CAR_Public/131002.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, October 2, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 195

                             Headlines


A123 SYSTEMS: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Fails to Refund Business Expenses, Suit Says
APOTEX INC: Merchant Law Group Files Suit Over Alysena 28 Pill
ARMTEC INFRASTRUCTURE: Settles Class Action for C$12.9 Million
ASBESTOS CORPORATION: Man Files Suit Over Fibro Exposure

AUSTRALIA: Childcare Centers Mull Class Action Over Grants
BMW AG: To Recall 134,000 Cars Over Electrical Connection Problem
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Court Refused to Dismiss Suit Over Tires
BODY CENTRAL: Sued Over Videotaping of Women in Dressing Room
BOISE INC: Faces "Ratley" Suit Over Proposed Acquisition by PCA

BOISE INC: DCM Multi-Manager Fund Sues Over PCA Deal
BP PLC: Phase 2 of Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Trial Resumes
CALIFORNIA: State Supreme Court Remands Nurses' Suit v. Torlakson
COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Wage & Hour Suits in Texas & Calif.
CR BARD: In Talks to Settle Vaginal-Mesh Implant Suits

CREDIT MANAGEMENT: "Powers" Suit Stayed Pending 8th Cir. Appeal
CREDIT SUISSE: Unit Finalizes $11MM RMBS Class Action Settlement
CST BRANDS: Corner Store Managers' OT Class Action Certified
ENERGY TRANSFER: Continues to Defend "Price" Suit vs. Panhandle
ENERGY TRANSFER: Discovery in SU Merger Suit in Texas Ongoing

ENERGY TRANSFER: Paid $950,000 Legal Fees in Sunoco Merger Suits
EXPEDIA INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Washington
EXXONMOBIL PIPELINE: "Finton" & "Duncan" Lawsuits Remanded
FLORIDA: Judge Tosses Suit Over Disabled Children's Nursing Homes
FUSHI COPPERWELD: Dec. 17 Settlement Proof of Claim Deadline Set

GARDEN-FRESH FOODS: To Voluntary Recall Products on Listeria Risks
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Judge Remands Paxil Case to Philadelphia Court
GOOGLE INC: Judge Allows Gmail Scanning Claims to Move Forward
GOOGLE INC: Asks 9th Cir. to Reconsider Street-View Case Ruling
HONDA MOTOR: To Recalls 405,400 Vehicles Over Airbag Defect

HURONIA REGIONAL: Court Docs to Be Stored in Archives of Ontario
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Judge Postpones Federal ASR Hip Trial
MONOMOY CAPITAL: Judge Refuses to Dismiss WARN Class Action
NELNET INC: Continues to Defend "Bais Yaakov" Suit vs. Unit
NELNET INC: Continues to Defend "Keating" Class Suit in Ohio

NELNET INC: "Zaw" Class Suit Remains Pending in California
NEVADA: Faces Class Action Over Safety Issues in Bus Stops
NEW HAWAII SEA: Sued Over Hepatitis A Virus Exposure
NISSAN MOTOR: To Recall 908,900 Cars Over Accelerator Sensor Flaw
NMI RETIREMENT: Maratita's Bid to Intervene Opposed

NOHO INC: Accused of Selling Bogus Hangover Prevention Diet Pills
NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action
PAYDAY FINANCIAL: FTC Files Amicus Brief Supporting Class Action
POSEIDON CONCEPTS: Accused of Obstructing ASC Investigation
PRESSLER & PRESSLER: Deceptive Practices Class Action Can Proceed

QUICKTRIM: Class Action v. Kardashian Sisters Dismissed
R.J. REYNOLDS: Fla. Court Flips "Ciccone" Punitive Damages Award
SILVER SPRING: Awaits Ruling on Cert. Motion in "Edwards" Suit
SMITH GARDNER: Court Stays Discovery in "Birge" Class Action
SOUTHERN STAR: Still Defends Price I and II Class Litigation

STERLING SAVINGS: "Dubeau" Suit Settlement Gets Final Court OK
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: 9th Cir. Ruling in "Romo" Case Discussed
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Awaits Ruling in Puerto Rican Dentists' Suit
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Defends Blue Cross Blue Shield MDL vs. TSS
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: TSP Continues to Defend Vehicle Owners Suit

UBS FINANCIAL: November 19 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
UNI-PIXEL INC: Defends Securities Class Suit Pending in Texas
UNITED STATES: Suit by Vietnamese POWs and Refugees Amended
VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA: Abalone Virus Threatens Fish Farming
ZURICH COMMERCIAL: Former Workers to Pursue Asbestos Claims

* 3 Men Arraigned in Suit Over Mishandling of Asbestos


                             *********


A123 SYSTEMS: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Sept. 27 disclosed that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of A123 Systems, Inc. securities during the period
between February 28, 2011 and October 16, 2012.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from September 27, 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/a123/

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 certain officers and directors of the former
A123, which filed for protection under the federal bankruptcy
statutes in October 2012, with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  A123 designed, developed, manufactured, and
sold advanced rechargeable lithium-ion batteries and battery
systems.  Its largest customer was Fisker Automotive, Inc., which,
like A123, received hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S.
Department of Energy funding to design and mass produce plug-in
electric vehicles.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance and future prospects, including
failing to disclose that: (i) by February 2011, Fisker was in
default on production milestones in its DOE funding agreement,
threatening Fisker's DOE funding and ability to pay A123; (ii) by
June 2011, the DOE had cut off disbursements to Fisker; (iii) by
the fall of 2011, Fisker had run out of cash and was refusing to
accepting batteries from A123; (iv) A123's $20.5 million
investment in Fisker's preferred stock was materially impaired;
(v) the carrying value of A123's long-term grant receivable was
overstated; (vi) the carrying value of accounts receivable due
A123 from Fisker was overstated; and (vii) as a result, A123 was
not on track to achieve the financial results the market had been
led to expect during the Class Period.

As the market learned between November 2011 and October 16, 2012
that Fisker was rejecting prior orders for batteries, that A123
was downgrading earnings guidance and taking an impairment charge
on its Fisker investment, that the Company's forecast of incurring
significant net losses and negative operating cash flows had
raised substantial doubt regarding the Company's ability to
continue as a going concern, and finally that A123 had filed for
bankruptcy, the price of its stock declined from a Class Period
high of $9.48 per share on February 28, 2011 to pennies per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
A123 securities 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.

                        About A123 Systems

Based in Waltham, Massachusetts, A123 Systems Inc. designed,
developed, manufactured and sold advanced rechargeable lithium-ion
batteries and battery systems and provided research and
development services to government agencies and commercial
customers.  A123 was the recipient of a $249 million federal grant
from the Obama administration.

A123 and U.S. affiliates, A123 Securities Corporation and Grid
Storage Holdings LLC, sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on
Oct. 16, 2012, in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Delaware.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Fails to Refund Business Expenses, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Brown and Arik Silva, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., Abercrombie
Stores, Inc., and 15 Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. RG13695930
(Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., September 16, 2013) accuses the
Defendants of failing to provide rest periods and to indemnify
business expenses.

The Plaintiff Class consists of all individuals employed by the
Defendants, who worked at any Abercrombie & Fitch, Hollister,
Abercrombie Kids and Gilly Hicks store as non-exempt hourly
employees in California during the Class Period.  The Plaintiffs
contend that they have been injured by the Defendants' actions,
including failure to reimburse the Plaintiffs for necessary
expenditures incurred in direct consequence of Plaintiffs'
discharge of duties for the Defendants and the compulsion or
coercion of the Plaintiffs to patronize the Defendants' stores.

Alexander Brown is a resident of Alameda County, California.  He
has been employed by the Defendants, on a non-continuous basis, as
a non-exempt retail sales associate in California since October
2011.  Arik Silva is a resident of Los Angeles County, California.
He has been employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt retail
sales associate in California since October 2012.

Abercrombie & Fitch Co. is a Delaware Corporation, doing
substantial business in the State of California.  Abercrombie &
Fitch Co. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, defendant Abercrombie &
Fitch Stores, Inc., operate retail clothing stores in California,
throughout the United States, and internationally under the brand
names Abercrombie & Fitch, Abercrombie Kids, Hollister, and Gilly
Hicks.  Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. is an Ohio corporation
doing substantial business in California.  The Plaintiffs are
ignorant of the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Randall B. Aiman-Smith, Esq.
          AIMAN-SMITH & MARCY
          7677 Oakport Steet, Ste.1020
          Oakland, CA 94621
          Telephone: (510) 562-6800
          Facsimile: (510) 562-6830
          E-mail: ras@asmlawyers.com


APOTEX INC: Merchant Law Group Files Suit Over Alysena 28 Pill
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merchant Law Group LLP on Sept. 26 disclosed that it has launched
Canada-wide class actions against giant Canadian drug maker
Apotex Inc. and the Spanish Laboratorios Leon Farma concerning
unplanned pregnancies caused by the contraceptive pill Alysena 28.
Class action lawsuits were issued today in Montreal and Edmonton.

"The claims allege that the defendants would not have notified
Canadian women about their negligence, except they were caught by
Health Canada," said class counsel Tony Merchant, Q.C.

The lawsuits outline how the defendants deliberately failed to
notify consumers when they learned of their wrongdoing regarding
Alysena 28.  This caused Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq to issue a
Class I recall on 8 April 2013 and subsequently launched an
investigation regarding the manufacturer's failure to properly
inform the public.

"Women who took Alysena 28 relied on this medication to their
detriment," said Tony Merchant.  "Women who became pregnant now
face life changing consequences. In Canadian case law, there have
been individual awards of as much as $1.6 million in similar
circumstances." said Mr. Merchant.  "These life altering
consequences are inexcusable."

People seeking further information about the Alysena 28 Class
Action should provide their contact information at:
https://www.merchantlaw.com/classactions/alysena.php

Merchant Law Group LLP is a Canadian class action firm with 12
offices across Canada from Montreal to Victoria.  Merchant Law
Group LLP is well known for its involvement in mass tort and class
action cases in Canada including Residential Schools, Cellular
System Access Fees, Hollinger, Maple Leaf Foods, Toyota, Vioxx,
and many other cases.


ARMTEC INFRASTRUCTURE: Settles Class Action for C$12.9 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Armtec Infrastructure Inc. on Sept. 26 disclosed that an agreement
in principle has been reached to fully and finally settle all
previously disclosed proposed class action proceedings against the
Corporation and others commenced by investors who purchased shares
of the Corporation during the period of March 24, 2011 through
June 8, 2011.

This agreement in principle provides for a payment in the amount
of approximately C$12.9 million (all-inclusive of all taxes, fees,
interest and costs) by Armtec's insurers and as such the
settlement will not impact the Corporation's cash resources.

The proposed settlement is subject to the fulfillment of customary
conditions including, among other things, the parties entering
into a definitive settlement agreement, court-approvals, approval
of parties other than the Corporation and the fulfillment of
conditions relating to the number of opt-outs from the proposed
settlement.  There is no assurance that these conditions will be
fulfilled.  If the partie senter into a definitive settlement
agreement, a court-approved notice will be issued regarding the
settlement approval process and the terms of the settlement.

                About Armtec Infrastructure Inc.

Armtec is a manufacturer and marketer of a comprehensive range of
infrastructure products and engineered construction solutions for
customers in a diverse cross-section of industries that are
located in every region of Canada, as well as in selected markets
globally.


ASBESTOS CORPORATION: Man Files Suit Over Fibro Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------
Holland Phillips, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that a
man recently diagnosed with terminal, incurable lung cancer
attributes his contraction of the illness to his nearly 30 years
of work at various companies where he was exposed to asbestos.

Charles J. Carrone Sr. filed suit against Asbestos Corporation
Limited, Eagle Inc., Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, McCarty
Corporation, Maryland Casualty Company as insurer of Marquette
Insulations Inc., Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Owens
Illinois Inc., Reilly-Benton Company, Taylor-Seidenbach Inc.,
General Electric, Boland Machine & Manufacturing Company Inc.,
Chiquita Brands International Inc., United Fruit Company, Coca-
Cola Company, Evan Cooperage, Evans Industries Inc. and Evans
Harvey Corporation in the Orleans Parish Civil District Court on
July 16.

Mr. Carrone claims that he was exposed to injurious levels of
asbestos from his occupational exposure while working as an
electrician from approximately 1950 to 1979.  The plaintiff
alleges he used, handled or was in the vicinity of others using or
handling asbestos on United Fruit Company vessels at the New
Orleans riverfront and that he was also exposed while working at
Evans Cooperage, at Coca-Cola in the construction of a canning
room and while pipefitters and insulators installed pipes
insulated with asbestos.  Mr. Carrone's duties also required that
he start the boilers and perform maintenance, which he did for
over 20 years in ares he asserts lacked proper ambient air
filtration.

Negligence and strict liability action is sought against each of
the defendants, who the plaintiff claims should not have designed,
tested, evaluated, manufactured, handled, transported, installed,
supplied and/or sold asbestos-containing products.  Moreover, they
should have disclosed critical medical and safety information,
removed the hazards, supervised for proper safety procedure,
mitigated the inhalation and transfer of the asbestos to the
plaintiff's home, and warned him about the known health hazards.
Instead, the defendants ostensibly "ignored or actively concealed
such information, or condoned such concealment, in order to sell
asbestos or asbestos-containing products and to avoid litigation
by those who were injured from asbestos inhalation."

An undisclosed amount is sought for all medical costs or related
expenses, lost earnings, mental suffering, anguish, pain,
suffering, physical pain and suffering, loss of quality of life
and disability.

The plaintiff is represented by David R. Cannella --
dcannella@landryswarr.com -- of New Orleans-based Landry Swarr &
Cannella LLC.

The case has been assigned to Division M Judge Paulette R. Irons.

Case no. 13-6517.


AUSTRALIA: Childcare Centers Mull Class Action Over Grants
----------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Bita, writing for Herald Sun, reports that childcare
centers are investigating a class action against the Federal
Government unless it pays AU$300 million in grants for staff wage
rises.

Thousands of childcare workers may miss out on a promised pay rise
of up to AU$200 per week, after the Coalition Government on
Sept. 26 refused to guarantee grants approved weeks before the
election.

The Abbott Government was expected to announce an inquiry into the
grants scheme as soon as Sept. 27.

The inquiry is expected to probe the biggest single contract --
estimated to top AU$45 million -- signed with Goodstart, the
nation's largest childcare chain with 650 centers and 15,000
workers.  Hundreds of smaller providers obtained conditional
approval, but their contracts were not signed before the election.

News Corp. has obtained a letter signed by 171 center operators,
calling on Prime Minister Tony Abbott to honor their approvals.

"We have budgeted for (the funding's) impact and informed our
staff of the wage rises that they can expect for the next two
years,'' the letter states.

The lead signatory, Kaye Doyle -- who owns The Forest Childcare
Centre in Mr. Abbott's electorate of Warringah on Sydney's north
shore -- said she was seeking legal advice.

"I believe it would probably need to be a class action and I would
certainly look at that down the track,'' she said on Sept. 26.

"We did comply with everything prior to the government going into
caretaker mode.

"I have 46 employees and they've all been told the funding is
coming and would be backdated to the first of August.''

Ms. Doyle said she had made contact with 278 centers that had
received conditional approval for grants, but now feared they
could no longer give staff the promised pay rise.

Assistant Minister for Education Sussan Ley on Sept. 26 refused to
guarantee the grants.  "As I outlined well before the election,
the Coalition has always held strong reservations about this fund
and Labor's reasons for its implementation,'' she said.

"It made little sense then, and just as little sense now, that
less than a third of all employees would receive any increase and
that the fund runs out in two years.''

Ms. Ley said she would soon announce a "ministerial review'' into
the grant scheme.

Labor had legislated to provide AU$300 million in grants for
childcare centers to fund pay rises of between AU$3 and AU$5 an
hour for the next two years -- but the money was only enough to
cover one in three workers and ran out after two years.

Childcare union United Voice on Sept. 26 accused the government of
"creating massive uncertainty'' for childcare operators, staff and
family.

National president Michael Crosby said the government must honor
"written conditional offers'' signed by the Labor government.

"We understand many providers are seeking their own legal advice
about their legal options,'' he said.

United Voice estimates the pay rise would give workers an extra
AU$114 to AU$198 per week, depending on their qualifications.

The union has also lodged a claim for an additional AU$10 an hour
pay increase, through the Fair Work Commission.

Childcare fees are also increasing, as new quality reforms require
centers to hire more and better qualified staff.


BMW AG: To Recall 134,000 Cars Over Electrical Connection Problem
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Jensen, writing for The New York Times, reports that
BMW will recall about 134,000 5 Series models from 2008-10 because
the tail lights may not work, the automaker told the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration in a report posted on
Sept. 20 on the agency's Web site.

The automaker says a problem with an electrical connection could
lead to failure of the brake lights, backup lights, turn signals
and tail lights.  However, the high-mounted brake light would
continue to work.  The automaker said it was not aware of any
accidents or injuries related to the problem.  BMW also told
N.H.T.S.A. that it "does not believe that an unreasonable risk to
motor vehicle safety exists" but that it was recalling the
vehicles based on a precedent set by a recall BMW conducted in
2011.

The 2011 recall affected about 241,000 3 Series vehicles from the
2002-5 model years, also for a problem with the tail lights.  That
recall was prompted by a commercial airline pilot from Texas who
filed a defect petition with N.H.T.S.A. in 2009 asking it to
investigate repeated rear light failures.  The agency
investigated, and while BMW resisted, N.H.T.S.A. pushed the case
until BMW agreed in 2011 to a recall.

In its new report to N.H.T.S.A., BMW detailed how a flurry of
warranty claims prompted wiring changes, which the automaker
described as a "quality enhancement."  Late in 2012, BMW concluded
that "a further quality improvement might be prudent," introducing
a new design available as a replacement part early in the year.
The company then decided a recall was the best course of action.

BMW described the recall as voluntary, but once an automaker is
aware of a safety problem it is required to inform the safety
agency -- within five business days -- of its plan for a recall.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Court Refused to Dismiss Suit Over Tires
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a man who
says BMW and Bridgestone sell tires that "suffer catastrophic
failure after mere months of use" may get to sue as a class, a
federal judge ruled.

David Greene claims he noticed a bubble in his left-rear Potenza
run-flat tire within six months of leasing a 2010 BMW 335i
convertible from Paul Miller BMW in Wayne, N.J., on March 17,
2010.  Two tires on the car eventually developed three bubbles
within 14 months of his lease and 14,000 miles, making for "an
unbearably rough ride . . . and excessively loud noise," according
to the complaint.

Various BMW reps allegedly told Greene that he "was [in] a
dangerous situation and that he should immediately replace" his
tires, which were supposedly experiencing a "normal problem."
Because Paul Miller employees allegedly "callously" refused to
"remedy the defects," and said that Greene's car could only
accommodate Potenzas, he bought a new set on eBay.

Greene then filed a six-count putative class action complaint
against Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, Bridgestone Americas
and BMW of North America in 2011, claiming that they provided him
with an unreliable and dangerous ride.

Potenzas are "prone to deflate, pop, or sustain bubbles from
driving on a normal road," according to the complaint, which adds
that "even a small puncture" cannot be repaired.  Greene says some
Potenza-equipped BMWs get four or more flats annually.

The lessee hopes to represent a class in his $5 million action
under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act and other statutes.  He filed an amended complaint in
late 2012 after U.S. District Judge William Martini gutted the
first action.

Bridgestone and BMW again moved to dismiss and strike the class
allegations, but Greene fared better this time around.

