CAR_Public/130926.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Thursday, September 26, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 191

                             Headlines


ABIOMED INC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Remains Pending
AK STEEL: Pays $30MM to VEBA Trusts Under Retirees Suit Accords
AK STEEL: Expects $4.4MM Final Judgment in Suit Over AK RAPP
AK STEEL: Nov. Fairness Hearing Set in Pension Plan Benefit Suit
AK STEEL: No Certification Trial Date Yet in Antitrust Suit

AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal in "Silverstrand" Suit Pending
AMAZON INC: Workers File Class Action Over Unpaid Security Checks
APAX PARTNERS: Selling Rue21 too Cheaply to Affiliates, Suit Says
ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES: 9th Cir. Affirms Remand of "Garibay" Suit
AT&T MOBILITY: "Rodriguez" Suit Returns to District Court

BERRY PETROLEUM: Parties Currently in Talks to Settle Merger Suit
CALIFORNIA: Blasts Judge for Improperly Delaying Prison Case
CENTERPLATE INC: Settlement in "Williams" Suit Approved
CENTRAL VALLEY MEAT: Recalls Ground Beef Products
CHICAGO HOUSING: Sued Over Urinalysis Drug Testing Requirement

CITIGROUP INC: Wins Final Approval of Accord in Securities Suit
CITIGROUP INC: N.Y. Court Reinstates Claims in RMBS Lawsuit
CITIGROUP INC: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Credit Default Swaps
CITIGROUP INC: Several Merchants Opted Out in Settlement
COMMONWEALTH REIT: Amended "Young" Securities Complaint Filed

COMMONWEALTH REIT: Awaits Arbitration Bid Ruling in "Katz" Suit
COMMONWEALTH REIT: Hearing in Central Laborers Suit on Sept. 30
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Action
EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Provides Update on City of Santee Dispute
EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Member Plaintiffs Drop Bid for Certification

FIRST HORIZON: Still Defends Suit Over Overdraft Fees vs. FTBNA
FLUVANNA COUNTY, VA: FCCW Sued Over Inadequate Healthcare
FOREST LABORATORIES: "St. Louis" Class Suit vs. FPI Stayed
FOREST OIL: Still Defends "Augenbaum" IPO-Related Class Suit
GANNETT CO: Faces Merger-Related Class Suits in Various States

GENTIVA HEALTH: Judge Drops Two Executives From Class Action
GERBER PRODUCTS: Suit Over "All-Natural" Claims Must Be Amended
GRACO CHILDREN'S: Court Narrows Claims in "Long" Class Suit
GROUPON INC: Must Face Securities Fraud Class Action Over IPO
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: All "North Port" Claims vs. Unit Dismissed

INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Defends Antitrust Suits Over Containerboards
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Defends Gypsum-Related Antitrust MDL v. Unit
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Required to Fund Deal in Bogalusa Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued Over Alleged Exposure of Social Security Nos.
KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces "On-Call" Employees Suit Over Unpaid OT

KRAFT FOODS: Obtains Prelim. Approval of Salinas Suit Settlement
LEBANON SCHOOL: $108,000 Accord Over Truancy Fines Approved
LIBERTY SILVER: Faces Suit in Florida Over "Pump and Dump" Scheme
LORILLARD TOBACCO: Faces $8-Mil. Verdict in Asbestos-Related Suit
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Hon. John Hughes Appointed as Special Master

MICROSOFT CORP: Accused of Hiding Info About Windows RT Tablets
MIMEDX GROUP: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
MUSTANG SALLY'S: Judge Slashes Attorney Fees in Class Action
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Plaintiff Counsel Drops "Tatum" Suit in W.D. Pa.
NEW YORK LIFE: Churned and Burned Trainee Agents, Suit Claims

NUCOR CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits by Steel Buyers
QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA: School Closure Suit Won't Work, MP Says
SANOFI-AVENTIS SA: Settles Zimulti Class Action for $40 Million
SEARS ROEBUCK: Court Stays "Velazquez" Case Pending Arbitration
SHELL OIL: Class Suit Over Contamination in Roxana, IL, Certified

SPECIALTY'S CAFE: Parties Get More Time to File Papers in Court
TRUSTMARK CORP: Still Defends Two Stanford-Related Class Suits
TRUSTMARK CORP: TNB Signed MOU to Settle Two Overdraft Fee Suits
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Economic Costs Portion of Tasion Suit Tossed
UMH PROPERTIES: Continues to Defend Suit Alleging Discrimination

VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Layoffs
VISONIC LTD: Recalls Personal Emergency Response System Kits
VITA HEALTH: Recalls Life Extra Strength Muscle & Back Pain Relief
WAL-MART STORES: Accused of Misrepresenting Equate Pills Efficacy
WELLS FARGO: Motions to Dismiss Claims in Simpkins Suit Tossed

YRC WORLDWIDE: Has Yet to File Settlement in "Bryant" Suit
ZOO ENTERTAINMENT: Dismissal of "Ricker" Securities Suit Upheld


                             *********


ABIOMED INC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABIOMED, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated shareholder class
action lawsuit in Massachusetts 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.

On November 16, and 19, 2012, two purported class action
complaints were filed against the Company and certain of its
officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts by alleged purchasers of its common stock, on behalf
of themselves and persons or entities that purchased or acquired
securities of the Company between August 5, 2011, and October 31,
2012.  The complaints alleged that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws in connection with disclosures related to
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") and the marketing
and labeling of the Company's Impella 2.5 product and seek damages
in an unspecified amount.  The Court has consolidated these
complaints and a consolidated amended complaint was filed by the
plaintiffs on May 20, 2013.  On July 8, 2013, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated class action.

The Company says it is unable to estimate its potential liability
with respect to purported class action appeal.  There are numerous
factors that make it difficult to meaningfully estimate possible
loss or range of loss at this stage of the lawsuit, including
that: the proceedings are in relatively early stages, there are
significant factual and legal issues to be resolved, information
obtained or rulings made during any lawsuits or investigations
could affect the methodology for calculation.  In addition, with
respect to claims where damages are the requested relief, no
amount of loss or damages has been specified.  Therefore, the
Company is unable at this time to estimate its possible losses and
accordingly, no adjustment has been made to the financial
statements to reflect the outcome of these uncertainties.

Based in Danvers, Massachusetts, ABIOMED, Inc. --
http://www.abiomed.com-- is a provider of mechanical circulatory
support devices and offers a continuum of care to heart failure
patients.  The Company develops, manufactures and markets
proprietary products that are designed to enable the heart to
rest, heal and recover by improving blood flow and performing the
pumping function of the heart.


AK STEEL: Pays $30MM to VEBA Trusts Under Retirees Suit Accords
---------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation provides noncontributory pension and
various healthcare and life insurance benefits to most employees
and retirees. The pension plan is not fully funded. The Company
expects to contribute $181.5 million to the master pension trust
during 2013.  Of this total, $71.3 million was made in the first
half of 2013 and $68.9 million was made in July 2013, leaving
$41.3 million to be made during the remainder of 2013.

In July 2013, the Company made payments to Voluntary Employees
Beneficiary Association ("VEBA") trusts totaling $30.8 million
pursuant to settlements of class actions filed on behalf of
certain retirees from the Company's Butler Works and Zanesville
Works relating to the Company's other postretirement benefit
("OPEB") obligations to such retirees, 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.


AK STEEL: Expects $4.4MM Final Judgment in Suit Over AK RAPP
------------------------------------------------------------
AK Steel Holding Corporation estimates that the amount of the
final judgment, including interest, in a suit over the method used
under the AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation Pension
Plan to determine lump sum distributions, now will be
approximately $4.4 million, 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 October 20, 2009, William Schumacher filed a purported class
action against the AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation
Pension Plan, or AK RAPP, and the AK Steel Corporation Benefit
Plans Administrative Committee in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:09cv794.

The complaint alleges that the method used under the AK RAPP to
determine lump sum distributions does not comply with ERISA and
the Internal Revenue Code and resulted in underpayment of benefits
to him and the other class members. The plaintiff and the other
purportedly similarly situated individuals on whose behalf the
plaintiff filed suit were excluded by the Court in 2005 from
similar litigation previously reported and now resolved (the class
action litigation filed January 2, 2002 by John D. West) based on
previous releases of claims they had executed in favor of the
Company.

There were a total of 92 individuals who were excluded from the
prior litigation and the potential additional distributions to
them at issue in the litigation total approximately $3.0 million,
plus potential interest. The defendants filed their answer to the
complaint on March 22, 2010. On August 11, 2010, the plaintiff
filed his motion for class certification.

On January 24, 2011, that motion was granted. On March 15, 2011,
the plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment. After
being fully briefed, that motion was granted on June 27, 2011.

On October 12, 2011, the court issued an opinion addressing the
issue of pre-judgment interest in which it held that pre-judgment
interest should be calculated using the statutory rate under 28
U.S.C. Section 1961(a). On December 12, 2011, the Court entered a
final judgment in an amount slightly in excess of $3.0 million,
which includes pre-judgment interest at the statutory rate through
that date.

The defendants filed an appeal from that final judgment to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On March 28,
2013, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion in which it upheld
the District Court's decision with respect to liability and
reversed and remanded the District Court's decision with respect
to pre-judgment interest.

On April 11, 2013, the Company filed a motion for rehearing with
the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals denied that motion on
May 6, 2013.  On May 29, 2013, Plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion
for a determination of the new rate for pre-judgment interest with
respect to the final judgment amount of $3.0 million. An order
deciding that motion was issued by the court on July 29, 2013.

Pursuant to that order, the Company estimates that the amount of
the final judgment, including interest, now will be approximately
$4.4 million. Because the final judgment will be paid out of the
Company's pension assets, the Company has not recorded an accrual
related to this matter.


AK STEEL: Nov. Fairness Hearing Set in Pension Plan Benefit Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The fairness hearing in a suit over alleged incorrect calculation
of the amount of surviving spouse benefits under an applicable
pension plan of AK Steel Holding Corporation has been scheduled
for November 20, 2013, according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On October 20, 2005, Judith A. Patrick and another plaintiff filed
a purported class action against AK Steel and the AK Steel
Corporation Benefit Plans Administrative Committee in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No.
1:05-cv-681 (the "Patrick Litigation").

Like the complaint in similar litigation previously reported and
now resolved in the Company's favor (the action filed May 27, 2009
by Margaret A. Lipker, hereinafter referred to as the "Lipker
Litigation"), the complaint in the Patrick Litigation alleges that
the defendants incorrectly calculated the amount of surviving
spouse benefits due to be paid to the plaintiffs under an
applicable pension plan.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue
of whether the applicable plan language had been properly
interpreted. On September 28, 2007, the United States Magistrate
Judge assigned to the case issued a Report and Recommendation in
which he recommended that the plaintiffs' motion for partial
summary judgment be granted and that the defendants' motion be
denied.

On March 31, 2008, the court issued an order adopting the
Magistrate's recommendation and granting partial summary judgment
to the plaintiffs on the issue of plan interpretation. The
plaintiffs also filed a motion for class certification and that
motion was granted on October 27, 2008. The case proceeded
thereafter with respect to discovery on the issue of damages.

In November 2011 the plaintiffs submitted an expert report in
which their expert contends that the total damages, excluding
interest, for the class could total as much as $28.9 million. With
interest, the amount could have exceeded $42.0 million.

The defendants believe that the damage calculation in the
plaintiffs' expert report is incorrect and have contested that
calculation. Trial with respect to damages previously was
scheduled to begin January 14, 2013, but that date was vacated at
the request of defendants in light of the decision issued in AK
Steel's favor in the Lipker Litigation.

Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration with the District
Court in the Patrick Litigation on the ground that the plan
interpretation issues in the Lipker Litigation and the Patrick
Litigation are materially the same and that the Sixth Circuit
decision issued in AK Steel's favor in the Lipker Litigation
likewise requires a decision in favor of the defendants in the
Patrick Litigation. Plaintiffs opposed AK Steel's Motion for
Reconsideration. That motion was fully briefed by the parties and
oral argument occurred on February 20, 2013.

While the parties were awaiting a decision on that motion, the
District Court called a settlement conference and through that
process, the parties reached a settlement, subject to court
approval. A formal settlement agreement has been executed and on
July 1, 2013, the parties filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval
of Class Settlement. An order providing such preliminary approval
was entered on July 29, 2013.

Under the proposed settlement, the named plaintiffs and other
participating class members would be paid $1.7 million and $0.8
million would be paid to plaintiffs' attorneys for fees and costs,
for a total payment of $2.5 million. The payments would be made
from the applicable pension plan assets.

The proposed settlement is subject to final court approval after
notice to the class members and a fairness hearing. That fairness
hearing has been scheduled for November 20, 2013. Class members
have the option to object to, opt out of, or participate in the
settlement.

The settlement will become effective only if the District Court
approves it following the fairness hearing and certain other
requirements are met, including that the number of class members
who opt out does not exceed a specified amount.

If the settlement is not approved or the other requirements are
not met, the litigation will resume. In that instance, if judgment
is entered in favor of defendants pursuant to the Motion for
Reconsideration, that would conclude the Patrick Litigation
without any liability on the part of defendants, subject to
plaintiffs' right of appeal.

If judgment is not entered in favor of defendants, it is expected
that the District Court will reschedule the damages trial
previously scheduled for January 14, 2013, in which case
defendants would continue to contest this matter vigorously.
Because a final judgment, if any, in favor of the plaintiff class
members would be paid out of the Company's pension assets, the
Company has not recorded an accrual related to this matter.


AK STEEL: No Certification Trial Date Yet in Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
No trial date has been set yet for a motion for class
certification in an antitrust suit filed by direct and indirect
purchasers of steel products against AK Steel Holding 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.

In September and October 2008, several companies filed purported
class actions in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, against nine steel manufacturers, including
AK Holding. The case numbers for these actions are 08CV5214,
08CV5371, 08CV5468, 08CV5633, 08CV5700, 08CV5942 and 08CV6197.

An additional action, case number 10CV04236, was filed in the same
federal district court on July 8, 2010. On December 28, 2010
another action, case number 32,321, was filed in state court in
the Circuit Court for Cocke County, Tennessee. The defendants
removed the Tennessee case to federal court and filed a motion to
transfer the case to the Northern District of Illinois. That
motion was granted on March 28, 2012.

The plaintiffs in the various pending actions are companies which
claim to have purchased steel products, directly or indirectly,
from one or more of the defendants and they purport to file the
actions on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased steel
products for delivery or pickup in the United States from any of
the named defendants at any time from at least as early as January
2005.

The complaints allege that the defendant steel producers have
conspired in violation of antitrust laws to restrict output and to
fix, raise, stabilize and maintain artificially high prices with
respect to steel products in the United States.

Discovery has commenced. On May 24, 2012, the direct purchaser
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On February 28,
2013, the defendants filed a memorandum in opposition to the
motion for class certification and motions to exclude the opinions
of the plaintiffs' experts. The motion for class certification and
the motions to exclude the opinions of the plaintiffs' experts
remain pending. No trial date has been set.

AK Holding intends to contest this matter vigorously. To date,
discovery in this action has proceeded only with respect to issues
relating to class certification.

Accordingly, the Company does not have adequate information
available to determine that a loss is probable or to reliably or
accurately estimate its potential loss in the event that the
plaintiffs were to prevail. Because the Company has been unable to
determine that the potential loss in this case is probable or
estimable, it has not recorded an accrual related to this matter.

In the event that the Company's assumptions used to evaluate
whether a loss in this matter is either probable or estimable
prove to be incorrect or change in future periods, the Company may
be required to record a liability for an adverse outcome.


AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal in "Silverstrand" Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in
the class action lawsuit filed by Silverstrand Investments, et
al., 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.

A purported class action complaint was originally filed on
March 18, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, entitled Silverstrand Investments, et al. v. AMAG
Pharm., Inc., et. al., Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-10470-NMG, and was
amended on September 15, 2010, and on December 17, 2010.  The
second amended complaint, or SAC, filed on December 17, 2010,
alleged that the Company and its former President and Chief
Executive Officer, former Chief Financial Officer, the then-
members of its Board of Directors, and certain underwriters in its
January 2010 offering of common stock violated certain federal
securities laws, specifically Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and that its former President
and Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer
violated Section 15 of such Act, respectively, by making certain
alleged false and misleading statements and omissions in a
registration statement filed in January 2010.  The plaintiffs
sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant to its common
stock offering on or about January 21, 2010.  On August 11, 2011,
the District Court issued an Opinion and Order dismissing the SAC
in its entirety for failure to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted.  A separate Order of Dismissal was filed on
August 15, 2011.

On September 14, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, or the Court of
Appeals.  After briefing was completed by all parties, the Court
of Appeals heard oral argument on May 11, 2012.  On February 4,
2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part
the District Court's Opinion and Order, and remanded the case to
the District Court.  On February 19, 2013, the Company filed a
Petition for Panel Hearing Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc, asking
the Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision.  On March 15,
2013, the Court of Appeals denied this petition.  On March 22,
2013, the Company filed a Motion to Stay the Mandate remanding the
case to the District Court pending review of the Court of Appeals'
February 4, 2013 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Court of
Appeals granted this Motion to Stay the Mandate on April 8, 2013.

On June 13, 2013, the Company filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme
Court, or a writ of certiorari, seeking review of the First
Circuit's decision and to have that decision overturned.  The
plaintiffs had until August 16, 2013, to file their response.

Lexington, Massachusetts-based AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. --
http://www.amagpharma.com/-- is a Delaware corporation founded in
1981.  The Company is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused
on the development and commercialization of Feraheme(R)
(ferumoxytol) Injection for Intravenous use to treat iron
deficiency anemia.


AMAZON INC: Workers File Class Action Over Unpaid Security Checks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Broden, writing for The Daily News Journal, reports that
Amazon workers filed for class-action lawsuit status on Sept. 19
in Nashville contending that they should get paid for off-the-
clock theft checks.

"After they punch out, they have to sit through a very lengthy
theft-security operation," said their Nashville attorney
David Garrison.  "We represent Amazon workers in Murfreesboro,
Tennessee, who worked in the warehouse. They get paid based on
punch in and punch out times."

Mr. Garrison said it's not fair for the workers to go through a
20- to 30-minute security check off the clock.  He noted that the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that an Amazon
in Nevada had to pay its workers for the 20-minute theft check.

"We think the courts here should follow that decision," said
Garrison, who filed the lawsuit last week and then filed a motion
on Sept. 19 for the class-action status.

Kelly Cheeseman, a spokeswoman for Amazon, said on Sept. 19 that
the company had no comment on the lawsuit.

The workers go through the theft-screening operation during unpaid
meal breaks and at the end of each shift, according to a press
release from Garrison.

Dollie Suggars, Kenya McGaughy, and Sarah Dickson filed a motion
on Sept. 19 asking a federal court to issue notice to potentially
thousands of current and former Amazon workers in Murfreesboro to
inform them of their right to file a claim for unpaid wages,
states the press release.

The workers, who work for Amazon.com and a staffing agency called
SMX, LLC, are represented by Nashville law firm Barrett Johnston,
along with Winebrake & Santillo from the Philadelphia, Penn. area.

The lawsuit -- Suggars, et al. v. Amazon.com Inc., et al. -- has
been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee in Nashville before Judge Aleta Trauger.  The case seeks
payment, including overtime pay, for all hourly workers who are
required to engage in a time-intensive security screening
operation without pay at the end of each shift.


