CAR_Public/131008.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, October 8, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 199

                             Headlines


APPLE INC: 2nd Defective iPhone Button Suit on Verge of Transfer
APPLE INC: Denies Claims About Apps That Access Personal Info
AUSTRALIA: Cattle Industry Mull Class Action Over Live Exports Ban
BIOSCRIP INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
BP PLC: 5th Cir. Reverses Two Orders on Windfall Oil Spill Claims

CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Faces Class Action Over Trans Fat
CANADA: Veterans Affairs Appeal Class Action Ruling
CAPELLA HOTEL: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Phone Recording
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Continues to Defend Natural Gas Markets Suit
CHICAGO, IL: Obtains Favorable Ruling in PLS Holders' Class Action

COLONIAL PROPERTIES: Settles Shareholder Suit Over MAA Merger
DARTH CHEROKEE: 10th Cir. Denies En Banc Review in "Owens" Suit
DIAMOND FOODS: Received Prelim. Okay of Class Suit Settlement
DOLLAR TREE: Decertification Stands Against Plaintiffs' Appeal
DOLLAR TREE: California State Court Labor Suit in Discovery

DOLLAR TREE: Certification Briefing in Va. Suit Began in Sept.
DOLLAR TREE: No Trial Yet in Cal. Suit by Former Employee
DOLLAR TREE: Nov. Trial Set in Employee Misclassification Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Suit by Former Assistant Store Manager in Discovery
FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Awaits Ruling in "McGrogan" Suit Appeal

FNB CORP: Awaits Preliminary OK of Merger-Related Suit Settlement
FNB CORP: Faces PVF Capital Merger-Related Class Suit in Ohio
FORTEGRA FINANCIAL: "Lawson" Plaintiff Fails in Certification Bid
FORTEGRA FINANCIAL: "Mullins" Plaintiffs Appeal to Ky. High Court
FOX ENTERTAINMENT: Appeals Intern Wage Class Action Ruling

GLOBE UNIVERSITY: Sued for Lying About Inferior Accreditation
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Suit Over Overdraft Fees vs. ASB Still Pending
HECLA MINING: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Securities Suit
HULU: Disputes Video Privacy Claims in Class Action
IMPERIAL SUGAR: Suit Tossed; Complaint May Be Amended by Oct. 30

JBI INC: Grampp II Reveals Process to Settle Collective Lawsuit
JC PENNEY: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action in Texas
JP MORGAN: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dist. Court Judgment in Amaranth Suit
LEGGETT & PLATT: Defends Antitrust Suits Over Polyurethane Foam
LIGHTINTHEBOX HOLDING: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action in N.Y.

MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Oct. 15 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
MONTGOMERY COUNTY: Ala. High Court Rules in "Whitty" Class Action
MONTREAL MAINE: Lac-Megantic Plaintiffs Torn Between Two Suits
NAT'L FOOTBALL: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Eller II Suit
NAT'L FOOTBALL: New Book Describes Approach to Player Concussions

NBTY INC: Awaits Final OK of Glucosamine Supplements Suits Deal
NBTY INC: "Hutchins" Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice in June
NESTLE PURINA: Class Action Over Dog Treats Faces Setback
NEWFOUNDLAND, CANADA: Gov't Must Tackle Moose-Vehicle Collisions
ONTIME DISTRIBUTION: Recalls PRAN Spice Powder Turmeric

PHILIPS ELECTRONICS: Insurer Sues Over Class Suit Coverage
PINNACLE GROUP: Appeals Court Upholds Settlement in Tenants' Suit
PROMETHEUS GLOBAL: Sued in Calif. for Misclassifying Freelancers
RENASANT CORP: Finalizes Terms of Merger-Related Suits Settlement
RIDDELL INC: Ex-College Football Players File Concussion Suit

SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC: Recalls APC Surge Protectors
SEQWATER: Maurice Blackburn Set to File Flood Class Action
TOSHIBA CORP: Deposition Protocol No. 2 Entered in Antitrust Suit
UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO: Sued Over Substandard Pediatric Care
VIGOR LABS: Chainsaw Drug Is Completely Worthless, Suit Says

* Lawmakers Study Bill to Overhaul Medical Malpractice System


                             *********


APPLE INC: 2nd Defective iPhone Button Suit on Verge of Transfer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady and Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, report that
efforts to keep a putative class action accusing Apple Inc. of
conspiring to sell iPhones with defective power buttons in
California's northern district were rejected by a federal judge on
Oct. 1, who said the first-to-file rule applies and likely
requires the case's transfer.

U.S. District Court Judge Edward M. Chen ordered the parties to
offer up any reason why plaintiff Debra Hilton's suit against the
tech giant belongs in the northern district, rather than in the
central district alongside a related suit.  Both actions allege
that Apple illegally concealed that the power buttons on the
iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S models tended to fail soon after the
devices' one-year warranty expired.

Judge Chen said that Ms. Hilton had provided no legal support to
back her claim that the northern district is the appropriate venue
for the case despite the fact that Ross Missaghi's similar suit --
launched in state court in February and removed in March -- beat
her to the punch.  Ms. Hilton had asserted that the California
central district did not actually acquire jurisdiction over
Mr. Missaghi's claims until he filed a second amended complaint in
June, more than a month after Hilton filed her claims.

"When the Missaghi action was removed to federal court, the
central district of California obtained jurisdiction over an
action, the subject of which was an alleged defect in both the
iPhone 4 and 4S," Judge Chen said.  "Judge Feess' subsequent order
dismissing the Missaghi first amended complaint with leave to
amend did nothing to change this fact."

Judge Chen warned that ignoring the first-to-file rule in Hilton's
case would require him to rule on identical claims, duplicating
the work already done in the Missaghi litigation and risking the
issuance of inconsistent orders on the same claims, which the
first-to-file doctrine was specifically created to prevent,
according to the order.

Hilton sued Apple in May on behalf of owners of Apple's iPhone 4
who purchased the phone from Apple or AT&T Inc. in the U.S.,
saying the company was aware when it made, marketed and sold the
smartphones that the devices suffered from a latent defect causing
the power buttons to fail.

Mr. Missaghi asserted similar claims in his February complaint,
but his unjust enrichment and California Business and Professions
Code allegations were permanently dismissed in May, though he was
allowed to amend the complaint to correct deficiencies in a number
of other claims.

A month later, he filed an amended complaint that added a
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act claim accusing
Apple and AT&T of forming a "racketeering enterprise" to hawk the
purportedly defective iPhones.

Apple subsequently asked the judges presiding over both actions to
compel arbitration of the claims based on the plaintiffs'
contracts with AT&T, through which they allegedly agreed to
arbitrate any claims "arising out of or relating to" any aspect of
the relationship between them and AT&T or any of its affiliates.

Although AT&T is a nonparty to the dispute, Apple argued that the
addition of the RICO claim necessarily relies on the plaintiffs'
contracts with the company and thus allow it to enforce the
arbitration clauses in those contracts.

In late August, U.S. District Judge Gary Allen Feess -- who is
overseeing the Missaghi action and may soon inherit the Hilton
litigation -- rejected Apple's arbitration bid, but also dismissed
the suit over a number of pleading deficiencies.

According to Judge Feess, Mr. Missaghi failed to allege the
necessary predicate acts to support his claim that Apple and AT&T
forged an exclusive five-year pact to distribute iPhones that
trapped consumers in AT&T service contracts.

Mr. Missaghi was required to allege mail or wire fraud, not just
common law fraud such as oral misrepresentations, and thus has
asserted only "a garden-variety, run-of-the-mill business
relationship and Apple's unilateral decision to commit fraud,"
according to that order.

The court also found that Mr. Missaghi's claims were sunk by his
inability to show that the purported defect created a safety
hazard, turning aside claims that the flaw could prevent the
device from powering down aboard an aircraft or "rebooting" to
correct a glitch if a user suddenly needed to make an emergency
call.

Judge Feess threw out the suit but granted Mr. Missaghi leave to
file one final amended complaint, which he did in mid-September.
Apple moved on Sept. 30 to dismiss that amended complaint -- the
text of which was not immediately available -- on the grounds that
it is substantially identical to Mr. Missaghi's previously
dismissed efforts.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to a
request for comment on Oct. 1.

Ms. Hilton is represented by Roy A. Katriel of The Katriel Law
Firm.

Apple is represented by Richard B. Goetz -- rgoetz@omm.com --
Kelsey M. Larson -- klarson@omm.com -- Matthew D. Powers --
mpowers@omm.com  -- and Victoria L. Weatherford --
vweatherford@omm.com  -- of O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

The cases are Debra Hilton et al. v. Apple Inc., case number 3:13-
cv-02167, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, and Ross Missaghi et al. v. Apple Inc., case number
2:13-cv-02003, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.


APPLE INC: Denies Claims About Apps That Access Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that opposing a class-certification motion, Apple rejected
allegations that it allows applications to access and track
personal information.

Apple consumers had first filed a consolidated complaint in 2010,
but a San Jose federal judge dismissed it after finding that the
class had "not identified a concrete harm from the alleged
collection and tracking of their personal information sufficient
to create injury of fact," according to Apple's first motion for
summary judgment.

In 2012, the court dismissed all but two claims in a first amended
complaint that addressed the Article III standing question by
specifically naming which apps they downloaded that accessed and
tracked their personal information and the harm that resulted.

The court ruled the Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal
Remedies Act claims "may prove false," but "at this stage . . .
[were] sufficient to state a claim"

Apple argued, however, that the plaintiffs admitted "no harm
whatsoever" and that they have not lost any money or property and
that they "still have no idea whether their personal information
or location data was actually tracked."

The plaintiffs say certain free apps collect personal information
and share it with third-party advertising or analytics companies
without consent.  They do so through Application Programming
Interfaces in Apple's operating system to obtain Unique Device
Identifiers (UDIDs) associated with plaintiffs' devices and
transmits the UDIDs to the third parties, they say.

"Plaintiffs have now abandoned this theory and invented a host of
new claims that appear nowhere in their complaint," Apple stated
in its motion to deny certification.  "Critically, plaintiffs
still furnish no evidence that any of them was harmed by or
personally experienced the challenged practices."

Apple's motion asks U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh to deny
class certification, arguing members of the class cannot show they
relied on statements in Apple's privacy policy when purchasing
their iPhones, and still cannot show they suffered any personal or
economic harm.

"Plaintiffs have made no changes from their first motion that
would satisfy the rigorous requirements of [federal law] and place
this case within the narrow 'exception to the usual rule that
litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named
parties only," Apple stated.  "Once again, plaintiffs cannot show
that a single one of them relied on any statement by Apple when
purchasing their devices, or that they -- or any member of the
proposed classes -- ever experienced the hypothetical issues in
their complaint."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Avi Melech Kreitenberg, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLP
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 601
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 400-1052
          Facsimile: (310) 400-1056
          E-mail: akreitenberg@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          Deborah Kravitz, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW LLP
          141 North Street
          Healdsburg, CA 95448
          Telephone: 202-285-2560
          E-mail: dkravitz@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          David A. Stampley, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          100 Wall Street, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 920-3072
          Facsimile: (212) 920-3081
          E-mail: dstampley@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
          KAMBERLAW, LLC
          11 Broadway, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 920-3072
          Facsimile: (212) 920-3081
          E-mail: skamber@kamberlaw.com

               - and -

          David Christopher Parisi, Esq.
          PARISI & HAVENS LLP
          15233 Valleyheart Drive
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 990-1299
          Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
          E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Lockridge, Esq.
          Julie A. Strother, Esq.
          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: ralockridge@locklaw.com
                  jastrother@locklaw.com
                  khriebel@locklaw.com
                  rkshelquist@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Melissa Ryan Clark, Esq.
          Anne Marie Vu, Esq.
          Leigh Smith, Esq.
          Peter E. Seidman, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 946-9344
          E-mail: mclark@milberg.com
                  avu@milberg.com
                  lsmith@milberg.com
                  pseidman@milberg.com

               - and -

          David E. Azar, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 617-1200
          Facsimile: (213) 624-0643
          E-mail: dazar@milberg.com

               - and -

          Sabrina S. Kim, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          PO Box 5000
          Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067
          E-mail: skim@milberg.com

               - and -

          William M. Audet, Esq.
          Jonas Palmer Mann, Esq.
          William M. Audet, Esq.
          Michael Andrew McShane, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          221 Main Street, Suite 1460
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
          E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com
                  jmann@audetlaw.com
                  waudet@audetlaw.com
                  mmcshane@audetlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy Reade Wilson, Esq.
          WILSON TROSCLAIR & LOVINS
          302 N. Market St., Suite 501
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 430-1930
          Facsimile: (214) 276-1475
          E-mail: jeremy@wtlfirm.com

               - and -

          Nabil Majed Nachawati, II, Esq.
          FEARS NACHAWATI LAW FIRM
          4925 Greenville Avenue, Suite 715
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 890-0711
          Facsimile: (214) 890-0712
          E-mail: mn@fnlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Joseph H. Malley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH H. MALLEY, PC
          1045 North Zang Boulevard
          Dallas, TX 75208
          Telephone: (214) 943-6100
          E-mail: malleylaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Donald Chidi Amamgbo, Esq.
          AMAMGBO & ASSOCIATES
          7901 Oakport Street, Suite 4900
          Oakland, CA 94621
          Telephone: (510) 615-6000
          Facsimile: (510) 615-6025
          E-mail: donald@amamgbolaw.com

               - and -

          Reginald Von Terrell, Esq.
          THE TERRELL LAW GROUP
          Post Office Box 13315, PMB #148
          Oakland, CA 94661
          Telephone: (510) 237-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 237-4616
          E-mail: reggiet2@aol.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Becnel, Jr.
          BECNEL LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
          106 West Seventh Street
          P.O. Drawer H
          Reserve, LA 70084-2095
          Telephone: (985) 536-1186
          Facsimile: (985) 536-6445
          E-mail: dbecnel@becnellaw.com

               - and -

          John F. Nevares
          JOHN F. NEVARES & ASSOC. PSC
          P.O. Box 13667
          San Juan, PR 00908-3667
          Telephone: (787) 722-9333
          Facsimile: (787) 721-8820
          E-mail: jfnevares@nevareslaw.com

               - and -

          Fred Robert Rosenthal, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN & ALONSO, LLP
          6 Harbor Park Drive
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Telephone: (516) 466-6500
          Facsimile: (516) 466-6665
          E-mail: frosenthal@yourlawyer.com

               - and -

          Jerrold S. Parker, Esq.
          PARKER & WAICHMAN, LLC
          111 Great Neck Road, 1st Fl.
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 466-6500
          Facsimile: (516) 466-6665
          E-mail: Jerry@yourlawyer.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          E. Kirk Wood, Esq.
          WOOD LAW FIRM LLC
          2001 Park Place North, Suite 1000
          Birmingham, AL 35238
          Telephone: (205) 612-0243
          Facsimile: (866) 747-3905
          E-mail: ekirkwood1@bellsouth.net

               - and -

          Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
          WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS LLC
          2001 Park Place North, Suite 1000
          P. O. Box 10647
          Birmingham, AL 35202-0647
          Telephone: (205) 328-9576
          Facsimile: (205) 328-9669
          E-mail: jwhatley@wdklaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas Dominic Mauriello, Esq.
          MAURIELLO LAW FIRM, APC
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 677-1238
          Facsimile: (949) 606-9690
          E-mail: tomm@maurlaw.com

               - and -

          Aaron C. Mayer, Esq.
          MAYER LAW GROUP
          18 Carolina Street, Suite B
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Telephone: (843) 376-4929
          Facsimile: (888) 446-3963
          E-mail: aaron@mayerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Brian William Smith, Esq.
          SMITH & VANTURE, LLP
          1615 Forum Place
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 684-6330
          E-mail: bws@smithvanture.com

               - and -

          Howard Weil Rubinstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN
          1615 Forum Place, Suite 4C
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (832) 715-2788
          Facsimile: (561) 688-0630

               - and -

          Monica R. Kelly, Esq.
          Ribbeck Law Chartered
          505 North Lake Shore Drive, Suite 102
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 822-9999
          E-mail: monicakelly@ribbecklaw.com

               - and -

          Eric M. Quetglas-Jordan, Esq.
          QUETGLAS LAW OFFICE
          PO Box 16606
          San Juan, PR 00908-6606
          Telephone: (787) 722-7745
          Facsimile: (787) 725-3970
          E-mail: eric@quetglaslaw.com

               - and -

          Corina MacCarin, Esq.
          Gillian Leigh Wade, Esq.
          Sara Dawn Avila, Esq.
          MILSTEIN ADELMAN LLP
          2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (310) 396-9600
          Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
          E-mail: gwade@milsteinadelman.com
                  savila@milsteinadelman.com

               - and -

          Richard Alan Proaps, Esq.
          8150 Greenback Lane, Building 200
          Fair Oaks, CA 95628
          Telephone: (916) 722-1665
          Facsimile: (916) 722-4881
          E-mail: rproaps@aol.com

               - and -

          William Charles Gray
          1926 N. Lincoln Park West #2D
          Chicago, IL 60614
          Telephone: (312) 925-8880
          E-mail: williamcgray@gmail.com

