CAR_Public/130910.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, September 10, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 179

                             Headlines


AIR LINE PILOTS: Owes Pilot Instructors More Than $7MM in Back Pay
ALTEC INDUSTRIES: Recalls 22 Multiple Model Trucks
AMERICAN ORIENTAL: Plaintiffs May File 3rd Amended Complaint
BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Gender Class Action for $39 Million
BUBBA GUMP: Faces Class Action in Florida Over FLSA Violation

CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: iO Video Subscribers' Suit in Discovery
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Awaits Cert. Ruling in Fox Programming Suit
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk N.Y. Stock Suit
CAINS FOODS: Recalls Olde Cape Cod Chipotle Ranch Dressing
CHOBANI INC: Recalls Greek Yogurt Due to Product Concerns

CORRECTIVE SOLUTIONS: Got Prelim. OK of $3.2MM RICO Settlement
DAIMLER: 1,785 Units of Western Star Trucks Recalled in Canada
DONNYCREEK ENERGY: Intends to Review Class Action Claims
DUOYUAN PRINTING: November 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Conference in "Scranton" Suit on Sept. 13

ERNST & YOUNG: Epstein Becker Discusses Second Circuit Ruling
FANTASY GENTLEMAN'S: Strippers File Wage Class Action
FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay
GANLEY CHEVROLET: Ohio Appeals Court Upholds Class Certification
GENESEE & WYOMING: Merger-Related Suit Settlements Paid in May

GOOGLE INC: Sells Info From Wallet and Play Apps, Suit Claims
HI-TECH PHARMACAL: Being Sold to Akorn for Too Little, Suit Says
HUBBARD FEEDS: Recalls Life Homestead FastGrow Poultry Feed
LKQ CORPORATION: Suit v. Aftermarket Product Suppliers Still Open
MEDTRONIC INC: Fails in Bid to Dismiss Infuse Class Suit in Ore.

MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: Unit Faces Suit Over NV Energy Acquisition
NANO MAGNETICS: Recalls Magnet Sets Over Choking Hazard
NEW YORK, NY: Monitor Appointed in Stop-and-Frisk Class Suit
NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in N.Y.
OLIVE HILL: Electric Rate Suits Obtain Class Action Certification

PETROCHINA: Three Senior Officials Step Down After Class Action
PHOENICIA GROUP: Recalls Certain Cedar Brand Tahina Products
POLYCOM INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Suit in California
PROFESSIONAL INVESTMENT: Slater & Gordon Mulls Class Action
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Progeny Lawsuits Reach 5,000 as of June

SCOTT HARRINGTON: Sued for Exposing Patients to HIV, Hepatitis
SESAMECO: Recalls Certain Tahini Products
SOCIAL SECURITY: Sued Over Vietnamese-Speaking Counsel Suspension
SPRINT CORP: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Crest" Suit
SPRINT CORP: Clearwire Awaits Ruling in "Dennings" Class Suit

SPRINT CORP: Clearwire Awaits Ruling in "Minnick" Class Suit
SPRINT CORP: Clearwire Defends "DeLeo" Class Suit in Delaware
SPRINT CORP: Clearwire Defends "Lindsay" Suit in Minnesota
SPRINT CORP: Clearwire Defends "Wuest" Class Suit in California
SPRINT CORP: Clearwire Settled "Newton" Class Action Suit

SPRINT CORP: Defends "Feigeles" Merger-Related Suit vs. Unit
TARGET CORP: Recalls Threshold Floor Lamps Due to Fire Hazard
TMS INT'L: Being Sold to Pritzker for Too Little, Suit Says
TOYOTA: Recalls GS 350, IS 350, and IS 350C Models
UNITED PARCEL: Still Faces Labor Suits in State, Federal Courts

UNITED PARCEL: Suits Over Brokerage Services in Canada Dismissed
UNITED PARCEL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Junk Price Fixing Suit
UNITED STATES: Court Reverses Ruling in Medicare Suit vs. DOH
URS CORP: Awaits Order on Judgment Bid in Hurricane Katrina Suits
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement

WAL-MART CANADA: Recalls Various Ventura Brand Tents
WAL-MART INC: Accused of Falsely Advertising Equate Product
WASTE MANAGEMENT: East St. Louis Seeks Dismissal of Class Action
WELLS FARGO: Judge Refuses to Certify Class of Bankers in OT Suit
ZOO ENTERTAINMENT: 6th Cir. Dismisses Securities Class Action

* BakerHostetler Sees Rise in Mileage Reimbursement aClass Action
* Law Firm Calls on Homeowners to Join Short Sale Class Action


                             *********


AIR LINE PILOTS: Owes Pilot Instructors More Than $7MM in Back Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Sam Reynolds reports that the
Air Line Pilots Association owes United pilot instructors more
than $7 million in back pay, four instructors claim in a federal
class action.

Lead plaintiff Gerald Elwell claims the Air Line Pilots
Association International violated the Railway Labor Act by
misappropriating $400 million in retroactive pay it owed to pilots
and instructors who worked for (nonparty) United Airlines from
2010 to 2012.

During that time, pilots and instructors accrued back pay as the
airline and union haggled over a collective bargaining agreement
to replace the deal that expired in 2009.

When a new deal finally was struck, United paid the $400 million
its employees were owed after three years in limbo, according to
the complaint.

But the class claims the defendant union allocated only $225
million of the payment for retroactive pay, though it "knew at the
time it received the lump sum that the lump sum would not be
nearly enough to provide all United pilots with 100 percent of the
retroactive pay they should have received."

The class claims the union decided to pay most United pilots what
they were owed, but to shaft the pilot instructors.

"ALPA devised a 'General Rule' for how to distribute the
retroactive pay to the United pilots," the complaint states.  "The
General Rule was that the calculation of retroactive pay for a
particular pilot would be based on a percentage of a number that
ALPA named the so-called 'Delta Differential.'

"The General Rule, through the Delta Differential, arbitrarily
relied on what the particular United line pilot would have earned
under the 2008 Delta Airlines Pilot Working Agreement.  Thus,
rather than determining actual retroactive pay owed to United
pilots using the 2012 UPA [United's collective bargaining
agreement] that had just been adopted, ALPA arbitrarily chose to
determine the retroactive pay based on what the same United pilot
would have earned under the Delta PWA [pilot working agreement] as
though the pilot were flying for Delta Airlines during 2010, 2011,
and 2012."

The class of United pilot instructors claims the application of
the arbitrary "Delta Differential" was itself a breach of the
union's duty of fair representation to its members, and that that
they were subjected to more injustice when the union applied a
different version of the equation to the instructor class alone.

"Although ALPA through its United MEC [Master Executive Council]
devised the above General Rule, ALPA through its United MEC
arbitrarily chose to use a different method for allocating
retroactive pay to the PIs.  As a result, the PIs will receive a
disproportionately small share of the $225 million lump sum
compared to the other United line pilots," the complaint states.

"Inexplicably, the PIs' retroactive pay was calculated on an
arbitrary exception to the General Rule, using a different
methodology to determine the PIs' 'Delta Differential,' without
any reference to what a Delta pilot instructor would be paid under
the 2008 Delta PWA and ignoring what a pilot instructor actually
makes under the new 2012 UPA."

The class claims that most United pilots would receive $54.83 per
hour worked between the collective bargaining agreements, while
United pilot instructors would get less than one-third of that:
$17.32 per hour.

The difference comes to about $7 million, the class of 130 pilot
instructors claims.

The class claims it tried to solve the matter internally, but the
union chose an arbitrator who was "paid purely by ALPA and who had
a long history of working for ALPA."

The class claims arbitrator denied its claims without explanation.

They seek retroactive pay and damages for violations of the
Railway Labor Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard M. Paul, III, Esq.
          Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
          PAUL MCINNES, LLP
          2000 Baltimore, Suite 100
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 984-8100
          Facsimile: (816) 984-8101
          E-mail: paul@paulmcinnes.com
                  mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com

               - and -

          Andrew M. DeMarea, Esq.
          KENNER SCHMITT NYGAARD LLC
          117 W. 20th St., Suite 201
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 531-3100
          Facsimile: (816) 531-3600
          E-mail: andy@ksnlegal.com

The case is Elwell, et al. v. Air Line Pilots Association,
International, Case No. 1:13-cv-02343-REB-CBS, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado.


ALTEC INDUSTRIES: Recalls 22 Multiple Model Trucks
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 30, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Other
Units affected:           22
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013295
TC ID number:             2013295
Manufacturer recall
number:                   CSN 586

On certain truck-mounted digger derricks, the bolts which secure
the winch motor may not have been adequately tightened during
assembly.  If the bolts loosen, the motor could detach, allowing a
load carried by the winch to fall, placing anyone near or beneath
at risk of personal injury.

Altec will direct vehicle owners to inspect and tighten the winch
motor mounting bolts.

Affected products:

   -- ALTEC DM47 - 2012, 2012, 2012, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2012, 2013,
      2012 models; and

   -- ALTEC D2050A 2012 model


AMERICAN ORIENTAL: Plaintiffs May File 3rd Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a securities suit filed against American Oriental
Bioengineering Inc. entered into a stipulation consenting to a
filing of a Third Amended Complaint, according to the company's
Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2012.

On June 22, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed by
Kevin McGee against American Oriental Bioengineering Inc., Eileen
Brody, Binsheng Li, Yangchun Li, Tony Liu, Cosimo Patti, Xianmin
Wang, and Lawrence Wizel alleging violations of Section 10b of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and liability pursuant to Section
20(a) thereunder.

The complaint, as subsequently amended centers on the accounting
treatment of the sale of an interest held by the Company's
subsidiary, Nuo Hua Investment Company Limited and the Company's
Restatement filed on November 14, 2011. Several motions were filed
for appointment as lead plaintiff, and on October 16, 2012, the
Court appointed lead plaintiff, consolidated the cases, and
ordered that a consolidated complaint be filed, which occurred on
November 19, 2012.

The served defendants (AOB, Brody, Wizel and Patti) moved to
dismiss the consolidated complaint, and on March 25, 2013 those
motions were granted with leave to amend. On April 15, 2013,
Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, which the served
Defendants moved to dismiss on May 15, 2013.

In the interim, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for leave to
serve most of the remaining Defendants by alternative means, and
on May 15, 2013, the parties entered into a stipulation consenting
to the filing of a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC," setting forth
no new paragraphs), deeming the TAC served on all defendants,
deeming the motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
interposed against the TAC, and reserving all rights of the un-
served Defendants.


BANK OF AMERICA: Settles Gender Class Action for $39 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and
Outten & Golden LLP announced on Sept. 6 a $39 million settlement
with Bank of America Corp., Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. on behalf of women employed in
the United States, Puerto Rico, or Guam as Financial Advisors or
licensed Financial Advisor trainees at Banc of America Investments
Services, Inc. or Merrill Lynch from August 2, 2007 (and earlier
for certain employees) through September 15, 2013. Plaintiffs
alleged that Defendants discriminated against women in
compensation and business opportunities.

The parties entered into a three-year settlement agreement that is
subject to Court approval.  The settlement includes programmatic
relief -- to be overseen by an Independent Monitor -- regarding
teaming and partnership agreements, business generation, account
distributions, manager evaluations, promotions, training, and
complaint processing and procedures, among other things. Further,
an Independent Consultant will conduct an internal study of the
bank's FA teaming practices. The settlement also establishes a
significant monetary fund of $39 million to resolve the Class' and
Named Plaintiffs' claims.

"Female Financial Advisors at Merrill Lynch have straightforward
goals: to work hard for their clients, to flourish professionally
and succeed financially, and to compete on a level playing field.
The monetary and programmatic relief this settlement provides
furthers these important goals of fairness and opportunity," said
Rachel Geman, a partner at Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP, Co-Lead Class Counsel.

Co-Lead Class Counsel Cara E. Greene, a partner at Outten & Golden
LLP, stated, "This settlement helps ensure that Merrill Lynch is a
place where women can thrive and be successful. Hopefully others
will follow Merrill Lynch's example."

Lieutenant Julie Moss (U.S. Navy), one of the named plaintiffs in
this lawsuit, stated, "The settlement will advance our efforts to
foster diversity and professional success within the workforce.
Equality in the workplace should take on the same meaning as it
does in our everyday life.  Every individual deserves to be
treated fairly. It is my hope that this settlement produces
substantial benefits to the class."

The settlement was the result of intensive negotiations supervised
by experienced neutral mediator David A. Rotman of San Francisco,
CA.

The parties expect to present the settlement for consideration of
final approval in mid- December, 2013.


BUBBA GUMP: Faces Class Action in Florida Over FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ama Sarfo, writing for Law360, reports that Bubba Gump Shrimp Co.
Restaurants Inc. was slapped with a proposed class action on
Aug. 28 in Florida federal court alleging it violated the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act by forcing its hourly paid servers to
work off the clock and denying them overtime wages.

Former server Jessica Stuyvenberg says she worked more than 40
hours per week nearly every week that she was employed with Bubba
Gump but never received the required time-and-a-half for her
overtime hours because the company required her and other hourly
paid servers to work off the clock at the beginning and end of
their shifts.

"Despite regularly working in excess of 40 hours per work week,
plaintiff's paychecks in her possession confirm that plaintiff did
not receive appropriate overtime compensation for all of the hours
worked each week as required by the FLSA," the complaint says.

The Bubba Gump Shrimp Co. is owned by Texas-based Landry's Inc.,
and Ms. Stuyvenberg's suit also names other Landry's seafood
restaurants: Landry's Seafood House -- Florida Inc. and Landry's
Seafood House -- Arlington Inc.

On Aug. 22, Landry's general counsel and executive vice president
Steve Scheinthal slammed the lawsuit, saying its allegations are
meritless.

"A common tactic by plaintiffs lawyers today is to file a
collective action lawsuit any time they represent a single
individual," Mr. Scheinthal told Law360.  "Here you have a single
employee working for a Bubba Gump Shrimp Co. in Daytona Beach, and
that is all this lawsuit is about."

Ms. Stuyvenberg charges that she and her colleagues were paid less
than minimum wage because the restaurants took a so-called tip
credit in which she and other servers received reduced wages
because they received tips.  But Ms. Stuyvenberg says the
restaurants required her colleagues to work at the tip rate when
they performed nonserving duties, like cleaning or attending
meetings.

And Ms. Stuyvenberg allegedly wasn't allowed to clock in when she
first arrived at work and had to work off the clock for the
beginning of her shift, the lawsuit says.  It also charges that
Ms. Stuyvenberg had to clock out early and work off the clock at
the end of each shift.

"As a result of defendants' intentional, willful and unlawful acts
in refusing to pay plaintiff one-and-a-half her regular rate of
pay for each our worked in excess of 40 per work week in one or
more work weeks, plaintiff has suffered damages plus incurring
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs," the complaint says.

Ms. Stuyvenberg's suit is brought on behalf of all hourly paid
servers who worked for the restaurants within the past three
years, and she wants the restaurants to reimburse the proposed
class for their unpaid overtime hours and unpaid minimum wages,
plus unspecified liquidated damages and attorneys' fees.

Representatives for Landry's did not immediately respond to a
request for comment on Aug. 29.

Ms. Stuyvenberg is represented by Kelly H. Chanfrau of Chanfrau &
Chanfrau.

Case information for the Bubba Gump Shrimp Co. wasn't immediately
available on Aug. 29.

The case is Jessica Stuyvenberg v. Bubba Gump Shrimp Co. et al.,
case number 6:13-cv-01330 in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: iO Video Subscribers' Suit in Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the Cable Operations Litigation
Marchese, et al. v. Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC
Holdings, LLC, according to Cablevision's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey by several present and former
Cablevision subscribers, purportedly on behalf of a class of iO
video subscribers in New Jersey, Connecticut and New York.

After three versions of the complaint were dismissed without
prejudice by the District Court, plaintiffs filed their third
amended complaint on August 22, 2011, alleging that the Company
violated Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly tying
the sale of interactive services offered as part of iO television
packages to the rental and use of set-top boxes distributed by
Cablevision, and violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act
by allegedly seeking to monopolize the distribution of Cablevision
compatible set-top boxes.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble
monetary damages, attorney's fees, as well as injunctive and
declaratory relief.

On September 23, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
third amended complaint.  On January 10, 2012, the District Court
issued a decision dismissing with prejudice the Section 2
monopolization claim, but allowing the Section 1 tying claim and
related state common law claims to proceed.  Cablevision's answer
to the third amended complaint was filed on February 13, 2012.
Discovery is proceeding.  The Company believes that these claims
are without merit and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously,
but is unable to predict the outcome of the lawsuit or reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Awaits Cert. Ruling in Fox Programming Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York is
still to rule on a motion for class certification filed in a suit
that seeks recovery against Cablevision Systems Corporation for
the temporary discontinuation of Fox programming in 2010,
Cablevision disclosed on its Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of
certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16,
2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming
feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and networks
were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems.

On October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement on
new affiliation agreements for these stations and networks, and
carriage was restored.  Several purported class action lawsuits
were subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's customers
seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming.

