CAR_Public/130814.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, August 14, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 159

                             Headlines


AETNA INC: Awaits Prelim. OK of $60MM UCR Litigation Settlement
ALLCO FINANCE: Faces Class Action Over AUD1.9BB Understatement
ALLCO FINANCE: Late Founder's Estate Pursued in Class Action
AMERISAVE MORTGAGE: Failed to Deliver Loan Funds, Suit Claims
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Sept. 30 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set

BNSF RAILWAY: Appeals Court Vacates Order to Certify Class Action
BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Defends Suits Over Mercaptan Release vs. Unit
C&S WHOLESALE: Court Grants, In Part, Bids to Quash Subpoena
COMSCORE INC: Continues to Defend "Harris" Suit in Illinois
CONVERGYS CORP: Awaits Calif. Sup. Ct. Ruling in "Wheelock" Suit

DEHENG LAW: Judge Dismisses $10-Mil. Securities Fraud Suit
DELL INC: Lead Plaintiffs File Amended Shareholder Complaint
DIWA PRODUCTS: Recalls Frozen Grated Coconut From Philippines
EDISON MISSION: Appeal in Hurricane Katrina-Related Suit Pending
EDISON MISSION: Does Not Know If Class Suit Will Be Re-Filed

EDISON MISSION: Suits vs. Midwest Generation Remain Stayed
EXECUTIVE FLIGHT: Faces Class Action Over Jet Fuel Spill
FISHER COMMUNICATIONS: Yet to Finalize Settlement of Merger Suit
FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Parties Ordered to Engage in Limited Discovery
FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal From Dismissal of Hawaii Suit Pending

FRESH DEL MONTE: Continues to Defend Extra Sweet Pineapples Suits
FRESH DEL MONTE: Florida Suit Over Extra Sweet Pineapples Pending
HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE: Norton Rose Discusses Quebec Court Ruling
INTUIT INC: Sept. 23 Class Action Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
L & L ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit

LINDSEY MANAGEMENT: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Practices
LOCKHEED MARTIN: Employees Get Class-Action Status in 401(k) Suit
MAPLEWOOD MARKETS: Class Action Hearing Scheduled for August 14
MASSACHUSETTS: Sued Over Mandatory Detention of Immigrants
MERCK & CO: Faces Class Action Over Propecia Drug

MICHIGAN: Files Motion for Summary Judgment in Pension Suit
NCL CORP: Appeal in Seaman's Wage Act Violations Suit Pending
NMI RETIREMENT: September 20 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
OPTICAL DISK DRIVE: Deposition Deadlines Okayed in Antitrust Suit
PILOT FLYING J: Judge Denies Consolidation of Class Actions

SANDISK CORP: Appeal From Dismissal of Antitrust Suit Pending
SANDISK CORP: Ritz Trustee Substituted as Plaintiff in Class Suit
SIDNEY MICKELL: "Evon" Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
SONY CORPORATION: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Internship
SYDNEY UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Anti-Discrimination Law Violations

TELETECH HOLDINGS: Unit Still Defends Class Suit Over Phone Calls
TIME WARNER: Faces Class Action Over Loss of WTMJ-TV Service
TOYOTA MOTOR: Bellwether Trial Over Acceleration Defects Begins
TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Defends Antitrust Suits in Michigan and Canada
U.S. STEEL: Continues to Defend Suits vs. Steel Manufacturers

UNITED STATES: West Jersey Tea Party Joins Class Action v. IRS
WELLS FARGO: 9th Cir. Allows Two HAMP Class Actions to Proceed
WELLS FARGO: Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Chandler" Suit
WINCO FOODS: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Overtime Pay Suit

* Class Action Bill in India Awaits Presidential Approval


                             *********


AETNA INC: Awaits Prelim. OK of $60MM UCR Litigation Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna Inc. is still awaiting preliminary court approval of its
$60 million settlement of the claims in the consolidated lawsuit
styled In re: Aetna UCR Litigation, MDL No. 2020, according to the
Company's July 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The Company is named as a defendant in several purported class
actions and individual lawsuits arising out of its practices
related to the payment of claims for services rendered to the
Company's members by health care providers with whom it does not
have a contract ("out-of-network providers").  Among other things,
these lawsuits allege that the Company paid too little to its
health plan members and/or providers for these services, among
other reasons, because of the Company's use of data provided by
Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of the Company's competitors
("Ingenix").  Other major health insurers are the subject of
similar litigation or have settled similar litigation.

Various plaintiffs who are health care providers or medical
associations seek to represent nationwide classes of out-of-
network providers who provided services to the Company's members
during the period from 2001 to the present.  Various plaintiffs
who are members in the Company's health plans seek to represent
nationwide classes of its members who received services from out-
of-network providers during the period from 2001 to the present.
Taken together, these lawsuits allege that the Company violated
state law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended ("ERISA"), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and federal antitrust laws, either acting alone
or in concert with its competitors.  The purported classes seek
reimbursement of all unpaid benefits, recalculation and repayment
of deductible and coinsurance amounts, unspecified damages and
treble damages, statutory penalties, injunctive and declaratory
relief, plus interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and seek to
disqualify the Company from acting as a fiduciary of any benefit
plan that is subject to ERISA.  Individual lawsuits that generally
contain similar allegations and seek similar relief have been
brought by health plan members and out-of-network providers.

The first class action case was commenced on July 30, 2007.  The
federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (the "MDL
Panel") has consolidated these class action cases in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey
District Court") under the caption In re: Aetna UCR Litigation,
MDL No. 2020 ("MDL 2020").  In addition, the MDL Panel has
transferred the individual lawsuits to MDL 2020.  On May 9, 2011,
the New Jersey District Court dismissed the physician plaintiffs
from MDL 2020 without prejudice.  The New Jersey District Court's
action followed a ruling by the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (the "Florida District Court")
that the physician plaintiffs were enjoined from participating in
MDL 2020 due to a prior settlement and release.  The United States
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has dismissed the
physician plaintiffs' appeal of the Florida District Court's
ruling.

On December 6, 2012, the Company entered into an agreement to
settle MDL No. 2020.  Under the terms of the proposed nationwide
settlement, the Company will be released from claims relating to
its out-of-network reimbursement practices from the beginning of
the applicable settlement class period through the date the New
Jersey District Court preliminarily approves the settlement.  The
settlement class period for health plan members begins on March 1,
2001, and the settlement class period for health care providers
begins on June 3, 2003.  The agreement contains no admission of
wrongdoing.  The medical associations are not parties to the
settlement agreement.

Under the settlement agreement, the Company will pay $60 million,
the substantial majority of which will be payable upon final court
approval of the settlement, and pay up to an additional $60
million at the end of a claim submission and validation period
that commences upon final court approval of the settlement.  These
payments will fund claims submitted by health plan members who are
members of the plaintiff class and health care providers who are
members of the plaintiff class.  These payments also will fund the
legal fees of plaintiffs' counsel and the costs of administering
the settlement, in each case in amounts to be determined by the
New Jersey District Court.

The proposed settlement is subject to preliminary and final court
approval.  Final court approval of the settlement is expected
during 2013 or early 2014 but could be delayed by appeals or other
proceedings.  In addition, the Company has the right to terminate
the settlement agreement if more than certain percentages of class
members, or class members collectively holding specified dollar
amounts of claims, elect to opt-out of the settlement.  In
connection with the proposed settlement, the Company recorded an
after-tax charge to net income of approximately $78 million in the
fourth quarter of 2012.  The Company will pay for the settlement
with available resources and expects the settlement payments to
occur over the next twelve to twenty-four months.  The Company
intends to continue to vigorously defend itself against the claims
brought in these cases by non-settling plaintiffs.

The Company also has received subpoenas and/or requests for
documents and other information from, and been investigated by,
attorneys general and other state and/or federal regulators,
legislators and agencies relating to the Company's out-of-network
benefit payment practices.  It is reasonably possible that others
could initiate additional litigation or additional regulatory
action against the Company with respect to its out-of-network
benefit payment practices.

Aetna Inc. was incorporated in Pennsylvania and is headquartered
in Hartford, Connecticut.  The Company is one of the nation's
leading diversified health care benefits companies, serving
approximately 38.3 million people with information and resources
to help them in consultation with their health care professionals
make better informed decisions about their health care.  The
Company offers a broad range of traditional, voluntary and
consumer-directed health insurance products and related services.


ALLCO FINANCE: Faces Class Action Over AUD1.9BB Understatement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leo Shanahan, writing for The Australian, reports that a
multi-million-dollar shareholder class action against one of
Australia's big failures of the global financial crisis, Allco
Finance Group, has been lodged in the Federal Court seven months
after the death of the company's founder, David Coe.

The class action, initiated by law firm Maurice Blackburn, claims
false and misleading conduct on the part of Allco Finance when it
understated market liabilities by AUD1.9 billion.

Allco's auditor, KPMG, has also been named in the suit, and is
being sued over the 2007 annual report's current liabilities
statement.

"Between August 2007 and February 2008 Allco did not disclose its
true current liabilities to the market," Maurice Blackburn Lawyers
said in a statement.

"Allco later admitted in February 2008 that it had, six months
earlier, understated its current liabilities by around AUD1.9
billion."

David Coe, Allco's former chief executive, died of a heart attack
in the US in January.  It is unclear whether his estate will be
pursued.

The financial services company, which leased aircraft and ships,
and specialized in funds management and debt and equity funding,
also should have informed the market about a "review clause" it
had with its lenders, Maurice Blackburn Lawyers said.

This allowed those owed money by Allco to call in debt or
renegotiate the terms of the loan if the company's market
capitalization dropped below AUD2 billion.

But Allco didn't inform the market a review was initiated after
share prices plummeted between August and December 2007.
"Instead, Allco issued a statement re-assuring the market about
its debt position," Maurice Blackburn said.


ALLCO FINANCE: Late Founder's Estate Pursued in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael West at The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the estate
of the late David Coe, whose death on a skiing holiday in Aspen in
January at age 58 shocked the corporate world, is being pursued in
a shareholder class action to recoup losses from the collapse of
his Allco Finance Group.

SMH relates that the claim for false and misleading conduct and
breaches of disclosure laws has also been brought against Allco's
auditor KPMG.

According to the report, Mr. Coe founded the Allco Finance Group
in 1979 with Sydney businessman John Kinghorn, who was subject to
corruption findings by the Independent Commission Against
Corruption early this month.

SMH notes that during the sharemarket boom Allco expanded
aggressively, taking on billions of dollars in debt, and Mr. Coe
even led a leveraged takeover bid for Qantas.  That deal came
unstuck at the eleventh hour but Allco's debts were still its
undoing and Mr. Coe's financially engineered maze of companies
imploded in the global crisis, owing billions of dollars, the
report relays.

According to SMH, the class action, to be filed by law firm
Maurice Blackburn in the Federal Court on August 15, alleges gross
and continuous failures of disclosure to the sharemarket.  It
claims that the failures occurred between August 21, 2007, and
February 27, 2008, during which time Allco shares dived from
AUD9.20 to AUD1.03.

It is open to any shareholders who suffered losses during this
time and so the claims may run into hundreds of millions of
dollars, SMH adds.

                        About Allco Finance

Allco Finance Group Ltd. is an integrated global financial
services business, specializing in asset origination, funds
creation and funds management.  The company is a fund manager of
alternative assets in its core asset classes, which include
aviation, rail, shipping, infrastructure, property, private equity
and financial assets.  The Company's primary focus is on
commercial property, predominately completed office buildings and
select development opportunities.  The Company also purchases new
and existing commercial passenger and cargo aircraft for lease to
commercial airlines.


AMERISAVE MORTGAGE: Failed to Deliver Loan Funds, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Gordon Sharp, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Amerisave Mortgage Corporation, Case No. 2013CV234879
(Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty., August 9, 2013) is brought on behalf
of a class of Amerisave customers that have been and are
continuing to be harmed by Amerisave's business practices, which
violate the Official Code of Georgia Annotated.

On August 30, 2012, the Plaintiff refinanced his home loan through
Amerisave.  In connection with the servicing of his loan, Mr.
Sharp alleges that Amerisave failed to deliver loan funds to the
settlement agent in one or more of the forms set forth in O.C.G.A.
by 11:00 a.m. eastern time on the next business day following the
expiration of the rescission period required under the Truth in
Lending Act.  As a result of Amerisave's failure to timely deliver
loan funds in accordance with Georgia law, Mr. Sharp contends that
he was contractually obligated to pay additional interest on his
existing home loan that he would not have had to pay if Amerisave
had complied with O.C.G.A.

Mr. Sharp is a citizen, who currently resides in Marietta,
Georgia.  He is the owner of the residence at 4942 Fields Pond
Court, and recently refinanced his home loan through Amerisave.

Amerisave is a domestic, for-profit corporation that has been
authorized to do business in the State of Georgia.  Amerisave's
principal place of business is in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Adam Webb, Esq.
          G. Franklin Lemond, Esq.
          WEBB KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
          1900 the Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA
          Telephone: (770) 444-0773
          Facsimile: (770) 217-9950
          E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com
                  FLemond@WebBLLC.com


ATLANTIC RICHFIELD: Sept. 30 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Trout, writing for Reno Gazette-Journal, reports that a
meeting was scheduled to get more information and talk with class
counsel for those involved or wishing to be involved in the Roeder
et al vs. Atlantic Richfield Company class action suit filed in
federal court.

The informational meeting was scheduled from 6:00 p.m. to 8:30
p.m. for Aug. 8 at the Boys & Girls Club of Mason Valley located
at 124 No. Main Street.

The meeting was prompted largely by an amended class action
settlement that had been proposed by attorneys on both sides of
the lawsuit involving the Yerington/Anaconda mine and possible
contamination, especially of groundwater, from that mining
operation.  Class counsel was expected describe the amendments to
the settlement for well owners and answer questions.

In addition, a representative of the Nevada Division of Water
Resources/State Engineer's Office was expected to be present to
address that office's role in the settlement water right
application process that is part of the amended settlement
proposal.

A representative of the Class Settlement Administrator also was
expected be on hand to assist well owners with completing forms if
they wish to participate in the settlement.

The amended class action settlement, altered somewhat from a prior
settlement proposal in March, deals with changes for domestic well
owners and the option to maintain their current domestic wells for
outdoor watering purposes.

A major portion of the settlement offer involves hooking up
residences in the designated area to the City of Yerington water
system, with ARC paying those hookup costs, and for future
depreciation costs of the system.

