CAR_Public/131126.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, November 26, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 234

                             Headlines


ANGIE'S LIST: Faces Suit Filed by Members in Indiana Court
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Must Face Class Action Over Low-Cost Nexium
BERRY PETROLEUM: Plaintiffs in "Assad Trust" Junk Lawsuit
BERRY PETROLEUM: Still Faces "Hall" Stockholder Suit in Delaware
BURLINGTON RESOURCES: ND Landowners File Gas Flaring Class Action

CAPITAL ONE: Judge Allows Credit Card Fee Class Action to Proceed
CNX GAS: Appeals Court Refuses to Halt Gas Royalties Class Action
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Settles ERISA Lawsuit for $40 Million
CONSUMERS ENERGY: Gas Index Price Reporting Litigation Continues
EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Wohl & Fruchter Files Class Action in Calif.

ELECTRONIC ARTS: Class Action Settlement Money to Triple
FIRST AMERICAN: 3 Suits Over Title Insurance Rate Certified
FIRST AMERICAN: Class Certified in RESPA Violations Lawsuit
FIRST AMERICAN: Lawsuit Over Practice of Law Decertified
FIRST AMERICAN: Certification of "Sjobring" Lawsuit Vacated

FIRST LIBERTY: Class Action Settlement No Impact on Shares
FRISCH'S RESTAURANTS: Dismissal of FLSA Breach Suit Under Appeal
HALLIBURTON CO: Supreme Court to Hear Securities Class Action
IMAX CORPORATION: Awaits Approval of Securities Suit Settlement
IMAX CORPORATION: Still Faces Securities Lawsuit in Canada

IXIA: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in California
JPMORGAN CHASE: Feds, States Settle RMBS Claims for $13-Bil.
KCBX: EPA Begins Probe Into "Petcoke" Matter After Class Suit
KIA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Gas Tank Defects
L'OREAL: Faces Fructis Sleek Defective Product Class Action

L & L ENERGY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
LASALLE COUNTY, IL: Disputes Class Action Over Strip-Search Policy
MATTEL INC: Updates on Suit Related to Carter Bryant, MGA
MAUI, HI: Judge Approves $14MM Teachers' Backpay Settlement
MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Unification of Stock Suit Still in Question

MEAD JOHNSON: Distribution of Enfamil Suit Settlement Complete
MEDTRONIC INC: FDA Classifies Guidewires as Potentially Fatal
MONSTER BEVERAGE: Judge Tosses Energy Drink Label Class Action
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Adjusts Volunteer Program Following Class Action
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Seek Expedited Ruling

NOVA SCOTIA HOME: Gov't Intends to Settle Abuse Class Action
NQ MOBILE: Scott+Scott Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Still Faces Three Canadian Antitrust Suits
REVLON INC: Pays $8.9MM to Settle Claims Over 2009 Exchange Offer
STARBUCKS CORP: Settles Consumer Fraud Class Action for $1.7 Mil.

TILE SHOP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Action
TORONTO: Police Faces C$65-Mil. Class Action Over Racial Profiling
TOWN SPORTS: Dismissal of Class Claims in Labor Suit Appealed
TOWN SPORTS: Still Faces Suit by Personal Trainers in N.Y.
TWC ADMINISTRATION: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action

VEMMA NUTRITION: Faces Class Action Over Verve Repeat-Billing

* Litigation Funding Competition to Lower Consumer Costs


                             *********


ANGIE'S LIST: Faces Suit Filed by Members in Indiana Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Angie's List, Inc. is facing a members suit Fritzinger v. Angie's
List in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana, according to the company's Oct. 24, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

A lawsuit seeking class action status, Fritzinger v. Angie's List,
was filed against the Company on August 14, 2012 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (the "Court").
After the Court granted the Company's partial Motion to Dismiss
plaintiff's deception claims, the lawsuit currently alleges claims
for breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.

Plaintiff filed her Brief in Support of her Amended Motion for
Class Certification, which requests certification of two classes
of current and former Angie's List members, dating from January 1,
2009 through present, who meet either (1) members whose membership
were renewed at a fee that exceeded the lowest prevailing new-
member fee for the corresponding membership product; and (2)
members: (a) who were in a market that has been converted to "paid
health" status, (b) whose memberships predated that market's
conversion to "paid health" status, and (c) whose memberships were
automatically renewed in an "Angie's List Bundle" membership upon
their first renewal following their market's conversion to "paid
health" status.

The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and an award of treble
damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The Company believes this suit
is without merit and continues to defend itself vigorously in this
matter.


ASTRAZENECA PLC: Must Face Class Action Over Low-Cost Nexium
------------------------------------------------------------
David Voreacos and Susan Decker, writing for Bloomberg News,
report that AstraZeneca Plc and three generic-drug makers must
face class-action allegations they overcharged consumers by
delaying low-cost versions of the heartburn medication Nexium for
six years, a judge ruled.

U.S. District Judge William Young in Boston ruled on Nov. 14 that
union health plans and insurance companies can join together in
pursuing antitrust claims against AstraZeneca, Teva Pharmaceutical
Industries Ltd., Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Inc. and Ranbaxy
Laboratories Ltd.

They face claims that AstraZeneca paid "substantial sums" to
generic drugmakers to delay copies of Nexium for six years until
May 27, 2014, which prevented prices from falling through the
introduction of cheaper copies.  On June 17, the U.S. Supreme
Court made it easier to sue drugmakers over such "pay for delay"
or "reverse payment" cases.

Judge Young ruled that a plaintiffs' expert had adequately
demonstrated that prices "continued artificially high as a result
of the defendants' reverse payment agreements" and that all class
members had to pay a "supracompetitive price."

The judge also found that an expert for the companies showed that
rebates by London-based AstraZeneca, at as much as 50 percent of
the retail price for Nexium, buffered "any overcharge injury
resulting from generic foreclosure."

                         Buyer Discounts

Judge Young said he refused to accept AstraZeneca's filings under
seal about discounts granted to various buyers on the grounds that
they were confidential business data.  The company, he said, seeks
to avoid embarrassment at revealing relationships that favored
some buyers over others, he said.

In seeking such a "litigation advantage," AstraZeneca "just
doesn't want anyone else to know what it is doing," he wrote in
certifying the class-action case.  "In short, it wants to win --
but it doesn't want me to explain why (or why not).  This is
simply unacceptable. Courts are public institutions."

Michele Meixell, an AstraZeneca spokeswoman, said in an e-mail
that the company "respectfully disagrees that any class should be
certified, and we are reviewing the opinion and considering our
options for an immediate appeal."

Officials with the generic drugmakers didn't immediately respond
to e-mails seeking comment on the ruling.

The case is In Re Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust Litigation,
12-md-02409, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts
(Boston).


BERRY PETROLEUM: Plaintiffs in "Assad Trust" Junk Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the Nancy P. Assad Trust action filed against
Berry Petroleum Company voluntarily dismissed the case without
prejudice, according to the company's Oct. 24, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On March 21, 2013, a purported stockholder class action captioned
Nancy P. Assad Trust v. Berry Petroleum Co., et al. was filed in
the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado,
No. 13-CV-31365.

The action names as defendants the Company, the members of its
board of directors, HoldCo, Bacchus Merger Sub, LinnCo, LINN and
LinnCo Merger Sub. On April 5, 2013, an amended complaint was
filed, which alleges that the individual defendants breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the transactions by engaging
in an unfair sales process that resulted in an unfair price for
the Company, by failing to disclose all material information
regarding the transactions, and that the entity defendants aided
and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty.

The amended complaint seeks a declaration that the transactions
are unlawful and unenforceable, an order directing the individual
defendants to comply with their fiduciary duties, an injunction
against consummation of the transactions, or, in the event they
are completed, rescission of the transactions, an award of fees
and costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses,
and other relief. On May 21, 2013, the Colorado District Court
stayed and administratively closed the Nancy P. Assad Trust action
in favor of the Hall action that is pending in the Delaware Court
of Chancery.  On July 19, 2013, the plaintiffs in the Nancy P.
Assad Trust action voluntarily dismissed the case without
prejudice.


BERRY PETROLEUM: Still Faces "Hall" Stockholder Suit in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------------------
Berry Petroleum Company continues to face a purported stockholder
class action filed by David Hall in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, according to the company's Oct. 24, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On April 12, 2013, a purported stockholder class action captioned
David Hall v. Berry Petroleum Co., et al. was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, C.A. No. 8476-VCG.

The complaint names as defendants the Company, the members of its
board of directors, HoldCo, Bacchus Merger Sub, LinnCo, LINN and
LinnCo Merger Sub. The complaint alleges that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
transactions by engaging in an unfair sales process that resulted
in an unfair price for the Company, by failing to disclose all
material information regarding the transactions, and that the
entity defendants aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary
duty. The complaint seeks a declaration that the transactions are
unlawful and unenforceable, an order directing the individual
defendants to comply with their fiduciary duties, an injunction
against consummation of the transactions, or, in the event they
are completed, rescission of the transactions, an award of fees
and costs, including attorneys' and experts' fees and expenses,
and other relief.

The Company is unable to estimate a possible loss, or range of
possible losses, if any, at this time. The Company believes the
claims relating to the merger are without merit, and intends to
defend such actions vigorously.


BURLINGTON RESOURCES: ND Landowners File Gas Flaring Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene, writing for Law360, reports that a putative class of
North Dakotans who say a ConocoPhillips Co. unit illegally flared
gas to avoid paying them royalties on it is taking their case
federal, according to a notice filed on Nov. 14.

Gary and Martha Sorenson are seeking to lead a class of mineral
rights owners who say Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co. has been
flaring gas long after it was permitted by North Dakota statute,
essentially sending their royalties payments up in smoke,
according to the suit.

Burlington flared at least 30 million cubic feet -- or 30,000 MCF
-- of gas from the Sunline 34-12H well after the one-year cutoff
permitted by North Dakota statute, the landowners allege in their
complaint in state court.  Now, they're seeking repayment for
royalties on that gas they say they're owed.

"The provisions of [the law] were enacted in part to mitigate the
adverse health and environmental effects on the air of North
Dakota," the Sorensons wrote in their state complaint.
"[Burlington] has not paid royalties for the 29,764 MCF of gas
produced and flared from the Sunline 34-12H well after the first
year of production."

The Sorensons initially filed suit in North Dakota district court
on Oct. 16, joining a flurry of putative class actions filed by
landowners in the state steamed over the loss of royalties from
flaring, according to court records.

Oil and gas drillers that don't want to directly purchase the land
they're exploring for a well enter into agreements with the
landowners to pay royalties on the resources mined.  Burlington
struck a deal to pay the Sorensons and other landowners for the
use of their land near the Bakken oil formation on the western
edge of the state, according to the suit.

As part of the deal, and in accordance with state laws, Burlington
would be allowed to flare gas from the well for the first year of
its operation, the Sorensons wrote.  After that, it would not be
allowed to waste that gas, increasing the amount of royalties paid
to the landowners, according to the complaint.

The class claims that Burlington broke North Dakota laws governing
royalty payments when it continued to flare gas long after the
one-year deadline set by statute, including in its complaint a
chart demonstrating Burlington's reported flaring volumes.

The process of flaring involves a controlled burn of excess gas
during testing and maintenance of a well, or to control the amount
of pressure as gas is being produced.  Burlington allegedly
continually flares gas to avoid paying royalties to the
landowners, according to the complaint.

In the state court complaint, the Sorensons were seeking
declaratory relief against Burlington for flaring the gas, and for
the royalties they're allegedly owed.  A federal complaint was not
yet filed on Nov. 15.

The Sorensons are represented by Derrick L. Braaten and Lindsey R.
Nieuwsma -- lindsey@baumstarkbraaten.com -- of Baumstark Braaten
Law Partners.

Burlington is represented by John W. Morrison Jr. --
jmorrison@crowleyfleck.com -- and Wade C. Mann --
wmann@crowleyfleck.com -- of Crowley Fleck PLLP.

The case is Gary Sorenson et al. v. Burlington Resources Oil & Gas
Co., case number 4:13-cv-00132, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of North Dakota.


CAPITAL ONE: Judge Allows Credit Card Fee Class Action to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Igor Kossov, writing for Law360, reports that Capital One (USA) NA
must face a potential class action accusing the bank of deceiving
customers about fees and conditions applied to the use of their
zero-percent APR access checks, a Virginia federal judge ruled on
Nov. 15.

Citing reasons argued orally in court, U.S. District Judge Leonie
M. Brinkema allowed six claims against Capital One to continue,
but tossed one claim alleging that the fees were a breach of good
faith and fair dealing under state law.

In September, plaintiff Margaret Murr said Capital One
manufactured payment shortfalls in her account to extract fees
from her, in violation of her contract.  When she tried to pay off
her monthly purchase balances, the bank allocated part of each
payment to cover her access check balance, ensuring that Ms. Murr
constantly owed the bank interest on a segment of the account.

Ms. Murr also alleged that Capital One tried charging her interest
on a zero-percent APR transaction before the contractual grace
period expired and submitted "derogatory" information about her to
credit-rating agencies after she refused to pay certain fees
associated with the transaction.

According to the complaint, Capital One divides its customer
credit accounts into four segments, which may have different
interest or grace periods.  One segment is for regular purchases,
on which customers don't have to pay interest if they pay off the
full balance within a month.  Another segment is for balance
transfers, to which the zero percent APR offer applied.

On Oct. 18, Capital One fired back at Ms. Murr's claims in a
motion to dismiss, contending Murr had miscalculated a payment and
left a balance on her account, which triggered fees and interest
both parties agreed to when she signed up for the card.

"Capital One followed the terms of the written customer agreement
in charging interest to [Murr].  [Murr's] claim for breach of
contract therefore fails as a matter of law, as do her remaining
federal and state consumer claims, which are derivative of the
mistaken contract claim," the bank argued.

Judge Brinkema ultimately ruled that the case as a whole has
standing, but sided with Capital One's argument that under
Virginia law, they could not have breached a covenant of good
faith because they only had a contract and not a contractual
discretion.