Those lawsuits were consolidated in an action before the U. S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and a
consolidated complaint was filed in that court on February 22,
2011.  Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and consumer fraud, seeking unspecified compensatory
damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

On March 28, 2012, the Court ruled on the Company's motion to
dismiss, denying the motion with regard to plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim, but granting it with regard to the remaining
claims, which were dismissed.  On April 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed
a second consolidated amended complaint, which asserts a claim
only for breach of contract.  The Company's answer was filed on
May 2, 2012.

On October 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification and on December 13, 2012, a motion for partial
summary judgment.  Both motions have been fully briefed, and a
decision by the Court is pending.

Further discovery, if any, has been deferred until after the Court
rules on the pending motions.  The Company believes that this
claim is without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits
vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits
or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk N.Y. Stock Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation is awaiting a ruling by the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on its motion
to dismiss a securities suit filed against it, according to the
company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On January 26, 2012, a securities lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against
Cablevision and certain current and former officers, by a
Cablevision shareholder, purportedly on behalf of a class of
individuals who purchased Cablevision common stock between
February 16, 2011, and October 28, 2011.

The complaint alleges that Cablevision and the individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
by allegedly issuing materially false and misleading statements
regarding (i) the Company's customer retention and advertising
costs, and (ii) the Company's loss of video customers, especially
in the New York area.

The complaint also alleges that the individual defendants violated
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act for the same alleged
conduct.  Plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages, attorneys'
fees, and equitable relief.  On March 26, 2012, the Iron Workers
Local No. 25 Pension Fund and the Alaska Electrical Pension Fund
submitted a joint application to serve as lead plaintiffs.  The
Court granted the application on April 13, 2012.  On June 29,
2012, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On October 11, 2012, the Court issued a ruling permitting the
filing of a motion to dismiss and setting a briefing schedule.
The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed, and a decision by
the Court is pending.  Oral argument on the motion is scheduled
for August 13, 2013.  The Company believes that these claims are
without merit, but is unable to predict the outcome of this
lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.


CAINS FOODS: Recalls Olde Cape Cod Chipotle Ranch Dressing
----------------------------------------------------------
Cains Foods is recalling 2,273 six-pack cases of 16 oz. Olde Cape
Cod Chipotle Ranch dressing with a "Best By" date of Nov. 30, 2014
because it may contain undeclared milk and egg.  People who have
allergies to milk and egg run the risk of serious or life-
threatening reactions if they consume products containing these
ingredients.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered a small portion
of the production run contains an incorrect back panel label for
"Light Raspberry Vinaigrette & Marinade" dressing.  This label
does not list the presence of milk and egg.

As of this date, there have been no adverse reaction complaints
reported relating to this recall.  The dressing was distributed to
stores in the following states: Alabama, Arizona, California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Mississippi, Montana,
North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, New Mexico,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia and Wyoming.

Consumers may return the product to the place where purchased for
a full refund or replacement. Consumers with questions may contact
Cains Foods at 1-800-756-5781.


CHOBANI INC: Recalls Greek Yogurt Due to Product Concerns
---------------------------------------------------------
Chobani, Inc., of Twin Falls, Idaho is voluntarily recalling Greek
Yogurt.

The company has ceased the distribution of the product due to
reports of product bloating and swelling and some claims of
illness as the company continues its investigation to identify the
root cause.

The potentially affected product was distributed nationwide from
its Twin Falls, Idaho facility and was delivered to consumers
through retail and club stores.

The recalled products have best by date codes of Sept. 11-13 until
Oct. 7-13 and are identified as follows:

   -- Chobani 6 oz. cups - all flavors;
   -- Chobani 16 oz. tubs - all flavors;
   -- Chobani 32 oz. tubs - all flavors;
   -- Chobani 3.5 oz. cups - all flavors;
   -- Chobani Bite 3.5 oz. cups - all flavors;
   -- Chobani Flip 5.3 oz. containers - all flavors;
   -- Chobani Champions cups 3.5 oz. - all flavors;
   -- Chobani Champions tubes 2.25 oz., 8, 16
       and 36 count - all flavors

Consumers who have purchased the product should discard the
product and may contact the company's Customer Loyalty Team at
http://chobani.com/careor call at 877-847-6181 between the hours
of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., ET.

This voluntary recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the
Food and Drug Administration.


CORRECTIVE SOLUTIONS: Got Prelim. OK of $3.2MM RICO Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a federal judge approved a preliminary $3.2 million
settlement of a class action accusing a private debt collector of
posing as district attorneys to extort more than $20 million in
fees from scared debtors.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White signed off on the early
settlement between Corrective Solutions and about 500,000 people
who say they were threatened and intimidated by the debt-
collection agency in violation of anti-racketeering law.

Consumers in California and Pennsylvania filed federal lawsuits in
2010, claiming Corrective Solutions (formerly National Corrective
Group Inc.) ran a "fraudulent and exortionate check-recovery
enterprise" from 2004 until 2009.

Corrective Solutions contracted with more than two dozen district
attorneys to collect bounced checks, "often for small amounts for
groceries and household items," according to the California
lawsuit.

Consumers said they received letters on phony district attorney
letterheads threatening them with prosecution and jail time if
they didn't pay exorbitant fees of more than $200 per check.

The debt-collection company even stated that it harnessed "the
power of the district attorney's brand" to collect more money than
traditional collection agencies, consumers said.  Debtors were
allegedly tricked into believing the letters were part of an
official, outsourced "bad check diversion program."

"Local district attorneys who allow the enterprise to use their
names receive cash commissions from the collections obtained by
the enterprise," consumers in California claimed.

Corrective Solutions has been at the center of several other
lawsuits making similar allegations.

Washington, D.C., attorney Paul Aron, who has been intimately
involved in Corrective Solutions litigation, confirmed that
National Corrective Group Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in
2009 to avoid four class actions involving more than a million
consumers.

Through a process of investor transactions, the company was reborn
as Corrective Solutions.

A four-month investigation by the Boston Globe earlier this year
revealed that six district attorneys were involved in the same
scheme in Massachusetts.  The Globe discovered that the district
attorney offices had agreed to outsource bad-check cases to
Corrective Solutions and BounceBack, a smaller, Idaho-based
company, to save taxpayer money and to free attorneys up for more
pressing cases.

The district attorneys who used Corrective Solutions terminated
their relationships with the company following the Globe's
investigation.

But the arrangement is profitable for debt-collection agencies
like Corrective Solutions, which allegedly raked in more than $20
million in illegal fees in California between November 2004 and
April 2009.

Corrective Solutions and its operators "vigorously deny" all
allegations of wrongdoing and liability in the settlement
documents.  They claim that National Corrective Group is not a
debt collector, that the collection letters were neither false nor
misleading, and that all fees were collected legally.

"I think it is morally reprehensible for elected public officials
to go into business with debt collectors to do what other debt
collectors can't do, and get a piece of the action," Aron said in
a phone interview with Courthouse News.  "They also invent fees
that have no basis in law.  On top of that, from a technically
ethical point of view, the prosecutors are all lawyers and they
are allowing non-lawyers to use their letterhead."

That could be interpreted as aiding and abetting, according to
Aron, who noted that Oregon recently passed a law barring
attorneys from letting debt collectors use their letterhead and
from receiving commissions or kickbacks.

The program is not specifically authorized by state law, although
Aron says recent legislation in Massachusetts aims to change that.

"There is a bill (in Massachusetts) that was filed that, in my
opinion, is a terrible bill that would let prosecutors and private
companies do, basically, whatever they want," Aron said.  "The
bill was just filed and it's currently just sitting there."

The class action in California alleges almost $40 million in
damages covering about 500,000 individuals.

A settlement was first proposed in 2012, but two class members
raised objections, forcing Judge White to reject it.  On Aug. 27,
he preliminarily approved the amended settlement, which awards
class members more than $3.2 million. Out of that, about $700,000
will be used to pay attorneys' fees and other costs associated
with the litigation.

A hearing for final approval is set for Jan. 31, 2014.

The case is Christina Smith, et al. v. Levine Leichtman Capital
Partners, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-CV-0010 JSW, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District Of California.


DAIMLER: 1,785 Units of Western Star Trucks Recalled in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:              September 4, 2013
Type of communication:      Recall
Subcategory:                Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:          Safety Mfr
System:                     Seats And Restraints
Units affected:             1785
Source of recall:           Transport Canada
Identification number:      2013300
TC ID number:               2013300
Manufacturer recall number: FL-645

On certain trucks, a misaligned B-pillar reinforcement could
affect seatbelt D-ring anchor performance.  Failure of the
seatbelt D-ring anchorage to restrain the seat occupant would
increase the risk of personal injury during a crash.

Dealers will reinforce the seatbelt D-ring anchor.

Affected products: Western Star 4900

2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 models


DONNYCREEK ENERGY: Intends to Review Class Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Donnycreek Energy Inc. on Sept. 3 disclosed that it has become
aware of a proposed class action lawsuit filed in the Alberta
Court of Queen's Bench against Donnycreek, Donnybrook Energy Inc.
and certain of their respective directors and officers.  The
action contains various claims relating to the plan of arrangement
involving Donnycreek and Donnybrook completed in November 2011,
the transfer of certain assets from Donnybrook to Donnycreek, a
related private placement and other related transactions.

The proposed class action can't proceed unless certified by the
Court.  The Company intends to review these claims in detail and
take steps to protect its interests.


DUOYUAN PRINTING: November 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom
& Gross LLP on Aug. 29 disclosed that the United States District
Court Southern District of New York has approved the following
announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would
benefit purchasers of common stock of Duoyuan Printing, Inc.:

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED DUOYUAN
PRINTING, INC. ("DYP") COMMON STOCK PURSUANT AND/OR TRACEABLE TO
DYP'S REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS ISSUED IN CONNECTION
WITH DYP'S INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING OF STOCK ON NOVEMBER 6, 2009;
OR (2) PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED DYP COMMON STOCK FROM
NOVEMBER 6, 2009 TO MARCH 28, 2011, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York in the above-
captioned action, that a hearing will be held on November 13, 2013
at 9:30 a.m. in courtroom 11A before the Honorable George B.
Daniels, United States District Judge of the Southern District of
New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007 for the
purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement
between Plaintiffs and Defendants Duoyuan Printing, Inc., Wenhua
Guo, Xiquing Diao, Christopher P. Holbert, Lianjun Cai, Punan Xie,
and William D. Suh (collectively, the "Settling Defendants")
consisting of the sum of $4,300,000, should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed
plan to distribute the settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable and
adequate; (3) whether the application for an award of attorneys'
fees of one third of the Settlement amount, reimbursement of
expenses of not more than $175,000, and awards to each Class
Representative not to exceed $1,500 should be approved; and (4)
whether the Litigation as against Settling Defendants and
Defendants Baiyun Sun and James Zhang should be dismissed with
prejudice.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired DYP common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to DYP's Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with DYP's initial public offering of Stock
on November 6, 2009; or purchased or otherwise acquired DYP common
stock from November 6, 2009 to March 28, 2011, both dates
inclusive, your rights may be affected by the Settlement of this
action.  If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency
and Proposed Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by writing to DYP
Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, Claims
Administrator, P.O. Box 230, 600 North Jackson Street, Suite 3,
Media, PA 19063, or going to the website,
http://www.strategicclaims.net

If you are a member of the Class, in order to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim and Release postmarked no later than October 9, 2013,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.  Unless you submit
a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment
rendered in the Litigation whether or not you make a claim. To
exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a Request for
Exclusion to the Claims Administrator in the manner detailed in
the Notice, and postmarked no later than October 23, 2013.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or the
Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses and awards to Class Representatives must
be received by the addresses indicated below and in the manner
detailed in the Notice by no later than October 23, 2013.

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

         Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
         POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
         600 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10016

         Class Counsel for Plaintiffs

         Joel M. Mitnick, Esq.
         SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
         787 Seventh Avenue
         New York, NY 10019

         Joseph De Simone, Esq.
         MAYER BROWN LLP
         1675 Broadway
         New York, NY 10019

         Harry A. Woods, Jr., Esq.
         CROWE & DUNLEVY, P.C.
         20 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 1800
         Oklahoma City, OK 73102

Counsel for Settling Defendants

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Plaintiffs' Counsel identified above.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: AUGUST 1, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Contact:

Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
Timothy W. Brown, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Tel: (212) 686-1060


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Conference in "Scranton" Suit on Sept. 13
------------------------------------------------------------
A case management conference has been set for September 13, 2013,
in the class action lawsuit initiated by John Scranton, according
to E*TRADE Financial Corporation's August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On April 30, 2013, a putative class action was filed by John
Scranton, on behalf of himself and a class of persons similarly
situated, against E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE
Securities LLC in the Superior Court of California, County of
Santa Clara, pursuant to the California procedures for a private
Attorney General action.  The Complaint alleged that the Company
misrepresented through its Web site that it would always
automatically exercise options that were in-the-money by $0.01 or
more on expiration date.  The Plaintiffs allege violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer
Remedies Act, fraud, misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation and Breach of Fiduciary Duty.  The case has been
deemed complex within the meaning of the California Rules of
Court, and a case management conference has been set for
September 13, 2013.  The Company will continue to defend itself
vigorously in this matter.

E*TRADE Financial Corporation, a financial services company,
provides online brokerage and related products and services
primarily to individual retail investors under the E*TRADE
Financial brand in the United States.


ERNST & YOUNG: Epstein Becker Discusses Second Circuit Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa S. Ratinoff, Esq. -- MRatinoff@ebglaw.com -- at Epstein
Becker Green reports that like the Second Circuit, the Ninth
Circuit recently enforced an Ernst & Young LLP arbitration
agreement, reversing the district court's denial of a motion to
compel arbitration in a wage and hour suit brought by a former
employee.

The lower court initially ruled that Ernst & Young had waived its
right to arbitrate by delaying its assertion of the defense, but
the Ninth Circuit reversed finding Richards failed to establish
that he suffered any prejudice from Ernst & Young's delay.

Richard urged the Court to rely on the National Labor Relations
Board's decision in D.R. Horton, in which the NLRB concluded that
a waiver of the right to bring a class action claim as a condition
of employment violated federal labor laws.  Despite plaintiff's
urging, the Court declined to do so due to Richard's failure to
raise the argument to the district court.

However, the Ninth Circuit specifically noted that the majority of
courts who have considered the issue declined to follow the NLRB's
controversial ruling.

Instead, as did the Second Circuit recently, the Ninth Circuit
applied the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in American Express Co.
v. Italian Colors Restaurant.

Employers should be encouraged by the unity of federal courts
declining to follow the NLRB's attack on class action waivers but
should be cautious as the enforceability of class action waivers
is still unsettled in other jurisdictions.


FANTASY GENTLEMAN'S: Strippers File Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Colleen Slevin, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
strippers who say they were paid only in tips and had to pay to
work at a Grand Junction club are suing the club and its owner in
federal court.

In the class-action lawsuit announced on Aug. 27, five women who
used to work at Fantasy Gentleman's Club said they received no
wages and had to pay varying rates to work at the club depending
on the time and location in the club.  They said they also had to
give bouncers and disc jockeys up to 15 percent of their tips.

According to signs posted at the club, the women also had to pay
fines for violating rules, such as complaining about their
personal lives to customers or if a customer touched them
inappropriately, or if they changed their schedule or couldn't
work.  They also had to pay a $30 fine if they didn't have money
to pay their fees the same day.

The lawsuit claims the women were wrongly classified as
independent contractors, and seeks back wages, tips and overtime.
Lawyers believe there are more than 50 women who worked at the
club over the past three years who are eligible to join.

Lawyer Mari Newman, who is representing the women, said lawsuits
have been filed challenging similar pay structures at other strip
clubs across the country but that Fantasy's fine system is more
extreme than seen elsewhere.

Ms. Newman may be reached at:

         Mari Newman, Esq.
         KILLMER, LANE, & NEWMAN, LLP
         The Odd Fellows Hall
         1543 Champa St, Suite 400
         Denver, CO 80202
         Tel: 303-571-1000
         Fax: 303 571 1001

Owner Kevin Eardley confirmed that the photographs of signs
displaying fees and rules included in the lawsuit were from his
club and defended them.  He said strippers are fined for anything
that he could be fined for by the state.

Mr. Eardley said the women signed contracts agreeing to, in
effect, lease space in the club to work, like some hairstylists
do.  He said it's a common practice at Colorado strip clubs.

"They were never employees," he said.

Newman said the women should be considered more like wait staff
than hairstylists, mainly because they didn't have much control
over their work, as evidenced by the fines.


FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following was released on Aug. 30 by Stull, Stull & Brody.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DEBRA GRIFFIN and JOY GARDNER, on
Behalf of Themselves and a Class of Persons

Similarly Situated,                 CASE NO.: 2:10-cv-10610

Plaintiffs,
v.

FLAGSTAR BANCORP, INC.; REBECCA A.
LUCCI; ERIN ENGLAND; JOHN DOES 1-10,
AND RICHARD ROES 1-20,

Defendants.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL CURRENT AND FORMER PARTICIPANTS AND BENEFICIARIES OF THE
FLAGSTAR BANK 401(K) PLAN FOR WHOSE INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS THE PLAN
HELD SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF FLAGSTAR BANCORP, INC. AT ANY TIME
FROM DECEMBER 31, 2006 TO MAY 2, 2013, INCLUSIVE.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.
A FEDERAL COURT AUTHORIZED THIS NOTICE.
THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION.
YOU ARE NOT BEING SUED.

