CAR_Public/131010.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, October 10, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 201

                             Headlines


A123 SYSTEMS: Faces Investor Securities Fraud Class Actions
ADOBE SYSTEMS: McDermott Discusses Antitrust Litigation Settlement
AES CORP: Dismissal of Greenhouse Gas Suit Affirmed in May
AES CORP: Suit vs. Brazilian Unit Remains in Evidentiary Stage
AMERICAN INT'L: Investors File Securities Fraud Class Action

AMG SERVICES: Faces Suit Over Loan Collectors' Unpaid Wages
APPLIANCE RECYCLING: Suit Over Whirlpool Products Remains Pending
AVIS BUDGET: Judge Denies Shift Managers' Summary Judgment Bid
BELL MOBILITY: Pre-paid Wireless Suit Certified as Class Action
CANADA: Former Aboriginal Day Scholars to File Class Action

CHALLENGE DAIRY: Kelley Drye Discusses Class Action Ruling
CHEVRON CORP: Racketeering Suit Set for Oct. 15 Trial
CNL LIFESTYLE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Allyn" Suit
COMCAST CORP: Customers to Seek Class Certification for 3rd Time
DEER CONSUMER: Calif. Court Approves Settlement in "Rose" Suit

ECOTALITY INC: Alfred G. Yates Law Firm Files Class Action
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Settles Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Suit
ELI LILLY: 9th Cir. Affirms Ruling on Darvon/Darvocet Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Public Interest Groups Appeal $20-Mil. Settlement
FACEBOOK INC: Supreme Court Set to Decide on Beacon Settlement

FLANIGAN'S ENTERPRISES: Faces Suit Over "Wage Act Violation"
GMAC: Force-Placed Insurance Class Suit Carries Precedent
GOODYEAR TIRE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Class Action
GREAT SOUTHERN: Litigation of Overdraft Suit vs. Bank Ongoing
GUITAR CENTER: Still Faces State-Law Claims in Antitrust MDL

GUITAR CENTER: Calif. Labor Lawsuit Against Unit in Discovery
GUITAR CENTER: Court Ordered Limited Discovery in "George" Suit
GUITAR CENTER: Files Motion to Abate in "Stewart" Suit
GUITAR CENTER: Sued in Mass. Over Alleged Personal Data Request
GUITAR CENTER: Faces Calif. Wage & Hour Lawsuit by Instructors

HARRIS TEETER: Faces Suits Over Proposed Acquisition by Kroger
HIGHMARK BLUE CROSS: Judge Dismisses Rate Fixing Suit
ING USA ANNUITY: Defrauds Senior Citizens, Class Suit Claims
INUVO INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid for Judgment in Suit vs. Vertro
INUVO INC: "Sobota" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed in July 2013

INUVO INC: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Merger Suit
JAKKS PACIFIC: Faces Shareholder Lawsuits in California
MCWANE INC: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Price-Fixing Class Action
MGIC INVESTMENT: Eight Suits Alleging RESPA Violations Pending
MICHAEL BAKER: Being Sold to IMS for Too Little, Suit Claims

NEW YORK LIFE: Ogletree Deakins Discusses Class Action Ruling
NMI RETIREMENT: Maratita & Taisague Seek Standing to Intervene
OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Claims in "Genaera" Lawsuit Now Dismissed
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "SEPTA" Suit
P. CIPOLLINI: Suit Over Junk Faxes Obtains Class-Action Status

PLY GEM: Class Cert. Hearing in "Gulbankian" Suit Postponed
PLY GEM: No Hearing Date Yet in "Hartshorn" Lawsuit
PLY GEM: "Pagliaroni" Suit in Discovery Over Class Certification
PLY GEM: Faces "Memari" Suit in South Carolina Court
PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Judge Approves Crest Class Action Settlement

STERICYCLE INC: Awaits Order on Bid to Transfer Suits to Illinois
TOYOTA MOTOR: Oklahoma Trial in Sudden-Acceleration Suit Under Way
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Accord in Suit Over Shine Deal Now in Place
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Accord in Forsta v. News Corp. Suit Okayed
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Motion to Junk "Wilder v. News Corp." Filed

UNION FIRST: Faces Merger-Related Class Action Suit in Virginia
US SECURITY ASSOCIATES: 9th Cir. Affirms Ruling Certifying Class
VALLEY FORGE: Sued Over Illegal Export of Military Semiconductors
VANGUARD HEALTH: Still Faces Antitrust Suit Over Nurses' Pay
VANGUARD HEALTH: Certification of Suit v. Baptist Health Pending

VANGUARD HEALTH: Faces Lawsuit Over Tenet Merger Agreement
VIVUS INC: Appeal From Dismissal of "Kovtun" Suit Remains Pending
WARNER CHILCOTT: Enters MOU to Settle Shareholder Lawsuit
WELLS FARGO: Faces Homeowners' Mortgage Class Action
WINDSOR, CANADA: Supreme Court Denies Leave to Appeal Class Action

WISDOMTREE INVESTMENTS: "Steinhardt" Class Suit Still Pending


                             *********


A123 SYSTEMS: Faces Investor Securities Fraud Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Daily Caller reports that the now Chinese-owned A123 Systems
is being hit with class action lawsuits for possibly misleading
investors by not disclosing the company's financial problems.

The law firm Levi & Korsinsky LLP announced a class action lawsuit
against the government-backed battery maker for not disclosing the
company's grim financial outlook to investors following the
financial collapse of luxury hybrid automaker, Fisker Automotive.

A123 challengers allege that the company did not disclose the fact
that the financial downfall of Fisker, its main customer, would
impact its business.  After Fisker defaulted and was cut off from
receiving government funds, A123 conducted a public offering
without telling investors that Fisker was in bad shape, the
lawyers contend.

Other law firms have also jumped onto the class action suit,
asking that investors who suffered losses from A123 come forward
and sign onto the legal challenge.

"If you have suffered a net loss from investment in A123 Systems,
Inc. securities purchased on or after February 28, 2011, and held
through any of the revelations of negative information on
November 4, 2011, May 11, 2012, and/or October 16, 2012, as
described below, at no cost to you may obtain additional
information about this lawsuit and your ability to become a lead
plaintiff," writes the law firm Brower Piven.

The law firm Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announced
that it was investigating potential securities fraud claims
against A123 as well.

A123 was given $249.1 million by the Obama administration as part
of the 2009 stimulus package, along with more than $100 million in
grants and tax credits from the state of Massachusetts.

Despite all this government aid, the company suffered financially
when A123's major customer defaulted on its loans in February 2011
and was cut off from getting further government funds itself.
A123 was forced to lay off about 123 workers in November 2011 and
officially filed for bankruptcy in October 2012.

The company was eventually bought out by the North American
subsidiary of the Chinese-owned Wanxiang Group, an auto parts
conglomerate.  A123 was cleverly renamed B456 -- which is also
apparently the name of a fire extinguisher.

Those who held A123 stock took on huge losses, as the company's
share price went from a high of $9.48 per share in February 2011
to pennies later that year, contend those suing the company.

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz did not respond to The Daily
Caller News Foundation's request for comment.


ADOBE SYSTEMS: McDermott Discusses Antitrust Litigation Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Grimmer, Esq., and Joseph F. Winterscheid, Esq., at McDermott
Will & Emery report that three of the seven companies defending
allegations that they violated U.S. antitrust law by agreeing not
to recruit each other's employees agreed to settle all claims
against them in In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation for
a total of $20 million.  This putative class action and
substantial settlement are important reminders of the caution
required when considering any kind of agreement not to not to
recruit or hire another company's employees.

Following the U.S. Department of Justice's 2010 suits against
high-tech companies Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Lucasfilm
and Pixar, private plaintiffs filed class action lawsuits alleging
a conspiracy amongst these companies to eliminate competition for
skilled labor and "prevent a 'bidding war' for talent that would
drive up wages . . . ."  Plaintiffs alleged that the defendant
companies agreed not to "cold call" each other's employees (i.e.,
that they would not communicate with employees who did not apply
for a job independently), and that these agreements were not
related to any specific collaboration among the companies or
limited by geography, job function, product group or time period.
In other words, they alleged that this "non-poaching" agreement
was illegal per se under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The cases were consolidated in the Northern District of California
before Judge Koh, who issued detailed decisions on defendants'
motions to dismiss (largely denying those motions) and plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  Addressing certification, the
court agreed with plaintiffs on the Rule 23a factors (numerosity,
commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation), but
denied the motion -- with leave to amend -- under the Rule 23b
"predominance" factor, which requires plaintiffs to show that
"common issues predominate over individual ones."  The court held
that while common evidence would predominate with respect to the
facts of damages and antitrust violation, plaintiffs had not
demonstrated a plausible method for showing common impact on all
or nearly all members of the proposed classes.  The court cited
concerns that the evidence would not "be able to show that
Defendants maintained such rigid compensation structures that a
suppression of wages to some employees would have affected all or
nearly all Class members."

Nevertheless, the court permitted plaintiffs to file a
supplemental motion for class certification.  In that motion,
plaintiffs sought to narrow the proposed class to include only
technical employees (a proposed "class of salaried technical,
creative, and research and development employees who worked for a
defendant while that defendant participated in at least one anti-
solicitation agreement with another defendant.").  The defendants
responded that even this class fails because plaintiffs cannot
prove "the existence of compensation structures in which raises
for some employees would 'ripple' across all 2,536 varied job
titles and 61,666 diverse employees in the proposed class at seven
very different companies."  The court held a hearing on the
supplemental motion in August 2013, but has not yet ruled.

In two settlement agreements reached after plaintiffs'
supplemental motion, three of the seven defendants agreed to
settle for a total of $20 million (in one, sister companies
Lucasfilm and Pixar agreed to pay a total of $9 million; in the
other, Intuit agreed to pay $11 million).  Plaintiffs announced
these settlements in July 2013, but details were not disclosed
until September 21, when plaintiffs filed their motion for
preliminary approval of the settlements.  If approved, these
settlements will resolve all claims against Intuit, Lucasfilm and
Pixar.

However, the case is far from over.  Plaintiffs' claims against
the four remaining defendants (Adobe, Apple, Google and Intel)
remain, and plaintiffs' settlement filing states that of the three
settling defendants', employees comprise less than 8 percent of
the proposed class.  Furthermore, plaintiffs' settlement filing
states that "[t]he settlements preserve Plaintiffs' right to
litigate against the non-settling Defendants for the entire amount
of Plaintiffs' damages based on joint and several liability" and
alleges that "the Non-Settling Defendants remain liable for the
full amount of Class damages, including damages resulting from
conduct by the Settling Defendants."  If the claims against the
remaining defendants proceed to trial and the plaintiffs
ultimately prevail, the damage award could exceed $200 million.

These recent developments in the High-Tech Employee Antitrust
Litigation matter serve as an important reminder that companies
should exercise extreme caution in fashioning any type of non-
poaching agreement with their competitors, whether formal or
informal.  Where such an agreement is ancillary to some other
legitimate collaborative activity and narrowly tailored to
facilitate the pursuit of that permissible activity, it will very
likely pass antitrust muster.  But a non-poaching agreement that
falls outside these parameters will be very difficult to defend
and may be challenged as per se illegal.  The proposition that "I
won't go after your employees if you don't go after mine" may seem
reasonable from a business perspective, but the stark reality is
that such an agreement will not even qualify for rule of reason
treatment.


AES CORP: Dismissal of Greenhouse Gas Suit Affirmed in May
----------------------------------------------------------
The dismissal of a class action lawsuit over greenhouse gas
emissions was affirmed in May 2013, according to The AES
Corporation's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

In May 2011, a putative class action was filed in the Mississippi
federal court against the Company and numerous unrelated
companies.  The lawsuit alleges that greenhouse gas emissions
contributed to alleged global warming which, in turn, allegedly
increased the destructive capacity of Hurricane Katrina.  The
plaintiffs assert claims for public and private nuisance,
trespass, negligence, and declaratory judgment.  The plaintiffs
seek damages relating to loss of property, loss of business,
clean-up costs, personal injuries and death, but do not quantify
their alleged damages.  The Company is unable to estimate the
alleged damages at this time.  These and other plaintiffs
previously brought a substantially similar lawsuit in the federal
court but failed to obtain relief.  In October 2011, the Company
and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit.  In
March 2012, the federal court granted the motion and dismissed the
lawsuit.  The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit.  In May 2013, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal.  The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and
will defend itself vigorously in this lawsuit; however, there can
be no assurances that it will be successful in its efforts.

The AES Corporation -- http://www.aes.com/-- is a diversified
power generation and utility company organized into six market-
oriented Strategic Business Units: U.S., Andes (Chile, Colombia,
and Argentina), Brazil, MCAC (Mexico, Central America and
Caribbean), EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa), and Asia.  The
Company was incorporated in 1981 and its principal offices are
located in Arlington, Virginia.


AES CORP: Suit vs. Brazilian Unit Remains in Evidentiary Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------
The AES 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 a class action lawsuit filed
against its subsidiary in Brazil is still in the evidentiary
stage.

AES Florestal, Ltd. ("Florestal"), had been operating a pole
factory and had other assets, including a wooded area known as
"Horto Renner," in the State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
(collectively, "Property").  Florestal had been under the control
of AES Sul ("Sul") since October 1997, when Sul was created
pursuant to a privatization by the Government of the State of Rio
Grande do Sul.  After it came under the control of Sul, Florestal
performed an environmental audit of the entire operational cycle
at the pole factory.  The audit discovered 200 barrels of solid
creosote waste and other contaminants at the pole factory.  The
audit concluded that the prior operator of the pole factory,
Companhia Estadual de Energia Eletrica ("CEEE"), had been using
those contaminants to treat the poles that were manufactured at
the factory. Sul and Florestal subsequently took the initiative of
communicating with Brazilian authorities, as well as CEEE, about
the adoption of containment and remediation measures.  The Public
Attorney's Office has initiated a civil inquiry (Civil Inquiry n.
24/05) to investigate potential civil liability and has requested
that the police station of Triunfo institute a police
investigation (IP number 1041/05) to investigate potential
criminal liability regarding the contamination at the pole
factory.  The parties filed defenses in response to the civil
inquiry.  The Public Attorney's Office then requested an
injunction which the judge rejected on September 26, 2008, and the
Public Attorney's office no longer has a right to appeal the
decision.  The environmental agency ("FEPAM") has also started a
procedure (Procedure n. 088200567/059) to analyze the measures
that shall be taken to contain and remediate the contamination.
Also, in March 2000, Sul filed a lawsuit against CEEE in the 2nd
Court of Public Treasure of Porto Alegre seeking to register in
Sul's name the Property that it acquired through the privatization
but that remained registered in CEEE's name.  During those
proceedings, AES subsequently waived its claim to re-register the
Property and asserted a claim to recover the amounts paid for the
Property.  That claim is pending.  In November 2005, the 7th Court
of Public Treasure of Porto Alegre ruled that the Property must be
returned to CEEE.  CEEE has had sole possession of Horto Renner
since September 2006 and of the rest of the Property since April
2006.  In February 2008, Sul and CEEE signed a "Technical
Cooperation Protocol" pursuant to which they requested a new
deadline from FEPAM in order to present a proposal.

In March 2008, the State Prosecution office filed a Class Action
against AES Florestal, AES Sul and CEEE, requiring an injunction
for the removal of the alleged sources of contamination and the
payment of an indemnity in the amount of R$6 million ($3 million).
The injunction was rejected.  The proposal to FEPAM with respect
to containing and remediating the contamination was delivered on
April 8, 2008.  FEPAM responded by indicating that the parties
should undertake the first step of the proposal which would be to
retain a contractor.  In its response, Sul indicated that such
step should be undertaken by CEEE as the relevant environmental
events resulted from CEEE's operations.  In October 2011, the
State Prosecution Office presented a new request to the court of
Triunfo for an injunction against Florestal, Sul and CEEE for the
removal of the alleged sources of contamination and remediation,
and the court granted the injunction against CEEE but did not
grant injunctive relief against Florestal or Sul.  CEEE appealed
such decision, and the State of Rio Grande do Sul Court of Appeals
upheld the decision.  As required by the injunction, CEEE has
started the removal and disposal of the contaminants, which is
ongoing, and Sul is not at risk to bear any of such remediation
costs, which are estimated to be approximately R$60 million ($27
million).  In November 2012, the inspections performed by the
court expert and supervised by Sul confirmed that CEEE is
fulfilling the injunction by removing the contaminants.  The case
is in the evidentiary stage awaiting the production of the court's
expert opinion on several matters, including which of the parties
had utilized the products found in the area.

The AES Corporation -- http://www.aes.com/-- is a diversified
power generation and utility company organized into six market-
oriented Strategic Business Units: U.S., Andes (Chile, Colombia,
and Argentina), Brazil, MCAC (Mexico, Central America and
Caribbean), EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa), and Asia.  The
Company was incorporated in 1981 and its principal offices are
located in Arlington, Virginia.


AMERICAN INT'L: Investors File Securities Fraud Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Campbell, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
investors have filed a reported $60 million securities fraud class
action against American International Group (AIG) Inc.  The
plaintiffs had objected to a proposed $725 million class action
settlement against the investment and insurance firm, stemming
from allegations the company made false and misleading statements
regarding its financial health.

The plaintiffs are investment funds whose investors include state,
municipal and corporate pension and retirement funds; educational,
research and charitable endowments; and other institutional and
individual investors.  In their new securities lawsuit, entitled
The case is Franklin U.S. Rising Dividends Fund, et al. v.
American International Group Inc., case number 2:13-cv-05805 in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, they
allege AIG disseminated false and misleading statements concerning
its financial results and operations and manipulated the stock
market during the period in which they purchased AIG stock.

According to the lawsuit: "AIG perpetrated two wide-ranging
fraudulent schemes: first, a contingent commission payment and bid
rigging arrangement with Marsh & McLennan Cos., which the New York
Attorney General at the time likened to 'the same kind of cartel-
like behavior carried out by organized crime.'"

The lawsuit also states that in October 2004, Eliot Spitzer, who
was the New York Attorney General at the time, implicated AIG in a
scheme to pay insurance brokers improper "contingent commissions"
that resulted in unsuspecting clients being led by the brokers to
purchase AIG insurance policies at inflated prices.

"To facilitate that scheme, AIG participated in bid-rigging to
deceive customers into thinking the bids for their business were
competitive.  This illegal scheme virtually guaranteed that the
duped customers would renew their AIG-written policies, as so-
called 'competitive' bids from other insurance companies were pre-
arranged to be made at prices higher than AIG's.  In connection
with this bid-rigging scheme, AIG also submitted fake,
noncompetitive bids in order to allow its co-conspirators to
retain or obtain certain insurance business at inflated, non-
competitive prices," the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit states that a second scheme involved insurance
accounting frauds that were fully revealed on May 31, 2005, and
which resulted in AIG slashing its earnings by 10% and reducing
the value of its shareholders' equity by $2.26 billion.

"The restatement involved improper transactions across multiple
major areas, including: the transfer of risk in connection with
various reinsurance deals; so-called "top side" adjustments to
claims reserves and other accounts; mischaracterizing certain
income as underwriting income; and converting underwriting losses
into capital losses," the lawsuit states.


