CAR_Public/130912.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, September 12, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 181

                             Headlines


ADVOCATE MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Theft
BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Tosses Mortgage Modification Class Action
BMO NESBITT: McCarthy Tetrault Discusses Class Action Ruling
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Transvaginal Mesh Suit Remanded to State Court
BP PLC: Appeal on Settlement Fast-Tracked by New Orleans Court

BRAVO BRIO: Working to Settle FLSA Violations Lawsuit
CAREER EDUCATION: 7th Circuit Revives Class Action
CHARLES SCHWAB: Class Action Casts Spotlight on Arbitration Flaws
CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: $7.5MM Class Action Settlement Criticized
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Senator Yaw Lauds Gas Royalty Settlement

CHURCH & DWIGHT: Awaits Ruling in Bid to Junk Suit Over Deodorant
CITIZENS REPUBLIC: Judge Approves $2.2MM Class Action Settlement
CRANE CO: Wins Final Approval of $2MM Accord in Shareholder Suit
CRANE CO: Faces Environmental Suit by Roseland, N.J. Homeowner
DEMILEC: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Spray Foam

DIRECTV LLC: Appeals Ruling in Suit Over Early Cancellation Fees
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Another Ex-College Athlete Files Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: Privacy Groups Urge FTC to Drop Policy Changes
FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Granuflo Product
HANNSTAR DISPLAY: Jury Awards $7.4-Mil. to Best Buy in LCD Suit

INTERNATIONAL GAME: Continues to Be Impleaded in VLT Gaming Suit
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Settles Class Suit by IBEW Local 697
INTERNATIONAL GAME: Wins Final Approval of ERISA Suit Accord
LEGAL FORECLOSURE: Faces Class Action Over Foreclosure Fraud
MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit

MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Weinberger Shareholder Lawsuit Stayed
MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Hearing Set in Israeli Suit Over Delisting
MOLYCORP INC: Kenneth Elan Law Firm Files Class Action in N.Y.
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Hausfeld Files Class Action for Football Players
NEVADA PROPERTY: Still Faces Several Wage and Hour Lawsuits

NEVADA PROPERTY: Losses Bid to Junk Taping/Recording Suit
NEVADA PROPERTY: In Arbitration for Condominium Hotel Litigation
NEW YORK, NY: Fights Racial Profiling Law Amid Stop-and-Frisk Suit
NYRSTAR: Families of Lead-Affected Children Have Grounds to Sue
PETROCHINA CO: Failure to Disclose Graft Probe Prompts Suit

PETROCHINA CO: To Contest Securities Class Action in U.S.
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Parents Mull Suit Over School Budget Crisis
PORT OF HOUSTON: Homeowners' Class Action Can't Proceed
REALOGY GROUP: "Barasani" Labor Lawsuit v. Coldwell Continues
RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Plan Confirmation Hearing in Late October

RESOURCES IN HEALTHCARE: Files for Bankruptcy Amid Class Action
REXNORD CORPORATION: Units Proceed With Settlement of Zurn Suit
ROBERT HALF: Arbitration Ordered in "Uberti" Labor Lawsuit
ROBERT HALF: Still Faces Suit Over Staff "Misclassification"
SELECT RESOURCE: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violation

SPRINT CORP: Defends "Katsman" Merger-Related Suit vs. Clearwire
SPRINT CORP: Defends "Litwin" Merger-Related Suit vs. Clearwire
SPRINT CORP: Defends Consolidated Merger-Related Suit vs. Unit
SPRINT CORP: Defends SoftBank Merger-Related Suits and Inquiries
SPRINT CORP: Settlement of "Kwan" Suit vs. Unit Now Deemed Final

SPRINT CORP: Unit Continues to Defend "Bennett" Suit in Kansas
SPRINT CORP: Unit Defends Clearwire Acquisition-Related Suits
SPRINT CORP: Unit Defends Merger-Related Class Suits in Kansas
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Faces "Garza" Owner-Operator Lawsuit
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: To Contest Arbitration in "Sheer" Suit

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: To Fight Calif. Employee Suit Certification
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Montalvo" Minimum Wage Lawsuit Certified
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: To Contest Certification of Overtime Suit
SYNGENTA CROP: Lawyers Set to Argue Over Confidential Documents
TECO ENERGY: No Certification for Gas Outage Suit Against PGS

URS CORP: Awaits Order on Judgment Bid in Hurricane Katrina Suits
VENOCO INC: 2014 Trial in Shareholder Suit Over Privatization
VIDEOTRON: Courts Authorize Cable TV Subscribers' Class Action
VISA INC: Sept. 12 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
WOODLANDS OF GAINESVILLE: Class Action Over Lease Drags On

YELP INC: Local Biz to Join Class Action Over Review Manipulation
YELP INC: Appeal v. Dismissal of Suit by Local Biz Pending
ZIONS BANCORP: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $10 Million
ZUNGUI HAIXI: Court OKs Three Securities Class Action Settlements

* 9th Cir. Issues String of Decisions on Class Action Removals
* Hunton & Williams Sees Rise in Class Actions v. Auto Dealerships


                             *********


ADVOCATE MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Theft
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that attorneys have filed a class-
action lawsuit on behalf of Chicago-area patients whose
unencrypted personal information was stored on four computers
stolen from a medical group's office.

The lawsuit, filed on Sept. 5 in Cook County Circuit Court, claims
Advocate Medical Center should have done more to protect patient
information.  The lead plaintiffs are a Northbrook mother and her
daughter, but their attorneys say millions of Advocate patients
were affected by the security breach.

Advocate Medical Group notified patients last month that burglars
stole four computers from its administrative offices in Park Ridge
on July 15.

Patients' names, addresses, dates of birth and Social Security
numbers were among the data kept in the computers, which were
password-protected but not encrypted.  Patient medical records
weren't stored on the computers, but the stolen data did include
some clinical information such as diagnoses.

Advocate Health spokeswoman Kelly Jo Golson released a written
statement on Sept. 6 expressing regret for "any inconvenience this
incident has caused" patients.

"Although we are unable to comment specifically on active
litigation matters, we want to reassure our patients that we do
not believe the data was targeted and we have no information that
leads us to believe that the information has been misused,"
Ms. Golson said in the statement. Advocate is offering credit-
monitoring services to patients.

Chicago-based Clifford Law Offices, which is representing lead
plaintiffs Pierre Petrich and her daughter, Amara, announced the
lawsuit in a press release on Sept. 6.

"There is just no excuse for this negligence, and the harm that
this has caused so many, many people is something that could have
been avoided had proper precautions been taken," Robert Clifford
-- rclifford@CliffordLaw.com -- a senior partner at Clifford Law
Offices, said in the release.


BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Tosses Mortgage Modification Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a lawsuit
accusing Bank of America Corp. of reneging on promises to help
distressed homeowners modify their mortgage loans, and instead
driving them into foreclosure, cannot proceed as a class action, a
federal judge has ruled.

While expressing sympathy for borrowers facing a "Kafkaesque
bureaucracy" and saying their claims "may well be meritorious,"
U.S. District Judge Rya Zobel in Boston said the claims were too
different to justify allowing a single, nationwide lawsuit.

The Sept. 4 decision is a blow for homeowners accusing the second-
largest U.S. bank of failing to comply with the Home Affordable
Modification Program (HAMP), a 2009 federal program that gives
incentives to mortgage servicers to encourage loan modifications
and help people keep their homes.

It also marks the latest fallout from a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court
ruling involving Wal-Mart Stores Inc. that has made it harder to
sue companies as a group.  Class actions can lead to larger
recoveries and more far-reaching remedies at lower cost.

"It's a sad outcome for many thousands of homeowners trying to
obtain loan modifications," said Gary Klein, a partner at Klein
Kavanagh Costello, representing the plaintiffs.  "Very, very few
of them will be able to pursue these issues on their own. Their
one hope for justice was through the class mechanism."

Forty-three individuals and couples from 26 U.S. states accused
Bank of America in the three-year-old lawsuit of failing to help
them obtain loan modifications to which they were entitled.  They
had sought to certify 26 classes, one per state.

                  'Vast Frustration' of Homeowners

The case gained notoriety in June when several former employees,
in sworn statements the bank called "demonstrably false," accused
the bank of offering $500 bonuses and gift cards to Target Corp.
and Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. to lie and to stall HAMP applications,
because foreclosures or in-house loan modifications were more
profitable.

One former employee also said the bank would twice a month conduct
a "blitz" to clear out hundreds of files from its HAMP backlog
solely because the documents were more than 60 days old, even if
all required documents were submitted.  Bank of America said
"blitzes" were used to find documentation for applications.

"This case demonstrates the vast frustration that many Americans
have felt over the mismanagement of the HAMP modification
process," Judge Zobel wrote.  "Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged
that Bank of America utterly failed to administer its HAMP
modifications in a timely and efficient way; that in many cases it
lost documents, or pretended it had not received them, or
arbitrarily denied permanent modifications."

Still, Judge Zobel said class certification was improper because
of a "nearly endless series of individual questions" affecting the
various borrowers, amid a "Kafkaesque bureaucracy that decided
which documents were required of which borrowers."

She said these questions included whether borrowers provided
accurate documentation to verify their incomes, lived in their
homes as their principal residences, obtained credit counseling,
made trial payments on time, "and so on, and so on, and so on."

Steve Berman, a partner at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro also
representing the plaintiffs, said an appeal is planned.

"We think the court got it wrong," he said.

Bank of America spokesman Rick Simon said: "We respect the court's
decision.  We have successfully completed more HAMP modifications
than any other servicer and will continue to improve delivery of
this and other programs to support our customers in need of
assistance."

The bank has under HAMP completed 227,000 permanent loan
modifications through July, Mr. Simon added.

                       Damages to Answer For

Danielle Kelley, a Tallahassee, Florida, lawyer representing
mortgage borrowers, said other judges might still prove receptive
to claims by individual borrowers.

"Borrowers have been told they would get a modification if they
did certain things, mailed and faxed documents, made trial
payments," she said.  "So there are damages that the banks will
have to answer for."

Many of Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America's mortgage
problems stem from its 2008 purchase of Countrywide Financial
Corp, once the largest U.S. mortgage lender.

That purchase cost just $2.5 billion, but has saddled Bank of
America with tens of billions of dollars of costs for litigation,
loan buybacks and other mortgage expenses.

HAMP was part of the Obama administration effort to address the
nation's housing crisis.

Through June, just over 1.2 million borrowers had received
permanent loan modifications, according to the Treasury
Department, below the original goal of 3 million to 4 million.

Bank of America was among five companies in 2012 to reach a $25
billion settlement with regulators to address foreclosure abuses.
Attorneys general of New York and Florida have since accused Bank
of America of violating terms of that settlement.

The case is In re: Bank of America Home Affordable Modification
Program (HAMP) Contract Litigation, U.S. District Court, District
of Massachusetts, No. 10-md-02193.


BMO NESBITT: McCarthy Tetrault Discusses Class Action Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Pugen, Esq. -- dpugen@mccarthy.ca -- at McCarthy Tetrault's
Labour & Employment Group, reports that in a very important
decision, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Rosen v. BMO
Nesbitt Burns Inc. has certified a class action launched by
investment advisors (IAs) at BMO Nesbitt Burns (BMO) for overtime
pay.  While this is not the first overtime class action to be
certified in Ontario, it is noteworthy given that the issue
involves the alleged misclassification of the IAs as managers or
as otherwise exempt from overtime under the Employment Standards
Act, 2000 (ESA).

Key in the reasons for certifying the class action was the fact
that the proposed class of employees was defined more narrowly
than in previous cases (e.g., Brown v. CIBC).  This allowed the
Court to find that it could determine whether the employees were
misclassified as exempt employees on a common basis because the
job functions of the IAs were similar.  Other cases have found
that a class action was not the appropriate procedure because the
employees' eligibility for overtime could only be determined based
on an individual analysis of each employee's job duties.

The case will now proceed on the merits. BMO will argue that the
IAs are exempt from overtime because (i) they are employed in a
managerial/supervisory capacity; and (ii) their terms of
employment provide a "greater benefit" than the overtime
provisions in the ESA resulting in the overtime provisions not
applying.  As noted by the Court at para 8:

"Nesbitt acknowledges that being paid by commission is not a
recognized exemption under the ESA, but argues that its IAs are
nonetheless exempt because they fall within one or both of the two
applicable exemptions: (i) they manage their own business; and
(ii) their overall autonomy and potential for high earnings
provides them with a greater benefit than overtime pay."

The ESA's managerial exemption provides that an employee "whose
work is supervisory or managerial in character" is exempt from
overtime.  Generally speaking, to fall within this exemption, the
employee must be a "true" manager in the sense that he/she: (i)
has the authority over staff to direct, supervise, hire, fire,
performance manage, grant time off, etc.; or (ii) can make or
participate in substantial decisions that impact the employer's
operations and budgeting.  In addition, the employee must only
perform non-managerial/non-supervisory tasks on an "irregular or
exceptional basis".

Adjudicators have found that the "greater benefit" defense under
s. 5(2) of the ESA requires a specific "apples to apples"
comparison and that employers cannot claim a "greater benefit" by
comparing different employment terms.  This would constitute an
"apples to oranges" comparison.  Although the IAs work long hours
(more than 60 per week according to the Court), they are well
compensated for their work by their commission structure, and are
not traditionally thought of as employees who may be exploited or
otherwise in need of the protections of the ESA.  As such, it will
be interesting to see how the Court deals with the argument that
the overall autonomy, earnings and status of IAs constitute a
"greater benefit" than compliance with the overtime pay provisions
of the ESA.

                          Employer take-away

Employers should be aware that just because an individual is a
high earner, paid on commission and has some autonomy over his or
her own work (or even the work of others), this does not mean that
such employee is exempt from overtime pay under the ESA.  It is
important to remember that the exemptions to overtime under the
ESA are very narrow and the employer must prove that the exemption
applies.  As such, a full review of an employer's overtime policy
is a must for all employers.  This is even more pressing given the
Court's new appetite to certify overtime class actions involving
the alleged misclassification of employees.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Transvaginal Mesh Suit Remanded to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that a Missouri federal judge has remanded a
transvaginal mesh case to state court after rejecting Boston
Scientific Corp.'s argument that the matter constitutes a "mass
action" as defined by the Class Action Fairness Act.

On Aug. 27, Judge Carol E. Jackson of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri found the plaintiffs do not seek
consolidation of the case with two similar mesh cases pending
against Boston Scientific; rather, they merely seek assignment of
a single judge to guide the cases through pretrial and trial.


BP PLC: Appeal on Settlement Fast-Tracked by New Orleans Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laurel Brubaker Calkins, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that
an appeal of BP Plc's $9.6 billion economic-damages settlement
from the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill was fast-tracked by the New
Orleans appellate court weighing whether the deal is fair.

U.S. Circuit Judge E. Grady Jolly on Sept. 6 tentatively set oral
arguments in the case for the week of Nov. 4 under an expedited
schedule.

Thousands of coastal businesses and individuals claiming harm from
the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history appealed BP's
settlement on claims it violates the legal requirement that class-
action, or group, accords must treat victims with similar injuries
the same.

BP asked the court to expedite handling of the appeal in a filing
that echoed many of the victims' concerns about unequal treatment
of businesses with economic losses.  The company has repeatedly
tried, and failed, to halt claims payments until its concerns are
resolved on appeal.

London-based BP is fighting Patrick Juneau, its court-appointed
claims administrator, over what the company contends is a
misinterpretation of terms resulting in millions of dollars of
payments to businesses that didn't suffer losses from the spill.

The company said last week that court orders approving the
settlement and certification of the class "cannot stand" unless
the dispute over Juneau's interpretation is resolved in the
company's favor.

Lawyers for victims supporting the settlement claim BP is having
"buyer's remorse" and is trying to renegotiate a deal that is
proving more expensive than anticipated.

The underlying case is In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig Deepwater
Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, MDL-2179, U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans).  The
appeal is In Re: Deepwater Horizon -- Appeals of the Economic and
Property Damage Class Action Settlement, 13-30095, U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (New Orleans).


BRAVO BRIO: Working to Settle FLSA Violations Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Bravo Brio Restaurant Group, Inc. entered into a settlement
agreement in a suit alleging certain violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act as well as certain Iowa wage and hours 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.

On May 24, 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in a class
action lawsuit alleging certain violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act as well as certain Iowa wage and hours laws. Since
that time the Company has answered the complaint and worked with
the plaintiff to address the potential violations.

While the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to
these allegations, the Company determined that working towards a
settlement in this particular case was in its best interest.

On May 31, 2013, the parties signed a negotiated settlement
agreement, subject to final approval by the court. Based on the
current status of the case, the Company does not believe that
there will be a material impact to the financial statements as a
result of any potential future payments.


CAREER EDUCATION: 7th Circuit Revives Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Ben James, writing for Law360, reports that the Seventh Circuit on
Aug. 30 revived a putative class action against Career Education
Corp., siding with a former admissions representative who claimed
the for-profit educator shortchanged him on bonuses after shifting
federal regulations led CEC to stop giving representatives
supplemental pay for recruiting successful students.

A divided Seventh Circuit panel reversed a trial court's decision
to dismiss plaintiff Riley Wilson's claim that CEC violated the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing that was implicit in its
contract with Mr. Wilson and other admissions representatives when
it put an end to the agreement in 2011.

Each of the three judges on the panel issued a decision, and two
-- Circuit Judge David F. Hamilton and U.S. District Judge Sara
Darrow, sitting by designation -- agreed that Mr. Wilson had
successfully pleaded a claim for relief under the theory that CEC
had terminated the plan in bad faith, though Circuit Judge
Diane P. Wood said she would affirm the lower court.

Mr. Wilson's other arguments that CEC breached its contract and
was unjustly enriched didn't gain the necessary traction with the
appeals court, though Judge Hamilton said Mr. Wilson had alleged a
viable claim for straight breach of contract.

"In the final analysis, this means that the judgment of the
district court is reversed and the case is remanded to that court
for further proceedings on the implied covenant theory," the
appeals court said in a per curiam opinion that preceded the
individual concurrences and dissents.

Mr. Wilson, who sued Schaumburg, Ill.-based CEC in Chicago federal
court in August 2011, recruited students for CEC's culinary arts
college under a contract called "the plan" that gave him and his
co-workers bonuses for students they recruited that either
finished a full course or a year of study.

But in 2010, the U.S. Department of Education issued regulations
banning that type of arrangement.  Instead of waiting until the
rules became effective in July 2011, CEC said it would stop paying
bonuses in February 2011 and that there would be no bonuses for
"pipeline" students who were still working on the course or year
of study that would earn their recruiter a payout, the ruling
explained.

Mr. Wilson sued, arguing that he was owed bonuses for pipeline
students who were set to meet goals in spring 2011, but a judge
granted CEC's bid to dismiss his case in April.  Mr. Wilson
claimed that himself and other representatives has already
substantially performed the work that entitled them to bonuses,
and that the decision to nix the plan in February 2011 was
arbitrary and in bad faith.

Judge Darrow said that CEC did not breach the express terms of the
plan, in light of the plan's explicit definition of what it means
to have "earned" a bonus as well as its termination clause, which
says the company reserves the right to terminate or amend the
plan's terms.

However, the company's discretion to terminate the plan and
withhold unearned bonuses was limited by the reasonable
expectations of the parties, Judge Darrow wrote, adding that CEC
could still breach the covenant of good faith and abuse that
discretion.

Mr. Wilson plausibly alleged that CEC exercised its discretion in
a way that was contrary to both sides' expectations, Judge Darrow
found.  Resolving that issue at this stage in the case would be
premature, she added.

