CAR_Public/131127.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, November 27, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 235

                             Headlines


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iOS Maps Application
APPLE INC: Judge Set Briefing Schedule on E-Book Suit Motions
BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action
BENEFICIAL WEST: Two Policyholders File Insurance Class Action
BIOSCRIP INC: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action

BP WEST COAST: Faces Class Action Over Debit Card Charges
CELOTEX CORP: TCC Recovers $1.5 Mil. From Asbestos Class Action
DEL MONTE CORP: Continues to Defend "Kosta" Suit in California
DEL MONTE CORP: Continues to Defend "Langille" Suit in California
DEL MONTE CORP: Four Suits Over Chicken Jerky Treats Consolidated

DEL MONTE CORP: "Harmon" Class Suit Remains Pending in Missouri
DEL MONTE CORP: "Montgomery" Suit Remains Pending in California
DFC GLOBAL: Bernstein Litowitz & Saxena White Files Class Action
DISH NETWORK: Agrees to Settle Int'l Access Fee Class Action
EL AL: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Ticket-Price Collusion

EMERALD GRAIN: Deadline for Farmers to Join Class Action Passes
ERIE COUNTY, NY: Residents to Get SNAP Payments From Class Action
FAB UNIVERSAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
FIRST LIBERTY: Class Action Settlement No Impact on Shares
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Pollution Class Action May Remain Open

FUSION-IO INC: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
GARMENT OVERSIGHT: Judge Reopens Lengthy Class Action Battle
HALLIBURTON CO: Manufacturers Laud Supreme Court's Decision
HALLIBURTON CO: Class Action May Impact Shareholders' Rights
HIGHMARK INC: Loses Bid to Derail Overtime Class Action

INDIANA: Law Firm to Get $6.3 Mil. in Fees in BMV Class Action
IXIA: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action in California
KIWIBANK: Deadline for Customers to Join Class Action Passes
L & L ENERGY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in New York
LEE VALLEY TOOLS: Court Approves Class Action Settlement

LORILLARD INC: Argument in Indirect Purchaser Suit on Dec. 11
LORILLARD INC: Flight Attendant Cases vs. Unit Remain Pending
LORILLARD INC: Loews Still Defends Product Liability Suits
LORILLARD INC: Still Defends Tobacco Antitrust Suit v. Unit
LORILLARD INC: West Virginia Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Class Action Demands Athlete Health Monitoring
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: O'Bannon Class Action Trial Scheduled for June
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Adjusts Volunteer Program Following Class Action
OHIO: Plaintiffs in Speed Camera Suit Seek Favorable Ruling
PESACH VODKA: Faces NIS240-Mil. Class Action Over Chametz

PILOT FLYING J: 1% of Class Members Opt Out of Settlement Offer
PILOT FLYING J: No Objections to Preliminary Settlement
POLK COUNTY, FL: Jail Class Action Scheduled for Trial
POLK COUNTY, FL: Trial on Juvenile Detainees' Class Action Opens
PRETIUM RESOURCES: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action

ROBERT BOSCH: Indian Employee Files Class Action Over Tax Refunds
SIMMTECH: Kim & Bae Law Firm Files Forex Manipulation Class Action
STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Class Action in Oregon Over "Phantom Wage"
TORONTO: Police Faces C$65-Mil. Class Action Over Racial Profiling
TORONTO: Residents, Businesses Mull Class Action v. Mayor

TREASURY WINE: Class Action May Reach AU$100 Million, IMF Says

* Australian Bondholders Wary About Rising Class Actions
* Companies May Use CCAA to Resolve Securities Class Actions
* Opt-Outs More Likely in Large Securities Class Suit Settlements


                             *********


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iOS Maps Application
-------------------------------------------------------
Patently Apple reports that a new class action came to light on
Nov. 19 that was officially filed against Apple on Nov. 15 by
Nancy Romine Minkler.  The class action regards Apple's marred iOS
Maps app.  The class action lists seven cause of action ranging
from unfair competition to violations of false and misleading
advertising to breach of warranty through to negligent
misrepresentations.

Class Action Introduction

This is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and
other purchasers of the Apple iPhone, iPod touch and/or iPad
mobile devices (the "Apple Devices") which utilize Apple's iOS
operating systems 6.0, 6.1.3, 7.0, or 7.0.3.

One such App is Apple's "Maps" App.  The Maps application has been
featured on the iPhone operating system since the release of the
first-generation iPhone on June 29, 2007, and was powered by
Google Maps from then until September 19, 2012.  A new version was
announced by Scott Forstall in a keynote address at Apple's
Worldwide Developers Conference on June 11, 2012.

The new version would use Apple's own mapping system with data
provided by a number of providers instead of Google Maps, mainly
through Dutch manufacturer of navigation systems TomTom.  This was
a strategic move by Apple to compete with Google's Android
operating system in mapping.

Upon release of Apple's iOS 6 mobile operating system, it was met
by considerable criticism.  Apple issued a statement saying that
it is working hard to improve the technology.  "We launched this
new map service knowing that it is a major initiative and we are
just getting started with it," said Trudy Muller, an Apple
spokeswoman.  "We are continuously improving it, and as Maps is a
cloud-based solution, the more people use it, the better it will
get.

We're also working with developers to integrate some of the
amazing transit apps in the App Store into iOS Maps.  We
appreciate all of the customer feedback and are working hard to
make the customer experience even better."

In January 2012, Apple reported its best quarterly earnings ever,
with 53% of its revenue coming from the sale of 37 million
iPhones, at an average selling price of nearly $660.  As such, in
the fourth quarter of 2012, Apple's revenue from iPhone sales was
$24.4 billion.

Today, Apple boasts that the App Store has over 700,000 apps for
iPhone and iPod touch and 275,000 apps for the iPad.  On
January 7, 2013, Apple announced that, since 2008, customers have
downloaded over 40 billion apps -- nearly 20 billion in 2012
alone.

Apple heavily encourages purchasers to download apps.  For
example, since the inception of the App Store, Apple has told
consumers "[t]he more apps you download, the more you realize
there's almost no limit to what your iPhone can do" and has made
similar representations regarding the iPad and the iPod touch.

Not surprisingly, the availability of apps has been credited with
propelling the popularity of the Apple Devices.  Apps are not only
an integral part of the Apple Devices themselves, but are the key
feature that has differentiated Apple Devices from similar
products.

The App Store is under Apple's exclusive domain and the Company
has ultimate control of what apps are available for purchase or
download by consumers.  Furthermore, Apple has designed the Apple
Devices to accept apps only from the App Store.

Apple has a checkered history when it comes to delivering services
that rely heavily on the Internet.  Siri, its voice-activated
virtual assistant, was criticized since it came out in 2011 for
both outages and its frequent misunderstandings of user commands.

According to a New York Times article, "[a]t least Apple signaled
that Siri was a work-in-progress by describing it as being in
beta.  The maps service carries no such disclaimer and is likely
being viewed even more critically than Siri because maps have
become such an essential tool for smartphone users." 2 The article
stated, [t]he service was blasted for everything from inaccuracies
in its location data for businesses to the sometimes distorted
imagery of landmarks."

First Cause of Action

Defendant Apple issued written warranties to Plaintiff and the
Class wherein Defendant warranted that its Apple Devices were free
of defects in materials and workmanship.

In addition, Plaintiff was exposed to representations made by
Apple in its marketing materials regarding iOS 6 and Apple Maps,
e.g., keynote address from Apple Executive touting the new iOS 6
as a "major initiative" and persistent encouragement by Apple to
stick with its products because "the more our customers use our
Maps the better it will get." (From: September 28, 2012 Letter
from Apple CEO, Tim Cook).

In fact, the Apple Devices at issue are not fit for its advertised
purpose of providing a product that contains a Map function which
accurately directs the user to the desired destination, accurately
depicts landmarks, etc.  Despite CEO Cook's September 28, 2012
letter promising improvements, the Huffington Post and several
other media outlets reported just weeks ago that Apple Maps
directed users across an airport runway.

Apple has had actual notice of the Apple Maps defects by virtue of
the media coverage of the problems (e.g. -- The New York Times,
Fortune, Wall Street Journal), including the hundreds of messages
posted on technology websites such as MarketWatch.com, and
Gizmodo.com, and by virtue of the filing of this lawsuit.
Additionally, as unsophisticated consumers, Plaintiff and the
Class are relieved of any notice requirement, and Apple, who has
superior knowledge of its technology, is estopped from asserting
lack of notice as a defense. In addition, on September 26, 2013,
Plaintiffs' counsel provided separate written notice of the faulty
Apple Maps to Apple, Inc.

Defendant has breached its warranty obligations by not agreeing to
refund the purchase price of the Apple devices to dissatisfied
customers and not agreeing to replace without charge all flawed
Apple Maps applications.

Defendant's breach of the warranty was a substantial factor in
causing Plaintiff and the Class to suffer economic losses and
other general, consequential and specific damages, according to
proof.

Second Cause of Action

(Breach of Implied Warranty In Violation Of Cal. Comm. Code Sec.
2314)

Defendant had direct dealings with Plaintiff and the Class through
its vast marketing efforts.  As a result of their direct dealings
with Defendant, Plaintiff and the Class purchased Apple Devices
from Apple and/or Apple-authorized retailers.  Notwithstanding
this, privity is not required because Plaintiff and the Class are
the intended beneficiaries of Defendant's implied warranties.

By operation of Cal. Com. Code Sec. 2314, Defendant impliedly
warranted that its devices are merchantable, fit for its ordinary
purpose, and free of defects.

In fact, the devices are not in merchantable condition because the
Map application is defective as described above.  The iPhone 4
cannot perform its ordinary purpose because Apple Maps does not
accurately direct the user to the desired destination, does not
accurately depict landmarks, etc., when used in the ordinary
course and for the ordinary purpose for which devices were sold.

Defendant breached the warranties by undertaking the wrongful acts
herein alleged. The Apple Devices and, specifically, the pre-
installed Apple Maps are substantially likely to malfunction
before the end of their useful life.

As a result of Defendant's breach of the warranty, Plaintiff and
the Class have suffered economic losses and other general,
consequential and specific damages, including the amount paid for
their defective Apple Devices, according to proof.

Third Cause of Action

(Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2301
et seq)

Plaintiff and Class members are "consumers" within the meaning of
the Magnuson-Moss Act.

Defendant is a "supplier" and "warrantor" within the meaning of
the Magnuson-Moss Act.

The Apple Devices are a "consumer product" within the meaning of
the Magnuson-Moss Act.

Defendant's written affirmations of fact, promises and/or
descriptions as alleged herein are each a "written warranty" as to
the Apple Maps functionality and accurate performance and/or there
exists an implied warranty for the sale of such products within
the meaning of the Magnuson-Moss Act.

For the reasons detailed above, Defendant breached these express
and implied warranties, as the Apple Devices did not perform as
Defendant represented or were not fit for their ordinary use.
Defendant Apple has refused to remedy such breaches, and its
conduct caused damages to Plaintiff and member of the Class.

The amount in controversy of Plaintiff's individual claims meets
or exceeds the sum of $25.  The amount in controversy of this
action meets or exceeds the sum or value of $50,000 (exclusive of
interest and costs) computed on the basis of all claims to be
determined in this suit.

As Defendant has refused all previous requests, resorting to any
informal dispute procedure and/or affording Defendant another
opportunity to cure these breaches of warranties is unnecessary
and/or futile.  Any remedies available through any informal
dispute settlement procedure would be inadequate under the
circumstances.  Any requirement under the Magnuson- Moss Act or
otherwise that Plaintiff resorts to any informal dispute
settlement procedure and/or afford Defendant a reasonable
opportunity to cure the breach of warranties described above is
excused and/or has been satisfied.

Plaintiff seeks to revoke her acceptance of the defective Apple
Devices, or, in the alternative, seek all damages, including
diminution in value of her Apple Devices in an amount to be proven
at trial.  Class members are entitled to recover damages, specific
performance, costs, attorneys' fees, rescission, and/or other
relief as is deemed appropriate.

Fourth Cause of Action

In violation of Civil Code, Sec.1750, et seq., Apple has engaged
and is engaging in unfair and deceptive acts and practices in the
course of transactions with Plaintiff, and such transactions are
intended to and have resulted in sales of any merchandise.

In violation of the CLRA, Apple has engaged, and is engaging, in
unfair and deceptive acts and practices in the course of
transaction with Plaintiff, and such transactions are intended to
and have resulted in the sale of goods to consumers.

Plaintiff and members of the Class are consumers as that term is
used in the CLRA Act because they sought or acquired Apple's goods
(the Apple Devices) for personal, family, or household purposes.
Apple's past and ongoing acts and practices include but are not
limited to: Apple's representations that its goods were of a
particular standard, quality, and grade, when in fact, they were
of another, in violation of Civil Code, Sec. 1770(a)(7).

Specifically, as described herein, Apple has made the following
representations, expressly or by implication to Plaintiff and
other members of the Class about the Apple Devices:

    that Apple designed the Apple Devices to safely and reliably
download and update its apps,

    that the App Store does not permit apps that violate its
developer guidelines to be sold or to be made available for free
through the App Store,

    that "Apple takes precautions -- including administrative,
technical, and physical measures -- to safeguard [purchaser's]
personal safety," and, (iv) that Apple Maps will improve as more
consumers use it.

These representations were materially misleading.

Plaintiff and members of the Class would not have purchased the
Apple Devices and/or would not have paid as much for them if Apple
disclosed that the above representations were false and if there
were aware that Apple Maps would not provide public transit
directions, would mislabel restaurants, landmarks, streets, etc.,
and provide inaccurate directions.

Apple's violations of the CLRA have caused damage to Plaintiff and
the other Class members and threaten additional injury if the
violations continue.  This damage includes the injuries and losses
set forth above.

Under Sec. 1782 of the CLRA, Apple has received notice in writing
by certified mail of the particular violations of Sec. 1770 of the
CLRA from Plaintiff on behalf of all Class members, demanding
Defendant offer to resolve the problems associated with the
actions detailed above and give notice to all affected consumers
of the intent to so act.

Thirty days have passed since Plaintiff sent the CLRA letter,
registered mail return receipt requested, and Apple has failed to
take the actions required by the CLRA on behalf of all affected
consumers. Plaintiff and the Class are therefore entitled to all
forms of relief provided under Sec. 1780 of the CLRA.

Based on its knowledge or reckless disregard of the facts as
detailed herein, Apple was guilty of acting with malice,
oppression or fraud.

Fifth Cause of Action

Plaintiff and members of the Class have suffered injury in fact
and have lost money or property as a result of Apple's violation
of California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17500, et seq.

Apple's acts and practices as described herein have deceived
and/or are likely to deceive members of the Class and the public.
Apple has repeatedly advertised that its products were safe and
secure.  Apple has furthered assured consumers that it closely
monitors the apps available in the App Store.  Instead, Apple has
left its customers vulnerable to all hazards which result from
inaccurate directions, and flawed maps.

By its actions, Apple is disseminating uniform advertising
concerning its products and services, which by its nature is
unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading within the meaning of
California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17500, et seq.  Such
advertisements are likely to deceive, and continue to deceive, the
consuming public for the reasons detailed above.

The above-described false, misleading, and deceptive advertising
Apple disseminated continues to have a likelihood to deceive in
that Apple has failed to disclose that its mapping application
does not provide public transit directions, mislabels restaurants,
landmarks, streets, etc., and provides inaccurate directions.