               - and -

          Christian G. Montroy
          Montroy Law Offices
          412 Missouri Avenue
          East St. Louis, IL 62201
          Telephone: (800) 333-5297
          Facsimile: (618) 274-8369
          E-mail: CMontroy@MontroyLaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          S. Ashlie Beringer, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          1881 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 849-5300
          Facsimile: (650) 849-5333
          E-mail: aberinger@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Gail E. Lees, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229-7000
          Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
          E-mail: glees@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Joshua Aaron Jessen, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1200
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 451-3800
          Facsimile: (949) 451-4220
          E-mail: jjessen@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Barbara Ann Izzo, Esq.
          FLURRY, INC.
          282 2nd Street, Suite 202
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 659-9095
          E-mail: barb@flurry.com

               - and -

          Matthew Dean Brown, Esq.
          Michael Graham Rhodes, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          101 California St., Floor 5
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
          Telephone: (415) 693-2000
          Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
          E-mail: brownmd@cooley.com
                  rhodesmg@cooley.com

               - and -

          Genevieve Patricia Rosloff, Esq.
          Joseph Charles Gratz, Esq.
          Michael Henry Page, Esq.
          DURIE TANGRI LLP
          217 Leidesdorff Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 362-6666
          Facsimile: (415) 236-6300
          E-mail: grosloff@durietangri.com
                  jgratz@durietangri.com
                  mpage@durietangri.com

               - and -

          David Alan Bateman, Esq.
          KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART PRESTON GATES & ELLIS LLP
          925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900
          Seattle, WA 98104-1158
          Telephone: (206) 623-7580
          Facsimile: (206) 623-7022
          E-mail: david.bateman@klgates.com

               - and -

          Rachel R. Davidson, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 882-8200
          Facsimile: (415) 882-8220
          E-mail: rachel.davidson@klgates.com

               - and -

          Seth Alan Gold, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          10100 Santa Monica Blvd., 7th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 552-5000
          E-mail: seth.gold@klgates.com

               - and -

          Jonathan David Moss, Esq.
          Sascha Von Mende Henry, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
          Telephone: (213) 620-1780
          Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
          E-mail: jmoss@sheppardmullin.com
                  shenry@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Laurence F. Pulgram, Esq.
          Tyler Griffin Newby, Esq.
          FENWICK & WEST LLP
          555 California Street, Suite 1200
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 875-2300
          Facsimile: (415) 281-1350
          E-mail: lpulgram@fenwick.com
                  tnewby@fenwick.com

               - and -

          Mali Beck Friedman, Esq.
          Simon J. Frankel, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          One Front Street, 35th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591-7059
          Facsimile: (415) 955-6559
          E-mail: mfriedman@cov.com
                  sfrankel@cov.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Stisa Granick, Esq.
          350 Townsend Street, Suite 612
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (415) 684-8111
          Facsimile: (424) 298-8589
          E-mail: granicklaw@granick.com

               - and -

          James Donato, Esq.
          Jiyoun Chung, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3800
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 616-1100
          Facsimile: (415) 616-1199
          E-mail: jdonato@shearman.com
                  jiyoun.chung@shearman.com

The case is In Re: iPhone/iPad Application Consumer Privacy
Litigation, Case No. 5:11-md-02250-LHK, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California (San Jose).


AUSTRALIA: Cattle Industry Mull Class Action Over Live Exports Ban
------------------------------------------------------------------
Owen Jacques, writing for Daily Mecury, reports that a costly
class-action against the new Federal Government is brewing as the
cattle industry demands compensation for losses caused by the 2011
ban on live exports.

It comes as Indonesia has agreed to take more Australian cattle
following a visit by Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

McCullough Robertson litigator Trent Thorne said he tried to
negotiate a solution on behalf of his clients with former
Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig but found him hamstrung on the
policy.

"From the previous government's point of view, it was a political
issue," he said.

"I don't see that problem with the current government."

By Mr. Thorne's estimates, the month-long ban in mid-2011
destroyed more than AU$600 million in value for the industry.  He
said between four major pastoral companies, AU$100 million had
been wiped from their property values.

Mr. Thorne would not discuss estimates of compensation, but said
some of his clients lost "well into the tens of millions of
dollars".

AgForce Queensland Charles Burke knew of the legal maneuvering and
said he was not surprised by the action.

"Some people who were severely impacted by the ban in 2011 have
experienced a significant loss of income," Mr. Burke said.

"It will be interesting to see how it unfolds."

Mr. Thorne said he expected to arrange negotiations with Mr. Joyce
and the Department of Agriculture before the year's end.  If an
appropriate agreement cannot be reached, Mr. Thorne said a class
action would be considered as the next step.

Mr. Joyce declined to comment.


BIOSCRIP INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit against BioScrip, Inc. and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, and docketed under 13-cv-6922, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of BioScrip between August 8, 2011
and September 20, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This class action
seeks to recover damages against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors as a result of alleged violations of the
federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased BioScrip securities during
the Class Period, you have until November 29, 2013 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.   A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

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

BioScrip is a pharmacy benefit management and specialty
pharmaceutical organization that partners with managed care
organizations and healthcare providers to control prescription
drug costs.  The Company provides pharmacy benefit products and
services and mail order pharmacy services, and is the fulfillment
center for online retailers offering prescription and OTC
products.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
the Company improperly distributed the product Exjade through its
specialty pharmacy operations; (2) the Company was in violation of
certain federal and state laws and regulations; and (3) as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 23, 2013, the Company announced in a Form 8-K, that
it received a civil investigative demand issued by the United
States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and
a subpoena from the New York State Attorney General's Medicaid
Fraud Control Unit, regarding the distribution of the Novartis
Pharmaceuticals Corporation product Exjade by the Company's legacy
specialty pharmacy division.

On this news, BioScrip securities declined $2.60 per share or 23%
within two trading sessions, to close at $8.47 per share on
September 24, 2013.

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


BP PLC: 5th Cir. Reverses Two Orders on Windfall Oil Spill Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a divided federal appeals court panel has ruled that BP PLC
should have been allowed to temporarily block payment of claims
from the $9.6 billion Deepwater Horizon settlement while
challenging the methods by which those payments were being
calculated.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Oct. 2 reversed
two significant orders granted earlier this year by U.S. District
Judge Carl Barbier in New Orleans against BP involving the
settlement, which resolved claims by individuals and businesses
asserting economic damages caused by the 2010 oil spill.

One order affirmed the methods used by claims administrator
Patrick Juneau in calculating the amounts of the settlement
payments.  BP had maintained that the process allowed businesses
with no oil spill damages to file claims for "fictitious losses"
and receive "windfall" payments.  Another order denied BP's
request for an emergency preliminary injunction halting some
payments given its concerns over those calculations.

The majority opinion, written by Judge Edith Brown Clement, said
that "the district court had no authority to approve the
settlement of a class that included members that had not sustained
losses at all, or had sustained losses unrelated to the oil spill,
as BP alleges.  If the Administrator is interpreting the
Settlement to include such claimants, the Settlement is unlawful."

As for the injunction, Judge Clement, a George H.W. Bush
appointee, wrote that the case involved "significant legal
questions" that necessitated a stay.

"This case is one of the largest and most novel class actions in
American history," she wrote.  "The interests of individuals who
may be reaping windfall recoveries because of an inappropriate
interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and those who could
never have recovered in individual suits for failure to show
causation are not outweighed by the potential loss to a company
and its public shareholders of hundreds of millions of dollars of
unrecoverable awards."

The panel upheld a third order, however, in which Judge Barbier
dismissed a breach of contract lawsuit that BP filed against
Mr. Juneau.

In a dissent, Judge James Dennis, a Clinton appointee, said he
would uphold all of Judge Barbier's orders.

"BP has failed to demonstrate that there has been a significant
change either in circumstances or in the law since it entered into
-- and, in fact, affirmatively sought adoption of -- the consent
decree approving and incorporating the settlement agreement," he
wrote.

And Judge Leslie Southwick, appointed by George W. Bush, while
concurring in the reversal and remand of Judge Barbier's orders,
disagreed that some class members could lack standing because they
were unable to prove the spill caused their damages.

Meanwhile, Judge Barbier's rulings have not stopped BP from
continuing to press for an injunction halting the claims process.

In its most recent request, BP cited a recent investigative report
Judge Barbier authorized that referred four lawyers -- two with
oil spill claims and two who previously worked for Mr. Juneau in
approving claims -- to federal authorities for potential criminal
activity associated with kickbacks.


CALIFORNIA PIZZA: Faces Class Action Over Trans Fat
---------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that a
California federal judge on Oct. 1 tossed a proposed class action
accusing California Pizza Kitchen Inc. and Nestle USA Inc. of
using artificial trans fatty acids in some frozen pizzas when
healthier alternatives are available, saying the plaintiff failed
to prove any increased health risk.

Plaintiff Katie Simpson hit the companies with the lawsuit in
January, alleging claims of public nuisance and unfair and
unlawful business practices based on their use of partially
hydrogenated vegetable oil.  She alleged there is no safe level of
artificial trans fat intake, and that consumption of TFAs
increases the likelihood of developing certain illnesses and
health risks, including cardiovascular disease, type-2 diabetes,
Alzheimer's disease, damage to vital organs, and breast, prostate
and colorectal cancer.

U.S. District Judge Janis L. Sammartino granted the companies'
motion to dismiss on the grounds that Simpson lacks Article III
standing to pursue her claims.

"Here, defendants object to plaintiff's standing on the basis of
the injury prong. 'Among cases involving allegations of
contaminated foods and pharmaceuticals, plaintiffs typically rely
on two types of injuries to confer standing: the increased risk of
harm from exposure to a dangerous substance, and the financial
loss from purchasing a product in reliance on false or misleading
information,'" Judge Sammartino said.

The judge said that to establish increased risk of harm,
Ms. Simpson must show there is both a substantially increased risk
of harm and a substantial probability of harm with that increase
taken into account.

"Plaintiff alleges in her [complaint] that she bought the
contested pizzas 'approximately five times in the past year.'
While plaintiff does present significant evidence of the harmful
effects of prolonged consumption of TFAs, she does not allege
facts tending to show that such isolated instances of TFA
consumption are sufficient to cause the enumerated harmful
effects.  Thus, based on the allegations in the [complaint], this
court is not convinced that consuming TFAs five times over the
period of a year represents a substantial increased risk of harm,
much less that the probability of that harm is substantial," the
judge said.

The judge also said an economic injury typically requires a loss
of the plaintiff's benefit of the bargain, such as by overpayment,
loss in value, or loss of usefulness.

"Plaintiff alleges that she paid for, and therefore lost money due
to her purchase of, the contested pizzas. She also, however,
consumed the pizzas.  Consumption is the purpose for which one
purchases frozen foods.  Thus, plaintiff received the benefit of
her bargain from the purchase of the contested pizzas," Judge
Sammartino said.

The judge also said Ms. Simpson's purchases were not made on the
basis of false or misleading information, because the fact that
the pizzas contained TFAs was divulged in the nutrition facts
panel on each box.

"Therefore, having not alleged any advertising or wording on the
product that may have misled plaintiff into believing that the
contested pizzas were free of TFAs, plaintiff has not alleged an
injury premised on economic loss due to misleading information,"
the judge said.

The judge said Ms. Simpson can refile her complaint if she wishes.

A Nestle spokeswoman said on Oct. 2 the company is "gratified"
that the court granted the company's motion to dismiss.

"We reiterate what we said when the case was filed -- this is a
frivolous lawsuit and it was irresponsible to make such baseless
and sensationalistic allegations," the spokeswoman said.

Counsel for Ms. Simpson declined to comment on Oct. 1.

Ms. Simpson is represented by Gregory S. Weston, Jack Fitzgerald,
Melanie Persinger and Paul K. Joseph of The Weston Firm.

Nestle and California Pizza Kitchen are represented by Dale J.
Giali -- dgiali@mayerbrown.com -- Andrew Z. Edelstein --
AEdelstein@mayerbrown.com  -- and Carmine R. Zarlenga --
czarlenga@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown LLP.

The case is Katie Simpson v. California Pizza Kitchen Inc., et
al., number 3:13-cv-00164 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.


CANADA: Veterans Affairs Appeal Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------
The following was issued on Oct. 2 by Veterans Affairs Canada
regarding the Scott et al. v. Attorney General of Canada proposed
class action:

On September 6, 2013, the Honourable Mr. Justice Gordon Weatherill
released his ruling on the Attorney General of Canada's Motion to
Strike the Notice of Civil Claim filed by the Plaintiffs' counsel
in the Scott et al. v. Attorney General of Canada proposed class
action.

The Plaintiffs argue that the promises of past governments are
binding on present and future governments.  While this may sound
reasonable, their argument could have a far broader impact than
perhaps intended by the Plaintiffs.  If accepted, this principle
could undermine democratic accountability as parliamentarians of
the future could be prevented from changing important legislation,
including the sort of changes that some Veterans would like to see
to the New Veterans Charter.

Veterans Affairs Canada is therefore appealing Justice
Weatherill's decision, as this case is not the proper vehicle for
addressing the very real concerns of Veterans.

"My recent commitment to proceed with a comprehensive review of
the New Veterans Charter by elected officials, in our Parliament,
will provide the appropriate forum where all voices can be heard,
including those of the Plaintiffs, Veterans, family members, other
interested individuals and subject matter experts," said the
Honourable Julian Fantino, Minister of Veterans Affairs.  "That is
where we can work together on appropriate change for Veterans and
their families."


CAPELLA HOTEL: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Phone Recording
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, Lance Duroni and Andrew Scurria, writing
for Law360, report that luxury hotel company Capella Hotel Group
LLC and reservation call center Advantage Reserve LLC were hit
with a proposed class action lawsuit on Oct. 1 that alleges they
violated California privacy law by illegally recording their
telephone conversations with customers.

Plaintiff Brian McKnight said he called Capella, which contracts
with Advantage for voice reservation services, from a wireless
phone in July and spoke with a customer service representative
about the pricing and reservation process for one of Capella's
hotels.

"Plaintiff was not aware that the call was being recorded," the
complaint said.  "Defendant did not, at any point during the
telephone conversation with defendant's customer service
representative, advise plaintiff that the call was being recorded.
Plaintiff did not give either express or implied consent to the
recording."

After the call was completed, Mr. McKnight alleged he discovered
that all incoming telephone calls to the defendants are recorded,
but that no notice of the practice is given to consumers.

"Plaintiff expected that his telephone call would be private,
i.e., neither recorded nor monitored, due to defendant's failure
to disclose any recording or monitoring," the complaint said.

Mr. McKnight's claim is that Capella and Advantage violated
Section 632.7 of the California penal code, which prohibits the
intentional recording of any telephone communication without the
consent of all parties where at least one party to the
conversation is using either a cordless phone or cellphone.

"No expectation of confidentiality or privacy is required, nor is
any other wrongful surreptitious intent required -- only that the
defendant intended to record the communication," the complaint
said.

The proposed class is defined as "[a]ll persons located in
California whose wireless telephone conversations with defendant
were intentionally recorded without disclosure by defendant at any
time during the statute of limitations period through the date of
final judgment in this action."

Capella and Advantage were not immediately available for comment
on Oct. 2.

The same California law was cited in an August proposed class
action that accuses a Sallie Mae Inc. contractor of secretly
recording phone calls with consumers as part of its student debt
collection business.

In that case, the plaintiffs allege that Houston-based GC Services
LP routinely obtains highly personal or confidential information
from consumers before revealing that a call is being recorded, or
fails to disclose this fact at all.

Outdoor gear and clothing retailer Sierra Trading Post Inc. was
also hit with a putative class action in August: The company,
which sells its products primarily online and through mail-order
catalogs, is accused of recording both inbound and outbound phone
calls with its California customers without first giving the
required notice that the communications were being recorded.

The plaintiff in that case alleges that he shared personal
financial details, including his credit card information, during
conversations with a Sierra representative.

Mr. McKnight is represented by Scott J. Ferrell --
sferrell@trialnewport.com -- Richard H. Hikida --
rhikida@trialnewport.com -- David W. Reid --
dreid@trialnewport.com  -- and Victoria C. Knowles --
vknowles@trialnewport.com  -- of Newport Trial Group PC.

Counsel information for Capella and Advantage was not available on
Oct. 2.

The case is McKnight v. Capella Hotel Group LLC et al., case
number 3:13-cv-02360, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Continues to Defend Natural Gas Markets Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC continues to defend the
remaining lawsuit relating to the operation of the natural gas
markets in 2000-2002, according to the Company's August 8, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The Company and its parent, CenterPoint Energy Inc., or their
predecessor, Reliant Energy, Incorporated (Reliant Energy), and
certain of their former subsidiaries have been named as defendants
in certain lawsuits.  Under a master separation agreement between
CenterPoint Energy and a former subsidiary, Reliant Resources,
Inc. (RRI), CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries are entitled
to be indemnified by RRI and its successors for any losses,
including certain attorneys' fees and other costs, arising out of
these lawsuits.  In May 2009, RRI sold its Texas retail business
to a subsidiary of NRG Energy Inc. and RRI changed its name to RRI
Energy, Inc.  In December 2010, Mirant Corporation merged with and
became a wholly owned subsidiary of RRI, and RRI changed its name
to GenOn Energy, Inc. (GenOn).  In December 2012, NRG acquired
GenOn through a merger in which GenOn became a wholly owned
subsidiary of NRG.  None of the sale of the retail business, the
merger with Mirant Corporation, or the acquisition of GenOn by NRG
alters RRI's (now GenOn's) contractual obligations to indemnify
CenterPoint Energy and its subsidiaries, including CenterPoint
Houston, for certain liabilities, including their indemnification
obligations regarding the gas market manipulation litigation.