Even if the company had the right to cancel bonuses four months
before the new regulations took effect, "Judge Darrow correctly
explains that it had a duty to exercise that power in good faith,
and the district court erred by dismissing this claim on the
pleadings," said Judge Hamilton, who agreed with Darrow that the
bad faith termination claims should be revived is his partial
concurrence and dissent.

"We were surprised that the case got thrown out on a motion to
dismiss and we're pleased to see it reversed on appeal," said
Douglas Micko, the attorney who argued on behalf of Mr. Wilson.

"We were well within our rights to terminate the plan, as laid out
in the express provisions of the contract.  We intend to continue
defending this case vigorously," CEC spokesman Mark Spencer said.

Circuit Judges Diane Wood and David Hamilton, as well as Judge
Sara Darrow of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
Illinois, sat on the panel for the Seventh Circuit.

Mr. Wilson is represented in this matter by Douglas Micko --
micko@crowderteske.com -- and Vildan Teske --
teske@crowderteske.com -- of Crowder Teske Katz & Micko PLLP,
Marni Willenson of Willenson Law LLC and Schaefer Law Firm LLC.

CEC is represented by Sari Alamuddin -- salamuddin@morganlewis.com
-- and Andrew Scroggins -- andrew.scroggins@morganlewis.com -- of
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

The case is Riley J. Wilson v. Career Education Corp., case number
12-2383 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Class Action Casts Spotlight on Arbitration Flaws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Antilla, writing for The New York Times, reports that class-
action lawsuits are the bane of most financial firms, and many
recoil at the prospect of paying out millions to groups of clients
if investments go sour.  Now, the discount brokerage firm Charles
Schwab & Company finds itself at odds with regulators as it seeks
to eliminate the option of such suits for its clients.

For Wall Street, the skirmish has inadvertently brought fresh and
unwelcome attention to the investor arbitration process and its
flaws, and could severely curtail efforts by investors hurt by
widespread problems, including claims of being marketed unsuitable
investments by brokers who gave a deceptive sales pitch.

Investors generally have not been able to use the public court
system for their disputes with their stockbrokers since 1987, when
the Supreme Court ruled in Shearson v. McMahon that a brokerage
firm could force customers to agree to arbitration. Since then,
virtually every firm has added a so-called mandatory arbitration
agreement to its new-account documents.

One exception was for issues that were pervasive enough to warrant
class-action status, that way allowing groups of investors to sue
a firm or firms.

But in 2011, Schwab added a clause to its customer agreement that
required clients to agree not to pursue or participate in class-
action suits.

That move, however, didn't sit well with the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority, the private corporation that is the
brokerage industry's self-financed policing arm. The enforcement
division of Finra filed a disciplinary action against Schwab last
year to force the firm to do away with the provision on class-
action suits. (Schwab has since removed the clause until the Finra
proceeding, or possible court appeals, are completed.)

Schwab challenged Finra's decision and won at a panel hearing on
Feb. 21.  Finra appealed, and the case was slated to go before the
association's adjudicatory panel on Sept. 11.

After the ruling in favor of Schwab in February, state securities
regulators, investor advocates and Democratic members of Congress
took up the cause.  The nonprofit advocacy group Public Citizen
started an online petition entitled "Stand Up to Chuck: Demand
That Charles Schwab Corporation Stop Denying Its Customers'
Rights," collecting 17,000 signatures.

"The decision in favor of Schwab is backfiring on the industry,"
said Jill I. Gross, director of the Investor Rights Clinic at Pace
Law School.

If Schwab prevails, other Wall Street brokerage firms are likely
to follow suit with similar waivers.  It is the potential for such
moves that worry investor advocates.

"The Schwab case is potentially an enormous sea change," said
F. Paul Bland Jr. of Public Justice, a nonprofit consumer advocacy
group. "If Schwab succeeds, investor protection will be enormously
damaged."

The issue has cast a harsh spotlight on the arbitration process of
the entire securities industry.  Although Finra is taking the side
of the small investor in the Schwab case, the organization is
often depicted as soft on the industry that underwrites its
operations.

The group's critics point out that the selected arbitrators do not
have to follow the law, rarely permit depositions and typically do
not award punitive damages.

In the seven months through the end of July, arbitrators granted
awards to only 39 percent of claimants, the lowest win rate in
five and a half years, based on Finra's statistics.

Class-action lawsuits, though not always successful, have been one
recourse for groups of investors who lose money on the same
investment.  But given that they can often result in millions in
damages, brokerage firms have been eager to avoid them.

If Schwab succeeds in its efforts, small, unsophisticated
investors will have a tougher time preparing to pursue claims
against brokers, said A. Heath Abshure, president of the North
American Securities Administrators Association, an organization of
state securities regulators.

Many claims involve losses of $10,000 or less, making it tough for
investors to find legal experts who will help support arbitration
claims.

Without class actions as an option, "no attorney is going to take
a securities fraud case for a chance to recover 30 percent of
$10,000" in arbitration, Mr. Abshure said.

The class-action cases of early 2008 against brokers who marketed
auction-rate securities as an alternative to money-market funds
are one example of how the legal tool benefited consumers, said
Scott C. Ilgenfritz, president of the Public Investors Arbitration
Bar Association, a group that represents investors in disputes
against brokers. (Those cases ended up being settled by
regulators.)

For Wall Street brokerage firms, however, answering to such cases
costs time and money.

Greg Gable, a Schwab spokesman, said in an e-mail that class-
action suits "are grindingly slow" and mainly benefited lawyers,
not class members.  He said that Finra ran an efficient forum in
which "the majority of investors who make claims" obtained relief.
Schwab offers to pay the arbitration fees for claims under
$25,000, Mr. Gable said.

Industry experts also point out that the clause that Schwab has
proposed would not inhibit other class-action suits, like
shareholder litigation.  Such lawsuits, though aimed at
corporations, often pull in the brokerage firms that issue the
securities or underwrite bond offerings.

The outcome of the closed-door hearing in the Schwab case this
week is being closely watched by investor representatives, who
fear a decision against Finra could substantially weaken investor
protections.

The industry's trade group, the Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association, has applauded the arbitration process as a
low-cost system that "serves the best interests of investors."

Over the years, Finra has changed its policies in response to
criticisms.  Investors today have the option of a panel with no
industry representatives, for example. Previously, one person on
each three-person panel had to come from the securities industry.

Yet rebukes over the organization's arbitration process persist.
Recently, the group faced a flurry of criticism over the ability
of brokers to appeal to arbitrators to wipe complaint information
off their records.

Finra's system of monitoring its arbitrators came under more
scrutiny after a federal judge in Pennsylvania threw out an
arbitration decision on Aug. 1 that had been won by Goldman Sachs,
which had been sued by a customer seeking $1.4 million in a fraud
and misrepresentation case.  It turned out that one of the
arbitrators hearing the case had been indicted by a grand jury in
Burlington County, N.J., on charges of running an unauthorized
legal practice.  The arbitrator had also been disciplined by
Michigan for writing a bad check for $18,000.

Finra has said it will begin to conduct annual background checks
on its arbitrators.

Various parties have pressed the Securities and Exchange
Commission, which has authority over the industry, to intervene in
the Schwab matter.  The Dodd-Frank regulatory overhaul also gave
the agency broad new authority to prohibit or restrict mandatory
arbitration.

Stephen W. Hall, securities specialist at the investor advocacy
group Better Markets, said it was conceivable that the S.E.C.
could intervene on the Schwab case.  "Then they'd be in a position
to say, 'Look, we did something to address some of the problem.' "

But Mr. Hall suggested that the agency should take on "the entire
litany of problems in this mandatory arbitration system," and not
just the matter of class-action waivers.

It would be a welcome surprise to investor advocates if the S.E.C.
went as far as to stop brokers from requiring arbitration, but few
expect the agency will take such a bold step.

The agency has made no public move to use its authority.
John Nester, an S.E.C. spokesman, said in an e-mail that Mary Jo
White, the agency's new chairwoman, was committed to discussing
the issues regarding mandatory arbitration agreements with fellow
commissioners and staff, but offered no timeline.


CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: $7.5MM Class Action Settlement Criticized
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Loewenstein, writing for The Daily Review, reports that at
their meeting on Sept. 5, the Bradford County commissioners
criticized the proposed $7.5 million settlement of a class action
lawsuit against Chesapeake Appalachia LLC, saying it does not go
far enough to address the problem of large deductions being taken
out of local landowners' royalty checks for post-production costs.

If the settlement is approved by a federal judge, those landowners
who would benefit from the settlement will have "a little bit
less" taken out of their royalty checks for post-production costs,
Bradford County Commissioner Daryl Miller said.

But much more needs to be done to address the issue of excessive
post-production deductions, the commissioners said. One big
problem that remains is that deductions for post-production costs
can reduce landowners' royalty payments far below the state's 12
1/2 percent guaranteed minimum royalty, Mr. Miller said.

The commissioners said they will continue to fight for a solution
for the problem.

"We're not going to go away from this issue," said Doug McLinko,
chairman of the Bradford County commissioners.  "There has never
been an issue in my adult life that has affected so many property
owners and taxpayers and working people and retired people as this
issue," he said, adding that the Marcellus Shale lies below a vast
part of Pennsylvania.

"I still have full faith in our plan" to address the issue of
excessive post-production costs, which is a "fix" by the
Legislature, Mr. McLinko said.

And it is wrong to ask landowners to spend money on lawyers to
address the issue, Mr. McLinko said, adding that a lot of lawyers
will ask for a percentage of landowners' future royalties as a
payment.

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

The proposed settlement would benefit several thousand
leaseholders.

The "biggest slap in the face" related to the lawsuit was when
Gov. Tom Corbett on Sept. 4 "came out in support of the
settlement, basically portraying it as somehow a fix-all to the
problem.  It is certainly not that," said Bradford County
Commissioner Mark Smith, a Democrat.

And Gov. Corbett, a Republican, should be concerned that the
deductions are reducing the tax revenue that is coming to the
state, Mr. Smith said.

Gov. Corbett had issued a press release on Sept. 4 stating that he
is "pleased" with the proposed settlement to the class action
lawsuit.

"While I understand that serious issues still remain concerning
other landowners affected by royalty payment deductions, the
proposed settlement is a significant step forward in protecting
the interests of Pennsylvania's landowners," Corbett said, as
quoted in his press release.

Chesapeake spokesman Jim Gipson has said his company is pleased to
have reached a "fair and reasonable agreement (settlement)."

Some gas companies deduct certain post-production expenses from
landowners' royalty checks, including the costs of transporting
gas to market, and compressing and dehydrating the gas.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Senator Yaw Lauds Gas Royalty Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daily Review reports that a class action lawsuit involving natural
gas royalty owners who negotiated lease agreements that prohibited
the deduction of post-production costs from drilling royalty
payments was resolved by mutual agreement on Sept. 4 in the Middle
District Court of Pennsylvania, according to State Senator Gene
Yaw (R-23).

The case, Demchak Limited Partnership vs. natural gas producer
Chesapeake Energy, involved situations where post-production costs
were deducted under a "market enhancement clause" despite the
lease agreement explicitly prohibiting the deduction of those
costs.  Chesapeake Energy, the Oklahoma based company, has been
criticized in recent months for using the market enhancement
clause to make deductions from the royalty payments.

"We have learned through reliable sources that there has been a
settlement agreement reached in a class action lawsuit involving
Chesapeake Energy," Sen. Yaw said.  "We're also told that the
subject of that class action lawsuit was post-production costs.
This settlement clearly demonstrates that the judicial system is
the proper venue for resolving contractual disputes."

Recently, Sen. Yaw has emphasized that the court system, not the
legislature, should resolve contractual disputes, in particular
those involving the deduction of post-production costs from
varying leaseholder agreements.

"Under the Constitution, the legislature cannot alter the existing
contracts of thousands of leaseholders," Sen. Yaw said.  "I firmly
believe in less government involvement and asking the legislature
to rewrite thousands of contracts is not only unconstitutional,
but runs contrary to that belief.  I believe there is a way we can
protect those landowners, and not interfere with current contract
language."

Sen. Yaw has proposed legislation protecting landowners from
retaliatory conduct by a gas company if a landowner challenges a
natural gas company's activities.

Legislators in the House of Representatives have introduced a
measure that would address other leaseholder concerns by
clarifying that the deduction of post-production costs from
unconventional wells may not result in royalty payments less than
the guaranteed minimum.

In addition to the House legislation, Sen. Yaw also has been
working on another bill that will provide tools to landowners to
obtain more detailed accounting information regarding gas pricing,
well income and post-production costs.

"While the legislation introduced in the House faces some
constitutional hurdles, I believe my legislation would pass any
constitutional questions and address the concerns of frustrated
leaseholders," Sen. Yaw added.  "As I've said before, there is
certainly value in having multiple approaches to solving this
issue."


CHURCH & DWIGHT: Awaits Ruling in Bid to Junk Suit Over Deodorant
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey is yet to
rule on a motion by Church & Dwight Co., Inc. to dismiss an
amended suit over its advertising, marketing and sales of ARM &
HAMMER ESSENTIALS Natural Deodorant, 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.

The Company has been named as a defendant in a purported class
action lawsuit alleging unfair, deceptive and unlawful business
practices with respect to the advertising, marketing and sales of
ARM & HAMMER ESSENTIALS Natural Deodorant.

Specifically, on March 9, 2012, Plaintiffs Stephen Trewin and
Joseph Farhatt, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, filed a complaint against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging violations
of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, violations of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act and breach of implied warranty.

The original complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company used a marketing and advertising campaign that is centered
around the claim that the ARM & HAMMER ESSENTIALS Natural
Deodorant is a "natural" product that contains "natural"
ingredients and provides "natural" protection. The complaint
alleges the advertising and marketing campaign is false and
misleading because the product contains artificial and synthetic
ingredients.

Among other things, the complaint seeks an order certifying the
case as a class action, appointing Plaintiffs as class
representatives and appointing Plaintiffs' counsel to represent
the class. The complaint also seeks restitution and disgorgement
of all amounts obtained by the Company as a result of the alleged
misconduct, compensatory, actual, statutory and other unspecified
damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs and the purported class,
up to treble damages for alleged violation of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act; punitive damages for alleged violations of the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, an order requiring the
Company to immediately cease its alleged wrongful conduct, an
order enjoining the Company from continuing the conduct and acts
identified in the complaint, an order requiring the Company to
engage in a corrective notice campaign, an order requiring the
Company to pay to Plaintiffs and all members of the purported
class the amounts paid for ARM & HAMMER ESSENTIALS Natural
Deodorant, statutory prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 14, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
original complaint. On December 10, 2012, the Court issued an
order granting the Company's motion and dismissed the original
complaint without prejudice. On January 7, 2013, Plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint seeking relief similar to that sought in the
original complaint, excluding the breach of implied warranty
claim. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which is currently pending before the Court.


CITIZENS REPUBLIC: Judge Approves $2.2MM Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, reports that a Michigan
federal judge on Sept. 5 accepted a $2.2 million settlement of a
consolidated class action disputing overdraft fee policies at
Citizens Republic Bancorp Inc., saying the deal protects the
interests of all concerned.

U.S. District Judge Denise Page Hood signed off on the deal, which
was formally entered in court in mid-July, heading off what had
been a contentious proceeding over whether lawyers for one of the
two lead plaintiffs belonged in the case.

"The court finds that the settlement was reached in the absence of
collusion, and is the product of informed, good-faith, arm's-
length negotiations between the parties and their capable and
experienced counsel," the judge said.

Like scores of suits against banks around the country, Citizens
was accused by plaintiff Jane Simpson of systematically
resequencing customers' debit and credit card transactions in a
scheme designed to maximize overdraft fees.  According to her
complaint, Citizens would post transactions to customer accounts
in batches, applying those with the highest dollar amounts first
rather than in the order the transactions were actually made.

The resequencing allegedly increased the likelihood that
customers' accounts would be overdrawn and trigger a $36 fee,
hitting low-income account holders hardest due to the lower
balances they likely maintained.

"These overdraft fees cost [Citizens] account holders hundreds of
dollars in a matter of days, or even hours, when they may be
overdrawn by only a few dollars," the complaint said.  "Even more
egregious, customer accounts may not have been actually overdrawn
at the time the overdraft fees are charged, or at the time of the
debit transaction."

Additionally, the bank failed to disclose to its customers that
they could elect to opt out of the so-called overdraft protection
service, which is designed to allow for transactions to clear even
if an account contains insufficient funds, and avoid the fees
altogether, according to Ms. Simpson's complaint.

The case was complicated by a follow-on suit filed by plaintiff
Shirley Liddell in Michigan state court shortly after Ms.
Simpson's. The state court stayed the suit, but Ms. Liddell's
attorneys quickly filed another action in federal court that was
consolidated before Judge Hood.

Ms. Simpson asked the judge to dismiss Ms. Liddell's action
altogether, calling it a "complete affront" to the state-court
judge and noting that Ms. Liddell's attorneys and Ms. Simpson's
had litigated cases together in multidistrict overdraft-fee
litigation in Florida federal court where they had jointly opposed
such duplicative actions.

"The disturbing irony is that Liddell's attorneys are looking to
force their way into this first-filed lawsuit against Citizens,
yet as members of the plaintiff's executive committee in [Florida]
they have been advocating that copycat cases like Liddell's
federal action be stayed, enjoined or outright dismissed,"
Ms. Simpson said.

Both Ms. Simpson's attempt to boot Ms. Liddell from the suit and
the bank's motion to dismiss were pending when the parties first
reached a settlement in March, according to court records.

The bank had argued that it was contractually entitled to post the
transactions "in any order convenient."

Michigan-based Citizens, which is now part of FirstMerit Corp.,
will pay $2 million to cover class members' claims and attorneys'
fees and will contribute a separate $200,000 to cover the costs of
notifying potential claimants.  Attorneys in both the Simpson and
Liddell suits were named as class counsel in the deal.

Representatives for the parties were not immediately available for
comment on Sept. 5.

The class is represented by Jeffrey M. Ostrow --
ostrow@KOlawyers.com -- and Jason H. Alperstein --
alperstein@KOlawyers.com -- of Kopelowitz Ostrow PA; by Hassan A.
Zavareei and Jeffrey D. Kaliel of Tycko & Zavareei LLP; by E.
Powell Miller -- epm@millerlawpc.com -- and Ann L. Miller --
alm@millerlawpc.com -- of The Miller Law Firm PC; by Robert
Gittleman of Robert Gittleman Law Firm PLC; by Patrick E. Cafferty
of Cafferty Faucher LLP; by Ruben Honik, Richard M. Golomb and
Kenneth J. Grunfeld of Golomb & Honik PC; and by Allen Carney and
Randall K. Pulliam of Carney Williams Bates Pulliam & Bowman PLLC.

Citizens is represented by Dennis M. Haffey -- dhaffey@dykema.com
-- Matthew Mitchell -- mmitchell@dykema.com -- and Samantha Walls
-- swalls@dykema.com -- of Dykema Gossett PLLC.

The case is Simpson v. Citizens Bank, case number 2:12-cv-10267,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.


CRANE CO: Wins Final Approval of $2MM Accord in Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The $2 million settlement of a shareholder suit against Crane Co.
received final approval from the Superior Court for Essex County,
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 8, 2010, a lawsuit related to the acquisition of
Merrimac was filed in the Superior Court of the State of New
Jersey. The action, brought by a purported stockholder of
Merrimac, names Merrimac, each of Merrimac's directors, and Crane
Co. as defendants, and alleges, among other things, breaches of
fiduciary duties by the Merrimac directors, aided and abetted by
Crane Co., that resulted in the payment to Merrimac stockholders
of an allegedly unfair price of $16.00 per share in the
acquisition and unjust enrichment of Merrimac's directors.