The court refused to dismiss Greene's claims for breach of implied
warranty of merchantability since the tires allegedly "suffer
catastrophic failure after mere months of use," not years.
Martini did dismiss several other claims but said some of them can
be refiled in another amended complaint.

"Greene argues that BMW 'engaged in the unlawful practice of
deceiving, misrepresenting, and concealing that fact [that] the
tires were problematic at the time of sale and lease of plaintiff
and class members' BMW vehicles,'" Martini wrote.  "But Greene
does not allege that BMW knew with certainty that the tires would
fail.  Accordingly, Greene has failed to state a claim under the
[New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act] NJCFA."

In tossing aside Greene's breach of contract claims, the judge
noted that "Paul Miller BMW assigned the lease to BMW Financial,
not BMW" or Bridgestone.  Greene's breach of warranty and good
faith claims against the tire company also failed, as Greene did
not bring his tires to an authorized Bridgestone retailer, the
judgment states.

Bridgestone reportedly made $35 billion last year, while BMW
reported about $100 billion in revenue in 2012.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barry R. Eichen, Esq.
          Thomas Paciorkowski, Esq.
          EICHEN CRUTCHLOW ZASLOW & MCELROY, LLP
          40 Ethel Road
          Edison, NJ 08817
          Telephone: (732) 777-0100
          E-mail: beichen@njadvocates.com
                  tpaciorkowski@njadvocates.com

               - and -

          Justin M. Klein, Esq.
          Kristen Alexis Curatolo, Esq.
          MARKS & KLEIN, LLP
          63 Riverside Avenue
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (732) 747-7100
          E-mail: justin@marksklein.com
                  kristen@marksklein.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher J. Dalton, Esq.
          Rosemary Joan Bruno, Esq.
          BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC
          550 Broad Street, Suite 810
          Newark, NJ 07102-4599
          Telephone: (973) 273-9800
          Facsimile: (973) 273-9430
          E-mail: christopher.dalton@bipc.com
                  rosemary.bruno@bipc.com

               - and -

          Aviva Y. Wein, Esq.
          David R. King, Esq.
          HERRICK FEINSTEIN LLP
          210 Carnegie Center, Suite 102
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 452-3800
          E-mail: awein@herrick.com
                  dking@herrick.com

The case is Greene v. BMW of North America, et al., Case No. 2:11-
cv-04220-WJM-MF, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey (Newark).


BODY CENTRAL: Sued Over Videotaping of Women in Dressing Room
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holleran, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reports
that three women claim a Fairview Heights store taped them while
they were in a changing room without their knowledge.

Trania Pawnell, Kimberly Stacker and Jamie Manske filed a putative
class action lawsuit in St. Clair County Circuit Court against
Body Central Stores.

The plaintiffs claim Body Central Stores video recorded them and
other women while they were taking their clothes off in the
changing rooms.  They contend that because they did not give
consent to be videotaped, Body Central Stores's actions were
illegal.

"As a direct and proximate result of defendant's intrusion upon
the privacy of the individual plaintiffs while each was in a
changing room, plaintiffs have suffered embarrassment, mental
anguish and emotional distress," the suit states.

The plaintiffs claim Body Central Stores acted illegally when it
place unauthorized video cameras into its dressing rooms.

They seek unspecified compensatory and statutory damages, plus
injunctive relief, attorney's fees, costs, pre and post-judgment
interest and other relief the court deems just.

David I. Cates -- dcates@cateslaw.com -- and Ryan J. Mahoney --
rmahoney@cateslaw.com -- of Cates Mahoney in Swansea will be
representing them.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number: 13-L-451.


BOISE INC: Faces "Ratley" Suit Over Proposed Acquisition by PCA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jean Ratley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Boise, Inc., Carl A. Albert, Alexander Toeldte,
Jonathan W. Berger, Jack Goldman, Heinrich R. Lenz, Jason G.
Weiss, Packaging Corporation of America and Bee Acquisition
Corporation, Case No. 8933-VCG (Del. Ch. Ct., September 20, 2013)
arises from the proposed merger of the Company with PCA.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, independence, good faith
and fair dealing, and have aided and abetted those breaches in
connection with the proposed transaction.  The Plaintiff seeks to
enjoin the Proposed Acquisition.

Mr. Ratley is a stockholder of Boise.

Boise is a Delaware corporation that, together with its
subsidiaries, engages in the manufacture and sale of packaging and
paper products in the United States, Europe, Mexico and Canada.
The Company's packaging segment offers linerboards used in the
manufacture of corrugated sheets and containers; corrugated
sheets, which are primarily sold to converters for the production
of various corrugated products; corrugated containers used in the
packaging of fresh fruit and vegetables, processed food,
beverages, and other industrial and consumer products; protective
packaging products, including multimaterial customized packaging
solutions; and newsprint paper for printing newspapers, other
publications, and advertising materials.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

PCA, a Delaware corporation, engages in the manufacture and sale
of containerboard and corrugated packaging products for industrial
and consumer markets in the United States.  Merger Sub is a
Delaware corporation and direct wholly owned subsidiary of PCA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG PA
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          E-mail: bdl@rigrodskylong.com

               - and -

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 667-6200
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com
                  mackerman@brodsky-smith.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andre G. Bouchard, Esq.
          BOUCHARD MARGULES & FRIEDLANDER PA
          222 Delaware Ave., Suite 1400
          Wilmington, DE 19801-1633
          Telephone: (302) 573-3500
          E-mail: abouchard@bmf-law.com

               - and -

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


BOISE INC: DCM Multi-Manager Fund Sues Over PCA Deal
----------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that Packaging Corp. of
America's planned $2 billion buyout of rival Boise Inc. hit more
turbulence on Sept. 25 when a stockholder alleged in a class suit
filed in Delaware state court that Boise's directors breached
their fiduciary duties by not securing a better deal for
investors.  DCM Multi-Manager Fund LLC's suit, filed a day after
shareholder Carlson Capital LP said it wouldn't tender its shares
in the merger, alleges Packaging Corp. is getting "a great deal."


BP PLC: Phase 2 of Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Trial Resumes
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schleifstein and Mark Waller, writing for NOLA.com, report
that the second phase of the BP Deepwater Horizon accident and oil
spill trial resumed in New Orleans on Monday, Sept. 30, with
attorneys for private plaintiffs teaming up with BP contractors
Transocean and Halliburton to accuse the international oil giant
of failing in its disaster preparations and its attempts to stop
the flow of oil, and BP attorneys arguing that the company spent
billions of dollars to staunch the flow amid uncertain conditions.

Seats in U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier's courtroom were at a
premium at the beginning of a four-day discussion of BP's efforts
to halt the flow of oil, with lawyers taking up space on the
courtroom floor and in all of the seats usually reserved for
jurors, and reporters and the public vying for space in the
audience.

Next week, the proceedings will focus on how much oil leaked into
the environment, which in turn informs the size of the fines BP
could pay.  That part of the trial will pit the federal Justice
Department against BP and its drilling partner, Anadarko
Exploration Co.

The first phase this spring focused on the liability of BP and its
partners during the drilling of the well and the period between
April 20 and April 22, when the Macondo well blew out, sparking a
fire and explosion that sank Transocean's Deepwater Horizion
drilling rig, killing 11 workers and beginning the oil release.

"BP's plan was nothing more than a plan to plan," plaintiffs'
attorney Brian Barr said on Sept. 30 in an opening statement for
the "aligned parties," the private plaintiffs and the BP
contractors.

Mr. Barr said the company's 600-page disaster response plan
included only one page on controlling the source of a blown-out
well, and its employees lacked training on that scenario. "BP knew
of the gaps in its ability to control the source of a deep-water
blowout," Mr. Barr said.

The company began drilling relief wells early in the three-month
oil spill crisis, but Mr. Barr said that lengthy process "should
be considered a measure of last resort.  For BP, relief wells were
a matter of only resort."

Mr. Barr said the plaintiffs' case will show that BP long knew the
solution that ultimately worked -- capping the ruined blowout
preventer stack that was billowing oil with a new one -- was the
best option and could have ended the gusher sooner.

Then Brad Brian, an attorney for Transocean, the owner of the
doomed Deepwater Horizon rig and an opponent of BP in this part of
the case, accused BP of focusing on a doomed approach called the
"top kill" -- pumping heavy drilling mud, along with debris called
a "junk shot" aimed at clogging the interior of the equipment
stack, into the well to push back the flow of oil.

The company announced publicly and told senior government
officials that a comparatively small amount of oil was flowing
from the well, small enough to be controlled by top kill, when
internal estimates showed the flow was dramatically greater,
enough to guarantee failure.

"BP pressed ahead and falsely claimed that it was a slam dunk,"
Brian said.  "BP could not admit the larger truth that the flow
rate was too great," he said. While company officials were saying
only 5,000 barrels a day were being released, the company's own
estimates ranged as high as 100,000 barrels per day.

In videotaped depositions shown to Judge Barbier on Sept. 30 --
he's weighing the evidence without a jury -- former U.S.
Geological Survey Director Marcia McNutt exclaimed, "Oh, wow!"
when shown an internal BP memo dated before the top kill procedure
she helped approve.  The memo said the flow could be as high as
100,000 barrels, well above the 15,000 barrels recommended as the
highest flow rate for the procedure.

Shown an internal BP email from about the same time that warned
workers that no one was to receive top kill flow data "outside the
circle of trust," Ms. McNutt said, "I guess I'm not in the circle
of trust."

Former Energy Secretary Steven Chu, who oversaw a team of
scientists advising the federal government on its approval of BP's
attempts to shut off the well, said in his videotaped deposition
that he was unaware that BP was releasing internal estimates
showing the well was flowing at a much higher rate than senior BP
officials were telling him.

Asked what he would have said at the time if he'd known BP had
more information about the flow rates that wasn't being shown to
federal officials, Mr. Chu said, "It would have started a
conversation somewhere along the lines of, 'We're here to help
you.  We need all the information that's relevant.'"

A third videotaped deposition, of BP flow expert Mike Mason,
focused on an incident when he was called into a senior BP
official's office after mentioning one of the high flow rate
estimates in an interoffice email and was told to speak of them
only with other BP officials in person.

"Next time you have an idea or a thought like this email note, we
would appreciate it if you would walk over and discuss it with
us," Mr. Mason said he was told by BP executive Jasper Peijs.

That meeting occurred just before a May 13-16 meeting with
representatives of several federal energy laboratories about how
best to close off the well.  Mr. Mason said he did not mention the
higher flow rates during that meeting.

In BP's defense, lawyer Mike Brock questioned the logic of
asserting that the company would put considerable resources,
including ships, piping systems and the attention of hundreds of
employees, into a method it knew would fail but couldn't admit
because of low-balled flow rates.

"Our source control efforts in shutting down the Macondo well were
extraordinary," Mr. Brock said.

Mr. Brock also attacked the idea that flow rate estimates changed
the course of events.  First off, he said, the rates and
conditions were always uncertain.  "Decisions had to be made in
the absence of information," he said.

The next step after the failed to kill attempt, Mr. Brock said,
was to collect as much oil as possible, which he argued was not
the behavior of someone trying to conceal higher flow levels.

Arguing in hindsight that there were better approaches, he said
"is Monday morning quarterbacking at its worst."

Mr. Brock said BP spent more than $1.6 billion on its response
efforts, pursuing every reasonable option, including several
strategies simultaneously and always staying mindful of avoiding a
move that would have made matters worse.

He said the option of installing another blowout preventer on top
of the failed one was not feasible at the rate of speed that the
aligned parties' attorneys said was possible.

And he said that as BP calls its experts to testify, they will
confirm that the company's explanation for why the top kill failed
-- ruptured discs in the well -- was plausible and was not a
cover-up of flow numbers.

"Our well control plan is consistent with every other operator in
the Gulf of Mexico," Mr. Brock said.

The first expert witness was John Wilson, a fluid mechanics
specialist called by the aligned parties' attorneys to testify
that BP's internal computer models were showing higher flow rates
than what the company was reporting to the government, news media
and public.

"The momentum kill is very much dependent on flow rate,"
Mr. Wilson said, referring to the pumping of drilling mud into the
well as part of the top kill procedure.  "You need enough force to
overcome the momentum of the upward flowing well.  I saw no
evidence that it was a slam dunk," that the top kill would work,
Mr. Wilson said.

In cross-examining Mr. Wilson and other witnesses, BP attorneys
tried to show that BP officials gave one or more of the higher
flow estimates to senior federal officials or lower-level
scientists advising them.  They also tried to suggest that federal
officials should have been coming up with their own estimates of
the flow rate to inform their decision-making.

Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the federal government is
required to partner with the responsible party, in this case BP,
in fighting an oil leak.

For instance, a BP attorney asked several times whether Mr. Wilson
had reviewed government estimates of the oil flow and how they
were made before the top kill procedure.  No, Mr. Wilson said, he
was not asked to review that information as part of his expert
witness report, which focused only on BP's actions.

The BP attorneys tried again with the aligned parties' second
witness, Gregg Perkin, an engineer with Engineering Partners
International.  Mr. Perkin testified that the top kill method,
including its junk shot effort, was doomed to fail because the
company was trying to pump the mud and junk through a 3-inch-wide
pipe to close a 16-3/4-inch well that was flowing at a pressure
strong enough to not even allow the material into the main well.

"The analogy I use is taking a box of raisins and damming the
Colorado River with it," Mr. Perkin said.

He agreed that there was risk that if that method worked, of
causing a "hard shut in," where the pressure of oil from below
would be shut down so quickly that it could fracture the earth
below, causing fissures allowing the escape of oil. But that's not
what happened, he said.

Mr. Perkin also questioned the reasons BP gave for its failure --
that the mud had caused "rupture disks" to fail, allowing the mud
to escape into the well without stopping the flow of oil.

The consequences of giving that reason for the failure, though,
was that BP then nixed the proposal to turn to the "BOP-on-BOP"
solution, simply connecting a new blowout preventer to the top of
the failed preventer and slowly shutting off the flow of oil.

By raising the rupture disk failure concern, he said, BP argued
incorrectly that installing the second preventer would cause the
underground formation to rupture, which would threaten the ability
of drilling a second relief well.

Federal officials, including Mr. Chu and Ms. McNutt, not knowing
the accurate cause of the failure, agreed with BP's logic and
delayed what was installed as the ultimate solution to the blowout
in July, Mr. Perkin said.

BP's attorneys used Mr. Perkin to introduce evidence they hope
will show the government actually was using its own data to make
those decisions, though.

They pointed to a memo from Ms. McNutt on May 25, 2010, when she
headed the government's flow rate technical group, as an example.
"Multiple lines of scientific evidence agree that the release is
at least 14,000 to 20,000 barrels of oil per day," the memo said.

But Mr. Perkin said he believes the memo was aimed at public
opinion, not deciding whether the top kill was to be performed,
and cited its next sentence: "We believe that a statement like
this will be much more helpful to emergency responders than the
current 5,000 barrels per day, is honest, and yet is not as
alarmist as the 70,000 bbls that has been picked up by the media
and is demonstrably wrong," the memo said.

Mr. Perkin said he believes all the information in the memo was
based on the lower estimates BP gave to the government.

BP's attorney tried again with a memo from Carol Browner, then
energy and climate science adviser to President Barack Obama, to
White House staffers -- including deputy chief of staff
Jim Messina and political adviser David Axelrod -- explaining that
the BOP-on-BOP method had been rejected after the top kill
failure.

"Our scientists have determined that the risks are too great to
shut the well in from the top," the memo said.

Again, Mr. Perkin said the memo reflected BP's advice to the
government, rather than independent research by government
officials leading to its decision against BOP-on-BOP.

The trial was set to continue on Oct. 1 with more expert testimony
from witnesses called by the aligned parties.


CALIFORNIA: State Supreme Court Remands Nurses' Suit v. Torlakson
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Public school students with diabetes who cannot self-administer
insulin are normally entitled under federal law to have it
administered to them during the school day. The case AMERICAN
NURSES ASSOCIATION v. TORLAKSON presents a dispute over whom state
law permits to administer that insulin. The dispute arises against
the background of a long-standing shortage of school nurses and a
class action in federal court alleging the state's schools have
failed to ensure diabetic students actually receive legally
required health care services. Pursuant to an agreement settling
that litigation, the State Department of Education (Department) in
2007 advised local education agencies that trained school
personnel who are not licensed health care providers may, when no
nurse is available, administer insulin pursuant to the medical
orders of students' treating physicians.

In AMERICAN NURSES ASSOCIATION v. TORLAKSON, the American Nurses
Association and other trade organizations representing registered
and school nurses (collectively Nurses) challenge the Department's
advice as condoning the unauthorized practice of nursing. The
American Diabetes Association (Association), which is a party to
the federal settlement agreement, defends the Department's advice
as intervener.

Justice Werdegar of the Supreme Court of California on August 12,
2013, concluded that California law does permit trained,
unlicensed school personnel to administer prescription
medications, including insulin, in accordance with written
statements of individual students' treating physicians, with
parental consent, and that persons who act under this authority do
not violate the NPA. Because schools may administer prescription
medications only in accordance with physicians' written
statements, state law in effect delegates to each student's
physician the decision whether insulin may safely and
appropriately be administered by unlicensed school personnel or
instead whether a particular student's medical needs can be met
only by a licensed health care provider. State law, however,
presents no categorical obstacle to the use of unlicensed
personnel for this purpose, the Supreme Court further ruled.

Justice Werdegar remanded the case for further proceedings.

The case is AMERICAN NURSES ASSOCIATION et al., Plaintiffs and
Respondents, v. TOM TORLAKSON, as Superintendent, etc., et al.,
Defendants and Appellants; AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION,
Intervener and Appellant, NO. S184583.

A copy of the Supreme Court's August 12, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/wNiviUfrom Leagle.com.

Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, Robin B. Johansen -- rjohansen@rjp.com
-- and Kari Krogseng for Defendants and Appellants.

Reed Smith, James M. Wood -- jmwood@reedsmith.com -- Paul D. Fogel
-- pfogel@reedsmith.com -- Dennis Peter Maio --
dmaio@reedsmith.com -- Disability Rights Education and Defense
Fund, Inc., Arlene Mayerson and Larisa Cummings for Intervener and
Appellant.

Remcho, Johansen & Purcell, Robin B. Johansen and Kari Krogseng
for State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson and
California Department of Education as Amici Curiae on behalf of
Intervener and Appellant.

Jason D. Russell -- jason.russell@skadden.com -- Allen L. Lanstra
-- allen.lanstra@skadden.com -- George C. Fatheree --
george.fatheree@skadden.com -- and Allison B. Holcombe --
allison.holcombe@skadden.com -- for Los Angeles Unified School
District, Children's Rights Clinic, Disability Rights Advocates,
Disability Rights California, Disability Rights Legal Center,
Disability Rights Texas and The Legal Aid Society-Employment Law
Center as Amici Curiae on behalf of Intervener and Appellant.

Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost, Lenore A. Silverman --
lsilverman@fagenfriedman.com -- Kimberly A. Smith --
ksmith@fagenfriedman.com -- and Melissa L. Phung --
mphung@fagenfriedman.com -- for California School Boards
Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Intervener and
Appellant.

Claire Ramsey -- cramsey@childcarelaw.org -- Morrison & Foerster,
Miriam A. Vogel -- mvogel@mofo.com -- Benjamin J. Fox --
bfox@mofo.com -- Sheila L. Sadovnik and Lindsay M. Andrews for
Child Care Law Center as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Intervener and
Appellant.