"The only cause of action is for breach of contract, and the only
time the implied covenant has a role to play is when the terms of
the contract give a party discretion to exercise. In that
situation, the party must exercise its contractual discretion in
good faith," the bank said in its motion to dismiss.

Representatives for both parties were not immediately available
for comment on Nov. 15.

Ms. Murr is represented by Daniel M. Cohen of Cuneo Gilbert &
LaDuca LLP.

Capital One is represented by Mary Zinsner --
mary.zinsner@troutmansanders.com -- S. Mohsin Reza --
mohsin.reza@troutmansanders.com  -- and David Anthony --
david.anthony@troutmansanders.com  -- of Troutman Sanders LLP, and
Aaron Van Oort -- aaron.vanoort@FaegreBD.com -- and Amanda Rome --
amanda.rome@FaegreBD.com -- of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.

The case is Murr v. Capital One Bank (USA) NA, case number 1:13-
cv-01091, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia.


CNX GAS: Appeals Court Refuses to Halt Gas Royalties Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael L. Owens, writing for Bristol Herald Courier, reports that
a federal appeals court has refused to halt the class-action
lawsuits seeking millions of dollars in natural gas royalties as
the defendant energy companies try to overturn the cases.

The Fourth Circuit Appeals Court in Richmond ruled against the
requests by defendants CNX Gas and EQT Production, which would
have placed a hold on the 3-year-old cases in the lower U.S.
District Court in Abingdon.

"I think this is a victory for the plaintiffs," said Carl Tobias,
a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law.  "It
keeps [their] momentum going."

It was in late September that U.S. District Judge James P. Jones
certified the series of five lawsuits for class-action status,
which makes it possible to bring in thousands more people from the
coalfields region as plaintiffs.

Soon after, the landowner plaintiffs sought a summary judgment
declaring them and the potential class members to be the owners of
at least $30 million in royalties.  A hearing on this motion has
yet to be scheduled.

Weeks later, the energy companies sought to overturn the decision
in the federal appeals court -- a judge has yet to consider
whether to hear the arguments.

In mid-October, the two companies also asked Jones to place the
lawsuits on hold while awaiting word on the appeals requests.
Jones rejected the requests and ruled to keep the cases moving
forward.

Days later, CNX and EQT asked the appeals court to freeze the
cases, which led to the Nov. 12 rejection by a three-judge panel.
"That's . . . an encouraging sign," landowner lawyer Don Barrett
said of the decision.

One set of cases involves a group of landowners who say they were
shortchanged on their royalties when leasing out gas because of
improper post-production deductions to cover the cost of moving
and cleaning the gas.

The other set of cases focus on a state-run escrow account holding
millions in royalties from gas siphoned from coal seams without
the owners' permission.  A 20-year-old law allows energy companies
to keep a percentage and the owners of the gas rights battle the
owners of the coal in court for the rest.


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Settles ERISA Lawsuit for $40 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
Parties in In re Colgate-Palmolive ERISA Litigation executed a
settlement agreement under which the Colgate-Palmolive Company
Employees' Retirement Income Plan would pay approximately $40
million, according to the company's Oct. 24, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In October 2007, a putative class action claiming that certain
aspects of the cash balance portion of the Colgate-Palmolive
Company Employees' Retirement Income Plan (the Plan) do not comply
with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act was filed against
the Plan and the Company in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

Specifically, Proesel, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company
Employees' Retirement Income Plan, et al. alleges improper
calculation of lump sum distributions, age discrimination and
failure to satisfy minimum accrual requirements, thereby resulting
in the underpayment of benefits to Plan participants.

Two other putative class actions filed earlier in 2007, Abelman,
et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Employees' Retirement Income
Plan, et al., in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, and Caufield v. Colgate-Palmolive Company
Employees' Retirement Income Plan, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, both alleging improper
calculation of lump sum distributions and, in the case of Abelman,
claims for failure to satisfy minimum accrual requirements, were
transferred to the Southern District of New York and consolidated
with Proesel into one action, In re Colgate-Palmolive ERISA
Litigation.

The complaint in the consolidated action alleges improper
calculation of lump sum distributions and failure to satisfy
minimum accrual requirements, but does not include a claim for age
discrimination. The relief sought includes recalculation of
benefits in unspecified amounts, pre- and post-judgment interest,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

In October 2013, the parties executed a settlement agreement under
which the Plan would pay approximately $40 million after
application of certain offsets to resolve the litigation. The
settlement agreement is subject to court approval. On October 9,
2013, a motion for preliminary approval of a class action
settlement, class certification and appointment of class counsel
was filed. The Company and the Plan intend to contest this action
vigorously should the settlement not be approved and finalized.


CONSUMERS ENERGY: Gas Index Price Reporting Litigation Continues
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers Energy Company provides updates on recent decisions made
in the Gas Index Price Reporting Litigation, according to the
company's Oct. 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

CMS Energy Corporation, along with CMS MST, CMS Field Services,
Cantera Natural Gas, Inc., and Cantera Gas Company, have been
named as defendants in various lawsuits arising as a result of
alleged inaccurate natural gas price reporting to publications
that report trade information.

Allegations include manipulation of NYMEX natural gas futures and
options prices, price-fixing conspiracies, restraint of trade, and
artificial inflation of natural gas retail prices in Kansas,
Missouri, and Wisconsin.  The following provides more detail on
the cases in which CMS Energy affiliates remain as parties:

(1) In 2005, CMS Energy, CMS MST, and CMS Field Services were
named as defendants in a putative class action filed in Kansas
state court, Learjet, Inc., et al. v. Oneok, Inc., et al.  The
complaint alleges that during the putative class period, January
1, 2000 through October 31, 2002, the defendants engaged in a
scheme to violate the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act.  The
plaintiffs are seeking statutory full consideration damages
consisting of the full consideration paid by plaintiffs for
natural gas allegedly purchased from defendants.

(2) In 2007, a class action complaint, Heartland Regional Medical
Center, et al. v. Oneok, Inc. et al., was filed as a putative
class action in Missouri state court alleging violations of
Missouri antitrust laws.  Defendants, including CMS Energy, CMS
Field Services, and CMS MST, are alleged to have violated the
Missouri antitrust law in connection with their natural gas
reporting activities.  Plaintiffs are seeking full consideration
damages and treble damages.

(3) A class action complaint, Arandell Corp., et al. v. XCEL
Energy Inc., et al., was filed in 2006 in Wisconsin state court on
behalf of Wisconsin commercial entities that purchased natural gas
between January 1, 2000 and October 31, 2002.  The defendants,
including CMS Energy, CMS ERM, and Cantera Gas Company, are
alleged to have violated Wisconsin's antitrust statute.  The
plaintiffs are seeking full consideration damages, plus exemplary
damages and attorneys' fees.

(4) Another class action complaint, Newpage Wisconsin System v.
CMS ERM, et al., was filed in 2009 in circuit court in Wood
County, Wisconsin, against CMS Energy, CMS ERM, Cantera Gas
Company, and others.  The plaintiff is seeking full consideration
damages, treble damages, costs, interest, and attorneys' fees.

(5) In 2005, J.P. Morgan Trust Company, in its capacity as Trustee
of the FLI Liquidating Trust, filed an action in Kansas state
court against CMS Energy, CMS MST, CMS Field Services, and others.
The complaint alleges various claims under the Kansas Restraint of
Trade Act.  The plaintiff is seeking statutory full consideration
damages for its purchases of natural gas in 2000 and 2001.

After removal to federal court, all of the cases described were
transferred to the MDL.  In 2010, CMS Energy and Cantera Gas
Company were dismissed from the Newpage case.  In 2011, all claims
against remaining CMS Energy defendants in the MDL cases were
dismissed based on FERC preemption.  Plaintiffs filed appeals in
all of the cases.

The issues on appeal were whether the district court erred in
dismissing the cases based on FERC preemption and denying the
plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend their complaints to add a
federal Sherman Act antitrust claim.  The plaintiffs did not
appeal the dismissal of CMS Energy as a defendant in these cases,
but other CMS Energy entities remain as defendants.

In April 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the MDL decision and remanded the case to the MDL judge
for further proceedings.  The appellate court found that FERC
preemption does not apply under the facts of these cases.  The
Court affirmed the MDL court's denial of leave to amend to add
federal antitrust claims.

In August 2013, the joint defense group in these cases, of which
CMS Energy defendants are members, filed a petition with the U.S.
Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn the decision of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Plaintiffs' responses to
the petition are due in late October 2013.

These cases involve complex facts, a large number of similarly
situated defendants with different factual positions, and multiple
jurisdictions.  Presently, any estimate of liability would be
highly speculative; the amount of CMS Energy's possible loss would
be based on widely varying models previously untested in this
context.  If the outcome after appeals is unfavorable, these cases
could have a material adverse impact on CMS Energy's liquidity,
financial condition, and results of operations.


EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES: Wohl & Fruchter Files Class Action in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wohl & Fruchter LLP on Nov. 15 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit against Edwards Lifesciences
Corp. and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed on
October 24, 2013, in the United States District Court, Central
District of California, and docketed under SACV13-1666-BRO-DFMx,
is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Edwards Lifesciences
between April 25, 2012 and April 23, 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 EW shares during the Class
Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you have until
November 18, 2013 to seek appointment by the Court as lead
plaintiff for the class.  To discuss the case or learn more about
becoming a lead plaintiff, please contact J. Elazar Fruchter at
jfruchter@wohlfruchter.com or call us toll free at 866-833-6245.

A copy of the complaint filed by Wohl & Fruchter can be obtained
at:

     http://www.wohlfruchter.com/cases/ew

Edwards Lifesciences is a medical device maker that designs and
markets, among other things, artificial heart valves for
implantation in patients with advanced cardiovascular disease.
The Company offers a range of such valves, including both valves
that require traditional open-chest surgery, and its newer SAPIEN
line of transcatheter heart valves ("THYs"), which may be
implanted using a minimally invasive procedure.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented adverse facts, including that: (1)
adoption of SAPIEN was weaker than the Company claimed due to
concerns among physicians over the risks and complexity of the
procedure for implanting the valve; (2) Edwards Lifesciences'
outlook for sales and earnings per share ("EPS") was significantly
weaker than the optimistic guidance Defendants offered to
investors; and (3) as a result, Defendants lacked a reasonable
basis for the statements made concerning the Company's operations,
forecasts, and outlook.

On October 8, 2012, Edwards Lifesciences issued a press release
announcing weak preliminary financial results for the quarter
ended September 30, 2012, stating in relevant part, that
"transcatheter heart valve sales were below expectations."
Michael A. Mussallem, Chief Executive Officer of Edwards
Lifesciences, attributed these surprisingly poor results to
austerity measures in Europe, and reimbursement uncertainty and
physicians' summer vacations in the United States.

On April 23, 2013, the Company disclosed that approximately 20
candidate hospitals had postponed SAPIEN training, that there was
substantially no backlog of patients awaiting SAPIEN implants, and
that the Company's financial results had been and would likely
continue to be weaker than estimates.  On this news, Edwards
Lifesciences shares fell $18.21 per share, or 21.99%, to close at
$64.60 per share on April 24, 2013.

More recently, in November 2013, Edwards Lifesciences announced a
recall of components of its Embol-X Glide Protection System, an
access catheter device used to capture blood clots and tissue
fragments during bypass surgeries.  The FDA has assigned its Class
I tag to the recall -- the most serious classification - warning
that using the device could lead to serious adverse events
including death.

Wohl & Fruchter LLP -- http://www.wohlfruchter.com-- is a
securities litigation firm representing plaintiffs in class
actions arising from securities fraud and fiduciary breaches, as
well as other complex litigation matters.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Class Action Settlement Money to Triple
--------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Pitcher, writing for Polygon, reports that gamers who bought
an EA football game between 2005 and 2012, could be due triple the
amount of settlement money per game thanks to recent modifications
to a $27 million settlement in a class action suit against
Electronic Arts.

Under the new terms, a claimant will now receive $20.37 per last-
gen game on PlayStation 2, Xbox, GameCube and Windows PC, up from
$6.79.  Current-gen games on PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and Wii will
pay out $5.85 per game, up from $1.95.

Pecover v. Electronic Arts class-action monopoly lawsuit
participants who bought a current-gen game covered under the
settlement, and for whom EA has a physical mailing address, will
automatically receive a check at the tripled rate.

Valid claims will be paid out the amounts listed above once the
claims administrator receives all of the claims and confirms that
the net settlement amount is sufficient.  However, if the total
claims exceed $27 million, then claim amounts will be reduced on a
pro rata basis.

Unfortunately, leftover money originally intended as a Child's
Play donation will now go to the federal government.  It is not
immediately clear why this modification was made.

Also outlined in the supplemental notice, the deadline to file a
claim or objection has been pushed back from the original March 15
cut-off date, so parties who wish to do so now have until May 15.

According to the notice, the settlement modifications are coming
because the number of claimants is lower than was expected.
Plaintiffs want to maximize the amount of money from the $27
million fund that will go to participants in the class action.

The notification states:

The Court modified the distribution plan to ensure that Settlement
Class Members received as much money as possible from the
settlement fund.  The amount of money being returned to Settlement
Class Members was less than expected because fewer than
anticipated Settlement Class Members submitted claims prior to the
original close of the claims period (i.e., prior to March 5,
2013), and Electronic Arts had fewer names and physical addresses
for nonclaiming Settlement Class Members than the parties
originally believed.  The Court adjusted the distribution plan to
provide for additional money to be returned to Settlement Class
Members.

The Pecover v. Electronic Arts class-action monopoly lawsuit for
EA's exclusive rights to make Madden, NCAA Football and Arena
Football games, was brought to a head after four years of
litigation in the federal courts, when EA agreed to pay $27
million into a settlement fund last July.  The settlement was
ruled "fair" in October.

The modifications do not affect the settlement agreement demands
that EA not renew its exclusivity agreements with the Collegiate
Licensing Co.  The exclusivity agreements expire in 2014, and EA
is barred from negotiating exclusive agreements with the CLC and
National Collegiate Athletic Association for five years following.

The class-action lawsuit against EA Sports claimed the company's
exclusive licensing agreements with National Football League,
NCAA, the CLC and the Arena Football League monopolized the market
for football video games, killing any competing titles.


