CAR_Public/130909.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, September 9, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 178

                             Headlines



AMAZON INC: Two New Publishers Join E-Book Price Fixing Settlement
AMERICAN INT'L: Appeal in "Caremark" Class Suit Remains Pending
AMERICAN INT'L: Awaits Mediation Result in N.Y. ERISA Class Suit
AMERICAN INT'L: Continues to Defend Various Securities Suits
AMERICAN INT'L: Securities Suit Filed in Canada Remains Stayed

AMERICAN INT'L: Shareholders Must Join SICO Class by Sept. 16
AUSTRALIAN RUGBY: May Face NFL-Style Concussion Class Action
AVON PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Animal Testing Suit
AVX CORP: Myrtle Beach Factory-Related Suit Remains Pending
BANK OF AMERICA: Consolidated Securities Suit Settlement Appealed

BANK OF AMERICA: Continues to Defend Merchants Suit in Canada
BANK OF AMERICA: Continues to Defend Suits Related to MBS
BANK OF AMERICA: Defends LIBOR-Related Suits and Investigations
BANK OF AMERICA: Hearing on Interchange Fee Suit Deal on Sept. 12
BANK OF AMERICA: Policemen's Annuity Suit v. BANA Remains Pending

BLACKSTONE GROUP: Settles IPO Class Action for $85 Million
BMC SOFTWARE: Defends Merger-Related Suits in Texas and Delaware
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Settles Overtime Class Action for $350,000
CLAYTON WILLIAMS: Awaits Finalization of Class Suit Settlement
CONCORD MANAGEMENT: Sept. 16 Class Action Status Conference Set

COSMOPOLITAN OF LAS VEGAS: Lawyers Contact Casino Employees
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Sept. 9 First Bellwether Hip Implant Trial Set
FREEMAN COS: Ex-EEOC General Counsel Discusses Court Ruling
HAZELL BROS: Faces Class Action Over Blampied Bushfire
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Whitman to Blame for Ill-Fated Deal, Lawyers Say

HSBC USA: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Ba" Class Suit
HSBC USA: Continues to Defend Suits Over Lender-Placed Insurance
HSBC USA: E.D.N.Y. Consolidated 3 Overdraft Fee-Related Suits
HSBC USA: Faces 3 Class Suits Over Credit Default Swaps
HSBC USA: Hearing on Approval of Antitrust Suit Deal on Sept. 12

HSBC USA: Madoff-Related Suits Pending in Various Jurisdictions
HYUNDAI ROTEM: Wage-and-Hour Class Action May Proceed, Judge Rules
JACKSON, MI: Rejects Settlement Offer in Stormwater Class Action
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: November 14 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
LIGHTINTHEBOX HOLDING: Responds to Securities Class Action

KEYCORP: Appeal From Denial of Plea in "Metyk" Suit Pending
KEYCORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid for Arbitration in Overdraft Suit
KRONOS WORLDWIDE: Judge Trims Class in Paint Pigment Antitrust MDL
ONYX PHARMACEUTICALS: Two Law Firms File Suit Over Amgen Buyout
ORTHOFIX INTERNATIONAL: Holzer Holzer Files Investor Class Action

PARK UNIVERSITY: Faces Two Class Actions Over Unwanted Fax Ads
PUBLIC SERVICE: Uncertain on "Comer II" Plaintiffs' Next Action
SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Settles Insurance Agents' Wage Class Action
SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL: Can't Escape Warn Class Action Judgment
SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC: Uncertain on "Comer II" Plaintiffs' Next Step

STATE FARM: Appeals Court Agrees to Dismiss Insurance Class Action
SUFFOLK BANCORP: Settlement Hearing in "Fisher" Suit on Oct. 24
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: BakerHostetler Discusses FCRA Class Action
TEXAS: Foster Care Class Action Can Proceed, Judge Rules
THINGS REMEMBERED: Faces Text Spam Class Action in California

UNION PACIFIC: Latham & Watkins Can Proceed as Lead Trial Counsel
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Health Plans Remain Party to Hepatitis C Suits
UROPLASTY INC: Securities Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
WEST PUBLISHING: High Court Gets Request to Hear Privacy Suit


                             *********


AMAZON INC: Two New Publishers Join E-Book Price Fixing Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
James Kendrick, writing for ZDNet, reports that several major
publishers were sued in a class action by the Attorneys General of
a number of states due to collusion resulting in price fixing.
The court has approved a settlement granting refunds to buyers of
ebooks from those publishers.  Amazon is sending notifications to
purchasers of qualifying ebooks that two other publishers have now
joined the settlement, which should result in bigger refunds for
its customers.

According to the Amazon notification, customers don't need to do
anything to qualify for or receive the refund.  The court will
conduct a hearing on December 6 of this year to approve or reject
the two new publishers joining the settlement.  If approved,
Amazon customers should expect an estimated $0.73 to $3.06 for
every qualifying ebook purchased between April 1, 2010 and May 21,
2012. The refund can be used to purchase ebooks or print books.
In lieu of a credit to the Amazon account a paper check can be
requested as detailed in the Amazon notification.

The publishers joining in the settlement are Hachette,
HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Penguin and Macmillan.  The
refunds are being paid out of a $162.25 million pool the
publishers have established for the refunds.

The entire notification is included below to detail the refund
process:

Dear Kindle Customer,

Last fall we notified you that you are entitled to a credit for
some of your past Kindle book purchases as a result of legal
settlements between several major book publishers and the
Attorneys General of most U.S. states and territories.  We wanted
to let you know that two more publishers have since settled with
some State Attorneys General and Class Plaintiffs and these new
settlements may increase the amount of the credit you will
receive.  A formal notification from the Court about these
settlements is included below.

You do not need to do anything to receive this credit.  If the
Court approves the settlements in December 2013 and there is no
appeal, a credit will appear automatically in your Amazon.com
account that can be used to purchase Kindle books or print books.
We will contact you when the credit is applied to your account.
While we will not know the amount of your credit until the Court
approves the settlements, it is estimated that it will range from
$0.73 to $3.06 for every eligible Kindle book that you purchased.
To be eligible, you must have a U.S. billing address and must have
purchased a Kindle book published by Hachette, HarperCollins,
Simon & Schuster, Penguin or Macmillan between April 1, 2010 and
May 21, 2012.  These publishers will provide the funds for the
settlements.  If you have already requested a check instead of a
credit in response to the notice you received last fall, that
request will cover these additional settlements and you do not
need to do anything else.  If you would like to request a check,
you may do so by following the instructions included in the formal
notice of the settlements, set forth below.  You can learn more
about the settlements at
http://www.amazon.com/help/agencyebooksettlements

In addition to the account credit, the settlements impose
limitations on the publishers' ability to control eBook prices.
We think these settlements are a big win for readers.

Thank you for being a Kindle customer.

The Amazon Kindle Team


AMERICAN INT'L: Appeal in "Caremark" Class Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in a class action lawsuit arising out of a 1999
settlement of a class and derivative litigation involving Caremark
Rx, Inc., remains pending, according to American International
Group, Inc.'s August 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

AIG and certain of its subsidiaries have been named defendants in
two putative class actions in state court in Alabama that arise
out of the 1999 settlement of class and derivative litigation
involving Caremark.  The plaintiffs in the second-filed action
intervened in the first-filed action, and the second-filed action
was dismissed.  An excess policy issued by a subsidiary of AIG
with respect to the 1999 litigation was expressly stated to be
without limit of liability.  In the current actions, the
plaintiffs allege that the judge approving the 1999 settlement was
misled as to the extent of available insurance coverage and would
not have approved the settlement had he known of the existence
and/or unlimited nature of the excess policy.  They further allege
that AIG, its subsidiaries, and Caremark are liable for fraud and
suppression for misrepresenting and/or concealing the nature and
extent of coverage.

The complaints filed by the plaintiffs and the intervenors request
compensatory damages for the 1999 class in the amount of $3.2
billion, plus punitive damages.  AIG and its subsidiaries deny the
allegations of fraud and suppression, assert that information
concerning the excess policy was publicly disclosed months prior
to the approval of the settlement, that the claims are barred by
the statute of limitations, and that the statute cannot be tolled
in light of the public disclosure of the excess coverage.  The
plaintiffs and intervenors, in turn, have asserted that the
disclosure was insufficient to inform them of the nature of the
coverage and did not start the running of the statute of
limitations.

On August 15, 2012, the trial court entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  AIG and the other
defendants have appealed that order to the Alabama Supreme Court,
and the case in the trial court will be stayed until that appeal
is resolved.  General discovery has not commenced and AIG is
unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
losses, if any, arising from the litigation.

American International Group, Inc. -- http://www.aig.com/-- is an
international insurance company, serving customers in more than
130 countries.  AIG companies serve commercial, institutional and
individual customers through property-casualty networks of any
insurer.  In addition, AIG companies are providers of life
insurance and retirement services.


AMERICAN INT'L: Awaits Mediation Result in N.Y. ERISA Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. awaits the result of a
mediation scheduled on August 21-22, 2013, in the consolidated New
York lawsuit alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, 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.

Between June 25, 2008, and November 25, 2008, AIG, certain
directors and officers of AIG, and members of AIG's Retirement
Board and Investment Committee were named as defendants in eight
purported class action complaints asserting claims on behalf of
participants in certain pension plans sponsored by AIG or its
subsidiaries.  The Court subsequently consolidated these eight
actions as In re American International Group, Inc. ERISA
Litigation II.  On September 4, 2012, lead plaintiffs' counsel
filed a second consolidated amended complaint.  The action
purports to be brought as a class action under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), on
behalf of all participants in or beneficiaries of certain benefit
plans of AIG and its subsidiaries that offered shares of AIG
Common Stock.  In the consolidated amended complaint, the
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
breached their fiduciary responsibilities to plan participants and
their beneficiaries under ERISA, by continuing to offer the AIG
Stock Fund as an investment option in the plans after it allegedly
became imprudent to do so.  The alleged ERISA violations relate
to, among other things, the defendants' purported failure to
monitor and/or disclose certain matters, including the Subprime
Exposure Issues.

On November 20, 2012, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  On May 24, 2013, the parties
informed the Court of a mediation scheduled on August 21-22, 2013,
and requested that the Court defer consideration of defendants'
motions pending the outcome of the mediation.  On the same day,
the Court granted the parties' request, terminating defendants'
motions without prejudice to reinstatement on request following
the August mediation, if necessary.

As of August 5, 2013, the plaintiffs have not formally specified
an amount of alleged damages, discovery is ongoing, and the Court
has not determined if a class action is appropriate or the size or
scope of any class.  As a result, the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any,
arising from the litigation.

American International Group, Inc. -- http://www.aig.com/-- is an
international insurance company, serving customers in more than
130 countries.  AIG companies serve commercial, institutional and
individual customers through property-casualty networks of any
insurer.  In addition, AIG companies are providers of life
insurance and retirement services.


AMERICAN INT'L: Continues to Defend Various Securities Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc., continues to defend itself and
its subsidiaries against various securities litigations, 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.

Between May 21, 2008, and January 15, 2009, eight purported
securities class action complaints were filed against American
International Group, Inc. (AIG) and certain directors and officers
of AIG, AIG Financial Products Corp. and AIG Trading Group Inc.
and their respective subsidiaries (collectively, AIGFP), AIG's
outside auditors, and the underwriters of various securities
offerings in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the Southern District of New York), alleging
claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
Exchange Act), or claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the Securities Act).  On March 20, 2009, the Court
consolidated all eight of the purported securities class actions
as In re American International Group, Inc. 2008 Securities
Litigation (the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation).

On May 19, 2009, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated 2008
Securities Litigation filed a consolidated complaint on behalf of
purchasers of AIG Common Stock during the alleged class period of
March 16, 2006, through September 16, 2008, and on behalf of
purchasers of various AIG securities offered pursuant to AIG's
shelf registration statements.  The consolidated complaint alleges
that defendants made statements during the class period in press
releases, AIG's quarterly and year-end filings, during conference
calls, and in various registration statements and prospectuses in
connection with the various offerings that were materially false
and misleading and that artificially inflated the price of AIG
Common Stock.  The alleged false and misleading statements relate
to, among other things, the Subprime Exposure Issues.  The
consolidated complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act.  On August 5, 2009, defendants filed motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint, and on September 27, 2010, the
Court denied the motions to dismiss.

On April 1, 2011, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated 2008
Securities Litigation filed a motion to certify a class of
plaintiffs.  On November 2, 2011, the Court terminated the motion
without prejudice to an application for restoration.  On March 30,
2012, the lead plaintiff filed a renewed motion to certify a class
of plaintiffs.

On April 26, 2013, the Court granted a motion for judgment on the
pleadings brought by the defendants.  The Court's order dismissed
all claims against the outside auditors in their entirety, and it
also reduced the scope of the Securities Act claims against AIG
and defendants other than the outside auditors.  The Company has
accrued its estimate of probable loss with respect to this
litigation.

On November 18, 2011, January 20, 2012, June 11, 2012, August 8,
2012, and May 17, 2013, five separate, though similar, securities
actions were brought by the Kuwait Investment Authority, various
Oppenheimer Funds, eight foreign funds and investment entities led
by the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme, Pacific Life
Funds and Pacific Select Fund and the Teachers Retirement System
of the State of Illinois against AIG and certain directors and
officers of AIG and AIGFP (the action by the British Coal Staff
Superannuation Scheme also names as defendants AIG's outside
auditors and the underwriters of various securities offerings).
The parties have agreed to stay discovery in these actions until
the earlier of (i) the Court deciding the motion for class
certification pending in the Consolidated 2008 Securities
Litigation following 30 days' notice from any party in their
respective action, (ii) the preliminary approval of any settlement
in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation, (iii) December 27,
2013, or (iv) such earlier or other date as the Court may order.

As of August 5, 2013, no discussions concerning potential damages
have occurred and the plaintiffs have not formally specified an
amount of alleged damages in their respective actions.  As a
result, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the possible
loss or range of losses, if any, arising from these litigations.

American International Group, Inc. -- http://www.aig.com/-- is an
international insurance company, serving customers in more than
130 countries.  AIG companies serve commercial, institutional and
individual customers through property-casualty networks of any
insurer.  In addition, AIG companies are providers of life
insurance and retirement services.


AMERICAN INT'L: Securities Suit Filed in Canada Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
On November 12, 2008, an application was filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice for leave to bring a purported class
action against American International Group, Inc. (AIG), AIG
Financial Products Corp. and AIG Trading Group Inc. and their
respective subsidiaries (collectively, AIGFP), certain directors
and officers of AIG and Joseph Cassano, the former Chief Executive
Officer of AIGFP, pursuant to the Ontario Securities Act.  If the
Court grants the application, a class plaintiff will be permitted
to file a statement of claim against defendants.  The proposed
statement of claim would assert a class period of March 16, 2006,
through September 16, 2008, and would allege that during this
period defendants made false and misleading statements and
omissions in quarterly and annual reports and during oral
presentations in violation of the Ontario Securities Act.

On April 17, 2009, the defendants filed a motion record in support
of their motion to stay or dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and
forum non conveniens.  On July 12, 2010, the Court adjourned a
hearing on the motion pending a decision by the Supreme Court of
Canada in a pair of actions captioned Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van
Breda 2012 SCC 17 (Van Breda).  On April 18, 2012, the Supreme
Court of Canada clarified the standard for determining
jurisdiction over foreign and out-of-province defendants, such as
AIG, by holding that a defendant must have some form of "actual,"
as opposed to a merely "virtual," presence in order to be deemed
to be "doing business" in the jurisdiction.  The Supreme Court of
Canada also suggested that in future cases, defendants may contest
jurisdiction even when they are found to be doing business in a
Canadian jurisdiction if their business activities in the
jurisdiction are unrelated to the subject matter of the
litigation.  The matter has been stayed pending further
developments in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation.

In plaintiff's proposed statement of claim, the plaintiff alleged
general and special damages of $500 million and punitive damages
of $50 million plus prejudgment interest or such other sums as the
Court finds appropriate.  As of August 5, 2013, the Court has not
determined whether it has jurisdiction or granted plaintiff's
application to file a statement of claim, no merits discovery has
occurred and the action has been stayed.  As a result, the Company
is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
losses, if any, arising from the litigation.

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.

American International Group, Inc. -- http://www.aig.com/-- is an
international insurance company, serving customers in more than
130 countries.  AIG companies serve commercial, institutional and
individual customers through property-casualty networks of any
insurer.  In addition, AIG companies are providers of life
insurance and retirement services.


