CAR_Public/130916.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, September 16, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 183

                             Headlines


ALPHA CENTURION: Former Employee Files Wage Class Action
AMERICAN VANGUARD: Two Suits Over DBCP Exposure Remains Pending
AMGEN INC: Awaits Ruling on Petition in ERISA Violations Suit
ANCESTRY.COM LLC: Argument in Merger-Related Suit on Sept. 27
APPLE INC: Accused of Misleading "Breaking Bad" iTunes Consumers

ASIANA AIRLINES: Settles Class Action Over Ticket Prices
BANCORPSOUTH INC: Continues to Defend Overdraft Fees MDL vs. Bank
BENTON COUNTY, WA: Judge to Decide on Sex Offender Record Release
BUBBLES BAKING: Recalls First Street Label Blueberry Muffins
CAMBRIDGE METALS: Recalls Motorcycle Training Wheels Due

CHARLES SCHWAB: 9th Circuit Appeal in "Northstar" Suit Pending
COMMERCE BANCSHARES: 2nd Suit Over Overdraft Fees Resolved
CSL LTD: Calls for FDA Witness to Testify in Cartel Class Action
CVS CAREMARK: Appeals in "Lauriello" Class Suit Remain Pending
CVS CAREMARK: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Securities Suit

CVS CAREMARK: Class Certification Bids in Antitrust MDL Pending
DELL FINANCIAL: Sheppard Mullin Discusses TCPA Court Ruling
ECOTALITY INC: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action
FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: New Slate of Plaintiffs Joins Class Action
FIRSTMERIT CORP: Appeal in Suit Over Overdraft Fees Pending

FIRSTMERIT CORP: Bank Continues to Defend 365/360 Interest Suit
FIRSTMERIT CORP: Has Yet to File Shareholder Suit Settlement
FTD COMPANIES: Still Awaits Rulings in RICO Suits vs. Parent
HOME DEPOT: Faces Suit Over Alleged Shakedowns of Customers
HONDA MOTOR: Calif. Judge Denies in Part Motion to Dismiss Action

INDIANA: November 12 Hearing Set for BMV Settlement Approval
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Recalls Risperdal Consta Due to Molds
JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Action Settlement Awaits Court Approval
KIA MOTORS: Low-Income Pennsylvanians to Get $4.1MM From Pact
L.L.BEAN: Recalls Boat Carts for Canoes and Kayaks

LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORP: Continues to Defend Hardboard Trim Suits
MERRILL LYNCH: Race Bias Ruling May Have Implications for UK
MIMEDX GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Action
MOUNT VERNON: Ruling May Pave Way for Indigent Defense Reform
NEWTON COUNTY: BOE Responds to Class Action Over Bus Accident

PETROCHINA CO: Misleads Shareholders, New York Suit Claims
PETROCHINA CO: Says Aware of U.S. Securities Class Action
REDBOX AUTOMATED: Fails to Provide Equal DVD Access, Suit Says
RES-CARE INC: Seyfarth Shaw Discusses FCRA Class Action Ruling
SAINT-ALPHONSE COLLEGE: Abuse Class Action Trial to Commence

SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Mediation in "Vega" Suit to Occur Oct. 7
TALENTI GELATO: Recalls German Chocolate Cake Gelato Pints
TENET HEALTHCARE: Faces Two Merger-Related Suits in Tennessee
TENET HEALTHCARE: Seeks Supreme Court Review of Appellate Ruling
UNUM GROUP: Awaits Order on Bid Over Testimony in "Merrimon" Suit

UNUM GROUP: Prepares Response to "Don" Suit Pending in California
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Proposed Vodafone Acquisition
VISONIC LTD: Recalls Amber Personal Emergency Response System Kits
VITA HEALTH: Recalls Personelle Acid Control

* AU's Growing Class Action Mentality Fertile Ground for PI Claims
* BTI Report Says Corp. Spending on Class Actions to Rise in 2014


                             *********


ALPHA CENTURION: Former Employee Files Wage Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that a
former employee of Alpha Centurion Security has filed a class
action complaint against the company over claims that the
defendant is violating federal law by levying a large finance
charge on workers who request an advance on their pay.

Jonathan J. DiBello, who resides in Drexel Hill, Pa., filed suit
on Sept. 4 at the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia against
Delaware County-based Alpha Centurion, which provides security
guards to private and governmental entities, as well as the
company's owner and chief executive, Joanna Small, and its chief
of operations, Patrick A. Panetta.

Small and Panetta are husband and wife.

Mr. DiBello, who began working for the defendant in December 2006,
first as a security guard and later as a field supervisor, claims
in the lawsuit that the defendants are unlawfully imposing a 20
percent finance charge on employees who take pay advances.

The complaint questions whether a pay advance fee is usurious
interest, whether liability arises under the Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organizations Act for the collection of an unlawful debt,
whether the company is liable for failing to make material
disclosures under the Truth-in-Lending Act, and whether Alpha
Centurion is liable under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law for failing to pay employees their full wages.

According to the complaint, the defendant, which pays its
employees once every two weeks, has a policy of allowing employees
to obtain payment advances on their wages, but only if the
employee agrees to a 20 percent finance charge.

On an annualized basis, the 20 percent finance charge equates to
an interest rate of 1,042.85 percent A.P.R. on a seven-day loan or
521.42 percent on a 14-day loan, the suit states.

Mr. DiBello often took pay advances, in each instance paying the
20 percent finance charge.

For each pay advance, the complaint states, Alpha Centurion
deducted the amount of the advance plus the 20 percent finance
charge from the plaintiff's paycheck.

Over a one-year period, provided that Mr. DiBello took a $200
advance each pay period, the plaintiff would have paid an
aggregate finance charge of $1,040, nearly all of which would be
usurious interest, the complaint alleges.

Mr. DiBello seeks to represent a class of plaintiffs consisting of
all present and former Alpha Centurion employees who took pay
advances within four years prior to the filing of the civil
action.

The company is believed to regularly employ between 100 and 200
workers, many of whom have apparently taken pay advances.

"A class action is a superior means to fairly and efficiently
adjudicate this dispute," the suit reads.  "Without a class action
it is unlikely anyone would ever obtain a recovery."

Alpha Centurion has made "usurious payday advances" for years, the
suit states, although to date no employee has ever brought an
individual action to recover the interest charges.

"In the absence of a class action, the defendants will be able to
retain funds wrongfully withheld from employees' wages without
having to refund it and will likely continue an unlawful lending
practice into the future," the complaint reads.

The suit seeks an award of damages equivalent to three times the
amount of unlawful debt withheld from employees' pay, attorney's
fees, litigation costs and other court relief.

The complaint was filed by Bala Cynwyd attorney Robert F. Salvin.

The federal case number is 2:13-cv-05146-JD.


AMERICAN VANGUARD: Two Suits Over DBCP Exposure Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two lawsuits arising from the alleged exposure to 1, 2-dibromo-3-
chloropropane ("DBCP(R)") remains pending against American
Vanguard Corporation's principal operating subsidiary, AMVAC
Chemical Corporation, according to the Company's August 6, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On or about July 21, 2011, an action encaptioned, Blanco v. AMVAC
Chemical Corporation et al., was filed with the Superior Court of
the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County (No. N11C-07-
149 JOH) on behalf of an individual plaintiff, residing in Costa
Rica, against several defendants, including, among others, AMVAC
Chemical Corporation ("AMVAC"), American Vanguard Corporation's
principal operating subsidiary, The Dow Chemical Company,
Occidental Chemical Corporation, and Dole Food Company.  In the
action, plaintiff claims personal injury (sterility) arising from
the alleged exposure to DBCP between 1979 and 1980 while working
as a contract laborer in a banana plantation in Costa Rica.
Defendant Dow filed a motion to dismiss the action as being barred
under the applicable statute of limitations, as this same
plaintiff filed the same claim in Florida in 1995 and subsequently
withdrew the matter.  The Plaintiff contends that the statute of
limitations was tolled by a prior motion for class certification,
which was denied.  AMVAC contends that the plaintiff could not
have been exposed to any DBCP supplied by AMVAC in Costa Rica.  On
August 8, 2012, the court denied Dow's motion to dismiss based
upon applicable statutes of limitation.  In response to that
denial, on August 20, 2012, the defendants filed a motion for
interlocutory appeal and, on September 18, 2012, the Delaware
Supreme Court granted interlocutory appeal on the question of
whether the State of Delaware will recognize cross jurisdictional
tolling (that is, whether it is proper for a Delaware court to
follow the class action tolling of another jurisdiction, in this
case, Texas, rather than its own two year statute of limitations).
Pending the ruling on appeal, the Blanco matter was stayed.

A similar case (referred to as Chaverri in the Company's Form 10-K
for the period ended December 31, 2012) involving claims for
personal injury allegedly arising from exposure to DBCP on behalf
of 235 banana workers from Costa Rica, Ecuador and Panama was also
stayed pending the ruling.  The Delaware Supreme Court heard oral
argument on April 10, 2013, and, on June 10, 2013, denied the
appeal and upheld the lower court ruling in Blanco, holding that
it was proper to extend the class action tolling exception to
cross-jurisdictional class action cases.  With that ruling, both
the Blanco and Chaverri matters remain pending.

AMVAC intends to defend both of these matters vigorously and, at
this early stage of litigation, does not believe that a loss is
either probable or reasonably estimable and has not set up a loss
contingency for either matter.

Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, American Vanguard
Corporation -- http://www.american-vanguard.com/-- was
incorporated in Delaware in January 1969 and operates as a holding
company.


AMGEN INC: Awaits Ruling on Petition in ERISA Violations Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its petition for
rehearing or rehearing en banc in the consolidated lawsuit
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, according to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On August 20, 2007, the ERISA class action lawsuit of Harris v.
Amgen Inc., et al., was filed in the California Central District
Court and named Amgen Inc., Kevin W. Sharer, Frank J. Biondi, Jr.,
Jerry Choate, Frank C. Herringer, Gilbert S. Omenn, David
Baltimore, Judith C. Pelham, Frederick W. Gluck, Leonard D.
Schaeffer, Jacqueline Allred, Raul Cermeno, Jackie Crouse, Lori
Johnston, Michael Kelly and Charles Bell as defendants.  The
Plaintiffs claim that Amgen and the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to inform current and former
employees who participated in the Amgen Retirement and Savings
Plan and the Retirement and Savings Plan for Amgen Manufacturing
Limited of the alleged off-label promotion of both Aranesp(R) and
EPOGEN(R) while a number of studies allegedly demonstrated safety
concerns in patients using erythropoiesis-stimulating agents
(ESAs).  On February 4, 2008, the California Central District
Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice as to plaintiff
Harris, who had filed claims against Amgen Inc.  The claims
alleged by the second plaintiff, Ramos, were also dismissed but
the court granted the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint.  On
February 1, 2008, the plaintiffs appealed the decision by the
California Central District Court to dismiss the claims of both
plaintiffs Harris and Ramos to the Ninth Circuit Court.

On May 19, 2008, plaintiff Ramos in the Harris v. Amgen Inc., et
al., action filed another lawsuit captioned Ramos v. Amgen Inc.,
et al., in the California Central District Court.  The lawsuit is
another ERISA class action.  The Ramos v. Amgen Inc., et al.,
matter names the same defendants in the Harris v. Amgen Inc., et
al., matter plus four new defendants: Amgen Manufacturing Limited,
Richard Nanula, Dennis Fenton and the Fiduciary Committee.  On
July 14, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court reversed the California
Central District Court's decision in the Harris matter and
remanded the case back to the California Central District Court.
In the meantime, a third ERISA class action was filed by Don Hanks
on June 2, 2009, in the California Central District Court alleging
the same ERISA violations as in the Harris and Ramos lawsuits.

On August 10, 2009, the Harris, Ramos and Hanks matters were
consolidated by the California Central District Court into one
action captioned Harris, et al. v. Amgen Inc.  On October 13,
2009, the California Central District Court granted plaintiffs
Harris' and Ramos' motion to be appointed interim co-lead counsel.
The Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 11, 2009,
and added two additional plaintiffs, Jorge Torres and Albert
Cappa.  Amgen filed a motion to dismiss the amended/consolidated
complaint, and on March 2, 2010, the California Central District
Court dismissed the entire lawsuit without prejudice.  The
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 23, 2010.  Amgen
then filed another motion to dismiss on April 20, 2010.  On
June 16, 2010, the California Central District Court entered an
order dismissing the entire lawsuit with prejudice.  On June 24,
2010, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth
Circuit Court.  The Petitioner's opening brief was served on
December 20, 2010, and Amgen's answering brief was filed on
February 2, 2011.  Oral argument occurred on February 17, 2012.

On June 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
(the Ninth Circuit Court) reversed the decision of the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (the
California Central District Court) in this ERISA class action
lawsuit pending against Amgen and various individual defendants
and remanded the case back to the California Central District
Court for further proceedings.  On June 18, 2013, Amgen petitioned
the Ninth Circuit Court for rehearing and/or rehearing en banc.

Headquartered in Thousand Oaks, California, Amgen Inc. --
http://www.amgen.com/-- is a global biotechnology pioneer that
discovers, develops, manufactures and delivers innovative human
therapeutics.  The Company operates in one business segment: human
therapeutics.  The Company was incorporated in 1980 and organized
as a Delaware corporation in 1987.


ANCESTRY.COM LLC: Argument in Merger-Related Suit on Sept. 27
-------------------------------------------------------------
Argument on motions to dismiss a consolidated merger-related
lawsuit is scheduled for September 27, 2013, according to
Ancestry.com LLC's August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

Ancestry.com LLC (the "Parent" and together with its subsidiaries,
"the Company") is a holding company and all operations are
conducted by its wholly-owned subsidiaries.  On October 21, 2012,
the Company's predecessor, Ancestry.com Inc. (the "Predecessor" or
"Issuer"), entered into a definitive merger agreement (the "Merger
Agreement") with Global Generations Merger Sub Inc. (the "Merger
Sub") and its parent company, Ancestry US Holdings Inc.
("Holdings"), to acquire the Predecessor for $32 per share of
common stock (the "Merger").  Holdings is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Parent, which is controlled by Permira funds and
co-investors (the "Sponsors").  On December 28, 2012, pursuant to
the Merger Agreement, the Parent through its wholly-owned
subsidiaries completed its acquisition of the Predecessor for
approximately $1.5 billion.  The Merger and all activity related
to the Merger is referred to collectively as the "Transaction".
Other than the change of control, the Company's primary business
activities remain unchanged after the Transaction.