AMG SERVICES: Faces Suit Over Loan Collectors' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Diaz, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. AMG Services, Inc., Registered Agent: Thomas E.
Gamble, 202 South Eight Tribes Trail, Miami, Oklahoma 74354;
Crystal Cram-Grote, 28615 S. State Route D, Cleveland, MO 64734-
9309; Scott A. Tucker, 2405 W. 114th Street, Leawood, KS 66221;
and Blaine A. Tucker, 14568 Sherwood Road, Overland Park, KS
66224, Case No. 2:13-cv-02513 (D. Kan., October 7, 2013) is
brought against the Defendants for unpaid wages and related
penalties and damages.

The Defendants' practices and policies have resulted in their
willfully failing to pay overtime wages due and owing to her and
all other similarly situated employees in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, Ms. Diaz alleges.  She argues that the
Defendants have failed to pay all overtime wages due to her
Plaintiff and the Company's other hourly Loan Collectors by
failing to include relevant commissions while calculating their
hourly overtime pay rate in violation of the FLSA and the Kansas
Wage Payment Act.

Ms. Diaz is a resident of De Soto, Kansas.  From May 2011 to the
present, she has been employed as an hourly Loan Collector
employee at the Defendant's Overland Park call center.

AMG is a corporation chartered under the laws of the Miami Tribe
of Oklahoma with its principle place of business in Overland Park,
Kansas.  AMG does business in Kansas, operating a call center
where Loan Collector employees of AMG are tasked with collecting
high-fee, short-term "payday" loans.

Crystal Cram-Grote is AMG's Director of Operations for the
Overland Park call center where the Plaintiff and other Loan
Collector employees work.  Scott A. Tucker is a resident of Kansas
and is employed by AMG in a management capacity.  Blaine A. Tucker
is a resident of Kansas and is employed by AMG as its
secretary/manager.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael F. Brady
          Mark A. Kistler
          BRADY & ASSOCIATES
          10901 Lowell Ave., Suite 280
          Overland Park, KS 66210
          Telephone: (913) 696-0925
          Facsimile: (913) 696-0468
          E-mail: brady@mbradylaw.com
                  mkistler@mbradylaw.com


APPLIANCE RECYCLING: Suit Over Whirlpool Products Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit relating to Whirlpool Corporation products
remains pending, according to Appliance Recycling Centers of
America, Inc.'s August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 29,
2013.

In February 2012, various individuals commenced a class action
lawsuit against Whirlpool Corporation ("Whirlpool") and various
distributors of Whirlpool products, including Sears, The Home
Depot, Lowe's and the Company, alleging certain appliances sold by
Whirlpool through its distribution chain, which includes the
Company, were improperly designated with the ENERGY STAR(R)
qualification rating established by the U.S. Department of Energy
and the Environmental Protection Agency.  The claims against the
Company include breach of warranty claims, as well as various
state consumer protection claims.  The amount of the claim is, as
yet, undetermined.  Whirlpool has offered to fully indemnify and
defend its distributors in this lawsuit, including the Company,
and has engaged defense counsel to defend itself and the
distributors.  The Company is monitoring Whirlpool's defense of
the claims and believes the possibility of a material loss is
remote.

Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc. and subsidiaries are
in the business of providing turnkey appliance recycling and
replacement services for electric utilities and other sponsors of
energy efficiency programs.  The Minneapolis, Minnesota-based
Company also sells new major household appliances through a chain
of Company-owned stores under the name ApplianceSmart(R).


AVIS BUDGET: Judge Denies Shift Managers' Summary Judgment Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Sundar and Carolina Bolado, writing for Law360, report that
a Florida federal judge on Oct. 3 denied a motion for summary
judgment by a class of Avis Budget Group Inc. shift managers who
claim they were not paid overtime wages, ruling that "factual
issues abound" in the case.

In a short docket order, U.S. District Judge Mary S. Scriven
declined to rule in favor of the plaintiffs after noting that the
parties have not been able to agree on basic facts, such as
whether the Avis workers were all paid $455 each week to establish
a threshold amount for employees exempt from overtime pay under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

"Neither party offers a sufficiently comprehensive set of
undisputed facts concerning the plaintiffs' duties upon which this
court can rule as a matter of law on the status of the plaintiffs
as exempt or non-exempt," Judge Scriven said. "Plaintiffs do not
even attempt to offer a set of undisputed facts. This is both a
procedural and substantive defect that is fatal to this motion."

In the motion for summary judgment filed in April, the plaintiffs
said Avis made a "clear corporate choice" to misclassify shift
managers at Avis locations in large airports. These shift managers
regularly work 50 to 80 hours per week performing non-exempt
duties like cleaning, moving and renting cars and do not have the
authority or discretion that are integral to a management
position, according to the motion.

The plaintiffs said that Avis classified shift managers as exempt
despite a 2006 FLSA audit suggesting that these workers did not
have discretion and should not be classified as exempt.

But Avis, in a filing opposing the plaintiffs' bid for summary
judgment, said that the plaintiffs have created "the fiction of a
non-exempt job" and pointed to testimony of many shift managers
who performed job duties that meet the criteria for FLSA executive
and administrative exemptions.

"Simply because plaintiffs chose to ignore contradictory testimony
or testimony that describes an exempt job does not mean that such
testimony does not exist," Avis said in the filing.

The suit was brought in April 2010 by Bernar Espanol, a shift
manager who worked for the company from 2004 to March 2010.

In October 2011, a nationwide class consisting of all shift
managers who worked at Avis locations at 82 of the nation's
largest airports was conditionally certified. A motion for final
class certification is currently pending.

The class is represented by Dale J. Morgado, R. Edward Rosenberg
-- erosenberg@ffmlawgroup.com -- and Armando A. Ortiz of Feldman
Morgado PA.

Avis is represented by Ashley Lynn Fitzgerald --
afitzgerald@littler.com  -- Kimberly J. Gost -- kgost@littler.com
-- Matthew J. Hank -- mhank@littler.com -- Nina K. Markey --
nmarkey@littler.com -- Sarah Bryan Fask -- sfask@littler.com --
and Holly E. Rich -- hrich@littler.com -- of Littler Mendelson PC.

The case is Espanol et al. v. Avis Budget Rental LLC et al., case
number 8:10-cv-00944, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.


BELL MOBILITY: Pre-paid Wireless Suit Certified as Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sotos LLP disclosed that a class action against Bell Mobility Inc.
alleging that the expiry dates on its pre-paid wireless services
are illegal was certified by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
on Oct. 4.

The lawsuit, which includes more than 1 million class members in
Ontario, alleges that Bell systemically breaches its contracts
with its pre-paid wireless customers by seizing credit balances.
In particular, the lawsuit alleges that pre-paid wireless services
payments are "gift cards", as defined by Ontario's Consumer
Protection Act, and cannot have an expiry date.  The plaintiffs
are seeking $100 million in damages from Bell.

The allegations in the lawsuit have not yet been proven in court.

The representative plaintiff, Celia Sankar, lives in Elliot Lake,
Ontario, and is founder of the DiversityCanada Foundation, a not-
for-profit organization.  Ms. Sankar is a Bell pre-paid wireless
customer who had her credit balance seized twice, in September
2011 and February 2012.  Ms. Sankar will represent anyone in
Ontario who purchased or otherwise acquired pre-paid wireless
services under the brands Bell Mobility, Virgin Mobile Canada and
Solo Mobile since May 4, 2010.

The law firms of Sotos LLP and Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP
represent Ms. Sankar and the other members of the class.

"This decision is a victory for the vulnerable consumers who use
pre-paid wireless services," said Ms. Sankar.  "These services are
popular with many persons of limited means.  It's tremendously
important that they have access to the court through a class
action proceeding to have their claims fairly tried."

Lead counsel, Louis Sokolov of Sotos LLP, noted that class counsel
are currently investigating similar claims against other wireless
companies and added that, in the absence of a class action, the
claims of individual customers would remain unresolved.

"No one would ever bring their own lawsuit for the $20 or $30 that
wireless companies take from their customers when their balances
expire," said Mr. Sokolov.  "That it is why it is so important
that consumer cases like this be certified and corporations like
Bell be required to answer the allegations."

Co-counsel Christine Davies and Nadine Blum observed this is the
first case to consider the "gift card" provisions of Ontario's
Consumer Protection Act.

Ms. Davies commented:"The gift card law was intended to protect
consumers from losing cash equivalents.  Class members pre-paid
money into their accounts so that they would have funds available
to purchase services and products from Bell on an ongoing basis.
If successful at trial, this case will ensure that consumers'
pre-paid amounts are protected."


CANADA: Former Aboriginal Day Scholars to File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that students who attended native
residential schools in B.C., but did not live in residence, are
seeking redress for their experiences.

Lawyers representing groups of former day scholars from the
Tk'emlups and Sechelt bands say an application to certify a class
action lawsuit will be filed in federal court sometime this month.

Chief Shane Gottfriedson of the Tk'emlups Band near Kamloops, says
if the suit is approved, he's hoping it will be joined by
thousands of day students who were sent to residential schools
operating across Canada for more than 120 years.

Once approved, any class action suit would not be heard until the
fall of 2014, at the earliest.

Day scholars attended the same residential schools where many
aboriginal students suffered physical, emotional and sexual abuse,
but the day scholars have been exempted from the federal apology
and are not eligible for compensation packages.

Mr. Gottfriedson says Canada is seeking reconciliation with
First Nations but he wants senior governments to offer support to
everyone affected by the residential school system.


CHALLENGE DAIRY: Kelley Drye Discusses Class Action Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
Donnelly L. McDowell, Esq. -- dmcdowell@kelleydrye.com --
Keri E. Borders, Esq. -- kborders@kelleydrye.com  -- Sarah L.
Cronin, Esq. -- scronin@kelleydrye.com -- and Sarah Roller, Esq.
-- sroller@kelleydrye.com -- at Kelley Drye & Warren LLP  report
that on September 25, 2013, in a published decision, the
California Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of a consumer
class action at demurrer against Challenge Dairy Inc. and Kroger
Inc.  The class action alleged that the labeling of Challenge's
"Spreadable Butter With Canola Oil" product was false and
misleading because the label used the word "butter" to name a food
that is not a 100% butter product.  The three judge Appellate
Court panel found that 1) Plaintiff's claims brought under
California's Milk and Milk Processing Act were preempted by the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; and 2) the Plaintiff's
motion to add additional alleged claims under California's Sherman
Act had been properly denied because no reasonable consumer could
have been deceived by the labeling of the product.

Plaintiff Mary Simpson mounted the class action against Kroger,
its subsidiary Ralphs Grocery Co., and Challenge Dairy Products,
Inc. in December 2011, claiming that using the term "butter" as
part of the name of a product consisting of "butter with oil"
violated the California butter labeling requirements under the
MMPA.  The Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims on
the grounds that they were preempted by the national uniform
labeling requirements that have been established under the FDCA,
CDA, and the complaint was dismissed, with prejudice, by the trial
court on May 15, 2012.

In a published decision, the California Court of Appeals affirmed
the lower court's ruling that the Plaintiff's claims brought under
California's MMPA were preempted by the FDCA, which governed the
naming and labeling of butter and "butter with oil" combination
products, and any purported contrary regulation in the MMPA was
expressly and impliedly preempted by federal law.  The court went
on to find the labeling of Challenge's products were not false and
misleading as a matter of law, because no reasonable consumer
would think the product contained 100% butter, as alleged by the
plaintiff.

This is an important decision for defendants because not only does
it reaffirm the vitality of the preemption defense, it also
establishes that a trial court can dismiss, as a matter of law,
claims challenging food labeling that are simply implausible or do
not meet the reasonable consumer standard.


CHEVRON CORP: Racketeering Suit Set for Oct. 15 Trial
-----------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that the
pitched battle between Chevron Corporation and a lawyer and
Ecuadorians who won a multi-billion-dollar environmental judgment
against the oil company in Ecuador is set for trial on Oct. 15,
before Southern District Judge Lewis Kaplan.

Kaplan denied the request of attorney Steven Donziger and two of
his Ecuadorian clients for a jury trial in the case, where Chevron
is alleging Mr. Donziger ran a racketeering conspiracy to win the
so-called Lago Agrio litigation in Ecuador by fraud, and Mr.
Donziger is accusing Chevron of scorched-earth tactics to avoid
taking financial responsibility for environmental damage left
behind by a predecessor oil company.

Chevron filed suit in New York in 2011 after losing in the Lago
Agrio case and just ahead of being assessed $19 billion in damages
by a court in Ecuador.  The oil company claims the Ecuadorian
judiciary had been intimidated and corrupted by Mr. Donziger, a
claim he denies.

Chevron also launched actions in multiple jurisdictions seeking to
prevent the Lago Agrio plaintiffs from attaching its assets
anywhere in the world to ensure payment of the judgment.

The trial set for Oct. 15 comes in Chevron v. Donziger, 11-cv-
00691, where Chervon is pursing single counts of civil
racketeering and fraud, and two counts of conspiracy against
Donziger, who is proceeding pro se, and Hugo Camacho and Javier
Payaguaje, two representative Lago Agrio plaintiffs, represented
by Julio Gomez of Westfield, N.J.

The case has been marked by vitriol as both sides have leveled
serious charges against each other and Mr. Donziger's team has
repeatedly accused the judge of bias in issuing a host of rulings
in favor of Chevron -- a claim that resurfaced when Chevron
dropped its pursuit of money damages in September, opening the
door to a bench trial.

Chevron will find out later this week whether Kaplan will allow a
fifth count to be added -- one for unjust enrichment, a claim that
Chevron lawyer Randy Mastro -- rmastro@gibsondunn.com -- a partner
with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, says is equitable and one that keeps
this a bench trial. Donziger argues the opposite, saying the
unjust enrichment claim is, in effect, a money claim that warrants
trial by jury.

Chevron gave notice it was dropping its claim for money damages on
Sept. 8 and Kaplan asked both parties why the case should not
proceed as a bench trial.

On Sept. 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
rejected Mr. Donziger's latest attempt to have Kaplan yanked from
the case.

In a memorandum on Oct. 4, Mr. Donziger said Chevron demanded a
jury trial when it filed the case in New York two years ago and is
now "simply masquerading damages as equity".

After Chevron filed its lawsuit, Mr. Donziger said, "It then used
'the explosive' 'thermonuclear' impact of the allegations -- the
'terrorizing' effect of civil RICO 'as another court has described
it' -- to launch a global smear campaign designed to destroy my
reputation, chill my free speech rights, and drive me away from
representing the Ecuadorian communities who are my clients.  This
campaign was promoted, encouraged and amplified by the very court
that Chevron now seeks to preside over a bench trial."

In addition to "fundamental fairness" requiring a jury trial,
Mr. Donziger said, "Chevron has accused me of being a 'criminal'
in open court," and "it would amount to a travesty of justice to
deny me and my clients a jury trial in what is essentially a
private prosecution funded by corporate largesse."

Mr. Donziger said the Seventh Amendment requires a jury trial and
he and his fellow defendants also argued that the addition of the
unjust enrichment claim would require a jury trial.

But in his decision on Oct. 7, Judge Kaplan said the question of
whether the Donziger defendants had a right to a jury trial wasn't
a close call.

"Cases seeking only injunctions, imposition of constructive
trusts, and disgorgement -- including RICO cases based on alleged
mail and wire fraud seeking openly such relief -- all are purely
equitable and carry no right to trial by jury," he said.  "Chevron
unequivocally has surrendered any claim to money damages as well
as to any other relief that is not equitable in nature."

Addressing Mr. Donziger's "fairness" argument, the judge said,
"Defendants' claim of bias have been rejected repeatedly both by
this Court and the Court of Appeals."

Judge Kaplan said the argument on fairness "even if it had merit,
which it does not, is beside the point."

"Insofar as is relevant to this case, the availability of trial by
jury depends on one thing alone -- whether the Seventh Amendment
to the United States Constitution requires it," he said.  "The law
is clear -- it does not.  In such circumstances, trial by jury is
available only if the parties and the trial judge all agree to
it."

"As the parties do not all agree to trial by jury," he said, "the
Court lacks the power to grant a jury trial."

In a telephone interview on Oct. 7, Mr. Mastro said the trial is
expected to last several weeks and he intends to call dozens of
witnesses, including expert witnesses, to make his case.

"We intend to prove they committed RICO violations and fraud and
then ask the court for equitable relief to prevent them from
profiting from racketeering and fraud," Mr. Mastro said.

Mr. Gomez, also in a phone interview, said "This trial is
essentially about whether the [Lago Agrio] judgment was procured
by fraud and whether my clients were involved in any of that.  My
clients had no actual knowledge of the day-to-day actions taken by
attorneys and obviously relied on them for their representation --
but they also deny that their attorneys did anything improper or
inappropriate."

Mr. Donziger did not return a call seeking comment.


CNL LIFESTYLE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Allyn" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CNL Lifestyle Properties, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the
shareholder complaint Allyn v. CNL Lifestyle Properties, Inc. et
al., which is awaiting the court's decision, according to the
company's Aug. 13, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

A purported class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who
purchased shares under the Company's DRP on or after April 1,
2010, Allyn v. CNL Lifestyle Properties, Inc. et al., was filed on
January 18, 2013 in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida against the Company and certain of its
current and former directors.

The lawsuit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty against
the directors and constructive trust and unjust enrichment against
the Company. The factual assertions in the complaint consist
primarily of the allegation that the price for shares purchased
under the DRP was inflated. The complaint seeks an unspecified
amount of damages and other relief relating to the purported
inflation. The Company intends to defend vigorously against such
claims and is not able to determine the ultimate outcome at this
time. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on
May 1, 2013, which is awaiting the court's decision.

From time to time the Company may be exposed to litigation arising
from operations of its business in the ordinary course of
business. Management is not aware of any litigation that it
believes will have a material adverse impact on the Company's
financial condition or results of operations.


COMCAST CORP: Customers to Seek Class Certification for 3rd Time
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Fernandez, writing for Philly.com, reports that in late March,
the U.S. Supreme Court seemed to have plunged a stake into a long-
running class-action lawsuit between Comcast Corp. and plaintiffs'
attorneys who claimed the company abused its market power to hike
cable bills on Philadelphia-area customers.

The high court voted, 5-4, on ideological lines not to certify the
case -- forcing it back to a lower court.  They said the financial
damages for two million TV customers could not be fairly measured
throughout the expansive Philadelphia region.

"The permutations involving four theories of liability and two
million subscribers located in 16 counties are nearly endless,"
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion.

But months later, this legal zombie lives on.

The plaintiffs' attorneys, led by Barry Barnett --
Bbarnett@susmangodfrey.com -- of the Susman Godfrey firm in
Dallas, say they will attempt for a third time to certify a class
of damaged Comcast cable customers -- promising, if Judge John R.
Padova of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in
Philadelphia agrees, more years of litigation in an epic case.  It
was first filed in December 2003.

"The patient appeared dead but was only on life support," cracked
Kenneth A. Jacobsen, professor at Temple University Law School,
who dished up another metaphor: "It may be old and it may be the
third bite at the apple, but the Supreme Court didn't say [the
plaintiffs' lawyers] couldn't do it."

