CAR_Public/131113.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, November 13, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 225

                             Headlines


ALPHA NATURAL: Working on $265MM Tentative Class Action Settlement
AMARIN CORP: Wolf Popper Files Class Action in New Jersey
ASIANA AIRLINES: Panel to Hear Arguments in Air Crash Litigation
BELLA TAVOLA: Recalls Certain Pasta Brands Due to Undeclared Milk
BIG AL'S: Recalls Zoo Med Bettatherm Mini Size Betta Bowl Heater

BIG LOTS: Awaits Court Decision on Bid to Dismiss S.D. Ohio Suit
BOYZ GROUP: Recalls Cardigan 3-Piece Children's Pyjama Set
DETROIT MEDICAL: Sole Defendant in Nurses' Wage Class Action
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Settles Jail Class Action for $6.2 Million
ELI LILLY: Faces Class Action Over Sales Rep Incentive Pay

FAIRFIELD COUNTY, SC: Two Council Members Face Class Actions
FOOT LOCKER: Consolidated FLSA Suit in Discovery Stage
FOOT LOCKER: Plaintiff's 2nd Cir. Appeal Pending in "Osberg" Suit
HAPPY VEGGIE: Recalls Forever Health Imitation Ham
HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Another Lead Plaintiff Quits in Texas Suit

JOHN PRIDGEN: SCHR Settles Class Action Over Public Court Access
KCBX TERMINALS: Faces Class Action Over Refinery Waste
LES ALIMENTS: Bouillon Mix Recalled Due to Allergen
LEXISNEXIS: Lawyer Can't Bring Class Arbitration, 6th Cir. Rules
MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls 2 SL Class Model Cars

MIRAMICHI REGIONAL: Ches Crosbie Barristers Files Class Action
NURSERYLAND FOUNDATION: Nov. 15 Deadline to Comment on Settlement
PALL CORP: Settlement in Derivative Suits v. D&Os Approved in July
PFIZER INC: Louisiana Files Suit Over Alleged Zoloft Fraud
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Appeal From Dismissal of "Tatum" Suit Pending

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Awaits Appellate Ruling in "Lights" Cases
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Awaits Order on Bid to Amend "Villarreal" Suit
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 3 Status Conference in "Black" Suit Set
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Hearing in "Smith" Suit Set for December 11
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Travel Companies File Suit Over Hotel Taxes

TEN THOUSAND VILLAGES: Recalls Sasha Scarves Due to Fire Risk
TEVA: Wohl & Fruchter Mulls Securities Class Action
TRITAP FOOD: Recalls Various Minuet Snack Products
UNITED STATES: Judge Orders NSA to Respond to Class Action Motions
VANS INC: Recalls Boy's Hooded Jackets Over Choking Hazard

WELLS FARGO: Facing Force-Placed Insurance Class Suits
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Trial Begins in Hoover Retirees' Class Action


                             *********


ALPHA NATURAL: Working on $265MM Tentative Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupational Health & Safety reports that Alpha Natural Resources
released its third quarter financial results, showing how it is
weathering tough times for the coal industry, and included in them
a statement about a possible $265 million settlement.  The company
bought Massey Energy after the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster,
which brought a record MSHA fine against the Massey subsidiary
that operated it.

Alpha NR's announcement said it is trying to reach a tentative
settlement of the securities class action brought by Massey
stockholders in early 2010 alleging deficiencies in Massey's
disclosures of safety information.

"During the third quarter, Alpha once again demonstrated its
commitment to best-in-class safety performance, with two of our
operations, the Chesterfield preparation plant and the Roaring
Fork No. 4 facility, receiving Sentinel of Safety awards.  In
addition, our Enterprise No. 9 and Sidney M3 operations have been
recognized by Kentucky with Underground Safety Awards," said
Kevin Crutchfield, chairman and CEO of Alpha.  "I would like to
personally commend our entire workforce for their constant
dedication to Alpha's principles of Running Right."

"Although our third quarter results this quarter reflect the tough
market environment and downtime at our Cumberland mine, we are
encouraged that the metallurgical coal market appears to be
gradually improving from its recent apparent low point, and
domestic thermal coal inventories have trended down, planting the
seeds for healthier market conditions in the future.  Regardless,
we are not standing still, and we continued to make significant
progress this quarter enhancing our competitiveness and
flexibility by managing those aspects of our business within our
direct control."

Alpha recorded a net loss of $458 million during the third
quarter, compared with a net loss of $46 million during the same
quarter of 2012.

Total revenues in the third quarter of 2013 were $1.2 billion
compared with $1.6 billion in the third quarter of 2012 and coal
revenues were $1.0 billion, down from $1.5 billion.  The company
shipped 5.0 million tons of metallurgical coal shipments during
the 2013 third quarter, slightly above the 4.9 million tons in the
third quarter of 2012, but its average per ton realization on
metallurgical coal shipments was $94.73, down from $129.96 in the
third quarter last year.

The Mine Safety and Health Administration issued a record
$10,825,368 fine following its investigation into the April 2010
explosion at the Upper Big Branch-South Mine, which was operated
by Performance Coal Co., a subsidiary of Massey Energy Co., and
concluded Massey's corporate culture was the root cause of the
tragedy.


AMARIN CORP: Wolf Popper Files Class Action in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP on Nov. 4 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Amarin Corp. plc, and Joseph S. Zakrzewski
(Amarin's CEO), in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, on behalf of all persons who purchased
shares of Amarin common stock on the open market, or pursuant to
Registration Statements filed with the SEC, during the period July
9, 2009 through October 15, 2013, and who were damaged thereby.
This action alleges claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint charges that defendants misrepresented the prospects
for Food and Drug Administration approval of Amarin's Vascepa drug
for the ANCHOR indication and failed to disclose that the FDA had
informed Amarin that there was a lack of prospective, controlled
clinical trial data demonstrating that pharmaceutical reduction of
triglycerides significantly reduces residual cardiovascular risk.

Persons who purchased Amarin common stock during the Class Period
are urged to contact Wolf Popper to discuss their rights.

If you are a member of the Class, you may move the Court no later
than January 3, 2014, and request that the Court appoint you as
lead plaintiff.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  To
be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must decide that your claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that you will
adequately represent the class.

Wolf Popper LLP has extensive experience representing shareholders
in securities class actions and has successfully recovered
billions of dollars for defrauded investors.  The reputation and
expertise of the firm in shareholder and other class action
litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which
have appointed the firm to major positions in complex multi-
district and consolidated litigations.

For more information or to pursue your right to be appointed lead
plaintiff, please contact:

          Wolf Popper LLP
          Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Tel: 212-759-4600 or 877-370-7703 (toll free)
          Fax: 212-486-2093 or 877-370-7704 (toll free)
          E-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com
          Web site: http://www.wolfpopper.com


ASIANA AIRLINES: Panel to Hear Arguments in Air Crash Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal panel will hear arguments next month over whether
lawsuits filed in the summer's Asiana Airlines Inc. crash should
be coordinated in multidistrict litigation in San Francisco.

The July 6 crash of Flight 214 while landing at San Francisco
International Airport killed three people and injured about 180.
Lawsuits filed on behalf of 37 passengers name Asiana and The
Boeing Co., which manufactured the 777 aircraft.

Boeing moved on Sept. 24 to coordinate the litigation in the
Northern District of California.  The U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation has scheduled the cases for its
December 5 hearing in Las Vegas.

The flight carried passengers from countries including South
Korea, China and the United States.  The National Transportation
Safety Board has launched an investigation into the cause.

The lawsuits claim that Asiana's flight crew was negligent and
that, under the 1999 Montreal Convention, foreign passengers who
buy tickets in the United States or whose final destination was
the United States are entitled to damages.  The suits target
Boeing for alleged defects in the warning system, which may have
failed to alert the pilots of the aircraft's decreasing speed.
Boeing and Asiana have denied the allegations.

In an Oct. 30 filing, Boeing lists 21 lawsuits pending in federal
and state courts.  About half of those have been consolidated in
the Northern District of California before U.S. District Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.  The other lawsuits have been filed in
Cook County, Ill., Circuit Court, and have been removed to the
Northern District of Illinois, where Boeing is headquartered in
Chicago.

Boeing attorney Bruce Campbell -- BCampbell@perkinscoie.com -- a
partner at Seattle's Perkins Coie, moved on Sept. 24 to coordinate
the litigation; Asiana attorney Frank Silane --
fsilane@condonlaw.com -- a partner in Los Angeles at the New
York's Condon & Forsyth, joined, adding that it was a "virtually
certainty that a substantial number of additional lawsuits will be
filed."

The plaintiffs in the California cases -- represented by
Frank Pitre -- fpitre@cpmlegal.com -- of Cotchett, Pitre &
McCarthy in Burlingame, Calif., and Elizabeth Cabraser of San
Francisco's Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein -- support
coordination in San Francisco.  But not all the plaintiffs agree.

Attorney Justin Green, who represents the plaintiffs in one of the
Cook County cases removed to federal court, said U.S. District
Judge Harry Leinenweber could remand all the Illinois cases on
Dec. 12, which would negate the need for multidistrict litigation.

"We don't think it's ultimately going to become an MDL because we
don't think Boeing has grounds -- it has no federal jurisdiction
over our claims," said Mr. Green, a partner at New York's
Kreindler & Kreindler, who claims to represent 70 victims.

Even the plaintiffs in California called Boeing's move to
coordinate the cases premature.

"What Boeing did procedurally was jump the gun," said Mr. Pitre,
whose cases have been stayed until the MDL panel rules on
coordination.  He said the move successfully delayed the
litigation.  "They tried a procedural advantage in filing for
removal and a petition for an MDL without first allowing the
motion for remand to be heard."


BELLA TAVOLA: Recalls Certain Pasta Brands Due to Undeclared Milk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 8, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Loblaw Companies Limited
Distribution:             National

Loblaw Companies Limited (Loblaw) is recalling certain Bella
Tavola brand pastas from the marketplace because they contain milk
which is not declared on the label.  People with an allergy to
milk should not consume the recalled products described below.

