CAR_Public/131204.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, December 4, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 240

                             Headlines


AB&I FOUNDRY: Fixes Price of Soil Pipe & Fittings, Suit Says
ABBOTT LABS: Seeks Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
ADECCO USA: Discovery Period in "Miller" Case Extended
AMERICAN BOY: Recalls Infant Sandals Due to Choking Hazard
AMY'S KITCHEN: Judge Tosses Can Juice Labeling Class Action

ARIZONA: Unhappy Prison Inmates Might Keep Class Standing
BACKCOUNTRY ACCESS: Recalls Avalanche Airbags Due to Injury Risk
BEEMSTERBOER SLAG: Sued Over Petroleum Coke Pile in Calumet River
BIOSCRIP INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Suit in New York
BP PLC: Hearing Set for Tainted Gasoline Class Action Settlement

BURLEY DESIGN: Recalls Tailwind Racks for Trailercycles
C. R. BARD: Faces Two Collective Suits Over Hernia Product
C. R. BARD: Still Faces Suits Over Surgical Continence Products
C. R. BARD: Filter Product Suits Dismissed, Certification Denied
CALIFORNIA: Doctors Call Workers Comp Law Unconstitutional

COLE HAAN: Received Final Okay of Consolidated Suit Settlement
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: 4 Subclasses Certified in Special Kids Suit
FASTENAL CO: Judge Can't Find Fair & Reasonable Evidence in Deal
GOOGLE INC: Court Dismissed "Authors Guild" Copyright Suit
HEALTH CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Marijuana User Data Breach

HEALTH CANADA: McInnes Cooper Law Firm Files Privacy Class Action
HILTON HOTELS: Owes $21-Mil. to Lawyers in "Kifafi" ERISA Suit
HOME FEDERAL: Faces Merger-Related Class Action Suit in Maryland
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Hagens Berman & Stein Mitchell File Class Action
IXIA: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Misleading Information

KIA MOTORS: Soul Has Defective/Dangerous Gas Tanks, Suit Says
KMART CORP: Makes Employees Work Off the Clock, Calif. Suit Says
LIT MURAL: Recalls Horizontal Single (39-inch) Fold-Away Beds
LITTLE WILLY'S: Recalls Hooded Sweatshirts Due to Choking Risk
MACY'S INC: Accused of Racial Profiling by HBO's "Treme" Actor

MF GLOBAL: Court Refused to Dismiss Consolidated Shareholder Suit
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Feb. 20 Hearing on Summary Judgment Bid
NATIONAL HOCKEY: Class Action Seeks Medical Monitoring for Players
NATIONAL HOCKEY: Two Law Firms File Concussion Class Action
NEW ZEALAND: Coromandel Tribe to Join Class Action

NY THRUWAY AUTHORITY: Overcharged Truckers for Tolls, Suit Claims
OFFICEMAX NORTH: Got Prelim. OK of "Dardarian" Suit Settlement
OUTERWALL INC: Redbox Responds to Bid to Certify Suit Over Fees
OUTERWALL INC: Summary Judgment for Redbox Under Appeal
OUTERWALL INC: Calif. Suit v. Redbox May Undergo Oral Argument

PANASONIC CORP: Gets Initial OK of Antritrust Suit Settlement
PEEL, CANADA: Police Faces Class Action Over Racial Profiling
SANTARUS INC: Being Sold Too Cheaply to Salix, Shareholders Claim
SIRIUS XM: US Supreme Ct. Refused to Review Antitrust Suit Ruling
SPARTAN STORES: Subsidiary Sued Over Planned Nash-Finch Merger

STARBUCKS CORP: Faces "Fredrickson" Class Suit Over Phantom Wages
STATE FARM: Ohio High Court Reverses Judgment in "Cullen" Suit
TESLA MOTORS: Accused of Not Giving Meal Breaks to Employees
TEXTRON INC: Settlement of ERISA Violations Suit Approved
TREND MICRO: Got Final OK of "Graifman" Class Suit Settlement

TRI COUNTIES BANK: Tribal Factions Fight Over Casino Millions
UNITED STATES: BFAA Explains Black Farmers' Discrimination Suit
USG CORPORATION: Reaches Deal to Cap Claims in Drywall Lawsuits
USG CORPORATION: Subsidiary Faces Wallboard Pricing Lawsuits
VALLEY FINE: Dec. 11 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set

VEMMA NUTRITION: Sued for Charging Extra Unordered Verve Drink
VERIZON NY: Accused of Not Paying Local Managers' Overtime Wages
VITAMIN SHOPPE: Sues Seeger Weiss Over Class Action Site
WISE MEDIA: Court Refused to Certify Class in Cellphone Spam Suit
WYNDHAM VACATION: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss FLSA Class Action

* Bill for Greater Drug Compounding Oversight Signed Into Law
* China-Made Counterfeit USB Power Adapters Recalled in Canada


                             *********


AB&I FOUNDRY: Fixes Price of Soil Pipe & Fittings, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that AB&I Foundry, Tyler Pipe Co.,
et al., conspired to fix the price of cast iron soil pipe and
fittings, according to two federal antitrust class actions.

The defendants in the price-fixing case: AB&I Foundry, Tyler Pipe
Co., McWane Inc., Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Co., and Randolph
Holding Co.


ABBOTT LABS: Seeks Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reports
that Abbott Laboratories and plaintiff lawyers seek final approval
of a class action settlement providing $6.7 million for charity
and zero for the class.

Both sides presume most class members have died, because the class
consists of persons too weak to eat without Abbott food pumps in a
period that ended 10 years ago.

The lawyers can't readily identify class members anyway, because
Abbott didn't transact business with any of them.

The settlement provides $3.29 million for a national team of
plaintiff lawyers including Robert Sprague of Belleville as local
counsel.

The settlement provides $10,000 for the lead plaintiff, the estate
of Elizabeth Rath.

A current notice in Reader's Digest, Good Housekeeping and Woman's
Day gives class members nothing but a Dec. 5 deadline to exclude
themselves or object.

Those who object in writing can speak at a final fairness hearing
before St. Clair County Circuit Judge Andrew Gleeson on Dec. 12.

The $10 million settlement constitutes a thin remnant of the
suit's potential in 2004, when Ms. Rath's estate filed it.

In 2003, Abbott had agreed to pay $600 million to settle charges
that a subsidiary cheated Medicare by disguising the true costs of
food pumps through distributors.

The U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Illinois had
created a fake distribution company in Swansea to confirm
Medicare's suspicions.

Ms. Rath's estate claimed Abbott cheated Medicare patients too, in
proportion to Medicare's 80 percent payment share and the class's
20 percent copayment.

That proportion would have worked out to a $150 million class
settlement.

In 2005, Abbott moved for transfer to a more convenient forum in
Lake County, where the company operates its headquarters.

The estate amended the complaint, and Abbott again sought
transfer.

Former circuit judge Michael O'Malley denied the motion in 2010,
ruling that Abbott could not meet its burden.

"The purported scheme which is the basis for the civil action was
discovered, investigated and presented in St. Clair County," he
wrote.

Abbott petitioned the Fifth District appellate court for leave to
appeal, and the Fifth District denied the petition.

Abbott petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court for an order
requiring the Fifth District to allow an appeal, and the Supreme
Court granted the order.

Abbott pleaded to the Fifth District that Judge O'Malley's order
was inadequate, and Fifth District judges didn't disagree.

"An inadequate record, however, is not itself a basis for
reversal," Justice Richard Goldenhersh wrote last year.

"The issue is not the detail of the underlying order, but whether
the circuit court abused its discretion," he wrote.  "Regardless
of which facts are likely to be disputed at trial, the genesis of
plaintiff's complaints in the investigation makes this a local
controversy for St. Clair County."

Justice Bruce Stewart concurred.

Justice Stephen Spomer reluctantly joined the opinion, writing
that Illinois forum and venue law mandated his concurrence.

He wrote that the law "does not lend itself to uniform application
and promotes long and costly litigation processes, as is
illustrated by the procedural history of the case at bar."

"My hope for the future is that an amendment to current law would
limit venue to the county or counties where the accident or
transaction giving rise to the cause of action occurred, which
would eradicate the practice of forum shopping and eliminate the
need for costly forum non conveniens litigation completely," he
wrote.

"If the defendant had requested transfer to Jackson County, where
the plaintiff was allegedly defrauded, I would more likely find
that this factor strongly favored Jackson County."

When the case returned to St. Clair County, Judge O'Malley had
left the bench for private practice and Circuit Judge Andrew
Gleeson had taken the case.

Judge Gleeson set a class certification hearing for this March,
and delayed it twice while negotiations advanced.

Abbott and plaintiff lawyers executed an agreement in August, with
Abbott pledging to donate $6.7 million worth of Ensure or Glucerna
food products over three years.

Mr. Sprague signed the agreement for the estate, as did Dale
Aschemann of Marion.

Randy Patchett, Timothy Keller, and Jay Schafer, all of Marion,
also represented the estate, as did Charles Barrett and Patrick
Barrett of Nashville, Tenn., and David Stellings and Rachel German
of New York City.

David Dahlquist of Chicago signed for Abbott.

George Lombardi of Chicago also represented Abbott, along with
Larry Hepler and Jason Rankin of Edwardsville.


ADECCO USA: Discovery Period in "Miller" Case Extended
------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney approved a stipulation between
Plaintiffs Ken Miller, Jeremie Todd, and Christopher Franklin and
Defendant CEVA Logistics U.S., Inc. for a further 21-day extension
for CEVA to respond to the Plaintiffs' discovery requests.

Pursuant to the stipulation, CEVA was given an additional 21 days,
up to and including November 25, 2013, to respond to the
Plaintiff's Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents,
Request for Production of Documents contained in Plaintiffs'
Notice of Deposition of Designated Corporate Representative(s),
and Request for Admissions, provided that United States District
Judge Troy L. Nunley agrees to an extension of the April 30, 2014
class certification discovery cut-off date, May 30, 2014 expert
witness disclosure deadline, and June 30, 2014 rebuttal expert
disclosure deadline included in the Pretrial Scheduling Order.

The Stipulation is without prejudice to any privileges or
objections that CEVA may assert in response to the Plaintiff's
Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, Request for
Production of Documents contained in Plaintiffs' Notice of
Deposition of Designated Corporate Representative(s), or Request
for Admissions.

The case is KEN MILLER, JEREMIE TODD, and CHRISTOPHER FRANKLIN, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ADECCO USA, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; CEVA
LOGISTICS U.S., INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-01321-TLN-CKD, (E.D.
Cal.).

A copy of the District Court's November 1, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/9PbSvdfrom Leagle.com.

FRASER A. McALPINE -- fmcalpine@hunton.com --, H. ALLISON ELMORE
-- aelmore@hunton.com -- HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP, San Francisco,
California, Attorneys for Defendant, CEVA LOGISTICS U.S., INC.

R. DUANE WESTRUP, PHILLIP R. POLINER --
ppoliner@westrupassociates.com -- CAT-TUONG N. BULAON --
cbulaon@westrupassociates.com -- WESTRUP KLICK, LLP, Long Beach,
California, Attorneys for Plaintiffs, KEN MILLER, JEREMIE TODD,
and CHRISTOPHER FRANKL.


AMERICAN BOY: Recalls Infant Sandals Due to Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
American Boy and Girl (ABG), of Elizabeth, N.J., announced a
voluntary recall of about 1,300 Girl's "Susan" Sandals.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The top strap can be pulled loose from the shoe, posing a choking
hazard to the child.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The top strap can be pulled loose from the shoe, posing a choking
hazard to the child.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/fS5UCR

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Meijer Stores in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,
Michigan and Ohio from April 2013 to July 2013 for between $6 and
$9.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled sandals away from
children and contact American Boy and Girl for a refund or
replacement.


AMY'S KITCHEN: Judge Tosses Can Juice Labeling Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that a federal
judge on Nov. 25 tossed a proposed class action accusing
Amy's Kitchen Inc. of deceiving consumers by labeling its products
as containing evaporated cane juice instead of sugar, finding the
plaintiff failed to allege he actually read the ingredients before
purchasing the products.

Amy's Kitchen had argued that plaintiff Robert Figy's complaint
should be dismissed for lack of standing under California's Unfair
Competition Law because he did not allege that he relied on the
products' ingredient labeling.  In response, Mr. Figy argued that
reliance on a label misrepresentation is not a necessary element
of a claim under the unlawful prong of the UCL, but U.S. District
Judge Susan Illston disagreed.

Judge Illston said that in order to assert a claim under the UCL,
a person must have "suffered injury in fact and . . . lost money
or property as a result of such unfair competition."  She said the
California Supreme Court has held that the phrase "as a result of"
imposes an actual reliance requirement on plaintiffs prosecuting a
private enforcement action under the UCL's fraud prong.

Plaintiff's claim under the unlawful prong of the UCL is based on
the defendant's alleged violations under California statutes that
make it unlawful to misbrand food and to manufacture, sell,
deliver, hold, offer for sale, or receive in commerce any food
that is misbranded. Under those laws, food is defined as
misbranded unless it bears a label clearly stating the common or
usual name of each ingredient, the judge said.

"However, the statutes relied on by plaintiff prohibit a
particular type of consumer deception: the mislabeling of food
products," Judge Illston said.  "Because the statutes plaintiff
relies on prohibit specific types of misrepresentations on food
labels -- the listing of an ingredient by a name other than its
common or usual name -- the actual reliance requirement applies to
plaintiff's claim even though it is brought under the unlawful
prong of the UCL."

To plead actual reliance, she said Mr. Figy must allege that the
defendant's misrepresentations were an immediate cause of the
injury-causing conduct.  A plaintiff can satisfy the UCL's
standing requirement by alleging that he or she would not have
bought the product but for the alleged misrepresentation, the
judge said.

But she said that in the complaint, Mr. Figy does not allege that
he read the ingredients labels and saw the term "evaporated cane
juice" prior to purchasing the products.

"Therefore, plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts
establishing that he relied on the alleged misbranding in
purchasing the products.  Plaintiff argues that he does not have
to expressly plead reliance because under California law, a
presumption, or at least an inference, of reliance arises wherever
there is a showing that a misrepresentation was material,"
Judge Illston said.

She said that although there may be an inference of reliance upon
a showing of materiality, to adequately allege reliance, a
plaintiff must still, at a minimum, allege that he saw the
representation at issue.

Amy's Kitchen attorney Robert S. Niemann of Keller & Heckman LLP
said they were pleased with the decision.

Counsel for Mr. Figy did not immediately respond to a request for
comment on Nov. 25.

Mr. Figy is represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore of Pratt &
Associates and by D'Juana Parks of Provost Umphrey Law Firm LLP.

Amy's Kitchen is represented by Douglas J. Behr and Robert S.
Niemann of Keller & Heckman LLP.

The case is Robert E. Figy v. Amy's Kitchen Inc., number 3:13-cv-
03816 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


ARIZONA: Unhappy Prison Inmates Might Keep Class Standing
---------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Dave Tartre reports that an
attorney for Arizona faced a 20-minute barrage of questions in the
9th Circuit about class certification for inmates unhappy with
prison conditions.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt took the lead on the three-member
appellate panel in asking attorney Nicholas Acedo to explain how
Arizona justifies appealing certification of the inmate class.
The judge approached the standards for class certification from
every angle he apparently could think up.

"Suppose there were a threat in a prison of a fire," he said.
"Would you need more than that? Where all the inmates would be
burned to death if that fire occurred, could they bring a class
action?"

Acedo answered that they probably could form a class, but tried to
avoid talking about such scenarios, arguing instead that the
plaintiffs in this case had not met the U.S. Supreme Court's new,
stricter requirement for class certification that the high court
outlined in the 2011 decision Wal-Mart v. Dukes.

In particular, Acedo said that the district court order did not
meet the new commonality and typicality standards established in
Wal-Mart "because [the order] postulates a legal theory as the
glue that holds the class members together."

Fourteen of the roughly 33,000 Arizona inmates sued early last
year, alleging the state corrections department was deliberately
indifferent to the medical, dental and mental health of prisoners.
They also challenge confinement in what they call isolation units.
Arizona objects to that name.  The suit alleges cruel and unusual
punishment in violation of the U.S. Constitution's Eighth
Amendment.

ADC, short for the Arizona Department of Corrections, is named as
a defendant, along with its director, Charles Ryan, and the
director of ADC's Division of Health Services, Richard Pratt.

While U.S. District Judge Neil Wake said that the inmates'
allegation of deliberate indifference was "too broad" to meet the
commonality requirement of class certification, he added that "the
practices plaintiffs identified in their complaint" narrowed their
claims down enough.

"The claims of systemic deficiencies in ADC's health care system
and unconstitutional conditions of confinement in isolation units
apply to all proposed class members," the order says.

Arizona's appeal seemed to fare poorly at the hearing last week as
Judge Reinhardt's hypothetical prison fire took on new forms.

"Suppose some are closer to the fire than others," he said. If
some parts of the building burn and others don't, the judge asked,
"do the plaintiffs have to be the ones who are closest to the
fire?"