APAX PARTNERS: Selling Rue21 too Cheaply to Affiliates, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Apax Partners LLC is selling
rue21 Inc. too cheaply through an unfair process to its own
affiliates and Rhodes Holdco, for $42 a share or $1.1 billion,
shareholders claim in Delaware Chancery Court.


ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES: 9th Cir. Affirms Remand of "Garibay" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
a district court order granting Victor Garibay's motion to remand
his class action complaint against Archstone Communities LLC.

Archstone Communities, LLC and Archstone Property Management
California, Inc. filed the appeal.

The suit alleges violations of various California wage and
employment laws, to state court.

The case is VICTOR GARIBAY, individually and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; ARCHSTONE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CALIFORNIA
INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation, Defendants-Appellants, NO.
13-56151.

A copy of the Appeals Court's August 27, 2013 Memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/gnmXjLfrom Leagle.com.


AT&T MOBILITY: "Rodriguez" Suit Returns to District Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Rodriguez filed a putative class action in state court,
which AT&T Mobility removed to federal district court.  The
Defendant contended that there was federal jurisdiction over the
action under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Pub. L. No.
109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005), and in particular 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d)(2).  Mr. Rodriguez alleged that the amount in controversy
did not exceed $5 million, as required for federal jurisdiction,
and purported to waive any claim by the class in excess of that
amount.  Based on that waiver, the district court granted Me.
Rodriguez's motion to remand the case to state court.  The Supreme
Court later held that such a waiver was ineffective, however.

As a result, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded the case
for further proceedings.

The case is ROBERT RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AT&T MOBILITY
SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant-
Appellant, NO. 13-56149.

A copy of the Appeals Court's August 27, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/o6F0Azfrom Leagle.com.

George W. Abele -- georgeabele@paulhastings.com -- (argued),
Elizabeth A. Brown -- elizabethbrown@paulhastings.com -- and Mario
C. Ortega -- marioortega@paulhastings.com -- Paul Hastings LLP,
Los Angeles, California; and Laurie E. Barnes, AT&T Mobility
Services LLC, Los Angeles, California, for Defendant-Appellant.

Plaintiff-Appellee is represented by Jason W. Wucetich --
jason@wukolaw.com -- Dimitrios V. Korovilas -- dimitri@wukolaw.com
-- Wucetich & Korovilas LLP, El Segundo, California, and:

   Michael S. Morrison, Esq.
   Alexander Krakow & Glick, LLP
   401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
   Santa Monica, CA 9040
   Tel: 310-394-0888
   Fax: 310-394-0811
   E-mail: info@akgllp.com

      - and -

   Thomas W. Falvey, Esq.
   J.D. Henderson, Esq.
   Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey
   301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 800
   Pasadena, CA 91101
   Tel: 626-795-0205
   Fax: 626-795-3096


BERRY PETROLEUM: Parties Currently in Talks to Settle Merger Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the remaining merger-related class action lawsuit
against Berry Petroleum Company are currently engaged in
settlement discussions, 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 February 20, 2013, the Company, Linn Energy, LLC (Linn),
LinnCo, LLC (LinnCo), Linn Acquisition Company, LLC, a direct
wholly owned subsidiary of LinnCo (LinnCo Merger Sub), Bacchus
HoldCo, Inc., a direct wholly owned subsidiary of the Company
(HoldCo), and Bacchus Merger Sub, Inc., a direct wholly owned
subsidiary of HoldCo (Bacchus Merger Sub), entered into a
definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"),
pursuant to which LinnCo agreed to acquire the Company in an all-
stock transaction in which the Company's stockholders would
receive 1.25 shares representing limited liability company
interests in LinnCo (LinnCo Shares) for each share of the
Company's common stock.

On March 1, 2013, a purported stockholder class action captioned
Nancy P. Assad Trust v. Berry Petroleum Company, et al. was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
The case was dismissed by the Court on March 20, 2013, for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, and refiled in the District Court for
the City and County of Denver, Colorado, on March 21, 2013, Case
No. 2013CV031365.  On April 5, 2013, the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint alleging that the individual Company director
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed merger transaction with Linn and LinnCo by engaging in an
unfair sales process that resulted in an unfair price for the
Company, and that the entity defendants aided and abetted those
breaches of fiduciary duty.  The amended complaint seeks a
declaration that the proposed merger transactions are unlawful and
unenforceable, an order directing the individual director
defendants to comply with their fiduciary duties, an injunction
against consummation of the merger transactions or, in the event
they are so completed, rescission of the transactions, an award of
fees and costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees and
expenses, and other relief.

On April 12, 2013, a second purported stockholder class action
captioned David S. Hall v. Berry Petroleum Company, et al. was
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, C.A. No.
8476-VCG.  The plaintiff in this case makes allegations, and seeks
relief similar to the allegations made and relief sought in the
Assad case.

In response to a motion filed by the defendants, on May 20, 2013,
after conferring with the Delaware judge in the Hall case, the
Colorado judge stayed the Assad case, allowing the parties to
proceed with one case, the Hall case, in one jurisdiction,
Delaware.  On July 19, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Assad case
voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice.  After expedited
discovery, the plaintiffs in the Hall case made a settlement
proposal and the parties are currently engaged in settlement
discussions.  The Company believes the claims relating to the
merger are without merit, and intends to defend such actions
vigorously.

Berry Petroleum Company -- http://www.bry.com/-- is an
independent energy company engaged in the production, development,
exploitation and acquisition of oil and natural gas.  The Company
was incorporated in Delaware in 1985 and is headquartered in
Denver, Colorado.


CALIFORNIA: Blasts Judge for Improperly Delaying Prison Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Dave Tartre reports that a
judge improperly delayed California's efforts at ending federal
oversight of health care in its prison system, a lawyer for the
state told the 9th Circuit.

California Deputy Attorney General Jose Zelidon-Zepeda argued that
a February order by U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson created
the kind of delay Congress meant to avoid when it passed the
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) in 1996.

Henderson had ordered California's lawyers to disclose the names
of the experts they selected to examine prison conditions before
the state could seek to end a 2002 injunction establishing federal
oversight of California's prisons.  He said inmate representatives
must also be allowed to accompany the state's chosen experts on
their prison visits, and the state must hand over the experts'
reports afterward.

The order stems from a 2001 class action in which inmate Marciano
Plata claimed California violated the Eighth Amendment and the
Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to provide state
prisoners with "constitutionally adequate healthcare."

The lawsuit was consolidated with one filed in 1990 by Ralph
Coleman over substandard mental health care.

The plaintiffs negotiated a deal with the state that resulted in a
2002 injunction requiring federal oversight of state prisons while
California worked to fix the problems.

California agreed to take remedial steps to ensure adequate health
care at all 33 prison facilities, starting with seven prisons in
2003 and adding five more to the program each year through 2008.

But after cataloging "extensive and disturbing" constitutional
violations, the district court appointed a receiver in 2006 to
completely take over the provision of medical care to California
state prison inmates.

In 2009, a panel of federal judges, dissatisfied with the progress
the state had made, ordered California to do more to relieve
overcrowding.

California reduced the population in part by passing the Prison
Realignment Act in 2011, shifting more than 20,000 inmates to
county jails.  But the progress has not placated the panel of
district judges, who want California to release 10,000 prisoners
by the end of 2013.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently refused to issue a stay.

Meanwhile, in early 2013, California indicated that it wanted to
take back the reins.  Attorneys for Plata and his co-plaintiffs
asked Judge Henderson to reopen discovery in order to prepare for
any motion hearings.  They also claimed the state "hired
physicians from Texas to evaluate the medical care at California
prisons" and asked to accompany those consultants on their tours.

Henderson reopened discovery but then went too far, according to
the state, by setting requirements the plaintiffs had not even
asked for.

The judge additionally ordered prison officials to disclose their
experts and provide expert reports "at least 120 days prior to
filing any motion to terminate."

In doing so, Henderson exceeded the legal limits and flouted
congressional intent, Zelidon-Zepeda argued in the state's brief
and in court.

"In contravention of the PLRA, this order delays defendants'
efforts to terminate this longstanding class action, and it delays
the effect of the automatic stay that follows a termination
motion," the brief states.

Zelidon-Zepeda said Congress enacted the statute to stop federal
judges from "stonewalling" and to get the federal courts out of
prison litigation.

Under the law, prison officials can file a motion to terminate an
injunction after two years of federal oversight.  An automatic
stay that suspends the injunction kicks in 30 days after a motion
is filed.

Zelidon-Zepeda said this was Congress's way of speeding up the
courts' decision-making, and that Henderson's order was an end-run
of the PLRA.

"What the district court said was, despite that Congress said you
can move to terminate at any point you think is appropriate after
two years, you have to go through these additional hoops," he told
the 9th Circuit.

"That was something that plaintiffs didn't ask for and that
defendants didn't have a chance to respond to," he said.  "There
was no discussion about these additional requirements.  The
district court issued an order and said, 'Plaintiffs' request to
reopen discovery is granted and, oh, by the way, I'm going to go
ahead and force defendants to disclose their experts and their
expert reports.'"

The prisoners' attorney disputed that Henderson's order changed
the game.

Kellie Knapp of the Prison Law Office in Berkeley characterized it
as a scheduling order, one that was well within the judge's
authority to issue.  And because it was so routine, she said, the
case should not have made it to the 9th Circuit.

"This court does not have jurisdiction over an order that merely
sets a schedule for a motion defendants may never file and have
not filed in these 11-plus years," she said, adding that it was "a
consummate example of a case management order that does not cause
any harm or prejudice to defendants."

Knapp argued that Henderson's order was a way to give the parties
a fair chance to gather and analyze evidence to determine whether
state prisons are still violating the Constitution.

"The district court was faced with a complicated fact-finding
procedure involving medical care for over 100,000 prisoners in 33
prisons, and extensive evidence requiring expert analysis, as well
as an automatic stay of numerous remedial orders ensuring the
basic components of constitutionally adequate healthcare," she
said.

"In the face of this dilemma, the district court set a schedule
that would give both parties a fair opportunity to discover and
prepare their evidence, and to prevent defendants from needlessly
ambushing plaintiffs with a termination motion," she argued.

Circuit Judge Jay Bybee asked Knapp whether she thought the
limited time for discovery created by the PRLA's 30-day automatic
stay provision created a due process violation.

"That's correct," Knapp said. "I think the time frame set forth is
unrealistic for a complicated case like this."

"Is the statute unconstitutional on its face?" Bybee asked.

"No, it's unconstitutional as applied," Knapp replied.

A puzzled Bybee asked, "Now, how can it be unconstitutional as
applied since you haven't seen the state's motion yet?"  He
wondered how the plaintiffs could anticipate that the content of
the motion was something more than trivial.

"It's very difficult to make an as-applied argument when we don't
have the motion in front of us," Bybee said.

Knapp responded that the order was routine and not appealable:
"Yes, exactly, which highlights why there shouldn't be
jurisdiction."

In his rebuttal, Zelidon-Zepeda said, "Ms. Knapp said this court
shouldn't care about this because this is a scheduling order.
But, I submit to court that the court should care because Congress
cared.  Congress cared enough to say these motions to terminate
are really important to us.  Prison condition cases are something
the courts should not be involved in and we think that courts
should rule in these cases promptly and we should stay the relief
if it's not dealt with in an expeditious manner."

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Rebekah Evenson, Esq.
          Donald Specter, Esq.
          Kelly Knapp, Esq.
          Steven Fama, Esq.
          Warren E. George, Esq.
          PRISON LAW OFFICE
          1917 Fifth Street
          Berkeley, CA 94710-1916
          Telephone: (510) 280-2621

               - and -

          Stuart Christopher Plunkett, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          E-mail: splunkett@mofo.com

The Petitioner-Appellee, Medical Development International, is
represented by:

          Garrett Edward Dillon, Esq.
          Sara K. Hayden, Esq.
          WATT TIEDER HOFFAR & FITZGERALD LLP
          333 Bush Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 623-7000
          E-mail: gdillon@wthf.com

The Defendants-Appellants are represented by:

          Thomas S. Patterson, Esq.
          Supervisory Attorney
          CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          455 Golden Gate Ave.
          San Francisco, CA 94102

               - and -

          Paul B. Mello, Esq.
          Jerrold C. Schaefer, Esq.
          Walter R. Schneider, Esq.
          Samantha Derin Wolff, Esq.
          HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 995-5020
          E-mail: pmello@hansonbridgett.com
                  jschaefer@hansonbridgett.com
                  wschneider@hansonbridgett.com
                  swolff@hansonbridgett.com

               - and -

          Patrick Richard McKinney, II, Esq.
          Jose Zelidon-Zepeda, Esq.
          AGCA - OFFICE OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL
          455 Golden Gate Avenue
          San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
          Telephone: (415) 703-3035

The Receiver-Appellee, J. Clark Kelso, is represented by:

          Martin H. Dodd, Esq.
          FUTTERMAN DUPREE DODD CROLEY MAIER LLP
          180 Sansome Street, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 399-3841
          E-mail: mdodd@fddcm.com

The appellate case is Marciano Plata, et al. v. Edmund Brown, Jr.,
et al., Case No. 13-15466, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.  The original case is Marciano Plata, et al. v.
Edmund Brown, Jr., et al., Case No. 3:01-cv-01351-TEH, in the U.S.
District Court for Northern California (San Francisco).


CENTERPLATE INC: Settlement in "Williams" Suit Approved
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Marilyn L. Huff issued an order certifying a class
for purposes of settlement and granting final approval of the
class settlement in the case, CHIP WILLIAMS; ADELAIDA GALINDEZ;
JUPITER RAMIREZ; and on behalf of all others similarly situated
and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiffs, v. CENTERPLATE,
INC., a Delaware corporation; CENTERPLATE OF DELAWARE, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, CASE NOS. 11-CV-2159 H-KSC, 12-CV-0008-H-KSC, (S.D.
Cal.).

The Carter Law Firm, The Cooper Law Firm, P.C., The Phelps Law
Group, Cadena Churchill LLP, and L/O of Paul Jackson, having
conferred a benefit on absent Class Members and having expended
efforts to secure compensation to the Class, are entitled to a
fee, and accordingly, the Court approved the application by Class
Counsel for attorneys' fees in the total amount of $195,000.

The Court approved the Class Counsel's reasonable litigation costs
in the amount of $20,000.

The Court further approved a payment of $5,000 to each Class
Representative -- Chip Williams, Adelaida Galindez and Jupiter
Ramirez -- for the initiation of this action, work performed, and
risks undertaken in this matter.

The Class Administrator, CPT Group, Inc., will be paid $40,500 in
accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

A copy of the District Court's August 26, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/z8voo6from Leagle.com.

Adelaida Galindez, Plaintiff, represented by Nicole R. Roysdon --
nroysdon@cadenachurchill.com -- Cadena Churchill, LLP, Raul Cadena
-- rcadena@cadenachurchill.com -- Cadena Churchill, LLP and:

   Paul David Jackson, Esq.
   Law Offices of Paul D Jackson
   10951 Sorrento Valley Rd
   San Diego, CA 92121
   Tel: +1 858-552-4900

Jupiter Ramirez, Plaintiff, represented by Nicole R. Roysdon,
Cadena Churchill, LLP, Raul Cadena, Cadena Churchill, LLP & Paul
David Jackson, Law Offices of Paul D Jackson.

Roes, Plaintiff, represented by Nicole R. Roysdon, Cadena
Churchill, LLP & Paul David Jackson, Law Offices of Paul D
Jackson.

Centerplate, Inc., Defendant, represented by Scott J Witlin --
scott.witlin@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg, LLP & Steve Lou
Hernandez -- shernandez@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg LLP.

Volume Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Scott J Witlin,
Barnes & Thornburg, LLP & Steve Lou Hernandez, Barnes & Thornburg
LLP.

Volume Services of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Scott
J Witlin, Barnes & Thornburg, LLP & Steve Lou Hernandez, Barnes &
Thornburg LLP.


CENTRAL VALLEY MEAT: Recalls Ground Beef Products
-------------------------------------------------
Central Valley Meat Company, a Hanford, Calif., establishment, is
recalling 58,240 pounds of ground beef that may contain small
pieces of plastic, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The products subject to recall include:

   -- 40-lb. cases containing 10-lb. chubs of "Fine Ground Beef."
      The products bear the establishment number "Est. 6063A"
      inside the USDA Mark of Inspection.  The products were
      produced on April 1, 2013, and can be further identified by
      case code "6063A3091A" or "6063A3091B."  The products were
      shipped to distribution centers in Arkansas, California,
      Montana and Texas and were intended for use by the National
      School Lunch Program.

FSIS discovered the problem during an investigation due to
customer complaints.  FSIS and the company have received no
reports of illness or injury due to consumption of these products.
Anyone concerned about an illness or injury should contact a
health care professional.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Media and consumers with questions about the recall should contact
Brian Coelho, General Manager, at (559) 583-9624.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET.
The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline, 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854), is available in English and Spanish and can be
reached weekdays from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET.  Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day.

For information on how to report a problem with a meat, poultry or
processed egg product to FSIS at any time, visit
www.fsis.usda.gov/FSIS_Recalls/Problems_With_Food_Products.  For
information about the National School Lunch Program, call 703-305-
2281, or visit http://www.fns.usda.gov/food-safety/food-safety.


CHICAGO HOUSING: Sued Over Urinalysis Drug Testing Requirement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Chicago Housing Authority
unconstitutionally demands urinalysis drug testing as a condition
of admission or residency, a class action claims in Illinois
Federal Court.


CITIGROUP INC: Wins Final Approval of Accord in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
On August 1, 2013, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York entered an order finally approving
the class action settlement in IN RE CITIGROUP INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION. Additional information relating to this action is
publicly available in court filings under the consolidated lead
docket number 07 Civ. 9901 (S.D.N.Y.) (Stein, J.), 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.


CITIGROUP INC: N.Y. Court Reinstates Claims in RMBS Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
On April 30, 2013, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York issued an order reinstating certain
RMBS claims on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
mortgage-backed securities issued by Residential Accredit Loans,
Inc. in NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS HEALTH FUND v. RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL
LLC, ET AL., according to Citigroup Inc.'s Aug. 2, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Citigroup Global Markets Inc. is named as an underwriter
defendant, along with several other underwriter defendants, in
plaintiffs' consolidated third amended complaint, served on
May 10, 2013. Additional information relating to this action
is publicly available in court filings under the docket number
08 Civ. 8781 (S.D.N.Y.) (Baer, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Credit Default Swaps
-------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. continues to face lawsuits alleging anticompetitive
conduct in the credit default swaps industry,
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 April 2011, the European Commission (DG Competition) (the EC)
opened an investigation (Case No COMP/39.745) concerning the
market for pricing information concerning credit default swaps
(CDS). On July 2, 2013, the EC served on Citigroup and Related
Parties, as well as a dozen other CDS dealers, a Statement of
Objections alleging that Citigroup and the other dealers colluded
to prevent exchanges from entering the credit derivatives
business. The Statement of Objections sets forth the EC case
team's preliminary conclusions prior to hearing the dealers'
defenses.

In July 2009 and September 2011, the Antitrust Division of the
U.S. Department of Justice served Civil Investigative Demands
(CIDs) on Citigroup concerning potential anticompetitive conduct
in the CDS industry. Citigroup has responded to the CIDs and is
cooperating with the investigation.

