---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, September 5, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 176

                             Headlines


ABBOTT LABS: Faces Class Action Over Depakote Off-Label Promotion
AFFYMAX INC: Defends Securities Class Suit Pending in California
AMERICAN HOME: Judgment v. Fen-Phen Class Action Attorneys Upheld
AMERICAN IMPORTING: Recalls Milk Chocolate Raisins
ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit

ATP OIL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action in Texas
AUCKLAND, NZ: Union Invites Caregivers to Join Class Action
BECTON DICKINSON: Awaits Prelim. Approval of $22-MM Settlement
BMO NESBITT: Stikeman Elliott Discusses Class Action Ruling
CANADA LITHIUM: To Vigorously Defend Against Class Action

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Settles Leaseholders' Class Action for $7.5MM
CINEMARK USA: Accused of Not Paying Employee's Overtime Pay
CONSOL ENERGY: Argument in "Addison" Suit to Be Held Sept. 12
CONSOL ENERGY: Argument in "Hale" Suit to Be Held September 12
CONSOL ENERGY: Awaits Okay of CNX Gas Shareholders Settlement

CONSOL ENERGY: Awaits Plaintiffs' Next Step in "Comer II" Suit
CONSOL ENERGY: "Hall" Litigation Remains Pending in Pennsylvania
DONNA KARAN: Faces Class Suit From Interns
EBAY INC: Judge Certifies Class Action But Rejects Settlement
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action

FURNITURE BRANDS: Pomerantz Grossman Files Securities Class Action
GARDEN-FRESH FOODS: Recalls Spartan American Potato Salad
GOLDENFEAST INC: Recalls Bird Food Due to Salmonella Contamination
IMMERSION CORP: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
INTERLINE BRANDS: Continues to Defend TCPA Violations Suit

ISRAEL CHEMICALS: Faces Securities Class Action in Tel Aviv Court
LEAP WIRELESS: Faces Merger Suits in Delaware and California
LINNCO LLC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action in Texas
LOUISIANA: Class Action v. Treasurer Cost Taxpayers $2.65 Million
MANULIFE FINANCIAL: Dentons Discusses Class Certification Ruling

NAT'L FOOTBALL: Settles Concussion Class Action for $765 Million
NESTLE PURINA: Recalls 3.5-Pound Dry Dog Food Bags
NSP-MINNESOTA: Awaits "Comer II" Suit Plaintiffs' Next Action
NUVASIVE INC: Sued for Inflating Share Prices
NUVASIVE INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in California

ONYX PHARMACEUTICALS: Weisslaw Files Class Action in Delaware
PILOT FLYING J: Trucking Firms That Filed Suits Were Overpaid
PREMIER FOODS: Recalls 4 Flavored Sauces Sold at Williams-Sonoma
SPRINT CORP: Continues to Defend SoftBank Merger-Related Suits
STANDARD FIRE: Insurance Class Action to Remain in Federal Court

SUPPORT.COM INC: Received Final OK of Consumer Suit Settlement
TIER REIT: Defends Consolidated Shareholder Class Suit in Texas
TOWER GROUP: Securities Lawyers Urge Shareholders to File Suit
UBER: Car-Service Drivers File Class Action Over Tips
UNITED ONLINE: Awaits Ruling on Consolidation Bid in RICO Suits

WILMOTT FORESTS: Clayton Utz Discusses Federal Court Ruling

* McGuireWoods Discusses Legal Theories Underlying Class Action


                             *********


ABBOTT LABS: Faces Class Action Over Depakote Off-Label Promotion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose P. Sierra, Esq. -- sierra@fr.com -- at Fish & Richardson PC
reports that a well-known plaintiff's law firm with a stable of
union pension fund clients has used the Racketeering Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), which was originally
enacted in 1970 to combat organized crime, to file a class action
lawsuit against Abbott Laboratories for the off-label promotions
of Depakote.  Unless Abbott and similarly situated big pharma
companies intend to fork over hundreds of millions (if not
billions) of more dollars to plaintiff's lawyers, they need to
fight such suits tooth and nail.

                   Background -- The Plaintiffs

The Illinois federal class action suit was brought by three
plaintiffs: Sidney Hillman Health Center, an employee welfare
benefit plan located in Rochester, NY; Teamsters Health Services
and Insurance Plan Local 404, a health services fund headquartered
in Springfield, MA; and United Food and Commercial Workers Unions
and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund (UFCW), a welfare
benefit plan based in Park Ridge, IL.  These plaintiffs are among
the usual suspects one normally sees in shareholder litigation
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery and similar venues --
always complaining about a corporation's board of directors'
supposed breach of fiduciary duties in shortchanging stockholders
following the announcement of any sizable M&A deal.  The problem
for the plaintiff's attorneys who represent such clients (and who
drive class action litigation and always stand to make the most
money) is that in shareholder litigation they are required at some
point to show that the corporation's directors did something
wrong, which isn't easy, especially when (as is often the case)
there is nothing beyond the allegations in the complaint to
indicate anything wrong happened.  However, when a corporation
like Abbott enters into a settlement agreement with the Government
following a long drawn-out investigation over allegations of False
Claims Act (FCA) violations involving off-label promotion and
kickbacks, the plaintiff's bar now has something to work with
. . . except in Delaware and like-minded jurisdictions, where
settlements with the Government don't automatically amount to an
admission that the corporation's directors breached their
fiduciary duty of care under the prevailing "Caremark standard."
See In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation, 698
A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996); see also David Pyott, et al., v.
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, et al.,
No. 380,2012 (Del. April 4, 2013).

Unable to convince experienced jurists in Delaware and elsewhere
(on a regular enough basis at least) that FCA settlements
involving admissions of "wrongdoing" and the payment of big fines
amount to breaches of fiduciary duty on the part of a
corporation's directors, the plaintiff's class action bar quite
understandably has been looking for different statutes, legal
theories and venues in an effort to wring millions of dollars in
damages and attorney's fees from big pharma companies like Abbott.
Unfortunately, as Pharmaric readers are aware, we flagged this
"risk" several months ago in our blog posts titled, First Circuit
Slams Pfizer in Three Neurontin RICO suits; Affirms $142 Million
Verdict.  Well, here is the latest salvo.

                   Background -- The Abbott Suit

According to the federal complaint filed in Sidney Hillman Health
Center of Rochester, et al., v. Abbott Laboratories and AbbVie,
Inc., the pharmaceutical giant engaged in off-label marketing of
Depakote (divalproex sodium) from 1998 through 2012 and also
provided physicians with lucrative kickback payments in order to
influence other doctors to prescribe Depakote for off-label uses.
Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that Abbott marketed Depakote
for various unapproved uses, including schizophrenia, control of
aggression in elderly dementia patients, bipolar depression,
developmental delays in children, and symptoms of narcotic drug
withdrawal, despite the lack efficacy data for these uses and
despite the danger to patients. (Note: in 2012, Abbott
Laboratories split into two organizations, one focused on the
development and sale of medical products (Abbott) and the other on
the development and sales of research-based pharmaceuticals
(AbbVie).  Depakote, while originally developed and marketed by
Abbott, is now sold in the United States under the AbbVie
organization.)

Depakote, which was first approved by the FDA in 1983 as an anti-
seizure drug, was later approved to treat acute mania or mixed
episodes associated with bipolar disorder in 1995 (but not for
long-term treatment) and for the prevention of migraine headaches
in 1996 (but not for the treatment of migraines).  As the
plaintiffs point out in their complaint, although the FDA
determined that the benefits for Depakote and other "valporate"
products outweighed their risks for certain uses, there are
serious safety issues associated with the drug, including the risk
of pancreatitis -- which led to a "black box warning" in July,
2000 -- and Depakote's classification as a pregnancy "Category D"
drug, which is known to cause birth defects.  In addition,
Depakote has never been approved for use by children under the age
of 10.  Despite the warnings and restrictions, Depakote's sales
reached $1.5 billion in 2007.

To capitalize on its marketing efforts, according to the
plaintiffs, Abbott used an elaborate network of intermediary
marketing firms, shadow entities controlled by the Company, and
physicians to draw attention away from Abbott's off-label
marketing of Depakote.  The Company also allegedly managed a
highly-structured reward system to motivate its pharmaceutical
sales representatives to promote Depakote off-label.  However, in
order to avoid developing a standardized unlawful sales training
program for Depakote at Abbott headquarters, the Company allegedly
provided off-label training by outside consultants.  The
plaintiffs also allege that Abbott created a "Council for
Excellence in Neuroscience Education" (CENE) to facilitate
Depakote off-label promotion through webinars, dinner meetings and
monographs to doctors.  According to the complaint, CENE was
advertised to doctors as a way for them to earn 36-48 hours of
free Continuing Medical Education (CME) credits.  Faculty and
council members of CENE were allegedly part of Abbott's speaker
bureau or otherwise received financial compensation from Abbott.

According to the complaint, Abbott sales reps engaged in a variety
of activities related to the off-label marketing of Depakote,
including:

    A "Working the Wheel" Program --which targeted those doctors
and clinics that would potentially yield the most off-label
prescriptions for agitation associated with dementia;

    A "Functional Institutional Market Report"--which, among other
things, tracked prescriptions for psychoactive drugs, including
Depakote.

    Developing a metric for evaluating the potential for
physicians to prescribe Depakote and in what manner.

    Concealing wrongful conduct by instructing sales
representatives to keep separate handwritten "call notes" out of
the Company-wide computer system when off-label uses were
discussed.

    Setting up monthly contests that rewarded sales reps for the
best scripted off-label message about Depakote.

    Securing Depakote off-label sales by obscuring differences
between bipolar mania and agitation associated with dementia.

    Encouraging sales reps to attend patient and/or caregiver
support group meetings in order to provide members with
information about Depakote's off-label uses.

Observations: Lawsuit Follows 2012 Depakote Settlement of $1.6
Billion

Despite the detailed and lengthy complaint, the plaintiffs' case
essentially rests on the $1.6 billion that Abbott paid to settle
federal and state claims that it marketed Depakote off-label to
treat bi-polar mania and migraine headaches in May, 2012.  In
other words, the plaintiffs are piggy-backing on the concessions
the Government extracted from Abbott and are now looking to
recover what they say their health benefit plans wrongfully paid
for Depakote off-label prescriptions.  According to the
plaintiffs, "Abbott probably calculated both its risk of being
caught and its potential civil and criminal exposure assuming its
only liability would be to the Medicare, Medicaid and Tricare
systems, but Abbot's illegal conduct also created significant
liability to private payors of Depakote under Federal law [the
RICO Act under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962)], state deceptive trade
practice acts and the common law."

RICO is a fairly complex statute and was a favorite tool of mine
when I was a DOJ attorney prosecuting traditional (La Cosa Nostra)
and non-traditional organized crime groups.  Although a thorough
explanation of RICO involves too much detail for this blog post,
suffice to say that the civil RICO statute in the plaintiffs'
complaint requires proof that Abbott engaged in a "pattern of
racketeering activity" consisting of numerous violations of
federal mail and wire fraud statutes.  At the end of a trial, a
successful civil RICO plaintiff can expect to recover three times
the amount of damages suffered, which the plaintiffs argue in this
case is what they paid for in off-label prescriptions of Depakote
-- a figure that was apparently too large to be calculated and
included in the complaint.

Of course, like the Government, the plaintiffs and their lawyers
in this case will remain silent on the question about whether
their pensioners who took Depakote for all the alleged off-label
uses benefited from the drug.  To the plaintiffs, actual efficacy
is irrelevant as they attempt to use the Government settlement as
surrogate evidence of fraud.  However, as I (and anyone else who
has ever defended against abusive class action lawsuits) have
learned, to the plaintiff's bar, class action suits like the one
filed against Abbott and AbbVie are usually won or lost at the
class certification stage -- if the class is certified, the stakes
for the defendant(s) are much higher and the plaintiffs can use
the class mechanism as leverage for a nice settlement; if the
class is not certified, the plaintiff's lawyers often run for the
hills.  While Abbott can and should fight this lawsuit all the way
to trial if necessary -- anything less that a full commitment to
fight the plaintiff's bar will only invite more such suits -- and
while there are a number of issues peculiar to RICO that will be
litigated, the Company's chief short-term objective must be to
defeat class certification by arguing that the plaintiffs must
prove that each member of the purported class was "defrauded" and
that that determination is dependent on how each patient in the
purported class fared while being treated with Depakote.  In
short, Abbott's primary objective is to defeat the "commonality"
and "typicality" elements necessary to establish class
certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) and (a)(3).  Throw in
a Caronia-styled First Amendment defense that, while tough to make
against the Government (which can put a company out of business),
can work against a private plaintiff.

Who knows? If Abbott plays its cards right, this may be the last
class action RICO suits it sees.


AFFYMAX INC: Defends Securities Class Suit Pending in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Affymax, Inc., is defending itself against a securities class
action lawsuit pending in California, according to the Company's
August 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On February 27, 2013, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, naming as defendants Affymax, Inc. or the
Company, certain of its officers, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company
Limited, Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and Takeda Global
Research & Development Center, Inc.  A second complaint naming the
same defendants was filed on March 6, 2013.  On May 2, 2013, the
securities class action complaint that was filed on February 27,
2013, was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.  On May 21,
2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff in the remaining
securities class action complaint.  On July 22, 2013, an amended
class action complaint was filed on behalf of purported
stockholders of the Company, naming as defendants the Company and
certain of its former officers.  The amended complaint alleges
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection
with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the
defendants regarding OMONTYS and the Company's business practices,
financial projections and other disclosures between August 8,
2012, and February 22, 2013, or the Class Period.  The plaintiff
seeks to represent a class comprised of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the Class Period and seeks damages,
costs and expenses and such other relief as determined by the
Court.

Affymax, Inc. -- http://www.affymax.com/-- is a biopharmaceutical
company based in Palo Alto, California.  Affymax's mission is to
discover, develop and deliver innovative therapies that improve
the lives of patients with kidney disease and other serious and
often life-threatening illnesses.


AMERICAN HOME: Judgment v. Fen-Phen Class Action Attorneys Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
Kentucky Supreme Court on Aug. 29 upheld a $42 million civil
judgment against three plaintiffs' attorneys who allegedly stole
from more than 400 clients in a class action over the diet drug
fen-phen.

The original summary judgment was entered by a Boone County
Circuit Court judge in 2006.

The attorneys at the center of the case -- Lexington-area lawyers
Shirley Cunningham, William Gallion and Melbourne Mills Jr. --
have since been disbarred.  Two, Messrs. Cunningham and Gallion,
were sentenced to 20 years in federal prison for their roles in
stealing the settlement money.  All three have lost their law
licenses.

