CAR_Public/131001.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, October 1, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 194

                             Headlines


AARON'S INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Use of "Spyware"
APPLE INC: Challenges iPhone Privacy Class-Action Status
APPLE INC: Offers Refund to "Breaking Bad" iTunes Customers
ATLAS ROOFING: Seeks Dismissal of Shingles Damage Class Action
CALIFORNIA: Judge Set to Consider Suit Against Pelican Bay

CAPITALSOURCE INC: Being Sold Too Cheaply to PacWest, Suit Says
CHANTICLEER HOLDINGS: Court Refused to Dismiss Fraud Class Suit
CHASE BANK: Escapes Illegal Debt Collection Class Action
CME GROUP: Still Defends Consolidated MF Global-Related Suit
DENDREON CORP: Got Final Approval of Securities Suit Settlement

DOLE FOOD: Judge Trims Frozen Fruit Mislabeling Class Action
EMPIRE DISTRICT: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Asbestos Exposure
ENCORE CAPITAL: AACC Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
FORD MOTOR: Judge Trims Claims in Defective Engine Class Action
FORD MOTOR: Seeks Dismissal of Acceleration Class Action

GC SERVICES: Kelley Drye & Warren Discusses Ninth Circuit Ruling
GOGO LLC: Sued Over In-Flight Internet "Recurring Charges"
GOLDMAN SACHS: Conspires to Inflate Aluminum Prices, Suit Claims
INERGY LP: Defends Class Suits Related to Crestwood Merger
INTERSECTIONS INC: Appeal From California Suit Dismissal Pending

KIA MOTORS: Faces Suit Over Premature Tire Wear in Optima Cars
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Class Suits in California
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Illinois
L & L ENERGY: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action in New York
LINKEDIN CORP: Hacked Users' Accounts to Get Contacts, Suit Says

LIVE NATION: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Ticket Pricing Model
NASDAQ OMX: Continues to Defend Suits Related to Facebook IPO
NASH-FINCH CO: Being Sold Cheaply to Spartan Stores, Suit Says
NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA: Sued Over Alleged Boarding House Abuse
NEW YORK, NY: Public Defense System Settlement Talks Stall

NMI RETIREMENT: Lawmaker Wants Settlement Hearing Postponed
ONLINE TRAVEL: Dismissal of Hotel Room Price-Fixing Suit Sought
PEABODY ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss ERISA Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in "Lights" Class Action
PRICELINE.COM INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Suit

PRICELINE.COM INC: Continues to Defend Suits in Various States
PRICELINE.COM INC: Defends Suits Over Travel Transaction Taxes
PRICELINE.COM INC: Faces "Columbia" Suit in South Carolina
PRICELINE.COM INC: "Nassau" Plaintiff May Notify Class Members
PRICELINE.COM INC: "Warrenville" Suit Dismissed, New Case Filed

PROVIDENT NEW YORK: Faces Two Merger-Related Class Suits in N.Y.
REVEL ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Bogus Slot Machine Loss Refund
ROYAL BANK: 2nd Circuit Refuses to Revive Investor Class Action
SHELL OIL: Roxana Village Pollution Suit Gets Class Action Status
SPRINT NEXTEL: Does Not Pay All Wages Owed, Employees Claim

STATE FARM: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Depreciation Formula
THUNDER BAY: C$375-Mil. Flooding Class Action Gets Certification
THUNDER BAY: To Vigorously Defend Flooding Class Action
UNITED STATES: Nuns File Class Action Over Obamacare
VALERO ENERGY: Class Action Notification Sent to Employees

VALUECLICK INC: Robins Geller Files Class Action in California
VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Ex-Employees Speaks Out on Class Action
VISTEON CORP: Proceedings in Canadian Class Suits Discontinued
WELLCARE HEALTH: Junk Fax Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
WELLS FARGO: Ninth Circuit to Rehear Class Suit by Homeowners

ZUNGUI HAIXI: Dentons Discusses Class Action Settlements

* CFTC Closes Five-Year Probe Into Silver Market Manipulation


                             *********


AARON'S INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Use of "Spyware"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Niagara Falls Reporter reports that earlier this year, customers
from around the country joined a class action lawsuit against
Aaron's for spying on them, using "spyware" that the company
installed on personal computers they leased to customers.

SEI, the Aaron's franchise owner of the Niagara Falls' and other
local stores, has been named specifically in the lawsuit.

The purpose of the software, known as "PC Rental Agent," was to
give the company the ability to turn off the computers in the
event a customer failed to pay.  The plaintiffs in the lawsuit,
however, claim the software enabled Aaron's and SEI to view
personal information, including activating their webcams and
recording or photographing them in the privacy of their homes.

The suit alleges Aaron's and SEI used spyware on rented computers
to send over 185,000 emails to the rental company, including
customers' social security numbers, passwords and captured
keystrokes, as well as turning on the webcams on the computers and
taking pictures of their customers, which included pictures of
nude children and people having sex, and sending these back to the
company's corporate computers.

Aaron's, Inc., officials said the company had not installed the
spyware, and that individual franchisees, like SEI, were
responsible, despite the fact that the personal information was
sent to Aaron's corporate headquarters.

On the heels of the class action lawsuit against Aaron's, the
Federal Trade Commission has said that spyware on rental computers
is not allowed.  The FTC ordered Aaron's and six other furniture
rental companies to stop putting spyware on unsuspecting
customers' computers, and now require all furniture rental
companies to get the customers' express consent to track and spy
on them.

The chairman of the FTC, Jon Leibowitz, said that, "An agreement
to rent a computer doesn't give a company license to access
consumers' private emails, bank account information, and medical
records, or, even worse, webcam photos of people in the privacy of
their own homes."


APPLE INC: Challenges iPhone Privacy Class-Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for Online Media Daily, reports that Apple is
arguing in new court papers that iPhone users suing the company
for allegedly allowing app developers to access personal
information should not be able to proceed with a class-action.

Apple says the consumers haven't presented "a shred of evidence
that even a single app transmitted 'personal information.'"  The
company is asking U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh in the
Northern District of California to reject the consumers' bid for
class-action status.

The consumers argue that Apple misled them by promising to protect
their personal information, but then allowing developers to access
iPhones unique device identifiers -- 40-character alphanumeric
strings.  But Apple says that the users who filed suit can't show
that they relied on any statements by Apple in its privacy policy,
or that they personally suffered any economic harm as a result of
the allegations.  "None of the Plaintiffs contend that they saw,
relied on, or considered material to their purchasing decision an
alleged Apple misrepresentation before they bought their iPhones,"
Apple argues.

The consumers brought the case three years ago, shortly after
reports surfaced alleging that developers were able to access
iPhone and iPad unique device identifiers.  Apple defines unique
device identifiers as non-personal information.  But the consumers
argue that the identifiers become "personally identifiable
information" when combined with other supposedly anonymous
information, such as Zip codes, occupation or area code.

Apple counters in its papers that the consumers have no evidence
that anyone actually combined device identifiers with other data.
The company adds that an expert hired by the consumers was not
able to find "a single example of an app combining UDID with
personal information."

Shortly after it was sued, Apple promised to limit developers'
ability to access unique device identifiers.  More recently, the
company rolled out advertising identifiers, which function like
unique device identifiers, but differ in that they can be reset by
consumers.


APPLE INC: Offers Refund to "Breaking Bad" iTunes Customers
-----------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that Apple is offering a refund to customers who
purchased the "final season" of Breaking Bad, only to find out it
wasn't a whole season.

Earlier in September, a fan of the show filed a federal class-
action lawsuit against the tech giant, alleging its iTunes service
"deceived" him when he purchased a season pass to watch Breaking
Bad.

AMC announced in May 2012 it planned to evenly split up the 16
episodes of the fifth and final season of Breaking Bad and air
them over two summers.  The network showed the first eight
episodes of the season beginning in July 2012.  The second eight
episodes premiered in September.

Apple reportedly emailed some iTunes customers apologizing "for
any confusion the naming of 'Season 5' and 'The Final Season' of
Breaking Bad might have caused."

"While the names of the seasons and episodes associated with them
were not chosen by iTunes, we'd like to offer you 'The Final
Season' on us by providing you with the iTunes code below in the
amount of $22.99," the email states, according to 9to5mac.com.
"This credit can also be used for any other content on the iTunes
Store.  Thank you for your purchase."

Apple did not respond to ABC News' emails and phone calls
requesting comment.

The plaintiff suing Apple, Noam Lazebnik, a doctor in Cleveland,
bought his season pass in September 2012.  He "relied upon Apple's
promise that the Season Pass would include all current and future
episodes of season five," according to the lawsuit.

But when the second half of season five became available on iTunes
in August 2013, Mr. Lazebnik learned he would need to pay $22.99
to watch Breaking Bad episodes nine through 16, which Apple
treated as a different season, the lawsuit states.

Mr. Lazebnik's attorney, Nicholas DiCello, declined to comment on
whether the reported refunds would lead his client to drop the
lawsuit.  Mr. DiCello said he has not heard from Apple or the
company's legal counsel.

"To the extent that some people are getting refunds, given the
circumstances how this final season pass was marketed, we
certainly see that as a positive development in response to the
class-action case that we filed," Mr. DiCello said.

Mr. Lazebnik filed a class-action in the U.S. District Court in
the Northern District of California on September 6, alleging he
"was unfairly deceived, misled and taken advantage of by Apple's
promise to deliver something it never intended to provide,"
according to the suit.

"When a consumer buys a ticket to a football game, he does not
have to leave at halftime.  When a consumer buys an opera ticket,
he does not get kicked out at intermission. When a consumer buys a
'Season Pass' to a full season of a television show on iTunes,
that consumer should get access to the whole season," the
complaint stated.

Mr. DiCello previously told ABC News that his client was not the
only Breaking Bad iTunes season pass holder claiming that Apple
misled them.

Season five of the series was the third-most downloaded series on
iTunes in 2012, behind Downton Abbey and The Walking Dead,
according to Mashable, a website for digital news.

Mr. Lazebnik is seeking $20 in damages, according to the lawsuit,
since Apple refunded him $2.99 for making a standalone purchase of
episode nine.

If the class-action succeeds, each individual involved would be
reimbursed either the cost of a high definition or standard
definition Breaking Bad season pass, Mr. DiCello said.  The
damages for every member of the class action would be different,
though. They could be calculated "by taking the cost of the
episodes they were or will be inappropriately denied . . . and,
where applicable, reducing that amount by any related rebates they
might have received," the lawsuit stated.

Attorney's fees are separate from the class-action recovery, and
are decided independently by the court, Mr. DiCello said.

Mr. DiCello said that the attorneys working on the case have
already been contacted by others who are interested in joining the
lawsuit.


ATLAS ROOFING: Seeks Dismissal of Shingles Damage Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reports that Atlas Roofing Corp. has asked
a federal court in South Carolina to dismiss a class action
alleging damage to residential shingles, arguing that because the
only damage claimed is to its product, the plaintiff's tort claims
are barred by the state's economic loss rule.

David and Patricia Dickson allege that they and other South
Carolina homeowners were harmed by curling and premature wear of
Atlas' "Chalet" brand shingles.


CALIFORNIA: Judge Set to Consider Suit Against Pelican Bay
----------------------------------------------------------
San Jose Mercury News reports that on Sept. 24, a federal judge
was set to consider whether a lawsuit challenging long-term
solitary confinement at Pelican Bay State Prison should be
certified as a class action.  Filed on behalf of 10 prisoners who
have been held at the Pelican Bay Security Housing Unit for
between 12 and 43 years, the lawsuit argues that these prisoners'
isolation amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.

Lawyers at the Center for Constitutional Rights are seeking class
certification because these men are not the only prisoners trapped
in this nightmare.  More than 500 Pelican Bay prisoners have been
in solitary confinement for more than 10 years.

Kevin McCarthy of Mission Viejo came off the prisoners' hunger
strike Sept. 5.  Now 32, he has served 11 years of a 27-year
sentence for attempted murder.  He wrote this for this newspaper.

"I have been held in isolation since 2002.  It is pure torture.
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation officials
deny this, but how could they possibly know? Physical pain is
immediate, but the pain that grows here in this endless caged
isolation with extreme sensory deprivation can only be understood
by someone who has lived it," Mr. McCarthy said.

"I don't remember what human touch feels like.  The only color
around me is a grayish white.  A few times a year, I may see the
sun shine high on the wall in the 'dog run,' what they call the
exercise yard.  The food is tasteless and sometimes moldy.  I live
in a state of perpetual anxiety, desperate for someone to talk
with.  I can only shout to faceless voices, the other prisoners in
my 'pod' of eight cells that face out to a blank white wall.  But
simply talking can be used as evidence of gang association, which
is why we are kept here."

"I was not sentenced to this unit by a court.  Confinement here is
purely at the discretion of prison officials and, in California,
it is not based on any violent act or rule infraction, but on
alleged affiliation with a prison gang.

"Over the years, I have watched my relationships deteriorate, as I
am deprived of any meaningful contact with loved ones.  I was
extremely close with my grandfather.  When I was in the county
jail, we talked by phone every other day.  But in this unit,
prisoners are denied phone calls.  My grandfather could only
communicate with me by writing short notes.  One note I kept
reads, 'Kevin, will take Granny to cleaners and then will go to
the L.A. County Fair to make bets. Maybe I'll win pick-six and get
you out of prison.  Pray to God and keep your nose clean and be
humble.'

"Two years after I was put here, my grandfather had surgery for a
brain tumor.  I couldn't speak with him before or after the
surgery.  He died six months later.  This is painful for me even
today, but it was also a great loss for him.

"I would gladly trade this hell for any physical pain if it meant
that I could call my family or spend a day out of my cell working,
taking a class, playing a sport or just standing under the sky.  I
would gladly take daily beatings if it meant I could kiss my wife
or hug my grandmother.

"Solitary confinement is like being stranded at sea.  Your whole
existence revolves around the hope of being rescued.  You have no
sense of direction and no idea whether the end is in sight. As
time passes, though, your hope weakens and you start to think you
will drown. That is why it's crucial that the court make this case
a class action -- to put an end to this systematic torture before
I, and hundreds of others, drown."


CAPITALSOURCE INC: Being Sold Too Cheaply to PacWest, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling
CapitalSource too cheaply through an unfair process to PacWest
Bancorp, in a cash and stock deal (1-for-0.28 shares plus $2.47 in
cash), for $2.3 billion, shareholders claim in Delaware Chancery
Court.


CHANTICLEER HOLDINGS: Court Refused to Dismiss Fraud Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James I. Cohn of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida refused to dismiss a class action lawsuit
alleging securities fraud initiated by Francis Howard against
Chanticleer Holdings, Inc., et al.

In his 15-page order addressing the Defendants' two motions to
dismiss and a motion for more definite statement, Judge Cohn also
directed the Defendants to file answers to Mr. Howard's amended
class complaint by October 8, 2013.

The case is a proposed class action involving a public offering of
securities Chanticleer.  Chanticleer owns and operates Hooters
restaurants in international markets.  Immediately prior to the
Offering, Chanticleer operated five Hooters franchises: four in
South Africa and one in Australia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence Matthew Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Stanley Howard Wakshlag, Esq.
          KENNY NACHWALTER, P.A.
          201 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Miami, FL 33131-4327
          Telephone: (305) 373-1000
          E-mail: swakshlag@kennynachwalter.com

               - and -

          Raquel M. Fernandez, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          200 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4410
          Miami, FL 33131-2336
          Telephone: (305) 704-5943
          Facsimile: (305) 704-5955
          E-mail: rfernandez@cozen.com

               - and -

          James H. Heller, Esq.
          Ralph V. De Martino, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          1900 Market Street
          3rd Floor The Atrium
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 665-2189
          E-mail: jimheller@cozen.com
                  rdemartino@cozen.com

               - and -

          James D. Sallah, Esq.
          Joshua Arnold Katz, Esq.
          SALLAH ASTARITA & COX, LLC
          One Boca Place
          2255 Glades Road, Suite 300E
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 989-9080
          Facsimile: (561) 989-9020
          E-mail: jds@sallahlaw.com
                  jak@sallahlaw.com

               - and -

          Sharifa Giselle Hunter, Esq.
          Jenny Daphne Johnson-Sardella, Esq.
          HUNTER TAUBMAN WEISS LLP
          255 University Drive
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 629-8816
          E-mail: shunter@htwlaw.com
                  jsardella@htwlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark David Hunter, Esq.
          HUNTER TAUBMAN WEISS, LLP
          255 University Drive
          Miami, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 629-8816
          Facsimile: (305) 629-8877
          E-mail: mdhunter@htwlaw.com

The case is Howard v. Chanticleer Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No.
9:12-cv-81123-JIC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (West Palm Beach).


