CAR_Public/131203.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, December 3, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 239

                             Headlines


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Has Shoddy Security Protocols, Class Claims
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Consumer Group Objects to Merger Settlement
AMERICAN BREAST CANCER: Fraction of Funds Used Properly, Suit Says
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: NY Sup. Ct. Tosses "Erlich" Class Action
ANGELCARE: Recalls 600,000 Baby Monitors Due to Choking Risk

BLINDS GALORE: Corded Window Blinds and Shades Recalled in Canada
BLYTH INC: Faces Securities Suit Over Proposed Sale to CVSL
BURLINGTON COAT: Nationwide Class Cert. Bid in Chalker Suit Tossed
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Directed to Produce Information by Dec. 2
CREMINELLI FINE: Recalls Ready-To-Eat Pork Roast Products

CUISINART: Recalls 7-Cup Food Processors Over Laceration Hazard
CVS PHARMACY: Sued by Floater Pharmacists for Unpaid Overtime
DELMONACO SPECIALTY: Recalls Bolognese Sauce Products
DEPUY ORTHOPEDICS: Pennsylvania Woman Files Hip Implant Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Teens' Photos

FEDEX CORP: Judge Approves $16.5-Mil. Class Action Settlement
FIFTH THIRD: Labor Dep't. Files Petition to Revisit 401(K) Suit
FIGUEROA GROUP: Class Cert. Denial in "Carter" Suit Upheld
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Securities Shareholder Class Action
IMH FINANCIAL: Kurtz Parties Agree to Dismiss Settlement Appeal

INTEVATION FOOD: Recalls Chicken Fettuccine Alfredo Products
JAYONE FOODS: Recalls Trader Joe's Dried Seaweed Salad
JEAN MADELINE: Accused of Paying Students Less Than Minimum Wage
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hundreds of Women Join Mesh Class Action
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Offers Hip Replacement Settlement Program

L'OREAL USA: Court Declines Final OK of "Richardson" Suit Accord
LAZZARI FUEL: Accused of Fixing Prices of Mesquite Charcoal
MARINA'S GERMAN: Recalls Two-Count Packages of Pastry Products
MINDSPEED TECHNOLOGIES: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
MOLEX INCORPORATED: Faces Securities Suit Over Koch Merger

MOLEX INC: Faces Shareholder Suit by George Leon Family Trust
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Football, Basketball Players Class Certified
NEW ZEALAND: Canterbury Homeowners Meet to Discuss Settlement
NOVARTIS PHARMA: Zometa Plaintiffs Can Seek Punitive Damages
OFFICEMAX: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval

OHIO: Accused of Shortchanging Workers Comp Recipients
PHYSIQUE ENHANCING: Recalls Enhanced & Alphamine Products
PILOT FLYING J: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Approval
POLICE UNION: Violates False Advertising Laws, Suit Says
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Sued Over Delayed Death Benefits' Interest

RJ REYNOLDS: Appeal Court Upholds $27MM Tobacco Suit Judgment
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Securities Lawsuit in Florida Now Closed
ROYAL CARRIBEAN: Stateroom Attendants Appeal Dismissal of Suit
SEI INVESTMENTS: Dismissal of Lawsuit v. Subsidiary Affirmed
SEI INVESTMENTS: Faces Suits in La. Over "Unfair" Trade Practice

SERVICE CORPORATION: Certification of Case by Decedent Reversed
SERVICE CORPORATION: Dismissal of Suit v. SCI Under Appeal
SERVICE CORPORATION: "Helm" Plaintiff Appeals Decertification
SERVICE CORPORATION: Suit Over Steward Acquisition on Hold
SUMMERLIN HOSPITAL: Tuberculosis Investigation Spurs Class Action

SUTTER HEALTH: Suit Over Health Care Market Monopoly Dismissed
TESLA MOTORS: Faces "Rahimi" Securities Class Suit in California
TESLA MOTORS: Baltodano Files Securities Class Suit in Calif.
TREASURY WINE: Maurice Blackburn Dismisses Chief's Criticism
UBC: Judge Allows Suit Over Destroyed Sperm Samples to Proceed

UNITED STATES: May Defend Itself Against Suit Over AIG Bailout
USPLABS LLC: Faces Suit Over Recalled OxyELITE Pro Supplement
WELLS FARGO: Breach of Contract Claim in "Jackson" Suit Dismissed
WOODBURY COUNTY, IA: Court Narrows Claims in "Clay" Case

* Bill for Stricter Regulations on Compounding Pharmacies Passed
* SEC Plans for Tougher Law Enforcement Amid Securities Cases


                             *********


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Has Shoddy Security Protocols, Class Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Adobe Systems' "shoddy security protocols" allowed hackers to
steal credit card and log-in data from 38 million people last
month -- a fiasco 13 times larger than Adobe initially reported,
Courthouse News Service reports, citing a class action in
California Federal Court.

"The massive breach did not come as a surprise to industry experts
familiar with Adobe's security practices who warned that Adobe's
shoddy security protocols and track record of previous breaches
made it susceptible to massive hack of the scope and depth that
resulted," lead plaintiff Christian Halpain says in the lawsuit.

Adobe announced the security breach on Oct. 3, stating that
hackers had stolen 3 million credit and debit card records and
log-in data from an undetermined number of users, Halpain claims.
She says Adobe later acknowledged that about 38 million users had
been affected.

"Adobe promises its users that it will provide 'reasonable
administrative, technical, and physical security controls' to
protect their PII [personally identifiable information] and
represents that it uses industry-leading security practices to do
so, but Adobe's actual security practices are substandard in the
industry and continue to result in breaches of Adobe's networks
and software," according to the lawsuit.

Halpain seeks class certification and punitive damages for breach
of contract, breach of faith, unfair competition and violation of
the California Data Breach Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric Gibbs, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California St., 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: ehg@GirardGibbs.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Consumer Group Objects to Merger Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Brown, writing for Reuters, reports that a group of consumers
who have sued American Airlines' bankrupt parent over its proposed
merger with US Airways Group are now objecting to a settlement
that would allow that merger to go forward.

California resident Carolyn Fjord, leading a proposed class of
plaintiffs in an antitrust lawsuit against the two airlines, filed
court papers on Nov. 21 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan,
arguing that consumers would be hurt by the tie-up, which would
create the world's largest airline.

It was the only objection filed ahead of a midday deadline to
oppose the settlement, which was reached earlier this month in a
separate dispute between the airlines and the U.S. Department of
Justice.

The DOJ had blocked the deal, which was to serve as the basis for
American parent AMR Corp's exit from bankruptcy.  The sides
settled after the airlines agreed to give low-cost competitors
more access to several key U.S. airports, including in New York
and Washington.

The settlement still needs bankruptcy court approval before the
merger can close and AMR can exit bankruptcy.  A court hearing was
scheduled for Nov. 25.

The Fjord group, whose lawsuit against the airlines is pending, is
seeking a temporary restraining order to keep the deal from
closing.

"The proposed merger will create undue concentration in the
airline industry in the United States and may result in increases
in fares, reduction of capacity and availability of flights,
reduced services, charges for amenities, loss of jobs" and other
issues, the group said in the Nov. 21 filing.

An AMR spokesman declined to comment on Nov. 21.  A spokeswoman
for US Airways had no immediate comment.

The airlines have rejected the group's allegations, saying in
court papers that the move would not harm competition.


AMERICAN BREAST CANCER: Fraction of Funds Used Properly, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Isabella Janovick, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. American Breast Cancer Foundation, Inc., a Maryland
Corporation; and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:13-cv-02697-DMS-
KSC (S.D. Cal., November 8, 2013) alleges that instead of the
millions of dollars raised in the name of protecting underserved
populations from breast cancer, the vast majority of the millions
raised goes to ABCF's operators and the for-profit companies ABCF
hires to solicit donations, like corporate fundraisers.

Ms. Janovick contends that this means that a mere fraction from
every dollar raised actually goes to people in need.  She asserts
that the Defendant fails to disclose this fact to its donors.

ABCF is a Maryland corporation and a charitable organization
subject to tax exemption under the Internal Revenue Code.  ABCF's
mission statement states: "to provide financial assistance for
breast cancer screenings and diagnostic tests for uninsured and
underserved individuals, regardless of age or gender."  The true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown
to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          Richard H. Hikida, Esq.
          Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
          NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
          4100 Newport Place Drive, Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949)706-6464
          Facsimile: (949)706-6469
          E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com
                  rhikida@trialnewport.com
                  vknowles@trialnewport.com


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: NY Sup. Ct. Tosses "Erlich" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich of the Supreme Court of New York
County granted motions to dismiss the class action captioned NUSYN
ERLICH, A/KA/ NATHAN ERLICH and CHAYA ERLICH, INDIVIDUALLY and ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN
INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC., NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE CO., and
EVEREST REINSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, 652672/2012, 2013 NY Slip
Op 51827(U).

This putative class action challenged the ability of insurance
companies to retain settlement proceeds in subrogation actions
against deep pocketed third-party tortfeasors, when the insured
has recovered the full value of the policy, but not its uninsured
losses.  The Plaintiffs' operative pleading listed six causes of
action: (1) a declaratory judgment as to defendants' subrogation
business practices; (2) injunctive relief as to such practices;
(3) violation of the doctrine of equitable subrogation; (4)
violation of GBL Section 349; (5) unjust enrichment and
constructive trust; and (6) an accounting.  Plaintiffs contend
that they are entitled to two categories of damages: (a) "held
back" amount of $11,547.20, contending that they are entitled to a
full reimbursement of their deductible and that the Policy does
not entitle NHIC to hold back depreciation, and (b) Everest must
disgorge its settlement with Greenway Home Products, Inc. since an
insurance company is not entitled to keep subrogation proceeds
until its insured has been fully compensated for all of its
uninsured losses.  Defendants American International Group, Inc.
(AIG), New Hampshire Insurance Co. (NHIC), and Everest Reinsurance
Company (Everest) filed the motions to dismiss.

Justice Kornreich ruled that plaintiffs' claim to the "held back"
amount is wholly without merit as the Policy expressly permits the
depreciation deduction. In addition, she said, neither the policy
nor any New York legal authority supports plaintiffs' contention
that they are entitled to a refund of their deductible.  As for
plaintiffs' claims against AIG, the claims would warrant dismissal
even if plaintiffs' claims survived against NHIC and Everest,
since AIG, a holding company, has no contractual relationship to
plaintiffs, did not issue any relevant insurance or reinsurance,
and was not a party to the Subrogation Action. AIG simply has
nothing to do with this case, ruled the Supreme Court.
Accordingly, the Amended Complaint is dismissed with prejudice,
Justice Kornreich concluded.

A copy of the Supreme Court's November 7, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/RcbYW5from Leagle.com.

Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik, LLP & Ambrecht & Maloney, PLLC for
plaintiffs.

Robinson & Cole LLP, for AIG and NHIC.

Budd Larner, P.C., for Everest.


ANGELCARE: Recalls 600,000 Baby Monitors Due to Choking Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in cooperation
with Angelcare Monitors Inc.(R), of Quebec, Canada, is announcing
a voluntary recall to provide cord covers for 600,000 Angelcare
Movement and Sound Monitors with Sensor Pads.  The cord attached
to the baby monitor's sensor pad is placed under the crib
mattress, which poses a strangulation risk if the child pulls the
cord into the crib and it becomes wrapped around the neck.

Angelcare and CPSC have received reports of two infant cord
strangulation deaths.  In November 2011, a 13-month-old female
died in San Diego, California, and, in August 2004, an 8-month-old
female died in Salem, Oregon.  In both fatalities, the cord from
the sensor pads was pulled into the crib by the infant.  In
addition, there have been two reports of infants who became
entangled in cords of Angelcare baby monitor models, which did not
result in fatalities.  In these incidents, it could not be
determined if the "sensor pad cord" or the "monitor cord" was
involved in the incident.

The recall involves the Movement and Sound Monitor manufactured by
Angelcare.  This design of baby monitor includes a unique sensor
pad placed inside the crib, under the mattress, to monitor
movement of the baby.  An electrical cord about 11 feet long is
permanently connected from the sensor pad to the nursery monitor
unit.  The hazard is created by a cord within reach of a baby
inside the crib.  The cord can be pulled into the crib and can
wrap around the child's neck. The recall involves all versions of
Angelcare sensor monitors including model numbers:  AC1100, AC201,
AC300, AC401 AC601 and 49255 that did not include rigid cord
covers, offered in the remedy.  The model number is located on the
back of the nursery monitor unit.  The monitors were manufactured
between 1999 and 2013.

Angelcare is providing consumers with a repair kit that includes
rigid protective cord covers through which the sensor pad cords
can be threaded, a new, permanent electric cord warning label
about the strangulation risk, and revised instructions.

The recalled baby monitors were sold at Babies R Us/Toys R Us,
Burlington Coat Factory, Meijer, Sears, Walmart, Amazon.com,
Target.com, Overstock.com, and nearly 70 small baby specialty
stores, from October 1999 through September 2013 for about $100to
$300.

Consumers should immediately make sure cords are placed out of
reach of the child and contact Angelcare toll-free at (855)355-
2643 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or
visit the firm's website at http://www.angelcarebaby.comto order
the free repair kit.

In February 2011, CPSC issued a safety alert warning consumers
that industry-wide there had been seven reports of strangulation
in baby monitor cords since 2002.  Since that alert, the number of
death reports has risen to eight of which two involved the
Angelcare monitors with sensor cords.  CPSC has a safety alert
Infants Can Strangle in Baby Monitor Cords and conducted an
information and education campaign with JPMA in which Angelcare
has taken an active role to raise awareness on the hazards
associated with baby monitor cords.  Parents and caregivers should
visit CPSC's Crib Information Center at http://www.cpsc.gov/cribs
for additional baby monitor cord safety information and they
should make sure all cords are out of arm's reach of children.


BLINDS GALORE: Corded Window Blinds and Shades Recalled in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 22, 2013
Posting date:             November 22, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-36899

Affected products: Corded Bottom-Up Top-Down (BUTD) style Window
Blinds and Shades with cord joiners

The recall involves certain corded bottom up top-down (BUTD)
window blinds and shades sold in Canada.  Bottom up top-down
blinds allow for control of both the top and bottom of the blind.
These products are available by custom order and at retail.

The following Brands may be affected by this recall:

   -- Bali,
   -- Blinds to Go,
   -- Blinds-galore,
   -- Graber,
   -- Levolor-Kirsch,
   -- Phase II,
   -- Shade-o-matic,
   -- Signature Series.

The recall does not involve "cordless" versions" of bottom-up top-
down style window blinds and shades.  All other corded BUTD brands
listed above are potentially affected by the recall.

Health Canada has determined that the recalled blinds do not meet
the 2009 Corded Window Coverings Regulations and pose a
strangulation hazard.  The various designs of the products do not
properly address the hazards of exposed operating cords, which can
create loops.  Young children may pull looped cords around their
neck causing a strangulation and entanglement hazard.

Health Canada is aware of one fatality in Canada (which occurred
in 2011) and one fatality in US (which occurred in 2008) from
incidents involving these products.  Both of the children were
under three years of age.

Children can become entangled in blind cords, which can quickly
lead to strangulation and even death.  Health Canada recommends
cordless window coverings.

An unknown amount of the recalled products were sold in Canada.

Recalled products were sold up until November 2013 in Canada.

Corded window covering products sold before 2009 were sold when
the Regulation was not in place.

Place of origin: Various

Companies:

   Distributor     Blinds galore
   Distributor     Blinds to Go
   Distributor     Levolor-Kirsch
   Distributor     Phase II
   Distributor     Shade-O-Matic
   Distributor     Signature Series
   Distributor     Springs Window Fashions

A window covering with a top down bottom up feature has seven
parts pointed out:

1 head rail,
2 intermediate rail,
3 operating cord for the intermediate rail,
4 snap tassel and cord joiner near the end of the operating cord,
5 operating cord for the bottom rail,
6 shade fabric,
7 bottom rail

A close-up of the operating cord for the intermediate rail with
arrows pointing to two parts:
1, multiple, separate cords above the cord joiner which form the
hazardous loops referred to in this alert, 2, a single larger cord
below the cord joiner which is used to manipulate the operating
cord

Consumers who have a corded BUTD window blind or shade as
described above should contact the WCSC immediately to order a
free retrofit kit by visiting the WCSC website or by calling
1-800-506-4636.  The retrofit kit converts the joined cord device
for the intermediate rail operating cord to separate cords and
includes cord cleats to help keep cords out of reach of young
children.