The settlement offer also involves payments to those eligible
within the settlement class area, for property owners and domestic
well owners, depending on property size, proximity to the mine
(closest is Tier 1), and whether the domestic well will be
abandoned or included in the Settlement Water Right Application
Process (if continued use).

For those in sub-area Tier 1, as part of the settlement offer they
would receive $1,500 per acre or lot and $17,000 per private well
for the application process and $22,000 per well for abandoning
the well.

Those in Tier 2 would receive $400 per acre and the same amounts
regarding the wells.

Bill Duffy, counsel for plaintiff Atlantic Richfield, said in this
amended settlement offer if a person doesn't want to abandon their
private domestic well, under state law and State Engineer's Office
regulations, they can apply to continue using it for outside use
only, such as for gardens/vegetation or livestock watering. He
said there are about 186 such well owners in the class action
area.

Potential settlement class members were mailed an initial proposed
settlement in March 2013, and an initial court hearing was
continued.  Eligible well owners should have been mailed the
supplemental notice on July 30.

The supplemental notice explains the modifications to the proposed
settlement for the well owners, and about their legal rights and
options, before the court decides whether to approve the
settlement.

Those wishing to be excluded from the settlement agreement who
don't wish payment or to be legally bound by the settlement, must
make a written request to be excluded to the claims administrator
by Sept. 30.  If someone does not exclude themself, they are
legally bound to the conditions and can't be part of any
subsequent suit against the defendant in this case.  However,
if someone stays in the settlement, they can still object by
Sept. 30.


BNSF RAILWAY: Appeals Court Vacates Order to Certify Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Ingram, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. appeals
court on Aug. 9 vacated a trial court's decision to certify a
class action against railroad companies, a procedural win for the
companies in a case about whether they illegally colluded to fix
the price of fuel surcharges.

A unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit sent the lawsuit back to the trial court to
reconsider the matter in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court
decision about class actions.

Thousands of freight-shipping customers are suing four major
railroad companies over the alleged conspiracy.  They are seeking
potentially billions of dollars in damages.

Last year, the trial court agreed to hear the shipping customers'
claims as a class action, but then in March, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled in a separate case that judges should carefully review
the economic model for how damages would be calculated before they
certify a class.

The high court's ruling commands "a hard look at the soundness of
statistical models," something the trial court "never grappled
with," Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote for the three-judge appeals
panel.

The defendants in the case are Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s BNSF
Railway Co. and units of Union Pacific Corp., CSX Corp. and
Norfolk Southern Corp.  They did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.


BOARDWALK PIPELINE: Defends Suits Over Mercaptan Release vs. Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The subsidiary of Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP (the
Partnership), Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP, and several other
defendants, including Mobile Gas Service Corporation (MGSC), have
been named as defendants in seven lawsuits, including one
purported class action lawsuit, commenced by multiple plaintiffs
in the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama.  The plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages for personal injury and property damage
related to an alleged release of mercaptan at the Whistler
Junction facilities in Eight Mile, Alabama.  Gulf South delivers
natural gas to MGSC, the local distribution company for that
region, at Whistler Junction where MGSC odorizes the gas prior to
delivery to end user customers by injecting mercaptan into the gas
stream, as required by law.  The cases are: Parker, et al. v.
Mobile Gas Service Corp, et al. (Case No. CV-12-900711), Crum, et
al. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp, et al. (Case No. CV-12-901057),
Austin, et al. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp, et al. (Case No. CV-12-
901133), Moore, et al. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp, et al. (Case
No. CV-12-901471), Davis, et al. v. Mobile Gas Service Corp, et
al. (Case No. CV-12-901490), Joel G. Reed, et al. v. Mobile Gas
Service Corp, et al. (Case No. CV-2013-922265) and The Housing
Authority of the City of Prichard, Alabama v. Mobile Gas Service
Corp., et al. (Case No. CV-2013-901002).  Gulf South has denied
liability.  Gulf South has demanded that MGSC indemnify Gulf South
against all liability related to these matters pursuant to a
right-of-way agreement between Gulf South and MGSC, and has filed
cross-claims against MGSC for any such liability.  MGSC has also
filed cross-claims against Gulf South seeking indemnity and other
relief from Gulf South.

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

The outcome of these cases cannot be predicted at this time;
however, based on the facts and circumstances presently known, in
the opinion of management, these cases will not be material to the
Partnership's financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.

Houston, Texas-based Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, is a
Delaware limited partnership formed in 2005 to own and operate the
business conducted by its primary subsidiary Boardwalk Pipelines,
LP, and its operating subsidiaries, which business consists of
integrated natural gas and natural gas liquids pipeline and
storage systems and natural gas gathering and processing.


C&S WHOLESALE: Court Grants, In Part, Bids to Quash Subpoena
------------------------------------------------------------
In BICEK v. C&S WHOLESALE GROCERS, INC., Magistrate Judge
Nathanael M. Cousins granted in part and denied in part motions to
quash defendants' subpoena.

The case arises from a wage and hour putative class action filed
by the Plaintiff against the Defendants in the Superior Court for
the County of Sacramento. The Defendants removed the action to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Case
No. 13-cv-00411 MCE (KJN), and the Plaintiff filed a motion to
remand, which is currently pending before that Court.

The Defendants have served a subpoena on Earthbound, the
Plaintiff's current employer, which was issued from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. The
subpoena seeks "Any and all records, including electronically
stored information, relating to [plaintiff]'s employment with
Earthbound Farm Organic, LLC., covering the time period January 1,
2011 to the present, including, but not limited to" numerous
categories of documents listed in the subpoena. The Plaintiff
filed a motion to quash the Defendants' subpoena in this Court,
requesting that the Court quash or modify the subpoena on the
grounds that it infringes on the Plaintiff's right to privacy in
his employment records, is not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence, is overbroad, and unduly
burdensome to third party Earthbound. Earthbound also filed a
motion to quash the subpoena. In addition to the privacy,
overbreadth, and burden objections raised by the Plaintiff,
Earthbound argues that the subpoena seeks confidential business
and commercial information of Earthbound that is protected from
disclosure. As stated in their opposition to the motions to quash,
the Defendants have agreed to substantially limit the subpoena to
certain categories. The Plaintiff and Earthbound contend that the
limited subpoena should still be quashed or narrowed for the
reasons presented in their motions.

Magistrate Judge Cousins ordered that by August 14, 2013,
Earthbound must produce to the Defendants:

(A) The external job postings for the job for which the Plaintiff
     applied at Earthbound; and

(B) The Plaintiff's employment application and resume provided to
     Earthbound, as well as any cover letters to such application
     and resume.

The discovery permitted is limited to the time period from
January 1, 2011 to the present.

The remainder of the subpoena is quashed because it is irrelevant,
overly broad, unduly burdensome, seeks disclosure of confidential
commercial information, and of employment records with respect to
which defendants' need does not outweigh plaintiff's privacy
rights, says the Court.

The case is DENNIS BICEK, Plaintiff, v. C&S WHOLESALE GROCERS,
INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-MC-80130 RS (NC), (N.D.
Cal.).

A copy of the District Court's August 1, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/GJT2rsfrom Leagle.com.

Dennis Bicek, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Russell Wheeler
-- awheeler@rrexparris.com -- at R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Edwin
Aiwazian -- edwin@aiwazian.com -- at The Aiwazian Law Firm, Jill
Jessica Parker -- jill@aiwazian.com -- at Aiwazian Law Firm, Kitty
Kit Yee Szeto -- kszeto@rrexparris.com -- at R. Rex Parris Law
Firm & R. Rex Parris -- rrparris@rrexparris.com -- at R. Rex
Parris Law Firm.

C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew More
McNaught -- amcnaught@seyfarth.com -- at Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Julie
Grace Yap -- jyap@seyfarth.com -- Attorney at Law.

Tracy Logistics, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew More
McNaught, Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Julie Grace Yap, Attorney at Law.

Natural Selection Foods LLC, Miscellaneous, represented by Joshua
O. Mates -- jmates@cooley.com -- at Cooley LLP & Nathan J Kleiner
-- nkleiner@cooley.com -- at Cooley LLP.


COMSCORE INC: Continues to Defend "Harris" Suit in Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------
comScore, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit filed by Mike Harris and Jeff Dunstan, according to the
Company's July 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On August 23, 2011, the Company received notice that Mike Harris
and Jeff Dunstan, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, filed a lawsuit against the
Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, alleging, among other
things, violations by the Company of the Stored Communications
Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices
Act as well as unjust enrichment.  The complaint seeks unspecified
damages, including statutory damages per violation and punitive
damages, injunctive relief and reasonable attorneys' fees of the
plaintiffs.  In October 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint which, among other things, removed the claim relating to
alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Practices Act.  On April 2, 2013, the District Court issued an
order certifying a class for only three of the four claims,
refusing to certify a class for unjust enrichment.  Merits based
discovery is underway and expected to continue through calendar
year 2013.  Based on examination of the remaining claims, the
Company believes that they are without merit.  The Company
continues to investigate the claims and intends to vigorously
protect and defend itself.  It is not possible for the Company to
estimate a potential range of loss at this time.

comScore, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered
in Reston, Virginia.  The Company provides leading, on-demand
digital analytics that enable its customers to make well-informed,
data-driven decisions and implement more effective digital
business strategies.


CONVERGYS CORP: Awaits Calif. Sup. Ct. Ruling in "Wheelock" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Convergys Corporation is awaiting a court decision with respect to
Hyundai Motor America's petition in the class action lawsuit
initiated by Brandon Wheelock, according to the Company's July 30,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In November 2011, one of the Company's call center clients,
Hyundai Motor America ("Hyundai"), tendered a contractual
indemnity claim to Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc., a
subsidiary of the Company, relating to a putative class action
captioned Brandon Wheelock, individually and on behalf of a class
and subclass of similarly situated individuals, v. Hyundai Motor
America, Orange County Superior Court, California, Case No. 30-
2011-00522293-CU-BT-CJC.  The lawsuit alleges that Hyundai
violated California's telephone recording laws by recording
telephone calls with customer service representatives without
providing a disclosure that the calls might be recorded.  The
Plaintiff is seeking, among other things, an order certifying the
lawsuit as a California class action, statutory damages, payment
of attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment interest.  Convergys
Customer Management Group, Inc. is not named as a defendant in the
lawsuit.  On March 5, 2012, the court sustained a demurrer filed
by Hyundai to one of the Plaintiff's causes of action, but
overruled the demurrer as the Plaintiff's other cause of action.
On March 15, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
Hyundai answered the amended complaint on April 16, 2012, by
generally denying the allegations and asserting certain
affirmative defenses.  On May 7, 2012, Hyundai filed a motion for
summary judgment based on Hyundai's claim that an exemption under
the California recording laws was intended to exempt the type of
recording done by Hyundai's call centers.

On February 5, 2013, the court denied the motion, and on July 2,
2013, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District,
denied Hyundai's petition for writ of mandate requesting that the
court of appeal issue a petition directing the trial court to
vacate its prior order and enter a new order granting Hyundai's
motion for summary judgment.  On July 12, 2013, Hyundai petitioned
the Supreme Court of the State of California to grant review and
either (1) transfer the case to the Court of Appeals and direct
the Court of Appeals to issue a decision on the merits; or (2)
issue a decision on the merits in a manner that interprets the
exemption under the California recording laws to exempt Hyundai
from liability in the case.  The supreme court has not yet ruled
on Hyundai's petition for writ of review.

Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc. is not named as a
defendant in the lawsuit, and there has been no determination as
to whether Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc. will be
required to indemnify Hyundai. The Company believes Convergys
Customer Management Group, Inc. has meritorious defenses to
Hyundai's demand for indemnification and also believes there are
meritorious defenses to Plaintiff's claims in the lawsuit. The
likelihood of losses that may become payable under such claims,
the amount of reasonably possible losses associated with such
claims, and whether such losses may be material cannot be
determined or estimated at this time. For these reasons, the
Company has not established a reserve with respect to this matter.

Convergys Corporation -- http://www.convergys.com/-- is a global
leader in customer management, focused on bringing value to its
clients through every customer interaction.  The Company is
headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.


DEHENG LAW: Judge Dismisses $10-Mil. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Seah, writing for The Asian Lawyer, reports that a federal
judge in New York has dismissed for the third time a $10 million
securities fraud suit against Chinese firm DeHeng Law Offices and
one of its former partners.

The case stemmed from a 2008 deal in which the plaintiffs, several
U.S. investment funds, attempted to acquire a Chinese distributor
of hospital equipment.  The plaintiffs claimed their investment of
around $10 million was stolen by a man associated with and
possibly married to former DeHeng partner Helen Lv (pronounced
Lu).

But U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton in the Southern District of
New York ruled in a July 31 decision that the plaintiffs had not
adequately pleaded that either DeHeng or its former partner had
acted with scienter, or knowledge of wrongdoing, in the alleged
fraud, he said.

The complaint had been filed last September by Plaintiffs Pope
Investments, Jayhawk Private Equity Fund, and five other
investment funds, who alleged that in 2008 they were trying to
acquire Shanghai Atrip Medical Technology Co. Ltd. (SMT), a
Chinese company that distributes hospital equipment and operates
dialysis centers.  They made use of a complex variable interest
entity structure in which a U.S.-listed company they controlled
called Aamaxen Transport Group Inc. (AAXT) would own SMT through a
series of offshore vehicles and a wholly owned foreign enterprise
in China.

The funds' $12.5 million investment was to be channeled through
these entities, too, less about $1.4 million to pay for
professional fees.  Part of those fee payments included an
unstated amount to DeHeng, which was hired as Chinese counsel to
both SMT and AAXT, as well as the various entities, with Lv
serving as lead adviser.

According to the complaint, Lv provided a legal opinion letter
stating that the VIE structure was sound.  But the plaintiffs
claim they were misled about the ownership of one of the vehicles
involved in the transaction.  That entity, Kamick Assets Ltd.,
turned out to be controlled by a man named Shao Ganghua, the suit
alleged.  Shortly after the deal closed in April 2008, the suit
claimed, Shao used his control of Kamick to clean out a bank
account containing the plaintiffs' $10 million investment.  In a
subsequent investigation in 2008 aimed at recovering the money,
the plaintiffs said they found documents identifying Shao as Lv's
husband.  They also claimed that some of the money had been
diverted to a company in which Lv was listed as a director.