A large number of lawsuits were filed against numerous gas market
participants in a number of federal and western state courts in
connection with the operation of the natural gas markets in 2000-
2002.  CenterPoint Energy's former affiliate, RRI, was a
participant in gas trading in the California and Western markets.
These lawsuits, many of which were filed as class actions, allege
violations of state and federal antitrust laws.  The Plaintiffs in
these lawsuits are seeking a variety of forms of relief,
including, among others, recovery of compensatory damages (in some
cases in excess of $1 billion), a trebling of compensatory
damages, full consideration damages and attorneys' fees.
CenterPoint Energy and/or Reliant Energy were named in
approximately 30 of these lawsuits, which were instituted between
2003 and 2009.  CenterPoint Energy and its affiliates have since
been released or dismissed from all but one such case.

CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc. (CES), a subsidiary of
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp., is a defendant in a case now
pending in federal court in Nevada alleging a conspiracy to
inflate Wisconsin natural gas prices in 2000-2002.  In July 2011,
the court issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs' claims
against other defendants in the case, each of whom had
demonstrated Federal Energy Regulatory Commission jurisdictional
sales for resale during the relevant period, based on federal
preemption.  The plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the
trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims.  The other
defendants may seek further review by filing a writ of certiorari
with the U.S. Supreme Court.

CenterPoint Energy believes that CES is not a proper defendant in
this case and will continue to pursue a dismissal.  CenterPoint
Houston does not expect the ultimate outcome of this matter to
have a material impact on its financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.

Additionally, CenterPoint Energy was a defendant in a lawsuit
filed in state court in Nevada that was dismissed in 2007.  In
September 2012, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal.
In June 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States denied the
plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari and this matter is now
concluded.

Houston, Texas-based CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC --
http://www.centerpointenergy.com/-- provides electric
transmission and distribution services to retail electric
providers  serving over two million metered customers in a 5,000-
square mile area of the Texas Gulf Coast that has a population of
approximately six million people and includes the city of Houston.
The Company is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of CenterPoint
Energy, Inc., a public utility holding company.


CHICAGO, IL: Obtains Favorable Ruling in PLS Holders' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Crain's Chicago Business reports that the city of Chicago has the
authority to tax the sale or transfer of personal seat licenses
for Chicago Bears games at Soldier Field, according to a ruling
earlier last week by the Illinois Appellate Court.

A 37-page opinion issued Sept. 30 addressed a 2009 class-action
lawsuit brought by 10 Chicago Bears PSL holders, who sued the city
after they received letters that sought to collect 9 percent
amusement taxes on licenses sold from 2004 to 2008.

PSLs, which must be owned first for the right to purchase season
tickets, are commonly resold through the official Bears PSL
Marketplace and range from $1,000 to $87,500 for prime seats.

In May 2009, the city contacted about 1,700 PSL holders who had
purchased their tickets on the secondary market (the Bears began
selling them in 2002 to help offset stadium renovation costs)
about collecting the taxes.

That spurred the class-action suit.  But the next year, a Cook
County judge ruled that anyone who had ever purchased one of the
PSLs had to pay the amusement tax.

Two appeals were filed last year, arguing that PSLs were "tangible
property," which, under state law, can't be taxed for use, sale or
purchase. But at the same time, the city's amusement tax ordinance
requires a 9 percent tax on the cost of admission to view large
sporting events.

Last week, Appellate Court Justice Nathaniel Howse Jr. wrote on
behalf of a three-judge panel that "the only purpose and function
of purchasing a PSL is to purchase the right to view an
amusement," and that PSLs aren't considered tangible property but
rather a "personal privilege" to buy tickets.

And PSLs are essentially an extension of season tickets, the court
said.  If you own a PSL and don't buy season tickets, you lose the
PSL, according to its terms and conditions.

The court did not rule specifically about how much money those who
have already purchased PSLs without paying the amusement tax owe,
but that can now be determined in a pending trial.

So, if you're planning on buying or selling a PSL through the
Bears' marketplace, count on the city taking a piece of the
action.


COLONIAL PROPERTIES: Settles Shareholder Suit Over MAA Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the Williams v. Colonial Properties Trust, et al.
reached an agreement in principle to settle the suit filed by of a
proposed class of Colonial shareholders, according to the
company's Aug. 23, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

On June 3, 2013, Colonial Properties Trust, an Alabama real estate
investment trust ("Colonial"), Colonial Realty Limited
Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership ("Colonial LP"), Mid-
America Apartment Communities, Inc., a Tennessee corporation
("MAA"), Mid-America Apartments, L.P., a Tennessee limited
partnership ("MAA LP"), and Martha Merger Sub, LP, a Delaware
limited partnership and indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of MAA LP
("OP Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
(the "merger agreement") pursuant to which Colonial will merge
with and into MAA (the "parent merger"), with MAA continuing as
the surviving corporation, and Colonial LP will merge with and
into OP Merger Sub (the "partnership merger" and together with the
Parent Merger, the "mergers"), with Colonial LP continuing as the
surviving entity and an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of MAA LP
after the mergers.

In connection with the proposed mergers, on June 19, 2013, a
putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court for
Jefferson County, Alabama against Colonial and purportedly on
behalf of a proposed class of all Colonial shareholders captioned
Williams v. Colonial Properties Trust, et al. (the "State
Litigation"). A derivative claim purportedly on behalf of Colonial
was also asserted in the State Litigation.

The complaint names as defendants Colonial, the members of the
Colonial board of trustees, Colonial LP, MAA, MAA LP and OP Merger
Sub and alleges that the Colonial trustees breached their
fiduciary duties by engaging in an unfair process leading to the
merger agreement, failing to secure and obtain the best price
reasonable for Colonial shareholders, allowing preclusive deal
protection devices in the merger agreement, and by engaging in
conflicted actions. The complaint alleges that Colonial LP, MAA,
MAA LP and OP Merger Sub aided and abetted those breaches of
fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks a declaration that the
defendants have breached their fiduciary duties or aided and
abetted such breaches and that the merger agreement is unlawful
and unenforceable, an order enjoining the consummation of the
mergers, direction of the Colonial trustees to exercise their
fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is in the best
interests of Colonial, rescission of the mergers in the event they
are consummated, an award of costs and disbursements, including
reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees, and other relief.

On July 2, 2013, plaintiff moved for expedited fact discovery and
for an expedited schedule for filing and hearing a preliminary
motion to enjoin the mergers; on July 11, 2013, defendants opposed
those motions and moved to stay fact discovery.

On July 11, 2013, defendants also moved to dismiss the complaint
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted on
the grounds that: (1) the claims against the Colonial trustees are
derivative and not direct, and plaintiff did not comply with
Alabama law on serving notice of the claims on Colonial prior to
filing; and (2) Alabama law does not recognize a cause of action
in aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty and, even if it
did, such claims would also be derivative and not direct.

The Court scheduled a motions hearing for August 8, 2013, which
was continued on the request of the parties to the State
Litigation to August 14, 2013 to facilitate settlement
discussions. In the meantime, on August 2, 2013, plaintiff filed
an amended complaint that re-asserted plaintiff's earlier claims
and added a new claim that the Colonial trustees breached their
alleged duty of candor by not providing Colonial shareholders full
and complete disclosures regarding the merger.

On August 14, 2013, prior to the Court's scheduled hearing, the
parties to the State Litigation reached an agreement in principle
to settle the State Litigation, in which (a) defendants agreed to
make certain additional disclosures in the joint proxy
statement/prospectus included in the registration statement on
Form S-4 filed in connection with the merger, and (b) the parties
agreed that they would use their best efforts to agree upon,
execute and present to the Court a stipulation of settlement which
would, among other things, (i) provide for the conditional
certification of a non-opt out settlement class pursuant to
Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) and (b)(2) consisting
generally of all record and beneficial holders of the common stock
of Colonial from June 3, 2013 through and including the date of
the closing of the parent merger (the "Settlement Class"); (ii)
release all claims that members of the Settlement Class may have
that were alleged in the State Litigation or otherwise arising out
of or relating in any manner to the parent merger (except Colonial
shareholders' statutory dissenters' rights), and (iii) dismiss the
State Litigation with prejudice.

The proposed settlement also provides that the defendants will not
oppose a request to the Court by plaintiff's counsel for
attorney's fees up to an immaterial amount agreed to by the
parties and is subject to, among other things, confirmatory
discovery, agreement to a stipulation of settlement, and final
court approval following notice to the Settlement Class. The
parties reported the proposed settlement to the Court on August
14, 2013, and the Court ordered a stay of all proceedings (except
those related to settlement).

Colonial management believes that the allegations in the amended
complaint are without merit and that the disclosures made prior to
the settlement are adequate under the law but wish to settle the
State Litigation in order to avoid the cost and distraction of
further litigation. In the event that the stipulation of
settlement is not approved by the Court, Colonial intends to
vigorously defend the State Litigation.


DARTH CHEROKEE: 10th Cir. Denies En Banc Review in "Owens" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In DART CHEROKEE BASIN OPERATING COMPANY, LLC; CHEROKEE BASIN
PIPELINE, LLC, Petitioners, v. BRANDON W. OWENS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Respondent, NO. 13-
603, the petitioners removed the case to federal court under the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The notice of removal alleged
the amount in controversy to be over $8 million, comfortably above
the jurisdictional requirement of $5 million, and explained how
Petitioners arrived at that figure. After Brandon Owens moved to
remand the case to state court, Petitioners submitted undisputed
proof that the amount in controversy exceeded $14 million.
Nevertheless, the district court granted Mr. Owens's motion. It
did so only because the notice of removal itself had failed to
provide evidentiary support, "such as an economic analysis . . .
or settlement estimates" for the $8 million figure.

Petitioners then requested permission to appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1453(c), but a divided panel denied permission.
Petitioners then sought en banc review of the panel's decision.

Upon consideration, a poll was requested and the votes were evenly
divided. Consequently, the poll did not carry and the Tenth
Circuit denied the en banc petition.

A copy of the Appeals Court's September 17, 2013 Order is
available at http://is.gd/zKn5b2from Leagle.com.


DIAMOND FOODS: Received Prelim. Okay of Class Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Megan Gallegos reports that
Diamond Foods can use stock to pay part of a multimillion-dollar
class-action settlement because it does not have enough cash on
hand, a federal judge ruled.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup preliminarily approved a deal to
settle claims that Diamond Foods and two former executives
understated the cost of walnuts to increase apparent profits.

Shareholders said Diamond Foods was motivated by its bid to
acquire Pringles from Proctor & Gamble Co. in 2011 using stock.

An equity research firm for the Off Wall Street Consulting Group
uncovered the scheme in a report questioning Diamond Foods'
accounting practices, according to one shareholder class action.

In September 2011, The Wall Street Journal published an article
about the report, noting that as walnut prices surged for the 2010
crop, Diamond Foods actually paid growers much less than other
buyers.

After the company's 2011 fiscal year closed, Diamond Foods then
paid growers special "momentum" payments, shareholders said.

"The article estimates that the 'momentum' payments could total as
much as $50 million, which if made prior to July 31, 2011, would
have substantially reduced the company's $93 million in operating
income that it had previously reported for the entire 2011 fiscal
year," according to the class action.

When word got out about the inflation, share prices initially fell
$5 per share to $85.26 per share.  As investigations continued,
the share price fell to $52.79, prompting numerous shareholder
class actions.

Alsup granted early approval to a settlement requiring Diamond to
pay $11 million and to distribute 4.45 million shares of common
stock to the class members.

"As of August 21, the market value of the 4.45 million shares was
$85.1 million," Alsup explained.  "Any amounts remaining after
disbursement of the settlement amount will be paid out as
additional distribution to class members or to a charitable
organization. Based on lead plaintiff's damages analysis, the
maximum aggregate damages totaled approximately $430 million."

The judge acknowledged that a cash-only settlement "would have
been preferable," but agreed with the parties that Diamond Foods
was in no position to shell out that kind of cash.

The company had just $7.2 million in cash and cash equivalents on
its balance sheet, according to the lead plaintiff's damages
expert.

"Diamond is also highly leveraged, with $579 million in long-term
obligations," Alsup added. "Furthermore, the company lost 40% of
its volume in walnut sales from the previous year.  As such,
Diamond's weakened financial condition was a significant factor in
determining that the company was unable to pay a cash-only
settlement."

Preliminary approval is proper, he said, "given Diamond's strained
financial state and the uncertainty with lead plaintiff's ability
to collect on any judgment."

The Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System is listed as
lead plaintiff, while former Diamond Foods executives Michael
Mendes and Steven Neil are co-defendants.  Claims against
accounting firm Deloitte & Touche were dismissed in November 2012.

A final approval hearing is scheduled for Jan. 9, 2014.

Diamond Foods unveiled the settlement in August.  According to the
company's Aug. 21, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, under the terms of the proposed
settlement, Diamond would pay a total of $11 million in cash and
issue 4.45 million shares of common stock to a Settlement Fund to
resolve all claims asserted on behalf of investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired Diamond stock between October 5, 2010 and
February 8, 2012. The proposed settlement further provides that
Diamond denies all claims of wrongdoing or liability.

A substantial portion of the $11 million in cash would be funded
by Diamond's insurers. With respect to the 4.45 million shares of
common stock, Diamond would have the ability to privately place,
or conduct a public offering of, the shares with the consent of
the lead plaintiff and its counsel, prior to distribution of the
Settlement Fund. In that event, the Settlement Fund would include
the proceeds of the offering in lieu of the settlement shares.

If this proposed settlement is approved by the Court, a notice to
the Class members will be sent with information regarding the
allocation and distribution of the Settlement Fund and
instructions on procedures to follow to make a claim on the
Settlement Fund.

"We believe this proposed settlement eliminates the burden of
further time, expense and risk related to the class action,
allowing the Diamond team to move forward fully focused on
expanding the reach of our leading brands and executing on our
strategic and operational initiatives for growth," stated Brian J.
Driscoll, Diamond's Chief Executive Officer. "We continue to
strengthen our business and are pleased that our fourth quarter
performance enables us to complete fiscal year 2013 in an improved
financial position."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael M. Goldberg, Esq.
          Casey Edwards Sadler, Esq.
          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com
                  csadler@glancylaw.com
                  info@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Darren Jay Robbins, Esq.
          David Conrad Walton, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: e_file_sd@rgrdlaw.com
                  davew@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark Punzalan, Esq.
          PUNZALAN LAW, P.C.
          600 Allerton St., Suite 201
          Redwood City, CA 94063
          Telephone: (650) 362-4150
          Facsimile: (650) 362-4151
          E-mail: mpunzalan@finkelsteinthompson.com

               - and -

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          505 Montgomery St., Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 398-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 398-8704
          E-mail: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com

               - and -

          Jordan S. Elias, Esq.
          Joy Ann Kruse, Esq.
          Melissa Ann Gardner, Esq.
          Richard Martin Heimann, ESQ.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000, ext. 2272
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: jelias@lchb.com
                  jakruse@lchb.com
                  mgardner@lchb.com
                  rheimann@lchb.com

               - and -

          Donald Sean Nation, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          Krissi Temple Gore, Esq.
          Meryl W. Roper, Esq.
          Molly A. Havig, Esq.
          Robert W. Killorin, Esq.
          Ze'eva Kushner Banks, Esq.
          CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES LLP
          2300 Promenade II
          1230 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 873-3900
          E-mail: snation@chitwoodlaw.com
                  JWilson@chitwoodlaw.com
                  kgore@chitwoodlaw.com
                  MRoper@chitwoodlaw.com
                  mhavig@chitwoodlaw.com
                  RKillorin@chitwoodlaw.com
                  zkbanks@chitwoodlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory E. Keller, Esq.
          CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES LLP
          11 Grace Avenue, Suite 306
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 773-6090
          Facsimile: (404) 876-4476
          E-mail: gkeller@chitwoodlaw.com

               - and -

          John Farr Harnes, Esq.
          CHITWOOD HARLEY HARNES LLP
          1350 Broadway, Suite 908
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (917) 595-4600
          E-mail: jfharnes@chitwoodlaw.com

               - and -

          James J. Sabella, Esq.
          GRANT AND EISENHOFER
          485 Lexington Ave., 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500
          E-mail: jsabella@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Anthony David Phillips, Esq.
          Daniel E. Barenbaum, Esq.
          Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
          BERMAN DEVALERIO
          One California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
          E-mail: aphillips@bermandevalerio.com
                  dbarenbaum@bermandevalerio.com
                  jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com

               - and -

          Arthur Nash Bailey, Jr., Esq.
          Michael Paul Lehmann, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
          E-mail: abailey@hausfeldllp.com
                  mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          Whitney E. Street, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal Street, Suite 1303
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
          E-mail: jason@blockesq.com
                  jeff@blockesq.com
                  wstreet@blockesq.com

               - and -

          Robert S. Green, Esq.
          GREEN WELLING, P.C.
          595 Market Street, Suite 2750
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 477-6700
          Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
          E-mail: CAND.USCOURTS@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM

               - and -

          Robert S. Green, Esq.
          GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
          700 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 275
          Larkspur, CA 94939
          Telephone: (415) 477-6700
          Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
          E-mail: gnecf@classcounsel.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jennifer Corinne Bretan, Esq.
          Dean S. Kristy, Esq.
          Susan Samuels Muck, Esq.
          FENWICK & WEST LLP
          555 California Street, 12th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 875-2300
          Facsimile: (415) 281-1350
          E-mail: jbretan@fenwick.com
                  dkristy@fenwick.com
                  smuck@fenwick.com

               - and -

          Sara B. Brody, Esq.
          Naomi Ariel Igra, Esq.
          Robert Brooks Martin, III, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 California Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-1200
          Facsimile: (415) 772-7400
          E-mail: sbrody@sidley.com
                  nigra@sidley.com
                  rbmartin@sidley.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Shepard, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          4 Embarcadero, 22nd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 374-2300
          Facsimile: (415) 374-2499
          E-mail: michael.shepard@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Maren Jessica Clouse, Esq.
          Norman J. Blears, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS LLP
          525 University Avenue, 4th Floor
          Palo Alto, CA 94301
          Telephone: (650) 463-4000
          Facsimile: (650) 463-4199
          E-mail: maren.clouse@hoganlovells.com
                  norman.blears@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Anne Kaldor Sauro, Esq.
          Dale E. Barnes, Jr.
          BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4067
          Telephone: (415) 393-2000
          Facsimile: (415) 393-2286
          E-mail: annie.sauro@bingham.com
                  dale.barnes@bingham.com

               - and -

          Gwyn Donna Quillen, Esq.
          BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP
          1601 Cloverfield Boulevard, Suite 2050-North
          Santa Monica, CA 90404-4060
          Telephone: (310) 255-9110
          Facsimile: (310) 907-2110
          E-mail: gwyn.quillen@bingham.com

               - and -

          John Warren Rissier, Esq.
          BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN
          355 So. Grand Avenue, Suite 4400
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-6860
          Facsimile: (213) 680-6499
          E-mail: warren.rissier@bingham.com

The Movants are represented by:

          Brian Joseph Barry, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN BARRY
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (323) 522-5584
          E-mail: bribarry1@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Peter Arthur Binkow, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: pbinkow@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Jiangxiao Athena Hou, Esq.
          ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1920
          Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
          E-mail: ahou@zelle.com

               - and -

          Tricia Lynn McCormick, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: triciam@rgrdlaw.com

The Interested Party, Artisan Partners Limited Partnership, is
represented by:

          Matthew Gordon Ball, Esq.
          Jason Nathaniel Haycock, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 882-8200
          Facsimile: (415) 882-8220
          E-mail: matthew.ball@klgates.com
                  jason.haycock@klgates.com

The case is In Re Diamond Foods, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case
No. 3:11-cv-05386-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco).

Diamond Foods, Inc. (Nasdaq:DMND) -- http://www.diamondfoods.com/
-- is an innovative packaged food company focused on building and
energizing brands including Kettle(R) Chips, Emerald(R) snack
nuts, Pop Secret(R) popcorn, and Diamond of California(R) nuts.
Diamond's products are distributed in a wide range of stores where
snacks and culinary nuts are sold.


DOLLAR TREE: Decertification Stands Against Plaintiffs' Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a labor suit against Dollar Tree, Inc. appealed a
decertification order in the case but failed in its effort,
according to the company's Aug. 22, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Aug. 3, 2013.

In 2006, a former store manager filed a collective action against
the Company in Alabama federal court claiming that she and other
store managers should have been classified as non-exempt employees
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and received overtime
compensation.

The Court preliminarily allowed nationwide (except California)
certification, however granted the Company's motion to decertify
on November 2, 2012. The individual claims of the four named
plaintiffs proceeded to trial and on March 1, 2013, the jury
returned verdicts in all four cases in favor of the Company.

The individual claims of the remaining 261 opt-in plaintiffs were
dismissed without prejudice and approximately 61 of these
plaintiffs filed individual suits in various federal courts
throughout the country. Plaintiffs appealed the decertification
Order and the jury verdicts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
11th Circuit. Thereafter the appeal was dismissed and all of the
cases of the individual plaintiffs were resolved for immaterial
amounts which are included in the accompanying condensed
consolidated financial statements.


DOLLAR TREE: California State Court Labor Suit in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing but no trial date has been set yet in a suit
filed by a former assistant store manager against Dollar Tree,
Inc., according to the company's Aug. 22, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Aug. 3, 2013.

In April 2011, a former assistant store manager, on behalf of
himself and those similarly situated, instituted a class action in
a California state court primarily alleging a failure by the
Company to provide meal breaks, to compensate for all hours
worked, and to pay overtime compensation. The Company removed the
case to federal court which denied plaintiffs' motion for remand
of the case to state court. Discovery is ongoing. No trial date
has been set.


DOLLAR TREE: Certification Briefing in Va. Suit Began in Sept.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Phase I certification discovery is complete and certification
briefing begins in September 2013 in a suit filed by an assistant
store manager and other hourly associate against Dollar Tree, Inc.
in the Eastern District of Virginia, according to the company's
Aug. 22, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 3, 2013.

In the summer of 2011, a collective action lawsuit was filed
against the Company in federal court in Illinois by an assistant
store manager and other hourly associate, each alleging she was
forced to work off the clock in violation of the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The case was transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia in
June 2012 and the Virginia federal judge ruled that all claims
made on behalf of assistant store managers under both the FLSA and
state law should be dismissed. The court, however, did
conditionally certify under the FLSA a class of all hourly sales
associates who worked for Dollar Tree from October 2, 2009 to the
present. Notice to the putative class was issued and approximately
6,280 plaintiffs opted into the case. Phase I certification
discovery is complete and certification briefing begins in
September 2013. No trial date has been set.

Four other FLSA collective action lawsuits were filed against the
Company in federal courts in Georgia, Colorado, Florida and
Michigan alleging essentially the same claims. These cases have
been resolved, pending court approval, for immaterial amounts
which are included in the accompanying condensed consolidated
financial statements.


DOLLAR TREE: No Trial Yet in Cal. Suit by Former Employee
---------------------------------------------------------
No trial date has been set yet in a suit filed by a former
assistant store manager in a California state court, alleging the
Company failed to provide paid, duty-free 10 minute rest breaks to
assistant store managers, according to the company's Aug. 22,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 3, 2013.

In July 2012, a former assistant store manager, on behalf of
himself and those similarly situated, filed a class action
Complaint in a California state court, alleging the Company failed
to provide paid, duty-free 10 minute rest breaks to assistant
store managers who worked for periods in excess of three and one-
half hours. The alleged relevant time period is July 13, 2008 to
the present.

The Company removed the case to federal court, however, it was
remanded to state court when plaintiff indicated the damages
sought were less than $5.0 million, the jurisdictional amount
under the federal Class Action Fairness Act. No trial date has
been set.


DOLLAR TREE: Nov. Trial Set in Employee Misclassification Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A suit alleging Dollar Tree, Inc. misclassified certain employees
as exempt employees, is scheduled for trial in November 2013,
according to the company's Aug. 22, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Aug. 3, 2013.

In August 2012, two former store managers, under California's
Private Attorney General Act (PAGA), instituted suit in a
California state court, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly aggrieved in the state of California, alleging they were
misclassified by the Company as exempt employees. The Company
removed the case to federal court. Discovery is complete and the
Company's Motions for Summary Judgment and to Dismiss under PAGA
have been filed but not ruled upon. The case is scheduled for
trial in November 2013.


DOLLAR TREE: Suit by Former Assistant Store Manager in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced but no trial date has been set in a suit
filed by a former assistant store manager of Dollar Tree, Inc. in
February 2013, according to the company's Aug. 22, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Aug. 3, 2013.

In February 2013, a former assistant store manager on behalf of
himself and those similarly aggrieved filed a representative claim
under California's Private Attorney General Act, alleging the
Company failed to provide meal and rest periods; failed to pay
minimum, regular and overtime wages; failed to maintain accurate
time records and wage statements; and failed to pay wages due upon
termination of employment. The Company removed the case from a
California state court to federal court. Discovery has commenced
and no trial date has been set.

The Company will vigorously defend itself in these matters. The
Company does not believe that any of these matters will,
individually or in the aggregate, have a material effect on its
business or financial condition. The Company cannot give
assurance, however, that one or more of these lawsuits will not
have a material effect on its results of operations for the period
in which they are resolved. Based on the information available to
the Company, including the amount of time remaining before trial,
the results of discovery and the judgment of internal and external
counsel, the Company is unable to express an opinion as to the
outcome of those matters which are not settled and cannot estimate
a potential range of loss.


FIRST COMMONWEALTH: Awaits Ruling in "McGrogan" Suit Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
First Commonwealth Financial Corporation is awaiting a court
decision in the appeal from the dismissal of a class action
lawsuit against its bank subsidiary, 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.

McGrogan v. First Commonwealth Bank is a class action that was
filed on January 12, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.  The action alleges that First
Commonwealth Bank (the "Bank") promised class members a minimum
interest rate of 8% on its IRA Market Rate Savings Account for as
long as the class members kept their money on deposit in the IRA
account.  The class asserts that the Bank committed fraud,
breached its modified contract with the class members, and
violated the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer
Protection Law when it resigned as custodian of the IRA Market
Rate Savings Accounts in 2008 and offered the class members a
roll-over IRA account with a 3.5% interest rate.  At that time,
there were 237 account holders with an average age of 64, and the
aggregate balances in the IRA Market Rate Savings accounts totaled
approximately $11.5 million.  The Plaintiffs seek monetary damages
for the alleged breach of contract, punitive damages for the
alleged fraud and Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection
Law violations and attorney's fees.  On July 27, 2011, the court
granted class certification as to the breach of modified contract
claim and denied class certification as to the fraud and
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law
claims.  The breach of contract claim is predicated upon a letter
sent to customers in 1998 which reversed an earlier decision by
the Bank to reduce the rate paid on the accounts.  The letter
stated, in relevant part, "This letter will serve as notification
that a decision has been made to re-establish the rate on your
account to eight percent (8)%. This rate will be retroactive to
your most recent maturity date and will continue going forward on
deposits presently in the account and on annual additions."

On August 30, 2012, the Court entered an order granting the Bank's
motion for summary judgment and dismissing the class action
claims.  The Court found that the Bank retained the right to
resign as custodian of the accounts and that the act of resigning
as custodian and closing the accounts did not breach the terms of
the underlying IRA contract.  The Plaintiffs have filed an appeal
with the Pennsylvania Superior Court.  The appeal was argued
before the Superior Court on May 7, 2013.  A decision is currently
pending.

First Commonwealth Financial Corporation --
http://www.fcbanking.com/-- is a financial holding company that
is headquartered in Indiana, Pennsylvania.  The Company provides a
diversified array of consumer and commercial banking services
through its bank subsidiary, First Commonwealth Bank.  The Company
also provides trust and wealth management services and offer
insurance products through FCB and the Company's other operating
subsidiaries.


FNB CORP: Awaits Preliminary OK of Merger-Related Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
F.N.B. Corporation is awaiting preliminary approval of its
settlement of a merger-related lawsuit, according to the Company's
August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On April 6, 2013, the Corporation completed its acquisition of
Annapolis Bancorp, Inc. (ANNB), a bank holding company based in
Annapolis, Maryland.

On November 8, 2012, a purported stockholder of ANNB filed a
derivative complaint on behalf of ANNB in the Circuit Court for
Anne Arundel County, Maryland, captioned Andera v. Lerner, et al.,
Case no. 02C12173766, and naming as defendants ANNB, its board of
directors and the Corporation.  The lawsuit makes various
allegations against the defendants, including that the merger
consideration is inadequate and undervalues the company, that the
director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to ANNB in
approving the merger, and that the Corporation aided and abetted
those alleged breaches.  The lawsuit generally seeks an injunction
barring the defendants from consummating the merger.  In addition,
the lawsuit seeks rescission of the merger agreement to the extent
already implemented or, in the alternative, award of rescissory
damages, an accounting to plaintiff for all damages caused by the
defendants and for all profits and special benefits obtained as a
result of the defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties,
and an award of the costs and expenses incurred in the action,
including a reasonable allowance for counsel fees and expert fees.

On February 7, 2013, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint with
additional allegations regarding certain purported non-disclosures
relating to the proxy statement/prospectus for the pending merger
filed with the SEC on January 23, 2013.  On February 22, 2013,
solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in
litigation, ANNB, the ANNB board of directors, the Corporation and
the plaintiff reached an agreement in principle to settle the
action, and expect to memorialize that agreement in a written
agreement.  As part of this agreement in principle, the
Corporation and ANNB agreed to disclose additional information in
the proxy statement/prospectus filed on February 25, 2013.  No
substantive term of the merger agreement was modified as part of
this settlement.  The settlement agreement will be subject to
court approval.  The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement on July 3, 2013.

F.N.B. Corporation, headquartered in Hermitage, Pennsylvania --
http://www.fnbcorporation.com/-- is a regional diversified
financial services company operating in six states and three major
metropolitan areas, including Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Baltimore,
Maryland and Cleveland, Ohio.  The Corporation provides a full
range of commercial banking, consumer banking and wealth
management solutions through its subsidiary network which is led
by its largest affiliate, First National Bank of Pennsylvania.


FNB CORP: Faces PVF Capital Merger-Related Class Suit in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
F.N.B. Corporation is facing a merger-related class action lawsuit
in Ohio, according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On February 19, 2013, the Corporation announced the signing of a
definitive merger agreement to acquire PVF Capital Corp. (PVF), a
savings and loan holding company with approximately $782 million
in total assets based in Solon, Ohio.  The transaction is valued
at approximately $106,300. Under the terms of the merger
agreement, PVF shareholders will be entitled to receive 0.3405
shares of the Corporation's common stock for each share of PVF
common stock. PVF's banking affiliate, Park View Federal Savings
Bank, will be merged into FNBPA.  The Corporation has received
regulatory approvals.  The transaction is expected to be completed
in the fourth quarter of 2013, pending the approval of
shareholders of PVF and the satisfaction of other closing
conditions.

On July 24, 2013, a purported shareholder of PVF filed a putative
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, captioned Kugelman v. PVF Capital Corp., et al.,
Case No. 1:13-cv-01606, and naming as defendants PVF, its board of
directors and the Corporation.  The plaintiff alleges that the
disclosures in PVF's proxy statement are inadequate, and that the
director defendants breached their fiduciary duties to PVF by
approving the proposed merger and by their involvement in
preparing the proxy statement.  The plaintiff seeks an injunction
barring the defendants from completing the merger; rescission of
the merger agreement to the extent already implemented or, in the
alternative, and award of rescissory damages; an accounting to
plaintiff for all damages caused by the defendants; and an award
of the costs and expenses incurred by the plaintiff in the
lawsuit, including a reasonable allowance for counsel fees and
expert fees.  Based on the facts known to date, the defendants
believe that the claims asserted in the complaint are without
merit.

The Corporation intends to vigorously defend the stockholder
claims in the PVF matter.  Currently, it is not yet possible for
the Corporation to estimate the potential losses, if any.
Although it is not possible to predict the ultimate resolution or
any potential financial liability with respect to these litigation
matters, management after consultation with legal counsel,
currently does not anticipate that the aggregate liability, if
any, arising out of either of these proceedings will have a
material adverse effect on the Corporation's financial position or
cash flows; although, at the present time, management is not in a
position to determine whether such proceedings will have a
material adverse effect on the Corporation's results of operations
in any future quarterly reporting period.

F.N.B. Corporation, headquartered in Hermitage, Pennsylvania --
http://www.fnbcorporation.com/-- is a regional diversified
financial services company operating in six states and three major
metropolitan areas, including Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Baltimore,
Maryland and Cleveland, Ohio.  The Corporation provides a full
range of commercial banking, consumer banking and wealth
management solutions through its subsidiary network which is led
by its largest affiliate, First National Bank of Pennsylvania.


FORTEGRA FINANCIAL: "Lawson" Plaintiff Fails in Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in Lawson v. Life of the South Insurance Co. did not
succeed in appealing a ruling denying class certification to a
suit over the refund of unearned premiums on credit insurance
policies, according to Fortegra Financial Corporation's Aug. 23,
2013, Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

In the Payment Protection segment, the Company is currently a
defendant in lawsuits that relate to marketing and/or pricing
issues that involve claims for punitive, exemplary or extra-
contractual damages in amounts substantially in excess of the
covered claim.

Such litigation includes Lawson v. Life of the South Insurance
Co., which was filed on March 13, 2006, in the Superior Court of
Muscogee County, Georgia, and later moved to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Columbus
Division.

The allegations involve the Company's alleged duty to refund
unearned premiums on credit insurance policies, even when the
Company has not been informed of the payoff of the underlying
finance contract. The action seeks an injunction requiring
remedial action, as well as a variety of damages, including
punitive damages and attorney fees and costs.

The action was brought as a class action, however the Company's
May 11, 2012 Motion to Strike or Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Action
Allegations, or in the Alternative, to Deny Class Certification
was granted on September 28, 2012.  Plaintiff's appeal of such
ruling was denied on December 7, 2012.  The merits discovery phase
continues in the individual, underlying case.


