CAR_Public/131119.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, November 19, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 229

                             Headlines


ACCESS GROUP: Faces "Berg" Suit Alleging Breach of Contract
ACT INC: Sells Students' Info and Social Security Nos., Suit Says
ALL PLUMBING: Entitled to Indemnification in FDS Class Action
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Faces Employee Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
ALTERNA HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Caviar Anti-Aging Shampoo

BARNETT OUTDOORS: Faces Suit Over Crossbow Design Defects
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Adverse Event Reports Filed With FDA Over Essure
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Pa. Woman Sues Over Mirena Implant Injuries
BIMBO BAKERIES: Fails to Pay Prevailing Minimum Wages, Suit Says
BIOMET INC: Stevensons & Koskie Minsky Launch Class Action

BLACKBERRY LTD: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in N.Y.
BLUE CROSS: Obtains Unfavorable Ruling in ERISA Class Action
BP PLC: Settlement Modifications Set to Be Presented on Dec. 2
BRYAN CHEVROLET: Faces Suit Over Power Steering Defect
C&S WHOLESALE: Awarded Monetary Sanctions in "Bicek" Suit

CAMDEN COUNTY, NJ: Sued by Law Enforcement Officers Over OT Wages
CAROLINA STATE PLASTERING: Attorneys Probed in Stucco Suit
CELTIC TIGER: Class Seeks Unpaid OT and Spread-of-Hours Wages
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Unhappy Banking Asks CEO on Indemnity Issue
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Okays Consent Order Modification

EBAY INC: Has Initial Approval of $95,000 Deal in Suit Over Fees
ERGO BABY: Accused of Falsely Advertising Baby Carrier Product
GALLUP INC: Violates Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Suit Says
GARDEN-FRESH FOODS: Halts Production Following Product Recalls
GENERAL NUTRITION: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Meal Bars

GEORGIA PACIFIC: Disputes Carpenter's Asbestos-Mesothelioma Suit
GIANT EAGLE: Recalls Two Products Over Health Concerns
GOOGLE INC: Halt Sales of New Chrombook 11 on Overheating Issue
HONG YEE INC: Sued by Busboys, Others Over Unpaid Overtime Fees
JM MANUFACTURING: AG Hails Jury Verdict in Defective Pipe Suit

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 11 Pelvic Mesh Actions Remanded to N.J. Court
KIDS WISH: Accused of Distributing Fraction of Donations Received
L'OREAL: Class Action Settlement Fails to Get Final Approval
LASALLE COUNTY, IL: Sheriff Faces Class Action Over Strip-Search
LENNOX AIR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Air Conditioners

LENOVO US: Suit Challenges Alleged Deceptive Notebook Marketing
MA LABORATORIES: Court Tosses Bid to Amend "Lou" Class Action
MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Seeks Consolidation of 12 Class Suits
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Must Face "Keller" Claims Over Image Rights
NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE: Judge Dismisses Subrogation Class Action

NEW ZEALAND: Homeowners Mull Group Action v. Earthquake Commission
NOEL'S PAINTING: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
NQ MOBILE: Exaggerates Performance, China Market Share, Suit Says
NQ MOBILE: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action in N.Y.
OIL STATES: Accused of Not Correctly Paying Oil Field Workers' OT

OPERATING ENGINEERS UNION: Called Hotbed of Corruption by Members
ORRIOS CONSTRUCTIONS: Fails to Pay Regular & OT Wages, Suit Says
PHILIP MORRIS: Marlboro Lights Suit Gets Class Action Status
PILOT FLYING J: Settlement Fairness Hearing Deadline Looms
PREMIER BEVERAGE: Did Not Pay All Overtime Hours, Suit Claims

PRETIUM RESOURCES: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action
SECURITAS SECURITY: Mislabels Annual Bonus Program, Suit Claims
SYMMETRICOM INC: Being Sold to Microsemi Too Cheaply, Suit Says
TESLA MOTORS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in California
US HEALTH DEP'T: Sued by Christian Employers Over Abortion Drugs

WACHOVIA BANK: Faces Nationwide Residential Mortgage Loans Suit
WELLS FARGO: Plaintiff Appealed Dismissal of "Singleton" Suit
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Attorneys Dismiss Class Action Over Cancer Cluster

* House Votes to Tighten Asbestos Claim Disclosure Requirements
* Italy Introduces Class Action Law After Legislative Process


                             *********


ACCESS GROUP: Faces "Berg" Suit Alleging Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tamara Berg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Access Group, Inc., PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.
and Kentucky Higher Education Student Loan Corporation, Case No.
2:13-cv-05980-RBS (E.D. Pa., October 11, 2013) asserts claim for
breach of contract.

By breaching the Loan Contracts entered into by the Plaintiff and
the other loan contracts entered into by Class members, the
Defendants caused the Plaintiff and Class Members to receive less
money than they bargained for in their respective contracts, or to
repay or be charged more money, including principal and
capitalized interest, than they were required to pay or rightfully
be charged under the contracts, Ms. Berg alleges.  She adds that
the Defendants mislead the Class Members into believing that the
loans were in fact guaranteed and that the charged guarantee
payments were sent to third-party guarantors.

Access Group is a Delaware nonprofit corporation headquartered in
West Chester, Pennsylvania.  The Company provided graduate and
professional students education financing through 2008.  PNC
Financial Services Group, Inc. operates as a diversified financial
services company in the United States and internationally.  In
addition to traditional banking services, PNC offers lending
products, like secured and unsecured loans and letters of credit.
Kentucky Higher Education Student Loan Corporation is an
independent de jure municipal corporation and political
subdivision of the Commonwealth of Kentucky that provides
education loans for students and parents.  KHESLC is located in
Louisville, Kentucky.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
          Ruben Honik, Esq.
          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          GOLOMB & HONIK, PC
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 985-9177
          E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com
                  rhonik@golombhonik.com
                  kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com

               - and -

          Allen Carney, Esq.
          Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200
          Little Rock, Arkansas 72212
          Telephone: (501) 312-8500
          E-mail: acarney@cbplaw.com
                  rpulliam@cpblaw.com


ACT INC: Sells Students' Info and Social Security Nos., Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that ACT and
The College Board sell high school students' personal information,
including Social Security numbers, to third parties at 33 cents a
head, a class action claims in Illinois Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Rachel Specter sued ACT Inc. and The College Board,
the company behind the SAT and Advanced Placement tests.

ACT and The College Board administer the ACT and SAT tests to more
than 1.6 million high school students each year, the complaint
states.  For college-bound students, taking the ACT or SAT is not
optional, the complaint states.

"In the regular course of their business, defendants obtain and
possess a consumer's PII [personally identifiable information],
such as their name, home address, self-reported grade point
averages, educational background, interests, date of birth, test
scores, Social Security number, phone number, etc.," Specter says
in the lawsuit.

"The defendants deceived the plaintiff and the class by masking
the sale of the plaintiff and class' PII under the guise of
'sharing,' i.e., the defendants ask whether the plaintiff and
class (who at the time were under the age of majority) would like
their PII 'shared' with other outside agencies.  In reality, the
defendants 'sell' the plaintiff's and class' PII for substantial
profit -- on information and belief approximately $.33 per
student, per buyer -- to hundreds if not thousands of 'buyers' per
year who purchase the plaintiff's and class' PII from the
defendants.  In some instances, the defendants sell the PII to
organizations whose purpose it is to re-sell the lists to
additional third parties."

The ACT requires a student to affirmatively opt out of the sharing
program, while the SAT's opt-in approach allegedly induces minor
students to allow their information to be shared with third
parties.

"The fact that SAT sells the plaintiff's and class' information to
third parties for monetary gain is at no time disclosed to the
plaintiff or class," Specter claims.

She concludes: "The PII of the plaintiff and class is of the sort
that both the United States Congress and the Illinois State
Legislature have sought fit to protect and secure from disclosure,
let alone sale for monetary gain.  The defendants engaged in said
conduct for purposes of circumventing these laws with one goal in
mind: profit."

Specter seeks class damages of more than $5 million for breach of
contract, misappropriation of confidential information, unjust
enrichment, and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud &
Deceptive Business Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry D. Drury, Esq.
          LARRY D. DRURY, LTD.
          100 N. LaSalle St., Suite 1010
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 346-7950
          E-mail: ldrurylaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Robert Aaron Langendorf, Esq.
          ROBERT A. LANGENDORF AND ASSOCIATES
          134 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1515
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 782-5933
          E-mail: rlangendorf@comcast.net

The case is Specter v. ACT, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-07701,
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.


ALL PLUMBING: Entitled to Indemnification in FDS Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. ALL PLUMBING, INC.
SERVICE, PARTS INSTALLATION, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO.
12-851 (CKK), (D.D.C.) seeks a declaratory judgment that the
Plaintiff owes no duty to defend or indemnify All Plumbing and
Shafik in connection with a class action lawsuit filed by FDS
Restaurants against All Plumbing and Shafik in the Superior Court
for the District of Columbia.  Presently before the Court are the
Defendant's and the Plaintiff's Cross-Motions for Summary
Judgment.

District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly granted the Defendant's
motion and denied the Plaintiff's motion for Summary Judgment.

The Court concluded that Cincinnati Insurance failed to properly
reserve its rights upon assuming the defense of All Plumbing and
Shafik and is, thus, now precluded from disclaiming coverage of
any judgment in FDS' action against All Plumbing and Shafik.

A copy of the District Court's October 18, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
is available at http://is.gd/VZZd7ffrom Leagle.com.


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Faces Employee Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Lombardozzi, Individually and On behalf of all other
similarly situated persons v. Allscripts Healthcare, LLC, Case No.
5:13-cv-00715-BO (E.D.N.C., October 14, 2013) accuses the
Defendant of requiring the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees to work more than 40 hours a week, but it has not paid
them overtime wages for all the hours they worked over 40 in a
week.

Allscripts Healthcare, LLC, is a North Carolina domestic limited
liability company headquartered in Chicago Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse Rose, Esq.
          PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC
          45 Broadway, Suite 620
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 248-7431
          Facsimile: (917) 831-4595
          E-mail: JRose@TPGlaws.com

               - and -

          Robert O. Crawford, III, Esq.
          CRAWFORD & CRAWFORD, LLP
          6500 Creedmoor Road, Suite 104
          Raleigh, NC 27613
          Telephone: (919) 510-8140
          Facsimile: (919) 785-4152
          E-mail: bcrawford@crawfordlaw.biz


ALTERNA HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Caviar Anti-Aging Shampoo
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ann Kenney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Alterna Holdings Corp., a Delaware corporation; and
Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. BC525820 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., October 28, 2013) alleges that the Defendants made
false claims that its "Alterna Caviar Anti-Aging Shampoo" can
"combat aging" of hair.

Alterna is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Wilmington.
Alterna offers the Product for sale through various channels,
including the Internet and a variety of retailers, beauty supply
stores, drugstores, and the like, throughout the nation.  The true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are presently unknown
to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul D. Stevens, Esq.
          MILSTEIN ADELMAN, LLP
          2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (310) 396-9600
          Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
          E-mail: info@milsteinadelman.com


BARNETT OUTDOORS: Faces Suit Over Crossbow Design Defects
---------------------------------------------------------
Steve Horrell, writing for The Edwardsville Intelligencer, reports
that four crossbow hunters, who each suffered a severe injury to
his thumb on separate hunting trips, claim that the bow's
manufacturer was negligent for overlooking serious design defects
in the weapons.

The hunters are represented by Jason D. Johnson, an attorney with
HeplerBroom LLC, of Edwardsville.  He filed a nine-count suit on
Oct. 30 in Madison County Circuit Court, against Barnett Outdoors;
Rural King Holding Co.; Cabela's Inc.; and Dunham's Athleisure
Corp.

Barnett began making and selling crossbows about 30 years ago and
has sold more than a million to date.  Mr. Johnson claims that
Barnett was aware that users could be injured if their thumb or
finger got in the path of the string but chose not to include a
thumb guard or other inexpensive design elements.

The suit also claims that to the extent that Barnett had any
warnings in its owner's manual, "those warnings were ineffective
because the Barnett crossbows were designed such that a user could
very easily and accidentally place their fingers or thumb into the
path of the string."  Furthermore, the bows were designed to be
fired while the user is looking down range through a scope, which
draws the user's attention to the target, not the user's front
hand, according to the suit.

One of the plaintiffs, Joseph Ciechanowski, of Etowah, Tenn., was
injured Nov. 5, 2012 while deer hunting in Michigan. He claims
that as he was firing, the bow string violently struck and cut
into his left thumb, "causing a fracture to the bone in his left
thumb and an avulsion of his thumb nail," according to the suit.

David Dougherty injured his thumb in a hunting accident in his
home state of New Jersey.  His injury was nearly identical to
Mr. Ciechanowski's.  A third plaintiff, Don Buonamici was injured
in a hunting accident in his home state of Ohio.  Robert Long, of
Pontiac, Ill., was injured while hunting in Illinois.

The suit seeks in excess of $50,000 on nine counts, including
product liability, consumer fraud, breach of warranty, and willful
and wanton conduct.


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Adverse Event Reports Filed With FDA Over Essure
------------------------------------------------------------------
10News.com reports that since 2004, almost 850 women and doctors
have filed Adverse Event Reports with the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) about Essure birth control.

They detail extreme symptoms -- from women experiencing excess
bleeding, rashes and bloating to women who were forced to have
their reproductive organs removed.

Now, Team 10 learned of a new Adverse Event Report filed with the
FDA just weeks ago regarding Essure.  It details a woman's death
after she was admitted to the hospital for abdominal pain.  She
had the Essure coils implanted this year, but it has not been
determined what caused her death.

                   'The Latest and Greatest'

San Diego mother Shelly Towndrow chose to get the Essure birth
control device because she said her doctor made it seem so easy.

"I was just ready to get off birth control and wanted a non-
hormonal form of birth control," said Ms. Towndrow.

Amanda Holt of Phoenix saw a lot of positives when she decided to
get Essure as a permanent form of birth control.

"I have three children.  I work at lightning speed.  And when
someone told me that I can go in and get this procedure done and
then go back to work that afternoon or the next morning, I'm like,
'Absolutely! Sign me up!'" she said.

They say they were told that Essure would be cheaper, faster and
less invasive than getting their tubes tied.

During the Essure procedure, small metal coils are implanted
inside the fallopian tubes to block conception.  But now, after
years of painful side-effects, many women like Ms. Towndrow say
Essure has turned into a nightmare.

Thousands of women like them have taken to social media.  There
are private and public Facebook groups dedicated to issues with
Essure where thousands of women are sharing their experiences.
The posts show woman after woman, many with the exact same
symptoms, telling nightmare scenarios after getting the Essure
coils implanted.

Most of the comments and photos detail side effects from an
allergy to nickel, which is a component of the coils.  Originally,
women were advised to test for that allergy before getting Essure,
but the manufacturer asked the FDA to remove that requirement a
few years ago.

Women in the Facebook group describe extreme bloating, skin rashes
and headaches.  X-rays show the coils perforated the fallopian
tubes of some women.  And there are photos of broken coils after
they were removed.

When the FDA approved Essure in 2002, it gave the device
preemption status.  That means a women who is injured by it can't
sue the manufacturer.

                         A Death Reported

In an Adverse Event Report filed with the FDA on September 19,
2013, a physician describes a patient who had the Essure coils
implanted this year going to the "emergency room with abdominal
pain."  There, a different doctor "performed a pelvic exam [and]
found the patient's cervix, fallopian tubes and uterus were
necrotic."

The report goes on to describe the patient as testing positive for
a type of strep infection. Then, the "patient went into renal
failure . . . and patient passed away," the report said.

The doctor "believes the cause of death was related to necrotizing
group a streptococcus infection (streptococcal toxic shock
syndrome)," the report said.

The FDA was contacted for a comment on this story, but they did
not provide a response.

Bayer, the current manufacturer of Essure, provided this
statement:

Although we do not comment on individual adverse events, we do
take all adverse events seriously, and they are reported to the US
FDA as required.

This is also a Manufacturer Narrative on the Adverse Event Report.
It states, "The medical opinion of the attending physician was
that the cause of death was not directly related to the essure
inserts or procedure."

Bayer would not elaborate on this explanation or confirm that they
provided it to the FDA.

You can see the full report on http://www.accessdata.fda.gov

The company that developed Essure, Conceptus, conducted the
clinical trials and asked the FDA to remove the nickel allergy
testing advisory.

Bayer Healthcare bought Conceptus last June.

Bayer provided the following statement in response to the original
investigation:

At Bayer, we care about patients and take the safety of our
products very seriously.  We are saddened to hear of any serious
health condition affecting a patient using one of our products,
irrespective of the cause.  Essure was approved by the FDA in
2002, and has a well-documented benefit-risk profile, with over
400 peer-reviewed publications and abstracts supporting Essure's
safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness.

Approximately 750,000 women worldwide rely upon the Essure
procedure for permanent birth control.  A recent practice bulletin
issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
(ACOG) has recognized that hysteroscopic tubal occlusion for
sterilization has high efficacy and low procedure-related risk,
cost, and resource requirements.

All Essure studies that are either planned or active are listed on
ClinicalTrials.gov. Bayer is developing the next generation Essure
and is in the process of planning the clinical trial program.

Per your question regarding the nickel warning, I want to note
that the use of a nickel titanium alloy in Essure remains as a
warning in the product label. It can be found on page 1 of the
Essure Information For Use insert in the Warnings section. The
language is pasted below:

From Warnings Section:

The Essure micro-insert includes nickel-titanium alloy, which is
generally considered safe.  However, in vitro testing has
demonstrated that nickel is released from this device.  Patients
who are allergic to nickel may have an allergic reaction to this
device, especially those with a history of metal allergies.  In
addition, some patients may develop an allergy to nickel if this
device is implanted.  Typical allergy symptoms reported for this
device include rash, pruritus, and hives.

In regards to the classification of Essure, the US Food and Drug
Administration, not the manufacturer, classifies medical devices
based on the level of control necessary to assure the safety and
effectiveness of the device.  Devices are classified into one of
three categories:

Class I, Class II, and Class III.

Class III devices are subject to the highest level of regulatory
control.  For Class III devices, such as Essure, a premarket
approval (PMA) application is required by the FDA before they are
marketed. Through the scientific and regulatory review of the PMA
application, the safety and effectiveness of Class III medical
devices is evaluated by the FDA.

No form of birth control is without risk or should be considered
appropriate for every woman.  It is important that women discuss
the risks and benefits of any birth control option with their
physicians.


