CAR_Public/131023.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, October 23, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 210

                             Headlines


AMAZON.COM INC: Employees File Suits in Tennessee & Pennsylvania
B BRAUN MEDICAL: Issues Voluntary Nationwide Recall of Injectables
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: To Settle Suit Over Defective Devices for $30MM
CAPE INTERMEDIATE: Settles Suit Over Asbestos Poisoning
DUKE ENERGY: State Regulators Set to Vote on Settlement

FAHMAN ENTERPRISES: Recalls Pran Turmeric Powder Due to Lead
GOOGLE INC: Public Interest Groups Oppose Privacy Suit Settlement
HERBALIFE INT'L: Judge Refuses to Toss Pyramid Scheme Class Action
IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Continues to Face "Fuller" Suit in S.D. Fla.
IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: December Hearing Set for Global Settlement

JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles MBS Investor Suit for $13 Billion
JP MORGAN: Court Narrows Claims in "McGarvey" Class Action
KIRKLAND: Recalls Certain Sausage Products Due to Plastic
MARCUS CORPORATION: Nevada Court Dismisses "Goodman" Lawsuit
MCCABE ASSOCIATES: Security Workers File Wage-and-Hour Suit

MICHIGAN: Corrections Dep't Sued Over Juvenile Inmates Abuse
MICROSOFT CORP: Judge Denies Class Cert. in Data Collection Suit
MOLLY B'S GLUTEN: Recalls Gluten Free Kitchen Belgian Waffle Mix
NISSAN MOTOR: Recalls 593 NV200 Model Trucks and Vans
NORTHERN BEEF: Former Employee Files Class Action Over Layoff

PA CHILD CARE: Kids-for-Cash Plaintiffs Proposes $2.5MM Settlement
PHILIPS ORAL: TINA.org Challenges Sonicare Class Action Settlement
PILOT FLYING J: J.F. Freight Opts Out of Class Action Settlement
PORSCHE AUTOMOBIL: Recalls 31 CAYENNE Model SUVs
PRUCO LIFE: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Phillips" Action

QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA: Faces Ex-Aboriginal Mission Inmates' Suit
RAILROAD COMPANIES: Seek Higher Scrutiny on Damages Model
SHELBY COUNTY: Plaintiffs in Acker Suit Seek Class Action Status
ST. CHARLES SCHOOL: Faces Class Action Over School Restructuring
SURF-FRAC WELLHEAD: Bid to Add "Watson" Opt-in Plaintiffs Tossed

SUUNTO OY: Recalls High-Pressure Rubber SCUBA Hoses
THERAGENICS CORPORATION: Faces Suits Over Juniper Merger Deal
TOWER GROUP: Ryan & Maniskas Files Class Action in New York
TOYOTA MOTOR: Cleared by Jury in "Uno" Acceleration Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 44,041 Cars and SUVs in Canada

TRAVELPORT LIMITED: Ruling on Online Booking Tax Suit Upheld
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: C.A. Tosses Medical Data Class Action
US FOODS: Settlement Funds in Calif. Labor Suit Now Distributed
US FOODS: Pricing Litigation Continues in Discovery Stage
VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA: Bushfire Victims May Launch Action

VOLTARI CORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Wash. Securities Suit
WINDSOR MOLD: Employees File Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime


                             *********


AMAZON.COM INC: Employees File Suits in Tennessee & Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
WTVR reports that some current and former employees of the online
retail giant Amazon have filed class action lawsuits in Tennessee
and Pennsylvania.  The lawsuits allege that everyday workers at
the companies fulfillment centers have to go through security
searches while off the clock, some they say take as long as 20
minutes to complete.  The lawsuit said that security searches take
place every time an employee leaves the warehouse floor, and twice
while they are off the clock -- during their meal break and when
they leave for the day.  Those taking part in the lawsuits believe
they should be compensated for the time they are off the clock but
still at work trying to get through security.

While no similar lawsuits have been filed in Virginia, some former
employees said they understand why some are suing.

"It's very annoying, cause you know you're ready to go home and
you've got to sit there and wait," Brittany Titus said.  She
worked at the Dinwiddie fulfillment center for more than a year.
Former employee's like Erik Baggett understand the need for tight
security.

"There is a lot of security once you go inside the building, but I
understand both sides," he said.  "They've got to keep their
products safe, because there is a lot of theft."

But some say the continued delay only gets worse during the
holidays when hundreds of seasonal employees are added to the work
force.

CBS 6 Legal Analyst Todd Stone said that "this Class Action
Lawsuit makes it really easy for Amazon employees to jump on
board, because you've got attorneys who have done the leg work and
you could add them to the lawsuit pretty easily."


B BRAUN MEDICAL: Issues Voluntary Nationwide Recall of Injectables
------------------------------------------------------------------
Food and Drug Administration disclosed that B. Braun Medical Inc.
is voluntarily recalling one lot of 1g Cefepime for Injection USP
and Dextrose Injection USP (Lot H3A744, catalog 3193-11) to the
consumer level.  The 1g Cefepime for Injection USP and Dextrose
Injection USP lot has been found to contain visible organic
particulate matter in a reserve sample unit.  B.Braun has not
received any reports of adverse events related to this lot to
date.

Visible particulate matter, including metals, and organic material
such as cotton fibers or hair, may also illicit inflammatory
responses, both chronic and acute, and may be life threatening
(e.g. systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS and / or
anaphylaxis).  If a right to left cardiac shunt is present, the
particulate may lead to arterial emboli and result in stroke,
myocardial infarction, respiratory failure, and loss of renal and
hepatic function or tissue necrosis.  Other adverse effects
associated with intravenous injection of particulate matter
include foreign body granulomata, particularly in the lungs, and
local irritation of blood vessels.

The product is used as a cephalosporin antibacterial indicated in
the treatment of infections caused by susceptible strains of
designated microorganisms.  The product is packaged in a DUPLEX(R)
single dose intravenous, plastic container with 24 units per case.
The affected lot H3A744, which expires January 2015, was
distributed nationwide to licensed Distributors, Hospitals and
Pharmacies, and distributed to customers between the dates of
Feb. 4, 2013 and March 1, 2013.

B. Braun is notifying its distributors and customers by written,
return receipt letters and is arranging for return of all recalled
product.  Distributors and customers that have inventory of the 1g
Cefepime for Injection USP and Dextrose Injection USP of lot
H3A744 should discontinue use immediately and contact B. Braun's
Customer Support Department at 1-800-227-2862, Monday through
Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.  EST for instructions for returning
the affected product and to arrange for replacement product.

Patients reporting any problems that may be related to the use of
this product should be advised to contact a physician and report
all issues to B. Braun at 1-800-854-6851.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: To Settle Suit Over Defective Devices for $30MM
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Justice Department says
Boston Scientific Corp. and its Guidant subsidiaries will pay $30
million to settle allegations that Guidant knowingly sold
defective heart devices that health care facilities implanted in
Medicare patients from 2002 to 2005.

Boston Scientific is headquartered in Natick, Mass., and acquired
Guidant in 2006.

The Justice Department says that while Guidant took corrective
action to fix the defects, the company continued selling its
remaining stock of defective versions of the devices.  In
addition, the government alleged that as Guidant learned about the
cause of the defect, it took steps to hide the problem from
patients, doctors and the Food and Drug Administration, which
regulates medical devices.

The devices are implantable defibrillators used in patients at
risk of cardiac arrest due to an irregular heartbeat.


CAPE INTERMEDIATE: Settles Suit Over Asbestos Poisoning
-------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reports that a woman who has terminal cancer after making
asbestos "snowballs" with dust from a local factory as a child has
received a "substantial" payment from its parent company.

Caroline Wilcock grew up by an asbestos plant in Bowburn, County
Durham.  Now living in London, she said: "I feel I had a
responsibility to the community I grew up in to pursue my claim."

Cape Intermediate Holdings Plc -- previously known as The Cape
Asbestos Company -- settled out of court.

Miss Wilcock's claim stated she suffered from asbestos poisoning
between 1967 and 1983.

                            'Exposed'

The 51-year-old was diagnosed with the fatal lung condition
mesothelioma three years ago.

"My case establishes that the people of Bowburn were exposed to
the dangers of asbestos over forty years ago and were largely
unaware or unable to do anything to protect themselves and their
children," she said.

"I am angry that I and other children came into contact with
asbestos whilst playing in our village and around our homes and
feel certain that my case will not be in isolation."

Local knowledge gathered for the case included recollections of
children using asbestos dust on window ledges and cars for
"snowballs".

Others are said to have written messages in it, or used lumps that
fell from the plant's wagons as an alternative to chalk.

The firm that operated the factory no longer exists so Miss
Wilcock's claim was made against its successor.


DUKE ENERGY: State Regulators Set to Vote on Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Ivan Penn, writing for Tampa Bay Times, reports that state
regulators was expected to vote on Oct. 16 on a settlement
agreement over Duke Energy's $5 billion nuclear boondoggle after
hours of testimony and questions about whether the deal is good
for the utility's customers.

The settlement between Duke Energy and the state Office of Public
Counsel, which represents consumers before the Public Service
Commission, is a sweeping plan that would resolve who pays the
costs of the botched upgrade at the Crystal River nuclear plant
and the failed Levy County nuclear project.

Under the proposal, Duke's customers would bear the largest
burden, about $3.2 billion, with insurance picking up $835 million
and the rest by the utility's shareholders.

"Obviously, this is a monumental case before us," said
Commissioner Julie Brown.

Virtually every party that represents customers before the
commission defended the plan.

The most critical issue, said Charles Rehwinkel, deputy public
counsel: "Everything was resolved as one package.  The dollars
that come directly from the Duke shareholders that reduce the cost
that customers will bear are paramount. In my heart of hearts, I'm
convinced that this deal overall is good for the customers."

Added Robert Scheffel "Schef" Wright, a lawyer who represents the
Florida Retail Federation: "This is a tragedy.  There's no other
way to describe it.  We believe this is the best deal we could
negotiate."

But opponents told the commission that consumer advocates moved
too hastily to settle.

"I'm not going to join the chorus of Kumbaya this morning," said
Rep. Dwight Dudley, D-St. Petersburg.  "It was plain negligence.
I don't know why ratepayers are getting stuck in a major way."

Even before the Oct. 15 hearing began, opponents voiced their
opposition.

With signs urging state regulators to "Stop Duke Rip-off," a small
group of protesters threatened a class-action lawsuit if the
settlement goes forward.

"We are tired of Duke taking advantage of us," said Dalyn Houser
of Stop Duke Rip-off Pinellas County, a group of about 100.

The groups asked the commission to reject or at least delay the
settlement agreement to hold public hearings in the communities
that Duke serves.

Lawyers in the case said such hearings would be illegal because
state law only allows expert testimony in this type of case.

Commissioner Art Graham asked Duke officials if they would be
willing to participate in town hall meetings as an alternative so
consumers could voice their concerns.

"Certainly," said R. Alexander "Alex" Glenn, Duke Energy's Florida
president.  "We're open to talking to customers any time."

For its part, Duke Energy Florida said the settlement agreement is
in the "best interest of DEF and its customers," said John
Burnett, a lawyer with the utility.  He called the deal "fair,
just and reasonable."

Duke's spending includes as much as $1.5 billion on the Levy
project for land purchases, planning, development, nuclear
components and financing charges.

For Crystal River, Duke spent hundreds of millions of dollars
replacing the plant's old steam generators and on efforts to
bolster its generation capacity.

The spending escalated after workers botched the upgrade during
the steam generator phase of the project.  The utility cut into
the 42-inch thick concrete reactor containment building and it
cracked.  Attempts to repair the plant and bring it back online
led to more cracks.

