CAR_Public/130923.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, September 23, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 188

                             Headlines


ACADIAN FINE: Recalls Stew Products Due to Misbranding
ARC DOCUMENT: Continues to Defend Employee Class Suit vs. Units
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP: Posts $6 Million Gain From Class Suits
BP PLC: Proposed Oil Spill Class Action Settlement Filed
CADBURY ADAMS: Courts Approve Chocolate Price-Fixing Settlement

CHOBANI INC: Faces Class Action Over Contaminated Yogurt Products
CIMAREX ENERGY: Settlement Judgment Became Final in August 2013
CROSMAN CORP: Recalls Air Pistols Over Eye Injury Risks
CROSS COUNTRY: Reached Deal to Settle "Ogues" Suit for $750,000
DENY DESIGNS: Recalls Magnet Boards Due to Injury Hazard

DUN & BRADSTREET: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "O&R" Suit
DUN & BRADSTREET: Final Hearing on "Martin" Suit Deal on Nov. 19
ELECTROLUX HOME: Recalls Frigidaire Professional Blenders
ENERNOC INC: Defends Shareholder Class Suit Filed in Delaware
FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: New Plaintiffs Join Class Action

FIDELITY NATIONAL: Awaits Sept. 3 Trial Result in RESPA Suits
FIRST SOLAR: Bid to Certify Class in "Smilovits" Suit Pending
FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS: Still Awaits Ruling on Reconsideration Bid
GORT'S GOUDA: Recalls Mild Gouda Over E. Coli Presence
HURONIA REGIONAL: C$2-Bil. Abuse Class Action Set to Begin

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Ontario Court Certifies Hip Implant Class Suit
LAND OF NOD: Recalls Bed-Frames Due to Entrapment Hazard
LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces Class Action Over Use of Gang Curfews
MAIDENFORM BRANDS: Faces Hanesbrands Merger-Related Class Suits
MPG OFFICE: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit in California

MURPHY USA: Continues to Defend Hot Fuel Suits vs. Unit
OPTIMER PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Merger-Related Suit in New Jersey
OVASCIENCE INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Mass.
PILOT FLYING J: Fuel Rebate Settlement Under "Fairness Review"
ROSETTA STONE: Wage and Hour Suit Remains Pending in California

SEMIFREDDI'S INC: Recalls Certain Biscotti
SHIMANO AMERICAN: Recalls Disc Brake Calipers
SHIMANO CANADA: Recall Disc Brake Calipers
SOLTA MEDICAL: "Clement" Shareholder Suit Dismissed in July
SOLTA MEDICAL: Dismissal of Reliant Acquisition Suit Affirmed

SOLTA MEDICAL: Suit Alleging TCPA Violations Dismissed in June
STONEMOR PARTNERS: Conditional Class Certified in FLSA Suit
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Griner" Class Suit Still Pending
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: "Childs" Class Suit Currently in Discovery
SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Discovery in Securities Class Suit Ongoing

TD AMERITRADE: Bids to Dismiss Yield Plus Fund Suit Still Pending
TOSH FARMS: Kentucky Court Decertifies Nuisance Class Action
TOYOTA MOTOR: Car Owner Misses Class Action Settlement Cut-Off
TRANSOCEAN LTD: Continues to Defend Deepwater Horizon Suits
TRIUS THERAPEUTICS: Faces Two Suits Over Acquisition by Cubist

VENAXIS INC: Oral Argument in "Wolfe" Suit Appeal on Sept. 26
VISA INC: Merchants Want $7.25BB Swipe Fee Settlement Blocked
VITA HEALTH: Acetaminophen Tablets Recalled in Canada
VITA HEALTH: Cold and Flu Pack Recalled in Canada
VOGUE INT'L: Settles Organix False Advertising Class Action

WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls Apple Cinnamon Mini Muffins
WELLCARE HEALTH: Still Subject to Contingencies Under Suit Deal
WESTERN UNION: Two Members Appeal Approval of Consumer Suit Deal
WISCONSIN AUTO: December 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

* Pension Funds Miss Out of $18-Bil. of Damages, Goal Group Says


                             *********


ACADIAN FINE: Recalls Stew Products Due to Misbranding
------------------------------------------------------
Acadian Fine Foods, LLC, a Church Point, La. establishment, is
recalling approximately 17,037 pounds of pork stew and chicken
stew products because of misbranding and undeclared allergens.
The products contain whey and soy, known allergens which are not
declared on the product label.

The following products are subject to recall:

   -- 12-oz. single-serve bowls of "Savoie's Cajun Singles
Louisiana Pork Stew" bearing the establishment number "Est. 13587"
inside the USDA mark of inspection. The products were produced on
various dates from May 24, 2012 through March 21, 2013. The
product packages bear "Use By" dates from May 24, 2013 through
March 21, 2014.

12-oz. single-serve bowls of "Savoie's Cajun Singles Louisiana
Chicken Stew" bearing the establishment number "P-13587" inside
the USDA mark of inspection. The products were produced on various
dates from June 6, 2012 through Feb. 25, 2013. The product
packages bear "Use By" dates from June 6, 2013 through Feb. 25,
2014.

The products were distributed for retail sale in Louisiana,
Mississippi and Texas.

The problem was discovered by FSIS during a routine label review.
Whey and soy are sub-ingredients in the chicken base used to make
the product. The company changed chicken bases and the labels did
not reflect the change in ingredients. FSIS and the company have
received no reports of adverse reactions associated with
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an adverse
reaction should see a health care professional.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/Open_Federal_Cases

Consumers and the media with questions about the recall should
contact Jim Miller, Acadian Fine Foods' Plant Manager, at (337)
684-6933.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at
http://www.AskKaren.govor via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask
Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday from
10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline
1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and
Spanish and can be reached from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24
hours a day. For information on how to report a problem with a
meat, poultry or processed egg product to FSIS at any time, visit
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/Problems_With_Food_Products


ARC DOCUMENT: Continues to Defend Employee Class Suit vs. Units
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARC Document Solutions, Inc., continues to defend its subsidiaries
against an employee class action lawsuit pending in California,
according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

On October 21, 2010, a former employee, individually and on behalf
of a purported class consisting of all non-exempt employees who
work or worked for American Reprographics Company, L.L.C. and
American Reprographics Company in the State of California at any
time from October 21, 2006, through the present, filed an action
against the Company in the Superior Court of California for the
County of Orange.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that
the Company violated the California Labor Code by failing to (i)
provide meal and rest periods, or compensation in lieu thereof,
(ii) timely pay wages due at termination, and (iii) that those
practices also violate the California Business and Professions
Code.  The relief sought includes damages, restitution, penalties,
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees and such other relief as the
court deems proper.  On March 15, 2013, the Company participated
in a private mediation session with claimants' counsel which did
not result in resolution of the claim.  A subsequent court status
conference was held on July 8, 2013, with no resolution reached.
Although the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to
the claim, the Company also believes that a loss is probable and
recorded a liability of $0.9 million as of June 30, 2013.  The
case remains unresolved as of June 30, 2013.  As such, the
ultimate resolution of the claim could result in a loss different
than the estimated loss recorded.

ARC Document Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.e-arc.com/-- a
Delaware corporation, provides specialized document solutions to
businesses of all types, with an emphasis on the non-residential
segment of the architecture, engineering and construction
industry.  The Company is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.


AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP: Posts $6 Million Gain From Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
AmerisourceBergen Corporation disclosed in its August 7, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013, that during the three months
ended June 30, 2013, it recognized gains of $6.0 million relating
to class action lawsuits.

Numerous class action lawsuits have been filed against certain
brand pharmaceutical manufacturers alleging that the manufacturer,
by itself or in concert with others, took improper actions to
delay or prevent generic drugs from entering the market.  The
Company has not been named a plaintiff in any of these class
actions, but has been a member of the direct purchasers' class
(i.e., those purchasers who purchase directly from these
pharmaceutical manufacturers).  None of the class actions have
gone to trial, but some have settled in the past with the Company
receiving proceeds from the settlement funds.  During the three
and nine months ended June 30, 2013, the Company recognized gains
of $6.0 million and $21.7 million, respectively, relating to the
class action lawsuits.  The Company recognized no such gains
during the three and nine months ended June 30, 2012.  These
gains, which are net of attorney fees and estimated payments due
to other parties, were recorded as reductions to cost of goods
sold in the Company's consolidated statements of operations.

AmerisourceBergen Corporation is a pharmaceutical services company
serving the United States, Canada and select global markets.  The
Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania-based Company provides drug
distribution and related healthcare services and solutions to its
pharmacy, physician, and manufacturer customers.


BP PLC: Proposed Oil Spill Class Action Settlement Filed
--------------------------------------------------------
BayouBuzz.com reports that lawsuits between BP and thousands of
plaintiffs claiming economic and medical damages from the 2010
Gulf of Mexico oil spill edged closer to resolution on Sept. 11,
as the parties filed a proposed class-action settlement in a New
Orleans federal court.

The oil company and a steering committee representing plaintiffs
asked U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier to approve the settlement,
laid out in a 700-page document containing details of an agreement
the parties announced March 2.

BP has estimated it will pay $7.8 billion under the settlement,
although it contains no cap on total payments.

According to the documents filed on Sept. 11, the deal also
provides for up to $600 million in fees and expenses for plaintiff
attorneys, a new detail.

The blowout of BP's Macondo well and resulting explosion on the
Deepwater Horizon drilling rig -- two years ago on Sept. 13 --
killed 11 workers and caused the worst offshore oil spill in U.S.
history.

"On balance, the agreement creates a comprehensive compensation
system, and thus represents a resolution that is more than fair,
reasonable, and adequate," the parties say in their filing.

They ask Judge Barbier for preliminary approval of the class-
action structure of the settlement and to schedule a hearing for
November to determine whether the eligibility requirements and
compensation schemes treat potential plaintiffs fairly.

Judge Barbier, who is presiding over a case that combines the mass
of litigation arising from the disaster, was set to begin a trial
early last month to apportion liability for damages and assess
possible negligence, but postponed it indefinitely after the
settlement announcement.  BP and the plaintiff committee asked
Barbier to delay the trial until the settlement is finalized.

The pending settlement agreement does not cover federal, state and
local government claims against BP, or any charges that might come
out of the Justice Department's continuing criminal investigation.

It also doesn't settle claims and counterclaims among some of the
companies that worked on the Macondo well.

But it does transfer to the steering committee BP's claims against
Transocean, which operated the Deepwater Horizon, and Halliburton,
the cement contractor on the well.  That allows the committee to
pursue the two companies for possible punitive damages.

Transocean and Halliburton declined to comment on the proposed
settlement.


CADBURY ADAMS: Courts Approve Chocolate Price-Fixing Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class action lawsuits brought across Canada against Cadbury,
Hershey, Nestle and Mars entities, and distributor ITWAL Limited
alleging price-fixing and price maintenance in the market for
chocolate products in Canada have been settled and resolved in
full.  The defendants deny the allegations and have settled to
avoid the expense, inconvenience and distraction of further
protracted litigation.  The settlements reflect a compromise of
disputed claims.

The settlements were approved by the courts in Ontario, British
Columbia and Quebec as being fair, reasonable and in the best
interests of class members.  Together, the defendants, Cadbury
Adams Canada Inc., Hershey Canada Inc., Nestle Canada Inc. and
Mars Canada Inc. paid $23.2 million for the benefit of all persons
who bought Cadbury, Hershey, Nestle and/or Mars chocolate products
in Canada between February 1, 2001 and December 31, 2008.

The courts in Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec have also
approved a method for distributing the settlement amounts (less
approved fees and expenses) to consumers and commercial purchasers
with chocolate product purchases between October 1, 2005 and
September 30, 2007.  Consumers who purchased at least $1,000 in
chocolate products between October 1, 2005 and September 30, 2007
will be eligible to make a claim for direct monetary compensation.
It is not necessary to have purchase records in order to make a
claim, although consumer claims that are not supported by purchase
records are capped at $50.

Recognizing that not all consumers will have made the threshold
level of purchases required to make a claim for direct monetary
compensation, consumers not eligible for direct monetary
compensation will be indirectly compensated through a distribution
of 10% of the available settlement funds to the following national
non-profit organizations: Consumers Association of Canada; Public
Interest Advocacy Centre; Phelps Centre for the Study of
Government and Business (University of British Columbia); Centre
for Interuniversity Research and Analysis of Organizations; and
Rotman Institute for International Business (University of
Toronto).  The monies received by these organizations will be used
to fund food and nutritional programs across Canada. The remaining
90% will be allocated for direct payment to consumers and
commercial purchasers whose claims are approved.  Payments to
eligible claimants will be made based on the estimated percentage
of the purchase price affected by the alleged overcharge, and not
based on the full price of the product.

The deadline for filing a claim to receive direct compensation is
December 15, 2013.  Persons who believe they might qualify for
direct compensation can obtain more information about the
settlement benefits and how to make a claim online at
http://www.chocolateclassaction.comor by calling 1-866-432-5534.
Claims that are not made within the deadline will not be eligible
for compensation.

Persons in British Columbia are represented by Sharon Matthews of
Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman (Vancouver) and Luciana Brasil of
Branch MacMaster LLP (Vancouver).  Individuals and partnerships
and corporations with less than 50 employees in Quebec are
represented by Simon Hebert of Siskinds Desmeules s.e.n.c.r.l.
(Quebec City). Persons in provinces other than British Columbia
and Quebec as well as partnerships and corporations in Quebec with
50 or more employees are represented by Charles Wright of Siskinds
LLP (London) and Heather Rumble Peterson of Sutts, Strosberg LLP
(Windsor).

Contacts:

For Persons in British Columbia:
Luciana Brasil
Branch MacMaster LLP
1410-777 Hornby Street
Vancouver, BC V6Z 1S4
Telephone: 604-654-2966
E-mail: lbrasil@branmac.com

Sharon D. Matthews
Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman
#400 - 856 Homer Street
Vancouver, BC V6B 2W5
Telephone: 604-331-9522
E-mail: smatthews@cfmlawyers.ca

For Persons in Quebec:
Simon Hebert
Siskinds Desmeules s.e.n.c.r.l.
43, Rue Baude, Bureau 320
Quebec City, QC G1R 4A2
Telephone: 418-694-2009
E-mail: simon.hebert@siskindsdesmeules.com

For Persons in the rest of Canada:
Charles Wright
Siskinds LLP
680 Waterloo Steet
London, ON N6A 3V8
Telephone: 1-800-461-6166 ext. 2446
E-mail: charles.wright@siskinds.com

According to VOCM, Ches Crosbie Barristers was one of a number of
firms that reached multiple national settlement agreements in the
class action for a total of $23.2 million.  Chocolate consumers
eligible for compensation include those who purchased chocolate
not for commercial resale -- that is, personal consumption or on
behalf of sports teams, schools, and other non-profit
organizations.  Consumers must be able to establish the purchase
of chocolate in excess of one thousand dollars between October
2005 and September 2007.

Hershey has pleaded guilty to the charges filed by the Competition
Bureau, while Nestle, Mars and ITWAL have indicated they will
defend themselves vigorously.  The trial is set for October 3.


CHOBANI INC: Faces Class Action Over Contaminated Yogurt Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Anstoetter, Esq., and Madeleine McDonough, Esq., at Shook
Hardy & Bacon LLP, report that while dozens of consumers have
purportedly experienced nausea and cramps after eating Chobani
Greek Yogurt products allegedly contaminated with mold, a
California resident without apparent physical injury has filed a
putative class action against the company to recover damages for
purchasing a defective product. Green v. Chobani, Inc., No. 13-
2106 (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Cal., filed September 9, 2013).
Plaintiff Harold Green alleges that he purchased 16 cups of yogurt
subject to a company recall and that he and his family members
consumed some of them before the September 5, 2013, recall date.
After receiving notice of the recall, the plaintiff claims that he
returned six cups to the store.

Seeking to represent a nationwide class and statewide subclass of
purchasers, the plaintiff alleges negligence and breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability for food.  He requests
restitution, disgorgement, interest, compensatory damages,
attorney's fees, and costs.


CIMAREX ENERGY: Settlement Judgment Became Final in August 2013
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cimarex Energy Co. said in its August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013, that the judgment approving its settlement of
a class action lawsuit over royalty payments became final and
unappealable on August 2, 2013.