AMERICAN INT'L: Shareholders Must Join SICO Class by Sept. 16
-------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. shareholders have until
September 16, 2013, to "opt in" to join the class in the SICO
Treasury Action, 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 November 21, 2011, Starr International Company, Inc. (SICO)
filed a complaint against the United States in the United States
Court of Federal Claims (the Court of Federal Claims), bringing
claims, both individually and on behalf of the classes defined and
derivatively on behalf of AIG (the SICO Treasury Action).  The
complaint challenges the government's assistance of AIG, pursuant
to which AIG entered into a credit facility with the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York (the FRBNY and such credit facility, the
FRBNY Credit Facility) and the United States received an
approximately 80 percent ownership in AIG. The complaint alleges
that the interest rate imposed on AIG and the appropriation of
approximately 80 percent of AIG's equity was discriminatory,
unprecedented, and inconsistent with liquidity assistance offered
by the government to other comparable firms at the time and
violated the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Takings Clauses of
the U.S. Constitution.

On November 21, 2011, SICO also filed a second complaint in the
Southern District of New York against the FRBNY bringing claims,
both individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
and derivatively on behalf of AIG (the SICO New York Action).
This complaint also challenges the government's assistance of AIG,
pursuant to which AIG entered into the FRBNY Credit Facility and
the United States received an approximately 80 percent ownership
in AIG.  The complaint alleges that the FRBNY owed fiduciary
duties to AIG as the Company's controlling shareholder, and that
the FRBNY breached these fiduciary duties by "divert[ing] the
rights and assets of AIG and its shareholders to itself and
favored third parties" through transactions involving Maiden Lane
III LLC (ML III), an entity controlled by the FRBNY, and by
"participating in, and causing AIG's officers and directors to
participate in, the evasion of AIG's existing Common Stock
shareholders' right to approve the massive issuance of the new
Common Shares required to complete the government's taking of a
nearly 80 percent interest in the Common Stock of AIG."  SICO also
alleges that the "FRBNY has asserted that in exercising its
control over, and acting on behalf of, AIG it did not act in an
official, governmental capacity or at the direction of the United
States," but that "[t]o the extent the proof at or prior to trial
shows that the FRBNY did in fact act in a governmental capacity,
or at the direction of the United States, the improper conduct
. . . constitutes the discriminatory takings of the property and
property rights of AIG without due process or just compensation."

On January 31, 2012, and February 1, 2012, amended complaints were
filed in the Court of Federal Claims and the Southern District of
New York, respectively.

In rulings dated July 2, 2012, and September 17, 2012, the Court
of Federal Claims largely denied the United States' motion to
dismiss in the SICO Treasury Action.  Discovery is proceeding.

On November 19, 2012, the Southern District of New York granted
the FRBNY's motion to dismiss the SICO New York Action.  On
December 21, 2012, SICO filed a notice of appeal in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which appeal is
still pending.

In both of the actions commenced by SICO, the only claims naming
AIG as a party (as a nominal defendant) are derivative claims on
behalf of AIG.  On September 21, 2012, SICO made a pre-litigation
demand on the Company's Board demanding that the Company pursue
the derivative claims in both actions or allow SICO to pursue the
claims on the Company's behalf.  On January 9, 2013, the Company's
Board unanimously refused SICO's demand in its entirety and on
January 23, 2013, counsel for the Board sent a letter to counsel
for SICO describing the process by which the Company's Board
considered and refused SICO's demand and stating the reasons for
the Company's Board's determination.

On March 11, 2013, SICO filed a second amended complaint in the
SICO Treasury Action alleging that its demand was wrongfully
refused.  On June 26, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims granted
motions by AIG and the United States to dismiss SICO's derivative
claims in the SICO Treasury Action.

On March 11, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims in the SICO
Treasury Action granted SICO's motion for class certification of
two classes with respect to SICO's non-derivative claims: (1)
persons and entities who held shares of AIG Common Stock on or
before September 16, 2008, and who owned those shares on
September 22, 2008; and (2) persons and entities who owned shares
of AIG Common Stock on June 30, 2009, and were eligible to vote
those shares at AIG's June 30, 2009, annual meeting of
shareholders.  SICO has provided notice of class certification to
potential members of the class, who, pursuant to a court order
issued on April 25, 2013, must "opt in" to the class if they wish
to join the class by September 16, 2013.

The United States has alleged, as an affirmative defense in its
answer, that AIG is obligated to indemnify the FRBNY and its
representatives, including the Federal Reserve Board of Governors
and the United States (as the FRBNY's principal), for any recovery
in the SICO Treasury Action, and seeks a contingent offset or
recoupment for the value of net operating loss benefits the United
States alleges that the Company received as a result of the
government's assistance.  The FRBNY has also requested
indemnification in connection with the SICO New York Action from
AIG under the FRBNY Credit Facility and from ML III under the
Master Investment and Credit Agreement and the Amended and
Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of ML III.

American International Group, Inc. -- http://www.aig.com/-- is an
international insurance company, serving customers in more than
130 countries.  AIG companies serve commercial, institutional and
individual customers through property-casualty networks of any
insurer.  In addition, AIG companies are providers of life
insurance and retirement services.


AUSTRALIAN RUGBY: May Face NFL-Style Concussion Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Georgina Robinson, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that former Wallabies captain Rocky Elsom says the Australian
Rugby Union could be leaving itself open to an NFL-style class
action by following "terribly inadequate and dangerous" protocols
around concussion.

The NFL last week reached an AUD850 million out-of-court
settlement on a class action launched by more than 4500 players
who alleged the league hid what it knew about the dangers of
repeated blows to the head.

Mr. Elsom, who played 75 Tests for the Wallabies between 2005 and
2011 and captained the side for two years, said international
guidelines set by the International Rugby Board, followed by the
ARU, were woefully inadequate and could put the game at risk in
Australia.

"It is standard practice that someone who gets concussed doesn't
train for a few days after to protect the brain and reduce the
damage and make sure it isn't aggravated," Mr. Elsom said.
Advertisement

"If you think that the person that gets concussed can recover in
five minutes and be back out on the field, that doesn't seem to
match up too well and it could cause a fair bit of trouble, for
the player most importantly, but also for the sporting body if
they don't change the way they do things."

The IRB recently extended and tightened a global trial of its
Pitchside Suspected Concussion Assessment (PSCA) protocol for a
further year, citing a 25% rise in players permanently leaving the
pitch as a result of the new testing regime.

The PSCA process is designed to give team doctors enough time to
determine whether a player is concussed.  As a result of changes
implemented by the IRB last month, team medicos will now be able
to use video to help assess the impact of the hit, and will have
to take into account any balance problems the player has on the
field, or whether there is suspicion of a loss of consciousness.

The original PSCA process was used to clear Wallabies breakaway
George Smith to play after he was knocked out and helped off the
field early in the third British and Irish Lions Test, a move that
attracted widespread criticism.  It is understood Mr. Smith was
later diagnosed with concussion and, under the revised protocols,
would not have been allowed to return to the field of play.

The revised protocols were used when prop James Slipper took a hit
from All Blacks center Ma'a Nonu in the second Bledisloe Test in
Wellington a fortnight ago.  Slipper was not allowed to go back on
the field and had several follow-up tests before being allowed to
return to full training this week.

Mr. Elsom said he had no faith in the IRB's existing system and
said more caution was needed.  "I think [clearing players of
concussion after a sideline test] is a naive and a very dangerous
stance to have.  Dangerous for whoever employs the doctor and
dangerous for the player to have a doctor that works like that,"
he said.

The IRB's stance is developed from last year's Zurich Consensus
statement, which is recognized as a leading international forum on
sports concussion.

There are dissenting voices, including former Ireland
international and respected medico Barry O'Driscoll, who accused
the IRB of "trivializing concussion" after resigning from his post
as a board medical adviser last year.

"The five-minute assessment of a player who has demonstrated
distinct signs of concussion for 60 to 90 seconds and usually
longer, is totally discredited," he told Irish broadcaster RTE.
"There is no scientific, medical or rugby basis for the safety of
this process.  This experiment, which is employed by no other
sport in the world, is returning the player to what is an
extremely brutal arena."

Mr. Elsom, based in Narbonne, France, said there was too much
medical opinion that ran contrary to the IRB's stance to keep
ignoring calls for tighter protocols.  "You don't have to go too
far to find doctors who think along the same lines, opinions that
say the current measures are terrible, inadequate and quite
dangerous for the players," he said, adding that the Lions
incident involving Mr. Smith was damning.

"There is a big chance George wouldn't have been allowed to train
the day after and yet returning him to the field wasn't a problem.
There are obvious inconsistencies with that.  Whatever has
happened to George's brain after that is extremely hard to tell.
But if there was any hazardous effects then George is the one that
wears that.  That's why the settlement in the US was so large."

In Australia, the plights of AFL great Greg Williams and NRL
player Shaun Valentine, as well as former Wallaby Elton Flatley,
have attracted attention.  Asked if rugby could head in the same
direction as the NFL, Mr. Elsom said: "If they find that the
cognitive tests that the doctors do now are inadequate, then there
is only one place to go from there."


AVON PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Animal Testing Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Debra S. Dunne, Esq., Laurie A. Henry, Esq. and Madeleine
McDonough, Esq. at Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP reports that after Avon
Products, Inc. challenged a motion for class certification in a
suit alleging that the company misled consumers by failing to
inform them about its animal testing policy, the named plaintiffs
reportedly agreed to voluntarily dismiss the litigation with
prejudice.  Beltran v. Avon Products, Inc., No. 12-2502 (U.S.
Dist. Ct., C.D. Cal., joint dismissal motion filed August 23,
2013). The case began with putative class claims against three
cosmetics companies, seeking more than $100 million in punitive
and compensatory damages.  Each company has since been sued
individually, and the other cases remain pending.

According to Avon, the proposed class was not ascertainable and
lacked commonality, and the predominance requirement of Rule
23(b)(3) could not be met.  More significantly, however, the
company argued that plaintiff Maria Beltran has "rampant
credibility problems."  Ms. Beltran filed the lawsuit after People
for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) removed Avon from its
"cruelty-free" cosmetics company list and launched a campaign to
inform consumers that the company had changed its animal testing
policy and was paying for tests on animals in China.  Avon further
noted that the two individuals added as plaintiffs following
PETA's active search for potential class representatives were also
not adequate, because one, as a Michigan resident, could not
prosecute claims on behalf of California consumers, and the other
"refused to appear for her deposition."

As to Ms. Beltran's credibility issues, Avon noted that she was a
former Avon independent sales representative, "who started
purchasing Avon products without knowing Avon's animal testing
policy and, who, to this day, has never read nor even searched for
Avon's animal testing policy," which is apparently available on
its Website.  The company argued that the plaintiffs' counsel
published false statements about Ms. Beltran in the third amended
complaint, in her sworn discovery responses and in her declaration
in support of the motion for class certification.  Apparently, all
of those pleadings asserted that she purchased Avon products on
the basis of purported misrepresentations that the products were
not tested on animals.  Yet, during her deposition, she admitted
that her purchasing decisions "were not affected in any way by
Avon's animal testing policy."

The company apparently avoids animal testing except when required
by law in other countries, and, if that is required, the company
"will first attempt to persuade the requesting authority to accept
non-animal test data."  It claims that the lawsuit was "controlled
entirely by the class attorney" and "was conceived well before a
plaintiff existed."


AVX CORP: Myrtle Beach Factory-Related Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against AVX Corporation remains pending in
South Carolina, 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 November 27, 2007, a lawsuit was filed in the South Carolina
State Court by certain individuals as a class action with respect
to property adjacent to the Company's Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
factory, claiming property values have been negatively impacted by
alleged migration of certain pollutants from the Company's
property.  No accrual for costs has been recorded and the
potential impact of this case on the Company's financial position,
results of operations, comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows
cannot be determined at this time.

Headquartered in Fountain Inn, South Carolina, AVX Corporation is
a leading worldwide manufacturer and supplier of a broad line of
passive electronic components.  Virtually all types of electronic
devices use the Company's passive component products to store,
filter, or regulate electric energy.  The Company also
manufactures and supplies high-quality electronic connectors and
interconnect systems for use in electronic products.


BANK OF AMERICA: Consolidated Securities Suit Settlement Appealed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation disclosed in its August 1, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013, that certain members of the
securities class in the Consolidated Securities Class Action have
appealed the final approval of a settlement resolving the lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs (Securities Plaintiffs) in the securities class
action in the Consolidated Action (Consolidated Securities Class
Action) asserted claims under Sections 14(a), 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act), and
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the
Securities Act) and asserted damages based on the drop in the
stock price upon subsequent disclosures.

In February 2012, the court granted a motion for class
certification.  On November 30, 2012, the parties entered into a
settlement agreement.  The agreement, which is subject to court
approval, provides for a payment by the Corporation of $2.4
billion, an amount that was fully accrued as of September 30,
2012, and the institution and/or continuation of certain corporate
governance enhancements until the later of January 1, 2015, or 18
months following the court's final approval of the settlement.  In
exchange, Securities Plaintiffs released their claims against all
defendants and certain other persons or entities affiliated with
defendants.

On December 4, 2012, the court issued an order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement and scheduling a final
settlement hearing for April 5, 2013.

On April 5, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted final approval to the settlement of
the Consolidated Securities Class Action.

Certain members of the securities class in the Consolidated
Securities Class Action have appealed the district court's final
approval of the settlement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, Bank of America Corporation --
http://www.bankofamerica.com/-- is a bank holding company and a
financial holding company.  Bank of America is a large financial
institution, serving individual consumers, small- and middle-
market businesses, institutional investors, large corporations and
governments with a full range of banking, investing, asset
management and other financial and risk management products and
services.  Bank of America stock is a component of the Dow Jones
Industrial Average and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.


BANK OF AMERICA: Continues to Defend Merchants Suit in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit in Canada brought on behalf of a nationwide
class of merchants, according to the Company's August 1, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On March 28, 2011, an action entitled Watson v. Bank of America
Corp. (Watson) was filed on in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia, Canada, by a purported nationwide class of merchants
that accept Visa and/or MasterCard credit cards in Canada.  The
action names as defendants Visa, MasterCard, and a number of other
banks and bank holding companies (BHCs), including the
Corporation.  The action alleges that defendants conspired to fix
the merchant discount fees that merchants pay to acquiring banks
on credit card transactions.  It also alleges that defendants
conspired to impose certain rules relating to merchant acceptance
of credit cards at the point of sale.  The action asserts claims
under section 45 of the Competition Act and other common law
claims, and seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief based
on the assertion that merchant discount fees would be lower absent
the challenged conduct.  The action is not covered by Visa's
Retrospective Responsibility Plan (the RRP) or loss-sharing
agreements previously entered in connection with certain antitrust
litigation, including Interchange.  In addition to Watson, the
Corporation has been named as a defendant in similar putative
class action claims filed in other jurisdictions in Canada.

Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, Bank of America Corporation --
http://www.bankofamerica.com/-- is a bank holding company and a
financial holding company.  Bank of America is a large financial
institution, serving individual consumers, small- and middle-
market businesses, institutional investors, large corporations and
governments with a full range of banking, investing, asset
management and other financial and risk management products and
services.  Bank of America stock is a component of the Dow Jones
Industrial Average and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.


BANK OF AMERICA: Continues to Defend Suits Related to MBS
---------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation continues to defend itself and its
subsidiaries against lawsuits related to mortgage-backed
securities, according to the Company's August 1, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The Corporation and its affiliates, Countrywide Financial
Corporation entities and their affiliates, and Merrill Lynch &
Co., Inc. entities and their affiliates have been named as
defendants in a number of cases relating to their various roles as
issuer, originator, seller, depositor, sponsor, underwriter and/or
controlling entity in mortgage-backed securities (MBS) offerings,
pursuant to which the MBS investors were entitled to a portion of
the cash flow from the underlying pools of mortgages.  These cases
generally include purported class action lawsuits and actions by
individual MBS purchasers.  Although the allegations vary by
lawsuit, these cases generally allege that the registration
statements, prospectuses and prospectus supplements for securities
issued by securitization trusts contained material
misrepresentations and omissions, in violation of Sections 11, 12
and/or 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and/or 20
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and/or state securities
laws and other state statutory and common laws.

