CAR_Public/131007.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, October 7, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 198

                             Headlines


AIR CANADA: Osler Hoskin Discusses Ontario Court Ruling
ALABAMA: Settlement in HIV-Positive Prisoner Segregation Suit OK'd
ALPHABET HOLDING: Awaits OK of Deal in Suits Over Dietary Pills
ALPHABET HOLDING: "Hutchins" Class Suit Dismissed in June 2013
APPLE REIT TEN: Asks 2nd Cir. That Brief be Due on October 25

ARMS LTD: EU Nationals Mull Class Action Over Discrimination
AW CHESTERTON: Supreme Court Reverses Asbestos Suit Ruling
BANK OF THE OZARKS: Wins Appeal From Ruling in "Walker" Suit
BANKRATE INC: Still Defends "Speight" Class Suit in Colorado
BELMONT MEATS: Recalls Certain Compliments Super 8 Beef Burgers

BRISTOL-MYERS: Death Claims Can Go Ahead in Mass Tort Suit
CENTURYLINK INC: Awaits Okay in Rights-of-Way Suits Settlements
CENTURYLINK INC: Plaintiffs Appealed Dismissal of "Fulghum" Suit
CITIZENS BANK: Class Action Attorneys Get 30% Share of Settlement
COMERICA BANK: Settles Investors' Sigma Class Action for $11 Mil.

CSI ELECTRICAL: Writ of Mandate Petition in "Wawock" Suit Denied
DEX MEDIA: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim
DEX MEDIA: Continues to Defend Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
DEX MEDIA: Fairness Hearing on Securities Suit Deal on Nov. 12
DEX MEDIA: Plaintiffs in ERISA Suit Seek Rehearing En Banc

DEX MEDIA: Summary Judgment Bids in Bell Retirees Suit Pending
DGSE COMPANIES: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay
DIAMOND RESORTS: Settlement of Hawaii Suit Has Now Become Final
DIODES INC: Plaintiffs Filed Amended "Local 731 I.B." Complaint
EAST RAMAPO: Judge Allows Class Action v. School Board to Proceed

ELECTROLUX HOME: Recalls Frigidaire Professional Electric Blenders
HERALD ASSET MANAGEMENT: 2nd Cir. Upholds Lawsuit Dismissal
HSBC-NORTH AMERICA: "Carlson" Suit Remanded to District Court
JACKSON, MI: Court Certifies Class Action Over Stormwater Fee
LINNCO LLC: "Assad" Stockholder Suit Remains Stayed in Colorado

LINNCO LLC: Faces 4 Securities Class Action Suits in New York
LINNCO LLC: Faces Securities Law Violations Suits in Texas
LINNCO LLC: Parties in "Hall" Suit Engaged in Settlement Talks
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: U.S. Pension Fund to Lead Class Action
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Seeks Dismissal of Defective-Engine Suit

MORTGAGE ASSET: 3rd Cir. Affirms Eng. Pension Trust Suit Dismissal
MULTIBAND FIELD: BakerHostetler Discusses Class Action Ruling
NEW YORK LIFE: 2nd Cir. Upholds Dist. Court Judgment in Gold Suit
NEWFOUNDLAND, CANADA: January Trial Scheduled for Moose Lawsuit
SOUTHERN UNION: Discovery in Merger-Related Suit in Texas Ongoing

SOUTHERN UNION: Panhandle Continues to Defend "Price" Class Suit
TEXTRON INC: Jan. 24 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
TORCHMARK CORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Friedman" Suit
TREASURE RESORT: Club Members Can Resume Class Action
UNFI CANADA: Recalls Certain Frontera Classic Fajita Skillet Sauce

UNILEVER US: Loses Bid to Dismiss False Advertising Class Action
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: PSI Continues to Defend "Garden City" Suit
VITA HEALTH: Recalls Equate Allergy Sinus Medication
VITA HEALTH: Recalls Encounter & Pharmasave Cold & Flu Tablets
VITA HEALTH: Recalls Remedy's Rx Cold + Sinus

VITA HEALTH: Recalls Pharmasave Ibuprofen Liquid Capsules
WIDEOPEN WEST: Escapes Consumers' Data Collection Class Action
YAHOO INC: Faces Privacy Class Action Over Email Scanning
YALE MANAGEMENT: Court Dismisses Appeal Filed in "Mizraie" Suit

* Judge Allows Class Actions v. Energy Companies to Go Ahead
* UK Reforms to Create Opt-Out Class Actions for Competition Law


                             *********


AIR CANADA: Osler Hoskin Discusses Ontario Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------
David Stamp and Carey O'Connor at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP
report that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released a costs
decision denying the defendant class their costs in an action --
despite their success on the merits -- on account of their conduct
during the litigation.

Berry et al v. Pulley et al was a class action commenced by a
group of Air Ontario pilots against a group of Air Canada pilots.
The plaintiffs alleged that members of the defendant class
committed the torts of conspiracy, intentional interference with
economic interests, and negligent misrepresentation.  They also
alleged that the defendants owed a fiduciary duty to the
plaintiffs, which they breached.

After numerous court and administrative hearings spanning about 16
years, judgment was rendered in 2012.  The defendant class
successfully resisted the plaintiffs' claim.

The Costs Regime in Ontario

In Ontario, traditionally, costs follow the cause. T his means
that when a defendant successfully defends the action brought
against it, as a general principle, the defendant would be
entitled to its costs in defending the action.  While Ontario
Courts have ample discretion to make costs awards, in the normal
course costs are awarded on a partial indemnity basis, which means
that successful parties recover only a portion of their actual
legal costs (often in the range of 30-50%).

Modification for Class Proceedings

When the Ontario Law Reform Commission drafted the report that was
the genesis of the Class Proceedings Act, it examined whether the
traditional "loser pays" system should apply equally to class
proceedings, or whether a no-costs regime best facilitates access
to justice.

During the process of enactment, the Legislature rejected a no-
cost regime for Ontario class actions.  As a result, the normal
regime, where the successful party also recovers part of its legal
costs, applies to class proceedings but with a modest expansion of
the factors a court may consider when awarding costs.

This modest expansion is found in s. 31 of the Class Proceedings
Act. Section 31 permits a court to consider whether the class
proceeding was a test case, raised a novel point of law, or
involved a matter of public interest.  Each of these factors can
be used to revise (and almost always, reduce) the costs that are
awarded to the successful party.

In this recent decision, Berry et al v. Pulley et al, Pepall J.
held that the criteria in s. 31 of the CPA were not met.  While
the case had a unique procedural nature, and related to some novel
points of law, she was not persuaded that the action raised a
novel point of law sufficient to invoke the application of s. 31
of the CPA.

However, Justice Pepall also reviewed the factors relating to
costs awards listed in s. 131  of the Courts of Justice Act (and
its companion, Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure), and
found that it was fair and reasonable for the defendants to bear
their own costs, despite their success on the merits.  While she
found in favor of the defendants on the merits, and even though
they had made previous offers to settle, she considered the
defendants' conduct in their dealings with the plaintiffs to have
been shabby and high-handed.

While Peppall J. declined to repeat all of the findings regarding
the defendants' behavior that she made in her decision on the
merits, she did provide some examples of the defendants' shabby
dealings.

Justice Pepall found that, having committed to a merger of pilot
seniority lists and binding arbitration, the defendants
nonetheless worked to prevent the implementation of the arbitral
award and the attendant list.  In addition, she found that three
of the subclasses engaged in unlawful conduct within the context
of the plaintiff's conspiracy claim.  These subclasses engaged in
unlawful conduct because, as union officers/members of local
councils, they owed a duty of loyalty to the union and were
obligated to act in the best interests of the union as a whole.
The breach of their duty constituted unlawful conduct and, in
Peppall J.'s cost decision, an example of shabby and high-handed
conduct.

The Costs of Incivility

In addition to the shabby substantive conduct, Peppall J.
expressed procedural dissatisfaction with the numerous hearings
that occurred over 16 years.

Justice Pepall stated that her reasons -- spanning more than 550
paragraphs -- "attempt to outline this painful history garnered
from in excess of 43 volumes of documents, months of evidence,
evidence to be read into the court record from about 30
transcripts and testimony from approximately 20 witnesses."

Weighting the defendants' conduct heavily in the determination of
a costs award is reflective of the purposes of the CPA: judicial
economy, behavior modification, and access to justice. It may be
the case that a litigant's conduct in the litigation falls within
the type of behavior the act seeks to modify.

Despite the fact that this decision was released this month, it
has already been considered in a subsequent case.  The courts'
interest in this area is something litigants should keep in mind
when confronted with matters of courtesy and cooperation.


ALABAMA: Settlement in HIV-Positive Prisoner Segregation Suit OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
Arian Campo-Flores, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports
that a federal judge approved a settlement on Sept. 30 that will
end the segregation of HIV-positive prisoners in Alabama, the
final state to agree to wind down a policy that once was common in
the U.S.

The agreement, which resolves a class-action lawsuit by the
state's HIV-positive inmates against the Alabama Department of
Corrections, calls for the roughly 240 male prisoners at issue to
be integrated into the general prison population by Nov. 1, 2014.
The assimilation of the state's eight female HIV-positive inmates
was completed Aug. 1.

The settlement "will not provide the members of the class with
everything that they could possibly desire," but "will nonetheless
make a large difference" for them, U.S. District Judge Myron
Thompson of the Middle District of Alabama wrote in his opinion.

Under the agreement, inmates with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS,
no longer will have to wear white armbands highlighting their
status, which will remain confidential.  Corrections staff will
implement a zero-tolerance policy for any prisoners who threaten
or commit violence against them.  And they no longer will be
excluded from certain educational and work-release programs.

"I feel wonderful," said Louis Henderson, the 45-year-old lead
plaintiff in the case, who said he was released from prison in
June after serving nine years on property-theft charges.  Under
the segregation policy, he said, "it was like we were animals in a
cage."

The Alabama Department of Corrections declined to comment on the
matter beyond a joint statement issued with the American Civil
Liberties Union, which represented the plaintiffs.  Referring to
the settlement, they wrote, "All involved believe it is in the
best interest of the ADOC, its inmates and the citizens of the
state of Alabama."  In the past, the department said it treated
HIV-positive inmates humanely and that the segregation policy
helped ensure they received proper medical attention.

Alabama began to test inmates for HIV and to isolate those who
tested positive in the 1980s, amid fear over the AIDS epidemic.
The practice was common: In 1985, 46 of 51 state and federal
prison systems segregated HIV-positive inmates, according to a
2010 report by the ACLU and Human Rights Watch.  Officials
considered the policy necessary to prevent transmission of HIV,
which was considered a death sentence at the time.

Yet as knowledge of the virus grew and new HIV treatments emerged,
most states abandoned the practice.  Today, it persists in only
two: South Carolina, which agreed earlier this year to voluntarily
integrate its HIV-positive prisoners, and Alabama.

Some prisoners have been trying to halt the policy for decades.
Soon after the policy was implemented in Alabama, a group of HIV-
positive inmates sued to challenge it.  But after years of
litigation, an appellate decision in 1999 found the practice
justified.

Plaintiffs in the current case, who were represented by the ACLU,
filed their lawsuit in 2011.  Last year, after a monthlong trial,
Judge Thompson sided with them, ruling that Alabama's segregation
procedures violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

While the policy "has been an unnecessary tool for preventing the
transmission of HIV, it has been an effective one for humiliating
and isolating prisoners living with the disease," he wrote.  The
judge then asked both sides to meet and attempt to resolve the
matter, resulting in the current settlement.

"HIV segregation, like racial segregation, has been so
extraordinarily tenacious," said Margaret Winter, associate
director of the ACLU's National Prison Project and lead counsel in
the Alabama case.  But "I believe the prejudice and fear is going
to drop away very quickly once the system is actually integrated."


ALPHABET HOLDING: Awaits OK of Deal in Suits Over Dietary Pills
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alphabet Holding Company, Inc. is awaiting final approval of its
subsidiary's settlement of class action lawsuits over its
glucosamine-based dietary supplements, 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.

Beginning in June 2011, certain putative class actions have been
filed in various jurisdictions against the Company's wholly owned
subsidiary, NBTY, Inc., its subsidiary Rexall Sundown, Inc.
("Rexall"), and/or other companies as to which NBTY may have a
duty to defend and indemnify, challenging the marketing of
glucosamine-based dietary supplements, under various states'
consumer protection statutes.  The lawsuits against the Company
and its subsidiaries are: Cardenas v. NBTY, Inc. and Rexall
Sundown, Inc. (filed June 14, 2011) in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California, on behalf of a
putative class of California consumers seeking unspecified
compensatory damages based on theories of restitution and
disgorgement, plus punitive damages and injunctive relief;
Jennings v. Rexall Sundown, Inc. (filed August 22, 2011, in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, on
behalf of a putative class of Massachusetts consumers seeking
unspecified trebled compensatory damages), and Nunez v. NBTY, Inc.
et al. (filed March 1, 2013) in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California, on behalf of a putative
class of California consumers seeking unspecified compensatory
damages based on theories of restitution and disgorgement, plus
injunctive relief, as well as other cases in California and
Illinois against certain wholesale customers as to which the
Company may have certain indemnification obligations.

In March 2013, NBTY agreed upon a proposed settlement with the
plaintiffs which includes all cases and resolves all pending
claims without any admission of or concession of liability by
NBTY.  The parties have signed settlement documentation providing
for a release of all claims in return for payments to the class,
together with attorneys' fees, and notice and administrative costs
estimated to be in the range of $8 million to $15 million.  The
settlement has been preliminarily approved by the court and a
Fairness Hearing, at which final approval by the court is
anticipated, was scheduled for September 4, 2013.  Until such
settlement is finally approved and entered by the court, however,
no final determination can be made as to the ultimate outcome of
the litigation or the amount of liability on the part of NBTY.
However, NBTY, recorded a provision of $12 million as the
Company's best estimate associated with this proposed settlement
during the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2013.

Based in Ronkonkoma, New York, Alphabet Holding Company, Inc. is a
global vertically integrated manufacturer, distributor and
retailer of a broad line of high-quality vitamins, nutritional
supplements and related products in the United States, with
operations worldwide.  The Company currently markets approximately
25,000 stock-keeping units, including numerous private-label and
owned brands, like Nature's Bounty(R), Ester-C(R), Balance Bar(R),
Solgar(R), MET-Rx(R), American Health(R), Osteo Bi-Flex(R), Flex-
A-Min(R), SISU(R), Knox(R), Sundown(R), Rexall(R), Pure
Protein(R), Body Fortress(R), Worldwide Sport Nutrition(R),
Natural Wealth(R), Puritan's Pride(R), Holland & Barrett(R), GNC
(UK)(R), Physiologics(R), De Tuinen(R), Essenza(R), and Vitamin
World(R).


ALPHABET HOLDING: "Hutchins" Class Suit Dismissed in June 2013
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit commenced by John F. Hutchins was
dismissed in June 2013, according to Alphabet Holding Company,
Inc.'s August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On May 11, 2010, a putative class-action, captioned John F.
Hutchins v. NBTY, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of New York, against NBTY, the
Company's wholly owned subsidiary, and certain current and former
officers, claiming that the defendants made false material
statements, or concealed adverse material facts, for the purpose
of causing members of the class to purchase NBTY stock at
allegedly artificially inflated prices.  On November 12, 2012, at
a mediation, the parties reached an agreement in principle,
subject to agreement on settlement documentation and court
preliminary approval to settle the claims for $6 million to be
paid from insurance proceeds.  On June 5, 2013, the court issued
orders approving the plan of distribution of settlement proceeds
and awarding attorneys' fees and expenses, and a Final Judgment
and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice.

Based in Ronkonkoma, New York, Alphabet Holding Company, Inc. is a
global vertically integrated manufacturer, distributor and
retailer of a broad line of high-quality vitamins, nutritional
supplements and related products in the United States, with
operations worldwide.  The Company currently markets approximately
25,000 stock-keeping units, including numerous private-label and
owned brands, like Nature's Bounty(R), Ester-C(R), Balance Bar(R),
Solgar(R), MET-Rx(R), American Health(R), Osteo Bi-Flex(R), Flex-
A-Min(R), SISU(R), Knox(R), Sundown(R), Rexall(R), Pure
Protein(R), Body Fortress(R), Worldwide Sport Nutrition(R),
Natural Wealth(R), Puritan's Pride(R), Holland & Barrett(R), GNC
(UK)(R), Physiologics(R), De Tuinen(R), Essenza(R), and Vitamin
World(R).


