CAR_Public/130828.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, August 28, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 170

                             Headlines


BERJAC OF OREGON: Victims of Bankruptcy File Class Action
BIOLASE INC: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in California
CINTAS CORP: Continues to Defend Gender Discrimination Suits
CNN MANAGED: SIU School of Law Gets $500,000 From Settlement
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Bradley" Suit in Calif.

DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Steinfeld" Class Suit
DONALD TRUMP: New York AG Files Suit Over Phony Trump University
DOW CHEMICAL: Defends Class Suits Over Product Liability Issues
DOW CHEMICAL: To Appeal $1.06-BB Judgment in Antitrust Litigation
EMERITUS SENIOR: Settles Employees' Class Action for $2.2 Million

FMC CORP: Cross-Border Class Suit vs. Foret Remains Pending
FMC CORP: Still Awaits Ruling Related to Indirect Purchase Claims
FROZEN FOOD: Faces Merger-Related Class Action Suits in Texas
GULF SOUTH: Continues to Defend Suit Over Release of Mercaptan
HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Still Awaits Remand Bid Ruling in "Nichols" Suit

J.B. HUNT: Trial Date in Class Suit Set for 2nd Quarter 2014
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: To Vigorously Defend N.Y. Class Action
MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Suit Over Alleged Indian Antitrust Violation
MICROSOFT CORP: Antitrust Class Suits Remain Pending in Canada

MOLYCORP INC: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Class Action
MOULTON, AL: Faces Class Action Over Garbage Fees
NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Appeal in 2009 Crew Members Suit Still Pending
NORWEGIAN CRUISE: 2011 Crew Members' Class Suit Remains Stayed
OFFICE DEPOT: Yet to File Accord to Settle Merger-Related Suits

POLYCOM INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
RADIOSHACK CORP: Settles Class Action Over FACTA Violation
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss in "Mason" Suit
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Defends Deepwater Horizon FLSA Suits Against ORM
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Expects BP Settlements to Reduce Unit's Exposure

SEACOR HOLDINGS: Still Awaits Decision on Summary Judgment Bids
SEACOR HOLDINGS: "Wunstell" Suit Still Pending in Louisiana
SKINNYGIRL COCKTAILS: Opposition to Class Suit Due in Jan. 2014
STATE AUTO: Defends "Schumacher" Class Action Suit in Ohio
TETRA TECH: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Sue Over Contractor Classification
VELTI PLC: Scott+Scott Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
VERISK ANALYTICS: Continues to Defend "Johnson" Class Suit v. iiX
VERISK ANALYTICS: Defends "Shaw" Class Action Suit in Colorado
VERISK ANALYTICS: Faces "Dehdashtian" Class Suit in California

VERISK ANALYTICS: Still Awaits Cert. Bid Ruling in "Roe" Suit
VERISK ANALYTICS: Still Defends "Thomas" Suit vs. Intellicorp
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Defends Suits Over Environmental Contamination
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Defends Suits Over Sales & Marketing Practices
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Facing Suit Over Fuel, Environmental Charges


                             *********


BERJAC OF OREGON: Victims of Bankruptcy File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Brent Hunsberger, writing for The Oregonian, reports that
11 victims of Berjac's bankruptcy filed a class-action lawsuit
against its founder, its accounting firm and two of Oregon's
largest banks, alleging they aided in a Ponzi scheme orchestrated
by the Eugene-based insurance-premium finance company and its
owners.

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, names as defendants
Portland-based Umpqua Bank, Eugene-based Pacific Continental Bank
and Oregon accounting firm Jones & Roth.  It also names Berjac
founder Fred "Jack" Holcomb, the Holcomb Family Limited
Partnership and the Holcomb Family Trust.  It seeks more than 10
million in damages.

It's the first time Berjac's $46 million bankruptcy has legally
snared Fred Holcomb, 93, a member of the Oregon Bankers Hall of
Fame and a longtime Eugene businessman.  He founded Berjac in 1963
and ran it for years before turning it over to his sons, Michael
and Gary Holcomb, who led it into bankruptcy last year.

He also co-founded Pacific Continental, and his son Michael had
served for years on Pacific Continental's board until Berjac's
bankruptcy.

"Without the banks and Jones & Roth, Berjac of Oregon and Berajc
of Portland could not have maintained their Ponzi scheme," said
the complaint, filed on Aug. 23 in Multnomah County Circuit Court
in Portland by attorneys Michael Esler and Michael Haglund.

Mr. Esler may be reached at:

          Michael J. Esler, Esq.
          ESLER, STEPHENS & BUCKLEY, LLP
          888 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 700
          Portland, OR 97204-2021
          Tel: (503) 223-1510
          Fax: (503) 294-3995
          E-mail: esler@eslerstephens.com

Mr. Haglund may be reached at:

          Michael E. Haglund, Esq.
          HAGLUND KELLEY JONES & WILDER, LLP
          200 SW Market St #1777
          Portland, OR 97201
          Tel: (503) 225-0777
          E-mail: haglund@hk-law.com

Umpqua's general counsel Steven Philpott declined to discuss the
bank's relationship with Berjac, but called the lawsuit "another
chapter in the continuing saga of class-action shakedowns."

"Our relationship with Berjac terminated over four years ago," he
said.  "This is old, old business."

Pacific Continental, in a press release, declined to discuss the
case but said it took the matter seriously.

"While we intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit, we
remain unwavering in our 40-year plus commitment to our clients,
employees, shareholders and community partners," bank CEO Hal
Brown said.

Jones & Roth and an attorney for Holcomb did not immediately
return messages seeking comment.

The lawsuit claims Berjac's "safe and secure" insurance-premium
financing business was a front for a speculative real estate
investments that benefited the Holcomb family for years.  It
alleges that little investor money went to Berjac's insurance-
premium financing business, which declined throughout the years
and brought in only 1.3 million annually at the time of
bankruptcy.

Umpqua Bank and Century Bank, acquired last year by Pacific
Continental, loaned money to Berjac and to other entities
controlled by the Holcomb family, which then funneled the money to
Berajc, the complaint alleges.

Internal bank records show that the banks knew of the speculative
real estate investments, the lawsuit alleges, and that older
investors were being paid with money from new investors, a sign of
a Ponzi scheme.

The lawsuit alleges the defendants violated state securities laws
and seeks to represent more than 400 investors sold Berjac notes
since 1992.  Both of Fred Holcomb's sons are now in personal
involuntary bankruptcies.

Mr. Philpott said banks shouldn't be held responsible for the
wrongdoing of its customers.

"We had zero relationship with the plaintiffs who are the members
of the class action," he said.  "They are actually folks who
loaned money to our former customer."

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has interviewed Berjac victims
as part of its criminal investigation into the bankruptcy,
investors say.  The Internal Revenue Service also is
investigating.  State securities regulators fined Berjac of Oregon
and Berjac of Portland 900,000 a day before they merged and filed
for bankruptcy.


BIOLASE INC: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Aug. 23 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Biolase, Inc. common stock during the period between January 7,
2013 and August 12, 2013.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from August 23, 2013.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/biolaseinc/
Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Biolase and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Biolase manufactures and distributes dental lasers.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements regarding Biolase's
business and future prospects.  Specifically, defendants failed to
disclose and/or concealed the following adverse facts during the
Class Period: (a) contrary to defendants' statements during the
Class Period, there is little evidence demonstrating the use of
dental lasers (instead of drills) provides long-term benefits to
teeth, and because both children and adults can have cavities
filled without the numbing injections Biolase claims its WaterLase
products preclude, only 5% of dental offices use dental lasers and
dentists were hesitant to adopt dental lasers -- especially
Biolase's -- because of their high costs; (b) due to the
relatively high costs associated with its dental laser offerings,
Biolase's efforts to switch to a direct sales model in the United
States during the Class Period were failing; (c) contrary to
defendants' Class Period statements, the high debt burden the
Company assumed to exit its arrangement with the former exclusive
distributor of its WaterLase products, coupled with the onerous
terms of certain of its Comerica lines of credit, were financially
handicapping the Company; and (d) contrary to defendants' Class
Period statements that "the cash generated from operations and the
borrowings available under the lines of credit with Comerica
[would] be sufficient to fund [Biolase's] working capital
requirements for 2013," there was no cash being generated from
operations and the Company was in default of its Comerica lines of
credit.

On August 7, 2013, Biolase issued a press release announcing its
second quarter 2013 financial results.  Rather than the $15.69
million in revenues defendants had led the market to expect,
Biolase reported revenues of just $14.2 million -- down 2.74% from
the $14.6 million the Company had reported in the fourth quarter
2012 -- and a loss of $.06 per share.  Then, on August 13, 2013,
before the markets opened, the Company disclosed that it was in
violation of its bank covenants.  On the news of the revenue and
earnings misses and the Company's violation of prior debt
covenants, the price of Biolase common stock, which had traded as
high as $6.05 per share in intraday trading during the Class
Period, fell more than 80% from that level to close at $1.19 per
share on August 13, 2013.

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

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  With nearly 200 lawyers in
nine offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-
employer pension funds with combined assets under management in
excess of $2 trillion.

                       About BIOLASE, Inc.

Irvine, Calif.-based BIOLASE, Inc., incorporated in Delaware in
1987, is a biomedical company that develops, manufactures, and
markets lasers in dentistry and medicine.  The Company currently
operates in one business segment with laser systems that are
designed to provide clinically superior performance for many types
of dental procedures with less pain and faster recovery times than
are generally achieved with drills, scalpels, and other dental
instruments.  The Company also markets and distributes dental
imaging equipment and other products designed to improve
technologies for applications and procedures in dentistry and
medicine.


CINTAS CORP: Continues to Defend Gender Discrimination Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation continues to defend itself against class action
lawsuits alleging gender discrimination, according to the
Company's July 30, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended May 31, 2013.

Cintas is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit, Mirna
E. Serrano, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano), filed on
May 10, 2004, and pending in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.  The Serrano
plaintiffs alleged that Cintas discriminated against women in
hiring into various service sales representative positions across
all divisions of Cintas.  On November 15, 2005, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) intervened in the Serrano
lawsuit.  The Serrano plaintiffs seek injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other
remedies.  On October 27, 2008, the United States District Court
in the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment in
favor of Cintas limiting the scope of the putative class in the
Serrano lawsuit to female applicants for service sales
representative positions at Cintas locations within the state of
Michigan.  Consequently, all claims brought by female applicants
for service sales representative positions outside of the state of
Michigan were dismissed.  Similarly, any claims brought by the
EEOC on behalf of similarly situated female applicants outside of
the state of Michigan have also been dismissed from the Serrano
lawsuit.  In September 2010, the Court in Serrano dismissed all
private individual claims and all claims of the EEOC and the 13
individuals it claimed to represent.  The EEOC appealed the
District Court's summary judgment decisions and various other
rulings to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.  On November 9, 2012, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed the District Court's opinion and remanded the claims back
to the District Court.  On April 16, 2013, Cintas filed with the
United States Supreme Court a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
seeking to review the judgment of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Cintas is a defendant in another purported class action lawsuit,
Blanca Nelly Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Avalos), which
was filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division.  The Avalos plaintiffs alleged that
Cintas discriminated against women, African-Americans and
Hispanics in hiring into various service sales representative
positions in Cintas' Rental division only throughout the United
States.  The Avalos plaintiffs sought injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other
remedies.  The claims in Avalos originally were brought in the
lawsuit captioned Robert Ramirez, et al. v. Cintas Corporation
(Ramirez), filed on January 20, 2004, in the United States
District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco
Division.