Cooley, Lori R. Mason -- mason@cooley.com -- Maureen P. Alger --
malger@cooley.com -- Brandon J. Kimura -- bkimura@cooley.com --
and Jon F. Cieslak -- jcieslak@cooley.com -- for American
Association of Diabetes Educators, the American Academy of
Pediatrics Section on Endocrinology, California District of the
American Academy of Pediatrics, The Endocrine Society and the
Pediatric Endocrine Society as Amici Curiae on behalf of
Intervener and Appellant.

U.S. Department of Education, Charles P. Rose, General Counsel;
Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General (United States),
Samuel R. Bagenstos, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Gregory B. Friel and April J. Anderson for United States as Amicus
Curiae on behalf of Intervener and Appellant.
Pamela Allen -- pallencal@nurses.org -- Brendan White; Alice L.
Bodley, Jocelyn Winston, Maureen E. Cones; Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman, John S. Poulos -- john.poulos@pillsburylaw.com -- Carrie
L. Bonnington -- carrie.bonnington@pillsburylaw.com -- and Kevin
M. Fong -- kevin.fong@pillsburylaw.com -- for Plaintiffs and
Respondents.

Cummins & White and Melanie L. Balestra for National Association
of School Nurses, American Occupational Therapy Association, Inc.,
Arkansas School Nurses Association, Association of periOperative
Registered Nurses, Association of School Nurses of Connecticut,
California Association for Nurse Practitioners, California School
Health Centers Association, California Teachers Association,
Coalition of Labor Union Women, Colorado Association of School
Nurses, Delaware School Nurses Association, Emergency Nurses
Association, Florida Association of School Nurses, Georgia
Association of School Nurses, Illinois Association of School
Nurses, Illinois Nurses Association, Indiana Association of School
Nurses, Iowa School Nurses Organization, Kentucky School Nurses
Association, Maine Association of School Nurses, Maryland
Association of School Health Nurses, Massachusetts School Nurse
Association, Michigan Association of School Nurses, National
Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, National Association
of State School Nurse Consultants, National Board for
Certification of School Nurses, Nebraska School Nurse Association,
Nevada State Association of School Nurses, New Hampshire School
Nurse Association, New Jersey State School Nurses Association, New
Mexico School Nurses Association, New York State Association of
School Nurses, Ohio Association of School Nurses, Pennsylvania
Association of School Nurses and Practitioners, Rhode Island
Certified School Nurse Teachers, Rhode Island Institute for
Nursing, Rhode Island State Nurses Association, School Nurse
Organization of Arizona, School Nurse Organization of Idaho,
School Nurse Organization of Minnesota, School Social Work
Association of America, South Carolina Association of School
Nurses, Tennessee Association of School Nurses, Utah School Nurse
Association, Vermont State School Nurses Association, Virginia
Association of School Nurses, West Virginia Association of School
Nurses, Wisconsin Association of School Nurses and Wyoming School
Nurses Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and
Respondents.

Lisa C. Demidovich for United Nurses Associations of
California/Union of Health Care Professionals NUHHCE, AFSCME, AFL-
CIO as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Laura P. Juran -- ljuran@cta.org ; David J. Strom; Michael R.
Clancy, Arnie R. Braafladt -- abraafladt@csea.com ; Altshuler
Berzon and Jeffrey B. Demain -- jdemain@altshulerberzon.com -- for
California Teachers Association, American Federation of Teachers,
California Federation of Teachers and California School Employees
Association as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and
Respondents.

Cummins & White, Karen L. Taillon -- ktaillon@cwlawyers.com --
Vedder Price and Thomas G. Abram -- abram@vedderprice.com -- for
National Council of State Boards of Nursing, Inc., as Amicus
Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents.


COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Defends Wage & Hour Suits in Texas & Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cogent Communications Group, Inc., is defending itself against two
wage and hour class action lawsuits pending in Texas and
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.

Certain former sales employees of the Company filed a collective
action against the Company in December 2011 in the United States
District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division,
alleging misclassification of the Company's sales employees
throughout the U.S. in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The lawsuit seeks to recover pay for allegedly unpaid overtime and
other damages, including attorney's fees.  In January 2013, a
former sales employee filed in the Superior Court of Santa Clara
County, California, a lawsuit alleging misclassification of sales
employees under California wage and hour laws.  The lawsuit seeks
certification as a class action and seeks to recover pay for
allegedly unpaid overtime and other damages, including attorney's
fees.  The Company denies both claims and believes that the claims
for unpaid overtime in each case are without merit.  The Company
believes its classification of sales employees is in compliance
with applicable law.

Headquartered in Washington, D.C., Cogent Communications Group,
Inc. -- http://www.cogentco.com/-- is a facilities-based provider
of low-cost, high-speed Internet access and Internet Protocol
communications services.  The Company delivers its services
primarily to small and medium-sized businesses, communications
service providers and other bandwidth-intensive organizations in
North America and Europe.


CR BARD: In Talks to Settle Vaginal-Mesh Implant Suits
------------------------------------------------------
Jef Feeley and David Voreacos, writing for Bloomberg News, report
that C.R. Bard Inc. and four other makers of vaginal-mesh implants
accused of injuring women are in talks to settle thousands of
lawsuits, people familiar with the discussions said.

Lawyers for Bard, Endo Health Solutions Inc., Boston Scientific
Corp. and two other companies making vaginal inserts to support
women's pelvic muscles and treat incontinence have begun talks
about settling all suits over their products, the people familiar
with the matter said.  Johnson & Johnson, which also faces suits
over the inserts, isn't involved in the talks, said the people,
who asked not to be identified because they weren't authorized to
speak publicly.

Patients' lawyers want U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in
Charleston, West Virginia, who is overseeing federal suits
targeting the implants, to appoint a settlement committee, the
people said.  The group would include plaintiffs' lawyers
Henry Garrard, lead counsel on the Bard cases, and Joe Rice, a
lawyer who helped negotiate a $246 billion tobacco-litigation
accord on behalf of state attorneys general, the people said.

"I know you all are considering settlement protocols and the
possibility of resolutions," Judge Goodwin said at a Sept. 18
court hearing.  He noted the talks were going on "behind the
scenes."

The discussions are aimed at resolving more than 30,000 implant
suits already filed that have been consolidated before Goodwin for
pre-trial information exchanges, the people said.  The talks also
include insert makers Coloplast A/S and Cook Medical Inc., they
said.

                          50,000 Claims

The total number of suits could swell to more than 50,000 as more
claimants seek to join the potential settlement, the people said.

"The liability seems pretty clear on these cases, so settlement
makes sense," Carl Tobias, who teaches product-liability law at
the University of Richmond in Virginia, said in an interview.
"Given how serious the injuries are and the number of cases, when
you do the math, you can easily come up with a multibillion-dollar
settlement."

Scott Lowry, a spokesman for Murray Hill, New Jersey-based Bard,
didn't return a call and an e-mail seeking comment on the
settlement talks.  Ulla Lunhus, a Coloplast spokeswoman, said she
couldn't comment on the talks.

                         Following Process

"We are following a process that is in accordance with U.S. law,"
she said in a phone interview.  "As long as that process is
ongoing, we are not able to make any comment about it."

Marsha Lovejoy, a spokeswoman for Bloomington, Indiana-based Cook;
Peter Lucht, a spokesman for Natick, Massachusetts-based Boston
Scientific; and Blaine Davis, a spokesman for Malvern,
Pennsylvania-based Endo declined to comment on the talks.

Bard's implants have been targeted in more than 12,000 cases while
Boston Scientific said in an August regulatory filing it faces
more than 12,000 suits over its vaginal devices.

Endo's American Medical Systems Inc. unit faces about 13,500
vaginal-mesh claims between state and federal suits, Davis said in
an interview.  Coloplast and Cook face about 1,000 claims
combined, the people added.

J&J faced 12,250 pelvic mesh claims through June 30, according to
a regulatory filing.  Sheri Woodruff, a spokeswoman for the
Ethicon unit of New Brunswick, New Jersey-based J&J, said it would
be "inappropriate" to discuss litigation involving other
manufacturers.

                      'Possibly Unfounded'

"Ethicon is now focusing on trying to efficiently manage thousands
of unverified and possibly unfounded complaints," Ms. Woodruff
said in an e-mail.  The company will "request dismissal of
meritless claims, including claims with no compensable injury,
claims barred by the statute of limitations, misfiled claims, and
improperly filed claims."

Some manufacturers, such as Bard and Endo, already have settled
some suits over the devices.  Earlier this year, Endo officials
paid $54.5 million to settle an unspecified number of cases
alleging the company's vaginal-mesh inserts were defective.

Coloplast, based in Humlebaek, Denmark, is the furthest along with
talks to settle all of the more than 600 cases it faces over its
vaginal implants, the people said.  The company is aiming to
resolve all litigation over the devices by the end of the year,
they added.

                            Trial Losses

Bard officials also have settled some vaginal-mesh cases after
losing two trials over the devices.  A California state court jury
last year found Bard liable for a woman's injuries related to an
Avaulta implant in the first case to go trial in a U.S. court.
Jurors said the company should pay $5.5 million in damages.  Bard
is liable for $3.6 million under that state's law.

Judge Goodwin presided at the first federal trial of claims over
Bard's Avaulta Plus vaginal mesh in August.  A jury ordered the
company to pay a total of $2 million in damages to a Georgia woman
who said the device damaged her organs.

Bard officials pulled the Avaulta implants off the market last
year after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ordered all
makers of the devices to study rates of organ damage, infection
and pain during sex linked to their products.

Bard faces more than 8,000 federal claims over Avaulta, which
women allege can cause organ damage and make sexual intercourse
painful when the devices erode.

J&J, which opted out of settlement talks, has battled court claims
against its withdrawn line of vaginal implants.  A New Jersey jury
ruled in February the company must pay $11.1 million in damages to
a woman who blamed J&J's Gynecare Prolift for her injuries.  It
was the first case over the devices to go to trial.

                            J&J Sales

Officials of J&J's Ethicon unit told Goodwin last year they would
stop selling some vaginal implants after suits over the devices.
The company's executives have declined to participate in
settlement talks, the people said.

"I expect Johnson & Johnson to discuss settlement when they think
the time is right," Adam Slater, a New Jersey lawyer who won the
February verdict against the company over vaginal devices, said in
an interview.  Mr. Slater said he is preparing for his next trial
in March 2014.

Judge Goodwin said in the September hearing that he's struggling
to find ways to move the "mountain" of vaginal-mesh cases through
the federal courts and is considering combining multiple
plaintiffs' claims for trial.

"I'm going to keep the bulldozer moving to deal with these cases,"
he said.

                       Settlement Architect

Lawyers for women suing over the inserts have recommended that
Judge Goodwin tap plaintiff lawyers Garrard, Rice, Bryan Aylstock
of Florida and Clayton Clark, a Texas-based litigator, for a
settlement committee empowered to conduct talks with all mesh
manufacturers, the people said.

Mr. Rice, one of the architects of the 1998 tobacco settlement, is
known for his ability to put together accords in high-profile
cases.  Last year, the 59-year-old lawyer helped negotiate a now
$9.6 billion settlement of suits against BP Plc (BP/) over the
2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  He declined to comment on
his role in the vaginal-mesh talks.

The vaginal-mesh litigation poses a challenge for Mr. Rice and
other settlement negotiators because they are faced with cases
over more than 50 different implants manufactured by six different
companies, the people said.  Some of those products have been
pulled from the market while others are still being implanted,
they added.

Mr. Rice is focusing his attention first on cases involving
American Medical Systems' inserts, the people said.
Ellen Reisman, a Los Angeles-based lawyer representing the device
maker, was one of BP's lawyers in Gulf oil spill settlement
announced last year, they noted.  Ms. Reisman was at the Sept. 18
hearing in West Virginia.

The Bard consolidated cases are In re C.R. Bard Inc. (BCR) Pelvic
Repair System Products Liability Litigation, 10-md-02187, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of West Virginia (Charleston).
The J&J consolidated cases are: In re Ethicon Pelvic Repair System
Products Liability Litigation, 12-md-2327 U.S. District Court,
Southern District of West Virginia (Charleston).


CREDIT MANAGEMENT: "Powers" Suit Stayed Pending 8th Cir. Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Proceedings in the case, LAURA POWERS, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated; NICHOLE PALMER, and JASON PALMER,
Plaintiffs, v. CREDIT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., DANA K. FRIES,
TESSA HERMANSON, JESSICA L. V. PISKORSKI, BRADY W. KEITH, MICHAEL
J. MORLEDGE, Defendants, NO. 8:11CV436, (D. Neb.), are stayed
pending resolution of an appeal undertaken by the defendants,
District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon has ruled.

Several motions are presently pending in the case, including
defendants' motions for summary judgment, plaintiffs' motions for
partial summary judgment, and defendants' objection to certain
evidence.  For docket control purposes, Judge Bataillon said the
pending motions will be denied as moot pending resolution of the
appeal, without prejudice to reassertion, he said. After the
appeal is resolved, the parties may reassert the motions by filing
a pleading so stating. The parties need not refile the motions,
supporting evidence, or briefs, Judge Bataillon added.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has permitted an appeal of the
district court's order granting class action certification in the
case.  At a scheduling conference before Magistrate Judge Thalken
on July 31, 2013, the parties agreed that the action should be
stayed until the Eighth Circuit rules on the defendants'
interlocutory appeal.

A copy of Judge Bataillon's August 27, 2013 Order is available at
http://is.gd/g6TJEJfrom Leagle.com.

Laura Powers, Plaintiff, represented by O. Randolph Bragg,
HORWITZ, HORWITZ LAW FIRM, Pamela A. Car, CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM
& William L. Reinbrecht, CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM.

Nichole Palmer, Plaintiff, represented by Pamela A. Car, CAR,
REINBRECHT LAW FIRM & William L. Reinbrecht, CAR, REINBRECHT LAW
FIRM.

Jason Palmer, Plaintiff, represented by Pamela A. Car, CAR,
REINBRECHT LAW FIRM & William L. Reinbrecht, CAR, REINBRECHT LAW
FIRM.

Credit Management Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christopher R. Morris -- cmorris@bassford.com -- BASSFORD, REMELE
LAW FIRM, John M. Guthery, Jr. -- jguthery@perrylawfirm.com --
PERRY, GUTHERY LAW FIRM & Michael A. Klutho --
mklutho@bassford.com -- BASSFORD, REMELE LAW FIRM.

Dana K. Fries, Defendant, represented by Christopher R. Morris,
BASSFORD, REMELE LAW FIRM, John M. Guthery, Jr., PERRY, GUTHERY
LAW FIRM & Michael A. Klutho, BASSFORD, REMELE LAW FIRM.

Jessica L. V. Piskorski, Defendant, represented by Christopher R.
Morris, BASSFORD, REMELE LAW FIRM, John M. Guthery, Jr., PERRY,
GUTHERY LAW FIRM & Michael A. Klutho, BASSFORD, REMELE LAW FIRM.

Brady W. Keith, Defendant, represented by Christopher R. Morris,
BASSFORD, REMELE LAW FIRM, John M. Guthery, Jr., PERRY, GUTHERY
LAW FIRM & Michael A. Klutho, BASSFORD, REMELE LAW FIRM.

Michael J. Morledge, Defendant, represented by Christopher R.
Morris, BASSFORD, REMELE LAW FIRM, John M. Guthery, Jr., PERRY,
GUTHERY LAW FIRM & Michael A. Klutho, BASSFORD, REMELE LAW FIRM.

Tessa Hermanson, Defendant, represented by Christopher R. Morris,
BASSFORD, REMELE LAW FIRM, John M. Guthery, Jr., PERRY, GUTHERY
LAW FIRM & Michael A. Klutho, BASSFORD, REMELE LAW FIRM.


CREDIT SUISSE: Unit Finalizes $11MM RMBS Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Weinberger, writing for Law360, reports that a Credit Suisse
AG unit on Sept. 25 finalized an $11 million settlement in a long-
running securities class action over failed residential mortgage-
backed securities stuffed with home loans issued by one of the
country's most notorious housing bubble-era subprime lenders.

The lead plaintiff in the case, Vasili Tsereteli, asked U.S.
District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of New York federal court to
approve the settlement, which would resolve litigation stretching
back to the height of the financial crisis in November 2008.


CST BRANDS: Corner Store Managers' OT Class Action Certified
------------------------------------------------------------
Sanford Nowlin, writing for San Antonio Business Journal, reports
that more than 3,400 Valero Corner Store managers and assistant
managers have been allowed to join a lawsuit seeking compensation
for hours some allege they were required to work off the clock.

The lawsuit, brought by the San Francisco law firm Sanford Heisler
on behalf of three hourly-paid California managers, received
collective-action certification recently from arbitrator Michael
J. Loeb.

Valero Energy Corp. and CST Brands Inc. -- the retail operations
the San Antonio-based refiner spun off this spring -- are both
named as defendants in the case, filed in U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California and subsequently referred to
arbitration.

Officials at Valero Energy Corp. were unavailable for comment.
However, Cindy Hill, general counsel for CST Brands Inc., released
a statement in response to the lawsuit.

"While we don't comment on the status of litigation, it is and
always has been our policy to comply with all laws and
regulations, including payment of wages and overtime. We value our
employees and will continue to treat them fairly and in compliance
with all laws," Ms. Hill said.

The original suit, filed in 2009, alleges that Corner Store
managers and assistant managers are expected to do surveys of
competitors' gas prices and conduct surveillance of employees when
they're not on duty.

"These hourly employees have a lot of off-site duties and there's
no clear and easy way to record the time they spend on them on the
Valero time clock system," says Janette Wipper, lead counsel for
the managers.

A claims administrator sent letters to Corner Store hourly
managers and assistant managers explaining how they can join the
class action litigation.  Current and former managers who worked
any time since Feb. 10, 2008, could be eligible.

Ms. Wipper adds that many of the store managers and assistant
managers may be entitled to a years-long accumulation of hourly
wages, including overtime pay.

"For someone who's making $12 or $15 an hour, that can be a
significant amount," she says.  "These hourly managers do not
receive a lot of compensation."

CST Brands employs approximately 12,000 employees and operates
stores across nine U.S. states and six provinces in Eastern
Canada.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Continues to Defend "Price" Suit vs. Panhandle
---------------------------------------------------------------
Will Price, an individual, filed actions in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas for damages against a number of
companies, including Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP, a
subsidiary of Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., alleging mis-
measurement of natural gas volumes and Btu content, resulting in
lower royalties to mineral interest owners.  On September 19,
2009, the Court denied plaintiffs' request for class
certification.  The Plaintiffs have filed a motion for
reconsideration, which the Court denied on March 31, 2010.
Panhandle believes that its measurement practices conformed to the
terms of its Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") natural
gas tariffs, which were filed with and approved by the FERC.  As a
result, Southern Union believes that it has meritorious defenses
to the Will Price lawsuit (including FERC-related affirmative
defenses, such as the filed rate/tariff doctrine, the
primary/exclusive jurisdiction of the FERC, and the defense that
Panhandle complied with the terms of its tariffs).  Panhandle will
continue to vigorously defend the case.  Southern Union believes
it has no liability associated with this proceeding.

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.

Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., directly and indirectly owns equity
interests in entities that are engaged in diversified energy-
related services.  The Company is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Discovery in SU Merger Suit in Texas Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated class action lawsuit
related to the Southern Union Merger pending in Texas, according
to Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.'s August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.

On March 26, 2012, Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. ("ETE" or the
"Company") acquired Southern Union Company.