On December 11, 2012, Cimarex entered into a preliminary
resolution of the Hitch Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Cimarex
Energy Co., et al. (Hitch) litigation matter for $16.4 million.
Hitch is a statewide royalty class action pending in the Federal
District Court in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.  The settlement was
reached at a mediation, which occurred after the parties began to
exchange information, including damage analyses, on November 16,
2012.  On July 2, 2013, the Court entered a judgment approving the
parties' settlement.  The judgment became final and unappealable
on August 2, 2013, and Cimarex will distribute the settlement
proceeds pursuant to the Court's order.  In the fourth quarter of
2012, the Company accrued $16.4 million for this matter.

Cimarex Energy Co. is an independent oil and gas exploration and
production company.  The Company's operations are entirely located
in the United States, mainly in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, and
Kansas.  The Company is headquartered in Denver, Colorado.


CROSMAN CORP: Recalls Air Pistols Over Eye Injury Risks
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 19, 2013
Posting date:             September 19, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Miscellaneous
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety, Physical Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-35737

Affected products: Crosman Air Pistols

The recall involves Crosman semi-automatic style air pistols with
Model C31, 9-C31BRM, or C21 with serial numbers 12J, 12K, 12L,
12M, 13A, 13B or 13C.  Pictures of the recalled products are
available at: http://is.gd/TDbFR4

The air pistols use a carbon dioxide (C02) cartridge to propel
steel BBs and are used for recreational shooting.  The air pistols
are black, and include Crosman's name and partial address in the
"Warning" information on the left side of the pistol.

The air pistols can explode at high temperatures, propelling the
pistol's broken plastic pieces into the air, and posing a risk of
serious eye and other injuries to users.

Neither Health Canada nor Crosman Corp. has received any reports
of incidents or injuries related to the use of these air pistols.

Approximately 422 of the recalled air pistols were sold at
sporting goods stores across Canada.

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold from
November 2012 to May 2013.

Companies

  Manufacturer     WingGun Technology C. Ltd.
                   Taiwan, Province Of China

  Importer         Crosman Corp.
                   Bloomfield New York
                   United States

Consumers should stop using the recalled air pistols immediately,
remove the CO2 cartridge and contact Crosman for instructions to
return the air pistols for a free replacement air pistol or a full
refund.


CROSS COUNTRY: Reached Deal to Settle "Ogues" Suit for $750,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the class action lawsuit initiated by Alice Ogues
reached in June 2013 a settlement in principle for $750,000,
according to Cross Country Healthcare, Inc.'s August 7, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In late 2012, Alice Ogues, a former employee of Travel Staff, LLC
(then CC Staffing, Inc.) commenced a putative wage and hour class
action against the Company.  The case is pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
under the caption Ogues v. CC Staffing, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-6135-
JCS.  The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all individuals
employed by the company as non-exempt workers from December 4,
2008, to the present and alleges that Travel Staff: (1) failed to
provide meal periods; (2) failed to provide rest breaks; (3)
failed to pay minimum and overtime wages; (4) failed to timely pay
wages during employment; (5) made unlawful deductions from wages;
(6) failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (7)
waiting time penalties; and (8) unfair competition.  In June 2013,
the parties reached a settlement in principle for $750,000, and
are negotiating the terms of an agreement.  Preliminary and final
approval hearing dates have not yet been set by the court.
Accordingly, during the second quarter of 2013, the Company
accrued a reserve for this claim which is included in other
current liabilities and legal settlement charge on its condensed
consolidated balance sheets and statements of operations,
respectively.

Headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida, Cross Country Healthcare,
Inc. -- http://www.crosscountryhealthcare.com/-- is in the
business of healthcare staffing with a primary focus on providing
nurse, allied and physician (locum tenens) staffing services and
workforce solutions to the healthcare market.  The Company also
provides education and training programs specifically for the
healthcare marketplace.


DENY DESIGNS: Recalls Magnet Boards Due to Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Deny Designs, of Denver, Co., announced a voluntary recall of 82
Baroque and Quatrefoil Magnet Boards.  Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The steel magnet board can separate from wood backing causing it
to fall and posing an injury hazard.

The firm received four reports of the magnetic steel cover
separating from the wood backing, resulting in the cover falling
to the floor.  There were no injuries reported.

Magnet Boards are decorative home accessories that hang on a wall
and are used for posting photos, notes and reminders.  They have a
diamond or square shape with a curved or scalloped edge trim and
are printed with a variety of designs and art representations.
They are made of wood and steel and come in two sizes: medium, 22
by 29 inches; and large, 30 by 38 inches sizes.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold online at
DENYDesigns.com, Gilt.com, JossandMain.com, Remodo.com and
Zulily.com between March 2013 and June 2013 from about $105 to
$300.

Consumers should immediately remove the recalled magnetic boards
from the wall and contact DENY Designs for a free replacement
board with a shipping label and reusable box to return the
recalled product.  Once the recalled product is received by the
firm, consumers will also receive a discount code good for 50% off
a future purchase from DENY.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "O&R" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation is awaiting a court decision on
its motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit brought by O&R
Construction LLC, according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On December 13, 2012, plaintiff O&R Construction LLC filed a
putative class action, captioned O&R Construction, LLC v. Dun &
Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, et al., No. 2:12 CV 02184
(USDC W.D. Wash.), in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington against D&B and an unaffiliated
entity.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that
defendants violated the antitrust laws, used deceptive marketing
practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products and
allegedly misrepresented the nature, need and value of the
products.  The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers of CreditBuilder and seeks recovery of damages
and equitable relief.  On February 18, 2013, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.  On April 5, 2013, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint in lieu of responding to the motion.
The amended complaint dropped the antitrust claims and retained
the class action and deceptive practices allegations.  The Company
filed a new motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May 3,
2013.  The Court has not yet ruled on this motion and set
August 23, 2013, as a hearing date for oral argument.  The parties
exchanged initial disclosures and completed the initial case
management process in March 2013.  Formal discovery has begun and
is in an early stage.

The Company says this litigation is at a very preliminary stage.
In accordance with ASC 450," Contingencies," the Company does not
have sufficient information upon which to determine that a loss in
connection with this matter is probable, reasonably possible or
estimable, and thus no reserve has been established nor has a
range of loss been disclosed.  The Company disputes the
allegations and intends to vigorously defend the case.

Based in Short Hills, New Jersey, The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation
-- http://www.dnb.com/-- is the world's leading source of
commercial information and insight on businesses, enabling
customers to Decide with Confidence(R) for 172 years.  The
Company's global commercial database contains more than 225
million business records.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Final Hearing on "Martin" Suit Deal on Nov. 19
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the final approval of The Dun & Bradstreet
Corporation's settlement of a class action lawsuit filed by
Nicholas Martin is scheduled for November 19, 2013, according to
the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On January 11, 2012, Nicholas Martin filed a lawsuit against Dun &
Bradstreet, Inc. and Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc.
("Convergys") in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  The complaint, captioned Nicholas Martin v.
Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. and Convergys Customer Management Group,
Inc., No. 12 CV 215 (USDC N.D. IL.), alleges that Defendants
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") because
Convergys placed a telephone call to Plaintiff's cell phone using
an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") and because Dun &
Bradstreet, Inc. authorized the telephone call.  The TCPA
generally prohibits the use of an ATDS to place a call to a cell
phone for nonemergency purposes and without the prior express
consent of the called party.  The TCPA provides for statutory
damages of $500 per violation, which may be trebled to $1,500 per
violation at the discretion of the court if the plaintiff proves
the defendant willfully violated the TCPA.  The Plaintiff sought
to bring this action as a class action on behalf of all persons
who Defendants called on their cell phone using an ATDS, where the
Defendants obtained the cell phone number from some source other
than directly from the called party, during the period January 11,
2010, to the present.

The parties reached an agreement to settle this matter and they
have negotiated the terms of a settlement agreement and other
related settlement documents.  On July 16, 2013 the Court granted
Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement and entered a Preliminary Approval Order.  Notice to
class members was mailed on July 31, 2013, and class members have
until October 7, 2013, to submit claims, which are subject to the
Defendants' review.  The settlement is subject to final approval
by the Court.  The Court scheduled a Final Approval Hearing for
November 19, 2013.

In accordance with ASC 450, "Contingencies," as of June 30, 2013,
a reserve has been accrued by the Company in this matter, which is
reflected in its consolidated financial statements.  The amount of
such reserve is not material to the company's financial statements
and an estimate of the additional loss or range of loss cannot be
made.

Based in Short Hills, New Jersey, The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation
-- http://www.dnb.com/-- is the world's leading source of
commercial information and insight on businesses, enabling
customers to Decide with Confidence(R) for 172 years.  The
Company's global commercial database contains more than 225
million business records.


ELECTROLUX HOME: Recalls Frigidaire Professional Blenders
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Electrolux Home Care Products Inc., of Charlotte, N.C., announced
a voluntary recall of about 14,000 Frigidaire Professional
blenders.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The blender's blade shaft assembly can break during use, posing a
laceration hazard to consumers.

Frigidaire has received eight reports of the blender's blade shaft
assembly breaking.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves Frigidaire Professional brand blender model
FPJB56B7MS with a serial number between FFP 49 1203 0001 and FFP
49 1237 00974.  The model and serial numbers are located on a
serial plate on the underside of the blender's motor base.
Frigidaire Professional is printed on the front base of the
blenders.  The 5-speed blender is brushed aluminum and has black
buttons on the front.  The blender container is a 56-oz. clear
glass jar with a black lid and a black base.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/C5f34Y

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Best
Buy, Target and other stores nationwide and online at amazon.com,
bedbath.com and other online retailers from March 2012 through
July 2013 for about $130.

Consumers should stop using the recalled blenders immediately and
contact Frigidaire for instructions on returning the blenders for
a free replacement blender.


ENERNOC INC: Defends Shareholder Class Suit Filed in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------
EnerNOC, Inc. is defending itself against a shareholder class
action lawsuit filed in Delaware, according to the Company's
August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On May 3, 2013, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a
derivative and class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware (the Court) against
certain officers and directors of the Company as well as the
Company as a nominal defendant.  The complaint asserts derivative
claims, purportedly brought on behalf of the Company, for breach
of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust
enrichment in connection with certain equity grants (awarded in
2010, 2012, and 2013) that allegedly exceeded the annual limit on
per-employee equity grants contained in the Company's Amended and
Restated 2007 Employee, Director and Consultant Stock Plan (the
"2007 Plan").  The complaint also asserts a direct claim, brought
on behalf of the plaintiff and a proposed class of the Company's
shareholders, alleging the Company's proxy statement filed on
April 26, 2013, is false and misleading because it fails to
disclose that the equity grants were improper.  The plaintiff
seeks, among other relief, rescission of the equity grants,
unspecified damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement, attorneys'
fees, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper.  The
Company's response to the complaint was due on August 30, 2013.

Company management believes that the Company and the other
defendants have substantial legal and factual defenses to the
claims and allegations contained in the complaint, and intends to
pursue these defenses vigorously.  There can be no assurance,
however, that such efforts will be successful, and an adverse
resolution of the lawsuit could have a material effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position and results of
operations in the period in which the lawsuit is resolved.  In
addition, although the Company carries insurance for these types
of claims, there is no guarantee that this claim will be covered.
A lack of insurance coverage or a judgment significantly in excess
of the Company's insurance coverage could materially and adversely
affect its financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows.  The Company is not presently able to reasonably estimate
potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit.

Based in Boston, Massachusetts, EnerNOC, Inc. is a leading
provider of energy intelligence software and related solutions.
The Company unlocks the full value of energy management for
commercial, institutional and industrial end-users of energy, and
the Company's electric power grid operator and utility customers
by delivering a comprehensive suite of demand-side management
services that reduce real-time demand for electricity, increase
energy efficiency, improve energy supply transparency in
competitive markets, and mitigate emissions.


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

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

In this latest rendition of the complaint, originally filed
March 19, Ms. Bilewicz was joined by 26 other former and current
Fidelity workers who were all participants in the company's own
profit-sharing plan.

"The conflicts of interest are pretty obvious to the casual
observer: [Fidelity] chooses the funds, and all 170 funds are
Fidelity funds," said Gregory Y. Porter, an attorney with Bailey &
Glasser LLP.  He is representing the plaintiffs in the case.

"I don't see how you can have a best-of-breed process where your
evaluation can result in 100% Fidelity funds," Mr. Porter said.

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

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

                         Bolstering the case

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

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

By adding on current plan participants, the plaintiff's attorneys
can seek other solutions in addition to just a monetary award.

The case can push for changes to the plan, Mr. Porter said.

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

The company offers "a wide array of choices, including low-priced
institutional share classes and low-cost index funds,"
Mr. Loporchio said.

                        Loading up the menu?

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

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

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

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

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

The difference in cost was stark, according to the suit.

The index-based funds had average investment management fees of 9
basis points, 83% lower than the average cost of the Fidelity
Freedom Fund K shares that the plan used.

Although Pyramis also offered an indexed-based target date series,
Fidelity workers weren't offered this as an option, the plaintiffs
allege.

The Pyramis Lifecycle Index charged a management fee of 15 basis
points, 72% lower than the Freedom Funds that were available on
the plan's menu, according to the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs seek disgorgement of investment advisory fees paid
to Fidelity units, a restoration of plan losses and restitution,
among other demands.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Awaits Sept. 3 Trial Result in RESPA Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Financial, Inc., is awaiting a court decision in
connection with the trial held earlier in September, according to
the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

Two class action complaints titled Chultem v. Ticor Title
Insurance Co., Chicago Title and Trust, Co., and Fidelity National
Financial, Inc and Colella v. Chicago Title Insurance Co. and
Chicago Title and Trust Co. are pending in the Illinois state
court against Chicago Title Insurance Company ("Chicago"), Ticor
Title Insurance Company ("Ticor"), Chicago Title and Trust
Company, and Fidelity National Financial, Inc., their parent,
(collectively "the Companies").  The Plaintiffs represent
certified classes of all borrowers and sellers of residential real
estate in Illinois who paid a premium for title insurance to
Chicago and Ticor which was split with attorney agents for
services which were performed in issuing the policies.  The
complaint alleges the Companies violated the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and by doing so violated the
Illinois Title Insurance Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages in the amount of the
premium split paid to the attorney agents, interest, punitive
damages, a permanent injunction, attorney's fees and costs.  Class
certification was denied on May 26, 2009, but the plaintiffs
appealed.  The Court of Appeal reversed the previous decision and
the case was remanded to the trial court for certification and
subsequent proceedings.  Although such premium splits with
attorney agents are expressly permitted by RESPA, the Plaintiffs
alleged in the trial court that HUD took the position in a
statement issued in 1996 in Florida that providing "pro forma
commitments" to attorney agents that could be signed to create a
policy without further examination would permit an agent to issue
a policy without performing actual services, thus the agent would
be paid only for referral of the business violating RESPA.  The
Plaintiffs argued RESPA must be interpreted in accordance with the
Florida statement, that Chicago and Ticor provided their attorney
agents with "pro forma commitments", and Chicago Title and Trust
Company and Fidelity National Financial, Inc. are vicariously
liable.

Contrary to Federal precedent, on March 1, 2013, the trial court
agreed with Plaintiffs and ruled RESPA must be interpreted in
accordance with HUD's Florida statement, but that a trial is
necessary to determine if Chicago and Ticor provided "pro forma
commitments."  A trial was set for September 3, 2013, to try
"liability issues", but not whether the class could be ascertained
or class wide damages.  The trial court has declared that after
trial it will make a final, appealable judgment.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this action.  As
the case continues to evolve it is not possible to reasonably
estimate the probability that the Company will be ultimately held
liable, or reasonably estimate the ultimate loss, if any, or range
of loss that could result from the case.

Jacksonville, Florida-based Fidelity National Financial, Inc., is
a leading provider of title insurance, mortgage services and other
diversified services.  FNF is the nation's largest title insurance
company through its title insurance underwriters -- Fidelity
National Title, Chicago Title, Commonwealth Land Title and Alamo
Title -- that collectively issue more title insurance policies
than any other title company in the United States.


FIRST SOLAR: Bid to Certify Class in "Smilovits" Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification remains
pending, according to First Solar, Inc.'s August 7, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled
Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-
DGC, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona (hereafter "Arizona District Court") against
the Company and certain of its current and former directors and
officers.  The complaint was filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities between April 30, 2008, and February 28,
2012.  The complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by making false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance and prospects.  The action
includes claims for damages, and an award of costs and expenses to
the putative class, including attorneys' fees.  The Company
believes it has meritorious defenses and will vigorously defend
this action.