FORTEGRA FINANCIAL: "Mullins" Plaintiffs Appeal to Ky. High Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fortegra Financial Corporation is currently appealing to the
Kentucky Supreme Court the denial of its opposition to a court
order for the company to subpoena certain records from its agents
in the suit Mullins v. Southern Financial Life Insurance Co.,
according to Fortegra's Aug. 23, 2013, Form 10-K/A (Amendment
No. 1) with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

Also in the Payment Protection segment, the Company is currently a
defendant in Mullins v. Southern Financial Life Insurance Co.,
which was filed on February 2, 2006, in the Pike Circuit Court, in
the Commonwealth of Kentucky.  A class was certified on June 25,
2010.  At issue is the duration or term of coverage under certain
policies.

The action alleges violations of the Consumer Protection Act and
certain insurance statutes, as well as common law fraud.  The
action seeks compensatory and punitive damages, attorney fees and
interest.  The parties are currently involved in the merits
discovery phase and discovery disputes have arisen.

Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Sanctions on April 5, 2012 in
connection with the Company's efforts to locate and gather
certificates and other documents from the Company's agents.

While the court did not award sanctions, it did order the Company
to subpoena certain records from its agents.  The Company filed an
appeal of this order, which was denied on August 31, 2012.  The
Company is currently appealing the denial in the Kentucky Supreme
Court. To date, no trial date has been set.


FOX ENTERTAINMENT: Appeals Intern Wage Class Action Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Ben James and Richard Vanderford, writing for Law360, report that
Fox Entertainment Group Inc. urged the Second Circuit on Oct. 1 to
define the proper standard for ascertaining whether unpaid interns
qualify as employees under federal wage law, citing the volume of
intern wage suits and judicial disagreement about how to determine
if interns qualify as employees.

Fox Entertainment and Fox Searchlight Pictures Inc. filed a
petition seeking a green light from the Second Circuit for an
appeal of a June ruling from U.S. District Judge William Pauley
that said two unpaid interns who worked on the movie "Black Swan"
were actually employees and granted class and collective action
certification to another intern who worked in Fox Searchlight's
corporate offices.

In a separate putative class action brought on behalf of unpaid
interns at Hearst Corp. magazines, however, U. S. District Judge
Harold Baer used a different legal standard than Judge Pauley and
reached the opposite conclusion, refusing to certify an intern
class against Hearst, the Oct. 1 petition pointed out.

"Despite their disagreement over this question, Judge Pauley and
Judge Baer agree on one thing: They had decided controlling
questions of law as to which there was substantial ground for
difference of opinion.  Both judges acknowledged that an immediate
appeal of their respective orders would materially advance the
ultimate termination of their litigation, certifying their
respective orders for interlocutory appeal to this court," Fox
said.

There are more than a dozen cases in which New York state and
federal courts are dealing with the question of how to determine
if employees are interns, Fox said, adding that the Second Circuit
has yet to decide the issue and other appeals courts are split.

The disagreement between the Hearst and Fox decisions centers on a
U.S. Department of Labor "Fact Sheet" on internship programs that
lays out six criteria for determining if interns are owed wages
under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, according to Fox.

Judge Pauley looked at the six factors "to the exclusion of all
other facts and circumstances," but Judge Baer took a "totality of
circumstances" approach, Fox said.

The same counsel are representing the interns in the Hearst and
Fox cases, the petition noted, pointing out that the plaintiffs'
attorneys are opposing interlocutory Second Circuit review in the
Fox case while seeking it in Hearst. According to Fox, the Second
Circuit should agree to hear both appeals.

The lawsuit dates back to September 2010, when named plaintiffs
Eric Glatt and Alexander Footman sued Fox Searchlight Pictures
Inc.  The duo, who worked on the set of "Black Swan," claimed Fox
Searchlight was essentially using the free labor provided by the
interns to keep costs down.

Judge Pauley subsequently expanded the scope of the litigation,
granting a request to include as a plaintiff corporate intern Eden
Antalik, who worked for Fox Searchlight parent Fox Entertainment.

The June 11 order Fox wants the Second Circuit to review granted a
motion for class and collective certification from Ms. Antalik,
who worked in Fox Searchlight's publicity department in 2009.  The
same decision granted to Glatt and Footman summary judgment on the
issue of whether they were employees under the FLSA and New York
Labor Law.

Fox wants the Second Circuit to tackle the appropriate legal
standard for determining if an unpaid intern qualifies as an
employee under the FLSA, as well as the proper legal standard for
post-discovery certification of an FLSA collective.

Fox Entertainment is represented at the Second Circuit by Elise
Bloom -- ebloom@proskauer.com -- Mark Harris --
mharris@proskauer.com -- and Amy F. Melican --
amelican@proskauer.com  -- of Proskauer Rose LLP, as well as Neal
Katyal -- neal.katyal@hoganlovells.com -- and Mary Helen Wimberly
-- mary.wimberly@hoganlovells.com -- of Hogan Lovells US LLP.

The plaintiffs are represented before the appeals court by Adam T.
Klein, Rachel M. Bien and Juno Turner of Outten & Golden LLP.

The case is Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures Inc., case number
13-2467 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


GLOBE UNIVERSITY: Sued for Lying About Inferior Accreditation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maura Lerner, writing for Star Tribune, reports that five students
have filed a class-action lawsuit against Globe University in
Woodbury, accusing the for-profit school of misleading and
manipulating prospective students and lying about its job-
placement rates and accreditation.

The new allegations surfaced just two months after a former dean,
Heidi Weber, won a $395,000 judgment against Globe in a
whistleblower lawsuit over alleged ethical violations at the
school.  The students began contacting Weber's Minneapolis
attorneys, Halunen & Associates, about "potential legal
grievances" after the August verdict, according to a statement
from the attorneys.  The new lawsuit was filed Oct. 2 in Hennepin
County District Court.

Among other things, the lawsuit says that Globe uses deceptive
advertising to recruit students, and "lies about, and/or obscures
the truth about its inferior accreditation, which . . . causes
employers to reject its graduates."

Naomi McDonald, a Globe spokeswoman, called the lawsuit
unfortunate and disappointing.  "We are saddened that these
individuals chose to handle their concerns this way," she said in
a written statement.  "Lawsuit aside, as a college you never want
to hear that a student is unhappy with their education." At the
same time, she said, "We know the sentiment of these five does not
reflect all, and we will not allow it to cast a black eye on the
thousands of students proud to be a member of our schools."

One former student, Sarah Beck of Sioux Falls, S.D., said that
when she enrolled, she was told that Globe was fully accredited
and that its credits would transfer to any school or university.
But she discovered the opposite when she graduated from its health
care management program in 2010, with more than $41,000 in student
loans.  "When she tried to transfer her credits to three other
postsecondary institutions, all of them rejected Globe's credits,
saying Globe's health care management program is unaccredited,"
the lawsuit said.

Globe's recruiters gave the same false assurances to at least four
other students, according to the complaint, and exaggerated the
wages that they could expect on graduation.

"These degrees are nearly worthless," said the lawsuit.

The allegations echo the complaints raised by Ms. Weber, the
former dean of Globe's medical assistant program, in her
whistleblower lawsuit against the school in 2011.  Ms. Weber said
she was fired after complaining about falsified job placement
numbers and other misleading recruitment tactics.

Globe denied Ms. Weber's charges.  But in August, a Washington
County jury ordered the school to pay the former dean $205,000 for
lost wages and $190,000 for emotional distress.  Globe has an
estimated 7,900 students in its online career programs and at 20
campuses in Minnesota, South Dakota and Wisconsin.


HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: Suit Over Overdraft Fees vs. ASB Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the
First Circuit Court of the State of Hawaii by a customer who
claimed that American Savings Bank, F.S.B., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of American Savings Holdings, Inc., had improperly
charged overdraft fees on debit card transactions.  ASHI is a
subsidiary of Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc.  The lawsuit is
still in its preliminary stage, thus, the probable outcome and
range of reasonably possible loss are not determinable at this
time.

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.

Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., is the direct parent company
of Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc., American Savings Holdings,
Inc., HEI Properties, Inc., Hawaiian Electric Industries Capital
Trust II, Hawaiian Electric Industries Capital Trust III and The
Old Oahu Tug Service, Inc. (formerly Hawaiian Tug & Barge Corp.)


HECLA MINING: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hecla Mining Company is still awaiting a court decision on its
motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit,
according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

On February 1, 2012, a purported Hecla stockholder filed a
putative class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho against Hecla and certain of the Company's
officers, one of whom is also a director.  The complaint,
purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of Hecla common
stock from October 26, 2010, through and including January 11,
2012, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and seeks, among other things, damages and costs and
expenses.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that Hecla, under
the authority and control of the individual defendants, made
certain false and misleading statements and allegedly omitted
certain material information related to operational issues at the
Lucky Friday mine.  The complaint alleges that these actions
artificially inflated the market price of Hecla common stock
during the class period, thus purportedly harming investors who
purchased shares during that time.  A second lawsuit was filed on
February 14, 2012, alleging virtually identical claims.  These
complaints have been consolidated into a single case, a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel have been appointed by the Court
(Bricklayers of Western Pennsylvania Pension Plan, et al. v. Hecla
Mining Company et al., Case No. 12-0042 (D. Idaho)), and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed on October 16, 2012.  In
January 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of this lawsuit or
estimate damages if plaintiffs were to prevail.  The Company
believes that these claims are without merit and intends to defend
them vigorously.

Hecla Mining Company -- http://www.hecla-mining.com/-- and its
subsidiaries have provided precious and base metals to the U.S.
economy and worldwide since 1891.  The Company discovers,
acquires, develops, produces and markets silver, gold, lead and
zinc.  Hecla Mining is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.


HULU: Disputes Video Privacy Claims in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Julia Love, writing for The Recorder, reports that striving to
knock out a class action, video streaming site Hulu insists that
viewers who have sued the company under a 1980s video privacy law
cannot win damages because they have not actually been injured.

A would-be class of viewers alleges that Hulu wrongfully shared
their viewing selections and personal information with Facebook
and data analytic firm comScore.  The practice violated the Video
Privacy Protection Act, which bars video providers from disclosing
customers' video selections and personally identifiable
information to third parties, plaintiffs lawyers at Parisi &
Havens, Strange & Carpenter and KamberLaw contend.

But Hulu's lawyers at O'Melveny & Myers argue in a motion for
summary judgment filed on Oct. 1 that the suit is doomed because
plaintiffs can't show they have been harmed.  Moreover, Hulu only
shared anonymous user data, which is not covered by the VPPA,
defense lawyers claim.

"The VPPA was not adopted to impose multi-billion dollar liability
on the transmission of anonymous data where no one suffers any
actual injury," O'Melveny partner Robert Schwartz --
rschwartz@omm.com -- wrote in the motion.  "In asking the court to
turn its back on all of that, plaintiffs are simply asking too
much."

Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not respond to requests for
comment.  Mr. Schwartz declined to comment.

Congress adopted the VPPA in 1988 after a newspaper published a
list of videos rented by Robert Bork, who was then a nominee for
the Supreme Court.

Last year, Hulu moved to dismiss the Northern District privacy
suits, arguing that it was not a "video tape service provider" as
defined by the law.  U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler let the
claim stand in August 2012, finding that the statute was intended
to cover video content regardless of how it had been delivered.
However, she had previously rejected half a dozen other claims
filed against Hulu.

In late August, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification in In Re Hulu Privacy Litigation, 11-3764.  A
similar suit against Netflix settled last year for $9 million,
with $6.75 million going to privacy groups and $2.25 million to
plaintiffs attorneys.  The settlement has been appealed.


IMPERIAL SUGAR: Suit Tossed; Complaint May Be Amended by Oct. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Bonnie Barron reports that a
federal judge tossed a consolidated class action accusing Imperial
Sugar Company of artificially inflating its stock price as it
struggled to refine and pack its products.

Imperial Sugar, CEO John Sheptor, and senior vice president and
CFO Harold Mechler defrauded investors over a roughly eight-month
period, according to a complaint filed by the Carpenters Pension
Fund of Illinois.

An explosion occurred at the company's sugar refinery in Port
Wentworth, Georgia, on February 7, 2008, killing 14 workers and
injuring many others.  Production ceased at the facility until
2009, and the incident would allegedly lead to ongoing troubles
for the Company in the following years.

Investors were subsequently kept in the dark when it came to
operational problems, the impact of increased competition, and the
extent of the Company's need to purchase refined sugar from other
producers, the fund claims.

In February 2012, the fund secured the role of lead plaintiff for
a consolidated securities fraud case against Imperial Sugar.  By
the end of March, it had filed a consolidated complaint seeking
relief for a class of investors who bought the Company's publicly
traded common stock between December 29, 2010, and August 5, 2011.

U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal granted the motion to dismiss
the complaint on Friday, September 27, 2013, citing numerous
deficiencies in the fund's attempts to state a claim for relief.

The 66-page order explains that within the complaint there are
numerous statements from former employees whose identities are
kept confidential.

"In analyzing the complaint allegations here, the Fifth Circuit
approach requires giving relatively less weight to the allegations
from anonymous sources," Rosenthal wrote.

The judge also noted that "Carpenter's allegations do not give
rise to a strong inference that the defendants knowingly
misrepresented Port Wentworth's condition and productivity."

Rosenthal gave the fund until October 30 to amend its claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Mario Alba, Jr., Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          E-mail: DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com
                  malba@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Roger B. Greenberg, Esq.
          SCHWARTZ, JUNELL, GREENBERG & OATHOUT, LLP
          909 Fannin, Suite 2700
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 752-0017
          Facsimile: (713) 752-0327
          E-mail: rgreenberg@schwartz-junell.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Shonson, Esq.
          Jack Reise, Esq., Esq.
          Sabrina E. Tirabassi, Esq.
          Stephen R. Astley, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN AND DOWD LLP
          120 E Palmetto Park Rd., Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-3000
          E-mail: eshonson@rgrdlaw.com
                  jreise@rgrdlaw.com
                  stirabassi@rgrdlaw.com
                  sastley@rgrdlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Audra J. Soloway, Esq.
          Daniel Kramer, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019-6064
          Telephone: (212) 373-3289
          E-mail: ASoloway@paulweiss.com
                  DKramer@paulweiss.com

               - and -

          David D. Sterling, Esq.
          BAKER BOTTS LLP
          One Shell Plaza, Suite 3601
          910 Louisiana Street
          Houston, TX 77002-4995
          Telephone: (713) 229-1946
          Facsimile: (713) 229-1522
          E-mail: david.sterling@bakerbotts.com

The case is Dawes, et al. v. Imperial Sugar Company, et al., Case
No. 4:11-cv-03250, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas (Houston).


JBI INC: Grampp II Reveals Process to Settle Collective Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A recent complaint against JBI, Inc. revealed that the Company is
in the process of settling a Class Action, according to JBI's Aug.
19, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012.

The Company has learned that on August 9, 2013, a purported
shareholder derivative suit was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against John
Bordynuik, former Chief Executive Officer of the Company and a
former member of the Company's Board of Directors, and Ronald C.
Baldwin, former Chief Financial Officer of the Company.  The
Complaint was filed by Erwin Grampp, allegedly acting on behalf of
the Company, and it names the Company as a nominal defendant.
This is the second purported shareholder derivative suit that Mr.
Grampp has filed in which the Company has been named as a nominal
defendant.  The first such suit by Mr. Grampp was dismissed by the
court.

This recent Complaint ("Grampp II") alleges, inter alia, that
defendants Bordynuik and Baldwin breached fiduciary duties owed to
the Company by causing the Company to erroneously book certain
media credits in 2009.  Grampp II alleges that this conduct
resulted in two lawsuits against the Company, one an action
brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC Action")
and the other a purported class action by Ellisa Pancoe and Howard
Howell ("Class Action").  Grampp II alleges that the Company has
settled the SEC Action, and that the Company is in the process of
settling the Class Action, but that the Company has been damaged
as a result of these two lawsuits.

Grampp II seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Company from
defendants Bordynuik and Baldwin in an unspecified amount.  It
also seeks unspecified equitable relief, and costs and attorneys'
fees incurred in the action.  Pursuant to the Company's By-Laws,
the Company has an obligation to indemnify defendants Bordynuik
and Baldwin to the fullest extent permitted by Nevada law.


JC PENNEY: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Oct. 1 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of J.C.
Penney Company, Inc. common stock during the period between
August 20, 2013 and September 26, 2013.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from October 1, 2013.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

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

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

The complaint charges JCPenney and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
JCPenney is a retailer, operating 1,102 department stores in 49
states and Puerto Rico as of January 28, 2012.  JCPenney's
business consists of selling merchandise and services to consumers
through its department stores and through its Internet Website at
jcp.com.  The Company sells family apparel and footwear,
accessories, fine and fashion jewelry, beauty products through
Sephora inside JCPenney and home furnishings.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
violated the federal securities laws by disseminating false and
misleading statements to the investing public in connection with
the Company's finances.  Specifically, defendants failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented adverse facts, including that the
Company would have insufficient liquidity to get through year-end
and would require additional investments to make it through the
holiday season, and that the Company was concealing its need for
liquidity so as not to add to its vendors' concerns.  As a result
of defendants' false statements, JCPenney's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
high of $14.47 per share on September 9, 2013.

