CAR_Public/130918.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, September 18, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 185

                             Headlines


ACTIVE POWER: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
AMN SERVICES: Received Prelim. OK of Employee Suit Settlement
APPLE INC: Court Dismisses "Hodges" Suit With Leave to Amend
ASTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Suit Over Sale to Otsuka
BASF SE: Bid to Substitute Expert Witness Gets Court Approval

BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS: Faces Class Action in Virginia
CALIFORNIA: NSA Monitoring Factors Into 9th Cir. Trial
CAPSTONE COLLEGIATE: May Face Class Action Over Cottages of Boone
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Obtains Favorable Ruling in "Sims" Suit
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Dismissal of Securities Class Suit Appealed

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Dismissal of Suit Over 2008 Offering Appealed
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk ERISA Suit
COLUMBIA BANKING: Yet to File Settlement Docs in Merger Suit
CUNA MUTUAL: S.C. Overturns Class Cert. Denial in "Thurman" Suit
DELCATH SYSTEMS: Amended Securities Complaint Due on Sept. 18

DES MOINES, IA: Attorneys Seek $15MM Payment in Franchise Fee Suit
EBAY INC: District Court Dismisses Suit Over Spyware
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Wants Lid on Vernon Plant Suit and Claims
GANEY CHEVROLET: Class Cert. Ruling in "Felix" Suit Upheld
GOOGLE INC: Lieff Cabraser Comments on Street View Case Ruling

HARTFORD CASUALTY: Wants TCPA Class Action Back in Federal Court
HARVEST GROUP: Securities Regulators Go After Founder Over Fraud
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: 5th Cir. Revived Claims Over Theft by Hackers
HOME DEPOT: Suspected Shoplifter Files Class Action in Calif.
HUGOTON ROYALTY TRUST: Bids to Dismiss "Lamb" Suit Remain Pending

HUGOTON ROYALTY TRUST: "Chieftain" Suit Remains Pending in Okla.
HUGOTON ROYALTY: Continues to Defend "Roderick" Suit vs. XTO
INDONESIA: Environmental Activists File Class Action v. President
KORE OF INDIANA: 7th Cir. Reverses ATM User Class Decertification
LANCE ARMSTRONG: Class Action Over Autobiography Dismissed

LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits Okay for Rights-of-Way Suit Deal
LOS ANGELES, CA: Judge Allows Deputies' OT Class Action to Proceed
LOS ANGELES TIMES: Sued Over Release of Deputy Sheriffs' Info
MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Wage and Hour Class Suit in California
MIMEDX GROUP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York

PACKAGING CORP: Containerboard Suit in Document Production Phase
PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Uses Illegal Way to Compute OT Pay, Suit Says
PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LA: Sued Over Hurricane Isaac Damage
REGUS MANAGEMENT: Court Grants Partial Dismissal of Counterclaims
RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Wants Class Suit Barred Until Dec. 31

SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Cops Claiming Age Bias Battle in 9th Circuit
SHELL OIL: Benzene Contamination Class Action Moves Forward
SOTHEBY'S: Plaintiffs' Appeal in "Graham" Suit Remains Pending
STATE AUTO: Continues to Defend "Schumacher" Class Suit in Ohio
STRAUSS GROUP: Faces Class Action in Haifa Court

UNIT CORP: 2nd Plea to Certify Class in "Panola" Suit Pending
UNITED STATES: Court Orders Closure of VLS Suit
UPTOWN DRINK: Sup. Ct. Rules in Favor of Employees in "Karl" Suit
VARIABLE ANNUITY: 5th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "Hall" Suit

* 15 Insurance Carriers to Settle 1998 Ice Storm Class Action


                             *********


ACTIVE POWER: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Sept. 10 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Active Power, Inc.
securities during the period from April 30, 2013 to September 5,
2013, seeking to recover damages for violations of the federal
securities laws.

To join the Active Power class action, visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.comor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Jonathan
Horne, Esq. toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.  The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas.

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, Active Power issued materially false and
misleading statements about its business.  On April 30, 2013,
Active Power announced that it had entered into a "[n]ew strategic
distribution partnership agreement with Digital China Information
Service Limited, the largest IT solutions provider in China." The
Company represented that this relationship with Digital China
would allow the Company to increase its revenues and
profitability, adding that "[w]e have already engaged with Digital
China on large data center projects for which we anticipate field
product deployment later this year."  On September 5, 2013, after
close of trading, the Company retracted its guidance, citing
disappointing results in China.  The Company attributed the poor
to the fact that "the company's previously announced agreement in
China is with Qiyuan Network System Limited, which the company's
management discovered is neither an affiliate nor a subsidiary of
Digital China Information Service Company Limited."  According to
the Complaint, this adverse news caused the price of Active Power
stock to fall, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 11, 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 Phillip Kim, Esq. or Jonathan Horne, Esq. of The
Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com
You may also visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com

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

CONTACT: The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
         Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Jonathan Horne, Esq.
         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
                jhorne@rosenlegal.com

         Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com


AMN SERVICES: Received Prelim. OK of Employee Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a California federal judge
approved a settlement to class actions against the health care
staffing company AMN Services over unpaid wages and paycheck
deductions.

The hearing on the motion for final approval of the class action
settlement will take place on February 7, 2014.  The Motion for
Final Approval is due January 17, 2014.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alan Dale Harris, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          6424 Santa Monica Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90038
          Telephone: (323) 962-3777
          Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
          E-mail: law@harrisandruble.com

               - and -

          David S. Harris, Esq.
          NORTH BAY LAW GROUP
          116 E. Blithedale Avenue, Suite #2
          Mill Valley, CA 94941
          Telephone: (415) 388-8788
          Facsimile: (415) 388-8770
          E-mail: dsh@northbaylawgroup.com

               - and -

          James Donald Rush, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES D. RUSH
          7665 Redwood Boulevard, Suite 200
          Novato, CA 94945
          Telephone: (415) 897-4801
          Facsimile: (415) 897-5316
          E-mail: jimrush22@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Abigail Ameri Treanor, Esq.
          JAURIGUE LAW GROUP
          114 N. Brand Blvd. Ste 200
          Glendale, CA 91208
          Telephone: (818) 630-7280
          Facsimile: (888) 879-1697
          E-mail: Abigail@jauriguelaw.com

               - and -

          Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SHAUN SETAREH
          9454 Wilshire Blvd #PH3
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2937
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com

               - and -

          Louis Max Benowitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS BENOWITZ
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Penthouse
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 844-5141
          Facsimile: (310) 492-4056
          E-mail: louis@benowitzlaw.com

               - and -

          David Glenn Spivak, Esq.
          THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
          9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 303
          Beverly Hills, CA 90012
          Telephone: (310) 499-4730
          Facsimile: (310) 499-4739
          E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Enzo Der Boghossian, Esq.
          Kenneth Dawson Sulzer, Esq.
          Adam Walter Gould Freed, Esq.
          Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 557-2900
          Facsimile: (310) 557-2193
          E-mail: ederboghossian@proskauer.com
                  ksulzer@proskauer.com
                  afreed@proskauer.com
                  skroll-rosenbaum@proskauer.com

The case is O'Sullivan v. AMN Services, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:12-cv-02125-JCS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco).  The case was consolidated
with Alice Ogues v. AMN Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-
3190-JCS.


APPLE INC: Court Dismisses "Hodges" Suit With Leave to Amend
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick granted a motion to dismiss the
case captioned BEAU HODGES, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., Defendant,
CASE NO. 13-CV-01128-WHO, (N.D. Cal.).

In the suit, Beau Hodges alleges that a MacBook Pro with Retina
Display (rMBP) manufactured by LG, which he purchased, is inferior
to an rMBP manufactured by Samsung, and on that basis seeks to
bring a class action against Apple Inc. for violations of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act; violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law; and breach of contract.

"Because Hodges's [First Amended Complaint] fails to adequately
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, Apple's motion to
dismiss is granted with leave to amend," ruled Judge Orrick. "And
because Hodges's FAC fails to show that he is entitled to
injunctive relief, Apple's motion to strike is also granted with
leave to amend."

The Court ordered Hodges to file any amended complaint no later
than 30 days from the date of the Order.

A copy of the District Court's August 12, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/XQDwP5from Leagle.com.

Beau Hodges, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt --
alevitt@gelaw.com -- at Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Joseph Jeremy
Siprut -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- at Siprut PC, Todd Christopher
Atkins -- tatkins@siprut.com -- at Siprut PC, Aleksandra Melissa
Spevace Vold -- avold@siprut.com -- at Siprut PC & Gregg M.
Barbakoff -- gbarbakoff@siprut.com

Apple Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew David Powers --
mpowers@omm.com -- at O'Melveny & Myers LLP.


ASTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Suit Over Sale to Otsuka
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Bushansky, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., James S.J. Manuso, Harren
Jhoti, Charles J. Casamento, Peter Fellner, Thomas V. Girardi,
Allan R. Goldberg, Timothy Haines, Ismail Kola, and Walter J.
Lack, Case No. 8896- (Del. Ch. Ct., September 12, 2013) is a
shareholder class action brought on behalf of public shareholders
of Astex against it and its Board of Directors.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants breach their fiduciary
duties in connection with the Board's agreement to sell the
Company to Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. and Autumn Acquisition
Corporation pursuant to a tender offer.  The Proposed Transaction
is the product of a flawed process dominated by the self-serving
interests of Astex insiders, he contends.

Stephen Bushansky is a stockholder of Astex.

Astex, a Delaware corporation, engages in the discovery and
development of small molecule therapeutics with a focus on
oncology and hematology using its fragment-based drug discovery
platform, Pyramid.  The Company is developing a proprietary
pipeline of novel therapies and is creating de-risked products for
partnership with leading pharmaceutical companies.  The Company
offers DACOGEN(R) (decitabine) for injection for the treatment of
patients with myelodysplastic syndrome.  The Individual Defendants
are directors and officers of the Company.

Otsuka is a global healthcare company that researches, develops,
manufactures and markets innovative and original products, with a
focus on pharmaceutical products for the treatment of diseases and
consumer products for the maintenance of everyday health.  Otsuka
was founded in Tokushima Prefecture, Japan in 1964 and is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Otsuka Holdings Co., Ltd., the holding company
for the Otsuka Group.  The Otsuka Group has business operations in
26 countries and regions around the world.  Autumn Acquisition is
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Otsuka formed for the sole purpose of
effectuating the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


BASF SE: Bid to Substitute Expert Witness Gets Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John W. Lungstrum granted a motion to substitute an
expert witness in the IN RE URETHANE ANTITRUST LITIGATION, CASE
NO. 04-1616-JWL.

In this multi-district litigation, plaintiffs in these three cases
opted out of the class action that was recently tried in the
United States District Court for the District of Kansas: Polyether
Polyol Carpenter Co., et al. v. BASF SE, et al., and Woodbridge
Foam Corporation, et al. v. BASF SE, et al., and Dash Multi-Corp,
Inc., et al. v. BASF SE, et al., CASE NOS. 08-2617-JWL, 09-2026-
JWL, 10-2077-JWL.

With respect to these so-called direct action plaintiffs, the
discovery and dispositive motion deadlines have long since passed.
The cases await resolution of a few additional matters before they
are transferred back to the District of New Jersey, in which they
were filed. The Court has stated its intention to leave for the
remand court the pending "Daubert" motion by which defendant Dow
Chemical Company seeks to exclude testimony by plaintiffs' damages
expert, Dr. Matthew Raiff.

The plaintiffs sought to substitute another expert witness, Dr.
Leslie Marx, for Dr. Raiff.  The plaintiffs have submitted
affidavits from Dr. Raiff and a treating professional stating that
Dr. Raiff is presently disabled; that he will remain so for at
least a period of six to 12 months; that continued participation
in this case would be detrimental to his health; that it is
uncertain whether he will ever recover; and that he is withdrawing
from the case.

Judge Lungstrum held that the Magistrate Judge will amend the
scheduling order to set deadlines relating to the substitution of
the expert witness, including deadlines for Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule
26(a)(2) disclosures, depositions, and Daubert motions as
necessary.

A copy of the District Court's August 13, 2013 Memorandum and
Order is available at http://is.gd/XzuNvLfrom Leagle.com.

Urethane Antitrust Litigation, Plaintiff, represented by George A.
Hanson, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Norman E. Siegel, Stueve Siegel
Hanson LLP, Rex A. Sharp, Gunderson Sharp, LLP, Roy Morrow Bell,
Troutman Sanders LLP, Steven A. Kanner, Freed Kanner London &
Millen, LLC, Susan G. Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, W.
Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge Grindal Nauen, PLLP, W. Joseph Hatley,
Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP & Yvonne M. Flaherty, Lockridge
Grindal Nauen, PLLP.

Alco Industries, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Joshua H. Grabar,
Bolognese & Associates, LLC, Marc H. Edelson, Hoffman & Edelson,
Myroslaw Smorodsky, Law Offices of Myroslaw Smorodsky, Rex A.
Sharp, Gunderson Sharp, LLP, Steven J. Greenfogel, Meredith, Cohen
Greenfogel & Skirnick, P.C., Anthony J. Bolognese, Bolognese &
Associates, LLC & Norman E. Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Arctic-Temp, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Karon,
Weinstein Kitchenoff Scarlato Karon Goldman, Rex A. Sharp,
Gunderson Sharp, LLP, David H. Weinstein, Weinstein Kitchenoff &
Asher LLC, Steven A. Asher, Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher LLC &
Norman E. Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Belting Industries Company, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Gary
Specks, Kaplan Fox, Jason A. Zweig, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Rex A. Sharp, Gunderson Sharp, LLP, Richard J. Kilsheimer,
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer, LLP, William J. Pinilis, Pinilis Halpern, LLP & Norman
E. Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Beynon Sports Surfaces, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Angela K.
Drake, Lowther Johnson, Attorneys at Law, LLC, Peter D. St.
Phillip, Jr., Lowey, Dannenberg, Bemporad & Selinger, PC, Rex A.
Sharp, Gunderson Sharp, LLP & Norman E. Siegel, Stueve Siegel
Hanson LLP.

Building Material Distributors, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Eric B. Fastiff, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Berstein, LLP, James
Belford Brown, Herum Crabtree Brown, James V. DeMera, III, Mullen
Sullivan & Newton, LLP, Joseph R. Saveri, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann
& Berstein, LLP, Michele Chickerell Jackson, Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Berstein, LLP, Rex A. Sharp, Gunderson Sharp, LLP &
Norman E. Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Home Factories, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Eric B. Fastiff,
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Berstein, LLP, James Belford Brown,
Herum Crabtree Brown, James V. DeMera, III, Mullen Sullivan &
Newton, LLP, Joseph R. Saveri, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Berstein, LLP, Michele Chickerell Jackson, Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Berstein, LLP, Rex A. Sharp, Gunderson Sharp, LLP &
Norman E. Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Coating Resource Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Cadio
Zirpoli, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Fred A. Silva, Damrell, Nelson,
Schrimp, Pallios, Pache, Geoffrey C. Rushing, Saveri & Saveri,
Inc., Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Rex A. Sharp, Gunderson
Sharp, LLP, Richard Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Roger
M. Schrimp, Damrell, Nelson, Schrimp, Pallios, Pache, Clinton P.
Walker, Damrell, Nelson, Schrimp, Pallios, Pache & Norman E.
Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Creative Urethanes, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Mary Jane
Edelstein Fait, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Rex A.
Sharp, Gunderson Sharp, LLP & Norman E. Siegel, Stueve Siegel
Hanson LLP.

Globe Rubber Works, Plaintiff, represented by Howard J. Sedran,
Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, Rex A. Sharp, Gunderson Sharp,
LLP & Norman E. Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Goodman Building Supply Company, Plaintiff, represented by Craig
C. Corbitt, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Francis O.
Scarpulla, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Joseph M. Patane,
Law Office Of Joseph M. Patane, Judith A. Shimm, Zelle Hofmann
Voelbel & Mason LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump &
Prescott LLP, Rex A. Sharp, Gunderson Sharp, LLP, Ronald D.
Foreman, Foreman & Brasso & Norman E. Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP.

H&E Bros., Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Craig C. Corbitt, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Francis O. Scarpulla, Zelle Hofmann
Voelbel & Mason LLP, Joseph M. Patane, Law Office Of Joseph M.
Patane, Judith A. Shimm, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Mario
Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Rex A. Sharp,
Gunderson Sharp, LLP, Ronald D. Foreman, Foreman & Brasso & Norman
E. Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Industrial Rubber Products, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Lionel
Z. Glancy, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Michael M. Goldberg,
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Peter A. Binkow, Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP, Rex A. Sharp, Gunderson Sharp, LLP, Susan G. Kupfer,
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP & Norman E. Siegel, Stueve Siegel
Hanson LLP.

Kryptane Systems, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Ann D. White, Ann
D. White Law Offices, PC, Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw, LLC, Fred
Taylor Isquith, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Krishna
Narine, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Mary Jane Edelstein
Fait, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Rex A. Sharp,
Gunderson Sharp, LLP & Norman E. Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.
Liquidation Reserve Account Trust, Plaintiff, represented by
Joseph M. Patane, Law Office Of Joseph M. Patane, Mario Nunzio
Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Rex A. Sharp, Gunderson
Sharp, LLP, Ronald D. Foreman, Foreman & Brasso & Norman E.
Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Maine Industrial Tires Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Donna
Siegel Moffa, Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards LLC, Guido Saveri,
Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Lisa J. Rodriguez, Trujillo Rodriguez &
Richards LLC, Rex A. Sharp, Gunderson Sharp, LLP, Richard
Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., W. Joseph Bruckner,
Lockridge Grindal Nauen, PLLP & Norman E. Siegel, Stueve Siegel
Hanson LLP.

PSI Urethanes, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Diana K. Kim, Gold,
Bennett, Cera & Sidener, LLP, Rex A. Sharp, Gunderson Sharp, LLP,
Steven O. Sidener, Gold, Bennett, Cera & Sidener, LLP & Norman E.
Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Rahco Rubber Products, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Andrew B.
Sacks, Sacks & Weston, LLC, Douglas A. Millen, Freed Kanner London
& Millen, LLC, Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf &
Blanchfield, John K. Weston, Sacks & Weston, LLC, Michael P.
Lehmann, Furth Lehmann& Grant, LLP, Rex A. Sharp, Gunderson Sharp,
LLP, Steven J. Greenfogel, Meredith, Cohen Greenfogel & Skirnick,
P.C., Steven A. Kanner, Freed Kanner London & Millen, LLC, Thomas
Patrick Dove, Furth Lehmann& Grant, LLP, William H. London, Freed
Kanner London & Millen, LLC & Norman E. Siegel, Stueve Siegel
Hanson LLP.