On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order
appointing as lead plaintiffs in the class action the Mineworkers'
Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme
(collectively "Pension Schemes").  The Pension Schemes filed an
amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains similar
allegations and seeks similar relief as the original complaint.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012.  On
December 17, 2012, the court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss.
On February 26, 2013, the court directed the parties to begin
class certification discovery, and ordered a further scheduling
conference to set the merit discovery schedule after the issue of
class certification has been decided.  On June 21, 2013, the
Pension Schemes filed a motion for class certification.

The Company says the action is still in the initial stages and
there has been no merits discovery.  Accordingly, the Company is
not in a position to assess whether any loss or adverse effect on
its financial condition is probable or remote or to estimate the
range of potential loss, if any.

First Solar, Inc. -- http://www.firstsolar.com/-- is a global
provider of solar energy solutions.  The Company, a Delaware
corporation based in Tempe, Arizona, manufactures and sells
photovoltaic solar modules with an advanced thin-film
semiconductor technology.  The Company also designs, constructs,
and sells PV solar power systems that use the solar modules it
manufactures.


FRIENDFINDER NETWORKS: Still Awaits Ruling on Reconsideration Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FriendFinder Networks Inc. is still awaiting a court decision on a
motion to reconsider the dismissal of a shareholder class action
lawsuit, according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-K/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

On November 11, 2011, a putative shareholder class action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida by Greenfield Children's Partnership, on behalf of
investors who purchased the Company's common stock pursuant to its
initial public offering, against the Company, Ladenburg Thalmann &
Co., Inc. and Imperial Capital LLC, the underwriters in the
initial public offering, and the Company's directors and certain
of the Company's executive officers.  The complaint alleges, among
other things, that the initial public offering documents contained
certain false and misleading statements and seeks an unspecified
amount of compensatory damages.  In March 2012, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint alleging all of the same causes of
action and adding additional factual allegations and in response
to the Amended Complaint the Company filed its Motion to Dismiss.
The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to all claims and
is vigorously defending the lawsuit.  On or about November 15,
2012, the court granted the Motion to Dismiss and gave plaintiffs
fifteen days to amend portions of their Amended Complaint.  On or
about November 30, 2012, the plaintiffs filed their Motion for
Reconsideration or for Leave.  The Company awaits the court's
decision on this matter.

Headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida, FriendFinder Networks Inc.,
together with Various, Inc. and its other wholly-owned
subsidiaries, is an Internet and technology company providing
services in the social networking and web-based video sharing
markets.  The business consists of creating and operating
technology platforms which run several Web sites throughout the
world appealing to users of diverse cultures and interest groups.
The Company is also engaged in entertainment activities consisting
of publishing, licensing and studio production and distribution.
The Company publishes PENTHOUSE and other adult-oriented magazines
and digests.


GORT'S GOUDA: Recalls Mild Gouda Over E. Coli Presence
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 19, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory:              Microbiological - E. coli O157:H7
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Gort's Gouda Cheese Farm (EST 4478)
Distribution:             British Columbia, May be National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8342

Affected products: Gort's Mild Gouda Cheese sold in packages of
various sizes, bearing a red "Raw" sticker at certain retail
stores in British Columbia and through Internet sales from May 27
to September 14, 2013

The public warning issued on September 17, 2013 has been updated
to include an additional product.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Gort's Gouda Cheese
Farm (EST 4478) are warning the public not to consume the Mild
Gouda Cheese described below because it may be contaminated with
E. coli O157:H7.

The recall is the result of an ongoing food safety investigation
initiated as a result of a recent outbreak investigation.  There
may be recalls of additional products as the investigation at this
facility continues.

Lot codes 122 to 138 are affected by this recall.

Some product packages may not bear a lot code or indicate that the
cheese was made with raw milk.  This product may also have been
sold clerk-served from deli counters with or without a label or
coding.  Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased the
affected product are advised to contact their retailer.

There have been reported illnesses associated with the consumption
of this product.

The manufacturer, Gort's Gouda Cheese Farm, Salmon Arm, BC is
voluntarily recalling the affected product from the marketplace.
The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.


HURONIA REGIONAL: C$2-Bil. Abuse Class Action Set to Begin
----------------------------------------------------------
Paola Loriggio, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that
humiliation and abuse were doled out almost daily at an Ontario
institution for the developmentally disabled, punishment for
infractions as minor as speaking out of turn, former residents
allege in a class-action lawsuit against the provincial
government.

"If we got caught talking, we had to get up with our pants down
and walk around the play room with our pants down," recalled
Marie Slark, 59, who spent nine years of her childhood at the
Huronia Regional Centre.

In other instances, children whose behavior earned them a "black
mark" were kicked and struck by their peers at staff's insistence,
she and another plaintiff, Patricia Seth, said in an interview.

Ms. Slark, Ms. Seth and thousands of other former residents are
alleging systemic neglect and abuse at the Orillia, Ont.,
facility, which the province operated for 133 years. Some say they
were forced to work in the fields for no money.

The C$2-billion suit was set to begin on Sept. 17, three years
after receiving the green light from an Ontario Superior Court
judge.  It covers those institutionalized at the center between
1945 and 2009, many of whom are now aged or dying.

Money aside, Ms. Slark said she wants the province to apologize
"for what they put us through."

"They took our childhood from us," she said.

The Ontario government denies the allegations, which have not been
proven in court.  In its submissions to the court, the province
acknowledges there were incidents of abuse, but insists these were
isolated and did not stem from neglect.

"Any serious abuse was not acceptable and was dealt with when it
was identified," the document reads.

The province also maintains residents were cared for in a manner
"consistent with the knowledge, experience and standards of the
day" and benefited from living there.

The institution opened its doors in 1876 under the name Orillia
Asylum for Idiots and closed in March 2009 -- the oldest facility
for people with a developmental disability at the time.  It has
faced allegations of abuse and neglect in the past, including an
1960s article describing overcrowding so severe that people were
sleeping head to head.  The 1970s saw several government-sponsored
reports condemn the facility.

Some Huronia advocates have argued the center had changed
drastically in later years, becoming a vibrant community where
residents had dances and parties.

For Ms. Slark and Ms. Seth, however, the experience was akin to
imprisonment, they said.

"It was like living in a prison.  The only thing is, we didn't
know when we would even get out.  We thought we were going to die
here," said Ms. Seth, 55.

"We weren't even treated like human beings," Ms. Slark added.

Both were admitted to the institution in the 1960s at the age of
six and seven, as wards of the state.  At 16, Seth was placed in a
group home on the premises, where she remained until she was
discharged at the age of 21.

"Talk about living in fear.  It was horrible," she said.

Years later, she still suffers nightmares and struggles to deal
with people in a position of authority, she said.  Several former
residents and their relatives as well as former staff members are
expected to testify at the trial, which is scheduled to take place
over three months.

The court will have to determine, among other things, whether
there was systemic negligence, whether conditions at Huronia fell
below the standard of care at the time and whether the province
breached its fiduciary duty to protect the residents.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Ontario Court Certifies Hip Implant Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An Ontario court has certified Canada's DePuy (NYSE:JNJ) ASR hip
implant cases as a class action, ruling that the plaintiffs
successfully demonstrated that the litigation meets the
prerequisites for a consolidated action under the 1992 Class
Proceedings Act.

Justice Edward Belobaba's approved three issues for certification
in his Aug. 27 opinion -- whether the DePuy ASR XL implants are
defective, whether the manufacturer breached a duty of care, and
whether recipients are entitled to special damages for medical
costs.  The justice denied plaintiffs' bid for medical monitoring,
however.


LAND OF NOD: Recalls Bed-Frames Due to Entrapment Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The Land of Nod, of Morton Grove, Ill., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,500 Iron Sleigh, Petal and Picket bed-frames.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The openings in the headboard and footboard pose an entrapment
hazard to young children.

The recall includes iron bed frames in twin and full sizes.  The
recalled bed styles are the white "Iron Sleigh"; the white or
antique white "Petal with a large flower design in both the head
and footboards; and the dark grey "Picket" with horizontal ladder-
style head and footboards.  Some of the frames have a label on the
headboard or footboard that has the "The Land of Nod" and the SKU
number printed on it.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/fBx67O

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at The
Land of Nod retail stores or online at http://www.landofnod.com/
from May 2008 to June 2012 for between $450 and $550 for the twin
size or between $550 and $650 for the full size.

Consumers should keep young children away from these beds and
contact The Land of Nod to arrange for the bed to be returned for
a full merchandise credit for the purchase price.  Consumers with
models that do not have a label with the SKU number printed on it
should contact the firm for assistance with identifying whether or
not their bed is part of the recall.  The Land of Nod is
contacting its customers directly.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces Class Action Over Use of Gang Curfews
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Charles, writing for Daily Breeze, reports that a $28
million class-action lawsuit filed against Los Angeles over its
use of curfews in civil gang injunctions could be a game-changer.

The federal lawsuit filed in 2011 alleges that the city's use of
curfews to limit the movements of alleged gang members inside the
injunction areas is vague and a violation of the Constitution. The
U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear the
lawsuit this fall and a decision is not expected for months.  But
the lawsuit has already forced the Los Angeles police to stop
enforcing gang injunction curfews, according to a 2012 department
order.

Olu Orange, the civil rights attorney who brought the lawsuit,
compares gang injunction curfews to sundown laws, which once
barred people of color from being in majority-white cities after
dark.

"They took the concept of a sundown town that used to cover other
people's town and dropped it on these neighborhoods," Orange said.
"In the sundown town, they said, 'Don't let us catch you outside
in our town after sundown.'  Now, it's 'Don't let us catch you
outside in your own town after sundown.'"

The City Attorney's Office has declined to comment on the pending
litigation, but maintains the injunctions are legal remedies in
the fight against street gangs.

The lawsuit covers 26 gang injunctions and more than 6,000 class
members, who would each be eligible for up to $4,000 in
compensation.  Los Angeles also could be forced to permanently
stop using curfews, Orange said.

Alberto Cazarez, a 20-year-old resident of the Mar Vista Gardens
housing projects who was cited for violating the general curfew
for minors, is one of two named plaintiffs in the class-action
suit.

In June 2009, Mr. Cazarez and another boy were stopped by LAPD
officers who thought they might have been in violation of the gang
injunction curfew.  Mr. Cazarez was not on the gang injunction
list and therefore could not be arrested and charged with a
misdemeanor for violating the curfew.  However, he was cited for
violating the general curfew for minors.

"When they encounter them, (the cops) don't always have the long
list of who they have served with the injunction.  So the first
thing they do is they stop and figure out whether they have served
you . . . that's an unconstitutional detention in and of itself,"
Orange said.

In November 2010, Mr. Cazarez was served with the injunction.  At
the time, he was a high school honor student, and had earned a
college scholarship from Affordable Housing Management
Association, Pacific Southwest, a nonprofit that provides aid to
families living in public housing.

"That's when I was first labeled a gang member.  It changed my
life forever," Mr. Cazarez said.  "It made it official to them
that I was from the neighborhood, and it was going to be on my
record."

Mr. Cazarez was labeled as a member of the Culver City Boys, the
street gang inside the Mar Vista Gardens housing project.  He
lives in the projects and grew up with many of the Culver City
Boys gang members, but denies being a member of the gang.

Mr. Orange, a former Chicago gang prosecutor, found the curfew
provisions for the Culver City Boys injunction vague and,
therefore, unconstitutional.

"It doesn't specify with clarity what it means to be outside,"
Mr. Orange said."  It also doesn't specify with clarity what the
exceptions to the rule happen to be."

In 2007, the state appeals court declared the use of a curfew
against Ventura County's largest street gang, the Colonial
Chicques, was "unconstitutionally vague."

Like the Culver City Boys curfew, the Colonial Chicques were
barred from being outside from 10 p.m. to sunrise.

After the ruling, the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office modified
the curfew language in its gang injunctions, recognizing that it
was similar to language used in the Colonial Chicques injunction,
according to a 2012 court declaration by L.A. Deputy City Attorney
Anne Tremblay obtained by the Los Angeles News Group.

The City Attorney Office also advised the Los Angeles Police
Department to stop enforcing curfews in areas covered by
injunctions put in place before the 2007 Colonial Chicques ruling,
according to Tremblay's declaration.

In August 2012, more than a year after Orange filed his lawsuit,
Los Angeles police ceased enforcing the gang injunction curfews in
all of its areas with injunctions, according to an order issued by
Earl Paysinger, LAPD assistant chief, director of operations.

Unlike many in the fight against the use of gang injunctions,
Orange doesn't attack the concept of the civil court orders, but
rather the specific provisions in the injunctions.

"If you take on the injunction as a whole, then you are taking on
the idea of stopping gangs as a whole," Mr. Orange said.  "By
looking at the provisions and the methods gang injunctions employ,
then you can ask the constitutional questions."

But Mr. Orange's opposition to the use of gang injunctions is
unwavering.  And his staunch opposition to their use doesn't bend
when he's confronted with crime statistics or arguments about the
dangers of criminal street gangs.

"Many things are dangerous. It doesn't matter whether something is
dangerous.  When you deal with it from a legal perspective, do you
violate the law in trying to enforce the law?" Mr. Orange said.
"In this constitutional democracy that we live in America, you
just cant do that.  You can't violate the law in order to enforce
the law."


MAIDENFORM BRANDS: Faces Hanesbrands Merger-Related Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maidenform Brands, Inc., is facing class action lawsuits arising
from its proposed merger with a subsidiary of Hanesbrands Inc.,
according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 29, 2013.

On July 23, 2013, Maidenform entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Hanesbrands Inc.
("Hanesbrands") and General Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger Subsidiary"),
pursuant to which, and subject to the terms and conditions
therein, Merger Subsidiary will merge with and into the Company
and the Company will become the surviving corporation and a wholly
owned subsidiary of Hanesbrands.  At the effective time of the
merger, each outstanding share of the Company's common stock,
other than shares held by the Company, Hanesbrands or their
respective subsidiaries, will be converted into the right to
receive $23.50 in cash.

Beginning on or around July 26, 2013, two putative class action
complaints challenging the merger and the Merger Agreement were
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against
Maidenform and the individual members of the Maidenform board of
directors.  The complaints are captioned Bonnie Federman as
Custodian for Shira Federman UTMA NJ v. Maidenform Brands, Inc.,
Case No. 8750 and Crescente v. Maidenform Brands, Inc., Case No.
8760.  The complaints generally allege, among other things, that
the members of the Maidenform board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Maidenform's shareholders by entering into the
Merger Agreement, approving the proposed merger and failing to
take steps to maximize Maidenform's value to its shareholders.  In
addition, the complaints allege, among other things, that the
proposed merger improperly favors Hanesbrands and that certain
provisions of the Merger Agreement unduly restrict Maidenform's
ability to negotiate with other potential bidders.  One of the
complaints also alleges that Maidenform, Hanes, and the Hanes
acquisition vehicle aided and abetted these alleged fiduciary
breaches.  The complaints generally seek, among other things,
declaratory and injunctive relief, preliminary injunctive relief
prohibiting or delaying the defendants from consummating the
merger, other forms of equitable relief and unspecified amounts of
damages.

The defendants believe the litigation is entirely without merit
and intend to defend it vigorously.  There can be no assurance
that Maidenform or any of the other defendants will be successful
in the outcome of the pending or any potential future lawsuits.
An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have a material
adverse effect on the operations and liquidity of Maidenform.  A
preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of
the merger, and an adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive
relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the merger.

Based in Iselin, New Jersey, Maidenform Brands, Inc. --
http://www.maidenform.com/and http://www.maidenform.co.uk/-- and
its subsidiaries design, source and market an extensive range of
intimate apparel products, including bras, panties and shapewear.
The Company sells its products through multiple distribution
channels, including department stores and national chain stores
(including third-party distributors and independent stores), mass
merchants (including warehouse clubs), and other (including
specialty retailers, off-price retailers and licensees).


MPG OFFICE: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MPG Office Trust, Inc., entered into a memorandum of understanding
to settle a consolidated merger-related lawsuit pending in
California, according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On April 24, 2013, the Company and MPG Office, L.P. (the
"Operating Partnership") entered into a definitive merger
agreement pursuant to which a newly formed fund controlled by
Brookfield Office Properties Inc. ("Brookfield") agreed to acquire
the Company.  The merger transaction was approved by the Company's
common stockholders on July 17, 2013.  At the closing of the
transaction, the Company's common stockholders will receive merger
consideration of $3.15 in cash per share, without interest and
less any required withholding tax.  The Company expects the merger
to close in the third quarter of 2013, following fulfillment of
the conditions to closing, including receipt of required lender
consents.