In addition, putative class action complaints have been filed by
various entities against Citigroup, Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
and Citibank, N.A., among other defendants, alleging
anticompetitive conduct in the CDS industry and asserting various
claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act as well as a
state law claim for unjust enrichment. Additional information
relating to these actions is publicly available in court filings
under the docket numbers 1:13-cv-03357 (N.D. Ill.), 1:13-cv-04979
(N.D. Ill.), 1:13-cv-04928 (S.D.N.Y.), 1:13-cv-05413 (N.D. Ill.),
and 1:13-cv-05417 (N.D. Ill.).


CITIGROUP INC: Several Merchants Opted Out in Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Numerous merchants, including large national merchants, have
objected to or requested exclusion (opted out) from the class
settlements, and some of those opting out have filed complaints
against Visa, MasterCard, and in some instances one or more
issuing banks, according to Citigroup Inc.'s Aug. 2, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

One of these suits, 7-ELEVEN, INC., ET AL. V. VISA INC., ET AL.,
names Citigroup as a defendant. Additional information concerning
this action is publicly available in court filings under docket
number 1:13-CV-04442 (S.D.N.Y.) (Hellerstein, J.).


COMMONWEALTH REIT: Amended "Young" Securities Complaint Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Young filed an amended securities complaint in July 2013,
according to CommonWealth REIT's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.

On December 27, 2012, David Young filed a putative federal
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, or the Massachusetts District
Court, titled Young v. CommonWealth REIT, Case No. 1:12-cv-12405-
DJC, or the Young Action.  The Young Action is brought on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's common shares between January 10,
2012, and August 8, 2012, and alleges securities fraud claims
against the Company and certain of its officers under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The complaint alleges generally that the Company
violated the federal securities laws by making false and
misleading representations about its business, operations and
management.  The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages plus counsel
fees and expenses.  On January 22, 2013, the Company moved to
dismiss the Young Action on the grounds that the claims asserted
(1) are subject to binding arbitration under the Company's bylaws,
and (2) fail to state a claim for relief under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5.  The Company has also
filed a demand for arbitration with the American Arbitration
Association, or AAA.  The parties jointly have moved the
Massachusetts District Court for a scheduling order pursuant to
which the Company will have no obligation to file an opening brief
in support of its motion to dismiss until such time as a lead
plaintiff has been appointed by the Massachusetts District Court,
lead counsel has been selected, and either a consolidated
complaint has been filed or Mr. Young's original complaint has
been designated as the operative complaint, all in accordance with
customary procedures for purported class action litigation.  On
May 20, 2013, the court granted Mr. Young's motion, designating
him as lead plaintiff.  On July 22, 2013, Mr. Young filed an
amended complaint.  The Company believes that the Young Action is
without merit, and intends to defend against all claims asserted.

CommonWealth REIT -- http://www.cwhreit.com/-- is a real estate
investment trust formed in 1986 in Maryland and is based in
Newton, Massachusetts.  The Company's primary business is the
ownership and operation of real estate, primarily office buildings
located throughout the United States of America.


COMMONWEALTH REIT: Awaits Arbitration Bid Ruling in "Katz" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CommonWealth REIT is awaiting a court decision on its demand for
arbitration in the shareholder lawsuit filed by Jason Matthew
Katz, 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 March 7, 2013, Jason Matthew Katz, a purported shareholder,
filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, State
of Maryland, titled Katz v. CommonWealth REIT, Civil No. 13001299,
or the Katz Maryland Action.  The Katz Maryland Action purports to
bring claims individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated against current and former Trustees of the Company and
the Company.  The complaint alleges claims of breach of fiduciary
duty.  The complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief,
rescission of the equity offering, restitution and damages,
including counsel fees, expenses and, if applicable, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest.  On April 1, 2013, the Company filed a
Demand for Arbitration with the American Arbitration Association,
or AAA, for the Katz Maryland Action, pursuant to the Company's
position that the claims in this action are subject to
arbitration.  On April 15, 2013, the Maryland Court issued a
scheduling order governing briefing on the arbitrability issue.
Pursuant to the scheduling order, the plaintiff filed his opening
brief in support of his petition to stay arbitration on April 19,
2013.  On May 23, 2013, the parties filed a joint stipulation to
stay the litigation indefinitely while Mr. Katz's counsel
considered the impact, if any, of the Maryland Court's May 8, 2013
ruling in the Corvex/Related Maryland Action on Mr. Katz's claims.

On August 2, 2013, the parties entered into a stipulation to move
forward with briefing on arbitrability.  On August 5, 2013, the
Maryland Court issued Case Management Order No. 2, pursuant to
which the defendants' brief in opposition to the petition to stay
arbitration and Mr. Katz's reply in further support were scheduled
to be filed on August 16, 2013, and September 16, 2013,
respectively.  The Company believes that the Katz Maryland Action
is without merit, and intends to defend against all claims
asserted.

CommonWealth REIT -- http://www.cwhreit.com/-- is a real estate
investment trust formed in 1986 in Maryland and is based in
Newton, Massachusetts.  The Company's primary business is the
ownership and operation of real estate, primarily office buildings
located throughout the United States of America.


COMMONWEALTH REIT: Hearing in Central Laborers Suit on Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on pending motions for order to arbitrate in the class
action lawsuit initiated by the Central Laborers Pension Fund is
scheduled for September 30, 2013, according to CommonWealth REIT's
August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On April 5, 2013, the Central Laborers' Pension Fund, or Central
Laborers, a purported shareholder, filed a complaint in the
Maryland Court, titled Central Laborers Pension Fund v. Portnoy,
Civil No. 24C13001966, or the Central Laborers Action.  The
Central Laborers Action purports to bring claims individually, on
behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
Company against the Company and its Board of Trustees.  The
complaint alleges, among other things, claims for breaches of
fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment and waste of corporate assets.
The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution
and damages, including counsel fees and expenses.  On April 17,
2013, Central Laborers filed an amended complaint, adding
plaintiff William McGinley, a purported shareholder, and
requesting a declaration that the Company's shareholders may
remove Trustees without cause.  Pursuant to the Company's position
that the claims in this action are subject to arbitration, the
Company filed a Demand for Arbitration with the American
Arbitration Association, or AAA, on April 25, 2013.

The Company and its Trustees filed motions for an order to
arbitrate and for a stay of proceedings pursuant to the Maryland
Uniform Arbitration Act on May 8, 2013, and May 16, 2013,
respectively.  On May 22, 2013, the court issued an order staying
all proceedings in the litigation pending the court's ruling on
the pending petitions for order to arbitrate.  On May 28, 2013,
Central Laborers filed a motion for a temporary restraining order
staying the arbitration, which the court granted on June 4, 2013.
On May 31, 2013, Central Laborers and Mr. McGinley filed a second
amended complaint, adding plaintiff Howard Ginsberg, a purported
shareholder.  Pursuant to the court's scheduling order, the
parties completed briefing on June 17, 2013.  On July 12, 2013,
the parties filed a joint motion to postpone the hearing date,
which the court granted on July 15, 2013.

A hearing on the pending motions for order to arbitrate is
scheduled for September 30, 2013.  The Company believes that the
Central Laborers Action is without merit, and intends to defend
against all claims asserted.

CommonWealth REIT -- http://www.cwhreit.com/-- is a real estate
investment trust formed in 1986 in Maryland and is based in
Newton, Massachusetts.  The Company's primary business is the
ownership and operation of real estate, primarily office buildings
located throughout the United States of America.


EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Labaton Sucharow Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP on Sept. 20 disclosed that it filed a class
action lawsuit on September 18, 2013 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.  The lawsuit was filed on
behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Edwards Lifesciences
Corp. between April 25, 2012 and April 23, 2013, inclusive.

The action charges Edwards Lifesciences and certain of its
officers with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The complaint alleges that Defendants made false and
misleading statements and concealed material information relating
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, thereby artificially inflating the price of Edwards
Lifesciences stock.

Edwards Lifesciences, which is based in Irvine, California, is a
medical device company that designs and markets a range of
products to treat heart disease.  The Company's products include
artificial heart valves, such as SAPIEN, for implantation in
patients with advanced cardiovascular disease.  The complaint
alleges that, during the Class Period, Edwards Lifesciences
concealed from shareholders 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) the Company's outlook for sales and earnings per share
was significantly weaker than the optimistic guidance Defendants
offered to investors; and (3) as a result, Defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for their statements concerning Edwards
Lifesciences' operations, forecasts, and outlook.

Edwards Lifesciences revealed the true prospects for SAPIEN on
April 23, 2013.  After the markets closed that day, the Company
disclosed that approximately twenty hospitals that were candidates
for offering SAPIEN had postponed the requisite training for
implanting the valve, 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 reaction to these disclosures, Edwards
Lifesciences' stock price fell $18.21 per share, or 21.99 percent,
to close at $64.60 per share on April 24, 2013.

If you are a member of this Class you can view a copy of the
complaint and join this class action online at
http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/Newly-Filed-Cases.cfm

If you purchased Edwards Lifesciences common stock during the
Class Period, you may be able to seek appointment as Lead
Plaintiff.  Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California no
later than November 18, 2013.  A lead plaintiff is a court-
appointed representative for absent Class members. You do not need
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class
recovery in this action.  If you are a Class member and there is a
recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an
absent Class member.  You may retain counsel of your choice to
represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have
any questions about the lawsuit, you may contact Rachel A. Avan,
Esq. of Labaton Sucharow LLP, at (800) 321-0476 or (212) 907-0709,
or via email at ravan@labaton.com

With offices in New York, New York and Wilmington, Delaware,
Labaton Sucharow LLP -- http://www.labaton.com-- represents
institutional investors in class action and complex securities
litigation, as well as consumers and businesses in class actions
seeking to recover damages for anticompetitive practices.


EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Provides Update on City of Santee Dispute
-----------------------------------------------------------
Equity Lifestyle Properties, Inc. provided updates regarding its
legal disputes with the City of Santee, in which a class suit was
settled and finally approved in January, 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 June 2003, the company won a judgment against the City of
Santee in California Superior Court (Case No. 777094). The effect
of the judgment was to invalidate, on state law grounds, two rent
control ordinances the City of Santee had enforced against the
company and other property owners.

However, the Court allowed the City to continue to enforce a rent
control ordinance that predated the two invalid ordinances (the
"Prior Ordinance"). As a result of the judgment the company was
entitled to collect a one-time rent increase based upon the
difference in annual adjustments between the invalid ordinance(s)
and the Prior Ordinance and to adjust the company's base rents to
reflect what the company could have charged had the Prior
Ordinance been continually in effect.

The City of Santee appealed the judgment. The City and the
Homeowners' Association of Meadowbrook Estates ("Tenant
Association") also each sued the company in separate actions in
the California Superior Court (Case Nos. GIE 020887 and GIE
020524) alleging that the rent adjustments pursuant to the
judgment violated the Prior Ordinance, sought to rescind the rent
adjustments, and sought refunds of amounts paid, and penalties and
damages in these separate actions. As a result of further
proceedings and a series of appeals and remands, the company was
required to and did release the additional rents to the Tenant
Association's counsel for disbursement to the tenants, and the
company ceased collecting the disputed rent amounts.

The Tenant Association continued to seek damages, penalties and
fees in their separate action based on the same claims the City
made on the tenants' behalf in the City's case. The company moved
for judgment on the pleadings in the Tenant Association's case on
the ground that the Tenant Association's case was moot in light of
the result in the City's case. On November 6, 2008, the Court
granted the company motion for judgment on the pleadings without
leave to amend. The Tenant Association appealed. In June 2010, the
Court of Appeal remanded the case for further proceedings. On
remand, on December 12, 2011, the Court granted the company motion
for summary judgment and denied the Tenant Association's motion
for summary judgment.

On January 9, 2012, the Court entered judgment in the company's
favor, specifying that the Tenant Association shall recover
nothing. On January 26, 2012, the Court set March 30, 2012 as the
date for hearing the company's motion for attorneys' fees and the
Tenant Associations' motion to reduce the company's claim for
costs. On March 26, 2012, the Tenant Association filed a notice of
appeal. On August 16, 2012, the company and the Tenant Association
entered a settlement agreement pursuant to which the Tenant
Association dismissed its appeal in exchange for the company's
agreement to dismiss the company's claims for attorneys' fees and
other costs. Because the matter was a class action by the Tenant
Association, on January 18, 2013 the Court held a fairness hearing
to consider final approval of the settlement, and approved the
settlement.

In addition, the company sued the City of Santee in United States
District for the Southern District of California alleging all
three of the ordinances are unconstitutional under the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. On
October 13, 2010, the District Court:

     (1) dismissed the company's claims without prejudice on the
ground that they were not ripe because the company had not filed
and received from the City a final decision on a rent increase
petition, and

     (2) found that those claims are not foreclosed by any of the
state court rulings.

On November 10, 2010, the company filed a notice of appeal from
the District Court's ruling dismissing the company's claims. On
April 20, 2011, the appeal was voluntarily dismissed pursuant to
stipulation of the parties.

In order to ripen the company's claims, the company filed a rent
increase petition with the City. At a hearing held on October 6,
2011, the City's Manufactured Home Fair Practices Commission voted
to deny that petition, and subsequently entered written findings
denying it. The company appealed that determination to the Santee
City Council, which on January 25, 2012 voted to deny the appeal.
In view of that adverse final decision on the company's rent
increase petition, on January 31, 2012 the company filed a new
complaint in United States District for the Southern District of
California alleging that the City's ordinance effectuates a
regulatory and private taking of the company's property and is
unconstitutional under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution. On April 2, 2012, the City filed a
motion to dismiss the new complaint.

On December 21, 2012, the Court entered an order in which it: (a)
denied the City's motion to dismiss the company's private taking
and substantive due process claims; (b) granted the City's motion
to dismiss the company's procedural due process claim as not
cognizable because of the availability of a state remedy of a writ
of mandamus; and (c) granted the City's motion to dismiss the
company's regulatory taking claim as being not ripe.

In addition, the company also filed in the California Superior
Court on February 1, 2012, a petition for a writ of administrative
mandamus, and on September 28, 2012 a motion for writ of
administrative mandamus, seeking orders correcting and vacating
the decisions of the City and its Manufactured Home Fair Practices
Commission, and directing that the company's rent increase
petition be granted. On April 5, 2013, the Court denied the
company's petition for writ of administrative mandamus. On June 3,
2013, the company filed an appeal to the California Court of
Appeal from the denial of the company's petition for writ of
administrative mandamus.


EQUITY LIFESTYLE: Member Plaintiffs Drop Bid for Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a suit by purported members of Equity Lifestyle
Properties, Inc. over the use of Thousand Trails network of
campgrounds withdrew their petition for leave to appeal an order
denying class certification to the suit, according to the
company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On July 29, 2011, the company was served with a class action
lawsuit in California state court filed by two named plaintiffs,
who are husband and wife. Among other allegations, the suit
alleges that the plaintiffs purchased a membership in the
company's Thousand Trails network of campgrounds and paid annual
dues; that they were unable to make a reservation to utilize one
of the campgrounds because, they were told, their membership did
not permit them to utilize that particular campground; that the
company failed to comply with the written disclosure requirements
of various states' membership camping statutes; that  the company
misrepresented that the company provides a money-back guaranty;
and that the company misrepresented that the campgrounds or
portions of the campgrounds would be limited to use by members.

Allegedly on behalf of "between 100,000 and 200,000" putative
class members, the suit asserts claims for alleged violation of:
(1) the California Civil Code Section 1812.300, et seq.; (2) the
Arizona Revised Statutes Section 32-2198, et seq.; (3) Chapter 222
of the Texas Property Code; (4) Florida Code Section 509.001, et
seq.; (5) Chapter 119B of the Nevada Administrative Code; (6)
Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., (7) Business &
Professions Code Section 17500; (8) Fraud - Intentional
Misrepresentation and False Promise; (9) Fraud - Omission; (10)
Negligent Misrepresentation; and (11) Unjust Enrichment.

The complaint seeks, among other relief, rescission of the
membership agreements and refund of the member dues of plaintiffs
and all others who purchased a membership from or paid membership
dues to the company since July 21, 2007; general and special
compensatory damages; reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses of suit; punitive and exemplary damages; a permanent
injunction against the complained of conduct; and pre-judgment
interest.

On August 19, 2011, the company filed an answer generally denying
the allegations of the complaint, and asserting affirmative
defenses. On August 23, 2011, the company removed the case from
the California state court to the federal district court in San
Jose. On July 23, 2012,  the company filed a motion to deny class
certification. On July 24, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
leave to amend their class action complaint to add four additional
named plaintiffs.

On August 28, 2012, the Court held a hearing on the company's
motion to deny class certification and on the plaintiffs' motion
for leave to amend. Separately, on September 14, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, on which the
Court held a hearing on November 6, 2012.

On March 18, 2013, the Court entered an order denying class
certification and denying the plaintiffs' motion for leave to
amend their class action complaint. The individual claims of the
two named plaintiffs remain pending. On April 1, 2013, the
plaintiffs filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit a petition for leave to appeal from the order
denying class certification. On May 15, 2013, the plaintiffs
withdrew their petition for leave to appeal.


FIRST HORIZON: Still Defends Suit Over Overdraft Fees vs. FTBNA
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Horizon National Corporation continues to defend its
subsidiary against a class action lawsuit over overdraft fees,
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.

First Tennessee Bank National Association ("FTBNA") is a defendant
in a putative class action lawsuit concerning overdraft fees
charged in connection with debit card transactions.  A key claim
is that the method used to order or sequence the transactions
posted each day was improper.  The case is styled as Hawkins v.
First Tennessee Bank National Association, before the Circuit
Court for Shelby County, Tennessee, Case No. CT-004085-11.  The
plaintiff seeks actual damages of at least $5 million, unspecified
restitution of fees charged, and unspecified punitive damages,
among other things.  FHN's estimate of reasonably possible loss
for this matter is subject to significant uncertainties regarding:
whether a class will be certified and, if so, the definition of
the class; claims as to which no dollar amount is specified; the
potential remedies that might be available or awarded; the outcome
of potentially dispositive early-stage motions such as motions to
dismiss; and the lack of discovery.

Based in Memphis, Tennessee, First Horizon National Corporation
began as a community bank chartered in 1864.  The Corporation is
one of the largest publicly traded banking organizations in the
United States in terms of asset size.  The Corporation's two major
brands -- First Tennessee and FTN Financial -- provide customers
with a broad range of products and services, including retail and
commercial banking services, fixed income sales, trading, and
strategies for institutional clients in the U.S. and abroad.


FLUVANNA COUNTY, VA: FCCW Sued Over Inadequate Healthcare
---------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Ryan, writing for The Charlottesville Newsplex, reports
that Taylor Gilmer has four years left on her prison sentence at
the Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women in Fluvanna County, but
her family fears she won't live to see the day she can walk out a
free woman.

"How bad will she be by then, if she even lives?" questions
Ms. Gilmer's mom, Tina.  "The outlook is not so good."

Ms. Gilmer was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes when she was seven
years old.  The disease hadn't given her any trouble until she
began serving time at FCCW.

In 2012, Ms. Gilmer entered an Alford plea to one count of
conspiring to commit a felony and two counts of conspiracy to
commit first-degree murder.  She was transferred to FCCW, in part
of because of her health conditions.