APPLE REIT TEN: Asks 2nd Cir. That Brief be Due on October 25
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apple REIT Ten, Inc. and other defendants have requested that
their appellate brief be due on October 25, 2013, 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 December 13, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York ordered that three putative class
actions, Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et
al., Kowalski v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et al., and Leff v. Apple
REIT Ten, Inc., et al., be consolidated and amended the caption of
the consolidated matter to be In re Apple REITs Litigation.  The
District Court also appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for
the consolidated action and ordered lead plaintiffs to file and
serve a consolidated complaint by February 17, 2012.  The Company
was previously named as a party in all three of the class action
lawsuits.

On February 17, 2012, lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the In
re Apple REITs Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02919-KAM-JO,
filed an amended consolidated complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the
Company, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors,
Inc., Apple Nine Advisors, Inc., Apple Ten Advisors, Inc., Apple
Fund Management, LLC, Apple REIT Six, Inc., Apple REIT Seven,
Inc., Apple REIT Eight, Inc. and Apple REIT Nine, Inc., their
directors and certain officers, and David Lerner Associates, Inc.
and David Lerner.  The consolidated complaint, which was dismissed
in April 2013, was purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers
of Units in the Company and the other Apple REIT Entities, or
those who otherwise acquired these Units that were offered and
sold to them by David Lerner Associates, Inc., or its affiliates
and on behalf of subclasses of shareholders in New Jersey, New
York, Connecticut and Florida, and alleges that the Apple REIT
Entities "misrepresented the investment objectives of the Apple
REITs, the dividend payment policy of the Apple REITs, and the
value of their Apple REIT investments."  The consolidated
complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as well as claims for breach of fiduciary
duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, negligence,
and unjust enrichment, and claims for violation of the securities
laws of Connecticut and Florida.  The complaint seeks, among other
things, certification of a putative nationwide class and the state
subclasses, damages, rescission of share purchases and other costs
and expenses.

On April 18, 2012, the Company, and the other defendants moved to
dismiss the consolidated complaint in the In re Apple REITs
Litigation.  By Order entered on March 31, 2013, and opinion
issued on April 3, 2013, the Court dismissed the consolidated
complaint in its entirety with prejudice and without leave to
amend. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals on April 12, 2013, and filed their Brief for
Plaintiffs-Appellants on July 26, 2013.  The Defendants-Appellees
have requested that their brief be due on October 25, 2013.

The Company believes that Plaintiffs' claims against it, its
officers and directors and other Apple REIT Entities were properly
dismissed by the lower court, and intends to vigorously defend the
judgment as entered.  In the event some or all of Plaintiffs'
claims are revived as a result of Plaintiffs' appeal, the Company
will, once again, defend against them vigorously.  At this time,
the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these
proceedings or provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss
or range of loss due to these proceedings, if any.

Apple REIT Ten, Inc. -- http://www.applereitten.com/-- is a
Virginia corporation headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, formed
in August 2010 to invest in hotels and other income-producing real
estate in selected metropolitan areas in the United States.  The
Company has elected to be treated as a real estate investment
trust for federal income tax purposes.


ARMS LTD: EU Nationals Mull Class Action Over Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
maltatoday.com reports that a group of EU nationals residing in
Malta told a court that they were launching a class action against
Enemalta and ARMS Ltd over discrimination on their nationality,
lawyer Juliet Galea said in court on Sept. 30.

Mr. Justice Joseph Zammit McKean was hearing the submissions in
the civil case of a number of foreign nationals living in Malta
who say they were billed for their utility services as "non-
residents".

The applicants' lawyer exhibited a large number of bills received
by her clients.

Enemalta and ARMS lawyers heavily objected to the request to have
each individual applicant reconcile their personal details with
the account number of the bills, claiming they had never been
given a copy of the list showing the names, passport numbers and
account numbers of the claimants.

Judge McKeon called on both parties to calm down, explaining that
this was a constitutional case and that proceedings should be kept
flexible and practical.

Whilst confirming that the list of claimants was already exhibited
in a past sitting, he said the court would rather ensure the
administration of justice being done than hasten the proceedings.
"Since the request is neither inconsistent with any rule of law
nor is it prejudicial to any claim, the court authorizes each
claimant to confirm under oath the details exhibited in court on
his behalf exhibited," Judge McKeon said.

As a handful of claimants present in court took the witness stand
to confirm their details, it became apparent that a number of
applicants did not reside in Malta any longer.

Commenting outside the courtrooms, spokeswoman Patricia Graham
said a number of EU citizens living in Malta receive utility bills
charged at the so-called "domestic rate", paying about 30% more
than those on the cheaper "residential" tariff.  The action group
are claiming this is discriminatory and that it runs counter to
Malta's signing of the EU's acquis communautaire, which considers
all EU citizens equal.

The case has been put off for January 2014 for sentencing.


AW CHESTERTON: Supreme Court Reverses Asbestos Suit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
in a series of asbestos cases where all the parties, including the
plaintiffs, agreed that there was not enough evidence to determine
that a man's mesothelioma was caused by inhaling asbestos dust
from the defendants' products, the state Supreme Court has ruled
to overturn a Superior Court panel's ruling that had greenlighted
the plaintiffs' case.

In three lawsuits, consolidated under Howard v. A.W. Chesterton,
the justices, in a per curiam order, vacated the opinion of the
state Superior Court and reinstated the decision of a Philadelphia
Court of Common Pleas judge to grant summary judgment and dismiss
the plaintiffs' case.

Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille and Justices J. Michael Eakin,
Max Baer, Seamus P. McCaffery and Thomas G. Saylor joined the per
curiam order.  Justice Correale F. Stevens did not take part in
the case.

The Supreme Court majority reaffirmed that legal causation of a
dose-responsive disease may not be proven on the basis of the
theory that even minimal exposure to asbestos can cause disease.
The justices also restated that expert witnesses in cases
involving dose-responsive diseases cannot ignore dose as a factor
in their testimony.

The court also reaffirmed the principle that summary judgment is
available only in cases where minimal exposure can be demonstrated
and experts rely on the "any-exposure theory," according to the
order.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Debra Todd, while agreeing with
the result, argued that the legal principles should not have been
reaffirmed in the opinion, and in any case were dicta.

After announcing the result, Justice Todd said, her colleagues
"should have stopped there."

"The court's well-meaning attempt to 'accommodate' [defendants']
request to reaffirm several precepts is to little avail in the
end: as these statements are dicta, courts, including this one,
are under no obligation to follow such dictates," Justice Todd
said.

Additionally, Justice Todd said that while she understood the
court's concern for the defendants, who spent time and money in
litigation only to have the plaintiffs concede, she noted that the
court's proclamations were unnecessary and "unmoored from any
factual context."

The justices in the majority insisted the supporting reasons
listed in the order were relevant.

"The concurrence couches the legal precepts which we have set
forth as 'unadorned' and 'unmoored' from any factual context,
while chastising us for violating the axiom that the holding of
any case is to be read against its facts," the justices said.

The majority also explained that the discussion in the case was
relevant and straightforward.

"In light of the intensely protracted nature of this and other
asbestos litigation, as well as our own limited resources, we have
acceded to [defendants'] reasonable request to provide whatever
limited guidance we were able to supply under the circumstances,"
the court said.

Peter J. Neeson -- pneeson@rawle.com -- a defense attorney with
Rawle & Henderson, who made the main arguments in front of the
Supreme Court in March, said that it was "self-serving" for the
plaintiffs to seek to dismiss their case as soon as the Supreme
Court releases its jurisdiction because it would allow the
plaintiffs asbestos bar to "lose the battle but win the war."

Mr. Neeson argued that anything other than an overt, outright
rejection by the justices of the Superior Court's holding in
Howard would let trial courts continue to skirt the Supreme
Court's two most recent asbestos cases.  The cases of Gregg v. V-J
Auto Parts and Betz v. Pneumo Abex are "not being followed at the
trial court level," Mr. Neeson argued.

Baer asked for the plaintiffs' response to the charge by their
opponents that they are complicit in "situational advocacy" by
dismissing this case but overall using boilerplate or identical
affidavits in all other cases.

Plaintiffs counsel Richard P. Myers of Paul, Reich & Myers pointed
out that his firm is no longer using expert affidavit templates
that the defendants argued were boilerplate.

And upon reviewing the record, Mr. Myers said that his co-counsel
and he understood what the court meant by Gregg and want to drop
the case in light of that prior precedent.  In Gregg, the court
said that trial judges must review summary judgment motions
"concerning the frequency, regularity and proximity" of a
plaintiff's exposure to products containing asbestos.

The defendants argued that the expert affidavits were "'merely
compilations of generic, non-case specific, self-serving
generalized opinions that have no basis in scientific fact and are
not sufficient to meet the threshold causation requirement and
survive summary judgment,'" according to court papers.

While some of the justices, including Saylor and Baer, asked why
it would not just serve the defendants' purposes if the court
remanded the case with instructions that summary judgment be
reinstated, Mr. Neeson predicted that, without more forthright
rejection by the justices, the Superior Court panel's decision
would still be citable and would be used to "essentially
eviscerate the core rulings" in the Supreme Court's precedents.

The trial judge in Howard was Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
Judge Allan L. Tereshko.

One of Judge Tereshko's bases for granting summary judgment and
rejecting the experts was that the deceased plaintiff, John
Ravert, testified that some of the asbestos-containing products he
was exposed to did not involve dust, according to court papers.

The defendants are Pecora Corp., Monsey Products and Ace Hardware.

Mr. Neeson, who represented Monsey, told The Legal, "The Supreme
Court in Howard sent a clear and unmistakable message to the lower
courts that you have to follow the Betz decision.  I think the
decision recites and re-emphasized the rulings and holdings the
court articulated so well in Betz.  I think that's the real impact
of the Howard decision."

Mr. Myers could not be reached for comment.


BANK OF THE OZARKS: Wins Appeal From Ruling in "Walker" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Rhonda K. Wood of the Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division
IV, reversed a circuit court ruling in the case, BANK OF THE
OZARKS, INC., and BANK OF THE OZARKS, APPELLANTS, v. ROBERT
WALKER, ANN B. HINES, and JUDITH BELK, APPELLEES, NO. CV-13-3.

Robert Walker, Ann B. Hines and Judith Belk each have a checking
account with Bank of the Ozarks.  They filed a class-action
complaint arguing that the bank had intentionally processed more
expensive debit transactions first to capitalize on overdraft
charges.  The bank appealed from the denial of its motion to
compel arbitration of the class-action complaint.  The circuit
court ruled that the arbitration clause in the deposit agreement
between the bank and the plaintiffs was unconscionable.  The bank
argues that the circuit court erred and that the arbitration
clause is enforceable.

Judge Wood agreed with Bank of Ozarks and remanded the case for
entry of an order compelling arbitration.

A copy of the Appeals Court's September 18, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/l29eQffrom Leagle.com.

ROSE LAW FIRM, a Professional Association, 120 East Fourth Street,
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-2893, (501) 375-9131, By: Richard T.
Donovan -- rdonovan@roselawfirm.com -- (83054), Amanda K. Wofford
-- awofford@roselawfirm.com --(2005023), Betsy Turner-Fry --
btfry@roselawfirm.com -- (2010128), Attorneys for Appellants.

Ruben Honik (PHY), GOLOMB & EONIK, P.C., 1515 Market Street, Suite
1100, Philadelphia, PA, (215) 985-9177, Randall K. Pulliam --
rpulliam@cbplaw.com -- (#98105), Breean Walas -- bwalas@cbplaw.com
-- (#206077), CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC, 11311 Arcade Drive,
Suite 200, Little Rock, Arkansas 72212, (501) 312-8500, Appellees'
brief.


BANKRATE INC: Still Defends "Speight" Class Suit in Colorado
------------------------------------------------------------
On October 5, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit styled
Stephanie Speight v. Bankrate, Inc. was filed against the Company
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and
seeking statutory damages, injunctive relief and attorney fees.
The plaintiff alleges that the Company contacted her and the
members of the class she seeks to represent on their cellular
telephones without their prior express consent.  The Company will
vigorously defend this lawsuit.  The Company cannot presently
estimate the amount of loss, if any, that would result from an
adverse resolution of this matter.

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

Based in North Palm Beach, Florida, Bankrate, Inc. is a publisher,
aggregator and distributor of personal finance content on the
Internet.  The Company provides consumers with personal finance
editorial content across multiple vertical categories, including
mortgages, deposits, insurance, credit cards, and other
categories.


BELMONT MEATS: Recalls Certain Compliments Super 8 Beef Burgers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 2, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Health Hazard Alert
Subcategory:              Microbiological - E. coli O157:H7
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Belmont Meats Ltd.
Distribution:             Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia,
                          Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and
                          Labrador
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Belmont Meats Ltd.
(Est. 112) are warning the public not to consume certain
Compliments brand Super 8 Beef Burgers because they may be
contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.

The recall is the result of an ongoing food safety investigation
initiated as a result of a recent outbreak investigation.  There
may be recalls of additional products or best before dates as the
food safety investigation at this facility continues.

This product has been distributed in Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova
Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador in
Sobeys banner stores, which might include Sobeys, Foodland,
FreshCo, and Price Chopper.

There have been reported illnesses associated with the consumption
of this product.

The manufacturer, Belmont Meats Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, is
voluntarily recalling all affected product from the marketplace.
The CFIA is monitoring the effectiveness of the recall.

All best before dates of the following product, sold frozen, are
affected by this alert:

Affected products: Super 8 Beef Burgers 6 x 227 g (8 oz) / 1.36 kg
with meat inspection legend indicating "Canada 112"


BRISTOL-MYERS: Death Claims Can Go Ahead in Mass Tort Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Journal, reports that
plaintiffs whose wrongful-death claims against Bristol-Myers
Squibb due to toxic-chemical exposure are time-barred by state law
may go forward with them in federal court.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Douglas Arpert in Trenton held on Sept. 25
that New Jersey's statute of limitations was pre-empted by more
lenient federal law.  The plaintiffs may now amend a master
complaint that applies to more than 200 cases consolidated as
Harris v. Bristol-Myers Squibb.

U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson dismissed the wrongful-death
claims on Feb. 15 as time-barred by New Jersey's two-year statute
of limitations because the discovery rule did not apply to claims
under the state Wrongful Death Act.

Judge Arpert held that federal law, which does allow such tolling,
pre-empts the state limitations law.

The plaintiffs have lived or worked in areas that border a 100-
acre Bristol-Myers facility in New Brunswick, operating since
1905, which allegedly discharged byproducts and wastes like
arsenic, mercury, vinyl chloride and asbestos into the air, water
and soil, contaminating the site and the surrounding area.

In addition to wrongful-death and survivorship, there are personal
injury claims by plaintiffs who allege they developed cancer and a
variety of conditions affecting their skin and their respiratory,
digestive, nervous and other systems.  Other plaintiffs, not yet
ill, seek medical monitoring.

The plaintiffs's lawyer in the federal cases, Martin Schrama --
mschrama@stark-stark.com -- of Stark & Stark in Lawrenceville,
estimates that 24 involve wrongful-death claims.  He says the same
reasoning could apply in state court where he and co-counsel
Elizabeth Hamlin, of Garrity Graham Murphy Garofalo & Flinn in
Montclair, represent plaintiffs in about 300 similar suits.

The state cases were centralized on a mass tort docket with
Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee in Atlantic County in 2008,
after 100 or so were filed.

Mr. Schrama and Ms. Hamlin filed exclusively in state court, but
in October 2011, Bristol-Myers started removing the newer
complaints to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.

Judge Wolfson refused to remand in April 2012, finding Bristol-
Myers was headquartered in New York rather than New Jersey and had
not waived the right to remove.  She held the Colorado River
abstention doctrine did not require her to defer to the state
court proceedings.  Her subsequent decision to dismiss the
wrongful-death claims as time-barred differed from Judge Higbee's
ruling on that same issue.

In January 2009, Judge Higbee refused to throw them out for not
being brought within two years of the date of death.

The plaintiffs argued that the discovery rule tolled the time to
sue based on allegations that Bristol-Myers fraudulently concealed
the contamination.

Judge Higbee denied the motion, saying the state Supreme Court
"may be inclined" to apply the discovery rule and in any event,
the law was unclear and it was too early in the litigation to know
if Bristol-Myers' actions justified tolling.

