CAR_Public/131209.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, December 9, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 243

                             Headlines


ANZ: 38,000 Customers Join Class Action Over Excessive Bank Fees
ARAMARK UNIFORM: $2.75MM Settlement Over Labor Dispute Okayed
BANK OF AMERICA: Suit Over Unlawful Reinsurance Kickbacks Junked
BAXTER INT'L: Initiates Voluntary Recall of Dextrose Nitroglycerin
BRITISH AIRWAYS: Court Won't Junk Suit Over Bogus Fuel Surcharges

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE: Owes Notice to Drug-Test Subjects, Ct. Rules
COSTA INC: Being Sold to Essilor for Too Little, Class Suit Says
CROWN BOILER: Recalls Home Heating Boilers Due to CO Hazard
DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls 2,783 Trucks Over Seat Belt Defect
DRDGOLD LTD: Accused of Negligence by Former Mineworkers

EASTERN INSURANCE: Faces Suit Over Proposed ProAssurance Merger
EBAY INC: $4.75 Million Settlement of Featured Plus Suit Approved
ENTEGRA COACH: Recalls 6 Motorhomes Due to Air Brake Gauge Defect
FORD MOTOR: Recalls 56 Units of 2013 Fiesta Cars in Canada
FUSION-IO INC: Issued False Positive Revenue Guidance, Suit Says

H&R BLOCK: "Dreyling" Tax Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
HALLIBURTON CO: Securities Class Action Ruling Hits Businesses
HARMONY GOLD: Opposes Silicosis Suit by Former Workers
HARMONY GOLD: Consolidation of Two Suits Over Silicosis Planned
HARMONY GOLD: Settlement of ADR Holders' Lawsuit Faces Appeal

HERTZ GLOBAL: Private Equity Holders Dump $7BB in Stock, Suit Says
IGNITE RESTAURANT: "Moreno" Suit Removed to N.D. California
KAISER PERMANENTE: Faces Class Action Over HIV Screening
L&F INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 1,000 Mattresses Due to Fire Hazard
LAND ROVER: Recalls 322 Range Rover SUVs Over Airbag Defect

LION BUS: Recalls 17 Trucks Due to Defective Seat Belt
LITHIA MOTORS: Settlement of Consumer Claims to Cost $3.8MM
LUXURY LINK: Accused of Defrauding Vacation Booking Customers
METROCORP BANCSHARES: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
MOBILE COUNTY, AL: Sued Over Killing of Pet Cat at Animal Shelter

NATIONAL HOCKEY: Players' Class Action Faces Uphill Battle
NETFLIX INC: Calif. Court Dismisses Amended Securities Complaint
NIPPON YUSEN: "Stasik" Antitrust Suit Transferred to New Jersey
PACER INTERNATIONAL: Removes "Ruelas" Labor Suit to S.D. Cal.
PANERA BREAD: Pays $3.7MM Portion of Labor Lawsuit Settlement

PANERA BREAD: Settlement Reached in Suit by Unit's Ex-Employee
PEOPLES TRUST: Class Suit Launched in B.C. Over Privacy Breach
PHILIPS MEDICAL: U.S. FDA Issues Warning on Defibrillators
QUALITY SYSTEMS: Faces Securities Class Suit in California
RBS FINANCIAL: Wins Final OK of $1.75MM "Jordan" Suit Settlement

REAL TIME: Sued Over Offers of Scratch-and-Win Settlement Cards
SOUTH AFRICA: FSB May Face Suit Over Funeral Assurance Policies
STARBUCKS CORP: Shift Supervisors Allowed to Get Share of Tips
SUMMERLIN HOSPITAL: Allowed TB Mom Into Neonatal ICU, Suit Says
TEXAS: Faces "Zahrn" Suit Over Denial of Same-Sex Marriage

TREX COMPANY: Settles Product Defect Suits by Cohen & Malad
TREX COMPANY: Dec. 13 Final Approval Hearing
TREX COMPANY: Still Faces Lawsuits Alleging Product Defects
UNITIL CORP: Denial of Certification in "Bellerman" Reviewed
WESTLAKE SERVICES: "Duchene" Suit Removed to W.D. Pa.

* Canada SC Clarifies Limitation Period for Secondary Proceedings


                             *********


ANZ: 38,000 Customers Join Class Action Over Excessive Bank Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Bainbridge, writing for ABC News, reports that the largest
consumer class action in Australian history was set to begin in
the Federal Court in Melbourne on Dec. 2 as 38,000 ANZ customers
appeal over the bank's fees.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn was taking the action on behalf of ANZ
customers, with the court set to examine whether the fees are fair
or whether they are excessive and therefore illegal.

A High Court decision last year paved the way for the trial in the
Federal Court.

Maurice Blackburn has the financial backing of publicly listed
litigator IMF.

Andrew Watson, the head of class actions at Maurice Blackburn,
says the fees are not an accurate reflection of the costs faced by
banks when customers are caught out.

"The fees range, but AUD25 to AUD35 is the sort of range for fees
that are imposed, so you might be a dollar over on your account or
a day late in your payment and the banks will slug you with a fee
that's out of all proportion to what it costs them for that minor
transgression," he said.

"We think it's worth [in total] about AUD50 million, but overall
we're running a case for 170,000 bank customers against eight
major banks, and that's worth about AUD220 million."