In June 2011, several putative class action lawsuits were filed in
the Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, naming as
defendants the members of the Southern Union Board, as well as
Southern Union and ETE.  The lawsuits were styled Jaroslawicz v.
Southern Union Company, et al., Cause No. 2011-37091, in the 333rd
Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas and Magda v.
Southern Union Company, et al., Cause No. 2011-37134, in the 11th
Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.  The lawsuits
were consolidated into an action styled In re: Southern Union
Company; Cause No. 2011-37091, in the 333rd Judicial District
Court of Harris County, Texas.  The Plaintiffs allege that the
Southern Union directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Southern Union's stockholders in connection with the Merger and
that Southern Union and ETE aided and abetted the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty.  The amended petitions allege that the Merger
involves an unfair price and an inadequate sales process, that
Southern Union's directors entered into the Merger to benefit
themselves personally, including through consulting and noncompete
agreements, and that defendants have failed to disclose all
material information related to the Merger to Southern Union
stockholders.  The amended petitions seek injunctive relief,
including an injunction of the Merger, and an award of attorneys'
and other fees and costs, in addition to other relief.  On
October 21, 2011, the court denied ETE's October 13, 2011, motion
to stay the Texas proceeding in favor of cases pending in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.

Also in June 2011, several putative class action lawsuits were
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery naming as defendants the
members of the Southern Union Board, as well as Southern Union and
ETE.  Three of the lawsuits also named Merger Sub as a defendant.
These lawsuits are styled: Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority, et al. v. Southern Union Company, et
al., C.A. No. 6615-CS; KBC Asset Management NV v. Southern Union
Company, et al., C.A. No. 6622-CS; LBBW Asset Management
Investment GmbH v. Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6627-
CS; and Memo v. Southern Union Company, et al., C.A. No. 6639-CS.
These cases were consolidated with the following style: In re
Southern Union Co. Shareholder Litigation, C.A. No. 6615-CS, in
the Delaware Court of Chancery.  The consolidated complaint
asserts similar claims and allegations as the Texas state-court
consolidated action.  On July 25, 2012, the Delaware plaintiffs
filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of all claims without
prejudice.  In the notice, plaintiffs stated their claims were
being dismissed to avoid duplicative litigation and indicated
their intent to join the Texas case.

The Texas case remains pending, and discovery is ongoing.

Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., directly and indirectly owns equity
interests in entities that are engaged in diversified energy-
related services.  The Company is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Paid $950,000 Legal Fees in Sunoco Merger Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. disclosed in its Company's August 8,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013, that a payment of
$950,000 in attorneys' fees was made in July 2013 in the class
action lawsuits related to the Sunoco Merger.

On October 5, 2012, Sam Acquisition Corporation, a Pennsylvania
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Energy Transfer
Partners, L.P. ("ETP," a Company subsidiary), completed its merger
with Sunoco Inc.  Under the terms of the merger agreement, Sunoco
shareholders received a total of approximately 55 million ETP
Common Units and $2.6 billion in cash.

Following the announcement of the Sunoco Merger on April 30, 2012,
eight putative class action and derivative complaints were filed
in connection with the Sunoco Merger in the Court of Common Pleas
of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.  Each complaint names as
defendants the members of Sunoco's board of directors and alleges
that they breached their fiduciary duties by negotiating and
executing, through an unfair and conflicted process, a merger
agreement that provides inadequate consideration and that contains
impermissible terms designed to deter alternative bids. Each
complaint also names as defendants Sunoco, ETP, Energy Transfer
Partners GP, L.P. ("ETP GP," the general partner of ETP), Energy
Transfer Partners, L.L.C. ("ETP LLC," the general partner of ETP
GP) and Sam Acquisition Corporation, alleging that they aided and
abetted the breach of fiduciary duties by Sunoco's directors; some
of the complaints also the Company as a defendant on those aiding
and abetting claims.  In September 2012, all of these lawsuits
were settled with no payment obligation on the part of any of the
defendants following the filing of Current Reports on Form 8-K
that included additional disclosures that were incorporated by
reference into the proxy statement related to the Sunoco Merger.
Subsequent to the settlement of these cases, the plaintiffs'
attorneys sought compensation from Sunoco for attorneys' fees
related to their efforts in obtaining these additional
disclosures.

In January 2013, Sunoco entered into agreements to compensate the
plaintiffs' attorneys in the state court actions in the aggregate
amount of not more than $950,000 and to compensate the plaintiffs'
attorneys in the federal court action in the amount of not more
than $250,000.  The payment of $950,000 was made in July 2013.

Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., directly and indirectly owns equity
interests in entities that are engaged in diversified energy-
related services.  The Company is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.


EXPEDIA INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Washington
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Sept. 25
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
Expedia, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Western District of
Washington, and docketed under 13-cv-01735, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Expedia between July 27, 2012 and
July 25, 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 Expedia securities during
the Class Period, you have until October 28, 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.

Expedia is an Internet-based travel website company headquartered
in Bellevue, Washington, with localized sites for 29 countries.
Its websites book airline tickets, hotel reservations, car
rentals, cruises, vacation packages and various attractions and
services via the World Wide Web and telephone travel agents.  In
2011, Expedia split into two publicly traded companies by spinning
off its TripAdvisor brand of travel sites.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and operations.  Specifically, Defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(a) that following the spin-off, TripAdvisor had been directing a
significant amount of lucrative web traffic to Expedia pursuant to
an informal strategic partnership between the two companies that
inured to the benefit of Expedia and to the detriment of
TripAdvisor; (b) that the lucrative web traffic directed to
Expedia from TripAdvisor following the spin-off had been a
material source of Expedia's outsized revenues following the spin-
off; (c) that TripAdvisor would stop directing web traffic to
Expedia in early 2013; and (d) that performance at the Company's
Hotwire unit was failing.

On July 25, 2013, after the close of trading, Expedia issued a
press release announcing its second quarter 2013 financial results
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.  Expedia's second-quarter
2013 profit fell to $71.5 million from $105.2 million a year
earlier.  Overall, bookings rose only 13%, well below the 19%
surge the Company posted during fiscal 2012.  The Company also
lowered its guidance for 2013 adjusted earnings, predicting growth
in the mid to high single digits.  On this news, Expedia shares
declined $17.80 per share or nearly 27%, to close at $47.20 per
share on July 26, 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.


EXXONMOBIL PIPELINE: "Finton" & "Duncan" Lawsuits Remanded
----------------------------------------------------------
Sam Eifling, writing for The Arkansas Times, reports that more
than 50 plaintiffs whose suit against ExxonMobil had been removed
to federal court will get to present their case to a Faulkner
County jury.  On Sept. 26, U.S. District Judge Brian Miller
remanded Finton et al v. ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. back to the home
county where Exxon's Pegasus pipeline broke open on March 29.

The remanding marks the second district court setback for Exxon in
two weeks.  On Sept. 13, Judge Billy Roy Wilson sent another class
action suit, Duncan et al v ExxonMobil Corporation, which included
a relatively modest five plaintiffs, to Faulkner County Circuit
Court.

Both cases now stand to be decided by juries drawn entirely from
Faulkner County, rather than a jury pool comprising several
counties' residents.

Shawn Daniels, a trial attorney with Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton,
which brought the Finton case, emails: "We anticipate at least one
or two new cases to be filed by other law firms who have been on
the sidelines watching to see what happened with our case.
Although it's impossible to predict what a judge will do,
consolidating cases is certainly a possibility."  He added that
the firm is extremely pleased that the case will be decided by
residents of the same county where the spill occurred.


FLORIDA: Judge Tosses Suit Over Disabled Children's Nursing Homes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miami Herald reports that a federal judge on Sept. 25 rejected
arguments that a lawsuit challenging Florida's placement of
severely disabled children in nursing homes should be a class
action -- but left open the possibility that it could become a
class action in the future.

The lawsuit, filed last year on behalf of several plaintiffs,
contends that Florida has violated the Americans with Disabilities
Act by placing children with complex medical needs in nursing
homes instead of providing services in the children's homes and
communities.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs sought to make the case a class action
on behalf of more than 3,300 children who are in nursing homes or
at risk of such placements.

But U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenbaum issued a six-page order on
Sept. 25 that at least temporarily sided with the state, which has
sought to block a class action.  Judge Rosenbaum wrote that
without more information, it was not possible to determine whether
class "certification" should be approved.

"If a systemic problem exists, the case may be appropriately
handled as a class action,'' the order said.

"If, however, the case involves a problem with the individualized
application of the challenged policies in a handful of cases,
class certification may not be appropriate.  At this juncture,
however, the record is not sufficiently developed for the court to
be able to discern what may be the case."

While denying the motion for class certification on Sept. 25,
Judge Rosenbaum said the plaintiffs can renew the motion after
conducting "discovery," a process of gathering details in
lawsuits.

The lawsuit is one of two cases arguing that the state has
violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by placing disabled
children in nursing homes.  The other case was filed this year by
the U.S. Department of Justice.  State officials have vehemently
denied wrongdoing in the way they have provided services to the
Medicaid-eligible children.


FUSHI COPPERWELD: Dec. 17 Settlement Proof of Claim Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Sept. 24 issued the following
statement pursuant to an order of the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville Division):

      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
                              NASHVILLE DIVISION






                            CLASS ACTION
                  Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-00595
                  Honorable William J. Haynes, Jr.
                  Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant

NORTH PORT FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION-LOCAL OPTION PLAN, Individually
and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,


                  vs.

FUSHI COPPERWELD, INC., et al.,

Defendants.


        TO:   ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
FUSHI COPPERWELD, INC. COMMON STOCK BETWEEN AUGUST 14, 2007, AND
MAY 4, 2011, INCLUSIVE

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that, pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee,
Nashville Division, a hearing will be held on May 12, 2014, at
9:00 a.m., before the Honorable William J. Haynes, Jr., United
States Chief District Judge, at the Estes Kefauver Federal
Building and United States Courthouse, 801 Broadway, Nashville, TN
37203, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed
Settlement of the above-captioned Litigation for the sum of
$3,250,000 in cash, plus accrued interest, should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether,
thereafter, the Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice as
set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated August 29, 2013;
(3) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and therefore should be approved; and (4) the
reasonableness of the application of Lead Counsel for the payment
of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection with this
Litigation.

If you purchased or acquired the common stock of Fushi during the
period beginning on August 14, 2007 through May 4, 2011,
inclusive, your rights may be affected by this Litigation and the
Settlement thereof.  If you have not received a copy of the Notice
of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action and a copy of
the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by writing
to the Claims Administrator: Fushi Securities Litigation, Claims
Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 8040, San Rafael,
CA 94912-8040.

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release postmarked no later than December 17, 2013, establishing
that you are entitled to a recovery.  You will be bound by any
judgment rendered in the Litigation unless you request to be
excluded, in writing in the manner and form explained in the
Notice, to the Claims Administrator at the above address,
postmarked no later than December 30, 2013.

Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or the
application for attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed with
the Clerk of the Court at the address below no later than March 3,
2014:

CLERK OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF
TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION Estes Kefauver Federal Building and
United States Courthouse 801 Broadway, Room 800 Nashville,
TN 37203 and copies received by the following counsel no later
than March 3, 2014:

Lead Plaintiff's counsel:

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP JEFFREY D. LIGHT 655 West
Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101

Defendants' counsel:

LOEB & LOEB LLP JONATHAN N. STRAUSS 325 Park Avenue New York, NY
10154

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: September 4, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION


GARDEN-FRESH FOODS: To Voluntary Recall Products on Listeria Risks
------------------------------------------------------------------
WKYC reports that Garden-Fresh Foods is initiating an expansion to
its voluntary recall on various ready-to-eat salads, slaw, and dip
products sold under various brands and code dates.

The products may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an
organism that can cause serious and sometimes-fatal infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems.

Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal
pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

The brand names affected include Market Pantry, Archer Farms,
D'Amico and Sons, Roundy's, Grandpa's, Maggie's, Finest
Traditions, Chef's Kitchen, Garden-Fresh, Weis, Spartan and
Portillo's.

Products are sold in various size containers (6 oz to 18 oz
packages).

The products were distributed in the following states: WI, MN, IA,
IL, OH, IN, TX, FL, MA, MO, MI, PA, AZ, CA, and distributed to
retail stores and food services.

A copy of the full product list with product codes is available
at:

         http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm369696.htm

Consumers who have purchased any of the suspect products are urged
to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Currently
there has been no illness or complaints related to this recall.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-645-3367
Monday through Friday between the hours 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Judge Remands Paxil Case to Philadelphia Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that deepening a recent split among judges in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, U.S. District Senior Judge Michael Baylson has
remanded a case against GlaxoSmithKline over its antidepressant
drug Paxil, ruling it should be tried in the Philadelphia Court of
Common Pleas.  GSK had argued the case belonged in federal court.

The pharmaceutical giant had sought removal of the case, for the
second time, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit's ruling in June that declared its corporate citizenship
lay in Delaware.  Arguing that the opinion constitutes an
intervening order, it asked to have several suits alleging birth
defects caused by Paxil removed to federal court on diversity
grounds.

Since the Third Circuit issued its opinion in June, three judges
have denied motions to remand in similar actions involving Paxil.
Judge Baylson is the second judge to grant the motion for remand.

"The Third Circuit was silent, however, on what effect, if any,
its ruling would have on similar cases, such as the one at bar,"
Judge Baylson said of the open question as to how trial court
judges are to interpret the new precedent.

He concluded that GSK had missed its window for removal and,
regardless of the Third Circuit's recent ruling, would have only
one opportunity for it.

"Removal is, by congressional design, a one-time event.  Counsel
need to move promptly and correctly.  The judge only gets one
'shot' at the decision," he said.

The plaintiffs, Theresa Powell, who took Paxil while she was
pregnant, and her daughter, Madison Powell, joined the mass torts
program in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in June 2011,
shortly before GSK removed the case to federal court.

After the cases were consolidated in front of U.S. District Judge
Timothy Savage of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the judge
determined that GSK's "nerve center" was in Pennsylvania, where it
has its principal place of business and thousands of employees.
Since that holding defeated diversity jurisdiction, Judge Savage
remanded the cases to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas,
where they have been litigated since then.

The Third Circuit's decision in June, captioned Johnson v.
SmithKline Beecham, found the opposite of Judge Savage and
reinvigorated the removal issue.

U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle III was the first to rule, in
July, and U.S. District Judges Mary McLaughlin and Ronald L.
Buckwalter followed his reasoning, according to the opinion.

"According to Judge Bartle, the Third Circuit's decision in
Johnson makes Judge Savage's remand opinion a 'nullity' that can
be disregarded when assessing the removability of the initial
pleading," Judge Baylson said.  "In Judge Bartle's view, the Paxil
cases were 'initially removable' at the pleading stage and, as
such, are not subject to the one-year time limit on removal."

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge John R. Padova parted ways
from the other three and remanded a Paxil case to the Philadelphia
Court of Common Pleas.

Assessing GSK's argument that Johnson would allow the court to get
around the section of the U.S. Code that prohibits review of
initial remands, Judge Baylson said, "Since Johnson did not
expressly authorize GSK to remove all similar actions, it is
doubtful that Johnson qualifies as an 'intervening order' for
purposes of Section 1447(d)."

Beyond that, he said, "Even if Johnson qualifies as an
'intervening order,' it is doubtful that Johnson justifies a
retroactive determination that the case was initially removable.
This determination, which would invalidate Judge Savage's non-
reviewable conclusion to the contrary, is neither justified by Doe
nor compatible with Sec. 1447(d)."  He referred to Doe v. American
Red Cross, decided by the Third Circuit in 1993.

"We must remember that the Third Circuit did not reverse Judge
Savage's opinion.  Rather, the Third Circuit rendered a different
conclusion in a separate appeal of Judge Diamond's ruling in
Johnson," Judge Baylson said, referring to U.S. District Judge
Paul S. Diamond, who had ruled that GSK is a Delaware corporation
in the suit that was on appeal to the Third Circuit resulting in
the June decision.

"Although all district courts within this circuit are now bound by
Johnson's holding that GSK is a Delaware citizen, that does not
make a prior judicial decision a 'nullity' and treating it as such
ignores Section 1447(d)'s command that remand orders not be
subject to review or reconsideration," Judge Baylson said.

Neither Carolyn McCormack -- cmccormack@lavin-law.com -- of Lavin,
O'Neil, Ricci, Cedrone & DiSipio, who represented GSK, nor
Adam Peavy -- apeavy@bpblaw.com -- of Bailey Peavy Bailey in
Houston, who represented the Powells, could be reached for
comment.


GOOGLE INC: Judge Allows Gmail Scanning Claims to Move Forward
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Love, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal judge
has rejected Google's main lines of defense to accusations the
company illegally mined personal data from Gmail messages without
users' consent.

In an order issued on Sept. 26, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh
allowed plaintiffs to move forward with claims that Google's
practice of automatically scanning emails to target advertisements
violates the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act and a
handful of state privacy laws.

"The statutory scheme suggests that Congress did not intend to
allow electronic communication service providers unlimited leeway
to engage in any interception that would benefit their business
models, as Google contends," Judge Koh wrote in a 43-page order.

Moreover, Judge Koh held Google's email scanning may have violated
its own privacy policies.  The decision is among the first to
conclude that California's Invasion of Privacy Act, passed in
1967, applies to email.

The decision marks the second time in recent weeks that Google has
been tripped up by wiretap laws and could ring alarm bells for
other email providers that scan message content to sell targeted
advertising.  Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit ruled that the company can be sued for scooping
up private Wi-Fi transmissions during its Street View mapping
project.

During a hearing on Google's motion to dismiss earlier this month,
the company's lawyers at Cooley contended that automatic
processing, which enables basic features such as sorting messages
or searching inboxes, has become an inescapable part of the email
business.  The practice is so prevalent, the lawyers argued in
briefs, that even non-Gmail users should have realized their
messages were likely to be scanned when sent to Gmail accounts.

For Judge Koh, the critical question for both Gmail and non-Gmail
users was whether they had adequate notice their communications
might be intercepted and for what purpose.  For instance, users
might agree to some forms of email processing without giving their
email providers free rein.  "Consent is not an all-or-nothing
proposition," she wrote.

Cooley partner Whitty Somvichian -- wsomvichian@cooley.com -- who
is representing Google in the Gmail litigation along with partner
Michael Rhodes -- rhodesmg@cooley.com -- deferred to the company
for comment.

"We're disappointed in this decision and are considering our
options," a Google spokesman said in a statement.

The multidistrict litigation over Google's email scanning landed
in the Northern District in April, when seven privacy suits were
clustered as In re Google Inc.  Gmail Litigation, 13-2430.  In its
bid to dismiss the litigation, Google argued that scanning
messages to help sell ads falls under its "ordinary course of
business," for which communications service providers are exempt
under federal and state wiretap laws.

Plaintiffs lawyer Sean Rommel -- srommel@wylyrommel.com -- of
Texas-based Wyly Rommel insisted at the hearing earlier this month
that the company's "ordinary course of business" as an email
provider must be defined narrowly.  Judge Koh agreed, finding that
the scanning would only be exempt if it helped the company
transmit emails.

"There is no dispute that Google's interception of plaintiffs'
emails . . . advanced Google's business interests," the judge
wrote. "But this does not end the inquiry."

She added: "The presence of the modifier 'ordinary' must mean that
not everything Google does in the course of its business would
fall within the exception."

The plaintiffs accuse Google of perpetrating a scheme that reaches
far beyond email transmission. They allege in a response brief
that Google uses Gmail as "its own secret data mining machine,"
constructing secret profiles for its legion of users.

Judge Koh rejected Google's claim that users allowed their
messages to be scanned when they accepted the company's terms of
service.  Although Google reserved the right to screen content,
the company suggested its aim was to block explicit sexual
material, not to target ads or create user profiles, Judge Koh
noted.

