CAR_Public/130902.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, September 2, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 173

                             Headlines


AGL RESOURCES: Illinois Suit vs. Nicor Units Remains Pending
ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: 3 Law Firms Join Forces in Silicosis Suit
BAXTER INT'L: Awaits Ruling on Certification Bid in Illinois Suit
BAXTER INT'L: Defends Consolidated Plasma-Derived Therapies Suit
BIOLASE INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

BLACKSTONE GROUP: Trial to Commence Sept. 16 in IPO Suit
BLUE CROSS: Court Dismisses Suit Because Claims Already Released
BUCCANEERS LP: Urges Court to Dismiss Spam Fax Class Action
CANADA LITHIUM: Ontario Court Allows Class Action to Proceed
CLECO CORP: Plea to Review Customer Suit Ruling Remains Pending

COCA-COLA CO: Sued to Stop From Allegedly Deceiving Consumers
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Still Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit
COSMOPOLITAN OF LAS VEGAS: Employees May Join Wage-and-Hour Suit
CYPRUS: Class Action Suit Mulled Over Bank Bailout
ERNST & YOUNG: Can Enforce Arbitration in Wage-and-Hour Suit

EXPEDIA INC: Robins Geller Files Class Action in Washington
FRITO-LAY: Unlawfully Sold Misbranded Food Products, Suit Claims
GOOGLE INC: Five U.S. Privacy Groups Oppose $8.5MM Settlement
HUNTSMAN CORP: Agreed to Settle TiO2 Direct Purchasers' Claims
J.M. SMUCKER: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Over Labels

LIGHTINTHEBOX HOLDING: Robins Geller Files Class Action in N.Y.
LIME ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit to Be Heard Oct. 24
MAHWAH, NJ: Affordable Housing Owners Mull Class Action
MAPLEWOOD MARKETS: Nov. 12 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
MOODY'S CORP: Appeal in "Abu Dhabi" Class Suit Remains Pending

MOODY'S CORP: Awaits Summary Judgment Ruling in Securities Suit
MOORE CAPITAL: Settles Close-Banging Class Action for $8.4 Mil.
NETFLIX INC: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
PG&E CORP: All Class Claims Over San Bruno Accident Dismissed
PG&E CORP: Class Suit Over Business Practices Dismissed in May

PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Has Deal to Settle "Higgins" Suit
POLYONE CORP: Has Yet to Submit Docs in Merger Suit Settlement
QEP RESOURCES: Received Final OK of "Chieftain" Suit Settlement
SIFY TECHNOLOGIES: Insurer Has Settled Exposure in IPO Suit Deal
TOYOTA CANADA: Settles Consumer Claims Over 2009 & 2010 Recalls

UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Registered Nurses Sue Employers for Overtime
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Seeks Dismissal of Wage-and-Hour Class Action
VALSPAR: Employees Can Bring Collective Action Over Unpaid Wages
VOLVO: S60, S80, XC60, and XC70 SUV Models Recalled in Canada
WILLIAMS COS: Bid for Summary Judgment vs. FHRA Remains Pending

WILLIAMS COS: Units Face Class Suits Over Geismar Incident
WILLIAMS COS: WPX to Seek Writ of Certiorari From Supreme Court
WINSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Nov. 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set


                             *********


AGL RESOURCES: Illinois Suit vs. Nicor Units Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Illinois Gas Company, doing business as Nicor Gas
Company; Nicor Energy Services Company; and Nicor Inc. -- an
acquisition completed by AGL Resources Inc. in December 2011 and
former holding company of Nicor Gas, are defendants in a putative
class action initially filed in September 2011, in state court in
Cook County, Illinois.  The plaintiffs purport to represent a
class of customers of Nicor Gas who purchased the Gas Line Comfort
Guard product from Nicor Services.  The plaintiffs variously
allege that the marketing, sale and billing of the Nicor Services
Gas Line Comfort Guard violate the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, constitute common law fraud and
result in unjust enrichment of Nicor Services and Nicor Gas.  The
plaintiffs seek, on behalf of the classes they purport to
represent, actual and punitive damages, interest, costs, attorney
fees and injunctive relief.  While the Company is unable to
predict the outcome of these matters or to reasonably estimate its
potential exposure related thereto, if any, and have not recorded
a liability associated with this contingency, the final
disposition of this matter is not expected to have a material
adverse impact on the Company's liquidity or financial condition.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 31, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, AGL Resources Inc. is an energy
services holding company whose principal business is the
distribution of natural gas in seven states -- Illinois, Georgia,
Virginia, New Jersey, Florida, Tennessee and Maryland -- through
its seven natural gas distribution utilities.


ANGLOGOLD ASHANTI: 3 Law Firms Join Forces in Silicosis Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Legalbrief Today, citing Beeld, reports that the three legal teams
that have been fighting different battles to claim compensation
for silicosis sufferers have joined forces.

The Legal Resources Centre, Abrahams Kiewitz Attorneys and Richard
Spoor Attorneys have filed an application in the South Gauteng
High Court to join three separate class actions into one.
Together, the legal teams represent 25 000 mine workers claiming
compensation from 32 groups, including AngloGold Ashanti, Harmony
and Goldfields.  The case involves 82 gold mines in operation
since 1956.  The mining companies have five days to indicate
whether they oppose the latest bid to join the class action.
Richard Spoor said he cannot see any grounds for opposition to the
move.  The case can then be heard as soon as the first quarter of
2014, he said.  The case will test the rights of employees to
compensation following exposure to health risks.  It was brought
after the Constitutional Court ruled in 2011 that the Occupational
Diseases in Mines & Works Act does not bar employees from suing
for damages under common law.


BAXTER INT'L: Awaits Ruling on Certification Bid in Illinois Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. is awaiting a court decision on a motion
to certify a consolidated class action lawsuit pending in
Illinois, according to the Company's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Baxter is a defendant in a number of lawsuits alleging that
certain of the Company's current and former executive officers and
its board of directors failed to adequately oversee the operations
of the company and issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's plasma-based therapies
business, the Company's remediation of its COLLEAGUE infusion
pumps, its heparin product, and other quality issues.  The
Plaintiffs allege these actions damaged the company and its
shareholders by resulting in a decline in stock price in the
second quarter of 2010, payment of excess compensation to the
board of directors and certain of the Company's current and former
executive officers, and other damage to the Company.  In September
2012, a federal court dismissed a consolidated derivative lawsuit
pending in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois, and
in October 2012, the plaintiffs appealed this dismissal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  Two derivative
actions have been filed in state court: one pending in the Circuit
Court of Lake County, Illinois has been stayed pending the outcome
of the federal action and another, in Delaware Chancery Court, was
filed in June 2013.  In addition, a consolidated alleged class
action is pending in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of
Illinois against the Company and certain of its current executive
officers seeking to recover the lost value of investors' stock.
In April 2013, the Company filed its opposition to the plaintiff's
motion to certify a class action.

Based in Deerfield, Illinois, Baxter International Inc. is a
global, diversified healthcare company.  Baxter, through its
subsidiaries, develops, manufactures and markets products that
save and sustain the lives of people with hemophilia, immune
disorders, infectious diseases, kidney disease, trauma, and other
chronic and acute medical conditions.


BAXTER INT'L: Defends Consolidated Plasma-Derived Therapies Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. continues to defend itself against a
consolidated class action lawsuit over plasma-derived therapies,
according to the Company's July 31, 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, along with others, in a number of
lawsuits consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S.D.C. for
the Northern District of Illinois alleging that Baxter and certain
of its competitors conspired to restrict output and artificially
increase the price of plasma-derived therapies since 2003.  Some
of the complaints attempt to state a claim for class action relief
and some cases demand treble damages.  In February 2011, the court
denied the Company's motion to dismiss certain of the claims and
the parties are proceeding with discovery.  In January 2012, the
court granted the Company's motion to dismiss certain federal
claims brought by indirect purchasers.  The trial court returned
the remaining indirect purchaser claims to the court of original
jurisdiction (U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of California) in
August 2012.  The indirect purchaser complaint was amended to
remove class action allegations in May 2013.

Based in Deerfield, Illinois, Baxter International Inc. is a
global, diversified healthcare company.  Baxter, through its
subsidiaries, develops, manufactures and markets products that
save and sustain the lives of people with hemophilia, immune
disorders, infectious diseases, kidney disease, trauma, and other
chronic and acute medical conditions.


BIOLASE INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Aug. 26
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
Biolase, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Central District of
California, and docketed under SACV 13-1317-DMG, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Biolase between November 5, 2012
and August 7, 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 Biolase securities during
the Class Period, you have until October 22, 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.

Biolase is a biomedical company that develops, manufactures, and
markets lasers in dentistry and medicine and also markets and
distributes dental imaging equipment, including cone beam digital
x-rays and CAD/CAM intra-oral scanners.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and operations.  Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) the Company was facing near term solvency issues; (ii) the
Company faced severe liquidity problems; (iii) the Company's sales
were not as strong as reported; and (iv) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's financial statements were false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On August 9, 2013, the Company announced in its quarterly report
for the period ending June 30, 2013, that Biolase was in breach if
its financial covenants related to its lines of credit.  On this
news, shares of Biolase declined $1.61 per share, more than 47%,
to close at 1.81 per share on August 13, 2013.

Then on August 14, 2013, an analyst report was published on
seekingalpha.com which criticized the Company for misleading
investors regarding the extent of its solvency problems as well as
providing the market with false guidance regarding the Company's
sales and the state of adoption of the Company's products by
practitioners.  On this news, shares of Biolase declined $0.61 per
share, more than 33%, to close at 1.20 per share on August 14,
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.


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Trial to Commence Sept. 16 in IPO Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Aug. 22 announced Blackstone
Group Securities Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

LANDMEN PARTNERS, INC., Individually And On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. THE BLACKSTONE GROUP L.P., et
al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 08-CV-03601-HB

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

ATTENTION PURCHASERS OF THE BLACKSTONE GROUP, L.P. COMMON UNITS

If you purchased The Blackstone Group, L.P. common units in its
initial public offering of such common units in the United States
or in the open market on the New York Stock Exchange between
June 21, 2007 And March 12, 2008, inclusive, you should read this
Notice carefully as your rights may be affected

Investors, called the "Plaintiffs" in this Action, have sued The
Blackstone Group L.P. and four of its current or former senior
executives, Stephen A. Schwarzman, Peter J. Peterson, Hamilton E.
James, and Michael A. Puglisi alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.  This Action, which is known as Landmen Partners
Inc. v. The Blackstone Group, L.P., et al., 08-CV-03601-HB-FM, is
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York before the Honorable Harold Baer, Jr.  Trial
of this Action is scheduled to commence on September 16, 2013.
Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court has
approved, or "certified" this case to proceed as a class action on
behalf of a class of Blackstone investors and directed that this
Notice is issued to Class members before the commencement of the
trial.

The Class certified by the Court is defined as all persons and
entities who purchased common units of Blackstone in Blackstone's
initial public offering of such common units in the United States
or in the open market on the New York Stock Exchange between
June 21, 2007 and March 12, 2008, inclusive, and who sustained
compensable damages in connection with any such purchases of
Blackstone units pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933.  Excluded from the Class are (i) Defendants; (ii)
members of the immediate family of each of the Defendants; (iii)
any entity that acted as an underwriter of the IPO; (iv) any
natural person who sold Blackstone common units to the public in
the IPO or who serves or served as an officer or director of
Blackstone or as a partner of any predecessor to Blackstone, the
members of the immediate families of any such persons, and any
entity in which any of Defendants have or had a controlling
interest; and (v) the legal representatives, agents, affiliates,
heirs, successors-in-interest or assigns of any such excluded
party.

Please note that, for the avoidance of doubt, the Excluded Persons
are excluded from the Class only to the extent they purchased
Blackstone common units in the IPO for their own account and not
for or on behalf of a third-party customer or for resale to
customers.  Further, to the extent that any of the Excluded
Persons were a statutory "seller" who resold the Blackstone common
units to a third-party customer, client, account, fund, trust, or
employee benefit plan that otherwise falls within the Class, or
purchased Blackstone common units in a fiduciary capacity or
otherwise on behalf of any third-party customer, client, account,
fund, trust, or employee benefit plan that falls within the Class,
the Excluded Person is excluded from the Class but the third-party
customer, client, account, fund, trust, or employee benefit plan
is not excluded from the Class with respect to such purchases of
Blackstone common units.

By agreement of Plaintiffs and Defendants and Order of the Court,
Plaintiffs' claims under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of
1933 were dismissed, without prejudice and without costs, on
August 13, 2013.  No class was certified by the Court to prosecute
those claims on behalf of Class members.

What This Lawsuit IS About

Generally, Plaintiffs allege that this case is about whether
Defendants violated the United States federal securities laws by
misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose, in the offering
documents associated with Blackstone's IPO (on or about June 21,
2007), material information regarding adverse facts, trends,
developments or uncertainties facing certain of Blackstone's
investments in certain Blackstone-managed investment funds, which,
in turn, were reasonably likely to have a material adverse impact
on Blackstone's financial and/or operating condition.  Plaintiffs
seek money damages for themselves and the other members of the
Class.  Defendants vigorously deny all of the Plaintiffs'
allegations and assert that they are not liable to Plaintiffs or
the Class.  The Court has not decided whether the Plaintiffs or
the Defendants are right.  The lawyers for the Class will have to
prove their claims at trial unless a settlement is reached
beforehand, and there is no guarantee that Plaintiffs will win the
case at trial.