A Settlement has been preliminarily approved by a federal court in
a consolidated class action lawsuit against Flagstar Bancorp,
Inc., alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), which claims and
allegations were denied by Flagstar.  All capitalized terms not
otherwise defined in this Summary Notice of Class Action
Settlement have the meaning provided in the Class Action
Settlement Agreement available on the Settlement website
identified in this Notice.  The Settlement will provide for a
payment of $3 million to the Plan (minus Court-approved attorneys'
fees, certain expenses and case contribution awards to the Named
Plaintiffs), which will then be allocated to the accounts of
participants of the Plan, other than certain excluded persons
under the terms of the Settlement, who had portions of their Plan
accounts invested in Flagstar common stock or fund units in the
Flagstar Stock Fund between December 31, 2006 and May 2, 2013,
inclusive.

You will receive a payment if you qualify under a Court-approved
Plan of Allocation.  You do not need to send in a claim form or
take any other action to participate in the Settlement.  The
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
(Southern Division) authorized this Notice.

WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT?

If you were a member of the Settlement Class, as defined above,
then you are included in the Settlement automatically.

WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT?

The Named Plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that the
Defendant breached fiduciary duties under ERISA by allowing the
investment of the Plan's assets in Flagstar common stock or
Flagstar Stock Fund units during a time when they allegedly knew
or should have known that such investment was imprudent.
Defendant denies any wrongdoing, and asserted defenses against all
the claims.

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

Defendant agreed to create a Settlement Fund of $3 million to be
divided among eligible Settlement Class members after payment of
attorneys' fees and expenses to Class Counsel and Case
Contribution Awards to the Named Plaintiffs, and payment of other
costs and expenses of the Settlement, including notice and
Settlement administration, as the Court may allow.  The Settlement
Agreement and long-form Class Notice, available along with other
related documentation and a list of Frequently Asked Questions at
the website identified below, describe the details of the proposed
Settlement.  The Settlement releases certain claims relating to
the investment of the Plan's assets in Flagstar common stock or
common stock fund units during the time period listed above.

HOW DO I RECEIVE A PAYMENT?

If you are a Settlement Class member and are entitled to a share
of the Settlement Fund according to the Settlement Agreement, you
are not required to do anything to receive a payment.  The payment
will be made directly to your Plan account(s).  If you no longer
are a participant in the Plan, a Plan account will be established
for you, and you will be notified of this account along with
further instructions.  If your address has changed since you
closed your Plan account(s), please call 800-332-9084 (toll-free)
to advise of the change of address.

CAN I OBJECT TO OR OPT OUT OF THE SETTLEMENT?

You cannot opt out of the Settlement, but you may object to all or
any part of the Settlement in accordance with the Class Notice.
You will be bound by any judgments or orders that are entered in
this Action, and if the Settlement is approved, you will be deemed
to have released all of the Defendants from all claims that were
or could have been asserted in this case.

The Court has scheduled a hearing in this case on December 3,
2013, at 2:30 p.m. in the Courtroom of United States District
Judge Paul D. Borman, United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan (Southern Division), Theodore Levin U.S.
Courthouse, 231 W. Lafayette Blvd., Room 740, Detroit, MI 48226,
to consider whether to approve the Settlement and any motion(s) by
the lawyers representing Settlement Class members for attorneys'
fees, reimbursement of expenses and Case Contribution Awards to
the Named Plaintiffs, and for other case-related expenses.  If
approved, these amounts will be paid from the Settlement Fund.
You may ask to speak at the hearing by filing a notice of your
intention to appear, but you are not required to appear at the
hearing.  If you intend to attend the hearing, please re-confirm
the time and location with Plaintiffs' counsel or check the
Settlement website identified in this Notice to make sure that the
hearing has not been re-scheduled.

HOW DO I GET MORE INFORMATION?

This Notice summarizes the proposed Settlement.  If you are a
Settlement Class member and would like to receive additional
information or to receive a copy of the long form Class Notice,
which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights
thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement),
please call toll free 800-332-9084 or visit
http://www.FlagstarERISAsettlement.com

STULL, STULL & BRODY
Michael Klein, 212-687-7230


GANLEY CHEVROLET: Ohio Appeals Court Upholds Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Freedman, writing for Automotive News, reports that the Ohio
Court of Appeals has upheld class certification in a suit alleging
that the arbitration clause in a Cleveland-area dealership group's
sales agreement was unconscionable and unenforceable.

The 2-1 ruling against Ganley Chevrolet and Ganley Automotive
Stores came in a spot delivery-related dispute that began in March
2001, after Jeffrey and Stacy Felix purchased a 2000 Chevy Blazer.

Ganley has asked the appellate court for reconsideration and, if
that's unsuccessful, may seek state Supreme Court review, says
dealership lawyer Steven Dever of Lakewood, Ohio.

The plaintiffs contend that Ganley told them they were approved
for 0 percent financing and let them take home the Blazer. But a
few days later, Ganley told them GMAC would approve only 1.9
percent financing, which they accepted.  More than a month later,
they were told GMAC had rejected them.

The dealership then found a bank that would provide a 9.4 percent
loan, but the Felixes refused to sign a new agreement at that
rate, the decision said.

The suit alleges "bait-and-switch tactics," violation of the state
Consumer Sales Practices Act, misrepresentation, and emotional
distress.  It includes individual and class-action claims and
challenges the validity of the arbitration provision in the sales
agreement.

A lower-court judge rejected Ganley's request for arbitration and
approved class-action status on behalf of all consumers whose
sales agreement with any Ganley store had the same provision.
Ganley Automotive Stores has 34 franchises in northern Ohio,
according to its Web site.

The judge found the provision ambiguous and misleading and awarded
$200 in damages to each of the "thousands of members" of the
class.  It covers customers who signed such agreements from two
years before the lawsuit was filed in June 2001 until the company
changed the provision in 2007, said plaintiffs' lawyer
Mark Schlachet of Cleveland Heights, Ohio.

However, only a "handful" of those customers went to arbitration,
Mr. Dever said.  He added: "How can you quantify the harm when
people had no complaint? The analysis is fundamentally flawed."

The appeals court held that class-action status was appropriate
under the consumer protection law.  In the majority opinion,
Appeals Judge Mary Kilbane said the trial judge, who handled the
case for 11 years, had "conducted a rigorous analysis into whether
the prerequisites for class certification have been satisfied.

The dissenting judge said Ganley's use of the arbitration
provision might be an "unfair or deceptive practice" that would
justify individual lawsuits but that the plaintiffs failed to meet
the requirements for class-action status.

Mr. Schlachet said Ganley couldn't appeal the damage award yet
because it isn't final.

The Felixes' individual claims are still pending, both lawyers
said.


GENESEE & WYOMING: Merger-Related Suit Settlements Paid in May
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genesee & Wyoming Inc. disclosed in its August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013, that its settlement of merger-related
lawsuits in Florida was paid in May 2013.

In connection with the Company's acquisition of RailAmerica Inc.,
five putative stockholder class action lawsuits were filed in
2012, three in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
(Delaware Court) and two in the Circuit Court of the Fourth
Judicial Circuit for Duval County, Florida, Civil Division
(Florida Circuit Court), against RailAmerica, the RailAmerica
directors and Genesee & Wyoming.

The two lawsuits filed in the Florida Circuit Court alleged, among
other things, that the RailAmerica directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with their decision to sell
RailAmerica to Genesee & Wyoming via an allegedly flawed process
and failed to obtain the best financial and other terms and that
RailAmerica and Genesee & Wyoming aided and abetted those alleged
breaches of duty.  The complaints requested, among other relief,
an order to enjoin consummation of the merger and attorneys' fees.
On July 31, 2012, the plaintiffs in the Florida actions filed a
motion to consolidate the two Florida actions, appoint plaintiffs
Langan and Sambuco as lead plaintiffs and appoint lead counsel in
the proposed consolidated action.  The Plaintiffs in the Florida
actions also filed an emergency motion for expedited proceedings
on August 7, 2012, and an amended complaint on August 8, 2012,
which included allegations that the information statement filed by
RailAmerica on August 3, 2012, omitted material information about
the proposed merger.  On August 17, 2012, the parties in the
Florida actions submitted a stipulation for expedited proceedings,
which the Florida Circuit Court ordered on August 20, 2012.

The three lawsuits filed in Delaware Court named the same
defendants, alleged substantially similar claims, and sought
similar relief as the Florida actions. The parties to the Delaware
actions submitted orders of dismissal in November 2012, which the
Delaware Court has granted.

On December 7, 2012, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, the Company and the other parties to the
Florida actions executed a Stipulation and Agreement of
Compromise, Settlement and Release to settle all related claims.
The settlement is not material.  On May 15, 2013, the Florida
Circuit Court held a hearing on final approval of the settlement
and entered an Order and Final Judgment that approved the
settlement and dismissed with prejudice the Florida actions.  The
settlement was paid in May of 2013.

Genesee & Wyoming Inc. -- http://www.gwrr.com/-- owns and
operates short line and regional freight railroads and provides
railcar switching and other rail-related services in the United
States of America, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands and Belgium.
The Company was incorporated in Delaware in 1977 and is
headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut.


GOOGLE INC: Sells Info From Wallet and Play Apps, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Google illegally gives or
sells third-party vendors access to information from its Google
Wallet and Google Play apps, exposing people to ID theft, a class
action claims in Federal Court.

The case is Svenson v. Google, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-
04080-HRL, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Jose).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kathryn S. Diemer, Esq.
          DIEMER WHITMAN & CARDOSI, LLP
          75 East Santa Clara Street, Suite 290
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 971-6270
          Facsimile: (408) 971-6271
          E-mail: kdiemer@diemerwhitman.com


HI-TECH PHARMACAL: Being Sold to Akorn for Too Little, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Hi-Tech
Pharmacal are selling the company too cheaply through an unfair
process to Akorn, for $640 million or $43.50 a share, shareholders
claim in Chancery Court.


HUBBARD FEEDS: Recalls Life Homestead FastGrow Poultry Feed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hubbard Feeds Inc. announced a voluntary recall of three
additional lots of Hubbard Life Homestead FASTGROW AM.0.0125
NAB/NAB MEDICATED because of elevated calcium levels that may be
harmful to chickens and turkeys.  This voluntary recall is the
result of identification of additional lot numbers through assays
by the FDA related to a voluntary recall of the same product on
July 2, 2013.  No adverse events or complaints have been reported
to date for the three additional lots.  Chickens and turkeys
exposed to these lots may exhibit decreased feed intake, decreased
growth rate or death.  If poultry producers observe animals that
have consumed product from this particular lot number and have any
of these symptoms, producers should contact their local
veterinarian for assistance.

The recall is limited to the following item and associated lot
numbers:

   -- Item No: 34739-2

Description: Hubbard Life Homestead FASTGROW AM.0125 NAP/NAB
MEDCATED (Complete Chicken Starter/Grower/Finisher/Broiler Feed,
Complete Turkey Grower/Finisher) with Lot Number:

   -- B00578594;
   -- B00582621; and
   -- B00584526

The product was sold in Indiana, Michigan and Illinois through
retail feed stores.  The Hubbard Life Homestead FASTGROW AM.0125
NAP/NAB MEDICATED is packaged in 50 lb. bags.  The lot numbers
will be found on the bottom of the label.

Packages associated with this lot number contained levels of
calcium that exceeded formulated nutrient levels.  Poultry
producers who have purchased Hubbard Life Homestead FASTGROW
AM.0125 NAP/NAB MEDICATED with the lot numbers listed above should
discontinue use of the product and return the unused portion to
the place of purchase for a full refund.  Poultry producers with
questions may contact Hubbard Feeds Inc., during normal business
hours, Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., Central Time
507-388-9645.

This voluntary recall is being made with the knowledge of the Food
and Drug Administration.


LKQ CORPORATION: Suit v. Aftermarket Product Suppliers Still Open
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action against several aftermarket product suppliers is
still pending against two defendants, according to LKQ
Corporation's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

The company is a plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against
several aftermarket product suppliers. During the three and six
month periods ended June 30, 2012, the company recognized gains of
$8.4 million and $16.7 million, respectively, resulting from
settlements with certain of the defendants.

These gains were recorded as a reduction of Cost of Goods Sold on
the company's Unaudited Consolidated Condensed Statements of
Income. The class action is still pending against two defendants,
the results of which are not expected to be material to the
company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

If there is a class settlement with (or a favorable judgment
entered against) either of the remaining defendants, the company
will recognize the gain from such settlement or judgment when
substantially all uncertainties regarding its timing and amount
are resolved and realization is assured.

The company also has certain contingencies resulting from
litigation, claims and other commitments and are subject to a
variety of environmental and pollution control laws and
regulations incident to the ordinary course of business. The
company currently expects that the resolution of such
contingencies will not materially affect the company's financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.


MEDTRONIC INC: Fails in Bid to Dismiss Infuse Class Suit in Ore.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In Alton v. Medtronic, the U.S. District Court in Oregon denied
Medtronic's motion to dismiss on federal preemption grounds a
personal injury/product liability suit against the company for the
injuries suffered by a patient that received the Infuse bone
growth protein in an off-label surgery.   The Court rejected
Medtronic's motion as to the majority of claims raised by
plaintiff, specifically the cause of actions for fraud,
misrepresentation, negligence, failure to warn, and breach of
express warranty.  The order is attached.

"We are pleased that the Court rejected Medtronic's efforts to
close the courthouse doors to Mr. Alton and the many other spine
patients injured by dangerous misbranded uses of the Infuse bone
growth protein," stated plaintiff's counsel Kent L. Klaudt of the
national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP.  "The Court's carefully-reasoned ruling makes it clear that
manufacturers who violate federal safety laws cannot then hide
behind federal law to evade state tort liability to injured
patients."

The order constitutes the second recent decision by a federal
court denying Medtronic's preemption claims in an injury case
arising out of the off-label use of Infuse.  On August 21, 2013,
the U.S. District Court in Arizona denied in large part a similar
motion to dismiss by Medtronic in an Infuse personal injury
lawsuit.  This order can be found at http://is.gd/o7A25m

In 2002, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the use of
the Infuse device -- which includes the bone graft substitute
intended to be inserted into a metallic spinal fusion cage -- for
solely the treatment of degenerative disc disease as part of a
single-level, anterior lumbar interbody fusion.
The FDA had not approved Infuse in a posterior approach procedure
as was used in the Oregon and Arizona cases due to concerns of
potential adverse effects, such as bone overgrowth, when Infuse
was used in posterior procedures.  Thousands of patients
nationwide, however, have been implanted with Infuse during off-
label use procedures.  Off-label use of Infuse by physicians
constituted nearly 90% of the $800 million in revenue that Infuse
generated for Medtronic in 2011.
The complaint charges that Medtronic failed to warn the FDA of
severe side effects associated with use of its spinal fusion
product Infuse when used for surgeries other than that originally
presented to the FDA.  The complaint further alleges that
Medtronic aggressively promoted off-label uses of its device
utilizing journal articles, advertising media, sales
representatives/consultants and paid leading physicians to urge
the use, purchase, and utilization of Infuse.  The off-label
promotion of prescription drugs and medical devices violates
Federal law.
Please contact Kent L. Klaudt at 415-956-1000 or
kklaudt@lchb.com for answers to any
follow up questions.

Description: LCHB

Stephen H. Cassidy
scassidy@lchb.com
t 415.956.1000
f 415.956.1008
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
<http://www.lieffcabraser.com>www.lieffcabraser.com



This message is intended for the named recipients only. It may
contain information protected by the attorney-client or work-
product privilege. If you have received this email in error,
please notify the send


MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: Unit Faces Suit Over NV Energy Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company is facing a
suit filed by purported shareholders of NV Energy in the Eighth
Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada, according to
MidAmerican's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

Following the announcement of the acquisition of NV Energy by MEHC
on May 29, 2013, several complaints were filed by purported
shareholders of NV Energy in the Eighth Judicial District Court in
Clark County, Nevada, challenging the proposed merger.

The complaints were filed on behalf of a putative class of NV
Energy public shareholders, naming NV Energy, its board of
directors, MEHC and Silver Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub"), an
indirect wholly owned subsidiary of MEHC. The complaints, as
amended, generally allege that the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger, and
that NV Energy, Merger Sub and MEHC aided and abetted the breach
of fiduciary duties by the individual defendants. The amended
complaints seek, among other things, an order preliminarily and
permanently enjoining the acquisition, disclosure of certain
information relating to the acquisition, damages, and plaintiff's
expenses.

Although MEHC is unable at this time to determine the ultimate
outcome of these lawsuits, injunctive relief or an adverse
determination in the shareholder class actions could result in a
cash judgment or settlement and affect the company's ability to
complete the acquisition with NV Energy. MEHC intends to
vigorously defend the lawsuits.