These cases generally involve allegations of false and misleading
statements regarding: (i) the process by which the properties that
served as collateral for the mortgage loans underlying the MBS
were appraised; (ii) the percentage of equity that mortgage
borrowers had in their homes; (iii) the borrowers' ability to
repay their mortgage loans; (iv) the underwriting practices by
which those mortgage loans were originated; (v) the ratings given
to the different tranches of MBS by rating agencies; and (vi) the
validity of each issuing trust's title to the mortgage loans
comprising the pool for that securitization (collectively, MBS
Claims).  The Plaintiffs in these cases generally seek unspecified
compensatory damages, unspecified costs and legal fees and, in
some instances, seek rescission.  A number of other entities have
threatened legal actions against the Corporation and its
affiliates, Countrywide entities and their affiliates, and Merrill
Lynch entities and their affiliates concerning MBS offerings.  On
January 11, 2013, the Corporation preliminarily agreed on a
settlement amount with the National Credit Union Administration
(NCUA) to resolve claims concerning certain MBS offerings that the
NCUA had threatened to bring against the Corporation, Merrill
Lynch, Countrywide and certain of their affiliates.  The agreement
is subject to the negotiation and execution of mutually agreeable
settlement documentation and approval by the NCUA board.  The
settlement amount would be covered by existing reserves.

On August 15, 2011, the JPML ordered multiple federal court cases
involving Countrywide MBS consolidated for pretrial purposes in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, in
a multi-district litigation entitled In re Countrywide Financial
Corp. Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation (the Countrywide RMBS
MDL).

Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, Bank of America Corporation --
http://www.bankofamerica.com/-- is a bank holding company and a
financial holding company.  Bank of America is a large financial
institution, serving individual consumers, small- and middle-
market businesses, institutional investors, large corporations and
governments with a full range of banking, investing, asset
management and other financial and risk management products and
services.  Bank of America stock is a component of the Dow Jones
Industrial Average and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.


BANK OF AMERICA: Defends LIBOR-Related Suits and Investigations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation continues to defend itself against
lawsuits and investigations in connection with the setting of
London interbank offered rates, according to the Company's
August 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The Corporation has received subpoenas and information requests
from government authorities in North America, Europe and Asia,
including the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Commodity
Futures Trading Commission and the U.K. Financial Services
Authority (FSA), concerning submissions made by panel banks in
connection with the setting of London interbank offered rates
(LIBOR) and European and other reference rates.  The Corporation
is cooperating with these inquiries.

In addition, the Corporation and Bank of America, National
Association (BANA), have been named as defendants along with most
of the other LIBOR panel banks in a series of individual and class
actions in various U.S. federal and state courts relating to
defendants' LIBOR contributions.  All cases naming the Corporation
have been or are in the process of being consolidated for pre-
trial purposes in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York by the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (JPML).  The Corporation expects that any
future cases naming the Corporation will similarly be consolidated
for pre-trial purposes.  The Plaintiffs allege that they held or
transacted in U.S. dollar LIBOR-based derivatives or other
financial instruments and sustained losses as a result of
collusion or manipulation by defendants regarding the setting of
U.S. dollar LIBOR.  The Plaintiffs assert a variety of claims,
including antitrust and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations claims and seek compensatory, treble and punitive
damages, and injunctive relief.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the initially filed actions which
had been coordinated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  On March 29, 2013, the court dismissed the
antitrust, RICO and related state law claims and, based on the
statute of limitations, substantially limited the manipulation
claims under the Commodities Exchange Act that are allowed to
proceed.  The court's rulings will be applicable to later filed
actions to the extent they assert similar claims.

On June 14, 2013, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) took
administrative action against 20 banks, including BANA (Singapore
Branch), for deficiencies in governance, risk management, internal
controls and surveillance systems from 2007 to 2011 related to
their submission processes for Singapore dollar interest rate
benchmarks (specifically, SIBOR and SOR) and Foreign Exchange spot
benchmarks.  The MAS is requiring that all 20 banks adopt measures
to address these deficiencies, report their progress in addressing
these deficiencies on a quarterly basis, and conduct independent
reviews to ensure the robustness of their remedial measures.
Nineteen of the banks must also set aside an increased statutory
reserve with the MAS at zero percent interest for one year, with
BANA (Singapore Branch) required to set aside 700 million
Singapore Dollars (approximately $551 million U.S. dollars at a
conversion rate of 0.7881 as of July 1, 2013).

Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, Bank of America Corporation --
http://www.bankofamerica.com/-- is a bank holding company and a
financial holding company.  Bank of America is a large financial
institution, serving individual consumers, small- and middle-
market businesses, institutional investors, large corporations and
governments with a full range of banking, investing, asset
management and other financial and risk management products and
services.  Bank of America stock is a component of the Dow Jones
Industrial Average and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.


BANK OF AMERICA: Hearing on Interchange Fee Suit Deal on Sept. 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval hearing of the settlement resolving lawsuits
over interchange fees is scheduled for September 12, 2013,
according to Bank of America Corporation's August 1, 2013 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In 2005, a group of merchants filed a series of putative class
actions and individual actions directed at interchange fees
associated with Visa and MasterCard payment card transactions.
These actions, which were consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York under the caption In Re
Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Anti-Trust
Litigation (Interchange), named Visa, MasterCard and several banks
and bank holding companies (BHCs), including the Corporation, as
defendants.  The Plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired to
fix the level of default interchange rates, which represent the
fee an issuing bank charges an acquiring bank on every
transaction.  The Plaintiffs also challenged as unreasonable
restraints of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act certain
rules of Visa and MasterCard related to merchant acceptance of
payment cards at the point of sale.  The Plaintiffs sought
unspecified damages and injunctive relief based on their assertion
that interchange would be lower or eliminated absent the alleged
conduct.

In addition, the plaintiffs filed supplemental complaints against
certain defendants, including the Corporation, relating to initial
public offerings (the IPOs) of MasterCard and Visa.  The
Plaintiffs alleged that the IPOs violated Section 7 of the Clayton
Act and Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The Plaintiffs also
asserted that the MasterCard IPO was a fraudulent conveyance.  The
Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and to undo the IPOs.

On October 19, 2012, the defendants entered an agreement to settle
the class plaintiffs' claims.  The defendants also separately
agreed to resolve the claims brought by a group of individual
retailers that opted out of the class to pursue independent
litigation.  The settlement agreements provide for, among other
things, (i) payments by defendants to the class and individual
plaintiffs totaling approximately $6.6 billion; (ii) distribution
to class merchants of an amount equal to 10 bps of default
interchange across all Visa and MasterCard credit card
transactions for a period of eight consecutive months, to begin by
July 29, 2013, which otherwise would have been paid to issuers and
which effectively reduces credit interchange for that period of
time; and (iii) modifications to Visa and MasterCard rules
regarding merchant point of sale practices.

Subject to the loss-sharing agreements the Corporation and certain
affiliates previously entered with Visa, MasterCard and other
financial institutions, the Corporation will contribute a total of
$738 million to the settlement of the class and individual
actions.  Of that amount, $539 million will be paid from the
proceeds that Visa previously placed into an escrow fund pursuant
to Visa's Retrospective Responsibility Plan (the RRP) to cover the
Corporation's share of Visa-related claims.

The court granted preliminary approval of the class settlement
agreement on November 9, 2012, over the objections of several
class members.  The objecting class members appealed to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which denied appellants'
motion for expedited appeal and deferred briefing until after
final approval of the settlement.  The final approval hearing is
scheduled for September 12, 2013.

Certain class members have opted out of the settlement and there
have been a number of new filings in the U.S. District Courts for
the Southern District of New York and Eastern District of New York
related to these opt outs.

Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, Bank of America Corporation --
http://www.bankofamerica.com/-- is a bank holding company and a
financial holding company.  Bank of America is a large financial
institution, serving individual consumers, small- and middle-
market businesses, institutional investors, large corporations and
governments with a full range of banking, investing, asset
management and other financial and risk management products and
services.  Bank of America stock is a component of the Dow Jones
Industrial Average and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.


BANK OF AMERICA: Policemen's Annuity Suit v. BANA Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Policemen's Annuity Litigation involving a subsidiary of Bank
of America Corporation remains pending, according to the Company's
August 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On April 11, 2012, the Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund of the
City of Chicago, on its own behalf and on behalf of a proposed
class of purchasers of 41 residential mortgage-backed securities
(RMBS) trusts collateralized by Washington Mutual-originated
(WaMu) mortgages, filed a proposed class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, entitled Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of the City of
Chicago v. Bank of America, NA and U.S. Bank National Association.
Bank of America, National Association (BANA) and U.S. Bank are
named as defendants in their capacities as trustees, with BANA
(formerly LaSalle Bank National Association) having served as the
original trustee and U.S. Bank having replaced BANA as trustee.
The Plaintiff asserts claims under the federal Trust Indenture Act
as well as state common law claims.  The Plaintiff alleges that,
in light of the performance of the RMBS at issue, and in the wake
of publicly-available information about the quality of loans
originated by WaMu, the trustees were required to take certain
steps to protect plaintiff's interest in the value of the
securities, and that plaintiff was damaged by defendants' failures
to notify it of deficiencies in the loans and of defaults under
the relevant agreements, to ensure that the underlying mortgages
could properly be foreclosed, and to enforce remedies available
for loans that contained breaches of representations and
warranties.  The Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages
and/or equitable relief, and costs and expenses.

On December 7, 2012, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss, and granted plaintiff leave to
replead some of the dismissed claims.  The court ruled, among
other things, that plaintiff has standing to pursue claims on
behalf of purchasers of certificates in certain tranches of five
trusts.  The Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on
January 13, 2013, which added the plaintiffs and asserted claims
concerning 19 trusts.

On May 6, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York denied defendants' motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint.  The court confirmed its prior holding that the
Trust Indenture Act applied to the RMBS certificates at issue, and
held that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that defendants
violated both the Trust Indenture Act and their contractual
obligations by allegedly failing to give notice to the servicer
and to certificate holders of certain alleged defects in the loans
at issue.

Based in Charlotte, North Carolina, Bank of America Corporation --
http://www.bankofamerica.com/-- is a bank holding company and a
financial holding company.  Bank of America is a large financial
institution, serving individual consumers, small- and middle-
market businesses, institutional investors, large corporations and
governments with a full range of banking, investing, asset
management and other financial and risk management products and
services.  Bank of America stock is a component of the Dow Jones
Industrial Average and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Settles IPO Class Action for $85 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Stevenson, writing for The New York Times, reports that
the Blackstone Group has agreed to pay $85 million to settle a
lawsuit brought by a group of investors that accused it of
misrepresenting some investments ahead of its 2007 initial public
offering.

The settlement, filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan on
Aug. 28, closes the door on a five-year legal battle with
investors who contended that the firm misrepresented the value of
three investments in its prospectus.  Blackstone denied any
wrongdoing or liability in the settlement.

By settling, Blackstone has avoided a securities class-action
trial that was scheduled to begin this month.  Shares of
Blackstone rose 1.9 percent on Aug. 29, to $22.05.

In June 2007, at the peak of the private equity boom, Blackstone
raised $4.1 billion in a share offering on the New York Stock
Exchange with much fanfare.  It was one of the first of a group of
highly secretive private equity firms to go public, attracting the
kind of media attention normally left for Hollywood movie
premieres.  Camera operators and reporters lined up at the stock
exchange to cover the event, according to a New York Times report
at the time.

"We may be witnessing the end of capitalism as we know it,"
Tom Wolfe, the author of "Bonfire of the Vanities," told CNBC,
according to the report.

But the shares, which listed at $31 a share and rose on the first
day of trading to $35.06, quickly fell in value amid wider market
volatility.

A group of investors, unhappy with the way the company disclosed
its investments, filed a complaint against the company and its
chairman, Stephen A. Schwarzman, in April 2008, less than a year
after the listing.  They contended the Blackstone did not properly
disclose the value of its investments in three companies -- a
monoline insurer, a semiconductor manufacturer and a real estate
company.  These investments were already losing value at the time
of the I.P.O., they argued, posing a potential risk to the firm's
performance fees.

A year after Blackstone's I.P.O., its stock had lost nearly half
its value and was trading at $18.15 a share.

The settlement puts an end to a long and complicated legal
process.  The case was initially thrown out in 2009 by
Judge Harold Baer of Federal District Court but was revived on
appeal in early 2011.  A later appeal by Blackstone was rejected
in October 2011.

During the process, more than five million pages of documents were
handed over to the court from Blackstone and nearly 25 third
parties, according to the settlement papers.  Before the
settlement, Judge Baer was expected to examine the documents and
disposition again carefully before deciding whether to dismiss the
case.

"We're delighted at the result," said Samuel H. Rudman, a lawyer
with Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd, co-lead counsel for the
plaintiffs.

A representative for Blackstone could not be reached for comment.


BMC SOFTWARE: Defends Merger-Related Suits in Texas and Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
BMC Software, Inc. is defending itself against merger-related
class action lawsuits pending in Texas and 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.

On May 6, 2013, BMC entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
(as amended, the Merger Agreement) pursuant to which it will be
acquired by Boxer Parent Company Inc. (Parent), a Delaware
corporation affiliated with affiliates of investment funds advised
by Bain Capital, LLC, Golden Gate Private Equity, Inc., Insight
Venture Management, LLC, a company affiliated with GIC Special
Investments Pte Ltd and Elliott Associates, L.P. (together, the
Sponsors), through a merger of a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent
(Merger Sub) with and into the Company (the Merger).  The Merger
Agreement provides that, subject to the terms and conditions
thereof, at the effective time of the Merger (the Effective Time),
each outstanding share of common stock of the Company, other than
certain excluded shares, will cease to be outstanding and will be
converted into the right to receive $46.25 in cash, without
interest (the Merger Consideration).

Prior to and following the announcement of the execution of the
Merger Agreement on May 6, 2013, several lawsuits challenging the
proposed acquisition of BMC were filed in state courts in Texas
and in Delaware. Those actions are captioned: Henzel v. BMC
Software, Inc., et. al., C.A. No. 8542-VCL (Del. Ch.); Steinberg
v. BMC Software, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 8544-VCL (Del. Ch.); Alaska
Electrical Pension Fund v. BMC Software, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
8565-VCL (Del. Ch.); Purnell, et al. v. BMC Software, Inc., et
al., C.A. No. 8582-VCL (Del. Ch.); USW Staff Pension Plan v. BMC
Software, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 8590-VCL (Del. Ch.); Neulinger v.
BMC Software, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 8609-VCL (Del. Ch.); Alaska
Electrical Pension Fund v. BMC Software, Inc., et al., No.
ED101J017416034, (Tex. D. Ct., Harris Cty.); and Abekian v. BMC
Software, Inc., et al., No. ED101J017493759, (Tex. D. Ct., Harris
Cty.).

The Delaware actions were filed between May 9, 2013, and May 31,
2013.  Each is a putative class action filed on behalf of the
stockholders of BMC, and each names as defendants BMC, its
directors, Bain Capital Partners, LLC, Golden Gate Private Equity,
Inc., GIC Special Investment Pte Ltd, Insight Venture Management,
LLC, Parent and Merger Sub, and certain actions also name Elliott
Associates, L.P. and Elliott International, L.P. as defendants.
The complaints allege that the directors of BMC breached their
fiduciary duties by agreeing to the Merger Agreement and selling
BMC for an inadequate price and following an insufficient process;
the complaints also allege that the remaining defendants aided and
abetted those alleged breaches.  The complaints seek, among other
relief, declaratory and injunctive relief against the Merger, and
costs and fees.  On June 6, 2013, the Delaware Court of Chancery
(the Court) entered an order consolidating all Delaware actions
(other than the Henzel action) under the caption In re BMC
Software, Inc., Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.
8544-VCL.  On June 14, 2013, the Court entered an Order appointing
lead counsel for the putative class, and such counsel filed an
Amended Consolidated Complaint and moved for expedited
proceedings.  On July 11, 2013, the Court entered an order
consolidating the Henzel action into the consolidated stockholder
litigation.

On July 12, 2013, counsel for the putative class filed their
motion for a preliminary injunction against the shareholder vote
on the proposed Merger, based on alleged inadequate disclosures in
the Company's definitive proxy.  On July 17, 2013, counsel for the
putative class withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction
in light of certain supplemental disclosures made by BMC.  On
July 24, 2013, counsel for the putative class reached an agreement
in principle to settle all claims related to the litigation (the
Agreement).  The Agreement provides for, among other things, a
stay of all proceedings in such litigation, and releases for all
defendants and their agents.  Under the Agreement, promptly
following approval of the settlement by the Court, but no sooner
than the closing of the Merger, $12.4 million in cash (the
Payment) will be distributed pro rata to all holders of BMC common
stock and equity awards as of the closing.  BMC will use funds
taken from the proceeds of the Elliott Rollover to fund all of the
Payment.  Elliott will waive its right to participate in such
payment, such that the entire Payment will be distributed to the
other equity holders of BMC.  The Agreement is subject to a number
of preconditions, including entering into a Stipulation of
Settlement and other final documentation, approval by the Court,
consummation of the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement and completion of a rollover contribution by Elliott
Associates, L.P., a current stockholder of the Company, to Parent
of approximately $137 million.