Mr. Watson says this is the first of the cases to go to trial.

"It's been a long, hard fight over the last three-and-a-half
years," he said.

"We've been to the High Court and back, and now it's time for ANZ
bank customers to have their day in court.

"The fact that the banks have dropped some of their charges is a
good thing and to be welcomed, but even then, some of those fees
are still too high and are still the subject of this action."

           ANZ customers hope to win back overdue fees

Fork lift driver Tim Hardman is one of the 38,000 people to sign
up to the class action.

The 34-year-old was an ANZ customer for six years, during which
time he racked up more than AUD700 in fees.

"Most of my bills were set up with direct debits, just the same as
your wages go in as a direct credit," Mr. Hardman said.

"Yet the ANZ likes to process their withdrawals first, and then
they like to process their deposits later in the day.

"Quite often as much as I tried to line up my direct debit
payments with when my pay goes in, there were a few times where it
was only a matter of hours when my account would be overdrawn to
pay a bill and then my wages goes in later that night, yet the ANZ
likes to charge people overdrawn fees, or honor fees, as they like
to call it."

Mr. Hardman says he is hoping to get most of his money back
through the class action.

"I feel it's unreasonable and unsubstantiated for banks that make
billions and billions of dollars profit every year to then charge
the average customer AUD30 a pop in some cases for a simple
overdrawn amount which could only be overdrawn for two or three
hours," he said.

"Thousands of people are standing up together to say: 'Listen
banks, this is just ridiculous'. Australians should be proud to
say: 'This is enough'.

"So if we all stand up and say this isn't right, then maybe we'll
get something done."

         Bank fee challenge could have wide implications

Dr Wayne Courtney from the University of Sydney law faculty has
been monitoring the case since the High Court ruled last year that
the bank fees are open to challenge.

He says the court case has caught the attention of other large
companies.

"I know at the big end of town, some of these large institutions
[are] quite worried about the effect it has on the certainty of
contracts," he said.

"If you say X company who provides power wants to charge, say, a
$20 admin fee when the bill's paid late, I think that's created
some concern at that end of town because they're now worried about
whether they can justify those fees.

"So I think it has the potential, I suspect, to reform some sort
of structuring of fees in consumer contracts generally."

Dr Courtney says the outcome of the case could have an effect on
the contracts of other companies.

"For a long time, large institutions engaged very capable lawyers
to draft around certain basic protections the law provided in
respect of charging very large amounts of money when a consumer or
some other party to the contract happened to breach the contract,"
he said.

"What's really got people interested is together with these sort
of High Court developments last year, plus this new legislation,
it opens up a lot more of that sort of stuff for challenge.

"And I think on one side you've probably got the consumers groups
saying: 'Great, we're sick of being charged these ridiculous nice
round number fees for no real reason'.

"[Against that] some of these large institutions at the big end of
town, they're quite worried about the effect that has on the
certainty and predictability of their contracts."

ANZ declined an interview request ahead of the Dec. 2 class
action.

The Australian Bankers Association said it was inappropriate for
it to comment, because it has not been involved in the case.


ARAMARK UNIFORM: $2.75MM Settlement Over Labor Dispute Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge approved a $2.75 million settlement stemming from
labor charges brought against Aramark Uniform Services Inc.,
reports Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service.

Martha Morazan, who worked for Aramark between November 2005 and
May 2012, led the class accusing the uniform manufacturer of
having denied overtime pay to 3,175 nonexempt, hourly employees at
more than 20 facilities throughout California.  The suit, filed
over two years ago in Alameda County Superior Court, also claimed
that the company refused employees meal and rest breaks in
violation of state and federal law, including the California
Business & Professions Code and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Specifically, Morazan claimed that the company engaged in a
practice of rounding "clock-in and clock-out" times to the nearest
quarter hour before calculating total hours worked, in favor of
Aramark.

The lawsuit was quickly removed to federal court in Oakland,
Calif., where the paries entered mediation.  After Aramark
provided informal discovery in late 2012 and early 2013, the
parties reached a preliminary settlement the following March.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted the deal final
approval on Nov. 15, allocating $687,500 of the $2.75 million
settlement to attorneys' fees, more than $10,000 for litigation
expenses and $30,000 to the Garden City Group, the claims
administrator, for costs and expenses.

"The court finds that the settlement agreement is fair, reasonable
and adequate in all respects, is not collusive, is the product of
good faith, arm's-length negotiations between the parties and
fully complies with all applicable provisions of law," Rogers
wrote.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Borgen, Esq.
          Laura L. Ho, Esq.
          Lin Yee Chan, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN, DEMCHAK, BALLER, BORGEN & DARDARIAN
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 835-1417
          E-mail: borgen@gdblegal.com
                  lho@gbdhlegal.com
                  lchan@lchb.com

               - and -

          David Sohn, Esq.
          SOHN LEGAL GROUP, P.C.
          425 California St., 19th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 421-1300
          Facsimile: (415) 421-1815
          E-mail: david@sohnlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Eric Meckley, Esq.
          Kathryn M. Nazarian, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          One Spear Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1126
          Telephone: (415) 442-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
          E-mail: emeckley@morganlewis.com
                  knazarian@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Anne Marie Estevez, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 5300
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 415-3330
          Facsimile: (305) 415-3001
          E-mail: aestevez@morganlewis.com

The case is Morazan v. Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel Group,
Inc., et al., Case No. 4:13-cv-00936-YGR, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland).