"There are no material facts in dispute, and plain application of
the law to the undisputed fact demonstrates that CGM (Cunningham,
Gallion and Mills), by taking greater fees than their contracts
allowed and leaving a correspondingly lesser share of the
settlement money for their clients, breached their contracts with
Appellants and simultaneously breached their fiduciary duties to
Appellants," Justice Daniel Venters wrote in the court's 32-page
opinion.

"The trial court correctly concluded that the breach of those
contracts was a breach of CGM's 18 fiduciary duties to
Appellants."

In its 32-page opinion, the state's high court also ruled that the
trial court's designation of the damages as joint and several was
proper.

"In effect, they (CGM) formed an ad hoc partnership for a
commercial purpose that precisely fits the definition of a joint
enterprise, or joint adventure," Justice Venters wrote.

Attorney Angela Ford, who has represented the class members
against their former attorneys, said she was pleased with the
court's ruling.

"The opinion provides finality on most of the claims that have
been pending for nearly nine years against those attorneys," she
said in a statement on Aug. 29.

However, Ms. Ford said she plans to go back to state court to sue
well-known Cincinnati plaintiffs' attorney Stanley Chesley, who
was not part of the original civil judgment, for the $7.5 million
he allegedly stole from the fen-phen plaintiffs, plus the $20.5
million he was paid in legal fees and punitive damages.

"The case will now move forward on all claims against Stanley
Chesley," she said.

The trial court did not enter a judgment against Mr. Chesley after
his attorney asked for more time to respond to the summary
judgment motion, and the motion was eventually denied.  A cross
appeal then was filed against Mr. Chesley.

Ms. Ford argued Mr. Chesley should have been included in the $42
million judgment.

"Since the appeal has been pending, Chesley has been disbarred and
testified, with immunity, in the criminal trial against his co-
counsel," she said.

"Since I believe that Chesley was the chief architect behind the
cover up of the fraud, we will be seeking a very large verdict on
punitive damages."

Mr. Chesley, who has been disbarred from practicing law in
Kentucky, has maintained he was not co-counsel for the plaintiffs
in the controversial class action.  He also has said he was not
aware that other attorneys were deceiving their clients.  He has
argued he was simply brought in to negotiate the 2001 settlement.

In March, the Kentucky Supreme Court said his ethical violations
warranted permanent disbarment in the state and that his share of
fees was "unreasonable."

"He has shown nothing to demonstrate that he expended a great deal
of time and labor on the case," Chief Justice John D. Minton Jr.
wrote for the court.

"The issues of liability were not particularly difficult or novel,
and even if they were, Respondent did not do the heavy-lifting on
that aspect of the case."

However, the court declined to order restitution, saying the
remedy is "not appropriate" in a case of permanent disbarment.

The high court has disbarred a total of five attorneys who worked
on the settlement with American Home Products, the manufacturer of
the fen-phen drug.  They include Messrs. Chesley, Cunningham,
Gallion, Mills and David Helmers, who was a relatively new
associate at the law firm Gallion Baker & Bray PSC at the time of
the settlement.

Messrs. Cunningham, Gallion and Mills received roughly 50 percent
of the $200 million settlement.  Their 431 clients received the
rest.

Mr. Chesley, himself, collected a $20.5 million fee for
negotiating the settlement.  He has since retired from practice in
Ohio.

In October 2011, the court also permanently disbarred Joseph F.
Bamberger, a senior status special judge who approved the
settlement, calling his ethical violations "highly egregious."

"Respondent's conduct shocks the Court's conscience," Justice
Minton wrote at the time.

It was revealed that Mr. Bamberger, who had resigned, was paid
$5,000 a month as a director of a phony charitable entity, The
Kentucky Fund for Healthy Living, which was funded by the
settlement and allegedly directed by the lawyers.


AMERICAN IMPORTING: Recalls Milk Chocolate Raisins
--------------------------------------------------
American Importing Co, Inc. (d/b/a Amport Foods) of Minneapolis,
MN, is voluntarily recalling one lot of Amport Milk Chocolate
Raisins because they may contain undeclared peanuts.  People who
have an allergy or sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious
or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this
product.

No adverse reactions or illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall is based on a discovery that a container of Milk
Chocolate Peanuts was erroneously labeled as Milk Chocolate
Raisins.

The product was distributed to Albertsons, Farm Fresh/Supervalu,
Hy-Vee and The Kroger Co. stores in the Mid-Atlantic, Midwest and
West.

Affected Products: 12oz Clear Tub (UPC: 0 71725 71190 8) with Lot
Code: 078X344 and Best Buy: 12-19-13

Lot number can be found printed on the bottom of the tub in black
ink.  A picture is enclosed to aid in product identification
attached to this press release.

The label for this product also includes a statement "ALLERGY
INFORMATION: THIS PRODUCT IS PRODUCED ON EQUIPMENT SHARED WITH
PEANUT AND TREE NUT PRODUCTS."

The recall relates only to a single lot of Amport Milk Chocolate
Raisins.  No other Amport products are affected.

Consumers who purchased affected product are urged to return it to
the place of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with questions
may contact the company at 855-273-0466.


ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit,
according to the Company's August 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

Beginning on September 20, 2010, a number of complaints were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
against the Company and certain of its current and former
employees and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of the
Company's common stock.  The complaints have been brought as
purported stockholder class actions, and, in general, include
allegations that the Company and certain of its current and former
employees and directors violated federal securities laws by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
BELVIQ program, thereby, artificially inflating the price of its
common stock.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.  On November 19, 2010, eight prospective
lead plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate, appoint a lead
plaintiff, and appoint lead counsel.  The Court took the motions
to consolidate under submission on January 14, 2011.  On August 8,
2011, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.  On November 1, 2011, the lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint.  On December 30,
2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint.

On March 28, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint without prejudice.  On
May 13, 2013, the plaintiff filed a new consolidated amended
complaint.  On June 14, 2013, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the new consolidated amended complaint.  On July 15, 2013,
the plaintiff filed an opposition to the Company's motion to
dismiss.  On July 29, 2013, the Company filed its reply.

In addition to the class actions, a complaint involving similar
legal and factual issues has been brought by at least one
individual stockholder and is pending in federal court.  On
December 30, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
stockholder's complaint.  On March 29, 2013, the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss, in part without prejudice.  On
May 13, 2013, the plaintiff filed a new amended complaint.  On
June 14, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the new
amended complaint.  On July 10, 2013, the plaintiff filed an
opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss.  On July 29, 2013,
the Company filed its reply.

Due to the stage of these proceedings, the Company says it is not
able to predict or reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome or
possible losses relating to these claims.

Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.arenapharm.com/-- is a
biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering, developing and
commercializing novel drugs that target G protein-coupled
receptors to address unmet medical needs.  The Company was
incorporated in Delaware in 1997 and is headquartered in San
Diego, California.


ATP OIL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Aug. 30
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against ATP Oil
and Gas Corporation and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District
of Texas, and docketed under 13-cv-02557, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of ATP between December 16, 2010 and August
17, 2012 both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover
damages 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 ATP securities during the
Class Period,you have until October 4, 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.

ATP is engaged in the acquisition, development, and production of
oil and natural gas properties.

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 misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: on
October 12, 2010, ATP filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with
the SEC, indicating its intent to issue 11.875% Senior Second Lien
Exchange Notes.  After one amendment on December 14, 2010, the
Company filed a Prospectus on December 16, 2010 on Form 424B3,
which was declared effective by the SEC on the same day.  Pursuant
to the Registration Statement and Prospectus, ATP executed the
Exchange, which offered $1.5 billion worth of Notes.  The
Registration Statement contained false and misleading statements
and/or omissions of material fact about the company and its
operations.

On August 17, 2012, ATP disclosed that it was filing for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  The Company reported total debts of $3.49
billion and assets of $3.64 billion.  It announced that it was
going to continue operating during its financial restructuring
using $618 million in debtor-in-possession funding.  During the
course of the Bankruptcy Action, the truth was revealed that ATP
had: (1) severely downplayed the impact that the United States
Department of Interior moratoria had on the Company's business and
revenues; (2) violated the provisions of certain credit agreements
to which the Company was a party; (3) issued a Registration
Statement that contained false and misleading statements and/or
omissions of material fact; and (4) subsequently made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the liquidity and
financial condition of the Company.

As a result of the false and misleading misstatements and
omissions, the price of ATP stock fell from $15.36 at the
beginning of the Class Period to $0.30 at the time of the
bankruptcy filing.

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.


AUCKLAND, NZ: Union Invites Caregivers to Join Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eileen Goodwin, writing for Otago Daily Times, reports that
thousands of caregivers will be invited to join a class action in
the wake of a court judgment clearing the way for a challenge on
the basis of gender discrimination, Service and Food Workers'
Union national secretary John Ryall says.

The Employment Court at Auckland accepted the argument carers'
wages could be compared with those in other occupations in terms
of whether they constituted gender discrimination.

Provided there was no appeal in the next three weeks, the union
would be able to identify occupations it considered suitable for
comparison.

The parties had been ordered by the court to talk to decide how to
resolve the issue.

Ultimately, there would be no solution until the Government got
involved, Mr. Ryall said, but so far it had declined to, despite
being invited to give evidence.

Carers en masse would be asked to join the original carer,
Kristine Bartlett, whose case the union brought.

"We'll be going out to get all caregivers to give us authority to
file cases on their behalf."

This included non-union as well as union members -- up to about
25,000 people.

Aged Care Association chief executive Martin Taylor, speaking on
behalf of Terranova Homes, said a decision on whether to appeal
had not been reached and the judgment was being studied.  Mr.
Taylor said it was important to remember the decision cleared the
way for a full case, so the matter was not "done and dusted".

"These are preliminary legal questions that needed to be settled
before the full court case was heard."

Mr. Taylor said the industry had been fighting for higher pay for
carers but he was concerned the legal route was not appropriate.

"Will this achieve [more funding], or will it just create a
crisis?"  About half the country's aged care facilities would be
insolvent if they had to lift wages by about NZ$2.50 an hour, he
said.

"The aged care sector as a whole doesn't pay a living wage,
because we're not funded to pay a living wage."

University of Otago public law specialist Prof Andrew Geddis said
the decision was a great success for the union, and he expected it
to be appealed.  He would not be surprised if a higher court
believed the Employment Court got a "bit excited" in its
interpretation of the Equal Pay Act, and ruled against the union.

If nothing else though, it put the plight of carers squarely in
the public spotlight, he said.  It was now more widely known they
could work for many years in the same job and be paid little more
than the minimum wage.


BECTON DICKINSON: Awaits Prelim. Approval of $22-MM Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company is awaiting preliminary approval of
its $22 million settlement with the Hospital Plaintiffs, according
to the Company's August 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

The Company is named as a defendant in the following purported
class action lawsuits brought on behalf of distributors and other
entities that purchase the Company's products (the "Distributor
Plaintiffs"), alleging that the Company violated federal antitrust
laws, resulting in the charging of higher prices for the Company's
products to the plaintiffs and other purported class members:

Case                                Court           Date Filed
----                                -----           ----------
Louisiana Wholesale Drug     U.S. Dist. Court   March 25, 2005
Company, Inc., et al. vs.          Newark, NJ
Becton Dickinson and Co.

SAJ Distributors, Inc.       U.S. Dist. Court    Sept. 6, 2005
et al. vs. Becton            Eastern Dist. of
Dickinson & Co.                  Pennsylvania

Dik Drug Company, et al.     U.S. Dist. Court   Sept. 12, 2005
vs. Becton, Dickinson & Co.        Newark, NJ

American Sales Company,      U.S. Dist. Court     Oct. 3, 2005
Inc. et al. vs. Becton,      Eastern Dist. of
Dickinson & Co.                  Pennsylvania

Park Surgical Co. Inc.       U.S. Dist. Court    Oct. 26, 2005
et al. vs. Becton,           Eastern Dist. of
Dickinson and Company            Pennsylvania

These actions have been consolidated under the caption "In re
Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation."

The Company is also named as a defendant in the following
purported class action lawsuits brought on behalf of indirect
purchasers of the Company's products, such as hospitals and
retailers (the "Hospital Plaintiffs"), alleging that the Company
violated federal and state antitrust laws, resulting in the
charging of higher prices for the Company's products to the
plaintiffs and other purported class members:

Case                                Court           Date Filed
----                                -----           ----------
Jabo's Pharmacy, Inc.,       U.S. Dist. Court     June 3, 2005
et al. v. Becton           Greenville, Tenn.
Dickinson & Company

Drug Mart Tallman Inc.       U.S. Dist. Court    Jan. 17, 2006
et al. v. Becton           Newark, New Jersey
Dickinson and Company

Medstar v. Becton            U.S. Dist. Court     May 18, 2006
Dickinson                  Newark, New Jersey

The Hebrew Home for          U.S. Dist. Court   March 28, 2007
the Aged at Riverdale          Southern Dist.
vs. Becton Dickinson              of New York
and Company

The plaintiffs in each of the antitrust class action lawsuits seek
monetary damages.  All of the antitrust class action lawsuits have
been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District
Litigation in Federal court in New Jersey.

Pursuant to a settlement agreement the Company entered into with
the Distributor Plaintiffs in these actions on April 27, 2009, and
following approval by the District Court (on a preliminarily basis
in November 2012 and on a final basis in April 2013), the Company
has paid $45 million in exchange for a release by all potential
class members of the direct purchaser claims under federal
antitrust laws related to the products and acts enumerated in the
complaint, and a dismissal of the case with prejudice, insofar as
it relates to direct purchaser claims.

On July 30, 2013, the Company entered into an agreement with the
Hospital Plaintiffs to settle their claims in these actions, which
agreement is subject to preliminary and final approval by the
court following notice to potential class members.  The settlement
agreement provides for the Company to pay $22 million into a fund
in exchange for a release by all potential class members of the
indirect purchaser claims related to the products and acts
enumerated in the complaint, and a dismissal of the case with
prejudice.  The release will not cover potential class members
that opt out of the settlement.  The Company currently cannot
estimate the range of reasonably possible losses with respect to
these class action matters beyond the $22 million settlement.

Headquartered in Franklin Lakes, New Jersey, Becton, Dickinson and
Company is a global medical technology company engaged principally
in the development, manufacture and sale of medical devices,
instrument systems and reagents used by healthcare institutions,
life science researchers, clinical laboratories, the
pharmaceutical industry and the general public.  The Company's
business consists of three worldwide business segments: BD
Medical, BD Diagnostics and BD Biosciences, and its products are
marketed in the United States and internationally through
independent distribution channels and directly to end-users by BD
and independent sales representatives.