Then, on September 26, 2013, analysts reported that the Company
would need to take on additional debt to ensure that it had enough
cash to keep its business operations going.  On September 27,
2013, JCPenney issued a press release announcing the pricing of 84
million shares of its common stock at $9.65 per share in a
secondary offering, stating that "[t]he Company intends to use the
net proceeds from the offering for general corporate purposes."
On this news, JCPenney's stock fell $1.37 per share to close at
$9.05 per share on September 27, 2013, a one-day decline of 13% on
volume of 256 million shares.

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

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


JP MORGAN: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dist. Court Judgment in Amaranth Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the fall of 2006, Amaranth Advisors LLC, a hedge fund that had
heavily invested in natural gas futures, collapsed. A Senate
investigation would later conclude that Amaranth, in the months
leading up to its demise, had taken positions in natural gas
futures and swaps so massive that its trading directly affected
domestic natural gas prices and price volatility.

Plaintiffs-Appellants, traders who had bought or sold natural gas
futures during these same months, filed a complaint in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging that Amaranth had manipulated the price of natural gas
futures in violation of the Commodities Exchange Act ("CEA"), 7
U.S.C. Section 1 et seq.  Plaintiffs-Appellants also alleged that
Defendants-Appellees J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., J.P. Morgan Chase
Bank, Inc., and J.P. Morgan Futures, Inc. had aided and abetted
Amaranth's manipulation of natural gas futures through J.P.
Futures's services as Amaranth's futures commission merchant and
clearing broker. The district court, in October 6, 2008 and April
27, 2009 orders, concluded that both Plaintiffs-Appellants'
complaint and amended complaint failed to state claims against
J.P. Morgan.

Plaintiffs-Appellants argue on appeal that the district court did
not apply the correct standard for evaluating the sufficiency of
their amended complaint and likewise failed to recognize the
amended complaint's well-pleaded allegations that J.P. Futures
aided and abetted Amaranth's manipulation within the meaning of
Section 22 of the CEA, 7 U.S.C. Section 25(a).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
concludes that the district court did not err in concluding that
Plaintiffs-Appellants' amended complaint failed to state a claim
against J.P. Futures, and therefore, affirms the judgment of the
district court.

The case is IN RE: AMARANTH NATURAL GAS COMMODITIES LITIGATION.
ROBERTO E. CALLE GRACEY, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, JOHN F. SPECIAL, GREGORY H. SMITH, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, ALAN MARTIN,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., J.P.
MORGAN CHASE BANK, INC., J.P. MORGAN FUTURES, INC., Defendants-
Appellees, AMARANTH ADVISORS, LLC, AMARANTH ADVISORS CALGARY ULC,
AMARANTH CAPITAL PARTNERS LLC, AMARANTH PARTNERS LLC, NICHOLAS M.
MAOUNIS, ALX ENERGY INCORPORATED, JAMES DELUCIA, GOTHAM ENERGY
BROKERS INC., AMARANTH MANAGEMENT LP, AMARANTH INTERNATIONAL
ADVISORS L.L.C., AMARANTH LLC, AMARANTH GROUP INC., AMARANTH
INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, JAMES DELUCIA, L.P., BRIAN HUNTER, TFS
ENERGY FUTURES LLC, MATTHEW DONOHOE, Defendants, NO. 12-2075-CV.

A copy of the Appeals Court's September 23, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/jrHQS8from Leagle.com.

For Plaintiffs-Appellants, Peter D. St. Phillip Jr. --
pstphillip@lowey.com -- and Vincent Briganti --
vbriganti@lowey.com -- Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C., White
Plains, NY, on the brief), and:

   Christopher Lovell, Esq.
   Gary S. Jacobson, Esq.
   Amanda N. Miller, Esq.
   LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP
   61 Broadway, Suite 501
   New York, NY 10006
   Tel: (212) 608-1900

ERIC S. GOLDSTEIN -- egoldstein@paulweiss.com --  (Daniel J. Toal
-- dtoal@paulweiss.com -- on the brief), Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.


LEGGETT & PLATT: Defends Antitrust Suits Over Polyurethane Foam
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated, continues to defend itself against
antitrust lawsuits filed by purchasers of polyurethane foam
products in the U.S. and Canada, 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 August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits was initiated
in several U.S. federal courts and in Canada against over 20
defendants alleging that competitors of the Company's carpet
underlay business unit and other manufacturers of polyurethane
foam products had engaged in price fixing in violation of U.S. and
Canadian antitrust laws.

A number of these lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed, most
without prejudice.  Of the U.S. cases remaining, the Company has
been named as a defendant in:

   (a) three direct purchaser class action cases (the first on
       November 15, 2010) and a consolidated amended class action
       complaint on behalf of a class of all direct purchasers of
       polyurethane foam products;

   (b) an indirect purchaser class consolidated amended complaint
       filed on March 21, 2011; and an indirect purchaser class
       action case filed on May 23, 2011;

   (c) 38 individual direct purchaser cases filed between
       March 22, 2011, and June 20, 2013; and

   (d) two individual cases alleging direct and indirect
       purchaser claims under the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act,
       one filed on November 29, 2012, and the other on April 11,
       2013.

All of the pending U.S. federal cases in which the Company has
been named as a defendant, have been filed in or transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under
the name In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
1:10-MD-2196.

In the U.S. actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves
and/or a class of purchasers, seek three times the amount of
unspecified damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged
overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products from at
least 1999 to the present.  Each plaintiff also seeks attorney
fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs, and
injunctive relief against future violations.  On April 15, and
May 6, 2011, the Company filed motions to dismiss the U.S. direct
purchaser and indirect purchaser class actions in the consolidated
case in Ohio, for failure to state a legally valid claim.  On
July 19, 2011, the Ohio Court denied the motions to dismiss.
Discovery is underway in the U.S. actions.  Motions for class
certification have been filed on behalf of both direct and
indirect purchasers.  A hearing on the motions is expected to be
held in December 2013.

The Company has been named in two Canadian class action cases (for
direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam products),
both under the name Hi Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited and
Hickory Springs Manufacturing Company, et.al. in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice (Windsor), Court File Nos. CV-10-15164
(amended November 2, 2011) and CV-11-17279 (issued December 30,
2011).  In each of the Canadian cases, the plaintiffs, on behalf
of themselves and/or a class of purchasers, seek from over 13
defendants restitution of the amount allegedly overcharged,
general and special damages in the amount of $100 million,
punitive damages of $10 million, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, and the costs of the investigation and the action.  The
Company is not yet required to file its defenses in the Canadian
actions.  In addition, on July 10, 2012, the plaintiff in a class
action case (for direct and indirect purchasers of polyurethane
foam products) styled Option Consommateurs and Karine Robillard v.
Produits Vitafoam Canada Limitee, et. al. in the Quebec Superior
Court of Justice (Montreal), Court File No. 500-6-524-104, filed
an amended motion for authorization seeking to add the Company and
other manufacturers of polyurethane foam products as defendants in
this case.

On June 22, 2012, the Company was also made party to a lawsuit
brought in the 16th Judicial Circuit Court, Jackson County,
Missouri, Case Number 1216-CV15179 under the caption "Dennis
Baker, on Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated vs.
Leggett & Platt, Incorporated."  The plaintiff, on behalf of
himself and/or a class of indirect purchasers of polyurethane foam
products in the State of Missouri, alleged that the Company
violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act based upon the
Company's alleged illegal price inflation of flexible polyurethane
foam products.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified actual damages,
punitive damages and the recovery of reasonable attorney fees.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss this action, which was
denied on November 5, 2012.  Discovery has commenced and plaintiff
has filed a motion for class certification.

The Company denies all of the allegations in all of the actions
and will vigorously defend itself.  These contingencies are
subject to many uncertainties.  Therefore, based on the
information available to date, the Company cannot estimate the
amount or range of potential loss, if any, because, at this
juncture of the proceedings; discovery is incomplete (class
certification issues are not yet ripe, all expert liability
reports have not been exchanged); and because the litigation
involves unsettled legal theories.

Based in Carthage, Missouri, Leggett & Platt, Incorporated is a
manufacturer of components for residential furniture and bedding,
power foundations, carpet underlay, components for office
furniture, drawn steel wire, automotive seat support and lumbar
systems, and bedding industry machinery.


LIGHTINTHEBOX HOLDING: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Oct. 1 disclosed that
a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of
all persons who purchased American Depositary Shares of
LightInTheBox Holding Co., Ltd. between its initial public
offering on June 6, 2013, and August 19, 2013, inclusive, against
the Company and certain of the Company's officers, alleging
securities fraud pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. 78j(b) and 78t(a)] and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC [17 C.F.R. 240.10b-
5].

The litigation is styled Pearlman v. LightInTheBox Holding Co.,
Ltd., C.A. No. 13-cv-6929. A copy of the complaint filed in this
action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP website at
http://www.whafh.com

As alleged in the Complaint, during the Class Period, Defendants
materially overstated LHC's prospects and growth potential and
materially misled the investing public by issuing false and
misleading statements and omitting material facts necessary to
make Defendants' statements not false and misleading.  More
specifically, the registration statement and the associated
prospectus used to conduct the IPO contained material
misstatements regarding Company growth and revenue projections.
Further, during the Company's initial public offering ("IPO")
roadshow, senior management issued growth targets which were made
solely for the purpose of igniting a market for the Company's IPO,
but which later turned out to be false.

The truth about the Company's actual financial condition came out
on August 19, 2013, following the Company's announcement of its
second quarter financial results.  The Company failed to meet
market expectations of $75.8 million in revenue and earnings of
$0.06 per share, as LHC could only manage $72.2 million in revenue
and $0.05 earning per share.  The Company's profitability suffered
because its revenue growth of 52.6% could not offset the company's
57% increase in operational costs.  The primary cause for the
Company's poor results was that the sales of wedding and prom
dress were much weaker during the second quarter of 2013 than
Defendants had represented in the Registration Statement and
during the road show.

On this news the Company's ADS, which traded as high as $23.38 per
share intraday during the Class Period, collapsed approximately
40% from its close on August 19, 2013 to close at $11.58 per share
on August 20, 2013.  In ignorance of the false and misleading
nature of the statements described in the Complaint, and the
deceptive and manipulative devices and contrivances employed by
said Defendants, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class
relied, to their detriment, on the integrity of the market price
of the Company's ADS.  Had Plaintiff and the other members of the
Class known the truth, they would not have purchased said ADS, or
would not have purchased them at the inflated prices that were
paid.

If you purchased the Company's ADS during the Class Period, you
may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff by
October 28, 2013.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that
acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Wolf
Haldenstein, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your
counsel in this action.

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

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


MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Oct. 15 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Sept. 30
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
McDermott International, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The
class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern
District of Texas, and docketed under 13-cv-2442, is on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of McDermott between November 6,
2012 and August 5, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This class action
seeks to recover damages against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors as a result of alleged violations of the
federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased McDermott securities during
the Class Period, you have until October 15, 2013 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

McDermott is an engineering, procurement, construction and
installation ("EPCI") company focused on executing complex
offshore oil and gas projects worldwide.  The Company provides
integrated EPCI services for upstream field developments
including, fixed and floating production facilities, pipelines and
subsea systems from concepts to commissioning.  McDermott operates
in approximately 20 countries across the Atlantic, Middle East and
Asia Pacific area.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (a) the Company was experiencing weakness in its project
bidding and execution; (b) the Company was engaging in poor risk
evaluation; (c) the Company had been experiencing poor project
management; (d) the Company was experiencing material losses in
its Middle East, Asia Pacific and Atlantic segments; and (e) based
upon the above, the Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their
positive statements about the Company during the Class Period.

On August 5, 2013 the Company issued a press release, reporting
the Company's second quarter financial and operating results for
the quarter ending June 30, 2013, stating a substantial decrease
in the Company's year-over-year financial results which the
Company attributed to poor performance of several significant
projects in the Middle East and Asia Pacific segment along with
underutilization of assets in the Company's Atlantic segment.  The
Company additionally disclosed that it was taking immediate action
to correct "weaknesses" in its "project bidding and execution" and
that management was putting in place four initiatives in order to
create a "more disciplined culture within the Company" to deliver
adequate return on the Company's investors' capital.  On this
news, McDermott shares declined $1.80 per share or over 19%, to
close at $6.93 per share on August 6, 2013.

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


MONTGOMERY COUNTY: Ala. High Court Rules in "Whitty" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Louise Whitty, Tratillia T. McCalll, and other plaintiffs in a
class action filed against Montgomery County and Janet Buskey, in
her official capacity as Montgomery County Revenue Commissioner,
appealed from a dismissal of their action by the Montgomery
Circuit Court.

Justice Murdock of the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the trial
court's dismissal of the complaint insofar as it relates to the
claims alleged by Whitty and McCall.  "We reverse the judgment of
the trial court, however, insofar as it also includes a dismissal
of the claims of the additional plaintiffs added by amendments to
the original complaint," ruled Justice Murdock.  "The trial court
was not without subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims
originally alleged by McCall; therefore, the various amendments to
the complaint adding additional plaintiffs were viable. The cause
is remanded for further proceedings."

The case is Ann Louise Whitty et al. v. Montgomery County et al.,
NO. 1091762.  A copy of the Supreme Court's September 20, 2013
Opinion is available at http://is.gd/6OoBBzfrom Leagle.com.


MONTREAL MAINE: Lac-Megantic Plaintiffs Torn Between Two Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Giovannetti, writing for Globe and Mail, reports that
nearly three months after an oil train derailed in Lac-Megantic,
Que., and set off explosions that killed 47, residents of the
small town are being torn between a class action lawsuit in Quebec
and seeking justice in an American courtroom.

Immediately after the accident, radio ads began playing on heavy
rotation across Eastern Quebec inviting thousands to join a class
action against the Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway.

Two lawsuits were announced, one to seek damages in Quebec and a
second in the Chicago suburb where the MM&A's parent company is
based.  Lac-Megantic plaintiffs can join both, but will eventually
have to choose one because they cannot sue twice for one incident.
Neither has yet been certified as a class action.

The railway went into receivership in early August, and since
then, dozens of other companies involved in the ill-fated shipment
have been added to both actions as defendants.  Lawyers have
warned that the damages from the two claims could far outweigh the
cost of rebuilding the shattered town.

Many in Lac-Megantic, which is still in mourning, are reluctant to
discuss among themselves whether they will join either lawsuit.
However, the owner of the bar at the epicenter of the disaster has
told The Globe and Mail that he has launched a personal lawsuit in
the United States.  He will remain with the Quebec class action.

"I changed camps during the weekend," Yannick Gagne said in mid-
September of remaining solely with the Quebec case.  "Only crazy
people don't change their minds."

The owner of the Musi-Cafe bar, Mr. Gagne continues to be one of
the lead plaintiffs of the Quebec class action.  The unmanned MM&A
freight train derailed behind the popular bar.  Most of the people
killed were there, asphyxiated nearly instantly by the firestorm,
according to Quebec provincial police.

While he said he wished to remain "discreet," Mr. Gagne explained
that he was troubled that he would receive an equal payout in a
class action despite his larger loss.

Mr. Gagne's choice was rational, Regina-based class action lawyer
Anthony Merchant said.  In Canada, courts have limits on the
amount of money they can award plaintiffs as compensation for non-
economic damages. Illinois has no caps.

"You basically get nothing in Canada [for non-economic damages]
. . .  In the U.S., you might get millions," Mr. Merchant said.

While a U.S. court might grant higher damages, one of the lead
lawyers in the Quebec lawsuit questions whether the Illinois
lawsuit will be allowed to proceed because the case's connection
to Quebec was weakened by the receivership of MM&A.

"That's not the right forum, and even an individual action would
have no jurisdiction," said Montreal-based lawyer Jeff Orenstein.
"You'll have an American jury and foreign plaintiffs asking for
millions from an American company.  In Quebec, you'll have a
Quebec judge who understands the people and the situation. I think
they'll be more sensitive to the situation."

Court proceedings in both cases are expected before the end of the
year.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Eller II Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In March 2011, members of the National Football League -- 32
professional football teams -- commenced a lockout of players
after bargaining to an impasse with the National Football League
Players Association over the terms of a new Collective Bargaining
Agreement.  In response, active NFL players filed a class action
lawsuit -- the "Brady" suit -- in the District of Minnesota
alleging violations of the federal antitrust laws and other
claims. Retired NFL players also sued the NFL and its teams,
alleging antitrust violations -- the "Eller I" suit.  The district
court consolidated the cases and ordered mediation.  In August,
active player representatives approved a tentative settlement of
the Brady suit, the players re-designated the NFLPA as their
collective bargaining agent, the NFL and the NFLPA signed a new
CBA incorporating the settlement terms, the Brady plaintiffs
dismissed their lawsuit, the lockout ended, and the 2011 NFL
season commenced.  The settlement as reflected in the new CBA
included some $900 million in increased benefits for retired NFL
players.

On September 13, 2011, Carl Eller and other retired NFL players
filed a class action lawsuit -- Eller II -- against the NFLPA, its
executive director, and certain Brady plaintiffs, asserting that
defendants wrongfully barred retirees from the Brady plaintiffs'
settlement negotiations, negotiated on retirees behalf without
authority to do so, and ultimately agreed to a CBA with fewer
benefits for retired players than they could have obtained for
themselves. The district court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss all claims. Plaintiffs appeal dismissal of their claims
for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed
the district court ruling in the Eller II complaint.