The Abekian Texas action was filed on May 17, 2013, as a putative
class action on behalf of the stockholders of BMC, and it names
the same defendants (excluding Elliott Associates, L.P. and
Elliott International, L.P.), asserts substantially the same
allegations and seeks substantially the same relief as the
Delaware actions.

The Texas action commenced by Alaska Electrical Pension Fund was
filed on April 5, 2013, as an individual action on behalf of the
named plaintiff only, and it named as defendants BMC and its
directors.  The Alaska Electrical Pension Fund's Texas petition,
filed before any transaction was announced, alleged that the
individual defendants would breach their fiduciary duties if they
allowed BMC's management to take BMC private for an inadequate
price and pursuant to an insufficient sales process, and it
alleged that BMC itself would be aiding and abetting those alleged
breaches.  The Alaska Electrical Pension Fund's Texas petition
sought, among other relief, declaratory and injunctive relief
enjoining any transaction, and costs and fees.  On May 24, 2013,
the Alaska Electrical Pension Fund filed a notice of non-suit
without prejudice, and, on May 30, 2013, the Texas court took
notice of the non-suit and dismissed all claims without prejudice.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, BMC Software, Inc., --
http://bmc.com/-- is one of the world's largest software
companies.  The Company provides IT management solutions for
large, mid-sized and small enterprises and public sector
organizations around the world.  The Company's extensive portfolio
of IT management software solutions simplifies and automates the
management of IT processes, mainframe, distributed, virtualized
and cloud computing environments, as well as applications and
databases.  The Company also provides its customers with
maintenance and support services for its products and assists
customers with software implementation, integration, IT process
and organizational transformation and education services.


CITRIX SYSTEMS: Settles Overtime Class Action for $350,000
----------------------------------------------------------
Igor Kossov, writing for Law360, reports that software company
Citrix Systems Inc. on Aug. 23 agreed to pay $350,000 to settle a
class action by employees in California alleging the company
illegally avoided paying them overtime.

Under the tentative agreement, the 61 class members would be
entitled to shares of the settlement based on their salary and
number of workweeks with Citrix during the class period.  The
$350,000 sum also includes plaintiffs' attorney and litigation
fees.

Citrix and its attorneys didn't immediately respond to requests
for comment on Aug. 26.


CLAYTON WILLIAMS: Awaits Finalization of Class Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clayton Williams Energy, Inc., is awaiting finalization of its
settlement of a class action lawsuit against a subsidiary,
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.

Clayton Williams Energy, Inc., a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Midland, Texas, is an independent oil and gas
company engaged in the exploration for and development and
production of oil and natural gas primarily in its core areas in
Texas, Louisiana and New Mexico.  The Company is engaged in
developmental drilling in two primary oil-prone regions, the
Permian Basin and Giddings Area, where the Company has a
significant inventory of developmental drilling opportunities.

Southwest Royalties, Inc. ("SWR") is a defendant in a lawsuit in
Union County, Arkansas, where the plaintiffs are suing for the
costs of remediation to a lease on which operations were commenced
in the 1930s.  The plaintiffs are seeking in excess of $8 million.
In June 2013, the plaintiffs, SWR and the remaining defendants
agreed to a settlement of $750,000, of which SWR will pay
$710,000.  To accomplish the settlement, the case would be
converted to a class action, and each member of the class would be
offered the right to either participate or opt out of the class
and continue a separate action for damages.  If more than 25% of
the plaintiffs opt out of the settlement, SWR will have the right
to terminate the settlement.  Any plaintiffs opting out would be
subject to all previous rulings of the court, including an order
dismissing a significant number of plaintiffs' claims on the basis
that such claims were time barred.  SWR believes that the judge
will approve the settlement and the number of plaintiffs opting
out of the settlement, if any, will be insignificant.  The Company
recorded a loss on settlement of $710,000 for the six months ended
June 30, 2013, in connection with this proposed settlement.  The
Company is now awaiting finalization of the settlement by the
court.


CONCORD MANAGEMENT: Sept. 16 Class Action Status Conference Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for The Madison-St. Clair
Record, reports that St. Clair County Circuit Judge Vincent
Lopinot has set a status conference in a class action suit that
alleges an O'Fallon apartment complex failed to pay interest on
security deposits to renters.

The status conference is set at 9 a.m. on Sept. 16.

Plaintiff Kyle Oller filed a class action lawsuit individually and
on behalf of a group of others on Aug. 24, 2012, against Concord
Management Ltd.  The class action lawsuit purports to include all
of the defendant's tenants since 2002 who paid a deposit and were
not paid interest.

The two count complaint lists alleged violations of the Security
Deposit Interest Act and breach of contract.

According to the complaint, Mr. Oller signed a year-to-year lease
for an apartment managed by Concord.  In 2007, Mr. Oller claims he
rented a two bedroom unit at the Fairfield Place Apartment
Complex, which required a security deposit.

Mr. Oller argues that Illinois' Security Deposit Interest Act
mandates that any company collecting security deposits on a
complex containing 25 or more units and holds that deposit for
more than six months must pay interest to the tenant on that
deposit.

According to the complaint, Concord allegedly kept Mr. Oller's
deposit for longer than six months but failed to pay interest on
that deposit.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case on Oct. 5, 2012,
arguing that the statute of limitations holds that plaintiffs have
two years to file a statutory of penalty for the Security Deposit
Act.  Judge Lopinot denied the motion for dismissal on March 13.

The defendant followed the denial with a motion to reconsider on
April 15.  That motion states that the court never stated whether
the statute applied.  The defense continues to assert that a two
year statute of limitations supports its reasoning for dismissal.
The defendants either wanted the case dismissed or asked the court
to tell them what statute applies.

On April 15, Concord stated in its motion to reconsider that if
the case is not dismissed, it would like to petition for leave to
appeal to the Fifth District Appellate Court.

The proposed class is represented by David I. Cates --
dcates@cateslaw.com -- of Swansea.

Concord Management Ltd. is represented by Robert Sprague of
Belleville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 12-L-442


COSMOPOLITAN OF LAS VEGAS: Lawyers Contact Casino Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ken Ritter, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a pair
of Nevada lawyers pressing a $70 million wage and overtime abuse
claim against the Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas resort are trying to
contact more than 7,000 current and former employees who could be
eligible to collect monetary damages.

Attorney Joshua Buck said mailers sent out on Aug. 30 would invite
people who worked at the $3.9 billion high-rise property since it
opened in December 2010 to opt-in by return mail to what Mr. Buck
called one of the largest wage and hour class-action cases ever in
the state.

"It's pay for time owed, and pay for work done," Mr. Buck said.
"We're trying to get people unpaid wages for time they've already
worked."

Officials at the 52-story upscale resort on the Las Vegas Strip
declined to comment about the mailers or the lawsuit.

"As a matter of company policy, we do not comment on pending
litigation," Cosmopolitan spokeswoman Amy Rosetti said.

Mr. Buck and attorney Mark Thierman of Reno filed the lawsuit in
August 2012, seeking class-action status on behalf of former slot
machine money changer Darlene Lewis against the resort and its
corporate owner, Nevada Property 1 LLC.

U.S. Magistrate Judge George Foley Jr. granted conditional class
certification this year under the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act.

That gave the lawyers the go-ahead to contact 7,158 current and
former hourly employees they say were required to change into
uniforms before clocking in, and about 50 who were required to
collect their cash bank, keys and radio before clocking in and
return them after clocking out.

The judge referred to declarations from 97 employees about a
company requirement that workers change into uniforms at the
casino hotel.  The judge noted the declarations, submitted by
company lawyers, amounted to sampling from a fraction of the 3,700
employees at the resort.

The casino-resort's employee handbook instructed workers to "leave
yourself extra time" to pick up and change into uniforms "so that
you are able to report to your work station at the start of your
shift," Judge Foley noted in a January order in the case.  Workers
were told to clock in only for time spent on the job performing
assigned duties.

Mr. Buck said workers whose pay averaged $14 per hour might have
spent 15 to 30 minutes collecting their clothing and dressing
before and after work each day.  He said the resulting 30 minutes
to one hour per day could amount to up to $21 in time-and-a-half
pay for each of perhaps 2,000 employees going through the garment
area each day for more than 2 1/2 years.

"What we're learning with these off-the-clock cases is that
employers are trying to nickel and dime employees to get them to
do a little extra on the front and back end," Mr. Buck said.  "In
reality, it saves the company a lot of money."

Mr. Buck said the lawsuit is not connected with a labor dispute
pitting the powerful Culinary Union in Las Vegas against
Cosmopolitan owner Deutsche Bank AG.  The German investment bank
took over the 2,995-room property after the original developer
defaulted before it opened.

A majority of Cosmopolitan service workers signed cards in 2010
saying they wanted union representation, and workers have picketed
the property several times this year to protest stalled contract
talks.  Meanwhile, the resort remains one of a handful of nonunion
casinos on the Strip.


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Sept. 9 First Bellwether Hip Implant Trial Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
The first federal trial over DePuy Orthopaedics Inc.'s metal-on-
metal hip replacement device, which is the subject of about 10,000
lawsuits across the country, is scheduled to begin on September 9
in Cleveland.

The case, brought by a woman in Rochester, N.Y., who claims to
have a dislocated hip and was forced to undergo surgery to remove
her ASR XL hip implant, will be the first bellwether proceeding to
face jurors of nearly 8,000 cases coordinated in multidistrict
litigation before U.S. District Judge David Katz.  Prospective
jurors were expected to be brought in on Sept. 3.

Ellen Relkin -- erelkin@weitzlux.com -- of New York's Weitz &
Luxenberg, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs' steering committee
in the ASR multidistrict litigation against DePuy, said the trial
team will include committee member Eric Kennedy, managing partner
of Weisman, Kennedy & Berris in Cleveland; Michelle Kranz of Zoll,
Kranz & Borgess in Toledo, Ohio; and local counsel Stephen Schwarz
-- sschwarz@faraci.com -- managing partner of Faraci Lange in
Rochester, N.Y.

"We believe this is an appropriate case for bellwether trial since
there is a concerning number of re-revisions among ASR patients
resulting from injury to the tissue and muscle from metal debris
and the two prior trials did not involve re-revisions," Ms. Relkin
wrote via email.

"The company will defend itself against the plaintiff's
allegations and believes the evidence will show that the design of
the ASR XL was not responsible for the plaintiff's hip
arthroplasty failure and that the company's actions concerning the
ASR XL were appropriate," wrote DePuy spokeswoman Mindy Tinsley in
an email to The National Law Journal.

Jurors in state court cases in California and Illinois rendered
the first verdicts over the ASR device this year.  On March 8, a
jury in Los Angeles County Superior Court awarded $8.3 million to
Loren Kransky, a retired prison guard who had the device implanted
in 2007, but rejected his bid for as much as $179 million in
punitive damages.  DePuy has appealed that verdict to California's
Second District Court of Appeal.

A Chicago jury on April 16 issued a verdict for DePuy in a case
brought by Carol Strum, who had the device implanted in 2008 but
claimed she was forced to have surgery to replace it three years
later.  That trial was the first of 300 actions pending before
Cook County, Ill., Circuit Judge Deborah Mary Dooling, who had
asked lawyers to designate certain cases as representative.

Another trial in state court in Florida is scheduled for
November 8.  In California, where San Francisco Superior Court
Judge Richard Kramer is overseeing about 2,000 cases, the first
bellwether trial is scheduled for October 15.  And in New Jersey,
where DePuy's parent company, Johnson & Johnson, has headquarters
in New Brunswick, Bergen County Superior Court Judge Brian
Martinotti has scheduled the first trial of more than 600 cases
for October 21.

DePuy, based in Warsaw, Ind., pulled the device from the market on
August 24, 2010, but plaintiffs allege the company knew about its
problems long before that and failed to warn doctors.  Those
problems, they claim, include pain, grinding or clicking in the
hips and a high metal content in blood tests.  On May 6, 2011, the
U.S. Food & Drug Administration, which regulates medical devices,
ordered 21 manufacturers of metal-on-metal hip implants to conduct
surveillance on their products and to assess their safety.

More than 93,000 ASR devices have been implanted in patients.
DePuy also faces more than 4,000 lawsuits over its Pinnacle hip
device, and similar litigation has been filed against other
manufacturers.


FREEMAN COS: Ex-EEOC General Counsel Discusses Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Ramonas, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that on
August 9, U.S. District Judge Roger Titus in Maryland dismissed an
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission lawsuit against Freeman
Cos., which the agency claimed was discriminating against minority
and male job applicants.

The EEOC said in a September 2009 complaint that the event-
services company used discriminatory hiring criteria against
minorities by looking at the credit history of some of its job
applicants and by considering candidates' criminal history.  The
agency alleged that Freeman's hiring policies led to disparate
impact on proposed class members.

Judge Titus wrote in his opinion that while some specific uses of
criminal and credit background checks could be discriminatory, the
EEOC gave unreliable expert testimony to demonstrate disparate
impact stemming from Freeman's practices.

CorpCounsel.com last week discussed the case with Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld partner Donald Livingston, who was Freeman's
lead attorney.  The Washington, D.C.-based lawyer is a former EEOC
general counsel.  The following conversation has been edited for
length and clarity.

CorpCounsel.com: How did you get involved with the EEOC v. Freeman
case?

Donald Livingston: Prior to EEOC v. Freeman, I'd done a lot of
work and thinking on the Title VII ramifications of the use of
criminal history information in the hiring process.  I'd
represented a few clients in some EEOC matters that concerned [the
use of criminal history information].  I'd given some testimony at
an EEOC meeting as a management representative.  I helped work
with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to submit their comments on the
EEOC's potential policy guidance, and I served as a liaison with
the EEOC on behalf of the American Bar Association.

CC: Is this case part of a major push by the EEOC to challenge
employer usage of background checks?

DL: Yes. Some number of years ago, the EEOC launched two
initiatives almost simultaneously.  One was its systemic
initiative that was intended to place more EEOC resources and
emphasis on big-picture issues and pattern or practice claims of
discrimination.  And the second was an EEOC initiative called E-
RACE. E-RACE was a race and color discrimination initiative,
which, among other things, was intended to attack hiring practices
that the EEOC believed had an unfair disparate impact on the basis
of race.  One of the targets of the disparate impact initiative
portion of E-RACE was the use of criminal histories by employers
during the hiring process.  Freeman was the second lawsuit that
the EEOC filed after E-RACE that I know of.

CC: What is the significance of the Freeman decision?

DL: The most significant holding involves the application of the
Title VII no-cumulation rule for calculating disparate impact.
The court ruled that it's not sufficient for the EEOC to show that
a criminal history or a credit check policy as a whole has a
disparate impact on a protected group if the policy has specific
criteria or procedures that are capable of separation for the
purposes of analysis.  Instead, the court held that the EEOC must
isolate a specific and discrete element that produces the
discriminatory outcome.  The no-cumulation rule of Title VII was
one of two alternative bases for the award of summary judgment for
Freeman.

CC: Why should companies be able to use criminal and credit
histories when hiring employees?

DL: A company that is hiring a new employee, except in the most
unusual situations, doesn't have any first-hand information about
the person, their capabilities, whether they can be trusted to
perform their jobs in a way which will keep their assets and
employees safe, and has to rely on proxy information.  That proxy
information might be performance evaluations from a previous
employer, might be letters of recommendation, it might be
educational credentials.

Another piece of proxy information would be whether the person has
engaged in violent acts, whether the person has stolen, whether
the person has trafficked in narcotics.  So, it's an important
piece of information that can help the employer determine whether
the person is trustworthy.

The court noted that the EEOC itself relies upon criminal history
information in making hiring decisions, certainly in making
retention decisions within the short period of time after the
individual is hired.  And the EEOC has an adjudication handbook
for how it should deal with these criminal history records.  The
handbook expresses the EEOC's belief that a history or pattern of
criminal activity creates doubts about a person's judgment,
honesty, reliability, and trustworthiness.

Private employers use criminal conviction records for the same
reason that the EEOC uses criminal history records.  And that's to
make judgments about the individual's judgment, honest,
reliability, and trustworthiness.

CC: Is this issue settled?

DL: It's far from settled.  This case doesn't settle any issues
concerning the EEOC's initiative or concerning interpretations of
Title VII as they might pertain to the use of criminal history
records.  What it does do is establish one court's view that the
no-cumulation rule makes it more difficult for the EEOC to
demonstrate disparate impact, because the EEOC has to demonstrate
a specific element in the criminal history background process that
causes the disparate impact.  An employer would then need to
demonstrate the job relatedness only of the element that the EEOC
or plaintiff has been able to identify as causing disparate
impact.

