OK of $30-Mil. Deal in Embraco Suit
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Still Defends Front Load Washing Machine Suits


                             *********


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Womble Carlyle Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert T. Numbers II, Esq., at Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice,
PLLC, reports that recently, in American Express Co. v. Italian
Colors Restaurant, a sharply divided United States Supreme Court
issued the latest in a series of opinions that protect the
enforceability of arbitration agreements.  Womble Carlyle's
previous post about oral arguments in the case.  The Supreme
Court's decision clears the way for businesses to require
consumers to arbitrate disputes on an individual basis regardless
of the litigation costs associated with the proceeding.

In Italian Colors, a group of merchants who accept American
Express cards brought a class action claim against American
Express alleging a violation of federal antitrust laws.  According
to the plaintiffs, American Express violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Act by using "its monopoly power in the market for charge
cards to force merchants to accept credit cards at rates
approximately 30% higher than the fees for competing credit
cards."

SCOTUS U.S Supreme Court class action arbitration

American Express responded by asserting that the agreement between
the parties required the class members to arbitrate their claims
on an individual basis.  The plaintiffs responded that they should
not be required to arbitrate their claims on an individual basis
because the costs associated with bringing an individual action
greatly outstripped the potential recovery by any one class
member.  The District Court agreed with American Express and
dismissed the lawsuit.  The Second Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed the District Court's opinion and remanded for further
proceedings.

The Opinion of the Court (authored by Justice Antonin Scalia and
joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Kennedy, and
Alito) and the Dissenting Opinion (authored by Justice Kagan and
joined by Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor) disagreed over
whether the arbitration clause could be voided under the judge-
made "effective vindication" doctrine.  The Effective Vindication
Doctrine, first mentioned in Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler
Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., holds that arbitration clauses may be
disregarded if they "operat[e] . . . as a prospective waiver of a
party's right to pursue statutory remedies."

After determining that Congress had not prohibited the use of
class arbitration waivers in arbitration clauses, the majority
noted that the Effective Vindication Doctrine did not apply in
this case because it only protects "the right to pursue" a
statutory remedy, not the right to pursue a statutory remedy in
the most cost effective manner possible.  A class action waiver is
permissible because the party initiating the arbitration still has
the right to pursue its remedy, even if pursuing that remedy
carries a hefty price tag.

Justice Kagan's dissent claimed that the majority had failed to
appreciate the full scope of the Effective Vindication Doctrine.
In her opinion, the Supreme Court's precedents established that
the Doctrine applies when a provision in an arbitration agreement
has the practical result of denying a party the ability to pursue
a statutory remedy.  Here, because the class arbitration waiver
made arbitration prohibitively expensive by requiring arbitration
on an individual, the class action waiver effectively barred
merchants from vindicating their statutory rights and should have
been disregarded.

The Italian Colors opinion reinforces that if parties consent to
an arbitration agreement, the Court should respect the parties'
decision and require arbitration under the agreed to terms.  After
this opinion, options for plaintiffs who wish to challenge the
validity of arbitration clauses because of the terms of the
arbitration are very slim.  Instead, plaintiffs will likely focus
on issues related to contract formation and attempting to have
arbitration clauses discarded by state courts under state
unconscionability laws.

However, for the time being, it appears that parties seeking to
have arbitration agreements enforced will have the upper hand.
The state of the law makes it very important that companies
consider the full impact of the terms contained in an arbitration
agreement before entering into contracts in the future.


AMERICAN GREETINGS: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
American Greetings Corporation entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle merger-related class action lawsuits,
according to the Company's July 19, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Current Report on Form 8-K is being filed in connection with a
Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") regarding the settlement
of certain litigation related to, among other things, the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated March 29, 2013, among American
Greetings Corporation (the "Company"), Century Intermediate
Holding Company, a Delaware corporation ("Parent") and Century
Merger Company, an Ohio corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Parent ("Merger Sub,"), as amended by Amendment No. 1 to
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated July 3, 2013, among the
Company, Parent and Merger Sub (the "Merger Agreement").  If the
merger of Merger Sub into the Company with the Company surviving
(the "Merger") is completed, the Company will become a privately
held company, wholly owned by Parent.  All of the common stock of
Parent will be indirectly owned by Zev Weiss, a director and the
Company's Chief Executive Officer, Morry Weiss, the Company's
Chairman of the board of directors, Jeffrey Weiss, a director and
the Company's President and Chief Operating Officer, and certain
other members of the Weiss family (collectively, the "Family
Shareholders").

As contemplated by the MOU, the Company is providing certain
disclosures in addition to those contained in the definitive proxy
statement mailed on or about July 10, 2013, to the Company's
shareholders of record as of the close of business on June 10,
2013 (the "Proxy Statement"), in connection with the solicitation
of proxies for use at the special meeting of shareholders to be
held at One American Road, Cleveland, Ohio 44144, on August 7,
2013, at 10:00 a.m., Cleveland, Ohio time.  The purpose of the
special meeting is to (i) consider and vote on a proposal to adopt
the Merger Agreement, (ii) approve, on an advisory (non-binding)
basis, specified compensation that may become payable to the named
executive officers of the Company in connection with the Merger,
(iii) approve the adjournment of the special meeting, if
necessary, to solicit additional proxies if there are insufficient
votes at the time of the special meeting to obtain the necessary
shareholder approvals in connection with the Merger Agreement, and
(iv) act upon other business that may properly come before the
special meeting or any adjournment or postponement thereof.

The Company's board of directors (with the Family Shareholder
directors abstaining) unanimously determined that the Merger
Agreement, the Merger and the other transactions contemplated by
the Merger Agreement are in the best interests of the Company and
its shareholders and unanimously approved the Merger Agreement,
the Merger and the other transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement.  The Company's Board of Directors (with the Family
Shareholder Directors abstaining) recommends unanimously that the
Company's shareholders vote "for" the proposal to adopt the Merger
Agreement and approve the Merger.

                Litigation Related to the Merger

As previously disclosed, on September 27, 2012, Dolores Carter, a
purported shareholder, filed a putative shareholder derivative and
class action lawsuit (the "Carter Action") in the Court of Common
Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio (the "Cuyahoga County Court")
against the Company and all of the members of the board of
directors.  The Carter Action alleged, among other things, that
the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties in
evaluating and pursuing the Family Shareholders' September 25,
2012 initial proposal.  The Carter Action further alleged claims
for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty.  Among other
things, the Carter Action sought declaratory, injunctive and other
equitable relief.

Subsequently, six more lawsuits were filed in the Cuyahoga County
Court purporting to advance substantially similar claims on behalf
of American Greetings against the members of the board of
directors and, in certain cases, additional direct claims against
American Greetings.  One lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed.  The
other lawsuits were consolidated by Judge Richard J. McMonagle on
December 6, 2012 (amended order dated December 18, 2012), as In re
American Greetings Corp. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. CV
12 792421.  The Lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel also
were appointed.

The Lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint on
April 30, 2013, against American Greetings, Parent, Merger Sub,
and the members of the American Greetings board of directors
amending and clarifying the allegations concerning (i) the Merger
and the Merger Agreement, (ii) the actions, deliberations and
negotiations in connection with the Merger and the Merger
Agreement, (iii) the formation and/or independence of the special
committee, (iv) the consideration to be received by American
Greetings shareholders in connection with the Merger, (v) the
disclosures associated with the Merger and the Merger Agreement,
and (vi) the fiduciary obligations of the defendants in connection
with the Merger.  The Consolidated Class Action Complaint seeks,
among other things, declaratory, injunctive and other equitable
relief.  On June 13, 2013, the defendants filed motions to dismiss
the Consolidated Class Action Complaint based on plaintiffs'
failure to properly plead their claims as derivative actions,
exercise their statutory appraisal rights as the sole remedy for
dissatisfaction with the proposed share price and overcome the
business judgment rule with respect to their breach of fiduciary
duty claims.  The motions to dismiss remain pending.

On November 6, 2012, R. David Wolfe, a purported shareholder,
filed a putative class action (the "Wolfe I Action") in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (the
"Federal Court") against certain members of the Weiss Family and
the Irving I. Stone Oversight Trust, the Irving Stone Limited
Liability Company, the Irving I. Stone Support Foundation and the
Irving I. Stone Foundation (the "Stone Entities") alleging breach
of fiduciary duties in proposing and pursuing the proposal, as
well as against American Greetings, seeking, among other things,
declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief.  On
November 9, 2012, the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees'
Retirement System also filed a purported class action in the
Federal Court (the "LMPERS Action") asserting substantially
similar claims against the same defendants and seeking
substantially similar relief.

The Plaintiffs in the Wolfe I and LMPERS Actions filed motions (i)
to consolidate the Wolfe I and LMPERS Actions, (ii) for
appointment as co-lead plaintiffs, (iii) for appointment of co-
lead counsel, and, in the Wolfe I Action only, (iv) for partial
summary judgment.  The Defendants responded to plaintiffs'
motions, answered the complaints, and moved to dismiss the
complaints on jurisdictional grounds.  On February 14, 2013, the
Federal Court dismissed both the Wolfe I and LMPERS Actions for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  On March 15, 2013, the
plaintiffs in both the Wolfe I and LMPERS Actions filed notices of
appeal with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  On April 18,
2013, plaintiff Wolfe moved to dismiss his appeal, which motion
was granted on April 19, 2013.  On May 8, 2013, plaintiff LMPERS's
appeal also was dismissed.

The Plaintiffs in the Wolfe I and LMPERS Actions had alleged, in
part, that Article Seventh of the Company's articles of
incorporation prohibited the special committee from, among other
things, evaluating the Merger.  The Company considered these
allegations and concluded that the Article is co-extensive with
Ohio law and thus allows the Company to engage in any activity
authorized by Ohio law.  The Company also has consistently
construed Article Seventh as permitting directors to approve a
transaction so long as they are both disinterested and
independent.

On April 17, 2013, R. David Wolfe filed a new putative shareholder
derivative and class action lawsuit in the Federal Court (the
"Wolfe II Action") against certain members of the Weiss Family,
the Stone Entities and the members of the Company's board of
directors, as well as American Greetings as nominal defendant,
challenging the merger as financially and procedurally unfair to
the Company and its minority shareholders.  The complaint alleged,
among other things, that Article Seventh of the Company's articles
of incorporation prohibited the special committee from, among
other things, evaluating the merger, that the board breached its
fiduciary duties in considering and approving the Merger, and that
certain members of the Weiss Family and related entities breached
fiduciary duties owed to the Company's minority shareholders.  On
April 29, 2013, an amended complaint was filed incorporating
additional allegations and a claim that the director defendants
also have breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose
certain information to shareholders.  Among other things, the
Wolfe II Action seeks substantially the same declaratory,
injunctive and other equitable relief as the Wolfe I Action, the
LMPERS Action and the In re American Greetings Corp. Shareholder
Litigation.  The Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the
Wolfe II Action Amended Complaint on July 8, 2013, and July 12,
2013.

The Company believes that the allegations in these actions,
including the claims in the litigation concerning the Company's
articles of incorporation, are without merit.

On July 16, 2013, after arms'-length negotiations concerning a
possible resolution of the In re American Greetings Corp.
Shareholder Litigation, counsel for the parties entered into the
MOU, in which they agreed on the terms of a settlement of the In
re American Greetings Corp. Shareholder Litigation, including the
dismissal with prejudice of the In re American Greetings Corp.
Shareholder Litigation and a release of all claims that were made
or that could have been made therein against all of the defendants
and certain related parties concerning, among other things, (i)
the Merger or the Merger Agreement, (ii) any actions,
deliberations, or negotiations in connection with the Merger or
the Merger Agreement, including the process of deliberation or
negotiation by each of American Greetings and the Family
Shareholders and any of their respective officers, directors,
special committees, or advisors, (iii) the formation and/or
independence of the special committee, (iv) the consideration to
be received by American Greetings shareholders in connection with
the Merger, (v) the Proxy Statement including amendments thereto,
and any other representations, recommendations, publications,
solicitations, disclosures, public filings, periodic reports,
press releases, registration statements, proxy statements, or
other statements issued, made available or filed relating,
directly or indirectly, to the Merger or the Merger Agreement,
(vi) the fiduciary obligations of the defendants and certain
related parties in connection with the Merger, or (vii) the fees,
expenses, or costs incurred in prosecuting, defending or settling
the In re American Greetings Corp. Shareholder Litigation.  The
proposed settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, the
execution of an appropriate stipulation of settlement,
certification of a non-opt-out class, and final approval of the
proposed settlement by the Cuyahoga County Court.  In addition, in
connection with the settlement and as provided in the MOU, the
parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will seek an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses as part of the settlement.  There can
be no assurance that the Merger will be consummated, that the
parties ultimately will enter into a stipulation of settlement, or
that the Cuyahoga County Court will approve the settlement even if
the parties enter into such a stipulation.  If the settlement
conditions are not met, the proposed settlement as contemplated by
the MOU would become void.  Neither the MOU nor the settlement
contemplated thereby will affect the amount of the merger
consideration that American Greetings shareholders are entitled to
receive in the Merger.

The defendants deny all fault and liability and deny that they
have committed any unlawful or wrongful act alleged in the In re
American Greetings Corp. Shareholder Litigation, the Wolfe I
Action, the LMPERS Action, or the Wolfe II Action or otherwise in
relation to the Merger, the Merger Agreement, or any of the
events/or actions related thereto.  The defendants have agreed to
the terms of the proposed settlement solely to avoid the
substantial burden, expense, risk, inconvenience and distraction
of continued litigation, including the risk of delaying or
adversely affecting the Merger.

Founded in 1906 and based in Cleveland, Ohio, American Greetings
Corporation -- http://www.americangreetings.com/-- operates
predominantly in a single industry: the design, manufacture and
sale of everyday and seasonal greeting cards and other social
expression products.  The Company manufactures or sells greeting
cards, gift packaging, party goods, stationery and giftware in
North America, primarily in the United States and Canada, and
throughout the world, primarily in the United Kingdom, Australia
and New Zealand.  The Company's subsidiary, AG Interactive, Inc.,
distributes social expression products, including electronic
greetings and a broad range of graphics and digital services and
products, through a variety of electronic channels, including Web
sites, Internet portals and electronic mobile devices.  The
Company also engages in design and character licensing and
manufactures custom display fixtures for its products and products
of others.


ATHENAHEALTH INC: Defends IPO-Related Class Suit vs. Epocrates
--------------------------------------------------------------
athenahealth, Inc., is defending a subsidiary from a class action
lawsuit relating to its initial public offering, according to the
Company's July 19, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On March 12, 2013, the Company acquired Epocrates, Inc.
("Epocrates"), a leading provider of essential clinical content,
practice tools, and health industry engagement via mobile devices
at the point of care.  The Company acquired Epocrates for the
assembled workforce, expected synergies, and accelerated awareness
of athenahealth's services across the physician market and to
deliver high-value information to the clinical community.

On March 1, 2013, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California captioned
Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v.
Epocrates, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:13cv0945, on behalf of a
putative class of Epocrates' stockholders against Epocrates and
certain of its former officers and directors.  The complaint
asserts claims under sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 on behalf of all stockholders that purchased Epocrates
stock in its Initial Public Offering and claims under sections
10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of
all stockholders that purchased shares between the February 2,
2011, IPO and August 9, 2011.  The complaint alleges that
Epocrates made false or misleading statements with respect to the
fact that Epocrates' pharmaceutical clients were awaiting guidance
from the Food and Drug Administration on the use of advertising
and social media, which caused the clients to delay spending on
marketing and negatively impacted Epocrates' sales and revenue
growth.  The complaint seeks certification as a class action,
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, plaintiff's costs,
attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as the Court
may deem just and proper.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the
complaint and will continue to contest the claims vigorously.