Judge Stanton had twice dismissed the action.  In November 2011,
he ruled that the plaintiffs had not pleaded intent to defraud
with particularity. In August of last year, the judge found they
had not adequately alleged that the securities fraud at issue had
taken place in the United States.  In both instances, however, he
granted the plaintiffs leave to replead the case.

In his most recent decision, Judge Stanton said the plaintiffs had
failed to allege how DeHeng came to learn about the alleged theft
so that it could knowingly mislead its client.  The judge also
said the plaintiff's claim that DeHeng was motivated by a desire
to collect its fees was insufficient in a securities fraud claim
since all firms are assumed to want to increase their
profitability.

DeHeng might have been found vicariously liable for DeHeng's but
the judge ruled that the plaintiffs also failed to sufficiently
allege Lv's participation in a fraudulent scheme.

"It is not enough to point to circumstances which are not
inconsistent with her guilt," Judge Stanton wrote.  "There must be
facts from which one can plausibly infer her knowledge and
participation in Shao's plan to misappropriate the AAXT
investment."

While the plaintiffs claimed that Shao had consulted with Lv at
DeHeng about his intention to embezzle the money and that Lv had
helped devise a plan to aid that embezzlement, Judge Stanton said
plaintiffs had alleged little beyond the fact that 'Lv was one of
the lead DeHeng attorneys assigned by DeHeng to represent the
group.'"

"There is no support except speculation that Shao informed Lv
about his intention to embezzle the money," the judge wrote.  "For
all that appears, she was totally ignorant of Shao's plans (and
this is plaintiffs' third opportunity to show something to the
contrary)."

Though he dismissed the case for lack of scienter, the judge did
rule that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged a U.S. securities
law transaction, denying DeHeng's motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction.  The Chinese law firm had argued that the case was
barred under the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Morrison v.
National Australia Bank Ltd., which states that only transactions
that involve the purchase of securities in the United States are
covered by U.S. securities law.

The fact that the AAXT shares were purchased in the U.S. met the
Morrison test, the judge said.  "A fraudulent misrepresentation
which induces a domestic securities transaction suffices for a
10b-5 violation, regardless of whether the misrepresentation
concerned a domestic or foreign event," he wrote.

Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney New York counsel acted for the
plaintiffs, with help from Kansas-based firm Shapiro & McMullen.
Sullivan & Worcester New York partner Harry H. Rimm --
hrimm@sandw.com -- represented the 1,000-lawyer DeHeng, one of
China's largest firms, in the suit.


DELL INC: Lead Plaintiffs File Amended Shareholder Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in a consolidated class action lawsuit styled In Re
Dell, Inc., Shareholder Litigation, Case No. C.A. NO. 8329-CS,
filed with the Court of Chancery of Delaware an amended
consolidated complaint on August 9, 2013.

The Lead Plaintiffs are Boynton Beach Firefighters Pension Fund,
Catherine Christner, City of Roseville Employees' Retirement
System, Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund of IBEW Local Union
No. 58, James R. Gould, Jr., IBEW Local Union No. 58 Annuity Fund,
Chongsun Lee, Ernest Maresca, Oakland County Employees' Retirement
System, and Wayne County Employees' Retirement System.

Ever since the Board of Directors (the "Board") of Dell, Inc. was
approached by Michael Dell to buy the Company (the "Going Private
Transaction"), the Board has focused all of its efforts on getting
that deal done, rather than allowing the Company's public
shareholders a fair opportunity to decide among all available
alternatives, the Lead Plaintiffs allege.  They contend that
although ostensibly conducting a post-signing "go-shop" effort to
compensate for a lack of active shopping before agreeing to the
Going Private Transaction, the Board and Dell management
undermined the effectiveness of any such process by, among other
things, focusing their public statements on lamenting the
Company's long-term prospects as a PC maker, and repeatedly
insisting that the sale to Michael Dell was the only option
available for the Company's public shareholders.

Each of the Lead Plaintiffs owns shares of Dell common stock and
has owned Dell common stock at all material times.

Dell is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Round Rock, Texas.  Starting as a personal
computer ("PC") company in Michael Dell's dorm room in 1984, Dell
has grown to become a global information technology company that
offers its customers a broad range of solutions and services
delivered directly by Dell and through other distribution
channels.  Michael Dell is the Company's founder, chief executive
officer and Chairman.  As of May 22, 2013, Mr. Dell and certain of
his related family trusts own approximately 15.6% of Dell's common
stock, making him the Company's largest shareholder.  The other
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Dell.

Silver Lake is a global technology-focused private investment firm
with approximately $14 billion in assets under management.
Defendants Silver Lake Partners III, L.P., Silver Lake Partners
IV, L.P., and Silver Lake Technology Investors III, L.P. are
investment funds affiliated with Silver Lake and are parties to
the Rollover Contribution Agreement, pursuant to which the parties
to the Rollover Contribution Agreement will roll-over shares in
exchange for equity interests in the newly-formed private entity.
Silver Lake and Michael Dell are sometimes referred to
collectively as the "Acquiring Group."

Denali Holding Inc., Denali Intermediate Inc., and Denali Acquiror
Inc. are Delaware corporations and are wholly-owned subsidiaries
of investment funds affiliated with Silver Lake and Michael Dell.
The Denali Entities were formed as merger vehicles for the Going
Private Transaction.  MSDC is an investment adviser backed by MSD
Capital LP, the private investment firm for Michael Dell and his
family.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
          Amy Miller, Esq.
          Adam Hollander, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          E-mail: markl@blbglaw.com
                  amym@blbglaw.com
                  adam.hollander@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Stuart M. Grant, Esq.
          Michael J. Barry, Esq.
          Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq.
          Bernard C. Devieux, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000
          E-mail: sgrant@gelaw.com
                  mbarry@gelaw.com
                  cmackintosh@gelaw.com
                  bdevieux@gelaw.com

                - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          Michael G. Capeci, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          E-mail: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  mreich@rgrdlaw.com
                  mcapeci@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Joel Friedlander, Esq.
          BOUCHARD MARGULES & FRIEDLANDER, P.A.
          222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1400
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 573-3500
          E-mail: jfriedlander@bmf-law.com

               - and -

          Randall J. Barron, Esq.
          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          Edward M. Gergosian, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3301
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com
                  DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com
                  EGergosian@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Bacine, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          3300 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600
          E-mail: dbacine@barrack.com

               - and -

          Ann K. Ritter, Esq.
          James M. Hughes, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          28 Bridgeside Blvd.
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 216-9000
          E-mail: aritter@motleyrice.com
                  jhughes@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Marc A. Topaz, Esq.
          Lee D. Rudy, Esq.
          Michael C. Wagner, Esq.
          J. Daniel Albert, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          E-mail: mtopaz@ktmc.com
                  lrudy@ktmc.com
                  mwagner@ktmc.com
                  dalbert@ktmc.com


DIWA PRODUCTS: Recalls Frozen Grated Coconut From Philippines
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:                        August 12, 2013
Type of communication:                Recall
Alert sub-type:                       Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory:                          Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:                Class 2
Source of recall:                     Canadian Food Inspection
                                      Agency
Recalling firm:                       Diwa Products Ltd.
Distribution:                         National
Extent of the product distribution:   Retail

Affected products:

  Common name      Size                Code(s) on    UPC
                                       Product
  -----------      ----                ----------    ---
  Grated Coconut   16 oz. (454 g)      None        6 28838 52049 3
  Grated Coconut   40 x 16 oz. case    SPO313      None

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Diwa Products Ltd.
are warning the public not to consume Diwa brand Grated Coconut
because it may be contaminated with Salmonella.  Pictures of the
recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/BH037i

The following Diwa brand coconut, sold frozen, product of
Philippines, is affected by this alert.

There have been no confirmed illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product.

The importer, Diwa Products Ltd., Toronto, ON is voluntarily
recalling the affected product from the marketplace.  The CFIA is
monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.


EDISON MISSION: Appeal in Hurricane Katrina-Related Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a class action lawsuit related to
Hurricane Katrina remains pending, according to Edison Mission
Energy's July 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In March 2012, the federal district court in Mississippi
dismissed, in its entirety, the purported class action complaint
filed by private citizens in May 2011, naming a large number of
defendants, including Edison Mission Energy, and three of its
wholly owned subsidiaries, for damages allegedly arising from
Hurricane Katrina.  The Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants'
activities resulted in emissions of substantial quantities of
greenhouse gases that have contributed to climate change and sea
level rise, which in turn are alleged to have increased the
destructive force of Hurricane Katrina.  The lawsuit alleged
causes of action for negligence, public and private nuisance, and
trespass, and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
The claims in this lawsuit were nearly identical to a subset of
the claims that were raised against many of the same defendants in
a previous lawsuit that was filed in, and dismissed by, the same
federal district court where the current case has been filed.  In
March 2012, the court ruled that the claims in the second lawsuit
were barred because they involved the same parties and the same
claims as the original lawsuit.  In April 2012, the plaintiffs
filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit.

In April 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit dismissed, as to EME and three wholly owned EME
subsidiaries, the plaintiffs' appeal of the Mississippi federal
district court's dismissal of the lawsuit.  The plaintiffs had
alleged that defendants' activities resulted in emissions of
substantial quantities of GHG that have contributed to climate
change and sea level rise, which in turn were alleged to have
increased the destructive force of Hurricane Katrina.

Edison Mission Energy -- http://www.edison.com/-- is a holding
company whose affiliates are engaged in the business of
developing, acquiring, owning or leasing, operating and selling
energy and capacity from independent power production facilities.
EME also conducts hedging and energy trading activities in power
markets open to competition.  EME subsidiary, Midwest Generation,
operates six electric power generating plants in Illinois and
supervises operation of the EME Homer City Generation plant in
Homer City, Pennsylvania.  EME is an indirect subsidiary of Edison
International.  Edison International also owns Southern California
Edison Company (SCE), an electric utility in the United States.


EDISON MISSION: Does Not Know If Class Suit Will Be Re-Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
Edison Mission Energy still does not know whether the plaintiffs
in a dismissed class action lawsuit in Pennsylvania will file a
complaint in state court, according to the Company's July 30,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In January 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania against Homer City, the sale leaseback
owner participants of the Homer City plant, and two prior owners
of the Homer City plant.  The complaint alleged violations of the
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V provisions of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) as a result of projects in the 1990s performed
by prior owners without PSD permits and the subsequent failure to
incorporate emissions limitations that meet best available control
technology (BACT) into the station's Title V operating permit.  In
addition to seeking penalties ranging from $32,500 to $37,500 per
violation per day, the complaint called for an injunction ordering
Homer City to install controls sufficient to meet BACT emission
rates at all units subject to the complaint and for other
remedies.  The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(PADEP), the State of New York, and the State of New Jersey
intervened in the lawsuit.  In October 2011, all of the claims in
the US EPA's lawsuit were dismissed with prejudice.  An appeal of
the dismissal is pending before the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.

Also in January 2011, two residents filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, against Homer City, the sale leaseback owner
participants of the Homer City plant, two prior owners of the
Homer City plant, EME, and Edison International (EIX), claiming
that emissions from the Homer City plant had adversely affected
their health and property values.  EME is an indirect wholly owned
subsidiary of EIX.  The plaintiffs sought to have their lawsuit
certified as a class action and requested injunctive relief, the
funding of a health assessment study and medical monitoring, as
well as compensatory and punitive damages.  In October 2011, the
claims in the purported class action lawsuit that were based on
the federal Clean Air Act were dismissed with prejudice, while
state law statutory and common law claims were dismissed without
prejudice to re-file in state court should the plaintiffs choose
to do so.  EME does not know whether the plaintiffs will file a
complaint in state court.

The Company says adverse decisions in these cases could involve
penalties, remedial actions, and damages.  EME cannot predict the
outcome of these matters or estimate the impact on its results of
operations, financial position, or cash flows.  EME has not
recorded a liability for these matters.

Edison Mission Energy -- http://www.edison.com/-- is a holding
company whose affiliates are engaged in the business of
developing, acquiring, owning or leasing, operating and selling
energy and capacity from independent power production facilities.
EME also conducts hedging and energy trading activities in power
markets open to competition.  EME subsidiary, Midwest Generation,
operates six electric power generating plants in Illinois and
supervises operation of the EME Homer City Generation plant in
Homer City, Pennsylvania.  EME is an indirect subsidiary of Edison
International.  Edison International also owns Southern California
Edison Company (SCE), an electric utility in the United States.


EDISON MISSION: Suits vs. Midwest Generation Remain Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
Two class action lawsuits filed against a subsidiary of Edison
Mission Energy were stayed due to its filing for bankruptcy
protection, according to the Company's July 30, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In January 2012, two complaints were filed against Midwest
Generation LLC, a Company subsidiary, in Illinois state court by
residents living near the Crawford and Fisk Stations on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, each asserting
claims of nuisance, negligence, trespass, and strict liability.
The plaintiffs seek to have their lawsuits certified as a class
action and request injunctive relief, as well as compensatory and
punitive damages.  The complaints are similar to two complaints
previously filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, which were dismissed in October
2011 for lack of federal jurisdiction.  Midwest Generation's
motions to dismiss the cases were denied in August 2012, following
which the plaintiffs filed amended complaints alleging
substantially similar claims and requesting similar relief.

On December 17, 2012, Edison Mission and 16 of its wholly owned
subsidiaries, including Midwest Generation LLC, filed voluntary
petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States
Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

Midwest Generation has filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaints, and these complaints are stayed as a result of the
Chapter 11 Cases.

Edison Mission Energy -- http://www.edison.com/-- is a holding
company whose affiliates are engaged in the business of
developing, acquiring, owning or leasing, operating and selling
energy and capacity from independent power production facilities.
EME also conducts hedging and energy trading activities in power
markets open to competition.  EME subsidiary, Midwest Generation,
operates six electric power generating plants in Illinois and
supervises operation of the EME Homer City Generation plant in
Homer City, Pennsylvania.  EME is an indirect subsidiary of Edison
International.  Edison International also owns Southern California
Edison Company (SCE), an electric utility in the United States.


EXECUTIVE FLIGHT: Faces Class Action Over Jet Fuel Spill
--------------------------------------------------------
Terri Theodore, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that a
spill of 35,000 liters of jet fuel wiped out an 80 kilometer
stretch of shoreline along a creek and two rivers in southeast
B.C., a lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court alleged.