CHASE BANK: Escapes Illegal Debt Collection Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wilson and Matthew Heller, writing for Law360, report that
JPMorgan's unit Chase Bank NA, Citigroup Inc. and several other
credit card and debt collection companies escaped a putative class
action for illegal debt collection practices on Sept. 20, when a
New York federal judge ruled the plaintiffs' claims were legally
barred or insufficiently alleged.

According to U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, the 15 named
plaintiffs' claims, alleging violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and their due process rights -- as well as their
various state law claims -- were disallowed under law, time-
barred, insufficiently backed or unclear.

"While there is little doubt that at least some of the debt
collection litigation practices described in the newspaper
accounts pasted into the [plaintiffs'] amended complaint would
constitute violations of the FDCPA, plaintiffs have failed to
plead such violations in their own cases with sufficient clarity
to satisfy . . . minimal pleading standards," Judge Scheindlin
ruled.

Judge Scheindlin dismissed the suit in its entirety, noting the
card issuers were not considered debt collectors under the law,
and were thus immune from FDCPA claims.

The FDCPA claims seeking to vacate state court judgments for the
debt collector defendants were also barred under the so-called
Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which holds that federal district courts
lack subject-matter jurisdiction over claims related to state
court rulings, according to the opinion.

The plaintiffs' other FDCPA claims against the debt collectors,
including allegations of litigation misconduct -- such as the
submission of false affidavits, purported harassment and lack of
notice for the assignment of their debts -- were allowed under the
act, but the allegations were either unclear, inadequately backed
by plausible claims or evidence, or both, with a number of those
claims also brought outside of the one-year statute of
limitations, the judge ruled.

The plaintiffs' RICO claims similarly failed to plausibly show any
alleged fraud, Judge Scheindlin found, who dismissed the claims of
constitutional due process violations because none of the
defendants were "state actors" with any connection to a
government, which is necessary to support such claims.

Having dismissed all of the federal law claims, the judge also
declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
plaintiffs' state law claims, but did give the plaintiffs leave to
amend most of their allegations -- except the due process and
FDCPA claims, either against the card issuers or to challenge
state court judgments -- with a strongly worded warning.

"If plaintiffs' second amended complaint displays the confused,
unintelligible, argumentative, speculative or rambling qualities
of plaintiffs' amended complaint, the second amended complaint
will be dismissed without leave to amend," Judge Scheindlin said.

Phillip Jaffe, counsel for the plaintiffs, conceded on Sept. 24
that a number of Judge Scheindlin's findings were correct, saying
they welcomed the opportunity to "tighten up" their complaint, and
would file a second amended complaint in October.

The plaintiffs had originally sued in September 2012, alleging
that several banks and other credit card issuers -- including
American Express Co., Bank of America NA, GE Capital Consumer
Lending Inc., Capital One Financial Advisors LLC, Chase, and
Citibank -- had conspired with debt collection agencies so they
could unlawfully obtain thousands of default judgments on credit
card debts that had been sold to them.

These debt collection firms -- including Midland Funding LLC,
Asset Acceptance LLC and Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC -- had
used false affidavits, misleading evidence and other improper
litigation tactics, the plaintiffs alleged.

AmEx, GE Capital and Citibank later moved for a stay of claims
against them to arbitrate the plaintiffs' individual claims under
class action waiver provisions in their credit card contracts.
Judge Scheindlin granted the motion in July, ruling neither RICO
nor the FDCPA blocked enforcement of such clauses.

The plaintiffs are represented by The Law Offices of Phillip Jaffe
and The Law Office of George E. Bassias.

The defendants are represented variously by Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP, Reed Smith LLP and DLA Piper LLP, among
others.

The case is Shetiwy et al. v. Midland Credit Management et al.,
case number 1:12-cv-07068, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.


CME GROUP: Still Defends Consolidated MF Global-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A number of lawsuits were filed in federal court in New York on
behalf of all commodity account holders or customers of MF Global
Holdings Ltd., who had not received a return of 100% of their
funds.  These matters have been consolidated into a single action
in federal court in New York, and a consolidated amended class
action complaint was filed on November 5, 2012.  The class action
complaint alleges that CME Group Inc. violated the Commodity
Exchange Act (CEA), aided and abetted violations of the CEA by
other defendants, and aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty
by certain officers and directors of MF Global.  The class
complaint also alleges that CME Group aided and abetted CME's
violation of the CEA.  The complaint does not allege the amount of
damages sought, but rather seeks compensatory and exemplary
damages to be determined at trial.  Based on the initial analysis
of the class complaint, the company believes that it has strong
legal and factual defenses to the claims.  Given that this matter
is in the very early stage, at this time the company is unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably
possible loss in the unlikely event it was found to be liable in
this matter.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 8, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, CME Group Inc. --
http://www.cmegroup.com/-- formerly Chicago Mercantile Exchange
Holdings Inc., offers access to asset classes from a single
electronic trading platform and trading floors in Chicago and New
York City.  The Company offers futures and options on futures
based on interest rates, equity indexes, foreign exchange, energy,
agricultural commodities, metals, and alternative investment
products, such as weather and real estate.


DENDREON CORP: Got Final Approval of Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dendreon Corporation disclosed in its August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013, that it received final approval of
its settlement of a consolidated securities class action lawsuit.

The Company and three current and former officers are named
defendants in a consolidated putative securities class action
proceeding filed in August 2011 with the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington (the "District
Court") under the caption In re Dendreon Corporation Class Action
Litigation, Master Docket No. C 11-1291 JLR.  Lead Plaintiff, San
Mateo County Employees Retirement Association, purports to state
claims for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of a
class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between
April 29, 2010, and August 3, 2011.  A consolidated amended
complaint was filed on February 24, 2012.  In general, the
complaints allege that the defendants issued materially false or
misleading statements concerning the Company, its finances,
business operations and prospects with a focus on the market
launch of PROVENGE and related forecasts concerning physician
adoption, and revenue from sales of PROVENGE as reflected in the
Company's August 3, 2011 release of its financial results for the
quarter ended June 30, 2011.  On April 24, 2013, the parties
entered into, and filed with the District Court, a Stipulation of
Settlement (the "Stipulation") setting forth terms of the
settlement; in general, the litigation will be dismissed with
prejudice and the defendants will receive full releases in
exchange for a payment of $40 million, $38 million of which was
funded by the Company's directors' and officers' liability
insurers.  After notice to the settlement class, at a hearing held
August 2, 2013, the District Court granted final approval to the
settlement and entered judgment in accordance with terms of the
Stipulation.  The parties anticipate that the settlement will
become final and effective as provided in the Stipulation.

On May 16, 2013, a group of individual shareholders who elected to
opt out of the class action settlement commenced their own action
alleging securities fraud.  That action, captioned Christoph
Bolling, et al. v. Dendreon Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:13-CV-
872 JLR, names the same defendant parties as the class action and
bases its legal claims on substantially the same factual
allegations relating to the same supposedly relevant period.  In
addition to claims under the federal securities laws, the
plaintiff group also purports to assert certain claims under
Washington state law.  Based on information provided informally by
plaintiffs' counsel, the plaintiff group, which totals
approximately 30 persons, purports to have purchased approximately
250,000 shares of Dendreon common stock during the relevant
period, an amount that equates to under 0.5% of the estimated
shares that comprised the plaintiff class in the class action.
The Bolling plaintiffs filed an amended complaint July 16, 2013.
The Defendants' response to the amended complaint was due
August 9, and the defendants plan to file a motion to dismiss;
briefing is expected to extend through October 2013.  Until the
motion to dismiss is resolved, discovery in the Bolling action is
stayed.  The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of the
motion.  If the litigation proceeds, however, the Company intends
to defend the claims vigorously.

Dendreon Corporation -- http://www.dendreon.com/-- is a
biotechnology company that engages in the discovery, development,
and commercialization of novel therapeutics to enhance cancer
treatment options for patients.  The Company was founded in 1992
and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington.


DOLE FOOD: Judge Trims Frozen Fruit Mislabeling Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, David McAfee and Gavin Broady, writing for
Law360, report that a federal judge on Sept. 23 trimmed a proposed
class action accusing Dole Food Co. Inc. of mislabeling its
products as "all natural" and "low calorie," finding the plaintiff
can pursue claims over products he didn't purchase, but not claims
based on statements he didn't view.

Plaintiff Chad Brazil alleges that Dole makes numerous
representations concerning their frozen berry and other mixed
fruit products -- both on the products' labels and on the
company's website -- that are unlawful, as well as false and
misleading, under federal and California law.  Some of his claims
are based on products he didn't purchase but which he says
potential class members have. U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh
rejected Dole's arguments that those claims should be dismissed.

"Brazil is not asserting standing to sue over injuries he did not
suffer; rather, Brazil asserts that the injuries he suffered as a
result of buying the purchased products and the injuries suffered
by the unnamed class members who purchased the substantially
similar products are one and the same," Judge Koh said.

The judge said this meets the standards for the "substantially
similar" legal approach.

"By limiting a plaintiff's ability to sue over products he did not
purchase to situations involving claims and products that are
substantially similar to those products he did purchase, courts
ensure that the plaintiff is seeking to represent only those
individuals who have suffered essentially the same injury as the
plaintiff.  The substantially similar approach therefore
recognizes the need to limit a plaintiff's standing to injury he
has personally suffered," she said.

She said that the Ninth Circuit, when evaluating whether a
plaintiff has standing to sue on behalf of others who have
suffered similar, but not identical injuries, has held that in
determining what constitutes the same type of relief or the same
kind of injury, it is important not to employ "too narrow or
technical an approach."

However, the judge did grant Dole's request to dismiss Brazil's
claims based on website statements he conceded he didn't view
himself because they are preempted.

Brazil argued that he need not have viewed the statements on
Dole's website in order to have standing to sue over them because
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has determined that
statements made on websites whose addresses appear on a product's
label are incorporated into the label as a matter of law.

"While defendants' website statements may violate federal law by
virtue of the FDA's position that website statements may be
incorporated into a product's labeling by reference, it is far
from apparent how this regulatory violation could have caused
Brazil to purchase defendants' products when he neither saw the
allegedly offending statements nor relied on them in deciding to
purchase defendants' products," Judge Koh said.

The judge also shot down Brazil's claims that Dole's sale of
misbranded products and failure to disclose the misbranding is a
deceptive act in and of itself.  She said the claim attempts to
impose on food manufacturers an affirmative duty to disclose
labeling violations on their packaging that does not appear in the
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act or FDA regulations.

And she denied Dole's bid to dismiss nationwide class claims as
premature.

Dole is represented by William L. Stern -- wstern@mofo.com --
Claudia M. Vetesi -- cvetesi@mofo.com -- and Lisa A. Wongchenko --
lwongchenko@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Brazil is represented by Ben. F. Pierce Gore -
pgore@prattattorneys.com -- of Pratt & Associates and by Charles
Barrett of Charles Barrett PC.

The case is Chad Brazil v. Dole Food Co. Inc. et al., case number
5:12-cv-01831, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


EMPIRE DISTRICT: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Asbestos Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Richardson, writing for Cherokee Co. News-Advocate,
reports that an Empire District Electric Company employee is
starting a class action lawsuit against the company over alleged
asbestos exposure in the company's Riverton generating plant.

According to court documents, the lawsuit alleges that Empire
District Electric Company's Riverton Power Station knowingly
exposed employees to asbestos and other hazardous materials.

Like many plants built at the same time, the old coal-fired plant
in Riverton was build with asbestos as insulation both from heat
and in the wiring.  The Riverton plant was built in 1910, although
it has received upgrades over the years.

Employee, Les Rider, is alleging the insulation is not only common
but exposed -- and disintegrating.

In the lawsuit, Mr. Rider alleges, that he and other employees
were "repeatedly assigned tasks that brought them into close
contact with unreasonably dangerous concentrations of asbestos
fibers."

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Rier and other employees were
instructed to dispose of various scrap materials that were
excavated from the plant during the coal to natural gas
conversion.  Court documents say that plant manager Ed Eason said
he "wanted these materials to disappear so that Empire personnel
charged with environmental oversight would not find them.
Mr. Eason further said he wanted 'plausible deniability' so that
if these material were found he would not be held responsible for
their improper disposal."

The lawsuit alleges that Rider and other employees are facing a
"significantly higher risk of cancer" due to asbestos exposure.

According to the National Cancer Institute, exposure to asbestos
in the air may increase the risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma.

Attempts to reach Empire District for comment were unsuccessful.


ENCORE CAPITAL: AACC Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Asset Acceptance Capital Corp. entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle merger-related lawsuits, according to
Encore Capital Group, Inc.'s August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

On June 13, 2013, the Company completed its merger (the "AACC
Merger") with Asset Acceptance Capital Corp. ("AACC").

On March 8, 2013, March 19, 2013, and March 20, 2013, three
actions entitled Shell v. Asset Acceptance Capital Corp., et. al.,
Neumann v. Asset Acceptance Capital Corp., et. al., and Jaluka v.
Asset Acceptance Capital Corp. et. al., respectively, were filed
in the Macomb County Circuit Court of the State of Michigan.  On
April 19, 2013, a fourth action entitled Dix v. Asset Acceptance
Capital Corp. et al was filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware.  These actions were brought by purported
stockholders of AACC, against the Company, AACC, and certain other
named entities and individuals, and allege, among other things,
that the Company has aided and abetted AACC's directors in
breaching their fiduciary duties of care, loyalty and candor or
disclosure owed to AACC stockholders.  The Plaintiffs in the
actions sought, among other things, injunctive relief prohibiting
consummation of the proposed acquisition, or rescission of the
proposed acquisition (in the event the transaction has already
been consummated), as well as costs and disbursements, including
reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees, and other equitable or
injunctive relief as the court may deem just and proper.  The
plaintiffs did not specify the dollar amount of damages sought in
each action.

On June 2, 2013, AACC entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
(the "MOU") with the plaintiffs in the Michigan actions and
Delaware action that sets forth the parties' agreement in
principle for settlement.  As explained in the MOU, without
admitting any wrongdoing, AACC agreed to make certain additional
disclosures related to the proposed merger, and to enter into a
stipulation of settlement providing for the certification of a
class, for settlement purposes only, that includes certain persons
or entities who held shares of AACC common stock and the release
of all asserted claims.  Once the stipulation of settlement is
approved by the Michigan court, which has yet to and may not
occur, the attorneys for the class members intend to seek an award
of attorneys' fees and costs incurred in a total amount not to
exceed $550,000, which the defendants have agreed to not oppose.

Based in San Diego, California, Encore Capital Group, Inc.,
provides debt management and recovery solutions for consumers and
property owners across a broad range of financial assets.  The
Company purchases portfolios of defaulted consumer receivables at
deep discounts to face value and manages them by working with
individuals as they repay their obligations and work toward
financial recovery.


FORD MOTOR: Judge Trims Claims in Defective Engine Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Seveno, writing for Law360, reports that a Pennsylvania
federal judge on Sept. 23 trimmed breach of warranty and fraud
claims in a putative class action alleging Ford Motor Company
knowingly sold vehicles with engine defects but concealed the
problems to avoid covering their repair costs under warranty,
saying the claims weren't sufficiently pled.

U.S. District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno dismissed more than a dozen
claims in the putative class action launched by seven plaintiffs,
including lead plaintiff Jason Schmidt, alleging Ford
manufactured, assembled and marketed a class of vehicles equipped
with 5.4 L V8 engines that contained latent defects that caused
acceleration hesitation; loss of revolutions per minute, or RPM;
stalling; and loss of power or sudden deceleration.

Judge Robreno said the plaintiffs failed to specifically allege
when, where and from whom they bought or otherwise acquired their
allegedly defective vehicles and what, if any, Ford employees were
involved in those transactions.

Additionally, there isn't any particular information in the
complaint on how the plaintiffs who did not actually pay for
repairs have been harmed by Ford's alleged omissions.  As such,
the judge dismissed the claims for common law fraud and violations
of state consumer protection laws, as well as the claims for
negligent misrepresentation under California, Illinois and
Pennsylvania law.

"They plead, in the fashion of a formulaic recitation of the
elements of their fraud-related causes of action, that they
'justifiably and reasonably relied on defendant's deceptive
conduct, nondisclosure, misrepresentation or omission,'"
Judge Robreno said.  "But they fail to plead any facts or
circumstances that might support this bare allegation of
justifiable reliance."

The judge also dismissed unjust enrichment claims for several of
the plaintiffs, saying they failed to allege that they conferred a
benefit on Ford to support their unjust enrichment claims.

