---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, September 30, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 193

                             Headlines


AECOM TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Suit vs. Australian Unit
AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Still in Talks to Settle Securities Suit
ASTORIA FINANCIAL: "Lefkowitz" Class Suit Dismissed in May
ATP OIL: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Action in Texas
BANK OF AMERICA: Ordered to Pay $2.2 Mil. in Back Wages & Interest

BJ'S WHOLESALE CLUB: Settles Wage & Overtime Suit for $2.7 Million
CANADA: Hearing Today in Moose-Related Crashes Suit
CAPSTONE PROPERTIES: 2 Plaintiffs Added to Cottages of Boone Suit
CARGILL INC: Deceives Truvia Natural Sweetener Buyers, Suit Says
CLEAN HARBORS: Continues to Defend Suits Over Fuel Surcharges

COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: Plaintiffs Amended Securities Complaint
DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Calif. Wage and Hour Suit
DETROIT MEDICAL: Court Certifies Nurse Wage Antitrust Class Action
DISH NETWORK: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
FACEBOOK INC: Ashlie Beringer Joins as Deputy General Counsel

GENVEC INC: Court Dismisses Class Action Over Clinical Trials
GOOGLE INC: Criticizes Ninth Circuit's Privacy Class Action Ruling
GREEN MOUNTAIN: Appeal in "Horowitz" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
GREEN MOUNTAIN: Awaits Ruling on Bids to Dismiss "Fifield" Suit
GREEN MOUNTAIN: Awaits Ruling on Bids to Dismiss "LAMPERS" Suit

HCA HOLDINGS: Consolidated Securities Suit Proceeds to Discovery
INTL FCSTONE: Securities Class Suit Settlement Approved in July
INTL FCSTONE: To Present Terms of Missouri Suit Settlement in 4Q
INTUIT INC: Settles Employee "No-Poach" Class Action for $20 Mil.
INVACARE CORP: Faces Class Action Over Retirement Plan Woes

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Mt Clear Woman Joins Mesh Class Action
KADANT INC: Accrued $234,000 for Claims & Costs in Suit vs. Unit
KINROSS GOLD: Koskie Minsky Discusses Class Action Ruling
LINKEDIN CORP: Sued for Allegedly Hacking E-Mail Addresses
MERRILL LYNCH: Osler Hoskin Discusses Class Action Ruling

MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Polyurethane Foam-Related Suits Remain Pending
NATIONAL VETERANS: Gives Under 10% of Funds to Veterans, Suit Says
NMI RETIREMENT: Maratita Wants to Intervene in Class Action
QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA: Suit by Stolen Generations Members Begins
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Continues to Defend Suit Over Wild Bird Foods

SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Continues to Defend Ocean Pointe Suits
SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: "Nishimura" Suit Remains Pending in Hawaii
STERLING FINANCIAL: Has Final Approval of ERISA Suit Settlement
STERLING FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Have 60 Days to Amend Complaint
SUNEDISON INC: Awaits Ruling on Oral Argument Bid in "Jones" Suit

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Ruling in Cold-FX-Related Suit
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suits Over Solodyn(R) Product
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Got Final OK of Wellbutrin XL Suit Deal
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Unit to Settle Discrimination Suit
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Yet to File Settlement Docs in Del. Suit

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Yet to File Settlement Documentation
VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA: Inaction Blamed for Abalone Virus Spread
VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA: Trial in Abalone Virus Class Action Begins
WAL-MART STORES: Judge Tosses Women Employees' Discrimination Suit
WALTER ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss "Moore" Suit

WALTER ENERGY: Consolidated Suit Parties Currently in Discovery
WEALTHSURE FINANCIAL: Court Halts Class Action Proceedings
XL FOODS: CFIA Added as Third Party to E. Coli Class Action


                             *********


AECOM TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Suit vs. Australian Unit
--------------------------------------------------------------
AECOM Technology Corporation continues to defend an Australian
subsidiary against a class action lawsuit in connection with a
tolled motorway tunnel project, 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 2005 and 2006, the Company's main Australian subsidiary, AECOM
Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM Australia), performed a traffic forecast
assignment for a client consortium as part of their project to
design, build, finance and operate a tolled motorway tunnel in
Australia.  To fund the motorway's design and construction, the
client formed a special purpose vehicle (SPV) that raised
approximately $700 million Australian dollars through an initial
public offering (IPO) of equity units in 2006 and approximately an
additional $1.4 billion Australian dollars in long term bank
loans.  The SPV (and certain affiliated SPVs) went into insolvency
administrations in February 2011.

A class action lawsuit, which has been amended to include
approximately 770 of the IPO investors, was filed against AECOM
Australia in the Federal Court of Australia on May 31, 2012.
Separately, KordaMentha, the receivers for the SPVs, filed a
lawsuit in the Federal Court of Australia on May 14, 2012.
WestLB, one of the lending banks to the SPVs, filed a lawsuit in
the Federal Court of Australia on May 18, 2012.  Centerbridge
Credit Partners (and a number of related entities) and Midtown
Acquisitions (and a number of related entities), both claiming to
be assignees of certain other lending banks, previously filed
their own proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia and then
subsequently withdrew the lawsuits.  All of the lawsuits claim
damages that purportedly resulted from AECOM Australia's role in
connection with the traffic forecast.  None of the lawsuits
specify the amount of damages sought and the damages sought by
WestLB are duplicative of damages already included in the
receivers' claim.

AECOM Australia intends to vigorously defend the claims brought
against it.

Headquartered in Los Angeles, California, AECOM Technology
Corporation is a leading provider of professional technical and
management support services for public and private clients around
the world.  The Company provides its services in a broad range of
end markets through a network of approximately 46,000 employees.


AMERICAN SUPERCONDUCTOR: Still in Talks to Settle Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
American Superconductor Corporation is still negotiating an
agreement to settle a consolidated securities class action
lawsuit, according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Between April 6, 2011, and May 12, 2011, seven putative securities
class action complaints were filed against the Company and two of
its officers in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts; one complaint additionally asserted claims
against the underwriters who participated in the Company's
November 12, 2010 securities offering.  On June 7, 2011, the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
consolidated these actions under the caption Lenartz v. American
Superconductor Corporation, et al., Docket No. 1:11-cv-10582-WGY.
On August 31, 2011, the Lead Plaintiff, the Plumbers and
Pipefitters National Pension Fund, filed a consolidated amended
complaint against the Company, its officers and directors, and the
underwriters who participated in the Company's November 12, 2010
securities offering, asserting claims under sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"), as well as under sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").  The complaint
alleges that during the relevant class period, the Company and its
officers omitted to state material facts and made materially false
and misleading statements relating to, among other things, its
projected and recognized revenues and earnings, as well as its
relationship with Sinovel Wind Group Co., Ltd. that artificially
inflated the value of the Company's stock price.  The complaint
further alleges that the Company's November 12, 2010 securities
offering contained untrue statements of material facts and omitted
to state material facts required to be stated therein.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, rescindment of the Company's
November 12, 2010 securities offering, and an award of costs and
expenses, including attorney's fees.

All defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint.  On December 16, 2011, the district court issued a
summary order declining to dismiss the Securities Act claims
against the Company and its officers, and taking under advisement
the motion to dismiss the Exchange Act claims against the Company
and its officers and the motion to dismiss the Securities Act
claims made against the underwriters.  On July 26, 2012, the
district court dismissed the Exchange Act claims against the
Company and its officers and denied the motion to dismiss the
Securities Act claims made against the underwriters.

On May 17, 2013, the parties informed the district court that they
had reached a settlement in principle, and requested a 30-day stay
of the proceedings while the specific terms of the settlement
continue to be negotiated.  Based on the Company's assessment of
the probable losses on this claim, the Company has recorded a loss
contingency of $1.8 million as of June 30, 2013.

Founded in 1987, American Superconductor Corporation --
http://www.amsc.com/-- is a provider of megawatt-scale solutions
that lower the cost of wind power and enhance the performance of
the power grid.  The Company is headquartered in Devens,
Massachusetts.


ASTORIA FINANCIAL: "Lefkowitz" Class Suit Dismissed in May
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed by Ellen Lefkowitz was dismissed in
May 2013, according to Astoria Financial Corporation's August 7,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In February 2012, the Company was served with a summons and
complaint in a putative class action entitled Ellen Lefkowitz,
individually and on behalf of all Persons similarly situated v.
Astoria Federal Savings and Loan Association which was commenced
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Queens,
or the Queens County Supreme Court, against the Company alleging
that during the proposed class period, the Company improperly
charged overdraft fees to customer accounts when accounts were not
overdrawn, improperly reordered electronic debit transactions from
the highest to the lowest dollar amount and processed debits
before credits to deplete accounts and maximize overdraft fee
income.  The complaint contains the further assertion that the
Company did not adequately inform its customers that they had the
option to "opt-out" of overdraft services.  In May 2012, the
Company moved to dismiss the complaint.  In July 2012, the Queens
County Supreme Court issued an order dismissing the complaint in
its entirety.  In September 2012, the plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate
Division, Second Judicial Department, or the New York Supreme
Court.  The plaintiff failed to perfect the appeal by the March 7,
2013 deadline.  By order dated May 3, 2013, this case was
dismissed by the New York Supreme Court.

Astoria Financial Corporation -- http://www.astoriafederal.com/--
is a Delaware corporation organized in 1993 as the unitary savings
and loan holding company of Astoria Federal Savings and Loan
Association and its consolidated subsidiaries.  The Company is
headquartered in Lake Success, New York, and its principal
business is the operation of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Astoria
Federal.


ATP OIL: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Action in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Sept. 20
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against ATP Oil
and Gas Corporation and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District
of Texas, and docketed under 13-cv-02557, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of ATP between December 16, 2010 and August
17, 2012 both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover
damages as a result of alleged violations of the federal
securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased ATP securities during the
Class Period, you have until October 4, 2013 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

ATP is engaged in the acquisition, development, and production of
oil and natural gas properties.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and operations.  Specifically, Defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: on
October 12, 2010, ATP filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement
with the SEC, indicating its intent to issue 11.875% Senior Second
Lien Exchange Notes.  After one amendment on December 14, 2010,
the Company filed a Prospectus on December 16, 2010 on Form 424B3,
which was declared effective by the SEC on the same day. Pursuant
to the Registration Statement and Prospectus, ATP executed the
Exchange, which offered $1.5 billion worth of Notes.  The
Registration Statement contained false and misleading statements
and/or omissions of material fact about the company and its
operations.

On August 17, 2012, ATP announced that it was filing for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  The Company reported total debts of $3.49
billion and assets of $3.64 billion.  It announced that it was
going to continue operating during its financial restructuring
using $618 million in debtor-in-possession funding.  During the
course of the Bankruptcy Action, the truth was revealed that ATP
had: (1) severely downplayed the impact that the United States
Department of Interior moratoria had on the Company's business and
revenues; (2) violated the provisions of certain credit agreements
to which the Company was a party; (3) issued a Registration
Statement that contained false and misleading statements and/or
omissions of material fact; and (4) subsequently made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the liquidity and
financial condition of the Company.

As a result of the false and misleading misstatements and
omissions, the price of ATP stock fell from $15.36 at the
beginning of the Class Period to $0.30 at the time of the
bankruptcy filing.

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

CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby
         Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP
         E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Ordered to Pay $2.2 Mil. in Back Wages & Interest
------------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Jenna Greene at The Blog of
Legal Times, after nearly two decades fighting government
allegations that it discriminated against African American job
seekers, Bank of America Corp. was ordered by an administrative
law judge at the Department of Labor to pay nearly $2.2 million in
back wages and interest.

The money goes to 1,147 black job applicants who were rejected for
entry-level teller and clerical jobs at the company's facility in
Charlotte, NC.  Most applied for jobs in 1993.  Administrative Law
Judge Linda Chapman also ordered the bank to hire 10 class members
as positions become available.

"Our investigators and attorneys prevailed despite decades of
stalling tactics," said Solicitor of Labor M. Patricia Smith in a
prepared statement.  "This case demonstrates that the department
will not be deterred in our pursuit of justice for job seekers."

Bank of America also issued a statement, saying that it is
"currently reviewing this recommended decision and order, which
arises from a 1995 review.  At Bank of America, diversity and
inclusion are part of our culture and company values.  We actively
promote an environment where all employees have the opportunity to
succeed."

The bank was represented by Bruce Steen -- bsteen@mcguirewoods.com
-- Aaron Longo and W. Carter Younger -- cyounger@mcguirewoods.com
-- at McGuire Woods.  Mr. Steen forwarded a request for comment to
the bank.  The bank could decide to ask federal court of appeals
to review the decision.

The case was brought by the Labor Department's Office of Federal
Contract Compliance Programs, which has authority over the bank as
a federal contractor, since it serves as a depository of federal
funds and issues U.S. Savings Bonds.  According to the Labor
Department, Bank of America "repeatedly challenged the authority"
of the contract compliance office during the litigation.

Judge Chapman's initial decision and order, which was issued in
2010, lays out the tortured procedural history of the case (which
almost certainly cost more to litigate than the $2 million
penalty).

In 1994, the Charlotte office of what was then known as
NationsBank (which acquired Bank America Corp. in 1998 to create
Bank of America) was selected for an audit by the contract
compliance office, which makes sure government contractors don't
discriminate against employees and comply with affirmative action
requirements.  The government in 1995 found the Charlotte facility
was discriminating against minority applicants, and moved to
review bank operations in Tampa and Columbia, SC.

In response, the bank sued the contract compliance office in North
Carolina federal court claiming the selection of Tampa and
Columbia violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable
searches, later adding Charlotte as well.

The bank won the first round, securing a preliminary injunction
against the government.  But the injunction was overturned U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which said the bank had
to exhaust its administrative remedies first.

The case went back to the Department of Labor, and in 2000,
Administrative Law Judge Richard Huddleston found in favor of the
bank, ruling that the selection of the Charlotte facility was not
based on an administrative plan containing neutral criteria, and
was arbitrary and unconstitutional.

The Labor Department's Administrative Review Board reversed
Huddleston, and the case was assigned to Chapman.  She found in
2004 that because the bank voluntarily consented to the initial
review in Charlotte, the contract compliance office's actions were
removed from the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.  The bank
asked for an interlocutory appeal, but the Administrative Review
Board said no, and the case went back to Chapman.

In 2010 she went on to find that the government "established by a
preponderance of the evidence that there was a disparity between
African American and Caucasian candidates in selection rates for
entry level administrative positions in 1993 and 2002-2005, and
that this disparity was caused by an unlawful bias against African
Americans."

Further, she found, the bank "cannot rebut this statistical
evidence merely by arguing that its decisions were legitimate or
nondiscriminatory . . . The Bank cannot meet its burden by arguing
that certain actors, in this case the recruiters, did not intend
to discriminate."


BJ'S WHOLESALE CLUB: Settles Wage & Overtime Suit for $2.7 Million
------------------------------------------------------------------
BigClassAction.com reports that a $2.7 million settlement has been
reached in the unpaid wages and overtime class action lawsuit
pending against BJ's Wholesale Club Inc. Under the terms of the
proposed settlement, BJ's, one of the largest food retailers in
the US, will compensate its employees who allege they weren't
fully paid for overtime.

The lawsuit, entitled, Gene Cintron, et al. v. BJ's Wholesale Club
Inc., Case No. 1:12-cv-11064, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, alleges BJ's purposefully misclassified
key managers, including loss prevention managers, asset protection
managers and personnel managers, in order to avoid paying them
overtime.

The unpaid wages and overtime lawsuit was filed against BJ's in
June 2012.  Specifically, the plaintiffs claim they were
"required" to work in excess of 40 hours a week without overtime
compensation. The plaintiffs allege this is in direct violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as well as state laws.
According to the lawsuit, there are only a few of the positions at
BJs which are exempt from overtime.  The employees in this class
action were incorrectly put in those categories as a means of
avoiding overtime payments.

Plaintiffs are asking the judge to certify a proposed class of all
BJ's managers who worked for the company from July 19, 2009, until
the present.  They are also seeking certification of a sub-class
of employees who worked in 15 states, including Connecticut,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Virginia.