BMO NESBITT: Stikeman Elliott Discusses Class Action Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stikeman Elliott LLP reports that on August 20, 2013, the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice certified a claim by a class consisting
of investment advisors for unpaid overtime.  The defendant, BMO
Nesbitt Burns Inc., argued that investment advisors fall within
the exemptions for overtime pay set out in the Employment
Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) either because their role is supervisory
or managerial in nature, or their overall autonomy and potential
for high earnings provided them with benefits greater than
overtime pay.  The representative plaintiff, a former investment
advisor, alleges that he and his fellow investment advisors were
misclassified as exempt from the overtime pay requirements.  In
his decision, Justice Belobaba certified as a common issue the
question of class member eligibility for overtime pay under the
ESA and their contracts with the defendant.

While the courts have certified a number of class actions
pertaining to overtime recently, all have been in the context of
"off-the-clock" actions where the main issue was not whether the
employees at issue were eligible for overtime pay, but rather
whether the policy requirement that overtime would only be paid
where employees obtained prior approval was contrary to employment
and labor legislation.  This is the first "misclassification" case
of its kind to be certified in Ontario.


CANADA LITHIUM: To Vigorously Defend Against Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Canada Lithium Corp. on Aug. 29 disclosed that it intends to
vigorously defend itself and its assets against a class action
lawsuit initiated in a Statement of Claim dated May 9, 2011 and
recently certified by the courts.  The suit arises from a mineral
resource estimate announced by Canada Lithium on October 28, 2010.

On August 6, 2013, the Ontario Court issued an Order, with the
consent of the Company, which granted permission to the Plaintiffs
to amend their Statement of Claim to plead the statutory cause of
action for secondary misrepresentation, and certified the lawsuit
as a class proceeding.  These are both procedural steps, and none
of the allegations in the lawsuit, as amended, have been assessed
or determined by the Court.  The Company continues to deny that
the allegations will be proven at trial.  In addition, the
Plaintiff, on behalf of the Class, and with the approval of the
Court, agreed to discontinue the claims in negligence and
negligent misrepresentation originally asserted in the lawsuit
against the Company.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Settles Leaseholders' Class Action for $7.5MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terrie Morgan-Besecker, writing for Times-Shamrock, reports that
the second largest natural gas producer in the nation agreed to
pay $7.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit that alleged it
improperly charged thousands of Pennsylvania leaseholders post-
production fees, an attorney representing the plaintiffs said on
Aug. 30.

Attorney Michelle O'Brien -- mobrien@theobrienlawgroup.com -- of
the O'Brien Law Group, Moosic, said the settlement, reached on
Aug. 30 with Chesapeake Energy Corp.'s subsidiary Chesapeake
Appalachia LLC, will benefit several thousand leaseholders who
alleged they were wrongly charged fees related to process used to
refine and transport natural gas extracted from Marcellus Shale.

"We have reached a settlement and are very excited about it,"
Ms. O'Brien said.  "We think it's an excellent resolution for the
class."

Jim Gipson, spokesman for Chesapeake, said the firm is pleased to
have reached a "fair and reasonable agreement."

Ms. O'Brien, lead counsel, joined with several other law firms
along the East Coast to negotiate the settlement, which was more
than a year in the making.  The lawsuit, filed in federal court,
named 14 plaintiffs from Susquehanna, Northampton, Lehigh,
Lancaster and Montgomery counties in Pennsylvania, and Cortland
County in New York, as representatives of the class.

According to the suit, Chesapeake deducted post-production fees
from royalties paid the leaseholders, despite terms in the leases
that preclude them from doing so.  The suit further alleged the
fees that were charged were in excess of the actual and reasonable
costs the company incurred, and that the firm improperly based
royalties on the market value of the gas before it had been
refined, which was lower than the value once it was in marketable
condition.

Under the terms of the settlement, leaseholders still must pay
some post-production fees, but their share has been reduced to
72.5 percent of the cost, according to a copy of the agreement.
Leaseholders must still pay 100 percent of cost related to the
transportation of the natural gas through pipelines.

The propriety of post-production costs has been a hotly contested
matter, with leaseholders calling for legislation to address the
issue.

State Sen. Gene Yaw, R-23, Williamsport, called on the courts, not
the Legislature, to resolve the disputes.  In a press release, he
said he was pleased to learn of the Chesapeake settlement.

"The Legislature cannot alter the existing contracts of thousands
of leaseholders," Mr. Yaw said.  "I believe there is a way we can
protect those landowners, and not interfere with current contract
language."

The class action suit named as the plaintiffs: William Burke II
and his wife, Clara, William Burke III, Edward Burke, Donald and
Karen Fuller and Joseph and Billie Demchak, all of Meshoppen;
James and Barbara Burger, Allentown; Randy Hemerly, Nazareth;
Lamar King, Narvon; Linda Schlick, Schwenksville and Janet Young,
Cuyler, N.Y.

Attorneys on Aug. 30 filed a motion seeking court approval of the
proposed settlement.  The proposal says the settlement is the most
efficient way to resolve the dispute and will save leaseholders
the expense and time of having to file individual lawsuits against
the company.  The proposal will be reviewed by a federal judge,
who will decide to approve or deny it.

As with all class actions suits, leaseholders will have the option
to take part in the settlement, or they can opt out.  Additional
information on how to sign up for the settlement will be released
soon, Ms. O'Brien said.


CINEMARK USA: Accused of Not Paying Employee's Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Silken Brown, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, and as aggrieved employees
pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") v. Cinemark
USA, Inc., a Texas corporation; Century Theatres, Inc., a
California Corporation; and Does 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No.
CGC-12-526557 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.,
August 29, 2013) alleges that the Defendants violated the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code.

During the relevant time period, the Defendants failed to pay at
least minimum wages to the Plaintiffs and class members for off-
the-clock work, the Plaintiffs allege.  The Plaintiffs also accuse
the Defendants of failing to adequately staff the locations where
Plaintiffs and class members worked; hence, there were too few
employees to finish all of the work within the given hours.

Silken Brown is a resident of San Francisco, California.  He was
employed as a non-exempt, hourly paid concession worker from March
2012 to September 2012 at Defendants' Century 9 theater in San
Francisco.

Cinemark USA, Inc., is a Texas corporation that maintains its
principal place of business in Texas but also does business in
California.  Century Theatres, Inc., is a California corporation
that maintains its principal place of business in Texas but also
does business in California.  The Plaintiff is unaware of the true
names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.

Cinemark USA and Century Theatres removed the lawsuit on
August 29, 2013, Superior Court of the state of California, County
of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The Defendants argue that the
removal is proper because the claims of the proposed class members
exceed $5 million in the aggregate.  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:13-cv-04030 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Miriam Schimmel, Esq.
          Katherine Den Bleyker, Esq.
          Joshua Carlon, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: Miriam.Schimmel@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Katherine.DenBieyker@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  Joshua.Carlon@CapstoneLawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Laura M. Franze, Esq.
          Justin H. Smith, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2627
          Telephone: (213) 532-2000
          Facsimile: (213) 532-2020
          E-mail: Ifranze@hunton.com
                  jsmith@hunton.com


CONSOL ENERGY: Argument in "Addison" Suit to Be Held Sept. 12
-------------------------------------------------------------
An argument on objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation in the Addison Litigation is scheduled for
September 12, 2013, according to CONSOL Energy Inc.'s August 5,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2010, in
the United States District Court in Abingdon, Virginia styled
Addison v. CNX Gas Company, et al.  The lawsuit alleges that the
plaintiff class consists of gas lessors whose gas ownership is in
conflict.  The lawsuit alleges that the Virginia Supreme Court and
General Assembly have decided that the plaintiff owns the gas and
is entitled to royalties held in escrow by the Commonwealth of
Virginia or CNX Gas Company, a Company subsidiary.  The lawsuit
also alleges CNX Gas Company failed to either pay royalties due
these conflicting claimant lessors or paid them less than required
because of the alleged practice of improper below market sales
and/or taking alleged improper post-production deductions.  The
Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment regarding ownership, an
accounting and compensatory and punitive damages for breach of
contract; conversion; negligence (voluntary undertaking) for
improperly asserting that conflicting ownership exists, negligence
(breach of duties as an operator); breach of fiduciary duties; and
unjust enrichment.  The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending dismissing some claims and allowing
others to proceed.  The District Judge affirmed the Magistrate
Judge's recommendations in their entirety.  An Amended Complaint
was filed which added an additional allegation that gas hedging
receipts should have been used as the basis for royalty payments.
A motion to dismiss those claims was filed and was denied.

The Magistrate Judge issued a Report & Recommendation on June 5,
2013, recommending that the District Judge grant plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification.  CNX Gas Company filed its
extensive Objections to the Report & Recommendation on July 3,
2013, and the District Judge has scheduled argument on the
Objections on September 12, 2013.  Discovery is proceeding in this
litigation.

CONSOL Energy believes that the case has meritorious defenses and
intends to defend it vigorously.  The Company has established an
accrual to cover its estimated liability for this case.  This
accrual is immaterial to the overall financial position of CONSOL
Energy and is included in Other Accrued Liabilities on the
Consolidated Balance Sheet.


CONSOL ENERGY: Argument in "Hale" Suit to Be Held September 12
--------------------------------------------------------------
An argument on objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation in the Hale Litigation is scheduled for
September 12, 2013, according to CONSOL Energy Inc.'s August 5,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2010,
in the U.S. District Court in Abingdon, Virginia styled Hale v.
CNX Gas Company, et al.  The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff
class consists of forced-pooled unleased gas owners whose gas
ownership is in conflict, the Virginia Supreme Court and General
Assembly have decided that coalbed methane (CBM) belongs to the
owner of the gas estate, the Virginia Gas and Oil Act of 1990
unconstitutionally provides only a 1/8 net proceeds royalty to CBM
owners for gas produced under the forced-pooled orders, and CNX
Gas Company relied upon control of only the coal estate in force
pooling the CBM notwithstanding decisions by the Virginia Supreme
Court.  The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of ownership of
the CBM and that the entire net proceeds of CBM production (that
is, the 1/8 royalty and the 7/8 of net revenues since production
began) be distributed to the class members.  The lawsuit also
alleges CNX Gas Company failed to either pay royalties due
conflicting claimant, deemed lessors or paid them less than
required because of the alleged practice of improper below market
sales and/or taking alleged improper post-production deductions.
The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which
she recommended that the District Judge decide that the deemed
lease provision of the Gas and Oil Act is constitutional as is the
1/8 royalty.  The Magistrate Judge recommended against the
dismissal of certain other claims.  The District Judge affirmed
the Magistrate Judge's recommendations in their entirety.  An
amended complaint was filed, which added additional allegations
that include gas hedging receipts should have been used as the
basis for royalty payments, severance tax should not be allowed as
a post-production deduction from royalties, and damages incurred
because gas was produced prior to the entry of pooling orders.  A
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint was filed and denied.

The Magistrate Judge issued a Report & Recommendation on June 5,
2013, recommending that the District Judge grant plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification.  CNX Gas Company filed its
extensive Objections to the Report & Recommendation on July 3,
2013, and the District Judge has scheduled argument on the
Objections on September 12, 2013.  Discovery is proceeding in this
litigation.

CONSOL Energy believes that the case has meritorious defenses and
intends to defend it vigorously.  The Company has established an
accrual to cover its estimated liability for this case.  This
accrual is immaterial to the overall financial position of CONSOL
Energy and is included in Other Accrued Liabilities on the
Consolidated Balance Sheet.

CONSOL Energy Inc. -- http://www.consolenergy.com/-- is an
American energy company with interests in coal and natural gas
production.  The Canonsburg, Pennsylvania-based Company is one of
the leading producers of high-BTU bituminous coal in the United
States.


CONSOL ENERGY: Awaits Okay of CNX Gas Shareholders Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. is awaiting court approval of its settlement of
the lawsuit styled In Re CNX Gas Shareholders Litigation pending
in Delaware, according to the Company's August 5, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

CONSOL Energy was named as a defendant in four putative class
actions brought by alleged shareholders of CNX Gas Corporation
challenging the tender offer by CONSOL Energy to acquire all of
the shares of CNX Gas common stock that CONSOL Energy did not
already own for $38.25 per share.  The two cases filed in
Pennsylvania Common Pleas Court have been stayed and the two cases
filed in the Delaware Chancery Court have been consolidated under
the caption In Re CNX Gas Shareholders Litigation (C.A. No. 5377-
VCL).  (A third case filed in Delaware was voluntarily dismissed
by the plaintiff in 2010.)  All four actions generally allege that
CONSOL Energy breached and/or aided and abetted in the breach of
fiduciary duties purportedly owed to CNX Gas public shareholders,
essentially alleging that the $38.25 per share price that CONSOL
Energy paid to CNX Gas shareholders in the tender offer and
subsequent short-form merger was unfair.  Among other things, the
actions sought a permanent injunction against or rescission of the
tender offer, damages, and attorneys' fees and expenses.

Following a mediation, the parties to the Delaware litigation have
agreed in principle to a settlement and release of all of the
claims of the plaintiff class (as defined in a January 20, 2011
order of certification) in exchange for defendants' agreement to
establish a settlement fund in the amount of $42,730,000 for
distribution to class members, of which CONSOL Energy is
responsible for $20,200,000.

On May 8, 2013, the parties executed and filed with the Court a
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement.  A
Settlement Hearing was scheduled by the Court on August 23, 2013.

CONSOL Energy Inc. -- http://www.consolenergy.com/-- is an
American energy company with interests in coal and natural gas
production.  The Canonsburg, Pennsylvania-based Company is one of
the leading producers of high-BTU bituminous coal in the United
States.


CONSOL ENERGY: Awaits Plaintiffs' Next Step in "Comer II" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. is awaiting for the plaintiffs' next course of
action in the Comer II Litigation, according to the Company's
August 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In 2005, plaintiffs Ned Comer and others filed a purported class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi against a number of companies in energy,
fossil fuels and chemical industries, including CONSOL Energy
styled, Comer, et al. v. Murphy Oil, et al. (Comer I).  The
plaintiffs, residents and owners of property along the Mississippi
Gulf coast, alleged that the defendants caused the emission of
greenhouse gases that contributed to global warming, which in turn
caused a rise in sea levels and added to the ferocity of Hurricane
Katrina, which combined to destroy the plaintiffs' property.  The
District Court dismissed the case and the plaintiffs appealed.
The Circuit Court panel reversed and the defendants sought a
rehearing before the entire court.  A rehearing before the entire
court was granted, which had the effect of vacating the panel's
reversal, but before the case could be heard on the merits, a
number of judges recused themselves and there was no longer a
quorum.  As a result, the District Court's dismissal was
effectively reinstated.  The plaintiffs asked the U.S. Supreme
Court to require the Circuit Court to address the merits of their
appeal.  On January 11, 2011, the Supreme Court denied that
request. Although that should have resulted in the dismissal being
final, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit on May 27, 2011, in the same
jurisdiction against essentially the same defendants making nearly
identical allegations as in the original lawsuit (Comer II).  The
trial court dismissed this case, and the dismissal was appealed.