Slocan Valley resident Robert Kirk filed the legal action as part
of a potential class-action lawsuit for residents in the
evacuation zone, prompted July 26 when a tanker truck tumbled off
a logging road into Lemon Creek.

Mr. Kirk owns a 20 hectare property along the Slocan River, and
alleged in the lawsuit that the river has become a "dead zone"
after the accident.

"Since the spill, Mr. Kirk has observed the complete absence of
wildlife from his property, except for a duck and a blue heron
that have turned up dead," the lawsuit stated.  "Fuel is adhering
to grass on the riparian bank of his property, rendering it a
lethal habitat for wildlife."

The spill and contamination have affected property along at least
80 kilometers of shoreline and 10 kilometers of swamp land, said
the statement of claim.

The lawsuit, which alleged negligence and nuisance, named the
province of British Columbia and Executive Flight Centre, the
company that owned and operated the tanker truck, as defendants.

In the statement of claim, Mr. Kirk alleged an ad hoc fuel depot
was set up in an environmentally sensitive area without due care,
and the spill created a dead zone.

The tanker was on its way to fuel helicopters fighting a forest
fire in the area when it made a wrong turn and travelled down a
closed logging road and tumbled into Lemon Creek.

The lawsuit alleged the driver was trying to turn around and
either drove off the road, or the shoulder of the road collapsed.

"At the material time, the corporate defendants knew or ought to
have known that the driver was an individual of 22 years of age
and had limited work experience," the lawsuit alleged.

The fuel spill forced the evacuation of residents living three
kilometers on either side of Lemon Creek and the Slocan River.

As its peak, 2,500 residents were evacuated to avoid toxic fumes
from the fuel.

"The vapor contains benzine, which is a human carcinogen," the
lawsuit stated.  "With the evaporation of the vapor from the fuel,
what remains in Lemon Creek, the Slocan River and the Kootenay
River is a thicker, oily, jelly-like substance."

The lawsuit also alleged the province used aircraft to fight a
forest fire with fuel-contaminated water, causing further harm.

None of the allegations in the statement have been tested in
court.

The lawsuit seeks relief and an order requiring the defendants to
meaningfully consult an independent environmental scientist with
regards to ecological monitoring and remediation.

"In order to remediate the contamination, every blade of grass
will have to be washed by hand with absorbent material which
itself will have to be safely removed from the environment.  It
will take at least six years to remediate the contamination," the
lawsuit said.

The defendants will have 21 days from being served to file a
statement of defense, after which the plaintiff will seek to have
the action certified.

On Aug. 9, the Interior Health Authority lifted all of the
remaining water restrictions, meaning water drawn from the area
could be consumed and was safe for recreational purposes.

Since the spill, some residents have complained of health problems
including skin rashes, fumes in furniture and clothing and
economic hardships.


FISHER COMMUNICATIONS: Yet to Finalize Settlement of Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fisher Communications, Inc., is yet to finalize its settlement of
a merger-related class action lawsuit, according to the Company's
July 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In April 2013, Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. ("Sinclair"),
Sinclair Television of Seattle, Inc. ("Merger Sub") and the
Company announced that they had entered into a definitive merger
agreement (the "Merger Agreement") whereby Sinclair will acquire
the Company in a merger transaction valued at approximately $373.3
million (the "Merger").

On April 17, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and its Board of Directors in King County
Superior Court in the State of Washington, docketed as Halberstam
v. Fisher Communications, Inc.., et al., Case No. 13-2-17171-6
SEA.  An amended complaint was filed on April 23, 2013, and a
second amended complaint was filed on June 3, 2013.  The lawsuit
alleges, among other things, that the Company's Board of Directors
breached its fiduciary duties to shareholders by failing to take
steps to maximize shareholder value or to engage in a fair sale
process before approving the proposed acquisition of the Company
by Sinclair.  The lawsuit also alleges that the Schedule 14A
Preliminary Proxy Statement filed by the Company on May 16, 2013,
omits and/or misrepresents certain purportedly material
information.

The plaintiff seeks relief that includes, among other things, an
injunction prohibiting the consummation of the proposed Merger,
damages for the breaches of fiduciary duty, and the payment of
plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs.  The Company believes the
lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend against it
vigorously.  There can be no assurance, however, with regard to
the outcome.

On July 25, 2013, the parties to the Litigation entered into a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") which sets forth the
parties' agreement in principle for settlement.  After the parties
enter into a definitive stipulation of settlement, the proposed
settlement will be subject to Court approval.  If approved by the
Court, it is anticipated that the settlement will result in a
release of the defendants from all claims that were or could have
been brought challenging any aspect of or otherwise relating to
the Merger, the Merger Agreement, or the disclosures made in
connection therewith, and that the Litigation will be dismissed
with prejudice.  The Company also anticipates that, in connection
with the proposed settlement, counsel for the plaintiff will seek
an award of attorney's fees and expenses to be paid by the Company
in an amount to be determined by the Court.  The Company has
available insurance for such award and it does not expect the size
of the award to have a material impact on the Company or its
financial results. Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, Fisher has
agreed to make available additional information to its
stockholders.  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, among other things, the consideration
to be paid to the Company's stockholders in connection with the
Merger.

The Company and the other defendants have vigorously denied, and
continue to vigorously deny, any wrongdoing or liability with
respect to the facts and claims asserted, or which could have been
asserted, in the Litigation.  The Company and the other defendants
deny that they have committed any violations of law or breach of
fiduciary duty, that they have acted improperly in any way, or
that they have any liability or owe any damages of any kind to the
plaintiff or to the purported class, and specifically deny that
any further supplemental disclosure is required under any
applicable rule, statute, regulation or law or that the Company's
Board of Directors failed to maximize stockholder value by
entering into the Merger Agreement with Sinclair.  The settlement
contemplated by the MOU is not, and should not be construed as, an
admission of wrongdoing or liability by any defendant.  However,
among other reasons, to avoid the risk of delaying the Merger, and
to provide additional information to the Company's stockholders at
a time and in a manner that would not cause any delay of the
Merger, the defendants agreed to the settlement.  The parties
considered it desirable that the Litigation be settled to avoid
the substantial burden, expense, risk, inconvenience and
distraction of continued litigation and to fully and finally
resolve the Litigation.

Fisher Communications, Inc., is an integrated media company.  The
Seattle, Washington-based Company own or operate 16 full power
(including a 50%-owned television station) and seven low power
television stations and four radio stations.  The Company's
television stations are located in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and
California, and its radio stations are located in Washington.


FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Parties Ordered to Engage in Limited Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has ordered that the parties in a class action lawsuit involving
subsidiaries of Flagstar Bancorp, Inc., engage in limited
discovery, according to the Company's July 30, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In May 2012, Flagstar Bank, FSB, and its subsidiary, Flagstar
Reinsurance Company were named as defendants in a putative class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, alleging a violation of Section 2607 of
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA").  Section
2607(a) of RESPA generally prohibits anyone from "accept[ing] any
fee, kickback or thing of value pursuant to any agreement or
understanding, oral or otherwise, that business related incident
to or part of a real estate settlement service involving a
federally related mortgage loan shall be referred to any person."
Section 2607(b) of RESPA also prohibits anyone from "accept[ing]
any portion, split, or percentage of any charge made or received
for the rendering of a real estate settlement service in
connection with a federally related mortgage loan other than for
services actually performed."  The lawsuit specifically alleges
that the Bank and Flagstar Reinsurance Company violated Section
2607 of RESPA through a captive reinsurance arrangement involving
(i) allegedly illegal payments to Flagstar Reinsurance Company for
the referral of private mortgage insurance business from the Bank
to private mortgage insurers to Flagstar Reinsurance Company and
(ii) Flagstar Reinsurance Company's purported receipt of an
unlawful split of private mortgage insurance premiums.

In January 2013, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint
identifying new plaintiffs.  On June 27, 2013, the court denied
the Bank's and Flagstar Reinsurance's motion to dismiss the First
Amended Complaint based upon the statute of limitations and
equitable tolling.  The court has ordered that the parties engage
in limited discovery, following which the Bank and Flagstar
Reinsurance may file a new motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint.

Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.flagstar.com/-- is a Troy,
Michigan-based savings and loan holding company founded in 1993.
The Company's business is primarily conducted through its
principal subsidiary, Flagstar Bank, a federally chartered stock
savings bank.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Appeal From Dismissal of Hawaii Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in December 1993, certain of Fresh Del Monte Produce
Inc.'s U.S. subsidiaries were named among the defendants in a
number of actions in courts in Texas, Louisiana, Hawaii,
California and the Philippines involving claims by numerous non-
U.S. plaintiffs alleging that they were injured as a result of
exposure to a nematocide containing the chemical
dibromochloropropane ("DBCP") during the period 1965 to 1990.  As
a result of a settlement entered into in December 1998, the
remaining unresolved DBCP claims against the Company's U.S.
subsidiaries are pending or subject to appeal in Hawaii,
Louisiana, California, Delaware and the Philippines.

In 1997, the plaintiffs from Costa Rica and Guatemala named
certain of the Company's U.S. subsidiaries in a purported class
action in Hawaii.  On June 28, 2007, the plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed the Company's U.S. subsidiaries named in the action
without ties to Hawaii.  At a hearing held on June 9, 2009, the
court granted summary judgment in favor of the Company's remaining
U.S. subsidiaries with ties to Hawaii, holding that the claims of
the remaining plaintiffs are time-barred.  A final judgment
dismissing all remaining claims and terminating the action was
entered on July 28, 2010.  On August 24, 2010, the plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal.  The appeal is fully briefed and remains
pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 30, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 28, 2013.

Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. is a vertically integrated producer,
marketer and distributor of high-quality fresh and fresh-cut fruit
and vegetables, as well as a producer and marketer of prepared
fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages and snacks in Europe,
Africa, the Middle East and countries formerly part of the Soviet
Union.  The Company markets its products worldwide under the DEL
MONTE(R) brand, a symbol of product innovation, quality, freshness
and reliability since 1892.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Continues to Defend Extra Sweet Pineapples Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On March 5, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative
class action complaint against certain of Fresh Del Monte Produce
Inc.'s subsidiaries in the state court of Tennessee on behalf of
consumers who purchased (other than for resale) Del Monte Gold(R)
Extra Sweet pineapples in Tennessee from March 1, 1996, to May 6,
2003.  The complaint alleges violations of the Tennessee Trade
Practices Act and the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.  On
February 18, 2005, the Company's subsidiaries filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint.  On May 15, 2006, the court granted the
motion in part, dismissing the plaintiffs' claim under the
Tennessee Consumer Protection Act.

Between March 17, 2004, and March 18, 2004, three alleged
individual consumers separately filed putative class action
complaints against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries in
the state court of California on behalf of residents of California
who purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte Gold(R) Extra
Sweet pineapples between March 1, 1996, and May 6, 2003.  On
November 9, 2005, the three actions were consolidated under one
amended complaint with a single claim for unfair competition in
violation of the California Business and Professional Code.  On
September 26, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a
class action.  On August 20, 2009, the court denied class
certification.  On October 19, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice
of appeal of the court's order denying class certification.  On
February 29, 2012, the oral argument hearing on the appeal was
held.  On March 7, 2012, the appeal was rejected and the denial of
class certification was upheld.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 30, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 28, 2013.

Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. is a vertically integrated producer,
marketer and distributor of high-quality fresh and fresh-cut fruit
and vegetables, as well as a producer and marketer of prepared
fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages and snacks in Europe,
Africa, the Middle East and countries formerly part of the Soviet
Union.  The Company markets its products worldwide under the DEL
MONTE(R) brand, a symbol of product innovation, quality, freshness
and reliability since 1892.


FRESH DEL MONTE: Florida Suit Over Extra Sweet Pineapples Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On April 19, 2004, an alleged individual consumer filed a putative
class action complaint against Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc.'s
subsidiaries in the state court of Florida on behalf of Florida
residents, who purchased (other than for re-sale) Del Monte
Gold(R) Extra Sweet pineapples between March 1, 1996, and May 6,
2003.  The only surviving claim under the amended complaint
alleges violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act relating only to pineapples purchased since
April 19, 2000.  The Company's subsidiaries filed an answer to the
surviving claim on October 12, 2006.  On August 5, 2008, the
plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class action.  The
Company's subsidiaries filed an opposition on January 22, 2009, to
which plaintiffs filed a reply on May 11, 2009.  On November 29,
2011, the court denied the motion to certify a class action.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 30, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 28, 2013.

Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. is a vertically integrated producer,
marketer and distributor of high-quality fresh and fresh-cut fruit
and vegetables, as well as a producer and marketer of prepared
fruit and vegetables, juices, beverages and snacks in Europe,
Africa, the Middle East and countries formerly part of the Soviet
Union.  The Company markets its products worldwide under the DEL
MONTE(R) brand, a symbol of product innovation, quality, freshness
and reliability since 1892.


HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE: Norton Rose Discusses Quebec Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Dupoy, Esq. -- dominicdupoy@nortonrosefulbright.com -- at
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP reports that claiming to act on
behalf of all Quebecers who have developed inflammatory bowel
disease as a result of taking the drug Accutane, Yann Lebrasseur
filed a motion seeking certification of a class action.  However,
on June 27, 2013 the Quebec Superior Court refused to allow the
action to proceed.

In his motion Mr. Lebrasseur alleged that he had developed Crohn's
disease as a result of taking Accutane.  He accused the
manufacturer, Hoffmann-La Roche Limited, of placing a dangerous
product on the market and of failing to warn health professionals
and consumers properly about the risks associated with Accutane.

The product monograph prepared by the manufacturer and approved by
Health Canada did mention numerous undesirable side effects of the
drug, in particular the risk of inflammatory bowel disease.

Justice Savard of the Quebec Superior Court dismissed the motion
on the grounds that the facts alleged did not seem to justify the
conclusions sought, and thus the action did not satisfy the test
of Article 1003(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Mr. Lebrasseur filed no scientific articles showing or suggesting
any causal link between the use of the drug and the onset of
Crohn's disease.  Moreover, the court found that the undesirable
side effects of Accutane had been properly disclosed by the
manufacturer in its monograph.  Justice Savard observed that
Mr. Lebrasseur had simply alleged a causal relationship between
taking Accutane and the onset of Crohn's disease without providing
supporting evidence.

The court also considered whether the claims of the members of the
proposed group raised identical, similar or related questions of
law or fact, within the meaning of Article 1003(a) of the code.

