CAR_Public/130925.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, September 25, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 190

                             Headlines


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Shareholder Wants to Vote on Purchase Accord
ADVENTURES ROLLING: Parties to Submit Supplemental Briefing
AGILYSYS INC: Seeks Initial Approval of $1.5MM Labor Suit Accord
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Ruling Puts Small Cos at Too Big to Fail's Mercy
AU OPTRONICS: High Court to Hear LCD Suit Oral Arguments in Nov.

BAYER CORP: Judge Reverses Class Certification in False Ad Suit
CADBURY ADAMS: Settles Price-Fixing Suit; Denies Allegations
CADBURY ADAMS: Still Faces Criminal Charges Despite Settlement
CAREER EDUCATION: 7th Cir. Remands "Wilson" Suit to Dist. Court
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Awaits Okay of $97.5-MM Securities Suit Deal

COVERALL NORTH: 1st Cir. Reverses Denial of Stay Bid in Awuah Suit
EASTMAN KODAK: Appeal From Dismissal of Securities Suit Pending
EASTMAN KODAK: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss ERISA Litigation
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in Calif.
FELTEX: Court Orders "Complete Terms" of Litigation Funding

FERNANDINA BEACH, FL: Faces Class Action Over Water & Sewage Fees
FIFTH THIRD: Awaits Final Approval of Antitrust Suit Settlement
FIFTH THIRD: Awaits Prelim. Okay of Securities Suit Settlement
FIFTH THIRD: Bid to Stay ERISA Violations Suits Remains Pending
FORD MOTOR: Model's $20MM Suit Over Royalty Payments Nixed

GREAT SOUTHERN: Class Action Trial Recalled to Hear New Evidence
HOTELS.COM: Westchester County to Move Forward With Class Action
HURONIA REGION: Settlement to Pave Way for Two Abuse Settlements
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Ontario Court Certifies DePuy Hip Implant Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: West Australian Women Join Class Action

LANCE ARMSTRONG: Lies in Biographies Shielded by First Amendment
MACQUARIE GROUP: 110 Tasmanian Farmers File Class Action
MADISON-KIPP CORP: Settles One of Two Class Actions for $2.6MM
MADISON SQUARE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Internships
MERCK & CO: Awaits Plaintiffs' Next Move in Suits Over Coupons

MERCK & CO: Awaits Prelim. OK of $23-Mil. Vioxx MDL Settlement
MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Suit by Indiana Vioxx Purchasers
MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Suits Alleging AWP Manipulation
MERCK & CO: Defends 5,075 Fosamax-Related Product Liability Suits
MERCK & CO: Expects K-DUR Antitrust Suit to Return to N.J. Court

MERCK & CO: Expert Discovery in Vioxx Securities Suits Ongoing
MERCK & CO: Final Hearing on Vytorin Suits Settlements on Oct. 1
MERCK & CO: Settlement Process in Mo. Vioxx Suit to End Oct. 7
MILLWOOD INC: Unjust Enrichment Claim Dismissed in "Euceda" Suit
NASHVILLE, TN: Collection Action Claims in "Noel" Suit Stayed

NEVADA: Accused by San Francisco of Dumping Mental Patients
NEW YORK LIFE: 2nd Cir. Upholds Wage Class Action Dismissal
OAKLAND, CA: Has Final OK of BART Shooting Ralliers Accord
OFFICEMAX INC: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Seek Settlement Approval Again
OLD REPUBLIC: Settles "Painter" Suit Over Title Recording Fees

OLD REPUBLIC: 11 of 12 RESPA Violations Lawsuits Dismissed
OLD REPUBLIC: Settles Suit Filed by Escrow Officers, Assistants
OLD REPUBLIC: Unit Still Faces "Friedman" False Advertising Suit
PANHANDLE OIL: Received $604,000 in Settlement of Royalty Suit
PENGUIN GROUP: Giskan Solotaroff to File 2nd Amended Complaint

PHILIP MORRIS: Provides Updates on Smoking, Health Lawsuits
PHILIP MORRIS: March 2014 Hearing Set in "El-Roy" Suit in Israel
PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Signs Deal to Dismiss Merger-Related Suit
PUSHPIN HOLDINGS: Forged Signatures in Equipment Leases, Suit Says
QANTAS AIRWAYS: Oct. 2014 Trial Set for Freight Collusion Suit

QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA: Torres Strait Islanders Mull Class Suit
QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA: Court to Decide on Missions Class Action
QUEST NUTRITION: Overstates Quest Bars' Fiber Content, Suit Says
RAI: Obtains Favorable Ruling in DTT Subscribers' Class Action
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

SAFEWAY INC: Faces All-Natural False Advertising Class Action
SPACE SYSTEMS: Hearing to Approved "Schneider" Suit Deal Continued
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: 2010 Securities Suit Discovery to End in Sept.
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Defends December 2012 Securities Litigation
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Defends Riata-Related Suits in Various Courts

ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Hearing in Silzone(R) Suit Appeal in November
SUNPOWER CORPORATION: Wins Final OK of Securities Suit Accord
UGI CORPORATION: "Swigers" Suit Still Pending in W.Va.
UNITED STATES: FHFA Obtains Favorable Ruling in Georgia Tax Suit
US FOODSERVICE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Class Cert. in Pricing Suit

US BANCORP: Still Awaits Approval of Settlement in Visa Matter
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks to Dismiss Mass. Securities Lawsuit
VISA INC: MDL Settlement Worse Than Losing at Trial, NACS Says
WAL-MART STORES: Squire Sanders Discusses 6th Cir. Ruling
YAMAHA MOTOR: Reich & Binstock Amends Class Action Complaint

YARDI SYSTEMS: Settles Suit Over Background Check Practices

* Class Action Over CHSLD Laundry Services Settled


                             *********


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Shareholder Wants to Vote on Purchase Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas M. Hayes, on behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly
Situated and Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant
Activision Blizzard, Inc. v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., Philippe
G.H. Capron, Jean-Yves Charlier, Robert J. Corti, Frederic R.
Crepin, Jean-Francois Dubos, Lucian Grainge, Brian G. Kelly,
Robert A. Kotick, Robert J. Morgado, Richard Sarnoff, Regis
Turrini, Vivendi, S.A., Amber Holding Subsidiary Co., ASASAC II
LP, ASAC II LLC, Davis Selected Advisers, L.P. and Fidelity
Management & Research Co., Case No. 8885- (Del. Ch. Ct.,
September 11, 2013) seeks to remedy alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty by the Defendants.  The Plaintiff also seeks to prevent the
Defendants and Fidelity Management & Research Co. and Davis
Selected Advisers, L.P., from violating the Company's Certificate
of Incorporation by failing to hold a required vote of the non-
Vivendi stockholders of Activision.

On July 25, 2013, Activision, Vivendi, and ASAC II LP, acting by
and through its general partner, ASAC II LLC (an entity led by
defendants Kelly and Kotick), entered into a Stock Purchase
Agreement.  Pursuant to the SPA, Activision is to purchase all of
the stock of Amber, whose assets will consist of most of the
Activision shares representing Vivendi's Activision business
segment and at least $676 million of net operating loss carry
forward attributable to Vivendi Games and other Vivendi
activities.

Mr. Hayes asserts that the transactions contemplated by the SPA
constitute "any merger, business combination or similar
transaction involving" Activision and Vivendi and its Controlled
Affiliates, which under Section 9.1(b) of the Certificate requires
approval by the affirmative vote of a majority of the shares of
Activision not held by Vivendi and its Controlled Affiliates.  In
violation of the Certificate, the Defendants do not intend to
submit the SPA to any stockholder vote, Mr. Hayes alleges.  Hence,
he seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to protect the
stockholders' right to a vote on the SPA.

Mr. Hayes is a stockholder of Activision.

Activision is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Santa
Monica, California.  Activision is a worldwide publisher of
online, personal computer, video game console, tablet, handheld
and mobile games.  Brian G. Kelly, Robert A. Kotick, Robert J.
Corti, Robert J. Morgado and Richard Sarnoff are directors and
officers of Activision.

Vivendi is a French corporation based in Paris.  Vivendi operates
six businesses involved in content, platforms and interactive
networks.  Vivendi's 61.5% ownership interest in Activision
represents one of Vivendi's business segments.  Amber is currently
a wholly owned subsidiary of Vivendi.  Philippe G.H. Capron, Jean-
Yves Charlier, Frederic R. Crepin, Jean-Francois Dubos, Lucian
Grainge and Regis Turrini are directors and officers of Vivendi.

ASAC II LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, is the general
partner of ASAC II LP, a limited partnership established under the
laws of the Cayman Islands.  ASAC is an investment vehicle led by
Messrs. Kelly and Kotick that includes investment management firm
Davis, investment management firm FMR, private equity firm Green,
and Chinese Internet, media and entertainment firm Tencent.

Davis is an investment management firm based in Tucson, Arizona.
Davis owns 18,999,872 shares of Activision common stock,
representing approximately 1.6% of Activision's outstanding shares
of common stock.  FMR is an investment management firm based in
Boston, Massachusetts.  FMR and its affiliates own 47,354,368
shares of Activision common stock, representing approximately 4.2%
of Activision's outstanding shares of common stock.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Hanrahan, Esq.
          Gary F. Traynor, Esq.
          Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Esq.
          Patrick W. Flavin, Esq.
          PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A.
          1310 N. King Street
          Wilmington, Delaware 19801
          Telephone: (302) 888-6500
          E-mail: mhanrahan@prickett.com
                  gftraynor@prickett.com
                  pafioravanti@prickett.com
                  pwflavin@prickett.com

               - and -

          Marc A. Topaz, Esq.
          Eric L. Zagar, Esq.
          Robin Winchester, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, Pennsylvania 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          E-mail: mtopaz@ktmc.com
                  ezagar@ktmc.com
                  rwinchester@ktmc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Angela Whitesell, Esq.
          MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
          1201 N Market St.
          Wilmington, DE 19801-1147
          Telephone: (302) 351-9110
          E-mail: awhitesell@mnat.com

               - and -

          Collins J. Seitz, Esq.
          Garrett B. Moritz, Esq.
          SEITZ ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP
          100 South West St., Suite 400
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 576-1600
          E-mail: cseitz@seitzross.com
                  gmoritz@seitzross.com

               - and -

          Edward P. Welch, Esq.
          SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP-WILMINGTON
          PO Box 636
          Wilmington, DE 19899-0636
          Telephone: (302) 651-3060
          E-mail: EWELCH@SKADDEN.COM

               - and -

          Katherine J. Neikirk, Esq.
          MORRIS JAMES LLP-WILMINGTON
          500 Delaware Ave Ste 1500
          Wilmington, DE 19801-1494
          Telephone: (302) 888-6808
          E-mail: kneikirk@morrisjames.com

               - and -

          Raymond J. DiCamillo, Esq.
          RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER PA-WILMINGTON
          920 N King St.
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 651-7786
          E-mail: dicamillo@rlf.com


ADVENTURES ROLLING: Parties to Submit Supplemental Briefing
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PETER WRIGHT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ADVENTURES
ROLLING CROSS COUNTRY, INC., et al., Defendants, NO. C-12-0982
EMC, (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of a class action settlement.

Having reviewed the papers submitted, District Judge Edward M.
Chen ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing and/or
evidence on various issues, including:

* a more concrete sense of how many people there are in the class;

* an explanation on how they arrived at the estimated $750 that
  each class members will receive; and

* their estimates as to the maximum value of the case.

A copy of the District Court's August 29, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/U7Lon4from Leagle.com.

Peter Wright, Plaintiff, is represented by Bryan Jeffrey Schwartz
-- bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- Bryan Schwartz Law, Michael
Thomas -- michael@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- Bryan Schwartz Law and:

   David Adam Lowe, Esq.
   John T. Mullan, Esq.
   Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe, LLP
   351 California Street, Suite 700
   San Francisco, CA 94104
   Phone: 415-906-2647
   Fax: 415-434-0513

Michelle Trame, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan Jeffrey Schwartz,
Bryan Schwartz Law, David Adam Lowe, Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe,
LLP, John T. Mullan, Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe, LLP & Michael
Thomas, Bryan Schwartz Law.

Adventures Rolling Cross Country, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Reed Edward Schaper -- rschaper@hkemploymentlaw.com -- Hirschfeld
Kraemer LLP & Kristin L. Oliveira -- koliveira@hkemploymentlaw.com
-- Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP.

Scott Von Eschen, Defendant, represented by Reed Edward Schaper,
Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP & Kristin L. Oliveira, Hirschfeld Kraemer
LLP.


AGILYSYS INC: Seeks Initial Approval of $1.5MM Labor Suit Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for preliminary approval of a proposed $1.5 million
settlement in a labor suit against Agilysys, Inc. was filed with
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On February 28, 2013, the company participated in a mediation that
resulted in a tentative agreement to resolve the wage and hour
putative class action lawsuit filed against the company on July 9,
2012, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

A motion for preliminary approval of a proposed settlement in the
amount of $1.5 million was filed with the court on June 6, 2013.
This amount was accrued at March 31, 2013.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Ruling Puts Small Cos at Too Big to Fail's Mercy
------------------------------------------------------------------
Constantine Cannon LLP's Matthew L. Cantor, Esq. and Daniel J.
Vitell, Esq., writing for The Hill's Congress Blog, report that
the Supreme Court's recent decision in American Express Co. v.
Italian Colors Restaurant puts small businesses at the mercy of
"too big to fail" Wall Street companies and other entities with
economic heft.  It allows entities with market power to demand
that small businesses execute enforceable waivers that effectively
prohibit them from seeking remediation, even when they are the
victims of intentional conduct, such as anticompetitive price-
fixing conspiracies.  Left unchanged, the Court's ruling will
significantly impair Main Street's ability to bring antitrust
lawsuits to challenge financial harm caused to them.

Tea Party members, elected to protect small business from Wall
Street, and Democrats should see this decision as a threat to
their mission in Congress.  They should launch a bi-partisan
effort to amend the Federal Arbitration Act to prohibit class
action waivers where such clauses effectively prohibit small
businesses and consumers from vindicating their rights under
federal or state law.

Contracts often dictate that disputes are to be resolved through
arbitration, rather than through the courts.  Buried in the fine
print of many arbitration provisions is the following legalese:
"Any arbitration under this Arbitration Agreement shall be solely
between [Party A] and [Party B], shall not be joined with another
lawsuit, claim, dispute or arbitration commenced by any other
person, and may not be maintained on behalf of any purported
class.  Both parties waive the right to participate in any class
action against the other, and the arbitrator has no authority to
adjudicate any class claims or class arbitration."  This class
action waiver requires each party to go it alone, even if the
illegal conduct impacts thousands or millions of small businesses
or consumers.

These words effectively strip harmed businesses -- such as the
victims of a price-fixing conspiracy -- of their ability to seek a
remedy, because to do so alone would be prohibitively expensive.
For example, private antitrust prosecutions require substantial
expenditures to pay for discovery, an economic expert, and trial
costs.  The costs can far exceed the expected recovery to any one
business, even if the damages run into the hundreds or thousands
of dollars.  No rational company or individual would pursue a
lawsuit that costs more than you can win.

Class actions were created to deal with this problem and to ensure
that those that have suffered injury have access to the courts.
Class actions allow victims to pool their resources to jointly
pursue an aggregate award in a cost-effective manner.  Class
action waivers eradicate this cost-effective means of having small
businesses fight back against harm caused collectively to them.
Now that they have been found enforceable, they are even more
prevalent.

This result is unfair.  It effectively closes the courthouse's and
the arbitrator's doors to small businesses not willing to engage
in an economically irrational dispute resolution to protect its
rights.  It also effectively immunizes powerful companies from
damages actions that deter dominant players from engaging in bad
conduct.  According to Justice Kagan, who dissented in American
Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, the Supreme Court's
response to these concerns is "Too darn bad."

Consumers and small businesses are not generally in a position to
negotiate form agreements that contain these clauses; rather, they
merely click or sign in order to obtain necessary goods and
services.  With one stroke of a pen, one click of a mouse, small
businesses and consumers are effectively stripped of their ability
to bring private actions to vindicate their rights provided under
federal and state law.  Private actions, such as private antitrust
actions, are increasingly important as prosecutorial resources
diminish.

The issue has gone as far as it can in the courts.  The Supreme
Court ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act renders class action
waivers enforceable, even when those provisions effectively strip
small companies and consumers of their rights.  The solution lies
with Congress, which can amend the Federal Arbitration Act.
Democrats and Republicans who are concerned with protecting their
respective constituencies from the overreaching of big business
should not let this decision stand.  They should amend the FAA to
protect the small entrepreneurs and innovators of America.


AU OPTRONICS: High Court to Hear LCD Suit Oral Arguments in Nov.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clay Chandler, writing for Mississippi Business Journal, reports
that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in November
related to Attorney General Jim Hood's price-fixing lawsuit
against liquid crystal display (LCD) screen manufacturers

In 2011, Mr. Hood sued the companies, accusing them of price-
fixing from December 2006 to April 2011.  He claimed the companies
of forcing consumers to pay too much for their products, in
violation of the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act.  LCD screens
are used in computers and televisions.

Mr. Hood brought the action in Hinds County Chancery Court, under
the parens patriae theory, which allows a state's top law
enforcement officer to sue on behalf of his constituents.

The defendants removed the case from chancery court to
Mississippi's Southern District federal court.  In court filings,
defendants argued that the Class Action Fairness Act, passed by
Congress in 2005, allowed the change in venue because the
plaintiffs were the people of Mississippi, not Mr. Hood.

The CAFA defines a "mass action" as litigation with a lot of
plaintiffs, similar to class action lawsuits.  The law allows for
the removal of mass actions to federal court.

Mr. Hood countered that the case, since it arose out of the parens
patriae theory, belonged in state court. Federal judge Carlton
Reeves of Jackson agreed with Mr. Hood, and sent the case back to
chancery court.

The defendants appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals,
which ruled that the case belonged in federal court.  The Fifth
Circuit is the only federal appeals court to rule that consumer
protection litigation brought on behalf of a state belongs in
federal court, and not state court.  The appeals court issued a
similar ruling relating to consumer protection litigation brought
by Louisiana's attorney general against Allstate Insurance Co.

Due to the split, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on May 28 that it
would hear the case.

The justices will determine who the actual plaintiff is --
Mr. Hood, or the people he sued LCD manufacturers on behalf of.
Their ruling will likely determine the venue of future consumer
protection litigation brought under the parens patriae theory.

"We are pleased that the court granted the state's petition and
look forward to having the case heard on the merits," Mr. Hood
said in June in an email to the Mississippi Business Journal.
"Corporations have abused federal jurisdiction by using the Class
Action Fairness Act to remove consumer actions from state court to
federal court.  During Senate debate on the Class Action Fairness
Act, even the senators supporting the act stated on the record
that it would not apply to actions brought by attorneys general.
I anticipate a vast majority of attorneys general joining in an
amicus brief supporting our position, which three Federal Circuit
Courts of Appeals upheld."

Consumer interest group Public Citizen has filed an amicus brief
in support of Mr. Hood's position.  The Washington, D.C.-based
group was active in the process to pass the CAFA.  In the brief,
Public Citizen says the removal of parens patriae cases to federal
"departs from the plain language and intent" of the law.

Forty-six states have filed briefs supporting Mr. Hood's position
to go with the AARP and the Center for State Enforcement of
Antitrust and Consumer Protection Laws.

The case name is Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics.


BAYER CORP: Judge Reverses Class Certification in False Ad Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Ryan, writing for Law360, reports that the Third Circuit
recently sank a false advertising lawsuit against Bayer Corp. by
holding that, without receipts or sales records, there may be no
reliable way to identify class members, a game-changing decision
that makes it significantly tougher for consumers to target food
and other low-cost products in a class action.

In a precedential Aug. 21 opinion, a three-judge panel reversed a
New Jersey federal judge's certification of a class of Florida
consumers who claim Bayer falsely advertised the metabolism-
boosting benefits of its One-A-Day WeightSmart vitamin. I t would
be too difficult to determine whether a consumer actually belongs
to the class, the appeals court said, pointing to a concept known
as ascertainability.

The panel rejected plaintiff Gabriel Carrera's contention that
class membership could be determined based on retailer records for
customer-loyalty card and online purchases, since there was no
proof they had such records, or based on affidavits from consumers
swearing they bought the vitamins, since there was no proof they
are reliable.

The decision is not the first in the Third Circuit or elsewhere to
apply ascertainability in a manner that benefits defendants, but
none has gone as far in suggesting that, without a receipt or
record of purchase from a retailer, plaintiffs bringing a consumer
product class action may not be able to secure certification,
according to attorneys.

"What it really nails down is if a defendant doesn't have records
regarding who's in the class, then a class might not be possible,"
McGuireWoods LLP counsel Andrew Trask -- atrask@mcguirewoods.com
-- said.

Such a reading hampers lawsuits targeting the types of inexpensive
products that most retailers would not bother tracking and most
consumers would not bother to keep a receipt for, including the
common grocery items at the heart of ever-popular food labeling
litigation, attorneys said.

"Ultimately, in a case where a defendant does not have and is
under no obligation to retain sales records, it's going to be an
uphill battle for these very broad false advertising types of
claims," Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP partner Sean Wajert said.

The ruling builds on the Third Circuit's ruling in Marcus v. BMW
of North America LLC in August 2012, the first time the appeals
court examined ascertainability at length.  The appeals court held
in that case that a tire defect class action should not be
certified because the plaintiff had not adequately shown how to
determine which consumers had experienced flat tires and had the
products replaced.

"This case really implements [Marcus] in a concrete way that would
be applicable to a whole host of products," Mr. Wajert said.

In reversing the certification of the Carrera class, the Third
Circuit held there is no proof that retailers have online sales or
loyalty-card records proving a consumer purchased the vitamins.

The judges turned aside arguments put forward by Carrera related
to the viability of affidavits.  It would not matter if the low
value of the claims made fabricated affidavits unlikely, since
Bayer still must have a way to challenge class membership,
according to the panel.

In addition, it would not matter if Bayer's total liability
remains the same regardless of the number of claims, since the
ascertainability principle protects class members from fabricated
claims, just as it protects defendants, it said.

Carrera cannot simply propose a screening model to ferret out
fabricated affidavits without proving that it will be reliable and
specific to the case, the panel said.  However, it held that
Carrera could overcome the ascertainability hurdle if he devises a
reliable, case-specific screening model that allows Bayer to
challenge affidavits, according to the panel.

In reality, the opening left by such a model is so small as to be
nonexistent, attorneys said.

"If you read the opinion in its entirety, it certainly seems to
indicate that nothing short of a receipt will be a reliable
method.  I don't see much of a door being left open in light of
the other language in the opinion," Seeger Weiss LLP partner
Jonathan Shub -- jshub@seegerweiss.com -- said.

"As plaintiffs counsel, we think the court has just misconstrued
Rule 23.  There's no requirement that you have written proof
you're in the class," Mr. Shub said.  "It has far-reaching
implications for consumer cases."

Defense attorneys maintained that it was not fair to rely on
consumers' word that they bought a product in a class setting when
such a statement would be subject to much higher scrutiny in an
individual action.

"You don't give up your right to due process as a defendant just
because the plaintiffs bring a class action," Mr. Wajert said.

Circuit Judges Michael Chagares, D. Brooks Smith and Anthony
Scirica sat on the panel for the Third Circuit.

Mr. Carrera is represented by Caroline Bartlett, James Cecchi and
Lindsey Taylor of Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello PC
and Joe Whatley of Whatley Drake & Kallas LLC.

Bayer is represented by Matthew Ford -- matthew.ford@bartlit-
beck.com -- Christopher Landgraf -- chris.landgraff@bartlit-
beck.com -- and Rebecca Weinstein Bacon --
rweinstein.bacon@bartlit-beck.com -- of Bartlit Beck Herman
Palenchar & Scott LLP.

The case is Carrera v. Bayer Corp. et al., case number 12-2621, in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.


CADBURY ADAMS: Settles Price-Fixing Suit; Denies Allegations
------------------------------------------------------------
This document corrects and replaces the press release that was
issued on Sept. 16.