On May 14, 2013, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding res judicata arising from Comer I
bars the plaintiffs' claims in Comer II.  On June 5, 2013, the
Fifth Circuit issued its mandate.  If they wish to do so, the
plaintiffs had until August 12, 2013, to file a certiorari
petition with the Supreme Court of the United States.

CONSOL Energy Inc. -- http://www.consolenergy.com/-- is an
American energy company with interests in coal and natural gas
production.  The Canonsburg, Pennsylvania-based Company is one of
the leading producers of high-BTU bituminous coal in the United
States.


CONSOL ENERGY: "Hall" Litigation Remains Pending in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit was filed on December 23, 2010,
styled Hall v. CONSOL Gas Company in Allegheny County Pennsylvania
Common Pleas Court.  The named plaintiff is Earl D. Hall.  The
purported class plaintiffs are all Pennsylvania oil and gas
lessors to Dominion Exploration and Production Company, whose
leases were acquired by CONSOL Energy Inc.  The complaint alleges
more than 1,000 similarly situated lessors.  The lawsuit alleges
that CONSOL Energy incorrectly calculated royalties by (i)
calculating line loss on the basis of allocated volumes rather
than on a well-by-well basis, (ii) possibly calculating the
royalty on the basis of an incorrect price, (iii) possibly taking
unreasonable deductions for post-production costs and costs that
were not arms-length, (iv) not paying royalties on gas lost or
used before the point of sale, and (v) not paying royalties on oil
production.  The complaint also alleges that royalty statements
were false and misleading.  The complaint seeks damages, interest
and an accounting on a well-by-well basis.  The case has been
inactive since December 2011.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 5, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

CONSOL Energy believes that the case is without merit and intends
to defend it vigorously.  Consequently, the Company has not
recognized any liability related to these actions.

CONSOL Energy Inc. -- http://www.consolenergy.com/-- is an
American energy company with interests in coal and natural gas
production.  The Canonsburg, Pennsylvania-based Company is one of
the leading producers of high-BTU bituminous coal in the United
States.


DONNA KARAN: Faces Class Suit From Interns
------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports Donna Karan International is the
latest to face a class action accusing it of stiffing interns and
so-called trainees for minimum wages, in New York County Supreme
Court.


EBAY INC: Judge Certifies Class Action But Rejects Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports a
federal judge certified a class action against eBay over its
Featured Plus subscription service, but rejected a proposed
settlement for "obvious deficiencies."

Auto accessories dealer and lead plaintiff Custom LED claimed in a
2012 lawsuit that it paid $39.95 for eBay's now-defunct Featured
Plus service, which was supposed to bump the ads of subscribers to
the top of the search page. The service was allegedly "completely
nonfunctional" much of the time because of known bugs in the
program.

Despite these issues, eBay continued to both market Featured Plus
and charge for the service even after the service had stopped
working entirely, according to the complaint.

Last May, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston dismissed Custom LED's
common-law fraud claims, but moved the contract action forward.
After a year of investigation and discovery, the parties entered
into mediation and announced they had reached a $4.75 million
settlement agreement in June.

But on Aug. 27, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar found the proposed
settlement deficient in a number of ways.  Besides an overly broad
release of any claim relating to Featured Plus -- whether related
to Custom LED's action or not -- Tigar also said the planned
notice to potential class members lacked sufficient information on
the scope of the release.

Additionally, the judge doubted that the default method of
distributing the settlement -- eBay account credits -- would be
fair to the entire class.

"The parties do not explain how these credits, which can be
applied only 'pursuant to the normal terms and conditions that
govern the use of credits by eBay users,' are consistent with the
'cash' settlement they describe in their motion," Tigar wrote.
"They also do not explain why it would be fair to the class to
reduce the credits by any amounts owed to eBay, even if such
liabilities are unrelated to Featured Plus fees."

Tigar also took issue with the proposed scheme to distribute the
settlement, which would have been bifurcated by time period and
might "unfairly benefit some class members at the expense of
others," according to the ruling.

"The parties assert that 'most of the Featured Plus fees were paid
during [the first] period,'" Tigar wrote, citing the proposed
settlement. "Yet, under the terms of the settlement, only one
third of the net settlement fund will be distributed to claims
arising in that period. This uneven allocation appears to be the
consequence of the parties' belief 'that the claims during [the
first] time period are much less significant than the claims [in
the second period].' The court is not persuaded that this belief
is correct given that the claims and defenses pertaining to each
period, as described by the parties in their motion, appear to be
substantially similar."

He continued: "The bare summary of the claims and defenses with
respect to each period that the parties provide in their motion,
which is devoid of any analysis of the relevant evidence, is
insufficient to justify bifurcating the distribution of the net
settlement fund such that claims in the second period will receive
twice the payout as claims in the first period. Without an
evaluation of the evidence material to the claims in each period,
the court cannot conclude that the proposed bifurcation is fair to
the putative class members, especially those whose claims fall
exclusively within the first period."

Tigar also noted that class members who opt to receive their
settlements as checks may receive preferential treatment, given
eBay's scheme of deducting accumulated user fees from those who
opt for an account credit.

The parties have 60 days to fix the deficiencies in the proposed
settlement and refile for the court's approval.

A copy of the 14-page order is available from Courthouse News
Service: http://is.gd/tVnhZz


FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Aug. 28
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against The
First Marblehead Corp. and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, District of
Massachusetts, and docketed under 13-cv-12121-PBS, is on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of First Marblehead between November
4, 2010 and August 15, 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 First Marblehead securities
during the Class Period, you have until October 28, 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.

First Marblehead is a specialty finance company focused on
education loan programs for K-12, undergraduate and graduate
students in the United States, as well as tuition planning,
tuition billing, refund management and payment technology
services.  The Company partners with lenders to design and
administer education loan programs, which are typically school-
certified and marketed through educational institutions or
prospective student borrowers and their families directly, and to
generate portfolios intended to be held by the originating lender
or financed in the capital markets.  First Marblehead also offers
a number of ancillary services in support of its clients,
including loan origination, retail banking, portfolio management
and securitization services.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and financial performance.  Specifically, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company's tax treatment for its sale of the Trust
Certificate and similarly situated securities was inappropriate;
(2) such treatment exposed the Company to significant liability,
threatening the future viability of the Company; (3) the Company
lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and
(4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On August 15, 2013, in its press release announcing quarterly
results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013, the Company
disclosed that the tax liability related to its IRS audit would
amount to $300 million, more than the Company's reported cash on
hand, and nearly double its market capitalization.  On this news,
First Marblehead shares declined $0.57 per share or over 36%, to
close at $1.00 per share on August 16, 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.


FURNITURE BRANDS: Pomerantz Grossman Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Aug. 30
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
Furniture Brands International, Inc. and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, Eastern
District of Missouri, and docketed under 13-cv-01703, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of FBN between February 13, 2013 and
August 5, 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 FBN securities during the
Class Period, you have until October 15, 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.

FBN manufactures and distributes residential furniture. The
Company's products include stationary upholstery products,
occasional furniture, recliners and sleep sofas.  The Company's
trade names include, among others, Thomasville, Broyhill, Lane,
and Drexel Heritage.

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 misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(a) the Company was experiencing weaknesses in its wholesale
business; (b) the Company's trade names were being carried at
inflated values that would require material impairments; (c) the
Company was experiencing severe liquidity issues; (d) and based
upon the above, the Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their
positive statements about the Company during the Class Period.

On August 6, 2013, prior to the open of the financial markets, the
Company issued a press release, reporting the Company's second
quarter financial results for the quarter ending June 29, 2013.
The Company disclosed a material impairment and that it would need
to address liquidity challenges and improve business performance
by implementing strategic initiatives to achieve cost reductions,
pursuing asset sales and working with its lenders to potentially
modify its credit facilities.  On this news, shares of FBN
declined $0.84 per share, more than 38%, to close at $1.37 per
share on August 6, 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.


GARDEN-FRESH FOODS: Recalls Spartan American Potato Salad
---------------------------------------------------------
Garden-Fresh Foods, Inc. of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is recalling A
Limited Quantity of Spartan Fresh Selections American Potato Salad
In 16 oz. Packages, because it has the potential to be
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can
cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children,
frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.
Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal
pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

Spartan Fresh Selections American Potato Salad was distributed by
Spartan Stores in the State of Michigan and Toledo Ohio.

The affected Spartan Fresh Selections American Potato Salad is
packaged in square 16 oz. plastic retail containers with a UPC
Code Number 0 11213 90320 0 and a USE BY DATE of 09/06/13/04.

There have been no illnesses reported in connection with this
product.

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing
revealed the presence of Listeria monocytogenes in 16 oz. packages
of Spartan Fresh Selections American Potato Salad with a USE BY
DATE OF 09/06/13/04.

Consumers who have purchased this product should not open the
package or use the contents.  Instead, they should return the
product to the location of purchase for a full refund.


GOLDENFEAST INC: Recalls Bird Food Due to Salmonella Contamination
------------------------------------------------------------------
Goldenfeast Inc. is recalling several exotic bird food blends due
to possible contamination of Salmonella from parsley flake
ingredients supplied to Goldenfeast Inc. by Specialty Commodities,
Inc., an outside supplier to Goldenfeast Inc.  On February 11,
2013, Specialty Commodities, Inc. initiated a voluntary product
recall of parsley flakes distributed to Goldenfeast Inc. and other
pet food manufacturers because the product may have the potential
to be contaminated with Salmonella.  Specialty Commodities
distributed the product to Goldenfeast Inc. on May 17, 2012.  No
human or pet illnesses have been reported. Goldenfeast Inc. is
initiating this recall in accordance with FDA guidelines.

Recalled products were distributed to retailers and distributors
in the states of: Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware,
Florida, Illinois, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin,
Virginia and Canada.

No other Goldenfeast Inc. products are affected by this voluntary
recall.  Customers who have purchased any of the products listed
below are urged to contact Goldenfeast at 800-344-6536 between the
hours and 9 am and 5 pm. EST, Monday through Friday, for
instruction on product return.

Salmonella can affect animals eating the products and humans may
be at risk from handling contaminated pet products.  Healthy
persons exposed to Salmonella should monitor themselves for some
or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomit, diarrhea or
bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping, and fever.  In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in more
serious ailments, including arterial infections, endocarditis,
arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation, and urinary track
symptoms.  Consumers exhibiting these symptoms after having
contact with these products should contact their physician or
healthcare provider.

Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea
or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting.  Some pets will have only
decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain.  Infection but
otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or
humans.  If your pet has consumed the recalled product(s) and has
these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.


IMMERSION CORP: Appeal From Securities Suit Dismissal Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of In re Immersion Corporation
Securities Litigation remains pending, according to the Company's
August 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In September and October 2009, various putative shareholder class
action and derivative complaints were filed in federal and state
court against the Company and certain current and former Immersion
directors and officers.

On September 2, 2009, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers.  Over the following
five weeks, four additional class action complaints were filed.
(One of these four actions was later voluntarily dismissed.)  The
securities class action complaints name the Company and certain
current and former Immersion directors and officers as defendants
and allege violations of federal securities laws based on the
Company's issuance of allegedly misleading financial statements.
The various complaints assert claims covering the period from May
2007 through July 2009 and seek compensatory damages allegedly
sustained by the purported class members.

On December 21, 2009, these class actions were consolidated by the
court as In Re Immersion Corporation Securities Litigation.  On
the same day, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel.  Following the Company's restatement of its
financial statements, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint on April 9, 2010.  The Defendants moved to dismiss the
action on June 15, 2010, and that motion was granted with leave to
amend on March 11, 2011.  The Lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on April 29, 2011.  The Defendants moved to dismiss the
amended complaint on July 1, 2011.  On December 16, 2011, the
motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice and on December 19,
2011, judgment was entered in favor of defendants.  On January 13,
2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals.  In May 2012, plaintiff filed his opening
appeals brief.  On July 13, 2012, the Company filed its response
brief.  On September 4, 2012, plaintiff filed his reply.

Immersion Corporation -- http://www.immersion.com/-- is an
intellectual property and technology licensing company focused on
the creation, design, development and licensing of patented haptic
innovations and technologies that allow people to use their sense
of touch more fully when operating a wide variety of digital
devices.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in San Jose, California.


INTERLINE BRANDS: Continues to Defend TCPA Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Interline Brands, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, according to the Company's August 5, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 28, 2013.

On May 10, 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in the case
of Craftwood Lumber Company, an Illinois corporation, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Interline
Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Interline Brands, Inc. a
New Jersey corporation, filed before the Nineteenth Judicial
Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois, and subsequently removed
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.  The complaint alleges that the Company sent thousands
of unsolicited fax advertisements to businesses nationwide in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as
amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 ("TCPA").  At the
time of filing the initial complaint in state court, the plaintiff
also filed a motion asking the Court to certify a class of
plaintiffs comprised of businesses who allegedly received
unsolicited fax advertisements from the Company.  The plaintiff is
seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining the
Company from violating the TCPA, as well as statutory damages of
$500 (or $1,500 if such violations are found to have been willful)
for each fax transmission found to be in violation of the TCPA.
Other reported TCPA claims have resulted in a broad range of
outcomes, with each case being dependent on its own unique set of
facts and circumstances.  Accordingly, the Company says it cannot
reasonably estimate the amount of loss, if any, arising from this
matter.  As such, no provision has been recorded in the financial
statements for this claim as of June 28, 2013.  The Company is
vigorously contesting class action certification and liability,
and will continue to evaluate its defenses based upon its internal
review, advice from external legal counsel and investigation of
prior events, new information, and future circumstances.

Interline Brands, Inc. -- http://www.interlinebrands.com/-- is a
national distributor and direct marketer of broad-line
maintenance, repair and operations products.  The Company sells
plumbing, electrical, hardware, security, heating, ventilation and
air conditioning, janitorial and sanitation supplies and other MRO
products.  The Company is based in Jacksonville, Florida.


ISRAEL CHEMICALS: Faces Securities Class Action in Tel Aviv Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Israel Corporation Ltd. disclosed that on August 29, 2013, a
request was filed with the Tel Aviv District Court for the
approval of a class action against Israel Chemicals Ltd., the
Company, Potashcorp Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd, ICL's
Board of Directors and ICL's CEO based on the ground of misleading
item, misleading and non-disclosure of material detail in ICL's
reports, all in violation of the Securities law and the general
law.

The subject of the claim, as written in it, is in explicit
misleading and intentional non-disclosure in ICL's reports
regarding it being "a party to a cartel, or a party to price
coordination, or being directly affected by the existence of a
cartel or a suspicion of the existence of such or price
coordination, or joint marketing of the main factors in the potash
market, and it being a direct and significant beneficiary of a
cartel or prices coordinating, or that the price of its main
product and most influential on its incomes is not determined by
market conditions, but rather because of the existence of
coordination and adjustment of prices mechanisms, that are
artificially affecting its price."