What A Class Action IS

In a class action, one or more persons sue on behalf of all people
who have similar claims (i.e., a class), and the claims of all
members of the class are decided in a single proceeding for all
members of the class, and all members of the class that do not
request to be excluded from the class before entry of judgment are
bound by the outcome of the suit, whether favorable or unfavorable
to all members of the class.

The Court decided that the lawsuit should proceed as a class
action because it meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, which governs class actions in the United States
federal courts, and the Court has appointed Martin Litwin and
Francis Brady as the Class Representatives.  The Court found that
common questions of fact and law predominate over individual
questions, that the Class Representatives' claims are typical of
Class members' claims, that there are numerous Class members, that
the Class Representatives and their lawyers will fairly and
adequately represent Class members' interests, and that a class
action is a fair, efficient, and superior way to resolve the
claims in the lawsuit for investors.  The Court also appointed
Plaintiffs' counsel, the firms of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
and Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, as Co-Lead Counsel
for the Class.

Therefore, unless a class members requests exclusion from the
Class by September 10, 2013, all Class members will be bound by
the result in the case, whether Plaintiffs win or lose, and all
Class members will be represented by Plaintiffs' counsel in the
Action.

The Court's certification of the Class is not an expression of any
opinion by the Court as to the merits of the claims of Plaintiffs
or any member of the Class.

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS LAWSUIT

RIGHT TO REMAIN IN THE CLASS

If you do nothing, you will remain a member of the Class.  As a
Class member, you will be represented at no cost whatsoever to you
by Plaintiffs' counsel.  If Plaintiffs win the case, and there is
a recovery, Plaintiffs' counsel will then seek to be paid by the
Court for their services from any recovery they obtain.  If there
is no recovery, Plaintiffs' counsel will receive no payment for
their services.

If you remain a member of the Class, you may share in any recovery
obtained from Defendants through trial or settlement of this
Action.  As a Class member, you will have no financial obligations
or liability to anyone by remaining a Class member.  If Plaintiffs
win at trial or the Action is settled, you will be asked to fill
out and submit a claim form and to submit certain supporting
documents to demonstrate your purchases and sales (if any) of
Blackstone common units between June 21, 2007 and March 12, 2008.
There is no claim form available now.  But you are strongly urged
to obtain copies of your brokerage records relating to all of your
Blackstone common unit purchases and sales between June 21, 2007
and March 12, 2008 and to retain those copies in a secure place.
If the Action is successful for the Class, you will need to supply
copies of that documentation to support your claim for payment.

Finally, if you remain in the Class, you will bound by any
judgment entered in the Action as to any claim you have under the
Securities Act of 1933 against Defendants related to your
purchases of Blackstone common units between June 21, 2007 and
March 12, 2008 as alleged in the Action, whether Plaintiffs win or
lose the suit, and you will not have the right to bring a
separate, individual action to recover for any such claims should
you desire to do so and should you not already be barred by the
applicable statute of limitations from doing so.

RIGHT TO APPEAR AND BE REPRESENTED BY YOUR OWN COUNSEL

The Court has appointed Plaintiffs' counsel, which are firms that
have experience in the litigation of complex securities class
actions, as counsel for the Class.  If you remain in the Class,
you will be represented by those firms, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP and Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation.  You will
not be separately charged for the services of such lawyers in
connection with their representation of the Class.  If the lawsuit
results in a recovery for the Class, the Court will determine the
amount of any fees and reimbursement of expenses that may be
awarded, out of the recovery, to the lawyers representing the
Class.

If you wish to be represented by your own lawyer, you may, solely
at your own expense, hire an attorney to personally represent you
with respect to whatever individual claim you may have.  In the
event that you wish to hire your own counsel to represent you with
respect to any individual claims you may have, any such
attorney(s) must be admitted to practice before the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York and file a
formal Notice of Appearance on your behalf on the Court's
electronic filing system in this Action: Landmen Partners Inc. v.
The Blackstone Group, L.P., et al., 08-CV-03601-HB-FM, along with
all pretrial materials required by the Court's July 18, 2013 Trial
Notification by August 29, 2013 as it relates to such individual
claims.  You must be prepared to submit all pretrial materials
required by the Court's July 18, 2013 Trial Notification as it
relates to such individual claims no later than 5:00 p.m. (Eastern
Time) on August 29, 2013.

You may appear personally to represent yourself without counsel
and you do not need to be admitted to practice before the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.  This
is called appearing "pro se."  To appear on your own behalf
without counsel, you must file a Notice of Appearance with the
Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York along with all pretrial materials
required by the Court's July 18, 2013 Trial Notification as it
relates to your individual claims and deliver copies of such
Notice of Appearance along with all pretrial materials required by
the Court's July 18, 2013 Trial Notification as it relates to your
individual claims upon counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants, no
later than 5:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) on August 29, 2013.

Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants are:

Joseph Russello, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, New York 11747
Telephone: (631) 367-7100
E-mail: jrussello@rgrdlaw.com

Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs

Bruce D. Angiolillo, Esq.
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10017
Telephone: (212) 455-2000

Counsel for Defendants

If you wish to appear pro se, you are urged to contact the Pro Se
Office for the Southern District of New York to learn the
procedures for doing so.  The Pro Se Office for the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York is located at
The Daniel Patrick Moynihan Unites States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
Street, Room 200, New York, New York 10017.

RIGHT TO REQUEST EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS

You have the right to request to be excluded from the Class.

If you timely and properly request exclusion from the Class, you
will not be permitted to share in any recovery from Defendants
obtained by Plaintiffs on behalf of the Class members in this
Action, whether through trial or settlement.

If you timely and properly request exclusion from then Class, you
will retain any rights you have to sue Defendants yourself with
respect to the claims asserted in the Action to the extent those
claims are viable under the statute of limitations applicable to
claims under the Securities Act of 1933.  You should note that,
pursuant to a recent decision of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, entitled Police & Fire Ret. Sys.
v. Indymac MBS, Inc., Docket Nos. 11-2998-cv(L), 11-3036-cv(CON)
(2d Cir.), 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13203 (Jun. 27, 2013) (A copy of
this decision may be reviewed at
http://www.BlackstoneInvestorClassActionQuestions.com if you
exclude yourself from the Class you may forfeit any claims you may
have against Defendants related to Blackstone's IPO or your
purchases of Blackstone common units between June 21, 2007 and
March 12, 2008 under the Securities Act of 1933, because the
3-year statute of repose of the Securities Act of 1933 (which is
three years from the date the common units were bona fide offered
to the public) has otherwise expired.  It is therefore possible
that only members of the Class whose claims are tolled by virtue
of their continuing membership in the Class are able to pursue
those claims against Defendants under the law currently applicable
to this Action.  Before you decide to request exclusion from the
Class, you are urged to consult your own counsel, at your own
expense, to fully evaluate your rights and the consequences of
excluding yourself from the Class.

To exclude yourself from the Class, you must send a letter by mail
saying that you want to be excluded from this Action, Landmen
Partners Inc. v. The Blackstone Group, L.P., et al., 08-CV-03601-
HB-FM. Your exclusion request letter must state your name, current
address, your day-time and night-time telephone numbers, and
include your signature; clearly state that you wish to be excluded
from the Class in this Action; and set forth the number of
Blackstone common units you purchased, acquired, and/or sold
between June 21, 2007 and March 12, 2008, inclusive, the dates of
each of those purchases and /or sales and the prices paid and/or
received for each of those purchases and/or sales.

Exclusion request letters must be sent by first class United
States mail and postmarked no later than September 10, 2013, to:

Blackstone Securities Litigation c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC Notice
Administration P.O. Box 8040 San Rafael, CA 94912-8040

FURTHER INFORMATION

This Action has been pending for over five years.  The foregoing
information is only a summary to assist you in making a decision
regarding how you will exercise your rights as a Class member.  To
further assist you, additional information about this Action,
including Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
For Violations of the Federal Securities Laws, Defendants' Answer
of Defendants to the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws, the District
Court's ruling granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the Action,
dated September 22, 2009, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
decision reversing the dismissal of the Action dated February 10,
2011, and the Court's July 18, 2013 Trial Notification, are
available for your review at http://www.BlackstoneIPOCase.com

Additionally, should you have any question about this Notice, the
Action or your rights as a Class member, you can obtain further
information by writing to: Joseph Russello, at Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, New
York 11747, or Brian C. Kerr at Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, 33rd Floor, 475 Park Avenue South, New York, NY
10016, or by emailing your inquiry to
http://www.BlackstoneIPOCase.com

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, JUDGE BAER OR THE CLERK OF THE
COURT FOR THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. ALL INQUIRIES SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL.

SPECIAL NOTICE TO SECURITIES BROKERS AND OTHER NOMINEES

If you are a bank, broker or other entity who purchased or
acquired Blackstone common units in the IPO or in the open market
on the New York Stock Exchange between June 21, 2007 and March 12,
2008, inclusive, as nominee for a beneficial owner, then within
five (5) calendar days after you receive this Notice, you must
either: (a) provide a list of the names and addresses of such
beneficial owners to the Notice Administrator or (b) send a copy
of this Notice by first class mail to all such beneficial owners
(you may request additional copies of this Notice by contacting
the Notice Administrator):

Blackstone Securities Litigation c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC Notice
Administration P.O. Box 8040 San Rafael, CA 94912-8040

Clerk of the Court United States District Court Southern District
of New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007


BLUE CROSS: Court Dismisses Suit Because Claims Already Released
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
settlements in previous multidistrict litigation preclude
physicians from bringing claims against Blue Cross/Blue Shield for
conspiring to underpay doctors, a federal judge ruled.

In the multidistrict class action Thomas v. Blue Cross and Blue
Shield Ass'n, doctors claimed that WellPoint, Blue Cross/Blue
Shield, and Highmark conspired to systematically "deny, delay, and
diminish payments to them," according to the dismissal order in
Miami Federal Court.

Each defendant settled between 2005 and 2007, agreeing to pay
class members and changes their business practices.

The insurers paid class members more than $384 million, and spent
$535 million making internal changes, which had an estimated value
to the class of more than $3 billion.

In return, the plaintiffs signed broad releases prohibiting them
from bringing their claims back to court.

But in January this year, Dr. Corey Musselman filed a class action
based on similar claims, and sought a declaration that the
settlement agreements did not preclude his case.

U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno on Aug. 20 found for the
insurance companies, and ruled that Musselman's claims were
released under the prior litigation.

"The settlement agreement is clearly intended to embrace all
potential claims and not merely those that were expressly pled at
the time the record was frozen based on the parties' decision to
conduct settlement negotiations," Moreno wrote.

Musselman tried to distinguish between "denied, delayed, or
diminished payments," and manipulation of the rates of
reimbursement.

But "the court rejects plaintiffs' argument that rates of
reimbursement are not aspects of fee for service claims but are
more accurately considered aspects of the agreements between
providers and defendants. This distinction is artificial. The
amount a physician is paid is plainly an aspect of a fee for
service claim, whether or not reimbursement is addressed in a
contract or agreement between a participating provider and an
insurer," the 14-page opinion states.

Moreno concluded, "Here, the cause of action alleged so clearly
relates to matters of underpayment and non-payment of fee-for-
service claims, the court has no choice but to dismiss those
claims."

A copy of the Aug. 20, 2013, Order is available from Courthouse
News Service at: http://is.gd/9CgCKf


BUCCANEERS LP: Urges Court to Dismiss Spam Fax Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, reports that the Tampa Bay
Buccaneers asked a federal judge on Aug. 21 to scuttle accusations
that the franchise sent spam fax transmissions to Florida
residents, saying settlement offers had rendered the proposed
class action moot.

Buccaneers LP, which operates the NFL franchise, urged the court
to toss a proposed class action from Jeffrey M. Stein and five
other plaintiffs, saying the club had made settlement offers to
each of the plaintiffs of $1,500 for each fax they received.

That amount is equal to the statutory maximum that can be
recovered for a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, according to the Buccaneers, depriving the plaintiffs of an
interest in the outcome of the case since they had not filed a
motion for class certification when the offers were extended.

"Given that the offers of judgment provide the plaintiffs full
relief in this case, and the plaintiffs had not moved for class
certification at the time that the offers were made, this matter
is moot, defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction should be granted and the case should be dismissed
with prejudice," the motion said.

The offers were extended on Aug. 19, according to court records,
and the club is arguing that the plaintiffs lost their standing at
that time, regardless of a 14-day window during which litigants
are permitted to consider a settlement under procedural rules.

"The fact that plaintiffs' 14-day time frame to accept the offers
of judgment has not run as of the date of filing this motion is
irrelevant to the court's determination whether the plaintiffs'
claims are moot," the Buccaneers said.