Following the announcement on October 22, 2012, of the execution
of the Merger Agreement, the following complaints were filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware challenging the
proposed acquisition of the Company: Heck v. Sullivan, et al.
(C.A. No. 7893), Smilow v. Ancestry.com Inc., et al. (C.A. No.
7987), Boca Raton Police & Firefighters' Retirement System v.
Billings, et al. (C.A. No. 7989), Pontiac General Employees
Retirement System v. Billings (C.A. No. 7988), Dale G. & Donella
M. Jacobs Trust v. Ancestry.com Inc., et al. (C.A. No. 8004),
Palumbo et ano. v. Spectrum Equity Investors LP, et al. (C.A. No.
8016), Windemuth v. Ancestry.com Inc., et al.(C.A. No. 8013),
Althaver v. Ancestry.com Inc., et al. (C.A. No. 8023), and
Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund v. Ancestry.com Inc., et al.
(C.A. No. 8034).  Each of the actions is a putative class action
filed on behalf of the public stockholders of the Predecessor and
names as defendants the Company, its directors, Holdings and
Merger Sub.  All but the Heck action also name Permira as a
defendant.  The Boca Raton Police & Firefighters' Retirement
System, Pontiac General Employees Retirement System, Dale G. &
Donella M. Jacobs Trust, Palumbo, Windemuth, Althaver and
Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund complaints also name Howard
Hochhauser and Spectrum as defendants.  All of these actions have
been consolidated as In re: Ancestry.com Inc. Shareholder
Litigation (Consolidated C.A. No. 7988).  The complaints generally
allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with their consideration and approval of the
Merger and that the entity defendants aided and abetted those
breaches.  The complaints seek, among other relief, declaratory
and injunctive relief enjoining the Transaction.  On December 17,
2012, the Court heard argument in In re: Ancestry.com Inc.
Shareholder Litigation on plaintiffs' motion to preliminarily
enjoin the proposed merger between the Predecessor and Merger Sub
and the upcoming special meeting of the Predecessor's stockholders
that was to be held to vote on the Merger.  At the conclusion of
the hearing, the Court required that the Predecessor disclose
certain information before the special meeting of the
Predecessor's stockholders could proceed and otherwise denied the
substantive aspects of the motion for a preliminary injunction.
The information required to be disclosed by the Court was
disclosed on December 19, 2012, and the Merger was consummated on
December 28, 2012.  The litigation has continued following the
consummation of the transaction.

On March 8, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  The
amended complaint, like the original operative complaint, names
Ancestry.com, the members of Ancestry.com's then-board of
directors, Ancestry.com's Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer, Permira, Holdings, Merger Sub. and entities
associated with Spectrum Equity as defendants.  The amended
complaint generally alleges that Ancestry's then-board of
directors, its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
and the entities associated with Spectrum breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with their consideration and approval of the
merger transaction and that Ancestry filed a materially false and
misleading proxy in connection with the Merger.  In addition, the
amended complaint alleges that Permira and its affiliated entities
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The
amended complaint seeks compensatory damages and an award of the
costs and disbursements incurred in the litigation.  On April 26,
2013, all of the defendants named in the amended complaint filed
motions seeking to have the amended complaint dismissed.  On
July 19, 2013, the motions to dismiss were fully briefed and
argument on motions has been scheduled for September 27, 2013.

Headquartered in Provo, Utah, Ancestry.com LLC is a holding
company and all operations are conducted by its wholly-owned
subsidiaries.  Ancestry.com is an online family history resource
that derives revenue primarily on a subscription basis from
providing customers access to a proprietary technology platform
and an extensive collection of billions of historical records that
have been digitized, indexed and made available online.


APPLE INC: Accused of Misleading "Breaking Bad" iTunes Consumers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reports that Apple
deceived iTune customers by selling a "Season Pass" for the final
season of "Breaking Bad," then breaking the season in two and
charging a second time, consumers claim in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Noam Lazebnik accuses Apple of deceptive and unfair
trade for the way it sold "Breaking Bad" on iTunes.

"Breaking Bad" is a popular and critically acclaimed show about a
high school chemistry teacher turned meth dealer and murdered.

"When a consumer buys a ticket to a football game, he does not
have to leave at halftime.  When a consumer buys an opera ticket,
he does not get kicked out at intermission.  When a consumer buys
a 'Season Pass' to a full season of a television show on iTunes,
that consumer should get access to the whole season," Lazebnik
says in the complaint.

Apple is the only defendant.

Season 5 of "Breaking Bad," produced by AMC Networks, was
announced as the final season and was to include 16 episodes.

AMC said in a 2012 press release that the "final season" of the
show "consists of 16 episodes, with the first eight episodes
beginning July 15th and culminating with the series' final eight
episodes next Summer 2013," according to the complaint.

Since that announcement and continuing today, AMC refers to the
eight episodes broadcast in 2012 and the eight episodes currently
airing as "Season 5."

This season's episodes are listed as "Season 5, Episode 9 (509),
Season 5, Episode 10 (510), etc.," Lazebnik says in the complaint.

When Season 5 became available on iTunes, customers were offered a
"Season Pass" for $21.99 for high definition and $13.99 for
standard definition.  In exchange, "they were promised: '[t]his
Season Pass includes all current and future episodes of Breaking
Bad, Season 5,'" Lazebnik says in the complaint.

The informational page on the season pass claims that the pass
will give consumers access to every episode in the season, at a
better price than it would cost to buy the episodes one at a time,
according to the complaint.

"Therefore, customers who purchased a 'Breaking Bad: Season 5'
Season Pass from iTunes reasonably believed that they would
receive access to all 16 episodes of Season 5, as announced and
promoted by AMC," Lazebnik says in the complaint.

But when the second half of the season became available on iTunes
in early August this year, customers with a season pass had to pay
another $22.99 or $14.99 to get them, Lazebnik says.

"Apple's behavior was deceptive, fraudulent and undertaken only to
maximize its revenue with regard to Season 5 of 'Breaking Bad,'
the most popular TV program on iTunes, all at the expense of its
customers," Lazebnik says in the complaint.

Lazebnik wants Apple ordered to refund the second-half charge it
took from each class member, and damages for breach of contract,
deceptive trade and unfair competition.

Apple did not respond to a request for comment.

Sean P. Aune, writing for TechnoBuffalo, reports that Mr. Lazebnik
filed his claim in Calif. under the state's consumer protection
laws and is seeking either $14.99 or $22.99 per customer depending
on which format they purchased.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
          Michael J. Boyle, Esq.
          MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
          1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 224-6000
          Facsimile: (614) 224-6066
          E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com
                  mboyle@meyerwilson.com

               - and -

          Nicholas A. Dicello, Esq.
          Daniel Frech, Esq.
          SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP
          1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 696-3232
          Facsimile: (216) 696-3924
          E-mail: ndicello@spanglaw.com
                  dfrech@spanglaw.com

The case is Lazebnik v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:13-cv-04145-EJD, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Jose).


ASIANA AIRLINES: Settles Class Action Over Ticket Prices
--------------------------------------------------------
Kinsella Media, Court-approved Notice Provider for In re Korean
Air Lines Co., Ltd. Antitrust Litigation, on Sept. 9 disclosed
that a Proposed Settlement has been reached in a class action
lawsuit for air travelers who flew to and from Korea.  Individuals
who bought plane tickets in the United States from Asiana
Airlines, Inc. and Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. for air travel
between the US and the Republic of Korea between January 1, 2000
and August 1, 2007 could be affected by the case.  The case was
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California.

The Settlement resolves claims arising from Asiana and Korean
Air's conspiracy to unlawfully increase the cost of passenger
airfares and the fuel surcharge element of ticket prices.  In
2011, Asiana settled this case, and the Court granted final
approval of the settlement.  Korean Air has now agreed to settle
the case to avoid the cost and uncertainty of going to trial.
Korean Air has agreed to pay $39 million in cash and $26 million
in travel coupons.  This is in addition to the $11 million in cash
and $10 million in travel coupons Asiana paid when it settled.

Chicago Clearing Corporation has been appointed by the Court to be
administrator for the coupon portion of the settlements.  It will
create a mechanism to aid class members in the transfer or
exchange of coupons.  Complete details about the Settlement and
the claims process can be accessed on the Settlement
Administrator's website at http://www.KoreanAirPassengerCases.com

Individual passengers and businesses that bought an Asiana and/or
Korean Air ticket from January 1, 2000 to August 1, 2007 could be
entitled to cash benefits and travel coupons.  The ticket(s) must
have been purchased in the US for a flight originating in the US
and ending in Korea, or a flight originating in Korea and ending
in the US.  In order to receive benefits, Class Members will need
to file a Claim Form.  Class Members may file a claim directly
online at the website http://www.KoreanAirPassengerCases.com
Class Members can also download, print, and mail in a copy of the
Claim Form, or request that a Claim Form be mailed to them. All
claim forms must be submitted online or postmarked by December 31,
2013.

Class Members have a choice of whether or not to stay in the
Class.  If Class Members choose to stay in the Class, they will be
legally bound by all orders and judgments of the Court, and they
will not be able to sue, or continue to sue, the Defendants for
the issues involved in this lawsuit.  Class Members who choose to
stay in the Class may object to or comment on the Settlement, and
must do so by October 25, 2013.

Class Members that do not wish to be included in the Settlement
can ask to be excluded from the Class.  They will not get any
money or benefits from this lawsuit, but they will keep any rights
to sue Korean Air for these claims, now or in the future, and will
not be bound by any orders or judgments of the Court.  Class
Members must exclude themselves in writing by October 25, 2013.

For more information regarding this lawsuit and Class Member
rights, including how Class Members can exclude themselves and how
to get a copy of a detailed notice, please visit
http://www.KoreanAirPassengerCases.comcall 1-888-261-1921, or
write to: Korean Air Passenger Antitrust Litigation, P.O. Box
2436, Faribault, MN 55021.


BANCORPSOUTH INC: Continues to Defend Overdraft Fees MDL vs. Bank
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BancorpSouth Inc. continues to defend a subsidiary against a
multidistrict litigation over overdraft fees, according to the
Company's August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On May 18, 2010, the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary,
BancorpSouth Bank, was named as a defendant in a class action
lawsuit filed by an Arkansas customer of the Bank in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Florida.  The lawsuit
challenges the manner in which overdraft fees were charged and the
policies related to posting order of debit card and ATM
transactions.  The lawsuit also makes a claim under Arkansas'
consumer protection statute.  The plaintiff is seeking to recover
damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief.  The case
was transferred to pending multi-district litigation in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  On May 4,
2012, the judge presiding over the multi-district litigation
entered an order certifying a class in this case and on March 4,
2013, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Bank's
petition for leave to appeal the class certification order.
Notice to the certified class was sent, on or about May 3, 2013,
primarily informing the class of the right to opt-out of the class
and setting a deadline for same.

There are significant uncertainties involved in any purported
class action litigation.  Although it is not possible to predict
the ultimate resolution or financial liability with respect to
this litigation, management is currently of the opinion that the
outcome of this lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's business, consolidated financial position or results
of operations.  However, there can be no assurance that an adverse
outcome or settlement would not have a material adverse effect on
the Company's consolidated results of operations for a given
fiscal period.

                       About BancorpSouth

BancorpSouth Inc. -- http://www.bancorpsouth.com/-- is a
financial holding company headquartered in Tupelo, Mississippi.
BancorpSouth Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary of BancorpSouth,
Inc., operates 290 commercial banking, mortgage, insurance, trust
and broker dealer locations in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee and Texas, and an
insurance location in Illinois.


BENTON COUNTY, WA: Judge to Decide on Sex Offender Record Release
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Richardson, writing for Tri-City Herald, reports that on
Sept. 6, a Benton County judge is to decide if a class-action
lawsuit can be formed to try to block the release of the personal
information of 420 low-level sex offenders.

County officials delayed the release of the registration
information to give the court time to rule on a motion filed by
Richland attorney Greg Dow.

Mr. Dow represents 10 Level 1 sex offenders who want to keep their
names, addresses and phone numbers from being released to a Mesa
woman, Donna Zink.

Information about higher-risk offenders, ranked a Level 2 and 3,
are readily available to the public, but not Level 1 offenders.

Ms. Zink requested the information from Benton and Franklin
counties under the state's public records law.

Franklin County officials gave her the information, but Benton
County officials said the offenders had the right to be notified
about the request before the information was released.

A class-action case could potentially provide representation and
temporary protection to the majority of Level 1 offenders, Mr. Dow
said.

Only 12 out of the reported 420 offenders were represented by an
attorney during a recent hearing.

Mr. Dow said he decided to lead a class-action lawsuit to give all
the offenders a fair chance to be represented, he said.

"They all have the same claim to their privacy.  I think these
guys are being made an example of.  I really do," he said.  "I
just feel the need to (lead) it.  The holy spirit works in my life
and it is one of the things I feel strongly about."

The information now is tentatively scheduled to be released
Sept. 16 unless a judge certifies Mr. Dow's class-action lawsuit,
said Deputy Prosecutor Ryan Lukson.

If a judge rules in Mr. Dow's favor, it could be a while before a
ruling is made on whether to release the information.

"We are months away," Mr. Lukson said.  "At least a couple months
to (rule) on a permanent injunction.  If Ms. Zink appeals, it
could take longer than that."

A hearing is set for Friday, Sept. 13.  Ms. Zink could not be
reached but has said she plans to put the information online
because the more people know, the safer they will be.

Mr. Dow has re-filed his motion to form the class-action case
since Judge Bruce Spanner ruled Aug. 30 that Mr. Dow didn't
provide enough information.

Mr. Dow told the Herald he believes the legal research his firm
has been doing since Judge Spanner's ruling will convince the
judge to certify the class-action suit and grant a temporary
injunction.

"I don't think the Legislature was thinking about sex offenders
when they drafted the Public Records Act," he said.  "We have
found two statutes that we think trump the Public Records Act.

On Aug. 30, Judge Spanner granted the 12 offenders a temporary
injunction to block the release of their registration information.

The order does not apply to the more than 400 others.

Judge Spanner based his initial ruling on a state Supreme Court
case, State V. Ward, which found registration information is
considered confidential and can only be released to the public if
there is a necessary threat.

More than 150 offenders have called the prosecutor's and sheriff's
offices, claiming the release of information would affect their
jobs, living situations and personal lives.  But a majority of
them didn't have the means to hire an attorney or adequate
knowledge of the legal system, Mr. Lukson said.

One of Mr. Dow's clients, listed as John Doe C in court documents,
said he committed his offense 17 years ago when he was 11 years
old.  He said his victim was a family member who was 7 at the
time.

The offender now works at a church and believes the release of his
information could cause him to lose his job.

"If my status is known to the public, I believe getting jobs and
promotions will be affected," the offender said in court
documents.  "I have also been a burden to my family and want that
to stop at some point.  I do not think the neighbors need to know
everything about you.  Some things can and should remain private."


BUBBLES BAKING: Recalls First Street Label Blueberry Muffins
------------------------------------------------------------
Bubbles Baking Co. is voluntarily recalling 9,229 cases of
Blueberry Muffin 14 oz and Blueberry Loaf Cake 16 oz. due to
undeclared milk and soy allergen.  People who have allergies to
milk and soy run the risk of serious or life-threatening reactions
if they consume these products.

The voluntary recall was initiated after company discovered that
milk and soy was inadvertently left off the allergen declaration.

As of this date, there have been no adverse reactions complaints
reported relating to this recall.  The Muffins and Loaf Cakes were
distributed to Smart & Final Stores only in the following states:
California and Arizona.

Consumers may return the product to the place where purchased for
a full refund or replacement.  Consumers with questions may
contact Bubbles Baking Co. 800-777-4970 Monday-Friday 9am-4:30pm
Pacific Time.