BLYTH INC: Faces Securities Suit Over Proposed Sale to CVSL
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Blyth
Inc. too cheaply through an unfair process to CVSL Inc., for
$16.75 a share or $269 million, shareholders claim in Delaware
Chancery Court.


BURLINGTON COAT: Nationwide Class Cert. Bid in Chalker Suit Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Steven D. Merryday denied a motion for conditional
certification of a nationwide class in the case captioned
ELIZABETH CHALKER, Plaintiff, v. BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY OF
FLORIDA, LLC, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 8:12-CV-2755-T-23TBM,
(M.D. Fla.).

The plaintiff alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The plaintiff alleged that Burlington Coat Factory forced her and
other Loss Prevention Associates to work overtime, "off-the-
clock," and without compensation.

Judge Merryday held that the plaintiff presented evidence that
Burlington Coat Factory discouraged overtime.  However, the
plaintiff has presented no evidence of a "common scheme applied
uniformly" and nationwide across more than five hundred stores to
"force [employees] to work off the clock," she added.  To the
contrary, Judge Merryday continued, the plaintiff's evidence
suggests, at most, that one or more store managers, acting
independently and not in accord with a common policy (and in
defiance of stated policy), coerced some employees into working
overtime without compensation. Also, the defendants have presented
evidence that demonstrates an array of consequential differences
between the employees, and those differences defeat the prospect
of achieving judicial economy by resort to a collective action,
the Court concluded.

A copy of the District Court's November 7, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/jMuVFIfrom Leagle.com.


CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Directed to Produce Information by Dec. 2
--------------------------------------------------------------
On November 1, 2013, Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC removed the
case TWYLA PRINDLE, individually and on behalf of a class of
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE
SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-1349-J-34PDB, (M.D.
Fla.) from the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit, in
and for Duval County, Florida.  Carrington Mortgage Services
asserted that the M.D. Fla. Court has jurisdiction over the action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(a) and 1441.  Specifically,
Carrington Mortgage Services alleged that the Court has diversity
jurisdiction over this action because Plaintiff, Twyla Prindle, is
a citizen of Florida, while all members of Carrington Mortgage
Services are citizens of Delaware and California. Carrington
Mortgage Services based its citizenship allegation on the fact it
is a Delaware limited liability company wholly owned by Carrington
Mortgage Holdings, LLC, which is, in turn, a Delaware limited
liability company owned by Carrington Holding Company, LLC, and
Darren Fulco, individually. According to Defendant, Carrington
Holding Company is a Delaware limited liability company, and
Darren Fulco is a citizen of California.

According to District Judge Marcia Morales Howard, the Defendant
has failed to identify the citizenship of Carrington Holding
Company's members. Therefore, Mortgage Services's citizenship is
not properly alleged in the Notice of Removal, and the Court's
subject matter jurisdiction over the action is not established.

Judge Howard, however, added that the Court will give Carrington
Mortgage Services an opportunity to identify Carrington Holding
Company's citizenship.  The Plaintiff was given until December 2,
2013, to provide the Court with sufficient information so that it
can determine whether it has diversity jurisdiction over this
action.

A copy of the District Court's November 6, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/8vM1lffrom Leagle.com.


CREMINELLI FINE: Recalls Ready-To-Eat Pork Roast Products
---------------------------------------------------------
Creminelli Fine Meats, LLC, a Salt Lake City, Utah, establishment,
is recalling 31 pieces (approximately 101 pounds) of fully-cooked-
not-shelf-stable, ready-to-eat pork roast products because they
were produced under the wrong Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Point (HACCP) plan and for mislabeling, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The following products are subject to recall:

   -- 3-4-lb. packages of "Creminelli Artisan Deli Porchetta
      Seasoned Boneless Pork Roast"

Each package bears the establishment number "34644" inside the
USDA mark of inspection.  The products were sold exclusively
through internet sales to 28 customers, who have been identified
by the company.  These products were delivered to customers
between Oct. 15, 2013 and Nov. 15, 2013.  These products were not
distributed to retail stores or restaurants, and other products
produced by the company are not impacted.

The problem was discovered by the Kansas State Department of
Agriculture during routine surveillance.  The product is being
recalled because the company was using a HACCP plan for a
different category of ready-to-eat products.

FSIS has received no reports of illness due to consumption of
these products.  Anyone concerned about an illness should contact
a health care provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that recalled product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers and members of the media who have questions about the
recall can contact the company at (801) 428-1820 or
info@creminelli.com.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov.
The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be
reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through
Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a
day.  The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System
can be accessed 24 hours a day at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


CUISINART: Recalls 7-Cup Food Processors Over Laceration Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission disclosed that consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

Recall Summary

Name of Product: Cuisinart 7-cup food processors

Hazard: The reversible slicing/shredding disc can loosen when in
use and the blade can strike and break the food processor's cover.
The cover's broken plastic pieces can hit consumers, posing a
laceration hazard.

Remedy: Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled food
processors and contact Cuisinart to receive a free replacement lid
and reversible slicing/shredding disc.

Consumer Contact: Cuisinart toll-free at (877) 339-2534 from 7
a.m. to 11 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, and from 9 a.m. to 5:30
p.m. ET Saturday or Sunday, or online http://www.cuisinart.comand
click on Recall for more information.

Photos are available at http://is.gd/I9PvOA

Recall Details

Units: About 25,000

Description: This recall involves nine models of Cuisinart food
processors including, MFP-107, MFP-107BC, MFP-107BCWS, MFP-107BK,
MFP-107BKWS, MFP-107DCWS, MFP-107MGSLT, MFP-107MR or MFP-107WS.
The model number is on the underside of the food processor base.
The food processors were sold in white, black, brush chrome,
metallic gray, metallic red and silver colors.  They have a seven
cup plastic work bowl and three push buttons "On," "Pulse" and
"Off."  Cuisinart is stamped on the front.

Incidents/Injuries: Cuisinart has received one report of an
incident involving a consumer being struck on the cheek by a piece
of the food processor's plastic cover that cracked off while the
reversible slicing disc was being used.  No medical attention was
sought.

Read more about Cuisinart Recalls Food Processors Due to
Laceration Hazard -- BWWFood + WineWorld by
http://www.broadwayworld.com

Sold at: Belk, Best Buy, Dillards, J.C. Penney, Macy's, Sears,
Williams-Sonoma and other stores nationwide, and online at
Amazon.com and Zappos.com from October 2012 through June 2013 for
about $100.

Distributor: Cuisinart, a division of Conair Corp., of Stamford,
Conn.

Manufactured in: China

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is still
interested in receiving incident or injury reports that are either
directly related to this product recall or involve a different
hazard with the same product.  Please tell us about your
experience with the product on SaferProducts.gov.

To report a dangerous product or a product-related injury go
online to http://www.SaferProducts.govor call CPSC's Hotline at
(800) 638-2772 or teletypewriter at (301) 595-7054 for the hearing
impaired.  Consumers can obtain news release and recall
information at http://www.cpsc.govon Twitter @OnSafety or by
subscribing to CPSC's free e-mail newsletters.

CPSC Consumer Information Hotline
Contact us at this toll-free number if you have questions about a
recall:
800-638-2772 (TTY 301-595-7054)
Times: 8 a.m. 5:30 p.m. ET; Messages can be left anytime
Call to get product safety and other agency information and to
report unsafe products.


CVS PHARMACY: Sued by Floater Pharmacists for Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that CVS Pharmacy stiffs "floater
pharmacists" for overtime, a class action claims in California
Superior Court.


DELMONACO SPECIALTY: Recalls Bolognese Sauce Products
-----------------------------------------------------
DelMonaco Specialty Foods, a Morgan Hill, Calif. establishment, is
recalling approximately 5,616 pounds of Armanino brand Bolognese
sauce products because of an undeclared allergen and misbranding,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced.  The product contains milk, a known
allergen which was declared on the product label; however the
label was not applied to all the products in each lot.

The Bolognese Sauce with Beef & Pork products were produced on
September 25, September 27, and November 7, 2013.  The following
products are subject to recall:

   -- 7.5 pound cases containing twelve 10-ounce bags of
      "Bolognese Sauce with Beef & Pork" with case number 31113
      printed on the interior bag.

   -- 7.5 pound cases containing twelve 10-ounce bags of
      "Bolognese Sauce with Beef & Pork" with case number 27013
      printed on the interior bag.

   -- 12 pound cases containing four 3-pound bags of "Bolognese
      Sauce with Beef & Pork" with case number 31113 printed on
      the interior bag.

   -- 12 pound cases containing four 3-pound bags of "Bolognese
      Sauce with Beef & Pork" with case number 26813 printed on
      the interior bag.

The products subject to recall are missing the USDA mark of
inspection with establishment number "EST. 17702" inside.  These
products were sold for institutional use in Hayward and San
Francisco, Calif.

The problem was discovered by the company's customer.  FSIS and
the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about a reaction
should contact a health care provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Media outlets with questions regarding the recall can contact
Arnold Avalos, VP of Operations, at 408-500-4118.  Consumers with
questions regarding the recall can contact Sandra Johnson, Sales
Coordinator, at 408-500-4114.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.  The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday.  Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day.  The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


DEPUY ORTHOPEDICS: Pennsylvania Woman Files Hip Implant Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that a
central Pennsylvania woman is suing the makers of an artificial
hip over allegations that the device failed nearly six years after
it was implanted into her body.

Martha L. Strunck, who resides in York, Pa., filed suit in U.S.
District Court in Philadelphia Nov. 18 against DePuy Orthopedics
and Johnson & Johnson over the injuries she claims to have
sustained a result of having had the ASR Acetabular system hip
replacement device surgically placed in her body back in the
summer of 2007.

On June 13 of this year, just about six years after her initial
operation, the plaintiff had to undergo a revision surgery to
replace the defective device, her lawsuit states.

The woman claims she suffered from metal poisoning and metalosis
due to metal debris from the defective product entering her body.

At some point following the initial surgery, Ms. Strunck says she
received a recall letter that spoke of a small number of DePuy
hips being recalled and that she should follow up with her
physician.

A subsequent MRI test revealed no problems, however, and the
plaintiff was told that because she was having no apparent
problems, the recall likely did not affect her, the complaint
reads.

This February, however, Ms. Strunck began experiencing pain and
difficulties with her right leg and follow-up lab work revealed
some concerns with respect to elevated chromium and cobalt levels,
the lawsuit states.

Three months later, the woman's blood levels of chromium and
cobalt tested much higher, the complaint states, and she was
having increasing difficulties with her hip so a revision surgery
was scheduled.

"Plaintiff Martha L. Strunck did not become aware that the DePuy
hip may be a problem until February 2013 when she began
experiencing pain," the suit states.

The defendant medical device manufacturers had, during the
application approval process, asserted that the ASR and ASR XL
Acetabular System did not raise any issues with regard to safety
or effectiveness, according to the complaint.

"The Defendants advertised the ASR as being superior than the
competition in that the ASR was the device of choice for those
wanting to be physically active, for those wanting a high
performance hip replacement, and that the system had a strong
clinical history and was less prone to wear," the suit states.
"Contrary to the Defendants' representations, the ASR was/is prone
to premature failure, unacceptably high failure rates when
compared with other metal-on-metal prostheses, and causes severe
injuries to patients due to metal debris that is released in the
patient."

The lawsuit claims that the defendants' device produces a large
amount of metallic debris as the metal components wear, with the
debris causing damage to muscles, tendons and other soft tissue.

The defects also are said to interfere with intended bone growth
and results in high levels of metal in a patient's bloodstream.

The defendants are accused of failing to adequately test the ASR
design before marketing the product to consumers and the medical
community.

"The Defendants knew or should have known that the ASR device was
defective, unsafe and not suitable for its intended purpose," the
complaint reads.

The complaint goes on to note that reports of problems associated
with the hip replacement device rose sharply between the years of
2006 and 2009, and that there was information coming out of Europe
and Australia, where the companies had been selling the ASR, that
the failure rates were "unacceptably high."

In the spring of 2010, the defendants issued a warning to surgeons
in the U.S. that the device had a higher than expected failure
rate.

The letter came three months after the device manufacturers
voluntarily withdrew the ASR device from the Australian market,
the lawsuit states.

" . . .  the Defendants had knowledge that the ASR devices had a
higher than acceptable failure rate, were not safe and that the
ASR was in fact enhancing and causing injuries," the lawsuit
states.  "Even so, the Defendants refused to concede the product
was defective and delayed recalling the ASR device such that ASR
devices continued to be used in hip replacement surgeries."

The plaintiff seeks damages for lost wages and future lost earning
capacity, medical expenses, pain and suffering, scarring,
disfigurement, embarrassment, humiliation and loss of life's
enjoyment.

The complaint contains counts of strict liability, negligence, and
breach of implied and express warranties.

Ms. Strunck is being represented by attorney Jaime D. Jackson of
the Lancaster, Pa. law firm Atlee Hall.

The federal case number is 2:13-cv-06716-ER.


FACEBOOK INC: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Over Teens' Photos
--------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that Facebook demands dismissal of a federal class action alleging
that the social ads it features wrongly include the names and
photos of teenage users.

Originally filed over two years ago in Illinois, the lawsuit has
since been amended twice and was transferred to California
pursuant to Facebook's terms of use on venue for legal actions.

Seven Illinois teenagers, suing through their parents, sit as the
lead plaintiffs in the class action, which alleges that Facebook
profits of the use of their names and likenesses by republishing
their actions -- such as when they "Like" another Facebook page --
alongside a related advertisement.

In its latest motion to dismiss, Facebook argues that the current
version of the complaint should be dismissed, as the teen users
failed to show that the ads caused financially injury.  The
complaint does not suggest that the teens could have received
compensation for the alleged ads at issue, or that their prospects
for earning money from the ads in the future have been diminished,
Facebook says.

The users do not "allege that their social actions -- much less
their names and profile pictures -- actually have any such value,"
the motion to dismiss states.  "And, in any event, courts have
repeatedly found that this type of generic allegation of value
does not confer standing, because the use of demographic
information has 'never been considered a[n] economic loss to the
subject.'"

The fact that Facebook earns revenues from ads "does not mean
plaintiffs suffered a cognizable injury to their interest in their
names or likenesses," Facebook says.

The users claim that the ads at issue violate the Illinois Right
of Publicity Act, which requires companies to obtain a person's
consent before using his name and photo in endorsements.  The
teens say that even if they consented to Facebook's use of their
names and photographs for advertisements, they lacked the capacity
to legally do so because they are minors.

Facebook contends, however, that the teen users cannot seek relief
under the Illinois statute as they agreed under the terms of use
that all claims arising out of their use of Facebook would be
governed by California law.

Facebook also argues that "the mere alleged violation of a statute
is not sufficient, without an allegation that the plaintiff also
suffered a concrete injury-in-fact."

The users are also attempting to argue that Facebook's terms of
service -- known as the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities
(SRR) -- should be invalidated.

U.S. District Judge G. Patrick Murphy in Illinois already ruled in
his transfer order, however, that the SRR is enforceable.  The
users, therefore, cannot relitigate this claim, Facebook says.

Facebook also points out that the teen users have received and
continue to receive the benefits of Facebook.

"Plaintiffs have been unable to allege any cognizable claims,
after having had many chances to do so," the social networking
website's motion states.  "Their claims should now be dismissed
with prejudice."

The plaintiffs are C.M.D. by his next friend Jennifer DeYong;
T.A.B. by her next friend Patricia Isaak; H.E.W. and B.A.W. by
their next friend Jami Lemons; A.D.Y. and R.P.Y. by their next
friend Robert Young Jr.; and R.R.C., by her next friend Robyn
Courtway.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael G. Rhodes, Esq.
          Matthew D. Brown, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gutkin, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          101 California Street, 5th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
          Telephone: (415) 693-2000
          Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
          E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com
                  brownmd@cooley.com
                  jgutkin@cooley.com

The case is C.M.D., et al. v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 12-CV-
01216-RS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


FEDEX CORP: Judge Approves $16.5-Mil. Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Zach Warren, writing for Inside Counsel, reports that between 2008
and 2011, FedEx Corp. allegedly overcharged nearly half-a-million
business customers for shipping, adding higher residential
surcharges to their fees.  But now, with the settlement of a
three-year-old class action lawsuit, it's FedEx who will need to
pay in the end.