"Because the two processes were allegedly separate, consent to one
does not equate to consent to the other," she wrote.

The terms of service might alert users that Google is capable of
intercepting messages.  However, the wording does not suggest the
company actually engages in the practice, Judge Koh continued.

In its current terms of service and privacy policy, adopted last
year, Google provides a long list of sources from which it may
glean users' information, but Gmail is not among them, she noted.

"These privacy policies do not demonstrate explicit consent, and
in fact suggest the opposite," Judge Koh wrote.

Widening the potential class considerably, Judge Koh found that
people with other email providers who correspond with Gmail users
do not give Google implicit consent to intercept their messages.

Judge Koh waded into new territory when considering Google's
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims under CIPA, California's
wiretap law.  Few courts have considered the question of whether
the statute can be applied to email and there is no binding
authority.  Concluding that California lawmakers wanted to afford
citizens broad protections under the statute, Judge Koh allowed
the claims.

In one consolation prize for Google, Judge Koh dismissed with
leave to amend the plaintiffs' claims under Section 632 of CIPA,
which applies to confidential communications.  Judge Koh also
dismissed with leave to amend the plaintiffs' Pennsylvania state
law claims but let stand claims filed under Florida and Maryland
laws.


GOOGLE INC: Asks 9th Cir. to Reconsider Street-View Case Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for Daily Online Examiner, reports that
Google is asking a federal appellate court to reconsider its
decision that the company's Street View cars potentially violated
wiretap laws by capturing data from open WiFi networks.  That
decision, issued several weeks ago, cleared the way for a class-
action lawsuit against the company to proceed.

The search giant now says that the three 9th Circuit judges who
issued the ruling had an "incorrect understanding" of the facts.
What's more, Google argues, the ruling will result in "significant
uncertainty about the legal status of ordinary activities
involving Wi-Fi networks."

The dispute stems from news that Google's Street View cars
collected "payload" data -- including emails, passwords and URLs
visited -- from WiFi networks that weren't password-protected.
Google admitted in 2010 that its Street View cars gathered this
data. At the time, the company apologized and said it intended to
destroy the data.

But the admission prompted a class-action lawsuit against the
company -- not to mention a host of bad publicity and
investigations by other agencies.

Google said the class-action should be dismissed.  The company
argued that it didn't violate the wiretap laws which, it says,
only ban the interception of password-protected WiFi
transmissions.  That argument hinges on a section of the law that
allows companies to intercept "radio communications" that are
"readily accessible to the general public."

The trial judge who presided over the class-action disagreed with
Google. Several weeks ago, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals also said it disagreed with Google.

The appellate judges ruled that WiFi networks are not publicly
accessible because "most" of the public "lacks the expertise to
intercept and decode payload data transmitted over a Wi-Fi
network."

But Google says the panel lacks evidence for that conclusion.

"The tools needed to receive, store, and monitor data transmitted
on nearby Wi-Fi networks thus are available to virtually anyone
with a personal computer," Google says in papers arguing for a new
hearing.  The company adds that packet-sniffers are "sold by Cisco
and other mainstream commercial providers, and indeed are included
as a standard feature of Apple's desktop operating system and
offered by Microsoft as a free download for Windows."

The company is asking the entire 9th Circuit to rehear the case in
order to "undo the panel's mistake and alleviate the serious legal
and practical uncertainties" the decision created.


HONDA MOTOR: To Recalls 405,400 Vehicles Over Airbag Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Honda Motor Co. said it is recalling about
405,400 vehicles including the Odyssey minivan in the United
States and three other countries due to a glitch in the computer
chip used in the airbag system.

Honda is recalling about 342,000 Odysseys from the 2003 and 2004
model years in the United States and Canada, as well as 63,400
Acura MDXs from 2003 model year in the United States, Canada,
Japan and Australia.

Most of the recalled vehicles are in the United States, where
318,683 Odysseys and 55,935 Acura MDXs are affected.

A computer chip in the airbag control unit could malfunction when
it receives electrical noise from other parts in the car, Honda
said in a statement.

As a result, driver and passenger seat airbags could deploy
inadvertently, spokesman Tsuyoshi Hojo said.

The supplier of the computer chip was U.S. supplier TRW
Automotive.  Honda said it does not expect to have to issue any
more recalls related to this issue.

No crashes have been reported related to this glitch, but several
cases of injuries such as abrasions on the hand and fingers have
been reported, Mr. Hojo said.

Honda is installing an electrical signal filter in the recalled
vehicles, which will take about an hour, Mr. Hojo said.


HURONIA REGIONAL: Court Docs to Be Stored in Archives of Ontario
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Alamenciak, writing for Toronto Star, reports that the 65,000
documents that could have been made public as evidence in a class-
action lawsuit over alleged abuses at the Huronia Regional Centre
will instead be available only through freedom of information
laws.

As part of a class-action lawsuit settlement, the documents --
including police reports, investigations into abuse allegations,
witness testimony and internal policy papers -- will be stored
with the Archives of Ontario.  Anyone wishing to see them will
have to file a request under the provincial Freedom of Information
and Protection of Privacy Act, which can delay their release and
result in portions being kept secret.

The requests have to be in writing and the documents vetted by
officials before release.

"Now that it's under the freedom of information system, in theory
that means that information is more easily accessible," said
David Fewer, a lawyer and director of CIPPIC, a public policy law
clinic at the University of Ottawa.

"But the reality is the government has found lots of ways to tweak
this stuff to make it difficult to access material if they don't
want the material to be accessed."

Mr. Fewer says the exemptions in the act, which allows the
government to censor portions of documents, could hamper attempts
to share the stories of Huronia residents.

Former residents of the provincially run Huronia Regional Centre
in Orillia recently won a landmark victory with the settlement of
a class-action lawsuit against the province over allegations of
physical, emotional and sexual abuse at the former institution.

The settlement is expected to be heard and probably approved by a
judge in December.

"Only documents entered as evidence at trial would have been
public," said Brendan Crawley, spokesman for the Ministry of the
Attorney General.  He added it would not be appropriate to comment
while the settlement is still before the court.

"The idea is that there are a lot of names involved of former
residents, former employees, that they may not want out there,"
explained David Rosenfeld, one of the lawyers for the plaintiff's
side in the class-action lawsuit.

Rosenfeld said the documents are already in electronic format.

Kate Rossiter, an assistant professor with Wilfrid Laurier
University who is studying Huronia, worries the process will bog
down the release of documents.

"One of the priorities (of the settlement) is making those
documents available to people, but my worry is the bureaucracy of
document storage will prohibit that in some way," she said.  "It's
my utmost concern that those documents remain very public and very
accessible."

Ms. Rossiter acknowledged the need to respect the privacy of
residents who may still be alive, but stressed the importance of
quickly releasing the information

The archives currently holds case files for former residents,
including a list of some 1,440 people buried in numbered and
unmarked graves on the facility's site.  Family members trying to
find out more about relatives who were in Huronia can file a
freedom of information request to the Archives, using a guide on
its website, to receive details that may include medical reports,
correspondence and, in rare cases, photos.

Two other institutions for people with intellectual disabilities,
Southwestern Regional Centre in Chatham-Kent and Rideau Regional
Centre in Smiths Falls, are also subject to class-action lawsuits
currently before the courts.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Judge Postpones Federal ASR Hip Trial
--------------------------------------------------------
Drugwatch reports that an Ohio judge again postponed the first
federal case against Johnson & Johnson's recalled ASR hip implants
that was scheduled to begin on Sept. 24.

U.S. District Judge David A. Katz, of the Northern District of
Ohio, signed an order on Sept. 20 stating the most recent delay is
because "the scheduling of expert witnesses by both parties has
become an extremely difficult task.  Additionally, issues remain
with regard to scheduling of additional depositions and pretrial
discovery which are necessary for the thorough preparation and
presentation of this bellwether case."

Documents show the court originally had scheduled the trial for
Sept. 9, but it was reset in a Cleveland courtroom.  Judge Katz's
court order shows it will head to trial within 90 days.

The complaint, brought by 58-year-old Ann McCracken of Rochester,
N.Y., could set a precedent for thousands of other plaintiffs who
say they also were injured by the devices.

The bellwether case is the first of 7,860 similar federal lawsuits
against Johnson & Johnson's DePuy Orthopaedics unit that will go
before a jury.  More than 3,600 additional ASR lawsuits against
the company are pending in state courts.

The problems with the ASR stem from the design: a metal cup
(socket) and a metal ball.  Both components are made from chromium
and cobalt, and grind against each other during normal movements.
This releases metal debris into the patient's tissues, and can
cause metal poisoning and serious tissue and bone damage.  To
address these complications, patients often require a second
surgery, known as revision surgery.

"There are a significant subset of clients who got very badly hurt
by the device, and their injuries are much more than a simple
revision," Matthew Davis, a lawyer at Walkup Melodia Kelly &
Schoenberger in San Francisco, told Bloomberg.  "If those cases
went to trial and there was a finding of liability, a jury would
award them general damages in the seven figures."

A verdict in favor of Ms. McCracken could dictate how Johnson &
Johnson (J&J) handles other plaintiffs' cases.  Bloomberg recently
reported that the company is considering a record $3 billion
global settlement with plaintiffs -- or an average of $300,000 per
case.

                      Patient's Struggles

Ms. McCracken had hip replacement surgery in August 2009 and
received an ASR implant, which was recalled just a year later.  In
her complaint, she calls the device "defective" and "not
reasonably safe."  She also says the device caused her so much
pain and so many mobility issues that she had to have two revision
hip surgeries -- in January 2011 and October 2011.  The lawsuit
claims the first revision surgery was due to the device's failure,
and the second was the result of ongoing injuries she suffered
from the ASR hip implant.

The lawsuit also claims that DePuy was negligent in performing
proper clinical trials to determine the safety of the implant
before putting it on the market in 2005.  It goes on to say that
DePuy knew the device was defective and yet failed to warn doctors
and patients.  Ms. McCracken is seeking in excess of $75,000 in
actual damages.  The jury can also consider punitive damages, if
it finds the manufacturer liable.

             Johnson & Johnson's Liability at Issue

Judge Katz is overseeing Ms. McCracken's lawsuit as well as the
other federal cases, which have been consolidated into
multidistrict litigation (MDL).  The first few trials are known as
"bellwether trials" or "test trials."  These cases are intended to
provide insight into the manufacturer's liability or lack thereof.

Ms. McCracken's lawsuit claims:

   * The DePuy device had design flaws that not only caused it to
fail in a reasonably short period of time, but also released toxic
metal particles into the patient's blood stream.

   * The manufacturer failed to warn patients that the implant
contained defects, even after finding out about complications.
   * DePuy was negligent by inadequately testing the products, and
putting the implants on the market without knowing the risks and
dangers of their product.

   * The company continued marketing the product even after it
became aware of complications.

DePuy has faced split decisions in state courts -- losing one case
and winning one.  In March, DePuy lost its first ASR lawsuit and
was ordered to pay a Montana man $8.3 million in damages.  The
company is appealing that ruling, and is denying liability.

"We believe ASR XL was properly designed, and that DePuy's actions
concerning the product were appropriate and responsible," DePuy
spokeswoman Lori Gawreluk said after that verdict.

In April, an Illinois jury ruled in favor of Johnson & Johnson
after a woman claimed her ASR implant failed three years after
implantation, causing her painful side effects.  The jury ruled
her injury was a result of her health issues and not a defective
device.

Evidence from those cases will likely resurface during the trial.


MONOMOY CAPITAL: Judge Refuses to Dismiss WARN Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Abigail Rubenstein, writing for Law360, reports that an Indiana
federal judge on Sept. 24 refused to toss claims against private
equity firm Monomoy Capital Partners LP in a WARN Act class action
stemming from the closing of a plastic components manufacturing
facility by one of its portfolio companies, Fortis Plastics LLC.

In two separate orders, U.S. District Judge Jon E. DeGuilio
certified a class of former employees at the now shuttered Fort
Smith, Ark., plant and denied Monomoy's motion to dismiss the
claims against it, rejecting the firm's argument that the
complaint did not sufficiently allege it could be considered an
employer.

The lawsuit, which was originally filed by former plant worker Ray
Young in June 2012 and amended in November 2012 to add Monomoy as
a defendant, alleged that Fortis failed to give employees proper
notice before closing the plant in violation of the WARN Act's
requirements and that as a result the plant's former employees are
due back wages and benefits.  The suit alleges that Fortis and
Monomoy are so interrelated as to constitute a "single employer"
under the worker notification law.

"Usually private equity firms have investments in various
portfolio companies. and depending on how they set up their
operations, they can insulate themselves from various liability,
including liability under the WARN Act," Peter W. Overs Jr. of
Harwood Feffer LLP, who represents the class, told Law360.  "We
think that the way we understand Monomoy had managed its
investment in Fortis crossed the line."

Monomoy had asked the court to nix the claim against it, saying
the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to show the firm
was Young's employer. But Judge DeGuilio disagreed.

Adopting the U.S. Department of Labor's five-factor test for a
"single employer" -- whose application to the WARN Act the judge
noted was an issue of first impression for the district -- Judge
DeGuilio found the suit should be allowed to proceed.

The judge specifically found that Young had adequately alleged
that Monomoy had exerted day-to-day control over Fortis.

And in another order handed down the same day, Judge DeGuilio
certified the case as a class action, finding there were common
legal issues relating to Young and the approximately 90 other
workers who lost their jobs when the plant closed.

The judge concluded that certification of a class seeking
injunctive relief would be inappropriate, but that a class seeking
damages should be certified.

The class includes all who worked at or reported to the plant 60
days before its closing.

An attorney for the defendants did not immediately respond to a
request for comment on Sept. 25.

The class is represented by Harwood Feffer LLP and Anderson
Agostino & Keller PC is serving as liaison counsel.

Monomoy and Fortis are represented by Donald V. Orlandoni --
dorlandoni@mcdonaldhopkins.com -- of McDonald Hopkins PLC.  Fortis
is also represented by Carl A. Greci -- carl.greci@FaegreBD.com --
and Alison G. Fox -- alison.fox@FaegreBD.com -- of Faegre Baker
Daniels LLP.

The case is Young v. Fortis Plastics LLC, case No. 3:12-cv-00364,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.


NELNET INC: Continues to Defend "Bais Yaakov" Suit vs. Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nelnet, Inc., continues to defend a subsidiary against a class
action lawsuit styled Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Peterson's
Nelnet, LLC, 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 January 4, 2011, a complaint against Peterson's Nelnet, LLC
("Peterson's"), a subsidiary of Nelnet, Inc. ("Nelnet"), was filed
in the U.S. federal District Court for the District of New Jersey
(the "New Jersey District Court").  The complaint alleges that
Peterson's sent six advertising faxes to the named plaintiff in
2008-2009 that were not the result of express invitation or
permission granted by the plaintiff and did not include certain
opt out language. The complaint also alleges that such faxes
violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the
"TCPA"), purportedly entitling the plaintiff to $500 per
violation, trebled for willful violations for each of the six
faxes.  The complaint further alleges that Peterson's had sent
putative class members more than 10,000 faxes that violated the
TCPA, amounting to more than $5 million in statutory penalty
damages and more than $15 million if trebled for willful
violations.  The complaint seeks to establish a class action.  As
of August 8, 2013, the New Jersey District Court has not
established, recognized, or certified a class.

On April 14, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
(the "Appeals Court"), which has appellate jurisdiction over the
New Jersey District Court, issued an order in an unrelated TCPA
case which remanded that case to the New Jersey District Court to
determine whether the statutory provisions of the TCPA limit
whether or to what extent a TCPA claim can be heard as a class
action in federal court where applicable state law would impose
limitations on a class action if the claim were brought in state
court.  The New Jersey District Court denied a subsequent motion
by Peterson's to dismiss the complaint, but granted a motion
enabling Peterson's to file a petition for permission to seek an
interim appeal with the Appeals Court regarding questions of law
that may affect the outcome of the case, which petition the
Appeals Court denied on May 8, 2013.  Peterson's intends to
continue to contest the lawsuit vigorously.

Nelnet, Inc., is an education services company focused primarily
on providing fee-based processing services and quality education-
related products and services in four core areas: loan financing,
loan servicing, payment processing, and enrollment services.  The
Company is headquartered in Lincoln, Nebraska.


NELNET INC: Continues to Defend "Keating" Class Suit in Ohio
------------------------------------------------------------
Nelnet, Inc., continues to defend itself and its subsidiaries
against a class action lawsuit styled Grant Keating v. Peterson's
Nelnet, LLC, 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.

On August 6, 2012, an Amended Complaint was served on Peterson's
Nelnet, LLC ("Peterson's"), CUnet, LLC ("CUnet"), a subsidiary of
Nelnet, and on Nelnet (collectively, the "Defendants"), in
connection with a lawsuit by Grant Keating in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (the "Ohio
District Court").  The lawsuit was originally instituted on
August 24, 2011, and alleges that that the Defendants sent an
advertising text message to the named plaintiff in June 2011 using
an automatic telephone dialing system, and without the Plaintiff's
express consent.  The complaint also alleges that this text
message violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"),
purportedly entitling the plaintiff to $500, trebled for a willful
violation.  The complaint further alleges that the Defendants sent
putative class members similar text messages using an automatic
telephone dialing system, without such purported class members'
consent.  The complaint seeks to establish a class action.  As of
August 8, 213, the Ohio District Court has not established,
recognized, or certified a class.  The Defendants have filed
answers to the Amended Complaint, and intend to defend themselves
vigorously in this lawsuit.

Nelnet, Inc., is an education services company focused primarily
on providing fee-based processing services and quality education-
related products and services in four core areas: loan financing,
loan servicing, payment processing, and enrollment services.  The
Company is headquartered in Lincoln, Nebraska.


NELNET INC: "Zaw" Class Suit Remains Pending in California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Than Zaw v. Nelnet, Inc., remains
pending 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.

On January 18, 2013, a Third Amended Complaint was served on
Nelnet in connection with a lawsuit by Than Zaw against Nelnet
(erroneously referred to in the lawsuit as Nelnet Business
Solutions, Inc.) in the Superior Court of the State of California,
Contra Costa County (the "Court").  The lawsuit was originally
instituted on December 30, 2010, and alleges that Nelnet violated
the California Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in its
interactions with the plaintiff, a California resident.  The
plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint adds additional allegations
claiming that Nelnet violated Section 632 of the California Penal
Code by allegedly recording one or more telephone calls to
plaintiff without plaintiff's consent, and seeks $5,000 in
statutory damages per alleged violation.  The Third Amended
Complaint further alleges that Nelnet improperly recorded
telephone calls to other California residents without such
persons' consent, and seeks to establish a class action with
respect to the California Section 632 claim.  As of August 8,
2013, the Court has not established, recognized, or certified a
class.  Nelnet has filed an answer to the Third Amended Complaint,
and intends to defend itself vigorously in this lawsuit.

Nelnet, Inc., is an education services company focused primarily
on providing fee-based processing services and quality education-
related products and services in four core areas: loan financing,
loan servicing, payment processing, and enrollment services.  The
Company is headquartered in Lincoln, Nebraska.


NEVADA: Faces Class Action Over Safety Issues in Bus Stops
----------------------------------------------------------
Fatima Rahmatullah, writing for KSNV News 3, reports that a new
lawsuit was filed against the Regional Transportation Commission.
The class action lawsuit is in light of recent accidents at bus
stops.

Attorney Matthew Callister wants the Regional Transportation
Commission to address safety issues when it comes to bus stops.
He says hundreds of bus stops in the valley are unsafe.  The bus
stops are too close to the curbs at around three feet.  Mr.
Callister wants them pushed back to at least five feet and that's
according to national and international standards by engineers.