Acedo, from Struck, Wieneke & Love in Chandler, Ariz., responded
that any prisoner in the facility could have an individual claim
prior to a fire if, for instance, there were no fire extinguishers
anywhere in the facility.

That's when Reinhardt asked: "And if there's not adequate health
care, not enough doctors in the facility to provide adequate care,
wouldn't all the prisoners in the facility have the risk of harm?"

"I think that risk of harm is very speculative," Acedo replied.
"Each inmate would have a different circumstance."

Reinhardt questioned the assertion: "You don't know which one is
going to suffer -- they all suffer if there aren't enough doctors.
You don't which individual will come at the end of the line and
doesn't get taken care of for 30 days because there aren't enough
doctors."

"One of them may get an appendicitis, but you don't know which
one's going to get an appendicitis," the judge added.  "The ones
with medical problems don't know what medical problems they're
going to have.  Their claim is that when they do have a medical
problem, there won't be enough doctors.  I completely understand
your argument on the merits.  I just don't understand how you're
supposed to test the inadequate conditions other than through a
class action of all the prisoners who may be affected by the
inadequate conditions."

Acedo answered that class certification simply asks "whether
there's a common question that can be answered in one stroke."

"And with the type of Eighth Amendment health care claims and
conditions of confinement claims in this case, you can't pose a
question where the answer to that question is 'yes' or 'no,'"
Acedo added.  "Does the level of staffing at ADC right now, does
that violate these inmates' Eighth Amendment rights?  That's a
question that the District Court certified and that the plaintiffs
rely on, but you can't say yes or no to that question."

Reinhardt countered that the merits of the prisoners' Eighth
Amendment allegations would be determined only through a trial.
Doubts about the existence of constitutional violations cannot
serve to deny the plaintiffs class status, he added.

"As far as the commonality of the question, I just don't
understand why it's not a common question, because any prisoner in
the prison suffers the same risk," Reinhardt said.  "Now I can
understand you're saying there is no risk, no constitutional
violation.  That we get to much later in the case."

As Acedo's 20 minutes ended, Reinhardt said, "I'm sorry I
monopolized this discussion, if you could call it a discussion.
Inquisition might the better word."

David Fathi, who represents the inmate plaintiffs for the American
Civil Liberties Union, did not have much work to do following
Reinhardt's efforts.

Judge Paul Watford asked Fathi how the District Court could rule
for class certification when the inmates had not been very
specific about what type of injunction they want.

"We don't need to specify what the injunction would look like at
this point," Fathi said.

He said the District Court's ruling meant his clients' complaint
was specific enough for the class-certification stage, and that
the judge below had properly relied on the plaintiffs' experts to
conclude that "these practices pose a substantial risk of serious
harm."

The state of Arizona is represented by:

          Nicholas Acedo, Esq.
          STRUCK WIENEKE & LOVE, P.L.C.
          3100 West Ray Road, Suite 300
          Chandler, AZ 85226-2473
          Telephone: (480) 420-1609
          Facsimile: (480) 420-1695
          E-mail: nacedo@swlfirm.com

The Inmate Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Fathi, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2500


BACKCOUNTRY ACCESS: Recalls Avalanche Airbags Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Backcountry Access, Inc., of Boulder, Colo., announced a voluntary
recall of about 6,400 in the United States and 1,800 in Canada
Avalanche airbags.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The trigger assembly can fail resulting in the airbag not
deploying, posing a risk of death and injury in the event of an
avalanche.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves BCA Avalanche airbags, models Float 18, 22,
30, 32, 36 and Throttle.  The airbags are used for skiing,
snowmobiling and mountain climbing to help keep the user above the
surface if an avalanche occurs.  The airbags are yellow and are
housed in a blue, red or black pack.  The packs have the model
name printed on them. "Float" and the "bca" logo are printed in
black lettering on the airbag.  Lot letters A through E are
included in the recall.  The lot letter can be found on the
trigger handle.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/4PhU1L

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Specialty outdoor stores worldwide and online at
http://www.backcountryaccess.comfrom August 2011 through October
2013 for between $499 and $750.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled airbags and
contact BCA for a free replacement trigger assembly.


BEEMSTERBOER SLAG: Sued Over Petroleum Coke Pile in Calumet River
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph S. Pete, writing for nwi.com, reports that a Chicago law
firm has filed a class action lawsuit against BP, Hammond-based
Beemsterboer Slag Corp. and three other companies over the
petroleum coke that has been stored along the Calumet River.

The Pavich law firm announced on Nov. 25 it is pursuing the
litigation on behalf of five residents on Chicago's Southeast
Side, where people have expressed concerns about large exposed
piles of petcoke, a dusty byproduct of oil refining at the BP
Whiting Refinery.  The suit alleges that BP, Beemsterboer, KCBX
Corp., Koch Carbon Co. and KM Railways LLC should have done more
to prevent the powdery industrial byproduct from blowing into
homes and properties.

The lawsuit -- filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois -- asks a judge to prohibit BP and the other
companies from bringing petcoke to the densely populated South
Side community.  The suits also seek reimbursement for
environmental cleanup and any loss of value to properties.

Another class action suit has been filed in Cook County.  The
Illinois attorney general and city of Chicago also have sued
Beemsterboer, asking for an injunction to require the company to
remove the petcoke.  The new lawsuit is the first to name BP.

"BP byproducts create this mess," attorney Kevin Rogers said.
"It's a toxic material that's all over these neighborhoods.  It's
bad for kids who breathe it in, and it's filthy in the air and the
soil."

BP spokesman Scott Dean said in an email that the lawsuit's claims
against BP have no merit.  He said KCBX is responsible for
complying with regulations associated with the storage of petcoke.

"BP has been told by KCBX that it is in compliance with Illinois
regulations and we are pleased that KCBX is making $10 million in
improvements to the terminal that go beyond the requirements of
its permit," Mr. Dean said.  "BP is also in compliance at the
Whiting refinery in Indiana."

Alan Beemsterboer said his company has been complying with the
state of Illinois, removing carbon-based products from the site,
and shipping them out on boats and barges.  He said his company
expected to remove the last of the carbon-based products by the
end of the year.

Mr. Beemsterboer said slag, asphalt and coal have long been part
of the heavily industrialized neighborhood for the past century.
Republic Steel and Acme Steel both had mills and coke batteries
where ovens baked coal into coke near the site where the petcoke
has been stored.


BIOSCRIP INC: Faces Shareholder Class Action Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. announced on November 18, 2013, that it filed a
securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
BioScrip, Inc. and certain of its executive officers and directors
and underwriters.

The class action is filed on behalf of investors, who purchased or
otherwise acquired BioScrip's common stock between August 8, 2011,
and September 23, 2013, inclusive.  The complaint brings forth
claims for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
class action complaint is also filed on behalf of investors, who
purchased BioScrip's common stock pursuant or traceable to the
Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with BioScrip's secondary public offerings during the
Class Period.

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

As a result of the Defendants' alleged false and misleading
statements, BioScrip shares traded at inflated prices during the
Class Period.  After disclosure of the Defendant's false and
misleading statements, BioScrip common stock suffered a
precipitous decline, thereby, causing significant losses and
damages to the Plaintiff and other Class members.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399
          Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
          E-mail: lhooker@saxenawhite.com


BP PLC: Hearing Set for Tainted Gasoline Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Network Indiana reports that a federal court judge was scheduled
to hear on Nov. 26 from attorneys involved in the class-action
settlement between BP and vehicle owners who were affected by
tainted gasoline refined in Whiting in late summer 2012.

The "Price et al versus BP Products North America" settlement
fairness hearing will be held in a courtroom in Chicago.

After the hearing, the judge will decide whether to approve the
settlement.

Improperly-formulated gasoline was shipped out from the BP Whiting
refinery to retail outlets in Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and one
Ohio outlet from Aug. 13 through Sept. 7, 2012.

Individual payouts could range from $50 for the cost of the
gasoline to $1,500 to cover the cost of engine repairs.


BURLEY DESIGN: Recalls Tailwind Racks for Trailercycles
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Burley Design LLC, of Eugene, Ore., announced a voluntary recall
of about 4,150 in the U.S. and 17 in Canada Tailwind bicycle racks
for trailercycles.  Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The top portion of the tailwind rack that connects trailercycles
to a towing bicycle can break and allow the trailercycle to
disconnect, posing a fall hazard.

The firm received 11 reports of Tailwind Racks breaking, including
one report of a minor leg injury in the U.S. and one report of a
broken leg in the UK.

The Tailwind Racks are used for hitching children's trailercycles
to adult size bicycles.  The aluminum racks were sold
individually, in black or silver, or with Kazoo or Piccolo brand
trailercycles in black only.  The individual racks have stock code
numbers 939001 for black and 939002 for silver, which was printed
on the original packaging.  The racks have double side rails.
Burley is printed on the curved back plate of the rack.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Independent bicycle retailers and specialty outdoor retailers
nationwide and online at Amazon.com, Biketrailershop.com and other
websites from November 2011 through September 2013.  Individual
racks sold for $65 and Kazoo and Piccolo trailercycles with
Tailwind Racks sold for $300 and $350 respectively.

Consumers should stop using the Tailwind Racks immediately and
contact Burley to receive a free replacement rack.  Burley will
replace recalled Tailwind Racks with a steel Moose Rack.


C. R. BARD: Faces Two Collective Suits Over Hernia Product
----------------------------------------------------------
As of October 17, 2013, approximately 745 federal and 720 state
lawsuits involving individual claims by approximately 1,575
plaintiffs, as well as two putative class actions in the United
States are currently pending against C.R. Bard, Inc. with respect
to its Composix Kugel and certain other hernia repair implant
products (collectively, the "Hernia Product Claims"), according to
the company's Oct. 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2013.

The company voluntarily recalled certain sizes and lots of the
Composix Kugel products beginning in December 2005. One of the
U.S. class action lawsuits consolidated ten previously-filed U.S.
class action lawsuits. The putative class actions, none of which
has been certified, seek: (i) medical monitoring; (ii)
compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages; (iv) a judicial
finding of defect and causation; and/or (v) attorneys' fees. A
settlement has been reached with respect to the three pending
putative Canadian class actions within amounts previously recorded
by the company. Approximately 685 of the state lawsuits, involving
individual claims by approximately 785 plaintiffs, are pending in
the Superior Court of the State of Rhode Island, with the
remainder in various other jurisdictions. The Hernia Product
Claims also generally seek damages for personal injury resulting
from use of the products.

In June 2007, the Composix Kugel lawsuits and, subsequently, other
hernia repair product lawsuits, pending in federal courts
nationwide were transferred into one Multidistrict Litigation
("MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

On June 30, 2011, the company announced that it had reached
agreements in principle with various plaintiffs' law firms to
settle the majority of its existing Hernia Product Claims. Each
agreement is subject to certain conditions, including requirements
for participation in the proposed settlements by a certain minimum
number of plaintiffs. In addition, the company continues to engage
in discussions with other plaintiffs' law firms regarding
potential resolution of unsettled Hernia Product Claims, and
intends to vigorously defend Hernia Product Claims that do not
settle, including through litigation. The company cannot give any
assurances that the resolution of the Hernia Product Claims that
have not settled, including asserted and unasserted claims and the
putative class action lawsuits, will not have a material adverse
effect on the company's business, results of operations, financial
condition and/or liquidity.


C. R. BARD: Still Faces Suits Over Surgical Continence Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
As of October 17, 2013, product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims by approximately 9,635 plaintiffs have been
filed or asserted against C.R. Bard, Inc. in various federal and
state jurisdictions alleging personal injuries associated with the
use of certain of the company's surgical continence products for
women, including its Avaulta line of products, 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 addition, five putative class actions in the United States and
three putative class actions in Canada have been filed against the
company (all lawsuits, collectively, the "Women's Health Product
Claims").

The Women's Health Product Claims generally seek damages for
personal injury resulting from use of the products. The putative
class actions, none of which has been certified, seek: (i) medical
monitoring; (ii) compensatory damages; (iii) punitive damages;
(iv) a judicial finding of defect and causation; and/or (v)
attorneys' fees.

With respect to certain of these claims, the company believes that
one of its suppliers has an obligation to defend and indemnify the
company. In October 2010, the Women's Health Product Claims
involving solely Avaulta products pending in federal courts
nationwide were transferred into an MDL in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, the
scope of which was later expanded to include lawsuits involving
all women's surgical continence products that are manufactured or
distributed by the company. The company expects additional Women's
Health Product Claims pending in federal courts to be transferred
to the MDL in West Virginia, with the remainder of the Women's
Health Product Claims in other jurisdictions.

The first trial in the MDL commenced in July 2013 and resulted in
a judgment against the company of approximately $2 million. The
company intends to appeal the judgment. The next MDL trial is
scheduled to occur in December 2013, with additional trials
scheduled in 2014. The first trial in a state court was completed
in July 2012 and resulted in a judgment against the company of
approximately $3.6 million. The company has appealed this
decision.

During the third quarter, the company settled one MDL case and one
New Jersey state case. The amounts of the settlements are subject
to confidentiality requirements.

In addition, during the third quarter, an MDL case was voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice, and the company is currently seeking to
recover attorneys' fees for this case. The company does not
believe that any verdicts or settlements entered to date are
representative of potential outcomes of all Women's Health Product
Claims. The case numbers set forth above do not include generic
complaints involving women's health products where the company
cannot, based on the allegations in such complaints, determine
whether any of such cases involve the company's women's health
products. While the company intends to vigorously defend the
Women's Health Product Claims, it cannot give any assurances that
the resolution of these claims will not have a material adverse
effect on the company's business, results of operations, financial
condition and/or liquidity.


C. R. BARD: Filter Product Suits Dismissed, Certification Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of October 17, 2013, product liability lawsuits involving
individual claims by 40 plaintiffs are currently pending against
the company in various federal and state jurisdictions alleging
personal injuries associated with the use of the company's vena
cava filter products, 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 addition, three putative class actions were filed against the
company in various state courts on behalf of plaintiffs who are
alleged to have no present injury (all lawsuits, collectively, the
"Filter Product Claims"). Two of these putative class actions were
dismissed during the second quarter, and class certification was
denied for the third putative class action in July 2013. The first
Filter Product Claim trial was completed in June 2012 and resulted
in a judgment for the company. The company expects additional
trials of Filter Product Claims to take place over the next 12
months. During the second quarter of 2013, the company finalized
settlement agreements with respect to more than 30 Filter Product
Claims, and made payments with respect to such claims within the
amounts previously recorded. While the company intends to
vigorously defend the remaining unsettled Filter Product Claims,
it cannot give any assurances that the resolution of these claims
will not have a material adverse effect on the company's business,
results of operations, financial condition and/or liquidity.


CALIFORNIA: Doctors Call Workers Comp Law Unconstitutional
----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that California's workers' comp reform will bar some medical
providers from reimbursement for previously provided care unless
they pay a "ransom," a chiropractor claims in a federal class
action.

Kirk Kancilia, who practices in San Diego, sued the state on
behalf of medical providers who offer care to workers'
compensation applicants on a lien basis.

Senate Bill 863, which makes wide-ranging changes to California's
workers' compensation system, was passed on Aug. 31, 2012, and
signed into law by Gov. Brown on Sept. 18, 2012.  The bill took
effect on Jan. 1, 2013, but not all of its provisions were
effective immediately.

The reform was touted as providing increased benefits to injured
workers and creating cost-saving efficiencies.  Among other
things, SB 863 increased permanent disability benefits by 30
percent, reduced the costs of workers' compensation losses by
nearly $1 billion, and saved California $40 million annually in
insurance costs, according to the governor's statement the day he
signed the bill.

But in his lawsuit, Kancilia claims that the reform "creates a
multi-million dollar windfall for big workers' compensation
insurance companies by canceling millions of unpaid medical bills
of injured California workers on January 1, 2014 absent this
Court's intervention.  Put simply, SB 863's implementation will
deny California workers of the right to have their medical bills
paid by employers and their workers' compensation carriers."

Kancila claims the law violates the Constitution by canceling lien
claims filed by medical providers before Jan. 1, 2013, unless the
providers pay a $100 "lien activation fee" before Jan. 1, 2014.

Healthcare providers have the right to file liens for payment for
their services against an award made in favor of the injured
workers.  But Kancila claims workers' comp insurance companies
delay resolution of liens, ignore them or underpay them, resulting
in a large volume of unresolved claims congesting the workers'
compensation system.

SB 863 seeks to reduce the volume of lien filings by imposing a
flat $100 lien-filing fee on medical providers who filed liens as
of Jan. 1, 2013, and a flat fee of $150 on those who file liens
after that date.

The fees "discourage the filing or pursuit of meritorious low-
dollar-value liens by rendering them valueless, thereby violating
the constitutional rights of independent service providers,"
Kancilia says in the lawsuit.

While the fees will make it infeasible for independent providers
to pursue liens for low-dollar-value services, they will not have
the same impact on service providers who are part of an insurer's
affiliates or preferred group of providers, as these entities
typically rely on contractual rights, not liens, to obtain
compensation, according to the complaint.

The fees will not make as big an impact on larger providers who
offer higher profit-margin services and multiple services on a
per-workers basis.  Nor will the lien filing fees affect insurance
companies, HMOs, labor union benefit plans, and other large
holders of workers' compensation liens because SB 863 specifically
exempts any lien filed by most of these entities, Kancilia says in
the lawsuit.