But Ms. Gilmer says the medical staff at the prison has been
negligent in her treatment, confusing her Type 1 diabetes for Type
2 diabetes.  She also says prison personnel forbid her from
regularly checking her blood sugar levels.  As a result, the 22-
year-old says she is losing her vision and her feet are turning
purple.

"I'm really scared," said her mom, Tina.  "She cries to me on the
phone . . . she says 'I'm losing my vision'.  She's afraid she's
going to lose her feet."

Ms. Gilmer is one of about 1200 women incarcerated at FCCW hoping
to join the class action lawsuit against the prison and its health
care provider, citing cruel and unusual punishment.

"The standard is, if your health needs are not being met and your
health is deteriorating or if it's leading to death-there have
been a number of deaths at Fluvanna since we've been monitoring
the situation-then it violates the 8th amendment," said
Abigail Turner, an attorney with the Legal Aid Justice Center in
Charlottesville who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the women.  "We
are very concerned.  The claims of the women who appear in the
lawsuit are very serious medical claims."

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in
Charlottesville are women ranging in age between 29 and 60 years
old, suffering from serious chronic health conditions and
incarcerated at FCCW.  Employees of the Virginia Department of
Corrections named in the lawsuit include the Director, Harold W.
Clarke, the Chief of Corrections Operations, A. David Robinson,
and the Director of Health Services, Frederick Schilling.  The
lawsuit also names the warden of FCCW, Phyllis A. Baskerville, and
the medical director, Paul C. Ohai.

Armor Correctional Health Services, Inc. is another defendant
named in the lawsuit.  Armor is the for-profit corporation based
in Miami, Florida responsible for providing health care services
to FCCW and dozens of other prisons in Virginia.  In May, CBS19
learned the Virginia Department of Corrections parted ways with
Armor, signing a new contract with another health care provider
called Corizon Correctional Health Care.

But inmates and attorneys with LAJC don't take it as a sign of
things improving and Corizon has been added to the lawsuit as a
defendant.

"My fear is that they will get a lot worse," Ms. Turner said.
"Those with chronic conditions will be untreated . . . and they
might die.  There have been enough deaths."

Tina Gilmer prays her daughter doesn't succumb to a similar fate,
and hopes conditions improve inside the prison so that her
daughter can survive to see her own young daughter grow up.

"I'm hoping they are going to force them to take care of the
inmates because it's not right what they are getting away with."

CBS19 conducted an interview with Taylor Gilmer in FCCW in April.
Shortly after the initial interview, Virginia's Department of
Corrections changed its policy, banning members of the media from
recording interviews with inmates at FCCW.

Both Corizon and Armor have filed motions to have the case
dismissed.  A trial was originally scheduled for October of this
year, but has been pushed back to May of 2014.

A spokesperson for Armor deferred any comments on the case to
FCCW.  Officials with the Department of Corrections declined an
interview, citing ongoing litigation.


FOREST LABORATORIES: "St. Louis" Class Suit vs. FPI Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
Forest Laboratories, 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 the class action lawsuit
filed by St. Louis Heart Center against a subsidiary is stayed.

In October 2012, Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (FPI), a wholly-
owned subsidiary of the Company, was named as a defendant, along
with The Peer Group, Inc. (TPG), in a putative class action
brought by the St. Louis Heart Center (SLHC) under the caption
"St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
The Peer Group, Inc."  The action is now pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.  On May 17,
2013, SLHC filed a Fourth Amended Complaint, alleging that Forest
and TPG violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as
amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, 47 U.S.C. Section
227 (TCPA), on behalf of a proposed class that includes all
persons who, from four years prior to the filing of the action,
were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the
commercial availability of any property, goods, or services by or
on behalf of defendants, which did not display an opt-out notice
compliant with a certain regulation promulgated by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC).  The Complaint seeks $500 for
each alleged violation of the TCPA, treble damages if the Court
finds the violations to be willful, knowing or intentional,
interest, and injunctive and other relief.

On May 21, 2013, in Nack v. Walburg, a separate case in which FPI
is not a party, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
ruled that the district court in that case lacked jurisdiction to
determine the validity of this FCC regulation and that the
defendant in that case could only challenge the validity of this
regulation through an administrative petition submitted directly
to the FCC, a decision that would then be appealable to the
appropriate court of appeals.  On June 27, 2013, FPI filed a
Petition for Declaratory Ruling with the FCC requesting that the
FCC find that (1) the faxes at issue in the action complied, or
substantially complied with the FCC regulation, and thus did not
violate it, or (2) the FCC regulation was not properly promulgated
under the TCPA.  On July 17, 2013, the district court granted the
Company's motion to stay the action pending the administrative
proceeding initiated by Forest's FCC Petition, including any
appeal therefrom.

The Company believes that there is no merit to SLHC's claims and
intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

New York-based Forest Laboratories, Inc. -- http://www.frx.com/--
is a pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures, and sells
branded forms of ethical drug products, most of which require a
physician's prescription.  The Company's primary and most
important products in the United States are marketed directly, or
"detailed," to physicians by its salesforces.


FOREST OIL: Still Defends "Augenbaum" IPO-Related Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
On May 25, 2012, a lawsuit, styled Augenbaum v. Lone Pine
Resources Inc. et al., was brought as a purported class action in
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County,
against Forest Oil Corporation, Lone Pine, certain of Lone Pine's
current and former directors and officers (the "Individual
Defendants"), and certain underwriters (the "Underwriter
Defendants") of Lone Pine's initial public offering (the "IPO"),
which was completed on June 1, 2011.  The complaint alleges that
Lone Pine's registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with the IPO contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state material facts relating to forest fires
that occurred in Northern Alberta in May 2011, the rupture of a
third party oil sales pipeline in Northern Alberta in April 2011,
and the impact of those events on Lone Pine, that the alleged
misstatements or omissions violated Section 11 of the Securities
Act, and that Lone Pine, the Individual Defendants, and the
Underwriter Defendants are liable for such violations.  (The
complaint was subsequently amended to drop the allegation
regarding the forest fires.)  The complaint further alleges that
the Underwriter Defendants offered and sold Lone Pine's securities
in violation of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, and the
putative class members seek rescission of the securities purchased
in the IPO that they continue to own and rescissionary damages for
securities that they have sold.  Finally, the complaint asserts a
claim against Forest under Section 15 of the Securities Act,
alleging that Forest was a "control person" of Lone Pine at the
time of the IPO.  The complaint alleges that the putative class,
which purchased shares of Lone Pine's common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to Lone Pine's registration statement and prospectus,
was damaged when the value of the stock declined in August 2011.
The complaint does not specify the amount of such damages.  Lone
Pine has existing obligations to indemnify Forest, the Individual
Defendants, and the Underwriter Defendants in connection with the
lawsuit.

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

Forest believes that these claims are without merit and intends to
defend the claim against it vigorously.

Based in Denver, Colorado, Forest Oil Corporation is an
independent oil and gas company engaged in the acquisition,
exploration, development, and production of oil, natural gas, and
natural gas liquids primarily in North America.  Forest Oil was
incorporated in New York in 1924, as the successor to a company
formed in 1916, and has been a publicly held company since 1969.


GANNETT CO: Faces Merger-Related Class Suits in Various States
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gannett Co., Inc. is facing merger-related class action lawsuits
filed in different states, 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 June 12, 2013, Gannett entered into a merger agreement for the
acquisition of Belo Corp. (Belo) for aggregate cash consideration
of approximately $1.5 billion, plus the assumption of $715 million
of existing Belo debt (the Merger).  Belo is the owner of 20
television stations (nine in the top 25 U.S. markets) that reach
more than 14% of U.S. television households, including ABC, CBS,
NBC, FOX, CW and MyNetwork TV (MNTV) affiliates and their
associated Web sites.  Belo also has three local and two regional
news channels.  Upon completion of the merger, Gannett will
operate the fourth-largest English-language television station
group in the United States, reaching nearly one-third of all U.S.
households.

Since the announcement of the Company's acquisition of Belo Corp.
on June 13, 2013, Belo, Belo's directors and the Company have been
named as defendants in four substantively similar putative class
action lawsuits brought by and on behalf of shareholders of Belo.
The actions are: Jacob Hulsebus v. Belo Corp., et al., Cause No.
DC-13-06601 (District Court of Dallas County, Texas), which was
commenced on June 14, 2013; IBEW Local 363 Pension Trust Fund, et
al. v. Belo Corp., et al., Civil Action 8649-VCL (Delaware
Chancery Court), which was commenced on June 17, 2013 (the IBEW
Case); Oakland County Employees' Retirement System v. Belo Corp.,
et al., Civil Action No. 8677-VCL (Delaware Chancery Court), which
was commenced on June 24, 2013 (the Oakland Case); and Norfolk
County Retirement System and Plymouth County Retirement System v.
Judith L. Craven, et al., C.A. No. 8732-VCL (Delaware Chancery
Court), which was commenced on July 16, 2013 (the Norfolk County
Case).  The IBEW Case, the Oakland Case and the Norfolk County
Case have been consolidated into In re Belo Corp. Stockholders
Litigation, C.A. No. 8649-VCL (Delaware Chancery Court).  The
actions allege, among other things, that Belo's directors breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger.  In
addition, the plaintiffs allege that the preliminary proxy
statement filed by Belo in connection with the stockholders'
meeting to approve the Merger fails to provide all material
information and/or provides misleading information to Belo's
stockholders.  The actions allege that the Company aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The actions seek,
among other things, to enjoin the Merger.

The Company believes these lawsuits are meritless and intends to
vigorously defend all pending actions relating to the Merger.

Headquartered in McLean, Virginia, Gannett Co., Inc., is a leading
international media and marketing solutions company, informing and
engaging more than 100 million people on multiple platforms every
month through its network of publishing, broadcasting, and digital
properties.  The Company's publishing operations include 82 daily
newspapers and about 480 magazines and other non-dailies in the
U.S., as well as 17 daily paid-for titles, and more than 200
weekly print products, magazines and trade publications in the
U.K.  The Company's broadcasting operations consist of 23
television stations in 19 U.S. markets.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Judge Drops Two Executives From Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Bishop, Eric Hornbeck and Jeff Overley, writing for
Law360, report that a New York federal judge on Sept. 19 dropped
two Gentiva Health Services Inc. executives from a proposed
securities fraud class action accusing the home health care
company of inflating its stock price by overbilling Medicare, but
allowed the case to proceed against two other executives and
Gentiva itself.

U.S. District Judge Arthur D. Spatt found that the Los Angeles
City Employees' Retirement System, the lead plaintiff, hasn't
alleged that Chief Financial Officer Eric R. Slusser sold any
Gentiva stock during the period at issue and noted that former
Gentiva President H. Anthony Strange actually increased his stake
in Gentiva during that time.

Moreover, simply because Mr. Slusser wasn't required to publicly
report his Gentiva stock sales until he became CFO and some of his
shares were restricted and not vested doesn't change the
plaintiffs' obligation to allege a knowledge of wrongdoing
regarding unusual or suspicious trading activity, as is required
for misrepresentation claims brought under the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934.

As such, the judge found the suit failed to sufficiently allege
motive and opportunity for Mr. Slusser and Strange to engage in
unlawful behavior.

Judge Spatt previously threw out the entire suit in March, as he
was unconvinced by emails in which Gentiva management discussed
growing revenues by increasing the number of therapy visits,
saying nothing in the correspondence demonstrated a lack of
concern for medical necessity.

The company, as well as various current and former board members
and officers who were sued, "are correct that these emails do not
demonstrate a leap in logic from legal behavior -- increasing
therapy visits in a medically necessary way in order to maximize
profits -- to illegal behavior -- increasing therapy visits in
ways that are not medically necessary in order to maximize
profits," Judge Spatt wrote.

While the original complaint called attention to several seemingly
lucrative stock sales by executives during that time period,
Judge Spatt noted that it cited only the face value of the sales,
not whether they produced a profit.

The judge gave leave to the proposed class to refile some claims,
however, which it did in May.

The suit, which joined five separate actions, was brought
following revelations by the U.S. Senate Finance Committee that
suggested that Gentiva may have engaged in Medicare fraud.  It
seeks compensation for investors who bought Gentiva stock from
July 31, 2008, to Oct. 4, 2011.

In his Sept. 19 order, Judge Spatt found the suit's allegations
that former Gentiva CEO Ronald A. Malone sold off 99 percent of
his Gentiva shares during the class period at artificially
inflated prices for a net profit of around $2.14 million, before
the share price tanked by 90 percent, backs up a compelling
inference of ill will on Malone's behalf and refused to dismiss
the amended complaint's counts against him.

The judge further kept in place claims against former CFO John R.
Potapchuck, finding the suit's assertions that he took in net
proceeds of $1.8 million by selling 96 percent of his Gentiva
shares at artificially inflated prices, most of which occurred in
the six months leading up to the Senate Finance Committee's
disclosure of its investigation, also supports the claims'
required inference of scienter.

Furthermore, Judge Spatt ruled that corporate knowledge of
wrongdoing can be deduced by the suspicious insider stock sales by
Malone and Potapchuck, two high-level executives, and as such, the
plaintiffs have plausibly stated securities fraud claims against
Gentiva, which he left in place.

Representatives for the parties could not be immediately reached
for comment on Sept. 19.

The defendants are represented by John A. Neuwirth --
john.neuwirth@weil.com -- Joshua S. Amsel -- joshua.amsel@weil.com
-- Stefania D. Venezia -- stefania.venezia@weil.com -- and Matthew
E. K. Howatt -- matthew.howatt@weil.com -- of Weil Gotshal &
Manges LLP.

The plaintiffs are represented by Frederic S. Fox --
ffox@kaplanfox.com -- Joel B. Strauss -- jstrauss@kaplanfox.com --
Jeffrey P. Campisi -- jcampisi@kaplanfox.com -- Justin B. Farar --
jfarar@kaplanfox.com -- and Laurence D. King --
lking@kaplanfox.com -- of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.

The case is In re: Gentiva Securities Litigation, case number
2:10-cv-05064, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.


GERBER PRODUCTS: Suit Over "All-Natural" Claims Must Be Amended
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that a
California mother must amend her claims that Gerber misleads
consumers about the nutritional value of its baby food, a federal
judge ruled.

Natalia Bruton hopes to represent a class claiming that Gerber
misbrands its products meant for infants and children up to
preschool age.  The lawsuit challenges the claims on labels for
Gerber baby foods that describe the product as "excellence
source," "good source," "as healthy as fresh, "no added sugar" and
"natural."

The March 2012 class action identified misleading Gerber products
as Nature Select 2nd Foods, Yogurt Blends Snack, Toddler Fruit
Strips, Graduates Puffs, Graduates Wagon Wheels and Graduates Lil'
Crunchies.  Labels on the products are allegedly misleading in
that they purport to represent a good source of Vitamin C and E,
Iron and Zinc, and support "healthy growth and development."

Bruton had sued both Gerber Products and Nestle, which bought the
Company for $5.5 billion in cash in 2007.  She says Gerber
controls approximately 70 to 80 percent of the baby food market in
the United States.

In a 42-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh dismissed the
Bruton's claims against Nestle with prejudice.

"Despite Bruton's introductory reference to Gerber and Nestle USA
together as defendants, the rest of the FAC lacks sufficient
factual allegations from which the court may infer more than a
'sheer possibility' that Nestle USA has acted unlawfully," Koh
wrote.  "Importantly, only Gerber products are at issue in this
case.  Moreover, aside from the first paragraph, the FAC makes
only two references to Nestle USA throughout the entire
complaint."

The ruling also faulted Bruton for having failed to state a claim
based on the "100 percent natural" labeling.

"Bruton fails to explain why a label claiming that a product is
'Made with 100% Natural Fruit' plausibly implies that the entire
product -- which contains ingredients other than fruit -- is free
of synthetic ingredients or ingredients not normally expected to
be in food," Koh wrote (emphasis in original).  "Thus, Bruton
fails to set forth why a reasonable consumer would find
defendants' labels to be false and misleading.  Bruton also fails
to set forth why she personally was misled by these labels."

Bruton can still amend her claims on this issue under California's
unfair competition law, false advertising law and Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, according to the ruling.  She fared better with her
claims as to the nutrient content "source" claims, "as healthy as
fresh" claims and sugar-related labels.

Bruton cannot proceed further, however, with her claims under the
Beverly-Song Act and the Manguson-Moss Act.  Koh dismissed those
counts with prejudice as well as Bruton's claim for restitution
based on "unjust enrichment/quasi contract."

The judge additionally barred Bruton from raising claims about
products that she did not purchase.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
          PRATT & ASSOCIATES
          1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
          San Jose, CA 95126
          Telephone: (408) 369-0800
          Facsimile: (408) 369-0752
          E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com

               - and -

          Brian K. Herrington, Esq.
          DON BARRETT, P.A.
          P.O. Box 927
          404 Court Square North
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
          E-mail: bherrington@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          David Shelton, Esq.
          P.O. Box 2541
          1223 Jackson Avenue East, Ste. 202
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 281-1212
          E-mail: david@davidsheltonpllc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Bryan Alexander Merryman, Esq.
          Rachel J. Feldman, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007
          Telephone: (213) 620-7700
          Facsimile: (213) 687-0758
          E-mail: bmerryman@whitecase.com
                  rfeldman@whitecase.com

The case is Bruton v. Gerber Products Company, et al., Case No.
5:12-cv-02412-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Jose).


GRACO CHILDREN'S: Court Narrows Claims in "Long" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
SETH LONG, Plaintiff, v. GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS INC., et al.,
Defendants, NO. 13-CV-01257-WHO, (N.D. Cal.) alleges that Graco
Children's Products Inc. and Newell Rubbermaid Inc. manufactured
and sold children's car seats with buckles that were difficult or
impossible to unlatch.  Mr. Long charges eight causes of action
under California and federal law.  The defendants moved to dismiss
Mr. Long's First Amended Complaint.

District Judge William H. Orrick granted, in part, and denied, in
part, the Motion to Dismiss.

"Because Long fails to adequately plead the following claims, but
additional pleading may cure their defects, the Court GRANTS the
defendants' motion to dismiss Long's First Cause of Action for
violation of the [False Advertising Law]; Second Cause of Action
for actual misrepresentation under the [Consumer Legal Remedies
Act]; Third Cause of Action for breach of express warranty under
the [Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act]; Fifth Cause of Action
for breach of express warranty under the California Commercial
Code; and Sixth Cause of Action for breach of implied warranty
under the California Commercial Code with leave to amend," Judge
Orrick said.

"Because Long adequately pleads the following claims, the Court
DENIES the defendants' motion to dismiss Long's Second Cause of
Action for fraudulent omission under the CLRA; Fourth Cause of
Action for breach of implied warranty under the SBCWA; Seventh
Cause of Action for breach of implied warranty under the
[Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act]; and Eighth Cause of Action for
violation of the "fraudulent," "unfair," and "unlawful" prongs of
the UCL," he added.

The Court ordered Mr. Long to file any amended complaint within 30
days of the date of the Court's Order.

A copy of the District Court's August 26, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/5WKD4nfrom Leagle.com.

Seth Long, Plaintiff, represented by Arvin Ratanavongse --
Arvin.Ratanavongse@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Jordan
L. Lurie -- Jordan.Lurie@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC,
Cody Robert Padgett -- Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com --
Capstone Law, APC & Tarek H. Zohdy --
Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Lawyers, APC.