FIRST AMERICAN: 3 Suits Over Title Insurance Rate Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------
A court has granted class certification in the suits Hamilton,
Lewis, Raffone and Slapikas, which allege First American Financial
Corporation charged an improper rate for title insurance in a
refinance transaction, according to the company's Oct. 24, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

Most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and
its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses. These lawsuits include,
among others, cases alleging, among other assertions, that the
Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents charged
an improper rate for title insurance in a refinance transaction,
including

(1) Hamilton v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al.,
filed on August 25, 2008 and pending in the Superior Court of the
State of North Carolina, Wake County,

(2) Haskins v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
September 29, 2010 and pending in the United States District Court
of New Jersey,

(3) Levine v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
February 26, 2009 and pending in the United States District Court
of Pennsylvania,

(4) Lewis v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
November 28, 2006 and pending in the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho,

(5) Mitchell-Tracey v. First American Title Insurance Company, et
al., filed on April 30, 2012 and pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Maryland,

(6) Raffone v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
February 14, 2004 and pending in the Circuit Court, Nassau County,
Florida, and

(7) Slapikas v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
December 19, 2005 and pending in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

All of these lawsuits are putative class actions. A court has only
granted class certification in Hamilton, Lewis, Raffone and
Slapikas. For the reasons stated, the Company has been unable to
assess the probability of loss or estimate the possible loss or
the range of loss or, where the Company has been able to make an
estimate, the Company believes the amount is immaterial to the
financial statements as a whole.


FIRST AMERICAN: Class Certified in RESPA Violations Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A narrow class has been certified in the suit Edwards v. First
American Financial Corporation, which alleges violations of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, according to the company's
Oct. 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

Most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and
its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses. These lawsuits include,
among others, cases alleging, among other assertions, that the
Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents
purchased minority interests in title insurance agents as an
inducement to refer title insurance underwriting business to the
Company or gave items of value to title insurance agents and
others for referrals of business, in each case in violation of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, including:

(1) Edwards v. First American Financial Corporation, filed on June
12, 2007 and pending in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California.

In Edwards a narrow class has been certified. For the reasons
stated, the Company has been unable to estimate the possible loss
or the range of loss.


FIRST AMERICAN: Lawsuit Over Practice of Law Decertified
--------------------------------------------------------
The class originally certified in Gale v. First American Title
Insurance Company, et al. was decertified, according to the
company's Oct. 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

Most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and
its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses. These lawsuits include,
among others, cases alleging, among other assertions, that the
Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents engaged
in the unauthorized practice of law, including:

Gale v. First American Title Insurance Company, et al., filed on
October 16, 2006 and pending in the United States District Court
of Connecticut.

The class originally certified in Gale was subsequently
decertified. For the reasons described, the Company has not yet
been able to assess the probability of loss or estimate the
possible loss or the range of loss.


FIRST AMERICAN: Certification of "Sjobring" Lawsuit Vacated
-----------------------------------------------------------
The certification of Sjobring v. First American Financial
Corporation, et al. was vacated, according to the company's Oct.
24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

Most of the non-ordinary course lawsuits to which the Company and
its subsidiaries are parties challenge practices in the Company's
title insurance business, though a limited number of cases also
pertain to the Company's other businesses. These lawsuits include,
among others, cases alleging, among other assertions, that the
Company, one of its subsidiaries and/or one of its agents
overcharged or improperly charged fees for products and services
provided in connection with the closing of real estate
transactions, denied home warranty claims, recorded telephone
calls, and gave items of value to developers, builders and others
as inducements to refer business in violation of certain other
laws, such as consumer protection laws and laws generally
prohibiting unfair business practices, and certain obligations,
including:

(1) Carrera v. First American Home Buyers Protection Corporation,
filed on September 23, 2009 and pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California,

(2) Chassen v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed
on January 22, 2009 and pending in the United States District
Court of New Jersey,

(3) Coleman v. First American Home Buyers Protection Corporation,
et al., filed on August 24, 2009 and pending in the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

(4) Diaz v. First American Home Buyers Protection Corporation,
filed on March 10, 2009 and pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California,

(5) Gunning v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
July 14, 2008 and pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Kentucky,

(6) Kaufman v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed
on December 21, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles,

(7) Kirk v. First American Financial Corporation, filed on June
15, 2006 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles,

(8) Muehling v. First American Title Company, filed on December
11, 2012 and pending in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda,

(9) Sjobring v. First American Financial Corporation, et al.,
filed on February 25, 2005 and pending in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Los Angeles,

(10) Smith v. First American Title Insurance Company, filed on
November 23, 2011 and pending in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington,

(11) Tavenner v. Talon Group, filed on August 18, 2009 and pending
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington,

(13) Wilmot v. First American Financial Corporation, et al., filed
on April 20, 2007 and pending in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles, and

(14) Winslow v. Mid Valley Title and Escrow Company, et al, filed
on August 1, 2013 and pending in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles.

All of these lawsuits, except Kirk, Sjobring, and Tavenner, are
putative class actions for which a class has not been certified.
In Sjobring a class was certified but that certification was
subsequently vacated. For the reasons described, the Company has
not yet been able to assess the probability of loss or estimate
the possible loss or the range of loss or, where the Company has
been able to make an estimate, the Company believes the amount is
immaterial to the financial statements as a whole.

While some of the lawsuits described may be material to the
Company's operating results in any particular period if an
unfavorable outcome results, the Company does not believe that any
of these lawsuits will have a material adverse effect on the
Company's overall financial condition or liquidity.

The Company also is a party to non-ordinary course lawsuits other
than those described. With respect to these lawsuits, the Company
has determined either that a loss is not reasonably possible or
that the estimated loss or range of loss, if any, is not material
to the financial statements as a whole.


FIRST LIBERTY: Class Action Settlement No Impact on Shares
----------------------------------------------------------
The Times-Tribune reports that news of a multimillion-dollar
class-action settlement by the parent company of First Liberty
Bank & Trust had little impact on the value of shares, which
nudged down 20 cents to a close of $36.53 per share on Nov. 15.

A federal judge on Nov. 12 said he probably will approve a $2.5
million settlement of the class-action lawsuit against First
Liberty and its parent, Community Bank Systems.

A Jermyn couple were the nominal plaintiffs in the suit
representing more than 50,000 customers who alleged the bank
unfairly manipulated posting on debit cards in order to increase
the chance of overwithdrawals -- and extra charges -- on their
accounts.

The bank in late October reporter third-quarter earnings of $22
million, an increase of $18.4 million from the year-ago quarter.

The bank recently purchased Bank of America branches in Northeast
Pennsylvania.  After close of business on Dec. 13, eight Northeast
Pennsylvania Bank of America branches will become Community Bank
N.A. Also, First Liberty Bank & Trust branches will adopt their
parent company's name, Community Bank N.A.


FRISCH'S RESTAURANTS: Dismissal of FLSA Breach Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled on
December 5, 2013 to hear oral arguments on an appeal by a former
employee against the dismissal of a suit against Frisch's
Restaurants, Inc., according to the company's Oct. 24, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 17, 2013.

On September 18, 2012, a former employee (plaintiff) filed a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and class
action under the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act for
allegations of off-the-clock work, unpaid overtime, and minimum
wage violations as a result of alleged improper application of the
Tip Credit.

As part of the collective action, the plaintiff seeks recovery for
all individuals who worked as a server at any Frisch's Big Boy
restaurant operated by the Company during the three year period,
September 18, 2009 through September 18, 2012. The class action is
limited to servers who worked for the Company at Frisch's Big Boy
restaurants located in Ohio during the last three years.

On December 4, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss and
compel arbitration, which motion was granted on April 10, 2013.
The plaintiff appealed the court's decision and the United States
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear oral arguments
on December 5, 2013. If ultimately successful on these claims, the
plaintiff and any class members would be entitled to unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees. The Company intends to
continue defending the matter vigorously including efforts to
pursue a class or collective action in arbitration.


HALLIBURTON CO: Supreme Court to Hear Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Hurley and Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, report
that the U.S. Supreme Court, which in recent years has ruled for
business in a string of high-profile cases, agreed on Nov. 15 to
hear a case that could herald a dramatic decline in securities
class action litigation.

The case will give the justices an opportunity to re-appraise a
25-year-old precedent, Basic v. Levinson, that made it easier for
securities class action cases to go beyond the preliminary
certification stage.

Shareholders, led by the Erica P. John Fund Inc, sued Halliburton
Co., saying the company understated its asbestos liabilities while
overstating revenues in its engineering and construction business
and the benefits of its merger with Dresser Industries.
Halliburton sought Supreme Court review after losing in lower
courts.

In the 1988 case, the court ruled that investors did not have to
prove that their loss could be directly traced to the alleged
fraud.  Instead, the court held that any misrepresentation about a
security would be incorporated into the market price.  Any
investor who purchased the security at that time could be presumed
to have been directly affected by the misrepresentation.

The ruling effectively launched the securities class action
industry that exists today, according to Adam Pritchard, a
professor at the University of Michigan Law School.

"Overruling 'Basic' would scale back securities class actions
tremendously," he said.

Jay Brown, a professor at the University of Denver, Sturm College
of Law, said it would be bad news for investor plaintiffs if the
court required them to show they actually relied on false
statements when making investment decisions.

"It will make securities class actions almost impossible to
pursue," he said.

Several former members of the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission filed a friend-of-the-court brief asking the court to
take the case.

"At issue in this case is the viability and scope of the most
powerful engine of civil liability ever established in American
law," their attorney, George Conway, wrote in reference to the
"fraud-on-the-market" theory.

There were 3,050 private securities class action cases between
1997 and 2012 leading to settlements worth more than $73.1
billion, the brief stated.

Mr. Conway said in an interview that the court's decision to hear
the case was a consequential development.

"It's simply unlikely that the Supreme Court took this case with
an eye to leaving 'Basic' in place," he said.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of
Manufacturers also asked the court to hear the case.

Aaron Streett, one of Halliburton's lawyers, said in an email that
his team is "confident that we will prevail" after the court hears
oral arguments, likely in February.

Lead plaintiffs' attorney David Boies declined to comment.

                           Amgen Ruling

Four of the nine current justices have indicated concerns about
the "fraud-on-the-market" theory.  Justice Samuel Alito said the
court should consider overruling the 1988 case in a separate
opinion he wrote after concurring with the majority in a
securities class action case decided in February in favor of
plaintiffs, Amgen v. Connecticut Retirement Plans.

Three other justices dissented in that case.  Justice Alito wrote
in his opinion that there was recent evidence the "fraud-on-the-
market" theory "may rest on a faulty economic premise."

The Halliburton case returns to the court for a second time.  In
January 2011, the court unanimously ruled that a U.S. appeals
court erred in rejecting class certification.

The lawsuit was filed in 2002 on behalf of all buyers of
Halliburton stock between June 1999 and December 2001.

The alleged misstatements artificially pumped up Halliburton's
stock price, the lawsuit said, adding that the Houston-based
company eventually made corrective disclosures that caused its
stock price to fall.

After the first Supreme Court ruling, Halliburton argued that the
class could still not be certified because the alleged fraud did
not affect the stock price.  In January 2012, a federal district
judge rejected that argument, as did an appeals court in an April
2013 ruling.

A ruling is expected by the end of June.  The case is Halliburton
Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-317.


IMAX CORPORATION: Awaits Approval of Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a consolidated securities suit against IMAX
Corporation awaits final court approval pending appeal by
plaintiffs in the Canadian Action, according to the company's Oct.
24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named
as defendants in eight purported class action lawsuits filed
between August 11, 2006 and September 18, 2006, alleging
violations of U.S. federal securities laws.

These eight actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "Court"). On January 18, 2007,
the Court consolidated all eight class action lawsuits and
appointed Westchester Capital Management, Inc. as the lead
plaintiff and Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP as lead plaintiff's
counsel.

On October 2, 2007, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint. The amended complaint, brought on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock on the
NASDAQ between February 27, 2003 and July 20, 2007 (the "U.S.
Class"), alleges primarily that the defendants engaged in
securities fraud by disseminating materially false and misleading
statements during the class period regarding the Company's revenue
recognition of theater system installations, and failing to
disclose material information concerning the Company's revenue
recognition practices.

The amended complaint also added PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the
Company's auditors, as a defendant. On April 14, 2011, the Court
issued an order appointing The Merger Fund as the lead plaintiff
and Abbey Spanier Rodd & Abrams, LLP as lead plaintiff's counsel.

On November 2, 2011, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding containing the terms and conditions of a settlement
of this action. On January 26, 2012, the parties executed and
filed with the Court a formal stipulation of settlement and
proposed form of notice to the class, which the Court
preliminarily approved on February 1, 2012.

Under the terms of the settlement, members of the U.S. Class who
did not opt out of the settlement will release defendants from
liability for all claims that were alleged in this action or could
have been alleged in this action or any other proceeding
(including the action in Canada as described in (d) of this note
(the "Canadian Action") relating to the purchase of IMAX
securities on the NASDAQ from February 27, 2003 and July 20, 2007
or the subject matter and facts relating to this action.

As part of the settlement and in exchange for the release,
defendants will pay $12.0 million to a settlement fund which
amount will be funded by the carriers of the Company's directors
and officers insurance policy and by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

On March 26, 2012, the parties executed and filed with the Court
an amended formal stipulation of settlement and proposed form of
notice to the class, which the court preliminarily approved on
March 28, 2012. On June 20, 2012, the Court issued an order
granting final approval of the settlement.

The settlement is conditioned on the Company's receipt of an order
from the court in the Canadian Action, the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice, (the "Canadian Court") excluding from the class in the
Canadian Action every member of the class in both actions who has
not opted out of the U.S. settlement.

A hearing on the motion for the order occurred on July 30, 2012
before the Canadian Court and on March 19, 2013, the Canadian
Court issued a decision granting the Company's motion to exclude
from the class in the Canadian Action every member of the classes
in both actions who has not opted out of the U.S. settlement.

However, no final order will be granted by the Court until the
plaintiffs in the Canadian Action have exhausted their appeals.