The suit, filed in state court last month, alleges that in 2009
and 2010, the team peppered more than 100,000 fax numbers with
advertisements for tickets to home games that could be purchased
through the club's website or through Ticketmaster.

The faxes didn't include instructions on how recipients could opt
out of future messages, precluding the Buccaneers from proffering
a defense that the plaintiffs had consented to receiving
promotional materials from the company, according to the
complaint.

The suit brought three causes of action -- one under the TCPA and
two for violations of subsequent Federal Communications Commission
rules -- each of which asked for class certification, statutory
damages of between $500 and $1,500 for each facsimile sent to the
putative class, and an injunction halting further violations of
the TCPA statute or federal regulations.

The Buccaneers removed the suit to federal court and made the
settlement offers, and now argue that the court should follow the
lead of a judge in Florida's Southern District who ruled last
month in an unrelated text-spamming case that a class action
complaint does not prevent a claim from being rendered moot where
the sole plaintiff is offered full relief before moving for class
certification.

"The court concluded that the defendant's offer of judgment
provided plaintiff full relief in the case, and therefore
plaintiff's federal case was over as soon as the offer was made,"
the Buccaneers argued.

The team's motion also cited the U.S. Supreme Court's April ruling
in Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk, in which the high court
said a nurse's Fair Labor Standards Act collective action against
Genesis Healthcare Corp. couldn't proceed because the case was
properly dismissed after the employer's offer of full relief for
her individual claims rendered the case moot.

The Symczyk decision did not reach the question of whether an
unaccepted offer that fully satisfies a plaintiff's claim is
sufficient to render the claim moot, leaving in place a split
among the federal appeals courts.

The Buccaneers offered all the relief the plaintiffs could have
received -- the maximum statutory damages and a stipulated
injunction prohibiting future junk faxes -- depriving them of an
ongoing interest in the case's resolution, according to the
motion.

Representatives for the parties were not immediately available for
comment on Aug. 21.

The plaintiffs are represented by James M. Thomas of the Law
Office of James M. Thomas PA.

The Buccaneers are represented by Barry A. Postman --
barry.postman@csklegal.com -- and Justin C. Sorel --
justin.sorel@csklegal.com -- of Cole Scott & Kissane PA.

The case is Stein et al. v. Buccaneers LP, case number 8:13-cv-
02136, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.


CANADA LITHIUM: Ontario Court Allows Class Action to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Odendaal, writing for miningweekly.com, reports that the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice has permitted a class-action
lawsuit, initiated by Ontario-based Siskinds LLP against TSX-
listed Canada Lithium for misrepresentation of mineral resources,
to go to trial.

John Keyton and Hugh Latimer, on behalf of various shareholders,
accused the lithium miner of supplying misleading information in
an October 2010 resource statement and a January 2011 prospectus
regarding the volume of mineralized ore and the grade of lithium
at the company's Quebec lithium project.

The plaintiffs were seeking the cancellation and refund of shares
bought between October 28, 2010 and February 28, 2011 based on the
resource statement.

The losses were allegedly the result of Canada Lithium's March
2011 independent review of the mineral resource estimate for the
lithium project, which identified geological modelling errors and
led to a material reduction in the mineral resource estimate.

The company, along with deputy chairperson and CEO Peter Secker,
president and COO Charles Taschereau, director and VP for
explorations Mitchell Lavery and geologist Michelle Stone, who
were also named in the lawsuit, would defend the allegations and
denied that they would be proven at trial.

None of the allegations in the class action had been assessed or
determined by the court.

The class action excluded the defendants and the standstill
defendants, affiliates, officers, directors, senior employees,
legal representatives, heirs, predecessors and successors of the
company, besides others.

The action against standstill defendants Kerry Knoll, James
Fairbairn, Sheila Pickens, Patrick Mohan, Robert Cudney, Ian
MacDonald and Germaine Coombs was discontinued in 2012.


CLECO CORP: Plea to Review Customer Suit Ruling Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The request to review a ruling in favor of Cleco Corporation's
subsidiary remains pending in the 19th Judicial District Court for
Baton Rouge Parish, according to the Company's July 31, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In March 2010, a complaint was filed in the 27th Judicial District
Court of St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, on behalf of three
Cleco Power LLC customers in Opelousas, Louisiana.  The complaint
alleges that Cleco Power overcharged the plaintiffs by applying to
customers in Opelousas the same retail rates as Cleco Power
applies to all of its retail customers.  The plaintiffs claim that
Cleco Power owes customers in Opelousas more than $30.0 million as
a result of the alleged overcharges.  The plaintiffs allege that
Cleco Power should have established, solely for customers in
Opelousas, retail rates that are separate and distinct from the
retail rates that apply to other customers of Cleco Power and that
Cleco Power should not collect from customers in Opelousas the
storm surcharge approved by the Louisiana Public Service
Commission (LPSC) following hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Cleco Power currently operates in Opelousas pursuant to a
franchise granted to Cleco Power by the City of Opelousas in 1986
and an operating and franchise agreement dated May 14, 1991,
pursuant to which Cleco Power operates its own electric facilities
and leases and operates electric facilities owned by the City of
Opelousas.  In July 2011, the operating and franchise agreements
were amended and extended for a period of ten years, until August
2021.

In April 2010, Cleco Power filed a petition with the LPSC
appealing to its expertise in declaring that the ratepayers of
Opelousas have been properly charged the rates that are applicable
to Cleco Power's retail customers and that no overcharges have
been collected.  In addition, Cleco Power removed the purported
class action lawsuit filed on behalf of Opelousas electric
customers from the state court to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana in April 2010, so that it could be
properly addressed under the terms of the Class Action Fairness
Act.

In May 2010, a second class action lawsuit was filed in the 27th
Judicial District Court for St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana,
repeating the allegations of the first complaint, which was
submitted on behalf of 249 Opelousas residents.  Cleco Power
responded in the same manner as with the first class action
lawsuit.  In September 2010, the federal court remanded both cases
to the state court in which they were originally filed for further
proceedings.  In January 2011, the presiding judge in the state
court proceeding ruled that the jurisdiction to hear the two class
actions resides in the state court and not with the LPSC as argued
by both Cleco and the LPSC Staff.  Both Cleco and the LPSC Staff
appealed this ruling to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for the
State of Louisiana (Third Circuit).  In September 2011, the Third
Circuit denied both appeals.  In October 2011, both Cleco and the
LPSC appealed the Third Circuit's ruling to the Louisiana Supreme
Court.  In November 2011, the Louisiana Supreme Court granted the
appeals and remanded the case to the Third Circuit for further
briefing, argument, and opinion.  In February 2011, the
administrative law judge (ALJ) in the LPSC proceeding ruled that
the LPSC has jurisdiction to decide the claims raised by the class
action plaintiffs.

At its December 2011 Business and Executive Session, the LPSC
adopted the ALJ's recommendation that Cleco be granted summary
judgment in its declaratory action finding that Cleco's ratepayers
in the City of Opelousas have been served under applicable rates
and policies approved by the LPSC and Cleco's Opelousas ratepayers
have not been overcharged in connection with LPSC rates or
ratemaking.  In January 2012, the class action plaintiffs filed
their appeal of such LPSC decision to the 19th Judicial District
Court for Baton Rouge Parish, State of Louisiana.  In February
2012, the Third Circuit ruled that the state court, and not the
LPSC, has jurisdiction to hear the case.  In March 2012, Cleco
Power appealed the Third Circuit's ruling to the Louisiana Supreme
Court asking that it overturn the Third Circuit decision and
confirm the LPSC's exclusive jurisdiction over this matter.  The
LPSC also appealed the Third Circuit's ruling to the Louisiana
Supreme Court in March 2012.  In May 2012, the Louisiana Supreme
Court granted the writ application of Cleco Power and the LPSC and
set the matter for further briefing on the merits of the
jurisdiction question raised in the writ application.

In December 2012, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued its opinion
accepting Cleco's jurisdictional arguments and dismissed the state
court claims.  The only matter remaining is before the 19th
Judicial District Court to review the LPSC ruling in Cleco's favor
that it had properly charged the ratepayers of Opelousas.

In view of the uncertainty of the claims, management is not able
to predict or give a reasonable estimate of the possible range of
liability, if any, of these claims.  However, if it is found that
Cleco Power overcharged customers resulting in a refund, any such
refund could have a material adverse effect on the Registrants'
results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows.

Headquartered in Pineville, Louisiana, Cleco Corporation is a
regional energy company that conducts substantially all of its
business operations through its two primary subsidiaries: (1)
Cleco Power LLC, a regulated electric utility company, which owns
nine generating units, and (2) Cleco Midstream Resources LLC, a
wholesale energy business, which owns Cleco Evangeline LLC, which
operates the Coughlin Power Station.


COCA-COLA CO: Sued to Stop From Allegedly Deceiving Consumers
-------------------------------------------------------------
George Engurasoff and Joshua Ogden, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. The Coca-Cola Company and Coca-
Cola Refreshments USA, Inc., Case No. 4:13-cv-03990 (N.D. Cal.,
August 27, 2013) is brought not only to recover damages, but to
stop the Defendants from continuing to engage in alleged unlawful
actions and from continuing to deceive consumers.

The Plaintiffs allege that the containers of Coca-Cola, the
world's most popular soft drink, fail to state that they contain
artificial flavoring or chemical preservatives.  The Plaintiffs
contend that many containers of Coca-Cola affirmatively and
falsely state that they contain no artificial flavoring or
chemical preservatives, in violation of both federal law and
California state law.

George Engurasoff and Joshua Ogden are residents of San Jose,
California.  Both Plaintiffs purchased more than $25 worth of
Coca-Cola in San Francisco or Alameda County, within the four
years preceding the filing of this action.

The Coca-Cola Company and Coca-Cola Refreshments are Delaware
corporations with their principal place of business at One Coca-
Cola Plaza, in Atlanta, Georgia.  The Coca-Cola Company is the
world's largest beverage company and has the world's largest
beverage distribution system.  Coca-Cola Refreshments is The Coca-
Cola Company's bottling and customer service organization for
North America.  Coca-Cola Refreshments manufactures, distributes,
and sells approximately 88% of The Coca-Cola Company's unit case
volume in the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
          PRATT & ASSOCIATES
          1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
          San Jose, CA 95126
          Telephone: (408) 429-6506
          Facsimile: (408) 369-0752
          E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Still Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee;
namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health
Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community
Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis
Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
et al., filed June 21, 2011.  All three seek class certification
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between
July 27, 2006, and April 11, 2011, and allege that misleading
statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for the
Company's common stock.  In December 2011, the cases were
consolidated for pretrial purposes and NYC Funds and its counsel
were selected as lead plaintiffs/lead plaintiffs' counsel.  The
Company's motion to dismiss this case has been fully briefed and
is pending before the court.  The Company believes this
consolidated matter is without merit and will vigorously defend
this case.

No further updates were reported in the Company's July 31, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Community Health Systems, Inc. -- http://www.chs.net/-- is a
publicly-traded operator of hospitals in the United States.  The
Company provides healthcare services through the hospitals that it
owns and operates in non-urban and selected urban markets.  The
Company generates revenues by providing a broad range of general
and specialized hospital and other outpatient healthcare services
to patients in the communities in which it is located.  The
Company is headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.


COSMOPOLITAN OF LAS VEGAS: Employees May Join Wage-and-Hour Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thierman Law Firm on Aug. 22 disclosed that beginning August 30,
2013, pursuant to the order of United States District Court
Magistrate Judge George Folely, Jr., over 7,000 present and former
employees of Deutsche Bank's Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas hotel
resort and casino will be mailed a copy of an official federal
court notice and given the opportunity to participate in what is
likely one of largest wage and overtime lawsuit in Nevada history.
According to Plaintiff's class counsel attorney Mark R. Thierman
of Reno, Nevada, the mailing in the case of Darlene Lewis v.
Nevada Property 1, LLC, d/b/a the Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas,
Nevada federal Court Case No.: 2:12-cv-01564-MMD-GWF, is going
forward because the parties failed to reach a satisfactory
settlement at mediation.  According to Josh Buck, another attorney
for the plaintiff class in the case, given the sheer size of the
class affected this is likely one of the largest wage hour class
action to receive conditional certification and court ordered
notice in the history of the state of Nevada.  Those who receive
notice must complete the form and return it or they will not be
entitled to participate in any award of wages, overtime and/or
liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the federal
wage hour law.  State law claims, including a claim for 30 days of
pay for any employee who was terminated by the employer without
payment in full of the wages he or she was due under this lawsuit,
will be litigated later.

The lawsuit seeks over 70 Million dollars for employees who,
according to company documents, were required to change into and
out of company uniforms on site without compensation.  Some of
these employees were also required to pick up, reconcile and drop
off their "cash bank" at designated cashier locations "off the
clock" before they clocked in and/or after they clocked out for
the day.  The suit also alleges a miscalculation of the overtime
rate of pay.  In addressing Defendant's denial of liability the
federal court order stated: "Defendant's argument would be more
persuasive were it not for the "CoStar Guidebook" which stated
that 'all CoStars provided with uniforms are expected to report to
the Garment District daily to obtain the uniform for the day and
return the uniform to The Garment District at the end of the
shift.'" Mr. Thierman added, "Defendant broke the law, then
documented it, and now claims it didn't happen -- that's absurd."