Headquartered in Watertown, Massachusetts, athenahealth, Inc.
provides business services that help medical caregivers achieve
and sustain financial health by collecting more money and
exercising more control over their administrative and clinical
tasks.  These services are designed to reduce the administrative
burden of complex billing rules, quality measurement and
reporting, clinical documentation and data exchange, patient
communication and referrals, and many of the related tasks that
distract medical caregivers and staff from delivering care.


ATHENAHEALTH INC: Yet to File "Bushansky" Class Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
athenahealth, Inc., is yet to file for approval its settlement of
a merger-related class action lawsuit styled Bushansky v.
Epocrates, Inc., et al., according to the Company's July 19, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On January 11, 2013, a complaint captioned Bushansky v. Epocrates,
Inc., et al., Case No. 519078, was filed in San Mateo County
Superior Court on behalf of a putative class of Epocrates'
shareholders against Epocrates and each member of the Epocrates
board.  This complaint challenged the proposed merger between
Epocrates and one of the Company's wholly owned subsidiaries.  On
January 25, 2013, a similar complaint was filed in San Mateo
County Superior Court captioned DeJoice v. Epocrates, et al., Case
No. 519461.  This second complaint made similar allegations
against Epocrates and each member of the Epocrates board and
included a claim against the Company for aiding and abetting a
breach of fiduciary duty.  On January 31, 2013, the Bushansky
complaint was amended to include additional allegations.  The
Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Epocrates
directors breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly agreeing to
sell Epocrates at an unfair and inadequate price, failing to take
steps to maximize the sale price of Epocrates, and making material
omissions to the preliminary proxy statement dated January 25,
2013.  The complaints sought to enjoin the merger, other equitable
relief, and money damages.  On March 5, 2013, Epocrates and the
plaintiffs signed a memorandum of understanding in which the
parties agreed to enter into a stipulation of settlement whereby
the plaintiffs and all class members would release all claims
related to the merger in exchange for Epocrates filing a
supplement to its definitive proxy statement regarding the merger
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which would include
additional disclosures regarding the merger agreement, and an
agreement to negotiate in good faith regarding the amount of
attorneys' fees and expenses for which the plaintiffs may seek
approval from the Court.

On March 12, 2013, the Company acquired Epocrates, a leading
provider of essential clinical content, practice tools, and health
industry engagement via mobile devices at the point of care.  The
Company acquired Epocrates for the assembled workforce, expected
synergies, and accelerated awareness of athenahealth's services
across the physician market and to deliver high-value information
to the clinical community.

Headquartered in Watertown, Massachusetts, athenahealth, Inc.
provides business services that help medical caregivers achieve
and sustain financial health by collecting more money and
exercising more control over their administrative and clinical
tasks.  These services are designed to reduce the administrative
burden of complex billing rules, quality measurement and
reporting, clinical documentation and data exchange, patient
communication and referrals, and many of the related tasks that
distract medical caregivers and staff from delivering care.


AUTOLIV INC: Continues to Defend "Construction Laborers" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc., continues to defend a class action lawsuit filed by
the Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis,
according to the Company's July 19, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

On April 17, 2013, the Construction Laborers Pension Trust of
Greater St. Louis filed a lawsuit against Autoliv, Inc. and two of
its officers (collectively "the Defendants") in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Civil Action
File No. 13-CIV-2546).  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts that
artificially inflated the Company's stock price in violation of
the federal securities laws, in particular Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and failed to disclose prior to June 6, 2012, that employees had
engaged in certain price fixing activity in violation of the law
and that the Company's prior financial results allegedly had been
inflated as a result of the anti-competitive activity.  The
Plaintiff purports to bring this action on behalf of a class of
purchasers of common stock of the Company between October 26,
2010, and August 1, 2011.  The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages
in an unspecified amount.  The Defendants deny any wrongdoing,
believe the claims are baseless, and will defend accordingly.

Autoliv, Inc. -- http://www.autoliv.com/-- is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden.  The Company
functions as a holding corporation and owns two principal
subsidiaries, Autoliv AB and Autoliv ASP, Inc., which are
developers, manufacturers and suppliers to the automotive industry
of automotive safety systems with a broad range of product
offerings, including modules and components for passenger and
driver-side airbags, side-impact airbag protection systems,
seatbelts, steering wheels, safety electronics, whiplash
protection systems and child seats.


AUTOLIV INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Antitrust Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc. continues to face class action lawsuits alleging
violations of antitrust laws, according to the Company's July 19,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Authorities in several jurisdictions are currently conducting
broad, and in some cases, long-running investigations of suspected
anti-competitive behavior among parts suppliers in the global
automotive vehicle industry.  These investigations include, but
are not limited to, segments in which the Company operates.  In
addition to pending matters, authorities of other countries with
significant light vehicle manufacturing or sales may initiate
similar investigations.  It is the Company's policy to cooperate
with governmental investigations.

On February 8, 2011, a Company subsidiary received a grand jury
subpoena from the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of
Justice ("DOJ") related to its investigation of anti-competitive
behavior among suppliers of occupant safety systems.  On June 6,
2012, the Company entered into a plea agreement with the DOJ and
subsequently pled guilty to two counts of antitrust law violations
involving a Japanese subsidiary and paid a fine of $14.5 million.
Under the terms of the agreement the Company will continue to
cooperate with the DOJ in its investigation of other suppliers,
but the DOJ will not otherwise prosecute Autoliv or any of its
subsidiaries, present or former directors, officers or employees
for the matters investigated (the DOJ did reserve the option to
prosecute three specific employees, none of whom is a member of
the senior management of the Company).

On June 7-9, 2011, representatives of the European Commission
("EC"), the European antitrust authority, visited two facilities
of a Company subsidiary in Germany to gather information for a
similar investigation.  The investigation is still pending and the
Company remains unable to estimate the financial impact such
investigation will have or predict the reporting periods in which
such financial impact may be recorded and has consequently not
recorded a provision for loss as of June 30, 2013.  However,
management has concluded that it is probable that the Company's
operating results and cash flows will be materially adversely
impacted for the reporting periods in which the EC investigation
is resolved or becomes estimable.

On October 3, 2012, the Company received a letter from the
Competition Bureau of Canada related to the subjects investigated
by the DOJ and EC, seeking the voluntary production of certain
corporate records and information related to sales subject to
Canadian jurisdiction.  On November 6, 2012, the Korean Fair Trade
Commission visited one of the Company's South Korean subsidiaries
to gather information for a similar investigation.  The Company
cannot predict the duration, scope or ultimate outcome of either
of these investigations and is unable to estimate the financial
impact they may have, or predict the reporting periods in which
any such financial impacts may be recorded.  Consequently, the
Company has not recorded a provision for loss as of June 30, 2013,
with respect to either of these investigations.  Also, since the
Company's plea agreement with the DOJ involved the actions of
employees of a Japanese subsidiary, the Japan Fair Trade
Commission is evaluating whether to initiate an investigation.

The Company is also subject to civil litigation alleging anti-
competitive conduct.  Notably, the Company, several of its
subsidiaries and its competitors are defendants in a total of
fifteen purported antitrust class action lawsuits filed between
July 2012 and July 2013.  Thirteen of these lawsuits, brought by
direct purchasers, auto dealers and end-payors, have been
consolidated in the Occupant Safety Systems (OSS) segment of the
Automobile Parts Antitrust Litigation, a Multi-District Litigation
(MDL) proceeding in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan.  Based on current schedules,
substantive discovery in the OSS segment of the MDL, which
includes Autoliv, is not likely to begin before May 2014.  The
other two lawsuits are pending in Canada (Sheridan Chevrolet
Cadillac Ltd. et al. v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice on January 18, 2013, and M. Serge
Asselin v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the Superior Court of
Quebec on March 14, 2013).

The Plaintiffs in the U.S. and Canadian civil antitrust class
actions generally allege that the defendants have engaged in long-
running global conspiracies to fix the prices of occupant safety
systems or components thereof in violation of various antitrust
laws and unfair or deceptive trade practice statutes.  The
Plaintiffs seek to represent purported classes of direct
purchasers, auto dealers and end-payors (e.g. consumers) who
purchased occupant safety systems or components either directly
from a defendant or indirectly through purchases of new vehicles
containing such systems.  The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief,
treble damages and attorneys' fees.  The plaintiffs in these cases
make allegations that extend significantly beyond the specific
admissions of the plea.

The Company denies these overly broad allegations and intends to
actively defend itself against the same.  While it is probable
that the Company will incur losses as a result of these antitrust
cases, the duration or ultimate outcome of these cases currently
cannot be predicted or estimated and no provision for a loss has
been recorded as of June 30, 2013.

Autoliv, Inc. -- http://www.autoliv.com/-- is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden.  The Company
functions as a holding corporation and owns two principal
subsidiaries, Autoliv AB and Autoliv ASP, Inc., which are
developers, manufacturers and suppliers to the automotive industry
of automotive safety systems with a broad range of product
offerings, including modules and components for passenger and
driver-side airbags, side-impact airbag protection systems,
seatbelts, steering wheels, safety electronics, whiplash
protection systems and child seats.


BANK OF AMERICA: Seeks Dismissal of Loan Modification Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Janelle Lawrence and David McLaughlin, writing for Bloomberg News,
report that Bank of America Corp. asked a federal judge to reject
homeowners' effort to sue the bank over its failure to modify
mortgage loans as a class-action case.

The second-biggest U.S. lender by assets on August 1 urged U.S.
District Judge Rya Zobel in Boston to deny the borrowers' request
to pursue the case as a group, which would give them greater
leverage in the litigation.

"What was brought as a series of lawsuits has been reduced to
desperate attempts to seek certification by any means," Bank of
America lawyer James W. McGarry told the judge, referring to
certifying the case as a class action.

Bank of America, based in Charlotte, North Carolina, is being sued
by homeowners who claim the company didn't comply with a
government program aimed at modifying mortgage loans called the
Home Affordable Modification Program.

The borrowers claim the bank first granted temporary
modifications, then ordered employees to stall, lie to customers
and falsify documents.  They cite statements in court documents by
former Bank of America employees who said they were rewarded with
cash bonuses and gift cards for sending applicants into
foreclosure.

"We can prove the bank had a companywide plan to delay the
decision because they didn't want to grant these modifications,"
Steve Berman of the law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP told
the judge.

The homeowners claim they made the required payments under the
program and didn't receive permanent modifications.  Experts for
the borrowers estimate that 300,000 would qualify for the proposed
class, Mr. Berman said.

Mr. McGarry argued the case is unsuitable for a class action.  He
said borrowers' responses to Bank of America's requests for
documentation of income and employment varied widely and require
individual cases.

The case is In Re Bank of America Home Affordable Modification
Program (HAMP) Contract Litigation, 10-md-02193, U.S. District
Court, District of Massachusetts (Boston).

According to an article posted by Deon Roberts at Bank Watch, no
ruling has been made.  It's unclear when Judge Zobel might rule.

According to court documents, the homeowners are seeking to
certify 26 classes involving borrowers from 26 states.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Shareholder Class Suit in Colorado Terminated
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., disclosed in its July 19, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013, that the consolidated shareholder
class action lawsuit commenced in Colorado was terminated in July
2013.

On August 16, 2012, City of Dania Beach Police & Firefighters
Retirement System filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of shares of the Company's common stock between
February 1, 2012, and July 19, 2012.  On August 17, 2012, Sonia
Kim filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado that was otherwise identical to the City of Dania
Beach Police & Firefighters complaint.  The complaints purported
to state claims against the Company, each of its co-Chief
Executive Officers and its Chief Financial Officer under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and related rules and
regulations, based on the Company's alleged failure during the
claimed class period to disclose material information about the
Company's business results and prospects.  The lead plaintiff in
the consolidated actions determined not to pursue the case, and
joined with the Company in filing a stipulated dismissal of the
case on July 3, 2013.  As a result, these actions were terminated
without any findings of liability or other adverse determinations
related to the Company, its disclosures or any of its officers,
and without any liability other than each party's liability for
its own attorney's fees and costs.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. -- http://www.chipotle.com/-- a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Denver, Colorado, develops
and operates fast-casual, fresh Mexican food restaurants
throughout the United States.  The Company also has restaurants in
Canada, London, England, and Paris, France.


CONAGRA FOODS: Awaits Approval of Accord in Merger-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
ConAgra Foods, Inc., is awaiting court approval of its settlement
of merger-related class action lawsuits, according to the
Company's July 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended May 26, 2013.

In January 2013, the Company completed the acquisition of Ralcorp
Holdings, Inc. ("Ralcorp"), a manufacturer of private brand
products, thereby becoming the largest private brand packaged
business in North America.

During the third quarter of fiscal 2013, the Company was named a
defendant in several shareholder derivative class action lawsuits
brought in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis against
directors of Ralcorp alleging breaches of fiduciary obligations by
them in connection with their approval of the Acquisition.  The
Company was alleged to be an aider and abettor of those breaches.
The lawsuits sought injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees,
and other relief.  There were other cases pending in the same
Court, which were consolidated and made similar allegations
against directors of Ralcorp to which the Company was not named a
defendant.  All of these cases were settled during the third
quarter of fiscal 2013 for immaterial amounts.  The settlement of
these lawsuits is subject to final Court approval.

ConAgra Foods, Inc. -- http://www.conagrafoods.com/-- is one of
North America's largest packaged food companies.  The Company's
balanced portfolio includes consumer brands found in 97% of
America's households, the largest private brand packaged food
business in North America, and a strong commercial and foodservice
business.  The Omaha, Nebraska-based Company's recognized brands
include Banquet(R), Chef Boyardee(R), Egg Beaters(R), Healthy
Choice(R), Hebrew National(R), Hunt's(R), Marie Callender's(R),
Odom's Tennessee Pride(R), Orville Redenbacher's(R), PAM(R), Peter
Pan(R), Reddi-wip(R), Slim Jim(R), Snack Pack(R), and many others.


CONAGRA FOODS: Defends Environmental Suit vs. Beatrice in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
ConAgra Foods, Inc., is defending a class action lawsuit in
Illinois involving a subsidiary, according to the Company's
July 19, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the year ended May 26, 2013.

The Company is a party to various environmental proceedings and
litigation, primarily related to its acquisition of Beatrice
Company and its former subsidiaries ("Beatrice") in fiscal 1991.
As a result of the acquisition of Beatrice and the significant
environmental pre-acquisition contingencies, the Company's
consolidated post-acquisition financial statements reflect
liabilities associated with the estimated resolution of these
contingencies.  These include various litigation and environmental
proceedings related to businesses divested by Beatrice prior to
its acquisition by the Company.  The litigation includes lawsuits
against a number of lead paint and pigment manufacturers,
including ConAgra Grocery Products and the Company as alleged
successors to W. P. Fuller Co., a lead paint and pigment
manufacturer owned and operated by Beatrice until 1967.  Although
decisions favorable to the Company have been rendered in Rhode
Island, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Ohio, the Company remains a
defendant in active lawsuits in Illinois and California.  The
Illinois lawsuit seeks class-wide relief in the form of medical
monitoring for elevated levels of lead in blood.  In California, a
number of cities and counties have joined in a consolidated action
seeking abatement of the alleged public nuisance.

The environmental proceedings include litigation and
administrative proceedings involving Beatrice's status as a
potentially responsible party at 36 Superfund, proposed Superfund,
or state-equivalent sites.  These sites involve locations
previously owned or operated by predecessors of Beatrice that used
or produced petroleum, pesticides, fertilizers, dyes, inks,
solvents, PCBs, acids, lead, sulfur, tannery wastes, and/or other
contaminants.  Beatrice has paid or is in the process of paying
its liability share at 32 of these sites.  Reserves for these
matters have been established based on the Company's best estimate
of the undiscounted remediation liabilities, which estimates
include evaluation of investigatory studies, extent of required
clean-up, the known volumetric contribution of Beatrice and other
potentially responsible parties, and its experience in remediating
sites.  The reserves for Beatrice-related environmental matters
totaled $63.3 million as of May 26, 2013, a majority of which
relates to the Superfund and state-equivalent sites.  The Company
expects expenditures for Beatrice-related environmental matters to
continue for up to 18 years.