In making and disseminating the statements alleged herein, Apple
should have known its advertisements were untrue and misleading in
violation of California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17500, et
seq. Plaintiff and members of the Class based their decisions to
purchase the Apple Device in substantial part on Apple's
misrepresentations and omitted material facts.  The revenues to
Apple attributable to products sold in those false and misleading
advertisements amount to millions of dollars.  Plaintiff and the
Class were injured in fact and lost money or property as a result.

The misrepresentations and non-disclosures by Apple of the
material facts detailed above constitute false and misleading
advertising and therefore constitute a violation of California
Business & Professions Code Sec. 17500, et seq.

As a result of Apple's wrongful conduct, Plaintiff and the Class
request that this Court enjoin Apple from continuing to violate
California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17500, et seq.

Sixth Cause of Action

In violation of California Business and Professions Code,
Sec. 17200 et seq.  Apple's conduct in this regard is ongoing and
includes, but is not limited to, statements made by Apple and
Apple's omissions, including as set forth above.

Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of each member of
the Class, seeks restitution, injunctive relief, and other relief
allowed under the Unfair Competition Law.

Apple's business acts and practices are unlawful, in part, because
they violate California Business and Professional Code, Sec. 1750,
et seq., which prohibits false advertising, in that they were
untrue and misleading statements relating to Apple's provision of
goods and with the intent to induce consumers to enter into
obligations relating to such goods, and regarding which statements
Apple knew, or which by exercising reasonable care should have
known, were untrue and misleading.

Apple's business acts and practices are also unlawful in that, as
set forth herein, they violate the Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
California Civil Code, Sec. 1750, et seq.

Plaintiff reserves the right to identify additional provisions of
the law violated by Apple as further investigation and discovery
warrants.

Apple is therefore in violation of the unlawful prong of the
Unfair Competition Law.

Apple's business acts and practices are also unfair because they
have caused harm and injury-in-fact to Plaintiff and members of
the Class and for which Apple has no justification other than to
increase, beyond what Apple would have otherwise realized, its
market share and revenue from sale of the Apple Devices.

Apple's conduct lacks reasonable and legitimate justification in
that it has benefited from such conduct and practices while
Plaintiff and members of the Class have been misled as to the
nature and integrity of the Apple Devices and have lost money,
including the purchase price of the Apple Device and/or the
difference of the inflated price and the price Apple should have
charged for a product that fully disclosed the true nature of the
Apple Devices.

Apple's conduct offends California public policy, the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, and/or the state constitutional right of
privacy.

In addition, Apple's modus operandi constitutes a sharp practice
in that Apple knew and should have known that consumers care about
the accuracy of maps, but are unlikely to be aware or/and able to
detect the means by which Apple and/or its licensors were
conducting themselves in a manner adverse to its commitments and
its users' interests. Apple is therefore in violation of the
unfair prong of the Unfair Competition Law.

Apple's acts and practices were also fraudulent within the meaning
of the UCL because they were likely to mislead members of the
public.

While Apple represented at all times that, the Apple Devices were
safe and secure; in actuality, the Maps application guided
Plaintiffs to unknown locations. Apple did not inform purchasers,
like Plaintiff, that their Apple Devices may be vulnerable to
mapping fallacies such as: mislabeled restaurants, landmarks,
streets, etc., and publishing inaccurate directions, but instead,
represented at all relevant times that "Apple takes precautions --
including administrative, technical, and physical measures -- to
safeguard [purchaser's] personal safety."

By engaging in the above-described acts and practices, Apple has
committed one or more acts of unfair competition within the
meaning of the UCL. Plaintiffs and members of the Class have
suffered an injury-in-fact and have lost money and property,
including, but not limited to, the expected utility and
performance of their Apple Devices, the purchase price of their
Apple Devices, and/or the difference between the price Class
members paid and the actual worth of the product has Apple
disclosed the true nature of the Apple Devices.

Apple had a duty to disclose the material content and security
characteristics of the Apple Devices and their operations because
(i) it knew or should have known about these characteristics at
the time that Plaintiff and other members of the Class purchased
their Apple Devices because Apple created the Apple Devices and
the iOS that ran these devices; (ii) had exclusive knowledge of
material facts that were not known to Plaintiff; and (iii) made
representations regarding the Apple Devices' administrative,
technical, and physical measures taken to safeguard [purchaser's]
personal safety but that Apple Maps would lead consumers to
unknown, sometimes dangerous places.

Plaintiff and members of the Class were deceived by Apple's
representations and cultivation of its reputation for security and
innovation and reasonably relied on Apple's representations and
omissions as described herein and were consequently injured as
alleged herein.

Plaintiff and members of the Class have suffered injuries as a
direct and proximate result of Apple's unlawful, unfair and
fraudulent business practices.

Seventh Cause of Action

Negligent Misrepresentation

Apple claims to review each application before offering it to its
users, purports to have implemented app standards, and claims to
have created measures to protect the personal safety of its
customers.

However, unbeknownst to consumers such as Plaintiff, Apple failed
to properly monitor app makers and to provide accurate mapping
information to Plaintiffs.  In making these representations to
Plaintiff and the Class, Apple intended to induce Plaintiff and
the Class to purchase the Apple Devices.

At all times herein, Plaintiff and the Class were unaware of the
falsity of Apple's statements.  Plaintiff and the Class reasonably
acted in response to the statements made by Apple when they
purchased an Apple device and updated the operating systems.

As a proximate result of Apple's negligent misrepresentations,
Plaintiff and Class members purchased Apple Devices.

The class action noted in our report was filed in the California
Northern District Court, San Jose Office.  At present, no Judge
has been assigned to case number 5:2013cv05332.


APPLE INC: Judge Set Briefing Schedule on E-Book Suit Motions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Albanese, writing for Publishers Weekly, reports that Apple
is seeking to kill the pending states and consumer class action
against it -- and a potential multi-million dollar damages award
-- using an argument that failed in its federal price-fixing
trial: that its entry into the e-book market was "pro-competitive"
and beneficial to consumers.

In recently filed motions, Apple detailed its argument against
class certification, asserting that recent Supreme Court
decisions, including a landmark ruling in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.
Dukes et al., precludes the kind of "trial-by-formula" pressed by
the plaintiff states and the consumer class.  "Instead, class
certification in this case turns on, among other things, whether
Plaintiffs can establish through common proof, not only injury to
competition in the market generally, but also injury to each
individual plaintiff and his or her damages."

In the 2011 Wal-Mart decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a
large class of female Walmart employees was too broad to support
the 1.5 million underlying, individual fact-based claims of
employment discrimination.  Similarly, Apple argues that the class
proposed in this case -- some 24 million consumer accounts that
registered an e-book purchase between April 2010 and May 2012 --
is also too broad to be certified.

"Plaintiffs place great emphasis on this Court's previous order
finding that Apple violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act," Apple's
brief states.  "But Plaintiffs overplay their hand -- the mere
fact of a Section 1 violation is insufficient to meet [Class
Action] Rule 23's strict requirements."

In its filings, Apple argues that the class proposed by the
plaintiff states is based on a "fictional composite" that masks
the true effect of Apple's entry into the e-book market.
Specifically, Apple takes aim at Stanford economist Roger Noll's
recent damages estimate that put total e-book damages arising from
the so-called conspiracy at over $307 million.  In a separate
motion, Apple attorneys also asked the court to exclude Mr. Noll's
report, calling his methods into question.

Using a "before-after" model, Mr. Noll compared the prices from
the "collusion period" with a control group, thus calculating the
total damages for the publisher defendants at $307,808,414, on
total combined revenue of $1,548,223,900 -- an average added
margin due to "the effect of collusion" of about 19.9%.

Apple attorneys, however, ripped Mr. Noll and his methods, arguing
that he incorrectly bases his model on Judge Denise Cote's
findings at trial, rather than undertaking an independent economic
analysis of the e-book market.  Mr. Noll's report "assumes away
important individual variances," the brief states, rests on
"baseless and untested assumptions," ignores "key facts and
economic realities", and "in many cases results in a finding of
harm where none exists."

For example, Apple attorneys argue, Mr. Noll assumes that in his
"but-for world," Amazon would have maintained its pricing; that
"each of the 33 million real-world purchases on the iBookstore
would have been made regardless of whether Apple entered the
market;" and that "Barnes & Noble would have remained in the
market (despite Barnes & Noble's testimony it would not have)."

In short, Mr. Noll's methodology "assumes what needs to be
proved," Apple attorneys argue, using the kind of "formula"
expressly rejected by the Supreme Court in the Walmart Case.  And
the reality, they state, is that Apple's entry into the book
market had positive effects for consumers.

"Each of the millions of e-books has its own unique history," the
brief states.  "Indeed, many e-book purchasers affirmatively
benefitted from the Publisher Defendants' shift to the agency
model because, for example, they paid less than they otherwise
would have if the retailer had set the price or they had access to
e-books that otherwise would have been unavailable."

To assemble a class that meets the law's strict "commonality"
requirements, Apple argues, "all of a putative class member's
e-book downloads must be considered," with "gains offset against
anticompetitive losses, to determine whether, on balance, a class
member suffered any antitrust impact" and, if so, the amount of
that "net" injury.  In other words, a damage award would require
"a transaction-by-transaction investigation for each purchaser,"
an untenable prospect that runs afoul of the class action law's
"manageability requirements."

It remains to be seen how Judge Cote views the argument, but it is
unlikely she will kill the class action based on Apple's concerns
over the class.  In her July 10 ruling, and in approving the
publishers' settlements, she decisively found that consumers were
harmed.

In arguing for class certification, the plaintiff states cautioned
against Apple's attempt to construct an alternate "but-for" world,
and called the matter a "textbook case for certifying a class,"
with Apple's liability already proved. A damages trial is
currently set for May, 2014.

In an order issued on November 18, Judge Denise Cote has set a
schedule for briefings on Apple's motions.  The states and
consumer class have until December 6, 2013 to file their
opposition, and Apple is to reply by December 13.


BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
David McAfee, Max Stendahl and Ama Sarfo, writing for Law360,
report that a Pennsylvania federal judge on Nov. 18 granted Bank
of America Corp.'s motion to dismiss a proposed class action
alleging it reaped millions of dollars in illegal referrals from
private mortgage insurers, ruling that the claims brought under
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act were time-barred.

The decision comes months after U.S. District Judge Berle M.
Schiller refused to cut Bank of America NA from the lawsuit,
saying the court needed more evidence to weigh BofA's argument
that the suit, which was filed in 2012 under the RESPA, missed the
statute's one-year limitations period.  The plaintiffs in the suit
sought to invoke the doctrine of equitable tolling to save their
claims but, after discovery on the matter, the judge granted the
defendants' motions for summary judgment.

"The clock has run on plaintiffs' RESPA claims and despite ample
opportunity, they are unable to create a triable fact that they
are entitled to equitable tolling," Judge Schiller wrote in the
order on Nov. 18.  "Therefore, the court must grant defendants'
motions and dismiss this case."

The judge further noted that the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment
claim was also barred by a statute of limitations, and that the
ruling doesn't address the underlying conduct with which the
defendants were charged.

The class action targets an alleged widespread pay-to-play scheme
in which top national banks allegedly referred homeowners to
insurers in exchange for a cut of those customers' reinsurance
premium payments.

Homeowners hit Bank of America and Fifth Third Bank NA with
separate but nearly identical complaints contending that between
2004 and 2011, the banks received a hefty cut of insurance
premiums while assuming relatively little risk under the policies.
Fifth Third raked in $54 million in purported premiums but paid
out less than $5 million in claims, while Bank of America received
$285 million and paid out $39 million, the suits alleged.

The banks reduced their risk by making the so-called captive
reinsurance arrangements self-capitalizing, the suits claim. That
meant the banks had to initially place only small amounts of
capital into the trusts backing the reinsurance contracts while
leaving the insurers to take on essentially all of the risk,
according to the suits.

The suits also name the banks' reinsurance units and several
private insurance companies as defendants.  The Bank of America
suit includes United Guaranty Residential Insurance Co., Radian
Guaranty Inc. and Genworth Mortgage Insurance Corp.

Representatives for the parties didn't immediately return requests
for comment late on Nov. 18.

The plaintiffs are represented by Terence S. Ziegler --
tziegler@ktmc.com -- Edward W. Ciolko -- eciolko@ktmc.com -- and
Michael K. Yarnoff -- myarnoff@ktmc.com -- of Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check LLP, by Alan R. Plutzik --
aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com -- of Bramson Plutzik Mahler &
Birkhaeuser LLP and by Andre L. Berke of Berke Berke & Berke.

Genworth Mortgage Insurance Corp. is represented by Nicholas M.
Centrella -- ncentrella@conradobrien.com -- and Aya M. Salem --
asalem@conradobrien.com -- of Conrad O'Brien PC and by Reid L.
Ashinoff and Benito Delfin Jr. of Dentons US LLP.

United Guaranty Residential Insurance Co. is represented by David
E. Edwards -- edwardsd@whiteandwilliams.com -- of White and
Williams LLP.

BofA defendants are represented by David L. Permut --
dpermut@goodwinprocter.com -- and Matthew S. Sheldon --
msheldon@goodwinprocter.com -- of Goodwin Procter LLP and by
Martin C. Bryce Jr. -- bryce@ballardspahr.com -- and Daniel J.T.
McKenna -- mckennad@ballardspahr.com -- of Ballard Spahr Andrews &
Ingersoll LLP.

The case is Thomas J. Riddle et al. v. Bank of America Corp. et
al., case number 2:12-cv-01740, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


BENEFICIAL WEST: Two Policyholders File Insurance Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Whitney Brakken, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports
that two policyholders have filed a class action lawsuit against
their insurer, alleging they are owed payments under their policy.

Denzil and Cathy Shaw filed a lawsuit Sept. 13 in the Circuit
Court of Kanawha County against Beneficial West Virginia Inc. and
Household Insurance Co., citing breach of contract, consumer
credit and protection act, unfair claims settlement practices act,
failure to disclose and first-party insurance bad faith.  The case
has since been removed to federal court.

The plaintiffs state Beneficial West Virginia sold them a
credit-disability insurance policy issued by Household Insurance
Co. According to the complaint, the policy states that if either
of the plaintiffs become disabled during the mortgage term, their
mortgage would be paid for a period up to 180 months.

The plaintiffs state that in October 2009 when Denzil Shaw became
permanently disabled, they submitted a claim for benefits and
their claim was approved.  The Shaws state their mortgage payments
were paid through the policy until they received a letter stating
the payments would stop in December 2012.

The termination violated the policy, which provided 180 months of
payment, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction, statutory penalties,
actual and compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees
and costs and pre and post judgment interest.  The plaintiffs are
being represented in the case by attorneys John W. Barrett,
Jonathan R. Marshall and Maryl C. Sattler of Bailey & Glasser LLP.

The case was removed to U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia on Nov. 8.

The removal notice says the complaint seeks more than $20 million
in damages, and that the federal court has jurisdiction over the
case pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.