The complaint seeks certification as a class of all Merrimac
stockholders, except the defendants and their affiliates, and
unspecified damages. Simultaneously with the filing of the
complaint, the plaintiff filed a motion that sought to enjoin the
transaction from proceeding. After a hearing on January 14, 2010,
the court denied the plaintiff's motion.

All defendants thereafter filed motions seeking dismissal of the
complaint on various grounds. After a hearing on March 19, 2010,
the court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss and ordered
the case to proceed to pretrial discovery. All defendants have
filed their answers and deny any liability. The Court certified
the class, and the parties engaged in pre-trial discovery. Fact
discovery closed in July 2012, and expert discovery, including the
exchange of expert reports and depositions of expert witnesses,
closed on November 30, 2012.

Summary judgment motions were due to be submitted on or before
January 15, 2013. However, on December 26, 2012, plaintiff's
counsel proposed a settlement figure that was substantially less
than had previously been proposed. This led to negotiations which
culminated, on January 11, 2013, in an agreement, in principle, to
resolve the case on the following terms, which are subject to
Court approval.

In consideration of the establishment of a settlement fund in the
amount of $2 million, to be funded almost entirely from the
insurance policy covering the former officers and directors of
Merrimac, and with a single contribution of $150,000 by Crane Co.,
the plaintiffs agreed (1) to withdraw the single claim asserted in
the Complaint against Crane Co., (2) that all plaintiff's
attorney's fees and expenses associated with the case will come
from the settlement amount, and (3) that all costs of notification
of the settlement to the members of the class, costs related to
the distribution of pro rata amounts to class members, and any
other administrative costs, will also come from the settlement
amount.

In addition, all defendants, including Crane Co., will receive
full class-wide releases. On January 15, 2013, with the consent of
counsel for Crane Co. and the other defendants, plaintiff's
counsel notified the Court that the parties had reached a
provisional agreement to resolve the case, subject to court
approval, and asked that the case be stayed for all purposes
except for settlement-related proceedings. On July 1, 2013, the
settlement of this case received final approval by the Superior
Court for Essex County. All claims against all defendants,
including the single claim alleged against Crane, have been
dismissed with prejudice.

Pursuant to recently enacted environmental regulations in New
Jersey, the Company performed certain tests of the indoor air
quality of approximately 40 homes in a residential area
surrounding a former manufacturing facility in Roseland, New
Jersey, to determine if any contaminants (volatile organic
compound vapors from groundwater) from the facility were present
in those homes. The Company installed vapor mitigation equipment
in three homes where contaminants were found. On April 15, 2011,
those three homeowners, and the tenants in one of those homes,
filed separate suits against the Company seeking unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages for their lost property value
and nuisance. In addition, a homeowner in the testing area, whose
home tested negative for the presence of contaminants, filed a
class action suit against the Company on behalf of himself and 141
other homeowners in the surrounding area, claiming damages in the
nature of loss of value on their homes due to their proximity to
the facility. The plaintiffs in these cases recently amended their
complaints to assert claims under New Jersey's Environmental
Rights Act for the Company's alleged failure to properly remediate
the site.  It is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate
the amount of a loss and therefore, no loss amount has been
accrued for the claims because among other things, the extent of
the environmental impact, and consideration of other factors
affecting value have not yet advanced to the stage where a
reasonable estimate can be made.


CRANE CO: Faces Environmental Suit by Roseland, N.J. Homeowner
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. is facing a lawsuit filed by a homeowner in a
residential area surrounding a former manufacturing facility in
Roseland, New Jersey, 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.

Pursuant to recently enacted environmental regulations in New
Jersey, the Company performed certain tests of the indoor air
quality of approximately 40 homes in a residential area
surrounding a former manufacturing facility in Roseland, New
Jersey, to determine if any contaminants (volatile organic
compound vapors from groundwater) from the facility were present
in those homes.

The Company installed vapor mitigation equipment in three homes
where contaminants were found. On April 15, 2011, those three
homeowners, and the tenants in one of those homes, filed separate
suits against the Company seeking unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages for their lost property value and nuisance.

In addition, a homeowner in the testing area, whose home tested
negative for the presence of contaminants, filed a class action
suit against the Company on behalf of himself and 141 other
homeowners in the surrounding area, claiming damages in the nature
of loss of value on their homes due to their proximity to the
facility.

The plaintiffs in these cases recently amended their complaints to
assert claims under New Jersey's Environmental Rights Act for the
Company's alleged failure to properly remediate the site.  It is
not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the amount of a
loss and therefore, no loss amount has been accrued for the claims
because among other things, the extent of the environmental
impact, and consideration of other factors affecting value have
not yet advanced to the stage where a reasonable estimate can be
made.


DEMILEC: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Spray Foam
-------------------------------------------------
Margaret Badore, writing for TreeHugger, reports that a potential
class action lawsuit against Barnhardt Manufacturing Co. and a
second potential class action lawsuit against spray foam
manufacturer Demilec may shed light upon the number of people who
have been harmed by spray foam.  "We're in the process of
discovery to find that out," said Jonathan Shub --
jshub@seegerweis.com -- a Philadelphia-based attorney at Seeger
Weiss, the law firm challenging Demilec. The suit needs a motion
to certify the class in order to move forward.

The case against Demilec was filed by Lucille Renzi, who had
Demilec's Sealection 500 Polyurethane Spray Foam Insulation
installed in her Boynton Beach, Fla. home.  According to court
documents, the plaintiffs say spray foam "remains toxic after
installation because either, as designed, it is impossible to
become inert and non-toxic even under optimal conditions; or
proper installation (and thus non-toxicity) is nearly impossible
given the exacting set of installation requirements and inadequate
training and installer certification methods."

Yet hundreds of thousands of buildings in the U.S. are insulated
with spray foam.  Robert Naini, the Chief operating officer of
Demilec, said that their products are installed in 25,000
buildings per year.  Mr. Naini said Demilec has "a very very very
small incident case."

Demilec attributes problems to human error during the installation
process.  "Ultimately, what we find in our investigations is the
applicators at some level can make an error," said Mr. Naini.
"That's where there's a potential for a complaint."

Demilec only sells its product to authorized contractors who have
received training either at company's corporate facility or with
one of their representatives in the field.  The Spray Polyurethane
Foam Alliance also offers a professional certification program,
which can be completed online.  Mr. Naini urges homeowners to ask
for proof of qualifications from installers when considering spray
foam for their homes.

At least nine other lawsuits have been filed against spray foam
manufacturers, but for many homeowners litigation against such
large companies is out of reach in addition to the expense of the
failed installation.  In many cases, it is unclear if liability
falls on the installer, the manufacturer or both.

Richard Beyer decided not to sue, but is instead pushing for
legislation that required better licensing and training for spray
foam installers.

Mr. Beyer had both Johns Manville spray foam and Icynene spray
foam insulation installed in his Connecticut home as part of an
extensive energy retrofit.  "The house had this odor like a sweet
chemical musty order that never went away," said Mr. Beyer.  "The
installers were telling us that there wasn't anything harmful."
Mr. Beyer ventilated his home and installed air filters, but it
didn't help the smell.

In the winter months, Mr. Beyer developed a rash, headaches and
respiratory symptoms.  He needed to take Benadryl to sleep at
night.  He didn't immediately connect his suffering to the foam,
until a trip to California.  His symptoms went away during the
trip, but returned as soon as he came home.

It became clear that the foam wasn't behaving the way it should.
"It turned out to be our worst nightmare," Mr. Beyer said.  In
some places, it had cracked and shrunken and in other places it
was discolored.

Icynene sent a representative to investigate the product, who
insisted that the product was fine. Johns Manville collected a
sample of their product.  Mr. Beyer later learned that the Johns
Manville terminated their relationship with the contractor, Anchor
Insulation, Inc., over their installation practices.  Mr. Beyer
said Johns Manville "had their attorney contact me informing me to
stop asking them questions about the health affects and the
product chemistry."

"Eleven months in, I said to the installer that we have to get rid
of this stuff," said Mr. Beyer.  His symptoms did not subside
until the majority of the insulation was removed.

Mr. Beyer worries that other homeowners are suffering as he did,
but are still unaware of the risks associated with spray foam.
"What the industry tries to do is convince us that each incident
is an isolated case."


DIRECTV LLC: Appeals Ruling in Suit Over Early Cancellation Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
The denial of the motion of DirecTV LLC to compel arbitration in
relation to claims seeking injunctive relief under California
statutes is currently on appeal, 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 2008, a number of plaintiffs filed putative class action
lawsuits in state and federal courts challenging the early
cancellation fees the company assesses to customers when they do
not fulfill their programming commitments.

Several of these lawsuits are pending, some in California state
court purporting to represent statewide classes, and some in
federal courts purporting to represent nationwide classes. The
lawsuits seek both monetary and injunctive relief. While the
theories of liability vary, the lawsuits generally challenge these
fees under state consumer protection laws as both unfair and
inadequately disclosed to customers.

According to DirecTV, "Our motions to compel arbitration have been
granted in all of the federal cases, except as to claims seeking
injunctive relief under California statutes. The denial of the
company's motion as to those claims is currently on appeal. The
company believes that the company's early cancellation fees are
adequately disclosed, and represent reasonable estimates of the
costs the company incurs when customers cancel service before
fulfilling their programming commitments."


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Another Ex-College Athlete Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA TODAY Sports, reports that
lawyers representing a former West Virginia running back have
filed a proposed class-action suit against video game manufacturer
Electronic Arts in federal court in New Jersey, alleging "blatant
and unlawful" use of college athletes' names and likenesses in its
football and basketball games.

This lawsuit is similar to, but separate from, another proposed
class-action case against EA that is proceeding in federal court
in New Jersey on behalf of former Rutgers quarterback Ryan Hart.
The Hart case already has been before the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals, which has returned it to the district court level.

The new matter is being pursued by Shawne Alston, who played for
West Virginia from 2009 through 2012.  His lawyers also are
representing former Arizona State and Nebraska quarterback Sam
Keller in a suit related to video games against EA, the NCAA and
the nation's leading collegiate trademark licensing and marketing
firm, Collegiate Licensing Co., that is now with the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals.

One of the lawyers said on Sept. 4 they filed the Alston case
because of concerns about how Hart's lawyers have defined their
prospective class of plaintiffs.

"We think the class definition is too narrow and complicated,"
Robert Carey said.  "We want to make sure (all players with
potential claims) are protected."

In an added twist, Mr. Alston's suit alleges that an avatar
mirroring him in many ways not only appears in various versions of
the game, it also appears on the back cover of the 2013 NCAA
Football game for the Xbox.  The complaint adds that the player in
the primary image on the back cover, former Baylor and now
Washington Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III, "was paid --
after exhausting his collegiate eligibility and becoming a
professional player -- to appear on the back cover of the game.
Plaintiff and the other students on the back cover were not paid
for use of their likenesses, nor did they consent to the use."

Mr. Carey said Mr. Alston's legal team will seek to have its case
consolidated with the Hart case.  If permitted by the judge, this
likely would not keep Hart's case from continuing to advance
separately but it could make it difficult for Hart's lawyers to
settle with EA without the involving the Alston/Keller lawyers.

EA spokesman John Reseburg could not be reached for immediate
comment.

EA has said in a court filing in conjunction with the Keller case
that it intends to seek Supreme Court review of both the Keller
case and the Hart case.  In each instance, it has received
unfavorable rulings from appellate panels.  But while the 9th
Circuit has delayed referral of the Keller case back to the
district court, pending EA's bid for Supreme Court review, the
Hart case remains active.

One of Mr. Hart's lawyers, Eugene Egdorf, said on Sept. 4 a status
hearing in the case is scheduled for Sept. 24.  Before then,
however, Mr. Egdorf said a new version of their complaint will be
filed that adds a plaintiff to cover each year of EA's games, and
that a current college athlete will be among the new plaintiffs.

He added that Mr. Alston already would be covered by the Hart
litigation.

"Our class definition is very broad," Mr. Egdorf said.  "It covers
everybody that matters in this situation. (The Alston suit) is
just a case of lawyers jumping in when it's not necessary.  It
doesn't change how we'll move forward in our case, and our case is
the one that's in front (procedurally) and will get to court the
fastest."


FACEBOOK INC: Privacy Groups Urge FTC to Drop Policy Changes
------------------------------------------------------------
John Ribeiro, writing for IDG News Service, reports that six
privacy groups have asked the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to
strike down proposed changes to Facebook's policies, as they
violate a 2011 settlement with the agency over user privacy.

"The changes will allow Facebook to routinely use the images and
names of Facebook users for commercial advertising without
consent," the groups wrote in a letter on Sept. 4 to the FTC.  The
groups asked the commission to enforce its 2011 order.

Facebook announced in August proposed updates to its Data Use
Policy and Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, two key
documents that explain how the social network collects and uses
people's data.

In the revised Statement, Facebook states that by joining the
site, users "permit a business or other entity to pay us to
display your name and/or profile picture with your content or
information, without any compensation to you."  In the original
Statement, people can use their privacy settings "to limit how
your name and profile picture may be associated with commercial,
sponsored, or related content (such as a brand you like) served or
enhanced by us," the groups said.

The changes proposed by Facebook follow the approval by the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco division of a US$20 million fund for Facebook to settle
a class-action lawsuit against the site's "sponsored stories"
advertising program.  The complainants, some acting on behalf of
minors, had alleged that their names and likeness had been used
without their prior consent in "sponsored stories" advertisements
shown to their online friends on the social networking website.

"The pending changes arise from a class action settlement in which
the attorneys who purported to represent the interests of Facebook
users granted the company a right that was contrary to the
company's policy at the time the litigation was initiated," wrote
the groups, which include the Electronic Privacy Information
Center, Center for Digital Democracy, Consumer Watchdog, Patient
Privacy Rights, U.S. PIRG, and the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.

As a result, Facebook users who "reasonably believed" that their
images and content would not be used for commercial purposes
without their consent could find their pictures showing up on the
pages of their friends, endorsing the products of Facebook's
advertisers, the groups wrote.  "Remarkably, their images could
even be used by Facebook to endorse products that the user does
not like or even use," they added.

The groups also object to what they consider a "deemed consent"
that Facebook requires from minors.  Under the proposed changes,
minors have only to represent that at least one of their parents
or legal guardians has also agreed to the terms of the section,
and the use of their name, profile picture, content, and
information, on their behalf.  Such deemed consent "eviscerates
any meaningful limits over the commercial exploitation of the
images and names of young Facebook users," the groups wrote.

Facebook said the proposed update did not change its ad practices
or policies, but only made things clearer to people who use the
service.  "As part of this proposed update, we revised our
explanation of how things like your name, profile picture and
content may be used in connection with ads or commercial content
to make it clear that you are granting Facebook permission for
this use when you use our services," wrote a Facebook spokeswoman
in an email.


FRESENIUS MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Granuflo Product
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ava Lawson, writing for Injury Lawyer News, reports that on
August 27, 2013, Tina Nunn, both individually and on behalf of the
estate of her deceased husband Earin Blossom, filed a complaint
against Fresenius Medical Care -- manufacturers of the now
recalled Granuflo and Naturalyte dialysis products.  Dockets in
the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California identify
the complaint as a Granuflo class action lawsuit, but at present
only Nunn is listed as plaintiff.  Ms. Nunn claims the defendant
and their subsidiaries "failed to exercise reasonable care in
manufacturing and selling defective dialysis products known as
Granuflo and and Naturalyte."  The dialysates, used by the
plaintiff's spouse and other class members, caused fatal
complications and sudden death, states the complaint.

Fresenius dialysis class action lawsuit facts and allegations

Court documents show that the decedent Earin Blossom began
hemodialysis treatments in November 2010.  He received both
Granuflo and Naturalyte additives during his dialysis treatments,
which took place three times a week at a Fresenius dialysis clinic
in Fremont.  On April 6, 2011, just a few hours after his dialysis
at the clinic, Blossom suffered a massive heart attack and died.
Allegations state that the decedent's metabolic alkalosis, cardiac
arrest and subsequent demise were a direct and proximate result of
his use of Granuflo and/or Naturalyte.  The complaint further
argues that the defendant knew its products resulted in excess
bicarbonate levels in patients, often leading to metabolic
alkalosis -- a dangerous condition associated with heightened
risks for heart attack, cardiac arrhythmia and sudden death.

As early as March 2001, Fresenius purportedly knew health care
providers using their dialysates were confused about Granuflo
dosing levels and how much bicarbonate is actually introduced to a
patient's bloodstream during dialysis treatment.  The Granuflo
class action lawsuit cited an April 2002 memo, in which Fresenius
noted an increase in bicarbonate levels for its proprietary
clinics and acknowledged concern for "patients who fall in the
upper limits of the distribution curve and who may have
significant post-dialysis alkalosis."

A 2004 study published in the American Journal of Kidney Diseases
showed that patients with pre-dialysis alkalosis (bicarbonate
level greater than 27.0 mEq/L) had a greater relative risk of
death.  However despite knowledge of potential Granuflo side
effects and risks, Fresenius negligently failed to inform all
physicians and treatment facilities prescribing and/or using
NaturaLyte and GranuFlo before its 2012 recall, says the
complaint.

      Widow demands damages for her husband's wrongful death

The plaintiff claims that as a result of the actions and inactions
of Fresenius Medical Care, the decedent suffered cardiac arrest
and died, and incurred substantial medical expenses before his
death.


HANNSTAR DISPLAY: Jury Awards $7.4-Mil. to Best Buy in LCD Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Max Taves, writing for The Recorder, reports that Best Buy
suffered $7.4 million in direct damages as a result of a
conspiracy among Asian manufacturers to fix prices for their
flat-screen LCD screens, a federal jury decided on Sept. 3.

But those damages were only a fraction of the $776 million that
attorneys for the Minnesota-based retailer said it suffered at the
outset of the trial, which began five weeks ago in the Northern
District courtroom of Judge Susan Illston.

Taiwan-based HannStar Display Corp. "knowingly participated in a
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of TFT-
LCD panels," the jury found.  However, it relieved Japan's Toshiba
Corp. of all liability.

Best Buy's civil action against those two companies is a part of a
series of suits targeting several Asian manufacturers of thin-film
transistor liquid crystal display screens, or TFT-LCD screens,
that began after the U.S. Department of Justice began a criminal
investigation of the so-called "crystal meetings" in 2006.  The
government's case resulted in convictions or guilty pleas for
multiple electronics makers stemming from their price-fixing
meetings disguised as golf outings between 1998 and 2006.

According to the Sept. 2 verdict, Best Buy proved that the
price-fixing conspiracy "produced substantial intended effects in
the United States."  But the jury did not agree with the
plaintiff-retailer that the conspiracy's conduct had a "direct,
substantial and reasonably foreseeable effect on trade or commerce
in the United States."

Best Buy was represented at trial by a team at Robins, Kaplan,
Miller & Ciresi led by its Los Angeles partner, Roman Silberfeld
-- rmsilberfeld@rkmc.com

In opening statements, Mr. Silberfeld argued that the LCD makers
began colluding to fix prices in order to forestall rapidly
falling prices for their products.