CAMBRIDGE METALS: Recalls Motorcycle Training Wheels Due
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cambridge Metals & Plastics, a Division of Water Works
Manufacturing Inc., of Cambridge, Minn., announced a voluntary
recall of about 4,000 Motorcycle Training Wheels.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

Bolts and nuts securing the wheel can loosen and cause the rider
to lose control, posing a crash hazard.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recalled products are Moose Racing brand training wheels for
youth motorcycles and the replacement wheel kit.  The training
wheels have a black, one-piece, full-length metal axle with a
plate that attaches to the underside of the motorcycle frame
beneath the engine and two inflatable rubber wheels.  The Moose
Racing logo appears on the left and right sides of the axle.  The
replacement wheel kit is a set of two tires mounted on the wheel
assembly.  Replacement wheel kits and training wheels that fit the
following youth motorcycle models are being recalled: Honda XR/CRF
50, Kawasaki KDX/Suzuki JR 50, KTM 50, Suzuki DRZ 70, Yamaha PW50
and Yamaha TTR 50.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Motorcycle dealerships nationwide and at Mooseracing.com,
Parts-unlimited.com and other online retailers from July 2012
through June 2013 for about $130.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled training
wheels, remove them from the motorcycle and contact Cambridge
Metal & Plastics to have them repaired free of charge.


CHARLES SCHWAB: 9th Circuit Appeal in "Northstar" Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund(TM) (Northstar
lawsuit).  The lawsuit, which alleges violations of state law and
federal securities law in connection with the fund's investment
policy, names The Charles Schwab Corporation's subsidiaries,
Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the fund's shares)
and Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. (CSIM) as
defendants.  Allegations include that the fund improperly deviated
from its stated investment objectives by investing in
collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and investing more than
25% of fund assets in CMOs and mortgage-backed securities without
obtaining a shareholder vote.  The Plaintiffs seek unspecified
compensatory and rescission damages, unspecified equitable and
injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees.  The Plaintiffs'
federal securities law claim and certain of plaintiffs' state law
claims were dismissed in proceedings before the court and
following a successful petition by defendants to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals.  On August 8, 2011, the court dismissed
plaintiffs' remaining claims with prejudice.  The Plaintiffs have
again appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where the case is currently
pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 6, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The Charles Schwab Corporation was incorporated in 1986 and
engages, through its subsidiaries in securities brokerage,
banking, money management, and financial advisory services.  The
Company is headquartered in San Francisco, California.


COMMERCE BANCSHARES: 2nd Suit Over Overdraft Fees Resolved
----------------------------------------------------------
Commerce Bancshares, Inc., disclosed in its August 6, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013, that a second class action
lawsuit alleging that its subsidiary improperly charged overdraft
fees was resolved in July 2013 and will be dismissed.

In December 2011, the Company's subsidiary, Commerce Bank, reached
a class-wide settlement in a class action lawsuit captioned
Wolfgeher v. Commerce Bank, Case No. 1:10-cv-22017 (MDL 2036, S.D.
Fla.) which alleged that the Bank had improperly charged overdraft
fees on certain debit card transactions and claimed refunds for
the plaintiff individually and on behalf of other customers as a
class.  A formal Settlement Agreement and Release related to this
lawsuit was signed by the Bank on July 26, 2012.  The Bank, while
admitting no wrongdoing, agreed to the settlement in order to
resolve the litigation and avoid further expense.  The settlement
provided for a payment of $18.3 million into a class settlement
fund, the proceeds of which will be used to issue refunds to class
members and to pay attorneys' fees, administrative and other
costs, in exchange for a complete release of all claims asserted
against the Bank.  The Bank also agreed to post debit card
transactions in chronological order, which was implemented on
February 21, 2013.  As a result of the change in the posting order
of debit card transactions, the Company currently estimates that
overdraft income will be reduced on an annual basis by $3.5
million to $5.5 million.  A second lawsuit alleging the same facts
and also seeking class-action status was filed on June 4, 2010, in
Missouri state court; however, the second lawsuit was resolved by
agreement on July 18, 2013, and will be dismissed.

Commerce Bancshares, Inc., is a bank holding company incorporated
under the laws of Missouri on August 4, 1966.  Through a second
tier wholly-owned bank holding company, it owns all of the
outstanding capital stock of Commerce Bank, which engages in
general banking business, providing a broad range of retail,
corporate, investment, trust, and asset management products and
services to individuals and businesses.  The Company is based in
Kansas City, Missouri.


CSL LTD: Calls for FDA Witness to Testify in Cartel Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim McArthur, writing for The Motley Fool, reports that an article
published in the Australian Financial Review has provided an
update on the class action that has been brought against
biopharmaceutical firm CSL in the USA.  The allegations at the
center of the class action claim CSL and fellow immune globin and
albumin producer Baxter conspired to reduce the supply of two
products over a seven-year period.

According to the report in the AFR the class action appears to
repeatedly reference the conduct of the US Food and Drug
Administration.  In response CSL and Baxter have requested that
Dr. Weinstein, an official at the FDA during the time of the
supposed antitrust violations, testify.  The FDA has so far
supposedly refused to allow Dr. Weinstein to testify which has
forced CSL and Baxter to "move to compel" the witness to testify.

As is nearly always the case when legal proceedings are involved,
the action against CSL and Baxter is likely to be a drawn-out
affair with "no end in sight" according to reporter Eli Greenblat.
In its most recent financial statement release, CSL stated that:
"The directors believe that future payment of a material amount in
respect of litigation is remote.  The Group has disclaimed
liability for, and is vigorously defending, all current material
claims and actions that have been made."

It is of course hard for management at CSL, let alone shareholders
to really know what the eventual outcome will be.  One thing that
is almost certain is that the lawyers involved will come out in
front.

Foolish takeaway

CSL is a robust company with sound future prospects and even the
reported $1 billion plus in damages being sought would not cripple
the company.  Often the near term uncertainty of legal action can
create opportunities to purchase good companies at attractive
prices.  Investors should be alert to these opportunities as they
can present themselves anywhere and at any time.


CVS CAREMARK: Appeals in "Lauriello" Class Suit Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals in the class action lawsuit initiated by John Lauriello
remain pending, according to CVS Caremark Corporation's August 6,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Caremark was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in
October 2003 in Alabama state court by John Lauriello, purportedly
on behalf of participants in the 1999 settlement of various
securities class action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark
and others.  Other defendants include insurance companies that
provided coverage to Caremark with respect to the settled
lawsuits.  The Lauriello lawsuit seeks approximately $3.2 billion
in compensatory damages plus other non-specified damages based on
allegations that the amount of insurance coverage available for
the settled lawsuits was misrepresented and suppressed.  A similar
lawsuit was filed in November 2003 by Frank McArthur, also in
Alabama state court, naming as defendants, among others, Caremark
and several insurance companies involved in the 1999 settlement.
This lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed class action, but
McArthur was subsequently allowed to intervene in the Lauriello
action.  Following the close of class discovery, the trial court
entered an Order on August 15, 2012, that granted the plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class pursuant to Alabama Rule of Civil
Procedures 23(b)(3) but denied their request that the class also
be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1).  In addition, the
August 15, 2012 Order appointed class representatives and class
counsel.  The defendants have filed a notice of appeal with the
Alabama Supreme Court and the plaintiffs have filed a notice of
cross-appeal.  The proceedings in the trial court are stayed by
statute pending a decision on the appeal and cross-appeal by the
Alabama Supreme Court.

CVS Caremark Corporation is the largest integrated pharmacy health
care provider in the United States.  The Company effectively
manages pharmaceutical costs and improves health care outcomes
through its pharmacy benefit management, mail order and specialty
pharmacy division, CVS Caremark(R) Pharmacy Services; its more
than 7,500 CVS/pharmacy(R) and Drogaria Onofre(R) retail stores;
its retail-based health clinic subsidiary, MinuteClinic(R); and
its online retail pharmacies, CVS.com(R) and Onofre.com.br(R).


CVS CAREMARK: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Caremark Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit pending in New
Hampshire, according to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In November 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of CVS Caremark Corporation
stock between May 5, 2009, and November 4, 2009.  The lawsuit
names the Company and certain officers as defendants and includes
allegations of securities fraud relating to public disclosures
made by the Company concerning the pharmacy benefit management
("PBM") business and allegations of insider trading.  In addition,
a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in December 2009 in the
same court against the directors and certain officers of the
Company.  A derivative lawsuit is a lawsuit filed by a shareholder
purporting to assert claims on behalf of a corporation against
directors and officers of the corporation.  This lawsuit, which
was stayed pending developments in the related securities class
action, includes allegations of, among other things, securities
fraud, insider trading and breach of fiduciary duties and further
alleges that the Company was damaged by the purchase of stock at
allegedly inflated prices under its share repurchase program.  In
January 2011, both lawsuits were transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of New Hampshire.  In June 2012,
the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the securities
class action.  The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the court's
ruling on the motion to dismiss.

In May 2013, the First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the prior
ruling and remanded the case to the district court for further
proceedings.  The Company has filed a new motion to dismiss the
lawsuit.  The derivative lawsuit will remain stayed pending the
outcome of any subsequent ruling on a renewed motion to dismiss
the securities class action.

CVS Caremark Corporation is the largest integrated pharmacy health
care provider in the United States.  The Company effectively
manages pharmaceutical costs and improves health care outcomes
through its pharmacy benefit management, mail order and specialty
pharmacy division, CVS Caremark(R) Pharmacy Services; its more
than 7,500 CVS/pharmacy(R) and Drogaria Onofre(R) retail stores;
its retail-based health clinic subsidiary, MinuteClinic(R); and
its online retail pharmacies, CVS.com(R) and Onofre.com.br(R).


CVS CAREMARK: Class Certification Bids in Antitrust MDL Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Motions for class certification in the coordinated cases within
the consolidated In Re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust
Litigation remain pending, according to the Company's August 6,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Various lawsuits have been filed alleging that Caremark has
violated applicable antitrust laws in establishing and maintaining
retail pharmacy networks for client health plans.  In August 2003,
Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc. d/b/a Burns Pharmacy and
Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co. d/b/a Parkway Drugs #4, together with
Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National Community Pharmacists
Association filed a putative class action against Caremark in
Pennsylvania federal court, seeking treble damages and injunctive
relief.  This case was initially sent to arbitration based on the
contract terms between the pharmacies and Caremark.  In October
2003, two independent pharmacies, North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. and
C&C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc., filed a putative class
action complaint in Alabama federal court against Caremark and two
pharmacy benefit management ("PBM") competitors, seeking treble
damages and injunctive relief.  The North Jackson Pharmacy case
against two of the Caremark entities named as defendants was
transferred to Illinois federal court, and the case against a
separate Caremark entity was sent to arbitration based on contract
terms between the pharmacies and Caremark.  The Bellevue
arbitration was then stayed by the parties pending developments in
the North Jackson Pharmacy court case.

In August 2006, the Bellevue case and the North Jackson Pharmacy
case were both transferred to Pennsylvania federal court by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated and
consolidated proceedings with other cases before the panel,
including cases against other PBMs.  Caremark appealed the
decision which vacated an order compelling arbitration and staying
the proceedings in the Bellevue case and, following the appeal,
the Court of Appeals reinstated the order compelling arbitration
of the Bellevue case.  Following remand, the plaintiffs in the
Bellevue case sought dismissal of their complaint to permit an
immediate appeal of the reinstated order compelling arbitration
and pursued an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.  In
November 2012, the Third Circuit Court reversed the district court
ruling and directed the parties to proceed in federal court.
Motions for class certification in the coordinated cases within
the multidistrict litigation, including the North Jackson Pharmacy
case, remain pending, and the court has permitted certain
additional class discovery and briefing.  The consolidated action
is now known as the In Re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust
Litigation.

CVS Caremark Corporation is the largest integrated pharmacy health
care provider in the United States.  The Company effectively
manages pharmaceutical costs and improves health care outcomes
through its pharmacy benefit management, mail order and specialty
pharmacy division, CVS Caremark(R) Pharmacy Services; its more
than 7,500 CVS/pharmacy(R) and Drogaria Onofre(R) retail stores;
its retail-based health clinic subsidiary, MinuteClinic(R); and
its online retail pharmacies, CVS.com(R) and Onofre.com.br(R).


DELL FINANCIAL: Sheppard Mullin Discusses TCPA Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
David M. Poell, Esq., Shannon Z. Petersen, Esq. and David S.
Almeida, Esq. at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, reports
that The Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, et
seq. ("TCPA"), prohibits "robo-calls" to cell phones, text
messages and "junk" faxes without prior consent.  It imposes
statutory penalties from $500 to $1,500 per violation, regardless
of any actual damage, and is thus increasingly popular with the
plaintiffs' class action bar.  Though passed in 1991, there are
relatively few Circuit Court of Appeals decisions regarding the
TCPA.  In August of 2013, however, both the Third and Seventh
Circuits issued TCPA decisions -- one involving the revocation of
prior express consent and the other involving cy pres awards in
TCPA class actions.

In Gager v. Dell Financial Services, LLC, --- F.3d ----, 2013 WL
4463305 (3d Cir. Aug. 22, 2013), the plaintiff, in the course of
obtaining financing from Dell to purchase a computer, provided her
cell phone number on her application. (Though courts have split on
the issue, the plaintiff in this case conceded this was sufficient
consent to be called.) After she stopped making payments, Dell
called her on her cell phone using an auto-dialer and/or a pre-
recorded voice.  Eventually, Gager sent a letter revoking her
consent and asking that Dell stop calling her on her cell phone.
Dell refused, so Gager filed a federal class action lawsuit
against Dell for allegedly violating the TCPA.  The district court
granted Dell's motion to dismiss on the grounds Gager could not
revoke her consent under the TCPA.

On appeal, the Third Circuit reversed, holding that the TCPA
allows a consumer to revoke any prior express consent previously
provided.  The Third Circuit also held that there is no temporal
limit to this right -- that is, a consumer can revoke his or her
consent at any time.  In addressing these issues, the Third
Circuit also held that the TCPA applies equally to both
telemarketing calls and debt collection calls.  Plaintiffs' class
action counsel may use this tangential holding to argue that
strict new rules by the FCC interpreting "prior express consent"
for telemarketing calls should apply equally to debt collection
calls.

The other appellate decision comes from the Seventh Circuit,
Holtzman v. Turza, --- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 4506176 (7th Cir.
Aug. 26, 2013).  The district court in Illinois certified a TCPA
class action and entered summary judgment in favor of the class
finding that the faxes in question constituted unsolicited
advertisements in violation of the TCPA.  The Seventh Circuit
affirmed certification and judgment, but disagreed with the
district court's order that any unclaimed residual of the $4.2
million judgment against the defendant would be distributed as a
cy pres award to the Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan
Chicago.

In so holding, Chief Judge Easterbook found that the TCPA class
judgment of over $4 million did not create a "common fund."
Instead, the damages reflected divisible injury of $500 in
statutory damages for each of the 8,430 unsolicited faxes
negligently sent.  Class actions stemming from aggregate and
undifferentiated injuries create genuine common funds, where
cy pres awards to charities from unclaimed remainders are
appropriate.  The Court questioned the appropriateness of such
cy pres awards in TCPA class action judgments where each class
member has a separate and readily calculable claim to the overall
judgment.  Nevertheless, the Seventh Circuit did not categorically
reject cy pres awards in TCPA class action judgments, but remanded
instead on the ground that such an award was premature in this
case because no determination had yet been made of the defendant's
ability to pay any portion of the judgment or whether there would
be any unclaimed remainder.  The Seventh Circuit further held that
the district court could not unilaterally award the residue to a
charity of its choosing without input from the parties.