According to the plaintiff, due to the above, the respondents are
responsible for the damage which was caused to investors as a
result of the reduction of ICL's share price after the
announcement of Uralkali regarding its intention to cease potash
marketing through the marketing corporation BPC.  The aggregate
amount of damages claimed is NIS2.75 billion or NIS3.28 billion.
The Company and its legal advisors are studying the lawsuit and
will contemplate the Company's next steps.


LEAP WIRELESS: Faces Merger Suits in Delaware and California
------------------------------------------------------------
Leap Wireless International, Inc., is facing merger-related class
action lawsuits in Delaware and California, according to the
Company's August 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On July 12, 2013, AT&T Inc. ("AT&T") entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of July 12, 2013 (the "Merger
Agreement"), with Leap, Mariner Acquisition Sub Inc., a Delaware
corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T ("Merger Sub"),
and Laser, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the stockholders'
representative), pursuant to which, upon the terms and subject to
the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement, AT&T will
acquire Leap in a transaction in which Leap stockholders would
receive $15.00 in cash for each outstanding share of Leap's common
stock, plus one non-transferable contingent value right ("CVR")
per share (together, the "Merger Consideration").  The CVR will
entitle each Leap stockholder to a pro rata share of the net
proceeds of the future sale of the Company's 700 MHz A block
license in Chicago.  The Merger Agreement provides that, on the
terms and subject to the conditions thereof, Merger Sub will be
merged with and into Leap (the "Merger") with Leap continuing as
the surviving corporation in the Merger, and each outstanding
share of common stock of Leap (other than excluded shares) will
cease to be outstanding and will be converted into the right to
receive the Merger Consideration.

On July 15, 2013, following the announcement of the Merger, a
lawsuit was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery challenging
the proposed Merger.  The action is captioned Booth Family Trust
v. Leap Wireless International, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 8730-VCN.
It is a putative class action filed on behalf of purported
stockholders of Leap, and names Leap and its directors as
defendants.  The complaint alleges that the directors of Leap
breached their fiduciary duties to Leap stockholders by engaging
in a flawed sales process, by agreeing to sell Leap for inadequate
consideration and by agreeing to improper deal protection terms in
the Merger Agreement.  The complaint seeks, among other relief,
declaratory and injunctive relief against the Merger and costs and
fees.

On July 19, 2013, July 24, 2013, and July 26, 2013, following the
announcement of the Merger, lawsuits were filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Diego challenging
the proposed Merger.  The action filed on July 19, 2013 is
captioned John Kim v. Leap Wireless International, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 37-2013-00058491-CU-BT-CTL and the actions filed on
July 24, 2013, are captioned Wesley Decker v. Leap Wireless
International, Inc. et al, Case No. 37-2013-00059095-CU-SL-CTL and
Roxane Andrews v. Leap Wireless International, Inc. et al, Case
No. 37-2013-00059141-CU-BT-CTL.  The action filed on July 26, 2013
is captioned Joseph Marino v. Leap Wireless International Inc. et
al, Case No. 37-2013-00059565-CU-BT-CTL.  Each lawsuit is a
putative class action filed on behalf of purported stockholders of
Leap and names Leap, its directors as well as AT&T and Merger Sub
as defendants.  The complaints allege that Leap and its directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Leap stockholders, and that
AT&T and Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches, by agreeing
to improper deal protection terms in the Merger Agreement.  The
Decker, Andrews and Marino complaints further allege that Leap and
its directors breached their fiduciary duties, and that AT&T and
Merger Sub aided and abetted such breaches, by engaging in a
flawed sales process and by agreeing to sell Leap for inadequate
consideration.  The Kim complaint seeks, among other relief,
declaratory and injunctive relief against the Merger, imposition
of a constructive trust and costs and fees.  The Decker, Andrews
and Marino complaints seek, among other relief, declaratory and
injunctive relief against the Merger and costs and fees.

The Company says the outcome of these lawsuits is uncertain.  An
adverse monetary judgment could have a material adverse effect on
the operations and liquidity of Leap, a preliminary injunction
could delay or jeopardize the completion of the Merger and an
adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could
indefinitely enjoin completion of the Merger. Leap  believes these
lawsuits are meritless.

Headquartered in San Diego, California, Leap Wireless
International, Inc. is a wireless communications carrier that
offers digital wireless services in the U.S. under the
"Cricket(R)" brand.  The Company's Cricket service offerings
provide customers with unlimited nationwide wireless services for
a flat rate without requiring a fixed-term contract or a credit
check.


LINNCO LLC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP on Aug. 30 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Case No. 4:13-cv-02521-VDG, expanding
the class definition to include all those investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired LinnCo, LLC securities and/or sold LNCO put
option contracts between October 12, 2012 and July 1, 2013,
inclusive and suffered damages as a result.

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action or view a
copy of the complaint, you can do so by clicking here:
http://www.faruqilaw.com/LNCO There is no cost or obligation to
you.

LNCO is a Delaware limited liability company whose sole purpose is
to own units representing limited liability company interests in
Linn Energy, LLC.  Linn is an independent natural gas exploration
and production company whose units trade on NASDAQ under the
symbol "LINE."

LNCO, certain of its officers and/or directors, and underwriters
are charged with violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about LNCO's
business and financial condition.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose to LNCO investors that: (1) Linn was
overstating the cash flow available for distribution to Linn
unitholders such as LNCO by, among other things, excluding the
cost of certain hedging transactions from its calculation of
adjusted EBITDA, and understating maintenance capital
expenditures; and (2) as a result of the foregoing, LNCO's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

In February and May 2013, Barron's questioned Linn's aggressive
accounting practices.  Among other things, Barron's criticized
Linn for using non-GAAP accounting to mask considerable weakness
in its distributable cash flows, thus calling into question the
sustainability of its dividend.  Further, Barron's questioned
Linn's accounting for its derivative contracts by, for example,
excluding the cost of its put contract derivatives from its cash
flow, while including the gains.  As a result of these issues, in
its May 2013 article, Barron's labeled Linn "the country's most
overpriced large energy producer."  Following the May 2013
Barron's article, Linn units declined 7%, to close at $35.75 per
unit on May 6, 2013. In turn, LNCO shares dropped nearly 8% to
close at $39.24 per share on May 6, 2013.

On July 1, 2013, Linn and LNCO disclosed that the SEC had opened
an informal inquiry into Linn and LNCO's hedging strategies and
use of non-GAAP financial measures (the same accounting issues for
which Linn and LNCO had been criticized by Barron's).  On this
news, Linn units declined $10.50 per unit, or 31.5%, within two
trading sessions, to close at $22.79 per unit on July 3, 2013.  In
turn, LNCO shares dropped $10.12 per share, or 27.3%, within two
trading sessions, to close at $26.95 per share on July 3, 2013.

Plaintiff now seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and
all other individual and institutional investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired LNCO securities and/or sold LNCO put option
contracts between October 12, 2012 and July 1, 2013, excluding
defendants and their affiliates, and were damaged thereby.
Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions and actions
involving corporate fraud.

If you sold LNCO put option contracts and/or purchased or
otherwise acquired LNCO securities during the Class Period and
were damaged thereby, you may, not later than September 9, 2013,
move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so
choose.  In order to discuss this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact:

          Attn: Richard Gonnello, Esq.
                Francis McConville, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (877) 247-4292
                     (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
                  fmcconville@faruqilaw.com


LOUISIANA: Class Action v. Treasurer Cost Taxpayers $2.65 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren McGaughy, writing for NOLA.com, reports that owners of
interest-bearing property that was surrendered to the state of
Louisiana can get back the money it would have earned while it was
in the state's grasp, according to an announcement that was set to
be made by Treasurer John Kennedy on Aug. 30.

The public announcement is the third the state has made about a
14-year, $2.65 million class-action lawsuit brought against
Mr. Kennedy and finally settled in 2012.  The settlement required
the approval of Gov. Bobby Jindal and Attorney General Buddy
Caldwell as well as the legislative budget committee.

The settlement determined that Mr. Kennedy, as head of the
Unclaimed Property office, did not refund interest accrued by
properties, such as certain checking accounts, after they were
reclaimed by those who had abandoned them to the state.

The lawyers in the case, Richard Dodson and Kenny Hooks of Dodson,
Hooks and Frederick in Baton Rouge, received $2 million in
attorney's fees, all taken from the state general fund.  An
additional $450,000 in taxpayer money went to pay costs such as
expert testimony and travel.

The Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget approved the
appropriations on May 20, 2012.  They can be viewed in the act
laying out the state budget that year.

To enter the class, one must have had property in the state's
Unclaimed Property office before Dec. 31, 2011, and must be able
to prove the property was interest-bearing.  Class members must
provide documentation of the reclaimed property's interest rate.

The notifications will appear in each of the state's six largest
newspapers, including Times-Picayune.

Meanwhile, not one class member has come forward to prove they are
owed interest on an account once under the control of Unclaimed
Property -- including the original claimant himself.

The saga of the lawsuit spans more than a decade, but started
simply enough, with one man who received notification from a long-
lost uncle of a $1,300 trust fund that was allowed to lie fallow
and eventually made it into the state's unclaimed property
accounts.

That man, William J. Albach, filed suit in 1998 to recoup the
interest on the money from Unclaimed Property, then under the
control of the Department of Revenue headed by Mr. Kennedy.  When
Mr. Kennedy was elected to head the state treasury in 2000, he
soon brought the Unclaimed Property office with him and thus the
burden of the suit.

Early on, Mr. Kennedy was dealt a blow in the case when a related
lawsuit dealing with interest-bearing utility accounts went all
the way to the state Supreme Court.  Mr. Kennedy appealed the
ruling that, statutorily, interest on such accounts needed to be
refunded to those reclaiming the property.

His appeal was denied and Treasury now refunds interest on utility
accounts.  Since 2000, it has refunded more than $300,000 in
interest from such accounts.  The refunds come from Unclaimed
Property's own funds.

But although Mr. Kennedy's office has now made three announcements
about the lawsuit settlement, no class members have come forward
to claim money from the state -- not even Mr. Albach.

Nevertheless, Unclaimed Property has budgeted up to $15 million
from its surplus to pay claims, even though Treasury Department
officials don't expect they will need even a fraction of that.

Jim Napper, Mr. Kennedy's executive counsel, said that although
the process took 14 years, it culminated in a "model settlement"
because the governor, attorney general and Legislature all
approved the final outcome.  Some other suits never get approval
for the appropriation of funds to pay attorneys fees or class
members, Mr. Napper said.


MANULIFE FINANCIAL: Dentons Discusses Class Certification Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Beeforth, Esq. at Dentons reports that on July 25, 2013,
Justice Belobaba of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released
his decision (2013 ONSC 4083) certifying a proposed class action
brought by the Ironworkers Ontario Pension Fund against Manulife
Financial Corp. and two of its former executives, Dominic
D'Alessandro (CEO) and Peter Rubenovitch (CFO).  Belobaba J. also
granted the plaintiffs leave to commence an action for secondary
market misrepresentation under s. 138 of the Ontario Securities
Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5.

                            Background

In early 2004, Manulife added a number of new guaranteed
investment products to its array of segregated funds.  Unlike most
of its older products, Manulife decided that the Guaranteed
Products would not be hedged or reinsured -- any risk of equity
market fluctuations would be borne entirely by Manulife.  The
Guaranteed Products were very successful, growing Manulife's
business from approximately $71 billion in early 2004 to
approximately $165 billion by the end of 2008.  However, almost
all (if not completely all) of that business was unhedged and
uninsured.  When the global financial crisis hit in the fall of
2008 and the Canadian and American equity markets fell by more
than 35%, Manulife was badly overexposed.

On February 12, 2009, Manulife released its 2008 annual financial
statements which disclosed that corporate profits had fallen by
almost $3.8 billion from the previous year ($2 billion of which
was attributable to the Guaranteed Products line) and EPS had
dropped from $2.78 to $0.32.  The statements also noted that
Manulife had increased its reserves from $576 million at year-end
2007 to $5.783 billion because of its unhedged exposure to the
equity markets.  Investors reacted immediately: Manulife's share
price dropped 6% on the date it released its financial statements,
fell a further 37% over the following ten days and, by the end of
Manulife's Q1 2009, was trading at $8.92, a 77% decline from its
$38.28 trading price six months earlier.

The plaintiffs commenced a proposed class action in July 2009
based on claims of negligence, negligent misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment and the secondary market liability provision of the
Act.  The plaintiffs alleged that while Manulife was entitled to
make a business decision not to hedge or reinsure its equity
market risk, it had a legal obligation to fully and fairly
disclose to investors its decision to abandon such techniques and
the resulting risks.  The plaintiffs further alleged, among other
things, that Manulife consistently misrepresented in its core
disclosure documents that it had in place "effective, rigorous,
disciplined and prudent" risk management systems, policies and
practices.

                           Discussion

In certifying the action as a class proceeding and granting leave
to pursue a s. 138 claim, Belobaba J. focused on two aspects
integral to asserting the statutory cause of action: the test for
leave to pursue such a proceeding, and the requirement under the
Class Proceedings Act, S.O. 1992, c. 6, that the pleadings
disclose a cause of action.

           Leave Test under Section 138.8(1) of the Act

Belobaba J. discussed at some length the uncertainties surrounding
the second branch of the leave test set out at s. 138.8(1) of the
Act: that is, that there is a reasonable possibility that the
action will be resolved at trial in favor of the plaintiff [1]. In
Ontario, class action judges have consistently treated the
"reasonable possibility" threshold as a relatively low standard,
holding that the plaintiff must simply show, based on a reasoned
consideration of the evidence, that there is something more than a
de minimis possibility of success at trial.  On the other hand,
courts in British Columbia have viewed the test as a higher
standard which is intended to do more than screen out clearly
frivolous, scandalous or vexatious actions.

Belobaba J. pointed out that while his opinion was more consistent
with the latter interpretation, the debate may have been decided
in favor of the more lenient interpretation by the Supreme Court
of Canada's recent decision in R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada, 2011
SCC 42.  In that decision, the Supreme Court held that under the
strike-pleadings rule -- which allows a claim to be struck if it
is plain and obvious, assuming the facts as pleaded to be true,
that the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action -- one
must only show a "reasonable prospect of success", which amounts
to the same thing as a "reasonable possibility of success" and may
effectively render the test under s. 138.8 of the Act a de minimis
threshold (as articulated by the Ontario courts).  In any event,
Belobaba J. held that he would have come to the same conclusion in
favour of the plaintiffs under either interpretation of the test.