CC: Is there anything else you would like to add?

DL: The court's opinion states that Freeman's criminal background
check policy "on its face" appears reasonable and suitable to
ensure an honest workforce.  And this statement is significant
given Justice O'Connor's plurality opinion with the U.S. Supreme
Court in Watson v. Fort Worth Bank that a court can find a policy
as job related without expert proof or proof of validation, if the
linkage between the hiring requirement and the job is obvious.  So
it appears from the opinion that Judge Titus believed that the
linkage between Freeman's hiring requirements and its jobs were
obvious, and that had he relied upon Justice O'Connor's opinion in
Watson, he would have found that Freeman's policy was job related
without Freeman having presented expert proof or proof of
validation.


HAZELL BROS: Faces Class Action Over Blampied Bushfire
------------------------------------------------------
Fiona Henderson, writing for The Courier, reports that a class
action has been launched over last year's Blampied bushfire.

A statement of claim on Maddens Lawyers' website states seven or
more people, including lead plaintiff David Campbell, are taking
action against defendants Hazell Bros.

The document claims Hazell Bros' employees were using liquid-
fuelled power equipment, including a demolition saw and/or angle
grinder, to cut steel-reinforced concrete pipe on the Midland
Highway between Blampied and Daylesford about 1.30pm on
February 24 last year.

It claims the equipment caused sparks, embers and flames to
discharge, which landed in dry grass nearby and started the
bushfire.

In the statement of claim, Mr. Campbell, who lives in Treweeks
Road, said he lost $186,827 worth of equipment, including boundary
fencing, garden fencing, garden areas and plant and machinery in
the fire, as well as incurring $3515 in clean-up costs.

Mr. Campbell and the other residents involved in the class action
are not allowed to speak publicly until the matter is resolved for
legal reasons.

In its statement of defense, also on the Maddens Lawyers website,
Hazell Bros claim its workers were using a liquid-fuelled
demolition saw to cut the pipe, but it was being used in a damp
trench on the roadside, about 600 millimeters deep.

It also says the trench was covered with gravel and there was
nothing flammable in it, the demolition saw blade was lubricated
to prevent it overheating, and the defendant's workers observed
police discover a cigarette butt close to the bushfire's point of
ignition.

The fire burnt through 37 hectares up to the Wombat State Forest
fringe, and threatened several houses in a three-hour period.
See your ad here

Fifty CFA crews, including 40 tankers, a bulldozer and five air
cranes battled the blaze.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Whitman to Blame for Ill-Fated Deal, Lawyers Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Love, writing for The Recorder, reports that desperate to
shore up Hewlett-Packard, former CEO Leo Apotheker rushed the
purchase of Autonomy and his successor, Meg Whitman, duped
shareholders about the success of the acquisition, plaintiffs in a
securities class action over the ill-fated deal contend.

HP was besieged by a wave of shareholder suits after announcing an
$8.8 billion writedown of Autonomy due to revelations of
accounting improprieties at the British software maker in
November.  Defense lawyers for HP and several of its executives
argued in motions to dismiss filed in July that it would make no
sense for HP insiders like Ms. Whitman to cover up fraud at
Autonomy and then voluntarily disclose it, as plaintiffs alleged.
But plaintiffs lawyers countered in a response brief filed on
Aug. 30 that the beleaguered executives were trying to save face.

Ms. Whitman and her associates "opted to quietly clean up the mess
Mr. Apotheker and [former Autonomy CEO Michael] Lynch left behind
in the hopes that it would never come to light," Ramzi Abadou --
rabadou@ktmc.com -- lead lawyer for the class and a partner at
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, wrote in the response brief.

Plaintiffs accuse HP executives of making false and misleading
statements about the deal that artificially inflated HP's stock
price to levels from which it plunged after the writedown.
Although the executives' motives varied, their actions "combined
to perpetrate a fraud on HP's investors," Mr. Abadou wrote.

Mr. Abadou represents lead plaintiff PGGM Vermogensbeheer, a Dutch
pension administrator which says it lost more than $35 million.
He declined to comment.

Mr. Apotheker's lawyers at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman and
Debevoise & Plimpton note that the writedown took place more than
a year after he was replaced by Ms. Whitman as CEO in September
2011. But plaintiffs contend that he was so driven to acquire
Autonomy, a key part of his plan to turn around HP, that he rushed
the due diligence and subsequently touted the process.

The plaintiffs point out that Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz --
the latest firm HP has tapped to defend it in the securities suits
-- had previously stressed in a client marketing report that the
Autonomy deal underscored the importance of thorough due diligence
in cross-border acquisitions.

As a member of HP's board, Whitman was "just too exhausted" to
rein Mr. Apotheker in, the plaintiffs contend, even though
Autonomy's accounting practices had been questioned in the press.
Once she was at the helm of the company, she tried to rescind HP's
offer to buy Autonomy.  When that failed, she quietly attempted to
rectify Autonomy's books because she didn't have the heart to
subject the company to another scandal, the plaintiffs allege.

"Rather than disclose that HP had purchased yet another troubled
asset, and take a third damaging and humiliating multi-billion
dollar write-down in the span of a year, the complaint alleges
that HP began to surreptitiously unwind Autonomy's improper
accounting practices," Mr. Abadou wrote.

Ms. Whitman had to change her approach when a whistleblower
exposed Autonomy's cooked books in May 2012, Mr. Abadou continues.
But Ms. Whitman did not share those revelations with shareholders
until November of that year, and she made many misleading
statements about the Autonomy unit in the interim, according to
the brief.  When she finally did announce the writedown, she
blamed Mr. Lynch for duping HP about the value of his company.

Her lawyers at Cooley are taking a different tack in their motion
to dismiss, insisting that Whitman and the other defendants -- a
group that includes Lynch -- had "acted in the utmost good faith."

Plaintiffs lawyers also took Ms. Whitman, a one-time gubernatorial
hopeful, to task for her pledge to "seek redress against various
parties in the appropriate civil courts to recoup what it can for
its shareholders" in HP's announcement of the writedown.

"Now, almost a year after accusing defendant Lynch of engaging in
fraud, defendant Whitman has yet to deliver on her empty campaign-
style reassurance," Mr. Abadou wrote.

Senior U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer will hear the motions to
dismiss on Nov. 8.


HSBC USA: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Ba" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its parent's motion
to dismiss a class action lawsuit styled Ba v. HSBC Bank USA,
N.A., et al., 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.

HSBC USA Inc. is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC North
America Holdings Inc. ("HSBC North America"), which is an indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC Holdings plc ("HSBC").

Private Mortgage Insurance ("PMI") is insurance required to be
obtained by home purchasers who provide a down payment less than a
certain percentage threshold of the purchase price, typically 20
percent.  The insurance generally protects the lender against a
default on the loan.  In January 2013, a putative class action
related to PMI was filed against various HSBC U.S. entities,
including HSBC USA, Inc. and certain of the Company's subsidiaries
captioned Ba v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et al (E.D. Pa. No. 2:13-cv-
00072PD).  This action relates primarily to industry-wide
practices and includes allegations regarding the relationships and
potential conflicts of interest between the various entities that
place the insurance, self-dealing, insufficient disclosures and
improper fees.  HSBC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
the Ba matter.  No date has been set for oral argument yet, and
HSBC awaits the court's ruling.

HSBC USA Inc. -- http://www.us.hsbc.com/-- is a Maryland
corporation headquartered in New York.  The Company's principal
U.S. banking subsidiary, HSBC Bank USA, is a national banking
association with its main office in McLean, Virginia, and its
principal executive offices in New York.  Through HSBC Bank USA,
the Company offers its customers a full range of commercial and
consumer banking products and related financial services.


HSBC USA: Continues to Defend Suits Over Lender-Placed Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. continues to defend class action lawsuits over
lender-placed insurance, 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.

Lender-placed insurance involves a lender obtaining an insurance
policy (hazard or flood insurance) on a mortgaged property when
the borrower fails to maintain their own policy.  The cost of the
lender-placed insurance is then passed on to the borrower.
Industry practices with respect to lender-placed insurance are
receiving heightened regulatory scrutiny from both federal and
state agencies.  Beginning in October 2011, a number of mortgage
servicers and insurers, including the Company's affiliate, HSBC
Insurance (USA) Inc., received subpoenas from the New York
Department of Financial Services (the "NYDFS") with respect to
lender-placed insurance activities dating back to September 2005.
The Company has and will continue to provide documentation and
information to the NYDFS that is responsive to the subpoena.
Additionally, in March 2013, the Massachusetts Attorney General
issued a Civil Investigative Demand ("MA LPI CID") to HSBC
Mortgage Corporation (USA) seeking information about lender-placed
insurance activities.  The Company is providing responsive
documentation and information to the Massachusetts Attorney
General and will continue to do so.

Between June 2011 and April 2013, several putative class actions
related to lender-placed insurance were filed against various HSBC
U.S. entities, including actions against HSBC USA, Inc. and
certain of the Company's subsidiaries captioned Montanez et al v.
HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA) et al. (E.D. Pa. No. 11-CV-4074);
West et al. v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA) et al. (South
Carolina Court of Common Pleas, 14th Circuit No. 12-CP-00687);
Weller et al. v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. et al. (D. Col. No.
13-CV-00185); and Hoover et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et al.
(N.D.N.Y. 13-CV-00149); and Lopez v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et al.
(S.D. Fla 13-CV-21104).  These actions relate primarily to
industry-wide practices, and include allegations regarding the
relationships and potential conflicts of interest between the
various entities that place the insurance, the value and cost of
the insurance that is placed, back-dating policies to the date the
borrower allowed it to lapse, self-dealing and insufficient
disclosure.  HSBC filed motions to dismiss the complaints in the
Montanez, Lopez, Weller, and Hoover matters.  The Court denied the
motion to dismiss in the Lopez matter and the Company awaits the
court's ruling on the other motions.  In addition, in Montanez,
plaintiffs filed a motion for multi-district litigation treatment
to consolidate the action with Lopez.  In West, discovery is
ongoing.

HSBC USA Inc. -- http://www.us.hsbc.com/-- is a Maryland
corporation headquartered in New York.  The Company's principal
U.S. banking subsidiary, HSBC Bank USA, is a national banking
association with its main office in McLean, Virginia, and its
principal executive offices in New York.  Through HSBC Bank USA,
the Company offers its customers a full range of commercial and
consumer banking products and related financial services.


HSBC USA: E.D.N.Y. Consolidated 3 Overdraft Fee-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
consolidated in July 2013 three federal actions related to
overdraft fees, according to HSBC USA Inc.'s August 5, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On March 1, 2011, an action captioned Ofra Levin et al v. HSBC
Bank USA, N.A. et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 650562/11) (the "State
Action") was filed in New York State Court on behalf of a putative
New York class of customers who allegedly incurred overdraft fees
due to the posting order of debit card transactions.  The Company
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted in part
with leave to amend.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs (the "Levin Plaintiffs") in the State
Action acquired new attorneys and filed a new action in federal
court, captioned Ofra Levin et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et al.
(E.D.N.Y. 12-CV-5696) (the "Levin Federal Action").  The Levin
Federal Action seeks relief for a putative nationwide class and a
putative New York subclass, asserting the same claims as the State
Action and adding allegations that deposited funds are not made
available pursuant to HSBC's funds availability disclosures.  The
Levin Plaintiffs also filed a motion to dismiss the State Action,
which the state court denied.

The Levin Plaintiffs' former counsel amended the complaint in the
State Action substituting a new named plaintiff, Darek Jura, and
the State Action was recaptioned In Re HSBC Bank USA, N.A.
Checking Account Overdraft Litigation.  Jura then filed a motion
for class certification.  HSBC's response deadline has not been
set, as the State Action was held in abeyance until August 14,
2013.  Jura also filed a federal action captioned Darek Jura v.
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et al. (E.D.N.Y. 12-CV-6224) (the "Jura
Federal Action"), presenting similar claims to the State Action.

On February 20, 2013, a fourth action captioned Hanes v. HSBC Bank
USA, N.A. (E.D. Va. 13-CV-00229) (the "Hanes Action") was filed.
The Hanes Action presents similar claims to the previously filed
actions and seeks relief for a putative nationwide class and a
putative California subclass.

The Company subsequently sought centralization of all three
federal actions with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ("JPML"), and on June 5, 2013, the JPML created the
HSBC Overdraft MDL and transferred the Hanes Action to the Eastern
District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings with the Levin Federal Action and the Jura Federal
Action.  HSBC has filed motions to dismiss in each of the three
federal actions.

On July 22, 2013, the Eastern District of New York issued an Order
which: (1) consolidated the three federal actions; (2) appointed
counsel in the Jura Federal Action and the Hanes Action as interim
class counsel; (3) ordered the interim class counsel to file a
consolidated complaint within 30 days; and (4) denied HSBC's
previously filed motions to dismiss as moot, without prejudice.
Additionally, the plaintiffs in each of the underlying federal
actions, respectively, have served written discovery, and HSBC has
responded and made productions in each of the actions.

HSBC USA Inc. -- http://www.us.hsbc.com/-- is a Maryland
corporation headquartered in New York.  The Company's principal
U.S. banking subsidiary, HSBC Bank USA, is a national banking
association with its main office in McLean, Virginia, and its
principal executive offices in New York.  Through HSBC Bank USA,
the Company offers its customers a full range of commercial and
consumer banking products and related financial services.


HSBC USA: Faces 3 Class Suits Over Credit Default Swaps
-------------------------------------------------------
HSBC USA Inc. is facing class action lawsuits related to credit
default swap, 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.

HSBC USA Inc. is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC North
America Holdings Inc. ("HSBC North America"), which is an indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC Holdings plc ("HSBC").

In July 2013, HSBC Bank, HSBC Holdings plc. and HSBC Bank plc.
were named as defendants, among others, in three putative class
actions filed in federal courts located in New York and Chicago.
These class actions allege that the defendants, which include
International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. ("ISDA"),
Markit and several other financial institutions, conspired to
restrain trade in violation of the federal anti-trust laws by,
among other things, restricting access to credit default swap
pricing exchanges and blocking new entrants into the exchange
market, with the purpose and effect of artificially inflating the
bid/ask spread paid to buy and sell credit default swaps in the
United States.  The Plaintiffs in these lawsuits purport to
represent a class of all persons who purchased or sold credit
default swaps to defendants in the United States.  These actions
all are at a very early stage.

HSBC USA Inc. -- http://www.us.hsbc.com/-- is a Maryland
corporation headquartered in New York.  The Company's principal
U.S. banking subsidiary, HSBC Bank USA, is a national banking
association with its main office in McLean, Virginia, and its
principal executive offices in New York.  Through HSBC Bank USA,
the Company offers its customers a full range of commercial and
consumer banking products and related financial services.


HSBC USA: Hearing on Approval of Antitrust Suit Deal on Sept. 12
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the final approval of HSBC USA Inc.'s settlement in
an antitrust multidistrict litigation is scheduled for
September 12, 2013, 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.

HSBC USA Inc. is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC North
America Holdings Inc. ("HSBC North America"), which is an indirect
wholly owned subsidiary of HSBC Holdings plc ("HSBC").

Since June 2005, HSBC Bank USA N. A.'s ("HSBC Bank USA"), HSBC
Finance Corporation, HSBC North America and HSBC, as well as other
banks and Visa Inc. and MasterCard Incorporated, have been named
as defendants in four class actions filed in Connecticut and the
Eastern District of New York: Photos Etc. Corp. et al v. Visa
U.S.A., Inc., et al.(D. Conn. No. 3:05-CV-01007 (WWE)); National
Association of Convenience Stores, et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et
al.(E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV 4520 (JG)); Jethro Holdings, Inc., et al.
v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-4521(JG)); and
American Booksellers Asps' v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al. (E.D.N.Y.
No. 05-CV-5391 (JG)).  Numerous other complaints containing
similar allegations (in which no HSBC entity is named) were filed
across the country against Visa Inc., MasterCard Incorporated and
other banks. Various individual (non-class) actions were also
brought by merchants against Visa Inc., and MasterCard
Incorporated.  These class and individual merchant actions
principally allege that the imposition of a no-surcharge rule by
the associations and/or the establishment of the interchange fee
charged for credit card transactions causes the merchant discount
fee paid by retailers to be set at supracompetitive levels in
violation of the Federal antitrust laws.  These lawsuits were
consolidated and transferred to the Eastern District of New York.
The consolidated case is: In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and
Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y. ("MDL
1720").