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Pa. Woman Sues Over Mirena Implant Injuries
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that a
western Pennsylvania woman is suing the makers of the Mirena birth
gavel control system over allegations that she sustained injuries
as a result of having the product implanted inside of her body.

Sherry Broadwater, who lives in Uniontown, Pa., which is about 50
miles southeast of Pittsburgh, filed suit in the Western District
of Pennsylvania against Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals over
injuries she claims to have suffered in the spring of 2011.

The plaintiff was inserted with the Mirena intrauterine system in
early 2010, the complaint states.

Having tolerated the procedure well, the 29-year-old woman had no
reason to suspect that the device would perforate her uterus
and/or migrate throughout her body, the lawsuit says.  But that's
exactly what ended up occurring, according to the complaint.

After the medical procedure, Broadwater began experiencing
recurrent episodes of severe abdominal discomfort, headaches,
diarrhea, nausea, severe mood swings and generalized feelings of
fever and sickness, according to the products liability complaint.

The plaintiff didn't learn that the device had moved from its spot
until she went to her doctor to request that the Mirena be taken
out because she had received a positive pregnancy test.

At the time, doctors believed that the device had been "expulsed,"
since it was unable to be located during the time of the
plaintiff's examination, the lawsuit states.

In late 2011, an abdominal X-ray revealed that the birth control
system had perforated the woman's uterus, migrated to another part
of the body, and had to be surgically removed.

"Although Plaintiff followed all instructions accompanying Mirena
and used the product as directed, after implant of Mirena
Plaintiff suffered serious and life-threatening side effects and
injuries, including but not limited to extreme lower torso pain,
medical therapy, surgical removal of Mirena and hospitalization,
continuing treatment, and medical monitoring," the complaint
states.

The plaintiff also claims she has suffered from permanent bodily
impairment, mental anguish and a diminished enjoyment of life as a
result of her ordeal.

Broadwater seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory and
punitive damages, costs, attorney's fees, and other relief.

In her complaint, Broadwater's lawyer, Monte J. Rabner, wrote that
while he was filing the case in Pittsburgh, he believes the matter
is appropriate for inclusion in the multidistrict Mirena products
liability litigation that has been consolidated in the Southern
District of New York.

Mirena, an intrauterine birth control system, was first approved
by the FDA for use in the United States in December 2000,
according to the complaint.

Today, more than two million women use the birth control method in
the U.S. and more than 15 million women have used the product
worldwide.

The Mirena label doesn't warn about spontaneous migration of the
birth control system, but only states that migration may occur if
the uterus is perforated during the procedure to insert the
device, the lawsuit states.  The product's warning label also
describes perforation as an "uncommon" event, despite the fact
that there have been numerous women who have suffered migration
and perforation after the insertion procedure, "clearly
demonstrating this assertion to be false," the complaint reads.

The lawsuit contains counts of defective manufacturing, design
defect, negligence, failure to warn, strict liability, breach of
warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment.

The federal case number is 2:13-cv-01583-MRH.


BIMBO BAKERIES: Fails to Pay Prevailing Minimum Wages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
For at least four years prior to the filing of his class action
lawsuit on October 28, 2013, and through the present, Rene H.
Sanchez asserts that the Defendant has had a consistent policy of
failing to pay at least prevailing minimum wages to him and other
similarly situated non-exempt employees as a result of improper
uneven rounding practices of time worked and being required to
make bank deposits after hours.

Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a
manufacturer and supplier of baked goods, with offices located in
Los Angeles County, in California.  The true names and capacities
of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          James A. De Sario, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 553-3600
          Facsimile: (310)553-3603

The case is Rene H. Sanchez v. Bimbo Bakeries USA Inc., et al.,
Case No. BC525826, in the California Superior Court for Los
Angeles County.


BIOMET INC: Stevensons & Koskie Minsky Launch Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firms Stevenson LLP, Koskie Minsky LLP, and Klein Lyons on
Nov. 5 disclosed that they have launched a class action against
Biomet, Inc. and related entities regarding Biomet's metal-on-
metal hip implant systems, including the M2a Magnum, the M2a 38,
and the ReCap Femoral Resurfacing System.

The lawsuit alleges that Biomet, Inc. and related entities were
negligent in the research, design, manufacture, regulatory
licensing, sale and post-market monitoring of their metal-on-metal
hip implants, and that people implanted with the products in
Canada suffered personal injuries when their hip implants failed.

A metal-on-metal hip implant is one in which both the ball and
socket of the product are made of metal.  The Biomet implants were
aggressively marketed by the defendants as having advantages over
other hip replacement or resurfacing systems, as suitable, safe,
effective, durable, minimally invasive hip replacements, as high
performance, long-lasting systems, as contributing to a better
quality of life and as being particularly suited for young, active
patients, women and patients of smaller stature.

The lawsuit alleges that the Biomet metal-on-metal hip implants
were designed and manufactured improperly and should not have been
sold in Canada.  In particular, the Biomet metal-on-metal implants
cause metal debris to be released into the surrounding tissue and
other complications.  The heavy metals released can be toxic, and
may cause, among other things, tissue necrosis, metallosis,
pseudotumours, bone dislocation and failure of the hip joint.
Shortly after the Biomet implants were approved for sale in
Canada, there were increasing reports of premature failures with
these devices.

Despite serious and numerous reports of failure of the Biomet
implants, no warning was provided to Canadian patients of the
significant risk of failure of the Biomet implants and Biomet
continues to market and distribute the Biomet metal-on-metal
implants in Canada, despite unacceptably high early revision rates
and other problems.

James Newland, Esq., of Stevensons LLP, Jonathan Ptak, Esq., of
Koskie Minsky LLP) and Doug Lennox (of Klein Lyons) are lead
counsel in this proposed class action.

Canadians who have experienced adverse events from Biomet hip
implants are encouraged to visit
http://www.kmlaw.ca/biometclassactionemail
biometclassaction@kmlaw.ca or call 1-855-595-2629.

Stevensons LLP, based in Toronto, is a boutique litigation firm
with expertise in complex commercial litigation, personal injury
and medical malpractice, class actions, appeals, estates,
employment, administrative and public interest law.

Koskie Minsky LLP, based in Toronto, is one of Canada's foremost
class action, labor, employment and litigation firms.  Its class
actions group has been a leader in class actions since 1992 and
has prosecuted many of the leading cases in the area.

Klein Lyons, based in Vancouver and Toronto, is a class actions
firm with significant expertise in defective drugs and medical
devices class actions.


BLACKBERRY LTD: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Nov. 8
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
BlackBerry Ltd. and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, and docketed under 13-CIV-7132, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of BlackBerry between September 27, 2012 and
September 20, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks
to recover damages against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal
securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased BlackBerry securities
during the Class Period, you have until December 3, 2013 to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy
of the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

BlackBerry is a designer, manufacturer and marketer of wireless
solutions for the worldwide mobile communications market.  The
Company provides platforms and solutions for access to email,
voicemail, instant messaging, short message service, Internet and
Intranet-based applications, and browsing through the development
of integrated hardware, software, and services.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
published a series of materially false and misleading statements
that Defendants knew and/or recklessly disregarded were materially
false and misleading at the time of publication, and that omitted
to reveal material information necessary to make Defendants'
statements, in light of such omissions, not materially false and
misleading.  Specifically, the Company failed to inform investors
that, contrary to Defendants' statements touting the Company's new
BlackBerry 10 line of smart phones and the financial strength of
BlackBerry, the Company was not on the road to recovery and
re-emerging as a lead player in the wireless communications
industry, but instead, BlackBerry's business, operations and
financial situation was made even worse by the introduction of the
BlackBerry 10 platform, which was poorly received by the market.

On September 20, 2013, BlackBerry announced the true state of the
Company, which incurred massive charges due to unsold BlackBerry
10 devices and was forced to lay-off approximately 40% of its
workforce.  In relevant part, the release explained that the
Company expects to report a primarily non-cash, pre-tax charge
against inventory and supply commitments in the second quarter of
approximately $930 million to $960 million, which is primarily
attributable to BlackBerry Z10 devices.

As a result of this disclosure, BlackBerry shares plummeted from a
closing price of $10.52 per share on September 19, 2013 to a close
of $8.73 per share on September 20, 2013, after experiencing an
intra-day low of $8.19, on heavy trading volume.  The value of
BlackBerry stock continued to slide on heavy trading volume over
the next few days to close at $8.01 on September 25, 2013.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.


BLUE CROSS: Obtains Unfavorable Ruling in ERISA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
A Federal Court in northern district of Illinois on November 7,
2013, rules in Summary Judgment against BCBS in an overpayment
ERISA class action for certain plaintiff providers: 1) providers
are entitled to sue under ERISA; 2) certain BCBS entities
completely violated ERISA; 3) these providers are not liable to
BCBS overpayment claims.  The federal court summary judgment
decisions were made in the wake of the court's prior decision on
May 22, 2012, denying BCBS motion to dismiss and in favoring of
the provider ERISA arguments.

In compliance with this landmark court decision, ERISAclaim.com
announced new webinars and advanced ERISA claim specialist
programs to demystify this federal court century decision on the
nation's No. 1 health care claim denial: overpayment demand
recoupment and offsetting; and how to correctly appeal every
overpayment demand with valid ERISA assignment, and in complete
compliance with ERISA & PPACA claim regulations.

ERISAclaim.com provided ERISA appeal compliance to the plaintiff
providers and ERISA litigation support in this provider ERISA
class action.

Case Info: Pennsylvania Chiropractic Association, et al. vs Blue
Cross Blue Shield Association, et al., Case No.: 1:09-cv-05619,
Document #: 846, Filed: 11/07/13, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division

"Every healthcare provider in USA must understand and not sleep on
the [Nov. 8] federal court Summary Judgment decision in favoring
plaintiff providers for all key legal points as the final words on
whether BCBS or any payer may recoup or offset any money from
providers without compliance with ERISA, as the overpayment
recoupment demand or offset has been the No. 1 claim denial or
offset in USA, which can make or break every healthcare provider
or hospital," says Dr. Jin Zhou, a national expert in ERISA &
PPACA compliance and appeals.

"This federal court decision doesn't mean that no insurance
company can ask any providers for any money back as overpayment,
it simply means that no insurance company can do so without
compliance with ERISA, as federal law ERISA governs and regulates
claim dispute for all private healthcare plans," cautions by
Dr. Zhou.

In denying motion for summary judgment for BCBS entities and
granting motion for summary judgment for certain plaintiff
providers, among other things, the federal court makes the
following conclusion:

"Conclusion: For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants plaintiff
Reno's motion for summary judgment [docket no. 793] on the
question of liability as to defendant Anthem Health Plans of
Virginia, Inc. but denies the motion with regard to defendant
WellPoint, Inc.  The Court grants plaintiffs Barnard & Wahner's
motion for summary judgment [docket no. 795] as to liability on
their claim against defendant Independence Blue Cross for improper
denial of benefits but denies in part plaintiffs' motion on their
claim that Independence denied them the appropriate notice and
appeal rights, while making findings in plaintiffs' favor on
certain points pursuant to Rule 56(g).  At the [Nov. 9] status
hearing, counsel should be prepared to discuss what further
proceedings are required on the claims of these plaintiffs."
according to court records

In particular, the court makes the following legal reasoning and
discussion in part:

Reno's summary judgment motion against Anthem and WellPoint:

"1. Standing: . . . . . The Court concludes that Reno is a
beneficiary for purposes of ERISA and thus has standing, conferred
on him by section 1132, to bring his claims." according to the
court records.

"2. Denial of notice and appeal rights: . . . . . The Court
therefore concludes that Reno is entitled to summary judgment as
to liability on his claim that Anthem denied him the notice and
appeal rights to which he was entitled under ERISA.  The only
matter that remains for determination on that claim is the
appropriate relief." according to the court records.

"3. Denial of benefits: . . . . . The Court therefore grants
summary judgment to Reno against Anthem as to liability on this
claim as well." according to the court records.

Dr. Zhou further advocates for ERISA compliance by every
healthcare provider to appeal every overpayment denial or offset,
regardless whether a plan or provider may be right or wrong on its
overpayment determination, as specifically advised by DOL, federal
agency in charge of ERISA interpretation and enforcement.

DOL Tri3 Enterprises Amicus Brief, supporting plaintiff-appellant,
No. 12-2308, File on 11/30/2012, In the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit

"The crux of the question at issue here is not whether the
plaintiff or the defendant is correct in their views of the plan
terms, but whether Aetna must comply with the procedures mandated
by ERISA section 503 and its accompanying regulations in rendering
a determination based on a plan interpretation that is adverse to
the plan participants and beneficiaries. Under the statute and
regulations, the beneficiary or participant is entitled to a
claims procedure that "afford[s] a reasonable opportunity . . .
for a full and fair review by the appropriate named fiduciary of
[a] decision denying [a] claim," . . . . . . In either event, Tri3
is entitled to insist upon its assigned right to challenge the
allegedly wrongful decision to deny benefits through a process
that complies with the claims regulation."

Located in a Chicago suburb in Illinois, for over 14 years,
ERISAclaim.com is the only ERISA & PPACA consulting, publishing
and website resource for healthcare providers in the country.
ERISAclaim.com offers free webinars, basic and advanced
educational seminars and on-site claims specialist certification
programs for doctors, hospitals and commercial companies, as well
as numerous pending national ERISA class action litigation
support.  Dr. Jin Zhou is regarded as the industry "Godfather of
ERISA claims" for healthcare providers.

For any questions, please contact Dr. Jin Zhou, president of
ERISAclaim.com, at 630-808-7237.


BP PLC: Settlement Modifications Set to Be Presented on Dec. 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
Holland Phillips, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that
as the legal process for determining BP's depth of liability for
the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil spill continues, claims
against the company are racking up for personal injury,
environmental injury, and economic injury.

Lawyers for BP argue that the 2012 class settlement applicable to
hundreds of thousands of claimants is not being administrated
properly and should be thrown out.  They claim that the process,
overseen by an appointed administrator, Patrick Juneau, has
compensated claimants too widely and has failed to require
claimants to show causation for their economic losses.  BP argues
that the current process violates settlement terms and class
action rules because it allows those not directly affected by the
oil spill to collect damages.

Settlement costs have surpassed BP's original estimate of $7
billion, putting current figures closer to $9 billion.

Some say BP agreed to the initial settlement terms in order to
avoid the risk and uncertainty of litigation, and because the
company did not expect so many claimants to emerge.

Perspectives from local law professors certainly trend toward this
analysis, but there are some, such as Tulane Law Professor Vernon
Palmer, who have ethical questions about the claims process
itself.

"If someone can be absolutely certain that his business was not
affected in any way, then it would be an ethical question whether
he should file or accept a payment," Mr. Palmer said.  "Most of
the time, however, no one can ever be that certain, and that is
the point of establishing the objective formulas for
reimbursement."

The settlement requires two parameters for businesses to file a
claim: location within a specific geographic region and evidence
of economic loss based on expected versus actual profit over a
period of three or more consecutive months between May and
December 2010.  It does not necessarily state that causation for
that economic loss must be proven.

In an Oct. 2 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruling
presented by Circuit Judge Edith Brown Clement, the court ordered
District Judge Carl Barbier to draft a preliminary injunction on
the claims process so that settlement terms could be reconsidered.

The appeals court especially took issue with the method of payouts
for claimants using cash-basis accounting versus those using
accrual-basis accounting.  The court notes that the method of
determining actual economic loss during the claims period is
inconsistent.

The Oct. 2 ruling acknowledged arguments presented by "Class
Counsel and the Administrator [maintaining] that BP fully agreed
during negotiations in 2012 to the district court's March 2013
interpretation in order to achieve 'global peace,' and that it
should not now be permitted to extract itself from its bargain."

However, the ruling states that settlement interpretations that
allow businesses to recoup losses unrelated to the spill are
"counterintuitive and contradictory to [. . .] common sense" as
there is "no need to secure peace with those with whom one is not
at war."

Professor Blaine Lecesne of Loyola University-New Orleans College
of Law, argues that Judge Clement misses "the fundamental point of
a settlement" by allowing the terms to be revisited.

"[There is] absolutely no ethical issue surrounding the [claims]
process" because under the agreement, every business and
individual potentially has a claim if they can show decline in
revenue following the oil spill," he said.

Mr. Lecesne asserts that the only requirement is that claimants
are "presumed to have suffered a loss."

In agreement with Mr. Lecesne, Professor Dane Ciolino of Loyola
University-New Orleans College of Law, argues that the parties
made the law between themselves, so that as long as the parties
are living by that law, there are "no ethical concerns" as to who
can make a claim.

Mr. Ciolino characterizes BP as "relentless in their public
relations campaign" in their attempts to "disparage those who
sought to recover damages."

Settlement modifications will be presented by district court
Judge Barbier on Dec. 2.


BRYAN CHEVROLET: Faces Suit Over Power Steering Defect
------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Barnett, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that a
local car dealer and an international car manufacturer are being
sued by a customer who claims a product defect in a vehicle he
purchase from them resulted in two accidents.

Christopher M. Schwartz filed suit against Bryan Chevrolet Inc.,
General Motors Corporation and their insurer in the 24th Judicial
District Court on Oct. 10.

Mr. Schwartz alleges the 2013 Chevrolet Malibu he bought from
Bryan Chevrolet Inc. has a product defect in its power steering
system that resulted in him being involved in two collisions.  The
plaintiff claims that on Aug. 5, 2012 he was driving the car on a
local interstate when the power steering froze and the vehicle
drifted off the road and sustained minor bumper damage.  After the
incident Schwartz asserts he took the vehicle back to Bryan
Chevrolet Inc. who told them they had repaired the steering
problem.  However, on Oct. 10 he was driving on a street in New
Orleans when the power steering froze again and the vehicle
drifted into another car.

The defendant is accused of unreasonably dangerous construction,
unreasonably dangerous design, inadequate warning, failing to
provide adequate warning and not conforming to an express warning.

An unspecified amount in damages is sought for pain and suffering,
medical expenses, mental anguish, emotional trauma, loss of
enjoyment of life and property damage to vehicle.

Mr. Schwartz is represented by David J. Mitchell of New Orleans-
based Law Offices of Frank J. D'Amico APLC.

The case has been assigned to Division J Judge Stephen C. Grefer.

Case no. 731-876.


C&S WHOLESALE: Awarded Monetary Sanctions in "Bicek" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In DENNIS BICEK, Plaintiff, v. C&S WHOLESALE GROCERS, INC. & TRACY
LOGISTICS LLC, Defendants, NO. 2:13-CV-0411-MCE-KJN, (E.D. Cal.),
the court conducted a telephonic conference on October 1, 2013,
with respect to the parties' discovery dispute concerning the
depositions of putative class members by defendants.  The parties
had encountered significant difficulties with the scheduling of
these depositions.  At the time of the telephonic conference, the
parties had agreed on specific dates for the depositions, but
plaintiff nonetheless objected to the depositions going forward on
other grounds.