On May 11, 2006, the Ramirez and Avalos African-American, Hispanic
and female failure to hire into service sales representative
positions claims and the EEOC's intervention were consolidated for
pretrial purposes with the Serrano case and transferred to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division.  The consolidated case was known as Mirna E.
Serrano/Blanca Nelly Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation
(Serrano/Avalos).  On March 31, 2009, the United States District
Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division entered an
order denying class certification to all plaintiffs in the
Serrano/Avalos lawsuits.  Following denial of class certification,
the Court permitted the individual Avalos and Serrano plaintiffs
to proceed separately.  In the Avalos case, the Court dismissed
the remaining claims of the individual plaintiffs who remained in
that case after the denial of class certification.  On May 11,
2010, Plaintiff Tanesha Davis, on behalf of all similarly situated
plaintiffs in the Avalos case, filed a notice of appeal of the
District Court's summary judgment order in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  On May 30, 2013, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial
of class certification.

The litigation, if decided or settled adversely to Cintas, may,
individually or in the aggregate, result in liability material to
Cintas' consolidated financial condition, consolidated results of
operation or consolidated cash flows and could increase costs of
operations on an ongoing basis.  Any estimated liability relating
to these proceedings is not determinable at this time.  Cintas may
enter into discussions regarding settlement of these and other
lawsuits, and may enter into settlement agreements if it believes
such settlement is in the best interest of Cintas' shareholders.

Headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, Cintas Corporation --
http://www.cintas.com/-- provides (i) corporate identity uniforms
through rental and sales programs, and (ii) related business
services, including entrance mats, restroom cleaning services and
supplies, carpet and tile cleaning services, first aid, safety and
fire protection products and services, and document management
services.


CNN MANAGED: SIU School of Law Gets $500,000 From Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Southern Illinoisan reports that the Southern Illinois
University School of Law has received $500,000 to continue
providing medical and legal education to health care providers.
The funds are from a recently settled 2004 class action lawsuit.
The law school was not party to the suit, in which a number of
health care providers alleged that two preferred provider networks
improperly reduced payments in connection with worker's
compensation and automobile insurance injury treatment claims.

While the defendants, CNN Managed Care, Inc. and First Health
Group Corp., now known as Coventry, denied the allegations, a 2010
settlement in the Madison County case provided $1.25 million
toward continuing medical education benefits.

SIU was selected to administer a significant portion of the class
benefit, thus providing a direct benefit to the class members in
the form of free or low-cost Continuing Medical Education while
also having a positive impact on the public.  An Illinois
appellate court affirmed the settlement in 2011.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Bradley" Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
On November 30, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Discover Financial Services by a cardmember in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (Walter Bradley, et
al. v. Discover Financial Services).  The plaintiff alleges that
the Company contacted him, and members of the class he seeks to
represent, on their cellular telephones without their express
consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").  The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for alleged
negligent and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees,
costs and injunctive relief.  The TCPA provides for statutory
damages of $500 for each violation ($1,500 for willful
violations).

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.

Riverwoods, Illinois-based Discover Financial Services is a direct
banking and payment services company.  The Company is a bank
holding company and a financial holding company.  The Company
offers credit cards, student loans, personal loans and deposit
products through its Discover Bank subsidiary and home loans
through its Discover Home Loans, Inc.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend "Steinfeld" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
On March 6, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Discover Financial Services by a cardmember in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (Andrew Steinfeld,
et al. v. Discover Financial Services, et al.).  The plaintiff
alleges that the Company contacted him, and members of the class
he seeks to represent, on their cellular telephones without their
express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA").  The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for alleged
negligent and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees,
costs and injunctive relief.  The TCPA provides for statutory
damages of $500 for each violation ($1,500 for willful
violations).

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.

Riverwoods, Illinois-based Discover Financial Services is a direct
banking and payment services company.  The Company is a bank
holding company and a financial holding company.  The Company
offers credit cards, student loans, personal loans and deposit
products through its Discover Bank subsidiary and home loans
through its Discover Home Loans, Inc.


DONALD TRUMP: New York AG Files Suit Over Phony Trump University
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that New York's attorney general sued
Donald Trump for $40 million, saying the real-estate mogul helped
run a phony Trump University that promised to make students rich
but instead steered them into expensive and mostly useless
seminars and failed to deliver promised apprenticeships.

Mr. Trump shot back that the Democrat's lawsuit was false and
politically motivated.

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said many of the 5,000 students
who paid up to $35,000 thought they would at least meet Mr. Trump,
but instead all they got was their picture taken in front of a
life-size picture of "The Apprentice" TV star.

"Trump University engaged in deception at every stage of
consumers' advancement through costly programs and caused real
financial harm," Mr. Schneiderman said on Aug. 24.  "Trump
University, with Donald Trump's knowledge and participation,
relied on Trump's name recognition and celebrity status to take
advantage of consumers who believed in the Trump brand."

Mr. Trump's lawyer accused Mr. Schneiderman of trying to extort
campaign contributions from the real-estate mogul through his
investigation.

Attorney Michael D. Cohen said Mr. Schneiderman's lawsuit was
filled with falsehoods.  Mr. Cohen said Mr. Trump and his
university never defrauded anyone.

The lawyer said Trump University provided nearly 11,000
testimonials to Mr. Schneiderman from students praising the
program and said 98% of students in a survey termed the program
"excellent."

"The attorney general has been angry because he felt that
Mr. Trump and his various companies should have done much more for
him in terms of fundraising," Mr. Cohen said.  "This entire
investigation is politically motivated and it is a tremendous
waste of taxpayers' money."

State Board of Elections records show that Mr. Trump has spent
more than $136,000 on New York campaigns since 2010.  He
contributed $12,500 to Mr. Schneiderman in October 2010, when
Mr. Schneiderman was running for attorney general, records show.
An outspoken conservative, Mr. Trump himself flirted with a
presidential run last year.

"Donald Trump will not sit back and be extorted by anyone,
including the attorney general," Mr. Cohen said.

The lawsuit says that many of the would-be moguls were unable to
land even one real-estate deal and were left far worse off than
before the lessons, facing thousands of dollars in debt for the
seminar program once billed as a top quality university with Mr.
Trump's "handpicked" instructors.

Mr. Schneiderman is suing the program, Mr. Trump as the university
chairman, and the former president of the university in state
Supreme Court in Manhattan.  The attorney general accuses the
defendants of engaging in persistent fraud, illegal and deceptive
conduct and violating federal consumer-protection law.  The $40
million he seeks is mostly to pay restitution to consumers.

He dismissed Mr. Trump's claim of a political motive.

"The fact that he's still brave enough to follow the investigation
wherever it may lead speaks to Mr. Schneiderman's character,"
Schneiderman spokesman Andrew Friedman said.

State Education Department officials had told Mr. Trump to change
the name of his enterprise, saying it lacked a license and didn't
meet the legal definitions of a university.  In 2011 it was
renamed the Trump Entrepreneur Institute, but it has been dogged
since by complaints from consumers and a few civil lawsuits
claiming it didn't fulfill its advertised claims.

Mr. Schneiderman's lawsuit covers complaints dating to 2005
through 2011.  Students paid between $1,495 and $35,000 to learn
from the mogul, who wrote the best seller, "Art of the Deal" a
decade ago, followed by "How to Get Rich" and "Think Like a
Billionaire."

Mr. Schneiderman said the three-day seminars didn't, as promised,
teach consumers everything they needed to know about real estate.

At the seminars, consumers were told about "Trump Elite"
mentorships that cost $10,000 to $35,000.  Students were promised
individual instruction until they made their first deal.
Mr. Schneiderman said participants were urged to extend the limit
on their credit cards for real-estate deals but then used the
credit to pay for the Trump Elite programs.  The attorney general
said the program also failed to promptly cancel memberships as
promised.


DOW CHEMICAL: Defends Class Suits Over Product Liability Issues
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company continues to defend itself against class
action lawsuits over commercial matters, including product
liability, 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 party to a number of other claims and lawsuits
arising out of the normal course of business with respect to
commercial matters, including product liability, governmental
regulation and other actions.  Certain of these actions purport to
be class actions and seek damages in very large amounts.  All such
claims are being contested.  Dow says it has an active risk
management program consisting of numerous insurance policies
secured from many carriers at various times.  These policies often
provide coverage that will be utilized to minimize the financial
impact, if any, of the contingencies.

Based in Midland, Michigan, The Dow Chemical Company is in the
business of specialty chemicals delivering products and solutions
to sectors such as electronics, water, energy, and coatings.


DOW CHEMICAL: To Appeal $1.06-BB Judgment in Antitrust Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Company said in its July 30, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013, that it will appeal from a judgment
amounting to $1.06 billion in a consolidated antitrust litigation.

On February 16, 2006, the Company, among others, received a
subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") as part of a
previously announced antitrust investigation of manufacturers of
polyurethane chemicals, including methylene diphenyl diisocyanate,
toluene diisocyanate, polyether polyols and system house products.
The Company cooperated with the DOJ and, following an extensive
investigation, on December 10, 2007, the Company received notice
from the DOJ that it had closed its investigation of potential
antitrust violations involving these products without indictments
or pleas.

In 2005, the Company, among others, was named as a defendant in
multiple civil class action lawsuits alleging a conspiracy to fix
the price of various urethane chemical products, namely the
products that were the subject of the DOJ antitrust investigation.
These lawsuits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas (the "District Court") or have been tolled.
On July 29, 2008, the District Court certified a class of
purchasers of the products for the six-year period from 1999
through 2004.  Shortly thereafter, a series of "opt-out" cases
were filed by a number of large volume purchasers; these cases are
substantively identical to the class action lawsuit, but expanded
the time period to include 1994 through 1998.

In January 2013, the class action lawsuit went to trial in the
District Court with the Company as the sole remaining defendant,
the other defendants having previously settled.  On February 20,
2013, the jury in the matter returned a damages verdict of
approximately $400 million against the Company, which would be
trebled under applicable antitrust laws -- less offsets from other
settling defendants -- if the verdict is not vacated or otherwise
set aside by the District Court.  The Company filed post-trial
motions on March 5, 2013, requesting the District Court grant
judgment in favor of the Company, grant the Company a new trial
and/or decertify the class.

On May 15, 2013, the District Court denied the Company's request
to overturn the verdict and, under antitrust laws, tripled the
damages verdict resulting in a $1.2 billion judgment.  On July 26,
2013, the District Court entered an amended judgment in the amount
of $1.06 billion.  The Company will appeal this amended judgment.

In addition to the matters, there are two separate but inter-
related matters in Ontario and Quebec, Canada, both of which are
pending a decision on class certification.

The Company has concluded it is not probable that a loss will
occur and, therefore, a liability has not been recorded with
respect to these matters.

Based in Midland, Michigan, The Dow Chemical Company is in the
business of specialty chemicals delivering products and solutions
to sectors such as electronics, water, energy, and coatings.


EMERITUS SENIOR: Settles Employees' Class Action for $2.2 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Ecker, writing for Senior Housing News, reports that
Emeritus Senior Living has agreed to a $2.2 million settlement
regarding compensation claims by some of the company's California
employees.

In a lawsuit first brought in 2011 by one of the company's
California hourly workers, employees claimed Emeritus had not paid
fair wages and also had not provided state-mandated meal and rest
allowances.

Emeritus has rejected the claims in the lawsuit, Castro et al v.
Emeritus Corporation, publicly, despite settling the case,
according to a report from ProPublica.