However, Judge Robreno left in place claims for express and
implied breach of warranty as to lead plaintiff Schmidt, as well
as the unjust enrichment claim under Illinois law for plaintiff
Stephen Gooder.  Other claims remaining in the action are
plaintiff Lee Pullen's quasi-contract claim under California law
and the nationwide injunction claim.

The plaintiffs, who live in Arkansas, California, Illinois, New
Jersey and Pennsylvania, launched the suit in December claiming
certain Ford vehicles -- such as the Expedition, F-150 and Lincoln
Navigator -- had defects in their transmission or throttle control
modules or in the assembly of the throttle body.

They allege that Ford Motor knew of the defect because it issued a
technical service bulletin in August 2008 to its dealers, advising
them on how to repair the alleged defects while opting not to
alert vehicle owners and the public of the engine problems.

In its motion to dismiss, Ford Motor Company argued that the 17-
count first amended complaint sought relief under the laws of five
different states, with eight distinct causes of action brought by
seven different plaintiffs, but most of the claims were
insufficiently pled.


FORD MOTOR: Seeks Dismissal of Acceleration Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that
Ford was glossing over the safety records of its vehicles when it
asked a West Virginia federal judge to dismiss class action
lawsuits filed against it this year, attorneys suing the company
are claiming.

Attorneys representing proposed classes who filed the lawsuits
responded to Ford's motion to dismiss on Sept. 20, arguing the
company is forgetting to mention internal reports that show their
cars were subject to unintended acceleration.

"Defendant Ford Motor Company grasps at straws in its Motion to
Dismiss in an effort to downplay the substantial threat to
consumer and public safety presented by certain of its model year
2002-2010 vehicles, which caused Plaintiffs to pay more for their
cars than they should have paid," the response says.

"Plaintiffs have more than adequately pleaded that this threat is
the result of a design defect that has uniformly deprived each
Plaintiff of the benefit of his or her bargain with Ford:
Plaintiffs bargained for safe vehicles that start and stop upon
proper application of the accelerator and brake pedals, but
instead received vehicles that were at risk (without warning) of
experiencing sudden unintended acceleration that cannot be
controlled by normal braking."

Some complaints against Ford have been consolidated in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, while
another remains in South Carolina federal court.

The complaints do not allege any physical injuries.  Instead, they
say purchasers of Ford vehicles would not have bought them -- or
paid as much -- if they knew the vehicles had sudden acceleration
problems.

Ford filed its motion to dismiss on June 27.  It says the
plaintiffs seek damages because the vehicles lack a particular
driver-assistance feature known as Brake-Throttle Override, which
depowers the engine if the gas pedal is trapped by a floor mat and
the driver hits the brake.

Ford says it never marketed the vehicles at issue as having a BTO
feature.

"Copious internal Ford reports and documents show that immediately
after Ford introduced the throttle control electronics at issue,
models so equipped began experiencing sudden, uncontrollable
accelerations in large numbers," the plaintiffs attorneys wrote.

"Although Ford knew that the diagnostic trouble codes in these
models that were supposed to detect these dangerous malfunctions
were failing to do so, it never warned its owners about this
dangerous possibility, or about the measures that must be taken
immediately in such an emergency to prevent a catastrophic
outcome."

The company recently agreed to pay $17.35 million to settle an
investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Agency.

The NHTSA alleged Ford took too long to recall Escapes that could
have defects that cause unintended acceleration.  Ford recalled
423,000 Escapes in 2012.

Ford denied it broke any laws in the settlement agreement.

Two West Virginia attorneys have been asked to be named interim
co-lead counsel.  They are Timothy Bailey of Bucci, Bailey Javins
and Niall A. Paul -- npaul@spilmanlaw.com -- of Spilman Thomas &
Battle, both of Charleston.

They are joined in their request by Adam J. Levitt --
alevitt@gelaw.com -- of Grant & Eisenhofer in Chicago; Stephen M.
Gorny -- steve@bflawfirm.com -- of Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson
& Gorny in Leawood, Kan.; and Mark DiCello --
madicello@dicellolaw.com -- of The DiCello Law Firm in Mentor,
Ohio.

Charleston attorney Edgar F. Heiskell III is asking to be a part
of the Plaintiffs Steering Committee.

Others asking to be placed on the PSC are John T. Murray of Murray
and Murray in Sandusky, Ohio; John Scarola of Searcy Denney
Scarola Barnhart & Shipley in West Palm Beach, Fla.; Joseph J.
Siprut -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- of Siprut PC in Chicago; Keith G.
Bremer of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara in Newport Beach, Calif.;
E. Powell Miller -- mln@millerlawpc.com -- of The Miller Law Firm
in Rochester, Mich.; Grant L. Davis -- gdavis@dbjlaw.net -- of
Davis Bethune & Jones in Kansas City, Mo.; and Gregory M. Travalio
-- gtravalio@isaacwiles.com -- of Isaac Wiles Burkholder & Teetor
in Columbus, Ohio.

Lincoln and Mercury vehicles from the same years are included in
the complaints.


GC SERVICES: Kelley Drye & Warren Discusses Ninth Circuit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel S. Blynn, Esq., at Kelley Drye & Warren LLP reports that on
September 3, 2013 in Thomasson v. GC Services, LP, -- Fed. Appx.
--, No. 11-56100, 2013 WL 4713560 (9th Cir. Sept. 3, 2013), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded
with instructions to de-certify a class action alleging violations
of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  This action
was filed in May 2005, with the plaintiffs (a former law school
student of one of putative class counsel, and his wife) claiming
that the defendant-debt collection company violated the FDCPA and
California's Invasion of Privacy Act by allegedly failing to
advise debtors that their telephone conversations may be monitored
or recorded for quality assurance purposes.  The district court
granted summary judgment to the defendant on all counts but, on
appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment and remanded
on the FDCPA claim; it affirmed summary judgment on the CIPA
claim.

On remand, the district court granted certification to a class
consisting of 412 individuals whose telephone calls with the
defendant allegedly were monitored without the debtors' consent
but, at the same time, held that "Plaintiffs' class definition may
require a threshold inquiry to determine class membership.  It
clearly requires an individualized inquiry into the content of the
telephone calls to determine whether the advisement was given and,
if so, when it was given."  The Ninth Circuit granted the
defendant's petition for an interlocutory appeal and reversed the
district court's class certification order, finding that the lower
court had abused its discretion.  More specifically, the Ninth
Circuit held that individualized inquiries into hundreds of
telephone calls would be necessary in order to determine whether
any advisement was given in each call and that the evidence
submitted by the plaintiffs -- 18 fill-in-the-blank declarations
from putative class members -- could not establish that the
defendant acted uniformly and were only "anecdotal."  At bottom,
the court held that commonality and predominance were lacking and
that no class could be certified.

Thomasson is just one in a line of recent decisions that have
criticized the use of putative class member affidavits or
declarations to meet Rule 23's class certification requirements.
For example, in late August in Carrera v. Bayer Corp., -- F.3d --,
No. 12-261, 2013 WL 4437225 (3d Cir. Aug. 21, 2013), the Third
Circuit found that a class could not ascertained based on, among
other things, consumer affidavits.


GOGO LLC: Sued Over In-Flight Internet "Recurring Charges"
----------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that a California man is suing Gogo LLC in the
hope of leading a class-action lawsuit against the company for
allegedly misleading consumers about recurring charges for its in-
flight Internet service.

Kerry Walsh of Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif., bought in-flight
Internet service from Gogo on Aug. 7, 2011 for $39.95 for up to 30
days on any airline, the lawsuit states.  But he claims that after
30 days ended on Sept. 7, he was charged $39.95 every month until
at least Dec. 2012, even though he did not use the service, the
lawsuit states.

Mr. Walsh claims he "received no communications from Gogo on a
monthly basis notifying him of the recurring charges," according
to the lawsuit filed last week in U.S. District Court in the
Central District of California.

Gogo, which has over 600 employees and is based in Itasca, Ill.,
provides in-flight Internet and wireless in-cabin digital
entertainment services.  A spokesman for Gogo declined to comment,
citing the pending litigation.

Michael Reese, attorney for Mr. Walsh, said he believes this
matter is important "to vindicate consumer rights."

Mr. Reese said that Walsh is trying to recover on behalf of the
class members the money charged to those who "were misled to
believe they were purchasing only a one-month pass, but were in
fact charged every month thereafter."

The lawsuit states that "every other class member purchased in-
flight Internet serve from Gogo prior to Dec. 31, 2012, using a
registration website that had representations about the monthly
cost of the service but had no representations about the recurring
nature of charges for the service."

Gogo's website now states that the charge for monthly service will
be recurring, "but it did not do so in 2011," the lawsuit states.

The company's website now states that it charges $49.95 per month
or $14 for an all-day pass.

Gogo says it offers services on nearly 2,000 Gogo-equipped
commercial aircraft.  Its in-flight connectivity partners include
American Airlines, Air Canada, AirTran Airways, Alaska Airlines,
Delta Air Lines, Frontier Airlines, United Airlines, US Airways
and Virgin America.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Conspires to Inflate Aluminum Prices, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Big River Outfitters, LLC d/b/a Seaark Boats, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Goldman Sachs Group,
Inc., GS Power Holdings LLC, Metro International Trade Services
LLC, London Metal Exchange Limited; LME Holdings Limited; and John
Does 1-10, Case No. 2:13-cv-14036-VAR-RSW (E.D. Mich.,
September 20, 2013) is an antitrust case concerning aluminum.

The Plaintiff contends that its claims arise from the Defendants'
combination, conspiracy or agreement with one another and other
persons to restrain aluminum supplies in Goldman's London Metal
Exchange (LME) Detroit warehouses to inflate aluminum prices,
including the Midwest Price Premium.  The term "Midwest Price
Premium," means and includes the Platts MW Midwest Premium,
Midwest Premium or Midwest Transaction premium price, and similar
terms, which reflect a standard contract benchmark price term for
purchasing and selling physical aluminum in the Midwest United
States including Arkansas.

Big River Outfitters is an Arkansas Limited Liability Company,
with a principal place of business in Monticello, Arkansas.  The
Plaintiff purchases about 1,000 tons of aluminum annually and
between 2,500 and 3,250 tons during the Class Period.

Goldman Sachs is a leading global investment banking, securities
and investment management firm that provides a wide range of
financial services to a substantial and diversified client base.
GS Power Holdings is a significant subsidiary of Goldman Sachs.
Metro International is a global warehouse operator, specializing
in the storage of non-ferrous metals, including aluminum, for the
LME.  Metro International is an LME-approved warehouse.  Goldman
Sachs acquired Metro International in February 2010 and Metro
International operates as a subsidiary of GS Power Holdings LLC.
As of March 8, 2013, Metro International operated 29 out of 37
LME-listed storage facilities in Detroit, Michigan.

LME is the world center for the trading of industrial metals.
LME's trading platforms have 80% of all non-ferrous metal futures
business.  The LME connects participants from the physical
industry and the financial community to create a market for buyers
and sellers, and provides producers and consumers of metal with a
physical market of last resort and the ability to hedge against
the risk of rising and falling world metals prices.  The LME also
has a large network of storage units for its commodities,
including aluminum.  LME Holdings Limited is a corporation that,
until December 6, 2012, owned the LME.  Defendant Goldman Sachs
and other leading American banks, including JPMorgan, Citigroup,
Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley owned the largest portion of LME
Holdings Limited.  On December 6, 2012, the LME was acquired by
Hong Kong Exchanges & Clearing, Ltd. ("HKEx").  The Doe Defendants
are other persons, who own warehouses, have similar financial
interests as the Goldman Defendants, and have otherwise entered
into the illegal alleged conspiracy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abraham Singer, Esq.
          KITCH DRUTCHAS WAGNER VALITUTTI & SHERBROOK
          One Woodward Avenue, Suite 2400
          Detroit, MI 48226-5485
          Telephone: (313) 965-7445
          Facsimile: (313) 965-7403
          E-mail: abraham.singer@kitch.com

               - and -

          John G. Emerson, Esq.
          EMERSON POYNTER LLP
          830 Apollo Lane
          Houston, TX 77058
          Telephone: (281) 488-8854
          Facsimile: (281) 488-8867
          E-mail: jemerson@emersonpoynter.com

               - and -

          Scott E. Poynter, Esq.
          Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
          William T. Crowder, Esq.
          Corey D. McGaha, Esq.
          EMERSON POYNTER LLP
          1301 Scott Street
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 907-2555
          Facsimile: (501) 907-2556
          E-mail: scott@emersonpoynter.com
                  cjennings@emersonpoynter.com
                  wcrowder@emersonpoynter.com
                  cmcgaha@emersonpoynter.com

               - and -

          David G. Scott, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID G. SCOTT, PLLC
          652 Cash Road SW
          Camden, AR 71701
          Telephone: (870) 836-8900
          Facsimile: (870) 836-5900
          E-mail: David@davidgscott.com

               - and -

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER LAW GROUP OF CALIFORNIA
          10200 Willow Creek Road, Suite 160
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (619) 308-5034
          Facsimile: (888) 341-5048
          E-mail: alan@clgca.com


INERGY LP: Defends Class Suits Related to Crestwood Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Inergy, L.P., is defending itself and its subsidiaries against
merger-related class action lawsuits, according to the Company's
August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Inergy conducts a significant part of its consolidated operations
through two publicly-traded master limited partnerships, Inergy
Midstream, L.P. ("Inergy Midstream" or "NRGM") and Crestwood
Midstream Partners LP ("Crestwood Midstream" or "CMLP").  These
master limited partnerships are managed by their general partners,
and Inergy owns the general partners of Inergy Midstream and
Crestwood Midstream.

On May 5, 2013, Inergy and certain of its affiliates entered into
a series of definitive agreements with Crestwood Holdings LLC and
certain of its affiliates under which, among other things, (i)
Inergy agreed to distribute to its common unitholders all of the
NRGM common units owned by Inergy; (ii) Crestwood Holdings agreed
to acquire the owner of Inergy's general partner; (iii) Crestwood
Holdings agreed to contribute ownership of CMLP's general partner
and IDRs to Inergy in exchange for common and subordinated units
of Inergy; and (iv) Crestwood Midstream agreed to merge with and
into a subsidiary of Inergy Midstream in a merger in which CMLP
unitholders will receive 1.07 NRGM common units for each CMLP
common unit they own.  As part of the merger, which is expected to
close in 2013, CMLP's unaffiliated unitholders will also receive a
one-time $35 million cash payment at the closing of the merger,
$25 million of which will be payable by NRGM and $10 million of
which will be payable by Crestwood Holdings.

Five putative class action lawsuits challenging the Crestwood-
Inergy merger have been filed, four in federal court in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas: (i)
Abraham Knoll v. Robert G. Phillips, et al. (Case No. 4:13-cv-
01528); (ii) Greg Podell v. Crestwood Midstream Partners, LP, et
al. (Case No. 4:13-cv-01599); (iii) Johnny Cooper v. Crestwood
Midstream Partners LP, et al. (Case No. 4:13-cv-01660); and (iv)
Steven Elliot LLC v. Robert G. Phillips, et al. (Case No. 4:13-cv-
01763), and one in Delaware Chancery Court, Hawley v. Crestwood
Midstream Partners LP, et al. (Case No. 8689-VCL).  All of the
cases name Crestwood, Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC, Crestwood
Holdings LLC, the current and former directors of Crestwood Gas
Services GP LLC, Inergy, L.P., Inergy Midstream, L.P., NRGM GP,
LLC, and Intrepid Merger Sub, LLC as defendants.  All of the
lawsuits are brought by a purported holder of common units of
Crestwood, both individually and on behalf of a putative class
consisting of holders of common units of Crestwood.  The lawsuits
generally allege, among other things, that the directors of
Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC breached their fiduciary duties to
holders of common units of Crestwood by agreeing to a transaction
with inadequate consideration and unfair terms and pursuant to an
inadequate process.  The lawsuits further allege that Inergy,
L.P., Inergy Midstream, L.P., NRGM GP, LLC, and Intrepid Merger
Sub, LLC aided and abetted the Crestwood directors in the alleged
breach of their fiduciary duties.

The lawsuits seek, in general, (i) injunctive relief enjoining the
merger, (ii) in the event the merger is consummated, rescission or
an award of rescissory damages, (iii) an award of plaintiffs'
costs, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees, (iv) the
accounting by the defendants to the plaintiffs for all damages
caused by the defendants, and (v) such further equitable relief as
the court deems just and proper.  Certain of the actions also
assert claims of inadequate disclosure under Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Elliot case
also names Citigroup Global Markets Inc. as an alleged aider and
abettor.  The plaintiff in the Hawley action in Delaware filed a
motion for expedited proceedings but subsequently withdrew that
motion and then filed a stipulation voluntarily dismissing the
action without prejudice, which has been granted by the Court,
such that the Hawley action has now been dismissed.  The
plaintiffs in the Knoll, Podell, Cooper, and Elliot actions filed
an unopposed motion to consolidate these four cases, which the
Court granted.  The plaintiff in the Elliot action filed a motion
for expedited discovery, which remains pending.  These lawsuits
are at a preliminary stage.  Crestwood, Inergy Midstream and the
other defendants believe that these lawsuits are without merit and
intend to defend against them vigorously.