On February 7, 2011, MasterCard Incorporated, Visa Inc., the other
defendants, including HSBC Bank USA, and certain affiliates of the
defendants entered into settlement and judgment sharing agreements
(the "Sharing Agreements") that provide for the apportionment of
certain defined costs and liabilities that the defendants,
including HSBC Bank USA and the Company's affiliates, may incur,
jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or
global settlement of one or all of these actions.  A class
settlement was preliminarily approved by the District Court on
November 27, 2012.  The class settlement is subject to final
approval by the District Court.  Pursuant to the class settlement
agreement and the Sharing Agreements, the Company has deposited
its portion of the class settlement amount into an escrow account
for payment in the event the class settlement is approved.  On
October 22, 2012, a settlement agreement with the individual
merchant plaintiffs became effective, and pursuant to the Sharing
Agreements the Company has deposited its portion of that
settlement amount into an escrow account.

Numerous merchants -- including absent class member large and
small merchants and certain named plaintiff merchants and trade
associations -- have objected and/or opted out of the settlement
during the exclusion period, which ended on May 28, 2013.  The
defendants had the right to terminate the settlement agreement
because the volume threshold was reached, but elected not to do
so.  The Company anticipates that most of the larger merchants who
opted out of the settlement will initiate separate actions seeking
to recover damages.  A hearing on class plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of the class settlement is scheduled for
September 12, 2013, before the District Court.

HSBC USA Inc. -- http://www.us.hsbc.com/-- is a Maryland
corporation headquartered in New York.  The Company's principal
U.S. banking subsidiary, HSBC Bank USA, is a national banking
association with its main office in McLean, Virginia, and its
principal executive offices in New York.  Through HSBC Bank USA,
the Company offers its customers a full range of commercial and
consumer banking products and related financial services.


HSBC USA: Madoff-Related Suits Pending in Various Jurisdictions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Various litigations related to Bernard L. Madoff remain pending in
different jurisdictions, according to HSBC USA Inc.'s August 5,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In December 2008, Bernard L. Madoff ("Madoff") was arrested for
running a Ponzi scheme and a trustee was appointed for the
liquidation of his firm, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities
LLC ("Madoff Securities"), an SEC-registered broker-dealer and
investment adviser.  Various non-U.S. HSBC companies provided
custodial, administration and similar services to a number of
funds incorporated outside the United States whose assets were
invested with Madoff Securities.  The Plaintiffs (including funds,
funds investors and the Madoff Securities trustee) have commenced
Madoff-related proceedings against numerous defendants in a
multitude of jurisdictions.  Various HSBC companies have been
named as defendants in lawsuits in the United States, Ireland,
Luxembourg and other jurisdictions.  Certain lawsuits (which
include U.S. putative class actions) allege that the HSBC
defendants knew or should have known of Madoff's fraud and
breached various duties to the funds and fund investors.

In November 2011, the District Court judge overseeing three
related putative class actions in the Southern District of New
York, captioned In re Herald, Primeo and Thema Funds Securities
Litigation (S.D.N.Y. Nos. 09-CV-0289 (RMB), 09-CV-2558 (RMB)),
dismissed all claims against the HSBC defendants on forum non
conveniens grounds, but temporarily stayed this ruling as to one
of the actions against the HSBC defendants -- the claims of
investors in Thema International Fund plc. -- in light of a
proposed amended settlement agreement between the lead plaintiff
in that action and the relevant HSBC defendants (including,
subject to the granting of leave to effect a proposed pleading
amendment, HSBC Bank USA).  In December 2011, the District Court
lifted this temporary stay and dismissed all remaining claims
against the HSBC defendants, and declined to consider preliminary
approval of the settlement.  In light of the District Court's
decisions, HSBC has terminated the settlement agreement.  The
Thema plaintiff contests HSBC's right to terminate.  The
Plaintiffs in all three actions filed notices of appeal to the
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where the
actions are captioned In re Herald, Primeo and Thema Funds
Securities Litigation (2nd Cir, Nos. 12-156, 12-184, 12-162).
Briefing in that appeal was completed in September 2012 and oral
argument was held in April 2013.  A decision is expected later
this year.

In December 2010, the Madoff Securities trustee commenced lawsuits
against various HSBC companies in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and in
the English High Court.  The U.S. action, captioned Picard v. HSBC
et al (Bankr S.D.N.Y. No. 09-01364), which also names certain
funds, investment managers, and other entities and individuals,
sought $9 billion in damages and additional recoveries from HSBC
Bank USA, certain of the Company's foreign affiliates and the
various other codefendants.  It sought damages against the HSBC
defendants for allegedly aiding and abetting Madoff's fraud and
breach of fiduciary duty.  In July 2011, after withdrawing the
case from the Bankruptcy Court in order to decide certain
threshold issues, the District Court dismissed the trustee's
various common law claims on the grounds that the trustee lacks
standing to assert them.  In December 2011, the trustee filed a
notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, where the action is captioned Picard v. HSBC Bank plc et
al. (2nd Cir., No. 11-5207).  Briefing in that appeal was
completed in April 2012, and oral argument was held in November
2012.

On June 20, 2013, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision of the District Court.  The District Court returned the
remaining claims to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings.
Those claims seek, pursuant to U.S. bankruptcy law, recovery of
unspecified amounts received by the HSBC defendants from funds
invested with Madoff, including amounts that the HSBC defendants
received when they redeemed units held in the various funds.  The
HSBC defendants acquired those fund units in connection with
financing transactions the HSBC defendants had entered into with
various clients.  The trustee's U.S. bankruptcy law claims also
seek recovery of fees earned by the HSBC defendants for providing
custodial, administration and similar services to the funds.
Between September 2011 and April 2012, the HSBC defendants and
certain other defendants moved again to withdraw the case from the
Bankruptcy Court.  The District Court granted those withdrawal
motions as to certain issues, and briefing and oral arguments on
the merits of the withdrawn issues are now complete.  The District
Court has issued rulings on several of the withdrawn issues, but
decisions with respect to other issues remain pending and are
expected in 2013.  The trustee's English action, which names HSBC
Bank USA and other HSBC entities as defendants, seeks recovery of
unspecified transfers of money from Madoff Securities to or
through HSBC on the ground that the HSBC defendants actually or
constructively knew of Madoff's fraud.  HSBC has not been served
with the trustee's English action.

Between October 2009 and April 2012, Fairfield Sentry Limited,
Fairfield Sigma Limited and Fairfield Lambda Limited
("Fairfield"), funds whose assets were directly or indirectly
invested with Madoff Securities, commenced multiple lawsuits in
the British Virgin Islands and the United States against numerous
fund shareholders, including various HSBC companies that acted as
nominees for clients of HSBC's private banking business and other
clients who invested in the Fairfield funds.  The Fairfield
actions, including an action captioned Fairfield Sentry Ltd. v.
Zurich Capital Markets et al. (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. No. 10-03634), in
which HSBC Bank USA is a defendant, and an action captioned
Fairfield Sentry Ltd. et al. v. ABN AMRO Schweiz AG et al. (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. No. 10-03636), naming beneficial owners of accounts held
in the name of Citco Global Custody (NA) NV, which include HSBC
Private Bank, a division of HSBC Bank USA, as nominal owner of
those accounts for its customers, seek restitution of amounts paid
to the defendants in connection with share redemptions, on the
ground that such payments were made by mistake, based on inflated
values resulting from Madoff's fraud.  Some of these actions also
seek recovery of the share redemptions under British Virgin
Islands insolvency law.  The U.S. actions are currently stayed in
the Bankruptcy Court pending developments in related appellate
litigation in the British Virgin Islands.

HSBC Bank USA was also a defendant in an action filed in July
2011, captioned Wailea Partners, LP v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (N.D.
Ca. No. 11-CV-3544), arising from derivatives transactions between
Wailea Partners, LP and HSBC Bank USA that were linked to the
performance of a fund that placed its assets with Madoff
Securities pursuant to a specified investment strategy.  The
plaintiff alleged, among other things, that HSBC Bank USA knew or
should have known that the fund's assets would not be invested as
contemplated.  The plaintiff also alleged that HSBC Bank USA
marketed, sold and entered into the derivatives transactions on
the basis of materially misleading statements and omissions in
violation of California law.  The plaintiff sought rescission of
the transactions and return of amounts paid to HSBC Bank USA in
connection with the transactions, together with interest, fees,
expenses and disbursements.  In December 2011, the District Court
granted HSBC's motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, and
the plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, where the action is captioned Wailea Partners, LP v. HSBC
Bank USA, N.A., (9th Cir., No. 11-18041).  Briefing on that appeal
was completed in May 2012, and oral argument has not yet been
scheduled.

There are many factors that may affect the range of possible
outcomes, and the resulting financial impact, of the various
Madoff-related proceedings including, but not limited to, the
circumstances of the fraud, the multiple jurisdictions in which
proceeding have been brought and the number of different
plaintiffs and defendants in such proceedings.  For these reasons,
among others, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the
aggregate liability or ranges of liability that might arise as a
result of these claims but they could be significant.  In any
event, the Company considers that it has good defenses to these
claims and will continue to defend them vigorously.

HSBC USA Inc. -- http://www.us.hsbc.com/-- is a Maryland
corporation headquartered in New York.  The Company's principal
U.S. banking subsidiary, HSBC Bank USA, is a national banking
association with its main office in McLean, Virginia, and its
principal executive offices in New York.  Through HSBC Bank USA,
the Company offers its customers a full range of commercial and
consumer banking products and related financial services.


HYUNDAI ROTEM: Wage-and-Hour Class Action May Proceed, Judge Rules
------------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that federal claims in a proposed wage-and-hour class action filed
against Hyundai may proceed, a federal judge in Pennsylvania has
ruled, but claims under state law are pre-empted.

U.S. District Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter of the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania ruled that the claims brought by hourly workers
who allege that they were uniformly docked for a half-hour lunch
break regardless of how much time they actually took are
pre-empted by the Labor Management Relations Act because their
claims that Hyundai violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
depend upon interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement.

However, Judge Buckwalter held that the plaintiffs' claims under
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act could proceed. He rejected
Hyundai's argument that the plaintiffs hadn't exhausted their
administrative remedies because he found that the grievance
provision of the CBA is unconstitutional.

"To argue that an arbitration clause is not a prospective waiver
of substantive statutory rights when it has not yet been enforced
by the union is to misunderstand the word 'prospective' -- the
provision is unconstitutional because an employee is forced to
waive the right to a federal forum before knowing whether the
claim will even be heard in the first place," Judge Buckwalter
said.

The CBA requires workers to take any grievance first to the union
and forbids them to bring any action without the express approval
of the union, according to the opinion.

"The Supreme Court left open the issue of whether a CBA that
allows a union to prevent a claim from being arbitrated in the
first place would preclude an employee from 'effectively
vindicating' their 'federal statutory rights in the arbitral
forum,'" Judge Buckwalter said, quoting from the high court's 2009
opinion in 14 Penn Plaza v. Pyett.

"In a dissent, Justice [David] Souter addressed the very issue
presented here, noting that, 'The majority opinion may have little
effect, for it explicitly reserves the question whether a CBA's
waiver of a judicial forum is enforceable when the union controls
access to and presentation of employees' claims in arbitration
. . . which is "usually the case,"'" he said.

The judge agreed with the workers' argument that the union's
control over whether or not employees can bring a claim, which
could keep someone from having his or her claim heard in any
forum, means that the grievance provision of the CBA is
unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs cited two recent district court opinions for
support -- one from the District of Massachusetts in 2011 and the
other from the Southern District of New York in 2010.

"Here, as in those cases, the language of the CBA states
unequivocally that 'no individual employee may file a grievance
without the express approval of the union,'" Judge Buckwalter
said.  "The union thus acts as gatekeeper and can prevent the
merits of an employee's federally protected statutory claim from
ever being heard."

He then looked to the U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning in Pyett,
saying that if the clause is a clear waiver of the right to bring
a claim in federal court, then the worker's claim may never be
addressed.

"Because we find the grievance provision in the CBA to be
unconstitutional as a prospective waiver of a substantive
statutory right, we find that plaintiffs have not failed to
exhaust their administrative remedies," Judge Buckwalter said.

He saved Hyundai's challenge to the adequacy of the proposed class
for a later stage of the litigation, saying that it would be
premature to address it at this point.  Judge Buckwalter said that
Hyundai could bring that challenge at the class certification
stage.

The proposed class includes, primarily, assembly line and
production workers, but also covers some clerical and
administrative workers who had limited job independence.

Joshua Boyette and Justin Swidler of Swartz Swidler in Cherry
Hill, N.J., represented the plaintiffs.

"We're obviously pleased with the court's ruling," Mr. Swidler
said, adding that they're happy that the plaintiffs will have a
chance to be heard in federal court rather than private
arbitration.

Christopher Moran -- moranc@pepperlaw.com -- of Pepper Hamilton
represented Hyundai and couldn't be reached for comment.

The case is OLIVIA DRAKE, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. HYUNDAI ROTEM USA, CORP., Defendant, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 13-0868 (E.D. Pa.).  A copy of Judge Buckwalter's
decision is available at http://is.gd/o5U8Gv


JACKSON, MI: Rejects Settlement Offer in Stormwater Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Will Forgrave, writing for MLive.com, reports that City of Jackson
officials will not take a settlement offer in a class action
lawsuit against the city.

Saline resident and Jackson property owner Phillip Panzica filed a
class action lawsuit against the city earlier in August.

It was filed after a Michigan Court of Appeals ruling Aug. 1 found
the city's stormwater utility fee illegal but did not require the
city to pay back residents their stormwater fee -- only plaintiffs
in the suit, including the County of Jackson, Jackson Coffee
Company and Klein Brothers.

Lansing resident and attorney Brian Surgener is representing.
Mr. Surgener owns Jackson Coffee Company and sued the city in 2011
over his stormwater utility bill.

In the settlement offer, Mr. Surgener said the lawsuit will be
dropped if the city comes up with a plan to pay Jackson property
owners back for a year's worth of stormwater fees -- a request
that would cost the city about $1 million.

Jackson City Manager Patrick Burtch said simply because the city
isn't accepting the settlement offer, doesn't mean they won't
settle.

"The city doesn't have the money just to pay all that is owed up
front," he said.  "We need a strategy, and we need a strategy that
is protected by a court order."

Mr. Burtch said without a court ordered settlement, the city would
open itself up to further lawsuits.

In a prepared statement issued by the city Thursday, Aug. 29,
officials said their denial of the request "is not a rejection of
the concept of settlement or a rejection of our intent to do the
right thing and, in some manner, pay back these fees."

The statement goes on to read that Jackson residents "deserve a
measured and thoughtful resolution based on appropriate repayment
options that do not further undermine the economic circumstances
of the community as a whole."

Mr. Surgener said the settlement offer was proposed so that all
Jackson property owners would not be burdened by an additional tax
on their property bill "as Mayor (Martin) Griffin promised."

Mr. Surgener referred to a quote by Mr. Griffin where he said a
class action suit is the "worst possible direction for tax
payers."

"My settlement offer waived 100 percent of my attorney fees, and
my client agreed to absorb all costs of filing the suit,"
Mr. Surgener said.  "This would have avoided raising taxes.
Unfortunately, the city has refused the offer, and is currently
unwilling to voluntarily reimburse those who in good conscience
paid an illegal stormwater fee.

"Our mayor requests the court to enter a judgment so that
additional taxes can be placed upon the already overly taxed
property owners of Jackson," he continued. "How unfortunate that
our council has chosen to reject what was in the best interest of
Jackson property owners."

According to the 1984 Michigan Supreme Court ruling, state
municipalities can levy a tax to pay for court judgments, even if
the increased taxes exceed the city's own charter restrictions.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: November 14 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on Sept. 3 announced pendency
and proposed settlement of class action litigation involving
Johnson & Johnson:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

RONALD MONK, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, vs. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, WILLIAM C. WELDON,
DOMINIC J. CARUSO, COLLEEN A. GOGGINS and PETER LUTHER,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 10-4841 (FLW) (DEA)

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

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED JOHNSON & JOHNSON
COMMON STOCK FROM OCTOBER 14, 2008 TO JULY 21, 2010, INCLUSIVE,
AND WHO WERE DAMAGED THEREBY.