If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There has been one reported illness associated with the
consumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by a consumer complaint.  The Canadian
Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Loblaw are conducting a food
safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other
products.  If other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will
notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

Affected products:

   -- 454 g. Bella Tavola Meat Tortellini with 2014 MA 08 code and
      0 60383 98833 3 UPC; and

   -- 454 g. Bella Tavola Meat Ravioli with 2014 MA 08 code and
      60383 98832 6 UPC


BIG AL'S: Recalls Zoo Med Bettatherm Mini Size Betta Bowl Heater
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 7, 2013
Posting date:             November 7, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fire Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-36625

The recalled product is a Zoo Med BettathermTM mini size Betta
bowl heater.  The product is a small round size heater for use in
3.8 to 11 litre (1 to 3 gallon) fish bowls or tanks and is
identified by item number BH-10 and UPC 097612240047.  The heater
measures 7.6 centimetres (3 inches) in diameter and the words "Zoo
Med" are found on the top of the product.  Pictures of the product
are available at: http://is.gd/wxrRSP

The affected heaters have not been evaluated to Canadian
electrical safety standards and may pose a fire hazard to
consumers.

Big Al's has received one report of the product overheating and
melting.  There have been no reports of injury or burns.

Health Canada has not received any reports of incidents or
injuries related to the use of these heaters.

Approximately 982 units have been sold at Big Al's retail stores
and online.

The affected product were manufactured in China and sold from
October 2010 to August 2013.

  Companies:

  Distributor     Zoo Med Laboratories Inc.
                  San Luis Obispo
                  California
                  United States

  Distributor     Big Al's
                  Woodridge
                  Ontario
                  Canada

Consumers should stop using the product immediately by unplugging
the product and then removing it from the aquarium or bowl upon
cooling down.  Consumers can bring the individual units back to
any Big Al's retail store for a full refund.


BIG LOTS: Awaits Court Decision on Bid to Dismiss S.D. Ohio Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc., is waiting for the Court's decision on the
Company's motion to dismiss a putative class action complaint
alleging that Big Lots made misleading financial performance
statements, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended August 3, 2013.

The Company disclosed, "On July 9, 2012, a putative securities
class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on behalf of persons who acquired our
common shares between February 2, 2012 and April 23, 2012. This
lawsuit was filed against us, Lisa Bachmann, Mr. Cooper, Mr.
Fishman and Mr. Haubiel. The complaint in the putative class
action generally alleges that the defendants made statements
concerning our financial performance that were false or
misleading. The complaint asserts claims under sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and
seeks damages in an unspecified amount, plus attorneys' fees and
expenses. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April
4, 2013, which added Mr. Johnson as a defendant, removed Ms.
Bachmann as a defendant, and extended the putative class period to
August 23, 2012. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the
putative class action complaint, and that motion is fully briefed
and awaiting a decision."

The Company said, "We believe that the putative class action
lawsuits is without merit, and we intend to defend ourselves
vigorously against the allegations levied in this lawsuit. While a
loss from this lawsuit is reasonably possible, at this time, we
cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any loss that may result
or whether the lawsuit will have a material impact on our
financial statements."

Big Lots, Inc., through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a North
America's closeout retailer. At January 28, 2012, the Company
operated a total of 1,533 stores in two countries: the United
States and Canada. The Company operates in two segments: U.S. and
Canada. The merchandising categories include Consumables,
Furniture, Home, Seasonal, Play n' Wear, and Hardlines & Other.
The Consumables category includes the food, health and beauty,
plastics, paper, chemical, and pet departments. The Furniture
category includes the upholstery, mattresses, ready-to-assemble,
and case goods departments. The Home category includes the
domestics, stationery, and home decorative departments. The
Seasonal category includes the lawn and garden, Christmas, summer,
and other holiday departments. The Play n' Wear category includes
the electronics, toys, jewelry, infant accessories, and apparel
departments. The Hardlines & Other category includes the
appliances, tools, paint, and home maintenance departments.


BOYZ GROUP: Recalls Cardigan 3-Piece Children's Pyjama Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 7, 2013
Posting date:             November 7, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products, Clothing and
                          Accessories
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Flammability Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-36629

Affected products: 100% cotton infant's cardigan sold as part of a
Trois Moutons brand 3-piece pyjama set

This recall involves children's sleepwear, specifically, a 100%
cotton cardigan in sizes 9 months and 12 months that was sold as
part of a Trois Moutons brand 3-piece pyjama set (see table
below).

Pajama sets affected by this recall:

   Style #       Colour      Size      UPC
   -------       ------      ----      ---
   B1110AD       Beige         9      0930680170550
   B1110AD       Beige        12      0930680170567
   B1110AD       Grey          9      0930680210553
   B1110AD       Grey         12      0930680210560
   B1110AD       Blue          9      0930680320559
   B1110AD       Blue         12      0930680320566
   B11F2AD       Pink          9      0930690060551
   B11F2AD       Pink         12      0930690060568
   B11F2AD       Lilac         9      0930690340554
   B11F2AD       Lilac        12      0930690340561
   B11F2AD       Pink Multi    9      0930692340552
   B11F2AD       Pink Multi   12      0930692340569


Hazard identified

Health Canada has established that these products do not meet the
flammability requirements for children's sleepwear under Canadian
law.

Children's sleepwear that is loose fitting can contact ignition
sources such as stove elements, candles, and matches more easily
than tight-fitting sleepwear.  Once ignited the sleepwear can burn
rapidly and cause severe burns to large areas of the child's body,
resulting in shock and sometimes death.  Cotton is not permitted
in loose-fitting children's sleepwear.

Neither Boyz Group nor Health Canada has received any reports of
incidents or injuries related to the use of this sleepwear.

In Quebec, approximately 2,240 3-piece children's pyjama sets have
been sold.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from
October 2012 to September 2013 exclusively at stores in the
Aubainerie chain throughout Quebec.

Companies:

  Importer     Le Groupe Boyz Inc.
               Montreal
               Quebec
               Canada

Consumers should stop using the recalled cardigans immediately.

They may return the complete set or the cardigan alone to any
Aubainerie store for a refund. They may also contact Boyz Group at
1-514-858-6160 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, or
by sending an email to the firm's website and by clicking on
"contact" or "contact us."

Please note that under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act,
recalled products cannot be redistributed, sold or even given away
in Canada.


DETROIT MEDICAL: Sole Defendant in Nurses' Wage Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Halcom, writing for Crain's Detroit Business, reports that
Detroit Medical Center is the remaining defendant in a class
action lawsuit on behalf of metro Detroit registered nurses after
seven other hospital systems agreed to combined settlements of
about $48 million.

Rodger Young, founder and senior partner at Farmington Hills-based
Young & Associates PC, who represents the DMC successor for-profit
entity VHS of Michigan Inc. created out of a previous owner's
acquisition, said the hospital expects to take its case to trial
and is not in settlement talks with the nurses' attorneys even
though all seven of its co-defendants have settled.

Chief Judge Gerald Rosen at U.S. District Court signed an order to
distribute settlement funds to nurses of Henry Ford Health System,
Beaumont Health System, the former Mt. Clemens General Hospital
(now McLaren Macomb Hospital) and Trinity Health Michigan, now a
division of Livonia-based CHE Trinity Health.

A class of more than 20,000 registered nurses certified by
Judge Rosen in September, which provided direct patient care in
Detroit-area acute care hospitals since 2002, filed a 2006 lawsuit
alleging eight hospital systems colluded to keep pay scales for
RNs artificially lower than market forces dictate.

Since then, seven of the hospitals -- St. John Providence Health
System in Warren, Oakwood Healthcare System in Dearborn, the
former Bon Secours Health System and the four covered in
Judge Rosen's October order -- have settled.  The latest
agreements, with Henry Ford for $8.44 million and Trinity for
$5.14 million earlier this year, bring the total payout to just
more than $48 million.

But Mr. Young said the DMC is appealing the September order
certifying a class of nurses and is not planning to settle its own
portion of the case.  Mr. Young said the DMC does not agree with
past findings in the case about the "relevant geographic markets"
or product markets where the wage collaboration allegedly took
place.

A trial would likely begin next summer.

"We intend to vigorously pursue our defenses because we happen to
be respectfully right on the law," Mr. Young said.  "I don't know
what the (other hospitals') decision-making process was, but
that's their choice.  I can't say why they chose that strategy.
But we are not inclined to do it, and we feel those rulings can be
challenged."

Beaumont agreed in mid-2012 to pay $11.34 million for its role in
alleged collaboration with seven other health care providers in
Southeast Michigan to control RN wages between 2002 and 2007.
St. John reached a previous deal in which about $10 million of its
$13.6 million settlement was contingent on the nurses winning the
certification of a class action against the remaining hospital
defendants, which Rosen granted in September. Mt. Clemens General
reached a settlement for just more than $2 million.

Mark Griffin -- mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com -- partner at Keller
Rohrback LLP in Washington, D.C., and lead counsel for the nurses,
said Judge Rosen has assigned court-appointed special master Layn
Phillips to handle settlement talks and made Phillips available if
Dallas-based Tenet Healthcare Corp., DMC's current owners under a
deal that closed last month, wish to meet with him. So far, no
meeting is scheduled.

"We have alleged the eight hospitals conspired with each other to
suppress the wage scale," Griffin said.  "So under the law, if
we're successful in proving it at a trial . . . one hospital could
be on the hook for all of the damages of the conspiracy, which
could be trebled at (more than $1 billion), less the amount that
the other seven have paid, which is less than $50 million."

Judge Rosen in late October also approved an award of 25 percent
of the combined settlement, or just over $12 million, in attorney
fees for Keller Rohrback and various other firms representing the
nurses, plus nearly $400,000 to go in a retention fund to pay the
plaintiff attorneys' costs in a trial against DMC.