Robert Freitas -- rfreitas@ftklaw.com -- of Freitas Tseng &
Kaufman represented HannStar.  Given that his client had already
accepted a guilty plea to federal antitrust charges and $30
million in fines, Mr. Freitas took the road less traveled in
opening statements, admitting, "HannStar participated in actions
which were illegal."  But
Mr. Freitas argued that attorneys for Best Buy had grossly
exaggerated what the conspiracy cost it.

White & Case partner Christopher Curran represented Toshiba.
Mr. Curran had argued that the evidence would not support
Best Buy's claims that it reached price-fixing agreements.  "There
was a conspiracy," said Mr. Curran.  "But Toshiba wasn't in it."

As previously reported by The Recorder, several parties on both
sides of the case settled before trial began, including
co-plaintiff Eastman Kodak, which reached confidential settlements
with AU Optronics Corp, LG Display Co. and Toshiba in July.
Target Corp. settled with LG the same month.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Continues to Be Impleaded in VLT Gaming Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of New Foundland and Labrador is yet to
determine the appropriateness of certification of a putative class
in a suit alleging harm caused by VLT gaming, according to
International Game Technology's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 29, 2013.

In an action brought in the Supreme Court of New Foundland and
Labrador by Babstock and Small as representatives of a purported
class of persons allegedly harmed by VLT gaming in the Province of
New Foundland and Labrador. Atlantic Lottery Corporation has
impleaded VLC, Inc., IGT-Canada, Inc., International Game
Technology and other third party defendants seeking
indemnification for any judgment recovered against Atlantic
Lottery Corporation in the main action.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class action certification on
September 17, 2012. The Court has decided to address the motion
for certification in two phases. Under Phase 1, the Court will
determine whether the Plaintiffs have pleaded a cause of action.
Hearings on Phase 1 were held on June 6 and 7, 2013. Should the
Court conclude that Plaintiffs have pleaded a cause of action,
then, under Phase 2, the Court would determine the appropriateness
of certification of the putative class.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Settles Class Suit by IBEW Local 697
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada approved a
stipulated settlement of a securities class action filed by the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 697 against
International Game Technology, 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 29, 2013.

On July 30, 2009, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Local 697 filed a putative securities fraud class action in the US
District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging causes of
action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against
IGT and certain of its current and former officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that between November 1, 2007 and October
30, 2008, the defendants inflated IGT's stock price through a
series of materially false and misleading statements or omissions
regarding IGT's business, operations, and prospects. In April
2010, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In March 2011,
defendants' motion to dismiss that complaint was granted in part
and denied in part.

The Court found that the allegations concerning statements about
the seasonality of game play levels and announcements of projects
with Harrah's and City Center were sufficient to state a claim.
Plaintiffs did not state a claim based on the remaining statements
about earnings, operating expense, or forward-looking statements
about play levels and server-based technology.

The parties have settled this action. On February 1, 2012, at the
direction of the Court, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Pending
Settlement. On March 28, 2012, the parties submitted to the Court
a stipulation to settle the litigation for a payment of $12.5
million. On March 30, 2012 the Court issued an order of
preliminary approval and the settlement was paid into escrow by
insurance in April 2012. The Court approved the stipulated
settlement on October 19, 2012.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Wins Final Approval of ERISA Suit Accord
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada entered an
order granting final approval of the settlement of a consolidated
complaint asserting claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, 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 29, 2013.

On October 2, 2009, two putative class action lawsuits were filed
on behalf of participants in the Company's employee pension plans,
naming as defendants the Company, the IGT Profit Sharing Plan
Committee, and several current and former officers and directors.

The actions, filed in the US District Court for the District of
Nevada, are captioned Carr et al. v. International Game Technology
et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00584, and Jordan et al. v. International
Game Technology et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-00585. The actions were
consolidated. The consolidated complaint (which seeks unspecified
damages) asserts claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, 29 U.S.C Sections 1109 and 1132.

The consolidated complaint is based on allegations similar to
those in the securities and derivative lawsuits, and further
alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to plan
participants by failing to disclose material facts to plan
participants, failing to exercise their fiduciary duties solely in
the interest of the participants, failing to properly manage plan
assets, and permitting participants to elect to invest in Company
stock.

In March 2011, defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint was granted in part and denied in part. On March 16,
2012, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification.
On December 21, 2012, the parties submitted a stipulation to
settle the litigation for a payment of $500,000 and up to $25,000
towards settlement administrative expenses, which was accrued for
in the company's 2013 first quarter. On January 22, 2013, the
Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The Court
entered an order granting final approval of the settlement on June
26, 2013.


LEGAL FORECLOSURE: Faces Class Action Over Foreclosure Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------
KFSN reports that two legal teams are in the middle of a court
battle against the company called Legal Foreclosure Services, Inc.
The lawsuits claim the company promised to help save hundreds of
homes from foreclosure, but instead it scammed people out of their
hard earned money and did nothing to help them keep their homes.

A TV commercial from Legal Foreclosure Services, Inc. was enough
to convince the owner of a Madera home to rely on that company for
foreclosure protection.  "The way my mom saw it is that we will do
everything to fight for this house," Guadalupe Gomez said.

Ms. Gomez is holding onto receipts that account for nearly $4,000.
For two years Gomez's mother made monthly payments, thinking Legal
Foreclosure Services would help her get a loan modification.  But
the Gomez family says the company never filed any paperwork,
despite the hard-earned money already paid in fees outlined in her
contract.

Gomez then went into the company offices on Shaw Avenue in
Northwest Fresno.  "Right off the bat it seemed fishy," he said.
"The guy didn't really seem competent."

He told Action News he was then confronted by an owner who refused
to refund the money and offered no additional help.  "Just the way
he came about the issue, I knew that we were not going to get
anything back," Ms. Gomez said.  "At this point I'm going to try
to get some legal help and see what can be done."

And that is where Fresno attorney William Krieg comes in.  He has
filed a class action lawsuit alleging Legal Foreclosure Services
illegally asks for advanced fees, and failed in its promise to
obtain loan modifications; causing some to lose their homes.

"What we do know is that there are at least 200 people over the
last three years that have paid something between $2,000 and
$5,000 each," Mr. Krieg said.

Central California Legal Services, a non-profit law firm, is also
fighting Legal Foreclosure Services.  It's pushing for an
injunction to force the company to prove, in court, its operating
by the book.  Attorney Ofra Pleban says she's been investigating
the fraud claims for a year.

"[The customers] really don't have the money to pay the mortgage,
let alone to pay to these fraudsters," Ms. Pleban said.  "They're
paying them thousands of dollars, but also what's important is
they're foregoing seeking other legitimate ways and venues to save
their home."

"These people know we're coming after them, they know their time
is limited," Krieg said.  "But the question is; are we going to be
able to get money back." Ms. Gomez certainly hopes so.  But,
first, he wants to stop the business flowing into the Northwest
Fresno office.  "Hopefully it won't happen to anybody else,"
Ms. Gomez said.

Legal Foreclosure Services has changed its name several times in
the past few years.  Records show it's also known as Foreclosure
Counseling, Inc. and Foreclosure Professionals, Inc.

Action News spoke with an owner of the business who refused to
answer any questions about his business practices.  He referred
Action News to his attorney who has not yet responded to repeated
attempts for a comment.


MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Amended Consolidated Complaint was filed in In re Mellanox
Technologies, Ltd. Securities Litigation pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
according to Mellanox's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2013.

On February 7, February 14 and February 22, 2013, Mellanox
Technologies, Ltd., the Company's President and CEO, former CFO
and CFO were sued in three separate legal complaints filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
naming the Company and them each as defendants and respectively
entitled, Patrick Barnicle, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., Eyal Waldman,
Michael Gray and Jacob Shulman, Case No. 13 CIV 925, David R.
Ryan, Jr., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., Eyal Waldman, Michael Gray and Jacob
Shulman, Case No. 13 CV 1047 and Valentin Petrov, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Mellanox Technologies,
Ltd., Eyal Waldman, Michael Gray and Jacob Shulman, Case No. 13 CV
1225. The complaints were filed by Patrick Barnacle, David R. Ryan
and Valentin Petrov, respectively, each for himself as a plaintiff
and, purportedly, on behalf of persons purchasing the Company's
ordinary shares between April 19, 2012 and January 2, 2013 (the
"Class Period").

On May 14, 2013, the Court consolidated the Barnicle, Ryan and
Petrov complaints and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.
The consolidated case is captioned, In re Mellanox Technologies,
Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 13-cv-00925 (AKH). On July
12, 2013, an Amended Consolidated Complaint was filed against the
same defendants.

The Amended Consolidated Complaint alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Amended
Consolidated Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the
defendants made false or misleading statements (or failed to
disclose certain facts) regarding the Company's business and
outlook.

In the amended complaint, plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, an
award of reasonable costs and expenses, including reasonable
attorney's fees, and any other relief deemed just and proper by
the court. Based on currently available information, the Company
believes that the resolution of this proceeding is not likely to
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.


MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Weinberger Shareholder Lawsuit Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Economic Division of the District Court of Tel Aviv-Jaffa
approved a procedural agreement and stayed a shareholder suit
against Mellanox Technologies, Ltd. pending the completion of
certain related cases, 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 February 20, 2013, a request for approval of a class action was
filed in the Economic Division of the District Court of Tel Aviv-
Jaffa against Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., the Company's President
and CEO, former CFO, CFO and each of the members of the Company's
board of directors (the "Israeli Claim").

The Israeli Claim was filed by Mr. Avigdor Weinberger (the
"Claimant").  The Israeli Claim alleges that the Company, the
board members, the Company's President and CEO, its former CFO and
its current CFO are responsible for making misleading statements
(or failing to disclose certain facts) and filings to the public,
as a result of which the shares of the Company were allegedly
traded at a higher price than their true value during a period
commencing on April 19, 2012 and ending January 2, 2013 and,
therefore, these parties are responsible for damages caused to the
purchasers of the Company's shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange
during this time.

The Claimant seeks an award of compensation to the relevant
shareholders for all damages caused to them, including attorney
fees and Claimant's fee and any other relief deemed just and
proper by the court. On April 24, 2013, the Claimant and the
Company filed a procedural agreement with the court to stay the
Israeli Claim pending the completion of the Barnicle, Ryan and
Petrov cases disclosed herein. On April 24, 2013, the Israeli
court approved this procedural agreement and stayed the Israeli
proceedings.

Based on currently available information, the Company believes
that the resolution of this proceeding is not likely to have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.


MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Hearing Set in Israeli Suit Over Delisting
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An initial hearing regarding the class certification motion in a
suit against Mellanox Technologis, Inc. in relation to the
delisting of the company has been set for the fiscal fourth
quarter 2013, 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 June 6, 2013, a request to certify a class action claim (along
with the claim itself) was filed against the Company and its board
of directors relating to the delisting of the Company's shares
from the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (the "TASE").

The name of the claim is Mordechay Turgeman v. Mellanox et. al.
(Case No.: 13189-06-13) (the "Claim"). The Claim states that the
decision to delist from the TASE was a breach of the duty of care
of the directors, as well as a breach of fiduciary duty by the
Company's President and CEO. The Company was served with the
complaint on June 16, 2013.

An initial hearing regarding the class certification motion has
been set for the fiscal fourth quarter 2013. Based on currently
available information, the Company believes that the resolution of
this claim is not likely to have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, financial position, results of operations or
cash flows.


MOLYCORP INC: Kenneth Elan Law Firm Files Class Action in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Kenneth A. Elan on Sept. 3 disclosed that it
commenced a lawsuit against Molycorp, Inc. pursuing claims in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Molycorp
securities from August 2, 2012 through August 7, 2013.

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

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

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

If you acquired Molycorp securities during the Class Period, you
may, no later than October 14, 2013, request that the court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.  Although your
ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision
whether or not to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead
plaintiffs make important decisions that could affect the overall
recovery for class members, including decisions concerning
settlement.  If you have any questions about this matter, and any
rights you might have with respect to these claims, contact
Kenneth Elan at elanfirm@yahoo.com or by telephone at (212) 619-
0261.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Hausfeld Files Class Action for Football Players
------------------------------------------------------------------
United Press International reports that a Washington law firm
filed a complaint against the NCAA, claiming former players with
head trauma injuries were not adequately protected and advised.

The complaint by the firm Hausfeld LLP is a class action
specifically benefiting college players who did not go on to
careers in the NFL.  It names as plaintiffs two former University
of Tennessee players, Chris Walker and Ben Martin, and a former
North Carolina State player, Dan Ahern, a statement from Hausfeld
said on Sept. 3.

Michael Hausfeld -- mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com -- lead counsel on
the complaint, said, "The NCAA has not taken the necessary steps
to protect these former players, even though the medical tools to
assist them have been available for some time.  It is not too late
for the NCAA to offer important education and needed medical
testing to these former players."

The complaint seeks a court-supervised and NCAA-funded medical
monitoring program to benefit former college players, and did not
specify monetary damages.

College football players who went on to the NFL are covered by a
separate proposed settlement.


NEVADA PROPERTY: Still Faces Several Wage and Hour Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Property 1 LLC faces several wage and hour lawsuits which
are on the preliminary stages of litigation, 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.

During late 2012, the Company was put on notice and/or served with
two separate purported class action lawsuits related to alleged
unpaid compensation for time incurred by CoStars while on Property
for donning and doffing of the CoStars required uniform, alleged
improper rounding of time for hours worked and various other
claims related to alleged unpaid compensation.

One of the purported wage and hour class action lawsuits is
pending in state court, and one is pending in federal court. These
matters are in the preliminary stages of proceedings with
meaningful discovery just commencing. No depositions have
occurred. No motion to certify a class has been filed in the state
court action.

A motion to conditionally certify certain classes of employees was
filed in the federal court action, but that motion has been denied
in part and stayed in part. In addition, substantial questions of
law and fact remain unresolved in both cases, and motion practice
may ultimately result in dismissal of the federal court case.

The Company is in the process of evaluating the lawsuits and
cannot at this time determine the potential impact of the lawsuits
on the condensed consolidated financial position, cash flows, or
the results of operations of the Company, other than the accrued
loss contingency. Specific additional factors applicable to each
case that prevent the Company from providing an estimate of
reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued or range of
loss include, but are not limited to: (1) whether class
certification will be granted and the scope of any class or
subclass; (2) the quantification of highly variable damages
claimed by the purported classes and subclasses asserted in
separate, but overlapping litigation are unspecified or
indeterminate; and (3) the outcome of any future settlement
negotiations, should they occur, as they may apply to limit the
class or eliminate all class claims.

A third purported wage and hour class action was filed in state
court in January 2013. This matter is also in the preliminary
stages of proceedings with substantial unresolved questions of law
and fact. Specific additional factors applicable to this case that
prevent the Company from providing an estimate of reasonably
possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued
include, but are not limited to: (1) whether class certification
will be granted and the scope of any class or subclass; (2) the
quantification of highly variable damages claimed by the purported
class are unspecified or indeterminate; and (3) the outcome of any
future settlement negotiations, should they occur, as they may
apply to limit the class or eliminate all class claims.

During the second quarter of 2013, the Company, as part of its
ongoing assessments of these wage and hour cases, accrued an
estimated loss contingency (as a corporate operating expense on
the condensed consolidated statement of operations) of $3.0
million. The company will continue evaluating the adequacy of this
accrual as the cases develop. Legal fees associated with the cases
are recognized as incurred when the legal services are rendered,
and are, therefore, not recognized as part of the loss contingency
accrual.

On May 7, 2013, the Company was served with a fourth complaint,
naming the Company, another Las Vegas Strip property and a vendor
of the Company as defendants in a purported wage and hour class
action, regarding alleged unpaid wages for time incurred by
certain of the vendor's employees. The Company has filed a motion
to dismiss the entirety of the action. In addition, the Company
continues to evaluate the claims and is assessing additional
defenses, including whether it has applicable insurance and/or
indemnification rights and, therefore, is unable to provide an
estimate of reasonably possible loss or range of loss.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses with respect
to these matters and intends to defend its positions vigorously.


NEVADA PROPERTY: Losses Bid to Junk Taping/Recording Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of California issued an
order denying motions by Nevada Propery 1 LLC to dismiss claims
against it over alleged unlawful taping/recording or to strike the
class allegations, 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.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed during the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2012 in Superior Court in the State of
California against the Company, alleging violation of the
California Penal Code regarding the unlawful taping or recording
of calls. Subsequently, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Plaintiff's First Amended Company, or in the alternative, to
strike the class allegations.

On July 15, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California issued an order denying these Company
motions.


NEVADA PROPERTY: In Arbitration for Condominium Hotel Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Propery 1 LLC is actively engaged in various arbitration
and other dispute resolution proceedings with respect to the
purchase and sale of condominium hotel units, 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.

The Company was a named defendant in a number of lawsuits and
arbitrations concerning the purchase and sale of condominium hotel
units located within the East and West Towers of the Property. The
thrust of the claims were virtually the same in every matter.

The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the project had
materially changed and that delays in the completion of the
Property constituted a material breach by the Company, thus
permitting the plaintiff/purchaser to rescind their contract and
receive a full refund of their earnest money deposit, plus
interest thereon.

The Company was represented in each of these matters by outside
legal counsel. Virtually all of the original claims have been
settled (through either a series of class action or individual
settlements) or litigated to completion through court actions or
confidential arbitration proceedings.

Through the six months ended June 30, 2013 and 2012, buyers
representing 189 and 178 condominium hotel units in The
Cosmopolitan, respectively, agreed to settle and release their
claims against the Company arising under their agreements to
purchase the condominium hotel units.

Primarily, under the terms of the settlements, buyers of units in
the West Tower of The Cosmopolitan received a refund of 50% of
their principal earnest money deposits and buyers of units in the
East Tower received a refund of 40% of their principal earnest
money deposits. The Company retained 50% of the principal
deposits, plus 100% of all interest, under the West Tower purchase
contracts, and 60% of the principal deposits, plus 100% of all
interest, under the East Tower purchase contracts.

As a result of settlements occurring during the three and six
months ended June 30, 2012, the Company recognized as net income a
net gain of $0.0 million and $12.7 million, respectively. The
Company recognized a net gain of $0.2 million for the three and
six months ended June 30, 2013.

As of June 30, 2013, there are seven condominium hotel units
remaining under contract at The Cosmopolitan. The Company is
actively engaged in various arbitration and other dispute
resolution proceedings with respect to each of those units. Those
proceedings are in varying stages and the Company disputes the
allegations made by the buyers in those proceedings and is seeking
to recover the deposits paid by such buyers due to their failure
to close and perform under their respective purchase contracts.
The Company has prevailed in many of the pending arbitrations and
is in the process of confirming and enforcing the respective
arbitration awards. The Company intends to complete arbitration
proceedings against the buyers of remaining units, who have not
agreed to settle and release their claims, on terms acceptable to
the Company.


NEW YORK, NY: Fights Racial Profiling Law Amid Stop-and-Frisk Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
Mayor Michael Bloomberg moved on Sept. 3 to block a City Council
legislation expanding access to state court for claims of racial
profiling.

In a suit filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, the Law Department
seeks to have a judge declare that Local Law 71, enacted over the
mayor's veto on Aug. 22, is invalid as preempted by state law.
Local Law 71, or "the racial profiling" bill, allows a plaintiff
to seek declaratory or injunctive relief to stop a particular
police policy or practice and creates a private right of action
for intentional and disparate impact claims based on an expanded
number of categories, including "housing status," a reference to
public housing residents and the homeless.

The measure does not allow damages but does allow for the award of
attorney fees to prevailing plaintiffs.  "The Mayor made clear in
his veto message that this anti-profiling measure is illegal --
and today we are taking action on his behalf to prevent the law
from taking effect," Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo said in a
statement.