NANO MAGNETICS: Recalls Magnet Sets Over Choking Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 3, 2013
Posting date:             September 3, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items, Toys
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety, Physical Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-29263

Affected products: Electroplated Nanodots, Coated Colors Nanodots
and Mega Nanodots magnetic sets

The present recall involves small powerful magnetic balls that can
be used to build sculptures, puzzles, patterns, or shapes
including any of the following brands:

Recalled Products:

   Product Name          UPC
   ------------          ---
   64 Original           830491000001
   64 Black              830491000018
   64 Silver             830491000025
   64 Gold               830491000032
   64 Red                830491000452
   64 Pink               830491000599
   64 Purple             830491000780
   64 Orange             830491000162
   64 Green              830491000179
   64 Blue               830491000254
   64 Galaxy Black       830491000896
   125 Original          830491000209
   125 Black             830491000216
   125 Silver            830491000223
   125 Gold              830491000230
   125 Red               830491000469
   125 Pink              830491000476
   125 Purple            830491000483
   125 Orange            830491000490
   125 Green             830491000544
   125 Blue              830491000551
   125 Galaxy Black      830491000582
   216 Original          627843036005
   216 Black             627843036012
   216 Silver            627843036029
   216 Gold              627843036036
   216 Onyx Gold         830491000643
   216 Red               830491000650
   216 Pink              830491000667
   216 Purple            830491000674
   216 Orange            830491000681
   216 Green             830491000698
   216 Blue              830491000742
   216 Galaxy Black      830491000773
   Mega 64 Black         830491000124
   Mega 64 Spectra       830491000131
   Mega 64 Gold          830491000186
   Mega 64 Blue          830491000193
   Mega 64 Silver        830491000117

Health Canada has ordered Nano Magnetics Ltd. to recall these
products from the market.

The risk assessment on these magnet sets has informed Health
Canada's determination that they are a danger to human health and
safety because they contain small powerful magnets which can be
easily swallowed or inhaled by children.  Unlike other small
objects that would be more likely to pass normally through the
digestive system if swallowed, when more than one small powerful
magnet is swallowed, the magnets can attract one another while
travelling through the digestive system.  The magnets can then
pinch together and create a blockage and slowly tear through the
intestinal walls, causing perforations.

The results of swallowing small powerful magnets can be very
serious and life-threatening.  Swallowing incidents have often
resulted in considerable damage to the gastrointestinal tissues
and required emergency surgical treatment.  For survivors, there
can be serious long-term health consequences.

Approximately 190,000 units of the affected products were sold in
Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from
July 2010 to July 2013.

Manufacturer:

    Nano Magnetics Inc.
    Vaughan
    CANADA


NEW YORK, NY: Monitor Appointed in Stop-and-Frisk Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Nick DiVito, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that the
president of a nonprofit reform outfit will facilitate the
remediation of the unconstitutional stop-and-frisk police
practices, a federal judge ruled Wednesday, September 4, 2013.

U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin had noted that she would
appoint such a monitor when she ruled against the city last month
after a two-month bench trial.

Nicholas Turner will now take on the task of developing
sustainable reforms to the stop-and-frisk practices of the New
York City Police Department, according to a six-page order
supplementing the remedies opinion.

Turner spent nine years with the Vera Institute of Justice before
it appointed him recently as its fifth president.

Judge Scheindlin described the institute as "widely recognized for
its use of rigorous testing and broad-based collaboration to help
governments plan, implement and evaluate improvements to the
justice system."

"Vera has a long history of working to improve public safety by
strengthening its ties between police and the community," she
added.

The group partnered with the NYPD in the early 1980s to develop
the Community Patrol Officer Program, "one of the first community
policing programs in the country," Judge Scheindlin wrote.

"Mr. Turner initiated and managed projects on racial profiling in
prosecution, safety in America's prisons, sentencing reform,
juvenile justice and domestic violence," she added.

Turner left Vera for several years to serve as managing director
of the Rockefeller Foundation, focusing on urban issues and the
redevelopment of post-Hurricane Katrina New Orleans to "increase
racial and socioeconomic integration."

He graduated from Yale College and Yale Law School, then clerked
for U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein in Brooklyn.

Before law school, Turner worked with homeless, at-risk and court-
involved youth at Sasha Bruce Youthwork, a community-based youth
advocacy and services organization in Washington, D.C.

Judge Scheindlin's remedies opinion last month had also called for
police to wear cameras during stop-and-frisk procedures.

David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson, Deon Dennis and David Ourlicht filed
a federal class action challenging the department's stop-and-frisk
practices five years ago in Manhattan.

Those men's attorneys with the Center for Constitutional Rights
said Turner was a good choice.

"We are pleased that the court has appointed Mr. Turner and we are
looking forward to working with him in order to move the joint
remedy process forward," the group said in a statement.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Darius Charney, Esq.
          LANSNER & KUBITSCHEK
          325 Broadway, Suite 201
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 349-0900
          Facsimile: (212) 349-0694
          E-mail: DCharney@ccrjustice.org

               - and -

          Jonathan C. Moore, Esq.
          BELDOCK LEVINE & HOFFMAN LLP
          99 Park Ave (16 Fl.)
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 353-9587
          Facsimile: (212) 674-4614
          E-mail: jmoore@blhny.com

               - and -

          Baher Azmy, Esq.
          SETON HALL LAW SCHOOL CENTER FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE
          833 Mccarter Highway
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 642-8700
          Facsimile: (973) 642-8295
          E-mail: bazmy@ccrjustice.org

               - and -

          Bruce Oliver Corey, Jr., Esq.
          COREY COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          The New York Times Building
          620 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 841-1055
          Facsimile: (646) 441-9055
          E-mail: bcorey@cov.com

               - and -

          Chauniqua Danielle Young, Esq.
          CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
          666 Broadway Fl 7
          New York, NY 10012
          Telephone: (212) 614-6483
          E-mail: cyoung@ccrjustice.org

               - and -

          Eric Hellerman, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP(NYC)
          620 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018-1405
          Telephone: (212) 841-1155
          Facsimile: (212) 841-1010
          E-mail: ehellerman@cov.com

                         - and -

          Gretchen Ann Hoff Varner, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP(NYC)
          620 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018-1405
          Telephone: (212) 841-1176
          Facsimile: (646) 441-9176
          E-mail: ghoffvarner@cov.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Rolnick Borchetta, Esq.
          BELDOCK LEVINE & HOFFMAN LLP
          99 Park Ave (16 Fl.)
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 277-5893
          Facsimile: (212) 557-0565
          E-mail: jborchetta@blhny.com

               - and -

          Kasey Lynn Martini, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP(NYC)
          620 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018-1405
          Telephone: (212) 841-1167
          Facsimile: (646) 441-9167
          E-mail: kmartini@cov.com

               - and -

          Laura Marie Flahive Wu, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP(NYC)
          620 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018-1405
          Telephone: (212) 841-1257
          Facsimile: (646) 441-9257
          E-mail: lflahivewu@cov.com

               - and -

          Philip Alexander Irwin, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP(NYC)
          620 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018-1405
          Telephone: (212) 841-1190
          Facsimile: (212) 841-1010
          E-mail: pirwin@cov.com

               - and -

          Sunita Patel, Esq.
          CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
          666 Broadway, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10012
          Telephone: (212) 614-6439
          Facsimile: (212) 614-6499
          E-mail: spatel@ccrjustice.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brenda Elaine Cooke, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 513-0462
          Facsimile: (212) 788-0367
          E-mail: bcooke@law.nyc.gov

               - and -

          David M. Hazan, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street, Rm. 2-303B
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 788-8084
          Facsimile: (212) 788-9776
          E-mail: dhazan@jacobshazan.com

               - and -

          Joseph Anthony Marutollo, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 788-1300
          Facsimile: (212) 788-0367
          E-mail: jmarutol@law.nyc.gov

               - and -

          Linda Donahue, Esq.
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 788-0892
          Facsimile: (212) 788-9776
          E-mail: ldonahue@law.nyc.gov

               - and -

          Lisa Marie Richardson, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 442-0832
          Facsimile: (212) 788-9776
          E-mail: lrichard@law.nyc.gov

               - and -

          Prathyusha Bandi Reddy, Esq.
          MCALOON & FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          123 William Steet
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 788-0963
          Facsimile:  (212) 788-9776
          E-mail: prathyushareddy@mcf-esq.com

               - and -

          Suzanna Hallie Publicker, Esq.
          NYC LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street Rm.
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 788-1103
          Facsimile: (212) 788-9776
          E-mail: spublick@law.nyc.gov

               - and -

          Arthur Gabriel Larkin, III, Esq.
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 788-1599
          Facsimile: (212) 788-9776
          E-mail: alarkin@law.nyc.gov

               - and -

          Cecilia Ann Silver, Esq.
          NEW YORK CITY LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 788-8684
          Facsimile: (212) 788-9776
          E-mail: csilver@law.nyc.gov

               - and -

          Judson Krebbs Vickers, Esq.
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 788-0891
          Facsimile: (212) 571-4600
          E-mail: jvickers@law.nyc.gov

               - and -

          Stephanie Marie Breslow, Esq.
          NYC LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street Rm. 3-187
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 788-1575
          Facsimile: (212) 788-9776
          E-mail: sbreslow@law.nyc.gov

The case is Floyd, et al. v. The City of New York, et al., Case
No. 1:08-cv-01034-SAS-HBP, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.


NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Sept. 3 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Nuverra Environmental Soultions, Inc. common stock during the
period between March 12, 2013 and August 23, 2013.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from September 3, 2013.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

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

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

The complaint charges Nuverra and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Nuverra provides full-cycle environmental cleanup services to
customers in energy and industrial end-markets in the United
States.  It focuses on the delivery, collection, treatment,
recycling, and disposal of restricted solids, water, waste water,
used motor oil, spent antifreeze, waste fluids, and hydrocarbons
through its two operating segments: Shale Solutions and Industrial
Solutions.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance and future prospects.  As a result
of defendants' false statements, Nuverra shares traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

On July 30, 2013, the Company issued a press release announcing
its "preliminary" second quarter 2013 financial results for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.  Rather than the EBITDA of $46.7
million on revenues of $186.4 million that Nuverra had led the
investment community to expect, Nuverra stated EBITDA would only
be in the range of $32.8 to $33.6 million on $165.5 million in
revenues.  According to Nuverra: (i) weakness in the used oil
market drew down revenues and profits in the Company's Industrial
Solutions segment; (ii) snow and rain hampered performance in the
Company's Shale Solutions segment; (iii) the Company was
experiencing unspecified operational issues in its Eagle Ford
area; and (iv) heavy demand in its Marcellus and Utica shale areas
forced the Company to hire subcontractors, which lowered overall
margins.  On this news, the price of Nuverra common stock, which
had traded as high as $4.42 per share in intraday trading during
the Class Period, fell more than 30% to close at $3.04 per share
on July 30, 2013.

Then on August 8, 2013, Nuverra announced its actual second
quarter 2013 earnings results, disclosing an adjusted earnings per
share loss of $0.05 per share, rather than the loss of $0.03 per
share Nuverra had led the investment community to expect.
Finally, on August 23, 2013, after the close of trading, stock
blog Seeking Alpha.com published a research report that disclosed,
among other things, specifics concerning the Power Fuels
acquisition and discussed how that acquisition was weighing the
Company's financial performance down.  On this news, the price of
Nuverra common stock declined another 11.76%, closing at $2.40 per
share on August 26, 2013.

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

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


OLIVE HILL: Electric Rate Suits Obtain Class Action Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Lewis, writing for Journal-Times, reports that Carter Circuit
Judge Rebecca Phillips heard oral arguments on Sept. 3 before
awarding class action certification of two lawsuits against Olive
Hill Utilities.

Both suits allege that Olive Hill illegally raised electric rates
in violation of KRS 96.534, which requires prior public notice of
electric rate increases for municipally-owned utilities.

Attorneys representing the Kentucky League of Cities (KLC) and
Olive Hill electric rate payers were on hand to discuss the
particulars of the case.

With little resistance from KLC's attorney, Judge Phillips
certified class action status for the suits.

"The action meets all the required criteria for class action
status and I believe doing so to be in the best interests not only
of the plaintiffs, but also the defendant in terms of responding
to requests for discovery and things of that nature,"
Judge Phillips said in issuing the judgment.

Frankfort attorney Jim Deckard and Olive Hill attorney Michael Fox
then presented arguments to the court concerning which of them
should be appointed as counsel for the class action.

Mr. Deckard touted his experience litigating utility law, as well
as his network of industry experts as selling points as to why his
firm should be named as counsel.

Mr. Fox countered by presenting his own lengthy resume of handling
complicated cases, as well as asserting that he could more easily
interact with personnel in the case because he is based locally.

Mr. Fox also rebutted an argument that he could have a potential
conflict of interest in the case by revealing that he has recently
filed a voluntary dismissal of any claim he might have in the
suit.

Judge Phillips will review proposals from both firms and issue a
ruling later as to who will serve as class counsel for the suit.


PETROCHINA: Three Senior Officials Step Down After Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Platts reports that China's state-owned oil giant PetroChina has
been hit by a slew of legal actions in the US after being tainted
by a corruption scandal.

Three senior officials from the company and a vice president from
its parent China National Petroleum Corp. recently resigned after
news emerged that they are being investigated by the Chinese
government for disciplinary violations, commonly used to refer to
corruption allegations.

On Sept. 3, New York-based law firm Pomerantz said it has filed a
class action against PetroChina in the Southern District of New
York on behalf of a plaintiff identified as Johan Broux, as well
as all other similar parties who purchased PetroChina securities
between April 26, 2012, and August 27, 2013.


PHOENICIA GROUP: Recalls Certain Cedar Brand Tahina Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 31, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Phoenicia Group Inc.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, May
                          be National, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia,
                          Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Phoenicia Group
Inc. are warning the public, food service establishments, and
retailers, not to consume, serve, use, or sell the Tahini products
because they may be contaminated with Salmonella.

The following Tahini products, sold commencing February 1, 2013
with no lot code indicated on the package, are affected by this
alert.  This alert does not include Cedar brand Tahini products
where a lot code appears on the package.

Some of the affected products were sold in bulk and may have been
repacked at retail.  Consumers who cannot determine the original
product identity are advised to check with their retailer to
determine if they have one of the affected products.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.

The distributor, Phoenicia Group Inc., St-Laurent, Quebec, is
voluntarily recalling the affected products from the marketplace.
The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.

Affected products:

   -- Cedar Tahini 907 g (2 lb); and

   -- Cedar Tahini 18 kg (40 lb)


POLYCOM INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Polycom, Inc. is facing a shareholder class action lawsuit filed
in California, according to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On July 26, 2013, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
officers.  The complaint alleges that the Company issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operational and compliance policies, which lead to
materially false and misleading financial statements.  The
complaint alleges violation of the federal securities laws and
seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.  At this
time the Company is unable to estimate any range of reasonably
possible loss relating to this action.

Polycom, Inc. offers open, standards-based unified communications
and collaboration solutions for voice and video collaboration.
The Company's solutions are powered by the Polycom(R)
RealPresence(R) Platform, comprehensive software infrastructure
and rich application programming interfaces that interoperate with
a broad set of communication, business, mobile, and cloud
applications and devices to deliver secure face-to-face video
collaboration across different environments.  The Company is
headquartered in San Jose, California.


PROFESSIONAL INVESTMENT: Slater & Gordon Mulls Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Laura Millan, writing for Financial Standard, reports that Slater
& Gordon are considering a class action against Professional
Investment Services (PIS) after retail investors face losses from
the collapse of a Queensland olive farm investment scheme.

Over 350 Australians had ploughed approximately AUD25 million into
the Brooklyn Park Organic Olive Groves Bonni-Foi project, a
managed investment scheme (MIS) that collapsed when the
responsible entity, Australian Green & Gold announced its
intention to wind up the scheme in September 2011.

Investors have approached Slater & Gordon, which has begun an
investigation.

The practice's group leader Ben Whitwell said that it is likely
that most investors were introduced to the investment on the
advice of authorized representatives of Queensland-based
Australian financial services licensee PIS.

"Our investigations also indicate PIS advisors failed to
adequately explain the risks involved in the investment and failed
to offer any alternative investments," Mr. Whitwell said.

"The proposed action will allege that the relevant financial
advisers did not recommend an appropriate product when they
recommended the Bonni-Foi investment," he said.

"These are mum and dad investors who were given assurances there
were safeguards in place to protect their investment, but our
investigations indicate PIS advisers failed to disclose to
investors that the structure of the scheme meant this was not
necessarily the case."

PIS was subject to an enforceable undertaking from December 2010
to March 2012, but last July the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission (ASIC) ordered the appointment of an
independent expert to further monitor PIS.

ASIC raised concerns over the dealer group's compliance and audit
functions and the expert will test PIS' regulatory requirements,
its ability to identify poor advice and the effectiveness of its
advice audit and pre-vet functions.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Progeny Lawsuits Reach 5,000 as of June
----------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2013, 2,014 individual progeny actions were pending
in federal court, and 3,282 cases were pending in state court,
according to Reynolds American Inc.'s July 24, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The following cases against RJR Tobacco and Brown & Williamson
Holdings, Inc. (B&W) have attracted significant attention: the
Florida state court class-action case, Engle v. R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co. and the related Engle Progeny cases; and the case
brought by the U.S. Department of Justice under the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, referred to as
RICO.