RWM Casters, Plaintiff, represented by Ann D. White, Ann D. White
Law Offices, PC, Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw, LLC, Krishna Narine,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Mary Jane Edelstein Fait, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Rex A. Sharp, Gunderson
Sharp, LLP & Norman E. Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Rubber Engineering and Development Company, Plaintiff, represented
by Diana K. Kim, Gold, Bennett, Cera & Sidener, LLP, Paul F.
Bennett, Gold, Bennett, Cera & Sidener, LLP, Rex A. Sharp,
Gunderson Sharp, LLP, Steven O. Sidener, Gold, Bennett, Cera &
Sidener, LLP & Norman E. Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Skypark Manufacturing, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Allyn Z.
Lite, Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, Bruce D. Greenberg, Lite
DePalma Greenberg, LLC, Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb,
LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jason S. Hartley,
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP,
Joseph J. DePalma, Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, Mauro M. Wolfe,
Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, Michael E. Patunas, Lite
DePalma Greenberg, LLC, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Rex
A. Sharp, Gunderson Sharp, LLP, Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein
Shapiro, LLP, Roy Morrow Bell, Troutman Sanders LLP, Timothy P.
Irving, Troutman Sanders LLP & Norman E. Siegel, Stueve Siegel
Hanson LLP.

Standard Rubber Products, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher J. Cormier, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll, PLLC, Ira
Neil Richards, Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards LLC, Justine J.
Kaiser, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC, Lisa J. Rodriguez,
Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards LLC, Michael D. Hausfeld, Cohen,
Milstein, Sellers & Toll, PLLC, Rex A. Sharp, Gunderson Sharp,
LLP, Stewart M. Weltman, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll, PLLC,
Arthur N. Bailey, Arthur N. Bailey & Associates & Norman E.
Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Urethane Products Industries, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Alex
C. Turan, Furth Lehmann& Grant, LLP, Frederick P. Furth, Furth
Lehmann& Grant, LLP, Joseph R. Saveri, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Berstein, LLP, Julio Ramos, Furth Lehmann& Grant, LLP, Michael P.
Lehmann, Furth Lehmann& Grant, LLP, Michele Chickerell Jackson,
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Berstein, LLP, Rex A. Sharp, Gunderson
Sharp, LLP, Steven J. Greenfogel, Meredith, Cohen Greenfogel &
Skirnick, P.C., Thomas Patrick Dove, Furth Lehmann& Grant, LLP &
Norman E. Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Polymeric Technology, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Isaac L.
Diel, Sharp McQueen P.A., Rex A. Sharp, Gunderson Sharp, LLP &
Norman E. Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Epoxical, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Isaac L. Diel, Sharp
McQueen P.A., Rex A. Sharp, Gunderson Sharp, LLP & Norman E.
Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Green Mountain International, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Isaac L. Diel, Sharp McQueen P.A., Rex A. Sharp, Gunderson Sharp,
LLP & Norman E. Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Rubber Millers, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Isaac L. Diel,
Sharp McQueen P.A., Rex A. Sharp, Gunderson Sharp, LLP & Norman E.
Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Seegott Holdings, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Alexander S.
Edelson, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC, Allen
D. Black, Fine, Kaplan and Black, RPC, Anthony D. Shapiro, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Brian M. Christensen, Kellogg, Huber,
Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC, Candice Chiu, Bancroft PLLC,
Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, David F. Oliver,
Berkowitz Oliver Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLP, Donald L.
Perelman, Fine, Kaplan and Black, RPC, Gerard A. Dever, Fine,
Kaplan and Black, RPC, Henry J. Handzel, Jr., DeWitt Ross &
Stevens S.C., J. Bruce McKissock, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner,
Coleman & Goggin, Jason S. Kilene, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, John J.
McGrath, McKissock & Hoffman, PC, Jonathon P. Axelrod, DeWitt Ross
& Stevens S.C., Joseph Goldberg, Freedman, Boyd, Hollander,
Goldberg & Ives PA, Joshua J. Hofer, Morris, Laing, Evans, Brock &
Kennedy, Chtd.--Wichita, Kit A. Pierson, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers
& Toll, PLLC, Laura Alexander, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll,
PLLC, Lisa J. Rodriguez, Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards LLC,
Matthew Duncan, Fine, Kaplan and Black, RPC, Michael J. Guzman,
Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC, Michael P.
Lehmann, Furth Lehmann& Grant, LLP, Michael N. Nemelka, Kellogg,
Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC, Paul D. Clement,
Bancroft PLLC, Paul Costa, Fine, Kaplan and Black, RPC, Rebecca A.
Beynon, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC, Rex A.
Sharp, Gunderson Sharp, LLP, Ria C. Momblanco, Fine, Kaplan and
Black, RPC, Richard A. Koffman, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll,
PLLC, Robert W. Coykendall, Morris, Laing, Evans, Brock & Kennedy,
Chtd.--Wichita, Roberta D. Liebenberg, Fine, Kaplan and Black,
RPC, Roger N. Walter, Morris, Laing, Evans, Brock & Kennedy,
Chtd.--Topeka, Sharon K. Robertson, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers &
Toll, PLLC, Simon Paris, Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky PC,
Stewart L. Cohen, Cohen, Placitella & Roth PC, Thomas A. Muzilla,
The Muzilla Law Firm, LLC, William R. Levi, Bancroft PLLC, William
D. Marvin, Cohen, Placitella & Roth PC, Zachary D. Tripp, Bancroft
PLLC & Joshua D. Snyder, Boni & Zack, LLC.

RBX Industries, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast,
NastLaw, LLC, Rex A. Sharp, Gunderson Sharp, LLP & Robert W.
Coykendall, Morris, Laing, Evans, Brock & Kennedy, Chtd..

Industrial Polymers, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E.
Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, David F. Oliver, Berkowitz Oliver
Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLP, Gerard A. Dever, Fine, Kaplan
and Black, RPC, Jason Brett Fliegel, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP,
Jason S. Kilene, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Jason A. Zweig, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Rex A. Sharp, Gunderson Sharp, LLP,
Robert W. Coykendall, Morris, Laing, Evans, Brock & Kennedy,
Chtd., Roger N. Walter, Morris, Laing, Evans, Brock & Kennedy,
Chtd., Stewart L. Cohen, Cohen, Placitella & Roth PC & William D.
Marvin, Cohen, Placitella & Roth PC.

Polyester Polyol Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by George A.
Hanson, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Norman E. Siegel, Stueve Siegel
Hanson LLP, Rex A. Sharp, Gunderson Sharp, LLP, Robert J. Hoffman,
Bryan Cave LLP, Roy Morrow Bell, Troutman Sanders LLP, Steven A.
Kanner, Freed Kanner London & Millen, LLC, Susan G. Kupfer, Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, W. Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge Grindal
Nauen, PLLP, W. Joseph Hatley, Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP &
Yvonne M. Flaherty, Lockridge Grindal Nauen, PLLP.

Polyether Polyol Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Allen D.
Black, Fine, Kaplan and Black, RPC, Gerard A. Dever, Fine, Kaplan
and Black, RPC, Jason A. Zweig, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
John J. McGrath, McKissock & Hoffman, PC, Joseph Goldberg,
Freedman, Boyd, Hollander, Goldberg & Ives PA, Lisa J. Rodriguez,
Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards LLC, Rex A. Sharp, Gunderson Sharp,
LLP, Robert W. Coykendall, Morris, Laing, Evans, Brock & Kennedy,
Chtd. & Roberta D. Liebenberg, Fine, Kaplan and Black, RPC.

Carpenter Co., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T. Leonardo,
Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Gloria
B. Solomon, Trout Cacheris, PLLC, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro,
LLP, John F. Hundley, Trout Cacheris, PLLC, Mauro M. Wolfe,
Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams
Holcomb, LLP, Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP &
Robert P. Trout, Trout Cacheris, PLLC.

Carpenter Canada Co., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro,
LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe,
Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams
Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

E.R. Carpenter, L.P., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro,
LLP, Gloria B. Solomon, Trout Cacheris, PLLC, Jodi Trulove,
Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, John F. Hundley, Trout Cacheris, PLLC,
Mauro M. Wolfe, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce
Holcomb, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein
Shapiro, LLP & Robert P. Trout, Trout Cacheris, PLLC.

Burkart Foam, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro,
LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe,
Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams
Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Flexible Foam Products, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin,
Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Emily Yoder, Hanna Campbell & Powell, LLP,
Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe, Dickstein
Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb, LLP
& Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

High Standard Pad, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro,
LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe,
Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams
Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Nu-Foam Products, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro,
LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe,
Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams
Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Foam Supplies, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro,
LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, John J. Gazzoli, Jr.,
Rosenblum Goldenhersh Silverstein & Zaft, PC, Mauro M. Wolfe,
Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams
Holcomb, LLP, Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP &
Theresa A. Phelps, Rosenblum Goldenhersh Silverstein & Zaft, PC.

Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Derk Van Raalte, Law
Offices of Brady Hair, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, J.
Brady Hair, Law Offices of Brady Hair, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein
Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky
LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge,
Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Hickory Springs of California, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin,
Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP,
Mauro M. Wolfe, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce
Holcomb, Adams Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein
Shapiro, LLP.

Huber Engineered Woods LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher
T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Delmer R. Mitchell, Jr.,
Schmiedeskamp, Robertson, Neu & Mitchell LLP, Elaine Metlin,
Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP,
Mauro M. Wolfe, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce
Holcomb, Adams Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein
Shapiro, LLP.

J.M. Huber Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Delmer R. Mitchell, Jr.,
Schmiedeskamp, Robertson, Neu & Mitchell LLP, Elaine Metlin,
Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP,
Mauro M. Wolfe, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce
Holcomb, Adams Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein
Shapiro, LLP.

Crest-Foam Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro,
LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe,
Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams
Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Leaving Taos, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro,
LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe,
Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams
Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Leggett & Platt Components Company, Inc., Plaintiff, represented
by Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin,
Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP,
Mauro M. Wolfe, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce
Holcomb, Adams Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein
Shapiro, LLP.

Leggett & Platt, Incorporated, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin,
Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP,
Mauro M. Wolfe, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce
Holcomb, Adams Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein
Shapiro, LLP.

L&P Financial Services Co., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher
T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro,
LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe,
Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP & Richard J. Leveridge,
Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Lubrizol Advanced Materials, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin,
Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP,
Mauro M. Wolfe, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce
Holcomb, Adams Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein
Shapiro, LLP.

Crest Foam Industries Incorporated, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin,
Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Howard B. Iwrey, Dykema Gossett PLLC, Jodi
Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe, Dickstein Shapiro
Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb, LLP &
Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Pathway Polymers Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro,
LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe,
Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams
Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Vitafoam Incorporated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro,
LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe,
Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams
Holcomb, LLP, Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP &
Robert J. Gilmer, Jr., Eastman & Smith Ltd..

Carpenter Aps, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T. Leonardo,
Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jodi
Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe, Dickstein Shapiro
Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb, LLP &
Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Carpenter-Dumo N.V., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro,
LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe,
Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams
Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Carpenter GMBH, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T. Leonardo,
Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jodi
Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe, Dickstein Shapiro
Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb, LLP &
Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Carpenter Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro,
LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe,
Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams
Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.
Carpenter S.A.S., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro,
LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe,
Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams
Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Carpenter Sweden AB, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro,
LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe,
Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams
Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Lubrizol Advanced Materials Europe BVBA, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin,
Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP,
Mauro M. Wolfe, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce
Holcomb, Adams Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein
Shapiro, LLP.

Ball & Young Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro,
LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe,
Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams
Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

British Vita (Lux III) S.AR.L., Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin,
Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP,
Mauro M. Wolfe, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce
Holcomb, Adams Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein
Shapiro, LLP.

British Vita Unlimited, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro,
LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe,
Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams
Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Caligen Europe B.V., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro,
LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe,
Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams
Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Caligen Foam Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro,
LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe,
Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams
Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Draka Interfoam B.V., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro,
LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe,
Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams
Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Koepp Schaum GMBH, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro,
LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe,
Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams
Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Metzeler Schaum GMBH, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro,
LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe,
Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams
Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Morard Europe S.A.S., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro,
LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe,
Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams
Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Tramico S.A.S., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T. Leonardo,
Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jodi
Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe, Dickstein Shapiro
Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb, LLP &
Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

UAB Vita Baltic International, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin,
Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP,
Mauro M. Wolfe, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce
Holcomb, Adams Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein
Shapiro, LLP.

Veenendaal Schaumstoffwerk GMBH, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin,
Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP,
Mauro M. Wolfe, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce
Holcomb, Adams Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein
Shapiro, LLP.

Vita Cellular Foams (UK) Limited, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin,
Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP,
Mauro M. Wolfe, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce
Holcomb, Adams Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein
Shapiro, LLP.

Vita Industrial (UK) Limited, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin,
Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP,
Mauro M. Wolfe, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce
Holcomb, Adams Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein
Shapiro, LLP.

Vita Polymers Poland S.P. Z.O.O., Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin,
Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP,
Mauro M. Wolfe, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP, R. Bruce
Holcomb, Adams Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein
Shapiro, LLP.

Universal Urethanes, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Elaine
Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro,
LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge,
Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Vitafoam Products Canada, Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by Elaine
Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro,
LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Richard J. Leveridge,
Dickstein Shapiro, LLP & Robert J. Gilmer, Jr., Eastman & Smith
Ltd..

ICOA France, S.A.S., Plaintiff, represented by Elaine Metlin,
Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, R.
Bruce Holcomb, Adams Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge,
Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Woodbridge Foam Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher
T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Edward H. Wasmuth, Jr., Smith,
Gambrell & Russell, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP,
Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe, Dickstein
Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein
Shapiro, LLP.

Woodbridge Holdings Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Edward H. Wasmuth, Jr., Smith,
Gambrell & Russell, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP,
Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe, Dickstein
Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein
Shapiro, LLP.

Woodbridge Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Edward H. Wasmuth, Jr., Smith,
Gambrell & Russell, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP,
Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe, Dickstein
Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein
Shapiro, LLP.

Woodbridge Foam Fabricating, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Edward H. Wasmuth,
Jr., Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein
Shapiro, LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M.
Wolfe, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP & Richard J.
Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

PWA Poliuretanos Woodbridge de Argentina S.A., Plaintiff,
represented by Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jodi
Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe, Dickstein Shapiro
Morin & Oshinsky LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro,
LLP.

T.W. Espumas Ltda., Plaintiff, represented by Elaine Metlin,
Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP,
Mauro M. Wolfe, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP & Richard
J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Woodbridge Australia Group Pty. Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin,
Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP,
Mauro M. Wolfe, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP & Richard
J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Woodbridge Services Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Edward H. Wasmuth, Jr., Smith,
Gambrell & Russell, LLP, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP,
Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Mauro M. Wolfe, Dickstein
Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein
Shapiro, LLP.

Hairlok Limited, Plaintiff, represented by Elaine Metlin,
Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP,
Mauro M. Wolfe, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP & Richard
J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Woodbridge Foam Deutschland GMBH, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin,
Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP,
Mauro M. Wolfe, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP & Richard
J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Woodbridge Foam (UK) Limited, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher T. Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Elaine Metlin,
Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP,
Mauro M. Wolfe, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP & Richard
J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Ohio Decorative Products, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Elaine
Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro,
LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Direct Action Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Leonardo, Adams Holcomb, LLP, Daniel Schaefer, Dickstein Shapiro,
LLP, Doreen Langa Manchester, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Elaine
Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, James Martin, Dickstein Shapiro,
LLP, Jodi Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, R. Bruce Holcomb, Adams
Holcomb, LLP & Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Dash Multi-Corp, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David C. Eddy,
Nexsen Pruet, LLC, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jodi
Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein
Shapiro, LLP, Travis C. Wheeler, Nexsen Pruet, LLC & Mauro M.
Wolfe, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP.

Marchem Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by David C. Eddy,
Nexsen Pruet, LLC, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jodi
Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein
Shapiro, LLP, Travis C. Wheeler, Nexsen Pruet, LLC & Mauro M.
Wolfe, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP.

Marchem Pacific, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David C. Eddy,
Nexsen Pruet, LLC, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jodi
Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein
Shapiro, LLP, Travis C. Wheeler, Nexsen Pruet, LLC & Mauro M.
Wolfe, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP.

Marchem Southeast, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David C. Eddy,
Nexsen Pruet, LLC, Elaine Metlin, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Jodi
Trulove, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Richard J. Leveridge, Dickstein
Shapiro, LLP, Travis C. Wheeler, Nexsen Pruet, LLC & Mauro M.
Wolfe, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP.

Quabaug Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by C. Andrew Dirksen,
Gold, Bennett, Cera & Sidener, LLP & Diana K. Kim, Gold, Bennett,
Cera & Sidener, LLP.

Quabaug Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Gerard A. Dever,
Fine, Kaplan and Black, RPC.

Quabaug Corporation, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Rex A.
Sharp, Gunderson Sharp, LLP, Steven O. Sidener, Gold, Bennett,
Cera & Sidener, LLP & Norman E. Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

Elliott Company of Indianapolis, Inc., Intervenor Plaintiff,
represented by Michael P. Lehmann, Furth Lehmann& Grant, LLP.
BASF AG, Defendant, represented by Andrew Stanley Marovitz, Mayer,
Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP, David F. Oliver, Berkowitz Oliver Williams
Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLP, Floyd R. Finch, Jr, Floyd Finch Law
Offices, Jason Brett Fliegel, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP & Terri
A. Mazur, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP.

Dow Chemical Company, The, Defendant, represented by Brian R.
Markley, Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, David M. Bernick, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, David F. Oliver, Berkowitz Oliver
Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLP, Donald L. Morrow, Paul,
Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP, G. Hamilton Loeb, Paul Hastings
LLP, Jason Brett Fliegel, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP, Jeremy P.
Evans, Paul Hastings LLP, Sara E. Welch, Stinson Morrison Hecker
LLP, Scott Gant, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Shelley A.
Runion, Husch Blackwell LLP & Stephen B. Kinnaird, Paul Hastings
LLP.

BASF Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brian R. Markley,
Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, David F. Oliver, Berkowitz Oliver
Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLP, Floyd R. Finch, Jr, Floyd Finch
Law Offices, James E. Barz, Robbins, Gelle, Rudman& Dowd LLP,
Jason Brett Fliegel, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP & Ian N.
Feinberg, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, LLP.

Lyondell Chemical Company, Defendant, represented by Bryan Turner
White, White, Allinder, Graham, Buckley & Carr LLC, Charles W.
German, Rouse Hendricks German May, David F. Oliver, Berkowitz
Oliver Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLP, Floyd R. Finch, Jr, Floyd
Finch Law Offices, Jason Brett Fliegel, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw
LLP, Jennifer Quinn-Barabanov, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Phillip G.
Greenfield, Rouse Hendricks German May, Robert Fleishman, Steptoe
& Johnson LLP, Steven P. Benenson, Porzio, Bromberg & Newman,
William C. Cagney, Windels, Marx, Lane & Mittendorf, LLP & Erica
Mueller, Steptoe & Johnson LLP.

BASF SE, Defendant, represented by Brian R. Markley, Stinson
Morrison Hecker LLP & David F. Oliver, Berkowitz Oliver Williams
Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLP.

Basf Coordination Center Comm. V, Defendant, represented by Brian
R. Markley, Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, David F. Oliver,
Berkowitz Oliver Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLP & Richard J.
Leveridge, Dickstein Shapiro, LLP.