Inergy, L.P. -- http://www.inergylp.com/-- is a publicly-traded
master limited partnership that owns and operates energy midstream
infrastructure and a natural gas liquid marketing, supply and
logistics business.  The Kansas City, Missouri-based Company owns
and operates the Tres Palacios natural gas storage facility in
Texas; a proprietary NGL business that specializes in providing
logistics and marketing services predominantly to producers and
refiners; and approximately 75% ownership interest in Inergy
Midstream, L.P., a publicly-traded, growth-oriented master limited
partnership with midstream facilities located in the Northeast
region of the United States.


INTERSECTIONS INC: Appeal From California Suit Dismissal Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
On May 21, 2012, Intersections Insurance Services Inc., a
subsidiary of Intersections Inc., was served with a putative class
action complaint (filed on May 14, 2012) against Intersections
Insurance Services Inc. and Bank of America in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.  The
complaint alleges various claims based on the sale of an
accidental death and disability program.  Intersections Insurance
Services Inc. and Bank of America moved to dismiss the claims and
to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.  The motion to transfer to the
Central District was granted, and Intersections Insurance Services
Inc. and Bank of America then moved to dismiss the claims.  The
motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice on October 1, 2012.
The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, which appeal is pending
before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

No further updates were reported in the Company's August 8, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Intersections Inc. -- http://www.intersections.com/-- is a
leading provider of subscription based consumer protection
services.  The Company also provides subscription based insurance
and membership services.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware
and is headquartered in Chantilly, Virginia.


KIA MOTORS: Faces Suit Over Premature Tire Wear in Optima Cars
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Blake, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. Kia Motors America, Inc., and Hyundai
Motor Company, Case No. 8:13-cv-01477-PA-JPR (C.D. Cal.,
September 20, 2013) is brought on behalf of those who purchased or
leased certain alleged defective Kia Optima vehicles that were
designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, sold and leased by
the Defendants.

Since late 2010, if not before, the Defendants knew or should have
known that the Class Vehicles contain one or more design and
manufacturing defects that causes them not to track or steer
straight, and also causes premature and uneven tire wear, the
Plaintiff alleges.  She adds that although the alleged defect
manifests itself during the warranty period, and therefore, should
be covered by Kia's warranty, Kia has failed to repair the
steering defect and the damaged tires under warranty.

Ms. Blake is a resident of Irvine, California.  In June 2011, she
leased a new 2011 Kia Optima from a dealer in Delaware.  In
January 2013, she was advised that all four tires in her vehicle
were prematurely worn and required replacement in the near future.

Kia USA, a California corporation, is the sales, marketing and
distribution arm for all United States operations.  Hyundai is a
South Korean multinational automaker headquartered in Seoul.
Hyundai and Kia comprise the Hyundai Motor Group, which is the
world's fourth largest automobile manufacturer based on annual
vehicle sales in 2010.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Payam Shahian, Esq.
          Karen Emily Nakon, Esq.
          STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 277-1040
          Facsimile: (310) 943-3838
          E-mail: pshahian@slpattorney.com
                  KNakon@slpattorney.com


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Class Suits in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare, Inc. continues to defend itself against four
wage and hour class action lawsuits in California, according to
the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

Four wage and hour class action lawsuits are currently pending
against the Company in federal district court in Los Angeles,
California, and are being addressed together by the court.  Each
case pertains to alleged errors made by the Company with respect
to regular pay and overtime pay calculations, waiting times, meal
period waivers and wage statements under California law.  On
March 13, 2013, of the seven total classes sought for
certification under these lawsuits, the court conditionally
certified five classes for discovery purposes and declined to
certify two others.  Notice of class action certification and
class members' right to opt out of the lawsuit have been mailed to
all of the Company's current and former California hospital
employees with an opt-out deadline of July 27, 2013.  The Company
intends to vigorously defend these claims and has taken
affirmative steps to ensure compliance with applicable California
laws.

Kindred Healthcare, Inc. is a healthcare services company that
through its subsidiaries operates transitional care hospitals,
inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, nursing centers, assisted
living facilities, a contract rehabilitation services business and
a home health and hospice business across the United States.  The
Company is based in Louisville, Kentucky.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Class Suits in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare, Inc. continues to defend itself against three
wage and hour class action lawsuits in Illinois, according to the
Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

Three wage and hour class action lawsuits against the Company
alleging violations of federal and state wage and hour laws have
been consolidated in federal district court in Chicago, Illinois.
These lawsuits pertain to the Company's previous automatic meal
break deduction practice for non-exempt employees in the Company's
hospitals located outside California.  The court granted
conditional class certification in part on June 11, 2013.  The
Company intends to vigorously defend these claims.

Kindred Healthcare, Inc. is a healthcare services company that
through its subsidiaries operates transitional care hospitals,
inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, nursing centers, assisted
living facilities, a contract rehabilitation services business and
a home health and hospice business across the United States.  The
Company is based in Louisville, Kentucky.


L & L ENERGY: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Sept. 23
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against L & L
Energy, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed
in United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
and docketed under 13-cv-06704, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of L&L between September 11, 2012 and September 18,
2013 both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover
damages against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal
securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased L&L securities during the
Class Period, you have until November 22, 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.

L&L, formerly known as L&L International Holdings, is a coal-
mining company founded in 1995. L&L purports, through its
subsidiaries, to engage in coal mining, clean coal washing, coal
coking, and coal wholesaling businesses in China.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
the Company improperly accounted substantial revenue from
operations that were already shut down; (2) the Company claimed
acquisitions and divestitures of various properties through swap
transactions that never occurred through the exchange of assets it
never owned in the first place; (3) the Company lacked adequate
internal and financial controls; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's financial results were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 19, 2013, GeoInvesting published an article on
Seeking Alpha disclosing that the Company has been "defrauding
investors by booking substantial revenue from operations that have
been idled for quite some time."  Specifically, GeoInvesting
stated that the Company's numerous acquisitions and divestitures
through the years have amounted "to a bait and switch shell game"
by utilizing "swap transactions that never occurred." Moreover,
the article concluded "that revenue of $77.6 million disclosed in
LLEN's 2013 10K, generated from its Hong Xing coal washing
factory, was actually close to zero, if it is not actually zero"
as the factory "has been shut down since 2012."

On this news, the Company's stock plummeted $0.80 per share or
more than 38%, to close at $1.27 on September 19, 2013.

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

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


LINKEDIN CORP: Hacked Users' Accounts to Get Contacts, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports that LinkedIn
hacked into users' accounts, harvested their email contacts and
then barraged those contacts with promotional spam, according to a
federal class action.

"When users sign up for LinkedIn they are required to provide an
external email address as their username and to set up a new
password for their LinkedIn account," users claim in San Francisco
Federal Court.

"LinkedIn uses this information to hack into the user's external
email account and extract email addresses.  If a LinkedIn user
leaves an external email account open, LinkedIn pretends to be
that user and downloads the email addresses contained anywhere in
that account to LinkedIn's servers," including the addresses of
former spouses, clients and opposing counsel.

Members say the business-networking site downloads these email
addresses without users' consent, despite promising users that
"[w]e will not email anyone without your permission."

LinkedIn then sends "multiple emails endorsing its products,
services, and brand to potential new users," plus two follow-up
"reminder emails," members claim.

They say a lead software engineer at LinkedIn even bragged about
what the company does, posting on his LinkedIn profile that his
role is "devising hack schemes to make lots of $$$ with Java,
Groovy and cunning at Team Money!"

The hacking scheme allowed the company to expand its member base
to 218 million, according to the 46-page complaint.

CEO Jeff Weiner chalked up LinkedIn's impressive growth to
"optimization initiatives," which users say are actually its
email-harvesting practices.

"Linkedln intentionally and knowingly created and developed this
deceptive advertising scheme to improperly use the names,
photographs, likenesses, and identities of plaintiffs for the
purpose of generating substantial profits for Linkedln," the
members claim.

Blake Lawit, senior director of litigation at LinkedIn, denied
harvesting user email accounts without permission in a blog post
on Saturday, September 21, 2013.

"Quite simply, this is not true," Lawit wrote.

"Claims that we 'hack' or 'break into' members' accounts are
false," he added.  "We never deceive you by 'pretending to be you'
in order to access your email account.  We never send messages or
invitations to join LinkedIn on your behalf to anyone unless you
have given us permission to do so."

Class members demand unspecified damages and restitution, plus
legal expenses and attorneys' fees, for alleged violations of
their publicity rights, the Unfair Business Practices Act, the
Stored Communications Act, the Wiretap Act, the California
Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud Act, and the California
Invasion of Privacy Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Larry C. Russ, Esq.
          Dorian S. Berger, Esq.
          Daniel P. Hipskind, Esq.
          RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
          12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 826-7474
          Facsimile: (310) 826-6991
          E-mail: lruss@raklaw.com
                  dberger@raklaw.com
                  dhipskinCl@raklaw.com

Perkins, et al. v. LinkedIn Corporation, Case No. 5:13-cv-04303-
HRL, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Jose).


LIVE NATION: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Ticket Pricing Model
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pollstar reports that a Chicago federal judge dismissed a putative
class action suit accusing Live Nation Entertainment of being a
"monopolist" and seeking to force the company to adopt an "all-in"
pricing model on all ticket sales.

Brendon Holub, an Arizona native residing in Chicago, failed to
show he was harmed, in order to establish standing, by the
company's practice of adding fees onto ticket face prices.

Mr. Holub purchased tickets to two shows in Chicago and one in
Phoenix, all of which included various add-ons such as parking,
shipping and handling.  He filed his complaint in March, alleging
Live Nation violated the Sherman Act and California's Unfair
Competition Law, and sought class action status in addition to
actual and treble damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees.

U.S. District Judge Charles Kocoras tossed the suit, ruling
Mr. Holub's complaint about being assessed "add-on" fees didn't
hold up since the total retail price -- whether all-in or add-on
-- would be the same.

"The court is perplexed as to how Holub can claim a loss of money
or property based on the facts that he has set forth, which show
that the overall price that Holub paid would have been the same,"
Judge Kocoras wrote in his memorandum opinion.

The question of "monopolism" went unanswered, as the judge
considered it irrelevant to the suit.

"Holub's claim that Live Nation is a monopolist is unrelated to
his objection to the way in which Live Nation presents its ticket
prices," Judge Kocoras wrote.  "Holub has not shown how a lack of
competition in the ticket selling market bears upon the manner in
which prices are presented to consumers, and the court cannot
logically discern one."


NASDAQ OMX: Continues to Defend Suits Related to Facebook IPO
-------------------------------------------------------------
The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc., continues to defend itself against
lawsuits relating to Facebook Inc.'s initial public offering,
according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

In connection with the initial public offering by Facebook Inc. on
May 18, 2012, systems issues were experienced at the opening of
trading of Facebook shares.  Certain of the Company's members may
have been disadvantaged by such systems issues, which have
subsequently been remedied.  The Company announced a program for
voluntary accommodations to qualifying members of up to $62
million, which was approved by the SEC in March 2013.  As a result
of the systems issues, the Company has been sued by retail
investors and trading firms in certain putative class actions,
many of which have been consolidated into a single action, as well
as in five other lawsuits by individual investors.  The plaintiffs
have asserted claims for negligence, gross negligence, fraud, and
violations of Section 20(a) of the Act and Rule 10b-5, promulgated
under the Act.  In addition, a member organization filed a demand
for arbitration seeking indemnification for alleged losses
associated with the Facebook IPO.  The Company believes that these
lawsuits and arbitration demand are without merit and intends to
defend them vigorously.

Based in New York, The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. is a global exchange
group that delivers trading, clearing, exchange technology,
regulatory, securities listing, and public company services across
six continents.  The Company's global offerings are diverse and
include trading and clearing across multiple asset classes, market
data products, financial indexes, capital formation solutions,
financial services and market technology products and services.
The Company's technology powers markets across the globe,
supporting cash equity trading, derivatives trading, clearing and
settlement and many other functions.


NASH-FINCH CO: Being Sold Cheaply to Spartan Stores, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
JoAnna Lee Benson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Alec C. Covington, William R. Voss,
Christopher W. Bodine, Mickey P. Foret, Douglas A. Hacker,
Hawthorne L. Proctor, Nash-Finch Company, Spartan Stores, Inc.,
and SS Delaware, Inc., Case No. 0:13-cv-02574 (D. Minn.,
September 19, 2013) accuses the members of Nash-Finch's Board of
Directors of breaching their fiduciary duties arising out of their
attempt to sell the Company to Spartan Stores, Inc. by means of an
unfair process and for an unfair price.

The Board has breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to the
Proposed Transaction for grossly inadequate consideration, Ms.
Benson contends.  She explains that given Nash-Finch's recent
strong performance as well as its future growth prospects, the
proposed consideration shareholders will receive under the
Proposed Transaction is inadequate and undervalues the Company.

Ms. Benson owns of shares of Nash-Finch common stock.

Nash-Finch is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Minneapolis,
Minnesota.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers
of the Company.  Spartan is a Michigan corporation based in Grand
Rapids.  Spartan is a leading regional grocery distributor and
retailer, operating principally in Michigan, Indiana and Ohio.  SS
Delaware, Inc. ("Merger Sub") is a Delaware corporation wholly
owned by Spartan that was created for the purposes of effectuating
the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Ave. South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179
          Telephone: (612) 596-4097
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: riebekh@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: srowley@zlk.com


NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA: Sued Over Alleged Boarding House Abuse
------------------------------------------------------------------
SBS News reports that more than 40 handicapped boarding house
residents are taking the NSW government to court, claiming they
were assaulted, drugged and imprisoned while living in a "house of
horrors".

The adults, who have intellectual and psychosocial disabilities,
launched the class action in the Federal Court on Sept. 24 against
Adrian Powell, who ran the Grand Western Lodge boarding house, his
employer and the NSW government.

They allege that between 2000 and 2011, Mr. Powell participated in
and encouraged physical assaults on residents at the lodge in
Millthorpe, near Orange.  It is also alleged that residents were
confined as a form of punishment and that unprescribed quantities
of psychotropic medication was used to sedate some of them.

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, which is representing the residents,
said they were seeking compensation for financial losses, injuries
and false imprisonment.

"These residents lived in depraved circumstances that you wouldn't
wish on your own worst enemy," Maurice Blackburn's NSW managing
principal, BenSlade, told a press conference at the launch of the
action.

"They were paying 100 per cent of their pensions for the pleasure
of living in this house of horrors."

The class action, which also includes allegations that residents
weren't given enough food and clothing, comes after allegations of
abuse at the boarding house first surfaced in 2002.

Despite this, Mr. Slade said the state government failed to act.

"These allegations are particularly distressing as they suggest
that some of the most vulnerable people in our community have
suffered so much for far too long," he said in a statement.

As part of the claim, it is alleged the NSW Department of Ageing
Disability and Home Care was negligent in monitoring its licensees
and that it knew there was a risk of harm to residents but failed
to act.

Matthew Bowden, co-CEO of People with Disability Australia, told
SBS Radio the class action exposed serious human rights abuses.

"People have spoken to us about not having any freedom of movement
or freedom of association," Mr. Bowden says.

"People talked to us about living in fear daily and that this fear
extended to fears around their personal and physical safety.
People also have made allegations that they were forcibly drugged,
that they received medications to shut them up."

NSW Minister for Ageing and Disability Services John Ajaka would
not comment as the matter is before the courts.


NEW YORK, NY: Public Defense System Settlement Talks Stall
----------------------------------------------------------
Alysia Santo, writing for Times Union, reports that settlement
negotiations have stalled in a class-action lawsuit challenging
New York's system of public defense.

Discussions about a settlement, which began last year, "ended
without success," said Corey Stoughton, lead attorney for the
plaintiffs and a lawyer with the New York Civil Liberties Union.

The case seeks to remedy a "persistent failure" to provide
meaningful counsel to the poor by forcing a state takeover since
New York's public defender system places the burden of operations
on counties.  It lists problems including excessive caseloads,
disparity in pay and resources compared with district attorneys,
and delays in appointing counsel.

Stoughton declined to elaborate on why negotiations ended.  A
trial date is set for Dec. 4.