The complaint, filed by assistant corporation counsel June Buch,
says the measure, vetoed "on the grounds that it is unlawful and
harmful to the City," is preempted by New York State Criminal
Procedure Law.  "The CPL is a comprehensive and detailed
regulatory scheme that imposes burdens, limitations, and
obligations on law enforcement, including the Police Department
and individual officers, and determines the procedures that law
enforcement must follow in performing their work, from
investigations through post-trial proceedings," Mr. Buch states.
"It is intended to be a uniform and complete set of laws for the
entire State."

The suit comes as the city is asking Southern District Judge Shira
Scheindlin to stay her rulings appointing a monitor for the Police
Department and other remedies after finding the city liable for
police stop-and-frisk practices that violate the Fourth
Amendment's requirement of reasonable suspicion and violate the
Fourteenth Amendment by disproportionately stopping blacks and
Hispanics.


NYRSTAR: Families of Lead-Affected Children Have Grounds to Sue
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Martin, writing for The Australian, reports that families of
lead-affected children in the South Australian regional city of
Port Pirie have clear grounds to sue smelter operator Nyrstar for
damages after a new report revealed the extent of lead
contamination in the area, class action lawyers Maurice Blackburn
say.

Principal Damian Scattini said an SA Health report released this
week, which showed 20 per cent of 353 tested sites had lead
contaminated soils above accepted levels, further supported the
case for legal action against the smelter owner.

The report -- released 18 months after the study was undertaken --
recommended children should not play in dirt in public parks, and
advised against having picnics without washing the hands of
children.

However, Mr. Scattini said potential action was being held back by
a community that was "captive" by the smelter owner as it was the
region's major employer.

"The fact is this foreign company is saying to the community that
we want you to pay for the damage we cause; we want you to pick up
the tab of our pollution and the cost of that is your children's
health and that is not good enough," he said.

"This is a tragedy for the local children (where) the onus is on
the mothers and the children not to expose themselves to their
environment."

Mr. Scattini said his company had been in discussion with some
residents of the industrial city, 225km north of Adelaide, about
launching a class action, which he believed would be a
straightforward case.

"There are various ways of looking at it, but the damage will be
there, there is no doubt about that.  If your child is lead
poisoned, there will be damages," he said.

"That is just a terrible reality. Lead is a deadly neurotoxin and
it robs these children of their future and it is just not good
enough for them to say we'll study it some more, we'll look at it
some more, we can't remediate it because it is too expensive."

Mr. Scattini, who instigated action against Xstrata's Mount Isa
mine in Queensland for lead poisoning, said only seven people
needed to come forward to launch an action.  He said only the main
applicant needed to be named, while others could remain anonymous.

"It is a powerful economic weapon that they (Nyrstar) hold over
the head of the local community," he said.

"It is a company town, the same as Mount Isa and Broken Hill, and
if you stick your head up in a company town, the company will say
that 'oh well, we'll have to leave and then how will you pay your
mortgages?' So people are naturally and understandably scared by
that.

"But eventually someone is brave enough to say 'no, I won't take
this, my child's future is too important, my child's health is too
important for this foreign company to be able to get away with
this and to put the cost of its pollution on to the children of
the community'."

A spokeswoman for Nyrstar said the company had no comment on
Mr. Scattini's claims.

"The local community has been a long-term partner with the smelter
and we welcome their support," she said.


PETROCHINA CO: Failure to Disclose Graft Probe Prompts Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Toh Han Shih and Eric Ng, writing for South China Morning Post,
report that a US law firm has filed a class-action lawsuit in an
American court against PetroChina and some of its executives for
failing to disclose the corruption scandal affecting the oil giant
and its state-owned parent, the China National Petroleum
Corporation (CNPC).

Several former executives of PetroChina and CNPC are under
investigation by the central government for corruption, including
Jiang Jiemin, a former head of CNPC, PetroChina and the State-
owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (Sasac).
The investigation is believed to be linked to Zhou Yongkang ,
former security tsar and ally of fallen leader Bo Xilai .

Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross filed the lawsuit in
the court of the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
investors who bought US securities in the Chinese firm from
April 26 last year to August 27, seeking unspecified damages from
PetroChina and some of its executives, said a press release issued
by the law firm.

PetroChina, listed in Shanghai and Hong Kong, has American
depositary receipts traded in New York.

Although class-action lawsuits are not uncommon in the US, they
should be regarded as important, said Daniel Roules, a Shanghai-
based partner at US law firm Squire Sanders.  "The damages will be
based on the number of damaged investors, but class actions are
always costly for a company. Even if PetroChina prevails, the
costs of fighting the case will be high."

PetroChina cannot afford to ignore this lawsuit, otherwise the
plaintiffs would win a default judgment, said Mr. Roules.  "It
does not matter that the investors are in the US and the
misconduct may have occurred in China. The plaintiffs have grounds
for claiming they have been harmed as investors."

The lawsuit alleges PetroChina failed to disclose that some of its
senior officials were in non-compliance with its corporate
governance directives and code of ethics, and that PetroChina was
subject to investigation by the Chinese authorities.

PetroChina's financial statements "were materially false and
misleading" during the period of the lawsuit, said Pomerantz.

If a company paid bribes and claimed them as legitimate expenses,
that would be a falsification of financial statements, likely
resulting in fines, said Mr. Roules.

"Perhaps most significant is the damage to reputation.  Banks and
capital markets will be less willing to put their money with a
company that has earned a reputation for falsifying financial
statements, so PetroChina's cost of doing business will increase
as a result of the undisclosed corruption," he said.

A PetroChina spokesman declined to comment on the lawsuit.  "The
serious violations of some individuals have nothing to do with the
company's corporate governance and strategy.  Getting rid of
corruption will benefit the company's development."


PETROCHINA CO: To Contest Securities Class Action in U.S.
---------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that PetroChina Co. Ltd. said on Sept. 6 that an
overseas individual shareholder has filed a class action complaint
with a U.S. court against the company and current and former
executives for alleged violations of securities laws in the United
States.

PetroChina said in a filing to the Hong Kong stock exchange that
the company would vigorously contest the complaint to protect its
rights and interests.

It added that individual defendants, who it did not name, had not
been served any formal documents or notice of complaint.


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Parents Mull Suit Over School Budget Crisis
-------------------------------------------------------------
WTXF Fox 29 reports that this is the last weekend of summer
vacation for thousands of kids in Philadelphia, and parents tell
Fox they're more anxious than the kids.  They say instead of
excitement, there's confusion and fear. They're considering
turning to the courts for help.

A budget crisis has led to school closings as well as cuts to
staff and programs.

The district and the teachers' union still haven't reached a
contract deal.

And city leaders have not secured funding that will help plug a
$220-million budget deficit.

Members of Parents United for Public Education told reporters on
Sept. 5 that they're appalled and worried.  They met with
attorneys from the Public Interest Law Center to explore their
legal options.  They're focusing on a state constitutional mandate
that guarantees a "thorough and efficient" education for every
child.

Lawyers say a class-action lawsuit is a possibility.


PORT OF HOUSTON: Homeowners' Class Action Can't Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Heallen, writing for Law360, reports that a Texas appeals
court said on Sept. 5 that the Port of Houston Authority cannot be
sued in a proposed class action by homeowners who claim noise, air
and light pollution emanating from operations at a nearby shipping
terminal have rendered their properties uninhabitable.

The First District Court of Appeals said that governmental
immunity protects the port authority from the homeowners' claim
that negligent operations at the coastal terminal have created a
property-damaging nuisance.  In a separate opinion, the appeals
court ruled that the property owners were not entitled to
compensation under state law because they failed to prove that the
port's activities specifically targeted their homes.

"Although the property owners argue that the noise, light and air
pollution they suffer is peculiar to their properties given their
proximity to the Bayport Terminal, we perceive no meaningful
distinction between the property owners' damage allegations and
those damages courts have already held to be non-compensable in
the construction and operation of other public works," the appeals
court said.

Representatives for the homeowners did not immediately respond to
a request for comment on Sept. 5.

A group of 95 homeowners launched a pair of lawsuits in 2010
claiming that construction activities at the Bayport Container
Terminal, which have been ongoing since 2004, have caused
neighboring communities to suffer property damage and personal
injury.

When construction is complete, the terminal, which presently
consists of more than 3,300 feet of container dock and a 160-acre
container yard, will more than double in size and have the
capacity to accommodate up to seven container ships, according to
court filings.

The property owners, who live a neighborhood just north of the
terminal, alleged in an inverse condemnation suit that
construction activities are generating noise, light and air
pollution so severe that they are unable to stay in their homes,
which constitutes a taking of their property for which
compensation is required under the Texas Constitution.

In a second suit, the homeowners contended that the port
authority's negligent operation of construction at the terminal
caused them to suffer sleep deprivation and a variety of stress-
related maladies.  According to that suit, the port authority had
created a public nuisance by, among other things, repeatedly
violating a local noise-control ordinance, for which the port
authority received nine criminal citations.

The trial court hearing the inverse condemnation suit tossed the
case, reasoning that because the homeowners had alleged damages
that were common to everyone in communities surrounding the port,
they could not prevail on a taking claim under state law.

But the trial court in the nuisance suit rejected the port
authority's argument that it was insulated by governmental
immunity from the homeowners' tort claims.

The appeals court said on Sept. 5 that both cases should have been
dismissed.

Because noise, light and air pollution generated by the
construction is being suffered by the surrounding community as a
whole, state law does not recognize the homeowners' alleged damage
as a compensable taking, the appeals court said.

For similar reasons, the nuisance suit had to be dismissed as
well, according to the appeals court.

Because the property damage alleged in that case was common to the
community, the homeowners failed to allege "particularized" claims
that waived the port authority's immunity under the Texas Tort
Claims Act, the appeals court said.

The appeals court also said that since the homeowners' claims of
personal injuries, amounting to mental anguish based solely on
negligent property damage, are not compensable under Texas law,
the port authority's immunity was not waived under the TCA.

The landowners are represented by Mitchell A. Toups of Weller
Green Toups & Terrell LLP and by John C. Grazier.

The Port of Houston Authority is represented by R. Paul Yetter --
pyetter@yettercoleman.com -- and Ryan Parker Bates of Yetter
Coleman LLP and by Nancy R. Kornegay -- nkornegay@bkllp.com -- and
David H. Brown -- dbrown@bkllp.com -- of Brown & Kornegay LLP.

The cases are Aaron v. The Port of Houston Authority of Harris
County, Texas, and Port of Houston Authority v. Aaron, case
numbers 01-12-00640-CV and 01-12-00373-CV, in the First Court of
Appeals of the State of Texas.


REALOGY GROUP: "Barasani" Labor Lawsuit v. Coldwell Continues
-------------------------------------------------------------
The suit Barasani v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage
Company, which is in relation to misclassification of sales
associates as independent contractors continues, according to
Realogy Group LLC, 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 November 15, 2012, plaintiff Ali Barasani filed a putative
class action complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court, California,
against Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company alleging
that the Company had misclassified all of its sales associates as
independent contractors when they were actually employees.

The complaint further alleges that, because of the
misclassification, the Company has violated several sections of
the Labor Code including Section 2802 for failing to reimburse
plaintiff and the class for business related expenses and Section
226 for failing to keep proper records. The complaint also asserts
a Section 17200 Unfair Business Practices claim for misclassifying
the sales agents.


RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Plan Confirmation Hearing in Late October
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Confirmation hearing of the Chapter 11 Plan of Residential
Capital LLC, which incorporates the terms of a Plan Support
Agreement with the class in In re: Community Bank of Northern
Virginia Second Mortgage Lending Practice Litigation, is currently
targeted for late October 2013, 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.

According to ResCap, "Our mortgage operations were historically a
significant portion of the company's operations and were conducted
primarily through the company's Residential Capital, LLC (ResCap)
subsidiary. On May 14, 2012, ResCap and certain of its wholly
owned direct and indirect subsidiaries (collectively, the Debtors)
filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York (the Bankruptcy Court)."

"As a result of the bankruptcy filing, effective May 14, 2012, the
company deconsolidated ResCap from the company's financial
statements and recorded a charge of $442 million for the
impairment of Ally's investment in ResCap. During the first
quarter of 2013, the company discontinued performing certain
mortgage activities, which were required as part of the bankruptcy
process until the sale of certain assets occurred. As a result of
the company discontinuing these activities, the operations of
ResCap were classified as discontinued.

"On May 14, 2013, Ally Financial Inc., on behalf of itself and
certain of its subsidiaries (collectively, AFI) entered into a
Plan Support Agreement (the PSA) with the Debtors, the official
committee of unsecured creditors appointed in the Debtors' Chapter
11 cases (the Creditors' Committee), and certain creditors,
including AIG Asset Management (U.S.), LLC; Allstate Insurance
Company; Financial Guaranty Insurance Company (FGIC), which has
executed the agreement pending regulatory approval; counsel to the
putative class of persons represented in the consolidated class
action entitled In re: Community Bank of Northern Virginia Second
Mortgage Lending Practice Litigation, filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, MDL No.
1674, Case Nos. 03-0425, 02-01201, 05-0688, 05-1386; Massachusetts
Mutual Life Insurance Company; MBIA Insurance Corporation; Paulson
& Co. Inc., a holder of ResCap's senior unsecured notes issued by
ResCap; Prudential Insurance Company of America; certain investors
in residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) backed by
mortgage loans held by securitization trusts associated with
securitizations sponsored by the Debtors between 2004 and 2007
represented by Kathy Patrick of Gibbs & Bruns LLP and Keith H.
Wofford of Ropes & Gray LLP; Talcott Franklin of Talcott Franklin,
P.C. as counsel for certain RMBS investors; Wilmington Trust,
National Association in its capacity as Indenture Trustee for
ResCap's senior unsecured notes; and certain trustees or indenture
trustee for certain mortgage-backed securities trusts
(collectively, the Consenting Claimants).

"On June 26, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving
the PSA. The PSA provides for the parties to support a Chapter 11
plan in the Debtors' Chapter 11 cases (the Plan) that will, among
other things, settle and provide AFI full releases for all
existing and potential claims between AFI and the Debtors,
including all representation and warranty claims that reside with
the Debtors, and all pending and potential claims held by third
parties related to the Debtors that could be brought against AFI,
except for securities claims by the Federal Housing Finance Agency
and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as receiver
for certain failed banks. AFI believes it has strong defenses
against these claims and will vigorously defend its position, as
necessary.

"The PSA also provides, among other things, that, on the effective
date of the Plan, AFI will contribute to the Debtors' estates
$1.95 billion in cash or cash equivalents, and will further
contribute $150 million received by AFI for claims it pursues
against its insurance carriers related to the claims released in
connection with the Plan, with such amount guaranteed by AFI to be
paid no later than September 30, 2014 (collectively, the Ally
Contribution) in exchange for the releases of AFI to be included
in the Plan. These amounts have been reflected within the
company's accrued expenses and other liabilities.

"The Ally Contribution and other assets of the Debtors' estates
will be distributed to creditors under the Plan. In addition, the
PSA contemplated the payoff of Ally secured debt on or before the
effective date of the Plan. On June 13, 2013, the Debtors paid AFI
approximately $1.127 billion in full satisfaction of the AFI
revolving credit facility and line of credit. The payment to AFI
was approved by the Bankruptcy Court with an express reservation
of rights, claims and remedies against AFI and a reciprocal
reservation of rights, claims and remedies for AFI's benefit in
the event the Plan does not become effective.

"The PSA also provides that the Debtors will remain responsible
for all costs and obligations imposed on the Debtors under (i) the
consent judgment among the United States Department of Justice,
the Attorneys General of certain states, ResCap, GMAC Mortgage,
LLC (GMACM) and Ally Financial Inc. entered by the District Court
for the District of Columbia on February 9, 2012, (ii) the consent
order among ResCap, GMACM, Ally Financial Inc., Ally Bank, the
Federal Reserve Board (FRB) and the FDIC, dated April 13, 2011
(the Consent Order) and (iii) the order of assessment among
ResCap, GMACM, Ally Financial Inc. and the Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System, excluding certain obligations that are
being performed by Ocwen Financial Corporation (Ocwen).

"Notably, on June 26, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court approved a term
sheet (the FRB Term Sheet) encompassing the terms of an amendment
to the Consent Order (the Consent Order Amendment). The FRB Term
Sheet, among other things, required the Debtors to escrow
approximately $230 million (the FRB Settlement Amount) in exchange
for the FRB suspending the foreclosure review mandated under the
Consent Order (the FRB Foreclosure Review) for 30 days.

"The FRB Term Sheet was fully executed on June 27, 2013 and the
FRB Foreclosure Review was suspended on June 28, 2013. On July 26,
2013, the Bankruptcy Court approved the Consent Order Amendment
and, as a result, the Debtors are no longer responsible for the
FRB Foreclosure Review, and the FRB Settlement Amount will be
distributed to individual borrowers in full satisfaction of the
Debtors' foreclosure review obligations.

"Further, the PSA requires that the Plan include a settlement of
insurance disputes between AFI and the Debtors under which the
Debtors will relinquish in favor of AFI all of their rights to
coverage under certain insurance policies. The PSA also requires
that all litigation against AFI by the Debtors, the Creditors'
Committee and the Consenting Claimants be stayed so long as the
PSA has not been terminated.

"The PSA requires, among other things, that the following
milestones be satisfied: (i) the FGIC rehabilitation court must
approve the PSA and a separate settlement agreement entered into
among the Debtors, FGIC, trustees of residential mortgage-backed
trusts and certain institutional investors (the FGIC Settlement)
on or before August 19, 2013; (ii) the Bankruptcy Court must
approve the Disclosure Statement on or before August 30, 2013; and
(iii) the effective date of the Plan must occur on or before
December 15, 2013. In the event any of the milestones are not
satisfied, the PSA could be terminated.

"The PSA also includes a number of additional events that could
result in the PSA being terminated, including the following: (i)
the Bankruptcy Court enters an order appointing a Chapter 11
trustee; (ii) any of the Debtors' Chapter 11 cases are dismissed
or converted to a case under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code;
(iii) any court has entered a final, non-appealable judgment or
order declaring any material portion of the PSA unenforceable;
(iv) the releases set forth in the PSA are modified, amended,
changed, severed or otherwise altered in the Plan or any other
definitive document; and (v) the PSA ceases to be binding on AFI
or the Creditors' Committee.

"Additionally, the PSA requires that several conditions be
satisfied or waived before the Plan can be effective, including,
the following: (i) the Bankruptcy Court approves the Plan and
Disclosure Statement on terms reasonably acceptable to the
parties; (ii) the order confirming the Plan (the Confirmation
Order) must have been entered by the Bankruptcy Court and provide
for, among other things, the releases specified in the PSA; (iii)
the Confirmation Order must not have been stayed, modified, or
vacated on appeal, and the time to appeal shall have passed; (iv)
the FGIC rehabilitation court must have approved the PSA and FGIC
Settlement Agreement, including the release of all present and
future claims against FGIC relating to FGIC policies; (v) AFI must
have funded the Ally Contribution; and (vi) AFI's secured claims
against the Debtors must have been fully satisfied.

"On July 3, 2013, the Debtors filed the Plan, which incorporates
the terms of the PSA described herein, and related disclosure
statement (the Disclosure Statement), with the Bankruptcy Court.
The Bankruptcy Court has scheduled a hearing to consider approval
of the Disclosure Statement on August 21, 2013, and the Plan
confirmation hearing is currently targeted for late October 2013.