"At Emeritus, we strive to be the employer of choice," the company
said in a statement to ProPublica.  "We are competing to hire the
very best staff that we can, and we are committed to our community
teams.  We work to be competitive in terms of total compensation
within our industry, and we conduct wage analyses in markets in an
effort to stay at or in line with the competition."

The settlement is pending approval from a California judge, but
once approved, will compensate workers ranging from those who
administered medication to workers to those who helped with
activities of daily living, as well as other hourly staff.


FMC CORP: Cross-Border Class Suit vs. Foret Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Multiple European purchasers of hydrogen peroxide, who claim to
have been harmed as a result of alleged violations of European
competition law by hydrogen peroxide producers, assigned their
legal claims to a single entity formed by a law firm.  The single
entity then filed a lawsuit in Germany in March 2009 against
European producers, including FMC Corporation's wholly-owned
Spanish subsidiary, Foret S.A.  Initial defense briefs were filed
in April 2010, and an initial hearing was held during the first
quarter of 2011, at which time case management issues were
discussed.  At a subsequent hearing in October 2011, the Court
indicated that it was considering seeking guidance from the
European Court of Justice ("ECJ") as to whether the German courts
have jurisdiction over these claims.  After submission of written
comments on this issue by the parties, on March 1, 2012, the judge
announced that she would refer the jurisdictional issues to the
ECJ.  The court issued its formal reference to the ECJ on April
29, 2013.  Such a referral to the ECJ normally takes 12-18 months
for completion after the formal reference.

Since the case is in the preliminary stages and is based on a
novel procedure -- namely the attempt to create a cross-border
"class action" which is not a recognized proceeding under European
Union or German law -- the Company is unable to develop a
reasonable estimate of its potential exposure of loss at this
time.  The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.

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.

FMC Corporation is a diversified chemical company serving
agricultural, consumer and industrial markets globally with
innovative solutions, applications and market-leading products.
The Company operates in four distinct business segments: FMC
Agricultural Solutions, FMC Health and Nutrition, FMC Minerals and
FMC Peroxygens.  The Company is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


FMC CORP: Still Awaits Ruling Related to Indirect Purchase Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation is still awaiting a court decision with respect to
the issue of viability of claims of indirect purchasers of
hydrogen peroxide in class action lawsuits brought against major
producers of hydrogen peroxide, 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 2005, after public disclosures of the U.S. federal grand jury
investigation into the hydrogen peroxide industry (which resulted
in no charges brought against the Company) and the filing of
various class actions in U.S. federal and state courts, which have
all been settled, putative class actions against the Company and
five other major hydrogen peroxide producers were filed in
provincial courts in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia under
the laws of Canada.  The other five defendants have settled these
claims for a total of approximately $20.6 million.  On
September 28, 2009, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
certified a class of direct and indirect purchasers of hydrogen
peroxide from 1994 to 2005.  The Company's motion for leave to
appeal the class certification decision was denied in June 2010.
Since then, the case has been largely dormant.  In early 2012, the
parties began a more detailed dialogue on discovery and at a
hearing on April 5, 2012, they requested the judge to issue more
specific guidance on document production.  The court instead
stayed the litigation pending resolution by the Canadian Supreme
Court of the viability of indirect purchaser claims.  The Canadian
Supreme Court heard argument on that issue in October 2012.  Since
the proceedings are in the preliminary stages with respect to the
merits, the Company is unable to develop a reasonable estimate of
its potential exposure of loss at this time.  The Company intends
to vigorously defend these matters.

FMC Corporation is a diversified chemical company serving
agricultural, consumer and industrial markets globally with
innovative solutions, applications and market-leading products.
The Company operates in four distinct business segments: FMC
Agricultural Solutions, FMC Health and Nutrition, FMC Minerals and
FMC Peroxygens.  The Company is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.


FROZEN FOOD: Faces Merger-Related Class Action Suits in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Frozen Food Express Industries, Inc., is facing merger-related
class action lawsuits in Texas, 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 July 12, 2013, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Duff Brothers Capital Corporation ("Parent"), and
Duff Brothers Subsidiary, Inc., a direct, wholly owned subsidiary
of Parent ("Merger Sub").  Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, upon
the terms and subject to the conditions thereof, Parent has
commenced a tender offer (the "Offer") to acquire all of the
outstanding shares of common stock, par value $1.50 per share, of
the Company (the "Common Stock") not already owned by Parent or
its affiliates at a purchase price of $2.10 per share, net to the
seller thereof in cash (the "Offer Price"), without interest and
subject to any required withholding of taxes.

On July 19, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit challenging the
Merger, captioned Wheeler v. Frozen Food Express Industries, Inc.,
Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-2823, was filed in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division (the
"Wheeler Litigation").  The Wheeler Litigation was subsequently
amended on July 24, 2013.  On July 29, 2013, another putative
class action lawsuit challenging the Merger, captioned Britvich v.
Frozen Food Express Industries, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-
2943, was filed in the United States District Court, Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division (the "Britvich Litigation" and,
together with the Wheeler Litigation, the "Shareholder
Litigation").  The Wheeler Litigation and the Britvich Litigation
are substantially identical in their alleged causes of action.
The Shareholder Litigation was filed against the Company, the
individual members of the board of directors, Duff Brothers
Capital Corporation ("Purchaser") and Duff Brothers Subsidiary,
Inc. ("Merger Sub").

The Shareholder Litigation generally alleges, among other things,
that the members of the board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties of care and loyalty owed to the Company's
shareholders by failing to take steps to maximize the value to be
paid to the Company's shareholders and taking steps to avoid
competitive bidding, failing to properly value the Company,
entering into the Merger Agreement containing preclusive deal
protection devices, approving the proposed Merger for inadequate
consideration, ignoring certain alleged conflicts of interest in
connection with the Merger and for making materially inadequate
disclosures and material disclosure omissions.  The Shareholder
Litigation also alleges that all defendants issued a
solicitation/recommendation statement on Schedule 14D-9 that
violates Sections 14(d)(4) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended,  because it allegedly omits material
facts.

The Shareholder Litigation also alleges claims for aiding and
abetting such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties against the
Company, Purchaser and Merger Sub.  The plaintiffs in the
Shareholder Litigation generally seek, among other relief,
declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty, injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of
the proposed Merger, damages and attorneys' fees and costs, and
other forms of relief.  The Company believes the Shareholder
Litigation is without merit.

Headquartered in Dallas, Texas, Frozen Food Express Industries,
Inc. is one of the leading temperature-controlled truckload and
less-than-truckload carriers in the United States with core
operations in the transport of temperature-controlled products and
perishable goods, including food, health care and confectionery
products.  The Company also provides bulk tank water
transportation, brokerage/logistics and dedicated services to its
customers.


GULF SOUTH: Continues to Defend Suit Over Release of Mercaptan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP, continues to defend a class
action lawsuit alleging personal injury and property damage
related to an alleged release of mercaptan at the Whistler
Junction facilities, 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.

Gulf South 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.

The Company says 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 Gulf South's financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.

Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Boardwalk Pipelines, LP, and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.
Gulf South's transportation services consist of firm natural gas
transportation, where the customer pays a capacity reservation
charge to reserve pipeline capacity at certain receipt and
delivery points along the Company's pipeline system, plus a
commodity and fuel charge on the volume of natural gas actually
transported, and interruptible natural gas transportation, where
the customer pays to transport gas only when capacity is available
and used.


HEALTHSOUTH CORP: Still Awaits Remand Bid Ruling in "Nichols" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
HealthSouth Corporation is still awaiting a court decision on its
latest motion to remand a class action lawsuit back to 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.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed
March 28, 2003, by several individual stockholders in the Circuit
Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, captioned Nichols v.
HealthSouth Corp.  The plaintiffs allege that the Company, some of
its former officers, and its former investment bank engaged in a
scheme to overstate and misrepresent the Company's earnings and
financial position.  The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and
punitive damages.  This case was consolidated with the Tucker case
for discovery and other pretrial purposes and was stayed in the
Circuit Court on August 8, 2005.  The plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on November 9, 2010, to which the Company responded with
a motion to dismiss filed on December 22, 2010.  During a hearing
on February 24, 2012, plaintiffs' counsel indicated his intent to
dismiss certain claims against the Company.  Instead, on March 9,
2012, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to include additional
securities fraud claims against HealthSouth and add several former
officers to the lawsuit.  On September 12, 2012, the plaintiffs
further amended their complaint to request certification as a
class action.  One of those named officers has repeatedly
attempted to remove the case to federal district court, most
recently on December 11, 2012.  The Company filed its latest
motion to remand the case back to state court on January 10, 2013.

At this time, the Company says it does not know when the court
will rule on the motion to remand.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend itself in this case.  Based on the stage of
litigation, review of the current facts and circumstances as the
Company understands them, the nature of the underlying claim, the
results of the proceedings to date, and the nature and scope of
the defense it continues to mount, the Company does not believe an
adverse judgment or settlement is probable in this matter, and it
is also not possible to estimate the amount of loss, if any, or
range of possible loss that might result from an adverse judgment
or settlement of this case.

Headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama, HealthSouth Corporation owns
and operates inpatient rehabilitation hospitals in the United
States of America.  The Company also provides specialized
rehabilitative treatment on both an inpatient and outpatient
basis.


J.B. HUNT: Trial Date in Class Suit Set for 2nd Quarter 2014
------------------------------------------------------------
The first trial date regarding the class action lawsuits against
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., has been scheduled for the
second quarter of 2014, 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 a defendant in certain class-action lawsuits in
which the plaintiffs are current and former California-based
drivers who allege claims for unpaid wages, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, and other items.  During the first quarter
of 2013, the Company filed a motion to stay proceedings pending a
decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on an unrelated
case but with similar issues.  That Motion was subsequently
denied.  During the second quarter of 2013, the Company filed a
motion for judgment on the pleadings with regard to certain claims
and is awaiting a ruling.  The first trial date regarding these
class-action lawsuits has been scheduled for the second quarter of
2014.  The Company cannot reasonably estimate at this time the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may arise from these
lawsuits.

Lowell, Arkansas-based J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. --
http://www.jbhunt.com/-- is one of the largest surface
transportation, delivery and logistics companies in North America.
The Company provides transportation and delivery services to a
diverse group of customers and consumers throughout the
continental United States, Canada and Mexico.


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Nears
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC and KSF partner, the former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors with
large financial interests that they have only until August 28,
2013 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class
action lawsuit against lululemon athletica inc.  Investor losses
must relate to purchases of the Company's common stock during the
period between March 31, 2013 and June 10, 2013, inclusive.  This
action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of lululemon and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your
right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, call toll free at 1-877-515-1850, or
email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn -- lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
-- or KSF Partner Melinda Nicholson --
melinda.nicholson@ksfcounsel.com

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action by
overseeing lead counsel with the goal of obtaining a fair and just
resolution, you must request this position by application to the
Court by August 28, 2013.

                  About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF, whose partners include the Former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr. -- www.ksfcounsel.com -- is a law firm
focused on securities class action and shareholder derivative
litigation with offices in New York and Louisiana.  KSF's lawyers
have significant experience litigating complex securities class
actions nationwide on behalf of both institutional and individual
shareholders.


MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: To Vigorously Defend N.Y. Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc. on Aug. 22 disclosed that it has
become aware of the filing of a class action complaint against
Meadowbrook and certain of its officers on August 15, 2013 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging violations of the federal securities laws during the
period between July 30, 2012 and August 8, 2013.