Confronted with the same question in the federal cases, Judge
Wolfson held on Feb. 15 that the discovery rule did not apply.
She took note of Judge Higbee's ruling, saying that despite their
experience in the state court litigation, the plaintiffs' lawyers
had not added specifics to the federal pleadings to buttress their
fraudulent concealment allegations.

When Mr. Schrama and Ms. Hamlin moved in April for leave to amend,
they at first did not raise federal pre-emption but made that
argument in their reply papers.  They relied on language from the
federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA) that gives personal injury and property
damage plaintiffs the benefit of any longer time to sue under
federal law when their claims involve "exposure to any hazardous
substance, or pollutant or contaminant, released into the
environment from a facility."

Bristol-Myers attorney Gavin Rooney, of Roseland's Lowenstein
Sandler, did not return a call.

The first state trials are scheduled for February in three
bellwether cases in which plaintiffs claim they developed lung
cancer or respiratory conditions.


CENTURYLINK INC: Awaits Okay in Rights-of-Way Suits Settlements
---------------------------------------------------------------
CenturyLink, Inc. awaits court approval of settlements in rights-
of-way lawsuits in six states, 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.

Several putative class actions relating to the installation of
fiber optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against
Qwest on behalf of landowners on various dates and in courts
located in 34 states in which Qwest has such cable (Alabama,
Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.)  For the most
part, the complaints challenge the Company's right to install the
Company's fiber optic cable in railroad rights-of-way.  The
complaints allege that the railroads own the right-of-way as an
easement that did not include the right to permit the Company to
install its cable in the right-of-way without the Plaintiffs'
consent.  Most of the currently pending actions purport to be
brought on behalf of state-wide classes in the named Plaintiffs'
respective states, although one action pending before the Illinois
Court of Appeals purports to be brought on behalf of landowners in
Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio and
Wisconsin.  In general, the complaints seek damages on theories of
trespass and unjust enrichment, as well as punitive damages.
After previous attempts to enter into a single nationwide
settlement in a single court proved unsuccessful, the parties
proceeded to seek court approval of settlements on a state-by-
state basis.

To date, the parties have received final approval of such
settlements in 28 states (Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin),
have received preliminary approval of the settlements in two
states (Kentucky and Utah), and have not yet received either
preliminary or final approval in four states (Arizona,
Massachusetts, New Mexico and Texas).

The Company has accrued an amount that the Company believes is
probable for these matters; however, the amount is not material to
the Company's consolidated financial statements.

Headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana, CenturyLink, Inc. --
http://www.centurylink.com/-- is the third largest
telecommunications company in the United States.  The Company
provides broadband, voice, wireless and managed services to
consumers and businesses across the country.  The Company also
offers advanced entertainment services under the CenturyLink(TM)
Prism(TM) TV and DIRECTV brands.


CENTURYLINK INC: Plaintiffs Appealed Dismissal of "Fulghum" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Douglas Fulghum, et al., appealed the dismissal of their
class action lawsuit against a subsidiary of CenturyLink, Inc.,
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 William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al.,
filed on December 28, 2007, in the United States District Court
for the District of Kansas, a group of retirees filed a putative
class action lawsuit challenging the decision to make certain
modifications in retiree benefits programs relating to life
insurance, medical insurance and prescription drug benefits,
generally effective January 1, 2006, and January 1, 2008 (which,
at the time of the modifications, was expected to reduce estimated
future expenses for the subject benefits by more than $300
million).  The Defendants include Embarq, certain of its benefit
plans, its Employee Benefits Committee and the individual plan
administrator of certain of its benefits plans.  Additional
defendants include Sprint Nextel and certain of its benefit plans.
The Court certified a class on certain of plaintiffs' claims, but
rejected class certification as to other claims.  Embarq and other
defendants continue to vigorously contest these claims and
charges.  On October 14, 2011, the Fulghum lawyers filed a new,
related lawsuit, Abbott et al. v. Sprint Nextel et al.
CenturyLink/Embarq is not named a defendant in the lawsuit.  In
Abbott, approximately 1,500 plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary
duty in connection with the changes in retiree benefits that also
are at issue in the Fulghum case.  The Abbott plaintiffs are all
members of the class that was certified in Fulghum on claims for
allegedly vested benefits (Counts I and III), and the Abbott
claims are similar to the Fulghum breach of fiduciary duty claim
(Count II), on which the Fulghum court denied class certification.
The Court has stayed proceedings in Abbott indefinitely.

On February 14, 2013, the Fulghum court dismissed the majority of
the plaintiffs' claims in that case.  On July 16, 2013, the
Fulghum court granted plaintiffs' request to seek interlocutory
review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit.  Embarq and the other defendants will defend the appeal,
continue to vigorously contest any remaining claims in Fulghum and
seek to have the claims in the Abbott case dismissed on similar
grounds.  The Company has not accrued a liability for these
matters because the Company believes it is premature (i) to
determine whether an accrual is warranted and, (ii) if so, to
determine a reasonable estimate of probable liability.

Headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana, CenturyLink, Inc. --
http://www.centurylink.com/-- is the third largest
telecommunications company in the United States.  The Company
provides broadband, voice, wireless and managed services to
consumers and businesses across the country.  The Company also
offers advanced entertainment services under the CenturyLink(TM)
Prism(TM) TV and DIRECTV brands.


CITIZENS BANK: Class Action Attorneys Get 30% Share of Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Brelje, writing for Pocono Record, reports that some local
Citizens Bank customers have found unexpected money in their
accounts thanks to a $137.5 million settlement from a checking
account overdraft class-action lawsuit settled in 2012.

One Pike County customer reports $85 was deposited in her account
last week.

Customers eligible for the settlement who have open accounts at
Citizens Bank received money by account credit Sept. 19.  Those
who have closed accounts and are eligible for a settlement were
expected to receive checks by Sept. 30.

A number of national law firms partnered to bring suit against
Citizens Bank, Wachovia Bank, JP Morgan Chase Bank, Bank Atlantic
and others.

In 2007, banks collected more than $17 billion in overdraft fees.
That number nearly doubled in 2008.  In 2009, U.S. banks brought
in $37.1 billion in overdraft charges alone, according to the
court complaints.

The suit claimed that Citizens Bank manipulated customers'
transactions records so that funds were depleted more rapidly and
more overdraft charges would be incurred.  For example, the suit
claimed, if a customer's account had a $50 balance and the
customer first made four transactions of $10 each, and then made a
$100 purchase on the same day, the bank would reorder the debits
from largest to smallest, imposing five overdraft fees on the
customer.  If the $100 transaction was counted in the order the
customer made it, there would be only one overdraft.

Each overdraft can cost up to $39.  In the example cited in the
complaint, the bank would receive up to an extra $156 by
reordering the transactions.

The suit alleged that although electronic debit transactions
instantly calculate what is in an account, customers often did not
see an accurate balance.  And instead of simply declining debit
transactions when there were insufficient funds, or warning
customers that an overdraft fee will be assessed, Citizens Bank
processed the transaction and then charged the overdraft fee.

"Almost by definition, these fees disproportionately affect the
poor, who are most likely to maintain low balances," court papers
say.

Citizens Bank did not admit any wrongdoing in the settlement.

"The settlement does not mean that any law was broken or that
Citizens did anything wrong.  Citizens denies all legal claims in
this case," the bank said on a website explaining the settlement,
citizensoverdraftsettlement.com.

"We reached this settlement agreement last year. Epiq Class Action
Solutions, the payment administrator, has begun to distribute
payments to customers," Citizens spokeswoman Sylvia Bronner said
in a statement.

In the Citizens case, attorneys earned 30 percent of the bank's
$137.5 million settlement fund, plus expenses.

The bank describes its business this way:

RBS Citizens, N.A., is a subsidiary of RBS Citizens Financial
Group Inc., a $126 billion commercial bank holding company.  It is
headquartered in Providence, R.I., and through its subsidiaries
has approximately 1,400 branches, more than 3,600 ATMs and nearly
19,000 employees.

Its two bank subsidiaries are RBS Citizens, N.A., and Citizens
Bank of Pennsylvania.  It operates a 12-state branch network under
the Citizens Bank brand in Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island
and Vermont; and the Charter One brand in Illinois, Michigan and
Ohio.


COMERICA BANK: Settles Investors' Sigma Class Action for $11 Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Russell-Kraft and Evan Weinberger, writing for Law360,
report that Comerica Bank has agreed to pay $11 million to settle
a class action alleging the bank failed to pull investors' money
from Sigma Finance Corp. before the structured investment vehicle
collapsed in 2008, according to a motion filed on Sept. 27 in
Michigan federal court.


The freshly-certified class members urged U.S. District Judge
Stephen J. Murphy III to preliminarily approve the settlement and
end the four-year litigation between the investors and Comerica.
Under an amended schedule filed by the plaintiffs on Sept. 30, a
final approval hearing for the settlement could occur as early as
Dec. 9.

The plaintiffs, which include members of Board of Trustees of the
City of Birmingham Employees' Retirement System and the Board of
Trustees of the Road Commission for Oakland County Retirement
System, filed the suit on behalf of all participants in Comerica's
global securities lending program whose assets were pooled
together to buy so-called floating lien medium-term Sigma notes in
May 2007.

"The proposed $11 million settlement provides class members with a
recovery of more than 23 percent of their losses," the motion
said.  "Moreover, the proposed settlement provides these class
members with a substantial recovery despite profound uncertainty
surrounding the outcome of any potential trial."

Comerica agreed to the terms of the settlement after a prolonged
period of mediation and negotiation, but the bank continues to
deny any wrongdoing on its part, saying it has agreed to the deal
only to eliminate the burden, expense and distraction of any
further litigation.

The October 2009 complaint alleges that Comerica served as
custodian of the funds' securities, lending them to third-party
borrowers in return for cash collateral, pursuant to a securities
lending agreement.

Comerica then invested the cash collateral at its discretion to
earn an investment return in excess of the rebate paid to the
third-party borrowers, receiving a percentage of the investment
revenues as compensation, the suit says.

The funds contend that Comerica was a fiduciary to the retirement
plans because it exercised control over the management of their
assets and was subject to the fiduciary duties set out under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act and other applicable laws.

They also claim that Comerica "wholly ignored" analysts'
predictions in December 2007 that Sigma -- a 1995 creation of U.K.
hedge fund Gordian Knot, and the first structured investment
vehicle -- would be unable to repay the banks' purchased notes on
maturity.

In September 2008, creditors seized more than $25 billion of
Sigma's $27 billion in assets, and by Oct. 6 the investment
vehicle was in receivership, rendering the funds' Sigma
investments "virtually worthless," according to the plaintiffs.
Sigma was sold at auction in 2008 for around $310 million.

Comerica previously attempted to get the case dismissed, but Judge
Murphy allowed some of the plaintiffs' claims to survive in a
February 2011 ruling.

Representatives for both parties could not immediately be reached
for comment on Oct. 1.

The plaintiffs are represented by the Miller Law Firm PC ,
Sullivan Ward Asher & Patton PC, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP and
Robins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Comerica is represented by Thomas J. Tallerico --
ttallerico@bodmanlaw.com -- and Thomas P. Bruetsch of Bodman PLC.

The case is The Board of Trustees of the City of Birmingham
Employees' Retirement System et al. v. Comerica Bank, case number
2:09-cv-13201, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan.


CSI ELECTRICAL: Writ of Mandate Petition in "Wawock" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sandy R. Kriegler of the Court of Appeals of California,
Second District, Division Five, denied a petition for a writ of
mandate filed by Richard Wawock.

Mr. Wawock is an electrician and a member of Local Union 11 of the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Union). He was
employed by CSI Electrical Contractors (CSI Electrical) from 2006
to 2007 and 2009 to 2013. On September 21, 2012, Mr. Wawock
brought a class action against CSI Electrical asserting that it
failed to pay wages to its electricians for time spent attending
mandated training courses on topics such as safety, first aid, and
preventing harassment. He stated causes of action for violation of
the Labor Code and controlling Wage Orders regarding payment of
wages or overtime, payment of minimum wages, reimbursement of
travel expenses, provision of accurate wage statements, and timely
payment of wages. He also sought an injunction and attorney fees;
and penalties and attorney fees.

Upon receiving a copy of Mr. Wawock's complaint, CSI Electrical
filed a grievance with the Union asserting that by filing his
complaint, Mr. Wawock had violated the collective bargaining
agreement. CSI Electrical also brought a "Motion to Compel
Arbitration" before respondent court, seeking an order compelling
Mr. Wawock to submit his claims to the grievance and arbitration
procedure established by the collective bargaining agreement and
dismissing the complaint.  Respondent court granted CSI
Electrical's motion. The court found committing the gateway
question of whether the dispute was subject to the grievance and
arbitration procedure to the Committee was clear and unmistakable.

Mr. Wawock filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging
respondent court's ruling.  He seeks to have respondent court
vacate its order referring to an arbitral body the question of
whether his statutory wage and hour claims are subject to the
grievance and arbitration procedure of his collective bargaining
agreement.

The case is RICHARD WAWOCK, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; CSI ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.,
Real Party in Interest, NO. B248269.

A copy of the Appeals Court's September 17, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/0lpVC9from Leagle.com.

Hayes Pawlenko, Matthew B. Hayes -- mhayes@helpcounsel.com -- and
Kye D. Pawlenko -- kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com -- for Petitioner.

Snell & Wilmer, Frank Cronin -- fcronin@swlaw.com -- Steve T.
Graham -- sgraham@swlaw.com -- and Todd E. Lundell --
tlundell@swlaw.com -- for Real Party in Interest.

No appearance for Respondent.


DEX MEDIA: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim
----------------------------------------------------------
Dex Media, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss the counterclaim in a class action lawsuit initiated by
its predecessor, 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 June 26, 2012, SuperMedia Inc., the Company's predecessor,
filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, where the Company seeks a
declaratory judgment concerning the Company's right to enact
several amendments that were recently made to its retiree health
and welfare benefit plans, and more generally the Company's right
to modify, amend or terminate these plans.  Although the court
initially consolidated this case with another case, it later
reversed itself and kept the case separate.  Several of the
defendants have filed motions to dismiss as well as a
counterclaim.  The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the
counterclaim.  The Company awaits the order of the court.

Texas-based Dex Media, Inc., is a provider of local marketing
solutions to business clients across the United States.  The
Company's local marketing solutions are primarily sold under
various "Dex" and "Super" brands, including print yellow page
directories, online local search Web sites, mobile local search
applications, and placement of the Company's client's information
and advertisements on major search engine Web sites with whom the
Company is affiliated.


DEX MEDIA: Continues to Defend Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Dex Media, Inc., continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit brought against its predecessor alleging violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, 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 July 1, 2011, several former employees filed a Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action against SuperMedia Inc.,
formerly Idearc Inc., all its subsidiaries, the current chief
executive officer and the former chief executive officer in the
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.
The complaint alleges that the Company improperly calculated the
rate of pay when it paid overtime to its hourly sales employees.
On July 29, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  In response, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to
allege that the individual defendants had "off-the-clock" claims
for unpaid overtime.  Subsequently, the Company amended its motion
to dismiss in light of the new allegations.  On October 25, 2011,
the Plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally certify a
collective action and to issue notice.  On March 29, 2012, the
court denied the Company's motion to dismiss and granted the
plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify the class.  The
Company's motion seeking permission to file an interlocutory
appeal of the order was denied and a notice has been sent to the
Company's former and current employees.  The time for opting into
the class has expired.  The plaintiffs that failed to file their
opt-ins on time have filed a companion case with the same
allegations.

Texas-based Dex Media, Inc., is a provider of local marketing
solutions to business clients across the United States.  The
Company's local marketing solutions are primarily sold under
various "Dex" and "Super" brands, including print yellow page
directories, online local search Web sites, mobile local search
applications, and placement of the Company's client's information
and advertisements on major search engine Web sites with whom the
Company is affiliated.


DEX MEDIA: Fairness Hearing on Securities Suit Deal on Nov. 12
--------------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing is set for November 12, 2013, in connection
with Dex Media, Inc.'s settlement of a consolidated securities
lawsuit 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.