"On June 4, 2012, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. filed a motion in the
Bankruptcy Court for the appointment of an independent examiner to
investigate, among other things, certain of the Debtors'
transactions with AFI occurring prior to the Petition Date, any
claims the Debtors may hold against AFI's officers and directors,
and any claims the Debtors proposed to release under the Plan. On
June 20, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court approved the appointment of an
examiner and, subsequently, the United States Trustee for the
Southern District of New York appointed former bankruptcy judge
Arthur J. Gonzalez, Esq. as the examiner (the Examiner). Upon
approving the PSA on June 26, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court unsealed
the Examiner's investigative report. Under the terms of the PSA,
the contents of the report may not be used by any party as a basis
for terminating or modifying the PSA.

"There can be no assurance that any of the required milestones
will be satisfied, that the conditions to effectiveness will be
satisfied or waived or that none of the specified termination
events will occur. The termination of the PSA or the failure of
the PSA to become effective could result in modifications to the
Plan, or the pursuit of an alternative form of reorganization or
liquidation. This would result in delay and significant expense,
and any modifications to the Plan or other alternative may well be
less favorable to AFI."


RESOURCES IN HEALTHCARE: Files for Bankruptcy Amid Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Warren, writing for Kentucky.com, reports that a business
named as one of the defendants in a federal class-action lawsuit
in Lexington has filed for federal bankruptcy protection.

The petition was filed on Sept. 3 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in
Lexington by Resources in Healthcare Management.

The company said in the filing that it has estimated assets of up
to $50,000 and estimated liabilities of $1 million to $10 million.

Resources in Healthcare Management estimated it has between 200
and 999 creditors.  The petition, which includes nearly 100 pages
of creditors' names, was signed by Lu Anne Wallace.

Ms. Wallace and Resources in Healthcare Management are among the
corporate and individual defendants named in the federal class-
action suit in U.S. District Court in Lexington.

The federal class-action lawsuit was filed last month by employees
who allege that the firms caused the company health insurance plan
to lapse by failing to pay premiums.  Employees also allege that
the defendants withdrew retirement contributions from their
paychecks, but didn't deposit the money in their 401(k) accounts.

Other defendants in the class-action include Paragon Family
Practice, Horizon Healthcare Center LLC, Madison Primary Care LLC
and Ann Giles.

Ms. Wallace has testified in federal court that she borrowed
$154,000 to have Humana reinstate the employees' health plan.
However, the lawsuit is continuing.

On Aug. 30, U.S. District Judge Karen Caldwell ordered the
defendants make their financial records available for examination
by the employees' attorneys, as well providing records from the
employees 401(k) plans.

Judge Caldwell also gave the defendants until Sept. 4 to create an
escrow account and place in it all funds deducted from employee
paychecks to be contributed to the company health plan.

Jennie Arnold, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said on Sept. 4
that she had received no confirmation that the escrow account had
been opened as the court had ordered.

But Jeffrey Darling, one of the attorneys for the defendants, said
in an interview later on Sept. 4 that he understood the fund had
been established.

Meanwhile, a number of Paragon employees who have quit or been
laid off say they haven't received checks for back pay.

Shelly Dray said she was laid off from Paragon's call center on
Alexandria Drive on Aug. 19.  Ms. Dray said the company asked her
and another worker to stay on.  But Ms. Dray said she couldn't
stay without being paid.

Ms. Dray said on Sept. 4 that she hasn't received a paycheck.

Another former Paragon call center worker, Angela Strode, said she
now has creditors calling her because she's behind on her bills.

"I was laid off Aug. 19, but the last paycheck I got was July 19,"
Ms. Strode said on Sept. 4.  "They day we were laid off they told
us we would be getting our checks the next day.  But we still
haven't received anything."

Ms. Strode said she and other employees were told last spring that
Paragon was being sold.

"They claimed they were letting us go because the new company that
was supposed to be buying them or merging with them wasn't going
to need a call center," she said.  Ms. Strode said she no longer
thinks anyone is buying the company.


REXNORD CORPORATION: Units Proceed With Settlement of Zurn Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of Rexnord Corporation are continuing with the agreed
settlement process of the litigation over Zurn brass fittings on
the PEX plumbing systems, according to Rexnord's
Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 29, 2013.

The Company's subsidiaries, Zurn PEX, Inc. and Zurn Industries,
LLC, were named as defendants in a number of individual and class
action lawsuits in various United States courts. The plaintiffs in
these suits claimed damages due to the alleged failure or
anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on the PEX plumbing
systems in homes and other structures.

In July 2012, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle the liability underlying this litigation.  The settlement
is designed to resolve, on a national basis, the Company's overall
exposure for both known and unknown claims related to the alleged
failure or anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on PEX
plumbing systems, subject to the right of eligible class members
to opt-out of the settlement and pursue their claims
independently.

The settlement received final court approval in February 2013, and
utilizes a seven year claims fund, which is capped at $20 million,
and is funded in installments over the seven year period based on
claim activity and minimum funding criteria.  The settlement also
covers class action plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses
totaling $8.5 million, which was paid in the first quarter of
fiscal 2014.

Historically, the Company's insurance carrier had funded the
Company's defense in the referenced proceedings. The Company,
however, reached a settlement agreement with its insurer, whereby
the insurer paid the Company a lump sum in exchange for a release
of future exposure related to this liability.

The Company has recorded a reserve related to this brass fittings
liability, which takes into account, in pertinent part, the
insurance carrier contribution, as well as exposure from the
claims fund, opt-outs and the waiver of future insurance coverage.


ROBERT HALF: Arbitration Ordered in "Uberti" Labor Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
A federal court ordered that the claims of Vincent Uberti against
Robert Half International Inc. must be arbitrated, 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 April 19, 2013, Plaintiff Vincent Uberti, on his own behalf and
on behalf of a putative class of allegedly similarly situated
individuals, filed a complaint naming the Company (as well other
defendants). With respect to the Company, the complaint alleges
that a putative class of current and former employees of the
Company working in California were denied compensation for the
time they spent interviewing with current and potential clients of
the Company over an alleged "Class Period" covering four years
prior to the filing of the complaint.

Uberti seeks recovery on his own behalf and on behalf of the
putative class in an unspecified amount for this allegedly unpaid
compensation. Uberti also seeks recovery of an unspecified amount
for the alleged failure of the Company to provide him and the
putative class with accurate wage statements. Uberti also seeks
recovery of an unspecified amount for statutory penalties,
attorney's fees and other damages.

On July 18, 2013, the United States District Court ordered that:
(i) Uberti's claims against the Company must be arbitrated; (ii)
the class action waiver in the Mutual  Agreement to Arbitrate
Claims between the Company and Uberti was enforceable and not
unconscionable; and (iii) that the case would be stayed as to
Uberti's claims against the Company. The Company has determined
that this litigation is not currently a material legal proceeding.
Accordingly, the Company does not presently intend to make
disclosures regarding this case in its future Securities and
Exchange Commission filings.


ROBERT HALF: Still Faces Suit Over Staff "Misclassification"
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Half International Inc. still faces a suit alleging that it
misclassified from the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime pay
requirements salaried Staffing Managers located throughout the
U.S., 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 April 23, 2010, Plaintiffs David Opalinski and James McCabe, on
behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated
Staffing Managers, filed a Complaint in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey naming the Company and one of
its subsidiaries as Defendants.

The Complaint alleges that salaried Staffing Managers located
throughout the U.S. have been misclassified as exempt from the
Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime pay requirements. Plaintiffs
seek an unspecified amount for unpaid overtime on behalf of
themselves and the class they purport to represent. Plaintiffs
also seek an unspecified amount for statutory penalties,
attorneys' fees and other damages.

On October 6, 2011, the Court granted the Company's motion to
compel arbitration of the Plaintiffs' allegations. At this stage,
it is not feasible to predict the outcome of or a range of loss,
should a loss occur, from these allegations and, accordingly, no
amounts have been provided in the Company's Financial Statements.
The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the
allegations, and the Company intends to continue to vigorously
defend against the allegations.


SELECT RESOURCE: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Igor Kossov, writing for Law360, reports that debt collection
company Select Resource Group LLC was hit with a proposed class
action in California federal court on Sept. 3 for allegedly
calling people in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

California resident Nabil Abouriche says that SRG contacted him in
July using an automated dialing system after getting his number by
unknown means.  Mr. Abouriche alleges that he had no business
relationship with the company and never provided his number to it.

Mr. Abouriche also says the calls increased his phone bill and
violated his privacy.  The complaint does not specify what the
calls were about.

"This suit seeks only damages and injunctive relief for recovery
of economic injury on behalf of the class, and it expressly is not
intended to request any recovery for personal injury and claims
related thereto," the complaint said.

The plaintiff alleges negligent violations of the TCPA, for which
he seeks $500 per instance in statutory damages, and knowing
and/or willful violations of the TCPA, for which he seeks $1,500
per instance in statutory damages.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff doesn't know how many
potential class members nationwide received robo-calls from South
Carolina-based SRG, but he believes the class members number in
the hundreds of thousands, if not more.

Absent a class action, "these violations of law will be allowed to
proceed without remedy and defendants will likely continue such
illegal conduct," the suit said.  "Because of the size of the
individual class member's claims, few, if any, class members could
afford to seek legal redress for the wrongs complained of herein."

Representatives for SRG did not immediately respond to requests
for comment on Sept. 4.

Mr. Abouriche is represented by Abbas Kazerounian of Kazerounian
Law Group APC, Joshua B. Swigart of Hyde & Swigart and the Law
Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC.

Counsel information for SRG was not immediately available.

The case is Abouriche v. Select Resource Group LLC, case number:
3:13-cv-02056, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.


SPRINT CORP: Defends "Katsman" Merger-Related Suit vs. Clearwire
----------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Sprint Corporation is defending itself against a
merger-related class action lawsuit filed by Abraham Katsman,
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 20, 2012, stockholder Abraham Katsman filed a putative
class action lawsuit in Delaware Court of Chancery against
Clearwire, its directors, Sprint and SoftBank, purportedly bought
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
SoftBank 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, rescission of the
Proposed Merger, and to recover 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: Defends "Litwin" Merger-Related Suit vs. Clearwire
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation is defending its subsidiary against a class
action lawsuit commenced by Joan Litwin, 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 Joan Litwin 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.  The lawsuit alleges that the directors of Clearwire
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed
Merger, that Sprint and Eagle River breached duties owed to
Clearwire's public stockholders by virtue of their alleged status
as controlling stockholders, and that Clearwire aided and abetted
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Sprint, Eagle River and
the directors of Clearwire.  The lawsuit also alleges that the
Merger Consideration undervalues Clearwire, that Sprint is using
its position as controlling stockholder to obtain Clearwire's
spectrum for itself to the detriment of the public stockholders,
and that the directors of Clearwire allowed Clearwire to stagnate
to benefit Sprint and Eagle River.  The lawsuit seeks to enjoin
the Proposed Merger and, should the Proposed Merger be
consummated, to rescind the Proposed Merger.  The lawsuit also
seeks to enjoin Sprint from interfering with Clearwire's build-out
plans or any future sale of spectrum, and seeks unspecified
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: Defends Consolidated Merger-Related Suit vs. Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation is defending a subsidiary against a
consolidated merger-related lawsuit pending in Washington,
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 20, 2012, stockholder Joe Kuhnle filed a putative
class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Washington, King
County, against Clearwire and its directors, purportedly brought
on behalf of the public stockholders of Clearwire (Kuhnle Action).
The Kuhnle Action alleges that the directors of Clearwire breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed Merger, and
that Clearwire aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty by the directors of Clearwire.  The Kuhnle Action also
alleges that the Merger Consideration undervalues Clearwire, that
the Proposed Merger was negotiated pursuant to an unfair process,
that the deal protection devices favor Sprint to the detriment of
the public stockholders, and that the directors of Clearwire
failed to make necessary disclosures in their public filings.  The
Kuhnle Action seeks a declaratory judgment that the Proposed
Merger was entered into in breach of defendants' fiduciary duties,
a preliminary injunction preventing the Proposed Merger and,
should the Proposed Merger be consummated, rescission of the
Proposed Merger, and to recover unspecified rescissory and
compensatory damages.

On January 18, 2013, Clearwire and the other defendants
collectively filed a motion to dismiss or stay the Kuhnle Action
in favor of the prior-filed Delaware actions.  On January 18,
2013, Clearwire and the other defendants opposed plaintiff's
motion to expedite discovery.  The Court denied plaintiff's motion
to expedite discovery and granted defendants' motion to stay the
Kuhnle matter pending resolution of actions in Delaware.  On
January 22, 2013, the parties stipulated to consolidate the three
King County Washington lawsuits -- the Kuhnle Action, along with
both the Millen Action and the Rowe Action into one matter: In Re
Clearwire Corporation Shareholder Litigation.  This litigation is
in the early stages, its outcome is unknown and an estimate of any
potential losses cannot be made at this time.

                          Millen Action

On December 20, 2012, stockholder Doug Millen filed a putative
class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Washington, King
County, against Clearwire and its directors, purportedly brought
on behalf of the public stockholders of Clearwire (Millen Action).
The lawsuit alleges that the directors of Clearwire breached their
fiduciary duties owed to Clearwire's public stockholders in
connection with the Proposed Merger, and that Clearwire aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of
Clearwire.  The lawsuit also alleges that the Merger Consideration
undervalues Clearwire, that the Proposed Merger was negotiated
pursuant to an unfair process, that the deal protection devices
favor Sprint to the detriment of the public stockholders, and that
the directors of Clearwire failed to make necessary disclosures in
connection with the announcement of the transaction.  The lawsuit
seeks a declaratory judgment that the Proposed Merger was entered
into in breach of defendants' fiduciary duties, an injunction
preventing the Proposed Merger, and rescission of the Proposed
Merger to the extent it has already been consummated.  This
litigation is in the early stages, its outcome is unknown and an
estimate of any potential losses cannot be made at this time.

                             Rowe Action

On December 31, 2012, stockholder Clinton Rowe filed a putative
class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Washington, King
County, against Clearwire, its directors, Sprint and Merger Sub,
purportedly brought on behalf of the public stockholders of
Clearwire (Rowe Action).  The lawsuit alleges that Sprint and the
directors of Clearwire breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the Proposed Merger, and that Clearwire, Sprint
and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty by the directors of Clearwire.  The lawsuit also alleges that
the Merger Consideration undervalues Clearwire, that the Proposed
Merger was negotiated pursuant to an unfair process, and that the
directors of Clearwire did not protect Clearwire against numerous
conflicts of interest.  The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment
that the Proposed Merger was entered into in breach of defendants'
fiduciary duties, an injunction preventing the Proposed Merger,
rescission of the transaction to the extent it has already been
implemented, and the imposition of a constructive trust in favor
of the plaintiff class upon any benefits improperly received by
defendants.  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: Defends SoftBank Merger-Related Suits and Inquiries
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation is defending itself against lawsuits and
inquiries related to its merger with SoftBank Corp., 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."

In connection with the SoftBank Merger, certain lawsuits,
inquiries, proceedings or claims, either asserted or unasserted,
including purported class actions typical to business combination
transactions are possible or pending against the Company.  The
Company intends to defend the pending cases vigorously, and,
because these cases are still in the preliminary stages, has not
yet determined what effect the lawsuits will have, if any, on its
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.  While it
is not possible to determine the ultimate disposition of each of
these proceedings and whether they will be resolved consistent
with the Company's beliefs, the Company expects that the outcome
of such proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, will not
have a material effect on the Company's financial position,
results of operations or cash flows.

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: Settlement of "Kwan" Suit vs. Unit Now Deemed Final
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation disclosed in its August 6, 2013, Form 8-K12B/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, that its
subsidiary's settlement of a class action lawsuit initiated by
Rosa Kwan is now deemed final.

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 September 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Clearwire in King County Superior Court, brought by
representative plaintiff Rosa Kwan.  The complaint alleges
Clearwire placed unlawful telephone calls using automatic dialing
and announcing devices and engaged in unlawful collection
practices.  It seeks declaratory, injunctive, and/or equitable
relief and actual and statutory damages under federal and state
law.  On October 1, 2009, Clearwire removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington.  The
parties stipulated to allow a Second Amended Complaint, which
plaintiffs filed on December 23, 2009.  Clearwire then filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On February 22, 2010,
the Court granted Clearwire's motion to dismiss in part,
dismissing certain claims with prejudice and granting plaintiff
leave to further amend the complaint.

The Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint adding additional
state law claims and joining Bureau of Recovery, a purported
collection agency, as a co-defendant.  On January 27, 2011, the
court granted the parties' stipulation allowing plaintiff to file
a Fourth Amended Complaint adding two new class representatives.
Clearwire then filed motions to compel the newly-added customer
plaintiffs to arbitrate their individual claims.  On January 3,
2012, the Court denied without prejudice Clearwire's motions to
compel arbitration because of factual issues to be resolved at an
evidentiary hearing. The parties stipulated to allow a Fifth
Amended Complaint.  The parties have settled the lawsuit. On
December 27, 2012, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement.  On May 6, 2013, the court granted final approval of
the settlement.

On June 6, 2013, the appeal period expired with no appeals filed.
The settlement is deemed final and Clearwire is performing claims
settlement administration.  The settlement amount 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: Unit Continues to Defend "Bennett" Suit in Kansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation's subsidiary continues to defend a class action
lawsuit titled Bennett v. Sprint Nextel Corp., pending in Kansas,
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 March 2009, a shareholder brought a lawsuit, Bennett v. Sprint
Nextel Corp., in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, alleging that Sprint Communications, Inc., formerly known
as Sprint Nextel Corporation, and three of its former officers
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by
failing adequately to disclose certain alleged operational
difficulties subsequent to the Sprint-Nextel merger, and by
purportedly issuing false and misleading statements regarding the
write-down of goodwill.  The plaintiff seeks class action status
for purchasers of Sprint Communications' common stock from
October 26, 2006, to February 27, 2008.  On January 6, 2011, the
Court denied Sprint Communications' motion to dismiss.
Subsequently, Sprint Communications' motion to certify the
January 6, 2011 order for an interlocutory appeal was denied, and
discovery is continuing.  The plaintiff moved to certify a class
of bondholders as well as owners of common stock, and Sprint
Communications has opposed that motion.

Sprint Communications believes the complaint is without merit and
intends to defend the matter vigorously.  Sprint Communications
does not expect the resolution of this matter to have a material
adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations.

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: Unit Defends Clearwire Acquisition-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Communications, Inc., formerly known as Sprint Nextel
Corporation, is defending various lawsuits arising from its
acquisition of Clearwire Corporation, 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").

Sprint Communications is also a defendant in several complaints
filed by shareholders of Clearwire Corporation, asserting claims
for breach of fiduciary duty by Sprint, and related claims and
otherwise challenging the Clearwire Acquisition.  There were five
lawsuits filed in Chancery Court in Delaware: Crest Financial
Limited v. Sprint Nextel Corp., et al., filed on December 12,
2012; Katsman v. Prusch, et al., filed December 20, 2012;
Feigeles, et al. v. Clearwire Corp., et al., filed December 28,
2012; Litwin, et al. v. Sprint Nextel Corp., et al., filed
January 2, 2013; and ACP Master, LTD, et al. v. Sprint Nextel
Corp., et al., filed April 26, 2013.  The Crest Financial lawsuit
was dismissed, without prejudice, by the plaintiff voluntarily on
June 28, 2013.  There are three cases filed in state court in King
County, Washington, and those cases have been stayed in favor of
the Delaware proceedings: Rowe, et al. v. Clearwire Corp., et al.,
filed December 31, 2012; and Millen, et al. v. Clearwire Corp. et
al., and Kuhnle, et al. v. Cleawire Corp., et al., both filed on
December 20, 2012 (only clearwire Corporation and its Board of
Directors are defendants in the Millen and Kuhnle cases).  Sprint
Communications intends to defend these cases vigorously, and,
because these cases are still in the preliminary stages, has not
yet determined what effect the lawsuits will have, if any, on its
financial position or results of operations.