Meadowbrook has reviewed the allegations contained in the
complaint with its counsel and believes that they are baseless and
without merit.  Meadowbrook intends to defend itself against the
complaint vigorously.

Mike Costello, Senior Vice President, General Counsel and
Secretary commented, "While we understand that it is not unusual
for this type of complaint to be filed when a company experiences
a material drop in the trading price of its shares, we believe
that the complaint is inaccurate and the claims are entirely
without merit.  We emphatically reject any suggestion that the
Company or any of its officers violated the federal securities
laws.  Accordingly, we will vigorously defend ourselves and will
pursue all remedies available to us in connection with this
matter."

                About Meadowbrook Insurance Group

Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc., based in Southfield, Michigan,
-- http://www.meadowbrook.com-- operates in the specialty program
management market.  Meadowbrook includes several agencies, claims
and loss prevention facilities, self-insured management
organizations and six property and casualty insurance underwriting
companies.  Meadowbrook has twenty-eight locations in the United
States.  Meadowbrook is a risk management organization,
specializing in specialty risk management solutions for agents,
professional and trade associations, and small to medium-sized
insureds.  Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc. common shares are
listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "MIG


MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Suit Over Alleged Indian Antitrust Violation
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports
that a telecommunications company's federal antitrust suit in
Trenton alleges it lost millions of dollars because of Microsoft's
Skype in India.

Microsoft paid $8.5 billion in 2011 for Skype, which uses Voice
over the Internet Protocol, or VoIP, to enable telephone
conversation at a lower cost than through wired systems.

The plaintiffs in TI Investment Services v. Microsoft Corp.,
13 cv-4823, allege that Microsoft has been violating Indian law in
pursuit of monopoly power and not telling VoIP customers they risk
being fined for being part of the illegality.

World Phone Internet Services PVT Ltd. of New Delhi and its
majority owner, TI Investment Services of Colt's Neck, filed the
complaint in Trenton on Aug. 12.  They seek $9 million or more in
compensatory damages, plus punitive damages, legal fees and
injunctive relief on claims that Microsoft violated federal and
state antitrust law.  They also assert common-law claims for
unfair competition and tortious interference.

The complaint depicts World Phone as an Indian VoIP company
playing by the rules and unable to compete with international
companies that disregard them.

India started requiring that VoIP providers be licensed in
April 2002, and World Phone got a license by April 8, 2002.

In contrast, Microsoft allegedly has been operating without one
and without paying the license fee of 6 percent of gross revenues,
the suit charges.  In addition, it has been flouting regulations
that require VoIP providers to house equipment and hardware in
India and file twice annual performance reports, the plaintiffs
say.  They moved their servers from New Jersey to India after the
infrastructure rule took effect on Jan. 1, 2008.  But they contend
that Microsoft has not yet done so despite a request from the
Indian government in September 2010.  They claim they have an
opinion from an attorney, described as "an Advocate of the Supreme
Court of India," who confirmed that Microsoft is breaking the law
by doing business without a license and is subject to prosecution
for civil and criminal violations as a result.

Microsoft's inclusion of Skype in Windows 8 and supposed plans to
extend Skype to the Xbox platform further illustrate its ability
to leverage its market power to give it a foothold for a monopoly
in the gaming world and not just PCs, the plaintiffs allege.

Consumers are allegedly being hurt despite being able to pay less
for VoIP services as the result of Microsoft's "predatory pricing"
because of their exposure to potential fines by the Indian
government for using illegal services.

By not warning them, Microsoft is violating New Jersey's deceptive
business practices law, which bars false and misleading
statements, the plaintiffs claim.

Further, Microsoft allegedly attempts "to inoculate itself from
its illegal conduct by passing the responsibility for legal
compliance to its customers" in the Skype terms of service, which
say they have to use it "in accordance with the laws of where you
are located."

As for damages, the plaintiffs say they spent more than $3 million
on advertising and marketing between 2008 and 2012, only to see
VoIP revenues go down while their broadband revenues rose.

Auditors they hired to look into the reason allegedly determined
that illegal competition from Skype was to blame.

To proceed with their Sherman Act claim, the plaintiffs will have
to overcome the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act, which
limits U.S. courts' ability to hear antitrust cases about
international business transactions.

To get over that hurdle, they claim that Microsoft's alleged
actions affected domestic commerce, based on New Jersey's Asian-
Indian population of nearly 300,000, with business and personal
ties in India, to whom Microsoft marketed its VoIP services.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Jean-Marc Zimmerman of Zimmerman &
Weiser in Westfield, did not return a call.

As of Thursday, Microsoft had not been served but said in a
statement, "These claims are without merit and we look forward to
responding in court.

Stories in Indian newspapers support some of the allegations.

For example, the Hindu Business Line reported on Feb. 11 that the
government would re-examine the legality of VoIP services offered
by global companies such as Skype and Google.

"While Indian telecom companies and Internet service providers
will have to pay a revenue share for offering voice over Internet,
global players such as Skype are offering the service without
paying anything to the government," it stated.

Similarly, on May 20, The Times of India ran an article headlined
"Government wants Skype to set up servers in India."

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson
and U.S. Magistrate Judge Tonianne Bongiovanni.


MICROSOFT CORP: Antitrust Class Suits Remain Pending in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
The three remaining antitrust class action lawsuits against
Microsoft Corporation in Canada remain pending, according to the
Company's July 30, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the year ended June 30, 2013.

A large number of antitrust and unfair competition class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company in various state, federal,
and Canadian courts on behalf of various classes of direct and
indirect purchasers of the Company's PC operating system and
certain other software products between 1999 and 2005.  The
Company obtained dismissals or reached settlements of all claims
made in the United States.

All settlements in the United States have received final court
approval.  Under the settlements, generally class members can
obtain vouchers that entitle them to be reimbursed for purchases
of a wide variety of platform-neutral computer hardware and
software.  The total value of vouchers the Company may issue
varies by state.  The Company will make available to certain
schools a percentage of those vouchers that are not issued or
claimed (one-half to two-thirds depending on the state).  The
total value of vouchers the Company ultimately issues will depend
on the number of class members who make claims and are issued
vouchers.  The maximum value of vouchers to be issued is
approximately $2.7 billion.  The actual costs of these settlements
will be less than that maximum amount, depending on the number of
class members and schools that are issued and redeem vouchers.
The Company estimates the total cost to resolve all of the state
overcharge class action cases will range between $1.9 billion and
$2.0 billion.

At June 30, 2013, the Company has recorded a liability related to
these claims of approximately $500 million, which reflects the
Company's estimated exposure of $1.9 billion less payments made to
date of approximately $1.4 billion mostly for vouchers, legal
fees, and administrative expenses.

The three cases pending in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec,
Canada, have not been settled.  In March 2010, the court in the
British Columbia case certified it as a class action.  In April
2011, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed the class
certification ruling and dismissed the case, holding that indirect
purchasers do not have a claim.  The plaintiffs have filed an
appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court, which was heard in the fall
of 2012.  The other two actions have been stayed.

Microsoft Corporation -- http://www.microsoft.com/-- develops,
licenses and supports a wide range of software products by
offering an array of services, including cloud-based services to
consumers and businesses, by designing and selling hardware that
integrates with the Company's cloud-based services, and by
delivering relevant online advertising to a global audience.  The
Company is based in Redmond, Washington.


MOLYCORP INC: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney LLP on Aug. 22 disclosed that it has filed a
lawsuit against Molycorp, Inc. pursuing claims in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Molycorp
securities from August 2, 2012 through August 7, 2013.

Molycorp is one of the leading manufacturers of custom engineered
rare earth and rare metal products.  The Company produces and
sells rare earth and rare metal materials in the United States and
internationally.

On August 8, 2013, the Company disclosed that the Audit and Ethics
Committee of the Company's Board of Directors determined that its
unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for the
three months ended March 31, 2013 should no longer be relied upon
because they contained an error with respect to the reconciliation
of its physical inventory to the general ledger, which resulted in
a cumulative overstatement of costs of sales and understatement of
current inventory of approximately $16.0 million.  This error also
caused the income tax benefit in the first quarter of 2013 to be
overstated by approximately $6.5 million, the disclosure of the
consolidated assessment of normal production levels to be
understated by approximately $17.4 million, and the consolidated
total write-down of inventory to be overstated by $18.0 million.

On this news, shares fell $0.71, approximately 9.72%, to close at
$6.69 per share on August 9, 2013.

If you acquired Molycorp securities during the Class Period, you
may, no later than October 14, 2013, request that the court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.  Although your
ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision
whether or not to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead
plaintiffs make important decisions that could affect the overall
recovery for class members, including decisions concerning
settlement.  If you have any questions about this matter, and any
rights you might have with respect to these claims, contact
Meghan Summers at msummers@kmllp.com or Jess Kelley at
jkelley@kmllp.com  by telephone at (212) 371-6600, or by filling
out this form.

Kirby McInerney LLP -- http://www.kmllp.com-- is a New York-based
plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, whistleblower,
antitrust and consumer litigation.  The firm has specialized in
complex litigation, including securities class actions, for
several decades. Kirby McInerney LLP has repeatedly demonstrated
its expertise in this field, and has been recognized by various
courts that have appointed the firm to major positions in
consolidated and multi-district litigation.  The firm's efforts on
behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in
recoveries totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, and the
firm's achievements and quality of service have been chronicled in
numerous published decisions.


MOULTON, AL: Faces Class Action Over Garbage Fees
-------------------------------------------------
Jason Houston, writing for The Moulton Advertiser, reports that
several Moulton citizens filed a class-action lawsuit against the
city on Aug. 23 in Lawrence County circuit court alleging the city
is overcharging for garbage fees.

The group is represented by Craig Lowell, of Wiggins, Childs,
Quinn and Pantazis, LLC, a Birmingham law firm.

The named litigants in the suit are Corey Grimes, doing business
as Deals on Wheels, along with Beverly Terry Curry and Valencia
Davis, but the lawsuit states the three represent a class, namely
all the residents or businesses who pay solid waste fees or own
property in Moulton.

The lawsuit states the city is "collecting an illegal tax --
specifically that they are overcharging Plaintiffs and the Class
as the rates charged exceed the reasonable costs of providing this
service."

The lawsuit further states the fees being charged by the city
"have been set without regard to costs of collection of solid
wastes," and that the fees "bear no relation to, and exceed, the
reasonable cost of providing this service to citizens of the city
of Moulton.  As such, the monies paid in excess of the reasonable
cost . . . amount to an illegal tax."

The lawsuit also alleges the city has used the garbage fees for
purposes other than paying for the collection of solid waste.  The
lawsuit seeks a jury trial and asks for an injunction against the
city to stop collecting excess fees, for refunds from the city and
for compensatory damages.

In 2011, an attorney general's opinion stated that Winston County
could not use sanitation funds to repair roads damaged by garbage
trucks.  The AG stated Winston County "may not use funds collected
and allocated for the purpose of administering and operating a
solid waste program for any other purpose."

Attorneys for both sides and city officials were unavailable for
comment on Aug. 25.


NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Appeal in 2009 Crew Members Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the class action lawsuit brought by crew members in
2009 remains pending, according to Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings
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 says it intends to vigorously
defend this appeal and is not able at this time to estimate the
impact of these proceedings.

Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. -- http://www.ncl.com/-- is a
global cruise line operator, offering cruise experiences for
travelers with a wide variety of itineraries in North America
(including Alaska and Hawaii), the Mediterranean, the Baltic,
Central America, Bermuda and the Caribbean.  The Company is
headquartered in Miami, Florida.


NORWEGIAN CRUISE: 2011 Crew Members' Class Suit Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed by crew members in 2011 remains
stayed in Florida, according to Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings
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 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 says it is vigorously defending this action and
is not able at this time to estimate the impact of these
proceedings.

Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. -- http://www.ncl.com/-- is a
global cruise line operator, offering cruise experiences for
travelers with a wide variety of itineraries in North America
(including Alaska and Hawaii), the Mediterranean, the Baltic,
Central America, Bermuda and the Caribbean.  The Company is
headquartered in Miami, Florida.


OFFICE DEPOT: Yet to File Accord to Settle Merger-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Office Depot, Inc. has yet to file its final agreement to settle a
consolidated 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 29, 2013.

On February 20, 2013, Office Depot and OfficeMax Incorporated
announced a definitive agreement under which the companies would
combine in an all-stock merger-of-equals transaction.  Between
February 25, 2013, and March 29, 2013, six putative class action
lawsuits were filed by purported OfficeMax shareholders in the
Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in DuPage County,
Illinois, challenging the transaction and alleging that the
defendant companies and individual members of OfficeMax's Board of
Directors violated applicable laws by breaching their fiduciary
duties and/or aiding and abetting such breaches.  The plaintiffs
sought, among other things, injunctive relief and rescission, as
well as fees and costs.  The lawsuits were consolidated as Venkata
S. Donepudi v. OfficeMax Incorporated et al.  Subsequently, two
similar lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.  Like the state court
lawsuits, the federal actions alleged that the disclosure in the
joint proxy statement/prospectus was inadequate.

On June 25, 2013, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") regarding settlement of the litigation.  In
consideration for the settlement and release, Office Depot and
OfficeMax made certain supplemental disclosures to the joint proxy
statement/prospectus.  The MOU contemplates that the parties will
attempt in good faith to agree to a stipulation of settlement to
be submitted to the court for approval.

Office Depot, Inc. -- http://wwww.officedepot.com/-- together
with its subsidiaries, supplies office products and services.  The
Company's North American Retail division sells an assortment of
merchandise, such as general office supplies, computer supplies,
business machines and related supplies, and office furniture under
various labels, including Office Depot, Viking Office Products,
Foray, and Ativa through its chain of office supply stores.  The
Company also provides printing, reproduction, mailing, shipping,
and other services, as well as personal computer support and
network installation service.  The Company was founded in 1986 and
is headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida.


POLYCOM INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Aug. 22 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Polycom, Inc. publicly traded securities during the period between
July 24, 2012 and July 23, 2013.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from July 26, 2013.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Darren Robbins, Esq. of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/polycom/

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

The complaint charges Polycom and its former Chief Executive
Officer with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Polycom is a San Jose-based provider of unified communications
solutions and a provider of telepresence, video, voice and
infrastructure solutions based on open standards.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's controls and business practices.  Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose that the Company maintained
inadequate controls to prevent its officers from submitting
improper expense reimbursements, and that Andrew M. Miller, its
Chief Executive Officer, was in fact submitting improper
reimbursement requests.  As a result of these false statements,
Polycom stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period, reaching a high of $12.01 per share in intraday
trading on September 14, 2012.

On July 23, 2013, Polycom announced in a regulatory filing that
Miller had stepped down as CEO, President and a director after
accepting responsibility for certain irregularities in his expense
submissions, after Polycom's Audit Committee, on July 17, 2013,
had completed "a review of certain of Mr. Miller's expense
submissions" and found "certain irregularities in these
submissions."  On this news, the price of Polycom stock declined
by 15%, closing at $9.49 per share on July 24, 2013, down $1.69
per share.

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

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  With nearly 200 lawyers in
nine offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-
employer pension funds with combined assets under management in
excess of $2 trillion.


RADIOSHACK CORP: Settles Class Action Over FACTA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Customers of RadioShack should be aware of Redman, et al. v.
RadioShack Corporation, Case No. 11-C-6741, a class action lawsuit
filed in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.  In the lawsuit, RadioShack customers allege that
RadioShack stores unlawfully printed their credit card information
on purchase receipts in violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act ("FACTA").  FACTA is a federal law, enacted to
combat identity theft, which requires that certain credit card
information must not be printed on receipts.  RadioShack and the
plaintiffs in the lawsuit, representing a class of RadioShack
customers, have agreed to settle the lawsuit.  Under the terms of
the proposed settlement, which has not yet been approved by the
court, each class member would be eligible to obtain a RadioShack
Voucher worth $10.00 at any RadioShack store.  For details
regarding the settlement, visit http://www.shacksettlement.com

This nationwide settlement may restrict your rights to sue
RadioShack on your own behalf for any harm from RadioShack's
alleged FACTA violations.  If you do not agree to the settlement,
therefore, you may also opt out of the settlement, intervene in
the case, or object to the settlement if you think it is unfair.
Instructions for doing so are included in the class Notice, which
is available at http://www.shacksettlement.com/docs/notice.pdf

RadioShack customers receiving the Notice should be aware that
FACTA provides for potentially greater recovery than the value of
the $10 voucher offered in the settlement.  If RadioShack violated
FACTA by printing unlawful credit card information on your receipt
and you were actually harmed as a result -- for example, through
identity theft -- FACTA allows you to recover your actual damages
and attorney fees, from RadioShack.  If RadioShack violated FACTA
willfully, even if no harm resulted, each affected RadioShack
customer would be entitled to statutory damages of $100-
$1,000 per violation.  RadioShack customers who wish to pursue
their own claims against RadioShack should opt out of the
settlement.  If you are affected by this settlement, you must take
action by August 27, 2013.

DCA is not involved in the litigation of the Redman v. RadioShack
case, but is experienced in consumer class action litigation and
is assisting in the dissemination n of the above settlement notice
as a courtesy to Michigan consumers.  DCA advises clients
regarding consumer class actions and proposed settlements.
Call us today to set up an appointment if you were harmed by a
widespread business practice you suspect may be unlawful, or if
you have questions about a settlement notice you have
received in another case.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss in "Mason" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss in the lawsuit titled DuWayne Mason v. Seacor Marine, LLC,
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 April 22, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon, a semi-submersible
deepwater drilling rig operating in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, sank
after an apparent blowout and fire resulting in a significant flow
of hydrocarbons from the BP Macondo well (the "Deepwater
Horizon/BP Macondo Well Incident").

On July 14, 2010, a group of individuals and entities purporting
to represent a class commenced a civil action in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Terry G. Robin, et
al. v. Seacor Marine, L.L.C., et al., No. 2:10-CV-01986 (E.D. La.)
(the "Robin Case"), in which they asserted that support vessels,
including vessels owned by the Company, responding to the
explosion and resulting fire that occurred aboard the semi-
submersible drilling rig, the Deepwater Horizon, were negligent in
their efforts to save lives and put out the fire and contributed
to the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon and subsequent oil spill.
The action was part of the overall multi-district litigation, In
re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179
("MDL").  The complaint sought compensatory, punitive, exemplary,
and other damages.

In response to this lawsuit, the Company filed petitions seeking
exoneration from, or limitation of liability in relation to, any
actions that may have been taken by vessels owned by the Company
to extinguish the fire.  On June 8, 2011, the Company moved to
dismiss these claims (with the exception of one claim filed by a
Company employee) on various legal grounds.  On October 12, 2011,
the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in its entirety,
dismissing with prejudice all claims that had been filed against
the Company in the limitation actions (with the exception of one
claim filed by a Company employee that was not subject to the
motion to dismiss).  The Court entered final judgments in favor of
the Company in the Robin Case and each of the limitation actions
on November 21, 2011.

On December 12, 2011, the claimants appealed each of those
judgments to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
("Fifth Circuit").  The claimants' opening brief was submitted on
May 7, 2012, and the claimants filed a reply brief on June 1,
2012.  Oral argument was not requested by the Fifth Circuit.  On
December 13, 2012, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the
district court.  The claimants have not petitioned the United
States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari and their deadline
to do so has expired.

With respect to the one claim filed by a Company employee, that
individual also commenced a separate action in the MDL entitled
DuWayne Mason v. Seacor Marine, LLC, No. 2:11-CV-00826 (E.D. La.),
in which he alleges sustaining personal injuries not only in
connection with responding to the explosion and fire, but also in
the months thereafter in connection with the clean-up of oil and
dispersants while a member of the crew of the M/V Seacor Vanguard.
Although the case is subject to the MDL Court's stay of individual
proceedings, on July 16, 2012, the employee sought to sever his
case from the MDL.

On March 5, 2013, the Court denied the motion, and on April 2,
2013, the employee filed a motion asking the Court to reconsider.
The Company filed its response opposing the employee's motion on
April 30, 2013, and on May 3, 2013, the Court denied the motion.
On May 22, 2013, the employee filed a Notice of Appeal to the
Fifth Circuit.  On July 24, 2013, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend the action should
it ever proceed and the responsible party has agreed, subject to
certain potential limitations, to indemnify and defend the Company
in connection with this matter.  Although the Company is unable to
estimate the potential exposure, if any, resulting from this
matter, the Company does not expect it will have a material effect
on the Company's consolidated financial position or its results of
operations.

SEACOR Holdings Inc. was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.  The Company's
operations are divided into four main business segments --
Offshore Marine Services, Inland River Services, Shipping
Services, and Ethanol and Industrial Alcohol.  The Company also
has activities that primarily include Emergency and Crisis
Services, Agricultural Commodity Trading and Logistics, various
other investments in joint ventures and lending and leasing
activities.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Defends Deepwater Horizon FLSA Suits Against ORM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings Inc. continues to defend its subsidiary against
collective action lawsuits asserting failure to pay overtime,
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 April 22, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon, a semi-submersible
deepwater drilling rig operating in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, sank
after an apparent blowout and fire resulting in a significant flow
of hydrocarbons from the BP Macondo well (the "Deepwater
Horizon/BP Macondo Well Incident").

SEACOR Holdings Inc. reported its environmental activities under
Environmental Services, which was conducted through SEACOR
Environmental Services Inc. ("SES") and O'Brien's Response
Management Inc. ("ORM").  SES included National Response
Corporation ("NRC"), one of the largest providers of oil spill
response services in the United States; nd industrial services on
the West Coast of the United States; SEACNRC Environmental
Services Inc., a leading provider of environmental aOR Response
Ltd., which provides oil spill response and emergency response
services to customers in international markets; and certain other
subsidiaries (collectively the "SES Business").  On March 16,
2012, the Company sold the SES Business (the "SES Business
Transaction") to J.F. Lehman & Company ("JFL"), a leading, middle-
market private equity firm.

On December 31, 2012, the Company contributed its interest in
O'Brien's Response Management Inc. ("ORM") to Witt Group Holdings,
LLC ("Witt") in exchange for an equity interest in Witt Group
Holdings, LLC, which was renamed Witt O'Brien's, LLC (the "ORM
Transaction").

In connection with the SES Business Transaction and the ORM
Transaction, the Company remains contingently liable for certain
obligations, including potential liabilities relating to work
performed in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill
response.  In the case of the SES Business Transaction, such
potential liabilities may not exceed the purchase consideration
received by the Company for the SES Business Transaction and in
the case of the ORM Transaction are subject to a negotiated cap.
The Company currently is indemnified under contractual agreements
with BP Exploration & Production, Inc. and BP America Production
Company (collectively "BP").