Duke announced Crystal River's closure.  It is Florida's first
nuclear plant to close and undergo decommissioning and the first
major one in the Southeast.

The upgrades, repairs and replacement power Duke has purchased in
place of Crystal River's output have resulted in more than $3
billion in expenses, even though the plant will never produce
power again.

Some of those expenses have been covered by insurance that reduced
the bill to customers by $762 million.  Duke also agreed to reduce
purchase power obligations by $388 million and to write off
another $295 million in debt on the Crystal River plant.

Even so, Duke projects the average residential customer's rate to
increase by $8.24 on Jan. 1 to $124.30 per 1,000 kilowatt hours of
usage if the settlement agreement passes.

Duke said on Oct. 16 that it would likely need two new natural gas
plants plus some other generating source that it would build or
buy in 2016 or 2017 to replace the loss of the Crystal River
nuclear plant and the proposed Levy County nuclear project.

"This is one of the most colossal mistakes, I think, in the
history of the United States," Mr. Dudley said, "and maybe even
beyond."


FAHMAN ENTERPRISES: Recalls Pran Turmeric Powder Due to Lead
------------------------------------------------------------
Fahman Enterprises Inc. of Dallas, TX is voluntarily recalling
Pran Turmeric Powder because it was found to contain high levels
of lead that could cause health problems to consumers,
particularly infants, small children, and pregnant women if
consumed.  The recall was initiated after it was discovered that
product contained high levels of lead (48 ppm) based on sampling
by The Food and Drug Administration.

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

The Pran Turmeric Powder 400g is packaged in a transparent plastic
flexible bag with best before Jan. 25, 2015 and Barcode 8
3173000502 3.

No complaints have been reported to date.

The recalled product was distributed in the city of Dallas, TX to
retail stores between the dates of July 2013 to September 2013.

Consumers who have purchased PRAN TURMERIC POWDER are urged not to
consume the product and should return it to the place of purchase
for a full refund.  Consumers with questions may contact the
company at TEL 214 597 5133, Monday - Friday 10am - 5pm, CDT.


GOOGLE INC: Public Interest Groups Oppose Privacy Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Watchdog joined the Electronic Privacy Information Center
(EPIC) and three other public interest groups on Oct. 16 in
re-iterating their opposition to a proposed $8.5 million
settlement in a class action suit against Google for privacy
violations in the way it handled users' search data because
proposed recipients of settlement funds don't represent the
interests of the class.

The Oct. 16 letter to Judge Edward J. Davila said that cy pres
awards in consumer privacy cases should go to consumer privacy
organizations.  EPIC, Consumer Watchdog, the Center for Digital
Democracy, Patient Privacy Rights, and Privacy Rights
Clearinghouse first objected to the settlement in August.  The
Oct. 16 letter concluded:

"Counsel constructed a settlement procedure for the resolution of
cy pres allocation that explicitly ignored the purpose of the
litigation and the interests of the class members.  While it is
typically appropriate in settlements for parties to find mutually
agreeable terms, in class action settlements the court must ensure
that cy pres allocations satisfy the minimal threshold to protect
the interests of the class.

"The cy pres selection procedure adopted by the parties in this
matter does not serve the interests of the class.  An open,
transparent, and objective process would help ensure that the
settlement is fair, reasonable, and accurate and that it provides
the 'next best' distribution.  In the alternative, the court could
modify the proposed settlement, as other courts have done in
similar circumstances in the past, to ensure that the cy pres
funds are allocated to organizations aligned with the interests of
class members."

A copy of the letter is available at http://is.gd/stziK6

"Bad settlements seriously undermine the effectiveness of class
action suits in protecting consumers against corporate
wrongdoing," said John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog's Privacy
Project director.  "They do nothing but fatten the pockets of the
attorneys.  In this case the proposed settlement allows the
attorneys to channel the settlement money to drive their personal
agendas. Cy pres awards in consumer privacy cases should go to
consumer privacy organizations.  I'm optimistic Judge Davila will
do what's right."

Cy pres awards are a "next best" way of distributing settlement
funds when it would be difficult to distribute the money to class
members, but the recipients should further the interests of the
class.

The original settlement proposed giving money to the World Privacy
Forum, Carnegie-Mellon, Chicago-Kent College of Law Center for
Information, Society, and Policy, Berkman Center for Internet and
Society at Harvard University, Stanford Center for Internet and
Society, MacArthur Foundation, and AARP, Inc.  Of the proposed
recipients only the World Privacy Forum is a consumer privacy
organization.  Since the settlement was first proposed, the
MacArthur Foundation withdrew as a potential recipient and asked
that the money slated for the organization be "redirected to other
nonprofit organizations engaged in the underlying issues."


HERBALIFE INT'L: Judge Refuses to Toss Pyramid Scheme Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ciaran McEvoy, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on Oct. 11 refused to toss a putative class action
alleging Herbalife International of America Inc. operates as an
unlawful pyramid scheme, finding the former distributor suing the
company has adequately pled that Herbalife's business model fits
the definition of such a scheme.

U.S. District Judge Beverly Reid O' Connell denied Los Angeles-
based Herbalife's motion to dismiss Dana Bostick's suit, saying
that, at this phase of the litigation, Ms. Bostick has adequately
supported his allegations against the company.

Ms. Bostick, a 68-year-old retired general contractor, sued
Herbalife in April, alleging that 88 percent of the company's
roughly 500,000 U.S. distributors fail to make any money.  He
contends Herbalife has violated California's endless chain scheme,
unfair competition and false advertising laws.

In his complaint, Ms. Bostick claimed he became an Herbalife
contractor in April 2012, spent $3,000 in the company's products,
set up three websites, and spent money on coaching sessions on how
to recruit others into the company's fold.  He says he only
attracted one recruit -- a longtime friend.

The lawsuit was filed after short-seller Bill Ackman criticized
Herbalife as a pyramid scheme, an allegation the company has
denied.  Ms. Bostick is seeking to represent a putative class of
individuals who claim to be injured by participating in
Herbalife's alleged scheme.

In the Oct. 11 order, Judge O' Connell said Ms. Bostick's endless
chain scheme claim meets both of the requirements of the so-called
Koscot test, which is used to determine whether a company's
business model is consistent with that of a pyramid scheme.

Ms. Bostick showed that parties pay money for the right to sell
Herbalife's products -- in Ms. Bostick's case, an "International
Business Pack" costing $95.55 -- and receive rewards for
recruiting new participants that are unrelated to retail sales of
the company's products to ultimate users, the judge wrote.  With
respect to the issue of Herbalife's recruiting rewards, Judge O'
Connell found that downline distributors -- those who operate
under a supervisor -- are not ultimate users of the company's
products under the Koscot test.

"The considerable discounts and advantages offered to supervisors
presents the same risk of a recruitment focus" found in prior
cases targeting alleged pyramid schemes, the judge said.

Because Ms. Bostick has adequately pled that Herbalife is a
pyramid scheme, his unfair competition and false advertising
claims may also proceed, Judge O' Connell ruled.

The judge disagreed with Herbalife's contention that its anti-
pyramiding safeguards preclude Ms. Bostick's suit, saying evidence
of the safeguards' effectiveness has not yet been presented.

"[D]ismissal based on Herbalife's alleged anti-pyramiding
safeguards is inappropriate at this stage in the litigation," the
judge said.

Judge O' Connell rejected Herbalife's argument that she lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over the case because Ms. Bostick
dropped his civil racketeering claim against Herbalife, leaving
only state law claims.  The judge ruled Ms. Bostick's agreement
with Herbalife, central to the class action, does not fall within
a securities exception to the Class Action Fairness Act.

Ms. Bostick's attorney, Philip D. Dracht -- pdracht@fabianlaw.com
-- of Fabian & Clendenin, told Law360 on Oct. 15 the judge's
ruling that Ms. Bostick's complaint satisfies both elements of the
Koscot test is a significant milestone in the case.

"The judge clearly laid out the case law," Mr. Dracht said.  "We
think this a very significant order for our case moving forward."

An Herbalife representative did not immediately respond to a
request for comment on Oct. 15.

Ms. Bostick is represented by Philip D. Dracht of Fabian &
Clendenin and Thomas G. Foley Jr. -- tfoley@foleybezek.com --
Robert A. Curtis -- rcurtis@foleybezek.com -- and Justin P.
Karczag -- jkarczag@foleybezek.com -- of Foley Bezek Behle &
Curtis LLP.

Herbalife is represented by Jonathan D. Schiller --
jschiller@bsfllp.com -- William S. Ohlemeyer --
wohlemeyer@bsfllp.com -- and David L. Zifkin -- dzifkin@bsfllp.com
-- of Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP.

The case is Dana Bostick v. Herbalife International of America
Inc. et al., case number 2:13-cv-02488, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.


IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Continues to Face "Fuller" Suit in S.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Holdings, Inc. continues to face the consolidated suit
Fuller v. Imperial Holdings et al. in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, 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.

Initially on September 29, 2011, the Company, and certain of its
officers and directors were named as defendants in a putative
securities class action filed in the Circuit Court of the 15th
Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, entitled
Martin J. Fuller v. Imperial Holdings, Inc. et al.

Also named as defendants were the underwriters of the Company's
initial public offering. That complaint asserted claims under
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
alleging that the Company should have, but failed to disclose in
the registration statement for its initial public offering
purported wrongful conduct relating to its life finance business
that gave rise to the USAO Investigation. On October 21, 2011, an
amended complaint was filed that asserts claims under Sections 11,
12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, based on similar
allegations. On October 25, 2011, defendants removed the case to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.

On October 31, 2011, another putative class action case was filed
in the Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm
Beach County, Florida, entitled City of Roseville Employees
Retirement System v. Imperial Holdings, et al, naming the same
defendants and also bringing claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15
of the Securities Act based on similar allegations. On November
28, 2011, defendants removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The
plaintiffs in the Fuller and City of Roseville cases moved to
remand their cases back to state court. Those motions were fully
briefed and argued.

On November 18, 2011, a putative class action case was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, entitled Sauer v. Imperial Holdings, Inc., et al, naming
the same defendants and bringing claims under Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 based on similar allegations.

On December 14, 2011, another putative class action case filed in
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
entitled Pondick v. Imperial Holdings, Inc., et al., naming the
same defendants and bringing claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 based on similar allegations.

On February 24, 2012, the four putative class actions were
consolidated and designated: Fuller v. Imperial Holdings et al. in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, and lead plaintiffs were appointed.

In addition, the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering have asserted that the Company is required by its
Underwriting Agreement to indemnify the underwriters' expenses and
potential liabilities in connection with the litigation.


IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: December Hearing Set for Global Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
A December 16, 2013 settlement hearing is set in the proposed
Global Settlement Regarding Imperial Holdings, Inc. Matter,
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.

On December 18, 2012, attorneys for the Company signed a Term
Sheet for Global Settlement Regarding Imperial Holdings, Inc.
Matters (the "Term Sheet") setting forth the terms upon which each
of the parties to the matters "Class Action Litigation, Derivative
Demands and the Insurance Coverage Declaratory Relief Complaint"
would be willing to settle the class action litigation and
derivative actions as well as the declaratory relief action filed
by Catlin, respectively.

In addition to the Company's attorneys, the Term Sheet was signed
by attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the class action
lawsuits and derivative actions instituted against the Company, as
well attorneys for the Company's director and officer liability
insurance carriers ("D&O Carriers"), certain individual defendants
named in the class actions and the underwriters in the Company's
initial public offering.