CANADA: Hearing Today in Moose-Related Crashes Suit
---------------------------------------------------
VOCM.COM reports that the next step in the class action suit
against the provincial government involving moose-vehicle crashes
comes this week.  Government is attempting to limit the duration
for inclusion in the class action to two years, a situation which
would exclude high-profile crash survivor Ben Bellows, now a
quadriplegic.

Lawyer Ches Crosbie will be arguing against having such a statute
of limitations on the class action Monday, Sept. 30, in Supreme
Court.  Mr. Crosbie will then address the media Tuesday, Oct. 1,
at 10:00 a.m.


CAPSTONE PROPERTIES: 2 Plaintiffs Added to Cottages of Boone Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Wood, writing for High Country Press, reports that two
plaintiffs were added to a class-action lawsuit against Capstone
Properties and Capstone Collegiate Communities on Sept. 20 because
of delays to The Cottages of Boone student-housing development in
Watauga County.

On behalf of ASU student Jonathan Schneider, Paul Capua of Capua
Law Firm in Boone filed the initial class-action lawsuit, which
exceeds $25,000, on Aug. 16, for unfair and deceptive trade
practices among other complaints.

The complaint alleges that Capstone has failed to acquire
certificates of occupancy in a timely manner; Capstone has failed
to reimburse plaintiffs for out-of-pocket expenses; the fair-
market value of the units are inhabitable and are in a state of
unfit conditions; and a full-months rent plus a $200
administrative fee were paid for August even though the initial
tenants didn't move in until midway through August.

Capstone began leasing the units for the 894-bedroom development
in the spring of 2013 for the student-housing resort that was
slated to house tenants before the fall semester.  In June,
Jen Wilson, vice president for The Cottages, noted that 40
residences for roughly 360 tenants would be "delayed for a short
period time," and that students would be staying in hotels
temporarily.

Days before the Aug. 15 move-in date, tenants were notified that
the opening move-in date would be moved to Aug. 18.  Since then,
"slowly but surely" has been the motto of The Cottages acquiring
certificates of occupancy.

Initially, 249 bedrooms received certificates of occupancy, and
according to the most recent figures by Watauga County Planning &
Inspections Director Joe Furman, units representing 534 bedrooms
have been certified.  John Vawter Sr., principal of Capstone, said
two weeks ago that all the students would move in by winter.  He
noted that the weather and the "remote location" of Watauga County
wreaked havoc on completing The Cottages on time.

As for the class-action lawsuit, the plaintiffs seek $4,000 each
in damages plus any amount decided through a trial and attorney
fees.

While Schneider and Deanna Reary and Langdon Clay are the only
names listed in the class-action suit, the complaint states, "The
Class Members are so numerous that the individual joinder of all
members is impractical.  While exact number of Class Members is
unknown to the Plaintiffs at this time, it is easily ascertainable
through appropriate discovery."

Two weeks ago, an Asheville-based parent of two students with
leases for The Cottages noted that she had contacted a local law
firm and was considering a class-action lawsuit herself if a
number of other people came forward.  On Sept 23, Colleen Ledford
hadn't heard of the lawsuit that was filed on Aug. 16 and said
that she has yet to file the lawsuit.

When asked about class-action lawsuits against Capstone two weeks
ago, Mr. Vawter declined to comment.


CARGILL INC: Deceives Truvia Natural Sweetener Buyers, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Molly Martin and Lauren Barry, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Cargill, Incorporated, Case No. 0:13-cv-
02563-RHK-JJG (D. Minn., September 18, 2013) asserts that Cargill
created its Truvia(R) Natural Sweetener to capitalize on
consumers' demand for a natural alternative to processed
sweeteners and sugar.

Cargill's marketing campaign has the obvious intent of branding
the Product as "natural," the Plaintiffs allege.  They note that
the Product's labels emphasize that the sweetener is natural and
derived from the stevia plant.  However, the Plaintiffs contend,
Cargill's branding of Truvia(R) Natural Sweetener is deceptive,
misleading and false because at the point of sale, Cargill does
not provide adequate information for a reasonable consumer to
determine whether it is natural.  The Plaintiffs add that the
synthetic ingredient erythritol constitutes the bulk of the
Products, which ingredient is not derived from fruit at all but is
manufactured by converting genetically modified corn into a food
grade starch, which is broken down into glucose, which in turn is
given to a yeast organism, which through fermentation produces
erythritol.

Molly Martin is a resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota.  She
purchased boxes of Truvia(R) Natural Sweetener packets in local
stores several times from 2011 to 2012.  Lauren Barry is a
resident of San Diego County, California.  Within the past year,
she purchased the Products from various retail locations in San
Diego.

Cargill is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Wayzata,
Minnesota.  Cargill manufactures, markets and sells Truvia(R)
Natural Sweetener, a sweetener claimed to be "born from the sweet
leaf of the stevia plant," natural and containing zero calories.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clayton D. Halunen, Esq.
          Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
          Susan M. Coler, Esq.
          HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES
          1650 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 605-4098
          Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
          E-mail: halunen@halunenlaw.com
                  wolchansky@halunenlaw.com
                  coler@halunenlaw.com

               - and -

          Kim E. Richman, Esq.
          Michael R. Reese, Esq.
          Jason C. Hardy, Esq.
          REESE RICHMAN LLP
          875 Avenue of Americas 1808
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          E-mail: krichman@reeserichman.com
                  mreese@reeserichman.com
                  jhardy@reeserichman.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher W. Madel, Esq.
          Heather M. McElroy, Esq.
          Jan M. Conlin, Esq.
          Kate E. Jaycox, Esq.
          Stephen P. Safranski, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN MILLER & CIRESI LLP
          800 LaSalle Ave., Suite 2800
          Mpls, MN 55402-2015
          Telephone: (612) 349-8500
          Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
          E-mail: cwmadel@rkmc.com
                  hmmcelroy@rkmc.com
                  jmconlin@rkmc.com
                  kejaycox@rkmc.com
                  spsafranski@rkmc.com


CLEAN HARBORS: Continues to Defend Suits Over Fuel Surcharges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Harbors, Inc. continues to defend its subsidiary against two
class action lawsuits alleging it improperly assessed fuel
surcharges, 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 October 2010, two customers filed a complaint, individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated customers in the State of
Alabama, in state court in Alabama alleging that Safety-Kleen,
Inc., a Company subsidiary, improperly assessed fuel surcharges
and extended area service fees.  Safety-Kleen disputes the basis
of the claims on numerous grounds, including that Safety-Kleen has
contracts with numerous customers authorizing the assessment of
such fees and that in cases where no contract exists Safety-Kleen
provides customers with a document at the time of service
reflecting the assessment of the fee, followed by an invoice
itemizing the fee.  It is Safety-Kleen's position that it had the
right to assess fuel surcharges, that the customers consented to
the charges and that the surcharges were voluntarily paid by the
customers when presented with an invoice.  The lawsuit is still in
its initial stages of discovery, with the focus being whether a
class will be certified.  The class certification-related fact
discovery cutoff was September 4, 2013, and a hearing on class
certification will be held in early to mid-2014.

In late June 2012, a nearly identical lawsuit was filed by the
same law firm on behalf of a California-based customer.  The
lawsuit contends, under various state law theories, that Safety-
Kleen impermissibly assessed fuel surcharges and late payment
fees, and seeks certification of a class of California customers
only.  Safety-Kleen will assert the same defenses as in the
Alabama litigation.  In December 2012, a similar lawsuit was filed
by the same law firm on behalf of a Missouri-based customer which
contends under various state law theories that Safety-Kleen
impermissibly assessed fuel surcharges and seeks certification of
a class of Missouri customers only.  Safety-Kleen will assert the
same defenses as in the Alabama and California cases.  The Company
says it is unable to ascertain the ultimate aggregate amount of
monetary liability or financial impact with respect to these
matters as of June 30, 2013, and no reserve has been recorded.

Clean Harbors, Inc. -- http://www.cleanharbors.com/-- was
incorporated in Massachusetts in 1980 and its principal office is
located in Norwell, Massachusetts.   Clean Harbors is a provider
of environmental, energy and industrial services throughout North
America.


COLUMBIA LABORATORIES: Plaintiffs Amended Securities Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled In re Columbia Laboratories,
Inc., Securities Litigation filed a further amended complaint in
July 2013, according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Between February 1, 2012, and February 6, 2012, two putative
securities class action complaints were filed against Columbia and
certain of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.  These actions were
filed under the captions Wright v. Columbia Laboratories, Inc., et
al., and Shu v. Columbia Laboratories, Inc., et al. and asserted
claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act on behalf of an alleged
class of purchasers of the common stock during the period from
December 6, 2010, through January 20, 2012.  Both actions were
consolidated into a single proceeding entitled In re Columbia
Laboratories, Inc., Securities Litigation, under which Actavis,
Inc., and one of its officers have been added as defendants.  The
Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that Columbia and one of
its officers and a director omitted to state material facts that
they were under a duty to disclose, and made materially false and
misleading statements that related to the results of Columbia's
PREGNANT study and the likelihood of approval by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA") of a New Drug Application ("NDA") to
market progesterone vaginal gel 8% for the prevention of preterm
birth in women with premature cervical shortening.  According to
the complaint, these alleged omissions and misleading statements
had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Common Stock.  The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages on behalf
of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses,
including attorney's fees.

On June 11, 2013, the Court dismissed the complaint for failure to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted, holding that the
plaintiffs did not adequately plead facts supporting an inference
of an intent to deceive investors.  The Court permitted the
plaintiffs to file a further amended complaint, and they did so on
July 11, 2013.  Columbia believes that the amended action is
without merit, and intends to defend it vigorously.  At this time,
it is not possible to determine the likely outcome of, or estimate
the liability related to this action, and Columbia has not made
any provision for losses in connection with it.

Columbia Laboratories, Inc. -- http://www.columbialabs.com-- is a
publicly traded specialty pharmaceutical company with a successful
history of developing proprietary, vaginally administered products
for women's health indications.  The Company receives sales and
royalty revenues from CRINONE(R) (progesterone gel), which is
marketed by Actavis, Inc. in the United States and by Merck Serono
S.A. in over 60 foreign countries.


DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Calif. Wage and Hour Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
DaVita HealthCare Partners Inc. continues to defend itself against
a wage and hour class action lawsuit pending in California,
according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

A wage and hour claim, which has been styled as a class action, is
pending against the Company in the Superior Court of California.
The Company was served with the complaint in this lawsuit in April
2008, and it has been amended since that time.  The lawsuit, as
amended, alleges that the Company failed to provide meal periods,
failed to pay compensation in lieu of providing rest or meal
periods, failed to pay overtime, and failed to comply with certain
other California Labor Code requirements.  In September 2011, the
court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The
Plaintiffs appealed that decision.  In January 2013, the Court of
Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on some claims, but
remanded the case to the trial court for clarification of its
decision on one of the claims.  The Company intends to continue to
vigorously defend against these claims.  Any potential settlement
of these claims is not anticipated to be material to the Company's
consolidated financial statements.

DaVita HealthCare Partners Inc. -- http://www.davita.com/-- was
incorporated as a Delaware corporation in 1994 and is
headquartered in Denver, Colorado.  The Company primarily operates
two major lines of business -- its U.S. dialysis and related lab
services business and HCP, a patient- and physician-focused
integrated health care delivery and management.


DETROIT MEDICAL: Court Certifies Nurse Wage Antitrust Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy F. Haley, Esq., at Seyfarth Shaw LLP, reports that on
September 13, 2013, Judge Rosen of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan issued an Opinion and Order in an
alleged wage suppression antitrust case certifying a class of over
20,000 Registered Nurses ("RNs") in Cason-Merenda, et al. v.
Detroit Medical Center, Case No. 06-15601, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
131006 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 6, 2013).  The decision greatly raises
the stakes for employers that engage in the exchange of wage
information in ways that do not comply with the statements of
enforcement policy issued jointly by the Department of Justice and
the Federal Trade Commission ("DOT/FTC Statements").

Background

Plaintiffs alleged that eight Detroit area hospitals had engaged
in a conspiracy to suppress nurse wages in the Detroit
Metropolitan Area ("DMA").  Plaintiffs alleged in count I that the
defendants entered into an agreement to suppress RN wages which
violated Sec. 1 of the Sherman Act per se.  In count II plaintiffs
alleged that the defendants exchanged RN wage information and that
the effect of the exchange unlawfully suppressed RN wages in the
DMA in violation of Sec. 1 of the Sherman Act under the rule of
reason. In previous decisions the Court granted the defendants'
motion for summary judgment as to count I but denied it as to
count II.  It also denied the defendants' motion to exclude the
testimony of plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Orley Ashenfelter, under
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
We previously blogged on these decisions here and here.

The Decision

The defendants' challenge to the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification focused almost exclusively on the predominance
requirement of Fed. R. Civ. Pro.  23(b)(3) -- i.e., that questions
of law or fact common to the class members predominate over any
questions affecting only individual members. Id. at *22-23.
According to the Court, defendants' principal argument in this
respect was that plaintiffs could not demonstrate, with proof
common to the class, that each of the class members suffered
injury in fact as a result of the alleged antitrust violation. Id.
at *31-32.

Plaintiffs' theory of damages in the case, both fact of injury and
amount,  relied exclusively upon the expert testimony of Dr.
Ashenfelter. Id. at *24.  Dr. Ashenfelter proposed to show the
wages that class members would have earned had there been no
conspiracy to unlawfully exchange wage data (the "but-for" wages)
by using a "benchmark" methodology comparing the wages paid to RNs
to what the hospitals paid for registered nurses supplied by
temporary agencies. Id. at *45-46. Among their challenges,
defendants argued that Dr. Ashenfelter's opinion improperly
adopted a "one-size-fits-all" approach that disregarded the wide
range of wages actually paid to the members of the RN class and
disregarded the myriad factors, such as experience, specialized
skills and department, that contribute to the wage disparities.
Id. at *47.  Dr. Ashenfelter himself conceded that his methodology
measured only the "generic" nursing services provided by agency
nurses and that it may result in understating the losses of
experienced nurses. Id. at *47-48.  The Court, however, rejected
defendants' argument, agreeing with plaintiffs that
Dr. Ashenfelter's opinion created a jury question concerning
whether his benchmark approach provided a conservative estimate of
the wages that all or nearly all class members would have earned
but-for the alleged unlawful wage exchange.

The Court also cursorily rejected the defendants' argument that
Dr. Ashenfelter's benchmark analysis could not, on a class-wide
basis, demonstrate the amount of damages suffered by all or nearly
all class members.  The Court characterized defendants' argument
in this respect as merely a rehash of its "one-size-fits-all"
argument that it had rejected in connection with the defendants'
challenge to the plaintiffs attempted showing of injury in fact.
Id. at *67.

Issues And Implications For Employers

As he did in denying the defendants' Daubert motion, Judge Rosen
once again refused to resolve issues involving a "battle of the
experts."  Instead, he concluded that defendants' challenges to
Dr. Ashenfelter's opinions are issues for the jury to decide.  At
the class certification stage, there is at least some question as
to whether these issues must be decided by the court if they are
material to the question of whether a class should be certified.
See Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, 657 F.3d 970, 982-84
(9th Cir. 2011) (rigorous analysis requires consideration of the
persuasiveness of differing expert testimony on class issues, not
just whether the testimony is admissible).  There is also a
significant question as to whether the use of Dr. Ashenfelter's
opinion is consistent with plaintiffs' fiduciary duty to all class
members when they concede that his methodology may result in
understating losses of experienced nurses.  Id. at *47-48.  See
Standard Fire Insurance Co., v. Knowles, ____ U.S. ___, 133 S.Ct.
1345, 1349 (2013) (noting that a court might find the plaintiff to
be in an adequate representative due to the artificial cap he
purported to impose on the class' recovery).

But assuming this decision overcomes any subsequent challenge, it
creates a significant risk for employers, particularly in the
healthcare industry, that engage in the exchange of wage
information in ways not sanctioned by the DOT/FTC Statements.
This is the first of the five nearly identical cases filed against
hospitals in 2006 alleging an unlawful exchange of RN wage data in
which the court certified a class of RNs on the issues of
antitrust impact and damages.  With the prospect of treble damages
under the antitrust laws and large potential classes, plaintiffs'
attorneys, armed with this decision, will have an enormous
incentive to pursue these types of claims in the future.  Thus,
employers are encouraged to examine their policies and practices
regarding the exchange of wage and benefit information to ensure
that they are consistent with the DOJ/FTC Statements which have
previously been outlined in this blog here.