On April 30, 2009, May 21, 2009, and June 5, 2009, three separate
putative class action securities lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, against certain officers of SuperMedia Inc., formerly
Idearc Inc. (but not against the Company or its subsidiaries).
The lawsuits were filed by Jan Buettgen, John Heffner, and Alan
Goldberg as three separate named plaintiffs on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between August 10, 2007,
and March 31, 2009, inclusive.  On May 22, 2009, a putative class
action securities lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas against two of the Company's
current officers (but not against the Company or its
subsidiaries).  The lawsuit was filed by Wade L. Jones on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's bonds between March 27, 2008, and
March 30, 2009, inclusive.  On August 18, 2009, the Wade Jones
case from Arkansas federal district court was transferred to be
consolidated with the cases filed in Texas.  The complaints are
virtually identical and generally allege that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's financial performance and
condition.  Specifically, the complaints allege violations by the
defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended ("Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange
Act and Section 20 of the Exchange Act.  The plaintiffs were
seeking unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement for
litigation expenses.  Since the filing of the complaints, all four
cases have been consolidated into one court in the Northern
District of Texas and a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiffs'
attorney have been selected ("Buettgen" case).

On April 12, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
entire Buettgen complaint.  On August 11, 2010, in a one line
order without an opinion, the court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss.  On May 19, 2011, the court granted the plaintiffs'
motion certifying a class.  Subsequently, the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals denied the Company's petition for an interlocutory
appeal of the class certification order.  On September 24, 2012,
the Company defendants filed a motion for summary judgment seeking
a complete dismissal which was denied on February 20, 2013.

The parties entered into a tentative settlement of the matter on
April 1, 2013.  The Court has preliminarily approved the
settlement and set a fairness hearing for November 12, 2013.  The
Company's insurance carriers have fully funded the settlement
pursuant to the Court's order preliminarily approving the
settlement.

Texas-based Dex Media, Inc., is a provider of local marketing
solutions to business clients across the United States.  The
Company's local marketing solutions are primarily sold under
various "Dex" and "Super" brands, including print yellow page
directories, online local search Web sites, mobile local search
applications, and placement of the Company's client's information
and advertisements on major search engine Web sites with whom the
Company is affiliated.


DEX MEDIA: Plaintiffs in ERISA Suit Seek Rehearing En Banc
----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs filed a petition for a rehearing en banc in
connection with a decision affirming the dismissal of their class
action lawsuit in Texas, according to Dex Media, Inc.'s August 8,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On December 10, 2009, a former employee with a history of
litigation against SuperMedia Inc., formerly Idearc Inc., filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, against certain of
the Company's current and former officers, directors and members
of the Company's employee benefits committee ("EBC").  The
complaint attempts to recover alleged losses to the various
savings plans that were allegedly caused by the breach of
fiduciary duties in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") by the defendants in administrating
the plans from November 17, 2006, to March 31, 2009.  The
complaint alleges that: (i) the defendants wrongfully allowed all
the plans to invest in Idearc common stock, (ii) the defendants
made material misrepresentations regarding the Company's financial
performance and condition, (iii) the defendants had divided
loyalties, (iv) the defendants mismanaged the plan assets, and (v)
certain defendants breached their duty to monitor and inform the
EBC of required disclosures.  The plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement for litigation
expenses.  At this time, a class has not been certified.  The
plaintiffs have filed a consolidated complaint.  The Company filed
a motion to dismiss the entire complaint on June 22, 2010.  On
March 16, 2011, the court granted the Company defendants' motion
to dismiss the entire complaint; however, the plaintiffs have
repleaded their complaint.  The Company defendants have filed
another motion to dismiss the new complaint.  On March 15, 2012,
the court granted the Company defendants' second motion dismissing
the case with prejudice.

The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal and briefing in the 5th
Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has been completed.  On July 9,
2013, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision
affirming the dismissal of the trial court.  On July 23, 2013,
plaintiffs filed a Petition to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals for a rehearing en banc.  The Company says it plans to
honor its indemnification obligations and vigorously defend the
lawsuit on the defendants' behalf.

Texas-based Dex Media, Inc., is a provider of local marketing
solutions to business clients across the United States.  The
Company's local marketing solutions are primarily sold under
various "Dex" and "Super" brands, including print yellow page
directories, online local search Web sites, mobile local search
applications, and placement of the Company's client's information
and advertisements on major search engine Web sites with whom the
Company is affiliated.


DEX MEDIA: Summary Judgment Bids in Bell Retirees Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties' summary judgments in the class action lawsuit brought
by former Bell retirees remain pending, according to Dex Media,
Inc.'s August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On November 25, 2009, three former Bell retirees brought a
putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, against both the
employee benefits committee and pension plans of Verizon
Communications Inc. and the employee benefits committee ("EBC")
and pension plans of SuperMedia Inc., formerly Idearc Inc.  All
three named plaintiffs are receiving the single life monthly
annuity pension benefits.  All complain that Verizon transferred
them against their will from the Verizon pension plans to the
Company pension plans at or near the Company's spin-off from
Verizon.  The complaint alleges that both the Verizon and Company
defendants failed to provide requested plan documents, which would
entitle the plaintiffs to statutory penalties under the Employee
Retirement Income Securities Act ("ERISA"); that both the Verizon
and Company defendants breached their fiduciary duty for refusal
to disclose pension plan information; and other class action
counts aimed solely at the Verizon defendants.  The plaintiffs
seek class action status, statutory penalties, damages and a
reversal of the employee transfers.  The Company defendants filed
their motion to dismiss the entire complaint on March 10, 2010.
On October 18, 2010, the court ruled on the pending motion
dismissing all the claims against the Company pension plans and
all of the claims against the Company's EBC relating to the
production of documents and statutory penalties for failure to
produce same.  The only claims remaining against the Company are
procedural ERISA claims against the Company's EBC.  On November 1,
2010, the Company's EBC filed its answer to the complaint.  On
November 4, 2010, the Company's EBC filed a motion to dismiss one
of the two remaining procedural ERISA claims against the EBC.
Pursuant to an agreed order, the plaintiffs have obtained class
certification against the Verizon defendants and discovery has
commenced. After obtaining permission from the court, the
plaintiffs filed another amendment to the complaint, alleging a
new count against the Company's EBC.

The Company's EBC filed another motion to dismiss the amended
complaint and have filed a summary judgment motion before the
deadline set by the scheduling order.  On March 26, 2012, the
court denied the Company's EBC's motion to dismiss.  The parties'
summary judgments remain pending.  The Company says it plans to
honor its indemnification obligations and vigorously defend the
lawsuit on the defendants' behalf.

Texas-based Dex Media, Inc., is a provider of local marketing
solutions to business clients across the United States.  The
Company's local marketing solutions are primarily sold under
various "Dex" and "Super" brands, including print yellow page
directories, online local search Web sites, mobile local search
applications, and placement of the Company's client's information
and advertisements on major search engine Web sites with whom the
Company is affiliated.


DGSE COMPANIES: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
DGSE Companies, Inc., a wholesaler and retailer of jewelry,
diamonds, fine watches, and precious metal bullion and rare coin
products, on Sept. 30 disclosed that the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas has granted preliminary
approval of the previously announced proposed settlement of class
action and derivative litigation relating to the Company's
previously disclosed accounting irregularities and subsequent
restatement of financial results.

The proposed settlements will resolve all issues which are pending
before the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, in the two filed cases entitled Grant Barfuss, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated vs. DGSE Companies,
Inc.; L. S. Smith, John Benson and William Oyster (Civil Action
No. 3:12-cv-3664), and Jason Farmer, Derivatively on Behalf of
Nominal Defendant DGSE Companies, Inc., Plaintiff, v. William H.
Oyster, James D. Clem, William Cordeiro, Craig Alan-Lee, David
Rector, L. S. Smith, and John Benson, Defendants, and DGSE
Companies, Inc., Nominal Defendant (Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-
3850).

The proposed settlements are subject to final approvals of the
District Court and require the Company to provide a notice to
shareholders of terms of the proposed settlement by causing the
notice to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
a Form 8-K and posting a link to the notice on the Company's
investor relations website.  The notice may be found at
http://www.dgsecompanies.com/stockholdernotice

The defendants have agreed to pay $2 million to resolve all claims
in both suits (including obligations to pay attorneys' fees).  The
Company has also incurred some additional fees and expenses
associated with finalizing the settlement.  It is expected that
approximately 90% of the total settlement amount and related
expenses will be paid from insurance proceeds.

"I'm very excited to be one step closer to resolving both of these
suits, and we are hopeful that the federal court will give its
final approval to both settlements," stated James Vierling, Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board.  "A final resolution
will allow DGSE to concentrate its resources on issues that will
provide shareholders additional value."

The District Court has set a hearing date on final approval of the
proposed settlement for October 21, 2013.

Counsel for Plaintiff Farmer:

          Matthew M. Houston, Esq.
          HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
          488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 935-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 753-3630
          E-mail: mhouston@hfesq.com

Counsel for Defendants:

          Timothy R. McCormick, Esq.
          THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP
          1722 Routh Street, Suite 1500
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 969-1700
          Facsimile: (214) 969-1751
          E-mail: Timothy.McCormick@tklaw.com


DIAMOND RESORTS: Settlement of Hawaii Suit Has Now Become Final
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Resorts International, Inc.'s settlement of a class action
lawsuit brought by a homeowners association in Hawaii has now
become final, 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 October 2011, the homeowners association ("HOA") of one of the
Company's managed resorts in Hawaii levied a $65.8 million water
intrusion assessment to the owners of that resort, of which $9.7
million was assessed to the Company.  During the quarter ended
December 31, 2011, the Company's portion of the water intrusion
assessment was recorded as Vacation Interest carrying cost, net,
in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of
operations and comprehensive income (loss) with a corresponding
increase to due to related parties, net, in the accompanying
condensed consolidated balance sheet.  The proceeds of this
assessment are being used to repair the water intrusion damage at
the resort.

In April 2012, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative
class action pending in the District Court for the District of
Hawaii.  The action, brought by five deeded owners and members of
one of the Collections managed by the Company, alleges breaches of
fiduciary duty and unfair and deceptive trade practices against
the Company and certain of its officers and employees and seeks,
among other things, to invalidate the water intrusion assessment
and enjoin the water intrusion project.  In November 2012, the
Company reached an agreement with the named plaintiffs and their
counsel to settle the litigation in full, which settlement
agreement was approved by the court in May 2013 and has now become
final.  The settlement did not have a material impact on the
Company's financial condition or results of operations.

Diamond Resorts International, Inc. is a global leader in the
hospitality and vacation ownership industry, with an ownership
base of more than 490,000 owner-families, or members, and a
worldwide network of 306 destinations located in 32 countries,
throughout the continental United States, Hawaii, Canada, Mexico,
the Caribbean, Central America, South America, Europe, Asia,
Australia and Africa.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware
and is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada.


DIODES INC: Plaintiffs Filed Amended "Local 731 I.B." Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Local 731 I.B. of T. Excavators and Pavers Pension Trust Fund
filed an amended complaint in August 2013, according to Diodes
Incorporated'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 is currently a party to a putative securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, entitled Local 731 I.B. of T. Excavators and
Pavers Pension Trust Fund v. Diodes, Inc., Civil Action No. 6:13-
cv-247 (E.D. Tex. filed Mar. 15, 2013), against the Company, Dr.
Lu and Richard D. White, in which plaintiff, purportedly on behalf
of a class of investors who purchased the Company's Common Stock
between February 9, 2011, and June 9, 2011, alleges that
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with allegedly public
statements made during the class period regarding the labor market
in China and its impact on the Company's business and prospects.
Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
("Reform Act"), motions for appointment of lead plaintiff are due
to be filed by May 14, 2013.  Pursuant to the Court's order dated
April 26, 2013, (1) in the event the putative class member
ultimately appointed as lead plaintiff wishes to file an amended
complaint, lead plaintiff shall do so no later than forty-five
(45) days after entry of an order appointing the lead plaintiff;
(2) no later than fifteen (15) days after entry of an order
appointing the lead plaintiff, lead plaintiff must file a notice
with the Court indicating whether it will file an amended
complaint; (3) defendants shall file an answer or motion directed
to the operative complaint in this action no later than forty-five
(45) days after service of an amended complaint or notice of lead
plaintiff's decision not to file an amended complaint, as
applicable; and (4) in the event defendants file a motion or
motions directed to the operative complaint in this action, (i)
lead plaintiff shall file his, her or its opposition, if any,
within forty-five (45) days after service of such motion(s) and
(ii) defendants shall file their reply, if any, within thirty (30)
days after service of lead plaintiff's opposition.

On June 14, 2013, the Court entered an order appointing Local 731
I.B. of T. Excavators and Pavers Pension Trust Fund as lead
plaintiff and approved the lead plaintiff's selection of Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd as lead plaintiff's counsel and the Ward &
Smith Law Firm as lead plaintiff's liaison counsel.  On August 1,
2013, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint reiterating
the same claims for relief against the same defendants as asserted
in the original complaint.  The deadline for defendants to move
against or otherwise respond to the amended complaint was
September 16, 2013.  Pursuant to the Reform Act, all discovery and
other proceedings are stayed pending a ruling on any motion to
dismiss.  The defendants intend to defend this action vigorously.

Diodes Incorporated -- http://www.diodes.com/-- is a global
manufacturer and supplier of high-quality, application specific
standard products within the broad discrete, logic and analog
semiconductor markets, serving the consumer electronics,
computing, communications, industrial and automotive markets
throughout Asia, North America and Europe.  Diodes was
incorporated in Delaware is headquartered in Plano, Texas.


EAST RAMAPO: Judge Allows Class Action v. School Board to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
News12 Hudson Valley reports that a federal judge is allowing a
class action lawsuit against the East Ramapo School District to
move forward.

Nearly 400 plaintiffs are involved in the suit.  District parents
allege that the school board, which is made up of mostly Orthodox
Jewish men, misused public tax money to send students to yeshivas
and to pay for religious textbooks.

The suit also alleges that they attempted to sell school
properties at below market rates to be used by religious schools.

A judge told lawyers for the defendants that she won't dismiss the
case, but she threw out some of the legal arguments made by the
plaintiffs.

Both sides have through the middle of November to make their next
round of legal arguments on paper to the judge.


ELECTROLUX HOME: Recalls Frigidaire Professional Electric Blenders
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 2, 2013
Posting date:             October 2, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Laceration Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-36021

Affected products: Frigidaire Professional Brand 1.6-Litre
(56-Ounce) Glass Jar Blenders

The recall involves certain Frigidaire Professional Brand
1.6-litre (56-ounce) Glass Jar Blenders, identified by model
FPJB56B7MS, within serial range FFP 49 1203 00001 through FFP 49
1237 00974.

The model and serial information is located on the underside of
the motorized base.

The blender's blade shaft assembly can break during use, posing a
laceration hazard to consumers.

Frigidaire has received eight reports of incidents where the blade
shaft assembly has broken during use.  No injuries have been
reported.

Neither Health Canada nor Frigidaire has received any reports of
incidents or injuries related to the use of these blenders in
Canada.

Approximately 614 units of the blenders were sold in Canada at
major and online retailers.

The recalled blenders were manufactured in China and sold from
April 2012 to September 2013.

Companies:

  Manufacturer     Tsann Kuen Enterprise Co. Ltd.
                   Taipei
                   Taiwan, Province Of China

  Distributor      Electrolux Home Care Products, Inc.
                   Charlotte
                   North Carolina
                   United States

Consumers should stop using the recalled blenders immediately and
contact Frigidaire for instructions on returning the blenders for
a free replacement blender.


HERALD ASSET MANAGEMENT: 2nd Cir. Upholds Lawsuit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs-Appellants Dana Trezziova and Seymour Neville Davis
appealed from a judgment entered on December 12, 2011, by the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
in In re: HERALD, PRIMEO, AND THEMA.  That judgment granted the
defendants' motions to dismiss Trezziova's and Davis's proposed
class action complaints on behalf of investors in certain foreign
investment funds that placed their investors' money with Bernard
L. Madoff Investment Securities.  The district court dismissed the
plaintiffs-appellants' claims against (1) defendants-appellees
JPMorgan Chase & Co. and the Bank of New York Mellon Corporation
as precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of
1998, 15 U.S.C. Section 78bb(f), and, alternatively, by New York's
Martin Act, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Sections 352 et seq.; (2)
defendants-appellees Friehling & Horowitz, Erko, Inc., Windsor
IBC, Inc., Infovaleur, Inc., and Eurovaleur, Inc., for failure to
serve process under Rule 12(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b); and (3)
the remaining defendants on the ground of forum non conveniens.

On appeal, appellants contend that the district court's dismissal
of the first two categories of defendants was based on erroneous
interpretations of the applicable laws; as to the third, the
appellants argue that the district court abused its discretion in
granting dismissal for forum non conveniens because the district
court made clearly erroneous findings of fact, failed to give
appropriate deference to the plaintiffs' choice of forum, and
improperly dismissed the consolidated cases in favor of two
separate fora.