Please read this Notice carefully; Your rights will be affected by
the Settlement of a class action lawsuit pending in this Court.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and Order of the Court, that the above-
mentioned action has been certified as a class action for purposes
of settlement only and that a settlement for Twenty-Two Million
Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars ($22,900,000) has been proposed.  A
hearing will be held before the Honorable Freda L. Wolfson in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
Clarkson S. Fisher Building & U.S. Courthouse, 402 East State
Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08608, Courtroom 5E, at 10:00 a.m., on
November 14, 2013 to determine: (1) whether the proposed
Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(2) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against
Defendants, and the releases specified and described in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated July 15, 2013 should
be granted; (3) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be
approved as fair and reasonable; and (4) whether Lead Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses should be approved.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT
FUND.  If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of
Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement, Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and Final Approval Hearing and Proof
of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Monk v.
Johnson & Johnson et al., c/o Strategic Claims Services, Claims
Administrator, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 3,
Media, PA 19063, (866) 274-4004. Copies of the Notice and Claim
Form can also be downloaded from the Claims Administrator's
website, http://www.strategicclaims.net

If you are a Class Member, in order to be eligible to receive a
payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim
Form postmarked no later than December 24, 2013.  If you are a
Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not
be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of
the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments
entered by the Court in this litigation.

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to object to the
proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation and/or the
request by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses.  Any objections must be filed with the Court
and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that
they are received no later than October 24, 2013, in accordance
with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you are a Class
Member, you also have the right to exclude yourself from the
Class.  Requests for exclusion must be submitted to the Claims
Administrator such that they are received no later than October
24, 2013, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and
Claim Form, may be made to Lead Counsel:

          Gregory M. Castaldo, Esq.
          Matthew L. Mustokoff, Esq.
          Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087

Further information may also be obtained by directing your inquiry
in writing to the Claims Administrator, Strategic Claims Services,
at the address listed above.

By Order of the Court


LIGHTINTHEBOX HOLDING: Responds to Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
LightInTheBox Holding Co., Ltd., a global online retail company
that delivers products directly to consumers around the world, on
Aug. 28 disclosed that it has become aware of the filing of a
purported securities class action lawsuit against the Company and
certain of its senior officers on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders of the Company in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The Company has reviewed the claims asserted in the complaint and
believes that they are without merit.  While the Company has not
yet been served with a copy of the complaint, it intends to work
with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, its legal counsel, to
vigorously defend itself in this matter.


KEYCORP: Appeal From Denial of Plea in "Metyk" Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the class action lawsuit filed by Thomas Metyk, et
al., remains pending, according to KeyCorp's August 5, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Two putative class actions were filed on September 21, 2010, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
(the "Northern District of Ohio").  The plaintiffs in these cases
sought to represent a class of all participants in the Company's
401(k) Savings Plan and alleged that the defendants in the lawsuit
breached fiduciary duties owed to them under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").  These two
putative class action lawsuits were substantively consolidated
with each other in a proceeding styled Thomas Metyk, et al. v.
KeyCorp, et al. ("Metyk").  A substantially similar class action,
Taylor v. KeyCorp, et al., was dismissed from the Northern
District of Ohio on August 12, 2010.  This dismissal was affirmed
by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (the
"Sixth Circuit") on May 25, 2012.  On January 29, 2013, the
Northern District of Ohio entered its order granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' consolidated
complaint for failure to state a claim and entered its final
judgment terminating the Metyk proceeding.  On February 19, 2013,
the plaintiffs filed a motion to set aside the final judgment and
to permit the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.  On
April 30, 2013, the Northern District of Ohio denied the motion to
set aside the final judgment.  On May 6, 2013, the plaintiffs
filed their notice of appeal.

KeyCorp -- http://www.key.com/ir/is a financial services company
headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.  KeyCorp's main subsidiary is
KeyBank National Association.


KEYCORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid for Arbitration in Overdraft Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
KeyCorp is awaiting a court decision on a renewed motion to compel
arbitration in the checking account overdraft litigation

KeyBank, N.A., was named a defendant in a putative class action
seeking to represent a national class of KeyBank customers
allegedly harmed by KeyBank's overdraft practices.  The case was
transferred and consolidated for purposes of pretrial discovery
and motion proceedings to a multidistrict proceeding styled In Re:
Checking Account Overdraft Litigation pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  KeyBank
filed a notice of appeal in regard to the denial of its motion to
compel arbitration.  On August 21, 2012, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's
order denying KeyBank's motion to compel arbitration and remanded
the case for further consideration.  On June 21, 2013, KeyBank
filed with the district court its renewed motion to compel
arbitration and stay or dismiss litigation.  At this stage of the
proceedings, the Company says it is too early to determine if the
matter would reasonably be expected to have a material adverse
effect on its financial condition.

KeyCorp -- http://www.key.com/ir/is a financial services company
headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.  KeyCorp's main subsidiary is
KeyBank National Association.


KRONOS WORLDWIDE: Judge Trims Class in Paint Pigment Antitrust MDL
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Russell-Kraft, writing for Law360, reports that a
Maryland federal judge on Aug. 26 shaved over 300 paint makers
from a multidistrict litigation accusing chemical firms Kronos
Worldwide Inc. and Cristal USA Inc. of fixing the price of
titanium dioxide, saying that certain contract provisions barred
the plaintiffs from pursuing their claims as a part of the
certified class.

U.S. District Judge Richard D. Bennett amended the class
definition by granting the chemical companies' motion to enforce
arbitration clauses, class action and jury trial waivers, and
forum selection clauses against approximately 320 class members.


ONYX PHARMACEUTICALS: Two Law Firms File Suit Over Amgen Buyout
---------------------------------------------------------------
Max Taves, writing for The Recorder, reports that just days after
Amgen announced its $10.4 billion purchase of Onyx
Pharmaceuticals, shareholders sued to stop the acquisition,
insisting the deal benefits insiders at the expense of ordinary
investors.

Plaintiffs lawyers at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Milberg
filed suits this past week seeking to block Amgen from taking over
the South San Francisco-based biopharmaceutical company. If
approved, the deal would be one of the year's largest healthcare
mergers.

The two suits brought in San Francisco and San Mateo counties are
part of a tidal wave of litigation targeting mergers and
acquisitions that has gained force since the beginning of the
financial crisis in 2008.  Today, corporate lawyers say, such
suits are practically inevitable.  In 2013, 58 of 60 mergers
valued over $100 million spurred litigation, according to an
analyst with Cornerstone Research.

"The minute I saw the merger was announced I knew there would be
suits," said Boris Feldman, a securities litigation partner at
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.  "The way that shareholder
litigation has evolved, there is now a challenge to every merger."

Amgen, the world's largest biotechnology company, announced its
tender offer Aug. 25.  It wants Onyx's cancer-drug portfolio,
including Kyprolis -- approved last year to treat a rare blood
cancer.

Plaintiffs lawyers call Amgen's offer price of $125 per share a
steal, and contend it was negotiated by Onyx executives and board
members who are receiving preferential treatment.  JP Morgan Chase
& Co., one of Onyx's largest shareholders, is providing financing
to Amgen in the deal, meaning it stands to receive millions in
fees above the $750 million it will take from the sale, plaintiffs
contend.  Meanwhile, Onyx's top management and members of its
board would share more than $150 million, according to one suit.

Robbins Geller partner David Wissbroecker --
DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com -- lead counsel in Silverstein v. Onyx,
13-523789, says his clients are not satisfied with the "process or
the prices being offered."

"We want to enjoin the close of the tender offer, essentially
stopping their merger from taking place until Amgen and Onyx cures
what we believe are egregious breaches of fiduciary duty," he
said.

Mr. Wissbroecker sees JPMorgan's role in the merger as
particularly troublesome.  "They're making money on the front end
and the back end," he said.

Moreover, according to his complaint, Amgen is paying less for
Onyx stock than the value suggested by some analysts, and at a
price below where it traded earlier this month.  Shareholders also
take issue with a "no-shop" agreement, which keeps Onyx from
seeking out competing bids.

A team at Milberg led by partner David Azar filed suit on behalf
of Laura Robinson and other Onyx shareholders in Robinson v.
Coles, 13-533851.

Amgen did not respond to an interview request on Aug. 29.  A
spokeswoman for Onyx declined to comment.

More suits targeting the Amgen deal are likely in the pipeline,
say securities law experts including Olga Koumrian, an economic
analyst for Cornerstone Research in Menlo Park.  Ms. Koumrian and
professor Robert Daines of Stanford Law School have documented the
explosion in merger-related shareholder litigation.  Their report
shows the percentage of M&A deals over $500 million targeted with
suits soaring from 53 to 92 percent between 2007 and 2009. For the
last four years, it's continued to inch upward, now hovering at
96%.

"It's still climbing," Ms. Koumrian said.  "I'm waiting for it to
reach 100 percent."

The majority of cases settle, with fee awards to plaintiffs
lawyers averaging $725,000 in 2012, according to Koumrian's
report.  Her research doesn't explain why such suits have
ballooned since the financial crisis.

For Wilson partner Feldman, the trend in M&A litigation means one
thing for his corporate clients, which have included Amgen.

"When we talk to a client who will be involved in a merger,"
Mr. Feldman said, "we prepare them for the fact that no matter how
good of a job the board does and no matter how good the market
reaction to the merger is, they will get sued."


ORTHOFIX INTERNATIONAL: Holzer Holzer Files Investor Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC on Sept. 3 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased
Orthofix International N.V. common stock between May 5, 2011 and
July 29, 2013.  The complaint alleges that a series of statements
made during that time regarding Orthofix's business, operations
and prospects were false and misleading.  Specifically, the
complaint alleges that Orthofix misrepresented and failed to
adequately disclose: (a) certain revenues recognized during 2011
and 2012 should not have been recognized or should not have been
recognized during the periods in which they were recognized; (b)
Orthofix's previously issued consolidated financial statements as
of and for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2011 and
December 31, 2012 (as well as the interim quarterly periods within
such years), and for the interim quarterly period ended March 31,
2013, should not be relied upon; (c) Orthofix's financial
statements during 2011, 2012, and the first quarter of 2013 were
materially false and misleading and violated generally accepted
accounting principles and Orthofix's publicly disclosed policy of
revenue recognition; (d) Orthofix's Forms 10-Q and 10-K for fiscal
years 2011 and 2012, as well as for the first quarter of 2013,
failed to disclose then presently known trends, events or
uncertainties associated with the Company's revenues that were
reasonably likely to have a material effect on Orthofix's future
operating results; (e) Orthofix's disclosure controls and
procedures over financial reporting were materially deficient and
its representations concerning them during the Class Period,
including certifications issued by defendants, were materially
false and misleading; and (f) as a result of the foregoing,
defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements
about the Company's financial performance and outlook during the
Class Period.

If you purchased Orthofix common stock between May 5, 2011 and
July 29, 2013 you have the legal right to petition the Court to be
appointed a "lead plaintiff."  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  Any such request must satisfy certain
criteria and be made no later than October 14, 2013.  Any member
of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you are an Orthofix
investor and would like to discuss a potential lead plaintiff
appointment, or your rights and interests with respect to the
lawsuit, you may contact Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., or Marshall
P. Dees, Esq. via e-mail at mfistel@holzerlaw.com or
mdees@holzerlaw.com or via toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832.

Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC -- http://www.holzerlaw.com-- is an
Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation.


PARK UNIVERSITY: Faces Two Class Actions Over Unwanted Fax Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reports
that a local insurance company claims it has unnecessarily
incurred printing and paper costs after two businesses faxed it
unwanted advertisements.

Warma, Witter, Kreisler, Gregov and Associates of O'Fallon filed
two proposed class action lawsuits Aug. 13 in St. Clair County
Circuit Court against Park University Enterprises doing business
as Fred Pryor Seminars and Roadside Trailer Services.

Phillip A. Bock, James M. Smith and Phillip J. Bullimore of Bock
and Hatch in Chicago and Robert J. Sprague of Sprague and Urban in
Belleville will be representing it.

In one of its complaint, Warma alleges it received 11 fax
advertisements from Park University between Feb. 13 and April 11.
All of the faxes advertised Park University's products or
services, according to the complaint.  It received another
unwanted fax from Roadside on Feb. 13, the suit states.

"On information and belief, defendants sent the same facsimiles to
plaintiff and more than 39 other recipients without first
receiving the recipients' express permission or invitation," the
suit against Park University states.  "This is based, in part, on
the fact that plaintiff never gave permission to anyone to send
the subject fax advertisement to it, and that sending
advertisements by fax is a very cheap way to reach a wide
audience."

Warma claims Park University and Roadside are violating the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits the delivery of
unsolicited advertisements, by sending the faxes.

In addition, the defendants failed to include a proper opt-out
notice in their advertisements.  The notices, which allow
businesses to opt out of receiving the fax advertisements, are
supposed to be large and clear, the complaint says.  However, the
defendants' opt-out notices were placed in tiny font at the very
bottom of the pages they sent out, Warma claims.

Park University and Roadside also violated the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by forcing the
insurance company to incur costs without receiving anything in
return, according to the complaint.

"Defendants' practice effectively forced plaintiff and the other
class members to pay for defendants' advertising campaign," the
suit states.

In the putative class-action complaints, Warma seeks class action
status, plus damages of $500 to $1,000 for each violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, an injunction prohibiting the
defendants from engaging in similar actions in the future and
other relief the court deems just.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case numbers: 13-L-423, 13-L-422.


PUBLIC SERVICE: Uncertain on "Comer II" Plaintiffs' Next Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Public Service Company of Colorado 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 a decision affirming
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., Southwestern Public Service Company, Northern States
Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation, and Northern States Power
Company, a Minnesota corporation.  The amount of damages claimed
by the 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, the 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.

Incorporated in 1924, Public Service Company of Colorado is an
operating utility engaged primarily in the generation, purchase,
transmission, distribution and sale of electricity in Colorado.
PSCo also purchases, transports, distributes and sells natural gas
to retail customers and transports customer-owned natural gas.
The Company is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Settles Insurance Agents' Wage Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
SBWIRE reports that the final settlement in the lawsuit Burden v
SelectQuote Insurance Services has been posted.  The court noted
the strength of Charles Burden's case while assessing the fairness
of the settlement.  A former life insurance agent has succeeded in
extracting some of the overtime pay owed to agents by SelectQuote.

The court also noted that this case involved significant motion
practice and litigation well beyond what is normal for wage and
hour class actions.  Discovery had taken place over several years
and the case thus far was protracted and expensive.  Given these
factors, there was significant risk that SelectQuote would appeal
and costs would continue to rise.

This case is instructive because the law is so clear on the
matter, yet SelectQuote managed to draw this out nearly three
years.  The Honorable Saundra Armstrong took SelectQuote to task
for "self aggrandizing" and logically unsound statements.  Under
the Fair Labor Standards Act insurance brokers are expressly
precluded from being exempt from overtime.

SelectQuote argued that they pioneered selling life insurance over
the phone rather than going door to door, and that this made them
no longer an insurance brokerage under the statute.  The court
noted that selling over the phone as property and casualty
insurance usually is sold, actually made the business more like a
traditional insurance brokerage.

A quarter million dollars will go towards the plaintiffs' lawyers
and half a million dollars to current and former SelectQuote
Insurance agents.  Charles Burden gets an additional $5000, on top
of what he's owed as a class member.

Tom Dunham, a former SelectQuote VOIP Architect, notes, "Chuck
actually made a dent in the SelectQuote Insurance Services.  Not
easy, a number of ex-employee's departures were ugly -- complete
with details being suppressed, projects unfinished or deleted,
knives brandished, and warnings to check who was outside the
doors."  Such repeated signs of acrimony are indicative of a
company used to giving others the short end of the stick.


SIGNAL INTERNATIONAL: Can't Escape Warn Class Action Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Heallen, writing for Law360, reports that the Fifth Circuit
said on Aug. 28 that a Signal International LLC unit will have to
pay a class action judgment for violating a federal law that
requires businesses to warn employees ahead of layoffs, even
though Signal's affected workers were spread across separate
business units.

The appeals court rejected marine construction company Signal
International Texas GP LLC's argument for reversing the $2 million
judgment.


SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC: Uncertain on "Comer II" Plaintiffs' Next Step
------------------------------------------------------------------
Southwestern Public Service 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 a decision affirming
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., Southwestern Public Service Company, Public Service
Company of Colorado, a Colorado corporation (PSCo), Northern
States Power Company, a Wisconsin corporation, and Northern States
Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.  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.  It is uncertain whether 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.

Based in Amarillo, Texas, Southwestern Public Service Company was
incorporated in 1921 under the laws of New Mexico and is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy Inc.  SPS is an operating utility
engaged primarily in the generation, purchase, transmission,
distribution, and sale of electricity in portions of Texas and New
Mexico.


STATE FARM: Appeals Court Agrees to Dismiss Insurance Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
federal appeals court on Aug. 26 agreed to dismiss a lawsuit filed
against State Farm Insurance Company over its no-fault car
insurance coverage.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a two-page
summary order, affirmed a decision of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York.