ECOTALITY INC: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC on Sept. 9 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased
ECOtality, Inc. common stock between April 16, 2013 and August 9,
2013.  The complaint alleges that a series of statements made
during that time regarding ECOtality's business, operations and
prospects were false and misleading.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that ECOtality misrepresented and failed to adequately
disclose that: (a) due to design and manufacturing defects, some
of ECOtality's charging systems had been causing overheating and
even the melting of connector plugs when charging vehicles; (b)
despite efforts undertaken to transition the Company's business
model from subsidizing installations of EVSEs under the Department
of Energy's ("DOE") EV Project to regular commercial sales and
installations, ECOtality was not achieving enough commercial sales
and installations to sustain operations in the second half of
2013; (c) due to "unacceptable performance shortfalls during
prototype verification testing," ECOtality was not on track to
meet the scheduled release of a new Minit Charger product for
industrial customers in the second half of 2013; (d) due to would-
be potential investors' unwillingness to provide additionally
needed financing, ECOtality was unable to obtain the requisite
financing to meet its short-term and long-term capital needs and
would be unable to meet its obligations to the DOE's EV Project
and the DOE would suspend all payments to the Company; and (e) due
to non-compliance with the nation's labor laws, the Company was
liable to the U.S. Department of Labor for $855,000 for the
payment of back wages and damages.

If you purchased ECOtality common stock between April 16, 2013 and
August 9, 2013 you have the legal right to petition the Court to
be appointed a "lead plaintiff."  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  Any such request must satisfy certain
criteria and be made no later than October 14, 2013.  Any member
of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you are an
ECOtality investor and would like to discuss a potential lead
plaintiff appointment, or your rights and interests with respect
to the lawsuit, you may contact Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., or
Marshall P. Dees, Esq. via email at mfistel@holzerlaw.com  or
mdees@holzerlaw.com or via toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832.

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


FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: New Slate of Plaintiffs Joins Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Darla Mercado, writing for InvestmentNews, reports that a new
slate of plaintiffs has joined a federal lawsuit against Fidelity
Investments that alleges the firm put its own workers into costly
proprietary funds in the firm's profit-sharing plan even though
cheaper options were available.

On Sept. 3, attorneys for Lori Bilewicz, a former Fidelity
employee, filed a first amended class action complaint against FMR
LLC, FMR LLC Investment Committee and a slate of John and Jane
Does in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts.  The class
action is being brought on the behalf of participants and
beneficiaries who were invested in Fidelity funds established and
maintained by the firm through the plan from March 20, 2007,
through the present.

In this latest rendition of the complaint, Ms. Bilewicz was joined
by 26 other former and current Fidelity workers who were all
allegedly participants in the company's own profit-sharing plan.

"The conflicts of interest are pretty obvious to the casual
observer: [Fidelity] chooses the funds, and all 170 funds are
Fidelity funds," said Gregory Y. Porter, an attorney with Bailey &
Glasser LLP.  He is representing the plaintiffs in the case.  "I
don't see how you can have a best of breed process where your
evaluation can result in 100% Fidelity funds."

The plan had 55,862 participants as of Dec. 31, 2011, with a total
of $8.5 billion in assets.

Originally, Ms. Bilewicz filed the case on March 19, 2013.

Chief among the complaints is the allegation that Fidelity had
engaged in "self-dealing at the expense of its own workers'
retirement savings," Ms. Bilewicz claimed in the suit.

Mr. Porter said that bringing additional plaintiffs into the suit
bolstered the case.

"One of the objections raised in a motion to dismiss is that the
current plaintiff at the time only owned four or five funds in the
plan," he said.  "We've added a bunch of people in part to address
that situation.  Now we have dozens of funds and a mix of current
participants and former employees."

By adding on current plan participants, the plaintiff's attorneys
can seek other solutions in addition to just a monetary award.
The case can push for changes to the plan, Mr. Porter added.

"The lawsuit is totally without merit, and we intend to defend
vigorously against it," said Vincent Loporchio, a spokesman for
Fidelity.  "We have a very generous benefits package that provides
significant contributions to employees' retirement planning,
including a profit-sharing contribution, a significant 401(k)
match and contributions to help fund employee health expenses in
retirement."

Mr. Loporchio noted that the company offered "a wide array of
choices, including low-priced institutional share classes and
low-cost index funds."

Plaintiffs alleged that Fidelity loaded up the menu with its own
funds such that at the end of 2010, 88% of the plan's mutual funds
comprised actively managed proprietary funds.  Those funds
accounted for 84% of the plan's assets, the plaintiffs alleged.

The workers also claimed that while Fidelity could have trimmed
costs by consolidating funds in 2010, the plan would have been
eligible to save money via break points available from Pyramis
Global Advisors LLC, an institutional asset manager owned by
Fidelity.

"Consolidating approximately 77 of the large-cap and sector equity
funds in the plan into a single diversified large cap option would
create a pool of approximately $2.887 billion in assets as of
Dec. 31, 2010," plaintiffs said in the suit.  "With that much
bargaining power, a prudent and loyal fiduciary could likely
negotiate a fee with Pyramis or another asset manager of 20 basis
points or less."

The 77 equity funds in the above example charged an asset-weighted
fee of 72 basis points, but if the plan ended up paying only 20
basis points on the $2.887 billion in large-cap-equity assets, the
participants allegedly would have saved about 75% in fees, or $15
million just in that year, according to the complaint.

Ms. Bilewicz also claimed that though Fidelity launched an index-
based suite of target date funds in 2009, these options weren't
available on the company's own 401(k).

The difference in cost was stark, according to the suit: The
index-based funds had average investment management fees of 9
basis points, 83% lower than the average cost of the Fidelity
Freedom Fund K shares that the plan used.  Though Pyramis also
offered an indexed-based target date series, Fidelity workers
weren't offered this as an option, the plaintiffs allege.  The
Pyramis Lifecycle Index charged a management fee of 15 basis
points, 72% lower than the Freedom Funds that were available on
the plan's menu, according to the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs are seeking disgorgement of all investment advisory
fees paid to Fidelity's subsidiaries, a restoration of all plan
losses and restitution, among other things, according to the suit.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Appeal in Suit Over Overdraft Fees Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
FirstMerit Corporation's appeal from an order certifying a class
in the lawsuit over overdraft fees remains pending, according to
the Company's August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

Commencing in December 2010, two separate lawsuits were filed in
the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and the Lake County Court
of Common Pleas against FirstMerit Corporation (the "Corporation")
and its wholly-owned subsidiary, FirstMerit Bank, N. A. (the
"Bank").  The complaints were brought as putative class actions on
behalf of Ohio residents who maintained a checking account at the
Bank and who incurred one or more overdraft fees as a result of
the alleged re-sequencing of debit transactions.  The lawsuit that
had been filed in Summit County Court of Common Pleas was
dismissed without prejudice on July 11, 2011.  The remaining
lawsuit in Lake County seeks actual damages, disgorgement of
overdraft fees, punitive damages, interest, injunctive relief and
attorney fees.  In December 2012, the trial court certified the
class and the Bank and Corporation have appealed the
determination.

FirstMerit Corporation is a diversified financial services company
headquartered in Akron, Ohio, with 416 banking offices in the
Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois and Pennsylvania areas.  The
Corporation provides a complete range of banking and other
financial services to consumers and businesses through its core
operations.  FirstMerit's principal asset is the common stock of
its wholly-owned subsidiary, FirstMerit Bank, N. A.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Bank Continues to Defend 365/360 Interest Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
FirstMerit Corporation continues to defend its subsidiary against
a class action lawsuit related to 365/360 interest calculation,
according to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

In August 2008, a lawsuit was filed in the Cuyahoga County Court
of Common Pleas against FirstMerit Corporation's (the
"Corporation's") wholly-owned subsidiary, FirstMerit Bank, N. A.
(the "Bank").  The breach-of-contract complaint was brought as a
putative class action on behalf of Ohio commercial borrowers who
allegedly had the interest they owed calculated improperly by
using the 365/360 method.  The complaint seeks actual damages,
interest, injunctive relief and attorney fees.  In June 2012, the
trial court certified the class and the Bank appealed the
determination.  In May 2013, the court of appeals reversed the
trial court's decision on class certification, thereby
decertifying the class, and remanded the case back to the trial
court for further proceedings.

FirstMerit Corporation is a diversified financial services company
headquartered in Akron, Ohio, with 416 banking offices in the
Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois and Pennsylvania areas.  The
Corporation provides a complete range of banking and other
financial services to consumers and businesses through its core
operations.  FirstMerit's principal asset is the common stock of
its wholly-owned subsidiary, FirstMerit Bank, N. A.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Has Yet to File Shareholder Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
FirstMerit Corporation has yet to file for court approval its
settlement of the lawsuit titled In re Citizens Republic Bancorp,
Inc. Shareholder Litigation, according to the Company's August 6,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On April 12, 2013 (the "Acquisition Date"), FirstMerit Corporation
(the "Corporation") completed the merger with Citizens Republic
Bancorp, Inc. ("Citizens"), a Michigan corporation.  As part of
the merger with Citizens, the Corporation now has two active
wholly owned trusts that were formed for the purpose of issuing
securities and qualify as regulatory capital.

Between September 17, 2012, and October 5, 2012, alleged
shareholders of Citizens filed six purported class action lawsuits
in the Circuit Court of Genesee County, Michigan, relating to the
proposed merger between Citizens and FirstMerit, which merger
closed in April 2013.  The lawsuits were consolidated under the
caption In re Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Case No. 12-99027-CK (the "Lawsuit").  The
consolidated complaint in the Lawsuit alleges that the former
directors of Citizens breached their fiduciary duties by failing
to obtain the best available price in the merger and by not
providing Citizens shareholders with all material information
related to the merger, and that FirstMerit and Citizens aided and
abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The Complaint
sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the
consummation of the merger, rescissory damages and other equitable
relief.

The plaintiffs and defendants have entered into a settlement of
the Lawsuit, subject to approval of the court.  Under the
settlement, the defendants amended the joint proxy
statement/prospectus relating to the merger to include certain
supplemental disclosures to shareholders of Citizens.  FirstMerit
has agreed to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses as
awarded by the court, subject to court approval of the settlement.

Based on information currently available, consultation with
counsel, available insurance coverage and established reserves,
Management believes that the eventual outcome of all claims
against the Corporation and its subsidiaries will not,
individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect
on its consolidated financial position or results of operations.
However, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these
matters, if unfavorable, may be material to the results of
operations for a particular period.  The Corporation has reserved
an amount that is immaterial to the results of operations for the
Merger Litigation.  No other reserves have been established
because it is not possible to determine (i) whether a liability
has been incurred; or (ii) an estimate of the ultimate or minimum
amount of such liability.

FirstMerit Corporation is a diversified financial services company
headquartered in Akron, Ohio, with 416 banking offices in the
Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois and Pennsylvania areas.  The
Corporation provides a complete range of banking and other
financial services to consumers and businesses through its core
operations.  FirstMerit's principal asset is the common stock of
its wholly-owned subsidiary, FirstMerit Bank, N. A.


FTD COMPANIES: Still Awaits Rulings in RICO Suits vs. Parent
------------------------------------------------------------
FTD Companies, Inc. is still awaiting court decisions on pending
motions in the class action lawsuits alleging violations of the
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act against its parent
and others, according to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form 10-
12B/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

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

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

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

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

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

FTD Companies, Inc. -- http://www.ftd.com/-- is a floral and gift
products and services company.  The Company provides floral, gift
and related products and services to consumers and retail
florists, as well as to other retail locations offering floral and
gift products primarily in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and the
Republic of Ireland.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware and
is headquartered in Downers Grove, Illinois.


HOME DEPOT: Faces Suit Over Alleged Shakedowns of Customers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Elizabeth Warmerdam reports
that a class action accuses Home Depot of using "demand letter
mills" to shake down customers for arbitrary and unjust "damages"
for civil shoplifting charges, with false threats of criminal
prosecution.

Lead plaintiff Jimin Chen claims Home used civil shoplifting law
"to intimidate consumers into paying money to which Home Depot is
not entitled."

In his lawsuit in Superior Court, Chen claims he and a friend each
used a pair of Home Depot work gloves to load nearly $1,500 worth
of merchandise into a cart, then placed the gloves on top of the
merchandise in the cart.  Chen says he paid the $1,500, but the
gloves -- worth less than $8 together -- were not scanned.

"Immediately after plaintiff paid for his merchandise, a Home
Depot employee accosted plaintiff from behind, identified himself
as a store security guard, and stated that plaintiff had failed to
pay for the two pairs of gloves," Chen says in the complaint.

He says he and his friend were detained for 30 minutes, though
they never left the store with merchandise.  Chen says he was told
he would not be allowed to leave the story unless he signed an
"admission" and provided contact information, so he did so.

"Why? So that Home Depot would know where to send its misleading
demand letters," Chen says in the complaint.

Chen claims that California's Civil Shoplifting Law allows
merchants to demand $50 to $500 in damages from shoplifters.
"Many retailers have begun to use the civil shoplifting law as a
profit center," he says in the complaint.  "They contract with
third-party 'recovery services' and law firms to send out standard
form letters demanding shoplifting 'damages' that they
unilaterally determine and that are entirely arbitrary."

The attorneys and "recovery services" do not investigate the
merits of the claims, do not have the authority or intention to
sue if the alleged shoplifter fails to pay, and do not initiate
actions to recover statutory damages, Chen says.  They send the
demand letters to shake down the consumers, and split the money
with the merchants.

"The demand letters are crafted to frighten consumers into
believing that failure to pay the amount demanded may result in
criminal prosecution, subject them to a civil suit, and put them
at risk of liability for significant additional damages that the
merchant has no legal right to recover.  Consumers, fearful and
ignorant of the falsity of these threats, pay millions of dollars
each year in satisfaction of these misleading and unlawful
demands," Chen says in the complaint.

Home Depot uses the Florida-based law firm, Law Offices of Palmer,
Reifler & Associates, to help it execute this "unlawful scheme,"
Chen says.  He claims that for four years the law office has sent
more than a million demand letters a year to Home Depot customers.

The law office is not a party to this lawsuit.

Chen says demand letters to California customer refer to the
California penal code, but are not authorized in California.

"Home Depot's demand letters utilize threats and a smoke screen of
legalese to intimidate consumers into paying money to which Home
Depot is not entitled," Chen says in the complaint.

He says the intimidation begins when customers are detained at the
store and accused of shoplifting.  Home Depot employees give them
a written warning that they may "face both criminal charges and a
civil claim," and pay a fine or a civil penalty.  The warning says
the customers may be subject to further liability if they do not
pay, Chen says.

"Days later, Palmer Reifler sends a form demand letter for an
arbitrary sum threatening that if 'payment [is] not made on time,'
Home Depot may choose to make a higher request or institute
litigation in which it 'will likely seek any available attorneys'
fees, court costs, and other legal expenses.'  [But] Home Depot
has no right to recover such fees and expenses under California
Law," Chen says in the complaint.

If the customer does not pay or respond to the initial demand
letter, the law firm escalates the demand amount and again
threatens litigation and liability, Chen says.  He claims Home
Depot demanded that he pay $350 in the first demand letter, and
$625 in the second letter.

"Plaintiff brings this class action to declare Home Depot's
practices unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent, to halt the practices,
and to obtain restitution for similarly situated California
consumers," Chen says in the complaint.