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: Unit Defends Merger-Related Class Suits in Kansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Communications, Inc., formerly known as Sprint Nextel
Corporation, is defending various merger-related lawsuits in
Kansas, 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").

Sprint Communications has received several complaints purporting
to assert claims on behalf of Sprint shareholders, alleging that
members of the board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
in agreeing to the SoftBank Merger, and otherwise challenging that
transaction.  There are five cases pending in state court in
Johnson County, Kansas: UFCW Local 23 and Employers Pension Fund,
et al. v. Bennett, et al., filed on October 25, 2012; Iron Workers
Mid-South Pension Fund, et al. v. Hesse, et al., filed on
October 25, 2012; City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police and Fire
Retirement System v. Sprint Nextel Corp., et al., filed on
October 12, 2012; Testani, et al. v. Sprint Nextel Corp., et al.,
filed on November 1, 2012; and Patten, et al. v. Sprint Nextel
Corp., et al., filed on November 1, 2012.  The Plaintiffs in these
cases filed an amended complaint and a motion for preliminary
injunction on March 22, 2013.  The Plaintiffs filed a motion to
certify the consolidated cases as a class action on March 29,
2013, and Sprint Communications has opposed that motion.  There
are two cases filed in federal court in the District of Kansas,
entitled Gerbino, et al. v. Sprint Nextel Corp., et al., filed on
November 15, 2012, and Steinberg, et al. v. Bennett, et al., filed
on May 16, 2013 (and now consolidated with Gerbino).  Sprint
Communications intends to defend these cases vigorously, and,
because these cases are still in the preliminary stages, has not
yet determined what effect the lawsuits will have, if any, on its
financial position or results of operations.

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.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Faces "Garza" Owner-Operator Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company continues to face a 2004 owner-
operator class action litigation, 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 30, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed by Leonel
Garza on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Garza vs. Swift Transportation Co.,
Inc., Case No. CV7-472, or the Garza Complaint. The putative class
originally involved certain owner-operators who contracted with
the Company under a 2001 Contractor Agreement that was in place
for one year.

The putative class is alleging that the Company should have
reimbursed owner-operators for actual miles driven rather than the
contracted and industry standard remuneration based upon
dispatched miles. The trial court denied plaintiff's petition for
class certification, the plaintiff appealed and on August 6, 2008,
the Arizona Court of Appeals issued an unpublished Memorandum
Decision reversing the trial court's denial of class certification
and remanding the case back to the trial court.

On November 14, 2008, the Company filed a petition for review to
the Arizona Supreme Court regarding the issue of class
certification as a consequence of the denial of the Motion for
Reconsideration by the Court of Appeals.

On March 17, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court granted the Company's
petition for review, and on July 31, 2009, the Arizona Supreme
Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals opining that
the Court of Appeals lacked automatic appellate jurisdiction to
reverse the trial court's original denial of class certification
and remanded the matter back to the trial court for further
evaluation and determination.

Thereafter, the plaintiff renewed the motion for class
certification and expanded it to include all persons who were
employed by Swift as employee drivers or who contracted with Swift
as owner-operators on or after January 30, 1998, in each case who
were compensated by reference to miles driven. On November 4,
2010, the Maricopa County trial court entered an order certifying
a class of owner-operators and expanding the class to include
employees.

Upon certification, the Company filed a motion to compel
arbitration as well as filing numerous motions in the trial court
urging dismissal on several other grounds including, but not
limited to the lack of an employee as a class representative, and
because the named owner-operator class representative only
contracted with the Company for a three month period under a one
year contract that no longer exists.

In addition to these trial court motions, the Company also filed a
petition for special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals
arguing that the trial court erred in certifying the class because
the trial court relied upon the Court of Appeals ruling that was
previously overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court.

On April 7, 2011, the Arizona Court of Appeals declined
jurisdiction to hear this petition for special action and the
Company filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court.

On August 31, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court declined to review
the decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals. In April 2012, the
court issued the following rulings with respect to certain motions
filed by Swift: (1) denied Swift's motion to compel arbitration;
(2) denied Swift's request to decertify the class; (3) granted
Swift's motion that there is no breach of contract; and (4)
granted Swift's motion to limit class size based on statute of
limitations.

The Company intends to continue to pursue all available appellate
relief supported by the record, which the Company believes
demonstrates that the class is improperly certified and, further,
that the claims raised have no merit. The Company retains all of
its defenses against liability and damages. The final disposition
of this case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be
determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: To Contest Arbitration in "Sheer" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company intends to vigorously defend against
any arbitration proceedings in relation to owner-operator
misclassification class action, 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 December 22, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Swift Transportation and IEL: John Doe 1 and Joseph Sheer v. Swift
Transportation Co., Inc., and Interstate Equipment Leasing, Inc .,
Jerry Moyes, and Chad Killebrew, Case No. 9-CIV-10376 filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, or the Sheer Complaint.

The putative class involves owner-operators alleging that Swift
Transportation misclassified owner-operators as independent
contractors in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act,
or FLSA, and various New York and California state laws and that
such owner-operators should be considered employees.

The lawsuit also raises certain related issues with respect to the
lease agreements that certain owner-operators have entered into
with IEL. At present, in addition to the named plaintiffs,
approximately 200 other current or former owner-operators have
joined this lawsuit.

Upon Swift's motion, the matter has been transferred from the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
to the United States District Court in Arizona. On May 10, 2010,
the plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally certify an FLSA
collective action and authorize notice to the potential class
members.

On September 23, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin Swift and IEL from collecting
payments from plaintiffs who are in default under their lease
agreements and related relief. On September 30, 2010, the District
Court granted Swift's motion to compel arbitration and ordered
that the class action be stayed pending the outcome of
arbitration. The court further denied plaintiff's motion for
preliminary injunction and motion for conditional class
certification. The Court also denied plaintiff's request to
arbitrate the matter as a class.

The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking that
the District Court's order be vacated. On July 27, 2011, the court
denied the plaintiff's petition for writ of mandamus and the
plaintiff's filed another request for interlocutory appeal.

On December 9, 2011, the court permitted the plaintiffs to proceed
with their interlocutory appeal. Swift intends to vigorously
defend against any arbitration proceedings. The final disposition
of this case and the impact of such final disposition cannot be
determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: To Fight Calif. Employee Suit Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company intends to vigorously defend the
certification of the class in both the so-called Rudsell and
Burnell wage, meal and rest employee lawsuit, 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 March 22, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by John
Burnell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons against Swift Transportation: John Burnell and
all others similarly situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc.,
Case No. CIVDS 1004377 filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, for the County of San Bernardino, or the Burnell
Complaint.

On September 3, 2010, upon motion by Swift, the matter was removed
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Case No. EDCV10-809-VAP. The putative class includes
drivers who worked for Swift during the four years preceding the
date of filing alleging that Swift failed to pay the California
minimum wage, failed to provide proper meal and rest periods, and
failed to timely pay wages upon separation from employment.

The Burnell Complaint was subject to a stay of proceedings pending
determination of similar issues in a case unrelated to Swift,
Brinker v Hohnbaum, which was then pending before the California
Supreme Court. A ruling was entered in the Brinker matter and in
August 2012 the stay in the Burnell Complaint was lifted.

On April 9, 2013 the Company filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings requesting dismissal of plaintiff's claims related to
alleged meal and rest break violations under the California Labor
Code alleging that such claims are preempted by the Federal
Aviation Administration Authorization Act.

On May 29, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California granted the Company's motion for judgment on the
pleadings and dismissed plaintiff's claims that are based on
alleged violations of meal and rest periods set forth in the
California Labor Code.

On April 5, 2012, the Company was served with an additional class
action complaint alleging facts similar to those as set forth in
the Burnell Complaint. This new class action is James R. Rudsell,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation
Company, Case No. CIVDS 1200255, in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Bernardino, or the Rudsell
Complaint.

The Company intends to vigorously defend certification of the
class in both matters as well as the merits of these matters
should the classes be certified. The final disposition of both
cases and the impact of such final dispositions of these cases
cannot be determined at this time.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Montalvo" Minimum Wage Lawsuit Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of San Diego certified
the class in Montalvo et al. v. Swift Transportation Corporation
d/b/a ST Swift Transportation Corporation, 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 July 12, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Simona
Montalvo on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Montalvo et al. v. Swift
Transportation Corporation d/b/a ST Swift Transportation
Corporation in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego, or the Montalvo Complaint.

The Montalvo Complaint was removed to federal court on August 15,
2011, case number 3-11-CV-1827-L. Upon petition by plaintiffs, the
matter was remanded to state court and the Company filed an appeal
to this remand, which appeal has been denied. On July 29, 2013,
the court certified the class.

The issue of class certification in the Montalvo Complaint remains
subject to appeal and must first be resolved before the court will
address the merits of the case, and the company retain all of the
company's defenses against liability and damages pending a
determination of class certification. The Company intends to
vigorously defend against certification of the class as well as
the merits of this matter should the class be certified.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: To Contest Certification of Overtime Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company intends to vigorously defend
certification of the class in Troy Slack, et al v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation
Corporation overtime lawsuit, 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 September 9, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Troy
Slack on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Troy Slack, et al v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and Swift Transportation
Corporation in the State Court of Washington, Pierce County, or
the Slack Compliant.

The Slack Complaint was removed to federal court on October 12,
2011, case number 11-2-114380. The putative class includes all
current and former Washington State based employee drivers during
the three year statutory period alleging that they were not paid
overtime in accordance with Washington State law and that they
were not properly paid for meals and rest periods.

The Company intends to vigorously defend certification of the
class as well as the merits of these matters should the class be
certified. The final disposition of this case and the impact of
such final disposition of this case cannot be determined at this
time.


SYNGENTA CROP: Lawyers Set to Argue Over Confidential Documents
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reports
that any lawyer can turn confidential information into public
record by filing it as an exhibit with any motion in any court,
foes of weed killer atrazine argue at the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals.

"Judicial records include all documents filed in a public court
case at a public courthouse," Howard Learner of Chicago wrote for
two nature groups in June.

His clients seek to unseal 242 exhibits that atrazine maker
Syngenta Crop Protection Services produced to St. Louis lawyer
Stephen Tillery in a class action.

"The right of public access is particularly important in this case
because the judicial records at issue relate to atrazine, a
chemical herbicide that is known to contaminate surface and
groundwater and which has been linked to numerous health
problems," he wrote.

"The sooner that these documents are unsealed and made available
to the public, the sooner that any information therein concerning
atrazine's effects on the public health and the environment can
begin informing policy and regulatory decisions about atrazine,"
he wrote.

Mr. Learner will argue the case on Tuesday, Sept. 10, for the
Environmental Law and Policy Center and the Prairie Rivers
Network.

The groups intervened in a suit that Syngenta and Mr. Tillery
settled last year, but they couldn't persuade U.S. District Judge
Phil Gilbert to unseal the exhibits.

Judge Gilbert found no connection between the exhibits and the
motion they accompanied.  He called them extraneous and didn't
review them.

On appeal, Mr. Learner argues that his clients made the exhibits
relevant by appealing.

"This court might find it necessary to review those documents in
evaluating ELPC and PRN's request for relief, and they are
decidedly relevant to the appeal," Mr. Learner wrote.

He wrote that "these exhibits should be unsealed even if Syngenta
were somehow correct that filed documents can remain sealed if a
district court judge chose to not review or rely upon them in
reaching a decision."

For Syngenta, Michael Pope of Chicago answered that the exhibits
should not have been filed in the first place.

Mr. Pope wrote that "sealed documents that don't influence or
underpin a judicial decision are not subject to a presumption of
public access."

He wrote that intervenors have no right to extraneous material.

Unsealing the exhibits "would open the door to unscrupulous
litigants who seek to gain a litigation advantage by publicly
disclosing highly confidential documents that were produced by
their adversary during discovery pursuant to the terms of a valid
protective order," he wrote.

"Plaintiffs provided no explanation as to why 242 of their 365
exhibits were never cited in their brief.

"Syngenta also raised concerns that intervenors were acting as a
shill for plaintiffs to obtain public disclosure of Syngenta's
commercially sensitive documents.

"Intervenors moved to intervene on the very same day that the
court denied plaintiffs' request to unseal the exhibits.

"Second, the two alleged members of the public who submitted
affidavits in support of intervenors' motion to intervene were
actually employed by the intervenors."

He also wrote that district courts should be given discretion to
strike or keep under seal confidential documents that have no
relevance to the decision making process.

"Intervenors' proposed rule would allow a party to publicly
disclose all of the confidential discovery documents produced by
its adversary by simply attaching the documents to any routine
motion," Pope wrote.

"Such a rule would have a significant chilling effect on the
willingness of parties to disclose their confidential documents
during discovery since they will no longer be able to rely on the
protections of any court imposed protective order."


TECO ENERGY: No Certification for Gas Outage Suit Against PGS
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Lee County Circuit Court, Florida denied the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in a suit filed against Peoples Gas
System on behalf of its commercial customers affected by a gas
outage as a result of a 2010 accident in a gas line, according to
Teco Energy Inc.'s Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

In November 2010, heavy equipment operated at a road construction
site being conducted by Posen Construction, Inc. struck a natural
gas line causing a rupture and ignition of the gas and an outage
in the natural gas service to Lee and Collier counties, Florida.

Two commercial PGS customers filed a purported class action in Lee
County Circuit Court, Florida against PGS on behalf of PGS
commercial customers affected by the outage, seeking damages for
loss of revenue and other costs related to the gas outage. Posen
Construction, Inc., the company conducting construction at the
site where the incident occurred, is also a defendant in the
action.

In June 2013, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and dismissed the plaintiffs' underlying claim and
the plaintiffs have filed for reconsideration of the ruling.

PGS's suit against Posen Construction in Federal Court for the
Middle District of Florida to recover damages for repair and
restoration relating to the incident remains pending, as does the
Posen Construction counter-claim against PGS alleging negligence.

In addition, the suit filed by the Posen Construction employee
operating the heavy equipment involved in the incident in Lee
County Circuit Court against PGS, Posen Construction and the
engineering company on the construction project, seeking damages
for his injuries, also remains pending.

In addition, three former or inactive TEC employees are
maintaining a suit against TEC in Hillsborough County Circuit
Court, Florida for personal injuries allegedly caused by exposure
to a chemical substance at one of TEC's power stations. The suit
was originally filed in 2002 and recently the trial judge allowed
the plaintiffs to seek punitive damages in connection with their
case. A trial is expected in the first half of 2014.

TEC believes the claims in each of the pending actions in this
item are without merit and intends to defend each matter
vigorously. TEC is unable at this time to estimate the possible
loss or range of loss with respect to these matters.


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.


VENOCO INC: 2014 Trial in Shareholder Suit Over Privatization
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in a suit over the privatization of Venoco Inc. is expected
to occur in late 2014, 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 August 2011 Timothy Marquez, the then-Chairman and CEO of the
Company, submitted a nonbinding proposal to the board of directors
of the Company to acquire all of the shares of the Company he did
not beneficially own for $12.50 per share in cash (the "Marquez
Proposal").

As a result of that proposal, four lawsuits were filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery in 2011 against the Company and each of
its directors by shareholders alleging that the Company and its
directors had breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders
in connection with the Marquez Proposal.

On January 16, 2012, the Company entered into a Merger Agreement
with Mr. Marquez and certain of his affiliates pursuant to which
the Company, Mr. Marquez and his affiliates would effect the going
private transaction. Following announcement of the Merger
Agreement, four additional suits were filed in Delaware and three
suits were filed in federal court in Colorado naming as defendants
the Company and each of its directors.

In March 2013 the plaintiffs in Delaware filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint in which they requested that the
court determine among other things that (i) the merger
consideration is inadequate and the Merger Agreement was entered
into in breach of the fiduciary duties of the defendants and is
therefore unlawful and unenforceable and (ii) the merger should be
rescinded or in the alternative, the class should be awarded
damages to compensate them for the loss as a result of the breach
of fiduciary duties by the defendants.

The Colorado actions have been administratively closed pending
resolution of the Delaware case. The Company has reviewed the
allegations contained in the amended complaint and believes they
are without merit. Trial in this matter is expected to occur in
late 2014.


VIDEOTRON: Courts Authorize Cable TV Subscribers' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trudie Mason, writing for CJAD Local News, reports that the courts
have authorized a class action lawsuit on behalf of Videotron
cable TV subscribers.

The class action centers on a fee to support local programming.
Unlike other companies, Videotron has been applying the percentage
fee to customers' monthly bills without taking into account that
some clients enjoy discounts and the fee should therefore be
smaller for them.

The other companies apply the percentage fee after any discounts
are factored in.

The law firm handling the class action estimates that Videotron's
policy could mean a settlement of four to six million dollars for
overcharged customers.


VISA INC: Sept. 12 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rhett Pardon, writing for XBIZ.com, reports that the $7.25 billion
settlement reached in July 2012 to end a class-action lawsuit over
credit card transaction fees has crossed over an important hurdle
for payouts.

Visa Inc. and MasterCard Inc. will continue to pursue the
settlement over swipe fees despite opposition to the deal reached
a level that would have allowed the card companies to walk away.

Twenty-five percent was the threshold that permitted the credit
card companies to back out of the deal, which has been described
as the largest-ever U.S. antitrust accord.  Defendants in the case
also include card-issuing banks such as JPMorgan Chase, Bank of
America, Citibank, Wells Fargo and Capital One.

Scores of major retailers -- including 7-Eleven Inc., Alon Brands
Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Starbucks Corp. -- had objected to
the deal and claimed merchants should receive more money.  Trade
groups, such as those for convenience and fuel retailers and the
National Retail Federation, also advocated against the settlement.

"The defendants as a group had the right to terminate the
settlement agreement because the volume threshold of 25 percent
was exceeded, but elected not to do so," MasterCard President and
CEO Ajay Banga told investors recently.

Currently, the case is before U.S. District Judge John Gleeson
presiding in Brooklyn.  A fairness hearing for final approval of
the proposed settlement was slated for Sept. 12.

Small businesses stand to benefit, including online adult
websites, which are prime plaintiffs given the volume of credit
card purchases.

The nuts and bolts of the class-action suit revolves around the
presumption that Visa and MasterCard, along with their member
banks, conspired to fix and artificially inflate the interchange
fees that merchants pay to accept Visa and MasterCard branded
debit and credit cards.

Patrick Jermyn, an attorney with Harrison, N.Y.-based Class Action
Refund LLC, who in recent years has been alerting the online adult
sector about the litigation, says that any company that accepted
Visa and MasterCard credit and or debit cards beginning in 2004
will be eligible to participate in the settlement.

That relevant time starts in 2004 and could go as far as 2011,
said Jermyn, whose firm is one of many class action recovery firms
working on the suit.

The case is In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant
Discount Litigation, 05-MD-1720.


WOODLANDS OF GAINESVILLE: Class Action Over Lease Drags On
----------------------------------------------------------
Hanna Marcus, writing for The Independent Florida Alligator,
reports that The Woodlands of Gainesville, located at 1055 SW 62nd
Blvd., remains entrenched in an ongoing legal battle with former
tenant Zachary Arnold and his mother, Michelle Arnold.