The terms of the class action settlement include a cash payment of
$12.0 million, of which $11.0 million is to be contributed by the
Company's primary and excess D&O Carriers and the issuance of two
million warrants for shares of the Company's stock with an
estimated fair value of $3.1 million at the date of the signing of
the Term Sheet. The value of the warrants were reassessed during
the six months ended June 30, 2013 and resulted in an increase in
fair value of $3.3 million. The estimated fair value at June 30,
2013 was $6.4 million. The warrants will have a five-year term
with an exercise price of $10.75 and will be issued when the
settlement proceeds are distributed to the claimants.

In addition, the underwriters in the Company's initial public
offering are to waive their rights to indemnity and contribution
by the Company. The Company recorded a reserve at June 30, 2013
related to the proposed settlement of $17.4 million, which is
included in other liabilities and a receivable for insurance
recoverable from the Company's D&O Carrier of $11.0 million, which
is included in prepaid and other assets. $4.1 million net effect
of the proposed settlement is included in legal fees in the
statement of operations for the year ended December 31, 2012 and
an additional $3.3 million is included in the six month period
ended June 30, 2013.

On July 29, 2013, the parties to the Term Sheet executed
definitive settlement agreements in respect of the class action
litigation, derivative action and insurance coverage declaratory
relief complaint. The class action litigation and derivative
action settlements are subject to court approval and all of the
settlements are contingent on effectiveness of the other
settlements.

On August 6, 2013, the federal court entered an order
preliminarily approving the class action settlements and setting a
settlement hearing for December 16, 2013. On August 13, 2013, the
state court entered an order preliminarily approving the
derivative action settlement and setting a final fairness hearing
for December 17, 2013. Final court approval of the Securities
Class Action and Derivative Action settlements could be delayed by
appeals or other proceedings.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Settles MBS Investor Suit for $13 Billion
---------------------------------------------------------
Pete Yost, writing for The Associated Press, reports that JPMorgan
Chase & Co. has tentatively agreed to pay $13 billion to settle
allegations surrounding the quality of mortgage-backed securities
it sold in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis, a person
familiar with the negotiations between the bank and the federal
government said on Oct. 19.

If the agreement is finalized it would be the government's
highest-profile enforcement action related to the financial
meltdown that plunged the economy into the deepest recession since
the Great Depression of the 1930s.

The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the deal
has not been finalized, said Attorney General Eric Holder,
Associate Attorney General Tony West, J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon
and the bank's general counsel, Stephen Cutler, negotiated the
tentative settlement in a phone call on Oct. 18.

The person said the tentative agreement does not resolve a
criminal investigation of the bank's conduct.  It is being handled
by federal prosecutors in Sacramento, California.

On Friday night, Holder told the bank that a non-prosecution
agreement was a non-starter -- meaning that the Justice Department
will continue to conduct the criminal investigation of the
financial institution, said the person.  As part of the deal, the
Justice Department expects JPMorgan to cooperate with the
continuing criminal probe of the bank's issuance of mortgage-
backed securities between 2005 and 2007, the person said.

JPMorgan spokesman Brian Marchiony and Justice Department
spokesman Brian Fallon declined to comment.

Of the $13 billion, $9 billion is fines or penalties and $4
billion will go to consumer relief for struggling homeowners, the
person said.

When the housing bubble burst in 2007, bundles of mortgages sold
as securities soured and the investors who bought them lost
billions.  In the aftermath, public outrage boiled over that no
high-level Wall Street executives had been sent to jail.  Some
lawmakers and other critics demanded that the big bailed-out banks
and senior executives be held accountable.

In response, the government in January 2012 set up a task force of
federal and state law enforcement officials to pursue wrongdoing
with regard to mortgage securities.

In September, JPMorgan agreed to pay $920 million and admit that
it failed to oversee trading that led to a $6 billion loss last
year in its London operation.  That combined amount, in
settlements with three regulators in the U.S. and one in Britain,
is one of the largest fines ever levied against a financial
institution.  In another case, the company agreed to pay a $100
million penalty and admitted that its traders acted "recklessly"
with the London trades.

In August, the Justice Department accused Bank of America Corp.,
the second-largest U.S. bank, of civil fraud in failing to
disclose risks and misleading investors in its sale of $850
million in mortgage bonds in 2008.  The Securities and Exchange
Commission filed a related lawsuit.  The government estimates that
investors lost more than $100 million on the deal. Bank of America
disputes the allegations.

The latest action against the beleaguered JPMorgan brought the
weight of the Obama administration against the bank, which has
enjoyed a reputation for managing risk better than its Wall Street
competitors.  JPMorgan came through the financial crisis in better
shape than most of its rivals and Mr. Dimon, its CEO, charmed
lawmakers and commanded the attention of regulators in Washington.

A number of big banks, including JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and
Citigroup, previously have been accused of abuses in sales of
securities linked to mortgages in the years leading up to the
crisis.  Together they have paid hundreds of millions in penalties
to settle civil charges brought by the SEC, which accused them of
deceiving investors about the quality of the bonds they sold.
JPMorgan settled SEC charges in June 2011 by agreeing to pay
$153.6 million and reached another such agreement for $296.9
million last November.

The banks in all the SEC cases were allowed to neither admit nor
deny wrongdoing -- a practice that brought criticism of the agency
from judges and investor advocates.

But in a first for a major company, JPMorgan admitted in the
agreement with the SEC over the $6 billion trading loss in its
London operation that it failed in its oversight.  The admission
could leave the bank vulnerable to millions of dollars in
lawsuits.  JPMorgan also reached settlements over the trading loss
with the Federal Reserve, the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency and Britain's Financial Conduct Authority.
The Justice Department is still pursuing a criminal investigation
of the trading loss and a possible cover-up at the bank.  Two of
the bank's former traders in London are facing criminal charges.
The SEC also is investigating individuals involved in the trading
loss.

Mounting legal costs from government proceedings pushed JPMorgan
to a rare loss in the third quarter, the first under Mr. Dimon's
leadership.  The bank reported Oct. 11 that it set aside $9.2
billion in the July-September quarter to cover a string of
litigation stemming from the financial crisis and its "London
Whale" trading debacle.  JPMorgan said it has placed a total of
$23 billion in reserve to cover potential legal costs.


JP MORGAN: Court Narrows Claims in "McGarvey" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA McGARVEY, Plaintiff, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Defendant, NO. 2:13-CV-01099-KJM-EFB, (E.D. Cal.) is a putative
class action alleging violations of law in the mortgage loan
modification process.

The Defendant asserts that each of plaintiff's three claims --
promissory estoppel, negligence, and unfair competition -- must be
dismissed as a matter of law.

District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller granted in part and denied in
part the defendant's motion saying Plaintiff's claim for
negligence and claim under California's Unfair Competition Law may
proceed but not its claim for promissory estoppel, which is
dismissed without prejudice.

The Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint within
twenty-one days of the date of the order.

A copy of the District Court's October 10, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/r0LmqCfrom Leagle.com.


KIRKLAND: Recalls Certain Sausage Products Due to Plastic
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 18, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Extraneous Material
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Produits Alimentaires Viau Inc.
Distribution:             New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario,
                          Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8374

Affected products:

   -- Kirkland Signature Mild Italian Sausage with Best Before:
      13.SE.30 to 13.OC.08;

   -- Kirkland Signature Hot Italian Sausage with Best Before:
      13.SE.30 to 13.OC.08; and

   -- Kirkland Signature Honey Garlic Sausage with Best Before:
      13.SE.30 to 13.OC.08


MARCUS CORPORATION: Nevada Court Dismisses "Goodman" Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada
entered an order dismissing with prejudice the case Goodman, et
al. v. Platinum Condominium Development, LLC, Case No. 09-CV-957
(D. Nev.), according to The Marcus Corporation's Aug. 13, 2013,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended May 30, 2013.

On December 5, 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the
Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada for Clark County against
Platinum LLC. On April 30, 2009, Platinum LLC was served with a
summons and a copy of an amended complaint. The amended complaint
also named another of the Company's subsidiaries, Marcus
Management Las Vegas, LLC ("Marcus Management LV"), as a
defendant.

Subsequently, Platinum LLC and Marcus Management LV removed the
case to the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada. The amended complaint in Goodman sought an unspecified
amount of damages and alleged violations of federal and Nevada
law, and that Platinum LLC and Marcus Management LV made various
misrepresentations in connection with the Platinum Hotel & Spa
development in Las Vegas, Nevada. On June 29, 2009, both Platinum
LLC and Marcus Management LV moved to dismiss the amended
complaint in its entirety. On March 29, 2010, the District of
Nevada granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss,
and dismissed most of the claims against Platinum LLC and Marcus
Management LV without prejudice.

On April 28, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, which Platinum LLC and Marcus Management LV answered,
in part, and moved to dismiss, in part. On September 27, 2010, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint that named Marcus Hotels, Inc. ("Marcus Hotels") as an
additional defendant. On March 31, 2011, the District Court
granted the motion to file a third amended complaint and denied
the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint as moot. On
April 14, 2011, the plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint
which Platinum LLC, Marcus Management LV and Marcus Hotels
answered, in part, and moved to dismiss, in part. On January 11,
2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to certify
the case as a class action.

The defendants objected to that motion in a response filed on
February 11, 2011. On September 2, 2011, the court denied the
motion for class certification and granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the fraud claims in the third amended complaint. On
September 23, 2011 the defendants filed a motion to reconsider the
court's ruling on the motion to dismiss and dismiss three
additional claims. On March 12, 2012, the defendants moved for
summary judgment on all of the remaining claims.

On April 10, 2012, the court granted the defendants' motion for
reconsideration and dismissed three more of the plaintiffs'
claims, leaving only claims for the sale of unregistered
securities under Nevada law and negligent misrepresentation. On
June 28, 2012, the parties reached an agreement to settle the case
at a mediation and have executed a settlement agreement calling
for the defendants to pay a total of $295,000.

On August 2, 2012, the District Court entered an order dismissing
the case with prejudice on the stipulation of the parties. This
case is now closed.


MCCABE ASSOCIATES: Security Workers File Wage-and-Hour Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Will Astor, writing for Rochester Business Journal, reports that
members of the small army of guards and other security workers
hired to police the 95th PGA tournament at Oak Hill Country Club
claim firms handling security for the storied golf contest stiffed
them on pay.

Six men who worked for two firms that provided security services
for the tournament separately target McCabe Associates Inc. and
Streamline Security Services Inc. in wage-and-hour complaints.

Based in Gates, McCabe Associates has offices in New York City,
Albany and Miami as well as South American branches in Argentina,
Brazil, Columbia, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay.

Streamline Security Services has its headquarters in Brooklyn, and
bills itself as the largest firm of its type in the tri-state
metropolitan New York region.

Both lawsuits were filed Oct. 10 in U.S. District Court in
Rochester.  Both are being handled by the same New York City
lawyer, Kenneth Katz of Katz Melinger PLLC.

McCabe Associates CEO Mark McCabe and Streamline Security CEO
Desmond Ojumu did not respond to requests for comment.

The PGA of America is not a defendant in either action.

By failing to give them and other temporary workers who checked
tournament attendees credentials, managed crowds and handled other
security functions extra pay for hours they worked over 40 in a
single week the firms violated the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act's overtime pay provisions, the security guards claim.

The largely identically worded court complaints each seek either
class-action or collective-action status.

Class-action and collective-action lawsuits are designed to handle
complaints of similarly situated plaintiffs -- individuals with
nearly identical claims against a single defendant but who are too
numerous to practically file individual complaints.