Following the announcement of the execution of the Merger
Agreement, seven putative class actions were filed against the
Company, the members of the Company's board of directors, the
Operating Partnership, Brookfield, Sub REIT, REIT Merger Sub,
Partnership Merger Sub and Brookfield DTLA Inc.  Five of these
lawsuits were filed on behalf of the Company's common
stockholders: (i) two lawsuits, captioned Coyne v. MPG Office
Trust, Inc., et al., No. BC507342 (the "Coyne Action"), and Masih
v. MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. BC507962 (the "Masih
Action"), were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California in Los Angeles County on April 29, 2013, and May 3,
2013, respectively; and (ii) three lawsuits, captioned Kim v. MPG
Office Trust, Inc. et al., No. 24-C-13-002600 (the "Kim Action"),
Perkins v. MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13-002778 (the
"Perkins Action") and Dell'Osso v. MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al.,
No. 24-C-13-003283 (the "Dell'Osso Action") were filed in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland on May 1, 2013, May 8,
2013, and May 22, 2013, respectively (collectively, the "Common
Stock Actions").  Two lawsuits, captioned Cohen v. MPG Office
Trust, Inc. et al., No. 24-C-13-004097 (the "Cohen Action") and
Donlan v. Weinstein, et al., No. 24-C-13-004293 (the "Donlan
Action"), were filed on behalf of the Company's preferred
stockholders in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland on
June 20, 2013, and July 2, 2013, respectively (collectively, the
"Preferred Stock Actions," together with the Common Stock Actions,
the "Merger Litigations").

In each of the Common Stock Actions, the plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that the Company's board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the merger by failing to
maximize the value of the Company and ignoring or failing to
protect against conflicts of interest, and that the relevant
Brookfield Parties named as defendants aided and abetted those
breaches of fiduciary duty.  The Kim Action further alleges that
the Operating Partnership also aided and abetted the breaches of
fiduciary duty by the Company's board of directors, and the
Dell'Osso Action further alleges that the Company and the
Operating Partnership aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary
duty by the Company's board of directors.  On June 4, 2013, the
Kim and Perkins plaintiffs filed identical, amended complaints in
the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland.  On June 5, 2013,
the Masih plaintiffs also filed an amended complaint in the
Superior Court of the State of California in Los Angeles County.
The three amended complaints, as well as the Dell'Osso Action
complaint, allege that the preliminary proxy statement filed by
the Company with the SEC on May 21, 2013, is false and/or
misleading because it fails to include certain details of the
process leading up to the merger and fails to provide adequate
information concerning the Company's financial advisors.

In each of the Preferred Stock Actions, which were brought on
behalf of Company's preferred stockholders, the plaintiffs allege,
among other things, that, by entering into the Merger Agreement
and tender offer, the Company breached the Articles Supplementary,
which governs the issuance of the Company Preferred Shares, that
the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
by agreeing to a Merger Agreement that violated the preferred
stockholders' contractual rights and that the relevant Brookfield
Parties named as defendants aided and abetted those breaches of
contract and fiduciary duty.  On July 15, 2013, the plaintiffs in
the Preferred Stock Actions filed a joint amended complaint in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland that further alleges
that the Company's board of directors failed to disclose material
information regarding Brookfield's extension of the tender offer.
On that same day, an intervenor plaintiff, preferred stockholder
EJF Debt Opportunities Master Fund, L.P., EJF Debt Opportunities
Master Fund II, LP, and EJF Select Master Fund (collectively
"EJF"), filed a brief in support of the Cohen and Donlan
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, which included
additional allegations that (i) the Company's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties by entering into a transaction
that favored the common stockholders and disfavored the preferred
stockholders; and (ii) the disclosures filed by the Company and
Brookfield are misleading because the new preferred shares will
not have the same rights as the existing preferred shares because
of the ability of other Brookfield subsidiaries to issue
securities that will have an effective priority over the new
preferred shares.

The plaintiffs in the seven lawsuits seek an injunction against
the merger, rescission or rescissory damages in the event the
merger has been consummated, an award of fees and costs, including
attorneys' and experts' fees, and other relief.

By letter dated June 13, 2013, plaintiffs in the Kim, Perkins, and
Dell'Osso actions jointly requested that the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, Maryland, issue a stay of the cases in Maryland,
pending the resolution of the Coyne Action and the Masih Action in
California.  On June 25, 2013, the Superior Court of the State of
California in Los Angeles County ordered the Coyne Action and the
Masih Action to be consolidated (the "Consolidated Common Stock
Action").

On July 10, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, the Company and the other
named defendants in the Consolidated Common Stock Action signed a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU"), regarding a proposed
settlement of all claims asserted therein.  The MOU provides,
among other things, that the parties will seek to enter into a
stipulation of settlement which provides for the release of all
asserted claims.  The asserted claims will not be released until
such stipulation of settlement is approved by the court. There can
be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve such
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation.  Additionally, as part of the MOU, the Company agreed
(i) to make certain additional disclosures related to the merger,
which were filed with the SEC on a Schedule 14A dated July 11,
2013, (ii) to amend the Merger Agreement to allow the Company to
release third parties currently subject to confidentiality
agreements with the Company from any standstill restrictions
contained in such agreements and (iii) to file a Current Report on
Form 8-K and related press release (which were respectively filed
and issued on July 11, 2013).  Finally, in connection with the
proposed settlement, plaintiffs in the Consolidated Common Stock
Action intend to seek, and the defendants have agreed to pay, an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount to be
determined by the Superior Court of the State of California in Los
Angeles County.  This payment will not affect the amount of
consideration to be received by the Company's stockholders
pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement.

In the Preferred Stock Actions, at a hearing on July 24, 2013, the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, denied plaintiffs'
motion for a preliminary injunction that sought to enjoin the
tender offer and the merger.

Headquartered in Los Angeles, California, MPG Office Trust, Inc.,
is a self-administered and self-managed real estate investment
trust, and operates as a REIT for federal income tax purposes.
Through its controlling interest in MPG Office, L.P., of which the
Company is the sole general partner, and the subsidiaries of the
Operating Partnership, the Company owns, manages and leases real
estate located primarily in the greater Los Angeles area of
California, which primarily consists of office properties, parking
garages and land parcels.


MURPHY USA: Continues to Defend Hot Fuel Suits vs. Unit
-------------------------------------------------------
Murphy USA Inc. continues to defend a subsidiary against class
action lawsuits brought by retail purchasers of motor fuel,
according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-12B/A filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Since the beginning of fiscal 2007, over 45 class action lawsuits
have been filed in federal courts across the country against
numerous companies in the petroleum industry.  Major petroleum
companies and significant retailers in the industry have been
named as defendants in these lawsuits.  Murphy USA's subsidiary,
Murphy Oil USA, Inc., is a defendant in eight of these cases.
Pursuant to an Order entered by the Joint Panel on Multi-District
Litigation, all of the cases, including those in which Murphy Oil
USA, Inc. is named, have been transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of Kansas and consolidated for all
pre-trial proceedings.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuits generally allege that they are
retail purchasers who received less motor fuel than the defendants
agreed to deliver because the defendants measured the amount of
motor fuel they delivered in non-temperature adjusted gallons
which, at higher temperatures, contain less energy.  These cases
seek, among other relief, an order requiring the defendants to
install temperature adjusting equipment on their retail motor fuel
dispensing devices.  In certain of the cases, including some of
the cases in which Murphy Oil USA, Inc. is named, plaintiffs also
have alleged that because defendants pay fuel taxes based on
temperature adjusted 60 degree gallons, but allegedly collect
taxes from consumers on non-temperature adjusted gallons,
defendants receive a greater amount of tax from consumers than
they paid on the same gallon of fuel.  The plaintiffs in these
cases seek, among other relief, recovery of excess taxes paid and
punitive damages.  Both types of cases seek compensatory damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, and prejudgment
interest.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss all cases for failure to
state a claim, which were denied by the court on February 21,
2008.  A number of the defendants, including Murphy Oil USA, Inc.,
subsequently moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on the
grounds that plaintiffs' claims constitute non-justiciable
"political questions."  The Court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss on political question grounds on December 3, 2009, and
defendants request to appeal that decision to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit was denied on August 31,
2010.  In May 2010, in a lawsuit in which Murphy Oil USA, Inc. was
not a party, the Court granted class certification to Kansas fuel
purchasers seeking implementation of automated temperature
controls and/or certain disclosures, but deferred ruling on any
class for damages.  The Defendants sought permission to appeal
that decision to the Tenth Circuit in June 2010, and that request
was denied on August 31, 2010.  On November 12, 2011, the
Defendants in the Kansas case filed a motion to decertify the
Kansas classes in light of a new favorable United States Supreme
Court decision.  On January 19, 2012, the Judge denied the
Defendants' motion to decertify and granted plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class as to liability and injunctive relief aspects of
plaintiffs' claims.  The court has continued to deny certification
of a damages class.  On September 24, 2012, the jury in the Kansas
case returned a unanimous verdict in favor of defendants finding
that defendants did not violate Kansas law by willfully failing to
disclose temperature and its effect on the energy content of motor
fuel.  On October 3, 2012, the judge in the Kansas case also ruled
that defendants' practice of selling motor fuel without disclosing
temperature or disclosing the effect of temperature was not
unconscionable under Kansas law.  On January 23, 2013, the judge
ordered that three cases venued in California be remanded for
trial.

At this stage of proceedings, losses are reasonably possible,
however, the Company cannot estimate its loss, range of loss or
liability, if any, related to these lawsuits because there are a
number of unknown facts and unresolved legal issues that will
impact the amount of any potential liability, including, without
limitation: (i) whether defendants are required, or even permitted
under state law, to sell temperature adjusted gallons of motor
fuel; (ii) the amounts and actual temperature of fuel purchased by
plaintiffs; and (iii) whether or not class certification is proper
in cases to which Murphy Oil USA, Inc. is a party.  An adverse
outcome in this litigation could have a material adverse effect on
the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows.

Upon completion of Murphy USA Inc.'s -- http://www.murphyusa.com/
-- separation from Murphy Oil Corporation, the Company's business
will consist primarily of marketing of retail motor fuel products
and convenience merchandise through a large chain of retail
stations owned and operated by the Company, almost all of which
are in close proximity to Walmart stores.  The Company's retail
stations under the brand name Murphy USA(R) participate in the
Walmart discount program that the Company offers at most
locations.  The Walmart discount program offers a cents-off per
gallon purchased for fuel when using specific payment methods as
decided by Murphy USA and Walmart.


OPTIMER PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Merger-Related Suit in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
Optimer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is facing a merger-related class
action lawsuit in New Jersey, according to the Company's August 7,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On July 30, 2013, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger, or the Merger Agreement, with Cubist Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, and PDRS Corporation, a Delaware
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Cubist, or Merger
Sub.  The Merger Agreement provides that, upon the terms and
subject to the conditions set forth therein, Merger Sub will merge
with and into the Company.  As a result, the Company will become a
wholly owned subsidiary of Cubist, also referred to as the Merger.

On August 1, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Darrell Burns, a purported stockholder of the Company, against
Optimer, its directors and Cubist relating to the Company's
pending Merger with Cubist.  This action was filed in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, and is called Burns v. Optimer
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. C-103-13.  The lawsuit
generally alleges, among other things, that the consideration
agreed to in the Merger Agreement is inadequate and unfair to the
Company's stockholders, that the Company's directors breached
their fiduciary duties by conducting an unfair sales process and
approving the Merger Agreement and that those breaches were aided
and abetted by the Company and Cubist.  The lawsuit seeks, among
other things, equitable relief to prevent the defendants from
consummating the Merger on the agreed-upon terms and an award of
attorneys' fees.  The Company intends to defend this case
vigorously and, because it is still in the preliminary stages, has
not yet determined what effect the lawsuit will have, if any, on
the Company's financial position or results of operations.

Headquartered in Jersey City, New Jersey, Optimer Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., is a global biopharmaceutical company currently focused on
the commercialization of its antibiotic product DIFICID(R)
(fidaxomicin) in the United States and Canada, and on developing
other fidaxomicin products in the United States and worldwide,
both independently and with its partners and licensees.  DIFICID
is a macrolide antibacterial drug indicated in adults 18 years of
age or older for the treatment of Clostridium difficile-associated
diarrhea and is the first antibacterial drug to be approved in the
United States for the treatment of CDAD in more than 25 years.


OVASCIENCE INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Sept. 16
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
OvaScience, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court, District of Massachusetts,
and docketed under 13-cv-12286, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Microsoft between February 25, 2013 and September
10, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover
damages against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors 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 OvaScience securities
during the Class Period, you have until November 15, 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.

OvaScience is a life sciences company focused on the discovery,
development and commercialization of new treatments for
infertility.  The Company's patented technology is based on the
discovery of egg precursor cells (EggPC(SM)), which are found in
the ovaries.  By applying proprietary technology to identify and
purify EggPCs, AUGMENT(SM) aims to improve egg quality and
increase the success of in vitro fertilization.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and operations.  Specifically, OvaScience
represented to the FDA and investors that it believed that AUGMENT
qualified for designation as a 361 HCT/P, which allows human
cellular and tissue based products to be tested and marketed
without FDA licensure.  Yet despite this representation,
OvaScience never qualified for this designation.

On September 10, 2013, the Company disclosed that it was
suspending enrollment of AUGMENT in the U.S. after receiving an
"untitled" letter from the FDA "questioning the status of AUGMENT
as a 361 HCT/P and advising the Company to file an Investigational
New Drug (IND) application."

On this news, OvaScience shares declined $3.33 per share or more
than 23%, to close at $10.95 per share on September 11, 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.


PILOT FLYING J: Fuel Rebate Settlement Under "Fairness Review"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Convenience Store News reports that the proposed settlement that
could bring to a close multiple lawsuits around the alleged fraud
in Pilot Flying J's fuel rebate program has landed on the desk of
the Tennessee attorney general.

According to a report by The Tennessean, state Attorney General
Robert E. Cooper is conducting a "fairness review" of the deal.
The move comes as representatives from some affected trucking
companies have criticized the proposal.

"We have received the proposed class-action settlement involving
Pilot Flying J, and we are reviewing using the same standards that
apply to all other cases reviewed by the office," Mr. Cooper's
spokeswoman Sharon Curtis-Flair wrote in an email to the
newspaper.

Aubrey Harwell, one of the lawyers representing Pilot Flying J,
said the review by Cooper's office was mandated under the federal
Class Action Fairness Act.  Aides to Mr. Cooper said the office
routinely reviews about 300 proposed class-action settlements per
year under the federal law.

According to Mr. Cooper's staff, the review must be completed by
Oct. 25, the newspaper reported.

As CSNews Online previously reported, Pilot Flying J filed a
motion in Arkansas federal court on July 16 regarding the proposed
class settlement that would resolve more than 20 lawsuits filed
against the company since the April 15 federal raid on its
Knoxville headquarters.  National Trucking Financial Reclamation
Services, Bruce Taylor, Edis Trucking, Jerry Floyd, Mike Campbell,
Paul Otto, Townes Trucking and R&R Transportation are involved in
the settlement.

The terms of the settlement include:

   * An audit of accounts of all customers who received a rebate
and/or discount from Pilot Flying J dating back to 2008.

   * All customers will receive 100 percent of any money owed,
with 6 percent interest, as soon as discrepancies are verified.

   * An independent accountant, approved by the court and paid for
by Pilot Flying J, will validate Pilot Flying J's internal audit
process.

   * Customers have the right to dispute audit results.

   * Customers have the opportunity to opt out because they do not
like the agreement or because they simply do not want to
participate in the class action.

   * Pilot Flying J will pay all costs related to the processing
of the customer claims and the litigation, which includes audit
costs (both internal and external), administrative costs and legal
fees, saving customers significant time and money.

In July, U.S. District Judge James M. Moody of the Eastern
District of Arkansas granted preliminary approval to the proposal.
A fairness hearing is set for Nov. 25.

Pilot Flying J is a family-owned business that operates more than
650 retail locations and is the largest operator of travel centers
and travel plazas in North America.