ConAgra Foods, Inc. -- http://www.conagrafoods.com/-- is one of
North America's largest packaged food companies.  The Company's
balanced portfolio includes consumer brands found in 97% of
America's households, the largest private brand packaged food
business in North America, and a strong commercial and foodservice
business.  The Omaha, Nebraska-based Company's recognized brands
include Banquet(R), Chef Boyardee(R), Egg Beaters(R), Healthy
Choice(R), Hebrew National(R), Hunt's(R), Marie Callender's(R),
Odom's Tennessee Pride(R), Orville Redenbacher's(R), PAM(R), Peter
Pan(R), Reddi-wip(R), Slim Jim(R), Snack Pack(R), and many others.


CONAGRA FOODS: Ralcorp Paid $3.3-Mil. Under Employees Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
ConAgra Foods, Inc., disclosed in its July 19, 2013, Form 8-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that its
subsidiary paid $3.3 million in July 2013 as a final settlement of
class action lawsuits brought by former employees.

On January 29, 2013, ConAgra Foods, Inc. acquired Ralcorp
Holdings, Inc. ("Ralcorp"), which is now a wholly-owned subsidiary
of the Company.  Pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated as of November 26, 2012, among Ralcorp, ConAgra Foods, and
Phoenix Acquisition Sub Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of ConAgra
Foods, the Company agreed to acquire Ralcorp for $90 in cash per
share of Ralcorp common stock.

Two of Ralcorp's subsidiaries are subject to three lawsuits
brought by former employees in separate California state courts
alleging, among other things, that employees did not receive
statutorily mandated meal breaks resulting in incorrect payment of
wages, inaccurate wage statements, unpaid overtime and incorrect
payments to terminated employees.  Each of these lawsuits was
filed as a class action and sought to include in the class certain
current and former employees of the respective subsidiary
involved.  In each case, the plaintiffs sought unpaid wages,
interest, attorneys' fees, compensatory and other monetary
damages, statutory penalties, and injunctive relief.  In September
2012, the parties entered into a global settlement with respect to
these claims.  Under the terms of the settlement and depending on
the number of participants, Ralcorp has agreed to pay $4.4 million
in order to resolve these claims.  Ralcorp accrued $4.4 million
related to the settlement during the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On April 23, 2013, the court approved the settlement, and Ralcorp
ultimately paid $3.3 million on July 5, 2013, as a final
settlement.  Ralcorp reduced its accrual in the quarter ended
December 31, 2012, to $3.3 million to reflect the final settlement
amount.

ConAgra Foods, Inc. -- http://www.conagrafoods.com/-- is one of
North America's largest packaged food companies.  The Company's
balanced portfolio includes consumer brands found in 97% of
America's households, the largest private brand packaged food
business in North America, and a strong commercial and foodservice
business.  The Omaha, Nebraska-based Company's recognized brands
include Banquet(R), Chef Boyardee(R), Egg Beaters(R), Healthy
Choice(R), Hebrew National(R), Hunt's(R), Marie Callender's(R),
Odom's Tennessee Pride(R), Orville Redenbacher's(R), PAM(R), Peter
Pan(R), Reddi-wip(R), Slim Jim(R), Snack Pack(R), and many others.


COSTAR GROUP: Show Cause Hearing in Merger Suit Reset to October
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court rescheduled on October 8, 2013, the
show cause hearing on why a case over a merger of Costar Group,
Inc. with LoopNet Inc. should not be dismissed, according to
Costar's July 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In May 2011, LoopNet, the Board of Directors of LoopNet ("the
LoopNet Board") and/or the Company were named as defendants in
three purported class action lawsuits brought by alleged LoopNet
stockholders challenging LoopNet's proposed merger with the
Company.

The stockholder actions alleged, among other things, that (i) each
member of the LoopNet Board breached his fiduciary duties to
LoopNet and its stockholders in authorizing the sale of LoopNet to
the Company, (ii) the merger does not maximize value to LoopNet
stockholders, (iii) LoopNet and the Company have made incomplete
or materially misleading disclosures about the proposed
transaction and (iv) LoopNet and the Company aided and abetted the
breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the members of
the LoopNet Board.

The stockholder actions sought class action certification and
equitable relief, including an injunction against consummation of
the merger. The parties have stipulated to the consolidation of
the actions, and to permit the filing of a consolidated complaint.

In June 2011, counsel for the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding in which they agreed on the terms of a settlement of
this litigation, which could result in a loss to the Company of
approximately $200,000. On March 20, 2013, the California Superior
Court declined to grant preliminary approval to the proposed
settlement and issued an order scheduling a hearing on June 11,
2013 to show good cause why the case should not be dismissed.
Shortly before the hearing plaintiffs filed a third supplemental
submission in support of their motion for preliminary approval of
the proposed settlement, and the Court has rescheduled the show
cause hearing for October 8, 2013.


EBAY INC: Continues to Defend Fund Transfer Act Violations Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
eBay Inc. continues to defend two class action lawsuits in
California alleging violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer
Act, according to the Company's July 19, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.

Although there have been no definitive interpretations to date,
PayPal has taken actions as though its service is subject to the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E of the U.S. Federal
Reserve Board.  Under such regulations, among other things, PayPal
is required to provide advance disclosure of changes to its
service, to follow specified error resolution procedures and to
reimburse consumers for losses from certain transactions not
authorized by the consumer.  PayPal seeks to pass most of these
losses on to the relevant merchants, but PayPal incurs losses if
the merchant does not have sufficient funds in its PayPal account.
Additionally, even technical violations of these laws can result
in penalties of up to $1,000 for each non-compliant transaction or
up to $500,000 per violation in any class action, and the Company
could also be liable for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

In the second quarter of 2010, two putative class-action lawsuits
(Devinda Fernando and Vadim Tsigel v. PayPal, Inc. and Moises
Zepeda v. PayPal, Inc.) were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.  These lawsuits contain
allegations related to violations of aspects of the Electronic
Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E and violations of a previous
settlement agreement related to Regulation E, and/or allege that
PayPal improperly held users' funds or otherwise improperly
limited users' accounts.  These lawsuits seek damages as well as
changes to PayPal's practices, among other remedies.

The Company says a determination that there have been violations
of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Regulation E or violations of
other laws relating to PayPal's practices could expose PayPal to
significant liability.  Any changes to PayPal's practices
resulting from these lawsuits could require PayPal to incur
significant costs and to expend substantial resources, which could
delay other planned product launches or improvements and further
harm the Company's business.

Based in San Jose, California, eBay Inc. -- http://www.eBay.com/
-- is a global technology company that enables commerce through
three reportable business segments: Marketplaces, Payments and GSI
Commerce, Inc.  The Company's Marketplaces segment includes its
eBay.com platform, localized counterparts and other online trading
platforms like StubHub.  The Company's Payments segment is
comprised of PayPal, Bill Me Later and Zong.


EBAY INC: Continues to Defend TCPA Suits v. PayPal, Bill Me Later
-----------------------------------------------------------------
eBay Inc. continues to defend its subsidiaries against class
action lawsuits alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, according to the Company's July 19, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Two putative class-action lawsuits have been filed containing
allegations that eBay Inc.'s businesses violated the TCPA.
Roberts v. PayPal (filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California in February 2012) contains
allegations that commercial advertisements for PayPal products and
services were sent via text message to mobile phones without prior
consent.  In May 2013, the Court granted PayPal's Motion for
Summary Judgment challenging the viability of plaintiff's
individual claim on grounds that plaintiff consented to receive
the text message entered judgment in favor of PayPal.  The
Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal of this judgment.  Murray
v. Bill Me Later (filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois in June 2012) contains allegations
that Bill Me Later made calls featuring artificial or prerecorded
voices without prior consent.  These lawsuits, and other private
lawsuits not currently alleged as class actions, seek damages
(including statutory damages) and injunctive relief, among other
remedies.  Given the enormous number of communications the Company
sends to its users, a determination that there have been
violations of laws relating to PayPal's or Bill Me Later's
practices (or those of any of the Company's other companies) under
the TCPA or other communications-based statutes could expose the
Company to significant damage awards that could, individually or
in the aggregate, materially harm the Company's business.

Based in San Jose, California, eBay Inc. -- http://www.eBay.com/
-- is a global technology company that enables commerce through
three reportable business segments: Marketplaces, Payments and GSI
Commerce, Inc.  The Company's Marketplaces segment includes its
eBay.com platform, localized counterparts and other online trading
platforms like StubHub.  The Company's Payments segment is
comprised of PayPal, Bill Me Later and Zong.


EBAY INC: Suit vs. StubHub Remains Pending in North Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit relating to resale of tickets by an eBay
Inc. subsidiary remains pending, according to the Company's
July 19, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In October 2007, two plaintiffs filed a purported class action
lawsuit in North Carolina Superior Court alleging that StubHub
sold (and facilitated and participated in the sale) of concert
tickets to plaintiffs with the knowledge that the tickets were
resold in violation of North Carolina's maximum ticket resale
price law (which has been subsequently amended).  In February
2011, the trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment, concluding that immunity under the Communications
Decency Act did not apply.  The trial court further held that
StubHub violated the North Carolina unfair and deceptive trade
practices statute as it pertained to the two named plaintiffs, and
certified its decision for immediate appeal to the North Carolina
Court of Appeals.  In February 2012, the North Carolina Court of
Appeals overturned the lower court's decision, and the Court of
Appeals' decision is now final.  Similar actions are expected in
other states.  Laws and regulations governing the resale of event
tickets outside the U.S. (for example, in Europe) may be more
restrictive, and carry harsher penalties and fines, than
corresponding U.S. laws and regulations.  In 2012, France passed a
law prohibiting the habitual resale of event tickets without
permission from the event organizer.  In addition, the
unauthorized resale of football (soccer) tickets is illegal in the
U.K., where a StubHub site was launched in 2011.  While the
Company has secured a number of commercial partnerships in the UK
in order to enable the Company's customers to buy and sell
football (soccer) tickets, if the Company is unable to maintain
these partnerships or develop new partnerships on acceptable
terms, its tickets business would suffer.

Some event organizers and professional sports teams have expressed
concern about the resale of their event tickets on the Company's
sites.  Lawsuits alleging a variety of causes of actions have in
the past, and may in the future, be filed against StubHub and eBay
by venue owners, competitors, ticket buyers and unsuccessful
ticket buyers.  Such lawsuits could result in damage awards, could
require the Company to change its business practices in ways that
may be harmful to its business, or could otherwise negatively
affect its tickets business.

Based in San Jose, California, eBay Inc. -- http://www.eBay.com/-
- is a global technology company that enables commerce through
three reportable business segments: Marketplaces, Payments and GSI
Commerce, Inc.  The Company's Marketplaces segment includes its
eBay.com platform, localized counterparts and other online trading
platforms like StubHub.  The Company's Payments segment is
comprised of PayPal, Bill Me Later and Zong.


EI DU PONT: Doctors Name Eligible Class in Drinking Water Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A panel of three independent medical doctors released initial
recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing of eligible
class members in the suit Leach v DuPont, according to E.I. du
Pont de Nemours and Company's July 23, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v DuPont, was
filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living
near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer,
deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking
water.

DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004
that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a
payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a
community health project.  The company funded a series of health
studies which were completed in October 2012 by an independent
science panel of experts (the "C8 Science Panel"). The studies
were conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate
available scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists,
as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA
and human disease.

The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the
settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-
induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer;
testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and
diagnosed high cholesterol.

In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released
its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing
of eligible class members. The medical panel is expected to
address monitoring and may make additional recommendations in a
subsequent report.  The medical panel has not communicated its
anticipated schedule for completion.   The company is obligated to
fund up to $235 million for a medical monitoring program for
eligible class members.

In January 2012, the company put $1 million in an escrow account
to fund medical monitoring as required by the settlement
agreement.  The court has appointed a Medical Monitoring Director
to implement the medical panel's recommendations who is in the
process of setting up a program.  Testing has not yet begun and no
money has been disbursed from the fund.  While it is probable that
the company will incur losses related to funding the medical
monitoring program, such losses cannot be reasonably estimated due
to uncertainties surrounding implementation.

In addition, the company must continue to provide water treatment
designed to reduce the level of PFOA in water to six area water
districts, including the Little Hocking Water Association (LHWA),
and private well users.


EI DU PONT: September Trial in Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jury trial is scheduled to begin September 9, 2013 in a suit
alleging price fixing of titanium dioxide by E.I. du Pont de
Nemours and Company, according to the company's July 23, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In February 2010, two suits were filed in Maryland federal
district court alleging conspiracy among DuPont, Huntsman
International LLC, Kronos Worldwide Inc., Millenium Inorganics
Chemicals Inc. and others to fix prices of titanium dioxide sold
in the U.S. between March 2002 and the present.

The cases were subsequently consolidated and in August 2012, the
court certified a class consisting of U.S. customers that have
directly purchased titanium dioxide since February 1, 2003. The
class seeks injunctive relief and to recover alleged overcharges
and treble damages plus attorneys' fees and costs. Jury trial is
scheduled to begin September 9, 2013.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Unhappy Gamer's Class Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Nick DiVito reports that
Electronic Arts sells online games and then kills them before its
customers are tired of playing them, an unhappy gamer claims in a
federal class action.

Justin Bassett claims he bought several sports-themed games for
Xbox 360 for about $59.99 each, relying on Electronic Arts'
representation that the games were enabled for unlimited, online
play.  But the games were available for only a limited time, he
says.

"Had plaintiff known at the time that he would not be able to play
the products online for a certain amount of time, he would not
have purchased the products or paid the price he paid for the
products," Bassett claims.

Bassett's lawsuit cites games that include FIFA Soccer 2011 for
PCs and video game consoles for PlayStation 3, Wii and Xbox 360;
EA [Electronic Arts] Sports Madden NFL 10 for Xbox 360; EA Sports
NCAA Football 10; EA Sports Tiger Woods PGA Tour; EA Sports NHL
09; EA Sports Tiger Woods PGA Tour 09; and EA Sports NHL 08.

Electronic Arts claims that 5 million people a day have used its
Internet servers since 2010.

"Despite knowing that it did not intend to allocate resources for
online play for the Products indefinitely or for a reasonable time
from the release date, EA engaged in a widespread marketing and
advertising campaign to portray the products as being for
indefinite online play or, at a minimum, a reasonable time from
the release date," Bassett says in the complaint.

"Defendant engaged in this misleading and deceptive campaign to
charge a premium for the products and take away market share from
other similar products. . . .

"(S)uch representations and the widespread marketing campaign
portraying the products as being enabled for online play
indefinitely -- or, at a minimum, a reasonable time from the
release date -- are misleading and deceptive to consumers because
EA only provided online support for the products for a limited
time.

"Consumers frequently rely on labels in making purchase decisions.
Here, plaintiff and the other class members reasonably relied to
their detriment on defendant's misleading representations and
omissions. Defendant's misleading affirmative statements about the
capability of online play for the products obscured the material
fact that defendant failed to disclose about the limited nature of
its online support for the products.

Bennett seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages for
consumer law violations, false advertising, unfair competition,
and breach of warranty.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          Kim E. Richman, Esq.
          REESE RICHMAN LLP
          875 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: mreese@reeserichman.com
                  krichman@reeserichman.com

               - and -

          Clayton D. Halunen, Esq.
          Susan Coler, Esq.
          Melissa Wolchansky, Esq.
          HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES
          1650 IDS Center, 80 S 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 605-4098
          Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
          E-mail: Halunen@halunenlaw.com
                  Coler@halunenlaw.com
                  Wolchansky@halunenlaw.com

The case is Bassett v. Electronic Arts Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-
04208-MKB-SMG, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York (Brooklyn).