DISH NETWORK: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------
BigClassAction.com reports that Dish Network, and a satellite
installation company, Dish Country, Inc., are facing an employment
class action lawsuit for violations of State and Federal wage and
hour laws.

The lawsuit, filed on September 13, 2013 in Federal District
Court, alleges that Dish Country, Inc. and Dish Network engaged in
the practice of employee misclassification, in which Dish Country,
Inc. would repeatedly and routinely misclassify their employees as
"independent contractors" to avoid having to follow State and
Federal labor laws.

The class action lawsuit also alleges that defendants routinely
made arbitrary illegal deductions from the employees paychecks;
deprived employees of a 30 minute uninterrupted lunch break;
failed to compensate employees for all hours worked; failed to
provide employees with mandatory disclosures concerning their rate
of pay; failed to provide employees with mandatory disclosures
related to wage deductions; deprived employees of overtime; and
wrongfully denied the misclassified employees from several ERISA
benefit plans.

The class action lawsuit is filed on behalf of all non-exempt
employees that worked as a misclassified satellite installation
technician for Dish Country, Inc.

The case is being prosecuted by Hacker Murphy, LLP, an Albany, NY
based litigation firm.


FACEBOOK INC: Ashlie Beringer Joins as Deputy General Counsel
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that the
legal department at Facebook has a new event to post on its
timeline.  The global social network announced on Sept. 25 that it
has added technology and data privacy expert Ashlie Beringer as
its deputy general counsel.

Ms. Beringer, who is currently litigation partner and co-chair of
the Information Technology and Data Privacy practice group at
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, will move to Facebook in November,
replacing Colin Stretch, who was promoted to GC in June.

In her new position, Ms. Beringer -- who will be based at
Facebook's Menlo Park, California, headquarters -- will oversee
the law department's litigation, regulatory, and product groups,
and manage a team of approximately 20 people.  Ms. Beringer has
already done a good deal of legal work for Facebook with Gibson
Dunn as outside counsel, representing the company during a Federal
Trade Commission privacy investigation that lasted from 2010 to
2011 and ended in a settlement.  Working directly with Facebook
throughout that process, Ms. Beringer told CorpCounsel.com, gave
her a close look at every facet of the social networking
powerhouse.

"I spent a lot of time meeting with engineers and businesspeople
and doing a deep dive into the company's products and design
philosophy," she said, "and that's really where I first became
incredibly impressed with the mission and the talent of everyone
at the company."

Ms. Beringer also helped defend Facebook during class action
litigation challenging its "Sponsored Stories" feature, and has
done product counseling to help ensure that new Facebook
technologies are compliant with applicable laws.  She said that
she's been impressed with the company's ability to create an
effective, cross-function privacy team that combines lawyers,
engineers, and product managers to examine the legal implications
of new products.

"They have done a great job of integrating that team and an
evaluation of legal issues into the product cycle," said
Ms. Beringer.  "That's exactly what the FTC and regulators want
companies to be doing, but I've seen virtually no companies
implement that effectively -- and Facebook really has."

Mr. Stretch, who has worked closely with Ms. Beringer at Facebook,
told CorpCounsel.com that his new second-in-command is a
"tremendous resource."

"First and foremost she's very, very smart and very quick, which
is really at a premium here," he said.  "We try and keep pace with
the business -- one of the aspects of Facebook is that the company
prides itself on moving fast, so we as lawyers have to move fast,
too."

Mr. Stretch praised Ms. Beringer's substantive legal expertise,
particularly in the privacy area.  "She's very tough, she has
litigated and won a number of important and challenging cases in
the tech space and in the privacy space, which is something we
face a lot of," he said.

Data privacy is key for Facebook, which managed data from a
network of 1.15 billion monthly active users as of the end of
June 2013.  Complaints directed at Facebook over privacy concerns
are well documented, and got a boost this summer when some accused
the company of collaborating with National Security Agency (NSA)
to breach user data.

Ms. Beringer said that from her work with Facebook, she is
confident that the company is committed to user privacy.  She
believes that for attorneys in her field, the challenge and
opportunity is to educate regulators and policymakers in order to
close a "disconnect" between their mindset and what consumers are
doing and benefiting from.

"We need to do a better job at Facebook, and in the tech community
generally, at aligning regulators' focus more with what's
important to consumers," she said.  "I think there's this
reflexive distrust of things that are new, even where you have
millions of users who absolutely love the product and are deriving
great benefits from it.  It shouldn't be that interesting,
leading-edge things are being hampered because a regulator or a
policymaker doesn't understand what the product is."

In addition to Facebook, Ms. Beringer has represented other high-
profile companies with an online focus, like MySpace Inc.,
ValueClick Inc., and Yelp Inc.  She said it was not her original
intent to become a data privacy expert, but then the field grew up
around her.

"I was, earlier in my career, very focused on intellectual
property litigation, but also consumer class action work for tech
companies, particularly in online services," she said.  "So early
on in the growth of the Internet I was immersed in the technical
details around online advertising and different models that became
a real focus when privacy hit as a major issue."

Before joining Gibson Dunn, Ms. Beringer was with Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and then Parcher Hayes & Snyder, a
boutique litigation firm, where she represented media and
entertainment companies that were embracing new technologies.

"That was how I made the transition from old media to new media,
because my client base at that time was totally focused in that
sector," she explained.

Ms. Beringer earned her bachelor's degree in history from the
University of California-Los Angeles, and her law degree from Yale
University.


GENVEC INC: Court Dismisses Class Action Over Clinical Trials
-------------------------------------------------------------
GenVec, Inc. on Sept. 23 disclosed that the putative class action
lawsuit filed against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers by the law firm of Brower Piven in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland has been
dismissed with prejudice.  No payment was made by any of the
Defendants to the plaintiffs or their counsel in connection with
the lawsuit.  The Company does not know whether the plaintiffs
will file a Notice of Appeal.

"There are no winners when an experimental therapeutic fails in
clinical trials, especially for a challenging and underserved
indication such as pancreatic cancer.  We are extremely pleased,
however, that the Court recognized that the plaintiffs' claims
were without merit and granted in full and with prejudice our
motion to dismiss," commented Douglas J. Swirsky, President and
Chief Executive Officer of GenVec.

"The favorable resolution of this case is timely as we work to
transition GenVec from a capital-intensive, product development
company to one focused on the cost efficient creation of value
through the licensing of our proprietary vector and cell line
technologies," added Mr. Swirsky.

GenVec and the individual defendants are represented by Hogan
Lovells US LLP.

                            About GenVec

GenVec -- http://www.genvec.com-- is a biopharmaceutical company
working with leading companies and organizations such as Novartis,
Merial, and the U.S. Government to leverage its proprietary gene-
delivery technologies to address the prevention and treatment of a
number of significant human and animal health concerns.


GOOGLE INC: Criticizes Ninth Circuit's Privacy Class Action Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Graham, writing for The Recorder, reports that Google was
looking for a quick way out of a high-stakes class action lawsuit
over its Street View project when it took a pretrial appeal to the
Ninth Circuit over the meaning of the Wiretap Act.

Now the tech giant is upset that the appellate court may have
ended the dispute too quickly.

On Sept. 24, Google accused the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit of reaching out to decide an issue not properly
before the court in its big privacy decision earlier this month:
specifically, whether emails and other personal data streaming
across home Wi-Fi networks are "readily accessible to the general
public" and therefore not protected by the Wiretap Act.

The Ninth Circuit's Sept. 10 decision against Google in Joffe v.
Google is "a mistake" that "defies black-letter rules of civil and
appellate procedure," the company argues in a petition for
rehearing by its new lawyer, appellate guru Seth Waxman --
seth.waxman@wilmerhale.com -- of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr, and Google's attorneys at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

The panel's sweeping decision also "raised questions" about
whether everyday users of wireless devices violate the Wiretap Act
whenever they encounter another user's unencrypted Wi-Fi network,
the lawyers say.

An amicus curiae attorney on the plaintiffs' side called the
argument a stretch.  "This is an interlocutory appeal filed by
Google," said Alan Butler of the Electronic Privacy Information
Center.  "It's a bit disingenuous to say the Ninth Circuit doesn't
have the authority to rule on the very question they appealed on."

Google is accused of committing widespread privacy violations when
it used Wi-Fi sniffing technology to download "payload" content --
including user names, passwords, email addresses and other
sensitive data -- as part of its Street View mapping project.

The Ninth Circuit rejected Google's argument that Wi-Fi
transmissions are exempt from liability under the Wiretap Act
because they're "radio communications" that anyone can access.

"Wi-Fi transmissions are not 'readily accessible' to the 'general
public' because most of the general public lacks the expertise to
intercept and decode payload data transmitted over a Wi-Fi
network," Judge Jay Bybee wrote for a unanimous panel.
"Intercepting and decoding payload data communicated on a Wi-Fi
network requires sophisticated hardware and software."

Google argued last week that that finding is premature and
incorrect.

Google appealed after U.S. District Judge James Ware denied its
motion to dismiss.  Therefore, both Ware and the Ninth Circuit
were limited to facts alleged in the complaint.

"The panel's ruling on an issue that was neither addressed below
nor raised on appeal deprived Google of its right to be heard,
rests on mistaken factual premises, and casts a legal cloud over
everyday activities involving Wi-Fi networks," write Waxman and
Wilson Sonsini partner Michael Rubin -- mrubin@wsgr.com

Google appears to be correct that the issue of the Wi-Fi decoding
technology was not formally presented on appeal.  The question
certified was only "whether Wi-Fi transmissions are 'radio
communications' under section 2510(16) of the Wiretap Act and thus
presumptively 'readily accessible to the general public.'"

But Google may have a hard time persuading the court it didn't
open the door with its arguments.  Like Judge Bybee's opinion,
Rubin's opening brief for Google is peppered with citations to
technology treatises, online encyclopedias, news articles and
other outside material to make arguments about the Wiretap Act and
its exceptions.  "Plaintiffs did not plead that any of those
exceptions covers their unencrypted Wi-Fi transmissions,"
Mr. Rubin wrote, "and none does."

In any event, Judge Bybee is incorrect because packet-sniffing
technology is commonplace, Waxman and Rubin argue in their
petition for rehearing.

Packet sniffers are used to manage security in enterprise
networks, and everyday Wi-Fi devices continually receive and
decode all nearby packets to determine which are intended for that
device, they say.

"The sweeping language in the panel's decision," they argue,
"creates uncertainty about whether these everyday occurrences now
violate the Wiretap Act."


GREEN MOUNTAIN: Appeal in "Horowitz" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. disclosed in its August 7,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 29, 2013, that an appellate
court granted a motion to voluntarily dismiss an appeal from the
dismissal of the consolidated "Horowitz" lawsuit.

A consolidated putative securities fraud class action, organized
under the caption Horowitz v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters,
Inc., Civ. No. 2:10-cv-00227, is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Vermont before the Honorable
William K. Sessions, III.  The underlying complaints in the
consolidated action allege violations of the federal securities
laws in connection with the Company's disclosures relating to its
revenues and its forward guidance.  The complaints include counts
for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
against all defendants, and for violation of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against the officer defendants.  The plaintiffs seek
to represent all purchasers of the Company's securities between
July 28, 2010, and September 28, 2010, or September 29, 2010.  The
complaints seek class certification, compensatory damages,
equitable and/or injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs, and
such other relief as the court should deem just and proper.
Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3), plaintiffs had until November 29,
2010, to move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the putative
class.  On December 20, 2010, the court appointed Jerzy Warchol,
Robert M. Nichols, Jennifer M. Nichols, Marc Schmerler and Mike
Shanley lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as co-
lead counsel and the Law Office of Brian Hehir and Woodward &
Kelley, PLLC as liaison counsel.

On December 29, 2010, and January 3, 2011, two of the plaintiffs
in the underlying actions in the consolidated proceedings, Russell
Blank and Dan M. Horowitz, voluntarily dismissed their cases
without prejudice.  Pursuant to a stipulated motion granted by the
court on November 29, 2010, the lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint on February 23, 2011, and defendants moved
to dismiss that complaint on April 25, 2011.  The court heard
argument on the motions to dismiss on January 5, 2012.  On
January 27, 2012, the court issued an order granting defendants'
motions and dismissing the consolidated complaint without
prejudice and the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
amend the complaint on March 27, 2012.  On April 9, 2012, the
parties filed a stipulated motion for filing of the amended
complaint and to set a briefing schedule for defendants' motions
to dismiss.  Briefing on defendants' motions to dismiss was
completed on August 29, 2012.  On March 20, 2013, the court
granted defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaint and
dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice.  On April 19,
2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice appealing the court's ruling
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  On
July 24, 2013, the plaintiff-appellants filed a motion to
voluntarily dismiss the appeal with prejudice, and which the
appeals court granted on July 29, 2013.

Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. is a leader in the specialty
coffee and coffeemaker businesses.  The Company sells Keurig(R)
Single Cup Brewers and roast high-quality Arabica bean coffees
including single-origin, Fair Trade Certified(TM), certified
organic, flavored, limited edition and proprietary blends offered
in K-Cup(R) and Vue(R) packs ("single serve packs") for use with
the Company's Keurig(R)  Single Cup Brewers.  The Company is
headquartered in Waterbury, Vermont.


GREEN MOUNTAIN: Awaits Ruling on Bids to Dismiss "Fifield" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., is awaiting a court decision
on its and other defendants' motions to dismiss a consolidated
putative securities fraud class action lawsuit, according to the
Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 29,
2013.

A consolidated putative securities fraud class action, captioned
Fifield v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., Civ. No. 2:12-cv-
00091, is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Vermont before the Honorable William K. Sessions, III.
The Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges violations of the
federal securities laws in connection with the Company's
disclosures relating to its forward guidance.  The amended
complaint includes counts for violation of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and for
violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the officer
defendants.  The amended complaint seeks class certification,
compensatory damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, costs, and such other relief as the court should
deem just and proper.  The Plaintiffs seek to represent all
purchasers of the Company's securities between February 2, 2012,
and May 2, 2012.  Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3), plaintiffs had
until July 6, 2012, to move the court to serve as lead plaintiff
of the putative class.  On July 31, 2012, the court appointed
Kambiz Golesorkhi as lead plaintiff and approved his selection of
Kahn Swick & Foti LLC as lead counsel.  On August 14, 2012, the
court granted the parties' stipulated motion for filing of an
amended complaint and to set a briefing schedule for defendants'
motions to dismiss.  Pursuant to a schedule approved by the court,
the plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on October 23, 2012,
adding William C. Daley as an additional lead plaintiff.  The
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on January 17,
2013, and the briefing of their motions was completed on May 17,
2013.

Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. is a leader in the specialty
coffee and coffeemaker businesses.  The Company sells Keurig(R)
Single Cup Brewers and roast high-quality Arabica bean coffees
including single-origin, Fair Trade Certified(TM), certified
organic, flavored, limited edition and proprietary blends offered
in K-Cup(R) and Vue(R) packs ("single serve packs") for use with
the Company's Keurig(R)  Single Cup Brewers.  The Company is
headquartered in Waterbury, Vermont.


GREEN MOUNTAIN: Awaits Ruling on Bids to Dismiss "LAMPERS" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., is awaiting a court decision
on its and other defendants' motions to dismiss a securities class
action lawsuit commenced by the Louisiana Municipal Police
Employees' Retirement System, according to the Company's August 7,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 29, 2013.