            Certification under Class Proceedings Act

In certifying the action as a class proceeding, Belobaba J.
addressed Manulife's argument that the pleadings did not disclose
a cause of action claim in respect of the s. 138 claim because the
action was not commenced within three years of the alleged
misrepresentations (as required by s. 138.14 of the Act and the
Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in Sharma v. Timminco Ltd.,
2012 ONCA 107).

While Timminco is currently under review by a five-member panel of
the Court of Appeal, Belobaba J. agreed with Manulife that he is
bound by the current state of the law.  However, he also agreed
with the plaintiffs' position that Timminco did not deal directly
with the court's jurisdiction to grant leave nunc pro tunc, and
that case law subsequent to Timminco has held that the limitation
period in s. 138 of the Act is subject to the special
circumstances doctrine (which provides a limited jurisdiction to
make orders nunc pro tunc that have the effect of reviving a
statute-barred cause of action [2]).  On this basis, Belobaba J.
concluded that he could not say that it is plain and obvious that
the limitation period defense applies and the statutory claim is
certain to fail.

                             Conclusion

Justice Belobaba's decision, while uncontroversial in its
application of current legal principles, stands as an interesting
commentary on future potential developments regarding the
threshold to be applied in the test for leave under s. 138 of the
Act.  Indeed, in light of Imperial Tobacco, it may be inevitable
that a lower standard emerges which, in Belobaba J.'s words,
renders the test for leave "nothing more than a speed bump".  It
remains to be seen in future case law whether his premonition
proves true.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Settles Concussion Class Action for $765 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zach Warren, writing for InsideCounsel, reports that for the past
few years, the National Football League has been hounded by
questions over player safety.  On the forefront of the player
safety movement was a class action lawsuit brought on account of
4,500 former players or their estates against the NFL, claiming
the league did not perform due diligence in preventing head
injuries.

On Aug. 29, the major weapon in the fight against the NFL has been
settled.

The league has agreed to a settlement to put the class action suit
to rest, agreeing to pay $765 million for injury settlements and
medical benefits for retired players.  In addition, the NFL agreed
to fund medical and safety research as well as pay all litigation
expenses.

The agreement comes after two months of negotiations under the eye
of court-appointed mediator Judge Layn Phillips.  "This is a
historic agreement, one that will make sure that former NFL
players who need and deserve compensation will receive it, and
that will promote safety for players at all levels of football,"
Judge Phillips said in a statement released on Aug. 29 by the
Alternative Dispute Resolution Center.

The settlement will now go to United States District Judge Anita
B. Brody for approval.  She is expected to hear any appeals and
approve the settlement within the next few weeks.

Most familiar with the case call the settlement a victory for the
league.  Each of the league's 32 franchises will be forced to pay
roughly $30 million towards the settlement.  By comparison, the
NFL salary cap for the 2013 season sits at $123 million.  The NFL
as a whole makes $9-10 billion per season.

As part of the pre-trial settlement, the NFL makes no admission of
any wrongdoing.  The league will pay half of the settlement over
the next three years, then the other half of the settlement in the
following 17 years.


NESTLE PURINA: Recalls 3.5-Pound Dry Dog Food Bags
--------------------------------------------------
Nestle Purina PetCare Company (NPPC) is voluntarily recalling a
limited number of 3.5-pound bags of its Purina ONE beyOnd Our
White Meat Chicken & Whole Barley Recipe Adult Dry Dog Food from a
single production run and shipped to retail customers in the
United States.  This is being done because one bag of the product
was found to be contaminated with Salmonella.

Only Purina ONE beyOnd Our White Meat Chicken & Whole Barley
Recipe Adult Dry Dog Food with both the "Best By" date and the
production code shown below are included in this voluntary recall:

  Bag Size - 3.5 lb.; "Best By" Date & Production Code*OCT 2014
  31071083 UPC Code 17800 12679

*"Best By" Date and Production Code are found on the back or
bottom of the bag.

No additional Purina or Purina ONE dog or cat products are
involved in this voluntary recall at this time.  No salmonella-
related illness has been reported to date in association with this
product.

Consumers who have purchased Purina ONE beyOnd Our White Meat
Chicken & Whole Barley Recipe Adult Dry Dog Food products with the
specific "Best By" Date and Production Code should discontinue
feeding the product and discard it.

Salmonella can affect animals eating the product, and there is a
risk to humans from handling contaminated products.  People
handling contaminated dry pet food can become infected with
Salmonella, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their
hands after having contact with surfaces exposed to this product.
Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves
for the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal
cramping and fever.  Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious
ailments including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis,
muscle pain, eye irritation and urinary tract symptoms.  Consumers
exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product
should contact their healthcare providers.

For further information or to obtain a product refund, please call
NPPC toll-free at 1-800-473-8546, 24 hours a day, seven days a
week.


NSP-MINNESOTA: Awaits "Comer II" Suit Plaintiffs' Next Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Northern States Power Company said in its August 5, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013, that it is uncertain whether the
plaintiffs will seek further review of the affirmation of the
dismissal of the Comer II Litigation.

In May 2011, less than a year after their initial lawsuit was
dismissed, the plaintiffs in the purported class action lawsuit
captioned Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc., et al., filed a second
lawsuit against more than 85 utility, oil, chemical and coal
companies in the U.S. District Court in Mississippi.  The
complaint alleges defendants' CO2 emissions intensified the
strength of Hurricane Katrina and increased the damage plaintiffs
purportedly sustained to their property.  The Plaintiffs base
their claims on public and private nuisance, trespass and
negligence.  Among the defendants named in the complaint are Xcel
Energy Inc., SPS, PSCo, NSP-Wisconsin and NSP-Minnesota.  The
amount of damages claimed by plaintiffs is unknown.  The
defendants believe this lawsuit is without merit and filed a
motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  In March 2012, the U.S. District
Court granted this motion for dismissal.  In April 2012,
plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit.  In May 2013, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal of this lawsuit.

The Company says it is uncertain whether the plaintiffs will seek
further review of this decision.  Although Xcel Energy believes
the likelihood of loss is remote based upon existing case law, it
is not possible to estimate the amount or range of reasonably
possible loss in the event of an adverse outcome of this matter.
No accrual has been recorded for this matter.

Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, was
incorporated in 2000 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel
Energy Inc.  NSP-Minnesota is an operating utility primarily
engaged in the generation, purchase, transmission, distribution
and sale of electricity in Minnesota, North Dakota and South
Dakota.  The Company is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota.


NUVASIVE INC: Sued for Inflating Share Prices
---------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Nuvasive and its officers
inflated shares prices by making false and misleading statements,
a class claims.

The case is captioned Danny Popov v. NuVasive Inc.; Alexis
Lukianov; Kevin O'Boyle; Michael Lambert and pending with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California.


NUVASIVE INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Aug. 28
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
NuVasive, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Southern District of
California, and docketed under 13-cv-02005-W-WMC, is on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of NuVasive between October 22, 2008
and July 30, 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 NuVasive securities during
the Class Period, you have until October 28, 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.

NuVasive designs, develops, and markets products for the surgical
treatment of spine disorders.  The Company's products include
Maximum Access Surgery ("MAS") and Fusion products.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
the Company improperly submitted false claims to Medicare and
Medicaid in violation of federal and state laws and regulations;
(2) the Company's internal compliance program was unable to detect
and report False Claims Act and other violations; and (3) as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 30, 2013, the Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q for its
second quarter 2013 that it had "received a federal administrative
subpoena from the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (OIG) in connection with
an investigation into possible false or otherwise improper claims
submitted to Medicare and Medicaid.  The subpoena seeks discovery
of documents for the period January 2007 through April 2013.  On
this news, shares of NuVasive declined $3.28 per share, more than
12%, to close at $22.84 per share on July 31, 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.


ONYX PHARMACEUTICALS: Weisslaw Files Class Action in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------
WeissLaw LLP on Aug. 30 disclosed that it has filed a class action
complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the
proposed acquisition of Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. by Amgen Inc.

The complaint focuses on the failure of Onyx's Board of Directors
to maximize value for its shareholders.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges:

   -- despite the Company publicly rejecting Amgen's unsolicited
proposal to acquire Onyx for $120 per share, on June 30, 2013,
proclaiming that "Onyx has tremendous momentum" and that the
"price proposed by Amgen significantly undervalued Onyx and its
prospects, and was not in the best interest of Onyx and its
shareholders", now, less than two months later, the Board has
agreed to sell the Company for a mere $5 per share over the
admittedly "significantly" inadequate price of $120;

   -- the $125 offer price represents a discount to Onyx's closing
price of $125.90, as recently as August 14, 2013, and a
significant discount to Onyx's closing price of $136.03 on July 5,
2013; and

   -- the $125 offer price is significantly below target prices
for the Company's stock set by analysts after Amgen's unsolicited
$120 offer was announced, with a high target set at $160, with one
analyst noting that the acquisition is "a steal for Amgen."

Given these facts, and Onyx shareholder represented by WeissLaw
LLP filed the complaint challenging Onyx's Board's decision to
sell the Company to Amgen now rather than allow shareholders to
continue to participate in the Company's continued success and
future growth prospects.

Onyx shareholders have the option to join the class action lawsuit
to secure the best possible price for Onyx shareholders and the
disclosure of material information so Onyx shareholders can make a
fully informed decision with respect to the acquisition.

If you own Onyx shares and would like more information about your
rights or our lawsuit, please contact Michael Rogovin, Esq. or
Joshua Rubin, Esq. either by telephone at (888) 593-4771 or by
e-mail at stockinfo@weisslawllp.com

WeissLaw LLP is a shareholder rights law firm.

CONTACT: WeissLaw LLP
         Michael Rogovin, Esq.
         Joshua Rubin, Esq.
         1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
         New York, NY  10036
         Telephone: 212-682-3025
         E-mail: stockinfo@weisslawllp.com
         Web site: http://www.weisslawllp.com


PILOT FLYING J: Trucking Firms That Filed Suits Were Overpaid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Roche, writing for The Tennessean, reports that lawyers for
Pilot Flying J claim in court filings that they actually overpaid
two of the trucking companies who have filed suit charging they
were cheated out of promised rebates.

In a response filed on Aug. 30 in circuit court in Knox County,
Pilot's lawyers charged that the two firms, Glazier Trucking and
Golden Carriers LLC, owe Pilot a total of $1,529.98 because they
were overpaid on rebates.  In the 11-page filing Pilot's lawyers
said a third company was owed nothing.

The Pilot lawyers were responding to a proposed class action suit
filed originally by a Georgia trucking firm, Atlantic Coast
Carriers, and later joined by several others.

The Pilot response asks for the case to be dismissed because the
trucking firms are not owed anything and the claims they have made
are not valid.

Lawyers for the trucking firms said on Aug. 30 they intend to
pursue the suit and respond to Pilot's claims.

The suit is one of more than 20 filed against Knoxville-based
Pilot following an April 15, 2013 raid on its headquarters by IRS
and the FBI.  In U.S. District Court in Knoxville, an FBI agent
submitted a 120-page affidavit detailing a scheme by Pilot sales
executives to reduce the rebates promised to truckers who lacked
sophisticated monitoring systems.

In a separate action in federal court in Arkansas, Pilot has filed
a proposed settlement agreement with a handful of truckling firms
in which any rebates owed will be repaid with 6 per cent interest.

The proposal, which has won initial approval from U.S. Judge James
Moody, provides for lawyers in the case to collect $14 million in
legal fees.  Judge Moody has set a Nov. 25 date for a fairness
hearing on the proposal.

The four trucking firms involved in the Knox County circuit court
case have stated they intend to opt out of that proposed
settlement.

In the filing on Aug. 30, Pilot lawyers said Glazier owes Pilot
$64.19 in overpayments, while Golden owes Pilot $1,465.97 because
of overpayments.

"Glazier was not owed any moneys under any rebate program," the
filing states, adding that Golden has not repaid Pilot for the
amount it was overpaid.

Atlantic, according to the complaint, wasn't even a participant in
the rebate program during the time of the alleged rebate scheme.


PREMIER FOODS: Recalls 4 Flavored Sauces Sold at Williams-Sonoma
----------------------------------------------------------------
Premier Foods, LLC of Santa Fe Springs, CA is voluntarily
recalling four flavored sauces due to the failure to declare the
following allergens on the product labels: milk, soy, and/or
wheat.  The products were sold at Williams-Sonoma.  People who
have allergies to milk, soy, and/or wheat run the risk of serious
or life-threatening reactions if they consume products containing
these ingredients.  Recalled products are identified as follows:

   -- Meyer Lemon Braising Base;
   -- Clove Garlic Chicken Braising Base;
   -- Tagine Sauce; and
   -- Artichoke Pecorino Sauce.

The products came in clear, glass jars.

Premier Foods, LLC immediately segregated its entire inventory of
recalled products and has notified Williams-Sonoma directly.
Consumers who have purchased the products should stop using them
and return them to Williams-Sonoma for a full refund.  Please
contact Loreto Mauro at Premier Foods, LLC (562) 944-1858 for
further information.


SPRINT CORP: Continues to Defend SoftBank Merger-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation continues to defend itself against merger-
related lawsuits, according to the Company's August 5, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On July 10, 2013, SoftBank Corp., a kabushiki kaisha organized
under the laws of Japan, and certain of its wholly-owned
subsidiaries (together, "SoftBank") completed the merger (SoftBank
Merger) contemplated by the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as
of October 15, 2012, as amended as of November 29, 2012, April 12,
2013 and June 10, 2013 (as amended, the Merger Agreement) and the
Bond Purchase Agreement (Bond Agreement).  As a result of the
SoftBank Merger, SoftBank owns approximately 78% of the
outstanding voting common stock of Sprint Corporation (formerly
known as Starburst II, Inc. prior to the consummation of the
SoftBank Merger).  Following the consummation of the SoftBank
Merger, Sprint Corporation became the parent company of Sprint
Nextel Corporation and Sprint Nextel Corporation changed its name
to Sprint Communications, Inc.  In connection with the
consummation of the SoftBank Merger, Sprint Corporation has become
the successor registrant to Sprint Nextel Corporation.

On January 6, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas denied the motion to dismiss a stockholder lawsuit, Bennett
v. Sprint Nextel Corp., that alleges that Sprint Nextel and three
of its former officers violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 by failing adequately to
disclose certain alleged operational difficulties subsequent to
the Sprint-Nextel merger, and by purportedly issuing false and
misleading statements regarding the write-down of goodwill.  The
complaint was originally filed in March 2009 and is brought on
behalf of alleged purchasers of Sprint Nextel stock from
October 26, 2006, to February 27, 2008.  The motion to certify the
January 6, 2011 order for an interlocutory (or interim) appeal was
denied, and discovery is continuing.  The plaintiff moved to
certify a class of bond holders as well as owners of common stock,
and Sprint Nextel has opposed that motion.  The Company believes
the complaint is without merit and intends to defend the matter
vigorously.  The Company does not expect the resolution of this
matter to have a material adverse effect on its financial position
or results of operations.