In 2000, a jury in Engle v. Liggett Group, a class-action brought
against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers by a class of
Florida smokers allegedly harmed by their addiction to nicotine,
rendered a $145 billion punitive damages verdict in favor of the
class.

In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court set aside that award,
prospectively decertified the class, and preserved several of the
Engle jury findings for use in subsequent individual actions to be
filed within one year of its decision. The preserved findings
include jury determinations that smoking causes various diseases,
that nicotine is addictive, and that each defendant sold
cigarettes that were defective and unreasonably dangerous,
committed unspecified acts of negligence and individually and
jointly concealed unspecified information about the health risks
of smoking. The Engle findings do not indicate that all cigarettes
sold by each defendant were defective and unreasonably
dangerous, nor do they specify what acts of negligence each
defendant committed, or what information each defendant concealed.

In the wake of Engle, thousands of individual progeny actions were
filed in federal and state courts in Florida. As of June 30, 2013,
2,014 cases were pending in federal court, and 3,282 cases were
pending in state court. These cases include approximately 6,423
plaintiffs.

In addition, as of June 30, 2013, RJR Tobacco was aware of 69
additional cases that had been filed but not served. Ninety-eight
cases have been tried in Florida state and federal courts since
2010, and numerous state court trials are scheduled for 2013.


SCOTT HARRINGTON: Sued for Exposing Patients to HIV, Hepatitis
--------------------------------------------------------------
2NEWS reports that a Tulsa dentist accused of exposing thousands
of patients to various blood-borne illnesses is now facing a class
action lawsuit.

Dr. Scott Harrington is being sued by seven people, and, according
to the suit, at least five of them contracted infectious diseases
during treatment at his dental clinics.

One of the plaintiffs, who, along with her husband, is suing
Harrington, told 2NEWS the last few months for them have been
"difficult and annoying."  She says she visited Dr. Harrington's
midtown office to have a wisdom tooth pulled.

The Oklahoma Board of Dentistry launched an investigation in March
2013 after one of Harrington's patients tested positive for
hepatitis C.

State and local health officials then notified more than 7,000
patients of the Tulsa- and Owasso-area dentist.  They were told
they may have been exposed to hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV due
to unsanitary and improper sterilization practices at Harrington's
clinics.

After months of testing, the Oklahoma State Department of Health
reports 77 of the dentist's former patients have tested positive
for hepatitis C, five for hepatitis B and four for HIV.

On Sept. 3, the class suit was filed against Dr. Harrington, his
corporation and several pharmaceutical companies.

According to court documents, the plaintiffs, some of whom are
couples, claim they were exposed to infectious diseases through
the repeated use of Propofol vials.

Propofol is an anesthetic used in surgical procedures.

Despite receiving information that anesthesia personnel were
reusing vials, the plaintiffs claim the drug makers continued to
manufacture, market and sell multi-use vials, which could be
contaminated and expose patients to communicable diseases.

The lawsuit reads in part that the makers, distributors and
marketers of the vials, Hospira, Pharmaceutical Systems, and
Southern Anesthesia were "willful, reckless, malicious and in
total disregard to health and safety of the patients."

The suit alleges negligence on the part of Harrington, his
practice and medical staff and that the drug makers are liable due
to the defective multi-use vials.

The plaintiffs are seeking a judgment for damages in excess of
$10,000.

2News reached out to the pharmaceutical companies named in the
suit as well as attorneys for Harrington, but our calls were not
returned or they declined to comment on the pending litigation.

Dr. Harrington is scheduled to appear before the state dentistry
board Jan. 17 in Oklahoma City.


SESAMECO: Recalls Certain Tahini Products
-----------------------------------------
Starting date:            August 31, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Sesameco
Distribution:             May be National, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Sesameco are
warning the public, food service establishments, and retailers,
not to consume, serve, use, or sell the Tahini product because it
may be contaminated with Salmonella.

The affected Tahini product was sold by the manufacturer,
Sesameco, situated at 4638 boulevard Thimens, St-Laurent, Quebec.
The affected product was sold from March 5, 2013 to May 15, 2013
in 18 kg (40 lb.) packages bearing no label and no lot code
indicated on the package.

The affected product was sold in bulk and may have been repacked
at retail.  Consumers who cannot determine the original product
identity are advised to check with their retailer to determine if
they have the affected product.

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

The manufacturer, Sesameco, St-Laurent-Laurent, Quebec, is
voluntarily recalling the affected product from the marketplace.
The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.


SOCIAL SECURITY: Sued Over Vietnamese-Speaking Counsel Suspension
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reports that
hundreds of disabled Vietnamese refugees claim in a federal class
action that the Social Security Commissioner wrongfully suspended
the only fluent Vietnamese-speaking attorney in San Diego, to
retaliate for a previous class action that claimed a Social
Security judge was biased.

Lead plaintiff Truyen Gia Phan sued Acting Social Security
Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin in a federal class action, on
behalf of a class of more than 1,000.

Truyen, his 25 named co-plaintiffs and the class all are "poor,
disabled and non-English speaking Vietnamese former prisoner[s] of
war and refugees in the United States" who have applied or will
apply for Social Security benefits.  All of them have been or will
be represented by attorney Alexandra Nga Tran Manbeck.

Manbeck has been "providing indispensable representation to the
Vietnamese plaintiffs who would otherwise be shut out of court by
virtue of her fluency in the Vietnamese language and her ability
to advise the plaintiffs in Vietnamese, since plaintiffs did not
speak English and had no understanding of administrative and
judicial proceedings," Truyen says in the complaint.

On March 12, 2013, the Social Security Administration suspended
Manbeck from the practice of Social Security law, the complaint
states.

The class claims Manbeck was suspended to retaliate for her filing
of a class action on behalf of Nazdar Alzayadi and Nora Donate in
2011, alleging bias from Administrative Law Judge Eve Godfrey.
That case was dismissed, according to the new complaint.

After citing an affidavit in which Donate called Judge Godfrey
"the most evil judge I had ever met," the new complaint adds:
"there is also testimony from former Social Security attorney Mary
Mitchell concerning ALJ Godfrey's unfitness as a judge and the
culture of corruption and the culture of cronyism at the San Diego
ODAR [Office of Disability Adjudication and Review] office."

The class claims the Social Security Administration suspended
Manbeck for two classes of alleged violations: "filing of Request
for Reconsideration and Request for Review in paper forms instead
of being filed in electronic forms, and (2) the plaintiff's
signing of boilerplate forms allowing the plaintiffs to ask the
Commissioner to send payment checks to the plaintiffs'
representative to pay outstanding costs."

Truyen claims the first alleged violation is moot because the
clients filed the forms themselves with the help of translators,
and Manbeck was not involved in it.  And the paper filings would
have been violations only if the clients and their attorney
requested direct payment, which they did not in many cases,
according to the complaint.

The second alleged violation involved documents signed by three of
Manbeck's clients, two of whom filed affidavits that they were
given the documents by a freelance interpreter, and Manbeck was
not involved, Truyen says in the complaint.

The third client whose documents were at issue, Huong Nguyen, was
questioned at length by ALJ Godfrey about the documents on
July 20, 2006, according to the complaint.

Godfrey's "retaliation seven years later to charge plaintiffs'
representative for documents that she had examined and cross-
examined the claimant and well knew their contents and purports
amounts to bad faith and evidence of the government's unclean
hands," Truyen says in the complaint.

Because another Social Security administrative law judge is the
only person left in the process to determine whether Manbeck
should be suspended, Manbeck will not be able to press her claims
before an uninvolved judge, according to the complaint.

"The enforcement branch of the agency is both the prosecutor and
the judge, and given the testimony of former Social Security
attorney Mary Mitchell concerning the pervasive corruption in all
ranks of the Social Security Administration, there is no
possibility that the ALJ would rule any differently than the
Office of the General Counsel which already made the decision to
prosecute plaintiffs' attorney," Truyen says in the lawsuit.

If the Social Security Administration is allowed to suspend
Manbeck, the class will be "threatened with the deprivation of
having the only counsel in the San Diego district which could
communicate with them in Vietnamese due to the government's
application of illegal pattern and practice," Truyen says in the
complaint.

The class wants the Social Security Commissioner enjoined from
suspending Manbeck.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexandra T. Manbeck, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDRA T. MANBECK
          4531 University Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92105
          Telephone: (619) 573-8139
          E-mail: manbeckjd@optonline.net

The case is Phan, et al. v. Colvin, et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-
02036-WQH-NLS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (San Diego).


SPRINT CORP: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss "Crest" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation is awaiting a court decision on Crest Financial
Limited's motion to dismiss its complaint, according to the
Company's August 6, 2013, Form 8-K12B/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On July 10, 2013, Sprint Corporation (formerly known as Starburst
II, Inc.), a Delaware corporation ("New Sprint") and an indirect
subsidiary of SoftBank Corp., a Japanese kabushiki kaisha
("SoftBank"), and Sprint Nextel Corporation ("Sprint Nextel")
completed the merger (the "SoftBank Merger") contemplated by the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 15, 2012, as
amended as of November 29, 2012, April 12, 2013, and June 10,
2013, by and among New Sprint, Sprint Nextel, SoftBank, Starburst
I, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly owned
subsidiary of SoftBank, and Starburst III, Inc., a Kansas
corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of New Sprint
("Merger Sub").  In the Merger, Merger Sub was merged into Sprint
Nextel, New Sprint became the parent company of Sprint Nextel,
with Sprint Nextel becoming its direct wholly owned subsidiary,
and Sprint Nextel changed its name to "Sprint Communications,
Inc."

On July 9, 2013, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of December 17, 2012, as amended on April 18,
2013, May 21, 2013, and June 20, 2013, by and among Sprint Nextel,
Collie Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly
owned subsidiary of Sprint Nextel, and Clearwire Corporation, a
Delaware corporation ("Clearwire"), Sprint Nextel's acquisition of
Clearwire was consummated (the "Clearwire Acquisition").

On December 12, 2012, stockholder Crest Financial Limited (Crest)
filed a putative class action lawsuit in Delaware Court of
Chancery against Clearwire, its directors, Sprint, Sprint Holdco
LLC and Eagle River, purportedly brought on behalf of the public
stockholders of Clearwire.  On December 14, 2012, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint, and on January 2, 2013, the plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint.  Also, on December 12, 2012, the
plaintiff filed a motion seeking an expedited trial.  Following a
hearing on January 10, 2013, the Court denied the motion to
expedite without prejudice.  The Court also directed the parties
to consolidate this lawsuit with the other Delaware actions.  The
lawsuit alleges that the directors of Clearwire breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed transaction
between Sprint and Clearwire, that Sprint and Eagle River breached
duties owed to Clearwire's public stockholders by virtue of their
alleged status as controlling stockholders, including with respect
to the SoftBank Transaction, and that Clearwire aided and abetted
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Sprint and Eagle River.
The lawsuit also alleges that the Merger Consideration undervalues
Clearwire, and that the controlling stockholders acted to enrich
themselves at the expense of the minority stockholders.  The
lawsuit seeks to permanently enjoin the SoftBank Transaction,
permanently enjoin the Proposed Merger, permanently enjoin Sprint
from allegedly interfering with Clearwire's plans to raise capital
or sell its spectrum and to recover compensatory damages.

On June 28, 2013, Crest filed a motion to dismiss its complaint.

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


SPRINT CORP: Clearwire Awaits Ruling in "Dennings" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation's subsidiary is awaiting a court decision on a
motion for summary affirmance in the class action lawsuit filed by
Angelo Dennings, according to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form
8-K12B/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On July 10, 2013, Sprint Corporation (formerly known as Starburst
II, Inc.), a Delaware corporation ("New Sprint") and an indirect
subsidiary of SoftBank Corp., a Japanese kabushiki kaisha
("SoftBank"), and Sprint Nextel Corporation ("Sprint Nextel")
completed the merger (the "SoftBank Merger") contemplated by the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 15, 2012, as
amended as of November 29, 2012, April 12, 2013, and June 10,
2013, by and among New Sprint, Sprint Nextel, SoftBank, Starburst
I, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly owned
subsidiary of SoftBank, and Starburst III, Inc., a Kansas
corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of New Sprint
("Merger Sub").  In the Merger, Merger Sub was merged into Sprint
Nextel, New Sprint became the parent company of Sprint Nextel,
with Sprint Nextel becoming its direct wholly owned subsidiary,
and Sprint Nextel changed its name to "Sprint Communications,
Inc."

On July 9, 2013, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of December 17, 2012, as amended on April 18,
2013, May 21, 2013, and June 20, 2013, by and among Sprint Nextel,
Collie Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly
owned subsidiary of Sprint Nextel, and Clearwire Corporation, a
Delaware corporation ("Clearwire"), Sprint Nextel's acquisition of
Clearwire was consummated (the "Clearwire Acquisition").

In November 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Clearwire by Angelo Dennings in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington.  The complaint generally
alleges Clearwire slows network speeds when network demand is
highest and that such network management violates Clearwire's
agreements with subscribers and is contrary to Clearwire's
advertising and marketing claims.  The Plaintiffs also allege that
subscribers do not review the Terms of Service prior to
subscribing, and when subscribers cancel service due to network
management, Clearwire charges an early termination fee (ETF) or
restocking fee that they claim is unconscionable under the
circumstances.  The claims asserted include breach of contract,
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and unjust
enrichment.  The Plaintiffs seek class certification; unspecified
damages and restitution; a declaratory judgment that Clearwire's
ETF and restocking fee are unconscionable under the alleged
circumstances; an injunction prohibiting Clearwire from engaging
in alleged deceptive marketing and from charging ETFs; interest;
and attorneys' fees and costs.  On January 13, 2011, Clearwire
filed concurrent motions to compel arbitration and in the
alternative, to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.  In response to Clearwire's
motions, the plaintiff abandoned its fraud claim and amended its
complaint with fourteen additional plaintiffs in eight separate
jurisdictions.  The Plaintiff further added new claims of
violation of Consumer Protection statutes under various state
laws.

On March 31, 2011, Clearwire filed concurrent motions to (1)
compel the newly-added plaintiffs to arbitrate their individual
claims, (2) alternatively, to stay this case pending the United
States Supreme Court's decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v.
Concepcion, No. 09-893 (Concepcion), and (3) to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.  The Plaintiffs did not oppose Clearwire's motion to stay
the litigation pending Concepcion, and the parties stipulated to
stay the litigation.  The parties collectively settled the lawsuit
along with the matters Minnick v. Clearwire US, LLC, No. 2:09-cv-
00912-MJP (W.D. Wash.), and Newton v. Clearwire Corp., No. 2:11-
cv-00783-WBS-DAD (E.D. Cal.).  On December 19, 2012, the District
Court granted final approval of the settlement and entered final
judgment.  On January 18, 2013, Objectors appealed the Court's
approval of the settlement to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Plaintiffs then filed a motion for summary affirmance.  On
April 22, 2013, the Court of Appeals granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for summary affirmance and denied the objectors' appeal.
The Objectors then petitioned the Court of Appeals for a rehearing
of their appeal of the lower court's final approval of the
settlement.  The Objectors voluntarily withdrew their motion for
rehearing when the Plaintiffs challenged the Objectors' failure to
post the court mandated appeal bond.

On May 3, 2013, the district court approved the plaintiffs'
counsel fees and expenses.  On June 3, 2013, the Objectors
appealed the plaintiffs' fee award.  The Plaintiffs filed a second
motion for summary affirmance.  Clearwire has accrued an estimated
amount it anticipates to pay for the settlement in Other current
liabilities.  The amount accrued is considered immaterial to the
financial statements.

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


SPRINT CORP: Clearwire Awaits Ruling in "Minnick" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Clearwire Corporation is awaiting a court decision on a second
motion for summary affirmance filed by Chad Minnick, et al.,
according to Sprint Corporation's August 6, 2013, Form 8-K12B/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On July 10, 2013, Sprint Corporation (formerly known as Starburst
II, Inc.), a Delaware corporation ("New Sprint") and an indirect
subsidiary of SoftBank Corp., a Japanese kabushiki kaisha
("SoftBank"), and Sprint Nextel Corporation ("Sprint Nextel")
completed the merger (the "SoftBank Merger") contemplated by the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 15, 2012, as
amended as of November 29, 2012, April 12, 2013, and June 10,
2013, by and among New Sprint, Sprint Nextel, SoftBank, Starburst
I, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly owned
subsidiary of SoftBank, and Starburst III, Inc., a Kansas
corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of New Sprint
("Merger Sub").  In the Merger, Merger Sub was merged into Sprint
Nextel, New Sprint became the parent company of Sprint Nextel,
with Sprint Nextel becoming its direct wholly owned subsidiary,
and Sprint Nextel changed its name to "Sprint Communications,
Inc."

On July 9, 2013, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of December 17, 2012, as amended on April 18,
2013, May 21, 2013, and June 20, 2013, by and among Sprint Nextel,
Collie Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly
owned subsidiary of Sprint Nextel, and Clearwire Corporation, a
Delaware corporation ("Clearwire"), Sprint Nextel's acquisition of
Clearwire was consummated (the "Clearwire Acquisition").