The case arose from the Cosmopolitan's August 2011 decision to
terminate Melodee Megia a "room service sales clerk" in her ninth
month of pregnancy, on the grounds she said "bye-bye" instead of
"good bye" after she finished taking a customer's order over the
phone.  Represented by the same attorneys, Megia filed a pregnancy
discrimination lawsuit in Nevada State Court in Clark County based
upon a series of offensive remarks by her supervisor and the
trivial nature of the company's reason for her termination.  Her
complaint also alleged the employer required workers to work off
the clock without compensation in violation of state labor laws.
The Megia case was widely reported especially in the Filipino
community, which represents a large percentage of the service
worker industry and has a long history of respecting traditional
family values like motherhood.  Ms. Lewis' complaint was filed
subsequently in federal court because she alleged federal law
violations from working employees off the clock claims as well.

Although local papers report union organizing continues at the
hotel, the two actions do not claim to be related.  It's more than
a coincidence that those who were mistreated at work would seek
union representation, said attorney Thierman, but there is no
official link between our litigation and the union's organizing
attempt.  A copy of both the Lewis overtime and the Megia
discrimination cases and a consent to join form can be found at
http://thiermanlaw.com/case-information/

Contact: Mark Thierman, Esq.
         Thierman Law Firm
         Telephone: (775) 284-1500
         Fax: (775) 703-5027
         E-mail: mark@thiermanlaw.com


CYPRUS: Class Action Suit Mulled Over Bank Bailout
--------------------------------------------------
Stefanos Evripidou, writing for Cyprus Mail, reports that the
UK-based Anglo-Hellenic and Cypriot Law Association is organizing
a conference in Nicosia in September to gauge the level of
interest in a class action suit against the troika's decision to
'bail-in' the island's biggest banks.

In a statement released on Aug. 21, the association said the
troika's "unprecedented" decision to impose a haircut on deposits
in Laiki Bank and Bank of Cyprus (BoC) last March "caused
unbearable problems" for many citizens who saw their life savings
vanish.

The association argued that no explanation for the haircut was
given beyond vague references to Cyprus' serious financial
problems and near bankruptcy.  In particular, no explanation was
given on why this measure was implemented "for the first time in
Cyprus on unsuspecting and innocent depositors".

The Anglo-Greek association of Cypriot and Greek lawyers described
the troika's measure on Cyprus as arbitrary and lacking respect
for the individual and their property.

The association acknowledged that many depositors have already
applied to the Supreme Court of Cyprus seeking justice, noting
that this effort has yet to yield any result beyond the referral
of these cases to the district courts.

As a result, many depositors are seeking advice on whether can
claim compensation against the troika in international courts for
the losses suffered as a result of the decision to wind down
Laiki, wiping out uninsured deposits, and impose a 47.5 per cent
haircut on BoC's large depositors.

According to its announcement, the association has decided to file
actions challenging the troika measures at the European Court of
Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg.

The cases have been assigned to Sir Francis Jacobs (Professor of
European Law at King's College London and former rapporteur at the
ECJ), and London-based barrister Takis Tridimas (Counsellor to the
European Commission and European Central Bank).

The two will be assisted by Highgate Hills Solicitors based in
London.

The association hopes to use the conference to inform the public
on the prospect of group action against the troika. The location
and date will be determined depending on the size of interest
among the public.

Those interested in taking part are requested to contact Highgate
Hill Solicitors or the Anglo-Hellenic and Cypriot Law Association
at +44-207-2636445 or via email at
Highgatehillsolicitors.eu.cy@cytauk.net

Meanwhile, another London-based lawyer has already filed six cases
at the ECJ against the European Commission and European Central
Bank (ECB).

The nature of the claims, however, dictated a two-month time
limitation from the signing of the memorandum between Cyprus and
its foreign lenders on March 26, 2013, meaning the window of
opportunity closed on May 27, 2013.

Christakis Pascalides filed the cases against the two European
institutions on behalf of three Cyprus-based companies (two
foreign interest, one local) and three individuals (Cyprus
residents).

Speaking to the Cyprus Mail, he argued that most Cypriot lawyers
adopted the view that the statute of limitations to file a claim
against the EU institutions at the ECJ was five years.  This is
correct, but only if one is applying for damages on the basis of
strict liability, where the only thing to be decided is the size
of damages to be awarded following losses incurred by depositors.

Mr. Pascalides argued the ECJ might not view the matter as one of
strict liability, and may wish to hear evidence on causation as to
how the haircut came about and what the basis of it was.  With
that in mind, Mr. Pascalides' firm filed six claims against the
Commission and ECB at the EU's Court of Justice, within the two-
month time period, challenging the memorandum signed between the
two EU institutions and the Cyprus Republic.

The essence of the claims is that the preconditions imposed on the
Cyprus government in the memorandum which led to the haircut of
Laiki and BoC deposits were "unacceptable and irregular and should
not have been imposed".

"Quite a few lawyers in Cyprus did not comprehend the fact that if
you are challenging the memorandum, you had to file within two
months," he said.

"We decided to get six cases running in the ECJ on a technical
basis.  The Commission and ECB have been served and we are waiting
for their reply."

Mr. Pascalides said many depositors had approached the firm to
seek redress at the ECJ, but that he recommends waiting to see how
the ECB and Commission respond to the six test cases filed within
the two-month time limit before filing new claims under the five-
year time limitation.

"If there is a decision in favor of persons and companies for the
loss suffered as a result of the haircut, this will open the
floodgates for all the others," he said.


ERNST & YOUNG: Can Enforce Arbitration in Wage-and-Hour Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Abigail Rubenstein, writing for Law360, reports that the Ninth
Circuit ruled on Aug. 21 that Ernst & Young LLP's arbitration
agreement, which contains a class waiver, should be applied in a
wage-and-hour suit against the accounting giant, and refused to
follow the National Labor Relations Board's controversial D.R.
Horton decision.

The appeals court held that a California federal court had erred
in denying Ernst & Young's bid to force arbitration in a state law
wage-and-hour class action led by former financial managing
associate Michelle Richards because the company had waived its
right to arbitrate by not raising the issue as a defense in an
action brought by two former employees, whose case was
consolidated with Ms. Richards' suit.

"Because Ms. Richards has not established any prejudice as a
result of Ernst & Young's alleged delay in asserting its arbitral
rights, we reverse the judgment of the district court," the Ninth
Circuit's per curiam opinion said.

Ernst & Young had argued in the appeal that it did not move to
compel arbitration in the case until after the U.S. Supreme Court
issued its ruling in favor of arbitration class waivers in AT&T
Mobility v. Concepcion because prior to that both the Ninth
Circuit and the California Supreme Court had held that class
action waivers in employee arbitration agreements were
unconscionable.

The plaintiffs argued that Ernst & Young had deliberately delayed,
but the Ninth Circuit found that even though the district court
had trimmed meal break claims and a claim for injunctive relief
from Ms. Richards' suit and Richards' had incurred discovery
costs, she was not prejudiced by Ernst & Young's decision not to
seek arbitration sooner.

The court then rebuffed the plaintiffs' alternate argument that it
should follow the NLRB's D.R. Horton decision, which found it to
be a violation of federal labor law for an employer to require as
a condition of employment that employees agree to waive their
rights to bring class claims in any forum.

Noting that the overwhelming majority of courts to consider D.R.
Horton had found it to be in conflict with the explicit
pronouncements of the Supreme Court concerning the policies
undergirding the Federal Arbitration Act, the Ninth Circuit
declined to follow the NLRB's ruling.

The Supreme Court has ruled that courts must rigorously enforce
arbitration agreements according to their terms unless the FAA's
mandate has been overturned by a contrary congressional command,
and Congress did not explicitly include such a command in federal
labor law, the Ninth Circuit said.

The court stated that because it found that the district court
should have compelled arbitration, and because the arbitration
agreement between Ernst & Young and Richards precludes class
arbitration, it was also vacating the district court's order
certifying a class of litigants with Richards as its
representative.

An attorney for Ms. Richards, Max Folkenflik --
MFolkenflik@fmlaw.net -- of Folkenflik & McGerity, told Law360
that he plans to appeal the case further.

"The decision in my opinion opens the door to parties with
arbitration clauses attempting to game the system by starting in
litigation and moving to arbitration if it's not going their way,
so we intend to file a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc
pointing this out to the court," Mr. Folkenflik said.

An attorney for Ernst & Young declined to comment.

The case marks the second recent appeals court victory for Ernst &
Young in enforcing its class waiver in wage-and-hour cases.

On Aug. 9, the Second Circuit ruled that the company's individual
arbitration agreement should be applied in a proposed collective
action accusing the firm of misclassifying its accountants as
overtime-exempt, ruling that the Fair Labor Standards Act does not
contain a contrary congressional command that would prohibit the
enforcement of class action waivers.  The Second Circuit also
declined to follow D.R. Horton.

Judges Consuelo Callahan, Mary Shroeder and Kenneth Francis Ripple
sat on the panel for the Ninth Circuit.

Ms. Richards is represented by H. Tim Hoffman --
hth@hoffmanandlazear.com -- Arthur W. Lazear --
awl@hoffmanandlazear.com -- and Ross Libenson of Hoffman & Lazear
and Max Folkenflik -- mmm@hoffmanandlazear.com -- of Folkenflik &
McGerity.

Ernst & Young is represented by Rex Heinke -- rheinke@akingump.com
-- Daniel Nash -- dnash@akingump.com -- Gregory Knopp --
gknopp@akingump.com -- and Katharine J. Galston --
kgalston@akingump.com -- of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.

The case is Richards v. Ernst & Young LLP, case number 11-17530,
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


EXPEDIA INC: Robins Geller Files Class Action in Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Aug. 27 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington on behalf of purchasers of
Expedia, Inc. common stock during the period between July 27, 2012
and July 25, 2013.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from August 27, 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/expedia/

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 Expedia and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Expedia, together with its subsidiaries, operates as an online
travel company in the United States and internationally.  In 2011,
Expedia split into two publicly traded companies by spinning off
the TripAdvisor brand of travel sites.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and prospects, including the impact that
spinning off TripAdvisor would have on Expedia's revenues and
profits.  As a result of defendants' false statements and/or
omissions, Expedia's stock traded at artificially inflated levels
during the Class Period.

On July 25, 2013, after the close of trading, Expedia issued a
press release announcing its second quarter 2013 financial results
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.  Expedia's second-quarter
2013 profit fell to $71.5 million from $105.2 million a year
earlier.  Overall, bookings rose only 13%, well below the 19%
surge the Company posted during fiscal 2012.  The Company also
lowered its guidance for 2013 adjusted earnings, predicting growth
in the mid to high single digits.  In response to this
announcement, on July 26, 2013, the price of Expedia common stock
declined $17.80 per share -- or more than 27% -- on extremely high
trading volume.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period defendants
misrepresented or failed to disclose the following adverse facts
which were known to or recklessly disregarded by them: (a) that
following the spin-off, TripAdvisor had been directing a
significant amount of lucrative web traffic to Expedia pursuant to
an informal strategic partnership between the two companies that
inured to the benefit of Expedia and to the detriment of
TripAdvisor; (b) that the lucrative web traffic directed to
Expedia from TripAdvisor following the spin-off had been a
material source of Expedia's outsized revenues following the spin-
off; (c) that TripAdvisor would stop directing web traffic to
Expedia in early 2013; and (d) that performance at the Company's
Hotwire unit was failing.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Expedia common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). 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.


FRITO-LAY: Unlawfully Sold Misbranded Food Products, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Figy and Mary Swearingen, for themselves and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc.,
Case No. 3:13-cv-03988 (N.D. Cal., August 27, 2013) seeks to
recover for the injuries suffered by the Plaintiffs and the Class
as a direct result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful sale of
misbranded food products.

Under California law, misbranded food products cannot be legally
sold or possessed, have no economic value and are legally
worthless, the Plaintiffs assert.  By selling illegal products to
the unsuspecting the Plaintiffs, the Defendant profited at their
expense and unlawfully deprived them of the money they paid to
purchase illegal food products, the Plaintiffs contend.

Robert Figy and Mary Swearingen are citizens of the state of
California.  During the Class Period, the Plaintiffs purchased, in
San Francisco, California, Frito-Lay's Rold Gold Pretzels, among
other products, that were unlawfully labeled "Low Fat" or "Fat
Free"despite containing a disqualifying amount of sodium
necessitating a disclosure statement not present on the label.

Frito-Lay is a Texas corporation with its principal place of
business in Plano, Texas.  Frito-Lay manufactures, advertises,
markets and sells alleged misbranded food products to tens of
thousands of consumers nationwide, including many residing in
California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
          PRATT & ASSOCIATES
          1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
          San Jose, CA 95126
          Telephone: (408) 429-6506
          Facsimile: (408) 369-0752
          E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com


GOOGLE INC: Five U.S. Privacy Groups Oppose $8.5MM Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Loek Essers, writing for IDG News Service, report that five U.S.
privacy groups have opposed a proposed $8.5 million settlement
with Google in a class action lawsuit over search privacy, as it
fails to require Google to change its business practices, they
said.