The settlement total to date, less the attorney fees and retention
funds or other deductions, would translate to an average payment
of just over $1,700 per nurse, assuming a class size of 20,000,
before any damages that might get awarded at a DMC trial.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Settles Jail Class Action for $6.2 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Zoe Tillman at The Blog of Legal
Times, the District of Columbia has agreed to pay $6.2 million to
settle allegations the city had a practice of holding inmates at
the D.C. Jail past their release date and of wrongfully strip
searching inmates who were supposed to be released.

The settlement, if approved, would end nearly eight years of
litigation.  U.S. District Senior Judge Royce Lamberth found in
2011 the city violated inmates' constitutional rights, although
not during the whole time period the plaintiffs alleged.  Absent a
settlement, the case would go to trial over how much the city owed
in damages.

Lawyers for the city and the class on Nov. 4 asked Judge Lamberth
to give preliminary approval to the settlement.  Class members
will have an opportunity to file objections before any final deal.

The lawsuit claimed the D.C. Department of Corrections had a
practice of failing to release inmates when their prison time
expired and of strip searching inmates who were supposed to be
released but were instead returned to the jail for processing.

Under the proposed settlement, class members with valid claims
against the city for over-detention or strip searches would
receive a share of $2.9 million.  The city agreed to pay $475,000
to improve inmate processing at the D.C. Jail and nearly $2.5
million in plaintiffs' legal fees and costs.  The remaining
settlement funds would be used to pay for class administration and
separate payments for the lead plaintiffs.

If Judge Lamberth approves the settlement, the city will have paid
more than $18 million to resolve claims of over-detention and
unconstitutional strip searches at the D.C. Jail.  In 2006,
Judge Lamberth approved a $12 million settlement for alleged
violations of inmates' rights between 2002 and 2005.

Both sides scored victories in the latest lawsuit, Barnes v.
District of Columbia, which was filed in Washington federal
district court in 2006.  Judge Lamberth found the city liable for
unconstitutional strip searches after 2005 and for over-detention
between 2005 and 2006.  In March, a jury sided with the city on
claims of over-detention between 2007 and 2008; Judge Lamberth
previously granted the city summary judgment on claims of
over-detentions after 2008.

A lead attorney for the class, local solo practitioner William
Claiborne III, on Nov. 4 called the case a "hard-fought battle."
He credited city officials with taking steps in recent years to
fix the problems that gave rise to the previous lawsuits.

"I think the District's hard work and our lawsuit -- a combination
of the two -- really helped to achieve reform of the system that
really benefits everyone who gets arrested in the District of
Columbia," he said.

Solo practitioner Ralph Robinson and Barrett Litt of Kaye, McLane,
Bednarski & Litt in Pasadena, Calif., also served as lead class
co-counsel.

A spokesman for the city's Office of the Attorney General declined
to comment.  A representative of the Department of Corrections was
not immediately available for comment.


ELI LILLY: Faces Class Action Over Sales Rep Incentive Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Swiatek, writing for Indianapolis Star, reports that during
her two years as a temporary sales representative for Eli Lilly
and Co., Leslie Pinciaro Dudley earned some lucrative incentive
bonuses that the company dangled to encourage its sales force to
work hard.  But she didn't collect all the bonuses she felt she
earned.

The Jacksonville, Fla., woman is suing Lilly, alleging the
Indianapolis drugmaker breached a contract by not paying her some
$15,000 in incentive pay that she thinks she is entitled to.  Ms.
Dudley's lawsuit, filed in federal court in Florida, asks the
court to declare her case a class action, opening it up to perhaps
150 other short-term sales representatives who she says also might
have lost out on incentive pay.

Lilly responded quickly to the breach of contract and unjust
enrichment lawsuit, asking the judge to dismiss it.  Lilly's
argument: Its incentive-pay program requires the recipient to
still be working for Lilly on the last day of the work period for
which the reward was calculated.  Since Ms. Dudley's "fixed
duration" employment expired three weeks before the work period
for her incentive pay program ended, Lilly says she wasn't
entitled to any reward money.

"The documents governing (Dudley's) eligibility for payments are
crystal clear that . . . employees are required to be employed on
the last day of the period before any payment is earned or
vested," the Lilly dismissal motion says.

But her lawyer, Steven Simmons Jr., said the clause that Lilly
cited requiring employees to be employed to the end of pay periods
in order to collect bonuses "was not in (Dudley's) contract."

"Lilly represented through its actual contract . . . that she was
entitled to that final incentive pay," he said.

Ms. Dudley worked in Jacksonville as a senior sales representative
in Lilly's men's health division from February 2011 to March of
this year.  She received a salary of $83,016 a year during her
employment.

Mr. Simmons said Lilly did pay Ms. Dudley incentive bonuses
earlier in her employment and only the bonuses that she earned
toward the end of her two-year stint are in dispute.  Ms. Dudley
is still looking for another job since leaving Lilly, he said.


FAIRFIELD COUNTY, SC: Two Council Members Face Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Boozer, writing for Herald Independent, reports that two
members of Fairfield County Council -- Chairman David Ferguson and
Mary Lynn Kinely -- were served with separate class action
lawsuits prior to the Nov. 4 meeting.

Courthouse documents show a similar class action lawsuit is in
process with Councilman Mikel Trapp, but Trapp was not at the
Nov. 4 meeting.  Mr. Trapp said on Oct. 31 he had not been served
notice of lawsuits.  He had no further comment.

The lawsuits pertain to cash payments awarded the three council
members in lieu of county health insurance and one suit pertains
to Mr. Trapp's receiving payment for tuition to attend Columbia
College, payments through which the lawsuits state amounted to
council members "improperly receiving monies in a manner not
consistent with the South Carolina Constitution or the laws of the
state of South Carolina."

The suit referenced a July 8, 2013, attorney general opinion that
stated "that state law prohibits a county from using public funds
to make cash payments directly to individual members of county
council who elect not to participate in the group health insurance
plan offered by the county in lieu of making payments toward the
premiums for such plans on their behalf."

The plaintiffs are being represented by Jonathan Goode and include
MaryGail Douglas, E. Scott Frazier Bell, Carole J. Gehret, Stephen
Geheret, Tangee Brice Jacobs, Elizabeth A. Jenkins, Helen Johnson,
Vernon J. Pylant, Margaret Richardson, Thomas Richardson, Jeffrey
Schaffer, Barry R. Tuttle, Clyde E. Wade, Michael B. Ward,
Patricia A. Williams and Thomas L. Williams.

The suits seek judgment against Mr. Trapp, Ms. Kinely and
Mr. Ferguson for actual damages "including but not limited to
reimbursement of all monies wrongfully paid to (these defendants)
interest on said monies, costs and attorney fees pursuant to the
laws of the State of South Carolina and such and other further
relief to which plaintiffs may be entitled."

Ms. Kinely said she still feels the three of them did nothing
wrong by accepting cash payments in lieu of county health
insurance policies.

"Other counties have done it," she said.  "I'm sorry it has gone
this far but the Ethics Commission is investigating and once they
make a ruling that will give us direction (in the case)."

Efforts to reach Mr. Ferguson were unsuccessful.


FOOT LOCKER: Consolidated FLSA Suit in Discovery Stage
------------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker, Inc., is a defendant in a case in which plaintiff
alleges that the Company permitted unpaid off-the-clock hours in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and state labor laws.
The case, Pereira v. Foot Locker, was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in 2007. In his
complaint, in addition to unpaid wage and overtime allegations,
plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. In 2009, the Court
conditionally certified a nationwide collective action. During the
course of 2010, notices were sent to approximately 81,888 current
and former employees of the Company offering them the opportunity
to participate in the class action, and approximately 5,027 have
opted in.

The Company is a defendant in additional purported wage and hour
class actions that assert claims similar to those asserted in
Pereira and seek similar remedies.

With the exception of Hill v. Foot Locker filed in state court in
Illinois, Kissinger v. Foot Locker filed in state court of
California, Ghattas v. Foot Locker filed in state court of
California, and Cortes v. Foot Locker filed in federal court of
New York, all of these actions were consolidated by the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation with Pereira
under the caption In re Foot Locker, Inc. Fair Labor Standards Act
and Wage and Hour Litigation.

The consolidated cases are in the discovery stages of proceedings,
the Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 3, 2013.

In Hill v. Foot Locker, in May 2011, the court granted plaintiffs'
motion for certification of an opt-out class covering certain
Illinois employees only. The Company's motion for leave to appeal
was denied. The Company has had and continues to have discussions
with plaintiffs' counsel in an attempt to determine whether it
will be possible to resolve the consolidated cases and Hill.
Meanwhile, the Company is vigorously defending these class
actions. In Ghattas, the court has preliminarily approved a
settlement of the action. Due to the inherent uncertainties of
such matters, and because fact and expert discovery have not been
completed, the Company is currently unable to make an estimate of
the range of loss.


FOOT LOCKER: Plaintiff's 2nd Cir. Appeal Pending in "Osberg" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker, Inc., and the Company's U.S. retirement plan are
defendants in a purported class action (Osberg v. Foot Locker,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York) in which the plaintiff alleges that, in connection with the
1996 conversion of the retirement plan to a defined benefit plan
with a cash balance formula, the Company and the retirement plan
failed to properly advise plan participants of the "wear-away"
effect of the conversion. Plaintiff asserted claims for: (a)
breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA); (b) violation of the statutory
provisions governing the content of the Summary Plan Description;
(c) violation of the notice provision of Section 204(h) of ERISA;
and (d) violation of ERISA's age discrimination provisions.

In September 2009, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the Section 204(h) claim and the age discrimination claim.
In December 2012, the court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment on the remaining two claims, dismissing the
action. Plaintiff has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the 2nd Circuit.

Because of the inherent uncertainties of such matters and the
current status of this case, the Company is currently unable to
make an estimate of loss or range of loss for this case,
Footlocker said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended August 3,
2013.