In class actions, any plaintiff who fits the description of an
injured party is automatically eligible to collect damages if
plaintiffs win or wring a settlement out of an employer.
Plaintiffs who think they can get a better deal pressing their own
case individually have to opt out of the suit or take whatever is
won in the class action.

In collective actions, only plaintiffs who opt in before the case
is tried or settled can collect damages.

Filed in the name of a single lead plaintiff, the McCabe
Associates complaint states that individual worked in the PGA
tournament security detail between Aug. 5 and Aug. 16.

Five lead plaintiffs are cited as having worked security at the
Oak Hill PGA event between Aug. 2 and Aug. 21 in the Streamline
Security Services action.

Both court complaints estimate the approximate number of temporary
workers the security firms allegedly shorted on overtime pay at
100.


MICHIGAN: Corrections Dep't Sued Over Juvenile Inmates Abuse
------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Egan, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that an
attorney who won a $100-million settlement stemming from sexual
assaults by guards on female inmates is suing the Michigan
Department of Corrections again -- this time, claiming that male
inmates younger than 18 have been sexually and physically
assaulted by adults they have been housed with.

Ann Arbor attorney Deborah LaBelle, who won a 2009 settlement on
behalf of more than 500 female Michigan prisoners who said they
were sexually abused by corrections officers, filed the latest
lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Detroit on Oct. 15.

Plaintiffs are seven unnamed John Doe prisoners who say they were
sexually and physically assaulted or harassed while housed as
minors in the Michigan prison system.

But in seeking to certify a class action, Ms. LaBelle says the
suit is filed on behalf of "at least 500 children" ages 14 and 17
who have been housed in Michigan prisons for a year or more in the
last three years.

A spokesman for the Michigan Department of Corrections said on
Oct. 16 that as of Aug. 20, the department no longer houses 17-
year-old inmates with the general population.

Named as defendants are the Department of Corrections,
Gov. Rick Snyder, department Director Dan Heyns, three of his
current or former top officials, and 11 wardens.

"Defendants' policy and practice of housing youthful and adult
prisoners together without taking adequate steps to protect youth
from a known harm constitutes deliberate indifference to their
safety," says the lawsuit, assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert
Cleland.

Gov. Snyder declined to comment on the lawsuit after a speech in
Lansing on Oct. 16, saying he had only just heard about it.
Russ Marlan, a spokesman for the Department of Corrections, said
he "can't comment on pending litigation."

                     Before and after Aug. 20

The federal Prison Rape Elimination Act, or PREA, enacted in 2003,
requires state prisons to keep prisoners younger than 18 separated
from adult prisoners.  However, Mr. Marlan said national standards
to enact the federal law were not developed until 2012 and did not
go into effect until Aug. 20 of this year.

Before that, inmates 16 and younger -- juveniles sentenced as
adults to adult prisons -- already were separated from adult
inmates, Mr. Marlan said.  Inmates who were 17 -- since they are
considered adults in the Michigan criminal justice system -- were
not always separated, Mr. Marlan said.

Since Aug. 20, "we do separate 17-and-younger prisoners from 18-
and-older prisoners," and "we are complying with the PREA,"
Mr. Marlan said.

A footnote in the lawsuit says Ms. LaBelle has learned in recent
weeks that the department began separating prisoners 17 and
younger in some adult prisons.  However, it says, "the extent and
scope of these efforts throughout the MDOC system are unclear."

                  Rape, harassment, isolation

According to the Alabama-based Equal Justice Initiative, thousands
of children are serving time in adult prisons nationwide, facing
potential harm.

Lois DeMott, cofounder of Citizens for Prison Reform, said the
issues raised in the suit are serious ones.

In 2007, "my son went in at 15 years old," Ms. DeMott said.  "Not
only are they housed with adults, they are treated as adults."

Though her son was housed with other minors at the Thumb
Correctional Facility in Lapeer, he was still exposed to adult
inmates in the yard and elsewhere, she said.  And when he needed
serious mental health treatment, he was sent to an adult facility
because no juvenile facility was available, she said.

The department's method of separating children from adults in the
past has been to keep children in their cells, similar to solitary
confinement, Ms. DeMott said.

Ms. LaBelle's case involving female inmates began in Washtenaw
County Circuit Court in 1996 and ended with a $100-million
settlement 13 years later.  The state agreed to six payments over
five years.

The Free Press chronicled the alleged abuse in a series that
focused on Toni Bunton, who said she was raped eight times by
prison guards at Scott Correctional Facility in Wayne County
between 1993 and 1996.

Ms. LaBelle could not be reached for comment on Oct. 16.
Jennifer Salvatore, another attorney working on the case, said
Ms. LaBelle's office is not commenting on the lawsuit at this
time.

Each of the John Does -- two of whom the suit says are still
minors housed with adults -- allege specific incidents of rape,
beatings or harassment.  In some cases, they say, prison officials
were aware they were being raped in their cells but did nothing to
stop the assaults.  In other incidents, they said, female
corrections officers sexually harassed them or groped them during
searches.

                      In defense of officers

Mel Grieshaber, executive director of the Michigan Corrections
Organization, the union representing about 7,000 corrections
officers, said he was not aware of the allegations before Oct. 16.
He said he is skeptical, given the number of cameras and other
monitoring inside Michigan prisons.

"I think, overall, we've got the best and highest-trained
corrections officers in the country," Mr. Grieshaber said.

"Is there a rotten apple somewhere? Probably.  I know there are
43,000 bad guys in there thinking every day of ways to beat the
system."


MICROSOFT CORP: Judge Denies Class Cert. in Data Collection Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Grande and Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360,
report that a California federal judge denied class certification
on Oct. 9 in a suit accusing Microsoft Corp. of illegally
collecting consumers' personal information during credit card
transactions, deciding that customers at Microsoft stores weren't
asked to give the information as a condition for their purchases.

U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson determined Microsoft had
presented enough evidence showing that its sales associates don't
follow scripted instructions in their interactions with customers
and that a personal identification information request could be
phrased differently and occur at various points in a transaction.
Thus, the proposed class didn't meet commonality and typicality
requirements, he ruled.

Plaintiff Pamela Gossoo had tried to certify a class consisting of
tens of thousands of Microsoft store customers who the company
allegedly required to provide personally identifiable information
"in conjunction with [a] credit card transaction."

But the requests for personal identification information depended
on sales associates' personal judgment, according to Judge Wilson.

"Individual questions about each customer's transaction would
substantially predominate over the common fact that each person
visited a store, used a credit card and at some point during the
transaction was asked for and provided," the Oct. 9 ruling said.

Ms. Gossoo alleged that Microsoft's retail stores in California
violated state laws by requesting and recording consumers'
personal identification information at the point of sale during
credit card transactions before completing a sale, as a matter of
company practice and policy.

The class action alleged violations of, among other things,
California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act.  Ms. Gossoo contended
that consumer cases like hers, which arise from a single course of
conduct that affects large numbers of consumers, are particularly
amenable to class treatment.

After U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson denied Microsoft's
motion to dismiss the case in June, Microsoft asked for a denial
of class certification.  The company argued that each customer
would have a different story about their transaction because it
doesn't have a script or policy directing sales associates to
interact with every customer in the same way.

The collection of personally identifiable information isn't a
condition for using a credit card, Microsoft contested, pointing
out that its records for about one-third of all credit card
transactions don't contain that type of data.

The company also noted that though employees are taught that
collecting personal information is "useful for various reasons,"
they are also told that no customer must give any identifying data
to pay with a credit card.

Over the course of the litigation, store managers provided
evidence on a variety of customer interactions occurring at
Microsoft stores, court filings said.  Ms. Gossoo claimed that
customers' check-out experiences were immaterial or involved
scenarios excluded from the class definition.

Both parties agreed that a sales associate sometimes asks a
customer for such information after their credit card has been
processed and the customer has signed for the purchase, but before
a receipt is issued.

Judge Wilson held that the intent of the Song-Beverly Credit Card
Act is to prevent requests for personal information when consumers
might be led to think that doing so is a condition of a credit
card payment.  The perceived imposition of a condition on credit
card use could arise if a sales associate asked for personal
identification information immediately after the customer hands
over their credit card, the Oct. 9 order said.

Microsoft spokesman David Cuddy told Law360 on Oct. 11 that they
were pleased with the ruling.

"Microsoft takes customer privacy seriously, and has a proven
track record of meeting and exceeding what is required by law," he
said.

Attorneys for Ms. Gossoo didn't immediately respond to requests
for comment on Oct. 11.

Microsoft is represented by William A. Delgado --
wdelgado@willenken.com  -- and Eileen M. Ahern --
eahern@willenken.com -- of Willenken Wilson Loh & Delgado LLP.

The plaintiff is represented by Jason M. Wucetich --
jason@wukolaw.com -- and Dimitrios V. Korovilas --
dimitri@wukolaw.com -- of Wucetich & Korovilas LLP.

The case is Pamela Gossoo v. Microsoft Corp., case number 2:13-cv-
02043, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.


MOLLY B'S GLUTEN: Recalls Gluten Free Kitchen Belgian Waffle Mix
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 18, 2013
Starting date:            October 16, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Gluten
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Molly B's Gluten Free Kitchen
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8395

Affected products: 500 g. Molly B's Gluten Free Kitchen Belgian
Waffle & Pancake Mix with LOT # 914130509


NISSAN MOTOR: Recalls 593 NV200 Model Trucks and Vans
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 17, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Light Truck & Van
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Electrical
Units affected:           593
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013358
TC ID number:             2013358

Affected products: NISSAN NV200 2013 model

On certain vehicles, electrical wiring located near the battery
may wear against the fusible link bracket, potentially causing an
electrical short.  This could blow the fuse, causing the engine to
stall and increasing the risk of a crash, or could cause the
wiring to melt and/or emit smoke, increasing the risk of a fire.
In both cases, injury and/or property damage could result.

Dealers will reposition wiring and install additional protective
covering.  Heat damaged wiring will be replaced.


NORTHERN BEEF: Former Employee Files Class Action Over Layoff
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Waltman, writing for Aberdeen News, reports that a former
Northern Beef Packers employee has filed a class action suit
against the plant, claiming he and others weren't given proper
notice before being laid off earlier this year.

On July 26, about 260 beef plant employees were laid off after not
having been paid for more than two weeks.  On July 19, Northern
Beef Packers filed for bankruptcy.

Previously, on April 24, Northern Beef Packers laid off 108
workers.

Jorge Alvarado, who was laid off in July, filed the lawsuit
against the beef plant individually and as a representative "for
all similarly situated individuals" who were laid off within 90
days of July 19.

According to court paperwork, Mr. Alvarado claims the workers
weren't given proper notice under the federal Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the act requires
"employers to provide notice 60 days in advance of covered plant
closings and covered mass layoffs."  Generally speaking, according
to the Department of Labor, "employers are covered by (the act) if
they have 100 or more employees, not counting employees who have
worked less than six months in the last 12 months and not counting
employees who work an average of less than 20 hours a week."

There are, however, exceptions, including for situations where the
employer is struggling to obtain financing. The act defines
"employment loss" as:

An employment termination, other than a discharge for cause,
voluntary departure or retirement

A layoff exceeding six months

A reduction in an employee's hours of work of more than 50 percent
in each month of any six-month period

The lawsuit would have to be certified by a judge as a class
action case before moving forward.  Mr. Alvarado is seeking unpaid
wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued vacation and holiday
pay, pension and 401 (k) contributions and health insurance
benefits for 60 days in accordance with the act for all laid off
workers, according to court paperwork.