Google was sued in October 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The Internet giant allegedly
transmitted user search queries to third parties without their
knowledge or consent in order to enhance advertising revenue and
profitability.  Google shares search queries "via referrer
headers," according to a court document.

The headers identify the address of a Web page that linked to the
current page.  When a Google user clicks on a link from Google's
search results page, the owner of the website that the user clicks
on will receive from Google the user's search terms in the
referrer header because the search terms are included in the URL.

The search terms can contain users' real names, street addresses,
phone numbers, credit card numbers and social security numbers,
all of which increases the risk of identity theft, according to
the original complaint.  Those queries can also contain highly-
personal and sensitive issues, such as confidential medical
information, racial or ethnic origins, political or religious
beliefs or sexuality, according to the complaint.  "The proposed
agreement provides for a single settlement class, in this case all
persons in the U.S. who submitted a search query to Google at any
time from Oct. 25, 2006 until the date of the notice of the
proposed class action settlement."

On Aug. 19, the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit filed a
motion for settlement.  Google has agreed to pay $8.5 million in
cash into a settlement fund, according to the motion.

The proposed agreement provides for a single settlement class, in
this case all persons in the U.S. who submitted a search query to
Google at any time from Oct. 25, 2006 until the date of the notice
of the proposed class action settlement, according to the
document.

The money however will not be divided among all Google users in
the U.S., but rather be paid to organizations that can protect the
interests of individuals.

Part of the settlement fee is meant to cover settlement
administration expenses and part will be paid to the World Privacy
Forum, Carnegie-Mellon, Berkman Center for Internet and Society at
Harvard University and Stanford Center for Internet and Society
among others, according to the document.

The recipients must agree to devote the funds to promote public
awareness and education, and/or to support research, development,
and initiatives, related to protecting privacy on the Internet,
according to the proposed settlement.
Changing its ways

Besides a monetary settlement, Google also agreed to notify users
as to its conduct so that users can make informed choices about
whether and how to use Google search.

But the settlement proposal is not good enough, according to
privacy organizations including the Electronic Privacy Information
Center, Consumer Watchdog, Patient Privacy Rights, the Center for
Digital Democracy and the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.

In a joint letter sent to Judge Edward J. Davila on Aug. 22, they
urge him not to accept the proposed settlement.

The main problem with the proposal is that it fails to require
Google to change its business practices, they said.

"The only change brought about by the proposed settlement is a
modification of Google's privacy policy to allow the company to
continue the disputed practice," they wrote, adding that privacy
notices are widely ineffective because users don't read them.  If
users read them, it requires considerable sophistication as well
as a considerable amount of time.  Also, reading a notice
typically produces no practical benefit because the terms are pre-
determined by the companies and may be changed at any time, the
groups added.

"Thus, additional notice will provide no meaningful benefit to the
class.  To the contrary, the revised notice will essentially
ratify the company's continuation of the practice that gave rise
to this suit," they said.

The proposed settlement also fails to provide any monetary relief
to the class, they wrote.  Of the organizations that will benefit
from the settlement, with the exception of the World Privacy
Forum, none have the protection of privacy as a mission, they
added.

"The absence of a benefit to the class combined with the proposed
allocation of awards to institutions not aligned with the
interests of class members is not accidental," the privacy groups
wrote.

"Proposed class counsel, seeking to settle the matter and obtain
their fees, have prioritized their own personal financial
interests above the interests of the Class.  It may serve their
interests to have the preliminary settlement approved; it serves
the putative Class members not all.  For these reasons, the
preliminary settlement agreement should be rejected," they added.

The plaintiffs asked Judge Davila to grant preliminary approval of
the proposed class action settlement on Aug. 23.


HUNTSMAN CORP: Agreed to Settle TiO2 Direct Purchasers' Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Huntsman Corporation disclosed in its July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013, that it agreed to pay an amount not
material to its consolidated financial statements to settle the
claims of direct purchasers of titanium dioxide sold in the U.S.

The Company has been named as a defendant in consolidated class
action civil antitrust lawsuits filed on February 9, and 12, 2010,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging
that the Company and its co-defendants and other asserted co-
conspirators conspired to fix prices of titanium dioxide sold in
the U.S. between at least March 1, 2002, and the present.  The
other defendants named in this matter are DuPont, Kronos and
Cristal (formerly Millennium).  On August 28, 2012, the court
certified a class consisting of all U.S. customers who purchased
titanium dioxide directly from defendants (the "Direct
Purchasers") since February 1, 2003.

The Company has also been named as a defendant in a class action
civil antitrust lawsuit filed on March 15, 2013, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California by
purchasers of products made from titanium dioxide (the "Indirect
Purchasers") making essentially the same allegations as the Direct
Purchasers.

On July 15, 2013, the Company agreed to pay an amount not material
to its consolidated financial statements to settle the claims of
the Direct Purchasers.  Although the Company vigorously deny any
wrongdoing alleged in the litigation, the Company determined to
enter into the settlement to avoid the burdens and uncertainties
inherent in complex litigation.  In exchange for the settlement
payment, the Company will receive from the Direct Purchasers a
release of all claims against it, as described in the settlement
agreement.  The settlement is subject to final approval by the
court after notice is given to the class members.

The Company says it had fully accrued for this matter as of
June 30, 2013.  The settlement does not resolve the Indirect
Purchasers litigation and, while it is difficult to reasonably
estimate any loss or range of loss associated with these kinds of
complex claims, the Company does not believe that costs related to
this matter will be material to its consolidated financial
statements.  No accrual has been made for the Indirect Purchasers
litigation.

Headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, Huntsman Corporation is a
global manufacturer of differentiated organic chemical products
and of inorganic chemical products.  The Company's products
comprise a broad range of chemicals and formulations, which the
Company markets globally to a diversified group of consumer and
industrial customers.


J.M. SMUCKER: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Over Labels
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Watkins, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
Smucker's cannot trash a potential class action alleging that it
mislabels Crisco Oil products as "all natural," a federal judge
ruled.

In a federal complaint earlier this year, Diane Parker claimed the
J.M. Smucker Co. deceives consumers by labeling Crisco Pure
Vegetable Oil, Crisco Pure Canola Oil, Crisco Pure Corn Oil and
Crisco Natural Blend Oil as "all natural."  She said the oils are
actually made with genetically modified (GM) crops, and are "so
heavily processed that they bear no chemical resemblance to the
ingredients from which they were derived."

Parker, who hopes to represent a class of oil purchasers, said it
would be impossible for Smucker's oils not to contain genetically
modified (GM) ingredients because "70% of U.S. corn, over 90% of
U.S. soy, and over 80% of U.S. canola crops are GM."

The California resident also claimed that Smucker's tricks
consumers "into buying products they otherwise would have avoided,
whether due to health concerns or mere preference" because
products with an "all natural" label are perceived to be "better,
healthier, and more wholesome."

Smucker's used standing and federal pre-emption as a basis to
dismiss the amended class action. The Ohio-based retailer said
Parker had failed to provide enough evidence that the oils
contained genetically modified ingredients, and that her claim
conflicted with both Federal Drug Administration policies on
bioengineered foods and federal food labeling regulations.

U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti shot the challenge down Aug. 23,
finding that Parker had shown it was "more than a sheer
possibility" that the oils contain genetically modified
ingredients.

Claims of federal pre-emption also failed to stick.

"Various parties have repeatedly asked the FDA to rule on
'natural' labeling, and the FDA has declined to do so because of
its limited resources and preference to focus on other
priorities," Conti wrote.

The action makes no mention of Smucker's other products, such as
ice cream toppings and peanut butter.

A copy of the 17-page Order dated Aug. 23, 2013, is available from
Courthouse News Service at: http://is.gd/6UkmAo


LIGHTINTHEBOX HOLDING: Robins Geller Files Class Action in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Aug. 27 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
LightInTheBox Holding Co., Ltd. American Depository Shares
("ADSs") during the period between its June 6, 2013 initial public
stock offering ("IPO") and August 19, 2013, inclusive.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from today. 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/lightinthebox/

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 LightInTheBox and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  LightInTheBox, organized under the laws of the Cayman
Islands and headquartered in Beijing, China, is a global online
retail company that sells directly to consumers via the Internet.
The Company offers products in three core categories: apparel
(including wedding dresses), small accessories and gadgets, and
home and garden.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance and future prospects.  In
particular, defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose the
following adverse facts, which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them: (a) LightInTheBox's sales growth
had dramatically decreased during the second quarter of 2013, the
period ended June 30, 2013; (b) LightInTheBox's costs had grown
more than its sales during the second quarter of 2013; and (c) as
a result of the foregoing, the Company was not on track to achieve
the financial results defendants had led the market to expect
during the Class Period.

On August 19, 2013, after the close of trading, the Company issued
a press release announcing its actual second quarter 2013
financial results for the quarter ended June 30, 2013, less than
one month after the IPO.  Rather than the earnings of $.06 per
share on revenues of $75.8 million the investment community had
been led to expect, LightInTheBox reported revenues of just $72.2
million and profits (excluding items) of $.05 per share.  In
addition, revenues rose only 52.6% while operating costs rose 57%.
The Company also forecast revenues of just $68-$70 million for the
third quarter of 2013 (ending just a little more than a month
away, on September 30, 2013), whereas analysts had been led to
expect $75.8 million.  On this news, the price of LightInTheBox
ADSs, which had traded as high as $23.38 per share in intraday
trading during the Class Period (on August 14, 2013), plummeted
approximately 40% from their close on August 19, 2013, to close
below $12 per share on August 20, 2013.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
LightInTheBox ADSs 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.


LIME ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit to Be Heard Oct. 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
A status hearing on a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities
lawsuit has been set for October 24, 2013, according to Lime
Energy Co.'s July 31, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,
2012.

The putative class action captioned Satterfield v. Lime Energy Co.
et al., Case No. 12-cv-5704 (N.D. Ill.) was filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's securities between May 14, 2008, and
December 27, 2012, inclusive.  Following an announcement by the
Company dated July 17, 2012, four separate putative class actions
were filed alleging violations of the federal securities laws.
The four cases were consolidated.  Pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"), on
October 26, 2012, the Court appointed Lead Plaintiffs.  The Lead
Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on
January 18, 2013, alleging that Defendants (the Company, John
O'Rourke, Jeffrey Mistarz and David Asplund) issued false and
misleading statements concerning Lime's revenues during the class
period and thereby artificially inflated the Company's stock
price.  On May 15, 2013, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss,
arguing that the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
failed to plead facts sufficient to establish a "strong inference"
that the Defendants acted with scienter (i.e., either knowingly or
recklessly) in connection with any of the alleged misstatements,
as required by the PSLRA.  The Plaintiffs' response to the motion
to dismiss was filed on July 22, 2013, and the Defendants' reply
was due August 22, 2013.  A status hearing on the motion before
Judge Gettleman has been set for October 24, 2013.

Lime Energy Co. -- http://www.lime-energy.com/-- designs and
implements energy efficiency programs that enable its utility
clients to reach their underserved markets and achieve their
energy reduction goals.  Utility-sponsored energy efficiency
programs help reduce customer demand for electricity.  The Company
is headquartered in Huntersville, North Carolina.


MAHWAH, NJ: Affordable Housing Owners Mull Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Mazzola, writing for Mahwah Patch, reports that Mahwah may
be the town to decide whether or not a state regulation regarding
Affordable Housing is legitimate, thanks to a group of about 150
residents who say they are organizing to sue the township.

The group owns affordable housing units in Mahwah purchased some
time in the past 25 years.  The homes are coming upon their
maturation point, which potentially means that residents could
sell them at full market value, as opposed to the COAH-regulated
affordable value they've been held to for the past quarter
century.

Over the past several months, township officials have held
meetings informing residents of a state regulation passed in 2004,
known as the "95-5" rule, which states that if an affordable
housing homeowner sells at full market value, 95% of the
difference between the affordable rate and the full-market value,
goes to the town's Affordable Housing fund.  According to township
attorney Andy Fede, Mahwah's interpretation of the state
regulation is that Mahwah is obligated to enforce it, and that it
is retroactive, applying to all of the 25-year-old units in town.

About 150 of the affordable housing unit owners say the rule isn't
fair, and they are willing to go to court to prove it.

"A lot of people have owned these homes for 25 years, and were
banking on this money," resident and affordable housing unit owner
Joe Gill told Patch.  "We have contracts, and the problem is that
you can't just pull those back."

Mr. Gill says he is no exception.  He's owned his condo in Mahwah
for about 10 years.  The single dad grew up in the township, and
says his unit was recently appraised for $70,000 more than what he
would make selling it at its affordable rate.

"We are not talking a few thousand bucks," he said.  "That's a lot
of money.  That could be my daughter's college tuition."

According to Mr. Gill, he and others facing the 95-5 rule are
organizing to file a class-action lawsuit against the township.
The group has been handing out fliers, knocking on doors, and
attempting to spread awareness of the suit in order to get "as
many [affected] people as possible to join in," Mr. Gill said.