Foot Locker, Inc. is a global retailer of athletic shoes and
apparel, operating 3,369 primarily mall-based stores in the United
States, Canada, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand as of January
28, 2012. The Company operates in two segments: Athletic Stores
and Direct-to-Customers. The Athletic Stores segment is an
athletic footwear and apparel retailer in the world, whose formats
include Foot Locker, Lady Foot Locker, Kids Foot Locker, Champs
Sports, Footaction, and CCS. The Direct-to-Customers segment
reflects CCS and Footlocker.com, Inc., which sells, through its
affiliates, including Eastbay, Inc., to customers through
catalogs, mobile devices, and Internet Websites. Its marketing
channels include broadcast, digital, print, and sponsorships of
various sporting events. The Company operates four distribution
centers, of which two are owned and two are leased, occupying an
aggregate of 2.4 million square feet. In September 2013, it
acquired Runners Point Warenhandels GmbH.


HAPPY VEGGIE: Recalls Forever Health Imitation Ham
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 8, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Happy Veggie World
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Happy Veggie World is recalling Forever Health brand Imitation Ham
products from the marketplace because they contain wheat which is
not declared on the label.  People with an allergy to wheat should
not consume the recalled products described below.

If you have an allergy to wheat, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
test results.  The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation,
which may lead to the recall of other products.  If other high-
risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the public through
updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled products
from the marketplace.

Affected products:

   -- 600 g. Forever Health Imitation Ham with all codes and UPC
      number 4 712263 061099;

   -- 1 kg. Forever Health Vegan Ham (Imitation Meat) with all
      codes and UPC number 4 712263 060955


HYPERDYNAMICS CORP: Another Lead Plaintiff Quits in Texas Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in a lawsuit alleging that Hyperdynamics
Corporation made misleading statements that artificially inflated
stock prices, filed a motion on August 13, 2013, to withdraw as
lead plaintiff, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2013.

The Company disclosed that, "On April 2, 2012, a lawsuit styled as
a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas against us and our chief executive
officer alleging that we made false and misleading statements that
artificially inflated our stock prices. The lawsuit alleges, among
other things, that we misrepresented the prospects and progress of
our drilling operations, including our drilling of the Sabu-1 well
and plans to drill the Baraka-1 well off the coast of the Republic
of Guinea. The lawsuit seeks damages based on Sections 10(b) and
20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, although the specific
amount of damages is not specified. On June 1 and June 4, 2012, a
number of parties made application to the Court to be appointed as
lead plaintiff, and a lead plaintiff was appointed by the Court.
On April 22, 2013, the lead plaintiff appointed by the Court filed
a motion to withdraw as lead plaintiff. On June 12, 2013 the Court
accepted the withdrawal of the lead plaintiff and appointed a new
lead plaintiff to represent the class. On August 13, 2013, the
newly appointed lead plaintiff also filed a motion to withdraw as
lead plaintiff. The Court has not yet acted on that motion."

The Company said: "We have assessed the status of this matter and
have concluded that an adverse judgment remains reasonably
possible, but not probable. As a result, no provision has been
made in the consolidated financial statements. Given the early
stage of this dispute, we are unable to estimate a range of
possible loss; however, in our opinion, the outcome of this
dispute will not have a material effect on our financial condition
and results of operations."

Hyperdynamics Corporation, is an oil and gases exploration company
with prospects in offshore Republic of Guinea in Northwest Africa.
The Company is the operator and holds a 77% interests. The
Company's participant, Dana Petroleum, PLC (Dana), which is a
subsidiary of the Korean National Oil Corporation, holds the
remaining 23% interest in the Concession. In October 2011, the
Company commenced drilling operations on the Sabu-1 well. In
February 2012, the Sabu-1 well reached the planned total depth of
3,600 meters. The Company has conducted 2-dimensional (2D) and 3-
dimensional (3D) surveys of a portion of the Concession. During
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012 (fiscal 2012), the acquisition
phase of the 3D seismic survey covering approximately 4,000 square
kilometers in the deeper water portion of the Concession was
completed by the CGG Veritas Ocean Endeavor.


JOHN PRIDGEN: SCHR Settles Class Action Over Public Court Access
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action challenge to the unconstitutional practice of
denying public access to courts in Ben Hill and Crisp County on
November 4, 2013, reached a settlement pending final approval of
the Court.  The settlement requests that the Court issue an order
binding the defendants to its terms for a period of eighteen
months.

To guarantee that courtrooms remain open to the public, the
Southern Center for Human Rights (SCHR) reached a settlement with
the Superior Court Judges named in the suit.

"Judge Sands has clearly stated that the public has a right to
view court proceedings, and after a long and hard road, the judges
in Ben Hill and Crisp counties have finally seen the light," said
SCHR attorney Gerry Weber.

Last summer, the SCHR filed Fuqua, et al. v. Pridgen, et al., a
civil rights lawsuit, to open courtroom doors that were
systematically closed to the public.  The named Defendants in the
lawsuit were Superior Court Judges John Pridgen, Robert Chasteen,
Jr., and T. Christopher Hughes; Crisp County Sheriff Donnie
Haralson; and Ben Hill County Superior Court Bailiffs James Butts,
James Clark, John K. Fletcher, Dewey Hannon, Wilbert King, and
Donald Paulk.

Both the United States and Georgia Constitutions protect the
public's right to attend hearings in criminal cases.  Yet judges
and sheriffs in Ben Hill and Crisp counties routinely denied
access to members of the public seeking to observe hearings in the
jail courtrooms.  Generally, exceptions were made only for
relatives of people who came before the court, even then, they
were only allowed to watch the hearings involving their relatives.
On occasion, they were not even allowed to watch those hearings if
their loved one entered a not guilty plea.

The settlement ensures that under the First Amendment courtroom
proceedings will be open to the public and the public will not be
subject to questioning and approval prior to entry.  The agreement
also specifies that requiring citizens seeking entry into a
courtroom to either prove their relationship to a criminal
defendant appearing in court, or otherwise conditioning access on
the plea ultimately entered by the criminal defendant,
notwithstanding available space, violates citizens' First
Amendment right of access.  Signage for the doors to each
courtroom must clearly inform the public of their right to observe
superior court hearings unless otherwise noted.  Additionally,
Judges must stop using Law Enforcement Center courtrooms for
criminal proceedings, except in limited circumstances.

"The judges contended that citizens do not have a right to enter
courtrooms even when seats are available, and that there is no
right to attend arraignments, but Judge Sands' prior rulings in
the case had already rejected those arguments," said SCHR attorney
Atteeyah Hollie.


KCBX TERMINALS: Faces Class Action Over Refinery Waste
------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Sun-Times reports that mountains of refinery waste along a
mile and a half of the Calumet River on the Southeast Side are
throwing off clouds of hazardous dust that need to be brought
under control quickly.

People living near those black mountains, which soar as high as
five stories, say the dust it so pervasive it covers cars, awnings
and food set out for backyard picnics.  Families keep children
inside and say black soot piles up in their homes if they don't
keep their doors and windows closed.  Photos they have taken show
dust darkening the sky.  As the piles grow, the dust gets worse,
and those leviathan heaps are expected to keep growing.
Authorities need to act before the Southeast Side gets its own
re-enactment of the Dust Bowl, but with dust that's more hazardous
than windblown soil.

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency has filed a complaint
against one company that stores the waste, Illinois Attorney
General Lisa Madigan's office has opened an investigation, and a
class-action lawsuit was filed against KCBX Terminals Co. on
Oct. 31 in Cook County Court.  Those are all excellent moves, but
now let's keep the heat on until the air is clean.

Above all, existing rules on so-called fugitive dust must be
strictly enforced, and regulations must be updated to catch up
with the rapidly changing world of refinery waste.

"Those piles look ominous and bad right now, but that is just the
tip of the iceberg," said Josh Mogerman, spokesman for the Natural
Resources Defense Council.  "We are going to be buried under this
stuff, not just locally but also nationally."

The gritty dust -- which contains sulfur, carbon and heavy metals
-- comes from petcoke, a refinery byproduct that arrives via
barge, truck and rail.  As refineries have turned to dirty tar
sands oil, the mountains of petcoke have mushroomed on sites that
once held stockpiles of coal, crushed limestone or other bulk
material.  Much of the petcoke comes from the BP refinery in
Whiting, Ind., which is undergoing a renovation that will triple
the amount of petcoke it produces by the end of the year, making
it the second-largest source of petcoke in the world.  The more
that the refinery produces, the bigger the mountains will get on
the Southeast Side, as the petcoke waits to be shipped to other
states or countries for use by the aluminum, cement and steel
industries or by power plants that use petcoke as a cheaper
alternative to coal.

Excessive exposure to petcoke dust can cause skin, eye or
respiratory infection.  Breathing it continuously can damage
lungs. The swirling dust also can contaminate water it settles
into.

"Sometimes you have a cookout and you notice on your potato salad,
you see black dust all over it," said Alfredo Mendoza, one of the
class-action lawsuit plaintiffs.  "How can you eat this stuff? And
when the wind blows, the dust becomes like a black sky."

The class action lawsuit asks that the piles of petcoke be
enclosed -- as Indiana would require if BP kept the petcoke on its
Whiting site -- to keep the dust out of the air.  One of the
companies has said that's too expensive, but that it has installed
sprinklers to suppress the dust.

Too expensive? Not if it's your kid breathing in that foul stuff.

And judging by the soot piling up on window sills in this working-
class corner of Chicago, which has long had to struggle with
abandoned industrial sites, illegal dumping and contaminated soil,
the sprinklers aren't doing the job.

Recently, Detroit Mayor Dave Bing ordered piles of petcoke removed
from that city.  If other measures don't work, Chicago should do
the same.

Until then, we won't be able to breathe easy.