However, for independent providers, the law eliminates their
ability "to obtain judicial and administrative enforcement of
their vested property right to secure reasonable compensation for
their services through the workers' compensation lien procedures,"
according to the complaint.

For example, Kancilia claims he has 300 to 500 liens with dollar
amounts ranging from $500 to $1,500 per lien.

"This means that to collect between $75,000-100,000, Dr. Kancilia
will have to pay $30,000-50,000 in activation fees and wait
indefinitely.  This is something he simply cannot do from his own
personal reserves and, moreover, is unable to finance these sums
in light of the current economic and lending environment.  This
means that, on January 1, 2014, bills for up to $100,000 of
services provided by Dr. Kancilia will be voided for the benefit
of big workers' compensation insurance companies and to Dr.
Kancilia's detriment -- threatening his ability to continue in
practice," according to the complaint.

Kancilia wants the law declared unconstitutional for violating the
Fifth and 14th Amendments.  He wants the government enjoined from
collecting the lien filing and activation fees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew D. Rifat, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MATTHEW D. RIFAT
          3703 Camino Del Rio S
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 282-0185
          E-mail: matthew.rifat@gmail.com


COLE HAAN: Received Final Okay of Consolidated Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
issued a final order approving Cole Haan Company Store's
settlement of a consolidated class action lawsuit.

The settlement gives a "$20 off," or "30 percent off," voucher to
every class member, according to Courthouse News Service.

The consolidated lawsuit is Davis, et al. v Cole Haan Company
Store, Case No. 11-cv-01826-JSW, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: 4 Subclasses Certified in Special Kids Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Abbott, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
disabled preschool children challenging Washington's woeful
special education program must fight as subclasses, a federal
judge ruled.

Chief U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, who ruled two years ago
that the District of Columbia had failed its obligation to
"society's most vulnerable," split the class into four subsections
and appointed representatives under new guidelines established by
the U.S. Supreme Court case Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes.

"Based on evidence presented at trial, the court found that the
District provided special education services to less than 6% of
its total child population, despite statistical projections that
the District should identify and serve at least 12%," Lamberth
wrote.  "Of those disabled children who were identified, the
District failed to provide timely evaluations to 25-45% and timely
eligibility determinations to 56.75%."

Though the city reformed special education in response to the
lawsuit, its policies were still "inadequate to meet its
obligations under the [Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act]," the 33-page opinion states.

Early intervention as mandated by federal law works miracles,
offering a success rate of around 80 percent of disabled children
who receive special education services, but the class says the
city "has denied this miracle to a large number of disabled
children," according to the ruling.

The class says that D.C. has repeatedly failed to identify kids
with special needs, evaluate them or determine their eligibility
for special education.

But after Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, classes had to establish
commonality to be certified, and the city successfully appealed
the certification of the class of disabled preschoolers.

The D.C. Circuit remanded the case back to Lamberth after
reversing his certification.

Lamberth declined to dismiss the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction, but did cut the class into four subsets of students
between the ages of three and five divided by how they access
special education services.  He also denied the class's motion to
reinstate the court's findings of liability and remedial orders.

Now that the class has been divided into subsections, the judge
agreed to allow the class to amend its complaint.

According to the ruling, the district was cited by the federal
Office of Special Education Programs for each of the four years
prior to the trial and after its reform efforts for its denial of
a free and public education to disabled students.

The case is DL, et al., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. The District of Columbia, et al., Case No.
05-1437 (RCL), in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia.


FASTENAL CO: Judge Can't Find Fair & Reasonable Evidence in Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
a federal judge may upend a settlement between supplier Fastenal
and three disgruntled employees, saying she could find no evidence
the deal is "fair and reasonable."

Kristopher Deane, Michael Romano and Lisa Johnson sued Fastenal --
which employs more than 10,000 at 2,600 locations nationwide -- in
2010, claiming the company intentionally misclassifies its
employees as exempt to avoid paying overtime.

After U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers conditionally
certified the suit as a class action in 2011 -- and decertified it
in 2012 -- the parties agreed to release future claims in exchange
for an undisclosed sum and a confidentiality provision.

But in a tentative ruling Friday, November 15, 2013, Rogers said
the small amount of information the parties provided to her about
the settlement terms made it impossible for her to approve them.

"The parties' assertions that the amounts here are fair and
reasonable cannot be assessed based upon the scant evidence
information provided," Rogers wrote.  "Notwithstanding that a
settlement routinely involves compromise, the court cannot
determine the basis upon which the settlement amounts were
determined or how they compare to the maximum recovery plaintiffs
might have obtained if the action proceeded on its merits.  The
parties provide no estimates of overtime hours or lost meal and
rest breaks and no calculation or analysis explaining how the
settlement payments compare.  In short, the parties have not
provided sufficient information and explanation of the settlement
amount for the court to make the decision required."

Additionally, the judge took exception to the confidentiality
clause, claiming "numerous courts have found that such a provision
in a settlement of FLSA claims runs counter to the purposes of the
statute" -- contravening legislative intent and the Department of
Labor's efforts to notify employees of their FLSA rights.

"The parties make no effort to justify their confidentiality
provision here or explain why it should overcome the presumption
against such confidentiality so frequently stated in FLSA
decisions," Rogers wrote.

She also took exception to what she termed "such a broad release"
of future claims against Fastenal, saying the settlement amount
doesn't compensate plaintiffs enough to give up their right to sue
the company later.

Rogers welcomed both sides to clarify their positions at a hearing
on Monday, November 18, 2013.

The case is Kristopher Deane, et al. v. Fastenal Company, Case No.
11-CV-0042 YGR, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.


GOOGLE INC: Court Dismissed "Authors Guild" Copyright Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Google's mass book-digitization project makes fair use of
copyrighted material and benefits all society, a federal judge
ruled November 14, 2013.

The long-running lawsuit concerns a deal Google struck with
several major research libraries in 2004 to digitally copy their
collections.  By scanning more than 20 million books since then,
Google has created an electronic database of books, making text
available for online research through the use of "snippets," or
excerpts from the books.

The Library Project, one of two digital books programs pioneered
by Google, includes all types of books, from novels and
biographies to dictionaries and cookbooks.  The majority of the
books in the program are nonfiction, out-of-print books, though
some in-print books are also featured.

The Partner Program, the other component of Google's digital
project, involves the "hosting" and display of material provided
by book publishers and other rights holders.  It was designed to
help publishers sell books and help readers discover them.

While the Partner Program included 2.5 million books as of early
2012, Google had scanned more than 20 million books for its
Library Project, without compensating copyright holders or seeking
their permission.

The library plans to provide full-text access to so-called "orphan
works" whose copyright owners could not be located, but it
normally does not allow users to access the digitized books in
their entirety.  Its system delivers titles and page numbers via
keyword search, helping readers find the copyrighted books at
libraries.  Blind or print-disabled users can get special access
to the original works.

The Authors Guild and individual authors sued Google in 2005,
claiming it had not obtained permission from the copyright holders
to copy and digitize books that were still under copyright.

In 2011, an initial settlement failed to win approval from Judge
Denny Chin, sitting by designation in the Southern District of New
York from his usual post with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

Chin later refused to dismiss the guild's amended complaint and
certified the individual plaintiffs' class.

The guild's case was unaffected by a settlement Google reached
with the publishers' group last year that allows Google to scan
library books and allows publishers to request the removal of
specific digitized titles.

Meanwhile Google successfully appealed the class certification
with the 2nd Circuit remanding the case back to Manhattan for
"consideration of the fair use issues."

Chin found Thursday, November 14, 2013, that Google has digitally
reproduced millions of copyrighted books, making them available to
libraries for download, and kept copies for itself on its servers
and backup tapes, without asking for the copyright owners'
permission to do so.  But the Copyright Act's fair-use doctrine,
which allows limited copying of a work for criticism, research and
education purposes, shields Google's digital books project,
according to the 30-page opinion.

Google's use of the copyrighted works transforms expressive text
into a research tool that helps readers, librarians and scholars
identify and find books, and opens up new fields of research, the
opinion states.

"Words in books are being used in a way they have not been used
before," Chin wrote.  "Google Books has created something new in
the use of book text -- the frequency of words and trends in their
usage provide substantive information."

And although Google is a for-profit entity, it does not sell the
scans it has made of the copyrighted books or the snippets that it
displays, nor does it run ads on the pages that contain excerpts
from the books.  Google may benefit commercially by attracting
users to its websites through the Google Books tool, but the fact
that Google Books serves important educational purposes outweighs
Google's financial motivation, according to the ruling.

Chin also noted that, although Google Books offers full-text
search of books, it limits the amount of text displayed in
response to a search, and blacklists certain pages and excerpts.

The authors failed to persuade the court that Google Books will
have a negative impact on the market and that its scans will serve
as a "market replacement" for books.  To the contrary, Chin noted,
Google Books enhances book sales to the benefit of copyright
holders and helps readers discover and order books.

"In my view, Google Books provides significant public benefits,"
Chin concluded.  "It advances the progress of the arts and
sciences, while maintaining respectful consideration for the
rights of authors and other creative individuals, and without
adversely impacting the rights of copyright holders.  It has
become an invaluable research tool that permits students,
teachers, librarians, and others to more efficiently identify and
locate books.  It has given scholars the ability, for the first
time, to conduct full-text searches of tens of millions of books.
It preserves books, in particular out-of-print and old books that
have been forgotten in the bowels of libraries, and it gives them
new life.  It facilitates access to books for print-disabled and
remote or underserved populations.  It generates new audiences and
creates new sources of income for authors and publishers.  Indeed,
all society benefits."

A federal judge in Manhattan concluded last year in the related
HathiTrust case that digitizing the books to enhance research and
access is a legal fair use of copyrighted material, therefore
Google is not liable for secondary copyright infringement for
providing libraries with digital copies, according to Chin's
opinion.

Google applauded the conclusion to the 8-year-old case.

"As we have long said, Google Books is in compliance with
copyright law and acts like a card catalog for the digital age -
giving users the ability to find books to buy or borrow," a
spokesperson said in a statement.

The Authors Guild said it plans to appeal the decision.

"We disagree with and are disappointed by the court's decision
today," Authors Guild executive director Paul Aiken said.  "This
case presents a fundamental challenge to copyright that merits
review by a higher court.  Google made unauthorized digital
editions of nearly all of the world's valuable copyright-protected
literature and profits from displaying those works.  In our view,
such mass digitization and exploitation far exceeds the bounds of
fair use defense."

If upheld on appeal, the decision may help Google retain its
leadership in Internet search, which has allowed it to become the
world's largest online advertiser.  Google, which makes most
advertising money from online searches in the United States,
reported more than $36.5 billion in advertising revenues in 2011,
according to court filings.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael J. Boni, Esq,
          Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
          John E. Sindoni, Esq.
          BONI & ZACK LLC
          15 St. Asaphs Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 822-0200
          Facsimile: (610) 822-0206
          E-mail: MBoni@bonizack.com
                  JSnyder@bonizack.com

               - and -

          Edward H. Rosenthal, Esq.
          Jeremy S. Goldman, Esq.
          FRANKFURT KURNIT KLEIN & SELZ P.C.
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 980-0120
          Facsimile: (212) 593-9175
          E-mail: erosenthal@fkks.com
                  jgoldman@fkks.com

               - and -

          Sanford P. Dumain, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          1 Pennsylvania Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          Facsimile: (212) 868-1229
          E-mail: sdumain@milberg.com

Google, Inc. is represented by:

          Daralyn J. Durie, Esq.
          Joseph C. Gratz, Esq.
          David McGowan, Esq.
          Genevieve P. Rosloff, Esq.
          DURIE TANGRI LLP
          217 Leidesdorff Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 362-6666
          Facsimile: (415) 236-6300
          E-mail: ddurie@durietangri.com
                  jgratz@durietangri.com
                  dmcgowan@durietangri.com
                  grosloff@durietangri.com

Amicus Curiae Digital Humanities and Law Scholars is represented
by:

          By: Jennifer M. Urban, Esq.
          Babak Siavoshy, Esq.
          Jason Schultz, Esq.
          SAMUELSON LAW, TECHNOLOGY & PUBLIC POLICY CLINIC
          University of California, Berkeley, School of Law
          396 Simon Hall
          Berkeley, CA 94720

               - and -

          Matthew Sag, Esq.
          LOYOLA UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO SCHOOL OF LAW
          25 East Pearson Street
          Chicago, IL 60611

Amicus Curiae American Library Association, Association of College
and Research Libraries, Association of Research Libraries, and
Electronic Frontier Foundation are represented by:

          Jonathan Band, Esq.
          JONATHAN BAND PLLC
          21 Dupont Circle, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 296-5675
          Facsimile: (202) 872-0884
          E-mail: jband@policybandwidth.com

The case is The Authors Guild, Inc., et al. v. Google Inc., Case
No. 1:05-cv-08136-DC, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.


HEALTH CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Marijuana User Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that a proposed class action lawsuit
has been launched after a slip-up by Health Canada outed thousands
of medical marijuana users.

The suit alleges the department put the privacy and safety of
40,000 users at risk when it sent them personally addressed
letters in an envelope that on its outside explicitly referred to
the Medical Marijuana Access Program.

The legal action was filed on Nov. 25 in Federal Court on behalf
of Vancouver marijuana activist Jason Wilcox, who was among those
identified in the mailings.

Lawyer Kate Saunders -- ksaunders@branmac.com -- who is handling
the case, says she's spoken to a handful of users allowed to grow
marijuana under the program who have now moved their pot garden or
fled their homes, fearing break-ins.  She says the lawsuit is
seeking damages for users' relocation costs, and also aims to help
ensure such a breach never occurs again.

Health Canada has apologized for what it called an "administrative
error" and says it is taking steps to make sure it doesn't happen
again.  The department has also said it's in talks with the
privacy commissioner about the incident.

Ms. Saunders, of Vancouver law firm Branch MacMaster, said
Mr. Wilcox got "700 emails in two days" from medical marijuana
users concerned about the mailing mistake.  She called the foul up
a "pretty significant privacy breach" that not only reveals who
uses pot but also leads to suggestions about their health, as she
said many in the program are coping with diseases such as HIV.

"There's not just the social stigma associated with the marijuana
use itself, there's the social stigma with many of the illnesses
that these individuals all suffer from."

The suit states that prior to last month's mail-out through Canada
Post, Health Canada had been sending its correspondence by private
courier in envelopes that didn't carry the word "marijuana."

The letters were sent to alert medical marijuana users to major
changes coming in the program beginning April 1.

Health Canada is changing the program to allow dozens of approved
commercial growers to provide the product to licensed patients,
while phasing out personal production.

Separately, The London Free Press reports that a Chatham-Kent
woman who contacted The Free Press about the privacy breach said
she's considering joining the suit.

"I haven't yet.  I'm kind of still reeling from it all," said
Joanne on Nov. 2, who doesn't want her last named used.  "I
probably will, I likely will, just to follow through."

If the suit is certified as a national class action by a judge,
all 40,000 Canadians who received the envelopes will automatically
be part of it.

"The end goal is two-fold," said Ms. Saunders, a lawyer with
Vancouver's Branch MacMaster LLP.

Her client wants justice in the form of damages, as well as a
change in federal policy that would prevent the same thing from
happening again.

"This is a very troubling situation that we would hope the federal
government would learn from," Ms. Saunders said.

Joanne and other medicinal-pot users received letters from Health
Canada earlier in November in envelopes with a return address of
the "Marihuana Medical Access Program."

Deputy Health Minister George Da Pont apologized for the privacy
breach, writing that his department deeply regrets the
administrative error.

A spokesperson for the federal privacy commissioner said an
investigation was underway.  As of Nov. 22, the privacy
commissioner had received 40 formal complaints about the letters.
The commissioner's office learned of the breach from the public,
not Health Canada.

Joanne said she's concerned living in a community where everybody
knows each other, someone who saw the envelope at the small post
office could talk about it to others.

That could make her and her husband a target for thieves looking
for pot and a subject of public ridicule, she said.

On Nov. 25, she said she believes the ultimate solution to the
marijuana question will be a political one, saying she is
considering voting for the Liberals in the next federal election.

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau has said he is in favor of changing
Canada's marijuana laws.  "I've never voted Liberal in my life.
The kid has my vote," Joanne said.


HEALTH CANADA: McInnes Cooper Law Firm Files Privacy Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
McInnes Cooper law firm on Nov. 25 filed a proposed class action
in Federal Court against the Government of Canada in response to
Health Canada's breach of the privacy rights of 40,000 patients in
the Marijuana Medical Access Program.  Under the Marijuana Medical
Access Program, patients are permitted to grow marijuana in their
residence for medicinal purposes.

Earlier last month, Health Canada sent these patients a letter via
Canada Post that clearly indicated on the envelope that the named
patient participated in the Marijuana Medical Access Program.

Health Canada's disclosure of the patients' private medical
information has raised serious employment and security concerns,
and caused the patients to suffer considerable stress and anxiety.