Circuit Court of Kanawha County Case No. 13-C-1748
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
Case No. 2:13-cv-28470


BIOSCRIP INC: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. on Nov. 18 disclosed that it has filed a
securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
BioScrip, Inc. and certain of the Company's executive officers
and/or directors and underwriters.  The class action is filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired BioScrip's
common stock between August 8, 2011 and September 23, 2013,
inclusive.  The complaint brings forth claims for violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In addition, the class action complaint is also filed on behalf of
investors who purchased BioScrip's common stock pursuant or
traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with BioScrip's secondary public offerings
during the Class Period.  The complaint brings forth claims for
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

BioScrip is a national provider of home infusion and other home
healthcare services.  On September 23, 2013, the Company disclosed
in a Form 8-K that it received a civil investigative demand issued
by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District
of New York and a subpoena from the New York State Attorney
General's Medicaid Fraud Control Unit regarding the distribution
of the Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation product Exjade by the
Company's legacy specialty pharmacy division.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period and in
BioScrip's Offering Documents, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about BioScrip's business and financial condition.

Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose to BioScrip investors that: (i) BioScrip
improperly distributed the product Exjade through its specialty
pharmacy operations in violation of the False Claims Act and other
federal and state statutes; (ii) a substantial portion of the
Company's revenues were derived through the violation of federal
and state laws and regulations relating thereto; and (iii) as a
result, the Company's financial statements were deficient and
misleading at all relevant times.

As a result of Defendants' false and/or misleading statements,
BioScrip shares traded at inflated prices during the Class Period.
After disclosure of Defendant's false and/or misleading
statements, BioScrip common stock suffered a precipitous decline,
thereby causing significant losses and damages to Plaintiff and
other Class members.  You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and
join the class action at http://www.saxenawhite.com

If you purchased BioScrip stock between August 8, 2011 and
September 23, 2013, inclusive, and/or pursuant to one of the
Company's secondary public offerings during the Class Period, you
may contact Lester Hooker, Esq. -- lhooker@saxenawhite.com -- at
Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests.

If you purchased BioScrip common stock during the Class Period of
August 8, 2011 through September 23, 2013, and/or pursuant to one
of the Company's secondary public offerings, and wish to apply to
be the lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must
be filed with the Court no later than December 2, 2013.  You may
contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding lead
plaintiff appointment and your interest in the class action.
Please note that you may also retain counsel of your choice and
need not take any action at this time to be a class member.

Contact:

          Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
          Saxena White P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399
          E-mail: lhooker@saxenawhite.com
          Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com


BP WEST COAST: Faces Class Action Over Debit Card Charges
---------------------------------------------------------
Laura Gunderson, writing for The Oregonian, reports that a
class-action lawsuit has been filed against BP West Coast Products
alleging the company required gas stations in Oregon to charge
customers 35 cents when they bought gas with a debit card.

David Sugerman, the Portland lawyer who filed the suit with the
Multnomah County Circuit Court, said that BP -- through its
franchisees -- charged the fee when it shouldn't have and also
failed to alert customers of the fee until gas was in their car
and it was time to pay.

"Based on information we've reviewed, the number of consumers
(affected) is in the millions statewide -- millions of customers
and millions and millions of transactions," Mr. Sugerman said.

The suit applies to Oregon consumers who bought gas with a debit
card and were charged 35 cents at an Arco stations or AMPM mini-
markets between Jan. 1, 2011, and Aug. 31, 2013.

Representatives from BP could not be reached for comment before
deadline.

The case stems from another filed by Mr. Sugerman that I wrote
about last year.  Many readers responded to that story, including:

Want out?

Consumers who aren't interested in being included in the class-
action lawsuit against BP can submit an opt-out form online by
Jan. 10, 2014.

Or, by the same deadline, they can mail a letter with their name,
address and desire to be excluded, to ARCO Oregon Debit Card,
Class action exclusions, P.O. Box 3266, Portland, Or., 97208-3266.
"I don't buy gas as Arco stations for this very reason.  They
burned me once with a 50 cent debit fee.  It's been almost 10
years, and I haven't been back," wrote Jacksonstew.

Others thought consumers should take more responsibility,
including:

"Get cash at your banks ATM and save the penny per gallon the gas
station tacks on to your 35 gallon gas purchase . . . if you think
you're being taken advantage of," wrote Seriously.

Still, we've written a great deal about consumers' frustrations
with buying gas and whether retailers' signs are as clear as they
should be.

Consumers who want to be removed from the class must submit an
opt-out form online by Jan. 10, 2014.  They can also mail a letter
-- including their name, address and their desire to be excluded
from the class -- by the same deadline to ARCO Oregon Debit Card,
Class action exclusions, P.O. Box 3266, Portland, Or., 97208-3266.

Consumers who want to be included in the suit don't have to do
anything.

The suit is currently scheduled to go to trial on Jan. 14,
Mr. Sugerman said.


CELOTEX CORP: TCC Recovers $1.5 Mil. From Asbestos Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenney Kost, writing for The Collegian, reports that beginning in
the late '90s, TCC joined a class action lawsuit for asbestos
removal.  Now, years later, the college has gained $1.5 million as
a result.

The final payment was made in October for more than $160,000 from
U.S. Mineral Bankruptcy PD Trust.  All recovered money will go
into TCC's general fund, said director of environmental management
Steve Kleypas.

Asbestos was used extensively in the manufacturing of insulation,
fireproofing, floor tile, mastics, drywall texture and acoustical
textures, Mr. Kleypas said.  Airborne asbestos particles have been
linked to cancer and other respiratory problems and have been the
subject of numerous lawsuits.

"All buildings constructed between the '30s and '70s are very
likely to have materials that have some asbestos in them," he
said.  "These materials, when left undisturbed, are perfectly
safe."

The suit was for removal and replacement costs, said Mr. Kleypas.
The payments came from three defendants: Asbestospray, Celotex
Bankruptcy PD Trust and U.S. Mineral Bankruptcy PD Trust.

"All three of these companies manufactured materials that were
used in the construction of South and NE campuses mostly, and some
on NW Campus," Mr. Kleypas said.

The recoveries weren't for any specific removal, he said.

"They were just for costs associated with asbestos containing
materials in or buildings, which include removal and replacements
costs," he said.

Over the summer, a major renovation took place in three buildings
on South Campus, and Mr. Kleypas said significant abatement was
done in the buildings.  TCC does not expect any extra compensation
to come from this as the suit factored in all asbestos-containing
material districtwide, he said.

Mr. Kleypas said TCC takes asbestos removal seriously and follows
all regulatory requirements of the Texas Department of State
Health Services prior to any disturbance, which could cause
asbestos fibers to become airborne -- a potential respiratory
hazard.

"We manage abatement by removing any material that will be
disturbed during construction, materials that have the potential
to be disturbed or if it is in poor condition," he said.

TCC's recovery was high relative to other school districts,
Mr. Kleypas said.  He attributes this to good recordkeeping.

"We have very good records of where asbestos is in our buildings
as well as the costs associated with the removal of those
materials based on previous abatement projects," he said.  "We
were able to present invoices and canceled checks for the work
done.  All of this information was used to determine past and
future costs of removal."


DEL MONTE CORP: Continues to Defend "Kosta" Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Corporation continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit styled Kosta v. Del Monte, according to the
Company's September 11, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 28,
2013.

On April 5, 2012, a complaint was filed against the Company in
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Kosta
v. Del Monte) alleging false and misleading advertising under
California's consumer protection laws.  The complaint seeks
certification as a class action and damages in excess of $5.0
million.  On June 15, 2012, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss
the Plaintiff's complaint.  The Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on July 6, 2012, negating the Company's Motion to
Dismiss.  In its amended complaint, the Plaintiff alleges the
Company made a variety of false and misleading advertising claims
including, but not limited to, its lycopene and antioxidant claims
for tomato products; implying that its refrigerated products are
fresh and all natural; implying that Fresh Cut vegetables are
fresh; and making misleading claims regarding sugar, nutrient
content, preservatives and serving size.  The Company denies these
allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself.  The Company
filed a new Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint on
July 31, 2012.  The Motion to Dismiss was denied on May 15, 2013.
The Plaintiff moved on November 5, 2012, to seek application of
the doctrine of collateral estoppel in this matter based on the
jury's finding in the Fresh Del Monte Inc. v. Del Monte case.  The
Company's Response to the Plaintiff's Motion for Application of
Collateral Estoppel was filed on January 17, 2013.  The
Plaintiff's Reply was filed on February 21, 2013.  The Court
denied Plaintiff's Motion on May 17, 2013.  The Court in Langille
ordered these two matters related in an Order on May 15, 2013.
The parties filed a joint stipulation to consolidate these cases
on June 3, 2013, and the Judge granted this Order on June 5, 2013.
The Kosta and Langille plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class
Action Complaint on June 11, 2013.  The Company filed its Answer
on June 28, 2013.  The Company cannot at this time reasonably
estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability.

Del Monte Corporation -- http://www.delmonte.com/-- is one of the
country's largest producers, distributors and marketers of premium
quality, branded pet products and food products for the U.S.
retail market, with pet food and pet snack brands for dogs and
cats, such as Meow Mix, Kibbles 'n Bits, Milk-Bone, 9Lives,
Natural Balance, Pup-Peroni, Gravy Train, Nature's Recipe, Canine
Carry Outs, Milo's Kitchen and other brand names and food brands,
such as Del Monte, Contadina, College Inn, S&W, and other brand
names.  Del Monte is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San
Francisco, California.


DEL MONTE CORP: Continues to Defend "Langille" Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte Corporation continues to defend itself against a class
action lawsuit initiated by Langille, et al., according to the
Company's September 11, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 28,
2013.

On April 22, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (Langille,
et al. v. Del Monte) alleging false and misleading advertising
under California's consumer protection laws.  The Plaintiffs
allege the Company made a variety of false and misleading
advertising claims including, but not limited to, implying that
its refrigerated fruit products are "fresh" and "natural."  The
complaint seeks certification as a class action and damages in
excess of $5.0 million.  The Company denies these allegations and
intends to vigorously defend itself.  On May 1, 2013, the
Plaintiffs filed a motion to relate this case to the Kosta v. Del
Monte matter.  The Company filed a Joinder in support of the
Plaintiffs' Motion on May 6, 2013.  The Court ordered the cases
related in an Order on May 15, 2013.  The parties filed a Joint
Stipulation to consolidate these cases on June 3, 2013, and the
Judge granted this Order on June 5, 2013.  The Kosta and Langille
plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class Action Complaint on
June 11, 2013.  The Company filed its Answer on June 28, 2013.

The Company says it cannot at this time reasonably estimate a
range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability.

Del Monte Corporation -- http://www.delmonte.com/-- is one of the
country's largest producers, distributors and marketers of premium
quality, branded pet products and food products for the U.S.
retail market, with pet food and pet snack brands for dogs and
cats, such as Meow Mix, Kibbles 'n Bits, Milk-Bone, 9Lives,
Natural Balance, Pup-Peroni, Gravy Train, Nature's Recipe, Canine
Carry Outs, Milo's Kitchen and other brand names and food brands,
such as Del Monte, Contadina, College Inn, S&W, and other brand
names.  Del Monte is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San
Francisco, California.


DEL MONTE CORP: Four Suits Over Chicken Jerky Treats Consolidated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Four class action lawsuits alleging product liability claims
relating to Del Monte Corporation's Chicken Jerky Treats were
consolidated in August 2013, according to the Company's
September 11, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 28, 2013.

On September 6, 2012, October 12, 2012, and October 16, 2012,
three separate putative class action complaints were filed against
the Company in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (Langone v. Del Monte, Ruff v. Del Monte, and Funke v.
Del Monte, respectively) alleging product liability claims
relating to Chicken Jerky Treats.  Specifically, the complaints
allege that Plaintiffs' dogs became ill as a result of consumption
of Chicken Jerky Treats.  The complaints also allege that the
Company breached its warranties and California's consumer
protection laws.  Each of the complaints seeks certification as a
class action and damages in excess of $5.0 million.  The Company
denies these allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself.
On December 18, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to relate and
consolidate the Langone, Ruff and Funke matters.  The Company
agreed that the cases are related but argued in its response that
they should not be consolidated.  The Court ordered the cases are
related in an Order on January 24, 2013.  In the Langone case, the
Company filed a Motion to Transfer/Dismiss on February 1, 2013.
The Plaintiff in the Langone matter voluntarily dismissed his
Complaint without prejudice on February 21, 2013, and re-filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
on May 21, 2013.  On April 9, 2013, the Court transferred Ruff and
Funke to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania but denied without prejudice Defendant's motions to
consolidate and dismiss.  On April 23, 2013, the Company filed its
Motion to Dismiss in Ruff and Funke with the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania and its Reply in Support
of its Motion to Dismiss in both cases on June 3, 2013.  The
Company filed its Motion to Dismiss in the Langone case with the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on
August 2, 2013.  The Company cannot at this time reasonably
estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability.

On July 19, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania (Mazur v. Del Monte) alleging product
liability claims relating to Chicken Jerky Treats.  Specifically,
the complaint alleges that the Plaintiff's dog became ill and had
to be euthanized as a result of consumption of Chicken Jerky
Treats.  The complaint also alleges that the Company breached its
warranties and Pennsylvania's consumer protection laws.  The
complaint seeks certification as a class action and damages in
excess of $5.0 million.  The Company denies these allegations and
intends to vigorously defend itself.  On August 3, 2012, the
Plaintiff's counsel filed a Motion to Consolidate the previously
filed two similar class actions against Nestle Purina Petcare
Company, owner of the Waggin' Train brand of chicken jerky treats,
in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under
the federal rules for multi-district litigation ("MDL").  The
Plaintiff's Motion also sought to include the case against the
Company in the proposed MDL consolidation as a "related case."  On
September 28, 2012, the Court denied the MDL Motion.  The case
will now proceed in the jurisdiction in which it was originally
filed.  The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Commence Limited
Discovery on the subject of the voluntary recall of Chicken Jerky
Treats on January 25, 2013.  The Company filed its response
opposing the Motion on February 8, 2013.  The Court denied the
Plaintiff's Motion on March 12, 2013; thus, discovery is stayed
until the Court rules on the Company's Motion to Dismiss, which
was filed on September 24, 2012.  On May 24, 2013, the Judge in
the matter issued a Report and Recommendation stating that the
Motion to Dismiss be granted as to Plaintiff's claim for unjust
enrichment and denied in all other respects.  The Company filed
its Objections to the Report and Recommendation on June 7, 2013.
The Court issued an Order adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation on June 25, 2013.  The Court denied the
Company's Motion for Reconsideration on July 8, 2013.  The Company
filed its answer on August 2, 2013.  The Company says it cannot at
this time reasonably estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the
potential liability.

On August 16, 2013, the Langone, Ruff, Funke and Mazur cases were
consolidated.

Del Monte Corporation -- http://www.delmonte.com/-- is one of the
country's largest producers, distributors and marketers of premium
quality, branded pet products and food products for the U.S.
retail market, with pet food and pet snack brands for dogs and
cats, such as Meow Mix, Kibbles 'n Bits, Milk-Bone, 9Lives,
Natural Balance, Pup-Peroni, Gravy Train, Nature's Recipe, Canine
Carry Outs, Milo's Kitchen and other brand names and food brands,
such as Del Monte, Contadina, College Inn, S&W, and other brand
names.  Del Monte is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San
Francisco, California.


DEL MONTE CORP: "Harmon" Class Suit Remains Pending in Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Harmon v. Del Monte remains
pending in Missouri, according to Del Monte Corporation's
September 11, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 28, 2013.