LES ALIMENTS: Bouillon Mix Recalled Due to Allergen
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 7, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Fish, Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Les Aliments Rose Hill Foods Inc.
Distribution:             Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number:    8439

Affected products: 1.5 kg. Les Aliments Rose Hill Foods Inc.
Bouillon Mix Chicken G.P. with UPC 0 60612 57104 6


LEXISNEXIS: Lawyer Can't Bring Class Arbitration, 6th Cir. Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Beck, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that in a
case brought by a lawyer who objected to LexisNexis's billing
practices, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled
on Nov. 5 that the lawyer can't attempt to bring a class
arbitration, even if the governing arbitration contract is unfair.
The court relied primarily on the Supreme Court's June ruling in
American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant, in which the court
upheld a ban on class arbitrations that arguably precluded
plaintiffs from bringing individual claims.

The Sixth Circuit case was brought by Craig Crockett, a lawyer in
Forth Worth, Texas, who complained that LexisNexis should have
alerted him when he was about to incur additional fees by using a
database outside his plan.  He brought an arbitration action in
2010 seeking damages of more than $500 million on behalf of a
class.  Individually his damages were less than $5,000.  The user
contract, which required the arbitration of customer disputes, did
not address whether class arbitrations were allowed.

Reed Elsevier, which owns LexisNexis, sued Mr. Crocket in federal
court in Dayton, Ohio, seeking a declaration that the customer
agreement didn't permit class arbitration.  The district court
granted the company summary judgment.

Sixth Circuit Judge Raymond Kethledge, writing for a unanimous
panel, agreed with Mr. Crockett that the arbitration agreement
between LexisNexis and its customers is a one-sided contract of
adhesion.  "The clause favors LexisNexis at every turn, and as a
practical matter makes it economically unfeasible for Crockett or
any other customer to assert . . . individual claims," the judge
wrote.  The court noted that the contract required that all
arbitrations take place in Dayton, and that the customer pay his
own legal fees even if he wins.

Nonetheless, the court ruled that under the Supreme Court's recent
ruling in Italian Colors, it could not allow a class arbitration.
That case also involved a one-sided contract that favored American
Express, the court noted.  The court also rejected Crockett's
argument that the arbitrator, not the judge, should decide if
class claims are allowed.

The court suggested that market forces might provide a solution
for plaintiffs.  It noted that Westlaw's user agreement doesn't
have an arbitration clause.

Charles Faruki -- cfaruki@ficlaw.com -- of Dayton's Faruki,
Ireland & Cox represented Reed Elsevier.  "The Sixth Circuit got
it right," he told the Litigation Daily.  "What the Sixth Circuit
did is apply the teachings of the U.S. Supreme Court."  Asked
about the terms of the arbitration agreement, Mr. Faruki noted
that LexisNexis usually resolves its billing disputes without
litigation.  "LexisNexis has a long history of readily crediting
customer accounts when there is a dispute," he said.  He added
that in this case, the company had already given a credit for the
amount contested by Crockett.

Mr. Crockett's lawyer, Blair Fenterstock of Fenterstock & Partners
in New York, said he was disappointed in the ruling.  "Decisions
like this deprive small businesses of due process," he said.


MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls 2 SL Class Model Cars
--------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 4, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Airbag
Units affected:           2
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013382
TC ID number:             2013382

On certain vehicles, the front passenger seat Occupant
Classification System may malfunction and deactivate the front
passenger airbag while a person is seated in the front passenger
seat, illuminating the "PASSENGER AIRBAG OFF" warning light.  This
could result in the airbag not deploying when warranted in a
crash, increasing the risk of personal injury.

Dealers will verify the proper operation of the Occupant
Classification System, and affect repairs if necessary.

Affected products: 2013 Mercedes-Benz SL Class model


MIRAMICHI REGIONAL: Ches Crosbie Barristers Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Telegram reports that St. John's law firm Ches Crosbie
Barristers is pursuing a class-action lawsuit against Miramichi
Regional Hospital on behalf of colposcopy clinic patients between
May 1999 and May 24, 2013.  The lawsuit claims the clinic used
disinfected but unsterilized forceps for 14 years, exposing female
patients to a remote risk of contracting hepatitis B, hepatitis C,
and HIV.  Mr. Crosbie's firm is now waiting for a court ruling on
certification of the class to proceed with the action.

Mr. Crosbie is joining forces with Ray Wagner of Wagners personal
injury law firm in Halifax, Nova Scotia for the class action.

The plaintiffs argue that the hospital was negligent in its
failure to sterilize forceps when the hospital knew or ought to
have known to sterilize.  They also claim the hospital provided
improper or no training, inadequate supervision of employees in
sterilization procedures or didn't hire competent staff.  They
further allege the hospital didn't conduct timely periodic reviews
or audits of sterilization procedures and had no written procedure
in place for sterilization of forceps.  If there was a policy, the
plaintiffs argue, the hospital didn't ensure that it was read and
understood by staff.

The plaintiffs also say the defendant intentionally breached
confidentiality of medical information by sending registered
letters which identified patients as exposed to potential
infection.

"There is systematic dysfunction at Miramichi Hospital for this to
go on for 14 years," Mr. Crosbie said in a news release. "It's
outrageous and upsetting to patients.  Compensation for class
members will help prevent this type of large-scale error from
happening again."

Mr. Crosbie said the defendant waited nearly three months after
hospital administration discovered the error before contacting
class members to say they may have been treated with unsterilized
forceps.  The forceps were used to take gynecological biopsy
samples from women at the clinic.

According to Mr. Crosbie, at least 2,497 patients were treated
with unsterilized forceps.  The defendant revealed its failure to
sterilize forceps for 14 years in August, 2013.

More information on this class action lawsuit can be found online
at http://is.gd/U6i2I8


NURSERYLAND FOUNDATION: Nov. 15 Deadline to Comment on Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement was reached in the lawsuit over the June 25,
1998 Nurseryland Bus Crash, pending before the Lake Superior Court
County Division, in Gary, Indiana.

The class action lawsuit alleges that the defendants, Nurseryland
Foundation Inc., Kaleidoscope Child Development Center Inc.,
Bonita Jordan, and Franklin Gentry as personal representative of
the estate of Eloise Gentry, deceased, misrepresented
Nurseryland's financial condition and assets, and fraudulently
concealed funds which induced the plaintiffs to settle their
claims against Nurseryland and Sherwood Harris arising out of the
June 25, 1998 Nurseryland bus crash, and secretly and fraudulently
transferred or caused to be transferred $334,000 of Nurseryland's
funds that should have been paid to the plaintiffs.

Members of the class are those who suffered injuries or damages as
a result of the bus crash.

The salient terms of the settlement are:

     1. From the $462,670.82 that was being held pursuant to an
agreed preliminary injunction, the sum of $12,649 shall be paid to
Thom Kramer, Esq., as his attorney's fees and costs in defending
the class action;

     2. The remaining portion, roughly $450,021.82, plus all
accrued interest, shall be paid to the class and class counsel or
settlement amount.

     3. Class counsel will be paid attorney's fees of 33-1/3% of
the settlement amount plus reimbursement of litigation costs.

     4. Upon court approval of the deal, Kenneth J. Allen, Esq.,
and/or Kenneth J. Allen Law Group LLC have agreed to select and
donate to a charitable organization or ellimosynary educational
institution serving North Lake county residents an amount equal to
$38,489.19.

    5. After the deduction of class counsel's attorney's fees and
costs, the remaining portion of the settlement proceeds, less the
fees of the neutral, will be allocated by a neutral, the Hon.
Richard F. McDevitt, (Retired), among the class members who have
timely submitted a claim form.

     6. Once the deal is approved by the court, the class action
lawsuit will dismissed with prejudice.

Class members may comment on the settlement by Nov. 15, 2013.

Claim forms must be submitted to class counsel  by Nov. 29.

Class counsel:

     Kenneth J. Allen, Esq.
     Robert D. Brown, Esq.
     KENNETH J. ALLEN LAW GROUP LLC
     1109 Glendale Blvd
     Valparaiso, IN 46383
     Tel: 219-465-6292
     Fax: 219-477-5181


PALL CORP: Settlement in Derivative Suits v. D&Os Approved in July
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pall Corporation reported that in July 2013, the Court entered a
Final Order approving the Stipulation of Settlement in the Saxton
Derivative, the Hoadley Derivative and the Nadoff Derivative
actions, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
July 31, 2013.

In October 2007, two plaintiffs filed identical derivative
lawsuits in New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, relating to the
Company's understatement of certain of its U.S. income tax
payments and of its provision for income taxes in certain prior
periods.  These actions purported to bring claims on behalf of the
Company based on allegations that certain current and former
directors and officers of the Company breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to evaluate and otherwise inform themselves
about the Company's internal controls and financial reporting
systems and procedures. In addition, plaintiffs alleged that
certain officers of the Company were unjustly enriched as a result
of the Company's inaccurate financial results over fiscal years
1999-2006 and the first three quarters of fiscal year 2007. The
complaints sought unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of
the Company, disgorgement of defendants' salaries, bonuses, stock
grants and stock options, equitable relief and costs and expenses.
The Company, acting in its capacity as nominal defendant, moved to
dismiss the complaints for failure to make a demand upon the
Company's board of directors, which motions were granted on April
30 and May 2, 2008. On September 19, 2008, the same two plaintiffs
filed a derivative lawsuit in New York Supreme Court, Nassau
County, which was served on the Company on September 26, 2008 (the
"Saxton Derivative"). This action purported to bring claims on
behalf of the Company based on allegations that certain current
and former directors and officers of the Company breached their
fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched in connection with the
tax matter. In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that the board's
refusal of their demand to commence an action against the
defendants was not made in good faith. The plaintiffs and the
Company agreed to stay this proceeding.