The court ordered the depositions of putative class members to go
forward on the specified, agreed-upon dates. Additionally, the
court permitted defendants to file a properly supported request
for sanctions in the form of attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff's counsel was further ordered to show cause why the
court should not sua sponte impose monetary sanctions based on
plaintiff's counsel's conduct with respect to scheduling the
depositions, and its improper objections as to availability of the
prospective deponents.

Upon consideration of the parties' filings, the discussions at the
October 1, 2013 telephonic conference, and the applicable law,
Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman granted the Defendants' request
for sanctions in part; declined to sua sponte impose any
additional sanctions; and discharged the order to show cause.

The court awarded defendants monetary sanctions for 10 hours spent
at a rate of $365 per hour, for a total of $3,650.  The sanctions
will be paid by plaintiff's counsel, and plaintiff's counsel will
not attempt to directly or indirectly recover such sanctions from
plaintiff, ruled Judge Newman.

The court declined to impose any additional sanctions sua sponte
saying the award of sanctions to defendants adequately compensates
them for their time and money unnecessarily spent with respect to
the discovery dispute, and also serves as sufficient deterrence
for future discovery misconduct. The court acknowledged the
plaintiff's counsel's apology in its response to the order to show
cause, and instead of imposing additional sanctions, the court
encouraged the parties to start anew on a course of
responsiveness, cooperation, civility, and diligence with respect
to discovery.

A copy of the District Court's October 17, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/M3EvKpfrom Leagle.com.


CAMDEN COUNTY, NJ: Sued by Law Enforcement Officers Over OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Cranmer v. County of Camden, Case No. 1:13-cv-06110-JHR-AMD
(D.N.J., October 11, 2013) is a collective action brought on
behalf of all persons, who were employed by the Defendant at any
time since October 11, 2010, as law enforcement officers or other
comparable positions with different titles, who were non-exempt
employees within the meaning of the New Jersey State Wage and Hour
Law and who have not been paid for all hours worked by them and
have not been paid overtime wages.

Camden is a governmental agency providing police protection
services through the County of Camden Park Police Department,
throughout Camden County, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          66 Willow Avenue, Suite 1A
          Hoboken, NJ 07030
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com
                  JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


CAROLINA STATE PLASTERING: Attorneys Probed in Stucco Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Sarita Chourey, writing for Savannah Now, reports that a
plastering company's fight against the free flow of information
between Sun City residents and attorneys representing a class
action over faulty stucco ran into repeated questions from the
chief judge of the S.C. Court of Appeals.

Judge John Few pressed Everett Kendall, an attorney for South
Carolina State Plastering, to explain on Nov. 6 why he was warning
of a possible conflict of interest and how it would hurt his
client.  At issue was the company's appeal seeking to overturn
last year's circuit court refusal to limit the attorneys'
communication to the Sun City property owners.

The residents' attorney, Phillip Segui, defended his legal team's
contact with residents and pointed at the other parties'
activities.

"Here we have an effort by the (other side) to go out and solicit
opt-outs.  They are going and directly communicating with the
class members and getting them to sign opt-outs and releases of
their claims," said Mr. Segui.

He said the class action attorneys were trying to keep residents
briefed, or as he described it: "Just trying to give information
to respond to the craving for information from these homeowners
down there."

Mr. Segui noted the dispute has stretched for six years, and
residents want to know how it's progressing.  The number of
property owners in the retirement community who could be affected
by the stucco problems has been estimated to be as many as 4,000.

"They talk to each other," Mr. Segui said.

"They don't know what's going on. There are these appeals of
different things.  There are delays of all sorts.  They're really
just confused," said Mr. Sequi.

"And then there's a defendant out there showing up and
communicating with them in some unknown way, but they're trying to
get these opt-outs.  This is after the case was certified."

Among those listed as third-party defendants are Del Webb
Communities, Inc., Pulte Homes, Inc., and Kephart Architects, Inc.

Mr. Kendall said the plastering company wasn't among those trying
to gather class opt-outs from Sun City residents.

"That's never been part of a discussion that we had," he said.

As for how a conflict of interest arises from letting information
flow, Mr. Kendall said it could open the door to a later attempt
to undermine the judgment.  The reason, he said, was that joining
the class meant abandoning other claims, but property owners might
revisit them later if they felt their rights were not protected
under the class.

Few, however, put forth a scenario he suggested could protect the
judgment.

He offered the example of someone who remains in the class but has
misinformation, does not pay attention to what's sent them as part
of the formal notice, and does not take advantage of the
opportunity to come to the fairness hearing, ask a question, raise
concerns, and have them addressed by the counsel and the court.

"Anybody who doesn't do all that, it's just their tough luck,"
Few said. "It's too late at that point to collaterally attack the
judgement, if the judge handles this correctly in the formal
aspects . . . ."

Mr. Kendall said the scenario could still leave his client
vulnerable.

Nearly three years ago, the state Supreme Court ruled a lawsuit
Anthony and Barbara Grazia filed in 2007 could be a class action
suit.  That created the potential for hundreds of other Sun City
homeowners to be compensated for defective stucco. At the time,
some residents told a reporter they feared they would die before
receiving compensation for faulty stucco or first run out of
money.

The Grazias alleged that "the stucco exteriors had common and
typical problems inherent to their design and installation that
would require identical remediation across the class, namely,
stripping the homes of the existing stucco and recladding with a
properly installed stucco system."


CELTIC TIGER: Class Seeks Unpaid OT and Spread-of-Hours Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aureliano Tepizila, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Celtic Tiger, Inc. d/b/a The Black
Sheep, and Thomas G. McGrath, jointly and severally, Case No.
1:13-cv-07231-AKH (S.D.N.Y., October 11, 2013) alleges that the
Plaintiff and the proposed class are entitled to, among other
compensation, unpaid overtime premium and unpaid spread-of-hours
wages.

Celtic Tiger, Inc. is a New York business corporation based in New
York County.  Thomas G. McGrath is an owner, shareholder, officer
or manager of Celtic Tiger.  The Defendants operated a restaurant,
doing business as Black Sheep, located in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
          Brandon David Sherr, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 229-2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
          E-mail: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com
                  bsherr@zellerlegal.com


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Unhappy Banking Asks CEO on Indemnity Issue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Gluyas, writing for The Australian, reports the promoter
of a potential class action against the Commonwealth Bank has
tackled chief executive Ian Narev over an issue that refuses to
die -- alleged indemnities to cover CBA against post-acquisition
impairments at Bankwest.

Geoff Shannon, founder of the pressure group Unhappy Banking,
asked Mr. Narev at the Nov. 8 annual meeting if 2008 indemnities
provided by HBOS, the seller of Bankwest, enabled CBA to claw back
impairments up to the full $2.1 billion purchase price.  Mr.
Shannon said later the issue went to the core of a planned class
action on behalf of alleged "victims" of the Bankwest takeover by
CBA.

Mr. Narev declined to engage on the indemnity issue, saying it had
been well covered, including at a Senate hearing into post-
financial crisis banking.

In August, Mr. Shannon failed in private litigation against CBA
over the collapse of his company 33 Electra, the developer of a
Bankwest-funded $14.5 million residential project in NSW.

In that case, where Mr. Shannon ended up having to represent
himself, a NSW Supreme Court judge said the businessman was not
deliberately dishonest but described him as an unreliable witness
when his answers were compared to contemporaneous documents.

CBA general counsel David Cohen said in a Senate submission in
July that the Bankwest share-sale agreement limited CBA's ability
to recover impairment expenses from HBOS.  Recovery was permitted
only when the impairments crystallized by December 19, 2008, and
they had not been reflected in the draft completion balance sheets
for Bankwest.

Chairman David Turner told shareholders on there was an "illusion"
about a long-term clawback arrangement with HBOS.  "It's not
true," he said.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Okays Consent Order Modification
------------------------------------------------------------
Sefendants in OSCAR SALAZAR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 93-452 (GK),
(D.D.C.) filed on Sept. 20, 2013, a Motion to Modify a January 25,
1999 Consent Order and Related Order of August 8, 2000 entered in
the case. They seek to modify the Consent Order so as to no longer
be bound by Section III, arguing that they cannot simultaneously
comply with both Section III and the Affordable Care Act.

Plaintiffs have also filed two related motions -- a Motion to
Partially Stay the Recertification Provisions in the Settlement
Order, and a Motion for Limited Discovery Related to Medicaid
Renewal and Redetermination Under the Affordable Care Act.

District Judge Gladys Kessler granted the Defendants' request
saying the Defendants are relieved from complying with Section III
of the January 25, 1999 Consent Order, as amended by Paragraphs
21A, 25A, 25B, and 27 of the Court's Order of August 8, 2000.

The Plaintiffs' Motions were denied as moot.

The case is a class action lawsuit filed in 1993 alleging that
Defendants, among other claims, denied Medicaid beneficiaries due
process of law in the recertification of their Medicaid
eligibility.

A copy of the District Court's October 17, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at http://is.gd/UyMxZnfrom Leagle.com.


EBAY INC: Has Initial Approval of $95,000 Deal in Suit Over Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that EBay will pay $95,000 to settle a class action alleging that
it charges sellers optional fees for additional features they did
not select, a federal judge ruled.

Lead plaintiff Tasha Keirsey said she incurred the improper
charges while trying to sell items on her mobile device using the
online auction giant's eBay application.

The March 2012 lawsuit in San Francisco brought claims for breach
of contract, bad faith and unjust enrichment.

EBay countered that it "properly disclosed all fees and that
plaintiff was aware of all fees she was charged," according to the
ruling from U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar.  "Defendant
particularly maintains that there can be no liability for any user
who chose additional features and incurred the optional fees when
placing an item through the eBay website, and then subsequently
re-listed or copied the same listing using the eBay App."

After the court dismissed only the claim for unjust enrichment
last year, the parties began negotiating a settlement.

In an interview, class counsel, Keith Verges of Figari &
Davenport, said the amount of the settlement is $95,000.

"Part of the driving factor is that eBay was so prompt to provide
us the fees at issue and we learned the amount at controversy was
very minimal," the Dallas, Texas-based lawyer said.  "It wasn't
terribly large and both of us [attorneys for both sides] were
interested in getting this promptly resolved."

Noting it would have been costly for both sides if the litigation
had been prolonged, Verges added, "There just were not a lot of
fees."

"We will seek $30,000 in our fee application, but we have actually
spent about four times that," the lawyer said.  "We are upside
down in this, but that's our duty as counsel for the class."

EBay's attorney, Whitty Somvichian with Cooley in San Francisco,
did not immediately return a request for comment.

Tigar approved the preliminary settlement, which carries the
unusual provision of providing class members with credit instead
of cash.

"In this case, given the small amount that any individual class
member would be likely to receive weighed against the cost of
mailing individual checks, the court concludes that an account
credit is an appropriate way to distribute the settlement," Tigar
wrote.  He said class members who prefer to receive a check could
still do so under the provisions of the preliminary settlement.

"Given eBay's potential defenses, and the cost of litigation, the
amount of the settlement is reasonable," Tigar wrote.

A hearing on final settlement approval is scheduled for Feb. 13,
2014.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith Verges, Esq.
          FIGARI & DAVENPORT
          3400 Bank of America Plaza
          901 Main Street
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 939-2000
          Facsimile: (214) 939-2090
          E-mail: KVERGES@figdav.com

EBay is represented by:

          Whitty Somvichian, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          101 California Street, 5th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
          Telephone: (415) 693-2000
          Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
          E-mail: wsomvichian@cooley.com


ERGO BABY: Accused of Falsely Advertising Baby Carrier Product
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica E. Lloyd v. The Ergo Baby Carrier Inc. and Does 1 to 50,
Case No. BC525894 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., October 28,
2013) accuses the Defendants of falsely advertising that its baby
carrier product is "usable from birth" because a baby under 12
pounds need an "Infant Insert."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          GOLD APLC
          4525 Wilshire Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (323) 936-0540


GALLUP INC: Violates Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie C. Marr, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Gallup, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:13-
cv-02465-WQH-WVG (S.D. Cal., October 11, 2013) seeks damages,
injunctive relief and other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the Company's illegal actions in negligently, and
willfully contacting the Plaintiff on her cellular telephone
without her prior express consent, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Gallup Inc. is Delaware corporation that has its primary corporate
offices in Washington, D.C.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas J. Campion, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS J. CAMPION, APC
          409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 303
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 299-2091
          Facsimile: (619) 858-0034
          E-mail: doug@djcampion.com

               - and -

          E. Elliot Adler, Esq.
          ADLER LAW GROUP, APLC
          402 W. Broadway, Suite 860
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 531-8700
          Facsimile: (619) 342-9600
          E-mail: eadler@theadlerfirm.com


GARDEN-FRESH FOODS: Halts Production Following Product Recalls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Barrett, writing for The Journal Sentinel, reports that
production has been halted at the Garden-Fresh Foods plant in
Milwaukee because of product recalls, causing about 100 employees
to be assigned to other duties, a company spokeswoman said on
Nov. 16.

Garden-Fresh Foods has recalled tons of products in five recalls
since the end of August.  The first recall was announced Aug. 30,
after routine sampling of retail products by Michigan state food
safety officials detected the bacterium Listeria monocytogenes.

In addition to the various fresh-cut vegetables and ready-to-eat
slaws, dips and spreads recalled, 50 tons of ready-to-eat chicken
and ham products produced by Garden-Fresh Foods were included in a
late-October recall.

The factory on S. 12th St. is temporarily closed while the company
deals with the recalls and the contamination issue, said
spokeswoman Mary Roberts.

It's unknown how long production will be halted, but most
employees have been assigned to other duties in the plant, Roberts
said.

"Obviously, they don't want to reopen until they're 100% sure
everything is OK," she added.

Food and Drug Administration inspectors have been in the plant,
Ms. Roberts said.

No reports of illnesses have been connected to consumption of the
products, according to company and state food safety officials.
Nonetheless, Listeria monocytogenes is a potentially dangerous
bacterium that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
young children, pregnant women, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.

Healthy individuals may suffer short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, and may not realize they have come into contact with the
bacterium.

"We are working tirelessly to resolve the current issue and will
make any changes necessary to ensure we are in compliance with
food safety regulations and our own exacting standards for high
quality," Ms. Roberts said.

"We are confident that we will be able to find the source of the
issue and resume operations," she added.  "However, we will not
reopen until we are 100% satisfied that we can produce and
maintain the safest, highest quality products possible."


GENERAL NUTRITION: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Meal Bars
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal
judge on Nov. 7 tossed a putative class action alleging meal
replacement bars sold in General Nutrition Centers Inc. stores
deceived customers into thinking the bars were healthy because
they were labeled "zero impact."

U.S. District Judge S. James Otero granted a motion to toss the
suit against GNC and Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc., the maker of the
bars, writing in the Nov. 7 decision that it was up to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration to determine whether the labeling was
misleading.

The judge noted that, while the FDA had ruled on the use of the
word "zero" in food labeling, it hadn't yet considered the
nutritional import of the term "zero impact" and how consumers
might interpret it, according to the Nov. 7 decision.

"A term like 'zero calorie' is not intuitively the same as 'zero
impact.'  Calories, sugar and fat are specific nutritional
elements, but 'impact' refers to the effect those elements have on
the human body," Judge Otero wrote.  "The court declines to apply
the same regulatory framework the FDA has developed for 'zero
calorie' claims to the 'zero impact' claim in the absence of a
more definitive statement of the FDA's position."

Consumer Gabe Watkins had filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court
in September 2012, seeking to represent a class alleging that
Vital and GNC marketed the Zero Impact bars as a healthful choice
for consumers to eat in place of meals, according to the suit.

Mr. Watkins had purchased and eaten the bars because he was under
the impression they would have zero impact on his health,
according to the complaint.  The Zero Impact name was misleading,
because the bars have an impact on consumers' carbohydrate and
blood sugar levels and caloric intake, the class wrote.

The FDA has issued rules about labeling products as having "zero
sugar," "zero sodium" or "zero calories," Judge Otero noted in
Thursday's ruling.  Products bearing those terms must meet certain
nutritional requirements to match consumer expectations, per the
FDA rules, the judge said.

But the bars are labeled as having zero impact, not zero calories,
Judge Otero found.  The FDA has yet to consider in what context a
term such as "zero impact" would be misleading to consumers, the
judge wrote in Thursday's decision.

The class may petition the FDA to take administrative action on
the labeling of the bars, Judge Otero wrote.

Mr. Watkins is represented by Casey Edwards Sadler, Lionel Zevi
Glancy and Marc L. Godino of Glancy Binkow and Goldberg LLP.

Vital and GNC are represented by Alan J. Droste of King Parret and
Droste LLP.

The case is Gabe Watkins v. Vital Pharmaceuticals et al., case
number 2:12-cv-09374, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.


GEORGIA PACIFIC: Disputes Carpenter's Asbestos-Mesothelioma Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for The Madison-St. Clair
Record, reports that after several days of witness testimonies and
pulling from box after box of evidence, Georgia Pacific maintains
that it is not responsible for a Kansas carpenter's asbestos-
related mesothelioma.

At trial on Nov. 14 in Madison County Associate Judge Stephen
Stobbs' courtroom, both parties read from plaintiff James Reef's
discovery deposition taken in April.

Mr. Reef filed his suit in December 2012 against dozens of
companies that made, sold or distributed asbestos-containing
products including Georgia Pacific, the only defendant to take the
case to trial.

Mr. Reef, 69, began carpentry in 1965 at the age of 19 and claims
he spent 50 percent of his time working on drywall using Georgia
Pacific's joint compound paste.

Mr. Reef alleges the joint compound he used contained asbestos,
which led to his mesothelioma, diagnosed in October 2012.

Georgia Pacific attorney Jeff Hebrank began by stating Reef's
inconsistent description of joint compound packaging.  Mr. Hebrank
said that Reef started out saying the buckets of drywall mud he
used were made of plastic, but he could not remember their color.
Reef then said they were white and had a clear liner, but could
not verify any labels, according to Mr. Hebrank.

Mr. Reef also described the backs of dry compound as clear, five-
gallon bags and said he assumed all products were manufactured by
the defendant because he purchased them at the Georgia Pacific
store, according to Mr. Hebrank.

The inconsistency continued, Mr. Hebrank said, as Mr. Reef was
questioned about other jobs he worked on over the years and who
manufactured those products.  Mr. Reef either couldn't answer or
assumed it was Georgia Pacific, Mr. Hebrank said.