Justice Savard pointed out that certain questions were more
individual in nature.  For example, she mentioned:

   -- the dosage and the duration of treatment for each patient;
   -- the nature of each member's disease;
   -- differing risk factors among patients;
   -- the information communicated by the treating physicians
      about the risks associated with the drug; and
   -- the validity of the patients' consent to take the drug.

She also observed that the amount of moral and compensatory
damages was an individual issue.

On the other hand, questions relating to the marketing of the
product or the manufacturer's failure to discharge its duty to
warn were common issues.

This decision confirms that the petitioner must have a personal
claim in order to bring a class action and that, in order to be
certified, a class action must be supported by solid evidence, not
just vague, general allegations.


INTUIT INC: Sept. 23 Class Action Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Wang, writing for Bargaineering, reports that Intuit has
settled a lawsuit associated with the extra fee they charge when
they collect the preparation fee a certain way (it's the "Smith et
al. v. Intuit, Inc., Case No. 5:12-cv-00222" lawsuit).  If you did
your taxes between January 12th, 2008 and May 28th, 2013 and opted
to have your preparation fees taken out of your tax return, you
may be eligible for a piece of a $6.55 million settlement.  When
you paid for your tax preparation with a checking account, there
was no extra fee.  If you paid for it from your return, using the
Refund Processing Service, there was a $29.95 fee.  Someone sued
and the result is a settlement fund.

If you check the dates, the settlement applies for the Tax Year's
2007 through 2012, and applies only to those who used the online
refund processing service.  If you just used TurboTax, you aren't
part of the class.  You must fill out a claim form by
October 28th, 2013.  If you want to exclude yourself from the
class, you need to send that in by September 23, 2013.  This
settlement has yet to be approved by the court.


L & L ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
L & L Energy, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a securities class action lawsuit, according to the
Company's July 30, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended April 30, 2013.

On August 26, 2011, a federal securities law class action
complaint was filed against the Company, certain officers and
directors (i.e., Dickson V. Lee and Ian G. Robinson) and a former
officer (i.e., Jung Mei (Rosemary) Wang) in the United States
District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle on
behalf of a proposed class of all persons who purchased the common
stock of the Company during the period August 13, 2009, through
August 2, 2011, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby (the
"Securities Class Action"), alleging that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 by filing materially false and misleading reports and
financial statements with the SEC from August 2009 to July 2011.
On December 15, 2011, the court appointed Gregg Irvin as lead
plaintiff, and plaintiff filed an amended complaint and a second
amended complaint on February 8 and March 2, 2012, respectively,
naming four other current and former directors as defendants
(i.e., Shirley Kiang, Robert Lee, Dennis Bracy and Robert Okun).

On November 4, 2011, a complaint was filed by Larew P. Stouffer,
in a shareholder derivative lawsuit on behalf of the Company,
which is a nominal defendant, against certain its officers and/or
directors (i.e., Dickson V. Lee, Norman Mineta, Ian G. Robinson,
Robert W. Lee, Shirley Kiang, Dennis Bracy, Syd S. Peng) and
certain former officers and/or directors (i.e., Edward L. Dowd,
Andrew M. Leitch, Robert Okun, Joseph J. Borich, Jung Mei Wang and
David Lin) in the First Judicial District Court of the State of
Nevada for Carson City (the "Stouffer Derivative Lawsuit"),
alleging that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to the
Company and its shareholders, wasted corporate assets were
unjustly enriched and committed other wrongful acts.

On November 15, 2011, a complaint was filed by Russell L. Bush, in
a shareholder derivative lawsuit on behalf of the Company, which
is a nominal defendant, against its existing directors (i.e.,
Dickson V. Lee, Norman Mineta, Ian G. Robinson, Robert W. Lee,
Shirley Kiang, Dennis Bracy, Syd S. Peng) in the United States
District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle (the
"Bush Derivative Lawsuit", with the Stouffer Derivative Lawsuit,
the "Derivative Lawsuits") alleging that the defendants breached
fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched.

The Company has notified its insurance carrier of the Potential
Class Action and the Derivative Lawsuits.  The Company has
retained outside legal counsels.

The Company is unable to estimate the amount or range of any
potential loss in the event of an unfavorable outcome.  As such,
as of April 30, 2013, the Company has not accrued any liability in
connection with potential losses from legal proceedings.

On April 23, 2012, the Company and Dickson V. Lee and Ian G.
Robinson filed a motion to dismiss the Securities Class Action.
Proceedings in the Derivative Lawsuits were stayed pending the
court's ruling on the motion to dismiss.

On December 3, 2012, the United States District Court, Western
District of Washington at Seattle granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the Securities Class Action lawsuit, and gave plaintiff
thirty days in which to seek the court's permission to file
another amended complaint.

On January 2, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint.  Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the
court granted such leave, and on February 4, 2013, plaintiff filed
a third amended complaint on behalf of a proposed class of all
persons who purchased the common stock of the Company during the
period August 13, 2009, through August 2, 2011, inclusive, and who
were damaged thereby, against the Company, certain officers and/or
directors (i.e., Dickson V. Lee and Ian G. Robinson) and a former
officer (i.e., Jung Mei (Rosemary) Wang), alleging that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 by filing materially false and misleading
reports and financial statements with the SEC from August 2009 to
July 2011.

Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties and an order entered by
the court, the Company's motion to dismiss plaintiff's third
amended complaint was submitted on April 12, 2013.  The plaintiff
filed response on June 19, 2013, and the Company filed its
response on July 19, 2013, to the plaintiff's response.
Proceedings in the Derivative Lawsuits continue to be stayed.

The Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit and
intends to defend them vigorously.

L & L Energy, Inc. -- http://www.llenergyinc.com/-- was
incorporated in Nevada, and is headquartered in Seattle,
Washington. The Company is a coal (energy) company, and started
its operations in 1995. Coal sales are generated entirely in
China, from coal mining, clean coal washing, and coal wholesale
operations. At the present time, the Company conducts its coal
(energy) operations in Yunnan and Guizhou provinces, located in
Southwest China.


LINDSEY MANAGEMENT: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Terrah Baker at The Free Weekly,
Fayetteville-based Lindsey Management Company, Inc. is being sued
over allegations that it has engaged in fraud and conspiracy.  The
class-action lawsuit brought by former tenants of Lindsey charges
the corporation with deceptive practices and endangering tenants'
health and safety.

The lawsuit was filed last month in Saline County Circuit Court
seeking an unspecified amount in damages for alleged violations of
the Arkansas Deceptive and Unconscionable Trade Practices Act
(ADTPA).

In one of numerous instances, a disabled Saline County resident
rented from Fountain Lake Apartments, a Lindsey property -- to
discover unlivable conditions, including roach infestation.

The 24-page lawsuit also claims that Lindsey, which owns and
operates more than 2,500 apartment units located in Arkansas,
Oklahoma, Missouri, Nebraska, Mississippi and Alabama, has
designed a scheme in which titles to each property are held by a
separate legal entity.

Mickey Stevens, the plaintiffs' attorney, says Lindsey uses an
alter ego scheme to circumvent liability.  "Lindsey designed its
companies as a separate entity to avoid liability.  These entities
are merely shams or alter egos of Lindsey, and Lindsey is the true
owner of the properties."

Mr. Stevens said that ADTPA is in place to protect the rights of
everyone, and especially those who are vulnerable and who are
reasonably unable to protect his or her interest.  "There is a
systemic pattern and routine practice of disregard to the health,
safety and well-being of residents at Lindsey owned and operated
proprieties.  Laws are in place to protect those who have been
wronged.  It is our job to ensure that this protection is defended
and to hold those accountable who are at fault," he said.

The lawsuit lists four prior NWA residents as plaintiffs in the
case, while the class the plaintiffs represent is comprised of
"All persons who have resided in apartments located in the state
of Arkansas and managed by Lindsey in the last five years, and who
have been a victim of the deceptive and unconscionable trade
practices . . ."

The lawsuit states that Lindsey and its shareholders, directors
and officers have established a scheme in which the title to each
property is held by a separate legal entity, leaving Lindsey free
of liability and can be used defensibly in lawsuits, which it has.
Along with this lawsuit, 83 complaints were collected from the
Better Business Bureau in Little Rock since 2010, containing
similar complaints as the lawsuit addresses.

Damages sought after in the lawsuit include actual damages in an
amount determined at trial, punitive damages, costs and reasonable
attorney fees, rescission of the lease agreements and an
injunction barring Lindsey from reporting derogatory information
to any credit bureaus regarding any plaintiff, along with barring
collection actions and providing negative references for any
plaintiff.


LOCKHEED MARTIN: Employees Get Class-Action Status in 401(k) Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca L. Olgeirson, writing for BenefitsPro, reports that in a
case examining one of the country's largest 401(k) plans, a
Missouri appeals court granted class-action status to
Lockheed Martin employees and the beneficiaries who participated
in the company's 401(k) plan between Sept. 11, 2000 and Sept. 30,
2006.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling overturns a previous
denial for class certification by a lower court.

Brought to appeal by attorneys from Schlichter, Bogard & Denton
LLP, the case hinges on underperforming investments in the Hueler
FirstSource Index.  Attorneys argued that Lockheed failed in its
fiduciary duty.  Plaintiffs claimed that poor management of the
stable-value fund was in violation of ERISA standards in that the
investments were primarily short-term money market products with
lower returns and not in fact properly structured stable-value
products.

Stable-value funds often outperform money market funds, by holding
longer-term investments.  Benefiting from wrap agreements with
insurance companies and banks, the principal is protected from
short-term volatility and guaranteed.  Industry practice would
have stable-value funds invest in a mix of products including
Treasury securities, corporate bonds, short and immediate-term
securities and even mortgage-backed securities.

Plaintiffs argued that excessive investments in short-term money
markets meant a low rate of return that didn't even match
inflation.

Lockheed Martin argued the stable-value fund was merely mislabeled
rather than mismanaged.  The company is not commenting on the case
as it appears headed to trial.

"The ruling is a significant victory for 401(k) investors whether
or not they were in the Lockheed plan," said attorney
Jerome Schlichter, who is arguing the case.  "It means that those
employees and retirees who lose money from funds that are
mismanaged in a 401(k) plan can proceed as a group not just
individually."

The Lockheed case is one of several filed by the firm on behalf of
401(k) investors.  It specializes in representing 401(k) plan
investors, in particular targeting plans with excessive fees.  Its
recent $35 million Cigna 401(k) plan settlement was the country's
largest settlement received on behalf of employees and their
beneficiaries.


MAPLEWOOD MARKETS: Class Action Hearing Scheduled for August 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Stueve Hodges, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record,
reports that St. Clair County Circuit Judge Vincent Lopinot will
hold a hearing Aug. 14 for preliminary approval of a class action
settlement in a case against a Cahokia grocery store.

In April, Judge Lopinot indicated in an order that the parties in
the lawsuit had reached a preliminary settlement.

Plaintiff Willie Hadley claims he cashed a check for $1,875 at
defendant Maplewood Markets, formerly known as Cahokia Mor for
Less, in August 2011.  In turn for cashing the check, Cahokia Mor
for Less charged Mr. Hadley a $38 check cashing fee, according to
the complaint filed last October in St. Clair County Circuit
Court.

The lawsuit claims Illinois law does not allow for check cashing
fees of more than 50 cents or 1 percent of the face value of the
check.

Cahokia Mor for Less charged him more than was statutorily
allowed, and Cahokia Mor for Less did the same thing to numerous
other Illinois residents, the complaint alleges.

Mr. Hadley had requested class certification of the case, seeking
more than $50,000 in damages.  The suit has not been certified,
according to the case file.

The plaintiff was represented by Peter J. Maag of Maag Law Firm in
Wood River, but Thomas Maag substituted his appearance for
Peter Maag on Aug. 5.

Mr. Maag filed a similar suit against Schwegel's Market in Alton
in August, claiming a woman was unfairly charged 75 cents when she
wrote a check for $68.80.

Ryan Mahoney -- rmahoney@cateslaw.com -- of Cates Mahoney in
Swansea represents the defense.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number: 12-L-534.


MASSACHUSETTS: Sued Over Mandatory Detention of Immigrants
----------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Mehta, Fellow, Immigrants' Rights Project, at ACLU, says "We
have a broken immigration system.  One of the worst features of
that system is our draconian immigration prisons -- and in
particular, our system of mandatory immigration detention.  On any
given day, thousands of men and women are put in detention because
our government is trying to deport them for a past crime.  Often
these people are longtime legal residents of our country who have
rehabilitated themselves, raised families, and given back to their
communities.  But under the government's overbroad interpretation
of the mandatory detention regime, they stay locked up, no matter
what, at huge expense to taxpayers, until their immigration case
is decided.

Take the example of Clayton Richard Gordon.  Mr. Gordon immigrated
from Jamaica to the United States as a green card holder in 1982
when he was six years old, and he's lived here ever since.  The
father of two U.S. citizens, Gordon joined the National Guard in
1994 and, two years later, began active duty in the United States
Army (from which he was honorably discharged in 1999).  In 2008,
Gordon was arrested after police found cocaine in the home he
shared with relatives; he was released from custody the same day.
He pleaded guilty to possession with intent to sell, and served
three years of probation.  Mr. Gordon restarted his life.  He and
fiancee purchased their first home and had a son, now three years
old.  Mr. Gordon ran his own contracting business.  Committed to
giving back to his community, he was renovating a property in an
economically depressed area into a transitional home for single
mothers coming out of incarceration -- a project that he himself
started and that, without him, is on hold.  On June 20, 2013,
after Gordon said goodbye to his fiancee and son and left for
work, he was suddenly surrounded and detained by armed immigration
agents. Now, under the government's interpretation of the law, he
cannot even be considered for release on bond.  He remains in
mandatory lock-up in Franklin County Jail in Greenfield, Mass.

On Aug. 2 and again on Aug. 8, the ACLU and its partners filed two
class action lawsuits challenging the mandatory detention of
people like Mr. Gordon in Massachusetts and Washington State.
"We're arguing that the mandatory detention laws do not apply to
people like Richard, and that they instead deserve the basic due
process of a bond hearing where a judge can determine whether they
need to be locked up or should be released," Ms. Mehta says.

Generally, U.S. immigration laws allow the authorities to detain
individuals or release them on bond or conditions of supervision,
such as an ankle monitor, while their deportation cases are being
decided.  Mandatory detention is a narrow exception to this rule
for a narrow group of individuals: people who are convicted of
certain crimes and who are taken into immigration custody as the
time they are released from the criminal justice system for such a
crime.  But for years, the Department of Homeland Security has
misapplied mandatory detention to individuals, like Richard who
have been living in the community for years since their release
without incident.