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 programs and initiatives across Canada related to
competition in the Canadian marketplace and consumer education and
advocacy.  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


CADBURY ADAMS: Still Faces Criminal Charges Despite Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Askew, writing for Just-Food, reports that chocolate giants
including Nestle and Mars Inc. have moved to settle a class action
lawsuit accusing them of price fixing and price maintenance in
Canada.

According to a statement from lawyers representing the plaintiffs,
Nestle, Mars, then Kraft Foods subsidiary Cadbury Adams Canada and
wholesale distributor ITWAL have agreed to resolve the civil
action being brought against them.  The firms will pay a total of
C$23.2 million (US$14.14 million) to settle allegations they
colluded to fix the price of chocolate in Canada between 2001 and
2007.

"The defendants deny the allegations and have settled to avoid the
expense, inconvenience and distraction of further protracted
litigation," the statement revealed on Sept. 16.

The Canadian government is still pursuing an ongoing criminal
case, just-food understands.

Earlier this year, Hershey Canada was fined C$4 million after
admitting it fixed the price of chocolate products in the country
as part of the Canadian government's criminal investigation.  In
2012, the company also paid C$5.3 million to settle the civil
case.

At the time, Canada's Competition Bureau said Hershey had admitted
it "conspired, agreed or arranged to fix the price of chocolate
confectionery products in Canada".

Nestle, Mars and ITWAL still face criminal charges, a source close
to the situation told just-food.  Three individuals -- Robert
Leonidas, former president of Nestle Canada; Sandra Martinez,
former president of Confectionery for Nestle Canada; and David
Glenn Stevens, president and CEO of ITWAL -- have also been
charged.

It is understood that Cadbury is exempt from prosecution under the
rules of Canada's immunity program, which protect a company that
alerts the Bureau to a competition breach.


CAREER EDUCATION: 7th Cir. Remands "Wilson" Suit to Dist. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Riley Wilson worked as an admissions representative for Career
Education Corporation, recruiting students to enroll in CEC's
culinary arts college. Until February 2011, Wilson and his fellow
admissions representatives worked under a contract (called the
Plan) that gave them a bonus for each student they recruited,
above a definite threshold, who either completed a full course or
a year of study. In October 2010, however, the U.S. Department of
Education (ED) issued regulations prohibiting this kind of
arrangement; its new rules were scheduled to take effect in July
2011. CEC decided in effect to advance the effective date to
February 2011, and pursuant to that decision, it announced to its
admissions representatives that it would cease paying bonuses at
the end of February 2011. It further stated that no bonuses would
be regarded as earned by that date unless the student in question
had completed the year of study or course by that time. Wilson
sued, asserting that CEC owed him bonuses for his "pipeline"
students -- that is, those whom he had recruited and who were on
target to complete a full course or year of study between March
and June 2011. The district court found that he had failed to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted and thus
dismissed the action.

On appeal, Wilson presents several grounds for reversal: (1) he
argues that CEC breached its contract with him and his fellow
admissions representatives; (2) he argues that CEC was unjustly
enriched by his efforts to enroll qualifying students and that it
should be required to disgorge the bonuses that it wrongfully
withheld; and (3) he argues that CEC violated the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing -- implicit in the contract -- when
it terminated the agreement.

A majority of the panel in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit concluded that Wilson has successfully pleaded
a claim for relief on his third theory -- that CEC exercised its
right to terminate the Plan in bad faith and in violation of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

A separate opinion from Judge Hamilton indicated his agreement
with Judge Darrow's position on the implied covenant theory and
his disagreement with aspects of the majority's decision on the
breach-of-contract theory.

Judge Wood affirmed the judgment of the district court, and
dissented from the ultimate disposition of the case.

Judge Darrow joined Judge Wood's conclusions (a) that CEC's bonus
plan was an enforceable contract, (b) that CEC had the unambiguous
right to terminate that contract and to refuse to pay bonuses for
students in the pipeline, and (c) that the existence of an
enforceable contract precludes any recovery under an unjust-
enrichment theory.

In the final analysis, this means that the judgment of the
district court is reversed and the case is remanded to that court
for further proceedings on the implied-covenant theory.

The case is RILEY J. WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CAREER EDUCATION
CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 12-2383.

A copy of the Appeals Court's August 30, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/ucAClufrom Leagle.com.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Awaits Okay of $97.5-MM Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Corporation is awaiting final approval of its
$97.5 million settlement of a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit, 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 28, 2013.

Between June 3, 2011, and July 21, 2011, four putative class
action complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, entitled City of Roseville
Employee's Retirement System v. Computer Sciences Corporation, et
al. (No. 1:11-cv-00610-TSE-IDD), Murphy v. Computer Sciences
Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-00636-TSE-IDD), Kramer v.
Computer Sciences Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-00751-TSE-IDD)
and Goldman v. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-
777-TSE-IDD).  On August 29, 2011, the four actions were
consolidated as In re Computer Sciences Corporation Securities
Litigation (No. 1:11-cv-610-TSE-IDD) and Ontario Teachers' Pension
Plan Board was appointed lead plaintiff.  A consolidated class
action complaint was filed by plaintiff on September 26, 2011, and
names as defendants CSC, Michael W. Laphen, Michael J. Mancuso and
Donald G. DeBuck.  A corrected complaint was filed on October 19,
2011.  The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities
laws in connection with alleged misrepresentations and omissions
regarding the business and operations of the Company.
Specifically, the allegations arise from the Company's disclosure
of the Company's investigation into certain accounting
irregularities in the Nordic region and its disclosure regarding
the status of the Company's agreement with the U.K. National
Health Service (NHS).  Among other things, the plaintiff seeks
unspecified monetary damages.  The plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification with the court on September 22, 2011, and the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 18, 2011.  A
hearing was held on November 4, 2011.

On August 29, 2012, the court issued a Memorandum Opinion and
Order granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss.
The court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to the
plaintiff's claims in connection with alleged misrepresentations
and omissions concerning the Company's operations in the Nordic
Region.  The court granted in part and denied in part the motion
to dismiss with respect to the plaintiff's claims in connection
with alleged misrepresentations and omissions concerning the
Company's internal controls and the Company's contract with the
NHS.  The court also granted the plaintiff leave to amend its
complaint by September 12, 2012, and maintained the stay of
discovery until the sufficiency of the amended complaint had been
decided.  The court further denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification without prejudice.  On September 12, 2012, the
plaintiff filed a notice advising the Court that it had determined
not to amend its complaint and renewed its motion for class
certification.  On September 21, 2012, the court issued an Order
setting the hearing on the motion for class certification for
October 12, 2012, directing the parties to complete discovery by
January 11, 2013, and scheduling the final pretrial conference for
January 17, 2013.  On October 9, 2012, the defendants filed their
answer to the plaintiff's complaint.  On October 12, 2012, the
hearing on the motion for class certification was rescheduled to
November 1, 2012.  On October 31, 2012, the parties filed a joint
motion with the court requesting that the hearing on the motion
for class certification be rescheduled to a later date.  On
November 1, 2012, the court issued an order setting the hearing
for class certification for November 15, 2012.  On November 30,
2012, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

On December 14, 2012, the defendants filed with the Fourth Circuit
a petition for permission to appeal the class certification order
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f).  The
Plaintiff's response to the petition was filed on February 20,
2013.  On March 5, 2013, the Fourth Circuit denied the petition
for permission to appeal the class certification order.  On
December 14, 2012, the court issued an order extending the expert
discovery deadline to February 25, 2013.  On December 20, 2012,
the court issued an order extending the fact discovery deadline to
February 11, 2013, and the expert discovery deadline to March 25,
2013.  On January 13, 2013, the court issued an order extending
the expert discovery deadline to April 1, 2013.  Motions for
summary judgment were filed on March 18, 2013.  On May 15, 2013,
the Company entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement
with the lead plaintiff to settle all claims in the lawsuit for
$97.5 million, which was accrued for as of March 29, 2013 and
included in accrued expenses and other current liabilities on the
Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet.  As of March 29, 2013, the
Company has also recorded a receivable of $45 million, which
represents the amount recoverable under the Company's corporate
insurance policies, and is included in receivables on the
Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet.  The agreement is subject to
approval by the court.

On May 24, 2013, the Court entered a Preliminary Approval Order
Providing for Notice and Hearing in Connection with Proposed Class
Action Settlement.  The Preliminary Approval Order scheduled a
Settlement Hearing for September 19, 2013.

Founded in 1959, Computer Sciences Corporation --
http://www.csc.com/-- is a global leader of information
technology and professional services and solutions.  CSC provides
IT and business process outsourcing, consulting, systems
integration and other IT services to its customers.  The Company
is headquartered in Falls Church, Virginia.


COVERALL NORTH: 1st Cir. Reverses Denial of Stay Bid in Awuah Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In AWUAH v. COVERALL NORTH AMERICA, INC., Coverall appeals the
denial of its motion to reconsider and to stay proceedings pending
arbitration.  That motion sought relief from the district court's
decision to sanction Coverall by admitting to an ongoing class
action certain individuals who had been pursuing their claims
against Coverall in arbitration. The sanction issued upon the
court's determination that Coverall had violated an order
requiring it to obtain judicial permission before making any
motion to delay or prevent arbitration proceedings.

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit concluded
that this determination was an abuse of discretion.  "Without this
improper determination there was no basis for the sanction, which
interfered with the arbitration proceedings, and thus Coverall's
motion to stay should have been granted," says the Court.

Accordingly, the First Circuit reversed the denial of Coverall's
motion to stay and remanded the case for further proceedings
consistent with its opinion.

The case is PIUS AWUAH, ET AL., and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, Appellees, v. COVERALL NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant,
Appellant, NO. 12-2495.

A copy of the District Court's August 30, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/TrRVeLfrom Leagle.com.

Norman M. Leon -- norman.leon@dlapiper.com -- with whom Matthew
Iverson -- matthew.iverson@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP (US),
Michael D. Vhay -- mvhay@ferriterscobbo.com -- and Ferriter Scobbo
& Rodophele, PC were on brief for appellant.

Shannon Liss-Riordan -- sliss@llrlaw.com --with whom Hillary
Schwab -- hschwab@llrlaw.com -- Claret Vargas --
CVargas@llrlaw.com --and Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. were on
brief for appellees.


EASTMAN KODAK: Appeal From Dismissal of Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a securities class action lawsuit
remains pending, according to Eastman Kodak 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 February 10, 2012, a lawsuit was filed in federal court in the
Southern District of New York against the Chief Executive Officer,
the former President and Chief Operating Officer and the former
Chief Financial Officer, as a putative class action lawsuit under
the federal securities laws, claiming that certain Company
statements concerning the Company's business and financial results
were misleading (Timothy A. Hutchinson v. Antonio M. Perez, Philip
J. Faraci, and Antoinette McCorvey).  The Court granted the
defendants' July 2, 2012 motion to dismiss this case as against
all defendants but granted the plaintiffs' subsequent motion for
leave to amend.  The Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
against only the Chief Executive Officer and the former Chief
Financial Officer (Timothy A. Hutchinson v. Antonio M. Perez and
Antoinette McCorvey), in which they sought damages with interest,
equitable relief as applicable, and attorneys' fees and costs.
The Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the case on
April 25, 2013, and plaintiffs have appealed.

The Company believes that the securities lawsuit is not uncommon
for companies in Chapter 11.  On behalf of the defendants in the
case, the Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and
will vigorously defend it on their behalf.

Founded in 1889, Eastman Kodak Company -- http://www.Kodak.com/--
commonly known as Kodak, is an American multinational imaging and
photographic equipment, materials and services company
headquartered in Rochester, New York, and incorporated in New
Jersey.


EASTMAN KODAK: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss ERISA Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Kodak Company is awaiting a court decision on its motion
to dismiss the consolidated lawsuit styled In re Eastman Kodak
ERISA Litigation, 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 19, 2012, Eastman Kodak Company and its U.S.
subsidiaries (collectively, the "Debtors") filed voluntary
petitions for relief (the "Bankruptcy Filing") under Chapter 11 of
title 11 of the United States Code (the "Bankruptcy Code") in the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New
York (the "Bankruptcy Court") case number 12-10202.  The Company's
foreign subsidiaries (collectively, the "Non-Filing Entities")
were not part of the Bankruptcy Filing.  The Debtors continue to
operate their businesses as "debtors-in-possession" under the
jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court and in accordance with the
applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and the orders of the
Bankruptcy Court.  The Non-Filing Entities continue to operate in
the ordinary course of business.  As a result of the Bankruptcy
Filing, much of the pending litigation against the Debtors is
stayed.  Subject to certain exceptions and approval by the
Bankruptcy Court, during the chapter 11 process, no party can take
further actions to recover pre-petition claims against the
Company.

Subsequent to the Company's Bankruptcy Filing, between January 27,
2012, and March 22, 2012, several putative class action lawsuits
were filed in federal court in the Western District of New York
against the current and certain former members of the Board of
Directors (who were subsequently dismissed from the lawsuits), the
Company's Savings and Investment Plan ("SIP") Committee and
certain former and current executives of the Company.  The
lawsuits have been consolidated into a single action brought under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), styled as
In re Eastman Kodak ERISA Litigation.  The allegations concern the
decline in the Company's stock price and its alleged impact on SIP
and on the Company's Employee Stock Ownership Plan.  The
Plaintiffs seek the recovery of any losses to the applicable
plans, a constructive trust, the appointment of an independent
fiduciary, equitable relief, as applicable, and attorneys' fees
and costs.  The Defendants' motion to dismiss the litigation was
heard on May 23, 2013, and has been taken under advisement.

The Company believes that the ERISA lawsuit is not uncommon for
companies in Chapter 11.  On behalf of the defendants in the case,
the Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and will
vigorously defend it on their behalf.

Founded in 1889, Eastman Kodak Company -- http://www.Kodak.com/--
commonly known as Kodak, is an American multinational imaging and
photographic equipment, materials and services company
headquartered in Rochester, New York, and incorporated in New
Jersey.


EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Edwards
Lifesciences Corporation, on Sept. 18 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of a class comprising all
purchasers of Edwards Lifesciences common stock between April 25,
2012 and April 23, 2013, inclusive.

A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IS AVAILABLE FROM THE COURT OR FROM
GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP.  PLEASE CONTACT US TOLL-FREE AT
(888) 773-9224, OR AT (212) 682-5340, OR BY EMAIL TO
SHAREHOLDERS@GLANCYLAW.COM TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER.  IF YOU INQUIRE
BY EMAIL PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR MAILING ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER AND
NUMBER OF SHARES PURCHASED.

Edwards Lifesciences is a medical device maker that designs and
markets, among other things, artificial heart valves for
implantation in patients with advanced cardiovascular disease.
The Company offers a range of such valves, including both valves
that require traditional open-chest surgery, and its newer SAPIEN
line of transcatheter heart valves ("THVs"), which may be
implanted using a minimally invasive procedure.

The Complaint alleges that the Company issued false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts
related to the prospects, projected sales and adoption of the
Company's Edwards SAPIEN transcatheter aortic heart valve,
including the related transfemoral and transapical delivery
methods ("SAPIEN"), and related projections of financial
performance for the Company's operations.  Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that the defendants knew but concealed from
Edwards Lifesciences' shareholders during the Class Period that:
(1) adoption of SAPIEN was weaker than the Company claimed, due to
concerns among physicians over the risks and complexity of the
procedure for implanting the valve; (2) Edwards Lifesciences'
outlook for sales and earnings per share ("EPS") was significantly
weaker than the optimistic guidance defendants offered to
investors; and (3) as a result, defendants lacked a reasonable
basis for the statements made concerning the Company's operations,
forecasts and outlook.

On April 23, 2013, the Company disclosed that approximately 20
candidate hospitals had postponed SAPIEN training, that there was
substantially no backlog of patients awaiting SAPIEN implants, and
that the Company's financial results had been and would likely
continue to be weaker than estimates.  In response to this news,
Edwards Lifesciences' stock price fell $18.21 per share, or
21.99%, to close at $64.60 per share on April 24, 2013 on
extremely heavy trading volume.

If you are a member of the Class described above you may move the
Court no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice to serve
as lead plaintiff; however, you must meet certain legal
requirements.  If you wish to learn more about this action, or
have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Michael
Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century
Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, Toll Free at
(888) 773-9224, or contact Gregory Linkh, Esquire, of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP at 122 E. 42nd Street, Suite 2920, New York,
New York 10168, at (212) 682-5340, by e-mail to
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com

If you inquire by email please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.

CONTACT: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
         Los Angeles, CA
         Michael Goldberg
         Telephone: 888-773-9224

         or

         Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
         New York, NY
         Gregory Linkh
         Telephone: 212-682-5340
                    888-773-9224

         or

        E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
        Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


FELTEX: Court Orders "Complete Terms" of Litigation Funding
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marta Steeman, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that the High
Court is seeking assurance that the Feltex class action funder has
the ability to meet further security of NZ$1.8 million.

The High Court has told counsel for the plaintiff in the class
action to supply it with the "complete terms" of the undertaking
by litigation funder, London-based Harbour Litigation Funding
(HLIF), to meet another NZ$1.8 million of security.

The information was to be supplied by 5:00 p.m. on Sept. 20.

It follows High Court orders on July 19 for the plaintiff to
supply more security.

Security arrangements provided other than by a bank bond or
guarantee were to be in place by August 16 and the first tranche
of security, NZ$800,000, by August 30.

The plaintiff missed those deadlines.

The class action case has been running for more than five years
and is to start in March next year.

About 3600 former shareholders of the failed carpetmaker,
represented by plaintiff Eric Houghton, are taking the action
against the directors, promoters, sellers and co-managers of the
offering of Feltex shares to the public in mid-2004.

The company collapsed two and a half years later.

Justice Robert Dobson said in his judgment released on Sept. 19
that counsel for the plaintiff was to supply by 5:00 p.m. on
Sept. 20.

The complete terms of the undertaking proposed by HLIF.  The
financial statements of HLIF for the year to December 31, 2012,
and a copy of their six monthly accounts to June 30, 2013 if they
were also available.  The costs to HLIF of providing a bond or
guarantee for the additional security by a reputable New Zealand
financial institution.

The bond or guarantee would commit the institution to paying
adverse costs orders made in favor of the defendants up to
NZ$800,000, and up to NZ$1.8 million from January next year until
determination of the High Court case.

Counsel for the plaintiff, Austin Forbes, has told the court HLIF
would undertake to pay orders for costs required of the plaintiff
in favor of the defendants up to amounts ordered by the court.

Justice Dobson said although there was no evidence for challenging
assurances of HLIF's substantial solvency, the financial
statements relied upon previously by the plaintiff's counsel were
now out of date and instructed the court receive current ones.


FERNANDINA BEACH, FL: Faces Class Action Over Water & Sewage Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clifford Davis, writing for Jacksonville.com, reports that in a
simmering dispute over water and sewage impact fees pitting
property owners against the city of Fernandina Beach, the city's
attorney has conceded a major point, according to a plaintiff in
the class-action suit filed in 2011.  But the city attorney
doesn't see it that way.

The suit argues that the city unlawfully levied fees to pay past
debts.  According to law, the fees may only be used to pay for new
expenditures.

"We used the water impact fees to pay back debt," city attorney
Tammi Bach said.

To a member of the class-action suit, that's an admission of
guilt.

"That's exclusively what they were using it for," said
Patrick Keogh, a local businessman.  "And that's an unlawful
purpose for those funds."

However, Ms. Bach said the city's actions were appropriate.

The city bought the water assets of Florida Public Utilities in
Fernandina Beach in 2003 for roughly $19 million plus $7.5 million
in future payments.

"The $7.5 million is money that's paid for futures for the
existing excess capacity that they sold to the city," Ms. Bach
said, excess capacity the new owners are now using.

Ms. Bach said the $19 million was paid to provide the water
service to the new occupants.  But impact fees were used to pay
the $7.5 million in "futures" owed on the original acquisition.

"It was not to be used for acquisition," Ms. Keogh said.  "The
only thing they can be spent for was expansion."

Impact fees are a city government's way of recouping future
expenses caused by new development.  Water and sewage fees are
only charged for owners of new developments, expanded existing
developments, or buildings changed in operation resulting in
increased usage.

The case is currently in front of Circuit Judge Brian Davis.
Judge Davis dismissed the city's request for summary judgment
Aug. 11, allowing the suit to move forward.


FIFTH THIRD: Awaits Final Approval of Antitrust Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp is awaiting final approval of a settlement in
the consolidated antitrust lawsuit originally filed against Visa,
MasterCard and others, 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.

During April 2006, Fifth Third Bancorp (the "Bancorp" or "Fifth
Third") was added as a defendant in a consolidated antitrust class
action lawsuit originally filed against Visa(R), MasterCard(R) and
several other major financial institutions in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  The
plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses throughout
the U.S. and trade associations, claim that the interchange fees
charged by card-issuing banks are unreasonable and seek injunctive
relief and unspecified damages.  In addition to being a named
defendant, the Bancorp is also subject to a possible
indemnification obligation of Visa and has also entered into
judgment and loss sharing agreements with Visa, MasterCard and
certain other named defendants.  On October 19, 2012, the parties
to the litigation entered into a settlement agreement.  The court
entered a Class Settlement Preliminary Approval Order on
November 27, 2012.  Pursuant to the terms of the settlement
agreement, the Bancorp paid $46 million into a class settlement
escrow account.  Previously, the Bancorp paid an additional $4
million in another settlement escrow in connection with the
settlement of claims from plaintiffs not included in the class
action.  More than 7,900 class members requested exclusion from
the class settlement.  Pursuant to the terms of the settlement
agreement, 25% of the funds paid into the class settlement escrow
account will be returned to the control of defendants through
Class Exclusion Takedown Payments.  A number of the class members
who requested exclusion have filed separate lawsuits against Visa,
MasterCard and certain other defendants alleging similar claims of
antitrust violations.  These lawsuits have been tentatively
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York.  Fifth Third is not a named defendant in these lawsuits,
but may have obligations pursuant to indemnification and/or the
judgment or loss sharing agreements.

Fifth Third Bancorp is a diversified financial services company
headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.  The Bancorp operated 18
affiliates with 1,326 full-service Banking Centers, including 104
Bank Mart(R) locations open seven days a week inside select
grocery stores, and 2,433 ATMs in 12 states throughout the
Midwestern and Southeastern regions of the U.S.  The Bancorp
reports on four business segments: Commercial Banking, Branch
Banking, Consumer Lending and Investment Advisors.


FIFTH THIRD: Awaits Prelim. Okay of Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp is awaiting preliminary approval of its
settlement of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit,
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.

For the year ended December 31, 2008, five putative securities
class action complaints were filed against Fifth Third Bancorp
(the "Bancorp" or "Fifth Third") and its Chief Executive Officer,
among other parties.  The five cases have been consolidated under
the caption Local 295/Local 851 IBT Employer Group Pension Trust
and Welfare Fund v. Fifth Third Bancorp., et al., Case No.
1:08CV00421, and are currently pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.  On December 18,
2012, the Bancorp entered into a settlement agreement to resolve
these cases.  The settlement is subject to court approval, which
process is ongoing.  Under the terms of the settlement, the
Bancorp and its insurer will pay a total of $16 million to a fund
to settle all the claims of the class members.  In the settlement
the Bancorp has denied any liability and has agreed to the
settlement in order to avoid potential future litigation costs and
uncertainty.  The Bancorp does not consider the impact of the
settlement to be material to its financial condition or results of
operations.

Fifth Third Bancorp is a diversified financial services company
headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.  The Bancorp operated 18
affiliates with 1,326 full-service Banking Centers, including 104
Bank Mart(R) locations open seven days a week inside select
grocery stores, and 2,433 ATMs in 12 states throughout the
Midwestern and Southeastern regions of the U.S.  The Bancorp
reports on four business segments: Commercial Banking, Branch
Banking, Consumer Lending and Investment Advisors.


FIFTH THIRD: Bid to Stay ERISA Violations Suits Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp's motion for a stay of proceedings in the two
class action lawsuits alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 remains pending, 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 cases were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio against Fifth Third Bancorp (the
"Bancorp" or "Fifth Third") and certain officers alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") based on allegations similar to those set forth in the
securities class action cases filed during the same period of
time.  The two cases alleging violations of ERISA were dismissed
by the trial court, but the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
recently reversed the trial court decision.  The Bancorp
petitioned the Supreme Court to review and reverse the Sixth
Circuit decision and sought a stay of proceedings in the trial
court pending appeal.  On March 25, 2013, the Supreme Court issued
an order directing the Solicitor General to file a brief stating
the view of the United States on the issues raised in the Fifth
Third's petition.  The motion to stay remains pending.