In November 2008, a shareholder filed a derivative lawsuit in New
York Supreme Court, Nassau County, against certain current and
former directors and officers of the Company and against the
Company as nominal defendant (the "Hoadley Derivative"). The
Hoadley Derivative action purported to bring similar claims as the
Saxton Derivative. In January 2011, an additional shareholder
filed a derivative lawsuit in New York Supreme Court, Nassau
County, against certain current and former directors and officers
of the Company, and against the Company as nominal defendant (the
"Nadoff Derivative"). The action purported to bring claims on
behalf of the Company similar to those alleged in the Saxton and
Hoadley Derivative actions. The complaint sought damages, together
with various injunctive and declaratory relief.

In light of the settlement of the federal class action suit, the
Company and plaintiffs in the Saxton Derivative, the Hoadley
Derivative and the Nadoff Derivative actions began settlement
negotiations and entered into a Stipulation of Settlement in April
2013 (the "Stipulation of Settlement"). Under the terms of the
Stipulation of Settlement, the lawsuits would be dismissed with
prejudice, and the Company and all individual defendants would not
admit any liability and would receive a full and complete release
of all claims asserted against them in the litigation. In
exchange, the Company agreed to reaffirm and otherwise implement
certain general corporate governance and internal control goals
and principles and pay an aggregate of $1,250 in plaintiffs
attorneys' fees and expenses. Of the monetary payment to be made
on behalf of the Company and the individual defendants,
substantially all would be funded from insurance proceeds. In June
2013, the Court held a settlement hearing and approved the
Stipulation of Settlement. The Court entered a Final Order
approving the Stipulation of Settlement in July 2013. The Saxton
Derivative, the Hoadley Derivative and the Nadoff Derivative
actions are now closed.

Pall Corporation is a filtration, separation and purification
company. The Company is a supplier of filtration, separation and
purification technologies, principally made by the Company using
its engineering capability and fluid management, filter media, and
other fluid clarification and separations equipment for the
removal of solid, liquid and gaseous contaminants from a variety
of liquids and gases. The Company serves customers through two
businesses globally: Life Sciences and Industrial. The Life
Sciences business group is focused on developing, manufacturing
and selling products to customers in the Medical,
BioPharmaceuticals and Food & Beverage markets. The Industrial
business group is focused on developing, manufacturing and selling
products to customers in the Process Technologies, Aerospace and
Microelectronics markets. On August 1, 2012, the Company sold
certain assets of its blood collection, filtration and processing
product line (the Blood Sale).


PFIZER INC: Louisiana Files Suit Over Alleged Zoloft Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Bewig, writing for AllGov, reports that piggybacking on a
private class-action lawsuit, the state of Louisiana filed suit
against giant drug maker Pfizer (2012 revenues: $58.98 billion),
alleging that it defrauded the state by means of "false,
misleading, unfair, and deceptive acts in the marketing,
promotion, and sale" of the big-selling antidepressant Zoloft.
Filed by State Attorney General Buddy Caldwell, the complaint
contends that Pfizer knew early on that Zoloft was ineffective at
treating depression, but pushed for FDA approval anyway,
eventually causing Louisiana to spend millions of dollars via its
Medicaid program for a drug that does not work, according to the
complaint.

Zoloft, known generically as sertraline, is a selective serotonin
reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), as are Prozac, Paxil, Celexa and
others.  Serotonin is a neurotransmitter, a chemical that allows
nerve cells, including those in the brain, to communicate with one
another.  Scientific studies have found that people suffering from
depression tend to have low levels of serotonin.  SSRIs, including
Zoloft, raise serotonin levels in the brain, which researchers
believe should help to alleviate depression.

From the beginning, claims the complaint, Pfizer knew it had
"serious issues with efficacy," citing internal corporate memos
stating that during early trials "'there is still no striking
evidence of beneficial drug effect with placebo often being the
superior treatment.'"  Despite the poor early test results, Pfizer
chose to go forward with a request for FDA approval, but engaged
in deception and fraud to obtain it, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit claims that Pfizer pursued a two-prong approach,
publishing only data that supported Zoloft's efficacy and engaging
in a "ghostwriting program to misleadingly enhance Zoloft's
credibility."  Defining ghostwriting as "a process where someone
with a vested interest in an article, like Pfizer, that does not
want their association with the article to be known, provides a
written draft to an author who then publishes the article under
that author's name."  The complaint alleges that Pfizer realized
it could ensure Zoloft's success by "manufacturing 'research' and
articles that enhance Zoloft's safety and credibility."

Pfizer's campaign was well known at the time, and a 2003 article
in the British Journal of Psychiatry warned that "analyses of
published results on antidepressant studies in recent years have
made it clear that a considerable proportion of negative results
are not published, to the extent that the sponsorship of a
published study is now a demonstrable predictor of the findings of
that study."

Arguing that "Pfizer's ghostwriting operation and its selective
publication of data prevented healthcare providers, consumers, and
ultimately the State of Louisiana from obtaining accurate
information regarding the efficacy of Zoloft," the complaint
claims that Louisiana has been damaged by paying for Zoloft, a
form of Medicaid fraud.  The state seeks restitution, civil
penalties and damages for unfair trade, negligent
misrepresentation and fraud, and wants the court to order Pfizer
to stop selling Zoloft through misrepresentations.  Louisiana
Medicaid spent $974 million on prescription drug reimbursements in
2012, according to the lawsuit.

Louisiana's lawsuit is similar to a private class-action lawsuit
filed in January 2013 against Pfizer that makes substantially the
same factual allegations and cites many of the same internal
corporate documents.  Zoloft has also been linked to birth defects
in children whose mothers took the drug while pregnant, and there
are now more than 250 Zoloft lawsuits pending, many of which have
been consolidated in multidistrict litigation underway in
Pennsylvania.  Pfizer has a history of "pushing the envelope" when
it comes to aggressive drug marketing, and has paid large fines in
the past for its behavior.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Appeal From Dismissal of "Tatum" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of the class action lawsuit captioned
Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee of the R. J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan remains pending,
according to Reynolds American Inc.'s October 22, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended September 30, 2013.

In May 2002, in Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee
of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan, an
employee of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("RJR Tobacco") filed a
class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, alleging that the defendants, R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. ("RJR"), RJR Tobacco, the RJR
Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR Pension Investment
Committee, violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, referred to as ERISA.  The actions about which the plaintiff
complains stem from a decision made in 1999 by RJR Nabisco
Holdings Corp., subsequently renamed Nabisco Group Holdings Corp.
("NGH") to spin off RJR, thereby separating NGH's tobacco business
and food business.  As part of the spin-off, the 401(k) plan for
the previously related entities had to be divided into two
separate plans for the now separate tobacco and food businesses.
The plaintiff contends that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to participants of the RJR 401(k) plan when the
defendants removed the stock funds of the companies involved in
the food business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings Corp., referred to as
Nabisco, as investment options from the RJR 401(k) plan
approximately six months after the spin-off.  The plaintiff
asserts that a November 1999 amendment (the "1999 Amendment") that
eliminated the NGH and Nabisco funds from the RJR 401(k) plan on
January 31, 2000, contained sufficient discretion for the
defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds after
January 31, 2000, and that the failure to exercise such discretion
was a breach of fiduciary duty.  In his complaint, the plaintiff
requests, among other things, that the court require the
defendants to pay as damages to the RJR 401(k) plan an amount
equal to the subsequent appreciation that was purportedly lost as
a result of the liquidation of the NGH and Nabisco funds.

In July 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the
court granted in December 2003.  In December 2004, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the
complaint, holding that the 1999 Amendment did contain sufficient
discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco
funds as of February 1, 2000, and remanded the case for further
proceedings.  The court granted the plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint and denied all pending motions as moot.  In
April 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part,
dismissing all claims against the RJR Employee Benefits Committee
and the RJR Pension Investment Committee.  The remaining
defendants, RJR and RJR Tobacco, filed their answer and
affirmative defenses in June 2007.  The plaintiff filed a motion
for class certification, which the court granted in September
2008.  The district court ordered mediation, but no resolution of
the case was reached.  In September 2008, each of the plaintiffs
and the defendants filed motions for summary judgment, and in
January 2009, the defendants filed a motion to decertify the
class.  A second mediation occurred in June 2009, but again no
resolution of the case was reached.  The district court overruled
the motions for summary judgment and the motion to decertify the
class.

A non-jury trial was held in January and February 2010.  During
closing arguments, the plaintiff argued for the first time that
certain facts arising at trial showed that the 1999 Amendment was
not validly adopted, and then moved to amend his complaint to
conform to this evidence at trial.  On June 1, 2011, the court
granted the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and found
that the 1999 Amendment was invalid.

The parties filed their findings of fact and conclusions of law on
February 4, 2011.  On February 25, 2013, the district court
dismissed the case with prejudice.  On March 8, 2013, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.  Briefing is complete.  Oral
argument has not been scheduled.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of America
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Awaits Appellate Ruling in "Lights" Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. is awaiting a court decision in an appeal
from the dismissal of "Lights" Cases, according to the Company's
October 22, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2013.

"Lights" class-action cases are pending against R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company ("RJR Tobacco") or Brown & Williamson Holdings,
Inc. ("B&W") in Illinois (2) and Missouri (2).  The classes in
these cases generally seek to recover $50,000 to $75,000 per class
member for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other
forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco
and/or B&W.  In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or
B&W made false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were
lower in tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less
mutagenic than other cigarettes.  The cases typically are filed
pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes.

Many of these "lights" cases were stayed pending review of the
Good v. Altria Group, Inc. case by the U.S. Supreme Court.  In
that "lights" class-action case against Altria Group, Inc. and
Philip Morris USA, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that these
claims are not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and
Advertising Act or by the Federal Trade Commission's, referred to
as FTC, historic regulation of the industry.  Since this decision
in December 2008, a number of the stayed cases have become active
again.