Five related shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed against
Sprint Nextel and certain of its present and/or former officers
and directors.  The first, Murphy v. Forsee, was filed in state
court in Kansas on April 8, 2009, was removed to federal court,
and was stayed by the court pending resolution of the motion to
dismiss the Bennett case; the second, Randolph v. Forsee, was
filed on July 15, 2010, in state court in Kansas, was removed to
federal court, and was remanded back to state court; the third,
Ross-Williams v. Bennett, et al., was filed in state court in
Kansas on February 1, 2011; the fourth, Price v. Forsee, et al.,
was filed in state court in Kansas on April 15, 2011; and the
fifth, Hartleib v. Forsee, et. al., was filed in federal court in
Kansas on July 14, 2011.  These cases are essentially stayed while
Sprint Nextel is in the discovery phase of the Bennett case.  The
Company does not expect the resolution of these matters to have a
material adverse effect on its financial position or results of
operations.

In addition, the Company has received several complaints
purporting to assert claims on behalf of Sprint Nextel
stockholders, alleging that members of the Sprint Nextel board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties in agreeing to the
SoftBank Merger, and otherwise challenging that transaction.
There are five cases pending in state court in Johnson County,
Kansas: UFCW Local 23 and Employers Pension Fund, et al. v.
Bennett, et al., filed on October 25, 2012; Iron Workers Mid-South
Pension Fund, et al. v. Hesse, et al., filed on October 25, 2012;
City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police and Fire Retirement System
v. Sprint Nextel Corp., et al., filed on October 12, 2012;
Testani, et al. v. Sprint Nextel Corp., et al., filed on
November 1, 2012; and Patten, et al. v. Sprint Nextel Corp., et
al., filed on November 1, 2012.  The plaintiffs in these cases
filed an amended complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction
on March 22, 2013.  The Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the
consolidated cases as a class action on March 29, 2013, and the
Company has opposed that motion.  There are two cases filed in
federal court in the District of Kansas, entitled Gerbino, et al.
v. Sprint Nextel Corp., et al., filed on November 15, 2012, and
Steinberg, et al. v. Bennett, et al., filed on May 16, 2013 (and
now consolidated with Gerbino).  The Company intends to defend
these cases vigorously, and, because these cases are still in the
preliminary stages, has not yet determined what effect the
lawsuits will have, if any, on its financial position or results
of operations.  On March 28, 2013, the plaintiffs in the state
actions filed a Consolidated Amended Petition under seal.  On
April 19, 2013, the federal court denied the Gerbino plaintiff's
motion for expedited discovery and upheld the automatic stay of
discovery under the federal securities laws.  Following
consolidation, the federal court granted in part motions to
dismiss filed by defendants and entered an order staying all
proceedings pending further action in the state court cases.

Sprint Corporation -- http://www.sprint.com/-- is the successor
registrant to Sprint Nextel Corporation.  Sprint is a
communications company offering a comprehensive range of wireless
and wireline communications products and services that are
designed to meet the needs of individual consumers, businesses,
government subscribers, and resellers.  The Company is
headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas.


STANDARD FIRE: Insurance Class Action to Remain in Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Friedman, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that the
potential class-action case that was the subject of a pivotal
ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court will be staying in federal court,
another blow to the plaintiffs' attorneys who had hoped to
continue the case in the historically friendly confines of Miller
County Circuit Court.

U.S. District Court Judge P.K. Holmes III found that plaintiff
Greg Knowles' proposed class-action lawsuit against Standard Fire
Insurance Co. has a potential award of $6.1 million, breaking the
$5 million threshold needed to keep it in federal court.

Attorney John Goodson of the Texarkana firm of Keil & Goodson is
one of the attorneys representing Mr. Knowles.  He argued that the
amount of damages of the lawsuit, including the attorneys' fees,
was just below $5 million and that the case should be sent back to
Miller County Circuit Court, where it was originally filed in
2011.

Mr. Goodson's team, which includes the law firms Taylor Law
Partners LLP of Fayetteville, Nix Patterson & Roach LLP of Austin,
Texas, and Crowley Norman LLP of Houston, had maintained in court
filings that the damage amount first accepted by Judge Holmes --
which was just more than $5 million -- was wrong.

Standard Fire argued that the potential damages were just over $3
million, but adding other penalties and a 40% attorneys' fee based
on the $3 million damage amount brought the total to just more
than $5 million.

Part of the argument Mr. Goodson's team made was that the 40%
attorneys' fees figure was too high and shouldn't have been used
to calculate the damages.

"The proper benchmark for a class action should be set at 25%,"
Mr. Knowles' filing said.

But Judge Holmes agreed with Standard Fire's higher percentage
estimate.

"Substantially higher attorneys fees than are estimated here were
already awarded in seven class action lawsuits filed" in Miller
County Circuit Court involving similar claims that Mr. Knowles had
against his insurance companies, Judge Holmes wrote.

In one of the lawsuits, the attorneys' fees were $40 million for a
case involving the settlement of a class of customers who claimed
insurance coverage for damage to buildings in Arkansas.

"Furthermore, Plaintiff's attorneys were listed as class counsel
in all seven of these state-court actions," Judge Holmes wrote in
the order.  "It therefore strikes the Court as disingenuous for
Plaintiff to persist in his argument that the amount in
controversy in the case at bar could not possibly exceed $5
million total."

Mr. Knowles alleged breach of contract in connection with a
homeowners' policy issued by Standard Fire.  Mr. Knowles said in
the complaint that Standard Fire failed to pay for some charges in
connection with hiring a general contractor.  Mr. Knowles alleged
that Standard Fire officials knew about the fees but didn't pay.

Judge Holmes said the case could stay in U.S. District Court in
Texarkana.  A proposed trial date is set for Sept. 15, 2014.

                    Fighting for State Court

Judge Holmes' ruling was the second major loss for Goodson and his
co-counsels in the case.

When the Knowles lawsuit was filed in 2011 in Miller County
Circuit Court, the plaintiffs' attorneys stipulated in the
complaint that Mr. Knowles and the rest of the class would not
seek more than $5 million in damages and fees for the Arkansas
policyholders.  That point was key; under the Class Action
Fairness Act passed by Congress, defendants can unilaterally move
cases worth more than $5 million out of state courts and into
federal court.

And that's what Standard Fire wanted to do, because class-action
defendants in Miller County Circuit Court have been hammered with
demands to produce millions of pages of documents at their own
expense.

Standard Fire attempted to move the case to U.S. District Court in
2011, where it thought it would have an impartial court
experience.  But because of Mr. Knowles' stipulation that he
wouldn't seek more than $5 million in damages, the case was
returned to Miller County.

But the U.S. Supreme Court on March 19 issued a unanimous decision
in favor of Standard Fire, which had appealed the question of such
stipulations.  The highest court said plaintiffs can't stipulate
before the lawsuit is certified as a class action that they aren't
seeking more than $5 million in fees and damages.


SUPPORT.COM INC: Received Final OK of Consumer Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Support.com, Inc. has received final approval of its settlement of
a class action lawsuit alleging that the design of one its
software products and the method of promotion to consumers
constitute fraudulent inducement, according to the Company's
August 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On February 7, 2012, a lawsuit seeking class-action certification
was filed against the Company in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, No. 12-CV-00609, alleging
that the design of one the Company's software products and the
method of promotion to consumers constitute fraudulent inducement,
breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, and
unjust enrichment.  On the same day, the same plaintiffs' law firm
filed another action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, No. 12-CV-0963, involving similar
allegations against a subsidiary of the Company and one of the
Company's channel partners who distributes the Company's software
products, and that channel partner has requested indemnification
under contract terms with the Company.  The law firm representing
the plaintiffs in both cases has filed unrelated class actions in
the past year against a number of major software providers with
similar allegations about those providers' products.  On May 30,
2013, the Company received final court approval relating to the
terms of the settlement.  Under the terms of the settlement, the
Company has offered a one-time cash payment, which is covered by
the Company's insurance provider, to qualified class-action
members.  In addition, the Company has offered a limited free
subscription to one of its software products.  In accordance with
ASC 450, Contingencies, the Company has estimated and recorded a
charge against earnings in general and administrative expense in
the second quarter of 2012 of $57,000 associated with the limited
free software subscription.  The Company denies any wrongdoing or
liability and entered into the settlement to minimize the costs of
defense.

Support.com, Inc. -- http://www.support.com/-- is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Redwood City, California.
Support.com is a provider of cloud-based services and software
designed to enhance a customer's experience with technology.  The
Company's solution includes, the cloud-based Nexus(R) Service
Delivery Platform, a scalable workforce of technology specialists,
mobile and desktop applications for end-users and expertise in
program design and execution.


TIER REIT: Defends Consolidated Shareholder Class Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
TIER REIT, Inc. is defending a consolidated shareholder lawsuit
pending in Texas, according to the Company's August 5, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On each of September 17, and November 28, 2012, lawsuits seeking
class action status were filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division).  On
January 4, 2013, these two lawsuits were consolidated by the
Court.  The plaintiffs purport to file the lawsuit individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, referred to herein
as "Plaintiffs."

The Plaintiffs named the Company, Behringer Harvard Holdings, LLC,
the Company's previous sponsor, as well as the directors at the
time of the allegations: Robert M. Behringer, Robert S. Aisner,
Ronald Witten, Charles G. Dannis and Steven W. Partridge
(individually a "Director" and collectively the "Directors"); and
Scott W. Fordham, the Company's President and Chief Financial
Officer, and James E. Sharp, the Company's Chief Accounting
Officer (collectively, the "Officers"), as defendants.  In the
amended complaint filed on February 1, 2013, the Officers were
dismissed from the consolidated lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Directors each individually
breached various fiduciary duties purportedly owed to the
Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs also allege that the Directors
violated Sections 14(a) and (e) and Rules 14a-9 and 14e-2(b) of
and under federal securities law in connection with (1) the
recommendations made to the shareholders in response to certain
tender offers made by CMG Partners, LLC and its affiliates; and
(2) the solicitation of proxies for the Company's annual meeting
of shareholders held on June 24, 2011.  The Plaintiffs further
allege that the defendants were unjustly enriched by the purported
failures to provide complete and accurate disclosure regarding,
among other things, the value of the Company's common stock and
the source of funds used to pay distributions.

The Plaintiffs seek the following relief: (1) that the court
declare the proxy to be materially false and misleading; (2) that
the filings on Schedule 14D-9 were false and misleading; (3) that
the defendants' conduct be declared to be in violation of law; (4)
that the authorization secured pursuant to the proxy be found null
and void and that the Company be required to re-solicit a
shareholder vote pursuant to court supervision and court approved
proxy materials; (5) that the defendants have violated their
fiduciary duties to the shareholders who purchased the Company's
shares from February 19, 2003, to the present; (6) that the
defendants be required to account to Plaintiffs for damages
suffered by Plaintiffs; and (7) that Plaintiffs be awarded costs
of the action including reasonable allowance for attorneys and
experts fees.  Neither the Company nor any of the other defendants
believe the consolidated lawsuit has merit and each intend to
defend it vigorously.

TIER REIT, Inc. is a Dallas-based real estate investment trust
focused primarily on providing quality, attractive, well-managed,
commercial office properties in dynamic markets throughout the
United States.  TIER REIT, formerly known as Behringer Harvard
REIT I, Inc., was incorporated in June 2002 as a Maryland
corporation and has elected to be taxed, and currently qualifies,
as a real estate investment trust for federal income tax purposes.


TOWER GROUP: Securities Lawyers Urge Shareholders to File Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Insurance Insider reports that class action lawyers are urging
Tower Group shareholders to litigate against the NYSE-listed
Bermudian (re)insurer and its management, alleging that it filed
"false and misleading" reports that artificially inflated the
company's stock price.

A lead plaintiff, Robert Lang, claimed that Tower had under-
reserved by up to $45mn for its reverse merger with Canopius
Bermuda, and had knowingly and falsely inflated its profits in
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


UBER: Car-Service Drivers File Class Action Over Tips
-----------------------------------------------------
Joshua Brustein, writing for Bloomberg Businessweek, reports that
Uber has been embroiled in legal fights since it launched an app
allowing people to summon its car-service drivers, as municipal
bureaucrats and rival businesses sought to subject the San
Francisco company to existing regulations.  Like any good
underdog, Uber has framed itself as a disruptive innovator taking
on an entrenched, unloved and old-fashioned incumbent: the taxi
industry.

But Uber is facing a legal mess that doesn't quite fit the
David-and-Goliath story line: Drivers say the startup is stealing
their tips.

The allegations appear all the more odious in the wake of last
month's news of a $258 million investment from Google, making the
tech darling seem, well, a lot like the established livery
industry in its relationship to its driving workforce.

On its website, Uber explains that its taxi service adds a 20
percent tip for drivers; the black-car service offered by Uber
doesn't discuss tips at all.  In the past, the startup has
explained that tips are calculated as part of its fares, but the
current policy isn't completely clear.  Uber's message to
passengers is that no additional tip is needed beyond the fare --
and the company explicitly prohibits drivers from taking cash tips
directly from passengers.

Uber claims that its drivers make more than they would driving for
other services, but disgruntled drivers are taking the company to
court.  Last month, two Uber drivers filed a class-action lawsuit
in San Francisco on behalf of all the company's drivers, charging
that the tip-sharing arrangement cheats them out of money.  The
case is at least the third lawsuit making similar charges -- the
other two have been filed in Illinois and Massachusetts -- and it
has the potential to become the broadest.

                     Plaintiffs' Contention

"Really what Uber is trying to do is keep prices artificially low
by having a price and saying you don't have to tip on top of
this," says Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- a
lawyer for the plaintiffs. "It's a way for them to compete
unfairly by lying to the customer."  She is a specialist of sorts
in the targeted area of gratuity-related labor law, having
represented airline employees, dancers at strip clubs, and
restaurant workers who have had their tips skimmed by employers in
various ways.

The lawsuit also alleges that Uber incorrectly classifies its
drivers as independent contractors, making them responsible for
costs that would otherwise be covered and depriving them of
workers' compensation and unemployment insurance.

                       Uber's Response

Andrew Noyes, an Uber spokesman, says the lawsuit is without
merit: "Frivolous lawsuits like this cost valuable time, money,
and resources that are better spent making cities more accessible,
opening up more possibilities for riders, and providing more
business for drivers."  He declined to answer further questions
about the case.

In the past, however, Uber has explained its tipping practices as
a matter of convenience, and it's not the only example of new
technology making gratuities easier for customers and less
lucrative for workers.  When credit card machines were introduced
in New York City taxis several years ago, a major complaint from
drivers was that their tips would be subject to processing fees.
Food-ordering websites like Seamless allow customers to include a
tip in their meals, and then apply their commissions to those
tips.