The case is Carl Lee Eller, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
National Football League Players Association, et al., Defendants-
Appellees, NO. 12-2487.

A copy of the Appeals Court's September 23, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/mH9fnbfrom Leagle.com.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: New Book Describes Approach to Player Concussions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Reisinger, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that the
future of the proposed settlement of concussion litigation between
the National Football League and its players grew a little
cloudier on Oct. 2 as more details surfaced describing how the NFL
for two decades disputed the increasing evidence that playing
football was linked to brain damage.

The details were contained in two excerpts from a soon-to-be-
published book, League of Denial: The NFL, Concussions and the
Battle for Truth (Random House, 2013), written by brothers and
ESPN reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Steve Fainaru.  The book was
due out on Oct. 1.

One excerpt, published by ESPN The Magazine, told how the league
allegedly attacked pioneering brain research that suggested a link
between playing football and brain damage.  At the same time, the
excerpt says, the league was sponsoring and publishing its own
research denying any major link.

The excerpt compares the NFL to "another powerful industry, the
tobacco industry, which had responded to its own existential
threat by underwriting questionable science through the creation
of its own scientific research council and trying to silence
anyone who contradicted it."

The second excerpt, offered by Sports Illustrated, focused more on
the alleged ineffectiveness of a committee formed by the NFL in
1994 to study concussion damage.  The committee, the excerpt says,
was made up mostly of NFL insiders, such as team doctors,
trainers, and others connected to the league.

An ESPN story on Oct. 2 said major findings in the book also
include that two members of the NFL committee later disavowed its
findings, including the league's assertion that concussions were
minor injuries that did not lead to long-term brain damage.

ESPN also cited the book as claiming the NFL's retirement board
paid out $2 million in disability payments as far back as 1999
after deciding that football gave players brain damage.

NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said the league wouldn't comment on
the stories and excerpts, and declined an interview with NFL
general counsel Jeffrey Pash.  NFL outside counsel Brad Karp --
bkarp@paulweiss.com -- partner and chair of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison, also declined comment.

Some league insiders, who asked not to be named because approval
of the settlement is still pending before a federal judge in
Philadelphia, said the excerpts came as no surprise because the
players' suit essentially alleged the same sorts of things.

These insiders told CorpCounsel.com that they did not expect the
new developments to impact the judge's decision.

However, other legal observers said the book's descriptive details
could threaten the proposed $765 million settlement that has
already come under fire by critics and players who say the money
is inadequate to cover all those with brain injuries.  The deal
was generally viewed as a victory for the league, since the
players had sought $2 billion.

The settlement deal was reached after nine weeks of negotiations
with the Alternative Dispute Resolution Center of Irell & Manella,
which released key terms of the agreement.

In the settlement, the NFL agreed to pay to provide medical
benefits and injury compensation for retired NFL football players,
fund medical and safety research, and cover litigation expenses,
including attorneys' fees.

But the deal did not require the league to admit liability, nor to
turn over its research and other documents on concussion and brain
damage.

Some former players have already begun talking about opting out of
the settlement because they feel the funds are inadequate to cover
the thousands of players with concussions and brain damage.

Some players also talk of opting out in hopes of insuring that any
secret information about concussion injures will be made public in
future proceedings, according to professor John Banzhaf, who
teaches public interest law at George Washington University Law
School and is encouraging players to reject the deal.

In a statement, Mr. Banzhaf said players who opt out "can still
use the tremendous power of pre-trial discovery -- under which the
League can be required by law to divulge now-secret medical and
other studies, memos, emails, and consultants' reports arguably
related to concussion issues -- to obtain information to help
protect and benefit younger football players."

Daniel Goldberg, a lawyer who is on the faculty at East Carolina
University's Department of Bioethics and Interdisciplinary
Studies, agrees that the deal raises greater social and ethical
issues. Goldberg wrote in "Op-Ed: Public Interests & the NFL
Concussion Litigation Settlement" for the NFL Concussion
Litigation blog that the settlement leaves too many important
questions unanswered, such as: Should children play American
football? At what age is it safe to begin play? When is it safe to
return to play after experiencing a brain injury? When should a
football season, or career, end due to a brain injury?

"The NFL's privately held information had the potential to
contribute much to a robust public discourse on these complicated
questions of risk and benefit," Mr. Goldberg wrote.  "But the
settlement vitiates that, since the public will never see the
information compiled over the last few decades by the NFL."


NBTY INC: Awaits Final OK of Glucosamine Supplements Suits Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
NBTY, Inc., is awaiting final approval of its settlement of class
action lawsuits challenging the marketing of 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 NBTY, 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.

Headquartered in Ronkonkoma, New York, NBTY, 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 markets numerous private-label and owned brands,
including 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), and Vitamin World(R).


NBTY INC: "Hutchins" Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice in June
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled John F. Hutchins v. NBTY, Inc., et
al., was dismissed in June 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 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 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.

Headquartered in Ronkonkoma, New York, NBTY, 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 markets numerous private-label and owned brands,
including 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), and Vitamin World(R).


NESTLE PURINA: Class Action Over Dog Treats Faces Setback
---------------------------------------------------------
James R. Hood, writing for Consumer Affairs, reports that a class
action charging that Nestle Purina's Yam Good chicken treats
killed the plaintiffs' dogs has suffered a setback.  A federal
judge in Illinois ruled that the consumer protection laws of the
plaintiffs' home states take precedence.

U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman also dismissed most of the
allegations against Walmart, Costco, Target, BJs, CVS, Walgreens,
Pet Supplies and other retailers who sold the treats, Courthouse
News Service reported.

The jerky treats are made in China by Waggin' Train, a Nestle
Purina company.  Chinese chicken has been blamed for numerous
cases of death and illness in dogs.  Until recently, Chinese
chicken could not be imported into the U.S. for human consumption
but the USDA recently announced that four Chinese chicken plants
would be allowed to import their products and would not have to
label them as originating in China.

In the Yam Good case, lead plaintiff Dennis Adkins says he bought
Yam Good dog treats from WalMart in March 2012 for his 9-year-old
Pomeranian, Cleopatra.

"Between March 13, 2012 and March 15, 2012, Mr. Adkins gave one of
the treats to Cleopatra daily, which he chopped into two to three
pieces," the lawsuit states.  "Mr. Adkins made no other changes in
her diet."

"Immediately thereafter, Cleopatra became sick and, on March 26,
2012, died of kidney failure."

"Mr. Adkins owns another nine year old Pomeranian, named Pharaoh,"
the complaint continues.  "Mr. Adkins did not feed any of the 'Yam
Good' treats to him. Pharaoh did not become ill."

Other class members made similar claims, but Judge Gettleman said
their cases should be heard in the states where they reside.

"In the instant case, 19 out of 21 plaintiffs allege that they
reside in states other than Illinois and that they purchased the
chicken jerky treats and fed them to their pets in their home
states.  With the exception of the two plaintiffs who reside in
Illinois, the complaint alleges no other facts tying any of
defendants' alleged misconduct or the plaintiffs' alleged injuries
to Illinois," the judge said.


NEWFOUNDLAND, CANADA: Gov't Must Tackle Moose-Vehicle Collisions
----------------------------------------------------------------
VOCM's Erin Eaton reports that lawyer Ches Crosbie says new survey
results show nine out of 10 people on the island of Newfoundland
believe the moose-vehicle collision problem should be a priority
for government.

Eight in 10 Newfoundlanders agree with the proposal to continue
building fences to keep moose off problem areas of the highway.
That's according to a survey recently commissioned for the Save
Our People Action Committee.  Government argued in a court hearing
on Sept. 30 that the Moose Class action period should be limited
to the two-year period before the class action was filed.
Mr. Crosbie, however, argued to keep the current ten-year class
period.

He says government has to be sensitive to these survey results
that show significant public support to settle the Moose Class
Action, and work toward accident prevention.  Lucy Stoyles, chair
of SOPAC, says it comes down to safety.


ONTIME DISTRIBUTION: Recalls PRAN Spice Powder Turmeric
-------------------------------------------------------
OnTime Distribution Inc. of Brooklyn, NY, is voluntarily recalling
PRAN brand Spice Powder TURMERIC because it was found to contain
high levels of lead that could cause health problems to consumers,
particularly infants, small children, and pregnant women if
consumed.  Recent analysis of the product found that it contained
lead levels as high as 28 and 42 parts per million (ppm).

Lead can accumulate in the body over time.  Too much can cause
health problems, including delayed mental and physical development
and learning deficiencies.  Pregnant women, infants and young
children especially should avoid exposure to lead.  People
concerned about blood lead levels should contact their physician
or health clinic to ask about testing.

PRAN brand Spice Powder TURMERIC was distributed in New York and
New Jersey through retail stores and direct delivery.

This product is packed in two different size clear plastic jars
with yellow plastic lids: Net Wt. 8.82 oz./250 gm with UPC 8 31730
00551, and Net Wt. 14.1 oz./400 gm with UPC 8 46656 00209 4. The
affected date codes are: BEST BEFORE: 26 OCT 14 and BEST BEFORE:
15 JAN 15.

One illness complaint has been received to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that product
contained high levels of lead based on sampling by New York State
Health Department and private laboratory testing.

Consumers who have purchased PRAN brand Spice Powder TURMERIC are
urged not to consume the product and should return it to the place
of purchase for a full refund.  Consumers with questions may
contact the company at 1-718-417-1100, Monday - Friday, 9 am -
5 pm ET.


PHILIPS ELECTRONICS: Insurer Sues Over Class Suit Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------
Christine Stuart at Courthouse News Service reports that an
insurer wants a federal judge to find that it does not need to
defend electronics giant Philips against a class action claiming
that its toothbrushes lose the ability to vibrate.

National Insurance Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh filed the
declaratory judgment lawsuit Friday, September 27, 2013, in U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Philips Electronics NA had allegedly filed a claim with National
after it was slapped this past March with a federal class action
in Seattle over toothbrushes that its subsidiaries sell in the
United States.  Two similar complaints followed in the same court,
according to Courthouse News records.

National says it has no duty to defend or indemnify the Andover,
Mass.-based company.

The class action alleges that a defect in Philips toothbrushes
"manifests itself over time and causes the devices to lose their
ability to transmit vibrations to the brush and operate properly,"
National says.  "The class action complaint further alleges that
the Philips Defendants sold replacement brush heads to correct the
defect despite the inability of the replacement brush heads to
correct the defect."

Since the class has not alleged "property damage" or "bodily
injury," however, National should not have to provide a defense,
according to the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Walls, Esq.
          WIGGIN AND DANA
          Two Stamford Plaza
          281 Tresser Boulevard
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 363-7600
          Facsimile: (203) 363-7676
          E-mail: jwalls@wiggin.com


PINNACLE GROUP: Appeals Court Upholds Settlement in Tenants' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mireya Navarro, writing for The New York Times, reports that a
federal appeals court has upheld a settlement affecting more than
20,000 rent-regulated tenants in New York City, clearing the way
for them to seek individual compensation from their landlord for
rent overcharges and other complaints.

In its decision on Sept. 30 the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit ruled that the 2011 settlement of the tenants'
class-action lawsuit against the Pinnacle Group, a large New York
landlord, was "fair, reasonable and adequate."  The settlement had
been in question after a group of tenants appealed to overturn it,
saying it excluded certain types of claims worth millions of
dollars more than what Pinnacle had agreed to be liable for.

The breakaway group of tenants had sought to renegotiate the
agreement or go to trial if new terms could not be reached.  But
the appeals court found the exclusions reasonable and noted that
all class settlements entailed compromises.

Under the Pinnacle settlement, the court concluded, all class
members benefited from new procedures and "best practices" that
the company agreed to follow in carrying out rent increases and
evictions.  The company also agreed to have a court-appointed
administrator hear the tenants' individual complaints of illegal
rents and harassment and determine compensation.

The amount could reach more than $10 million, depending on how
many tenants make claims, said Richard F. Levy of Jenner & Block
L.L.P. who negotiated the settlement on behalf of the tenants and
who said he was "exhilarated" by the court decision.

"These people have been waiting for a long time," he said.

The tenants' suit against Pinnacle, filed in 2007, made novel use
of a law typically associated with the Mafia and other organized
crime groups, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, known as RICO.  The tenants accused the company of engaging
in a conspiracy to fraudulently increase rents in more than 400
buildings that it owned in the city.  The appeals court called the
tenants' original racketeering case "a daring and unconventional
effort" that achieved important benefits for the tenants under the
settlement "against significant odds."

Only about 1 percent of the more than 20,000 class members opted
out or objected to the settlement.  But objectors opposed it
because it excluded claims arising from certain time periods and
tenants who signed leases before Pinnacle bought the buildings.

Lawyers for the objecting tenants said they were reviewing their
options, but one of the lawyers, Marc I. Gross, said the case was
"pretty much over."

Kenneth Rosenfeld, director of legal services at Northern
Manhattan Improvement Corporation, which also worked on the
appeal, said: "We're pretty devastated by the decision.  It gives
no guidelines about how to go about settling class actions when
there are disparate interests among the class."


PROMETHEUS GLOBAL: Sued in Calif. for Misclassifying Freelancers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deadline reports that the publisher of The Hollywood Reporter has
been hit with a lawsuit claiming that the company has denied
benefits and worker protections to various freelancers by
misclassifying them as independent contractors.  David Simpson, a
four-year THR veteran who specializes in online video and social
media, filed a class action suit against Prometheus Global Media
LLC in Los Angeles Superior Court claiming freelancers have been
denied overtime pay, reimbursement of business expenses, meal and
rest periods and other benefits in violation of California Labor
Code.  It claims freelancers are "indistinguishable from employees
in all material respects" and that "the sole purpose of
misclassifying freelancers as independent contractors is to deny
them benefits and protections afforded to employees."  The suit
seeks overtime wages, other compensation and damages, among other
causes of action.  Simpson is represented by attorneys Matthew B.
Hayes and Kye D. Pawlenko of Hayes Pawlenko in Pasadena.


RENASANT CORP: Finalizes Terms of Merger-Related Suits Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Renasant Corporation disclosed in its August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013, that the parties in the merger-
related class action lawsuits are finalizing their memorandum of
understanding into a formal settlement agreement that will resolve
the lawsuits.

On February 7, 2013, the Company announced the signing of a
definitive merger agreement pursuant to which it will acquire
First M&F Corporation ("First M&F"), a bank holding company
headquartered in Kosciusko, Mississippi, and the parent of
Merchants and Farmers Bank, a Mississippi banking corporation.

On March 5, 2013, a putative class action complaint captioned Zeng
v. Potts, et al., was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi, Greenville Division,
against First M&F, its directors, Merchants and Farmers Bank, the
Company and Renasant Bank ("Renasant Bank" or the "Bank").  This
lawsuit is purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of
First M&F's shareholders and seeks a declaration that it is
properly maintainable as a class action.  The complaint, which was
amended on April 8, 2013, alleges that the Company and the Bank
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and also aided and abetted breaches of
fiduciary duties committed by the First M&F directors by, among
other things, (a) making material misstatements or omissions in
the Form S-4 Registration Statement of the Company filed with the
SEC on March 29, 2013, (b) agreeing to consideration that
undervalues First M&F, (c) failing to engage in, and agreeing to
deal protection devices that preclude, a fair sales process, and
(d) engaging in self-dealing.

On April 5, 2013, a derivative class action complaint captioned
Silverii v. Potts, et al., was filed in the Circuit Court of
Attala County of the State of Mississippi, Fifth Judicial
District, against First M&F, its directors, Merchants and Farmers
Bank, the Company and the Bank.  This lawsuit is purportedly
brought on behalf of a putative class of First M&F's shareholders
and seeks a declaration that it is properly maintainable as a
class action.  The complaint, which was amended in April of 2013,
contains substantially the same allegations of improper actions by
the Company and the Bank with regards to the Zeng lawsuit and
alleges that the Company and the Bank aided and abetted breaches
of fiduciary duties committed by the First M&F directors by, among
other things, (a) making material misstatements or omissions in
the Form S-4 Registration Statement of the Company filed with the
SEC on March 29, 2013, (b) agreeing to consideration that
undervalues First M&F, (c) failing to engage in, and agreeing to
deal protection devices that preclude, a fair sales process, and
(d) engaging in self-dealing.

Both lawsuits seek, among other things, to enjoin completion of
the Company's acquisition of First M&F and an award of costs and
attorneys' fees.  While the defendants believe these actions are
without merit, in order to avoid the expense of litigation, First
M&F and Renasant have reached an accord with the claimants,
subject to court approval after notice to the shareholders.  The
plaintiff in the Silverii lawsuit dismissed his lawsuit; the
plaintiff in the Zeng lawsuit withdrew his request to enjoin the
merger of First M&F into Renasant.  The parties are in the process
of taking steps to finalize the memorandum of understanding into a
formal settlement agreement.

Headquartered in Tupelo, Mississippi, Renasant Corporation owns
and operates Renasant Bank and Renasant Insurance, Inc.  The
Company offers a diversified range of financial, fiduciary and
insurance services to its retail and commercial customers through
its subsidiaries and full service offices located throughout north
and north central Mississippi, Tennessee, north and central
Alabama and north Georgia.


RIDDELL INC: Ex-College Football Players File Concussion Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Kehoe, writing for WISH, reports that two former college
football players are suing the NCAA and equipment manufacturer
Riddell, Inc.