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: American Medical Faces Labor Suits in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Four different lawsuits purporting to be class actions have been
filed against American Medical Response, Inc., and certain
subsidiaries in California alleging violations of California wage
and hour laws, according to Envision Healthcare Corporation's July
23, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On April 16, 2008, Lori Bartoni commenced a suit in the Superior
Court for the State of California, County of Alameda; on July 8,
2008, Vaughn Banta filed suit in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles; on January 22, 2009, Laura
Karapetian filed suit in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles; and on March 11, 2010, Melanie
Aguilar filed suit in Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles. The Banta, Aguilar and Karapetian cases
have been coordinated in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.

At the present time, courts have not certified classes in any of
these cases. Plaintiffs allege principally that the AMR entities
failed to pay overtime charges pursuant to California law, and
failed to provide required meal breaks, rest breaks or pay premium
compensation for missed breaks. Plaintiffs are seeking to certify
the classes and are seeking lost wages, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and other sanctions permitted under California law
for violations of wage hour laws. The company is unable at this
time to estimate the amount of potential damages, if any.


FANNIE MAE: Faces Suit Filed by Junior Preferred Stockholders
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Abbott, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
junior preferred stockholders sued Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
claiming they've been stiffed in the government-sponsored
corporations' recent billion-dollar recoveries.

Lead plaintiff Joseph Cacciapelle sued the Federal National
Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation (Freddie Mac), and their conservator, the Federal
Housing Finance Administration (FHFA), in Federal Court.

The class claims the massive mortgage-backing monsters
unilaterally amended their terms with the U.S. Treasury in 2012 so
that stockholders would be left out of the mix when the
corporations paid back the government after the 2008 financial
meltdown.

"Between the start of the conservatorship in September 2008
through the beginning of 2012, the Government advanced Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac more than $188 billion -- most of which was
advanced to cover accounting losses reflecting excessive write-
downs of assets that have turned out to be worth farm more than
their written down amounts," the complaint states.  "These
advances increased the face value of the Senior Preferred Stock
held by the Government to approximately $189 billion, entitling
the Government to an annual dividend of approximately $18 billion,
which translates to a quarterly dividend of just under $5
billion."

How much in dividends do junior stockholders get?

Zilch, they claim.

"Specifically, on August 17, 2012, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
through their Conservator FHFA, amended the terms of their
agreements with the Treasury to provide that beginning on
January 1, 2013, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would pay the
Government dividends equal to their entire net worth (the 'Net
Worth Sweep'), leaving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with no funds to
redeem the Government's Senior Preferred Stock or to distribute to
the holders of Junior Preferred Stock, whether by dividend,
redemption, or in a liquidation," the lawsuit states.

The August 2012 action, according to junior stockholders, wiped
out any chance of general stockholders being paid back --
including the money owed to the government for its 79.9 percent
junior ownership in Fannie and Freddie -- despite the
institutions' recovery in 2012.

"Plaintiffs and other members of the Class paid valuable
consideration to acquire these rights, and in doing so helped
provide financial support for Fannie and Freddie, both before and
after the conservatorship, by contributing to a viable market for
Fannie's and Freddie's issued securities," the class claims.
"Indeed, the contractual rights owned by the holders of Junior
Preferred Stock were worth billions of dollars prior to being
eliminated in August 2012."

The class claims that if Fannie and Freddie were liquidated, Uncle
Sam would "receive the full amount of the institutions' net worth
in that liquidation."  They seek fair dividends and fair payment
if they choose to sell their stock.  They also seek damages for
breach of contract and breach of faith and fair dealing.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hamish P.M. Hume, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER, & FLEXNER, LLP
          5301 Wisconsin Ave, NW, Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 237-2727
          Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
          E-mail: hhume@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Lee D. Rudy, Esq.
          Eric L. Zagar, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: lrudy@ktmc.com
                  ezagar@ktmc.com

The case is Cacciapelle, et al. v. Federal National Mortgage
Association, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01149-RLW, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC).


FORD MOTOR: Faces "Brandon" Suit Over Defective Throttle Control
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Ford autos from 2002 to 2012
have a defective electronic throttle control system that makes
them susceptible to sudden unintended acceleration, a class action
claims in West Virginia Federal Court.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 214-0001
          E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Aleksandra M. S. Vold, Esq.
          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          SIPRUT
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 948-9212
          E-mail: avold@siprut.com
                  jsiprut@siprut.com

               - and -

          Alison K. Hurley, Esq.
          Benjamin L. Price, Esq.
          Keith G. Bremer, Esq.
          BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA
          20320 S.W. Birch Street, Second Floor
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 221-1000
          Facsimile: (949) 221-1001
          E-mail: ahurley@bremerwhyte.com
                  bprice@bremerwhyte.com
                  kbremer@bremerwhyte.com

               - and -

          C. Calvin Warriner, III, Esq.
          SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY
          2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
          West Palm Beach, FL 33409
          Telephone: (561) 686-6300
          Facsimile: (561) 383-9442
          E-mail: ccw@searcylaw.com

               - and -

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM
          950 West University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Edgar F. Heiskell, III, Esq.
          EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III
          P. O. Box 3232
          Charleston, WV 25332-3232
          Telephone: (304) 989-4459
          Facsimile: (305) 205-7429
          E-mail: heiskell.action@ymail.com

               - and -

          Grant L. Davis, Esq.
          Timothy C. Gaarder, Esq.
          DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2930
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 421-1600
          Facsimile: (816) 472-5972
          E-mail: gdavis@dbjlaw.net
                  tgaarder@dbjlaw.net

               - and -

          Gregory M. Travalio, Esq.
          Mark H. Troutman, Esq.
          ISAAC, WILES, BURKHOLDER & TEETOR
          Two Miranova Place, Suite 700
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221-2121
          Facsimile: (614) 365-9516
          E-mail: gtravalio@isaacwiles.com
                  mtroutman@isaacwiles.com

               - and -

          Guy R. Bucci, Esq.
          Timothy C. Bailey, Esq.
          BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS
          P. O. Box 3712
          Charleston, WV 25337-3712
          Telephone: (304) 345-0346
          Facsimile: (304) 345-0375
          E-mail: kpaxton@bbjlc.com
                  timbailey@bbjlc.com

               - and -

          James Bartimus, Esq.
          BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY
          11150 Overbrook Road, Suite 200
          Leawood, KS 66211
          Telephone: (913) 266-2300
          Facsimile: (913) 266-2366
          E-mail: jb@bflawfirm.com

               - and -

          John H. Gomez, Esq.
          Stephanie Poli, Esq.
          GOMEZ & IAGMIN
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 237-3490

               - and -

          John T. Murray, Esq.
          MURRAY & MURRAY
          111 East Shoreline Drive
          Sandusky, OH 44870
          Telephone: 419) 624-3000
          Facsimile: (419) 624-0707
          E-mail: jotm@murrayandmurray.com

               - and -

          John Scarola, Esq.
          SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY
          2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
          West Palm Beach, FL 33409
          Telephone: (800) 780-8607
          Facsimile: (561) 686-6300
          E-mail: JSX@searcylaw.com

               - and -

          John E. Tangren, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 214-0001
          E-mail: jtangren@gelaw.com

               - and -

          L. Lee Javins, II, Esq.
          BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS
          P. O. Box 3712
          Charleston, WV 25337-3712
          Telephone: (304) 345-0346
          Facsimile: (304) 345-0375
          E-mail: ljavins@bbjlc.com

               - and -

          Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
          Robert F. DiCello, Esq.
          THE DICELLO LAW FIRM
          Western Reserve Law Building
          7556 Mentor Avenue
          Mentor, OH 44060
          Telephone: (440) 953-8888
          Facsimile: (440) 953-9138
          E-mail: madicello@dicellolaw.com
                  rfdicello@dicellolaw.com

               - and -

          Nathan B. Atkinson, Esq.
          SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE
          110 Oakwood Drive, Suite 500
          Winston-Salem, NC 27103
          Telephone: (336) 725-4710
          Facsimile: (336) 725-4476
          E-mail: natkinson@spilmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Niall A. Paul, Esq.
          SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE
          P. O. Box 273
          Charleston, WV 25321-0273
          Telephone: (304) 340-3800
          Facsimile: 340-3801
          E-mail: npaul@spilmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard L. Merpi, II, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM
          950 West University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 841-2200
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: rlm@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Stephen M. Gorny, Esq.
          BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY
          11150 Overbrook Road, Suite 200
          Leawood, KS 66211
          Telephone: (913) 266-2300
          Facsimile: (913) 266-2366
          E-mail: steve@bflawfirm.com

               - and -

          V. Paul Bucci, II, Esq.
          LAFFEY, BUCCI & KENT
          1435 Walnut Street, 7th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 399-9255
          Facsimile: (215) 241-8700
          E-mail: PBucci@laffeybuccikent.com

The case is Brandon, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 3:13-
cv-20976, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
West Virginia (Huntington).


GALEMMO INVESTMENT: Sued Over Loss of $300-Mil. Investors' Fund
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that an
investment fund manager disappeared with $300 million in one of
the biggest frauds ever pulled in Cincinnati, seven investors
claim in a class action.

Lead plaintiff Mike Willner sued Glen Galemmo, Galemmo Investment
Group, Queen City Investment Fund, several other Queen City
entities, and others, in Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas.
Cincinnati, the seat of Hamilton County, is known as the Queen
City.

The investors claim that Galemmo has disappeared, and so has their
money, much of it taken from their retirement accounts.

"This class action is brought on behalf of approximately 200
persons who were unlawfully induced to invest their pension plans,
IRAs, retirement accounts and other monies in one of the largest
financial frauds in the history of Hamilton County, Ohio," the
lawsuit states.  "Defendants, in violation of the laws of the
State of Ohio and the laws of the United States, developed and
then carried out a scheme intended to look like a simple
investment in stocks, bonds and other types of securities.
Unbeknownst to class members, defendants, in actual fact, had
designed and executed a hidden and disguised program of reckless
financial transactions.  The principal intent of the scheme was
not 'capital appreciation' as the investors were led to believe;
rather, defendants created a 'cookie jar' with investors' money
that defendants treated as their own, withdrawing whatever they
personally needed without detection or challenge.

"No accurate account of the use or whereabouts of over
$300,000,000 of proceeds from defendants' sale of membership
interests in Fund II, or other investments made with or through
defendants, is known to presently exist, was ever reported to the
investors, to the SEC, or to the State of Ohio.  No accurate
account of the amount of an individual's investment status is
known to exist, and misleading information has been provided to
investors, which purports to provide the true value of their
investments. . . .

"Galemmo claims to have sold over $300,000,000 of membership
interests in Fund II since approximately 2002.  On July 17, 2013,
at 7:31 am, plaintiffs, and other members of the class, without
any prior warning, received a shocking email from Galemmo
announcing that as of July 17, 2013, 'Queen City Investments will
no longer be in operation.'  Galemmo further advised that he had
been instructed by counsel not to speak or interact with any
'clients' and directed the recipients of his email to a special
agent with the Internal Revenue Service.

"It is now apparent that defendants lied to investors and
regulatory agencies about, among other things: (i) Fund II's
investment strategies; (ii) Fund Il's investment performance;
(iii) Fund II's size and value; (iv) the value of each individual
non-managing member's interest in Fund II; and (v) where and how
investor monies were invested or held.  Defendants violated both
state and federal laws designed to protect investors from the very
conduct engaged in by defendants.  Plaintiffs and class members
now face serious jeopardy of losing most or all of their
retirement funds, college funds and other savings entrusted to
defendants.  The Fund II is shut down; Galemmo has disappeared;
the defendants' offices have gone dark; and, investor money
remains unaccounted for.  This case seeks to right those wrongs.

"On Sunday July 21, 2013, more than 100 individual investors met
in Cincinnati, Ohio to form a Steering Committee to investigate
and pursue claims against all culpable persons and entities that
are responsible for investors' losses.  Members of the Steering
Committee and others are named plaintiffs in this action."

The investors seek compensatory and punitive damages for
securities violations, fraud, conversion and unjust enrichment.

The defendants are Glen Galemmo; Queen City Investment Fund II
LLC; Queen City Advisors LLC; Galemmo Investment Group; Queen City
Investment Funds; Queen City Investments; Queen City Hedge Fund;
QC Power Strategies Fund II LLC; QC Power Strategies Fund Sweep
Account LLC; QC Power Strategies Fund LLC; Sentinel Property
Holdings LLC; Glen Rock LLC; Sentinel Strategy Fund LLC; QFC LLC;
Midwest Hoops at Sportsplus LLC: Midwest Hoops Sports Complex LLC;
Cincinnati Royals Inc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Cummins, Esq.
          CUMMINS & BROWN LLC
          Scripps Center
          312 Walnut St., Suite 1000
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 241-6400
          Facsimile: (513) 241-6464
          E-mail: jcummins@cumminsbrownlaw.com


HEALTHWAREHOUSE.COM: Plaintiff in Ad Fax Suit Withdraws Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in an "unsolicited advertising fax" suit filed
against Healthwarehouse.Com, Inc. withdrew two counts for alleged
violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and the common law
tort of conversion in an amended complaint, according to the
company's July 23, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2012.

On April 30, 2013, a purported class-action complaint was filed
against the company in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.  The complaint alleges that the
company sent an unsolicited advertising fax to Glen Ellyn
Pharmacy, the named plaintiff, and other recipients.

The complaint alleges that such a fax violates the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA"), the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act and Illinois common law.  Under the TCPA,
recipients of unsolicited fax advertisements are entitled to
damages of up to $500 per fax for inadvertent violations and up to
$1,500 for knowing or willful violations.

At the time of filing the complaint, the plaintiff also filed a
motion asking the Court to certify a class of persons and entities
who were sent advertising faxes by the company which did not
contain an opt out notice.

On June 19, 2013, the plaintiff filed an amended class-action
complaint which withdrew the two counts for alleged violations of
the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and the common law tort of
conversion.  The amended complaint eliminates claims for damages
under Illinois law and leaves only a single count for an alleged
violation of the TCPA.  The company filed an answer to the amended
complaint on July 8, 2013.

The District Court has not established or recognized any class.
The company is vigorously contesting class certification and
liability, and will continue to evaluate its defenses.  However,
it is impossible to predict with certainty the outcome of any
litigation, and the company can offer no assurance on whether the
company will be successful in any such litigation.


INGRAM MICRO: Gets $18MM From LCD Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------
Ingram Micro Inc. disclosed on its financial results for the
second quarter ended June 29, 2013, filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, that 2013 third quarter net income and
adjusted net income are expected to benefit from income of
approximately $18 million after-tax related to a settlement from a
class action proceeding seeking damages from certain manufacturers
of LCD flat panel displays.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Still Defends 2011 Securities Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
On July 24, 2012, Lori Anderson, as Court-appointed lead plaintiff
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for
Violations of Federal Securities Laws (the "2011 Securities
Litigation Complaint") in the 2011 Securities Litigation (which is
captioned In re K-V Pharmaceutical Company Securities Litigation,
11-cv-01816-AGF) on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise
acquired KV securities between February 14, 2011, and April 4,
2011, inclusive, and were allegedly damaged thereby.  The 2011
Securities Litigation Complaint asserts violations of the federal
securities laws, including Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against KV and against certain
individuals identified in the 2011 Securities Litigation Complaint
as being officers of KV or its affiliates, including Gregory
Divis, Thomas McHugh, and Scott Goedeke.  The lead plaintiff in
the 2011 Securities Litigation and the class of investors she
seeks to represent seek to recover for the harm allegedly suffered
as a result of the alleged misconduct described in the 2011
Securities Litigation Complaint from applicable insurance,
including any directors and officers insurance maintained for the
benefit of any of defendants currently named in the 2011
Securities Litigation Complaint or who may be added through the
filing of a future complaint, among other sources of potential
recovery.  In order to participate in any potential recoveries
obtained in the 2011 Securities Litigation, each member of the
putative class will be required to submit a proof of claim form in
the 2011 Securities Litigation demonstrating a recognized loss.