ROSETTA STONE: Wage and Hour Suit Remains Pending in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Rosetta Stone Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda for damages, injunctive relief and
restitution in the matter of Michael Pierce, Patrick Gould,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Rosetta Stone Ltd. and DOES 1 to 50.  The complaint alleges that
plaintiffs and other persons similarly situated who are or were
employed as salaried managers by the Company in its retail
locations in California are due unpaid wages and other relief for
the Company's violations of state wage and hour laws.  The
Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to include a nationwide
class in January 2011.  In March 2011, the case was removed to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  In November 2011, the parties agreed to the
mediator's proposed settlement terms, and as a result, as of
September 30, 2011, the Company reserved $0.6 million for the
proposed settlement amount.  The Company disputes the plaintiffs'
claims and it has not admitted any wrongdoing with respect to the
case.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 7, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Rosetta Stone Inc. -- http://www.rosettastone.com/-- together
with its subsidiaries, provides technology-based language-learning
solutions in the United States and internationally.  The Company
develops, markets, and sells language-learning solutions, such as
software, online services, mobile applications, and audio practice
tools in approximately 30 languages primarily under the Rosetta
Stone brand.  The Company was founded in 1992 and is headquartered
in Arlington, Virginia.


SEMIFREDDI'S INC: Recalls Certain Biscotti
------------------------------------------
Semifreddi's Inc. of Alameda, CA is recalling all packaged Almond
Biscotti and Chocolate Dipped Almond Biscotti because the food
allergens milk and soy were not declared on the product labels.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk or soy
run the risk of serious allergic reaction, including anaphylaxis,
if they consume the products.

Semifreddi's Inc. immediately segregated its entire Almond
Biscotti and Chocolate Dipped Almond Biscotti inventory and is
notifying consumers and customers who have milk and soy allergies
or sensitivity not to consume its Almond Biscotti and Chocolate
Dipped Almond Biscotti.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with these
products.  For consumers that are not allergic to milk or soy,
there is no safety issue with these products.

Semifreddi's Inc. wants to ensure its products are safe.
Consequently, in addition to its ongoing cooperation with the
California Department of Public Health, Semifreddi's Inc. is
voluntarily recalling all Almond Biscotti and Chocolate Dipped
Almond Biscotti from all of its customers.  Consumers in
possession of Almond Biscotti and Chocolate Dipped Almond Biscotti
should not eat this product and should return the product to the
place of purchase for a full refund.

Semifreddi's Inc. will be sending recall notices to all of its
direct customers. Please call Tom Frainier at 510-596-9930 for
further information.


SHIMANO AMERICAN: Recalls Disc Brake Calipers
---------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Shimano American Corporation, of Irvine, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 6,600 in U.S. and 704 in Canada Disc
brake calipers.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The calipers on the disc brakes can fail, posing a collision
hazard.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall includes all Shimano BR-CX75 aftermarket disc brake
calipers and BR-R515 disc brake calipers installed on road and
cyclocross bicycles sold by other manufacturers including BMC,
Giant, Ibis, Raleigh, Shinola, Specialized and Volagi.  "Shimano,"
"China" and the model number are embossed on the outside of the
brake caliper.  Both models have either black or silver finishes.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/FuA7oj

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
bicycle specialty stores and dealers nationwide from February 2012
through May 2013 for about $75 for the BR-CX75 model disc brake
calipers and the BR-R515 model disc brake calipers price was
included in the cost of the bicycles where installed.

Consumers should immediately stop using the bicycles with recalled
Shimano brakes and contact a Shimano authorized dealer to receive
a free installation and replacement of the calipers.


SHIMANO CANADA: Recall Disc Brake Calipers
------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 19, 2013
Posting date:             September 19, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Sports/Fitness
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-35753

Affected products: Shimano Disc Brake Calipers

The recall involves Shimano's mechanical cable actuated disc brake
calipers for road and cyclocross bikes with model number: BR-CX75
and BR-R515 sold by manufacturers including Specialized, Raleigh,
MEC, Giant and Norco.  The product model number can be found on
the outside of the brake, which is located near the wheel side.
All production codes are affected.

The steel balls inside the cam mechanism of the disc brake caliper
can fall out of place resulting in a loss of braking power.

Neither Health Canada, the US CPSC, nor Shimano Canada Limited has
received any reports of incidents of injuries related the use of
the recalled brake calipers.

Approximately 704 units of the brake calipers were sold in Canada
and approximately 6,646 units of the products were sold in the
United States at bicycle specialty stores and dealers.

The affected brake calipers were manufactured in China and sold
from February 2012 to July 2013 in Canada and from February 2012
to May 2013 in the United States.

Companies:

  Manufacturer     Shimano Bicycle Component Co., Ltd.
                   China

  Distributor      Shimano Canada Limited
                   Peterborough
                   Ontario
                   Canada

Consumers should stop using the brakes immediately and contact
Shimano for a free replacement and installation information.
Replacement brake calipers will have a new model number and are
marked by a white circle on the cap.


SOLTA MEDICAL: "Clement" Shareholder Suit Dismissed in July
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit initiated by Richard Clement was
dismissed in July 2013, according to Solta Medical, Inc.'s
August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On December 7, 2012, Richard Clement ("plaintiff"), as putative
representative for the shareholders of CLRS Technology Company
("CLRS"), filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda.  The
Plaintiff alleges that the Company breached its October 15, 2010
merger agreement with CLRS, and in particular alleges that the
Company was required, but failed, to use its best efforts to
market CLARO during the earnout period.  The Company denies these
allegations.  On April 19, 2013, the Court entered an order
sustaining the Company's demurrer to the complaint, and granting
plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.  On April 30, 2013,
the plaintiff filed his first amended complaint asserting two
causes of action: breach of contract, and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  The Company demurred to
the first amended complaint.  On July 24, 2013, the court entered
an order sustaining Solta's demurrer with prejudice and dismissing
the action.  The Company does not presently know whether plaintiff
intends to appeal from that order.

Headquartered in Hayward, California, Solta Medical, Inc. --
http://www.solta.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures and
markets energy-based medical device systems for aesthetic
applications.  The Company was incorporated in California in 1996
as Thermage, Inc., and reincorporated in Delaware in 2001.


SOLTA MEDICAL: Dismissal of Reliant Acquisition Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of an acquisition-related class action lawsuit was
affirmed in July 2013, according to Solta Medical, Inc.'s
August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On December 21, 2009, a complaint was filed in the Santa Clara
County Superior Court by three former stockholders of Reliant
Technologies, Inc. against Reliant and certain former officers and
directors of Reliant in connection with the Company's acquisition
of Reliant, which closed on December 23, 2008.  The complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of the former common stockholders
of Reliant.  As a result of the acquisition, a successor entity to
Reliant, Reliant Technologies, LLC, became the Company's wholly-
owned subsidiary.  One member of the Company's Board of Directors
and the Company's former Chief Technology Officer and former
member of the Company's Board of Directors are among the
defendants named in the complaint.  The principal claim, among
others, is that Reliant violated the California Corporations Code
by failing to obtain the vote from a majority of holders of
Reliant's common stock prior to the consummation of the
acquisition.  The complaint also purports to challenge disclosures
made by Reliant in connection with its entry into the acquisition
and alleges that the defendants failed to maximize the value of
Reliant for the benefits of Reliant's common stockholders.  On
August 2, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss or stay
the entire action based on a mandatory forum selection clause in
the merger agreement which requires that claims related to the
merger be litigated in Delaware.

On September 28, 2010, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss or stay, and stayed the action indefinitely.  On January
20, 2012, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' case without prejudice.
On July 11, 2013, the court of appeals affirmed the dismissal.
The Plaintiffs have not filed a complaint against the defendants
in Delaware.  The Company believes that the plaintiffs' claims are
without merit.

Headquartered in Hayward, California, Solta Medical, Inc. --
http://www.solta.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures and
markets energy-based medical device systems for aesthetic
applications.  The Company was incorporated in California in 1996
as Thermage, Inc., and reincorporated in Delaware in 2001.


SOLTA MEDICAL: Suit Alleging TCPA Violations Dismissed in June
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act was dismissed in June 2013, according to
Solta Medical, Inc.'s August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

On May 3, 2012, the Company and Reliant Technologies Inc., which
the Company acquired in December 2008, were served with a class
action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California alleging that Reliant Technologies
caused unsolicited fax advertisements to be sent to the plaintiff
in 2008, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").  The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and the putative
class, sought the greater of actual damages or statutory damages
in the amount of $500 per violation, treble damages for any
willful violations, and injunctive relief.  The parties took
discovery, participated in private mediation on March 11, 2013,
and subsequently reached a settlement.  The Court dismissed the
action in its entirety on June 11, 2013.  The settlement did not
have a material impact to the Company's financial results.

Headquartered in Hayward, California, Solta Medical, Inc. --
http://www.solta.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures and
markets energy-based medical device systems for aesthetic
applications.  The Company was incorporated in California in 1996
as Thermage, Inc., and reincorporated in Delaware in 2001.


STONEMOR PARTNERS: Conditional Class Certified in FLSA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A limited conditional class was certified in July 2013 in a class
action lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, according to StoneMor Partners L.P.'s August 7, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

From time to time, the Company is party to various claims and
legal proceedings, including, but not limited to, employment,
cemetery or burial practices, and other litigation.  The Company
is currently a defendant in an action alleging violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and wage payment violations.  In July
2013, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify a
nationwide class, and granted a limited conditional certification
of a class of sales counselors employed in specifically identified
locations in the Company's Central Pennsylvania/Maryland region,
which reduced the Company's potential exposure.  Generally, the
plaintiffs in class action litigation may seek to recover amounts
which may be indeterminable for some period of time although
potentially large.  The Company establishes reserves in legal
matters, when appropriate, based upon assessments and estimates in
accordance with its accounting policies and practices.

For each of its outstanding legal matters, the Company evaluates
the merits of the case, its exposure to the matter, possible legal
or settlement strategies, and the likelihood of an unfavorable
outcome.  The Company bases its assessments, estimates and
disclosures on the information available to it at the time.
Actual outcomes or losses may differ materially from assessments
and estimates.  Costs to defend litigation claims and legal
proceedings and the cost of actual settlements, judgments or
resolutions of these claims and legal proceedings may negatively
affect the Company's business and financial performance.  The
Company holds insurance policies that may reduce cash outflows
with respect to an adverse outcome of certain litigation matters.
However, the Company's insurance policies exclude coverage for
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Any adverse publicity
resulting from allegations made in litigation claims or legal
proceedings may also adversely affect the Company's reputation,
which in turn could adversely affect its results of operations.

StoneMor Partners L.P. was organized in April 2004 to own and
operate the cemetery and funeral home business conducted by
Cornerstone Family Services, Inc. and its subsidiaries.  The
Company is currently the second largest owner and operator of
cemeteries in the United States, operating 276 cemeteries in 27
states and Puerto Rico.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Appeal in "Griner" Class Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Synovus Bank's appeal from an order denying its motion to dismiss
a class action lawsuit styled Griner, et al. v. Synovus Bank, et
al., remains pending, according to Synovus Financial Corp.'s
August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Synovus Bank was also named as a defendant in a putative state-
wide class action in which the plaintiffs allege that overdraft
fees charged to customers constitute interest and, as such, are
usurious under Georgia law.  The case, Griner et. al. v. Synovus
Bank, et al., was filed in Gwinnett County State Court (state of
Georgia) on July 30, 2010, and asserts claims for usury,
conversion and money had and received for alleged injuries
suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of Synovus Bank's
assessment of overdraft charges in connection with its POS/debit
and automated-teller machine cards used to access customer
accounts.  The Plaintiffs contend that such overdraft charges
constitute interest and are therefore subject to Georgia usury
laws.  Synovus Bank contends that such overdraft charges
constitute non-interest fees and charges under both federal and
Georgia law and are otherwise exempt from Georgia usury limits.
On September 1, 2010, Synovus Bank removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division.  The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the
case to state court.  On July 22, 2011, the federal court entered
an order granting plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to the
Gwinnett County State Court.  Synovus Bank subsequently filed a
motion to dismiss.  On February 22, 2012, the state court entered
an order denying the motion to dismiss.  On March 1, 2012, the
state court signed and entered a certificate of immediate review
thereby permitting Synovus Bank to petition the Georgia Court of
Appeals for a discretionary appeal of the denial of the motion to
dismiss.

On March 12, 2012, Synovus Bank filed its application for
interlocutory appeal with the Georgia Court of Appeals.  On
April 3, 2012, the Georgia Court of Appeals granted Synovus Bank's
application for interlocutory appeal of the state court's order
denying Synovus Bank's motion to dismiss.  On April 11, 2012,
Synovus Bank filed its notice of appeal.  Oral arguments were
heard in the case on September 19, 2012.

On March 28, 2013, the Georgia Court of Appeals entered an order
affirming the denial of Synovus Bank's motion to dismiss and
remanding the case back to the State Court of Gwinnett County for
further proceedings.  On April 8, 2013, Synovus Bank filed a
motion requesting that the Court of Appeals reconsider its
March 28, 2013 order.  On April 11, 2013, the Court of Appeals
entered an order denying Synovus Bank's motion for
reconsideration.  On April 19, 2013, Synovus Bank filed a notice
of its intent to petition the Supreme Court of Georgia for a writ
of certiorari.  On May 1, 2013, Synovus Bank filed a petition for
writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of Georgia.  The case
remains pending.

Synovus Financial Corp. -- http://www.synovus.com/-- is a
financial services company and a registered bank holding company
headquartered in Columbus, Georgia.  The Company provides
integrated financial services, including commercial and retail
banking, financial management, insurance and mortgage services to
the Company's customers through 29 locally-branded banking
divisions of its wholly-owned subsidiary bank, Synovus Bank, and
other offices in Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Florida and
Tennessee.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: "Childs" Class Suit Currently in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Childs, et al. v. Columbus Bank
and Trust, et al., is currently in discovery, Synovus Financial
Corp. disclosed in its August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

On September 21, 2010, Synovus, Synovus Bank and Columbus Bank and
Trust Company ("CB&T") were named as defendants in a putative
multi-state class action relating to the manner in which Synovus
Bank charges overdraft fees to customers.  The case, Childs et al.
v. Columbus Bank and Trust et al., was filed in the Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, and asserts claims for
breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion and unjust enrichment
for alleged injuries suffered by plaintiffs as a result of Synovus
Bank's assessment of overdraft charges in connection with its
POS/debit and automated-teller machine cards allegedly resulting
from the sequence used to post payments to the plaintiffs'
accounts.  On October 25, 2010, the Childs case was transferred to
a multi-district proceeding in the Southern District of Florida.
In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No. 2036.  The
Plaintiffs amended their complaint on October 21, 2011.  The
Synovus entities filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint
on November 22, 2011.  On July 26, 2012, the court denied the
motion as to Synovus and Synovus Bank, but granted the motion as
to CB&T.  Synovus and Synovus Bank filed their answer to the
amended complaint on September 24, 2012.  The case is currently in
discovery.

On January 25, 2012, Synovus Bank was named as a defendant in
another putative multi-state class action relating to the manner
in which Synovus Bank charges overdraft fees to customers.  The
case, Green et al. v. Synovus Bank, was filed in the Middle
District of Georgia, Columbus Division.  On August 3, 2012, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the case
transferred to the multi-district proceeding in the Southern
District of Florida, In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation,
MDL No. 2036.  On September 5, 2012, the plaintiffs in the Childs
case filed an amended complaint that added Richard Green, the
named plaintiff from the Green et al. v. Synovus Bank case, as a
named plaintiff in the Childs case.  As a result, the parties
advised the court that the Green et al. v. Synovus Bank case
should be dismissed without prejudice.  On November 8, 2012, the
court entered an order dismissing without prejudice the Green
case.

Synovus Financial Corp. -- http://www.synovus.com/-- is a
financial services company and a registered bank holding company
headquartered in Columbus, Georgia.  The Company provides
integrated financial services, including commercial and retail
banking, financial management, insurance and mortgage services to
the Company's customers through 29 locally-branded banking
divisions of its wholly-owned subsidiary bank, Synovus Bank, and
other offices in Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Florida and
Tennessee.


SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Discovery in Securities Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in a securities class action lawsuit against Synovus
Financial Corp. is ongoing, according to the Company's August 7,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On July 7, 2009, the City of Pompano Beach General Employees'
Retirement System filed a lawsuit against Synovus, and certain of
Synovus' current and former officers, in the United States
District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File
No. 1:09-CV-1811) (the "Securities Class Action"); and on June 11,
2010, Lead Plaintiffs, the Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and
Eastern Canada and the Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund,
filed an amended complaint alleging that Synovus and the named
individual defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose
material facts that artificially inflated Synovus' stock price in
violation of the federal securities laws.  The Lead Plaintiffs'
allegations are based on purported exposure to Synovus' lending
relationship with the Sea Island Company and the impact of such
alleged exposure on Synovus' financial condition.  The Lead
Plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action seek damages in an
unspecified amount.  On May 19, 2011, the Court ruled that the
amended complaint failed to satisfy the mandatory pleading
requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.  The
Court also ruled that Lead Plaintiffs would be allowed the
opportunity to submit a further amended complaint.  The Lead
Plaintiffs served their second amended complaint on June 27, 2011.
The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss that complaint on
July 27, 2011.  On March 22, 2012, the Court granted in part and
denied in part that Motion to Dismiss.  On April 19, 2012, the
Defendants filed a motion requesting that the Court reconsider its
March 22, 2012 order.  On September 26, 2012, the Court issued a
written order denying the Motion for Reconsideration.  The
Defendants filed their answer to the second amended complaint on
May 21, 2012.  On March 7, 2013, the Court granted Lead
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The Defendants have
filed a motion for permission to appeal the class certification
ruling with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.  Discovery in this
case is ongoing.

There are significant uncertainties involved in any potential
class action.  Synovus may seek to mediate the Securities Class
Action in order to determine whether a reasonable settlement can
be reached.  In the event the Securities Class Action is not
settled, Synovus and the individually named defendants
collectively intend to vigorously defend themselves against the
Securities Class Action.

Synovus Financial Corp. -- http://www.synovus.com/-- is a
financial services company and a registered bank holding company
headquartered in Columbus, Georgia.  The Company provides
integrated financial services, including commercial and retail
banking, financial management, insurance and mortgage services to
the Company's customers through 29 locally-branded banking
divisions of its wholly-owned subsidiary bank, Synovus Bank, and
other offices in Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Florida and
Tennessee.


TD AMERITRADE: Bids to Dismiss Yield Plus Fund Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
During September 2008, The Reserve, an independent mutual fund
company, announced that the net asset value of the Reserve Yield
Plus Fund declined below $1.00 per share.  The Yield Plus Fund was
not a money market mutual fund, but its stated objective was to
maintain a net asset value of $1.00 per share.  TD Ameritrade,
Inc.'s clients continue to hold shares in the Yield Plus Fund (now
known as "Yield Plus Fund - In Liquidation"), which is being
liquidated.  TD Ameritrade, Inc., is TD Ameritrade Holding
Corporation's introducing broker-dealer subsidiary.

On July 23, 2010, The Reserve announced that through that date it
had distributed approximately 94.8% of the Yield Plus Fund assets
as of September 15, 2008, and that the Yield Plus Fund had
approximately $39.7 million in total remaining assets.  The
Reserve stated that the fund's Board of Trustees has set aside
almost the entire amount of the remaining assets to cover
potential claims, fees and expenses.  The Company estimates that
TD Ameritrade, Inc. clients' current positions held in the Reserve
Yield Plus Fund amount to approximately 79% of the fund.

On January 27, 2011, TD Ameritrade, Inc. entered into a settlement
with the SEC, agreeing to pay $0.012 per share to all eligible
current or former clients that purchased shares of the Yield Plus
Fund and continued to own those shares.  Clients who purchased
Yield Plus Fund shares through independent registered investment
advisors were not eligible for the payment.  In February 2011, the
Company paid clients approximately $10 million under the
settlement agreement.

In November 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed with
respect to the Yield Plus Fund.  The lawsuit is captioned Ross v.
Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al. and is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The Ross
lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased shares of Reserve
Yield Plus Fund.  On November 20, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
first amended complaint naming as defendants the fund's advisor,
certain of its affiliates and the Company and certain of its
directors, officers and shareholders as alleged control persons.
The complaint alleges claims of violations of the federal
securities laws and other claims based on allegations that false
and misleading statements and omissions were made in the Reserve
Yield Plus Fund prospectuses and in other statements regarding the
fund.  The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages including interest, attorneys' fees, rescission, exemplary
damages and equitable relief.  On January 19, 2010, the defendants
submitted motions to dismiss the complaint.  The motions are
pending.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 7, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The Company estimates that its clients' current aggregate
shortfall, based on the original par value of their holdings in
the Yield Plus Fund, less the value of fund distributions to date
and the value of payments under the SEC settlement, is
approximately $36 million.  This amount does not take into account
any assets remaining in the fund that may become available for
future distributions.

The Company says it is unable to predict the outcome or the timing
of the ultimate resolution of the Ross lawsuit, or the potential
loss, if any, that may result.  However, management believes the
outcome is not likely to have a material adverse effect on the
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of the
Company.

Based in Omaha, Nebraska, TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation --
http://www.ameritrade.com/-- through its subsidiaries, provides
securities brokerage services and technology-based financial
services to retail investors, traders, and independent registered
investment advisors (RIAs) in the United States.


TOSH FARMS: Kentucky Court Decertifies Nuisance Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
E. Chase Dressman, Esq. -- cdressman@taftlaw.com -- at Taft
Stettinius & Hollister LLP reports that on August, 2, the Western
District of Kentucky decertified a plaintiff class after
concluding that the highly individualized proof necessary to
establish a permanent nuisance claim under Kentucky law made class
certification unavailable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 ("Rule 23")
(Powell, et al. v. Tosh, et al., 5:09-CV-00121). This ruling
indicates that plaintiffs seeking class certification based purely
on nuisance claims under Kentucky law will face a heightened
burden to meet Rule 23's requirements because of elements
necessary to prove such a claim.

A teleconference has been set for Sept. 24, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.
before Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell.

Plaintiffs: Terry Powell, Janette Powell, Rhonda Free, Gerald
Freeman, William Castleberry, Darrin Chapman, Tammy Chapman, Mike
Robertson, Lisa Robertson, Robert Wiley, Cynthia Wiley, Jamey
Powell, Wilford Ham, Teresa McMullin, Michael Jordan, Kandis
Jordan, Jerry Thompson, Mitch Hill, Tommy Powell, Bridget Powell,
Lia Thompson, Terry Allen, Denita Allen, Clint Graves, Ashley
Graves, Kevin Groves, Larry Pearson, Kathy Pearson, Brenda Jordan,
Bradley Hall, Karen Hall, Chuck Sykes, Lisa Sykes, Marianne Ham

Defendants: Bacon by Gosh, Inc, Pig Palace, LLC, Shiloh Hills,
LLC, Tosh Farms General Partnership, Tosh Farms, LLC, Tosh Pork,
LLC, Eric Howell, Heather Davis, Jimmy Tosh, Ron Davis


TOYOTA MOTOR: Car Owner Misses Class Action Settlement Cut-Off
--------------------------------------------------------------
David P. Willis, writing for Press on Your Side, reports that West
Long Branch resident Mary Pagones missed the cutoff by less than a
month.

She figured Toyota Motor Sales USA had her covered after her 2003
Toyota RAV4 broke down.  After all, her car's model year was part
of a settlement in a class-action lawsuit over a problem with the
electronic control module.

A lawsuit claimed that some 2001 to 2003 model year RAV4s, which
have automatic transmission, have experienced a "harsh shift
condition."  The problem, in which a vehicle may suddenly not
shift smoothly, was attributed to the vehicle's electronic control
module, which may also damage the car's automatic transmission,
court papers state.

In the 2012 settlement, Toyota agreed to extend the vehicle's
warranty for 10 years or 150,000 miles, whichever comes first, and
pay the costs of repairs associated with the problem.

When Ms. Pagones, who purchased the car used in 2010, tried to
collect, Toyota denied her claim.  It turns out her 2003 RAV4 was
driven off the car lot in December 2002, not in 2003, as required.
"Obviously, Toyota is clinging to a technicality to refuse to
reimburse me for a defective part," Ms. Pagones wrote in an email
to Press on Your Side.

When she first heard about it, Ms. Pagones knew nothing about a
"harsh shift condition."  She said the language on the claim
notice did not give her any indication of the danger involved.
But she found out.

Stopped at a light in Freehold Township this past July,
Ms. Pagones pressed on the gas pedal and the engine raced, but the
car didn't really go anywhere.  "It would wheeze to five miles per
hour," Ms. Pagones said.  "Every time I would go into gear, I
would literally have to stand on the gas pedal for it to go.  It
was pretty scary."

She feared she could have been hurt.  "Someone could have
rear-ended me because I could not accelerate very fast,"
Ms. Pagones said.

The car's "check engine" light was on and she took it to a
mechanic.  He checked the computer problem code and it came back
P075, one of five codes covered by the class-action settlement.
The cost of the repairs came in at $1,240.40.

Toyota said they wouldn't pay for it.

"Unfortunately, the repair performed on your vehicle does not meet
the criteria for reimbursement,'' states a portion of the Aug. 12
letter from Toyota Customer Experience.  "Additionally, your
concern is not eligible for reimbursement under any other
warranty, Special Service Campaign or Special policy adjustment in
effect at this time."

She contacted a supervisor at Toyota who told her the car was
outside the terms of the 10-year warranty because it was sold in
December 2002 even though it was listed as a 2003 model.
Looking for help

Ms. Pagones contacted Press on Your Side for help in getting her
reimbursement.

Toyota's decision seemed unfair.  Even if her car was sold in
December 2002, it was a 2003 model and experienced the same
problem as described in the settlement.  And she had been informed
that her car was covered by it.

Press on Your Side called a spokesperson for Toyota Motor Sales
for help.  The car company should cover Ms. Pagones' repair costs.

An executive analyst at the company's headquarters in Torrance,
Calif., returned the telephone call.  The company would not
comment on Ms. Pagones' claim, but would call her and discuss the
matter.

Ms. Pagones reported back.  The analyst simply repeated the
earlier denial, citing the date the car was driven off the lot.
"She merely repeated Toyota's position that the car was out of
warranty period."

It's disappointing.  What if the car was originally sold a month
later, squarely in 2003? Would that have made a difference?

Ms. Pagones said she told the analyst the part should have been
reimbursed (and recalled) in all model year 2001 to 2003 RAV4
vehicles.

Agreed.  But unfortunately, Toyota didn't agree.


TRANSOCEAN LTD: Continues to Defend Deepwater Horizon Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Transocean Ltd. continues to defend itself and its subsidiaries
against lawsuits, investigations and other claims arising from the
Macondo well accident, according to the Company's August 7, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On April 22, 2010, the Ultra-Deepwater Floater Deepwater Horizon
sank after a blowout of the Macondo well caused a fire and
explosion on the rig.  Eleven persons were declared dead and
others were injured as a result of the incident.  At the time of
the explosion, Deepwater Horizon was located approximately 41
miles off the coast of Louisiana in Mississippi Canyon Block 252
and was contracted to BP America Production Co. (together with its
affiliates, "BP").

On January 3, 2013, the Company reached an agreement with the U.S.
Department of Justice ("DOJ") to resolve certain outstanding civil
and potential criminal charges against the Company arising from
the Macondo well incident.  As part of this resolution, the
Company agreed to a criminal plea ("Plea Agreement") and a civil
consent decree ("Consent Decree") by which, among other things,
the Company agreed to pay $1.4 billion in fines, recoveries and
civil penalties, excluding interest, in scheduled payments through
February 2017.

Under the Company's drilling contract for Deepwater Horizon, the
operator has agreed, among other things, to assume full
responsibility for and defend, release and indemnify the Company
from any loss, expense, claim, fine, penalty or liability for
pollution or contamination, including control and removal thereof,
arising out of or connected with operations under the contract
other than for pollution or contamination originating on or above
the surface of the water from hydrocarbons or other specified
substances within the control and possession of the contractor, as
to which the Company agreed to assume responsibility and protect,
release and indemnify the operator.  Although the Company does not
believe it is applicable to the Macondo well incident, the Company
also agreed to indemnify and defend the operator up to a limit of
$15 million for claims for loss or damage to third parties arising
from pollution caused by the rig while it is off the drilling
location, while the rig is underway or during drive off or drift
off of the rig from the drilling location.

The Company has recognized a liability for estimated loss
contingencies associated with litigation and investigations
resulting from the incident that the Company believes are probable
and for which a reasonable estimate can be made.  At June 30,
2013, and December 31, 2012, the liability for estimated loss
contingencies that the Company believes are probable and for which
a reasonable estimate can be made was $454 million and $1.9
billion, respectively, recorded in other current liabilities.  The
litigation and investigations also give rise to certain loss
contingencies that the Company believes are either reasonably
possible or probable but for which the Company does not believe a
reasonable estimate can be made.  Although the Company has not
recognized a liability for such loss contingencies, these
contingencies could increase the liabilities the Company
ultimately recognizes.

The Company has also recognized an asset associated with the
portion of its estimated losses, primarily related to the personal
injury and fatality claims of its crew and vendors, that the
Company believes is probable of recovery from insurance.  Although
the Company has available policy limits that could result in
additional amounts recoverable from insurance, recovery of such
additional amounts is not probable and the Company is not
currently able to estimate such amounts.  The Company's estimates
involve a significant amount of judgment.  As a result of new
information or future developments, the Company may adjust its
estimated loss contingencies arising out of the Macondo well
incident or its estimated recoveries from insurance, and the
resulting losses could have a material adverse effect on its
consolidated statement of financial position, results of
operations and cash flows.  At June 30, 2013, and December 31,
2012, the insurance recoverable asset related to estimated losses
primarily for additional personal injury and fatality claims of
the Company's crew and vendors that the Company believes are
probable of recovery from insurance was $66 million and $153
million, respectively, recorded in other assets.

               Multidistrict Litigation Proceeding

Many of the Macondo well related claims are pending in the U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana (the "MDL Court").
In March 2012, BP and the Plaintiff's Steering Committee (the
"PSC") announced that they had agreed to a partial settlement
related primarily to private party environmental and economic loss
claims as well as response effort related claims (the "BP/PSC
Settlement").  The BP/PSC Settlement agreement provides that (a)
to the extent permitted by law, BP will assign to the settlement
class certain of BP's claims, rights and recoveries against the
Company for damages with protections such that the settlement
class is barred from collecting any amounts from the Company
unless it is finally determined that the Company cannot recover
such amounts from BP, and (b) the settlement class releases all
claims for compensatory damages against the Company but purports
to retain claims for punitive damages against the Company.

On December 21, 2012, the MDL Court granted final approval of the
economic and property damage class settlement between BP and the
PSC.  In December 2012, in response to the settlements, the
Company filed three motions seeking partial summary judgment on
various claims, including punitive damages claims.  If successful,
these motions would eliminate or reduce the Company's exposure to
punitive damages.  The MDL Court has not ruled on these motions.

In May 2013, the Company filed a motion seeking partial summary
judgment on claims asserted by BP against the Company seeking
damages from loss of the well and for source-control and cleanup
costs (the "Direct Damages" claims).  The Direct Damages claims
are included in the claims BP assigned to the economic and
property damages settlement class.  The motion argues that BP
released the Direct Damages claims in its contract with the
Company and that the release is enforceable even if the Company is
found grossly negligent.  Some courts have held that such
agreements will not be enforced if the defendant is found grossly
negligent.  The MDL Court has not ruled on this motion.

The first phase of the trial commenced on February 25, 2013.  The
trial addressed fault issues that had not previously been disposed
of or resolved by settlement, summary judgment, or stipulation and
that may properly be tried by the MDL Court without a jury,
including negligence, gross negligence, or other bases of
liability of the various defendants with respect to the issues,
and limitation of liability issues.  On June 21, 2013, following
the presentation of evidence and pursuant to the MDL Court order,
the parties filed post-trial briefs and proposed findings of fact
and conclusions of law.  The MDL Court ordered that reply briefs
be filed by July 12, 2013.

If the MDL Court finds in this phase of the trial that the Company
was grossly negligent, the Company will be exposed to at least
three litigation risks: (1) the MDL Court could award punitive
damages under general maritime law to plaintiffs who own property
damaged by oil and to plaintiffs who are commercial fishermen; (2)
the MDL Court could find that the Company's gross negligence voids
the release BP gave the Company in the drilling contract for
direct claims by BP, which BP has assigned to the plaintiffs in
the BP/PSC settlement; and (3) the Company could be liable for all
other oil pollution damages claims, including claims for natural
resource damages, if the MDL Court were to go beyond gross
negligence for which the Company is to be indemnified and find a
"core breach" of the drilling contract, or if the court of appeals
were to reverse a prior ruling that BP owes the Company indemnity
for these claims even in the event of gross negligence.  The
Company's four pending motions for partial judgment on the
pleadings or partial summary judgment, if successful, could reduce
or eliminate the Company's exposure to these claims.  A finding of
gross negligence against the Company or against BP or a finding
that either the Company or BP violated certain safety regulations
would also result in the removal of the statutory liability caps
under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 ("OPA").  Under the MDL
Court's present ruling, however, the Company's
liability for damages under OPA is limited to damages caused by
discharge on or above the surface of the water.