"As a result of Health Canada's error, we have already spoken with
a number of people whose lives have been affected by this breach,"
said David Fraser -- david.fraser@mcinnescooper.com -- a national
expert on privacy law, and McInnes Cooper's lead lawyer on this
case.

"We have heard that some individuals have already lost their jobs
as a result, and everyone we've spoken with is concerned about
their safety in their homes."


HILTON HOTELS: Owes $21-Mil. to Lawyers in "Kifafi" ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Jack Bouboushian reports that
class counsel for Hilton employees whose pension plans were
illegally backloaded are entitled to 15 percent of a $140 million
judgment, a federal judge ruled.

A backloaded pension plan means that employees accumulate benefits
slowly at first, then at a faster rate the longer they work for
the employer.  Federal law requires employers to comply with
certain anti-backloading provisions to prevent abuse.

In the late 1990s, Jamal Kifafi, a Hilton employee, noticed a
problem with the retirement-benefits calculation on his statement
and filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA).

Almost 15 years later, a federal judge in Washington, D.C.,
determined that Hilton's retirement plan was improperly
backloaded, and that the hotel chain failed to credit certain
years of service when calculating the vesting credit of
participants.

The D.C. Circuit affirmed the ruling last year, finding that the
lower court's order properly held Hilton responsible for its ERISA
violations.

On November 18, 2013, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly
awarded 15 percent of the $140 million common fund as attorneys'
fees for class counsel led by Stephen Bruce.  She also awarded
$603,000 in expenses, and a $50,000 incentive award to lead
plaintiff Kifafi, both of which will be paid out of the common
fund.

"The skill and efficiency with which class counsel fought this
case for more than thirteen years also greatly weighs in favor of
the requested attorneys' fee," the judge said.

As of October 14, 2013, over 70 percent of the class affirmatively
responded to the reward and attorneys' fee notice by completing
address verification forms, and only 5 members of a 23,000 member
class objected to the award.

"This thirteen-year legally and mathematically complex litigation,
which resulted in a common fund worth over $100 million and
benefiting nearly 23,000 individuals, was undertaken by only two
attorneys with one additional attorney lending his assistance
during the first part of the litigation and another during the
latter part of the litigation," Kollar-Kotelly wrote.  "In total,
these four attorneys report a large, but ultimately lean number of
hours working on this case given its complexity and duration."

While the attorneys' fees request of 15 percent of the common fund
is several times greater than the amount counsel would have
charged plaintiff at their billable rate, the D.C. Circuit does
not require courts to conduct a lodestar cross-check.

"In light of the skill and dedication exhibited by class counsel,
the substantial length and complexity of this litigation, the
risks assumed by counsel, and the substantial benefits secured by
counsel for the class, the court concludes that a fee of 15
percent of the common fund is fair and reasonable," the judge
concluded.

The case is Jamal J. Kifafi v. Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan, et
al., Case No. 98-1517 (CKK), in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.


HOME FEDERAL: Faces Merger-Related Class Action Suit in Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announced in October 2013 that
a class action lawsuit has been filed in Maryland Circuit Court
against the Board of Directors of Home Federal Bancorp, Inc.
relating to the proposed acquisition of the Company by Banner
Corporation.

Under the terms of the transaction, Home shareholders will receive
only $13.40 per share for each share of Home stock they own. The
litigation alleges breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations
of state law by the Board of Directors of Home for not acting in
the Company's shareholders' best interests in connection with the
sale process.

The transaction may undervalue the Company and result in a loss
for many shareholders as Home stock traded at $14.55 per share as
recently as July 25, 2013, and traded at $13.96 on January 9,
2013.  In addition, an analyst as set a $15.00 per share price
target on Home stock and the premium being offered may be
substantially below comparable transactions.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Hagens Berman & Stein Mitchell File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers, represented by law firms Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP and Stein Mitchell Muse & Cipollone LLP, filed a class-action
lawsuit on Nov. 25 claiming that Hyundai Tiburon model years 2003
through 2008 contain a dangerous safety defect in its side air bag
system.

According to the lawsuit, the alleged defect stems from Hyundai's
placement of the Tiburon side impact sensor in a remote inboard
location where it is unable to recognize many types of real world
crashes in which an air bag should be deployed to prevent serious
injury or death.

"This is a very serious and troubling defect from one of the
world's largest automakers," said Steve Berman, Hagens Berman
managing partner and one of the attorneys representing consumers.
"Consumers rightly assume that air bags will deploy to protect
them in the event of an accident, and we think Hyundai continued
to design and sell Tiburons despite knowing of the defect."

The suit, filed Nov. 25, 2013, in U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, claims that Hyundai's own testing
established that the inboard location the company chose for the
side impact sensor had difficulty detecting crash severity in
simulated collisions, whereas a sensor on an exterior location on
the B pillar of the vehicle provided a robust signal enabling the
system to detect in a timely manner whether an air bag was
warranted.

Hyundai manufactured and sold Tiburons with the allegedly
defective side air bag system through 2008, when it discontinued
the model.

"Instead of investing in its customers' safety and fixing the
problem, we believe that Hyundai ignored the problem, continuing
to manufacture and sell defective vehicles, stopping only when the
model itself was finally discontinued," said Ari Casper --
acasper@steinmitchell.com -- of Stein Mitchell Muse & Cipollone,
one of the attorneys representing the proposed class.

The suit accuses Hyundai of violations of the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act and California Unfair Competition Law, Breach
of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability, and Fraudulent
Concealment.

Consumers who purchased a Hyundai Tiburon and who would like more
information can contact an attorney by calling Hagens Berman at
206-623-7292 or Stein Mitchell at 202-737-7777 in Washington D.C.
They can also email Tiburon@hbsslaw.com

                       About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in nine cities.

                      About Stein Mitchell

Stein Mitchell Muse & Cipollone LLP --
http://www.steinmitchell.com -- is a premier nationally-
recognized litigation firm based in Washington, D.C., serving
businesses and individuals throughout the United States and
abroad.  The firm's practice areas include products liability,
class action, commercial litigation, antitrust & trade regulation,
congressional investigations, white collar criminal defense, False
Claims Act & whistleblower, and medical malpractice & serious
personal injury.


IXIA: Faces Securities Class Suit Over Misleading Information
-------------------------------------------------------------
Felix Santore, Individually and on Behalf of Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. Ixia, Victor Alston, Atul Bhatnagar, Thomas
B. Miller and Errol Ginsberg, Case No. 2:13-cv-08440-PA-SH (C.D.
Cal., November 14, 2013) alleges that the Company made false and
misleading information, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about its business, operations and prospects.

Mr. Santore also alleges that the Company's chief executive
officer misstated his academic credentials and employment history.

                           About Ixia

Headquartered in Calabasas, California, Ixia develops amazing
products so its customers can connect the world.  Ixia helps its
customers provide an always-on user experience through fast,
secure delivery of dynamic, connected technologies and services.
Through actionable insights that accelerate and secure application
and service delivery, Ixia's customers benefit from faster time to
market, optimized application performance and higher-quality
deployments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Zevi Glancy, Esq.
          Michael M. Goldberg, Esq.
          Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW AND 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


KIA MOTORS: Soul Has Defective/Dangerous Gas Tanks, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that a Kia driver
claims in a California federal class action that Kia Motors sells
cars with dangerously defective gas tanks that led to the deaths
of at least three passengers.

Lead plaintiff Constance Sims claims Kia Soul models have
"defective and dangerous" gas tanks.  She claims the gas tanks are
neither reinforced with straps under the vehicle nor shielded with
sheet metal, creating risks of injury or death should the gas tank
explode during a collision.

"The first priority of a car manufacturer should be to deliver a
safe car, particularly a car with a safe gas tank," the complaint
states.  "A corollary of this rule is that a car manufacturer must
take all reasonable steps to protect the gas tank from being
dislodged and ruptured in an accident and to ensure that a gas
tank fire does not immediately invade the passenger cabin."

Gas tanks on the Kias are directly beneath the rear passenger
seats, Sims says, close to the rear axle.

"However, the gas tank in the defective vehicles is unshielded,
and the gas tank is bolted to the vehicle underbody instead of
being strapped," the lawsuit states.  "Failure to use straps, as
most auto manufacturers do, increases the risk that the gas tank
will shift or dislodge and ignite in a major collision."

Adding to the risk, Sims claims, are that unlike most cars, fuel
pump service covers on Kias are made of plastic instead of metal
and placed under the rear seat cushion.

"This location, coupled with the use of a plastic instead of a
metal fuel pump service cover, increases the likelihood that in a
major collision, fire will penetrate the rear cabin through the
plastic service cover like a 'blow torch,'" the complaint states.

Sims claims that "passengers sitting in the rear seats in
defective vehicles are sitting atop veritable gas bombs that, in a
major collision, have the propensity to explode and immediately
engulf rear occupants in flames.  There has been at least one
accident in which this nightmare scenario resulted, killing three
passengers traveling in a defective Soul in Texas."

Kia calls its models safe and "world class" in its ads.

"A brochure/advertisement for the 2013 Soul proclaims that the Kia
Soul is a '2012 Top Safety Pick Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety' and that this award provided added 'peace of mind,'" the
complaint states.

Sims claims that Kia knew its vehicles were dangerous when it made
those statements.

She seeks class certification and wants Kia ordered to fix the
defective gas tanks or provide the class with safe cars.  She also
seeks restitution and damages consumer law violations, unfair
competition, false advertising, breach of implied warranty, and
fraudulent concealment.

Kia did not immediately respond to an e-mailed request for
comment.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 203
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
          E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          ROBINSON, CALCAGNIE & ROBINSON
          620 Newport Center Drive, 7th Floor
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288
          Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
          E-mail: mrobinson@rcrlaw.net

The case is Sims, et al. v. Kia Motors America, Inc., et al., Case
No. SACV13-01791 AG (DFMx), in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.


KMART CORP: Makes Employees Work Off the Clock, Calif. Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that KMart makes employees work
off the clock, citing a class action claims in California Superior
Court for Los Angeles County.


LIT MURAL: Recalls Horizontal Single (39-inch) Fold-Away Beds
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 26, 2013
Posting date:             November 26, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Household Items
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Physical Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-36829

Affected products: Horizontal single (39-inch) fold-away beds
manufactured by Lit Mural Ga-Ma

The recall involves the horizontal single (39-inch) fold-away beds
manufactured by Lit Mural Ga-Ma.

The mechanism of the recalled fold-away beds can operate
improperly and cause the bed to close unexpectedly while a person
is sleeping.  The user is then trapped between the wall and the
bed.

One death related to the use of this product has been reported to
Health Canada and to Lit Mural Ga-Ma.

In Canada, approximately 20 recalled products were sold.

The recalled products manufactured in Canada and were sold between
February 2004 and November 2012.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Lit Mural Ga-Ma
                    Sainte-Anne-de-la-Perade
                    Quebec
                    Canada

Horizontal single (39-inch) fold-away bed
Horizontal single (39-inch) fold-away bed

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
contact Lit Mural Ga-Ma by telephone at 1-800-561-2252 or by email
in order that the mechanism may be modified.


LITTLE WILLY'S: Recalls Hooded Sweatshirts Due to Choking Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Little Willy's of, New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of
about 200 Little Willy's Hooded Sweatshirts.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The hoodies have drawstrings through the hood or neck which pose a
strangulation hazard to young children.  In February 1996, CPSC
issued guidelines about drawstrings in children's upper outerwear.
In 1997, those guidelines were incorporated into a voluntary
standard.  Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines and
voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves Little Willy's brand children's hooded
sweatshirts sold in sizes XS (2 years), S (3 years), M
(4-5 years), L (6-7 years), XL (8-9 years) and XXL (10 years).
The cotton fleece sweatshirts were sold in two color patterns:
dark grey with light grey stripes and a red hood, and purple with
navy blue stripes and a green hood.  The sweatshirt has an elbow
patch on the right arm and the Little Willy logo on the front.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in Peru and sold online at
Zullily.com and Gilt.com from January 2012 to May 2012 for about
$20.

Consumers should immediately take the garments away from children.
Consumers can remove the drawstrings to eliminate the hazard or
return the garments to Little Willy's to have the drawstring
removed.


MACY'S INC: Accused of Racial Profiling by HBO's "Treme" Actor
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters' Jonathan Allen reports that actor Rob Brown, who stars in
HBO show "Treme," sought to broaden his racial-profiling lawsuit
against Macy's into a federal class action case, with his lawyer
saying Brown hoped to use his celebrity for "social change."

Brown withdrew the lawsuit he filed last month in New York State
Supreme Court against the department store and the New York City
Police Department and, instead, filed two new lawsuits with the
U.S. District Court in lower Manhattan seeking class-action
status.

A federal judge must decide whether to grant the lawsuits class-
action status.

Brown said undercover police handcuffed him and put him in a cell
at Macy's Manhattan flagship store in June after an employee there
accused him of credit card fraud.

The employee and the police, he said, could not believe that
Brown, as a young, black man, could afford to buy a $1,300 watch
and some sunglasses without stealing someone else's card.

The lawsuit against Macy's says that after realizing their
mistake, a police sergeant apologetically offered to escort him to
his next destination in a police car with flashing lights.

"If he wasn't Rob Brown, the actor, and he was just some person of
color off the street, he would have been kept there, handed over
to the police and charged with a crime he didn't commit and put
into the criminal justice system," said Brown's lawyer, Douglas
Wigdor.

"So, he feels strongly now that he has the ability to create
substantial change and help other people," Wigdor said.

Both Macy's and the police have denied any wrongdoing.
Nonetheless, Macy's President Terry Lundgren and top executives
from other retailers facing similar complaints have met with the
Reverend Al Sharpton and other civil rights leaders to discuss the
issue.

New York City's Law Department, which handles lawsuits against the
police department, said it had seen the lawsuits and would review
the claims.

Macy's said it cannot comment on pending lawsuits, although a
spokeswoman said the company forbids racial discrimination by its
employees.

In October, the department store said it was taking Brown's
accusations "very seriously" and had started its own investigation
into the incident, saying its initial findings were that its
employees did not summon police and were not involved in Brown's
detention.

Brown filed two lawsuits on Wednesday - one against Macy's, the
other against the police department and city administration.
According to court papers, they were filed on behalf of all
"innocent Black, Hispanic, Asian and other non-White shoppers"
falsely targeted for theft by the retailer and by police officers
based on their race or ethnicity.

He asks the court to order Macy's and the police to change their
practices and pay unspecified damages.

In 2005, Macy's paid $600,000 to settle claims that many of the
chain's New York stores had profiled customers based on race,
handcuffing and detaining those suspected of shoplifting.

Rob Brown is represented by:

          Douglas Wigdor, Esq.
          THOMPSON WIGDOR LLP
          85 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 257-6800
          E-mail: dwigdor@thompsonwigdor.com


MF GLOBAL: Court Refused to Dismiss Consolidated Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Deshayla Strachan, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine cannot dismiss claims
against him and his officers regarding the collapse of the
brokerage firm MF Global, a federal judge ruled.

MF Global collapsed in October 2011, and then couldn't account for
what it had done with more than $750 million of its customers'
money.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed suit this past June
against MF Global Inc., MF Global Holdings Ltd., Corzine as CEO
and the assistant treasurer, Edith O'Brien.

Regulators said Corzine had run the company in an arrogant manner
and placed bad bets that horrified his underlings, particularly on
European sovereign debt.

Earlier suits from shareholders meanwhile were consolidated as one
14-count action in Manhattan against Corzine and 22 other MF
Global directors, officers and underwriters.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero likened MF Global's
catastrophic collapse, during which $1.6 billion allegedly
disappeared, to "a massive train wreck."

He explained Tuesday, November 12, 2013, that the analogy was
meant to have the parties pursue "the exceptional route to the
most speedy, economical, and just resolution possible."

"Efficiency was not in the cards," however, Marrero lamented.

"And so, before further investigation into plaintiffs' claims as
to what set in motion such an extraordinary chain of events,
defendants seem convinced that no one named in this lawsuit could
possibly have done anything wrong," the 105-page opinion states.
"So confident are they in the validity of this perception that, at
what must have amounted to an enormous expenditure of money, time
and energy, they seek a court ruling dismissing the complaint in
its entirety, thus barring any discovery that might shed light on
remaining unknowns that bear momentous consequences for the
victims who have suffered the losses."

The defendants complained that the complaint gives both too much
and too little detail, according to the ruling.  They said the
class gives more information than necessary to present a precise
statement of the facts, and yet not enough to give them fair
notice of why they are being sued.

Marrero said Corzine and his officers imply that the fall of MF
Global, as characterized by the plaintiffs, never happened, or if
it did occur, no one in its company played a role in it.  They
would skirt blame by pointing to the supernatural or simply saying
that "stuff happens," according to the ruling.

These claims sat poorly, however, with the judge.

"In evaluating the application of the law that defendants argue
would allow the outcome they seek at this stage of the litigation,
the court's assessment may simply be stated: It cannot be,"
Marrero wrote.

Finding that the investors sufficiently pleaded their claims
against Corzine and the other defendants, Marrero denied all six
motions to dismiss.