This time, the plaintiffs will include a narrower class of
potentially damaged Comcast TV customers: those who live in
Philadelphia, Bucks, Delaware, Montgomery, and Chester Counties.

The suit claims that Comcast thwarted a competing cable company,
RCN Corp. of Princeton, from expanding into the region by lobbying
against it with government officials, offering customers discounts
in areas where RCN would expand and restricting RCN's access to
contractors who would build out its network.

RCN did not get traction and ran into financial headwinds as
Comcast consolidated its market position through nine swaps and
acquisitions of cable-TV subscribers, eventually coming to control
more than 60 percent of the Philadelphia region's cable-TV homes
by 2003.

The plaintiffs contend that RCN competition could have limited
Comcast's price increases for TV service.  They claimed damages to
Comcast's consumers amounted to $875 million.  If the plaintiffs
won at trial, they could have been awarded more than $2 billion,
lawyers say.

With only five counties, the damages are likely to be less than
$875 million.

Comcast says enough already.

"Plaintiffs are not entitled to a do-over now simply because the
Supreme Court's decision showed that their judgment was wrong,"
Comcast wrote to the court.  The plaintiffs have attempted, the
company noted, to support their case with 16 or 17 expert reports
over the years.

The case has been litigated so long that the lead customer dropped
out. First called Behrend v. Comcast, it's now Glaberson v.
Comcast.

The case has fallen off the national legal radar since the Supreme
Court decision.  But Nick Even, an attorney with the Haynes &
Boone firm in Houston and not associated with the case, said that
if Judge Padova "decides to recertify the class . . . that would
definitely catch everyone's attention."

Judge Padova seems to be handling the case's duration with wry
humor.  Said the judge in June, "We have on the court's calendar
this afternoon a status conference with respect to this very, very
interesting case which has been with us for some time now."


DEER CONSUMER: Calif. Court Approves Settlement in "Rose" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Deer Consumer Products, Inc., disclosed on its Aug. 13, 2013, Form
8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that
it successfully settled the securities class action lawsuit Rose
v. Deer Consumer Products, Inc. et al.  The United States District
Court for the Central District of California granted final
approval of a settlement on August 9, 2013, which represents about
4% of plaintiffs' claimed damages.

The Lawsuit primarily relates to certain public statements
concerning the Company's financial condition in 2010 and 2009. The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which was pending
before the Court at the time of the settlement of the Lawsuit.
The Company continues to deny the allegations in the Lawsuit and
settled the matter to spare itself further litigation expense.

Deer Consumer Products, Inc. -- http://www.deerinc.com/-- is a
U.S. company with its primary operations in China. Deer has an 20-
year operating business and a strong balance sheet. Operated by
Deer's founders and supported by more than 100 patents,
trademarks, and copyrights, Deer is a provider of "DEER" branded
consumer products to Chinese consumers and a vertically integrated
manufacturer of small home and kitchen appliances. Deer's products
are produced in-house at company facilities and by third party OEM
manufacturers under the "DEER" brand. Deer's product lines include
small household and kitchen appliances as well as personal care
products designed to make modern lifestyles easier and healthier.


ECOTALITY INC: Alfred G. Yates Law Firm Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., P.C. on Oct. 4 disclosed
that a class action has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
purchasers of ECOtality, Inc. common stock during the period
between April 16, 2013 and August 9, 2013.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 15, 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, Alfred G. Yates
Jr., at 1-800-391-5164, toll free, or at yateslaw@aol.com by
e-mail.  Please visit http://yatesclassactionlaw.com

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 ECOtality and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and future prospects.  Specifically, the complaint
alleges that defendants concealed due to design and manufacturing
defects, some of ECOtality's charging systems had been causing
overheating and even the melting of connector plugs when charging
vehicles.

On August 12, 2013, the price of ECOtality common stock, which had
traded as high as $2.40 per share in intraday trading during the
Class Period, plummeted more than 87% from that level to close at
$0.30 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
ECOtality common stock during the Class Period (the "Class").

The firm is also investigating actions on behalf of shareholders
for the following companies: The Active Network, Inc., BioScrip
Inc., Boise Inc., Edgen Group Inc., Francesca's Holdings
Corporation, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Lumber Liquidators Holdings,
Inc., Urban Outfitters Inc., Verenium Corporation, Zoltek
Companies Inc.

If you are a shareholder of any of the above companies and wish
learn more about any of the investigations or have any questions,
please contact Alfred G. Yates Jr., Esquire at 1-800-391-5164,
toll free, or at yateslaw@aol.com by e-mail.  Please visit
http://yatesclassactionlaw.com


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Settles Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
student athletes who claim that the NCAA violates their rights to
their own names and likenesses have settled their claims against
video game maker Electronic Arts.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is not a party to the
settlement but its licensing arm, Collegiate Licensing Co., is.

Filed late Thursday, September 26, 2013, the stipulation and
proposed order is scant on settlement details, It promises,
however, that the court will soon have "the documents necessary to
present to the court for preliminary approval of the settlement."

The settling parties say U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken should
stay the case in the meantime.

Keker & Van Nest attorney James Slaughter signed the stipulation
for Electronic Arts. CLC is represented by Charles Henn Jr. with
Kilpatrick Townsend.

Robert Carey with Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro signed as
plaintiffs' interim co-lead counsel, principally responsible for
publicity claims.

For antitrust claims, the plaintiffs have Michael Lehmann with
Hausfeld LLP.

The class action is a consolidation of cases that former student-
athletes brought against the NCAA, EA and CLC, objecting to the
commercial use of their likenesses, images and names.

Former Arizona State quarterback Samuel Keller and UCLA basketball
star Ed O'Bannon were among the first to sue in 2009.

The plaintiffs had filed their opposition to the motions to
dismiss by all three defendants on Tuesday, September 24, 2013.

The Plaintiffs are represented in the stipulation by:

          Robert B. Carey, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Telephone: (602) 840-5900
          Facsimile: (602) 840-3012
          E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Michael Paul Lehmann, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com

The Defendants are represented in the stipulation by:

          Robert Addy Van Nest, Esq.
          Robert James Slaughter, Esq.
          Asim Bhansali, Esq.
          KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
          633 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
          Telephone: (415) 391-5400
          E-mail: rvannest@kvn.com
                  rslaughter@kvn.com
                  abhansali@kvn.com

               - and -

          R. Charles Henn, Jr., Esq.
          KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP
          1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
          Atlanta, GA 30309-4501
          Telephone: (404) 815-6500
          E-mail: chenn@kilpatrickstockton.com

               - and -

          Peter M. Boyle, Esq.
          KILPATRICK STOCKTON LP
          607 14th Street, NW, Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 508-5831
          Facsimile: (202) 585-0057
          E-mail: pboyle@kilpatrickstockton.com

The case is Keller v. Electronic Arts Inc. et al., Case No. 4:09-
cv-01967-CW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (Oakland).


ELI LILLY: 9th Cir. Affirms Ruling on Darvon/Darvocet Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reports that removal of the
Darvon/Darvocet propoxyphene case to federal court was not proper
because plaintiffs' petition for pretrial coordination of similar
cases was not a proposal to try the cases jointly under the Class
Action Fairness Act, the majority of a 9th Circuit U.S. Court of
Appeals panel has affirmed.

On Sept. 24, the majority, consisting of Justices Johnnie B.
Rawlinson and Ivan L.R. Lemelle, found the petition for
coordination focused on pretrial proceedings, i.e., discovery
matters, rather than consolidation through trial.


FACEBOOK INC: Public Interest Groups Appeal $20-Mil. Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Jonny Bonner reports that
public interest groups appealed a controversial $20 million
settlement to claims that Facebook used the names and likenesses
of its users to promote products without their permission.

The Children's Advocacy Center and the Center for Public Interest
Law, representing adult and child users of Facebook, filed the
multiple appeals in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California this week.  Robert Fellmeth, the center's
San Francisco-based attorney, signed the appeals.

He says the 9th Circuit should review U.S. District Judge Richard
Seeborg's August decision to give a settlement over so-called
"Sponsored Stories" final approval.

Under "Sponsored Stories," Facebook allegedly publicized that
users "liked" certain advertisers without compensation or a way to
opt out.

The approved settlement requires Facebook to pay $15 -- or about
$9 million in total -- to 615,000 users who filed claims, while
giving millions more to lawyers and 14 nonprofit groups.

Seeborg rejected an initial version of the settlement in the long-
running case, saying the proposed payments -- and lawyer awards --
were "plucked out of thin air."

Eventually, however, the judge sided with a revised version of the
settlement and said Facebook users' allegations remained "largely
untested."

"If 'Sponsored Stories' had undisputedly violated the law and
represented the gross invasion of class members' rights as
characterized by the complaint, then the adequacy of the
settlement would, of course, be viewed through a very different
lens," Seebord wrote.  "Plaintiffs' allegations and theories,
however, remain largely untested, having only survived a motion to
dismiss.  Substantial barriers to recovery remained, not the least
of which would be the requirement to demonstrate that the
complained-of conduct caused cognizable harm.  Placing those and
other factors discussed below in the balance, the proposed
settlement warrants final approval."

He added: "This settlement was achieved through negotiations
mediated by a renowned retired federal magistrate judge following
months of active, adversarial, litigation.  The viability of the
pleading had been tested through motion practice, and class
certification issues were fully briefed.  The parties had engaged
in substantial discovery.  There is no basis to conclude that the
negotiations were anything other than a good faith, arms-length
attempt by experienced and informed counsel to resolve this matter
through compromise."

The lawsuit, filed in 2011, was removed from Santa Clara County
Superior Court to the Northern District of California.  In
December 2012, following revision of the settlement, Facebook said
the deal "delivers substantial, immediate relief."

"The revised settlement delivers substantial, immediate relief for
the nearly 125 million users in the class," Facebook said in a
brief.  "It provides improved disclosure, new and powerful user
controls relating to sponsored content, and potentially millions
in direct monetary payments.  The revised settlement
unquestionably meets the permissive standard for preliminary
approval, which should be granted whenever a non-collusive
settlement 'falls within the range of possible approval.'"

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan Ellsworth Davis, Esq.
          Robert Stephen Arns, Esq.
          Steven Richard Weinmann, Esq.
          THE ARNS LAW FIRM
          515 Folsom St., 3FL
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 495-7800
          Facsimile: (415) 495-7888
          E-mail: jed@arnslaw.com
                  ddl@arnslaw.com
                  srw@arnslaw.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Matthew Jaffe, Esq.
          JONATHAN JAFFE LAW
          3055 Hillegass Avenue
          Berkeley, CA 94705
          Telephone: (510) 725-4293
          E-mail: jmj@jaffe-law.com

               - and -

          William Richard Restis, Esq.
          FINKELSTIEN & KRINSK LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333
          E-mail: wrr@classactionlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jennifer Ann Hall, Esq.
          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: jhall@gibsondunn.com
                  aberinger@gibsondunn.com

The original case is Fraley, et al. v. Facebook, Inc., Case No.
3:11-cv-01726-RS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco).


FACEBOOK INC: Supreme Court Set to Decide on Beacon Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, writing for The Wall Street
Journal, report that the Supreme Court will soon decide whether to
hear a case that could determine the future of particularly
abusive class-action settlements.  Not abusive in the usual sense,
where a class of injured plaintiffs is awarded an exorbitant
amount. Instead, these settlements are abusive in that absolutely
nothing goes to the injured plaintiffs.  At issue is whether
federal courts may approve such agreements rewarding lawyers and
defendants, leaving plaintiffs out in the cold.

The case is Marek v. Lane, and it arose out of Facebook's
notorious 2007 "Beacon" program.  Beacon gathered and published
information about Facebook users' other Internet activities as an
advertising and marketing tool, invading the privacy of millions.
It may also have violated a number of state and federal laws,
including the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act, which includes a
liquidated-damages provision of $2,500 for each offense.  A class-
action suit was filed in 2008 on behalf of as many as 3.6 million
injured social networkers.

Embarrassed (if unrepentant) and under media pressure, Facebook
entered settlement negotiations, ultimately agreeing to pay $9.5
million.  Of this, about $3.1 million (later reduced to $2.3
million) would go to the class-action lawyers, and the rest would
be used to create a Digital Trust Foundation, controlled in part
by Facebook.  The DTF would sponsor programs and education
regarding online threats to personal information and identity --
including through funding consumer groups, such as the Electronic
Frontier Foundation, that Facebook already supports and are often
allied with Facebook on matters of regulation and public policy.
Members of the class of injured plaintiffs, meanwhile, would get
nothing and, unless they took action to "opt-out" of the
settlement, their individual claims would be forever barred.

Such arrangements, through which a class recovery is diverted to
purposes other than actually compensating the claimants, are known
as "cy pres" awards, a term derived from the French legal
expression cy pres comme possible (as near as possible).  The idea
is that where a court cannot directly achieve some remedial goal,
such as meaningful payments to the injured parties, it may adopt
other measures that, as nearly as possible, have the same
compensatory result.

Cy pres remedies are very much an exception in the law, and are
ordinarily subject to significant judicial policing due to the
risk that defendants and class-action attorneys will use cy pres
to cut a deal that benefits them both but gives plaintiffs little
or nothing.  For this reason, federal courts carefully assess
whether proposed settlements are "fair, reasonable, and adequate"
to the injured class members.  A cy pres award can be approved
only if a court finds that granting the recovery to a third party
best advances member interests.

The Facebook settlement, however, provides zero benefit to class
members.  Breaking with all the other appeals courts to consider
cy pres settlements, in February the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit upheld a ruling that an award of millions to a
foundation controlled in part by Facebook was good enough because
it was not entirely "unrelated to the class's interests."

Yet the Ninth Circuit's six dissenting judges wrote: "The DTF can
teach Facebook users how to create strong passwords, tinker with
their privacy settings, and generally be more cautious online, but
it can't teach users how to protect themselves from Facebook's
deliberate misconduct.  Unless, of course, the DTF teaches
Facebook users not to use Facebook. That seems unlikely."

Nevertheless, both the trial court and the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals approved this agreement, without assessing the value of
class members' claims.  The agreement did not even forbid Facebook
from reinstituting a program identical to Beacon under a different
name in the future and injuring class members in the exact same
fashion.  If that's "fair, reasonable, and adequate," then
anything goes.

The Ninth Circuit's decision opens new vistas in class-action
litigation, where lawyers (in the form of fat fees) and defendants
(in the form of resolving expensive lawsuits on the cheap) could
reap rich rewards simply by stiffing those actually injured.
Sadly, even courts have been known to get in on the action by
helping to choose the institutions or causes to receive cy pres
payments -- including awards to the alma mater of a plaintiffs'
lawyer, in one case, and to schools where judges either taught or
served as a trustee, in others.

Only the Supreme Court can remedy this, by hearing Marek v. Lane
and reversing a decision that carries the real and immediate
danger of promoting significant abuse nationwide.  Class actions
should compensate the victims of genuine injuries, not promote
some social good as defined by lawyers, defendants and judges.


FLANIGAN'S ENTERPRISES: Faces Suit Over "Wage Act Violation"
------------------------------------------------------------
Flanigan's Enterprises, Inc. disclosed on its Aug. 13, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 29, 2013, that during the 3rd quarter of
the company's fiscal year 2011, a suit was filed against the
company alleging that the company charges employees for required
uniforms in violation of the Florida Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff is attempting to certify the suit as a class action
and the company is defending vigorously against the class
certification as well as the allegations contained in the lawsuit.
"This lawsuit is uninsured and an adverse decision could have a
material effect on us," the Company said.


GMAC: Force-Placed Insurance Class Suit Carries Precedent
---------------------------------------------------------
Arthur D. Postal, writing for PropertyCasualty360.com, reports
that a lawsuit filed in federal court in Manhattan, and a judge's
recent ruling prompted by that suit, is further raising the
financial stakes for insurance carriers who provided force-placed
coverage for mortgage servicers during the housing bust and its
aftermath.

The New York class action suit was filed against GMAC and its
insurer, Balboa, now a unit of QBE.

First, U.S. District Court Judge Alison Nathan in the Southern
District of New York, rejected efforts by GMAC and Balboa to bar
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act claims
in the lawsuit.  The ruling means carriers and mortgage servicers
could be subject to triple damages.

Second, the grounds for the suit could make it easier to file a
nationwide class action lawsuit.  And, third, it bars defendants
from claiming rates imposed through force-placed insurance (FPI)
were legal because they were approved by states -- a common
defense in the lawsuits.

The latest suit is different in several ways from a flock of
lawsuits in Florida, the FPI capital of the world, according to
lawyers who are now dealing with class action lawsuits against 6
major mortgage services over FPI provided by insurers during the
recent housing bust.

Moreover, industry lawyers, who have filed cases in California and
Florida, as well as New York, acknowledged that the rulings in
Florida and New York are consistent in that courts are now viewing
FPI arrangements harshly, by rejecting various defense theories
and giving plaintiff's lawyers leverage over settlement talks.

Besides facing triple damages under RICO, the case will not face
the same class certification problems as the multi-state cases
based on state law.  Specifically, a multi-state case based on
state law, as are the Florida cases, are difficult to certify as
class action because insurance laws are different in every state.

Mark A. Strauss, lead lawyer in the NYC case at Kirby McInerney
LLP in New York, said, "We're very pleased with the court's well-
reasoned opinion, and will be vigorously prosecuting the case on
behalf of the borrowers victimized by this scheme.  RICO is a
powerful statute that provides for treble damages."

Force-placed insurance is purchased by a lender or servicer if the
borrower allows the homeowners policy to lapse.  Banks and
insurance companies had been hoping to protect themselves from
force-placed lawsuits based on what is known as the filed-rate
doctrine, which prevents plaintiffs from claiming rates approved
by regulators are not fair.

The lawsuit argues that GMAC and Balboa "devised and carried out a
scheme to defraud borrowers and loan owners by overcharging them
for FPI" by which Balboa and and other defendants paid GMAC secret
rebates, "i.e., kickbacks, camouflaged through complex
transactions using affiliates and related parties."

The suit charges that GMAC "pockets the rebates for itself, while
fraudulently billing borrowers based on the full purported price
of the FPI.  In other words, the rebates reduce GMACM's FPI costs,
but those savings are not passed through to borrowers," the suit
said.

Because the amounts supposedly paid by GMAC for FPI constitute
servicing advances, "loan owners bear the inflated charges through
reduced loan proceeds and higher loss severities to the extent
borrowers fail to pay," the suit alleged.

Additionally, the suit alleges, the policies do not cover the
personal property of the borrower or provide other coverage
commonly associated with homeowners' insurance.  "Only the
interests of GMAC are insured and protected," the suit said.

The suit said the so-called "kickback scheme" was devised at the
inception of the parties' relationship in 2003, and has been
carried out continuously to the present.

Reacting to the lawsuit, consumer advocate Birny Birnbaum,
executive director of the Center for Economic Justice in Austin,
said "The New York court got it exactly right in its ruling that
the filed-rate doctrine does not protect the charges a mortgage
servicer makes to a borrower, but only the premium charges from an
insurer to the mortgage servicer."