BANK OF AMERICA: Suit Over Unlawful Reinsurance Kickbacks Junked
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class waited too long to accuse Bank of America of funneling
unlawful kickbacks to reinsurance subsidiaries, costing borrowers
more than $284.7 million, reports Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse
News Service, citing a federal court ruling.

Over a year of litigation whittled the 2012 lawsuit to one in
which Thomas Riddle and Marilyn Fischer alleged that Bank of
America and private mortgage insurance companies had violated the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) with a scheme
involving kickbacks and unearned fees.

Riddle and Fischer claimed that the defendants funneled unlawful
kickbacks from private mortgage insurers to lender-created
reinsurance subsidiaries, letting reinsurers reap hundreds of
millions of dollars in premiums while assuming little or no actual
risk.

The reinsurance contracts "effectively allowed the reinsurer to
opt out of the scheme at its choosing and without suffering
adverse consequences," according to the amended complaint.

Meanwhile, borrowers allegedly paid at least $284.7 million all
together for mortgage insurance.

Senior U.S. District Judge Berle Schiller in Philadelphia sent the
case on to limited discovery this past April but awarded the
defendants summary judgment last week after finding that RESPA's
one-year statute of limitations had elapsed.

The clock begins running upon a given loan's closing, and in this
case Riddle and Fischer's loans each closed in 2005.

Schiller disagreed that the plaintiffs could toll the statute by
claiming that the defendants "knowingly and actively concealed the
basis for plaintiffs' claims."

"The court has afforded plaintiffs ample opportunity to make their
case for equitable tolling," Schiller wrote.  "The record is now
clear that plaintiffs did not diligently pursue their claims.
Rather, they elected to pursue litigation after they were pursued
by lawyers who believed that they may have claims."

There is no evidence that the plaintiffs were misled by United
Guaranty Residential Mortgage Insurance and Genworth Mortgage
Insurance, according to the ruling.

"The record is devoid of evidence that Genworth or United did
anything to mislead Riddle or Fischer," Schiller wrote.  "Indeed,
the record lacks evidence that Genworth and United had any contact
with plaintiffs."

Schiller also rejected the "circular" claim that the defendants
failed to disclose their alleged violations of RESPA.

"Plaintiffs are trying to turn defendants' failure to inform them
that they were running a scheme in violation of RESPA into an
affirmative act of concealment," Schiller wrote.  "This is
unsurprising because silence is insufficient to toll the statute
of limitations in RESPA cases; the defendant must have performed
an independent act of concealment upon which the plaintiff
justifiably relied.  But silence is exactly what plaintiffs are
relying on; defendants purportedly did not tell plaintiffs that
they were engaged in conduct that violated federal law."

Finally, the judge threw out the plaintiffs' new claim that the
defendants submitted false documentation to Fannie Mae to gain
approval as qualified mortgage insurers.

"This new theory, which appeared nowhere in plaintiffs' original
allegations, is a red herring that does not alter the court's
analysis," Schiller wrote.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
          Amanda Trask, Esq.
          Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq.
          Terence S. Ziegler, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Rd.
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                  eciolko@ktmc.com
                  atrask@ktmc.com
                  dmoffa@ktmc.com
                  tziegler@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Jesse C. Klaproth, Esq.
          TUCKER LAW GROUP, LLC
          One Penn Center
          1617 JFK Blvd., Suite 1700
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-0609
          E-mail: jklaproth@tlgattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David L. Permut, Esq.
          Matthew S. Sheldon, Esq.
          Thomas M. Hefferon, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          901 New York Avenue NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 346-4182
          E-mail: dpermut@goodwinprocter.com
                  msheldon@goodwinprocter.com
                  thefferon@goodwinprocter.com

               - and -

          Martin C. Bryce, Jr., Esq.
          Daniel J.T. McKenna, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS AND INGERSOLL, L.L.P.
          1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 864-8238
          Facsimile: (215) 864-9511
          E-mail: Bryce@ballardspahr.com
                  mckennad@ballardspahr.com

               - and -

          Brad E. Rosen, Esq.
          Jane M. Byrne, Esq.
          Michael B. Carlinsky, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          E-mail: bradrosen@quinnemanuel.com
                  janebyrne@quinnemanuel.com
                  michaelcarlinsky@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          Daniel Posner, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
          865 S Figueroa St., 10th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 443-3220
          E-mail: danposner@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          David E. Edwards, Esq.
          WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP
          1800 One Liberty Place
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 864-7166
          E-mail: edwardsd@whiteandwilliams.com

               - and -

          Michael N. Onufrak, Esq.
          WHITE & WILLIAMS LLP
          1650 Market Street
          One Liberty Place, Suite 1800
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7395
          Telephone: (215) 864-7174
          Facsimile: (215) 864-7123
          E-mail: onufrakm@whiteandwilliams.com

               - and -

          Michael P. Daly, Esq.
          Andrea L. D'ambra, Esq.
          Nicholas Stratton Feltham, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          One Logan Square
          18th and Cherry Sts.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6996
          Telephone: (215) 988-2604
          E-mail: michael.daly@dbr.com
                  ambra@dbr.com
                  nicholas.feltham@dbr.com