On August 8, 2012, K-V and certain of its wholly-owned domestic
subsidiaries (collectively, the "Debtors") filed voluntary
petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States
Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "Bankruptcy Court").

The Debtors dispute the allegations set forth in the 2011
Securities Litigation Complaint.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 19, 2013,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

K-V Pharmaceutical Company -- http://www.kvpharmaceutical.com/--
is a fully integrated specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures, markets, and acquires technology-
distinguished branded and generic/non-branded prescription
pharmaceutical products.  The Company is headquartered in
Chesterfield, Missouri.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Still Defends Class Suits Over FDA Inspection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In 2008 and thereafter, a number of investors commenced
stockholder class actions against K-V Pharmaceutical Company and
certain of its current and former directors and officers for
purportedly making false or misleading statements to the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA") related to inspections of the
Company's facilities in violation of the federal securities laws.

On August 8, 2012, K-V and certain of its wholly-owned domestic
subsidiaries (collectively, the "Debtors") filed voluntary
petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the United States
Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "Bankruptcy Court").  As of the
Petition Date, several other class actions, or purported class
actions, are pending against the Company and certain current and
former officers and directors in multiple jurisdictions.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 19, 2013,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

K-V Pharmaceutical Company -- http://www.kvpharmaceutical.com/--
is a fully integrated specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures, markets, and acquires technology-
distinguished branded and generic/non-branded prescription
pharmaceutical products.  The Company is headquartered in
Chesterfield, Missouri.


K-V PHARMACEUTICAL: Still Defends PPFG Securities Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
K-V Pharmaceutical Company continues to defend itself against a
consolidated securities class action lawsuit styled PPFG
Securities Litigation, according to the Company's July 19, 2013,
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On August 8, 2012, K-V Pharmaceutical Company and certain of its
wholly-owned domestic subsidiaries (collectively, the "Debtors")
filed voluntary petitions for reorganization under Chapter 11 of
the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Bankruptcy
Court").

On December 2, 2008, Joseph Mas filed a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri (the "Missouri District Court"), on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, against KV and certain then current
and former officers and directors of KV, alleging violations of
Sections 10(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (collectively, the "Federal
Securities Laws").  Thereafter, two additional securities class
actions (Herman Unvericht, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. KV Pharmaceutical Co., et al., Civil
Action No. 4:09-cv-00061-RWS, and Norfolk County Retirement
System, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v.
KV Pharmaceutical Co., et al., Civil Action No. 4:09-cv-00138-CAS)
were filed in the Missouri District Court against KV and certain
then current and former officers and directors of KV alleging
similar violations of the Federal Securities Laws.  On April 15,
2009, the Missouri District Court consolidated these securities
class actions into the PPFG Securities Litigation and appointed
the Public Pension Fund Group (comprised of the State-Boston
Retirement System and the Norfolk County Retirement System) as
Lead Plaintiff (the "PPFG Litigation Lead Plaintiff").

On May 22, 2009, the PPFG Litigation Lead Plaintiff, on behalf of
all persons who purchased publicly traded securities of KV between
June 14, 2004, and January 23, 2009, filed a consolidated amended
complaint for alleged violations of the Federal Securities Laws
against KV and certain current or former officers and directors of
KV (the "Non-Debtor Defendants").  Thereafter, the Missouri
District Court entered an order granting motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint filed by KV and the Non-Debtor
Defendants.  On June 4, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the
Missouri District Court order and remanded the matter to the
Missouri District Court.

On August 10, 2012, following the Debtors' bankruptcy filing, the
Missouri District Court issued an order, sua sponte, staying the
PPFG Securities Litigation as to the Non-Debtor Defendants (the
"PPFG Stay Order").  On December 6, 2012, PPFG Litigation Lead
Plaintiff filed a motion in the PPFG Securities Litigation (the
"PPFG Stay Order Modification Motion") to modify the PPFG Stay
Order so as to proceed against Mr. M. Hermelin (the sole-remaining
Non-Debtor Defendant).  Mr. M. Hermelin and KV objected to the
PPFG Stay Order Modification Motion.

On March 22, 2013, the Missouri District Court issued a Memorandum
and Order granting the PPFG Stay Order Modification Motion and
vacating the PPFG Stay Order solely as to Mr. M. Hermelin, thereby
permitting PPFG Litigation Lead Plaintiff to proceed with the PPFG
Securities Litigation in the Missouri District Court solely as to
Mr. M. Hermelin.  The PPFG Litigation Lead Plaintiff and the
individual members thereof (State-Boston Retirement System and the
Norfolk County Retirement System) timely filed class and
individual proofs of claim against KV for, inter alia, alleged
violations of the Federal Securities Laws.  The Debtors dispute
the allegations underlying this litigation.

K-V Pharmaceutical Company -- http://www.kvpharmaceutical.com/--
is a fully integrated specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures, markets, and acquires technology-
distinguished branded and generic/non-branded prescription
pharmaceutical products.  The Company is headquartered in
Chesterfield, Missouri.


MCKESSON CORP: Court Stays "Aud" Suit Pending Transfer Bid Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In AUD v. McKESSON CORPORATION, District Judge Jeffrey S. White
granted a motion to stay the case pending a ruling by the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on whether this case will be
transferred to In re Avandia, MDL 1871 (E.D. Pa.).

The Court vacated the hearing scheduled for August 23, 2013.  The
Court further vacated the hearing scheduled for October 11, 2013,
on the Plaintiffs' motion to remand, which will be rescheduled, if
necessary.

The Court ordered the parties to file a joint notice with the
Court within seven days of any such ruling.

The case is JANICE AUD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. McKESSON
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, NO. C 13-03111 JSW (N.D. Cal.)

A copy of the District Court's July 29, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/JmqhWefrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Janice Aud and Renetta Barnes are represented by Sin-
Ting Mary Liu -- mliu@awkolaw.com -- at Law Offices of Sin-Ting
Mary Liu.

Defendant GlaxoSmithKline LLC is represented by Michael Kevin
Brown -- mkbrown@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith LLP, Sonja S.
Weissman -- sweissman@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith LLP & Steven
J. Boranian -- sboranian@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith LLP.


MCKESSON CORP: Oakland County Recovers $362,018 in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Jessica Schrader at Clawson
Patch, Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson announced on
July 31 that the county has recovered $362,018.02 from a large
drug wholesaler that conspired to inflate the price of
prescription drugs.

A class-action lawsuit against drug wholesaler McKesson and
publisher of drug data First Data Bank said they wrongfully
inflated the mark-up factor that determines the average wholesale
price of prescription drugs, according to a press release from the
county.

Oakland County was one of several municipalities to overpay on
more than 400 brand name prescription drugs between 2001 and 2006,
the release states.

Mr. Patterson said in the release that the county's Corporation
Counsel, Human Resources Department and outside counsel, Sommers
Schwartz, did an "outstanding job" in determining the damages
against the county and recovering the money.

"Oakland County has a reputation for fiscal excellence because we
always fight for the best interest of our taxpayers," he said.

Oakland County was one of 1,128 valid claimants against McKesson
and First Data Bank, which paid $82 million into a fund for
distribution to claimants as part of the class-action settlement.
The average payment was $55,746.90.


MF GLOBAL: Files Class Antitrust Suit Against Swap Banks
--------------------------------------------------------
Bill Rochelle, the bankruptcy columnist for Bloomberg News,
reports that MF Global Capital LLC is the named plaintiff in a
class lawsuit accusing about a dozen major banks of violating
federal antitrust laws by restricting information about credit-
default swaps.

According to the report, the lawsuit, filed in federal district
court in Chicago, is the fourth alleging antitrust violations by
swap dealers.  MF Global Capital is a subsidiary of MF Global
Holdings Ltd. The Chapter 11 plan for the companies was approved
by the bankruptcy court in April and implemented in June.

The antitrust case is MF Global Capital LLC v. Bank of
America Corp., 13-cv-05417, U.S. District Court, Northern
District of Illinois (Chicago).

                         About MF Global

New York-based MF Global -- http://www.mfglobal.com/-- was one of
the world's leading brokers of commodities and listed derivatives.
MF Global provides access to more than 70 exchanges around the
world.  The firm also was one of 22 primary dealers authorized to
trade U.S. government securities with the Federal Reserve Bank of
New York.  MF Global's roots go back nearly 230 years to a sugar
brokerage on the banks of the Thames River in London.


MGM INVESTMENT: Still Faces Lawsuits Over RESPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
MGIC Investment Corporation continues to face 12 federal cases
alleging various claims related to the captive mortgage
reinsurance arrangements of mortgage lenders, according to the
company's second quarter 2013 results filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2013.

Consumers continue to bring lawsuits against home mortgage lenders
and settlement service providers. Mortgage insurers, including
MGIC, have been involved in litigation alleging violations of the
anti-referral fee provisions of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act, which is commonly known as RESPA, and the notice
provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which is commonly
known as FCRA.

MGIC's settlement of class action litigation against it under
RESPA became final in October 2003. MGIC settled the named
plaintiffs' claims in litigation against it under FCRA in December
2004, following denial of class certification in June 2004. Since
December 2006, class action litigation has been brought against a
number of large lenders alleging that their captive mortgage
reinsurance arrangements violated RESPA.

Beginning in December 2011, MGIC, together with various mortgage
lenders and other mortgage insurers, has been named as a defendant
in twelve lawsuits, alleged to be class actions, filed in various
U.S. District Courts. Four of those cases have previously been
dismissed by the applicable U.S. District Courts without any
further opportunity to appeal and two additional cases have been
dismissed by the applicable U.S. District Court but are now on
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

The complaints in all of the cases allege various causes of action
related to the captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements of the
mortgage lenders, including that the defendants violated RESPA by
paying excessive premiums to the lenders' captive reinsurer in
relation to the risk assumed by that captive. MGIC denies any
wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend itself against the
allegations in the lawsuits. There can be no assurance that the
company will not be subject to further litigation under RESPA (or
FCRA) or that the outcome of any such litigation, including the
lawsuits mentioned, would not have a material adverse effect on
the Company.


OVERHILL FARMS: Inks MOU to Settle Suit Over Bellisio Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Overhill Farms, Inc., a Nevada corporation, on July 23 entered
into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") with plaintiffs
("Plaintiffs") and certain named defendants regarding the
settlement of four putative class actions pending in the Eighth
Judicial District Court, Clark County, Nevada (the "Nevada
Actions") and two putative class actions pending in the Superior
Court for the County of Los Angeles, State of California (the
"California Actions" and together with the Nevada Actions, the
"Litigation"), challenging the merger (the "Merger") of Overhill
with Bellisio Acquisition Corp. ("Merger Sub"), a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Bellisio Foods, Inc. ("Bellisio"), pursuant to that
certain Agreement and Plan of Merger dated May 14, 2013 ("Merger
Agreement"), whereby Overhill would become a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Bellisio.

On or before July 15, 2013, the four Nevada Actions were ordered
consolidated. On or about July 12, 2013, plaintiffs and defendants
in the California Actions stipulated and agreed (the
"Stipulation") to stay the already-consolidated California Actions
unless and until the Nevada Actions are finally and fully
resolved, the plaintiffs in the California Actions having agreed
to jointly prosecute their claims with the plaintiffs in the
Nevada actions and to proceed with the litigation in the Nevada
Actions. Pursuant to that Stipulation, on or about July 16, 2013,
the court stayed the California Actions.

Under the terms of the MOU, Overhill, the other named defendants
and Plaintiffs have agreed to settle the Litigation and release
the defendants from all claims relating to the Merger, subject to
court approval. If the court approves the settlement contemplated
by the MOU, the Litigation will be dismissed with prejudice.
Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, Overhill has agreed to make
available certain additional information to its stockholders. That
additional information is contained in this current report and
should be read in conjunction with Overhill's definitive proxy
statement, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") on July 1, 2013 (the "Proxy Statement"), which should be
read in its entirety. In addition, the defendants have agreed to
negotiate in good faith with plaintiffs' counsel regarding an
appropriate amount of fees, costs and expenses to be paid to
plaintiffs' counsel by Overhill or Bellisio.

The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be paid
to Overhill's stockholders in connection with the proposed Merger
or the timing of the special meeting of Overhill's stockholders,
scheduled for August 6, 2013 in Vernon, California, to, among
other things, consider and vote upon a proposal to adopt the
Merger Agreement.

Overhill and the other defendants deny all of the allegations in
the Litigation and believe the disclosures in Overhill's Proxy
Statement are adequate under the law. Nevertheless, Overhill and
the other defendants have agreed to settle the Litigation in order
to avoid costly litigation and reduce the risk of any delay to the
completion of the Merger.


PNC BANK: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Predatory Lending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Lord, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports that a
federal judge on July 31 certified a class action lawsuit against
PNC Bank related to alleged involvement in predatory lending by a
defunct bank that the Downtown-based lender acquired.

U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab found that the roughly 22,000
class members who say they were wronged, from 1998 to 2002, by the
Shumway/Bapst Organization -- which made high-interest loans to
debt-laden homeowners -- are a legitimate class.

The loans were provided by the Community Bank of Northern
Virginia, which was acquired by Mercantile Bankshares Corp., which
is now owned by PNC.

In the 10-year-old case that has been the subject of multiple
appeals, the plaintiffs claim that Community Bank of Northern
Virginia violated numerous lending laws and operated as a
racketeering-influenced corrupt organization.  The judge wrote
that the parties will now try to figure out how to notify all of
the members of the class.


RADIOSHACK CORPORATION: "Brookler" Plaintiffs Amend Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court granted a motion by plaintiffs in
Brookler v. RadioShack Corporation to assert rest and meal period
and to add an additional class representative, according to the
company's July 23, 2013, Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

On April 6, 2004, plaintiffs filed a putative class action in Los
Angeles Superior Court, Brookler v. RadioShack Corporation,
claiming that the company violated California's wage and hour laws
relating to meal and rest periods. The meal period portion of the
case was originally certified as a class action in February 2006.

Our first Motion for Decertification of the class was denied in
August 2007. After a favorable decision at the California Court of
Appeals in a similar case, Brinker Restaurant Corporation v.
Superior Court, the company filed a second motion for
decertification and in October 2008 the trial court granted the
company's motion.

The plaintiffs in Brookler appealed this ruling. Due to the
unsettled nature of California law regarding the obligations of
employers with respect to meal periods, the company and the
Brookler plaintiffs requested that the California Court of Appeals
stay its ruling on the plaintiffs' appeal of the class
decertification ruling pending the California Supreme Court's
decision in Brinker. The appellate court denied this joint motion
and then heard oral arguments in the case on August 5, 2010.

On August 26, 2010, the California Court of Appeals reversed the
trial court's decertification of the class, and the company's
Petition for Rehearing was denied on September 14, 2010. On
September 28, 2010, the company filed a Petition for Review with
the California Supreme Court, which granted review and placed the
case on hold pending its decision in Brinker.

On April 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court issued its
decision in Brinker.  On June 20, 2012, the California Supreme
Court remanded the Brookler case to the California Court of
Appeals instructing it to vacate its prior order and reconsider
its ruling in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in Brinker.

Both parties filed supplemental briefs and oral argument was held
on November 1, 2012.  On December 5, 2012, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial court's decertification of the meal period
class.  Plaintiff filed a motion to amend his Complaint to assert
rest and meal period as well as off the clock and PAGA claims and
to add an additional class representative on June 14, 2013, On
July 18, 2013, the Court granted the motion to amend and plaintiff
filed his Second Amended Complaint. The outcome of this case is
uncertain and the ultimate resolution of it could have a material
adverse effect on the company's consolidated financial statements
in the period in which the resolution is recorded.