"We hope that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau reviews
this ruling and revises its mortgage servicing rule to better
protect borrowers from paying for kickbacks from force-placed
insurers to mortgage servicers," he added.


GOODYEAR TIRE: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Miles Moore, writing for RubberNews.com, reports that Goodyear is
waiting for the Cleveland federal district court to rule on its
motion to dismiss a class action complaint brought by workers at a
Goodyear tire facility in Amiens, France, an attorney for Goodyear
said.

The class action alleges that Goodyear breached its contract with
the union at the Amiens plant -- the Comite d'Etablissement
d'Amiens Nord -- when it reduced consumer tire production there
without notifying the union.

Goodyear, however, argues that the union has not proved its case,
and furthermore that the lawsuit would more properly be tried in
France, where an action has also been filed.

The lawsuit, filed April 9, 2013 in Summit County Common Pleas
Court, was moved to the Cleveland court May 14 at Goodyear's
request.

According to the class action, Goodyear has reduced consumer tire
production at the Amiens North facility by 2.8 million units since
2009 while consumer tire production at other Goodyear plants in
Europe rose significantly during these same years.

Once in 2009 and twice again in 2011, the president of the Civil
Court of Nanterre found Goodyear in violation of the French Labor
Code for not informing workers at Amiens North of its plans, the
union said.

"Despite these orders, Defendant intentionally continued to not
inform the employee representatives as required under French law,"
the union said in an Aug. 5 reply to Goodyear's original May 16
motion to dismiss.

The union also accused of entering into an agreement with Titan
Tire Corp. in December 2010, in which Goodyear agreed to fire its
consumer tire employees at Amiens North as a condition of Titan
acquiring the farm tire portion of the plant.

"The plan was a simple one: divide and rule," the union said.

Titan later decided not to buy Goodyear's farm tire business in
Amiens, a decision which led to an acrimonious exchange of letters
between Maurice "Morry" Taylor, Titan chairman and CEO, and Arnaud
Montebourg, French minister of industry.

In an Aug. 29 court filing, however, Goodyear said the union
failed to disclose a June 2013 French court decision that the
union failed to establish that Goodyear circumvented its French
disclosure obligations.

"This lawsuit is part of Plaintiffs' strategy to wage a
multi-front war in a desperate attempt to prevent the closure of
the Amiens North factory," Goodyear said.

"But logic and common sense dictate that this long-standing
dispute between French workers, their French union and their
French employer should be adjudicated in France where litigation
is already pending, not here."

The union represents 1,173 workers at the Amiens North plant.


GREAT SOUTHERN: Litigation of Overdraft Suit vs. Bank Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
On November 22, 2010, a lawsuit was filed against Great Southern
Bank (the "Bank"), a subsidiary of Great Southern Bancorp, Inc.,
in Missouri state court in Springfield by a customer alleging that
the fees associated with the Bank's automated overdraft program in
connection with its debit card and ATM cards constitute unlawful
interest in violation of Missouri's usury laws.  The lawsuit seeks
class-action status for Bank customers who have paid overdraft
fees on their checking accounts.  The Court denied a motion to
dismiss filed by the Bank and litigation is ongoing.  At this
stage of the litigation, the Company says it is not possible for
management of the Bank to determine the probability of a material
adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any potential
loss.

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.

Great Southern Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.greatsouthernbank.com/
-- is a bank holding company and a financial holding company and
parent of Great Southern Bank.  The Company is headquartered in
Springfield, Missouri.


GUITAR CENTER: Still Faces State-Law Claims in Antitrust MDL
------------------------------------------------------------
The issue on the possible dismissal of state-law claims in In Re
Musical Instruments and Equipment Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
MDL-2121 is still before the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, according to Guitar Center
Holdings, Inc.'s Aug. 13, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On September 11, 2009, a putative class action was filed by an
individual consumer named David Giambusso in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California. The
complaint alleged that Guitar Center and other defendants,
including a trade association and a large musical instrument
manufacturer, exchanged sensitive information and strategies for
implementing minimum advertised pricing, attempted to restrict
retail price competition and monopolize at trade association-
organized meetings, all in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act and California's Unfair Competition Law.

Subsequently, numerous additional lawsuits were filed in several
federal courts (and one state court) attempting to represent
comparable classes of plaintiffs with parallel allegations. Some
of these lawsuits have expanded the group of defendants to include
other manufacturers and others have alleged additional legal
theories under state laws.

In December 2009 and January 2010, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation issued several orders which had the
effect of consolidating all pending actions in federal court under
the caption In Re Musical Instruments and Equipment Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. MDL-2121 ("MDL 2121"), except one filed in
Tennessee.

A consolidated amended complaint in MDL 2121 was filed on July 16,
2010, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California. On August 20, 2010, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The hearing
was held on November 1, 2010. The court rendered its opinion on
August 19, 2011, granting the motion to dismiss with leave to
amend. Plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated class action
complaint on September 22, 2011. On December 28, 2011, the
Magistrate Judge issued an order limiting the scope of discovery
to non-public meetings at NAMM conventions. This ruling was
affirmed by the District Court on February 7, 2012.

On February 24, 2012, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.
On March 26, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint.  The motion was heard by the court on May 21,
2012.  On August 20, 2012, the court dismissed, with prejudice,
plaintiffs' Sherman Act claim for failure to plead an antitrust
conspiracy.  On September 9, 2012, defendants filed a motion to
alter or amend the judgment, requesting that the court amend the
judgment to include the dismissal of plaintiffs' state-law claims.
This motion was denied on jurisdictional grounds.

Plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.  On March 29, 2013, defendants filed a joint brief in
opposition, which is currently pending. With regard to the
Tennessee action, the company had previously filed a motion to
dismiss on September 3, 2010. On February 22, 2011, the plaintiff
filed an amended complaint, for which the company filed an
additional motion to dismiss on March 24, 2011.

The parties in the Tennessee action have agreed to cooperate with
regard to a scheduling order, accordingly there is no hearing date
set for the motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs in the consolidated
actions are seeking an injunction against further behavior that
has been alleged, as well as monetary damages, restitution and
treble damages in unspecified amounts.

The plaintiffs in the Tennessee action are seeking no more than
$5.0 million in compensatory damages. On July 18, 2013, the
Tennessee court entered an order striking the $5.0 million damages
disclaimer, thus permitting removal of the case to federal court.
This matter will be joined with MDL 2121, which remains pending
before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The company is not
currently able to estimate a probable outcome or range of loss in
this matter.


GUITAR CENTER: Calif. Labor Lawsuit Against Unit in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in a suit pending in San Francisco Superior
Court alleging violations of California wage and hour laws against
Guitar Center, Inc., according to Guitar Center Holdings, Inc.'s
Aug. 13, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On August 31, 2011, a putative class action was filed by a former
employee in San Francisco Superior Court in an action entitled
Carson Pellanda vs. Guitar Center, Inc.

The complaint alleges that Guitar Center allegedly violated
California wage and hour laws, including failure to provide
required meal periods and rest breaks, unpaid work time and
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements. On October
4, 2011, a first amended complaint was filed, adding new
allegations, including wrongful termination. Guitar Center has
retained defense counsel.

The first amended complaint seeks injunctive relief as well as
monetary damages in unspecified amounts. Mediation was held on May
17, 2012.  The matter did not settle. On September 6, 2012, a
Second Amended Complaint was filed, incorporating the allegations
of a parallel wage and hour matter, Gomez vs. Guitar Center
Stores, Inc., which was subsequently dismissed. Discovery
continues. The company is not currently able to estimate a
probable outcome or range of loss in this matter.


GUITAR CENTER: Court Ordered Limited Discovery in "George" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court ordered additional limited
discovery in a suit filed against Guitar Center, Inc. over alleged
violation of the California Song-Beverly Credit Card Act,
according to Guitar Center Holdings, Inc.'s Aug. 13, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On May 24, 2011, a putative class action was filed in Los Angeles
Superior Court in an action entitled Jason George vs. Guitar
Center, Inc. and Guitar Center Stores, Inc.

The complaint alleges that Guitar Center violated the California
Song-Beverly Credit Card Act by requesting that its customers
provide personal identification information in connection with the
use of their credit cards. The complaint seeks monetary damages
including statutory civil penalties in amounts of up to $1,000 per
violation. This matter was subsequently consolidated with Justin
Hupalo vs. Guitar Center, a putative class action alleging
violations of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, filed on October
27, 2011. Discovery continues.

In December 2012, a motion for summary judgment was filed on
behalf of Guitar Center. A tentative ruling was issued by the
court granting Guitar Center's motion for summary judgment.  The
court ordered additional limited discovery. The company is not
currently able to estimate a probable outcome or range of loss in
this matter.


GUITAR CENTER: Files Motion to Abate in "Stewart" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Guitar Center Inc. has filed a Motion to Abate in Stewart vs.
Guitar Center, Inc. and Guitar Center Stores, Inc. due to
duplicative litigation in the pending Pellanda vs. Guitar Center
action, according to Guitar Center Holdings, Inc.'s Aug. 13, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On March 18, 2013, a putative class action was filed in Los
Angeles Superior Court in an action entitled Stewart vs. Guitar
Center, Inc. and Guitar Center Stores, Inc.

The complaint alleges that Guitar Center allegedly violated
California wage and hour laws, including failure to provide
required meal periods, rest breaks, unpaid work time, and failure
to provide accurate itemized wage statements.  Guitar Center has
retained defense counsel.  Guitar Center has filed a Motion to
Abate due to duplicative litigation in the pending Pellanda vs.
Guitar Center action. The company is not currently able to
estimate a probable outcome or range of loss in this matter.


GUITAR CENTER: Sued in Mass. Over Alleged Personal Data Request
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guitar Center, Inc. faces a suit over its alleged request that
customers provide personal identification information in
connection with the use of their credit cards, according to Guitar
Center Holdings, Inc.'s Aug. 13, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2013.

On May 29, 2013, a putative class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in an
action entitled Neilan v. Guitar Center, Inc.  The complaint
alleges that Guitar Center violated Mass. Gen Laws ch. 93 Section
105 by requesting that customers provide personal identification
information in connection with the use of their credit cards. The
complaint seeks monetary damages including statutory civil
penalties and treble damages. Defense counsel has been retained.
The company is not currently able to estimate a probable outcome
or range of loss in this matter.


GUITAR CENTER: Faces Calif. Wage & Hour Lawsuit by Instructors
--------------------------------------------------------------
Guitar Center, Inc. and Guitar Center Stores, Inc. face a suit
alleging violation of California wage and hour laws against
instructors, according to Guitar Center Holdings, Inc.'s Aug. 13,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On July 16, 2013, a putative class action was filed in Orange
County Superior Court in an action entitled Johnson vs. Guitar
Center, Inc. and Guitar Center Stores, Inc. The complaint alleges
that Guitar Center allegedly violated California wage and hour
laws, including failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks,
unpaid work time and failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements.  The class has been defined as those employed by
Guitar Center as instructors.  Defense counsel has been retained.
The company is not currently able to estimate a probable outcome
or range of loss in this matter.


HARRIS TEETER: Faces Suits Over Proposed Acquisition by Kroger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harris Teeter Supermarkets, Inc., is facing two class action
lawsuits arising from its proposed acquisition by The Kroger Co.,
according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
July 2, 2013.

On July 8, 2013, the Company and The Kroger Co. ("Kroger") entered
into a definitive merger agreement under which Kroger will
purchase all outstanding shares of the Company for $49.38 per
share in cash.  The terms of the agreement were approved by the
Boards of Directors of both companies.  The merger is expected to
close following the satisfaction of customary closing conditions
including approval by the Company's shareholders and regulatory
approval.

On July 16, 2013, a purported class action complaint relating to
the merger, Priscilla Gerlach v. Thomas W. Dickson, et al.,
General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina (Case No. 13-CVS-12579), was filed on
behalf of a putative class of the Company's public shareholders.
The complaint names as defendants the members of the Company's
board of directors, the Company, Kroger and Merger Sub.  The
complaint generally alleges that the members of the Company's
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's shareholders and that the other defendants aided and
abetted that breach.

On August 1, 2013, a second purported class action complaint
relating to the merger, Westmoreland County Employees Retirement
Fund v. John R. Belk, et al., General Court of Justice, Superior
Court Division, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (Case No. 13-
CVS-513852), was filed.  The Westmoreland action also names as
defendants the members of the Company's board of directors, the
Company, Kroger and Merger Sub and makes allegations similar to
those in the Gerlach action.  Unlike the Gerlach action, the
Westmoreland action also purports to assert derivative claims on
behalf of the Company.

Both the Gerlach action and the Westmoreland action seek, among
other things, injunctive relief preventing the consummation of the
merger, damages, and an award of plaintiff's expenses and
attorneys' fees.  The outcome of these lawsuits is uncertain.  The
Company and the Company's board of directors believe that the
claims asserted in each lawsuit are without merit and intend to
defend themselves vigorously against the claims.

Headquartered in Matthews, North Carolina, Harris Teeter
Supermarkets, Inc., through its primary subsidiary Harris Teeter,
Inc., operates a regional chain of supermarkets in eight states
primarily in the southeastern and mid-Atlantic United States, and
the District of Columbia.  Until November 7, 2011, the Company was
also engaged in the manufacturing and distribution of industrial
sewing thread through its American & Efird business.


HIGHMARK BLUE CROSS: Judge Dismisses Rate Fixing Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
IFAwebnews.com reports that a class-action lawsuit against the
Pittsburgh region's largest insurer and hospital system has been
declared dead-on-arrival by U.S. District Judge Joy Flowers Conti,
who dismissed the rate fixing suit.  The judge said she cannot
second-guess the Pennsylvania Insurance Department, which already
approved the rates.

The class action charged the parent firm of Highmark Blue Cross
Blue Shield and University of Pittsburgh Medical Center with
medical and healthcare price gouging.

The plaintiffs -- Royal Mile Co., a Pittsburgh-area real estate
management firm, Cole's Wexford Hotel and individual ratepayer
Pamela Lang -- alleged that they paid higher-than-market rates
because of collusion between Highmark and UPMC.

In her decision, Judge Conti ruled that higher court rulings bar
federal judges from reviewing such approvals, according to the
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  She "must defer to the institutional
competence of the PID, which determined the rates charged by
Highmark were not excessive, inadequate or unfairly
discriminatory."

The court further found there to be no basis for claims that UPMC
had interfered with the market by trying to destroy West Penn
Allegheny Health System, and that some claims against the health
giant were barred by the statute of limitations.  She gave the
plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint if they think they
can create one that is not barred by legal doctrines.


ING USA ANNUITY: Defrauds Senior Citizens, Class Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Matt Reynolds reports that
ING Life Insurance defrauds senior citizens by selling them
indexed annuity contracts without telling them they are "embedded"
with high-risk, complex derivatives, an 83-year-old man claims in
a federal class action.

Ernest Abbit sued ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Co., alleging
financial elder abuse, fraudulent inducement and other charges.
Abbit claims that Iowa-based ING assures elderly customers that
its contracts are a safe haven for retirement savings and offer
generous returns linked to the S&P 500 stock market index.

"In fact, however, ING exercised its investment discretion under
the contracts in a manner that ensured that its indexed-annuities
did not protect or build-up retirement savings," the 52-page
complaint states.

Abbit claims ING promised but failed to credit interest to
customers on a daily basis and issued inaccurate financial
statements masking the annuities' poor performance.

"In sum, ING indexed-annuities are wolves-in-sheep's-clothing,
devouring retirement savings while dribbling out meager investment
returns that lag far behind much-safer investments," the lawsuit
states.

ING did not disclose to investors that its annuity contracts are
"embedded" with "exceedingly complex, opaque, and illiquid"
derivatives, Abbit claims.  He claims that ING shares in the
rewards of the investment while burdening investors with the risk.

Derivatives are "especially dangerous to a vulnerable class of
senior citizens, such as plaintiff and the class, who lack the
knowledge and understanding of such complex financial products,"
the lawsuit adds.

"Nationwide, unsuspecting senior citizens have entrusted ING with
retirement savings worth billions of dollars, under what was
portrayed as a protective umbrella that provides competitive
investment returns," the complaint states.  "Instead, the senior
citizens have lost retirement savings paid directly to ING and now
are trapped in horrendous long-term contracts with substantial
surrender penalties (also payable to ING).  In sum, ING has
unfairly tilted the exchange of risk for reward under a complex
derivative structure, causing plaintiff and the class to lose up
to 20 percent or more of the value of their retirement savings."

Abbit seeks restitution, imposition of a constructive trust, and
damages for breach of contract, breach of faith, breach of
fiduciary duty, financial elder abuse, fraudulent concealment,
concealment of insurance contract, deceptive trade, deceptive
advertising and failure to supervise.

ING's Dutch parent company ING Group is not a party to the
lawsuit.

ING did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew W. Hutton, Esq.
          HUTTON LAW GROUP
          12671 High Bluff Drive, Suite 130
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 793-3500
          Facsimile: (858) 793-3501
          E-mail: drew@law-hutton.com

               - and -

          Timothy J. Tatro, Esq.
          TATRO & ZAMOYSKI, LLP
          12760 High Bluff Drive, Suite 210
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 244-5032
          Facsimile: (858) 847-0032
          E-mail: tim@tatrozamoyski.com

The case is Abbit v. ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company,
Case No. 3:13-cv-02310-GPC-WVG, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (San Diego).


INUVO INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid for Judgment in Suit vs. Vertro
---------------------------------------------------------------
Inuvo, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on a motion for summary
judgment in a consolidated class action lawsuit in Florida
involving its 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.

In 2005, five putative securities fraud class action lawsuits were
filed against Vertro Inc., a Company subsidiary, and certain of
its former officers and directors in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, which were subsequently
consolidated.  The consolidated complaint alleged that Vertro and
the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and that the individual defendants also violated Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act as "control persons."  The Plaintiffs sought
unspecified damages and other relief alleging that, during the
putative class period, Vertro made certain misleading statements
and omitted material information.  The court granted the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment on November 16, 2009, and
the court entered final judgment in favor of all Defendants on
December 7, 2009.  The Plaintiffs appealed the summary judgment
ruling and the court's prior orders dismissing certain claims.  On
September 30, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed the dismissal of 9 of the 11 alleged misstatements and
reversed the court's prior order on summary judgment and the case
has been remanded to the District Court.  In October 2012 the
District Court entered an order maintaining the existing stay on
discovery pending a ruling on the defendants' motion for summary
judgment.

Inuvo, Inc. -- http://www.inuvo.com/-- a Nevada corporation
headquartered in Conway, Arkansas, is an Internet marketing and
technology company that develops consumer applications and
delivers targeted advertisements onto websites reaching desktop
and mobile.  The Company sources advertisements either directly
from merchants or through media companies who consolidate
advertisements.


INUVO INC: "Sobota" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed in July 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------
Inuvo, Inc., said in its August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013, that the Sobota Class Action was voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice in July 2013.

On March 13, 2013, plaintiff filed a purported class action,
captioned Sobota Class Action; Case No.: 1:13-cv-01963 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, against the Company and a number of
other defendants alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and Illinois Prizes and Gifts Act and seeking
unspecified damages.  The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case
against the Company in July 2013 with prejudice.