"We've gone to court for Gordon and others in his situation
because the government's expansion of mandatory detention is not
only illegal, but violates our basic sense of fairness.  People
who have served their time, turned their lives around, and are now
supporting their families and contributing to their communities
should not be separated from their families and condemned to
mandatory lock-up.  In America, everyone should get a chance to
see a judge to determine if they need to be locked up before their
freedom is taken away," Ms. Mehta says.

Gordon v. Napolitano is being brought by the ACLU of
Massachusetts, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, and the Political
Asylum / Immigration Representation Project.

Khouri v. Asher is being litigated by the Northwest Immigrant
Rights Project, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, ACLU of
Washington, and Gibbs Houston Pauw, the claims administrator by
Sept. 30.


MERCK & CO: Faces Class Action Over Propecia Drug
-------------------------------------------------
Kevin Martel, writing for News Talk 980 CJME, reports that with
the help of Tony Merchant, a 34-year-old Regina man is launching a
class action lawsuit against Merck & Co., including Merck Canada
Inc. which markets and distributes Propecia and a similar drug
called Proscar.  Those drugs are used for hair restoration.

The statement of claim outlines how in 2007 the man had a lump on
his head removed.  His doctor had given him a free sample of
Propecia to regrow the hair where his lump was removed as well as
a prescription for more.

After taking the drug for about six weeks he noticed hair wasn't
growing on his head, but instead on his neck and back.  Along with
that, the claim outlines how his sex drive has also been
significantly hurt.  Mr. Merchant claims his client can't maintain
sexual function and is now suffering from a general loss of sexual
interest.  And that may never come back.

"It's both physical and mental and very impactful for people,"
Mr. Merchant said.

Mr. Merchant also explained how his client and others involved in
the suit had no idea what the potential consequences of taking the
drug were beforehand.

"People with whom we've spoken had no idea that there would be a
loss of sexual function," he claimed.  "With every single one of
them when they lost sexual function they didn't even make the
connection."

"It wasn't one of the things that they were warned about."

However, Propecia does warn about the potential for certain sexual
side effects such as less desire for sex, difficulty achieving an
erection, and a decrease in the amount of semen.  They say each of
these happen in less than two per cent of men and went away after
usage stopped.

Mr. Merchant said on top of seeking compensation for his client,
it's also important for a court to rule in their favor to aid in
the mental recovery process, adding his clients feel as if they
have been "taken of advantage of."

News Talk Radio has put in a call with Merck for its response.
A statement of claim contains allegations that have not been
proven in court.


MICHIGAN: Files Motion for Summary Judgment in Pension Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Smith, writing for MLive.com, reports that lawyers
representing the state of Michigan filed a motion on Aug. 9 asking
Judge Rosemarie Aquilina to issue a summary judgment in favor of
the state in a lawsuit brought over taxing teacher pensions.

The motion was filed on Aug. 8 in response to a lawsuit brought by
a retired teacher, Thomas Okrie, who alleged that the state
breached promises made to retirees by eliminating tax deductions
and credits which made state pensions tax-free.

Mr. Okrie's suit sought to create a class-action case against the
state involving all Michigan Public School Employees Retirement
System retirees, saying the taxation of pensions violated
statements made on retirement paperwork which indicated the
pensions would be exempt from state and local taxes.

Ann Arbor attorney Gary Supanich, who filed the suit on behalf of
Mr. Okrie, said it could extend to all state employees who were
given retirement advice based on the assumption of tax-free
pensions.

"I estimate over 100,000 people might qualify, both state and
public school employees," Mr. Supanich told MLive last week.
"Thomas Okrie is a former teacher, but I'm alleging in the
complaint that he represents a class of public school and state
employees because all of them were made the same promise --
namely, that their pensions were to be made exempt from taxation."

The motion filed by Attorney General Bill Schuette's office says
that contrary to Mr. Okrie's claims, no enforceable contract or
promise existed between retirees and the state over taxation of
pensions.

"Only the Legislature has the power to tax; any private
contractual right concerning a tax exemption can exist, if at all,
only through legislation enacted in accordance with applicable
constitutional limitations," the motion states.  "It is, thus,
remarkable that Okrie's breach of contract charge hinges on a
claimed quasi-contract that allegedly was formed by non-
legislative 'promises'."

The motion also cites a provision of the state constitution which
expressly forbids creating a tax exemption by contract, and cites
the tax exemptions for religious and educational property and the
sales tax exemption on food as examples of proper exemptions.

The motion asks Judge Aquilina to dismiss the suit and award costs
and attorney's fees.


NCL CORP: Appeal in Seaman's Wage Act Violations Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the denial of class certification in the lawsuit
alleging violations of the Seaman's Wage Act remains pending,
according to NCL Corporation Ltd.'s July 30, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In July 2009, a class action complaint was filed against NCL
(Bahamas) Ltd. in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida, on behalf of a purported class of crew
members alleging inappropriate deductions of their wages pursuant
to the Seaman's Wage Act and wrongful termination resulting in a
loss of retirement benefits.  In December 2010, the Court denied
the plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.  In February 2011,
the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration as to the
Court's Order on Class Certification which was denied.  The Court
tried six individual plaintiffs' claims, and in September 2012
awarded wages aggregating approximately $100,000 to such
plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs have filed an appeal of the Court's
decision in the individual actions as well as the denial of the
Class Certification.  The Company intends to vigorously defend
this appeal and is not able at this time to estimate the impact of
these proceedings.

In May 2011, a class action complaint was filed against NCL
(Bahamas) Ltd. in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida, on behalf of a purported class of crew
members alleging inappropriate deductions of their wages pursuant
to the Seaman's Wage Act and breach of contract.  In July 2012,
this action was stayed by the Court pending the outcome of the
litigation commenced with the class action complaint filed in July
2009.  The Company is vigorously defending this action and is not
able at this time to estimate the impact of these proceedings.

NCL Corporation Ltd. -- http://www.ncl.com/-- operates cruise
ships.  The Company is headquartered in Miami, Florida.


NMI RETIREMENT: September 20 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Ferdie de la Torre, writing for Saipan Tribune, reports that any
class member who wants to opt out of the settlement agreement in
Betty Johnson's class action against the NMI Retirement Fund has
until 5:00 p.m. on Sept. 20, 2013, to submit a request for
exclusion, according to U.S. District Court for the NMI designated
judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood.

In an order on Aug. 7 for the preliminary approval of the
settlement deal, Judge Tydingco-Gatewood said anyone who wants to
opt out must submit a request for exclusion to the Fund trustee ad
litem at P.O. Box 501247, Saipan, MP 96950.

To be valid, requests for exclusion must be in writing and clearly
identifies the person requesting exclusion by including their
name, address, and date of birth.  The requests must be signed by
the person requesting exclusion (or someone with the legal
authority to act for that person requesting exclusion, with
documents showing such authority), must be on a separate piece of
paper from any other person's request for exclusion, and must be
delivered to the Fund on or before 5:00 p.m. on Sept. 20.

"The person requesting exclusion must ensure actual delivery to
the Fund on or before 5pm on Sept. 30, 2013, and it shall not be
sufficient to show that the request for exclusion was postmarked,
mailed, or otherwise sent before that date," the judge said.

No settlement class member, or any person acting on their behalf,
may exclude any other class member from the class.  No lawyer or
class representative may validly request exclusion on behalf of a
class, putative class, or group of clients.

Judge Tydingco-Gatewood said any class member who timely requests
for exclusion shall not be a member of the settlement class and
shall not be entitled to any benefits from the settlement fund.

"Requests for exclusion are irrevocable and no person who requests
exclusion may later become a member of the settlement class or
have any rights under the agreement," she said.

The judge said the class' counsel, the trustee, and the settlement
fund shall have no duties whatsoever to any person who requests
exclusion.  She said any settlement class member who does not ask
for exclusion may appear and show cause if he or she has any
reason why the proposed settlement should not be approved as fair,
adequate and reasonable, why the judgment should or should not be
entered, why attorneys' fees and costs should or should not be
awarded to class counsel, or why a service award to Ms. Johnson
should or should not be allowed.

However, the judge said, no settlement class member shall be heard
and no objection may be considered unless it is a written
objection.  The written objection, she said, must include the
objector's name, address, and telephone number; a sentence
confirming, under penalty of perjury, that the objector authorized
the objection and that he or she is a settlement class member.

The written objection must also include the factual basis and
legal grounds for the objection to the settlement; the identity of
witnesses they may call to testify at the final fairness hearing;
and copies of exhibits they intend to offer into evidence at the
final fairness hearing.

The written objection, Judge Tydingco-Gatewood said, should either
be filed with the District Court by 5pm on Sept. 16, 2013, or
mailed and postmarked by that date to class counsel Robert Hatch,
counsel for the CNMI Reena Patel, and Fund trustee ad litem
Joseph C. Razzano.

As an alternative or in addition to filing a written objection the
judge said, any settlement class member who does not request
exclusion can orally object by appearing at the hearing on Sept.
30, 2013, at 9am and requesting to be heard on the objection.

In an interview on Aug. 6, Ms. Johnson's counsel, Margery
Bronster, said that if there are too may opt-outs, there will be
no settlement, they will have to go back to court, and retirees
would end up getting nothing.

Judge Tydingco-Gatewood noted in her order that the final
settlement agreement was the result of months of good faith, arm's
length negotiations conducted by Hawaii chief bankruptcy judge
Robert J. Faris.

Even Gov. Eloy Inos participated in these settlement talks, she
said.

"The court commends all counsel and the parties for their diligent
and dedicated efforts to resolve this litigation in a manner that
hopefully will be beneficial for all concerned," she added.

At present, the Fund is reportedly underfunded by over $1 billion.

Ms. Johnson's counsels said that if the Fund continues to make
benefit payments to its members as required by law, the Fund will
have no assets and will be unable to make any more payments
beginning June 2014.

The settlement deal's main goal is to ensure that retirees who are
in the class will receive at least 75 percent of their benefits in
the future.  The other goal is to allow the CNMI to let members of
the Fund who are not yet receiving benefits to withdraw from the
Fund and retrieve their contributions.  The deal will also provide
a mechanism for the retirees who are class members to enforce
their rights under the settlement in federal court.


OPTICAL DISK DRIVE: Deposition Deadlines Okayed in Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Seeborg approved a stipulation modifying
the deadline for depositions of certain proposed class
representatives and plaintiffs' experts in IN RE OPTICAL DISK
DRIVE PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, CASE NO. 3:10-MD-2143 RS,
(N.D. Cal.)

The parties stipulate and agree that the deadlines for the
depositions of (i) Plaintiffs' expert witnesses (Dr. Flamm and Dr.
French), and (ii) proposed class representatives Paul Nordine,
Ashley Tremblay, Gregory Starrett, and Thomas Stenger, will be
extended beyond July 25, 2013. The deposition of Dr. French was
scheduled to take place last August 9, 2013, and the deposition of
Dr. Flamm will begin on August 19, 2013. The depositions for the
proposed class representatives will be permitted to take place on
the date and time to which the parties have agreed, or as may be
modified by the parties through agreement.

A copy of the District Court's August 1, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/5B4bIAfrom Leagle.com.

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, BELINDA S LEE -- belinda.lee@lw.com -- San
Francisco, CA, Acting as Liaison Counsel for Defendants.

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, SHANA E. SCARLETT --
shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Jeff D. Friedman (173886) --
jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Berkeley, CA, Steve W. Berman (Pro Hac Vice)
-- steve@hbsslaw.com -- George W. Sampson (Pro Hac Vice) --
george@hbsslaw.com --, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Seattle,
WA.

Lee Gordon SBN (174168) -- lee@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
SHAPIRO LLP, Pasadena, CA, Interim Lead Counsel for Indirect
Purchaser Plaintiffs.

SAVERI & SAVERI. INC., CADIO ZIRPOLI -- cadio@saveri.com -- Guido
Saveri (22349) -- guido@ saveri.com -- R. Alexander Saveri
(173102) -- rick@saveri.com -- Cadio Zirpoli (179108), San
Francisco, CA, Interim Lead Counsel for Direct Purchaser Class.


PILOT FLYING J: Judge Denies Consolidation of Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ron Regan, writing for newsnet5.com, reports that a federal
judicial panel on Aug. 8 issued an order denying transfer and
consolidation of multiple class action lawsuits against
Jimmy Haslam's Pilot Flying J Travel Centers.

Meanwhile, Pilot's Chief Financial Officer released a statement
saying the company's overall financial standing remains strong,
has not acquired excessive debt and diesel sales compared to last
year are down just one percent.

The company estimates it may have lost half a percent of business
to competition.

More than 20 trucking companies across the country have filed
class action lawsuits alleging that Mr. Haslam's company cheated
them on promised fuel rebates.

In July, a federal Judge in Little Rock, Arkansas grant
preliminary approval of a settlement agreement reached among some
of the companies suing Pilot.

Meanwhile, attorneys for other trucking companies that object to
the settlement asked a three-judge panel to rule on a motion to
transfer and consolidate multiple class action lawsuits filed
across the country to one court.

Pilot argued the case should remain in Arkansas pending final
approval of the class action settlement agreement expected this
November.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on multi-district litigation, meeting in
Portland, Maine, ruled that "we find that centralization at this
time will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
or promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation."

The panel ruled that centralization "could delay the settlement
proceedings."

The ruling means that multiple class action lawsuits filed in six
federal court districts across the country will remain in those
jurisdictions until the Arkansas court "issues final approval or
disapproval" of the settlement.


SANDISK CORP: Appeal From Dismissal of Antitrust Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of an antitrust class action lawsuit
against SanDisk Corporation remains pending, according to the
Company's July 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On March 15, 2011, a putative class action captioned Oliver v.
SD-3C LLC, et al was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (the "District Court") on behalf
of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers of SD cards alleging
various claims against the Company, SD-3C, Panasonic, Toshiba, and
Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. under federal
antitrust law pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act, California
antirust and unfair competition laws, and common law.  The
complaint seeks an injunction of the challenged conduct,
dissolution of "the cooperation agreements, joint ventures and/or
cross-licenses alleged herein," treble damages, restitution,
disgorgement, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Company (along
with the other members of SD-3C) conspired to artificially inflate
the royalty costs associated with manufacturing SD cards in
violation of federal and California antitrust and unfair
competition laws, which in turn allegedly caused plaintiffs to pay
higher prices for SD cards.  The allegations are similar to, and
incorporate by reference the complaint in the Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North
America; and SD-3C LLC described above.  On May 21, 2012, the
District Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint
with prejudice.  The Plaintiffs have appealed.  Briefing on the
appeal was completed on June 21, 2013.  No date for oral argument
has been set.