The first hurdle the plaintiffs will have to overcome is part of
the latest contract signed by Uber drivers in July.  According to
court documents, the contract included an arbitration clause that
barred the drivers from bringing class-action lawsuits against the
company.  Drivers had 30 days to opt out of the arbitration
requirement, but the plaintiffs are asking the court to extend
that time.  Doing so is significantly less convenient than, say,
booking a ride on Uber.

"They make it really easy for them to accept the agreement -- by
swiping yes on their phone," says Mr. Liss-Riordan.  "But to get
out of it you have to write to their general counsel."


UNITED ONLINE: Awaits Ruling on Consolidation Bid in RICO Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Online, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on a motion for
consolidation in the litigation alleging violations of the
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, according to the
Company's August 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

In March 2012, Hope Kelm, Barbara Timmcke, Regina Warfel, Brett
Reilly, Juan M. Restrepo, and Jennie H. Pham filed a purported
class action complaint (the "Kelm Class Action") in United States
District Court, District of Connecticut, against the following
defendants: (i) Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A.,
Capital One Financial Corporation, Citigroup, Inc., and Citibank,
N.A. (collectively, the "Credit Card Company Defendants"); (ii) 1-
800-Flowers.com, Inc., United Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc.,
Classmates International, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Days Inns
Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, PeopleFindersPro,
Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc.,
IAC/InterActiveCorp, and Shoebuy.com, Inc. (collectively, the "E-
Merchant Defendants"); and (iii) Trilegiant Corporation, Inc.
("Trilegiant"), Affinion Group, LLC ("Affinion"), and Apollo
Global Management, LLC ("Apollo").  The complaint alleges (1)
violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO") by all defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of
such act by the Credit Card Company Defendants; (2) aiding and
abetting violations of federal mail fraud, wire fraud and bank
fraud statutes by the Credit Card Company Defendants; (3)
violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA")
by Trilegiant, Affinion and the E-Merchant Defendants, and aiding
and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Company
Defendants; (4) violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act by Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, and the E-Merchant
Defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the
Credit Card Company Defendants; (5) violation of California
Business and Professions Code section 17602 by Trilegiant,
Affinion, Apollo, and the E-Merchant Defendants; and (6) unjust
enrichment by all defendants.  The plaintiffs seek class
certification, restitution and disgorgement of all amounts
wrongfully charged to and received from plaintiffs, damages,
treble damages, punitive damages, preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of lawsuit, and pre- and
post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded.

In March 2012, Debra Miller and William Thompson filed a purported
class action complaint (the "Miller Class Action") in United
States District Court, District of Connecticut, against the
following defendants: (i) Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, Vertrue,
Inc., Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Adaptive Marketing, LLC
(collectively, the "Membership Companies"); (ii) 1-800-
Flowers.com, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Classmates
International, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., FTD Group, Inc.,
IAC/Interactivecorp, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Peoplefinderspro,
Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc., Shoebuy.com, Inc., United Online, Inc.,
Wells Fargo & Company, and Wyndham Worldwide Corporation
(collectively, the "Marketing Companies"); and (iii) Bank of
America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corporation, Chase Bank USA,
N.A., and Citibank, N.A. (collectively, the "Credit Card
Companies").  The complaint alleges (1) violations of the RICO by
all defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by
the Credit Card Companies; (2) aiding and abetting violations of
federal mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud statutes by the
Credit Card Companies; (3) violations of the ECPA by the
Membership Companies and the Marketing Companies, and aiding and
abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Companies; (4)
violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by the
Membership Companies and the Marketing Companies, and aiding and
abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Companies; (5)
violation of California Business and Professions Code section
17602 by the Membership Companies and the Marketing Companies; and
(6) unjust enrichment by all defendants.  The plaintiffs seek
class certification, restitution and disgorgement of all amounts
wrongfully charged to and received from plaintiffs, damages,
treble damages, punitive damages, preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of lawsuit, and pre- and
post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded.

In April 2012, the Kelm Class Action and the Miller Class Action
were consolidated with a related case under the case caption In re
Trilegiant Corporation, Inc.  In September 2012, the plaintiffs
filed their consolidated amended complaint and named five
additional defendants.  The defendants have responded to the
consolidated amended complaint.  No trial date has been set.

In addition, in December 2012, David Frank filed a purported class
action complaint (the "Frank Class Action") in United States
District Court, District of Connecticut, against the following
defendants: Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo (collectively, the "Frank
Membership Companies"); 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., Beckett Media
LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Classmates International, Inc., Days Inn
Worldwide, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Hotwire, Inc.,
IAC/Interactivecorp, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Orbitz Worldwide,
LLC, PeopleFindersPro, Inc., Priceline.com, Inc., Shoebuy.com,
Inc., TigerDirect, Inc., United Online, Inc., and Wyndham
Worldwide Corporation (collectively, the "Frank Marketing
Companies"); Bank of America, N.A., Capital One Financial
Corporation, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Chase Paymentech Solutions,
LLC, Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, Inc., and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
(collectively, the "Frank Credit Card Companies").  The complaint
alleges (1) violations of RICO by all defendants; (2) aiding and
abetting violations of such act by the Frank Credit Card
Companies; (3) aiding and abetting commissions of mail fraud, wire
fraud and bank fraud by the Frank Credit Card Companies; (4)
violation of the ECPA by the Frank Membership Companies and the
Frank Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting violations of
such act by the Frank Credit Card Companies; (5) violations of the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by the Frank Membership
Companies and the Frank Marketing Companies, and aiding and
abetting violations of such act by the Frank Credit Card
Companies; (6) violation of California Business and Professions
Code section 17602 by the Frank Membership Companies and the Frank
Marketing Companies; and (7) unjust enrichment by all defendants.
The plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution and
disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received
from plaintiffs, damages, treble damages, punitive damages,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
costs of lawsuit, and pre- and post-judgment interest on any
amounts awarded.

On January 23, 2013, the plaintiff moved to consolidate the Frank
Class Action with the In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. action.
In response, the court ordered the plaintiff to show cause as to
why, among other things, the plaintiff should be afforded named
plaintiff status.  The plaintiff filed his response to the order
to show cause on February 15, 2013.  The court has not yet ruled
upon the request for consolidation or the order to show cause.

United Online, Inc. -- http://www.unitedonline.com/-- is a
Delaware corporation, headquartered in Woodland Hills, California.
United Online, through its operating subsidiaries, is a provider
of consumer products and services over the Internet under a number
of brands, including FTD, Interflora, Flying Flowers, Flowers
Direct, Drake Algar, Classmates, schoolFeed, StayFriends, Trombi,
MyPoints, NetZero, and Juno.


WILMOTT FORESTS: Clayton Utz Discusses Federal Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ross McInnes, Esq. -- rmcinnes@claytonutz.com -- and
Kristen Zornada, Esq. at Clayton Utz report that the Full Federal
Court's decision to order security for costs should give
respondents in representative proceedings some comfort.

Class action proceedings are unique in many ways.  One of the
characteristics peculiar to class actions is that a successful
respondent can only recover costs against the lead applicant, as
group members are immune from having costs orders awarded against
them.

This immunity is underpinned by important policy considerations,
including affordable access to justice, as class actions allow
group members to bring actions in circumstances where they
individually could not afford to do so.  However, it means that
respondents will often be forced to defend an action at
considerable costs with no ability to recover those costs if they
are successful.  That dynamic can impact many aspects of the
proceedings including settlement negotiations.  It shifts the
balance of power in favor of applicants, who know that there will
likely be an element of "wasted cost" even if a proceeding is
successfully defended.

Usually in litigation, where a respondent does not expect to be
able recover costs from a plaintiff, it has an option to make an
application for a security for costs.  A security for costs order
restores the balance, as having to put up money upfront to
potentially cover the respondent's costs forces an applicant to
consider whether there is merit in pursuing the action, and avoids
frivolous litigation.

While security for costs applications are not without their
difficulties, they have had a chequered history in class action
litigation.  The recent Full Federal Court decision of Madgwick v
Kelly [2013] FCAFC 61 has made it clear that security for costs
applications are not prohibited in representative proceedings.
The decision may open the way for more security for costs
applications in class actions.

What was the case about?

Madgwick v Kelly concerned a suite of litigation commenced by the
applicant and group members, who were all investors in a forestry
plantation scheme that failed.  The cases were being pursued
against Wilmott Forests Ltd. and Bioforest Ltd., as the
responsible entities for the schemes, and also included lenders
who financed some of the investors in the scheme.

Are security for costs orders inconsistent with class action
proceedings?

At first instance, the respondents sought an order for security
for costs.  The application was refused.  They sought to appeal
the decision.

In allowing the appeal, Chief Justice Allsop and Justice Middleton
considered the dichotomy between:

    section 43(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976
(Cth), which provides that a Court or judge cannot award costs
against a group member in a class action; and
    section 33ZG(c)(v) of the Act, which provides that nothing in
Part IVA affects the operation of any law regarding security for
costs.

They found that the primary judge had failed to follow the
decision in Bray v Hoffman-La Roche (2003) 130 FCR 317, which made
it clear that "an order for security did not affect the immunity
of s43(1A) and there was no overlap between ss43(1A) and
33ZG(c)(v), which operate independently".

A balancing exercise -- but the position of group members and
litigation funding is relevant

Having overcome that hurdle, the Court then considered whether
security should have been awarded.  The Court recognized that it
must undertake a balancing exercise between the policy underlying
representative proceedings and the risk of injustice to a
respondent in having no real capacity to recover costs if it
successfully defends the litigation.

The Full Court's decision recognized some important features of
the kind of class actions that are now being pursued in Australia
-- namely, group members making active choices to participate in
litigation, and litigation funders standing behind class action
proceedings.  A range of factors must be taken into account,
including:

    whether granting an application for security for costs is
likely to stifle the applicant and group members' pursuit of their
claims;

    the financial circumstances of the group members, for which
the applicant bears the onus of proof;

    the unwillingness of group members to contribute for security
for costs, and the reasonableness of requiring group members to do
so; and

    the availability of litigation funding.

The Full Court determined that security for costs should have been
awarded, noting that:

"the applicants and group members entered commercial transactions
for their own reasons . . . [i]t seems entirely fair that those
standing to benefit from such litigation make a real, but not
oppressive, contribution to a fund to secure the costs of the
respondents".

No win, no fee?

A well-known feature of plaintiff firms is the "no win, no fee"
retainer its solicitors often enter into with group members in a
class action, who otherwise could not afford to fund the
litigation.  The flip side to this arrangement is that in the
result of a win, the retainer agreement often contains provision
for the payment of an "uplift" fee, in addition to professional
costs.

The Full Court considered whether the solicitors for the
applicants and group members were effectively "standing behind the
litigation" or "standing to benefit" from the litigation and
therefore be subject to a security for costs order.  The Court
emphatically rejected that suggestion:

"There are principled reasons to distinguish between a commercial
litigation funder and solicitors . . . under these agreements.
The former take a percentage of the judgment; the latter earn
professional fees . . . . Solicitors are entitled to charge
professional fees for undertaking the professional
responsibilities of running the case, as officers of the Court,
with all the attendant responsibilities (including duties to the
Court) that that entails.  No one, the solicitors included, should
ever lose sight of those responsibilities.  The expected or
contingent receipt of proper professional fees . . . is not a
basis for requiring an officer of the Court to contribute to a
fund for the costs of the other side of the litigation."

Recognition of the class action industry

The decision should provide some comfort to respondents in
representative proceedings.  Security for costs applications are
likely to be on the radar in future class actions.

Perhaps most importantly, the decision reflects an important
recognition of some of the key features of Australian class action
industry -- litigation funders and active group members -- which
the Full Court took into account in reaching its decision.


* McGuireWoods Discusses Legal Theories Underlying Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew J. Trask, Esq. -- atrask@mcguirewoods.com -- at
McGuireWoods LLP reports that plaintiff and defense lawyers tend
to talk past each other a lot when discussing the legal theories
underlying the class action.  Plaintiffs talk of deterrence, and
the need for easier certification requirements.  Defendants talk
about potential abuses of the device, and the need for due
process.  Plaintiffs prefer the "entity theory" of class actions.
Defendants prefer the "joinder" theory.  So to find academics on
either side agreeing to anything substantive can be quite rare.

And that's why it is notable that two law professors -- from
different ends of the spectrum -- are now arguing that courts
should look at class actions as trusts.

Professor Sergio Campos has advocated for quite some time that
courts should look at class actions as trusts.  His most recent
statement of that argument is in Class Actions & Justiciability,
forthcoming from the Florida Law Review.  In that article, he
argues that, for Article III standing purposes, the court should
treat the class action as a trust, where the attorney may bring a
claim because someone in the class will have standing.  Mr. Trask
said "I'd largely ignored this article when it first appeared on
SSRN, because it didn't add much to my previous take on his work,
and because he conceded my primary critique within the article:

Admittedly, the trust view of the class action has little to no
explicit support in the law on federal class actions.

"I like thought experiments as much as the next guy, but for my
legal practice, I have to work with the law as it is, not the law
I would like to see," Mr. Trask said.

But now Professor Campos has been joined by Northwestern Professor
Martin Redish, who (writing with Northwestern Law student Megan
Kiernan) makes the same argument from the other side in the
working paper Avoiding Death by a Thousand Cuts: The Relitigation
of Class Certifictaion and the Realities of the Modern Class
Action. (Longtime readers will know that one ignores Professor
Redish at their peril.) Professor Redish's primary concern is that
the Supreme Court's opinion in Smith v. Bayer Corp. leaves
defendants vulnerable to serial re-litigation of the same class
action.  Professor Redish does not trust the courts to exercise
comity consistently. (And he may have a point.)

Professor Redish believes that the best way to solve this problem
is to treat the attorneys filing the cases as the real parties in
interest when engaging in a preclusion analysis. (In other words,
when looking at whether the parties have litigated before, the
court would look at the plaintiff's attorney rather than the
plaintiff.) He specifically rejects the idea that this
guardianship should extend as far as granting standing to a class
action attorney, which means he opposes Campos's primary argument,
but he believes that

Viewing class attorneys as profit-driven guardians of absent class
members enables the court in the second action to accurately view
the attorneys who brought the first action as the real parties in
interest for purposes of direct estoppel on the issue of class
certifiability.

Mr. Trask said "What can we take from these two different versions
of the class-as-trust? I think the primary takeaway for defendants
is that the largest problem courts and scholars still grapple with
in class action practice is that, much like in Bill Lerach's day,
class action plaintiffs still don't exist in any meaningful sense.
Any meaningful regulation of class actions has to either beef up
the role of the class plaintiff, or restrain her lawyers.  And
given the money lawyers still make from these cases, that's
unlikely anytime soon."


                             *********

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  * * *