IMAX CORPORATION: Still Faces Securities Lawsuit in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------
A certified securities class action is pending against Imax
Corporation in Canada, according to the company's Oct. 24, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

A class action lawsuit was filed on September 20, 2006 in the
Canadian Court against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors, alleging violations of Canadian securities laws.

This lawsuit was brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired
the Company's securities between February 17, 2006 and August 9,
2006. The lawsuit seeks $210.0 million in compensatory and
punitive damages, as well as costs. For reasons released December
14, 2009, the Canadian Court granted leave to the plaintiffs to
amend their statement of claim to plead certain claims pursuant to
the Securities Act (Ontario) against the Company and certain
individuals and granted certification of the action as a class
proceeding. These are procedural decisions, and do not contain any
conclusions binding on a judge at trial as to the factual or legal
merits of the claim. Leave to appeal those decisions was denied.

The Company believes the allegations made against it in the
statement of claim are meritless and will vigorously defend the
matter, although no assurance can be given with respect to the
ultimate outcome of such proceedings. The Company's directors' and
officers' insurance policy provides for reimbursement of costs and
expenses incurred in connection with this lawsuit as well as
potential damages awarded, if any, subject to certain policy
limits, exclusions and deductibles.


IXIA: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Nov. 15
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Ixia
and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United
States District Court, Central District of California, and
docketed under 2:13-cv-8440, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired IXIA
securities between April 29, 2010 and October 24, 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 Ixia securities during the
Class Period, you have until January 14, 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.

Ixia delivers information technology solutions to a wide variety
of organizations, through real-time monitoring, real-world
testing, and rapid assessment of networks and systems.  The
Company's tools are purportedly used to provide "end-to-end
visibility" and complete understanding into user behavior,
security vulnerabilities, network capacity, application
performance, and IT resiliency.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company
improperly recognized revenues related to its warranty and
software maintenance contracts; (2) The Company's Chief Executive
Officer "CEO" misstated his academic credentials and employment
history; (3) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On March 19, 2013, Ixia announced that it had filed a Form 12b-25
with the SEC relating to the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2012, and that the Company needed
to delay the filing of its Annual Report, "to correct an error
related to the manner in which [Ixia] recognizes revenues for its
warranty and software maintenance contracts."

On April 3, 2013, Ixia announced that after a further evaluation
of the Company's finances, and identifying an additional error in
the Company's revenue recognition practices that required
correction, the Company's management recommended to the audit
committee of the Company that the Company restate previously
issued financial statements for the fiscal years ended
December 31, 2011 and 2010, and the fiscal quarters ended March
31, 2011, June 30, 2011, September 30, 2011, March 31, 2012, June
30, 2012, and September 30, 2012; and, that the financial
statements from the Restated Periods should no longer be relied
upon.  On this news, the Company's shares declined $1.94 per
share, or over 9.5%, to close on April 4, 2013, at $18.37 per
share.

On October 24, 2013, the Company disclosed "Vic Alston has
resigned as its President and CEO and as a member of its board of
directors following a determination by the Ixia audit committee
that although he had attended Stanford University, he had
misstated his academic credentials, incorrectly claiming to have
received a B.S. and a M.S. in Computer Science, and had misstated
his age and early employment history."  On this news, the
Company's shares declined $0.78 per share, or nearly 5%, to close
on October 25, 2013, at $14.94 per share.

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.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Feds, States Settle RMBS Claims for $13-Bil.
------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Ruger, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
federal and state prosecutors issued a stern warning to banks on
Nov. 19 as enforcement officials announced a record $13 billion
settlement with JPMorgan Chase & Co. over its role in the
financial crisis: Investigations are ongoing.

"Without a doubt, the conduct uncovered in this investigation
helped sow the seeds of the mortgage meltdown," Attorney General
Eric Holder Jr. said in a written statement.  "No firm, no matter
how profitable, is above the law, and the passage of time is no
shield from accountability."

JPMorgan, one of the country's largest banks, will pay $13 billion
to resolve civil allegations that it and its subsidiaries
misrepresented to investors the quality of residential mortgage-
backed securities.  The settlement does not preclude criminal
charges against the bank or any individual.  DOJ said the deal is
the largest settlement to date with a single company.

The deal, which resolves claims from state attorneys generals in
California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York and Delaware,
includes JPMorgan's acknowledgement that it made serious
misrepresentations to the public and investors about mortgage-
backed securities packaged, marketed, sold and issued by JPMorgan,
Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual.

New York settled its claims for $613.8 million and California for
nearly $300 million. The settlement requires the appointment of an
independent monitor through Dec. 31, 2017, to determine whether
JPMorgan is satisfying its obligations.

The deal includes $4 billion in relief for homeowners -- including
principal forgiveness and loan modification -- and a $2 billion
civil penalty to settle claims under the Financial Institutions
Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act -- a law, long on the books,
that the government dusted off following the 2008 financial
crisis.

Stuart Delery, who leads the Justice Department's Civil Division,
said the record-settlement "underscores the power of FIRREA and
other civil enforcement tools for combatting financial fraud."
Holder said, "The size and scope of this resolution should send a
clear signal that the Justice Department's financial fraud
investigations are far from over."

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman called the JPMorgan
settlement a "historic deal" that "will bring long-overdue relief
to homeowners around the country."

A lawyer for JPMorgan, H. Rodgin Cohen -- cohenhr@sullcrom.com --
a banking partner at Sullivan & Cromwell, did not immediately
respond to requests for comment.

JPMorgan chairman and chief executive officer Jamie Dimon said in
a written statement that the bank is "pleased to have concluded
this extensive agreement . . . and to have resolved the civil
claims of the Department of Justice and others."  The bank said it
continues to cooperate with prosecutors in an continuing criminal
investigation.

The deal marked the latest -- and biggest -- settlement JPMorgan
has reached with agencies this year.  Last month, the bank
revealed it has set aside $23 billion to cover litigation
expenses.  In addition to Sullivan & Cromwell, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr and Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison
have reaped significant fees working for JPMorgan.

"We continuously evaluate our legal reserves, but in this highly
charged and unpredictable environment, with escalating demands and
penalties from multiple government agencies, we thought it was
best to significantly strengthen them," Mr. Dimon said at the
time.

On Nov. 15, JPMorgan reached a $4.5 billion deal to settle claims
by 21 institutional investors, agreeing to repurchase faulty
residential mortgage-backed securities.  That amount is in
addition to the recovery announced on Nov. 19.

The bank paid more than $1 billion earlier this fall to settle
charges by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission and other regulators over
massive credit default swaps trading losses by the so-called
London Whale.

JPMorgan faces a continuing legal fight with Deutsche Bank,
seeking $10 billion for faulty mortgage-backed securities that it
purchased from Washington Mutual before JPMorgan bought that
failed bank in 2008.  JPMorgan argues that, based on finely tuned
contract language, liability for Washington Mutual's shoddy
securities actually belong to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.,
which acted as its receiver.

The $13 billion settlement specifically prohibits JPMorgan from
demanding indemnification from the FDIC for the Washington Mutual
securities at issue in the government's case.  It does not,
however, appear to bar JPMorgan from continuing to argue in the
Deutsche Bank case that the FDIC is on the hook for Washington
Mutual's other mortgage-backed securities.  That case is pending
in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

"The settlement announced today will provide a significant
recovery for six FDIC receiverships. It also fully protects the
FDIC from indemnification claims out of this settlement," FDIC
Chairman Martin Gruenberg said.  "The FDIC will continue to pursue
litigation where necessary in order to recover as much as possible
for FDIC receiverships, money that is ultimately returned to the
Deposit Insurance Fund, uninsured depositors and creditors of
failed banks."

Boies, Schiller & Flexner partner Tanya Chutkan --
tchutkan@bsfllp.com -- who represents Deutsche Bank, did not
respond to a request for comment.

Plaintiffs lawyer Darren Robbins -- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- a name
partner at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, which has sued JPMorgan
on behalf of shareholders, praised the deal.

"With complex settlements like this one, the devil is always in
the details," he said.  "That said, any recovery that provides
compensation to institutions victimized by the packaging,
marketing and sale of defective [mortgage-backed securities] is a
big step forward."


KCBX: EPA Begins Probe Into "Petcoke" Matter After Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Sfondeles, writing for Chicago Sun-Times, reports that a day
after Southeast Side residents demanded answers from the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. EPA on Nov. 15
formally began its own investigation into KCBX and Beemsterboer,
two companies operating petroleum coke storage facilities along
the Calumet River.

The storage facilities have been in the spotlight this year, as
residents in the South Deering neighborhood complained of black
dust -- a by-product of the oil refinery process -- coating their
homes, yards and cars.

The U.S. EPA sent a request for information for KCBX's facilities
in the 3200 block of East 100th Street and the 10700 block of
South Burley on Nov. 15.  The agency wants data to determine
whether the emissions from the facilities are complying with the
Clean Air Act.

The agency is also seeking information for Beemsterboer facility
in the 2900 block of East 100th Street, according to U.S. EPA
spokeswoman Anne Rowan.

The federal investigation is separate from the IEPA, although the
two agencies have been communicating since the beginning of the
state's investigation, according to IEPA spokesman Andrew Mason.

The U.S. EPA's letter specifically targets Clean Air Act
compliance, but a federal investigation can also look into the
companies' transport of "petcoke" and coal between Indiana and
Illinois.  That means federal investigators, state investigators
and the Illinois Attorney General's office are all investigating
KCBX.  The IEPA referred both KCBX and Beemsterboer to the
attorney general's office for air pollution violations, but the
attorney general's office has thus only filed suit against KCBX.

If the companies are found to be non-compliant with federal law,
they could face a penalty of about $40,000 per day of violation,
according to Meleah Geertsma, an attorney with the National
Resources Defense Council.  Ms. Geertsma said a federal
investigation puts pressure on the companies, since they could be
fined monetarily. She said she hopes the KCBX investigation will
bring attention to the other storage sites.

"I think our hope is that if the EPA is investigating this one,
that they'll hopefully start looking at the other sites in the
Midwest," Ms. Geertsma said.  "Now that we've got the site in
Detroit and a site in Chicago as being problematic, it seems like
now is the time for the federal agency that oversees these make
sure the facilities aren't just blowing this type of petcoke
across neighborhoods across the Chicago area and the entire
country."

A class-action lawsuit was filed by four homeowners last month
against all owners and operators of the three storage facilities.
Both suits allege the growing mounds of petcoke are sending clouds
of black dust into nearby neighborhoods.  Jean Tourville, a 77-
year-old Southeast Side resident and plaintiff in the case said a
black cloud of dust keeps blowing onto her home: "I can't open my
windows or doors and when I do, there's about a quarter inch of
black soot that comes inside."

Angry residents attended an IEPA meeting on Nov. 14 at a Southeast
Side church, telling IEPA officials they want more immediate
action, than just a long drawn out legal process.

Olga Bautista stood up to ask the IEPA representatives and lawyers
from the attorney general's office to "set a precedent" and
explore an emergency injunction to shut down the plants.

"We sound very angry, but we're really here for the love of our
families and our neighbors and our community," Ms. Bautista said.
"Can you be our champions?"

Safety data provided to the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration on petcoke's hazards warns that excessive exposure
to petcoke dust can cause skin, eye or respiratory infection.
Repeated inhalation of petcoke can cause impaired lung function.
But the data sheet states there is no evidence that the exposure
causes cancer.

KCBX issued a statement saying the company has had a long history
of working cooperatively with the EPA and the IEPA on assets they
have purchased.

"This demonstrates that we put a priority in regulatory compliance
and managing operations in a manner that protects the health and
safety of employees, the community, and the environment,"
spokesman Paul Baltzer said in the statement.


KIA MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over Gas Tank Defects
----------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, writing for Law360, reports that Kia Motors Corp.
and its subsidiary were hit with a putative class action in
California federal court on Nov. 13 by consumers who say that one
of the company's vehicle models features gas tank defects that put
passengers at risk of serious injury or death.

The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 13 by Seattle-based Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP on behalf of consumers who purchased, leased or
currently own a Kia model with a gas tank that is either not
connected to the underside of the vehicle with reinforced straps
or is not protected by a whole-tank shield.  The suit also seeks
to represent owners of Kia vehicles that have a plastic fuel pump
service cover that is accessible from the passenger compartment of
the car, according to the complaint.

Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- managing partner of Hagens
Berman and lead attorney on the case, says the vehicles are
defective and that their design can lead to gas tanks dislodging
and rupturing in an accident, putting passengers at risk of a tank
fire invading the passenger cabin.

"Our work and investigation paint a clear picture in our minds --
these cars are simply unsafe," Mr. Berman said in a statement on
Nov. 14.  "The placement of the gas tanks, combined with the lack
of standard safety measures such as reinforced straps, effectively
mean that rear-seat passengers are sitting atop what amounts to a
gas-fed bomb."

Mr. Berman further said that the problem is not a hypothetical
one.

"In Texas, an example of the potential risk has already been made
apparent," Mr. Berman said.  "Three passengers were driving in a
Kia Soul and were completely engulfed in flames when the gas tanks
exploded, and we believe that the defects we highlight in our
lawsuit were to blame."

The lawsuit, which also names Kia Motors America Inc. as a
defendant, calls into question Kia's marketing tactics that
"heavily emphasize vehicle safety," saying they mislead customers
into purchasing or leasing vehicles of a quality different than
they were promised, as well as paying more than they would have
had they been aware of any gas tank defects, according to the
complaint.

Named plaintiffs Constance Sims and Sammy Rodriguez, who each own
versions of the Kia Soul, reported that they chose the vehicles in
part because they wanted safely designed and manufactured
vehicles.  Both plaintiffs say they saw advertisements before
purchasing the vehicles and that safety and quality were
"consistent themes" in the ads.

The plaintiffs contend that Kia has violated California's Unfair
Competition Law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and False
Advertising Law, as well as committed a breach of implied warranty
of merchantability and fraudulent concealment.

Representatives for Kia didn't immediately return requests for
comment on Nov. 14.