A putative securities fraud class action, captioned Louisiana
Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System ("LAMPERS") v. Green
Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 2:11-cv-00289,
was filed on November 29, 2011, and is pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Vermont before the
Honorable William K. Sessions, III.  The Plaintiffs' amended
complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with the Company's disclosures relating to its revenues
and its inventory accounting practices.  The amended complaint
seeks class certification, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees,
costs, and such other relief as the court should deem just and
proper.  The Plaintiffs seek to represent all purchasers of the
Company's securities between February 2, 2011, and November 9,
2011.  The initial complaint filed in the action on November 29,
2011, included counts for alleged violations of (1) Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act") against the Company, certain of its officers and directors,
and the Company's underwriters in connection with a May 2011
secondary common stock offering; and (2) Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against the Company and the officer
defendants, and for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the officer defendants.  Pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-
4(a)(3), plaintiffs had until January 30, 2012 to move the court
to serve as lead plaintiff of the putative class.  Competing
applications were filed and the Court appointed Louisiana
Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, Sjunde AP-Fonden,
Board of Trustees of the City of Fort Lauderdale General
Employees' Retirements System, Employees' Retirements System of
the Government of the Virgin Islands, and Public Employees'
Retirement System of Mississippi as lead plaintiffs' counsel on
April 27, 2012.  Pursuant to a schedule approved by the court, the
plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on October 22, 2012, and
the plaintiffs filed a corrected amended complaint on November 5,
2012.  The Plaintiffs' amended complaint does not allege any
claims under the Securities Act against the Company, its officers
and directors, or the Company's underwriters in connection with
the May 2011 secondary common stock offering.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on March 1,
2013, and the briefing of their motions was completed on June 26,
2013.  An oral argument on the defendant's motions to dismiss was
set for August 27, 2013.  The underwriters previously named as
defendants notified the Company of their intent to seek
indemnification from the Company pursuant to their underwriting
agreement dated May 5, 2011, in regard to the claims asserted in
this action.

Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. is a leader in the specialty
coffee and coffeemaker businesses.  The Company sells Keurig(R)
Single Cup Brewers and roast high-quality Arabica bean coffees
including single-origin, Fair Trade Certified(TM), certified
organic, flavored, limited edition and proprietary blends offered
in K-Cup(R) and Vue(R) packs ("single serve packs") for use with
the Company's Keurig(R)  Single Cup Brewers.  The Company is
headquartered in Waterbury, Vermont.


HCA HOLDINGS: Consolidated Securities Suit Proceeds to Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities class action lawsuit against HCA
Holdings, Inc., is proceeding to discovery, according to the
Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On October 28, 2011, a shareholder action, Schuh v. HCA Holdings,
Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee seeking monetary relief.  The case
sought to include as a class all persons who acquired the
Company's stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement issued in connection with the March 9, 2011
initial public offering.  The lawsuit asserted a claim under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company,
certain members of the board of directors, and certain
underwriters in the offering.  It further asserted a claim under
Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against the same members
of the board of directors.  The action alleged various
deficiencies in the Company's disclosures in the Registration
Statement.  Subsequently, two additional class action complaints,
Kishtah v. HCA Holdings, Inc. et al. and Daniels v. HCA Holdings,
Inc. et al., setting forth substantially similar claims against
substantially the same defendants were filed in the same federal
court on November 16, 2011, and December 12, 2011, respectively.
All three of the cases were consolidated.  On May 3, 2012, the
court appointed New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension
Fund as Lead Plaintiff for the consolidated action.

On July 13, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
asserting claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities
Act of 1933 against the Company, certain members of the board of
directors, and certain underwriters in the offering.  It further
asserts a claim under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
against the same members of the board of directors and Hercules
Holdings II, LLC, a majority shareholder of the Company at the
time of the initial public offering.  The consolidated complaint
alleges deficiencies in the Company's disclosures in the
Registration Statement and Prospectus relating to: (1) the
accounting for the Company's 2006 recapitalization and 2010
reorganization; (2) the Company's failure to maintain effective
internal controls relating to its accounting for such
transactions; and (3) the Company's Medicare and Medicaid revenue
growth rates.

The Company and other defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint on September 11, 2012.  The Court granted the motion in
part on May 28, 2013.  The action is proceeding to discovery on
the remaining claims.

Founded in 1968, HCA Holdings, Inc. --
http://www.hcahealthcare.com/-- through its subsidiaries,
provides health care services in the United States.  The Company
owns, manages, or operates hospitals, freestanding surgery
centers, diagnostic and imaging centers, radiation and oncology
therapy centers, rehabilitation and physical therapy centers, and
various other facilities.  The Company is headquartered in
Nashville, Tennessee.


INTL FCSTONE: Securities Class Suit Settlement Approved in July
---------------------------------------------------------------
INTL FCStone Inc.'s settlement of a securities class action
lawsuit was approved in July 2013, according to the Company's
August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

FCStone and certain officers of FCStone were named as defendants
in an action filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri in July 2008.  A consolidated amended
complaint ("CAC") was subsequently filed in September 2009.  As
alleged in the CAC, the action purports to be brought as a class
action on behalf of purchasers of FCStone common stock between
November 15, 2007, and February 24, 2009.  The CAC seeks to hold
defendants liable under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and concerns disclosures included
in FCStone's fiscal year 2008 public filings.  Specifically, the
CAC relates to FCStone's public disclosures regarding an interest
rate hedge, a bad debt expense arising from unprecedented events
in the cotton trading market, and certain disclosures beginning on
November 3, 2008, related to losses it expected to incur arising
primarily from a customer energy trading account.  FCStone and the
named officers moved to dismiss the action.

The parties to the litigation reached an agreement in principle to
settle this matter during May 2012, which was approved by order of
the court on July 23, 2013.  The settlement was at no cost to the
Company after consideration of insurance coverage.

INTL FCStone Inc. -- http://www.intlfcstone.com/-- together with
its consolidated subsidiaries, form a financial services group
focused on domestic and select international markets.  The
Company's services include comprehensive risk management advisory
services for commercial customers; execution of listed futures and
options on futures contracts on all major commodity exchanges;
structured over-the-counter products in a wide range of
commodities; physical trading and hedging of precious and base
metals and select other commodities; trading of more than 130
foreign currencies; market-making in international equities;
Debtors origination and asset management.


INTL FCSTONE: To Present Terms of Missouri Suit Settlement in 4Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
INTL FCStone Inc. expects that the terms of its settlement of a
consolidated class action lawsuit are to be presented to the court
for approval during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2013, according
to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

In August 2008, a shareholder derivative action was filed against
FCStone and certain directors of FCStone in the Circuit Court of
Platte County, Missouri, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties,
waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment.  An amended
complaint was subsequently filed in May 2009 to add claims based
upon the losses sustained by FCStone arising out of a customer
energy trading account.  In July 2009, the same plaintiff filed a
motion for leave to amend the existing case to add a purported
class action claim on behalf of the holders of FCStone common
stock.

In July 2009, a purported shareholder class action complaint was
filed against FCStone and its directors, as well as the Company in
the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri.  The complaint alleged
that FCStone and its directors breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to maximize stockholder value in connection with the
contemplated acquisition of FCStone by the Company.  This
complaint was subsequently consolidated with the complaint filed
in the Circuit Court of Platte County, Missouri.  The plaintiffs
subsequently filed an amended consolidated complaint which does
not assert any claims against the Company.  This complaint
purports to be filed derivatively on FCStone and the Company's
behalf and against certain of FCStone's current and former
directors and officers and directly against the same individuals.
The Company, FCStone and the defendants filed motions to dismiss
on multiple grounds.  The parties to the litigation reached an
agreement in principle to settle this matter during October 2012.
The parties are currently completing the documents and negotiating
the final terms of the settlement.  The proposed settlement would
result in the Company incurring a legal cost of $250,000 after
consideration of expected insurance coverage, and is subject to
approval by the court.  The terms of the settlement are expected
to be presented to the court for approval during the fourth
quarter of fiscal 2013.

INTL FCStone Inc. -- http://www.intlfcstone.com/-- together with
its consolidated subsidiaries, form a financial services group
focused on domestic and select international markets.  The
Company's services include comprehensive risk management advisory
services for commercial customers; execution of listed futures and
options on futures contracts on all major commodity exchanges;
structured over-the-counter products in a wide range of
commodities; physical trading and hedging of precious and base
metals and select other commodities; trading of more than 130
foreign currencies; market-making in international equities;
Debtors origination and asset management.


INTUIT INC: Settles Employee "No-Poach" Class Action for $20 Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Love, writing for The Recorder, reports that Intuit Inc.,
Lucasfilm and Pixar will pay a total of $20 million to settle a
class action lawsuit on behalf of ex-employees who claim the
companies illegally suppressed salaries by striking pacts with
other high-tech businesses to not raid each other's ranks.

Plaintiffs lawyers asked the court on Sept. 21 to grant
preliminary approval of the settlements and certify a settlement
class of former employees who did technical or creative work or
handled research and development.  Walt Disney Co. subsidiaries
Lucasfilm and Pixar will pay $9 million in cash, and Intuit will
shell out $11 million, according to the settlement motion.

The deals, first reached in July, would wipe away all claims
against the three companies, but substantial litigation remains in
In Re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, 11-2509.
Plaintiffs, who accuse the companies of a conspiracy to constrain
employee compensation by reducing competition for labor, will be
moving forward against Adobe, Apple, Google and Intel.  According
to the settlement filing, Intuit, Lucasfilm and Pixar employees
make up less than 8 percent of the proposed class, suggesting the
final award to class members if plaintiffs prevail could top $200
million.

Lead plaintiffs lawyers at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and
the Joseph Saveri Law Firm plan to request that nearly $5 million
of the settlement fund be set aside for incurred and future
litigation costs, according to the filing.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh dealt a blow to plaintiffs in April
when she declined to certify a class of roughly 60,000
ex-employees.  However, Judge Koh seemed more open during an
August hearing to certifying a class limited to salaried, high-
skilled workers.

The seven defendants' recruitment and employment practices were
first scrutinized by the U.S. Department of Justice, which filed
suit in 2010 alleging the companies struck agreements restricting
the mobility of skilled employees.  The companies settled with the
government but civil suits followed.


INVACARE CORP: Faces Class Action Over Retirement Plan Woes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Soder, writing for Crain's Cleveland Business, reports that
a lawsuit that seeks class action status alleges that Invacare
Corp. and its top executives kept employees in the dark about
regulatory problems that caused the company's stock price -- and
its retirement plan assets -- to take a big hit.

The lawsuit states that the retirement plan was "heavily over-
invested" in Invacare stock because executives failed to disclose
promptly the seriousness of regulatory problems that eventually
forced Invacare to shut down much of its wheelchair manufacturing
operations in Elyria and revamp its quality control processes.

Thus, many Invacare employees -- who are given the option of
buying the company's stock through the retirement plan --
continued to buy and hold shares, not realizing the price of the
stock was about to start falling, the lawsuit alleges.

At the start of 2011, the Invacare retirement plan held $21
million in company stock, which accounted for about 12% of the
plan's assets, according to the complaint, filed Aug. 26 in U.S.
District Court in Cleveland.

But soon, revelation of Invacare's regulatory problems would chop
the value of that stock in half: From Jan. 3 to Dec. 30 of that
year, Invacare shares fell from $30.49 to $15.21, which is exactly
where the price stood at the close of business on Wednesday,
Sept. 4.

The lawsuit said Invacare should reimburse its retirement plan for
the $11.5 million it has lost on company stock since July 2010 --
just before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration began to conduct
inspections related to Invacare's quality control processes.

The lawsuit has yet to be certified by the court as a class
action. If that occurs, the case would be argued on behalf of the
plan and its beneficiaries.  The lawsuit names only one plaintiff,
Nancy Murray, who is a former employee, according to Invacare
spokeswoman Lara Mahoney.  The plaintiff's lawyers would not
comment about the case.

The lawsuit is the second case seeking class action status filed
against Invacare this year.  In May, other large Invacare
investors filed a broader lawsuit against the company, claiming
investors were not made aware of the seriousness of Invacare's
problems with the FDA.  Many of the problems related to procedures
the company used to identify and fix problems related to product
quality.

                        Questions on timing

The two lawsuits make many of the same arguments.  They suggest
Invacare executives should have mentioned the problems sooner, so
that investors could have sold Invacare stock, or at least stopped
buying it.

For instance, the FDA in August 2010 sent Invacare a Form 483
describing how the company failed to respond adequately to
recurring reports that its electric beds had caught fire and
caused patients to become trapped between the rail and the
mattress.  The incidents caused at least three deaths, as well as
other injuries, according to an FDA warning letter sent to
Invacare executives in December 2010.

However, the public wasn't told about those problems until the FDA
made its warning letter public in January 2011, according to the
lawsuits.

Both lawsuits also state that, in December 2010, the FDA sent
Invacare two Forms 483 detailing problems at the company's
headquarters and its Taylor Street plant in Elyria, where the
company makes power wheelchairs.  The lawsuits said it wasn't
until October 2011 that Invacare CEO Gerald Blouch made it public
that the company's FDA problems extended beyond the plant that
made the electric beds in Sanford, Fla.

Mr. Blouch is a defendant in both lawsuits, as is A. Malachi Mixon
III, Invacare's chairman and its longtime CEO prior to Mr. Blouch
assuming that job in January 2011.  The broader lawsuit from May
also names chief financial officer Robert Gudbranson.  The lawsuit
related to the retirement plan leaves out Mr. Gudbranson but names
four other executives: Patricia Stumpp, Dale C. LaPorte, Michael
F. Delaney and Charles S. Robb.

Both lawsuits note that Invacare bought nearly $10.5 million of
its own stock from Mr. Mixon, its former CEO, in March 2011 --
three months after the FDA told Invacare about problems at its
Elyria operations but before that information was made public. The
stock purchase -- 350,000 shares bought at nearly $30 each --
amounted to about 14% of the Invacare stock Mr. Mixon owned at the
time.

Mr. Mixon, who since has bought and sold smaller amounts of
Invacare stock, told the company the money from the stock sale was
for "personal financial planning purposes," according to a
document filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in
March 2011, two months after he stepped down as CEO.

Ms. Mahoney, director of investor relations and corporate
communications for Invacare, would not provide additional detail
regarding Invacare's purchase of Mr. Mixon's shares.

The company doesn't generally make an announcement when the FDA
sends it a Form 483 detailing the results of an inspection because
inspections are frequent in the heavily regulated medical device
industry, Ms. Mahoney said.

"It's not something we'd typically call out beyond our normal
disclosure requirements," she said.
'We are in compliance'

The Invacare executives should have released information about
those inspections because the problems identified were "serious
adverse issues that impact Invacare's current business and
business prospects," said Benjamin Galdston -- beng@blbglaw.com --
an attorney with Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman in San
Diego.

Mr. Galdston is one of the lawyers representing plaintiffs in the
broader lawsuit filed in May; those plaintiffs include the
Government of Guam Retirement Fund and the Cambridge (Mass.)
Retirement System.

Invacare's Ms. Mahoney wouldn't say much about the two lawsuits,
given that they both are ongoing.

"We don't believe they have any merit," she said.

She noted, however, that Invacare has finished two of the three
audits the FDA requires the company to complete before it can be
released from a consent decree that severely has restricted its
Elyria operations since December 2012.

After completing the second audit, Invacare was allowed to resume
designing wheelchairs and electric beds in Elyria.  The company
plans to send in mid-November to the FDA documents detailing the
results of the third audit.  If the FDA accepts the results,
Invacare will be able to restart full wheelchair production at its
Taylor Street plant.

"We're showing the FDA that we are in compliance," Ms. Mahoney
said.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Mt Clear Woman Joins Mesh Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Afflick, writing for The Courier, reports that Mt Clear
woman Andrea Eppingstall has been living a nightmare for the past
18 months after a medical implant that was supposed to fix her
stress incontinence went horribly wrong.

She is now one of more than 300 Australian women, and at least six
from Ballarat, who are participating in a class action against
Johnson and Johnson's mesh products, used mostly for prolapse and
stress incontinence.
See your ad here

Ms. Eppingstall said she suffered serious complications after
receiving a Johnson and Johnson trans-vaginal tape implant in
March 2012.

At the time she believed it to be a safe medical procedure, but
alarm bells began to ring weeks later when the pain refused to
subside.  She later discovered the tape had broken up and eroded
into her bodily organs.

Since then the mum-of-two has had two repair operations under
general anaesthetic and is planning even more surgery to have the
product fully removed.

Ms. Eppingstall said joining the class action was about raising
awareness so other women wouldn't have to go through it.  She
worries many could still be suffering in silence.

"It's a nightmare, not knowing what the long term prognosis is,"
she said.

"If I'm having an episode of pain I might not be able to drive my
car, or stand at the soccer to cheer my kids on.

"It's just so awful -- I don't want anyone else to put up with
that."