               - and -

          Benito Delfin, Jr., Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          601 South Figueroa St., Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 892-2883
          E-mail: ben.delfin@dentons.com

               - and -

          Melanie A. McCammon, Esq.
          Reid L. Ashinoff, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          1221 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020-1089
          Telephone: (212) 768-5328
          E-mail: melanie.mccammon@dentons.com
                  reid.ashinoff@dentons.com

               - and -

          Nicholas M. Centrella, Esq.
          Aya M. Salem, Esq.
          CONRAD O'BRIEN
          1500 Market St., Suite 3900
          Centre Square West Tower
          Philadelphia, PA 19102-2100
          Telephone: (215) 864-8098
          Facsimile: (215) 864-9620
          E-mail: ncentrella@cogr.com
                  asalem@conradobrien.com

The case is Riddle v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., Case
No. 2:12-cv-01740-BMS, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia).


BAXTER INT'L: Initiates Voluntary Recall of Dextrose Nitroglycerin
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmaceutical Business Review reports that Baxter International
has initiated a voluntary recall of one lot of Nitroglycerin in 5%
Dextrose injection due to particulate matter found in one vial.

If infused, particulate matter could lead to potential venous
and/or arterial thromboembolism (blockage of blood vessels.) Other
adverse events associated with injection of particulate matter
include inflammation due to foreign material, particularly in the
lungs, and local irritation of blood vessels.

There have been no reported adverse events associated with this
issue to date.  The financial impact of this recall is not
material to Baxter.

Nitroglycerin in 5% Dextrose injection (intravenous) is indicated
for treatment of peri-operative hypertension (treatment of high
blood pressure before, during and after surgery); for control of
congestive heart failure in the setting of acute myocardial
infarction (during a new onset heart attack, a weakness of the
heart muscle may cause fluid to build up in the lungs and other
body tissues); for treatment of angina pectoris (chest pain) in
patients who have not responded to sublingual nitroglycerin and
beta-blockers (beta blocker drugs); and for induction of
intraoperative hypotension (low blood pressure during surgery).

Baxter's Nitroglycerin in 5% Dextrose injection is packaged in
250ml glass containers, with 12 glass containers per carton.  The
affected product code is 1A0694, and the affected lot number is
G105197.

Product affected by this recall was distributed to healthcare
centers and distributors in Colombia, Saudi Arabia and the US.

Baxter is notifying customers, who are being directed not to use
product from the recalled lot.  Customers should locate and remove
all affected product from their facility.  The affected lot was
distributed to customers between January 17, 2013, and October 10,
2013.

Unaffected lot numbers can continue to be used according to the
instructions for use.  Unaffected lots of product are available
for replacement.


BRITISH AIRWAYS: Court Won't Junk Suit Over Bogus Fuel Surcharges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Divito, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
British Airways must face a class action accusing it of imposing
bogus fuel surcharges to passengers between 2007 and 212, a
federal judge ruled.

British Airways "did not tie its fuel surcharges to fuel prices,"
lead plaintiffs Russell Dover, Jonathan Stone, Cody Rank and
Suzette Perry claim.  "Instead, [it] used the fuel surcharge as an
opportunity to charge its Executive Club members hundreds of
dollars for each 'free' reward ticket, to increase its own revenue
regardless of whether fuel prices were high or low."

The 1-year-old federal lawsuit in Brooklyn alleges that each
plaintiff booked various flights around the world, paying for fuel
surcharges raging between $750 and $3,293 that did not reflect the
true price of jet fuel.

British Airways argued that the lawsuit is pre-empted by the
federal Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, which deregulated
domestic air transport and forbids states from enforcing
provisions related to price, route or service of an air carrier.

U.S. District Judge Raymond Dearie disagreed on Nov. 8, however,
saying that the law "does not preempt contract claims, whether or
not they relate to pricing or would otherwise be precluded if
articulated under state consumer protection laws."

British Airways states on its website that the fuel surcharges
"reflect the fluctuating price of worldwide oil."  A spokeswoman
for the airline declined to comment on pending litigation.

Dearie declined to consider the merits of both parties' claims,
but ruled that the plaintiffs stated a "plausible" claim for
breach of the terms and conditions that should shake out in court.

A status conference was scheduled on December 4 before U.S.
Magistrate Judge Marilyn Go.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Fiona Stewart, Esq.
          Clive Zietman, Esq.
          Daniel Loblowitz, Esq.
          STEWARTS LAW, LLP
          5 New Street Square
          London EC4A 3BF, UK
          Telephone: (020) 7822-80000
          E-mail: fstewart@stewartslaw.com
                  czietman@stewartslaw.com
                  dloblowitz@stewartslaw.com

               - and -

          David S. Stellings, Esq.
          Douglas Ian Cuthbertson, Esq.
          Jason Louis Lichtman, Esq.
          Nicholas Robert Diamand, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10013-1413
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          E-mail: dstellings@lchb.com
                  dcuthbertson@lchb.com
                  jlichtman@lchb.com
                  ndiamand@lchb.com

               - and -

          Mark Schlachet, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARK SCHLACHET
          3515 Severn Road
          Cleveland, OH 44118
          Telephone: (216) 896-0714
          Facsimile: (216) 514-6406
          E-mail: mschlachet@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Richard Francis Hans, Esq.
          Colleen Michelle Carey, Esq.
          David Victor Sack, Esq.
          Keara M. Gordon, Esq.
          Timothy H. Birnbaum, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          1251 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 335-4530
          Facsimile: (212) 884-8730
          E-mail: richard.hans@dlapiper.com
                  colleen.carey@dlapiper.com
                  david.sack@dlapiper.com
                  keara.gordon@dlapiper.com
                  timothy.birnbaum@dlapiper.com

The case is Dover, et al. v. British Airways, PLC (UK), Case No.
1:12-cv-05567-RJD-MDG, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York (Brooklyn).


CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE: Owes Notice to Drug-Test Subjects, Ct. Rules
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army has a duty to warn any veterans subjected to Cold War-era
drug experiments about potential health concerns as they become
aware of them, Nick McCann, writing for Courthouse News Service
reports, citing a federal court ruling.

The ruling comes in a class action Vietnam Veterans of America
filed against various government defendants in 2009, claiming that
at least 7,800 soldiers had been used as guinea pigs in Project
Paperclip.

Soldiers were allegedly administered at least 250 and perhaps as
many as 400 types of drugs, among them Sarin, one of the most
deadly drugs known, amphetamines, barbiturates, mustard gas,
phosgene gas and LSD.

Using tactics it often attributed to the Soviet enemy, the U.S.
government sought drugs to control human behavior, cause
confusion, promote weakness or temporary loss of hearing and
vision, induce hypnosis, and enhance a person's ability to
withstand torture, according to the complaint.

U.S. District Judge certified the plaintiffs as a class last year,
a status that could make thousands of veterans eligible for
relief.  Though the defendants succeeded in tossing claims against
Attorney General Eric Holder and the CIA, the Department of
Defense and Department of the Army are still on the hook.

The crux of the veterans' argument is that Administrative
Procedure Act obligates the defendants to provide notice to test
subjects and to provide them medical care.  They also cite an Army
regulation involving the use of volunteers as research subjects.

The 1962 regulation states that participants "will be told as much
of the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment, the method
and means by which it is to be conducted, and the inconveniences
and hazards to be expected, as will not invalidate the results."
It also says subjects "will be fully informed of the effects upon
[the test subject's] health or person which may possibly come from
his participation in the experiment.'

The Army regulation was updated in 1990, and the veterans say the
defendants have a duty to provide notice "even after the
individual volunteer has completed his or her participation in
research."

Judge Wilken gave both sides some relief Tuesday, November 19,
2013, granting the DoD, Army and CIA summary judgment on certain
claims, and giving the plaintiffs summary judgment only as to one
claim against the Army.

As of now, the Defense Department has given the Department of
Veterans' Affairs a list of more than 16,000 test subjects, and
the veterans' department sent letters to more than 3,000 of them.

The government did not include the names of drugs tested on each
subject, according to materials from the defendants.  DoD also
placed information about the testing on its website, including
information about a hotline test subjects can call.

In their motion for summary judgment, the defendants argued among
other things that they did not have a legally enforceable duty to
notify the past test subjects.  Wilken said this may not
necessarily prove true.

"Defendants are correct that the wording of the regulations does
not support the exact definition of 'notice' that plaintiffs have
put forth here," the judge wrote in her 71-page order.  "However,
this does not mean that the regulations do not support the duty to
provide some notice."

Based on interpretation of the disputed Army regulation, Wilken
was more persuaded by the plaintiffs' argument "that the duty to
warn is properly interpreted as applying on an on-going basis, not
just as part of the pre-experiment consent process, and is owed to
service members who became test subjects before 1988."

"The court concludes that defendants' duty to warn test subjects
of possible health effects is not limited to the time that these
individuals provide consent to participate in the experiments,"
Wilken wrote.

"Instead, defendants have an ongoing duty to warn about newly
acquired information that may affect the well-being of test
subjects after they completed their participation in research."

Wilken found in favor of the Army to the extent the plaintiffs
challenged its initial notice efforts to the test subjects.

The plaintiffs did not convince the court that the Department of
Veterans' Affairs "systematically fails to offer them care."

"Although there may be general dissatisfaction and individual
erroneous results, plaintiffs and the class members can seek
medical care through the DVA and challenge denial of care through
the statutory scheme prescribed by Congress," Wilken wrote.

The judge also found for the defendants on the plaintiffs'
constitutional claims, finding the plaintiffs could not prove that
it was a violation of due process when the Army did not follow its
own regulations.

Wilken vacated the final pretrial conference and the trial dates
in this case.

In an injunction accompanying the summary judgment order, Wilken
directed the Army to "provide such test subjects with newly
acquired information that may affect their well-being that it has
learned since its original notification, now and in the future as
it becomes available."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gordon P. Erspamer, Esq.
          Timothy W. Blakely, Esq.
          Adriano Hrvatin, Esq.
          Kimberly L. Taylor, Esq.
          Stacey M. Sprenkel, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market St.
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: GErspamer@mofo.com
                  TBlakely@mofo.com
                  AHrvatin@mofo.com
                  KTaylor@mofo.com
                  SSprenkel@mofo.com

The case is Vietnam Veterans of America, et al. v. CIA, et al.,
Case No. 3:09-cv-00037, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


COSTA INC: Being Sold to Essilor for Too Little, Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Phillips, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Costa, Inc., David G. Whalen, Russell A. Boss; Bernard
A. Buonanno, Jr., Jacob C. Gaffney Dwain L. Hahs, Harlen M. Kent
Andrew J. Parsons, Frances P. Philip, Essilor International, S.A.,
and GWH Acquisition Sub, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-00747-ML-LDA
(D.R.I., November 19, 2013) is a stockholder class action brought
on behalf of the public shareholders of Costa arising out of the
Defendants' breach of fiduciary duties, and aiding and abetting of
those breaches, in connection with the Board's decision to sell
Costa to Essilor and Merger Sub at an alleged substantial discount
via an inherently unfair process.