Uwe Hartwig, Defendant, represented by Brian R. Markley, Stinson
Morrison Hecker LLP, Craig E. Ziegler, Montgomery, McCracken,
Walker & Rhodes, LLP & Richard L. Scheff, Montgomery, McCracken,
Walker & Rhodes, LLP.

Jean-Pierre Dhanis, Defendant, represented by Brian R. Markley,
Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP & William J. Linklater, Baker &
McKenzie.

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Miscellaneous,
represented by Jeffrey N. Luthi, Clerk of the MDL Panel.
Crosslink Technology, Inc., Movant, represented by David W.
Stanley, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP & Deborah B. McIlhenny,
Hutton & Hutton Law Firm, LLC.

Lawrence Stern, Movant, represented by D. Jarrett Arp, Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & John W. F. Chesley, Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, LLP.

Chemtura Corporation, Movant, represented by Edward G. Biester,
III, Duane Morris LLP.

United States of America, Movant, represented by Michael F. Wood,
U.S. Department of Justice.

Frank Donota, Movant, represented by Barry J. Pollack, Miller &
Chevalier.

Peter Farah, Movant, represented by Barry J. Pollack, Miller &
Chevalier.

Fil Fonseca, Movant, Pro Se.

Ted Giroux, Movant, Pro Se.

Gerry Hannah, Movant, Pro Se.

Rik Hennink, Movant, Pro Se.

Melvyn Himel, Movant, represented by Barry J. Pollack, Miller &
Chevalier.

William Lucas, Movant, Pro Se.

Stanley Miller, Movant, Pro Se.

George Newton, Movant, Pro Se.

Steve Pendock, Movant, represented by Barry J. Pollack, Miller &
Chevalier.

Timothy Prescott, Movant, Pro Se.

Frank Roncadin, Movant, Pro Se.

Normand Widmer, Movant, Pro Se.

David Gurley, Movant, Pro Se.

Wm. T. Burnett & Company, Interested Party, represented by James
K. Archibald, Venable LLP & William D. Coston, Venable LLP.

Werner Spinner, Interested Party, represented by Damon Elder,
Arnold & Porter, LLP & Danielle M. Garten, Arnold & Porter, LLP.

Dennis MCullough, Interested Party, represented by Damon Elder,
Arnold & Porter, LLP & Danielle M. Garten, Arnold & Porter, LLP.

Hans Christian Buhse, Interested Party, represented by Damon
Elder, Arnold & Porter, LLP & Danielle M. Garten, Arnold & Porter,
LLP.

Intervenors, Interested Party, represented by Eric D. Barton,
Wagstaff & Cartmell, LLP.

Michael D. Crowell, Material Witness, represented by Emily Yoder,
Hanna Campbell & Powell, LLP.

Charles Moeller, Material Witness, represented by Emily Yoder,
Hanna Campbell & Powell, LLP.

Buster Mann, Material Witness, represented by Terrence J.
Campbell, Barber Emerson, LC.

Lee Lunsford, Material Witness, represented by Terrence J.
Campbell, Barber Emerson, LC.

Don Simpson, Material Witness, represented by Terrence J.
Campbell, Barber Emerson, LC.

Todd Councilman, Material Witness, represented by Terrence J.
Campbell, Barber Emerson, LC.

BASF Corporation, Counter Claimant, represented by David F.
Oliver, Berkowitz Oliver Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLP & James
E. Barz, Robbins, Gelle, Rudman& Dowd LLP.

Seegott Holdings, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Anthony
D. Shapiro, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Donald L. Perelman,
Fine, Kaplan and Black, RPC, Henry J. Handzel, Jr., DeWitt Ross &
Stevens S.C., J. Bruce McKissock, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner,
Coleman & Goggin, Jonathon P. Axelrod, DeWitt Ross & Stevens S.C.,
Laura Alexander, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll, PLLC, Michael J.
Guzman, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC, Michael
P. Lehmann, Furth Lehmann& Grant, LLP, Michael N. Nemelka,
Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC, Sharon K.
Robertson, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll, PLLC, Simon Paris,
Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky PC, Thomas A. Muzilla, The
Muzilla Law Firm, LLC, Brent W. Johnson, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers
& Toll, PLLC & Joshua D. Snyder, Boni & Zack, LLC.


BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS: Faces Class Action in Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP on Sept. 10 disclosed that a class action has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia (Alexandria Division) Case No. 1:13-cv-1056,
on behalf of individuals who sold securities of The Bureau of
National Affairs Inc. from March 21, 2011 through August 25, 2011.
The case is styled Eileen Joseph, et al. v. The Bureau of National
Affairs, Inc., et al. A copy of the complaint can be found at
securitiesclassaction.dinsmore.com

Plaintiffs seek certification of a proposed class of all persons
who sold BNA stock through The BNA Stock Purchase and Transfer
Plan from March 21, 2011 through August 25, 2011 and received
$17.50 per share for the Stock.  The Class excludes: (i) any
Defendants named in the Complaint; (ii) any officers and directors
of the Company during the Class Period; (iii) any individuals who
may be liable for the claims asserted in the Complaint; and (iv)
any members of the immediate families of any person described in
(i) through (iii).

Plaintiffs seek to recover actual damages in the amount of any
losses suffered by the Class as a result of the Defendants'
alleged wrongdoing.  The Complaint contains allegations that BNA
and certain of its officers and directors violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 through omissions and misrepresentations made
to Class Members.  According to the Complaint, at the BNA Board
meeting on March 10, 2011, the directors responsible for setting
the price of Company Stock undervalued the Stock by setting the
price at $17.50 per share when they knew that the Stock was worth
substantially more because the Company was for sale.  The
Complaint further alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
purposely omitted information regarding the sale of the Company
from their communications with Class Members and then allowed
Class Members to sell their Stock back to the Company at the
undervalued price of $17.50 per share through the continued
operation of the SPTP.  On August 25, 2011, BNA announced that the
Company had entered into an agreement for Bloomberg to acquire all
of the outstanding shares of Company Stock for $39.50 per share in
a cash tender offer.  Plaintiffs assert in the Complaint that
Defendants by their actions deprived the Class Members of the
$22.00 per share premium Class Members would have received had
they tendered their shares to Bloomberg for $39.50 per share.

The Complaint also contains allegations that some of the
Defendants, by virtue of their positions as controlling persons
within the meaning of Sec. 20 of the Securities Act, had the
authority to correct the misrepresentations and omissions
described in the Complaint but failed to do so, thereby making
these Defendants liable for BNA's alleged violations of the
Securities Act.  In addition, the Complaint contains allegations
that during the Class Period BNA and certain of the named
Defendants acquired additional Company Stock at the undervalued
price of $17.50 per share based upon material nonpublic
information.  According to these allegations, any Defendant who
acquired more Stock during the Class Period had a duty to either
disclose the material non-public information or to abstain from
trading in Company Stock while in possession of such information.
Plaintiffs assert that by failing to either disclose or abstain,
the Defendants who acquired more stock violated the Securities
Act.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4, if you are a member of the
proposed class described above, you may move the Court not later
than 60 days from the date of this Notice to be appointed by the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff for the federal securities law
violations discussed above.

15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4 provides that the Court shall appoint as lead
plaintiff the member or members of the class that the Court
determines to be most capable of adequately representing the
interest of the class members with respect thereto.  In making
this determination, the Court shall adopt a rebuttable presumption
that the most adequate plaintiff is the person or group that has
either filed a complaint or made a motion for appointment as lead
plaintiff, has the largest financial interest in the relief sought
by the class, and otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which at the stage of
selection of lead plaintiff, includes a showing that the lead
plaintiff has claims that are typical of class members and will be
an adequate representative of the class, including the absence of
material conflicts of interest with the other class members.

If you wish to discuss this Action or have any questions
concerning this Notice or your rights or interest with respect to
these matters, you may contact Plaintiffs' counsel,
William A. Sherman, Esq. of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP at 1-800-934-3477
or 202-372-9117, or via e-mail at william.sherman@dinsmore.com
Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through current Plaintiffs' counsel or through
counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member.


CALIFORNIA: NSA Monitoring Factors Into 9th Cir. Trial
------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports that the NSA's
controversial domestic surveillance program factored into a 9th
Circuit hearing September 11, 2013, on California's monitoring of
sex offenders.

Proposition 35, passed by voters last year, mostly aims to punish
human traffickers, but also mandates that sex offenders give
police a complete list of their usernames, screen names, email
addresses and Internet service providers within 24 hours of
setting up a new account or screen name.  Failure to do so carries
up to three years in prison.

Two anonymous sex offenders who were convicted in 1986 and 1992
quickly filed suit, challenging the provision as overly broad and
a burden on their right to anonymous online free speech, such as
posting on Internet forums.

U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson gave the class an injunction
earlier this year.

At an appellate hearing September 11, 2013, Deputy Attorney
General Robert Wilson noted that California has been collecting
information on sex offenders since November 2012, with no
incidents of retaliation by police or suppression of free speech.

"There's no getting around the fact that California has been
collecting this information from tens of thousands of registrants
for a year and a half, with none of the problems that plaintiffs
complained about," Wilson said.

Judge Jay Bybee interjected: "It's very difficult to quantify
chilling, isn't it?"

"We're dealing in the post-Snowden era where we're wondering if
all of our Internet communications are being monitored by the
NSA," he added.  "And we've got a little different situation here,
but these are folks that are going to have to report all of their
monikers that are used on the Internet and have no idea whether
the police are regularly trolling to monitor everything that they
say on the Internet."

Wilson replied: "It's just as improper for law enforcement as
anyone else to be monitoring this noncriminal communications.
There has to be a nexus between criminal activity and looking at
this information."  He added, "There is no possible way of writing
a statute any narrowly than we have now."

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the plaintiff
sex offenders, worries that a police record of usernames and
screen names will stop registrants from posting freely on the
Internet without the fear of retaliation.

"This is a law that directly targets speech," ACLU attorney
Michael Risher said.  "What registrant is going to want to make a
comment on his local newspaper's website about the police
department, a nasty comment, knowing they have his identifier on
file?  It's very easy for the police to make a registrant's life
difficult."

The attorney for Prop. 35's backers said the law mandates a simple
registration requirement that does not disclose the registrant's
identity.

"Proposition 35 imposes a registration requirement, it doesn't
regulate speech," attorney James Harrison said.  "It doesn't
prevent sex offenders from speaking online, even anonymously.  It
doesn't require registration as a condition of speaking; it
doesn't require sex offenders to disclose their identity when they
speak; it doesn't suppress a type of viewpoint, or any viewpoint
at all."

"Internet identifiers are in today's world, essentially a virtual
mask," he continued.  "To the extent that Prop. 35 affects
expressive activity at all, it's not different than the
requirement that sex offenders provide law enforcement with their
aliases and other identifying information."

Use of the Internet by sex offenders to commit crimes rose between
2000 and 2006, the lawyer added.

"The fact that a registered sex offender didn't use the Internet
to commit his first crime or facilitate it doesn't mean that he
might not use the Internet in the future," Harrison said.

This point failed to sway Judge Mary Schroeder.

"That's true of all of us -- that just because we haven't been sex
criminals in the past, that we might not be in the future,"
Schroeder said.  "I don't see how that the sex criminal [act]
itself is a predictor of use of the Internet."

Harrison replied: "While I understand that not every sex offender
will be recidivist or use the Internet to facilitate their crime,
this burden on sex offenders is very low compared to the benefit
to law enforcement and the public at large in protecting
themselves against predators."

Risher, the ACLU lawyer, called Harrison's point specious.

"Many registrants pose no more risk of re-offending sexually than
do people who have never been convicted of a sex offense," Risher
said.


CAPSTONE COLLEGIATE: May Face Class Action Over Cottages of Boone
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Wood, writing for High Country Press, reports that a class
action lawsuit may be brewing against Capstone Collegiate
Communities, the Birmingham-based developer behind The Cottages of
Boone, a student housing development just outside of Boone in
Watauga County that was scheduled to house all 894 students before
the fall semester during the middle of August.

As of Sept. 7, the Watauga County Planning & Inspections
department has issued certificates of occupancy for more than half
of the buildings and units -- including 534 bedrooms.  In an
email, WCP&I Director Joe Furman said, "There probably won't any
finals for a while; nothing is ready yet."

Colleen Ledford, an Asheville-based parent of two students
currently living in the development, said on Sept. 10 that she
contacted the Clement Law Office in Boone about pursuing a
class-action lawsuit and finding other interested parents and
tenants with grievances related to The Cottages of Boone.

"I was hoping to handle this reasonably through The Cottages of
Boone, but they haven't been at all helpful," Ms. Ledford said.
"I've tried to talk to management, and they don't seem to care
. . . They insist they are doing everything within their legal
rights.  I've gotten to the point now where I either roll over or
fight."

She said she wasn't trying to make a bunch of money with this
potential lawsuit, however she feels some compensation -- perhaps
one-half of months rent until the development is finished -- is
warranted because she is paying a "good chunk of change for
substandard living conditions," which is not the "great
experience" that her kids signed up for.

She added that her son lived in a hotel for 10 days initially in
August but has since moved in.  While she said his living
conditions are acceptable -- aside from a broken window and a
front door that doesn't fit properly, her daughter is living
beside a construction zone with concrete trucks and construction
vehicles passing by.  She said there is so much dust floating
around that she can't open her window or sit outside on her porch.

"She's like a prisoner in her own home," Ms. Ledford said.  "While
I am glad she is in, I don't think this is acceptable."

Speaking a couple weeks ago, Watauga County Fire Marshal
Steve Sudderth noted how good of a job The Cottages of Boone were
doing separating the occupied areas and construction zones.
However, Ms. Ledford doesn't agree, noting that the only thing
separating her unit from the construction area is a "little fence
that's not really protecting anything."

She said that she and her husband would be paying leases in excess
of $15,000 over the next year and feared breaking the leases
because "they may sue us."

Reached on Sept. 11 Charlie Clement of Clement Law Office said he
hadn't spoken with Ms. Ledford and declined to comment on the
situation.

                       A Four-Day Notice

Another parent reached out to High Country Press on Sept. 10 to
voice frustration over how Capstone Collegiate Communities has
handled the development thus far.

Unlike Ms. Ledford's children, Judy Grant of Thomasville said her
son has yet to be housed in the development and is currently
staying in a hotel room.  He has actually been one of the lucky
ones who has had a hotel room all to himself -- rather than holed
up two-to-a-room like other tenants.

She said The Cottages of Boone management sent an email saying
that her son's unit would be ready by the first two weeks in
November.

"Clearly, the extent of this delay is beyond any of our original
anticipations," the email read, adding that The Cottages of Boone
was offering tenants a way out of their leases if they did not
want to continue living in a hotel room until their units were
completed.

"We are asking that you make every effort to decide which option
works best for your situation by 2:00 p.m., Saturday,
September 14, 2013.  If you elect to cancel your lease, you will
need to vacate your hotel by 10:00 a.m., Sunday, September 15,
2013," the email read.

This irked Ms. Grant to no end.

She echoed Ms. Ledford's comments about the lack of communication
during the past three months, about The Cottages of Boone not
being upfront about the delays and now in the last hour they give
the students four days to figure out if they can find another
place to live while going to school.  She mentioned that The
Cottages of Boone's units came furnished, so that means if they
were to move they would have to figure that out as well.  She said
she can't afford to take off work to help her son find another
place to live and then furnish it.

"I've kept my mouth shut the whole time," Ms. Grant said -- but
not any more.  "What really irks me is they are giving the kids
four days, tying their hands and demanding a decision by 2
o'clock."

She added that these kids should not have to be worrying about
anything other than studying.

"This has not been a good experience," Ms. Grant concluded.  "It's
just so frustrating."

                   Principal of Capstone Responds

While a spokesperson for The Cottages of Boone hasn't returned
calls since the delays began to mount earlier this summer,
John Vawter Sr., principal of Capstone, answered a phone call to
his cell on Sept. 11.

Asked if he had heard about a potential class action lawsuit
against Capstone because of The Cottages of Boone development,
Mr. Vawter said he would "rather not comment" about that.

Asked if he felt the communication between the company and tenants
has been "sufficient," he responded that "it's a very complicated
equation."

"We are trying to give as much accurate information to residents
and parents as possible," Mr. Vawter said, adding, though, that
the relay of information hasn't been "perfect."

As for the reasons of the delays, he noted the previous winter
weather and the rainy season this summer as being "difficult."

"The difficult thing is it's not because of lack of trying or
spending all the tremendous resources to try to get it finished.
The weather really caused havoc, not only for us, but for our
subs," Mr. Vawter said, adding that the "remote" location of Boone
has been very challenging from a "site-work standpoint."

He reiterated how disappointed he is on how the project has
progressed thus far.

"Nobody is anymore disappointed than I am, than Capstone is.  This
is all we do is student housing.  If we aren't good at what we are
doing and not making our customers happy that's not a good
business formula," Mr. Vawter said.  "So we truly want to make all
of these residents happy, and we understand living in a hotel is
not an ideal situation."

In reference to the four-day decision to move out, Mr. Vawter
replied that he "wants to stick" with that time frame but would be
"happy to talk" further if someone isn't able to make a decision
right off the bat.


CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Obtains Favorable Ruling in "Sims" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed
a district court's denial of leave to amend and a denial of a
motion for reconsideration in SIMS v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE
SERVICES, L.L.C.

Frankie and Patsy Sims took an appeal from the dismissal of their
complaint against Carrington Mortgage Services, L.L.C., as well as
the district court's refusal to allow them to amend their
complaint to add additional legal theories and its denial of their
motion for reconsideration.

According to the ruling, because the remaining issues in this case
raise important and determinative questions of Texas law as to
which there are no controlling Supreme Court of Texas precedents,
the Fifth Circuit certifies these unresolved questions to the
Supreme Court of Texas:

1. After an initial extension of credit, if a home equity lender
   enters into a new agreement with the borrower that capitalizes
   past-due interest, fees, property taxes, or insurance premiums
   into the principal of the loan but neither satisfies nor
   replaces the original note, is the transaction a modification
   or a refinance for purposes of section 50 of Article XVI of the
   Texas Constitution?

   If the transaction is a modification rather than a refinance,
   the following questions also arise:

2. Does the capitalization of past-due interest, fees, property
   taxes, or insurance premiums constitute an impermissible
   "advance of additional funds" under section 153.14(2)(B) of the
   Texas Administrative Code?

3. Must such a modification comply with the requirements of
   section 50(a)(6), including subsection (B), which mandates that
   a home equity loan have a maximum loan-to-value ratio of 80%?

4. Do repeated modifications like those in this case convert a
   home equity loan into an open-end account that must comply with
   section 50(t)?

The case is FRANKIE SIMS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated; PATSY SIMS, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CARRINGTON
MORTGAGE SERVICES, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellee, NO. 12-10978.

A copy of the Appeals Court's August 14, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/oMX0Ayfrom Leagle.com.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Dismissal of Securities Class Suit Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a securities class action lawsuit against
Chesapeake Energy Corporation appealed the dismissal of the case,
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.

A putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma on April 26, 2012, against the
Company and its former CEO, Aubrey K. McClendon.  On July 20,
2012, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, which filed an amended
complaint on October 19, 2012, against the Company, Mr. McClendon
and certain other officers.  The amended complaint asserted claims
under Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged
misrepresentations regarding the Company's asset monetization
strategy, including liabilities associated with its volumetric
production payment (VPP) transactions, as well as Mr. McClendon's
personal loans and the Company's internal controls.  On
December 6, 2012, the Company and other defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the action.  On April 10, 2013, the Court granted the
motion, and on April 16, 2013, entered judgment against the
plaintiff and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.  The
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on June 14, 2013, in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.  The Company is currently
unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate a range of
potential loss associated with this matter.

Chesapeake Energy Corporation -- http://www.chk.com/-- is a
producer of natural gas, a producer of oil and natural gas liquids
and an active driller of new wells in the United States of
America.  Headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, the Company's
operations are focused on discovering and developing
unconventional natural gas and oil fields onshore in the U.S.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Dismissal of Suit Over 2008 Offering Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in a class action lawsuit arising from Chesapeake
Energy Corporation's July 2008 common stock offering appealed the
dismissal of the case, 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 February 25, 2009, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors along with
certain underwriters of the Company's July 2008 common stock
offering.  The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
September 11, 2009, alleging that the registration statement for
the offering contained material misstatements and omissions and
seeking damages under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 of an unspecified amount and rescission.  The action was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma on October 13, 2009.  Chesapeake and the officer and
director defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds of loss
causation and materiality on December 16, 2011, and the motion was
granted as to all claims as a matter of law on March 29, 2013.
Final judgment in favor of Chesapeake and the officer and director
defendants was entered on June 21, 2013, and the plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal on July 19, 2013, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit.  The Company is currently unable to assess
the probability of loss or estimate a range of potential loss
associated with this matter.

Chesapeake Energy Corporation -- http://www.chk.com/-- is a
producer of natural gas, a producer of oil and natural gas liquids
and an active driller of new wells in the United States of
America.  Headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, the Company's
operations are focused on discovering and developing
unconventional natural gas and oil fields onshore in the U.S.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation is still awaiting a court decision
on its motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, 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 and July 2012, three putative class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
against the Company, Chesapeake Energy Savings and Incentive Stock
Bonus Plan (the Plan), and certain of the Company's officers and
directors alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).  The three cases have been
consolidated, and the Plan is not named in the consolidated
amended complaint which was filed on February 21, 2013.  The
action is brought on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of
the Plan, and alleges that as fiduciaries of the Plan, the
defendants owed fiduciary duties, which they purportedly breached
by, among other things, failing to manage and administer the
Plan's assets with appropriate skill and care, and engaging in
activities that were in conflict with the best interest of the
Plan.  The plaintiffs seek class certification, damages of an
unspecified amount, equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and
other costs.  The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
April 22, 2013, and the plaintiffs opposed on June 18, 2013.  The
Company is currently unable to assess the probability of loss or
estimate a range of potential loss associated with this matter.

Chesapeake Energy Corporation -- http://www.chk.com/-- is a
producer of natural gas, a producer of oil and natural gas liquids
and an active driller of new wells in the United States of
America.  Headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, the Company's
operations are focused on discovering and developing
unconventional natural gas and oil fields onshore in the U.S.


COLUMBIA BANKING: Yet to File Settlement Docs in Merger Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia Banking System, Inc., is yet to file with the court for
approval its settlement of a consolidated merger-related class
action lawsuit, 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 1, 2013, the Company completed its acquisition of West
Coast Bancorp ("West Coast").  The Company acquired 100% of the
voting equity interests of West Coast.  The primary reason for the
acquisition was to expand the Company's geographic footprint
consistent with its ongoing growth strategy.

On October 3, 2012, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah
against West Coast, its directors, and the Company challenging the
merger: Gary M. Klein v. West Coast Bancorp, et al., Case No.
1210-12431.  The complaint names as defendants West Coast, all of
the former members of West Coast's board of directors, and the
Company.  The complaint alleges that the West Coast directors
breached their fiduciary duties to West Coast and West Coast
shareholders by agreeing to the merger at an unfair price.  The
complaint also alleges that the merger was being driven by an
unfair process, that the directors approved provisions in the
merger agreement that constitute preclusive deal protection
devices, that certain large shareholders of West Coast were using
the merger as an opportunity to sell their illiquid holdings in
West Coast, and that West Coast directors and officers would
obtain personal benefits from the merger not shared equally by
other West Coast shareholders.  The complaint further alleges that
West Coast and the Company aided and abetted the directors'
alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties.  Thereafter, a second
lawsuit challenging the merger was filed in the Circuit Court of
the State of Oregon for Clackamas County: Leoni v. West Coast
Bancorp et al., Case No. CV12100728.  The parties have previously
stipulated to the consolidation of the two lawsuits for all
purposes in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah
County, and the Company and West Coast have consented to the
filing of an unopposed motion to consolidate both lawsuits and the
Court extended the time for the defendants to file a responsive
pleading on August 30, 2013.

While the Company believes that the claims in both complaints were
without merit, the Company agreed, in order to avoid the expense
and burden of continued litigation and pursuant to the terms of
the proposed settlement, to make certain supplemental disclosures
in the joint proxy statement/prospectus related to the merger.
Accordingly, prior to the closing of the merger on April 1, 2013,
West Coast and the other defendants in the two actions entered
into a memorandum of understanding to settle both actions.
Subject to completion of certain confirmatory discovery by
plaintiffs' counsel, the memorandum of understanding contemplates
that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement.  The
stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions,
including court approval following notice to West Coast's
stockholders.  In the event that the parties enter into a
stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which
the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah County will
consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
settlement.  If the settlement is finally approved by the court,
it will resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or
could have been brought challenging any aspect of the merger, the
merger agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders before
final approval of the settlement.  There can be no assurance that
the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement
or that the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah
County will approve the settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such stipulation.  In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may
be terminated.

Columbia Banking System, Inc. -- http://www.columbiabank.com/--
is a registered bank holding company whose wholly owned banking
subsidiary, Columbia State Bank.  The Company also does business
under the Bank of Astoria name and conducts full-service
commercial banking business in the states of Washington and
Oregon.  Headquartered in Tacoma, Washington, the Company provides
a full range of banking services to small and medium-sized
businesses, professionals and individuals.


CUNA MUTUAL: S.C. Overturns Class Cert. Denial in "Thurman" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Severson of the Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed a
trial court's denial of class certification in THURMAN v. CUNA
MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETY.

Edward D. and Kathy L. Thurman filed the class action lawsuit
against CUNA Mutual Insurance Society and Black Hills Federal
Credit Union for changing their credit disability insurance
policy. The lawsuit alleges that CUNA Mutual Insurance Society and
Black Hills Federal Credit Union wrongfully switched the credit
disability insurance policies of 4,461 borrowers. The Thurmans
filed a motion for class certification, which was denied by the
trial court. The Thurmans petitioned the Supreme Court of South
Dakota for a discretionary appeal of the class certification
order.

Judge Severson held that the trial court erred in its application
of class certification statutes to the facts in the case.

Judge Severson remands the case to the trial court for
certification of the class.

The case is EDWARD D. THURMAN and KATHY L. THURMAN, AS NAMED
PLAINTIFFS ON BEHALF OF A CLASS, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
CUNA MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETY and BLACK HILLS FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION, Defendants and Appellees, NO. 26463-REV & REM-GAS.

A copy of the Supreme Court's August 14, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/kgZF4Sfrom Leagle.com.

Attorneys for plaintiffs and appellants are JAMES D. LEACH --
jim@southdakotajustice.com -- Rapid City, South Dakota, and:

   MICHAEL A. WILSON, Esq.
   Barker Wilson Law Firm, LLP,
   730 South St.
   Rapid City, SD 57701
   Phone: 605-719-5195

ROGER K. HEIDENREICH -- roger.heidenreich@dentons.com -- of
Dentons US LLP, St. Louis, Missouri, and CATHERINE M. SABERS --
csabers@lynnjackson.com -- THOMAS G. FRITZ --
tfritz@lynnjackson.com --  of Lynn, Jackson, Shultz & Lebrun, PC,
Rapid City, South Dakota, Attorneys for defendant and appellee
CUNA Mutual Insurance.

FRANK A. BETTMAN -- frankb@resultlaw.com -- TODD LOVE --
toddl@resultlaw.com --of Bettman, Hogue & Diedrich, Prof., LLC,
Rapid City, South Dakota Attorneys for defendant and appellee
Black Hills Federal, Credit Union.


DELCATH SYSTEMS: Amended Securities Complaint Due on Sept. 18
-------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated amended complaint in the lawsuit titled In re
Delcath Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation is due on
September 18, 2013, 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 8, 2013, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Bryan
Green, individually and on behalf of all others similar situated,
v. Delcath Systems, Inc., et al. ("Green"), Case No. 1:13-cv-
03116-LGS.  On June 14, 2013, a substantially similar complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Joseph Connico, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Delcath Systems,
Inc., et al. ("Connico"), Case No. 1:13-cv-04131-LGS.

Both complaints name the Company, Eamonn P. Hobbs, and Krishna
Kandarpa, as defendants (the "Defendants").  The complaints assert
that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly making false and
misleading statements or omissions regarding (i) the Company's New
Drug Application for its Melblez Kit (Melblez (melphalan) for
Injection for use with the Delcath Hepatic Delivery System), for
the treatment of patients with unresectable metastatic ocular
melanoma in the liver, and (ii) the status of the Company's
manufacturing facilities.  The putative class period alleged in
both complaints is April 21, 2010, through and including May 2,
2013.  The plaintiff in the Green action seeks compensatory
damages, rescissionary damages, equitable relief, and reasonable
attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs, and the plaintiff in
the Connico action seeks damages, as well as reasonable attorneys'
fees, expert fees and other costs.  At a hearing on August 2,
2013, the Court consolidated the Green and Connico actions under
the caption In re Delcath Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No.
13-cv-3116, appointed Lead Plaintiff, Delcath Investor Group, and
approved Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP as Lead
Plaintiff's choice of counsel.  Further, the Court ordered that
the consolidated amended complaint in In re Delcath Systems, Inc.
Securities Litigation will be due on September 18, 2013, and set a
briefing schedule with respect to the anticipated motion to
dismiss.

The Company believes that the In re Delcath Systems, Inc.
Securities Litigation action lacks merit and intends to defend the
cases vigorously.

Delcath Systems, Inc. -- http://delcath.com/-- is a specialty
pharmaceutical and medical device company focused on oncology.
The Company's proprietary technology is designed to administer
high-dose chemotherapy to diseased organs or regions of the body,
while controlling the systemic exposure of those agents.  The
Company is based in Queensbury, New York.


DES MOINES, IA: Attorneys Seek $15MM Payment in Franchise Fee Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Schettler, writing for Des Moines Register, reports that the
three attorneys who have fought the City of Des Moines' franchise
fee for nine years are now hoping for a big payout.

The attorneys who represented Lisa Kragnes in her lawsuit against
Des Moines have asked a Polk County District Court judge to award
them $14.8 million, or 37 percent of the $40 million judgment,
according to court documents.  The lawyers also asked to be
reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses of about $560,597.79.

A hearing on the request and the appointment of a class action
administrator is scheduled for Monday, Sept. 16.

The attorneys' requests are among the last issues that need to be
agreed upon before refunds can begin to be distributed to Des
Moines residents and property owners.  The refunds will mark the
end of the lawsuit that began in 2004 when resident Lisa Kragnes
filed a class-action lawsuit challenging to the city's fee on gas
and electric bills.

The case included a 14-day trial, two Iowa Supreme Court appeals
and a petition for writ of certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme
Court.  The city of Des Moines ultimately was ordered to refund
more than $39.9 million that was deemed to have been collected
from the illegal tax.

Ms. Kragnes' attorneys -- Bruce Stoltze, Brad Schroeder and Steve
Brick -- argued in a brief filed at Polk County District Court
that the length of the case, its intricacy and the fact that it
went through the entire judicial process (as opposed reaching a
settlement agreement) are all contributing factors for the
requested amount.  So far, the attorneys have not received any
payment for their work, according to court documents.

"In short, Class counsel undertook a very risky case and
competently devoted their time, energy and assets to achieving
significant results for the Class," the brief in support of their
request reads.

Schroeder, in his affidavit supporting the $14.8 million request,
said he has spent 2,121.58 hours working on the case.  Others in
his firm worked 223 hours on the case.  According to Mr. Stoltze's
affidavit, he has recorded 4,301.6 hours of work on the case.
Others in his officer worked 1,391 hours on the case.  Mr. Brick,
in his affidavit, said he worked 2,504.8 hours on the case; others
in his office worked 93.8 hours.  Overall, with all the hours the
attorneys and their staffs worked, they are asking to be paid
$1,404 an hour for work on the case.

Mr. Stoltze, in his affidavit, also argued that Ms. Kragnes should
receive $7,500 for serving as the class representative, which
involved attending court hearings and being questioned by the city
during the trial.

The plaintiffs' attorneys also requested the court appoint Rust
Consulting as the class administrator, who will be responsible for
issuing the actual refund.  The Minneapolis-based consulting firm
was one of three that was asked to submit a request for proposal
to serve as the administrator.  A motion filed by Ms. Kragnes'
attorneys indicates that the city and the judge are in agreement
with the selection.


EBAY INC: District Court Dismisses Suit Over Spyware
----------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
angry eBay sellers must amend claims that the auction Web site
planted spyware on their computers and opened them up to fraud, a
federal judge ruled.

Maggie Campbell hopes to represent a class of sellers suing eBay
and its wholly owned payment processor PayPal.  Her October 2012
complaint alleged that eBay fails to protect "sellers from the
fraud of unscrupulous buyers" through its buyer-is-always-right
policy during disputes between buyers and sellers.

Campbell, who said she uses eBay to sell bicycles and bicycle
parts, claims this policy wrongfully deprives sellers of both
their goods and the money they received for the goods, which
PayPal refunds to buyers.  But the sites allegedly do not refund
sellers the listing fees for their items after disputes.

Among other things, the class also claims eBay plants spyware on
sellers' computers through its seller-protection software; tricks
people into creating seller accounts by falsely representing that
they can sell anything, when eBay in fact heavily restricts what
people can list for sale; and forces buyers and sellers to
communicate solely through the Web site so it can "change people's
messages to suit its purposes."

EBay sought dismissal, saying the plaintiffs lacked standing to
bring claims and failed to support their claims with sufficient
facts.  It added that sellers all signed its user agreement, which
included its policy on restricted sale items, when they create
accounts.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers dismissed the complaint
with leave to amend September 12, 2013.

Campbell's arguments failed to allege that eBay's policies
actually damaged her, and revolved instead around theoretical
situations, Rogers wrote.  Among other things, Campbell did not
claim that eBay ever resolved a dispute between her and a buyer in
favor of the buyer, that eBay prevented her from listing a
specific item for sale, or that eBay ever restricted her accounts
in any way, according to the ruling.

"As a result, plaintiff fails to allege a claim and, more
significantly, fails to allege a basis for standing.  Thus, the
motion to dismiss on standing grounds is granted," Rogers wrote.

EBay argues that the terms of its user agreement and prohibited
items policy, which Campbell admits to having signed, bars many of
the claims.

Rogers agreed but noted that Campbell can amend her complaint to
"address the nature of the restrictions that are the basis of her
complaint and why those restrictions are not part of the agreement
she acceded to as part of her user agreement with eBay."

Rogers also dismissed claims for breach of fiduciary duty, finding
that the plaintiffs failed to establish a fiduciary relationship
between themselves and eBay.

Campbell argued that eBay owed a fiduciary duty to its buyers and
sellers because it acted as the agent of their transactions and
had the power to edit their correspondences.

Rogers was not convinced.

"Plaintiff's argument is without substance or apparent merit under
applicable California law," she wrote.

"In short, the FAC does not allege facts to show the nature of the
fiduciary relationship or the breach of that duty, and the
opposition does little to explain how plaintiff would cure this
problem," Rogers added, abbreviating first amended complaint.
"Mere conclusory allegations on this point will not suffice."

The judge dismissed claims of fraud and unfair competition for the
same reason, saying that Campbell failed to state a plausible
claim.

Claims under the California Legal Remedies Act also failed as
"unclear," according to the ruling.

Campbell failed to prove that eBay's allegedly fraudulent
practices, such as forcing sellers to add shipping costs to sale
prices, actually injured her, the judge found.

An amended complaint that sets "forth facts sufficient to
establish each claim, the defendants against whom it is stated,
and the legal grounds upon which it is based" is due October 22.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. David Franklin, Esq.
          FRANKLIN & FRANKLIN
          550 West C Street, Suite 950
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-6300

               - and -

          Anthony Albert Ferrigno, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY A. FERRIGNO
          1116 Ingleside Ave.
          Athens, TN 37303
          Telephone: (423) 744-4041
          Facsimile: (925) 945-8792
          E-mail: A-trust-fraudlaw@msn.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Heather Annette Dunn Navarro, Esq.
          John C. Dwyer, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          Five Palo Alto Square
          3000 El Camino Real
          Palo Alto, CA 94306
          Telephone: (650) 843-5649
          Facsimile: (650) 857-0663
          E-mail: navarrohd@cooley.com
                  dwyerjc@cooley.com

               - and -

          Kara Corinne Wilson, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          1114 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036-7798
          Telephone: (212) 479-6545
          Facsimile: (212) 479-6275
          E-mail: kwilson@cooley.com

The case is Campbell v. EBAY, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:13-cv-
02632-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (Oakland).


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Wants Lid on Vernon Plant Suit and Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Rochelle, the bankruptcy columnist for Bloomberg News,
reports that lead-acid battery maker Exide Technologies and the
official creditors' committee are against the idea of allowing a
class lawsuit to proceed on behalf of Los Angeles residents
exposed to lead from the plant in Vernon, California.

The report recounts that about six weeks before bankruptcy, a
class lawsuit was filed in the name of an individual named Zach
Hernandez.  It is based partly on a determination by state
environmental regulators that the Vernon plan should close.

According to the report, lawyers for Hernandez want permission to
file one claim in the Exide bankruptcy on behalf of everyone who
suffered damage from exposure to lead from the Vernon plant.  They
also want the bankruptcy judge to allow the California lawsuit to
proceed.  Hernandez's lawyers are willing to collect only from
insurance.

Exide and the committee filed papers urging the bankruptcy court
in Delaware to continue a halt on the lawsuit and not allow a
class claim.  The issue comes up in bankruptcy court at a
September 17 hearing.

Where the class plaintiffs are seeking $115 million in damages,
Exide says it has an insurance policy with limits of $4 million
for each occurrence and $8 million in total.  The policy has a
$500,000 deductible.

There are already 100 lawsuit claims made against the policy,
Exide says.  There is no reason to allow the Vernon-plant
claimants to jump ahead of everyone else, the company says.  Even
if recovery were only against the insurance company, the lawsuit
would distract management, according to Exide.