Plaintiff attorney Carson Menges followed Mr. Hebrank, also
reading from Mr. Reef's discovery deposition.

Mr. Menges pointed out that Reef worked on thousands of walls over
the years, but was able to decipher when the packaging was metal
versus plastic when the question was clarified for him.

Mr. Menges quoted from the deposition: "I would say yes," Mr. Reef
said, "years ago when we first used joint compound, it came in
metal buckets."

Another defense witness, Dr. Mark Roberts, testified about the
likelihood that Reef's illness surfaced as a result of his
exposure to asbestos in insulation rather than joint compound.

Dr. Roberts is a medical doctor trained to determine if conditions
are caused by work experience or the environment.

Specifically, Dr. Roberts was asked to examine Mr. Reef's exposure
history to determine if his mesothelioma was related to his work
with joint compound.

Dr. Roberts testified that Mr. Reef's illness resulted from his
exposure to insulation, arguing that insulation contains amphibole
asbestos, which are long thin fibers and are more dangerous to the
body.  He said amphibole fibers can stay in the system for decades
while Chrysotile fibers are only present for several weeks up to a
few months.  The longer amphibole fibers, anywhere from 100 to 500
times more potent, get hung up in the lungs, while less potent
fibers are expelled naturally, he said.

"There's no increased risk of mesothelioma" as a result of working
with joint compound, Roberts said.

However, he described the grueling task of gathering the range of
exposure as "kind of like herding turkeys."

Plaintiff co-counsel Ethan Flint questioned Roberts next pointing
out that at least 13 of the studies Roberts relied on to come up
with his conclusion were written by Georgia Pacific-controlled
witnesses.

Dr. Roberts' report, Mr. Flint said, was based solely on medical
records, considered risk assessment, epidemiology, potency,
factors and case studies, but did not include any physical
evidence or exams of Reef performed by Roberts.  Therefore, he
argued Roberts' report should be considered inconclusive.

Mr. Flint also asked whether Dr. Roberts was aware that
Georgia Pacific's joint compound allegedly contained termolite
asbestos fibers, which are part of the amphibole type fibers and
would make the compound more potent than they were led to believe.

On re-direct, Mr. Hebrank asked Dr. Roberts if Reef was never
exposed to the insulation and whether Roberts would conclude that
joint compound could have caused Reef to develop mesothelioma.
Mr. Roberts said no.


GIANT EAGLE: Recalls Two Products Over Health Concerns
------------------------------------------------------
James Limbach, writing for ConsumerAffairs, reports that
Giant Eagle is recalling two products because of health concerns.

The first involves Diced Summer Slaw, Diced Summer Salad and
several Grab and Go combo meals that may include Diced Summer
Slaw.

The recall affects the firm's stores in Pennsylvania, Ohio,
Maryland and West Virginia, and was prompted by the recent
expansion of the Reser's Fine Foods product recall for potential
Listeria monocytogenes contamination.

The Grab and Go combo meals include Barbeque Half Chicken combo,
2-Piece Dark Chicken combo, Parmesan Crusted Chicken combo and
Chicken Breast and Wing combo.  All affected items were sold in
the prepared foods department, either behind the counter or out of
the grab-and-go case with sell by dates between October 13, 2013,
and October 29, and had a three-day shelf life.

Consumers may return affected product to any Giant Eagle
supermarket location for a full refund.

                     Candy corn mix recall

Giant Eagle is also recalling candy corn mix packaged by George J.
Howe Company under the Candy Place brand.

The product was mistakenly packaged with a trail mix that
contained peanut, milk, soy and egg -- allergens not listed on the
label.

The affected product is packaged in 13-oz. clear plastic
containers with the UPC code 3003406974 and a sell by date of
April 8, 2014.  The product was purchased by 187 customers in
Giant Eagle supermarkets in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia
from September 8th, 2013 to September 26.

Consumers may return affected product to any Giant Eagle
supermarket location for a full refund.

Those with questions about either recall may call Giant Eagle
Customer Care at 1-800-553-2324 Monday through Friday 9:00 a.m. to
9:00 p.m.


GOOGLE INC: Halt Sales of New Chrombook 11 on Overheating Issue
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Google and Hewlett-Packard are
halting sales of their recently released Chromebook 11 computer
after some users reported the device's charger has been
overheating.

The precautionary measure announced on Nov. 13 comes slightly more
than a month after Google Inc. and Hewlett-Packard Co. unveiled
the Chromebook 11 as a more affordable alternative to laptop
computers with similar features.  The Chromebook has a display
screen that measures 11.6 inches diagonally and sells for $279.

Google says it is working with the Consumer Product Safety
Commission on how to fix the overheating issue with the
Chromebook's charger.

For now, Google is advising people who already bought the
Chromebook 11 to use other USB chargers that fit the computer. The
Chromebook 11 can also be re-charged with power cords that work
with many mobile devices.


HONG YEE INC: Sued by Busboys, Others Over Unpaid Overtime Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Nava Martinez, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Hong Yee, Inc. d/b/a Emperor's Kitchen a/k/a
Emperor's Kitchen II, and Anh Tang, and Hong Duong, and Charles Q.
Yee, Case No. 2:13-cv-01158-NJ (E.D. Wis., October 14, 2013) is
brought on behalf of the Defendants' similarly situated current
and former cooks, dishwashers, and busboys as a collective action
to obtain relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 for
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages and other relief.

Hong Yee, Inc. d/b/a Emperor's Kitchen and Emperor's Kitchen II is
a Wisconsin corporation with its principal place of business in
Brookfield, Wisconsin.  The Individual Defendants are residents of
Hartland, Wisconsin.  They oversee the day-to-day operations of
and have control over the compensation and human resources aspects
of Hong Yee, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
          Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
          B. Michele Sumara, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          PO Box 442
          Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
          Telephone: (414) 271-8650
          Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
          E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
                  smurshid@hq-law.com
                  msumara@hq-law.com


JM MANUFACTURING: AG Hails Jury Verdict in Defective Pipe Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Nevada Attorney General
Catherine Cortez Masto is hailing a jury verdict that found a
company knowingly made defective water and sewer pipes sold to
dozens of municipalities and water districts across several
states.

An executive with pipe maker JM Eagle said on Nov. 16 that the
company will appeal.

Neal Gordon, vice president of marketing and waterworks sales,
issued a statement blaming the case on "false and scurrilous
allegations" by a disgruntled former employee who Mr. Gordon said
was fired in a kickback scheme and wasn't called to testify at
trial.

The Nov. 14 verdict in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles came
against the company under its former name, JM Manufacturing.  It
capped a seven-year legal case brought by Nevada, New Mexico,
Virginia and 42 cities and water districts.

Ms. Masto issued a statement saying the verdict "demonstrates that
manufacturers cannot get away with fraud that puts lives at risk."

"We know from firsthand experience that this PVC pipe will
prematurely leak or break and can jeopardize lives," she said.

Mr. Gordon said the company presented evidence that its products
"meet and even exceed national standards" and that complaints were
based on claims about a fraction of 1 percent of more than 11
billion feet of pipe sold over 10 years.

Damages will be determined in a penalty phase that has not yet
been scheduled by the court.

Ms. Masto said evidence showed JM lied from 1996 to 2006 about
whether its PVC pipe met strength and durability standards
specified in government contracts and that the company used subpar
manufacturing standards to cut costs and boost profits.

Witnesses in the whistle-blower case testified that JM plant
managers who failed to meet production quotas had their pay docked
or lost their jobs, and those who met the quotas could double
their monthly salaries.

Ms. Masto said evidence showed managers removed "reject" tags from
pipe that quality control had identified as defective and shipped
it to unknowing customers.

There are more than 600 miles of JM pipe in Nevada.  Ms. Masto
said the state has spent millions to replace relatively new JM
water pipes that failed despite being considered "100-year" pipe.

The Nevada AG's investigation uncovered 16 failures of JM pipe at
various locations, including High Desert Prison in southern Nevada
and projects of the city of Reno, Las Vegas Valley Water district
and Truckee Meadows Water Authority.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: 11 Pelvic Mesh Actions Remanded to N.J. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joy L. Halliburton and 47 other named plaintiffs filed an action
on July 8, 2013, seeking damages in the District Court of
Pottawatomie County, Oklahoma, naming Johnson & Johnson and
Ethicon, Inc., two New Jersey companies who are engaged in the
business of designing, manufacturing, and distributing pelvic mesh
products as defendants. Plaintiffs assert state law claims of
negligence, design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn,
breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, deceit by
concealment, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and deceit,
violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, and violation
of the Oklahoma Deceptive Trade Practices Act. In addition, the
five male plaintiffs assert a claim for loss of consortium.  While
Halliburton is a citizen of the State of Oklahoma, the remaining
plaintiffs are citizens of twelve different states, including New
Jersey. Over the next two days, eleven other actions were filed
against Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon, Inc. in the District Court
of Pottawatomie County.  The Defendants removed all twelve cases
to the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma on August 8, 2013.

The matter is before the court on identical motions to remand
filed by plaintiffs in eleven of the twelve lawsuits. Plaintiffs
argued, among other things, that diversity jurisdiction does not
exist because at least one plaintiff in each case is a citizen of
New Jersey, as are defendants. Plaintiffs also contended that the
Class Action Fairness Act does not confer jurisdiction because the
statutory requirements for such jurisdiction have not been met.

District Judge Tim Leonard held that Defendants, as the parties
seeking to invoke the court's jurisdiction, have the burden of
establishing that the statutory requirements for such jurisdiction
have been met.  The Court, however, found that Defendants have
failed to meet their burden.

"As defendants have not established that the court has subject
matter jurisdiction, remand to state court is required.
Plaintiffs' Motions to Remand are therefore GRANTED. In light of
this ruling, defendants' Motions to Stay All Proceedings Pending
Decision to Transfer to MDL No. 232, In Re Ethicon, Inc., Pelvic
Repair System Products Litigation are DENIED as moot," ruled Judge
Leonard.

The cases are JOY L. HALLIBURTON, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON and ETHICON, INC., Defendants.
KATHLEEN TEAGUE, et al, Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON and ETHICON, INC., Defendants.
DIANA WADE, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON and ETHICON, INC., Defendants.
KELLI GOOCH, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON and ETHICON, INC., Defendants.
SARAH RUTH ALLBRITTON, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON and ETHICON, INC., Defendants.
TAMMY McCAUGHTRY, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON and ETHICON, INC., Defendants.
INOLA KILLSFIRST, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON and ETHICON, INC., Defendants.
MICHELLE STATES, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON and ETHICON, INC., Defendants.
ILARAE J. PAGE, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON and ETHICON, INC., Defendants.
TERESA MARIE ANDERSON, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON and ETHICON, INC., Defendants.
VALERIE SPEARS, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHNSON & JOHNSON and ETHICON, INC., Defendants, NOS. CIV-13-832-
L, CIV-13-833-L, CIV-13-834-L, CIV-13-836-L, CIV-13-838-L, CIV-13-
839-L, CIV-13-840-L, CIV-13-841-L, CIV-13-844-L, CIV-13-845-L,
CIV-13-846-L, (W.D. Ok.)

A copy of the District Court's October 18, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/mLQzU3 from Leagle.com.


KIDS WISH: Accused of Distributing Fraction of Donations Received
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristopher Wheeler, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Kids Wish Network Inc., a Florida Corporation, and
Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:13-cv-07548-R-RZ (C.D. Cal.,
October 11, 2013) alleges that a mere fraction of the donations it
received from concerned donors all over the country actually
reaches the children for which KWN supposedly operates.

KWN is a Florida corporation headquartered in Holiday, Florida.
KWN grants children's wishes, mimicking the better known "Make A
Wish Foundation," by using the charitable monetary donations from
consumers and citizens seeking to grant wishes to dying children.
The Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the
Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Louis Kelly, Esq.
          Behram V. Parekh, Esq.
          Heather Marie Baker, Esq.
          KIRTLAND AND PACKARD LLP
          2041 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 300
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 536-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 536-1001
          E-mail: mlk@kirtlandpackard.com
                  bvp@kirtlandpackard.com
                  hmb@kirtlandpackard.com


L'OREAL: Class Action Settlement Fails to Get Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
federal judge, in a decision on Nov. 6, refused to grant final
approval to a settlement in a class action brought against L'Oreal
for misleading labels on several hair product brands.

Judge John Bates for the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia concluded that final certification of the class and final
approval of the settlement -- which would have given the lawyers
nearly $1 million in fees while requiring class members to waive
their right to class-wide damages -- are "not warranted."

Judge Bates, in his 33-page memorandum opinion, called the
settlement "not fair, reasonable and adequate" and said the
arguments raised by the plaintiffs to show that the settlement is
fair were "unconvincing."

"Plaintiffs get attorney's fees, defendant gets a near-bulletproof
release, and class members get . . . an injunction," the judge
wrote.

"In the end, stripping the procedural right to bring a damages
class action from absent class members without their knowledge or
consent -- and effectively precluding their damages claims -- is
not proper."

Judge Bates noted that the agreement on fees is, itself, a sign
that the settlement may not be fair to the class.

"The settlement provides no monetary relief while rewarding
counsel handsomely," he wrote.

"This is not a case where the representative plaintiffs had to
spend significant amounts of time helping counsel to prepare a
detailed factual complaint; instead, the burden on the
representative plaintiffs was relatively low."

The judge continued, "Set against the recovery obtained on behalf
of the absent class members, incentive awards of $1,000 are
unfair."

The lawsuit, filed in April and settled in June, focused on
purportedly misleading labels on several L'Oreal hair product
brands.  Namely, the company described some its products as
"salon-only," when, in fact, the products also were sold in retail
stores like Target, Kmart and Walgreens.

Plaintiffs allege that the salon-only label implies a superior
quality product and "builds a cachet" that allows L'Oreal to
demand a premium price.

The company claims that the products are sold outside of salons
without its permission.


LASALLE COUNTY, IL: Sheriff Faces Class Action Over Strip-Search
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Manchir, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that the
attorney for a woman who alleged she was forcibly stripped by
LaSalle County sheriff's deputies after a DUI arrest this year on
Nov. 7 filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of four more people
who say they have experienced similar abuse at the jail.

The class-action suit against LaSalle County, Sheriff Thomas
Templeton and unknown sheriff's officers claims the four named
plaintiffs, three women and one man, were either forcibly stripped
or made to take their clothes off and then made to stay in cells
without bathrooms for several hours.  There, they had to urinate
and defecate in a drain on the floor of the cell, and in some of
the cases not given toilet paper, the suit claims.

The suit is separate from one just over a month ago of behalf of
Dana Holmes of Coal City, who alleges that after her DUI arrest in
May four deputies pulled her to the ground and carried her into a
LaSalle County jail cell, where they forcibly stripped her and
walked out with her clothes while being recorded on video.

The new lawsuit, filed on Nov. 7, claims that in addition to
forcibly stripping three female arrestees and one man brought to
the jail in a civil matter, the four were forced to stay in their
cells for several hours without access to a bathroom.

The suit also claims one of the women was denied medication for
diabetes and denied food she was capable of eating based on her
medical condition.

"This abusive and humiliating treatment has been, and continues to
be, a regular and common practice in the LaSalle County Jail as a
means of illegally punishing arrestees," the lawsuit read.

LaSalle County officials could not be reached on Nov. 7 for
comment but previously said that county jail guards did nothing
wrong in the incident involving Holmes.

Attorney Terry Ekl, who is representing Holmes and the four new
plaintiffs in the two cases filed in federal court, said on Nov. 7
if the class in the new suit is certified by the court, other
potential plaintiffs would be notified.

"I don't think we have anywhere near all of the (people) that this
happened to," Mr. Ekl said.

Under Illinois law, a strip-search is permitted only when officers
have a "reasonable belief" that the subject is hiding a weapon or
a controlled substance on their body.  The searches must be done
by an officer of the same sex as the subject and cannot be
observed by people not conducting the search.


LENNOX AIR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Air Conditioners
--------------------------------------------------------------
BigClassAction.com reports that Lennox Air Conditioning is facing
a defective products class action lawsuit alleging its air
conditioning units are susceptible to formicary corrosion as a
result of the deficient materials used in the manufacture of its
coils.  The lawsuit further alleges that Lennox has not informed
its customers of the defect, even when it is called to replace
failed coils in existing units.  This conduct, the lawsuit claims,
means that customers are unable to make informed decisions
regarding the purchase of a Lennox Air Conditioner.

Formicary corrosion is a particularly insidious defect in an
evaporator coil because the resultant leakage is difficult to
detect, and usually results in consumers being forced to
repeatedly refill their air conditioners with Freon, often at
significant cost, which only works to mask the defect for a period
of time, until the leak is detected and the coil needs to be
replaced.

Lennox Coils are defective because they are manufactured with
materials that, within the industry, are well known to be prone to
formicary corrosion, which makes the Lennox Coils unreasonably
susceptible to premature rupture and refrigerant leaks under
normal use and conditions.

The federal class action, filed by Plaintiff Robert Thomas, of
Illinois, is brought on behalf of the following nationwide
consumer classes:

All persons residing in the United States who purchased a Lennox
AC containing a Lennox Coil, primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes.

All persons residing in the United States who purchased a Lennox
AC containing a Lennox Coil, primarily for personal, family, or
household purposes, and who paid to replace a Lennox AC evaporator
coil.

Plaintiff also seeks to represent a subclass defined as all
members of the Classes who reside in Illinois.


LENOVO US: Suit Challenges Alleged Deceptive Notebook Marketing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wheeler, 1780 Willard St., NW, Washington, D.C., 20009-
1719, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
Lenovo (United States) Inc., 1009 Think Place, Morrisville, North
Carolina 27560, Case No. 2013 CA 007150 B (D.C. Super. Ct.,
October 22, 2013) is a consumer class action challenging the
deceptive marketing of notebook computers sold and distributed by
the Defendant.

Lenovo (United States), Inc. designed, manufactured, warranted,
advertised, and sold Lenovo IdeaPad(R) "U Series",
"Ultrabook(TM)," or "Ultraportable" notebook computers to
thousands of consumers throughout the United States, and at least
hundreds in the District of Columbia commencing on June 4, 2012.
The Company is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Morrisville, North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary E. Mason, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 605
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
          E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com
                  nmigliaccio@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          3301 Bonita Beach Road, Suite 101
          Bonita Springs, Florida 34134
          Telephone: (239) 390-1000
          Facsimile: (239) 390-0055
          E-mail: jchaikin@yourlawyer.com


MA LABORATORIES: Court Tosses Bid to Amend "Lou" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup denied a motion for leave to file
second amended complaint in the putative class action captioned
MICHELLE LOU, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MA LABORATORIES, INC., et
al., Defendants, NO. C 12-05409 WHA, (N.D. Cal.).