SanDisk Corporation was incorporated in Delaware in June 1988 and
is headquartered in Milpitas, California.  The Company designs,
develops, markets and manufactures data storage solutions in a
variety of form factors using its flash memory, controller and
firmware technologies.  The Company operates in one segment, flash
memory storage products.


SANDISK CORP: Ritz Trustee Substituted as Plaintiff in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted Sandisk Corporation's motion requesting that Albert
Giuliano, the Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz bankruptcy estate, be
substituted as the plaintiff in the Ritz Camera Federal Antitrust
Class Action, according to the Company's July 30, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC ("Ritz") filed a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "District Court"), alleging that the Company
violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize and
monopolizing the market for flash memory products.  The lawsuit
captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc.
and Eliyahou Harari, purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers
of flash memory products sold by the Company and joint ventures
controlled by the Company from June 25, 2006, through the present.
The complaint alleges that the Company created and maintained a
monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to
restrain competition and by allegedly converting other patents for
its competitive use.  On February 24, 2011, the District Court
issued an Order granting in part and denying in part the Company's
motion to dismiss which resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as
a defendant.  On September 19, 2011, the Company filed a petition
for permission to file an interlocutory appeal in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the "Federal Circuit") for the
portion of the District Court's Order denying the Company's motion
to dismiss based on Ritz's lack of standing to pursue Walker
Process antitrust claims.  On October 27, 2011, the District Court
administratively closed the case pending the Federal Circuit's
ruling on the Company's petition.  On November 20, 2012, the
Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's order denying
SanDisk's motion to dismiss.  On December 2, 2012, the Federal
Circuit issued its mandate returning the case to the District
Court.  Discovery is now open in the District Court.

On February 20, 2013, Ritz filed a motion requesting that Albert
Giuliano, the Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz bankruptcy estate, be
substituted as the plaintiff in this case, which the District
Court granted on July 5, 2013.

SanDisk Corporation was incorporated in Delaware in June 1988 and
is headquartered in Milpitas, California.  The Company designs,
develops, markets and manufactures data storage solutions in a
variety of form factors using its flash memory, controller and
firmware technologies.  The Company operates in one segment, flash
memory storage products.


SIDNEY MICKELL: "Evon" Suit Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman granted final approval of a
settlement in the class action captioned CATHERINE EVON,
Plaintiff, v. LAW OFFICES OF SIDNEY MICKELL; SIDNEY MICKELL, ESQ.
and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:09-CV-00760-KJN,
(E.D. Cal.).

The Court said the Settlement is in all respects fair, reasonable,
and adequate to the class.

Plaintiff Catherine Evon and the Settlement Class members are
forever barred and enjoined from initiating or further prosecuting
in any forum whatsoever, including but not limited to any federal,
state, or foreign court against Defendants any and all claims,
controversies, liabilities, actions and/or causes of action made
in this litigation.

Through the class action administrator First Class, the Defendants
will pay $10,000 as damages to the Settlement Class Members and
Judgment pro-rata. The funds will be sent to all of the Settlement
Class Members within 45 days from the date of entry of the Order.
Any check that remains un-cashed 90 days after issuance will be
cancelled and the funds will be paid to the Voluntary Legal
Services Program in Sacramento, California.

The Defendants will pay class representative, Plaintiff Catherine
Evon, $5,000.

The Defendants will pay the remaining funds from the total
settlement amount of $200,000 (after payment to the class members,
class representative, and costs of administering the class) to
plaintiff's counsel (estimated at $183,779.74), representing
reasonable attorney's fees and costs for the prosecution of the
action.

This Litigation will immediately be dismissed on the merits and
with prejudice as to the Defendants and this dismissal will be
with each party bearing its own costs and fees.

A copy of the District Court's July 31, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/EqZd2rfrom Leagle.com.

Mark E. Ellis -- mellis@ellislawgrp.com --  127159 ELLIS LAW
GROUP, LLP, Sacramento, CA, Attorneys for Defendant LAW OFFICES OF
SIDNEY MICKELL AND SIDNEY MICKELL

Lara R. Shapiro -- Shapiro.lara@gmail.com -- 227194 Law Office of
Lara R. Shapiro, Marina del Rey, CA,

Sergei Lemberg, (Admitted pr hac vice) Lemberg & Associates LLC, A
Connecticut Law Firm Stamford, CT, Attorneys for Plaintiff
CATHERINE EVON


SONY CORPORATION: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Internship
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a woman who spent a summer
working as an unpaid intern has filed a class-action lawsuit in
New York against Sony Corporation of America, Sony Music Holdings
and Columbia Recording Corp. over wages she says she should have
been paid.

The lawsuit was filed in state Supreme Court in Manhattan on
Aug. 6.  The lawsuit is similar to ones filed by unpaid interns
against other music companies and in other industries like
magazine publishing.

Plaintiff Britt'ni Fields says she worked as an unpaid intern from
May 2008 to August 2008 but should have been paid under state
labor law.

Columbia is a subsidiary of Sony Music Holdings, which is part of
Sony Corporation of America.  Sony Corporation did not answer an
email seeking comment.


SYDNEY UNIVERSITY: Sued Over Anti-Discrimination Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Noga Gur-Arieh at
JewishJournal.com, on July 31, 2013, an Israeli civil rights
group, Shurat HaDin, filed a class action complaint under the
Racial Discrimination Act 1975 with the Australian Human Rights
Commission over a Sydney professor's participation and public
support of boycotts of Israel including an academic boycott of
Israeli universities.  Recently, faculty and students at Sydney
University called for the severing of links with Israeli
institutions, actions that according to Shurat Harding would be
deemed racist and in violation of Australian Federal anti-
discrimination laws.

The complaint filed by Shurat HaDin's Australian solicitor
Alexander Hamilton is the first time that a Racial Discrimination
Act action has been launched in Australia against those promoting
boycotts, sanctions and divestment (BDS) against the Jewish State.
It is the first time that Australia's anti-racism laws have been
utilized against people who are claimed to seeking to harm Israeli
academics or businesses because of their national origin.

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 Shurat HaDin complaint also noted that any boycott of Israeli
"settlement products," such as SodaStream and Ahava, harms
Palestinian economic interests due to the fact the factories
employ many Palestinian workers and provide an important source of
income for local families and villages.

This past semester, the university's student body endorsed
Associate Professor Jake Lynch's academic boycott of Israel.
According to Shurat HaDin, Lynch had publicly announced his
refusal to work with Dan Avnon, an Israeli professor from the
prestigious Hebrew University in Jerusalem, which promotes
Israeli-Arab coexistence, and also called for a boycott of
Technion University in Haifa.  It has also been stated that last
month, Lynch refused to heed the Tel Aviv-based rights group's
warning that he must cease participation in unlawful, and racist,
boycott activity.  Shurat HaDin also added that although widely
condemned by mainstream politicians and community figures, Lynch
has also been publically supported by notorious Holocaust denier
Fredrick Toben.

According to solicitor Andrew Hamilton: "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."  According to Shurat
Hadin director Nitsana Darshan-Leitner: "Lynch and his ilk seek to
boycott Israeli and Jewish national products, whether its goods,
services, performers or professors.  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."

The Australian Human Rights Commission is currently investigating
the complaint and provided Professor Lynch 21 days to reply.


TELETECH HOLDINGS: Unit Still Defends Class Suit Over Phone Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the fourth quarter of 2012, a complaint was filed in the State
of California against a TeleTech Holdings, Inc. subsidiary and
Google Inc. ("Google"), as co-defendants.  The action alleges that
the defendants violated California Penal Code Section 632 by
recording telephone calls made on behalf of Google to residents in
California without disclosure.  The plaintiff seeks class action
certification in the matter.  Pursuant to its contractual
commitments, the Company has agreed to indemnify Google for costs
and expenses related to the complaint.  The ultimate outcome of
this litigation, and an estimate of the possible loss, if any,
cannot reasonably be determined at this time.  Management believes
that the loss, if any, is adequately insured as part of the
Company's insurance program and the outcome of this litigation
should not have a material adverse effect on its financial
position or results of operations.

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

Headquartered in Englewood, Colorado, TeleTech Holdings, Inc., is
a global call center operator that provides a wide range of
business process outsourcing services in four areas: customer
management, direct sales, human capital, and professional
services.


TIME WARNER: Faces Class Action Over Loss of WTMJ-TV Service
------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Vielmetti, writing for Journal Sentinel, reports that three
frustrated Time Warner customers on Aug. 8 sued the cable TV
provider over its decision last month to drop WTMJ-TV (Channel 4)
from its lineup.

Time Warner dropped WTMJ on July 25 over a contract dispute.  Both
companies have been running public relations campaigns ever since
trying to convince the public the other side is making
unreasonable demands.

WTMJ is owned by Journal Broadcast Group, which in turn is owned
by Journal Communications, which also owns the Journal Sentinel.

The lawsuit, filed late on Aug. 8 in Milwaukee County Circuit
Court, seeks class-action status on behalf of all Time Warner
subscribers who no longer get WTMJ-TV on their service.

The named plaintiffs are Steven Delonge and Paul Scoptur of
Wauwatosa, and Stephen Raymonds of Menomonee Falls.  They are
represented by Mr. Scoptur's law firm, Aiken & Scoptur.

The suit seeks unspecified damages for breach of contract, and a
day's credit for each customer for every day service was
interrupted more than four hours, under a state statute that
addresses service interruption.  The suit indicates no individual
plaintiff's claim, including any prorated share of any punitive
damages or attorney's fees, will exceed $74,000.

Mike Hogan, speaking for Time Warner, said the company had not yet
seen the lawsuit and could not comment on the claims.

While the contract dispute between Time Warner and WTMJ wasn't
resolved on Aug. 8, the two companies announced earlier in the day
that the Green Bay Packers' Aug. 9 exhibition game against the
Arizona Cardinals would be available to Time Warner customers on
Telemundo, in Spanish.

According to 620 WTMJ's Steve Chamraz, the complaint will be
delivered to the cable provider as early as this week, though it
could be 45 days before this case makes its first appearance
before a judge.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Bellwether Trial Over Acceleration Defects Begins
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that Noriko Uno was on her way to the bank to deposit cash from
her family's sushi restaurant when she was hit by another car.
The impact caused her 2006 Camry to accelerate out of control, and
for half a mile she struggled to steer the vehicle against
oncoming traffic.  She ended up slamming into two telephone poles,
eventually colliding with a pepper tree.  She died on impact.

A brake override safety system (BOSS) could have stopped the car,
Garo Mardirossian, Mr. Uno's attorney, told jurors in Los Angeles
on Aug. 8 during opening statements in the first bellwether trial
against Toyota Motor Corp. over acceleration defects.  But Toyota
didn't install such a safety system, he said.  And now Mrs. Uno's
husband, Peter, and son, Jeffery, are asking for $20 million in
damage.

"She tried to stop the car on numerous occasions," said
Mr. Mardirossian, of Mardiorrosian & Associates in Los Angeles,
who presented the version of the case outlined above.  "Had the
vehicle been equipped with BOSS, it would have come to a stop."

Toyota's attorney, Vincent Galvin, managing partner of the
San Jose, Calif., office of Bowman and Brooke, steered his
argument to the specifics of the accident, which he said was
caused by Mrs. Uno mistakenly hitting the accelerator pedal rather
than the brake.

"This accident was not caused by the vehicle," he said. "It was
caused by the driver."

Mr. Mardiorossian presented jurors with a miniature replica of the
site of the 2009 accident in Upland, Calif.  He also showed them
numerous automobile parts and graphic photos of Uno's lacerated
and broken foot, which had become stuck, causing her car to
accelerate to nearly 100 miles per hour that day.  About a dozen
witnesses to the accident are expected to testify, including one
who claims Mrs. Uno's brake lights came on.

Mr. Mardiorossian noted that Toyota had installed a brake override
safety system in its vehicles in Europe and Asia at the time, but
not in cars sold in the United States like Mrs. Uno's 2006 Camry,
despite safety assurances to consumers.

"Toyota made a decision to leave out the BOSS from the American
vehicles including this 2006 Camry, and it wasn't until 2007 that
they began to put them in the Camry," Mr. Mardirossian said.

But Mr. Galvin said brake override wasn't installed as standard in
the Camry until 2011 and, in any case, doesn't work in all
circumstances.  Such was the case here, where there is no evidence
that Uno hit the brakes, which would have stopped the vehicle, he
said.  He added that Uno's foot could not have become lodged as
alleged in the lawsuit.

"There was no stuck foot in this case," he said.  "It didn't
happen."

In addition to hitting the wrong pedal, Mr. Galvin contended that
Mrs. Uno, a diabetic, suffered from hypoglycemia that caused her
to be confused on the day of the accident.

The case, filed in Los Angeles County, Calif., Superior Court,
represents the first bellwether to go to trial from among hundreds
of lawsuits against Toyota asserting defects associated with
sudden acceleration.  A bellwether is defined as a case selected,
usually by mutual agreement of both parties, to go to trial ahead
of similar cases because the facts best represent the mass tort
litigation as a whole.  That means a verdict in the case could
serve as a barometer for hundreds of personal injury or wrongful
death cases across the nation.

Most of the litigation has alleged defects with the electronic
throttle control system, not the accelerator pedals or floor mats
that led to the recall of nearly 10 million vehicles.  Mrs. Uno's
survivors, however, claim that Toyota failed to install a brake
override safety system that would have automatically put the
engine into idle, saving her life.

The case also involves claims against Olga Bello, 86, whose 2003
Lexus struck Mrs. Uno's vehicle.

Although the first bellwether, the Uno case actually is not the
first against Toyota to go to trial over sudden acceleration. In
2011, a federal jury in New York found Toyota not liable for an
accident attributed to sudden acceleration.  And last year, three
days before trial, a state court judge in Ohio issued a directed
verdict for Toyota in a warranty case.