So far, about 150 are involved, but hundreds more affordable
housing unit owners could become involved, he said.  However, the
group is currently in talks with legal representation, and cannot
accept any more defendants to sign onto the suit after the end of
the month.

"Once we sign on for this, it's closed," Mr. Gill said.  "So we
are trying to find everyone who could be involved now."

Mr. Fede said on Aug. 21 he could not comment further on the
matter because potential litigation against the township is
involved.

Mayor Bill Laforet said after three recent Affordable Housing
Commission meetings discussing the 95-5 rule with residents, he
was expecting the lawsuit.

"The only way to get this decided is by a judge," he said on
Aug. 21.  "We are not objecting to that. We've been encouraging
residents to get organized."

Residents can get more information about the class action lawsuit
by reaching out to mahwahaffordableowners@yahoo.com or to Chris
Davey at 926 Juniper Way.


MAPLEWOOD MARKETS: Nov. 12 Settlement Final Approval Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Stueve Hodges, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record,
reports that St. Clair County Circuit Judge Vincent Lopinot set a
final approval hearing for Nov. 12 in a class action settlement in
a lawsuit against a Cahokia grocery store.

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

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

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

Judge Lopinot on Aug. 14 ordered the parties in the case to submit
a motion for final approval of class action settlement no later
than seven days prior to the final approval hearing.

According to the motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement, the terms of the settlement agreement impose a
permanent injunction on the defendant to comply with the Illinois
Check Cashing Act.  Defendant will charge the greater of $.50 or
1% of the face value of the check cashed for all customers of the
defendant's store until such time as defendant applies and
receives a different license or permit from Illinois that would
enable the defendant to charge a fee exceeding the limits of the
Illinois Check Cashing Act.

Also according to the settlement agreement, the defendant is to
pay $10,000 to the plaintiff and his attorneys, which sum shall
cover any and all amounts due plaintiff, a class representative
incentive award, notice fees, filing and service of process fees,
and attorney's fees.

Plaintiff Willie Hadley shall receive $800 as an incentive award
for "his time effort and services as class representative, which
shall be payable and delivered to class counsel within 30 days of
the date the Court grants final approval of this settlement,"
according to the class action settlement agreement and release.

Class counsel shall receive a $9,200 payment, subject to court
approval.

Hadley had requested class certification of the case, seeking more
than $50,000 in damages.

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

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

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

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


MOODY'S CORP: Appeal in "Abu Dhabi" Class Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the class action lawsuit originally filed by Abu
Dhabi Commercial Bank remains pending, according to Moody's
Corporation's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On August 25, 2008, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank filed a purported
class action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York asserting numerous common-law causes of
action against two subsidiaries of the Company, another rating
agency, and Morgan Stanley & Co.  The action related to securities
issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne Finance
(the "Cheyne SIV") and sought, among other things, compensatory
and punitive damages.  The central allegation against the rating
agency defendants was that the credit ratings assigned to the
securities issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and misleading.  In
early proceedings, the court dismissed all claims against the
rating agency defendants except those for fraud and aiding and
abetting fraud.  In June 2010, the court denied plaintiff's motion
for class certification, and additional plaintiffs were
subsequently added to the complaint.  In January 2012, the rating
agency defendants moved for summary judgment with respect to the
fraud and aiding and abetting fraud claims.  Also in January 2012,
in light of new New York state case law, the court permitted the
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that reasserted previously
dismissed claims against all defendants for breach of fiduciary
duty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and related aiding
and abetting claims.  In May 2012, the court, ruling on the rating
agency defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissed all of the
reasserted claims except for the negligent misrepresentation
claim, and on September 19, 2012, after further proceedings, the
court also dismissed the negligent misrepresentation claim.  On
August 17, 2012, the court ruled on the rating agencies' motion
for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' remaining claims for fraud
and aiding and abetting fraud.  The court dismissed, in whole or
in part, the fraud claims of four plaintiffs as against Moody's
but allowed the fraud claims to proceed with respect to certain
claims of one of those plaintiffs and the claims of the remaining
11 plaintiffs.  The court also dismissed all claims against
Moody's for aiding and abetting fraud.  Three of the plaintiffs
whose claims were dismissed filed motions for reconsideration, and
on November 7, 2012, the court granted two of these motions,
reinstating the claims of two plaintiffs that were previously
dismissed.

On February 1, 2013, the court dismissed the claims of one
additional plaintiff on jurisdictional grounds.  Trial on the
remaining fraud claims against the rating agencies, and on claims
against Morgan Stanley for aiding and abetting fraud and for
negligent misrepresentation, was scheduled for May 2013.  On
April 24, 2013, pursuant to confidential settlement agreements,
the 14 plaintiffs with claims that had been ordered to trial
stipulated to the voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, of these
claims as against all defendants, and the Court so ordered that
stipulation on April 26, 2013.  The settlement did not cover
certain claims of two plaintiffs that were previously dismissed by
the Court.  On May 23, 2013, these two plaintiffs filed a Notice
of Appeal to the Second Circuit, seeking reversal of the dismissal
of their claims and also seeking reversal of the Court's denial of
class certification.  According to pleadings filed by the
plaintiffs in earlier proceedings, they seek approximately $76
million in total compensatory damages in connection with the two
claims at issue on the appeal.

New York-based Moody's Corporation is a provider of credit
ratings; credit, capital markets and economic research, data and
analytical tools; software solutions and related risk management
services; quantitative credit risk measures, financial services
training and certification services; and outsourced research and
analytical services to institutional customers.


MOODY'S CORP: Awaits Summary Judgment Ruling in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its motion for
summary judgment in the consolidated securities class action
lawsuit pending in New York, according to the Company's July 31,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Two purported class action complaints have been filed by purported
purchasers of the Company's securities against the Company and
certain of its senior officers, asserting claims under the federal
securities laws.  The first was filed by Raphael Nach in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 19,
2007.  The second was filed by Teamsters Local 282 Pension Trust
Fund in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on September 26, 2007.  Both actions have been
consolidated into a single proceeding entitled In re Moody's
Corporation Securities Litigation in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  On June 27, 2008, a
consolidated amended complaint was filed, purportedly on behalf of
all purchasers of the Company's securities during the period
February 3, 2006, through October 24, 2007.  The Plaintiffs allege
that the defendants issued false and/or misleading statements
concerning the Company's business conduct, business prospects,
business conditions and financial results relating primarily to
Moody's Investors Service's (MIS's) ratings of structured finance
products including residential mortgage-backed security,
collateralized debt obligation and constant-proportion debt
obligations.  The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages and their reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in connection with the case.

The Company moved for dismissal of the consolidated amended
complaint in September 2008.  On February 23, 2009, the court
issued an opinion dismissing certain claims and sustaining others.
On January 22, 2010, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class of
individuals who purchased Moody's Corporation common stock between
February 3, 2006, and October 24, 2007, which the Company opposed.
On March 31, 2011, the court issued an opinion denying plaintiffs'
motion to certify the proposed class.  On April 14, 2011,
plaintiffs filed a petition in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit seeking discretionary permission to appeal
the decision.  The Company filed its response to the petition on
April 25, 2011.  On July 20, 2011, the Second Circuit issued an
order denying the plaintiffs' petition for leave to appeal.  On
September 14, 2012, the Company filed a motion for summary
judgment, which was fully briefed on December 21, 2012.  Oral
arguments on the motion for summary judgment took place on
April 9, 2013.

New York-based Moody's Corporation is a provider of credit
ratings; credit, capital markets and economic research, data and
analytical tools; software solutions and related risk management
services; quantitative credit risk measures, financial services
training and certification services; and outsourced research and
analytical services to institutional customers.


MOORE CAPITAL: Settles Close-Banging Class Action for $8.4 Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metal Bulletin reports that Moore Capital has paid $48.4 million
to settle a class-action lawsuit accusing the hedge fund of
banging the close in Nymex platinum and palladium markets in 2007
and 2008.

The New York-based fund paid the Commodities Futures Trading
Commission (CFTC) a $25 million penalty to settle charges of
attempted manipulation of the Nymex contracts in April 2010, and
also submitted to restrictions on its trading in the PGM markets.


NETFLIX INC: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline.com, reports that the online
streaming and DVD rental service can take one putative securities
class action out of its instant queue.  A federal judge on Aug. 20
dismissed the amended suit by investors claiming that Netflix
played fast and loose back in 2011 with the financial truths of
its shift to a streaming business model.

"Plaintiffs do not plead plausible facts indicating that
Defendants touted the streaming business's profitability as
opposed to the projected or hoped-for strength of the interrelated
DVD and streaming business," said Judge Samuel Conti on August 20
of the suit whose class action period covered October 2010 to
October 2011.  The initial complaint was field in January 2012.
"None of what Plaintiffs plead therefore shows that Defendants
made any false or misleading statements about the profitability of
the streaming business," he added.

In a 24-page order, the US District Judge dismissed the suit
against Netflix, CEO Reed Hastings, current CFO David Wells and
past CFO Barry McCarthy with prejudice and no leave to amend.

The order came after Judge Conti granted Netflix's motion to
dismiss the original complaint back on February 2 of this year.
At the time, the judge said that the City of Royal Oak Retirement
System and other plaintiffs hadn't uncovered any evidence that
Netflix had specific expenses and revenues for its domestic
streaming service before Q4 2011 nor that insiders cashed in on
bloated stock.  The dismissal on Aug. 20 was of an amended
complaint filed in March that shifted its focus to claims that the
company and its execs were talking up "the streaming business and
creating the false impression that it was driving Netflix's
profitability."  The Judge didn't buy it.

"As for the statements the Court addressed in its prior Order, and
to the application of Plaintiffs' newly cited cases more
generally, Plaintiffs have not shown that Defendants touted the
independent profitability of streaming such that they would have a
duty to disclose any of the negative aspects of their streaming
business.  Indeed, Defendants explicitly refused to discuss the
independent profitability of streaming," Conti wrote.

What was or was not explicitly discussed, profit was, as almost
always is the case, at the core of the whole action.  The original
2012 suit was set off by the freefall of Netflix stock in late
2011 after the company revealed it was going to splice into two
entities with one concentrating on streaming and another on DVD
rentals.  Though that idea lasted less than month before Netflix
pulled the plug on its own plan, the plaintiffs claimed that the
company had broken federal Securities and Exchange Commission
rules and common accounting methods by reporting revenues from DVD
rental and streaming services together and not separately from
July to September 2011.  Netflix countered by saying that it
wasn't under an obligation to split the two until that September.
On a parallel track, the company's stock, which fell over $40
during the time of the ill-consider duel entity notion, has seen
steady growth since that time and with the introduction of
original programming like House Of Cards and the Arrested
Development reboot on Netflix.  The stock currently sits around
$269 with a 52-week high of $274.

Netflix is represented by:

          Keith Eggleton, Esq.
          Luke Liss, Esq.
          Rodney Strickland, Esq.
          Boris Feldman, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Tel: 650-320-4893
          Fax: 650-493-6811
          E-mail: keggleton@wsgr.com
                  lliss@wsgr.com
                  rstrickland@wsgr.com
                  ncarvalho@wsgr.com


PG&E CORP: All Class Claims Over San Bruno Accident Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
All class action allegations in the lawsuits arising from the San
Bruno accident were dismissed in the second quarter of 2013,
according to PG&E Corporation's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.

On September 9, 2010, a natural gas transmission pipeline owned
and operated by the Company's subsidiary, Pacific Gas and Electric
Company (Utility), ruptured in San Bruno, California.  The ensuing
explosion and fire resulted in the deaths of eight people,
numerous personal injuries, and extensive property damage.
Following the San Bruno accident, various regulatory proceedings,
investigations, and lawsuits were commenced.

Since the San Bruno accident, approximately 160 lawsuits involving
third-party claims for personal injury and property damage,
including two class action lawsuits, have been filed against PG&E
and the Utility in connection with the accident on behalf of
approximately 500 plaintiffs.  These lawsuits seek compensation
for personal injury and property damage, and other relief,
including punitive damages.  All cases were coordinated and
assigned to one judge in the San Mateo County Superior Court.  The
Utility has entered into settlement agreements to resolve the
claims of approximately 150 plaintiffs and other claimants.  In
the second quarter of 2013, all class action allegations were
dismissed by the court.

The Utility has recorded cumulative charges of $455 million for
estimated third-party claims, including personal injury, property
damage, damage to infrastructure, and other damage claims.  At
June 30, 2013, the Utility has made cumulative payments of $388
million for settlements.  The Utility estimates it is reasonably
possible that it may incur as much as an additional $145 million
for unresolved claims, for a total possible loss of $600 million
since the San Bruno accident.  The Utility and most of the
plaintiffs with unresolved claims are engaged in settlement
discussions with the assistance of mediators.  Settlement
discussions with some plaintiffs may conclude in the third quarter
of 2013.  PG&E Corporation and the Utility are unable to estimate
the amount or range of reasonably possible losses associated with
punitive damages, if any, related to these matters.