Davis also appeals the district court's refusal to approve the
settlement agreement he reached with defendants-appellees HSBC
Institutional Trust Services (Ireland) Ltd., HSBC Securities
Services (Ireland) Ltd., and HSBC Holdings PLC, and proposed
defendant HSBC Bank USA, N.A.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
district court judgment, holding that the District Court properly
analyzed each element of the forum non conveniens test, and
therefore, it properly granted the Defendants' motion for
dismissal on the basis of forum non conveniens.  The appellants'
remaining arguments are without merit, the Second Circuit said.

The case is DANA TREZZIOVA, NEVILLE SEYMOUR DAVIS, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, REPEX VENTURES S.A., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, SCHMUEL CABILLY, KOREA EXCHANGE BANK,
Plaintiffs, v. SONJA KOHN, PRIMEO SELECT FUND, PRIMEO EXECUTIVE
FUND, HANNES SALETA, ERNST & YOUNG GLOBAL LIMITED, HSBC SECURITIES
SERVICES (LUXEMBOURG) S.A., HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, BANK MEDICI,
UNICREDIT, BANK AUSTRIA, PIONEER GLOBAL ASSET MANAGEMENT S.P.A.,
ALFRED SIMON, KARL E. KANIAK, HANS-PETER TIEFENBACHER, JOHANNES P.
SPALEK, NIGEL H. FIELDING, JAMES E. O'NEILL, ALBERTO LAROCCA,
DECLAN MURRAY, URSULA RADEL-LESZCYNSKI, MICHAEL WHEATON, BA
WORLDWIDE FUND MANAGEMENT, LTD., PIONEER ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT LTD., BANK OF BERMUDA (CAYMAN) LIMITED, BANK OF BERMUDA
(LUXEMBOURG) S.A., BANK OF BERMUDA LIMITED, ERNST & YOUNG
(CAYMAN), ALBERTO BENBASSAT, STEPHANE BENBASSAT, GENEVALOR,
BENBASSAT & CIE, GERALD J.P. BRADY, JOHN HOLLIWELL, SONJA KOHN,
DANIEL MORRISSEY, DAVID T. SMITH, WERNER TRIPOLT, BANK MEDICI AG,
UNICREDIT SPA, HSBC INSTITUTIONAL TRUST SERVICES (IRELAND) LTD.,
HSBC SECURITIES SERVICES (IRELAND) LTD., HSBC HOLDINGS PLC,
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS INTERNATIONAL LTD., PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS
(DUBLIN), PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP, PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS
BERMUDA, THEMA ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED, BA WORLDWIDE FUND
MANAGEMENT LIMITED, PETER MADOFF, ANDREW MADOFF, MARK MADOFF,
WILLIAM FRY, JP MORGAN CHASE & CO., BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,
HERALD (LUX), MESSRS. FERDINAND BURG AND CARLO REDING, THE COURT
APPOINTED LIQUIDATORS FOR HERALD (LUX), HERALD ASSET MANAGEMENT
LIMITED, UNICREDIT BANK AUSTRIA AG, HERALD USA FUND, THEMA
INTERNATIONAL FUND PLC, ERNST & YOUNG S.A., FRIEDRICH PFEFFER,
FRANCO MUGNAI, THEMA INTERNATIONAL FUND PLC, Defendants-Appellees,
BERNARD L. MADOFF, BERNARD L. MADOFF INVESTMENT SECURITIES, BANK
MEDICI S.A., PETER SCHEITHAUER, HERALD USA FUND, HERALD LUXEMBURG
FUND, BANK AUSTRIA CREDITANSTALT, UNICREDIT S.A., PIONEER
ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS, HSBC SECURITIES SERVICES, S.A., HAML,
PAUL DE SURY, GABRIEL SAFDIE, WILLIAM A. JONES, HELMUTH E. FREY,
ANDREAS PIRKNER, RICHARD GODDARD, ERNST & YOUNG, FRIEHLING &
HOROWITZ, Defendants, NOS. 12-156-CV (L), 12-162 (CON.).

A copy of the Circuit Court's September 16, 2013 Summary Order is
available at http://is.gd/UdegVgfrom Leagle.com.

FRANCIS A. BOTTINI, JR. -- fbottini@cfsblaw.com -- (Albert Y.
Chang, Chapin Fitzgerald Sullivan & Bottini LLP, Chapin Fitzgerald
Sullivan & Bottini LLP, 500 West C St., Ste. 2000, San Diego,
California; Eric Alan Isaacson -- erici@rgrdlaw.com -- Joseph D.
Daley -- joed@rgrdlaw.com -- Jessica T. Shinnefield --
jshinnefield@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San
Diego, CA, on the brief), Chapin Fitzgerald, Sullivan & Bottini
LLP, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant Neville Seymour Davis.

TIMOTHY JOSEPH BURKE -- tburke@ssbla.com -- Stull, Stull & Brody,
Beverly Hills, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant Dana Trezziova.

SUSAN L. SALTZSTEIN -- susan.saltzstein@skadden.com -- (Marco E.
Schnabl -- marco.schnabl@skadden.com -- on the brief), Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-
Appellee UniCredit S.p.A.

MICHAEL E. WILES -- mewiles@debevoise.com -- Debevoise & Plimpton
LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees Alberto Benbassat,
Stephane Benbassat, Genevalor, Benbassat & Cie, Gerald J.P. Brady,
Daniel Morrissey, David T. Smith, Thema Asset Management Limited,
and Thema International Fund plc.

For Defendants-Appellees HSBC Holdings plc, HSBC Securities
Services (Ireland) Limited, HSBC Institutional Trust Services
(Ireland) Limited, and HSBC Securities Services (Luxembourg) S.A.:

   THOMAS J. MOLONEY, Esq.
   David E. Brodsky, Esq.
   Evan A. Davis, Esq.
   Charles J. Keeley, Esq.
   Daniel D. Queen, Esq.
   Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
   One Liberty Plaza
   New York, NY 10006
   Phone: +1 212 225 2000
   Fax: +1 212 225 3999

PATRICIA M. HYNES -- patricia.hynes@allenovery.com -- (Andrew Rhys
Davies -- andrew.rhys.davies@allenovery.com -- Laura R. Hall --
laura.hall@allenovery.com -- on the brief), Allen & Overy LLP, New
York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee JP Morgan Chase & Co.

THOMAS G. RAFFERTY -- trafferty@cravath.com -- (Antony L. Ryan --
aryan@cravath.com -- on the brief), Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP,
New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee PriceWaterhouseCoopers
Ireland.

James C. Dugan -- jdugan@willkie.com -- Mitchell J. Auslander --
mauslander@willkie.com -- Wilkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, New York,
NY, for Defendant-Appellee William Fry.

Price O. Gielen -- pog@nqgrg.com -- Neuberger, Quinn, Gielen,
Rubin & Gibber, P.A., Baltimore, MD, for Defendant-Appellee Sonja
Kohn.

Franklin B. Velie -- fvelie@sandw.com -- Jonathan G. Kortmansky --
jkortmansky@sandw.com -- Mitchell C. Stein -- mstein@sandw.com --
Sullivan & Worcester LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee
UniCredit Bank Austria AG.

Brett S. Moore -- bsmoore@pbnlaw.com -- Porzio, Bromberg & Newman
P.C., New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee Herald (LUX) by and
through Messrs. Ferdinand Burg and Carlo Reding, the Court-
Appointed Liquidators for Herald (LUX).

Joseph Serino, Jr. -- joseph.serino@kirkland.com -- Jay P.
Lefkowitz -- lefkowitz@kirkland.com -- David S. Flugman --
david.flugman@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY,
for Defendants-Appellees Herald USA Fund, Franco Mugnai, and
Friedrich Pfeffer.

Jeff G. Hammel -- jeff.hammel@lw.com -- Maria A. Barton --
maria.barton@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY, for
Defendant-Appellee Hannes Saleta.

Lewis J. Liman, Jeffrey A. Rosenthal, Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee The Bank of New
York Mellon Corporation.

Sanford M. Litvack -- sandy.litvack@hoganlovells.com -- Dennis H.
Tracey, III -- dennis.tracey@hoganlovells.com -- Lisa J. Fried --
lisa.fried@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, New York, NY,
for Defendant-Appellee PriceWaterhouseCoopers Bermuda.

Michael P. Carroll, James H.R. Windels --
james.windels@davispolk.com -- Michael S. Flynn --
michael.flynn@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, New
York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP.

Fraser L. Hunter, Jr. -- fraser.hunter@wilmerhale.com -- Brad E.
Konstandt -- brad.konstandt@wilmerhale.com -- WilmerHale LLP, New
York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee PriceWaterhouseCoopers
International Ltd.

William R. Maguire -- maguire@hugheshubbard.com -- Marc A.
Weinstein --weinstei@hugheshubbard.com -- Gabrielle S. Marshall --
marshalg@hugheshubbard.com -- Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, New York,
NY, for Defendant-Appellee Ernst & Young (Cayman).

Richard A. Martin -- rmartin@orrick.com -- Katherine L. Maco --
kmaco@orrick.com -- Alison K. Roffi -- aroffi@orrick.com -- Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee
Ernst & Young S.A.

Claudius O. Sokenu -- Claudius.Sokenu@aporter.com -- John M.
Massaro -- John.Massaro@aporter.com -- Arthur Luk --
Arthur.Luk@aporter.com -- Arnold & Porter LLP, Washington, DC, for
Defendant-Appellee Ernst & Young Global Limited.


HSBC-NORTH AMERICA: "Carlson" Suit Remanded to District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
In CARLSON v. HSBC-NORTH AMERICA (US) RETIREMENT INCOME PLAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant Mary W. Carlson appealed from a judgment of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, entered June 23, 2011, dismissing her putative class action
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and denying her
request for attorney's fees.  Ms. Carlson also appealed from an
order of the same court denying her motion for reconsideration.

Ms. Carlson, a retired employee of Manhattan Savings Bank and a
participant in the Manhattan Savings Bank Pension Plan, contends
that Defendants-Appellees HSBC-North America (US) Retirement
Income Plan as the successor of the MSB Pension Plan, and the
HSBC-North America Holdings Administrative Committee as Plan
Administrator, violated the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 by not paying her an implied reasonable rate of
interest on delayed pension payments.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concludes that
Ms. Carlson's claims for a higher interest rate on delayed
payments are not moot, but that, assuming arguendo Ms. Carlson's
requested relief is cognizable under ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B),
the rate provided by defendants was reasonable and did not violate
ERISA's anti-cutback and anti-forfeiture provisions.

"We, therefore AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of her
complaint for failure to state a claim. Because Carlson has
achieved some success on the merits, however, we conclude she is
statutorily eligible for an award of attorney's fees under 29
U.S.C. [Section] 1132(g)(1).  Accordingly, we VACATE the district
court's denial of attorney's fees and REMAND the case for the
district court to consider in the first instance whether an award
of attorney's fees is merited. We assume the parties' familiarity
with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and
the issues on appeal, which we reference only as necessary to
explain our decision," rules the Second Circuit.

The case is MARY W. CARLSON, on her own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HSBC-NORTH
AMERICA (US) RETIREMENT INCOME PLAN, and the HSBC-NORTH AMERICA
HOLDINGS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, as Plan Administrator,
Defendants-Appellees, NO. 12-1209-CV.

A copy of the Circuit Court's September 17, 2013 Summary Order is
available at http://is.gd/0ILBg8 from Leagle.com.

For Plaintiff-Appellant:

   EDGAR PAUK, Esq.
   27 8th Ave, Brooklyn
   Kings County, NY-11217
   Tel: (347) 529-4604

        - and -

   ROBERT BACH, Esq.
   60 E 42ND ST
   NEW YORK, NY 10165-0006
   Tel: (212) 867-4456

GARY F. KOTASKA -- gkotaska@phillipslytle.com -- Phillips Lytle
LLP, Buffalo, New York, for Defendants-Appellees.


JACKSON, MI: Court Certifies Class Action Over Stormwater Fee
-------------------------------------------------------------
Will Forgrave, writing for MLive.com, reports that a class action
lawsuit against the city of Jackson continues apace, and certain
residents who have paid stormwater utility fees and want refunds
are now part of it.

Court officials certified the class, according to court documents.
Class members can expect a memo in the mail soon that notifies
them of the suit and lays out their rights under the class and
details how to opt out if they so choose.

Residents and business owners who paid a stormwater fee due after
Aug. 12, 2012, are part of the class, which includes 12,500
residential properties and 2,500 commercial parcels.

Following a Michigan Court of Appeals ruling that canceled the
city's controversial stormwater utility fee, Saline resident
Phillip Panzica filed a class action lawsuit against the city in
August.

Mr. Panzica -- represented by attorney Brian Surgener -- is hoping
that he and others that fall under the class action's umbrella get
reimbursed their stormwater fees. Residential properties paid
about $30 a year under the fee while commercial properties paid a
wide variety of prices ranging from relatively little to tens of
thousands of dollars.

Due to a statute of limitations, the city would be required to pay
back a maximum of one year's worth of payments, which would total
about $900,000.  The stormwater utility fee was enacted in 2011
and has generated nearly $3 million in billings.

Mr. Surgener said he expects the city to take the court judgment
and place it on the tax roll.  According to a 1984 Michigan
Supreme Court ruling, state municipalities can levy a tax to pay
for lawsuits, even if the increased tax exceeds the city's own
charter limitations.

"I don't want that," he said.  "But it seems that's what the city
is attempting to do."

Mr. Surgener offered the city a settlement offer Aug. 23.  The
city rejected the offer Aug. 29.

In the settlement offer, Mr. Surgener said the lawsuit will be
dropped if the city comes up with a plan to pay Jackson property
owners back for a year's worth of stormwater fees.

Jackson City Manager Patrick Burtch said simply because the city
isn't accepting the settlement offer doesn't mean they intend to
levy a tax on city residents.

"(Surgener's claims) are simply not true," Mr. Burtch said.  "Now
that the class is certified, we don't have to take the time with
multiple plaintiffs and multiple lawsuits.  We want a final
judgment that will settle this once and for all."

Some city residents are saying they intend to opt out of the class
action suit, which they believe is hurting the city.

"The stormwater fees I paid, I don't want them back," Jackson
resident Peg Stapleton said at a meeting hosted by City Councilman
Derek Dobies, 6th Ward.  "We're hurting the city.  We have cut
back so much, at what point do we say enough is enough?

"Either we pay for our services or we don't," she continued.  "We
can't have it both ways."

Jackson City Council members voted to enact the stormwater fee in
2011 to help pay for street sweeping, leaf pickup, catch-basin
cleaning and other services.  Following the Michigan Court of
Appeals' decision to negate the fee, city officials suspended
those services indefinitely.


LINNCO LLC: "Assad" Stockholder Suit Remains Stayed in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------------
The merger-related class action lawsuit titled Nancy P. Assad
Trust v. Berry Petroleum Co., et al., remains stayed in Colorado,
according to LinnCo, LLC'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 20, 2013, LinnCo and Berry entered into a definitive
merger agreement under which LinnCo would acquire all of the
outstanding common shares of Berry Petroleum Company.  Under the
terms of the agreement, Berry's shareholders will receive 1.25
LinnCo common shares for each Berry common share they own.  This
transaction, which is expected to be a tax-free exchange to
Berry's shareholders, represents value of $46.2375 per common
share, based on the closing price of LinnCo common shares on
February 20, 2013, the last trading day before the public
announcement.

On March 21, 2013, a purported stockholder class action captioned
Nancy P. Assad Trust v. Berry Petroleum Co., et al. was filed in
the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado,
No. 13-CV-31365.  The action names as defendants Berry, the
members of its board of directors, Bacchus HoldCo, Inc., a direct
wholly owned subsidiary of Berry ("HoldCo"), Bacchus Merger Sub,
Inc., a direct wholly owned subsidiary of HoldCo ("Bacchus Merger
Sub"), LinnCo, LINN Energy and Linn Acquisition Company, LLC, a
direct wholly owned subsidiary of LinnCo ("LinnCo Merger Sub").
On April 5, 2013, an amended complaint was filed, which alleges
that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the transactions by engaging in an unfair sales
process that resulted in an unfair price for Berry, by failing to
disclose all material information regarding the transactions, and
that the entity defendants aided and abetted those breaches of
fiduciary duty.  The amended complaint seeks a declaration that
the transactions are unlawful and unenforceable, an order
directing the individual defendants to comply with their fiduciary
duties, an injunction against consummation of the transactions,
or, in the event they are completed, rescission of the
transactions, an award of fees and costs, including attorneys' and
experts' fees and expenses, and other relief.  On May 21, 2013,
the Colorado District Court stayed and administratively closed the
Nancy P. Assad Trust action in favor of the Hall action that is
pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

LinnCo, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered
in Houston, Texas.  Linn Energy, LLC, an independent oil and
natural gas company owns LinnCo's sole voting share.  As of
June 30, 2013, LinnCo's sole purpose was to own units representing
limited liability company interests in LINN Energy and it had no
significant assets or operations other than those related to its
interest in LINN Energy.