The Company says the impact of the final disposition of the ERISA
lawsuits cannot be assessed at this time.

Fifth Third Bancorp is a diversified financial services company
headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.  The Bancorp operated 18
affiliates with 1,326 full-service Banking Centers, including 104
Bank Mart(R) locations open seven days a week inside select
grocery stores, and 2,433 ATMs in 12 states throughout the
Midwestern and Southeastern regions of the U.S.  The Bancorp
reports on four business segments: Commercial Banking, Branch
Banking, Consumer Lending and Investment Advisors.


FORD MOTOR: Model's $20MM Suit Over Royalty Payments Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------
Dareh Gregorian, writing for New York Daily News, reports that a
model's $20 million class action lawsuit doesn't have legs, a
Manhattan judge has ruled.

Louisa Raske, 31, filed suit against several top modeling agencies
last year, charging that they'd been hoarding royalty payments
that should have gone to the models who used to work for them.
The suit charged that the agencies -- including Ford, Next and
Wilhelmina -- had a long-standing practice of renewing models'
endorsement deals after they'd gone to work for another agency,
and then pocketing their cash from the deal.

In a decision entered on Sept. 17, Justice O. Peter Sherwood said
Ms. Raske might have a legitimate gripe -- but her lawsuit needs a
total makeover.  He noted that her action named 25 modeling
agencies and nine advertising agencies, even though she'd only
worked with a total of five of the companies.  He dismissed her
complaint.

Ms. Raske's suit alleged that several top modeling agencies would
renew models' endorsement deals after they'd gone to work for
other agencies, and then keep their money from the deal.

Tom Mullaney, a lawyer for Red Model, hailed the ruling.

"Her suit tried to drag dozens of companies into a gripe she might
have with, at the very most, one," Mr. Mullaney said, adding that
his client "couldn't possibly have any of Ms. Raske's modeling
fees, because Red Model never represented her."

While her suit portrayed every modeling agency as "all the same,"
that's "not a legitimate reason to bring anyone into court, never
mind an honest agency like Red that treats its models well and
pays them every penny they're due," Mr. Mullaney said.

Ms. Raske's lawyer, Skip Taylor, said the ruling was "procedural,"
and noted that the decision said Ms. Raske and others who had been
wronged could file "proper" actions against the actual agencies
that had wronged them.

Mr. Taylor said he has 20 models who have been ripped off by many
of the various agencies named in the Raske suit, and he plans on
filing new legal actions within the next few days.

"This isn't over," Mr. Taylor said.  "In fact it's just the
beginning."


GREAT SOUTHERN: Class Action Trial Recalled to Hear New Evidence
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for The Australian, reports that the class
action trial brought by investors in collapsed forestry investment
scheme Great Southern against the company and its financiers has
been recalled to hear fresh evidence that key information was
omitted in the product disclosure statement issued to 47,000 small
investors.

The trial was reconvened on Sept. 19 in Melbourne to hear the new
evidence that was gleaned from reams of documents that were
extracted from several company servers and staff computers by
liquidators and not previously identified in the initial trial.

Great Southern collapsed in 2009 owing investors up to AU$1.8
billion.  The proceedings in the Victorian Supreme Court include
15 class actions and 82 individual actions, including claims
against Bendigo and Adelaide Bank.

The class action trial began late last year, with the taking of
evidence initially completed in April, but the new evidence means
several witnesses will be recalled, including company founder John
Young and former managing director Cameron Rhodes.

On Sept. 19, the barrister representing investors, Garry Bigmore,
said the new evidence showed Great Southern used cash top-up
payments to mask the fact that log yields from plantations were
below forecast.

To sate investor demand, the firm bought plots not suitable for
yielding plantations as forecast in the PDS, Mr. Bigmore said.

In response, lawyers for the company said the new evidence did not
change the fact Great Southern was merely a victim of the
financial crisis and the PDS was not defective.

The court heard from Philip Crutchfield, for the banks, who said
investors were being led by their lawyers "like lemmings over a
cliff" into a costs claim that could be the highest in our
history.  Earlier this month, former head of forestry at Great
Southern Gavin Ellis told the court the company was aware
plantations were not meeting forecast yields.


HOTELS.COM: Westchester County to Move Forward With Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Lungariello, writing for Westfair Communications, reports
that Westchester County is set to move forward with a class-action
lawsuit that accuses travel-booking websites of collecting hotel
taxes, then underpaying the fair share to local governments.

Websites such as Hotels.com and Travelocity contract rooms at a
discounted rate, then mark up the rooms for resale.  Nassau County
filed suit in 2011 saying the sites charged and collected taxes
based on the marked-up room rates, then paid local governments
taxes based on the discounted rates, pocketing the difference.
The websites say the retail rate includes a surcharge and that
taxing the difference would constitute a new tax on hotels.

The suit was granted class-action status in April and every
municipality in the state with a hotel tax is automatically a
plaintiff unless it actively opts out by Oct. 15.

Westchester charges a 3% tax on hotel bookings, collecting roughly
$5 million a year.  On Sept. 17, the county Board of Legislators'
Budget and Appropriations subcommittee unanimously agreed to
continue with the lawsuit.

Legislator Mary Jane Shimsky, a Democratic committee member, said
she expected the full board to vote on the matter at its next
scheduled meeting Sept. 23, after press time.  "Something does not
look quite right here," she said.  "This is an issue of concern to
the local governments and if I were a consumer and I booked rooms
under these circumstances I would be concerned as well."

Westchester County Executive Robert P. Astorino, a Republican who
has often disagreed with the board majority, had recommended
staying with the lawsuit as well.  The county does not have an
estimate of what it might have been underpaid, said Donna Greene,
a spokeswoman for the county executive.  But, whether it's a small
amount or large amount, the county does not have to pay anything
in terms of legal fees to remain part of the suit.

"We have nothing to lose by staying in this but everything to gain
in terms of revenue," Ms. Greene said.  "Obviously, we're looking
to get what we're entitled to."  The lawsuit does not mention an
amount being sought from Nassau and other governments, but with as
many as 60 expected to be part of the class action it could mean
millions for revenue-hungry governments across the state.  One
government that actively opted out is Rockland County.

Terry Grosselfinger, deputy to Rockland County Executive
C. Scott Vanderhoeff, said Rockland's 3% tax went into effect
January 2012 and during that time the county hasn't seen a
discrepancy.

"From what our finance people are telling us, our numbers are
right on," Mr. Grosselfinger said.  "We don't think the Expedias
of the world are having that much of an impact (in Rockland)."
Although staying in the lawsuit wouldn't cost any money, an
overburdened county staff and attorneys would have to spend time
combing through records and sharing information as needed, he
said.

The Nassau lawsuit is one of several dozen similar suits in the
U.S. against online hotel-booking sites, the majority of which
have been ruled in favor of the businesses or remain in
litigation, according to a report from the Tax Foundation, a
Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit tax research group.  Anywhere
from 5 to 25% of all hotel bookings come from travel site
bookings, the report said.

The report did not take a favorable view on the attempts to tax
the travel-booking companies.  "Taxes on hotel rooms are generally
little more than a way of shifting the tax burden to nonresidents
(and nonvoters)," the report stated.  "These city litigation
efforts are attempting to extract yet more revenue from travelers,
this time by taxing Internet-based travel facilitation services."

The argument that travel-booking sites are service providers and
not hotel companies, has been a common argument as to why they
shouldn't be accountable for inclusion in the tax.  New York City
passed a law last decade to broaden the definition of who could be
responsible to pay the hotel tax to include online companies and
others involved in booking transactions, but a suit saw the law
repealed in 2011 on state constitutional grounds.

In New York, governments wanting their own hotel tax must receive
approval from the state Legislature.  In Westchester, several
cities, towns and villages charge a local 3% hotel tax in addition
to the county's 3%.

The village of Rye Brook, a community of roughly 10,000, receives
3% of its entire annual revenue from taxes from the Hilton
Westchester (formerly The Rye Town Hilton) and Doral Arrowwood.

Rye City projects receiving $155,000 in hotel tax revenue in 2013.
New Rochelle budgeted $300,000 in hotel tax revenue this year,
after receiving an estimated $289,000 in 2012.  White Plains
expects to collect $1.05 million during the 2013-14 fiscal year,
according to its adopted budget.  Several other municipalities in
Westchester asked the state to approve hotel taxes this year, but
the state Senate did not take a vote on the matter before the end
of its session.


HURONIA REGION: Settlement to Pave Way for Two Abuse Settlements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Cobb, writing for Ottawa Citizen, reports that the C$35-
million settlement of a lawsuit filed against the Ontario
government by former residents of a provincially operated home for
the developmentally disabled clears the way for settlements in two
similar lawsuits.

Although it has yet to be formally approved by a court, the class-
action settlement appears to have the resounding blessing of both
the government and lawyers for the former residents of Orillia's
Huronia Region Centre with both sides, in separate statements,
calling it "a fair and reasonable agreement."

The approximately 3,700 Huronia victims had asked for $1 billion.

Former residents or close surviving family members will be
eligible for individual payouts to a maximum of $42,000 for the
chronic humiliation and abuse they suffered at the hands of staff.
The amount to each claimant will be determined by the degree of
suffering endured.

"I'm just elated to . . . not necessarily put the past at rest but
put it on the back burner, because you can never forget something
like that," said Patricia Seth, one of the lead plaintiffs.

"We can move forward now, tell our stories.  People believe us
now," she said outside court.

The money will not be non-taxable and to get the compensation
claimants will be able to apply on paper and not testify in person
as they would often have to do in some cases where government
compensation is involved.

The center was operated by the province for 133 years, but the
settlement covers those residents institutionalized between 1945
and 2009 when Huronia, Rideau Regional Centre on the outskirts of
Smiths Falls, and Southwestern Regional Centre (Cedar Springs)
near Chatham were all shut by the province.

No date has been set for the final court hearing, but the same
team of lawyers is handling all three cases, which suggests that
former residents of the Rideau and Southwestern institutions will
get similar settlements.

Under the agreement announced on Sept. 17, the provincial
government has also agreed to issue an apology, place a
commemorative plaque at Huronia, and properly maintain its
cemetery.

As with the other two institutions, the Rideau Regional Centre
opened in 1951 in the wake of a baby boom that saw an increasing
number of young people with developmental disabilities, cerebral
palsy being among the more common.

Because most medical experts at the time believed that people with
disabilities needed to be isolated from the stresses of daily
life, Ontario politicians decided to expand services and open
residential institutions where families could be confident that
their children would be taken care of by the state.

Rideau Regional Centre was built on a large plot -- 146 hectares
-- of former forest and wetlands bought in Montague Township, near
Smiths Falls.

The center was built for 1,200 but within four years, the
residential wards were packed with 2,600 people with hundreds more
on the waiting list.  It was the largest institution of its kind
in Canada and a precursor to many others.  By the late 1960s,
there were 16 provincially operated residential institutions
serving more than 6,000 people with developmental disabilities.

But as social attitudes began to change, and many parents rebelled
against the idea of institutionalizing their children, the
popularity of community living rose and the 16 residential
institutions began to empty. During the next decade, five
institutions were closed and others were reduced in size.

In September 2004, the government announced the closing of its
three remaining institutions: the Rideau, the Huronia, and the
South West regional centers -- a process that took another five
years to complete.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Ontario Court Certifies DePuy Hip Implant Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Campbell, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
a court in Ontario, Canada has certified a DePuy ASR class action
lawsuit brought on behalf of Canadian citizens who were allegedly
affected by the DePuy ASR recall.  According to court documents
filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on August 27, 2013,
the DePuy ASR class action lawsuit seeks damages, including
medical monitoring and emotional distress, for all persons
implanted with the recalled hip system.  Attorneys for plaintiffs
estimate that as many as 4,000 Canadians could be included in the
class. (Crisante, et al. v. DePuy Orthopaedics Inc., et al., No.
CV-10-415755-00CP).

DePuy Orthopaedics issued a global recall of its ASR XL Acetabular
metal-on-metal hip replacement on August 24, 2010 following
approximately 300 complaints from people undergoing hip
replacement.

The ASR hip replacement is a metal-on-metal device believed to
have a design flaw that has resulted in many patients needing
follow-up hip revision surgery to replace the device soon after
implant.  The ASR is considered by a number of orthopedic experts
to be a defective product and DePuy hip replacement lawsuits are
currently pending.

Currently, in the US, more than 11,500 DePuy ASR lawsuits have
been filed, all of which alleged metallosis, early device failure,
or other serious complications due to the ASR's metal-on-metal
design.  Most of these complaints are pending in a multidistrict
litigation now underway in US District Court, Northern District of
Ohio.  The first trial in the federal litigation is scheduled to
begin on September 24, 2013. (In re: DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. ASR
Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation MDL 2197).

While the US federal litigation has yet to hold its first trial,
two DePuy ASR lawsuits have already been heard by juries at the
state level.  In March, an $8 million award was granted to a
plaintiff after a Los Angeles Superior Court jury found that the
hip implant was defectively designed. (Kransky v. DePuy, BC456086,
California Superior Court, Los Angeles County).


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: West Australian Women Join Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Boddy, writing for The West Australian, reports that
dozens of WA women look set to take on medical giant Johnson &
Johnson in a class action that could become Australia's biggest.

The women claim they suffered painful and devastating side effects
from a device to repair prolapses, which can be caused by
childbirth and pregnancy.

At least nine West Australians are among 300 Australians who have
joined the class action -- launched by Shine Lawyers in October.

Shine confirmed last week that about 34 women from across the
State -- including 24 from Perth -- had contacted the firm.

The devices are designed to repair pelvic organ prolapse, which
happens when the tissue that holds the pelvic organs in place
becomes weak or stretched.

Perth mother-of-three Ruth de Smit, 63, is one of the WA women who
has joined the legal fight.  Mrs. de Smit suffered prolapse
through childbirth and had a mesh implant in October 2006.  She
has had six operations.

"It's affected so much of my husband's and my life," she said.

Shine partner Rebecca Jancauskas said the allegations included the
devices were not fit for their purpose and not fit for sale.

She said it was estimated at least 30,000 implants had been used
in Australia, meaning the action had the potential to be
Australia's biggest product class action.

Ms. Jancauskas said the complications allegedly suffered by some
women included incontinence, chronic pain and mesh erosion and
many needed to have the devices removed.

Johnson & Johnson voluntarily removed its mesh product from the
Australian market last year.

A spokeswoman said the company had discontinued some of its pelvic
mesh products "for reasons unrelated to the safety or efficacy".

In 2010, Australia's Therapeutic Goods Administration reviewed
urogynaecological meshes and found complications were low.  It
said the skill of the surgeon, the patient and procedure were
important.


LANCE ARMSTRONG: Lies in Biographies Shielded by First Amendment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Heather Johnson reports that
the First Amendment protects Lance Armstrong's repeated denials of
doping and performance-enhancing drug use, a federal judge ruled.

PR consultant Rob Stutzman and others had hoped to represent a
class of consumers who were allegedly misled by the image
Armstrong presented of himself in his biographies as a "regular,
hardworking, motivated, complicated, occasionally pissed-off,
T-shirt wearing guy," and advocate for cancer patients.

Stutzman claimed that he and other readers believed that
bestsellers "It's Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life,"
published by defendant Penguin Group in May 2000, and "Every
Second Counts," published by defendant Random House in January
2003, were "truthful and honest works of nonfiction biography or
autobiography when, in fact, defendants knew or should have known
that these books were works of fiction."

Drug abuse in the cycling world came to light with the October 10,
2012, report from the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, which concluded
that Armstrong used banned performance-enhancing substances
starting in at least 1998 and continuing throughout his
professional career.

The agency ultimately disqualified all of Armstrong's competitive
results since August 1, 1998, including his seven Tour de France
victories, and banned him from the sport for life.

In their motion to strike Stutzman's complaint, Armstrong, Penguin
Group, G.P. Putnam's Sons, Berkley Publishing Group, Random House,
Broadway Books and Crown Publishing Group argued that statements
in Armstrong's books are considered "conduct in furtherance of the
exercise of . . . free speech in connection with a public issue or
an issue of public interest."

U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. agreed Tuesday,
September 10, 2013, finding the content of Armstrong's bestselling
books "non-commercial speech."

The contents of the books qualify as "free speech in connection
with a public issue or an issue of public interest," according to
the ruling.

"Here, it is without question that statements concerning Lance
Armstrong 'concern a person or entity in the public eye' and/or
are 'a topic of widespread, public interest,'" England wrote.
"Lance Armstrong is a famous cyclist and his career is a topic of
interest worldwide."

The judge also noted the direct connection between the text and
Armstrong's public comments denying allegations of doping.

Stutzman had tried to block the defendants' motion under
California's anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public
participation) law, but England noted that the statute applies
only to public matters, citing the 9th Circuit's holding that "a
private controversy, even between famous people, that interests
the public is not enough."

"This limitation does not apply in this case, however, as the
Armstrong books do not concern only the personal details of
Armstrong's life -- they concern his public cycling career and
cheating in the Tour de France -- public activities, 'which are
the very things that interest people about [him],'" England wrote.

Stutzman also cannot claim that Armstrong's alleged criminal
activity -- smuggling or trafficking drugs -- would render his
statements outside of the anti-SLAPP statute's scope, the court
found.

"The conduct at issue is the speech about the book and Armstrong's
speech about whether he used drugs," England wrote.  "Armstrong's
lies about his use of drugs are simply not criminal conduct."

The First Amendment also protects defendants from the unfair
competition, false advertising and other consumer-based claims.
Statements denying Armstrong's illegal drug use, whether in
advertisements or to the press, "are clearly not advertisements,
and do not refer to a specific product," England wrote.  "While it
appears that plaintiffs ask the court to find that Lance Armstrong
himself is a 'brand' or 'product,' the court declines to stretch
the meaning of 'product' this far."

Apart from those who felt deceived by Armstrong's biographies,
many others filed fraud actions after the cyclist confessed his
doping habit to Oprah Winfrey in front of millions of viewers
early this year.

The Sunday Times reached an undisclosed settlement with Armstrong
as a result of its suit.  Claims from Acceptance Insurance over
bonuses it paid Armstrong and his management company, Tailwind
Sports, remain pending in Travis County Court for his victories in
the Tour de France from 1999 to 2001.  Armstrong reached a
settlement with SCA Promotions over similar claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clyde Talbot Turner, Esq.
          TURNER AND ASSOCIATES P.A.
          4705 Somers Avenue, Suite 100
          North Little Rock, AR 72116
          Telephone: (501) 791-2277
          Facsimile: (501) 791-1251
          E-mail: tab@tturner.com

               - and -

          Eric J. Marcy, Esq.
          Kevin Roddy, Esq.
          WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A.
          90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
          Woodbridge, NJ 07095
          Telephone: (732) 855-6004
          Facsimile: (732) 726-6686
          E-mail: emarcy@wilentz.com
                  kroddy@wilentz.com

               - and -

          Henry H. Rossbacher, Esq.
          THE ROSSBACHER FIRM
          811 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1650
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 895-6500
          Facsimile: (213) 895-6161
          E-mail: h.rossbacher@rossbacherlaw.com

               - and -

          Tracey Stevens Buck-Walsh, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TRACEY BUCK-WALSH
          175 Foss Creek Circle
          Healdsburg, CA 95448
          Telephone: (916) 761-9277
          E-mail: tracey@tbwlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Zia F. Modabber, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3012
          Telephone: (310) 788-4400
          Facsimile: (310) 788-4471
          E-mail: zia.modabber@kattenlaw.com

               - and -

          F. Matthew Ralph, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP
          50 South Sixth Street, Suite 1500
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 340-2600
          Facsimile: (612) 340-2868
          E-mail: ralph.matthew@dorsey.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Michael Herman, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
          51 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 415-9247
          Facsimile: (646) 607-0943
          E-mail: herman.jonathan@dorsey.com

               - and -

          Kent Jeffrey Schmidt, Esq.
          Katherine J. Santon, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
          600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 2000
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 800-1400
          Facsimile: (714) 800-1499
          E-mail: santos.maria@dorsey.com
                  santon.kate@dorsey.com

               - and -

          Stephen George Contopulos, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
          555 W Fifth Street, Suite 4000
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 896-6000 Ext. 46625
          Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
          E-mail: scontopulos@sidley.com

               - and -

          Robert Andrew Sacks, Esq.
          John Darrow Echeverria, Esq.
          SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL LLP
          1888 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-1725
          Telephone: (310) 712-6640
          Facsimile: (310) 712-8800
          E-mail: sacksr@sullcrom.com
                  echeverriaj@sullcrom.com

               - and -

          Marc S. Harris
          SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS LLP
          601 W. 5th Street, 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 613-4690
          Facsimile: (213) 613-4656
          E-mail: mharris@scheperkim.com

The case is Stutzman, et al. v. Armstrong, et al., Case No. 2:13-
cv-00116-MCE-KJN, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California (Sacramento).


MACQUARIE GROUP: 110 Tasmanian Farmers File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Richard Gluyas, writing for The Australian, reports that Macquarie
Group is facing a class action by a group of 110 Tasmanian farmers
who have plantation trees on their land that are part of
investment schemes managed by failed timber company Gunns.

The farmers, who lodged the Federal Court action on Sept. 17, are
seeking a declaration from the court but not large-scale damages.

The case relates to Macquarie's failed bid earlier this year to
seize control of a AU$500 million portfolio of six tax-efficient
Gunns schemes.

The plantations in question total about 50,000ha, or 25% of
Tasmania's hardwood plantation stock.

In their statement of claim, the farmers have alleged that the
Macquarie offer to participate in its proposal was misleading and
deceptive, in that they were told they would get nothing unless
they signed up.

The Macquarie deeds required landowners to surrender their rights
to be paid rent if the bank took over any of the schemes.  In
return, the landowners would gain the rights to the trees on their
land and a small cash settlement.

The farmers want a Federal Court declaration that Macquarie's
letter of offer to them was false and misleading, and therefore
void.  They want the declaration in case Macquarie resurrects its
bid to gain control of the schemes.

The class action comes in the wake of a Victorian Supreme Court
ruling in July that the material provided by Macquarie to
investors to vote on a change of control was false and misleading.

The court ruled that the results of scheme meetings held in May,
where investors strongly supported the appointment of Macquarie
Forestry Services as manager and WA Blue Gum as the new
responsible entity, were invalid and had no effect.

Macquarie and Gunns liquidators and receivers have been jousting
for months over the future of the six schemes, with the investment
bank accusing its adversaries of planning a firesale of the
assets.

The receivers KordaMentha have said the growers relied on
misleading and deceptive information in Macquarie's explanatory
memorandum when voting to remove the responsible entity, Gunns
Plantations, which is under the control of liquidators PPB
Advisory.

Judge Ross Robson said in his decision that the Macquarie proposal
had created the false impression that the growers were "unburdened
by the outstanding obligations to third-party landlords and the
ongoing rental obligations to those landlords".  He said the claim
that WA Blue Gum, as the new responsible entity, would be entitled
to rights under the leases but not the obligations was an untested
legal proposition.  This was misleading and deceptive, he said.

Macquarie and WA Blue Gum had argued the target audience of any
remarks had to be considered.  They said the choice for the
growers was to vote for the change of responsible entity or to
vote for things to stay as they were.  The growers, they said, had
voted overwhelmingly for change.


MADISON-KIPP CORP: Settles One of Two Class Actions for $2.6MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Treleven, writing for Wisconsin State Journal, reports that a
Dane County judge on Sept. 19 approved one of two settlements
between Madison-Kipp Corp. and its neighbors.

Under a class-action settlement reached in July involving 52
neighboring homes, Kipp agreed to pay the neighbors $2.6 million
in cash and install pollution control equipment in homes near the
East Side manufacturing plant.

The homes are on South Marquette, Waubesa, Dixon and Fairview
streets.  Circuit Judge Richard Niess signed the agreement after a
brief hearing on Sept. 19.

A settlement approval hearing for a separate class-action lawsuit
in federal court involving 33 other homes, also on South Marquette
and Waubesa streets, is scheduled for Oct. 28 before U.S. District
Judge Barbara Crabb.