Plaintiffs are represented by Elaine T. Byszewski --
elaine@hbsslaw.com -- Steve W. Berman and Sean R. Matt --
sean@hbsslaw.com -- of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Mark P.
Robinson Jr. of Robinson Calcagnie & Robinson.

Counsel information for the defendants wasn't immediately
available.

The case is Constance Sims et al. v. Kia Motors America Inc. et
al., case number 13-01791, in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California.


L'OREAL: Faces Fructis Sleek Defective Product Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
BigClassAction.com reports that L'Oreal is facing a defective
product class action lawsuit over claims that it failed to warn
customers that Garnier Fructis Sleek and Shine Anti-Frizz Serum
has, as its main ingredients, cyclopentasiloxane and dimethiconol,
which are flammable.  According to the class action, the anti-
frizz serum can catch fire at temperatures above 171 degrees and
can cause substantial risk of burns to face, head and neck.

The lawsuit has received certification by strict Court Judge
Christina A. Snyder of the Central District of California.  The
class action alleges that L'Oreal USA Inc, and L'Oreal USA
Products Inc, failed to label the frizz-reducing product as
combustible or flammable near flame, ignition or high-heat-
producing styling appliances, and misrepresented the product as
safe to use with such implements, according to court documents.

Filed by plaintiffs Jill Guido and Catherine Altamura of
California; Natalie Lefebvre of Texas; and Lisa Pearly of New
York, the lawsuit seeks to represent any person who purchased the
Serum during the period from February 4, 2008, to the present.
According to court documents, during the class period, L'Oreal
sold some 9.9 million units of Garnier Fructis Sleek and Shine
Anti-Frizz Serum in the US.


L & L ENERGY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Nov. 15
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against L & L
Energy, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed
in United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
and docketed under 13-cv-06704, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of L&L between September 11, 2012 and September 18,
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 L&L securities during the
Class Period, you have until November 22, 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.

L&L, formerly known as L&L International Holdings, is a coal-
mining company founded in 1995.  L&L purports, through its
subsidiaries, to engage in coal mining, clean coal washing, coal
coking, and coal wholesaling businesses in China.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
the Company improperly accounted substantial revenue from
operations that were already shut down; (2) the Company claimed
acquisitions and divestitures of various properties through swap
transactions that never occurred through the exchange of assets it
never owned in the first place; (3) the Company lacked adequate
internal and financial controls; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's financial results were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 19, 2013, GeoInvesting published an article on
Seeking Alpha disclosing that the Company has been "defrauding
investors by booking substantial revenue from operations that have
been idled for quite some time."  Specifically, GeoInvesting
stated that the Company's numerous acquisitions and divestitures
through the years have amounted "to a bait and switch shell game"
by utilizing "swap transactions that never occurred."  Moreover,
the article concluded "that revenue of $77.6 million disclosed in
LLEN's 2013 10K, generated from its Hong Xing coal washing
factory, was actually close to zero, if it is not actually zero"
as the factory "has been shut down since 2012."

On this news, the Company's stock plummeted $0.80 per share or
more than 38%, to close at $1.27 on September 19, 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.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


LASALLE COUNTY, IL: Disputes Class Action Over Strip-Search Policy
------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Stanmar, writing for Pantagraph, reports that the federal
strip search lawsuit against LaSalle County has become a class
action with the filing of four more complaints, although the
county's attorney continues to label the allegations as being
without merit.

"We've reviewed the complaints and we're confident the practices
are not unconstitutional," said Jim Sotos, the Itasca lawyer hired
by the county.

Four women and one man are suing the county over the alleged
practice of removing a person's clothing and then putting the
suspect in a cell for a length of time with only a floor drain for
a toilet.  Rip-proof clothes or a blanket were eventually
provided, the lawsuit claims.

The lawsuit also alleges a video camera, which could be viewed by
others, recorded the prisoners.

Dana Holmes of Coal City filed the original suit, claiming her
rights were violated when she was arrested on suspicion of drunken
driving.  New to the lawsuit are Andrea Welter, 29, of Sheridan,
and Robin Sessler, 42, of Earlville, both originally charged with
disorderly conduct; Pamela Barella, 38, of LaSalle, domestic
battery; and Cris Muzzarelli, 30, Princeton, a civil warrant.

Mr. Muzzarelli is the only male to have filed.

"All of the county's practices are within state and federal law,"
Soto said.  "We're confident the lawsuit is not going to go
anywhere.  If they had done their research before filing and
spinning the media, they would have realized that."

The amount being sought is not listed in the lawsuit.


MATTEL INC: Updates on Suit Related to Carter Bryant, MGA
---------------------------------------------------------
Mattel, Inc. continues to face a litigation related to Carter
Bryant and MGA Entertainment, Inc., according to Mattel's Oct. 24,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In April 2004, Mattel filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County
Superior Court against Carter Bryant ("Bryant"), a former Mattel
design employee. The suit alleges that Bryant aided and assisted a
Mattel competitor, MGA Entertainment, Inc. ("MGA"), during the
time he was employed by Mattel, in violation of his contractual
and other duties to Mattel.

In September 2004, Bryant asserted counterclaims against Mattel,
including counterclaims in which Bryant sought, as a putative
class action representative, to invalidate Mattel's Confidential
Information and Proprietary Inventions Agreements with its
employees. Bryant also removed Mattel's suit to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

In December 2004, MGA intervened as a party-defendant in Mattel's
action against Bryant, asserting that its rights to Bratz
properties are at stake in the litigation.

Separately, in November 2004, Bryant filed an action against
Mattel in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The action sought a judicial declaration
that Bryant's purported conveyance of rights in Bratz was proper
and that he did not misappropriate Mattel property in creating
Bratz.

In April 2005, MGA filed suit against Mattel in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. MGA's
action alleges claims of trade dress infringement, trade dress
dilution, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and
unjust enrichment. The suit alleges, among other things, that
certain products, themes, packaging, and/or television commercials
in various Mattel product lines have infringed upon products,
themes, packaging, and/or television commercials for various MGA
product lines, including Bratz. The complaint also asserts that
various alleged Mattel acts with respect to unidentified
retailers, distributors, and licensees have damaged MGA and that
various alleged acts by industry organizations, purportedly
induced by Mattel, have damaged MGA.

MGA's suit alleges that MGA has been damaged in an amount
"believed to reach or exceed tens of millions of dollars" and
further seeks punitive damages, disgorgement of Mattel's profits
and injunctive relief.

In June 2006, the three cases were consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California. On
July 17, 2006, the Court issued an order dismissing all claims
that Bryant had asserted against Mattel, including Bryant's
purported counterclaims to invalidate Mattel's Confidential
Information and Proprietary Inventions Agreements with its
employees, and Bryant's claims for declaratory relief.

In November 2006, Mattel asked the Court for leave to file an
Amended Complaint that included not only additional claims against
Bryant, but also included claims for copyright infringement,
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO")
violations, misappropriation of trade secrets, intentional
interference with contract, aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of duty of loyalty, and unfair
competition, among others, against MGA, its Chief Executive
Officer Isaac Larian, certain MGA affiliates and an MGA employee.
The RICO claim alleged that MGA stole Bratz and then, by
recruiting and hiring key Mattel employees and directing them to
bring with them Mattel confidential and proprietary information,
unfairly competed against Mattel using Mattel's trade secrets,
confidential information, and key employees to build their
business. On January 12, 2007, the Court granted Mattel leave to
file these claims as counterclaims in the consolidated cases,
which Mattel did that same day.

Mattel sought to try all of its claims in a single trial, but in
February 2007, the Court decided that the consolidated cases would
be tried in two phases, with the first trial to determine claims
and defenses related to Mattel's ownership of Bratz works and
whether MGA infringed those works. On May 19, 2008, Bryant reached
a settlement agreement with Mattel and is no longer a defendant in
the litigation. In the public stipulation entered by Mattel and
Bryant in connection with the resolution, Bryant agreed that he
was and would continue to be bound by all prior and future Court
Orders relating to Bratz ownership and infringement, including the
Court's summary judgment rulings.

The first phase of the first trial, which began on May 27, 2008,
resulted in a unanimous jury verdict on July 17, 2008 in favor of
Mattel. The jury found that almost all of the Bratz design
drawings and other works in question were created by Bryant while
he was employed at Mattel; that MGA and Isaac Larian intentionally
interfered with the contractual duties owed by Bryant to Mattel,
aided and abetted Bryant's breaches of his duty of loyalty to
Mattel, aided and abetted Bryant's breaches of the fiduciary
duties he owed to

Mattel, and converted Mattel property for their own use. The same
jury determined that defendants MGA, Larian, and MGA Entertainment
(HK) Limited infringed Mattel's copyrights in the Bratz design
drawings and other Bratz works, and awarded Mattel total damages
of approximately $100 million against the defendants. On December
3, 2008, the Court issued a series of orders rejecting MGA's
equitable defenses and granting Mattel's motions for equitable
relief, including an order enjoining the MGA party defendants from
manufacturing, marketing, or selling certain Bratz fashion dolls
or from using the "Bratz" name. The Court stayed the effect of the
December 3, 2008 injunctive orders until further order of the
Court and entered a further specified stay of the injunctive
orders on January 7, 2009.

The parties filed and argued additional motions for post-trial
relief, including a request by MGA to enter judgment as a matter
of law on Mattel's claims in MGA's favor and to reduce the jury's
damages award to Mattel. Mattel additionally moved for the
appointment of a receiver. On April 27, 2009, the Court entered an
order confirming that Bratz works found by the jury to have been
created by Bryant during his Mattel employment were Mattel's
property and that hundreds of Bratz female fashion dolls infringe
Mattel's copyrights. The Court also upheld the jury's award of
damages in the amount of $100 million and ordered an accounting of
post-trial Bratz sales. The Court further vacated the stay of the
December 3, 2008 orders, except to the extent specified by the
Court's January 7, 2009 modification.

MGA appealed the Court's equitable orders to the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit. On December 9, 2009, the Ninth Circuit
heard oral argument on MGA's appeal and issued an order staying
the District Court's equitable orders pending a further order to
be issued by the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit opinion vacating
the relief ordered by the District Court was issued on July 22,
2010. The Ninth Circuit stated that, because of several jury
instruction errors it identified, a significant portion -- if not
all -- of the jury verdict and damage award should be vacated.

In its opinion, the Ninth Circuit found that the District Court
erred in concluding that Mattel's Invention agreement
unambiguously applied to "ideas;" that it should have considered
extrinsic evidence in determining the application of the
agreement; and if the conclusion turns on conflicting evidence, it
should have been up to the jury to decide.

The Ninth Circuit also concluded that the District Judge erred in
transferring the entire brand to Mattel based on misappropriated
names and that the Court should have submitted to the jury, rather
than deciding itself, whether Bryant's agreement assigned works
created outside the scope of his employment and whether Bryant's
creation of the Bratz designs and sculpt was outside of his
employment.

The Court then went on to address copyright issues which would be
raised after a retrial, since Mattel "might well convince a
properly instructed jury" that it owns Bryant's designs and
sculpt. The Ninth Circuit stated that the sculpt itself was
entitled only to "thin" copyright protection against virtually
identical works, while the Bratz sketches were entitled to "broad"
protection against substantially similar works; in applying the
broad protection, however, the Ninth Circuit found that the lower
court had erred in failing to filter out all of the unprotectable
elements of Bryant's sketches. This mistake, the Court said,
caused the lower court to conclude that all Bratz dolls were
substantially similar to Bryant's original sketches.

Judge Stephen Larson, who presided over the first trial, retired
from the bench during the course of the appeal, and the case was
transferred to Judge David O. Carter. After the transfer, Judge
Carter granted Mattel leave to file a Fourth Amended Answer and
Counterclaims which focused on RICO, trade secret and other
claims, and added additional parties, and subsequently granted in
part and denied in part a defense motion to dismiss those
counterclaims. Later, on August 16, 2010, MGA asserted several new
claims against Mattel in response to Mattel's Fourth Amended
Answer and Counterclaims, including claims for alleged trade
secret misappropriation, an alleged violation of RICO, and
wrongful injunction. Mattel moved to strike and/or dismiss these
claims, as well as certain MGA allegations regarding Mattel's
motives for filing suit. The Court granted that motion as to the
wrongful injunction claim, which it dismissed with prejudice, and
as to the allegations about Mattel's motives, which it struck. The
Court denied the motion as to MGA's trade secret misappropriation
claim and its claim for violations of RICO.

The Court resolved summary judgment motions in late 2010. Among
other rulings, the Court dismissed both parties' RICO claims;
dismissed Mattel's claim for breach of fiduciary duty and portions
of other claims as "preempted" by the trade secrets act; dismissed
MGA's trade dress infringement claims; dismissed MGA's unjust
enrichment claim; dismissed MGA's common law unfair competition
claim; and dismissed portions of Mattel's copyright infringement
claim as to "later generation" Bratz dolls.

Trial of all remaining claims began in early January 2011. During
the trial, and before the case was submitted to the jury, the
Court granted MGA's motions for judgment as to Mattel's claims for
aiding and abetting breach of duty of loyalty and conversion. The
Court also granted a defense motion for judgment on portions of
Mattel's claim for misappropriation of trade secrets relating to
thefts by former Mattel employees located in Mexico.

The jury reached verdicts on the remaining claims in April 2011.
In those verdicts, the jury ruled against Mattel on its claims for
ownership of Bratz-related works, for copyright infringement, and
for misappropriation of trade secrets. The jury ruled for MGA on
its claim of trade secret misappropriation as to 26 of its claimed
trade secrets and awarded $88.5 million in damages. The jury ruled
against MGA as to 88 of its claimed trade secrets. The jury found
that Mattel's misappropriation was willful and malicious.

In early August 2011, the Court ruled on post-trial motions. The
Court rejected MGA's unfair competition claims and also rejected
Mattel's equitable defenses to MGA's misappropriation of trade
secrets claim. The Court reduced the jury's damages award of $88.5
million to $85.0 million. The Court awarded MGA an additional
$85.0 million in punitive damages and approximately $140 million
in attorney's fees and costs. The Court entered a judgment which
totaled approximately $310 million in favor of MGA.