In 2008 the RTC did do a study and found more than 1,000 bus stops
unsafe.  According to that report, moving the stops could reduce
accidents by up to 80 percent.  The RTC says they've already spent
$2.5 million this year installing shelters.

But Mr. Callister suspects money may be why the RTC doesn't want
to push back the bus stops.  He says the closer promotional ads
are to the curbs may bring in money.


NEW HAWAII SEA: Sued Over Hepatitis A Virus Exposure
----------------------------------------------------
David Knowles and Corky Siemaszko, writing for New York Daily
News, report that a Bronx restaurant that served "sushi pizza"
with a side of Hepatitis A has been hit with a class action
lawsuit.

Lisa Ann Imperati and "all those similarly situated" are seeking
unspecified damages from the owners of the New Hawaii Sea
Restaurant on Williamsbridge Rd., according to court papers filed
in New York State Supreme court.

Ms. Imperati, who lives in the Bronx, claims she may have been
exposed to the virus after noshing at the eatery on Sept. 10 and
Sept. 14, the papers state.  One of the lawyers filing the suit is
William Marler, a Seattle-based personal injury lawyer who won a
landmark $15.6 million settlement in 1993 from Jack in the Box on
behalf of a young survivor of an E. coli outbreak.  Mr. Marler
faulted Mayor Bloomberg's administration -- which has famously led
campaigns against public smoking and over-sized soft drinks -- for
not doing more to stop the spread of the virus.

"Really, all the stuff (Bloomberg) asks of New Yorkers and he does
not think that vaccinating food service workers is a good idea?"
Marler said in an email.  "This is the 4th hepatitis A scare in
less than 6 months" in New York metro area.

The city Health Department shuttered New Hawaii on Sept. 20 after
four patrons and a worker were infected with the virus.

Health officials urged anyone who ate food prepared at the
restaurant, which lists "sushi pizza" as one of its signature
dishes, from Sept. 7-19 to see a doctor for testing and to be
vaccinated.  They also dispatched a team to Lehman High School on
E. Tremont Ave. to give out free Hep A vaccines.  So many people
showed up for shots that at times the line wrapped around the
block.

Hepatitis A is spread by eating food that has been contaminated by
an infected person.  Symptoms include jaundice, fatigue, abdominal
pain, nausea and diarrhea.

Typically, people develop symptoms within 15 to 50 days after
exposure to the virus.  But if a person is vaccinated within 14
days of exposure, the disease can be prevented, according to the
city Health Department.


NISSAN MOTOR: To Recall 908,900 Cars Over Accelerator Sensor Flaw
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yoko Kubota, writing for Reuters, reports that Nissan Motor Corp.
will recall around 908,900 vehicles globally including 764,800 in
Japan due to a flaw in an accelerator sensor that could cause the
engine to stall, the Japanese carmaker said on Sept. 26.

No accidents or injuries have been reported to Nissan, spokesman
Chris Keeffe said in an e-mail.

The affected vehicles were produced in Japan between 2004 and
2013.  In Japan, Nissan is recalling certain Serena, X-Trail,
Lafesta and Fuga model vehicles.

In the United States, Nissan is recalling 98,300 vehicles
including certain Infiniti M models.  The company is also
recalling some vehicles in other regions including Europe and
Oceania, Mr. Keeffe said.

The accelerator pedal's sensor could become unstable, potentially
resulting in less-than-intended acceleration and in the worst
case, a stalled engine, the company said.

The accelerator pedals will be replaced and engine control
programming fixed to address the problem, which will take about 90
minutes, Mr. Keeffe said.


NMI RETIREMENT: Maratita's Bid to Intervene Opposed
---------------------------------------------------
Ferdie de la Torre, writing for Saipan Tribune, reports that all
the parties in the Betty Johnson's class action are opposed to
Rep. Janet Maratita's request to intervene in the case and
postpone the final hearing, saying the lawmaker's motion "lacks
coherent legal foundation, [is] untimely, and frivolous."

Johnson, the CNMI government, and the NMI Retirement Fund, through
their respective lawyers, filed their opposition on Sept. 26 in
the U.S. District Court for the NMI.

As this developed, Rep. Ramon A. Tebuteb wrote U.S. District Court
for the NMI designated judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood on Sept. 25
to ask her to consider two issues in the case: One, what legal
authority exists to allow for defined benefit members to be
included in a lawsuit without their affirmative actions or written
authorization to "opt in"? Two, what legal authority is there to
support the transfer of the employer/employee contributions of
those like himself who opted out from the settlement agreement
from the account of the Retirement Fund to the settlement
agreement account?

Johnson, through counsels Robert M. Hatch, Bruce L. Jorgensen, and
Stephen C. Woodruff, asked the court to deny the motion filed by
Maratita and Jesus I. Taisague because it is untimely as they have
known of this case since it was filed four years ago.

Ms. Johnson said Ms. Maratita and Mr. Taisague have known of the
court's stay order (stop the proceedings) since it was announced
in the preliminary approval order entered on Aug. 6, 2013, and
they have had notice of the deadlines for objections (Sept. 16,
2013) and opt outs (Sept. 20).

Ms. Johnson said the proposed intervenors have offered no excuse
for missing these deadlines or failing to intervene earlier if
they were legitimately interested in assisting in the pursuit of
this action.

Ms. Johnson pointed out that the proposed intervenors lack
standing because Mr. Taisague has requested exclusion and
Ms. Maratita does not even claim to be a member of the class.

"Neither have standing to object to the settlement," she said.

Ms. Johnson said the two's assertions that the constitutional
rights of the class or the CNMI are impaired by the settlement are
"plainly false because participation in the settlement is entirely
voluntary, and constitutional rights may be voluntarily
compromised."

Ms. Johnson said Ms. Maratita has not shown how the settlement
"strips her of a legal claim or cause of action" so she lacks
standing and her motion to intervene is frivolous.

Ms. Johnson said Ms. Maratita is a legislator, so it is
inconceivable that she has not known of this case.

Assistant attorney general Reena J. Patel, on behalf of the CNMI
government, asserted that both Ms. Maratita and Mr. Taisague
failed to act diligently and timely.

Patel also noted that any delay in the implementation of the
settlement agreement would wreck the payment schedule outlined in
the agreement and will further strain the Fund's financial health.

On Sept. 27, Ms. Maratita and Mr. Taisague, through counsel Ramon
K. Quichocho, asked the court to allow them to intervene in the
case and postpone the Sept. 30, 2013, hearing, where it is
expected to approve the settlement agreement in Johnson's class
action against the Fund and the CNMI government.


NOHO INC: Accused of Selling Bogus Hangover Prevention Diet Pills
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that NOHO Inc. sells a bogus
"hangover prevention" diet supplement, a class action claims in
California Superior Court.


NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Sept. 27 disclosed
that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court, District of Arizona, on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the common stock of
Nuverra Environmental Solutions, Inc. between November 11, 2011
and August 23, 2013, inclusive, against the Company and certain of
the Company's officers and directors, alleging securities fraud
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. 78j(b) and 78t(a)] and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the SEC [17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5].

The litigation is styled Monroe v. Nuverra Environmental
Solutions, Inc, et al.  A copy of the complaint filed in this
action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP website at
http://www.whafh.com

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Nuverra
engaged in a fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the
Company's stock price by disseminating materially false and
misleading statements, and failing to disclose material
information regarding the Company's true financial scorecard and
operations, thereby damaging Plaintiff and other similarly
situated investors.  In particular, the Company misrepresented or
failed to disclose that (i) it was overleveraged and experiencing
a liquidity crisis; (ii) it was experiencing a significant decline
in its operational results, especially in the Eagle Ford Shale
area; (iii) its default risk materially increased because of its
poor financial performance; and (iv) Defendants therefore lacked a
reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company
during the Class Period.

On July 30, 2013, the Company issued a press release announcing
its preliminary financial results for the quarter ended June 30,
2013 and, in particular, that its earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation, and amortization ("EBITDA") were, in fact,
significantly lower than previously projected.  On this news, the
price of Nuverra common stock dropped precipitously from a closing
of $3.49 per share on July 29, 2013 to a closing of $3.04 per
share on July 30, 2013, for a sharp decrease of approximately 13%.

Less than one month later, on August 23, 2013, it was reported in
the news that the Company's financial outlook had been severely
impaired by, among other things, a series of ill-advised
acquisitions.  On this news, the price of Nuverra common stock
declined another 11.76%, closing at $2.40 per share on August 26,
2013.

In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the statements
described in the Complaint, and the deceptive and manipulative
devices and contrivances employed by said Defendants, Plaintiff
and the other members of the Class relied, to their detriment, on
the integrity of the market price of Nuverra common stock.  Had
Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known the truth, they
would not have purchased said common stock, or would not have
purchased them at the inflated prices that were paid.

If you purchased NES common stock during the Class Period, you may
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff by
November 4, 2013.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that
acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Wolf
Haldenstein, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your
counsel in this action.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has approximately 70 attorneys in various practice areas; and
offices in Chicago, New York City, and San Diego.  The reputation
and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class
litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which
have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-
district and consolidated litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please
contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP at 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by telephone at (800) 575-0735
(Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.), via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com
or visit our website at http://www.whafh.com

All e-mail correspondence should make reference to "Nuverra".


PAYDAY FINANCIAL: FTC Files Amicus Brief Supporting Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Trade Commission on Sept. 26 disclosed that it filed
an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit supporting a class action lawsuit brought by consumers who
are challenging a payday lender's practice of requiring them to
submit to arbitration at a Native American reservation in South
Dakota.

The FTC has an interest in the class action case because, in a
separate action, the agency has sued the payday lender, Payday
Financial, LLC, for unfair and deceptive collection practices in
connection with its attempts to garnish consumers' pay checks.
The agency expanded the case against Payday Financial to allege
unfair and deceptive conduct associated with its practice of
filing collection suits against consumers in the Cheyenne River
Sioux tribal court, which allegedly lacked jurisdiction.  The case
remains in litigation.

The amicus brief argues that although arbitration is not an issue
in the FTC's case, the Commission's allegations are relevant to
the issue raised in the class action case -- specifically, whether
the defendants can legally compel consumers to submit to tribal
arbitration.

"For the vast majority of consumers, who can little afford the
expense, travel to the Reservation to participate in either
arbitral or court proceedings is simply infeasible," the brief
states.

The brief notes that as a general matter, Native American tribes
and tribal courts have legal authority over their own members and
not over non-members, unless non-members conduct activities inside
the reservation or enter into a commercial relationship with the
tribe or a member of the tribe.  According to the brief, consumers
who take out payday loans from these companies do so via the
Internet, and they do not conduct business on the reservation.

The FTC vote to join the amicus brief filing was 4-0.


POSEIDON CONCEPTS: Accused of Obstructing ASC Investigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan Healing, writing for The Calgary Herald, reports that failed
Poseidon Concepts Corp. of Calgary has been accused of obstructing
an Alberta Securities Commission investigation by altering minutes
of past board and committee meetings.

In a posting on its website on Sept. 23, the ASC says it asked
Poseidon in March for signed minutes from its audit committee and
board of director meetings from Nov. 1, 2011, when it was spun out
as a separate company from Open Range Energy Corp., to Feb. 28,
2013, after it admitted past financial reports were inaccurate and
would have to be restated.

Poseidon provided electronic copies of its minutes to the ASC in
April but the commission claims they had been changed.

"Further, staff allege the minutes were altered in such a way to
conceal or withhold from staff the fact they had been altered,"
the ASC wrote.

"For example, gaps caused in the minutes due to apparent redaction
of information were closed and the text linked up, sometimes with
new words added, giving the impression the text was complete and
accurate."

The ASC staff asked Poseidon for the original minutes on Sept. 4,
it said, but has received no reply.  A date for a hearing into the
allegations was to be set on Sept. 24.

At least four class-action lawsuits have been proposed in Canada
on behalf of Poseidon investors, including a new suit against
Peyto Exploration & Development Corp., the company that bought
Open Range in the summer after it spun out Poseidon as a separate
company.

The suits are being pursued in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec by
Toronto law firm Siskinds LLP, seeking estimated total
compensatory damages of C$651 million and punitive damages of C$10
million.

Siskinds partner Dimitri Lascaris said on Sept. 23 the ASC charges
are "unusual and highly troubling" but don't impede the class
actions.  The most advanced suit, in Quebec against Poseidon
adviser National Bank Financial, is expected to go to a
certification hearing in early 2014.

"Information which emerges in the context of the (ASC) enforcement
proceeding that is relevant to our claims could have a significant
impact on the claims," Mr. Lascaris said.

"It could also open up areas of inquiry that were not apparent to
us because we don't, as a private litigant in the pre-
certification phase of a class action, we don't have the
investigative powers of a securities regulator."

Peyto reported late on Sept. 20 it had been informed of the
proposed lawsuit and it would fight it.

"The application seeking leave to pursue the proposed class action
against Peyto has not been filed," Peyto said in the release.  "If
the application is filed, Peyto intends to vigorously oppose the
application."

Its shares fell on Sept. 23 by as much as 59 cents or about two
per cent to C$29.54 before recovering to C$30.08, down a nickel,
at the close.

Analyst Geoff Ready of Dundee Securities said in a note to
investors on Sept. 23 he is maintaining his "neutral" rating on
Peyto stock.

"We do not view the class action lawsuit as having any merit at
this time and we highlight that the court has significant
discretion in the process to approve and certify a class-action
lawsuit," he said.

Poseidon was spun out from Open Range in November 2011 to build
and rent its revolutionary oilfield liquids storage systems that
resemble above ground swimming pools in Canada and the United
States.

It sold 6.3 million shares for $13 each in January 2012 to raise
C$82 million.

In February 2013, Poseidon revealed that two-thirds of the C$148
million in revenue it claimed for the nine months ended Sept. 30,
2012, and about C$100 million of its C$126 million accounts
receivable, were improperly recorded.

It was suspended from the Toronto Stock Exchange, cease traded in
Alberta and Siskinds announced its first class action proposal in
Ontario.  Three months later, its shares were delisted.

Mr. Lascaris said Poseidon is expected to soon lose its court
protection from creditors status, which will allow investors to
pursue lawsuits against the company and its officers and
directors.

Most of its assets have been sold by a court-appointed monitor but
litigants will target funds from third parties -- insurance
providers and financial advisers, for instance -- and the personal
assets of the former officers and directors.


PRESSLER & PRESSLER: Deceptive Practices Class Action Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a
deceptive-practices lawsuit against Pressler & Pressler, New
Jersey's largest collections firm, can proceed as a class action.

U.S. District Judge Katharine Hayden in Newark on Sept. 25
certified a class of individuals who allege misrepresentations in
a form letter they received from the Parsippany firm.  Pressler
has stipulated that the class in Williams v. Pressler & Pressler
has 75 members.

Named plaintiffs Natalie Williams and Alan Setneska claim
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's prohibition
against false and misleading statements in collecting a debt.
Each was sued for credit-card debt by New Century Financial
Services of Whippany, which buys up delinquent accounts.  Both
filed pro se answers.  Ms. Williams won dismissal with prejudice
while Mr. Setneska was hit with a judgment.

The form letter in question, sent after an answer had been filed,
offered to settle and said once that was done, proof that the debt
was paid would be sent to the court and "to you so that you can
advise the credit bureau."

Class counsel Philip Stern says when he filed the complaint he
believed that New Century did not generally report to credit
bureaus.  Through depositions of New Century and Pressler, he
learned that it does in some instances but not where a debtor
disputes the debt or files an answer, as Ms. Williams and Mr.
Setneska had done.  Thus, he sees two misrepresentations: the
letter's implication that the recipient's credit report contained
something about the case or claim and that settling would help
improve those reports.

Stern, a Maplewood solo, says there was also deposition testimony
that the letter was sent only to pro se debtors and that Pressler
could not explain why.

In her ruling, Hayden rejected Pressler's argument that
Mr. Setneska would have a conflict as class representative because
of the judgment against him, calling it "completely speculative."

Pressler further opposed certification on the ground that a
settlement awaiting court approval in a separate class suit would
subsume the class in Williams other than the named plaintiffs, who
would be left with their own claims.

The proposed settlement in DeFazio v. Pressler, filed last
November, would pay $2,000 each to named plaintiffs Lori DeFazio
and Carol Grubb; $35,000 to their lawyer, Joseph Jones of
Fairfield; and another $35,000 cy pres sum to Deirdre's House in
Morristown, which aids abused and neglected children.

The remaining members of that class, estimated at more than
100,000, would get nothing in exchange for a broad release.

Pressler and Mr. Jones sought to justify the deal on the basis
that class members could recover no more than 50 cents anyway
because the FDCPA limits damages to the lesser of $500,000 or 1
percent of net worth.

With Pressler claiming a net worth of $5 million in 2010, recovery
would be capped at $50,000 in DeFazio as well as Williams.

Mr. Stern objected to the DeFazio settlement, which he says would
wipe out his class.  It was withdrawn in April.

Mr. Jones says recognition of a class in Williams does not affect
DeFazio, adding, however, that a new settlement being negotiated
in DeFazio might carve out the Williams class.

Pressler's Mitchell Williamson says the two cases are separate and
adds, "the fact that a class is certified doesn't mean that the
allegations have any merit."


QUICKTRIM: Class Action v. Kardashian Sisters Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Jen Heger, writing for Radar Online, reports that as
Kim Kardashian continues to lose weight after giving birth, the
reality starlet, along with sisters Kourtney and Khloe, are off
the hook for the time in the $5 million QuickTrim class action
lawsuit, because it was dismissed in New York -- but
RadarOnline.com has exclusively learned the legal battle isn't
over yet.

In 2012 a class action lawsuit was filed against the Kardashian
gals, who endorsed the diet drug QuickTrim, that accused the
starlets of making false and misleading claims about the product's
effectiveness.

On Sept. 17 a federal United States Magistrate, Honorable Andrew
Jay Peck, dismissed the $5 million lawsuit because a separate
settlement was reached in a similar California class action case,
but noted the matter could be refiled.

In a separate class action lawsuit on behalf of Teresa Anaya,
filed in San Bernadino, Calif., in March 2012 against the
Kardashians and QuickTrim, a settlement was reached.  The
California class action lawsuit is being handled by the same law
firm in the New York matter.

According to terms of the settlement in which QuickTrim and the
Kardashians denied any wrongdoing, customers that bought the diet
pills from the company website could receive a 50 percent refund.

For customers that bought QuickTrim in a retail store, they are
entitled to a 50 percent refund or a coupon that may be redeemed
at a retailer for the product with a retail value equal to the
purchase price of the product.

Furthermore, QuickTrim agreed to redesign their packaging.

"The QuickTrim parties shall redesign its labeling and packaging
to restate the the nature of its products and its benefits," the
settlement docs state.

The settlement has signature lines for Kim, Kourtney and Khloe,
but their John Hancock's aren't actually signed on the document.

An appeal was filed by the plaintiff in the California QuickTrim
lawsuit, contesting terms of the settlement.  A notice on the
official Anaya class action lawsuit website says, "The Court
granted final approval of the Settlement on August 14, 2013.  The
case has been appealed; therefore claims will continue to be
processed and reviewed, but no benefits will be issued until the
appeal process has ended and the effective date is established."

Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the New York case asked Magistrate
Judge Peck to not dismiss the case because "A notice of appeal was
filed in the Anaya action earlier on August 26, 2013 . . . Due to
the filing of the notice of appeal, the Anaya settlement is not
final at this time, and we therefore request that the Court not
take any action in this case until the appeal is resolved."