That case, involving property owners whose homes directly about
Kipp's plant, was settled for $4.6 million.  In addition to
pollution control equipment, Kipp also agreed to replace the top
one foot of soil from yards with clean fill.

Both lawsuits alleged that contamination from the plant has
lowered property values.  Despite the settlements, Kipp continues
to deny the neighbors' allegations.

A state environmental lawsuit against Kipp is pending.


MADISON SQUARE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Internships
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Belzer, writing for Forbes, reports that the World's Most
Famous Arena, Madison Square Garden (MSG), has become the latest
company to be targeted in a class action by former interns
claiming they were wrongly classified to avoid being paid.

The lawsuit, which is estimated to include a class of more than
500 individuals, claims that MSG used titles such as "intern" or
"student associate" when hiring college students to do work which
would otherwise qualify them as employees.  Interns were asked to
work as many as five days a week, where they helped support MSG
ticket and sponsorship sales, administrative projects and
logistics pertaining to the organization of sports and
entertainment events at the arena.  The suit is seeking damages to
cover unpaid wages for misclassified workers stemming back to
2007.

According to the complaint, "Defendants did not provide any
compensation to . . . members of the putative class for the hours
worked . . . [and] would have hired additional employees or
required existing staff to work additional hours had . . . members
of the putative class not performed work for the defendants."

The MSG lawsuit comes on the heels of several suits being brought
against major entertainment, fashion and media companies for
similar unfair labor practices concerning the hiring of interns.
Among those entities being sued include Gawker Media LLC,
Columbia Recordings Corp, and NBCUniversal and its famous Saturday
Night Live program.  Former interns claim defendants provided
unreasonable working conditions and time demands for little to no
compensation, and often based on unsubstantiated claims they would
be given full time jobs after the completion of their internships.

Of course, those who work in both the sports and entertainment
industry know unpaid internships are common practice throughout.
While companies like MSG could almost certainly afford to pay
minimum wage for workers participating in such programs, any
financial rewards such opportunities present are far outweighed by
the learning experience and new skills students and young
professionals acquire during such internships.

More significantly, literally hundreds, if not thousands of
smaller sports marketing, media and management agencies and other
corporate entities throughout the sports business depend on unpaid
interns to help run projects within their company.  Many of the
most successful companies in the sports business were started with
the aide of students willing to exchange their time and energy in
return for mentorship, guidance and real world business
experience.  The majority of these companies would be incapable of
paying interns during their start-up stage, even if the law
required them to do so.

While the outcome of the case still remains to be seen, business
owners throughout the sports industry hope that the court gives
careful consideration to the implications that a verdict in favor
of the plaintiffs can cause for an industry so reliant on free
labor.  Any victory for interns would be short lived as it would
further limit the already small number of opportunities for young
individuals to break into the highly competitive industry of
sports and entertainment.


MERCK & CO: Awaits Plaintiffs' Next Move in Suits Over Coupons
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. is awaiting for the plaintiffs' next move in the
class action lawsuits arising from its coupon programs, 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.

In 2012, a number of private health plans filed separate putative
class action lawsuits against the Company alleging that Merck's
coupon programs injured health insurers by reducing beneficiary
co-payment amounts and, thereby, allegedly causing beneficiaries
to purchase higher-priced drugs than they otherwise would have
purchased and increasing the insurers' reimbursement costs.  The
actions, which were assigned to a District Judge in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, sought damages and
injunctive relief barring the Company from issuing coupons that
would reduce beneficiary co-pays on behalf of putative nationwide
classes of health insurers.  Similar actions relating to
manufacturer coupon programs have been filed against several other
pharmaceutical manufacturers in a variety of federal courts.  On
April 29, 2013, the District Court dismissed all the actions
against Merck without prejudice on the grounds that the plaintiffs
had failed to demonstrate their standing to sue.  The Plaintiffs'
consolidated amended complaint was due on September 9, 2013.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health
care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its
prescription medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal
health, and consumer care products, which it markets directly and
through its joint ventures.  The Company's operations are
principally managed on a products basis and are comprised of four
operating segments, which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health,
Consumer Care and Alliances segments, and one reportable segment,
which is the Pharmaceutical segment.  The Company is headquartered
in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey.


MERCK & CO: Awaits Prelim. OK of $23-Mil. Vioxx MDL Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. is awaiting preliminary approval of its $23
million settlement of the Vioxx MDL, 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.

Merck is a defendant in approximately 90 federal and state
lawsuits (the "Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits") alleging
personal injury or economic loss as a result of the purchase or
use of Vioxx.  Most of the remaining cases are coordinated in a
multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana (the "Vioxx MDL") before Judge Eldon
E. Fallon.

There are pending in various U.S. courts putative class actions
purportedly brought on behalf of individual purchasers or users of
Vioxx seeking reimbursement for alleged economic loss.  In the
Vioxx MDL proceeding, approximately 30 such class actions remain.
In June 2010, Merck moved to strike the class claims or for
judgment on the pleadings regarding the master complaint, which
includes the cases, and briefing on that motion was completed in
September 2010.  The Vioxx MDL court heard oral argument on
Merck's motion in October 2010 and took it under advisement.

In July 2013, Merck entered into a proposed settlement in the
Vioxx MDL which would resolve Vioxx-related consumer economic loss
claims asserted against the Company by all non-Missouri resident
consumers who purchased Vioxx and seek to recover economic
damages.  Merck previously settled a similar Vioxx consumer class
action in Missouri.  Under the proposed settlement, Merck would
pay up to $23 million to pay all properly documented claims
submitted by class members, approved attorneys' fees and expenses,
and approved settlement notice costs and certain other
administrative expenses.  The settlement is subject to court
approval.

Merck has also been named as a defendant in lawsuits brought by
state Attorneys General in five states.  All of these actions
except for the Kentucky action are in the Vioxx MDL proceeding.
These actions allege that Merck misrepresented the safety of
Vioxx.  These lawsuits seek recovery for expenditures on Vioxx by
government-funded health care programs, such as Medicaid, and/or
penalties for alleged Consumer Fraud Act violations.  The Kentucky
action is currently scheduled to proceed to trial in Kentucky
state court in October 2013.  On January 10, 2013, Merck finalized
a settlement in the action filed by the Pennsylvania Attorney
General under which Merck agreed to pay Pennsylvania $8.25 million
in exchange for the dismissal of its lawsuit.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health
care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its
prescription medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal
health, and consumer care products, which it markets directly and
through its joint ventures.  The Company's operations are
principally managed on a products basis and are comprised of four
operating segments, which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health,
Consumer Care and Alliances segments, and one reportable segment,
which is the Pharmaceutical segment.  The Company is headquartered
in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey.


MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Suit by Indiana Vioxx Purchasers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit brought by Vioxx purchasers in Indiana, 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.

In Indiana, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class of
Indiana Vioxx purchasers in a case pending before the Circuit
Court of Marion County, Indiana.  That case has been dormant for
several years.  In April 2010, a Kentucky state court denied
Merck's motion for summary judgment and certified a class of
Kentucky plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs
relating to Vioxx.  The trial court subsequently entered an
amended class certification order in January 2011.  Merck appealed
that order to the Kentucky Court of Appeals and, in February 2012,
the Kentucky Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's amended
class certification order and remanded the case to the trial court
with instructions that the trial court vacate its order certifying
the class.  The plaintiff petitioned the Kentucky Supreme Court to
review the Court of Appeals' order and, in November 2012, the
Kentucky Supreme Court granted review.  Briefing before the
Kentucky Supreme Court is now complete and the court heard oral
argument on May 15, 2013.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health
care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its
prescription medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal
health, and consumer care products, which it markets directly and
through its joint ventures.  The Company's operations are
principally managed on a products basis and are comprised of four
operating segments, which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health,
Consumer Care and Alliances segments, and one reportable segment,
which is the Pharmaceutical segment.  The Company is headquartered
in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey.


MERCK & CO: Continues to Defend Suits Alleging AWP Manipulation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. continues to defend itself against lawsuits
alleging manipulation by pharmaceutical manufacturers of average
wholesale prices, 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/or certain of its subsidiaries have been named as
defendants in cases brought by various states alleging
manipulation by pharmaceutical manufacturers of Average Wholesale
Prices ("AWP"), which are sometimes used by public and private
payors in calculating provider reimbursement levels.  The outcome
of these lawsuits could include substantial damages, the
imposition of substantial fines and penalties and injunctive or
administrative remedies.

Since the start of 2012, the Company has settled AWP cases brought
by the states of Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, Illinois, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Mississippi.  The Company and/or certain
of its subsidiaries continue to be defendants in cases brought by
two states, Utah and Wisconsin.

The Company has also been reinstated as a defendant in a putative
class action in New Jersey Superior Court which alleges on behalf
of third-party payers and individuals that manufacturers inflated
drug prices by manipulation of AWPs and other means.  This case
was originally dismissed against the Company without prejudice in
2007.  The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health
care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its
prescription medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal
health, and consumer care products, which it markets directly and
through its joint ventures.  The Company's operations are
principally managed on a products basis and are comprised of four
operating segments, which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health,
Consumer Care and Alliances segments, and one reportable segment,
which is the Pharmaceutical segment.  The Company is headquartered
in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey.


MERCK & CO: Defends 5,075 Fosamax-Related Product Liability Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. is defending 5,075 product liability lawsuits
involving Fosamax, 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.

Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United
States involving Fosamax (the "Fosamax Litigation").  As of
June 30, 2013, approximately 5,075 cases, which include
approximately 5,440 plaintiff groups, had been filed and were
pending against Merck in either federal or state court, including
one case which seeks class action certification, as well as
damages and/or medical monitoring.  In approximately 1,135 of
these actions, the plaintiffs allege, among other things, that
they have suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ"), generally
subsequent to invasive dental procedures, such as tooth extraction
or dental implants and/or delayed healing, in association with the
use of Fosamax.  In addition, the plaintiffs in approximately
3,940 of these actions generally allege that they sustained femur
fractures and/or other bone injuries ("Femur Fractures") in
association with the use of Fosamax.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health
care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its
prescription medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal
health, and consumer care products, which it markets directly and
through its joint ventures.  The Company's operations are
principally managed on a products basis and are comprised of four
operating segments, which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health,
Consumer Care and Alliances segments, and one reportable segment,
which is the Pharmaceutical segment.  The Company is headquartered
in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey.


MERCK & CO: Expects K-DUR Antitrust Suit to Return to N.J. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc., 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 it expects that the K-DUR Antitrust
Litigation will now return to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey for further proceedings.

In June 1997 and January 1998, Schering-Plough Corporation, which
merged with Merck in 2010, settled patent litigation with Upsher-
Smith, Inc. ("Upsher-Smith") and ESI Lederle, Inc. ("Lederle"),
respectively, relating to generic versions of K-DUR, Schering-
Plough's long-acting potassium chloride product supplement used by
cardiac patients, for which Lederle and Upsher-Smith had filed
Abbreviated New Drug Applications ("ANDAs").  Following the
commencement of an administrative proceeding by the U.S. Federal
Trade Commission (the "FTC") in 2001 alleging anti-competitive
effects from those settlements (which has been resolved in
Schering-Plough's favor), putative class and non-class action
lawsuits were filed on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of
K-DUR against Schering-Plough, Upsher-Smith and Lederle and were
consolidated in a multi-district litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.  These lawsuits claimed
violations of federal and state antitrust laws, as well as other
state statutory and common law causes of action, and sought
unspecified damages.  In April 2008, the indirect purchasers
voluntarily dismissed their case.  In March 2010, the District
Court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the remaining
lawsuits and dismissed the matter in its entirety.  In July 2012,
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's
grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further
proceedings.  At the same time, the Third Circuit upheld a
December 2008 decision by the District Court to certify certain
direct purchaser plaintiffs' claims as a class action.

In August 2012, the Company filed a petition for certiorari with
the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Third Circuit's
decision.  In June 2013, the Supreme Court granted that petition,
vacated the judgment of the Third Circuit, and remanded the case
for further consideration in light of its recent decision in FTC
v. Actavis, Inc.  That decision held that whether a so-called
"reverse payment" -- i.e., a payment from the holder of a
pharmaceutical patent to a party challenging the patent made in
connection with a settlement of their dispute -- violates the
antitrust laws should be determined on the basis of a "rule of
reason" analysis.  The Company expects that the matter will now
return to the District Court for further proceedings in accordance
with the Actavis standard.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health
care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its
prescription medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal
health, and consumer care products, which it markets directly and
through its joint ventures.  The Company's operations are
principally managed on a products basis and are comprised of four
operating segments, which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health,
Consumer Care and Alliances segments, and one reportable segment,
which is the Pharmaceutical segment.  The Company is headquartered
in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey.


MERCK & CO: Expert Discovery in Vioxx Securities Suits Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Expert discovery is currently proceeding in the securities
lawsuits related to Merck & Co., Inc.'s Vioxx product, 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.

In addition to the Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits, various
putative class actions and individual lawsuits under federal
securities laws and state laws have been filed against Merck and
various current and former officers and directors (the "Vioxx
Securities Lawsuits").  The Vioxx Securities Lawsuits are
coordinated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey before Judge Stanley R.
Chesler, and have been consolidated for all purposes.  In August
2011, Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in part Merck's
motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint in the
consolidated securities action.  Among other things, the claims
based on statements made on or after the voluntary withdrawal of
Vioxx on September 30, 2004, have been dismissed.  In October
2011, defendants answered the Fifth Amended Class Action
Complaint.  In April 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification and, on January 30, 2013, Judge Chesler granted that
motion.  On March 15, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
leave to amend their complaint to add certain allegations to
expand the class period.  On May 29, 2013, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint to expand
the class period, but granted plaintiffs' leave to amend their
complaint to add certain allegations within the existing class
period.  On June 30, 2013, the plaintiffs filed their Sixth
Amended Class Action Complaint.  On July 1, 2013, the defendants
answered the Sixth Amended Class Action Complaint.  Fact discovery
is now closed; expert discovery is currently proceeding in
accordance with the court's scheduling order.

Several individual securities lawsuits filed by foreign
institutional investors also are consolidated with the Vioxx
Securities Lawsuits.  In October 2011, the plaintiffs filed
amended complaints in each of the pending individual securities
lawsuits.  Also in October 2011, a new individual securities
lawsuit (the "KBC Lawsuit") was filed in the District of New
Jersey by several foreign institutional investors; that case is
also consolidated with the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits.  In January
2012, the defendants filed motions to dismiss in one of the
individual lawsuits (the "ABP Lawsuit").  Briefing on the motions
to dismiss was completed in March 2012.  In August 2012, Judge
Chesler granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss
the ABP Lawsuit.  Among other things, certain alleged
misstatements and omissions were dismissed as inactionable and all
state law claims were dismissed in full.  In September 2012, the
defendants answered the complaints in all individual actions other
than the KBC Lawsuit; on the same day, defendants moved to dismiss
the complaint in the KBC Lawsuit on statute of limitations
grounds.  In December 2012, Judge Chesler denied the motion to
dismiss the KBC Lawsuit and, on January 4, 2013, the defendants
answered the complaint in the KBC Lawsuit.  Fact discovery is now
closed; expert discovery is currently proceeding in the individual
securities lawsuits together with expert discovery in the class
action.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health
care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its
prescription medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal
health, and consumer care products, which it markets directly and
through its joint ventures.  The Company's operations are
principally managed on a products basis and are comprised of four
operating segments, which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health,
Consumer Care and Alliances segments, and one reportable segment,
which is the Pharmaceutical segment.  The Company is headquartered
in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey.


MERCK & CO: Final Hearing on Vytorin Suits Settlements on Oct. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------
A final fairness hearing has been scheduled for October 1, 2013,
in connection with Merck & Co., Inc.'s settlements of two
consolidated securities lawsuits related to Vytorin product,
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.

In April 2008, a Merck shareholder filed a putative class action
lawsuit in federal court which has been consolidated in the
District of New Jersey with another federal securities lawsuit
under the caption In re Merck & Co., Inc. Vytorin Securities
Litigation.  An amended consolidated complaint was filed in
October 2008.  A second amended consolidated complaint was filed
in February 2012, and named as defendants Merck; Merck/Schering-
Plough Pharmaceuticals; MSP Distribution Services (C) LLC; MSP
Singapore Company LLC; and certain of the Company's current and
former officers and directors.  The complaint alleged that Merck
delayed releasing unfavorable results of the ENHANCE clinical
trial regarding the efficacy of Vytorin and that Merck made false
and misleading statements about expected earnings, knowing that
once the results of the ENHANCE study were released, sales of
Vytorin would decline and Merck's earnings would suffer.  On
February 14, 2013, Merck announced that it had reached an
agreement in principle with plaintiffs to settle this matter for
$215 million.  On March 11, 2013, the court stayed all proceedings
pending submission of the agreement for court approval.

On June 4, 2013, the plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of
the settlement, which the court granted on June 7, 2013.  On
July 2, 2013, the plaintiffs moved for final approval of the
settlement and the proposed plan of allocation.  A final fairness
hearing has been scheduled for October 1, 2013.  The proposed
settlement was reflected in the Company's 2012 financial results.

There is a similar consolidated, putative class action securities
lawsuit pending in the District of New Jersey, filed by a
Schering-Plough shareholder against Schering-Plough and its former
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Fred Hassan,
under the caption In re Schering-Plough Corporation/ENHANCE
Securities Litigation.  Merck and Schering-Plough Corporation
merged in 2010.  The amended consolidated complaint was filed in
September 2008 and named as defendants Schering-Plough;
Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals; certain of the Company's
current and former officers and directors; and underwriters who
participated in an August 2007 public offering of Schering-
Plough's common and preferred stock.  On February 14, 2013, Merck
announced that it had reached an agreement in principle with the
plaintiffs to settle this matter for $473 million.  On March 11,
2013, the court stayed all proceedings pending submission of the
settlement agreement for court approval.  On June 4, 2013, the
plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the settlement, which
the court granted on June 7, 2013.  On July 2, 2013, the
plaintiffs moved for final approval of the settlement and the
proposed plan of allocation.  A final fairness hearing has been
scheduled for October 1, 2013.  If approved, this settlement will
exhaust the remaining Directors and Officers insurance coverage
applicable to the Vytorin lawsuits brought by the legacy Schering-
Plough shareholders.  The proposed settlement was reflected in the
Company's 2012 financial results and, together with the settlement
described in the preceding paragraph, resulted in an aggregate
charge of $493 million after taking into account anticipated
insurance recoveries of $195 million.  In the second quarter of
2013, the Company paid $480 million into a settlement fund.  The
Company's insurers subsequently paid the remaining $208 million,
which reflects an additional $13 million of insurance recoveries
not previously recognized.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health
care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its
prescription medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal
health, and consumer care products, which it markets directly and
through its joint ventures.  The Company's operations are
principally managed on a products basis and are comprised of four
operating segments, which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health,
Consumer Care and Alliances segments, and one reportable segment,
which is the Pharmaceutical segment.  The Company is headquartered
in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey.


MERCK & CO: Settlement Process in Mo. Vioxx Suit to End Oct. 7
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. 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 court-approved process for class members
to submit claims under the Company's settlement of a Vioxx-related
class action lawsuit in Missouri is ongoing and will continue
until October 7, 2013.

In 2008, a Missouri state court certified a class of Missouri
plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for out-of-pocket costs relating
to Vioxx.  In October 2012, the parties executed a settlement
agreement to resolve the litigation.  The Company established a
reserve of $39 million in the third quarter of 2012 in connection
with that settlement agreement, which is the minimum amount that
the Company is required to pay under the agreement.  The court-
approved program to notify class members about the settlement has
been completed.  The settlement was approved, and final judgment
in the action has been entered.  The court-approved process for
class members to submit claims under the settlement is ongoing and
will continue until October 7, 2013.

Merck & Co., Inc. -- http://www.merck.com/-- is a global health
care company that delivers innovative health solutions through its
prescription medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, animal
health, and consumer care products, which it markets directly and
through its joint ventures.  The Company's operations are
principally managed on a products basis and are comprised of four
operating segments, which are the Pharmaceutical, Animal Health,
Consumer Care and Alliances segments, and one reportable segment,
which is the Pharmaceutical segment.  The Company is headquartered
in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey.


MILLWOOD INC: Unjust Enrichment Claim Dismissed in "Euceda" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Euceda, on behalf of himself and potentially other similarly
situated employees, brought a purported class action lawsuit
against Millwood Inc., his employer, asserting two separate
counts. The first count alleges that the defendant violated the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, 43 P.S. Section
260.1 et seq. by improperly subjecting the plaintiff and the
potential class members to unauthorized pay deductions. The
plaintiff's second count alleges unjust enrichment.

In an Aug. 26, 2013 Memorandum is available at http://is.gd/hltEcE
from Leagle.com, District Judge Malachy E. Mannion ruled that the
Defendant's motion will be denied with regard to Count I, but will
be granted with respect to Count II as dismissal of that count is
unopposed.

The case is JOSE EUCEDA, on behalf of himself and similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff v. MILLWOOD, INC., Defendant, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 3:12-0895, (M.D. Penn.).

Jose Euceda, Plaintiff, represented by Stephanie A Dorenbosch --
sdorenbosch@friendsfw.org -- Friends of Farmworkers, Inc. and:

   Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
   Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
   R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
   Winebrake & Santillo, LLC
   Twining Office Center, Suite 211
   715 Twining Road
   Dresher, PA 19025
   Phone: (215) 884-2491
   Fax: (215) 884-2492

Millwood, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sharon M. O'Donnell --
sodonnell@mdwcg.com -- Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman and
Goggin.


NASHVILLE, TN: Collection Action Claims in "Noel" Suit Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kevin H. Sharp granted the Joint Motion to Stay
Litigation of Plaintiffs' Collective Claims Brought under the FLSA
and Tennessee State Law filed in the case is VONDA NOEL, On behalf
of HERSELF and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY,
TENNESSEE, Defendant, CASE NO. 3:11-CV-519, (M.D. Tenn.).

The parties agree that the claims brought collectively on behalf
of Plaintiff Noel and the 214 other plaintiffs who have opted into
this litigation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) should be
stayed until the final resolution of Plaintiff's Rule 23 class
claims.

In an August 26, 2013 Order available at http://is.gd/vNucLefrom
Leagle.com, Judge Sharp said the collective claims asserted in the
Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Collective and Class Action Complaint
are stayed pending the final resolution of Plaintiff's Rule 23
class claims.  The Court directed the parties to notify the Court
within 30 days of final resolution of Plaintiff's Rule 23 class
claims as to the status of Plaintiffs' collective claims and how
the parties propose to proceed on such claims.

David W. Garrison -- dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com -- GEORGE E.
BARRETT -- gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com -- DAVID W. GARRISON,
SCOTT P. TIFT -- stift@barrettjohnston.com -- SETH M. HYATT --
shyatt@barrettjohnston.com -- BARRETT JOHNSTON, LLC, Nashville,
TN, (615) 244-2202 Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

ALLISON L. BUSSELL -- allison.bussell@nashville.gov -- CHRISTOPHER
M. LACKEY -- chris.lackey@nashville.gov  -- R. ALEX DICKERSON --
alex.dickerson@nashville.gov -- Metropolitan Legal Department,
Nashville, TN, Attorneys for Defendant.


NEVADA: Accused by San Francisco of Dumping Mental Patients
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner at Courthouse News Service reports that Nevada dumped
1,500 mental patients on other states, including 500 in
California, by putting them on Greyhound buses and sending them to
cities where they don't live, San Francisco claims in a class
action.

"Virtually all" of the patients dumped on California need
continuing medical care, but Nevada didn't arrange for them to be
received by family members or a medical facility, San Francisco
says in its complaint in Superior Court.  It claims the abusive
practice has cost it at least $500,000.

The City and County of San Francisco sued Nevada, its Department
of Health and Human Services, its Division of Mental Health and
Developmental Services, Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health
Services, and Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital, from which the
patients allegedly were discharged and dumped.

"Over the past five years, the state of Nevada has transferred to
other states approximately 1,500 patients discharged from its
state-run Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital, including almost 500
patients that Nevada sent by Greyhound bus to cities and counties
in California," the complaint states.  "Nevada knew many of these
patients were not California residents at the time it discharged
them to buses bound for California.  A substantial number of the
patients bused to California are mentally ill and indigent, and at
the time of their discharge and transportation, were not residents
of the California cities and counties to which they were bused.