The state attorney general's office declined to comment on the
case, but the office recently motioned for summary judgment,
arguing that no trial is necessary because the "plaintiffs do not
have a case," according to court records, and that "New York has
undertaken legislative action" to deal with the problem, including
new state grants that counties can apply for to improve legal
services for the poor.

In August, the state approved $12 million to fund programs that
provide lawyers to criminal defendants at their first court
appearance, to be disbursed over the next three years among the 25
counties that applied.

Local governments were among the recipients, including both Albany
and Rensselaer's public defender offices, which will receive
$656,000 and $554,000 respectively.  Schenectady and Saratoga
County's public defender offices did not apply.

The U.S. Supreme Court established the right to counsel under the
Sixth Amendment 50 years ago, but no direction was given as to how
states were to meet this obligation.

According to the American Bar Association, 80% of people who face
criminal charges cannot pay for a lawyer and require appointed
counsel.

Albany public defender James Milstein said it's important for
criminal defendants to have a lawyer with them at their initial
arraignment because that's when decisions such as bail amounts are
set, which can determine if someone is held in jail.  "People are
very emotional at arraignment, and they're unfamiliar with the
process and things that may be beneficial to them," he said.
"They need a lawyer to advise them of their rights."

The arraignment of defendants without an attorney is one of the
deficiencies alleged in the class-action lawsuit that's set to go
to trial.  The case was filed six years ago in the name of
Kimberly Hurrell-Herring and 19 others charged with crimes in
Onondaga, Ontario, Schuyler, Suffolk and Washington counties, yet
the suit claims the "failings" are "by no means limited or unique"
to those counties.

In 2010, the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court,
overturned a dismissal of the case.

One of the plaintiffs, Jacqueline Winbrone, spent 52 days in the
Onondaga County jail before prosecutors dismissed the case against
her after information surfaced that she had been framed.  She
claims she repeatedly called her assigned counsel to explain her
innocence but that his voicemail was always full, and when she saw
him in court he barely spoke to her.  During her detainment, her
husband died and she was evicted from her apartment.

While the suit doesn't contain examples from the Capital Region, a
review of the caseloads of local public defender offices from 2011
shows that every county in the region exceeded the guidelines set
by the American Bar Association, which recommends that no assigned
counsel take more than 150 felonies or 400 misdemeanors in a year.
Only New York City caps the number of cases that public defenders
are assigned.

Excessive workloads are another deficiency the state is attempting
to address with grant money; applications are due in October from
counties for another $12 million in state funding to help reduce
attorney caseloads.

Albany is applying for the funds, and Saratoga's office is in
discussions about whether to apply. Schenectady and Rensselaer
county public defender offices could not be reached for comment.

In addition to the new grant money, the state provides other funds
to counties for public defense, including about $70 million this
fiscal year.  Yet indigent defense in New York costs at least $380
million a year, if county and state expenditures from 2011 are
used as a baseline.

The Office of Indigent Legal Services is administering these new
grants, and director William Leahy said while the additional money
is a step in the right direction, it won't be enough to bring the
state into compliance with its constitutional obligations to
ensure counsel for those who can't afford it.

"We've made a little bit of progress, but it's a very long road
ahead," said Mr. Leahy.  "That road could be made a lot shorter if
the state steps in and starts to more generously support this
extensive need."


NMI RETIREMENT: Lawmaker Wants Settlement Hearing Postponed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ferdie de la Torre, writing for Saipan Tribune, reports that
Rep. Janet Maratita (Ind-Saipan), through counsel Ramon K.
Quichocho, asked the federal court to postpone the Sept. 30, 2013,
hearing where it is expected to approve the settlement agreement
in Johnson's class action.

Jesus I. Taisague joined Ms. Maratita in making the request that
also asks the U.S. District Court for the NMI to lift its stay
order that prevents them from filing a motion to intervene in
Johnson's class action.

U.S. District Court for the NMI designated judge Frances M.
Tydingco-Gatewood also disclosed on Sept. 25 that Ms. Maratita and
Mr. Taisague want to be allowed to file a motion to intervene,
together with a proposed complaint in intervention.

Judge Tydingco-Gatewood ordered all responses to Maratita's motion
to be filed no later than Thursday, Sept. 26, at 9:00 a.m.
Ms. Maratita and Mr. Taisague will be allowed to file a reply
brief no later than Friday, Sept. 27, at 9:00 am.

Mr. Quichocho, as counsel for Ms. Maratita, Mr. Taisague, and
Joaquin Q. Atalig, informed the court on Sept. 20 of their intent
to file a motion to intervene in Johnson's class action.

At the Sept. 30 hearing, the judge also was to hear Johnson's
counsels' petitions for attorneys' fees and costs in the total
minimum amount of over $40 million and total maximum amount of
over $60 million.

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

Only 16 Fund members, including two lawmakers, opted out of the
settlement agreement.


ONLINE TRAVEL: Dismissal of Hotel Room Price-Fixing Suit Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Morley, Esq., at McDermott Will & Emery, reports that a
group of hotels and online travel companies moved to dismiss an
amended class action complaint alleging that they engaged in a
price-fixing conspiracy to control hotel room prices.  Online
Travel Company Hotel Booking Antitrust Litigation, case number
3:12-cv-03515.  The companies, which include Travelocity and
Hilton Worldwide, argued that the plaintiffs abandoned the
principle elements of the conspiracy alleged in the initial
complaint.  First, plaintiffs no longer allege that individual
agreements between a hotel and online travel companies violated
antitrust laws.  Second, plaintiffs admit that they have no basis
to prove a horizontal conspiracy among the hotel defendants.
According to the defendants, the plaintiffs' case only relies on
purported collusion between the online travel companies and hotels
to implement similar distribution programs.  These factual
allegations, however, are not sufficient to bring an antitrust
claim under the Supreme Court's decision of Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S.544, 557 (2007), which requires "allegations
plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with) agreement."  The
defendants contend that the plaintiffs' allegations do not
plausibly suggest that they entered individual distribution
arrangements pursuant to a horizontal conspiracy at either the
hotel or online travel company level.  Rather, the defendants
argue that the facts demonstrate each company's independent
interest in implementing these individual hotel-online travel
company arrangements in response to the development of the
internet as a distribution channel for travel purchases.


PEABODY ENERGY: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Peabody Energy Corporation is awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, according to
the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On October 23, 2012, eight individual plaintiffs and the United
Mine Workers of America filed a putative class action lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
against the Company, one of its subsidiaries and an unrelated coal
company.  The lawsuit seeks to have the court obligate the
defendants to maintain certain Patriot benefit plans at their
current levels and to find the defendants' actions in violation of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.  On
January 7, 2013, the Company defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.  The plaintiffs thereafter amended their complaint to
include new allegations and name two more individuals as
plaintiffs.  The Company defendants updated their motion to
dismiss to respond to the new allegations and filed it with the
Court.  The Company believes the lawsuit is without merit and will
vigorously defend against it.

Headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, Peabody Energy Corporation
is the world's largest private sector coal company.  The Company
owns interests in 28 active coal mining operations located in the
United States and Australia.  The Company also markets and brokers
coal from other coal producers and trade coal and freight-related
contracts through trading and business offices in China,
Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, Singapore, India,
Indonesia and the U.S.


PHILIP MORRIS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in "Lights" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA (PM USA) disclosed that a California Superior
Court judge on Sept. 24 issued his final decision in favor of the
Company in a 16-year-old class-action "Lights" cigarette case
(Brown).  The court rejected plaintiffs' efforts to impose as much
as a billion dollars in liability against PM USA and ruled that
plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief.

"The plaintiffs failed to prove they suffered any loss by
purchasing 'Lights' cigarettes," said Murray Garnick, Altria
Client Services senior vice president and associate general
counsel, speaking on behalf of PM USA.  "In fact, the court
concluded that Marlboro Lights were worth what consumers paid for
them," Mr. Garnick added.  "We have had substantial success in
defending these cases on a variety of legal grounds."

The plaintiffs claimed in this lawsuit, originally filed in
June 1997, that PM USA violated California's Unfair Competition
Law and False Advertising Law by using the terms "Lights" and
"Lowered Tar and Nicotine" on cigarette packages.  Plaintiffs
sought to recover a portion of the money paid by California
smokers who purchased Marlboro Lights between 1998 and 2001.

In his decision, Superior Court Judge Ronald Prager said that,
"based the totality of the evidence including real world market
data and the extensive absent class member testimony, this Court
concludes that the restitution value is zero."

In rejecting plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief, the court
stated: "Plaintiffs failed to present any specific evidence
entitling them to injunctive relief.  To the contrary, the
evidence established that the descriptors on which the Plaintiffs
base their case have been removed and, because of changes in the
law, these descriptors can never be used again.  Since there is
little likelihood that the conduct giving rise to this case will
reoccur, the claim for injunctive relief is moot."

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration prohibits the use of
"Lights" and other descriptors unless a manufacturer receives
authorization to use the terms.  The FDA began regulating tobacco
products in 2009 with the passage of the Family Smoking Prevention
and Tobacco Control Act.

This case is Willard R. Brown, et al. v. The American Tobacco Co.,
Inc. et al., case number 711400.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Priceline.com Incorporated is awaiting a court decision on its and
other defendants' motion to dismiss a consolidated antitrust
lawsuit, according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On August 20, 2012, one complaint was filed on behalf of a
putative class of persons who purchased hotel room reservations
from certain hotels (the "Hotel Defendants") through certain
third-party online travel company ("OTC") defendants, including
the Company.  The initial complaint, Turik v. Expedia, Inc., Case
No. 12-cv-4365, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, alleges that the Hotel Defendants and the
OTC defendants violated federal and state laws by entering into a
conspiracy to enforce a minimum resale price maintenance scheme
pursuant to which putative class members paid inflated prices for
hotel room reservations that they purchased through the OTC
defendants.  Thirty-one other complaints containing similar
allegations have been filed in a number of federal jurisdictions
across the country and one of them in Minnesota state court (which
was then removed to federal court, the "Mooney Action").  The
Plaintiffs in these actions seek treble damages and injunctive
relief.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") heard
arguments on a motion for consolidation and transfer of pretrial
proceedings under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 on November 29, 2012.
Pursuant to JPML orders, all of the cases other than the Mooney
action were consolidated before Judge Boyle in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas.  On May 1, 2013, an
amended consolidated complaint was filed.  On January 29, 2013,
plaintiff in the Mooney Action filed a voluntary notice of
dismissal with prejudice.  The case was dismissed with prejudice
on January 31, 2013.

On July 1, 2013, the Company, together with the OTC and hotel
defendants, filed an omnibus motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint.  The Plaintiffs' opposition was due on
August 15, 2013, and defendants' reply was due on September 16,
2013.

The Company intends to defend vigorously against the claims in all
of the pending proceedings.  The Company has accrued for certain
legal contingencies where it is probable that a loss has been
incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated.  Except as
disclosed, such amounts accrued are not material to the Company's
consolidated balance sheets and provisions recorded have not been
material to the Company's consolidated results of operations or
cash flows.  The Company is unable to estimate a reasonably
possible range of loss.

Founded in 1997 and headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut,
Priceline.com Incorporated -- http://www.priceline.com/--
together with its subsidiaries, operates as an online travel
company.  The Company provides price-disclosed hotel reservation
services on a worldwide basis primarily under the Booking.com,
priceline.com, and Agoda brand names; and price-disclosed rental
car reservation services in approximately 4,000 locations
worldwide through rentalcars.com name.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Continues to Defend Suits in Various States
--------------------------------------------------------------
Priceline.com Incorporated said in its August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013, that it intends to vigorously defend
against the claims in all of these statewide class actions and
putative class actions:

   * City of Los Angeles, California v. Hotels.com, Inc., et al.
     (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County; filed in
     December 2004)

   * City of Rome, Georgia, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.
     (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia;
     filed in November 2005); (U.S. Court of Appeals for the
     Eleventh Circuit appeal filed in September 2012)

   * City of San Antonio, Texas v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. (U.S.
     District Court for the Western District of Texas; filed in
     May 2006)

   * City of Gallup, New Mexico v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. (U.S.
     District Court for the District of New Mexico; filed in July
     2007) ); (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit;
     appeal filed in April 2013)

   * Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission, Jefferson
     County, Arkansas, et al. v. Hotels.com, LP, et al. (Circuit
     Court of Jefferson County, Arkansas; filed in September
     2009); (Arkansas Supreme Court; appeal filed in March 2013)

   * County of Lawrence, Pennsylvania v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.
     (Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County, Pennsylvania;
     filed Nov. 2009); (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania; appeal
     filed in November 2010)

   * Elizabeth McAllister, et al. v. Hotels.com L.P., et al.,
     (Circuit Court of Saline County, Arkansas; filed in February
     2011); (Arkansas Supreme Court; appeal filed in June 2013)

   * Town of Breckenridge, Colorado v. Colorado Travel Company,
     LLC, et al. (District Court for Summit County, Colorado;
     filed in July 2011)

   * County of Nassau v. Expedia, Inc., et al. (Supreme Court of
     Nassau County, New York; filed in September 2011);
     (Appellate Division, Second Department; appeal filed in
     April 2013)

   * Village of Bedford Park, et al. v. Expedia, Inc. et al.
     (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois; filed in July 2013)

   * City of Columbia, South Carolina, et al. v. Hotelguides.com,
     Inc. et al. (Court of Common Pleas, Ninth Judicial Circuit,
     County of Charleston; filed in July 2013).

Founded in 1997 and headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut,
Priceline.com Incorporated -- http://www.priceline.com/--
together with its subsidiaries, operates as an online travel
company.  The Company provides price-disclosed hotel reservation
services on a worldwide basis primarily under the Booking.com,
priceline.com, and Agoda brand names; and price-disclosed rental
car reservation services in approximately 4,000 locations
worldwide through rentalcars.com name.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Defends Suits Over Travel Transaction Taxes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Priceline.com Incorporated continues to defend itself against
lawsuits related to payment of travel transaction taxes, according
to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

The Company and certain third-party online travel companies
("OTCs") are currently involved in approximately forty lawsuits,
including certified and putative class actions, brought by or
against states, cities and counties over issues involving the
payment of travel transaction taxes (e.g., hotel occupancy taxes,
excise taxes, sales taxes, etc.).  The Company's subsidiaries
Lowestfare.com LLC and Travelweb LLC are named in some but not all
of these cases.  Generally, each complaint alleges, among other
things, that the OTCs violated each jurisdiction's respective
relevant travel transaction tax ordinance with respect to the
charges and remittance of amounts to cover taxes under each law.
Each complaint typically seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement,
penalties available by law, attorneys' fees and other relief.  In
addition, approximately seventy-five municipalities or counties,
and at least twelve states, have initiated audit proceedings
(including proceedings initiated by more than forty municipalities
in California, which have been inactive for several years), issued
proposed tax assessments or started inquiries relating to the
payment of travel transaction taxes.  Additional state and local
jurisdictions are likely to assert that the Company is subject to
travel transaction taxes and could seek to collect such taxes,
retroactively and/or prospectively.

With respect to the principal claims in these matters, the Company
believes that the laws at issue do not apply to the services it
provides, namely the facilitation of travel reservations, and,
therefore, that it does not owe the taxes that are claimed to be
owed.  Rather, the Company believes that the laws at issue
generally impose travel transaction taxes on entities that own,
operate or control hotels (or similar businesses) or furnish or
provide hotel rooms or similar accommodations or other travel
services.  In addition, in many of these matters, the taxing
jurisdictions have asserted claims for "conversion" --
essentially, that the Company has collected a tax and wrongfully
"pocketed" those tax dollars -- a claim that the Company believes
is without basis and has vigorously contested.  The taxing
jurisdictions that are currently involved in litigation and other
proceedings with the Company, and that may be involved in future
proceedings, have asserted contrary positions and will likely
continue to do so.  From time to time, the Company has found it
expedient to settle, and may in the future agree to settle, claims
pending in these matters without conceding that the claims at
issue are meritorious or that the claimed taxes are in fact due to
be paid.

In connection with some of these tax audits and assessments, the
Company may be required to pay any assessed taxes, which amounts
may be substantial, prior to being allowed to contest the
assessments and the applicability of the laws in judicial
proceedings.  This requirement is commonly referred to as "pay to
play" or "pay first."  For example, the City of San Francisco
assessed the Company approximately $3.4 million (an amount that
includes interest and penalties) relating to hotel occupancy
taxes, which the Company paid in July 2009, and issued a second
assessment totaling approximately $2.7 million, which the Company
paid in January 2013.  Payment of these amounts, if any, is not an
admission that the Company believes it is subject to such taxes
and, even if such payments are made, the Company intends to
continue to assert its position vigorously that it should not be
subject to such taxes.  In the San Francisco action, for example,
the court ruled in February 2013 that the Company and OTCs do not
owe transient accommodations tax to the city and ordered the city
to refund the pay first amounts paid in July 2009; the Company is
also seeking a refund of the amounts paid first in January 2013.
It is possible the city may take the position that it need not
refund the pay first amounts until after it has exhausted all
appeals.