However, the judge asserted in a written statement on Sept. 3,
2013 that he didn't want the court to serve as a "parking lot for
this case while the related class-action settlement is the subject
of the appeal in California."

The court documents related to the New York case and obtained
exclusively by Radar reveal "on the parties consent, the case is
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice and without costs.
Plaintiffs may re-instate the action within two weeks if the
parties are unable to agree on an appropriate tolling agreement."

The docs are dated Sept. 17, 2013.


R.J. REYNOLDS: Fla. Court Flips "Ciccone" Punitive Damages Award
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Appeal of Florida for the Fourth District
affirmed in all respects but one, a final judgment entered in
favor of the plaintiff in R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY v.
CICCONE.

In this Engle progeny case, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company appealed
the final judgment entered in favor of Pamela Ciccone, as personal
representative of the Estate of George N. Ciccone. The final
judgment upheld the jury's award of $3,195,222.35 in compensatory
damages, reduced by the deceased's 70% comparative fault, and
$50,000 in punitive damages for gross negligence.

Ms. Ciccone initiated her suit against R.J. Reynolds in 2004, two
years after her husband, a smoker from the age of eight, died of
lung cancer. Following the Engle decision, Ms. Ciccone amended her
complaint to reflect her membership in the Engle class, alleging
that, prior to the cut-off date of November 21, 1996, her husband
developed peripheral vascular disease, a smoking-related illness
that results in the thinning of arteries and lack of circulation
in the extremities. In her fourth amended complaint, Ms. Ciccone
asserted seven counts: (I) strict liability; (II) breach of
express warranty; (III) breach of implied warranty; (IV) civil
conspiracy to fraudulently conceal; (V) fraudulent concealment;
(VI) gross negligence; and (VII) negligence.

The Flordia Appeals Court reversed the award of punitive damages.

The case is R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Appellant, v. PAMELA
CICCONE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of GEORGE N.
CICCONE, deceased, Appellee, NO. 4D11-3807.

A copy of the Appeals Court's August 14, 2013 Opinion is available
at http://is.gd/Z2vI8qfrom Leagle.com.

Gordon James III -- gordon.james@sedgwicklaw.com -- Eric L. Lundt
-- eric.lundt@sedgwicklaw.com -- and Lenore C. Smith --
lenore.smith@sedgwicklaw.com -- of Sedgwick LLP, Fort Lauderdale,
Gregory G. Katsas -- ggkatsas@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day,
Washington, D.C., and Charles R.A. Morse -- cramorse@jonesday.com
-- of Jones Day, New York, New York, for appellant.

For Appellee, Mark E. Millard -- mmillard@elllaw.com -- of
Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack, Los Angeles, California, William J.
Wichmann -- wwichmann@me.com -- of Law Offices of William J.
Wichmann, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, J. Michael Fitzgerald --
mfitzgerald@hardhatlaw.com --of Law Offices of Fitzgerald And
Associates, P.A., Charlottesville, and:

   Bard D. Rockenbach, Esq.
   Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A.,
   444 W. Railroad Ave., Ste. 430
   West Palm Beach, FL 33409
   Tel: (561) 721-0400
   Fax: (561) 721-0465


SILVER SPRING: Awaits Ruling on Cert. Motion in "Edwards" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Silver Spring Networks, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on a
revised class certification motion in the lawsuit pending 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.

The Company was named in a lawsuit filed on September 9, 2010, in
the Superior Court of the State of California, San Mateo County
(Edwards v. Silver Spring Networks).  The lawsuit claims to be a
"class action" on behalf of California consumers, and alleges that
smart meters are defective and generate incorrect bills.  The
Company has filed a motion to dismiss this case and, on
September 1, 2011, the San Mateo Superior Court granted the
Company's motion without leave to amend as to two of the
plaintiffs' causes of action and with leave to amend as to a third
claim.  On February 25, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint.  On May 30, 2012, the Company filed an answer to the
amended complaint denying the plaintiffs' allegations.  On
August 3, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
and on September 18, 2012, the Company filed a demurrer to one of
the two claims asserted in the second amended complaint.  The
court has overruled the Company's demurrer.

On November 9, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  A hearing on the class certification motion was
held on January 25, 2013.  On April 11, 2013, the court denied the
class certification motion without prejudice.  The court allowed
the plaintiffs to file a revised class certification motion, which
the plaintiffs filed on June 28, 2013.  A hearing on the revised
class certification motion was scheduled for September 2013.  The
Company says it intends to continue vigorously defending against
the action.  The amount of any potential exposure to the Company
is not estimable at this time.

Silver Spring Networks, Inc., provides a leading networking
platform and solutions that enable utilities to transform the
power grid infrastructure into the smart grid.  The smart grid
intelligently connects millions of devices that generate, control,
monitor and consume power, providing timely information and
control to both utilities and consumers.  The Company was
incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in Redwood City,
California.


SMITH GARDNER: Court Stays Discovery in "Birge" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LISA BIRGE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AARON E. SMEALL and SMITH,
GARDNER, SLUSKY, LAZER, POHREN & ROGERS, LLP, Defendants, NO.
8:13CV136, (D. Neb.), Senior District Judge Lyle E. Strom stayed
all discovery pending ruling on a motion to dismiss filed in the
case.

A motion for class certification will be filed within seven days
after the Court rules on the motion to dismiss, if that motion is
not granted, says Judge Strom.  All discovery on class action
certification shall be completed by December 31, 2013, he added.

A hearing on class action status is scheduled for January 21,
2014, at 9 a.m. at Courtroom No. 5, Roman L. Hruska United States
Courthouse, 111 South 18th Plaza, Omaha, Nebraska.

A copy of the District Court's August 28, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/h1oM0Efrom Leagle.com.

Lisa Birge, Plaintiff, represented by O. Randolph Bragg --
Rand@horwitzlaw.com -- HORWITZ, HORWITZ LAW FIRM, Pamela A. Car --
carlaw@uswest.net -- CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM & William L.
Reinbrecht -- billr205@cox.net -- CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM.

Aaron E. Smeall, Defendant, represented by Joshua C. Dickinson --
jdickinson@spencerfane.com -- smullin@spencerfane.com -- SPENCER,
FANE LAW FIRM & Shilee T. Mullin, SPENCER, FANE LAW FIRM.

Smith, Gardner, Slusky, Lazer, Pohren & Rogers, LLP, Defendant,
represented by Joshua C. Dickinson, SPENCER, FANE LAW FIRM &
Shilee T. Mullin, SPENCER, FANE LAW FIRM.


SOUTHERN STAR: Still Defends Price I and II Class Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Star Central Corp. continues to defend a subsidiary
against two class action lawsuits brought by Will Price, 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.

The two class action lawsuits are:

   (1) Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al.,
       Case No. 99 C 30, District Court, Stevens County, Kansas,
       or Price Litigation I; and

   (2) Will Price, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas Co., et al.,
       Case No. 03 C 23, District Court, Stevens County, Kansas,
       or Price Litigation II.

In the Price Litigation I, filed May 28, 1999, the named
plaintiffs, or Plaintiffs, have sued over 50 defendants, including
the Company's subsidiary, Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline,
Inc., or Central.  Asserting theories of civil conspiracy, aiding
and abetting, accounting and unjust enrichment, their Fourth
Amended Class Action Petition alleges that the defendants have
under measured the volume of, and therefore have underpaid for,
the natural gas they have obtained from or measured for
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages, attorney
fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and reserved the right to
plead for punitive damages.  On August 22, 2003, an answer to that
pleading was filed on behalf of Central.  Despite a denial by the
Court on April 10, 2003, of their original motion for class
certification, the Plaintiffs continued to seek the certification
of a class.  The Plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification
for a second time was fully briefed and the Court heard oral
argument on the motion on April 1, 2005.  On September 18, 2009,
the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider that ruling on
October 2, 2009.  The defendants, including Central, filed a
response in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration on January 18, 2010.  The Plaintiffs filed a reply
and oral argument, which was presented before a different judge,
was heard on February 10, 2010.  By order dated March 31, 2010,
the Court denied the Plaintiffs' October 2, 2009 motion to
reconsider the earlier denial of class certification.  The
Plaintiffs did not file for interlocutory review of the March 31,
2010 order, but through their counsel they have initiated certain
discovery to which Central and other defendants have objected.

In late June of 2011, certain defendants other than Central filed
motions for summary judgment seeking, among other things, a ruling
on the legal issue of whether or not Plaintiffs' civil conspiracy
claim could be based upon their underlying unjust enrichment
claim.  In January of 2012, the Court issued an order concluding
that under Kansas law a conspiracy claim could be so based.  These
defendants petitioned for interlocutory review of that ruling, but
the Court of Appeals of Kansas denied their request on
February 23, 2012.

The Company says it is unknown whether the Plaintiffs will follow
through on discovery and/or otherwise proceed with the litigation
on a non-class basis.  Central cannot predict the outcome of this
litigation or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses, if
any.

In the Price Litigation II, filed May 12, 2003, the named
Plaintiffs from Case No. 99 C 30 have sued the same defendants,
including Central.  Asserting substantially identical legal and/or
equitable theories, as in Price Litigation I, this petition
alleges that the defendants have under measured the British
thermal units, or Btu, content of, and therefore have underpaid
for, the natural gas they have obtained from or measured for the
Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs seek unspecified actual damages,
attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and reserved the
right to plead for punitive damages.  On November 10, 2003, an
answer to that pleading was filed on behalf of Central.  The
Plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification, along with
Plaintiffs' second class certification motion in Price Litigation
I, was fully briefed and the Court heard oral argument on this
motion on April 1, 2005.  On September 18, 2009, the Court denied
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The Plaintiffs
filed a motion to reconsider that ruling on October 2, 2009.  The
defendants, including Central, filed a response in opposition to
the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on January 18, 2010.
The Plaintiffs filed a reply and oral argument, which was
presented before a different judge, was heard on February 10,
2010.  By order dated March 31, 2010, the Court denied the
Plaintiffs' October 2, 2009 motion to reconsider the earlier
denial of class certification.  The Plaintiffs did not file for
interlocutory review of the March 31, 2010 order, but through
their counsel they have initiated certain discovery to which
Central and other defendants have objected.

In late June of 2011, certain defendants other than Central filed
motions for summary judgment seeking, among other things, a ruling
on the legal issue of whether or not Plaintiffs' civil conspiracy
claim could be based upon their underlying unjust enrichment
claim.  In January of 2012, the Court issued an order concluding
that under Kansas law a conspiracy claim could be so based.  These
defendants petitioned for interlocutory review of that ruling, but
the Court of Appeals of Kansas denied their request on
February 23, 2012.  The Company says it is unknown whether the
Plaintiffs will follow through on discovery and/or otherwise
proceed with the litigation on a non-class basis.  Central cannot
predict the outcome of this litigation or estimate a range of
reasonably possible losses, if any.

Based in Owensboro, Kentucky, Southern Star Central Corp. was
incorporated in Delaware in September 2002 and operates as a
holding company for its regulated natural gas pipeline operations.
Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc., is Southern Star's only
subsidiary and the sole source of its operating revenues and cash
flows.


STERLING SAVINGS: "Dubeau" Suit Settlement Gets Final Court OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke granted final approval of the
Class and Collective Action Settlement in MICAH DUBEAU, DAVID
DUBEAU, COREY GILE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STERLING SAVINGS BANK and GOLF
SAVINGS BANK, Defendants, NO. 1:12-CV-01602-CL, (D. Ore.).

The Court also approved motions for attorney fees, expenses, and
service awards, all filed by Plaintiffs Michah Dubeau, David
Dubeau, and Corey Gile.

The motions were unopposed by the defendants, Sterling Savings
Bank and Golf Savings Bank. A motion to intervene filed by Chris
Anderson, an unnamed member of the plaintiffs' class and
collective who filed an objection to the settlement, is denied.

A copy of the District Court's August 28, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/s5lEaVfrom Leagle.com.

Micah Dubeau, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer J. Middleton --
jmiddleton@jjlslaw.com -- Johnson, Johnson, Larson & Schaller,
Rowdy Meeks, Rowdy Meeks Legal Group LLC & Derek C. Johnson --
djohnson@jjlslaw.com -- Johnson Johnson Larson & Schaller P.C..

David Dubeau, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer J. Middleton,
Johnson, Johnson, Larson & Schaller, Rowdy Meeks, Rowdy Meeks
Legal Group LLC & Derek C. Johnson, Johnson Johnson Larson &
Schaller P.C..

Corey Gile, Plaintiff, represented by:

   Rowdy Meeks, Esq.
   Rowdy Meeks Legal Group LLC
   10601 Mission Road. Suite 100
   Leawood, KS 66206
   Tel: 913-766-5585
        877-783-4729 (Toll Free)
   Fax: 816-875-5069

Chris Anderson, Plaintiff, represented by James S. Coon --
jcoon@stc-law.com -- Swanson Thomas & Coon & Newton & Betsy C
Manifold -- manifold@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz, LLP.

Sterling Savings Bank, Defendant, represented by John F. Neupert
-- john.neupert@millernash.com -- Miller Nash LLP, Jeanne K.
Sinnott -- jeanne.sinnott@millernash.com -- Miller Nash LLP &
Katie H. Haraguchi -- katie.haraguchi@millernash.com -- Miller
Nash LLP.

Golf Savings Bank, Defendant, represented by John F. Neupert,
Miller Nash LLP, Jeanne K. Sinnott, Miller Nash LLP & Katie H.
Haraguchi, Miller Nash LLP.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: 9th Cir. Ruling in "Romo" Case Discussed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Samp, writing for Forbes, reports that Congress adopted the
Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) in 2005 in response to concerns
that plaintiffs' lawyers were gaming the system to prevent removal
of class action lawsuits from state to federal court, thereby
ensuring that their cases would be heard by sympathetic judges.
CAFA provides state-court defendants the option of removing cases
to federal court in situations where the suit is both substantial
and involves numerous plaintiffs, and where minimal diversity of
citizenship exists.

Since CAFA's passage, the plaintiffs' bar has worked to circumvent
the law and keep their mass lawsuits in state courts.  A
disappointing September 24 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit decision reflects how those efforts have borne fruit.  But
the decision has a silver lining: a dissenting judge on the three-
judge panel explained that the decision directly conflicts with a
decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit,
inferring the need for Supreme Court review to resolve the
conflict.  Moreover, the dissenting judge had the remarkably good
sense to cite directly to the amicus brief that Washington Legal
Foundation filed in the case, adopting the narrower of two
rationales that WLF had urged.

At issue in the Ninth Circuit case, Romo v. Teva Pharmaceuticals
USA, Inc., are the product liability claims of more than 1,500
individuals alleged to have suffered injuries after taking
medications containing the active ingredient propoxyphene -- a
drug that was widely marketed in this country between 1957 and
2010.  The claims were all initially filed (by a single set of
lawyers) in state court in California.  The plaintiffs named as
defendants nearly a dozen pharmaceutical manufacturers and
wholesalers, including one California-based wholesaler whose
presence defeated complete diversity of citizenship.  The
defendants nonetheless removed the claims to federal court under
CAFA's "mass action" provision, which permits defendants to move
cases from state to federal court if there are more than 100
plaintiffs and certain other conditions are met.

In an effort to defeat the defendants' removal, the plaintiffs'
attorneys divided their 1,500 clients among 41 separate lawsuits,
thereby ensuring that no one suit exceeded CAFA's 100-plaintiff
threshold.  But then they filed a petition asking the California
court to coordinate the 41 lawsuits "for all purposes."  Seizing
upon that petition, the defendants argued that removal of the 41
coordinated lawsuits to federal court was permissible under CAFA
because the petition to coordinate effectively increased the
number of plaintiffs above the 100-plaintiff threshold.

The key question before the Ninth Circuit was whether the
plaintiffs had proposed that their claims be "tried jointly," a
requirement for removal under CAFA's "mass action" provision.  The
Ninth Circuit answered that question in the negative, reasoning
that perhaps the plaintiffs were merely requesting that their 41
lawsuits be coordinated for pre-trial purposes only.  But that
conclusion is impossible to square with the actual language of the
petition, which asked that the 41 lawsuits be coordinated "for all
purposes."  Moreover, the California statute providing for
coordination of related lawsuits expressly contemplates that
coordination will continue through trial before a single judge.

The result of the decision is that plaintiffs filing suit in the
nine States comprising the Ninth Circuit have been provided a
roadmap for keeping their multi-plaintiff lawsuits out of federal
court.  All they need do is divide their plaintiffs into groups of
99 plaintiffs or less and include at least one defendant that is a
citizen of the forum State.  They are then free to seek
coordination of their lawsuits before a favored judge, and CAFA
removal will be impermissible so long as they do not utter the
magic words, "joint trial."  Such gamesmanship cannot be what
Congress had in mind when it adopted CAFA and specifically
provided for removal of "mass actions."

The dissenting opinion in Romo, authored by Judge Ronald Gould,
does provide defendants with a ray of hope, however.  Judge Gould
explained why the Ninth Circuit's decision directly conflicts with
the Seventh Circuit's 2012 decision in In re Abbott Labs., Inc.
The Abbott decision endorsed CAFA "mass action" removal after
plaintiffs moved to coordinate their lawsuits under an Illinois
statute that is closely analogous to the California coordination
statute.  The Seventh Circuit deemed it irrelevant that the
plaintiffs never explicitly stated that they desired that all
their claims be "tried jointly."  In light of that direct
conflict, there is a significant possibility that the Supreme
Court will agree to review the Ninth Circuit decision.

Judge Gould also provided a useful alternative explanation
regarding why cases like this one should be considered proposals
for joint trials under CAFA.  The key here, he said, was that
plaintiffs stated that "coordination is necessary to avoid
inconsistent judgments," which is a concern that only a joint
trial can fix.  Hence, according to him, "[i]f the natural and
probable consequence of coordination of separate actions has an
impact indistinguishable from joint trial, then it is sensible to
treat such a petition for coordination as a proposal for joint
trial."  That formulation can surely be applied to other cases to
help close this CAFA loophole.

The Supreme Court has displayed little patience with efforts by
the plaintiffs' bar to evade CAFA's removal provisions, as
evidenced by its decision last term in Standard Fire Ins. Co. v.
Knowles.  If that decision is any guide, the Supreme Court
eventually will state forcefully that Congress, when it adopted
CAFA, intended to grant defendants sweeping rights to remove
virtually all multi-plaintiff claims to federal courts, and to
eliminate once and for all the lingering view of some lower courts
-- including both the majority and dissent here -- that there is a
presumption against the right to remove and/or that removal
statutes must be construed strictly.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Awaits Ruling in Puerto Rican Dentists' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corporation is awaiting a court decision in
the class action lawsuit commenced by the Puerto Rico Dentists
Association, 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 February 11, 2009, the Puerto Rico Dentists Association
(Colegio de Cirujanos Dentistas de Puerto Rico) filed a complaint
in the Court of First Instance against 24 health plans operating
in Puerto Rico that offer dental health coverage.  The Company and
two of its subsidiaries, TSS and Triple-C, Inc. ("TCI"), were
included as defendants.  This litigation purports to be a class
action filed on behalf of Puerto Rico dentists who are similarly
situated.

The complaint alleges that the defendants, on their own and as
part of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish
the payments due to dentists so that they are not paid in a timely
and complete manner for the covered medically necessary services
they render.  The complaint also alleges, among other things,
violations to the Puerto Rico Insurance Code, antitrust laws, the
Puerto Rico racketeering statute, unfair business practices,
breach of contract with providers, and damages in the amount of
$150 million.  In addition, the complaint claims that the Puerto
Rico Insurance Companies Association is the hub of an alleged
conspiracy concocted by the member plans to defraud dentists.
There are numerous available defenses to oppose both the request
for class certification and the merits.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend this claim.