Ms. Eppingstall said she took pain medication when required and
was extremely lucky to have the support of her husband and family.

Shine Lawyers partner Rebecca Jancauskas said the firm had started
federal court action against the Australian distributor Johnson
and Johnson and its manufacturer Ethicon, on behalf of all
Australian women who had been implanted with the products and
suffered complications as a result.

"We understand 39,000 implants have been used nationwide,
potentially more," Ms. Jancauskas said.


KADANT INC: Accrued $234,000 for Claims & Costs in Suit vs. Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In 2005, Kadant Inc.'s subsidiary, Kadant Composites LLC
(Composites LLC), sold substantially all of its assets to a third
party.  Composites LLC ceased doing business in September 2007
after it had expended all of the cash proceeds from the sale to
administer and pay warranty claims related to certain decking and
roofing products.  All activity related to this business is
classified in the results of the discontinued operation in the
accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements.

On October 24, 2011, the Company, Composites LLC, and other co-
defendants entered into an agreement to settle a nationwide class
action lawsuit related to allegedly defective composites decking
building products manufactured by Composites LLC between April
2002 and October 2003, which was filed and approved in Connecticut
state court.

As of June 29, 2013, the Company has accrued $11,000 for the
payment of remaining claims under the class action settlement and
$223,000 in related costs, according to the Company's August 7,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 29, 2013.

Kadant Inc. -- http://www.kadant.com/-- is a supplier of
equipment used in the global papermaking and paper recycling
industries.  The Company also manufactures granules made from
papermaking byproducts.  The Company is based in Westford,
Massachusetts.


KINROSS GOLD: Koskie Minsky Discusses Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Kirk Baert, Esq. -- kbaert@kmlaw.ca -- at Koskie Minsky LLP
reports that in July, plaintiffs in a securities class action
styled Bayens v. Kinross Gold Corp. were granted approval of a
litigation funding agreement whereby the plaintiffs would be
indemnified against any potential adverse costs awards in this
class action.  In granting this funding arrangement, Ontario
Superior Court Justice Paul Perell outlined a number of principles
that should be considered where a proposed funding arrangement is
before the court.

In my view, the increasing recognition of the importance of
litigation funding agreements in Ontario is a rational and
reasonable response to the stark realities faced by proposed
representative plaintiffs in class proceedings, the so-called
"sport of kings."  However, although the Ontario courts have made
great strides in accepting and approving class action funding
arrangements, the jurisprudence is still developing and there is
still considerable progress to be made in order to even the
playing field between representative plaintiffs and defendants.

On July 22, Perell approved the funding arrangement between the
plaintiffs in their capacity as trustees of the Musicians' Pension
Fund of Canada and Harbour Fund II, L.P. In this class action, the
Musicians' Fund was not prepared to proceed without a contingency
fee agreement and if it was exposed to adverse costs awards.
Although class counsel was prepared to take on the risk of a
contingency fee retainer, it was not prepared to indemnify the
Musicians' Fund from any adverse costs award.

Class counsel was already shouldering an enormous risk by fronting
its time and the costs of disbursements.  Given the prohibitive
costs of securities litigation in Ontario, class counsel was not
prepared to advance the litigation without a third-party indemnity
agreement in place.

The motion for approval of the funding agreement was held in open
court and the defendants were entitled to appear and make
submissions.  The defendants did not oppose the funding agreement
provided it was a term of the order approving the agreement that
Harbour would post security for costs.  The court ordered Harbour
to post security of costs on a staggered basis, from C$300,000
before certification up to C$2 million before the scheduled trial
date.

In evaluating whether to grant the order approving the funding
arrangement, Perell considered a number of principles, including:

   * Plaintiffs must obtain court approval in order to enter into
a third-party funding agreement. Third-party funding of a class
proceeding must be transparent, and it must be reviewed in order
to ensure there are no abuses or interference with the
administration of justice;

   * It is an acceptable term of a third-party funding agreement
to require the third-party funder to pay into court security for
the defendant's costs (whether this should be a necessary term in
every case has not been determined in the case law);

In my view, there are several potentially problematic features
associated with the framework used to evaluate whether a funding
arrangement is acceptable.

First, the defendant should be excluded from the motion to approve
a funding arrangement.  In order for the court to determine
whether the terms of a funding arrangement are fair and reasonable
and is in the best interests of the class, the case management
judge and class counsel should be able to engage in a frank
discussion concerning the availability of funding and the
strengths of the case.  This discussion should properly occur in
the absence of the defendant.

In contrast, where a plaintiff seeks funding from the Class
Proceedings Fund, if the defendant is asked to provide written
submissions to the committee, the defendant is required to consent
to the discontinuance of the proceeding without costs in the event
the application for funding is refused.

Furthermore, the defendant is not entitled to make oral
submissions to the committee, and is not entitled to any
information about, or materials from, the plaintiff's application.
In preserving the fairness and confidentiality between the
plaintiffs and the fund, this process (which does not require
ratification or approval by the court) stands in stark contrast to
a motion held in open court to consider private funding
arrangements at which the defendant is entitled to receive
materials from the plaintiff and to make submissions.

Second, the court should not require a third-party funder to pay
into court security for the defendant's costs.  A requirement of
this nature frustrates the legislative objective of access to
justice by strongly discouraging prospective funders.

There is nothing in the Class Proceedings Act or in the common law
that requires the party that bears the risk of adverse costs
awards in class proceedings to demonstrate his or her capability
to do so. Whether the proposed representative plaintiff, class
counsel, or a third-party funder has agreed to pay for any adverse
costs award is a distinction without a difference -- none of these
parties should be required to post security for costs.

These considerations aside, the acceptance by the courts of
funding arrangements between class action plaintiffs and third
parties represents a boon to access to justice, one of the primary
rationales animating the CPA.  Given the increasingly large
adverse costs awarded by the courts in class proceedings, the
approval of third-party funding arrangements is necessary to even
the playing field for the sport of kings.


LINKEDIN CORP: Sued for Allegedly Hacking E-Mail Addresses
----------------------------------------------------------
Linda Sandler, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that LinkedIn
Corp., owner of the world's most popular professional-networking
website, was sued by customers who claim the company appropriated
their identities for marketing purposes by hacking into their
external e-mail accounts and downloading contacts' addresses.

The customers, who aim to lead a group suit against LinkedIn,
asked a federal judge in San Jose, California, to bar the company
from repeating the alleged violations and to force it to return
any revenue stemming from its use of their identities to promote
the site to non-members, according to a court filing.

"LinkedIn's own website contains hundreds of complaints regarding
this practice," they said in the complaint filed Sept. 17, which
also seeks unspecified damages.

LinkedIn claims to have the largest online professional network
with more than 238 million members, including executives from
every Fortune 500 company.  Chief Executive Officer Jeff Weiner is
quoted in the complaint as saying on a second-quarter earnings
call, "This strong membership growth is due in large part to new
growth optimization efforts."

Doug Madey, a spokesman for Mountain View, California-based
LinkedIn, said the lawsuit is without merit and the company will
fight it.

                        'Members First'

"LinkedIn is committed to putting our members first, which
includes being transparent about how we protect and utilize our
members' data," he said on Sept. 21 in an e-mail.

LinkedIn required the members to provide an external e-mail
address as their username on its site, then used the information
to access their external e-mail accounts when they were left open,
according to the complaint.

"LinkedIn pretends to be that user and downloads the e-mail
addresses contained anywhere in that account to LinkedIn's
servers," they said.  "LinkedIn is able to download these
addresses without requesting the password for the external e-mail
accounts or obtaining users' consent."

In a post on Sept. 22 on the LinkedIn blog, Blake Lawit, the
company's senior director of litigation, said the allegation that
LinkedIn breaks into the e-mail accounts of members who choose to
upload their address books to the site is not true.

The company doesn't access customers' e-mail accounts without
their permission, he said.  Nor does LinkedIn "pretend" to be a
customer to gain access to the user's e-mail account, he said.

                           'Never Send'

"We never send messages or invitations to join LinkedIn on your
behalf to anyone unless you have given us permission to do so,"
Mr. Lawit wrote.

LinkedIn software engineer Brian Guan described his role on the
company's website as "devising hack schemes to make lots of $$$
with Java, Groovy and cunning at Team Money!" according to the
complaint.  Java is a programming language and computing platform
released by Sun Microsystems in 1995. Groovy is a another language
for the Java platform.

The plaintiffs, who are seeking a jury trial, provided a link to
the engineer's post, http://www.linkedin.com/in/brianguan,which
they said they last visited Sept. 13.

Mr. Guan left the company in May 2012, Shannon Stubo, a LinkedIn
spokeswoman, said on Sept. 22 in an e-mail.

                         'Viral Growth'

The customers blamed the use of their contacts on LinkedIn's
strategy, which they quoted from a regulatory filing, to "pursue
initiatives that promote the viral growth of our member base,"
according to the complaint.

In an e-mail to Bloomberg yesterday, Deborah Lagutaris, whose
LinkedIn profile describes her as a tax preparer, real estate
broker and former law clerk, said LinkedIn contacted more than
3,000 people in her name, including those copied in on her e-mail
messages.

"This means that not only direct e-mail contacts but peripherals
as well," were used, she said.  "I contacted LinkedIn and they
said, 'Oh, you can remove all those invitations from your account
manually. We don't know what happened.'"

Instead, she said she added a disclaimer to her LinkedIn page
saying she hadn't sent the invitations.

Jeffrey Barr of Livingston, New Jersey, said in an e-mail that he
estimated LinkedIn used as many as 200 names and e-mail addresses
of his contacts, inviting them to connect with him on the site.

                        'Old Girlfriends'

"Some of the people I hadn't talked to in five to 10 years,
including several old girlfriends I had forgotten to delete," he
said.

LinkedIn told him he hadn't unchecked a default setting allowing
it to use the e-mails, he said.

According the complaint, it was part of LinkedIn's growth
initiative also to send multiple e-mails endorsing its products,
services, and brand to potential new users, following up with
additional messages to people who didn't sign on.

The existing users have no way to stop the process, the plaintiffs
said.

"These 'endorsement e-mails' are sent to e-mail addresses taken
from LinkedIn users' external e-mail accounts including the
addresses of spouses, clients, opposing counsel, etc.," according
to the complaint.

The actions were taken even though LinkedIn assures its users when
they log in, "We will not e-mail anyone without your permission,"
the plaintiffs said.

"LinkedIn's appropriation of e-mail addresses to send multiple
reminder e-mails promoting its service is motivated by monetary
gain," they said.

The lead lawyer handling the customers is Larry Russ --
lruss@raklaw.com -- of Russ August & Kabat PC in Los Angeles.

The case is Perkins v. LinkedIn Corp., 13-cv-04303, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).


MERRILL LYNCH: Osler Hoskin Discusses Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
Tristram Mallett, Esq. -- tmallett@osler.com -- Lauren Tomasich --
ltomasich@osler.com -- Esq. and Joshua Krusell, Esq. --
jkrusell@osler.com -- at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP report that
when faced with the proposed certification of a class action, a
court must consider whether the claims of the prospective class
members raise common issues and, if so, whether the common issues
predominate over issues affecting only individual prospective
class members. Where questions relating to causation or damages
are proposed as common issues, the plaintiff must demonstrate,
with supporting evidence, that there is a workable methodology for
determining such issues on a class-wide basis.

A question that has given rise to varying judicial opinion and
been the source of vigorous debate between defendants and
plaintiffs is to what extent plaintiffs must demonstrate at the
certification stage that there is some way to prove their theory
of liability once the case is heard on its merits.  In the 2013
decision of Andriuk v. Merrill Lynch Canada Inc. ("Andriuk"), the
Alberta Court of Queen's Bench recently denied certification of an
investment broker self-dealing class action on the basis that,
among other things, the plaintiffs had not demonstrated any
indication of a methodology that could be used to prove that
Merrill Lynch's conduct caused the plaintiffs' losses.  In that
certification motion, the plaintiffs alleged that when Merrill
Lynch discovered that its clients collectively held too much stock
in a biotech firm, it took steps to rectify the situation in a
manner that preferred its own interests to those of its clients,
leading to the "artificial" depression of the biotech firm's share
price.

The plaintiffs led little evidence of how they could prove that
their losses were not simply the result of other market forces or
that their losses were linked with each of Merrill Lynch's
impugned actions.  Indeed, the Court queried whether such a
complex, though necessary, calculation was even possible.
Searching for assistance with this question, the Court wondered
"why the plaintiffs would wait until after discoveries have been
completed to determine this threshold issue".

This decision confirms that in proposed class actions where
causation is a complex determination, it is critical that
plaintiffs lead their own expert evidence at the certification
stage to demonstrate that a workable methodology exists that is
capable of establishing liability on a class-wide basis.  In
Andriuk, it was not enough for the Plaintiffs to say that they
intended to put forward an expert after discovery that would
"tease out the impact" of Merrill's actions from the "myriad of
other factors that can affect a stock's price".  Rather, the
Plaintiffs had to show at the certification stage that the
necessary calculations are at least possible.  Otherwise, "it
would simply not promote efficiency or judicial economy to permit
certification when there is no basis in fact to show that the
primary but novel form of class-wide loss asserted by the
Plaintiffs could ever be established".

Andriuk is a useful case for defense counsel's toolbox as it
confirms that plaintiffs must show that it is possible to prove
loss on a class-wide basis to be able to move forward to a common
issues trial.  It also serves as a reminder to plaintiffs' counsel
that if a proposed class proceeding involves a complicated
calculation to determine proof of loss on a class-wide basis, the
plaintiff must come forward with an expert that says he or she can
perform the calculation.  While the court will not engage in a
weighing of expert evidence at the certification stage, the court
is also not prepared to "certify now and worry later" if the
plaintiff comes seeking certification with a complex causation
question and no expert evidence at all.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Polyurethane Foam-Related Suits Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits were
initiated in several U.S. federal courts alleging that certain
manufacturers of polyurethane foam products and competitors of the
Company's carpet underlay division had engaged in price fixing in
violation of U.S. antitrust laws.  Mohawk Industries, Inc. has
been named as a defendant in a number of the individual cases (the
first filed on August 26, 2010), as well as in two consolidated
amended class action complaints, the first filed on February 28,
2011, on behalf of a class of all direct purchasers of
polyurethane foam products, and the second filed on March 21,
2011, on behalf of a class of indirect purchasers.  All pending
cases in which the Company has been named as a defendant have been
filed in or transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio for consolidated pre-trial proceedings
under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case
No. 1:10-MDL-02196.

In these actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a
class of purchasers, seek three times the amount of unspecified
damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in
the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the
present.  Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest, court costs, and injunctive relief
against future violations.  In April 2011, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the class action claims brought by the direct
purchasers, and in May 2011, the Company moved to dismiss the
claims brought by the indirect purchasers.  On July 19, 2011, the
Court issued a written opinion denying all defendants' motions to
dismiss.  In December 2011, the Company was named as a defendant
in a Canadian Class action, Hi! Neighbor Floor Covering Co.
Limited v. Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et al., filed in
the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, Canada and Options
Consommateures v. Vitafoam, Inc. et.al., filed in the Superior
Court of Justice of Quebec, Montreal, Canada, both of which allege
similar claims against the Company as raised in the U.S. actions
and seek unspecified damages and punitive damages.  The Company
denies all of the allegations in these actions and will vigorously
defend itself.

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.

The Company believes that adequate provisions for resolution of
all contingencies, claims and pending litigation have been made
for probable losses that are reasonably estimable.  These
contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and the
Company is unable to estimate the amount or range of loss, if any,
in excess of amounts accrued.  The Company does not believe that
the ultimate outcome of these actions will have a material adverse
effect on its financial condition but could have a material
adverse effect on its results of operations, cash flows or
liquidity in a given quarter or year.

Mohawk Industries, Inc. -- http://www.mohawkind.com/-- is a
supplier of flooring for both residential and commercial
applications.  Mohawk offers a complete selection of carpet,
ceramic tile, laminate, wood, stone, vinyl, and rugs.  The Company
is headquartered in Calhoun, Georgia.


NATIONAL VETERANS: Gives Under 10% of Funds to Veterans, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Purna Nemani at Courthouse News Service reports that the National
Veterans Services Fund pays most of the millions it collects to
for-profit solicitors and its president, while giving less than 10
percent directly to veterans, a class claims in Federal Court.