In this FLSA and California labor action, plaintiffs moved for
leave to file a second amended complaint and to strike several of
defendants' affirmative defenses.

The motion to strike was granted in part and denied in part but
the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint was
denied.

Due to the advanced progress of the action, defendants will not be
permitted an opportunity to amend, ruled Judge Alsup.

A copy of the District Court's October 17, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/99u0yHfrom Leagle.com.


MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Seeks Consolidation of 12 Class Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. and Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.; Impax Laboratories, Inc.;
Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Mylan Inc. and Matrix
Laboratories Ltd.; Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Ranbaxy Inc.,
and Ranbaxy Laboratories, Ltd.; Sandoz Inc.; Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries, Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Barr
Laboratories, Inc., jointly ask the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation for an order transferring and
consolidating for coordinated pretrial proceedings 12 similar
actions, as well as any cases that subsequently may be filed
asserting similar or related claims, to either the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona before Judge Susan R.
Bolton, or the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania before Judge J. Curtis Joyner.

The 12 lawsuits are pending in:

   -- Pennsylvania Eastern District Court:

         * 2:13-cv-04235;
         * 2:13-cv-04270;
         * 2:13-cv-04642;
         * 2:13-cv-04659;
         * 2:13-cv-05021;
         * 2:13-cv-05097;
         * 2:13-cv-05105; and
         * 2:13-cv-05108;

   -- Arizona District Court:

        * 2:13-cv-01952; and

   -- Massachusetts District Court:

        * 1:13-cv-12225;
        * 1:13-cv-12435; and
        * 1:13-cv-12517

The actions for which transfer and consolidation are proposed
allege nearly identical questions of fact and law.  Each of the 12
actions alleges that the Defendants unlawfully delayed the
introduction of generic versions of minocycline hydrochloride
extended release tablets Solodyn(R) ("Solodyn(R)") and engaged in
anticompetitive behavior in restraint of trade in violation of the
Sherman Act and state laws.  Ten of the 12 actions are putative
class actions brought on behalf of a class of indirect purchasers
of Solodyn(R) products.  Two of the actions are putative class
actions brought on behalf of a class of direct purchasers of
Solodyn(R) products.

All actions concern the same or substantially similar factual and
legal allegations, namely, that Medicis' enforcement of U.S.
Patent No. 5,908,838 and the subsequent settlements of the patent
cases with generic manufacturers Impax, Teva, Sandoz, Ranbaxy,
Mylan and Lupin constitute conspiracies to restrain trade and
monopolize the market for Solodyn(R) in violation of federal and
state antitrust laws.  The Plaintiffs also allege that Medicis'
launch of new strengths of its Solodyn(R) product represents
purportedly illegal "product hopping" in violation of the
antitrust laws.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael P. Kenny, Esq.
          Teresa T. Bonder, Esq.
          Matthew D. Kent, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          One Atlantic Center
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Telephone: (404) 881-7000
          Facsimile: (404) 881-7777
          E-mail: mike.kenny@alston.com
                  teresa.bonder@alston.com
                  matthew.kent@alston.com

               - and -

          Wesley Chused, Esq.
          LOONEY & GROSSMAN LLP
          101 Arch Street, Ninth Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 951-2800
          E-mail: wchused@lgllp.com

               - and -

          Steven C. Sunshine, Esq.
          Tara L. Reinhart, Esq.
          Julia K. York, Esq.
          Anjali B. Patel, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          1440 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 371-7000
          Facsimile: (202) 393-5760
          E-mail: steve.sunshine@skadden.com
                  tara.reinhart@skadden.com
                  julia.york@skadden.com
                  anjali.patel@skadden.com

               - and -

          Barbara T. Sicalides, Esq.
          Daniel J. Boland, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
          3000 Two Logan Square
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
          Telephone: (215) 981-4000
          Facsimile: (215) 981-4750
          E-mail: sicalidesb@pepperlaw.com
                  bolandd@pepperlaw.com

               - and -

          Peter C. Thomas, Esq.
          Christopher Cahill, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          1155 F Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 636-5500
          Facsimile: (202) 636-5502
          E-mail: pthomas@stblaw.com
                  ccahill@stblaw.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Rie, Esq.
          SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
          425 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 455-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 455-2502
          E-mail: jrie@stblaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher T. Holding, Esq.
          Robert D. Carroll, Esq.
          Sarah K. Frederick, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          Exchange Place
          53 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 570-1000
          Facsimile: (617) 523-1231
          E-mail: cholding@goodwinprocter.com
                  rcarroll@goodwinprocter.com
                  sfrederick@goodwinprocter.com

               - and -

          Kenneth R. O'Rourke, Esq.
          Stephen McIntyre, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street, 18th Fl.
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
          Telephone: (213) 430-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
          E-mail: korourke@omm.com
                  smcintyre@omm.com

               - and -

          Paula L. Blizzard, Esq.
          Audrey Walton-Hadlock, Esq.
          William S. Hicks, Esq.
          KEKER & VAN NEST
          633 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 391-5400
          Facsimile: (415) 397-7188
          E-mail: pblizzard@kvn.com
                  awalton-hadlock@kvn.com
                  whicks@kvn.com

               - and -

          Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C., Esq.
          Joseph Serino, Jr., P.C., Esq.
          Matthew F. Dexter, Esq.
          Ross Weiner, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-4800
          Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
          E-mail: lefkowitz@kirkland.com
                  joseph.serino@kirkland.com
                  matthew.dexter@kirkland.com
                  ross.weiner@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Leiv Blad, Jr., Esq.
          Hill Wellford, Esq.
          Michael L. Whitlock, Esq.
          Zarema V. Arutyunova, Esq.
          BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP
          2020 K Street NW
          Washington, DC 20006-1806
          Telephone: (202) 373-6000
          Facsimile: (202) 373-6001
          E-mail: leiv.blad@bingham.com
                  hill.wellford@bingham.com
                  michael.whitlock@bingham.com
                  zarema.arutyunova@bingham.com

               - and -

          William R. Landry, Esq.
          BLISH & CAVANAGH LLP
          Commerce Center
          30 Exchange Terrace
          Providence, RI 02903-1765
          Telephone: (401) 831-8900
          Facsimile: (401) 751-7542
          E-mail: wrl@blishcavlaw.com

The multidistrict litigation is In Re: Solodyn Antitrust
Litigation, Case MDL No. 2503.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Must Face "Keller" Claims Over Image Rights
----------------------------------------------------------------
The NCAA must face claims that it illegally prevented former
student athletes from making money off their images in video games
and merchandise, reports Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service,
citing a federal judge ruling.

Since 2009, a group of former NCAA athletes have been embroiled in
a legal battle over the use of their images in video games,
merchandise and other promotional materials.

In the first complaint, former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon
said the NCAA violated his and other athletes' right to make money
off their likenesses.  The athletes also sued NCAA licensing arm
Collegiate Licensing Co. and the video game company Electronic
Arts.  Those companies settled with the athletes on September 26.

After two years of litigation, the action involves 25 named
plaintiffs.

Four of the athletes claim that the NCAA violated their rights of
publicity by misappropriating their names and likeness, while the
other 21 say the NCAA violated antitrust laws by conspiring to
ensure they made no money off their likenesses.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken refused on October 24, 2013, to
dismiss the athletes' third amended consolidated class complaint.
Among other things, the NCAA claimed the class antitrust claims
are "nothing more than a challenge to the NCAA's rules on
amateurism" and that the athletes "have no protectable name, image
or likeness right in sports broadcasts."

Citing the 1984 Supreme Court decision in NCAA v. Board of Regents
of the University of Oklahoma, Wilken said there was not a
"sweeping proposition" that student-athletes are permanently
barred from receiving money for the commercial use of their names
and likenesses.

"Although it is possible that the NCAA's ban on student-athlete
pay serves some procompetitive purpose, such as increasing
consumer demand for college sports, plaintiffs' plausible
allegations to the contrary must be accepted as true at the
pleading stage," Wilken wrote.

The NCAA also failed to prove that the athletes' lack of publicity
rights meant their antitrust claims should be dismissed under
California law and the First Amendment, the judge found.

"Although the First Amendment -- unlike the California Civil Code
-- does impose certain limits on the right of publicity in every
state, the NCAA has not shown that those limits preclude
plaintiffs from asserting publicity rights in the specific types
of broadcasts at issue here," the 24-page opinion states.

Wilken added that "neither the Supreme Court nor the federal
courts of appeals have ever squarely addressed whether the First
Amendment bars athletes from asserting a right of publicity in the
use of their names, images, or likenesses during sports
broadcasts."

The NCAA also failed to show that the Copyright Act pre-empts
publicity-rights claims from the athletes.

Because the athletes do not own copyrights of the game footage,
they are not seeking to protect their copyrights, the judge found,
adding that the claims "are based principally on an injury to
competition, not simply misappropriation."

Three days before Electronic Arts settled the O'Bannon case, it
petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court regarding a similar case brought
by former college football quarterback Sam Keller.

The NCAA had not been involved in the underlying appeal but it
petitioned the Supreme Court about the case Friday, October 24,
2013, saying in a statement that EA's settlement may mean "that
there will not be a party in the Supreme Court to raise the First
Amendment issues, as EA had done in the Ninth Circuit."

"The court should therefore allow the NCAA to enter the case and
continue to press the important First Amendment arguments," the
NCAA added.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Celeste H.G. Boyd, Esq.
          THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC
          1340 Environ Way
          Chapel Hill, NC 27517
          Telephone: (505) 501-8176
          E-mail: cboyd@smplegal.com

               - and -

          Stuart McKinley Paynter, Esq.
          THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC
          1200 G Street NW, Ste 800
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 626-4486
          E-mail: stuart@smplegal.com

               - and -

          Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
          Robert J. Wozniak, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          Facsimile: (224) 632-4519
          E-mail: doug@fklmlaw.com
                  rwozniak@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Allan Steyer, Esq.
          Donald Scott Macrae, Esq.
          Gabriel Dash Zeldin, Esq.
          STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
          One California Street, Ste 300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 421-3400
          E-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com
                  smacrae@bamlawlj.com
                  gzeldin@steyerlaw.com

               - and -

          Amanda Heather Kent, Esq.
          Robert William Finnerty, Esq.
          Thomas V. Girardi, Esq.
          GIRARDI AND KEESE
          1126 Wilshire Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977-0211
          Facsimile: (213) 481-1554
          E-mail: amarz@girardikeese.com
                  rfinnerty@girardikeese.com
                  tgirardi@girardikeese.com

               - and -

          Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
          ARTHUR N. BAILEY & ASSOCIATES
          111 West Second Street, Suite 4500
          Jamestown, NY 14701
          Telephone: (716) 664-2967
          Facsimile: (716) 716-2983

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Hilary Kathleen Scherrer, Esq.
          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          Sathya S. Gosselin, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, N.W., Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: hscherrer@hausfeldllp.com
                  mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
                  sgosselin@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
          Carmen Anthony Medici, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          E-mail: bonnys@rgrdlaw.com
                  cmedici@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Bruce Lee Simon, Esq.
          Thomas Kay Boardman, Esq.
          PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-9000
          Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
          E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com
                  tboardman@pswlaw.com

               - and -

          Carl A. Taylor Lopez, Esq.
          LOPEZ & FANTEL
          1510 14th Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98122-4024
          Telephone: (206) 322-5200
          E-mail: clopez@lopezfantel.com

               - and -

          Catherine Rosato Reilly, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          1627 I Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 912-4836
          E-mail: creilly@cozen.com

               - and -

          Christopher Theo Hellums, Esq.
          PITTMAN DUTTON AND HELLUMS, P.C.
          2001 Park Place North, Suite 1100
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 322-8880
          E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com

               - and -

          Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
          Daniel Cohen, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          507 C Street NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
                  danielc@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel Simon Mason, Esq.
          Jiangxiao Athena Hou, Esq.
          ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP
          44 Montgomery St., #3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 693-0700
          E-mail: dmason@zelle.com
                  ahou@zelle.com

               - and -

          Mitchell J. Rapp, Esq.
          Shawn D. Stuckey, Esq.
          ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP
          500 Washington Ave South, Ste 4000
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 339-2020
          E-mail: mrapp@zell.com
                  sstuckey@zelle.com

               - and -

          Derek G. Howard, Esq.
          MINAMI TAMAKI LLP
          360 Post Street, 8th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 788-9000
          Facsimile: (415) 398-3887
          E-mail: dhoward@minamitamaki.com

               - and -

          Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
          NASTLAW LLC
          1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 923-9300
          Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
          E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com

               - and -

          Edgar Dean Gankendorff, Esq.
          PROVOSTY & GANKENDORF LLC
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2700
          New Orleans, La 70130
          Telephone: (504) 410-2795
          Facsimile: (504) 410-2796
          E-mail: egankendorff@provostylaw.com

               - and -

          Ellen Meriwether, Esq.
          CAFFERTY FAUCHER LLP
          1717 Arch St., Suite 3610
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 864-2144
          Facsimile: (215) 864-2810
          E-mail: emeriwether@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
          Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
          Jeffrey Lawrence Spector, Esq.
          William G. Caldes, Esq.
          Jay S. Cohen, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, PC
          1818 Market Street, 25th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com
                  jcorrigan@srkw-law.com
                  jspector@srkw-law.com
                  bcaldes@srkw-law.com
                  jcohen@srkw-law.com

               - and -

          Jack Simms, Esq.
          Tanya Chutkan, Esq.
          William A. Isaacson, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          5301 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20015
          Telephone: (202) 237-2727
          Facsimile: (202) 237-6131
          E-mail: tchutkan@bsfllp.com
                  wisaacson@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Jay L. Himes, Esq.
          Morissa R. Falk, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0834
          E-mail: jhimes@labaton.com
                  mfalk@labaton.com

               - and -

          Joel Cary Meredith, Esq.
          MEREDITH & ASSOCIATES
          1521 Locust Street, 8th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 564-5182
          Facsimile: (215) 569-0958
          E-mail: jmeredith@mcgslaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          SAVERI LAW FIRM
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 500-6803
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Kimberly A. Kralowec, Esq.
          THE KRALOWEC LAW GROUP
          188 The Embarcadero, Suite 800
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 546-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 546-6801
          E-mail: kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com

               - and -

          Renae Diane Steiner, Esq.
          Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone: (612) 338-4605
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
          E-mail: rsteiner@heinsmills.com
                  vesades@heinsmills.com

               - and -

          Robert G. Eisler, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000
          Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
          E-mail: reisler@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
          10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 779-1414
          E-mail: aranoff@bernlieb.com

               - and -

          Seth Rosenthal, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          575 7th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 344-4741
          E-mail: sarosenthal@venable.com

               - and -

          Stanley M. Chesley, Esq.
          WAITE SCHNEIDER BAYLESS & CHESLEY
          1513 Fourth & Vine Tower
          1 West Fourth Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 621-0267
          Facsimile: (513) 381-2375

               - and -

          Wilbert Benjamin Markovits, Esq.
          Terence Richard Coates, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC
          119 East Court Street, Suite 530
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
          E-mail: bmarkovits@msdlegal.com
                  tcoates@msdlegal.com

               - and -

          Austin B. Cohen, Esq.
          Howard J. Sedran, Esq.
          LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          E-mail: acohen@lfsblaw.com
                  hsedran@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          David Haym Weinstein, Esq.
          Jeremy S. Spiegel, Esq.
          Steven A. Asher, Esq.
          Mindee Jill Reuben, Esq.
          WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 545-7200
          E-mail: weinstein@wka-law.com
                  spiegel@wka-law.com
                  asher@wka-law.com
                  reuben@wka-law.com

               - and -

          Donald L. Perelman, Esq.
          FINE KAPLAN AND BLACK, RPC
          One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 567-6565
          E-mail: dperelman@finekaplan.com

               - and -

          Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
          FINE KAPLAN AND BLACK, RPC
          1835 Markel Street, 28th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 567-6565
          Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
          E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com

               - and -

          Gerald J. Rodos, Esq.
          Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
          BARRACK RODOS AND BACINE
          2001 Market St.
          3300 Two Commerce Sq
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600
          E-mail: grodos@barrack.com
                  jgittleman@barrack.com

               - and -

          Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
          Robert Joseph LaRocca, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT & GRAF P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Ste 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
                  rlarocca@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Karl Olson, Esq.
          RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-4949
          Facsimile: (415) 433-7311
          E-mail: kolson@ramolson.com

               - and -

          Tracy Tien, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
          100 Bush Street, Suite 1450
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 398-8700
          E-mail: ttien@finkelsteinthompson.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          1101 Market Street, Suite 2650
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 864-2800
          Facsimile: (215) 864-2810
          E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Brian Douglas Henri, Esq.
          HENRI LAW GROUP
          624 University Ave
          Palo Alto, CA 94301
          Telephone: (650) 485-2767
          Facsimile: (650) 485-2768
          E-mail: brianhenri@henrilg.com

               - and -

          Gordon Ball, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE GORDON BALL
          7001 Old Kent Drive
          Knoxville, TN 37919
          Telephone: (865) 525-7028
          Facsimile: (865) 525-4679
          E-mail: gball@gordonball.com

               - and -

          Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
          Kelly M. Dermody, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN,LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: efastiff@lchb.com
                  kdermody@lchb.com

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Jason Kilene, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  jkilene@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          David A. Goodwin, Esq.
          608 Second Avenue South
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Lee Albert, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: lalbert@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: ecramer@bm.net

               - and -

          Joshua P. Davis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA P. DAVIS
          437A Valley Street
          San Francisco, CA 94131
          Telephone: (415) 422-6223
          E-mail: davisj@usfca.edu

               - and -

          Kendall S. Zylstra, Esq.
          Stephen E. Connolly, Esq.
          FARUQI AND FARUQI, LLP
          101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 600
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: 215-277-5770
          Facsimile: (215) 277-5771
          E-mail: kzylstra@faruqilaw.com
                  sconnolly@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Garrett D. Blanchfield , Jr., Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          322 Minnesota Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com