Two codefendant plans, whose main operations are outside Puerto
Rico, removed the case to federal court in Florida, which the
plaintiffs and the other codefendants, including the Company,
opposed.  Following months of jurisdictional proceedings in the
federal court system, the federal district court in Puerto Rico
decided to retain jurisdiction on February 8, 2011.  The
defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the case on the merits,
because the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.  On August 31, 2011, the District Court dismissed all
of plaintiffs' claims except for its breach of contract claim, and
ordered the parties to brief the issue of whether the court still
has federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005 ("CAFA").  The Plaintiffs moved the court to reconsider its
August 31, 2011 decision and the defendants did the same, arguing
that the breach of contract claim failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.  On May 2, 2012, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motion.  On May 31, 2012, the plaintiffs appealed the
District Court's dismissal of their complaint and the denial of
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.  The Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
On September 25, 2012, the District Court denied without prejudice
the defendants' motion for reconsideration.  On October 10, 2012,
the parties filed their briefs with respect to class
certification.

On March 13, 2013, the district court denied the plaintiffs'
request for class certification and ordered the parties to brief
the court on whether jurisdiction still exists under CAFA
following such denial.  On April 24, 2013, all parties briefed the
court and are awaiting the court's decision.

Triple-S Management Corporation --
http://www.triplesmanagement.com/triples-- is an independent
licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.  Triple-S
Management has the exclusive right to use the Blue Cross Blue
Shield name and mark throughout Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.  Triple-S Management offers a broad portfolio of managed
care and related products in the Commercial and Medicare Advantage
markets under the Blue Cross Blue Shield brand through its
subsidiary Triple-S Salud, Inc.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Defends Blue Cross Blue Shield MDL vs. TSS
---------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corporation is defending a subsidiary against
a multidistrict lawsuit titled In re Blue Cross Blue Shield
Antitrust Litigation, 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's subsidiary, Triple-S Salud, Inc. is a Blue Cross
Blue Shield Association ("BCBSA") licensee, which provides it with
exclusive use of the Blue Cross Blue Shield name and mark
throughout Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands.

TSS is a co-defendant with multiple Blue Plans and the BCBSA in a
multi-district class action litigation that alleges that the
exclusive service area (ESA) requirements of the Primary License
Agreements with Plans violate antitrust law, and the plaintiffs in
these lawsuits seek monetary awards and in some instances,
injunctive relief barring ESAs.  Those cases have been centralized
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama.  Prior to centralization, motions have been filed to
dismiss some of the cases and are pending the court's decision.
Discovery has not yet commenced.  The Company has joined BCBSA in
vigorously contesting these claims.

Triple-S Management Corporation --
http://www.triplesmanagement.com/triples-- is an independent
licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.  Triple-S
Management has the exclusive right to use the Blue Cross Blue
Shield name and mark throughout Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.  Triple-S Management offers a broad portfolio of managed
care and related products in the Commercial and Medicare Advantage
markets under the Blue Cross Blue Shield brand through its
subsidiary Triple-S Salud, Inc.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: TSP Continues to Defend Vehicle Owners Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corporation continues to defend a subsidiary
against a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of motor vehicle
owners in Puerto Rico, 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 19, 2011, the plaintiffs, purportedly a class of motor
vehicle owners, filed an action in the United States District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico against the Puerto Rico
Joint Underwriting Association ("JUA") and 18 other defendants,
including Triple-S Propiedad, Inc. ("TSP"), alleging violations
under the Puerto Rico Insurance Code, the Puerto Rico Civil Code,
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO")
and the local statute against organized crime and money
laundering.  JUA is a private association created by law to
administer a compulsory public liability insurance program for
motor vehicles in Puerto Rico ("CLI").  As required by its
enabling act, JUA is composed of all the insurers that underwrite
private motor vehicle insurance in Puerto Rico and exceed the
minimum underwriting percentage established in such act.  TSP is a
member of JUA.

In this lawsuit, entitled Noemi Torres Ronda, et al v. Joint
Underwriting Association, et al., the plaintiffs allege that the
defendants illegally charged and misappropriated a portion of the
CLI premiums paid by motor vehicle owners in violation of the
Puerto Rico Insurance Code.  Specifically, they claim that because
the defendants did not incur acquisition or administration costs
allegedly totaling 12% of the premium dollar, charging for such
costs constitutes the illegal traffic of premiums.  The Plaintiffs
also claim that the defendants, as members of JUA, violated RICO
through various inappropriate actions designed to defraud motor
vehicle owners located in Puerto Rico and embezzle a portion of
the CLI premiums for their benefit.

The Plaintiffs seek the reimbursement of funds for the class
amounting to $406,600,000 treble damages under RICO, and equitable
relief, including a permanent injunction and declaratory judgment
barring defendants from their alleged conduct and practices, along
with costs and attorneys' fees.

On December 30, 2011, TSP and other insurance companies filed a
joint motion to dismiss, arguing that plaintiffs' claims are
barred by the filed rate doctrine, inasmuch a lawsuit cannot be
brought, even under RICO, to amend the compulsory liability
insurance rates that were approved by the Puerto Rico Legislature
and the Commissioner of Insurance of Puerto Rico.  The motion also
argues that since RICO is not a federal statute that specifically
relates to the business of insurance, and its application in the
claims at issue would frustrate state policy and interfere with
Puerto Rico's insurance administrative regime, the McCarran-
Ferguson Act precludes plaintiffs' claims.  Finally, TSP argued
that plaintiffs failed to allege the necessary elements of an
actionable RICO claim, or, in the alternative, their damages claim
is time barred.

On February 17, 2012, the plaintiffs filed their opposition.  On
April 4, 2012, TSP filed a reply in support of the Company's
motion to dismiss.  The court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss.  On October 2, 2012, the court issued an order certifying
the class.  On October 12, 2012, several defendants, including
TSP, filed an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
First District, requesting the court to vacate the District
Court's certification order.  The First Circuit denied the
authorization to file the writ of appeals.  The case is again
before the court, pending further proceedings.

Given the early stage of this case, the Company cannot assess the
probability of an adverse outcome, or the reasonable financial
impact that the outcome may have on the Company.  The Company
intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

Triple-S Management Corporation --
http://www.triplesmanagement.com/triples-- is an independent
licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.  Triple-S
Management has the exclusive right to use the Blue Cross Blue
Shield name and mark throughout Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.  Triple-S Management offers a broad portfolio of managed
care and related products in the Commercial and Medicare Advantage
markets under the Blue Cross Blue Shield brand through its
subsidiary Triple-S Salud, Inc.


UBS FINANCIAL: November 19 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities Arbitration Law Firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A.,
representing numerous aggrieved investors throughout the nation,
advises all current and former UBS Financial Services customers
who are class members in the securities class action lawsuit filed
against UBS, Case No. 09-md-02017, which involves losses sustained
in certain Lehman Principal Protection Notes, that the U.S.
District Court recently approved an Order Concerning Proposed
Settlement with UBS.  The Order provides that a request for
exclusion from the settlement class must be postmarked no later
than November 19, 2013, which is 21 calendar days prior to the
Court ordered Settlement Hearing of December 10, 2013.  UBS
customers who are eligible to participate in the class action
settlement should consider whether they should participate in the
class action or file an individual securities arbitration claim in
the arbitration forum established by the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority.

Presently, K&T represents investors who purchased Lehman Notes
from UBS in securities arbitration claims before FINRA.  These
investors chose to pursue their claims individually rather than
participate in the class action because they suffered large
losses.  K&T reminds investors of the benefits of filing an
individual securities arbitration claim, as opposed to
participating in a class action lawsuit.  By participating in a
class action lawsuit, an investor may only recover a nominal
amount.  However, if one has experienced significant losses in
excess of $100,000 in Lehman Notes, it may be more beneficial for
them to file an individual securities arbitration claim. In 2003,
K&T conducted a detailed study of securities arbitration versus
class action.  The study concluded that investors who file a
securities arbitration claim traditionally obtain an overall
higher rate of recovery as opposed to participating in a class
action lawsuit.  To view the full results of the comparison,
please visit our web-site: http://www.nasd-
law.com/documents/classvr.pdf

Investors who purchased Lehman Notes from UBS and sustained
significant losses in excess of $100,000 can contact K&T to
explore their legal rights and options.  The attorneys at K&T are
dedicated to pursuing claims on behalf of investors who have
suffered investment losses. K&T, an experienced, qualified and
nationally recognized securities litigation law firm, practices
exclusively in the field of securities arbitration and litigation.
It continues its representation of investors throughout the world
in securities arbitration and litigation matters against major
Wall Street brokerage firms.

If you wish to discuss this announcement or have investment losses
of $100,000 or more in Lehman Notes, please contact Steven D.
Toskes, Esquire or Jahan K. Manasseh, Esquire of Klayman & Toskes,
P.A., at 888-997-9956, or visit us on the web at
http://www.lehmanprincipalprotectionnotes.com

CONTACT: Steven D. Toskes, Esq.
         Jahan K. Manasseh, Esq.
         KLAYMAN & TOSKES, P.A.
         Telephone: 888-997-9956
         E-mail: http://www.lehmanprincipalprotectionnotes.com


UNI-PIXEL INC: Defends Securities Class Suit Pending in Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Uni-Pixel, Inc., is defending itself against a securities class
action lawsuit pending in Texas, 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 June 2013, two purported class action complaints were filed in
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York
and the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas
against the Company and its chief executive officer, chief
financial officer, and Chairman.  The Southern District of New
York complaint was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff on July 2,
2013.  The surviving complaint alleges that the Company and its
officers and directors violated the federal securities laws,
specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, by making purportedly false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's licensing agreements and product
development.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of
a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period from December 7, 2012, to May 31, 2013.

The Company says it will vigorously defend against this lawsuit.
The Company has directors' and officers' and corporate liability
insurance to cover risks associated with securities claims filed
against the Company or its directors and officers and has notified
its insurers of the complaints filed against the Company.  Based
on the very early stage of the litigation, it is not possible to
estimate the amount or range of possible loss that might result
from an adverse judgment or a settlement of this matter.

Uni-Pixel, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in The
Woodlands, Texas.  Uni-Pixel produces Clearly Superior(TM)
Performance Engineered Film(TM) to the lighting & display and
flexible electronics market segments.  The Company has two patents
issued and 93 patent applications filed covering its Performance
Engineered Film(TM) development and manufacturing platforms.


UNITED STATES: Suit by Vietnamese POWs and Refugees Amended
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit brought on behalf of poor, disabled and
non-English speaking Vietnamese former prisoners of war and
refugees in the United States, who reside in San Diego County and
who have been or will be applying for Disability Insurance
benefits and Supplemental Security Income benefits, was amended on
September 16, 2013.

The Plaintiffs accused Carolyn W. Colvin, the acting commissioner
of Social Security Administration, of wrongfully suspending their
counsel, Alexandra Nga Tran Manbeck, Esq.  The Plaintiffs allege
that Ms. Manbeck, the only fluent Vietnamese-speaking attorney in
San Diego, was suspended to practice Social Security law by the
SSA to retaliate for a previous class action that claimed a Social
Security judge was biased.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexandra T. Manbeck, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDRA T. MANBECK
          4531 University Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92105
          Telephone: (619) 573-8139
          E-mail: manbeckjd@optonline.net

               - and -

          Jonathan Capp, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN C. CAPP
          California State Bar No. 177585
          4317 Silver Spring Way
          Oceanside, CA 92057
          Telephone: (760) 231-9851
          E-mail: info@jcclex.com

The case is Phan, et al. v. Colvin, et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-
02036-WQH-NLS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (San Diego).


VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA: Abalone Virus Threatens Fish Farming
---------------------------------------------------------
Bush Telegraph reports that a class action is underway in the
Victorian Supreme Court against the state's Department of Primary
Industries, seven years after a virus decimated the wild abalone
industry in that state.

In 2006 a virus known as Ganglioneuritis, thought to have
originated in a fish farm at Port Fairy, destroyed abalone stocks
along the western Victorian coastline.  There are more than 88
parties to the class action.  They are claiming the State
Government was negligent in not closing the fish farm or turning
off its water supply.

Jacob Varghese is a principal with Maurice Blackburn and says the
impact has decimated the fisheries that is worth AU$60 million a
year.

"Our clients say that the Department of Primary Industries was
responsible for managing fisheries and animal health emergencies,"
he says.

"The farm was one that took water from the ocean, bathed all the
abalone it, and then pushed it back out into the ocean.  In doing
so was pushing out infected water that was just a ticking time
bomb."

After the virus was detected, abalone license holders in the
western part of the state, saw their catch fall by 80 to 90%.
Licenses that were previously worth AU$6 million to
AUD8 million are now selling for around AU$830,000.

Associate Professor Rob Day is a marine ecologist at Melbourne
University.  One of his students identified the disease which was
new to Australia at the time.  He says the virus attacks the
nerves and brain of the abalone and makes it difficult for the
animal to cling to rocks.

"It is extremely difficult to stop it in its tracks once it is in
the sea," he says.


ZURICH COMMERCIAL: Former Workers to Pursue Asbestos Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
WalesOnline reports that a steelworks plant that operated during
the 1960s and 1970s is the source of a growing number of claims
for asbestos-related diseases, it has been claimed.

The British Steel-owned East Moors plant in Splott, Cardiff,
closed in 1978, but former workers are now coming forward to
pursue claims through the site's former owners', insurance company
Zurich Commercial, dating back to the 1960s and 1970s.

One law firm said it was representing 10 cases connected with the
site, and warned that more were likely to surface.

Conditions linked to asbestos exposure include mesothelioma,
asbestosis, pleural thickening and pleural plaque, and often
cannot be treated -- with symptoms often surfacing decades after
exposure.  It is feared that the numbers affected by diseases such
as mesothelioma, which is a rare form of cancer, will not peak
before 2016.

One of the men affected, William Tobutt, worked as a union
convener and a bricklayer at the East Moors site for more than 20
years before its closure in 1978 -- and said workers at the plant
were unaware of the risks associated with asbestos.  Mr. Tobutt,
now 83, was diagnosed with mesothelioma in January, with doctors
estimating his life expectancy to be between eight and 14 months.

"The [diagnosis] has hit me for six, it really has," Mr. Tobutt,
from Llanrumney in Cardiff, said.  "The doctor told me I had
mesothelioma, and said my life expectancy due to my age could be
between eight and 14 months, but now I am having chemotherapy."

He said he first knew something was wrong when he bent down to tie
his shoelaces and suffered breathing difficulties, with his wife
of 64 years Winifred, 85, also saying his breathing had become
labored at night.

Lawyers representing claimants say workers at the site were
regularly being exposed to the building material, which can cause
health issues when it is disturbed.

Peter Lodge, industrial disease specialist with Festival Law which
is representing 10 cases, said: "Although I have been pursuing
asbestos claims against the old East Moor plant for a number of
years, there now appears to be an increased number arising from
exposure to asbestos.

"Given that the anticipated number of asbestos claims is likely to
reach a peak in the next few years, sadly I can only see this
figure continuing to rise further."

The firm said it had been pursuing claims from the Cardiff area
for several years, and has represented former workers from
Aberthaw power station and Cardiff Docks.  Festival Law claims
there has been a rise in inquiries from former workers at East
Moors, which was formerly owned by Merthyr-founded GKN -- earning
the moniker of "Dowlais by the Sea" -- before being taken over by
the British Steel Corporation, which employed thousands of workers
at the site before its closure.

Workers were believed to have been exposed to the material as it
was widely used for lagging all pipe work, in a large number of
furnaces and roof sheeting.  Two of the firm's clients are
suffering from mesothelioma with others suffering a combination of
the other conditions.

Moves have already been made by Assembly Members to address
compensation arrangements for sufferers of asbestos-related
diseases, with a Private Member's Bill by Pontypridd AM
Mick Antoniw tabled to be debated this autumn.  The Bill aims to
get employers to pay for the treatment of workers who contract
asbestos-related diseases, but its passage through the Senedd has
been delayed after the Department for Work and Pensions raised
concerns.

Mr. Antoniw said he had heard examples from East Moors and other
sites in the 1960s where employees used to have "snowball fights"
with the material, as they were not aware of the dangers they were
exposed to.  He said: "Steelworks such as those at East Moors have
always been known as a significant source of some of the worst
examples of these types of conditions because of asbestos."

"I have heard of stories that came about with people having
snowball fights in the 60s -- young apprentices that would join a
workplace and then they'd have 'snow time' where they came in and
they'd tip asbestos down on him, because they didn't know about
it."


* 3 Men Arraigned in Suit Over Mishandling of Asbestos
------------------------------------------------------
Cole Waterman, writing for MLive.com, reports that after a grand
jury indictment, the last of three men accused by prosecutors of
mishandling asbestos removal from a Bay City charter school has
been arraigned on four felony charges.

Gerald A. Essex on Monday, Sept. 16, appeared before U.S. District
Magistrate Judge Charles E. Binder in the federal courthouse in
Bay City for arraignment on four counts of illegally distributing
and handling asbestos, a felony punishable by up to five years in
prison and a $250,000 fine.  Essex pleaded not guilty to the
charges.

Judge Binder arraigned codefendant Roy C. Bradley Sr. on the same
four charges on Aug. 29.  Judge Binder on that day also arraigned
Rodolfo Rodriguez as a codefendant on single counts of tampering
with witnesses, victims or informants, a 20-year felony, and
making false declarations to a grand jury, a five-year felony.

Prosecutors contend Messrs. Bradley and Essex broke the law during
renovations at the 400 N. Madison Ave., a former church, from
Aug. 18, 2010, through Sept. 2, 2011.  Mr. Bradley owns Lasting
Impressions, a contracting business that oversaw renovations at
the site.

The indictment states that Messrs. Bradley and Essex, "as the
persons operating, controlling and supervising a demolition and
renovation activity involving at least 260 linear feet and 160
square feet of regulated asbestos-containing material" at the
former church "knowingly failed to remove and cause the removal of
all regulated asbestos-containing material from that facility in
accordance with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants."

Mr. Rodriguez, a carpenter who also worked on the renovations,
testified before a grand jury on Jan. 23, 2013.  Prosecutors
allege he deliberately made false statements regarding the amount
of asbestos-containing material that had been removed from the
church and gave misleading statements as to the identities of
those doing the removal.

The EPA and IRS investigated the case.  Prosecutors have not
publicly outlined how they believe asbestos was mishandled.

Bay City Academy is in its third year and was founded by
optometrist and entrepreneur Steve Ingersoll.  The academy is a
charter school for students from kindergarten through ninth grade
and has three campuses in Bay City.  The campus at 1005 Ninth St.
is the most recent to open.

Since its inception, the academy has grown from 160 students to
470.  The academy is chartered through Lake Superior State
University.

Ingersoll has said that Mr. Bradley hired an abatement company to
remove all potentially harmful material from the Madison Avenue
location prior to the renovations.  Ingersoll has also said that
the Bay City Academy buildings are safe.

Mr. Bradley is represented by attorney Andrew D. Concannon,
Mr. Essex by James F. Piazza and Mr. Rodriguez by Andrea J.
LaBean.  Mr. Bradley is free on a $100,000 bond; Messrs. Essex and
Rodriguez are each free on $50,000 bonds.

The trio's cases were scheduled for a telephone pretrial
conference at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, Sept. 26.


                             *********

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  * * *