                    About Exide Technologies

Headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey, Exide Technologies
(NASDAQ: XIDE) -- http://www.exide.com/-- manufactures and
distributes lead acid batteries and other related electrical
energy storage products.


GANEY CHEVROLET: Class Cert. Ruling in "Felix" Suit Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio for the Eighth District, Cuyahoga
County, affirmed a trial court order certifying a class in FELIX
v. GANEY CHEVROLET, INC.

The Appeals Court found that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in certifying the class in the case.

Justice Kenneth A. Rocco dissented saying that although he agrees
that Ganley's inclusion of the subject arbitration provision in
its consumer automobile sales agreements could constitute an
unfair or deceptive practice giving rise to an individual claim on
behalf of the Felixes under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act,
he believes that the Felixes failed to establish certain threshold
requirements under Civ.R. 23(A) and R.C. 1345.09(B) necessary to
maintain a CSPA class action based on these allegations.

The case is JEFFREY FELIX, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v. GANLEY
CHEVROLET, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, NO. 98985, 2013-
Ohio-3523.

A copy of the Appeals Court's August 15, 2013 Journal Entry and
Opinion is available at http://is.gd/ueaAGtfrom Leagle.com.

Attorneys for Appellants are David D. Yeagley --
dyeagley@ulmer.com -- Elizabeth M. Hill -- ehill@ulmer.com -- at
Ulmer & Berne L.L.P., Skylight Office Tower, 1660 West 2nd Street,
Suite 1100, Cleveland, Ohio 44113, and:

   A. Steven Dever, Esq.
   A. Steven Dever Co., L.P.A.
   13363 Madison Avenue
   Lakewood, Ohio 44107
   Phone: 216-228-1166
   E-mail: info@AStevenDever.com

Attorneys for Appellees are:

   Lewis A. Zipkin, Esq.
   Zipkin Whiting Co., L.P.A.
   3637 South Green Road
   Beachwood, Ohio 4412
   Phone: 888-339-6094 (toll-free)
          216-514-6400
   Fax: 216-514-6406

     - and -

   Mark Schlachet, Esq.
   3515 Severn Road
   Cleveland Heights, Ohio 44118


GOOGLE INC: Lieff Cabraser Comments on Street View Case Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Sept. 10 held
that Google's interception of private Wi-Fi communications by its
Street View vehicles violates the federal Wiretap Act. Commenting
on the decision, Kathryn E. Barnett of the national plaintiffs'
law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, stated:

"Although technology continually advances, the right to privacy in
our homes endures.  We are reassured that our courts continue to
uphold personal privacy as an important value, indeed it is a core
American value enshrined in our Constitution and our
communications statutes."

Lieff Cabraser serves as Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel in multi-
district litigation in federal court in San Francisco against
Google arising out of its interception of electronic
communications by Google's Street View vehicles.

Google Street View vehicles are equipped with cameras to take 360
degree views of streets and 3G/GSM/Wi-Fi antennas with custom-
designed software for the capture and storage of wireless signals
and data.  Since 2007, Google has deployed its Street View
vehicles across the U.S.

Plaintiffs in the nationwide class action lawsuit are individuals
who reside in various states and who maintained a Wi-Fi network in
their homes.  They used their Wi-Fi connection to send and receive
private data, including usernames, passwords and personal email
messages.

The consolidated class action charges that Google's Street View
vehicles not only collect images for inclusion in Google Maps and
Google Earth, but also are secretly imbedded with a wireless
sniffer system (also referred to as a packet analyzer) that
intercepts electronic communications and other data transmitted
over class members' wireless network.  While Google issued press
releases disclosing its intent to utilize the vehicles to take
photos, it failed to disclose its capture of Wi-Fi data.  Google
allegedly stored class members' data on its servers, and the data
includes email messages, usernames, passwords and other private
data.

                      About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP --
http://www.lieffcabraser.com-- is a sixty-plus attorney law firm
with offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville.  It is
among the largest law firms in the United States that only
represent plaintiffs.  It is committed to achieving justice for
consumers, employees, patients, investors, and small business
owners; promoting safer products and fair competition; protecting
our environment; assisting whistleblowers stop fraud in government
contracts and services; safeguarding the rights of inventors; and
remedying violations of civil and human rights.


HARTFORD CASUALTY: Wants TCPA Class Action Back in Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, reports that Hartford Casualty
Insurance Co. on Sept. 10 pressed the Seventh Circuit to bring a
coverage suit arising from the $17.8 million settlement of a junk
fax class action back to federal court, claiming the plaintiff
resorted to tricky pleading to avoid federal jurisdiction.

In June, a federal judge remanded Addison Automatics Inc.'s suit
against the insurer to Illinois state court, finding that the
coverage suit was not itself a class action and thus not subject
to federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.
Hartford then appealed the ruling to the Seventh Circuit.

During oral arguments on Sept. 10 in Chicago, an attorney for the
insurer argued that the suit bore all the hallmarks of a class
action.  Addison's "coy" attempt to dress up the coverage suit as
an individual action seeking a declaratory judgment could not hide
its true nature, according to Steven Levy of Dentons US LLP, who
represents Hartford.

Addison -- the designated representative for the settlement class
-- originally signed its complaint against Hartford on behalf of
the entire class, but backpedaled and fixed the mistake in an
amended complaint to escape federal jurisdiction under CAFA, the
attorney said.

This violated a clear rule that post-removal changes can't dodge
CAFA jurisdiction, according to Levy, and the suit still seeks a
declaration that Hartford is responsible for the entire value of
the policy, not just Addison's $16,000 portion of the settlement.

"They wanted to have it both ways," he said.

The coverage litigation stems from the underlying class action
that Addison lodged against Domino Plastics Inc. in August 2010.
The suit alleged that Domino had violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act by sending out
unsolicited faxes, and that company and the proposed class ended
up entering a settlement deal where Domino agreed to have a $17.8
million judgment entered against it, according to court documents.

In an appellate brief, Hartford further argued that allowing the
district court's remand order to stand would set a troubling
precedent allowing class representatives, acting as individuals,
to collect class judgments outside federal court.

"If they succeed, other class members may then argue that the
decision as to an 'individual' is binding on the defendant,
thereby robbing defendants of their right to litigate in federal
court and resulting in needless and duplicative litigation," the
insurer said.

At the Sept. 10 hearing, David Oppenheim of Anderson & Wanca, an
attorney for Addison, attempted to counter Hartford's argument,
but was met with three very skeptical judges.  After Mr. Oppenheim
conceded that hundreds of class members could potentially sue
Hartford individually for their share of the settlement, Judge
David Hamilton recoiled.

"Why on earth would you want that?" he asked the attorney.

Judge Ilana Rovner went further and said that it was "immediately
clear" that Addison's suit was a "continuation" of the class
action.

The judges took the matter under advisement after oral arguments
concluded.

Judges Frank H. Easterbrook, David F. Hamilton and Ilana Diamond
Rovner sat on the panel for the Seventh Circuit.

Hartford is represented by Steven M. Levy of Dentons US LLP.

Addison Automatics is represented by David M. Oppenheim and Brian
J. Wanca of Anderson & Wanca and Phillip A. Bock of Bock & Hatch
LLC.

The case is Addison Automatics Inc. v. Hartford Casualty Insurance
Co., case No. 13-2729, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.


HARVEST GROUP: Securities Regulators Go After Founder Over Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason van Rassel, writing for Calgary Herald, reports that
securities regulators in Saskatchewan are going after a Lethbridge
man already at the center of a C$500-million class-action lawsuit
over failed real estate ventures.

A statement of allegations filed by the Financial and Consumer
Affairs Authority (FCAA) said Ronald James Aitkens was the
"directing mind" behind a series of companies that misappropriated
millions of dollars raised from investors in Saskatchewan.

"The respondents, directly or indirectly, engaged or participated
in acts or courses of action relating to securities that each
reasonably ought to have known perpetuated a fraud upon
purchasers," read the statement, dated Aug. 30.

Allegations against Mr. Aitkens haven't been proven.  His lawyer
in Calgary didn't respond to requests for comment.

Mr. Aitkens founded the Harvest Group of Companies, which raised
money for several real estate ventures in B.C. and Alberta.

A class-action lawsuit filed in Alberta earlier this year against
Mr. Aitkens and several other Harvest Group principals alleges
none of the 16 projects has gone ahead and that C$500 million
raised from investors went instead to the defendants.

In Saskatchewan, the FCAA said investors in that province bought
more than C$12 million in securities -- mainly shares and bonds --
with the understanding their money would be put toward real estate
developments.

The FCAA's claims mirror the civil suit's, alleging Mr. Aitkens
conducted a complex series of transactions designed to use
investors' money for his own benefit.

In one case, investors who bought shares and bonds in Legacy
Communities Inc., were told the funds would be used to buy and
develop a parcel of land south of Calgary.

Instead, the FCAA alleges, close to C$13 million was diverted to
two other companies under Aitkens' control between 2007 and 2008
without ever informing investors.

The FCAA said Mr. Aitkens then signed a series of promissory notes
from another related company, Harvest Capital Management,
promising to pay Legacy a total of C$20.1 million, plus interest.

The stated purpose of the notes was to invest the money on
Legacy's behalf, but the FCAA said the money has never been paid
back.

The true purpose of the promissory notes was to hide the
transactions that improperly diverted investors' money from the
Legacy project, the FCAA alleges.

Between 2007 and 2009, two companies allegedly controlled by
Aitkens, Spruce Ridge Estates and Spruce Ridge Capital, raised
money for the stated purpose of buying and developing land
southwest of Calgary.

The companies' marketing materials detailed plans that included a
championship golf course, executive hotel and convention center,
and promised investors large returns.

The FCAA alleges one of Mr. Aitkens' related numbered companies
bought a parcel of land for C$18.9 million in 2007.

Spruce Ridge Estates (SRE) then allegedly paid the numbered
company C$42.6 million for the land and gave the numbered company
a mortgage of C$44.7 million for the parcel -- in all, putting in
nearly C$87 million for land bought by another Aitkens company for
a fraction of that amount.

"Aitkens (and his companies) artificially inflated the purchase
price payable under the SRE purchase agreement in order to allow
Aitkens to arrogate funds," the regulator said in its statement.

The FCAA alleges because so much money was improperly siphoned
from the project, it has never been built and investors haven't
received any returns.

The FCAA is seeking C$1 million in administrative penalties
against Aitkens, as well as compensation for investors and orders
forcing Aitkens to resign his positions and prohibiting him from
trading or acquiring securities in Saskatchewan.

"I'm quite happy to see it go ahead," said Ernie Callow, a
Saskatchewan investor who filed a complaint with the regulator.

Mr. Callow is also involved in the class-action lawsuit, which
could represent up to 5,000 Harvest Group investors if it is
certified by a judge and allowed to proceed.

Mr. Callow, 63, said he and his wife Shirley invested C$35,000
with the Harvest Group, with nothing to show for it.

It's an open question how much investors could recover in any
settlement -- or if the FCAA's action will further complicate the
legal picture.

For now, Mr. Callow said, the FCAA's allegations may help lend
credence to claims made in the lawsuit.

"It could strengthen our case," he said.


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: 5th Cir. Revived Claims Over Theft by Hackers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, David Lee reports that the
5th Circuit revived negligence claims related to theft by hackers
of millions of credit card numbers processed by Heartland Payment
Systems.

Lone Star National Bank and six other credit card issuers had sued
Heartland last year in Houston, claiming that the massive data
breach caused them to replace compromised cards and reimburse
customers for fraudulent charges.

Although the financial institutions lacked a written contract with
Heartland, they claimed to be third-party beneficiaries of
Heartland's contracts with other entities under the Visa and
MasterCard systems.

A federal judge dismissed the negligence claim against the New
Jersey-based Heartland, holding that it is barred under the
economic doctrine of Garden State law.

The court also reasoned that, by entering into the web of
contracts established by Visa and MasterCard, the banks contracted
for the specific remedies under Visa and MasterCard regulations
and could therefore not suit against another participant in the
same web.

A three-judge panel with the New Orleans-based federal appeals
court unanimously reversed on September 3, 2013.

The economic loss doctrine does not preclude the negligence claim
at the motion-to-dismiss stage under New Jersey law in cases where
the plaintiff "suffers economic harm without any attendant
physical harm," according to the ruling.

Indeed there is state case law where a defendant still owes a duty
of care to take reasonable measures to avoid the risk of causing
economic damages to plaintiffs whom the defendant knows are likely
to suffer damages from its conduct, the panel found.

"Accordingly, under New Jersey law, the economic loss doctrine
does not bar tort recovery where the defendant causes an
identifiable class of plaintiffs to which it owes a duty of care
to suffer economic loss that does not result in boundless
liability," Judge Emilio Garza wrote for the panel.

Precluding a tort remedy would also leave the plaintiffs with no
remedy for Heartland's alleged negligence, defying "notions of
fairness, common sense and morality," according to the ruling.

"It is not clear whether Heartland's contract with the acquirer
banks, which require Heartland to comply with Visa and MasterCard
rules and regulations, provide the [plaintff] issuer banks with
compensation mechanisms for losses that may be caused by
Heartland's negligence," Garza wrote.  "Though Visa and MasterCard
investigated Heartland's data breach and directed its members to
avoid using Heartland's services for a period of time, it is not
clear that Heartland can take part in the dispute-resolution
mechanisms solely by virtue of agreeing with the acquirer banks to
be bound by the regulations."

Garza was mindful of the New Jersey Supreme Court long being a
leader in the expansion of tort liability, citing case law by the
3rd Circuit that noted how Garden State courts have consistently
held that contract law is better suited to resolve disputes
"between parties where a plaintiff alleges direct and
consequential losses that were within the contemplation of
sophisticated business entities with equal bargaining power and
that could have been the subject of their negotiations."

A spokesperson for Heartland declined to comment for this story.

The other plaintiffs to the case are Amalgamated Bank, First
Bankers Trust Co., Pennsylvania State Employees Credit Union,
Elevations Credit Union, O Bee Credit Union and Seaboard Federal
Credit Union.

Computer hacker Albert Gonzalez, 31, of Miami, was sentenced to 20
years in federal prison in 2010 for his role in hacking
Heartland's systems.  Gonzalez, aka "segvec," "soupnazi" and
"j4guar17," pleaded guilty in Boston to two counts of conspiracy
to gain unauthorized access to payment card networks.

Other victims of the hack included retailers 7-Eleven and
Hannaford Brothers.

According to the plea agreement, Gonzalez leased or otherwise
controlled several servers, or "hacking platforms," and gave other
hackers access to the servers, knowing they would use them to
store malicious software, or "malware," and launch attacks against
corporate victims.

Investigators also found malware used against several of the
corporate victims on a server Gonzalez controlled.

Gonzalez tested malware by running multiple anti-virus programs to
see if the programs detected the malware.  According to the plea
agreement, Gonzalez and his co-conspirators knew the malware could
steal tens of millions of credit and debit card numbers, affecting
more than 250 financial institutions.

In September 2009, Gonzalez pleaded guilty to 19 counts of
conspiracy, computer fraud, wire fraud, access device fraud and
aggravated identity theft.  He also hacked into TJX Companies,
BJ's Wholesale Club, OfficeMax, Boston Market, Barnes & Noble and
Sports Authority.  Gonzalez pleaded guilty in September 2009 as
well to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud relating to
hacks into the Dave & Buster's restaurant chain, which were the
subject of a May 2008 indictment in the Eastern District of New
York.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Michael Allen Caddell, Esq.
          Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
          Cory Steven Fein, Esq.
          CADDELL & CHAPMAN, P.C.
          1331 Lamar Street
          Houston, TX 77010-3027
          Telephone: (713) 751-0400

               - and -

          Richard Lyle Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LAW FIRM
          505 Orleans Street
          First City Building
          Beaumont, TX 77701-0000
          Telephone: (409) 833-7700
          E-mail: rcoffman@coffmanlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, L.L.P.
          361 W. Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041-0100
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          E-mail: JosephSauder@chimicles.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Douglas Harlan Meal, Esq.
          Seth Carlton Harrington, Esq.
          Anne E. Johnson, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY, L.L.P.
          800 Boylston Street
          Prudential Tower
          Boston, MA 02199-3600
          Telephone: (617) 951-7517
          E-mail: Douglas.Meal@ropesgray.com
                  Seth.Harrington@ropesgray.com
                  Anne.JohnsonPalmer@ropesgray.com

               - and -

          David Thomas Cohen, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY, L.L.P.
          700 12th Street, N.W.
          1 Metro Center
          Washington, DC 20005-3948
          Telephone: (202) 508-4825
          E-mail: David.Cohen@ropesgray.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Conlan, Esq.
          BLANK ROME, L.L.P.
          301 Carnegie Center
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 750-2641
          E-mail: Conlan@BlankRome.com

               - and -

          Brant Mitchell Laue, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, L.L.P.
          2345 Grand Boulevard
          Kansas City, MO 64108-0000
          Telephone: (816) 472-3182
          E-mail: blaue@armstrongteasdale.com

               - and -

          Neal Stuart Manne, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY, L.L.P.
          1000 Louisiana Street
          Houston, TX 77002-5096
          Telephone: (713) 653-7827
          E-mail: nmanne@susmangodfrey.com

The appellate case is In Re: Heartland Payment Sys, et al., Case
No. 12-20648, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The original case is In Re: Heartland Payment Sys, et al., Case
No. 4:09-MD-2046, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas (Houston).


HOME DEPOT: Suspected Shoplifter Files Class Action in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Berfield, writing for BusinessWeek, reports that Jimin Chen
received two worrisome letters this summer.  Both came from a law
firm hired by Home Depot.  The first demanded payment of $350 to
settle claims that he shoplifted from a California store.
According to Mr. Chen, in early June he had been wrongly accused
of taking two pairs of work gloves (priced at $3.99 each) as he
purchased nearly $1,500 worth of merchandise from Home Depot.  A
second letter demanded $625.  Both helpfully included five ways he
could pay, and both threatened legal action if he didn't.

Mr. Chen didn't pay.  Instead, on Sept. 5, he filed a class-action
lawsuit in California Superior Court, alleging that Home Depot is
shaking down customers for arbitrary and unjust damages for
shoplifting charges and using false threats of criminal
prosecution.  There are laws in all 50 states that allow retailers
to claim damages from shoplifters.  Mr. Chen accuses the retailer
of using the California law, which limits payments to $500, "to
intimidate consumers into paying money to which Home Depot is not
entitled."

Stephen Holmes, a spokesman for Home Depot, says the company has
not yet reviewed the details of the case but maintains that the
general practice of civil demands is lawful.

By some estimates, $37 billion worth of stuff is stolen from
stores every year. (About half of that is taken by employees.)
Home Depot is one of many retailers that makes use of the laws to
seek compensation -- and uses the same law firm to do so: Palmer,
Reifler & Associates in Orlando.  Mr. Chen's lawsuit calls Palmer
Reifler a "demand letter mill" and claims it sends more than a
million letters a year to consumers in the U.S. accused of
shoplifting by Home Depot.  Palmer Reifler, which calls itself "a
leading civil recovery law firm in the loss prevention/asset
protection industry," is not named in the lawsuit. No one at the
firm immediately responded to a request for comment.