In April 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Clearwire U.S. LLC in Superior Court in King County, Washington,
by a group of five plaintiffs (Chad Minnick, et al.).  The lawsuit
generally alleges that Clearwire disseminated false advertising
about the quality and reliability of its services; imposed an
unlawful early termination fee (ETF); and invoked allegedly
unconscionable provisions of its Terms of Service to the detriment
of subscribers.  Among other things, the lawsuit seeks a
determination that the alleged claims may be asserted on a class-
wide basis; an order declaring certain provisions of Clearwire's
Terms of Service, including the ETF provision, void and
unenforceable; an injunction prohibiting Clearwire from collecting
ETFs and further false advertising; restitution of any ETFs paid
by Clearwire's subscribers; equitable relief; and an award of
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.  The Plaintiffs
subsequently amended their complaint adding seven additional
plaintiffs.  Clearwire removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington. On July 23,
2009, Clearwire filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
The Court stayed discovery pending its ruling on the motion, and
on February 2, 2010, granted Clearwire's motion to dismiss in its
entirety.  The Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.  On March 29, 2011, the Court of Appeals entered an Order
Certifying Question to the Supreme Court of Washington requesting
guidance on a question of Washington state law.  On May 23, 2012,
the Washington Supreme Court issued a decision holding that an ETF
is a permissible alternative performance provision.  The Court of
Appeals has stayed the matter.  The parties collectively settled
the lawsuit along with the matters Dennings v. Clearwire Corp.,
No. C10-1859-JLR (W.D. Wash.), and Newton v. Clearwire Corp., No.
2:11-cv-00783-WBS-DAD (E.D. Cal.).  On December 19, 2012, the
District Court granted final approval of the settlement and
entered final judgment.

On January 18, 2013, Objectors appealed the Court's approval of
the settlement to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The
Plaintiffs then filed a motion for summary affirmance.  On
April 22, 2013, the Court of Appeals granted Plaintiffs' motion
for summary affirmance and denied the Objectors' appeal.
Objectors then petitioned the Court of Appeals for a rehearing of
their appeal of the final approval of the settlement.  Objectors
voluntarily withdrew their motion for rehearing when the
Plaintiffs challenged Objectors' failure to post the court
mandated appeal bond.  On May 3, 2013, the district court approved
the plaintiffs' counsel fees and expenses.  On June 3, 2013, the
Objectors appealed plaintiffs' fee award.  The Plaintiffs filed a
second motion for summary affirmance.  Clearwire has accrued an
estimated amount Clearwire anticipates to pay for the settlement
in Other current liabilities.  The amount accrued is considered
immaterial to the financial statements.

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


SPRINT CORP: Clearwire Defends "DeLeo" Class Suit in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Sprint Corporation is defending itself against a
merger-related class action lawsuit filed by David DeLeo in
Delaware, according to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form 8-K12B/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On July 10, 2013, Sprint Corporation (formerly known as Starburst
II, Inc.), a Delaware corporation ("New Sprint") and an indirect
subsidiary of SoftBank Corp., a Japanese kabushiki kaisha
("SoftBank"), and Sprint Nextel Corporation ("Sprint Nextel")
completed the merger (the "SoftBank Merger") contemplated by the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 15, 2012, as
amended as of November 29, 2012, April 12, 2013, and June 10,
2013, by and among New Sprint, Sprint Nextel, SoftBank, Starburst
I, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly owned
subsidiary of SoftBank, and Starburst III, Inc., a Kansas
corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of New Sprint
("Merger Sub").  In the Merger, Merger Sub was merged into Sprint
Nextel, New Sprint became the parent company of Sprint Nextel,
with Sprint Nextel becoming its direct wholly owned subsidiary,
and Sprint Nextel changed its name to "Sprint Communications,
Inc."

On July 9, 2013, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of December 17, 2012, as amended on April 18,
2013, May 21, 2013, and June 20, 2013, by and among Sprint Nextel,
Collie Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly
owned subsidiary of Sprint Nextel, and Clearwire Corporation, a
Delaware corporation ("Clearwire"), Sprint Nextel's acquisition of
Clearwire was consummated (the "Clearwire Acquisition").

On or about January 3, 2013, stockholder David DeLeo filed a
putative class action lawsuit in Delaware Court of Chancery
against Clearwire, its directors, Sprint and Merger Sub,
purportedly brought on behalf of public stockholders of Clearwire.
The lawsuit alleges that the directors of Clearwire breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed Merger, that
Sprint breached duties owed to Clearwire's public stockholders by
virtue of its alleged status as controlling stockholder, and that
Clearwire and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty by Sprint and the directors of Clearwire.  The
lawsuit also alleges that the Merger Consideration undervalues
Clearwire, that Sprint and the directors of Clearwire
misappropriated non-public information that was not disclosed to
the plaintiffs, and that the Proposed Merger was negotiated
pursuant to an unfair process.  The lawsuit seeks a declaratory
judgment that the proposed transaction between Sprint and
Clearwire was entered into in breach of Sprint's fiduciary duties,
an injunction preventing the proposed transaction between Sprint
and Clearwire and, should the Proposed Merger be consummated, to
rescind the Proposed Merger, and it seeks unspecified rescissory
and compensatory damages.  This litigation is in the early stages,
its outcome is unknown and an estimate of any potential losses
cannot be made at this time.

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


SPRINT CORP: Clearwire Defends "Lindsay" Suit in Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation's subsidiary is defending itself against a
class action lawsuit filed by Kenneth Lindsay, et al., in
Minnesota, according to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form 8-
K12B/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On July 10, 2013, Sprint Corporation (formerly known as Starburst
II, Inc.), a Delaware corporation ("New Sprint") and an indirect
subsidiary of SoftBank Corp., a Japanese kabushiki kaisha
("SoftBank"), and Sprint Nextel Corporation ("Sprint Nextel")
completed the merger (the "SoftBank Merger") contemplated by the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 15, 2012, as
amended as of November 29, 2012, April 12, 2013, and June 10,
2013, by and among New Sprint, Sprint Nextel, SoftBank, Starburst
I, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly owned
subsidiary of SoftBank, and Starburst III, Inc., a Kansas
corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of New Sprint
("Merger Sub").  In the Merger, Merger Sub was merged into Sprint
Nextel, New Sprint became the parent company of Sprint Nextel,
with Sprint Nextel becoming its direct wholly owned subsidiary,
and Sprint Nextel changed its name to "Sprint Communications,
Inc."

On July 9, 2013, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of December 17, 2012, as amended on April 18,
2013, May 21, 2013, and June 20, 2013, by and among Sprint Nextel,
Collie Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly
owned subsidiary of Sprint Nextel, and Clearwire Corporation, a
Delaware corporation ("Clearwire"), Sprint Nextel's acquisition of
Clearwire was consummated (the "Clearwire Acquisition").

In April 2013, Kenneth Lindsay, a former employee and others,
filed a purported collective class action lawsuit in U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota, against Clear Wireless LLC
and Workforce Logic LLC.  The Plaintiffs allege claims
individually and on behalf of a purported nationwide collective
class under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), from April 9,
2010 to present.  The lawsuit alleges that defendants violated the
FLSA, notably sections 201 and 207 and relevant regulations,
regarding failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay for hours
worked during breaks or work performed "off the clock" before,
during and after scheduled work shifts, overtime, improper
deductions, and improper withholding of wages, commissions and
bonuses.  The Plaintiffs seek back wages, unpaid wages, overtime,
liquidated damages, attorney fees and costs.  Clearwire filed an
answer to the complaint on April 30, 2013.  The litigation is in
the early stages, its outcome is unknown and an estimate of any
potential loss cannot be made at this time.

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


SPRINT CORP: Clearwire Defends "Wuest" Class Suit in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation's subsidiary is defending a class action
lawsuit brought by Richard Wuest in California, according to the
Company's August 6, 2013, Form 8-K12B/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On July 10, 2013, Sprint Corporation (formerly known as Starburst
II, Inc.), a Delaware corporation ("New Sprint") and an indirect
subsidiary of SoftBank Corp., a Japanese kabushiki kaisha
("SoftBank"), and Sprint Nextel Corporation ("Sprint Nextel")
completed the merger (the "SoftBank Merger") contemplated by the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 15, 2012, as
amended as of November 29, 2012, April 12, 2013, and June 10,
2013, by and among New Sprint, Sprint Nextel, SoftBank, Starburst
I, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly owned
subsidiary of SoftBank, and Starburst III, Inc., a Kansas
corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of New Sprint
("Merger Sub").  In the Merger, Merger Sub was merged into Sprint
Nextel, New Sprint became the parent company of Sprint Nextel,
with Sprint Nextel becoming its direct wholly owned subsidiary,
and Sprint Nextel changed its name to "Sprint Communications,
Inc."

On July 9, 2013, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of December 17, 2012, as amended on April 18,
2013, May 21, 2013, and June 20, 2013, by and among Sprint Nextel,
Collie Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly
owned subsidiary of Sprint Nextel, and Clearwire Corporation, a
Delaware corporation ("Clearwire"), Sprint Nextel's acquisition of
Clearwire was consummated (the "Clearwire Acquisition").

In August 2012, Richard Wuest filed a purported class action
against Clearwire in the California Superior Court, San Francisco
County.  The Plaintiff alleges that Clearwire violated
California's Invasion of Privacy Act, Penal Code 630, notably
Section 632.7, which prohibits the recording of communications
made from a cellular or cordless telephone without the consent of
all parties to the communication.  The Plaintiff seeks class
certification, statutory damages, injunctive relief, costs,
attorney fees, and pre and post judgment interest.  Clearwire
removed the matter to federal court.  On November 2, 2012,
Clearwire filed an answer to the complaint.  On May 31, 2013, the
Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint adding two Clearwire
call vendors to the lawsuit.  Clearwire filed an answer on
July 15, 2013.  Clearwire says the litigation is in the early
stages, its outcome is unknown and an estimate of any potential
loss cannot be made at this time.

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


SPRINT CORP: Clearwire Settled "Newton" Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation said in its August 6, 2013, Form 8-K12B/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that its
subsidiary has collectively settled the class action lawsuit
captioned Newton v. Clearwire, Inc., along with other similar
cases.

On July 10, 2013, Sprint Corporation (formerly known as Starburst
II, Inc.), a Delaware corporation ("New Sprint") and an indirect
subsidiary of SoftBank Corp., a Japanese kabushiki kaisha
("SoftBank"), and Sprint Nextel Corporation ("Sprint Nextel")
completed the merger (the "SoftBank Merger") contemplated by the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 15, 2012, as
amended as of November 29, 2012, April 12, 2013, and June 10,
2013, by and among New Sprint, Sprint Nextel, SoftBank, Starburst
I, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly owned
subsidiary of SoftBank, and Starburst III, Inc., a Kansas
corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of New Sprint
("Merger Sub").  In the Merger, Merger Sub was merged into Sprint
Nextel, New Sprint became the parent company of Sprint Nextel,
with Sprint Nextel becoming its direct wholly owned subsidiary,
and Sprint Nextel changed its name to "Sprint Communications,
Inc."

On July 9, 2013, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of December 17, 2012, as amended on April 18,
2013, May 21, 2013, and June 20, 2013, by and among Sprint Nextel,
Collie Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly
owned subsidiary of Sprint Nextel, and Clearwire Corporation, a
Delaware corporation ("Clearwire"), Sprint Nextel's acquisition of
Clearwire was consummated (the "Clearwire Acquisition").

In March 2011, a purported class action was filed against
Clearwire in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California.  The case, Newton v. Clearwire, Inc. [sic], alleges
Clearwire's network management and advertising practices
constitute breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unfair
competition under California's Business and Professions Code
Sections 17200 et seq., and violation of California's Consumers'
Legal Remedies Act.  The Plaintiff contends Clearwire's
advertisements of "no speed cap" and "unlimited data" are false
and misleading.  The Plaintiff alleges Clearwire has breached its
contracts with customers by not delivering the Internet service as
advertised.  The Plaintiff also claims slow data speeds are due to
Clearwire's network management practices.  The Plaintiff seeks
class certification; declaratory and injunctive relief;
unspecified restitution and/or disgorgement of fees paid for
Clearwire service; and unspecified damages, interest, fees and
costs.  On June 9, 2011, Clearwire filed a motion to compel
arbitration.  The parties collectively settled the lawsuit along
with the matters Dennings v. Clearwire Corp., No. C10-1859-JLR
(W.D. Wash.), and Minnick v. Clearwire US, LLC, No. 2:09-cv-00912-
MJP (W.D. Wash.).

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


SPRINT CORP: Defends "Feigeles" Merger-Related Suit vs. Unit
------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation's subsidiary is defending itself against a
class action lawsuit brought by Kenneth L. Feigeles in Delaware,
according to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form 8-K12B/A filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On July 10, 2013, Sprint Corporation (formerly known as Starburst
II, Inc.), a Delaware corporation ("New Sprint") and an indirect
subsidiary of SoftBank Corp., a Japanese kabushiki kaisha
("SoftBank"), and Sprint Nextel Corporation ("Sprint Nextel")
completed the merger (the "SoftBank Merger") contemplated by the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 15, 2012, as
amended as of November 29, 2012, April 12, 2013, and June 10,
2013, by and among New Sprint, Sprint Nextel, SoftBank, Starburst
I, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly owned
subsidiary of SoftBank, and Starburst III, Inc., a Kansas
corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of New Sprint
("Merger Sub").  In the Merger, Merger Sub was merged into Sprint
Nextel, New Sprint became the parent company of Sprint Nextel,
with Sprint Nextel becoming its direct wholly owned subsidiary,
and Sprint Nextel changed its name to "Sprint Communications,
Inc."

On July 9, 2013, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of December 17, 2012, as amended on April 18,
2013, May 21, 2013, and June 20, 2013, by and among Sprint Nextel,
Collie Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly
owned subsidiary of Sprint Nextel, and Clearwire Corporation, a
Delaware corporation ("Clearwire"), Sprint Nextel's acquisition of
Clearwire was consummated (the "Clearwire Acquisition").

On December 28, 2012, stockholder Kenneth L. Feigeles filed a
putative class action lawsuit in Delaware Court of Chancery
against Clearwire, its directors, Sprint, Merger Sub and Eagle
River, purportedly brought on behalf of the public stockholders of
Clearwire.  The lawsuit alleges that the directors of Clearwire
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed
Merger, that Sprint breached duties owed to Clearwire's public
stockholders by virtue of its alleged status as controlling
stockholder, and that Clearwire, Sprint, Merger Sub and Eagle
River aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by
Sprint and the directors of Clearwire.  The lawsuit also alleges
that the Merger Consideration undervalues Clearwire, and that the
Proposed Merger was negotiated pursuant to an unfair process.  The
lawsuit seeks to enjoin the Proposed Merger and, should the
Proposed Merger be consummated, to rescind the Proposed Merger,
and it seeks unspecified rescissory and compensatory damages.
This litigation is in the early stages, its outcome is unknown and
an estimate of any potential losses cannot be made at this time.

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


TARGET CORP: Recalls Threshold Floor Lamps Due to Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Target Corp. of Minneapolis, Minn., announced a voluntary recall
of about 25,000 and 541 in Canada White 2-Bulb Floor Lamp.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The lamp can short when a standard one-way bulb is fully tightened
in the lamp's three-way socket, posing a fire and shock hazard to
consumers.

Target has received six reports of short circuiting which have
resulted in fires, minor property damage and two consumers being
shocked.

The recall includes white plastic, turned-spindle design floor
lamps with white fabric drum lamp shades and two 3-way pull-chain
switches.  Lamp is illuminated by two 3-way 100-watt or 29-watt
CFL bulbs and stands approximately 60 inches tall.  The model
number PL1071 is located on a sticker on the bottom of the lamp.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/6VFZxR

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Target stores nationwide and Target.com from
September 2012 through May 2013 for about $70.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled lamp, unplug
it and return it to any Target store for a full refund.


TMS INT'L: Being Sold to Pritzker for Too Little, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Bushansky, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. TMS International Corp., Joseph Curtin, Raymond S.
Kalouche, Timothy A.R. Duncanson, Manish K. Srivastava, Colin
Osborne, John J. Connelly, Patrick W. Tolbert, and Herbert K.
Parker, Case No. 8853-VCG (Del. Ch. Ct., August 30, 2013) is a
stockholder class action brought in connection with the proposed
acquisition of TMS by The Pritzker Organization LLC through
Crystal Acquisition Company, Inc. and Crystal Merger Sub, Inc.

The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from pursuing the
Proposed Transaction, or in the event that the Proposed
Transaction is consummated, recover damages resulting from the
Defendants' wrongful conduct.  In pursuing the Proposed
Transaction, the Plaintiff alleges that each Defendant has
violated applicable laws by directly breaching fiduciary duties of
loyalty, good faith, independence, fair dealing, and due care owed
to the Plaintiff and the proposed class.

Mr. Bushansky owns TMS common stock.