RADIOSHACK CORPORATION: Deposition Done in "Ordonez" Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Deposition was conducted in May 2013 in the suit Ordonez v.
RadioShack Corporation, which was filed on behalf of certain
current and former non-exempt employees who held the position of
sales associate or stock person, according to the company's July
23, 2013, Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

In May 2010, Daniel Ordonez, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated current and former employees, filed a Complaint
against the Company in the Los Angeles Superior Court. In July
2010, Ordonez filed an Amended Complaint alleging, among other
things, that the company failed to provide required meal periods
and rest breaks, pay for all time worked, pay overtime
compensation, pay minimum wages, and maintain required records.

In September 2010 the company removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California. The
proposed putative class in Ordonez consists of all current and
former non-exempt employees who held the position of sales
associate or stock person for a period within the four (4) years
preceding the filing of the Complaint.

The meal period claims raised in Ordonez are similar to the claims
raised in Brookler. Pursuant to a motion filed by the Ordonez
parties, the court granted a Stipulation and Order to Stay
Proceedings pending the decision of the California Supreme Court
in the Brinker case.

On April 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court issued its
decision in Brinker. On July 27, 2012, Ordonez filed a Motion for
Class Certification. A hearing on the Motion was held on November
19, 2012. On January 17, 2013, the court denied, without
prejudice, Ordonez's Motion for Class Certification as to all
claims. On February 4, 2013, Ordonez filed a Motion for
Reconsideration of the court's denial of class certification with
regard to the rest period claim.

The court ordered that Ordonez could take one additional
deposition and file a renewed Motion for Class Certification. The
deposition was conducted on May 23, 2013 and the deadline for
filing the motion is July 26, 2013. The outcome of this case is
uncertain and the ultimate resolution of it could have a material
adverse effect on the company's consolidated financial statements
in the period in which the resolution is recorded.


RADIOSHACK CORPORATION: Wins Approval of "Sosinov" Suit Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
In March, the Los Angeles Superior Court granted final approval to
the settlement reached in "Sosinov v. RadioShack," according to
the company's July 23, 2013, Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.

In November 2010 RadioShack received service of process with
respect to the first of four putative class action lawsuits filed
in California (Sosinov v. RadioShack, Los Angeles Superior Court;
Bitter v. RadioShack, Federal District Court, Central District of
California; Moreno v. RadioShack, Federal District Court, Southern
District of California; and Grant v. RadioShack, San Francisco
Superior Court).

The plaintiffs in all of these cases seek damages under
California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act (the "Act"). Plaintiffs
claim that under one section of the Act, retailers are prohibited
from recording certain personal identification information
regarding their customers while processing credit card
transactions unless certain statutory exceptions are applicable.

The Act provides that any person who violates this section is
subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $250 for the first
violation and $1,000 for each subsequent violation. In each of the
cases, plaintiffs allege that the company violated the Act by
asking them for personal identification information while
processing a credit card transaction and then recording it.

In May 2011 the Bitter case was stayed by the court pending the
conclusion of the Sosinov case. In June 2012, the Moreno case was
settled for a nominal amount and dismissed. In July 2012, the
company reached a settlement of the Sosinov case. In November
2012, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement.
Notices were sent to the class members. On March 27, 2013, the
court granted final approval of the settlement.

The class of plaintiffs in the Sosinov case includes the
plaintiffs in the Grant and Bitter cases. Therefore resolving the
Sosinov case should resolve the Grant and Bitter claims, although
the Bitter and Grant cases have not yet been dismissed. The
company expects these cases to be dismissed within the next few
months. The settlement will not have a material adverse effect on
the company's consolidated financial statements.


RADIOSHACK CORPORATION: FACTA Suit Settlement Hearing in Sept.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A September 2013 hearing is set on the final approval of a
settlement reached in a consolidated suit alleging Radioshack
Corporation violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
of 2003 by displaying the expiration dates of the company's
customers' credit or debit card, according to the company's
July 23, 2013, Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On September 26, 2011, Scott D.H. Redman filed a putative class
action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Mr. Redman claims that the company violated certain provisions of
the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 ("FACTA"),
which amended the Fair Credit Reporting Act, by displaying the
expiration dates of the company's customers' credit or debit cards
on electronically printed transaction receipts. Mr. Redman filed a
motion seeking to certify a class that includes all persons to
whom the Company provided an electronically printed transaction
receipt, in transactions occurring after June 3, 2008, that
displayed the expiration date of the person's credit or debit
card.

On November 3, 2011, Mario Aliano and Vitoria Radavicuite filed a
similar putative class action lawsuit against the Company, also in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, alleging similar violations of FACTA. Mr. Aliano and Ms.
Radavicuite initially filed a motion seeking to certify a class
that includes all persons to whom the Company provided an
electronically printed transaction receipt, in transactions
occurring in Illinois after June 3, 2008, that displayed the
expiration date of the person's credit or debit card.

On December 28, 2011, Mr. Aliano and Ms. Radavicuite filed an
amended complaint and an amended motion seeking to certify a class
that was not limited to transactions occurring in Illinois.

On January 11, 2012, the Aliano lawsuit was reassigned to the
judge presiding over the Redman lawsuit on the basis of
relatedness, and the two cases were consolidated for all purposes.
On January 25, 2012, the presiding judge referred the matter to
the magistrate judge assigned to the consolidated cases for
mediation, extending the time by which the Company must respond to
the pending complaints to such time as the magistrate judge shall
order, and holding the motions for class certification in
abeyance.

In November 2012 the parties reached a tentative settlement. On
May 16, 2013, the parties executed a settlement agreement. On May
29, 2013, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement. Notices of the settlement have been mailed to known
class members and published in several national publications. A
hearing on final approval of the settlement is set for September
17, 2013. The outcome of these cases is still uncertain and the
ultimate resolution of them could have a material adverse effect
on the company's consolidated financial statements in the period
in which the resolution is recorded.


RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Settles Class Action Over Mortgage Loans
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Checkler, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that
Residential Capital LLC has reached a deal with borrowers to
settle a class-action lawsuit over so-called high-cost mortgage
loans.

In a July 31 filing with U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan,
ResCap said it will create a fund with no less than $57.6 million,
which will go to the borrowers on 44,535 second mortgage loans.
The borrowers, who were suing ResCap over what they said was $1.87
billion in damages, will receive an allowed claim of $300 million
in ResCap's bankruptcy case.  While ResCap currently estimates
that at least $27 million will be paid to the borrowers, the fund
created will be for more than double that, just in case.

The deal, lawyers for ResCap and the borrowers said in their
filing, was "achieved in conjunction with the mediation process
overseen by Judge [James] Peck," who also helped ResCap creditors
and its parent reach the historic settlement that should lead to
the mortgage servicer's emergence from Chapter 11.

The settlement works out to at least $606 per loan, although the
amount recovered should vary wildly and the total amount could
increase.  A formula based on estimates of fees and interest paid
by the borrowers will determine their recovery.  Those whose loans
closed before May 1, 2000, will get 18.5% less.

But the borrowers who are part of the class action could get much
more, thanks to $300 million in insurance coverage that has been
assigned to them as part of the settlement.  If the borrowers are
able to prove the insurers are on the hook for that money, they
could "have an opportunity to realize a substantial recovery on
the allowed claim," according to the filing.

The settlement has a two-pronged approval process: Judge Martin
Glenn will consider whether to preliminarily sign off on the deal
at an Aug. 21 hearing, at which he will also decide whether to
send ResCap's reorganization plan to creditors for a vote.  A
separate approval will be required later.

ResCap filed its plan to reorganize -- and ultimately liquidate --
in early July.  The proposal is based on a crucial settlement
among the company, government-controlled parent Ally Financial
Inc. and the creditors committee that calls for Ally to pay $2.1
billion to settle creditor claims.  In return, Ally is off the
hook for further liabilities.

ResCap, once the country's fifth-largest mortgage servicer and
10th-largest mortgage lender, filed for Chapter 11 protection in
May 2012 as litigation over soured mortgage securities mounted and
bond payments loomed.  The move was intended to help Ally, which
isn't part of the bankruptcy, to sever itself from those issues so
it can focus on repaying the bailout it received during the
financial crisis.

During its bankruptcy, ResCap struck deals to sell mortgage-
servicing platforms and loan portfolios as a part of bankruptcy
auctions that generated $4.5 billion in proceeds.


RESTAURANT.COM: Class Action Over Gift Certificates Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Loop North News reports that a decision by the Supreme Court of
New Jersey three weeks ago has cleared the way for a class action
lawsuit to resume against a suburban Chicago company owned by two
River North residents.

Restaurant.com, based in Arlington Heights and owned by Dr.
Kenneth Chessick and his wife, Ellen Chessick, who is president of
the condo board at Marina City, got a three-year break in the suit
filed in 2010.  The complaint is over expiration dates on gift
certificates the company sells that are redeemable at restaurants
nationwide.  The expiration dates have conflicted with state laws,
including laws in New Jersey and Illinois, which define how long a
gift certificate must be valid.

Two New Jersey residents, Larissa Shelton and Gregory Bohus,
complained that gift certificates they bought from RDC's website
expired in one year despite a law in their state that says gift
certificates must be valid for two years.

Although its gift certificates currently do not expire at all, for
at least four years, starting on April 4, 2006, Restaurant.com
coupons expired one year from the date they were issued, according
to the fine print, "except in California and where otherwise
provided by law."

A $5 million lawsuit by Shelton and Bohus filed on behalf of
themselves and others on February 17, 2010, was moved to U.S.
District Court and ended there four months later.  The judge,
already dubious that the plaintiffs had actually lost any money,
agreed with RDC that the certificates are not consumer contracts
and the plaintiffs in the lawsuit were not, as defined by law,
"consumers."

The case was dismissed on June 15, 2010 and appealed on July 9,
2010.

Three years to the day later, on July 9, 2013, the New Jersey
Supreme Court ruled that Shelton and Bohus were consumers and the
$10 and $25 gift certificates they bought from RDC did indeed
represent written consumer contracts.  The state court rejected
RDC arguments that included a claim that its transactions are not
consumer contracts because they are not in writing.  The court
pointed out that since 2001, New Jersey's Uniform Electronic
Transactions Act has addressed "the steady shift from traditional
paper transactions to electronic transactions."


RESTORATION HARDWARE: Stiffs Hourly Workers for OT, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Restoration Hardware stiffs
hourly workers for overtime, a class estimated at more than 1,000
claims in California Superior Court.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          GIRARDI KEESE
          1126 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977-0211
          Facsimile: (213) 481-1554

               - and -

          THE JUSTICE LAW FIRM P.C.
          719 Canal Street, Suite A
          Ottawa, IL 61350
          Telephone: (815) 434-0709
          Facsimile: (815) 434-0907
          E-mail: Tom@TheJusticeLawFirm.com

               - and -

          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (866) 343-4881

The case is Jennifer Ailey vs. Restoration Hardware Inc., Case No.
BC516795, in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County.


SANDISK CORP: "Giuliano" Plaintiffs May File Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong granted, in part, and
denied, in part, plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint in ALFRED T. GIULIANO, the Chapter 7 Trustee of
the Ritz bankruptcy estate, Plaintiff, v. SANDISK CORPORATION,
ELIYAHOU HARARI, Defendants, CASE NO. C 10-02787 SBA, (N.D. Cal.).

Ritz Camera & Image, LLC commenced the antitrust class action on
June 25, 2010, on behalf of itself and a putative class against
Defendants SanDisk Corporation and Eliyahou Harari alleging claims
under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2.
On July 5, 2013, the Court issued an Order substituting Alfred T.
Giuliano, Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz bankruptcy estate, as the
named Plaintiff in this action.

According to Judge Armstrong, the Plaintiff's motion is denied to
the extent the Plaintiff requests leave to reallege his conspiracy
to monopolize claim. The Plaintiff's motion is granted in all
other respects.  The Court held that SanDisk has not demonstrated
that leave to amend should be denied with respect to the proposed
amendments to the first amended complaint. The arguments presented
by SanDisk are insufficient to overcome Rule 15(a) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure's liberal policy in favor of permitting
amendment, says Judge Armstrong.

The Court ordered the Plaintiff to file its second amended
complaint in accordance with the Order within seven days from the
date the Order is filed.

The Court sets July 14, 2014 as the deadline for fact discovery
and expert reports. Rebuttal expert reports are due by August 14,
2014. Expert discovery shall be completed by August 30, 2014.

The Court said it will discuss the trial schedule and set all
other pretrial dates at the case management conference currently
scheduled for October 7, 2013, at 3:00 p.m.

A copy of the District Court's July 26, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/7wxQijfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiff Alfred T. Giuliano is represented by Colleen Duffy-Smith
-- cduffysmith@mdstlaw.com -- at Morgan Duffy-Smith & Tidalgo, LLP
& Alexander Samuel Edelson -- aedelson@khhte.com -- at Kellogg,
Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans and Figel, PLLC.

Chapter 7 Trustee, Plaintiff Alfred T. Giuliano is represented by
Joseph S. Hall -- jhall@khhte.com -- at Kellogg Huber Hansen Todd
Evans and Figel, P.L.L.C, Robert Stephen Berry --
sberry@berrylawpllc.com -- at Berry Law PLLC, Steven F. Benz --
sbenz@khhte.com -- at Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, William J.
Conynham -- wconyngham@khhte.com -- at Kellogg, Huber, Hansen,
Todd, Evans & Figel & William Joseph Rinner -- wrinner@khhte.com -
- at Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans and Figel, PLLC.

Defendant Sandisk Corporation is represented by Raoul Dion Kennedy
-- raoul.kennedy@skadden.com -- at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher &
Flom LLP, David W. Hansen -- david.hansen@skadden.com -- at
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, James Patrick Schaefer --
james.schaefer@skadden.com -- at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
LLP, Matthew David Buchanan -- matthew.buchanan@skadden.com -- at
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom & Patrick Maben Hammon --
patrick.hammon@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher Flom.

Eliyahou Harari, Defendant, represented by Raoul Dion Kennedy,
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, David W. Hansen, Skadden
Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP & James Patrick Schaefer, Skadden
Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP.


SCBT FINANCIAL: Inks MOU to Settle Suit Over 1st Financial Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SCBT Financial Corporation entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle class action lawsuits arising from its
proposed merger with First Financial Holdings, Inc., according to
the Company's July 19, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On July 19, 2013, SCBT Financial Corporation, a South Carolina
corporation ("SCBT") entered into a memorandum of understanding
(the "MOU") with plaintiffs regarding the settlement of a putative
class action lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York in the County of New York (the "Court") in response to
the announcement of the execution of an Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated as of February 19, 2013  (the "Merger Agreement"),
by and between SCBT and First Financial Holdings, Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("First Financial").  Pursuant to, and subject to the
terms and conditions of, the Merger Agreement, First Financial
will merge with and into SCBT, with SCBT as the surviving entity
following the merger (the "Merger").

On May 3, 2013, a purported shareholder of First Financial filed a
lawsuit (the "Lawsuit") in the Court, captioned Rational
Strategies Fund v. Robert R. Hill Jr. et al., No. 651625/2013,
naming SCBT and members of its board of directors as defendants
(such members, the "Director Defendants").  On July 18, 2013, the
Court granted a temporary injunction enjoining SCBT from
certifying the vote of its shareholders at its special meeting on
July 24, 2013, to consider and vote upon the Merger, pending a
hearing scheduled for the same date on the defendants' motion to
vacate that temporary injunction.  Under the terms of the MOU, the
plaintiff has agreed to jointly request with SCBT that the
temporary injunction be lifted so that the results of the special
meeting may be certified without any delay or impediment.  The
lifting of the temporary injunction prior to the special meeting
is a condition to the effectiveness of the settlement.