ORM is defending against three collective action lawsuits, each
asserting failure to pay overtime with respect to individuals who
provided service on the Deepwater Horizon spill response (the "DPH
FLSA Actions") under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  These
cases -- Dennis Prejean v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc.
(E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01045) (the "Prejean Action"); Baylor
Singleton et al. v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc. et al.
(E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01716) (the "Singleton Action"); and
Himmerite et al. v. O'Brien's Response Management Inc. et al.
(E.D. La., Case No.: 2:12-cv-01533) (the "Himmerite Action") --
were each brought on behalf of certain individuals who worked on
the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response and who were classified
as independent contractors.  The Prejean, Himmerite and Singleton
Actions were each filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana and then subsequently
consolidated with the overall multi-district litigation, In re Oil
Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179 ("MDL").
The Himmerite and Singleton Actions have since been automatically
stayed pending further scheduling by the Court, pursuant to the
procedures in the MDL.  In the Prejean Action, ORM has answered
the complaint, a scheduling order has been issued, and plaintiffs
have, among other things, filed a Motion for Conditional
Certification to which ORM's response was due on August 22, 2013.
The limitations periods for potential plaintiffs to opt-in to the
Prejean, Himmerite and Singleton actions have all been tolled
pending further action by the Court.

The Company says it is unable to estimate the potential exposure,
if any, resulting from any of these DPH FLSA Actions, but believes
they are without merit and will continue to vigorously defend
against them.

SEACOR Holdings Inc. was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.  The Company's
operations are divided into four main business segments --
Offshore Marine Services, Inland River Services, Shipping
Services, and Ethanol and Industrial Alcohol.  The Company also
has activities that primarily include Emergency and Crisis
Services, Agricultural Commodity Trading and Logistics, various
other investments in joint ventures and lending and leasing
activities.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Expects BP Settlements to Reduce Unit's Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SEACOR Holdings Inc. said in its July 30, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013, that it expects the BP Settlements to reduce
its subsidiary's potential exposure from some of the pending
actions arising from the Deepwater Horizon/BP Macondo Well
Incident.

On April 22, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon, a semi-submersible
deepwater drilling rig operating in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, sank
after an apparent blowout and fire resulting in a significant flow
of hydrocarbons from the BP Macondo well (the "Deepwater
Horizon/BP Macondo Well Incident").

SEACOR Holdings Inc. reported its environmental activities under
Environmental Services, which was conducted through SEACOR
Environmental Services Inc. ("SES") and O'Brien's Response
Management Inc. ("ORM").  SES included National Response
Corporation ("NRC"), one of the largest providers of oil spill
response services in the United States; nd industrial services on
the West Coast of the United States; SEACNRC Environmental
Services Inc., a leading provider of environmental aOR Response
Ltd., which provides oil spill response and emergency response
services to customers in international markets; and certain other
subsidiaries (collectively the "SES Business").  On March 16,
2012, the Company sold the SES Business (the "SES Business
Transaction") to J.F. Lehman & Company ("JFL"), a leading, middle-
market private equity firm.

On March 2, 2012, the Court announced that BP Exploration and BP
America Production Company ("BP America") (collectively "BP") and
the plaintiffs had reached an agreement on the terms of two
proposed class action settlements that will resolve, among other
things, plaintiffs' economic loss claims and clean-up related
claims against BP.  The parties filed their proposed settlement
agreements on April 18, 2012, along with motions seeking
preliminary approval of the settlements.  The Court held a hearing
on April 25, 2012, to consider those motions and preliminarily
approved both settlements on May 2, 2012.  A final fairness
hearing took place on November 8, 2012.  The Court granted final
approval to the Economic and Property Damages Class Action
Settlement on December 21, 2012, and granted final approval to the
Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement on January 11, 2013.
Both class action settlements are currently on appeal to the Fifth
Circuit.

Although neither the Company, ORM nor NRC are parties to the
settlement agreements, the Company, ORM, and NRC are listed as
released parties on the releases accompanying both settlement
agreements.  As the releases for both settlements have been deemed
valid and enforceable by the district court, if the Fifth Circuit
affirms these decisions, class members who did not file timely
requests for exclusion will be barred from pursuing economic loss,
property damage, personal injury, medical monitoring, and/or other
released claims against the Company, ORM, and NRC.  At this time,
the Company expects these settlements to reduce ORM's potential
exposure, if any, from some of the pending actions, and continues
to evaluate the settlements' impacts on these cases.

SEACOR Holdings Inc. was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.  The Company's
operations are divided into four main business segments --
Offshore Marine Services, Inland River Services, Shipping
Services, and Ethanol and Industrial Alcohol.  The Company also
has activities that primarily include Emergency and Crisis
Services, Agricultural Commodity Trading and Logistics, various
other investments in joint ventures and lending and leasing
activities.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: Still Awaits Decision on Summary Judgment Bids
---------------------------------------------------------------
On April 22, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon, a semi-submersible
deepwater drilling rig operating in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, sank
after an apparent blowout and fire resulting in a significant flow
of hydrocarbons from the BP Macondo well (the "Deepwater
Horizon/BP Macondo Well Incident").

SEACOR Holdings Inc. reported its environmental activities under
Environmental Services, which was conducted through SEACOR
Environmental Services Inc. ("SES") and O'Brien's Response
Management Inc. ("ORM").  SES included National Response
Corporation ("NRC"), one of the largest providers of oil spill
response services in the United States; nd industrial services on
the West Coast of the United States; SEACNRC Environmental
Services Inc., a leading provider of environmental aOR Response
Ltd., which provides oil spill response and emergency response
services to customers in international markets; and certain other
subsidiaries (collectively the "SES Business").  On March 16,
2012, the Company sold the SES Business (the "SES Business
Transaction") to J.F. Lehman & Company ("JFL"), a leading, middle-
market private equity firm.

On December 31, 2012, the Company contributed its interest in
O'Brien's Response Management Inc. ("ORM") to Witt Group Holdings,
LLC ("Witt") in exchange for an equity interest in Witt Group
Holdings, LLC, which was renamed Witt O'Brien's, LLC (the "ORM
Transaction").

On December 15, 2010, ORM and NRC, subsidiaries of the Company
prior to the ORM Transaction and SES Business Transaction, were
named as defendants in one of the several consolidated "master
complaints" that have been filed in the overall multi-district
litigation, In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon",
MDL No. 2179 ("MDL").  The master complaint naming ORM and NRC
asserts various claims on behalf of a putative class against
multiple defendants concerning the clean-up activities generally,
and the use of dispersants specifically.

By court order, the Wunstell Action has been stayed as a result of
the filing of the master complaint.

The Company believes that the claims asserted against ORM and NRC
in the master complaint have no merit and on February 28, 2011,
ORM and NRC moved to dismiss all claims against them in the master
complaint on legal grounds.  On September 30, 2011, the Court
granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss that ORM
and NRC had filed (an amended decision was issued on October 4,
2011 that corrected several grammatical errors and non-substantive
oversights in the original order).  Although the Court refused to
dismiss the referenced master complaint in its entirety at that
time, the Court did recognize the validity of the "derivative
immunity" and "implied preemption" arguments that ORM and NRC
advanced and directed ORM and NRC to (i) conduct limited discovery
to develop evidence to support those arguments, and (ii) then re-
assert the arguments. The Court did, however, dismiss all state-
law claims and certain other claims that had been asserted in the
referenced master complaint, and dismissed the claims of all
plaintiffs that have failed to allege a legally-sufficient injury.
A schedule for limited discovery and motion practice was
established by the Court and, in accordance with that schedule,
ORM and NRC filed for summary judgment re-asserting their
derivative immunity and implied preemption arguments on May 18,
2012.  Those motions were argued on July 13, 2012, and are still
pending decision.  In addition to the indemnity provided to ORM,
pursuant to contractual agreements with the responsible party, the
responsible party has agreed, subject to certain potential
limitations, to indemnify and defend ORM and NRC in connection
with these claims in the MDL.

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.

Although the Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure,
if any, resulting from this matter, the Company does not expect it
will have a material effect on the Company's consolidated
financial position or its results of operations.

SEACOR Holdings Inc. was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.  The Company's
operations are divided into four main business segments --
Offshore Marine Services, Inland River Services, Shipping
Services, and Ethanol and Industrial Alcohol.  The Company also
has activities that primarily include Emergency and Crisis
Services, Agricultural Commodity Trading and Logistics, various
other investments in joint ventures and lending and leasing
activities.


SEACOR HOLDINGS: "Wunstell" Suit Still Pending in Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
On April 22, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon, a semi-submersible
deepwater drilling rig operating in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, sank
after an apparent blowout and fire resulting in a significant flow
of hydrocarbons from the BP Macondo well (the "Deepwater
Horizon/BP Macondo Well Incident").

On December 31, 2012, SEACOR Holdings Inc. contributed its
interest in O'Brien's Response Management Inc. ("ORM") to Witt
Group Holdings, LLC ("Witt") in exchange for an equity interest in
Witt Group Holdings, LLC, which was renamed Witt O'Brien's, LLC
(the "ORM Transaction").

On July 20, 2010, two individuals purporting to represent a class
commenced a civil action in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana, John Wunstell, Jr.
and Kelly Blanchard v. BP, et al., No. 2010-7437 (Division K) (the
"Wunstell Action"), in which they assert, among other theories,
that Mr. Wunstell suffered injuries as a result of his exposure to
certain noxious fumes and chemicals in connection with the
provision of remediation, containment and response services by
O'Brien's Response Management Inc. ("ORM"), a subsidiary of the
Company prior to the ORM Transaction.  The action now is part of
the overall multi-district litigation, In re Oil Spill by the Oil
Rig "Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179 ("MDL").  The complaint also
seeks to establish a "class-wide court-supervised medical
monitoring program" for all individuals "participating in BP's
Deepwater Horizon Vessels of Opportunity Program and/or Horizon
Response Program" who allegedly experienced injuries similar to
those of Mr. Wunstell.

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 Company believes this lawsuit has no merit and will continue
to vigorously defend the action and pursuant to contractual
agreements with the responsible party, the responsible party has
agreed, subject to certain potential limitations, to indemnify and
defend ORM in connection with the Wunstell Action and claims
asserted in the MDL.  Although the Company is unable to estimate
the potential exposure, if any, resulting from this matter, the
Company does not expect it will have a material effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position or its results of
operations.

SEACOR Holdings Inc. was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.  The Company's
operations are divided into four main business segments --
Offshore Marine Services, Inland River Services, Shipping
Services, and Ethanol and Industrial Alcohol.  The Company also
has activities that primarily include Emergency and Crisis
Services, Agricultural Commodity Trading and Logistics, various
other investments in joint ventures and lending and leasing
activities.


SKINNYGIRL COCKTAILS: Opposition to Class Suit Due in Jan. 2014
---------------------------------------------------------------
LALATE reports that The Bethenny Frankel Skinnygirl Class Action
lawsuit will continue into at least 2014.  Bethenny Frankel's talk
show is set to debut its new season.  But at the same time that
Bethenny will be chatting during daytime about other people's
issues, her issues in an Illinois federal court are still ongoing.
In fact, Bethenny Frankel is set to still be a personal defendant
in the class action lawsuit until at least 2014, LALATE can
exclusively report.