Inuvo, Inc. -- http://www.inuvo.com/-- a Nevada corporation
headquartered in Conway, Arkansas, is an Internet marketing and
technology company that develops consumer applications and
delivers targeted advertisements onto websites reaching desktop
and mobile.  The Company sources advertisements either directly
from merchants or through media companies who consolidate
advertisements.


INUVO INC: Still Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss N.Y. Merger Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Inuvo, Inc., is still awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a merger-related class action lawsuit pending in New York,
according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

On March 1, 2012, the Company acquired Vertro, Inc. (the "March
2012 Acquisition" or "Vertro"), an Internet company that owns and
operates the ALOT product portfolio.  Pursuant to the terms and
conditions of the merger agreement, Vertro became a wholly owned
subsidiary of Inuvo and the Company issued to the Vertro
stockholders 12,393,308 shares of the Company's common stock for
all the outstanding shares of Vertro common stock.

On October 27, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, County of New York, against Vertro, its
directors, Inuvo, and Anhinga Merger Subsidiary, Inc. on behalf of
a putative class of Vertro shareholders (the "New York Action").
Two other complaints, also purportedly brought on behalf of the
same class of shareholders, were filed on November 3, and 10,
2011, against these same defendants in Delaware Chancery Court and
were ultimately consolidated by the Court (the "Delaware Action").
The plaintiffs in both the New York and the Delaware Actions
alleged that Vertro's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties regarding the merger with Inuvo and that Vertro, Inuvo, and
Anhinga Merger Subsidiary, Inc. aided and abetted the alleged
breach of fiduciary duties.  The plaintiffs asked that the merger
be enjoined and sought other unspecified monetary relief.

The Defendants in the Delaware Action moved to dismiss the
plaintiffs' complaint, but before the briefing of that motion was
complete the plaintiffs filed a notice and proposed order of
voluntary dismissal without prejudice, which was entered by the
Delaware Court on March 20, 2012.  The defendants in the New York
Action also moved to dismiss the complaint, or in the alternative
to stay proceedings.  The New York Court granted the Defendants'
motion to stay on February 22, 2012, and, as a result of this
ruling, the Court denied without prejudice the defendants' motion
to dismiss and the plaintiff's pending request for expedited
discovery.  The Plaintiffs in the New York action then filed a
Second Amended Complaint on June 19, 2012, and, on July 9, 2012,
the Defendants moved to dismiss that complaint for failure to
state a claim.  A hearing was held on January 31, 2013, regarding
the Defendants' motion to dismiss.  A ruling on the motion to
dismiss is pending.

Inuvo, Inc. -- http://www.inuvo.com/-- a Nevada corporation
headquartered in Conway, Arkansas, is an Internet marketing and
technology company that develops consumer applications and
delivers targeted advertisements onto websites reaching desktop
and mobile.  The Company sources advertisements either directly
from merchants or through media companies who consolidate
advertisements.


JAKKS PACIFIC: Faces Shareholder Lawsuits in California
-------------------------------------------------------
JAKKS Pacific, Inc. faces several shareholder suits in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
according to the company's Aug. 13, 2013, Form 10-Q/A
(Amendment No. 1) filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In or about the end of July 2013 several purported class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California: (1) Melot v. JAKKS PACIFIC, INC.
et al, Case No. CV13-05388 (JAK) (filed on July 25, 2013); and (2)
Dylewicz v. JAKKS PACIFIC, INC. et al, Case No. CV13-5487 (OON)
(filed on July 30, 2013) (the "Class Actions").

The complaints in the Class Actions allege that the Company made
earlier false and/or misleading statements concerning the extent
of the negative impact that the shift in children's preference for
electronic devices was having on sales of the Company's more
traditional toys; the extent of the negative impact from poor
sales of various of the Company's licensed products; and/or that
the Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading.

The Class Periods are respectively February 21- July 17, 2013 and
July 17, 2012 - July 17, 2013.  The Class Actions seek
compensatory and other damages in an undisclosed amount, alleging
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by each
of the defendants (namely the Company and Messrs. Berman and
Bennett), and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by
Messrs. Berman and Bennett.  The company believes that the claims
in the Class Actions are without merit and the company intends to
defend vigorously against them.  However, because these actions
are in their preliminary stage, the company cannot assure you as
to the outcome of the actions and the company cannot estimate the
range of the company's potential losses.


MCWANE INC: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Price-Fixing Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Prochilo, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey
federal judge on Oct. 2 refused to dismiss consolidated class
action litigation accusing McWane Inc. and several other
manufacturers, importers and sellers of ductile iron pipe fittings
of fixing the products' prices.

Ruling on motions to dismiss the cases by McWane, Star Pipe
Products Ltd. and Sigma Corp., U.S. District Judge Anne E.
Thompson pared the claims, tossing the unjust enrichment
accusations and shooting down an injunction request made by
indirect purchasers of the fittings.  He kept several state-law
antitrust and consumer protection claims intact.

The producers argued in their June motions to dismiss that many of
the state claims should be thrown out because the indirect
purchasers showed no "concrete connection" between the alleged
anti-competitive conduct and those states, but Judge Thompson said
the court wasn't convinced that dismissal was warranted at the
time.

The proposed class of indirect purchasers, including companies
such as Waterline Industries Corp. and Yates Construction Co. Inc.
as well as municipalities such as Hallandale Beach, Fla., which
bought the fittings for public works projects, first filed the
suit in January 2012, accusing Star, McWane and Sigma of
conspiring to raise and stabilize the prices of DIPF.

The three suppliers allegedly coordinated the plot using direct
communications such as phone calls and in-person meetings, and
indirectly through pricing communications sent out to customers,
the indirect purchasers said.

The suit also alleged that McWane had monopoly power over the U.S.
market in 2009 and that the company attempted to block the entry
of competitors so it could exclusively reap the benefits of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which allocated more than
$6 billion for only those water infrastructure projects that used
domestically produced goods.

Judge Thompson dismissed the case in March, saying the plaintiffs
failed to show that they were injured by the alleged anti-
competitive conduct.

The original suit laid out a much longer class period, spanning
from January 2008 to the present, but the judge said the offending
conduct alleged in several of the claims occurred in a span of
time that was shorter than that of the class period.

One of the claims dealt with a period from September 2009 to the
present, but the allegations concerning when the plaintiffs bought
the DIPF were so broad, it was possible none of them actually
purchased pipe fittings after September 2009, the judge said in
dismissing the lawsuit.  She did give the plaintiffs leave to file
an amended complaint, however.

In the revised version of the suit presented to the court in early
May, the indirect purchasers shortened the class period
considerably to cover only January 2008 through May 2009.

In June 2012, the court consolidated the class action with a case
that Indiana's attorney general filed against McWane making nearly
identical accusations, but alleged one additional price increase
that had not been included in the indirect purchaser action.

The pipe fitting manufacturers filed four motions to dismiss the
litigation in June, and the court partially granted those motions
on Oct. 2, tossing the fitting buyers' unjust enrichment claim
because they failed to say which state law had been violated to
give rise to it.  Judge Thompson rejected the indirect purchasers'
contention that the lack of specificity was immaterial because
unjust enrichment laws don't vary much from one state to another.

The judge also denied the buyers' injunction bid, saying they had
provided no evidence that the allegedly illegal conduct was still
occurring -- not to mention the defendants already entered into
consent decrees with the Federal Trade Commission "to abstain from
engaging in the very activities [the plaintiffs] seek to enjoin."

Claims brought under the antitrust laws of 20 states and
Washington, D.C., were also thrown out by the court, which found
the plaintiffs lacked standing to support them because the
indirect purchasers did not live in those states and did not pay
any alleged overcharges in them.

But the court refused to dismiss most of the claims brought under
the antitrust and consumer protection laws of the buyers' nine
home states -- except those arising under Florida's antitrust law,
which forbids indirect purchaser standing. Judge Thompson also
rejected the producers' argument that most of the municipalities
couldn't prove they were injured by the alleged plot because they
bought the pipe fittings as part of water systems project
contracts and couldn't demonstrate the fitting costs had driven up
the contract prices.

It was too early in the proceedings for the court to require that
level of specificity from the towns, the judge said.

Some cities, however, were eliminated from the case. For instance,
Blair, Neb., and Fallsburg, N.Y., bought DIPF as part of water
systems project contracts during years that fell outside the time
period covered by the lawsuit, while the claims of Fargo, N.D.,
were dismissed because the allegations in the suit were inadequate
to show the city had suffered any injury

Representatives for the parties could not be immediately reached
for comment on Oct. 3.

The indirect purchasers are represented by Trujillo Rodriguez &
Richards LLC, Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher LLC, Kirby McInerney
LLP, Kohn Swift & Graf PC, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel
LLP and Foote Meyers Mielke & Flowers.

The defendants are represented by Ballard Spahr LLP, Baker Botts
LLP and Day Pitney LLP.

The case is In re: Ductile Iron Pipe Fittings Indirect Purchaser
Antitrust Litigation, case number 3:12-cv-00169, before the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.


MGIC INVESTMENT: Eight Suits Alleging RESPA Violations Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eight class action lawsuits alleging that the captive mortgage
reinsurance arrangements of a subsidiary of MGIC Investment
Corporation violate provisions of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act remain pending, 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.

Since June 2005, various state and federal regulators have
conducted investigations or requested information regarding
captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements in which the Company
participated.  In January 2012, the Company received
correspondence from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
("CFPB") indicating that it was investigating captive reinsurance
arrangements in the mortgage insurance industry.  The
correspondence requested, among other things, certain information
regarding captive mortgage reinsurance transactions in which the
Company participated.  In June 2012, the Company received a Civil
Investigative Demand ("CID") from the CFPB requiring additional
information and documentation regarding captive mortgage
reinsurance.

Consumers continue to bring lawsuits against home mortgage lenders
and settlement service providers.  Mortgage insurers, including
MGIC, have been involved in litigation alleging violations of the
anti-referral fee provisions of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act, which is commonly known as RESPA, and the notice
provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which is commonly
known as FCRA.  MGIC's settlement of class action litigation
against it under RESPA became final in October 2003.  MGIC settled
the named plaintiffs' claims in litigation against it under FCRA
in December 2004, following denial of class certification in June
2004.  Since December 2006, class action litigation has been
brought against a number of large lenders alleging that their
captive mortgage reinsurance arrangements violated RESPA.
Beginning in December 2011, MGIC, together with various mortgage
lenders and other mortgage insurers, has been named as a defendant
in twelve lawsuits, alleged to be class actions, filed in various
U.S. District Courts.  Four of those cases have previously been
dismissed by the applicable U.S. District Courts without any
further opportunity to appeal and two additional cases have been
dismissed by the applicable U.S. District Court but are now on
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals.  The complaints in all of the
cases allege various causes of action related to the captive
mortgage reinsurance arrangements of the mortgage lenders,
including that the defendants violated RESPA by paying excessive
premiums to the lenders' captive reinsurer in relation to the risk
assumed by that captive.

                      Class Suits on Appeal

A complaint, originally filed December 9, 2011, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, was
dismissed by that District Court on May 7, 2013.  The Plaintiffs
in that case filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 5, 2013, seeking to
overturn the District Court's dismissal.  Another complaint, which
was originally filed October 3, 2012, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, was dismissed by that
District Court on June 19, 2013.  The Plaintiffs in that case
filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit on July 2, 2013, seeking to overturn the
District Court's dismissal.  Both of the appeals are pending.

MGIC denies any wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend itself
against the allegations in the lawsuits.  There can be no
assurance that the Company will not be subject to further
litigation under RESPA (or FCRA) or that the outcome of any such
litigation, including the pending lawsuits, would not have a
material adverse effect on the Company.

Headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, MGIC Investment Corporation
-- http://www.mgic.com/-- is a holding company and through its
wholly-owned subsidiaries, the Company is a large private mortgage
insurer.  In addition to mortgage insurance on first mortgage
loans, the Company, through its subsidiaries, provides lenders
with various underwriting and other services and products related
to home mortgage lending.


MICHAEL BAKER: Being Sold to IMS for Too Little, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Birsch and David Shaev, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Robert N. Bontempo, Nicholas P.
Constantakis, David L. Deninno, Robert H. Foglesong, Mark E.
Kaplan, Pamela S. Pierce, David N. Wormley, and Michael Baker
Corporation, Case No. 2:13-cv-01392-MPK (W.D. Pa., September 24,
2013) accuses the Company and its Board of Directors of violating
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the attempt
to sell the Company to Integrated Mission Systems, LLC ("IMS"),
through its wholly owned subsidiary, Project Steel Merger Sub,
Inc. ("Merger Sub") for an alleged inadequate consideration
pursuant to an unfair sales process.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants disseminated false and
materially omissive and misleading Schedule 14D-9 Recommendation
Statement in connection with the proposed sale.  The Plaintiffs
further allege that the Individual Defendants caused the
Company to enter into the Merger Agreement on terms, which
disproportionately benefit the Individual Defendants and IMS and
to the detriment of the Plaintiffs and Baker's other public
shareholders.

The Plaintiffs are owners of shares of Baker's common stock.

Founded in 1940 and is headquartered in Moon Township,
Pennsylvania, Baker provides professional planning, design,
engineering and consulting expertise for public and private sector
clients worldwide.  The Company's services span the complete
lifecycle of infrastructure and managed asset projects, including
planning, design, construction services, asset management and
asset renewal.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          Gerald L. Rutledge, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
          519 Allegheny Building, 429 Forbes Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 391-5164
          E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
          Ofer Ganot, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: gfbruckner@pomlaw.com
                  oganot@pomlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anderson T. Bailey, Esq.
          Jeffrey J. Bresch, Esq.
          Thomas S. Jones, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          500 Grant Street
          One Mellon Center, Suite 4500
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 391-3939
          Facsimile: (412) 394-7959
          E-mail: atbailey@jonesday.com
                  jbresch@jonesday.com
                  tsjones@jonesday.com


NEW YORK LIFE: Ogletree Deakins Discusses Class Action Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Warshaw, Esq., -- aaron.warshaw@ogletreedeakins.com -- at
Ogletree Deakins reports that Gold v. New York Life Insurance Co.,
No. 12-CV-2344 (2d Cir. Sept. 18, 2013) (Parker, J.): The
plaintiff brought suit on behalf of himself and others alleging
that he was improperly classified as exempt from the New York
Labor Law (NYLL) and that his employer made improper deductions
from his wages.  Due to the dates of his employment and the NYLL's
longer statute of limitations, the plaintiff sued under the NYLL
but not the Fair Labor Standards Act, and he therefore predicated
federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).
Following discovery on the plaintiff's individual claims, the
district court dismissed his overtime claim, leaving only the
improper wage deduction claim to go forward to class discovery.
At that point, nearly three years after the case was commenced,
the employer moved to dismiss because it discovered that more than
two-thirds of the putative class members were New York citizens in
violation of CAFA's home state exception.  The district court
agreed and dismissed the remaining wage deduction claim.  On
appeal, the Second Circuit held that, under an abuse of discretion
standard, dismissal was proper because the district court was in a
better position to judge whether the delay was excusable.  In
doing so, the court cautioned that "there are numerous instances
where the home state exception was raised much more promptly than
it was in this case, and without full blown class discovery."

In addition, the Second Circuit appeared to resolve an open
question -- whether the 2011 amendment to the NYLL, which raised
liquidated damages from 25 percent to 100 percent, applies
retroactively.  Following the majority of federal district courts
that have considered this question, the Second Circuit held that
the amendment did not contain any "clear expression of
retroactivity" and therefore 100 percent liquidated damages do not
apply retroactively pre-2011.  Given isolated case law to the
contrary, Gold provides needed clarity on this important damages
issue.  The decision also stands as a reminder that employers
faced with federal cases predicated upon CAFA should act promptly
to determine whether the putative class meets the home state
exception is a basis for dismissal.


NMI RETIREMENT: Maratita & Taisague Seek Standing to Intervene
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ferdie de la Torre, writing for Saipan Tribune, reports that
Rep. Janet Maratita and Jesus I. Taisague are fighting for the
rule of law and their constitutional rights, according to their
lawyer, Ramon K. Quichocho, to explain why they want to intervene
in Betty Johnson's class action.

As this developed, many interested parties and retirees were
expected to attend the final fairness hearing at the U.S. District
Court for the NMI on Monday, Sept. 30, at 9:00 a.m.

Designated judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood was expected to grant
final approval of Ms. Johnson's settlement agreement at the
hearing.  She was also expected take up the petitions for
attorneys' fees and court costs by Johnson's lawyers.  These
lawyers want to be paid from a minimum of over $40 million to a
maximum of $60 million.

In Maratita's and Taisague's motion, Mr. Quichocho said his
clients want to protect and defend the CNMI Constitution and laws
and their rights.

Mr. Quichocho said that Ms. Maratita and Mr. Taisague want the
Johnson class to continue to receive 100 percent of their benefits
under the CNMI retirement system, not the Johnson settlement fund
which would defer up to 25 percent of benefits.

"Movants want the CNMI to constitutionally appropriate funds for
the CNMI retirement system, not the Betty Johnson settlement
fund," he said.

Johnson, the CNMI government, and the NMI Retirement Fund, through
their respective lawyers, are opposed to Maratita's and Taisague's
request to intervene in the case, saying the lawmaker's motion
"lacks coherent legal foundation, [is] untimely, and frivolous."

But in their reply, Mr. Quichocho said that Ms. Maratita and
Mr. Taisague acted diligently in filing their motion to lift the
court's stay order that stopped all proceedings except final
approval of Johnson's settlement agreement.  Mr. Quichocho said
the deadline to "opt-out" was Sept. 20, 2013, and that Ms.
Taisague timely opted out of the settlement class.  That day,
Sept. 20, the lawyer said, movants learned that there was not
enough "opt-outs" to cancel the settlement agreement, and
immediately filed a notice of appearance and notice of intent to
file a motion to intervene.

Mr. Quichocho said that since the deadline to opt-out was Sept.
20, there was no way for his clients to know that the settlement
agreement would proceed to the final fairness hearing until the
date to opt out expired and less than 10 percent opted out.  He
said because the settlement agreement seeks to bind future CNMI
Legislatures to an "executive appropriation" of millions of
dollars for an indefinite time, it is a clear violation of the NMI
Constitution.  Mr. Quichocho said that Ms. Maratita and Mr.
Taisague have standing to intervene as part owners of the
taxpayers' fund and the Fund assets.


OHR PHARMACEUTICAL: Claims in "Genaera" Lawsuit Now Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
On August 12, 2013, a U.S. court dismissed each of the plaintiff's
claims against OHR Pharmaceutical, Inc. in the putative class
action brought on behalf of the Genaera Liquidating Trust,
according to OHR Pharmaceutical's Aug. 13, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.

In June 2012, the Company was named, along with other parties, as
a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit being brought, as
amended, on behalf of the Genaera Liquidating Trust ("Trust"). The
company purchased biotechnology assets from the Trust in 2009. On
August 12, 2013, the court dismissed each of the plaintiff's
claims against the Company.


ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "SEPTA" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., is awaiting a court decision on
its and other defendants' motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit
initiated by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority, 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 25, 2012, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority ("SEPTA") filed a putative class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania against the Company, its wholly-owned subsidiary,
Orrstown Bank (the "Bank"), and certain current and former
directors and executive officers (collectively, the "Defendants").
The complaint alleges, among other things, that (i) in connection
with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3 dated
February 23, 2010, and its Prospectus Supplement dated March 23,
2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of March 24,
2010, through October 27, 2011, the Company issued materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's lending
practices and financial results, including misleading statements
concerning the stringent nature of the Bank's credit practices and
underwriting standards, the quality of its loan portfolio, and the
intended use of the proceeds from the Company's March 2010 public
offering of common stock.  The complaint asserts claims under
Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated there under, and seeks class certification,
unspecified money damages, interest, costs, fees and equitable or
injunctive relief. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), motions for appointment of Lead Plaintiff
in this case were due by July 24, 2012.  SEPTA was the sole movant
and the Court appointed SEPTA Lead Plaintiff on August 20, 2012.

Pursuant to the PSLRA and the Court's September 27, 2012 Order,
SEPTA was given until October 26, 2012, to file an amended
complaint and the Defendants until December 7, 2012 to file a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  SEPTA's opposition to
the Defendant's motion to dismiss was originally due January 11,
2013.  Under the PSLRA, discovery and all other proceedings in the
case are stayed pending the Court's ruling on the motion to
dismiss.  The September 27, 2012 Order specified that if the
motion to dismiss were denied, the Court would schedule a
conference to address discovery and the filing of a motion for
class certification.  On October 26, 2012, SEPTA filed an
unopposed motion for enlargement of time to file its amended
complaint in order to permit the parties and new defendants to be
named in the amended complaint time to discuss plaintiff's claims
and defendants' defenses.  On October 26, 2012, the Court granted
SEPTA's motion, mooting its September 27, 2012 scheduling Order,
and requiring SEPTA to file its amended complaint on or before
January 16, 2013, or otherwise advise the Court of circumstances
that require a further enlargement of time.  On January 14, 2013,
the Court granted SEPTA's second unopposed motion for enlargement
of time to file an amended complaint on or before March 22, 2013.

On March 4, 2013, SEPTA filed an amended complaint. The amended
complaint expands the list of defendants in the action to include
the Company's independent registered public accounting firm and
the underwriters of the Company's March 2010 public offering of
common stock.  In addition, among other things, the amended
complaint extends the purported 1934 Exchange Act class period
from March 15, 2010, through April 5, 2012.

Pursuant to the Court's March 28, 2013 Second Scheduling Order, on
May 28, 2013, all defendants filed their motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, and on July 22, 2013, SEPTA filed its "omnibus"
opposition to all of the defendants' motions to dismiss.  All
defendants had until August 23, 2013, to file reply briefs in
further support of their motions to dismiss.  The Second
Scheduling Order stays all discovery in the case pending the
outcome of the motions to dismiss, and informs the parties that a
telephonic conference to address discovery and the filing of
SEPTA's motion for class certification will be scheduled after the
Court's ruling on the motions to dismiss.

The matter is currently progressing through the legal process.
The Defendants believe that the allegations in the complaint are
without merit, and intend to defend vigorously against those
claims.

Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. -- http://www.orrstown.com/-- a
Pennsylvania corporation, is the holding company for Orrstown
Bank.  The Company's executive offices are located in
Shippensburg, Pennsylvania.


P. CIPOLLINI: Suit Over Junk Faxes Obtains Class-Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a federal judge has certified a plaintiff class in a suit over
irksome junk faxes, despite a New Jersey appeals court ruling that
cases under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act are a better fit
for small-claims adjudication.

U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler on Oct. 7 declined to follow
Local Baking Product Inc. v. Kosher Bagel Munch Inc., 421 N.J.
Super. 268 (App. Div. 2011), which held TCPA suits can't meet the
superiority requirement for class-action status.

"The New Jersey appeals court got it wrong. . . . Their holding on
superiority is very much a minority opinion," says Brian Wanca,
the plaintiff's lead counsel in the case at bar, A&L Industries
Inc. v. P. Cipollini Inc., 12-cv-7598.  "These cases have been
certified for years in every other place," including at least a
dozen federal districts.

A&L Industries was one of 4,573 recipients of an unsolicited fax
advertisement in September 2006 from Business to Business
Solutions of Brooklyn, which was enlisted by P. Cipollini Inc. to
promote its roofing business.

A&L, seeking class certification for the recipients, claimed
violations of the TCPA, which allows regulatory or private suit
for unsolicited faxes and provides for $500 in statutory damages
per violation (or $1,500 if the violation is knowing and willful).

Cipollini contended that the statutory award and the availability
of relief in state small-claims court makes class action an
inferior method of adjudicating TCPA cases.  It relied entirely on
Local Baking, a nonbinding case that nonetheless had very similar
facts.

There, the Appellate Division ruled that, because of the ease and
cost-effectiveness of small-claims adjudication, a TCPA plaintiff
could not make the required showing that class action is superior
to an individual claim.

Judge Chesler disagreed and granted class certification under Rule
23.  He noted that there's no Third Circuit authority that
directly answers whether TCPA suits may be handled as class
actions, but found Cipollini's "reliance on Local Baking to be
misplaced[.]"  Significantly, a number of federal courts have
questioned Local Baking's analysis, he wrote.

The fact that a $500 recovery is much larger than the actual
damages incurred in receiving a junk fax is "of no moment when the
statutory recovery is, in absolute terms, still minimal," Judge
Chesler added.

Judge Chesler relied on Landsman & Funk PC v. Skinder-Strauss
Assocs., 640 F.3d 72 (3d Cir. 2011), where the panel questioned
whether the TCPA's statutory damages are enough to incentivize
suit.

Practically, foreclosing class-action status would mean that
"evidence . . . would have to be provided in hundreds if not
thousands of individual lawsuits," Judge Chesler said.

And as a policy matter, Judge Chesler was, "like the Third Circuit
. . . skeptical that the possibility of numerous individual suits
deters TCPA violations as effectively as an aggregated class
action."

In the ruling, Judge Chesler found that A&L also met Rule 23's
numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy-of-representation
and predominance requirements.  It wasn't clear until recently
whether private TCPA actions, even nonclass suits, could be
brought in federal court at all.  The statute, passed in 1991,
grants jurisdiction to state courts but is silent on federal
courts.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, 132
S.Ct. 740 (2012), held that U.S. courts have federal-question
jurisdiction over private TCPA suits because they "arise under"
U.S. law, reversing a contrary ruling by the Court of Appeals for
the 11th Circuit.

The Mims court, which didn't address class actions, "had an
opportunity to kill class actions if they wanted to but
recognized" that Rule 23 applies to all causes of action,
Mr. Wanca says.

Phillip Bock of Bock & Hatch in Chicago, Mr. Wanca's co-counsel in
Local Baking as well as A&L Industries, agrees that "Rule 23
apples to every case, unless Congress says it doesn't."

A&L Industries' local counsel, Michael Canning --
mcanning@ghclaw.com -- of Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla in Red Bank,
defers comment to Mr. Wanca.

Cipollini's lawyer, John Bashwiner of Bashwiner & Deer in Cedar
Grove, did not return a call on Oct. 3.


PLY GEM: Class Cert. Hearing in "Gulbankian" Suit Postponed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The hearing regarding class certification in John Gulbankian and
Robert D. Callahan v. MW Manufacturers, Inc. has been postponed,
according to Ply Gem Holdings, Inc.'s Aug. 13, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 29, 2013.

In John Gulbankian and Robert D. Callahan v. MW Manufacturers,
Inc., a purported class action filed in March 2010 in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, allege damages as a result of the defective design and
manufacture of MW's V-Wood windows.

The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic
and compensatory damages, (ii) treble damages, (iii) punitive
damages, and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The
damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified. This
action is currently in discovery regarding class certification,
and the hearing regarding class certification has been postponed.
The Company believes it has valid defenses to this claim, and it
will vigorously defend this claim.


PLY GEM: No Hearing Date Yet in "Hartshorn" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
A hearing regarding class certification in Eric Hartshorn and
Bethany Perry v. MW Manufacturers, Inc. has not yet been
scheduled, according to Ply Gem Holdings, Inc.'s Aug. 13, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 29, 2013.

In Eric Hartshorn and Bethany Perry v. MW Manufacturers, Inc., a
purported class action filed in July 2012 in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, plaintiffs, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, allege
damages as a result of the defective design and manufacture of
MW's Freedom and Freedom 800 windows.

The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including (i) economic
and compensatory damages, (ii) treble damages, (iii) punitive
damages, and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The
damages sought in this action have not yet been quantified. This
action is currently in discovery regarding class certification,
and a hearing regarding class certification has not yet been
scheduled. The Company believes it has valid defenses to this
claim, and it will vigorously defend this claim.


PLY GEM: "Pagliaroni" Suit in Discovery Over Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
A suit against Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. and Deceuninck North
America, LLC over the design and manufacture of Oasis composite
deck and railing, is currently in discovery regarding class
certification, and a hearing regarding class certification has not
yet been scheduled, according to Ply Gem Holdings, Inc.'s Aug. 13,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 29, 2013.

In Anthony Pagliaroni v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. and
Deceuninck North America, LLC, a purported class action filed in
January 2012 in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, alleges damages as a result of the defective
design and manufacture of Oasis composite deck and railing, which
was manufactured by Deceuninck North America, LLC ("Deceuninck")
and sold by MHE.

The plaintiff seeks a variety of relief, including (i) economic
and compensatory damages, (ii) treble damages, (iii) punitive
damages, and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. This
action is currently in discovery regarding class certification,
and a hearing regarding class certification has not yet been
scheduled. The damages sought in this action have not yet been
quantified.

The Company believes it has valid defenses to this claim, and it
will vigorously defend this claim. Deceuninck, as the manufacturer
of Oasis deck and railing, has agreed to indemnify the Company for
certain liabilities related to this claim pursuant to the sales
and distribution agreement, as amended, between Deceuninck and
MHE. The Company's ability to seek indemnification from Deceuninck
is, however, limited by the terms of the indemnity as well as the
strength of Deceuninck's financial condition, which could change
in the future.


PLY GEM: Faces "Memari" Suit in South Carolina Court
----------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc. faces a suit alleging damages as a
result of the illegality and/or defects of MW Manufacturer's vinyl
clad windows, according to Ply Gem Holdings, Inc.'s Aug. 13, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 29, 2013.

In Karl Memari v. Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc. et al., a purported
class action filed in March 2013 in the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division,
plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
alleges damages as a result of the illegality and/or defects of
MW's vinyl clad windows.

The plaintiff seeks a variety of relief, including (i) actual and
compensatory damages, (ii) punitive damages, and (iii) attorneys'
fees and costs of litigation. This action is at a preliminary
stage, and the Company believes it has valid defenses to this
claim and will vigorously defend this claim.


PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Judge Approves Crest Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Journal, reports that
consumers who accused Crest of puffery in promoting its
Sensitivity Treatment & Protection toothpaste will recover the
costs of their purchases -- about $4 a tube -- while their lawyers
make a mint.

U.S. District Judge Jose Linares in Newark signed off on Oct. 3 on
a class-action settlement that includes $700,000 in legal fees.
Claimants will be reimbursed what they paid for the paste, which
sells for an average of $8, if they can produce receipts.
Otherwise, they'll get $4.

Plaintiff lawyers say the class includes hundreds of thousands of
consumers nationwide.

The suit, in Rossi v. Proctor & Gamble Co., filed Dec. 13, 2011,
alleged Crest falsely said the toothpaste provided "relief within
minutes."  The plaintiffs cited an Oct. 28, 2011, report by the
National Advertising Division (NAD) of the Council of Better
Business Bureaus, which concluded that the Crest product provided
relief within days or weeks, not minutes.  NAD looked into the
issue after rival Colgate complained about the claim.  The suit
alleged breaches of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, express
warranty and the implied warranty of merchantability, and the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

Judge Linares found the settlement of $4 per member reasonable in
light of risks the class might not prevail at trial.  He said he
would not disturb the counsel fees because they were negotiated
between the parties and would not reduce class members' recovery.

Judge Linares said the court's fiduciary role in overseeing such
fee awards is reduced where there is no potential for conflict of
interest between attorneys and the class.

The $700,000 fee award amounted to 1.34 times the lodestar figure
of $511,890 for 952 hours of work, making it reasonable in light
of Third Circuit precedent allowing a multiplier of 2.99 percent,
Linares said.

One class member, Tim Blanchard of Corpus Christi, Texas,
objected, claiming class counsel failed to sustain their burden of
proof on commonality, predominance, superiority and adequacy.  But
Blanchard did not explain how class counsel failed to sustain its
burden, and Linares rejected his objection on its merits, calling
it "boilerplate."

Mr. Blanchard also claimed class members weren't given enough time
or information to evaluate the fee application.  Judge Linares
noted that settlement terms were posted online in January 2013 and
the class's petition for final approval was filed in August.

In addition, class counsel claimed they contacted Mr. Blanchard
directly after receiving his rejection notice, asking whether he
needed more time, but received no response, Linares said.

Class counsel argued that Blanchard's objections should be viewed
with caution, calling him a "serial objector" whose purpose is to
extract payment to make him go away.

The class was represented by James Cecchi and Donald Ecklund of
Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello in Roseland,
along with Joseph Marchese -- jmarchese@bursor.com -- of Bursar &
Fisher and Antonio Vozzolo -- avozzolo@faruqilaw.com -- of Faruqi
& Faruqi, both in New York.

Mr. Ecklund declines to comment on the settlement except to say
the class was in the hundreds of thousands.

Neither did Proctor & Gamble's lawyers, Jennifer DelMedico --
jdelmedico@jonesday.com -- and Hugh Whiting --
jdelmedico@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day in Cleveland.


STERICYCLE INC: Awaits Order on Bid to Transfer Suits to Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stericycle, Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
transfer related class action lawsuits against it to the Northern
District of Illinois for centralized pretrial proceedings,
according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

The Company was served on March 12, 2013, with a class action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania by an individual plaintiff for itself and
on behalf of all other "similarly situated" customers of the
Company.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company imposed unauthorized or excessive price increases and
other charges on its customers in breach of its contracts and in
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.  The complaint seeks certification of the lawsuit
as a class action and the award to class members of appropriate
damages and injunctive relief.

The Pennsylvania class action complaint was filed in the wake of
the Company's recent settlement with the State of New York of an
investigation under the New York False Claims Act (which the class
action complaint describes at some length).  The New York
investigation arose out of a qui tam (or "whistle blower")
complaint under the federal False Claims Act and comparable state
statutes which was filed under seal in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois in April 2008 by a former
employee of the Company.  The complaint was filed on behalf of the
United States and 14 states and the District of Columbia.
Tennessee, Massachusetts and Virginia have issued civil
investigative demands to explore the allegations made on their
behalf in the qui tam complaint but have not yet decided whether
to join the Illinois action.

Following the filing of the Pennsylvania class action complaint,
the Company has been served with class action complaints filed in
federal court in California, Florida and Illinois and in state
court in California.  These complaints assert claims and
allegations substantially similar to those made in the
Pennsylvania class action complaint.  All of these cases appear to
be follow-on litigation to the Company's settlement with the State
of New York.  On July 25, 2013, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation heard oral argument on the Company's
Motion to Transfer these related actions to the Northern District
of Illinois for centralized pretrial proceedings.  The panel has
not yet ruled on that motion.

The Company believes that it has operated in accordance with the
terms of the Company's customer contracts and that these
complaints are without merit.  The Company intends to vigorously
defend itself against each of these lawsuits.

Stericycle, Inc., provides regulated waste management and related
services.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware and is
headquartered in Lake Forest, Illinois.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Oklahoma Trial in Sudden-Acceleration Suit Under Way
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the sudden-acceleration litigation against Toyota was set to
shift to Oklahoma on Oct. 7, as plaintiffs attorneys for the first
time blame vehicle electronics for a crash that injured the driver
and killed a front-seat passenger.

The first major trial over sudden acceleration focused on Toyota's
failure to install a brake override safety system, not the
electronics.  A Los Angeles jury began deliberations on October 2
following two months of testimony.

The plaintiff in the Oklahoma case is Jean Bookout, who suffered
internal bleeding and a broken ankle when her 2005 Camry crashed
six years ago.  Her friend, Barbara Schwarz, who was in the front
seat, was killed.

Toyota has so far managed to settle litigation over sudden-
acceleration defects.  A $1.6 billion settlement, approved in
July, resolved claims by consumers that their vehicles lost value.
Another $25.5 million settlement resolved claims that shareholders
lost money from the recalls.  But trials now under way could
influence the outcome of hundreds of remaining lawsuits, all of
which target Toyota for injuries and deaths associated with
accidents.

Mr. Bookout filed her lawsuit in 2008, one year before Toyota
began recalling nearly 10 million vehicles for defective floor
mats and accelerator pedals linked to sudden acceleration.  The
case is a an outlier: It's not part of a coordinated proceeding,
and lawyers have not selected it as a bellwether trial, defined as
one whose outcome could guide the resolution of other cases
pending against Toyota across the nation.

"Ms. Bookout doesn't have much memory . . . but she remembers the
onset of the incident and remembers pumping her brakes, and the
car kept going when she was slowing to get off the exit ramp,"
said Ms. Bookout's lawyer, Graham Esdale --
graham.esdale@beasleyallen.com -- a shareholder at Beasley, Allen,
Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles in Montgomery, Ala.

But Toyota has brought in a significant legal team including
Bowman and Brooke, its lead national counsel in the sudden-
acceleration cases.  The team also includes J. Randolph Bibb Jr.
-- rbibb@lewisking.com  -- of Lewis, King, Krieg & Waldrop in
Nashville, Tenn., and James Jennings -- jaj@jctokc.com -- and
Derrick Teague -- jdt@jctokc.com -- senior shareholders of
Jennings Cook & Teague in Oklahoma City.

Toyota spokeswoman Carly Schaffner issued a formal statement:
"Multiple independent evaluations have confirmed the safety of
Toyota's electronic throttle control systems, which are equipped
with numerous, robust failsafe systems."

Toyota faces a formidable foe.  In addition to Mr. Esdale, Beasley
Allen's trial team includes senior member Jere Beasley and
products liability shareholders Benjamin Baker and J. Cole Portis.
The firm also is working with Larry Tawwater and Darren Tawwater
of The Tawwater Law Firm in Oklahoma City.

The trial is expected to last less than three weeks.  "It'll be
fairly extensive," Mr. Esdale said.  "Right now, our trial team is
bigger than anyone we've sent to a court."

Ms. Bookout and Ms. Schwarz's estate intend to claim that Toyota
was negligent and that the design of its 2005 Camry was defective,
Mr. Esdale said.  They also plan to ask jurors for punitive
damages.

Some 20 experts are on tap, many of whom appeared during the first
bellwether case over sudden acceleration to testify about braking
systems.  Others plan to testify about alleged defects in the
vehicle's electronics software.  Toyota has moved to exclude a
report by one such plaintiffs expert, Michael Barr, whom
plaintiffs lawyers indicated has identified a potential software
glitch that could cause sudden acceleration.  "Mr. Barr testified
in his deposition that the Toyota software is defective, which
results in unintended acceleration," Larry Tawwater wrote.