The case is In re MF Global Holdings Limited Securities
Litigation, Case No. 11 Civ. 7866 (VM), in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Feb. 20 Hearing on Summary Judgment Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
attorneys for a group of Division I NCAA football and basketball
players whose likenesses were used in video games and game footage
urged a federal judge in a November filing with the court to issue
an injunction in their favor.

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.  Wilken
partly certified a class of athletes seeking injunctive relief
against the NCAA.

That class seeks an order ending the prohibition on athletes
entering into licensing deals for the use of their names and
likenesses in video games and broadcasts.

"Their request for this injunction is not merely ancillary to
their demand for damages," Wilken 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."

Attorneys for the athletes moved for summary judgment Friday,
November 15, 2013, and filed a memorandum in support of that end.

Because the athletes cannot play sports if they do not comply with
the NCAA licensing rules, there is a restraint on them that
violates federal antitrust laws, attorney Michael Lehmann of
Hausfeld LLP argued in the memo.

"It is important to emphasize that the antitrust plaintiffs are
not advocating an end to the principle of amateurism, nor are they
advocating salaries for student-athletes," Lehmann wrote.

"This motion is confined to a quick look with respect to the
restraint against compensation for commercial use and licensing of
student-athletes' names, images and likenesses."

Instead of relying on empirical evidence, the NCAA and its expert
used "apocalyptic assertions that intercollegiate sports will
cease to exist, or cease to exist in the same successful form, if
member schools or conferences cannot prohibit compensation,"
Lehmann wrote.

Among other things, the attorney argued that the NCAA's expert
failed to show that the concept of amateurism promoted competition
in the markets.

"Indeed, 'amateurism' appears by definition to refer to
restraining competition for student athletes," Lehmann wrote.

The attorney said the NCAA's expert could not prove that the
concept of amateurism is incompatible with compensating athletes
for their images.

The integration of education and athletics also does not justify
the NCAA's restraint on the athletes' competition, Lehmann argued.

"There is no evidence to suggest that compensating student-
athletes for the use of their names, images and likenesses would
destroy the integration of athletics and education," the attorney
wrote.  "Student athletes will still have to enroll in school, go
to class, and meet minimum academic requirements (among other
things)."  (Parentheses in original.)

A hearing on the motion for summary judgment is scheduled for
February 20, 2014, in San Francisco.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          Arthur N. Bailey, Jr., Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          44 Montgomery St., 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
          E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com
                  abailey@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          1521 Locust Street, 7th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (973) 877-3819
          E-mail: sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
          Brendan P. Glackin, Esq.
          Katherine C. Lubin, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: efastiff@lchb.com
                  bglackin@lchb.com
                  klubin@lchb.com

The case is In Re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing
Litigation, Case No. 4:09-cv 1967 CW, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.


NATIONAL HOCKEY: Class Action Seeks Medical Monitoring for Players
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that 10 former National Hockey League
players, including All-Star forward Gary Leeman, claimed in a
class-action lawsuit that the league hasn't done enough to protect
players from concussions.

The lawsuit seeks damages and court-approved, NHL-sponsored
medical monitoring for the players' brain trauma and/or injuries,
which they blame on their NHL careers.  It was filed in federal
court in Washington on behalf of players who retired on or before
February 14 of this year and have suffered such injuries.

The suit comes just three months after the National Football
League agreed to pay $765 million to settle lawsuits from
thousands of former players who developed dementia or other
concussion-related health problems -- and in an era when more
attention is being paid to the damages of head injuries sustained
in sports.

Among other things, the suit claims that:

   -- The NHL knew or should have known about scientific evidence
that players who sustain repeated head injuries are at greater
risk for illnesses and disabilities both during their hockey
careers and later in life.

   -- Even after the NHL created a concussion program to study
brain injuries affecting NHL players in 1997, the league took no
action to reduce the number and severity of concussions during a
study period from 1997 to 2004.  "Plaintiffs relied on the NHL's
silence to their detriment," the suit says.

   -- The league didn't do anything to protect players from
unnecessary harm until 2010, when it made it a penalty to target a
player's head.

"The NHL's active and purposeful concealment of the severe risks
of brain injuries exposed players to unnecessary dangers they
could have avoided had the NHL provided them with truthful and
accurate information and taken appropriate action to prevent
needless harm," the lawsuit says.

Bill Daly, the league's Deputy Commissioner, issued a statement on
Nov. 25.

"We are aware of the class-action lawsuit filed . . . in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia on
behalf of a group of former NHL players.  While the subject matter
is very serious, we are completely satisfied with the responsible
manner in which the league and the players' association have
managed player safety over time, including with respect to head
injuries and concussions," the statement said.  "We intend to
defend the case vigorously and have no further comment at this
time."

The suit argues that the league continues to contribute to
injuries today, by refusing to ban fighting and body-checking, and
by employing "enforcers" whose main job is to fight or violently
body-check opponents.  And the lawsuit accuses the league of
promoting a "culture of violence," in which players are praised
for their fighting and "head-hunting" skills.

Mr. Leeman, who played for the Toronto Maple Leafs, Calgary
Flames, Montreal Canadians, Vancouver Canucks and St. Louis Blues
from 1983-1996, suffered multiple concussions and sub-concussive
impacts during his career, according to the lawsuit.  Since his
retirement, he's suffered from post-traumatic head syndrome,
headaches, memory loss and dizziness, the lawsuit says.

In addition to Mr. Leeman, the other ex-players on the lawsuit
are: Bradley Aitken (Pittsburgh Penguins, Edmonton Oilers); Darren
Banks (Boston Bruins); Curt Bennett (Blues, New York Rangers and
Atlanta Flames); Richard Dunn (Buffalo Sabres and Calgary Flames);
Warren Holmes, (Los Angeles Kings); Robert Manno, (Canucks, Maple
Leafs and Detroit Red Wings); Blair James Stewart (Red Wings,
Washington Capitals and Quebec Nordiques); Morris Titanic,
(Sabres); and Rick Vaive (Canucks, Maple Leafs, Sabres, and
Chicago Blackhawks).

In a statement, Mr. Vaive said players "were kept in the dark
about the risks of concussions and many of the former NHL players
are now suffering from debilitating head injuries from their time
in the league.  Hopefully this lawsuit will shine a light on the
problem and the players will get the help they deserve."

Earlier this year, NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman said, "We have,
on our own, a long history, going back to 1997, of taking
concussions very seriously.  We spend a lot of time, money and
effort working with the players' association on player safety."


NATIONAL HOCKEY: Two Law Firms File Concussion Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Silverman|Thompson|Slutkin|White in Baltimore,
Maryland and Namanny, Byrne & Owens of Laguna Hills, California on
Nov. 26 disclosed that they have filed a class action lawsuit,
Leeman, et al. v. National Hockey League, et al., Case No: 13-CV-
1856, filed on Nov. 26 in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia, against the National Hockey League (NHL).  The
plaintiffs, former NHL players, allege that the NHL has been
fraudulent and negligent in its failure to respond effectively to
decades of head injuries to its players, the suit alleges.  The
sanctioned bare-knuckle fighting, elbows to the head, and vicious
checks against the glass add up to take a brutal toll on a man's
brain, according to plaintiffs in the suit.

The class action complaint specifically claims that the NHL
consistently ignores or is reluctant to recognize longstanding
medical knowledge on concussions and lags behind introducing
protections for players implemented by other hockey leagues around
the world.

"NHL rule changes in 2004 made the game faster, more exciting, and
more marketable but led to increasingly violent collisions between
players resulting in an unprecedented number of severe head
injuries" said Steven D. Silverman -- ssilverman@mdattorney.com --
Managing Partner of Silverman, Thompson, Slutkin & White.  "The
NHL still refuses to bar bareknuckle fighting or body-checking in
spite of overwhelming evidence that both practices result in
debilitating head injuries. Instead, the NHL prefers to continue
employing and glorifying 'enforcers' -- players whose primary role
is to fight and violently body-check opposing players."

Mr. Silverman, a nationally-renowned litigator representing the
former NHL players in the lawsuit, adds "The reluctance of the NHL
to do anything but pay lip service in response to this decades-
long problem is shocking.  The NHL has only reluctantly and
recently amended a few rules that have been ineffective in
reducing concussions.  That is why a supermajority of delegates at
the recent meeting of the Canadian Medical Association in Calgary
voted to condemn the complacency of the NHL in regards to violence
in hockey."

Mel Owens, a disability attorney with Namanny, Byrne & Owens,
former first-round draft pick of the Los Angeles Rams and 10-year
veteran of the National Football League, says "I have been dealing
with quality-of-life issues for former professional athletes for
more than 20 years.  The damages sustained by professional hockey
players are tragic and are some of the worst injuries suffered by
professional athletes.  These ex-NHL players are living in a very
private, very dark world."

Rick Vaive, one of named plaintiffs in the lawsuit, who played in
the NHL from 1979 to 1992 says, "we were kept in the dark about
the risks of concussions and many of the former NHL players are
now suffering from debilitating head injuries from their time in
the league.  Hopefully this lawsuit will shine a light on the
problem and the players will get the help they deserve."

For decades the NHL has profited from encouraging and marketing a
culture of violence at the cost of the long-term health of its
players.  This lawsuit seeks treatment and compensation for those
intentional decisions.

For further information on this lawsuit, contact Steve Silverman
at ssilverman@mdattorney.com 410-385-2226, or Mel Owens at
mowens@nbolaw.com 949-452-0700.


NEW ZEALAND: Coromandel Tribe to Join Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Elton Smallman, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that a small
Coromandel tribe who say the Waitangi settlement process will
"ethnically cleanse" them from their region is set to join a
nationwide class action suit against the Crown.

Ngati Huarere from the northern end of the peninsula and five
other iwi were left out of the Hauraki Collective claim because
they failed to meet settlement criteria.

Negotiations for the Hauraki claim were expected to be completed
next year and Huarere advocate Tony Brljevich, whose wife Wanda is
of Ngati Huarere, said their exclusion had devastated the tribe.
They planned to join the class action which aimed to prove the
settlement process was flawed and Mr. Brljevich said Crown policy
pitted tribe against tribe.

"They are trying to ethnically cleanse Hauraki of any tribe which
is not part of the 12 tribes and they are trying to subsume them
under themselves to take control of those tribes assets."

Despite Hauraki tribal elders endorsing Ngati Huarere's position,
they were continually left out of the collective claim and legal
action may follow.

"There is going to be a whole lot of legal stuff so that's why we
were looking at the class action because they are challenging the
Crown's process and the Crowns process is blatantly
discriminatory," he said.

Crown preference is to settle claims with large "natural groups"
for ease of process and to deal with overlapping interests but
Mr. Brljevich said the policy was designed to "divide and conquer"
and Ngati Huarere would lose their history and mana.

"They won't even talk to us," Mr. Brljevich said.  "The Crown --
as far as they are concerned, we don't exist."

The Hauraki Collective included 12 iwi -- including Ngai Tai,
Ngati Poa, Ngati Whanaunga, Ngati Maru, Ngati Tamatera and Ngati
Hei -- from the region and laid claim to 2 million acres of land
and sea from Matakana Island near Tauranga to Matakana, north of
Auckland.

Five iwi from the collective purchased the Pouarua dairy farms
near Ngatea for NZD53 million with an advance payout from what is
believed to be a NZD100 million claim.

The Waitangi Tribunal disagreed that Ngati Huarere was a distinct
group and did not have customary interests separate to that of
other Hauraki tribes.

Wellington-based Treaty lawyer Moana Sinclair visited Taranaki to
explain the details of the pending class action.  Manawatu based
iwi Rangitane and five hapu from Taranaki have expressed an
interest.


NY THRUWAY AUTHORITY: Overcharged Truckers for Tolls, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Nick Divito reports that the
New York State Thruway Authority overcharged truckers for tolls
for years, and diverted $1.1 billion of the money to maintain the
state's canal system for tourists, truckers claim in a federal
class action.

Lead plaintiff American Trucking Associations, which bills itself
as the largest trucking industry trade association, claims the
Thruway Authority violated its members' rights by spending the
$1.1 billion on the Canal System since taking over its management
in 1992.

"And the expenditures have been rising," the truckers say,
claiming the Thruway Authority "drastically overcharges commercial
truckers for the use of the roads that it administers."

The Thruway's 570 miles of roads connecting Northeast states see
271 million vehicles a year, and commercial trucks account for 37
percent of Thruway revenue.

"Over the course of the latter half of the twentieth century, the
expansion of the Thruway and the rise of trucking as a dominant
method of transport resulted in a dramatic decline in the
commercial significance of New York's Canal System, a network of
waterways that stretches across upstate New York," the class
claims.  "Once a vital link between the markets of the East Coast
and suppliers in the Midwest, the Canal System is now primarily a
recreational space for tourists."

According to the lawsuit, the Thruway spent more than $80 million
of toll money on the canals in 2007, and another $100 million in
2012.

"As a tourist attraction, the Canal System is an economic boon to
the villages, hamlets and towns that line its 524 miles of
waterways," the complaint states.  "Estimates suggest that canal-
related tourism generates nearly $400 million in revenues yearly
for those who live and do business along the canals."

In 2010, drivers of ordinary passenger automobiles paid 47 cents
per mile, while trucks are charged up to 93 cents per mile at
various points along the route, the plaintiffs say.

The businesses that benefit from the tourism "do not bear the
heavy economic burden of maintaining and operating the canals,"
the group says.  "Instead, the Thruway Authority has shifted that
burden to commercial truckers -- the lifeblood of the American
economy -- by charging artificially inflated tolls for use of the
Thruway and then spending the extra revenues on the Canal System."

The truckers say the inflated tolls increase transport costs,
reducing their revenue and "compelling them to find different,
cheaper rates through other states, and causing them to lose
business to other modes of transport."

The higher trucker tolls also harm consumers by raising prices,
the truckers say.

"The Thruway Authority's toll regime is thus not simply wreaking
havoc on truckers' bottom lines; it is interfering with the
efficient operation of the national economy and encouraging
economic Balkanization at a time when we as a nation can least
afford these extra burdens on the free flow of commerce," the
plaintiffs say.

They seek declaratory judgment that the toll rates violate the
Commerce Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clauses of
Article IV, and the 14th Amendment.

They also seek restitution, disgorgement, damages and costs.

The 24-page complaint includes another 20 pages of exhibits.

The class is defined as people and motor carriers who have paid
tolls on the system since Nov. 14, 2010.

The truckers are represented by:

          Andrew Tauber, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          1999 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006-1101
          Telephone: (202) 263-3324
          Facsimile: (202) 263-5324
          E-mail: atauber@mayerbrown.com


OFFICEMAX NORTH: Got Prelim. OK of "Dardarian" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Officemax North America, Inc. received preliminary approval of its
settlement of a class action lawsuit initiated by Nancy Dardarian,
et al.  The settlement includes distribution of $600,000 in
merchandise vouchers to potential class members.

The class action lawsuit alleges violation of the Song-Beverly
Credit Card Act.

Officemax is a retailer that owns and operates stores throughout
California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
          Richard D. Lambert, Esq.
          STONEBARGER LAW, APC
          75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 235-7140
          Facsimile: (916) 235-7141
          E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com
                  rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com

               - and -

          H. Tim Hoffman, Esq.
          Chad A. Saunders, Esq.
          HOFFMAN LIBENSON SAUNDERS & BARBA
          180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1550
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763-5700
          Facsimile: (510) 835-1311
          E-mail: hth@hlsblaw.com
                  cas@hlsblaw.com

The case is Nancy Dardarian, et al. v. Officemax North America,
Inc., Case No. 4:11-cv-00947-YGR, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.


OUTERWALL INC: Redbox Responds to Bid to Certify Suit Over Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Outerwall Inc.'s subsidiary, Redbox, has filed its response on a
petition by a plaintiff for leave to appeal the denial of class
certification for a suit over alleged illegal and excessive late
fees, according to Outerwall's Oct. 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In October 2009, an Illinois resident, Laurie Piechur,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
a putative class action complaint against the Company's Redbox
subsidiary in the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial
Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois.

The plaintiff alleged that, among other things, Redbox charges
consumers illegal and excessive late fees in violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and
that Redbox's rental terms violate the Illinois Rental Purchase
Agreement Act or the Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act and
the plaintiff is seeking monetary damages and other relief. In
November 2009, Redbox removed the case to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois. In February 2010, the
District Court remanded the case to the Circuit Court for the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois. In May
2010, the court denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's
complaint. In November 2011, the plaintiff moved for class
certification, and Redbox moved for summary judgment. The court
denied Redbox's motion for summary judgment in February 2012. The
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 19, 2012, and an
amended motion for class certification on June 5, 2012. The court
denied Redbox's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The
amended class certification motion was briefed and argued. At the
hearing on plaintiff's amended motion for class certification, the
plaintiff dismissed all claims but two and is pursuing only her
claims under the Illinois Rental Purchase Agreement Act and the
Illinois Automatic Contract Renewal Act. On May 21, 2013, the
court denied plaintiff's amended class action motion. On August
23, 2013, plaintiff petitioned the Appellate Court for the Fifth
District of Illinois for leave to appeal the denial of class
certification.  Redbox filed its response on October 11, 2013.