Bethenny Frankel is being sued personally along with her
Skinnygirl Cocktails, LLC and others in the Northern District of
Illinois by Amy Langendorf.  Ms. Frankel has not spoken recently
about the case.  The judge ordered this July, however, that
counsel for the plaintiff must agree to be "bound by the
protective order in Stewart".

Bethenny and her co-defendants' opposition to classification of a
class action won't be due until next year, LALATE can exclusively
report.  The court ordered just days ago that Bethenny and her
co-defendants' "opposition brief will be filed on or before
January 31, 2014, and Plaintiff shall file her reply, if any, on
or before February 14, 2014."

The attempt at class certification has remained in dispute through
much of 2013, and will continue into next year.  Recently the
court noted that "In light of the voluminous discovery as to class
certification issues, Plaintiff is granted leave to file a renewed
motion for class certification, together with an agreed briefing
schedule . . . Defendants shall not make any individual settlement
offer to Plaintiff, or any opt-in plaintiffs, until the time
Plaintiff files a renewed motion for class certification."
Bethenny is set to have experts on her talk show starting this
fall.  And her own defense experts in this lawsuit are being
deposed later this month as well, the court has revealed.


STATE AUTO: Defends "Schumacher" Class Action Suit in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------
State Auto Financial Corporation is defending a class action
lawsuit titled Schumacher vs. State Automobile Mutual Insurance
Company, et al., according to the Company's July 30, 2013, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In April 2013, a putative class action lawsuit (Schumacher vs.
State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, et al.) was filed
against the Company, State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company,
and State Auto Property & Casualty Insurance Company in Federal
District Court in Ohio.  The Plaintiffs' claims relate to the
Company's homeowners insurance to value ("ITV") program and allege
that their homeowners' policy limits and premiums were improperly
increased, causing them to purchase coverage in excess of that
which was necessary to insure them in the event of loss.  The
Plaintiffs' claims include breach of good faith and fair dealing,
negligent misrepresentation and fraud, violation of the Ohio
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and fraudulent inducement.  The
Plaintiffs are seeking class certification and compensatory and
punitive damages to be determined by the court.

State Auto Financial -- http://www.StateAuto.com/-- is a property
and casualty insurance holding company.  The Company's insurance
subsidiaries are part of the State Auto Group and Pooling
Arrangement.  The State Auto Group markets its insurance products
throughout the United States primarily through independent
agencies, which include retail agencies and brokers.  The Company
is headquartered in Columbus, Ohio.


TETRA TECH: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Aug. 23
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Tetra
Tech, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed
in United States District Court, Central District of California,
and docketed under 13-cv-4724-SVW, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Tetra between May 3, 2012 and June 18, 2013
both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors as a
result of alleged violations of the federal securities laws
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Tetra securities during the
Class Period, you have until August 27, 2013 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.  There is no out of pocket cost to you for your
participation.

Tetra is a publicly traded company headquartered in Pasadena,
California.  Tetra is a leading provider of consulting,
engineering, program management, construction management,
construction and technical services that focuses on addressing
fundamental needs for water, the environment, energy,
infrastructure and natural resources.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) claims by customers and cost
overruns created an acute risk that the Company would be required
to take an earnings charge; and, (ii) decreasing demand for the
Company's services would lead to project closures.

On June 18, 2013, the Company shocked investors by issuing a press
release revising its prior guidance for the third quarter of 2013
to a loss of $0.30 to $0.50 per share.  The Company blamed the
revision on an impairment charge of approximately $45 million due
to "change orders on lump-sum projects for certain U.S. federal
and state government customers" and $40 to $50 million in
restructuring costs related to its Eastern Canadian operations.
On this news, Tetra securities declined $3.55 per share or 13.26%,
to close at $23.30 per share on June 19, 2013.

The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates
its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  The firm has offices in New York, Chicago,
Florida, and San Diego.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Sue Over Contractor Classification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Allison, writing for The Recorder, reports that drivers
for ride-sharing startup Uber Technologies Inc. have filed a suit
in the Northern District of California, accusing the San
Francisco-based company of skimming off tips and misclassifying
them as contract workers.  The case was brought on behalf of all
drivers except those in Massachusetts.

Part of Uber's appeal lies in its simplicity, with a lift just a
click away.  Riders are billed automatically through an app, which
emphasizes that the price charged is all-inclusive: No need to
tip, because you already have.

But plaintiffs Douglas O'Connor and Thomas Colopy, both drivers in
the San Francisco area, say such messaging is misleading.  In a
16-page complaint filed Aug. 16, they allege that drivers only
receive a portion of each gratuity -- if any is charged to the
customer -- and therefore don't receive the tips that would be
customary for livery operators.

They also allege that some drivers have been misclassified as
independent contractors, and have therefore been forced to pay for
vehicle expenses that should be covered or reimbursed by the
company.

Monique Olivier -- monique@dplolaw.com -- of Duckworth, Peters,
Lebowitz, Olivier in San Francisco and Shannon Liss-Riordan --
sliss@llrlaw.com -- of Boston's Lichten & Liss-Riordan are
representing the plaintiffs.  On Aug. 20, they sought an emergency
protective order to strike the arbitration clause Uber included in
revised contract terms, which added a class action waiver, issued
to drivers in July.

Uber spokesman Andrew Noyes said the company has not yet been
served with the complaint, which he called meritless.  He said it
would defend itself "vigorously."  He did not disclose the model
behind Uber's pricing and did not say who would be representing
the company in the case.

"Our technology platform has allowed thousands of drivers to
generate an independent wage and build their own small businesses
on their own time," the company said in a statement.  "Frivolous
lawsuits like this cost valuable time, money and resources that
are better spent making cities more accessible, opening up more
possibilities for riders and providing more business for drivers."

This is not the first such complaint drivers have lodged against
Uber.

In Massachusetts, Ms. Liss-Riordan also represented driver
David Lavitman, who alleged that Uber kept up to half of the 20
percent tip owed to riders.  The company's motion to toss the suit
and to have it sent to California was denied.  Earlier this month,
the case was remanded to Suffolk County Superior Court in Boston.
Uber has retained Littler Mendelson and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan as counsel in that matter.

A case management conference in the Bay Area drivers' lawsuit is
scheduled for Nov. 19 before Magistrate Judge Kandis Westmore.


VELTI PLC: Scott+Scott Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
On August 22, 2013, Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased the securities of Velti plc
between January 27, 2011 and August 20, 2013, inclusive.

Investors who purchased Velti securities during the Class Period
and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in the class action must
move the Court no later than October 21, 2013.  Members of the
investor class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain absent class members in the lawsuit.  If you wish to view
the class action complaint, discuss the Velti lawsuit, or have
questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact:
Michael Burnett, Esq. of Scott+Scott -- mburnett@scott-scott.com
-- (800) 404-7770, (860) 537-5537) or visit the Scott+Scott
website for more information: http://www.scott-scott.com

There is no cost or fee to you.

Velti engages in the provision of mobile marketing and advertising
technology and solutions for brands, advertising agencies, mobile
operators, and media companies primarily in Europe, the Americas,
Asia, and Africa.

The Complaint charges Velti and certain of the Company's executive
officers with violations of the federal securities laws, alleging
that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants made false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about Velti's reported financial results to
investors.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) the Company was having difficulty collecting
certain receivables; (2) certain of the Company's receivables were
uncollectible; (3) as a result, the Company's revenues and
receivables were overstated during the Class Period; (4) the
Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5),
as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements and
reported financial results were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On August 20, 2013, the Company reported its 2013 fiscal second
quarter financial results and disclosed that the Company had made
the decision to write-down approximately $111 million to its trade
receivables and accrued contract receivables relating to its
enterprise business.  Moreover, the Company announced a "major
restructuring" of its business.  On this news, shares of Velti
declined $0.66 per share, more than 66%, to close on August 21,
2013, at $0.34 per share, on heavy trading volume.

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Continues to Defend "Johnson" Class Suit v. iiX
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On January 3, 2013, Verisk Analytics, Inc. received service of a
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio naming the Company's subsidiary,
Insurance Information Exchange ("iiX"), titled Mark A. Johnson v.
Insurance Information Exchange, LLC (the "Johnson Complaint").

The Johnson Complaint alleges a nationwide putative class action
on behalf of "[a]ll natural persons residing in the United States
who were the subject of a consumer report prepared by iiX for
employment purposes within five (5) years prior to the filing of
this Complaint and to whom iiX did not provide notice of the fact
that public record information which is likely to have an adverse
effect upon the consumer's ability to obtain employment, is being
reported by iiX, together with the name and address of the person
to whom such information is being reported at the time such public
record information is reported to the user of such consumer
report."

Similar to the Thomas matter, the Johnson Complaint alleges
violations of section 1681k(a) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA") claiming that iiX failed to notify customers
contemporaneously that criminal record information was provided to
a prospective employer and failed to maintain strict procedures to
ensure that the information reported is complete and up to date.

The Johnson Complaint seeks statutory damages for the class in an
amount not less than one hundred dollars and not more than one
thousand dollars per violation, punitive damages, costs and
attorneys' fees.

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.

At this time, the Company says it is not possible to determine the
ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to this
matter.

Headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey, Verisk Analytics, Inc.
provides its customers proprietary data that, combined with
analytic methods, create embedded decision support solutions.  The
Company offers solutions for detecting fraud in the U.S. property
and casualty insurance, financial services, and healthcare
industries and sophisticated methods to predict and quantify loss
in diverse contexts ranging from natural catastrophes to supply
chain to health insurance.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Defends "Shaw" Class Action Suit in Colorado
--------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc., is defending a class action lawsuit filed
by Celeste Shaw, 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 May 13, 2013, the Company was served with a putative class
action titled Celeste Shaw v. Interthinx, Inc., Verisk Analytics,
Inc. and Jeffery Moyer.  The plaintiff is a current employee of
the Company's subsidiary Interthinx, Inc. based in Colorado, who
filed the class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of all fraud detection employees
who have worked for Interthinx for the last three years nationwide
and who were classified as exempt employees.  The class complaint
claims that the fraud detection employees were misclassified as
exempt employees and, as a result, were denied certain wages and
benefits that would have been received if they were properly
classified as non-exempt employees.  It pleads three causes of
action against defendants: (1) Collective Action under section
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime
(nationwide class); (2) A Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class action under
the Colorado Wage Act and Wage Order for unpaid overtime and (3) A
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class action under Colorado Wage Act for unpaid
commissions/nondiscretionary bonuses (Colorado class).  The
complaint seeks compensatory damages, penalties that are
associated with the various statutes, declaratory and injunctive
relief interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

At this time, the Company says it is not possible to determine the
ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to the
matter.

Headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey, Verisk Analytics, Inc.
provides its customers proprietary data that, combined with
analytic methods, create embedded decision support solutions.  The
Company offers solutions for detecting fraud in the U.S. property
and casualty insurance, financial services, and healthcare
industries and sophisticated methods to predict and quantify loss
in diverse contexts ranging from natural catastrophes to supply
chain to health insurance.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Faces "Dehdashtian" Class Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc., is facing a class action lawsuit styled
Shabanam Shelia Dehdashtian v. Interthinx, Inc., et al., in
California, 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 July 2, 2013, the Company was served with a putative class
action titled Shabanam Shelia Dehdashtian v. Interthinx, Inc. and
Verisk Analytics, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.  The plaintiff, Shabnam Shelia
Dehdashtian, a former mortgage auditor at the Company's subsidiary
Interthinx, Inc. in California, filed the class action on behalf
of all persons who have been employed by Interthinx as auditors,
mortgage compliance underwriters and mortgage auditors nationwide
at anytime (i) within 3 years prior to the filing of this action
until trial for the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) class and (ii)
within 4 years prior to the filing of the initial complaint until
trial for the California collective action.