On January 31, 2013, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
Missouri (Harmon v. Del Monte) alleging that Milo's Kitchen
chicken jerky treats ("Chicken Jerky Treats") and Milo's Kitchen
Chicken Grillers Recipe home-style dog treats contain "poisonous
antibiotics and other potentially lethal substances."  The
Plaintiff seeks restitution and damages not to exceed $75,000 per
class member and the aggregated claim for damages of the class not
to exceed $5.0 million under the Missouri Merchandising Practices
Act.  The complaint also alleges the Company continued to sell its
Chicken Jerky Treats in Jackson County, Missouri, after it
announced its recall of the product on January 9, 2013.  The
complaint seeks certification as a class action.  The Company
successfully removed this case to federal court on March 12, 2013.
On April 9, 2013, the Plaintiff filed its Second Amended Class
Action Petition against the Company.  The Company filed its Motion
to Transfer to the Western District of Pennsylvania on April 19,
2013, and its Motion to Stay Pending the Motion to Transfer on
April 25, 2013.  The Motion to Stay was granted the same day it
was filed.  On May 6, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed their Opposition
to Defendant's Motion to Transfer.  The Company filed its Reply in
Support of its Motion to Transfer on May 23, 2013.  The Court
denied the Company's Motion to Transfer on July 22, 2013.

The Company denies these allegations and intends to vigorously
defend itself.  The Company says it cannot at this time reasonably
estimate a range of exposure, if any, of the potential liability.

Del Monte Corporation -- http://www.delmonte.com/-- is one of the
country's largest producers, distributors and marketers of premium
quality, branded pet products and food products for the U.S.
retail market, with pet food and pet snack brands for dogs and
cats, such as Meow Mix, Kibbles 'n Bits, Milk-Bone, 9Lives,
Natural Balance, Pup-Peroni, Gravy Train, Nature's Recipe, Canine
Carry Outs, Milo's Kitchen and other brand names and food brands,
such as Del Monte, Contadina, College Inn, S&W, and other brand
names.  Del Monte is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San
Francisco, California.


DEL MONTE CORP: "Montgomery" Suit Remains Pending in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Montgomery v. Del Monte remains
pending in California, according to Del Monte Corporation's
September 11, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 28, 2013.

On April 19, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a complaint on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated employees in Superior
Court of California, Alameda County (Montgomery v. Del Monte)
alleging, inter alia, failure to provide meal and rest periods and
pay wages properly in violation of various California wage and
hour statutes.  On May 24, 2013, the Plaintiff filed its First
Amended Complaint.  The Court granted the parties' Application to
Transfer to Kings County on June 14, 2013.  The Company denies
these allegations and intends to vigorously defend itself.  The
Company says it cannot at this time reasonably estimate a range of
exposure, if any, of the potential liability.

Del Monte Corporation -- http://www.delmonte.com/-- is one of the
country's largest producers, distributors and marketers of premium
quality, branded pet products and food products for the U.S.
retail market, with pet food and pet snack brands for dogs and
cats, such as Meow Mix, Kibbles 'n Bits, Milk-Bone, 9Lives,
Natural Balance, Pup-Peroni, Gravy Train, Nature's Recipe, Canine
Carry Outs, Milo's Kitchen and other brand names and food brands,
such as Del Monte, Contadina, College Inn, S&W, and other brand
names.  Del Monte is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San
Francisco, California.


DFC GLOBAL: Bernstein Litowitz & Saxena White Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Saxena White P.A. on
Nov. 20 disclosed that they have filed a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf of West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund against
DFC Global Corp. and certain of its senior executives. The action,
which is captioned West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. DFC
Global Corp., 2:13-cv-06731-TON (E.D. Pa.), asserts claims under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in DFC
Global common stock during the period of January 28, 2011 through
August 22, 2013.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, DFC Global
misrepresented to investors that it complied with government
regulations and guidance with regard to irresponsible lending
practices in the United Kingdom, and that the Company made
conservative underwriting decisions when making loans.  The
Company also knowingly understated its loss rates for loans, and
issued false earnings guidance for its 2013 fiscal year.  When the
Company ultimately revealed the truth about its high-risk lending
and its financial condition, the price of DCF Global stock fell
over $7 per share.

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than 60 days from
November 20, 2013.  Accordingly, the deadline for filing a motion
for appointment as Lead Plaintiff is January 21, 2014.  Any member
of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as Lead
Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain a member of the proposed Class.

If you wish to discuss this Action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Avi Josefson of BLB&G at 212-554-1493, or via e-mail at
avi@blbglaw.com or Joseph E. White III of Saxena White at 561-394-
3399, or via e-mail at jwhite@saxenawhite.com

Saxena White -- http://www.saxenawhite.com-- represents both
institutional and individual clients in complex litigation,
including securities fraud class actions, shareholder rights
litigation, corporate governance actions, SEC whistleblower
representation and consumer class actions.

Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G -- http://www.blbglaw.com--
specializes in securities fraud, corporate governance,
shareholders' rights, employment discrimination, and civil rights
litigation, among other practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and
private actions on behalf of institutional and individual clients
worldwide.


DISH NETWORK: Agrees to Settle Int'l Access Fee Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, reports that Dish Network LLC
has agreed to settle a proposed class action over a monthly
"international access" fee it had charged subscribers, offering to
scrap the fee and give affected customers free subscriptions to
two satellite TV packages, according to documents filed on Nov. 18
in California federal court.

In a brief supporting their motion to approve the deal, plaintiffs
David Melamed and Issam Alshaer said the settlement includes an
injunction barring the company from charging the $10 fee in the
future, resulting in "substantial savings" to the proposed class.

"Plaintiffs and their counsel believe this to be a favorable
settlement for the class," the motion said.  "The settlement
ensures that the putative class will no longer be charged the
international access fee and provides programming benefits that
the putative class will receive under the settlement."

Messrs. Melamed and Alshaer sued the satellite TV provider in
October 2012, alleging that the fee -- charged to all customers
who subscribed only to a foreign language TV package -- violated
their service contracts and was imposed without proper notice.
They held that the proposed class included more than 100,000
current and former Dish Network customers.

Dish Network countered that the fee was designed to offset a dip
in international programming prices, meaning that the class didn't
suffer any actual damages because the fee didn't affect the
"bottom line" price they were paying, according to court
documents.  The company also argued that the service contract
permitted it to charge any fee at any time.

These opposing positions were bridged with the help of a mediator,
retired California state judge Peter T. Lichtman, who helped
broker the settlement during a meeting in May, according to the
Nov. 18 brief.

In addition to being relieved of the fee, class members will also
be permitted under the deal to receive Dish Network's "World Pack"
and "World News Pack" free of charge.  The two TV packages offer
English-language news, entertainment, lifestyle, music and film
content from around the world, and normally cost $5 per month
each, the brief said.

The plaintiffs' attorneys will ask the court to approve $365,000
in fees and expenses for their efforts, which Dish Network has
agreed not to oppose, according to the brief.

A spokesman for Englewood, Colo.-based Dish Network declined to
comment on the settlement on Nov. 19.

The plaintiffs are represented by Andre E. Jardini --
aej@kpclegal.com -- and K.L. Myles -- klm@kpclegal.com -- of Knapp
Petersen & Clarke.

Dish Network is represented by Richard R. Patch --
rrp@coblentzlaw.com -- and Lauren S. Kowal --
lkowal@coblentzlaw.com -- of Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP.

The case is David Melamed et al. v. Dish Network LLC et al., case
number 2:12-cv-08941, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.


EL AL: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Ticket-Price Collusion
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zohar Blumenkrantz, writing for Haaretz, reports that El Al and
two foreign airlines -- British Airways and Lufthansa -- face a
class-action suit in Israeli courts for allegedly colluding on
ticket prices.

The Lod Central District Court threw out a motion to dismiss the
class-action motion against the three carriers.  The court, headed
by Judge Ofer Grosskopf, has not yet discussed whether the class
action could proceed, though.

The motion is being brought by Hatzlaha, the Consumers' Movement
for the Promotion of a Fair Society and Economy, which accuses the
three of acting as a cartel.

Hatzlaha is suing the airlines for NIS613 million, of which
El Al's share is NIS473 million.

The target of the class motion is air freight prices, which was
the subject of a global anti-trust investigation revealed in
February 2006.  Based on those findings, Hatzlaha claims the three
airlines coordinated surcharges to the cost of air freight, such
as extra charges for fuel and security added on top of the basic
air cargo fee.

Different countries have commenced individual proceedings
regarding cargo flown to or from it.  None had been pursued in
Israel yet, however, until Hatzlaha picked up the gauntlet. It
filed its motion in February 2013, just before the statute of
limitations applied.

Hatzlaha was formed in 2008 by a group of Israeli commercial
lawyers, joined later by economists and accountants.  Its goals
include fair and proper law enforcement in issues relating to the
economy and society.

In rejecting the airlines' request to throw out the class-action
motion, Judge Grosskopf elaborated that throwing out class actions
is well and good when the actions are frivolous; it spares the
court precious time.  But conversely, requests to toss such
motions must also be serious and well-grounded, he wrote.

Judge Grosskopf ordered each airline to pay NIS50,000 to Hatzlaha
for court costs.

"The court conveyed an important message to the defendants that
bringing a motion to dismiss out of hand was not a good idea
except in unusual cases," stated Hatzlaha's legal adviser, Elad
Mann.


EMERALD GRAIN: Deadline for Farmers to Join Class Action Passes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amber Atkinson, writing for Farm Weekly, reports that Nov. 15
marked the deadline for growers to decide whether they would
pursue a class action against Emerald Grain, over allegations that
losses between AUD64 and AUD82 a tonne were sustained when
participating in Emerald's 2011/2012 grain pool.

Of the 70 growers that had initially expressed interest in legal
proceedings, more than half have confirmed their commitment to the
case, according to Granich Partners Legal secretary Jayne Trenka.

Ms. Trenka said opinions had been sought by a barrister and
Planfarm, and then sent to the growers involved in the litigation.

Following the communication, a cost agreement was sent to all
growers informing them that AUD1500 was required to continue.

"The barrister indicated that we'd need to obtain documentation
from Emerald so there was need for pre-action discovery which
required more funds," Ms. Trenka said.

"Farmers were given the option of contributing AUD1500 each for a
pre-action discovery, or to sit out of further proceedings."

At close of business on Nov. 15, 40 farmers had confirmed their
commitment to the case and a further five had phoned to pledge
their support for the case.

"This is really exciting because we were a little bit skeptical
seeing as farmers are so busy at the moment with harvest, but it
has been a great result," Ms. Trenka said.

"And a few of these, that weren't involved in the first place,
have signed the cost agreement after hearing about it from other
people."

Granich Partners was set to reveal what further legal action would
be undertaken on November 22, 2013.


ERIE COUNTY, NY: Residents to Get SNAP Payments From Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Buffalo News reports that some Erie County residents who were
reported to have received larger than usual allotments of
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) -- or "food
stamp" -- benefits were entitled to the payments, county officials
said on Nov. 18.

Peter Anderson, a spokesman for County Executive Mark C.
Poloncarz, said the payments were the result of a class action
suit.

"From what we understand, so far, the unexpectedly large payments
that certain individuals received were authorized by New York
State as a result of the Richard C. vs. Berlin lawsuit, which
entitles a one-time SNAP benefit for certain individuals,"
Anderson said.

The class action lawsuit covers tens of thousands of residents
across the state who were either denied SNAP benefits, or had
their benefits reduced or cut off as a result of an employment
sanction that was imposed between Aug. 3, 2009, and Dec. 14, 2012.

Benefits received by the recipients are transferred electronically
onto individual SNAP cards.

News of the larger than usual payments was brought to the county
executive's attention by private citizens and County Comptroller
Stefan Mychajliw, and the county was investigating, according to a
press release put out by the county executive on Nov. 17.


FAB UNIVERSAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Nov. 18 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 FAB Universal
Corporation from June 12, 2012 to November 18, 2013, seeking to
recover damages for violations of the federal securities laws.

To join the FAB Universal class action, visit the firm's website
at http://rosenlegal.comor 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 FAB Universal and certain of its officers
and directors made materially false and misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the Company overstated the
number of Intelligent Media Kiosks deployed in China; (b) its
Kiosks were inundated with pirated digital media entertainment,
and (c) a Company subsidiary issued RMB 100 million ($16.4
million) in bonds to Chinese investors.  According to the
Complaint, when these adverse facts entered the market, the value
of FAB Universal securities declined, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 17, 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 Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan of The Rosen Law Firm,
toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com
or kchan@rosenlegal.com

You may also visit the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com

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

CONTACT: Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Kevin Chan, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue 34th Floor
         New York, New York 10016
         Telephone:  (212) 686-1060
         Weekend Tel: (917) 562-8616
         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


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.


FIRSTENERGY CORP: Pollution Class Action May Remain Open
--------------------------------------------------------
Susy Kelly, writing for Herald-Standard, reports that a class
action suit against Hatfield's Ferry power station that appeared
to have ended in a default judgment against the defendants late
last month may remain open, if a judge determines paperwork had
been incorrectly handled.

FirstEnergy Corp. owns Hatfield in Greene County and the Mitchell
Power Station in Washington County.  FirstEnergy deactivated both
plants, citing low demand and market prices for electricity and
the cost of retrofitting them to meet federal mercury emission
regulations that go into effect in 2015.


FUSION-IO INC: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP on Nov. 19 disclosed
that it has filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of
its client the Miami Police Relief & Pension Fund against
Fusion-io, Inc., and certain of its senior executives.  The
action, which is captioned Miami Police Relief & Pension Fund v.
Fusion-io, Inc., et al., No. 5:13-cv-05368 (N.D. Cal.), asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. ---- 78j(b) and 78t(a), and SEC Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. -- 240.10b-5, on behalf of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Fusion-io securities
during the period from August 10, 2012 and October 23, 2013,
inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Fusion-io and
certain of its senior executives violated provisions of the
Exchange Act by issuing false and misleading press releases,
financial statements, filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, and statements during investor conference calls.
Fusion-io is a computer hardware and software systems company that
designs and manufactures memory storage solutions using flash
memory technology.  Since the Company's initial public offering in
2011, a limited number of what the Company calls "strategic"
customers have accounted for a significant portion of the
Company's revenues.

As alleged in the Complaint, Defendants misrepresented to
investors that the Company was a market leader in large-scale
flash memory applications and was not facing any competitive
pressure or risk from the commoditization of flash memory
products.  Defendants also issued positive revenue guidance and
misrepresented that the Company was able to anticipate the demand
from its strategic customers based on its years of experience as
their flash memory supplier.  As a result of Defendants' false
statements and omissions, Fusion-io's securities traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.  After the
market closed on October 23, 2013, the Company revoked its prior
revenue guidance and announced that its expected gross margin in
2014 would fall significantly, indicating that the competitive
pressures facing Fusion-io were more significant than Defendants
had represented.  That disclosure caused a material decline in the
price of Fusion-io stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the Class, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than 60 days from
November 19, 2013. Accordingly, the deadline for filing a motion
for appointment as lead plaintiff is January 21, 2014.  Any member
of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain a member of the proposed class.