Mattel appealed the judgment, challenging on appeal the entirety
of the District Court's monetary award in favor of MGA, including
both the award of $170 million in damages for alleged trade secret
misappropriation and approximately $140 million in attorney's fees
and costs. On January 24, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
issued a ruling on Mattel's appeal.

In that ruling, the Court found that MGA's claim for trade secrets
misappropriation was not compulsory to any Mattel claim and could
not be filed as a counterclaim-in-reply. Accordingly, the Court of
Appeals vacated the portion of the judgment awarding damages and
attorney's fees and costs to MGA for prevailing on its trade
secrets misappropriation claim, totaling approximately $172.5
million. It ruled that, on remand, the District Court must dismiss
MGA's trade secret claim without prejudice. In its ruling, the
Court of Appeals also affirmed the District Court's award of
attorney's fees and costs under the Copyright Act. Accordingly,
Mattel recorded a litigation accrual of $137.8 million during the
fourth quarter of 2012 to cover these fees and costs.

On February 27, 2013, MGA filed a motion to amend its complaint to
reassert the trade secret claim that the Court of Appeals ordered
dismissed without prejudice. Mattel believes that it has strong
arguments that such an amendment is improper in federal court
because the claim is purely one of state law and that even if
amendment is allowed, or if MGA were to file the claim in state
court, the claim is barred by the statute of limitations, among
other defenses, and should be dismissed without a trial.


MAUI, HI: Judge Approves $14MM Teachers' Backpay Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nanea Kalani, writing for Star Advertiser, reports that a state
judge on Nov. 15 approved backpay totaling more than $14 million
for some 10,000 substitute teachers stemming from a class action
lawsuit filed more than a decade ago.

"I feel very good about the decision," said former Maui substitute
teacher David Garner, who brought the case against the state in
2002.  "This has gone on way too long."

The settlement, approved by Circuit Judge Karl Sakamoto, involves
claims for daily wages.  The state has said payments could go out
as early as March.

A separate claim is seeking "tens of millions of dollars" in
hourly backpay as well as interest payments on both daily and
hourly amounts due, said Seattle attorney Murray Lewis.

"It's very discouraging to me, disheartening, that the state is
still fighting us on the interest owed," Garner said.  "It's our
money."

Maui attorney Eric Ferrer, added, "It has been an epic battle . .
. David Garner is relentless and so are we.  We won't stop until
we have full and final justice in this case."

In his case, Garner argued that the Department of Education
violated a 1996 state law pegging pay for substitute teachers to
rates for Class II teachers -- full-time instructors who have
bachelor's degrees but lack advanced training.  Between 1996 and
2005, pay for substitute teachers increased just 11 percent,
compared with 40 percent for Class II teachers.

The Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled in 2009 that the state
underpaid thousands of Hawaii substitute teachers between 2000 and
2005.  The Hawaii Supreme Court in 2010 sent the case back to
Circuit Court to determine how much the teachers are owed.


MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES: Unification of Stock Suit Still in Question
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California has yet to issue an order on the motions for
consolidation and identification of a lead plaintiff in a
purported securities class action against Maxwell Technologies,
Inc., according to the company's Oct. 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2013.

From March 13, 2013 through April 19, 2013, four purported
shareholder class actions were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California against the company
and three of the company's current and former officers.

These actions are entitled Foster v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 13-cv-0580 (S.D. Cal. filed March 13, 2013),
Weinstein v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0686
(S.D. Cal. filed March 21, 2013), Abanades v. Maxwell
Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-0867 (S.D. Cal. filed April
11, 2013), and Mebarak v. Maxwell Technologies, Inc., et al., No.
13-cv-0942 (S.D. Cal. filed April 19, 2013).

The complaints allege that the defendants made false and
misleading statements regarding the company's financial
performance and business prospects and overstated the company's
reported revenue. The complaints purport to assert claims for
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of all persons who
purchased the company's common stock between April 28, 2011 and
March 7, 2013, inclusive. The complaints seek unspecified monetary
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 13, 2013, four prospective lead plaintiffs filed motions to
consolidate the four actions and to be appointed lead plaintiff.
On June 11, 2013, the Court vacated the hearing on those motions
and indicated that it would issue a written order.

To date, the Court has yet to issue an order on the motions for
consolidation and identification of a lead plaintiff. At this
preliminary stage, the company cannot determine whether there is a
reasonable possibility that a loss has been incurred nor can the
company estimate the range of potential loss. Accordingly, the
company have not accrued an amount for any potential loss
associated with this action, but an adverse result could have a
material adverse impact on the company's financial condition and
results of operation.


MEAD JOHNSON: Distribution of Enfamil Suit Settlement Complete
--------------------------------------------------------------
The distribution to class members of a settlement of a suit
against Mead Johnson & Company, LLC over the advertising of
certain Enfamil LIPIL infant formula was completed as of the end
of the third quarter of 2013, according to Mead Johnson Nutrition
Company's Oct. 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On November 14, 2011, the Company's subsidiary Mead Johnson &
Company, LLC ("MJC") obtained final trial court approval of a
nationwide class settlement with plaintiffs in eight putative
consumer class actions that had been consolidated and transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The suits all involved allegations of false and misleading
advertising with respect to certain Enfamil LIPIL infant formula
advertising.  The settlement allowed consumers who purchased
Enfamil LIPIL infant formula between October 13, 2005, and March
31, 2010, to receive infant formula or cash. The period for
submitting claims has expired, and the total amount claimed by
class members was less than $8.0 million.

As a result and consistent with the Company's previously reported
obligations under the settlement agreement, MJC distributed the
difference between $8.0 million and the total amount claimed in
the form of infant formula to Feeding America, the nation's
largest domestic hunger relief charity.  MJC also agreed not to
oppose, and the court approved, attorneys' fees and expenses to
plaintiffs' counsel of $3.5 million and $140 thousand,
respectively.

MJC agreed to pay costs of notice and settlement administration.
The trial court's approval of the settlement was affirmed on
appeal, and the settlement became final in October 2012. The
distribution to class members was completed as of the end of the
third quarter of 2013.


MEDTRONIC INC: FDA Classifies Guidewires as Potentially Fatal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brie Zeltner, writing for The Plain Dealer, reports that after
investigating complaints from patients, The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) has classified the recently recalled
guidewires used in heart procedures manufactured by Minneapolis-
based Medtronic, Inc. as potentially fatal.

Medtronic began its recall of the Interventional Wires and ATTAIN
HYBRID wires in October, after receiving complaints from four
patients, including one patient injury. After reviewing the
reports, the FDA deemed the recall a Class I, meaning that "there
is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to a
violative product will cause serious adverse health consequences
or death."

The problem -- the coating of the wires can detach and cause clots
-- can lead to stroke or heart attack, the company says.  The
guidewires are inserted into an artery to guide a catheter in
percutaneous coronary interventions, which help open up blood flow
with a stent or other device during a heart attack.  They also
help the placement of left ventricular leads for cardiac rhythm
devices, Medtronic said in a statement.

In 2007, Medtronic recalled its Sprint Fidelis defibrillation
leads because of the potential for lead fractures and a number of
deaths and serious injuries potentially linked to their use.

You can see a full list of the recalled Guidewires here.  If you
think you've been harmed by the use of one of these devices,
contact your physician.  You can report an adverse event related
to the recall to the FDA's MedWatch program either online or by
calling 1-800-332-1088.


MONSTER BEVERAGE: Judge Tosses Energy Drink Label Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, Juan Carlos Rodriguez and Greg Ryan, writing for
Law360, report that Monster Beverage Corp. dodged a putative class
action alleging it didn't warn consumers over health risks
associated with its energy drinks when a California federal judge
decided on Nov. 12 that the claims were insufficiently pleaded and
preempted by federal law.

U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips, who dismissed a previous
version of the complaint, said the plaintiffs hadn't made any
amendments substantial enough to support their allegations that
Monster misrepresented its drinks in order to circumvent federal
safety standards.

Alec Fisher, Matthew Townsend and Ted Cross claimed they were
injured by the beverages, which featured labels telling consumers
they hydrated consumers like sports drinks but not indicating how
much caffeine they contained.  But Judge Phillips found on Nov. 12
that the plaintiffs were still trying to impose requirements
beyond what the U.S. Food and Drug Administration imposes for
labels.

"Surprisingly, many of the facts specifically noted by the court
as irrelevant and unnecessary were present in the [newly amended
complaint]," Judge Phillips said.  "The court again reiterates
that almost all of the information . . . related to the
advertising and marketing strategy of Monster is irrelevant, as
none of the plaintiffs have alleged any exposure to Monster's
marketing, aside from reading can labels."

The plaintiffs sought redress for Monster's allegedly unfair and
deceptive business and trade practices.  They claimed the company
makes misrepresentations on the labels and packaging for Monster
drinks, and in a marketing campaign targeting children.

Fisher started consuming Monster in 2007, when the company
distributed free drinks outside his high school, court papers
said.  Mr. Fisher alleges that he thought the drinks were safe and
that nothing on the can's label indicated otherwise.

Mr. Townsend bought his first Monster drink that same year at a
vitamin store after noticing that the can's label said the drink
had 100 percent of daily values of vitamins B2, B3, B6, B12 and
supplements.  After drinking Monster for years, he went to the
emergency room, where his blood pressure was registered at a
critically high level, according to court documents.

Mr. Cross was also admitted to the hospital for high blood
pressure in 2012 after years of drinking at least one can of
Monster every day, court filings said.  He allegedly relied on a
"consume responsibly" statement that the drinks were safe so long
as he didn't drink more than three each day.

Judge Phillips dismissed the proposed class action in July,
finding the plaintiffs hadn't sufficiently pleaded their
allegations and that some of them were preempted by federal food
safety and nutrition labeling laws.

In September, Monster tried to dismiss an amended version of the
suit, arguing that the plaintiffs had repleaded the same claims
and loaded the complaint with irrelevant allegations.

Because the FDA was investigating the safety of energy drinks and
other products containing caffeine, the primary jurisdiction
doctrine independently barred the claims anyway, the defendant
said.

Judge Phillips ruled on Nov. 12 that Monster's alleged
misrepresentations over its products hydrating consumers similar
to sports drinks and having an "ideal combo" of ingredients were
too vague to be actionable under federal law.

While plaintiffs claimed the statements were quantifiable and
specific, the judge decided that the concept of hydration is too
difficult to measure concretely and doesn't have any discernible
meaning in the context of energy drinks.

As for Monster's primary jurisdiction defense, the judge said some
of the plaintiffs' claims over labeling could be actionable in the
future but are not presently because the FDA is still
investigating the safety of caffeine in energy drinks.

Attorneys for both parties didn't immediately respond to requests
for comment on Nov. 14.

The plaintiffs are represented by Azra Mehdi and Arcelia Hurtado
of The Mehdi Firm PC.

Monster is represented by Dan Marmalefsky -- dmarmalefsky@mofo.com
-- David F. McDowell -- dmcdowell@mofo.com -- and Purvi G. Patel
-- ppatel@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP.

The case is Alec Fisher et al. v. Monster Beverage Corp. et al.,
case number 5:12-cv-02188, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Adjusts Volunteer Program Following Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Myers, writing for New York Daily News, reports that the NFL
has been forced to adjust how it handles its Super Bowl volunteer
program as a result of a class-action lawsuit brought against
Major League Baseball for not paying volunteers at the All-Star
FanFest at the Javits Center in July.

In the past, the Super Bowl host committee supplied all the
volunteers on a non-paid basis for Super Bowl week, which would
include the greeters at the airports and train stations and on the
streets as well as the volunteers who worked specific NFL events.

As a result of the lawsuit against MLB, which has not been
settled, the NFL has elected to hire its own 1,500 workers to help
out at events and pay them.  The NY-NJ Super Bowl Host Committee
is hiring 11,000-12,000 volunteers for community projects, but
those people will not be paid and will have to sign a waiver "that
among other things says they won't join a class-action suit asking
to be paid," said Al Kelly, the CEO of the NY-NJ Super Bowl Host
Committee told the Daily News.

"Community involvement has been critical at all the Super Bowls,"
Mr. Kelly said.  "The host committee is 30 full-time people and
traditionally relying on local volunteers as an important source
of frontline hospitality, friendliness, enthusiasm and spirit.  It
has been critical.  It has always been unpaid groups of local
citizens that have really wanted to do this kind of thing.  This
year we ran into an unforeseen challenge when we saw plaintiff's
attorney file a class-action suit against major league baseball
for ironically non-payment of volunteers.  We are doing everything
we can to make sure these volunteers in fact know that they won't
be paid."

About 10 days ago, the host committee began the final process of
hiring volunteers.  "We haven't had a single case of anybody say
to us they are reluctant to sign that waiver," Mr. Kelly said.
"We believe volunteerism is the heart of what makes America
great."

As the hiring process starts, Mr. Kelly said about 2,000
volunteers have already signed the waiver.  Ultimately, 15,000
volunteers will be hired and thus far there is no indication the
waiver will be an issue or prevent the committee from reaching its
goal.  People have been asking to volunteer for Super Bowl and the
committee began collecting names last year.  The waiver stipulates
if there is a dispute, it has to go through arbitration and not be
taken to court or become part of a class-action lawsuit.

The NFL was advised by its attorneys, as a result of the MLB
lawsuit, to pay those who previously did the job for free.

"We've determined that there are approximately 1,500 people that
are required to help us operate and manage functions like Super
Bowl Boulevard, provide some hosting services at MetLife Stadium
for the game itself as well as for the tailgate party and
additional people for the media center," said Frank Supovitz, the
NFL's senior VP of events.  "In the past, those were volunteers
provided by the host committee.  In this case, because of the
complexities of the marketplace as well as the legal action, we
made the determination to retain a series of staffing companies to
help us develop a labor pool for those functions."


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Seek Expedited Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Bachman, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
plaintiffs' lawyers in the class-action antitrust case against the
National Collegiate Athletic Association moved on Nov. 15 for an
expedited judge's ruling.

The motion for a summary judgment, as such rulings are known, came
one week after the judge certified the case as a class action,
allowing all current top-division college football and men's
basketball players to be plaintiffs in the case unless they opt
out.  A trial is scheduled for next June.