Litigation is subject to uncertainty and there could be adverse
developments in these pending or future cases and proceedings.
For example, in January 2013, the Tax Appeal Court for the State
of Hawaii held that the Company and other OTCs are not liable for
the State's transient accommodations tax, but held that the OTCs,
including the Company, are liable for the State's general excise
tax on the full amount the OTC collects from the customer for a
hotel room reservation, without any offset for amounts passed
through to the hotel.  The Company recorded an accrual for travel
transaction taxes (including estimated interest and penalties),
with a corresponding charge to cost of revenues, of approximately
$16.5 million in December 2012 and approximately $18.7 million in
the three months ended March 31, 2013, primarily related to this
ruling.  The Company was required to pay approximately $10.4
million of this amount prior to filing its notice of appeal of the
Tax Appeal Court's decision on April 30, 2013, and in advance of
filing an appeal of the forthcoming ruling by the Tax Appeal
Court, the Company paid under protest approximately $5.0 million
in June 2013.  The Company will vigorously appeal this ruling.  In
September 2012, the Superior Court in the District of Columbia
granted summary judgment in favor of the city and against OTCs
ruling that tax is due on the OTCs' margin and service fees.  As a
result, the Company increased its accrual for travel transaction
taxes (including estimated interest), with a corresponding charge
to cost of revenues, by approximately $4.8 million in September
2012 and by approximately $5.6 million in the three months ended
March 31, 2013.  In addition, in October 2009, a jury in a San
Antonio class action found that the Company and the other OTCs
that are defendants in the lawsuit "control" hotels for purposes
of the local hotel occupancy tax ordinances at issue and are,
therefore, subject to the requirements of those ordinances.  The
Company and the other defendants are appealing.

An unfavorable outcome or settlement of pending litigation may
encourage the commencement of additional litigation, audit
proceedings or other regulatory inquiries.  In addition, an
unfavorable outcome or settlement of these actions or proceedings
could result in substantial liabilities for past and/or future
bookings, including, among other things, interest, penalties,
punitive damages and/or attorney fees and costs.  There have been,
and will continue to be, substantial ongoing costs, which may
include "pay first" payments, associated with defending the
Company's position in pending and any future cases or proceedings.
An adverse outcome in one or more of these unresolved proceedings
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and
could be material to the Company's results of operations or cash
flow in any given operating period.

To the extent that any tax authority succeeds in asserting that
the Company has a tax collection responsibility, or the Company
determines that it has such a responsibility, with respect to
future transactions, the Company may collect any such additional
tax obligation from its customers, which would have the effect of
increasing the cost of travel reservations to its customers and,
consequently, could make the Company's travel reservation service
less competitive (as compared to the services of other OTCs or
travel service providers) and reduce the Company's travel
reservation transactions; alternatively, the Company could choose
to reduce the compensation for its services.  Either action could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business and
results of operations.

In many of the judicial and other proceedings initiated to date,
the taxing jurisdictions seek not only historical taxes that are
claimed to be owed, but also, among other things, interest,
penalties, punitive damages and/or attorney fees and costs.
Therefore, any liability associated with travel transaction tax
matters is not constrained to the Company's liability for tax
owed, but may also include, among other things, penalties,
interest and attorneys' fees.  To date, the majority of the taxing
jurisdictions in which the Company facilitates travel reservations
have not asserted that taxes are due and payable on the Company's
travel services.  With respect to taxing jurisdictions that have
not initiated proceedings to date, it is possible that they will
do so in the future or that they will seek to amend their tax
statutes and seek to collect taxes from the Company only on a
prospective basis.

As a result of this litigation and other attempts by jurisdictions
to levy similar taxes, the Company has established an accrual
(including estimated interest and penalties) for the potential
resolution of issues related to travel transaction taxes in the
amount of approximately $65 million at June 30, 2013, and
approximately $56 million at December 31, 2012 (which includes,
among other things, amounts related to the litigation in the State
of Hawaii, District of Columbia, San Antonio and Chicago).  The
accrual is based on the Company's estimate of the probable cost of
resolving these issues.  The Company's legal expenses for these
matters are expensed as incurred and are not reflected in the
amount accrued.  The actual cost may be less or greater,
potentially significantly, than the liabilities recorded.  An
estimate for a reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess
of the amount accrued cannot be reasonably made.

Founded in 1997 and headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut,
Priceline.com Incorporated -- http://www.priceline.com/--
together with its subsidiaries, operates as an online travel
company.  The Company provides price-disclosed hotel reservation
services on a worldwide basis primarily under the Booking.com,
priceline.com, and Agoda brand names; and price-disclosed rental
car reservation services in approximately 4,000 locations
worldwide through rentalcars.com name.


PRICELINE.COM INC: Faces "Columbia" Suit in South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------
Priceline.com Incorporated is facing a new class action lawsuit
commenced by the City of Columbia, South Carolina, et al.,
according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

A new action commenced.  City of Columbia, South Carolina, et al.
v. Hotelguides.com, Inc. et al. (Court of Common Pleas, Ninth
Judicial Circuit, County of Charleston; filed in July 2013) is a
putative class action brought on behalf of South Carolina local
governments and taxing authorities against the Company and other
OTCs (and other defendants) alleging that the defendants have
failed to collect and/or remit transient accommodations taxes as
required by the putative class members' respective ordinances.
The complaint asserts violations of these ordinances, conversion,
civil conspiracy, "voluntary undertaking" and "contractual
undertaking" by defendants, and other equitable claims, including
constructive trust, unjust enrichment and an accounting.  The
Company has not yet been served in this action.

Founded in 1997 and headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut,
Priceline.com Incorporated -- http://www.priceline.com/--
together with its subsidiaries, operates as an online travel
company.  The Company provides price-disclosed hotel reservation
services on a worldwide basis primarily under the Booking.com,
priceline.com, and Agoda brand names; and price-disclosed rental
car reservation services in approximately 4,000 locations
worldwide through rentalcars.com name.


PRICELINE.COM INC: "Nassau" Plaintiff May Notify Class Members
--------------------------------------------------------------
A trial court authorized in August 2013 the County of Nassau to
notify members of the class about its pending class action
lawsuit, according to Priceline.com Incorporated's August 8, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On April 11, 2013, in County of Nassau v. Expedia, Inc., et al.
(filed September 2011), the trial court certified the action as a
class action.  On April 26, 2013, the Company and other third-
party online travel company ("OTC") defendants filed a notice of
appeal of that decision and the trial court's prior denial of the
OTCs' motion to dismiss.  On August 1, 2013, the court authorized
the plaintiff to notify members of the class of the pending class
action.

Founded in 1997 and headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut,
Priceline.com Incorporated -- http://www.priceline.com/--
together with its subsidiaries, operates as an online travel
company.  The Company provides price-disclosed hotel reservation
services on a worldwide basis primarily under the Booking.com,
priceline.com, and Agoda brand names; and price-disclosed rental
car reservation services in approximately 4,000 locations
worldwide through rentalcars.com name.


PRICELINE.COM INC: "Warrenville" Suit Dismissed, New Case Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit brought by Warrenville, et al., was
voluntarily dismissed and the plaintiffs file a new lawsuit,
according to Priceline.com Incorporated's August 8, 2013, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On July 8, 2013, in Warrenville, et al. v. Priceline.com
Incorporated, et al. (U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois; filed in April 2013), the plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the putative class action pending in federal
court, and filed a new class action complaint in Illinois state
court.  That action is captioned Village of Bedford Park, et al.
v. Expedia, Inc., et al. (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois;
filed in July 2013).  The complaint alleges violation of the
municipalities' respective accommodations ordinances, conversion,
civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, and
seeks a declaratory judgment, imposition of a constructive trust,
and an accounting.

Founded in 1997 and headquartered in Norwalk, Connecticut,
Priceline.com Incorporated -- http://www.priceline.com/--
together with its subsidiaries, operates as an online travel
company.  The Company provides price-disclosed hotel reservation
services on a worldwide basis primarily under the Booking.com,
priceline.com, and Agoda brand names; and price-disclosed rental
car reservation services in approximately 4,000 locations
worldwide through rentalcars.com name.


PROVIDENT NEW YORK: Faces Two Merger-Related Class Suits in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Provident New York Bancorp is facing two merger-related class
action lawsuits in New York, according to the Company's August 8,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On April 4, 2013, Provident announced it had entered into a merger
agreement with Sterling Bancorp.  In the merger, which is a stock-
for-stock transaction valued at $344 million based on the closing
price of Provident common stock on April 3, 2013, Sterling Bancorp
shareholders will receive a fixed ratio of 1.2625 shares of
Provident common stock for each share of Sterling Bancorp common
stock.  The transaction, which has been approved by the boards of
directors of both companies, is expected to close in the fourth
calendar quarter of 2013.

On April 9, 2013, the first of seven actions, captioned Altman v.
Sterling Bancorp, et al., Index No. 651263/2013 (Sup. Ct., N.Y.
Cnty.), was filed on behalf of a putative class of Sterling
shareholders against Sterling, its current directors, and
Provident.  All seven putative class actions were filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County.  On
May 17, 2013, the seven actions were consolidated under the
caption In re Sterling Shareholders Litigation, Index No.
651263/2013 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. Cnty.).  On June 21, 2013, the lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended class action complaint
alleging that Sterling's board of directors breached its fiduciary
duties by agreeing to the proposed merger transaction and by
failing to disclose all material information to shareholders.  The
consolidated and amended complaint also alleges that Provident has
aided and abetted those alleged fiduciary breaches.  The action
seeks, among other things, an order enjoining the defendants from
proceeding with or consummating the merger, as well as other
equitable relief and/or money damages in the event that the
transaction is consummated.  The defendants believe that the
claims are without merit.

On June 5, 2013, a substantially similar litigation was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, captioned Miller v. Sterling Bancorp, et al., No. 13-3845,
against Sterling, its current directors, and Provident on behalf
of the same putative class of Sterling shareholders.  The
complaint alleges the same breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and
abetting claims against defendants, and also alleges defendants'
preliminary proxy statement was inaccurate or incomplete in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  The plaintiff in this action has agreed to
coordinate this case with the earlier filed New York State court
actions.  The defendants believe that the claims are also without
merit.

Headquartered in Montebello, New York, Provident New York Bancorp
is a growing financial services firm that specializes in the
delivery of services and solutions to business owners, their
families and consumers in communities within the greater New York
metropolitan area through teams of dedicated and experienced
relationship managers.  The Company offers a complete line of
commercial, business and consumer banking products and services.


REVEL ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Bogus Slot Machine Loss Refund
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ama Sarfo, writing for Law360, reports that plaintiffs in a
New York class action accusing Atlantic City, N.J., casino Revel
of duping consumers with a bogus offer to refund slot machine
losses mounted a bid for class certification on Sept. 24, saying
the casino owners masked deceptive loopholes in the bargain.

According to plaintiffs, casino owners Revel Entertainment Group
LLC and Chatham Asset Management LLC were behind a "Gambler's
Wanted" campaign that, in a bid to draw visitors, promised to pay
back all slot machine losses for the month of July 2013.  But the
owners hid the fact the casino would require consumers who wanted
their money back to return for 20 straight weeks, during which
they would receive their refunds in only 5% increments.

"After being lured by defendants, the putative class members later
learned that defendants never intended to refund any slot losses,"
the plaintiffs said.  "Defendants relied on their deceptively
hidden rules to avoid paying any refunds at all."

In their complaint, the group of five plaintiffs describe how
Revel enticed customers into visiting the casino with advertising
language that promised "You really can't lose" and "If you win,
you win. If you lose, we'll give it all back!"

The true restrictions and limitations of the offer, however, were
concealed within "virtually illegible fine print," according to
the complaint.

The plaintiffs are seeking to certify a class of New York, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware and Washington, D.C.,
residents who patronized the casino after seeing the ad campaign
and subsequently suffered at least $100 in unrefunded slot machine
losses during July 2013.

While the precise wording of the state consumer protection
statutes under which the suit is brought vary, the plaintiffs note
that the laws themselves are similar enough to meet commonality
requirements.  The number of consumers allegedly duped by the
campaign is also large enough to justify class treatment, possibly
reaching the tens of thousands, according to the motion.

The plaintiffs, who launched the action in late August, requested
that briefing on the motion be stayed, noting that they were
moving to certify the class early in the litigation in an effort
to prevent a "buy off" that would sink the suit.

Earlier in September, disgruntled consumers in New Jersey launched
a second putative class action citing breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and
violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, New Jersey Truth
in Consumer Contract Warranty and Notice Act, and New York General
Business Law.

The casino has also recently found itself in hot water over its
event booking.  Earlier in September, it was slapped with a $20
million New York breach of contract suit by a talent booking
company accusing it of backing out of a five-year cooperative
deal.

In that suit, Ovation Live Inc. claims Revel stiffed it on
required commissions and terminated their contract for "false"
reasons, despite the fact that Ovation provided access to popular
performers like Rihanna and Alicia Keys for its 5,500-seat arts
and entertainment amphitheater, according to that complaint.

Revel's "Gambler's Wanted" promotion appeared shortly after its
May 2013 emergence from bankruptcy.  The casino had secured
approvals from the New Jersey Casino Control Commission and a New
Jersey bankruptcy court on its restructuring plan, which called
for cutting Revel's debt by $1.2 billion through an exchange of
debt for equity.

Representatives for the parties were not immediately available for
comment on Sept. 25.

The plaintiffs are represented by Todd D. Muhlstock of Baker
Sanders LLC.

Counsel information for the defendants was not immediately
available.

The case is Boyd et al. v. Revel Entertainment Group L.L.C. et
al., case number 1:13-cv-05965, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.


ROYAL BANK: 2nd Circuit Refuses to Revive Investor Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Vanderford, writing for Law360, reports that the Second
Circuit on Sept. 25 declined to revive an investor class action
alleging Britain's Royal Bank of Scotland PLC had misled investors
about its exposure to subprime mortgage-backed securities, finding
RBS had satisfied its disclosure requirements.

In a summary order, a three-judge panel for the appeals court
ruled that offering documents for five RBS securities identified
exposure to tens of billions of pounds worth of securitized
assets, including U.S. securitizations of residential mortgages,
and the risks and rewards associated with them.

While those documents didn't state the percentage of securities
backed by subprime mortgages, the court noted that it has
previously held that an offering document doesn't need to identify
every type of asset a security contains, so long as its
description of the security's contents is "broad enough to cover"
the type of asset at issue.

"Because the offering documents here extensively described the
'securitizations of residential mortgages' that RBS held, we
conclude that the defendants-appellees had no further obligation
to identify the portion of those securitizations that included
subprime residential mortgages," the panel wrote.

In September 2012, U.S. District Judge Deborah A. Batts had found
the bank's disclosures were adequate given the prefinancial crisis
reality.  She said the bank, one of the largest financial
institutions in the world, was not obligated to disclose its
financial holdings in minute detail to its shareholders.

By the summer of 2007, RBS's exposure to illiquid subprime
products had reached at least $54 billion, but the bank had more
than $1 trillion in total assets, according to Judge Batts.

The investors had pointed to the offering materials' claims that
RBS had strong credit quality, few problem loans and stable risks.
But, the panel found, these were subjective evaluations and didn't
indicate that RBS held no subprime assets.  Rather, they could
have implied that RBS thought its subprime holdings were stable,
the panel said.

Similarly, the documents' statements about RBS' strong capital
base and the possible benefits of acquiring Dutch bank ABN AMRO
qualified as opinions, the panel found.  As such, the investors
had to plausibly contend that RBS disbelieved these opinions at
the time they were expressed, according to the panel.

But the investors argued only that since RBS and ABN both had vast
swaths of subprime assets, they had no basis for believing the
offering documents' statements.  The panel rejected this line of
reasoning as well, finding at the time, multiple ratings agencies
had given high marks to those type of assets.

The investors also argued that RBS had falsely claimed it had
effective risk management procedures, based on testimony given by
RBS executives two years after the securities were issued.  But
the panel found the fact that RBS executives changed their views
based on hindsight didn't mean RBS had disregarded its risk
management policies.

The suit relates to RBS preferred shares labeled Series Q, R, S, T
and U, which are traceable to an April 8, 2005, registration
statement.

The panel also affirmed the lower court's dismissal of claims
against several RBS executives and the underwriters on the stock
deal, a group that includes Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith
Inc., Wells Fargo Securities LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co., UBS
Securities LLC, Bank of America Securities LLC, Citigroup Global
Markets Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and others.