Miami Police is represented by BLB&G, a firm of over 100 attorneys
with offices in New York, California, Louisiana, and Illinois.  If
you wish to discuss this Action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Avi Josefson of BLB&G at 212-554-1493, or via e-mail at
avi@blbglaw.com

Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G -- http://www.blbglaw.com--
specializes in securities fraud, corporate governance,
shareholders' rights, employment discrimination, and civil rights
litigation, among other practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and
private actions on behalf of institutional and individual clients
worldwide.


GARMENT OVERSIGHT: Judge Reopens Lengthy Class Action Battle
------------------------------------------------------------
Ferdie de la Torre, writing for Saipan Tribune, reports that after
a lengthy litigation that dragged on for nine years, the federal
court closed the class action against the garment industry in
2010.  The case, however, was recently reopened because there
still exists a residual amount of $171,795.91.

Former Superior Court judge Timothy H. Bellas told Saipan Tribune
on Nov. 20 that he has been soliciting requests from charitable
organizations where he could donate the money.

Judge Bellas used to serve as chairman of the Garment Oversight
Board, which was set up pursuant to the $20-million settlement
agreement in a class action against the garment industry.

The federal court closed the GOB in October 2008 and the Garment
Workers Trust Fund was then formed, which Judge Bellas also
chaired.  In June 2010, the District Court approved the final
report of the Garment Workers Trust Fund and closed the file.

The court recently appointed Judge Bellas to distribute the
residual funds that were previously held in trust for a contingent
liability that never required payment.

In a phone interview on Nov. 20, Judge Bellas said that then-
claims administrator Gilardi & Co. has money that it did not
include in the funds that were transferred to the GOB.

Judge Bellas said that Gilardi & Co. was basically holding the
money that was intended to pay some kind of potential liability.

"That potential liability never came up and as a result, the time
for that liability is gone," he said.

Judge Bellas said Gilardi & Co. called up the attorneys for
plaintiffs in the class action and asked what they should do with
the money.

"So their attorney called me and said 'we wanted to transfer this
money to you and do with what you did with the other money from
that was left over,'" Judge Bellas said.  He said Gilardi & Co.
had $113,655.91 and plaintiffs' lawyers also had $58,140 in their
trust account that they did not dispose of.

Judge Bellas said the two amounts were sent to him late August
this year and that he has the money in his trust account.

Like what he did before with the leftover money, Judge Bellas is
now soliciting a list of groups who could receive the money.  The
groups should be Internal Revenue Code Section 501 (c) qualified
(charitable status).

"Once I kind of cut through the applicants and make a short list,
then I'm going to divide the money and going to submit it to U.S.
District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona for her
approval," he said.

In January 2010, Judge Bellas donated a total of $625,000 to 14
non-profit organizations on Saipan.  In June 2010, the remaining
balance of $5,314.07 was donated to the Friends of the Library.

The donation became controversial after some former garment
workers tried to stop Judge Bellas from donating the leftover
funds.  They said the money should go to them because they are
still on the island and facing hardships.

District Court Judge Alex Munson denied the workers' motions,
saying that the 9-year-old litigation has to end at some point and
that point has been reached, after years of court monitoring.


HALLIBURTON CO: Manufacturers Laud Supreme Court's Decision
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that business groups
argue challenges a key precedent in securities class action cases.

On Nov. 15, the nation's high court agreed to review Halliburton
Co. v. Erica P. John Fund Inc., according to a single-page order
list.

Halliburton allegedly made misrepresentations concerning its
accounting practices, the projected efficiencies of a merger and
its projected asbestos liability.

The plaintiffs claim that Halliburton's stock dropped in price
when the truth regarding these alleged misrepresentations was
revealed, and sued as a putative class in 2002.

Last month, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National
Association for Manufacturers filed an amicus brief in support of
the petitioners.

The two groups noted they have a "keen interest" in the case
because private securities class action litigation puts a burden
on American businesses and adversely affects access to capital
markets.

The Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform owns Legal Newsline.

DRI: The Voice of the Defense Bar also filed an amicus brief in
support of the petitioners.

The case involves the "fraud on the market" theory of liability in
securities class actions.

The theory has greatly facilitated securities class actions and
has contributed to their exponential growth since the late 1980s,
the Chamber and NAM argue.

Linda Kelly, NAM's senior vice president and general counsel, said
on Nov. 15 manufacturers are pleased with the court's decision to
hear the case.

"These lawsuits not only siphon productive capital out of the
economy, they inflict significant cost burdens on manufacturers,
while impairing their ability to grow and create jobs," she said.

"We look forward to the court's review of this crucial issue."


HALLIBURTON CO: Class Action May Impact Shareholders' Rights
------------------------------------------------------------
Deon Daugherty, writing for Houston Business Journal, reports that
the appeal of a securities class action lawsuit involving Houston-
based Halliburton Co. has made it to the U.S. Supreme Court, and
it could have a far-reaching impact on shareholders' rights, say
some in the legal community.

In the original 1988 case, Basic v. Levinson, a group of
shareholders sued the company, alleging it had downplayed its
asbestos liabilities and overstated revenue with regard to its
merger with Dresser Industries.  The court at the time said
investors didn't have to prove their loss had a direct link to the
allegations; rather, any security investment could be presumed to
have been directly impacted, Reuters reported.

It's that presumption that's at issue before the highest court in
the country.  Essentially, the court is weighing whether to
heighten the burden of proof for shareholders, said Houston lawyer
Philip Hilder, a former federal prosecutor.  Removing the
"presumption of fraud on the market" could halt the ability of
shareholders to file class action lawsuits, he said.  For an
individual shareholder, such a step is almost impossible because
their financial resources are dwarfed by the company's deeper
pockets.

"It is quite significant because it may very well shift the power
from the shareholders to engage in class action suits," Mr. Hilder
said.  "During the last 25 years, the securities shareholders have
relied upon this certain theory, which would allow them access to
the courts because their burden of proof was easier."

Oral arguments are expected in Washington, D.C., in February.

Halliburton attorney Aaron Street told Reuters that he's confident
once the court hears oral arguments, his side will prevail.

It was the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association
of Manufacturers who petitioned the court to hear the case.
However, several former members of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission also asked the court to take it on.

About 10,000 cases are appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court each
year, according to information on the court's website. Of those,
the court grants a hearing in up to 80 cases annually.

Mr. Hilder said that given the shifting politics on the court's
bench over the years, the decision to take up the case isn't
surprising.

"The court has become more conservative, and this would fall in
line with cutting back on shareholders' rights and giving a
greater protection to corporations," he said.


HIGHMARK INC: Loses Bid to Derail Overtime Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Overley, writing for Law360, reports that a Pennsylvania
federal judge on Nov. 15 shot down health insurer Highmark Inc.'s
bid to derail a proposed class action accusing it of stiffing
staffers on overtime pay, finding reason to believe the Fair Labor
Standards Act applies and that numerous employees may have been
shortchanged.

Much of the decision from U.S. District Judge Kim R. Gibson found
that while Highmark could ultimately prevail, former supervisor
Jacqueline Rummel, who spent almost two decades at the company,
had put forth sufficiently specific enough allegations to survive
a motion to dismiss.

Although Highmark asserted that Ms. Rummel had not properly
described other workers in a similar situation, Judge Gibson noted
that the ex-staffer, who was terminated last year, has claimed
there are dozens of other supervisors who may also have been
denied OT pay.

"The allegations in [Rummel's] amended complaint satisfy -- albeit
minimally -- the plausibility standard of a . . . motion to
dismiss," the judge wrote.

Also, while Highmark contended that Ms. Rummel had failed to show
it was engaged in interstate commerce, Judge Gibson concluded that
descriptions of the insurer's offices and business practices,
among other things, were sufficient for the time being to meet
standards for suing under the FLSA.

"Although the amended complaint may not be as factually detailed
as [Highmark] may wish, [Rummel's] allegations are enough to
survive a motion to dismiss because [she] has minimally
established a plausible claim for relief," the judge said.

Ms. Rummel's suit accuses Highmark of routinely assigning staffers
with time-consuming tasks, including travel and performance
reviews, that could not possibly be completed within the confines
of a 40-hour week, and then failing to provide extra compensation.

As part of its defense, the company argued that Ms. Rummel, as a
supervisor, is covered by an "executive exemption" to the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and therefore wasn't entitled to
overtime pay.

Ms. Rummel maintains that she was essentially a supervisor in name
only who was greatly limited in her ability to act independently,
and Judge Gibson said that such was sufficient for this stage of
the case, while also noting that Highmark is free to raise the
argument again later.

Judge Gibson applied virtually identical reasoning in refusing to
find that Ms. Rummel hadn't alleged intentional breaches of the
FLSA, finding that her accusations about time-consuming work being
assigned were strong enough to sustain her suit at this phase.

"Taken together, the allegations in the amended complaint, though
very general, state a plausible claim that [Highmark] willfully
violated the FLSA," the judge found.

Counsel for Highmark did not immediately respond to a request for
comment on Nov. 18.

Ms. Rummel is represented by Ronald P. Carnevali Jr. --
rcarnevali@spencecuster.com -- of Spence Custer Saylor Wolfe &
Rose.

Highmark is represented by Richard Etter -- retter@reedsmith.com
-- and Patrick W. Ritchey -- pritchey@reedsmith.com -- of Reed
Smith LLP.

The case is Rummel v. Highmark Inc., case number 3:13-cv-00087, in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.


INDIANA: Law Firm to Get $6.3 Mil. in Fees in BMV Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Olson, writing for Indianapolis Business Journal, reports
that a local law firm will receive $6.3 million as part of a
class-action lawsuit that accused the Indiana Bureau of Motor
Vehicles of overcharging for driver's licenses.

Cohen & Malad LLP's fee represents 21 percent of the $30 million
awarded to Hoosier motorists as part of a settlement approved by
Marion Superior Court Judge Heather Welch on Nov. 12.

A BMV spokesman said in an email that it will abide by the terms
and conditions of the settlement.

The overcharges were discovered after Indianapolis attorney
Irwin Levin -- ilevin@cohenandmalad.com -- filed suit in March
against the BMV, accusing it of overcharging drivers for licenses.
Gov. Mike Pence then directed the BMV to conduct an independent
review of the more than 300 fees the agency administers.  That
review found more cases of overcharging.

In response, the BMV cut fees in June for standard operator's
licenses by $3.50.  The new fees range from $17.50 for a six-year
license to $14.50 for a four-year license -- a maximum reduction
of about 19 percent.

Mr. Levin, of Indianapolis-based Cohen & Malad, said the firm,
which specializes in class-action suits, negotiated its fee with
the state.  The fee was lower than the 33-percent charge it
typically commands in class actions.

"It wasn't our job to uncover this; it was the state's job," he
said.  "I'm not going to apologize for taking the risk."

About 4.5 million Indiana drivers may be eligible to receive a
refund, Mr. Levin said.  The class of plaintiffs includes anyone
who paid a fee to the BMV between March 2007 and June 2013.

Amounts awarded to individuals should range from $3.50 to $15,
Mr. Levin said.

Those eligible for a refund can get a credit while transacting
business at a license branch or they can fill out a form that will
be available on the BMV website in about a month and receive a
check in the mail.  The BMV will mail checks to everyone else
entitled to a refund.

Mr. Levin said he is "extremely satisfied" with the settlement and
particularly proud that firm lawyers uncovered the overcharges.

"People don't have any choice, they have to deal with the BMV," he
said.  "If you want to drive legally in Indiana, you've got to do
business with the BMV."

Meanwhile, Gov. Mike Pence on Nov. 19 named Kent Schroder interim
commissioner of the BMV.

Mr. Schroder had been the BMV chief of staff since June 1 after
serving as its chief information officer since 2005.

He replaces Scott Waddell, who announced his resignation as BMV
commissioner last month after three years at the job.  He will
step down Dec. 2.


IXIA: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Ixia, on
Nov. 18 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of a class comprising all purchasers of Ixia
securities between April 29, 2010 and October 24, 2013, inclusive.

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

Ixia delivers information technology solutions including real-time
monitoring, real-world testing, and rapid assessment of network
and system user behavior, security vulnerabilities, capacity,
application performance, and IT resiliency.  The Complaint alleges
that throughout the Class Period the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse
facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose
that:

   -- The Company improperly recognized revenues related to its
warranty and software maintenance contracts.

   -- The Company's Chief Executive Officer misstated his academic
credentials and employment history.

   -- The Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls.

If you are a member of the Class described above you may move the
Court no later than January 14, 2014, to serve as lead plaintiff;
however, you must meet certain legal requirements.  If you wish to
learn more about this action, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles, California 90067, Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, or contact
Gregory Linkh, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP at 122 E.
42nd Street, Suite 2920, New York, New York 10168, at (212) 682-
5340, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website
at http://www.glancylaw.com

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


KIWIBANK: Deadline for Customers to Join Class Action Passes
------------------------------------------------------------
3 News reports that disgruntled Kiwis faced a Nov. 21 deadline to
sign on to legal action against state-owned Kiwibank, with
campaign organizers planning to lodge the case in the High Court
on Nov. 22.

Kiwibank customers had to sign up on Nov. 21 if they want to be
included in the action, which is being brought by the Fair Play on
Fees campaign.

The campaign is already taking legal action against the
ANZ/National Bank.

Campaign organizers say 37,000 Kiwibank customers have so far
signed up online.

"The feedback we have been receiving from the public has been
hugely positive," said Fair Play on Fees lawyer Andrew Hooker.

"It's the type of support we will need to continue to battle the
banks on unfairly charged default fees."

Organizers of the Fair Play on Fees campaign are seeking to recoup
default fees which they say have been unfairly charged.

Mr. Hooker says many customers had switched from Australian-owned
banks to Kiwibank but were just as frustrated.

Fair Play on Fees said it has 14,700 clients signed up in the
ANZ/National Bank action with a deadline next month.


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.


LEE VALLEY TOOLS: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Blaney McMurtry LLP on Nov. 20 disclosed that the Court has
approved the settlement reached in the Class Action between Lee
Valley Tools and Canada Post.

Canada Post has or will discontinue the charging practices in
issue, and will also pay C$5,050,000.00 for claims and
C$1,300,000.00 towards the plaintiff's legal costs.

The net settlement funds will be distributed approximately in
proportion to the shipping charges incurred by class members who
apply for payment.  All applications must be completed by
February 28, 2014.


LORILLARD INC: Argument in Indirect Purchaser Suit on Dec. 11
-------------------------------------------------------------
Argument in the Court of Appeals in an indirect purchaser lawsuit
in Kansas is scheduled for December 11, 2013, according to
Lorillard, Inc.'s October 23, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 30, 2013.

Approximately 30 antitrust lawsuits were filed in 2000 and 2001 on
behalf of putative classes of consumers in various state courts
against cigarette manufacturers.  The lawsuits all alleged that
the defendants entered into agreements to fix the wholesale prices
of cigarettes in violation of state antitrust laws which permit
indirect purchasers, such as retailers and consumers, to sue under
price fixing or consumer fraud statutes.  More than 20 states
permit such lawsuits.  Lorillard Tobacco Company, Lorillard,
Inc.'s principal operating subsidiary, was a defendant in all but
one of these indirect purchaser cases.  Lorillard, Inc. was not
named as a defendant in any of these cases.  Four indirect
purchaser lawsuits, in New York, Florida, New Mexico and Michigan,
thereafter were dismissed by courts in those states.  The actions
in all other states, except for Kansas, were either voluntarily
dismissed or dismissed by the courts.