               - and -

          Joe Sibley, Esq.
          Kiwi Alejandro Danao Camara, Esq.
          CAMARA & SIBLEY LLP
          2339 University Boulevard
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 893-7973
          E-mail: camara@camarasibley.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Tesfaye Wolde Tsadik
          LAW OFFICES OF TESFAYE TSADIK
          1736 Franklin Street, 10th Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 839-3922
          Facsimile: (510) 444-1704
          E-mail: ttsadik@pacbell.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert James Slaughter, Esq.
          Daniel E. Jackson, Esq.
          Robert Adam Lauridsen, Esq.
          Robert Addy Van Nest, Esq.
          Steven A. Hirsch, Esq.
          Robert James Slaughter, Esq.
          KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
          633 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
          Telephone: (415) 391-5400
          Facsimile: (415) 397-7188
          E-mail: rslaughter@kvn.com
                  djackson@kvn.com
                  alauridsen@kvn.com
                  rvannest@kvn.com
                  shirsch@kvn.com
                  rslaughter@kvn.com

               - and -

          Juan Carlos Araneda, Esq.
          Jason Alex Geller, Esq.
          MECKLER BULGER TILSON MARICK & PEARSON LLP
          575 Market Street, Suite 2200
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 644-0914
          Facsimile: (415) 644-0978
          E-mail: juan.araneda@mbtlaw.com
                  jason.geller@mbtlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert James Wierenga, Esq.
          Frederick Richard Juckniess, Esq.
          Gregory L. Curtner, Esq.
          Jessica Anne Sprovtsoff, Esq.
          Kimberly K. Kefalas, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          350 South Main Street, Suite 210
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 222-1507
          Facsimile: (734) 222-1501
          E-mail: rwierenga@schiffhardin.com
                  rjuckniess@schiffhardin.com
                  gcurtner@schiffhardin.com
                  jsprovtsoff@schiffhardin.com
                  kkefalas@schiffhardin.com

               - and -

          Rocky N. Unruh, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          Thirty-Second Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 901-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 901-8701
          E-mail: runruh@schiffhardin.com

               - and -

          Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke, Esq.
          Jeslyn A. Miller, Esq.
          Rohit K. Singla, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES OLSON LLP
          560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 512-4027
          Facsimile: (415) 644-6927
          E-mail: carolyn.luedtke@mto.com
                  jeslyn.miller@mto.com
                  singlark@mto.com

               - and -

          Glenn D. Pomerantz, Esq.
          Kelly Max Klaus, Esq.
          MUNGER TOLLES AND OLSON
          355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Telephone: (213) 683-9100
          Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
          E-mail: glenn.pomerantz@mto.com
                  kelly.klaus@mto.com

               - and -

          David P. Borovsky, Esq.
          Glen Robert Olson, Esq.
          LONG & LEVIT LLP
          465 California Street, Ste 500
          San Francisco, CA 94104-1814
          Telephone: (415) 397-2222
          E-mail: dborovsky@longlevit.com
                  golson@longlevit.com

               - and -

          Matthew S. Weiler, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market St.
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-1159
          E-mail: mweiler@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Suzanne Wahl, Esq.
          MILLER CANFIELD PADDOCK & STONE PLC
          101 N. Main St., 7th Floor
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 668-8938
          Facsimile: (734) 663-8624
          E-mail: swahl@schiffhardin.com

               - and -

          Amber Melia Trincado, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          101 Second Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 318-1200
          Facsimile: (415) 318-1300
          E-mail: atrincado@kslaw.com

               - and -

          Christina E. Fahmy, Esq.
          KILPATRICK TOWNSEND
          607 14th Street, NW, Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20005-2018
          Telephone: (202) 508-5834
          E-mail: cfahmy@kilpatricktownsend.com

               - and -

          Gregory S. Gilchrist, Esq.
          KILPATRICK TOWNSEND AND STOCKTON LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, Eighth Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 576-0200
          Facsimile: (415) 576-0300
          E-mail: ggilchrist@kilpatricktownsend.com

               - and -

          Cindy Dawn Hanson, Esq.
          R. Charles Henn, Jr., Esq.
          Sara M. Vanderhoff, Esq.
          William Howard Brewster, Esq.
          KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP
          1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 815-6470
          E-mail: chanson@kilpatrickstockton.com
                  chenn@kilpatrickstockton.com
                  bbrewster@kilpatrickstockton.com

               - and -

          Constance K. Robinson, Esq.
          Peter M. Boyle, Esq.
          Svetlana S. Gans, Esq.
          KILPATRICK STOCKTON LLP
          607 14th Street, NW, Ste 900
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 508-5831
          Facsimile: (202) 585-0057
          E-mail: CRobinson@kilpatrickstockton.com
                  pboyle@kilpatrickstockton.com
                  sgans@kilstock.com

               - and -

          Courtney Elizabeth Curtis, Esq.
          James C. Potepan, Esq.
          LECLAIRRYAN LLP
          725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 350
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 488-0503
          Facsimile: (213) 624-3755
          E-mail: courtney.curtis@leclairryan.com
                  james.potepan@leclairryan.com

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


NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE: Judge Dismisses Subrogation Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady and Eric Hornbeck, writing for Law360, report that
an American International Group Inc. subsidiary on Nov. 7 secured
the dismissal of a class action brought by a New York couple who
accused the insurer of wrongfully going after a third party before
fully compensating them for damage caused by a faulty water
cooler.

A New York state judge backed AIG unit New Hampshire Insurance
Co.'s argument that a prior state appellate ruling bars Brooklyn
homeowners Nusyn and Chaya Erlich from pursuing part of a
settlement payout they say they are owed by the insurer and
Everest Reinsurance Co., which sued the water cooler maker under
the principle of subrogation.

Early last month, AIG attorneys argued that the New York Court of
Appeals' 1995 ruling in Winkelmann v. Excelsior Insurance Co.
outlined a "made whole" doctrine holding that policyholders are
not entitled to share in an insurer's recovery from wrongdoers
unless the tortfeasor doesn't have enough assets to cover both the
insured's and the insurer's claims.

Judge Shirley Werner Kornreich tossed the suit on Nov. 7 after
finding that the issue presented by the Erlichs "has already been
decided" by Winkelmann.

"In short, plaintiffs baldly proffer a version of the 'made whole'
doctrine that is not recognized under New York law and which is
squarely at odds with precedent repeatedly affirmed by the Court
of Appeals," Judge Kornreich said.

She added that even if this were not true, dismissal would be
justified by the plaintiffs' failure to mount their own lawsuit
against Greenway Home Products Inc. -- which manufactured the
water cooler -- or to substantiate claims they had suffered
additional uninsured losses.

The Erlichs had secured a policy from the insurer prior to the
2008 water cooler malfunction, which caused more than $124,000 in
damage.  They received only $112,000 for the damage to their home,
however, after the insurer subtracted a deductible and a
depreciation holdback, according to the order.

Under a subrogation agreement, reinsurer EverestRe then went after
Greenway and secured more than New Hampshire had paid to the
Erliches.

The couple subsequently sued AIG in August 2012, claiming New York
state's equitable subrogation law allows an insurer to seek
subrogation against only those funds that remain after an insured
has been fully compensated for his or her loss and arguing that
they are entitled to be reimbursed for the full value of their
losses, including the deductible and depreciation holdback.

The Erlichs; suit aimed to represent a class of individuals and
businesses that purchased New Hampshire Insurance-issued policies
during an unspecified class period. It asserted causes of action
for deceptive practices under New York business law, violation of
the doctrine of equitable subrogation, and unjust enrichment.

On Nov. 7, Judge Kornreich noted that the couple had received
everything to which they were entitled under the policy, and that
the insurance contract they had signed clearly permitted the
depreciation deduction the Erlichs sought to have overturned.  She
went on to chastise the couple for attempting to "piggyback" on
EverestRe's lawsuit, saying the onus was on policyholders to
commence litigation against a tortfeasor if they hoped to recover
money above and beyond their covered losses.

"The policyholder cannot sit on its rights, allowing its claims
against the tortfeasor to become time-barred, and then sue its
insurer for a portion of the subrogation settlement," Judge
Kornreich said.  "That is fundamentally unfair, and contravenes
the subrogation framework and public policy repeatedly articulated
by the Court of Appeals."

The plaintiffs are represented by Adam J. Gana and Christopher L.
Lufrano of Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik LLP and Brian G. Maloney and
Michael R. Ambrecht of Ambrecht & Maloney PLLC.

AIG is represented by Stephen E. Goldman --
sgoldman@rc.com -- of Robinson & Cole LLP.  EverestRe is
represented by Joseph J. Schiavone -- jschiavone@buddlarner.com --
of Budd Larner PC.

The case is Nusyn Erlich et al. v. American International Group
Inc. et al., case number 652672/2012, in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of New York.


NEW ZEALAND: Homeowners Mull Group Action v. Earthquake Commission
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Mathewson, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that almost 200
people have registered their interest for a group action against
the Earthquake Commission's handling of Canterbury's earthquake
rebuild.

Law firm Anthony Harper is calling for disgruntled homeowners to
join its campaign to hold EQC to its obligations under the
Earthquake Commission Act.

Lawyer Simon Munro said nearly 200 registrations of interest had
been received in the last few weeks from property owners concerned
about the amount of money the commission was offering as cash
settlements or unhappy about the work it was planning to do on
their homes.

"For most people it is their biggest asset which is at stake.
They have exhausted all other options and believe it is time for
the High Court to force EQC's hand."

The proposed action aimed to get a declaratory judgment from the
High Court confirming the standard of repair EQC was required to
meet.

The judgment would impact both repairs made by Fletcher EQR on
EQC's behalf as well as the amount EQC paid if it elected to
settle claims in cash.

Mr. Munro said under the Earthquake Commission Act, EQC was
obliged to replace or reinstate a building to the same condition
it was when it was new, subject to any applicable laws.

If building materials or methods had evolved, or specific products
were no longer available, the Earthquake Commission Act said EQC
was only bound to replace or reinstate as circumstances allowed
and in a "reasonably sufficient manner".

Mr. Munro said EQC appeared to be relying on the "reasonably
sufficient" standard in all cases, not just those where
circumstances did not allow complete reinstatement.

Anthony Harper wanted to establish whether EQC's approach was
wrong, and Mr. Munro said the ideal outcome would be to change the
commission's approach without the need for court action, but
litigation would happen if necessary.

A meeting would be held at the Cardboard Cathedral on November 25
to formally bring those interested in class action together, but
the discussion would be closed to the media and wider public.

Although there was strong interest in the class action, there was
no guarantee yet that the proceeding would go ahead.

"That is the purpose of the meeting at the Cardboard Cathedral -
to provide the homeowners who have registered their interest with
more information and give them the opportunity to confirm their
commitment to joining the action."

Mr. Munro said all work to date had been pro bono, but that was
not sustainable.

"There will be costs that must be covered as we progress.  That is
one of the reasons a group action is being considered as this will
also help spread the costs for those involved."


NOEL'S PAINTING: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elliot Hucks, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Noel's Painting, Inc., A Florida Corporation & Travis Noel,
individually, Case No. 2:13-cv-00719-JES-DNF (M.D. Fla.,
October 11, 2013) is a claim for unpaid overtime and unpaid wages
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover
overtime wages, an additional and equal amount in liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Noel's Painting, Inc., is a painting company headquartered in Lee
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cecilia Barber, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          600 N. Pine Island Rd., Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
          E-mail: CBarber@forthepeople.com


NQ MOBILE: Exaggerates Performance, China Market Share, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip at Courthouse News Service reports that security
software maker NQ Mobile pumped up its stock price by exaggerating
its financial performance and its market share in China, a class
action claims in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Michael Kostuk Jr. calls NQ Mobile, a Chinese
developer of antivirus and anti-malware software, "a massive
fraud," in the lawsuit, which cites an October 24 report by
securities research firm Muddy Waters, regulatory filings and
other public information.

The price of NQ shares dropped by 47 percent on Thursday,
October 24, 2013, knocking $500 million off its market
capitalization, after Muddy Waters released its report, and fell
another 20 percent on Friday, October 24, 2013, Reuters reported.
NQ threatened to sue Muddy Waters, whose owner, Carson Block,
Reuters described as a short seller.

NQ, whose portfolio includes mobile security, mobile games and
advertising, has two global headquarters, in Dallas and Beijing.
It is led by two chief executive officers: co-founder Henry Lin in
China and former Samsung Electronics Co. Chief Strategy Officer
Omar Khan, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate.

Most of the company's 400 employees work in Beijing and about 60
percent of its revenue comes from China, Bloomberg Businessweek
reported in August.

NQ Mobile was listed on the New York Stock Exchange in 2011 in an
$89 million offering underwritten by Piper Jaffray.  It raised an
additional $69 million in a secondary offering last year,
according to regulatory filings.

The company completed the sale of $172.5 million in convertible
bonds this month.  Morgan Stanley and Deutsche Bank unit Deutsche
Bank Securities bought $22.5 million of that offer, Reuters
reported.

Morgan Stanley & Co. International and Deutsche Bank Securities
are also named as defendants.

Neither bank, however, acted as an underwriter for NQ Mobile's
initial public offering.

The complaint states: "On Oct. 24, 2013, it was reported by a
securities brokerage firm (Muddy Waters) that:

   "a) NQ is a massive fraud. At least 72 percent of NQ's
       purported 2012 China security revenue is factitious.  NQ's
       largest customer by far is really NQ. Their research
       estimates that NQ's real market share in China is only
       about 1.5 percent versus the approximately 55 percent it
       reports.  It did estimate that its China paying user base
       is less than 250,000 versus the six million NQ claims.

   "b) NQ's Antivirus 7.0 is unsafe to sell to consumers and its
       spyware makes users' phone vulnerable to cyber attack.  NQ
       makes a weak attempt to protect users' private data as
       it's uploaded through the Chinese government's firewall to
       NQ's server.  Phones [are] vulnerable to MITM attacks
       because NQ fails to adhere to basic security protocols.
       MW engaged top-flight security software engineers to
       analyze this product.

   "c) NQ's purported international revenue of $36.5 million is
       likely less than its PRC revenue.  NQ claims to generate
       international revenue in obscure markets and through
       mysterious counterparts that seem to seldom pay.

   "d) NQ's future is as bleak as its past.  The recent pivot to
       advertising and gaming is merely an attempt to change to a
       fraud that NQ hopes will be less obvious.  NQ cannot
       monetize users that it does not have.

   "e) NQ's acquisitions are highly likely to be corrupt.

   "f) NQ's cash balance[s] are generally fictitious.  In NQ's
       2012 20-F, PwC classified all cash and term deposits as
       Level 2 assets.  NQ's purported movements of cash from its
       IPO almost certainly did not occur due to PRC FX controls.
       Therefore, the term deposits are likely forgeries."

NQ Mobile's share price sank by $10.91 per share Thursday,
October 24, 2013, after Muddy Waters released its report, to close
at $12.09 per share, according to the complaint.

Kostuk, who claims he bought NQ Mobile securities at an inflated
price, claims the nose dive cost hundreds of thousands of
investors money.  He seeks to represent all shareholders who
bought NQ Mobile stock between May 5, 2011, and October 24, 2013.

Millions of NQ Mobile shares were traded publicly during that
period, including 29 million shares of common stock on October 24,
according to the complaint.

NQ Mobile's shares, traded as an American depositary receipt on
the New York Stock Exchange, almost doubled in July this year,
making NQ Mobile one of the best-performing stocks on the
Bloomberg index of 55 Chinese-owned companies listed in the United
States.

As of August 9, the stock was up 175 percent in 2013, according to
Bloomberg Businessweek.

Kostuk claims that NQ Mobile knowingly misrepresented its
financial condition, operations and prospects in SEC filings,
press releases and other public statements.

He claims the London-based Morgan Stanley & Co. International and
Deutsche Bank Securities had access to information about NQ
Mobile's true financial state, but failed to warn investors or
stop the dissemination of false information.

NQ Mobile announced this month that it had granted up to $150
million in convertible senior notes due in 2018 to Morgan Stanley
& Co. International and Deutsche Bank Securities, according to the
complaint.

Deutsche Bank declined to comment on the lawsuit.

NQ Mobile did not reply to a request for comment.

Morgan Stanley & Co. International declined to comment.

NQ Mobile on Friday, October 24, 2013, responded to Muddy Water by
publishing a list of 14 bank accounts in mainland China and Hong
Kong that showed deposits totaling the equivalent of about $295
million, according to Reuters.

The company called the Muddy Waters allegations "false and
inaccurate," but said its board of directors has formed a special
committee to review the allegations.

Kostuk seeks class certification and damages for securities
violations.

A similar class action has been filed in Manhattan Federal Court.

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

          Evans Carter, Esq.
          EVANS J. CARTER, P.C.
          860 Worcester Rd.
          Framingham, MA 01702
          Telephone: (508) 875-1669


NQ MOBILE: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of NQ Mobile
Inc., on Nov. 7 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of a class comprising all purchasers of NQ
Mobile securities between May 5, 2011 and October 24, 2013,
inclusive.

A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IS AVAILABLE FROM THE COURT OR FROM GLANCY
BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP. PLEASE CONTACT US TOLL-FREE AT (888) 773-
9224, OR AT (212) 682-5340, OR BY EMAIL TO
SHAREHOLDERS@GLANCYLAW.COM TO DISCUSS THIS MATTER. IF YOU INQUIRE
BY EMAIL PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR MAILING ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER AND
NUMBER OF SHARES PURCHASED.

NQ Mobile is a Beijing, China-based provider of mobile Internet
services, including mobile security, privacy, productivity,
personalized cloud and family protection.  The Complaint alleges
that the defendants issued false and/or misleading statements and
failed to disclose material facts concerning NQ Mobile's business,
operations and financial performance.  On October 24, 2013, Muddy
Waters Research Group issued a report alleging that, among other
things:

   -- At least 72% of NQ's purported China security revenue is
fictitious and the Company's largest customer is actually NQ
Mobile.

   -- NQ Mobile's actual market share in China is about 1.5%,
rather than the approximately 55% it purports, and its paying
China user base is less than 250,000, rather than the
approximately six million it purports.

   -- NQ Mobile's Antivirus 7.0 is unsafe for sale to consumers,
and creates serious vulnerabilities, making users' phones prone to
data compromise and cyber attack.

If you are a member of the Class described above you may move the
Court no later than December 27, 2013, to serve as lead plaintiff;
however, you must meet certain legal requirements.  If you wish to
learn more about this action, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles, California 90067, Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, or contact
Gregory Linkh, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP at 122 E.
42nd Street, Suite 2920, New York, New York 10168, at
(212) 682-5340, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit
our website at http://www.glancylaw.com

If you inquire by email please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.


OIL STATES: Accused of Not Correctly Paying Oil Field Workers' OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Hall, as the representative of the estate of David Allan
Hall, deceased, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Oil States International, Inc. and Oil States Energy
Services, L.L.C. F/K/A Specialty Rental Tools & Supply, L.L.C.,
Case No. 2:13-cv-00318 (S.D. Tex., October 14, 2013) alleges that
the Defendants knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate
Jessica Hall's late husband, David Hall, and other similarly
situated oil field workers based on the time-and-a-half overtime
formula in the Fair Labor Standards Act by not including non-
discretionary bonus payments in the calculation of the overtime
rate of pay.