Graco Children's Products Inc., Defendant, represented by Rocky N.
Unruh -- runruh@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP, Heidi
Dalenberg -- hdalenberg@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP,
Joseph J. Krasovec, III -- jkrasovec@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff
Hardin LLP & Yakov Paul Wiegmann -- ywiegmann@schiffhardin.com --
Schiff Hardin LLP.

Newell Rubbermaid, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rocky N. Unruh,
Schiff Hardin LLP, Heidi Dalenberg, Schiff Hardin LLP, Joseph J.
Krasovec, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Yakov Paul Wiegmann, Schiff
Hardin LLP.


GROUPON INC: Must Face Securities Fraud Class Action Over IPO
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Harris, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Groupon
Inc., the deal-of-the-day coupon company, lost a bid for dismissal
of a lawsuit complaining the company misled investors about its
financial performance before its initial public offering in
November 2011.

U.S. District Judge Charles Norgle in Chicago ordered Groupon to
face the class-action lawsuit first filed in April 2012.

Investors accused the Chicago-based company of securities fraud
and claimed it used impermissible refund accounting to boost
revenues in a prospectus in connection with its IPO and in later
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings, according to a
revised complaint filed last year.

"The court finds that these allegations present plausible
violations," of federal securities law, Judge Norgle said in his
Sept. 18 ruling.

Groupon opened at $28 in Nasdaq stock exchange trading on Nov. 4,
2011.  The company reported a "material weakness" in its financial
controls on March 30, 2012, and said its first reported quarterly
sales as a publicly traded company were lower than previously
stated because of higher refunds to merchants, reducing revenue
in the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2011, by $14.3 million to $492.2
million.  By Nov. 13, 2012, the company's shares were trading at
$2.63.  On Sept. 19, Groupon rose 9 percent to $12.59.

Groupon doesn't comment on pending litigation, Nicholas Halliwell,
a spokesman for the company, said in an e-mail.

The case is In re Groupon Inc. (GRPN:US) Securities Litigation,
12-cv-2450, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago).


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: All "North Port" Claims vs. Unit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
All claims against a subsidiary of International Paper Company in
the class action lawsuit initiated by North Port Firefighters'
Pension were dismissed with prejudice, 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.

Temple-Inland Inc., a Company subsidiary, is a defendant in a
lawsuit captioned North Port Firefighters' Pension v. Temple-
Inland Inc., filed in November 2011 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas and subsequently amended.
The lawsuit alleges a class action against Temple-Inland and
certain individual defendants contending that Temple-Inland and
certain individual defendants misrepresented the financial
condition of Guaranty Financial Group during the period
December 12, 2007, through August 24, 2009.  Temple-Inland
distributed the stock of Guaranty Financial Group to its
shareholders on December 28, 2007, after which Guaranty Financial
Group was an independent, publicly held company.  The action is
pled as a securities claim on behalf of persons who acquired
Guaranty Financial Group stock during the putative class period.
Although focused chiefly on statements made by Guaranty Financial
Group to its shareholders after it was an independent, publicly
held company, the action repeats many of the same allegations of
fact made in the litigation captioned Tepper v. Temple-Inland Inc.
On June 20, 2012, all defendants in the lawsuit filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaint.

On March 28, 2013, the district court granted Temple-Inland's and
the individual defendants' motions to dismiss without prejudice.
The plaintiff must first seek the court's leave prior to filing
any amended complaint against the Company.  On July 30, 2013, the
district court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint filed
against the individual defendants with prejudice, also noting that
since the plaintiff did not seek the court's leave to amend their
complaint with respect to the claims against Temple-Inland, all
claims against Temple-Inland were dismissed with prejudice.

Each of the individual defendants in the North Port litigation has
requested advancement of their costs of defense from Temple-Inland
and has asserted a right to indemnification by Temple-Inland.  The
Company believes that all or part of these defense costs would be
covered losses under Temple-Inland's directors and officers
insurance.  The carriers under the applicable policies have been
notified of the claims and each has responded with a reservation
of rights letter.

International Paper Company -- http://www.internationalpaper.com/
-- is a global paper and packaging company that is complemented by
an extensive North American merchant distribution system, with
primary markets and manufacturing operations in North America,
Europe, Latin America, Russia, Asia and North Africa.  The
Memphis, Tennessee-based Company is a New York corporation,
incorporated in 1941 as the successor to the New York corporation
of the same name organized in 1898.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Defends Antitrust Suits Over Containerboards
-----------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company continues to defend itself and a
subsidiary against antitrust lawsuits over containerboards,
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 September 2010, eight containerboard producers, including
International Paper and its subsidiary, Temple-Inland Inc., were
named as defendants in a purported class action complaint that
alleged a civil violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The
lawsuit is captioned Kleen Products LLC v. Packaging Corp. of
America (N.D. Ill.).  The complaint alleges that the defendants,
beginning in August 2005 through November 2010, conspired to limit
the supply and thereby increase prices of containerboard products.
The alleged class is all persons who purchased containerboard
products directly from any defendant for use or delivery in the
United States during the period August 2005 to the present.  The
complaint seeks to recover an unspecified amount of treble actual
damages and attorney's fees on behalf of the purported class.
Four similar complaints were filed and have been consolidated in
the Northern District of Illinois.  Moreover, in January 2011,
International Paper was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in
state court in Cocke County, Tennessee, alleging that
International Paper violated Tennessee law by conspiring to limit
the supply and fix the prices of containerboard from mid-2005 to
the present.  The Plaintiffs in the state court action seek
certification of a class of Tennessee indirect purchasers of
containerboard products, damages and costs, including attorneys'
fees.

The Company disputes the allegations made and intends to
vigorously defend each action.  However, because the Kleen
Products case is in the discovery phase and the Tennessee action
is in the preliminary stages, the Company says it is unable to
predict an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible
loss.

International Paper Company -- http://www.internationalpaper.com/
-- is a global paper and packaging company that is complemented by
an extensive North American merchant distribution system, with
primary markets and manufacturing operations in North America,
Europe, Latin America, Russia, Asia and North Africa.  The
Memphis, Tennessee-based Company is a New York corporation,
incorporated in 1941 as the successor to the New York corporation
of the same name organized in 1898.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Defends Gypsum-Related Antitrust MDL v. Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company is defending a subsidiary against an
antitrust multidistrict litigation brought against gypsum board
manufacturers, 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 late December 2012, purchasers of gypsum board filed purported
class action complaints alleging civil violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act against Temple-Inland Inc., a Company subsidiary,
and a number of other gypsum manufacturers in three separate
actions.  Two of the actions were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (E.D. PA) and one in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (N.D.
IL).  The case in the N.D. IL was voluntarily dismissed in
December.  Since that time, approximately 25 additional actions
were collectively filed between the E.D. PA and the N.D. IL and
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
(W.D. NC), on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers.  The
complaints are similar and allege that the gypsum manufacturers
conspired or otherwise reached agreements to: (1) raise prices of
gypsum board either from 2008 or 2011 through the present; (2)
avoid price erosion by ceasing the practice of issuing job quotes;
and (3) restrict supply through downtime and limit order
fulfillment.  The alleged classes are all persons who purchased
gypsum board and/or gypsum finishing products directly or
indirectly from any defendant and the conspiracy is alleged to
have commenced on or before either September 2011 or January 2008.
The complainants seek to recover unspecified treble actual damages
and attorneys' fees on behalf of the purported classes.

On April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered transfer of all pending cases to E.D. PA for coordinated
and consolidated pretrial proceedings, and the direct purchaser
plaintiffs and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their
respective amended consolidated complaints in June 2013.  The
amended consolidated complaints allege a conspiracy or agreement
beginning in or before September 2011.  The Company disputes the
allegations made and intends to vigorously defend the consolidated
action.  Because the cases are in preliminary stages, the Company
is unable to predict an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably
possible loss.  However, the Company does not believe that any
loss is probable.

International Paper Company -- http://www.internationalpaper.com/
-- is a global paper and packaging company that is complemented by
an extensive North American merchant distribution system, with
primary markets and manufacturing operations in North America,
Europe, Latin America, Russia, Asia and North Africa.  The
Memphis, Tennessee-based Company is a New York corporation,
incorporated in 1941 as the successor to the New York corporation
of the same name organized in 1898.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Required to Fund Deal in Bogalusa Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company 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 it had until September 8,
2013, to fund its class settlement in lawsuits arising from the
Bogalusa Incident.

In August 2011, Temple-Inland Inc.'s Bogalusa, Louisiana paper
mill received predictive test results indicating that Biochemical
Oxygen Demand (BOD) limits for permitted discharge from the
wastewater treatment pond into the Pearl River were exceeded after
an upset condition at the mill and subsequently confirmed reports
of a fish kill on the Pearl River (the Bogalusa Incident).
Temple-Inland, a Company subsidiary, initiated a full mill shut
down, notified the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
(LDEQ) of the situation and took corrective actions to restore the
water quality of the river.  On September 2, 2011, Bogalusa mill
operations were restarted upon receiving approval from the LDEQ.
The LDEQ, the Mississippi DEQ, and other regulatory agencies in
those states each gave notice of intent to levy penalties and
recover restitution damages resulting from the Bogalusa Incident.
To date, the Company has settled for a total of approximately $1
million the known claims of various Mississippi regulatory
agencies and the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
(LDWF).

In February 2013, a plea agreement was reached with the U.S.
Attorney's Office in New Orleans as a result of a federal criminal
investigation into the Bogalusa Incident.  On May 29, 2013, the
U.S. District Court in New Orleans approved the plea agreement and
sentenced Temple-Inland subsidiary, TIN Inc., to a misdemeanor
violation of the Clean Water Act and a misdemeanor violation of
the National Wildlife Refuge statute.  The sentence included a
$3.3 million financial penalty, which was paid in the second
quarter of 2013, and a two-year corporate probation period for TIN
Inc.

On June 17, 2013, the LDEQ levied a civil enforcement penalty for
the Bogalusa Incident of approximately $1.7 million against TIN
Inc.  The Company will not contest the penalty and will pay the
assessment in the third quarter of 2013.  The Bogalusa Mill also
expects the LDEQ to levy a civil penalty in an amount greater than
$100,000, but not material, arising from an LDEQ environmental
multi-media audit in 2011 and from air permit deviations self-
disclosed by the mill in 2012.

Temple-Inland (or its affiliates) is a defendant in 28 civil
lawsuits in Louisiana and Mississippi related to the Bogalusa
Incident.  Fifteen of these civil cases were filed in Louisiana
state court shortly after the incident and have been removed and
consolidated in an action pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana along with a civil case
originally filed in that court.  During August 2012, an additional
13 causes of action were filed in federal or state court in
Mississippi and Louisiana.  In October 2012, International Paper
and the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, the group of attorneys
appointed by the Louisiana federal court to organize and
coordinate the efforts of all the plaintiffs in this litigation,
reached a tentative understanding on key structural terms and an
amount for resolution of the litigation.  The court granted
preliminary approval for the proposed class action settlement on
December 19, 2012.  There were no opt-outs and four objections
which were all later withdrawn.  The Fairness Hearing was held
July 10, 2013, and the court issued its Final Order and Judgment
Approving Class Action Settlement the same day.  Under the terms
of the settlement agreement, the class action settlement was
deemed final on August 9, 2013, and the Company had until
September 8, 2013, to fund the settlement.  A total of 2,073
putative class members submitted a claim.  The Company says this
settlement does not have a material effect on its consolidated
financial statements.

International Paper Company -- http://www.internationalpaper.com/
-- is a global paper and packaging company that is complemented by
an extensive North American merchant distribution system, with
primary markets and manufacturing operations in North America,
Europe, Latin America, Russia, Asia and North Africa.  The
Memphis, Tennessee-based Company is a New York corporation,
incorporated in 1941 as the successor to the New York corporation
of the same name organized in 1898.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued Over Alleged Exposure of Social Security Nos.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin and Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, report that
JPMorgan Chase & Co has been hit with a proposed class action
lawsuit accusing it of printing Social Security numbers on the
outsides of form letters mailed to customers to tell them about
the bank's efforts to protect their private information.

Filed on Sept. 19 in federal court in Chicago, the lawsuit accused
the largest bank in the United States of violating federal and
state laws and subjecting its customers to increased risk of
identity theft.

A JPMorgan spokeswoman declined comment.

The allegations are another embarrassment for the financial
company amid a rash of civil and criminal probes, ranging from the
massive "London Whale" trading scandal to possible bribery in
China.

On Sept. 19, it disclosed $1 billion in payouts to settle four
civil regulatory probes.

The new lawsuit was filed on behalf of Alexander Furman, a Buffalo
Grove, Illinois resident, who said JPMorgan twice mailed him
preprinted forms with his name, address and Social Security number
on the outsides, and failed to follow up on his complaints.

The first mailing, sent around September 1, was a privacy
notification explaining how JPMorgan safeguards customers'
personal information, according to the lawsuit.

Mr. Furman complained immediately and was told the bank would
rectify the situation, according to the lawsuit.  Even so, Mr.
Furman received a benefit notification from the bank about two
weeks later with his social security number still printed on the
front, the lawsuit said.

                       Coveted By Thieves

"It (the bank) should have immediately notified its customers and
certainly taken steps to prevent it happening the second time,"
said Elizabeth Fegan -- beth@hbsslaw.com -- a partner at Hagens
Berman law firm in Oak Park, Illinois, who filed the suit.

The lawsuit cited JPMorgan's own warning, in online information
about its security procedures, that a name combined with a Social
Security number is a prime way for thieves to steal an identify.

"It's very damaging," Ms. Fegan added.  "Chase even says on its
Web site that providing Social Security numbers to an identity
thief is 'as good as gold.'"

Disclosure of Social Security numbers can be especially harmful
since they cannot easily be replaced, like a credit or debit card,
the lawsuit said.

Among other violations, the lawsuit alleged that Chase broke
Illinois' consumer fraud act, which prohibits the printing of
Social Security numbers on mailings.  Several states have passed
such laws to help combat identity theft.

The lawsuit seeks class action status representing any JPMorgan
customers who received mailings with their Social Security numbers
printed on the outside. It said thousands or possibly millions of
customers could be part of the class.

Ms. Fegan said she has not received confirmation from the bank
about how many customers were affected, but the forms appeared to
be mass mailings.

The case is Alexander Furman et al v JP Morgan Chase & Co et al,
No. 13-cv-06749, U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Illinois.


KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces "On-Call" Employees Suit Over Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
La Shanti Clark and La Toya Thomas, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, The
Permanente Medical Group, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and Does 1
through 20, inclusive, Case No. RG13692780 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Alameda Cty., August 22, 2013) accuses the Defendants of failing
to pay overtime compensation to individuals, who are working "on-
call," non-exempt positions that do not require any certifications
or licenses from the state of California.

The Defendants have a policy and practice of failing to pay
overtime compensation to individuals working more than eight hours
in a day in "on-call," non-exempt positions despite the fact that
such pay is require by law, the Plaintiffs allege.  Hence, the
Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief, compensation
for all uncompensated work, damages and attorney fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs worked as "on-call" employees for the Defendants'
Environmental Service Division ("EVS").

Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan are
California corporations.  KFH and KFHP have the same Board of
Directors, the same officers and operate as a single integrated
business organization, and as partners and joint venturers in The
Permanente Medical Group.  TPMG, a California corporation,
operates as a part of a single integrated business organization
with KFH and KFHP, and as partners in the Kaiser-Permanente
Medical Care Program.  The true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Leslie F. Levy, Esq.
          Sharon R. Cinick, Esq.
          LEVY VINICK BURRELL HYAMS LLP
          180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1300
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 318-7700
          Facsimile: (510) 318-7701
          E-mail: leslie@levyvinick.com
                  sharon@levyvinick.com


KRAFT FOODS: Obtains Prelim. Approval of Salinas Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick granted preliminary approval of a
class action settlement agreement and release of claims in
GILBERT SALINAS, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC., and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 12-CV-02894,
(N.D. Cal.).

The Court conditionally certified the proposed Settlement Class,
and appoints Scott Cole & Associates, APC as Class Counsel.

The Court provisionally appointed Representative Plaintiff Gilbert
Salinas as Class Representative.

The Court granted Class Counsel permission to obtain bids from
various companies for the administration of the Settlement and
grants permission for the Parties to then select the most cost
efficient bidder as Claims Administrator.

The Final Approval Hearing will be held on November 13, 2013, at
2:00 p.m. to determine whether the proposed Settlement is fair,
adequate, reasonable, and should be approved.

A copy of the District Court's August 26, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/8InCsYfrom Leagle.com.

Gilbert Salinas, Plaintiff, represented by Hannah Ruth Salassi --
hsalassi@scalaw.com -- Scott Cole & Associates, APC, Matthew
Roland Bainer -- mbainer@scalaw.com -- Scott Cole & Associates,
APC & Hannah R Salassi -- hsalassi@scalaw.com -- Scott Cole and
Associates, APC.

Kraft Foods Global, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Ahearn -- christopher.ahearn@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree
Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Douglas J. Farmer --
doug.farmer@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart, P.C. & Michael J. Nader --
michael.nader@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, P.C..


LEBANON SCHOOL: $108,000 Accord Over Truancy Fines Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in
Harrisburg on Aug. 20, 2013, approved a settlement agreement in
the 2011 class action regarding truancy fines within the Lebanon
School District, Rivera et al. v. Lebanon School District, C.A.
No. 1:11-cv-147 (M.D. Pa.).  Any person who paid more than $300 on
a single truancy fine is a class member entitled to reimbursement
of the amount exceeding $300 from a settlement fund of $108,000.
To receive payment under the settlement, each class member must
submit a claim form to the Business Office at Lebanon School
District no later than Feb. 20, 2014.  No payment will be made
before the end of the claim period.

More information is available at http://www.lebanon.k12.pa.usor
class counsel at http://www.pilcop.org Class counsel may be
reached at lebanonsettlement@pilcop.org or 267-546-1305

Barb Macholz -- bmacholz@pilcop.org -- serves as class counsel.
Chief Judge Yvette Kane oversees the case.

The settlement was reached with the Public Interest Law Center of
Philadelphia on behalf of the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and over 300 parents who
will receive refunds.

The lawsuit was brought by the NAACP and four mothers who paid
fines in excess of the statutory maximum of $300 per fine.

Pepper Hamilton LLP represented the Plaintiffs, but has agreed to
waive its fees and recovery of costs it had paid in acting as
lawyers for the Plaintiffs along with the Law Center.


LIBERTY SILVER: Faces Suit in Florida Over "Pump and Dump" Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marimer Matos, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Liberty Silver sold stocks "at an increased price, pocketing
unlawful profits amounting to tens of millions of dollars,"
investors claim in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Todd Stanaford sued Liberty Silver Corp., Robert
Genovese, Tiffeni Graves, Marnie Markin, Geoffrey Browne, BG
Capital Group and Look Back Investments under the Securities
Exchange Act.

"Genovese is believed to have used a pump and dump pattern of
stock manipulations in Liberty Silver, as well as in numerous
other schemes," the complaint states.

Clearly Canadian Brands, Neptune Society, Envoy Communications,
Spectrum Sciences & Software, and American Lithium Minerals are
just a few of Genovese's other alleged schemes.  They are not
parties to the lawsuit.