The seminal "lights" class-action case involves RJR Tobacco's
competitor, Philip Morris, Inc. Trial began in Price v. Philip
Morris, Inc. in January 2003.  In March 2003, the trial judge
entered judgment against Philip Morris in the amount of $7.1
billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive
damages.  Based on Illinois law, the bond required to stay
execution of the judgment was set initially at $12 billion.
Philip Morris pursued various avenues of relief from the $12
billion bond requirement.  On December 15, 2005, the Illinois
Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and sent the
case back to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the
case.  On December 5, 2006, the trial court granted the
defendant's motion to dismiss and for entry of final judgment.
The case was dismissed with prejudice the same day.

In December 2008, the plaintiffs filed a petition for relief from
judgment, stating that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Good
v. Altria Group, Inc. rejected the basis for the reversal.  The
trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' petition for relief from judgment in February 2009.
In March 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth Judicial District, requesting a
reversal of the February 2009 order and remand to the circuit
court.  On February 24, 2011, the appellate court entered an
order, concluding that the two-year time limit for filing a
petition for relief from a final judgment began to run when the
trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' lawsuit on December 18,
2006.  The appellate court therefore found that the petition was
timely, reversed the order of the trial court, and remanded the
case for further proceedings.  Philip Morris filed a petition for
leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.  On September 28,
2011, the Illinois Supreme Court denied Philip Morris's petition
for leave to appeal and returned the case to the trial court for
further proceedings.  In December 2012, the trial court denied the
plaintiffs' petition for relief from the judgment.  The plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth
Judicial District.  Oral argument was scheduled for October 23,
2013.

In the event R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and its affiliates or
indemnitees lose one or more of the pending "lights" class-action
lawsuits, RJR Tobacco could face bonding difficulties depending
upon the amount of damages ordered, if any, which could have a
material adverse effect on RJR Tobacco's, and consequently RAI's,
results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of America
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Awaits Order on Bid to Amend "Villarreal" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. is awaiting a court decision on Richard
Villarreal's motion to amend his complaint, according to the
Company's October 22, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2013.

In Richard Villarreal v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed
June 6, 2012, the plaintiff filed a collective action complaint
against R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Pinstripe, Inc., and
CareerBuilder, LLC, in the U.S. District Court, Northern District
of Georgia.  The complaint alleges unlawful discrimination with
respect to the hiring of individuals to fill entry-level regional
sales positions in violation of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act (29 U.S.C. Section 621, et seq.).  Although the
complaint is currently a single plaintiff case, the complaint
seeks collective/class action status.  RJR Tobacco's and
Pinstripe's motion for partial dismissal was granted on March 6,
2013, thereby eliminating the plaintiff's disparate impact claim
and limiting the relevant time period for both the plaintiff's
claims and potential class claims.  RJR Tobacco and Pinstripe
filed answers to the remaining disparate treatment claim on
March 20, 2013.  Defendant CareerBuilder was dismissed with
prejudice on September 25, 2012.  The plaintiff filed a motion to
amend the complaint on March 28, 2013, which RJR Tobacco and
Pinstripe opposed.  The motion has been fully briefed and the
parties are now awaiting a ruling from the court.  Discovery has
been stayed until 30 days after the court rules on the motion to
amend.  The plaintiff must wait to file a motion for class
certification until 30 days after the commencement of discovery.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of America
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Feb. 3 Status Conference in "Black" Suit Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
A status conference is scheduled for February 3, 2014, in the
class action lawsuit captioned Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp., according to Reynolds American Inc.'s October 22, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended September 30, 2013.

In Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., a case filed in
November 2000 in Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, Brown
& Williamson Holdings, Inc. ("B&W") removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.  The
plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which was granted in March
2006.  In April 2008, the court stayed the case pending U.S.
Supreme Court review in Good v. Altria Group, Inc.  A nominal
trial date of January 10, 2011, was scheduled, but it did not
proceed at that time.  A status conference is scheduled for
February 3, 2014.

In the event R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and its affiliates or
indemnitees lose one or more of the pending "lights" class-action
lawsuits, RJR Tobacco could face bonding difficulties depending
upon the amount of damages ordered, if any, which could have a
material adverse effect on RJR Tobacco's, and consequently RAI's,
results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of America
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Hearing in "Smith" Suit Set for December 11
--------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing is scheduled for December 11, 2013, in the class action
lawsuit titled Smith v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., according to
Reynolds American Inc.'s October 22, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2013.

In Smith v. Philip Morris Cos., Inc., a case filed in February
2000, and pending in District Court, Seward County, Kansas, the
court granted class certification in November 2001, in an action
brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ("RJR Tobacco") and Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc. ("B&W"), and the parent companies of the
major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Holdings, Inc. ("RJR"), seeking to recover an unspecified
amount in actual and punitive damages.  The plaintiffs allege that
the defendants participated in a conspiracy to fix or maintain the
price of cigarettes sold in the United States.  In an opinion
dated March 23, 2012, the court granted summary judgment in favor
of RJR Tobacco and B&W on the plaintiffs' claims.  On July 18,
2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.  Briefing is
complete.  A hearing is scheduled for December 11, 2013.

Headquartered in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Reynolds American
Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company
whose operating subsidiaries cigarette manufacturer R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company; smokeless tobacco products manufacturer American
Snuff Company, LLC; super-premium cigarette brand manufacturer,
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. (SFNTC); and Niconovum AB.

On July 30, 2004, the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation, now known as Brown &
Williamson Holdings, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of
British American Tobacco p.l.c., were combined with R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company, a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI.
As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns
approximately 42% of RAI's outstanding common stock.  In 2006,
RAI, through a subsidiary, completed its acquisition of America
Snuff Co. and Rosswil, LLC.


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Travel Companies File Suit Over Hotel Taxes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Max Taves, writing for The Recorder, reports that emboldened by
recent wins, several online travel companies including Hotels.com,
Orbitz and Priceline.com are once again brawling with the City of
San Francisco over their tax bills.

In a series of suits filed on Nov. 5, the companies challenge the
city's authority to charge them so-called transient occupancy
taxes historically levied against hotels.  The suits, which seek
amnesty from tens of millions in city taxes assessed on
reservations between 2007 and 2011, are the latest bout in a
battle by the travel sites to get out from under hotel taxes
imposed by various municipalities.

Last month, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle ordered
San Francisco to refund approximately $74 million for taxes
assessed against online booking sites for hotel reservations
between 2000 and 2008.

Judge Berle ruled that San Francisco as well as Los Angeles and
San Diego had illegally charged the sites a transient occupancy
tax, or TOT.  In June 2012, while that litigation was pending,
San Francisco issued its new assessment against the travel sites.

Expedia Inc., Hotels.com, Hotwire Inc., Priceline.com Inc., Orbitz
and Travelocity.com insist they don't owe a dime.  But with the
growing popularity of online hotel booking and millions of tax
dollars at stake, San Francisco -- and other cities -- are
unlikely to relent.

San Francisco is appealing Judge Berle's judgment and will fight
the new suits, said Owen Clements, chief of special litigation for
the Office of the City Attorney.

"Not only do we think it's winnable as a matter of law, but it
makes no sense as a business model," said Mr. Clements.  "It
erodes the tax base of the city."

Still, he conceded, "The rulings have not gone our way yet."

In their complaints, lawyers for the travel sites liken their
clients' businesses to third-party merchants like travel agents
and tour operators.  "Travelocity does not own any hotels," the
company's complaint states.  "It does not lease, rent or furnish,
and cannot lease, rent or furnish, sleeping accommodations to any
guests at any hotel in the City of San Francisco or elsewhere."

Travelocity is represented by Brian Stanger --
brian.stagner@kellyhart.com -- and J. Chad Arnette --
chad.arnette@kellyhart.com -- partners at Kelly Hart & Hallman,
and Nathaniel Currall, an associate at K&L Gates.  "Travelocity's
role," they assert, "is limited to serving as an intermediary."

San Francisco has not made other intermediaries in the travel
business pay hotel taxes and the city is re-interpreting the
language of the tax to capitalize on the success of online travel
sites, argue attorneys for the companies.

"By its plain terms, the ordinance imposes an obligation to
collect TOT only upon persons 'operating a hotel in the City and
County of San Francisco,'" wrote Jones Day partner Brian Hershman
-- bhershman@jonesday.com -- lead lawyer for Hotels.com.  "The tax
collector's conclusion that Hotels.com is liable to collect TOT
even though it neither owns nor manages nor otherwise operates any
hotels within the City is erroneous."

Calling the city's taxation unconstitutional, Mr. Hershman wrote
that San Francisco cannot reinterpret a "long-standing position
and expand definitions of 'operator' and 'rent' to cover conduct
that was never contemplated by the ordinance without first seeking
and obtaining voter approval."

Jones Day also represents Hotwire and Expedia.  A team at Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom is making the case for Priceline.com.
Orbitz is represented by attorneys at McDermott Will & Emery.

So far, those sites have the law on their side.  In addition to
Judge Berle's recent judgment, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge
Carolyn Kuhl ruled the sites were not obligated to pay hotel taxes
in Anaheim or Santa Monica.  Judge Kuhl's rulings were later
affirmed by an appellate court, and the California Supreme Court
denied a request to review the decision.

Pointing to differences in its ordinance, San Francisco stands a
better chance than the other cities, says Mr. Clements.

"We think the San Francisco ordinance is significantly different
than the other cases that have been ruled on," he said. "Some
ordinances have language that [target] what the hotels collect.
We believe we are taxing everything the occupant pays.  It's
imposed on the occupant, not on the hotel."

But, says Mr. Clements, "So far, Judge Berle hasn't agreed with
that."


TEN THOUSAND VILLAGES: Recalls Sasha Scarves Due to Fire Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 6, 2013
Posting date:             November 6, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Clothing and Accessories
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Flammability Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-36613

Affected products: Sasha Scarf #6804062

The recall involves a scarf made by Sasha Export and Craft
Producers and sold by Ten Thousand Villages Canada.  This yellow,
aqua and burgandy colored scarf is made from 100% cotton and can
be identified by the SKU #6804062.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has revealed that
this scarf, manufactured with loosely woven 100% cotton, does not
meet the flammability requirements for Textiles under the Canadian
Law.