"Further, despite the fact that virtually all of the patients
transported to California required continuing medical care, Nevada
did not make arrangements for the patients to be received by
family members or a medical facility in the destination city or
county prior to putting the patients on a Greyhound bus for
California.  Nevada jeopardized the bused patients' physical and
mental health by failing to provide them with adequate food, water
and medication during their trip to California, and by failing to
assure that shelter or medical care had been arranged for the
patients at their destinations.  While some of the patients were
given the names of shelters or told to dial '911' upon arrival in
California, a substantial number were not provided any
instructions or assistance in finding shelter, continued medical
care, or basic necessities in the cities and counties to which
they were sent."

The defendants have sent 24 patients to San Francisco by bus since
2008, 20 of whom required medical care "shortly after their
arrival in San Francisco, some within mere hours of getting of the
bus," San Francisco says in the complaint.

The city says it provided medical care to the patients at San
Francisco General Hospital or at health clinics run by the San
Francisco Department of Public Health.

"San Francisco has to date expended approximately $500,000 to
provide necessary medical care, shelter and housing, and other
basic necessities to the patients that San Francisco has to date
identified as having been bused to it by Nevada," the complaint
states.

Rawson-Neal Hospital and its administrators and staff -- including
doctors, social workers and nurses -- were aware their patients
were indigent, living in shelters or on the streets of Las Vegas
or other Nevada cities, and suffered from mental illnesses
requiring ongoing medical care and medication, San Francisco
claims.

"Rawson-Neal understood and expected that the bused patients would
rely on San Francisco's public health resources for continuing
medical care, and specifically directed some of the patients to
seek care at San Francisco public health clinics and shelter at
San Francisco-supported shelter and care programs," according to
the complaint.

"If defendants had not transported them to San Francisco, these 24
indigent patients would instead have been reliant upon Rawson-Neal
or other publicly-supported hospitals and medical clinics in
Nevada for their continued medical care, and upon shelter and
support programs publicly funded by Nevada."

Nevada thus jeopardized patients' physical and mental health, the
welfare of other bus passengers, and the safety of San Francisco
residents, the city claims.

"By transporting to California cities and counties indigent and
mentally ill patients who were not residents of those cities and
counties, Nevada intentionally and wrongfully appropriated the
resources that the destination California cities and counties had
established to provide medical care and basic necessities to the
indigent, and avoided expending its own public resources to care
for these patients.  Nevada, through its political subdivisions,
is required by state law to provide 'care, support and relief to
the poor, indigent, incompetent, and those incapacitated by age,
disease or accident' to county residents," the complaint states.

City Attorney Dennis Herrera wrote a letter of protest to Nevada
Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto in August and warned he
would sue for this.

"Homeless psychiatric patients are especially vulnerable to the
kind of practices Nevada engaged in, and the lawsuit I've filed
today is about more than just compensation -- it's about
accountability," Herrera said in a statement Wednesday,
September 11, 2013.

"What the defendants have been doing for years is horribly wrong
on two levels: it cruelly victimizes a defenseless population, and
punishes jurisdictions for providing health and human services
that others won't provide.  It's my hope that the class action
we're pursuing against Nevada will be a wake-up call to facilities
nationwide that they, too, risk being held to account if they
engage in similarly unlawful conduct."

Nevada's Chief Deputy Attorney General Linda Anderson sent Herrera
a letter on Monday, September 9, 2013, claiming the transfers were
"appropriate," and saying that hundreds of California residents
had been treated at Rawson-Neal since 2008, according to the Los
Angeles Times.

In August, in Herrera's public threat to sue Nevada, the city
attorney cited a Sacramento Bee story about a schizophrenic
patient named Brown whom Rawson-Neal "sent on a 15-hour bus ride
to Sacramento -- despite having never before visited, having no
friends or family members in the area, and with no prior
arrangements for his care, housing or medical treatment."

The August 20 statement from the City Attorney's Office continued:
"The Nevada-run hospital had discharged Brown in a taxicab to the
Greyhound bus station with a one-way ticket to Sacramento, snacks,
and a three-day supply of medication to treat his schizophrenia,
depression and anxiety.  Brown was instructed to call 911 when he
arrived.  A Rawson-Neal physician reportedly recommended 'sunny
California' to Brown as a destination, according to the Sacramento
Bee, because they 'have excellent health care and more benefits
than you could ever get in Nevada.'"

The defendants were not available for comment Wednesday night,
September 11, 2013.

San Francisco seeks class status and an injunction prohibiting the
patient-dumping -- plus damages, restitution and costs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristine Poplawski, Esq.
          1390 Market Street, 7th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94102-5408
          Telephone: (415) 554-3878
          Facsimile: (415) 554-3985
          E-mail: kristine.poplawski@sfgov.org

The case is City and County of San Francisco v. State of Nevada,
et al., Case No. CGC-13-534108, in the California Superior Court,
San Francisco County.


NEW YORK LIFE: 2nd Cir. Upholds Wage Class Action Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Vanderford and Abigail Rubenstein, writing for Law360,
report that the Second Circuit on Sept. 18 upheld a lower court
order throwing out a putative class action claiming New York Life
Insurance Co. underpaid its insurance agents, ruling that the
plaintiffs were too local to press claims in federal court.

A three-judge panel said that the putative class of insurance
agents had too many New Yorkers -- the Class Action Fairness Act
says that a class action can be dismissed if over two-thirds of
the class are from the state where the case was filed, a rule
termed the "home state exemption"

The decision upholds U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley III's
ruling throwing out a case brought by former New York Life agent
Avraham Gold, who claimed the company failed to pay him for
overtime and improperly deducted from his wages.

Though Mr. Gold sued in 2009, New York Life waited three years
before bringing up the CAFA rule, blaming the delay on Mr. Gold's
decision to ask for individual discovery to be finished before
class discovery began.  The Second Circuit said the delay, though
on the long side, was acceptable.

"Under most circumstances we would have serious doubts that a
delay of this length could be deemed reasonable," the opinion
said.  "But, the application of the exception was, to a certain
extent, complicated by the discovery schedule imposed by the
district court."

The panel also affirmed Judge Pauley's ruling that, as an outside
salesperson, Gold was not entitled to overtime pay under New York
law.

New York Life lawyer Richard G. Rosenblatt --
rrosenblatt@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP said
the insurer is encouraged by the decision.

"We remain confident that both the law and the facts strongly
support New York Life's position that it has paid agents wholly
consistent with the law," he said.  "New York Life will continue
to defend these baseless claims vigorously."

Mr. Gold said in his April 2009 suit that he was not paid for
overtime.  He also alleged that because insurance agents were paid
on a commission only basis, their wages for hours worked in a
given workweek sometimes dipped below the state mandated minimum
wage.

Mr. Gold had hoped to bring his claims on behalf of a class of New
York Life insurance agents that he estimated could number over
1,000.  The putative class members were "grossly undercompensated"
for the work they performed for the insurance company because of
New York Life's violations of state labor laws, Mr. Gold said.

Judges Barrington D. Parker, Raymond J. Lohier Jr. and Susan L.
Carney sat on the panel for the Second Circuit.

Mr. Gold is represented by John Halebian of Lovell Stewart
Halebian Jacobson LLP.

New York Life is represented by Richard G. Rosenblatt of Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP.

The case is Gold v. New York Life Insurance Co., case number
12-2344, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


OAKLAND, CA: Has Final OK of BART Shooting Ralliers Accord
----------------------------------------------------------
Megan Gallegos, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
the 150 protesters arrested at a rally for the young black man
fatally shot by a Bay Area transit cop will see those records
expunged in a $1 million settlement approved by a federal judge.

Hundreds had gathered on November 5, 2010, to protest the two-year
sentence handed down to Bay Area Rapid Transit officer Johannes
Mehserle for involuntary manslaughter.

It had been nearly two years since Mehserle took the life of 22-
year-old Oscar Grant on New Year's Day 2009 at the Fruitvale
Station in Oakland, California.  Mehserle claimed that he meant to
use his Taser on the handcuffed Grant but fired his pistol
instead.

Police were on high alert after the sentencing, having seen the
riot that erupted after Mehserle's conviction a year earlier.

Daniel Spalding and three other participants of the 2010 rally
ultimately sued on behalf of the approximately 150 people who were
allegedly unlawfully arrested and booked into jail by Oakland
Police, Alameda County Sheriff's Department and others.

"The 150 class members were never ordered to disperse or allowed
the opportunity to disperse, and there was no probable cause or
legal basis to arrest them," the complain stated.  "Oakland and
Alameda County proceeded to hold the class for an excessive period
of time in buses and vans, and then imprisoned them all in the
Alameda County Jail.  The plaintiffs were incarcerated overnight,
for up to 24 hours, in overcrowded holding cells without cots or
even room to lie on the floor, and subjected to other unreasonable
conditions or confinement, None of the class members were ever
charged."

On September 9, 2013, U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson
approved the settlement that gives the defendants 15 days to pay
class counsel $1.025 million "for distribution to class members
who submitted approved claims, class representatives, and class
counsel, as provided in the agreement."

The settlement also orders that the Oakland Police Department and
any other law enforcement agency that participated in the arrests
seal and destroy all arrest records in relation to the protest
because "these individuals are factually innocent of all charges
for which they were arrested, and that these individuals are
thereby exonerated."

Judge Thelton ordered Oakland Police and its attorneys to meet
with representatives of the San Francisco Bay Area's chapter of
the National Lawyers Guild and the ACLU of Northern California
before making any changes to their crowd control policy, training
bulletin or training outlines.  The Alameda County Sheriff's
Office additionally will have to adopt new policies and procedures
that will speed up the citation and release process for those
taken into custody during a mass arrest.

The court will have jurisdiction of this settlement to solve any
disputes for four years.  Rachel Lederman of Lederman & Beach in
San Francisco, California, is listed as the lead attorney for the
plaintiffs.  Lead attorney for the defendants is Christopher
Andrew Kae of Etna, California.

Other named plaintiffs were Katherine Loncke, Danielle Lopez Green
and Adrian Drummond-Cole.  The defendants included the city of
Oakland, Alameda County, Oakland Police Chief Anthony Batts,
Alameda County Sheriff Gregory Ahern.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rachel Lederman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALEXSIS C. BEACH & RACHEL LEDERMAN
          558 Capp Street
          San Francisco, CA 94110
          Telephone: (415) 282-9300
          Facsimile: (415) 285-5066
          E-mail: rachel@beachledermanlaw.com

               - and -

          Bobbie Fay Stein, Esq.
          503 Dolores Street, #201
          San Francisco, CA 94110-1564
          Telephone: (415) 255-0301
          Facsimile: (510) 601-5780
          E-mail: bstein8692@aol.com

               - and -

          Carl L. Messineo, Esq.
          Mara E. Verheyden-Hilliard, Esq.
          PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE FUND
          617 Florida Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 232-1180
          E-mail: cm@justiceonline.org
                  mvh@justiceonline.org

               - and -

          Carol A. Sobel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CAROL A. SORBEL
          429 Santa Monica Blvd.
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 393-3055
          Facsimile: (310) 451-3858

               - and -

          Robert Michael Flynn, Esq.
          FLYNN LAW OFFICE
          170 Columbus Ave., Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Telephone: (415) 989-8000
          Facsimile: (415) 989-8028
          E-mail: rmflynnlaw@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher Andrew Kee, Esq.
          4330 Old Pine Court
          Etna, CA 96027
          Telephone: (510) 735-5364
          E-mail: chriskee@sisqtel.net

               - and -

          William Edmond Simmons, Esq.
          OAKLAND CITY ATTORNEY
          One Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 238-6520
          Facsimile: (510) 238-6500
          E-mail: wesimmons@oaklandcityattorney.org

               - and -

          Gregory J. Rockwell, Esq.
          Jill Sazama, Esq.
          BOORNAZIAN JENSEN & GARTHE
          555 12th Street, Suite 1800
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 834-4350
          Facsimile: (510) 839-1897
          E-mail: grockwell@bjg.com
                  jsazama@bjg.com

The case is Spalding, et al. v. City of Oakland, et al., Case No.
3:11-cv-02867-TEH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco).


OFFICEMAX INC: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Seek Settlement Approval Again
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Selby, Esq., at Baker & Hostetler LLP, reports that lawyers
representing a purported class of customers who accused retailer
OfficeMax North America Inc. of illegally recording their zip
codes tried again to gain court approval of a settlement deal
agreed to with OfficeMax.  Dardarian v. OfficeMax Inc., case
number 4:11-cv-009947 (N.D.Cal.) A previously submitted settlement
was rejected by the US District Court for Northern California in
July 2013, in part on the ground that attorney fees had not been
properly calculated pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act
(CAFA) because the calculation was based on the issuance of
merchandise vouchers that might never be redeemed.  The new
proposed settlement again was based on the issuance of vouchers to
affected customers, but this time reserves a final decision on
fees until after the vouchers have actually been redeemed.

The proposed settlement arises out of a claim by plaintiffs from
two consolidated class actions, both of which alleged that
OfficeMax's "Information Capture Policy," which required cashiers
to ask for zip codes from customers paying with credit cards,
violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act (Song-Beverly).
Song-Beverly generally prohibits requests for personal
identification information from customers paying with credit card
in California, imposing civil penalties up to $1,000 per
violation.

In rejecting the parties' previously submitted voucher-based plan,
the court stated, "In light of the uncertainty regarding the
ultimate value of the settlement, and the factors showing that the
settlement is based effectively on a coupon, the Court is not
persuaded that it can ignore CAFA's rules governing the award of
attorneys' fees.  At a minimum, the intent of CAFA should be
followed.  Under Sec. 1712 of CAFA, a district court may not award
attorneys' fees to class counsel that are 'attributable to' an
award of coupons without first considering the redemption value of
the coupons."

The unopposed revised settlement plan calls for distributing
120,0000 $5.00 vouchers to OfficeMax customers at the time they
make a purchase in California.  The plan also provides for payment
of a $10.00 voucher to customers who file for a direct claim.  All
vouchers are subject to a defined redemption period.  In an
attempt to address the court's prior ruling that the fee
calculation could not be based on anticipated voucher redemptions,
the revised plan defers the calculation until after the voucher
redemption period has expired.  Under the revised plan, OfficeMax
will file a report within 14 days after the expiration of the
redemption period, documenting how many $5 and $10 vouchers were
actually redeemed.  The plan also provides a floor of $200,000 and
a ceiling of $500,000 for attorney fees.


OLD REPUBLIC: Settles "Painter" Suit Over Title Recording Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action filed in state court in Kansas City,
Missouri on December 7, 2006, Painter et al. v. Old Republic Title
Company of Kansas City and Old Republic National Title Insurance
Company, alleging that the companies overcharged title recording
fees in a number of states has been settled, according to Old
Republic International Corporations' Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Purported class action lawsuits are pending against the Company's
principal title insurance subsidiary, Old Republic National Title
Insurance Company ("ORNTIC"), in federal courts in two states -
Pennsylvania (Markocki et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court,
Eastern District, Pennsylvania, filed June 8, 2006), and Texas
(Ahmad et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court, Northern District,
Texas, Dallas Division, filed February 8, 2008).

The plaintiffs allege that ORNTIC failed to give consumers reissue
and/or refinance credits on the premiums charged for title
insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as required
by rate schedules filed by ORNTIC or by state rating bureaus with
the state insurance regulatory authorities.

The Pennsylvania suit also alleges violations of the federal Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). The Court in the Texas
suit dismissed similar RESPA allegations. Classes have been
certified in the Pennsylvania suit, but the 5th Circuit Court of
Appeals has reversed the earlier class certification in the Texas
case.

The putative class action filed in state court in Kansas City,
Missouri on December 7, 2006 (Painter et al. v. Old Republic Title
Company of Kansas City and Old Republic National Title Insurance
Company) alleging that the companies overcharged title recording
fees in a number of states has been settled. The settlement does
not result in any material liability to the Company.


OLD REPUBLIC: 11 of 12 RESPA Violations Lawsuits Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Eleven of the twelve suits alleging federal Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act ("RESPA") violations against Republic Mortgage
Insurance Company have been dismissed, according to Old Republic
International Corporation's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

On January 4, 2013, a purported class action suit alleging federal
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA") violations was
filed in the Federal District Court, for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania targeting Republic Mortgage Insurance Company, and
four other mortgage guaranty insurance companies and HSBC Bank
USA, N.A., and its wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiary. (Ba,
Chip, et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al).

The lawsuit is one of twelve against various lenders, their
captive reinsurers and the mortgage insurers, filed by the same
law firms, all of which were substantially identical in alleging
that the mortgage guaranty insurers had reinsurance arrangements
with the defendant banks' captive insurance subsidiaries under
which payments were made in violation of the anti-kickback and fee
splitting prohibitions of Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA.

Eleven of the twelve suits have been dismissed. The remaining suit
seeks unspecified damages, costs, fees and the return of the
allegedly improper payments. A class has not been certified in the
suit and RMIC has filed a motion to dismiss the case.


OLD REPUBLIC: Settles Suit Filed by Escrow Officers, Assistants
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case Hinrichs v. Old Republic Title Company filed against Old
Republic Title Company in the Superior Court of California for
Orange County has been settled, according to Old Republic
International Corporation's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

A purported state class action suit was filed against Old Republic
Title Company in the Superior Court of California for Orange
County on January 7, 2011, on behalf of the Company's escrow
officers and escrow assistants in the State of California.
(Hinrichs v. Old Republic Title Company).

The Company filed a demur to the complaint, and in response,
plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on January 5, 2012 adding
another named plaintiff. The suit alleged that the Company failed
to pay overtime, failed to calculate overtime properly, denied
meal breaks and rest breaks and failed to itemize pay statements,
in violation of the California Labor Code and seeks compensatory
damages, statutory penalties, interest, costs and attorneys' fees
for the period from January 7, 2007 to the present. The case has
been settled for the estimated liability previously recorded.


OLD REPUBLIC: Unit Still Faces "Friedman" False Advertising Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The suit Friedman v. Old Republic Home Protection Company, Inc.
continues in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, according to Old Republic International Corporation's
Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On September 26, 2012 a purported national class action suit was
filed against Old Republic Home Protection Company in the Superior
Court of California for Riverside County. (Friedman v. Old
Republic Home Protection Company, Inc.).

The suit alleges that the Company operates in breach of its home
warranty contracts, in breach of implied covenants of good faith
and fair dealing, in violation of various provisions of the
California Civil Code and Business and Professions Code and is
guilty of false advertising. The stated class period is from
November 24, 2004 through the present.

The suit seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, restitution,
damages, costs and attorneys' fees in unspecified amounts. The
firm representing the plaintiff had previously filed similar suits
against the Company, which were unsuccessful.

The Company succeeded in having the case removed to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on October
24, 2012, and believes it has strong defenses to the allegations
and to the certification of any class in this matter.


PANHANDLE OIL: Received $604,000 in Settlement of Royalty Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Panhandle Oil and Gas Inc. received in July 2013 $604,000 in
settlement of a class action lawsuit alleging underpayment of
royalty interest revenues, 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 26, 2013, the Company was notified and received a class
action lawsuit settlement of approximately $604,000 related to the
underpayment of royalty interest revenues.  The settlement is a
gain contingency and will be reflected in earnings in the fourth
quarter of fiscal 2013.

Founded in 1926, Panhandle Oil and Gas Inc. --
http://www.panhandleoilandgas.com/-- operated as a cooperative
(Panhandle Cooperative Royalty Company) until 1979, when the
Company merged into Panhandle Royalty Company and its shares
became publicly traded.  The Company's principal line of business
is to explore for, develop, produce and sell oil, natural gas
liquid and natural gas.  The Company is headquartered in Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma.


PENGUIN GROUP: Giskan Solotaroff to File 2nd Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Strauss, writing for Writer Beware, reports that in April
of this year, the law firm of Giskan Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart
filed a class action lawsuit against Author Solutions Inc. (ASI)
and its parent, Penguin Group, on behalf of three plaintiffs,
alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, various violations
of the California Business and Professional Code, and violation of
New York General Business Law.


Not surprisingly, ASI and Penguin filed a motion to dismiss.  On
July 19, Giskan Solotaroff filed an Amended Complaint.

On August 23, Penguin moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint in
its entirety, and ASI moved to dismiss the claims of one of the
three plaintiffs in their entirety, and all but the breach of
contract claims of the other two plaintiffs.  Penguin and ASI also
informed the court that they intend to file a motion to either
strike the class allegations included in the amended complaint, or
to deny class certification altogether.  In response,
Giskan Solotaroff intends to file a Second Amended Complaint by
September 27.

Another motion to dismiss will surely follow.  But as it looks
now, even if the motion is successful, and/or Penguin/ASI gets the
class allegations tossed, two of the breach of contract claims
against ASI will go forward.


PHILIP MORRIS: Provides Updates on Smoking, Health Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. disclosed the number of smoking
and health cases pending against it, its subsidiaries or
indemnitees as of August 1, 2013 in the company's Aug. 2, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Pending claims related to tobacco products generally fall within
the following categories:

Smoking and Health Litigation: These cases primarily allege
personal injury and are brought by individual plaintiffs or on
behalf of a class or purported class of individual plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on
various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross
negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design
defect, failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties,
violations of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer
protection statutes. Plaintiffs in these cases seek various forms
of relief, including compensatory and other damages, and
injunctive and equitable relief. Defenses raised in these cases
include licit activity, failure to state a claim, lack of defect,
lack of proximate cause, assumption of the risk, contributory
negligence, and statute of limitations.

As of August 1, 2013, there were a number of smoking and health
cases pending against the company, the company's subsidiaries or
indemnitees, as follows:

     (1) 63 cases brought by individual plaintiffs in Argentina
(24), Brazil (25), Canada (2), Chile (4), Costa Rica (2), Greece
(1), Italy (3), the Philippines (1) and Scotland (1), compared
with 74 such cases on August 1, 2012, and 94 cases on August 1,
2011; and

     (2) 11 cases brought on behalf of classes of individual
plaintiffs in Brazil (2) and Canada (9), compared with 10 such
cases on August 1, 2012, and 10 such cases on August 1, 2011.

In the first class action pending in Brazil, The Smoker Health
Defense Association (ADESF) v. Souza Cruz, S.A. and Philip Morris
Marketing, S.A., Nineteenth Lower Civil Court of the Central
Courts of the Judiciary District of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed July
25, 1995, the company's subsidiary and another member of the
industry are defendants. The plaintiff, a consumer organization,
is seeking damages for smokers and former smokers and injunctive
relief. The verdict and post-trial developments in this case are
described in the table.

In the second class action pending in Brazil, Public Prosecutor of
Sao Paulo v. Philip Morris Brasil Industria e Comercio Ltda.,
Civil Court of the City of Sao Paulo, Brazil, filed August 6,
2007, the company's subsidiary is a defendant. The plaintiff, the
Public Prosecutor of the State of Sao Paulo, is seeking (i)
unspecified damages on behalf of all smokers nationwide, former
smokers, and their relatives; (ii) unspecified damages on behalf
of people exposed to environmental tobacco smoke ("ETS")
nationwide, and their relatives; and (iii) reimbursement of the
health care costs allegedly incurred for the treatment of tobacco-
related diseases by all Brazilian States and Municipalities, and
the Federal District.

In an interim ruling issued in December 2007, the trial court
limited the scope of this claim to the State of Sao Paulo only. In
December 2008, the Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo issued a
decision declaring that it lacked jurisdiction because the case
involved issues similar to the ADESF case and should be
transferred to the Nineteenth Lower Civil Court in Sao Paulo where
the ADESF case is pending. The court further stated that these
cases should be consolidated for the purposes of judgment. In
April 2010, the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals reversed the Seventh
Civil Court's decision that consolidated the cases, finding that
they are based on different legal claims and are progressing at
different stages of proceedings. This case was returned to the
Seventh Civil Court of Sao Paulo, and the company's subsidiary
filed its closing arguments in December 2010. In March 2012, the
trial court dismissed the case on the merits. This decision has
been appealed.