The Uno trial, which is expected to last two months, is taking
place before Judge Lee Smalley Edmon, past presiding judge of the
Los Angeles County, Calif., Superior Court, who is overseeing the
consolidated litigation in California state court cases.  That
coordination is separate from a raft of federal claims that have
been coordinated in multidistrict litigation before U.S. District
Judge James Selna in Santa Ana, Calif.  In that litigation, which
involves personal injury and wrongful death actions across the
country, the first trial is scheduled for November 5.

Other trials are scheduled this year in state courts in Oklahoma
and Michigan.


TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Defends Antitrust Suits in Michigan and Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. is defending itself against
antitrust class action lawsuits in Michigan and Canada, according
to the Company's July 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 28,
2013.

The Company has been named as a defendant in purported class
action lawsuits filed on various dates from June 2012 through
March 2013, which are now pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the Superior Court of
Justice in Ontario, Canada and the Superior Court of Quebec,
Canada on behalf of vehicle purchasers, lessors and dealers,
alleging that the Company and certain of its competitors conspired
to fix and raise prices for Occupant Safety Systems products.  The
Company intends to defend these cases vigorously.  Management
believes that the ultimate resolution of these cases will not have
a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial
statements as a whole.

TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. is a large and diversified supplier
of automotive systems, modules and components to global automotive
original equipment manufacturers, and related aftermarkets.  The
Company's operations primarily encompass the design, manufacture
and sale of active and passive safety related products, which
often includes the integration of electronics components and
systems.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in Livonia, Michigan.


U.S. STEEL: Continues to Defend Suits vs. Steel Manufacturers
-------------------------------------------------------------
In a series of lawsuits filed in federal court in the Northern
District of Illinois beginning September 12, 2008, individual
direct or indirect buyers of steel products have asserted that
eight steel manufacturers, including United States Steel
Corporation, conspired in violation of antitrust laws to restrict
the domestic production of raw steel and thereby to fix, raise,
maintain or stabilize the price of steel products in the United
States.  The cases are filed as class actions and claim treble
damages for the period 2005 to present, but do not allege any
damage amounts.  U. S. Steel is vigorously defending these
lawsuits and does not believe that it is probable a liability
regarding these matters has been incurred.  The Company is unable
to estimate a range of possible loss at this time.

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

United States Steel Corporation -- http://www.ussteel.com/-- is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
U.S. Steel produces and sells steel mill products, including flat-
rolled and tubular products, in North America and Central Europe.
Operations in North America also include transportation services
(railroad and barge operations) and real estate operations.


UNITED STATES: West Jersey Tea Party Joins Class Action v. IRS
--------------------------------------------------------------
Warren Reporter, writing for NJ.com, reports that counsel funded
by Citizens for Self-Governance filed an amended complaint adding
numerous named plaintiffs in the first and only class action in
the nation against the IRS on behalf of Tea Parties, religious
organizations and other liberty groups targeted for harassment and
abuse.

Significantly, among other groups joining the NorCal Tea Party as
named plaintiffs in the litigation is the West Jersey Tea Party, a
group of more than 500 active members who roundly denounced the
actions taken by the IRS.

Keith Peacock issued the following statement on the group's
decision to join a class-action lawsuit against the Internal
Revenue Service said, "Last year, the West Jersey Tea Party was
surprised and disappointed to learn that the Internal Revenue
Service was targeting us simply because we do not agree with the
current administration.  In light of recent revelations of a
pattern of IRS harassment and suppression of citizens and
organizations opposed to Washington, D.C.'s agenda, we must
conclude that our group may have been deliberately and illegally
targeted.  With donor and membership anonymity a cornerstone of
freedom of association under the Constitution as held in the U.S.
Supreme Court's 1958 NAACP v. Alabama, is a profound threat to
basic liberties."

In response to the litigation, the IRS has recently filed a motion
with the court to dismiss the suit.  Commenting on the
government's actions, Mark Meckler, president of Citizens for
Self-Governance, issued the following statement:

"In the last several days, we've heard that the President
considers the IRS targeting of law-abiding citizens to be a 'phony
scandal,' demonstrating his disdain for the American people and
the Constitution.  Meanwhile, government lawyers are moving to
dismiss litigation intended to give affected citizens their day in
court.  This is indicative of the heavy hand of a federal
government operating with a dangerous disdain for the American
citizen.  This cannot stand, and we will not rest until the many
groups affected by the IRS abuses have their day in court."


WELLS FARGO: 9th Cir. Allows Two HAMP Class Actions to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP on Aug. 8 disclosed that the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals issued a unanimous opinion permitting two
class action lawsuits to go forward to address Wells Fargo's
refusal to modify home loans as they were required to do under the
Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP").  The lawsuits
address conduct affecting tens of thousands of families across the
country.  The Ninth Circuit found that permitting the lawsuit
"avoids the injustice that would result were Wells Fargo's
position accepted."

In the midst of the worst foreclosure crisis in history, the U.S.
Department of the Treasury launched HAMP in 2009 to help millions
of distressed homeowners avoid foreclosure.  Beyond "TARP" money,
like the $25 billion provided to Wells Fargo in 2008, the Treasury
Department provided economic incentives to Wells Fargo and other
banks to encourage them to provide reasonable mortgage
modification options to millions of homeowners.  The class action
complaint filed by Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP on behalf of
Phillip Corvello and other Wells Fargo customers alleges that
although many thousands of homeowners nationwide complied with all
requirements of their agreements with Wells Fargo, Wells Fargo
improperly denied them offers for permanent mortgage
modifications.  In so doing, Wells Fargo accepted months of
modified mortgage payments and led its customers to believe that
they would be offered permanent mortgage modifications under HAMP.
According to the Ninth Circuit, Wells Fargo's offer "promises a
substantial benefit" and "Wells Fargo drafted this document, and
Wells Fargo must be held responsible for it."

Timothy Blood, counsel for plaintiff Phillip Corvello in the class
action lawsuit and managing partner of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon,
LLP said that today's Ninth Circuit opinion serves as an important
victory for tens of thousands of families and a reminder to big
banks like Wells Fargo that even they must uphold their promises.

"Wells Fargo willingly took bailout money from US taxpayers, and
then failed to live up to its end of the bargain by denying
deserving families reasonable loan modifications it was
contractually obligated to provide.  [Thurs]day, the appellate
court took a large step forward to right this wrong," said
Mr. Blood.

The Wells Fargo class action lawsuit is entitled Corvello v. Wells
Fargo Bank (N.D. Cal.).

                About Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP

Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP -- http://www.bholaw.com--
specializes in consumer protection law. It represents consumers,
insurance policy holders, investors and small businesses in class
action lawsuits nationwide.

        Contact: Timothy G. Blood
                 BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
                 701 B Street, Suite 1700
                 San Diego, CA 92101
                 Phone: 619-338-1100
                 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Chandler" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Samuel Conti granted a motion for leave to file an
amended complaint in ROBERT CHANDLER, AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
ESTATE OF ROSEMARY S. CHANDLER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
and FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION a/k/a FANNIE MAE,
Defendants, CASE NO. 11-03831 SC, (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff brought this putative class action to enforce
certain regulations concerning the federal Home Equity Conversion
Mortgage program. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. and Federal National Mortgage Association
violated the regulations by, inter alia, failing to provide
borrowers with notice of their rights under the HECM program.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint, but the Court
deferred ruling on that motion pending the outcome of the parties'
mediation efforts. In June 2013, the parties indicated that they
failed to reach a settlement. Before the Court could take up
Defendants' pending motion to dismiss, Plaintiff requested
permission to file a motion for leave to amend the Complaint.

Judge Conti ruled that the Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied
as moot.

A copy of the District Court's August 1, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/2sqF9wfrom Leagle.com.

Robert Chandler, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Kai Ng --
mng@kerrwagstaffe.com -- at Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Craig L. Briskin
-- cbriskin@findjustice.com -- at Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, Jean Marie
Constantine-Davis, AARP Foundation Litigation, Kelly Anne Corcoran
-- corcoran@kerrwagstaffe.com -- at Kerr and Wagstaffe & Steven A.
Skalet -- sskalet@findjustice.com -- at Mehri & Skalet, PLLC.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Rebecca Snavely
Saelao -- rss@severson.com -- at Severson & Werson, a P.C..

Federal National Mortgage Association, Defendant, represented by
Rebecca Snavely Saelao, Severson & Werson, a P.C..


WINCO FOODS: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Overtime Pay Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Charles R. Breyer denied class certification in the
case, LESTAREA WILLIAMS ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. WINCO FOODS ET AL.,
Defendants, NO. CV 13-00146 CRB, (N.D. Cal.).

According to Judge Breyer's decision, this case is identical to a
case previously before the Court, Gales v. WinCo Foods, LLC, 09-
5813. The class in Gales consisted of Assistant Managers at WinCo
stores in California who alleged that they were improperly
classified as "exempt" employees for the purposes of overtime pay.
The same lawyers that lost a fully-briefed class certification
motion in Gales are back with new named Plaintiffs, seeking to
certify a class that is identical to subclasses previously
rejected by the Court in Gales. The Defendants have now moved to
deny class certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23.

Judge Breyer held that the Plaintiffs have not changed the
subclasses from Gales other than consolidating the two night shift
subclasses into a single class.

"Plaintiffs offer no explanation of how that consolidation would
prevent the putative class here from suffering from the same
problems that precluded certification of the putative Gales
subclasses. Because Plaintiffs have not addressed the reasoning
underlying this Court's previous denial of certification in Gales,
the Court grants the Defendants' Motion to Deny Class
Certification," Judge Breyer concluded.

A copy of the District Court's August 1, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/6NpE0tfrom Leagle.com.

Lestarea Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Robin G. Workman --
robin1@qualls-workman.com -- at Qualls & Workman, LLPL, Robin
Gibson Workman -- robin@qualls-workman.com -- at Qualls & Workman,
L.L.P., Aviva N. Roller -- aviva@qualls-workman.com -- at Qualls &
Workman, L.L.P. & Daniel H. Qualls -- qualls@qualls-workman.com --
at Qualls & Workman, L.L.P..

Carlos Porro, Plaintiff, represented by Robin G. Workman, Qualls &
Workman, LLPL, Robin Gibson Workman, Qualls & Workman, L.L.P.,
Aviva N. Roller, Qualls & Workman, L.L.P. & Daniel H. Qualls,
Qualls & Workman, L.L.P..

Winco Foods LLC, Defendant, represented by Brandon Reed McKelvey
-- bmckelvey@seyfarth.com -- at Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Julie Grace
Yap, Attorney at Law, Robb Drew McFadden -- rmcfadden@seyfarth.com
-- at Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Timothy Blair Nelson --
tnelson@seyfarth.com -- at Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

Winco Foods, Defendant, represented by Brandon Reed McKelvey,
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Robb Drew McFadden, Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Timothy
Blair Nelson, Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


* Class Action Bill in India Awaits Presidential Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
The Hindu Business Line reports that shareholders and depositors
will now have a statutory right to claim compensation against not
only erring managements but also auditors, consultants and
advisors to such managements.

The Companies Bill, passed by the Rajya Sabha on Aug. 8 and now
awaiting Presidential assent, will usher in the concept of class
action suits in India.

Class action is a right to members or deposit holders or their
representatives to file an application before a tribunal for
restraining a company from some specified acts.  The shareholders
or depositors can claim damages against a company, directors,
auditors, experts and advisors for their wrongful conduct.

"It is a huge step forward in investor protection," said Virendra
Jain, founder and president of Midas Touch Investors Association,
which had taken up the cause of seeking compensation on behalf of
its cheated retail investors in the Satyam Computers corporate
scandal.

About three lakh retail investors in India had lost about Rs 5,000
crore in the Satyam case.  At the same time, investors of Satyam
in the US, who had filed class action suit against the Indian IT
firm, were compensated to an extent of about Rs 675 crore.

"The concept of class action suits has been introduced giving
right to a group of shareholders or depositors to move NCLT if
they believe that the management or conduct of the affairs of the
company are prejudicial to them, such concept is already permitted
in the US.

"Frivolous applications, if any, made by the group of shareholders
or depositors will be rejected and the applicant can be asked to
pay up to Rs 1 lakh to the opposite party," said Lalit Kumar,
Partner, J. Sagar Associates.

So far, the only recourse for aggrieved shareholders was to file a
case of oppression and mismanagement before the courts.  The class
action concept will take shareholder and depositor actions outside
the purview of the court.

Class action suits were till date filed under the guise of public
interest litigation (PIL).  But the courts were free to dismiss
such PILs.

With the class action concept in place, managements, directors and
auditors will have to be on their toes and look over their
shoulders for potential legal action, say corporate observers.

According to The Times of India, the new law seeks to promote
inclusive growth by recommending that companies spend at least 2%
of their annual profits on CSR activities.  Also, it bats for
small investors by introducing the concept of class-action suits
-- a concept that empowers small shareholders and is popular in
the West -- while fixing higher accountability on auditors for
corporate frauds.

The bill was cleared by the Lok Sabha last year.  The proposed law
has been in the works for many years, and now the government would
spell out rules laying down implementation procedures -- including
fines and penalties -- under the new regime.  "The passage of the
bill will give an impetus to the economic growth momentum,"
corporate affairs minister Sachin Pilot said, adding, "The focus
of the bill is to enhance transparency and ensure fewer
regulations, self-reporting and -disclosures."

CSR spend by companies is one of the key highlights of the
proposed law and this is mandated for every company having a net
worth of Rs 500 crore or more, or turnover of Rs 1,000 crore or
more or a net profit of Rs 5 crore or more during a financial
year.  While the government has fallen short of mandating the
spend -- in line with demands made by the industry -- it has said
a failure to spend the amount will need to be explained by the
company's board.

The debut of class-action suits in India is being seen as a
positive move as it empowers small shareholders to seek answers in
case they feel that a company's management or its conduct of
affairs is prejudicial to its interests or its members or
depositors.  And, the proposed law also puts in place a more
stringent regime for companies when they seek deposits from
public.  This will put a check on the menace of vanishing
companies and fly-by-night operators.

In an interesting move, the bill also makes it mandatory for
company boards to have a woman representative, something that will
give a greater representation to women in corporate decision-
making.

Among other measures, the proposed law places a higher degree of
responsibility on auditors and puts in place a strict regulatory
regime that spells out hefty fines on audit firms in case of a
fraud.  Also, it says that an auditor needs to be rotated every
five years, while an audit firm cannot have more than two terms of
five consecutive years.


                             *********

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  * * *