California plaintiff David Urzua sued National Veterans Services
Fund of Darien, Conn., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, alleging false advertising and unfair
competition.

Claims on the Connecticut-based fund's Web site about using
charitable gifts to help "our nation's heroes and their families"
led Urzua to donate recently, "expecting that his contribution
would directly aid veterans in need," according to the complaint.

The fund's Web site contains numerous testimonials from alleged
aid recipients.

Urzua claims, however, that only a fraction of the donations that
the fund receives ever make it to veterans and their families.

Citing a collaborative report from the Tampa Bay Times, the Center
for Investigative Reporting and CNN, Urzua said "an average of
only 7.8% of the approximately $70 million raised by defendant
NVSF in the last ten years actually made it to veterans in direct
cash."

That report named NVSF "America's eighth worst charity," the
complaint states.

Urzua said corporate fundraisers and executive salaries collect
for the bulk of the money that the fund raises, with only $500,000
a year going to veterans and their families.

Since NVSF president and treasurer Phillip Kraft brought home
$118,800 from NVSF in 2011, it can be said that his salary
"exceeds one-fifth of the amount that goes to veterans in direct
aid per year," according to the complaint.

NVSF meanwhile "fails to disclose these facts to veterans," Urzua
added.

"In fact, there are no details of the above listed grants reported
in any of the charity's annual IRS filings, which only refer to
spending on 'veterans assistance and relief.'"

The tax-exempt charity says it was founded in 1978 and previously
known as Vietnam Veterans Agent Orange Victims Inc.  Its Web site
names the charity's target population as "Vietnam- and Persian
Gulf War-veterans and their families, with a focus on families
with disabled children."

It was precisely this "rhetoric" that motivated Urzua to donate,
according to the complaint.

"Defendant NVSF claims to give direct aid by providing a range of
support including purchasing wheelchairs, scooters, ramps; paying
utility bills; providing gift cards; buying snow tires and
dentures; and providing temporary housing," Urzua notes.

The Web site even claims that its charity has covered veterinarian
bills for a veteran's service animal.

Urzua claims that NVSF's professional fundraisers take the lion's
share.  Those solicitors are identified in the profile on
America's Worst Charities as Bonded Couriers, Bee LC, Courtesy
Call, Vehicle Donation Processing Center and Direct Response
Consulting Services.  None is a party to the complaint.

"Over the past ten years, Defendant NVSF has paid approximately
$36.9 million in cash to solicitors and for-profit fundraisers,"
the complaint states.  "What is worse, the percent going to
professional solicitors has increased over time and, in 2011, the
charity raised about $9 million, of which 82 percent went to
professional solicitors."

The Worst Charities feature says NVSF was disciplined or suspended
in Colorado and Ohio.

Kraft declined to comment on the lawsuit, noting that NVSF has
turned the case over to its lawyers "because the claims are BS."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
          4100 Newport Place, Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706-6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
          E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com

Mr. Ferrell was unavailable for comment on exactly how much or
when his client donated to NVSF.

The case is Urzua v. National Veterans Services Fund, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:13-cv-02217-MMA-KSC, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California (San Diego).


NMI RETIREMENT: Maratita Wants to Intervene in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ferdie de la Torre, writing for Saipan Tribune, reports that
Rep. Janet Maratita (Ind-Saipan), through counsel Ramon K.
Quichocho, wants to intervene in Betty Johnson's class action
against the CNMI government and the NMI Retirement Fund.

Jesus I. Taisague and Joaquin Q. Atalig, also through counsel
Quichocho, joined Maratita as "proposed intervenors" in
Ms. Johnson's class action.

Quichocho informed the U.S. District Court for the NMI on Sept. 20
of their intent to file a motion to intervene.

U.S. District Court for the NMI designated judge Frances Tydingco-
Gatewood previously denied several parties' requests to intervene
in the case.

On Sept. 19, Maratita prefiled a resolution urging Gov. Eloy S.
Inos to reconsider and withdraw from the Fund settlement
agreement.  She stated that pursuing the terms that violate the
NMI Constitution "clearly constitutes the impeachable offense of
neglect of duty under Article 3 Section 19."

The resolution has two co-sponsors as of last week: Reps. Lorenzo
Deleon Guerrero (Ind-Saipan) and Ray Tebuteb (Ind-Saipan).

With only 16 Fund members opting out of the settlement agreement,
Judge Tydingco-Gatewood is expected to give final approval to the
settlement agreement on Sept. 30, 2013.


QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA: Suit by Stolen Generations Members Begins
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Liddle, writing for NITV News, reports that members of the
Stolen Generations in north Queensland have begun a class action
seeking compensation for past injustices in state-run dormitories.

These dormitories were part of the Mona Mona mission in the 1950s,
which members of the Stolen Generation have described as little
more than a prison.  They argue it is racially discriminatory to
compensate other groups, but not Stolen Generation members for
alleged mistreatment.

From 1913 to the early 1960s, the former Seventh-Day Adventist
Mission held mostly Djabugay children forcibly removed from their
families.

Lawyers representing Stolen Generation members who were sent to
missions in Mona Mona, Wujal Wujal and Hopevale in north
Queensland will know in October if the Federal Court will allow
them to proceed with the class action.

Glenis Grogan from the Mona Mona Action Group says it's unjust
that non-Aboriginal people placed in state institutions were
compensated under the Queensland Government's redress scheme, but
not Aboriginal people in church-run institutions.

Cairns-based lawyer representing the group, Kirsten Lesina says
about 90 members will be seeking compensation of up to $42,000
each; with possibly more members signing on if the class action
goes ahead.

Ms. Lesina says if the class action is rejected by the Federal
Court, Stolen Generation members may take legal action
individually.

The Queensland Government is not commenting as the case is before
the courts.


SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Continues to Defend Suit Over Wild Bird Foods
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company continues to defend itself against
a consolidated class action lawsuit related to its sale of wild
bird food products, according to the Company's August 7, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 29, 2013.

In connection with the sale of wild bird food products that were
the subject of a voluntary recall in 2008, the Company has been
named as a defendant in four putative class actions filed on and
after June 27, 2012, which have now been consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California as In re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case
No. 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-RBB.  The plaintiffs allege various
statutory and common law claims associated with the Company's sale
of wild bird food products and a plea agreement entered into in
previously pending government proceedings associated with such
sales.  The plaintiffs seek on behalf of themselves and various
purported class members monetary damages, restitution, injunctive
relief, declaratory relief, attorney's fees, interest and costs.
The Company intends to vigorously defend the consolidated action.
Given the early stages of the action, the Company cannot make a
determination as to whether it could have a material effect on the
Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows
and has not recorded any accruals with respect thereto.

Based in Marysville, Ohio, The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company is a
leading manufacturer and marketer of consumer branded products for
lawn and garden care in North America and Europe.  The Company is
Monsanto's exclusive agent for the marketing and distribution of
consumer Roundup(R) non-selective herbicide products within the
United States and other contractually specified countries.


SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Continues to Defend Ocean Pointe Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc., continues to defend itself
against lawsuits arising from property damage in a housing
development known as Ocean Pointe in Honolulu, Hawaii, 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.

Four lawsuits (the "Cases") have been filed against the Company in
the Hawaii First Circuit Court: Alvarez v. Haseko Homes, Inc. and
Simpson Manufacturing, Inc., Civil No. 09-1-2697-11 ("Case 1"); Ke
Noho Kai Development, LLC v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., and
Honolulu Wood Treating Co., LTD., Case No. 09-1-1491-06 SSM ("Case
2"); North American Specialty Ins. Co. v. Simpson Strong-Tie
Company, Inc. and K.C. Metal Products, Inc., Case No. 09-1-1490-06
VSM ("Case 3"); and Charles et al. v. Haseko Homes, Inc. et al.
and Third Party Plaintiffs Haseko Homes, Inc. et al. v. Simpson
Strong-Tie Company, Inc., et al., Civil No. 09-1-1932-08 ("Case
4").  Case 1 was filed on November 18, 2009.  Cases 2 and 3 were
originally filed on June 30, 2009.  Case 4 was filed on August 19,
2009.  The Cases all relate to alleged premature corrosion of the
Company's strap tie holdown products installed in buildings in a
housing development known as Ocean Pointe in Honolulu, Hawaii,
allegedly causing property damage.  Case 1 is a putative class
action brought by the owners of allegedly affected Ocean Pointe
houses.  Case 1 was originally filed as Kai et al. v. Haseko
Homes, Inc., Haseko Construction, Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing,
Inc., Case No. 09-1-1476, but was voluntarily dismissed and then
re-filed with a new representative plaintiff.  Case 2 is an action
by the builders and developers of Ocean Pointe against the
Company, claiming that either the Company's strap tie holdowns are
defective in design or manufacture or the Company failed to
provide adequate warnings regarding the products' susceptibility
to corrosion in certain environments.  Case 3 is a subrogation
action brought by the insurance company for the builders and
developers against the Company claiming the insurance company
expended funds to correct problems allegedly caused by the
Company's products.  Case 4 is a putative class action brought,
like Case 1, by owners of allegedly affected Ocean Pointe homes.
In Case 4, Haseko Homes, Inc. ("Haseko"), the developer of the
Ocean Pointe development, brought a third party complaint against
the Company alleging that any damages for which Haseko may be
liable are actually the fault of the Company.

Similarly, Haseko's sub-contractors on the Ocean Pointe
development brought cross-claims against the Company seeking
indemnity and contribution for any amounts for which they may
ultimately be found liable.  None of the Cases alleges a specific
amount of damages sought, although each of the Cases seeks
compensatory damages, and Case 1 seeks punitive damages.  Cases 1
and 4 have been consolidated.  In December 2012, the Court granted
the Company summary judgment on the claims asserted by the
plaintiff homeowners in Cases 1 and 4, and on the third party
complaint and cross-claims asserted by Haseko and the sub-
contractors, respectively, in Case 4.  In April 2013, the Court
granted Haseko and the sub-contractors' motion for leave to amend
their cross-claims to allege a claim for negligent
misrepresentation.

The Company continues to investigate the facts underlying the
claims asserted in the Cases, including, among other things, the
cause of the alleged corrosion; the severity of any problems shown
to exist; the buildings affected; the responsibility of the
general contractor, various subcontractors and other construction
professionals for the alleged damages; the amount, if any, of
damages suffered; and the costs of repair, if needed.  At this
time, the likelihood that the Company will be found liable under
any legal theory and the extent of such liability, if any, are
unknown.  Management believes the Cases may not be resolved for an
extended period.  The Company intends to defend itself vigorously
in connection with the Cases.

Based on facts currently known to the Company, the Company
believes that all or part of the claims alleged in the Cases may
be covered by its insurance policies.  On April 19, 2011, an
action was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Hawaii, National Union Fire Insurance Company of
Pittsburgh, PA v. Simpson Manufacturing Company, Inc., et al.,
Civil No. 11-00254 ACK.  In this action, Plaintiff National Union
Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ("National
Union"), which issued certain Commercial General Liability
insurance policies to the Company, seeks declaratory relief in the
Cases with respect to its obligations to defend or indemnify the
Company, Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc., and a vendor of the
Company's strap tie holdown products.  By Order dated November 7,
2011, all proceedings in the National Union action have been
stayed.  If the stay is lifted and the National Union action is
not dismissed, the Company intends vigorously to defend all claims
advanced by National Union.

On April 12, 2011, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company ("Fireman's
Fund"), another of the Company's general liability insurers, sued
Hartford Fire Insurance Company ("Hartford"), a third insurance
company from whom the Company purchased general liability
insurance, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v.
Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Civil No. 11 1789 SBA (the
"Fireman's Fund action").  The Company has intervened in the
Fireman's Fund action and has moved to stay all proceedings in
that action as well, pending resolution of the underlying Ocean
Pointe Cases.

On November 21, 2011, the Company commenced a lawsuit against
National Union, Fireman's Fund, Hartford and others in the
Superior Court of the State of California in and for the City and
County of San Francisco (the "San Francisco coverage action").  In
the San Francisco coverage action, the Company alleges generally
that the separate pendency of the National Union action and the
Fireman's Fund action presents a risk of inconsistent
adjudications; that the San Francisco Superior Court has
jurisdiction over all of the parties and should exercise
jurisdiction at the appropriate time to resolve any and all
disputes that have arisen or may in the future arise among the
Company and its liability insurers; and that the San Francisco
coverage action should also be stayed pending resolution of the
underlying Ocean Pointe Cases.  The San Francisco coverage action
has been ordered stayed pending resolution of the Cases.

Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. -- http://www.simpsonmgf.com/--
through its subsidiaries, engages in the design, engineering,
manufacture, and sale of building products.  The Company offers
wood-to-wood, wood-to-concrete, and wood-to-masonry connectors;
screw fastening systems and collated screws; stainless steel
fasteners; pre-fabricated shear walls and moment-frames; truss
plates; and a range of adhesives, chemicals, mechanical anchors,
carbide drill bits, and powder-actuated tools for concrete,
masonry, and steel markets.  The Company was founded in 1956 and
is based in Pleasanton, California.


SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: "Nishimura" Suit Remains Pending in Hawaii
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Nishimura v. Gentry Homes, Ltd.,
et al., remains pending in Hawaii, according to Simpson
Manufacturing Co., Inc.'s August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

Nishimura v. Gentry Homes, Ltd.; Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc.;
and Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., Civil no. 11-1-1522-07, was
filed in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit of Hawaii on
July 20, 2011.  The Nishimura case alleges premature corrosion of
the Company's strap tie holdown products in a housing development
at Ewa Beach in Honolulu, Hawaii.  The case is a putative class
action brought by owners of allegedly affected homes.  The
Complaint alleges that the Company's strap products and mudsill
anchors are insufficiently corrosion resistant and/or fail to
comply with Honolulu's building code.  In February 2012, the Court
dismissed three of the five claims the plaintiffs had asserted
against the Company.  The Company is currently investigating the
allegations of the complaint, including, among other things: the
existence and extent of the alleged corrosion, if any; the
building code provisions alleged to be applicable and, if
applicable, whether the products complied; the buildings affected;
the responsibility of the general contractor, various
subcontractors and other construction professionals for the
alleged damages; the amount, if any, of damages suffered; and the
costs of repair, if any are needed.  At this time, the likelihood
that the Company will be found liable for any damage allegedly
suffered and the extent of such liability, if any, are unknown.
The Company denies any liability of any kind and intends to defend
itself vigorously in this case.

Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. -- http://www.simpsonmgf.com/--
through its subsidiaries, engages in the design, engineering,
manufacture, and sale of building products.  The Company offers
wood-to-wood, wood-to-concrete, and wood-to-masonry connectors;
screw fastening systems and collated screws; stainless steel
fasteners; pre-fabricated shear walls and moment-frames; truss
plates; and a range of adhesives, chemicals, mechanical anchors,
carbide drill bits, and powder-actuated tools for concrete,
masonry, and steel markets.  The Company was founded in 1956 and
is based in Pleasanton, California.


STERLING FINANCIAL: Has Final Approval of ERISA Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Financial Corporation received in July 2013 final
approval of its settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On January 20, and 22, 2010, two putative class action complaints
were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington against Sterling, as well as certain of
Sterling's current and former officers and directors.  The two
complaints were merged in a Consolidated Amended Complaint (the
"Complaint") filed on July 16, 2010, in the same court.  The
Complaint did not name all of the individuals named in the prior
complaints, but it is expected that additional defendants will be
added.  The Complaint alleged that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties under sections 404 and 405 of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), with
respect to the Sterling Savings Bank Employee Savings and
Investment Plan (the "401(k) Plan") and the FirstBank Northwest
Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP") (collectively, the
"Plans").  Specifically, the Complaint alleged that the defendants
breached their duties by investing assets of the Plans in
Sterling's securities when it was imprudent to do so, and by
investing such assets in Sterling securities when defendants knew
or should have known that the price of those securities was
inflated due to misrepresentations and omissions about Sterling's
business practices.  The business practices at issue included
alleged over-reliance on risky construction loans; alleged
inadequate loan reserves; alleged spiking increases in
nonperforming assets, nonperforming loans, classified assets, and
over 90-day delinquent loans; alleged inadequate accounting for
rising loan payment shortfalls; alleged unsafe and unsound banking
practices; and a capital base that was allegedly inadequate to
withstand the significant deterioration in the real estate
markets.  The putative class periods were October 22, 2007, to the
present for the 401(k) Plan class, and October 22, 2007, to
November 14, 2008, for the ESOP class.  The Complaint sought
damages of an unspecified amount and attorneys' fees and costs.