Home Depot did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nance F. Becker
          CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP
          42 Miller Avenue
          Mill Valley, CA 94941
          Telephone: (415) 381-5599
          Facsimile: (415) 381-5572
          E-mail: nance@chavezgertler.com

The case is Chen v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case No. RG13694413,
in the California Superior Court for Alameda County.


HONDA MOTOR: Calif. Judge Denies in Part Motion to Dismiss Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Reed, writing for glassBYTEs.com, reports that a judge in
the U.S. Central District Court of California, Western division,
recently denied in part and approved in part Honda's motion to
dismiss a master class action complaint which alleges some of the
automaker's vehicles have defective window regulators.

The court denied Honda's motion to dismiss as it pertains to the
California Consumers' Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law and the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act claims.  However,
the court approved dismissal of the complaints in relation to the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the Song-Beverly Act, the Tennessee
Implied Warranty of Merchantability, the New Jersey Implied
Warranty of Merchantability and the Deceit and Common Law fraud
claims with prejudice.

"For the reasons put forward in this order, the court denies
defendant's motion as to plaintiffs' CLRA (California Consumers'
Legal Remedies Act), UCL (California's Unfair Competition Law) and
Iowa Fraud Act claims," says U.S. District Judge Stephen V.
Wilson, according to court minutes.

Phyllis Grodzitsky, owner of a Honda Odyssey, and Jeremy Bordelon
of Tennessee, owner of a Honda Element, alleged in the original
complaint that they reported repeated failures of window
regulators in their vehicles.  Ms. Grodzitsky further claims that
she contacted her local Honda service manager and was told, "all
[Honda Odysseys] have that problem."

Honda attorneys had questioned the allegations in their motion to
dismiss, claiming that one model listed in the class action does
not even have the system in question.

"The defendant argues that plaintiffs do not have standing to sue
over products they did not purchase," the judge says, according to
court documents.  "Specifically, while the named plaintiffs
purchased Honda's Odyssey, Element, Accord and Pilot models, they
seek to represent a class that includes six other models, spread
out over a 12-year period.  In response, plaintiff argues that
they have standing to sue over all models that contained the same
defect, which extends (at least) to the named models and years.

"The court finds defendant's argument ill-suited to a motion to
dismiss.  . . . Defendant's argument is better made at the class
certification stage," Judge Wilson continued.

The vehicle models in question include the Honda Odyssey, Pilot,
Element, Accord, CR-V, Civic and Acura MDX between the years of
1994-2007.


INDIANA: November 12 Hearing Set for BMV Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
John Tuohy, writing Indystar.com, reports that an agreement by the
Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles to pay Hoosiers $30 million for
overcharges heads to a judge for approval in November.

A hearing will be held before Marion County Superior Judge
Heather Welch on Nov. 12 at 11:00 a.m. in courtroom 1760 at the
Marion City-County Building, 200 E. Washington St.

The deal was between the BMV and the plaintiffs in a class action
lawsuit last June.  The BMV agreed it charged 2 million citizens
too much to get or renew their driver's licenses for a six-year
period.

Those who overpaid would be entitled to a $3.50 refund from the
BMV, if the agreement is approved.  If a driver obtained their
licensed and renewed it in that time they would get $7.

But checks won't be going out.

The refund will only be paid through a reduction in charges the
next time the user pays for a BMV service.  It was uncertain how
those who have moved away would be paid.

Josh Gillepsie, a spokesman for the BMV, said he could not comment
on the deal because, officially, it is still in litigation.

"Nothing has been finalized," he said.

Drivers don't need to do anything to get the refund and don't need
to go to the hearing.

But drivers who don't like the deal still have time to object to
it or excuse themselves from it.

Exclusion allows citizens to pursue their own legal remedies.  To
request to be excused, send a letter by Oct. 13 to BMV License
Overcharge Case Notice Administrator, P.O. Box 1961, Indianapolis,
IN 46206-196.

To object, a letter must be sent to Judge Welch and lawyers for
both sides by Oct. 11. Objectors may also voice their dissent at
the November hearing.

The attorney for the BMV is Betsy M. Isenberg, Office of the
Attorney General, Indiana Government Center South, 5th Floor, 302
W. Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204

The plaintiff's stationery is Irwin B. Levin, Cohen & Malad, One
Indiana Square, Suite 1400, Indianapolis IN 46204.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Recalls Risperdal Consta Due to Molds
--------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan D. Rockoff, of The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Johnson & Johnson recalled another product Wednesday Sept. 11,
2013, pulling some vials of its antipsychotic treatment Risperdal
Consta after discovering mold during routine quality testing.

In recent years, the New Brunswick, N.J., health-products maker
has issued dozens of recalls for a variety of products, costing it
hundreds of millions of dollars sales and prompting close
government oversight of some manufacturing plants.

In the latest case, J&J estimates that 5,000 of the 70,000 vials
made in a single lot last year remain unused in doctor's offices,
community mental health centers and pharmacies and must be
withdrawn.  Because it is injected, Risperdal Consta is stored and
given at the clinics, rather than the patients keeping and taking
the drug themselves.

J&J, which announced the recall in a letter to doctors and on
company websites, said the Alternaria alternata mold that was
discovered is found commonly in the environment and could cause
infections around the area where the injection is given.  Patients
whose immune systems are compromised are at risk of a systemic
infection, the company said.

A spokeswoman for J&J's Janssen Pharmaceuticals unit said it
hasn't found a higher incidence of injection site infections than
is typical, and she described the risk to patients as low.  "The
quality of our products is a primary concern of ours, and all of
our products undergo rigorous testing," the spokeswoman added.

Risperdal Consta is one of J&J's top-selling drugs, with
$1.4 billion in sales last year.  It is different from Risperdal
pills, which patients store and take at their homes.

Products that J&J has recalled in recent years included Children's
Tylenol, certain hip-replacement parts and some contact lenses due
to quality problems including mold.  Besides drawing closer
scrutiny from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the recalls
have hurt the company's reputation with customers.

On Friday Sept. 6, 2013, J&J recalled about 200,000 bottles of
certain Motrin drops for infants because they might contain tiny
plastic particles.  J&J's McNeil Consumer Healthcare unit said it
found the particles in bottles belonging to a lot that hadn't been
sold and traced them to an unnamed supplier of Motrin's main
ingredient.

The Risperdal Consta that was recalled was the 25mg dose and from
lot No. 309316.  It was made by another company, Alkermes Inc.,
and shipped from Jan. 14 to May 20, 2013, according to J&J.  An
Alkermes spokeswoman directed questions to J&J.

J&J advised Risperdal Consta patients to continue treatment.  For
questions, the company said doctors, nurses and patients should
call 1-800-526-7736 during business hours.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Class Action Settlement Awaits Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bandell, writing for South Florida Business Journal, reports
that JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Assurant reached a $300 million
settlement in a federal class action lawsuit in Miami over
allegedly overcharging homeowners for forced placed insurance.

The class action was filed in June 2012 on behalf of borrowers
with forced place insurance policies as of June 2008.  The law
firms representing the plaintiffs are Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton, P.A., Podhurst Orseck, P.A., and Harke Clasby &
Bushman LLP.  They will share attorney fees and expenses paid by
the defendants of no more than $20 million.

Force placed insurance is ordered for homes by lenders when
borrowers decline to purchase insurance themselves.  In many
cases, the borrower is in default on the loan as well.

The attorneys say they have been investigating Chase and Assurant
since 2010 and allege they were enriched by more than $1 billion
over five years.  Under the settlement, Chase and Assurant would
pay 12.5 percent cash refunds to class members who paid the
premiums of the force placed insurance and a 12.5 percent credit
to class members who were charged the premiums but never paid
them.  This applies even if the borrowers already lost their
homes.

Chase also agreed to no longer allow its insurance agents to
collect commissions from making force-placed insurance policies.

Chase was represented in the lawsuit by Morgan Lewis & Bockius
while Assurant was represented by Jorden Burt LLP.

The settlement is pending approval before Chief Judge Federico
Moreno.


KIA MOTORS: Low-Income Pennsylvanians to Get $4.1MM From Pact
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that low
income Pennsylvanians in need of legal assistance will soon
receive a $4.1 million gift, of sorts, thanks to a civil procedure
rule change that directed residual funds from civil class actions
toward those who have trouble affording their own private
attorneys.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court announced late last week that the
$4.1 million distribution came out of excess funds from a $5.6
million verdict stemming from a product liability case against
carmaker Kia that originated in the spring of 2005 at the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

The case involved a class of purchasers of Kia Sephia vehicles who
claimed they experienced premature brake wear as a result of a
defective design of the braking system.

After payment was rendered to located class members, and following
the awarding of attorneys' fees and other legal expenses, what
remained were residual funds of about $4.1 million.

Last summer, the state's high court instituted a rules change that
directed how money leftover from civil suits after the plaintiffs,
lawyers and expenses have been paid is to be distributed,
according to the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts.

The Interest on Lawyers Trust Account Board, which helps increase
access to civil courts for financially challenged commonwealth
residents, was designated by the Supreme Court last July to
receive at least 50 percent of the unclaimed funds from class
action settlements, according to the AOPC.

Prior to the rule change, the trial court judge had discretion
over where to allocate the residual funds from such litigation.

The other half of the money can also be designated to the Interest
on Lawyers Trust Account Board or to another organization that
promotes the interests of a class action lawsuit's objectives, the
AOPC stated.

In the case involving Kia Motors, the remaining 50 percent of the
residual funding will be turned over to Community Legal Services
of Philadelphia.

"Only one in five low income Pennsylvanians with a critical legal
problem is likely to get legal help from any source," Supreme
Court Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille said in a statement
provided by the AOPC.  "While half of those who apply for legal
aid are turned away, many others never even apply.  And that's
because many legal aid organizations can only do so much because
of resource restraints.

"The new rules adopted by the Supreme Court last year,"
Justice Castille continued, "direct that unclaimed funds like
those remaining in the Kia distribution will go to help low-income
people tackle civil cases that multiply in difficult economic
times, such as foreclosure, domestic violence and the issues
resulting from job loss."

Jim Schwartzman, who chairs the Interest on Lawyers Trust Account
Board, said that the millions in residual funding from the Kia
Motors case couldn't have come at a better time for his group.

"With funding cuts, our ability to help those in need of civil
legal assistance has been severely hampered," Mr. Schwartzman said
in a statement.  "Although this is a one-time boost, it is a
welcome boost, and we thank the Supreme Court and especially Chief
Justice Castille for their leadership and creative solutions to
help vulnerable Pennsylvanians with their legal matters."

A number of other states, including Illinois, Massachusetts, North
Carolina, Tennessee and Washington, have approved similar civil
court rules changes that require or allow residual money from
class actions to go to charities, legal aid providers or other
nonprofit groups, according to the AOPC.


L.L.BEAN: Recalls Boat Carts for Canoes and Kayaks
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
L.L.Bean Inc., announced a voluntary recall of about 2,200
L.L.Bean Deluxe Packaway Boat Carts.  Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The cart's plastic wheel rims can burst when the rubber tires are
over-inflated, posing an injury hazard to consumers.

L.L.Bean has received two reports of the plastic wheel rims on the
cart bursting, resulting in bruises to a consumer who was struck
by broken, flying pieces.  No injuries were reported in the second
incident.

The recall involves L.L.Bean's Deluxe Packaway Boat Carts used to
haul canoes and kayaks into or out of the water by hand.  The
carts have a white and blue aluminum frame with rubber tires and
have two black nylon straps marked L.L.Bean.  The carts weigh
about seven pounds.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/l5qWY0

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at L.L.Bean stores nationwide, L.L.Bean's catalog and
online at http://www.llbean.comfrom March 2012 through June 2013
for about $100.

Consumers should call L.L.Bean or go to the firm's website for new
instructions and psi stickers to put on the wheels of the cart.
Do not add air to the tires until reviewing the new instructions
on the maximum inflation level or psi.


LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORP: Continues to Defend Hardboard Trim Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation continues to defend itself against
the Hardboard Trim Litigation, according to the Company's
August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The Company was named in four putative class action lawsuits filed
against it in United States District Courts during the first
quarter of 2012 related to nontreated hardboard trim product
formerly manufactured at the Company's Roaring River, North
Carolina hardboard plant: Brown v. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation.,
Case No. 4:12-CV-00102-RP-TJS (S.D. Iowa) (filed March 8, 2012, as
a state-wide putative class); Holbrook v. Louisiana-Pacific
Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:12-CV-00484-JGC (N.D. Ohio) (filed
February 28, 2012, as a state-wide putative class); Bristol
Village Inc. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:12-CV-00263 (W.D.N.Y.) (filed March 30, 2012, as a state-wide
putative class or, alternatively, as a nation-wide putative class)
and Prevett v. Louisiana-Pacific, Case No. 6:12-CV-348-ORL-18-KRS
(M.D. Fla) (filed March 5, 2012, as a state-wide putative class).
The Prevett v. Louisiana Pacific lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed
by the plaintiffs on May 31, 2012.  This lawsuit was replaced by
Riley v. Louisiana-Pacific, Case No. 6:12-CV-00837-18 (M.D. Fla)
(filed June 4, 2012, as a state-wide putative class).  A fifth
lawsuit, Eugene Lipov v. Louisiana-Pacific, Case 1:12-CV-00439-
JTN (W.D. Mich) (filed May 3, 2012) was filed as a statewide
putative class action in the second quarter of 2012.  These
lawsuits follow two state-wide putative class action lawsuits
previously filed against LP in United States District Courts:
Ellis, et al. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., Case No. 3:11-CV-191
(W.D.N.C.); and Hart, et al. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., Case No.
2:08-CV-00047 (E.D.N.C.).  The Ellis case was dismissed by the
District Court, which dismissal was affirmed by the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on November 2, 2012, and
the Hart case has been certified by the District Court as a class
action and was scheduled for trial on August 12, 2013.

The Plaintiffs moved to combine pretrial matters through a Multi-
district Litigation (MDL) motion, filed as In Re: Louisiana-
Pacific Corporation Trim board Siding Marketing, Sales Practice
and Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2366 (U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multi-district Litigation) seeking to transfer all cases
to the Eastern District of North Carolina.  Louisiana-Pacific
objected to the MDL motion and on June 11, 2012, the MDL Panel
denied plaintiffs Motion to Transfer.

Subsequently, LP filed motions to dismiss in all of the pending
cases.  The Holbrook case was dismissed by the District Court on
August 29, 2012. The dismissal was appealed by the plaintiffs to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  On
July 12, 2013, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Judge's
dismissal of the plaintiffs' breach of express and implied
warranty claims under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), their
claim under Ohio's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and a claim
brought pursuant to the Ohio Products Liability Act.  The Court
confirmed that LP's written express Limited Warranty is the only
available basis for recovery available to the plaintiffs in this
case.  On December 31, 2012, the Court in Bristol Village
dismissed all plaintiffs' counts except for the breach of express
warranty claim and his claim under NY, GBL 349(a).  On January 18,
2012, the Court in Brown granted in part and denied in part, LP's
motion to dismiss dismissing plaintiffs' negligence claims.  On
July 22, 2013, the Court in Lipov granted LP's motion to dismiss
all claims leaving only an express warranty claim for which LP did
not move for dismissal.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek to certify classes
consisting of all persons that own structures within the
respective states in which the lawsuit were filed (or, in some
cases, within the United States) on which the hardboard trim in
question is installed.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages
and injunctive and other relief under various state law theories,
including negligence, violations of consumer protection laws, and
breaches of implied and express warranties, fraud, and unjust
enrichment.  While some individual owners of structures within the
putative classes may have valid warranty claims, the Company
believes that the claims asserted on a class basis are without
merit and the Company intends to defend these matters vigorously.
The Company has established warranty reserves for the hardboard
trim in question pursuant to its normal business practices, and
the Company does not believe that the resolution of these lawsuits
will have a material effect on its financial condition, results of
operations, cash flows or liquidity.