The class action lawsuit, filed in federal court in Indianapolis,
claims the two knew of the risks associated with concussions and
failed to take action to protect players.

The lawsuit, brought by former University of Oregon and University
of Washington quarterback John DuRocher and former University of
Washington strong safety Darin Harris, was filed on behalf of all
former NCAA players who suffered concussions leading to long-term
injury.  It alleges that the players developed chronic headaches,
chronic diseases, chronic dizziness, dementia, Alzheimer's disease
or other physical or mental problems as a result of concussion
sustained while playing.

"The complaint describes studies, some of which were funded by the
NCAA itself, which reported that players should be given a 5-7 day
window of down time after receiving what's referred to as a mild,
traumatic brain injury or concussion--a strong hit to the head.
The NCAA ignored that standard and implemented what's referred to
as a 1 day return to play protocol, where they would just be put
right back into the game," said Richard Shevitz --
rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com -- a partner at Indianapolis based
Cohen & Malad, which is serving as local counsel for the lawsuit.

The filing also claims the NCAA did not address coaching
techniques that could have lessened the risk of injury by
concussion.  It claims counts of negligence, fraudulent
concealment and failure to warn of risks, among others to both the
NCAA and Riddell.

Riddell declined comment to 24-Hour News 8, saying its standing
policy is not to comment on pending litigation.  Multiple calls
for comment to the NCAA were not returned.

"Both of them were in a much more superior position of knowledge
than the players, of course, to know what the harm would be,"
Mr. Shevitz said.

Thousands of former college football players are expected to join
the class action lawsuit, Mr. Shevitz said.

I-Team-8's Karen Hensel has reported extensively on concussions
with both football players and American troops overseas. Her
report led the Marine Corps to issue helmets with ballistic
padding to all Marines.  But, similar actions were not taken by
Riddell or the NCAA, Mr. Shevitz said.

Law firms in Indianapolis, Seattle, Wash., New Orleans, La., and
Lexington, Miss. have joined in the class action filing, which
seeks an unspecified amount of financial compensation to pay for
ongoing medical care and the monitoring and diagnosis of future
brain-related impairments or conditions.

All three of the law firms outside Indianapolis were also involved
in a class action lawsuit filed by former NFL players against the
NFL.  That suit was recently settled for $750 million.

"This is a separate case from the NFL case.  But, in many
respects, it brings the same type of claims on behalf of the
college players.  So, this is on the college side, instead of the
NFL side.  There's been a settlement on the NFL side, and this
will be pursuing the same type of claims on behalf of the college
players, who are really in much of the same boat," Mr. Shevitz
said.

This is not the first lawsuit brought against the NCAA over
concussions by former athletes.  A class action lawsuit filed in
Chattanooga, Tenn. earlier this year alleges that the NCAA failed
to meet its obligations to protect former players from concussion
risks.  It seeks an NCAA funded medical monitoring program for all
former football players.  A similar lawsuit was filed in Illinois
in 2011, and attorneys in that case have also recently asked a
judge to make it a class action lawsuit.

All three lawsuits could be combined by a panel of federal judges,
Mr. Shevitz said.  No court date has yet been set.


SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC: Recalls APC Surge Protectors
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
American Power Conversion (APC), now known as Schneider Electric
IT Corp., of West Kingston, R.I., announced a voluntary recall of
about 15 million APC SurgeArrest surge protectors.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The surge protectors can overheat, smoke and melt, posing a fire
hazard.

The firm has received 700 reports of the surge protectors
overheating and melting and 55 claims of property damage from
smoke and fire, including $916,000 in fire damage to a home and
$750,000 in fire damage to a medical facility.  There are 13
reports of injuries, including smoke inhalation and contact burns
from touching the overheated surge protectors.

The recall involves APC 7 and 8 series SurgeArrest surge
protectors manufactured before 2003.  The model and serial numbers
are located on a label on the bottom of the surge protector.  The
two numbers that follow the first letter or letters in the serial
number sequence indicate the year of manufacture.  The unit is
included in the recall if the numbers are 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98,
99, 00, 01 or 02.  APC and the words Personal, Professional,
Performance or Network are printed on the surge protectors.  The
following model numbers are included in this recall.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/VncroH

The recalled products were manufactured in China and Philippines
and sold at Best Buy, Circuit City, CompUSA, and other stores
nationwide from January 1993 through December 2002 for between $13
and $50.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled surge
protectors, unplug them and contact Schneider Electric for a free
replacement surge protector.


SEQWATER: Maurice Blackburn Set to File Flood Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Tuck Thompson, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports that a
class-action lawsuit against the operators of the dams that
flooded Brisbane in 2011 will be filed before the end of the year.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn will take on Seqwater, alleging
thousands of people were flooded in 2011 because engineers were
negligent in their management of the Wivenhoe and Somerset dams.

Principal Damian Scattini -- who announced the class action in
January -- said C$1 million had been spent by the firm so far on
experts and research supported the filing of the action.  He said
the delay in taking action wasn't a rethink.

"This is a very big case, and it's cr2itical for the people we're
representing that it's given the proper attention -- it has to be
done right," Mr. Scattini said.

"We are continuing to finalize our preparations for filing the
class action, including the statement of claim, and will be
providing a further update to our clients soon."

About 5000 people have expressed interest in joining the class
action, with about half formally signed up to date.

The case is being pursued on a no-win, no-fee basis, with clients
to pay about 30 per cent in fees to IMF -- the firm funding the
litigation -- if the case were successful.

Mr. Scattini has said dam operators were negligent before and
during the January flood by not releasing water soon enough with
heavy rainfalls predicted, and then holding back water until the
dams overfilled.

Engineers then panicked, Mr. Scattini alleged, and released a huge
volume of water that flooded many sections of Ipswich and Brisbane
that should have remained dry.

Seqwater has said the flood was unavoidable and its engineers did
everything they could to reduce damage.

In 2012, an inquiry into the running of the dam found dam
operators had breached their manual, creating pressure for the
Newman Government to make ex-gratia payments to victims.

Maurice Blackburn said it asked its US-based experts whether the
dam had been operated competently and if any failures made a
difference in flood damage. It said the response was positive to
both questions.

But the law firm suffered a credibility hit in January when it
released maps that contained errors.

The suit, which is likely to claim hundreds of millions of dollars
in damages, could potentially be filed in a number of court
systems, but Mr. Scattini has said his preference was to file in
Queensland.

Legal experts said the case would have a better chance of success
if filed in a federal court, with a reasonable likelihood of a
settlement.


TOSHIBA CORP: Deposition Protocol No. 2 Entered in Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joseph C. Spero of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California issued deposition protocol
no. 2 in IN RE OPTICAL DISK DRIVE PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
CASE NO. 3:10-MD-2143 RS (JCS).

This Order Re Deposition Protocol No. 2 is intended to supplement
the Court's prior Orders regarding depositions, including the Case
Management Order dated July 17, 2012; Order Re Deposition
Scheduling dated August 31, 2012; Order Re Location of Depositions
dated October 24, 2012; and Order Re Discovery Matters dated
December 17, 2012.

The Order relates to all actions in the Antitrust Litigation.

A copy of the District Court's September 23, 2013 Order is
available at http://is.gd/rUtXCEfrom Leagle.com.

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, BELINDA S LEE -- belinda.lee@lw.com -- San
Francisco, CA, Counsel for Defendants TOSHIBA SAMSUNG STORAGE
TECHNOLOGY KOREA CORPORATION, TOSHIBA SAMSUNG STORAGE TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION, TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, AND TOSHIBA
CORPORATION Liaison Counsel for Defendants TEAC CORPORATION, TEAC
AMERICA INC., KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N. LITE-ON IT
CORPORATION, PHILIPS & LITON DIGITAL SOLUTIONS CORP., PHILIPS &
LITE-ON DIGITAL SOLUTIONS USA, INC., SONY CORPORATION, SONY
OPTIARC AMERICA, INC., SONY OPTIARC, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
CO., LTD., BENQ CORPORATION, BENQ AMERICA CORP., NEC CORPORATION,
PANASONIC CORPORATION PANASONIC CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA,
QUANTA STORAGE INC., QUANTA STORAGE AMERICA INC., HITACHI-LG DATA
STORAGE, INC., HITACHI-LG DATA STORAGE KOREA, INC., HITACHI LTD.,
LG ELECTRONICS, INC., PIONEER NORTH AMERICA, INC., AND PIONEER
ELECTRONICS (USA) INC.

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, SHANA E. SCARLETT --
shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Jeff D. Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com --
(173886), Berkeley, CA.

Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- (Pro Hac Vice), George W.
Sampson -- george@hbsslaw.com -- (Pro Hac Vice), HAGENS BERMAN
SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Seattle, WA.

Lee Gordon SBN -- Lee@hbsslaw.com -- (174168), HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
SHAPIRO LLP, Pasadena, CA, Interim Lead Counsel for Indirect
Purchaser Plaintiffs.

SAVERI & SAVERI, INC. CADIO ZIRPOLI (179108), Guido Saveri --
guido@saveri.com -- (22349), R. Alexander Saveri --
rick@saveri.com -- (173102), San Francisco, CA, Interim Lead
Counsel for Direct Purchaser Class.

ALSTON & BIRD LLP, Rodney J. Ganske -- rod.ganske@alston.com --
Michael P. Kenny -- mike.kenny@alston.com -- Debra D. Bernstein --
debra.bernstein@alston.com -- Andrew J. Tuck --
andy.tuck@alston.com -- Atlanta, Georgia, Counsel for Plaintiff
Dell Inc. and Dell Products L.P.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, STATE OF FLORIDA Lizabeth A. Brady,
Tallahassee, Florida.


UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO: Sued Over Substandard Pediatric Care
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aurelio Sanchez, writing for Albuquerque Journal, reports that
a lawsuit filed on Oct. 2 alleges the University of New Mexico
Hospital provided substandard care of children in its pediatric
cancer program over a 20-year period, greatly expanding on
previous claims about the number of children potentially affected.

The suit was filed in state District Court in Bernalillo County
and seeks class-action status for any child treated "for a medical
condition involving any form of childhood cancer" from 1977 to
1997.

That could result in a class of up to 1,000 children and their
families, the suit said.

An unrelated class-action complaint filed more than a decade ago
was limited to about 100 children, claiming they were given
inadequate care for acute lymphoblastic leukemia from 1989 to
1996.

The new lawsuit says UNM Hospital "gave children incorrect doses
of chemotherapy, compounded drugs improperly, gave children
improper medications and treatments, provided substandard care and
released children without adequate instructions or arrangements
for their continued care.

"Defendant has indicated that more than 100 children were
mistreated in its hospital.  Plaintiff has information the number
of potential class members may approach 1,000."

The suit was brought on behalf of Rose Quintana and her son,
David, who died in 1988 at the age of 19 of complications from
leukemia after he was treated by the pediatric cancer program.

Billy Sparks, Health Sciences Center executive director of
communications, said on Oct. 1, "We have not formally been
notified of the filing, and we have not yet had an opportunity to
read the complaint."

The lawsuit contends the university allowed the pediatric cancer
program to operate for decades without adequate supervision or
control.

University officials first disclosed in 1998 that at least 110
children appeared not to have been given the newest drug therapies
for acute lymphoblastic leukemia between 1989 and 1996.

The lawsuit seeks to "reap some benefit for all of the children
and their families who gave up everything, lost their jobs, and
who reaped a lot of heartache because they thought their children
were getting the best treatment possible when they weren't," said
Adrian Vega, a lawyer with Will Ferguson and Associates of
Albuquerque, which is working with a Denver firm, Leventhal, Brown
& Puga.

The lawsuit cites a Journal investigative series published in the
fall of 2000.  It revealed that nationally about three out of four
children treated for leukemia were still alive after five years,
while at UNM Hospital, only two out of four were still alive.

The suit names as plaintiffs UNM regents, the UNM Health Sciences
Center, UNM Hospital and the UNM School of Medicine. Unlike
earlier lawsuits, it does not name child cancer physician Dr.
Marilyn Duncan, who was removed as chief of the UNM pediatric
oncology clinic in 1998 and who later surrendered her license to
practice medicine in New Mexico.

However, it does accuse UNM of promoting its medical center and
Duncan "as well-qualified to treat cancer in children" when it
should have known that the program was understaffed and
underfunded, harming patient care.

The hospital's failure caused children to suffer additional pain,
suffering, mental and emotional trauma, and die needlessly, the
complaint said.


VIGOR LABS: Chainsaw Drug Is Completely Worthless, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Hess, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Vigor Labs Inc., a Florida Corporation; and Does 1-20,
Inclusive, Case No. RIC1311138 (Cal. Super. Ct., Riverside Cty.,
September 27, 2013) accuses the Defendants of making false claims
with respect to its product, Chainsaw, a purported "male
enhancement" drug.

Chainsaw promises outlandish results and does not deliver, Mr.
Hess alleges.  Unfortunately, he contends, the Defendants go
further than just promising outlandish results; they knowingly put
forth false and misleading information.  He says that he brings
this lawsuit, primarily to enjoin the ongoing fraud, and
secondarily to recover the money taken by this practice.

Mr. Hess is a resident of California, who purchased Chainsaw for
his personal use.

Vigor Labs is the manufacturer, marketer, and seller of Chainsaw,
with its principal place of business in Florida.  Vigor Labs does
business in California and in nearly every state.  The Plaintiff
does not know the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


* Lawmakers Study Bill to Overhaul Medical Malpractice System
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a panel of state lawmakers is
studying a Senate bill that would overhaul Georgia's medical
malpractice system, with groups such as the Medical Association of
Georgia and the State Bar of Georgia lining up against it.

A Senate subcommittee heard testimony on Sept. 24 from groups that
oppose the legislation.  It was the subcommittee's second hearing
on Senate Bill 141, also known as the "Patient Injury Act," which
would move medical malpractice claims out of the courts and into
an administrative system overseen by a Patient Compensation Board
within the Department of Community Health.

Earlier, lawmakers heard from health care administrators who have
formed Patients for Fair Compensation, which is backing the bill.
Those who oppose the measure say supporters are underestimating
the costs and overstating the benefits of a patient compensation
system.

"No other state has attempted such a drastic overhaul," said
former state Sen. Arthur "Skin" Edge, a lobbyist for MAG Mutual
Insurance Company, which provides medical liability insurance for
doctors in nine states including Georgia.  "Under this bill you
will have more claims, higher costs, more reporting, higher taxes
and more bureaucracy."

Sen. Brandon Beach, R-Alpharetta and the bill's sponsor, said he
has received support from doctors who believe reforms are needed.
He said the new system, which would be similar to the way worker's
compensation claims are handled, would reduce health care costs.
The legislation, as written, says medical malpractice litigation
is a "costly and protracted process" with delays to receiving
compensation averaging five years.

"Doctors went into medicine to heal people, to treat people.  The
last thing a doctor wants to do is to go into litigation," Beach
said.

Sen. Beach said doctors are practicing defensive medicine by
ordering unnecessary tests and procedures to reduce liability,
which is driving up the cost of health care and exposing patients
to medical risks. The bill acknowledges that a greater number of
applications will qualify for compensation under the change.

"They are running tests just so they can say they checked it off a
box. That is costing you and me as a consumer," Sen. Beach said.
"It would protect the doctors so they would know they are not
being sued in a court of law, that they would go before a panel
and it would be a no-fault system.  So then they would decrease
the tests they order."

Dr. John Harvey testified on behalf of the Medical Association of
Georgia, which represents nearly 8,000 physicians in the state.
He said the primary concern is that costs will increase under the
proposed new system.

"We need to be very careful about how we change the system, so
that we're truly addressing the problems," Dr. Harvey said.
"There are substantial concerns about how this proposal would
proceed. While it's proposed as a no-fault system, it's hard for a
physician to understand that if a claim is awarded."

Under the bill, a patient would submit a claim to a new Office of
Medical Review, which would have 10 days to determine whether the
application includes a medical injury.  If it does, the doctor is
notified and has 15 days to respond.  If the doctor challenges the
claim, then a team of experts will have 60 days to conduct an
investigation. An independent medical review panel will issue a
decision, which can be appealed by the doctor.

The system will not determine whether a doctor has committed
medical malpractice, which is the responsibility of the Georgia
Composite Medical Board.

"They are in front of their peers," Sen. Beach said.  "If it was a
true injury, then the patient is compensated and the doctor learns
from that. But they don't have to be dragged through a court of
law and their name ruined."

Former Attorney General Mike Bowers testified that the legislation
raised constitutional questions and would not stand up under a
legal challenge.  Supporters have dismissed those claims, saying
the public's right to seek remedy for an injury would remain and
would simply transfer to an administrative process.

Charles L. Ruffin, president of the State Bar of Georgia, said his
group opposes the bill.

"We are interested in seeing that everyone has the right to
justice and trial by jury," Mr. Ruffin said.  "We need to have an
impartial judge overseeing an impartial jury making these
decisions."

The system would be paid for with a set of fees paid annually by
each provider to be set by the Patient Compensation Board.
Members of the board would be appointed by the governor, the
lieutenant governor and the speaker of the Georgia House.  The
bill says fees for an individual physician would not exceed $500
in the first fiscal year and $600 in subsequent years, while fees
for a hospital would not exceed $100 per bed in the first fiscal
year and $200 per bed in subsequent years.


                             *********

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  * * *