The Plaintiff argues that the Proposed Transaction is the product
of a fundamentally flawed process that fails to maximize
shareholder value, in breach of the Defendants' fiduciary duties,
and is designed to ensure the acquisition of Costa by Essilor on
terms preferential to Essilor and Costa's Board members, but
detrimental to the Plaintiff and other public shareholders of the
Company.

Costa is a Rhode Island corporation headquartered in Lincoln,
Rhode Island.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.  Costa is a premium sport sunglasses
company that owns and manages the Costa and Native Eyewear brands.

Essilor is a French corporation with its headquarters located in
Charenton-le-Pont, France.  Essilor produces ophthalmic lenses
along with ophthalmic optical equipment.  Merger Sub is a Rhode
Island corporation wholly owned by Essilor that was created for
the purposes of effectuating the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barry J. Kusinitz, Esq.
          155 South Main St., Suite 405
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 831-4200
          Facsimile: (401) 831-7053
          E-mail: bkusinitz@bdglawyers.com

               - and -

          Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
          Sebastiano Tornatore, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          733 Summer Street, Suite 304
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
          E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com
                  stornatore@zlk.com


CROWN BOILER: Recalls Home Heating Boilers Due to CO Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Crown Boiler Company, of Philadelphia, announced a voluntary
recall of about 2,200 Gas-fired hot water boilers.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The air pressure switch can fail to shut down the burners in the
event that there is a blockage in the vent system allowing the
boiler to emit excessive amounts of carbon monoxide, posing a CO
poisoning hazard to the consumer.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves Crown Boiler CWD series cast iron hot water
boilers that use natural gas or liquid petroleum to heat water in
home baseboard, floor or radiator heating systems.  The boilers
are red and gray, about 37 inches tall, about 23 inches deep and
range from about 16 to 42 inches wide.  The Crown Boiler logo is
on the front of the boiler.  Recalled boilers have model numbers
that begin with CWD and were manufactured between May 1, 2005 and
July 1, 2013.  The model number and the manufacturing date are
located on a white rating label located on the upper right side of
the boiler. The manufacturing date appears under "Series" in the
MM/DD/YYYY or M/D/YYYY format or as a two-letter code.  Recalled
models have dates between 5/1/2005 and 7/1/2013 or one of the
following two-letter codes:

EB, FB, GB, HB, IB, JB, KB, LB
AC, BC, CC, DC, EC, FC, GC, HC, IC, JC, KC, LC
AD, BD, CD, DD, ED, FD, GD, HD, ID, JD, KD, LD
AE, BE, CE, DE, EE, FE, GE, HE, IE, JE, KE, LE
AF, BF, CF, DF, EF, FF, GF, HF, IF, JF, KF, LF
AG, BG, CG, DG, EG, FG, GG, HG, IG, JG, KG, LG
AH, BH, CH, DH, EH, FH, GH, HH, IH, JH, KH, LH
AI, BI, CI, DI, EI, FI, GI, HI, II, JI, KI, LI
AJ, BJ, CJ, DJ, EJ, FJ.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/cAXlA8

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at plumbing and heating wholesale distributors nationwide from
May 2005 through July 2013 for between $4,000 and $6,700.

Consumers with recalled boilers should immediately contact the
installer or distributor from whom they purchased the boiler or
Crown Boiler to schedule a free in-home repair.  Consumers who
continue using the boilers while awaiting repair, should have a
working carbon monoxide alarm installed outside of sleeping areas
in the home.


DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls 2,783 Trucks Over Seat Belt Defect
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 27, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Seats and Restraints
Units affected:           2783
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013427
TC ID number:             2013427
Manufacturer recall
number:                   FL-654

On certain trucks, the seat belts may not comply with Canada Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies.  Due to a
defect in manufacturing, the seat belt buckle may not release as
required by the standard.  This could increase the risk of injury
to the driver in a crash.

Dealers will inspect and, if necessary, replace the seatbelt
assemblies.

Affected products:

   Maker             Model          Model year(s) affected
   -----             -----          ----------------------
   FREIGHTLINER     CASCADIA               2013
   FREIGHTLINER     CORONADO               2013
   WESTERN STAR     4900                   2013
   FREIGHTLINER     BUSINESS CLASS M2      2013
   FREIGHTLINER     ARGOSY                 2013
   WESTERN STAR     6900                   2013
   FREIGHTLINER     114SD                  2013
   WESTERN STAR     4700                   2013
   FREIGHTLINER     108SD                  2013
   FREIGHTLINER     122SD                  2013


DRDGOLD LTD: Accused of Negligence by Former Mineworkers
--------------------------------------------------------
DRDGOLD Ltd. was served with a court application for a class
action issued in the South Gauteng High Court (Johannesburg, South
Africa) by alleged former mineworkers claiming the company's
negligence in its operation resulted in the former mineworkers
contracting silicosis, according to the company's Oct. 25, 2013,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended June 30, 2013.