The MDL Court has scheduled a trial date of September 30, 2013,
for the second phase of the trial, which will address conduct
related to stopping the release of hydrocarbons between April 22,
2010, and approximately September 19, 2010, and quantify the
cumulative discharge of oil caused by the release.  In light of
BP's criminal plea agreement with the DOJ acknowledging that it
provided the government with false or misleading information
throughout the spill response, the Company has amended its
pleadings to allege as an affirmative defense that BP's fraud
delayed the final capping of the well and that the Company should
not be liable for damages resulting from this delay.

The Company can provide no assurances as to the outcome of the
trial, as to the timing of any upcoming phase of trial, that the
Company will not enter into additional settlements as to some or
all of the matters related to the Macondo well incident, including
those to be determined at a trial, or the timing or terms of any
such settlements.

                           Litigation

As of June 30, 2013, 1,365 actions or claims were pending against
the Company, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in state
and federal courts.  Additionally, government agencies have
initiated investigations into the Macondo well incident.  The
Company has categorized the nature of the legal actions or claims.
The Company is evaluating all claims and intends to vigorously
defend any claims and pursue any and all defenses available.  In
addition, the Company believes it is entitled to contractual
defense and indemnity for all wrongful death and personal injury
claims made by non-employees and third-party subcontractors'
employees as well as all liabilities for pollution or
contamination, other than for pollution or contamination
originating on or above the surface of the water.

Litigation: Wrongful death and personal injury

As of June 30, 2013, the Company has been named, along with other
unaffiliated defendants, in certain complaints that were pending
in state and federal courts in Louisiana and Texas involving
multiple plaintiffs that allege wrongful death or other personal
injuries arising out of the Macondo well incident.  Nine
complaints involve fatalities and 63 complaints seek recovery for
bodily injuries.  A number of these lawsuits have been settled.
Per the order of the Multidistrict Litigation Panel ("MDL"), all
claims but one have been centralized for discovery purposes in the
MDL Court.  The complaints generally allege negligence and seek
awards of unspecified economic and punitive damages.  BP, MI-
SWACO, Weatherford International Ltd. and Cameron International
Corporation ("Cameron") and certain of their affiliates, have,
based on contractual arrangements, also made indemnity demands
upon the Company with respect to personal injury and wrongful
death claims asserted by its employees or representatives of its
employees against these entities.

Litigation: Economic loss

As of June 30, 2013, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries
were named, along with other unaffiliated defendants, in 921
pending individual complaints as well as 199 putative class-action
complaints that were pending in the federal and state courts in
Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Florida and possibly other courts.  The
complaints generally allege, among other things, potential
economic losses as a result of environmental pollution arising out
of the Macondo well incident and are based primarily on the OPA
and state OPA analogues.  The plaintiffs are generally seeking
awards of unspecified economic, compensatory and punitive damages,
as well as injunctive relief.  No classes have been certified at
this time.  Most of these actions have either been transferred to
or are the subject of motions to transfer to the MDL.

Litigation: Cross-claims, counter-claims, and third party claims

In April 2011, several defendants in the MDL litigation filed
cross-claims or third-party claims against the Company and certain
of its subsidiaries, and other defendants.  BP filed a claim
seeking contribution under the OPA and maritime law, subrogation
and claimed breach of contract, unseaworthiness, negligence and
gross negligence.  Through these claims, BP sought to recover from
the Company damages it has paid or may pay arising from the
Macondo well incident.  BP also sought a declaration that it is
not liable in contribution, indemnification, or otherwise to the
Company.  Anadarko Petroleum Corporation ("Anadarko"), which owned
a 25 percent non-operating interest in the Macondo well, asserted
claims of negligence, gross negligence, and willful misconduct and
is seeking indemnity under state and maritime law and contribution
under maritime and state law as well as OPA.  MOEX Offshore 2007
LLC ("MOEX"), which owns a 10 percent non-operating interest in
the Macondo well, filed claims of negligence under state and
maritime law, gross negligence under state law, gross negligence
and willful misconduct under maritime law and is seeking indemnity
under state and maritime law and contribution under maritime law
and OPA.  Cameron, the manufacturer and designer of the blowout
preventer, asserted multiple claims for contractual indemnity and
declarations regarding contractual obligations under various
contracts and quotes and is also seeking non-contractual indemnity
and contribution under maritime law and OPA.  As part of the
BP/PSC Settlement, one or more of these claims against the Company
and certain of its subsidiaries have been assigned to the PSC
settlement class.  Halliburton Company ("Halliburton"), which
provided cementing and mud-logging services to the operator, filed
a claim against the Company seeking contribution and indemnity
under maritime law, contractual indemnity and alleging negligence
and gross negligence.  Additionally, certain other third parties
filed claims against the Company for indemnity and contribution.

In April 2011, the Company filed cross-claims and counter-claims
against BP, Halliburton, Anadarko, MOEX, certain of these parties'
affiliates, the U.S. and certain other third parties.  The Company
seeks indemnity, contribution, including contribution under OPA,
and subrogation under OPA, and the Company has asserted claims for
breach of warranty of workmanlike performance, strict liability
for manufacturing and design defect, breach of express contract,
and damages for the difference between the fair market value of
Deepwater Horizon and the amount received from insurance proceeds.
The Consent Decree limits the Company's ability to seek
indemnification or reimbursement with respect to certain of these
matters against the owners of the Macondo well.  The Company is
not pursuing arbitration on the key contractual issues with BP;
instead, the Company is relying on the court to resolve the
disputes.  With regard to the U.S., the Company is not currently
seeking recovery of monetary damages, but rather a declaration
regarding relative fault and contribution via credit, setoff, or
recoupment.

Litigation: Federal securities claims

A federal securities proposed class action is currently pending in
the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, naming the
Company and former chief executive officers of Transocean Ltd. and
one of its acquired companies as defendants.  In the action, a
former shareholder of the acquired company alleges that the joint
proxy statement related to the Company's shareholder meeting in
connection with its merger with the acquired company violated
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"), Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The plaintiff claims that the acquired
company's shareholders received inadequate consideration for their
shares as a result of the alleged violations and seeks
compensatory and rescissory damages and attorneys' fees on behalf
of itself and the proposed class members.  In addition, the
Company is obligated to pay the defense fees and costs for the
individual defendants, which may be covered by the Company's
directors' and officers' liability insurance, subject to a
deductible.  On October 4, 2012, the court denied the Company's
motion to dismiss the action.  On October 5, 2012, the Company
asked the court to stay the action pending a decision by the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals in an unrelated action involving
the time period within which Section 14 claims can be filed that
could be relevant to the disposition of this case.  On June 27,
2013, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the issue in a
manner that the Company believes supports its position that the
plaintiff's existing claims alleged in the action are time-barred.
At the Company's request, the court lifted the stay so that the
Company may seek dismissal of the action.

Litigation: Other federal statutes

Several of the claimants have made assertions under the statutes,
including the Clean Water Act ("CWA"), the Endangered Species Act,
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA") and the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act.

Litigation: Shareholder derivative claims

In June 2010, two shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed by
the Company's shareholders naming the Company as a nominal
defendant and certain of its current and former officers and
directors as defendants in state district court in Texas.  These
cases allege breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of
control, gross mismanagement and waste of corporate assets in
connection with the Macondo well incident.  The plaintiffs are
generally seeking to recover, on behalf of the Company, damages to
the corporation and disgorgement of all profits, benefits, and
other compensation from the individual defendants.  Any recovery
of the damages or disgorgement by the plaintiffs in these actions
would be paid to the Company.  If the plaintiffs prevail, the
Company could be required to pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.  In
addition, the Company is obligated to pay the defense fees and
costs for the individual defendants, which may be covered by the
Company's directors' and officers' liability insurance, subject to
a deductible.  The two actions have been consolidated before a
single judge.  In August 2012, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint on the ground that if the actions are to
proceed they must be maintained in the courts of Switzerland and
on the ground that the plaintiffs lack standing to assert the
claims alleged.  In December 2012, in response to defendants'
motion to dismiss for lack of standing, the plaintiffs dismissed
their action without prejudice.  In January 2013, one of the
plaintiffs re-filed a complaint that was previously dismissed
seeking to recover damages to the corporation and disgorgement of
all profits, benefits, and other compensation from the individual
defendants.  The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in March
2013.  Briefing on this motion to dismiss was completed on
June 27, 2013, and a hearing was scheduled for July 26, 2013.

Headquartered in Vernier, Switzerland, Transocean Ltd. --
http://www.deepwater.com/-- provides offshore contract drilling
services for oil and gas wells.  Specializing in technically
demanding sectors of the offshore drilling business with a
particular focus on deepwater and harsh environment drilling
services, the Company contracts its drilling rigs, related
equipment and work crews predominantly on a dayrate basis to drill
oil and gas wells.


TRIUS THERAPEUTICS: Faces Two Suits Over Acquisition by Cubist
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trius Therapeutics, Inc., is facing two class action lawsuits
arising from its proposed acquisition by Cubist Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.

On August 1, 2013, one putative class-action lawsuit (Bemis v.
Trius Therapeutics, Inc., Case No. 37-2013-00060593-CU-SL-STL (the
Complaint")) was filed in Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Diego, against (a) the Company; (b) each
member of the Company's board of directors (including its chief
executive officer); and (3) Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and BRGO
Corporation, collectively the Cubist Entities, arising out of the
proposed acquisition of Trius by Cubist, or the Proposed
Transaction.  The Complaint alleges that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
acquisition of the Company by the Cubist Entities, and that the
other defendants aided and abetted these alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.  Specifically, the Complaint asserts that the
Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's public stockholders by, among other things, (i) agreeing
to sell the Company to the Cubist Entities at an unfair price;
(ii) implementing an unfair process; and (iii) agreeing to certain
provisions of the merger agreement that are alleged to favor the
Cubist Entities and deter alternative bids.  The Complaint seeks
an injunction against the consummation of the merger and
rescission of the Merger Agreement to the extent already
implemented, and an award of costs and expenses, including a
reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees.

On August 6, 2013, another putative class-action lawsuit (Hurst v.
Trius Therapeutics, Inc., (the "Second Complaint")) was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Diego, against: (a) the Company; (b) each member of the Company's
board of directors (including its chief executive officer); and
(3) the Cubist Entities. The Second Complaint alleges that the
Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the proposed acquisition of the Company by the Cubist
Entities, and that the other defendants aided and abetted these
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  Specifically, the Second
Complaint asserts that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's public stockholders by, among
other things, (i) agreeing to sell the Company to the Cubist
Entities at an unfair price; (ii) implementing an unfair process;
and (iii) agreeing to certain provisions of the merger agreement
that are alleged to favor the Cubist Entities and deter
alternative bids.  The Second Complaint seeks an injunction
against the consummation of the merger and rescission of the
Merger Agreement to the extent already implemented, an award of
damages, and an award of costs and expenses, including a
reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees.

The outcome of this litigation cannot be predicted at this time
and estimates of the financial effects, if any, cannot be made.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

San Diego, California-based Trius Therapeutics, Inc., is a
biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development
and commercialization of innovative antibiotics for serious
infections.  The Company is developing tedizolid phosphate, a
novel antibiotic, for the treatment of serious Gram-positive
bacterial infections, including those caused by methicillin-
resistant staphylococcus aureus.


VENAXIS INC: Oral Argument in "Wolfe" Suit Appeal on Sept. 26
-------------------------------------------------------------
An oral argument in an appeal from the dismissal of a class action
lawsuit originally filed by John Wolfe is scheduled for
September 26, 2013, according to Venaxis, Inc.'s August 7, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On October 1, 2010, the Company received a complaint, captioned
John Wolfe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AspenBio Pharma, Inc. (now Venaxis, Inc.) et al., Case
No. CV10 7365 ("Wolfe Lawsuit").  This federal securities
purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court in the
Central District of California on behalf of all persons, other
than the defendants, who purchased common stock of the Company
during the period between February 22, 2007, and July 19, 2010,
inclusive.  The complaint named as defendants certain officers and
directors of the Company during such period.  The complaint
included allegations of violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual
defendants, all related to the Company's blood-based acute
appendicitis test in development.  On the Company's motion, this
action was also transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado by order dated January 21, 2011.  The action
was assigned a District of Colorado Civil Case No. 11-cv-00165-
REB-KMT.  On July 11, 2011, the court appointed a lead plaintiff
and approved lead counsel.  On August 23, 2011, the lead plaintiff
filed an amended putative class action complaint.

On October 7, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On September 13, 2012, the United States
District Court for Colorado granted the Company's motion to
dismiss, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against all defendants
without prejudice.  On September 14, 2012, the court entered Final
Judgment without prejudice on behalf of all defendants and against
all plaintiffs in the Wolfe Lawsuit.  The Order to dismiss the
action found in favor of the Company and all of the individual
defendants.

On October 12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of
the Order granting the motion to dismiss and of the Final Judgment
in the Wolfe Lawsuit.  The plaintiffs filed their opening brief
with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 1, 2013.  The
Company filed its answering brief with the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals on April 8, 2013.  The plaintiffs filed a reply brief on
April 25, 2013.  The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has scheduled
an oral argument for September 26, 2013.  The Company and the
individual defendants believe that the plaintiffs' allegations are
without merit, have vigorously defended against these claims, and
intend to continue to do so.


VISA INC: Merchants Want $7.25BB Swipe Fee Settlement Blocked
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew R. Johnson, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports
that a $7.25 billion class-action settlement reached last year was
supposed to put an end to years of fighting between the retail
industry and payments companies Visa Inc. and MasterCard Inc.

Instead, it reignited a long-running battle over credit-card
transaction fees that played out again on Sept. 12 in federal
court, with big-box merchants and retail trade groups making their
case for why the deal should be blocked.

They argued that the settlement would harm -- not help --
merchants by essentially immunizing Visa and MasterCard from
future lawsuits over their business practices, a point that the
payment companies say is grossly overstated.

"This settlement is worse than losing at trial," Henry Armour,
president and chief executive officer of the National Association
of Convenience Stores, said during an all-day hearing in U.S.
District Court in Brooklyn on whether the agreement should be
granted final approval.

Proponents of the deal have heralded the settlement as a best-case
outcome in a case where the plaintiffs faced significant hurdles
to proving their claims.

"We are talking about an extraordinarily large sum of money,"
Craig Wildfang, an attorney representing a proposed class of as
many as eight million merchants, said during the hearing.

Judge John Gleeson, who is presiding over the case, said he would
take the parties' arguments under consideration but didn't say
when he expected to issue a ruling.

Billed as the largest settlement of an antitrust class-action case
in U.S. history, the deal reached in July 2012 would end years of
litigation brought by merchants against Visa and MasterCard and
several large banks that issue the companies' credit cards,
including Bank of America Corp. and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

Lawsuits filed by trade groups and several retailers in 2005
accused Visa and MasterCard of conspiring with banks to set so-
called swipe fees on credit-card transactions at arbitrarily high
levels.  The fees, also called interchange fees, are set by Visa
and MasterCard and flow to banks that issue cards as revenue each
time a customer swipes a card at a merchant.

In an effort to put the litigation behind them, the payment
networks and banks reached an agreement to pay $6.05 billion to
the proposed class of merchants and temporarily reduce swipe fees
by an amount equal to $1.2 billion.

Despite claims by merchant trade groups that there is widescale
opposition to the settlement among retailers, Mr. Wildfang said
there is overwhelming support for the deal.  Only a tiny fraction
of merchants eligible to participate in the settlement objected to
the deal, he said.

Judge Gleeson peppered both opponents and critics of the deal on
their arguments during the hearing.  At one point he noted the
settlement is a compromise between the parties in which neither
side is likely to achieve everything that they're seeking.

"This is a lawsuit and to get relief you've got to win," Judge
Gleeson said, adding that his comment wasn't meant to send a
signal about his views of settlement.

In addition to monetary relief, Visa and MasterCard also agreed to
drop long-standing rules that banned merchant surcharging, or the
practice of tacking on a fee to a customer who pays with a credit
card.  The ability to surcharge was a right that merchants have
long said could help them recoup their costs for accepting cards
and put pressure on Visa and MasterCard to lower their rates.