PA CHILD CARE: Kids-for-Cash Plaintiffs Proposes $2.5MM Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that youths who were locked up in the Luzerne County "kids-for-
cash" scandal have filed a joint proposal for a $2.5 million
settlement with the facilities in which they were sentenced to
serve time.

The agreement comes about a year after the builder of those
facilities, Robert K. Mericle, settled with the same class for
$17.75 million.

If approved by the federal court, the most recent settlement would
be paid into an escrow account in three installments, to be
fulfilled by the end of 2015, according to the proposal.

The provider defendants -- PA Child Care and Western PA Child
Care, the two detention centers, and Mid-Atlantic Youth Services,
the company that ran them -- admit no liability as part of the
settlement.

"Despite the parties' strong belief in their respective positions,
the parties recognize that there are substantial uncertainties and
significant litigation costs with respect to the actions and their
potential outcomes if they were taken to trial," according to the
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.

Mericle, the developer who built the facilities, had allegedly
paid millions in "finder's fees" to former Luzerne County Court of
Common Pleas Judges Michael T. Conahan and Mark A. Ciavarella Jr.,
who also took kickbacks from Robert Powell, an owner of the
facilities, and would sentence the juveniles brought to their
courts to lengthy sentences in the facilities.

The case is in front of U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo of
the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

If and when the settlement is approved, outstanding claims will
remain against Mr. Powell, Judges Ciavarella and Conahan.

The consolidated suits in Wallace v. Powell allege that Judges
Conahan and Ciavarella conspired with the other defendants and
used their influence as judicial officers to select PA Child Care
and Western PA Child Care as detention facilities, and that they
intentionally filled those facilities with juveniles to earn the
conspirators excessive profits.

Judge Conahan pleaded guilty in 2010 to one count of racketeering
and is currently serving a 17.5-year federal prison sentence in
Florida.

In 2012, a federal jury in Scranton found Judge Ciavarella guilty
of 12 of the 39 counts of corruption filed against him, including
racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, honest services mail fraud,
money laundering conspiracy and a host of tax fraud charges.  He
is now serving 28 years in an Illinois federal prison.

In a June 2009 plea agreement, Mr. Powell pleaded guilty to
failing to report a felony to federal authorities and with being
an accessory after the fact to a tax conspiracy, but alleged his
involvement in the scheme escalated as the judges forced his hand.

On December 27, 2011, Mr. Powell began serving an 18-month
sentence in a federal prison in Florida.

The settlement class includes juveniles who appeared in front of
Judge Ciavarella between 2003 and 2008 and their parents.  Based
on case lists from the Juvenile Probation Department, the number
of youths is about 2,400 and the parent settlement class is likely
as large, according to the motion for settlement approval.

However, money from this settlement may only be used to pay
members of the parent class who weren't fully reimbursed by the
$17.75 million Mericle settlement.

Common benefit fees and expenses, not to exceed 30 percent of the
settlement fund, will come out of the $2.5 million total,
according to the agreement.

Also included in the agreement is a provision that none of the
lawyers would publicly comment on the settlement beyond a
"mutually agreed-upon statement," which announces the basic terms
of the deal.

It says in part: "The juveniles and parents who participate in
this settlement acknowledge that the provider parties have never
been accused of failing to provide services that they were
contracted to provide to any juvenile included in the juvenile
settlement class.  They also acknowledge, by settling their
claims, that any claims regarding the juveniles' care and
treatment while detained in or placed at PA Child Care's facility
in Pittston, Luzerne County, or Western PA Child Care's facility
in Emlenton, Butler County, are withdrawn."


PHILIPS ORAL: TINA.org Challenges Sonicare Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
TINA.org on Oct. 16 disclosed that it has filed a legal brief
taking aim at a recent class-action settlement that compensates
consumers with a voucher to buy more products from the same
company they say falsely advertised its product.  The terms do not
provide a meaningful benefit for consumers, argues the ad
watchdog.

In its first amicus brief, TINA.org said that the terms of the
settlement agreement with Philips Oral Health Care Inc. and
Philips Electronics North America Corp. provides inadequate
compensation to consumers who spent more than $100 for a product
that was advertised as an easy replacement for floss.  The
product, Sonicare AirFloss, cannot actually remove plaque between
teeth the same way traditional dental floss can.  But instead of
giving consumers cash refunds, the settlement provides vouchers to
purchase more Philips products.  TINA.org said in its brief:

"(T)he true beneficiary of this settlement is the defendant
because Philips is not required to disgorge any of its ill-gotten
gains; Philips is not enjoined from making the false marketing
claims at issue; and Philips will reap the benefit of requiring
Class Members to give it more business."

In filing the brief, TINA.org is taking on the issue of coupon
settlements, which primarily benefit the very businesses that are
the target of class actions.  Statistics show that redemption
rates for settlement coupons and vouchers are extremely low.

"Coupon settlements are never a true benefit to consumers,'' said
Bonnie Patten, executive director of TINA.org.  "Consumers may not
want to have to buy a product from a company that has deceived
them.  And, often the coupons come with stipulations that make it
even more difficult and less likely consumers will redeem them."

The mission of TINA.org -- http://www.truthinadvertising.org-- is
to empower consumers to protect themselves and one another against
false advertising and deceptive marketing.  It achieves that
mission through education, advocacy, investigative journalism, and
the promotion of truth in advertising.  TINA.org is independently
funded and does not accept any advertising dollars to support its
work.


PILOT FLYING J: J.F. Freight Opts Out of Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clarissa Hawes, writing for Land Line, reports that an
Illinois-based trucking company has opted out of a proposed class
action lawsuit against Pilot Flying J, joining a lawsuit filed by
an Ohio trucking company, FST Express Inc.

In the amended complaint filed on Oct. 11, J.F. Freight Co. Inc.,
of Palatine, Ill., claims it did not receive money it was owed
through Pilot's fuel rebate program.

Both companies seek compensatory and punitive damages and have
requested a jury trial.

This brings the number of trucking companies that have filed
lawsuits in state and federal court to nearly 30.

Trucking companies had until Tuesday, Oct. 15, to opt out of the
proposed class action settlement.  A hearing is set for November
in federal court in Arkansas, which seeks preliminary approval on
a class action settlement where Pilot would pay back companies the
money it owes, plus 6 percent interest.

According to court documents, J.F. Freight had an oral agreement
in regard to its fuel discount with Pilot. In June 2013, Pilot
President Mark Hazelwood visited J.F.'s headquarters to meet with
J.F. Freight President Magdalena Fillman to discuss its "discount
deals."

"When Fillman explained to Hazelwood that there was an oral
agreement between defendant (Pilot) and J.F., Hazelwood abruptly
proclaimed that defendant (Pilot) could not help J.F. with respect
to any discount discrepancies," the complaint states.

In its suit, J.F. Freight states the company followed up with
Pilot CEO James "Jimmy" Haslam III about a week later about the
initial meeting with Hazelwood.

The company was then sent a check from Pilot for $12,215.57,
"purportedly due to a discrepancy (Pilot) had found with J.F.'s
account."

J.F. Freight has approximately 87 power units and 64 drivers,
according to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's
SAFER website.

In its suit, FST Express Inc. claims it noticed a discrepancy with
its fuel rebate with Pilot back in 2011.  The complaint states
that after calling Pilot about the discrepancy, a check was sent
to FST for more than $22,600.

In the complaint, Janet Welch, former senior account manager for
Pilot, who has pleaded guilty to her role in the alleged fuel
rebate scheme, told FST President Dave Kent at the time that a
discrepancy occurred "when we changed your discounts in July, our
normal discount person was out and there was an error made when
flagging the new deal."

"Unbeknownst to plaintiff (FST) at that time, defendant (Pilot)
was being investigated by the FBI for engaging in fraudulent
activity directed toward its customers," according to the lawsuit.

The company has 72 power units and 62 drivers, according to the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's SAFER website.

In the amended complaint, J.F. Freight and FST charge Pilot with
fraud, breach of contract and conversion.  The suit also alleges
that Pilot violated Illinois and Ohio's Deceptive Trade Practices
Acts and Tennessee's Consumer Protection Act, as well as unjust
enrichment.

So far, seven Pilot employees have pleaded guilty to their roles
in the alleged fuel rebate scam, and dozens of lawsuits have been
filed in state and federal court.


PORSCHE AUTOMOBIL: Recalls 31 CAYENNE Model SUVs
------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 16, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              SUV
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Lights and Instruments
Units affected:           31
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013354
TC ID number:             2013354

Affected products:

  Maker      Model              Model year(s) affected
  -----      -----              ----------------------
  PORSCHE   CAYENNE TURBO       2014
  PORSCHE   CAYENNE S           2014
  PORSCHE   CAYENNE             2013, 2014
  PORSCHE   CAYENNE TURBO S     2014
  PORSCHE   CAYENNE DIESEL      2014

On certain vehicles, the fuel gauge may indicate a greater
quantity of fuel than what remains in the tank.  As a result, if
the tank were to become empty, engine stalling could occur which,
in conjunction with traffic, road conditions, and driver's
reactions, could increase the risk of a crash causing injury
and/or property damage.

Dealers will recalibrate the instrument cluster.


PRUCO LIFE: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Phillips" Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
affirmed the dismissal of the putative class action complaint
Phillips v. Prudential Insurance and Pruco Life Insurance Company,
according to Pruco Life Insurance Company's Aug. 13, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In December 2010, a purported state-wide class action complaint,
Phillips v. Prudential Financial, Inc., was filed in state court
and removed to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois. The complaint makes allegations under
Illinois law, substantially similar to the Garcia cases, on behalf
of a class of Illinois residents whose death benefit claims were
settled by retained assets accounts.

In March 2011, the complaint was amended to drop Prudential
Financial as a defendant and add Pruco Life Insurance Company
and the Prudential Insurance Company of America as a defendant.
The matter is now captioned Phillips v. Prudential Insurance and
Pruco Life Insurance Company. In November 2011, the complaint was
dismissed. In December 2011, plaintiff appealed the dismissal. In
May 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's putative class
action complaint.


QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA: Faces Ex-Aboriginal Mission Inmates' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stefan Armbruster, writing for Source World News Australia Radio,
reports that a racial discrimination class action case against the
Queensland government by former Aboriginal mission inmates was set
to go to Federal court on Oct. 17.

The people from Wujal Wujal, Hope Vale, Mona Mona, Aurukun and
Daintree religious missions say they missed out on reparations
from the 1999 Forde Inquiry into institutional abuse because they
are Aboriginal.

About 100 claims were lodged with the Australian Human Rights
Commission.  It has now closed seven cases, the number needed for
a class action, after mediation with the Queensland government
failed.

Lawyer Kirsten Lesina told Queensland correspondent
Stefan Armbruster the inquiry excluded the state-funded indigenous
missions because were run by religious orders.


RAILROAD COMPANIES: Seek Higher Scrutiny on Damages Model
---------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Lipman and Alex Lawson, writing for Law360, report that
rail freight companies embroiled in a class action accusing them
of fixing the price of fuel surcharges told a Washington, D.C.,
federal judge on Oct. 15 that the court must place a higher
scrutiny on the class plaintiffs' damages model in light of a D.C.
Circuit remand reversing class certification in the case.

U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman applied a rigorous analysis
in certifying the class last year, but the U.S. Supreme Court's
March decision in Comcast v. Behrend calls on him to further
assess the plausibility of the class's damages model before
ordering certification, according to Daniel M. Wall --
dan.wall@lw.com -- of Latham & Watkins LLP, which is representing
defendant Union Pacific Railroad Co.

"After Behrend a higher standard in plausibility has to apply, you
have to show that the model actually works," Wall told Judge
Friedman at a status conference on Oct. 15.