Neither Health Canada nor Ten Thousand Villages Canada has
received reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of
the affected product in Canada.

Approximately 175 units of the recalled product were sold across
Canada.

The recalled scarves were manufactured in India and sold at Ten
Thousand Village Canada stores and on-line from February 2012 to
October 2013.

Companies:

  Distributor     Ten Thousand Villages Canada
                  New Hamburg
                  Ontario
                  Canada

Consumers should stop using this recalled scarf and return it to
the nearest Ten Thousand Villages store for a full refund.


TEVA: Wohl & Fruchter Mulls Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Shiri Habib-Valdhorn, writing for Globes, reports that a US law
firm which specializes in representing investors in cases of
fraud, breach of trust, and improper conduct by companies, quickly
responded on Nov. 1 to the recent events at Teva.

"We are investigating possible violations of federal securities
laws by officers and directors of Teva," says Wohl & Fruchter LLP,
a New York law firm.  It did not mention what conduct by Teva
raised its suspicions about possible breaches of federal
securities law, but it gave a timeline of events at Teva since Dr.
Jeremy Levin was appointed CEO in January 2012 until the
announcement of his departure last week.

Wohl & Fruchter notes the fall in Teva's share price following the
announcement of Levin's departure, and calls on people with
relevant information, and Teva shareholders with questions about
the investigation, to contact the firm.

Investigations by law firms ahead of possible class-action suits
against public companies in the US are common.

Wohl & Fruchter's website says that the firm has opened
investigations against 23 companies in the past six months,
including Barbie manufacturer Mattel Inc. and E*TRADE Financial
Corporation.


TRITAP FOOD: Recalls Various Minuet Snack Products
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 9, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Tritap Food Brokers
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Affected products:

   -- 340g (4 x 85g) Minuet Assorted Sandwich Cream Cookies
      (Cocoa, Strawberry, Banana, and Vanilla) with UPC number:
      6 61625 77485 3;

   -- 96 g. Minuet Coconutter with P.D:07/2013 E.D:01/2015 code
      and UPC number: 6 61625 12896 0;

   -- 78 g. Minuet Roundies with P.D:01/12/2012 E.D:01/12/2013
      code and UPC number: 6 61625 86080 8;

   -- 120 g. Minuet Tartlets Strawberry with PD.07.01.2013
      ED.07.07.2014 code and UPC number: 6 61625 22120 3;

   -- 230 g. Minuet Tea Time Biscuits-Plain with PD.08.2013
      ED.02.2015 code and UPC number: 6 61625 23230 8

The Food Recall Warning issued on October 29, 2013 has been
updated to include additional products.  This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Tritap Food Brokers is recalling Minuet brand snack products from
the marketplace because they contain egg and milk which are not
declared on the label.  People with an allergy to egg and/or milk
should not consume the recalled products described below.

If you have an allergy to egg or milk, do not consume the recalled
product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.

The recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
test results.  The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation,
which may lead to the recall of other products.  If other high-
risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the public through
updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.


UNITED STATES: Judge Orders NSA to Respond to Class Action Motions
------------------------------------------------------------------
After Larry Klayman and other plaintiffs filed motions for
preliminary injunction against the NSA and other government and
corporate defendants in his class action suits (13-cv-881, 13-cv-
851) concerning the agency's growing spy scandal, the Honorable
Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia rejected the Obama Justice Department's request to delay
the proceedings and ordered the NSA to respond to the motions by
November 11, with plaintiffs being accorded an opportunity to
reply on November 14.  Importantly, Judge Leon set a hearing date
of November 18 to hear oral argument and possibly rule on the
motions to order the cessation of the NSA's PRISM program, which
has accessed and allegedly unconstitutionally violated the private
communications of over 300 million Americans.

In issuing his rulings, Judge Leon warned the Obama Justice
Department and its NSA client that he expects this case to move
forward quickly given its national importance.  He warned the
government's legal team not to seek delay, admonishing that "we
work 24/7 around this courthouse.  I don't want to hear anything
about vacations, weddings, days off.  Forget about it.  This is a
case at the pinnacle of public national interest, pinnacle.  All
hands 24/7.  No excuses.  You got a team of lawyers.  Mr. Klayman
is alone apparently.  You have litigated cases in this courthouse
when it is matters of this consequence and enormity.  You know how
this Court operates."

Mr. Klayman stated: "We are heartened by the judge's admonitions
to the Obama Justice Department lawyers.  Never before in American
history have the people been subjected to such egregious
violations of their constitutional rights, designed to coerce them
into submission, as our so-called government leaders continue to
take down the nation with their indifference to the people's
grievances and their tyrannical rule.  These class action lawsuits
are intended to have the courts order an end to this
administration's tyranny."

The hearing of November 18th will occur ironically just one day
before the Reclaim America Now Coalition in Washington, D.C.


VANS INC: Recalls Boy's Hooded Jackets Over Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Vans Inc., of Cypress, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of
about 2,400 boy's hooded jackets.  Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The jackets have drawstrings in the hood around the neck area that
pose a strangulation hazard to young children.  In February 1996,
CPSC issued guidelines about drawstrings in children's upper
outerwear.  In 1997, those guidelines were incorporated into a
voluntary standard.  Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines
and voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation.  CPSC's
actions demonstrate a commitment to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on neck and waist drawstrings in
upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves Vans' AV Edict hooded jackets for boys.  They
were sold in boy's sizes S, M, L and XL and made from black cotton
or black canvas with a drawstring through the hood.  "Vans" is
printed on a tab above the jacket's left front pocket.  An
intertwined "AV" logo is embroidered in black beneath the lower
right pocket and also appears on the jacket's snaps.  "Vans" "OFF
THE WALL" and an intertwined "AV" logo is sewn on a label inside
neck of the jacket.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/vjNn4D

The recalled products were manufactured in India and sold at Vans
stores nationwide and online at vans.com from September 2012
through September 2013 for about $90.

Consumers should take the recalled jackets away from children and
return them to the place of purchase for a full refund or for a
repair.


WELLS FARGO: Facing Force-Placed Insurance Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------
Zoll, Kranz & Borgess LLC, along with co-counsel at Squitieri &
Fearon LLP, have launched class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo
in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western
Division.  The complaint is titled Ashley L. Swain, individually
and as a representative of the class, Plaintiff, v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Inc., and Wells Frgo
Insurance Inc., and alleges that the defendants committed an
unlawful scheme involving force-placed insurance.  Specifically,
Wells Fargo scammed unsuspecting homeowners by demanding that they
pay for excessive fl ood insurance for their property that was not
required by their mortgage agreement or the law.  The complaint
was filed Aug. 8, 2013, and the plaintiffs demand for jury trial.

The attorneys at Zoll Kranz are also investigating similar alleged
misconduct by other banks and mortgage servicers.

In a published notice, Zoll Kranz said "force-placed insurance
class action lawsuits have been filed against insurers and banks
for force-placed insurance (also known as creditor-placed, lender-
placed or collateral protection insurance).  If a flood or other
insurance policy was placed on your home by a lender, bank or loan
servicer who deemed your insurance to be insufficient, you may be
entitled to compensation."

The Ohio-based firm may be reached at:

     David Zoll, Esq.
     Pamela Borgess, Esq.
     Carasusana B. Wall, Esq.
     ZOLL, KRANZ & BORGESS LLC
     6620 W. Central Ave.
     Toledo, OH 43617
     Tel: 419-841-9623
     Fax: 419-841-9719
     E-mail: david@toledolaw.com
             pamela@toledolaw.com
             cara@toledolaw.com

          - and -

     Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq.
     Caitlin Duffy, Esq.
     SQUITIERI & FEARON LLP
     32 East 57th Street, 12th Flr
     New York, NY 10022
     Tel: 212-421-6492
     Fax: 212-421-6553
     E-mail: Stephen@sfclasslaw.com
             Caitlin@sfclasslaw.com

On the Net: http://www.zkblaw.com


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Trial Begins in Hoover Retirees' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The CantonRep reports that a class-action lawsuit over whether
Whirlpool can change the health benefits it provides to retired
Hoover Co. workers was set to go to trial on Nov. 3 before a
federal judge in Youngstown, Ohio.

The outcome of the bench trial was expected to affect
approximately 1,500 workers (and their spouses) who retired from
Hoover and its successors, Maytag and Whirlpool, between 1980 and
2007.  A group of retirees filed the case in 2011 after Whirlpool
announced it was changing its health insurance benefits.

Specifically, Whirlpool told Medicare-eligible retirees that the
company no longer would provide supplemental health benefits and
was increasing the co-payments for prescription drug benefits.
The company informed Hoover retirees who were not eligible for
Medicare that their benefits also would change.

The retirees cried foul.  They argue the benefits are guaranteed
by a series of collective bargaining agreements between Hoover and
the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers that go back
to 1980.

U.S. District Court Judge Benita Y. Pearson was set to hear
evidence about the agreements covering groups of workers who
retired during three distinct windows:

        1980 to 1983
        1993 to 2003
        2003 to 2007

In August, Judge Pearson tossed out the claims of workers who
retired between 1983 and 1992, ruling that the collective
bargaining agreements didn't obligate Hoover, Maytag or Whirlpool
to provide them with health insurance.

Whirlpool acquired Hoover during a 2006 merger with Maytag, which
had purchased Hoover in 1989.  Although Whirlpool turned around
and sold the Hoover floor-care business to Techtronic Industries,
Whirlpool retained the health-insurance liabilities for workers
who retired before the sale closed in January 2007, according to a
prior ruling in the case. Whirlpool has said it has the right to
change or terminate those benefits at any time.

Brian Zimmerman, one of the attorneys representing the retirees,
said the former Hoover workers are in a vulnerable position and
would have no way to replace the health benefits if they are taken
away.

The proposed changes were to take effect in January 2013, but the
company has agreed to continue the current benefits through early
2014.


                             *********

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  * * *