On Nov. 22, a federal judge approved a FedEx payment of $16.5
million to settle the class action lawsuit, refunding roughly
475,000 government and business customers.  Over the course of
three years, FedEx allegedly charged as much as $3 a shipment more
than normal shipping costs despite telling customers that they
were receiving a reduced business rate.

FedEx and the lawyers from the class action suit, which was
brought by law firms Manjunath A. Gokare PC and Goldstein, Borgen,
Dardarian & Ho, originally agreed to a settlement in July, pending
court approval.  Through the terms of the settlement, FedEx admits
no guilt.  The company does, however, likely face an additional $5
million in fees related to the case, the estimated cost for
correcting inaccurate internal databases and changing internal
policy procedures to ensure a repeat does not occur.

"We highly value our relationships with our customers and these
relationships are at the core of all we do," said Ben Hunt, a
FedEx spokesman, in a statement to the Wall Street Journal.  "We
agreed to settle this matter to avoid the cost and uncertainty of
continued litigation."

According to leaked internal emails, FedEx become aware of the
problem as the result of one sales executive.  Alan Elam noticed
the discrepancies and reported them to his superiors.  In the
emails, Mr. Elam wrote that he believed the company was
"systemically overcharging" businesses with the residential
surcharges.

However, Mr. Elam did not receive an indication from his superiors
that the problem would be fixed.  As a result, he became
frustrated, writing in an email, "I have brought this to the
attention of many people over the past five or six years,
including more than one managing director, and no action has been
taken to address it."  The class action lawsuit later used
Mr. Elam's emails to attempt to demonstrate that FedEx willfully
ignored any attempts to stop charging businesses the residential
surcharge.


FIFTH THIRD: Labor Dep't. Files Petition to Revisit 401(K) Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hazel Bradford, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that
the appeal of company stock as an investment option in defined-
contribution plans could dim considerably if the Labor Department
succeeds in having the Supreme Court revisit the issue of
fiduciary prudence in managing that option.

The department's petition to the Supreme Court, asking it to hear
a Fifth Third Bancorp case, was filed Nov. 12 by the U.S.
solicitor general's office.  It seeks to take advantage of a
recent split in judicial circuits that could make it easier for
participants to challenge employers when company stock loses
value.

If the high court accepts the case this session, as is widely
expected, it could have a chilling effect on plan sponsors, but it
might also resolve inconsistencies from lower court rulings, said
Fifth Third Bancorp spokesman Larry Magnesen.  "We were glad to
hear that the solicitor general has recommended that the Supreme
Court hear this case."

Scott Macey, president and chief executive of the ERISA Industry
Committee in Washington, which represents corporations on benefit
issues, said: "Many, many plans across the country have
employer-shares funds.  If they have to worry about the constant
threat of litigation because of variations in stock prices, I can
see them getting scared away."

She added: "Then you're just inviting the plaintiffs' bar to file
lawsuits anytime there is a drop in the stock.  And in a lot of
cases [scaring companies away] will be to the detriment of the
employees" who like owning part of their company, he said.

DOL officials recognize employers' concerns of increased
litigation, but counter that such lawsuits will still require
strong evidence, while weak cases risk sanctions and court costs.

"If all you've got is a market drop, that's absolutely not a
case," said a DOL official who declined to be identified.  "ERISA
gives [participants] ready access to the courts.  People need to
be permitted to make their case."

In many stock-drop cases, district and appellate court judges have
supported the companies, ruling a fiduciary overseeing the company
stock option is entitled to a "presumption of prudence" unless a
breach of fiduciary duties can be shown or the company is in a
dire economic situation.

"Generally the court cases have been favorable" to plan sponsors,
said Ed Ferrigno, vice president of Washington affairs for the
Plan Sponsor Council of America.  "Congress has always recognized
the need to balance the interests" of employee ownership and
participant protection, he said.

That began to change after a September 2012 ruling from the 6th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.  That ruling revived
a proposed class action by participants in Fifth Third's 401(k)
plan against Fifth Third Bancorp.

Ruling in Dudenhoeffer vs. Fifth Third Bancorp et al., the appeals
court acknowledged rulings by other circuits that an employee
stock plan fiduciary's decision to remain invested in company
stock "is presumed to be reasonable," but said that presumption
does not apply at the initial stage of a case, despite opposite
conclusions reached by other circuits.

Plaintiffs in the case against Fifth Third alleged that the bank's
401(k) plan fiduciaries breached their duties by allowing
participants to continue to invest in the company's stock when its
value plummeted by 74%, in part because of the bank's subprime
mortgage lending practices.

While stock-drop class actions often lead to settlements to avoid
expensive litigation -- even when the presumption of prudence is
not applied -- they have produced few legal victories for plan
participants.  If the Supreme Court accepts the petition, the case
"has real potential to upset the apple cart in a big way," said
Jeremy Blumenfeld -- jblumenfeld@morganlewis.com -- an attorney
with Morgan Lewis & Bockius, which handles similar cases for plan
sponsors but isn't involved in this one.

The judicial split created by the 6th Circuit ruling led Fifth
Third Bancorp to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, which
in March asked the government to weigh in on the case.  While the
court has declined to review numerous other stock-drop cases, the
difference this time is that the solicitor general is doing the
asking, on behalf of the Labor Department, and at the behest of
the Supreme Court.

DOL officials declined to comment on the recent petition.  But in
friend-of-the-court briefs filed in similar cases -- involving
Citigroup Inc. and The McGraw-Hill Cos. -- DOL officials warned
that the other lower court rulings were "a windfall for
fiduciaries" who would no longer have the expense of complying
with ERISA-mandated prudence obligations, and could "put hundreds
of billions of dollars in pension plan assets at undue risk."

"It appears the 6th Circuit has taken what DOL has said to heart,"
said Thomas E. Clark Jr., chief compliance officer at
FRA/PlanTools, a fiduciary consulting firm.  In their petition to
the Supreme Court, Solicitor of Labor M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor
General Donald Verrilli Jr. and staff attorneys argue the
presumption of prudence does not apply in stock-drop cases.

"ERISA's text and purposes do not call for application of a
presumption at any stage of the proceedings," the petition states.
While the Fifth Third participants will have to substantiate their
allegations at subsequent stages of the case, "their well-pleaded,
plausible allegations suffice to state a claim," the government
lawyers wrote.

"We don't think any special presumption should apply to investors
in company stock," said the DOL official.  He noted the justices
are not influenced by lower court rulings.

For Mr. Clark, a former ERISA litigator, the case is part of "a
significant shift in thinking by industry experts that company
stock investment funds are no longer worth the risk.  Compared to
other investment options in a plan, a company stock fund requires
a higher level of due diligence, given the higher potential for
inherent conflict of interest," said Mr. Clark.

"You're doing a disservice to yourself as a fiduciary and your
plan's participants if the fund is kept blindly.  Its continued
inclusion should meet a well-documented and well-considered goal."

A Supreme Court resolution would provide some much-needed
guidance.

"If they take this case," said Mr. Clark, "we will get a
resolution to an issue that has been outstanding for the last 20
years."


FIGUEROA GROUP: Class Cert. Denial in "Carter" Suit Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Two
affirmed a trial court ruling denying class certification in the
appellate case, BRANDI CARTER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
FIGUEROA GROUP, INC., Defendant and Respondent, NO. B240870.

Plaintiff and appellant Brandi Carter filed her complaint against
defendant and respondent Figueroa Group, Inc., alleging a number
of Labor Code violations and other employment-related claims. She
sought to certify a class of individuals who performed as nude or
semi-nude dancers at a club owned and operated by the Figueroa
Group. The trial court denied the motion, ruling appellant failed
to meet her burden to satisfy each element of the community of
interest requirement necessary for class certification.

The Calif. Appeals Court agreed with the Trial Court saying Ms.
Carter did not show either that common questions predominated or
that she was a typical and an adequate class representative.
Accordingly, substantial evidence supported the trial court's
order, ruled the Appeals Court.

A copy of the Appeals Court's November 7, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/8qTF60from Leagle.com.

Knapp, Petersen & Clarke and Stephen M. Harris -- smh@kpclegal.com
-- for Plaintiff and Appellant.

For Defendant and Respondent:

   Steven V. Rheuban, Esq.
   Robert C. Hayden, Esq.
   Law Offices of Rheuban & Gresen
   15910 Ventura Blvd #1610
   Encino, CA 91436, United States
   Telephone: (818) 815-2727


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Securities Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Casey Sullivan, writing for Reuters, reports that a California
federal judge has ordered Hewlett-Packard Co. and Chief Executive
Meg Whitman to defend a securities shareholder class action that
claims they knew statements about HP's acquisition of software
company Autonomy were misleading.

At the heart of the lawsuit are claims that HP, its executives and
directors made misleading statements about the acquisition of the
British company, bought in 2011 for $11.1 billion, and the
subsequent write-down of roughly $9 billion of HP's assets.

Senior District Judge Charles Breyer issued his ruling in San
Francisco federal court on Nov. 26.  The ruling also dismissed
claims against five other former directors and executives of the
information technology supplier, including one-time CEO Leo
Apotheker.

The securities class action against HP and its executives was
brought last November by investors including lead plaintiff PGGM
Vermogensbeheer B.V., a Dutch pension administrator operating in
the healthcare and social work sectors.

Though ordering HP and Whitman to defend the action, Judge Breyer
took issue with the plaintiffs' arguments in the 20-page ruling.

"The complaint fails to establish any coherent motive as to why
defendants would knowingly purchase a company for several times
its actual value or that they knew Autonomy's accounting was
problematic," said Judge Breyer.

The judge also limited the claims that can be brought against
Whitman and HP.  Judge Breyer said that the investors' claims
against the company and its CEO are limited to the period after
May 23, 2012, not before.

Lawyers for HP, Whitman, the plaintiffs and the other HP
defendants did not respond to requests for comment.


IMH FINANCIAL: Kurtz Parties Agree to Dismiss Settlement Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
IMH Financial Corp. on Nov. 25 disclosed that on November 15,
2013, the Kurtz Parties agreed to dismiss, with prejudice, their
appeal of the Class Action Litigation settlement  approved by the
Delaware Chancery Court on July 26, 2013, as previously reported
by the Company on Form 8-K.  Upon the filing of a stipulation to
dismiss the class action appeal, the Company will resume activity
to execute the terms of the Settlement.  In connection with the
dismissal of this appeal, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement and release with David Kurtz and certain related
shareholders for the purpose of resolving certain litigation filed
in the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County against the
Company and certain affiliated individuals and entities.  As
consideration for the settlement and in exchange for a full
release and satisfaction of all associated claims and charges by
the Kurtz Parties, and with no admission of any liability, the
Company made a cash payment and acquired 41,659 shares of the
Company's stock.  The Company expects a portion of the settlement
to be allocated to the acquisition of stock and a portion to be
charged to litigation settlement expense.  Pending Company
submission to and approval of final documents by the Company's
insurance carriers, the Company anticipates that a portion of the
litigation settlement charge will be reimbursed.


INTEVATION FOOD: Recalls Chicken Fettuccine Alfredo Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Intevation Food Group, LLC, a Plover, Wis., establishment, is
recalling approximately 156,924 pounds of frozen chicken
fettuccine alfredo products because of misbranding and an
undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.  The products
contain egg, a known allergen, which is not declared on the
product label.

The products subject to recall include:

   -- 18-oz. trays of "OMAHA STEAKS, 2367 Chicken Fettuccine
      Alfredo," bearing the establishment number "P-39949" inside
      the USDA mark of inspection.

The products were packaged and produced on various dates from
May 11, 2012, through October 8, 2013, and were shipped to
distributors in Nebraska for further distribution through retail
and internet/catalog sales.  The products may also be identified
by the case codes 9502367 or 9802367.

The problem was discovered by the company during an internal label
review.  FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse
reactions due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned
about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at http://is.gd/CRPD8o

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
the Customer Care Hotline at (877) 789-7117.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services
are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET.
The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be
reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through
Friday.  Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a
day.


JAYONE FOODS: Recalls Trader Joe's Dried Seaweed Salad
------------------------------------------------------
Jayone Foods, inc. of Paramount, CA is voluntarily recalling All
date codes of Trader Joe's Dried Seaweed Salad with Spicy Dressing
(SKU 97677), because it may contain traces of peanuts.  People who
have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this
product.

The dried seaweed salad packaged in a 3.5 oz. foil pouch, found in
the grocery aisle at Trader Joe's was sold nationwide.  The
voluntary recall was issued by Jayone Foods after a customer
inquiry prompted an investigation.

Customers who have purchased the Dried Seaweed Salad with Spicy
Dressing and have sensitivity to peanuts are urged to return it to
Trader Joe's for a full refund or dispose of it.  Customers with
questions may contact Jayone Food, Inc., 8:00a.m.-5:00p.m. PST,
Monday-Friday at (562) 232-2754.


JEAN MADELINE: Accused of Paying Students Less Than Minimum Wage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that The Jean Madeline Education
Center of Cosmetology dba The Jean Madeline Aveda Institute paid
students less than minimum wage to work at its profit-seeking
beauty salons, a class action claims in Pennsylvania Federal
Court.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hundreds of Women Join Mesh Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Smail, writing for ABC News, reports that hundreds of
women have joined a class action against medical giant Johnson and
Johnson over a range of products designed to support weak pelvic
floor muscles.

The women say they have suffered devastating side-effects from the
products, including erosion of the surrounding tissues and organs,
incontinence, infection, and chronic pain.

The class action follows several against the medical giant over
the last three years, all relating to Johnson and Johnson's joint
replacement systems.

While some of the pelvic-floor products used on the women have
been discontinued, others are still available.

One claimant, Andrea, had some Johnson and Johnson tape implanted
to treat stress urinary incontinence.

"They said, 'we've got this TVT (Tension-Free Vaginal Tape) tape,
and what we do is we insert it through the groin or the top of the
pubic area, and it actually creates a cradle for the urethra,
which means that the stress incontinence will actually stop. What
do you think?' So I signed up and said, 'yes, oh great, that
sounds great'," she said.

In the months after the tape was inserted it rubbed two separate
holes in the wall of her vagina, and she has been forced to have
two operations to try and stop the painful side effects.

Andrea is part of the class action against the medical giant
Johnson and Johnson that manufacturers and distributes the tape.

Rebecca Jankauskus, from Shine Lawyers, says more than 460
Australian women are part of the action that is currently before
the Federal Court.

She says it covers two products: the tape implants and pelvic or
prolapse mesh.

"Tape implants are generally used to treat stress urinary
incontinence, and the mesh implants are generally used to treat
prolapse," she said.

"However, both of these symptomatologies occur due to weakening of
or damage to the pelvic floor muscles."
Products still on the market

Ms. Jankauskus says the side effects for the two products are very
similar.

"Erosion of the mesh or tape through surrounding tissues and
organs, incontinence, infection, and chronic pain.  In some cases
surgical removal of the mesh or tape product is necessary," she
said.

In June last year, Johnson and Johnson pulled its pelvic mesh
products off the market, but a spokeswoman for the company has
confirmed four of the tape products are still available in
Australia.

Ms. Jankauskus says all the tape products should be pulled.

"We allege that those products are defective and are not suitable
for the purpose they're sold for.  It is of concern that we have
been contacted by Australian women who are about to receive a
Johnson and Johnson tape product, and that these implants are
continuing to be used on our market today," she said.

Johnson and Johnson is facing a barrage of legal proceedings over
its pelvic mesh, and the numbers keep growing.

They have doubled in the United States in three months, and
Johnson and Johnson's November report shows more than 23,000
pelvic mesh lawsuits, compared to just over 12,000 in August.

Ms. Jankauskus says the figures are not surprising, and labelled
the problems a "medical disaster".

"Tens of thousands of women around the world who have used these
implants, and as the growing body of scientific and medical
literature shows, these products are defective and are causing an
unacceptable level of complications in their recipients," she
said.

Andrea is angry that despite the class actions the products are
still available in Australia.