Mr. Chen says that on June 6 he and a friend went shopping at a
Home Depot in San Leandro, Calif.  Before loading some lumber into
the cart, he says, they put on work gloves.  When they checked
out, all the merchandise was scanned, except for the gloves, which
Chen had belatedly added to the pile.  He paid $1,445.90 with his
Home Depot credit card.  As he and his friend were walking toward
the door, they were stopped by a security guard, who accused Chen
of stealing the gloves.  Mr. Chen was taken to what he calls a
"stew room" and questioned; while there he suffered an asthma
attack, became agitated, and was handcuffed. After about 30
minutes he agreed to sign a document promising to stay out of the
store for 90 days.  He also provided contact information.

The first letter from Palmer Reifler arrived on June 10, the
second on July 5.  The first hearing in the case is scheduled for
Oct. 8.


HUGOTON ROYALTY TRUST: Bids to Dismiss "Lamb" Suit Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Motions to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by Harold Lamb
remain pending, according to Hugoton Royalty Trust's August 6,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On September 12, 2012, a lawsuit was filed against Bank of America
as trustee and XTO Energy styled Harold Lamb v. Bank of America
and XTO Energy Inc., in the U.S. District Court - Western District
of Oklahoma.  The plaintiff, Harold Lamb, is a unitholder in the
trust and alleges that XTO Energy failed to properly pay and
account to the trust under the terms of the net overriding royalty
conveyance on certain Kansas and Oklahoma properties and that Bank
of America, as trustee, failed to properly oversee such payment
and accounting by XTO Energy.  Additionally, the plaintiff alleges
that Bank of America and XTO Energy have breached a fiduciary duty
to the trust based on the allegations found in the Fankhouser
class action.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified amounts for
actual/compensatory damages, punitive damages, disgorgement and
injunctive relief.  Subsequently, the plaintiff dismissed Bank of
America from the lawsuit.  The court granted XTO Energy's motion
to transfer venue and has transferred the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas.  XTO has also
filed two motions to dismiss.  XTO Energy has informed the trustee
that it believes it has strong defenses to this lawsuit and
intends to vigorously defend its position.  However, XTO Energy is
cognizant of other, similar litigation involving it, such as
Fankhouser, and other, unrelated entities.  As this case develops
XTO Energy will assess its legal position accordingly.

Hugoton Royalty Trust -- http://www.hugotontrust.com/-- is an
express trust created under the laws of Texas pursuant to the
Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered into on December 1, 1998,
between XTO Energy Inc. (formerly known as Cross Timbers Oil
Company), as grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as trustee.  Bank of
America, N.A., successor to NationsBank, N.A., is now the trustee
of the trust.  The Trust is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


HUGOTON ROYALTY TRUST: "Chieftain" Suit Remains Pending in Okla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO
Energy Inc. remains pending in Oklahoma, according to Hugoton
Royalty Trust's August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

In December 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against XTO
Energy styled Chieftain Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc. in Coal
County District Court, Oklahoma.  XTO Energy, a Company
subsidiary, removed the case to federal court in the Eastern
District of Oklahoma.  The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy
wrongfully deducted fees from royalty payments on Oklahoma wells,
failed to make diligent efforts to secure the best terms available
for the sale of gas and its constituents, and demand an accounting
to determine whether they have been fully and fairly paid gas
royalty interests.  The case expressly excludes those claims and
wells being prosecuted in the Fankhouser case.  The severed
Roderick case claims related to the Oklahoma portion of the case
were consolidated into Chieftain.  The case was certified as a
class action in April 2012.  XTO Energy filed an appeal of the
class certification to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on
April 26, 2012, believing the class certification was not proper.
The appeal was granted on June 26, 2012.  The oral argument
occurred May 8, 2013.  The court reversed the certification of the
class and remanded the case back to the trial court for further
proceedings.

Hugoton Royalty Trust -- http://www.hugotontrust.com/-- is an
express trust created under the laws of Texas pursuant to the
Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered into on December 1, 1998,
between XTO Energy Inc. (formerly known as Cross Timbers Oil
Company), as grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as trustee.  Bank of
America, N.A., successor to NationsBank, N.A., is now the trustee
of the trust.  The Trust is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


HUGOTON ROYALTY: Continues to Defend "Roderick" Suit vs. XTO
------------------------------------------------------------
Hugoton Royalty Trust continues to defend a subsidiary against a
class action lawsuit commenced by Wallace B. Roderick Revocable
Living Trust, et al., ion Kansas, 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 September 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against XTO
Energy Inc. styled Wallace B. Roderick Revocable Living Trust, et
al. v. XTO Energy Inc. in the District Court of Kearny County,
Kansas. XTO Energy removed the case to federal court in Wichita,
Kansas. The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has improperly taken
post-production costs from royalties paid to the plaintiffs from
wells located in Kansas, Oklahoma and Colorado.  The plaintiffs
have filed a motion to certify the class, including only Kansas
and Oklahoma wells not part of the Fankhouser matter.  After
filing the motion to certify, but prior to the class certification
hearing, the plaintiff filed a motion to sever the Oklahoma
portion of the case so it could be transferred and consolidated
with a newly filed class action in Oklahoma styled Chieftain
Royalty Company v. XTO Energy Inc.  This motion was granted.  The
Roderick case now comprises only Kansas wells not previously
included in the Fankhouser matter.  The case was certified as a
class action in March 2012.  XTO Energy filed an appeal of the
class certification to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals on
April 11, 2012, believing the class certification was not proper.
The appeal was granted on June 26, 2012.  The oral argument
occurred May 8, 2013.  The court reversed the certification of the
class and remanded the case back to the trial court for further
proceedings.

Hugoton Royalty Trust -- http://www.hugotontrust.com/-- is an
express trust created under the laws of Texas pursuant to the
Hugoton Royalty Trust Indenture entered into on December 1, 1998,
between XTO Energy Inc. (formerly known as Cross Timbers Oil
Company), as grantor, and NationsBank, N.A., as trustee.  Bank of
America, N.A., successor to NationsBank, N.A., is now the trustee
of the trust.  The Trust is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


INDONESIA: Environmental Activists File Class Action v. President
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Jakarta Post reports that environmental activists have
submitted a class-action lawsuit against President Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono over the claim he has failed to protect people in Riau
province from the effects of climate change.

The lawsuit was also aimed at Forestry Minister Zulkifli Hasan,
Environment Minister Balthasar Kambuaya and Riau Governor Rusli
Zainal, who is now detained by the Corruption Eradication
Commission (KPK) on graft charges.

"We filed this lawsuit to press President SBY to take action
against his two ministers, whom we see as having no willingness to
protect the public, especially the people of Riau province, from
the effects of climate change," Civil Society Forum for Climate
Justice coordinator Mida Saragih told The Jakarta Post after
filing the lawsuit at the Central Jakarta District Court on
Sept. 9.

Ms. Mida said the activists filed the lawsuit against the
president because the people of Riau province were suffering from
the effects of climate change, despite the President's pledge to
reduce carbon emissions by 26 percent by 2020.

She said according to Law No. 32/2009 on environmental protection
and management, the government had to provide a healthy
environment.  "But we still see unsustainable development
practices in Riau province," she said.

Mida said climate change had caused the people of Riau to suffer
from floods, droughts and acute respiratory infections.  In
July this year, Indragiri Hulu regency recorded an estimated
10,382 residents as suffering from such infections.  The citizens
also had to endure high temperatures.

"Temperatures reached as high as 37 degrees Celcius in Riau, the
highest in the last 30 years."

Ms. Mida added Riau had experienced massive land destruction
caused by forest conversion from peatland into large-scale units
of palm and timber plantations.  "The condition was exacerbated by
illegal logging and slash-and-burn clearing activities," she said.

The group slammed the forestry minister for issuing permits
allowing business on peatland.

"Peatland is protected.  One cannot open plantations in those
areas because it can cause environmental damage," Ms. Mida said.

According to 2013 data from environmental NGO Jikilahari Riau
Forest Rescue Working Network, the provincial administration had
issued 61 business licenses as of September 2013, allowing
businesses to develop plantations on peatland.  "This action is
against Law No. 32/2009," she said.

They accused the environment minister of violating Presidential
Regulation No. 71/2001 on the implementation of a national
greenhouse gas inventory. "The environment minister has not
provided any guidance on regional action plans for greenhouse
gasses.  Provincial administrations need these guidances to do
something," Ms. Mida said.

Resa Radityo from the Indonesian Center of Environmental Law
(ICEL) said the activists, as well as the people of Riau, hoped
the government could put more effort into tackling the
environmental impact of climate change.

"We hope the government does not only create new councils on
environmental affairs, but implements actions to handle
environmental problems," he said.


KORE OF INDIANA: 7th Cir. Reverses ATM User Class Decertification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene, writing for Law360, reports that the Seventh Circuit
on Sept. 10 found in a ruling penned by U.S. Circuit Judge Richard
A. Posner that a class of ATM users claiming damages from a
machine that did not have a sticker warning about fees should not
be decertified on grounds of the smallness of the stakes.

The three-judge panel unwound a decision by U.S. District
Judge Jane E. Magnus-Stinson to decertify a class of plaintiffs
seeking damages for ATMs that violated a now-defunct Electronic
Funds Transfer Act policy, saying the class must not be
decertified simply because each class member could collect an
award of $3.57, the potential maximum, based on the estimated size
of the class.

Individual suits claiming damages in EFT would be unlikely to make
it to court, Judge Posner wrote on Sept. 10, because no lawyer
would take on a project for which the pay would likely be very
low.

"There is no indication that many people, or indeed any people,
have filed individual claims under the provision of the Electronic
Funds Transfer Act that requires a sticker on an ATM warning that
there is a fee for using it," Judge Posner wrote in the Sept. 10
decision.  "Although one reason for the paucity of litigation may
be unfamiliarity with the law, another may be the difficulty of
finding a lawyer willing to handle an individual suit in which the
stakes are $100 or an improbable maximum of $1000."

Kore placed two ATMs in a convenience store frequented by college
students, according to a complaint filed in Indiana federal court
in September 2011.  The ATMs didn't have stickers alerting
customers that the machines would charge users a fee for
withdrawals, according to the complaint.

Judge Magnus-Stinson decertified the class on the grounds that the
class members would recover very little in the event of total
victory, and secondarily, because tracking down the ATM users
would require subpoenaing potentially hundreds of banks due to the
fact that the ATM users were college students and therefore likely
still had bank accounts from their hometowns, according to the
Sept. 10 decision.

But the appellate panel argued that the class could be identified
through reasonable means, including publication.

The appellate panel chose to allow the appeal to be heard in order
to advance class action law, Posner wrote in the Sept. 10 opinion.
The panel addressed whether a class action should be permitted
when the stakes are small and likely to be overwhelmed by the cost
of litigation.

The cases should be allowed, the panel found, because the threat
of a class action may act as a deterrent for companies to prevent
them from breaking the law.

"If only actual damages could be awarded, the providers of ATM
services such as Kore might have little incentive to comply with
the law," Judge Posner wrote in the Sept. 10 decision.

If the suit goes through in the class's favor, it would serve as a
"wake-up call" to Kore and other ATM companies to be mindful to
carefully follow the law, the panel found.

The panel reversed the district court's decision to decertify the
class and remanded the case to district court. Posner noted in his
opinion that the extended discussion of how to distribute the
funds of the class action wasn't intended to imply Kore is liable,
but merely, how to handle the funds in future cases.

Judges Richard A. Posner, Daniel L. Manion and Diane P. Wood sat
on the panel that reached the Sept. 10 decision.

Hughes is represented by Eric G. Calhoun -- eric@travislaw.com --
of Travis Calhoun & Conlon PC and Ryan R. Frasher.

Kore is represented by Thomas Edward Rosta -- tom@metzgerrosta.com
-- of Metzger Rosta LLP.

The case is David Hughes et al. v. Kore of Indiana Enterprises
Inc. et al., case number 13-08018, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit.


LANCE ARMSTRONG: Class Action Over Autobiography Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Shane Stokes, writing for Velonation, reports that ruling that
Lance Armstrong was effectively allowed to lie about racing clean
due to the First Amendment, a Californian federal judge has
dismissed a lawsuit taken by readers of his two autobiographies.

Mr. Armstrong built up his self-image and gained many fans with
his books "It's Not About The Bike" and "Every Second Counts,"
co-written with Sally Jenkins.  They told the story of his early
years, his battle with cancer and his return to elite competition,
all the while insisting that his victories were completely clean
and he had never used doping products.

The books sold millions of copies, but his claim to have competed
without drugs was shown to be false when he made an admission of
long-term doping during an interview with Oprah Winfrey in January
of this year.

Several readers of the books took a class action lawsuit against
Mr. Armstrong over those false claims, saying that Mr. Armstrong's
mistruths were tantamount to fraud and false advertising.  They
wanted the books relabelled fiction plus damages of more than than
$US5 million.

However US District Judge Morrison England issued a 39 page ruling
saying that Armstrong was effectively allowed to lie in his books.

"Lance Armstrong has a right to exercise his First Amendment right
to free speech," he said, according to AP.  "The fact Lance didn't
tell the truth about whether or not he doped, does not make the
entire story of his life fiction."

Those who took the action can appeal within the next 21 days, but
the judge cast doubts on the chances of that succeeding.

The legal case is less of a concern to Armstrong than a Qui Tam
lawsuit launched by Floyd Landis and joined by the federal
government.  It is based around claimed fraud by Armstrong and
others in relation to the US Postal Service's sponsorship of the
team and if they lose, they could be liable to pay more than 100
million dollars in damages.

The Texan evaded detection for many years, but a US federal
investigation and subsequent action by the US Anti Doping Agency
finally led to him deciding not to contest the latter's case
against him.  He was stripped of his seven Tour wins plus all
other results since August 1st 1998, and also handed a lifetime
ban.


LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS: Awaits Okay for Rights-of-Way Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications, Inc., is still awaiting approval of
settlements it entered into with current and former owners of land
near railroad rights of way in which the Company has installed its
fiber optic cable networks, 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 is party to a number of purported class action
lawsuits involving its right to install fiber optic cable network
in railroad right-of-ways adjacent to plaintiffs' land.  In
general, the Company obtained the rights to construct its networks
from railroads, utilities, and others, and has installed its
networks along the rights-of-way so granted.  The Plaintiffs in
the purported class actions assert that they are the owners of
lands over which the fiber optic cable networks pass, and that the
railroads, utilities, and others who granted the Company the right
to construct and maintain its network did not have the legal
authority to do so.  The complaints seek damages on theories of
trespass, unjust enrichment and slander of title and property, as
well as punitive damages.  The Company has also received, and may
in the future receive, claims and demands related to rights-of-way
issues similar to the issues in these cases that may be based on
similar or different legal theories.  The Company has defeated
motions for class certification in a number of these actions but
expects that, absent settlement of these actions, the plaintiffs
in the pending lawsuits will continue to seek certification of
statewide or multi-state classes.  The only lawsuit in which a
class was certified against the Company, absent an agreed upon
settlement, occurred in Koyle, et. al. v. Level 3 Communications,
Inc., et. al., a purported two state class action filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Idaho.  The Koyle
lawsuit has been dismissed pursuant to a settlement reached in
November 2010.

The Company negotiated a series of class settlements affecting all
persons who own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of
way in which it has installed its fiber optic cable networks.  The
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in
Kingsborough v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P. granted preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement; however, on September 10,
2009, the court denied a motion for final approval of the
settlement on the basis that the court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction and dismissed the case.

In November 2010, the Company negotiated revised settlement terms
for a series of state class settlements affecting all persons who
own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of way in which
the Company has installed its fiber optic cable networks.  The
Company is currently pursuing presentment of the settlement in
applicable jurisdictions.  The settlements, affecting current and
former landowners, have received final federal court approval in
multiple states and the parties are engaged in the claims process
for those states.  The settlement has also been presented to
federal courts in additional states and approval is pending.

Management believes that the Company has substantial defenses to
the claims asserted in all of these actions and intends to defend
them vigorously if a satisfactory settlement is not ultimately
approved for all affected landowners.

Based in Broomfield, Colorado, Level 3 Communications, Inc. is a
facilities-based provider (that is, a provider that owns or leases
a substantial portion of the plant, property and equipment
necessary to provide its services) of a broad range of integrated
communications services.  The Company created its communications
network by constructing its own assets and through a combination
of purchasing other companies and purchasing or leasing facilities
from others.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Judge Allows Deputies' OT Class Action to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal
judge on Sept. 9 allowed Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies to
proceed with most claims in their wage-and-hour class action,
finding there were triable issues of fact in the deputies' claims
they were pressured by supervisors not to report overtime worked.

U.S. District Judge Audrey B. Collins found in favor of deputies
Patrick Gomez, Leobardo Trujillo and James Rodela on all but two
counts of a motion for summary judgment filed by Los Angeles
County Sheriff Lee Baca.  Judge Collins ruled that the sheriff's
department may have breached the Fair Labor Standards Act by
fostering a culture in which asking supervisors to approve
overtime hours worked was shunned.

The sheriffs claimed they were taught from the training academy
that asking for overtime would make them a "sniveler," and said
their overtime claims were at times not approved, and at other
times not filed out of fear of repercussions from their bosses.

"[The deputies] have presented enough evidence to render whether
the county had actual or constructive knowledge of [the deputies']
allegedly uncompensated overtime work a triable issue,"
Judge Collins wrote in the Sept. 9 decision.

In a complaint initially filed in California federal court in
March 2007, a group of deputies led by Angela Lockhart alleged
that their bosses pressured them to not claim overtime hours
worked.

The seven-day week that police and fire employees work complicates
matters by creating what's known as gap time -- the 11 hours of
overtime a police officer can work before reaching an FLSA limit
-- in how overtime hours are calculated, according to the suit.

From the first days at academy, the deputies claim, they are
taught that asking for approval for overtime hours is looked down
on by managers.

The named plaintiffs in the suit give specific examples of
uncompensated overtime worked, such as a summer camp during which
the officers were required to work 16-hour days, eight hours of
which went unpaid, according to the deputies.

The deputies don't have to prove that their supervisors had
specific knowledge of unpaid overtime, Judge Collins ruled on
Sept. 9.  Rather, the supervisors need only have "constructive"
knowledge that a culture of unclaimed overtime exists, Judge
Collins wrote in the Sept. 9 decision.

Judge Collins granted the county's motion for summary judgment on
overtime pay for uninterrupted meal breaks, and for the claims for
gap time pay, but denied its motion in all other respects, keeping
a majority of the class of deputies' claims alive, according to
the Sept. 9 decision.

The deputies are represented by Gregory G. Petersen.

The County of Los Angeles is represented by Brian P. Walter --
bwalter@lcwlegal.com -- Elizabeth Tom Acre -- earce@lcwlegal.com
-- Geoffrey S. Sheldon -- gsheldon@lcwlegal.com -- and Theodore
Oliver Yee of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore.