TMS is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Glassport,
Pennsylvania.  Through its subsidiaries, TMS is the largest
provider of outsourced industrial services to steel mills in North
America as measured by revenue.  TMS provides mill services at 81
customer sites in 12 countries and operates 36 brokerage offices
from which it buys and sells raw materials across five continents.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the
Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
          O'KELLY ERNST &BIELLI, LLC
          901 North Market Street, Suite 1000
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 778-4000
          Facsimile: (302) 295-2873
          E-mail: rernst@oeblegal.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.
          Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
          Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 682-3025
          Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
          E-mail: jweiss@weisslawllp.com
                  racocelli@weisslawllp.com
                  mrogovin@weisslawllp.com


TOYOTA: Recalls GS 350, IS 350, and IS 350C Models
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:              September 4, 2013
Type of communication:      Recall
Subcategory:                Car
Notification type:          Safety Mfr
System:                     Engine
Units affected:             3922
Source of recall:           Transport Canada
Identification number:      2013297
TC ID number:               2013297
Manufacturer recall number: 217

On certain vehicles, the bolts used to secure the housing and
sprocket of the intake-side Variable-Valve Timing (VVT) gear
assembly could loosen.  If this occurs, the VVT gear will not
control the intake valves correctly.  In some instances, the VVT
gear housing and sprocket could separate, causing the engine to
stall.  Engine stalling would result in a loss of vehicle
propulsion which, in conjunction with traffic and road conditions,
and the driver's reactions, could increase the risk of a crash
causing property damage and/or personal injury.

Dealers will replace the VVT unit with an improved version.

Affected products:

   Make       Model       Model year(s) affected
   ----       -----       ----------------------
   LEXUS      IS 350      2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011
   LEXUS      GS 350      2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011
   LEXUS      IS350C      2010, 2011


UNITED PARCEL: Still Faces Labor Suits in State, Federal Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. is a defendant in a number of lawsuits
filed in state and federal courts containing various class action
allegations under state wage-and-hour laws, according to the
company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

At this time, the company does not believe that any loss
associated with these matters, would have a material adverse
effect on the company's financial condition, results of operations
or liquidity.

UPS and the company's subsidiary Mail Boxes Etc., Inc. are
defendants in a lawsuit in California Superior Court about the
rebranding of The UPS Store franchises.  In the Morgate case, the
plaintiffs are (1) 125 individual franchisees who did not rebrand
to The UPS Store and (2) a certified class of all franchisees who
did rebrand.

With respect to the 125 individual franchisees described in (1)
above, the trial court entered judgment against a bellwether
individual plaintiff, which was affirmed in January 2012.  In
March 2013, the company reached a settlement in principle with the
remaining individual plaintiffs who did not rebrand.  The company
believes this settlement will not have a material adverse effect
on the company's financial condition, results of operations or
liquidity.

The trial court granted the company's motion for summary judgment
against the certified class described in (2) above, which was
reversed in January 2012.  The company has not reached a
settlement with this class of franchisees, and the claims of the
class remain pending.


UNITED PARCEL: Suits Over Brokerage Services in Canada Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. provides updates on suits filed
against it in Canada over alleged inadequate disclosure concerning
the existence and cost of brokerage services on the company's Aug.
2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In Canada, four purported class-action cases were filed against
the company in British Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007) and Quebec
(2006 and 2013). The cases each allege inadequate disclosure
concerning the existence and cost of brokerage services provided
by the company under applicable provincial consumer protection
legislation and infringement of interest restriction provisions
under the Criminal Code of Canada.

The British Columbia class action was declared inappropriate for
certification and dismissed by the trial judge. That decision was
upheld by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010,
which ended the case in the company's favor. The Ontario class
action was certified in September 2011. Partial summary judgment
was granted to the company and the plaintiffs by the Ontario
motions court. The complaint under the Criminal Code was
dismissed. No appeal is being taken from that decision.

The allegations of inadequate disclosure were granted and The
company is appealing that decision. The motion to authorize the
2006 Quebec litigation as a class action was dismissed by the
motions judge in October 2012; there was no appeal, which ended
that case in the company's favor. The 2013 Quebec litigation also
has been dismissed.

The company denies all liability and are vigorously defending the
one outstanding case in Ontario. There are multiple factors that
prevent the company from being able to estimate the amount of
loss, if any, that may result from this matter, including: (1) the
company is vigorously defending ourselves and believe that the
company has a number of meritorious legal defenses; and (2) there
are unresolved questions of law and fact that could be important
to the ultimate resolution of this matter. Accordingly, at this
time, the company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range
of loss that may result from this matter or to determine whether
such loss, if any, would have a material adverse effect on the
company's financial condition, results of operation or liquidity.


UNITED PARCEL: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Junk Price Fixing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion filed by United Parcel Service, Inc. to dismiss a suit
alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of
freight forwarding services is pending before the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, according to
the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

In January 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of
freight forwarding services. UPS was not named in this case.

In July 2009, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint
naming numerous global freight forwarders as defendants. UPS and
UPS Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60 defendants named in
the amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint in October 2010, which the company moved to dismiss.

In August 2012, the Court granted the company's motion to dismiss
all claims relevant to UPS in the Second Amended Complaint, with
leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint in
November 2012. The company filed another motion to dismiss, which
is currently pending before the Court, and will otherwise
vigorously defend ourselves in this case.

There are multiple factors that prevent the company from being
able to estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from
these matters including: (1) the court has dismissed the complaint
once but has not considered the adequacy of the amended complaint;
(2) the scope and size of the proposed class is ill-defined; (3)
there are significant legal questions about the adequacy and
standing of the putative class representatives; and (4) the
company believes that it has a number of meritorious legal
defenses. Accordingly, at this time, the company is not able to
estimate a possible loss or range of loss that may result from
these matters or to determine whether such loss, if any, would
have a material adverse effect on the company's financial
condition, results of operations or liquidity.


UNITED STATES: Court Reverses Ruling in Medicare Suit vs. DOH
-------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports that the 9th
Circuit on Wednesday, September 4, 2013, reversed orders that
would have barred the government from demanding that patients
disputing their bills reimburse Medicare up front.

The three lead plaintiffs in the underlying class action were
injured in car accidents or at work, and Medicare covered their
hospital bills. Before they received any money for their injuries,
the government sent them letters demanding reimbursement within 60
days of receiving their settlements. In each case, the patients
were told to pay even as they challenged the government's bills.

They sued Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the Department of Health
and Human Services, claiming she overstepped her authority by
demanding payment before their appeals had been resolved or their
waiver applications processed.

The Medicare patients further argued that the secretary's demand
violated their due-process rights.

John Balentine, an attorney for one of the lead plaintiffs, also
challenged Sebelius' authority to force attorneys to withhold any
settlement funds until Medicare gets reimbursed.

U.S. District Judge David Bury sided with the beneficiaries and
Balentine, and barred the government from demanding upfront
reimbursements.

The 9th Circuit, however, ruled that the lower court lacked
jurisdiction, because the Medicare patients failed to present
their claim to the agency before taking it to court.

The lead plaintiffs "did not provide an opportunity for the
Secretary to consider the claim that her interpretation of the
secondary payer provisions exceeded her authority," Judge Morgan
Christen wrote for the panel.

Because he is not a Medicare beneficiary, Balentine does not have
to go through the same administrative channels, the court ruled.

But it ruled against him on the merits of his claim, saying the
government's interpretation of the reimbursement provision is
"reasonable."

We conclude the Secretary's interpretation of the reimbursement
provision is rational and consistent with the statute's text,
history, and purpose," Judge Christen wrote, reversing Judge
Bury's second injunction.

The 9th Circuit sent the case back to the district court for a
ruling on the beneficiaries' due-process claim.

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Gill Deford, Esq.
          CENTER FOR MEDICARE ADVOCACY, INC.
          P.O. Box 350
          Willimantic, CT 06226
          Telephone: (860) 456-7790

The Defendant-Appellant is represented by:

          Adam D. Kirschner, Esq.
          DOJ - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          20 Massachusetts Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 353-9265

               - and -

          Alisa Beth Klein, Esq.
          Mark B. Stern, Esq.
          DOJ - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20530

The appellate case is Patricia Haro, et al v. Kathleen Sebelius,
Case No. 11-16606, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.  The original case is Patricia Haro, et al v.
Kathleen Sebelius, Case No. 4:09-cv-00134-DCB, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona.


URS CORP: Awaits Order on Judgment Bid in Hurricane Katrina Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
URS Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its subsidiary's
motion for summary judgment in the class action lawsuits related
to the destruction and injuries brought by Hurricane Katrina,
according to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 28, 2013.

From July 1999 through May 2005, Washington Group International,
Inc., an Ohio company ("WGI Ohio"), a wholly owned subsidiary
acquired by the Company on November 15, 2007, performed
demolition, site preparation, and environmental remediation
services for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the east bank of
the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (the "Industrial Canal") in New
Orleans, Louisiana.  On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina
devastated New Orleans.  The storm surge created by the hurricane
overtopped the Industrial Canal levee and floodwall, flooding the
Lower Ninth Ward and other parts of the city.  Fifty-nine personal
injury and property damage class action lawsuits were filed in
Louisiana State and federal court against several defendants,
including WGI Ohio, seeking $200.0 billion in damages plus
attorneys' fees and costs.  The Plaintiffs are residents and
property owners who claim to have incurred damages from the breach
and failure of the hurricane protection levees and floodwalls in
the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

All 59 lawsuits were pleaded as class actions but none have yet
been certified as class actions.  Along with WGI Ohio, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the Board for the Orleans Levee District,
and its insurer, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company were
also named as defendants.  At this time WGI Ohio and the Army
Corps of Engineers are the remaining defendants.  These 59
lawsuits, along with other hurricane-related cases not involving
WGI Ohio, were consolidated in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana ("District Court").

The Plaintiffs allege that defendants were negligent in their
design, construction and/or maintenance of the New Orleans levees.
Specifically, as to WGI Ohio, the plaintiffs allege that work WGI
Ohio performed adjacent to the Industrial Canal damaged the levee
and floodwall, causing or contributing to breaches and flooding.
WGI Ohio did not design, construct, repair or maintain any of the
levees or the floodwalls that failed during or after Hurricane
Katrina.  Rather, WGI Ohio performed work adjacent to the
Industrial Canal as a contractor for the federal government.

WGI Ohio filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal on
grounds that government contractors are immune from liability.  On
December 15, 2008, the District Court granted WGI Ohio's motion
for summary judgment, but several plaintiffs appealed that
decision to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on
April 27, 2009.  On September 14, 2010, the Court of Appeals
reversed the District Court's summary judgment decision and WGI
Ohio's dismissal, and remanded the case back to the District Court
for further litigation.  On August 1, 2011, the District Court
decided that the government contractor immunity defense would not
be available to WGI Ohio at trial, but would be an issue for
appeal.  Five of the cases were tried in District Court from
September 12, 2012 through October 3, 2012.  On April 12, 2013,
the District Court ruled in favor of WGI Ohio and the Army Corps
of Engineers, finding that the five plaintiffs failed to prove
that WGI Ohio's or the Army Corps of Engineers' actions caused the
failure of the Industrial Canal floodwall during Hurricane
Katrina.  On July 1, 2013, WGI Ohio filed a motion for summary
judgment in District Court to dismiss all other related cases as a
result of the District Court's April 2013 decision.

WGI Ohio intends to continue to defend these matters vigorously;
however, WGI Ohio cannot provide assurance that it will be
successful in these efforts.  The potential range of loss and the
resolution of these matters cannot be determined at this time
primarily due to the likelihood of an appeal, the unknown number
of individual plaintiffs who are actually asserting claims against
WGI Ohio; the uncertainty regarding the nature and amount of each
individual plaintiff's damage claims; uncertainty concerning legal
theories and factual bases that plaintiffs may present and their
resolution by courts or regulators; and uncertainty about the
plaintiffs' claims, if any, that might survive certain key motions
of the Company's affiliate, as well as a number of additional
factors.

Headquartered in San Francisco, California, URS Corporation
provides engineering, construction, and technical services to
public agencies and private sector clients worldwide.  The Company
plans, designs, engineers, constructs, retrofits, and maintains
various power-generating facilities, and systems that transmit and
distribute electricity, as well as develops and installs clean air
technologies.


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Judge Approves Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on Aug. 28 approved an adjusted class settlement
between Verizon Communications Inc. and consumers who say they
were hit with unauthorized third-party charges on landline phone
bills, but said the court was reviewing a $7.5 million attorneys'
fee award.

U.S. District Court Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong gave the final
nod to a deal that would resolve allegations that Verizon failed
to include safeguards in its third-party billing and collection
system to prevent "cramming" -- the addition of unauthorized
charges onto customers' bills.  The settlement, which Judge
Armstrong preliminarily approved in February 2012, offers class
members either a $40 flat payment or a full refund of charges
stemming from the alleged practice.

The parties agreed to modify the settlement in March after the
U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice
weighed in, urging the court to reject the deal over concerns that
it would unfairly shield Verizon and others from future claims and
might prevent the FTC and other regulators from mounting separate
enforcement actions, all while providing class members with only
"illusory recovery," according to the order.

"The settlement in this action was reached after the parties
engaged in discovery, litigated a motion to dismiss, and
participated in mediation that involved an extensive exchange of
information, multiple briefings, and six all-day mediation
sessions," Judge Armstrong said.  "The fact that the settlement
was reached at this juncture of the proceedings supports the
conclusion that the parties' decision to settle was a fully
informed one."

After the parties filed a stipulation with the court outlining
several modifications to the settlement agreement, the FTC
withdrew from the final approval hearing on the deal, saying the
adjustments outlined in the stipulation "significantly improve the
settlement for consumers" by no longer releasing third-party
service providers from future claims, making clear that government
agencies are not precluded from pursuing enforcement and providing
stronger protections for class members whose claims are
challenged, according to Judge Armstrong.

The judge noted that the court had referred the matter of the $7.5
million set aside for attorneys fees to a magistrate judge in
July, and would therefore defer any final decision on the matter
pending that judge's decision, though she did approve a $5,000
incentive award to named class representatives Desiree Moore and
Karen Jones.

Ms. Moore and Ms. Jones launched the suit in April 2009, claiming
the company was aware of widespread third-party cramming but
failed to institute safeguards to ensure that customers were being
billed only for authorized charges.

Under the deal granted preliminary approval in February 2012,
Verizon was required to tell customers annually that they can
block some third-party charges on their bill by calling a toll-
free number and to ask new customers whether they would like to
block third-party charges for free before processing their orders.

Within six months after the settlement becomes final, Verizon
would apply a 0.5 percent threshold for customer complaints that
lead to a refund of a third-party charge.  The company then would
lower the complaint threshold to 0.25 percent threshold within one
year of settlement's effective date.

Bill aggregators and third-party service providers would be
required to keep total complaints for third-party charges below
that threshold or face suspension.

The FTC cited several problems with the settlement last August,
and while many of those concerns were addressed in the March
stipulation, Judge Armstrong noted that the agency was still
"generally concerned" that the claims process includes a number of
hurdles that could impede class members from obtaining recovery.

The agency instead suggested that, given the "extremely low
incidence of legitimate third-party charges," a more reasonable
method would involve scrapping the claims process altogether and
simply providing refunds to consumers who paid any such charges,
unless there is reasonable evidence the charge was legitimate,
according to the order.

"Although it is clear that adopting the FTC's proposal would be a
better outcome for the class than the claims-made process agreed
to by the parties, the court finds that the FTC has failed to
demonstrate that the settlement should be rejected," Judge
Armstrong said. "The proper standard for approval of the
settlement is whether it is fair, reasonable, adequate, and free
from collusion -- not whether the class members could have
received a better deal in exchange for the release of their
claims."

Representatives for the parties were not immediately available on
Aug. 29 for comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey F. Keller of Keller
Grover LLP, John G. Jacobs -- jgjacobs@jacobskolton.com -- and
Bryan G. Kolton -- bgkolton@jacobskolton.com -- of Jacobs Kolton
Chtd., Michael W. Sobol -- msobol@lchb.com -- and Jahan C. Sagafi
-- jsagafi@lchb.com -- of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP
and David Schachman of David Schachman & Associates PC.

Verizon is represented by Henry Weissmann --
Henry.Weissmann@mto.com -- Rosemarie T. Ring -- Rose.Ring@mto.com
-- Avi Braz and Gabriel P. Sanchez of Munger Tolles & Olson LLP.

The case is Moore et al. v. Verizon Communications Inc. et al.,
case number 4:09-cv-01823, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


WAL-MART CANADA: Recalls Various Ventura Brand Tents
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 5, 2013
Posting date:             September 5, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Outdoor Living
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety, Flammability Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-35405

Affected products: Various Ventura Brand Tents which includes:

   Scout Junior Dome Tent 6' x 5';
   Scout Junior Dome Tent 6' x 5';
   Scout Junior Dome Tent 6' x 5';
   Scout Junior Dome Tent 6' x 5';
   Scout Junior Dome Tent 6' x 5';
   Cabin Tent;
   Dome Tent;
   Hiker Dome Tent 7.5' x 5';
   Sport Dome Tent 9' x 8';
   Family Dome Tent 10' x 8';
   Two Room Family Dome Tent 13' x 10';
   Two Room Family Dome Tent 16' x 9';
   Cabin Dome Tent 7' x 6';
   Cabin Dome Tent 7' x 6'; and
   Cabin Dome Tent 7' x 6'

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has identified
that the flooring material(s) used in the recalled tents may not
meet the requirements for tent flammability under Canadian law.
The tents could catch fire if exposed to a flame or other ignition
source, and pose possible burn hazard to consumers.