The plaintiffs argue that the NCAA and its business partners
conspired to set at zero the price of a college athlete's name,
image and likeness.  They are seeking a portion of NCAA and
athletic conference revenues from television-rights agreements and
player-related trademark and licensing deals.

The NCAA has denied that it restricts players' rights and
maintains that the amateurism rules that prevent athletes from
profiting from their athletic fame beyond a basic scholarship
agreement are vital to the operation of college sports.

Michael Hausfeld, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said in an
interview on Nov. 15 that the court "has a good sense of what the
core issues are and possibly might be ready to decide the case."

An NCAA spokeswoman declined to comment on Nov. 15.

The four-year-old case against the NCAA was brought by former UCLA
basketball star Ed O'Bannon after he saw an avatar that looked
like him depicted in an NCAA-branded videogame for which he
received no compensation.

On Nov. 15 U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken denied certification
of the so-called damages class, meaning that players harmed in the
past can't seek cash awards. She certified the "injunctive class,"
leaving the door open for a decision that would force the NCAA and
its schools to share certain revenues with athletes.

There were 25 named plaintiffs, including five current NCAA
football players, in the case before it was certified as a class
action.

A summary judgment is a court order used to dispose of a case
without trial when the material facts of a case are not in
dispute, and can be requested by plaintiffs, defendants or
rendered independently by a judge.


NOVA SCOTIA HOME: Gov't Intends to Settle Abuse Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that the Nova Scotia government is
moving to settle a large class-action lawsuit involving former
residents of a Halifax orphanage out of court, Premier Stephen
McNeil said on Nov. 13.

Mr. McNeil said a letter from the provincial Justice Department
had been sent on Nov. 12 to lawyers representing the 150 former
residents of the Nova Scotia Home for Colored Children.

"I have made it very clear coming into the election there would be
a very different tone taken in terms of this file," said
Mr. McNeil, whose Liberal government was elected Oct. 8.

Mr. McNeil wouldn't say what a potential dollar figure could look
like but said a settlement would only be reached if both sides are
able to agree.

"There's obviously a financial implication here we know that, but
there is also the right thing to do," he said.

Mr. McNeil said if an agreement can't be reached then it would be
left to the court to decide.

He also said the outcome of any negotiation wouldn't affect his
campaign promise to hold a full public inquiry into alleged
sexual, physical and psychological abuse at the facility over a
50-year period up until the 1980s.

Mr. McNeil has previously said the inquiry could take place as
early as next spring.

The attempt to settle out of court is a departure from the path
taken by the previous NDP government, which challenged affidavits
submitted to the court.

The allegations in the class-action have not been tested in court
and previously lawyers for the government have argued that some of
them are based on speculation or hearsay.

Tony Smith, who is part of the class-action and is spokesman for
the Victims of Child Exploitation Society, welcomed the Liberal
government's initiative.

"I think it's quite encouraging news . . . it gives an opportunity
to look at addressing the healing process a lot sooner than
later," said Mr. Smith.

He said a satisfactory settlement would be more preferable than
continuing with what would likely be a lengthy court process.

In April, the Home for Colored Children agreed to pay a C$5-
million settlement to 140 plaintiffs after a class-action lawsuit
was launched two years ago.

A Nova Scotia Supreme Court judge is yet to rule on whether to
certify the current class-action.


NQ MOBILE: Scott+Scott Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
On November 14, 2013, Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP filed a
class action complaint against NQ Mobile Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The complaint, which
seeks remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, was filed on behalf of those persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired NQ American
Depositary Shares (NYSE:NQ): (i) between May 5, 2011 through
October 24, 2013, inclusive; and/or (ii) pursuant and/or traceable
to the registration statement issued in connection with the
Company's initial public offering on May 5, 2011.  The complaint
alleges that NQ issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business and financial prospects during
the Class Period and in connection with the Company's IPO.

Investors who purchased NQ American Depositary Shares during the
Class Period or in the Company's IPO and wish to serve as a lead
plaintiff in the class action must move the Court no later than
December 27, 2013.  Members of the investor class may move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice,
or may choose to do nothing and remain absent class members in the
lawsuit.  If you wish to view the complaint, discuss the NQ
litigation, or have questions concerning this notice or your
rights, please contact:

         Michael Burnett
         Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP
         Telephone: (800) 404-7770
                    (860) 537-5537
         E-mail: mburnett@scott-scott.com

or visit the Scott+Scott website for more information:
http://www.scott-scott.com

There is no cost or fee to you.

Founded in 2005 and headquartered in Beijing, PRC, NQ provides
various mobile Internet services.  The company was formerly known
as NetQin Mobile Inc. and changed its name to NQ Mobile Inc. in
April 2012.

On May 5, 2011 NQ conducted its IPO of American Depositary Shares.
The shares were priced at $11.50 per share.  Following the IPO,
and during the Class Period, NQ share prices increased
significantly, climbing to nearly $25 per share in October 2013.

Then, on October 24, 2013, equity research firm Muddy Waters LLC
initiated coverage on NQ with a "Strong Sell" rating and a
projected target price of less than $1.  Among other things, Muddy
Waters' research report states: (i) at least 72% of NQ's reported
$32.2 million in 2012 China security software revenue is
fraudulent, NQ's real security revenue was $2.5 million to $7.7
million; (ii) NQ's largest customer is actually an empty shell
company controlled by NQ; (iii) NQ's real market share in China is
only about 1.4%, versus the approximately 55% it reports; (iv)
NQ's international revenues are wildly overstated; and (v) the
vast majority of the $127.9 million cash and investments NQ
reported having as of December 31, 2012 is not actually in the
Company's accounts.

Upon the release of this information, on October 24, 2013, NQ
shares declined 47% to $12.09 per share from $22.88 per share, on
unusually heavy volume of 29.3 million shares traded, resulting in
millions of dollars in losses to NQ shareholders.

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Still Faces Three Canadian Antitrust Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Supreme Court is yet to rule on an appeal against the
decertification of an antitrust suit versus Microsoft Corporation,
according to the company's Oct. 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

A large number of antitrust and unfair competition class action
lawsuits were filed against the company in various state, federal,
and Canadian courts on behalf of various classes of direct and
indirect purchasers of the company's PC operating system and
certain other software products between 1999 and 2005. The company
obtained dismissals or reached settlements of all claims made in
the United States.

Under the settlements, generally class members can obtain vouchers
that entitle them to be reimbursed for purchases of a wide variety
of platform-neutral computer hardware and software. The total
value of vouchers that the company may issue varies by state. The
company will make available to certain schools a percentage of
those vouchers that are not issued or claimed (one-half to two-
thirds depending on the state). The total value of vouchers the
company ultimately issue will depend on the number of class
members who make claims and are issued vouchers. The company
estimates the total remaining cost to resolve all of the state
overcharge class action cases is approximately $500 million.

Three cases pending in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec,
Canada have not been settled. In March 2010, the court in the
British Columbia case certified it as a class action. In April
2011, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed the class
certification ruling and dismissed the case, holding that indirect
purchasers do not have a claim. The plaintiffs have filed an
appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court, which was heard in the fall
of 2012. The other two actions have been stayed.


REVLON INC: Pays $8.9MM to Settle Claims Over 2009 Exchange Offer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Revlon, Inc. paid $8.9 million, representing its allocable portion
to settle a suit over its 2009 Exchange Offer,
according to the company's Oct. 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

As disclosed in Revlon, Inc.'s 2012 Form 10-K, Revlon, Inc.,
certain of Revlon, Inc.'s current and former directors and
MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings Inc. entered into settlement
agreements with the plaintiffs in class and derivative actions
related to the voluntary exchange offer Revlon, Inc. launched and
consummated in 2009 (the "2009 Exchange Offer").

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012, the
Company recorded charges of $2.2 million and $8.9 million,
respectively, with respect to the Company's then-estimated costs
of resolving the actions, including the Company's estimate at that
time of additional payments to be made to certain of the settling
stockholders.

These charges are included within SG&A expenses in the Company's
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income
(Loss) for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012.

In March 2013, the parties executed an amendment to one of the
settlement agreements, specifically the class action settlement
agreement. The amendment did not affect the financial terms of the
class action settlement; rather, it modified the scope of the
releases given by those class members who did not participate in
the 2009 Exchange Offer.

Later in March 2013, the class action settlement, as amended, was
presented to the Delaware Court of Chancery, and approved. The
class action settlement was conditioned, and became effective,
upon final approval of the derivative action settlement and final
dismissal of the actions pending outside of the Delaware Court of
Chancery. The derivative action settlement was approved by the
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on April 30,
2013. In early May 2013, the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware dismissed the purported class action filed by John
Garofalo, and in late July 2013, the Supreme Court of New York,
New York County dismissed the Sullivan action.

The entire settlement of all the actions became effective thirty
days after dismissal of the Sullivan action. In August 2013, a
payment of $8.9 million, representing the Company's allocable
portion of the settlement amount, was made to settle all amounts
owed by the Company in connection with the settlement agreements.

Revlon, Inc. agreed with the staff of the SEC (or the
"Commission") on the terms of a proposed settlement of an
investigation relating to certain disclosures made by Revlon, Inc.
in its public filings in 2009 in connection with the 2009 Exchange
Offer. On June 13, 2013, the Commission approved such settlement
and Revlon, Inc. entered into the settlement without admitting or
denying the findings set forth therein and, pursuant to its terms,
Revlon, Inc., among other things, paid a civil penalty of
$850,000. The settlement amount was previously accrued in the
fourth quarter of 2012 within SG&A expenses and accrued expenses
and other in Revlon, Inc.'s consolidated financial statements.

In September 2013, Revlon, Inc. received a final payment of
approximately $1.8 million of insurance proceeds in connection
with matters related to the 2009 Exchange Offer. These proceeds
are recorded as a gain within SG&A expenses in the Company's
Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income
(Loss) for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013.


STARBUCKS CORP: Settles Consumer Fraud Class Action for $1.7 Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BigClassAction.com reports that a proposed settlement has been
reached in a consumer fraud class action lawsuit pending against
Starbucks.  The global coffee company has agreed to reimburse
consumers who purchased less than one pound of scooped (not pre-
packaged) Starbucks coffee beans between December 9, 2007 and
November 7, 2011.  The beans may have been purchased from any
company-owned Starbucks store in the United States, other than
half-pound purchases during January to March 2008 of coffee that
had half-pound prices posted on menu boards during that time.

Among the allegations in the Starbucks consumer fraud class
action, is that Starbucks failed to disclose to certain Starbucks
customers who bought Starbucks scooped coffee beans in amounts
less than 1 pound that the price was greater per pound than the
amount charged for purchases of 1 pound of Starbucks coffee beans,
according to the Starbucks settlement website.

According to the terms of the proposed settlement, Starbucks would
provide a common settlement fund of $1,733,025.71, inclusive of
settled claims, administrative expenses, attorneys' fees, and
costs.  Starbucks would credit the My Starbucks Rewards accounts
of Class Members who are My Starbucks Rewards Members in an amount
calculated by multiplying $0.45 (an estimate of the weighted
average Upcharge of all transactions by Class Members in the Class
Period) by the number of Covered Purchases on each My Starbucks
Rewards Member's account identified in Starbucks' business records
or $5.00, whichever is more.

For consumers who are Starbucks Class Members but who are not
My Starbucks Rewards Members, claims forms can be accessed online
at:

https://scoopedcoffeesettlement.simpluris.com/pages/ClaimForm.aspx
or by downloading a claim form from the settlement website at
http://www.starbucks.com/scoopedcoffeesettlement that can be
printed out and mailed to Simpluris, Inc. P.O. Box 26170, Santa
Ana, CA 92799.

For additional information about the Starbucks Scooped Coffee
Class Action Lawsuit Settlement, visit:
http://www.starbucks.com/scoopedcoffeesettlement


TILE SHOP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm on Nov. 15 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of common stock and call
options and sellers of put options of Tile Shop Holdings, Inc.
during the period between August 22, 2012 and November 13, 2013,
seeking to recover damages for violations of the federal
securities laws.

To join the Tile Shop class action, visit the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.com or call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan,
toll-free, at 866-767-3653; you may also email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.  The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION.  UNTIL A
CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU
RETAIN ONE.  YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO
NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

The lawsuit claims that Tile Shop failed to disclose that one of
its largest suppliers, Beijing Pingxiu ("BP"), is an undisclosed
related company secretly controlled by Fumitake Nishi, the
brother-in-law of the Company's CEO and a Tile Shop employee.  On
November 14, 2013, Gotham City Research LLC issued a report
asserting that the Tile Shop: (a) greatly exaggerated its true
financial performance; (b) failed to disclose BP as a material
related party supplier; (c) uses BP to overstate inventories,
understate cost of sales and overstate gross profits; (d)
purchases goods from BP at or near cost to allow Tile Shop to
achieve an artificial cost advantage; and (e) overstates earnings.
The complaint asserts that when this adverse information entered
the market, the price of Tile Shop shares dropped substantially,
damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 14, 2014. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact:

          The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.

          Kevin Chan
          275 Madison Avenue 34(th) Floor
          New York, New York 10016
          Telephone: 212-686-1060
          Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
          Fax: 212-202-3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  kchan@rosenlegal.com
          Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


TORONTO: Police Faces C$65-Mil. Class Action Over Racial Profiling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Rankin and Patty Winsa, writing for Toronto Star, report that
a proposed class-action lawsuit seeks C$65 million in damages and
other remedies from Toronto police for alleged racial profiling
practices and documenting of citizens.

The suit, filed on Nov. 15 by the Black Action Defence Committee,
comes in advance of a special Toronto Police Services Board
meeting to be held on Nov. 18 on the controversial police practice
of carding -- encounters where police question citizens and
document personal details in stops that typically involve no
arrest or charge.

Police Chief Bill Blair and the civilian police services board are
named as defendants in the suit, which alleges police and the
board have failed to adequately address a problem that has
impacted blacks and other minority groups for decades.

The committee seeks to have the suit certified as a class action,
and have itself named as the representative plaintiff, but it
estimates there are hundreds and "perhaps thousands" of citizens
who would fit into the class.