The case is Angela Lockhart et al. v. County of Los Angeles et
al., case number 2:07-cv-01680, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.


LOS ANGELES TIMES: Sued Over Release of Deputy Sheriffs' Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS), On Behalf of
Its Members, Deputy John Doe-1 through Deputy John Doe-13, Deputy
Jane Doe-1 and 500 Similarly Situated ALADS members v. Robert
Faturechi; Los Angeles Times Communications, LLC; Does 1-50,
Inclusive, Case No. BC520745 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
September 10, 2013), seeks temporary restraining order,
preliminary injunction and permanent injunction preventing the
release of confidential, personnel, education, medical and credit
information of the Doe Plaintiffs.

Mr. Faturechi has personally and directly told certain Doe
Plaintiffs that he is preparing and intends to publish next week
an article, which will include, and unlawfully make public, the
Doe Plaintiffs and other similarly situated County peace officers'
true names and Confidential Information, the Plaintiffs allege.
The Plaintiffs argue that in the absence of any proper Public
Records Act request or a proper motion, the Defendants are without
authority, and are precluded by law, from releasing any
confidential information from the peace officers' employee files.

ALADS is a recognized employee organization and the certified
bargaining representative for non-supervisory peace officers of
the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and the District
Attorney's Office in Los Angeles County.  One of the primary
purposes of ALADS is the representation of government employees in
their labor relations with their respective governmental employer.

The Doe Plaintiffs are duly sworn peace officers, employed by the
County of Los Angeles, Sheriff's Department, as deputy sheriffs.
Prior to January 2010, the Doe Plaintiffs were employed by the
County of Los Angeles, Office of Public Safety, as County police
officers.  John/Jane Does are not the true names of the Los
Angeles County Deputy Sheriff, whose personnel, credit and medical
information was stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained by the
Defendants.

Robert Faturechi has been employed by and has been acting as an
agent and representative of Los Angeles Times.  Los Angeles Times
is a for-profit business venture, licensed to do business in the
state of California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard A. Shinee, Esq.
          Elizabeth J. Gibbon, Esq.
          GREEN & SHINEE A.P.C.
          16055 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1000
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 986-2440
          Facsimile: (818) 789-1503
          E-mail: gsras@socal.rr.com


MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Wage and Hour Class Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Mitchell, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Medtronic, Inc., a Minnesota corporation,
Case No. 13-cv-06624 (C.D. Cal., September 10, 2013)

Until April 2011, Medtronic maintained a company-wide policy of
not paying employees for missed breaks, Mr. Mitchell alleges.  He
contends that he and the class members routinely worked in excess
of five hours per day, and were not provided with meal breaks by
the Company.  He adds, among other things, that they had never
been paid additional wages for missed breaks during employment
until April 2011.

John Mitchell, a citizen of California, was employed by the
Company from November 2008 through August 2011.

Medtronic is a Minnesota corporation doing business in Los Angeles
County, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Tracy, Esq.
          Megan E. Ross, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL TRACY
          2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 260-9171
          Facsimile: (866) 365-3051
          E-mail: mtracy@michaeltracylaw.com
                  mross@michaeltracylaw.com


MIMEDX GROUP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Sept. 10
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against MiMedx
Group, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed
in United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
and docketed under 13-CIV-6328, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of MiMedx between October 26, 2011 and September 4,
2013 both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover
damages as a result of alleged violations of the federal
securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased MiMedx securities during
the Class Period, you have until November 8, 2013 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

MiMedx is a medical device company.  The Company is focused on
biomaterials for soft tissue repair, such as tendons, ligaments,
and cartilage, as well as other biomaterial based products for
other medical applications.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
the Company was in violation of the Public Health Service Act by
unlawfully manufacturing and marketing certain unapproved
biologics products; and (2) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On September 4, 2013, the Food and Drug Administration posted on
its website an "Untitled Letter" sent to MiMedx on August 28,
2013, which stated that MiMedx's Surgical Biologics unit violated
the Public Health Service Act by unlawfully manufacturing and
marketing drugs at one of its plants, thereby market's unapproved
biologics products.  On this news, MiMedx securities declined 2.21
per share or more than 36%, to close at 3.85 per share on
September 4, 2013.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.


PACKAGING CORP: Containerboard Suit in Document Production Phase
----------------------------------------------------------------
Packaging Corporation of America 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 the consolidated class
action lawsuit over containerboards is in the document production
phase of discovery.

During September and October 2010, Packaging Corporation of
America, or PCA, and eight other U.S. and Canadian containerboard
producers were named as defendants in five purported class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of the Sherman
Act.  The lawsuits have been consolidated in a single complaint
under the caption Kleen Products LLC v Packaging Corp. of America
et al.  The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants
conspired to limit the supply of containerboard, and that the
purpose and effect of the alleged conspiracy was to artificially
increase prices of containerboard products during the period of
August 2005 to the time of filing of the complaint.  The complaint
was filed as a purported class action lawsuit on behalf of all
purchasers of containerboard products during such period.  The
complaint seeks treble damages and costs, including attorney's
fees.  The defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint were
denied by the court in April 2011.  PCA believes the allegations
are without merit and is defending this lawsuit vigorously.
However, as the lawsuit is in the document production phase of
discovery, PCA is unable to predict the ultimate outcome or
estimate a range of reasonably possible losses.

Headquartered in Lake Forest, Illinois, Packaging Corporation of
America is the fourth largest producer of containerboard and
corrugated products in the United States, based on production
capacity.  The Company produces a wide variety of corrugated
products ranging from basic corrugated shipping containers to
specialized packaging, such as wax-coated boxes for the
agriculture industry.  The Company also has multi-color printing
capabilities to make high-impact graphics boxes and displays that
offer its customers more attractive packaging.


PAYLESS SHOESOURCE: Uses Illegal Way to Compute OT Pay, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Payless Shoesource uses an
illegal method to calculate overtime pay, workers claim in a class
action in Philadelphia state court.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          Twining Office Center, Suite 211
          715 Twining Road
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491

The case is Warcholak v. Payless Shoesource, Inc., Case No.
130901010, in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.


PLAQUEMINES PARISH, LA: Sued Over Hurricane Isaac Damage
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that two class actions against
Plaquemines Parish and three against Stolthaven New Orleans blame
them for destruction and pollution during and after Hurricane
Isaac, in Plaquemines Parish Court.


REGUS MANAGEMENT: Court Grants Partial Dismissal of Counterclaims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Samuel Conti issued a ruling on motions to dismiss
counterclaims filed in CIRCLE CLICK MEDIA LLC v. REGUS MANAGEMENT
GROUP LLC.

Circle Click Media LLC, Metro Talent, LLC, and CTNY Insurance
Group LLC brought this putative class action against Regus
Management Group LLC, Regus Business Centre LLC, Regus plc, and HQ
Global Workplaces LLC.

The Defendants filed an answer, and, as part of that answer, RMG
asserted counterclaims against each of the named Plaintiffs, as
well as against members of the absent class.  The Plaintiffs have
filed two motions to dismiss the counterclaims. The first motion,
which is brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1),
asserts that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The
second motion, which is brought under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(f),
asserts that the counterclaims should be dismissed for failure to
state a claim and struck because they are redundant.

Judge Conti ruled that, "Plaintiffs' Rule 12(b)(1) motion to
dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. RMG's counterclaims
are dismissed with respect to the putative class. Plaintiffs' Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is granted. RMG's first and second
counterclaims for breach of contract against Circle Click and CTNY
are dismissed with leave to amend, as is RMG's first alternative
counterclaim for breach of contract against Circle Click, CTNY,
and Metro Talent. Plaintiffs' motion to strike the second and
third alternative counterclaims for unjust enrichment and quantum
meruit is denied."

The Court directed RMG to file an amended counterclaim within 30
days. Failure to do so will result in dismissal with prejudice of
its first and second counterclaims for breach of contract, as well
as its first alternative counterclaim for breach of contract, says
Judge Conti.

The case is CIRCLE CLICK MEDIA LLC, METRO TALENT, LLC, CTNY
INSURANCE GROUP LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. REGUS MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC,
REGUS BUSINESS CENTRE LLC, REGUS PLC, HQ GLOBAL WORKPLACES LLC,
and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, CASE NO. 12-04000 SC, (N.D.
Cal.).

A copy of the District Court's August 13, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/w97GW5from Leagle.com.

Circle Click Media LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Ali Ari Aalaei
-- ali@arilaw.com -- Ari Law, P.C., Bo Zeng -- bozeng@arilaw.com
-- Ari Law P.C. & Joseph Allen Garofolo --
garofolo@garofololaw.com -- Garofolo Law Group PC.

Metro Talent, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Allen
Garofolo, Garofolo Law Group, P.C., Ali Ari Aalaei, Ari Law, P.C.
& Bo Zeng, Ari Law P.C.

CTNY Insurance Group LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Allen
Garofolo, Garofolo Law Group PC, Ali Ari Aalaei, Ari Law, P.C. &
Bo Zeng, Ari Law P.C.

Regus Management Group LLC, Defendant, represented by Bahareh
Maryam Mostajelean -- bahareh.mostajelean@bryancave.com -- Bryan
Cave LLP, Daniel Thomas Rockey -- daniel.rockey@bryancave.com --
Bryan Cave LLP, Meryl Macklin-- meryl.macklin@bryancave.com --
Bryan Cave LLP, Kenneth Lee Marshall --  klmarshall@bryancave.com
-- Bryan Cave LLP & Stephanie Ann Blazewicz --
stephanie.blazewicz@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP.

Regus Business Centre LLC, Defendant, represented by Bahareh
Maryam Mostajelean, Bryan Cave LLP, Meryl Macklin, Bryan Cave LLP,
Daniel Thomas Rockey, Bryan Cave LLP, Kenneth Lee Marshall, Bryan
Cave LLP & Stephanie Ann Blazewicz, Bryan Cave LLP.

Regus plc, Defendant, represented by Bahareh Maryam Mostajelean,
Bryan Cave LLP, Meryl Macklin, Bryan Cave LLP, Daniel Thomas
Rockey, Bryan Cave LLP, Kenneth Lee Marshall, Bryan Cave LLP &
Stephanie Ann Blazewicz, Bryan Cave LLP.

HQ Global Workplaces LLC, Defendant, represented by Bahareh Maryam
Mostajelean, Bryan Cave LLP, Meryl Macklin, Bryan Cave LLP, Daniel
Thomas Rockey, Bryan Cave LLP, Kenneth Lee Marshall, Bryan Cave
LLP & Stephanie Ann Blazewicz, Bryan Cave LLP.

Regus Management Group LLC, Counter-claimant, represented by
Bahareh Maryam Mostajelean, Bryan Cave LLP, Daniel Thomas Rockey,
Bryan Cave LLP, Meryl Macklin, Bryan Cave LLP, Kenneth Lee
Marshall, Bryan Cave LLP & Stephanie Ann Blazewicz, Bryan Cave
LLP.

HQ Global Workplaces LLC, Counter-claimant, represented by Bahareh
Maryam Mostajelean, Bryan Cave LLP, Meryl Macklin, Bryan Cave LLP,
Daniel Thomas Rockey, Bryan Cave LLP, Kenneth Lee Marshall, Bryan
Cave LLP & Stephanie Ann Blazewicz, Bryan Cave LLP.

Regus plc, Counter-claimant, represented by Bahareh Maryam
Mostajelean, Bryan Cave LLP, Meryl Macklin, Bryan Cave LLP, Daniel
Thomas Rockey, Bryan Cave LLP, Kenneth Lee Marshall, Bryan Cave
LLP & Stephanie Ann Blazewicz, Bryan Cave LLP.

Regus Business Centre LLC, Counter-claimant, represented by
Bahareh Maryam Mostajelean, Bryan Cave LLP, Meryl Macklin, Bryan
Cave LLP, Daniel Thomas Rockey, Bryan Cave LLP, Kenneth Lee
Marshall, Bryan Cave LLP & Stephanie Ann Blazewicz, Bryan Cave
LLP.

CTNY Insurance Group LLC, Counter-defendant, represented by Joseph
Allen Garofolo, Garofolo Law Group PC, Ali Ari Aalaei, Ari Law,
P.C. & Bo Zeng, Ari Law P.C..

Circle Click Media LLC, Counter-defendant, represented by Ali Ari
Aalaei, Ari Law, P.C., Bo Zeng, Ari Law P.C. & Joseph Allen
Garofolo, Garofolo Law Group PC.

Metro Talent, LLC, Counter-defendant, represented by Joseph Allen
Garofolo, Garofolo Law Group PC, Ali Ari Aalaei, Ari Law, P.C. &
Bo Zeng, Ari Law P.C.


RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Wants Class Suit Barred Until Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------
Residential Capital LLC, the Official Committee of Unsecured
Creditors, and Ally Financial Inc. and Ally Bank ask the
Bankruptcy Court to extend the automatic stay and enjoin the
prosecution of claims against Ally in the putative class action
entitled Rothstein, et al. v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, et al., No.
1:12-cv-03412 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y.) until the earlier of the effective
date of the Plan and Dec. 31, 2013.

A hearing on the motion will be on September 24, 2013 at 10:00
a.m. (ET).  Objections are due September 13.

Gary S. Lee, Esq., Stefan W. Engelhardt, Esq., and Lorenzo
Marinuzzi, Esq., at MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP, in New York,
represent the Debtors.

Kenneth H. Eckstein, Esq., and Douglas H. Mannal, Esq., at KRAMER
LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP, in New York, represent the
Creditors' Committee.

Richard M. Cieri, Esq., Ray C. Schrock, Esq., and Stephen E.
Hessler, Esq., at KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, in New York; and Jeffrey
S. Powell, Esq., Daniel T. Donovan, Esq., and Judson D. Brown,
Esq., at KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, in Washington, D.C., represent AFI
and Ally Bank.

Residential Capital LLC is one of the country's largest mortgage
originators and servicers.  The Company, a subsidiary of Ally
Financial Inc., filed for bankruptcy protection on May 14, 2012,
in New York.


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Cops Claiming Age Bias Battle in 9th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Dave Tartre reports that
police officers put a pin in their age bias arguments Tuesday,
September 10, 2013, as the 9th Circuit examined why a federal
judge denied class standing.

"This is a case about class action certification," Judge Marsha
Berzon said early in the hearing.  "Both parties, at some points,
seem to lose track of that distinction."

Determining whether the District Court properly ruled on class
certification is the narrow issue before the three-judge panel of
the federal appeals court, she added.

"If we start getting into the merits, we're getting into an
interlocutory appeal which you don't have any right to," Berzon
said.

The case before the court was filed in 2008 by more than 30 San
Francisco police officers, fighting what they described as an
"unchecked age bias that pervades the culture of the department."

They claimed that the department intentionally ditched a
promotions system based on an exam in which they were poised to
advance to inspector positions.  Once the new system was in place,
no one who had been nearing advancement under the old system was
promoted.  The new system allegedly promoted officers who had not
taken the inspectors' exam, but had instead taken an exam to
become a sergeant.

The City and County of San Francisco and the San Francisco Police
Department were named as defendants alongside then-Police Chief
Heather Fong.

"As a result of the city's department-wide policies and practices,
plaintiffs have been denied promotion, despite their
qualifications and experience, to the rank of Q-35 Inspector and
have earned substantially less than younger, less experienced
officers," the amended complaint stated.

These "hiring practices have a disparate impact on or constitute
disparate treatment of SFPD officers age 40 and over," the
officers added.

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton refused to grant the officers
class certification in late 2011, however, finding that the
plaintiffs failed to "demonstrate that there's a common issue of
age discrimination to explain why the plaintiffs did not get
promoted to an investigative position."

The order relied in particular on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent
resolution in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, which made it tougher for
plaintiffs in discrimination suits to attain class certification.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion: "Quite
obviously, the mere claim by employees of the same company that
they have suffered a Title VII injury, or even a disparate impact
Title VII injury, gives no cause to believe that all their claims
can productively be litigated at once."

Michael Sorgen told the 9th Circuit on Tuesday, September 10,
2013, the police officers, his clients, had been subject to a
policy that resulted in a disparate impact.  He urged the court to
remand the case with instructions to certify the class as well as
guidance on how the lower court should gauge the merits of the
case.

The lawyer told Judge Berzon that he was raising the merits
because, "Your Honor, with all due respect, the district judge did
get into the merits," Sorgen replied.

Berzon again emphasized, however, that only the class
certification was at issue.

"Well, that may be, and that may be an error," she said.

With no need to discuss the merits, Sorgen said: "I guess I have
much less to say on this appeal because it appears clear that
there was a substantial disparate impact that basically reduced
the chance that the over-40 employees would get to do the
investigative work."

Deputy City Attorney Christine Van Aken meanwhile insisted that a
claim for disparate impact must follow specific statistical
guidelines.

"You have to look at everyone who was eligible for a particular
promotion, identify the number of people in a protected class in
that group and then look at the people who got the benefit that
they wanted," Van Aken said.

Juanita Stockwell and her fellow plaintiff officers had "sliced
and diced the statistics so that their eligible pool artificially
became people over 40," Van Aken said.

Judge Berzon interrupted, saying, "And therefore, if they are
wrong they lose [at trial]."

Pressing ahead, the judge said that the plaintiffs' "essential
contention is that, because everybody on this list is over 40 and
because if there had not been one new policy, they would have
gotten a job, that's the end, they win. Your answer is 'No, it's
not the end, they lose.'  Why isn't that a unitary question with a
unitary answer?"

Berzon was referring to the standard for commonality the U.S.
Supreme Court made clear in Wal-Mart.

Van Aken said she interpreted Wal-Mart differently, but Judge J.
Clifford Wallace noted: "There wasn't a common policy in Wal-Mart,
there were supervisors with policies all over.  Here, there's just
one policymaking group.  I don't see where Wal-Mart helps you."

Insisting that the class should not be certified, Van Aken argued:
"The Wal-Mart decision said that any intelligent plaintiff's
lawyer can articulate a commonality, but that's not enough.  You
have to test that commonality against the standards of the law,
and to do that you sometimes have to test the merits."

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Andrea Adam Brott, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ANDREA ADAM BROTT
          2229 McKinley Avenue
          Berkeley, CA 94703
          Telephone: (510) 843-1964

               - and -

          Michael Sorgen, Esq.
          Ryan Lee Hicks, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL S. SORGEN
          240 Stockton Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 956-1360

               - and -

          Richard Hoyer, Esq.
          HOYER & ASSOCIATES
          240 Stockton Street, 9th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 956-1360
          E-mail: rhoyer@hoyerlaw.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Jonathan C. Rolnick, Esq.
          SAN FRANCISCO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          1390 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94102-5408
          Telephone: (415) 554-3815

The appellate case is Juanita Stockwell, et al. v. City and County
of San Francisco, Case No. 12-15070, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.  The original case is Juanita Stockwell, et
al. v. City and County of San Francisco, Case No. 4:08-cv-05180-
PJH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (Oakland).