Stanaford says the other defendants "should have been known" or
did know what Genovese was up to.

"Genovese is a penny stock promoter and is notorious for operating
on the fringes of the financial markets, making millions of
dollars by touting penny stocks," the complaint states.  "He uses
television shows, newsletters, false and misleading releases, and
emails to pump up a stock, urging the public to invest in these
stocks at artificially inflated rates driving the stock price
higher."

When Genovese dumped "large blocks of stock at the artificially
inflated prices," he reaped "tens of millions of dollars" in
profits, according to the complaint.  Meanwhile, stock prices
plummeted, "leaving the general investing public with huge
losses."

Genovese also had help in promoting Liberty Silver from John
Thomas Financial founder Anastasios Belesis and celebrities like
John Elway, Stanaford says.

Neither Belesis nor Elway are named as defendants.

Canadian-born Genovese allegedly "flew his private leer jet" to
visit Belesis in New York.  Stanaford says Belesis was flown by to
the Bahamas where he "accepted $2,500,000 from Genovese to heavily
sell John Thomas Financial owned Liberty Silver stock, to the
detriment of the investing public, as well as purchase the
6,600,000 shares sold by Genovese on September 20, 2012."

The complaint notes that the Securities and Exchange Commission
halted trading on shares of Liberty Silver in October 2012 "for a
period of nearly two weeks resulting in the issuer being
downgraded to the Grey Market pursuant to rule 15c2-11."

"According to the SEC, the reasons for the halt were 'a lack of
current and accurate information about the company concerning,
among other things, the control of its stock, its market price,
and trading in the stock,'" the complaint continued.

Genovese's actions allowed him "to make huge profits while leaving
the company and investors in financial ruin," Stanaford adds.  He
seeks compensatory damages for the class.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary Steven Menzer, Esq.
          MENZER & HILL, P.A.
          2200 NW Corporate Blvd., Suite 406
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 327-7207
          Facsimile: (561) 431-4611
          E-mail: gmenzer@menzerhill.com

The case is Stanaford v. Genovese, et al., Case No. 9:13-cv-80923-
KLR, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (West Palm Beach).


LORILLARD TOBACCO: Faces $8-Mil. Verdict in Asbestos-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adolfo Pesquera, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
an $8 million verdict that burdened Lorillard Tobacco Co. with a
major portion of fault was hailed by the plaintiffs attorney as
the largest award against a cigarette maker for an asbestos-
related injury.

From 1952 to 1956, Lorillard produced a version of its Kent brand
cigarettes using a filter containing asbestos fibers.

Richard Delisle, 74, of Leesburg was diagnosed in July 2012 with
mesothelioma, a fatal lung cancer caused by asbestos. He contended
the Kents he smoked as a teenager contributed to his disease.

Lorillard attorney Ricardo Cedillo -- rcedillo@lawdcm.com -- of
Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza in San Antonio, Texas, noted Mr. Delisle
told health care providers he did not start smoking until about
1960.

Mr. Cedillo alleged Mr. Delisle never smoked Kents with asbestos
in filters.  Even if he did, Mr. Cedillo said tests showed the
amount of fibers released during smoking was negligible. He
insisted Mr. Delisle must have contracted the illness from one of
the other defendants.

Defendants included Crane Co., a paper mill operator in
Massachusetts where Mr. Delisle worked in the early 1960s fitting
pipes.  The gaskets he worked on contained asbestos.

The jury found Lorillard 22% at fault and Hollingsworth & Vose
Co., the filter manufacturer, also 22% at fault.  The trial was
heard before Broward Circuit Judge John Murphy.

Because of a joint venture indemnity agreement between the two
companies, Hollingsworth's liability shifted to Lorillard, said
David Jagolinzer of Ferraro Law in Coral Gables, Mr. Delisle's
attorney.

Crane was found 16% at fault, Mr. Jagolinzer said.  No liability
was assigned to Mr. Delisle, and the remaining 40% was against
Fabre defendants.

The 44% portion against Lorillard, or $3.52 million, is the
largest jury judgment ever awarded against a tobacco company in a
mesothelioma case, Mr. Jagolinzer said.

"There's never been one tried in Florida before," he said.  "I
picked a jury for one in Hillsborough, but the case settled before
trial.  In the nation, there have only been about five cases that
have ever been successful.  The highest verdict was for $1.2
million in a case in California."

The case was filed in Broward because a defendant that was
dismissed before trial, Premix-Marbletite Manufacturing Co., is
based in Pompano Beach.


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Hon. John Hughes Appointed as Special Master
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a special master will handle claims that Mercedes-Benz sells
cars with supposedly state-of-the-art rims that warp or fracture,
costing consumers millions, a federal judge ruled.

In a putative nationwide class action, Vincent Luppino and others
claim that Mercedes-Benz USA LLC and Daimler AG knowingly
misrepresented in print, online, and television ads that 17- to
19-inch AMG or non-AMG wheels on vehicles bought from 2006 on are
made of a lightweight alloy designed to meet "exceedingly high
requirements for strength and durability."

Although the rims can supposedly withstand various difficult on
and off-road terrains, including mountain and desert topographies,
they are defective, the plaintiffs claim.

A 2006 catalog allegedly says the wheels meet "high standards for
safety, dependability and performance -- not to mention aesthetics
-- and make your vehicle even more special."

But the plaintiffs' third amended complaint, filed in the federal
court in Newark, N.J. in March 2012, alleges the rims bend,
deform, dent, warp, or fracture -- even if the driver dodges
potholes.

The Montvale, N.J.-based Mercedes-Benz of North America and its
German parent company allegedly failed to honor their four-year,
50,000-mile warranty; moreover, by refusing to make any necessary
repairs or replacements, they forced consumers to incur a total of
$5 million in out-of-pocket costs.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory and treble damages, as well as a
tolling of the statute of limitations on claims the automotive
giant violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act.

After a slew of discovery disputes, U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph
A. Dickson indicated in June that the district court intended to
appoint a special master to oversee the process before the class
moves for certification.

Mercedes and Daimler objected, arguing that there is no "clear
need" to appoint a special master because the court already ruled
on all necessary pre-trial discovery matters.

But the plaintiffs contend the defendants' "dilatory conduct" --
including their failure to meet on court-ordered discovery and
obstructionist litigation tactics -- delayed the process.

Nearly four years after the original complaint was filed, U.S.
District Judge Dennis Cavanaugh held the appointment of a special
master is appropriate, noting that although the magistrate judge
issued at least two orders and held at least three conferences,
discovery "remains outstanding and/or continues to be hotly
disputed."

Cavanaugh noted, "[t]he parties have already submitted over 266
pages of documents respect to which they challenge the
confidential designations.

"According to the parties' representations, over 70,000 pages of
documents had already been produced in discovery as of November
2012, and the court has no indication how many documents have been
designated as confidential by the parties," the judge said.
"Thus, the potential scope of designation disputes is immense --
particularly in light of the fact that the parties have yet to
produce privilege logs (which, the Court notes, is another dispute
between the parties).

"Without frequent and intense monitoring, this case will only
further languish due to the parties' incessant disputes, to the
detriment of all parties involved," Cavanaugh wrote.

The special master will oversee the plaintiffs' acquisition,
inspection, and testing of dealership wheels; the discovery of
Mercedes' Market Research Aftersales database; and several
custodians' depositions, and advise on the appropriateness of
document confidentiality, the unpublished opinion states.

Daimler reported about $153 billion in revenue in 2012.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994-1744
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  ltaylor@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          James Hall Gianninoto, Esq.
          James Stuart Notis, Esq.
          Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
          Kelly Ann Noto, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          560 Sylvan Ave.
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: (201) 567-7377
          Facsimile: (201) 567-7337
          E-mail: jhg@gardylaw.com
                  jnotis@gardylaw.com
                  jsarnelli@GARDYLAW.com
                  knoto@gardylaw.com

               - and -

          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          440 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 110
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: (201) 567-7377
          E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com

               - and -

          Shelly L. Friedland, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Ave., 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8523
          E-mail: sfriedland@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
          Christopher Marlborough, Esq.
          Courtney E. MacCarone, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017-6531
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: avozzolo@faruqilaw.com
                  cmarlborough@faruqilaw.com
                  cmaccarone@faruqilaw.com

The Mercedes-Benz Dealerships are represented by:

          Michael A. Baldassare, Esq.
          Jennifer Mara, Esq.
          BALDASSARE & MARA LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 900
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 200-4066
          Facsimile: (973) 556-1071
          E-mail: mbaldassare@mabalaw.com
                  jmara@mabalaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher T. Walsh, Esq.
          Jennifer Marino Thibodaux, Esq.
          Melissa Catherine Dehonney, Esq.
          Michael R. McDonald, Esq.
          GIBBONS P.C.
          One Gateway Center
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 596-4500
          E-mail: cwalsh@gibbonslaw.com
                  jmarino@gibbonslaw.com
                  mdehonney@gibbonslaw.com
                  mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com

The case is Luppino, et al. v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Daimler
AG, Case No. 2:09-cv-05582-DMC-JBC, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey (Newark).


MICROSOFT CORP: Accused of Hiding Info About Windows RT Tablets
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abdul R. Chaudry, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Microsoft Corporation, Steven A. Ballmer,
Peter S. Klein, Frank H. Brod and Tami Reller, Case No. 1:13-cv-
12266-DPW (D. Mass., September 12, 2013) is a securities class
action brought on behalf of purchasers of Microsoft common stock
between April 18, 2013, and July 18, 2013, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

By the first quarter of 2013, just months after being released to
the public, retailers of Windows RT tablets began to slash the
prices of their devices in an attempt to generate consumer demand
and clear unsold stock from stores, the Plaintiff says.
Unbeknownst to investors, by the end of its March 31, 2013
quarter, Microsoft had amassed a large excess of Surface RT
inventory, the Plaintiff asserts.  In violation of the Company's
publicly disclosed inventory accounting policy, generally accepted
accounting principles and SEC rules and regulations, the
Defendants caused Microsoft to issue materially false and
misleading financial statements and financial disclosures for the
quarter ended March 31, 2013, the Plaintiff alleges.

The Plaintiff purchased the common stock of Microsoft during the
Class Period.

Founded in 1975, Microsoft is the world's largest software
company, primarily as a result of its near-monopoly Windows
personal computer operating system software and its Microsoft
Office collection of productivity programs.  In addition, the
Company produces a wide range of software for desktop computers
and servers and is active in Internet search with its Bing search
engine; the video game market with its Xbox and Xbox 360 products;
the digital services market with its Microsoft Network, or MSN;
and in mobile phones via its Windows Phone operating system.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward F. Haber, Esq.
          Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
          53 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 439-3939
          Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
          E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com
                  astewart@shulaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


MIMEDX GROUP: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. on Sept. 19 disclosed that it has filed a
securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
MiMedx Group, Inc. on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company during the
period from October 26, 2011 through September 4, 2013.

MiMedx is a developer, manufacturer and marketer of patent
protected regenerative biomaterial products and allografts process
from human amniotic membranes.  The Company sells its products
directly, as well as through a network of third party sales agents
and stocking distributors in the United States and
internationally.

The complaint brings forth claims for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The Complaint alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) the Company was in violation of the Public
Health Service Act by unlawfully manufacturing and marketing
certain unapproved biologics products; and (2) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On September 4, 2013, the Food and Drug Administration posted on
its website an "Untitled Letter" sent to MiMedx on August 28,
2013, which stated that MiMedx's Surgical Biologics unit violated
the Public Health Service Act by unlawfully manufacturing and
marketing drugs at one of its plants, thereby marketing unapproved
biologics products.  On this news, MiMedx securities declined
$2.21 per share or more than 36%, to close at $3.85 per share on
September 4, 2013.  You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and
join the class action at http://www.saxenawhite.com

If you purchased MiMedx stock between October 26, 2011 and
September 4, 2013, you may contact Lester Hooker --
lhooker@saxenawhite.com -- at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your
rights and interests.

If you purchased MiMedx common stock during the Class Period of
October 26, 2011 through September 4, 2013, and wish to apply to
be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must
be filed with the Court no later than November 8, 2013.  You may
contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the
appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class
action.  Please note that you may also retain counsel of your
choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class
member.

Contact:

Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
Saxena White P.A.
2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Tel: (561) 394-3399
Fax: (561) 394-3382
Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com
E-mail: lhooker@saxenawhite.com


MUSTANG SALLY'S: Judge Slashes Attorney Fees in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
John Caher, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that with a
stern reminder to the bar that "the padding of neither the bill
nor the brief will be tolerated," a federal judge in Buffalo has
dramatically slashed fees to a law firm that attempted to charge
its $200-per-hour associate rate for labor done by an attorney who
did much of her work on a case before she was admitted.

The New Paltz firm of Getman & Sweeney requested nearly $138,000
in fees and expenses for its efforts in a Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) class action on behalf of exotic dancers.  Western District
Chief Judge William Skretny cut the amount to about $79,000.

Brown v. Mustang Sally's Spirits and Grill, 12-cv-529, settled for
approximately $70,000 and the Getman firm sought statutory
attorney fees at an out-of-district rate ranging from $550 per
hour for a named partner to $135 for paralegals.  In the Western
District, the prevailing hourly rate for a partner is
approximately $250 per hour for an FLSA class action, according to
court papers.

Judge Skretny said that while higher, out-of-district rates are
appropriate in some cases, "a reasonable, paying client would not
pay the hourly rates" requested by the Getman firm.

Judge Skretny awarded the two partners, Dan Getman and Michael
Sweeney, $300 and $235 per hour, respectively, while approving
rates of $150 to $200 for associates.

Judge Skretny said it was "inappropriate" for the firm to bill a
$200 associate rate for the hours expended by a new associate,
"particularly in light of the fact that almost a third" of the
time she spent on the case was as a law clerk.

Mr. Getman represented his firm.  The defendant was represented by
Matthew Hoffer of Shafer & Associates of Lansing, Mich.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Plaintiff Counsel Drops "Tatum" Suit in W.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tatum v. NFL, 2:13-cv-01272, a publicity rights lawsuit on behalf
of 550+ former NFL players filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania was dismissed this month
because its filing violated the April 8, 2013 order of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota in the Dryer v. NFL
lawsuit, Civil No. 09-2182.

The Minnesota Court determined in an Order dated Sept. 6, 2013,
that no other NFL publicity rights lawsuit may be filed until that
Court determines whether or not it will confirm the potential
class action settlement in Dryer.

Plaintiff counsel Jason Luckasevic, Esq., and Jason Shipp, Esq.,
in a notice published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Sept. 10,
said they dismissed the lawsuit in view of the Minnesota Court
order.

"We filed the Tatum lawsuit because we believed that our clients
might lose the potential ability to recover four years' worth of
past damages if we did not file by August 30th, 2013, which was
the date by which putative Dryer class members could choose to pt
out of the Dryer settlement," said Messrs. Luckasevic and Shipp.
"The Minnesota Court has alleviated our fears in that regard, and
has expressly stated in its September 6th Order that our ability
to recover those damages is protected until it ruleson the
potential final settlement of the Dryer matter.  We look forward
to litigating the Tatum clients' publicity rights claims when the
Minnesota court allows us."


NEW YORK LIFE: Churned and Burned Trainee Agents, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nick DiVito at Courthouse News Service reports that New York Life
Insurance illegally reverses commissions its agents earn, while
charging them for office space and other overhead expenses, a
class claims in court.

Lead plaintiff Brian Chenensky was an insurance agent for New York
Life from May 2003 until September 2006.  His complaint in New
York County Supreme Court names the defendants as: New York Life
Insurance Co., New York Life Insurance and Annuity Corp., NYLife
Insurance Co. of Arizona.

The action comes five years after Chenensky filed the same claims
against the same defendants in Federal Court, only to have U.S.
District Judge William Pauley III toss the case for lack of
federal subject matter jurisdiction this past March.

New York Life was quick to highlight the case's history when asked
about the new lawsuit.

"Plaintiff has been attempting to make out this claim for almost
seven years now," New York Life senior vice president William
Werfelman said.  "Despite his persistence, we remain confident
that both the law and the facts strongly support our position that
we have paid our agents wholly consistent with the law.  We will
continue to defend these baseless claims vigorously."

Chenensky says New York Life deducted agent wages or required them
to pay additional money for overhead costs such as office space,
telephone service, computer support and liability insurance.  He
also says the company illegally reversed commissions for things
beyond an agent's control, like when a customer canceled a policy,
failed to pay anticipated premiums or withdrew funds.  Similar
reversals allegedly occurred when New York Life rescinded the
product or recalculated commissions.

Such deductions are described nowhere in all the employment
contracts agents sign, according to the complaint.

"New York Life follows an antiquated and illegal 'company store'
model in which compensation given with one hand is significantly
reduced or entirely eliminated with the other hand," the complaint
states.  "At the same time that New York Life agents work
extraordinarily long hours, New York Life charges them thousands
of dollars per year for their necessary work expenses such as
office space, telephone service and computer support."

Chenensky says New York Life recruits as many as agents as
possible, then works them as a trainee for up to three years.
Once they have gone through making clients of family members and
friends, however, they allegedly have a hard time generating new
business.

"As a result, of every hundred agents that are hired, fewer than
10 typically make it past the first or second year, and only two
or three ever become an established agent," the lawsuit states.

Once an agent leaves the company, New York Life allegedly stops
paying commissions on the continuing premiums received on policies
that the agent wrote.

"The company thus retains the fruits of the agents labor of
working long hours and paying significant portions of the
company's overhead, even while the agent might, at the end of the
day, owe the company for any deductions and charges that were not
sufficiently offset against commissions," the lawsuit states.

Such a move allegedly shifts the risk of economic loss onto the
agent.  "Thus, not only do many agents generate minimal commission
earnings, they often terminate their employment at New York Life
owing thousands of dollars," Chenensky claims.

He seeks damages, restitution and an accounting of all deducted
wages.

The complaint notes that New York Life's cross-appeal in the
federal action with Chenensky remains pending.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Halebian, Esq.
          Adam C. Mayes, Esq.
          LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
          Midtown Office
          317 Madison Avenue, 21st Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 500-5010
          Facsimile: (212) 208-6806
          E-mail: jhalebian@lshllp.com

               - and -

          James V. Bashian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES V. BASHIAN, P.C.
          500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2700
          New York, NY 10110
          Telephone: (212) 921-4110
          Facsimile: (212) 921-4249
          E-mail: jbashian@bashianlaw.com

               - and -

          Kenneth A. Elan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH A. ELAN
          217 Broadway, Suite 606
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 619-0261
          Facsimile: (212) 385-2707
          E-mail: kenneth@elanlaw.com

The case is Brian Chenensky v. New York Life Insurance Co., et
al., Case No. 653161/2013, in the Supreme Court of New York.


NUCOR CORP: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits by Steel Buyers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nucor Corporation has been named, along with other major steel
producers, as a co-defendant in several related antitrust class-
action complaints filed by Standard Iron Works and other steel
purchasers in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  The majority of these complaints were filed
in September and October of 2008, with two additional complaints
being filed in July and December of 2010.  Two of these complaints
have been voluntarily dismissed and are no longer pending.  The
plaintiffs allege that from April 1, 2005, through December 31,
2007, eight steel manufacturers, including Nucor, engaged in
anticompetitive activities with respect to the production and sale
of steel.  The plaintiffs seek monetary and other relief.
Although the Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit and will vigorously defend against them, the Company cannot
at this time predict the outcome of this litigation or estimate
the range of Nucor's potential exposure.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 7, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 29, 2013.

Headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, Nucor Corporation and
its affiliates manufacture steel and steel products.  Nucor also
produces direct reduced iron for use in its steel mills.  Through
The David J. Joseph Company and its affiliates, the Company also
processes ferrous and nonferrous metals and brokers ferrous and
nonferrous metals, pig iron, hot briquetted iron and direct
reduced iron.


QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA: School Closure Suit Won't Work, MP Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Isobel Roe, writing for ABC News, reports that the LNP's Burdekin
MP Rosemary Menkens says a class action against the closure of
Stuart State School will not work.

Parents at the Townsville school say they will launch action
against the Queensland Government over its decision to close the
school at the end of the year.  They will argue the process has
not adhered to its initial guidelines.

The State Opposition has criticized Ms. Menkens for not defending
the school which has been deemed financially unviable.

Ms. Menkens says she lodged a submission against the closure but
she supports the Education Minister.

"Sadly, the numbers didn't add up," she said.

"As I understand it, it was the numbers that didn't add up and
there are vacant positions in two schools nearby and that at the
end of the day is why the decision has been made."

She says she did not want the school to close.

"I put in a submission against the closure of the school," she
said.

"The decision has been made and at the end of the day I support
the Minister's decision.

"However, I am disappointed and I know how disappointed those
family members are and those people that share the history of
Stuart State School."


SANOFI-AVENTIS SA: Settles Zimulti Class Action for $40 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee and Matthew Heller, writing for Law360, report that
Los Angeles French pharmaceutical giant Sanofi-Aventis SA has
agreed to pay $40 million to settle a class action brought by
investors who claim the company withheld information about anti-
obesity drug Zimulti's link to severe psychiatric problems,
according to documents filed in New York federal court on
Sept. 19.

The agreement, which still requires court approval, comes six
months after a New York federal judge certified the class of
investors, finding the lead plaintiffs' securities fraud claims
were typical of the class as a whole.

U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels rejected Sanofi's argument
that the claims did not meet the typicality requirement for class
actions because the lead plaintiffs' asset managers were closely
following financial markets and the financial press at the time
the firm made the alleged misstatements.

The $40 million all-cash settlement completely resolves all claims
in the action, without Sanofi admitting wrongdoing.  Plaintiffs
say the deal will help provide timely benefits to class members.

"The principal reason for the settlement is the benefit to be
provided to the class now," the plaintiffs said in a proposed
order filed on Sept. 19.  "This benefit must be compared to the
risk that no recovery might be achieved after a contested trial
and likely appeals, possibly years into the future."

Plaintiffs led by Hawaii Annuity Trust for Operating Engineers
brought suit in 2007.  The amended class action complaint alleges
that while seeking regulatory approval for Zimulti in 2006, Sanofi
covered up the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's concerns over a
link between the drug and a heightened risk of suicidal thoughts.
The alleged misstatements were made by Sanofi executives in two
earnings calls, according to court documents.

Sanofi ultimately withdrew its application for Zimulti after the
FDA's advisory committee unanimously recommended that the agency
block the drug, causing investors "untold losses" and leading
European regulators to ban sales of the drug, according to the
amended complaint.

Zimulti is designed to fight obesity by reducing appetite. During
the class period, the plaintiffs said, analysts forecast that
annual sales of the drug could top $4.2 billion by 2011.

In opposing class certification, Sanofi challenged whether the
claims met the requirements for typicality, adequacy, predominance
and superiority.

The settlement covers investors who purchased Sanofi American
Depository Receipts from Feb. 24, 2006, through June 13, 2007.

Representatives for the parties didn't immediately return requests
for comment late on Sept. 19.

The plaintiffs are represented by Tor Gronborg -- torg@rgrdlaw.com
-- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Sanofi-Aventis is represented by Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
LLP.

The case is In re: Sanofi-Aventis Securities Litigation, case
number 1:07-cv-10279, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Court Stays "Velazquez" Case Pending Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Q. Hayes granted a motion to compel
arbitration in, and stay the action captioned, FELIPA VALENCIA
VELAZQUEZ, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., a New York
Corporation; SEARS FULL LINE STORES, an unknown business entity;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 13CV680-
WQH-DHB, (S.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to 9 U.S.C. Section 3, the Court stayed the action
pending arbitration.

"The Clerk of the Court shall administratively close this case
without prejudice to any party moving to have the case reopened
for good cause," Judge Hayes added.

A copy of the District Court's August 26, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/HlOrMYfrom Leagle.com.

Felipa Valencia Velazquez, Plaintiff, represented by Farzad
Rastegar -- farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com -- Rastegar Law Group, APC
& Wendy Sha -- wendy@rastegarlawgroup.com -- Rastegar Law Group,
APC.

Sears, Roebuck and Co., Defendant, represented by Jinnifer D.
Pitcher -- jpitcher@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP, Joseph C. Liburt -- jliburt@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington
& Sutcliffe & David Adrian Lucero -- dlucero@orrick.com -- Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLC.


SHELL OIL: Class Suit Over Contamination in Roxana, IL, Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Joe Harris reports that a
federal judge certified a class action accusing Shell Oil Co. of
contaminating private property near its refinery in Roxana, Ill.

Lead plaintiff Jeana Parko sued Shell Oil Company, Equilon
Enterprises dba Shell Oil Products US, ConocoPhillips Company, WRB
Refining LP, ConocoPhillips WRB Partner and Cenovus GPCO in
Madison County Court in April 2012.  The lawsuit was later removed
to federal court.

Parko claims she and her neighbors suffered lower property values
due to benzene and other carcinogenic chemical releases that have
contaminated the groundwater, land and air of Roxana.  The
emissions are allegedly caused by broken pipelines and the
refinery itself.  More than 200,000 pounds of pure benzene were
released from a pipeline directly into the ground during the time
Shell owned the refinery, according to a release from Simmons
Browder Gianaris Angelides & Barnerd, the firm representing the
class.

"If you own property in Roxana, this is obviously a big issue,"
Simmons shareholder Derek Brandt told Courthouse News.  "Everybody
is concerned if they will be able to sell their house in the
future."

U.S District Judge G. Patrick Murphy granted the class
certification on September 3.

Shell had argued that the owners of the estimated 387 parcels of
land at issue should be forced to litigate individually.

"The questions of whether hazardous petroleum byproduct pervades
village property and of whether defendants are complicit in any
resultant damage are best suited to class-wide resolution," Murphy
wrote.  "Answering these questions across multiple fact-finders
would do nothing to increase the 'accuracy of the resolution' and
would, indeed, be redundant and an unnecessary strain on the
dockets of multiple judges."

Brandt told Courthouse News that class certification made sense
for both sides in this case.

"It gives authority to the defendant, so that no one later can
come back and ask 'what about me?' All of the plaintiffs would be
included in whoever is in the class," Brandt said.  "It also gives
the plaintiffs an advantage because they can proceed in mass."

Despite Murphy's decision to certify the class, the issue is far
from resolved.  Brandt said much of the effort up to this point
has been defending his clients' interests in securing class
status.  Now the focus switches to preparing for trial.

"At this point, we're going through all of the documents and
evidence," Brandt said.  "We are trying to prove that they did it
and they knew they did it."

Murphy's decision is the latest setback for Shell in the Parko
litigation.  Last year, Shell unsuccessfully tried to have the
case stayed or dismissed due to two other similar cases still
pending in Madison County.

Shell officials were unavailable for comment.

The Simmons firm also represents the Village of Roxana, 20 miles
north of St. Louis, in a similar lawsuit against Shell.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrea Bierstein, Esq.
          HANLY CONROY BIERSTEIN SHERIDAN FISHER & HAYES LLP
          112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 784-6403
          Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
          E-mail: abierstein@hanlyconroy.com

               - and -

          Jayne H. Conroy, Esq.
          HANLY CONROY BIERSTEIN SHERIDAN FISHER & HAYES LLP
          415 Madison Avenue, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 401-7555
          Facsimile: (212) 401-7635
          E-mail: jconroy@hanlyconroy.com

               - and -

          Anna M. Kohut, Esq.
          Derek Y. Brandt, Esq.
          Emily J. Kirk, Esq.
          G. Michael Stewart, Esq.
          Jo Anna Pollock, Esq.
          John Robert Phillips, Esq.
          SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC
          One Court Street
          Alton, IL 62002
          Telephone: (618) 259-6437
          Facsimile: (618) 259-2551
          E-mail: akohut@simmonsfirm.com
                  dbrandt@simmonsfirm.com
                  ekirk@simmonsfirm.com
                  mstewart@simmonsfirm.com
                  jpollock@simmonsfirm.com
                  jphillips@simmonsfirm.com

               - and -

          Melissa Sims, Esq.
          MELISSA K. SIMS LAW OFFICE
          1611 Fifth St.
          Peru, IL 61356
          Telephone: (815) 224-2030

The Defendants are represented by:

          Bart C. Sullivan, Esq.
          Richard B. Korn, Esq.
          Ryan E. Mohr, Esq.
          FOX GALVIN, LLC - ST. LOUIS
          One Memorial Drive, 12th Floor
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 588-7000
          Facsimile: (314) 588-1965
          E-mail: bsullivan@foxgalvin.com
                  rkorn@foxgalvin.com
                  rmohr@foxgalvin.com

               - and -

          Beth A. Bauer, Esq.
          HEPLER BROOM LLC
          400 S. Ninth St., Suite 100
          Springfield, IL 62701
          Telephone: (618) 656-0184
          E-mail: bab@heplerbroom.com

               - and -

          Larry E. Hepler, Esq.
          HEPLER, BROOM, MACDONALD, HEBRANK, TRUE & NOCE LLC
          103 West Vandalia Street
          Suite 300, P.O. Box 510
          Edwardsville, IL 62025-0510
          Telephone: (618) 656-0184
          E-mail: leh@heplerbroom.com

The case Parko, et al. v. Shell Oil Company, et al., Case No.
3:12-cv-00336-GPM-PMF, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois (East St. Louis).


SPECIALTY'S CAFE: Parties Get More Time to File Papers in Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu approved a stipulation in COVILLO v.
SPECIALTY'S CAFE AND BAKERY, INC. continuing the plaintiffs'
deadline to submit supplemental papers in support of a motion for
preliminary approval of a class action settlement.

The case is NICOLA COVILLO and TROYREAC HENRY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
SPECIALTY'S CAF AND BAKERY, INC., CRAIG SAXTON and DAWN SAXTON,
Defendants, NO. 4:11-CV-00594 DMR, (N.D. Cal.).

A copy of the District Court's August 26, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/Qi5uUQfrom Leagle.com.

HARRIS & RUBLE, Alan Harris (State Bar No. 146079) --
HarrisA@harrisandruble.com -- Priya Mohan (State Bar No. 228984)
-- pmohan@harrisandruble.com -- Los Angeles, California Attorneys
for Plaintiffs, NICOLA COVILLO, TROYREAC HENRY, and JOHN CHISHOLM.

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, Francis J. Ortman III (State Bar No. 213202) --
fortman@seyfarth.com -- Justin T. Curley (State Bar No. 233287) --
jcurley@seyfarth.com -- Emily E. Barker (State Bar No. 275166) --
ebarker@seyfarth.com -- San Francisco, California Attorneys for
Defendants SPECIALTY'S CAFE AND BAKERY, INC., and CRAIG SAXTON.

David S. Harris (State Bar No. 215224) -- dsh@northbaylawgroup.com
-- NORTH BAY LAW GROUP Mill Valley, California James D. Rush
(State Bar No. 240284) -- jr@rushlawoffices.com -- LAW OFFICES OF
JAMES D. RUSH, APC, Novato, California Additional Attorneys for
Plaintiffs NICOLA COVILLO, TROYREAC HENRY and JOHN CHISHOLM.


TRUSTMARK CORP: Still Defends Two Stanford-Related Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trustmark Corporation continues to defend its subsidiary against
two class action lawsuits related to the collapse of Stanford
Financial Group, 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.

Trustmark's wholly-owned subsidiary, Trustmark National Bank
(TNB), has been named as a defendant in two lawsuits related to
the collapse of the Stanford Financial Group.  The first is a
purported class action complaint that was filed on August 23,
2009, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, by Peggy Roif
Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell, Steven Queyrouze,
Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein and Juan C. Olano, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, naming TNB and four
other financial institutions unaffiliated with Trustmark as
defendants.  The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent
transfers from each of the defendants in the amount of fees and
other monies received by each defendant from entities controlled
by R. Allen Stanford (collectively, the "Stanford Financial
Group") and (ii) damages allegedly attributable to alleged
conspiracies by one or more of the defendants with the Stanford
Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud on the
asserted grounds that defendants knew or should have known the
Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent
scheme.  The Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial.  The
Plaintiffs did not quantify damages.  In November 2009, the
lawsuit was removed to federal court by certain defendants and
then transferred by the United States Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation to federal court in the Northern District of Texas
(Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters are being
consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.  In May 2010, all
defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit,
and the motions to dismiss have been fully briefed by all parties.
The court has not yet ruled on the defendants' motions to dismiss.

In August 2010, the court authorized and approved the formation of
an Official Stanford Investors Committee ("OSIC") to represent the
interests of Stanford investors and, under certain circumstances,
to file legal actions for the benefit of Stanford investors.  In
December 2011, OSIC filed a motion to intervene in this action.
In September 2012, the district court referred the case to a
magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain pretrial
issues.  In December 2012, the court granted the OSIC's motion to
intervene, and the OSIC filed an Intervenor Complaint against one
of the other defendant financial institutions.

In February 2013, the OSIC filed an additional Intervenor
Complaint that asserts claims against TNB and the remaining
defendant financial institutions.  The OSIC seeks to recover: (i)
alleged fraudulent transfers in the amount of the fees each of the
defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group, the
profits each of the defendants allegedly made from Stanford
Financial Group deposits, and other monies each of the defendants
allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group; (ii) damages
attributable to alleged conspiracies by each of the defendants
with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and
abet fraud and conversion on the asserted grounds that the
defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group
was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme; and (iii)
punitive damages.  The OSIC did not quantify damages.

The second Stanford-related lawsuit was filed on December 14,
2009, in the District Court of Ascension Parish, Louisiana,
individually by Harold Jackson, Paul Blaine, Carolyn Bass Smith,
Christine Nichols, and Ronald and Ramona Hebert naming TNB
(misnamed as Trust National Bank) and other individuals and
entities not affiliated with Trustmark as defendants.  The
complaint seeks to recover the money lost by these individual
plaintiffs as a result of the collapse of the Stanford Financial
Group (in addition to other damages) under various theories and
causes of action, including negligence, breach of contract, breach
of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental
reliance, conspiracy, and violation of Louisiana's uniform
fiduciary, securities, and racketeering laws.  The complaint does
not quantify the amount of money the plaintiffs seek to recover.
In January 2010, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.  On March 29,
2010, the court stayed the case.  TNB filed a motion to lift the
stay, which was denied on February 28, 2012.  In September 2012,
the district court referred the case to a magistrate judge for
hearing and determination of certain pretrial issues.

TNB's relationship with the Stanford Financial Group began as a
result of Trustmark's acquisition of a Houston-based bank in
August 2006, and consisted of correspondent banking and other
traditional banking services in the ordinary course of business.
Both Stanford-related lawsuits are in their preliminary stages and
have been previously disclosed by Trustmark.

The Company says all pending legal proceedings are being
vigorously contested.  In the regular course of business,
Management evaluates estimated losses or costs related to
litigation, and provision is made for anticipated losses whenever
Management believes that such losses are probable and can be
reasonably estimated.  At the present time, Management believes,
based on the advice of legal counsel and Management's evaluation,
that (i) the final resolution of pending legal proceedings will
not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material impact on
Trustmark's consolidated financial position or results of
operations and (ii) a loss in any such case is not probable at
this time, and thus no accrual is required under FASB ASC Topic
450-20, "Loss Contingencies."  In addition, given the preliminary
nature of these matters and the lack of any quantification by the
plaintiffs of the relief being sought, to the extent that a loss
in any such matter may be viewed as reasonably possible under FASB
ASC Topic 450-20, it is not possible at this time to provide an
estimate of any such possible loss (or range of possible loss) for
any such matter.

Trustmark Corporation -- http://www.trustmark.com/-- operates as
the bank holding company for Trustmark National Bank, which
provides banking and financial solutions to individuals and
corporate institutions in Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, and
Texas.  The Company was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in
Jackson, Mississippi.


TRUSTMARK CORP: TNB Signed MOU to Settle Two Overdraft Fee Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trustmark Corporation's subsidiary entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle two class action lawsuits challenging its
practices regarding "overdraft" or "non-sufficient funds" fees,
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.

Trustmark's wholly-owned subsidiary, Trustmark National Bank
(TNB), is the defendant in two putative class actions challenging
TNB's practices regarding "overdraft" or "non-sufficient funds"
fees charged by TNB in connection with customer use of debit
cards, including TNB's order of processing transactions, notices
and calculations of charges, and calculations of fees.  Kathy D.
White v. TNB was filed in Tennessee state court in Memphis,
Tennessee, and was removed on June 19, 2012, to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.  (Plaintiff
Kathy White had filed an earlier, virtually identical action that
was voluntarily dismissed.)  Leroy Jenkins v. TNB was filed on
June 4, 2012, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi.  The White and Jenkins pleadings are
matters of public record in the files of the courts.  In both
cases, the plaintiffs purport to represent classes of similarly-
situated customers of TNB.  The White complaint asserts claims of
breach of contract, breach of a duty of good faith and fair
dealing, unconscionability, conversion, and unjust enrichment.
The Jenkins complaint originally included similar allegations as
well as federal-law claims under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act
(EFTA) and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO"); however, the RICO claims were voluntarily dismissed from
the case on January 9, 2013.  Each of these complaints seeks the
imposition of a constructive trust and unquantified damages.
These complaints were largely patterned after similar lawsuits
that have been filed against other banks across the country.  On
July 19, 2012, the plaintiff in the White case filed an amended
complaint to add plaintiffs from Mississippi and also to add
federal EFTA claims.  Trustmark contends that amended complaint
was procedurally improper.  On October 4, 2012, the plaintiff in
the White case moved for leave to add two Tennessee plaintiffs.
Trustmark filed preliminary dismissal and venue transfer motions,
and discovery has begun, in the White case; the Jenkins case has
also entered the active discovery stage.  Trustmark also filed a
motion to dismiss all claims except the EFTA claim in the Jenkins
case.  All of these motions remained pending when the parties
began active settlement negotiations under the Mississippi federal
court's supervision in June 2013.

On June 25, 2013, TNB signed a memorandum of understanding (the
"MOU") containing principal terms of a proposed settlement, which
is subject to certain conditions, addressing resolution of
plaintiff claims in the White and Jenkins cases.  TNB has agreed
to the proposed settlement and entered into the MOU solely by way
of compromise and settlement, and TNB's agreement to the terms of
the proposed settlement and entry into the MOU are not in any way
an admission of liability, fault or wrongdoing by TNB.  The MOU
includes the following terms, among other terms:

   * A settlement class consisting of TNB account holders between
     September 28, 2005, and the date of district court
     preliminary approval of a formal written settlement
     agreement who were assessed overdraft fees for electronic
     debit transactions pursuant to TNB's challenged practices.
     Customers of BankTrust, an entity whose parent corporation
     merged with Trustmark on February 15, 2013, are not members
     of the settlement class.