Under the terms of the MOU, SCBT, the Director Defendants and the
plaintiffs have agreed to settle the Lawsuit and release the
defendants from all claims made by the plaintiffs relating to the
Merger, subject to approval by the Court.  If the Court approves
the settlement contemplated by the MOU, the Lawsuit will be
dismissed with prejudice.  Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, SCBT
has agreed to make available additional information to SCBT
shareholders.  The additional information is contained in this
Current Report on Form 8-K (the "Current Report") and should be
read in conjunction with the Definitive Proxy, which should be
read in its entirety.  In return, the plaintiffs have agreed to
the dismissal of the Lawsuit with prejudice and to withdraw all
motions filed in connection with the Lawsuit.  The parties to the
MOU have agreed that final resolution by the Court of any fee
petition will not be a precondition to the dismissal of the
Lawsuit.  There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
Court will approve the settlement, even if the parties were to
enter into such stipulation.  In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.

The settlement will not affect the consideration to be paid by
SCBT to First Financial shareholders in connection with the Merger
or the timing of the special meeting of SCBT shareholders, which
was scheduled on July 24, 2013, in Columbia, South Carolina, to
consider and vote upon a proposal to approve the Merger Agreement,
among other things.

SCBT and the Director Defendants deny each of the allegations in
the Lawsuit and believe the prior disclosures in the Definitive
Proxy are adequate under applicable law.  The Director Defendants
have informed SCBT that they maintain that they have complied with
their fiduciary duty and other applicable legal duties in all
respects in connection with the Merger and any disclosure
obligations in connection therewith.  SCBT and the Director
Defendants have agreed to settle the Lawsuit in order to avoid
costly litigation and reduce the risk of any delay to the
completion of the Merger.  Nothing in this Current Report or any
stipulation of settlement shall be deemed an admission of the
legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the
disclosures set forth herein or therein.

Headquartered in Columbia, South Carolina, SCBT Financial
Corporation -- http://www.scbtonline.com/-- operates as the
holding company for SCBT, N.A., that provides retail and
commercial banking services in the Carolinas.  The Company's
deposit products include checking accounts; savings and time
deposits; and certificates of deposit, as well as interest-bearing
transaction accounts, including NOW, HSA, IOLTA, and market rate
checking accounts.


SPORTS AUTHORITY: Settlement of Wage and Hour Suit Has Initial OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Khanh Nielson brought a putative wage and hour class
action on behalf of herself and all other non-exempt employees of
defendant The Sports Authority claiming that the Defendant's
policy and concomitant failure to compensate non-exempt employees
violates the California Labor Code.

The Court previously denied the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary
approval due to her failure to adequately support her various
requests. In response to the Court's concerns, the parties revised
their settlement and on June 7, 2013, filed a "Stipulated Ex Parte
Application" for preliminary approval.  On July 8, 2013, the Court
denied the ex parte application.  The Court found that the ex
parte application was an improper attempt to circumvent the law
and motion cut-off, which had already lapsed.  In addition, the
Court expressed concern that there was no evidence that the
Plaintiff had been injured by the Defendant's security policy,
thereby raising questions as to whether she has standing. In view
of these concerns, the Court issued an order to show cause (OSC)
directing the parties to demonstrate why the action should not be
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and/or for
failure to comply with a Court order.

Consequently, District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong found that
interests of the class and the public will be better served by
consideration of the proposed, revised settlement, as opposed to
the dismissal of the action for failure to comply with a court
order. Accordingly, the Court discharged the OSC and granted the
parties' renewed motion for preliminary approval.

The Court held that:

* Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3),
  the Court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only,
  a proposed Settlement Class defined as: All persons who are
  and/or were employed as non-exempt retail employees by TSA
  Stores, Inc. d/b/a Sports Authority, in the State of California
  from August 22, 2007 through the present.

* Plaintiff Khanh Nielson is appointed as class representative.

* Scott Cole & Associates, APC, is appointed as Class Counsel.

* Class Counsel is granted permission to obtain bids from various
  companies for the administration of this Settlement.

* Plaintiff must submit a revised Class Notice which addresses the
  Court's concerns.

Judge Armstrong will conduct a Fairness Hearing on December 17,
2013, at 1:00 p.m.

The case is KHANH NIELSON, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE SPORTS AUTHORITY,
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. C 11-4724
SBA, (N.D. Cal.)

A copy of the District Court's July 29, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/FuGdm3from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff Khanh Nielson is represented by Hannah R Salassi --
hsalassi@scalaw.com -- at Scott Cole and Associates, APC, Matthew
Roland Bainer -- mbainer@scalaw.com -- at Scott Cole & Associates,
APC, Scott Edward Cole -- scole@scalaw.com -- at Scott Cole &
Associates, APC & Stephen Noel Ilg -- silg@scalaw.com -- at Scott
Cole and Associates APC.

Defendants TSA Stores Inc., and Sports Authority are represented
by Austin Evans Smith -- austin.smith@ogletreedeakins.com -- at
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak Stewart PC, Erica Kristen Rocush --
erica.rocush@ogletreedeakins.com -- at Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak
& Stewart, P.C., Evan Reed Moses -- evan.moses@ogletreedeakins.com
-- at Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC & Steven Woodrow
Moore -- steve.moore@ogletreedeakins.com -- at Ogletree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak and Stewart.


SYDNEY UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Racism Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Levitt, writing for The Algemeiner, reports that a landmark
class action suit was filed on July 31 in an Australian court, for
the first time applying the country's anti-racism laws to
protecting Israel from boycott, divestment and sanctions activity,
Israeli civil rights group Shurat HaDin said in a statement.

Shurat HaDin said the suit, filed by the organization's Australian
solicitor Alexander Hamilton with the Australian Human Rights
Commission, fell under the country's Racial Discrimination Act of
1975.

The specific complaint was against faculty and students at Sydney
University for calling for the severing of links with Israeli
institutions, actions that would be deemed racist and in violation
of Australian Federal anti-discrimination laws.

The university's student body endorsed Associate Professor
Jake Lynch's academic boycott of Israel after Mr. Lynch announced
his refusal to work with Dan Avnon, an Israeli professor from
Hebrew University in Jerusalem.  He also called for a boycott of
Technion University in Haifa.

In June, Shurat HaDin warned Mr. Lynch of the potential legal
action.  Although widely condemned by many mainstream politicians
and community figures, Mr. Lynch has also been publically
supported by notorious Holocaust denier Fredrick Toben.

In its letter sent to the Australian commission, Shurat HaDin
pointed out that the Federal Racial Discrimination Act of 1975
made it unlawful for anyone "to do any act involving a
distinction, exclusion . . . or preference based on race . . . or
national or ethnic origin which has the purpose . . . of
nullifying or impairing . . . fundamental freedom in the . . .
economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

The complaint also noted that any boycott of Israeli "settlement
products, "including those from companies like SodaStream or
Ahava, actually would harm Palestinian economic interests due to
the fact that the factories employ many Palestinian workers and
provide an important source of income for local families and
villages.

"The BDS movement is racist by its own definition because it seeks
to discriminate and impose adverse preference based on Israeli
national origin and Jewish racial and ethnic origin of people and
organizations.  It does nothing to help Palestinians and indeed
harms them.  It is merely an excuse for the vilest public
anti-semitic campaign the western world has seen since the
Holocaust," said solicitor Andrew Hamilton.

Itsana Darshan-Leitner, Shurat Hadin director added that "By
singling out Israel and no other country the BDS extremists expose
the anti-Semitism that motivates them.  We are hopeful that this
historic proceeding against the BDS movement will serve as a model
for battling it in other jurisdictions worldwide."

Shurat HaDin -- Israel Law Center -- was founded on the model of
the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center -- a non-profit
legal center that over the last four decades has successfully
confronted racist groups across the United States.


TAYLOR FARMS: Parties in Wage & Hour Suit to Proceed to Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Allison Claire granted Taylor Farms Pacific,
Inc.'s ex parte application for an order authorizing discovery in
MARIA DEL CARMEN PENA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TAYLOR FARMS
PACIFIC, INC., et al., Defendants, NO. 2:13-CV-1282 KJM AC,
(E.D. Cal.).

This wage-and-hour class action against Taylor Farms was
originally filed on February 17, 2012, in the San Joaquin County
Superior Court.

The Court ordered the parties to meet and confer pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 26(f) within 21 days from the date of the
order.

A copy of the District Court's July 26, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/CFlEgPfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Maria del Carmen Pena, Consuelo Hernandez, Leticia
Suarez, Rosemary Dail, Wendell T. Morris, are represented by
Stuart Rowe Chandler -- stuart@chandlerlaw.com -- at Law Office Of
Stuart R. Chandler.

Defendant Taylor Farms Pacific, Inc., is represented by Sarah
Zenewicz -- szenewicz@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
& Jesse Alvin Cripps, Jr. -- jcripps@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson
Dunn and Crutcher LLP.


TRAVELERS COS: Awaits Supreme Court Decision on Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
In October 2001 and April 2002, two purported class action suits
(Wise v. Travelers and Meninger v. Travelers) were filed against
Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC), a wholly-owned subsidiary
of The Travelers Companies, Inc., and other insurers (not
including The St. Paul Companies, Inc. (SPC), which was acquired
by TPC in 2004) in state court in West Virginia.

These and other cases subsequently filed in West Virginia were
consolidated into a single proceeding in the Circuit Court of
Kanawha County, West Virginia. The plaintiffs allege that the
insurer defendants engaged in unfair trade practices in violation
of state statutes by inappropriately handling and settling
asbestos claims.

The plaintiffs seek to reopen large numbers of settled asbestos
claims and to impose liability for damages, including punitive
damages, directly on insurers.  Similar lawsuits alleging
inappropriate handling and settling of asbestos claims were filed
in Massachusetts and Hawaii state courts.  These suits are
collectively referred to as the Statutory and Hawaii Actions.

In March 2002, the plaintiffs in consolidated asbestos actions
pending before a mass tort panel of judges in West Virginia state
court amended their complaint to include TPC as a defendant,
alleging that TPC and other insurers breached alleged duties to
certain users of asbestos products.  The plaintiffs seek damages,
including punitive damages. Lawsuits seeking similar relief and
raising similar allegations, primarily violations of purported
common law duties to third parties, have also been asserted in
various state courts against TPC and SPC. The claims asserted in
these suits are collectively referred to as the Common Law Claims.

In response to these claims, TPC moved to enjoin the Statutory
Actions and the Common Law Claims in the federal bankruptcy court
that had presided over the bankruptcy of TPC's former policyholder
Johns-Manville Corporation on the ground that the suits violated
injunctions entered in connection with confirmation of the Johns-
Manville bankruptcy (the "1986 Orders").  The bankruptcy court
issued a temporary restraining order and referred the parties to
mediation.  In November 2003, the parties reached a settlement of
the Statutory and Hawaii Actions, which included a lump-sum
payment of up to $412 million by TPC, subject to a number of
significant contingencies. In May 2004, the parties reached a
settlement resolving substantially all pending and similar future
Common Law Claims against TPC, which included a payment of up to
$90 million by TPC, subject to similar contingencies.  Among the
contingencies for each of these settlements was that the
bankruptcy court issue an order, which must become a final order,
clarifying that all of these claims, and similar future asbestos-
related claims against TPC, as well as related contribution
claims, are barred by the 1986 Orders.

On August 17, 2004, the bankruptcy court entered an order
approving the settlements and clarifying that the 1986 Orders
barred the pending Statutory and Hawaii Actions and substantially
all Common Law Claims pending against TPC (the "Clarifying
Order"). The Clarifying Order also applies to similar direct
action claims that may be filed in the future.  Although the
District Court substantially affirmed the Clarifying Order, on
February 15, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion vacating
on jurisdictional grounds the District Court's approval of the
Clarifying Order.

On December 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court granted
TPC's Petition for Writ of Certiorari and, on June 18, 2009, the
Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit's February 15, 2008
decision, finding, among other things, that the 1986 Orders are
final and therefore may not be collaterally challenged on
jurisdictional grounds.  The Supreme Court further ruled that the
bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue the Clarifying Order.
However, since the Second Circuit had not ruled on certain
additional issues, principally related to procedural matters and
the adequacy of notice provided to certain parties, the Supreme
Court remanded the case to the Second Circuit for further
proceedings on those specific issues.

On March 22, 2010, the Second Circuit issued an opinion in which
it found that the notice of the 1986 Orders provided to one
remaining objector was insufficient to bar contribution claims by
that objector against TPC. TPC's Petition for Rehearing and
Rehearing En Banc was denied May 25, 2010 and its Petition for
Writ of Certiorari and Petition for a Writ of Mandamus were denied
by the United States Supreme Court on November 29, 2010.

The plaintiffs in the Statutory and Hawaii actions and the Common
Law Claims actions thereafter filed motions in the bankruptcy
court to compel TPC to make payment under the settlement
agreements, arguing that all conditions precedent to the
settlements had been met.  On December 16, 2010, the bankruptcy
court granted the plaintiffs' motions and ruled that TPC was
required to fund the settlements.  The court entered judgment
against TPC on January 20, 2011 in accordance with this ruling and
ordered TPC to pay the settlement amounts plus prejudgment
interest.

The bankruptcy court's judgment was reversed by the district court
on March 1, 2012, the district court having found that the
conditions to the settlements had not been met in view of the
Second Circuit's March 22, 2010 ruling permitting the filing of
contribution claims against TPC.  The plaintiffs appealed the
district court's March 1, 2012 decision to the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals.  Oral argument before the Second Circuit took
place on January 10, 2013, and the parties await the court's
decision, according to Travelers' July 23, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.


TRAVELERS COS: Ill. Court to Administer Accord in Safeco v. AIG
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a mandate
returning the case Safeco Insurance Company of America, et al. v
American International Group, Inc. et al. to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois for settlement
administration, according to The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s July
23, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The Travelers Indemnity Company is one of the Settlement Class
plaintiffs and a class member in a class action lawsuit captioned
Safeco Insurance Company of America, et al. v American
International Group, Inc. et al. (U.S. District Court, N.D. Ill.)
in which the defendants are alleged to have engaged in the under-
reporting of workers' compensation premium in connection with a
workers' compensation reinsurance pool in which several
subsidiaries of the Company participate.

On July 26, 2011, the court granted preliminary approval of a
class settlement pursuant to which the defendants agreed to pay
$450 million to the class.  On December 21, 2011, the court
entered an order granting final approval of the settlement, and on
February 28, 2012, the district court issued a written opinion
approving the settlement.

On March 27, 2012, three parties who objected to the settlement
appealed the court's orders approving the settlement to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  On January 11, 2013,
all parties, including the three parties who had objected to the
settlement, filed a Stipulation of Dismissal indicating that there
were no longer any objections to the settlement.

On March 25, 2013, the Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeals.  On
April 16, 2013, the Seventh Circuit issued its mandate returning
the case to the district court for administration of the
settlement.  Prior to receiving payment, the Company accounted for
its anticipated allocation from the settlement fund as a gain
contingency in accordance with FASB Topic 450, Contingencies.

On June 26, 2013, the Company received payment of approximately
$91 million, comprising 98% of its allocation from the settlement
fund. The Company anticipates receiving payment of the remaining
2% (approximately $2 million, less any additional fees and
expenses to be paid from the settlement fund), prior to December
31, 2013.  The $91 million received by the Company in June 2013
was recorded as a gain and is reported in "Other revenues" in the
consolidated statement of income in the Company's consolidated
financial statements.