Oil States International, Inc. and Oil States Energy Services,
L.L.C. are Delaware corporations headquartered in Houston, Harris
County, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig M. Sico, Esq.
          Roger S. Braugh, Jr., Esq.
          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          SICO, WHITE, HOELSCHER, HARRIS & BRAUGH L.L.P.
          802 N. Carancahua, Suite 900
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 653-3300
          Facsimile: (361) 653-3333
          E-mail: csico@swhhb.com
                  rbraugh@swhhb.com
                  calexander@swhhb.com

               - and -

          James H. Hada, Esq.
          SICO, WHITE, HOELSCHER, HARRIS & BRAUGH L.L.P.
          Three Riverway, Suite 1910
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 465-9944
          Facsimile: (888) 521-5576


OPERATING ENGINEERS UNION: Called Hotbed of Corruption by Members
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, William Dotinga reports that
The International Union of Operating Engineers cavorts with
international crime syndicates, spends union dues illegally and
intimidates dissenters with threats of violence, disgruntled union
members claim in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff David Slack et al. accuse IUOE, Local 3 --
headquartered in Alameda -- and 68 other defendants of violating
labor management laws, the California Labor Code, ERISA and
racketeering laws, in the 111-page complaint.

The IUOE represents heavy equipment operators and other
construction workers and is the 10th largest union in the AFL-CIO.
Local 3 is its largest branch, representing workers in California,
Nevada, Utah, Hawaii and the Pacific Rim islands.

The class begins by accusing IUOE bosses of forcing all members to
contribute 1 percent of their salaries to the "President's Club,"
a euphemism for the union's political action committee fund.

Although federal election laws prohibit unions from forcing PAC
contributions from members, the plaintiffs claim IUOE threatens
members with termination and deducts the contribution directly
from their paychecks.

The plaintiffs claim they've paid millions into the Hawaiian
Stabilization Fund, ostensibly to enforce contractors' compliance
with prevailing wage obligations and to keep them from operating
"double-breasted" -- working with unions while opening up their
own nonunion opportunities on the side.

In reality, the fund is a quasi-PAC used to push political agendas
in Hawaii, according to the class.

"The Hawaiian Stabilization Fund is not -- and has not been, for
years -- actually operating as a compliance fund, despite its
official position conveyed to members that it is," the members
state in the complaint.  "The defendants, along with [defendant]
IUOE vice president Russell Burns, concealed the true current
purpose and operation of the fund from members of Local 3,
District 17.  Specifically, they concealed that it is used as a
quasi-political action fund, which is operated by Local 3 to
advance political agendas on the island, and as a slush fund
abused by employees of the fund to enjoy extravagant trips,
expensive lunches, limousines, and the like.  The fund appears to
be used as a means to divert member wages to other union officers
outside Hawaii, since the monies are deposited into the OE Credit
Union and, on at least one occasion, millions of dollars vanished
as the result of a purported 'loan' to Local 3 Utah operations,
though no formal record of that loan is available or, to
plaintiffs' knowledge, disclosed in Department of Labor filings."

The plaintiffs claim that few, if any, fund employees have been
hired to enforce contractors' compliance. Instead, they say, union
bosses use the fund -- which raises $4 million annually from
members -- to hire lobbyists and as a secret slush fund.

"Defendant Burns and the trustees of fund have always been more
concerned with protecting this secret slush fund than in detecting
and stopping misuse of fund assets," the class claims.  "For
example, between 2006 and 2012 embezzlement and credit card fraud
were rampant at the fund.  Specifically, defendant Perry Artates
embezzled roughly $90,000 through improper credit card-based
charges in one year.  But, instead of firing Artates and suing to
recover the stolen funds, defendant Alvin Kobayashi simply
assisted Burns in concealing the full magnitude of the misconduct,
in violation of their fiduciary duties.  Meanwhile, other trustees
are aware that Kobayashi is improperly serving as a trustee, but
they have all breached their duties to the Hawaiian Stabilization
Fund and Local 3 members by failing to force the removal of
Kobayashi."

In addition to the alleged hanky-panky with the Hawaiian
compliance fund, the plaintiffs claim, nepotism and a bad
investment vehicle led to the evaporation of $50 million in IUOE
pension funds.  Defendant -- and Western States Conference
President -- William Waggoner pressured local branches to invest
their pension funds in Amalgamated Bank's product line, which were
sold by Waggoner's wife Patricia, one of the bank's vice
presidents, according to the lawsuit.

"In or about 2008, Patricia Waggoner first appeared at a Local 3
Pension trustee meeting to 'pitch' investments by the pension
trust into the Longview Ultra Construction Loan Investment Fund
and Longview International Value Equity Fund," according to the
complaint.  "Unable to give adequate answers to the trustees'
investment questions, she essentially passed out flyers to the
attendees, after which defendant Carl Goff, then vice president of
Local 3, fielded questions with another Amalgamated Bank
representative, Mr. Handworker, Ms. Waggoner's supervisor at
Amalgamated.  The fact that Ms. Waggoner was incapable of
answering investment-related questions should alone have caused
the trustees to have great concern about her investment
proposals."

Neither Amalgamated Bank nor its employees are parties to the
lawsuit.

After the meeting, Local 3 agreed to invest $100 million from its
pension fund in the Longview Ultra Construction Loan Investment
Fund; by the end of 2010, the fund had lost $50 million of the $90
million Local 3 had invested, the complaint states.

"The Longview Construction Loan Fund touted investments in
construction loans as the mechanism for returns on investor
assets," the plaintiffs claim.  "However, many of the investments
were poorly evaluated, as many of the major construction projects
were never completed, forcing Amalgamated Bank to foreclose on a
number of major real estate projects in an attempt to reduce
losses suffered by the fund.  The Longview Construction Loan Fund
was an unsuitable investment choice for Local 3's pension funds,
due to its risky and unsound investment practices.  Pension
investments must be protected from the risk of significant loss,
and the trustees of the Local 3 OE Pension Fund failed to do that.
The officers of Local 3 breached their fiduciary duties by
encouraging to the point of requiring investment by the Local 3 OE
Pension Fund in the Longview Construction Loan Fund.  William
Waggoner breached his fiduciary duty to the members of Local 3
when he utilized his position as first vice president of IUOE and
western states conference president to pressure Local 3 to invest
in the Longview Construction Loan Fund in large part to benefit
his wife, Patty Waggoner, at Amalgamated Bank."

The plaintiffs claim the FDIC accused Amalgamated of "cooking the
books" in 2011.  Billionaires Wilbur Ross and Ron Burkle rescued
the bank -- the largest union-owned lender in the U.S. -- from the
brink of ruin with a combined $100 million bailout in 2012.

The plaintiffs claim the pension fund remains in the red and
severely underfunded, though Local 3 officers call the fund's
health "in the orange," according to the complaint.

Not all of the peeved union members' allegations involve money.
They accuse Local 3 bosses of doing business with international
organized crime, including Japan's Yakuza and the Triads of China,
in the Pacific Rim islands of Guam, Samoa, Marshall Islands and
the Philippines.

"Burns is not appropriately concerned about Local 3's dealings
with organized crime rings, going so far as to remove one officer,
William Kahlani Mahoe, who prepared a report detailing extensive
corruption involving contractors on Guam," the plaintiffs say in
the complaint.  "Mr. Mahoe, the former Local 3 treasurer, was
replaced with defendant Dan Reding and business continued as usual
on the islands."

The plaintiffs continue: "The Triads refer to the many branches of
Chinese transnational organized crime organizations or the Chinese
mafia which are based in Hong Kong, the Philippines, Thailand,
Macau, Taiwan, and within the islands which comprise the Pacific
Rim, and also in countries with significant Chinese populations,
such as the United States.  The Triads currently engage in a
variety of crimes, from extortion, money laundering, trafficking,
and gambling and prostitution.

"Yakuza are members of transnational organized crime syndicates
operating in Japan or in areas around the world with significant
Japanese populations, such as in the Hawaiian Islands and the
Pacific Rim islands.  The Yakuza, like the Triads, are notorious
for their strict codes of conduct and very organized nature.  They
have a large presence and operate internationally with an
estimated 103,000 members.  Local 3 allows contractors operated by
front organizations for the Yakuza and Triads to operate double-
breasted.  There is no real compliance operation in Hawaii and the
Pacific Rim, causing widespread injury to members, who are not
employed due to the prevalence of non-union signatory construction
operations."

Local 3 bosses use threats, intimidation and actual physical
violence to quell dissent in their own rank and file and other
businesses, the union members claim.  They say bosses terrorized
the manager of a construction company -- and the man's wife -- in
an effort to force the company into a collective bargaining
agreement.

Plaintiff Kenneth Mendoza claims he was beaten to a pulp at a
union meeting for opposing what he viewed as a bait-and-switch
pension multiplier change.  He says Burns ordered the beating and
enlisted help from local law enforcement -- many of whom received
campaign support from Burns -- to cover up the assault.

Plaintiff Slack says Burns tried to terrorize his wife into
keeping Slack silent about the corruption in Local 3, and used a
nefarious union facility to do so: "Burns and other labor leaders
within Local 3 conspired to terrorize Mrs. Slack at a time that
they believed David Slack would be out of town, intending that by
doing so they would silence plaintiff Slack.  Local 3 operates an
exclusive job referral hall that give[s] Local 3 knowledge about
where a member will be for work and the associated best times to
harass and intimidate a member's family at their home.  In fact,
through the use of an exclusive job referral hall, Local 3 can
actually control the whereabouts of any particular member by
virtue of where they dispatch them to work.

"Fortunately for Mrs. Slack, Mr. Slack was actually home, and
armed, when armed Local 3 employees arrived at his home in
furtherance of the conspiracy to terrorize Mr. Slack's wife.
After tense moments, the management thugs departed."

The plaintiffs claim they continue to face reprisals from union
leaders for trying to expose corruption.  Some of the intimidation
comes from the Hells Angels motorcycle gang, which Local 3 has
sued since 2003 to keep dissident members in line, according to
the lawsuit.

This is not the first branch of IUOE to levy charges of
racketeering against the union.  Last year, disgruntled members of
Local 501 claimed bosses embezzled tens of millions of dollars and
ran the union "with the same disregard for others' rights as the
mob."

In addition to damages and treble damages, the members seek a
permanent restraining order against all defendants, disgorgement
and equitable relief for their ERISA claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Mark Moore, Esq.
          MOORE & LEVIANT LLP
          Woodland Hills, CA
          Telephone: (877) 360-7020
          E-mail: admin@mllawyers.net


ORRIOS CONSTRUCTIONS: Fails to Pay Regular & OT Wages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Ivan Castellon and other similarly-situated individuals v.
Orrios Constructions Corp., and Orlando Rios, individually, Case
No. 1:13-cv-23707-JAL (S.D. Fla., October 11, 2013) is a class
action that seeks to recover money damages for unpaid minimum, and
overtime wages under the laws of the United States.  The Plaintiff
alleges that he was not paid his regular wages and he was not paid
overtime at the rate of one time and one-half his regular rate of
pay for every hour that he worked in excess of forty.

Orrios Constructions Corp. is a Profit corporation registered to
do business in Florida.  The Company is a full service contractor
supplying labor, material and equipment for the completion of
residential and commercial building projects.  The Company
provides services in Miami-Dade County, Florida, where the
Plaintiff worked.  Orlando Rios is the owner/president of the
Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


PHILIP MORRIS: Marlboro Lights Suit Gets Class Action Status
------------------------------------------------------------
John Lynch, writing for NWAonline, reports that Pulaski County
Circuit Judge Tim Fox on Nov. 8 formally granted class-action
status to a deceptive-trade practices lawsuit against the
manufacturer of Marlboro Lights cigarettes, a move that has the
potential to create Arkansas' largest plaintiffs pool ever, with
possibly more than a million litigants.


PILOT FLYING J: Settlement Fairness Hearing Deadline Looms
----------------------------------------------------------
Clarissa Hawes, writing for Land Line, reports that as the Nov. 25
fairness hearing deadline looms in the proposed class action
settlement involving the nation's largest truck stop chain, many
trucking companies are wondering if this is the best deal for
them.  The terms of the settlement may exceed $72 million.

Much of the curiosity surrounding the deal involves vague
information about a company, National Trucking Financial
Reclamation Services LLC of Little Rock, Ark.  The company was
incorporated just two days before filing its class action
complaint in federal court in Little Rock.

As reported by Land Line in late April, Lane Kidd, president of
the Arkansas Trucking Association, formed National Trucking on
April 22, just days after Pilot's headquarters in Knoxville,
Tenn., were raided and a criminal investigation into its fuel
rebate program practices was announced.  Mr. Kidd's newly formed
LLC is not a trucking company and is not owed money from Pilot,
but the companies he represents are owed.

He and the law firm he hired jumped out with the first class-
action lawsuit against Pilot on April 24, just nine days after the
Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
publicly announced its criminal investigation into Pilot's rebate
program.

Other trucking companies then joined the suit, but are not part of
National Trucking and are not based in Arkansas.

Recently Mr. Kidd provided more insight about the company he
formed, describing it as "much like a collections agency."  He
said it was designed to help his trucking association members
receive the money he says they are owed by Pilot.

"I know these company owners and wanted to help them seek justice
and recover their money that Pilot owed them," he told Land Line.

While he will not disclose the names of the carriers he
represents, Mr. Kidd told Land Line that all of the unnamed
companies are Arkansas-based trucking companies and are also
member companies of the Arkansas Trucking Association.

"The company was formed for the specific purse of recovering money
for trucking companies," Mr. Kidd wrote in a statement to
Land Line.  "Owners are reluctant to have the publicity.  It's
much like a collections agency and is not uncommon, according to
the law firm I retained."

Mr. Kidd says he has not received, and will not receive, a dime
from his involvement in the settlement he helped orchestrate.

"I have not been paid by anyone," Mr. Kidd said.  "The industry
has been and continues to be very good to me."

Of the approximately $72 million, approximately $55 million will
go toward the total principal amount owed to the class, according
to court documents filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District in Little Rock, Ark.  The remaining $17 million
will be used for attorney's fees, plus administrative costs.

Rachel Albright of The Ingram Group, the public relations firm
representing Pilot, told Land Line that there are around 5,500
eligible companies that have been included in the proposed
settlement deal.

While some trucking companies have signed on to the proposed deal,
other trucking companies have said no deal and still want the
option to pursue their own legal action against Pilot.

So far, Ms. Albright said the latest number shows as many as 150
trucking companies have opted out of the proposed settlement.  She
added that "many can be consolidated under the same ownership."

Nearly 30 lawsuits have been filed in state and federal court
against Pilot since the announcement in April that a criminal
investigation had been launched into the truck stop chain over an
alleged fuel rebate scam.

So far, seven former Pilot sales employees have pleaded guilty to
their roles in the alleged scam to defraud trucking companies out
of rebates they were owed as part of agreements to purchase a
certain volume of fuel from Pilot each month.


PREMIER BEVERAGE: Did Not Pay All Overtime Hours, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amos Ducatel v. Premier Beverage Company, L.L.C., Case No. 0:13-
cv-62234-WJZ (S.D. Fla., October 11, 2013) alleges that the
Defendant did not compensate the Plaintiff, and those similarly
situated employees, for all overtime hours worked in a work week.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          12000 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 305
          North Miami, FL 33181
          Telephone: (305) 726-0060
          Facsimile: (305) 726-0046
          E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com
                  jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com


PRETIUM RESOURCES: Holzer Holzer & Fistel Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased Pretium
Resources, Inc. common stock between January 19, 2011 and
October 24, 2013.  The complaint, which was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
alleges that a series of statements made during that time
regarding Pretium's business, operations and prospects were false
and misleading.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that Pretium
misrepresented and failed to adequately disclose that: (a) the
Company had not acquired credible evidence demonstrating the
quantity or quality of gold reserve estimates it claimed during
the Class Period; (b) one of the firms Pretium had hired to
provide independent analysis of the quantity and quality of the
gold reserves at its all-important Brucejack Project during the
Class Period, Snowden Mining Industry Consultants, was not using a
reliable methodology to evaluate its gold reserve estimates; (c)
Snowden and Strathcona Mineral Services Ltd. -- one of Canada's
most highly-regarded teams of geologists, and one of the two firms
the Company had hired to evaluate the quality of its gold reserves
at Brucejack (along with Snowden) -- did not agree on the
methodology to be used to evaluate Pretium's gold reserve
estimates; (d) contrary to Pretium's statements during the Class
Period, its 2012 Mineral Resource estimates prepared by Snowden
did not accurately classify the mineral resources present as
Measured, Indicated and Inferred Resources; and (e) as a result of
the foregoing, Pretium's gold estimates reported during the Class
Period were not as reliable it had led the market to believe.

If you purchased Pretium common stock between January 19, 2011 and
October 24, 2013 you have the legal right to petition the Court to
be appointed a "lead plaintiff."  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  Any such request must satisfy certain
criteria and be made no later than December 24, 2013.  Any member
of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you are a Pretium
investor and would like to discuss a potential lead plaintiff
appointment, or your rights and interests with respect to the
lawsuit, you may contact Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., or
Marshall P. Dees, Esq. via email at mfistel@holzerlaw.com  or
mdees@holzerlaw.com or via toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832.

Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC -- http://www.holzerlaw-- is an
Atlanta, Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation.


SECURITAS SECURITY: Mislabels Annual Bonus Program, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Dietrick, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., Case
No. 3:13-cv-05016-EDL (N.D. Cal., October 28, 2013) alleges that
Securitas mislabeled a non-discretionary annual bonus program as a
"vacation pay" policy to avoid adding the non-discretionary annual
bonus in overtime calculations for more than 90,000 employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eduardo Gregory Roy, Esq.
          John R. Hurley, Esq.
          PROMETHEUS PARTNERS L.L.P.
          220 Montgomery Street, Suite 1094
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 527-0255
          E-mail: john.hurley@prometheus-law.com
                  eduardo.roy@prometheus-law.com


SYMMETRICOM INC: Being Sold to Microsemi Too Cheaply, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barron Young, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Symmetricom, Inc., Microsemi Corporation, PETT
Acquisition Corp., Elizabeth A. Fetter, Jim Chiddix, Alfred F.
Boschulte, Robert T. Clarkson, Robert Neumeister, Richard W.
Oliver, Richard N. Snyder, Robert J. Stanzione and Does 1-25,
inclusive, Case No. 1-13-CV-255292 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara
Cty., October 29, 2013) alleges that the Company and the
Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed acquisition of the Company by
Microsemi through an unfair process and at an unfair price.