In the Kansas case, the District Court of Seward County certified
a class of Kansas indirect purchasers in 2002.  In July 2006, the
Court issued an order confirming that fact discovery was closed,
with the exception of privilege issues that the Court determined,
based on a Special Master's report, justified further fact
discovery.  In October 2007, the Court denied all of the
defendants' privilege claims, and the Kansas Supreme Court
thereafter denied a petition seeking to overturn that ruling.  On
March 23, 2012, The District Court of Seward County granted the
defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the Kansas
lawsuit.  The Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied.
On July 18, 2012, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the
Court of Appeals for the State of Kansas.  Briefing on the
plaintiff's appeal has been completed and argument in the Court of
Appeals is scheduled for December 11, 2013.

Lorillard, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of cigarettes.  Its principal products are
marketed under the brand names of Newport, Kent, True, Maverick
and Old Gold with substantially all of its sales in the United
States of America.  Lorillard recently acquired blu ecigs, the
leading electronic cigarette company in the U.S.  The Company is
based in Greensboro, North Carolina.


LORILLARD INC: Flight Attendant Cases vs. Unit Remain Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard Tobacco Company, Lorillard, Inc.'s principal operating
subsidiary, and three other cigarette manufacturers are the
defendants in each of the pending Flight Attendant Cases.
Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in any of these cases.  These
lawsuits were filed as a result of a settlement agreement by the
parties, including Lorillard Tobacco, in Broin v. Philip Morris
Companies, Inc., et al. (Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County,
Florida, filed October 31, 1991), a class action brought on behalf
of flight attendants claiming injury as a result of exposure to
environmental tobacco smoke.  The settlement agreement, among
other things, permitted the plaintiff class members to file these
individual lawsuits.  These individuals may not seek punitive
damages for injuries that arose prior to January 15, 1997.  The
period for filing Flight Attendant Cases expired in 2000 and no
additional cases in this category may be filed.

The judges who have presided over the cases that have been tried
have relied upon an order entered in October 2000 by the Circuit
Court of Miami-Dade County, Florida.  The October 2000 order has
been construed by these judges as holding that the flight
attendants are not required to prove the substantive liability
elements of their claims for negligence, strict liability and
breach of implied warranty in order to recover damages.  The court
further ruled that the trials of these lawsuits are to address
whether the plaintiffs' alleged injuries were caused by their
exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and, if so, the amount of
damages to be awarded.

Lorillard Tobacco was a defendant in each of the eight Flight
Attendant Cases in which verdicts have been returned.  The
Defendants have prevailed in seven of the eight trials.  In one of
the seven cases in which a defense verdict was returned, the court
granted plaintiff's motion for a new trial and, following appeal,
the case has been returned to the trial court for a second trial.
The six remaining cases in which defense verdicts were returned
are concluded.  In the single trial decided for the plaintiff,
French v. Philip Morris Incorporated, et al., the jury awarded
$5.5 million in damages.  The court, however, reduced this award
to $500,000.  This verdict, as reduced by the trial court, was
affirmed on appeal and the defendants have paid the award.
Lorillard Tobacco's share of the judgment in this matter,
including interest, was approximately $60,000.

As of October 17, 2013, none of the Flight Attendant Cases were
scheduled for trial.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 23,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2013.

Lorillard, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of cigarettes.  Its principal products are
marketed under the brand names of Newport, Kent, True, Maverick
and Old Gold with substantially all of its sales in the United
States of America.  Lorillard recently acquired blu ecigs, the
leading electronic cigarette company in the U.S.  The Company is
based in Greensboro, North Carolina.


LORILLARD INC: Loews Still Defends Product Liability Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
In connection with the separation of Lorillard, Inc. from Loews
Corporation, Lorillard entered into a separation agreement with
Loews (the "Separation Agreement") and agreed to indemnify Loews
and its officers, directors, employees and agents against all
costs and expenses arising out of third party claims (including,
without limitation, attorneys' fees, interest, penalties and costs
of investigation or preparation for defense), judgments, fines,
losses, claims, damages, liabilities, taxes, demands, assessments
and amounts paid in settlement based on, arising out of or
resulting from, among other things, Loews's ownership of or the
operation of Lorillard and its assets and properties, and its
operation or conduct of its businesses at any time prior to or
following the Separation (including with respect to any product
liability claims).

Loews is a defendant in three pending product liability cases,
each of which are purported Class Action Cases.  Pursuant to the
Separation Agreement, Lorillard is required to indemnify Loews for
the amount of any losses and any legal or other fees with respect
to such cases.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 23,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2013.

Lorillard, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of cigarettes.  Its principal products are
marketed under the brand names of Newport, Kent, True, Maverick
and Old Gold with substantially all of its sales in the United
States of America.  Lorillard recently acquired blu ecigs, the
leading electronic cigarette company in the U.S.  The Company is
based in Greensboro, North Carolina.


LORILLARD INC: Still Defends Tobacco Antitrust Suit v. Unit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard, Inc. still defends a subsidiary against a tobacco-
related antitrust lawsuit, according to the Company's October 23,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2013.

Lorillard, Inc.'s principal operating subsidiary, Lorillard
Tobacco Company, is a defendant in a Tobacco-Related Antitrust
Case.  Lorillard, Inc. is not a defendant in this case.  In 2000
and 2001, a number of cases were brought against cigarette
manufacturers, including Lorillard Tobacco, alleging that
defendants conspired to set the price of cigarettes in violation
of federal and state antitrust and unfair business practices
statutes.  The Plaintiffs sought class certification on behalf of
persons, who purchased cigarettes directly or indirectly from one
or more of the defendant cigarette manufacturers.  All of the
other cases have been either successfully defended or voluntarily
dismissed.

Lorillard, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of cigarettes.  Its principal products are
marketed under the brand names of Newport, Kent, True, Maverick
and Old Gold with substantially all of its sales in the United
States of America.  Lorillard recently acquired blu ecigs, the
leading electronic cigarette company in the U.S.  The Company is
based in Greensboro, North Carolina.


LORILLARD INC: West Virginia Suit vs. Unit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Lorillard Tobacco Company, Lorillard, Inc.'s principal operating
subsidiary, but not Lorillard Inc. is a defendant in the one
pending Class Action Case, in which the plaintiffs seek class
certification on behalf of groups of cigarette smokers, or the
estates of deceased cigarette smokers, who reside in West
Virginia.

Cigarette manufacturers, including Lorillard Tobacco, have
defeated motions for class certification in a number of cases.
Motions for class certification have also been ruled upon in some
of the "lights" cases or in other class actions to which neither
Lorillard Tobacco nor Lorillard, Inc. was a party.  In some of
these cases, courts have denied class certification to the
plaintiffs, while classes have been certified in other matters.

No further updates were reported in the Company's October 23,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2013.

Lorillard, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of cigarettes.  Its principal products are
marketed under the brand names of Newport, Kent, True, Maverick
and Old Gold with substantially all of its sales in the United
States of America.  Lorillard recently acquired blu ecigs, the
leading electronic cigarette company in the U.S.  The Company is
based in Greensboro, North Carolina.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Class Action Demands Athlete Health Monitoring
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Broady and Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, report that the
NCAA was hit on Nov. 19 with another putative class action in
Minnesota federal court brought by players who claim the
organization failed to protect them from serious head injuries
suffered while playing college football, demanding medical
monitoring benefits.

The suit was brought former Vanderbilt University football players
Paul Morgan and Cliff Deese and former University of Minnesota
linebacker Joseph Balthazor Jr., all of whom claim they are
enduring long-term aftereffects of traumatic injuries suffered
during their days as college student-athletes.  They say the NCAA
neglected its duty to educate players about the risks of the
sport, all while pocketing $750 million a year in revenue from
licensing and television rights.

The plaintiffs are suing on behalf of all former college football
players nationwide who did not end up playing professionally in
the National Football League, and are demanding the NCAA pay for
monitoring procedures to detect, prevent and treat cognitive
impairments.

"Plaintiffs and the members of the class have no adequate remedy
at law in that monetary damages alone cannot compensate them for
the increased risks of long-term physical and economic losses
associated with brain injury," the complaint said.  "Without a
court-supervised, NCAA-funded, comprehensive medical monitoring
program as described herein, the plaintiffs and the members of the
class will continue to face increased risks of injury and
disability."

The suit is one of several actions filed against the NCAA over its
purported failure to protect athletes from the risks of football-
related injuries.  Plaintiffs in two earlier actions have agreed
to mediation in recent months in proceedings that will both be
overseen by U.S. District Judge Layn Phillips -- the same mediator
who brokered the NFL's $765 million concussion settlement in
August.

The instant complaint points specifically to the NCAA's annual
Sports Medicine Handbook, which they say outlines a promise that
student-athletes can "rightfully assume that those who sponsor
intercollegiate athletics have taken reasonable precautions" to
limit exposure to injuries, according to the complaint.

Despite this promise, however, the organization has failed to
educate players about the long-term and life-altering effects of
head injuries, and failed to institute measures that might limit
their exposure to such injuries, the complaint said.

Mr. Morgan, a former fullback and four-year starter with
Vanderbilt, says he endured multiple traumatic head injuries over
the course of his college career that have caused him to suffer
persistent mood swings, headaches, numbness, memory loss and
fatigue and saddled him with substantial medical expenses,
according to the complaint.

Messrs. Deese and Balthazor likewise complain of disorientation,
irritability and other lingering health effects from their playing
days, and argue that they are entitled to medical monitoring from
the organization.

"As knowledge of the adverse consequences of head impacts in
football has grown, the NCAA has abstained from offering education
or needed medical monitoring to former college football players,"
the complaint said.  "In the face of their overwhelming and
superior knowledge of these risks, as compared to the limited
knowledge of the risks by the student-athletes, the NCAA's conduct
constitutes negligence and reckless endangerment."

Representatives for the NCAA were not immediately available for
comment on Nov. 20.

The plaintiffs are represented by James C. Selmer --
jselmer@jselmerlaw.com -- and Marc Berg -- mberg@jselmerlaw.com --
of J. Selmer Law PA.

Counsel information for the NCAA was not immediately available on
Nov. 20.

The case is Morgan et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, case number 0:13-cv-03174, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: O'Bannon Class Action Trial Scheduled for June
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Bachman, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
on Nov. 16, the call rang out through Twitter and text message:
Turn on CBS.  Georgia had erased Auburn's 20-point lead and clung
to a one-point edge with less than a minute to go.  Auburn
quarterback Nick Marshall faced fourth-and-18 from his own 27-yard
line.

Marshall launched a soaring pass.  Into double coverage.  It
bounced off a Georgia defender and floated like a diamond ring
above a drain, then landed in the hands of Auburn receiver Ricardo
Louis, who strode into the end zone. The Tigers went on to win,
43-38, as Georgia coaches collapsed onto the field in agony.

The Tigers, picked fifth in their own division before the season
but No. 6 nationally after Nov. 16, ride into their annual Iron
Bowl grudge match against top-ranked Alabama on Nov. 30 with a
Southeastern Conference title-game berth on the line, and maybe
more. (Auburn will be at home, by the way.)

But lost amid the Nov. 16 bedlam was a strange-but-true fact born
just eight days earlier: Marshall and Louis are suing the NCAA.
So is Aaron Murray, Georgia's quarterback.

In fact, every top-division football player you saw on Nov. 16 --
and even those you didn't see -- is suing college sports'
governing body.  They're part of a newly certified class-action
lawsuit that seeks certain slices of college-sports revenues, the
biggest of which is broadcast-rights contracts.  Before long, the
players who stop viewers' hearts with their play soon might
receive a portion of the millions those broadcasts generate.

It all happened so quietly, barely a ripple in the news, that many
players don't know they are involved in a lawsuit.  "None of the
players in our locker room talked about it," Northwestern
quarterback Kain Colter said.

Mr. Colter is active in a nonprofit group called the National
College Players Association, which advocates for players on issues
such as long-term health care and guaranteed four-year
scholarships rather than the current one-year renewable ones.  The
NCPA is the closest thing that college players have to a union,
but it lacks the authority to negotiate like pro-sports unions do
on such matters as TV revenue.

Mr. Colter isn't looking for NFL-type cash payments, but rather an
account funded by TV and licensing revenues that players could
access when they need it most: after college.

"Obviously football, basketball, it's been turned into a huge
business and it brings in a lot of money to the NCAA and to these
institutions," Mr. Colter said.  "It's only right to help out,
really, the employees who are bringing in this money."

The class action could make Mr. Colter's hopes a reality.  In
2009, former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon started the suit
because he thought it unfair that the NCAA could license his image
for a videogame or sell broadcast rights to games he played in
while prohibiting him from receiving any proceeds.

On Nov. 8, a federal judge declared the case a class action,
meaning that all Division I men's basketball players and bowl-
subdivision football players are suing the NCAA unless they opt
out.

The players can't recover funds already lost, the judge ruled, so
Mr. O'Bannon himself won't receive any windfalls under the class
action.  But a successful suit could force the NCAA to change the
way it does business and cut players in on burgeoning TV-rights
deals. (The plaintiffs aren't seeking any athletic-ticket or
donation funds, which currently make up most athletic revenues at
most schools.)

How much money are we talking about? The Pac-12 Conference has a
12-year, $3 billion broadcast-rights contract with ESPN and Fox.
The NCAA has a 14-year, $10.8 billion deal with CBS and Turner
Broadcasting to air the NCAA men's basketball tournament.  Those
are just two examples.

The plaintiffs had been seeking 50% of those kinds of contracts.
But the judge's ruling that players could only seek changes going
forward means that the portion could change under a settlement
agreement or in the wake of a plaintiffs' victory.

NCAA rules limit college-player compensation almost entirely to
athletic scholarships.  But even NCAA president Mark Emmert
acknowledges that those scholarships fall short of covering the
full expense of attending college.  That means that some stars of
the Nov. 16 spectacles -- such as Southern California's upset of
Stanford -- will end their college careers in debt.

A trial in the class-action case is scheduled for June.  But
plaintiffs' lawyers on Nov. 15 moved for a summary judgment, which
asks the judge to render a decision based on the facts already at
hand.  So a ruling could come even sooner.


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."


OHIO: Plaintiffs in Speed Camera Suit Seek Favorable Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan Sewell, writing for Associated Press, reports that people
suing a Cincinnati-area village over speeding tickets generated by
a camera system want a judge to rule in their favor without trial,
pointing out that he has already compared the camera enforcement
to a con game.

Their motion for summary judgment was filed on Nov. 19 with
Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Robert Ruehlman.  The judge
ruled recently that the original 2012 lawsuit can be expanded to
all drivers who paid speeding tickets received over the six months
before he ordered a halt to Elmwood Place's camera enforcement in
March.

The motion states that the facts of the case are clearly on the
plaintiffs' side.  It notes that Judge Ruehlman already has said
that the village's speed camera system was like a high-tech
version of a con artist card game, describing it as "a scam the
motorists can't win" in his March ruling that the village
ordinance was invalid and unenforceable.

Judge Ruehlman will hear arguments in the case Dec. 10.

Thousands of drivers are seeking refunds totaling of $1.76 million
in fines and other charges under the class action lawsuit, which
also seeks attorney fees besides a permanent injunction.

A message was left on Nov. 20 for an attorney for Elmwood Place.