TRI-VALLEY CORP: Officers Sued Over Sale of Opus Securities
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steven Siegal, James Rybicki, David Groblebe, individually and as
General Partner of Grobco II, and Christian Wipf, on behalf of
themselves and all individuals similarly situated v. G. Thomas
Gamble, Loren J. Miller, Henry Lowenstein, Paul W. Bateman, Edward
M. Gabriel, James S. Mayer, Behrooz Sarafraz, Lynn Blystone,
Alfred Lopez, Maston Cunningham, John Durbin, Greg Billinger, K&L
Gates LLP, Charles A. Dale III, Joshua Lane, and Does 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. CGC-13-532439 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., June 27, 2013), arises from the sales of
approximately $97 million in securities issued by TVC Opus I
Drilling Program, LP ("Opus"), which were sold by Opus' managing
partner, Tri-Valley Corporation ("TVC").

These Opus securities were sold either directly to investors, who
became OPUS partners, or by sponsored indirect sales, in which
entities affiliated with OPUS aggregated the investments of
individuals for the purpose of investing in Opus.  The Plaintiffs
allege that all Opus investments were brokered by unlicensed
broker-dealers, who were paid approximately 18% in commissions, or
"finders fees," for their brokerage services.  The Plaintiffs
contend that these sales practices, which include
misrepresentations and omissions, violated the Corporations Code,
among other laws.

Steven Siegal is a resident of San Francisco, California.  He
purchased Opus Units in San Francisco.  David Groblebe,
individually and as general partner of plaintiff Grobco II,
Christian Wipf and James Rybicki are citizens of Colorado,
Switzerland and Nevada.  All of them purchased Opus Units directly
from Opus and they continue to hold those units.

TVC is based in Bakersfield, California, and the subject
securities involved oil and gas properties in California.  KL
Gates LLP is a law partnership registered to do business and doing
business in San Francisco, California.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of TVC.  The Plaintiffs do not know the
true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Individual Defendants removed the lawsuit on August 1, 2013,
from the Superior Court of the state of California, County of San
Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The Individual Defendants argue that the
removal is proper because the District Court has original
jurisdiction over this action pursuant to diversity of citizenship
under the Class Action Fairness Act.  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:13-cv-03570 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward S. Zusman, Esq.
          Kevin K. Eng, Esq.
          MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE & COMPTON LLP
          465 California Street, 5th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 438-4515
          Facsimile: (415) 434-4505
          E-mail: ezusman@mzclaw.com
                  keng@mzclaw.com

The Individual Defendants are represented by:

          Simona G. Strauss, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          2475 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 251-5000
          Facsimile: (650) 251-5002
          E-mail: sstrauss@stblaw.com


UNION PACIFIC: Still Awaits Order on Bid to Review Cert. Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation is still awaiting a court decision on a
petition to review a class certification ruling, according to the
Company's July 19, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

20 rail shippers (many of whom are represented by the same law
firms) filed virtually identical antitrust lawsuits in various
federal district courts against the Company and four other Class I
railroads in the U.S. (one railroad was eventually dropped from
the lawsuit).  The original plaintiff filed the first of these
claims in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey on May 14, 2007.
The total number of complaints stands at 30.  These lawsuits
allege that the named railroads engaged in price-fixing by
establishing common fuel surcharges for certain rail traffic.

In addition to lawsuits filed by direct purchasers of rail
transportation, a few of the lawsuits involved plaintiffs alleging
that they are or were indirect purchasers of rail transportation
and sought to represent a purported class of indirect purchasers
of rail transportation that paid fuel surcharges.  These
complaints added allegations under state antitrust and consumer
protection laws.  On November 6, 2007, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the rail fuel
surcharge cases be transferred to Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S.
District Court in the District of Columbia for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.  Following numerous hearings
and rulings, Judge Friedman dismissed the complaints of the
indirect purchasers, which the indirect purchasers appealed.  On
April 16, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia affirmed Judge Friedman's ruling dismissing the indirect
purchasers' claims based on various state laws.

With respect to the direct purchasers' complaint, Judge Friedman
conducted a two-day hearing on October 6 and 7, 2010, on the class
certification issue and the railroad defendants' motion to exclude
evidence of interline communications.  On April 7, 2011, Judge
Friedman issued an order deferring any decision on class
certification until the Supreme Court issued its decision in the
Wal-Mart employment discrimination case.

On June 21, 2012, Judge Friedman issued his decision certifying a
class of plaintiffs to be represented by eight named plaintiffs.
The class includes all shippers that paid a rate-based fuel
surcharge to any one of the defendant railroads for rate-
unregulated rail transportation from July 1, 2003, through
December 1, 2008.  This is a procedural ruling, which does not
affirm any of the claims asserted by the plaintiffs and does not
affect the ability of the railroad defendants to disprove the
allegations made by the plaintiffs.  On July 5, 2012, the
defendant railroads filed a petition with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia requesting that the court
review the class certification ruling.  On August 28, 2012, a
panel of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia referred
the petition to a merits panel of the court to address the issues
in the petition and to address whether the district court properly
granted class certification.  The Circuit Court heard oral
arguments on May 3, 2013, and has not issued its decision.

The Company denies the allegations that its fuel surcharge
programs violate the antitrust laws or any other laws.  The
Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit, and the
Company will vigorously defend its actions.  Therefore, the
Company currently believes that these matters will not have a
material adverse effect on any of its results of operations,
financial condition, and liquidity.

Headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska, Union Pacific Corporation --
http://www.up.com/-- is one of America's leading transportation
companies.  The Company's principal operating company, Union
Pacific Railroad, is a North America railroad franchise, covering
23 states across the western two-thirds of the United States.


UNITED STATES: Sued Over Illegal Charges in Uniform Purchases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Re, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
United States of America, Case No. 3:13-cv-03518-LB (N.D. Cal.,
July 30, 2013), seeks the refund of finance charges collected by
the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES), an
instrumentality of the United States, on uniform clothing
purchases from United States Army and United States Air Force
military service veterans for clothing purchases made while they
were on active duty in the military.

The AAFES Credit Agreement changed in some particulars relevant to
the action over time, but all versions provide that no finance
charge will be imposed on uniform clothing (UC) purchases, Mr. Re
asserts.  Despite this prohibition, he alleges, AAFES has imposed
and collected on delinquent AAFES Credit Agreement accounts a
finance charge on UC purchases of approximately 6% per annum.  He
contends that this action is brought on behalf of all AAFES
debtors, who were improperly charged finance charges on delinquent
UC debt; whose UC debt fiance charges were collected by the
Treasury Offset Program (TOP); whose overcharge AAFES recognized
by issuing checks in their names in 2009; but who have not
actually received a refund of their UC debt finance charges.

Mr. Re is a resident of Crescent City, California.

The United States is the creditor on all of the AAFES credit
account debt collected through TOP.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          S. Chandler Visher, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF S. CHANDLER VISHER
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3830
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 901-0500
          Facsimile: (415) 901-0504
          E-mail: chandler@visherlaw.com


VIRGINIA: Faces Class Action Over Gay-Marriage Ban
--------------------------------------------------
San Diego Gay and Lesbian News reports that Lambda Legal, the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the American Civil
Liberties Union of Virginia on Aug. 1 filed a federal class action
lawsuit seeking the freedom to marry for all same-sex couples in
Virginia as well as an end to Virginia's refusal to recognize
marriages same-sex couples have legally entered elsewhere.

The case was filed on behalf of Joanne Harris and Jessica Duff of
Staunton and Christy Berghoff and Victoria Kidd of Winchester and
seeks to represent all same-sex couples in Virginia who wish to
marry here or who have married in other jurisdictions.

"Virginia is home for us. Our families are here, our jobs are
here, and our community is a great support for us, but it makes us
sad that we cannot get married where we live," said Joanne Harris,
a lifelong Virginian and the daughter of Bedford, Va. farmers.
"It hits me in the gut that two hours from our house same-sex
couples in Maryland and D.C. can marry.  I have a serious medical
condition and we've had to spend lots of money to try to make sure
that Jessi can make decisions for me if there were ever a crisis."

"I'm an Air Force veteran, and if Virginia would just respect our
marriage from D.C., it would ensure that my spouse and family
could access all the benefits I've earned," said Christy Berghoff,
from Winchester.  "I've been with Victoria for almost a decade
now; and it hurts to have our home state say we are not married
when it recognizes marriages entered into by different-sex couples
who may have only recently met."

The plaintiffs in the case: Joanne Harris, 37, and Jessica Duff,
33, together since 2006, are from Staunton and have a 4-year-old
son, Jabari.  Christy Berghoff and Victoria Kidd, both 34, are
from Winchester and have been together almost 10 years.  They have
an 8-month-old daughter, Lydia.

"This is one America.  It's time for the freedom to marry to come
to the South," Greg Nevins, supervising senior staff attorney in
Lambda Legal's Southern Regional Office based in Atlanta.  "We do
not want a country divided by unfairness and discrimination.
Same-sex couples are in loving, committed relationships in every
region of our nation and should be treated the same way, whether
they live in Maine or Virginia."

"More than half of the people of Virginia believe all Virginians
should have the freedom to marry the person they love, said Claire
Guthrie Gastanaga, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia.
"Every day that same-sex couples in Virginia are denied the
freedom to marry, the government sends a message that they are
second class citizens and their families are not worthy of equal
dignity and respect."

Lambda Legal, the ACLU, ACLU of Virginia, and Jenner and Block are
filing the lawsuit together as co-counsel in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Virginia.  In the complaint
being filed on Aug. 1, the plaintiffs allege that through the
Commonwealth's constitutional and statutory marriage bans and
through Defendants' enforcement of them, the Commonwealth and
Defendants send a purposeful message that they view lesbians, gay
men, and their children as second-class citizens who are
undeserving of the legal sanction, respect, protections, and
support that heterosexuals and their families are able to enjoy
through marriage.

"Nationwide, more and more Americans have come to agree that
committed same-sex couples should have the freedom to marry and
have the same protections as any other married couple," said
Amanda Goad, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and
Transgender Project.  "[The] lawsuit in Virginia is just another
step in ensuring that all families have the same rights across the
country."

Virginia couples who have suffered from discrimination and are
interested in sharing how marriage discrimination harms their
families as part of a campaign for the freedom to marry are
encouraged to join the hundreds of other Virginia couples who have
filled out a survey at:

     https://www.aclu.org/secure/lgbt-same-sex-couples-survey

Rebecca Glenberg is handling the case for the ACLU of Virginia.
Amanda Goad, Josh Block, and James Esseks are handling the case
for the LGBT Project of the national ACLU.  Greg Nevins and Tara
Borelli are handling the case for Lambda Legal.  Paul Smith, Luke
Platzer, and Mark Gaber of Jenner and Block are cooperating
attorneys to Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and the ACLU of Virginia in
the case.

The case is Harris et al. v. McDonnell et al.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Continues to Defend Product Liability Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation is currently defending a number of lawsuits
in federal and state courts in the United States related to the
manufacturing and sale of its products, which include class action
allegations.  These lawsuits allege claims which include breach of
contract, breach of warranty, product defect, fraud, violation of
federal and state consumer protection acts and negligence.  The
Company does not have insurance coverage for class action
lawsuits.  The Company is also involved in various other legal
actions arising in the normal course of business, for which
insurance coverage may or may not be available depending on the
nature of the action.  The Company disputes the merits of these
lawsuits and actions, and intends to vigorously defend them.
Management believes, based upon its current knowledge, after
taking into consideration legal counsel's evaluation of such
lawsuits and actions, and after taking into account current
litigation accruals, that the outcome of these matters currently
pending against Whirlpool should not have a material adverse
effect, if any, on its Consolidated Condensed Financial
Statements.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 19, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Whirlpool Corporation -- http://www.whirlpoolcorp.com/-- is a
global manufacturer of major home appliances.  The Company was
incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in Benton Harbor,
Michigan.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Still Awaits OK of $30-Mil. Deal in Embraco Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation is still awaiting court approval of its
subsidiary's $30 million settlement of "indirect" purchasers'
lawsuits that were combined in one proceeding in Michigan,
according to the Company's July 19, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

Beginning in February 2009, the Company's compressor business
headquartered in Brazil ("Embraco") was notified of investigations
of the global compressor industry by government authorities in
various jurisdictions.  In 2012, Embraco sales represented
approximately 8% of the Company's global net sales.

Government authorities in Brazil, Europe, the United States, and
other jurisdictions have entered into agreements with Embraco and
concluded their investigations of the Company.  In connection with
these agreements, Embraco has acknowledged violations of antitrust
law with respect to the sale of compressors at various times from
2004 through 2007 and agreed to pay fines or settlement payments.

Since the government investigations commenced in February 2009,
Embraco has been named as a defendant in related antitrust
lawsuits in various jurisdictions seeking damages in connection
with the pricing of compressors during certain periods beginning
in 1996 or later.  Several other compressor manufacturers who are
the subject of the government investigations have also been named
as defendants in the antitrust lawsuits.  United States federal
lawsuits instituted on behalf of purported "direct" and "indirect"
purchasers and containing class action allegations have been
combined in one proceeding in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan ("Michigan Lawsuit").

On February 12, 2013, Embraco entered into a settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs representing a proposed settlement class of
direct purchasers of compressors in the Michigan Lawsuit.  The
settlement agreement, which is subject to court approval, provides
for, among other things, the payment by Embraco of up to $30
million in exchange for a release by all settlement class members.
The settlement agreement, which was accrued for as of December 31,
2012, does not cover any claims by direct purchasers which opt out
of the proposed settlement class and the settlement amount will be
reduced if there are opt-outs.  The settlement agreement does not
cover claims by "indirect purchaser" plaintiffs in the Michigan
Lawsuit, which remain pending.

Other lawsuits are also pending and additional lawsuits may be
filed by purported purchasers of compressors (including by any
plaintiffs that may opt out of the proposed direct purchaser
settlement of the Michigan Lawsuit to bring their own lawsuit) or
other plaintiffs.  Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
it is not possible to predict the amount, if any, of damages
Embraco could be required to pay, but any such damages could be
significant.  The Company will also incur fees and expenses in
defending these claims.

In connection with these agreements and other Embraco antitrust
matters, at June 30, 2013, the Company has already incurred, in
the aggregate, charges of approximately $363 million, including
fines, defense costs and other expenses.  These charges have been
recorded within interest and sundry income (expense).  At
June 30, 2013, $103 million remains accrued, with installment
payments of $68 million, plus interest, remaining to be made to
government authorities at various times through 2015.

The Company continues to work toward resolution of ongoing
government actions in other jurisdictions, to defend the related
antitrust lawsuits and to take other steps to minimize its
potential exposure.  The final outcome and impact of these
matters, and any related claims and investigations that may be
brought in the future are subject to many variables, and cannot be
predicted.  The Company establishes accruals only for those
matters where it determine that a loss is probable and the amount
of loss can be reasonably estimated.  While it is currently not
possible to reasonably estimate the aggregate amount of costs
which the Company may incur in connection with these matters, such
costs could have a material adverse effect on its financial
position, liquidity, or results of operations.

Whirlpool Corporation -- http://www.whirlpoolcorp.com/-- is a
global manufacturer of major home appliances.  The Company was
incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in Benton Harbor,
Michigan.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Still Defends Front Load Washing Machine Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation is currently defending against numerous
lawsuits pending in federal and state courts in the United States
and various jurisdictions in Canada relating to certain of its
front load washing machines.  Some of these lawsuits have been
certified for treatment as class actions.  The complaints in these
lawsuits generally allege violations of state consumer fraud acts,
unjust enrichment and breach of warranty.  The complaints
generally seek unspecified compensatory, consequential and
punitive damages.  The Company believes these lawsuits are without
merit and is vigorously defending them.  Given the preliminary
stage of these proceedings, the Company cannot reasonably estimate
a possible range of loss, if any, at this time.  The resolution of
one or more of these matters could have a material adverse effect
on the Company's Consolidated Condensed Financial Statements.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 19, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Whirlpool Corporation -- http://www.whirlpoolcorp.com/-- is a
global manufacturer of major home appliances.  The Company was
incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in Benton Harbor,
Michigan.







                             *********

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  * * *