In 2010, plaintiff Dominick Servedio brought the class action over
premiums charged for State Farm's Additional Personal Injury
Protection, or PIP.

PIP, also known as no-fault insurance, is an extension of car
insurance available in some states.  It covers medical expenses
and, in some cases, lost wages and other damages.

Mr. Servedio argues that State Farm charged a premium for the
protection; however, he was not provided the additional coverage
after being involved in a Nov. 8, 2008 car accident.

The New York federal court ended up dismissing Mr. Servedio's
complaint in its entirety.

Mr. Servedio appealed to the Second Circuit, which agreed with the
lower court that the plaintiff could not argue he overpaid the
insurer.

"Having conducted a de novo review of the record in light of these
principles, we conclude that the District Court did not err,
substantially for the reasons set forth by the District Court in
its decisions of Sept. 6, 2012 and Dec. 18, 2012," the federal
appeals court wrote.

"We have reviewed all of plaintiff's arguments on appeal and find
them to be without merit."


SUFFOLK BANCORP: Settlement Hearing in "Fisher" Suit on Oct. 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
A final settlement approval hearing in the class action lawsuit
titled James E. Fisher v. Suffolk Bancorp, et al., is scheduled
for October 24, 2013, 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 October 20, 2011, a putative shareholder class action, James E.
Fisher v. Suffolk Bancorp, et al., No. 11 Civ. 5114 (SJ), was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York against the Company, its former chief executive officer, and
a former chief financial officer of the Company.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by knowingly or recklessly
making false statements about, or failing to disclose accurate
information about, the Company's financial results and condition,
loan loss reserves, impaired assets, internal and disclosure
controls, and banking practices.  The complaint seeks damages in
an unspecified amount on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between March 12, 2010, and August 10, 2011 (the
"Class Members").  On October 15, 2012, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.  On April 8, 2013, the parties
entered into an agreement to settle the action, subject to the
approval of the court, and on April 10, 2013, the lead plaintiff
filed an unopposed motion requesting an order preliminarily
approving the proposed settlement, directing dissemination and
publication of notice of the proposed settlement to Class Members,
and scheduling a hearing on whether the settlement should be
finally approved by the court.  On July 18, 2013, the court
granted the motion, and scheduled a final settlement approval
hearing for October 24, 2013.  Management does not believe that
the ultimate resolution of this matter will have a material
adverse impact on the consolidated financial statements.

Suffolk Bancorp -- http://www.suffolkbancorp.com/-- was
incorporated in 1985 as a bank holding company.  The Company
currently owns all of the outstanding capital stock of the Suffolk
County National Bank of Riverhead.  The Company is based in
Riverhead, New York.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: BakerHostetler Discusses FCRA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amy J. Traub, Esq. -- atraub@bakerlaw.com -- and Laura Scully,
Esq. -- lscully@bakerlaw.com -- at BakerHostetler report that
background checks can be a helpful tool for management, especially
during the hiring process, but they can also be a ripe source for
potential liability on a number of fronts.  While there has been a
lot of attention to suits recently filed by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging discriminatory employment
decisions based on background check results, the pitfalls come
into play even before an employment decision is made and/or
communicated under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), as Swift
Transportation Company was recently reminded.  Indeed, the
trucking company has found itself the subject of a federal lawsuit
in which the plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated individuals, alleges that Swift routinely failed to
follow proper procedures both before and after obtaining and then
relying upon background checks.

In the class action lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, the plaintiff asserts that he
applied for a commercial truck driver position with Swift and
that, without proper authorization, the company obtained a
background check report on him from a third party.  According to
the complaint, Swift decided not to hire the plaintiff based on
his criminal background report, but failed to follow the FCRA two-
step process before doing so.  The plaintiff seeks to recover
statutory and punitive damages as well as attorney's fees and
costs.

So what can be learned from this suit, and what can employers do
to reduce the risk of legal exposure?

Ensure practices are compliant with federal law -- The FCRA,
imposes a number of procedural requirements on employers using a
third party to conduct background checks on applicants and
employees as well as when employers take adverse action against
them based on such checks.  For example, the FCRA requires that
employers obtain an applicant's or employee's written
authorization to conduct the background check, and the content of
that authorization is key.  Moreover, the FCRA requires that a
two-step forms process (pre-adverse action notices and notices of
adverse action) be followed in connection with an employer taking
an adverse action against an applicant or employee (e.g.,
declining to hire, or terminating).  Here again, the content of
those forms is of the utmost importance to ensure compliance with
the law.  The FCRA also requires that certain disclosures,
containing certain specified language, be provided to applicants
and employees at various points throughout a background check
process.

In addition, the FCRA prohibits in background check reports the
inclusion of certain types of information and certain records.
Employers should be aware that third-party reporting services may
make mistakes in the reports they generate.  A class action
lawsuit, for example, was recently brought in California under
federal and state law against a reporting company that allegedly
supplied an employer with a report containing outdated information
on a job applicant.  Thus, it is important for employers to
understand the limitations imposed by state laws on what
information can be used in taking an adverse action against an
applicant or employee, rather than simply relying on what is
provided to them by the third-party vendor, who may not have
adhered to those limitations in running its search.  For example,
if a third party vendor returns a background check report to an
employer containing criminal conviction history for an applicant
going back 10 years in a state in which the law restricts an
employer from relying upon a conviction more than 7 years old, the
employer may be at risk of liability for violating that state law
if it takes an adverse action based, in whole or in part, on, for
example, a 9-year old conviction that appears on the report.

Consider state law -- Many states also have their own laws
relating to background checks, requiring additional procedural
steps and/or substantive restrictions.  New York, for example,
buried within a corrections law requires employers to consider
eight factors it deems relevant before taking any adverse action
against an applicant or employee based, in whole or in part, on a
criminal background check.  Thus, it is imperative that employers
revisit, on a regular basis, their general policies and forms on
background checks to ensure compliance with the state(s) in which
they do business, as many of these states impose requirements
above and beyond those set forth in the FCRA.

Account for EEO -- Background checks on applicants and employees
also have important implications for equal employment opportunity.
The EEOC has issued extensive guidance on criminal background
checks.  And as covered elsewhere in the Employment Law Spotlight,
the EEOC has taken an aggressive stance against employers whose
policies it claims have a discriminatory impact.  Recently,
though, at least one employer prevailed against the EEOC, winning
a motion for summary judgment in a federal action in Maryland.
For an analysis of this case, including an assessment of the
features of the employer's background check program that
ultimately helped it win in court.

                            Take-Away

This area of employment law is receiving a great deal of
attention, and employers would be remiss if they did not take a
moment to review their policies and practices with employment
counsel.  Awareness of state and federal laws regarding background
checks and their interplay is critical.  Employers should make
sure that they have effective lawful policies in place, use forms
that fully comply with their federal and state obligations, and
consider only appropriate and current background information on
applicants and employees.


TEXAS: Foster Care Class Action Can Proceed, Judge Rules
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert T. Garrett, writing for The Dallas Morning News, reports
that a class-action lawsuit accusing the state of poorly
supervising foster children will proceed, a federal judge ruled
last week, giving a green light for child-welfare advocates to
press their case.

For the second time in two years, retired U.S. District Judge
Janis Graham Jack of Corpus Christi certified as a class of
plaintiffs the more than 12,000 abused and neglected Texas
children who have been permanently removed from their birth
families.

Judge Jack ruled that the New York-based group Children's Rights
has offered enough preliminary evidence about overworked Child
Protective Services caseworkers and harried child care licensing
inspectors to proceed toward a trial.  That's ominous for the
state, as the group alleges that the state's treatment of the
children is unconstitutional.

The ruling is based on a three-day hearing in January.  It comes
as the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services
investigates the brutal head-slamming death of a toddler in a
Central Texas foster home.

Capital murder charges in the July 31 death of 2-year-old
Alexandria Hill are pending against foster mother Sherril Small,
who was recruited and vetted by Texas Mentor, the state's third-
largest foster care contractor.

Records show state licensing officials placed Texas Mentor's
Arlington office on a six-month evaluation in February after 114
violations were found at 56 foster homes in the previous two
years.

The Legislature has increased funding of Child Protective Services
twice in the past eight years.  But child advocate Scott McCown of
Austin said the class-action suit is likely to show that the
licensing inspection workforce is too small to police the
industry.  It will also, he predicted, prove that foster care
reimbursement rates are too low to provide "conscientious" care of
troubled youth.

"Compared with the need and what other states spend, [legislators]
haven't gotten the job done," said Mr. McCown, a clinical law
professor and director of a child welfare clinic at the University
of Texas Law School.  He is not involved in the case.

In the past quarter-century, Texas has been forced by federal
judges or federal lawsuit accords to improve conditions at
prisons, juvenile lockups and what were formerly known as state
schools, which house people with intellectual and developmental
disabilities.

It's unclear whether Children's Rights will add child welfare to
the list.  The group has sued more than 15 other states for
mistreatment of foster children and lost only two of those cases,
executive director Marcia Robinson Lowry said.

"Children are being harmed. And the state knows it and is
basically disregarding the harm to children," she said.

Judge Jack rejected Attorney General Greg Abbott's request that
she dismiss the case for lack of evidence of gross state failings
and other legal defects.

On Aug. 27, Abbott spokesman Tom Kelley said state lawyers are
reviewing Jack's ruling and haven't decided whether to appeal.

Judge Jack said in her certification order on Aug. 27 that experts
hired by Children's Rights had made a plausible claim on behalf of
the class of children.  She noted high turnover among CPS
conservatorship workers who are supposed to advocate for the
youngsters.

"Caseworkers are, in effect, these children's fire alarms," Judge
Jack wrote.  "A caseworker that is so overburdened that she cannot
visit the children she is responsible for . . . cannot fulfill
this function."

Under a new plan proposed by Children's Rights, which Jack largely
approved, the case will analyze harms to both a general class of
plaintiffs and three subclasses, such as youngsters living in
group foster homes.  Such a home cares for seven to 12 foster
children.


THINGS REMEMBERED: Faces Text Spam Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, reports that Things Remembered
Inc. was hit with a putative class action in California federal
court on Aug. 29 by a consumer who claims the personalized gift
store chain sent tens of thousands of illegal text messages in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Wendy Boylan alleges the Ohio-based company invaded her privacy
when it peppered her cellphone with numerous text messages without
her permission beginning in July and that consumers across the
country were similarly badgered by the company.


UNION PACIFIC: Latham & Watkins Can Proceed as Lead Trial Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Tillman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Latham & Watkins can proceed as lead trial counsel for a defendant
in a massive antitrust class action, a Washington federal district
trial judge ruled on Sept. 3, denying a motion to disqualify the
firm.

Latham represents Union Pacific Railroad Co., one of four U.S.
freight rail companies accused of conspiring to raise customer
rates through fuel surcharges.  After Latham entered the
multidistrict litigation last fall, several now-ex-clients who
were unnamed class members -- petroleum byproducts distributor
Oxbow Carbon LLC and its subsidiaries -- moved to disqualify the
firm, arguing it suffered a conflict of interest.

U.S. District Senior Judge Paul Friedman found that Latham's
participation didn't create conflicts requiring the firm to step
aside.  As unnamed members of the potential class, the Oxbow
companies weren't considered "parties" for the purposes of
conflicts checks, the judge wrote.  The Oxbow entities are
pursuing separate, related claims against Union Pacific, but
Judge Friedman said that didn't create a conflict, either.

Lead counsel for Latham, San Francisco-based antitrust litigation
partner Daniel Wall -- dan.wall@lw.com -- could not immediately be
reached for comment. Oxbow's lead counsel, John Gerstein --
jack.gerstein@troutmansanders.com -- a litigation partner at
Troutman Sanders in Washington, said his client "felt strongly
about the disqualification issue and disagrees with the court's
conclusion, but, nevertheless, respects the time and attention the
court gave the matter."

"Oxbow is vigorously moving forward with Oxbow's case, regardless
of who represents [Union Pacific] in the class action,"
Mr. Gerstein said.

The Oxbow companies were among thousands of plaintiffs that
shipped products through Union Pacific and the three other freight
rail companies that were sued.  The plaintiffs accused the
companies of violating federal antitrust laws by working together
to increase rates through "aggressive" fuel surcharges. The rail
companies denied wrongdoing.

According to Oxbow, Latham represented its related companies
starting in 2004, earning more than $4.6 million in fees. Oxbow
said the firm's attorneys had access to "sensitive and
confidential information."

Latham began representing Union Pacific -- another longtime
client, according to briefs -- in the litigation in October 2012,
joining Covington & Burling and Jones Day as lead counsel.  In
February, Oxbow moved to disqualify Latham, arguing the firm's
representation of Union Pacific was "directly adverse" to Oxbow.

The disqualification dispute boiled down to two main issues:
First, whether Oxbow's claims against Union Pacific in its
separate lawsuit should be considered the "same matter" as the
multidistrict litigation, and second, whether Oxbow's
participation in the multidistrict litigation required
disqualification.

Latham declined to represent Union Pacific in Oxbow's separate
case, in recognition of its relationship with Oxbow.
Judge Friedman said that under the D.C. Rules of Professional
Responsibility, the presence of similar claims didn't make the two
cases the "same matter."  It was possible Latham might help Union
Pacific develop defenses in the multidistrict litigation that
would apply to the Oxbow case, the judge wrote, but that didn't
mean the firm was acting unethically.

Oxbow argued that although it was an unnamed member of the
potential class in the multidistrict litigation, it was an
"active" member, having filed a motion, and was also different
from a typical unnamed class member because of the separate
lawsuit.

Judge Friedman said there could be circumstances under which the
relationship between an unnamed class member and a law firm was
"so substantial that it raises questions about the firm's ability
to zealously represent the defendant, or where there is a risk
that the class member's confidential information could be used by
the firm in preparing the defendant's legal strategy," he said.
"But such circumstances are not present here."

"What sets Oxbow apart is that it has been unusually interested in
pursuing its claims outside of this class action," Judge Friedman
wrote.  "Such activities cannot serve as the basis for deeming
Oxbow equal, for conflicts purposes, to a named party within the
class action."

The decision represents the second victory in less than a month
for the defendants.  On August 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the D.C. Circuit voided Judge Friedman's decision last summer to
certify a class, ordering the judge to take another look at the
issue in light of new Supreme Court guidance.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Health Plans Remain Party to Hepatitis C Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated disclosed 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 its health plans remain
a party to two class action lawsuits arising from an outbreak of
hepatitis C.

In April 2013, a Las Vegas jury awarded $24 million in
compensatory damages and $500 million in punitive damages against
a Company health plan and its parent corporation on the theory
that they were negligent in their credentialing and monitoring of
an in-network endoscopy center owned and operated by independent
physicians, who were subsequently linked by regulators to an
outbreak of hepatitis C.  Company plans are party to 41 additional
individual lawsuits and two class actions relating to the
outbreak.  The Company says it cannot reasonably estimate the
range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters given
the likelihood of reversal on appeal, the availability of
statutory and other limits on damages, the novel legal theories
being advanced by the plaintiffs, the various postures of the
remaining cases, the availability in many cases of federal
defenses under Medicare law and Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, and the pendency of certain relevant legal questions
before the Nevada Supreme Court.  The Company is vigorously
defending these lawsuits.

UnitedHealth Group Incorporated operates as a diversified health
and well-being company in the United States.  The Company is
headquartered in Minnetonka, Minnesota.


UROPLASTY INC: Securities Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Uroplasty, Inc., a medical device company that develops,
manufactures and markets innovative proprietary products for the
treatment of voiding dysfunctions, on Sept. 3 provided an update
on the class action lawsuits filed against the Company alleging
possible violations of federal securities laws in relation to the
delayed filing of its 10K earlier this year.

On August 22, 2013, an order for dismissal was signed regarding
the class action lawsuit filed against Uroplasty by a shareholder
on July 11, 2013 in the United States District Court for District
of Minnesota.  On August 16, 2013, the plaintiffs in a similar
action that was filed on July 11, 2013 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York filed a
notice of voluntary dismissal.

No payment or consideration of any kind was made by Uroplasty or
any other defendants in connection with these lawsuits.


WEST PUBLISHING: High Court Gets Request to Hear Privacy Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court has received a request to overturn an Eighth Circuit
ruling that nixed class certification in a proposed class action
accusing a Thomson Reuters Corp. unit of illegally collecting
driver's license information from states and then selling it.

The appeals court in April overturned a district court's grant of
class certification to plaintiff Marcy Johnson in her suit against
West Publishing Corp., finding she failed to show that West
acquired the data for anything other than permitted activities
under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act.


                             *********

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  * * *