U.S. Circuit Judges Robert A. Katzmann, Dennis Jacobs and U.S.
District Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy sat on the panel for the Second
Circuit.

The investors are represented by Jonathan K. Levine --
jkl@GirardGibbs.com -- Daniel C. Girard -- dcg@GirardGibbs.com --
and Amanda M. Steiner -- as@GirardGibbs.com -- of Girard Gibbs
LLP.

The defendants are represented by Seth P. Waxman --
seth.waxman@wilmerhale.com  -- Andrea J. Robinson --
andrea.robinson@wilmerhale.com -- David S. Lesser --
david.lesser@wilmerhale.com -- and Nolan J. Mitchell --
nolan.mitchell@wilmerhale.com -- of WilmerHale and Lewis J. Liman
-- lliman@cgsh.com -- Mitchell A. Lowenthal -- mlowenthal@cgsh.com
-- Roger A. Cooper -- racooper@cgsh.com -- Matthew M. Bunda --
mbunda@cgsh.com -- and Erica J. Klipper of Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton LLP.

The case is the Freeman Group et al., v. the Royal Bank of
Scotland Group PLC et al., case number 12-3642, in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


SHELL OIL: Roxana Village Pollution Suit Gets Class Action Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Brinkerhoff, writing for AllGov, reports that residents
living near a Shell Oil refinery in Illinois have been granted
class action status by a federal judge overseeing a lawsuit that
accuses the company of contaminating the local environment.

Plaintiff Jeana Parko was able to combine her case with those of
Delbert and Janice Cobine, all of whom accuse Shell of
contaminating their property in the village of Roxana (population:
1,550).

Ms. Parko says the Wood River Refinery has released benzene and
other carcinogenic chemicals that have polluted the groundwater,
land and air.

"If you own property in Roxana, this is obviously a big issue,"
Derek Brandt -- dbrandt@simmonsfirm.com -- a shareholder of
Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides & Barnerd, the firm
representing the class, told Courthouse News.  "Everybody is
concerned if they will be able to sell their house in the future."

Shell's lawyers had argued that the plaintiffs should be forced to
litigate individually.  But Judge G. Patrick Murphy disagreed.

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

In a previous lawsuit brought by the town of Roxana against Shell,
the refinery was said to have allowed 18 spills over a 25-year
period.

The new civil case claims more than 200,000 pounds of pure benzene
have been released from Wood River since Shell owned the refinery.

The company also stands accused of polluting the area around
Roxana with other chemicals, including ethylbenzene, toluene and
n-hexane.


SPRINT NEXTEL: Does Not Pay All Wages Owed, Employees Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------
Olivia Guilbaud, Marques Lilly, and Michael Wong and all others
similarly situated v. Sprint Nextel Corporation and Sprint/United
Management Co., Inc. and Does 1-100 inclusive, Case No. 3:13-cv-
04357-JCS (N.D. Cal., September 19, 2013) is a collective action
seeking legal relief to redress alleged unlawful violations of the
Plaintiffs' rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants deprived the Plaintiffs,
as well as others similarly situated, of their lawful wages.  The
Plaintiffs seek relief on a collective and class-wide basis
challenging the alleged unlawful business practice engaged in by
the Defendants of failing to compensate Plaintiffs and all others
similarly situated for all wages owed.

Olivia Guilbaud, Marques Lilly and Michael Wong are citizens of
the United States residing in the state of California.  Plaintiffs
Guilbaud and Lilly are former employees of Sprint, and Plaintiff
Wong remains a Sprint employee.  During their employment with
Sprint, like other Sprint Employees, the Plaintiffs allege that
they regularly worked in excess of eight hours in a workday and in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

Sprint Nextel Corporation is a Kansas corporation with its
worldwide headquarters located in Overland Park.  Sprint/United
Management is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sprint Nextel
Corporation.  The Defendants are in the business of selling mobile
telephone services and devices out of their retail stores.  Sprint
operates its business in all fifty states, including the State of
California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew Righetti, Esq.
          John Glugoski, Esq.
          Michael C. Righetti, Esq.
          RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
          456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94101
          Telephone: (415) 983-0900
          Facsimile: (415) 397-9005
          E-mail: matt@righettilaw.com
                  jglugoski@righettilaw.com
                  mike@righettilaw.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Hoyer, Esq.
          Ryan L. Hicks, Esq.
          HOYER & ASSOCIATES
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 766-3536
          Facsimile: (415) 276-1738
          E-mail: rhoyer@hoyerlaw.com
                  rhicks@hoyerlaw.com


STATE FARM: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Depreciation Formula
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that a federal
judge on Sept. 23 tossed a proposed class action alleging State
Farm Fire & Casualty Co. improperly calculates depreciation when
making initial claim payments for damaged personal property,
finding the insurer's action was consistent with the terms of the
policy.

Plaintiff Fred Gee, who submitted a claim to State Farm after a
house fire, alleged the insurer breached its policies when
calculating the amount owed on his and other claims by improperly
including in the depreciation deduction a percentage of the
applicable sales tax.  Mr. Gee says the inclusion of sales tax as
an element of depreciation improperly increased the amount of the
depreciation deduction taken by State Farm.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman said although neither
party identified any Illinois precedent addressing the
depreciation calculation, she noted that other jurisdictions
defining "repair or replacement costs less depreciation" have
interpreted the term to include sales tax within the permitted
depreciation reduction when it is also included in the original
"replacement cost" total.

"This interpretation is consistent with the aim of the policy in
this case, which the parties agree is to place the property owner
in a financial position equivalent to that he would have occupied
had his loss not occurred," Judge Coleman said.

She said if the property owner elects to replace his property,
compensation for sales tax paid in the acquisition ensures that he
suffers no loss from the tax imposed on the transaction.  If he
does not replace the property, and is instead considered to be
made whole by payment of a reduced amount, he does not need the
sales tax he would have paid on a higher amount to offset his
costs.

"Indeed, reimbursement of sales tax he would have paid on a higher
full replacement value would give plaintiff more than the amount
necessary to make him whole," she said.

Mr. Gee argued that sales tax does not decrease in value because
of age and should be excluded from the depreciation calculation.
But the judge said sales tax, since it is generally calculated on
a percentage basis, does decrease along with a decrease in the
value of the taxed transaction.

"The court finds that defendant's application of its depreciation
reduction to sales tax along with the other components of the
replacement cost calculation is consistent with the clear intent
of the policy and with the established meaning evidenced by
interpretations of similar terms," the judge said.

In Mr. Gee's complaint, he said State Farm's policy stated that if
he replaced lost property at a higher cost, the company would pay
a certain amount of the additional total he spent for replacement
items.  But Mr. Gee argued the insurer should have included in its
initial payment full advance payment of the entire undepreciated
future sales tax State Farm had estimated Gee would incur if he
replaced all of his damaged property.

Mr. Gee said the way State Farm handles the sales tax damaged him
and proposed class members by reducing the adjusted claim amount
paid to each of them.

State Farm spokeswoman Missy Dundov said on Sept. 24 the company
is pleased with the decision.

Mr. Gee's counsel did not immediately respond to a request for
comment on Sept. 24.

State Farm is represented by Joseph A. Cancila Jr., Heidi
Dalenberg and Matthew G. Schiltz of Schiff Hardin LLP and
Frederick J. Sudekum -- fjs@scslegal.com -- and John C. Cassidy --
jcc@scslegal.com -- of Sudekum Cassidy & Shulruff Chtd.

Gee is represented by Thomas J. Scannell of Scannell & Associates
PC and Michael J. O'Rourke -- morourke@orourkeandmoody.com --
Michael C. Moody -- mmoody@orourkeandmoody.com -- Andrew N. Levine
-- alevine@orourkeandmoody.com -- Robert E. Williams and Brian J.
Stefanich -- bstefanich@orourkeandmoody.com -- of O'Rourke &
Moody.

The case is Fred D. Gee v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., case
number 1:11-cv-00250, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.


THUNDER BAY: C$375-Mil. Flooding Class Action Gets Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that the City of Thunder Bay has agreed to the
certification of a C$375 million class action lawsuit stemming
from last May's flood.

City manager Tim Commisso said consenting to the certification
allows the city to move forward and defend itself against the
suit.

"It's to the city's advantage to support the certification," he
said.

"I'm not going to get into legal strategy, but it puts the city in
a better position to defend the class-action lawsuit."

Mr. Commisso said dealing with the legal action is a priority and
the city will use all of its necessary resources.  The
certification focuses the lawsuit on those who were specifically
affected by the flooding of the sewage treatment plant last May,
he noted.

Close to 400 people have joined the class action suit, but the
lawyer leading it said he expects many more.

Sandy Zaitzeff said the agreement is not an admission of guilt on
the city's part, "but it is a long way forward and a great step
forward in mediating this thing."

The next step is the discovery of documents.  It's hoped the
months-long process will explain exactly what happened at the
sewage treatment plant during the flood.

Up to 4,000 people could be eligible for compensation if the suit
succeeds, Mr. Zaitzeff said.


THUNDER BAY: To Vigorously Defend Flooding Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Carl Clutchey, writing for The Chronicle-Journal, reports that
negligence on the part of the City of Thunder Bay -- not just an
awful lot of rain -- caused more than 3,000 city homes to get
flooded with sewage during last May's rain storm, an amended
class-action lawsuit alleges.

"The volume of approximately 91 millimeters of rain was within the
range contemplated and historically experienced by the city," says
the 20-page statement of claim.

"The flooding was caused by the city's negligence in the repair,
inspection and maintenance of the (Atlantic Avenue sewage
treatment) plant in the years leading to the May 28, 2012 rainfall
event, as well as the negligent operation and supervision of the
plant during the rainstorm, including human error of the city's
personnel."

The lawsuit brought by five Thunder Bay residents is seeking $375
million in damages -- a figure that could fluctuate up or down
until the case reaches its conclusion.

None of the allegations contained in the lawsuit have been proven
in court.  Thousands of affected residents could ultimately be
part of the lawsuit, Thunder Bay lawyer Sandy Zaitzeff, one of
four lawyers acting for the plaintiffs, said on Sept. 24.

On Sept. 23, the class action suit was certified by Thunder Bay
Superior Court Justice Douglas C. Shaw.

In a news release, Mr. Zaitzeff said the certification "is a major
step forward by the city showing serious co-operation and
recognition this case is a legitimate class action which must be
adjudicated on the merits."

In an interview on Sept. 24, the plainspoken Mr. Zaitzeff said:
"It means that this is not Sandy Zaitzeff making up a frivolous,
nonsense case."

In a separate statement on Sept. 24, city manager Tim Commisso
called the case a "high priority legal matter for the city."
"The City of Thunder Bay fully supports certification which
provides the opportunity to defend ourselves vigorously and focus
the suit on those impacted by the flood," Mr. Commisso said.


UNITED STATES: Nuns File Class Action Over Obamacare
----------------------------------------------------
The Daily Caller reports that a group of nuns dedicated to serving
the poor and the elderly, just as supporters claim Obamacare will
do, has filed the first class-action lawsuit against the Obama
administration for its signature health-care reform law.

The Little Sisters of the Poor is a 170-year-old Roman Catholic
convent that cares for 13,000 elderly people in poverty all over
the world.  The thirty homes the Little Sisters run in the U.S.
will soon be required to subsidize their employees' access to
abortion, contraception and other items that violate Catholic
teachings.  If they fail to comply, steep Internal Revenue Service
fines will force the Little Sisters out of service.

Confronted with religious liberty arguments, the Obama
administration did grant waivers to some religious employers.  But
that exemption would only apply to denominations themselves, not
necessarily non-church organizations with a faith-based mission or
even religious communities such as the Little Sisters.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed the class-action
lawsuit on behalf of the Little Sisters and is hoping to win them
an exemption from the mandate.  The Becket Fund is a Washington,
D.C.-based nonprofit that focuses on the free expression of all
religions.

Mark Rienzi, the Little Sisters' lead counsel at the Becket Fund,
said the nuns should be allowed to continue their work with an
exemption as religious employers.

"The money they collect should be used to care for the poor like
it always has -- and not to pay the IRS," Rienzi argued.

But even a wider exemption doesn't satisfy all opponents of the
mandate that believe it violates religious liberty.  Domino's
pizza founder Thomas Monaghan notably filed a lawsuit against the
mandate in 2012.

The Obama administration has denied any exemptions from the
mandate to for-profit companies, like Mr. Monaghan's current
venture, Domino Farms.  Unlike the Little Sisters, who are just
looking to continue their practice, Mr. Monaghan's lawsuit seeks
to overturn the mandate itself.

Mr. Monaaghan argues that all individuals and institutions should
be able to follow their consciences in this area, not just
churches.

The Becket Fund's class-action lawsuit is the first of its kind
against the Obama administration's mandate, including not only the
Little Sisters but "hundreds of Catholic non-profits ministries
with similar beliefs," the nonprofit announced.

The Becket Fund also represents the Hobby Lobby, a for-profit
business owned by Christians who believe the contraception mandate
violates their freedom of conscience.

Hobby Lobby's case and a lawsuit brought by plaintiff Conestoga
Wood Specialties, another Christian-run for-profit company, were
referred to the Supreme Court Sept. 19.  The court has not yet
decided whether it will hear the cases.


VALERO ENERGY: Class Action Notification Sent to Employees
----------------------------------------------------------
Sanford Heisler, LLP on Sept. 24 disclosed that notice has just
been mailed to more than 3,400 managers and assistant managers of
Valero and its successor corporation CST nationwide for whom the
law firm Sanford Heisler recently won approval of a collective
action certification motion paving the way for them to pursue
their overtime claims as a group.

The decision by arbitrator Michael Loeb requires that all current
and former hourly managers of Valero's and CST's Corner Stores
across the U.S. be notified of the certification and have an
option to join the case.  These individuals have 90 days to decide
whether to join, beginning when the notice is mailed.

Janette Wipper -- jwipper@sanfordheisler.com -- a partner at
Sanford Heisler and lead counsel for the managers, views the
notification as a crucial step toward remedying wage and hour
violations by Valero and its successor against its Corner Store
managers.

"We are pleased that the notification process has begun, because
it will inform all hourly Valero and CST Corner Store managers
nationwide about their opportunity to participate in this case,"
said Ms. Wipper.  "More importantly, collective action
certification brings the Corner Store workers closer to securing
the overtime wages withheld from them for many years while working
long hours for Valero."

The federal Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to pay
time and a half in overtime wages for all hours worked above 40 in
any week.  In California, where Valero and CST operate almost 100
Corner Stores, state law requires employers to also pay overtime
wages for all hours worked above eight in a day.

"The hourly managers routinely perform tasks off the clock before
and after their shifts and during their breaks," said Chaya
Mandelbaum -- cmandelbaum@sanfordheisler.com -- co-counsel in the
case.  "This is work the company requires and benefits from, but
doesn't pay for.  We are hopeful that the collective action will
bring these illegal employment practices to an end."

Corner Store managers reported having to conduct surveys of
competitors' gas prices before and after their shifts and tending
to issues at their stores over the phone during non-work hours, as
well as being required to conduct surveillance of store employees
off the clock, and having to finish tasks at the store while not
clocked in to avoid running afoul of the companies' rigid labor
budget and overtime requirements.  The managers also reported that
the companies do not factor in federally required payments such as
shift differentials in determining managers' compensation.

"We expect that large numbers of the Valero hourly managers across
the country will identify with the experiences of their colleagues
in other locations and will elect to join the case," said
Ms. Wipper.

For questions or more information, call Sanford Heisler at 415 795
2020.

                     About Sanford Heisler, LLP

Sanford Heisler is a law firm with offices in Washington, D.C.,
New York, and San Francisco that specializes in employment
discrimination, wage and hour, qui tam and consumer actions and
complex corporate class action litigation and has represented
thousands of individuals in major class action cases in the United
States.  The firm also represents individual clients in
employment, employment discrimination, sexual harassment,
whistleblower, public accommodations, commercial, medical
malpractice, and personal injury matters.


VALUECLICK INC: Robins Geller Files Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Sept. 24 disclosed that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
purchasers of ValueClick, Inc. common stock during the period
between February 14, 2013 and August 1, 2013.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from September 24, 2013.  If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/valueclickinc/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges ValueClick and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
ValueClick is an online advertising company, which provides online
advertising campaigns and programs for advertisers and advertising
agency customers in the United States and internationally.
ValueClick has three operating segments: Media, Affiliate
Marketing and Owned & Operated Websites.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements about
ValueClick's business and prospects.  Specifically, defendants
failed to disclose and/or misrepresented adverse facts, including
that ValueClick was not effectively integrating certain of its
acquisitions, that ValueClick had failed to adequately record
impairment of a note receivable, and that persistent operational
weakness in ValueClick's European operations and sales were
weighing down revenue growth.