Founded in 1973 and headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee,
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation -- http://http://www.lpcorp.com/--
is a leading manufacturer of building products.  The Company's
focus is on delivering innovative, high-quality commodity and
specialty building products to retail, wholesale, home building
and industrial customers.  The Company's products are used
primarily in new home construction, repair and remodeling, and
manufactured housing.


MERRILL LYNCH: Race Bias Ruling May Have Implications for UK
------------------------------------------------------------
Josephine Van Lierop and Paul Daniels, writing for Financial News,
report that a $160 million settlement by broker Merrill Lynch
against race discrimination claims brought by black American
employees in a US class action is prompting legal teams to examine
implications for the City.

More than 1,200 current and former Merrill Lynch employees could
be eligible to take part in the settlement, reportedly one of the
largest sums obtained from an employer in a US race discrimination
case.

In the case against Merrill Lynch, there were various complaints,
including that black brokers received unequal treatment on grounds
of race, and specifically, in relation to the allocation of work,
and therefore pay, where brokers were permitted to allocate work
to their peers, without managerial control.  This led to white
brokers largely handing clients on to other white brokers.

In the UK there is a distinction between direct race
discrimination (where discrimination occurs because of a person's
race) and indirect race discrimination, where the impact of
particular work practices disadvantages certain groups.

While direct discrimination is unlawful, indirect discrimination
can be legally defended by an employer, irrespective of the
disparate impact that it has, if there is a good justification for
it.

In such cases, statistical analysis can help prove that a
particular disadvantage has been suffered by one group.  Indeed,
statistics were relied upon heavily by the plaintiffs in the case
against Merrill Lynch.

Complaints for direct discrimination are less likely to be
sufficiently connected to each other to permit a UK group action.
But indirect discrimination claims, challenging policies or
practices, have more potential to proceed.

Unless they are US citizens, it is very difficult for UK-based
workers to bring any claims under the more favorable US regime.  A
point, however, arising from this case is whether the practice
concerning the allocation of work, and therefore pay, is arguably
indirect discrimination, so that if this practice were occurring
in the UK it could proceed as a class action.

If an employer's widespread practice is for accounts to be
re-allocated by workers to their peers, and this results in a
particular group of workers receiving less pay (because they are
allocated less profitable accounts) there is arguably a UK claim.
This practice can be challenged if it involves one racial group
favoring their own, whether consciously or not.

The US legal system is more set up for class actions.  Plaintiffs
can bring complaints against an organization, where everyone who
shares the relevant characteristic and the common injury is
brought into the claim without any real action on their part,
unless they opt out.  There is also the ability to impose punitive
damages -- those designed to punish a defendant and deter bad
conduct -- which can be two or three times the level of the
substantive penalty.

Aggravated and exemplary damages are rare in the UK, where awards
are more restrained and largely based on actual losses.  Group
actions can, however, be taken in the UK, where claims are linked
by a common thread.

For cases that cannot be resolved amicably, finding a common
thread with others may be valuable.  Practically speaking, a group
action is likely to be more economical, require less individual
engagement, and so may be less likely to impede career prospects.

Indirect discrimination is not limited to issues of race and in
this example you can see how this could lead to UK sex
discrimination claims.  Women might be equally disadvantaged where
men, who become buddies on the golf course, may, often without
realizing, look after each other more when allocating work or
clients.

It is unlikely we will see indirect race or sex discrimination
class actions of the scale seen in the US.  But UK employers
should study the Merrill Lynch decision and consider whether their
own work and client allocation practices -- whether formal or
informal -- could lay them open to group actions for indirect
discrimination in the UK.

What seems clear is that the ripple of class actions from the US
will hit UK shores.  But the jury is still out on how strong that
ripple will be and when it will hit.


MIMEDX GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Sept. 9 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of MiMedx Group, Inc.
securities during the period from March 15, 2013 to September 4,
2013 inclusive, seeking to recover damages for violations of the
federal securities laws.

To join the MiMedx class action, visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan,
toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.  The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION.  UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE.  YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO
NOTHING AT THIS POINT.  YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the suit, MiMedx issued materially false and
misleading statements about whether its AmnioFix product required
U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval to be manufactured and
marketed.  On September 4, 2013, MiMedx confirmed that it received
an "Untitled Letter" from the FDA.  The letter stated that
MiMedx's Surgical Biologics unit violated the Public Health
Service Act by unlawfully manufacturing drugs at one of its
plants, and thereby marketed unapproved biologics products.  The
lawsuit asserts that this adverse information caused the price of
MiMedx's securities to fall--damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 8, 2013.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact:

         The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
         Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Kevin Chan
         275 Madison Avenue 34(th) Floor
         New York, New York 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                 pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 kchan@rosenlegal.com
       Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com


The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


MOUNT VERNON: Ruling May Pave Way for Indigent Defense Reform
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Carter, writing for Seattle Times, reports that in a landmark
case 50 years ago, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court found it to be
an "obvious truth" that the criminally accused, regardless of
their circumstances, have the right to an attorney and adequate
legal representation.

Today, many in America's legal and law-enforcement communities --
from judges and prosecutors to defense lawyers -- believe the
promise of Gideon v. Wainwright, grounded in the Sixth Amendment,
has mostly gone unfulfilled.

To prove it, some point to Mount Vernon and Burlington.

The Skagit County towns are at the center of a groundbreaking
class-action civil-rights lawsuit over indigent defense filed two
years ago by the American Civil Liberties Union, alleging
misdemeanor defendants were given little more than a "meet 'em,
greet 'em and plead 'em" defense by a pair of public defenders
expected to handle more than 2,000 cases a year.

Now, with a Seattle-based U.S. District Court judge set to rule on
the case, Mount Vernon and Burlington may become part of an
unprecedented solution -- the first-ever federal-court takeover of
a public-defender system.

The U.S. Department of Justice on Aug. 14 filed a "statement of
interest" in the case of Wilbur v. Mount Vernon et al, saying the
"United States has an interest in ensuring that all jurisdictions
-- federal, state and local -- are fulfilling their obligation
. . . to provide effective assistance of counsel" to criminal
defendants who can't afford an attorney of their own.  It quotes
Attorney General Eric Holder saying the nation's indigent defense
systems exist in a "state of crisis" where, in some places, they
do "little more than process people in and out of the courts."

"Our national difficulty to meet the obligations recognized in
Gideon is well-documented," Mr. Holder is quoted as saying in the
document.

The Department of Justice statement does not take a position on
the ACLU's assertion that the rights of the criminally accused in
Mount Vernon and Burlington were systematically violated, which is
the key question being mulled by U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik
after a bench trial in June.

However, if Judge Lasnik should arrive at that conclusion, the
Justice Department urges him to considering appointing a federal
monitor to oversee reforms.

That in itself would be "huge," according to Jonathan Rapping, a
criminal-law professor at the John Marshall Law School in Atlanta
and the founder and president of Gideon's Promise, a national
organization aimed at improving indigent defense.

But the Justice Department is going even further, he said, by
suggesting in its letter of interest that the court not only
consider attorney caseloads -- the number of clients an attorney
is representing -- but also workloads, recognizing that some cases
are more difficult and require more time.

The goal, Mr. Rapping said, should be that the indigent accused
"receive the same kind of representation that you or I would pay
for."

The reality at this point, however, is that most public-defender
agencies -- including the federal Public Defender's Office -- are
struggling with budget cuts and a paucity of resources, he said.

"It's unfortunate, but over the years we have become accustomed to
a lower standard of justice for poor people," Mr. Rapping said.

In Mount Vernon and Burlington, the ACLU alleges that two public
defenders, Richard Sybrandy and Morgan Witt, were carrying yearly
caseloads of more than 1,000 clients each while also maintaining
private practices.

The Washington State Bar last year adopted guidelines calling for
a maximum misdemeanor caseload of 400 cases a year.

According to the complaint and evidence presented at trial,
Burlington's assistant chief of police complained to prosecutors
and city officials in 2008 that he had witnessed the public
defenders playing crossword puzzles and other games while
representing clients in court on at least seven occasions.  Court
records show the defenders visited the Skagit County Jail just six
times in 2010, and, in 2011, the defenders participated in just
two trials while closing 2,271 cases.

The ACLU says that this and other issues show the towns have been
indifferent to their responsibilities under the Constitution to
provide a meaningful defense to thousands of defendants who are
unable to hire their own attorney.

Mount Vernon and Burlington have responded to the situation
through what its lawyers have called a "complete overhaul" of the
defender's office: hiring four attorneys and monitoring their
work, according to court filings.  They say the problems have been
corrected, and that the court now has no reason to appoint a
monitor.

The cities say that appointing a monitor would "place the cities
under the yoke of an unprecedented federal injunction" that is now
unnecessary.

Just what a monitor would look like is unclear.  But the Justice
Department suggests a monitor could watch not just the number of
cases a defender might have, but the workload, and ensure that
defendants were being provided counsel in jail and before court.

Sarah Dunne, a legal director at the ACLU of Washington, declined
to comment about the case, citing the judge's deliberations.  A
telephone call to Andrew Cooley, the lawyer representing the
cities, was not immediately returned on Sept. 6.

If Judge Lasnik appoints a monitor, the message it would send to
states, counties and cities about the need to provide adequate
indigent defense cannot be understated, said Jessica Eaglin,
counsel for justice programs at the Brennan Center for Justice, a
nonpartisan law and policy institute at New York University School
of Law.

The Justice Department already investigates alleged systemic
civil-rights violations by jails, prisons and police, which led to
the 2012 settlement agreement reached between the department's
Civil Rights Division and the Seattle Police Department over the
use of excessive force.

But it has never suggested federal-court oversight of a public-
defense system, and the implications are significant.

Ms. Eaglin said such a move could set a precedent the Justice
Department could use to force changes to substandard public-
defense agencies throughout the country.

"It would allow others to bring suit and push forward indigent
defense reform through the courts, not through legislation," she
said.


NEWTON COUNTY: BOE Responds to Class Action Over Bus Accident
-------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Everson, writing for Cov News, reports that defense
lawyers representing the Newton County Board of Education have
answered a class-action lawsuit filed by the father of two
children who were among the 40 people sent to the hospital after a
two-bus accident in January.  The defense denies allegations in
the lawsuit and says the BOE is "not the proper party defendant
capable of being sued."

The suit, filed by Jimmy Coglianese on June 12 in the Superior
Court of Newton County, on behalf of his daughters Olivia and
Angelina Coglianese and "all others similarly situated," claims
the Newton County School System was "negligent in causing the
collision, either directly or vicariously, through its bus
driver."

The suit lists former Newton County Schools' superintendent Gary
Mathews, and Board of Education members Jeff Meadors, Eddie
Johnson, Shakila Henderson-Baker, Almond Turner and Abigail Coggin
as defendants.

The suit further claims that the BOE and former superintendent
were "responsible for maintaining the school bus in proper
operating condition; for hiring, training and maintaining proper
drivers; and for the overall operations" and that the Board's
"negligence is a proximate cause of the collision."

Attorneys with Harben, Hartley & Hawkins in Gainesville,
representing the BOE and former superintendent Mathews, say in
their answer to the lawsuit that "any injury or damages suffered
by the plaintiffs were the result of an independent intervening
cause" and were "not the result of any alleged negligence or other
actions or inactions of defendants."

The answer and responsive pleadings further state that the BOE is
"not the proper party defendant capable of being sued."

The Jan. 22 accident happened as bus driver Gloria Inscore, 55,
was headed north on Ga. Highway 162 and a second bus stopped in
front of her to deliver a student.

Ms. Inscore failed to slow, and her bus struck the other bus.

She was cited by the Georgia State Patrol for following too
closely, and was fired by the school system in February.

The Coglianeses' attorney, Salvatore Serio, who has law offices in
Conyers, says in the lawsuit that, as a result of the collision
between the two buses, Olivia and Angelina Coglianese and other
children on the two buses were injured.

The suit was filed as class-action status so that "all persons who
were riding on either of the school buses in question who were
injured in the incident" could be included as plaintiffs in the
case.

But attorneys with Harben, Hartley & Hawkins further state in
their answer to the suit that the plaintiffs' complaint "does not
meet the perquisites and requirements for bringing a class action,
and this action cannot be maintained as a class action."

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Coglianese filed action to "recover
for the pain and suffering, medical expenses, punitive damages,
and injuries sustained by his children."

But BOE attorneys, in their answer, ask for judgment in favor of
the BOE and that the suit be discharged.


PETROCHINA CO: Misleads Shareholders, New York Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Johan Broux, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Petrochina Company Ltd., Zhou Jiping, Yu Yibo, Jiang
Jiemin, and Zhou Mingchun, Case No. 1:13-cv-06180-ER (S.D.N.Y.,
September 3, 2013) is brought on behalf of purchasers of
Petrochina securities between April 26, 2012, and August 27, 2013,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
financial performance, Mr. Broux alleges.  Specifically, he
asserts, the Defendants made false and misleading statements, and
failed to disclose that, among other things, the Company's senior
officials were in non compliance with the Company's corporate
governance directives and code of ethics.

Mr. Broux is a shareholder of Petrochina common stock during the
Class Period.

Petrochina is a Chinese corporation with its principal executive
offices situated in Beijing, China.  Petrochina is China's largest
oil and gas producer and distributor, playing a dominant role in
the oil and gas industry in China.  The Company is not only one of
the companies with the biggest sales revenue in China, but also
one of the largest oil companies in the world.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          Lesley Frank Portnoy, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  lfportnoy@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN LLP
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


PETROCHINA CO: Says Aware of U.S. Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Big News Network.com reports that PetroChina Co., the largest
state-owned Chinese energy company, on Sept. 6 informed the Hong
Kong stock exchange of plans to contest a lawsuit filed by an
investor in the U.S. claiming damages for failure to disclose
corruption within the company leading to the government initiating
investigations.

Johan Broux, an investor in Belgium, filed the complaint in
Manhattan federal court on Sept. 4, seeking to represent all
buyers of PetroChina securities from April 26, 2012, to Aug. 27 of
this year.

Stating that it was closely following the developments, PetroChina
said individual defendants named in the suit have not received any
formal documentation of the complaint.

The company statement to the stock exchange stated that it "became
aware that, by reason of the PRC authorities' investigation of
certain former directors and senior management of the Company, an
overseas individual shareholder has recently filed a class action
complaint with the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and two former and
current directors and two former and current senior management of
the Company for alleged violations of the securities laws of the
United States."

PetroChina stated that it had not been served with any formal
documents or notice of the complaint.  It is possible that similar
complaints may be filed in the United States.

"The company will vigorously contest the complaint to protect the
legitimate rights and interests of the company," the PetroChina
statement said.