Mr. Arnold, who lived in the complex from when it first opened in
2008 until 2010, was initially sued by the Woodlands for about
$5,600 because he owed for back rent, late fees and property
damage, Patricia Boyes, counsel for the Woodlands, wrote in an
email.

In response to those claims, Mr. Arnold and his mother, the
guarantor on the lease, countersued the Woodlands, claiming that
the complex had violated numerous Florida laws.

Andy Dogali, the attorney acting on behalf of the Arnolds, said
the Woodlands had not obtained the correct legal licenses to
operate while Mr. Arnold lived there and included provisions in
the standard lease that didn't comply with Florida law.

"For roughly the first four years of existence, the Woodlands had
no license, and therefore it was unlawful to collect rent," he
said.

Mr. Dogali said the solution would be for the Woodlands to return
all the rent collected from the tenants who lived in the complex
during the period of time they did not have a license, which he
estimates to be about 2,500 tenants.

"It's an enormous claim," he said.  "We're still not far enough
down the road that I know precisely how many different tenants
have paid rent to them."

Ms. Boyes wrote in an email that at the time of opening, the
Woodlands had obtained its business occupation license from the
city and was unaware another permit was needed.

After realizing a public lodging license was needed, the Woodlands
paid the application fee and received the additional permit,
Ms. Boyes said.  She said requiring retroactive rent payback is an
unrealistic way to make up for a simple paperwork hang-up.

"The law will not condone such an extreme punishment," she said.
"Especially since the lack of this permit never endangered any
tenant's health or welfare."

The class-action lawsuit has been moving slowly for more than two
years, but Mr. Dogali said that's to be expected when filing a
claim against a smaller company.

"They tend to react a different way," he said.  "For that reason,
they spent two years filing all kinds of motions and litigating
all kinds of stuff like crazy."

Mr. Dogali said collecting allegations is the next step.  He's
sent out letters to Woodlands tenants asking them to submit any
evidence that could be used.


YELP INC: Local Biz to Join Class Action Over Review Manipulation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Treanor, writing for MyNews3, reports that a website designed
to let customers review businesses is getting its own negative
reviews today.  One local business is criticizing Yelp for what it
says feels like blackmail, and they're ready to go to court to
prove it.

It's something you see in mafia movies or the Sopranos: the shake
down or the door-to-door visits that offer "protection."  If you
do not pay, maybe your business is fine -- or maybe some bad
things might happen.

But it's all just Hollywood hype right? But one local business
says it's happening here in Las Vegas.  Just replace the
neighborhood with the Internet and Marilyn Rozak says those
mobsters are Yelp.

Yelp is a website fueled by customer reviews.  The ratings are
typically a mix of good and bad, but on the Carpets Galore site
page, Ms. Rozak says, bad reviews started coming in without any
cause.

"They put bad reviews suddenly," Ms. Rozak said.  "Bad reviews are
coming out of nowhere."

One star review followed one star review, hinting that Carpets
Galore is a bad business.  But the reviews might not tell the
whole story.

Under the last review, there is a link marked "filtered."  Only
after clicking the link and entering a CAPTCHA can you see most of
the business's 5-star reviews.

"I would think you wouldn't come here, you would think I'm a
shoddy business that don't care about your customers," Ms. Rozak
said.

Ms. Rozak says months ago she noticed that Yelp was charging a
$350 advertising fee which she was told was "good for business."
She stopped paying, and her five-star ratings disappeared.

"There's a class-action lawsuit going on and I'm definitely
joining," she says.

Lawerence Murray represents dozens of companies suing the website
in California and says Ms. Rozak's story is common.

"[Yelp says] 'Oh no, you can't touch us, we just pass along
information.'  When in fact what they're doing is they're
manipulating reviews based on how much money you pay them,"
Mr. Murray said.

For their part, Yelp responded to News 3 questions by pushing us
to their website, which talks about the filter.  The site
addresses these types of allegations, saying "the filter doesn't
punish non-advertisers, either.  Feel free to check out the many
highly rated businesses on yelp that choose not to advertise."


YELP INC: Appeal v. Dismissal of Suit by Local Biz Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has heard
but not yet issued a decision on an appeal by plaintiffs against
the dismissal of a case filed against Yelp Inc. for alleged
coercion of local businesses to buy its advertising products,
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 February and March 2010, the Company was sued in two putative
class actions on behalf of local businesses asserting various
causes of action based on claims that the Company manipulated the
ratings and reviews on its platform to coerce local businesses to
buy its advertising products.

These cases were subsequently consolidated in an action asserting
claims for violation of the California Business & Professions
Code, extortion and attempted extortion based on the conduct they
allege and seeking monetary relief in an unspecified amount and
injunctive relief.

In October 2011, the court dismissed this consolidated action with
prejudice. The plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which heard the appeal on July 11,
2013. The Ninth Circuit has not yet issued a decision.

Accordingly, the Company is currently unable to reasonably
estimate either the probability of incurring a loss or an
estimated range of such loss, if any, from this appeal.


ZIONS BANCORP: Settles Overdraft Fee Class Action for $10 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene, writing for Law360, reports that Zions Bancorp and
three other banks on Sept. 5 agreed to pay $10 million to settle a
class action accusing them of purposefully wringing fees out of
customers by processing more expensive transactions first,
triggering a series of overdraft fees.

Zions Bank, Amegy Bank NA, National Bank of Arizona and Vectra
Bank Colorado NA agreed to each pay a portion of the $10 million
to repay customers for fees they were charged when the banks
processed transactions using a "high-to-low" scheme.


ZUNGUI HAIXI: Court OKs Three Securities Class Action Settlements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This is a summary notice that has been produced for publication
purposes announcing court approval of three settlements reached in
this litigation.  A Long-Form Notice, with full details of the
settlements is available on:

        -- Administrator's website: www.nptricepoint.com  and
        -- Class Counsel's website: www.classaction.ca

Who this Notice is For:

This notice is directed to everyone that acquired shares of Zungui
Haixi Corporation, during the period from August 11, 2009 through
to and including August 22, 2011.

Court Approval of Three Settlements in the Class Action

On October 3, 2011, Jerzy Zaniewicz and Edward Clarke commenced an
action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Zungui
Haixi Corporation, Ernst and Young LLP, Zungui's former directors,
certain of Zungui's former executive officers as well as the
underwriting syndicate for Zungui's initial public offering on the
Toronto Stock Exchange.  The Plaintiffs alleged that Zungui's
initial public offering prospectus and some of Zungui's other
disclosures were materially false and/or misleading.

The Court has approved three settlements, which conclude the
Action.  The Settlements are compromises of disputed claims and
are not admissions of liability, wrongdoing or fault on the part
of any of the Settling Defendants, all of whom have denied, and
continue to deny, the allegations made against them.

The first settlement, between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants,
Zungui (through its court appointed litigation receiver), Michelle
Gobin, Michael Manley, Patrick Ryan, Elliott Wahle and Margaret
Cornish, provides for the Zungui Defendants to pay CAD $8.1
million to resolve finally and forever the claims of Class Members
and all claims that could have been made against the Zungui
Defendants and Fengyi Cai, Jixu Cai and Yanda Cai in the Action.

The second settlement, between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant,
Ernst & Young LLP, provides for Ernst & Young LLP to pay CAD $2
million to resolve finally and forever the claims of Class Members
and all claims that could have been made against Ernst & Young LLP
in the Action.

The third settlement, between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants,
CIBC World Markets Inc., Canaccord Genuity Corp., f.k.a. Canaccord
Financial Ltd., GMP Securities LP, and Mackie Research Capital
Corporation, f.k.a. Research Capital Corporation, provides for the
Underwriter Defendants to pay CAD $750,000 to resolve finally and
forever the claims of Class Members and all claims that could have
been made against the Underwriter Defendants in the Action.

Certain people and entities are not permitted to participate in
the claims process under the Settlements.  Those people are the
Defendants, the past or present subsidiaries or affiliates,
officers, directors, partners, legal representatives, consultants,
successors and assigns of Zungui and any member of each
Defendants' families, their heirs, successors or assigns, and any
person or entity who acquired Zungui shares in exchange for shares
in Southern Trends International Holding Company Limited if they
rendered consultative or other professional services to Zungui or
its subsidiaries in connection with the initial public offering of
Zungui.

The Approval Orders

By Order issued by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, dated
August 26, 2013, the Court approved the Settlements.

The Court also awarded Class Counsel legal fees, expenses and
applicable taxes in the amount of $2,807,037.56 or approximately
20.75% of the combined monetary value of the Settlements before
the Settlement Amount is distributed to Class Members.  Class
Counsel were retained on a contingent basis such that they were
only to be paid if they were successful in the Action.  Expenses
incurred or payable relating to approval, notice, implementation
and administration of the Settlements including the fees of the
Administrator will also be paid from the Settlement Amount.

All Class Members are bound by the terms of the Settlements unless
they have already validly excluded themselves from the Action
(opted-out).  The deadline to opt-out was August 7, 2013.

ADMINISTRATOR

The Court has appointed NPT RicePoint Class Action Services as the
Administrator of the Settlements. The Administrator will, among
other things: (1) receive and process Claim Forms; (ii) make
determinations of Class Members' eligibility for compensation
pursuant to the Court approved Plan of Allocation; (iii)
communicate with Class Members regarding their eligibility for
compensation; and (iv) manage and distribute the Settlement
Amount.

The Administrator can be contacted at:

        NPT RicePoint Class Action Services
        P.O. Box 3355
        London, ON N6A 4K3
        Tel: 1-866-432-5534
        Email: zungui@nptricepoint.com
        Website: http://www.nptricepoint.com

CLASS MEMBERS' ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION

Class members may be eligible for compensation under the
Settlements.  To be eligible for compensation under the Settlement
Agreements, Class Members must first submit their completed Claim
Form postmarked no later than January 6, 2014.  The Administrator
will, in due course, make determinations of Class Members'
eligibility for compensation pursuant to the Court approved Plan
of Allocation.

CLASS COUNSEL

The law firm of Siskinds LLP are counsel to the Plaintiffs.  The
claim, Settlement Agreements, Claim Form, Orders of the Court and
other information are available on the website of Class Counsel,
at www.classaction.ca

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice offices cannot answer any
questions about the matters in this notice.  For questions
relating to the Action, for further information, or to obtain a
Claim Form please contact the office of Plaintiffs' counsel per
the contact details below:

        Siskinds LLP
        Nicole Young
        680 Waterloo Street
        London, ON N6A 3V8
        Tel: 1-877-672-2121 x 2380
        Email: nicole.young@siskinds.com

or visit Siskinds LLP's website at http://www.classaction.ca

Publication of this Notice has been Authorized by the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice


* 9th Cir. Issues String of Decisions on Class Action Removals
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Kaufman, Esq., at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton,
reports that in Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, the Ninth Circuit
continues a string of recent decisions cracking down on district
courts' tendency to remand class actions on the purported basis
that the defendant failed to meet the burden of proof that subject
matter jurisdiction exists.  District courts have incentives to do
this because remand orders are normally not reviewable on appeal
(except in limited circumstances for class action removals) and
doing so has the effect of lightening their case load.  The Ninth
Circuit's decision will make it harder for intellectually honest
district courts to remand typical class action cases.
Basic Facts

The defendant, AT&T, removed a class action and attempted to show
$5 million amount in controversy through declarations calculating
potential damages based on the broad allegations of the complaint.
The district court remanded the case on the ground that AT&T had
to establish amount in controversy with "legal certainty" in light
of the plaintiff's pleading that the amount in controversy was
under $5 million.  This ruling was based on the then-binding
precedent from the Ninth Circuit, Lowdermilk v. U. S. Bank Nat'l
Ass'n (Lowdermilk).  It does not appear that the district court
analyzed in detail why AT&T's showing did not meet the higher
standard.

                    The Ninth Circuit Decision

Here, the Ninth Circuit held that, contrary to the holding of
Lowdermilk, a plaintiff cannot alter the burden of proof the
defendant must satisfy to establish that $5 million is in
controversy necessary to create federal jurisdiction by pleading
the conclusion that the amount in controversy is less than $5
million.  In so holding, the Ninth Circuit was simply recognizing
that the United States Supreme Court's decision earlier this year
in Standard Fire Insurance v. Knowles had effectively overruled
Lowdermilk.

Lowdermilk had reached its conclusion from the premise that a
plaintiff is the master of the complaint and, as such, has the
power to seek to avoid federal jurisdiction by seeking less than
$5 million.  Lowdermilk had also suggested that the analysis
should be limited to the "four corners of the complaint." While
these statements are generally uncontroversial as to a removal of
an individual case, the existence of claims of absent class
members who the plaintiff does not even represent prior to
certification complicates the analysis.  The Lowdermilk standard
effectively allowed the plaintiff to plead the complaint vaguely
so as to make it uncertain the extent of the violations (and
resulting damages), and thereby avoid removal so long as the
plaintiff never made a specific demand for more than $5 million.
Presumably, the plaintiff could avoid making an express demand for
more than $5 million until after class certification was already
decided.

Standard Fire addresses a similar but not identical issue of
whether a class plaintiff could definitively avoid federal
jurisdiction by formally "stipulating" that the class would not
seek $5 million.  Standard Fire reversed a district court decision
that such a stipulation effectively ended the inquiry and mandated
remand. In reversing the lower court, the Supreme Court held that
such stipulations were ineffective notwithstanding the general
notion that a plaintiff may seek a smaller amount of money for
himself or herself to avoid federal jurisdiction.  The Court
recognized that the plaintiff has no power to bind members of an
uncertified class so the representation that the class was seeking
less than $5 million was meaningless.  Instead, the district court
must examine the record and determine for itself whether the
amount in controversy is $5 million.  The Supreme Court in
Standard Fire also cited with approval a Tenth Circuit decision
where the appellate court held that a statement in a complaint
that the amount in controversy is less than $5 million is entitled
to no weight at all.

In the wake of Standard Fire, defendants (like AT&T Mobility)
began to argue to the Ninth Circuit that Lowdermilk was implicitly
overruled by Standard Fire because Lowdermilk rested on the notion
that a plaintiff may manipulate jurisdiction by making
representations about what the "class" was entitled to recover.
Some district courts refused to accept that Standard Fire
overruled Lowdermilk and distinguished the decision on the ground
that Standard Fire dealt with a stipulation to definitively avoid
federal jurisdiction while Lowdermilk dealt with the burden of
proof when a party pleads the amount in controversy is under $5
million.  Rodriguez recognizes that this is a distinction without
a difference.

The Rodriguez panel also explained how the inconsistency between
Standard Fire and Lowdermilk is clear enough to warrant one Ninth
Circuit panel overruling another Ninth Circuit panel without en
banc review.  Accordingly, the rule in the Ninth Circuit now is
that when a district court is considering remand, it must examine
the totality of the evidence on amount in controversy and
determine whether it is more likely than not that the amount in
controversy is actually over $5 million.  Such as "preponderance
of the evidence" standard is much easier to meet than "legal
certainty."

The key paragraph of the decision reads as follows:

Lowdermilk adopted the legal certainty standard to reinforce
plaintiff's prerogative, as master of the complaint, to avoid
federal jurisdiction by forgoing a portion of the recovery on
behalf of the putative class.  That choice has been taken away by
Standard Fire.  Further, Standard Fire instructs courts to look
beyond the complaint to determine whether the putative class
action meets the jurisdictional requirements.

This Ninth Circuit decision follows earlier decisions this year
from the Ninth Circuit holding that held that the clock for the
defendant to remove did not start running where the complaint is
too vague to allow a determination from the face to determine
amount in controversy (Kuxhausen v. BMW Financial Services LLC),
and that the defendant does not have 30 days from the outset of
the case to conduct an investigation into its own data to
determine if the amount in controversy is met (Roth v. CHA
Hollywood Medical Center).

As such, Rodriguez continues a trend to read the standards for
CAFA removal more leniently, which is consistent with what
Congress had attempted to accomplish by creating special federal
jurisdiction for class actions involving more than 100 potential
class members and a potential recovery of $5 million.  It also
should put some pressure on plaintiffs who really want to avoid
federal court to expressly limit their theories (rather than just
plead vague conclusions) if they believe that their real case is
too small to warrant federal jurisdiction.


* Hunton & Williams Sees Rise in Class Actions v. Auto Dealerships
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Mueller, Esq. and Jill Marie deGraffenreid, Esq., at
Hunton & Williams, report that many dealers have been sued at one
time or another.  A negotiated payment often resolves the
situation, and the dealership goes on with its business.

But are dealers prepared for aggressive class-action lawsuits that
can cost the unwary hundreds of thousands of dollars? With proper
planning and legal guidance, a dealership may be able to ward off
a class-action suit or, if one is filed, be better prepared to
prevent an expensive payout.

Class-action complaints against automobile dealerships have
increased since the early 2000s.

Invoking consumer-protection and labor laws, plaintiffs' attorneys
use class actions to transform individual small-dollar claims into
million-dollar cases.  Members of the plaintiffs' bar do not sit
back and wait for clients to appear.

Instead, they solicit individuals or scour department of motor
vehicle records for potential plaintiffs and creatively devise
claims against dealerships.

California is among the hotspots for these lawsuits.  For example,
its supreme court recently let stand a ruling that dealership
mechanics could pursue minimum-wage claims.

The most prevalent allegations involve excessive or undisclosed
fees in sales or financing paperwork, typically for document
preparation, handling and delivery.  Consumers also sue
dealerships over warranties.  Most of these plaintiffs allege
warranties are illusory because they rarely pay out.  Some of them
accuse the dealer of the unauthorized or improper sale of
insurance.

Some class action plaintiffs have sued dealerships for not
disclosing used cars once were short-term rentals.  Other lawsuits
challenge guaranteed auto protection insurance and the handling of
registration, transfer, title and license fees.

On the employment side, plaintiffs have filed class-action
lawsuits under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  Most
of these assert a failure to:

    Pay salespersons or mechanics a minimum wage.
    Pay employees overtime.
    Pay employees for all hours worked.

Like other employers, dealerships are vulnerable to complaints
about untimely payments and inaccurate or non-existent wage
statements.

The primary goal of a class-action lawsuit is to obtain class
certification, then force a high-dollar settlement.

Certification is court approval of a process that allows many
individuals to be informed about the lawsuit, prosecute the claims
jointly and ultimately share in the proceeds.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recently drove the point
home, saying:  "Certification of the class is often, if not
usually, the prelude to a substantial settlement by the defendant
because the costs and risks of litigating further are so high."

Once a class complaint results in a payout, similar lawsuits
(copycat cases) often are filed against nearby dealerships. It is
important that dealerships be aware of and minimize vulnerability
to currently popular claims.

But such awareness will not necessarily deter the plaintiffs' bar.
Lawyers are quick to devise theories to avoid failed lawsuits.
The labor-related class actions are good examples.  Although FLSA
exempts certain employees -- such as salespersons, parts workers,
and mechanics -- from overtime requirements, plaintiffs' lawyers
creatively draft lawsuits to avoid these exemptions or to redefine
employee roles.

Work closely with your controller and outside legal counsel to
minimize vulnerabilities.  Review the statutes governing document
and registration fees, the extension of financing, disclosure
requirements, and other dealership-specific laws.  Become familiar
with the FLSA exemptions.  Be sure job descriptions of exempt
employees fall within the act's definitions, and that those
employees' actual work corresponds to their job descriptions.

It is not always possible to avoid class certification.  But
chances of preventing class-action treatment will likely improve
if you take the appropriate steps early on.


                             *********

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  * * *