On August 1, 2013, after the close of trading, ValueClick issued a
press release announcing its second quarter 2013 financial results
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.  Instead of the high single-
digit sales growth defendants had stated ValueClick was on track
to deliver on May 7, 2013, ValueClick reported flat Media sales in
the second quarter of 2013.  Instead of the adjusted earnings of
between $0.38 and $0.40 per share on revenues in the range of $164
to $175.3 million ValueClick had stated it was on track to achieve
on May 7, 2013, ValueClick reported adjusted earnings of $0.39 per
share on revenues of just $159.8 million.  On this news, the price
of ValueClick common stock, which had traded as high as $32.25 per
share in intraday trading during the Class Period, declined more
than 33% from that level to close at $21.37 per share on August 2,
2013.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
ValueClick common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  With nearly 200 lawyers in
nine offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-
employer pension funds with combined assets under management in
excess of $2 trillion.

CONTACT: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
         David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
         Telephone: 800-449-4900
         E-mail: djr@rgrdlaw.com


VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Ex-Employees Speaks Out on Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Josh DeVine, writing for WSMV, reports that a class action lawsuit
over the loss of hundreds of jobs at Vanderbilt University Medical
Center continues to grow, and one of those former employees is now
speaking out.

Tracy Morton's story will be at the center of the class action
suit against Vanderbilt.  She was a 12-year worker who lost her
job in a mass layoff in early July.  Her attorneys argue Ms.
Morton, and several hundred other employees, did not get the
notice required under federal law.

Ms. Morton said she sued to make a point and for the sake of
friends who still work at the hospital.

"They're terrified.  They're terrified they're going to lose their
jobs.  And they're exhausted.  They're exhausted from doing not
only their jobs, but the jobs of those who were turned away,"
Ms. Morton said.

In a statement to workers, a Vanderbilt vice chancellor wrote
every employee, including the highest paid, will be "all in" on
cutting costs.

The university told Channel 4 News that means many top executives
will see less incentive pay but will not lose base salary pay.

The university plans to eliminate up to 1,000 jobs this year in
the cost-cutting plan.


VISTEON CORP: Proceedings in Canadian Class Suits Discontinued
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Courts of Justice in Ontario ordered the proceedings
in the class action lawsuits discontinued as against Visteon
Corporation, according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In February 2013, three putative class action complaints were
filed in the Superior Courts of Justice in Ontario against the
Company and several other global suppliers of automotive
instrument panel clusters, heater control panels and electronic
control units alleging violations of Canadian laws related to
competition.  The Plaintiffs purport to be direct and indirect
purchasers of automotive instrument panel clusters, heater control
panels and electronic control units supplied by the Company and/or
the other defendants during the relevant period.  The complaints
allege, among other things, that the defendants conspired to fix
prices and allocate the market and customers for instrument panel
clusters, heater control panels and/or electronic control units in
North America resulting in plaintiffs paying supra-competitive
prices for instrument panel clusters, heater control panels and
electronic control units or vehicles containing instrument panel
clusters, heater control panels and electronic control units.  The
plaintiffs in these proceedings seek injunctive relief and
recovery of an unspecified amount of damages, as well as
investigative costs and costs relating to the proceedings.

On June 18, 2013, the court ordered these proceedings discontinued
as against the Company, on a without costs and without prejudice
basis.

Visteon Corporation is a supplier of climate, interiors and
electronics systems, modules and components to global automotive
original equipment manufacturers.  Headquartered in Van Buren
Township, Michigan, Visteon has a workforce of approximately
23,000 employees and a network of manufacturing operations,
technical centers and joint ventures in every major geographic
region of the world.


WELLCARE HEALTH: Junk Fax Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that the
plaintiffs in a proposed class action accusing WellCare Health
Plans Inc. of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
sending junk faxes asked a Florida federal judge on Sept. 23 to
certify a class in the case.

Medical & Chiropractic Clinic Inc. has alleged that WellCare sent
it fax ads without the proper opt-out notice and says its proposed
class meets all the federal requirements for certification.  The
class is defined as anyone who within the last four years were
sent faxes advertising the "commercial availability of any
property, goods or services" by or on behalf of WellCare, which
did not display an opt-out notice.

"A class must be 'so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable,'" MCC said in a motion for class certification.
"Here, defendants' advertisements were successfully sent to at
least 50 facsimile numbers.  Individual joinder of absent class
members is impracticable."

The company also said it meets the condition that class members
share questions of law or fact.

"Here, the commonality requirement is satisfied because the named
plaintiff shares several questions of law and fact with the
prospective class," the motion said.  "Defendants engaged in a
standardized course of conduct that affects all class members by
faxing form advertisements to persons on a list generated by
defendants and/or a third party, and did not obtain prior express
invitation or permission to send defendants' advertisement by fax
and failed to include the opt-out notice required by federal law
and regulations."

MCC also said that the proposed class meets the requirement that
the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical
of the claims or defenses of the class.  It said its claims and
those of other proposed class members all arise from defendants'
fax campaign, and thus, the same transaction or occurrence.

It added that as the class representative, it will "fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class."

"There is no antagonism between the interests of plaintiff and
those of the other class members," the motion said.  "Plaintiff's
counsel are experienced lawyers and they are adequate counsel for
the class."

MCC alleges WellCare's actions caused damages to it and the other
class members.

"Receiving defendants' junk faxes caused the recipients to lose
paper and toner consumed in the printing of defendants' faxes,"
the suit said.  "Moreover, defendants' actions interfered with
plaintiff's use of its fax machine and telephone line connected to
that fax machine.  Defendants' fax cost plaintiff time, as
plaintiff and its employees wasted their time receiving, reviewing
and routing defendants' unlawful fax.

"That time otherwise would have been spent on plaintiff's business
activities," it added.  "Finally, defendants' fax unlawfully
interrupted plaintiff's and the other class members' privacy
interests in being left alone."

Representatives for WellCare did not immediately respond to a
request for comment on Sept. 23.

MCC is represented by Ryan M. Kelly and Brian J. Wanca of Anderson
& Wanca.

Counsel information for WellCare was not immediately available.

The case is Medical & Chiropractic Clinic Inc. v. WellCare Health
Plans Inc. et al., case number 8:13-cv-02427, in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida.


WELLS FARGO: Ninth Circuit to Rehear Class Suit by Homeowners
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Wells Fargo will face a
limited appeals rehearing related to claims that it denies
qualified homeowners permanent loan modifications, the 9th Circuit
said Monday, September 23, 2013.

Congress created the Home Affordable Modification Program, or
HAMP, in 2009 under the umbrella of the Troubled Asset Relief
Program, itself a byproduct of the 2008 financial crisis.

Lawmakers intended for HAMP to help homeowners avoid foreclosure
when they were behind on their mortgage payments.

In reviving two class actions against Wells Fargo last month, a
three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit noted that the program "seems
to have created more litigation than it has happy homeowners."

Wells Fargo had been entitled like other lenders to $1,000 from
the Treasury for each permanent modification it made, so long as
it followed certain guidelines and procedures.

To apply for HAMP, distressed homeowners would supply information
about their finances and their inability to pay their current
mortgage to the lender.  Borrowers who appeared eligible would
then submit documentation of their financial status and begin
making trial payments of the modified amount.

Lenders are then supposed to notify the borrowers if they do not
qualify for HAMP and consider them "for another foreclosure
prevention alternative," according to the Treasury's directive.

The homeowners in the two class actions claimed they made all
their modified payments, but the bank never offered them permanent
mortgage modifications.  Instead, it allegedly foreclosed on their
homes and sold them.

A federal judge dismissed the lawsuits based on one paragraph of
the trial period plan, which states that the loan would not be
modified "unless and until" the borrower received a "fully
executed copy of a modification agreement."

Because Wells Fargo never sent a signed modification agreement,
the judge reasoned, it was not required to offer a permanent
modification.

Noting that the 7th Circuit in Chicago found differently in the
case Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. , a three-judge panel of the
9th Circuit reversed in August.

"We believe the reasoning in Wigod is sound," the court had said.

That decision said the bank was contractually obligated to offer
permanent modifications to borrowers who met the trial period plan
criteria.

The court noted on September 23, 2013, however, that it granted a
petition for a limited rehearing.

Judge John Noonan also withdrew his concurrence from the earlier
filing.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Leslie E. Hurst, Esq.
          Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
          701 B Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  lhurst@bholaw.com
                  toreardon@bholaw.com

               - and -

          James Richard Patterson, Esq.
          PATTERSON LAW GROUP, APC
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 398-4760


          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT PC
          2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Robert Bruce Allensworth, Esq.
          David D. Christensen, Esq.
          Irene C. Freidel, Esq.
          K&L GATES, LLP
          One Lincoln Street
          Boston, MA 02115
          Telephone: (617) 261-3119
          E-mail: bruce.allensworth@klgates.com
                  david.christensen@klgates.com
                  irene.freidel@klgates.com

               - and -

          Matthew G. Ball, Esq.
          K&L GATES, LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5994
          Telephone: (415) 249-1014
          E-mail: matthew.ball@klgates.com

The case is Phillip Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., Case No.
11-16234, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  The original case is Phillip Corvello v. Wells Fargo
Bank N.A., Case No. 3:10-cv-05072-JSW, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.


ZUNGUI HAIXI: Dentons Discusses Class Action Settlements
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Schafler, Esq., and Michael Beeforth, Esq., Dentons,
report that on August 27, 2013, Justice Perell released his
decision (2013 ONSC 5490) approving three settlements valued at
$10.85 million, bringing the class action against Zungui Haixi
Corp. and others to a close.  Under the approved settlements,
Zungui will pay $8.1 million, auditors Ernst & Young will pay $2
million and the company's underwriting syndicate (CIBC World
Markets Inc., Canaccord Genuity Corp., GMP Securities LP and
Mackie Research Capital Corporation) will pay $750,000.  In an
earlier May 2013 decision, Perell J. had certified the class
action for settlement purposes in respect of the Zungui and E&Y
settlements.

The proposed class action brought by Zungui's investors stemmed
from an August 22, 2011 announcement that E&Y had suspended its
audit of Zungui's 2011 financial statements.  The company's shares
immediately dropped by 77% and were subsequently cease-traded.
The proposed class was comprised of various groups of investors
(each represented by separate counsel), including purchasers in
the initial December 2009 IPO, investors who received shares in
exchange for securities of a Zungui subsidiary prior to the IPO,
and secondary market purchasers.

The proposed plan of distribution under the settlements allocated
various levels of compensation to the investor groups depending
on, amongst other factors, when investors acquired or sold their
shares.  The plan did not, however, contemplate any compensation
to class members who acquired shares on or following the August
22, 2011 E&Y disclosure (though the settlements included a release
of these class members' claims).  One investor who had purchased
his shares on August 22, 2011 objected to the fairness of the plan
of distribution on the basis that the August 22, 2011 disclosure
"[did] not clearly foreshadow the events that followed" and that
"there was no way of knowing that the worst possible outcome would
come to pass, with investors unable to trade their shares ever
again".

In considering whether the plan of distribution was fair and
reasonable, Perell J. noted that if class members such as the
objecting investor had appreciated that the parties had only
included them in the class as a bargaining chip and would
eventually exclude them from the plan of distribution while
releasing their claims, those investors would likely have opted
out of the class action.  As it stood, Perell J. found it
"inappropriate and unfair to include August 22, 2011 purchasers as
Class Members and then exclude them from the Plan of
Distribution".  He thus revised the plan to include August 22,
2011 purchasers but discounted their claims to reflect the
increased risk of their investments.

While the precedential value of this decision is likely limited by
the fact that the court's authority to vary the plan of
distribution was expressly provided for by the settlement
agreements, Perell J. made it clear that he would not have
approved the settlements without this authority.  Perell J. also
noted that s. 26 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 provides the
court with ample discretion and scope for creativity in
determining or approving a plan of distribution where a judgment
has been issued.  Based on these comments, class counsel would be
wise to expressly advise settling class members of the court's
ability to vary distributions, especially in cases involving
objecting class members or other potential fairness concerns.


* CFTC Closes Five-Year Probe Into Silver Market Manipulation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Tang and Douwe Miedema at Reuters report that U.S.
regulators on Sept. 25 closed a five-year investigation into
alleged manipulation of the silver market, saying 7,000 staff
hours of investigation produced no evidence of wrongdoing.

The decision by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission was a
defeat for silver commentators and investors who urged the probe,
saying big banks were using futures and options to hold prices
down.  Big traders had dismissed the investigation as a waste of
time and the charges as a conspiracy theory.

The CFTC formally closed the probe six months after a U.S.
District Court dismissed a class action lawsuit making similar
claims against JPMorgan Chase & Co.

"Based upon the law and evidence as they exist at this time, there
is not a viable basis to bring an enforcement action with respect
to any firm or its employees related to our investigation of
silver markets," the CFTC said.

The CFTC typically does not comment on ongoing inquiries, but made
the silver case public in 2008 after receiving complaints alleging
manipulation of the silver futures contracts traded on the
Commodity Exchange Inc. (COMEX).  The agency launches dozens of
such investigations each year, many of which do not result in
formal charges or action.

The probe gathered urgency in 2011, as silver prices doubled to a
record of nearly $50 an ounce, then collapsed nearly 30% in five
days.  That roller-coaster ride brought back memories of the Hunt
Brothers silver short squeeze in 1980.

The CFTC said the allegations "asserted that because the prices
for retail silver products, such as coins and bullion, had
increased, the price of silver futures contracts should have also
experienced an increase."

The complainants, who were not named, also cited public regulatory
data on futures traders to support claims that several large short
positions were depressing prices, it said.

The decision may highlight the high hurdles that U.S. regulators
face in proving a case of "market manipulation", even after the
CFTC was given greater powers to crack down on trading malfeasance
after the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reforms.

In the past, the CFTC has levied heavy fines for trading rule
violations. Yet only once in its 36-year history has it
successfully concluded a manipulation prosecution: a 1998 case
concerning electricity futures prices.

                    U.S. Regulators vs Wall St

Closing of the probe was a rare bright spot for Wall Street
commodities players during a year in which the U.S. power market
regulator has leveled record fines against two big banks, and the
Federal Reserve is considering whether to rein in Wall Street's
ability to operate in physical markets.

But Democrat commissioner Bart Chilton, who had championed the
silver inquiry, said he was disappointed.

"For me, there's not been a more frustrating nor disappointing
non-policy-related matter at the CFTC," he said in a statement
after the agency's announcement.

The Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee, an advocacy group that
believes the Federal Reserve and banks are colluding to keep gold
and silver prices artificially low, said it was not surprised by
the CFTC decision.

"We believe that the U.S. government is part of the trading
operation.  In essence, you are not going to have the CFTC turns
against its own government," GATA Chairman Bill Murphy said.

"We are not even slightly surprised and had expected this."

A JPMorgan spokesperson declined to comment.

Commodities traders said it makes no sense for banks to distort
precious metals prices, since they generally earn more from
trading on behalf of clients in an orderly market.

"The fact that the CFTC couldn't prove any illicit activities in
the silver market is enough to let people feel more at east
trading there," said Miguel Perez-Santalla, a veteran precious
metals trader for more than 20 years and now vice president of
online precious metals market BullionVault.

"The silver market is much greater than the sum of the players,"
he said.

                     No Stranger to Scandal

Although silver is most visibly used in jewelry, it has wide
industrial uses, including in electrical switches, circuit
breakers and solar panels.  The metal has also featured
prominently in modern commodity market scandals.

In the most memorable case, the Hunt brothers of Texas hoarded the
precious metal, aiming to corner the market and control global
prices starting in the late 1970s.

But the silver market collapsed in 1980 and the Hunt brothers
declared bankruptcy.  Their losses grew and in 1989 they were
convicted of conspiring to manipulate the market.

In 2004, the CFTC had published an open letter to silver investors
telling them that the existence of a long-term manipulation was
not plausible and that an analysis of activity in the silver
futures market at that time did not support the conclusion that
the market was being manipulated.

In October 2010, JPMorgan and HSBC, two of the world's largest
banks participating in precious metals derivative contracts, were
hit with lawsuits accusing them of conspiring to drive down silver
prices by amassing huge silver shorts, a trading position designed
to profit from a fall in prices.

HSBC was later dropped from the complaints, which had alleged the
firms reaped up to hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal
profits, and a judge dismissed the consolidated lawsuit in March.

The District Court judge said that while the investors showed that
JPMorgan had the ability to influence prices, a fact the bank did
not dispute, they failed to show that the bank "intended to cause
artificial prices to exist" and acted accordingly.


                             *********

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  * * *