"It shouldn't have been put into people if there's such a high
range of complications.  And just disgusted that it's out there
because there's so many people affected," she said.

"When you're told by a surgeon that you're a one in a million or a
very small 1 per cent of the population that you've had a problem
with, obviously that's not true.  We've been lied to."

It is not the first legal trouble for Johnson and Johnson in
Australia.

In 2011 a class action was launched over its DePuy hip replacement
device, which left hundreds of patients poisoned and seriously
disabled, and in 2010 it faced similar legal proceedings over its
knee replacement products.

Andrea is hoping her class action will raise awareness about the
potential side effects from the tape products.

"People with stress incontinence seem to be those that are in
their 50s, 60s, 70s, where they go 'I've had enough, looks like I
can get something done about.  Let's go do something about it',"
she said.

"And then because they are that age and that generation where we
don't talk about those things, they don't come forward to say 'I'm
still suffering.'

Johnson and Johnson was not available for an interview, but in a
statement the company says implantable mesh is considered by many
to be the most appropriate treatment for stress urinary
incontinence.

It says the tape products have demonstrated proven results, and
are supported by 15 years of clinical studies.

The statement says Johnson and Johnson are always concerned when a
patient experiences adverse medical conditions, but all pelvic
surgeries present risks of complications and patients should
discuss concerns with their physicians.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Offers Hip Replacement Settlement Program
------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas Hartman, Esq. at Dallas W. Hartman P.C. reports that just a
year ago, in November 2012, officials reported preliminary details
of settlements agreed upon for defective DePuy hip replacements.
DePuy's mother company, Johnson & Johnson, all but admitted to
negligent manufacturing of two of its hip replacement devices: the
DePuy ASR Hip Resurfacing System and the DePuy ASR XL Acetabular
System.

Specific details of the 2012 settlement included Johnson &
Johnson's goal to resolve approximately 7500 claims, paying nearly
$300,000 for each revision surgery that was necessary to replace
the defective hip replacement systems.  In addition, however,
officials said Johnson & Johnson would not be free from future
claims against them for lost wages, medical expense, and pain and
suffering.

Then on November 19, courts that are overseeing state and federal
joint proceedings approved a defrayal program that significantly
differs from the initial terms.  Among some of those differences
are statute of limitation dates and the amount to be paid out to
the injured. Because of these new strict guidelines set forth,
many victims of the malfunctioning hip replacement devices are
seeking individual counsel for either a greater settlement deal or
a chance to be represented in court and have their compensation
rate far exceed the $250,000 being offered.

The stipulations for the Johnson & Johnson settlement program are
as follows:

    The settlement program will not bar future lawsuits alleging
either of the two hip replacement devices were defective.

    The settlement does not initially appear to make any
provisions for DePuy ASR and ASR XL Acetabular patients who have
not needed revision surgery, but who may have suffered or are
suffering.  Nor are there provisions for those who had revision
surgery before September 1, 2013.

    Qualified patients who had revision surgery will be eligible
for a maximum compensation amount of $250,000.  This may increase
in extreme circumstances such as wrongful death, and it can also
decrease for some patients depending on different dynamics.

    According to the court, there will be unnamed "practiced
experts" determining recompense amounts.  Victims who agree to
take part in the settlement program do will have the option to
appeal a decision if they feel they are being unfairly treated.
However, anyone who participates in the program automatically
waives their rights to private litigation.
    At least 94% of all DePuy hip replacement device victims who
have made claims must enroll in the settlement program April 1,
2014 for Johnson & Johnson to be required to fund the program.

At this point, many people who are eligible for a hip replacement
lawsuit or settlement have much to think about.  Reports have said
that some are content with the settlement payment, but most
medical experts agree that $250,000 is a serious underestimation
of what these victims should be receiving considering their
injuries, pain, and suffering.


L'OREAL USA: Court Declines Final OK of "Richardson" Suit Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John D. Bates denied final certification of the
class and final approval of the settlement in ALEXIS RICHARDSON,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. L'OREAL USA, INC., Defendant, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 13-508 (JDB), (D.D.C.).

Judge Bates said the arguments raised by plaintiffs to show that
the settlement is fair are unconvincing, particularly when weighed
against the indications of unfairness raised by the objectors.
Accordingly, the settlement is not fair, reasonable, and adequate,
ruled the Court.

The Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees was denied as moot.

A copy of the District Court's November 6, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
is available at http://is.gd/Cx2B6tfrom Leagle.com.


LAZZARI FUEL: Accused of Fixing Prices of Mesquite Charcoal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Three California-based mesquite charcoal companies conspired to
fix prices and allocate markets for 10 years, to "keep each
other's back," restaurants claim in a federal class action,
according to Megan Gallegos at Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Il Fornaio (America) Corp. sued Lazzari Fuel Co.,
of Brisbane, Calif.; California Charcoal and Firewood, of
Commerce; and Chef's Choice Mesquite Charcoal, of Carpinteria.

Il Fornaio runs 14 restaurants, 11 of them in California.  Joining
it at plaintiffs are Oliveto Partners, which owns and operate
Oliveto Cafe in Oakland, and The Famous Enterprise Fish Company of
Santa Monica.

They claim the defendants fixed the price of lump mesquite
charcoal, which is prized for its intense heat and the flavor
imparted by its smoke.

The restaurants claim that from at least 2000 through 2010,
"defendants conspired, combined for, or agreed (a) to fix, raise
or stabilize the price of mesquite lump charcoal in the United
States (b) to not compete for each other's customers (c) to
allocate specific customers or territories among themselves; (d)
to sell only to customers in certain geographic areas (e) to
refrain from submitting bids for the sale of mesquite lump
charcoal to customers allocated to a co-conspirator company;
and/or (f) to communicate with each other regarding what price to
bid for the sale of mesquite lump charcoal and then submit agreed-
upon, noncompetitive bids to each other's customers."

The restaurants claim the defendants' executives called each other
to discuss which conspirators would get which customers, and how
the conspirators would ask if a company from a different territory
called them.

Most of the proof comes from federal prosecutor's tape recordings
of conversations between Chef's Choice's owner William Lord and a
confidential informant, according to the complaint.

It states: "Lord expanded upon the operation of the conspiracy in
the same phone call with the confidential informant recorded by
federal prosecutors:

"'I called [Individual B] before, or [Individual C] before, or
[Individual A] and, uh, we all have kinda just left things alone
throughout the years.  Um, I know where his customers are, he
knows where mine are, but for some reason, just a phone call or
what should we, what should I quote so that it will, you know,
make you look okay.  Like that.  That's pretty much been the
conversation through the years.  Because, ahh, all of us have
raised our prices before and what happens is the com-, the company
calls and says can they get it at a better price.  And so we've
always, uh, kept each other's backs in a sense.'

"On information and belief, and based on the investigation of
counsel, plaintiffs allege the person identified by Lord as
'[Individual B]' is Robert Colbert, vice president and co-owner of
Lazzari; the person identified as '[Individual C]' is Richard
Morgen, Lazzari's general manager and co-owner; and the person
identified as '[Individual A]' is Marvin Ring, CEO of California
Charcoal." (Brackets in complaint.)

Lord pleaded guilty to criminal antitrust charges, paid a $100,000
fine and served a four-month prison term for his company's role in
the conspiracy, according to the complaint.

The restaurants seek class certification, an injunction and
damages for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elizabeth Pritzker, Esq.
          PRITZKER LAW
          633 Battery Street, Suite 110
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 692-0772
          Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
          E-mail: ecp@pritzker-law.com

The case is IL Fornaio (America) Corp., et al. v. Lazzari Fuel
Company, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:2013-cv-05197, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.


MARINA'S GERMAN: Recalls Two-Count Packages of Pastry Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marina's German Bakery of El Paso, Texas is recalling two-count
packages of pastry products, because they may contain undeclared
Almonds, Walnuts, or Hazelnuts.  People who have an allergy or
severe sensitivity to Almonds, Walnuts, or Hazelnuts run the risk
of serious or life threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products.

The two count packages of Assorted Pastries were distributed in El
Paso, Texas at Fort Bliss Commissary and in Alamogordo, New Mexico
at Holloman AFB Commissary.

The product comes in an assorted two count, clear plastic package,
labeled MARINA'S GERMAN BAKERY ASSORTED PASTRIES, marked with the
UPC number 01080100301, and a sale by date prior to 11/23/13.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with these
products.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered during an FDA
inspection that the nut containing products were distributed in
two count packaging that did not reveal the presence of Almonds,
Walnuts, or Hazelnuts.  Subsequent investigation indicates the
problem was not known to the distributor.

The distribution of these products has been suspended until proper
labeling is obtained.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged to return
the package(s) to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at 915-591-3737
Monday through Friday from 7 AM to 6 PM MST.



MINDSPEED TECHNOLOGIES: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders claim in the California Superior Court for San Diego
County that directors of Mindspeed Technologies, Inc. are selling
the Company too cheaply to M/A-COM Technology Solutions Holdings,
Inc.

On November 5, 2013, M/A-COM announced that it has entered into a
definitive agreement to acquire Mindspeed.

Following M/A-COM's statement, several law firms announced that
they are investigating proposed acquisition.  Among the law firms
are:

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Toll Free: (877) 247-4292
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Darnell R. Donahue, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Toll free: (800) 350-6003
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: ddonahue@robbinsarroyo.com

               - and -

          Jim Baker, Esq.
          JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
          110 West "A" Street, Suite 750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0063
          Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
          E-mail: jimb@johnsonandweaver.com


MOLEX INCORPORATED: Faces Securities Suit Over Koch Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Molex Incorporated faces a consolidated shareholder lawsuit in
relation to its merger transaction with Koch Industries, Inc.,
according to the company's Oct. 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

In September 2013, four class action complaints were filed
purportedly on behalf of holders of Molex common stock, with
certain exclusions, and named as defendants Molex, each member of
Molex's Board of Directors (the "Individual Defendants"), Koch
Industries, Inc. ("Parent") and Koch Connectors, Inc. ("Merger
Sub"). Three class action complaints were filed in Illinois and
the fourth in Delaware.

On September 10, 2013, a putative shareholder class action
complaint was filed in the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court
of DuPage County in the State of Illinois, captioned Carolyn
Williams v. Molex Incorporated, et. al., Case No. 2013CH002616. On
September 11, 2013, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the Eighteenth Judicial District of the Circuit Court
of DuPage County in the State of Illinois, captioned Spoleto Corp.
v. Molex Incorporated, et. al., Case No. 2013CH002625. On
September 27, 2013, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the Eighteenth Judicial District of the Circuit Court
of DuPage County in the State of Illinois, captioned Donald C.
Croson v. Molex Incorporated, et. al., Case No. 2013CH002766.

These complaints generally allege that the Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to a transaction at an
inadequate price, by conducting an inadequate sale process and by
agreeing to unreasonable deal protection provisions. The
complaints also allege that Parent and Merger Sub aided and
abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duties. In addition,
the Croson complaint further alleges that the preliminary proxy
statement filed by Molex in accordance with the Merger Agreement
entered into with Parent and Merger Sub (the "Preliminary Proxy
Statement") contains a variety of inaccurate, misleading or
incomplete disclosures about, among other things, the sale
process, the financial analysis of the transaction and certain
financial projections.

The relief sought by the complaints includes, among other things,
an injunction prohibiting the completion of the merger
contemplated by the Merger Agreement, rescission (to the extent
the merger has been completed) and the payment of plaintiffs'
attorneys' and experts' fees and costs. Plaintiffs have
consolidated the three cases. Molex believes that the complaints
are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the actions.


MOLEX INC: Faces Shareholder Suit by George Leon Family Trust
-------------------------------------------------------------
A putative shareholder class action complaint was filed on
September 30, 2013, in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, captioned George Leon Family Trust v. Molex
Incorporated, et al., Civil Action No. 8961-VCL, according to
Molex's Oct. 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

The complaint generally alleges that the Individual Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by conducting an allegedly flawed
sale process and agreeing to allegedly improper deal protections.

In addition, the complaint alleges that the Preliminary Proxy
Statement fails to adequately disclose material information about
certain events leading up to the merger and about the financial
analyses of the merger set forth in the Preliminary Proxy
Statement. The complaint further alleges that Molex, Parent and
Merger Sub aided and abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary
duties. The relief sought includes, among other things, an
injunction prohibiting the completion of the merger, an accounting
of putative damages and the payment of plaintiff's attorneys' and
experts' fees and costs. Molex believes that the complaint is
without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Football, Basketball Players Class Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service reports that a group of
Division I NCAA football and basketball players whose likenesses
were used in video games and game footage can sue the NCAA as a
class, a federal judge ruled.

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

In the first complaint , former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon
said the NCAA violated his and other athletes' right to make money
off their likenesses.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken refused to dismiss the
athletes' third amended consolidated class complaint last month.

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

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

A month earlier, the NCAA's alleged co-conspirators, Electronic
Arts and Collegiate Licensing Corp. settled with the athletes.

With their claims still pending against the NCAA, the athletes
sought to certify two classes: a right-of-publicity class and an
antitrust class.

While the latter class claims that the company conspired with
Electronic Arts and College Licensing Corp. to restrain
competition for the use of their names, images and likenesses, the
former alleges violation of the athletes' common-law rights of
publicity.

Only four athletes are part of the right-of-publicity class, while
the remaining 21 belong to the antitrust class.

The athletes sought to certify a class for injunctive relief, and
a subclass to pursue monetary damages.

The injunctive relief class demands a court order ending the
prohibition on athletes entering into licensing deals for the use
of their names and likenesses in video games and broadcasts.

Wilken found Friday, November 8, 2013, that the injunctive relief
class can proceed, but the damages subclass did not satisfy the
needed requirements for a class action.

"Their request for this injunction is not merely ancillary to
their demand for damages," she wrote. "Rather, it is deemed
necessary to eliminate the restraints that the NCAA has allegedly
imposed on competition in the relevant markets. Without the
requested injunctive relief, all class members - including both
current and former student-athletes - would potentially be subject
to ongoing antitrust harms resulting from the continued
unauthorized use of their names, images, and likenesses."

Wilken was not convinced, however, that the athletes had shown a
realistic way to determine how the damages subclass was harmed by
the NCAA's actions.

"Plaintiffs have not provided a feasible method for determining
which members of the damages subclass would still have played for
Division I teams -- and thus, suffered the injuries alleged here
-- in the absence of the challenged restraints," she wrote.  "This
shortcoming likewise contributes to the impossibility of
determining which class members were actually injured by the
NCAA's alleged restraints on competition and, as such, precludes
certification."

The athletes also did not present "a workable system" showing how
they could determine which athletes actually played in televised
games or which games were broadcast, the judge found.

"Without a means of accomplishing these tasks on a class-wide
basis, plaintiffs would have to cross-check thousands of team
rosters against thousands of game summaries and compare dozens of
game schedules to dozens of broadcast licenses simply to determine
who belongs in the damages subclass," Wilken wrote.

The class that can proceed in the action is defined as current and
former Division I football and basketball players "whose images,
likenesses and/or names may be, or have been, included in game
footage or in videogames licensed or sold by defendants, their co-
conspirators, or their licensees" after the athletes' NCAA career
ended.

Wilken ordered the plaintiffs to submit a 25-page brief within one
week of the order, and for the NCAA to submit a reply brief by
Feb. 3, 2014.

A case-management conference is scheduled in Wilken's courtroom on
Feb. 20, 2014.

The case is In Re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing
Litigation, Case No. 4:09-cv-01967-CW, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.


NEW ZEALAND: Canterbury Homeowners Meet to Discuss Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Anderson, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that a class
action lawsuit against the Earthquake Commission has taken a step
forward after a public meeting to gauge interest in the case drew
more than 200 disgruntled Canterbury homeowners.

Law firm Anthony Harper plans to launch a group action to hold EQC
to its obligations under the Earthquake Commission Act.

The Nov. 25 meeting, headed by lawyer Simon Munro, drew about 250
property owners concerned about the amount of money EQC was
offering as cash settlements or unhappy about the work it was
planning to do on their homes.

The meeting was closed to media, but those spoken to after
expressed frustration at EQC's substandard work.

"A lawsuit is the only way we are going to get a repair that is
fair," said Southshore resident Paul Manhire, whose home EQC had
recommended for a "jack and pack" of its foundations.  "My message
is leave my crack alone."