Attorney Mike Allen filed the lawsuit last year for about a dozen
plaintiffs, including ticketed motorists and business owners who
said the blitz of $105 speeding tickets was chasing away
customers.

Other Ohio courts, including the state Supreme Court, have upheld
use of traffic cameras, and their use has spread across the United
States. Supporters say they stretch law enforcement resources to
make communities safer.  Opponents argue that governments are
using them to raise revenues at the expense of motorists' rights
such as due process.

The Elmwood Place case helped spur new lawsuits against camera
enforcement in the nearby village of New Miami, and in the
northern Ohio village of Lucas.


PESACH VODKA: Faces NIS240-Mil. Class Action Over Chametz
---------------------------------------------------------
Yeshiva World News reports that a NIS240 million class action
lawsuit has been filed by Aaron David Lupiansky and Eliezer
Nechemia Neuwirth after they learned that the kosher for Pesach
vodka they drank did not even have a kosher certification.  They
filed the lawsuit against James Richardson Duty Free.

They bought "Hava Nagilla" vodka from a reputable store in
Yerushalayim.  They explain they told the store employee that they
were looking for kosher L'Pesach vodka because they were going to
be a guest during yomtov and wished to present the vodka to the
host.  He was shown the bottle which displayed a label with a
mehadrin hechsher.

The bottle was purchased and presented to the host of their seder
as planned.  Several months after yomtov they saw a kashrus update
from the Chief Rabbinate of Israel Kashrus Enforcement Unit
stating the vodka was not certified kosher for Pesach or year
round.

They plaintiffs explain their "feeling of disgust, pain and
revulsion", adding that about a half year after learning the truth
they flew abroad and saw the very same vodka selling in duty free,
advertised as kosher, even after the publication of the Chief
Rabbinate bulletin.  This led to the decision to file a lawsuit
seeking damages for violating the prohibition of eating chametz on
Pesach, which carries a chiyuv of kares.

Attorney Dr. Moshe Fogel adds that the bottle does not display
nutritional information as required by law, another violation.
Roni Rahav, a spokesman for James Richardson told Mishpacha that
the lawsuit was being studied and the company will issue a
statement via the appropriate platform.


PILOT FLYING J: 1% of Class Members Opt Out of Settlement Offer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sara E. Shookman, writing for WKYC, reports that attorneys for
Pilot Flying J filed a motion on Nov. 18 asking a federal judge in
Arkansas to sign off on a class action settlement that is set to
be approved next week.

A hearing on the proposed $72 million settlement is scheduled to
be heard Nov. 25 in Little Rock.

In a memo in support of a joint motion for final approval,
attorneys wrote that only one percent of more than 6,000 trucking
company class members opted out of the settlement offer.

Aubrey Harwell and others who represent Cleveland Browns owner
Jimmy Haslam's family corporation say 59 unique companies opted
out of the settlement and chose to sue individually.  No companies
objected to the deal.

The memo also confirmed Pilot attorneys estimates on how much the
settlement could cost the truck stop giant.

Audits show class action members will receive reimbursement of $55
million, $4.1 million in interest and $14 million in attorney
fees.

The settlement terms reimburse trucking companies with 6 percent
interest for the millions in promised rebates that were never
paid, stemming from an April 15 FBI and IRS raid on Pilot's
Knoxville headquarters.

Following the raid, a 120-page affidavit from an FBI agent was
filed in federal court detailing a scheme to systematically
deprive truckers of promised diesel fuel rebates.

Seven former Pilot sales officials have already entered guilty
pleas to mail and wire fraud charges.  Jimmy Haslam, the company's
CEO, and a named defendant in the class action lawsuit, has denied
any knowledge of the scheme.

Opponents of the deal have argued that the settlement is
inadequate because it includes no provisions for damages suffered
by truckers due to the rebate reductions.

The Nov. 25 hearing is before U.S. District Judge James Moody, who
already has given preliminary approval to the package.


PILOT FLYING J: No Objections to Preliminary Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Ron Regan, writing for newsnet5.com, reports that a preliminary
settlement in a federal class action lawsuit involving Jimmy
Haslam's Pilot Flying J Travel Center has generated no formal
objections filed by trucking companies owed millions in fuel
rebates.

Court documents filed by Pilot Flying J reveal that "no class
member" chose to object to the terms of the settlement that would
pay trucking companies 100 percent of fuel rebates that are owed,
plus six percent interest.

Pilot estimates it will repay in excess of $55 million to trucking
companies whose accounts were shorted.

In addition, Pilot said "approximately one percent of the
settlement class has chosen to opt out of the settlement."

The motion was filed in advance of a Nov. 25 "fairness" hearing
that could grant final approval to the proposed settlement
agreement reach last July between Pilot Flying J and trucking
companies.

The number of those choosing to "opt out" represents "59 unique
members," although Pilot has said that figure includes
approximately 150 individual accounts.

Trucking companies that chose to "opt out" can pursue individual
lawsuits and there are at least 19 trucking companies that have
already filed civil complaints claiming they were cheated of
promised fuel rebates.

In a motion filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, Pilot argues that the proposed settlement is
fair, reasonable and adequate".

In addition, Pilot predicts "it is a near certainty" that trucking
companies "would not receive any greater benefits than will be
provided by this settlement."

Pilot said it has mailed notices to 6,146 trucking companies that
had accounts with the company.


POLK COUNTY, FL: Jail Class Action Scheduled for Trial
------------------------------------------------------
ABC Action News reports that the federal class-action lawsuit
filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) against Polk
County Sheriff Grady Judd was set to go to trial in Tampa on
Nov. 18.

The suit alleges juvenile offenders are being subjected to
dangerous conditions of confinement at the Polk County Jail.  The
SPLC claims jail staff stationed inside juvenile dorms are
exposing children to pepper spray for failing to obey orders,
playing kids in harsh isolation conditions without due process,
and treating children on suicide watch in a cruel manner.

The lawsuit also claims the Sheriff's Office is failing to provide
youth with a rehabilitative environment or with adequate mental
health care.

Sheriff Judd says the case is "the most outrageous lawsuit that we
have seen" and plans to vigorously defend his department in court.

A federal judge was set to begin hearing the case on Nov. 18 at
9:00 a.m. at the Federal Courthouse in downtown Tampa.


POLK COUNTY, FL: Trial on Juvenile Detainees' Class Action Opens
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Pleasant, writing for The Ledger, reports that the
security video shows a young man in a yellow jail uniform
virtually disappearing under the punches and kicks of cellmates.
Polk County deputies rush into frame, one wielding a stream of
pepper spray.

The seconds-long footage captured at Polk County Jail, dissected
frame by frame, opened the first day of testimony on Nov. 18 in a
federal lawsuit against the Polk County Sheriff's Office and
Corizon, a company it contracts to provide inmates with medical
care.

The young man attacked in the video, now in an adult's orange jail
uniform, took the stand to describe the scene for Southern Poverty
Law Center lawyers.

The nonprofit civil rights group filed the lawsuit, now a class
action, last year on behalf of seven juveniles.  They allege
overly harsh conditions at the jail caused by poor supervision,
inadequate rehabilitative programs and an overuse of pepper spray.
The jail typically houses 60 to 70 juveniles.

Sheriff Grady Judd, who has denied the allegations, defends his
use of pepper spray as a last resort for juveniles who refuse to
obey commands.  He credits it with ending confrontations before
they turn physical.

But Miriam Haskell, a Southern Poverty lawyer, told U.S. District
Judge Steven Merryday in her opening statement the chemical only
perpetuates violence.

"It's used at the jail to threaten and instill fear," Ms. Haskell
said.

Jonathan Trohn, a Lakeland lawyer representing the sheriff, argued
the Southern Poverty Law Center's accusations aren't
constitutional violations as alleged.  Juveniles rarely received
"objectively serious" injuries at the jail, he told the judge, and
pepper spray is used "little more than three times a month."

The judge must consider the predisposition of the juveniles,
Mr. Trohn argued, showing a picture of a shank that a fight-prone
boy made.  If the judge thinks jailhouse fights and suicide
attempts were caused by the sheriff's policies, he said, "you're
not seeing the whole picture."

Judge Merryday ordered the lawyers to refer to children involved
in the case by their initials only because they were minors when
incidents occurred.

Before the fight captured on video, J.P., the boy attacked, was
gathering his laundry.  He testified other juveniles told him they
didn't like boys from his town.  He later learned that boys in
another dorm then communicated to his cellmates using hand
signals: Attack J.P., and we'll reward you with cookies and candy
from the jail canteen.

In the video, a boy drops J.P. to the ground with a punch.
Another boy lifts him up to what appears waist level and then
drops him. Boys circle, landing blows with fists and feet.  J.P.
testified that no deputies were in sight when the sudden attack
broke out.

Deputies rushed in and one immediately fired a shot from a can of
pepper spray.

J.P. testified the deputy sprayed him at close range, even as he
was on the ground, soaking his hair with the chemical.

"It's like putting gas on someone and setting them aflame," J.P
said.

J.P. later told staff the deputies reacted appropriately during
the Jan. 22, 2012, incident but changed his mind.

"They didn't have to pepper spray me," he told lawyers, saying by
the time deputies intervened he was fighting with one other
cellmate.  "It was me and another juvenile, so they could have
pulled us apart."

J.P., now 18 and housed in the Polk County Jail as an adult,
described the few activities juveniles had to occupy themselves.
UNO cards. Checkers.  Football, of a sort, using a ball the boys
fashioned themselves from a sock and roll of toilet paper.

After deputies learned he was working with the Southern Poverty
Law Center, the guards discouraged him from participating in the
litigation, he said, and some of them called him by a derogatory
name for people who report crime -- snitch.

J.P. returned to jail another time after the lawsuit was underway
and noticed several changes that staff told him resulted from the
litigation.

Juveniles could earn treats in a point system and watch more
movies.

At recreation, they had a new toy: A Nerf football.

Testimony was set to continue on Nov. 19.


PRETIUM RESOURCES: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Pretium
Resources, Inc., on Nov. 18 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a class comprising all
purchasers of Pretium securities between January 19, 2011, and
October 21, 2013, inclusive.

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

Pretium engages in the acquisition, exploration and development of
precious metal resource properties in the Americas.  One of the
Company's main mineral resource projects is an advanced stage
gold-silver exploration project focused on exploration of mineral
reserves in the Valley of Kings ("VOK") zone in northwestern
British Columbia.  Pretium engaged Strathcona Mineral Services
Ltd. as independent "Qualified Persons" to oversee the Valley of
the Kings bulk sample program and prepare a report at the
conclusion of the project concerning mineral resource estimates.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented or failed
to disclose that:

   -- The mineral resources, potential mineral reserves and
potential gold production in the VOK zone were exaggerated.

   -- The Company's sampling methodology for the Valley of the
Kings Bulk Sample Program was unreliable and misleading.

On October 22, 2013, Pretium announced the withdrawal of
Strathcona from the Valley of the Kings Bulk Sample Program before
any results from the processing of the bulk sample were available.
According to the Company, in withdrawing from the program
Strathcona advised Pretium that "there are no valid gold mineral
resources for the VOK Zone, and without mineral resources there
can be no mineral reserves, and without mineral reserves there can
be no basis for a Feasibility Study."  Strathcona also advised
Pretium that statements included in all recent press releases by
Pretium about probable mineral reserves and future gold production
from the Valley of the Kings zone over a 22-year mine life are
"erroneous and misleading."  Following this news, Pretium declined
27%, or $1.27 per share, to close on October 22, 2013, at $3.36
per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

If you are a member of the Class described above you may move the
Court no later than December 24, 2013, to serve as lead plaintiff;
however, you must meet certain legal requirements.  If you wish to
learn more about this action, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles, California 90067, Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, or contact
Gregory Linkh, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP at 122 E.
42nd Street, Suite 2920, New York, New York 10168, at (212) 682-
5340, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website
at http://www.glancylaw.com

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


ROBERT BOSCH: Indian Employee Files Class Action Over Tax Refunds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NDTVProfit.com reports that an Indian techie has filed a lawsuit
against German multinational Bosch for allegedly compelling Indian
employees in the US to transfer their tax refunds to the company.

Suraj Kamath, who has filed a class action lawsuit in the federal
court of Los Angeles, has charged Bosch with unjustly enriching
itself by asking all of its non-US citizen employees to transfer
tax (federal and state) refunds to the company.

It is estimated that at least 160 persons are class members.  The
complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief.

"I worked diligently for Bosch for years.  When I objected to
Bosch's demand to pay back all tax refunds I had received, Bosch
threatened to fire me, send me back to India, and make my life
miserable.  The way Bosch treats its employees is wrong and that's
why I am standing up to Bosch for myself and my fellow colleagues
at Bosch," Mr. Kamath alleged.

Mr. Kamath, a citizen of India, began working for Robert Bosch
Engineering and Business Solutions, in India in 2005.  In
March 2009, the company transferred Mr. Kamath to the US, where he
worked as a project manager in Santa Barbara, California, until
May 2013.

"All Bosch employees should receive their full wages, and that
includes the tax refunds they are entitled to. These employees
deserve to be treated fairly, and not have their livelihoods
threatened for insisting that Bosch comply with the law,"
Daniel M. Hutchinson, counsel for Mr. Kamath and the proposed
class, said in a statement.

The complaint alleges that on December 21, 2012, Bosch sent
letters to Mr. Kamath and other employees listing the amounts of
tax refunds the employee had received for tax years 2006 through
2011.

Bosch directed that the employee "repay this amount" to Bosch by
check before January 15, 2013, or arrange for payroll deductions
by no later than December 27, 2012, the complaint alleges.

The tax refund amounts sought by Bosch totaled in the tens of
thousands of dollars for many employees.

According to complaint, Mr. Kamath objected to Bosch's demand. In
response, Bosch allegedly threatened to sack Mr. Kamath.

Bosch managers allegedly told Mr. Kamath that, "We will make sure
that your career is destroyed and you will not be able to find a
job anywhere.  We will make your life miserable if you don't sign
(the declaration promising to pay back to Bosch the tax refunds
you received)."

Following Mr. Kamath's refusal to comply with the company's
demand, Bosch asked Mr. Kamath to return to India in May 2013.
The company also refused to pay Mr. Kamath a performance pay
amount for work done in 2012.

Other Bosch employees who complied with Bosch's coercive tactics
have had the tax refund amounts taken by the company through
payroll deductions, the complaint alleged.

There was no immediate reaction from Bosch.


SIMMTECH: Kim & Bae Law Firm Files Forex Manipulation Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ji Myung-kil, writing for Arirang News, reports that the first
class action lawsuit has been filed by a Korean company in the
U.S. over alleged manipulation of exchange rates by global banks.

The U.S.-based law firm Kim & Bae said on Nov. 17 it had filed the
lawsuit against Britain-based Barclays, U.S.-based Citigroup, JP
Morgan Chase, Swiss banking giant Credit Suisse and various other
financial groups at the U.S. District Court for Southern District
of New York on behalf of Korean electronics parts maker Simmtech.
Simmtech accused foreign exchange dealers at the banks of working
together to manipulate exchange rates through electronic chat
rooms called The Bandit's Club and The Cartel, or by exchanging
text messages.

Korean companies have complained that they suffered losses because
of the alleged fiddling of a key currency index that determines
rates in the foreign exchange market.

The Korean company also filed a lawsuit against Citibank in July
to seek compensation for heavy losses from investment in the so-
called knock-in-knock-out currency options offered by Citibank
Korea.