   * Payment by TNB of $4 million to create the settlement fund.

   * Maintenance by TNB of its present chronological ordering
     system for non-recurring point of sale and automatic teller
     machine items for two years.

   * The release of all overdraft related claims of settlement
     class members.

   * At TNB's election, termination of the settlement if 100 or
     more settlement class members opt out of the settlement.

The MOU must be reduced to a formal written settlement agreement
that is agreeable to all parties and that settlement agreement was
to be submitted for preliminary court approval by July 26, 2013;
that deadline has been extended by agreement of the parties.  The
proposed settlement agreement will also be subject to final court
approval after issuance of notice to the class.  Until these
conditions have been satisfied, the settlement is not final.  The
proposed settlement of $4.0 million, or $2.5 million net of taxes,
was included in other noninterest expense for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

The Company says all pending legal proceedings are being
vigorously contested.  In the regular course of business,
Management evaluates estimated losses or costs related to
litigation, and provision is made for anticipated losses whenever
Management believes that such losses are probable and can be
reasonably estimated.  At the present time, Management believes,
based on the advice of legal counsel and Management's evaluation,
that (i) the final resolution of pending legal proceedings will
not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material impact on
Trustmark's consolidated financial position or results of
operations and (ii) a loss in any such case is not probable at
this time, and thus no accrual is required under FASB ASC Topic
450-20, "Loss Contingencies."  In addition, given the preliminary
nature of these matters and the lack of any quantification by the
plaintiffs of the relief being sought, to the extent that a loss
in any such matter may be viewed as reasonably possible under FASB
ASC Topic 450-20, it is not possible at this time to provide an
estimate of any such possible loss (or range of possible loss) for
any such matter.

Trustmark Corporation -- http://www.trustmark.com/-- operates as
the bank holding company for Trustmark National Bank, which
provides banking and financial solutions to individuals and
corporate institutions in Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, and
Texas.  The Company was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in
Jackson, Mississippi.


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Economic Costs Portion of Tasion Suit Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TASION COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Plaintiff, v. UBIQUITI
NETWORKS, INC., Defendant, NO. C-13-1803 EMC, (N.D. Cal.),
District Judge Edward M. Chen granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss as to the Plaintiff's request to recover its economic
losses associated with the failure of the TOUGHCable, such as the
cost of shipping replacement cable, the cost of replacing the
TOUGHCable, and any lost business as a result of the TOUGHCable's
failure.  The Defendant's motion is otherwise denied.

The Plaintiff in the case brought claims for negligence and
negligent misrepresentation on behalf of a putative class of all
persons who purchased Defendant's TOUGHCable, a shielded ethernet
cable advertized as being appropriate for use in harsh outdoor
conditions. The Plaintiff alleged that the TOUGHCable was in fact
unsuitable for such use, and that it broke down under outdoor
conditions. The Defendant brought the motion to dismiss, arguing
(1) that the Plaintiff's negligence and negligent
misrepresentation claims fail because the Plaintiff has not
alleged non-economic damages, as is required under California law;
and (2) the complaint must be dismissed because California does
not have a substantial interest in this action.

The Defendant sought dismissal of the complaint for failure to
state a claim.

A copy of the District Court's August 26, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/E8Luf1from Leagle.com.

Tasion Communications Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David
Christopher Parisi -- dcparisi@parisihavens.com -- Parisi & Havens
LLP, Alan Himmelfarb --  consumerlaw1@earthlink.net -- The Law
Offices of Alan Himmelfard & Suzanne L. Havens Beckman --
shavens@parisihavens.com -- Parisi & Havens, LLP.

Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas P.
Hanrahan -- thanrahan@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP.


UMH PROPERTIES: Continues to Defend Suit Alleging Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
UMH Properties, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit brought on behalf of Mexican nationals alleging
discrimination, 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 2010, a rainstorm bringing 13 inches of rain in a two-hour
period caused flooding at Memphis Mobile City.  All homes owned by
the Company were fully restored as were the homes of all residents
who elected to make repairs.  On May 9, 2011, the Company was
notified that a lawsuit had been filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee on behalf of
a purported class of all individuals of Mexican national origin
who are current or former residents of Memphis Mobile City.  The
Complaint alleges various claims based on federal and state
discrimination and consumer protection laws, seeking monetary
damages and injunctive relief.  The Complaint was served on
August 29, 2011.  The Company believes the action to be without
merit and plans to defend it vigorously.  The Company's insurance
company is supporting its defense of this action.

UMH Properties, Inc. owns and operates 68 manufactured home
communities containing approximately 12,800 developed homesites.
The communities are located in New Jersey, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Indiana and Michigan.  The Freehold, New
Jersey-based Company, through its wholly-owned taxable subsidiary,
UMH Sales and Finance, Inc., conducts manufactured home sales in
its communities.


VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Layoffs
------------------------------------------------------
Adrianne Flores, writing for WSMV, reports that days after
Vanderbilt University Medical Center announced another round of
layoffs, the hospital has been hit with its first class action
suit.

George Barrett and Jerry Martin, a former U.S. attorney, filed the
complaint on Sept. 19 on behalf of hundreds of laid-off workers.
They claim Vanderbilt violated the WARN Act when it fired those
employees without notice back in July.

"They were literally told to clean out their locker and go home.
That day," Mr. Martin said.  "So, the reason -- we would suspect
that the reason -- is because it saved Vanderbilt a tremendous
amount of money in the short term."

Under the federal statute, companies laying off 500 workers or
more must give them a 60-day notice.  And while fewer than 500
were fired in July, the attorneys claim the terminations were part
of a much larger reduction and therefore fall under that act.
They want Vanderbilt to pay each of those workers 60 days of back
pay.

Workers laid off earlier this month are not part of this class
action complaint.

Vanderbilt administrators say they have to eliminate more than
1,000 jobs by the end of the year to help reduce operating costs
by $250 million for the 2015 fiscal year.

WSMV asked Vanderbilt about the complaint, and a spokesperson with
the hospital issued this statement:  "We have not yet seen this
lawsuit. We will reserve comment until we have been served and our
counsel has had the opportunity to review the complaint."


VISONIC LTD: Recalls Personal Emergency Response System Kits
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 23, 2013
Posting date:             September 23, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Electronics
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-35833

Affected products: Visonic Amber SelectX and Amber Select Personal
Emergency Response System (PERS) Kits

The recall involves the Visonic Amber SelectX and Select Personal
Emergency system kits.  The recalled product enables a user to
push a button on a pendant to signal a request for assistance.  An
Amber kit consists of one wireless pendant worn by the user, one
Amber brand base station, generally connected to a phone line, a
power supply and backup battery.  Base stations are white,
rectangular and measure about 23 cm. wide by 18 cm. deep by 5 cm.
high with emergency, call and check buttons.  Each unit has an
external label on the back of the base station, with the product
name and serial number.

The affected Visonic Amber SelectX models are:

   -- Catalog number 0-100729 and serial numbers 2508 047097
      through 3013 079614, with manufacture dates from June 2008
      through July 2013, and

   -- Catalog number 0-101050 and serial numbers 5110 026788
      through 2413 260976, with manufacture dates from December
      2010 through June 2013.

The affected Visonic Amber Select models are:

   -- Catalog number 0-101033 and serial numbers 3908 022692
      through 4408 018942, with manufacture dates from September
      2008 through Oct. 2008, and

   -- Catalog number 0-100280 and serial numbers 0608 005128
      through 0608 005229, with manufacture dates from Sept. 2008
      through Sept. 2008.

The first four digits in the serial number disclose manufacture
dates in WWYY format.  The first two digits are week of
manufacturer and the second two numbers are the year of
manufacture.  For example serial number 2308 600299 indicates a
manufacturing date of the 23rd week of 2008 or roughly June 2008.
Each unit has an external label on the back of the base station,
with the product name and serial number.

Only Amber SelectX or Select base stations that are placed in
Common Area Mode by a professionally trained PERS system installer
and are used without additional base stations, are included in the
recall.

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

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

Health Canada has received no reports of incidents or injuries
related to the use of these kits.

Approximately 8,500 units of the kits were sold in Canada through
Visonic distributors and professional alarm installation firms
nationwide.

The kits were manufactured in Israel and sold from January 2008
through July 2013.

Companies:

  Manufacturer     Visonic Ltd.
                   Tel Aviv
                   Israel

  Distributor      Visonic Ltd.
                   Westford Massachusetts
                   United States

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


VITA HEALTH: Recalls Life Extra Strength Muscle & Back Pain Relief
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 20, 2013
Posting date:             September 23, 2013
Type of communication:    Drug Recall
Subcategory:              Drugs
Hazard classification:    Type I
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-35857

Recalled Products: Life Extra Strength Muscle & Back Pain Relief
ASA 500 mg Methocarbamol 400 mg Acetylsalicylic acid 500 mg

The product was recalled due to the significant incompatibilities
section on the outer box the following are missing in both English
and French: "kidney disease, chronic alcoholism and intake of CNS
depressants"

The bolded words are missing in the English and French text:

"A physician or pharmacist should be consulted prior to taking
this medication in case of: allergy to salicylates, methocarbamol,
asthma, pregnancy, breast-feeding, stomach problems, peptic ulcer,
sever liver or kidney disease, chronic alcoholism, gout, history
of blood coagulation defects, or of other medications containing
salicylates, acetaminophen, anti-inflammatory drugs,
anticonvulsants, antidiabetic, gout medicine or CNS depressants."

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

Companies:

  Recalling Firm     Vita Health Products Inc.
                     150 Beghin Ave.
                     WinnipegR2J 3W2
                     Manitoba
                     Canada

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


WAL-MART STORES: Accused of Misrepresenting Equate Pills Efficacy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Cooper, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-05446-JBS-JS
(D. N.J., September 12, 2013) accuses Wal-Mart of misrepresenting
its Equate Migraine pills as more effective for migraines than
Equate Headache.

The bold-type name across the box of Equate Migraine and the fact
that its only indicated use is for treating migraines suggests
that this product -- unlike Equate Headache -- is specifically
targeted to treat migraines and is more effective for migraines
than Equate Headache, Ms. Cooper asserts.  She notes that Wal-Mart
charges more than twice for the same amount of Equate Migraine.
However, she contends, Equate Migraine is not more effective at
relieving migraines than Equate Headache because they are the
pharmacologically identical products that contain the same active
ingredients in each pill, and in the same amounts: 250 mg of
acetaminophen, 250 mg of aspirin, and 65 mg of caffeine.

Ms. Cooper is a citizen of the state of New Jersey.  She purchased
Wal-Mart's Equate Migraine in July 2013 at a Wal-Mart store
located in Audubon, New Jersey.

Wal-Mart is a Delaware corporation conducting business in New
Jersey.  Wal-Mart sells a variety of products under its Equate
brand, including two pain relievers, Equate Extra Strength
Headache Relief and Equate Migraine Relief.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey W. Herrmann, Esq.
          COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
          Park 80 Plaza West - One
          250 Pehle Ave., Suite 401
          Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
          Telephone: (201) 845-9600
          E-mail: jwh@njlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Lester L. Levy, Esq.
          Michele F. Raphael, Esq.
          Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600
          E-mail: llevy@wolfpopper.com
                  mraphael@wolfpopper.com
                  MInsley-Pruitt@wolfpopper.com


WELLS FARGO: Motions to Dismiss Claims in Simpkins Suit Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge David R. Herndon denied a multitude of
motions to dismiss filed by the various defendants in the putative
class action captioned DEBRA SIMPKINS, MARK BIDDISON, and JAMES
COCKES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., WELLS FARGO
INSURANCE CO., ASSURANT, INC., STANDARD GUARANTY INSURANCE CO.,
and AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE CO., Defendants, NO. 12-CV-00768-
DRH-PMF, (S.D. Ill.).

The motions to dismiss are: defendant American Security's motion
to dismiss plaintiff Simpkins' claims; American Security's motion
to dismiss plaintiff Biddison's claims; defendant Assurant's
motion to dismiss the first amended complaint; defendant Wells
Fargo Bank and Wells Fargo Insurance Company's motion to dismiss
Simpkins' claims for failure to state a claim and for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction; Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss
Biddison and plaintiff Cockes' claims; and defendant Standard
Guaranty Insurance Company's motion to dismiss Cockes' claims.

A copy of the District Court's August 26, 2013 Memorandum and
Order is available at http://is.gd/xvDv8sfrom Leagle.com.

Debra Simpkins, Plaintiff, represented by Peter H. LeVan, Jr. --
plevan@btkmc.com -- Kessler Topaz, et al., Brad E. Seidel --
bradseidel@nixlawfirm.com -- Nix, Patterson & Roach LLP, Brian
Douglas Penny -- penny@gsk-law.com -- Goldman Scarlato et al- PA,
Chad Ethan Ihrig -- cihrig@npraustin.com -- Nix, Patterson & Roach
LLP, Charles E. Schaffer -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- Levin,
Fishbein et al., Christopher R. Johnson --
chrisjohnson@nixlawfirm.com -- Nix, Patterson & Roach LLP, David
I. Cates -- dcates@cateslaw.com -- Cates Mahoney, LLC, Eric D.
Holland -- eholland@allfela.com -- Holland, Groves, et al., Gerard
B. Schneller -- gschneller@allfela.com -- Holland, Groves, et al.,
Patrick F. Madden -- pmadden@bm.net -- Berger & Montague PC, Peter
A. Muhic -- pmuhic@btkmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP, Shannon Lack Braden -- sbraden@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz, et
al., Shanon J. Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- Berger & Montague PC,
Tyler Graden -- tgraden@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz, et al. and:

   Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
   Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
   280 King of Prussia Road
   Radnor, PA 19087
   Telephone: 1-888-299-7706
   Facsimile: 1-610-667-7706

Mark Biddison, Plaintiff, represented by Peter H. LeVan, Jr.,
Kessler Topaz, et al., Brad E. Seidel, Nix, Patterson & Roach LLP,
Brian Douglas Penny, Goldman Scarlato et al- PA, Chad Ethan Ihrig,
Nix, Patterson & Roach LLP, Christopher R. Johnson, Nix, Patterson
& Roach LLP, Edward W. Ciolko, Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Peter A.
Muhic, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Shannon Lack Braden,
Kessler Topaz, et al., Tyler Graden, Kessler Topaz, et al., Eric
D. Holland, Holland, Groves, et al. & Gerard B. Schneller,
Holland, Groves, et al..

James Cockes, Plaintiff, represented by Peter H. LeVan, Jr.,
Kessler Topaz, et al., Brad E. Seidel, Nix, Patterson & Roach LLP,
Brian Douglas Penny, Goldman Scarlato et al- PA, Chad Ethan Ihrig,
Nix, Patterson & Roach LLP, Christopher R. Johnson, Nix, Patterson
& Roach LLP, Edward W. Ciolko, Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Peter A.
Muhic, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Shannon Lack Braden,
Kessler Topaz, et al., Tyler Graden, Kessler Topaz, et al., Eric
D. Holland, Holland, Groves, et al. & Gerard B. Schneller,
Holland, Groves, et al.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by David Wells --
dwells@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn, Michael J. Steiner
-- mjs@severson.com -- Severson & Werson, Erik Wayne Kemp --
ek@severson.com -- Severson & Werson, Kalama Mark Lui-Kwan --
kml@severson.com -- Severson & Werson, Maria G. Zschoche --
mzschoche@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn, Mary Kate Kamka
-- mkk@severson.com -- Severson & Werson & Rebecca Snavely Saelao
-- rss@severson.com -- Severson & Werson.

Wells Fargo Insurance, Co., Defendant, represented by David Wells,
Thompson Coburn, Michael J. Steiner, Severson & Werson, Erik Wayne
Kemp, Severson & Werson, Kalama Mark Lui-Kwan, Severson & Werson,
Maria G. Zschoche, Thompson Coburn, Mary Kate Kamka, Severson &
Werson & Rebecca Snavely Saelao, Severson & Werson.

Assurant, Inc., Defendant, represented by Frank G. Burt --
gb@jordenusa.com -- Jorden Burt LLP, William G. Beatty --
beattyw@jbltd.com -- Johnson & Bell LTD., Farrokh Jhabvala --
fj@jordenusa.com -- Jordan Burt LLP, Irma Reboso Solares --
is@jordenusa.com -- Jordan Burt LLP & Landon K Clayman --
lkc@jordenusa.com -- Jordan Burt LLP.

American Security Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Frank G. Burt, Jorden Burt LLP, William G. Beatty, Johnson & Bell
LTD., Denise A Fee, Jorden Burt LLP, Farrokh Jhabvala, Jordan Burt
LLP, Irma Reboso Solares, Jordan Burt LLP & Landon K Clayman,
Jordan Burt LLP.

Standard Guaranty Insurance Co., Defendant, represented by Frank
G. Burt, Jorden Burt LLP, Denise A Fee, Jorden Burt LLP, Farrokh
Jhabvala, Jordan Burt LLP, Irma Reboso Solares, Jordan Burt LLP &
Landon K Clayman, Jordan Burt LLP.


YRC WORLDWIDE: Has Yet to File Settlement in "Bryant" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
YRC Worldwide Inc. has yet to file for court approval its
settlement of a securities class action lawsuit commenced by
Bryant Holdings LLC, according to the Company's August 7, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On February 7, 2011, a putative class action was filed by Bryant
Holdings LLC ("Bryant") in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock between April 24, 2008, and November 2, 2009, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking damages under the federal securities laws
for statements and/or omissions allegedly made by the Company and
the individual defendants during the Class Period which plaintiffs
claimed to be false and misleading.

The individual defendants are former officers of the Company.  No
current officers or directors were named in the lawsuit.

The parties participated in voluntary mediation between March 11,
2013, and April 15, 2013.  The mediation resulted in the execution
of a mutually acceptable definitive agreement by the parties,
which agreement remains subject to approval by the court.  The
Company says court approval cannot be assured.  Substantially all
of the payments contemplated by the settlement will be covered by
the Company's liability insurance.  The self-insured retention on
this matter has been accrued as of June 30, 2013.

YRC Worldwide Inc. -- http://www.yrcw.com/-- is a holding company
that, through wholly owned operating subsidiaries and its interest
in a Chinese joint venture, offers its customers a wide range of
transportation services.  The Company has one of the largest, most
comprehensive less-than-truckload networks in North America with
local, regional, national and international capabilities.  The
Company is headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas.


ZOO ENTERTAINMENT: Dismissal of "Ricker" Securities Suit Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed
the dismissal of a class-action securities complaint, BRUCE E.
RICKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ZOO ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; MARK
SEREMET; DAVID FREMED, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 12-3951, which
alleges that defendants-appellees Zoo Entertainment, Inc., Mark
Seremet, and David Fremed published material financial statements
with reckless disregard of their falsity in violation of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j (the
"Act"), Rule 10b 5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b 5, and Section 20(a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a).

Plaintiff-appellant Bruce Ricker appealed the dismissal, arguing
that Mr. Ricker's pleadings fail to support a "strong" inference
that Zoo acted with scienter.

A copy of the Appeals Court's August 27, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/f6ES2sfrom Leagle.com.


                             *********

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  * * *