In the first class action pending in Canada, Cecilia Letourneau v.
Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI
Macdonald Corp., Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in September
1998, the company's subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers
are defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, is seeking
compensatory and unspecified punitive damages for each member of
the class who is deemed addicted to smoking. The class was
certified in 2005. In February 2011, the trial court ruled that
the federal government would remain as a third party in the case.
In November 2012, the Court of Appeals dismissed defendants'
third-party claims against the federal government. Trial began on
March 12, 2012. At the present pace, trial is expected to conclude
in 2014, with a judgment to follow at an indeterminate point after
the conclusion of the trial proceedings.

In the second class action pending in Canada, Conseil Quebecois
Sur Le Tabac Et La Santé and Jean-Yves Blais v. Imperial Tobacco
Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI Macdonald Corp.,
Quebec Superior Court, Canada, filed in November 1998, the
company's subsidiary and other Canadian manufacturers are
defendants. The plaintiffs, an anti-smoking organization and an
individual smoker, are seeking compensatory and unspecified
punitive damages for each member of the class who allegedly
suffers from certain smoking-related diseases. The class was
certified in 2005. In February 2011, the trial court ruled that
the federal government would remain as a third party in the case.
In November 2012, the Court of Appeals dismissed defendants'
third-party claims against the federal government. Trial began on
March 12, 2012. At the present pace, trial is expected to conclude
in 2014, with a judgment to follow at an indeterminate point after
the conclusion of the trial proceedings.

In the third class action pending in Canada, Kunta v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench,
Winnipeg, Canada, filed June 12, 2009, the company, our
subsidiaries, and the Company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria
Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants.
The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
("COPD"), severe asthma, and mild reversible lung disease
resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is seeking
compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of a
proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates, dependents
and family members, as well as restitution of profits, and
reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by
tobacco products. In September 2009, plaintiff's counsel informed
defendants that he did not anticipate taking any action in this
case while he pursues the class action filed in Saskatchewan.

In the fourth class action pending in Canada, Adams v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench,
Saskatchewan, Canada, filed July 10, 2009, the company, the
company's subsidiaries, and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and
Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are
defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own
addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of
tobacco products. She is seeking compensatory and unspecified
punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
smokers who have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have
allegedly suffered, or suffer, from COPD, emphysema, heart
disease, or cancer, as well as restitution of profits. Preliminary
motions are pending.

In the fifth class action pending in Canada, Semple v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Supreme Court (trial
court), Nova Scotia, Canada, filed June 18, 2009, the company, the
company's subsidiaries, and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and
Altria Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are
defendants. The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own
addiction to tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of
tobacco products. He is seeking compensatory and unspecified
punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all
smokers, their estates, dependents and family members, as well as
restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government health
care costs allegedly caused by tobacco products. No activity in
this case is anticipated while plaintiff's counsel pursues the
class action filed in Saskatchewan.

In the sixth class action pending in Canada, Dorion v. Canadian
Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., The Queen's Bench,
Alberta, Canada, filed June 15, 2009, the company, the company's
subsidiaries, and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria
Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants.
The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and chronic bronchitis and severe sinus
infections resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is
seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of
a proposed class comprised of all smokers, their estates,
dependents and family members, restitution of profits, and
reimbursement of government health care costs allegedly caused by
tobacco products. To date, the company, the company's
subsidiaries, and the company's indemnitees have not been properly
served with the complaint. No activity in this case is anticipated
while plaintiff's counsel pursues the class action filed in
Saskatchewan.

In the seventh class action pending in Canada, McDermid v.
Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British
Columbia, Canada, filed June 25, 2010, the company, the company's
subsidiaries, and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria
Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants.
The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges his own addiction to
tobacco products and heart disease resulting from the use of
tobacco products.

He is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on
behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive
on June 12, 2007, and who suffered from heart disease allegedly
caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family members,
plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from
January 1, 1954 to the date the claim was filed. Defendants have
filed jurisdictional challenges on the grounds that this action
should not proceed during the pendency of the Saskatchewan class
action.

In the eighth class action pending in Canada, Bourassa v. Imperial
Tobacco Canada Limited, et al., Supreme Court, British Columbia,
Canada, filed June 25, 2010, the company, the company's
subsidiaries, and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria
Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants.
The plaintiff, the heir to a deceased smoker, alleges that the
decedent was addicted to tobacco products and suffered from
emphysema resulting from the use of tobacco products. She is
seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive damages on behalf of
a proposed class comprised of all smokers who were alive on June
12, 2007, and who suffered from chronic respiratory diseases
allegedly caused by smoking, their estates, dependents and family
members, plus disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants
from January 1, 1954 to the date the claim was filed. Defendants
have filed jurisdictional challenges on the grounds that this
action should not proceed during the pendency of the Saskatchewan
class action.

In the ninth class action pending in Canada, Suzanne Jacklin v.
Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council, et al., Ontario Superior
Court of Justice, filed June 20, 2012, the company, the company's
subsidiaries, and the company's indemnitees (PM USA and Altria
Group, Inc.), and other members of the industry are defendants.
The plaintiff, an individual smoker, alleges her own addiction to
tobacco products and COPD resulting from the use of tobacco
products. She is seeking compensatory and unspecified punitive
damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of all smokers who
have smoked a minimum of 25,000 cigarettes and have allegedly
suffered, or suffer, from COPD, heart disease, or cancer, as well
as restitution of profits. Plaintiff's counsel have indicated that
they do not intend to take any action in this case in the near
future.


PHILIP MORRIS: March 2014 Hearing Set in "El-Roy" Suit in Israel
----------------------------------------------------------------
An oral hearing has been scheduled for March 2014 in the suit
El-Roy, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., filed at the
District Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, according to the
company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Lights Cases: These cases, brought by individual plaintiffs, or on
behalf of a class of individual plaintiffs, allege that the use of
the term "lights" constitutes fraudulent and misleading conduct.
Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on
various theories of recovery including misrepresentation,
deception, and breach of consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs seek
various forms of relief including restitution, injunctive relief,
and compensatory and other damages. Defenses raised include lack
of causation, lack of reliance, assumption of the risk, and
statute of limitations.

As of August 1, 2013, the following lights cases were pending
against the company's subsidiaries or indemnitees:

(1) 1 case brought on behalf of individual plaintiffs in Israel,
compared with 2 such cases on August 1, 2012 and August 1, 2011;
and

(2) 1 case brought by an individual in the equivalent of small
claims courts in Italy, where the maximum damages are
approximately one thousand Euros per case, compared with 7 such
cases on August 1, 2012, and 9 such cases on August 1, 2011.

In the class action pending in Israel, El-Roy, et al. v. Philip
Morris Incorporated, et al., District Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa,
Israel, filed January 18, 2004, the company's subsidiary and the
company's indemnitees (PM USA and the company's former importer)
are defendants.

The plaintiffs filed a purported class action claiming that the
class members were misled by the descriptor "lights" into
believing that lights cigarettes are safer than full flavor
cigarettes. The claim seeks recovery of the purchase price of
lights cigarettes and compensation for distress for each class
member. Hearings took place in November and December 2008
regarding whether the case meets the legal requirements necessary
to allow it to proceed as a class action. The parties' briefing on
class certification was completed in March 2011. In November 2012,
the court denied class certification and dismissed the individual
claims. Plaintiffs have appealed, and an oral hearing has been
scheduled for March 2014.

The claims in the previously reported class action in Israel,
Navon, et al. v. Philip Morris Products USA, et al., District
Court of Tel-Aviv/Jaffa, Israel, filed December 5, 2004, against
the company's indemnitee (our distributor) and other members of
the industry are similar to those in El-Roy, and the case was
stayed pending a ruling on class certification in El-Roy. In March
2013, the district court dismissed the case because plaintiffs
failed to demonstrate their intent to continue pursuing the case.
Plaintiffs failed to appeal and the case is terminated. The
company will no longer report this case.


PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Signs Deal to Dismiss Merger-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc., 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 parties of the
consolidated merger-related lawsuit entered into a stipulation for
the voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice.

On December 24, 2012, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
related to the Company's proposed acquisition of Ameristar
Casinos, Inc. ("Ameristar") was filed in Nevada District Court for
Clark County (hereafter "Nevada District Court"), captioned Joseph
Grob v. Ameristar Casinos, Inc., et al. (the "Grob action").  The
complaint names Ameristar and members of Ameristar's Board of
Directors (the "Ameristar Defendants"); and Pinnacle
Entertainment, Inc., PNK Holdings, Inc., and PNK Development 32,
Inc. as defendants (the "Pinnacle Defendants").  The complaint
generally alleges that the Board of Directors of Ameristar, aided
and abetted by Ameristar and the Pinnacle Defendants, breached
their fiduciary duties owed to Ameristar's shareholders in
connection with Pinnacle's proposed acquisition of Ameristar.  The
action includes claims for, among other things, an injunction
halting the proposed acquisition of Ameristar by Pinnacle, and an
award of costs and expenses to the putative plaintiff stockholder,
including attorneys' fees.  Thereafter, other plaintiffs filed
additional complaints in the same court making essentially the
same allegations and seeking similar relief to the Grob action.
On January 15, 2013, the Court issued an order consolidating the
actions, and any subsequently filed actions, into a single,
consolidated action.  On April 16, 2013, the Nevada District Court
heard the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction seeking
additional proxy disclosure and denied plaintiffs' request.  On
August 5, 2013, the parties filed a stipulation and order for
voluntary dismissal of action without prejudice.

Headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada, Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc.
is an owner, operator and developer of casinos and related
hospitality and entertainment facilities.  The Company operates
L'Auberge Lake Charles in Lake Charles, Louisiana; River City
Casino and Lumiere Place in St. Louis, Missouri; Boomtown New
Orleans in New Orleans, Louisiana; L'Auberge Baton Rouge in Baton
Rouge, Louisiana; Belterra Casino Resort in Vevay, Indiana; and
Boomtown Bossier City in Bossier City.  The Company also owns and
operates a racetrack facility, River Downs, in Cincinnati, Ohio,
manage a racetrack facility, Retama Park Racetrack, in San
Antonio, Texas, and own and operate a live and televised poker
tournament series, Heartland Poker Tour.


PUSHPIN HOLDINGS: Forged Signatures in Equipment Leases, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael B. Johnson, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of those
similarly situated plaintiffs v. Pushpin Holdings, LLC, Jay Cohen,
Leonard Mezei, Ari R. Madoff, Alisha Rios, Louisa Tatbak, Shaun
Redwood, GCN Holding, LLC, and CIT Financial USA, Inc., Case No.
2013-L-010173 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., September 11, 2013)
accuses the Defendants of prosecuting the Plaintiff and similarly
situated persons using forged leases.

The Plaintiff contends that contrary to the Defendants' assertion,
he did not sign a lease agreement for which they seek payment.  He
argues that the signature in the alleged equipment lease is not
his and was not placed there by anyone else on his behalf or with
his authority.  He points out that those signatures are forged.

Mr. Johnson, is a citizen of the state of North Carolina.

Pushpin Holdings is a Delaware limited liability company, which
has not registered with the Illinois Secretary of State to conduct
business in Illinois as a foreign company.  The Company is a shell
entity, which does not have any full time employees or place of
business, and is the alter ego of Defendants Jay Cohen and Leonard
Mezei.  Messrs. Cohen and Mezei are the managing members of
Pushpin Holdings, and various other shell entities, and control
its operations.  They also own, operate and control numerous
interchangeable alter ego entities, which sell equipment leases,
finance leases, buy debts, collect debts acquired by purchase and
assignment.

GCN Holding is also the alter ego of Messrs. Cohen and Mezei.  Ari
R. Madoff is a citizen and resident of the state of Illinois and
an attorney licensed to practice law in Illinois.  CIT Financial
is a Delaware corporation, which is registered with the Illinois
Secretary of State to conduct business in Illinois as a foreign
corporation.

Alisha Rios is a citizen and resident of either New Jersey or New
York.  She worked as a part-time employee and agent for the Shell
Entities and Messrs. Cohen and Mezei, falsely claiming to be an
executive legal administrator for Pushpin Holdings and for the
other Shell Entities.

Louisa Tatbak is a citizen of New York, who at all relevant times
was a notary public for New York.  As an agent for Pushpin
Holdings and Messrs. Cohen and Mezei, she notarized false
affidavits signed by Alisha Rios for numerous cases filed by
Pushpin Holdings in Cook County, Illinois, with knowledge that Ms.
Rios did not have personal knowledge of the matters claimed in the
affidavits she signed and with knowledge that there were no
business records, which supported the affidavits signed by Ms.
Rios.  Ms. Rios and Ms. Tatbak signed and notarized affidavits on
an assembly line basis for numerous entities owned and controlled
by Messrs. Cohen and Mezei, including Pushpin Holdings, with
knowledge that Ms. Rios did not have knowledge or business records
supporting the affidavit she was signing.

Shaun Redwood is an agent for Pushpin Holdings and Messrs. Cohen
and Mezei.  He works in the offices of Northern Leasing Systems,
Inc. and GCN Holdings, which share the same offices in New York.
He is not employed by Pushpin Holdings but answers the telephone
on its behalf at the same telephone number employed by Messrs.
Cohen and Mezei for all of their Shell Entities, including Pushpin
Holdings.  He acts as an unlicensed bill collector on behalf of
Pushpin Holdings and Messrs. Cohen and Mezei by attempting to
collect debts and alleged debts purchased by Pushpin Holdings with
respect to lawsuits filed, or to be filed in Cook County, Illinois
by Pushpin Holdings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Duree, Esq.
          DAVID M. DUREE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          312 South Lincoln Avenue
          P.O. Box 1416
          O'Fallon, IL 62269
          Telephone: (618) 628-0186
          Facsimile: (618) 628-0259
          E-mail: law@dmduree.net


QANTAS AIRWAYS: Oct. 2014 Trial Set for Freight Collusion Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Short Haul, writing for The Australian, reports that a federal
Court class action against 12 international airlines over alleged
collusion on freight charges has been set down for trial in
October next year.

Airlines including Qantas, Lufthansa Cargo, Singapore Airlines,
Cathay Pacific, Air New Zealand and British Airways face detailed
and widespread allegations of cartel conduct, according to lawyers
Maurice Blackburn.  The parties have been ordered to attend
mediation in November as part of the action, which is seeking
damages and other relief on behalf of purchasers of international
airfreight services for losses as a result of alleged cartel
conduct between 2000 and 2007.

Canberra Airport chief executive Stephen Byron has been honored
with a special award at the Australian Airports Association
conference in Darwin, for most outstanding contribution to the
airport industry.  Airport of the year awards included Canberra
Airport, in the capital city category; Cairns International
Airport, in the major airport section; Wagga Wagga and Mildura, in
the large regional category.  Portland was named the best smaller
regional airport.


QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA: Torres Strait Islanders Mull Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashleigh Stevenson, writing for ABC News, reports that a group of
Torres Strait Islanders has asked the Federal Court to allow it to
sue the Queensland Government over their alleged mistreatment.

The group of almost 100 people says they suffered abuse after they
were placed in mission dormitories in far north Queensland decades
ago.  They are each seeking up to AU$42,000 in compensation in a
lawsuit that could cost more than AU$4 million.

The Federal Court has been asked to grant leave to the group to
pursue a class action but has reserved its decision to next month.


QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA: Court to Decide on Missions Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Cairns Post reports that the Federal Court was set to decide
on Sept. 19 whether to allow a class action against the State
Government regarding alleged suffering of indigenous people in
religious missions in Far North Queensland.

Almost 100 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who were
placed in mission dormitories at Mona Mona, Wujal Wujal, Hope Vale
and the Daintree decades ago, or relatives of those who were, are
each seeking up to AU$42,000 compensation from the government.

Kirsten Lesina, a lawyer for Cairns firm Bottoms English, said the
action involved claims of racial discrimination over the way the
redress scheme was set up following the Forde Inquiry in the
1990s, which examined the abuse of children in Queensland
institutions.

She said the scheme unfairly deprived people who were put in
mission dormitories from getting compensation.

"If you had been in one of the so-called 'licensed' institutions
you could apply for between AU$7000 and AU$42,000 compensation,"
she said.

"But the missions were unlicensed institutions, so that excluded
indigenous people.

"We are arguing it was racial discrimination because it excluded a
whole class of people who were exclusively indigenous from
claiming compensation."

Ms. Lesina said if the Federal Court sitting in Brisbane decided
on Sept. 19 to allow the case to continue to a representative
proceeding, hundreds more aggrieved people were expected to sign
up.

If not, the battle for compensation will continue on two other
fronts: through the Australian Human Rights Commission and by way
of individual cases pursued through the Federal Court.

Judy Enoch, a spokeswoman for Mona Mona, said the mission's elders
had been ignored.

"They weren't given any legal rights as to how they were to live,
neither were their parents and we know that whilst they lived in
the boys' and girls' dormitories, it wasn't the best care that was
provided," she said.

" . . . We support their right to obtain compensation for the
things that they endured."

The amount being sought was at the higher end of the AU$42,000
band to reflect that the claimants were forcibly removed from
their families, stopped from using their own language and suffered
a loss of cultural identity, lack of proper medical attention and
poor education.

Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie refused to comment as the case was
before the courts.


QUEST NUTRITION: Overstates Quest Bars' Fiber Content, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Quest Nutrition and General
Nutrition Centers overstate the fiber content of "Quest Bars" by
50 percent to 1,000 percent, and understate their carbohydrate
content, a class action claims in California Federal Court.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Casey Edwards Sadler, Esq.
          Lionel Zevi Glancy, Esq.
          Marc L. Godino, Esq.
          Michael M. Goldberg, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW AND GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: csadler@glancylaw.com
                  info@glancylaw.com
                  mgodino@glancylaw.com
                  mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com

The case is David Takeda v. Quest Nutrition LLC, et al., Case No.
2:13-cv-06656-PSG-JEM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Los Angeles).


RAI: Obtains Favorable Ruling in DTT Subscribers' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Branislav Pekic, writing for Advanced Television, reports that
Advanced Italian public broadcaster RAI and its transmission unit
Rai Way have won the first class action brought against them by a
group of DTT subscribers.

The case brought by 123 subscribers came before the Administrative
Regional Court of Lazio.  They demanded the repayment of three
years of TV license fee, i.e. from the start of the transition
from analogue to digital terrestrial TV in the region of Emilia
Romagna.  However, the Court ruled in favor of Rai and Rai Way,
stating that there is no disruption in the digital terrestrial
broadcasts.

Rai Way had produced its own fact-finding investigation saying
99.6% of users in the province of Ravenna successfully receives
the signal.  Any reception problems, according to the Court,
result from the installations of the individual users.

The citizens of Ravenna are not giving up and are planning to
appeal to the Council of State.


ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Roadrunner Transportation and
Morgan Southern Trucking misclassified employees as independent
contractors to cheat them of overtime, a class action claims in
California Superior Court.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lenden F. Webb, Esq.
          WEBB & BORDSON
          466 W. Fallbrook Avenue, Suite 102
          Fresno, CA 93711
          Telephone: (619) 399-7700
          E-mail: LWebb@WBLawGroup.com

The case is Marcie Veneman, et al. vs. Roadrunner Intermodel
Services LLC, et al., Case No. 13CECG02834, in the Superior Court
of California, County of Fresno.


SAFEWAY INC: Faces All-Natural False Advertising Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene, writing for Law360, reports that a Safeway Inc.
customer who says he paid premium prices for products the grocery
store chain falsely advertised as all-natural hit the company with
a putative class action in California federal court on Sept. 18.

Consumer Ryan Richards claims Safeway falsely advertised products
as all-natural, and charged customers a premium for them.
According to the Sept. 18 complaint, the store's branded
multigrain and homestyle waffles were advertised as being "100
percent natural," but contained sodium acid pyrophosphate, a
chemical preservative.

Mr. Richards and other customers spent more on the products
because of their purported benefits, relying on Safeway's
allegedly false labeling to make their buying decisions, the
complaint says.

"[Safeway] played on consumer ignorance to fraudulently generate
substantial profits and engender unfair competition between itself
and competitor companies that, unlike Safeway, behave responsibly
and honestly toward their customers," Mr. Richards wrote in the
Sept. 18 complaint.

The grocery store has a line of products branded as "Open Nature"
that it claims are 100% natural and free of chemicals, according
to the complaint.

Safeway's website includes a list of some 130 artificial
ingredients that aren't found in the Open Nature line of products,
but sodium acid pyrophosphate isn't on the list.

"Safeway engaged in the unfair, unlawful, deceptive and fraudulent
practice of describing and falsely advertising the products listed
heretofore in this complaint as '100% Natural' when, in fact, they
contain the synthetic chemical ingredient," Mr. Richards claimed.

The ingredient in the frozen waffles listed in Mr. Richards'
complaint is an odorless white powder used to remove hair from
hogs and feathers from birds at slaughterhouses, according to the
Sept. 18 complaint.

"Not having the specialized food chemistry and regulatory
knowledge necessary to make independent determinations thereof, a
reasonable consumer would interpret the fine-print ingredient
label in a way to be consistent with the front label
representation," Mr. Richards alleged.

Mr. Richards is seeking to represent a class suing Safeway for
common law fraud, breach of contract and violation of several
California state consumer protection laws, according to the
complaint.

Mr. Richards is represented by Scott Edward Cole --
scole@scalaw.com -- Molly A. DeSario -- mDeSario@scalaw.com -- and
Jessica L. Campbell -- jcampbell@scalaw.com -- of Scott Cole &
Associates APC.

Counsel information for Safeway could not be immediately
determined.

The case is Ryan Richards et al. v. Safeway Inc., case number
3:13-cv-04317, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


SPACE SYSTEMS: Hearing to Approved "Schneider" Suit Deal Continued
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Maxine M. Chesney signed an order approving a
stipulation continuing to December 13, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., the
final approval hearing of a class action settlement in JEREMY
SCHNEIDER on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. SPACE SYSTEMS/LORAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant, CASE NO. CV-11-
02489-MMC, (N.D. Cal.).

A copy of the District Court's August 29, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/7SmOL4from Leagle.com.

LYNNE C. HERMLE (STATE BAR NO. 99779) -- lchermle@orrick.com --
JESSICA R. PERRY (STATE BAR NO. 209321) -- jperry@orrick.com --
ALLISON RIECHERT GIESE (STATE BAR NO. 267533) -- agiese@orrick.com
-- ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP, Menlo Park, California,
Attorneys for Defendant, SPACE SYSTEMS/LORAL, INC.

Attorneys for Plaintiff, JEREMY SCHNEIDER are:

   MARC H. PHELPS (STATE BAR NO. 237036)
   THE PHELPS LAW GROUP
   2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
   Irvine, CA 92614
   Tel: (949) 260-9111
   Fax: (949) 260-4754

ROGER R. CARTERM (STATE BAR NO. 140196) --
rcater@carterlawfirm.net -- THE CARTER LAW FIRM, Irvine,
California, Additional Counsel For Plaintiff.

SCOTT B. COOPER (STATE BAR NO. 174520) -- scott@cooper-firm.com --
THE COOPER LAW FIRM, P.C., Irvine, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Jeremy Schneider.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: 2010 Securities Suit Discovery to End in Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical Inc. disclosed in its August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 29, 2013, that the discovery phase of the March
2010 Securities Class Action Litigation closes in this month.

In March 2010, a securities lawsuit seeking class action status
was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the
Company and certain officers on behalf of purchasers of St. Jude
Medical common stock between April 22, 2009, and October 6, 2009.
The lawsuit relates to the Company's earnings announcements for
the first, second and third quarters of 2009, as well as a
preliminary earnings release dated October 6, 2009.  The
complaint, which seeks unspecified damages and other relief as
well as attorneys' fees, alleges that the Company failed to
disclose that it was experiencing a slowdown in demand for its
products and was not receiving anticipated orders for cardiac
rhythm management devices.  Class members allege that the
Company's failure to disclose the information resulted in the
class purchasing St. Jude Medical stock at an artificially
inflated price.  In December 2011, the Court issued a decision
denying a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants in October
2010.  In October 2012, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion
to certify the case as a class action, which the defendants did
not oppose.  The discovery phase of the case closes in September
2013 and the trial is scheduled in July 2014.  The Company intends
to continue to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in
this lawsuit.