On September 26, 2012, Sterling received a letter from the U.S.
Department of Labor (the "Department of Labor") containing similar
allegations as those set forth in the Complaint, demanding that
the violations alleged in the Department of Labor's letter be
corrected and notifying Sterling that the Department of Labor may
take legal action in connection with such allegations, including
assessing a civil money penalty.

In January 2013, a tentative settlement was reached, pursuant to
which Sterling agreed to pay $3.0 million to settle the claims.
The final fairness hearing was held on July 11, 2013, at which
time the Court accepted a non-objection letter from the Department
of Labor and approved the settlement.

Spokane, Washington-based Sterling Financial Corporation --
http://www.sterlingfinancialcorporation-spokane.com/-- is a bank
holding company, organized under the laws of Washington State in
1992.  The principal subsidiaries of Sterling are Sterling Savings
Bank and Golf Savings Bank.  Subsequent to June 30, 2010, Golf
Savings Bank was merged with and into Sterling Savings Bank, with
the mortgage banking operations of Golf Savings Bank continuing to
operate as a division of Sterling Savings Bank.


STERLING FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Have 60 Days to Amend Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington has
given the plaintiffs of a securities class action lawsuit 60 days
to file an amended complaint, according to Sterling Financial
Corporation'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 11, 2009, a putative securities class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington against Sterling and certain of its current and former
officers.  The court appointed a lead plaintiff on March 9, 2010.
On June 18, 2010, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint (the "Complaint").  The Complaint purports to be brought
on behalf of a class of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Sterling's stock during the period from July 23, 2008, to
October 15, 2009.  The Complaint alleges that defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
failing to disclose the extent of Sterling's delinquent commercial
real estate, construction and land development loans, properly
record losses for impaired loans, and properly reserve for loan
losses, thereby causing Sterling's stock price to be artificially
inflated during the purported class period.  The Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees and costs.  Sterling
believes the lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend
against it vigorously.  On August 30, 2010, Sterling moved to
dismiss the Complaint.  On March 2, 2011, after complete briefing,
the court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss.

On August 5, 2013, the court entered an order granting the
defendants' motion and dismissing the Complaint in its entirety.
The court has given plaintiffs 60 days to file an amended
complaint.

The Company says it does not know and cannot predict if the
plaintiffs will file an amended complaint.  Failure by Sterling to
obtain a favorable resolution of the claims set forth in the
complaint could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations and financial condition.
Currently, a loss resulting from these claims is not considered
probable or reasonably estimable in amount.

Spokane, Washington-based Sterling Financial Corporation --
http://www.sterlingfinancialcorporation-spokane.com/-- is a bank
holding company, organized under the laws of Washington State in
1992.  The principal subsidiaries of Sterling are Sterling Savings
Bank and Golf Savings Bank.  Subsequent to June 30, 2010, Golf
Savings Bank was merged with and into Sterling Savings Bank, with
the mortgage banking operations of Golf Savings Bank continuing to
operate as a division of Sterling Savings Bank.


SUNEDISON INC: Awaits Ruling on Oral Argument Bid in "Jones" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SunEdison, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion for
oral argument in the class action lawsuit titled Jerry Jones v.
SunEdison, Inc., et al., according to the Company's August 7,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On December 26, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by
plaintiff, Jerry Jones, purportedly on behalf of all participants
in and beneficiaries of SunEdison's 401(k) Savings Plan (the
"Plan") between September 4, 2007, and December 26, 2008,
inclusive.  The complaint asserted claims against SunEdison and
certain of its directors, employees and/or other unnamed
fiduciaries of the Plan.  The complaint alleges that the
defendants breached certain fiduciary duties owed under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, generally asserting that
the defendants failed to make full disclosure to the Plan's
participants of the risks of investing in SunEdison's stock and
that the company's stock should not have been made available as an
investment alternative in the Plan.  The complaint also alleges
that SunEdison failed to disclose certain material facts regarding
SunEdison's operations and performance, which had the effect of
artificially inflating SunEdison's stock price.

On June 1, 2009, an amended class action complaint was filed by
Mr. Jones and another purported participant of the Plan, Manuel
Acosta, which raises substantially the same claims and is based on
substantially the same allegations as the original complaint.
However, the amended complaint changes the period of time covered
by the action, purporting to be brought on behalf of beneficiaries
of and/or participants in the Plan from June 13, 2008, through the
present, inclusive.  The amended complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages, including losses the participants and
beneficiaries of the Plan allegedly experienced due to their
investment through the Plan in SunEdison's stock, equitable relief
and an award of attorney's fees.  No class has been certified and
discovery has not begun.  The Company and the named directors and
employees filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was fully
briefed by the parties as of October 9, 2009.  The parties each
subsequently filed notices of supplemental authority and
corresponding responses.  On March 17, 2010, the court denied the
motion to dismiss.  The SunEdison defendants filed a motion for
reconsideration or, in the alternative, certification for
interlocutory appeal, which was fully briefed by the parties as of
June 16, 2010.  The parties each subsequently filed notices of
supplemental authority and corresponding responses.

On October 18, 2010, the court granted the SunEdison defendants'
motion for reconsideration, vacated its order denying the
SunEdison defendants' motion to dismiss, and stated that it will
revisit the issues raised in the motion to dismiss after the
parties supplement their arguments relating thereto.  Both parties
filed briefs supplementing their arguments on November 1, 2010.
On June 28, 2011, plaintiff Jerry Jones filed a notice of
voluntary withdrawal from the action.  On June 29, 2011, the Court
entered an order withdrawing Jones as one of the plaintiffs in
this action.  The parties each have continued to file additional
notices of supplemental authority and responses thereto.  On
September 27, 2012, the SunEdison defendants moved for oral
argument on their pending motion to dismiss; plaintiff Manuel
Acosta joined in the SunEdison defendants' motion for oral
argument on October 9, 2012.  The Court has not ruled on this
motion for oral argument.

SunEdison believes the class action is without merit, and the
Company will assert a vigorous defense.  Due to the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot predict the
ultimate outcome or resolution of the class action proceedings or
estimate the amounts of, or potential range of, loss with respect
to these proceedings.  An unfavorable outcome could have a
material adverse impact on the Company's business, results of
operations and financial condition.  The Company has
indemnification agreements with each of its present and former
directors and officers, under which the Company is generally
required to indemnify each such director or officer against
expenses, including attorney's fees, judgments, fines and
settlements, arising from actions such as the lawsuits (subject to
certain exceptions, as described in the indemnification
agreements).

Headquartered in St. Peters, Missouri, SunEdison, Inc. is a global
leader in the development, manufacture and sale of silicon wafers,
and a major developer and seller of photovoltaic energy solutions.
Through its SunEdison LCC subsidiary, the Company is one of the
world's leading developers of solar energy projects.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Awaits Ruling in Cold-FX-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., is awaiting a court
decision on a motion for class certification in a class action
lawsuit over its Cold-FX(R) product, according to the Company's
August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On March 9, 2012, a Notice of Civil Claim was filed in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia which seeks an order certifying a
proposed class proceeding against the Company and a predecessor,
Afexa.  The proposed claim asserts that Afexa and the Company made
false representations respecting Cold-FX(R) to residents of
British Columbia who purchased the product during the applicable
period and that the class has suffered damages as a result.  The
Company filed its certification materials on February 6, 2013, and
a hearing on certification was scheduled on September 3, 2013.
The Company denies the allegations being made and is defending
this matter.

Based in Laval, Quebec, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International,
Inc. is a multinational, specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures and markets a broad range of pharmaceutical
and over-the-counter products, as well as medical devices.  The
Company's branded pharmaceutical products, generics and branded
generics, devices (lenses, surgical, and aesthetics), and OTC
products are sold in the U.S., Europe, Asia, Latin America,
Canada, Australia/New Zealand, Africa, and the Middle East.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suits Over Solodyn(R) Product
------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., is facing class
action lawsuits brought against various manufacturers of generic
forms of Solodyn(R), according to the Company's August 7, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On July 22, 2013, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 &
Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, filed a civil
antitrust class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Medicis
Pharmaceutical Corporation, the Company and various manufacturers
of generic forms of Solodyn(R), alleging that the defendants
engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to exclude competition from
the market for minocycline hydrochloride extended release tablets,
a prescription drug for the treatment of acne marketed by Medicis
under the brand name, Solodyn(R).  The plaintiff further alleges
that the defendants orchestrated a scheme to improperly restrain
trade, and maintain, extend and abuse Medicis' alleged monopoly
power in the market for minocycline hydrochloride extended release
tablets to the detriment of plaintiff and the putative class of
end-payor purchasers it seeks to represent, causing them to pay
overcharges.  The Plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2
of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. SectionSection 1, 2, and of various
state antitrust and consumer protection laws, and further alleges
that defendants have been unjustly enriched through their alleged
conduct.  The Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief
and, where applicable, treble, multiple, punitive and/or other
damages, including attorneys' fees.

On August 1, 2013, the International Union of Operating Engineers
Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund filed an antitrust class action
complaint, also on behalf of a putative class of end-payor
purchasers, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the same defendants, including
Medicis and the Company, making similar allegations and seeking
similar relief.  Similarly, on July 23, 2013, Rochester Drug Co-
Operative, Inc., filed an antitrust class action complaint on
behalf of a putative class of direct purchasers in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
against the same defendants, including Medicis and the Company,
making similar allegations and seeking treble damages under
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2.  The
Company is in the process of evaluating the claims and plan to
vigorously defend these actions.

Based in Laval, Quebec, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International,
Inc. is a multinational, specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures and markets a broad range of pharmaceutical
and over-the-counter products, as well as medical devices.  The
Company's branded pharmaceutical products, generics and branded
generics, devices (lenses, surgical, and aesthetics), and OTC
products are sold in the U.S., Europe, Asia, Latin America,
Canada, Australia/New Zealand, Africa, and the Middle East.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Got Final OK of Wellbutrin XL Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. received in July 2013
final approval of its settlement with indirect purchasers of
Wellbutrin XL(R), according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On April 4, 2008, a direct purchaser plaintiff filed a class
action antitrust complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against the Company's predecessor,
Biovail Corporation, its subsidiary Biovail Laboratories
International SRL ("BLS") (now Valeant International Bermuda),
GlaxoSmithKline plc, and SmithKline Beecham Inc. (the latter two
of which are referred to here as "GSK") seeking damages and
alleging that Biovail, BLS and GSK took actions to improperly
delay FDA approval for generic forms of Wellbutrin XL(R).  In late
May and early June 2008, additional direct and indirect purchaser
class actions were also filed against Biovail, BLS and GSK in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, all making similar allegations.
After motion practice, the complaints were consolidated, resulting
in a lead direct purchaser and a lead indirect purchaser action,
and the Court ultimately denied defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaints.

The Court granted direct purchasers' motion for class
certification, and certified a class consisting of all persons or
entities in the United States and its territories who purchased
Wellbutrin XL(R) directly from any of the defendants at any time
during the period of November 14, 2005, through August 31, 2009.
Excluded from the class are defendants and their officers,
directors, management, employees, parents, subsidiaries, and
affiliates, and federal government entities.  Further excluded
from the class are persons or entities who have not purchased
generic versions of Wellbutrin XL(R) during the class period after
the introduction of generic versions of Wellbutrin XL(R).  The
Court granted in part and denied in part the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

After extensive discovery, briefing and oral argument, the Court
granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all but one
of the plaintiffs' claims, and deferred ruling on the remaining
claim.  Following the summary judgment decision, the Company
entered into binding settlement arrangements with both plaintiffs'
classes to resolve all existing claims against the Company.  The
total settlement amount payable is $49.25 million.  In addition,
the Company will pay up to $500,000 toward settlement notice
costs.  These charges were recognized in the second quarter of
2012, within Legal settlements and related fees in the
consolidated statements of income (loss).  The settlements require
Court approval.  The direct purchaser class filed its motion for
preliminary approval of its settlement on July 23, 2012.  The
hearing on final approval of that settlement took place on
November 7, 2012, with the Court granting final approval to the
settlement on that day.  The hearing on final approval of the
settlement with the indirect purchasers took place in June 2013,
with the Court granting final approval to the settlement on
July 22, 2013.

Based in Laval, Quebec, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International,
Inc. is a multinational, specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures and markets a broad range of pharmaceutical
and over-the-counter products, as well as medical devices.  The
Company's branded pharmaceutical products, generics and branded
generics, devices (lenses, surgical, and aesthetics), and OTC
products are sold in the U.S., Europe, Asia, Latin America,
Canada, Australia/New Zealand, Africa, and the Middle East.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Unit to Settle Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., said in its August 7,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013, that its
subsidiary will negotiate a settlement to resolve a class action
lawsuit alleging discrimination.

In September 2011, Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation received a
demand letter from counsel purporting to represent a class of
female sales employees alleging gender discrimination in, among
others things, compensation and promotion as well as claims that
the former management group maintained a work environment that was
hostile and offensive to female sales employees.  Related charges
of discrimination were filed prior to the end of 2011 by six
former female sales employees with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC").  Three of those charges have
been dismissed by the EEOC and the EEOC has made no findings of
discrimination.  Medicis engaged in mediation with such former
employees.  On March 19, 2013, Medicis and counsel for the former
employees signed an MOU to settle this matter on a class-wide
basis and resolve all claims with respect thereto.  In connection
with the agreed-upon settlement, Medicis would pay a specified sum
and would pay the costs of the claims administration up to an
agreed-upon fixed amount.  Medicis would also implement certain
specified programmatic relief.  The settlement is subject to
negotiation of a settlement agreement between the parties and
approval of such settlement agreement and settlement documentation
by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Based in Laval, Quebec, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International,
Inc. is a multinational, specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures and markets a broad range of pharmaceutical
and over-the-counter products, as well as medical devices.  The
Company's branded pharmaceutical products, generics and branded
generics, devices (lenses, surgical, and aesthetics), and OTC
products are sold in the U.S., Europe, Asia, Latin America,
Canada, Australia/New Zealand, Africa, and the Middle East.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Yet to File Settlement Docs in Del. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. has yet to file
definitive documentation with respect to its settlement of a
merger-related class action lawsuit in Delaware, according to the
Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

Prior to the acquisition of all of the outstanding common stock of
Obagi Medical Products, Inc., the following complaints were filed:
(i) a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
dated March 22, 2013, and amended on April 1, 2013, and on
April 8, 2013, captioned Michael Rubin v. Obagi Medical Products,
Inc., et al.; (ii) a complaint in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles, dated March 22, 2013, and
amended on March 27, 2013, captioned Gary Haas v. Obagi Medical
Products, Inc., et al.; and (iii) a complaint in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, dated
March 27, 2013, captioned Drew Leonard v. Obagi Medical Products,
Inc., et al.  Each complaint is a purported shareholder class
action and names as defendants Obagi and the members of the Obagi
Board of Directors.  The two complaints filed in California also
name Valeant Pharmaceuticals International ("Valeant"), a wholly-
owned subsidiary of the Company, and Odysseus Acquisition Corp.
(the wholly-owned subsidiary of Valeant formed in connection with
the Obagi acquisition) as defendants.  The plaintiffs' allegations
in each action are substantially similar.  The plaintiffs allege
that the members of the Obagi Board of Directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Obagi's stockholders in connection with the
sale of the company, and the California complaints further allege
that Obagi, Valeant and Odysseus Acquisition Corp. aided and
abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties.  In support of
their purported claims, the plaintiffs allege that the proposed
transaction undervalues Obagi, involves an inadequate sales
process and includes preclusive deal protection devices.

The plaintiffs in the Rubin case in Delaware and in the Haas case
in California also filed amended complaints, which added
allegations challenging the adequacy of the disclosures concerning
the transaction.  The plaintiffs sought damages and to enjoin the
transaction, and also sought attorneys' and expert fees and costs.
On April 12, 2013, the defendants entered into an MOU with the
plaintiffs to the actions pending in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware and the Superior Court of the State of
California, pursuant to which Obagi and such parties agreed in
principle, and subject to certain conditions, to settle those
stockholder lawsuits.  The settlement is subject to the approval
of the appropriate court and further definitive documentation.