LINNCO LLC: Faces 4 Securities Class Action Suits in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
LinnCo, LLC is facing four securities class action lawsuits in New
York, according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.

On July 10, 2013, David Adrian Luciano, individually and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, against LINN Energy, LinnCo, Mark E. Ellis, Kolja
Rockov, David B. Rottino, George A. Alcorn, David D. Dunlap,
Terrence S. Jacobs, Michael C. Linn, Joseph P. McCoy, Jeffrey C.
Swoveland, and the various underwriters for LinnCo's initial
public offering (the "Luciano Action").  On July 12, 2013, Frank
Donio, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, against the same
defendants (the "Donio Action").  On July 19, 2013, John Cottrell,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, against LINN
Energy, Mark E. Ellis, Kolja Rockov, and David B. Rottino (the
"Cottrell Action").  On July 23, 2013, Kevin Feldman, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York, against the same defendants as in
the Luciano Action (the "Feldman Action") (the Luciano Action,
Donio Action, Cottrell Action, and Feldman Action together, the
"New York Federal Actions").  The Donio Action and the Cottrell
Action assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act based on allegations that the Company made false or
misleading statements relating to its hedging strategy, the cash
flow available for distribution to unitholders, and the Company's
energy production.  The Luciano Action and the Feldman Action
assert claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 based on alleged misstatements relating to these issues in
the prospectus and registration statement for LinnCo's initial
public offering.  The cases are in their preliminary stages and it
is possible that additional similar actions could be filed.  As a
result, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss, or
range of possible loss, if any.

LinnCo, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered
in Houston, Texas.  Linn Energy, LLC, an independent oil and
natural gas company owns LinnCo's sole voting share.  As of
June 30, 2013, LinnCo's sole purpose was to own units representing
limited liability company interests in LINN Energy and it had no
significant assets or operations other than those related to its
interest in LINN Energy.


LINNCO LLC: Faces Securities Law Violations Suits in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
LinnCo, LLC, is facing three securities class action lawsuits 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.

On July 9, 2013, Anthony Booth, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint
in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas,
against Linn Energy, LLC ("LINN Energy"), Mark E. Ellis, Kolja
Rockov, and David B. Rottino (the "Booth Action").  On July 18,
2013, the Catherine A. Fisher Trust, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District
of Texas, against the same defendants (the "Fisher Action").  On
July 17, 2013, Don Gentry, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, against
LINN Energy, LinnCo, Mark E. Ellis, Kolja Rockov, David B.
Rottino, George A. Alcorn, David D. Dunlap, Terrence S. Jacobs,
Michael C. Linn, Joseph P. McCoy, Jeffrey C. Swoveland, and the
various underwriters for LinnCo's initial public offering (the
"Gentry Action") (the Booth Action, Fisher Action, and Gentry
Action together, the "Texas Federal Actions").  The Texas Federal
Actions each assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") based on
allegations that the Company made false or misleading statements
relating to its hedging strategy, the cash flow available for
distribution to unitholders, and the Company's energy production.
The Gentry Action asserts additional claims under Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged misstatements
relating to these issues in the prospectus and registration
statement for LinnCo's initial public offering.  The cases are in
their preliminary stages and it is possible that additional
similar actions could be filed.  As a result, the Company is
unable to estimate a possible loss, or range of possible loss, if
any.

LinnCo, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered
in Houston, Texas.  Linn Energy, LLC, an independent oil and
natural gas company owns LinnCo's sole voting share.  As of
June 30, 2013, LinnCo's sole purpose was to own units representing
limited liability company interests in LINN Energy and it had no
significant assets or operations other than those related to its
interest in LINN Energy.


LINNCO LLC: Parties in "Hall" Suit Engaged in Settlement Talks
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the class action lawsuit captioned David Hall v.
Berry Petroleum Co., et al., are currently engaged in settlement
discussions, according to LinnCo, LLC'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 20, 2013, LinnCo and Berry entered into a definitive
merger agreement under which LinnCo would acquire all of the
outstanding common shares of Berry Petroleum Company.  Under the
terms of the agreement, Berry's shareholders will receive 1.25
LinnCo common shares for each Berry common share they own.  This
transaction, which is expected to be a tax-free exchange to
Berry's shareholders, represents value of $46.2375 per common
share, based on the closing price of LinnCo common shares on
February 20, 2013, the last trading day before the public
announcement.

On April 12, 2013, a purported stockholder class action captioned
David Hall v. Berry Petroleum Co., et al. was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, C.A. No. 8476-VCG.  The complaint
names as defendants Berry, the members of its board of directors,
Bacchus HoldCo, Inc., a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Berry
("HoldCo"), Bacchus Merger Sub, Inc., a direct wholly owned
subsidiary of HoldCo ("Bacchus Merger Sub"), LinnCo, LINN Energy
and Linn Acquisition Company, LLC, a direct wholly owned
subsidiary of LinnCo ("LinnCo Merger Sub").  The complaint alleges
that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the transactions by engaging in an unfair sales
process that resulted in an unfair price for Berry, by failing to
disclose all material information regarding the transactions, and
that the entity defendants aided and abetted those breaches of
fiduciary duty.  The complaint seeks a declaration that the
transactions are unlawful and unenforceable, an order directing
the individual defendants to comply with their fiduciary duties,
an injunction against consummation of the transactions, or, in the
event they are completed, rescission of the transactions, an award
of fees and costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees and
expenses, and other relief.  After expedited discovery, the
plaintiffs in this case made a settlement proposal and the parties
are currently engaged in settlement discussions.  The Company says
it is unable to estimate a possible loss, or range of possible
loss, if any, at this time.

LinnCo, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered
in Houston, Texas.  Linn Energy, LLC, an independent oil and
natural gas company owns LinnCo's sole voting share.  As of
June 30, 2013, LinnCo's sole purpose was to own units representing
limited liability company interests in LINN Energy and it had no
significant assets or operations other than those related to its
interest in LINN Energy.


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: U.S. Pension Fund to Lead Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Toronto Star reports that a Louisiana pension fund will lead U.S.
litigation accusing Lululemon Athletica Inc of fraudulently hiding
defects that caused yoga pants to become nearly sheer, and
concealing talks that led to the surprise departure of its chief
executive.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan on Oct. 1 said
the Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund, which owned about
$1.3 million (U.S.) of Lululemon stock, will handle the litigation
on behalf of shareholders.

Lululemon has long been known for making athletic clothing that
could withstand many years of wear and washes.  But trouble
surfaced in March when the Vancouver-based company recalled its
top-selling item, women's black yoga pants containing its
proprietary Luon fabric, after determining the pants were too
sheer.

Less than three months later, Lululemon on June 10 announced the
departure of Chief Executive Christine Day.  Its shares fell 17.5
per cent the next day, wiping out $1.62 billion (U.S.) of market
value, Reuters data and a regulatory filing show.

Two lawsuits filed in Manhattan blamed the defective pants on
cost-cutting, and accused Lululemon, Day and Chairman Dennis
"Chip" Wilson of hiding the defects, using deep discounting to
boost market share, and concealing plans to replace Day.

Forrest combined the lawsuits and said the Louisiana fund should
lead the case because it had a larger financial stake than the
other plaintiff, Houssam Alkhoury of Natick, Massachusetts, and
was a "sophisticated institutional investor" with experience
leading similar lawsuits.

The Baton Rouge-based fund plans to seek class-action status for
shareholders between March 21, when full-year results were
announced, and June 10.  It said it lost $116,000 on transactions
in that period.  The fund's law firm is Bernstein Litowitz Berger
& Grossmann, a shareholder class-action specialist.

A lead plaintiff is entitled to direct litigation and negotiate a
settlement on behalf of other shareholders.

On Sept. 12, Lululemon reduced its forecast for fiscal 2013 profit
and sales, citing delivery delays resulting from tighter quality
control.  Day remains at the company's helm while Lululemon
searches for a successor.


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Seeks Dismissal of Defective-Engine Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Beth Winegarner and Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360,
report that Mercedes-Benz USA urged a California federal judge on
Sept. 30 to toss a putative class action alleging the company made
and sold defective engines in some cars that risked consumers'
safety and required costly fixes, arguing the plaintiffs are
wrongly bringing claims on cars they did not purchase.

Attorneys for the luxury car company argued the plaintiffs had
only purchased cars with one of the two engine models named in
their amended complaint.  Under the CLRA, which the plaintiffs
claim Mercedes violates, they can't demand damages on products
they didn't buy because they do not have standing to do so, argued
Johnny Yeh of Carroll Burdick & McDonough LLP.

"If they're allowed to proceed with discovery, that discovery will
be encompassing a world of vehicles on which they have no
entitlement to provide notice," Mr. Yeh said.  "It would unfairly
prejudice MBUSA."

However, the plaintiffs' attorney, Roy Katriel of the Katriel Law
Firm, argued that the same defect existed in both engines, one of
which was a six-cylinder engine and the other of which contained
eight cylinders.

"The defect at issue is a defective part brought about by subpar
material," Mr. Katriel argued.  "We didn't pluck that out of thin
air.  It's in Mercedes' technical service bulletin [about the
defect] that instructed mechanics about the nature of the problem
and how to go about fixing it."

If U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson does dismiss the
suit, Mr. Katriel has asked for leave to amend so that he can
bring in plaintiffs who purchased the contested engine.

He also urged Judge Henderson to reject Mercedes' argument that it
was under no further obligation to fix the engine problems because
the four-year warranty expired.

"It's unconscionable for a manufacturer to wash its hands of a
safety-related issue," Mr. Katriel said.  "It doesn't matter what
the safety issue is, or how bad it is."

But the plaintiffs lack any authority backing the argument that
"the limits of a warranty can be extended ad infinitum simply
because of a safety defect," Mr. Yeh said.

Judge Henderson took Mercedes' motion to dismiss under submission
and did not indicate when he would issue a ruling.

Plaintiffs Majeed Seifi and Tracey Deakin sued Mercedes last
October, claiming its V-6 M272 engines, installed in many models
including the C230, contain defective gears in their balance
shafts that wear out prematurely, excessively and without warning.
The V-8 M273 engines, installed in models including the E500, have
defective idle gears that have similar issues, the complaint said.

They contend the vehicles can malfunction, misfire or stop running
because of the problems. According to their amended complaint,
this poses a significant safety risk for drivers.

"They render the subject vehicles non-drivable without prior
warning while the vehicles are on roadways and often times
surrounded by heavy traffic," the amended complaint said. "The
only recourse is to have the balance shaft or idle gear replaced,
which is a large-scale repair job, taking numerous days and
thousands of dollars," the initial complaint said.

In May, Judge Henderson partly granted Mercedes' motion to dismiss
the case but denied its motion to strike the class allegations,
finding that it would be premature to strike those claims before
the parties have a chance to conduct discovery, according to his
order.

The plaintiffs are represented by Roy A. Katriel of the Katriel
Law Firm and Gary S. Graifman of Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman
PC.

Mercedes is represented by Troy Masami Yoshino, Chad Allen
Stegeman and Johnny J. Yeh of Carroll Burdick & McDonough LLP.

The case is Majeed Seifi et al. v. Mercedes Benz USA LLC, case
number 3:12-cv-05493, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


MORTGAGE ASSET: 3rd Cir. Affirms Eng. Pension Trust Suit Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PENSION TRUST FUND FOR OPERATING ENGINEERS;
Individually and on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Appellant, v. MORTGAGE ASSET SECURITIZATION
TRANSACTIONS, INC.; DAVID MARTIN; PER DYRVIK; HUGH CORCORAN; PETER
SLAGOWITZ; UBS REAL ESTATE SECURITIES, INC.; UBS SECURITIES, LLC;
UBS AMERICAS INC., NO. 12-3454, Lead Plaintiff Pension Trust Fund
for Operating Engineers appealed from a district court's initial
order dismissing without prejudice their amended class action
complaint, which alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933,
15 U.S.C. Section 77a et seq., by subsidiaries and employees of
UBS AG, for failure to plead compliance with the one-year statute
of limitations set forth in Section 13 of the Securities Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 77m.  The Operating Engineers also appealed from
the District Court's subsequent order dismissing with prejudice
their second amended class action complaint as untimely under an
inquiry notice standard.

"Although we hold that a Securities Act plaintiff need not plead
compliance with Section 13 and that Section 13 establishes a
discovery standard for evaluating the timeliness of Securities Act
claims, we nonetheless conclude that the class action claims in
the original complaint were untimely," ruled the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Accordingly, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court ruling.

A copy of the Circuit Court's September 17, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/y7zkPOfrom Leagle.com.

Douglas S. Wilens, Esq. -- DWilens@rgrdlaw.com -- (ARGUED),
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, 120, East Palmetto Park Road, Suite
500, Boca Raton, FL 33432, Counsel for Appellant Pension Trust
Fund for, Operating Engineers.

Peter S. Pearlman, Esq. -- psp@njlawfirm.com -- Cohn, Lifland,
Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf, Park 80 West -- Plaza 1, 250, Pehle
Avenue, Suite 401, Saddle Brook, NJ 07663, Counsel for Appellant
Pension Trust Fund for, Operating Engineers.

Rukhsanah Singh, Esq. -- rsingh@connellfoley.com -- Liza M. Walsh,
Esq. -- lwalsh@connellfoley.com -- Connell Foley, 85, Livingston
Avenue, Roseland, NJ 07068, Counsel for Appellees Mortgage Asset,
Securitization Transactions, Inc., David Martin, Per Dyrvik, Hugh
Corcoran, UBS Real, Estate Securities, Inc., UBS Securities, LLC,
Peter Slagowitz, and UBS Americas Inc.

Lawrence J. Zweifach, Esq. -- lzweifach@gibsondunn.com --
(ARGUED), Gibson Dunn, 200, Park Avenue, 47th Floor, New York, NY
10166, Counsel for Appellees Mortgage Asset, Securitization
Transactions, Inc., David Martin, Per Dyrvik, Hugh Corcoran, UBS
Real, Estate Securities, Inc., UBS Securities, LLC, Peter
Slagowitz, and UBS Americas Inc.


MULTIBAND FIELD: BakerHostetler Discusses Class Action Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory V. Mersol, Esq. at BakerHostetler reports that plaintiffs
cannot use a disparate impact theory unless challenging a facially
neutral policy.

Class action lawsuits alleging disability discrimination are
uncommon, and those involving disparate impact claims are less
common still.  This is due, in part, to the fact that unlike other
types of discrimination claims, a claim of disability
discrimination typically raises questions about whether individual
class members are even in the protected group as well as the
extent of their disabilities, whether they are otherwise qualified
for the positions, and many others.

Class action disability suits involving disparate impact claims
are less common still.  Those claims eliminate the requirement of
proving intentional discrimination, but also require that the
plaintiff show that a facially neutral policy has the effect of
discrimination against the protected group.  But can a plaintiff
assert both claims when challenging a policy that is not neutral?
In other words, can a plaintiff take advantage of both
discrimination theories when the employer has an explicit policy
prohibiting the employment of certain types of individuals?
Apparently not, and doing so may result in sanctions, as a recent
case indicates.

In Ayers v. Multiband Field Services, Inc., Case No. 13-10765
(E.D. Mich. Sept. 18, 2013), the defendant was in the business of
installing satellite dishes.  Because dishes are installed on
rooftops, workers must climb ladders carrying their tools and the
equipment to be installed.  The employer used industrial ladders
with a maximum load capacity of 300 pounds and, due to the weight
of tools and equipment, limited installers to a weight of 250
pounds.

The plaintiff in Ayers alleged that he weighed over 250 pounds and
that the company refused to hire him on the basis of its weight
limit policy.  His initial complaint asserted class-wide disparate
treatment claims that the company's weight restriction violated
Michigan's Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, that state's
counterpart to the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Apart from
the fact that the case involved claims of disability
discrimination, these claims were fairly straightforward -- he
contended that the company's requirement discriminated against
those over 250 pounds or, he claimed those who were disabled on
account of obesity.