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

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

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

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

Mr. Munro said the purpose of the meeting was to provide
homeowners interested in taking on EQC with the information they
needed to join the action.

St Albans resident Craig Edwards said the failure of EQC to
adequately repair homes was a "scandal" comparable to the leaky
homes crisis.

"It's going to be a massive issue for decades to come . . . this
is the first step that EQC will be held to account."

Mr. Munro said that the level of interest in the proposed action
meant Anthony Harper was able to cap each homeowner's cash
contribution to the costs of the action at a maximum of $2000.

"We hope that for most people, considering their home is at stake,
the payments will be manageable at that level," he said.

All work to date had been pro bono.

Everyone who joins the action is asked to make a contribution of
$1000 towards the costs.

Mr. Munro estimated that a group of at least 120 was necessary to
get the action off the ground.

He said the case would establish whether EQC's approach was wrong.
While there would be no awards from the court the incentive was
keeping equity in homeowner's properties.  Others could still
join.

"It's now over to all the people who have expressed an interest .
. . they need to then make a decision to formally commit to
joining."


NOVARTIS PHARMA: Zometa Plaintiffs Can Seek Punitive Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
punitive damages are fair game for plaintiffs bringing claims
against Novartis Pharmaceuticals for a drug made to manage
metastatic bone cancer that they claim caused permanent
disfigurement, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Mark R. Hornak of the Western District of
Pennsylvania applied choice of law analyses from two other
jurisdictions to determine that Pennsylvania law would apply to
the issue of punitive damages rather than New Jersey law.
Pennsylvania law would allow for the plaintiffs to seek punitives
while New Jersey law wouldn't.

"New Jersey caps punitive damages at the greater of $350,000 or
five times the compensatory damages award," Judge Hornak said.
"In addition, under the New Jersey Products Liability Act,
punitive damages are not available if a product was approved by
the [Food and Drug Administration]. . . . Pennsylvania has no such
limitations on the recovery of punitive damages," he said.

Because the two cases Judge Hornak ruled on were transferred to
his court by the panel on multidistrict litigation for
consolidated pretrial proceedings, he had to apply the choice-of-
law analysis from the state in which each case was filed.  One was
filed in the District of Columbia and the other was filed in New
York.

The plaintiffs, who were either prescribed the Novartis drug
called Zometa or married to someone who was given the drug, all
live in Pennsylvania.  They allege that Zometa, which has been
approved by the Food and Drug Administration, caused the
development of osteonecrosis of the jaw.  Judge Hornak described
the affliction, called ONJ for short, as "a permanently
disfiguring and painful condition that may result in complete loss
of the jaw bone."

Novartis is a Swiss pharmaceutical company with its American
operations incorporated in Delaware, but its primary place of
business in New Jersey, according to the opinion.

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., called NPC for short, argued that
the judge "should apply New Jersey law to the plaintiffs' punitive
damages claims because NPC maintains its principal place of
business in New Jersey, and the conduct that it maintains is most
relevant to the punitive damages claims -- NPC's corporate
decisions regarding Zometa labeling, clinical trials, adverse
event reporting, and marketing -- occurred in New Jersey,"
Judge Hornak said.

However, the "plaintiffs contend that because they are
Pennsylvania residents, were prescribed Zometa and treated in
Pennsylvania by Pennsylvania doctors, purchased Zometa in
Pennsylvania, were infused with Zometa in Pennsylvania, and
suffered the effects of ONJ here, allegedly as a result of taking
Zometa, Pennsylvania law should also apply to their claims for
punitive damages," he said.

The plaintiffs also noted that Novartis is a Swiss company and
many of the decisions it made about the labeling of its drug were
made in Switzerland, not New Jersey.

The District of Columbia and New York have different tests for
determining what law to apply in a given case, but Judge Hornak's
application of each test pointed to Pennsylvania law.

Both tests start with the threshold question of establishing that
there is a genuine conflict between the competing states' laws.
That standard was quickly met for each test.

The District of Columbia then looks to the Restatement (Second) of
Conflict of Laws and New York considers the significance of each
states' contacts with the case, "almost exclusively, the parties'
domiciles and the locus of the tort," Judge Hornak said.

The great weight of the points in the District of Columbia's test
tip toward Pennsylvania law, Judge Hornak found.

"Although the court respects New Jersey's interest in punishing
and deterring the conduct of corporations domiciled there on its
own terms, the conduct far more relevant to the issue of punitive
damages here occurred in Pennsylvania," Judge Hornak said.

Similarly, he found that Pennsylvania law would apply under New
York's choice-of-law analysis, which considers the place where the
"last event necessary" to make the defendant liable occurred.

"The last event necessary to make NPC liable plainly occurred in
Pennsylvania," Judge Hornak said.

"While NPC may have made corporate decisions regarding Zometa in
New Jersey, its liability to these plaintiffs would not be in
dispute had it not marketed Zometa to them and their doctors in
Pennsylvania, sold Zometa to them in Pennsylvania, and allegedly
failed to warn them in Pennsylvania of Zometa's possible
connection to ONJ.  Therefore, under New York's interests
analysis, Pennsylvania is the place where the tort occurred."


OFFICEMAX: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Selby, Esq., at Baker Hostetler -- jselby@bakerlaw.com --
reports that on November 5, 2013, a California federal district
court preliminarily approved a revised coupon-based class action
settlement agreement between plaintiffs and OfficeMax.

In September, the court rejected a prior proposed settlement
between the plaintiffs, who had accused OfficeMax of illegally
recording customer zip codes, and OfficeMax on the ground that the
agreement violated the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) because
the calculation was based on the issuance of merchandise vouchers
that might never be redeemed.

The revised agreement, still based on a voucher payout, reserves a
final decision on attorney fees until the vouchers actually have
been redeemed.  A final approval hearing is scheduled for
March 2014.


OHIO: Accused of Shortchanging Workers Comp Recipients
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Ohio shortchanged workers
comp recipients by miscalculating the statewide average weekly
wage in 2008 and 2010, a class action claims in Cuyahoga County
Court.


PHYSIQUE ENHANCING: Recalls Enhanced & Alphamine Products
---------------------------------------------------------
Alison Young, writing for USA Today, reports that Physique
Enhancing Science, also called PES, launched a recall of certain
lots of Enhanced, a pre-workout supplement, and Alphamine, which
is sold as a fat burner.

Both products contain aegeline, an ingredient flagged by the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration during its investigation of an
outbreak of dozens of liver injuries linked to a weight-loss
supplement made by a different company: USPlabs' OxyElite Pro.
Health officials have said it's not clear whether aegeline or
something else in OxyElite Pro is the culprit.  USPlabs launched a
product recall this month.

PES officials have not responded to USA TODAY's repeated requests
for interviews since Nov. 14 about the company's use of aegeline
in its products.  PES' website said Enhanced was "currently under
reformulation" with a new formula expected in January.  After the
newspaper's calls, the Enhanced webpage was changed to say: "This
product has been discontinued."

In the recall notice posted on the PES website, the company said
it is requesting customers return certain lots of Enhanced
distributed between Feb. 4 and Nov. 5, and certain lots of
Alphamine distributed between Sept. 9 and Nov. 12.  Details are on
the company's website: pescience.com/recall

"PES has received no serious adverse events from either of these
products, but out of an abundance of caution we are requesting
their return," the notice says.

The company says the recall is happening because the products
contain aegeline, "an unapproved New Dietary Ingredient according
to the FDA."

It is unclear whether the FDA played a role in the PES recall,
given no notice of it has appeared on the agency's website.  FDA
officials were not immediately available for comment.

The PES recall notice is dated Nov. 19 but wasn't posted on the
firm's website until sometime late Nov. 20.

The products are sold through a variety of online retailers.

"GNC has received and issued the recall of the Alphamine and
Enhanced products per the vendor's instructions.  Any further
questions concerning these products or their recall should be
addressed to the vendor," GNC spokeswoman Laura Brophy said in an
e-mail after USA TODAY inquired about the recall on Nov. 20.

The FDA sent a warning letter last month to USPlabs notifying the
Dallas-based company that it deemed OxyElite Pro and another
supplement, VERSA-1, to be adulterated because they included
aegeline as an ingredient.  The FDA said it considers aegeline, a
compound found in an Asian tree, to be a new dietary ingredient
that lacks a history of use or other evidence of safety in the
United States prior to 1994, a key regulatory date.

USPlabs has said that aegeline has been consumed safely for
centuries.  Still, the company told the FDA in a Nov. 4 letter
that it was discontinuing use of the ingredient in the United
States because of the negative publicity and that it had destroyed
its distribution center inventory of supplements containing it.

To report adverse events involving dietary supplements, call the
FDA at: 800-332-1088.


PILOT FLYING J: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
Convenience Store News reports that at a hearing conducted on
Nov. 25, U.S. District Judge James Moody granted final approval to
the class-action settlement between Pilot Flying J and the
trucking companies suing the retailer over discrepancies in its
fuel rebate program.

The Knoxville, Tenn.-based company's attorney Aubrey Harwell
praised the settlement's "fundamental fairness" and called it a
"shining example of how the system should work."

Don Barrett, the plaintiffs' attorney, said it was a "spectacular
result for the class" and commended Pilot Flying J for doing
everything it agreed to do "well and honorably," according to
Pilot Flying J.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas had
previously granted preliminary approval to the settlement.  The
hearing on Nov. 25 included a review of what had transpired since
then, including the implementation of those steps required by the
court under its earlier orders, according to the retailer.

The law states that the court should approve a class-action
settlement only if the settlement is found to be fair, reasonable
and adequate.  By granting final approval at the Nov. 25 hearing,
the court found that the settlement met this standard, the company
explained.

This issue dates back to the April 15 federal raid on Pilot Flying
J's headquarters over fraud allegations in its fuel rebate
program.  In July, the company reached a proposed settlement to
resolve the more than 20 lawsuits filed against it since April, as
CSNews Online previously reported.

Earlier in November, Pilot Flying J estimated that it would repay
more than $55 million to trucking companies involved in the
lawsuit, with its total settlement costs reaching approximately
$72 million.

According to the company, the specific terms of the settlement
include:

    * The settlement guarantees payment to class members of every
penny of unpaid discounts they are owed, plus 6-percent interest.

    * The payments are to be mailed to each recipient within 30
days after the amount owed is finally calculated, or 30 days after
the court's final approval of the settlement (whichever is later).

    * Notice will also be mailed to those class members who are
not owed anything, and if they disagree for any reason, there are
mechanisms in place for them to seek further review.

    * A court-approved independent accounting firm (Horne LLP) has
been retained to review the procedures and protocols that Pilot
Flying J's internal audit department used to calculate settlement
payments, and to conduct a statistical sampling of accounts to
verify the accuracy of the internal audit's conclusions. The
independent accounting firm has already been conducting its review
for some time.

    * Class members can also ask Horne to review their particular
accounts.

    * If dissatisfied with Horne's findings, class members can
hire their own accountants to audit their accounts, and then ask
the court to rule on any disputed amounts.

    * The settlement includes a permanent injunction prohibiting
Pilot Flying J from ever improperly withholding rebates or
discounts in the future.

    * Under the settlement, Pilot Flying J will pay: (1) 100
percent of unpaid discounts the class members are owed, plus 6-
percent interest; (2) the cost of providing notice of the
settlement; (3) the fees and expenses of the class administrator;
(4) the cost of the internal audit; (5) the fees and expenses of
the independent accountant; (6) the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees
and expenses as approved by the court; and (7) "incentive awards"
of $10,000 to the 10 class representatives (i.e., the named
plaintiffs).

Trucking companies had until Oct. 15 to file written objections;
however, none were filed before or after the deadline.

According to Pilot Flying J, prior to the Nov. 25 hearing, it had
already sent checks to customers who were found to be owed money
during the internal audit, including 4-percent interest.  An
additional 2-percent interest will be paid, to bring the total
interest to 6 percent as provided in the settlement.

"The settlement is fair in light of the substantial risk and
burden on the plaintiffs had they been forced to litigate the
case," the company said.  "The negotiated settlement provides
compensation to the class members promptly, and with the oversight
of the independent accountant and the court."

As of Nov. 22, there were only 146 "opt-outs" of the class
consisting of approximately 5,500 members.  Treating affiliated
companies as a single entity reduces the effective number of opt-
outs to 60, the company noted.

Family-owned Pilot Flying J has 650 locations across the United
States and Canada.


POLICE UNION: Violates False Advertising Laws, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Kaleb Patterson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. International Union of Police Associations, AFL-CIO, a
Florida trade union; and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:13-cv-
02698-JAH-JMA (S.D. Cal., November 8, 2013) alleges violations of
California's False Advertising Laws and Unfair Competition Laws.

IUPA claims to use the charitable donations collected from the
public, which are not tax deductible, to protect the interests of
public safety officers through a variety of means including
legislation reform aimed at protecting the law enforcement teams,
support, equipment, and direct relief; however, a mere fraction of
the donations received from concerned donors all over the country
actually reaches the people for which IUPA supposedly operates,
Mr. Patterson alleges.

IUPA is an IRS tax-exempt Florida trade union and member of the
AFL-CIO.  IUPA's mission statement states: "The International
Union of Police Associations is the only AFL-CIO union chartered
exclusively for law enforcement and law enforcement support
personnel.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants
are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
          Richard H. Hikida, Esq.
          Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
          NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
          4100 Newport Place Drive, Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949)706-6464
          Facsimile: (949)706-6469
          E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com
                  rhikida@trialnewport.com
                  vknowles@trialnewport.com


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Sued Over Delayed Death Benefits' Interest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that Prudential
Insurance applies an "arbitrary and unreasonably low interest
rate" to delayed death benefits it pays to life insurance
beneficiaries, a class action claims in California Superior Court.

Lead plaintiff Beverly Burton lost her son to cancer 32 years ago.
She was the beneficiary on a Prudential police her husband took
out on their late son, Roderick, in 1958.

Though Roderick died of cancer in 1981, Burton says it took
Prudential 32 years to confirm the death benefits, which it did in
May this year.

Two months later, Prudential sent her check for $5,040.11. It told
her in a letter that the money was for the $1,000 death benefit,
plus interest.

Burton claims Prudential did not explain how it calculated its
annual interest rate of 2.5 percent.

When she sought clarification, she says, she received a "vague and
grammatically ambiguous" reply.

"'Please note that California law requires payment of interest
from the date of death at a rate not less than the current rate of
interest,'" Prudential wrote her, according to the lawsuit.

But Prudential cheated, taking advantage of today's low interest
rates to alter the language and meaning of the law, Burton claims:
"The 'California law' that Prudential referred to is presumably
Insurance Code section 10172.5, which requires insurers to pay
interest 'at a rate not less than the then current rate of
interest on death proceeds left on deposit with the insurer
computed from the date of the insured's death.'

"In its explanation to Beverly -- and apparently in its
determination of interest due under both the policy and California
law -- Prudential substituted the 'current rate of Interest' for
the code's 'then current rate of interest,' dramatically altering
the applicable interest rate in its favor.

"When Roderick died in 1981, the current interest rates were at
record highs.

Upon information and belief, the then-current rate of interest on
death proceeds left on deposit with Prudential was far higher than
2.5 percent. Prudential thus grossly underpaid Beverly under
California law and the policy."

(Interest rates hit double digits in 1980-81, and were a major
factor in making Jimmy Carter a one-term president.)

Burton wants Prudential enjoined from paying interest "untethered"
to interest rates at the time of death.  She also seeks class
certification, restitution and damages for violation of the
Business and Professions Code, breach of covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, and breach of contractual duty to pay a covered
claim.

Prudential spokesman Bob DeFillippo said he could not comment on
pending litigation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Shernoff, Esq.
          SHERNOFF BIDART ECHEVERRIA BENTLEY LLP
          301 N. Canon Drive, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 246-0503
          Facsimile: (310) 246-0380
          E-mail: wshernoff@shernoff.com


RJ REYNOLDS: Appeal Court Upholds $27MM Tobacco Suit Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adolfo Pesquera, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
offering all the backhanded support it could muster, the First
District Court of Appeal reluctantly upheld a $27 million judgment
in a Jackson County tobacco product liability case.