Earlier last week, official news agency Xinhua had reported that
former chairman of the state-owned company Jiang Jiemin, who left
PetroChina in March, was removed from his post as head of the
state assets regulator and is under investigation.

Five days earlier, PetroChina said it had removed four senior
managers after authorities started a probe.

PetroChina's stock witnessed the steepest fall in two years on
Aug. 28 in Hong Kong after China indicated plans to widen
investigation to include executives at the company.

In addition to PetroChina, the complaint names as defendants
Chairman and President Zhou Jiping, Chief Financial Officer Yu
Yibo, and two former company executives -- ex-CFO Zhou Mingchun
and former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Jiang Jiemin.

In his class action suit, Mr. Broux seeks unspecified damages.

The company on Sept. 6 stated that "it is possible that similar
complaints may be filed in the United States.  The Company will
vigorously contest the complaint to protect the legitimate rights
and interests of the Company."

In the interim, the company has stated that based on information
available to the Board of Directors, "the company's normal
business operations are not affected. The company will closely
follow the progress of the complaint".

The company's operations "are not affected" by the legal action,
according to the statement.

The Chinese government's probe was extended on Sept. 2 after Wison
Engineering Services said its founder, Hua Bangsong, is assisting
China's authorities in their investigations. No formal charges
have yet been made.

Wison, a services provider to chemical factories and oil
refineries, counted PetroChina as a major client.  Templeton Asset
Management also said it had cut its holding in PetroChina to 4.4%
from 5.3%.


REDBOX AUTOMATED: Fails to Provide Equal DVD Access, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Francis Jancik, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; Verizon and Redbox Digital Entertainment
Services LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:13-cv-01387-DOC-RNB (C.D. Cal.,
September 6, 2013) accuses the Defendants of violating the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act and
other laws.

The Defendants have failed to provide equal access to their DVD
and Blu-ray and video streaming services by refusing to make
available closed captioned text for the deaf and hard of hearing
-- a feature that is necessary for such individuals to understand
the audio portion of the video content, Mr. Jancik alleges.  By
this action, he seeks to put an end to the alleged systemic civil
rights violations committed by the Defendants against deaf and
hard of hearing individuals in California and nationwide.

Mr. Jancik is a resident of Orange County, California.  He is deaf
and a member of a protected class under the ADA, the Unruh Act and
the California Disabled Persons Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stanley D Saltzman, Esq.
          Christina A. Humphrey, Esq.
          Leslie Joyner, Esq.
          MARLIN AND SALTZMAN LLP
          29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
          E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com
                  chumphrey@marlinsaltzman.com
                  ljoyner@marlinsaltzman.com


RES-CARE INC: Seyfarth Shaw Discusses FCRA Class Action Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Q. Devata, Esq. and Reema Kapur, Esq. at Seyfarth Shaw LLP
report that the refrain from the Rolling Stones' iconic song
"Satisfaction" reportedly was inspired by a phrase from a Chuck
Berry ditty "I can't get no satisfaction from the judge . . . ."
This phrase aptly describes the outcome for a defendant seeking to
dismiss putative class claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA") in Smith v. Res-Care, Inc., Case No. 13-5211 (S.D. W. Va.
Aug. 28, 2013).  Judge Robert Chambers of the U.S. Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia denied Res-Care's motion to
dismiss, which was brought before any discovery into plaintiff's
damages, holding that the defendant's offer of judgment may not
fully satisfy Plaintiff's request for relief.

Employers seeking to neutralize putative class claims through an
offer of judgment strategy should carefully read the Res-Care
opinion.  In the class context, the efficacy of Rule 68 offers of
judgment may depend entirely on the law of the particular federal
Circuit where the action is pending -- four federal Circuits hold
that even if an offer of judgment moots the claims of a Rule 23
class representative, it does not necessarily moot the claims of
the class.  Further, assuming employers can get over this initial
hurdle, different Circuits analyze the concept of "full
satisfaction" differently, thereby making it critical that
defendants properly calibrate an offer of judgment.  Thus,
employers may find themselves in a predicament where they "can't
get [full] satisfaction," at least at a motion to dismiss stage,
because of controlling Circuit precedent with respect to Rule 68
offers of judgment.

Background Facts In The Case

Plaintiff, a job applicant, brought a putative class action
pursuant to the FCRA claiming that Res-Care violated FCRA
requirements and improperly used a consumer report about him when
it denied his job application and contending that an
acknowledgment he provided to Res-Care was ineffective.  Plaintiff
sought statutory and punitive damages (in an unspecified amount),
as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 10, 2013, Res-Care made an offer of judgment to the
individual Plaintiff in the amount of $25,000. Plaintiff had not
yet moved for class certification.  The offer of judgment was
inclusive of all costs of the action (including all other costs,
fees, amounts, and other relief) and all actual attorneys' fees.
Plaintiff did not accept or respond to the offer within the
required 14-day timeframe before the offer expired.  On July 1,
2013, Res-Care moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, arguing that the unaccepted offer rendered the
putative class action moot.

The Court's Analysis

Because the Fourth Circuit generally recognizes that mooting an
individual representative's claims may moot the claims of a
putative class, the Court's analysis of Res-Care's offer of
judgment turned on the concept of "full satisfaction" of
plaintiff's claims.  In particular, the Court found that analysis
of Rule 68 offers of judgment is a two-part inquiry.  First, the
judge decides whether a defendant's offer of judgment fully
satisfies plaintiff's request for relief. Second, if the answer to
the first question is in the affirmative, the judge decides
whether full satisfaction of the individual plaintiff's request
for relief -- before the plaintiff files a motion for class
certification -- eliminates a case or controversy rendering the
entire case moot.  The Court never reached the second question
because it found that the offer of judgment in that case did not
provide complete relief to the plaintiff.

The relief requested by the plaintiff in Res-Care involved four
components, including statutory damages, unspecified punitive
damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.  Computing statutory damages
was straightforward because the FCRA allows a maximum statutory
damages recovery of $1,000.  15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681n.  Next, although
Res-Care acknowledged that punitive damages under the FCRA are
uncapped, it argued that because of constitutional due process
concerns, an award of punitive damages rarely exceeds nine times
the amount of actual damages.  Thus, it argued that under the
FCRA, the maximum combined amount of actual ($1,000) and punitive
damages ($9,000) that the plaintiff could recover was $10,000. Its
offer of $25,000, it argued, more than fully satisfied the
plaintiff's request for relief, including costs and attorneys'
fees.

Relying on Fourth Circuit precedent in Warren v. Sessoms & Rogers,
P.A., 676 F.3d 365 (4th Cir. 2012), the Court rejected Res-Care's
argument.  According to the Court, the reasoning in Warren is that
if a plaintiff seeks uncapped and unspecified damages, an
unaccepted offer of judgment cannot be said to provide full
relief.  Because the FCRA does not cap the amount of punitive
damages, the plaintiff's request for unspecified punitive relief
in Res-Care blocked the defendant from effectively using an offer
of judgment to render the case moot at the motion to dismiss
stage.  Turning to the defendant's argument that any "realistic"
punitive damages that the plaintiff could recover would be limited
to a single-digit ratio to the amount of statutory damages, the
Court found that "[a]lthough it may be unlikely that plaintiff
will recover an amount of punitive damages in excess of $9,000,
such an award is possible, and plaintiff need not demonstrate the
likeliness of the amount of any punitive award at this point."  In
so holding, the Court expressly acknowledged the tension between
Warren and cases from other circuits where federal judges have
accepted arguments similar to those advanced by Res-Care.
Specifically, judges outside of the Fourth Circuit have held that
a properly calibrated offer of judgment can moot a plaintiff's
FCRA claims based on the theory that punitive damages must be
closely tethered to the amount of statutory damages available
under the FCRA.  However, relying on Warren and citing the early
stages of the case ("there has been no evidentiary hearing or
judicial fact-finding regarding any potential amount of punitive
damages"), the Court held that the defendant's offer of judgment
did not fully satisfy the plaintiff's request for relief.
Therefore, it denied Res-Care's motion to dismiss as premature.

Implications for Employers

Rule 68 offers of judgment are an important defense tactic to
force a settlement and potentially shut down a class action
lawsuit.  However, in the class context, the efficacy of Rule 68
offers depends on whether the defense tactic is favored in the
federal Circuit where the lawsuit is pending.  The decision in
Res-Care is a narrowly tailored holding that the motion to dismiss
was premature, and does not eliminate the use of Rule 68 offer of
judgments for class cases in the Fourth Circuit.  Further, should
employers find themselves defending a putative class action in a
federal Circuit that favors this tactic, Res-Care is an important
reminder to employers to consider the procedural posture of the
case and to carefully calibrate the amount of the offer so that it
"beats" the maximum verdict that a plaintiff would be entitled to
receive.


SAINT-ALPHONSE COLLEGE: Abuse Class Action Trial to Commence
------------------------------------------------------------
Giuseppe Valiante, writing for QMI Agency, reports that the first
class-action lawsuit to go to trial in Quebec against alleged
pedophile priests was set to begin on Sept. 9.

Lead plaintiff Frank Tremblay is suing the college and the order
of priests associated with one of the holiest shrines in North
America for millions in damages.

Mr. Tremblay claims nine priests who taught at the prestigious
all-boys boarding school, located 35 km east of Quebec City,
abused students between 1960 and 1987.

His lawyer, Pierre Boivin, said 50 former students have come
forward, however, he added that there are potentially hundreds of
former students who will demand compensation from the college if
it is found guilty.  He said the case is the first of its kind to
go to trial in Quebec.

The lawsuit alleges that the Saint-Alphonse College, associated
with the internationally revered shrine at the Sainte-Anne-de-
Beaupre Basilica, is responsible for damages because it failed to
protect students from abuse.


SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES: Mediation in "Vega" Suit to Occur Oct. 7
---------------------------------------------------------------
A mediation in the class action lawsuit styled Vega v. Sensient
Dehydrated Flavors LLC will occur on October 7, 2013, according to
Sensient Technologies Corporation's August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On January 3, 2013, Thomas Vega, a current employee, filed (but
did not serve) a Class Action Complaint in San Francisco County
Superior Court against Sensient Dehydrated Flavors LLC.  On
February 11, 2013, Vega filed and served a First Amended Complaint
("Complaint") against the Company and a Company supervisor.  Vega
alleges that the Company failed to provide alleged class members
with meal periods, compensation for the alleged absence of meal
periods, and accurate wage statements, in violation of the
California labor code.  The alleged class includes all employees
paid on an hourly basis and all forklift operators.  The Complaint
seeks damages, back wages, injunctive relief, penalties, interest,
and attorneys' fees for the members of the alleged class.  The
Complaint alleges that the total damages and costs "do not exceed
a[n] aggregate of $4,999,999.99."

The Complaint alleges two causes of action.  The first cause of
action is for "Unfair Competition."  The plaintiff's theory is
that the Company, by allegedly not complying with state wage and
hour laws, had an unfair competitive advantage against other
employers who were complying with those laws.  The main strategic
reason that plaintiffs plead this cause of action is that the
statute of limitations is four years.  The second cause of action
is for alleged substantive violations of the California labor code
provisions governing wages, hours, and meal periods.

On March 13, 2013, the parties filed a joint stipulation and
proposed order to remove the case from San Francisco County
Superior Court to Stanislaus County Superior Court.  On April 18,
2013, the Court granted the request.  The discovery process is
currently underway.  The parties have also agreed to pursue an
early mediated resolution of this matter.  The mediation will
occur on October 7, 2013.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Sensient Technologies
Corporation -- http://www.sensient-tech.com/-- manufactures and
markets colors, flavors and fragrances.  Sensient also employs
technologies to develop specialty chemicals for inkjet inks,
display imaging systems and other applications.


TALENTI GELATO: Recalls German Chocolate Cake Gelato Pints
----------------------------------------------------------
Talenti Gelato & Sorbetto is voluntarily initiating a product
recall of Talenti German Chocolate Cake Gelato pints with the
UPC # 1 8685200063 1 with a BEST BY DATE of 11/04/2014 M1,
11/24/2014 M1, and 11/24/2014 M2 as a precautionary measure.  The
recall was initiated after it was discovered by the firm that the
product may contain undeclared almonds.

The recall affects pints of product with the BEST BY DATE of
11/04/2014 M1, 11/24/2014 M1, and 11/24/2014 M2 on the bottom of
the container.

For consumers who are not allergic to almonds, there is no safety
issue with the product.  The company has received no reports of
illnesses associated with this product.  People who are allergic
to almonds could have a serious or life-threatening reaction if
they consume this product.

No other Talenti Gelato branded products are affected by this
voluntary recall.

Consumers in possession of the recalled product that have an
allergy to almonds should not consume it and should discard it.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at (612) 455-
8104, Monday - Friday, 7am - 7pm, EDT.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Faces Two Merger-Related Suits in Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation is facing two merger-related class
action lawsuits in Tennessee, according to the Company's August 6,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In June 2013, the Company entered into a definitive agreement to
acquire Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. ("Vanguard") for $21 per
share in an all cash transaction.  On June 25, 2013, a purported
Vanguard stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the
Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee, captioned James A.
Kaurich v. Vanguard Health Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-905-
IV and, on June 27, 2013, a second purported Vanguard stockholder
filed a substantively identical putative class action lawsuit in
the Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee, captioned
Marion Edinburgh TTEE FBO Marion Edinburgh Trust U/T/D/ 7/8/1991
v. Vanguard Health Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-921-IV.
Both complaints name as defendants Vanguard, Tenet Healthcare
Corporation, the merger subsidiary the Company formed solely for
the purpose of completing the merger with Vanguard, and the
members of Vanguard's board of directors, and allege, among other
things, that the Company aided and abetted Vanguard's directors'
breach of their fiduciary duties with respect to the process and
terms of the merger.  Both complaints seek to enjoin the merger
and to create a constructive trust for the purportedly improper
benefits received by Vanguard's directors.  The Company believes
that each of these actions is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against each of them.

Based in Dallas, Texas, Tenet Healthcare Corporation is an
investor-owned health care services company whose subsidiaries and
affiliates primarily operated hospitals, outpatient centers and
Conifer Health Solutions, which provides business process
solutions to more than 600 hospitals and other clients nationwide.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Seeks Supreme Court Review of Appellate Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation said in its August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013, that it is currently seeking review
of an appellate decision by the Louisiana Supreme Court.

The Company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit in which the
plaintiffs claim that in April 1996 patient identifying records
from a psychiatric hospital that the Company closed in 1995 were
temporarily placed in an unsecure location while the hospital was
undergoing renovations.  The lawsuit, Doe, et al. v. Jo Ellen
Smith Medical Foundation, was filed in the Civil District Court
for the Parish of Orleans in Louisiana in March 1997 and is
currently pending.  The plaintiffs' claims include allegations of
tortious invasion of privacy and negligent infliction of emotional
distress.  The plaintiffs contend that the class consists of over
5,000 persons; however, only eight individuals have been
identified to date in the class certification process.  The
plaintiffs have asserted each member of the class is entitled to
common damages under a theory of presumed "common damage"
regardless of whether or not any members of the class were
actually harmed or even aware of the incident.