It alleges that the U.S. bank did not provide enough information
about the risks involved in the options when it signed the
contract in late 2000s, believing it hedged against sudden changes
in the value of the Korean won.


STARBUCKS CORP: Faces Class Action in Oregon Over "Phantom Wage"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Dixon Kavanaugh, writing for The Oregonian, reports that
some Starbucks workers are earning less than minimum wage because
of a "phantom wage" the company tacks on to employee pay stubs in
lieu of unreported tips, a class-action lawsuit charges.

The complaint, filed Nov. 15 in Oregon federal court by three
former workers, claims the coffee giant discourages employees from
reporting their tips and instead illegally adds 50 cents an hour
to their pay stubs and W-2 forms.

"Starbucks just makes up that phantom number out of thin air," the
suit claims, adding that the company "willfully filed fraudulent
information."

The complaint alleges that Starbucks' practice violates the Fair
Labor Standards Act, which prohibits deductions from an employee's
pay that brings it below the minimum wage.

The suit, represented by attorney Jon Egan of Lake Oswego, also
claims that the company is not required by state or federal law to
withhold taxes from unreported tips.

Plaintiffs are seeking an injunction, damages for wage and hour
violations and at least $5,000.

A federal judge last month dismissed a similar suit filed by the
plaintiffs.

Laurel Harper, a Starbucks spokeswoman, defended the company's
current policy.  "We're in full compliance with state and federal
laws on how tips are taxed," she said.


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.


TORONTO: Residents, Businesses Mull Class Action v. Mayor
---------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Keung, writing for Toronto Star, reports that a new
website has been launched to recruit claimants for a class-action
lawsuit against Mayor Rob Ford, claiming that he was negligent and
acted in bad faith in his role as mayor.

"I'm sick and tired of it.  Enough is enough.  I can't handle it
any more.  I can't sit on the couch and do nothing," said Toronto
lawyer Jose Rodrigues, who launched stoprob.org at 9:00 p.m. on
Nov. 19.  "I'm trying to gather forces and move it ahead."

To proceed to court, the claim would need to have a lead plaintiff
and then be approved by a judge.

In a draft statement of claim posted on the website,
Mr. Rodrigues, a fresh graduate from the University of Ottawa law
school, is seeking $5.2 million in total damages -- approximately
a dollar for each Toronto resident in general plus a dollar each
in punitive damages.

The plaintiffs will include residents of Toronto "whose reputation
has been negatively impacted by the defendant's admission to
smoking crack cocaine coupled with his refusal to resign."

It will also represent the businesses affected by the subsequent
devaluation of the "Toronto Brand, causing the plaintiffs future
loss of business opportunities."

Within 30 minutes of the launch of the website, Mr. Rodrigues said
"dozens" of people signed up as potential plaintiffs to represent
other Torontonians in the planned action, which he hopes to file
this week.

"In admitting to using crack cocaine and remaining in office, the
Defendant blatantly breached his duty to consider the well-being
and interests of the City," says the seven-page proposed statement
of claim.

"Secondly, the Defendant's numerous displays of intoxication while
in public and his admission to smoking crack cocaine coupled with
his persistence to remain in office breached his duty to maintain
the fiscal integrity of the city."

Mr. Rodrigues, 28, who articled at the federal justice department
and specializes in civil litigation, says the Toronto "brand" is
an essential asset of the city, worth millions of dollars.

He cited media reports and opinions of marketing experts and
businessmen to support his claims.

"The defendant's 'drunken stupors' tarnish the value of the
Toronto brand and jeopardized the value of one of the city's most
significant assets -- its brand," he said.  "We have worked so
hard to make Toronto a top-notch city."


TREASURY WINE: Class Action May Reach AU$100 Million, IMF Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Saunders, writing for DataRoom, reports that litigation
funder IMF's class action against Treasury Wine Estates could
reach AU$100 million and has gained strong interest from investors
in the United States, on both the retail and institutional level.

IMF Australia is drumming up support from current and former
shareholders in a bid to achieve a claim over its AUD30 million
minimum threshold before Christmas.  Investors who bought shares
between 2012 and 2013 may be eligible to take part in the class
action.  The claim size could grow to AU$100 million, based on the
formula favored by the litigation funder.

The formula measures share price losses incurred by investors in
the period the market was alleged to have been misled by Treasury,
from August 17, 2012 until the wine giant's shock announcement on
July 15 this year of AU$155 million in writedowns of its inventory
in the United States, which sent its share price 20 per cent
lower.

IMF will allege that TWE breached its disclosure obligations over
the performance of its US operations in the period and engaged in
misleading and deceptive conduct.

Treasury has strongly denied any allegations of wrongdoing and
said it will defend any class action proceedings "vigorously".

DataRoom reported in September speculation that Treasury's market
disclosure practices could be the target of a class action, after
the  group removed chief executive David Dearie for failing to
keep a close enough eye on the winemaker's troubled US market.

Treasury Wine Estates' top 20 shareholder register is opaque, with
most held in the name of banking custodians.  Substantial
shareholders include The Capital Group, BlackRock, Scottish
investment management firm Baillie Gifford & Co and mutual fund
giant Fidelity Investments, according to Bloomberg data.  Some of
the Australia's biggest superannuation and industry funds also
have holdings in Treasury.

IMF's class action comes amid growing scrutiny of litigation
funders. The Productivity Commission is examining the industry as
part of its current inquiry into access to justice.

Amid the discussion of the role of litigation funders, some
company directors have come out and said they are more scared of
class actions than of the country's regulators.


* Australian Bondholders Wary About Rising Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
Cecile Lefort, writing for Reuters, reports that investors in
Australian corporate bonds need to weigh more than market
movements and a company's prospects these days -- they also have
to follow which firms get hit with class action lawsuits, and
guess how much damage these might cause.

Australia has one of the world's friendliest legal systems for
class action suits, and some well-known companies have been sued
by unhappy shareholders.

Class action lawsuits have become so common that a global law
firm, Herbert Smith Freehills, calls them the second biggest risk
for corporate Australia, behind regulatory compliance and
governance issues.

"Around 10 years ago, there were almost no shareholder class
actions," said Jason Betts -- jason.betts@hsf.com -- a
Sydney-based partner at Herbert Smith Freehills.  "Since that
time, more than 30 investor and shareholder class actions have
commenced and a great number more have been threatened."

One factor driving class actions is the growth of "litigation
funders", who pay for fighting companies in court in exchange for
a share of any settlement or judgment.

The website of IMF Australia, a listed company that says it is the
country's largest litigation funder, asserts it has recovered more
than A$1 billion (US$942 million) for clients in the past decade.

Bond investors are concerned about the growing number of such
lawsuits because of their potential to impact a company's cash
flow.

"We don't like class actions because in our business any
uncertainty hurts," said Vivek Prabhu, senior portfolio manager at
Perpetual Limited which has about A$4.5 billion in cash and fixed
income investments.

"If a claim is successful, trying to quantify the likely payment
is hard and if you have that uncertainty, you'll buy something
that does not have that uncertainty," he said.

For example, due to then-ongoing litigation, Perpetual did not
invest in bonds that global energy giant BP Plc issued following a
massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

                      Centro's Big Settlement

Settlements of Australian class-action suits have topped A$1
billion.  The largest was Centro Properties Group's payment of
A$200 million.  The group, now called CNPR, said at the time that
proceedings "have been dismissed without admission of liability by
CNPR."

Also in 2012, Nufarm paid A$46.6 million>, also stating the suit
was dismissed without any admission of liability by the company.

Among firms now in litigation is construction company Leighton
Holdings, which the plaintiffs have accused of breaching
disclosure obligations relating to allegations of bribery and
corruption overseas.  Leighton says there is no basis for the
claim.

Asset managers said that among the firms most at risk of facing
class-action suits are mining and construction companies,
especially those operating in emerging markets that have instances
of business practices which are illegal in most developed markets.


Australia, along with the United States and Canada, is among the
few countries allowing a comprehensive class action regime, with
shareholder class actions the most popular type.

Also underpinning this is Australia's strict liability regime for
corporations to continuously disclose information.  This makes the
nation a particularly attractive forum for class-action promoters,
including for firms from overseas.

Mr. Betts of Herbert Smith Freehills expects the number of suits
to rise, along with the size of claims.

A group of individuals calling itself Unhappy Banking has
threatened to sue the nation's top lender by market value,
Commonwealth Bank of Australia, in connection with a bank
takeover.  A CBA spokesman said "Given no action has been brought
by Unhappy Banking, we are not able to comment."


* Companies May Use CCAA to Resolve Securities Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Teresa Bitti, writing for Financial Post, reports that a new
cottage industry is emerging within the world of securities class
actions in which plaintiffs are resolving claims through
Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.

At least that's what insolvency expert Derrick Tay of Gowling
Lafleur Henderson LLP foresees.  And for good reason: he points to
a class action against Sino-Forest Corp. brought by investors
after the forestry firm was accused of fraud.

"In Sino-Forest, one of the three groups of class action
plaintiffs identified themselves very early, participated in the
CCAA process, and got a C$117-million settlement with the
company's primary auditors Ernst & Young, as part of the
restructuring plan," says Mr. Tay, who represented the monitor in
the Sino-Forest CCAA process.

"The message is the class action system does not trump the CCAA
process.  The smart plaintiff now jumps in quickly and plays his
game in the CCAA process."

The CCAA process provides an attractive opportunity for market
participants to obtain a global release preventing further claims.
That's what Ernst & Young was granted as a result of a class
action settlement that forms part of Sino-Forest's CCAA
restructuring plan.

"The CCAA can be an impetus for a fair and reasonable and
relatively expeditious resolution, if all goes well," says
Dimitri Lascaris, leader of the securities class action group at
Siskinds LLP.  "Because of that potential, filing for CCAA
protection seems to be happening with increasing frequency in the
securities class actions context."

Filing for CCAA protection is the Canadian equivalent of a filing
for Chapter 11 under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The statute allows
a court to grant a stay of proceedings against an insolvent
company, its directors, officers and others.  The freeze creates a
hiatus so that the company can do triage to stop the bleeding.
The court appoints a licensed trustee in bankruptcy -- the
"monitor" -- who helps the debtor come up with a restructuring
plan and who ensures no creditor is unfairly prejudiced.

The freeze stops all debts and lawsuits -- including class
actions.  "If the company is going to restructure, management and
directors cannot be distracted by defending lawsuits.  That's why
stay orders are routinely granted," explains Robert Staley,
partner at Bennett Jones LLP, which represented Sino-Forest.

In Sino Forest, with limited exceptions the class action was
stayed in its entirety until the company emerged from CCAA
protection in January 2013.  That did not stop the parties from
negotiating a settlement.  In fact, the CCAA and class action
judges collaborated and encouraged the parties to settle.  "The
two courts will often collaborate to the extent there are things
that have to get done in the class action to make sure nobody's
rights are prejudiced while the stay is in place," says
Mr. Staley.

Of course, it's not always possible to negotiate a resolution. "In
this scenario, the plaintiffs' claims against the [original]
company have been extinguished and you've been delayed a
significant amount of time," Mr. Lascaris says.  "The worst
outcome [from the plaintiffs' perspective] is a forced resolution
that results in little or no compensation to the class."

Some plaintiffs opposed the E&Y settlement, but their objections
were dismissed by the Ontario judge who approved it last May.
Also, the settlement against E&Y doesn't halt ongoing claims
against other auditors, banks, underwriters and officers.

This is where class action plaintiffs can use CCAA to good effect.
Equity claims in a CCAA have no standing because the company is
insolvent, but CCAA can be used as leverage to help settle claims
with third parties, Mr. Tay explains.

"As part of our plan, we provided a mechanism going forward so
anyone who comes to a subsequent settlement can still use the
benefit of the plan.  That is the real value and intersection of
the two sides: The ability to use the CCAA to get global releases
in order to get the best settlement from both the plaintiffs'
perspective and from the third parties' perspective."


* Opt-Outs More Likely in Large Securities Class Suit Settlements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A new report by Cornerstone Research in conjunction with Latham &
Watkins LLP provides a first-ever comprehensive analysis of the
characteristics of opt-out securities cases.  In these cases, at
least one putative class member excludes itself from the class in
order to pursue a separate lawsuit against the defendant.  Not
surprisingly, plaintiffs are more likely to bring opt-out cases
stemming from larger class action settlements.  About 53 percent
of class actions with class settlements of at least $500 million
had at least one related opt-out case, compared with 3 percent of
all class action settlements.

"This paper sheds new light on the prevalence of opt-out cases
from securities class actions," said Adel Turki, a senior vice
president of Cornerstone Research and head of the firm's finance
practice.  "While opt-outs are still infrequent, the large impact
they can have on class action cases should not be ignored."

Opt-out settlement plaintiffs received an average of 12.5 percent
of the value of the class action settlement and in some cases more
than 20 percent.  Pension funds and other institutional investors
file the majority of opt-out cases.

Christopher Harris, a securities litigation partner from Latham &
Watkins, noted, "One of the most interesting findings is that the
bulk of opt-out settlements involved pension funds, who are trying
(sometimes unsuccessfully) to increase their own payouts, but may
be jeopardizing the ability of other investors to reach a
settlement.  Defendants may need to consider the likelihood of
opt-out cases particularly in cases where a large portion of the
shares are held by pension funds."

Key Findings

    Out of 1,272 securities class action settlements between
January 1, 1996, and December 31, 2011, the report identified 38
cases in which at least one plaintiff opted out of the class
action settlement and pursued a separate case against the
defendant.  The authors obtained opt-out settlement amount
information in 21 of these 38 cases.

    In cases with opt-outs, opt-out settlement plaintiffs received
an average of 12.5 percent of the value of the class action
settlement and a median of 3.8 percent.

    The report identified six cases, the last of which settled in
2006, in which opt-out settlements exceeded 20 percent of the
class action settlement value.

    The report found seven cases with opt-out settlements above
$10 million, all related to class actions that settled between
November 2004 and November 2007.

                        About the Authors

Amir Rozen is a principal in the New York office of Cornerstone
Research. Joshua B. Schaeffer is a senior economist in the New
York office of Cornerstone Research.  Christopher Harris is a
partner in the New York office of Latham & Watkins.

                      Cornerstone Research

For more than 25 years, Cornerstone Research staff have provided
economic and financial analysis and expert testimony in all phases
of complex litigation and regulatory proceedings.  The firm's
industry-leading research is recognized for its innovative
reporting on securities class actions and modeling of settlement
outcomes.  Cornerstone Research staff have expertise in trade
execution and pricing, risk management, market microstructure,
public and private equity and fixed income, structured finance,
and derivatives.

Cornerstone Research -- http://www.cornerstone.com-- has 450
staff and offices in Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Menlo Park, New
York, San Francisco, and Washington.

                      Latham & Watkins LLP

Latham & Watkins -- http://www.lw.com-- is a global law firm with
approximately 2,100 lawyers in its offices located in the world's
major financial, business and regulatory centers in Asia, Europe,
the Middle East and the United States.  Among Latham's wide
spectrum of expertise in transactional, litigation, corporate and
regulatory areas, Latham's Securities Litigation & Professional
Liability Practice Group has successfully advised on some of the
most high-profile actions filed since passage of the 1995 Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act handling more than 1,000 cases
during the past decade.


                             *********

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  * * *