SHELL OIL: Benzene Contamination Class Action Moves Forward
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Simmons Firm on Sept. 10 disclosed that property owners in the
Village of Roxana filed suit last year against Shell Oil Company,
ConocoPhillips and WRB Refining LP, seeking to hold the former and
current owners and operators of the Wood River Refinery
responsible for releasing carcinogenic chemicals underneath
portions of the village (Case No. 12-cv-336-GPM).  The U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois rejected
Shell's immediate efforts to dismiss the case and, last week,
certified a class of property owners to pursue these claims.

"This means our clients and the class can look forward to having
their day in court," said Simmons Firm shareholder Derek Brandt,
who leads the firm's efforts on behalf of the property owners.

Despite extensively mapped chemical plumes under the Village, the
refinery defendants argued there should be no class action and
that each property owner should have to proceed individually.
Instead, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the
class and appointed the named plaintiffs in the suit -- each of
whom is a Simmons Firm client -- as the class representatives.
The Simmons Firm and its co-counsel have been appointed class
counsel.

The lawsuit alleges property damage stemming from benzene and
other carcinogenic chemical releases that have contaminated the
groundwater, land and air of Roxana.  According to the complaint,
the fugitive emissions are attributed to broken pipelines and the
refinery itself.  In one incident, which occurred during the time
Shell owned the refinery, more than 200,000 pounds of pure benzene
was released from a pipeline directly into the ground.

Much of the contamination remains underground, where a network of
monitoring wells has detected excessive levels of benzene at
numerous locations.  Mr. Brandt said some monitoring wells have
shown increasing benzene concentrations in 2012 and even as
recently as the second quarter of 2013.

One monitoring well in the residential area of the village
recorded groundwater benzene concentrations of 72,900
micrograms/liter.  The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's
maximum benzene contaminant limit for drinking water is 5
micrograms/liter.  Meanwhile, Shell continues to construct
additional wells at the western edge of the investigation area,
seeking to identify just how far the plume extends.

The highest levels of benzene detected in groundwater have been
found below the Village of Roxana's Public Works Yard at the
southern end of the residential area adjacent to the refinery.
Benzene readings there have exceeded 1.8 million micrograms/liter.

In certifying the plaintiff class, the Court ruled the property
owners have sufficient common interests and the case turns on
sufficiently common questions that the action may be pursued on a
group basis under federal procedure.  "We will continue to
vigorously pursue this action on behalf of our clients and the
class," Mr. Brandt said.

The plaintiff class is also represented by the New York-based
litigation firm Hanly Conroy Bierstein Sheridan Fisher & Hayes
LLP.  The Village is pursuing separate litigation and is also
represented by outside counsel at the Simmons Firm, Hanly Conroy,
and others.

    About Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides & Barnerd LLC

The Simmons Firm -- http://www.simmonsfirm.com-- is a national
law firm in complex litigation matters and has represented
thousands of clients throughout the country on issues involving
toxic exposure, consumer rights and public safety.  The firm is
dedicated to its clients and has pledged nearly $20 million to
cancer research.  Additionally, the firm focuses on intellectual
property litigation, pharmaceutical injury litigation and
contingent fee business litigation.

Contact: Mark Motley
         Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides & Barnerd LLC
         Telephone: 618-259-2222
         E-mail: mmotley@simmonsfirm.com


SOTHEBY'S: Plaintiffs' Appeal in "Graham" Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the class action lawsuit brought by the Estate of
Robert Graham, et al., remains pending, according to Sotheby's
August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Estate of Robert Graham, et al. v. Sotheby's, Inc. is a purported
class action commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California in October 2011 on behalf of U.S. artists
(and their estates) whose artworks were sold by Sotheby's in the
State of California or at auction by California sellers and for
which a royalty was allegedly due under the California Resale
Royalties Act (the "Resale Royalties Act").  The Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief for
alleged violations of the Resale Royalties Act and the California
Unfair Competition Law.  In January 2012, Sotheby's filed a motion
to dismiss the action on the grounds, among others, that the
Resale Royalties Act violates the U.S. Constitution and is
preempted by the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976.  In February 2012,
the plaintiffs filed their response to Sotheby's motion to
dismiss.  The court heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss
on March 12, 2012.  On May 17, 2012, the court issued an order
dismissing the action on the ground that the Resale Royalties Act
violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  The
plaintiffs have appealed this ruling.  Sotheby's believes that
there are meritorious defenses to the appeal.  It is currently not
possible to make an estimate of the amount or range of loss that
could result from an unfavorable outcome of this matter.

New York-based Sotheby's -- http://www.sothebys.com/-- is one of
the two largest global auctioneers of authenticated fine art,
decorative art, and jewelry.  Sotheby's primary global auction
competitor is Christie's International, PLC, a privately held,
French-owned, auction house.


STATE AUTO: Continues to Defend "Schumacher" Class Suit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
State Auto Financial Corporation continues to defend itself
against a class action lawsuit titled Schumacher vs. State
Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, 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 April 2013, a putative class action lawsuit (Schumacher vs.
State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, et al.) was filed
against State Auto Mutual, State Auto Financial and State Auto P&C
in Federal District Court in Ohio.  The Plaintiffs claim that in
connection with the homeowners policies of various State Auto
companies, the coverage limits and premiums were improperly
increased as a result of an insurance to value ("ITV") program and
Plaintiffs allege that they purchased coverage in excess of that
which was necessary to insure them in the event of loss.  The
Plaintiffs' claims include breach of good faith and fair dealing,
negligent misrepresentation and fraud, violation of the Ohio
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and fraudulent inducement.  The
Plaintiffs are seeking class certification and compensatory and
punitive damages to be determined by the court.  The Company
intends to deny any and all liability to plaintiffs or the alleged
class and to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

State Auto Financial -- http://www.StateAuto.com/-- is a property
and casualty insurance holding company.  The Company's insurance
subsidiaries are part of the State Auto Group and Pooling
Arrangement.  The State Auto Group markets its insurance products
throughout the United States primarily through independent
agencies, which include retail agencies and brokers.  The Company
is headquartered in Columbus, Ohio.


STRAUSS GROUP: Faces Class Action in Haifa Court
------------------------------------------------
Strauss Group Ltd. on Sept. 11 disclosed that on September 3, 2013
a monetary claim and a motion for its recognition as a class
action against the Company was filed with the Israeli District
Court in Haifa, relating to the marking on some of the Company's
products.  The total amount of the claim is approximately NIS
690.8 million.

The Company rejects the arguments in the claim and will take
action for its removal.


UNIT CORP: 2nd Plea to Certify Class in "Panola" Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Panola Independent School District No. 4, et al.'s second request
to certify a class of royalty owners that is slightly smaller than
their first attempt remains pending, according to Unit
Corporation's August 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

Panola Independent School District No. 4, Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen
Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine Pate, Juanita Golightly,
Melody Culberson and Charlotte Abernathy are the Plaintiffs in
this case and are royalty owners in oil and gas drilling and
spacing units for which the Company's exploration segment
distributes royalty.  The lawsuit is captioned Panola Independent
School District No. 4, et al. v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. CJ-
07-215, District Court of Latimer County, Oklahoma.  The
Plaintiffs' central allegation is that the Company's exploration
segment has underpaid royalty obligations by deducting post-
production costs or marketing related fees.  The Plaintiffs sought
to pursue the case as a class action on behalf of persons who
receive royalty from the Company for its Oklahoma production.  The
Company asserted several defenses including that the deductions
are permitted under Oklahoma law.  The Company also asserted that
the case should not be tried as a class action due to the
materially different circumstances that determine what, if any,
deductions are taken for each lease.  On December 16, 2009, the
trial court entered its order certifying the class.  On May 11,
2012, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's order
certifying the class.  The Plaintiffs petitioned the Oklahoma
Supreme Court for certiorari and on October 8, 2012, the
Plaintiff's petition was denied.  The Plaintiffs recently filed a
second request to certify a class of royalty owners that is
slightly smaller than their first attempt.

The Company says it will continue to resist certification using
its defenses, as well as new defenses based on the Court of Civil
Appeals' decertification of the Plaintiffs' original class action.
The merits of Plaintiffs' claims will remain stayed while class
certification issues are pending.

Tulsa, Oklahoma-based Unit Corporation has three main business
segments offering different products and services: oil and natural
gas, contract drilling, and mid-stream.  The oil and natural gas
segment is engaged in the development, acquisition, and production
of oil, natural gas liquids and natural gas properties.  The
contract drilling segment is engaged in the land contract drilling
of oil and natural gas wells and the mid-stream segment is engaged
in the buying, selling, gathering, processing, and treating of
natural gas and NGLs.


UNITED STATES: Court Orders Closure of VLS Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Each of the nine named plaintiffs in PIERCE v. CANTIL-SAKAUYE
has been declared a vexatious litigant under California's
Vexatious Litigant Statute, California Code of Civil Procedure
Sections 391, et. seq.  These rulings were either made during the
course of or made applicable to custody proceedings.

On March 22, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed the putative class action
for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Civil Rights
Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Plaintiffs assert seven claims for
relief, each of which is premised on the basic argument that the
VLS is unconstitutional as it applies to and affects parents in
custody disputes.

Before the Court are: (1) the Motion to Dismiss, filed by
Defendants the Honorable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of
California and Chair of the Judicial Council, Tani Gorre Cantil-
Sakauye, and Steven Jahr, Administrative Director of the
Administrative Office of the Courts; and (2) the Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction, filed by Plaintiffs, Ronald Pierce, Kerry
Hicks, Andrew Karres, Michelle Fotinos, Amil Hiramanek, Lisa Hunt-
Nocera, Nicole Ann Ray, Archibald Cunningham, and Richard Rifkin.

District Judge Jeffrey S. White granted, in part, and denied, in
part, the motion to dismiss and denies as moot the motion for a
preliminary injunction.  Judge White said that although, in
general, a court should grant Plaintiffs leave to amend, the
defects identified could not be cured by amendment. He ordered the
Clerk of court to close the case.

The case is RONALD PIERCE, KERRY HICKS, ANDREW KARRES, MICHELE
FOTINOS, AMIL HIRAMANEK, LISA HUNT-NOCERA, NICOLE ANN RAY,
ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM, RICHARD RIFKIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CALIFORNIA CHIEF JUSTICE CANTIL-SAKAUYE, Chair of the Judicial
Council, and MR. STEVEN JAHR, Administrative Director of the
Administrative Office of the Courts, Defendants, NO. C 13-01295
JSW, (N.D. Cal.)

A copy of the District Court's August 13, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/z5afh1from Leagle.com.

Ronald Pierce, Plaintiff, represented by:

   Archibald Robert Cunningham
   Attorney at Law
   1489 Mcallister St
   San Francisco, CA 94115

Kerry Hicks, Plaintiff, represented by Archibald Robert
Cunningham, Attorney at Law.

Andrew Karres, Plaintiff, represented by Archibald Robert
Cunningham, Attorney at Law.

Michele Fotinos, Plaintiff, represented by Archibald Robert
Cunningham, Attorney at Law.

Amil Hiramenk, Plaintiff, represented by Archibald Robert
Cunningham, Attorney at Law.

Lisa Hunt-Nocera, Plaintiff, represented by Archibald Robert
Cunningham, Attorney at Law.

Nicole Ann Ray, Plaintiff, represented by Archibald Robert
Cunningham, Attorney at Law.

Archibald Cunningham, Plaintiff, represented by Archibald Robert
Cunningham, Attorney at Law.

Richard Rifkin, Plaintiff, represented by Archibald Robert
Cunningham, Attorney at Law.

Cantil-Sakauye, Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Powell,
Department of Justice, Attorney General's Office & Kari Lynn
Krogseng, Attorney General of California.

Steven Jahr, Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Powell,
Department of Justice, Attorney General's Office & Kari Lynn
Krogseng, Attorney General of California.


UPTOWN DRINK: Sup. Ct. Rules in Favor of Employees in "Karl" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KARL v. UPTOWN DRINK, LLC is a class action filed by roughly 750
servers, bartenders, and security guards against their employers,
respondents Uptown Drink, LLC, Drink, Inc., Downtown Entertainment
Ventures LLC d/b/a Spin Night Club, the parent corporation Fun
Group, Inc., and the parent corporation's president Michael
Whitelaw.

The employees alleged five causes of action, including "Unlawful
Deductions" made in violation of Minn. Stat. Section 181.79
(2012). Before closing arguments, the employees moved for a
directed verdict on their section 181.79 claim. The district court
denied the motion and submitted the section 181.79 claim to the
jury. The jury found that the employers did not violate section
181.79.

After the verdict, the employees requested judgment as a matter of
law (JMOL) pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 50.02 on their section
181.79 claim. The district court denied the motion. The court of
appeals affirmed.

Chief Justice Gildea of the Supreme Court of Minnesota concludes
that the employees were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on
their section 181.79 claim.

Accordingly, the Minn. Supreme Court reverses and remands to the
district court with instructions to enter judgment as a matter of
law in favor of the employees on liability under section 181.79
and for further proceedings to determine appropriate damages.

The case is Jana Karl, et al., Appellants, v. Uptown Drink, LLC,
et al., Respondents, NO. A12-0166.

A copy of the Supreme Court's August 14, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/VXQhROfrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for appellants are Steven Andrew Smith -- smith@nka.com --
Megan I. Brennan -- mbrennan@nka.com -- Katherine M. Vander Pol
at:

   Nichols Kaster, PLLP,
   4600 IDS Center
   80 South Eighth Street
   Minneapolis, MN 55402
   Direct: 612-256-3200
   Toll-Free: 877-448-0492
   Fax: 612-338-4878

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Kelly S. Kemp, Jackson Evans,
Assistant Attorneys General, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for amicus
curiae Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry.

Richard L. Kaspari -- rkaspari@metcalf-law.com -- at Metcalf,
Kaspari, Engdahl & Lazarus, P.A., Saint Paul, Minnesota, for
amicus curiae Unite Here Local 17.


VARIABLE ANNUITY: 5th Circuit Affirms Dismissal of "Hall" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
John and Brenda Hall were members of a certified class of
securities fraud plaintiffs whose certification order was vacated
in 2004.  When the Halls attempted to re-file their class action
in 2009, the district court dismissed it as barred by the statute
of repose.  The Halls appealed.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed
the district court's dismissal ruling saying the statute of repose
ceased to be tolled when the class certification order was
vacated.

The case is JOHN HALL and BRENDA HALL, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. VARIABLE
ANNUITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; VARIABLE ANNUITY MARKETING
COMPANY; VARIABLE ANNUITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY SEPARATE ACCOUNT
A; VALIC FINANCIAL ADVISORS INCORPORATED; JOHN A. GRAF; ROBERT A.
DEVLIN; KENT E. BARRETT; BRUCE R. ABRAMS; M. KATHLEEN ADAMSON;
MARY L. CAVANAUGH; CARL J. SANTILLO; ROBERT P. CONDON; REBECCA G.
CAMPBELL; UNKNOWN PARTIES, named as Does 1  --  100 inclusive,
Defendants-Appellees, NO. 12-20440.

A copy of the Appeals Court's August 15, 2013 Opinion
is available at http://is.gd/ACjUYGfrom Leagle.com.


* 15 Insurance Carriers to Settle 1998 Ice Storm Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Underwriter.ca reports that a Montreal-based consumer
advocacy group has agreed, with 15 insurance carriers, to settle a
class action lawsuit over homeowners' coverage for additional
living expenses related to the January, 1998 ice storm, which
killed up to 35 and left more than a million without electricity.

Option consommateurs announced in a press release on Sept. 11 that
the 15 insurers reached an agreement in principle for an out-of-
court settlement.  That agreement is subject to approval by the
Quebec Superior Court, in a hearing scheduled Oct. 25 in Montreal.

"The class action suit launched by Option consommateurs sought to
determine, among other things, whether the insurance companies had
an obligation to compensate all policyholders included in the
class action for additional living expenses incurred as a result
of the power outages, as well as the amount to be reimbursed," the
15 carriers and Option consommateurs stated in separate releases.

Out of court settlement in 1998 ice storm over insurance

In its lawsuit, Option consommateurs was aiming to get
compensation for policyholders whose homes became uninhabitable
during the ice storm and whose coverage included additional living
expenses.  That storm, which took place between Jan. 4 and 10,
1998, left close to 1.4 million customers in Quebec and more than
230,000 customers in Ontario without electricity, according to
Statistics Canada.

Last year, Option consommateurs settled out of court with four
other companies now owned by Intact Financial Corp.  Those
carriers were Belair Insurance Company, Allianz Insurance Company
of Canada, AXA Assurances and ING Insurance Company of Canada
(Commerce Group).  That settlement -- valued at c$12.5 million --
applied to about 200,000 policyholders who lived at the time in
one of the 640 municipalities covered by the action.  In that
agreement, approved by a Quebec court in December, 2012,
policyholders received an initial payment of c$50.92 for each home
insurance contract.

The tentative settlement announced Sept. 11, 2013 is valued at
about C$40 million, bringing the total value of the settlement to
C$52.5 million. None of the carriers have admitted liability.

The 15 additional carriers who have tentatively agreed to settle
are:

* Allstate Insurance Company of Canada;

* Aviva Insurance Company of Canada (formerly General Accident
Assurance Company);

* Desjardins General Insurance Inc.;

* Industrial Alliance Auto and Home Insurance Inc.;

* La Capitale General Insurance Inc.;

* Liberty Mutual Insurance Company;

* L'Unique General Insurance Inc.;

* Optimum Insurance Company Inc.;

* Promutuel VerchŠres Societe Mutuelle d'assurance Generale;

* SSQ Societe d'assurances Generales Inc.;

* The Canadian Union Insurance Company;

* The Missisquoi Insurance Company;

* The Personal General Insurance Inc.;

* The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company; and

* Traders General Insurance Company.

Policyholders wishing to opt out of the settlement must notify the
court in writing.  In order to be eligible, a policyholder must
have lived in one of the 640 municipalities covered in the class
action and must have had a homeowner policy with one of the 15
insurers.

The 1998 ice storm was the most expensive disaster in Canadian
history when measured by insured losses of about C$1.295 billion
(not adjusted for inflation), according to a report released
earlier this year by Property and Casualty Insurance Compensation
Corp.  However, the Insurance Bureau of Canada recently suggested
it has "little doubt" that when final numbers are in, the floods
last June in Alberta will rank as the country's most expensive
insured loss event.

According to a Statistics Canada document, the 1998 ice storm
brought down 1,000 power transmission towers and 30,000 wooden
utility poles.  The total water equivalent of precipitation
exceeded 73 mm in Kingston, Ont., 85 mm in Ottawa and 100 mm areas
south of Montreal.  Those totals included ice pellets and snow but
was mainly in the form of freezing rain.  The previous Montreal
freezing rain record, which left 30 to 40 mm of ice, had been set
in 1961, according to Statistics Canada.

"The geographic extent of the storm was enormous, stretching from
Georgian Bay to the Bay of Fundy," according to Environment
Canada.  "The freezing precipitation held on for more 80 than
hours, nearly double the normal annual total."  Environment Canada
reported up to 35 died in the storm.


                             *********

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  * * *