                         Fight Over Expert

Toyota's motion and Barr's report were filed under seal, but
Toyota has made a similar request to exclude Barr's findings in a
case scheduled to go to trial on November 5 in the multidistrict
litigation over sudden-acceleration defects against Toyota pending
before U.S. District Judge James Selna in Santa Ana, Calif.

Beasley Allen has asked that additional members of its team have
access to Toyota's proprietary software, which is housed in a
secured facility in Maryland.  Only two lawyers at the firm --
Esdale and Baker -- now have access to the source-code database.

"We filed a motion to allow lawyers trying the case access to it,"
Mr. Esdale said.  "Clearly, they'll see and hear about it during
the trial."  Toyota's attorneys have opposed that request; access
to its source code is governed by a stipulated protective order in
the multidistrict litigation.

Oklahoma County District Court Judge Patricia Parrish issued a
letter order on September 24 denying Toyota's motion as to Barr,
but hasn't ruled on the source-code request.  On October 1, she
denied the plaintiffs' request to put James Lentz, head of
Toyota's North American region and Toyota's highest ranking U.S.
executive, on the stand.  Mr. Lentz was forced to testify in
person before jurors during the first trial.

Judge Parrish also rejected a motion by Toyota to prevent
plaintiffs lawyers from disclosing to the news media all
"extrajudicial statements," especially highly sensitive
proprietary information, that could prejudice a prospective jury
pool.


TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Accord in Suit Over Shine Deal Now in Place
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a Consolidated Action against Twenty-First
Century Fox, Inc. in relation to its purchase of Shine Limited,
became effective on August 16, 2013, according to Twenty-First
Century Fox's Aug. 19, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On March 16, 2011, a complaint seeking to compel the inspection of
the Company's books and records pursuant to 8 Del. C. S 220,
captioned Central Laborers Pension Fund v. News Corporation, was
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

The plaintiff requested the Company's books and records to
investigate alleged possible breaches of fiduciary duty by the
directors of the Company in connection with the Company's purchase
of Shine Limited (the "Shine Transaction"). The Company moved to
dismiss the action. On November 30, 2011, the court issued an
order granting the Company's motion and dismissing the complaint.
The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on December 13, 2011. The
Delaware Supreme Court heard argument on the fully-briefed appeal
on April 18, 2012 and issued a decision on May 29, 2012 in which
it affirmed the Court of Chancery's dismissal of the complaint.

Also on March 16, 2011, two purported shareholders of the Company,
one of which was Central Laborers Pension Fund, filed a derivative
action in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned The
Amalgamated Bank v. Murdoch, et al. (the "Amalgamated Bank
Litigation"). The plaintiffs alleged that both the directors of
the Company and Rupert Murdoch as a "controlling shareholder"
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Shine
Transaction. The suit named as defendants all directors of the
Company, and named the Company as a nominal defendant. Similar
claims against the same group of defendants were filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery by a purported shareholder of the
Company, New Orleans Employees' Retirement System, on March 25,
2011 (the "New Orleans Employees' Retirement Litigation"). Both
the Amalgamated Bank Litigation and the New Orleans Employees'
Retirement Litigation were consolidated on April 6, 2011 (the
"Consolidated Action"), with The Amalgamated Bank's complaint
serving as the operative complaint. The Consolidated Action was
captioned In re News Corp. Shareholder Derivative Litigation. On
April 9, 2011, the court entered a scheduling order governing the
filing of an amended complaint and briefing on potential motions
to dismiss.

according to the company's Aug. 19, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

Thereafter, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed a
Verified Consolidated Shareholder Derivative and Class Action
Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint") on May 13, 2011, seeking
declaratory relief and damages.

The Consolidated Complaint largely restated the claims in The
Amalgamated Bank's initial complaint and also raised a direct
claim on behalf of a purported class of Company shareholders
relating to the possible addition of Elisabeth Murdoch to the
Company's Board.

The defendants filed opening briefs in support of motions to
dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on June 10, 2011, as
contemplated by the court's scheduling order. On July 8, 2011, the
plaintiffs filed a Verified Amended Consolidated Shareholder
Derivative and Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint").

In addition to the claims that were previously raised in the
Consolidated Complaint, the Amended Complaint brought claims
relating to the alleged acts of voicemail interception at The News
of the World (the "NoW Matter"). Specifically, the plaintiffs
claimed in the Amended Complaint that the directors of the Company
failed in their duty of oversight regarding the NoW Matter.

On July 15, 2011, another purported stockholder of the Company
filed a derivative action captioned Massachusetts Laborers'
Pension & Annuity Funds v. Murdoch, et al., in the Delaware Court
of Chancery (the "Mass. Laborers Litigation").

The complaint names as defendants the directors of the Company and
the Company as a nominal defendant. The plaintiffs' claims are
substantially similar to those raised by the Amended Complaint in
the Consolidated Action. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that
the directors of the Company have breached their fiduciary duties
by, among other things, approving the Shine Transaction and for
failing to exercise proper oversight in connection with the NoW
Matter. The plaintiff also brought a breach of fiduciary duty
claim against Rupert Murdoch as "controlling shareholder," and a
waste claim against the directors of the Company. The action
sought damages, injunctive relief, fees and costs.

On July 25, 2011, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action
requested that the court consolidate the Mass. Laborers Litigation
into the Consolidated Action. On August 24, 2011, the Mass.
Laborers Litigation was consolidated with the Consolidated Action.

On September 29, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a Verified Second
Amended Consolidated Shareholder Derivative and Class Action
Complaint ("Second Amended Complaint"). In the Second Amended
Complaint, the plaintiffs removed their claims involving the
possible addition of Elisabeth Murdoch to the Company's Board,
added factual allegations to support their remaining claims and
added a claim seeking to enjoin a buyback of Common B shares to
the extent it would result in a change of control. The Second
Amended Complaint sought declaratory relief, an injunction
preventing the buyback of Class B shares, damages, pre- and post-
judgment interest, fees and costs.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint. The hearing on the defendants' fully-briefed motion to
dismiss was postponed to allow further briefing by plaintiffs
after the Cohen Litigation, was consolidated with the Consolidated
Action.

On March 2, 2012, another purported stockholder of the Company
filed a derivative action captioned Belle M. Cohen v. Murdoch, et
al., in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Cohen Litigation").
The complaint names as defendants the directors of the Company and
the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint's claims and
allegations pertained to the NoW Matter and were substantially
similar to the NoW Matter allegations raised in the Second Amended
Complaint in the Consolidated Action. The complaint asserted
causes of action against the defendants for alleged breach of
fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, contribution and
indemnification, abuse of control, and waste of corporate assets.
The action sought damages, fees and costs. On March 20, 2012, the
Cohen Litigation was consolidated with the Consolidated Action.

On June 18, 2012, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed
a Verified Third Amended Consolidated Shareholder Derivative
Complaint (the "Third Amended Complaint"). The Third Amended
Complaint alleged claims against director defendants for breach of
fiduciary duty arising from the Shine Transaction; against Rupert
Murdoch for breach of fiduciary duty as the purported controlling
shareholder of the Company in connection with the Shine
Transaction; against director defendants for breach of fiduciary
duty arising from their purported failure to investigate illegal
conduct in the NoW Matter and allegedly permitting the Company to
engage in a cover up; against certain defendants for breach of
fiduciary duty in their capacity as officers arising from a
purported failure to investigate illegal conduct in the NoW Matter
and allegedly permitting the Company to engage in a cover up; and
against James Murdoch for breach of fiduciary duty for allegedly
engaging in a cover up related to the NoW Matter. The class action
claim asserted in the Second Amended Complaint pertaining to the
buyback of Common B shares and the relief related to that claim
was removed. The Third Amended Complaint sought a declaration that
the defendants violated their fiduciary duties, damages, pre- and
post-judgment interest, fees and costs.

On July 18, 2012, the defendants renewed their postponed motion to
dismiss in the Consolidated Action, and in support thereof, they
filed supplemental briefing directed towards the allegations of
the Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' response was filed on
August 8, 2012. A hearing on the fully briefed motion was held in
Chancery Court on September 19, 2012. The Court reserved decision.

On April 17, 2013, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the Consolidated Action. Pursuant to the terms of that
settlement, the parties agreed that the director defendants in the
Consolidated Action would cause to be paid on their behalf the
amount of $139 million to the Company, minus any attorneys' fees
and expenses awarded by the Court to the plaintiffs' counsel. Such
amount is to be paid from an escrow account created for the
benefit of the director defendants pursuant to an agreement
reached between the defendants and their directors' and officers'
liability insurers for the payment of insurance proceeds, subject
to a claims release. In addition to the payment to the Company,
the settlement contemplates that the Company will build on
corporate governance and compliance enhancements which the Company
has implemented in the past year. These shall remain in effect at
least through December 31, 2016, and will be applicable to both
the Company and News Corp. The Memorandum of Understanding related
to the settlement was filed with the Court, and on May 3, 2013,
the Stipulation of Settlement was filed with the Court. On May 6,
2013, the Court entered a Scheduling Order, which, among other
things, set the settlement hearing for June 26, 2013 (the
"Settlement Hearing"), and approved the form of Notice of Pendency
of Derivative Action, Proposed Settlement of Derivative Action,
Settlement Hearing, and Right to Appear, which was distributed to
holders of the Company's common stock in accordance with the
Scheduling Order.

At the Settlement Hearing, the Court approved the settlement and
entered a final judgment dismissing the Consolidated Action. In
connection therewith, the Court approved an attorneys' fee award
to plaintiffs' counsel of $28 million, payable from the $139
million settlement proceeds to be received by the Company. No
stockholder objected to either the settlement or the proposed fee
award. The settlement became effective on August 16, 2013, because
as of that date, the dismissal of the Consolidated Action as well
as the dismissals of each of the Shields Litigation, the Iron
Workers Litigation and the Stricklin Litigation were no longer
subject to appeal.


TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Accord in Forsta v. News Corp. Suit Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery approved a settlement in Forsta Ap-
Fonden v. News Corporation, et al. and dismissed the action with
prejudice, according to Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc.'s Aug. 19,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On May 30, 2012, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
class action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf
of all non-U.S. stockholders of the Company's Class B shares,
captioned Forsta Ap-Fonden v. News Corporation, et al.

The plaintiff alleged that, by temporarily suspending 50% of the
voting rights of the Class B shares held by non-U.S. stockholders
to remain in compliance with U.S. governing broadcast licenses
(the "Suspension"), the Company and the Board violated the
Company's charter and the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware ("DGCL") and the directors breached their fiduciary
duties, both in approving the Suspension and in failing to monitor
the Company's ownership by non-U.S. stockholders.

The complaint named as defendants the Company and all directors of
the Company at the time of the Suspension. The complaint sought a
declaration that the defendants violated the Company's charter and
the DGCL, a declaration that the directors breached their
fiduciary duties, a declaration that the Suspension is invalid and
unenforceable, an injunction of the Suspension, damages, fees, and
costs. On June 11, 2012, the defendants filed an opening brief in
support of a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.

On August 2, 2012, the plaintiff filed a Verified Amended and
Supplemented Class Action Complaint (the "Amended and Supplemented
Complaint"). The Amended and Supplemented Complaint sought a
declaration that the defendants violated the Company's charter and
the DGCL, a declaration that the directors breached their
fiduciary duties, a declaration that the Suspension is invalid and
unenforceable, an injunction of the Suspension, a declaration that
non-U.S. stockholders of the Company's Class B shares are entitled
to vote all of their shares on the Proposed Separation
Transaction, damages, fees, and costs.

On August 28, 2012, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding providing for an agreement in principle to settle
the lawsuit. The Memorandum of Understanding, which was filed with
the Court on September 5, 2012, provided in pertinent part:

     (i) within 5 business days after receiving Court approval,
the Company will file a petition with the FCC requesting
permission to comply with law governing broadcast licenses for any
meeting of stockholders by (a) determining the number of shares
held by foreign stockholders that are present at the meeting and
that would be entitled to vote but for the Suspension, and (b)
counting as votes cast all voted shares held by foreign
stockholders, up to a total of 25% of the shares voted;

    (ii) the Company's Audit Committee will determine on at least
an annual basis the total number of voting shares held by non-U.S.
citizens and will have the power to modify or eliminate any then-
existing suspension; the Company will disclose this information in
its annual proxy materials and

   (iii) the Company will not consent to amend, modify or
terminate the Murdoch Family Interests agreement without prior
approval of the Audit Committee, which in the case of any vote
related to the Proposed Separation Transaction, must be unanimous.

The settlement was subject to Court approval after notice to the
stockholders and a hearing. The Stipulation of Settlement was
filed with the Court on November 30, 2012. On December 10, 2012,
the Court entered a Scheduling Order, which, among other things,
set the settlement hearing for April 26, 2013, and approved the
form of Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement of
Class Action, Settlement Hearing, and Right to Appear, which has
been distributed to holders of the Company's Class B Common Stock
in accordance with the Scheduling Order. At a hearing held on
April 26, 2013, the Court approved the settlement and dismissed
the action with prejudice.


TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Motion to Junk "Wilder v. News Corp." Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the suit Wilder v. News Corp., et al. ("Wilder
Litigation"), filed motions to dismiss the complaint which are
pending, according Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc.'s Aug. 19, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Wilder v. News Corp., et al. ("Wilder Litigation"), was filed on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between
March 3, 2011 and July 11, 2011, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The plaintiff brought claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act, alleging that false and misleading
statements were issued regarding the NoW Matter. The suit names as
defendants the Company, Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah
Brooks, and seeks compensatory damages, rescission for damages
sustained, and costs. On June 5, 2012, the court issued an order
appointing the Avon Pension Fund ("Avon") as lead plaintiff and
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as lead counsel.

Thereafter, on July 3, 2012, the court issued an order providing
that an amended consolidated complaint shall be filed by July 31,
2012. Avon filed an amended consolidated complaint on July 31,
2012, which among other things, added as defendants NI Group
Limited (now known as News Corp UK & Ireland Limited) and Les
Hinton, and expanded the class period to include February 15, 2011
to July 18, 2011. The defendants have filed motions to dismiss the
complaint which are pending. The Company's management believes the
claims in the Wilder Litigation are entirely without merit, and
intends to vigorously defend those claims.


UNION FIRST: Faces Merger-Related Class Action Suit in Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Union First Market Bankshares Corporation is facing a merger-
related class action lawsuit in Virginia, according to the
Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

In a joint press release issued on June 10, 2013, the Company
announced the signing of a definitive merger agreement for the
acquisition of StellarOne Corporation ("StellarOne"), creating the
largest community banking institution in Virginia.  The Company
expects to close the merger on or around January 1, 2014, subject
to customary closing conditions, including regulatory and
shareholder approvals.  On June 14, 2013, Jaclyn Crescente,
individually and on behalf of all other StellarOne shareholders,
filed a class action complaint against StellarOne, its current
directors, StellarOne Bank and the Company, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Virginia, Charlottesville
Division (Case No. 3:13-cv-00021-NKM).  The complaint alleges that
the StellarOne directors breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the merger with the Company, and that the Company aided
and abetted in such breaches of duty.  The complaint seeks, among
other things, an order enjoining the defendants from proceeding
with or consummating the merger, as well as other equitable relief
and/or money damages in the event that the transaction is
completed.  StellarOne and the Company believe that the claims are
without merit.

Headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, Union First Market Bankshares
Corporation -- http://bankatunion.com/-- is the holding company
for Union First Market Bank, which has 90 branches and more than
150 ATMs throughout Virginia.  Non-bank affiliates of the holding
company include: Union Investment Services, Inc., which provides
full brokerage services; Union Mortgage Group, Inc., which
provides a full line of mortgage products; and Union Insurance
Group, LLC, which offers various lines of insurance products.
Union First Market Bank also owns a non-controlling interest in
Johnson Mortgage Company, LLC.


US SECURITY ASSOCIATES: 9th Cir. Affirms Ruling Certifying Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that a private
security guard company cannot decertify a class of current and
former employees accusing it of violating California labor law,
the 9th Circuit ruled Friday, September 27, 2013.

U.S. Security Associates provides guards at more than 700
locations in California, including hotels, hospitals, warehouses
and construction sites, according to the ruling.

In a federal complaint, former USSA employee Muhammed Abdullah
accused the firm of violating California labor law by forcing
guards to work through their meal breaks, among other issues.

A federal judge in Los Angeles ultimately certified the class and
seven subclasses.  USSA appealed the certification of a meal-break
subclass, but the 9th Circuit shot it down Friday, September 27,
2013.

"Here, the District Court concluded that 'a common legal question
that is presented and susceptible to class-wide determination' is
whether California's 'nature of the work' exception to Industrial
Welfare Commission ('IWC') wage order No. 4-2001 -- which governs
meal periods -- 'applies to [USSA]'s single guard post staffing
model,'" Judge Richard Paez wrote for a three-judge panel."  USSA
counters that this question will not generate a common answer,
because USSA's 'nature of the work' defense requires 'an
individualized, fact-specific analysis' of each employee's work
history, including 'a day-by-day examination of an employee's job
duties.'"

Ultimately class certification is proper because the allegations -
- and USSA's affirmative defenses to them -- "can yield a common
answer that is 'apt to drive the resolution of the litigation,"
according to the 30-page decision.

The Plaintiff-Appellee is represented by:

          Peter M. Hart, Esq.
          Katherine Marie Copeland, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART
          12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 205
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 207-0109
          E-mail: hartpeter@msn.com

               - and -

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 2655
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555

               - and -

          Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH H. YOON
          One Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-3383
          Telephone: (213) 612-0988

The Defendant-Appellant is represented by:

          Morgan Patricia Forsey, Esq.
          Otis Jr. McGee, Esq.
          Robert John Stumpf, Jr., Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4106
          Telephone: (415) 774-3254
          E-mail: mforsey@sheppardmullin.com
                  omcgee@sheppardmullin.com
                  rstumpf@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Lauren Dana Thibodeaux, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
          Telephone: (213) 620-1780

The appellate case is Muhammed Abdullah v. U.S. Security
Associates, Inc., Case No. 11-55653, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The original case is Muhammed
Abdullah v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc., Case No. 2:09-cv-
09554-GHK-E, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, Los Angeles.


VALLEY FORGE: Sued Over Illegal Export of Military Semiconductors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class
action claims the founders of Valley Forge Composite Technologies
misled investors about the primary source of the aerospace
company's income: illegal exports of military semiconductors to
Hong Kong.

Lead plaintiff Robert Neborsky claims the securities fraud came to
light in a federal investigation of the Kentucky-based company.

In his lawsuit in San Diego, Neborsky claims the fraud severely
damaged people who invested in the Company from January 2009 until
February this year.  He also sued the company's co-founders, Louis
Brothers and Larry Wilhide.  Neborsky claims the defendants lied
to investors by telling them that all of the company revenues was
"derived from the sale of aerospace devices, called momentum
wheels."