The rule change took effect in January, though many retail
executives have said surcharging wouldn't work for them because it
would alienate their customers.

In addition, at least 10 states, including Texas, Colorado, and
New York, had laws banning or limiting surcharging at the time the
settlement was announced. Since then, legislators in several more
states have introduced bills to pass similar laws, though
attorneys supporting the deal said on Sept. 12 that most of those
efforts have failed.

Opponents of the deal have also complained that if they accept
American Express cards in addition to Visa and MasterCard cards,
they would be unable to surcharge because of settlement provisions
that require merchants to surcharge all card brands equally.  They
argue that because American Express has more-restrictive rules on
surcharging, they won't be able to engage in the practice.

Judge Gleeson questioned whether such merchants could stop
accepting American Express cards as a way to surcharge Visa and
MasterCard transactions.

"It is not something we can walk away from," Victoria Donati,
general counsel for Crate & Barrel, said at the hearing, noting
about a quarter of the retailer's customers pay with American
Express cards.

Mr. Wildfang, the class attorney, said critics of the deal were
motivated by their "political agenda" to get Congress to legislate
credit-card swipe fees.

In 2010, Congress passed legislation that cut in half what banks
could charge merchants for accepting debit cards.  The rules,
which took effect in 2011, didn't affect credit-card swipe fees.

Visa and MasterCard executives have argued that the legal release
included in the settlement would only cover their existing rules
or similar rules they put in place in the future, while opponents
have interpreted the release to mean that all future claims
against the companies would be barred.

"We can't settle this case and then get sued again,"
Kenneth Gallo, an attorney representing MasterCard, said.

Judge Gleeson summed up the feelings of some industry executives,
analysts and retailers who are skeptical that the swipe-fee debate
will go away regardless of the settlement's fate: "Is this ever
going to come to an end without comprehensive legislation?"


VITA HEALTH: Acetaminophen Tablets Recalled in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 17, 2013
Posting date:             September 20, 2013
Type of communication:    Drug Recall
Subcategory:              Drugs, Affects children, pregnant or
                          breast feeding women
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-35851

Recalled Products: Encounter Junior Strength Acetaminophen Tablets
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM

The last row of the dosing table on the inner label incorrectly
states;

"Under 2 years: Do not use. Moins de 2 and: Ne pas utiliser"

The correct statement is

"Under 6 years Do not use. Moins de 6 ans : Ne pas utiliser"

The product was distributed to the retail level and nationally in
Canada only.

Companies:

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

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


VITA HEALTH: Cold and Flu Pack Recalled in Canada
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 12, 2013
Posting date:             September 20, 2013
Type of communication:    Drug Recall
Subcategory:              Drugs
Hazard classification:    Type I
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-35847

Recalled Products: Personnelle Cold and Flu-in-One Extra Strength
Convenience Pack

The outer box does not reference to "see inner printing for
important additional information".  The inner printing contains
the following English and French sections:

CAUTION: Consult a doctor if sore throat pain persists for more
than 2 days, fever lasts for more than 3 days or symptoms more
than 5 days, if cough worsens, tends to recur, is accompanied by
high fever (>38 degrees celsius) or the production of yellow/green
phlegm, or if you develop allergic reactions such as wheezing,
rash or itching. Ask a doctor or pharmacist prior to use if: you
use any other medications including natural health products,
prescription drugs, salicylates or other pain and fever relief
medications (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS)), you
have chronic alcoholism, serious kidney or liver disease, heart or
thyroid disease, chronic lung disease, high blood pressure,
diabetes, glaucoma, difficulty in urination due to an enlargement
of the prostrate gland or if you are pregnant or nursing.  Use
only on the advice of a physician. Not recommended for patients
with asthma, shortness of breath or persistent chronic cough
unless directed by a physician. Avoid alcohol. Nighttime caplets
may cause drowsiness or excitability. Do not drive or engage in
activities requiring mental alertness.

IN CASE OF OVERDOSE:  Call a doctor or Posion Control Centre
immediately, even if you do not notice any signs or symptoms.
Within the first 24 hours you may experience increased sweating,
nausea, vomiting, stomach pain and loss of appetite

The recalled drug was distributed to the retail level and
nationally in Canada only.

Companies:

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

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


VOGUE INT'L: Settles Organix False Advertising Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP reports that to settle a false
advertising suit filed in the U.S. District Court in the Northern
District of California, Organix recently agreed to pay a class of
consumers $6.5 million and to stop using the word "organic" unless
a product contains at least 70 percent organically produced
ingredients.

Per the settlement, class members -- purchasers of the company's
hair and skin care products dating back to October 2008 -- are
eligible to recover $4 per product up to a maximum of $28.
Todd Christopher International (doing business as Vogue
International), the maker of Organix, had previously moved to
dismiss the complaint, but the parties reached a deal before the
court decided the motion.

In addition to the misleading name of the product line itself, the
complaint alleges that front and back product labels used the term
"organic" when the products were actually composed "almost
entirely" of nonorganic ingredients (none of the products
contained more than 10 percent organic ingredients).  Plaintiffs
allege that consumers paid a premium for the products because they
believed they were organic.

In their motion for preliminary court approval of the settlement,
plaintiffs claim that class members will receive two benefits from
the settlement.  First, the deal "will prevent future alleged
violations of state consumer protection and false advertising
laws" as the word "organic" will be prohibited unless the 70
percent threshold is met.  Second, purchasers will receive a
financial benefit.  Calling the deal "fair and reasonable," the
plaintiffs said it "provides substantial benefits to the class by
requiring changes in Vogue's labeling and marketing practices, and
by securing just compensation for past purchases of the products."

Defendant has agreed not to oppose class counsel's request for
attorneys' fees and costs of $1.625 million, or 25 percent of the
total claim fund.

Why it matters: If approved, the settlement would be Vogue's
second involving allegations of false advertising in connection
with the Organix line.  In June 2011, the Center for Environmental
Health sued the company -- and 25 others -- in California state
court in a private attorney general action alleging violations of
the California Organic Products Act.  Vogue settled with CEH, a
California nonprofit, in September 2012.  The settlement included
injunctive relief restricting Vogue's use of the Organix brand
name and the word "organic" on product labeling, advertising, and
marketing materials in California.  The Golloher suit was filed
two months later.


WEGMANS FOOD: Recalls Apple Cinnamon Mini Muffins
-------------------------------------------------
Wegmans is recalling 4,327 units of Wegmans brand Apple Cinnamon
Mini Muffins, Net Wt. 14 oz., because the product contains
undeclared soy.  People who have an allergy to soy run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this
product.

The Mini Muffins were distributed to 82 Wegmans stores in New
York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, and
Massachusetts, and sold between Sept. 7, 2013 and Sept. 19, 2013.

The Mini Muffins were sold in a plastic clamshell container with
the UPC 77890 18951.  All date codes up to and including "Best if
used by 9/24/13" are being recalled.  Pictures of the affected
product are available at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm369240.htm

There have been no injuries or illnesses reported to date.

The recall was initiated by Wegmans Food Markets following their
own routine ingredient/label review process where it was
discovered that soy was not declared on the label.

Consumers who purchased the product can return it to the service
desk at their Wegmans store for a full refund.  Consumers with
questions may contact Wegmans Consumer Affairs Department at
1-855-934-3663, Monday through Friday, 8 am to 5 pm ET.


WELLCARE HEALTH: Still Subject to Contingencies Under Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2010, WellCare Health Plans, Inc. entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation
Agreement") with the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated
securities class action Eastwood Enterprises, L.L.C. v. Farha, et
al., Case No. 8:07-cv-1940-VMC-EAJ.  The Stipulation Agreement
included two contingencies to which WellCare remains subject.  If,
prior to December 17, 2013, the Company is acquired or otherwise
experience a change in control at a share price of $30.00 or more,
the Company must pay an additional $25 million to the class action
plaintiffs.  The Stipulation Agreement also requires the Company
to pay to the class action plaintiffs 25% of any sums it recovers
from Todd Farha, Paul Behrens and/or Thaddeus Bereday related to
the same facts and circumstances that gave rise to the
consolidated securities class action.  Messrs. Farha, Behrens and
Bereday are three former executives that were implicated in the
government investigations.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 7, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Headquartered in Tampa, Florida, WellCare Health Plans, Inc.
provides managed care services exclusively to government-sponsored
health care programs.  The Company was formed as a Delaware
limited liability company in May 2002 to acquire its Florida, New
York and Connecticut health plans.


WESTERN UNION: Two Members Appeal Approval of Consumer Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two class members appeal the final order approving The Western
Union Company's settlement of consumer class action lawsuits,
according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

The Company and one of its subsidiaries are defendants in two
purported class action lawsuits: James P. Tennille v. The Western
Union Company and Robert P. Smet v. The Western Union Company,
both of which are pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado.  The original complaints asserted claims
for violation of various consumer protection laws, unjust
enrichment, conversion and declaratory relief, based on
allegations that the Company waits too long to inform consumers if
their money transfers are not redeemed by the recipients and that
the Company uses the unredeemed funds to generate income until the
funds are escheated to state governments.  The Tennille complaint
was served on the Company on April 27, 2009.  The Smet complaint
was served on the Company on April 6, 2010.  On September 21,
2009, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
Tennille complaint and gave the plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint.  On October 21, 2009, Tennille filed an amended
complaint.  The Company moved to dismiss the Tennille amended
complaint and the Smet complaint.  On November 8, 2010, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss as to the plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment and conversion claims.  On February 4, 2011, the Court
dismissed plaintiffs' consumer protection claims.  On March 11,
2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that adds a claim
for breach of fiduciary duty, various elements to its declaratory
relief claim and Western Union Financial Services, Inc. ("WUFSI"),
a subsidiary of the Company, as a defendant.  On April 25, 2011,
the Company and WUFSI filed a motion to dismiss the breach of
fiduciary duty and declaratory relief claims.  WUFSI also moved to
compel arbitration of the plaintiffs' claims and to stay the
action pending arbitration.  On November 21, 2011, the Court
denied the motion to compel arbitration and the stay request.
Both companies appealed the decision.  On January 24, 2012, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granted the
companies' request to stay the District Court proceedings pending
their appeal.

During the fourth quarter of 2012, the parties executed a
settlement agreement, which the Court preliminarily approved on
January 3, 2013.  On June 25, 2013, the Court entered an order
certifying the class and granting final approval to the
settlement.  Under the approved settlement, a substantial amount
of the settlement proceeds would be paid from the Company's
existing related unclaimed property liabilities.  During the final
approval hearing, the Court overruled objections to the settlement
that had been filed by several class members.  In July 2013, two
of those class members filed notices of appeal.  If the Court of
Appeals sets aside the settlement and another settlement is not
completed or approved, the Company and WUFSI intend to vigorously
defend themselves against both lawsuits.

The Western Union Company -- https://www.westernunion.com/ -- is a
leader in global money movement and payment services, providing
people and businesses with fast, reliable and convenient ways to
send money and make payments around the world.  The Company's
services are primarily available through a network of agent
locations in more than 200 countries and territories.  The Company
is headquartered in Englewood, Colorado.


WISCONSIN AUTO: December 10 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fond du Lac Reporter reports that Wisconsin Department of Justice
and Department of Financial Institutions, along with Legal Aid
Society of Milwaukee, have reached a preliminary settlement in a
lawsuit alleging an auto title loan company used deceptive
practices to sell service contracts.

The class action lawsuit alleged that Wisconsin Auto Title Loans
engaged in false, misleading, deceptive and unconscionable conduct
in the course of selling "motor club" service contracts in
connection with the sale of auto title loans, according to a DOJ
press release.

Wisconsin Auto Title Loans has 22 stores in Wisconsin, including
one in Fond du Lac

Auto title loans are high-interest loans secured by motor vehicle
titles.  According to the State's amended complaint, Wisconsin
Auto Title Loans markets and sells auto title loans with annual
percentage rates of 300 percent or more.

The State's complaint alleged that the company's sale of
Continental Car Club (CCC), in connection with the sale of auto
title loans, was deceptive and unconscionable.  CCC is promoted as
a "motor club."  Although the product is supposed to be optional,
consumers reported being unaware they purchased the product or
being told that the product was a mandatory purchase along with
their title loan.  In most instances, the additional cost of CCC
was rolled into the total amount of the loan and became subject to
the high interest rate attached to the loan, according to the
release.

The action began as a private class action lawsuit filed by the
Legal Aid Society of Milwaukee, which was named Class Counsel in
this litigation.  The State of Wisconsin subsequently joined the
lawsuit by filing an amended complaint seeking restitution for
consumers, penalties and other relief under the Wisconsin Consumer
Act and other state consumer protection laws.

On Sept. 6, Judge Michael D. Goulee of Milwaukee County Circuit
Court entered an order preliminarily approving the Settlement
Agreement that requires a cash payment of $2.75 million for
restitution to affected consumers, attorneys' fees and costs.  In
addition, Wisconsin Auto Title Loans has agreed to extinguish all
finance charges and fees that have accrued on all open accounts,
of which there are approximately 36,000.  The State estimates this
will amount to millions of dollars in extinguished accrued
interest and fees.

Wisconsin customers who purchased CCC between Jan. 1, 1999, and
Dec. 31, 2010, will be eligible for a cash payment from the
restitution fund if the class member's payments to Wisconsin Auto
Title Loans equaled or exceeded the cash they received from
Wisconsin Auto Title Loans when the loan was initiated.  In
addition, the Agreement allows for significant injunctive relief,
including:

     * Wisconsin Auto Title Loans must release all existing liens
it has on all borrowers' vehicles for all title loans issued in
Wisconsin from Jan. 1, 1999, through Dec. 31, 2010. This will
result in the release of approximately 36,000 liens.

     * Wisconsin Auto Title Loans is prohibited from selling
Continental Car Club for a period of two years after the effective
date of the judgment, resulting in more than $3 million of lost
revenue to the company.

Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said, "This case shows, once
again, that companies who violate the law in Wisconsin will be
held accountable.  I am particularly pleased with the outcome in
this case because people are often suffering from financial
difficulties already, and it is troubling to see those individuals
being targeted by a deceptive scheme."

A hearing to determine whether the court will approve the
settlement has been scheduled for Dec. 10.  Notification will be
mailed to class members on Sept. 27, informing them of the terms
of the settlement, the ability to opt out of the settlement or
object to the settlement at the Dec. 10 Fairness Hearing.  A
website also will be made available on Sept. 27, detailing the
terms of the proposed settlement, with the domain name
"titleloansettlement.com."

Affected class members will be able to call toll free (877) 435-
4065 for information about the terms of the settlement after
Sept. 27.


* Pension Funds Miss Out of $18-Bil. of Damages, Goal Group Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison Marriage at The Financial Times reports that pension funds
have lost billions of dollars in unclaimed damages over the past
12 years, failing to fulfill their fiduciary duties, new research
shows.

Investors that have not participated in US securities class
actions have missed out on $18 billion of damages between 2000 and
2012.

European investors account for $4 billion of these unclaimed
damages, according to the research from Goal Group, a class action
services provider.  The research is based on publicly available
data showing how much a case has paid out and how many eligible
claimants did not participate.

PGGM, the Dutch pension fund, launched a class action against
Bank of America as a lead plaintive alongside two US pension funds
in 2009, resulting in a $2.4 billion settlement for shareholders
last year.

However, Stephen Everard, chief executive of Goal Group, estimates
that roughly a quarter of claims that could be filed by entitled
parties are left unprocessed.

Pension fund trustees are not aware of relevant suits, are afraid
of the potential reputational damage of pursuing high-profile
claims or wrongly believe that the administration involved is
expensive, according to Mr. Everard.

He said: "A lot of institutional investors get these class action
notices and literally throw them in the bin. It shows the need for
stronger corporate governance.

"[Investors'] underlying money suffers because the money they are
entitled to goes elsewhere, including to competitors," the chief
executive said.

The fund manager of one UK pension fund, who wanted to remain
anonymous, said his institution only started to seek damages from
class actions six years ago, but has recovered roughly GBP500,000
since.  He said that some pension funds are deterred from seeking
damages as the process is a "steep learning curve".

He added: "Unless you have sufficient assets under management in
overseas jurisdictions, then the amount of money involved is
probably disproportionate, and it can become a bit of an
administrative nightmare."

The investment officer at another pension fund, who also asked to
remain anonymous, added that some pension funds were reluctant to
"create a stir" by getting involved in class actions.


                             *********

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  * * *