Based in San Jose, California, Symmetricom, Inc., is a worldwide
leader in precision time and frequency technologies.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.
The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are presently
not known to the Plaintiff.

Microsemi Corporation is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Aliso Viejo, California.  PETT Acquisition Corp. is a Delaware
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Microsemi.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randall J. Baron, Esq.
          A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq.
          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          Edward M. Gergosian, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com
                  ricka@rgrdlaw.com
                  DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com
                  EGergosian@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
          995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311
          Wayne, PA 19087
          Telephone: (484) 588-5516
          Facsimile: (877) 4580-2582
          E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com


TESLA MOTORS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Nov. 8
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Tesla
Motors, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed
in United States District Court, Northern District of California,
and docketed under 3:13-cv-05216, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Tesla securities between May 10, 2013 and November 6,
2013 both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover
damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Tesla securities during the
Class Period, you have until January 7, 2014 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Tesla designs, develops, manufactures, and sells electric
vehicles, including its flagship Model S, and electric vehicle
powertrain components.  The Complaint alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Tesla's
business, including: (1) Tesla's statements about the Model S's
highest safety rating and its lack of prior fire incidents were
materially misleading, due to undisclosed puncture and fire risks
in its undercarriage and lithium ion battery pack; (2) the Model S
suffered from material defects which caused the battery pack to
ignite and erupt in flames under certain driving conditions; (3)
Tesla's future sales, its next generation Model X introduction,
and its stock price were extremely vulnerable to the inherent risk
posed by the Model S's undercarriage and battery pack design
flaws; (4) Tesla was unable to maintain a level of automobile
deliveries sufficient to satisfy analyst concerns and compensate
for other declining revenue streams; and, (5) as a result of the
foregoing, Tesla's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On October 2, 2013, a video of a Model S burning on the roadside
was widely circulated, which Tesla attributed to a collision with
road debris.  The same day, Tesla was downgraded by an analyst who
pointed to significant execution risks it faced.  On this news,
Tesla shares declined $12.05 per share, or more than 6%, to close
at $180.95.

On October 28, 2013 a second Model S fire occurred in Mexico,
which Tesla blamed on the car's rate of speed and its crash into a
tree.  On this news, Tesla shares fell $7.32 per share, or more
than 4.3% to close at $162.86 on October 28, 2013.

Tesla's stock closed at $176.81 on November 5, 2013.  That day,
after hours, Tesla announced its Q3 2013 results, which failed to
meet analyst expectations on key metrics, including rate of
vehicle deliveries.  On November 7, 2013, Tesla confirmed a third
Model S fire, caused by impact with road debris during normal
driving conditions.  On this news, Tesla shares opened at $154.81
on November 6, 2013 -- $22.00 per share (12.44%) lower than the
prior day's closing price, and declined on November 6-7, 2013 to
$139.77.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.


US HEALTH DEP'T: Sued by Christian Employers Over Abortion Drugs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reaching Souls International, Inc., an Oklahoma not for profit
corporation; Truett-McConnell College, Inc., a Georgia nonprofit
corporation; by themselves and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and Guidestone Financial Resources of the Southern
Baptist Convention, a Texas nonprofit corporation v. Kathleen
Sebelius, Secretary of the United States Department of Health and
Human Services; United States Department of Health and Human
Services; Thomas E. Perez, Secretary of the United States
Department of Labor; United States Department of Labor; Jacob J.
Lew, Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury;
and United States Department of the Treasury, Case No. 5:13-cv-
01092-D (W.D. Okla., October 11, 2013) is a class action lawsuit
on behalf of Christian employers, who participate in the health
benefits plan maintained by GuideStone Financial Resources of the
Southern Baptist Convention to provide health benefits to their
employees.

The Plaintiffs allege that these employers are constrained by
their religious convictions from participating in the federal
government's regulatory scheme to promote, encourage, and
subsidize the use of abortion-inducing drugs and devices.

The Defendants are appointed officials of the United States
government and United States governmental agencies responsible for
issuing and enforcing the challenged regulations.  Kathleen
Sebelius is the Secretary of the United States Department of
Health and Human Services.  In this capacity, she has
responsibility for the operation and management of HHS.  United
States Department of Health and Human Services is an executive
agency of the United States government and is responsible for the
promulgation, administration, and enforcement of the challenged
regulations.

Thomas E. Perez is the Secretary of the United States Department
of Labor.  In this capacity, he has responsibility for the
operation and management of the Department of Labor.  United
States Department of Labor is an executive agency of the United
States government and is responsible for the promulgation,
administration, and enforcement of the challenged regulations.
Jacob J. Lew is the Secretary of the United States Department of
the Treasury.  In this capacity, he has responsibility for the
operation and management of the Department of the Treasury.
United States Department of the Treasury is an executive agency of
the United States government and is responsible for the
promulgation, administration, and enforcement of the challenged
regulations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jared D. Giddens, Esq.
          CONNER & WINTERS, LLP
          1700 One Leadership Square
          211 North Robinson
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 272-5721
          Facsimile: (405) 232-2695
          E-mail: jgiddens@cwlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark Rienzi, Esq.
          Adele Auxier Keim, Esq.
          Daniel Blomberg, Esq.
          THE BECKET FUND FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
          3000 K Street NW, Suite 220
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 955-0095
          Facsimile: (202) 955-0090
          E-mail: mrienzi@becketfund.org
                  akeim@becketfund.org
                  dblomberg@becketfund.org

               - and -

          Carl C. Scherz, Esq.
          Seth Roberts, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD LLP
          2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 740-8583
          Facsimile: (214) 756-8583
          E-mail: cscherz@lockelord.com
                  sroberts@lockelord.com


WACHOVIA BANK: Faces Nationwide Residential Mortgage Loans Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arjamand Hall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., Wachovia Mortgage Corporation and
Wachovia RE, Inc. (and their successors and assigns), Case No.
2:13-cv-05994-PD (E.D. Pa., October 11, 2013) is a proposed
nationwide class action brought on behalf of similarly situated
persons, who obtained residential mortgage loans originated,
funded and originated through correspondent lending by the
Defendants Wachovia Bank, Wachovia Mortgage, together with their
affiliated reinsurer Wachovia RE, between January 1, 2004, and the
present and who, in connection therewith, purchased private
mortgage insurance that was reinsured with Wachovia's captive
reinsurance affiliate, Wachovia RE.

Wachovia Bank was a national banking association and a wholly
owned subsidiary and primary banking affiliate of Wachovia
Corporation.  Wachovia Mortgage was a North Carolina Corporation,
a wholly owned subsidiary of Wachovia Bank and is Wachovia Bank's
lending subsidiary.  Wachovia was a South Carolina Corporation
incorporated on July 5, 2005, and dissolved on December 31, 2011.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          Terence S. Ziegler, Esq.
          Matthew T. Stone, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                  eciolko@ktmc.com
                  tziegler@ktmc.com
                  mstone@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Ronald J. Berke, Esq.
          BERKE, BERKE & BERKE
          420 Frazier Avenue
          Chattanooga, TN 37402
          Telephone: (423) 266-5171
          Facsimile: (423) 265-5307

               - and -

          Alan R. Plutzik, Esq.
          BRAMSON, PLUTZIK, MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER LLP
          2125 Oak Grove Blvd., Suite 120
          Walnut Creek, CA 94598
          Telephone: (925) 945-0770
          Facsimile: (925) 945-8792
          E-mail: APlutzik@bramsonplutzik.com


WELLS FARGO: Plaintiff Appealed Dismissal of "Singleton" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glynn Singleton appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit from an order dismissing her class action lawsuit
against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Insurance, Inc., QBE
Insurance Corporation, and Sterling National Insurance Agency,
Inc.

The purported class action lawsuit arises from Wells Fargo's
practice of force-placing insurance policies on borrowers.  Ms.
Singleton alleges that this arrangement allows the Defendants to
charge exorbitant rates, which were not arrived at on a
competitive basis and were well in excess of those rates, which
could have been obtained in the open market.

The appellate case is Glynn Singleton v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
et al., Case No. 13-60720, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.  The original case is Glynn Singleton v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. 2:12-CV-216, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Delta Division.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Peter Byron Gee, Jr., Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, L.L.C.
          1 Commerce Square
          Memphis, TN 33701
          Telephone: (901) 217-7000

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          201 N. Franklin Street
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Sheryl W. Bey, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C.
          4268 I-55 N.
          Meadowbrook Office Park
          Jackson, MS 39211
          Telephone: (601) 351-2490
          Facsimile: (601) 592-7490
          E-mail: sbey@bakerdonelson.com

               - and -

          John Nelson Rocray
          BURR & FORMAN, L.L.P.
          401 E. Capitol Street
          Jackson, MS 39201
          Telephone: (601) 709-3412
          Facsimile: (866) 443-1592
          E-mail: jrocray@burr.com

               - and -

          Jennifer A. Slagle Peck
          BUCKLEYSANDLER, L.L.P.
          1250 24th Street, N. W.
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 349-8000
          Facsimile: (202) 349-8080
          E-mail: jslaglepeck@buckleysandler.com


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Attorneys Dismiss Class Action Over Cancer Cluster
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kristina Smith, writing for WKYC.com, reports that attorneys have
agreed to dismiss a $750 million class-action lawsuit against
Whirlpool Corp. that alleged the company's Clyde division was
responsible for the local childhood cancer cluster.

The decision to dismiss was not related to a report Whirlpool
Corp. released Oct. 31 that the company said shows the closed
Whirlpool Park did not cause the Eastern Sandusky County Cancer
Cluster, said attorney John Murray of Sandusky, who represents
some of the people suing Whirlpool.

Whirlpool Park, which Whirlpool operated until 2006 and then sold
it, is contaminated with cancer-causing toxins called PCBs.  The
report on testing done there, however, indicates those toxins are
not leaving the property, said attorney Tom Bowlus of Fremont, who
represents the current property owners.

The attorneys had been working on the paperwork to dismiss the
lawsuit two or three weeks before the report was released,
Mr. Murray said.  He declined to discuss why his clients chose to
withdraw the case.

"That's confidential," he said.  "I don't have the clients'
permission to discuss that."

The case is dismissed without prejudice, meaning it can be filed
again.  If the case is filed again, it must be filed in federal
court, according to court records.

The lawsuit included an estimated 22 people who sued Whirlpool in
March in Sandusky County Common Pleas Court.  The case was moved
to federal court on Oct. 31, court records show.

The current owners of Whirlpool Park, Grist Mill Creek LLC, a
company owned by Jonathan and Robert Abdoo, also had been named as
defendants in the lawsuit.

The Eastern Sandusky County Cancer Cluster affected at least 35
children in parts of Clyde, Green Creek Township and Fremont
areas, according to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
OEPA has worked with other agencies to test drinking water, air
and soil, and no cause has been found.

Whirlpool Corp. -- whose Clyde plant makes washing machines and is
Sandusky County's largest employer -- operated the park from 1953
to 2006 and sold it to the Abdoos in 2008.

In a company newsletter dated on Nov. 8, Whirlpool notified its
employees the lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed.

"We remain committed to defending ourselves against unfounded
allegations made by plaintiff attorneys and will keep you informed
of further developments in these cases," according to the
newsletter, which a Whirlpool spokeswoman provided to The News-
Messenger.

In 2012, U.S. EPA found sludge containing PCBs buried on the
property. The report on testing Whirlpool conducted at the site
confirmed those PCBs are there, and Whirlpool believes they may
have been part of fill material placed on the site in the 1950s
and '60s, company spokesman Jeff Noel said Oct. 31.

The results of the testing, which include soil and water samples,
showed no contamination in the groundwater or Flag Run, a creek on
the property.

Whirlpool plans to work with the Abdoos to clean up the land, Noel
said.

A second lawsuit continues its way through the justice system,
representing 42 other plaintiffs.  The lead attorney for that case
tells Channel 3 News unlike the case that was dropped Friday their
case alleges the cancer causing agents were in the air as well as
the dirt at Whirlpool Park.

"We think there is evidence of an airborne particulate that would
explain the cancer cluster and how the cancer causing agent go to
these children," said attorney Alan Mortensen.  "[The] case that
was dropped has no bearing on our case.  We're moving forward and
we're prepared to go forward."


* House Votes to Tighten Asbestos Claim Disclosure Requirements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Henry C. Jackson, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
the House on Nov. 13 voted to tighten disclosure requirements from
asbestos trusts set up more than 20 years ago to help pay billions
of dollars in injury claims.

By 221-199, the House approved a measure requiring asbestos trusts
that pay damages to current and future asbestos victims to publish
detailed quarterly reports with bankruptcy courts.  The
information must include names of new claimants and how much money
the trust has paid out, under the legislation.

House Republicans say the bill -- backed by the business community
and the Chamber of Commerce -- would provide oversight to asbestos
trusts and ensure funds are available for future victims.

Most House Democrats opposed the measure, citing privacy concerns.
The bill is likely to die in the House.  The Democratic controlled
Senate has no plans to take up the bill and the White House on
Tuesday said President Barack Obama would veto it.

Asbestos, a building material linked with cancer and other health
problems, has been the subject of lawsuits awarding billions of
dollars in damages.  As health concerns became clearer, and the
number of lawsuits swelled, companies forced into bankruptcy
because of asbestos litigation transferred their assets and
liabilities to trusts established to pay current and future
asbestos victims.

At least 100 companies have gone into bankruptcy at least in part
from liabilities tied to asbestos, according to a 2011 Government
Accountability Office report.  There are 60 asbestos trusts, with
about $37 billion in assets, according to the GAO report.

Republicans say those trusts are ripe for fraud because of scant
disclosure requirements.

Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, who wrote the bill, said more
oversight is needed to prevent people from filing claims with
multiple trusts, or fraudulent claims.  Trusts are in danger of
running out of money if nothing's done, he said.

"We've got to protect this for future generations,"
Rep. Farenthold said.  "We simply ask that we know who is getting
what out of these trusts."

Democrats said the bill would subject asbestos victims to new
privacy concerns because their name and the last four digits of
their Social Security numbers would be public under the law.

"Every crook in the world with Internet access could use this
information," said Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga.


* Italy Introduces Class Action Law After Legislative Process
-------------------------------------------------------------
Francesca Rolla, Esq. -- francesca.rolla@hoganlovells.com -- at
Hogan Lovells reports that class action law has been introduced in
Italy, following a protracted and challenging legislative process.
Law 99/2009, which came into effect on January 1, 2010, allows
consumers to group together to file a single suit bringing joint
court claims.  The Law has introduced article 140 bis into the
Consumers Code. Article 140 bis has been amended further as a
result of more recent reform.

Article 140 bis originally provided that "individual homogenous
rights of consumers and users" may (also) be enforced through
class action, in relation to the contractual rights of a group of
consumers or users in identical circumstances regarding the same
company (such as where standard term agreements are used),
identical rights of end consumers and final users of a product in
relation to the manufacturer (irrespective of the lack of direct
contractual relationship between them), and identical rights of
consumers in respect of unfair business practices or anti-
competitive conduct.

The Law, as originally drafted, did not clarify when "individual"
rights of consumers and users might be considered "homogeneous"
and gave no guidelines as to the concept of "identical rights"
(something of crucial importance in assessing the admissibility of
the class action).  Indeed, point 6 of article 140 bis provides
that before a class action can be decided on its merits, the court
must assess whether it is admissible. The court may declare the
class action non-admissible if:

    the claim is manifestly without grounds;
    there is a conflict of interest;
    the rights infringed are not identical; or
    the lead claimant is not able to adequately represent the
interests of the class members.

The trend in Italy

Unlike in the United States where this collective means of
protection is widely used (239 class actions were promoted in 2010
and 260 in 2011), the Law has had no significant impact on
litigation trends in Italy.  Indeed, contrary to expectations,
very few class actions have been filed so far and of those, only
two have been declared admissible by the courts.

There are several reasons that may explain why the Law has not
been very successful in an Italian context.  First, it is worth
noting that under article 140 bis, litigation funding remains the
responsibility of the initial claimant.  Secondly, the lead
claimant can be ordered to pay lawyers' fees and further damages
if the class action is found to be non-admissible in the
preliminary phase, and ordered to publicize the non-admissibility
declaration at its own expense.  The distribution of such costs
amongst class members is only theoretical, as class members can
opt-in after the claim has been declared admissible.

Another explanation might be the difficulty in meeting the
"identical rights" test (one of the requisites for the class
action to be admissible) particularly in respect of actions
brought for product related damage.

The Italian Parliament passed legislation in 2012 (Law 27/2012)
aimed at improving the effectiveness of the class actions regime.

The 2012 reform of class action law

The most significant amendments introduced by the 2012 reform
relate to the extent of the protection available and to the
categories of rights that can be defended through class actions.

The reform has amended article 140 bis so that class actions can
now be filed not only to protect consumers' individual rights, but
also to defend their collective interests.  The reform has also
clarified that claimants, as well as seeking compensation, can
also ask the court to assess and declare the defendant's
liability.

The reform provides that the rights that can be defended through
class actions no longer need to be "identical" and it is now
sufficient that they are "homogenous".  However, there is still no
clarification as to what is meant by homogenous rights.

Case law

On January 27, 2012, the Court of Appeal of Rome issued a decision
on a product related damages class action which had been declared
non-admissible by the Court of Rome on April 13, 2011.  One of the
grounds for the Court of Rome's declaration was that the rights
being enforced were not identical.  In particular, the Court of
Rome found that the rights at stake (rights to compensation for
alleged damage to health) were materially diverse and would have
required a specific, individual assessment for each claimant, in
contrast to the rationale underlying the class action regime.  In
confirming the non-admissibility declaration, the Court of Appeal
of Rome pointed out that, even if the "identical rights" test was
replaced with the "homogenous rights" test, the class action would
still be considered non-admissible due to the significant
diversity of each potential class member's position.

The (albeit limited) case law on class actions appears to confirm
that product related class actions would rarely be declared
admissible.  Indeed, case law appears to exclude commonality
whenever the facts underlying the claim require an assessment of
different individual circumstances (which would often be the case
in product liability claims, particularly where injuries have
occurred and compensation is being sought for related damage to
health).

Future trends

Italian consumer associations (which have been considered to be
the driving force behind class actions) appear to be progressively
losing interest in bringing class actions in Italy and are instead
looking again to the other side of the Atlantic, as the US-style
class action regime seems to be less restrictive.


                             *********

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  * * *