The conference came after a D.C. Circuit opinion that gutted
Judge Friedman's class certification order, leaving little
guidance on how to stay in line with the high court decisions in
Comcast and in a prior landmark case, Dukes v. Walmart.

"I really do want to get it right," Judge Friedman told the
parties.  "Whatever that means."

The shippers' expert witness, Dr. Gordon Rausser, presented the
damages model in question.  The model was meant to show the
damages caused by the rail companies' alleged scheme of tacking on
standalone fuel surcharges to their shipping fees from 2003 to
2008.

But in its unanimous opinion, the three-judge D.C. Circuit panel
called into question the validity of the shippers' model proving
that they were damaged by the alleged scheme, finding that the
high court's decision in Comcast put a greater onus on district
courts to examine evidence alleging predominant damages.

At the hearing on Oct. 15, Mr. Wall suggested that the new method
applied by the court should be so strong as to nearly, if not
wholly, obviate the need for any further individual damages
analysis, a standard that would place a very high burden on the
plaintiffs.

Mr. Wall also said that numbers showing that a percentage of the
class has been uninjured by the alleged conduct also raises doubts
about the integrity and viability of the analysis.

"If there are uninjured class members, that sends a very powerful
signal that the class lacks something that is fundamental to the
cohesiveness process," Mr. Wall said.

The rail shippers have accused the plaintiffs of improperly trying
to force a wholesale re-evaluation of class certification in the
case, saying the D.C. Circuit's recent ruling only required
renewed scrutiny of one issue with their damages model.

"They did not say that you applied the wrong standard overall,"
plaintiffs attorney Michael D. Hausfeld of Hausfeld LLP told the
court on Oct. 15.

The plaintiffs claimed that the appeals court only asked the court
to consider whether the Comcast decision renders the plaintiffs'
expert damages model unusable.  If so, the consequences are
limited, according to the plaintiffs.  The court can move ahead
quickly with few new discovery or filings, given the extent to
which the court already addressed the issue.

The railroad companies are represented by Mayer Brown LLP, Sidley
Austin LLP, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Steptoe & Johnson LLP,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Kaye Scholer LLP, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher
& Flom LLP, Latham & Watkins LLP, Jones Day and Covington &
Burling LLP.

The class members are represented by Hausfeld LLP and Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.

The case is In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust
Litigation, case number 1:07-mc-00489, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia.


SHELBY COUNTY: Plaintiffs in Acker Suit Seek Class Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
Neal Wagner, writing for Alabaster Reporter, reports that a group
of plaintiffs who brought a lawsuit against a former Alabaster
teacher who pleaded guilty in 2012 to sexually abusing girls
during his teaching tenure has asked a federal judge to grant the
case class-action status.

In a brief filed on Oct. 15 in U.S. District Court, Kristin Hurt
and four other plaintiffs requested the judge open the case to
"Any current or former female student during the time period that
Dan Acker (Jr.) worked for (the) Shelby County School Board who
was either injured, sexually harassed, abused or molested by
Dan Acker (Jr.), or who witnessed such conduct or who was exposed
to a sexually hostile education environment through Mr. Acker's
conduct."

If the case is granted class action status, all individuals
fitting the above description would be able to join as plaintiffs
in the civil lawsuit, which was brought against Mr. Acker and the
Shelby County Board of Education in February.

Mr. Acker was sentenced to 17 years in prison in May 2012 after he
pleaded guilty to eight counts of sexually abusing underage girls,
including Ms. Hurt, during his more than 20-year teaching tenure
in Alabaster.

The unnamed plaintiffs are all minors, and were students at
Thompson Intermediate School while Mr. Acker was teaching there,
according to the lawsuit.  The lawsuit claimed the unnamed
plaintiffs were victims in the cases Mr. Acker pleaded guilty to.

Mr. Acker, who currently is in prison, taught at Thompson
Elementary School, Creek View Elementary School and TIS, and was a
school bus driver during his teaching tenure in Alabaster.

The lawsuit claims the "defendants failed to meet their
obligations to protect Shelby County's county school children,"
and claimed "Acker's position as a school teacher and a bus driver
gave him ready access to scores of students over his nearly two
decades of employment by the Shelby County School Board."

After Ms. Hurt's mother reported Mr. Acker sexually abused
Ms. Hurt in Mr. 1991, Mr. Acker was placed on leave from Creek
View Elementary, and a grand jury did not indict him on the
charge.

Norma Rogers, then the Shelby County Schools superintendent,
recommended Acker not be reinstated as a teacher after the grand
jury hearing, the lawsuit claims.  The School Board, which then
included Lee Doebler and Steve Martin, voted to reinstate
Mr. Acker in 1993, according to the lawsuit.

During Mr. Acker's sentencing hearing in 2012, prosecuting
District Attorney Richard Minor said Mr. Acker "admitted that
statements he made during that (1991) investigation were lies."

Shortly after Ms. Hurt and the other three plaintiffs filed the
lawsuit against Mr. Acker, the Shelby County Board of Education,
former School Board member Doebler and current School Board member
Martin filed court documents claiming the claims brought against
them in the lawsuit are "barred by state and federal immunity."


ST. CHARLES SCHOOL: Faces Class Action Over School Restructuring
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Sloboda, writing for Kane County Chronicle, reports that
parents who sued St. Charles School District 303 over the
reconfiguration of two elementary schools are now bringing a
class-action suit against the school system.

The parents are bringing the action on behalf of themselves and
the families affected by the district's decision in 2011 to
restructure Richmond and Davis elementary schools, according to
the class-action complaint filed Oct. 10 with the Kane County
Circuit Clerk's Office.

"Plaintiffs were either forced to relocate at great expense, move
their children into private institutions at great expense, or have
their children attend a failing school against their wishes at a
very great expense," the complaint states.

According to the complaint, at least 500 families were affected
and as many as 1,500 families might be eligible for the class
action.

The parents are asking for compensatory damages, attorney's fees
and costs, and whatever further relief the court deems just.
Court documents indicate the amount claimed is $50,000.

District 303 Superintendent Don Schlomann said in a statement that
the additional legal actions were not completely unexpected.

"While we regret that the district must continue to spend time and
resources defending itself on a matter that has been decided by
the courts not once, but twice, we will do so to protect both the
reputation and the financial stability of our district,"
Mr. Schlomann said.

The class-action suit follows Kane County Circuit Judge David R.
Akemann's ruling that, while the reconfiguration was not in and of
itself unlawful, the district did not provide a corrective action
plan as required by law.

Judge Akemann ordered the district to craft a school improvement
plan for Richmond and Davis students under the guidelines of No
Child Left Behind.

"The court identified specific procedural steps District 303 must
take, and we are already well on our way to developing
implementation plans to present to the court for approval,"
Mr. Schlomann said.

The parents have appealed Judge Akemann's refusal to undo the
merger.  Tim Dwyer, the attorney representing the parents, said
the appeal process is pending.  He criticized the district's press
releases on the ongoing legal issues.

"The fact of the matter is they're trying to argue this in the
press," Mr. Dwyer said.  "They're trying to justify their
position.  Anyone who really knows what's going on can see right
through it."

A case management conference is set for Dec. 26.


SURF-FRAC WELLHEAD: Bid to Add "Watson" Opt-in Plaintiffs Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In their response to the motion to decertify the collective action
-- WATSON v. SURF-FRAC WELLHEAD EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC. -- filed
by defendant Surf-Frac Wellhead Equipment Company, Inc.,
plaintiffs moved in the alternative to add opt-in plaintiffs as
named plaintiffs. That motion is now before the Court. SWECO filed
a supplemental brief regarding plaintiffs' request that opt-in
plaintiffs be added as named plaintiffs, to which plaintiffs
responded.

In an October 11, 2013 Opinion and Order available at
http://is.gd/5TTMPnfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Kristine G.
Baker denies the plaintiffs' request and orders that the claims of
all opt-in plaintiffs be dismissed without prejudice, and that the
statute of limitations on their claims be tolled from the date
each plaintiff opted in until October 11, 2013.

The case is BENNIE WATSON, JASON STILLER, SR., JASON STILLER, JR.
and ALVIN "BEAU" BELLAMY, Plaintiffs, v. SURF-FRAC WELLHEAD
EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 4:11-CV-00843 KGB,
(E.D. Ark.).


SUUNTO OY: Recalls High-Pressure Rubber SCUBA Hoses
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 18, 2013
Posting date:             October 18, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Sports/Fitness
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Suspected quality concern
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-36275

Affected products: High-pressure rubber SCUBA hoses

The recall involves high-pressure rubber SCUBA hoses sold as a
component of the Cobra, Cobra 3, SM-36 model pressure gauge and
gauge combos, and the Vyper and Zoop model dive computers or
analog pressure gauges when purchased as combo products.

The recall applies only to the specific "1812" batch of the high
pressure rubber hoses, sold between November 2012 and July 2013.
Other high pressure rubber hoses are not impacted and need not be
replaced.  Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/1KQkBE

The product codes for the potentially affected Suunto devices are:

   -- SS005100200 SM-36/300 W/ HOSE W/ SLEEVE BULK;
   -- SS005100300 SM-36/4000 W/HOSE W/ SLEEVE BULK;
   -- SS005101200 SM-36/300 W/ HOSE W/O SLEEVE BULK;
   -- SS005108200 SM-36/300 W/ HOSE W/ SLEEVE;
   -- SS005108300 SM-36/4000 W/ HOSE W/ SLEEVE;
   -- SS00524020 CB-ONE/300 COMBO;
   -- SS005240300 CB-ONE/4000 COMBO;
   -- SS005249210 CB-2 IN LINE/300/45 COMBO;
   -- SS005249220 CB-2 IN LINE/300/70 COMBO;
   -- SS005249330 CB-2 IN LINE/4000/150 COMBO;
   -- SS005249340 CB-2 IN LINE/4000/230 COMBO;
   -- SS005267200 CB-2 IN LINE/300/VYPER COMBO;
   -- SS005267300 CB-2 IN LINE/4000/VYPER COMBO;
   -- SS005402000 COBRA;
   -- SS015974000 CB-2 IN LINE/300/ZOOP YELLOW COMBO;
   -- SS015975000 CB-2 IN LINE/4000/ZOOP YELLOW COMBO;
   -- SS016427000 CB-2 IN LINE/300/ZOOP ORANGE COMBO;
   -- SS016428000 CB-2 IN LINE/4000/ZOOP ORANGE COMBO;
   -- SS018403000 COBRA W/ QR AND USB;
   -- SS018536000 COBRA3 BLACK W/ QR AND USB;
   -- SS018537000 COBRA3 BLACK;
   -- SS018661000 CB-TWO/4000/7 COMBO NH;
   -- SS018662000 CB-TWO/4000/7 COMBO SH;
   -- SS018663000 CB-TWO/300/7 COMBO NH;
   -- SS018664000 CB-TWO/300/7 COMBO SH;
   -- SS018665000 CB-3 IN LINE/4000/230/7 COMBO NH;
   -- SS018666000 CB-3 IN LINE/4000/230/7 COMBO SH;
   -- SS018667000 CB-3 IN LINE/4000/150/7 COMBO NH;
   -- SS018668000 CB-3 IN LINE/4000/150/7 COMBO SH;
   -- SS018669000 CB-3 IN LINE/300/70/7 COMBO NH;
   -- SS018670000 CB-3 IN LINE/300/70/7 COMBO SH;
   -- SS018671000 CB-3 IN LINE/300/45/7 COMBO NH;
   -- SS018672000 CB-3 IN LINE/300/45/7 COMBO SH;
   -- SS018681000 CB-DBL IN LINE/300/70/7 COMBO NH;
   -- SS018682000 CB-DBL IN LINE/4000/230/7 COMBO NH;
   -- SS018683000 CB-DBL 300/7 COMBO NH;
   -- SS018684000 CB-DBL 4000/7 COMBO NH;
   -- SS018685000 CB-COBRA/7 NH;
   -- SS018686000 CB-COBRA/Q/USB/7 NH;
   -- SS019541000 CB-2 IN LINE/300/VYPER COMBO W/ USB;
   -- SS019542000 CB-2 IN LINE/4000/VYPER COMBO W/ USB;
   -- SS019545000 CB-2 IN LINE/300/ZOOP BLACK COMBO;
   -- SS019546000 CB-2 IN LINE/4000/ZOOP BLACK COMBO; and
   -- SS0K5165000 HP HOSE 84-centimetre (33-inch)

Defective hose material may cause the high-pressure rubber hose to
leak or rupture leading to loss of breathing gas at a higher than
anticipated rate, which may result in severe injury or death.