Through June 30, 2013, the Utility has recognized cumulative
insurance recoveries of $329 million for third-party claims and
related legal expenses.  (The Utility has incurred cumulative
legal expenses of $81 million in addition to the $455 million
charge).  Insurance recoveries for the three and six months ended
June 30, 2013, were $45 million.  These amounts were recorded as a
reduction to operating and maintenance expense in PG&E
Corporation's and the Utility's Condensed Consolidated Statements
of Income.  Although the Utility believes that a significant
portion of costs incurred for third-party claims relating to the
San Bruno accident will ultimately be recovered through its
insurance, it is unable to predict the amount and timing of
additional insurance recoveries.

PG&E Corporation is a holding company that conducts its business
through Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Utility).  The Utility's
revenues are generated mainly through the sale and delivery of
electricity and natural gas to customers.  The Company is
headquartered in San Francisco, California.


PG&E CORP: Class Suit Over Business Practices Dismissed in May
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit alleging PG&E Corporation engaged in
unfair business practices was dismissed in May 2013, according to
the Company's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On August 23, 2012, a complaint was filed in the San Francisco
Superior Court against PG&E Corporation and its subsidiary,
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Utility), and other unnamed
defendants, by individuals who seek certification of a class
consisting of all California residents who were customers of the
Utility between 1997 and 2010, with certain exceptions.  The
plaintiffs allege that the Utility collected more than $100
million in customer rates from 1997 through 2010 for the purpose
of various safety measures and operations projects but instead
used the funds for general corporate purposes such as executive
compensation and bonuses.  The plaintiffs allege that PG&E
Corporation and the Utility engaged in unfair business practices
in violation of California state law.  The plaintiffs seek
restitution and disgorgement, as well as compensatory and punitive
damages.

PG&E and the Utility contest the plaintiffs' allegations.  On
May 23, 2013, the court granted PG&E's and the Utility's request
to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) has exclusive jurisdiction to
adjudicate the issues raised by the plaintiffs' allegations.  PG&E
and the Utility are unable to estimate the amount or range of
reasonably possible losses that may be incurred in connection with
this matter.

PG&E Corporation is a holding company that conducts its business
through Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Utility).  The Utility's
revenues are generated mainly through the sale and delivery of
electricity and natural gas to customers.  The Company is
headquartered in San Francisco, California.


PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Has Deal to Settle "Higgins" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc., disclosed in its July 31, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013, that it has reached a
tentative settlement agreement with John Higgins, et al., during
the second quarter of 2013.

During the fourth quarter of 2011, a customer of Pinnacle Bank
filed a putative class action lawsuit (styled John Higgins, et
al., v. Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc., d/b/a Pinnacle National
Bank) in Davidson County, Tennessee Circuit Court, against
Pinnacle Bank and Pinnacle Financial, on his own behalf, as well
as on behalf of a purported class of Pinnacle Bank's customers
within the State of Tennessee alleging that Pinnacle Bank's method
of ordering debit card transactions had caused customers of
Pinnacle Bank to incur higher overdraft charges than had a
different method been used.  In support of his claims, the
plaintiff asserts theories of breach of contract, breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment
or unconscionability.  The plaintiff is seeking, among other
remedies, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, pre-
judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees.  Pinnacle Financial
and Pinnacle Bank are vigorously contesting this matter.  On
January 17, 2012, Pinnacle Financial and Pinnacle Bank filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.  The motion to dismiss was
granted without prejudice to Pinnacle Financial and denied as to
Pinnacle Bank on April 13, 2012, and Pinnacle Bank filed an answer
on May 30, 2012.

Pinnacle Financial and Pinnacle Bank reached a tentative
settlement agreement with the plaintiff during the second quarter
of 2013.  Although the settlement has not yet been finalized,
Pinnacle Financial does not believe that any liability arising
from this legal matter will have a material adverse effect on
Pinnacle Financial's consolidated financial condition, operating
results or cash flows.

Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. -- http://www.mypinnacle.com/--
operates as the bank holding company for Pinnacle National Bank
that provides various commercial banking services to individuals,
small-to medium-sized businesses, and professional entities
primarily in Tennessee.  The Company was founded in 2000 and is
headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee.


POLYONE CORP: Has Yet to Submit Docs in Merger Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
PolyOne Corporation has yet to submit documents with respect to
its settlement of a consolidated merger-related class action
lawsuit, according to the Company's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On March 13, 2013, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the
Agreement and Plan of Merger dated October 23, 2012 (Spartech
Merger Agreement), PolyOne acquired Spartech Corporation
(Spartech), a supplier of sustainable plastic sheet, color and
engineered materials, and packaging solutions, based in Clayton,
Missouri.  Spartech expands PolyOne's specialty portfolio with
adjacent technologies in attractive end markets where the Company
already participate, as well as new end markets such as aerospace
and security.

Five derivative and purported class action lawsuits were filed by
alleged Spartech stockholders against various defendants including
Spartech, its directors, PolyOne, Merger Sub, and Merger LLC
concerning the acquisition of Spartech by PolyOne through its
wholly-owned subsidiaries Merger Sub and Merger LLC.  The lawsuits
alleged, among other things, that the directors of Spartech
breached their fiduciary duties owed to stockholders by approving
the then-proposed acquisition of Spartech by PolyOne and by
failing to disclose certain information to stockholders.  Three of
the lawsuits (including two filed in the Delaware Chancery Court,
and one filed in the United States District Court of the Eastern
District of Missouri) have been dismissed.  The remaining two
lawsuits, filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County,
Missouri, were consolidated for all purposes as In re Spartech
Corporation Shareholder Litigation.

On March 5, 2013, counsel for the parties in the lawsuits entered
into a memorandum of understanding, in which they agreed on the
terms of a settlement of the In re Spartech Corporation
Shareholder Litigation, including dismissal with prejudice and a
release of all claims made therein against all defendants.  The
Defendants agreed to the terms of the proposed settlement in order
to avoid the substantial burden, expense, risk, inconvenience, and
distraction of continued litigation, including the risk of
delaying or adversely affecting the merger.  The proposed
settlement remains conditioned upon, among other things, the
execution of a stipulation of settlement and final approval of the
proposed settlement by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County,
Missouri.

The Company says there can be no assurance that the court will
approve the settlement even if the parties enter into such a
stipulation, or that the settlement conditions will be met.
PolyOne is insured with respect to these lawsuits.

PolyOne Corporation -- http://www.polyone.com/-- is a provider of
specialized polymer materials, services and solutions.  The
Company is headquartered in Clayton, Missouri.


QEP RESOURCES: Received Final OK of "Chieftain" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
QEP Resources, Inc. received final approval of its settlement of a
class action lawsuit filed by Chieftain Royalty Company in May
2013, according to the Company's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.

The statewide class action captioned Chieftain Royalty Company v.
QEP Energy Company, Case No CIV-11-0212-R, U. S. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma, was filed in January 2011 on
behalf of QEP's Oklahoma royalty owners asserting various claims
for damages related to royalty valuation on all of QEP's Oklahoma
wells operated by QEP or from which QEP marketed gas.  These
claims include breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
fraud, unjust enrichment, tortious breach of contract, conspiracy,
and conversion, based generally on asserted improper deduction of
post-production costs.  The Court certified the class as to the
breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment
claims.  The parties successfully mediated the case in January
2013.

On February 13, 2013, the parties executed a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the Chieftain Settlement Agreement)
providing for a cash payment from QEP to the class in the amount
of $115.0 million.  In consideration for the settlement payment,
QEP received a full release of all claims regarding the
calculation, reporting and payment of royalties from the sale of
natural gas and its constituents for all periods prior to
February 28, 2013, and all class members are enjoined from
asserting claims related to such royalties.  As part of the
Chieftain Settlement Agreement, the parties also agreed on the
methodology for the calculation and payment of future royalties
payable by QEP, or its successors and assigns, under all class
leases for the life of such leases.  On May 31, 2013, the Court
issued a final order approving the settlement, which is subject to
appeal.

Denver, Colorado-based QEP Resources, Inc. is a holding company
with three major lines of business: natural gas and crude oil
exploration and production; midstream field services; and energy
marketing.  These businesses are conducted through the Company's
three principal subsidiaries: (1) QEP Energy Company acquires,
explores for, develops and produces natural gas, crude oil, and
natural gas liquids (NGL); (2) QEP Field Services Company provides
midstream field services, including natural gas gathering and
processing, compression and treating services, for affiliates and
third parties; and (3) QEP Marketing Company markets affiliate and
third-party natural gas and oil, and owns and operates an
underground gas storage reservoir.


SIFY TECHNOLOGIES: Insurer Has Settled Exposure in IPO Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sify Technologies Limited said in its July 31, 2013, Form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended March 31, 2013, that the exposure under its settlement
of a securities class action lawsuit has been settled by the
insurer.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors are named as
defendants in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  This action, which is captioned In re Satyam Infoway Ltd.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, also names several
of the underwriters involved in Company's initial public offering
of American Depository Shares as defendants.  This class action is
brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Company's
American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") from the time of Company's
Initial Public Offering ("IPO") in October 1999 through December
2000.  The central allegation in this action is that the
underwriters in Company's IPO solicited and received undisclosed
commissions from, and entered into undisclosed arrangements with,
certain investors who purchased Company's ADSs in the IPO and the
aftermarket.  The complaint also alleges that Company violated the
United States Federal Securities laws by failing to disclose in
the IPO prospectus that the underwriters had engaged in these
allegedly undisclosed arrangements.  More than 300 issuers have
been named in similar lawsuits.

On April 2, 2009, the parties lodged with the Court a motion for
preliminary approval of a proposed settlement between all parties,
including the Company and its former officers and directors.  The
proposed settlement provides the plaintiffs with $586 million in
recoveries from all defendants.  Under the proposed settlement,
the Issuer Defendants collectively would be responsible for $100
million, which would be paid by the Issuers' insurers, on behalf
of the Issuer Defendants and their officers and directors.

Accordingly, any direct financial impact of the proposed
settlement is expected to be borne by the Company's insurers.  On
June 12, 2009, the Federal District Court granted preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement.  On October 6, 2009, the
District Court issued an order granting final approval of the
settlement.  Subsequent to the final approval of Settlement
agreement by the District court, there were several notices of
appeal filed.  Most were filed by the same parties that objected
to the settlement in front of the District Court.  These appeals
were consolidated into a single appeal and briefing schedule was
held.  On January 9, 2012, the class counsel and objectors counsel
entered into a settlement agreement, which includes an agreement
to dismiss the appeal.  Thus, the Appeal has been dismissed with
prejudice confirming the Settlement agreement entered before the
District Court.

As of March 31, 2013, the exposure under this settlement has been
settled by the insurer as per the settlement agreement.

Sify Technologies Limited -- http://www.sify.com/-- is one of the
largest integrated Internet, network and electronic commerce
services companies in India, offering end-to-end solutions with a
comprehensive range of services delivered over a common Internet
backbone infrastructure.  The Company's services enable its
business and consumers to communicate, transmit and share
information, access online content and conduct business remotely
using the Company's private data network or the Internet.  The
Company is headquartered in Tamil Nadu, India.


TOYOTA CANADA: Settles Consumer Claims Over 2009 & 2010 Recalls
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that Toyota Canada has agreed to settle
consumer claims related to losses stemming from its recalls in
2009 and 2010.

About 14,500 Lexus RX350 and RX450h models from the 2010 model
year were recalled because of suspected throttle control problems

The Canadian recalls were part of Toyota's global recall of more
than 14 million vehicles to fix various problems that included
sticky gas pedals and floor mats.

A statement from law firms involved in the case say the class
action settlement is pending approval by Ontario, Quebec, Nova
Scotia and Saskatchewan courts.

If approved, the settlement will cover claims against Toyota on
behalf of all Canadian owners of Toyotas with an electronic
throttle control system.

Eligible owners will receive an enhanced warranty for a minimum of
three years to cover repairs and to have their vehicles equipped
with a brake override system.  If their vehicle is ineligible for
the free system, owners will get cash instead.

In addition, Toyota has agreed to fund scholarships at four
Canadian engineering schools totaling $600,000.

"It's a relief to know that Toyota will be offering substantial
benefits to a very large number of Canadian consumers in order to
resolve these actions" said representative plaintiff Steven
Hamilton in a statement.

"I think that this is a fair settlement for Toyota owners across
the country."

Toyota Canada said in a statement that "turning the page on this
legacy legal issue is in the best interests of the company,
employees, dealers and, most of all, customers."


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Registered Nurses Sue Employers for Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Universal Health Services
stiffs registered nurses for overtime at seven hospitals, RNs
claim in a class action.

Here are the defendants in the RNs' overtime class action:
Universal Health Services, Inc.; Universal Health Services
Foundation; Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc.;
Universal Health Services of Palmdale, Inc.; Corona Regional
Medical Center; Inland Valley Medical Center; Rancho Springs
Medical Center; Palmdale Regional Medical Center; and Temecula
Valley Hospital.