Emmon Smith died at 80 shortly after his trial ended in
March 2012.  He was awarded $7 million in compensatory damages
plus $20 million in punitive damages.  In 1992, he had a lung
removed because of cancer.

The unsigned opinion on Nov. 20 simply said "affirmed" and cited a
2012 case, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco v. Townsend, in which a $10.8
million judgment was upheld.

But in specially concurring and concurring opinions, judges on the
unanimous panel lamented at length over their obligation to accept
the trial court's decision.

First District Judge T. Kent Wetherell complained the appellate
court's 2012 opinion set precedent by making it nearly impossible
for the court to declare a compensatory damage award up to $10.8
million excessive in any future smoker cases.  Smith's was one of
about 8,000 Florida smokers who filed individual cases after the
Florida Supreme Court disbanded a statewide class action tried in
Miami.

Were it not for Townsend, Judge Wetherell said he would disagree
with the Smith award but "am duty-bound to concur."  He called the
Smith's damage award "conscience-shocking, at least to me, and
grossly overcompensates."

Judge Wetherell also argued punitive damages should be awarded at
a 1-to-1 ratio when compensatory damages are substantial.

Likewise, First District Judge Scott Makar said he affirmed "with
much reluctance."

He questioned the evidence for economic loss, calling the trial
record sparse.  Mr. Smith lived 20 years after his surgery,
retired at age 60 from a state job and continued a "fulfilling
working career as a minister in his church until roughly around
2006," Judge Makar said.  "Mr. Smith testified that he was able to
do most of the things he had done before the surgery."

The third concurring judge, Nikki Ann Clark, issued no opinion.

Stuart Ratzan -- stuart@ratzanlawgroup.com -- of Ratzan Law Group
in Miami, who was on the team of lawyers representing the Smith
and his widow, said, "We and the Smith family, Vernell Smith in
particular, are extremely pleased with the outcome and the
affirmance of the trial court and the jury verdict."

Mr. Ratzan also said he was happy the concurring judges recognized
the importance of the case law and followed it.

"We obviously disagree with their opinion regarding the work that
this jury did," he added.

Co-counsel J.B. Harris -- jbharrisesq@gmail.com -- of Coral Gables
said, "Given the billions of dollars Big Cig made selling a deadly
and defective product to a generation of unsuspecting smokers like
the late Mr. Smith, who began smoking at the tender age of 13, we
think the verdict is fair and just and wholly in line with the
precedent."

Reynolds was represented by Charles Beall Jr. of Moore Hill &
Westmoreland in Pensacola, as well as by attorneys from Jones Day
in Atlanta and Washington.  Reynolds has a policy of not
commenting on ongoing litigation.


ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Securities Lawsuit in Florida Now Closed
---------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated securities lawsuit filed against Royal Caribbean
Cruises Ltd. in the United States District Court of the Southern
District of Florida is now closed after the plaintiffs did not
appeal the dismissal of the case, according to the company's Oct.
24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

Between August 1, 2011 and September 8, 2011, three similar
purported class action lawsuits were filed against the company and
certain of the company's current and former officers in the United
States District Court of the Southern District of Florida.

The cases were consolidated and a consolidated amended complaint
was filed on February 17, 2012.  The consolidated amended
complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of the company's common stock during the period from October 26,
2010 through July 27, 2011 and named the Company, the company's
Chairman and CEO, the company's Vice Chairman, the President and
CEO of the company's Royal Caribbean International brand and the
former President and CEO of the company's Celebrity Cruises brand
as defendants.  The consolidated amended complaint alleged
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and SEC Rule 10b-5 as well as, in the case of the individual
defendants, the control person provisions of the Securities
Exchange Act.

The complaint principally alleged that the defendants knowingly
made incorrect statements concerning the Company's outlook.  The
consolidated amended complaint sought unspecified damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees. The company filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on April 9,
2012.  On April 18, 2013, the district judge granted the company's
motion and ordered the case dismissed with prejudice.  Plaintiffs
did not appeal this order and the case is now closed.


ROYAL CARRIBEAN: Stateroom Attendants Appeal Dismissal of Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs who are stateroom attendants have appealed the
dismissal of their case to the United States Court of Appeals,
11th Circuit, according to the company's Oct. 24, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

A class action complaint was filed in June 2011 against Royal
Caribbean Cruises Ltd. in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of a purported class of
stateroom attendants employed onboard Royal Caribbean
International cruise vessels alleging that they were required to
pay other crew members to help with their duties in violation of
the U.S. Seaman's Wage Act.

The lawsuit also alleges that certain stateroom attendants were
required to work back of house assignments without the ability to
earn gratuities in violation of the U.S. Seaman's Wage Act.

Plaintiffs seek judgment for damages, wage penalties and interest
in an indeterminate amount. In May 2012, the Court granted the
company's motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the
applicable collective bargaining agreement requires any such
claims to be arbitrated. Plaintiffs have appealed this decision to
the United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit. The company
believes the appeal is without merit as are the underlying claims
made against the company and the company intends to vigorously
defend ourselves against them. Because of the inherent uncertainty
as to the outcome of the proceeding described above, the company
is unable at this time to estimate the possible impact of this
matter on us.


SEI INVESTMENTS: Dismissal of Lawsuit v. Subsidiary Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming
the dismissal of an amended complaint filed against a subsidiary
of SEI Investments Company in relation to leveraged exchange
traded funds (ETFs), according to the company's Oct. 24, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

One of SEI's principal subsidiaries, SIDCO, has been named as a
defendant in certain putative class action complaints (the
Complaints) related to leveraged exchange traded funds (ETFs)
advised by ProShares Advisors, LLC.

The first complaint was filed on August 5, 2009 and the subsequent
cases were all consolidated in the Southern District of New York.
The Complaints are purportedly made on behalf of all persons that
purchased or otherwise acquired shares in various ProShares
leveraged ETFs pursuant or traceable to allegedly false and
misleading registration statements, prospectuses and statements of
additional information. The Complaints name as defendants
ProShares Advisors, LLC; ProShares Trust; ProShares Trust II,
SIDCO, and various officers and trustees to ProShares Advisors,
LLC; ProShares Trust and ProShares Trust II.

The Complaints allege that SIDCO was the distributor and principal
underwriter for the various ProShares leveraged ETFs that were
distributed to authorized participants and ultimately
shareholders. The Complaints allege that the registration
statements for the ProShares ETFs were materially false and
misleading because they failed adequately to describe the nature
and risks of the investments and claim that SIDCO is liable for
these purportedly material misstatements and omissions under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.

On September 7, 2012, the District Court for the Southern District
of New York issued an opinion dismissing with prejudice the
plaintiffs' amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed with the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals a notice of appeal of the District
Court's decision and on July 22, 2013, the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals issued an opinion affirming the decision of the District
Court dismissing the amended complaint. While the outcome of this
litigation is uncertain given its early phase, SEI believes that
it has valid defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intends to defend
the lawsuits vigorously.


SEI INVESTMENTS: Faces Suits in La. Over "Unfair" Trade Practice
----------------------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments Company has been named in six lawsuits filed in
Louisiana, according to the company's Oct. 24, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

Five lawsuits were filed in the 19th Judicial District Court for
the Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana. One of the
five actions purports to set forth claims on behalf of a class and
also names SEI Private Trust Company as a defendant and, as
described below, was certified as a class in December 2012. Two of
the other actions also name SPTC as a defendant.

All five actions name various defendants in addition to SEI, and,
in all five actions, the plaintiffs purport to bring a cause of
action against SEI and SPTC under the Louisiana Securities Act.
The class action originally included a claim against SEI and SPTC
for an alleged violation of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices
Act. Two of the other five actions include claims for violations
of the Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy.

In addition, another group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the
23rd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ascension, State of
Louisiana, against SEI and SPTC and other defendants asserting
claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary
duty, violations of the uniform fiduciaries law, negligent
misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, violations of the
Louisiana Securities Act and Louisiana Racketeering Act and
conspiracy. The underlying allegations in all the actions are
purportedly related to the role of SPTC in providing back-office
services to Stanford Trust Company. The petitions allege that SEI
and SPTC aided and abetted or otherwise participated in the sale
of "certificates of deposit" issued by Stanford International
Bank.

Two of the five actions filed in East Baton Rouge were removed to
federal court and transferred by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas. On August 31, 2011, the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued an order
and judgment that the causes of action alleged against SEI in the
two removed actions were preempted by federal law and the court
dismissed these cases with prejudice.

Plaintiffs appealed this ruling, and on March 19, 2012, a panel of
the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the decision
of the United States District Court and remanded the actions for
further proceedings. On July 18, 2012, SEI filed a petition for a
writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, seeking
review of the decision by the United States Court of Appeals in
the Fifth Circuit to permit the claims against SEI to proceed. SEI
believes that the trial court correctly concluded that the claims
against SEI were barred by the federal Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act and is requesting that the Supreme Court
reinstate that dismissal. On January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court
granted the petition for a writ of certiorari. On October 7, 2013,
the Supreme Court heard oral argument on the appeal.

The case filed in Ascension was also removed to federal court and
transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
the Northern District of Texas. The schedule for responding to
that complaint has not yet been established. The plaintiffs in the
remaining two cases in East Baton Rouge have granted SEI and SPTC
an extension to respond to the filings.  SEI and SPTC filed
exceptions in the class action pending in East Baton Rouge, which
the Court granted in part and dismissed the claims under the
Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and denied in part as to the
other exceptions.

SEI and SPTC filed an answer to the East Baton Rouge class action,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification; and SEI and
SPTC also filed a motion for summary judgment against certain
named plaintiffs which the Court stated will not be set for
hearing until after the hearing on the class certification motion.

The Court in the East Baton Rouge action held a hearing on class
certification on September 20, 2012. By oral decision on December
5, 2012 and later entered in a judgment signed on December 17,
2012 that was subsequently amended, the Court in East Baton Rouge
certified a class to be composed of persons who purchased any
Stanford International Bank certificates of deposit (SIB CDs) in
Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009; persons
who renewed any SIB CD in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and
February 13, 2009; or any person for whom the Stanford Trust
Company purchased SIB CDs in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and
February 13, 2009.

On January 30, 2013, SEI and SPTC filed motions for appeal from
the judgments that stated SEI's and SPTC's intention to move to
stay the litigation. On February 1, 2013, plaintiffs filed a
motion for Leave to File First Amended and Restated Class Action
Petition in which they ask the Court to allow them to amend the
petition in this case to add additional facts that were developed
during discovery and adding claims against certain of SEI's
insurance carriers.

On February 5, 2013, the Court granted two of the motions for
appeal and the motion for leave to amend. On February 15, 2013,
SEI filed a motion for new trial, or, in the alternative, for
reconsideration of the Court's order allowing amendment. On
February 22, 2013, SEI filed a motion to stay proceedings in view
of the pending Supreme Court case. On February 28, 2013, SEI
responded to the First Amended and Restated Class Action Petition
by filing an exception. On March 11, 2013, the insurance carrier
defendants filed a notice of removal removing the case to the
Middle District of Louisiana and on March 18, 2013, the insurance
carrier defendants filed answers.

On March 13, 2013, SEI notified the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) of this case as a potential tag-
along action. On March 19, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion to
remand, a motion for expedited briefing schedule, expedited status
conference and expedited consideration of their motion to remand,
a motion for leave to file under seal and a motion for order
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(b) requiring removing defendants to
supplement federal court record with certified copy of state court
record. These motions are now fully briefed.

On March 25, 2013, SEI filed a motion that the court decline to
adopt the state court's order regarding class certification, which
the court dismissed without prejudice to renew upon a
determination of removal jurisdiction in an April 12, 2013 order
that also dismissed without prejudice a motion to dismiss for lack
of jurisdiction and improper venue filed on April 9, 2013 by one
of the insurers.

On April 1, 2013, the Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions
(OFI) filed a motion to remand and sever claims, and a response to
that motion by the insurers and opposition to that motion by the
plaintiffs were filed on April 22, 2013. Along with the briefing
in the Middle District of Louisiana, on March 13, 2013, SEI
notified the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) of
this case as a potential tag-along action.

On March 19, 2013, plaintiffs notified the MDL that they had filed
a motion to remand and asked the panel to decline to issue a
conditional transfer order. On March 29, 2013, the MDL issued a
conditional transfer order (CTO). On April 18, 2013, OFI filed a
motion to vacate the CTO or, in the alternative, stay any ruling
to transfer the matter until after the Middle District of
Louisiana ruled on OFI's motion to remand and sever.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the CTO on April 19, 2013.
SEI's responses to those motions were filed on May 9, 2013. On
June 12, 2013, the MDL Panel issued an order notifying the parties
that on July 25, 2013, it would consider, without oral argument,
Plaintiffs' and OFI's motions to vacate the CTO. On August 7,
2013, the MDL Panel affirmed the CTO and transferred the matter
against SEI to the US District Court for the Northern District of
Texas; the MDL Panel also severed the claims against OFI and
remanded those claims to the Middle District of Louisiana. On
September 11, 2013, defendants filed a motion requesting a status
conference with the Court to address the status of all pending
motions. On October 4, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a petition for a
writ of mandamus asking the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit to review the MDL Panel's transfer Order.

While the outcome of this litigation is uncertain given its early
phase, SEI and SPTC believe that they have valid defenses to
plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously.
Because of the uncertainty of the make-up of the classes, the
outcome of the proceeding in the United States Supreme Court, the
specific theories of liability that may survive a motion for
summary judgment or other dispositive motion, the lack of
discovery regarding damages, causation, mitigation and other
aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss, the Company is not
reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with
respect to the foregoing lawsuits.


SERVICE CORPORATION: Certification of Case by Decedent Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals reversed an order certifying the case filed
by the son and sister of a decedent buried at Graceland Memorial
Park South, according to Service Corporation International's Oct.
24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

Reyvis Garcia and Alicia Garcia v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., Osiris
Holding of Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Graceland
Memorial Park South, f/k/a Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc., was
filed in December 2004, in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh
Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, Case No.
04-25646 CA 32.

Plaintiffs are the son and sister of the decedent, Eloisa Garcia,
who was buried at Graceland Memorial Park South in March 1986,
when the cemetery was owned by Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc.
Initially, the suit sought damages on the individual claims of the
plaintiffs relating to the burial of Eloisa Garcia.

Plaintiffs claimed that due to poor recordkeeping, spacing issues
and maps, and the fact that the family could not afford to
purchase a marker for the grave, the burial location of the
decedent could not be readily located. Subsequently, the
decedent's grave was located and verified. In July 2006,
plaintiffs amended their complaint, seeking to certify a class of
all persons buried at this cemetery whose burial sites cannot be
located, claiming that this was due to poor recordkeeping, maps,
and surveys at the cemetery.

Plaintiffs subsequently filed a third amended class action
complaint and added two additional named plaintiffs. The
plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages, as well as
equitable and injunctive relief. On May 4, 2011, the trial court
certified a class and the company appealed that ruling. On July
31, 2013, the Court of Appeals reversed the order certifying the
case. The company cannot quantify the company's ultimate
liability, if any, for the payment of any damages.


SERVICE CORPORATION: Dismissal of Suit v. SCI Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a suit alleging wrongful burial practices of SCI
Funeral Services of Florida, Inc. are appealing the dismissal of
the case, according to Service Corporation International's Oct.
24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

Barbara Schwartz & Carol Neitlich, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SCI Funeral Services of Florida,
Inc., et al.; Case No. 2012CA015954, In the Circuit Court of the
15th Judicial District in and for Palm Beach County, Florida.

This lawsuit has been removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida and is now Case No. 9:12-CV-80180-
DMM. This case was filed by counsel for plaintiffs in the Sands
case regarding the company's Star of David Memorial Gardens
Cemetery and Funeral Chapel and Bailey Memorial Gardens located in
North Lauderdale, Florida.

Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of cemetery plot owners and
their families. Plaintiffs allege the cemetery engaged in wrongful
burial practices and did not disclose them to customers.

Plaintiffs seek compensatory, consequential and punitive damages
as well as the appointment of a receiver to oversee the cemetery
operations. On the company's motion, the court dismissed the
plaintiffs' claims in March 2013. The plaintiffs are appealing the
dismissal. The company cannot quantify the company's ultimate
liability, if any, for the payment of any damages.