After the defendant removed the case to federal court, however, he
amended his complaint to assert claims of disparate impact
discrimination.  The opinion does not disclose the reason for
doing so.  Perhaps the plaintiffs were trying to take advantage of
the lower burden of proof, or perhaps they were concerned that
many people over 250 pounds aren't disabled at all.  The problem
with this claim was that the plaintiff was not challenging a
facially neutral policy, as a disparate impact claim requires, but
rather an explicit prohibition on hiring those over 250 pounds.
The defendant, therefore, moved to dismiss the disparate impact,
but not the disparate treatment claim.

The district court cited a wealth of federal and state authority
requiring a facially neutral policy to support a disparate impact
claim.  It also found that apart from the 250-pound weight
requirement was not neutral -- a fact the plaintiff, at least at
times, appeared to acknowledge.  Thus, it found that the claim
should be dismissed.

The court also concluded that the plaintiff's arguments were
frivolous and justified sanctions against his counsel personally.
Note, however, that the defendant did not move (and likely could
not have moved) to dismiss the plaintiff's class-wide disparate
treatment case under the policy, so the case will move forward on
that basis.

The Ayers case is interesting on many levels and, should it
continue, may be one to watch for future developments.  As to the
underlying merits, it presents the issue of whether the employer
can enforce the 250-pound limitation, one grounded in the
unbending laws of physics (i.e. a ladder can only hold so much),
as well as embedded in ANSI and OSHA standards.  The complaint did
not disclose the named plaintiff's weight, but even the 300-pound
ladders used by the employer are towards the top of the ANSI
standards (classified IA).

The class-wide issues could be even trickier.  Not everyone over
250 pounds is obese.  Those over a certain weight may exceed the
weight capacity of commercially available and practically feasible
ladders.  Similarly, the employer is likely to raise issues
regarding the ability of those over a certain size to scale
ladders routinely, climb around a variety of customer roof types
and pitches, or perform other job-related tasks.  All of these
suggest threshold problems of commonality, typicality, and
predominance.

The case also has implications beyond disability claims as the
court's analysis included cases under Title VII.  Thus, it would
apply to sex, race, and religious claims and, presumably, any
other discrimination action in which a disparate impact claim is
available.

The Bottom Line: A plaintiff cannot challenge a job requirement
that is not neutral under a disparate impact theory.


NEW YORK LIFE: 2nd Cir. Upholds Dist. Court Judgment in Gold Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed
a district court judgment in the case, AVRAHAM GOLD, Individually,
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE AND
ANNUITY CORPORATION; NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF ARIZONA;
JOHN DOES 1 through 50, said names being fictitious individuals;
ABC CORPORATIONS 1 through 50, said names being fictitious
companies, partnerships, joint ventures and/or corporations; and
NEW YORK LIFE SECURITIES, LLC f/k/a NEW YORK LIFE SECURITIES,
INC., Defendants-Appellees, DOCKET NO. 12-2344-CV.

Plaintiff-Appellant Avraham Gold appealed from a judgment of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissing his complaint based on the so-called "home state
exception" to federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness
Act, 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d), 1453, 1711-15.  The home state
exception requires district courts to "decline to exercise"
jurisdiction over class actions in which two-thirds or more of the
class, and the primary defendants, are citizens of the state in
which the action was filed.

In 2009, Gold sued his former employer, New York Life Insurance
Company, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of
insurance agents, alleging state law claims seeking unpaid
overtime wages and recovery of improper wage deductions.  He also
sought statutory liquidated damages under New York Labor Law.  The
case was litigated for a number of years during which the district
court granted summary judgment to New York Life on Gold's overtime
claim, denied Gold summary judgment on his wage deduction claim,
and ruled that a 2011 amendment to New York Labor Law that
increased the amount of recoverable liquidated damages did not
apply retroactively.  In 2012, New York Life moved to dismiss the
complaint based on CAFA's home state exception.  Concluding that
the exception applied, the district court dismissed the complaint.
Gold appeals, contending that New York Life waived the home state
exception by failing to raise it within a reasonable time.

The Second Circuit holds that CAFA's home state exception is not
jurisdictional and must be -- and in this case was -- raised
within a reasonable time.  The Second Circuit further holds that
the 2011 amendment to New York Labor Law is not retroactive and
that the district court's grant of partial summary judgment with
respect to Gold's overtime claim was correct.

A copy of the Circuit Court's September 18, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/yJoSoLfrom Leagle.com.

JOHN HALEBIAN -- jhalebian@lshllp.com -- Lovell Stewart Halebian
Jacobson LLP, New York, NY (ADAM C. MAYES, on the briefs), for
Plaintiffs-Appellants

RICHARD G. ROSENBLATT -- rrosenblatt@morganlewis.com -- Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Princeton, NJ (SEAN P. LYNCH --
slynch@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Princeton,
NJ; MICHAEL L. BANKS -- mbanks@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, PA, on the brief), for Defendants-
Appellees.


NEWFOUNDLAND, CANADA: January Trial Scheduled for Moose Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
VOCM reports that a local lawyer appeared at Supreme Court on
Sept. 30 to present arguments in relation to a moose-vehicle class
action lawsuit against the provincial government.  Government is
attempting to limit the number of plaintiffs to a two-year period,
but Ches Crosbie wants a 10-year time frame.

Mr. Crosbie scheduled a news conference for Oct. 1 to discuss the
issue.  The trial is set for January.


SOUTHERN UNION: Discovery in Merger-Related Suit in Texas Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated merger-related class
action lawsuit filed in Texas, according to Southern Union
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 March 26, 2012, the Company, Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.
(ETE), and Sigma Acquisition Corporation, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of ETE (Merger Sub), completed their previously
announced merger transaction.  Pursuant to the Second Amended and
Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of July 19, 2011,
as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto dated as of September 14,
2011 (as amended, the Merger Agreement), among the Company, ETE
and Merger Sub, Merger Sub was merged with and into the Company,
with the Company continuing as the surviving corporation as an
indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of ETE (the Merger).  The Merger
became effective on March 26, 2012.

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 ETE Merger
and that Southern Union and ETE aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.  The amended petitions allege that the
ETE Merger involves an unfair price and an inadequate sales
process, that Southern Union's directors entered into the ETE
Merger to benefit themselves personally, including through
consulting and noncompete agreements, and that defendants have
failed to disclose all material information related to the ETE
Merger to Southern Union stockholders.  The amended petitions seek
injunctive relief, including an injunction of the ETE 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, the 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.

Southern Union Company -- http://www.sug.com/-- was incorporated
in Delaware in 1932 and is based in Houston, Texas.  The Company
owns and operates assets in the regulated and unregulated natural
gas industry and is primarily engaged in the gathering,
processing, transportation, storage and distribution of natural
gas in the United States.  The Company operates in three
reportable segments:  Transportation and Storage, Gathering and
Processing, and Distribution.


SOUTHERN UNION: Panhandle Continues to Defend "Price" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Southern Union Company, 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.

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.

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, the Company 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.  The Company believes it
has no liability associated with this proceeding.

Southern Union Company -- http://www.sug.com/-- was incorporated
in Delaware in 1932 and is based in Houston, Texas.  The Company
owns and operates assets in the regulated and unregulated natural
gas industry and is primarily engaged in the gathering,
processing, transportation, storage and distribution of natural
gas in the United States.  The Company operates in three
reportable segments:  Transportation and Storage, Gathering and
Processing, and Distribution.


TEXTRON INC: Jan. 24 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg LLP on Sept. 30 disclosed that in the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island, in In re Textron,
Inc. ERISA Litigation, Civil Action No. 09-383-ML, a summary
notice has been issued as follows:

Summary Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Scheduling
of Final Fairness Hearing

To:       All Persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of
the Textron Savings Plan at any time between July 17, 2007 and
December 31. 2011 and whose accounts included investments in the
Textron Stock Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A PAYMENT FROM THE
SETTLEMENT FUND.  PLEASE READ CAREFULLY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, that the above-
referenced action has been certified as a class action for
purposes of a proposed $4.375 million cash settlement, subject to
review and final approval by the Court.  As part of the proposed
settlement, class members who show a loss under the proposed Plan
of Allocation may be entitled to a payment from the settlement.
You do not need to do anything to receive a payment under the
settlement but your rights will be affected.  The settlement
includes a release of any claims related to the administration of
the Plan, the selection of investment options under the Plan, and
disclosures about the Textron Stock Fund and the company's
financial condition.

A hearing has been scheduled before Chief Judge Mary M. Lisi of
the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island
in the Federal Building and United States Courthouse, One Exchange
Terrace, Providence, RI 02903-1270, at 11:00 a.m. on January 24,
2014 to determine whether the proposed settlement should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and to
consider the proposed Plan of Allocation and Plaintiffs' Counsel's
applications for attorneys' fees, expenses and case contribution
awards.

YOU CANNOT EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE SETTLEMENT. You can, however,
file written comments or objections with the Court.  You or your
lawyer may also appear and request the opportunity to speak at the
hearing at your own expense.  To do so, you must send your
comments and objections to the Court and the parties' attorneys no
later than November 27, 2013.  Detailed instructions can be found
on the court's website -- http://www.rid.uscourts.gov-- and on
the Settlement Website at
http://www.gilardi.com/TextronERISASettlementwhere you can also
obtain a more detailed notice about the terms of the settlement,
how the existence of a qualifying loss will be determined and how
the payments will be calculated, along with the settlement
agreement and related materials.  Additional information and
materials, including class counsel's application for attorneys'
fees, will be posted on the Settlement Website as they are filed
with the Court.  You may also write to Textron ERISA Litigation
Settlement, P.O. Box 8040, San Rafael, CA 94912-8040 to request
copies of these materials.

All other inquiries may be made by writing to Class Counsel at:

           Arvind B. Khurana, Esq.
           Milberg LLP
           One Penn Plaza
           New York, NY  10119-0165
           E-mail: akhurana@milberg.com

Published by Order of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Rhode Island


TORCHMARK CORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Friedman" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Torchmark Corporation's subsidiary is awaiting a court decision on
its motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by Friedman, 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.

Torchmark and its subsidiary, United American Insurance Company,
were named as defendants in purported class action litigation
filed November 27, 2012, in U. S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (Friedman, et al. v. Torchmark Corporation,
et al., Case No. 12CV2837 IEGBGS).  In the litigation, filed on
behalf of a nationwide class of persons who had, within four years
of the filing of the complaint, received any sales or solicitation
telephone calls from Torchmark and United American to telephone
numbers registered with the National Do Not Call Registry and who
had not maintained a business relationship with the defendants
within eighteen months of receiving defendants' calls, plaintiff
asserted violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47
U.S.C. 27 et seq.) by virtue of pre-recorded calls inviting the
plaintiff to contact United American to attend a "recruiting
webinar."  Monetary damages for each separate violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") were sought.

On January 3, 2013, motions to dismiss were filed on behalf of
Torchmark (not objected to by plaintiff) and United American
(objected to by plaintiff).  The Court granted Torchmark's motion
to dismiss on February 20, 2013, and United American's motion to
dismiss on April 16, 2013, with leave to the plaintiff to file an
amended complaint against Untied American by May 7, 2013.  The
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on May 7, 2013, and on
May 17, 2013, United American filed a motion to dismiss this
amended complaint, which has been opposed by the plaintiff.  The
Court has not yet ruled on United American's motion to dismiss.

Torchmark Corporation -- http://www.torchmarkcorp.com/-- is an
insurance holding company, which through its subsidiaries, markets
primarily individual life and supplemental health insurance and
annuities, to middle income households throughout the U.S.  The
McKinney, Texas-based company operates in two segments: insurance,
which includes the insurance product lines of life, health and
annuities, and investments, which supports the product lines.


TREASURE RESORT: Club Members Can Resume Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
ChannelNews Asia reports that the Court of Appeal has ruled that
some 200 members of the former Sijori Resort Club can resume their
class action lawsuit against Treasure Resort, which has taken over
ownership of the club.

In a 78-page written judgment on Oct. 1, the three judges of the
Court of Appeal said they "are entirely satisfied that there are
no compelling reasons not to reinstate" the suit as a
representative action, or class action lawsuit.

The club members had joined Sijori between 1994 and 2004, with an
entrance fee that varied from S$10,000 to S$25,750, and a monthly
subscription of S$30 for an individual and S$50 for a family.

Treasure bought over the club in 2006, and agreed to accord
"substantially similar terms and conditions of membership" to the
club members.

In 2008, Treasure informed the club members that it was offering a
new membership to replace the existing one.  The new membership
would require a monthly subscription of S$165 for an individual
and S$275 for a family -- an increase of more than five-fold from
the original monthly subscriptions.  They would be denied
membership privileges if they decided not to pay the
subscriptions.

The members, led by a small core group headed by Koh Chong Chiah,
mounted a lawsuit in October 2009 against Treasure for breach of
contract, repudiation of contract and misrepresentation.  In June
2010, Treasure applied to the High Court to stop the lawsuit from
proceeding as a class action, and succeeded.  At the heart of the
contention was that the members had joined Sijori at different
times and on different terms, and the losses they suffered also
differed, so there was no common ground for a class action.

Overturning the ruling on Oct. 1, the Court of Appeal said the
club members share the same interest in their claim against
Treasure for misrepresentation and repudiation.  However, it found
that the breach of contract claim was not common among all of the
members as they had entered into different agreements with Sijori.


UNFI CANADA: Recalls Certain Frontera Classic Fajita Skillet Sauce
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 27, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Gluten
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           UNFI Canada Grocery West
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Saskatchewan, Yukon
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8339

Affected products: 226 g. Frontera Classic Fajita Skillet Sauce
with Chipotle and Lime with all lots that declare "No gluten
ingredients used"


UNILEVER US: Loses Bid to Dismiss False Advertising Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that a Kentucky
federal judge on Sept. 30 rejected Unilever U.S. Inc.'s bid to
quash a proposed class action accusing it of falsely advertising a
hair smoothing product as safe when it actually caused people's
hair to fall out, among other things.

Plaintiffs Terri Naiser and Jonnie Phillips alleged Unilever, LEK
Inc. and Conopco Inc. d/b/a Unilever Home & Personal Care USA,
manufactured and sold the Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-
Day Smoothing Kit at stores around the country.  They said they
bought the kit because it was advertised as a Keratin-based
smoothing treatment and not a toxic chemical relaxer, that its
effects would last no longer than 30 days, that it contained no
formaldehyde and that it was safe -- all untrue claims, according
to their complaint.

Unilever eventually recalled the product, but the plaintiffs said
the company failed to tell consumers about the possible effects of
using it.  U.S. District Judge Joseph H. McKinley Jr. shot down
the entirety of Unilever's motion to dismiss, saying the
plaintiffs have adequately pled their claims up to this point.

Judge McKinley first dispatched Unilever's argument that the
plaintiffs failed to properly plead their claim that the company
breached an express warranty for the product.

Citing a similar case in Illinois, the judge said plaintiffs had
sufficiently pled that Unilever's assertion that the hair
treatment was a "smoothing" product and not a chemical relaxer was
an "affirmation of fact or promise so as to survive the motion to
dismiss."

"The court held that it could not 'conclude as a matter of law
that Unilever's statements were mere puffery' since they did not
'appear to be exaggerations of an opinion' and were 'susceptible
of being interpreted as factual statements.'  It further held that
the identification of the product as a 'smoothing' product could
have conjured a specific factual idea about the product's effects
in the mind of a typical consumer.  This court agrees," the judge
said.

He also shot down Unilever's contention that the plaintiffs failed
to allege that any of the purported warranties became a basis of
the parties' bargain.

"The court finds, however, that plaintiffs have sufficiently
pleaded that they considered the alleged warranties to be a basis
of their bargain.  Plaintiffs have alleged that '[b]ased on
Unilever's representations, plaintiff Naiser expected to be
purchasing a short-term 'smoothing' conditioner and not a harsh
chemical relaxer which contained the same active ingredient that
is used in hair removal products,'" the judge said.

He also found the plaintiffs could proceed with their claim under
the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act because they sufficiently
pled that Unilever engaged in practices which were unfair, false,
misleading or deceptive.

And he said the plaintiffs' claim that Unilever violated the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act could survive because the elements of
the MMWA claim mirror those required for state law warranty
claims, as they must.