The Company said, "We believe that the claims against us are
without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this
matter. Currently, no accrual has been established as it was not
possible to estimate the possible loss or range of loss because
this matter had not advanced to a stage where we could make any
such estimate."


OUTERWALL INC: Summary Judgment for Redbox Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in a suit against a subsidiary of Outerwall Inc.,
Redbox, is appealing a ruling granting summary judgment in favor
of the company, according to Outerwall's Oct. 24, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In March 2011, a California resident, Blake Boesky, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative
class action complaint against our Redbox subsidiary in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
plaintiff alleges that Redbox retains personally identifiable
information of consumers for a time period in excess of that
allowed under the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Section
2710, et seq.

A substantially similar complaint was filed in the same court in
March 2011 by an Illinois resident, Kevin Sterk. Since the filing
of the complaint, Blake Boesky has been replaced by a different
named plaintiff, Jiah Chung, and an amended complaint has been
filed alleging disclosures of personally identifiable information,
in addition to plaintiffs' claims of retention of such
information. Plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages, injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and interest.

The court has consolidated the cases. The court denied Redbox's
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims upon interlocutory
appeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed
the district court's denial of Redbox's motion to dismiss
plaintiff's claims involving retention of information, holding
that the plaintiffs could not maintain a suit for damages under
this theory. On April 25, 2012, the plaintiffs amended their
complaint to add claims under the Stored Communications Act, 18
U.S.C. Section 2707, and for breach of contract. On May 9, 2012,
Redbox moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 23, 2012,
the court dismissed the added retention claims, except to the
extent that plaintiffs seek injunctive, non-monetary relief.

On August 16, 2013, the court granted summary judgment in Redbox's
favor on all remaining claims, and entered a final judgment for
Redbox. On September 16, 2013, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.
Briefing of the appeal is scheduled to conclude with the filing of
plaintiff's reply brief on December 23, 2013.

According to the Company, "We believe that the claims against us
are without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in
this matter. Currently, no accrual has been established as it is
not possible to estimate the possible loss or range of loss
because this matter had not advanced to a stage where we could
make any such estimate."


OUTERWALL INC: Calif. Suit v. Redbox May Undergo Oral Argument
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in one suit alleging violation of California's Song-
Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 by a subsidiary of Outerwall Inc.
are awaiting a determination for a possible oral argument,
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 February 2011, a California resident, Michael Mehrens,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
a putative class action complaint against our Redbox subsidiary in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles.

The plaintiff alleges that, among other things, Redbox violated
California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 ("Song-Beverly")
with respect to the collection and recording of consumer personal
identification information, and violated the California Business
and Professions Code Section 17200 based on the alleged violation
of Song-Beverly. A similar complaint alleging violations of Song-
Beverly and the right to privacy generally was filed in March 2011
in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Alameda, by a California resident, John Sinibaldi. A third similar
complaint alleging only a violation of Song-Beverly, was filed in
March 2011 in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Diego, by a California resident, Richard Schiff.
Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages and civil penalties,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and interest.
Redbox removed the Mehrens case to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, the Sinibaldi case to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, and the
Schiff case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California. The Sinibaldi case was subsequently transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
where the Mehrens case is pending, and these two cases have been
consolidated. At the same time, the plaintiffs substituted Nicolle
DiSimone as the named plaintiff in the Mehrens case. After Redbox
filed a motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer, the Schiff case was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.

On January 4, 2013, the Court dismissed with prejudice theSchiff
case for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court
rules and orders. Redbox moved to dismiss the DiSimone/Sinibaldi
case, and DiSimone/Sinibaldi moved for class certification. In
January 2012, the Court granted Redbox's motion to dismiss with
prejudice and denied DiSimone/Sinibaldi's motion for class
certification as moot. On February 2, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their
notice of appeal.

After a stay pending the California Supreme Court's decision in a
case presenting similar issues involving Song-Beverly in a case to
which Redbox is not a party, Plaintiffs filed their opening brief
on April 15, 2013. The matter is now fully briefed, and the
parties are awaiting a determination from the appellate court as
to whether oral argument will be required.

According to the Company, "We believe that the claims against us
are without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in
this matter. Currently, no accrual has been established as it is
not possible to estimate the possible loss or range of loss
because this matter had not advanced to a stage where we could
make any such estimate."


PANASONIC CORP: Gets Initial OK of Antritrust Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Seeborg granted preliminary approval of a
class action settlement with Defendants Panasonic Corporation and
Panasonic Corporation of North America in IN RE OPTICAL DISK DRIVE
ANTITRUST LITIGATION, CASE NO. 3:10-MD-02143 RS, (N.D. Cal.).

The Court certified the settlement class defined as: All
individuals and entities who, during the period from January 1,
2004 until at least January 1, 2010 (the "Class Period") purchased
one or more Optical Disk Drives in the United States directly from
the Defendants, their subsidiaries, or their affiliates.

The Court appointed the Plaintiffs named in the Third Consolidated
Direct Purchaser Class Action Complaint, filed April 17, 2013, as
Representative Plaintiffs of the settlement class.  The Court
appointed the law firm of Saveri & Saveri, Inc. to serve as Class
Counsel for the settlement class.

The Court will conduct a Fairness Hearing on March 27 at 1:30
p.m., at which time the Court will determine:

a. Whether each proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and
   adequate and should be granted final approval;

b. Whether final judgment should be entered dismissing the claims
   of the settlement class against Panasonic;

c. Approval of the plan of allocation; and

d. Other matters as the Court may deem appropriate.

The ruling relates to all direct purchaser actions.

A copy of the District Court's November 1, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/EW2N0Zfrom Leagle.com.

Guido Saveri, R. Alexander Saveri, Geoffrey C. Rushing, Cadio
Zirpoli -- zirpoli@saveri.com -- SAVERI & SAVERI, INC., San
Francisco, CA, Chairman of the Executive Committee, for the Direct
Purchaser Plaintiffs.


PEEL, CANADA: Police Faces Class Action Over Racial Profiling
-------------------------------------------------------------
San Grewal, writing for Toronto Star, reports that a proposed
C$125 million racial profiling class-action lawsuit was filed on
Nov. 25 in Superior Court against the Peel Police Services Board
and Peel Region's former chief of police.

Three civilian plaintiffs and two legal advocacy groups that
represent racial minorities are asking for damages as a result of
alleged systemic racial profiling in the Peel police force.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.  The class
action must still be certified by a judge before it can go
forward.

Peel police officials did not have a response at press time.

Former chief Mike Metcalf, who retired from the force last year is
named in the suit.  The Black Action Defense Committee, one of the
two advocacy groups, filed a similar class-action suit seeking
C$65 million two weeks ago against Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair
and the Toronto Police Services Board.

The lawyer representing the plaintiffs said more people will be
joining the class action in Peel and that the initial amount of
the damages being sought in Peel is much higher because there are
three civilian plaintiffs compared to none in the Toronto suit.

He added that the damages being sought in Toronto will also go up
if more civilian plaintiffs join the lawsuit.

Asked why Mr. Metcalf, who is no longer the chief, was named,
Munyonzwe Hamalengwa said he was head of the force during the
"relevant time."  He also brought up Metcalf's reaction to a
finding against the force by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

In 2007, after the commission found a Peel officer guilty of
racial profiling in a shoplifting case, Mr. Metcalf said he was
"disappointed" with the finding and challenged the commission's
assertion that his department needed better training to avoid
racial profiling.

"That's why we named him," Mr. Hamalengwa said.  "The most recent
chief was against any kind of acceptance that racial profiling
occurs or that the police force needs to be more accountable in
dealing with the occurrence of systemic racial profiling."

The Toronto Star has for a decade produced statistical analysis of
Toronto police records that have clearly indicated the existence
of systemic racial profiling.

But Mr. Hamalengwa said in Peel, where 60 per cent of the
population belongs to visible minority groups, lawyers see the
same pattern.

"People of Indian origin and African origin, there are obvious
elements of racial profiling in Peel Region."

He said raw data will come out in the courts through the lawsuit.

The three civilians named as plaintiffs are Andrew Hewitt-Morris,
Junior Ebagua and Yafet Tewelde.  The suit details their alleged
interactions with Peel police.  For example, it claims in 2000,
Hewitt-Morris, then 13, was walking with a friend after playing
basketball when a Peel police constable approached and asked why
they didn't yet have a criminal record.  He allegedly said their
names would be put into the "gang book" and when police stopped
them in the future "red flags" would be raised.

After the Star recently did an extensive analysis of "carding" by
Toronto police, whereby personal information of individuals was
gathered despite no charges being laid, Toronto Police Board Chair
Alok Mukherjee called the practice, which targeted black and brown
racial minorities "devastating" and "unacceptable".

Two weeks ago he called for swift changes, including the purging
of carding data that had been obtained.

The Toronto suit names Mr. Blair and the civilian police services
board as defendants and alleges police and the board have failed
to adequately address a problem that has impacted blacks and other
minority groups for decades.


SANTARUS INC: Being Sold Too Cheaply to Salix, Shareholders Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling
Santarus too cheaply through an unfair process to Salix
Pharmaceuticals, for $32 a share or $2.6 billion, shareholders
claim in a class action in Delaware Chancery Court.

On November 7, 2013, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. and Santarus,
Inc. announced that the companies have entered into a definitive
merger agreement under which Salix will acquire all of the
outstanding common stock of Santarus for $32.00 per share in cash
(without interest).  The all-cash transaction values Santarus at
approximately $2.6 billion.  The $32.00 per share price represents
an approximately 36% premium over Santarus' November 6, 2013
closing price of $23.53 per share and an approximately 39% premium
over Santarus' average closing stock price for the prior 30-
trading day period.  The proposed transaction has been unanimously
approved by the Boards of Directors of Salix and Santarus.  The
companies expect to close the transaction in the first quarter of
2014.

Following the announcement, several law firms declared that they
are investigating the proposed acquisition.  Among the law firms
are:

          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 -

          Benjamin Y. Kaufman, Esq.
          Patrick Donovan, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (800) 575-0735
          Facsimile: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: kaufman@whafh.com
                  donovan@whafh.com

               - and -

          Scott Holleman, Esq.
          JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
          99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 802-1486
          Facsimile: (212) 602-1592
          E-mail: ScottH@johnsonandweaver.com

               - and -

          Joseph Levi, Esq.
          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad Street - 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: jlevi@zlk.com
                  ek@zlk.com


SIRIUS XM: US Supreme Ct. Refused to Review Antitrust Suit Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge's unique attempt to match class counsel with class
composition is questionable but not fit for Supreme Court review,
one justice said Monday, November 18, 2013.

The dispute grew out of claims in Manhattan that Sirius Satellite
Radio and XM Satellite Holdings violated antitrust law by merging
in 2008.

When the class moved for certification, U.S. District Judge Harold
Baer Jr. cited a provision of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
that empowers him to "consider any other matter pertinent to
counsel's ability to fairly and adequately represent the interests
of the class."

Baer then ordered that the three law firms previously appointed to
serve as class counsel "ensure that the lawyers staffed on the
case fairly reflect the class composition in terms of relevant
race and gender metrics."

With the class certified, the parties reached a settlement that
required Sirius to freeze its prices for five months and pay class
counsel $13 million in attorneys' fees.

Class member Nicolas Martin objected to the deal, which left no
cash for plaintiffs like him.  He also took aim at the court's
reliance on race and gender in assessing the adequacy of class
counsel.

The 2nd Circuit refused, however, to set aside the settlement as
the tainted product of an invalid certification order.

On November 18, 2013, the Supreme Court refused to grant Martin a
writ of certiorari despite its misgivings on Baer's unique
practice.

"Based on the materials now before us, I am hard-pressed to see
any ground on which Judge Baer's practice can be defended,"
Justice Samuel Alito wrote in an opinion explaining the order.
"This court has often stressed that '[r]acial discrimination has
no place in the courtroom, whether the proceeding is civil or
criminal.'  Court-approved discrimination based on gender is
similarly objectionable, and therefore it is doubtful that the
practice in question could survive a constitutional challenge."

Ultimately the court must first "consider whether the challenged
practice can be reconciled with Rule 23(g), which carefully
regulates the appointment of class counsel," the opinion states.

"Because of the fees that class counsel may receive -- witness the
present case in which counsel was awarded $13 million for handling
a case in which the class members received no compensation -- any
deviation from the criteria set out in the rule may give rise to
suspicions about favoritism.  There are more than 600 district
judges, and it would be intolerable if each judge adopted a
personalized version of the criteria set out in Rule 23(g)."

Alito added that he doubts whether the provision of Rule 23(g)
Baer cited "can be stretched to justify the practice at issue
here."

"It seems quite farfetched to argue that class counsel cannot
fairly and adequately represent a class unless the race and gender
of counsel mirror the demographics of the class," he wrote.
"Indeed, if the District Court's rule were taken seriously, it
would seriously complicate the appointment process and lead to
truly bizarre results."

The six-page opinion describes several impracticalities associated
with following Baer's order.

"Suppose, for example, that the class consisted of persons who had
undergone a particular type of treatment for prostate cancer," he
said.  "Would it be proper for a district judge to favor law firms
with a high percentage of male attorneys?"

In this case, however, the 2nd Circuit did not reach the
constitutionality of the issue because it found that Martin lacked
standing to challenge Baer's order.

Though Alito took issue with the lower court's reasoning, he said
the case does not merit Supreme Court review because "we are not a
court of error correction."

"If the challenged appointment practice continues and is not
addressed by the Court of Appeals, future review may be
warranted," he added.

Chief Justice John Roberts took no part in the consideration or
decision of the petition.

The case is Nicolas Martin, v. Carl Blessing, et al., Case No. 13-
169, in the U.S. Supreme Court of the United States.


SPARTAN STORES: Subsidiary Sued Over Planned Nash-Finch Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Spartan Stores, Inc. faces suits over a planned
merger with Nash-Finch Company, 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. 14, 2013.

On or about July 24, 2013, a putative class action complaint was
filed in the District Court for the Fourth Judicial District,
State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin, by a stockholder of Nash-
Finch in connection with a pending transaction made on July 21,
2013, in which Spartan Stores entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger providing for the merger of Nash-Finch Company with and
into a wholly-owned subsidiary of Spartan Stores.

The action is styled Greenblatt v. Nash-Finch Co. et al., Case No.
27-cv-13-13710. That complaint was amended on August 28, 2013
after Spartan Stores' registration statement was filed with the
SEC. On September 9, 2013, the defendants filed motions to dismiss
the complaint, which are currently pending before the court. On or
about September 19, 2013, a second putative class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota, by a stockholder of Nash-Finch. The action is styled
Benson v. Covington et al., Case No. 0:13-cv-02574. The lawsuits
allege that the directors of Nash-Finch breached their fiduciary
duties by, among other things, approving a merger that provides
for inadequate consideration under circumstances involving certain
alleged conflicts of interest; that the merger agreement includes
allegedly preclusive deal protection provisions; and that Nash-
Finch and Spartan Stores allegedly aided and abetted the directors
in breaching their duties to Nash-Finch's stockholders. Both
complaints also allege that the preliminary joint proxy
statement/prospectus was false and misleading due to the omission
of a variety of allegedly material information. The complaint in
the Benson action also asserts additional claims individually on
behalf of the plaintiff under the federal securities laws. The
actions seek, on behalf of their putative classes, various
remedies, including enjoining the merger from being consummated in
accordance with its agreed-upon terms, damages, and costs and
disbursements relating to the lawsuit.


STARBUCKS CORP: Faces "Fredrickson" Class Suit Over Phantom Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that Starbucks
adds a taxable "phantom wage" of 50 cents an hour in tips to
paychecks, causing some employees to be paid less than minimum
wage, workers claim in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Hannah Fredrickson claims that Starbucks illegally
makes up the tip numbers "out of thin air" and reports the amount
on pay stubs and W-2s.

Suing for the class for employees and former employees,
Fredrickson and two co-workers claim Starbucks violates the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

At each outlet, tip-eligible employees pool their tips every week
and distribute them based on the proportion of total hours worked,
according to the lawsuit.

"The employees never report that they have received that amount of
tips to Starbucks -- indeed, Starbucks specifically discourages
its employees from reporting their tips," the complaint states.
"Instead, Starbucks assigns a phantom amount of unreported tips to
each employee -- 50 cents for each hour they worked.  Starbucks
calls these phantom unreported tips 'imputed tips.'  Starbucks
just makes up that phantom number out of thin air and reports that
amount on the employees' pay stubs and Box 1 of the employees' W-2
returns as a fake amount of tips that it tells them they received
and reported."

Fredrickson claims this may reduce paychecks to less than minimum
wage -- and that Starbucks is not required to withhold taxes on
tips.

"The Fair Labor Standards Act prohibits deductions from an
employee's pay if they reduce the employee below the minimum wage
or overtime requirements.  Starbucks deducts amounts from its
employees' pay that reduce their paychecks below the minimum wage
and/or overtime requirements.  Its stated reason for the deduction
is that the employees owe taxes on their tips, but that is false.
Neither Oregon nor federal law require Starbucks to withhold taxes
from unreported tips.  The employees do not owe taxes on the tips,
because their income is low enough that the withholdings from
their regular wages are more than enough to meet their annual tax
burden.  Even if this were not the case, however, the employees
would not have to pay any taxes on those unreported tips until the
following April 15 (tax day).  The FLSA requires employers to pay
the minimum wage and overtime on payday, so the fact that the
employees might receive a refund of these wrongfully deducted
amounts (in many cases over a year later) does not eliminate the
violation." (Parentheses in complaint.)