URBAN OUTFITTERS: Seeks Dismissal of Wage-and-Hour Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raphael Pope-Sussman, writing for Law360, reports that clothing
retailer Urban Outfitters Inc. asked a New Jersey federal judge on
Aug. 21 to toss a proposed wage-and-hour class action by a former
assistant department manager, arguing that her rejection of a
proposed $4,000 settlement offer barred the continuation of the
suit.

In a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Urban Outfitters said
that because it had offered the settlement to Lesley Mitchel-
Tockman, a former assistant department manager at one of Urban
Outfitters' Anthropologie stores in Princeton, N.J., and because
no one else had signed on to the action, the district court should
find any class claims in the case moot.

Urban Outfitters also said that the complaint failed because it
lacked specific allegations about wage-and-hour abuses, such as
information about the number of overtime hours worked by
Ms. Mitchel-Tockman, the number of alleged uncompensated overtime
hours she worked or the length of her employment.

"Urban Outfitters made an offer of judgment which provided
Ms. Mitchel-Tockman, the sole plaintiff in this case, complete
satisfaction of her individual Fair Labor Standards Act claim
before any other potential plaintiffs opted into her collective
action claim," the motion said.  "Urban Outfitters' offer thus
mooted not only Ms. Mitchel-Tockman's individual FLSA claim but
the collective action claim as well."

On June 21, Ms. Mitchel-Tockman brought suit alleging violations
of New Jersey Wage and Hour Laws and Regulations and of the
federal FLSA.  She claimed that Urban Outfitters had refused to
record or had manipulated the overtime hours of assistant
department managers.

Ms. Mitchel-Tockman worked on average over 40 hours per week but
didn't receive overtime pay because her supervisor, at Urban
Outfitters' approval and direction, routinely shaved hours from
her time card in order to avoid overtime payments, the complaint
said.

Ms. Mitchel-Tockman said she complained multiple times to her
supervisors, but the time card alterations continued, the
complaint said.  Her supervisors began to treat her more harshly
than other employees, and she also suffered a reduction in work
hours, although she was hired with the expectation that she would
work at least 40 hours, the complaint said.

In October, Ms. Mitchel-Tockman was terminated from Anthropologie
in retaliation for speaking up about the company's labor
practices, the complaint said.

The complaint sought restitution for unpaid overtime, lost future
wages, lost benefits, punitive damages and costs, as well as
declaratory judgment that Urban Outfitters' practices violated
state and federal labor law.

Urban Outfitters currently faces a similar proposed wage-and-hour
collective action in New York, brought June 24 by former store
department managers who claim they were improperly classified as
exempt from the FLSA' overtime provisions, even though the company
did not engage in a person-by-person analysis to determine if the
exemptions were warranted.

Urban Outfitters did not immediately respond to requests for
comment on Aug. 22.  Counsel for Ms. Mitchel-Tockman declined to
comment on the case.

Ms. Mitchel-Tockman is represented by Lance Brown & Associates
LLC.

Urban Outfitters is represented by Thomas J. Barton --
Thomas.Barton@dbr.com -- and William R. Horwitz --
William.Horwitz@dbr.com -- of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.

The case is Lesley Mitchel-Tockman et al. v. Urban Outfitters
Inc., case number 3:13-cv-03852, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey.


VALSPAR: Employees Can Bring Collective Action Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
The HR Specialist reports that a federal court has authorized a
group of employees who claim they were misclassified as exempt
outside sales employees to bring a collective action alleging
unpaid wages.

Recent case: Shane worked for Valspar, a paint company, as a team
territory manager.  His job (and that of others who joined in the
suit) involved traveling to designated Lowe's stores to work in
the paint department organizing shelves, offering painting tips to
customers and mixing gallons of paint for customers to purchase at
Lowe's.

Shane and the other managers sued.  Although they worked at least
50 hours per week, they weren't paid for each hour.  Instead, they
had a set salary plus commissions on each gallon of Valspar paint
sold.  Valspar classified them as exempt outside salespersons
and/or administrative employees.

The court allowed the lawsuit to proceed. (Simmons v. Valspar, No.
10-3026, DC MN, 2013)


VOLVO: S60, S80, XC60, and XC70 SUV Models Recalled in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 26, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car, SUV
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Other
Units affected:           366
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013285
TC ID number:             2013285

Affected products:

   -- VOLVO S80 2014 model;

   -- VOLVO S60 2014 model;

   -- VOLVO XC70 2014 model; and

   -- VOLVO XC60 2014

On certain vehicles equipped with Keyless Ignition, the Central
Electronic Module (CEM) may not perform as intended.  When
starting the engine, the amber colored warning light in the driver
information module may illuminate and there may be a message
displayed such as "Alarm System Service Required" (other messages
may be displayed depending on individual vehicle equipment).  In
addition, one or all of the following may occur: The front
windshield wipers may operate continuously while the ignition is
ON.  The turn signals may not function.  The headlight switch may
not work.  The high beam headlamps may not work.  The battery may
drain.

Dealers will upgrade the CEM software.


WILLIAMS COS: Bid for Summary Judgment vs. FHRA Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment against
Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC, remains pending, according to
the Company's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

In January 2010, James West filed a class action lawsuit in state
court in Fairbanks, Alaska, on behalf of individual property
owners whose water contained sulfolane contamination allegedly
emanating from the Flint Hills Oil Refinery in North Pole, Alaska.
The lawsuit named the Company's subsidiary, Williams Alaska
Petroleum Inc. (WAPI), and Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC
(FHRA), a subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc., as defendants.  The
Company owned and operated the refinery until 2004 when the
Company sold it to FHRA.  The Company and FHRA have made claims
under the pollution liability insurance policy issued in
connection with the sale of the North Pole refinery to FHRA.  The
Company and FHRA also filed claims against each other seeking,
among other things, contractual indemnification alleging that the
other party caused the sulfolane contamination.

In 2011, the Company and FHRA settled the James West claim.  The
Company's claims against FHRA and their claims against the Company
remain outstanding.  The Company and FHRA filed motions for
summary judgment on the other's claims, but the motions are
unlikely to resolve all the outstanding claims.

The Company says it currently estimates that its reasonably
possible loss exposure in this matter could range from an
insignificant amount up to $32 million, although uncertainties
inherent in the litigation process, expert evaluations, and jury
dynamics might cause the Company's exposure to exceed that amount.

Independent of the West litigation matter, the Alaska Department
of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) indicated that it views FHRA
and the Company as responsible parties.  During the first quarter
2013, ADEC informed FHRA and the Company that it intends to enter
a compliance order to address the environmental remediation of
sulfolane and other possible contaminants including cleanup work
outside the refinery's boundaries to be performed in 2014.  In
addition, ADEC will seek from each of FHRA and the Company an
adequate financial performance guarantee for the benefit of ADEC.
As such, the Company will likely be required to contribute some
amount, whether to reimburse the State, to reimburse FHRA, or to
comply with an ADEC order.  Due to the ongoing assessment of the
level and extent of sulfolane contamination and the ultimate cost
of remediation and division of costs between the named responsible
parties, the Company is unable to estimate a range of liability at
this time.

Headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma, The Williams Companies, Inc., is
primarily engaged in gas marketing and the gathering, storing, and
processing of natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs).


WILLIAMS COS: Units Face Class Suits Over Geismar Incident
----------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc.'s subsidiaries are facing class
action lawsuits arising from the Geismar Incident, according to
the Company's July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

The Company's Williams Partners segment consists of its
consolidated master limited partnership, Williams Partners L.P.
(WPZ), and includes gas pipeline and domestic midstream
businesses.

On June 13, 2013, an explosion and fire occurred at WPZ's Geismar
olefins plant located south of Baton Rouge, in a remote industrial
complex, that resulted in the tragic deaths of two employees and
injuries of additional employees and contractors.  The fire was
extinguished on the day of the incident.  The incident (Geismar
Incident) rendered the facility temporarily inoperable and
resulted in significant human, financial and operational effects.

As a result of the Geismar Incident, there were two fatalities and
numerous individuals (including employees and contractors)
reported injuries, which varied from minor to serious.  WPZ is
cooperating with the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, the Chemical Safety Board, and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct investigations to
determine the cause of the incident.  Also, on June 28, 2013, the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality issued a
Consolidated Compliance Order & Notice of Potential Penalty to
Williams Olefins, L.L.C. that consolidates claims of unpermitted
emissions and other deviations under the Clean Air Act that the
parties had been negotiating since 2010 and alleged unpermitted
emissions arising from the Geismar Incident.  Any potential fines
and penalties from these agencies would not be covered by the
Company's insurance policy.  Additionally, multiple lawsuits,
including class actions for alleged offsite impacts, property
damage, and personal injury, have been filed against various of
the Company's subsidiaries.

Due to the recent nature of the incident, the preliminary and
ongoing investigation into its cause, and the limited information
available associated with the filed lawsuits, which do not specify
any amounts for claimed damages, the Company says it cannot
reasonably estimate a range of potential loss related to these
lawsuits at this time.

Headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma, The Williams Companies, Inc., is
primarily engaged in gas marketing and the gathering, storing, and
processing of natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs).


WILLIAMS COS: WPX to Seek Writ of Certiorari From Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
WPX Energy, Inc. and other defendants in a consolidated lawsuit
alleging manipulation of published gas price indices intend to
seek a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, according
to The Williams Companies, Inc.'s July 31, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.

On December 1, 2011, the Company announced that its Board of
Directors approved a tax-free spinoff of 100 percent of its
exploration and production business, WPX Energy, Inc. (WPX), to
the Company's shareholders.  On December 31, 2011, the Company
distributed one share of WPX common stock for every three shares
of Williams common stock.  As a result, with the exception of the
December 31, 2011 balance sheet which no longer includes WPX, the
Company's consolidated financial statements reflect the results of
operations and financial position of WPX as discontinued
operations.

Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various states
filed class actions against WPX and others alleging the
manipulation of published gas price indices and seeking
unspecified amounts of damages.  Such actions were transferred to
the Nevada federal district court for consolidation of discovery
and pre-trial issues.

In 2011, the Nevada district court granted WPX's joint motions for
summary judgment to preclude the plaintiffs' state law claims
because the federal Natural Gas Act gives the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) exclusive jurisdiction to resolve
those issues.  The court also denied the plaintiffs' class
certification motion as moot.  The plaintiffs appealed the court's
ruling and on April 10, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed the district court and remanded the cases to the district
court to permit the plaintiffs to pursue their state antitrust
claims for natural gas sales that were not subject to FERC
jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act.  WPX and the other
defendants intend to seek a writ of certiorari from the U.S.
Supreme Court.

Because of the uncertainty around the remaining pending unresolved
issues, including an insufficient description of the purported
classes and other related matters, the Company says it cannot
reasonably estimate a range of potential exposures at this time.
However, it is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of
these items and the Company's related indemnification obligation
could result in future charges that may be material to the
Company's results of operations.

Headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma, The Williams Companies, Inc., is
primarily engaged in gas marketing and the gathering, storing, and
processing of natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs).


WINSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Nov. 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE WINSTAR COMMUNICATIONS SECURITIES LITIGATION

Master File No.01 Civ. 3014 (GBD)

This Document Relates To: All Actions

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND
REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT DURING THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 10,
2000 THROUGH AND INCLUDING APRIL 2, 2001 PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE
ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK, BONDS, OR OTHER SECURITIES PUBLICLY
ISSUED BY WINSTAR COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, that the above-
captioned action has been certified as a class action and that a
settlement for $10,000,000.00 in cash or other immediately
available funds has been proposed.  A hearing will be held at 9:30
a.m., on November 13, 2013, before the Honorable George B.
Daniels, at the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, Courtroom 11A, 500 Pearl Street, New York,
New York 10007, to determine whether: the proposed settlement of
the Action and the proposed plan for distributing the proceeds of
the settlement should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against Grant Thornton LLP; and the application of the
plaintiffs' counsel for awards of attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses should be approved.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED.  CLASS MEMBERS MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE
SETTLEMENT FUND.  If you have not yet received the full printed
Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement,
Settlement Hearing, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses and a Proof of Claim and
Release form, you may obtain copies of these documents by
identifying yourself as a member of the Class and requesting those
documents from: Claims Administrator, In re Winstar Communications
Securities Litigation, P.O. Box 5100, Larkspur, CA 94977-5100 --
http://www.gilardi.com

Inquiries regarding the Action, other than requests for the Notice
and Proof of Claim and Release form, may be made to Lead Counsel
for the Class: Patrick L. Rocco, Esq., Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP,
447 Springfield Ave., 2nd Floor, Summit, NJ 07901.

To participate in this settlement, Class members must file a Proof
of Claim and Release no later than December 12, 2013.  To exclude
yourself from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion
that is received no later than October 23, 2013.  IF YOU ARE A
MEMBER OF THE CLASS AND DO NOT EXCLUDE YOURSELF AND DO NOT FILE A
PROPER PROOF OF CLAIM, YOU WILL NOT SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT, BUT
YOU WILL BE BOUND BY THE FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT OF THE COURT.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE FOR
INFORMATION REGARDING THE SETTLEMENT.

Dated: July 24, 2013

By Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York

SOURCE Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP


                             *********

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  * * *