SERVICE CORPORATION: "Helm" Plaintiff Appeals Decertification
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the suit Helm, et al. v. AWGI & SCI is appealing
an order decertifying labor claims, according to Service
Corporation International's Oct. 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

The company is named a defendant in various lawsuits alleging
violations of federal and state laws regulating wage and hour
overtime pay, including but not limited to the Bryant and Helm
lawsuits.

Bryant, et al. v. Service Corporation International, et al.; Case
No. RG-07359593; and Helm, et al. v. AWGI & SCI; Case No. RG-
07359602; in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Alameda. These cases were filed on December 5, 2007.

These cases were removed to federal court in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco/Oakland Division. The Bryant case is now Case No. 3:08-
CV-01190-SI and the Helm case is now Case No. C 08-01184-SI. On
December 29, 2009, the court in the Helm case denied the
plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action. The
plaintiffs modified and refiled their motion for certification.

On March 9, 2011, the court denied plaintiffs' renewed motions to
certify a class in both of the Bryant and Helm cases and dismissed
the Helm case. The Helm plaintiff is appealing the court's order
decertifying her claims.

The individual claims in the Bryant case are still pending. The
plaintiffs have also (i) filed additional lawsuits with similar
allegations seeking class certification of state law claims in
different states, and (ii) made a large number of demands for
arbitration. The company cannot quantify the company's ultimate
liability, if any, in these lawsuits.


SERVICE CORPORATION: Suit Over Steward Acquisition on Hold
----------------------------------------------------------
The case filed against Service Corporation International over a
plan to acquire Stewart Enterprises, Inc. has been stayed until
after the closing of the acquisition, according to Service
Corporation International's Oct. 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

Karen Moulton, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Service Corporation
International and others; Case No. 2013-5636; in the Civil
District Court Parish of New Orleans. This case was filed as a
class action in June 2013 against SCI and the company's subsidiary
in connection with SCI's proposed acquisition of Stewart
Enterprises, Inc.

The plaintiffs allege that SCI aided and abetted breaches of
fiduciary duties by Stewart Enterprises and its board of directors
in negotiating the combination of Stewart Enterprises with a
subsidiary of SCI. The plaintiffs seek damages and an injunction
against the proposed combination. The company filed exceptions to
the plaintiffs' complaint, but the case has been stayed until
after the closing of the acquisition. The company cannot quantify
the company's ultimate liability, if any, for the payment of
damages.

The ultimate outcome of the matters described above cannot be
determined at this time. The company intends to vigorously defend
all of the above lawsuits; however, an adverse decision in one or
more of such matters could have a material effect on the company,
the company's financial condition, results of operations, and cash
flows.


SUMMERLIN HOSPITAL: Tuberculosis Investigation Spurs Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Johnson and Craig Huber, writing for FOX5, reports that the
tuberculosis investigation at Summerlin Hospital has spurred a
class action lawsuit.  It was filed by attorneys representing
employees, patients, guests and volunteers exposed to the
potentially lethal infectious disease over the summer.

One of the attorneys behind the suit said the hospital endangered
every one of his clients by failing to diagnose the original
tuberculosis patient and by allowing her to roam the hospital
without a mask.

"Failure to maintain a sanitary environment, failure to maintain
records, failure to properly diagnose -- they should have adhered
to their own protocols and policies," attorney Matthew Callister
said.

Vanessa White, the patient who brought tuberculosis to the
hospital, was mainly in the neonatal intensive care unit, but
Mr. Callister claims the disease was spread to other parts of the
hospital by the respiratory therapist who treated her.

"Respirator people roam through the hospital, so that can cause a
scenario in which to contract the disease," Mr. Callister said.

Mr. Callister said he is representing 15 hospital employees who
tested positive for latent tuberculosis.  At least two of them
developed active cases.  His suit involves more than employees.

"Everything from employees to patients to third party vendors," he
said.

The hospital on Nov. 20 released a statement about the lawsuit,
which states, "Although we have not yet seen the lawsuit,
Summerlin Hospital intends to defend this case vigorously and
looks forward to our opportunity to present all of the facts of
this matter in court."

Mr. Callister said he hasn't yet determined what damages his
clients will seek.

"It's grossly premature to talk about monetary damages.  I don't
even know as of yet how to monetize the damages of someone who
might have been exposed," he said.

Mr. Callister said he will bring in another law firm from New
Orleans to help with the case because that firm has experience
dealing with mass medical tort law.

A separate class action suit has been filed by the husband of
Ms. White, who, along with her two newborn daughters, died as a
result of tuberculosis.

His attorneys claim Summerlin Hospital failed to diagnose her case
of tuberculosis.


SUTTER HEALTH: Suit Over Health Care Market Monopoly Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Laurel Beeler of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted Sutter Health's motion to dismiss a
class action lawsuit.

The lawsuit, captioned Djeneba Sidibe and Diane Dewey, on Behalf
of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Sutter Health,
and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. C 12-04854 LB, alleges
that Sutter's anticompetitive conduct in the health care services
industry in Northern California violates federal and state
antitrust laws and California's unfair competition law.  The
alleged anticompetitive conduct includes (1) Sutter's imposing
tying arrangements that require health plans to include all Sutter
providers in their networks in order to have reduced rate access
at Sutter's hospitals, and (2) Sutter's use of its market power to
maintain and enhance its monopolies over Inpatient Hospital
Services in Northern California.

Sutter Health owns and operates hospitals and other health care
service providers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Azra Z. Mehdi, Esq.
          THE MEHDI FIRM
          One Market, Spear Tower, Suite 3600
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 293-8039
          Facsimile: (415) 293-8001
          E-mail: Azram@themehdifirm.com


TESLA MOTORS: Faces "Rahimi" Securities Class Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Rahimi, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. Tesla Motors, Inc., Elon Musk, and Deepak
Ahuja, Case No. 3:13-cv-05216-CRB (N.D. Cal., November 8, 2013) is
a federal securities class action on behalf of those who purchased
Tesla securities between May 10, 2013, and November 6, 2013,
inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants'
alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Tesla was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Palo Alto,
California.  Tesla claims to use proprietary technology and state-
of-the-art manufacturing processes to create one of the safest
vehicles on the road today.  Tesla designs, develops,
manufactures, and sells electric vehicles and electric vehicle
powertrain components.  The company also provides services for the
development and sale of electric powertrain systems and
components, to other automotive manufacturers. It markets and
sells its vehicles through Tesla stores, as well as via the
Internet.

Elon Musk has served as the Company's Chief Executive Officer
throughout the Class Period.  Deepak Ahuja has served as the
Company's Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
throughout the Class Period.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Matthew L. Tuccillo, Esq.
          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  mltuccillo@pomlaw.com
                  lfportnoy@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165-0006
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


TESLA MOTORS: Baltodano Files Securities Class Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Max Taves, writing for The Recorder, reports that Tesla Motors
Inc. skimps on overtime wages and denies meal and rest breaks to
its California workers, according to a proposed employment class
action filed in Oakland on Nov. 22.

"Defendants have a uniform and unlawful policy of failing to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of eight hours per work
day," wrote plaintiffs attorney Hernaldo Baltodano of Baltodano &
Baltodano.

Tesla Motors, whose outside counsel is not yet known, did not
return a request for comment on Nov. 25.

Brought in Alameda County Superior Court on behalf of two workers
at its Fremont-based manufacturing site, Villahermosa v. Tesla
accuses the electric car maker of practices that routinely violate
state wage-and-hour laws.

Among their allegations, plaintiff employees say the company
systematically miscalculates overtime pay because it rounds up
workers' start times and rounds down their end times.

"Because the rounding mechanism utilized by [Tesla] is not even-
handed over time, it has unfairly benefitted defendants and
deprived plaintiffs of all wages which they are owed," plaintiffs
asserted in their 20-page complaint.

Also, the plaintiffs say, the company fails to provide a second
meal period for employees whose shifts exceed 10 hours per day.

Villahermosa is the latest in a series of suits pending against
Elon Musk's Palo Alto-based, publicly traded car maker.  The same
day the employment class action was filed, Tesla shareholders
filed suit in the Northern District of California, alleging that
the company's executives misled investors about the safety of its
electric vehicles.  Earlier in November, another securities suit
made similar allegations after three of Tesla's battery-powered
luxury cars burst into flames in different incidents.


TREASURY WINE: Maurice Blackburn Dismisses Chief's Criticism
------------------------------------------------------------
Jared Lynch, writing for BusinessDay, reports that Maurice
Blackburn has dismissed the chief of Treasury Wine Estates'
criticism about shareholder class actions as a "glass-jaw
reaction".

Treasury Wine chief executive Warwick Every-Burns told BusinessDay
litigation funds and their law-firm partners were usurping the
role of regulatory authorities in their pursuit of boards, while
companies could shy away from growth plans for fear of being
slapped with a shareholder class action lawsuit.

But law firm Maurice Blackburn managing principal Ben Slade said
Mr. Every-Burns had missed the point.

"If directors and corporations fulfil their proper duties and
comply with the Corporations Act they will have nothing to fear
from a robust class actions regime," Mr. Slade said.

He said class actions accounted for 0.1 per cent of all litigation
in Australia.  About 14 class actions started on average each
year, with about half being supported by litigation funders.

"There is strong anecdotal evidence that business practices are
becoming more rigorous and ultimately benefiting shareholders and
institutional investors alike because companies know they can be
held to account via class actions," he said.

"This has become blatantly evident . . . with the glass-jaw
reaction from Treasury Wines Estate chief executive Warwick
Every-Burns."

Treasury Wine is the target of two legal actions flowing from its
damaging AUD160 million write-down in July of wine inventories in
the US.  Litigation funder IMF and Maurice Blackburn are
representing aggrieved shareholders for a potential AUD100 million
class action, while a separate lawsuit is being pursued by former
Minter Ellison partner Mark Elliott.

"On its face, it looks pretty bad.  ASIC will not get money back
for those superannuants who have lost so much, so it's left to
them to take private action," Mr. Slade said.

"Big business affects many people.  Those that fail to do the
right thing should be held to account.  They should compensate
their victims.  ASIC is able to force compliance only too rarely.

"The class action mechanism helps victims to make that happen;
otherwise thousands of people would not be able to stand up to
corporate wrongdoing."


UBC: Judge Allows Suit Over Destroyed Sperm Samples to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Will McDonald, writing for The Ubyssey, reports that a court
recently issued a ruling that could hurt UBC in an ongoing class
action lawsuit involving over 400 men whose sperm was destroyed
due to a power outage in a UBC sperm bank.

On Nov. 20, Justice Bruce Butler ruled that UBC could be sued for
the destroyed sperm, despite a clause in an agreement UBC
previously argued would have prevented the men from suing them.

"It's a significant blow to UBC's position that was their primary
defense throughout that no matter what, they were weren't liable,
and the court has now held otherwise and we're confident that
we'll be able to prove that UBC is negligent," said Sandy Kovacs,
a lawyer representing the men in the class action suit.

"UBC is studying the reasons for judgment carefully and will
consult with counsel for the other parties involved in this
litigation along with UBC," said UBC spokesperson Lucie McNeill in
a statement.  "As of this date, no decision has been made
regarding an appeal.  UBC looks forward to resolving all of the
issues in this case at the earliest possible date."

Legal action related to the destroyed sperm has been ongoing for
several years.

UBC is named along with several other parties in a class action
suit related to a sperm bank that suffered a power outage in 2002.
Around 400 men named in the class action lawsuit, the majority of
whom were undergoing radiation therapy for treatable forms of
cancer that affected their fertility, were encouraged to donate
their sperm to a UBC-operated facility.  On May 24, 2002, a
circuit breaker tripped, resulting in a power outage in one
freezer holding sperm samples.  The freezer thawed, then refroze,
destroying the samples.

Mr. Kovacs alleges that UBC didn't store the sperm in the proper
way.

"The gold standard for storage of crowd-preserved semen has always
been storage in liquid nitrogen, at least in those days," said
Mr. Kovacs.  "They weren't using, we say, the proper storage
method and having chosen the method that they did choose, there
was no uninterruptible power source."

Mr. Kovacs said he isn't aware of any similar cases to set legal
precedent for how much the men should be awarded in the suit.
However, he said cases involving loss of fertility in women have
resulted in settlements in the range of $100,000 per person.

"We've looked at cases where women have lost the ability to have
children and we're drawing an analogy," said Mr. Kovacs.  "We say
there shouldn't be a differentiation between men and women."

Mr. Kovacs said the litigation process will likely drag on due to
the large number of parties involved.  He said he hopes to go to
trial to issue a ruling on negligence within the next year.


UNITED STATES: May Defend Itself Against Suit Over AIG Bailout
--------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Youderian at Courthouse News Service reports that the
government "should be afforded the opportunity" to defend itself
against a class action challenging its 2008 bailout of American
International Group, a U.S. judge ruled.

Judge Thomas Wheeler of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims largely
rejected a motion to strike the government's affirmative defenses
in a lawsuit filed by AIG shareholder Starr International Co. in
November 2011.

Starr and other shareholders claim the bailout amounted to an
unconstitutional government "taking" without fair compensation.

At the height of the financial crisis, the government gave the
financial services company an $85 million revolving credit line in
exchange for a 79.9 percent equity stake in AIG.  The move came
amid fears that AIG would collapse and take other Wall Street
firms with it, causing unsustainable ripples in the U.S. economy.

The government raised seven arguments in its defense: payment,
contingent offset, equitable estoppel, waiver, hold harmless and
severability.

Starr moved to strike these defenses, claiming they should be
tossed regardless of what the government can prove.

The government countered that it should be able to present its
defenses, especially given that Starr received "considerable
latitude" in pursuing its claims.

"The government's argument is well taken," Wheeler acknowledged.
"Motions to strike affirmative defenses are disfavored in the
Court of Federal Claims, particularly when there are disputed
questions of law and fact, as is this case here.  The government
should be afforded the opportunity to develop the facts relevant
to the defenses of payment, contingent offset, equitable estoppel,
waiver, hold harmless, and severability."

Wheeler said the government "rightly points out" that he has
expressed an interest in understanding "the full picture" of the
bailout.

"Allowing the government to put forth its affirmative defenses
will create a more complete evidentiary record, and creating a
record that reflects the full picture of what happened during the
rescue of AIG outweighs any resulting marginal burden placed upon
Starr," Wheeler wrote.

He refused to strike all but one defense: the defense of laches,
which argues that Starr waited too long to file its claim.

There was no unreasonable delay in this case, the judge explained,
because Starr filed suit three years after the bailout and within
the six-year statute of limitations.

"Therefore, laches is not a viable defense under the circumstances
of this case, and must be stricken," Wheeler wrote.

Wheeler certified two classes in March, and in July ordered the
deposition of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Boies, Esq.
          Robert J. Dwyer, Esq.
          Alanna C. Rutherford, Esq.
          Julia C. Hamilton, Esq.
          Hamish P.M. Hume, Esq.
          Samuel C. Kaplan, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          333 Main Street
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (914) 749-8200
          Facsimile: (914) 749-8300
          E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com
                  rdwyer@bsfllp.com
                  arutherford@bsfllp.com
                  jchamilton@bsfllp.com
                  hhume@bsfllp.com
                  skaplan@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          John L. Gardiner, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          4 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 735-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 735-2000
          E-mail: john.gardiner@skadden.com

The Government is represented by:

          Brian A. Mizoguchi, Esq.
          Assistant Director

          Joyce R. Branda, Esq.
          Deputy Assistant Attorney General

          Jeanne E. Davidson, Esq.
          Director

          Amanda L. Tantum, Esq.
          Trial Attorney

          Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530-0001

The case is Starr International Company, Inc. v. The United
States, Case No. 11-779C, in the United States Court of Federal
Claims.


USPLABS LLC: Faces Suit Over Recalled OxyELITE Pro Supplement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oskar Garcia, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
woman from Hawaii's Big Island is suing two companies who made and
sold a dietary supplement that was pulled from shelves as state
health officials investigate links to cases of hepatitis and liver
failure.

Lawyers for Everine Van Houten, 33, of Keaau, said on Nov. 20 that
she bought and used OxyELITE Pro, then began experiencing
abdominal pain, fatigue and nausea one month later.  The lawyers
say she was diagnosed with acute hepatitis, then later learned of
the possible link to the supplement through a public health
notice.