On April 24, 2013, having received notice that the parties had
reached an agreement to settle the litigation, the California
Court scheduled a "Hearing on Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal"
for July 31, 2013.  On July 31, 2013, the California Court
continued the matter for six months, until January 29, 2014,
pending completion of definitive documentation and approval
proceedings in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  If
the MOU is not approved or the applicable conditions are not
satisfied, the defendants will continue to vigorously defend these
actions.

Based in Laval, Quebec, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International,
Inc. is a multinational, specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures and markets a broad range of pharmaceutical
and over-the-counter products, as well as medical devices.  The
Company's branded pharmaceutical products, generics and branded
generics, devices (lenses, surgical, and aesthetics), and OTC
products are sold in the U.S., Europe, Asia, Latin America,
Canada, Australia/New Zealand, Africa, and the Middle East.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Yet to File Settlement Documentation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parties have yet to file definitive documentation in
connection with Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.'s
settlement of a consolidated merger-related lawsuit in Delaware,
according to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

Prior to the Company's acquisition of Medicis Pharmaceutical
Corporation, several purported holders of then public shares of
Medicis filed putative class action lawsuits in the Delaware Court
of Chancery and the Arizona Superior Court against Medicis and the
members of its board of directors, as well as one or both of
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International ("Valeant"), a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company, and Merlin Merger Sub (the wholly-owned
subsidiary of Valeant formed in connection with the Medicis
acquisition).  The Delaware actions (which were instituted on
September 11, 2012, and October 1, 2012, respectively) were
consolidated for all purposes under the caption In re Medicis
Pharmaceutical Corporation Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 7857-
CS (Del. Ch.).  The Arizona action (which was instituted on
September 11, 2012) bears the caption Swint v. Medicis
Pharmaceutical Corporation, et. al., Case No. CV2012-055635 (Ariz.
Sup. Ct.).  The actions all alleged, among other things, that the
Medicis directors breached their fiduciary duties because they
supposedly failed to properly value Medicis and caused materially
misleading and incomplete information to be disseminated to
Medicis' public shareholders, and that Valeant and/or Merlin
Merger Sub aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty.  The actions also sought, among other things, injunctive and
other equitable relief, and money damages.

On November 20, 2012, Medicis and the other named defendants in
the Delaware action signed a memorandum of understanding ("MOU")
to settle the Delaware action and resolve all claims asserted by
the purported class.  In connection with the proposed settlement,
the plaintiffs intend to seek an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses in an amount to be determined by the Delaware Court of
Chancery.  The settlement is subject to court approval and further
definitive documentation.  The plaintiff in the Arizona action
agreed to dismiss her complaint.  On January 15, 2013, the Arizona
Superior Court issued an order granting the parties' joint
stipulation to dismiss the Arizona action.

Based in Laval, Quebec, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International,
Inc. is a multinational, specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops, manufactures and markets a broad range of pharmaceutical
and over-the-counter products, as well as medical devices.  The
Company's branded pharmaceutical products, generics and branded
generics, devices (lenses, surgical, and aesthetics), and OTC
products are sold in the U.S., Europe, Asia, Latin America,
Canada, Australia/New Zealand, Africa, and the Middle East.


VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA: Inaction Blamed for Abalone Virus Spread
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that a class action that was set to get underway
on Sept. 23 alleges the Victorian Government should have
intervened to stop the spread of a deadly abalone virus.

The herpes-like virus was first reported on an abalone farm in
2005, when unusually high numbers of the animals started to die in
western Victoria.  Then the virus spread, infecting wild abalone
populations from the South Australian border to Cape Otway.

Jacob Vargese from the law firm Maurice Blackburn is alleging the
Victorian Government failed to enforce appropriate biosecurity
measures which allowed the virus to spread to the wild population.

"The State Government was the entity responsible for protecting,
managing fisheries but also for dealing with animal health
emergencies and we say that the state should have intervened to
control the disease on the farm, mostly by shutting the farm
down," he said.

One of the abalone farms involved in the case has settled but the
case against the State Government is going ahead.

Abalone diver Garry Braid he lost his business and his livelihood.

"I had a farm, had my license, was making plenty of money and it
all went to pieces because of the virus," he said.

Mr. Vargese and with over 80 parties in the class action, the
damages may be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

He says the industry may never recover.

"One of the important things about the abalone industry in
Victoria and Australia in general is that until this virus, we
were one of the last remaining viable wild abalone fisheries
because in most parts of the world they've been destroyed in some
way or another," he said.

"They're slow growing animals that rely a lot on having big
colonies.  Take that out and it may take ages or it may never
recover."


VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA: Trial in Abalone Virus Class Action Begins
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kirsten Veness, writing for ABC News' The World Today, reports
that a trial for a class action against the Victorian Government
over a deadly abalone virus started on Sept. 23 in the Supreme
Court in Melbourne.  The virus broke out in 2005 and wiped out
abalone stocks across western Victoria, destroying what had been a
very lucrative industry.  Abalone divers say the legal challenge
is not just about recovering lost income, but recognizing the
devastation that was caused to the industry and their lives.


WAL-MART STORES: Judge Tosses Women Employees' Discrimination Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Pacenti, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
Miami federal judge has rejected a discrimination lawsuit by women
employees of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. in the Southeast, saying they
were improperly "piggybacking" on a national class action that was
rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.

But an attorney for the 11 women named in the lawsuit said he will
ask U.S. District Judge Robert Scola to certify a question to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that could lead to
reconsideration of the dismissal.

Judge Scola on Sept. 23 dismissed the lawsuit filed in October on
behalf of female Wal-Mart workers in Florida, North Carolina,
Virginia and four neighboring states, citing regional case law.

Judge Scola said the plaintiffs class duplicated the Dukes v. Wal-
Mart claims rejected by the Supreme Court in 2011.

"Plaintiffs cannot assert class claims that were previously
asserted and rejected," the judge said.

Miami attorney Hilarie Bass -- bassh@gtlaw.com -- co-president of
Greenberg Traurig represented Wal-Mart.  She did not return a call
for comment by deadline.

Wal-Mart spokesman Randy Hargrove reiterated the company's
position that it believes employees should bring cases separately.

"We are pleased the district court in Florida dismissed this class
action," he said.  "Five trial courts have unanimously concluded
that these regional gender discrimination class action claims are
not appropriate.  We have said all along if someone feels they
have been treated unfairly, they deserve to have their timely
individual claim heard in court."

The Supreme Court found, among other things, the Dukes plaintiffs
did not have enough in common to constitute a class.

A San Francisco federal judge handling the Dukes case ruled last
month that the women couldn't sue as a group because the evidence
didn't support their claim of a general policy of discrimination
against the Bentonville, Arkansas, company.

Judge Scola found the Miami lawsuit was time-barred because the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which governs
Florida federal courts, does not protect claims for spinoff class
actions.

Attorney Joseph M. Sellers -- jsellers@cohenmilstein.com -- a
partner at Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll in New York who
represents the plaintiffs, said Judge Scola was bound to follow
his circuit's case law, but two recent Supreme Court cases
supersede the Eleventh Circuit's 25-year-old case law.

One of the options for the Miami class is to ask Judge Scola to
certify a question to the Eleventh Circuit asking whether the two
Supreme Court cases take precedence, he said.

The survival of some of the class claims, some of which are more
than a decade old, would hinge on whether the appeals court
accepts such a question.

Mr. Sellers maintained the Miami lawsuit was "sufficiently
different" from Dukes by claiming managers made decisions at a
regional level that led to discrimination.

"This case is more narrowly framed," he said.  "We recognized the
Supreme Court as the authority, and that it did issue definitive
rules covering class actions, and that is why our clients wanted
us to proceed and try to frame subsequent class actions this way."

The complaint alleges statistical patterns adverse to women in
Wal-Mart pay and management track promotions, and the company
failed to investigate complaints of discrimination.

"Wal-Mart, through its managers with final authority to make the
challenged decisions, has engaged in a general policy of
discrimination," the Miami lawsuit states.

Mr. Sellers noted the class has not gotten its claims heard.

"They never had that first opportunity," he said.  "These women
without the ability to pursue their claims together, they would
never have their day in court because they don't have the
resources to take on the largest private employer in the world."


WALTER ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss "Moore" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Energy, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a class action lawsuit commenced by Louise Moore,
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 2011, the Company and Walter Coke were named in a lawsuit filed
by Louise Moore (Louise Moore v. Walter Energy, Inc. and Walter
Coke, Inc., Case No. 2:11-CV-01391) in the federal District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama.  This is a putative civil
class action alleging state law tort claims arising from the
alleged presence on properties of substances, including arsenic,
BaP, and other hazardous substances, allegedly as a result of
current and/or historic operations in the area conducted by the
defendants and/or their predecessors.  Subsequently, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint eliminating Walter Energy as a
defendant and amending the claims alleged against Walter Coke to
relate to Walter Coke's alleged conduct for the period commencing
after March 2, 1995.  Thereafter, Walter Coke filed a Motion to
Dismiss the amended complaint.  On September 28, 2012, the Court
issued a memorandum opinion and order granting in part and denying
in part the motion.  In partially granting Walter Coke's motion,
the Court held that the plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief
was not valid and that class action-related claims must be
dismissed (with leave to re-plead) due to an improperly defined
class.  In partially ruling for the plaintiff, the Court held that
at the pleading stage the plaintiff's claims could not be
dismissed on rule of repose grounds or due to insufficient
pleading.  The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 29,
2012.  On November 19, 2012, Walter Coke filed an answer and
motion for partial dismissal of plaintiff's second amended
complaint.  The Court held a hearing on Walter Coke's motion for
partial dismissal of the second amended complaint on January 10,
2013, and a ruling is pending.

The Company and Walter Coke believe that there is no merit to the
claims alleged in this action and intend to vigorously defend this
matter.

Founded in 1946 and headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama, Walter
Energy, Inc. -- http://www.walterenergy.com/-- produces and
exports metallurgical coal for the steel industry primarily in the
United States.  The Company also produces thermal and industrial
coal, anthracite, metallurgical coke, coal bed methane gas, and
other related products.  It principally serves electric utility
and industrial customers.


WALTER ENERGY: Consolidated Suit Parties Currently in Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the consolidated class action lawsuit against
Walter Energy, Inc. are now in the process of discovery, according
to the Company's August 7, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On January 26, 2012, and March 15, 2012, putative class actions
were filed against Walter Energy, Inc. and some of its current and
former senior executive officers in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama (Rush v. Walter Energy, Inc., et
al.).  The three executive officers named in the complaints are:
Keith Calder, Walter's former CEO; Walter Scheller, the Company's
current CEO and a director; and Neil Winkelmann, former President
of Walter's Canadian and U.K. Operations (collectively the
"Individual Defendants").  The complaints were filed by Peter Rush
and Michael Carney, purported shareholders of Walter Energy who
each sought to represent a class of Walter Energy shareholders who
purchased common stock between April 20, 2011, and September 21,
2011.

These complaints alleged that Walter Energy and the Individual
Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's operations outlook for the second quarter of 2011.  The
complaints further alleged that the Company and the Individual
Defendants knew that these statements were misleading and failed
to disclose material facts that were necessary in order to make
the statements not misleading.  The Plaintiffs claimed violations
of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act.  On
May 30, 2012, the two actions were consolidated into In re Walter
Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation.  The court also appointed the
Government of Bermuda Contributory and Public Service
Superannuation Pension Plans as well as the Stephen C. Beaulieu
Revocable Trust to be lead plaintiffs and approved lead
plaintiffs' selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel for
the consolidated action.  On August 20, 2012, the Lead Plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended class action complaint in this
action.  The consolidated amended complaint names as an additional
defendant Joseph Leonard, a current director and former interim
CEO of Walter, in addition to the previously named defendants.
The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on
October 4, 2012.  On January 29, 2013, the court denied that
motion without prejudice.  The Defendants answered the complaint
on February 15, 2013, and on March 5, 2013.  The parties are now
in the process of discovery.

Walter Energy and the other named defendants believe that there is
no merit to the claims alleged and intend to vigorously defend
these actions.

Founded in 1946 and headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama, Walter
Energy, Inc. -- http://www.walterenergy.com/-- produces and
exports metallurgical coal for the steel industry primarily in the
United States.  The Company also produces thermal and industrial
coal, anthracite, metallurgical coke, coal bed methane gas, and
other related products.  It principally serves electric utility
and industrial customers.


WEALTHSURE FINANCIAL: Court Halts Class Action Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Spits, writing for Money Management, reports that clients
seeking a class action to recoup losses incurred by former
WealthSure Financial Services planner Colin James Oberg have seen
the proceedings halted and been told they will have to pursue
their claims separately through the courts.

Justice Buchanan in the New South Wales district of the Federal
Court of Australia ordered that the proceedings no longer continue
as representative proceedings after he found them to be flawed in
their present form and "not by their nature proceedings which are
innately suitable to proceed as representative proceedings".

Although the clients' class action was centered around the actions
of Oberg, who was permanently banned from providing financial
services in July 2012, their case was brought against WealthSure
as his licensee at the time.

Oberg's former clients have claimed a breach of statutory duty of
care and of negligence by WealthSure in its alleged failure to
oversee Oberg while he was an authorized representative of
WealthSure.  They also claim WealthSure failed to notify them that
he was no longer with the planning group after his authorized
representative status was revoked in late 2010.

At the time of his banning, the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission (ASIC) stated Oberg had withdrawn $1.55
million of client funds without permission, and had been an
authorized representative of WealthSure at time of the withdrawals
which took place between September 2007 and October 2008.

WealthSure revoked Oberg's authorized representative status in
October 2010 when it notified ASIC of its concerns about Oberg.

In making his decision, Justice Buchanan did not comment on the
validity of any of these claims but rather examined the
composition of the group making the claim.

Members of the class action were identified as clients of Oberg
who, between November 2008 and May 2012, gave him funds to invest
and had suffered losses -- and had since engaged the services of
the same legal firm to act for them in the proceedings.

In his judgment Justice Buchanan stated the class action group was
not clearly defined at the start of proceedings, with some members
appointing the legal firm which began proceedings to act for them
in the class action after the case had begun.

This group definition was necessary as an enabling condition for a
class action, with Justice Buchanan also noting that the group had
changed legal counsel from Maddocks to Mills Oakley Lawyers during
the case -- effectively removing this condition for all members of
the group.

Justice Buchanan also noted the absence of any common purpose in
the action, stating there was "no suggestion that group members
should share in any respect from a common pool".

"In every instance, individual orders are sought for individually
calculated amounts to address individual losses.  The proceedings
are, in reality, proceedings which seek to vindicate the
individual interests of a limited and known group of persons who
might ordinarily be expected to advance their claims as applicants
in their own right."


XL FOODS: CFIA Added as Third Party to E. Coli Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stikeman Elliott LLP reports that in Harrison v. XL Foods Inc., a
putative class action launched against XL Foods Inc. for
negligence (among other alleged wrongs) in connection with the
2012 recall of meat from an Alberta processing plant that was
found to be contaminated with E. coli, the defendant XL has
successfully added the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) as a
third party to the lawsuit.

The CFIA brought a summary judgment motion to defeat this
procedural step, but in a decision released on September 5, 2013,
the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta held that the CFIA had not
met the high test for summary dismissal of the claims advanced
against it.  The class action plaintiff failed in a separate
attempt to persuade the court to stay the third party notice until
after the certification hearing and any subsequent common issues
trial between the plaintiff and the defendants.

While the court's full written reasons will not be available until
after the certification hearing, Associate Chief Justice Rooke did
state in his memorandum of decision that the issues between the
defendants and the CFIA are inter-related with the common issues
between the plaintiff and the defendants.  The court was therefore
of the opinion that they should be considered at the certification
hearing.  Indeed, if the class action is certified, the court
opined that the class proceeding would be the appropriate forum to
determine any "common issues" between the defendants and the CFIA
-- unless the court decides otherwise at the certification
hearing.


                             *********

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  * * *