As a result of the South African Constitutional Court decision
permitting individuals employed as miners with occupational
lung diseases to sue their current or former employers for damages
outside the statutory compensation scheme, the company could be
subject to claims against the company from previous or current
employees, including a potential class action or similar group
claim.

In January 2013, DRDGOLD, ERPM and 23 other mining companies were
served with a court application for a class action issued in the
South Gauteng High Court by alleged former mineworkers and
dependents of deceased mineworkers. In the pending application,
the applicants allege that DRDGOLD, ERPM and other mining
companies conducted underground mining operations in such a
negligent manner that resulted in the former mineworkers
contracting silicosis.

The company will assess all such claims, if and when filed, on
their merits. Liability associated with such claims and expenses
of dealing with them could have a material adverse effect on the
company's business, operating results and financial condition.


EASTERN INSURANCE: Faces Suit Over Proposed ProAssurance Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rudy Rosenberg, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Michael Leonard Boguski, Robert Morris McAlaine, Paul
Robert Burke, Ronald Lee King, Scott Carter Penwell, William Lloyd
Snyder III, Charles Hall Vetterlein, III, Eastern Insurance
Holdings, Inc., Case No. 5:13-cv-06355-MSG (E.D. Pa., October 31,
2013) alleges that the Defendants disseminated false and
materially misleading preliminary proxy statement in connection
with the proposed merger of Eastern and ProAssurance Corporation
pursuant to the terms of an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated
September 23, 2013.

The Company's management and the directors have entrenched
themselves in their lucrative positions with the Company post-
Proposed Transaction, while agreeing to a deal that leaves the
Company's public shareholders with only a fraction of the actual
and true value of their investments in Eastern, the Plaintiff
contends.

Eastern, a Pennsylvania corporation, provides workers'
compensation insurance and reinsurance products in the United
States.  The Company's Workers' Compensation Insurance segment
offers workers' compensation products, including guaranteed cost
policies, policyholder dividend policies, retrospectively-rated
policies, deductible policies, and alternative market products to
employers.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers
of the Company.

The Plaintiff is 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) 822-0202
          E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com
                  jsnyder@bonizack.com
                  jsindoni@bonizack.com

               - and -

          Kent Bronson, Esq.
          Gloria Kui Melwani, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Penn Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 594-4300
          Facsimile: (212) 504-8054
          E-mail: kbronson@milberg.com
                  gmelwani@milberg.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Patricia M. Hamill, Esq.
          CONRAD O'BRIEN PC
          1500 Market St., Suite 3900
          Centre Square West Tower
          Philadelphia, PA 19102-2100
          Telephone: (215) 864-8071
          Facsimile: (215) 864-9620
          E-mail: phamill@cogr.com


EBAY INC: $4.75 Million Settlement of Featured Plus Suit Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, William Dotinga reports that
a federal judge signed off on a $4.75 million settlement agreement
between eBay and disgruntled users of its ill-fated Featured Plus
service.

Auto accessories dealer and lead plaintiff Custom LED claimed in a
2012 lawsuit that it paid $39.95 for eBay's now-defunct Featured
Plus service, which was supposed to bump the ads of subscribers to
the top of the search page.  The service was allegedly "completely
nonfunctional" much of the time because of known bugs in the
program.

Despite these issues, eBay continued to both market Featured Plus
and charge for the service even after the service had stopped
working entirely, according to the complaint.

Last year, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston dismissed Custom
LED's common-law fraud claims, but moved the contract action
forward.  After a year of investigation and discovery, the parties
entered into mediation and announced they had reached a $4.75
million settlement agreement in June.

But in August, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar found the proposed
settlement deficient, citing an overly broad release of any claim
relating to Featured Plus -- whether related to Custom LED's
action or not -- and a lack of information within the planned
notice to potential class members on the scope of the release.

Tigar also questioned whether the default method of distributing
the settlement -- eBay account credits -- would be fair to the
entire class.  After giving the parties 60 days to cure the
deficiencies, the judge cleared the new agreement Wednesday,
November 20, 2013.

Under the settlement eBay will pay $4.75 million, which includes
an enhancement award of $7,500 for Custom LED and about $1.2
million in attorneys' fees for class counsel and settlement-
administration costs.  The remaining $3.2 million will be
distributed to Featured Plus in two subclasses, bifurcated by time
period.

"One-third of the fund will be allocated to the time period
ranging from Jan. 23, 2008 to Sept. 28, 2009, and the remaining
two-thirds will be allocated to the period ranging from Sept. 29,
2009 to Feb. 4, 2013," Tigar wrote.  "The justification for this
allocation is eBay's contention that Featured Plus worked exactly
as described prior to Sept. 29, 2009 and that any alleged problems
arose only after that date, when eBay made certain changes to the
descriptions and functionality of Featured Plus.  Specifically,
eBay has evidence showing that Featured Plus listings were shown
in 'Featured Items' sections for all searches in period 1,
regardless of where the buyer originated the search or how the
search results were organized.  No such evidence exists with
respect to the listings in period 2.  As such, the class members'
claims in period 1 are significantly weaker than those in period
2."