The personal injury lawsuit was filed in federal court in Hawaii
on Nov. 19.  It names USPlabs LLC as the maker of the supplement
and GNC Holdings Inc. as the owner of the store where Van Houten
bought the supplement.  The supplement is marketed to be used for
weight loss and muscle building.

A spokeswoman for Pittsburgh-based GNC declined to comment, saying
the company doesn't comment on pending lawsuits as a matter of
corporate policy.  USPlabs did not immediately return a phone
message seeking comment from The Associated Press.

GNC, which runs about 8,200 stores nationwide, earned $73 million
during the third quarter.

Hawaii's Health Department ordered stores to stop selling the
supplement last month, then began collecting stocks of the
supplement, which comes in pill and powder form.  The department
stopped short of a plan to destroy the supplements on Nov. 20 when
a Hawaii lawyer asked that they be preserved as possible evidence
in future litigation.

GNC said last month that all its 25 Hawaii stores voluntarily
complied before the embargo was issued.  USPlabs said in a release
on its website earlier this month that it was voluntarily
conducting a national recall.

Health officials say the supplement has been connected with 36
cases of liver damage and acute hepatitis in Hawaii, with use of
the product the only common factor between the cases.

Ms. Van Houten, who worked as a clerk at Hilo Medical Center, had
to miss a significant amount of work time during the past year,
her lawyers said in the complaint.  The complaint said she is
still experiencing symptoms and is having her liver monitored.

The complaint does not specify a dollar amount for damages but
said Ms. Van Houten is seeking to recoup lost wages, medical and
travel expenses and other damages.


WELLS FARGO: Breach of Contract Claim in "Jackson" Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas and Patricia Jackson commenced the action THOMAS M. JACKSON
and PATRICIA G. JACKSON, as individuals and as representatives of
the classes, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and WELLS FARGO
INSURANCE, INC., Defendants, NO. 2:12CV1262, (W.D. Pa.),  on
behalf of themselves and as members of three putative classes
seeking redress for alleged improper settlement charges and
damages caused by defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s demand that
unnecessary flood insurance be acquired for improved real estate
plaintiffs purchased with a mortgage from Wells Fargo.

Wells Fargo Bank and Wells Fargo Insurance, Inc., have filed
motions to dismiss the plaintiff's first amended class action
complaint.

In a November 6, 2013 Opinion available at http://is.gd/v47ejp
from Leagle.com, District Judge David Stewart Cercone held that
Wells Fargo Bank's motion to dismiss will be granted as to
plaintiffs' breach of contract claim to the extent it (1) seeks to
advance a cause of action for breach of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing as an independent basis for recovery and (2) is
predicated on a violation of the reasonable fee authorization in
Section 4012a(h) of the Federal Disaster Protection Act.  Wells
Fargo Insurance's motion to dismiss will be granted as to
plaintiffs' claim for unjust enrichment to the extent it seeks
relief based solely on a showing that the Special Flood Hazard
Area determination was inaccurate or the SFHD fee was
unreasonable. The motions will be denied in all other aspects.


WOODBURY COUNTY, IA: Court Narrows Claims in "Clay" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
In NICOLE A. CLAY, Plaintiff, v. WOODBURY COUNTY, IOWA; GLENN J.
PARRETT, individually and as Sheriff of Woodbury County, Iowa; and
AMY STRIM, BRIGID DELANEY, JORMA SCWEDLER, and DUSTIN DeGROOT,
individually and as Deputy Sheriffs/Jailers of Woodbury County,
Iowa; and the CITY OF SIOUX CITY, IOWA, and BRAD ECHTER,
individually and as a Police Officer for the City of Sioux City,
Defendants, NO. C 12-4042-MWB, (N.D. Iowa), the plaintiff -- a
female arrestee -- asserts that defendant jail officers "strip
searched" her without reasonable suspicion and in an
unconstitutional manner in front of male and female officers, and
did so in retaliation for her vociferous complaints about her
detention and a search of her purse and cell phone, all in
violation of the United States and Iowa Constitutions.

Ms. Clay filed her Class Action Complaint on April 27, 2012. The
current version of her claims is in her Third Amended And
Substituted Class Action Complaint filed January 2, 2013.

The "County Defendants" (jail officers, the former county sheriff,
and the county) have moved for summary judgment on the plaintiff's
"strip search" and "retaliation" claims, including "qualified
immunity," lack of a cause of action under the Iowa Constitution,
and lack of any basis for "Monell liability" of the former sheriff
and the county.

In a November 6, 2013 Memorandum Opinion and Order available at
http://is.gd/J4cNAqfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Mark W.
Bennett granted, in part, and denied, in part, the County
Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment.  Judge Bennett granted
the motion to the extent Ms. Clay has failed to generate genuine
issues of material fact that would preclude "qualified immunity"
of the Defendant County Officers on the part of her claim in Count
IV alleging a "violation of privacy rights." The Motion is also
granted to the extent that Ms. Clay has failed to generate genuine
issues of material fact on the "Monell liability" of the County
and the Sheriff on any of Clay's claims in Count IV or Count V.
The County Defendants' motion is denied as to Officers Strim and
Delaney on the part of Clay's claim in Count IV alleging
"excessive force" and on her claim in Count V of "free speech
retaliation," because those officers are not entitled to
"qualified immunity" on those claims, but the motion is granted as
to the male officers identified as defendants on those claims.
Summary judgment is also denied on the "excessive force" and
"retaliation" claims as to Officers Strim and Delaney to the
extent such claims are based on violations of the Iowa
Constitution, ruled Judge Bennett.

According to the ruling, the case will proceed to trial only on
the following claims:

a. Ms. Clay's "unconstitutional property search" claim in Count I,
   but only to the extent that it involves the search of her purse
   and only against defendant City Police Officer Echter;

b. the part of Ms. Clay's claim in Count IV alleging "excessive
   force," but only against Officers Strim and Delaney (and not
   the County or the Sheriff or the male officers); and

c. Ms. Clay's "free speech retaliation" claim in Count V, but only
   against Officers Strim and Delaney (and not the County or the
   Sheriff or the male officers), and Ms. Clay can prevail on her
   "free speech retaliation" claim only if she first prevails on
   her "excessive force" claim.


* Bill for Stricter Regulations on Compounding Pharmacies Passed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sydney Lupkin, writing for ABC News, reports that most Americans
had never heard of compounding pharmacies until the now-shuttered
New England Compounding Center was blamed for making tainted
steroid injections that killed 64 people and sickened about 700
others in a fungal outbreak in 20 states.

On Nov. 18, Congress passed legislation for stricter regulations
on them to prevent repeat of what officials have called the
"largest documented healthcare-related outbreak in the United
States."

"Even in the midst of partisan stalemate, Congress can still come
together to pass meaningful legislation to protect the public's
health," said Allan Coukell, director of drugs and medical devices
at Pew Charitable Trusts.  "This legislation will help protect
lives and alleviate these costs by ensuring that prescription
drugs are safe, effective and of the highest quality."

But not everyone is convinced the bill will make patients safer.
In fact, some health policy experts say just the opposite.

"It makes what is now illegal legal," said Dr. Michael Carome, who
directs the health research group at Public Citizen, a think tank.

The Drug Quality and Security Act would give large-scale
compounding pharmacies the option to register with the Food and
Drug Administration and adhere to stricter guidelines for testing
and maintaining quality and sterility.  In early versions of the
bill, these were called "compounding manufacturers," which
compounding critics were quick to note suggests that they should
be treated like other drug manufacturers and adhere to mandatory
guidelines, which the bill does not require.  In later versions of
the bill, the language was toned down to "outsourcing facilities."

Supporters of the bill hope that compounding pharmacists will want
to register with the FDA because doctors will prefer to use
compounding pharmacists perceived as safer.  Opponents fear
compounders won't do it if it's not mandatory.

Dr. Carome said he opposes the bill because he said it legalizes a
practice that was once illegal -- large scale compounding without
individual prescriptions and without following the strictest
quality and sterility guidelines that drug manufacturers must
follow.

"It makes no sense to have two different tiers of drug
manufacturers -- one that has to meet all the manufacturing
guidelines and one that only has to meet some of them," Dr. Carome
said.  "We believe in a level playing field."

Traditional compounding pharmacies make drugs for one patient at a
time because those patients can't swallow pills, are allergic to
an ingredient or have some other special need that prevents them
from taking the standard drug.  But in recent decades, compounding
pharmacists have increasingly made drugs on a scale similar to
that of a drug manufacturer, meaning they don't always have
prescriptions for individual patients.

"When you mass produce a large number of standard doses of a drug
in a single batch, if quality fails, a potential to harm many more
people exist," Dr. Carome said.

Pew Charitable Trusts supports the bill because it clarifies the
existing law, which hasn't been able to keep up with the changing
compounding pharmacy industry.

"Over many years, we've had repeated quality problems with
compounded drugs," Mr. Coukell said.  "It really suggests the
status quo isn't working."

Shortly after patients began turning up with never-before-seen
cases of fungal meningitis, NECC was accused of manufacturing the
drugs rather than making them for individual patients.  When FDA
inspectors arrived at the lab in Framingham, Mass., they found
that a quarter of the steroid injections in one of NECC's bins
contained "greenish black foreign matter," according to the
report.  The FDA also identified several cleanrooms that had
bacterial or mold overgrowths.

NECC owner Barry Cadden was subpoenaed to appear before Congress a
year ago, but he declined to answer questions, invoking his Fifth
Amendment right against self-incrimination.

The FDA has issued more than 60 reports of compounding pharmacies
that had one or more quality or sterility issues. Five compounding
pharmacy testing labs received similar reports.

According to FDA records, there have been 22 compounding pharmacy
recalls since last March. But there are no compounding pharmacy
records in the database prior to that date going back five
years -- though there may have been state recalls.

"I think the FDA realizes its own failure to act swiftly in the
NECC case and that has elevated their scrutiny of compounding
pharmacies to the point where [they] cannot -- [they] do not want
to be put in the position of being accused of not taking swift
action," said David Miller, president of the International Academy
of Compounding Pharmacists, which had historically lobbied for
looser oversight by the FDA in decades past, but last year blamed
the FDA for not shutting down NECC.

Prior to the NECC outbreak, compounding pharmacies were regulated
by state pharmacy boards, and the FDA said it didn't have the
authority to properly regulate the industry.  Its hope was that
new legislation would change that.

Still, FDA officials said they are pleased with the new
legislation.

"While this bill does not provide FDA with the additional
authorities it sought, it provides a regulatory framework for
certain compounders who register with the FDA," said FDA
spokeswoman Erica Jefferson.

Compounding pharmacists who do not register with the FDA will be
subject to the existing law, which is part of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act.  This mandates that prescriptions be made
for each patient individually, rather than in bulk, and has
slightly less rigorous guidelines for quality and sterility
testing.

Any compounding pharmacy that isn't compounding prescriptions for
only individual patients would be acting illegally under the
proposed law, but it doesn't provide a way for the FDA to figure
out which pharmacies are misbehaving.  That will still be up to
state inspectors.

"The agency will continue enforcing the law to the full extent of
its authority in order to protect public health," Ms. Jefferson
said.


* SEC Plans for Tougher Law Enforcement Amid Securities Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pensions & Investments reports that Mary Jo White, chairwoman of
the Securities and Exchange Commission, plans to strengthen its
law enforcement, broadening its reach and seeking more admissions
of guilt.

SEC enforcement could use toughening.  In particular, it must
drive harder bargains in the interests of shareholders when
negotiating settlements in securities cases.  But even then,
pension funds and other institutional investors must continue to
pursue their own legal actions to recover losses from corporate
misconduct.

A combined $2.8 billion in penalties, disgorgement or other
monetary damages has come from SEC enforcement actions as of
Nov. 7, addressing misconduct that contributed to the financial
crisis, or that emerged from it, according to an SEC report.  Most
of that took place before Ms. White was named to the SEC.

By contrast, securities class-action litigation settlements
generally have achieved far more for shareholders.

Recent settlements by financial institutions include Bank of
America Corp., which settled a case this year for $2.4 billion,
according to Securities Class Action Services, a unit of
Institutional Shareholder Services Inc.  Among other settlements
were cases involving Wachovia Corp. for $627 million and
Countrywide Financial Corp., for $624 million; both were settled
in 2011.  A Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. action last year
resulted in $516 million settlement.  These settlements resulted
from securities class-action litigation filed by pension funds.

The outcome of the SEC's plans for tougher enforcement is too new
to have played out, but even if they are effective, institutional
investors will have to continue to lead efforts to seek corporate
accountability and deter wrongdoing through securities litigation
because they cannot rely on the SEC or other institutions to
protect their assets.

Investing is not just a matter of setting asset allocation policy
and implementing it through hiring and firing managers to
accomplish performance objectives.  When corporate negligence or
wrongdoing puts a company at risk or causes loss, it is the duty
of fiduciary shareholders to pursue claims to protect their
investments on behalf of participants, whether actively filing
suit and seeking to lead the case or as passive participants
recovering assets lost through corporate misdeeds.

Some recent SEC enforcement decisions have come into question.
Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court in New York in 2009
stepped up to protect shareholders from an SEC settlement
agreement, which is subject to judicial review.

The judge rejected the SEC's proposed $33 million settlement with
Bank of America concerning disclosure of $5.8 billion in bonuses
paid by Merrill Lynch & Co. in 2008 during the financial crisis,
just before the banking company acquired the financial services
firm.  That suggests the SEC must drive harder bargains in the
interests of shareholders.

The presence of pension funds has made a positive difference in
the outcome of securities class-action cases.  According to a
Vanderbilt Law Review article in 2008, results of securities
class-action litigation "show a positive and significant impact on
settlement size from the presence of a public pension fund, or
labor union fund, as lead plaintiff."

Institutional investor cases tend to result in higher recoveries
of damages, and lower attorney and litigation fees, a testimony to
the value of fiduciaries pursuing such cases is in the best
interest of participants.  In addition, such cases can result in
swifter accountability and promote deterrence, while sometimes
imposing corporate governance reforms.

But pursuing action often takes conviction and patience.  So far,
investors have come up short in their efforts to recover damages
from the 2011 collapse of MF Global Holdings Ltd., although not
for lack of trying by the Virginia Retirement System and Alberta
Investment Management Corp.

The two funds, which are co-lead plaintiffs, won an important
ruling Nov. 8 in U.S. District Court some two years after they
filed lawsuits.  The court denied a motion by defendants to
dismiss the case.  As a result, the two funds can proceed with the
case, including seeking discovery and class-action status on
behalf of other shareholders and debtholders in MF Global, matters
suspended while awaiting the outcome of the motion.

In his ruling in Judge Victor Marrero of the U.S. District Court
in New York likened MF Global's "catastrophic collapse . . . to a
massive train wreck in which thousands of people -- passengers,
crew, bystanders and others -- were seriously injured upon sudden
impact with a force the victims could not see coming."  The
wreckage includes $1.6 billion in customer funds that were
"improperly commingled and used to cover questionable company
transaction," Mr. Marrero noted.

The 23 defendants include Jon S. Corzine, who was MF Global's
chairman and CEO; Goldman Sachs & Co.; Citigroup Global Markets
Inc.; Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.; and J.P. Morgan Securities
LLC.

"Defendants seem convinced that no one named in this lawsuit could
possibly have done anything wrong," the judge wrote in his
decision denying their motion.  Despite "dire signs of mounting
crisis, MF Global continued to issue securities in public
exchanges, repeatedly assuring investors that everything at the
company was running smoothly," Mr. Marrero wrote.  "Plaintiffs
purchased MF Global securities issued while unknown to them ...
the company was unraveling."

The defendants deflect blame, attributing the collapse just to
"stuff happens," Mr. Marrero wrote.  By inference, the defendants
contend the events at MF Global "represents . . . the acceptable
model for how corporate managers should be permitted to run a
company's affairs . . . insulated from accountability."

The two funds have stood their ground to show such a lax corporate
governance standard isn't acceptable, just as other pension funds
and institutional investors have done in other securities
litigation.

The SEC effort to step up enforcement is commendable.  But pension
funds cannot rely on such action alone.  They must take their own
measures to protect their assets, even if it means filing legal
action.


                             *********

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  * * *