Based in St. Paul, Minnesota, St. Jude Medical Inc. develops,
manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for
the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiac surgery, cardiology
and atrial fibrillation therapy areas, and implantable
neuromodulation devices.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Defends December 2012 Securities Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical Inc. continues to defend itself against the
consolidated December 2012 Securities Class Action Litigation,
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 December 7, 2012, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
in federal district court in Minnesota against the Company and an
officer for alleged violations of the federal securities laws, on
behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the
Company between October 17, 2012, and November 20, 2012.  The
complaint, which seeks unspecified damages and other relief as
well as attorneys' fees, challenges the Company's disclosures
concerning its high voltage cardiac rhythm lead products during
the purported class period.  On December 10, 2012, a second
securities class action lawsuit was filed in federal district
court in Minnesota against the Company and certain officers for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws, on behalf of
all purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the Company
between October 19, 2011, and November 20, 2012.  The second
complaint pursues similar claims and seeks unspecified damages and
other relief as well as attorneys' fees.  In March 2013, the Court
consolidated the two cases and appointed a lead counsel and lead
plaintiff.  The Company was scheduled to file its responsive
pleading by August 26, 2013.  The Company intends to vigorously
defend against the claims asserted in this matter.

Based in St. Paul, Minnesota, St. Jude Medical Inc. develops,
manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for
the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiac surgery, cardiology
and atrial fibrillation therapy areas, and implantable
neuromodulation devices.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Defends Riata-Related Suits in Various Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical Inc. is defending itself against 29 lawsuits
related to Riata(R) products pending in various courts, 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.

In April 2013, a lawsuit seeking a class action was filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington by plaintiffs alleging they suffered injuries caused by
Riata(R) and Riata(R) ST Silicone Defibrillation Leads.  The
potential class of plaintiffs in this lawsuit is limited to
residents of the State of Washington.  The complaint seeks
compensatory damages in unspecified amounts, punitive damages and
a declaratory judgment that the Company is liable to the proposed
class members for any past, present and future evaluative
monitoring, and corrective medical, surgical and incidental
expenses and losses.

As of August 1, 2013, the Company is aware of 29 lawsuits from
plaintiffs alleging injuries caused by, and asserting product
liability claims concerning, Riata(R) and Riata(R) ST Silicone
Defibrillation Leads.  Most of the lawsuits have been brought by a
single plaintiff, but some of them name multiple individuals as
plaintiffs.  The action in Washington is the only case that seeks
a class action.  Outside of this class action, five separate
multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been initiated against the Company
that involve more than one unrelated plaintiff: a multi-plaintiff
lawsuit joining 29 unrelated claimants was filed in the Superior
Court of California for the city and county of Los Angeles on
April 4, 2013; a multi-plaintiff lawsuit joining two unrelated
claimants was filed in the Superior Court of California for the
city and county of Los Angeles on April 4, 2013; a multi-plaintiff
lawsuit joining two claimants was filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on April 4,
2013; a multi-plaintiff lawsuit joining three unrelated claimants
was filed in the Superior Court of California for the city and
county of Los Angeles on April 29, 2013; and a multi-plaintiff
lawsuit joining 21 unrelated claimants was filed in the Superior
Court of California for the city and county of Los Angeles on
July 15, 2013.  Of the 29 lawsuits, ten cases are pending in
federal courts, including three in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota, four in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, one in the U.S. District Court for
the District of South Carolina, one in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana and one pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington.  The
remaining 19 lawsuits are pending in state courts across the
country, including seven in Minnesota, ten in California, one in
Indiana and one in Georgia.

All but one of the claimants in the lawsuits allege bodily
injuries as a result of surgical removal and replacement of
Riata(R) leads, or other complications, which they attribute to
the leads.  The majority of the claimants who seek recovery for
implantation and/or surgical removal of Riata(R) leads are seeking
compensatory damages in unspecified amounts, and declaratory
judgments that the Company is liable to the claimants for any
past, present and future evaluative monitoring, and corrective
medical, surgical and incidental expenses and losses.  Several
claimants also seek punitive damages.  The Company is responsible
for legal costs incurred in defense of the Riata product liability
claims including any potential settlements, judgments and other
legal defense costs.

Based in St. Paul, Minnesota, St. Jude Medical Inc. develops,
manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for
the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiac surgery, cardiology
and atrial fibrillation therapy areas, and implantable
neuromodulation devices.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Hearing in Silzone(R) Suit Appeal in November
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the Silzone(R)-related class action lawsuit pending
in Canada is expected to be heard in November 2013, according to
St. Jude Medical Inc.'s August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 29, 2013.

The Company has been sued in various jurisdictions beginning in
March 2000 by some patients who received a heart valve product
with Silzone(R) coating, which the Company stopped selling in
January 2000.  The Company's outstanding Silzone cases consist of
one class action in Ontario that has been appealed by the
plaintiffs and one individual case in Ontario.  In June 2012, the
Ontario Court ruled in the Company's favor on all nine common
class issues in a class action involving Silzone patients, and the
case was dismissed.  In September 2012, counsel for the class
filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal for the Province of
Ontario and filed their initial appellate brief in February 2013.
The Company was scheduled to file its responsive brief in August
2013, and the appeal is expected to be heard in November 2013.
The individual case in Ontario requests damages in excess of $1
million (claiming unspecified special damages, health care costs
and interest).  Based on the Company's historical experience, the
amount ultimately paid, if any, often does not bear any
relationship to the amount claimed.  To the extent that the
Company's future Silzone costs (inclusive of settlements,
judgments, legal fees and other related defense costs) exceed its
remaining historical insurance coverage of $13 million, the
Company would be responsible for such costs.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims that
have been asserted.  The Company has not recorded an expense
related to any potential damages in connection with these product
liability litigation matters because any potential loss is not
probable or reasonably estimable.  Other than disclosed, the
Company cannot reasonably estimate a loss or range of loss, if
any, that may result from these litigation matters.

Based in St. Paul, Minnesota, St. Jude Medical Inc. develops,
manufactures and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for
the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiac surgery, cardiology
and atrial fibrillation therapy areas, and implantable
neuromodulation devices.


SUNPOWER CORPORATION: Wins Final OK of Securities Suit Accord
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted final approval to the settlement of a
consolidated securities suit filed against SunPower Corporation,
according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2013.

Three securities class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a class consisting of those
who acquired the Company's securities from April 17, 2008 through
November 16, 2009.

The cases were consolidated as In re SunPower Securities
Litigation, Case No. CV-09-5473-RS (N.D. Cal.), and lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel were appointed on March 5, 2010. Lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on May 28, 2010. The
actions arise from the Audit Committee's investigation
announcement on November 16, 2009 regarding certain
unsubstantiated accounting entries.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made
material misstatements and omissions concerning the Company's
financial results for 2008 and 2009, seeks an unspecified amount
of damages, and alleges violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933. The court held a hearing on the
defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
November 4, 2010.

The court dismissed the consolidated complaint with leave to amend
on March 1, 2011. An amended complaint was filed on April 18,
2011. The amended complaint added two former employees of the
Company as defendants. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint on May 23, 2011. The motions to dismiss the
amended complaint were heard by the court on August 11, 2011.

On December 19, 2011, the court granted in part and denied in part
the motions to dismiss, dismissing the claims brought pursuant to
sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and the claims
brought against the two newly added former employees.

On December 14, 2012, the Company announced that it reached an
agreement in principle to settle the consolidated securities class
action lawsuit for $19.7 million. The Company recorded a charge in
its fiscal fourth quarter of 2012 in the same amount which is
further classified within "Accrued liabilities" on the Company's
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 30, 2012. On
July 3, 2013, the court granted final approval of the settlement
and entered an order of final judgment and dismissal with
prejudice.


UGI CORPORATION: "Swigers" Suit Still Pending in W.Va.
------------------------------------------------------
UGI Corporation continues to face a lawsuit filed by the "Swigers"
in the Circuit Court of Harrison County, West Virginia for alleged
violations of the West Virginia Insurance Unfair Trade Practice
Act, according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.

In 2005, Samuel and Brenda Swiger (the "Swigers") filed what
purports to be a class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of
Harrison County, West Virginia, against UGI, an insurance
subsidiary of UGI, certain officers of UGI and the General
Partner, and their insurance carriers and insurance adjusters.

In this lawsuit, the Swigers are seeking compensatory and punitive
damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged violations of
the West Virginia Insurance Unfair Trade Practice Act, negligence,
intentional misconduct, and civil conspiracy. The Court has not
certified the class. The company believes it has good defenses to
the claims in this action.


UNITED STATES: FHFA Obtains Favorable Ruling in Georgia Tax Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hall County, Georgia, brings an action for itself and as a class
action on behalf of 158 other Georgia counties to collect unpaid
real estate transfer taxes from Defendants Fannie Mae, Freddie
Mac, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The Defendants claim
that their federal charters exempt them from paying any state
taxes except taxes on real property.

District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., sides with the great weight
of authority and concludes that the Defendants are exempt from
paying the transfer taxes at issue.

The case is HALL COUNTY, GEORGIA, a body corporate of the State of
Georgia, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, as
conservator for Federal National Mortgage Association, et al.,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:12-CV-4402-TWT, (N.D. Ga.).

A copy of the District Court's August 30, 2013 Opinion and Order
is available at http://is.gd/qe6HBLfrom Leagle.com.


US FOODSERVICE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Class Cert. in Pricing Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST, TOMAS & KING, INC., WATERBURY HOSPITAL
o/b/o themselves & others similarly situated, CASON INC., o/b/o
themselves & others similarly situated, FRANKIE'S FRANCHISE SYS
INC., o/b/o themselves & others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-
Appellees, v. US FOODSERVICE INC., Defendant-Appellant,
KONINKLIJKE AHOLD N.V., GORDON REDGATE, BRADY SCHOEFIELD,
Defendants, NO. 12-1311-CV, concerns allegations of fraudulent
overbilling by U.S. Foodservice, Inc., the country's second
largest food distributor whose customers have included the United
States government, as well as hospitals, schools, restaurant
chains, and small businesses across the United States.

An interlocutory appeal in the case requires the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to determine whether the
district court abused its discretion in certifying a nationwide
class consisting of about 75,000 USF "cost-plus" customers. The
gravamen of plaintiffs' complaint is that USF devised and executed
a fraud to overbill these customers in violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1961-
68, and state and tribal contract law.  Despite the size of the
class and the fact that it implicates the laws of multiple
jurisdictions, the district court correctly concluded that both
the RICO and contract claims are susceptible to generalized proof
such that common issues will predominate over individual issues
and a class action is superior to other methods of adjudication.

In an August 30, 2013 Opinion available at http://is.gd/83n9sp
from Leagle.com, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's
certification of the class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3).

RYAN PHAIR -- rphair@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams LLP,
Washington, D.C. (James E. Hartley, JR. -- jhart@dholaw.com --
Drubner, Hartley & Hellman; Richard Laurence Macon --
lmacon@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP; Joe R.
Whatley, Jr. -- jwhatley@wdklaw.com -- Whatley Drake & Kallas,
LLC; Richard Leslie Wyatt, Jr. -- rwyatt@hunton.com -- Hunton &
Williams LLP, on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

GLENN M. KURTZ -- gkurtz@whitecase.com -- (Douglas P. Baumstein --
dbaumstein@whitecase.com -- on the brief), White & Case LLP, New
York, New York, for Defendant-Appellant.


US BANCORP: Still Awaits Approval of Settlement in Visa Matter
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bancorp is still awaiting court approval of the settlement of
Visa litigation matters, 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's payment services business issues and acquires credit
and debit card transactions through the Visa U.S.A. Inc. card
association or its affiliates (collectively "Visa").  In 2007,
Visa completed a restructuring and issued shares of Visa Inc.
common stock to its financial institution members in contemplation
of its initial public offering ("IPO") completed in the first
quarter of 2008 (the "Visa Reorganization").  As a part of the
Visa Reorganization, the Company received its proportionate number
of shares of Visa Inc. common stock, which were subsequently
converted to Class B shares of Visa Inc. ("Class B shares").  Visa
U.S.A. Inc. ("Visa U.S.A.") and MasterCard International
(collectively, the "Card Associations") are defendants in
antitrust lawsuits challenging the practices of the Card
Associations (the "Visa Litigation").  Visa U.S.A. member banks
have a contingent obligation to indemnify Visa Inc. under the Visa
U.S.A. bylaws (which were modified at the time of the
restructuring in October 2007) for potential losses arising from
the Visa Litigation.  The indemnification by the Visa U.S.A.
member banks has no specific maximum amount.

Using proceeds from its IPO and through reductions to the
conversion ratio applicable to the Class B shares held by Visa
U.S.A. member banks, Visa Inc. has funded an escrow account for
the benefit of member financial institutions to fund their
indemnification obligations associated with the Visa Litigation.
The receivable related to the escrow account is classified in
other liabilities as a direct offset to the related Visa
Litigation contingent liability.  On October 19, 2012, Visa signed
a settlement agreement to resolve class action claims associated
with the multi-district interchange litigation, the largest of the
remaining Visa Litigation matters.  The settlement has not yet
been finally approved by the court, is not yet binding, and has
been challenged by some class members.  At June 30, 2013, the
carrying amount of the Company's liability related to the Visa
Litigation matters, net of its share of the escrow fundings, was
$65 million and included the Company's estimate of its share of
the temporary reduction in interchange rates specified in the
settlement agreement.  The remaining Class B shares held by the
Company will be eligible for conversion to Class A shares, and
thereby become marketable, upon settlement of the Visa Litigation.
These shares are excluded from the Company's financial instruments
disclosures.

U.S. Bancorp is a multi-state financial services holding company
headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.  U.S. Bancorp was
incorporated in Delaware in 1929 and operates as a financial
holding company.  U.S. Bancorp provides a full range of financial
services and also engages in credit card services, merchant and
ATM processing, mortgage banking, insurance, brokerage and
leasing.


VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks to Dismiss Mass. Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated is seeking to dismiss a
purported shareholder class action, City of Bristol Pension Fund
v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et al., according to the
company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On September 6, 2012, a purported shareholder class action, City
of Bristol Pension Fund v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et
al., was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors as defendants.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the
Company's disclosures during the period from May 7, 2012 through
June 28, 2012, all in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

By order dated December 12, 2012, the court appointed the City of
Bristol lead plaintiff and appointed the City of Bristol's
attorneys lead counsel. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
on February 11, 2013.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 12,
2013. On May 28, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. On June 27, 2013, the
Company filed a reply in further support of the Company's motion
to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including
attorney's fees, as well as disgorgement of the proceeds from
certain individual defendants' sales of the Company's common
stock. The Company believes that this action is without merit and
intends to defend it vigorously. As of June 30, 2013, the Company
has not recorded any reserves for this purported class action.


VISA INC: MDL Settlement Worse Than Losing at Trial, NACS Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick DiVito at Courthouse News Service reports that a $7.25
billion proposed settlement to end an eight-year class action over
credit card swipe fees is "worse than losing at trial," the
president of the Association for Convenience & Fuel Retailing told
a federal judge Thursday, September 12, 2013, during a fairness
hearing on the settlement.

Hank Armour testified before U.S. District Judge John Gleeson in
the Eastern District of New York.

"From the beginning of this litigation, our principal concern has
been to obtain meaningful reforms of the credit card market to
restrain the undue market power being used to set fees," Armour
said.  "Anti-competitive practices have resulted in our industry
paying more in card fees than it makes in pre-tax profits every
year since 2006."

In 2005, retailers alleged that Visa and MasterCard violated
antitrust law by fixing swipe fees to generate more than $40
billion a year.  The suit went to trial before Gleeson in
September 2012, and in July 2013, a proposed settlement was
reached.

The trial and settlement were the result of the consolidation of
14 different antitrust actions challenging "swipe fees" and
"interchange fees" from New York, Connecticut, California and
Georgia, representing more than 7 million businesses.  The
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation assigned it to Judge
Gleeson in October 2005.  It later became known as the "Payment
Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation."

The National Retail Federation also appeared before Gleeson,
asking him to either "right or reject" the proposed settlement,
which the group said needs to be rewritten to do more to bring
fees under control.

"As it stands, the settlement rewards the perpetrators and traps
the victims," NRF attorney Andrew Celli argued.  "But it is not
hopeless.  It can be made fair.  You have the power to make it
so."

The judge did not issue a decision, and industry insiders expect a
final decision within weeks.

Twenty-five retailers opted out of the settlement -- including
7-Eleven Inc., Wal-Mart Stores and Starbucks Corp. -- thus
decreasing its chance of becoming one of the largest private cash
settlements in an antitrust case in U.S. history.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexandra S. Bernay, Esq.
          Carmen A. Medici, Esq.
          David W. Mitchell, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: xanb@csgrr.com
                  cmedici@csgrr.com
                  davidm@csgrr.com

               - and -

          D. Cameron Baker, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
          100 Pine Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: cbaker@csgrr.com

               - and -

          Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
          H. Laddie Montague, Esq.
          Michael J. Kane, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: bcohen@bm.net
                  hlmontague@bm.net
                  mkane@bm.net

               - and -

          Benjamin R. Nagin, Esq.
          SIDLEY, AUSTIN BROWN & WOOD LLP
          787 7th Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 839-5911
          Facsimile: (212) 839-5599
          E-mail: bnagin@sidley.com

               - and -

          Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
          Jonah H. Goldstein, Esq.
          Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 W Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: bonnys@rgrdlaw.com
                  jonahg@rgrdlaw.com
                  patc@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Dennis Stewart, Esq.
          HULETT HARPER STEWART LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 1600
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1133
          Facsimile: (619) 338-1139
          E-mail: dstewart@hulettharper.com

               - and -

          Eric H. Grush, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7855
          Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
          E-mail: egrush@sidley.com

               - and -

          Gary R. Carney, Jr., Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARISON, LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019-3051
          Telephone: (212) 373-3051
          E-mail: gcarney@paulweiss.com

               - and -

          George D. Carroll, Esq.
          K. Craig Wildfang, Esq.
          ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI, L.L.P.
          LaSalle Plaza, Suite 2800
          800 LaSalle Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
          Telephone: (612) 349-8500
          Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
          E-mail: gdcarroll@rkmc.com
                  kcwildfang@rkmc.com

               - and -

          Matthew Stephen Freimuth, Esq.
          WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 728-8000
          E-mail: mfreimuth@willkie.com

               - and -

          Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq.
          BEGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3084
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4671
          E-mail: mdavidoff@bm.net

               - and -

          Ryan W. Marth, Esq.
          Stacey Slaughter, Esq.
          Thomas B. Hatch, Esq.
          Thomas J. Undlin, Esq.
          ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI-MN
          2800 Lasalle Plaza
          800 Lasalle Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 349-8500
          Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
          E-mail: rwmarth@rkmc.com
                  spslaughter@rkmc.com
                  tbhatch@rkmc.com
                  tjundlin@rkmc.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Isaac Shinder, Esq.
          Adam Owen Glist, Esq.
          CONSTANTINE CANNON LLP
          335 Madison Avenue, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 350-2700
          Facsimile: (212) 350-2701
          E-mail: jshinder@constantinecannon.com
                  oglist@constantinecannon.com

               - and -

          Richard J. Kilsheimer, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail: rkilsheimer@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Thomas M. Campbell, Esq.
          SMITH CAMPBELL, LLP
          110 Wall Street, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 344-1500
          Facsimile: (212) 344-5585
          E-mail: tcampbell@sc-llp.com

               - and -

          William Jay Blechman, Esq.
          Richard A. Arnold, Esq.
          KENNY NACHWALTER, P.A.
          201 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 373-1000
          Facsimile: (305) 372-1861
          E-mail: wblechman@knpa.com
                  rarnold@kennynachwalter.com

               - and -

          David P. Germaine, Esq.
          Joseph Michael Vanek, Esq.
          VANEK VICKERS & MASINI, P.C.
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 224-1500
          Facsimile: (312) 224-1510
          E-mail: dgermaine@daarvanek.com
                  jvanek@vaneklaw.com

               - and -

          Paul E. Slater, Esq.
          SPERLING SLATER & SPITZ
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 641-3200
          Facsimile: (312) 641-6492
          E-mail: pes@sperling-law.com

               - and -

          Robert C. Mason, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER
          399 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 715-1088
          Facsimile: (212) 715-1399
          E-mail: robert_mason@aporter.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq.
          NEWMAN FERRARA LLP
          1250 Broadway, 27th Fl.,
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 619-5400
          Facsimile: (212) 619-3090
          E-mail: jnorton@nfllp.com

               - and -

          Donald A. Broggi, Esq.
          SCOTT & SCOTT, LLC
          1291 Robinson Ave.
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          Facsimile: (610) 233-0508
          E-mail: dbroggi@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Walter W. Noss, Esq.
          SCOTT & SCOTT, LLC
          33 River Street
          Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
          Telephone: (440) 247-8200
          Facsimile: (440) 247-8275
          E-mail: wnoss@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Jay S. Cohen, Esq.
          SPECTOR, ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
          1818 Market St, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
          E-mail: jcohen@srkw-law.com

               - and -

          Patrick A. Klingman, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLC
          65 Main Street
          Chester, CT 06412
          Telephone: (860) 526-1100
          Facsimile: (860) 526-1120
          E-mail: pklingman@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP
          1640 Town Center Circle, Suite 216
          Weston, FL 33326
          Telephone: (954) 515-0123
          Facsimile: (954) 515-0124
          E-mail: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Brian N. Toder, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq.
          Karl Cambronne, Esq.
          Stewart C. Loper, Esq.
          CHESTNUT & CAMBRONNE, P.A.
          3700 Campbell Mithun Tower
          222 South Ninth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 339-7300
          Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
          E-mail: btoder@chestnutcambronne.com
                  jbores@chestnutcambronne.com
                  kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com
                  sloper@chestnutcambronne.com

               - and -

          Mark Reinhardt, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          E1250 First National Bank Bldg
          322 Minnesota Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
          E-mail: m.reinhardt@rwblawfirm.com

               - and -

          Craig Gordon Harley, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          Yeshimebet Abebe, Esq.
          CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES, LLP
          1230 Peachtree St NE, Suite 2300
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 873-3900
          Facsimile: (404) 876-4476
          E-mail: charley@chitwoodlaw.com

               - and -

          Dean Martin Solomon, Esq.
          LEVITT & KAIZER
          40 Fulton Street, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 480-4000
          Facsimile: (646) 277-1151
          E-mail: dsolomon@landklaw.com

               - and -

          Gary B. Friedman, Esq.
          Tracey L. Kitzman, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN LAW GROUP LLP
          270 Lafayette St., Suite 1410
          New York, NY 10012
          Telephone: (212) 680-5150
          Facsimile: (646) 277-1151
          E-mail: gfriedman@flgllp.com
                  tkitzman@flgllp.com

               - and -

          Noah Shube, Esq.
          434 Broadway, Sixth Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 274-8638
          Facsimile: (212) 966-8652
          E-mail: nshube@nsfirm.com

               - and -

          Robert S. Kitchenoff, Esq.
          Steven A. Asher, Esq.
          WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 545-7200
          Facsimile: (215) 545-6535
          E-mail: kitchenoff@wka-law.com
                  asher@wka-law.com

               - and -

          Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
          E-mail: pavery@wolfpopper.com

               - and -

          Robert D. Greenbaum, Esq.
          ROBERT D. GREENBAUM & ASSOCIATES LLC
          123 S Broad Street, 28th Fl
          Philadelphia, PA 19109
          Telephone: (215) 772-5060
          Facsimile: (215) 772-5080
          E-mail: rgreenba@voicenet.com

               - and -

          William J. Ban, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          425 Park Avenue, Suite 3100
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 688-0782
          Facsimile: (212) 688-0783
          E-mail: wban@barrack.com

               - and -

          Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
          J. Douglas Richards, Esq.
          POMERANTZ HAUDEK BLOCK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP
          100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jasoncowart@yahoo.com
                  drichards@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Jason S. Kilene, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: jkilene@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Carmen B. Copher, Esq.
          Charles N. Nauen, Esq.
          Darla Jo Boggs, Esq.
          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          Rachel J. Christiansen, Esq.
          Richard A. Lockridge, Esq.
          W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
          William A. Gengler, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: cnnauen@locklaw.com
                  khriebel@locklaw.com
                  rjchristiansen@locklaw.com
                  ralockridge@locklaw.com
                  wjbruckner@locklaw.com
                  wagengler@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Hadley P. Roeltgen, Esq.
          Robert J. LaRocca, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT & GRAF
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107-3389
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
          E-mail: hroeltgen@kohnswift.com
                  rlarocca@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Jason L. Solotaroff, Esq.
          GISKAN & SOLTAROFF
          11 Broadway, Suite 2150
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 847-8315
          Facsimile: (212) 646-9618
          E-mail: jsolotaroff@gslawny.com