Neither Health Canada nor Wal-Mart Canada Corporation has received
reports of incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use
of these tents.

Approximately 82,000 of the recalled tents were sold at Wal-Mart
retail stores across Canada.

The recalled tents were manufactured in both China and Cambodia
and sold from February 2013 to August 2013.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Xiamen Unipros Camping Products Co. Ltd.
                    Fujian
                    China

   Distributor      Wal-Mart Canada Corporation
                    Mississauga
                    Ontario
                    Canada

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled tents.  The
products can be returned to a Wal-Mart Canada retail store for a
refund.


WAL-MART INC: Accused of Falsely Advertising Equate Product
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thamar Santisteban Cortina, on behalf of herself, and all others
similarly situated and the general public v. Wal-Mart, Inc., Case
No. 3:13-cv-02054-JAH-DHB (S.D. Cal., September 3, 2013) accuses
Wal-Mart of selling defective product and of false advertising.

Coenzyme Q10, or CoQ10, is a dietary supplement with many
potential benefits, especially to heart health.  Wal-Mart sells a
self-branded CoQ10 product, Equate Co-Q10, which claims it
provides "clinical strength," "high absorption," and "3x better
absorption" than competing products.

The Plaintiff contends that the claim is false.  She argues that
independent laboratory analysis demonstrates Equate does not meet
the industry standard dissolution for effectiveness, much less
offer "3 times better absorption" than competitors.

Ms. Cortina is a resident of Bonita, California, in San Diego
County.

Wal-Mart is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Bentonville,
Arkansas.  Wal-Mart sells Equate in its retail stores throughout
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
          2850 4th Ave., Suite 11
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-3840
          Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
          E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

               - and -

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Skye Resendes, Esq.
          Alexis M. Wood, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  skye@consumersadvocates.com
                  alexis@consumersadvocates.com


WASTE MANAGEMENT: East St. Louis Seeks Dismissal of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reports
that judges of a federal court that has run for 103 years in East
St. Louis should understand the necessity of trash removal, the
city pleads in a class action.

On Aug. 26, the city moved to dismiss a claim that its nuisance
citations violate due process and unlawfully benefit its exclusive
trash hauler, Waste Management.

"The court itself is a long term resident of the city occupying
the same courthouse since 1910 and should be familiar with this
history and the conditions in the community and neighborhood
surrounding its own courthouse," John Sabo wrote for the city.

"The city requests the court take judicial notice of this history
and the fact that the city is engaged in a long term struggle
against the illegal and improper accumulation and dumping of trash
and garbage," he wrote.

He identified Scott Sieron as president of three plaintiff
corporations that own nearly 150 parcels in the city.

"The real crux of plaintiffs' complaint is that the plaintiffs, as
absentee landlords, don't want to pay for trash collection service
or be otherwise responsible for the condition of trash on their
properties," Mr. Sabo wrote.

"The class action complaint represents an effort to obtain from
the city through the intimidation of a class action what they
admit they could not achieve by means of negotiation."

Alvin Paulson of Belleville sued the city and Waste Management
Inc., on July 2.

Mr. Paulson wrote, "The citations are given indiscriminately and
force city residents to come to the city's municipal building,
costing those affected time and money."

"This practice is a form of harassment and unduly burdens low
income individuals and minorities."

The complaint alleges 17 counts against the city and two against
Waste Management, claiming the city acts as debt collector for
Waste Management.

Mr. Paulson wrote that the city issues citations to those on a
list that Waste Management submits.  The list includes residents
who do not have trash service and Waste Management customers with
delinquent bills.

He also wrote that officers without training conducted hearings on
citations.

"No Illinois state statute requires a person to have a trash
service provider," Mr. Paulson wrote.  He proposed to represent
all who received citations for failure to have trash service,
estimating their number in hundreds if not thousands.

Sabo answered that Illinois municipalities with home rule powers
may adopt their own system of administrative adjudication.

The city's answer states that appeals may be made pursuant to the
Illinois administrative review law or by petition to an Illinois
circuit court.

Mr. Sabo wrote that trash collection service is mandatory under an
ordinance that the complaint didn't refer to.  He states that
plaintiffs failed to establish that the city acts as debt
collector and that a citation doesn't refer to any alleged
delinquency in a recipient's account with Waste Management.  He
defended due process, writing that plaintiffs didn't allege they
were subjected to a determination where a hearing officer was the
person who issued the citation.

"Instead they allege that this occurs based upon their information
and belief indicating that it has not happened to plaintiffs, but
they suspect or speculate that it has occurred to others,"
Mr. Sabo wrote.

"One cannot sue in a federal court to enforce someone else's legal
rights.

"It is also difficult to discern from the allegations in the
complaint how the hearing officer was not trained and how that
alleged lack of training infringed upon their right of due
process."

Mr. Sabo wrote that plaintiffs didn't attack the validity of the
city's nuisance ordinances.

Residents without trash collection, he wrote, have few options
other than to allow it to accumulate in their yards, homes,
adjacent properties, nearby alleys, and vacant lots.

"The court need only look to the city's recent history to recall
that this is what happened when there was no trash collection in
the city between 1987 and 1992 due to the city's financial
issues," Sabo wrote.

After Mr. Paulson filed Mr. Sieron's suit, he failed to serve it
on Waste Management because he named the wrong corporation.  He
amended the complaint on Aug. 26, and Waste Management accepted
service.

Chief Judge David Herndon set a Sept. 27 deadline for Waste
Management's answer.

While pursuing his own practice in cases like this, Mr. Paulson
also serves as special assistant to St. Clair County State's
Attorney Brendan Kelly in civil litigation.

Last year the county paid Mr. Paulson's firm $333,240.50.


WELLS FARGO: Judge Refuses to Certify Class of Bankers in OT Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Randles, writing for Law360, reports that a group of
Wells Fargo Bank NA employees on Aug. 28 lost a bid to have their
complaint alleging they were stiffed overtime pay proceed as a
class action, as a New York judge ruled the workers failed to
present evidence of a common bank policy requiring off-the-clock
work.

U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel refused the plaintiffs' motion
to certify a statewide class of Wells Fargo bankers under New York
labor law and a collective action class under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  The court also refused to certify a statewide
class of Wachovia Corp. financial specialists who also allege they
were not paid overtime.

"Plaintiffs have not established by a preponderance of the
evidence that the personal bankers of Wells Fargo or the financial
specialists of Wachovia were subject to a common, New York-wide
policy to limit their recorded hours or require off-the-clock
work," Judge Castle said.

The court poked holes in the individual declarations that were
submitted in support of the motion for class certification, in
particular the deposition testimony of one of the named
plaintiffs, Jim Akasala, who worked for both Wells Fargo and
Wachovia.

Wells Fargo acquired Wachovia in 2008.  Following the acquisition,
Wells Fargo changed the financial specialist title to personal
banker.

The plaintiffs argued that financial specialists in New York were
told not to record overtime because additional hours would not be
approved.  However, Mr. Akasala's statements cited in support of
that claim don't back up the accusation, Judge Castle said.

Mr. Akasala's deposition testimony does not mention any specific
instructions from Wells Fargo or Wachovia management, and instead
recounts incidents in which he allegedly was not properly
compensated for the overtime hours he worked, according to the
ruling.

"This may be evidence of unlawful conduct directed toward Akasala
personally, but it is not evidence of a common New York policy
concerning overtime," Judge Castle said.

The plaintiffs had sought to certify a class of New York-based
Wells Fargo personal bankers under the state's labor laws, as well
as an FLSA collective action for similarly situated employees
working New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware and Pennsylvania.  They
also moved to certify a separate class of Wachovia financial
specialists.

The lawsuit against Wells Fargo was filed last year by former
personal bankers Akasala, David Fernandez and Joseph Scutts.  The
plaintiffs claim Wells Fargo routinely requires its workers to
work before and after their scheduled shifts.

Wells Fargo has publicly denied the accusation, and stated that it
compensates all of its employees appropriately and in accordance
with state and federal law.

The Aug. 27 ruling marks at least the second time in recent months
Wells Fargo has defeated a similar class certification bid.  Last
year, a Texas federal judge refused to certify an FLSA collective
action class in a separate lawsuit that accuses Wells Fargo of
similar wage-and-hour violations.

Representatives for Wells Fargo and the plaintiffs could not
immediately be reached for comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Michael DiChiara --
md@kdlawllc.com -- of Krakower DiChiara LLC, Rhonda H. Wills of
Wills Law Firm PLLC and by John M. Padilla of Padilla Rodriguez &
de la Garza LLP.

Wells Fargo is represented by Timothy M. Watson, Esteban
Shardonofsky, Robert S. Whitman and Adam J. Smiley of Seyfarth
Shaw LLP.

The cases are David Fernandez et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, case
number 1:12-cv-07193; and Joseph Scutts et al. v. Wachovia Corp.
et al., case number 1:12-cv-07194; both in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.


ZOO ENTERTAINMENT: 6th Cir. Dismisses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that the Sixth Circuit
dismissed a shareholder securities class action accusing Zoo
Entertainment Inc. of publishing false financial statements that
caused its stock to drop 34.3 percent, ruling on Aug. 27 that it
didn't support a strong inference that Zoo acted with scienter.

Affirming an Ohio federal court's decision, the three-judge panel
found that shareholder Bruce E. Ricker failed to allege multiple,
obvious red flags usually required to support claims of
recklessness.

Mr. Ricker claimed an accountant for the video game software
developer warned its chief executives that a major customer was
failing to pay on time, and thus Zoo's filings with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission would be inaccurate.

The Sixth Circuit decided that Zoo's financial reporting
irregularities weren't a result of securities fraud but rather an
inadequate finance staff, which the company had previously
admitted was a problem.

"Ricker has simply failed to state facts giving rise to a strong
inference of recklessness," the Aug. 27 decision said.

Over the course of the 2010 fiscal year, Zoo claimed record
revenue in SEC filings, including $17.13 million in the first
quarter, $10.47 million in the second and $17.58 million in the
third.

In a press release issued the following April, Zoo said that a
year-end audit revealed errors in recording transactions,
according to court documents.  The company lowered its 2010
quarterly revenue figures by between 2 and 6 percent, and stock
subsequently plummeted.

Mr. Ricker's suit cited information provided by an anonymous ex-
Zoo accountant alleging that problems with one of its biggest
customers, Cokem International Ltd., were behind the inaccurate
revenue figures.

Even though Cokem accounted for a 40 percent share of Zoo's net
revenue in 2010, the company never paid Zoo on time, according to
court documents.  David Rosenbaum, the primary salesman for the
Cokem account, allegedly cut deals in which the company didn't
have to pay all the money it owed.

Due to these irregularities, the accountant couldn't accurately
project cash flow or evaluate billing issues, court documents
said.  The accountant said she advised CEO Mark Seremet and CFO
David Fremed to be wary of Mr. Rosenbaum and Cokem, but to no
avail.

Mr. Ricker alleged that Messrs. Seremet and Fremed continued to
let Mr. Rosenbaum manage the Cokem account, even though they knew
the problems associated with it.  He also accused Zoo of knowing
it had weak internal controls leading to the allegedly reckless
SEC filings.

In July 2012, an Ohio federal judge dismissed the suit, holding
that Zoo might have been financially mismanaged but didn't
deliberately mislead the public about its revenues.  Even if Zoo
knew that the Cokem account was problematic, such didn't mean the
company necessarily should have known its financial statements
were false, the judge ruled.

The Sixth Circuit agreed with the lower court, adding that Ricker
didn't alert the district court to Zoo's 2011 SEC information,
despite having plenty of time to do so.  The information showed
that Cokem only accounted for 11 percent of Zoo's gross revenue in
that fiscal year.

While Ricker argued that the Cokem share decline was due to Zoo's
alleged recklessness, it could have been attributed to
Mr. Rosenbaum's exit from the company or the general decline in
the U.S. economy, according to the three-judge panel.

John F. Sylvia -- JSylvia@mintz.com -- of Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris
Glovsky & Popeo PC, which is representing the defendants, told
Law360 on Aug. 27 that they are pleased with the Sixth Circuit's
decision.

"The opinion is very straightforward . . . and focused on the
issue that was before the judge below -- that the plaintiffs had
not alleged scienter," he said.

Attorneys for Mr. Ricker didn't immediately respond on Aug. 27 to
requests for comment.

U.S. Circuit Judges Alan Eugene Norris, Deborah L. Cook and David
William McKeague sat on the panel for the Sixth Circuit.

Mr. Ricker is represented by Jacob A. Goldberg and Sandra G. Smith
of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP and Richard S. Wayne --
rswayne@strausstroy.com -- and Thomas P. Glass --
tpglass@strausstroy.com -- of Strauss Troy.

The defendants are represented by John F. Sylvia, Matthew D.
Levitt -- MDLevitt@mintz.com -- and Marbree D. Sullivan of Mintz
Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo PC and W. Jeffrey Sefton of
Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL.

The case is Bruce E. Ricker v. Zoo Entertainment Inc. et al., case
number 12-3951, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.


* BakerHostetler Sees Rise in Mileage Reimbursement Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Inesta, Esq. -- ninesta@bakerlaw.com -- at BakerHostetler
reports that in California, there has been an increase in class
action litigation against employers for the alleged failure to
reimburse employees for business expenses, particularly mileage
reimbursement.

By way of example, in recent actions filed against prominent
retailers, employees allege that they were not reimbursed for
mileage and other travel expenses caused by:

    daily bank deposits,
    purchasing supplies for store events;
    required travel between stores to attend meetings;
    required travel between stores to provide staffing support; or
    required travel to transfer inventory.

Under California Labor Code Section 2802, employers must reimburse
employees for "all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by
the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her
duties, or of his or her obedience to the directions of the
employer."  Meaning that an employer must reimburse an employee
for all monies that they spend or lose, directly related to
performing their duties or following employer directions.  Where
an employer fails to do so, Section 2802 allows an employee to
recover, along with any unreimbursed expenses, interest from the
date the expense was incurred, as well as any reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the employee to enforce the
rights granted by the statute.

With respect to mileage reimbursement, California state agencies,
including the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement ("DLSE"),
consider the IRS rate to be the most reasonable reimbursement
rate.  The IRS increased the standard mileage rate for the use of
a car effective January 1, 2013, to 56.5 cents per mile for
business miles driven.  Although using the IRS rate is the best
practice, employers may reimburse for mileage expenses at less
than the IRS rate as long as the payment reimburses the employee
for all actual expenses incurred by the employee in the operation
of the vehicle for business use.

Other business expenses that must be reimbursed under California
law include:

    the cost of uniforms, defined as apparel and accessories of
distinctive design and color, and maintenance of those uniforms
(i.e., dry cleaning) where they are required to be worn as a
condition of employment by non-exempt employees; and

    the cost of providing and maintaining tools or equipment
required for the performance of the job.

This litigation trend focusing on failure to reimburse for
expenses may not be limited to California.  In fact, just last
month, delivery drivers filed a wage and hour class action lawsuit
against a franchisee of 138 Domino's pizza restaurants in
Mississippi and Louisiana for failure to pay minimum wage.  The
drivers allege that the employer violated federal wage and hour
laws by failing to adequately reimburse its drivers for their
automobile expenses, which resulted in a reduction in the drivers'
net wages below minimum wage.  The lawsuit is presently pending in
the United States District Court, Southern District of
Mississippi.

BakerHostetler recommends that employers review their policies and
practices to ensure that they are in compliance with California or
other state laws, regarding business-expense reimbursements.  To
comply with federal law, employers should also assess whether any
failure to reimburse required business expenses would reduce
employees' compensation below minimum wage in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.


* Law Firm Calls on Homeowners to Join Short Sale Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
If you paid your lender ANY money in connection with the short
sale of your home, contact Louis White Professional Law
Corporation at 888-992-1LAW(529).  Louis White Professional Law
Corporation is the leading counsel on a potential class action law
suit for California Homeowners who short sold their home in the
last four years AND, 1.) paid the lender ANY money to process
their short sale or, 2.) the lender collected or attempted to
collect any monies in deficiency of the short sale price and what
was owed on the loan.

"If you have short sold your home, Banks, including Chase,
Citibank, Bank of America, US Bank, Wells Fargo and every other
bank, may have violated California law if they took your money as
a deficiency on purchase money loans tied to owner occupied
properties," says Jamil White managing attorney at Louis White Law
Firm.  "Homeowners should contact us immediately to see if they
are eligible for compensation."

In California, a lender may agree to "short sale" a homeowner's
property if the homeowner owes more than the home is worth and
cannot feasibly pay on the loan.  Short sales effectively allow
homeowners to avoid foreclosure by selling a home for less than
they owe on it.  Successful short sale transactions transfer
properties from the distressed seller to a qualified buyer.
California short sale transactions have certain safeguards in
place to protect sellers from possible legal repercussions,
including lenders seeking deficiency judgments -- amounts owed to
cover the difference between what was originally owed on the loan
and the price the home actually short sold for.

Anyone who short sold a home in the last four years and have paid
the bank any money in connection with the short sale should
contact the Louis White Professional Law Corporation immediately
at 888-992-1LAW (529).


                             *********

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  * * *