Neither Health Canada nor Suunto Oy has received any reports of
incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of this
product.

Approximately 125 recalled hoses were sold in various scuba diving
specialty shops across Canada.

The affected hoses were manufactured in the United States and sold
in Canada from November 2012 to July 2013.

  Companies:

     Manufacturer     Suunto Oy
                      Vantaa
                      Finland

Consumers should inspect their Suunto hoses immediately.  If the
high-pressure rubber hose in their product has the manufacturing
batch code 1812 on it, diving with the product should stop
immediately until the hose has been replaced.  Consumers should
return the product to their nearest Suunto authorized dealer for a
hose change. If the hose does not have the code 1812 on it,
consumers do not need to take any further action.


THERAGENICS CORPORATION: Faces Suits Over Juniper Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
On August 9, 2013, separate lawsuits styled as class actions were
filed in Georgia and Delaware against Theragenics Corporation, its
directors, Juniper Investment Company, LLC, and Juniper
Acquisition Corporation. Both lawsuits allege that the Company's
Board of Directors breached its fiduciary responsibilities in
connection with the merger agreement between the Company and
Juniper Acquisition Corporation, and that the acquisition price of
$2.20 per share in cash is unfair to shareholders.

The lawsuits seek to enjoin taking steps to proceed with the
proposed merger, and seek other equitable relief and unspecified
monetary damages. The Company believes these allegations to be
without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. However, at
the present time the company is unable to determine or predict the
ultimate outcome of this litigation.


TOWER GROUP: Ryan & Maniskas Files Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP on Oct. 15 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors
who purchased Tower Group International, Ltd. common stock during
the period between March 1, 2011 and October 7, 2013, inclusive.

For more information regarding this class action suit, please
contact Ryan & Maniskas, LLP (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-
free at (877) 316-3218 or by e-mail at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or
visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/twgp

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Defendants were improperly
accounting for the Company's loss reserves, good will and tax
accounts; (b) the Defendants lacked the necessary internal
controls over financial reporting; (c) consequently, the Company's
financial statements were deficient and misleading at relevant
times; and (d) based upon the above, the Defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company
during the Class Period.

On October 7, 2013, Tower issued a press release announcing that
it had completed a comprehensive review of its loss reserves as of
June 30, 2013 and would be increasing its reserve to $365
Million -- an amount substantially larger than previously
disclosed.  The Company additionally disclosed that it would be
taking a non-cash goodwill impairment charge of approximately $215
million for the second quarter of 2013 and that its Board of
Directors in conjunction with its lead financial advisor, JP
Morgan Securities LLC, would be "reviewing a range of strategic
options."

As a result, on the same day, Bloomberg published an article
entitled, "Tower Reviewing 'Strategic Options' After Reserve
Shortfall," which discussed the implications of the Company's
press release and additionally reported that Fitch Ratings cut
Tower's rating six steps after finding that Tower's "competitive
position ha[d] been materially damaged, negatively impacting the
company's financial flexibility and ability to write new
business[.]"

Overall, Tower's stock price fell $17.22 per share in the
aggregate, representing a staggering decline of approximately 80%
in two months.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than
October 21, 2013, request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff of the class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court
must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the
claims of other class members, and that the class member will
adequately represent the class.  Under certain circumstances, one
or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your
ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the
decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may
retain Ryan & Maniskas, LLP or other counsel of your choice, to
serve as your counsel in this action.

For more information regarding this, please contact:

           Ryan & Maniskas, LLP
           Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
           995 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 311
           Wayne, PA 19087
           Telephone: 484-588-5516
                      877-316-3218
           E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com

For more information about class action cases in general or to
learn more about Ryan & Maniskas, LLP, please visit our website:
http://www.rmclasslaw.com

Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is a national shareholder litigation firm.
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to protecting the interests of
individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in
state and federal courts nationwide.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Cleared by Jury in "Uno" Acceleration Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
NBC Southern California reports that a jury cleared Toyota Motor
Corp. of liability on Oct. 10 in a wrongful death lawsuit filed by
the family of a Southern California woman killed in a 2009 crash
that occurred amid widespread reports of unintended acceleration
involving Toyota vehicles.

Jurors deliberated for about five days before reaching their
decision and concluding the vehicle's design didn't contribute to
the death of 66-year-old Noriko Uno, who was killed in August 2009
when she was struck by another motorist, sending her vehicle into
a telephone pole and tree.

Mrs. Uno's family was seeking $20 million in damages, claiming
that the crash could have been avoided if Toyota had installed a
brake override system.

The jury found the driver, now 90 years old, who ran a stop sign
and hit Uno should pay the family $10 million, plaintiffs'
attorney Garo Mardirossian said.

Toyota blamed driver error for the crash.

The company recalled millions of vehicles worldwide after drivers
reported some Toyota vehicles were surging unexpectedly.  It
already has agreed to pay $1 billion in lawsuits filed in federal
courts.

The outcome of the lawsuit involving Mrs. Uno could influence
whether Toyota should be held responsible for sudden unintended
acceleration as part of a larger group of lawsuits filed in state
courts.

"As an important bellwether in these consolidated state
proceedings, we believe this verdict sets a significant benchmark
by helping further confirm that Toyota vehicles are safe with or
without brake override," Toyota spokeswoman Carly Schaffner said.

Mr. Mardirossian argued Toyota made safety an option instead of a
standard by not installing a mechanism to override the
accelerator.  He added the automaker also failed to warn customers
what to do if an accelerator became stuck.

Toyota defended its vehicles, saying it had a state of the art
braking system and argued an override component would not have
prevented the crash.  The company's lawyers said Uno likely
mistook the gas pedal for the brake.

Toyota has blamed the driver, stuck accelerators or floor mats
that trapped the gas pedal for the sudden unintended acceleration
claims that led to the massive recall of its vehicles.

The verdict adds to the list of the automaker's court victories.
In 2011, a federal jury in New York found the automaker wasn't
responsible for a 2005 crash that the driver blamed on the floor
mats or defects with the electronic throttle system.

The Toyota litigation has gone on parallel tracks in state and
federal court, with both sides agreeing to settlements so far.  A
federal judge in Orange County is dealing with wrongful death and
economic loss lawsuits that have been consolidated.

Federal lawsuits contend that Toyota's electronic throttle control
system was defective and caused vehicles to surge suddenly.
Plaintiffs' attorneys have deposed Toyota employees, reviewed
software code and pored over thousands of documents.

Toyota has denied the allegation, and neither the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration nor NASA found evidence of
electronic problems.  A trial in one of the lead cases is
scheduled for early November.

The Uno case is the first so-called "bellwether" case in state
courts, which is chosen by a judge to help predict the potential
outcome of other lawsuits making similar claims.

Another sudden acceleration case began in Oklahoma this week.
There are more than 80 similar cases filed in state courts.

Mr. Mardirossian said the evidence he presented at trial may help
other pending cases against Toyota.

"We were able to demonstrate how their system can fail without a
brake override system," he said.  "We found some chinks in
Toyota's armor.  I think the next case will be a winner.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 44,041 Cars and SUVs in Canada
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            October 17, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car, SUV
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Airbag
Units affected:           44041
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013359
TC ID number:             2013359
Manufacturer recall
number:                   SSC221

On certain vehicles, if the air conditioning condenser drain hose
were to become clogged, water could accumulate and leak onto the
airbag control module.  This could cause the airbag warning light
to illuminate, and potentially result in an unintended deployment
of the airbags.  This could startle the driver and/or cause minor
injuries to vehicle occupants.  Water damage could also cause a
loss of power steering assist, causing the vehicle to revert to a
manual steering mode which would require greater driver effort,
especially at low vehicle speeds, and increase the risk of a crash
causing injury and/or damage to property.

Dealers will install a protective shield and sealant.

Affected products:

  Maker      Model       Model year(s) affected
  -----      -----       ----------------------
  TOYOTA     CAMRY       2012, 2013
  TOYOTA     AVALON      2012, 2013
  TOYOTA     VENZA       2012, 2013
  TOYOTA     CAMRY HV    2012, 2013


TRAVELPORT LIMITED: Ruling on Online Booking Tax Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Justice Paul E. Danielson of the Supreme Court of
Arkansas affirmed a circuit court order in HOTELS.COM, L.P. v.
PINE BLUFF ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION COMMISSION.

Appellants Hotels.com, L.P.; Hotwire, Inc.; Trip Network, Inc.
(d/b/a Cheaptickets.com); Travelport Limited; Expedia, Inc.;
Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com); Lowestfare.com
Inc.; Orbitz, LLC; Priceline.com Inc.; Travelocity.com L.P.;
Travelweb LLC; and Site59.com, LLC, who are online travel
companies (collectively, the OTCs), appealed from the circuit
court's order granting class certification to appellees Pine Bluff
Advertising and Promotion Commission; Jefferson County, Arkansas;
the City of North Little Rock, Arkansas; and all others similarly
situated. They assert two points on appeal: (1) that the circuit
court abused its discretion in certifying two classes where there
had been no exhaustion of administrative remedies, as required by
Arkansas law, and (2) that the circuit court abused its discretion
in finding that the predominance element of Arkansas Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 (2013) had been satisfied, where there existed
substantial variances among the ordinances at issue.

The class-action complaints brought by the Commission, the County,
the City, and all others similarly situated, against the OTCs,
alleged that the OTCs had failed to collect, or collected and
failed to remit, the full amount of gross-receipts taxes imposed
by the government entities on hotel accommodations.

"We find no merit in the OTCs' argument that the element of
predominance was not satisfied," ruled Judge Danielson.  He added
that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies had no
application to the Commission or the County and City, and the
Supreme Court declines to address the OTCs' argument that the
Class Representatives' failure to exhaust rendered them unable to
establish the class-action requirements under Ark. R. Civ. P. 23.

The case is HOTELS.COM, L.P.; HOTWIRE, INC.; TRIP NETWORK, INC.
(D/B/A CHEAPTICKETS.COM); TRAVELPORT LIMITED; EXPEDIA, INC.;
INTERNETWORK PUBLISHING CORP. (D/B/A LODGING.COM); LOWESTFARE.COM
INC.; ORBITZ, LLC; PRICELINE.COM INC.; TRAVELOCITY.COM, L.P.;
TRAVELWEB LLC; AND SITE59.COM, LLC, APPELLANTS, v. PINE BLUFF
ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION COMMISSION; JEFFERSON COUNTY, ARKANSAS;
CITY OF NORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS; AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, APPELLEES, NO. CV-13-342, 2013 Ark. 392

A copy of the Supreme Court's October 10, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/1vkjpBfrom Leagle.com.

Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull & Burrow, PLLC, by: Steven W.
Quattlebaum -- quattlebaum@qgtb.com -- and Chad W. Pekron --
cpekron@qgtb.com -- for appellants.

For appellees, Ward & Smith, P.A. by: Hugh Overholt --
hro@wardandsmith.com -- and:

   Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
   Thrash Law Firm, P.A.
   3 Lakeway Centre Court - Suite 200
   Austin, Texas 78734
   Phone: (512) 263 5400

      - and -

   John A. Davis, III, Esq.
   John A. Davis, III, P.A.
   706 Woodland Drive
   Pittsburgh, PA 15238
   Phone: (412) 963-0145

      - and -

   Jack McNulty, Esq.
   315 E 8th Ave
   Pine Bluff, AR 71601
   Phone: (870) 534-5532


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: C.A. Tosses Medical Data Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Ofgang, writing for Metropolitan News-Enterprise, reports
that a negligent release of medical data will not subject a health
care provider to liability for statutory damages unless the data
is actually used by an unauthorized person, the Court of Appeal
for this district ruled on Oct. 15.

Div. Seven granted writ relief to the University of California,
ordering dismissal of Melinda Platter's action under the
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act.

Ms. Platter was among 16,000 patients of UCLA Medical Center who
were notified in November 2011 that some personally identifiable
medical information was on an external hard drive that was taken
from the home of a former university physician in a home-invasion
robbery two months earlier.  The data was encrypted, but an index
card with the password was taken as well.

The letter informed recipients that the police had been notified
and that there was no indication any of the data had been used.

                         Statutory Damages

The university demurred to Platter's complaint for violation of
the CMIA.  The statute provides, among other things, that a
patient whose confidential medical information is negligently
disclosed without authorization may recover statutory damages of
$1,000 and/or actual damages.

Ms. Platter's complaint sought $1,000 in statutory damages for
herself and every member of the class.  It did not allege that any
confidential information had been improperly used.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Kenneth Freeman, in overruling
the university's demurrer, found that there was no violation of
Civil Code Sec. 56.36(b), the provision of the act that authorizes
an action for damages in the event of an unlawful disclosure. That
provision does not apply if the records do not become public, the
judge said.

The judge also ruled, however, that UCLA violated a provision that
requires healthcare providers to treat medical information in a
manner that preserves the information's confidentiality. That
provision is Sec. 56.101(a), and it provides for the same remedies
as for a violation of Sec. 56.36(b).

                        Actual Disclosure

Judge Freeman reasoned that because Sec. 56.101(a) does not
contain a limitation of damages to cases of actual disclosure,
there was no requirement that the information have been actually
disclosed for the plaintiff to prevail.

But Presiding Justice Dennis Perluss, writing for the Court of
Appeal, disagreed.

Justice Perluss rejected the university's argument that there must
be an actual communicative act by the provider for liability to be
imposed.  But he agreed with UC that there could be no liability
without actual unauthorized use of the data.

He explained: "Even under the broad interpretation of "release" we
believe the Legislature intended in section 56.36, subdivision
(b), as incorporated into section 56.101, more than an allegation
of loss of possession by the health care provider is necessary to
state a cause of action for negligent maintenance or storage of
confidential medical information . . . .  What is required is
pleading, and ultimately proving, that the confidential nature of
the plaintiff's medical information was breached as a result of
the health care provider's negligence.  Because Platter's
complaint failed to include any such allegation, the Regents's
demurrer should have been sustained without leave to amend and the
case dismissed."

The case is Regents of the University of California v. Superior
Court (Platter), 13 S.O.S. 5269.


US FOODS: Settlement Funds in Calif. Labor Suit Now Distributed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement funds in California 2010 Labor Code Claim against
US Foods, Inc. have been distributed to substantially all of the
identified class members in accordance with a court-approved
settlement, 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 29, 2013.

In April 2010, a putative class action complaint was filed against
the Company in California alleging the Company failed to meet its
obligations under the California Labor Code related to the
provision of meals and breaks for certain drivers. The case has
been removed to federal court.

In December 2011, the parties reached a tentative settlement of
all claims, subject to court approval, and the Company recorded a
liability of $3 million to reflect the settlement. In September
2012, the court entered final approval of the settlement which the
Company paid into the court's escrow account in October 2012. As
of June 29, 2013, the settlement funds have been distributed to
substantially all of the identified class members in accordance
with the court approved settlement.


US FOODS: Pricing Litigation Continues in Discovery Stage
---------------------------------------------------------
A case that focuses on certain pricing practices of US Foods,
Inc.'s in contracts with some of its customers continues through
the discovery stage in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut, 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 29, 2013.

In October 2006, two customers filed a putative class action
against the Company and Ahold. In December 2006, an amended
complaint was filed naming a third plaintiff.

The complaint focuses on certain pricing practices of the Company
in contracts with some of its customers. In February 2007, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In August 2007,
two additional customers of the Company filed putative class
action complaints. These two additional lawsuits are based upon
the pricing practices at issue in the case described in the first
two sentences of this paragraph.

In November 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered the transfer of the two subsequently filed lawsuits to the
jurisdiction in which the first lawsuit was filed, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut, for consolidated
or coordinated proceedings.

In June 2008, the Plaintiffs filed their consolidated and amended
class action complaint; the Company moved to dismiss this
complaint. In August 2009, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. In December 2009, the court issued a ruling on the
Company's motion to dismiss, dismissing Ahold from the case and
also dismissing certain of the plaintiffs' claims.

On November 30, 2011, the court issued its ruling granting the
plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. On April 4, 2012, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted the Company's
request to appeal the district court's decision which granted
class certification. Oral argument was held on May 29, 2013 before
the appeals court, and the company's await the court's decision.
In the meantime, the case continues through the discovery stage.


VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA: Bushfire Victims May Launch Action
-------------------------------------------------------
John Masanauskas, writing for Herald Sun, reports that thousands
of people who can't build on their properties because of new
bushfire rules may launch a class action against the State
Government.

But the Government has responded by announcing it will set up an
advisory committee to look at changes to mapped bushfire risk
zones.

More than 200,000 homes and properties across Victoria were
recently exempted from red tape and extra building costs after a
review of their bushfire risk.  But almost 120,000 properties that
were considered susceptible to ember attack became subject to the
bushfire regulations for the first time.

Victims of the Bushfire Management Overlay spokeswoman Kate Cotter
said her group included more than 4000 landowners adversely
affected by the change, which arose from the Black Saturday royal
commission.

Upper Beaconsfield couple Adam and Bianca Bowden had a planning
permit rejected for their AUD320,000 block of land, which remains
empty.

"We are renting, which is depleting our building money and we are
still paying a mortgage and rates on a piece of land that now has
no value," Mr. Bowden said.

Ms. Cotter said about 90 per cent of her members had empty blocks
abutting other houses.

"The rest of the street has been built, but by isolating one
property, you add to the fuel load for everyone else and create a
more unsafe situation," she said.

Ms. Cotter said the Government and fire authorities should allow
people to live where they chose, but focus more on CFA warning
systems and reducing fuel loads in national parks.

The group wants landowners to be compensated and, as a last
resort, will consider launching a class action.

Opposition planning spokesman Brian Tee called on Premier
Denis Napthine to intervene and give the landholders a fair go.

"It is a disgrace that these regional Victorians are forced to go
to the courts," he said.

Planning Minister Matthew Guy said an advisory committee would be
appointed to study the bushfire overlay and consider whether the
assessment process could be refined.

"As a planning control the overlay is being currently updated
according to changing conditions in different areas," he said.

A motion before the MAV state council this week calls on the
Government to be more flexible to building on properties impacted
by the bushfire management overlay.

"Current controls within the planning scheme are casting doubt on
the ability of interface townships and developments within the
(overlay) to remain developed and populated," said the motion by
Yarra Ranges Shire Council.


VOLTARI CORP: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Wash. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Voltari Corporation filed a motion to dismiss a third amendment
complaint in a securities suit, which is currently under
consideration by the U.S. District Court, Western District of
Washington at Seattle, 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.

Voltari Corporation previously announced that Joe Callan filed a
putative securities class action complaint in the U.S. District
Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of
Motricity between June 18, 2010 and August 9, 2011 or in the
Company's IPO.

The defendants in the case are Motricity, certain of the company's
current and former directors and officers, including Ryan K.
Wuerch, James R. Smith, Jr., Allyn P. Hebner, James N. Ryan,
Jeffrey A. Bowden, Hunter C. Gary, Brett Icahn, Lady Barbara Judge
CBE, Suzanne H. King, Brian V. Turner; and the underwriters in the
Company's IPO, including J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., Goldman,
Sachs & Co., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., RBC Capital Markets
Corporation, Robert W. Baird & Co Incorporated, Needham & Company,
LLC and Pacific Crest Securities LLC. The complaint alleges
violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, (the "Securities Act") and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act (the "Exchange Act") by all defendants and
under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act by Motricity and those of
the Company's former and current officers who are named as
defendants.

The complaint seeks, inter alia, damages, including interest and
plaintiff's costs and rescission. A second putative securities
class action complaint was filed by Mark Couch in October 2011 in
the same court, also related to alleged violations under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act. On November 7, 2011, the class actions were
consolidated, and lead plaintiffs were appointed pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

On December 16, 2011, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
which added a claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act to its
allegations of violations of the securities laws and extended the
putative class period from August 9, 2011 to November 14, 2011.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 11, 2012 and a
second amended complaint on July 11, 2012. On August 1, 2012, the
company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint,
which was granted on January 17, 2013. A third amended complaint
was filed on April 17, 2013. On May 30, 2013 the company filed a
motion to dismiss the third amendment complaint, which is
currently under consideration by the Court.


WINDSOR MOLD: Employees File Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
The News-Messenger.com reports that employees in two Bellevue
factories have filed a class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio against Windsor Mold, USA,
Inc. seeking wages for unpaid overtime.

The suit represents anyone employed at Precision Automotive
Plastics and Autoplas in the three years before the suit was
filed.  Windsor Mold is owned by the Windsor Mold Group of Canada
and manufactures plastic molding parts used in the automotive
industry.  The business employs workers known as "plant
operators," who assemble parts and operate equipment such as
presses and mold injection machinery.  Windsor Mold employs about
200 such workers at its Bellevue plants.

The action, filed by Murray & Murray of Sandusky, alleges the
plant operators are owed unpaid overtime and wages from attending
mandatory pre-shift meetings for which they were not compensated
from three years ago to the present.

Specifically, the suit claims that under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act and Ohio law, the meetings must be counted toward
the employee's accumulation of time worked and thus compensated at
their regular pay rate and at the overtime pay rate if the
employee worked more than 40 hours in the pay period because
attendance was required.

The pre-shift meetings at issue begin 20 minutes before a shift is
scheduled to take over operation of a plant, attendance is
mandatory and employees must be on-time, the law firm said in a
statement.  Employees who arrive even a few minutes late were
subject to disciplinary action, including termination.

Yet plant operators are specifically instructed not to include the
20 minutes spent in the pre-shift meeting on the sign-in sheet on
which they calculate their wages, the lawsuit alleges.
Consequently, plant operators are being routinely and regularly
shorted for 20 minutes of pay for each shift worked and those
whose workweek to exceed forty hours are being deprived of
overtime pay at one and one half times their base rate, as
required by the FLSA.

The action seeks such unpaid wages owed to the class of employees,
a declaratory judgment that the meetings are compensable time and
an injunction to prevent future deprivation of wages for the
required meetings.


                             *********

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  * * *