Starbucks "willfully filed fraudulent information," in violation
of federal tax law, by reporting the made-up tips in W-2 returns,
Fredrickson claims.  She seeks class certification, an injunction,
and damages for wage and hour violations and $5,000 or the sum of
actual damages incurred, whichever is greater, for providing false
information on tax returns.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon M. Egan, Esq.
          THE EGAN LEGAL TEAM
          240 Sixth Street
          Lake Oswego, OR 97034-2931
          Telephone: (503) 697-3427
          Facsimile: (866) 311-5629
          E-mail: info@eganlegalteam.com


STATE FARM: Ohio High Court Reverses Judgment in "Cullen" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company appealed to the
Ohio Supreme Court from a judgment of the Eighth District Court of
Appeals in Ohio affirming class certification of claims brought by
Michael Cullen.

The Cullen suit alleges State Farm failed to disclose all benefits
available to policyholders who made claims for damaged
windshields. The Ohio appellate court affirmed certification of
the class pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(B)(2) and (3).

"However, because the declaratory relief at issue here is
incidental to an individualized claim for monetary damages, Cullen
has not met the requirement for certification set forth in Civ.R.
23(B)(2)," rules Justice Terrence O'Donnell of the Supreme Court
of Ohio.

In addition, says Judge O'Donnell, because individual questions
predominate over the questions common to the proposed class,
Cullen has not proven that this action satisfies Civ.R. 23(B)(3).

Accordingly, the Ohio Supreme Court reverses the judgment of the
Court of Appeals and remands the matter to the trial court for
further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

The case is Cullen, Appellee, v. State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company, Appellant, NO. 2012-0535.

A copy of the Supreme Court's November 5, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/VPJS4Ifrom Leagle.com.

Bashien & Bashein Co., L.P.A., W. Craig Bashein --
cbashein@basheinlaw.com -- and John P. Hurst --
jhurst@basheinlaw.com -- and Paul W. Flowers Co., L.P.A., and Paul
W. Flowers -- pwf@pwfco.com -- for appellee.

Baker & Hostetler, L.L.P., Mark A. Johnson --
mjohnson@bakerlaw.com -- Joseph E. Ezzie -- jezzie@bakerlaw.com --
Robert J. Tucker -- rtucker@bakerlaw.com -- and Michael K. Farrell
-- mfarrell@bakerlaw.com -- for appellant.

Carpenter, Lipps & Leland, L.L.P., Michael H. Carpenter --
carpenter@carpenterlipps.com -- and Katheryn M. Lloyd --
lloyd@carpenterlipps.com -- urging reversal for amici curiae
Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Nationwide
Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Nationwide Mutual Insurance
Company, Nationwide Insurance Company of America, Nationwide
Assurance Company, and Nationwide General Insurance Company.

Thompson Hine, L.L.P., and Stephen J. Butler --
Steve.Butler@ThompsonHine.com -- and Severson & Werson and Jan T.
Chilton -- jtc@severson.com -- pro hac vice, urging reversal for
amicus curiae American Financial Services Association.

Thompson Hine, L.L.P., Elizabeth B. Wright --
Elizabeth.Wright@ThompsonHine.com -- Brian A. Troyer --
Brian.Troyer@ThompsonHine.com -- and Stephanie M. Chmiel --
Stephanie.Chmiel@ThompsonHine.com -- urging reversal for amici
curiae Washington Legal Foundation and Ohio Chemistry Technology
Council.

Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., Philip F. Downey --
pfdowney@vorys.com -- Robert N. Webner -- rnwebner@vorys.com --
and Robert J. Krummen -- rjkrummen@vorys.com -- urging reversal
for amici curiae Grange Indemnity Insurance Company and Grange
Mutual Casualty Company.

Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., Thomas E. Szykowny --
teszykowny@vorys.com -- and Michael Thomas -- mrthomas@vorys.com
-- urging reversal for amicus curiae National Association of
Mutual Insurance Companies and Ohio Insurance Institute.

Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., Kurtis A. Tunnell --
ktunnell@bricker.com -- and Anne Marie Sferra --
asferra@bricker.com -- and Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P., Victor E.
Schwartz -- vschwartz@shb.com -- Mark A. Behrens --
mbehrens@shb.com -- pro hac vice, and Cary Silverman --
csilverman@shb.com -- pro hac vice, urging reversal for amicus
curiae Ohio Alliance for Civil Justice.

Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P., Victor E. Schwartz, Mark A. Behrens,
pro hac vice, and Cary Silverman, pro hac vice, urging reversal
for amici curiae Ohio Chamber of Commerce, Ohio Alliance for Civil
Justice, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, and
American Tort Reform Association.


TESLA MOTORS: Accused of Not Giving Meal Breaks to Employees
------------------------------------------------------------
Derrick Parsons is accusing Tesla Motors Inc. of not paying
overtime wages to its employees, and failing to provide them with
meal breaks or rest periods.  The purported class action lawsuit
was filed in the California Superior Court for Santa Clara County.


TEXTRON INC: Settlement of ERISA Violations Suit Approved
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Rhode Island entered an order
preliminarily approving a settlement reached in a suit alleging
violation of the United States Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, according to the company's Oct. 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 28, 2013.

Plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court in Rhode Island alleged that the company and
certain of its present and former employees, officers and
directors had violated the United Stated Employee Retirement
Income Security Act by imprudently permitting participants in the
Textron Savings Plan to invest in Textron common stock.

As reported in Textron's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 29, 2012, on December 13, 2012, as a result of
a mediation process overseen by an independent mediator, the
parties reached an agreement in principle, subject to settlement
documentation and court approval, to settle the plaintiffs' claims
for an immaterial amount.  Because this is a class action,
settlements of this type are subject to preliminary and final
review by the Court with an opportunity for class members to
respond to the proposed settlement and object if they so desire.
On August 21, 2013, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement, certifying a settlement class, and
approving the form and manner of class notice.  Neither Textron
nor any of the other defendants in the settlement admitted any
wrongdoing with respect to the allegations in the case.


TREND MICRO: Got Final OK of "Graifman" Class Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trend Micro Inc. received final approval of its settlement of a
class action lawsuit commenced by Brian Graifman relating to Trend
Micro products, which include antivirus, Internet security,
Internet safety and other software product.

The lawsuit alleges that Trend Micro failed to provide certain
online customers with the benefit of time remaining on their then-
current software license to a Trend Micro Product, when those
customers either (i) purchased a paid license for a Trend Micro
Product to replace a free trial license, (ii) renewed their then-
current license, or (iii) purchased a license for an upgraded
Trend Micro Product, all before the license term of their then
current Trend Micro Product had expired.

The settlement provides that Trend Micro will provide each
Settlement Class Member a $5 voucher for each subscription
purchased that resulted any then-existing Trend Micro subscription
of the member to be cut off and replaced by the new subscription.
The voucher is stackable and will be redeemable for the online
purchase of Trend Micro Products or services.  Alternatively,
Trend Micro will provide each Settlement Class Member with a cash
payment of $1.10 for each subscription.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael S. Green, Esq.
          GREEN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          522 Rt. 18
          P.O. Box 428
          East Brunswick, NJ 08816
          Telephone: (732) 390-0480
          E-mail: mgreen@trendmicrosettlement.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark D. Taylor, Esq.
          BAKER & MCKENZIE, LLP
          2300 Trammel Crow Center
          2001 Ross Ave.
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 978-3089
          E-mail: mark.taylor@bakermckenzie.com

The case is Brian Graifman v. Trend Micro Corporation, and Does 1
through 10, Case No. 5:11-cv-02488-RMW, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.


TRI COUNTIES BANK: Tribal Factions Fight Over Casino Millions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Troubles mount for the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians,
as a controlling faction took a local bank to court to try to
wrest millions in casino revenue from other factions, reports
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service.

The tribe sued Tri Counties Bank and its Modesto branch manager
Jessica Parson in Stanislaus County Superior Court, seeking
injunctive and declaratory relief and a temporary restraining
order to keep the money in the bank -- for now.

At the heart of the dispute is the lucrative Chukchansi Gold
Casino and Resort, in the Madera County town of Coarsegold between
Fresno and Yosemite National Park. The casino opened in 2003 and
boasts 56,000 square feet of gaming space and 400 hotel rooms.

Bad blood within the tribe goes back long before the casino.  A
federal class action restored the Picayune Rancheria's tribal
status -- stripped by the California Rancheria of 1958 -- and the
Bureau of Indian Affairs worked with two families to create a
tribal government.

But those families, the Wyatts and the Ramirezes, became locked in
a bitter feud for control of the tribe.  The Wyatt descendants
eventually gained control and adopted a constitution in 1988, but
persistent skirmishes boiled over in 2011 when the tribal council
fractured into three factions -- each claiming its leader to be
the chairman.

Madera County Sheriff John Anderson sued the tribe and the Lewis
faction in October, after faction leaders set up their own court
and slapped Anderson with a restraining order to keep him from
entering tribal land.  A federal judge had given the sheriff's
department law-enforcement jurisdiction over the rancheria as part
of a settlement over property taxes in 2007.

In the new lawsuit on Tuesday, November 12, 2013, the rancheria
and its economic development agency, led by the Lewis faction,
accused another group -- the Ayala faction -- of taking millions
in casino revenue and depositing it in an account with defendant
Tri Counties Bank.

The tribe claims the Ayala faction's actions violate a New York
court order to use a Rabobank account, so the tribe's creditors
will be paid as part of a debt restructuring deal.

The Ayala faction managed this through an illegal takeover of the
tribe this year, according to the Lewis faction.

"Nancy Ayala accepted an unconstitutional referendum signed by a
mere 46 tribal members," the Lewis-led tribe says in its
complaint.  "The petition stated that the 14 signatures
constituted 30 percent of the tribe's membership, as required
under the tribe's constitution, and that an 'independent audit'
had purportedly revealed that there were only 46 members of the
tribe.

"Ayala illegally and unilaterally approved the 'referendum' which
purportedly disenrolled over 850 tribal members, thereby
fundamentally and drastically changing the makeup of the general
council," the tribe claims.  "She then removed all members of the
duly elected tribal council, except herself, and appointed her
supporters and family members to the council."

Ayala then took control of tribal government buildings and the
casino, using "known gang members and convicted criminals" to
police the place, according to the Lewis faction's lawsuit.

Pursuant to the tribal constitution, the tribe then hired the
nonprofit Indian Dispute Resolution Services to settle the
quarrel.  The company held three-month-long tribal elections, at
which the Lewis faction garnered 55 percent of the full tribal
vote.

Despite this -- and despite decisions by three different banks the
tribe uses that Lewis faction leader Reggie Lewis is the true head
of the rancheria -- the Ayala faction refuses to back down.  So in
September, for only the second time in the tribe's modern history,
its general council held a full membership meeting to settle the
tribe's governance.

"At the Sept. 14, 2013 meeting, the general council passed a
resolution titled 'To Restore Legitimate Governing Authority of
the Tribe, the Authority, Casino and Tribal Gaming Commission'
which, among other provisions, affirmed that the tribal council is
comprised of Reggie Lewis as chairman; Carl 'Buzz' Bushman, vice
chairman; Irene Waltz, secretary; Chance Alberta, treasurer; David
Castillo, member at-large; Lynn Chenot, member at-large; and Mel
Espe, member at-large," the tribe says in its lawsuit.  "The
general council resolved that Nancy Ayala and the Ayala faction
had no authority to act on behalf of the tribe with regard to any
matters, including financial matters."

The lawsuit continues: "The general council further affirmed that
the tribal council, as led by Chairman Reggie Lewis, was duly
authorized and empowered on behalf of and in the name of the
tribe, the Chukchansi Economic Development Authority, the gaming
commission and the casino to make all decisions on behalf of the
tribe, CEDA, the gaming commission and the casino.  The general
council resolved that this tribal council was authorized to take
actions on behalf of the tribe and its instrumentalities in court
actions and in negotiations with outside governmental and
commercial entities, and that outside agencies and entities doing
business or negotiating with the tribe should not recognize the
Ayala faction or any other faction purporting to represent the
tribe, CEDA, the gaming commission or the casino."

The general council sent a directive to its major creditor, Wells
Fargo, and to casino cage depository Rabobank, that only the Lewis
council spoke for and made decisions for the tribe -- and ordered
both banks to cease communications with the Ayala faction.  It
also ordered casino managers to deposit all gaming proceeds into
the Rabobank account.

But Ayala and her security forces remain ensconced in both the
tribal government compound and the Chukchansi Gold Casino and
Resort, the Lewis group says.

"The Ayala faction has total control over all casino revenues and
has been depositing these revenues into various banks, including
defendant Tri Counties Bank," the tribe says in its complaint.

Since Wells Fargo and other creditors receive payment
automatically from the Rabobank account, none of the tribe's huge
bills -- a $250 million loan to Wells Fargo alone -- are being
paid, the tribe claims.

And it says Ayala's financial mismanagement doesn't end there.

"The Ayala faction has also used its physical control over the
casino and its funds to perpetrate various illegal and/or criminal
actions including, but not limited to:

   a. Hoarding cash in the casino cage instead of regularly
      depositing casino revenues into bank accounts;

   b. Knowingly issuing thousands of dollars in bad checks to
      casino employees and vendors;

   c. Drafting fraudulent checks bearing unauthorized signatures
      in the name of CEDA; and

   d. Knowingly employing convicted criminals on tribal property
      (including members of the infamous 'Fresno Bulldogs' gang),
      using tribal revenues to employ these convicted criminals,
      and either directly arming these convicted criminals and
      gang members with weapons or permitting such persons to arm
      themselves while purportedly working as guards," the tribe
      says in the complaint.

In addition to loading up pickup trucks with "millions of dollars"
in casino cash, the tribe claims, Ayala left the Rabobank account
dry and the tribe missed its court-ordered October payment to
Wells Fargo.  The New York court then ordered Ayala to provide
unaudited financial statements to both the Lewis faction and a
court-appointed referee to formulate yet another repayment plan.

Ayala responded by diverting cash to Tri Counties bank, according
to the tribe.

"Upon information and belief, beginning last month and as recently
as Oct. 21, the Ayala faction delivered large sums of cash -- even
in armored cars -- to Tri Counties Bank and has either deposited
those funds or requested cashier's checks or money orders in
exchange for those funds," the tribe states.

The Lewis faction's lawyers sent a letter to the bank's Modesto
branch manager, defendant Parson, demanding that the bank freeze
the accounts of individuals associated with the Ayala faction and
return the money to the tribe.

"On Nov. 6, Benjamin Anderson, the assistant general counsel for
Tri Counties Bank, sent correspondence to counsel for the tribe
and CEDA, stating that the bank's hold on all disputed funds would
extend until the end of business on Tuesday, Nov. 12, 2013," the
tribe says.

Anderson is not a party to the complaint.

"Such correspondence further stated that if any disputant produces
an order from a California court directing Tri Counties Bank to
deliver the funds of specific accounts to a determined person or
entity, the bank would abide by that order," the tribe adds.
"However, if no such order was offered by close of business on
Nov. 12, the bank would close the accounts and pay the balance to
the account holders."

The tribe filed its complaint on Nov. 12.

They seek a court declaration that the Lewis faction is the
rightful leader of the tribe and have the right to the funds held
by Tri Counties Bank.  They also seek an emergency injunction
enjoining the bank from releasing the money to the Ayala faction
unless otherwise directed by the court.

The Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians is represented
by:

          Robert Rosette, Esq.
          193 Blue Ravine Road, Suite 255
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 353-1084
          Facsimile: (916) 353-1085
          E-mail: rosette@rosettelaw.com


UNITED STATES: BFAA Explains Black Farmers' Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alli Mechanic, writing for WTVY.com, reports that The Black
Farmers and Agriculturalist Association Inc. (BFAA Inc.) came to
Dothan on Nov. 21, to explain to residents how they can become
part of a class action lawsuit that could give them up to $50,000.
The group is not technically lying; there are some things
residents should be cautious about before getting involved.

The meeting with the BFAA Inc. was meant to help black farmers who
believe they were discriminated against by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA).  Hundreds of area farmers came out to hear how
they could become part of the class action lawsuit and to have
BFAA Inc. President and CEO Thomas Burrell help them.

"This group here is arguing they believe that they also have
something in common with the original plaintiff but for the fact
that they were not notified they missed the opportunity to get in
the first one, the second one, the third one and the fourth one
and the fifth one," explained Mr. Burrell on Thursday, Nov. 21.

While the five lawsuits following the Black Farmers Discrimination
Litigation are closed, it is still possible that another class
action suit could come out over the next few years.

"There is always a possibility of more lawsuits to come forward I
doubt seriously that there can be any lawsuits that cover the time
period between 1981 through 1996 my understanding is that any
lawsuit coming forward would have to be from Dec. 31 1996 in
claims of discrimination," explained Gary Grant, Official BFAA
President.