"The Plaintiff believes the only way to litigate and seek remedies
to uproot the acknowledged scourge of racial profiling and carding
is a frontal attack" like a class-action suit, reads the statement
of claim.  "There is no other effective way."

The suit alleges police and the board "have failed to prevent the
violation of the equality rights of African-Canadian residents of
Toronto and Ontario," resulting in discrimination under the
Charter.

Police have not had a chance to respond to the proposed suit. They
defend the practice of carding citizens as a valuable
investigative tool that allows investigators to make links between
people and places, and say they target areas where violent crime
is taking place.

But they also have acknowledged carding interactions with citizens
can harm their relationship with the public.

There has been talk of a class-action lawsuit on the issue for
decades, said Toronto lawyer Munyonzwe Hamalengwa --
mhamalengwa@sympatico.ca -- who filed the suit on behalf of the
committee and spoke on its behalf.

After many reports by academics, the media and court decisions,
the police and board "haven't done anything to address this at
all," so the committee is hoping a class-action lawsuit will allow
for a "holistic comprehensive judicial remedy" to carding and
racial profiling.

"The black community has now reached a point where talking has
been going on, not much has been happening, so it's time for
action," said Mr. Hamalengwa.

In addition to monetary damages, the action, which has not been
certified or proven in court, seeks remedies that include:

A declaration that police have breached the Charter and an order
requiring them to "desist from engaging in and condoning racial
profiling" of blacks and other "colourful" minorities.

A declaration that racial profiling is a criminal offence.

A written police apology to the committee and "all African-
Canadians for their being targets and victims of racial profiling
and carding."

Mandatory reading for officers, including books on racial
profiling, the Ontario Human Rights Commission's 2003 report
"Paying the price: The human cost of racial profiling," the 1995
report of the Ontario Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario
Criminal Justice System, and several Toronto Star series on
carding, including 2003 report "Paying the price: The human cost
of racial profiling," published in September.

Class-action lawsuits in Canada can be expensive and lengthy and
orders difficult to come by, but as Toronto lawyer Murray
Klippenstein recently told the Star in a story about carding, they
can prompt change.

"By declaring a practice to be illegal and awarding a significant
amount of money to a group of people as compensation, the
incentive or pressure to change the practice becomes pretty
substantial," he said.

The Star has published four series -- in 2002, 2010, 2012 and 2013
-- that examined Toronto police arrest and stop data and found
patterns that shown disproportionate treatment for blacks, and to
a lesser extent, "brown"-skinned people.

Between 2008 and 2012, police filled out 1.8 million contact
cards, involving over a million individuals, and entered their
personal details into a database.

A Star analysis showed that blacks over that period were more
likely than whites to be stopped, questioned and documented in
each of the city's 70-plus police patrol zones.  The likelihood
increased in areas that were predominantly white.

On Nov. 18, the special public police services board meeting on
carding, scheduled to be held at city hall, will address
recommendations from both the police and board chair
Alok Mukherjee to change the way police card and interact with the
public.  Mr. Mukherjee has said the Star's latest findings on
contact cards "devastating" and "unacceptable."

While there has been an acknowledgement by Mr. Blair and the board
that profiling exists and that carding is problematic, the lawsuit
alleges little has changed to deal with it.

Although no individuals are named as plaintiffs, Mr. Hamalengwa
expects many will come forward and take part.


TOWN SPORTS: Dismissal of Class Claims in Labor Suit Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in two labor lawsuits against Town Sports International
and TSI, LLC served notice of their intent to appeal the dismissal
of class action allegations in both lawsuits, according to Town
Sports International Holdings, Inc.'s Oct. 24, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On or about March 1, 2005, in an action styled Sarah Cruz, et al
v. Town Sports International, d/b/a New York Sports Club,
plaintiffs commenced a purported class action against TSI, LLC in
the Supreme Court, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and
alleging that TSI, LLC violated various overtime provisions of the
New York State Labor Law with respect to the payment of wages to
certain trainers and assistant fitness managers.

On or about June 18, 2007, the same plaintiffs commenced a second
purported class action against TSI, LLC in the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, New York County, seeking unpaid wages and
alleging that TSI, LLC violated various wage payment and overtime
provisions of the New York State Labor Law with respect to the
payment of wages to all New York purported hourly employees.

On September 17, 2010, TSI, LLC made motions to dismiss the class
action allegations of both lawsuits for plaintiffs' failure to
timely file motions to certify the class actions. The court
granted the motions on January 29, 2013, dismissing the class
action allegations in both lawsuits. On March 4, 2013, plaintiffs
served notice of their intent to appeal that dismissal. The court
has stayed the remaining, individual claims in each action pending
resolution of the plaintiffs' appeal.


TOWN SPORTS: Still Faces Suit by Personal Trainers in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
Town Sports International, LLC, continues to face a suit filed by
James Labbe, et al. in New York State court on behalf of personal
trainers, according to Town Sports International Holdings, Inc.'s
Oct. 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On or about October 4, 2012, in an action styled James Labbe, et
al. v. Town Sports International, LLC, plaintiff commenced a
purported class action in New York State court on behalf of
personal trainers employed in New York State.

Labbe is seeking unpaid wages and damages from TSI, LLC and
alleges violations of various provisions of the New York State
labor law with respect to payment of wages and TSI, LLC's
notification and record-keeping obligations.

On December 18, 2012, TSI, LLC filed a motion to stay the class
action pending a decision on class certification in the Cruz case
and to dismiss the Labbe action if the Cruz case is certified.

On January 29, 2013, Labbe responded to the motion to stay and
filed a cross-motion to consolidate the Labbe case with the Cruz
case. On February 11, 2013, following the dismissal of the class
claims in Cruz, Labbe withdrew the cross-motion to consolidate.

Oral argument to stay the action until a decision is made on the
appeal in the Cruz case was heard on April 10, 2013. While it is
not possible to estimate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome
or a range of loss in the case of an unfavorable outcome to TSI,
LLC at this time, TSI, LLC intends to contest this case
vigorously.


TWC ADMINISTRATION: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik on Nov. 15 disclosed that on
November 4, 2013 the law firm's San Diego employment lawyers
filed a lawsuit alleging Time Warner failed to pay their Field
Technicians the proper amount of overtime wages.  Hildebrandt, et
al. vs. TWC Administration LLC, Case No. RIC 1312393 is currently
pending in the Riverside County Superior Court for the State of
California.

According to the class action lawsuit filed against Time Warner,
the company allegedly did not allow their Field Service
Technicians to start recording their time until they reached their
first assigned work site for the day.  The Complaint alleges that
Time Warner consistently required the Field Service Technicians to
work of the clock without paying them for all the time these
employees were under Time Warner's control performing pre-shift
and post-shift duties.  Specifically, the Complaint claims that
Time Warner required their Field Service Technicians to log onto
their laptop computers from home and perform work before heading
out to their first job site of the day all the while being off the
clock and not getting paid.

The attorney representing the proposed class of Time Warner Field
Technicians, Norm Blumenthal stated, "Any time an employee is
under the control of their employer and is required to perform
work, however slight, the employee must be paid for that
compensable work time."

The San Diego labor lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Bhowmik
dedicate their legal practice to helping employees fight back
against violations of California labor laws.


VEMMA NUTRITION: Faces Class Action Over Verve Repeat-Billing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady, writing for Law360, reports that a California
consumer on Nov. 13 mounted a putative class action accusing
purported health drink maker Vemma Nutrition Co. of hitting
customers with illegal repeat charges following online purchases
of its Verve brand energy beverages.

Plaintiff Gregory Montegna says Vemma has raked in huge profits
while violating several California laws by repeatedly billing
consumers without authorization in the hopes that those consumers
won't notice the additional charges on their credit card
statements.

"Defendant's calculated decision to enroll consumers in its
automatic renewal program without their knowledge or consent was
for defendant's economic gain at the expense of plaintiff and the
consuming public at large and is the means by which defendant is
able to boast of sales as high as $20 million dollars in the month
of July 2013," the complaint said.

Mr. Montegna says he paid $50 for a dozen cans of Verve energy
drink purchased from Vemma's website in January and was hit with
additional $50 charges on three separate occasions over the next
three months.  He then complained about the unauthorized charges
directly through Vemma's website, but the company never replied to
his email, the complaint said.

According to Mr. Montegna, the duplicate charges are part of the
Arizona-based company's standard business practices, and its
purported scam relies on the presumed failure of consumers to
regularly review their monthly credit card statements for such
irregularities.

Mr. Montegna is suing on behalf of all California consumers who
bought Verve from Vemma's website within the last four years under
various prongs of the state's business and professional code.  He
is seeking an order enjoining Vemma from continuing the alleged
multiple-billing practice as well as the disgorgement of profits,
damages and costs.

The complaint cites findings by consumer watchdog Truth In
Advertising, which compiled information on more than 40 complaints
received by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission taking issue with
Vemma's business practices.

Those complaints range from unwanted credit card charges and
refund difficulties to concerns that Vemma's "multilevel marketing
plan" is actually a pyramid scheme, according to the group.

Vemma founder Benson K. Boreyko has found himself in hot water
over the business practices of his companies in the past.
Mr. Boreyko is also the founder of New Vision International Inc.,
which was targeted in a FTC complaint over allegations it
overstated the ability of its so-called "God's Recipe" dietary
regimen to cure Attention Deficit Disorder or Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder.

In what the FTC said was its first-ever case related to ADD/ADHD,
the agency claimed New Vision's advertisements sought to exploit
parents' fears about the safety of drugs like Ritalin by
purporting to provide a natural alternative.

The company, however, could not provide reasonable substantiation
for claims that God's Recipe could cure, prevent, treat or
mitigate the disorders, and presented endorsements that did not
reflect the typical consumer experience, according to the agency.

Mr. Boreyko agreed to settle those allegations and halt all such
future claims in a 1998 agreement, according to the agency.

Mr. Montegna is represented by Abbas Kazerounian and Jason Ibey of
Kazerouni Law Group APC and Joshua B. Swigart of Hyde & Swigart.

Counsel information for Vemma was not immediately available.

The case is Gregory Montegna v. Vemma Nutrition Co., case number
1:13-cv-02731, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.


* Litigation Funding Competition to Lower Consumer Costs
--------------------------------------------------------
Annabel Hepworth, writing for The Australian, reports that
plaintiff law firm Maurice Blackburn has declared that competition
in the litigation funding market would be increased -- driving
down costs for the consumer -- if law firms could charge
contingency fees or become involved in litigation funding
vehicles.

The principal of the firm's class-action practice, Andrew Watson,
has also blasted as "little more than hysteria" warnings of a US-
style proliferation of class actions.

Mr. Watson said the government now had "opportunities" to open
litigation funding to new competition.

"The economic benefits of allowing greater access to justice are
obvious -- already there is undeniable proof that costs to the
consumer have been driven down with increased competition in the
litigation funding arena," he said.

The remarks come after the powerful Australian Institute of
Company Directors demanded a regulatory crackdown on litigation
funders -- including measures to prevent law firms from setting up
companies that bankroll class actions, and prudential requirements
-- and an advocacy group linked to the US Chamber of Commerce
stepped up its warnings of an "unchecked acceleration in
litigation".

The comments also come just a week after Attorney-General George
Brandis strongly criticized the involvement of law firms in
companies that finance class actions, voiced concern about
"wildcat and opportunistic" class actions, and made clear that he
was opposed to the introduction of contingency fees allowing
lawyers to take a slice of a settlement or damages win for
clients.

Senator Brandis's position poses a setback to Maurice Blackburn,
which has links to a separate litigation funding vehicle known as
Claims Funding Australia.

But in a new submission to the Productivity Commission's 15-month
inquiry on access to justice, the firm has said: "If CFA is
allowed to fund, consumers will benefit."

In the submission, the firm says that the nation's litigation
funding market is dominated by sharemarket-listed IMF (Australia)
and that commissions are between 25 per cent and 45 per cent of
any successful outcome.

"The outcomes for consumers of litigation funding are likely to be
improved by increasing competition in the market, such as improved
transparency and a reduction in commissions," the submission says.

"It follows that regulation of litigation funding should aim to
enhance competition. It also follows that competition will be
increased if law firms are permitted to fund litigation either by
way of the provision of funds to separate litigation funding
vehicles or by means of contingency fees."

CFA has charged commissions "at the bottom end of the commercial
range", ranging from 24.5 per cent (in the shareholder class
action against Allco Finance Group) to 30 per cent, the submission
says.

Slater & Gordon has also defended the use of litigation funding.
It told the Productivity Commission that litigation funding
"allows cases to proceed where they otherwise would not for lack
of resources, it does not increase the volume of unmeritorious
litigation".

The firm has also told the Productivity Commission that because
litigation funders take on the risks of adverse costs orders,
expensive up-front legal costs and security for costs, they are
"motivated to examine potential costs thoroughly to ensure that
they are making good investment decisions and that claims being
pursued have considerable merit".

Both plaintiff law firms have disputed that litigation funding
leads to a surge in unmeritorious claims, dismissing one of the
chief complaints of the company directors.

The AICD has argued that the costs of unmeritorious class actions
should not be under-estimated and that directors may settle this
type of claim because it is such a distraction from core business
activities.

In a statement on Nov. 14, Mr. Watson said: "Quite simply, if
directors and corporations fulfill their proper duties and act
lawfully in their transactions on behalf of shareholders, then
they will have nothing to fear from a robust class-actions
regime."

While the AICD wants the government to investigate whether class
actions are a drag on productivity, Mr. Watson asserts that they
boost it by encouraging proper corporate disclosure.

On contingency fees, the firm wants the ban on lawyers charging
percentage-based fees wiped from the Legal Profession Act in each
jurisdiction or for the proposed national legal profession law to
not include such a ban.

It says this could be modeled on the systems in Britain or
Ontario, where there are limits on the percentage recovered and
the loser-pays costs rule stays in place.

The firm says if lawyers can charge contingency fees, the overall
costs to the consumer are likely to be "substantially less" than
the combined cost of a third-party funder (with commissions of
between 25 per cent and 40 per cent) and lawyer's fees that
average 12 per cent.


                             *********

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  * * *