A momentum wheel is a flywheel used in spacecraft to change their
attitude without having to expend fuel.  A typical situation in
which this occurs is when scientists are trying to keep a space
telescope aimed at a particular star or galaxy.

Neborsky claims in the lawsuit that "in fact [the company's]
revenues were largely derived from illegally exporting military
semiconductors to Hong Kong.  Defendants engaged in this illegal
export scheme in order to generate millions of dollars to finance
the production and marketing of the company's recently developed
counter-terrorism products and to repay loans made to the company
by insiders, including Brothers.  "The sale of semiconductors to
Hong Kong was an excellent source of cash.  It drastically reduced
(and eventually eliminated) the amount of equity financing the
company was required to raise through the issuance of common
stock, thus preserving defendant's Wilhide's and Brothers
controlling ownership over the company.  It also allowed the
company to repay thousands of dollars in loans to Brothers
following 2009.  Defendants misled investors about the source of
its revenues in order to hide their illegal conduct from investors
and United States officials.  In addition, defendants knew that
the disclosure of their illegal activity would threaten the
existence of Valley Forge and would likely result in the seizure
of its bank accounts by the U.S. government."

The Cincinnati Courier reported in March that Valley Forge had
been developing technologies with potential cargo screening and
airline passenger applications.  The same report said the value of
the alleged exports was more than $37 million.

An investigation by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Kentucky
uncovered enough evidence to warrant the seizure of $1.5 million
from Valley Forge's bank accounts in February this year, which
caused the price of the company's common stock to plummet by more
than 50 percent and resulted in "substantial damage to plaintiff
and class," Neborsky says in the complaint.  He seeks damages for
securities violations.

Representatives of Valley Forge could not be reached for comment
Thursday, September 26, 2013.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent D. Slavens, Esq.
          Eric J. Benink, Esq.
          KRAUSE, KALFAYAN, BENINK & SLAVENS, LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 530
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 232-0331
          Facsimile: (619) 232-4019
          E-mail: vslavens@kkbs-law.com
                  ebenink@kkbs-law.com

The case is Neborsky v. Valley Forge Composite Technologies, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-02307-MMA-BGS, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California (San Diego).


VANGUARD HEALTH: Still Faces Antitrust Suit Over Nurses' Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. continues to face a suit alleging
conspiracy in San Antonio area hospitals to depress the
compensation levels of registered nurses, according to the
company's Aug. 20, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013.

In June 2006, the company and two other hospital systems operating
in San Antonio, Texas had a putative class action lawsuit brought
against all of the company  alleging that the company and the
other defendants had conspired with one another and with other
unidentified San Antonio area hospitals to depress the
compensation levels of registered nurses employed at the competing
hospitals within the San Antonio area by engaging in certain
activities that violated the federal antitrust laws.

On the same day that this litigation was brought against the
company  and two other hospital systems in San Antonio,
substantially similar class action litigation was brought against
multiple hospitals or hospital systems in three other cities
(Chicago, Illinois; Albany, New York; and Memphis, Tennessee),
with a fifth suit instituted against hospitals or hospital systems
in Detroit, Michigan later in 2006, one of which hospital systems
was DMC. A negative outcome in the San Antonio and/or the Detroit
actions could materially affect the company's business, financial
condition or results of operations.


VANGUARD HEALTH: Certification of Suit v. Baptist Health Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of an antitrust suit
against a subsidiary of Vanguard Health Systems, Inc., the Baptist
Health System in San Antonio, is still pending, according to
Vanguard's Aug. 20, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2013.

Cases involved: Maderazo, et al v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P.
d/b/a Baptist Health Systems, et. al., Case No. 5:06cv00535
(United States District Court, Western District of Texas, San
Antonio Division, filed June 20, 2006 and amended August 29, 2006)
and Cason-Merenda, et al. v. VHS of Michigan, Inc. d/b/a Detroit
Medical Center, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-15601-GER-DAS (United
States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division, filed December 15, 2006.

On June 20, 2006, a federal antitrust class action suit was filed
in San Antonio, Texas against the company's Baptist Health System
subsidiary in San Antonio, Texas and two other large hospital
systems in San Antonio.

In the complaint, plaintiffs allege that the three hospital system
defendants conspired with each other and with other unidentified
San Antonio area hospitals to depress the compensation levels of
registered nurses employed at the conspiring hospitals within the
San Antonio area by engaging in certain activities that violated
the federal antitrust laws.

The complaint alleges two separate claims. The first count asserts
that the defendant hospitals violated Section 1 of the federal
Sherman Act, which prohibits agreements that unreasonably restrain
competition, by conspiring to depress nurses' compensation. The
second count alleges that the defendant hospital systems also
violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by participating in wage,
salary and benefits surveys for the purpose, and having the
effect, of depressing registered nurses' compensation or limiting
competition for nurses based on their compensation.

The class on whose behalf the plaintiffs filed the complaint is
alleged to comprise all registered nurses employed by the
defendant hospitals since June 20, 2002. The suit seeks
unspecified damages, trebling of this damage amount pursuant to
federal law, interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

From 2006 through April 2008, the company and the plaintiffs
worked on producing documents to each other relating to, and
supplying legal briefs to the court in respect of, solely the
issue of whether the court will certify a class in this suit, the
court having bifurcated the class and merit issues. In April 2008,
the case was stayed by the judge pending his ruling on plaintiffs'
motion for class certification. On July 8, 2013, the plaintiffs
filed a motion to lift the stay and reopen discovery. The company
continues to believe that the allegations contained within this
putative class action suit are without merit, and the company
vigorously worked to defeat class certification. If a class is
certified, the company will continue to defend vigorously against
the litigation.

On the same date in 2006 that this suit was filed against the
company  in federal district court in San Antonio, the same
attorneys filed three other substantially similar putative class
action lawsuits in federal district courts in Chicago, Illinois,
Albany, New York and Memphis, Tennessee against some of the
hospitals or hospital systems in those cities (none of such
hospitals or hospital systems being owned by us).

The attorneys representing the plaintiffs in all four of these
cases said in June 2006 that they may file similar complaints in
other jurisdictions and in December 2006 they brought a
substantially similar class action lawsuit against eight hospitals
or hospital systems in the Detroit, Michigan metropolitan area,
including DMC. Since representatives of the Service Employees
International Union ("SEIU") joined plaintiffs' attorneys in
announcing the filing of all four complaints on June 20, 2006, and
as has been reported in the media, the company believes that
SEIU's involvement in these actions appears to be part of a
corporate campaign to attempt to organize nurses in these cities,
including San Antonio and Detroit. The registered nurses in the
company's hospitals in San Antonio and Detroit are currently not
members of any union.

In the suit in Detroit against DMC, the court did not bifurcate
class and merits issues. On March 22, 2012, the judge issued an
opinion and order granting in part and denying in part the
defendants' motions for summary judgment. The defendants' motions
were granted as to the count of the complaint alleging wage fixing
by defendants, but were denied as to the count alleging that the
defendants' sharing of wage information allegedly resulted in the
suppression of nurse wages. The opinion, however, did not address
plaintiffs' motion for class certification and did not address
defendants' challenge to the opinion of plaintiffs' expert, but
specifically reserved ruling on those matters for a later date.

At a mandatory mediation in January 2013 before the presiding U.S.
District Court judge, counsel for DMC was advised that it appears
likely that DMC will be the only non-settling defendant, and the
company understands that the other defendants have settled the
case or are in the process of having their settlements approved by
the court. Subsequently, on April 22, 2013, the judge issued an
opinion and order denying defendants' motion to exclude the
testimony of plaintiff's expert. Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is still pending before the court.

If the plaintiffs in the San Antonio and/or Detroit suits (1) are
successful in obtaining class certification and (2) are able to
prove both liability and substantial damages, which are then
trebled under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, such a result could
materially affect the company's business, financial condition or
results of operations. However, in the opinion of management, the
ultimate resolution of these matters is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the company's financial position or
results of operations.


VANGUARD HEALTH: Faces Lawsuit Over Tenet Merger Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. faces a consolidated suit in
relation to a merger agreement with Tenet Healthcare, according to
Vanguard's Aug. 20, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2013.

The company is aware of two lawsuits relating to the Merger
Agreement filed by purported stockholders against the company,
Tenet Healthcare and Orange Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Tenet (Merger Sub).

On June 25, 2013, a purported stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County,
Tennessee, captioned James A. Kaurich v. Vanguard Health Systems,
Inc., et al., Case No. 13-905-IV. On June 27, 2013, a second
purported stockholder filed a substantively identical putative
class action lawsuit in the Chancery Court for Davidson County,
Tennessee, captioned Marion Edinburgh TTEE FBO Marion Edinburgh
Trust U/T/D/ 7/8/1991 v. Vanguard Health Systems, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 13-921-IV. Both complaints name as defendants the
company, Tenet, Merger Sub, and the members of the company's Board
of Directors (the "Director Defendants") and allege that the
Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by approving
the Merger through an unfair process and at an unfair price, and
allege that the company, Merger Sub, and Tenet aided and abetted
the Director Defendants breach of their fiduciary duties.

On July 26, 2013, the complaints were consolidated and an amended
complaint was filed. This amended complaint replaced the two
putative class actions and seeks to enjoin the Merger and to
create a constructive trust for the purportedly improper benefits
received by the Director Defendants. The company and the company's
directors believe the allegations contained in the complaint are
without merit and intend to contest the allegations vigorously.


VIVUS INC: Appeal From Dismissal of "Kovtun" Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of the class action lawsuit styled
Kovtun v. Vivus, Inc., et al., remains pending, 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 two of its officers were defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit captioned Kovtun v. Vivus, Inc., et al., Case
No. 4:10-CV-04957-PJH, in the U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California.  The action, filed in November 2010,
alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the federal
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly false or
misleading statements made by the defendants in connection with
the Company's clinical trials and New Drug Application, or NDA,
for Qsymia as a treatment for obesity.  The Court granted the
defendants' motions to dismiss both plaintiff's Amended Class
Action Complaint and Second Amended Class Action Complaint; by
order dated September 27, 2012, the latter dismissal was with
prejudice and final judgment was entered for defendants the same
day.  On October 26, 2012, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Briefing of
the appeal is complete, and the parties are awaiting word on
whether the Court of Appeals wishes to entertain oral argument.

The Company and its directors cannot predict the outcome of the
various shareholder lawsuits, but they believe the various
shareholder lawsuits are without merit and intend to continue
vigorously defending them.

VIVUS, Inc. -- http://www.vivus.com/-- a biopharmaceutical
company, is developing therapies to address obesity, sleep apnea,
diabetes, and male sexual health.  Its lead investigational
product, Qnexa, has completed Phase 3 clinical trials for the
treatment of obesity.  Qnexa is also in Phase 2 clinical
development for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and obstructive
sleep apnea.  The Company was founded in 1991 and is headquartered
in Mountain View, California.


WARNER CHILCOTT: Enters MOU to Settle Shareholder Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Warner Chilcott Public Limited Company executed a memorandum of
understanding to settle a shareholder suit filed over a proposed
acquisition of the company by Actavis Inc., according to Warner's
Aug. 22, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

As disclosed in the definitive proxy statement/prospectus (the
"Proxy Statement") dated July 31, 2013 relating to the proposed
acquisition (the "Acquisition") of Warner Chilcott Public Limited
Company ("Warner Chilcott") by Actavis, Inc. ("Actavis"), on July
29, 2013, a purported shareholder of Warner Chilcott filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, styled Martin v. Warner
Chilcott Public Limited Company, Case No. 2:33-AV-00001 (the
"Action"), challenging the Acquisition.

The complaint alleges that Warner Chilcott violated Section 14 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules promulgated
thereunder by disseminating, with Actavis, a preliminary joint
proxy statement/prospectus in connection with the Acquisition
containing certain material omissions and misstatements.  The
complaint seeks, among other things, that consummation of the
Acquisition be enjoined, as well as an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages.

On August 22, 2013, the parties to the Action executed the MOU
setting forth an agreement in principle, subject to court approval
and certain other conditions, to settle the Action on the terms
set forth therein.

Pursuant to the MOU, Warner Chilcott agreed to make certain
supplemental disclosures as set forth in this Form 8-K.  The MOU
further provides that, among other things, (a) the parties will
replace the MOU with a definitive stipulation of settlement (the
"Stipulation") and will submit the Stipulation to the court for
review and approval; (b) the plaintiff will not pursue his efforts
to enjoin the proposed Acquisition; (c) the Stipulation will
provide for dismissal of the Action with prejudice on the merits;
(d) the Stipulation will include a customary release of Warner
Chilcott from any and all claims relating to the Acquisition and
any disclosures made in connection therewith; and (e) the proposed
settlement is conditioned on, among other things, consummation of
the Acquisition, completion of certain confirmatory discovery,
class certification, and final approval by the court following
notice to Warner Chilcott's shareholders.

Pending final approval by the court of the Stipulation, the
plaintiff has agreed to stay all proceedings in the Action and not
to initiate any other proceedings, except those relating to the
settlement.

Warner Chilcott has denied and continues to deny any wrongdoing or
liability with respect to all claims, events and transactions
complained of in the Action or that it has engaged in any
wrongdoing. Warner Chilcott has entered into the MOU solely to
eliminate the uncertainty, burden, risk, expense and distraction
of further litigation. Warner Chilcott does not concede that any
of the supplemental disclosures made pursuant to the MOU in this
Form 8-K are material or otherwise required by law.  Warner
Chilcott and Actavis believe that the Action is without merit and,
if the proposed settlement is not approved, intend to vigorously
defend against it.  There is no assurance that Warner Chilcott and
Actavis will be successful in the outcome of the pending or any
potential future lawsuits.

The settlement will not affect the form or amount of consideration
to be received by Warner Chilcott shareholders in the transaction.


WELLS FARGO: Faces Homeowners' Mortgage Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Pompeani, writing for Rochesterhomepage.biz, reports that
Wells Fargo is now the center of a Class Action Lawsuit after
allegedly failing to help homeowners qualify for loans and lower
their mortgages.

Pedro Lebron owns a home on Coleman Terrace in Rochester.
He had no plans to move, but now he might have to.  His house
needs $10,000 worth of repairs, and he can't move forward because
everytime he submits paperwork for a loan to Wells Fargo, he never
hears back.

This has been going on for 10 years.

Mr. Lebron isn't alone, his lawyer, Kevin Purcell says others
across the state and country are dealing with the same problem.
Last week, the New York State Attorney General sued Wells Fargo,
claiming the big bank is not living up to the agreement made last
year, in a mortgage servicing lawsuit.

The bank promised to do a better job helping clients stay in their
homes, but Purcell says the opposite is happening.  Some
homeowners are losing their homes in cases where they could've
kept them, and it's the bank's fault.

Mr. Purcell has submitted more than eight different packets to
Wells Fargo, trying to get his client the answers he desperately
needs.

Mr. Lebron is praying he'll be eligible for a loan before the
winter months, and before the birth of his son.

For now, the repairs keep getting delayed, and more damage
continues to occur, while Pedro waits.

Mr. Lebron's attorney says the intention of the lawsuit is to
level the playing field, so that all homeowners who are Wells
Fargo customers get reviewed to see what they qualify for in a
timely manner.

He says the lawsuit is the first step in making that happen.

Meantime, Wells Fargo said in a statement, "We are continuously
implementing additional customer-focused measures based on the
constructive feedback we receive from customers."


WINDSOR, CANADA: Supreme Court Denies Leave to Appeal Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Thompson, writing for The Windsor Star, reports that the
Supreme Court of Canada has denied an application by the City of
Windsor for leave to appeal in a protracted class-action lawsuit
involving a number of charities that claim they were overcharged
for bingo licensing and administration fees.

Windsor and Tecumseh are both targeted in the lawsuit, which was
brought in 2008 by bingo charities in the name of the Amyotrophic
Lateral Sclerosis Society of Canada against Windsor and the Belle
River District Minor Hockey Association and Essex County Dancers
against Tecumseh.

The lawsuit was certified by a Windsor judge, who limited the
scope of the classes.

That decision was appealed to divisional court by the charities,
and the appeal was allowed, but it did not deal with certain
alternative arguments and was referred back to the original judge.

Windsor appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada,
which refused to grant leave to appeal this week, and awarded
costs to the charities.  No reasons for the decision were
provided.

City solicitor George Wilkki said the suit will continue to plod
through the courts for four or five years, and if the
municipalities lose the judgment it could cost them around C$100
million.


WISDOMTREE INVESTMENTS: "Steinhardt" Class Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
WisdomTree Investments, Inc. said in its August 8, 2013, Form
10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the year ended December 31, 2012, that the class action lawsuit
against Occam Networks, Inc., that was originally filed by its
chairman remains pending.

The Chairman of the Company's Board of Directors and beneficial
owner of approximately 15.4% of the Company's common stock,
Michael Steinhardt, was the plaintiff in a civil class action
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in a case
entitled Michael Steinhardt, Herbert Chen, Derek Sheeler,
Steinhardt Overseas Management, L.P., and Ilex Partners, L.L.C.,
v. Robert Howard-Anderson, Steven Krausz, Robert Abbott, Robert
Bylin, Thomas Pardun, Brian Strom, Albert Moyer, and Occam
Networks, Inc., C.A. No. 5878-VCL.  Occam Networks, Inc., was a
publicly traded Delaware corporation that announced on
September 16, 2010, that it had entered into merger agreement with
Calix, Inc., another publicly traded company in the
telecommunications equipment industry.  The Plaintiffs, Occam
shareholders, filed the class action challenging the merger.  As
part of these proceedings, the court entered a confidentiality
order to protect the non-public information that would be
exchanged in discovery.  This order contained both a general
requirement that non-public information produced in the action be
used solely for purposes of the litigation and a specific
restriction against purchasing, selling, or otherwise trading in
the securities of Occam or Calix on the basis of such information.
Beginning on December 28, 2010, Mr. Steinhardt began short-selling
Calix stock as a way to exit his Occam position.  The defendants
filed a motion for sanctions on the basis that Delaware law
prohibits plaintiff-fiduciaries from trading stock while they are
in possession of non-public information they obtained in
discovery.  After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the court
granted the defendants' motion for sanctions with respect to Mr.
Steinhardt and his affiliated funds on January 6, 2012.  The court
dismissed Mr. Steinhardt and his affiliated funds from the case
with prejudice, barred them from receiving any future recovery in
the lawsuit, required them to self-report their trading activities
to the SEC and disclose it in any future application to serve as
lead plaintiff, and ordered them to disgorge profits of over
$530,000.

The Company says Mr. Steinhardt's actions did not involve the
Company or trading in the Company's securities and, based on the
facts currently known, which the Company is continuing to monitor,
the Company does not believe Mr. Steinhardt's actions have had or
will have a material impact on the Company's business.  However,
there can be no assurance that this will be the case or that this
will not have an adverse effect on the Company's reputation or the
price of its common stock.

WisdomTree Investments, Inc. -- http://ir.wisdomtree.com/-- is
the only publicly-traded asset management company that focuses
exclusively on exchange traded funds.  The Company's family of
ETFs includes both fundamentally weighted funds that track its own
indexes, and actively managed funds.


                             *********

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  * * *