The class complaint claims that the defendants failed to pay
overtime compensation, to provide rest and meal periods, waiting
time penalties and to provide accurate wage statements to the
plaintiffs as required by federal and California law.  It pleads
seven causes of action against defendants: (1) Failure to pay
overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA for unpaid overtime
(nationwide class); (2) Failure to pay overtime compensation in
violation of Cal. Lab. Code sections 510, 1194 and 1198 and
Industrial Welfare Commission ("IWC") Wage Order No. 4; (3)
Failure to pay waiting time penalties in violation of Cal. Lab.
Code sections 201-203; (4) Failure to provide itemized wage
statements in violation of Cal. Lab. Code section 226 and IWC
Order No. 4; (5) Failure to provide and or authorize meal and rest
periods in violation of Cal. Lab. Code section 226.7 and IWC Order
No. 4; (6) Violation of California Business and Professions Code
sections 17200 et seq; and (7) a Labor Code Private Attorney
General Act (PAGA) Public enforcement claim, Cal. Lab. Code
section 2699 (California class).  The complaint seeks compensatory
damages, penalties that are associated with the various statutes,
equitable and injunctive relief, interest, costs and attorneys'
fees.

At this time, the Company says it is not possible to determine the
ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to the
matter.

Headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey, Verisk Analytics, Inc.
provides its customers proprietary data that, combined with
analytic methods, create embedded decision support solutions.  The
Company offers solutions for detecting fraud in the U.S. property
and casualty insurance, financial services, and healthcare
industries and sophisticated methods to predict and quantify loss
in diverse contexts ranging from natural catastrophes to supply
chain to health insurance.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Still Awaits Cert. Bid Ruling in "Roe" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc., is still awaiting a court decision on a
motion for class certification in the lawsuit filed by Jane Roe,
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 April 20, 2012, the Company was served with a class action
complaint filed in Alameda County Superior Court in California
naming the Company's subsidiary, Intellicorp Records, Inc.,
("Intellicorp") titled Jane Roe v. Intellicorp Records, Inc.  The
complaint alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA") and claimed that Intellicorp failed to implement
reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the
adverse information contained in the background reports, failed to
maintain strict procedures to ensure that criminal record
information provided to employers is complete and up to date, and
failed to notify class members contemporaneously of the fact that
criminal record information was being provided to their employers
and prospective employers.  Intellicorp removed the case to the
United States District Court of the Northern District of
California.  The California Court later granted Intellicorp's
motion to transfer the case, which is now pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

On October 24, 2012, the plaintiffs served their First Amended
Complaint (the "Roe Complaint") alleging a nationwide putative
class action on behalf of all persons who were the subject of a
Criminal SuperSearch or other "instant" consumer background report
furnished to a third party by Intellicorp for employment purposes,
and whose report contained any negative public record of criminal
arrest, charge, or conviction without also disclosing the final
disposition of the charges during the 5 years preceding the filing
of this action through the date class certification is granted.
The Roe Complaint seeks statutory damages for the class in an
amount not less than one hundred dollars and not more than one
thousand dollars per violation, punitive damages, costs and
attorneys' fees.

On February 4, 2013, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
amend the Roe Complaint to eliminate the named plaintiff's
individual claim for compensatory damages.  This amendment did not
change the breadth or scope of the request for relief sought on
behalf of the proposed class.  The Plaintiffs later amended their
class definition in their motion for class certification to
include only those consumers whose (1) Criminal SuperSearch
returned results, but Single County search returned no result; (2)
Criminal SuperSearch returned one or more criminal charges without
a disposition, but the Single County search returned a disposition
other than "conviction" or "guilty" and (3) Criminal SuperSearch
returned a higher level of offense (felony or misdemeanor) for one
or more criminal charges than the Single County search
(misdemeanor or infraction.)  This amendment reduces the size of
the potential class, but does not alter the time period for which
the plaintiffs seek to certify a class or the scope of the request
for relief sought on behalf of the proposed class.  The
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was fully submitted on
March 18, 2013, and oral argument was heard by Judge Gwin on
June 27, 2013.

At this time, the Company says it is not possible to determine the
ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to the
matter.

Headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey, Verisk Analytics, Inc.
provides its customers proprietary data that, combined with
analytic methods, create embedded decision support solutions.  The
Company offers solutions for detecting fraud in the U.S. property
and casualty insurance, financial services, and healthcare
industries and sophisticated methods to predict and quantify loss
in diverse contexts ranging from natural catastrophes to supply
chain to health insurance.


VERISK ANALYTICS: Still Defends "Thomas" Suit vs. Intellicorp
-------------------------------------------------------------
Verisk Analytics, Inc. continues to defend a subsidiary against a
class action lawsuit filed by Michael R. Thomas, 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 November 1, 2012, the Company was served with a complaint filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio naming the Company's subsidiary, Intellicorp Records, Inc.,
titled Michael R. Thomas v. Intellicorp Records, Inc.  On
January 7, 2013, the plaintiff served its First Amended Complaint
(the "Thomas Complaint") to add Mark A. Johnson (the plaintiff in
the Johnson v. iiX matter) as a named plaintiff.  The Thomas
Complaint alleges a nationwide putative class action for
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") on behalf of
"[a]ll natural persons residing in the United States (a) who were
the subject of a report sold by Intellicorp to a third party, (b)
that was furnished for an employment purpose, (c) that contained
at least one public record of a criminal conviction or arrest,
civil lien, bankruptcy or civil judgment, (d) within five years
next preceding the filing of this action and during its pendency,
and (e) to whom Intellicorp did not place in the United States
mail postage-prepaid, on the day it furnished any part of the
report, a written notice that it was furnishing the subject report
and containing the name of the person that was to receive the
report."  The Thomas Complaint proposes an alternative subclass as
follows: "[a]ll natural persons residing in Ohio or Tennessee (a)
who were the subject of a report sold by Intellicorp to a third
party, (b) that was furnished for an employment purpose, (c) that
contained at least one public record of a criminal conviction or
arrest, civil lien, bankruptcy or civil judgment, (d) within five
years next preceding the filing of this action and during its
pendency, (e) when a mutual review of the record would reveal that
the identity associated with the public record does not match the
identity of the class member about whom the report was furnished,
and (f) to whom Intellicorp did not place in the United States
mail postage pre-paid, on the day it furnished any part of the
report, a written notice that it was furnishing the subject report
and containing the name of the person that was to receive the
report."

Similar to the Roe action, the Thomas Complaint alleges that
Intellicorp violated the FCRA, asserting that Intellicorp violated
section 1681k(a)(1) of the FCRA because it failed to provide
notice to the plaintiffs "at the time" the adverse public record
information was reported.  The named plaintiffs also allege
individual claims under section 1681e(b) claiming that Intellicorp
failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible
accuracy in the preparation of the consumer report it furnished
pertaining to plaintiffs.  The Thomas Complaint seeks statutory
damages for the class in an amount not less than one hundred
dollars and not more than one thousand dollars per violation,
punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, as well as
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the named
plaintiffs.

At this time, the Company says it is not possible to determine the
ultimate resolution of, or estimate the liability related to the
matter.

Headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey, Verisk Analytics, Inc.
provides its customers proprietary data that, combined with
analytic methods, create embedded decision support solutions.  The
Company offers solutions for detecting fraud in the U.S. property
and casualty insurance, financial services, and healthcare
industries and sophisticated methods to predict and quantify loss
in diverse contexts ranging from natural catastrophes to supply
chain to health insurance.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Defends Suits Over Environmental Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management, Inc. is defending itself against class action
lawsuits alleging environmental contamination, 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.

From time to time, the Company is also named as defendants in
personal injury and property damage lawsuits, including purported
class actions, on the basis of having owned, operated or
transported waste to a disposal facility that is alleged to have
contaminated the environment or, in certain cases, on the basis of
having conducted environmental remediation activities at sites.
Some of the lawsuits may seek to have the Company pay the costs of
monitoring of allegedly affected sites and health care
examinations of allegedly affected persons for a substantial
period of time even where no actual damage is proven.  While the
Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these lawsuits,
the ultimate resolution is often substantially uncertain due to
the difficulty of determining the cause, extent and impact of
alleged contamination (which may have occurred over a long period
of time), the potential for successive groups of complainants to
emerge, the diversity of the individual plaintiffs' circumstances,
and the potential contribution or indemnification obligations of
co-defendants or other third parties, among other factors.
Additionally, the Company often enters into contractual
arrangements with landowners imposing obligations on the Company
to meet certain regulatory or contractual conditions upon site
closure or upon termination of the agreements.  Compliance with
these arrangements is inherently subject to subjective
determinations and may result in disputes, including litigation.

Houston, Texas-based Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com/
-- is a waste management, comprehensive waste, and environmental
services company in North America.  The Company's subsidiaries
provide collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal services.
The Company is also a developer, operator and owner of waste-to-
energy and landfill gas- to-energy facilities in the United
States.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Defends Suits Over Sales & Marketing Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management, Inc. is defending itself against class action
lawsuits related to its sales and marketing practices, and those
alleging violations of wage and hour laws, 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.

As a large company with operations across the United States and
Canada, the Company is subject to various proceedings, lawsuits,
disputes and claims arising in the ordinary course of its
business.  Many of these actions raise complex factual and legal
issues and are subject to uncertainties.  Actions filed against
the Company include commercial, customer, and employment-related
claims, including purported class action lawsuits related to the
Company's sales and marketing practices and its customer service
agreements and purported class actions involving federal and state
wage and hour and other laws.  The plaintiffs in some actions seek
unspecified damages or injunctive relief, or both.  These actions
are in various procedural stages, and some are covered in part by
insurance.  The Company currently does not believe that the
eventual outcome of any such actions could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows.

Houston, Texas-based Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com/
-- is a waste management, comprehensive waste, and environmental
services company in North America.  The Company's subsidiaries
provide collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal services.
The Company is also a developer, operator and owner of waste-to-
energy and landfill gas- to-energy facilities in the United
States.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Facing Suit Over Fuel, Environmental Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
In October 2011 and January 2012, Waste Management, Inc. was named
as a defendant in a purported class action in the Circuit Court of
Sarasota County, Florida, and the Circuit Court of Lawrence County
Alabama, respectively.  These cases primarily pertain to the
Company's fuel and environmental charges included on its invoices,
generally alleging that such charges were not properly disclosed,
were unfair and were contrary to the customer service contracts.
The law firm that filed these lawsuits had filed, in 2008, a
purported class action against subsidiaries of WM in Bullock
County, Alabama, making similar allegations.  The prior Alabama
lawsuit was removed to federal court, where the federal court
ultimately dismissed the plaintiffs' national class action claims.
The plaintiffs then elected to dismiss the case without prejudice.

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 Company says it will vigorously defend against these pending
lawsuits.  Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
including the early stage of these cases, the unknown size of any
potential class, and legal and factual issues in dispute, the
outcome of these cases cannot be predicted and a range of loss
cannot currently be estimated.

Houston, Texas-based Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com/
-- is a waste management, comprehensive waste, and environmental
services company in North America.  The Company's subsidiaries
provide collection, transfer, recycling, and disposal services.
The Company is also a developer, operator and owner of waste-to-
energy and landfill gas- to-energy facilities in the United
States.


                             *********

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  * * *