Two products liability claims, of strict liability and negligence
or gross negligence, also survived, again because the judge said
the complaint contains the proper allegations. And the judge
allowed the plaintiffs' claim of unjust enrichment to proceed as
well.

Plaintiffs' attorney Richard A. Getty of the Getty Law Group PLLC
said he is pleased with the ruling.

Counsel for Unilever was not immediately available for comment on
Oct. 1.

The plaintiffs are represented by Richard A. Getty --
rgetty@gettylawgroup.com -- and Danielle H. Brown --
dbrown@gettylawgroup.com -- of the Getty Law Group PLLC, by
Peter Safirstein -- psafirstein@forthepeople.com -- Elizabeth S.
Metcalf -- emetcalf@forthepeople.com -- and Christopher S.
Polaszek -- cpolaszek@forthepeople.com -- of Morgan & Morgan PC
and by Jana Eisinger of Law Office of Jana Eisinger PLLC.

Unilever is represented by Charles M. Pritchett and Christopher
Johnson of Frost Brown Todd LLC.

The case is Terri Naiser et al. v. Unilever United States Inc. et
al., case number 3:13-cv-00395 in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: PSI Continues to Defend "Garden City" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Garden City Employees' Retirement System v. PSI is a purported
shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against
Psychiatric Solutions, Inc. ("PSI"), a subsidiary of Universal
Health Services, Inc., and the former directors in 2009 alleging
violations of federal securities laws.  The Company says it
intends to defend the case vigorously.  Should the Company be
deemed liable in this matter, the Company believes it would be
entitled to commercial insurance recoveries for amounts paid by
the Company, subject to certain limitations and deductibles.
Included in the Company's consolidated balance sheets as of
December 31, 2012, and 2011, is an estimated reserve (current
liability) and corresponding commercial insurance recovery
(current asset) which did not have a material impact on the
Company's financial statements.  Although the Company believes the
commercial insurance recoveries are adequate to satisfy potential
liability and related legal fees in connection with this matter,
the Company can provide no assurance that the ultimate liability
will not exceed the commercial insurance recoveries which would
make the Company liable for the excess.

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.

Universal Health Services, Inc.'s principal business is owning and
operating, through its subsidiaries, acute care hospitals,
behavioral health centers, surgical hospitals, ambulatory surgery
centers and radiation oncology centers.  As part of its ambulatory
treatment centers division, the Company manages or owns outright
or in partnerships with physicians, surgical hospitals and surgery
and radiation oncology centers located in four states.  The
Company is headquartered in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.


VITA HEALTH: Recalls Equate Allergy Sinus Medication
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 26, 2013
Posting date:             October 2, 2013
Type of communication:    Drug Recall
Subcategory:              Drugs
Hazard classification:    Type II
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-36037

Recalled Products: Equate Extra Strength Allergy Sinus Medication
(24, 50 and 100 count)

The French version of the warning printed on the outer box is
missing some important information:

Consulter un medicin si la fievre persiste durant de 3 jours ou
les symptomes durent plus de 5 jours, en cas de nervosite,
d'etourdissements, d'insomnie ou si vous developpez une reactions
allergiques telles que des troubles respitatoires, des eruptions
cutanees ou des demangeaisons.

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

Companies:

  Recalling Firm       Vita Health Products Inc.
                       150 Beghin Ave.
                       Winnipeg R2J 3W2
                       Manitoba
                       Canada

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


VITA HEALTH: Recalls Encounter & Pharmasave Cold & Flu Tablets
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            September 26, 2013
Posting date:             October 2, 2013
Type of communication:    Drug Recall
Subcategory:              Drugs
Hazard classification:    Type III
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-36027

Recalled Products:

   -- Encounter Cold & Flu-In-One Extra Strength (12 count); and

   -- Pharmasave Cold & Flu-In-One Extra Strength (24 Count)

The product was recalled due to the missing French warning in
outer box: "Eviter la consommation d'alcool"

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

Companies:

  Recalling              Firm Vita Health Products Inc.
                         150 Beghin Ave.
                         Winnipeg R2J 3W2
                         Manitoba
                         Canada

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


VITA HEALTH: Recalls Remedy's Rx Cold + Sinus
---------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 1, 2013
Posting date:             October 2, 2013
Type of communication:    Drug Recall
Subcategory:              Drugs
Hazard classification:    Type I
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-36061

Recalled Products: Remedy's Rx Cold + Sinus

A labeling error incorrectly states the product is packaged with a
child-resistant bottle and cap.

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

Companies:

  Recalling Firm            Vita Health Products Inc.
                            150 Beghin Ave.
                            Winnipeg R2J 3W2
                            Manitoba
                            Canada

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


VITA HEALTH: Recalls Pharmasave Ibuprofen Liquid Capsules
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 1, 2013
Posting date:             October 2, 2013
Type of communication:    Drug Recall
Subcategory:              Drugs
Hazard classification:    Type I
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-36063

Recalled Products: Pharmasave Extra Strength Ibuprofen Liquid
Capsules 400 mg

A labeling error incorrectly states the product is packaged with a
child-resistant bottle and cap.

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

Companies:

  Recalling Firm            Vita Health Products Inc.
                            150 Beghin Ave.
                            Winnipeg R2J 3W2
                            Manitoba
                            Canada

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


WIDEOPEN WEST: Escapes Consumers' Data Collection Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois
federal judge ruled on Sept. 27 that Internet service provider
WideOpen West Finance LLC faces no liability under federal
electronic snooping laws in a class action alleging the company
enabled online advertiser NebuAd Inc. to collect behavioral data
from WOW customers.

U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang finished off the two remaining
claims in a putative privacy class action, ruling that the ISP
didn't violate the Electronic Communications Privacy Act's
prohibitions on using or disclosing user information by allegedly
routing customers' online activities to the third-party service so
it could serve targeted digital advertisements.

In December 2012, Judge Chang dismissed claims that WOW
intercepted the plaintiffs' online activities in violation of the
ECPA, ruling that WOW merely acted as a conduit for NebuAd's data
collection and did not 'access' user information within the
meaning of the statute.  Nor could WOW be held secondarily liable
for abetting NebuAd's activities because the ECPA sanctions no
such private right of action, the judge said.

Judge Chang left open the question of whether WOW breached the
ECPA's interdictions against the use or disclosure of online
communications, but said on Sept. 27 that those claims, too, were
flawed.

"What was, and still is, missing from plaintiffs' pleadings are
any factual allegations that WOW ever acquired or accessed such
contents," the judge said.  "Absent any factual allegations that
WOW acquired the contents of plaintiffs' communications,
plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for direct ECPA
liability."

According to the order, an ECPA claim for the use and disclosure
of online communications must entail an acquisition of electronic
communications and a third party's use or disclosure of those
communications with the knowledge that they were improperly
gleaned.

"Plaintiffs' disclosure and use claims fail at the second step,"
Judge Chang said.  "Even accepting that NebuAd unlawfully
intercepted plaintiffs' communications, plaintiffs have not
alleged that WOW later had access to or acquired the contents of
those intercepted communications.  In other words, WOW had no
intercepted information to disclose or use."

The plaintiffs mounted their suit in 2009 and alleged in a second
amended complaint last year that WOW was one of several ISPs that
funneled Internet communications into a special-purpose server
appliance made by NebuAd, which captured customer communications
in their entirety and scraped content such as search terms and
page requests for health and financial information, political
interests, religious matters and travel plans; and voice-over-
Internet-Protocol communications such as Skype.

The suit brought claims for common law intrusion, trespass and
unjust enrichment as well as violations of the ECPA, the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act, and the Illinois Criminal Code.  All but the
ECPA claims were sent to arbitration and later abandoned, but the
plaintiffs pressed on with claims for violations of the law's
wiretap provisions.

Judge Chang affirmed on Sept. 27 that WOW didn't offend the ECPA
by allowing NebuAd to access user data without itself acquiring
the contents of that data, and dismissed the suit with prejudice.

Thomas Counts of Paul Hastings LLP, who represented WOW, said that
ISPs have been uniformly successful in fending off claims related
to NebuAd's data collection and that the rulings reaffirm the
principle that ISPs can't be found liable for allegedly
intercepting information if they already had access to it in the
ordinary course of their business, an exception to the ECPA.

Another ISP, Embarq Management Co., defeated a similar suit in
January 2013 when the 10th Circuit ruled that federal wiretap law
requires companies to have direct access to intercepted data to
incur ECPA liability, a ruling Judge Chang leaned on in holding
that the ISP's status as a conduit rendered it impervious to the
suit's claims.

Representatives for WOW were not immediately available for comment
late on Sept. 30.

The plaintiffs are represented by David A. Stampley --
dstampley@kamberlaw.com -- Scott A. Kamber --
skamber@kamberlaw.com -- and Grace E. Tersigni -- Grace Tersigni
gtersigni@kamberlaw.com -- of Kamberlaw LLC; Michael Aschenbrener
-- mja@aschenbrenerlaw.com -- of Aschenbrener Law PC; by Brian J.
Panish -- panish@psblaw.com -- and Rahul Ravipudi --
ravipudi@psblaw.com -- of Panish Shea & Boyle LLP; and Joseph H.
Malley of the Joseph H. Malley PC.

WOW is represented by Thomas A. Counts --
tomcounts@paulhastings.com -- Ryan C. Nier --
ryannier@paulhastings.com -- Giselle Perez de Donado, Kelly Ann
Demarchis -- kellydemarchis@paulhastings.com -- and Kenneth W.
Gage -- kennethgage@paulhastings.com -- of Paul Hastings LLP.

The case is Valentine v. WideOpen West Finance LLC, case number
1:09-cv-07653, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.


YAHOO INC: Faces Privacy Class Action Over Email Scanning
---------------------------------------------------------
Julia Love, writing for The Recorder, reports that after a win for
plaintiffs in a privacy lawsuit against Google Inc., the
Burlingame firm of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy filed a similar
class action on Oct. 2 against Yahoo over its policy of scanning
email to target advertisements.

Lawyers at the plaintiffs firm accuse Yahoo of intercepting emails
to boost its bottom line in violation of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act of 1986 and California's Invasion of
Privacy Act.  The suit filed in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California echoes allegations against Google
over its handling of Gmail that U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh
allowed to move forward in a Sept.26 order that rejected many of
Google's defenses.

Cotchett principal Ara Jabagchourian --
ajabagchourian@cpmlegal.com -- said in an interview that the
flurry of press about Judge Koh's ruling in the Gmail case led the
firm to probe Yahoo's practices.

"We had folks calling us up in outrage about this,"
Mr. Jabagchourian said.  "We looked at Yahoo's policies, and
they're doing the exact same thing."

In one break from the Gmail litigation, the Yahoo suit was filed
only on behalf of people with other email providers who sent
messages to Yahoo users.  Yahoo's latest terms of service and
privacy policy include a provision that messages will be scanned,
Mr. Jabagchourian said.  Yahoo users could later be added to the
complaint, Cotchett principal Brian Schnarr --
bschnarr@cpmlegal.com -- said.

Yahoo did not respond to a request for comment.

Eric Goldman, director of the High Tech Law Institute at Santa
Clara University School of Law, said Judge Koh's ruling put email
providers on notice that they may be sued for snooping through
users' messages.  With Yahoo and Google scanning emails to help
sell ads, Microsoft has held up its abstention from the practice
as a point of pride, poking fun at Google's tactics in its recent
"Scroogled" campaign.

Google has employed the practice for nearly a decade.  However, it
is a more recent development for Yahoo, which notified users in
2011 that it may "look for keywords and links to further protect
you from spam, surface photos and in time, serve users with
Internet-based advertising," according to the complaint.  Users
could continue using Yahoo Mail Classic until June, when they were
required to switch over to the new version and accept its terms of
service and privacy policy.

The suits come at a time of shifting attitudes among the general
public and the judiciary about expectations of privacy with email,
Mr. Jabagchourian noted.

"Email is not a toy anymore," he said.  "It has become a necessity
of business and life, like the telephone. There needs to be some
semblance of protection there."

Mr. Schnarr added that Judge Koh's ruling will prove helpful as
Yahoo makes its case.  In particular, Judge Koh found that an
exception to the ECPA for companies providing electronic
communications services must be defined narrowly.  For Google,
that means scanning would only be exempt if it helped the company
transmit emails, Judge Koh wrote.

Yahoo must be held to the same standard, Mr. Schnarr said.

Mr. Goldman said aggressive privacy litigation could cause email
providers to curtail their services.  Google's lawyers at Cooley
have argued that the automatic processing challenged by plaintiffs
also allows users to sort messages and search their inboxes.

"It's possible that the entire email industry could be reshaped by
litigation," Mr. Goldman said.

The suit is Kevranian v. Yahoo, 13-0457.


YALE MANAGEMENT: Court Dismisses Appeal Filed in "Mizraie" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Woods of the Court of Appeals of California, Second
District, Division Seven, dismissed as moot the appeal filed by
the plaintiff in the case captioned ALFRED MIRZAIE, Plaintiff and
Appellant, v. YALE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Defendant and
Respondent, NO. B241139.

Alfred Mirzaie appealed from a superior court order denying his
third motion for preliminary injunction against his landlord,
respondent Yale Management Services, Inc.  The Appellant alleged
that respondent's agents unlawfully entered his apartment to
conduct a "unit inspection," in violation of Civil Code section
1954 and will continue to do so if not legally prohibited.

"Since the trial court sustained the demurrer to [the appellant's
second amended class action complaint for damages and injunction],
there is no valid cause of action on which the preliminary
injunction may be based," Judge Wood said.  "The appeal from the
denial of the preliminary injunction is moot and must be
dismissed."

A copy of the Appeals Court's September 17, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/ugPXSSfrom Leagle.com.

For Plaintiff and Appellant:

   T. Matthew Phillips, Esq.
   Law Offices of T. Matthew Phillips
   6365 Simmons St # 145-101
   North Las Vegas, NV 89031
   Phone: (323) 314-6996

Sturgeon & Wehbe and Allen Sturgeon -- asturgeon@sturgeonwehbe.com
-- for Defendant and Respondent.


* Judge Allows Class Actions v. Energy Companies to Go Ahead
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael L. Owens, writing for Bristol Herald Courier, reports that
a federal judge has given the go-ahead for Southwest Virginia
landowners to seek natural gas royalties through a series of five
class-action lawsuits against energy companies.

U.S. District Judge James P. Jones signed the orders late on
Sept. 30, which means thousands of landowners can argue in federal
court that they are owed at least $30 million being held in state-
mandated escrow accounts.  It also means they can argue in court
that they were shortchanged on natural gas they leased to the
companies.

The cases, first filed in 2010, has become a hot topic in
Virginia's gubernatorial race after a magistrate judge noted shock
that a staffer for Republican candidate Attorney General
Ken Cuccinelli seemed to offer legal advise to lawyers
representing the energy companies.


* UK Reforms to Create Opt-Out Class Actions for Competition Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Morritt and Eric Morgan, Esq., at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt
LLP, report that the UK government has announced that it will be
going ahead with plans to allow opt-out class actions for breaches
of competition law.  Canadian companies with connections to the UK
could be affected.

Canadian companies domiciled in the UK or with subsidiaries there
could be defendants to a collective action.  Moreover, the new
framework would allow non-UK claimants (whether individuals or
businesses) to opt-in to collective actions, giving rise to world-
wide classes.

The Proposed Regime

Under the new regime, the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal ("CAT")
will have the power to hear collective claims for damages. Claims
may be brought by claimants (either consumers or businesses), or
by a representative body (such as a trade or consumer
association).  The proposals include safeguards such as:

   * a certification process;

   * prohibiting exemplary damages or contingency fee
     arrangements; and

   * maintaining the rule that the unsuccessful party pays the
     costs of the opposing side.

It is widely accepted that the current system in the UK has
prevented legitimate collective actions.  Under the current
regime, every mechanism of collective redress effectively requires
claimants to "opt-in" to the action.  The CAT is only able to hear
claims that arise following a competition regulator obtaining a
court order and only certain entities listed under the Competition
Act may bring claims on behalf of consumer groups.  Standalone
collective actions may be brought by a "group litigation order" or
"representative action", but these mechanisms have not been used
extensively.

Practical Implications for Canadian Companies

The proposed changes are not likely to come into force until at
least 2015.  The proposal should signal to Canadian companies
connected to the UK that they will be at an increased risk of
defending class actions for anti-competitive practices.  The
proposals also continue the UK's sector-by-sector approach to
collective action reform, looking at particular industries or
economic activities, rather than at creating a general class
actions regime.


                             *********

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  * * *