               - and -

          Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
          Kate Reznick, Esq.
          Michael J. Boni, Esq.
          BONI & ZACK LLC
          15 St Asaphs Rd.
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 822-0200
          Facsimile: (610) 822-0206
          E-mail: jsnyder@bonizack.com
                  mboni@bonizack.com

               - and -

          Donald L. Perelman, Esq.
          FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2300
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 567-6565
          Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
          E-mail: dperelman@finekaplan.com

               - and -

          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
          KAPLAN, KILSHEIMER & FOX, LLP
          805 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Joseph Goldberg, Esq.
          FREEDMAN BOYD DANIELS HOLLANDER GOLDBERG & CLINE, P.A.
          P.O. Box 25326
          20 First Plaza, Suite 700
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 842-9960
          Facsimile: (505) 842-0761
          E-mail: jg@fbdlaw.com

               - and -

          Leslie Hurst, Esq.
          LERACH COUGHLIN, ET AL.
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423

               - and -

          Jerald M. Stein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JERALD M. STEIN
          470 Park Avenue South, 10th Floor North
          New York, NY 10016-7321
          Telephone: (212) 481-6698
          Facsimile: (212) 481-6803
          E-mail: jmslaw@nyc.rr.com

               - and -

          Ann D. White, Esq.
          ANN D. WHITE LAW OFFICE
          165 Township Line Road, Suite 2400
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 481-0274
          Facsimile: (215) 481-0271
          E-mail: awhite@awhitelaw.com

               - and -

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue, 29th floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500
          Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
          E-mail: lnussbaum@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Barry L. Refsin, Esq.
          Ashely M. Chan, Esq.
          HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL & PUDLIN
          One Logan Square, 27th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 568-6200
          Facsimile: (215) 568-0300
          E-mail: brefsin@hangley.com
                  achan@hangley.com

               - and -

          Eric Bloom, Esq.
          HANGLEY ARONCHICK SEGAL & PUDLIN
          30 North Third Street, Suite 700
          Harrisburg, PA 17101
          Telephone: (717) 364-1003
          Facsimile: (717) 364-1020
          E-mail: ebloom@hangley.com

               - and -

          Francis J. Balint, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2901 N Central Avenue, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com

               - and -

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008

               - and -

          Daniel M. Bradley, Esq.
          Kimberly Keevers Palmer, Esq.
          RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
          174 East Bay Street
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Telephone: (843) 727-6500
          Facsimile: (843) 727-3103
          E-mail: kkeevers@rpwb.com

               - and -

          Daniel O. Myers, Esq.
          RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
          1037-A Chuck Dawley Blvd
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 727-6500
          Facsimile: (843) 216-6509
          E-mail: dmyers@rpwb.com

               - and -

          Jonathan J. Lerner, Esq.
          STARR, GERN, DAVISON & RUBIN, P.C.
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07068-1050
          Telephone: (973) 403-9200
          Facsimile: (973) 226-0031
          E-mail: jlerner@starrgern.com

               - and -

          Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 1750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400-5822
          E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Bernard Persky, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN MILLER & CIRESI LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 980-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
          E-mail: bpersky@rkmc.com

               - and -

          Douglas Thompson, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          1077 30th Street
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 337-8000
          Facsimile: (202) 337-8090
          E-mail: dthompson@finkelsteinthompson.com

               - and -

          Gregory Scott Asciolla, Esq.
          Christopher J. McDonald, Esq.
          Jay L. Himes, Esq.
          Morissa Robin Falk, Esq.
          William V. Reiss, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 883-7527
          E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com
                  cmcdonald@labaton.com
                  jhimes@labaton.com

               - and -

          Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
          WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS LLC
          1540 Broadway, 37th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 447-7070
          Facsimile: (212) 447-7077
          E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com

               - and -

          Charles S. Hellman, Esq.
          DUBNER, HARTLEY & O'CONNOR LLC
          2 Penn Plaza, Suite 1500
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 292-5665
          Facsimile: (212) 629-4568
          E-mail: chellman@dholaw.com

               - and -

          Michael M. Buchman, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          275 Seventh Avenue, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 577-0040
          Facsimile: (212) 577-0054
          E-mail: mbuchman@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Richard P. Rouco, Esq.
          QUINN CONNOR WEAVER DAVIES & ROUCO
          2700 Highway 280 East, Suite 380
          Birmingham, AL 35223
          Telephone: (205) 870-9989
          Facsimile: (205) 803-4143
          E-mail: rrouco@qwwdlaw.com

               - and -

          Ryan G. Kriger, Esq.
          MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300

               - and -

          Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
          Erin Burns, Esq.
          NASTLAW LLC
          1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 923-9300
          Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
          E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com
                  eburns@nastlaw.com

               - and -

          Kenneth G. Walsh, Esq.
          KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP
          825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 371-6600
          Facsimile: (212) 751-2540
          E-mail: kwalsh@kmllp.com

               - and -

          Lee Albert, Esq.
          MAGER & GOLDSTEIN LLP
          One Liberty Place, 21st Floor
          1650 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 640-3280
          Facsimile: (215) 640-3281

               - and -

          Angus Macaulay Lawton, Esq.
          Jonathan Craig Smith, Esq.
          JOYCE LAW FIRM
          Northgate Office Building
          5861 Rivers Avenue, Suite 101
          Charleston, SC 29406
          Telephone: (843) 554-3100
          Facsimile: (843) 529-9180

               - and -

          L. Webb Campbell, II, Esq.
          Phillip F. Cramer, Esq.
          SHERRARD & ROE PLC
          424 Church Street, Suite 2000
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 742-4200
          Facsimile: (615) 742-4539
          E-mail: wcampbell@sherrardroe.com
                  pcramer@sherrardroe.com

               - and -

          Bruce Levinson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BRUCE LEVINSON
          747 Third Avenue, 4th Flr.
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 750-9898
          Facsimile: (212) 750-2536
          E-mail: ecf@blevlaw.com

               - and -

          David Balto, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID BALTO
          2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 1111
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 577-5424
          Facsimile: (202) 333-4168
          E-mail: david.balto@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Carroll H. Ingram, Esq.
          INGRAM & ASSOCIATES
          P.O. Box 15039
          Hattiesburg, MS 39404-5039
          Telephone: (601) 261-1385
          E-mail: carroll@ingramlawyers.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Ingram Wilkinson, Esq.
          INGRAM WILKINSON, PLLC
          2901 Arlington Loop
          P.O. Box 15039
          Hattiesburg, MS 39404
          Telephone: (601) 261-1385
          Facsimile: (601) 261-1393
          E-mail: Jennifer@ingramlawyers.com

               - and -

          John Corlew, Esq.
          CORLEW, MUNFORD & SMITH, PLLC
          4450 Old Canton Road, Suite 111
          Jackson, MS 39236-6807
          Telephone: (601) 366-1106
          Facsimile: (601) 366-1052

               - and -

          John F. Hawkins, Esq.
          HAWKINS STRACENER & GIBSON, PLLC
          129B South President Street
          Post Office Box 24627
          Jackson, MS 39201
          Telephone: (601) 969-9692
          Facsimile: (601) 914-3580
          E-mail: John@hsglawfirm.net

               - and -

          Arun Srinivas Subramanian, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          560 Lexington Avenue, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 336-8330
          Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
          E-mail: asubramanian@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Richard E. Norman, Esq.
          CROWLEY NORMAN LLP
          Three Riverway, Suite 1775
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 651-1771
          Facsimile: (713) 651-1775
          E-mail: rnorman@crowleynorman.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark E. Tully, Esq.
          Robert Donald Carroll
          GOODWIN PROCTER, LLP
          53 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 570-1000
          Facsimile: (617) 523-1231
          E-mail: mtully@goodwinprocter.com
                  rcarroll@goodwinprocter.com

               - and -

          Peter Edward Greene, Esq.
          Peter S. Julian, Esq.
          Linda Wong Cenedella, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 735-3620
          Facsimile: (917) 777-3620
          E-mail: pgreene@skadden.com
                  pjulian@skadden.com
                  lwong@skadden.com

               - and -

          Michael Y. Scudder, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          155 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 407-0877
          Facsimile: (312) 407-0411
          E-mail: michael.scudder@skadden.com

               - and -

          William Harry Rooney, Esq.
          Keila D. Ravelo, Esq.
          Wesley Railey Powell, Esq.
          WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019-6099
          Telephone: (212) 728-8259
          Facsimile: (212) 977-0292
          E-mail: maoedny@willkie.com
                  kravelo@willkie.com
                  wpowell@willkie.com

               - and -

          Ali Stoeppelwerth, Esq.
          William Kolasky, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR
          2445 M Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 663-6589
          Facsimile: (202) 663-6363
          E-mail: Ali.Stoeppelwerth@wilmerhale.com
                  William.Kolasky@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Perry Lange, Esq.
          William J. Perlstein, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR
          1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 663-6000
          Facsimile: (202) 663-6363
          E-mail: perry.lange@wilmerhale.com
                  bill.perlstein@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          David Sapir Lesser, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR, LLP
          7 World Trade Center
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 230-8800
          Facsimile: (212) 230-8811
          E-mail: david.lesser@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. McDonald, Esq.
          PULLMAN & COMLEY, LLC
          300 Atlantic Streeet
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 324-5000
          Facsimile: (203) 363-8659
          E-mail: amcdonald@pullcom.com

               - and -

          James T. Shearin, Esq.
          Jonathan B. Orleans, Esq.
          Adam S. Mocciolo, Esq.
          PULLMAN & COMLEY, LLC
          850 Main Street
          PO Box 7006
          Bridgeport, CT 06601
          Telephone: (203) 330-2000
          Facsimile: (203) 576-8888
          E-mail: jshearin@pullcom.com
                  jborleans@pullcom.com
                  amocciolo@pullcom.com

               - and -

          Brian A. Herman, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKUIS, LLP
          101 Park Aevnue
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 309-6909
          Facsimile: (212) 309-6001
          E-mail: bherman@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Erica Fenby, Esq.
          Kara Kennedy, Esq.
          Teresa T. Bonder, Esq.
          Valerie C. Williams, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-7893
          Facsimile: (404) 253-8693
          E-mail: kara.kennedy@alston.com
                  tbonder@alston.com
                  valarie.williams@alston.com

               - and -

          Michael Edward Johnson, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          90 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 210-9400
          Facsimile: (212) 210-9444
          E-mail: mjohnson@alston.com

               - and -

          James M. Sulentic, Esq.
          John P. Passarelli, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          1650 Farnam Street
          Omaha, NE 68102-2186
          Telephone: (402) 346-6000
          Facsimile: (402) 346-1148
          E-mail: james.sulentic@kutakrock.com
                  john.passarelli@kutakrock.com

               - and -

          John M. Majoras, Esq.
          Joseph W. Clark, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          51 Louisiana Ave Nw
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 879-3939
          Facsimile: (202) 626-1700
          E-mail: jwclark@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Kenneth A. Gallo, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP
          2001 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 223-7356
          Facsimile: (202) 204-7356
          E-mail: kgallo@paulweiss.com

               - and -

          Andrew Corydon Finch, Esq.
          PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 373-3460
          Facsimile: (212) 492-0460
          E-mail: afinch@paulweiss.com

               - and -

          Lisl J. Dunlop, Esq.
          James P. Tallon, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING
          599 Lexington Avenue, Suite 548
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 848-4000
          Facsimile: (646) 848-8010
          E-mail: ldunlop@shearman.com
                  jtallon@shearman.com

               - and -

          Mark P. Ladner, Esq.
          Michael B. Miller, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER
          1290 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10104
          Telephone: (212) 468-8035
          Facsimile: (212) 468-7900
          E-mail: mladner@mofo.com
                  mbmiller@mofo.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Mitchell Jacobson, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 397-7758
          Facsimile: (212) 999-5899
          E-mail: jjacobson@wsgr.com

               - and -

          Paul W. Bartel, II, Esq.
          DAVIS, POLK AND WARDWELL
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 450-4760
          Facsimile: (212) 450-3760
          E-mail: paul.bartel@dpw.com

               - and -

          Joshua N. Holian, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 391-0600
          Facsimile: (415) 395-8095
          E-mail: joshua.holian@lw.com

               - and -

          Andrew J. Frackman, Esq.
          Kenneth T. Murata, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 326-2017
          Facsimile: (212) 326-2061
          E-mail: afrackman@omm.com
                  kmurata@omm.com

               - and -

          Robert P. LoBue, Esq.
          Vivian Ruth Mills Storm, Esq.
          PATTERSON, BELKNAP, WEBB & TYLER LLP
          1133 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 336-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 336-2222
          E-mail: rplobue@pbwt.com
                  vstorm@pbwt.com

               - and -

          Bruce Alan Birenboim, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON
          1285 6th Avenue, 33rd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 373-3165
          Facsimile: (212) 492-0165
          E-mail: bbirenboim@paulweiss.com

               - and -

          Karen L. Berenthal, Esq.
          PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP
          2001 K Street NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 223-7338
          Facsimile: (202) 204-7387
          E-mail: kberenthal@paulweiss.com

               - and -

          Ada Asante Davis, Esq.
          Eamon Paul Joyce, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          787 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 839-5906
          Facsimile: (212) 839-5599
          E-mail: ejoyce@sidley.com

               - and -

          Benjamin G. Stewart, Esq.
          Brenna L. Penrose, Esq.
          Charles M. Miller, Esq.
          Drew M. Hicks, Esq.
          Joseph M. Callow, Esq.
          Richard L. Creighton, Esq.
          Trenton B. Douthett, Esq.
          KEATING MUETHING & KLEKAMP, PLL
          One East Fourth Street, 14th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 579-6405
          Facsimile: (513) 579-6457
          E-mail: bgstewart@kmklaw.com
                  cmiller@kmklaw.com
                  dhicks@kmklaw.com
                  jcallow@kmklaw.com
                  rcreighton@kmklaw.com

               - and -

          Demian Alexander Ordway, Esq.
          Michael Shuster, Esq.
          Richard J. Holwell, Esq.
          HOLWELL SHUSTER & GOLDBERG LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (646) 837-5159
          Facsimile: (646) 837-5150
          E-mail: dordway@hsgllp.com
                  mshuster@hsgllp.com
                  rholwell@hsgllp.com

               - and -

          Anthony D. Boccanfuso, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER
          399 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 715-1000
          Facsimile: (212) 715-1399
          E-mail: anthony_boccanfuso@aporter.com

               - and -

          John Jacob Pentz, III, Esq.
          CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS GROUP
          2 Clock Tower Place, Suite 260g
          Maynard, MA 01754
          Telephone: (978) 461-1548
          Facsimile: (707) 276-2925
          E-mail: clasaxn@earthlink.net

The case is In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant
Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:05-md-01720-JG-JO, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Brooklyn).


WAL-MART STORES: Squire Sanders Discusses 6th Cir. Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Carlee H. Toth, Esq. -- carlee.toth@squiresanders.com -- at
Squire Sanders, reports that the Sixth Circuit's recent decision
is particularly interesting in that it granted an interlocutory
appeal of the dismissal of a class action despite the lack of
circuit split or an issue of first impression.

Plaintiffs brought Title VII claims on behalf of a regional class
against Wal-Mart.  The regional class action, based in the Middle
District of Tennessee, arose out of the Supreme Court's
dismantling of the Dukes v. Wal-Mart class action in 2011.  The
district court, in dismissing the class claims as time-barred,
held that the Sixth Circuit's decision in Andrews v. Orr did not
allow class members to benefit from the tolling provided to
individual claims under the Supreme Court's ruling in American
Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah.  Nevertheless, the district court
certified the issue for appeal, holding that the Sixth Circuit's
recent decision in In re Vertrue Mktg. & Sales Practices
Litigationmade the issues presented "important, complex, and
merit[ing] clarification by the Sixth Circuit."

The Sixth Circuit agreed.  Even though the parties had not
identified a circuit split or an issue of first impression, U.S.
Supreme Court and other circuit developments had raised questions
about whether American Pipe allowed the plaintiffs to bring their
regional class claims after the dismissal of the broader
nationwide class: "[a]lthough our precedent seemingly establishes
a bright-line rule barring follow-on subclass actions by former
putative class members, subsequent caselaw from this court, the
Supreme Court, and other circuit and district courts have
established exceptions to the rule that might extend to the
present subclass."


YAMAHA MOTOR: Reich & Binstock Amends Class Action Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Reich & Binstock on Sept. 19 disclosed that attorneys for the
Houston-based law firm of Reich & Binstock have filed an amended
complaint that has added class representatives and causes of
action to the class action lawsuit filed in California against
Yamaha in regard to alleged defects in the Yamaha First Generation
Four Stroke Outboard motor.

Reich & Binstock Of Counsel Debra Brewer Hayes and other attorneys
jointly filed the amended complaint Sept. 5 at U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California in the case of Williams et
al. v. Yamaha Motor Co. Ltd. et al. (Case No. 2:13-cv-05066-BRO-
VBK).  The complaint cited an "inherent design and/or
manufacturing defect" that caused corrosion buildup that "forced
owners such as Plaintiffs . . . to undergo significant repair or
replacement of the internal corroded parts."

The class representatives claimed that although they followed
recommended maintenance schedules, internal corrosion resulted in
significant repair or replacement costs after as few as 380 hours
of use; nevertheless, allegedly Yamaha, citing warranty
expiration, failed to replace or to repair plaintiffs' motors.

As Reich & Binstock continues to receive calls from disgruntled
owners of a Yamaha First Generation Four Stroke Outboard motor,
the number of class representatives is by no means exhaustive.

"We are receiving eight to 10 calls a week from people
experiencing the same problems," Ms. Hayes said, adding that Reich
& Binstock is also investigating premature-failure claims from the
owners of Mercury outboard motors.

The class is headed by namesake plaintiff and Seattle resident
George Williams, who used his outboard for a relatively scant 650
hours, from September 2003 to November 2011, before internal
corrosion allegedly caused an oil leak.  He paid a repair invoice
totaling $3,011.91.

One of the new class representatives is Goldsboro, N.C., resident
Lorenda Overman, who operated her Yamaha F-Series motor for only
512 hours between 2005 and 2011.  In September 2011, according to
the complaint, a "'rotten' exhaust tuner and a hole in the exhaust
housing" and other corrosion damage was too much for her F225,
which overheated and failed at sea near Cape Lookout Lighthouse
near Core Banks, N.C. Overman and her guests had to be rescued at
sea, indeed towed back to shore, and she wound up paying a repair
bill totaling $3,118.44.

New plaintiff Gerald Chiariello of Glen Cove, N.Y., used his
Yamaha outboard for a mere 380 hours between May 2006 and
March 2012 before he removed the engine's lower unit and allegedly
discovered, according to the complaint, "complete corrosion all
the way through the exhaust chamber," which cost him $2,574 worth
of repairs.

Having purchased his Yamaha First Generation Four Stroke Outboard
motor in September 2010, new plaintiff Charles Pencinger of
Rowley, Mass., inspected his motor in March 2013 after he read
Internet discussions about defects, as Chiariello did.  The
corrosion-related repairs cost Pencinger $3,908.63.

The most exorbitant horror story belongs to new plaintiff Steve
Oetegenn of San Marcos, Calif., who claimed that he kept his two
2004 and 2006 model year outboards properly maintained after he
purchased them from the first user with extended warranties
intact.  By the time Mr. Oetegenn discovered the corrosion, he had
used his outboards for only 500 hours.  He found out about the
problems during a 2012 sea trial during which he was about to
close the sale of his boat.  Smoke rose from one of the engines,
and after Mr. Oetegenn took both engines to be serviced, he
learned that both corroded so severely that the repair costs would
be about $20,000.  He elected to pay $31,337.62 for two new F225
outboards.  Mr. Oetegenn's claims are contained in the complaint.

In addition to violations of a federal warranty statute and breach
of state express and implied warranties, the complaint alleges
that the motor company violated California's Consumer Legal
Remedies and Unfair Competition statutes.  Causes of action added
by the amended complaint include Yamaha's alleged violations of
the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, the New York Generation
Business Law, the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act and the Washington Consumer Protection Act.  The
complaint demands a jury trial.

Hayes takes calls and e-mails from across the country from owners
who have had similar problems with either the Yamaha First
Generation Four Stroke Outboard motor or a Mercury outboard motor.
Those who contact her may be entitled to compensation and
inclusion in the class action.  Her contact information is as
follows:

Contact: Debra Brewer Hayes
Phone:    (713) 622-7271
E-mail:    dhayes@dhayeslaw.com
Address: 4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000, Houston, TX 77027

                     About Reich & Binstock

Founded in 1984 and operating in every state, Reich & Binstock is
a Houston-based law firm that has extensive trial practice and
significant experience in virtually every area of civil
litigation, including medical malpractice, all areas of personal
injury trial law, products liability, toxic and environmental
torts, consumer class actions involving consumer protection
against insurance fraud, physician protection against insurance
bundling and down coding, vanishing life insurance premiums and
securities violations.  The firm has been successful in numerous
defective drug and medical device cases against major health care
and pharmaceutical corporations. The partners of the firm have
served on several national Multi-District Litigation Steering
committees.  Reich & Binstock was awarded Texas Super Lawyers
status in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012.


YARDI SYSTEMS: Settles Suit Over Background Check Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a company that screens tenants
for rental housing has agreed to pay $150,000 to settle a lawsuit
over its background check practices.

The class-action case was filed in April by a Kent woman who was
denied rental housing based on drug convictions that were 17 and
24 years old.  Under state law, such background checks aren't
supposed to include cases unless the conviction, sentence or
parole period occurred within the past seven years.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington and two other
firms took on the case, representing 273 people denied housing in
Washington based on old criminal convictions.

Under the settlement, the screening company, Yardi Systems Inc.,
did not admit wrongdoing, but will pay $400 to each of the
plaintiffs plus $32,600 in attorney fees as well as some other
costs.

The company also agreed to modify its practices to prevent similar
instances in the future.

The settlement was given preliminary approval in King County
Superior Court.


* Class Action Over CHSLD Laundry Services Settled
--------------------------------------------------
The Conseil pour la protection des malades and 89 CHSLDs of the
Quebec health and social services network on Sept. 19 announced
the conclusion of an agreement in connection with a class action
instituted in 2011 against 58 public and 31 private CHSLDs.

The dispute concerned the quality as well as the gratuitous nature
of laundering and maintenance of personal clothing for residents
of the CHSLD defendants.

Among other things, the settlement agreement, in the amount of
C$1,349,585, contains a remedial measure providing for
indemnification of C$944,668, to be paid for by the CHSLDs
participating in the financial part of the settlement.  The
purpose of this indemnification is to improve the living
environment of the residents by financing new activities or the
purchase of equipment not included in the services provided by the
CHSLDs concerned as part of their normal operations.

However, class members who prefer to receive compensation may
claim the amount of C$40 per month if they paid for laundry
service during the period covered by the agreement, or C$30 per
month if they did their own laundry or had it done by a friend or
relative.  Any such compensation paid will be deducted from the
amount contemplated for the aforementioned remedial measure.

The parties are also pleased to have agreed on a policy concerning
the laundering and maintenance of the personal clothing of CHSLD
residents which sets the standards for the services and quality
thereof that will henceforth be provided by those institutions.
The adoption of a laundry policy represents a historic gain for
residents of long-term care centers, as does the remedial measure
contained in the agreement, which is a very innovative provision.

The parties hope that this agreement will bring closure to this
component of the services provided by the Quebec health and social
services network.

This agreement will be submitted for approval to the Quebec
Superior Court on December 19, 2013.

Class members who wish to receive compensation may submit their
claims by December 18, 2013, and are invited to consult the
website of the lawyers acting for the plaintiffs at
http://www.roylarochelle.comto obtain the claim form.

More details will be provided in a notice to be published in the
newspapers.


                             *********

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  * * *