The Company believes there is no authority for an award of common
damages under Louisiana law.  In addition, the Company believes
that there is no basis for the certification of this proceeding as
a class action under applicable federal and Louisiana law
precedents.  However, the trial court has denied the Company's
motions for summary judgment and its motion to decertify the
class.  In March 2012, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied the
Company's interlocutory appeal of the trial court's decision on
summary judgment based on procedural grounds, noting that the
Company retains an adequate remedy to appeal any adverse judgment
that might be rendered by the trial court.  In April 2012, the
Company filed a notice of appeal of the trial court's denial of
its motion to decertify the proceeding as a class action.  The
notice of appeal was granted, and the trial was stayed pending the
outcome of the appeal.

On April 24, 2013, the court of appeal affirmed the trial court's
denial of the Company's motion to decertify the proceeding as a
class action.  The Company is currently seeking review of the
court of appeal's decision by the Louisiana Supreme Court.  The
trial remains stayed.

At this time, the Company says it is not able to estimate the
reasonably possible loss or reasonably possible range of loss
given: the small number of class members that have been identified
or otherwise responded to the class certification process; the
novel theories asserted by plaintiffs, including their assertion
that a theory of presumed common damage exists under Louisiana
law; uncertainties as to the timing and outcome of the appeals
process; and the failure of the plaintiffs to provide any evidence
of damages.  The Company intends to vigorously contest the
plaintiffs' claims.

Based in Dallas, Texas, Tenet Healthcare Corporation is an
investor-owned health care services company whose subsidiaries and
affiliates primarily operated hospitals, outpatient centers and
Conifer Health Solutions, which provides business process
solutions to more than 600 hospitals and other clients nationwide.


UNUM GROUP: Awaits Order on Bid Over Testimony in "Merrimon" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Unum Group is awaiting a court decision on its motion challenging
the admissibility of the testimony of plaintiffs' expert witness
in the class action lawsuit filed by Denise Merrimon, et al.,
according to the Company's August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

In October 2010, Denise Merrimon, Bobby S. Mowery, and all others
similarly situated vs. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maine.  This class action alleges that the Company breached
fiduciary duties owed to certain beneficiaries under certain group
life insurance policies when the Company paid life insurance
proceeds by establishing interest-bearing retained asset accounts
rather than by mailing checks.  The Plaintiffs seek to represent a
class of beneficiaries under group life insurance contracts that
were part of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") employee welfare benefit plans and under which the
Company paid death benefits via retained asset accounts.  The
plaintiffs' principal theories in the case are: (1) funds held in
retained asset accounts were plan assets, and the proceeds earned
by the Company from investing those funds belonged to the
beneficiaries, and (2) payment of claims using retained asset
accounts did not constitute payment under Maine's late payment
statute, requiring the Company to pay interest on the undrawn
retained asset account funds at an annual rate of 18 percent.

In February 2012, the District Court issued an opinion rejecting
both of plaintiffs' principal theories and ordering judgment for
the Company.  At the same time, however, the District Court held
that the Company breached a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries by
failing to pay rates comparable to the best rates available in the
market for demand deposits.  The District Court also certified a
class of people who, during a certain period of time, were
beneficiaries under certain group life insurance contracts that
were part of ERISA employee welfare benefit plans and were paid
death benefits using retained asset accounts.  The District Court
authorized the parties to make an immediate appeal of its decision
to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and each of the parties
sought leave for an early appeal on the issues raised by the
District Court's rulings, but the First Circuit decided not to
hear the appeal at this time.  Therefore, the parties are required
to wait until the proceedings in the District Court have concluded
for further resolution of those issues.  The First Circuit did not
rule on or discuss the merits of the case.  The case is proceeding
in the District Court where notice to class members and discovery
on the issue of damages have been completed.

In February 2013, the Company filed a motion requesting the court
reconsider its prior summary judgment ruling as well as a motion
challenging the admissibility of the testimony of plaintiffs'
expert witness.  In April 2013, the court denied the Company's
motion for reconsideration and reserved its ruling regarding the
admissibility of testimony from plaintiffs' expert witness.  A
bench trial was held in June 2013, and closing arguments occurred
July 29, 2013.

Unum Group -- http://www.unum.com/-- together with its
subsidiaries, provides group and individual disability insurance
products primarily in the United States and the United Kingdom.
The Company also provides a portfolio of other insurance products,
including employer-and employee-paid group benefits, life
insurance, long-term care insurance, and related services.  The
Company was founded in 1848 and is based in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.


UNUM GROUP: Prepares Response to "Don" Suit Pending in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Unum Group disclosed in its August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013, that it is in the process of preparing its response
to a complaint filed by Ruben Don.

In May 2013, a purported class action complaint entitled Ruben Don
v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, Wedner Insurance Group,
Inc. dba The Morton Wedner Insurance Agency, and Does 1-30, was
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of California insureds
who were issued long-term care policies containing an inflation
protection feature.  The plaintiff alleges the Company incorrectly
administer the inflation protection feature, resulting in an
underpayment of benefits.  The complaint makes allegations against
the Company for breach of contract, bad faith, fraud, violation of
Business and Professions Code 17200, and injunctive relief.  In
June 2013, the Company removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  The
Company says it is in the process of preparing its response to
this complaint.

Unum Group -- http://www.unum.com/-- together with its
subsidiaries, provides group and individual disability insurance
products primarily in the United States and the United Kingdom.
The Company also provides a portfolio of other insurance products,
including employer-and employee-paid group benefits, life
insurance, long-term care insurance, and related services.  The
Company was founded in 1848 and is based in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Proposed Vodafone Acquisition
---------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Gordon, On Behalf Of Herself and Others Similarly Situated
v. Verizon Communications, Inc., Lowell C. McAdam, Richard L.
Carrion Rexach, Melanie L. Healey, Martha Frances Keeth, Robert W.
Lane, M.D., Sandra O. Moose, M.D., Joseph Neubauer, Donald T.
Nicolaisen, Clarence Otis, Jr., Hugh B. Price, Rodney Earl Slater,
Kathryn A. Tesija, and Gregory D. Wasson, Case No. 653084/2013
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., September 5, 2013) is a shareholder
class action lawsuit brought on behalf of the public stockholders
of Verizon to enjoin the stock purchase agreement with Vodafone
Group Plc ("Vodafone") and Vodafone 4 Limited ("Seller"), pursuant
to which Verizon agreed to acquire Vodafone's indirect 45%
interest in Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (the
"Partnership").  The Partnership is a joint venture between
Verizon and Vodafone formed in April 2000 by the combination of
the U.S. wireless operations and interests of Verizon and
Vodafone.

The consideration obtained in the Stock Purchase Agreement is
insufficient and inadequate to Verizon's public stockholders, Ms.
Gordon contends.  She argues that Verizon shareholders are being
shortchanged and their investment in Verizon will be diminished
and diluted as a result of the Stock Purchase Agreement.  She adds
that in pursuing the unlawful plan to facilitate the purchase of
the Vodafone Interest for grossly inadequate consideration, each
of the defendants violated applicable law by directly breaching
and/or aiding the other defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty of
care, loyalty and good faith.

Ms. Gordon is a shareholder of Verizon common stock.

Verizon is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York.
Verizon is a global leader in delivering innovation in
communications, information and entertainment.  The Company offers
voice, data and video services over intelligent wireless,
broadband and global IP networks that meet its customers' growing
demand for openness, speed, mobility, security and control.  It
operates America's largest 4G wireless network and provides
services over America's most advanced fiber-optic network.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212)-983-9330
          Facsimile: (212)-983-9331
          E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com


VISONIC LTD: Recalls Amber Personal Emergency Response System Kits
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Visonic Ltd., of Westford, Mass., announced a voluntary recall of
about 24,000 Visonic Amber Classic and Amber SelectX Personal
Emergency Response System (PERS) Kits.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

A single Amber Base station set to Common Area Mode will not
detect a low battery or dead battery warning signal from the
remote pendant that notifies the end user or system administrator
to replace the pendant battery.

The firm received one report of a pendant that failed to operate
due to a low battery undetected by the base station in Common Area
Mode.  No injuries have been reported.

The recalled Visonic Amber Personal Emergency Response System
(PERS) kit enables a user to push a button on a pendant to signal
a request for assistance.  An Amber kit consists of one wireless
pendant worn by the user, one Amber brand base station, generally
connected to a phone line, a power supply and backup battery.
Base stations are white, rectangular and measure about 9-inches
wide by 7-inches deep by 2-inches high with emergency, call and
check buttons.  The emergency button is red on the Classic model
and grey on the SelectX model.  Recalled Classic models have
catalog number 0-7425 and serial numbers 0408044281 through
4410052723.  The first four digits of the serial number are
manufacture dates from January 2008 through August 2010 in WWYY
format.  Recalled SelectX models have catalog number 0-100729 and
serial numbers 2308600299 through 3013079617 The first four digits
represent manufacture dates June 2008 through July 2013 in WWYY
format.  The first two digits are week of manufacturer and the
second two numbers are the year of manufacture.  For example
serial number 2308 600299 indicates a manufacturing date of the
23rd week of 2008 or roughly June 2008.  Each unit has an external
label on the back of the base station, with the product name and
serial number.  Only Amber Classic or SelectX base stations that
are placed in Common Area Mode by a professionally trained PERS
system installer and are used without additional base stations,
are included in the recall.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/JNMdh4

The recalled products were manufactured in Israel and sold at
Visonic distributors and professional alarm installation firms
nationwide from January 2008 through August 2013 for between $220
and $240 for the kits.

Consumers should immediately contact their system installer or a
Visonic alarm installation professional to determine if their
Amber base station is set to Common Area Mode, and if so, to
either reset their unit to another mode or make other system
changes, such as adding an additional base station.  Only a
professionally-trained PERS system installer can identify and
modify the particular mode configuration.  Owners are also
reminded to manually test their Amber PERS pendant regularly for
low battery status.


VITA HEALTH: Recalls Personelle Acid Control
--------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 5, 2013
Posting date:             September 11, 2013
Type of communication:    Drug Recall
Subcategory:              Drugs
Hazard classification:    Type I
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-35553

Recalled Products: Personelle Acid Control

The product is being recalled due to a box design error.  The
boxes contain inner printing and there is no reference on any
outer panel to read the inner printing for important additional
information:

Companies:

  Recalling Firm     Vita Health Products Inc.
                     150 Beghin Ave.
                     Winnipeg
                     R2J 3W2
                     Manitoba
                     Canada

  Marketing
  Authorization
  Holder Vita        Health Products Inc.
                     150 Beghin Ave.
                     Winnipeg
                     R2J 3W2
                     Manitoba
                     Canada


* AU's Growing Class Action Mentality Fertile Ground for PI Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Milana Pokrajac, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that
Australia's growing "class action mentality" and the emergence of
litigation funders have created fertile ground for claims against
participants in the financial services sector, says law firm
partner Geoff Connellan.

Law firm Moray & Agnew Lawyers surveyed over 150 professional
indemnity (PI) insurance professionals, advisers, brokers and
service providers earlier this month, finding almost half the
respondents expected companies and/or directors would seek greater
protection to guard against class actions and many (20 per cent)
forecast greater restrictions would be imposed on terms.

Moray & Agnew partner Geoff Connellan said Australia's growing
class action mentality -- in addition to the lingering aftermath
of the global financial crisis and the emergence of litigation
funders -- had created "fertile ground" for claims against
participants in the financial services sector.

"While litigation funders play an important role -- particularly
by assembling smaller claims which would not be economically
viable to pursue individually -- they are also prompting companies
and directors alike to seek greater protection," says
Mr. Connellan.

"Financial advisers and dealer groups are at risk, with 34.85 per
cent of our respondents predicting that profession will experience
the highest level of claims activity in the next 24 months."

The survey also found 12 per cent believed the reforms would
actually squeeze small and independent players out of the market.
Only one in 10 said Future of Financial Advice (FOFA) reforms
would help the industry regulator weed out rogue traders.

"The financial services industry formed the view early on that
FOFA would push up the cost of financial advice, so in that
respect these results are not surprising," Mr. Connellan said.

"However, if the objective of the reforms was to provide further
protection for consumers, the industry is dubious that outcome
will be achieved."


* BTI Report Says Corp. Spending on Class Actions to Rise in 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ama Sarfo, writing for Law360, reports that after witnessing a
three-year drop in class action activity, corporate legal teams in
2014 will have to spend more of their precious litigation budgets
defending such lawsuits as the plaintiffs bar becomes emboldened
by the slowly rising economy, says a new survey of corporate
counsel.

Since 2010, spending on class actions and torts has steadily and
incrementally slid from $2.2 billion that year to $2.1 billion in
2012 to $2 billion in 2013.  But corporate spending on these
complex matters will rise 2.7 percent in the coming year,
according to the BTI Litigation Outlook for 2014 report published
by BTI Consulting Group (Wellesley, Mass.)

The change is part of a general uptick in litigation that general
counsel will see in most areas of the law, although they largely
expect litigation spending to be flat, according to BTI President
Michael Rynowecer.  But companies are expected to have a slight
increase in their class action budgets, doling out $2.1 billion in
2014, which is a return to their 2012 level.

Mr. Rynowecer said the economy was so bad in the past three to
four years that even the plaintiffs bar didn't want to invest
funds in class actions that might not pay off.

"Now, the plaintiffs bar is getting more aggressive, and is
emboldened in part by activist shareholders who are feeling more
hopeful and know there's a higher probability that companies will
have money, even to settle," Mr. Rynowecer said.

In fact, nearly 52 percent of companies will have class action and
mass tort litigation work in the upcoming year, the report said.
And the report added that every new matter will be a business
opportunity for firms, given anticipated stalls in litigation
spending.

However, Mr. Rynowecer predicts recent U.S. Supreme Court
decisions affecting class certifications like Comcast Corp. v.
Behrend will drive more companies to invest in decertification and
other means of avoiding class actions.  In general, companies
resolved nearly 37 percent of their litigation cases in 2013, and
the report says this trend will extend into the new year.

Mr. Rynowecer said that opportunistic plaintiffs and attorneys are
eying the financial services arena, particularly since the carnage
from the subprime mortgage lending crisis hasn't played out.  And
the manufacturing sector is also a prime target for this increased
wave of class action activity, according to Mr. Rynowecer.

Other sectors that are expected to be areas of focus for the
plaintiffs bar include health care and retail trade, according to
the report.

Attorneys are also ramping up their business development skills in
order to present potential class action opportunities to
plaintiffs, Mr. Rynowecer said.

It used to be that plaintiffs attorneys would jump on more obvious
sources of business, like product injury cases, Mr. Rynowecer
said.  But lately, those attorneys have been honing their business
intelligence to track companies' board activity so they can
approach major shareholders -- like pension funds -- when they
believe that boards have abandoned their fiduciary duties, he
said.

Regardless, the 2.7 percent expected uptick in class action
activity isn't going to make the area a major contender for
companies' litigation funds.  In 2013, companies' $2 billion
spending on class actions and torts occupied a modest portion of
the nearly $21 billion market for litigation, clocking in at 10
percent.  The heavy hitters were commercial, employment and
intellectual property litigation, according to the report.

But the uptick in class action activity will come in a landscape
that several attorneys have said is ripe for reform.

The BTI report draws on more than 3,700 interviews conducted over
the last 13 years with corporate counsel.  This year's analysis
relied on more than 300 interviews from counsel at Fortune 1000
companies conducted between March 11 and June 28.


                             *********

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  * * *