Some cause for concern is that the BFAA Inc. asks farmers to
become members before they can advocate on their behalf and
membership will cost you $100 a year.

"No one has to join an organization or become a member in order
for a class action to take place.  It usually joins the class and
that doesn't cost anything," said Mr. Grant.  "I would also say
that on our website it says that we are not connected with this
group at all."

Another red flag, the Better Business Bureau gives the BFAA Inc.
an "F" rating for multiple complaints and lack of responses.

Additionally, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange issued a
statement about a potential black farmer scam.

"I am concerned by reports that there may be meetings in Alabama
where black farmers are told that, for a fee, someone can help
them file claims and participate in a federal discrimination
lawsuit -- this is simply untrue, and farmers should not pay any
money or provide personal information," said Mr. Strange.


USG CORPORATION: Reaches Deal to Cap Claims in Drywall Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
L&W Supply Corporation reached settlement agreements with Knauf
Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co., and the plaintiffs in a multi-district
class action litigation over Chinese-manufactured drywall lawsuits
that cap the company's responsibility for claims, according to USG
Corporation's Oct. 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2013.

L&W Supply Corporation is one of many defendants in lawsuits
relating to Chinese-made wallboard installed in homes primarily in
the southeastern United States during 2006 and 2007.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits, most of whom are homeowners,
seek damages associated with the removal and replacement of the
Chinese-made wallboard which they claim emits elevated levels of
sulfur gases causing a bad smell and corrosion of metal surfaces.

Most of the lawsuits against L&W Supply Corporation are part of
the multi-district class action litigation titled In re Chinese-
Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2047,
pending in New Orleans, Louisiana.

The vast majority of the claims against L&W Supply Corporation
relate to wallboard we delivered that was manufactured by Knauf
Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co., or Knauf Tianjin, an affiliate of a
multi-national manufacturer of building materials that also
beneficially owns approximately 14% of USG's outstanding shares of
common stock. We have reached settlement agreements with Knauf and
the plaintiffs in the multi-district class action litigation that
cap our responsibility for all claims against us for homes to
which we delivered Knauf Tianjin wallboard.

According to USG, "As of September 30, 2013, we have an accrual of
$6 million for our estimated cost of resolving all Chinese
wallboard property damage claims pending against us and expected
to be asserted in the future, and, based on the terms of our
settlement with Knauf, we have a related receivable of $2 million
recorded as an offset to the accrual. Our accrual does not take
into account litigation costs, which are expensed as incurred, or
any set-off for potential insurance recoveries. Based on the
information available to us to date regarding the number and type
of pending claims, estimates of likely future claims, and the
estimated costs of resolving those claims, we believe that we have
appropriately accrued for our exposure related to the Chinese
wallboard claims, and we believe that these claims and other
similar claims that might be asserted will not have a material
effect on our results of operations, financial position or cash
flows."


USG CORPORATION: Subsidiary Faces Wallboard Pricing Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Antitrust lawsuits were filed against CGC Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of USG Corporation, in Quebec and Ontario courts on
behalf of purchasers of wallboard in Canada, according to the
company's Oct. 24, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

Beginning December 2012, USG Corporation and United States Gypsum
Company were named as defendants in putative class action lawsuits
alleging that since at least September 2011, U.S. wallboard
manufacturers conspired to fix and raise the price of gypsum
wallboard sold in the United States and to effectuate the alleged
conspiracy by ending the practice of providing job quotes on
wallboard.

These lawsuits are consolidated for pretrial proceedings in multi-
district litigation in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under the title In re: Domestic
Drywall Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2437. Two consolidated
complaints have been filed. One group of plaintiffs purports to
represent a class of entities that purchased gypsum wallboard in
the United States directly from any of the defendants or their
affiliates from January 1, 2012 to the present. On behalf of this
alleged direct purchaser class, the plaintiffs seek unspecified
monetary damages, tripled under the antitrust laws, as well as
pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees.
The second group of plaintiffs purports to bring their claims and
seek damages on behalf of indirect purchasers of gypsum wallboard.
These indirect purchaser plaintiffs seek to certify a separate
class of persons or entities who from January 1, 2012 through the
present indirectly purchased wallboard in the United States from
the defendants or their affiliates for end use and not for resale.
Recently, similar lawsuits were filed in Quebec and Ontario courts
on behalf of purchasers of wallboard in Canada. These Canadian
lawsuits also name as a defendant CGC Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of USG Corporation, as well as other Canadian and U.S.
wallboard manufacturers. These wallboard pricing class action
lawsuits are still in a preliminary stage.

According to USG, "based on the information known to us, we
believe these lawsuits will not have a material effect on our
results of operations, financial position or cash flows."


VALLEY FINE: Dec. 11 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John A. Mendez signed on a stipulation in the case
captioned JAMIE GENTRY, AN INDIVIDUAL, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly Situated. Plaintiffs, v. VALLEY FINE FOOD
COMPANY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, Defendant, CASE NO. 2:12-
CV-02241-JAM-JFM, (E.D. Cal.), providing that:

* a motion for class certification filed by the Plaintiff is
  withdrawn:

* a motion to dismiss/strike filed by the Defendant is withdrawn;
  and

* the parties will file a Motion for Preliminary Approval of a
  Class Action Settlement to be heard on December 11, 2013, at
  9:30 a.m.

A copy of the District Court's November 1, 2013 Order approving
the stipulation is available at http://is.gd/OpuX4Xfrom
Leagle.com.

MARY E. FARRELL -- mary@farrelllawgroup.com -- ERICK C. TURNER --
erick@farrelllawgroup.com -- FARRELL LAW GROUP, Sacramento,
California, Attorneys for Defendant, VALLEY FINE FOODS COMPANY,
INC.

MICHAEL L. TRACY -- mtracy@michaeltracylaw.com -- MEGAN ROSS --
mhutchins@michaeltracylaw.com -- MICHAEL E. VELARDE, LAW OFFICES
OF MICHAEL TRACY, Irvine, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff, JAMIE
GENTRY.


VEMMA NUTRITION: Sued for Charging Extra Unordered Verve Drink
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal class action accuses the maker of Verve "energy drinks"
of boosting its income by charging online customers' credit cards
for extra drinks they never ordered, according to Courthouse News
Service.

Lead plaintiff Gregory Montegna sued Vemma Nutrition Co. in
California Federal Court.

Vemma sells a variety of so-called energy drinks through its Web
site.

Montegna claims Vemma doubled its monthly income, from $10 million
to $20 million, from July 2012 to July this year, after requiring
7 years to reach the $10 million mark.

But it cheated, Montegna claims: "As part of Vemma's business
practice, once a consumer purchases its Verve product via Vemma's
online website, Vemma knowingly or negligently, and without prior
disclosure, charges consumers for additional Verve product that
they did not purchase or agree to purchase."

Montegna claims the Federal Trade Commission "has received
numerous complaints about Vemma, which include complaints of
unauthorized credit card charges."

He seeks class certification, restitution, disgorgement of unjust
profits, and damages for violations of state laws.

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com


VERIZON NY: Accused of Not Paying Local Managers' Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Verizon New York Inc. stiffs
"local managers" for overtime, citing a class action claims in New
York Federal Court.


VITAMIN SHOPPE: Sues Seeger Weiss Over Class Action Site
--------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wilson, writing for Law360, reports that Vitamin Shoppe
Industries Inc. on Nov. 22 sued law firm Seeger Weiss LLP in New
York federal court, arguing the firm had misused its trademarks on
a website designed to solicit plaintiffs for a class action over
alleged misrepresentations related to its BodyTech protein
supplements.

According to the vitamin and supplements company, Seeger Weiss has
misused the company's trademarks in order to lure individuals to
vitaminshoppeprotein.com, a website meant to solicit the
information of possible plaintiffs in a potential class action
against Vitamin Shoppe over its BodyTech protein supplements.

"Defendant's actions have caused and will continue to cause
irreparable injury to Vitamin Shoppe unless enjoined by this
court," Vitamin Shoppe said.

North Bergen, N.J.-based Vitamin Shoppe is the second largest
retailer of vitamins and nutritional supplements in the U.S., and
owns a number of trademarks, including "The Vitamin Shoppe" and
"BodyTech," it claims.

These trademarks are being used without permission at
vitaminshoppeprotein.com, a Seeger Weiss-run website which claims
that Vitamin Shoppe has misrepresented that digestive enzymes
added to the BodyTech supplements will increase absorption of
protein in the supplements and aid digestion, the complaint says.

According to a screenshot of the site accompanying the complaint,
the use of enzymes to increase protein absorption is sound in
theory but the level of enzymes actually in the BodyTech
supplements are only a fraction of the level proven to work in
clinical studies.  The site suggests to visitors that they may be
"entitled to compensation" if they purchased the products and
urges them to contact Seeger Weiss through the form on the site.

These are "disparaging statements" incorrectly indicating that
Vitamin Shoppe's products are faulty, and also leads to the false
impression that there is a lawsuit pending against the retailer
over the BodyTech products, the company claims.

Seeger Weiss is misusing Vitamin Shoppe's trademarks at the site,
both in its domain name and on the site itself, as well as in
"metatags" -- which are used by search engines to help develop
search results -- containing the trademarks and common
misspellings, according to the complaint.  It has also used
pictures taken from Vitamin Shoppe's own website without
permission, which show the "distinctive" blue bottles used for the
BodyTech supplements, the company contends.

This dilutes the value of the "Vitamin Shoppe" trademark and is
also likely to mislead the public into believing that by
completing the form at the website, they are reporting any adverse
events related to the BodyTech products to the company itself,
undermining the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's reporting
system for such events, Vitamin Shoppe argues.

Vitamin Shoppe has asked for a permanent injunction against any
further use of its marks, treble damages and for the registration
of the vitaminshoppeprotein.com domain to be transferred to the
company, as well as costs and attorneys' fees.

A representative for Seeger Weiss didn't immediately respond to a
request for comment on Nov. 25.

Vitamin Shoppe is represented by Craig S. Mende and Jason D. Jones
of Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu PC and Arne M. Olson, Kathryn E.
Garipay and Alissa A. Digman of Olson & Cepuritis Ltd.

Counsel information for Seeger Weiss wasn't immediately available
on Nov. 25.

The case is Vitamin Shoppe Industries Inc. v. Seeger Weiss LLP,
case number 1:13-cv-08333, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.


WISE MEDIA: Court Refused to Certify Class in Cellphone Spam Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers who claim to have incurred millions in charges from
cellphone spam are not suited for class-action status, reports
William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal judge
ruling.

Lead plaintiffs Edward Fields, Cathie O'Hanks, Erik Kristianson,
Richard Parmentier, Kimberly Brewster and Kristian Kunder
originally sued Wise Media in October 2012 after receiving
unsolicited text messages.  The texts contained information about
the company's subscription plans for flirting tips, horoscope
updates, celebrity gossip and weight-loss advice.

A typical initial text sent to cellphone users by Wise Media
allegedly stated: "Lovegenietips Flirting Tips; 3msg/week for
$9.99/m T&Cs: lovegenietips.com Msg&data rates may apply.  Reply
HELP for help, STOP to cancel."  Wise Media sent the texts with
the help of equipment that produced cellphone numbers through a
random sequential number generator.

Then, through a process known as "cramming," Wise Media enlisted
the help of aggregators -- including co-defendants Mobile
Messenger Americas, mBlox Incorporated and Motricity -- to act as
middlemen between itself and cellphone companies, according to the
complaint.

The aggregators allegedly placed the charges on millions of
cellphone bills and monitored complaints -- for a piece of the
revenue pie -- regardless of whether users canceled or even
responded to the texts at all.

After a federal receiver in Georgia asked for a stay against Wise
Media, the plaintiffs pressed ahead with their case against the
aggregators. Earlier this year, U.S. District Judge William Alsup
refused to dismiss claims against Mobile Messenger Americas and
the other companies.

On Tuesday, November 19, 2013, however, Alsup found that a
plethora of individual circumstances and experiences with the spam
texts made it impossible to certify any class -- either under the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act or California law.  The
problem, Alsup said, is that while many potential class members
never consented to the service, many others actually signed up and
regretted it later.

"After examining the evidence and other submitted documentation,
this order finds that plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden
to prove that the issue of consent can be addressed with class-
wide proof," Alsup wrote.  "Wise Media's platform has recorded
over 1.5 million instances of consent by subscribers.  Plaintiffs'
argument alleging mass fraud does not satisfy their evidentiary
burden under Rule 23(b) because it merely speculates, without any
actual evidence, that mass fraud may have occurred.  Thus, even if
consent is an affirmative defense, individualized inquiries
regarding consent remain."

In the case of a proposed California subclass, a 98 percent refund
rate doomed class certification for numerosity, according to the
ruling.

"Plaintiffs have not even attempted to speculate as to the number
of members in the California subclass," the judge wrote.  "The
California subclass, by plaintiffs' own definition, excludes
persons who received complete refunds.  Plaintiffs present
evidence that approximately 1.4 million individuals were enrolled
in defendants' subscription plans, but plaintiffs' own expert
concedes that the 1.4 million enrollment figure does not take into
account the substantial amount of refunds issued to customers by
Wise Media or the mobile carriers.  Plaintiffs themselves admit
that 'refund rates reached as high as 98% of those enrolled,
depending on the time period and subscription plan examined.'"

And while there may be thousands who never received refunds, an
additional California residency requirement and the plaintiffs'
failure to even estimate how many might still remain in the
subclass is a "showstopper," Alsup said.

Although he declined to certify the class, Alsup invited the
plaintiffs to continue with their individual claims against the
spammers.

A similar and short-lived class action against Wise Media -- also
filed last year -- ended after the company produced website and
text message evidence that the lead plaintiff in that case had
consented to the "Lovegenietips" subscription plan.

The case is Edward Fields, et al. v. Mobile Messengers America,
Inc., et al., Case No. C 12-05160 WHA, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.


WYNDHAM VACATION: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss FLSA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS BITNER and TOSHIA PARKER, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, OPINION & v. WYNDHAM
VACATION RESORTS, INC., Defendant, NO. 13-CV-451-WMC, (W.D. Wis.)
is a putative class and collective action alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and
applicable provisions of Wisconsin state law.

Specifically, plaintiffs Thomas Bitner and Toshia Parker allege
that defendant Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. engaged in policies
that required them to work off the clock and in excess of 40 hours
per week without proper minimum wage and overtime compensation.
Pending before the court is Wyndham's motion to dismiss the
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

District Judge William M. Conley finds that the Plaintiffs have
adequately pled their claims.  For this reason, Wyndham's motion
to dismiss is denied, and Thomas Bitner and Toshia Parker are
granted leave to file an amended complaint.

A copy of the District Court's November 1, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/hrv24Ufrom Leagle.com.


* Bill for Greater Drug Compounding Oversight Signed Into Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
Toni Clarke, writing for Reuters, reports that President
Barack Obama signed a bill into law on Nov. 27 that gives U.S.
health regulators greater oversight of bulk pharmaceutical
compounding and strengthens their ability to track drugs through
the distribution pipeline.

The Drug Quality and Security Act clarifies the authority of the
Food and Drug Administration over compounded medications and
creates a new class of compounding manufacturer known as an
"outsourcing" facility, which will be able to sell to hospitals in
bulk.

The law was prompted by quality control problems that led to a
deadly outbreak of fungal meningitis in 2012 traced to a tainted
pharmaceutical mixed by a Massachusetts compounding pharmacy.  The
product has been linked with more than 50 deaths.

The law also creates a national set of standards to track
pharmaceuticals through the distribution chain to help thwart the
introduction of fake medications into the drug supply.

Last year, fake vials of Roche Holding AG's cancer drug Avastin
appeared in the United States from Britain, where they were
purchased from a Turkish wholesaler.

In the United States, dozens of states have some type of
regulation designed to track a drug's pedigree, but the rules are
inconsistent.  This law is designed to apply a uniform standard
nationwide.


* China-Made Counterfeit USB Power Adapters Recalled in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 25, 2013
Posting date:             November 25, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Electronics
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Unauthorized products
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-36853

Affected products: Counterfeit USB Power Adapter

The recall involves a counterfeit USB power adapter identified by
model A1265.

The model A1265 USB power adapter with the counterfeit
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Mark is similar to a model A1265
that is authorized to bear the UL Mark.  The following table
provides a comparison of the different statements on the products.

Counterfeit versus Authorized:

   Counterfeit model A1265 USB       Authorized model A1265 USB
   power adapter statement           power adapter statement
   --------------------------        --------------------------
   Power adapter Made in China       Designed by Apple in
                                     California

   E231288                           E233455
   ITF                               ITE

The affected product bears a counterfeit UL Listing Mark for
Canada and the United States.  The product has not been tested to
determine whether it is compliant with the Canadian Standards for
electrical product safety.

Health Canada has not received any reports of incidents or
injuries related to the use of this power adapter.

The recalled product is manufactured in China.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Unknown
   USB power adapter with the counterfeit UL Mark
   USB power adapter with authorized UL Mark
Consumers should stop using the affected USB power adapter
immediately.

Consumers may also view the public notice on the Underwriters
Laboratories website.


                             *********

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  * * *