Each class member will receive a percentage of the fees paid to
eBay, relative to the total fees paid by the entire class.  That
total figure has been redacted but is in the millions for both
time periods.

The default method of paying out the settlement involves account
credits for active eBay users.  Though Tigar originally took
exception with this scheme, since some may find their portion of
the settlement eaten up by the user fees they currently ow eBay,
affected users can opt out and receive a check instead or apply
for a refund of those credits once received.

"The court finds that the universal availability of the check
option and the prominent display of information pertaining to that
option is sufficient to ensure that certain segments of the class
will not benefit more from the settlement than others," Tigar
wrote.

EBay also retains the right to dump the settlement agreement
before final approval is given if more than 100 class members drop
out to pursue their own claims.

Tigar did extend the deadline for claims and exclusions to 120
days from the date of notice, rather than the 81 days called for
in the agreement.  He ordered eBay to begin the notice scheme
within 30 days, and ordered plaintiffs to file for final approval
within five months.

A final fairness hearing is set for June 18, 2014.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith R. Verges, Esq.
          Parker D. Young, Esq.
          Raymond Earl Walker, Esq.
          FIGARI & DAVENPORT, LLP
          901 Main Street, Suite 3400
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 939-2000
          Facsimile: (214) 939-2090
          E-mail: kverges@figdav.com
                  parker.young@figdav.com
                  ray.walker@figdav.com

               - and -

          Shawn Tenzing Leuthold, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF SHAWN T. LEUTHOLD
          1671 The Alameda, Suite 303
          San Jose, CA 95126
          Telephone: (408) 924-0132
          Facsimile: (408) 924-0134
          E-mail: leuthold@aol.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Benjamin F. Chapman, Esq.
          COOLEY GODWARD
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121-1909
          Telephone: (858) 550-6000
          Facsimile: (858) 550-6420
          E-mail: bchapman@cooley.com

               - and -

          James M. Penning, Esq.
          COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP
          Five Palo Alto Square
          3000 El Camino Real
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155
          Telephone: (650) 843-5000
          Facsimile: (650) 857-0663
          E-mail: jpenning@cooley.com

               - and -

          Whitty Somvichian, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          101 California Street, 5th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 693-2061
          Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
          E-mail: wsomvichian@cooley.com

The case is Custom LED, LLC v. eBay, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:12-
cv-00350-JST, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco).


ENTEGRA COACH: Recalls 6 Motorhomes Due to Air Brake Gauge Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 3, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Motorhome
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           6
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013430
TC ID number:             2013430

On certain vehicles equipped with a four-in-one air gauge, the air
brake system pressure gauge may display an inaccurate pressure
reading.  This could cause the service brake air pressure to be
lower than anticipated, causing a reduction in braking force and
an unexpected application of emergency spring brakes, which could
increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to
property.

Dealers will replace the air gauge.

Affected products:

   Maker         Model         Model year(s) affected
   -----         -----         ----------------------
   ENTEGRA       ANTHEM        2010, 2011
   ENTEGRA       ASPIRE        2012


FORD MOTOR: Recalls 56 Units of 2013 Fiesta Cars in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 27, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Compliance Mfr
System:                   Label
Units affected:           56
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013426
TC ID number:             2013426
Manufacturer recall
number:                   13C08

Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 110 - Tire Selection and Rims. The
Tire and Loading Information Label may contain incorrect tire size
and inflation pressure information.  Incorrect inflation pressure
and/or use of replacement tires of an incorrect size and load
rating may result in tire damage and could adversely affect
vehicle handling, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury
and/or damage to property.

Dealers will inspect the Tire and Loading Information Label and
install a revised label if necessary

Affected products: 2013 FORD FIESTA model


FUSION-IO INC: Issued False Positive Revenue Guidance, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miami Police Relief & Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Fusion-io, Inc., David A. Flynn,
Shane V. Robison, and Dennis P. Wolf, Case No. Case No. 5:13-cv-
05368-LHK (N.D. Cal., November 19, 2013) is a federal securities
class action brought on behalf of purchasers of Fusion-io's
publicly traded common stock between August 10, 2012, and
October 23, 2013, inclusive.

During the Class Period, the Defendants misrepresented to
investors that the Company was a market leader in large-scale
flash memory applications and was not facing any competitive
pressure or risk from the commoditization of flash memory
products, the Plaintiff alleges.  The Plaintiff adds that the
Defendants also issued unrealistically positive revenue guidance
and misrepresented that the Company was able to anticipate the
demand from its strategic customers based on its years of
experience as their flash memory supplier.  As a result of these
misrepresentations, Fusion-io stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period, the Plaintiff continues.

Fusion-io, a Delaware corporation, was founded in 2005 as Canvas
Technologies, Inc.  Fusion-io is a computer hardware and software
systems company that designs and manufactures products using flash
memory technology.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blair A. Nicholas, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 793-0070
          Facsimile: (858) 793-0323
          E-mail: blairn@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
          Avi Josefson, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas, 38th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com
                  avi@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Robert D. Klausner
          KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN, JENSEN & LEVINSON
          10059 Northwest 1st Court
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 916-1202
          Facsimile: (954) 916-1232
          E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Boris Feldman, Esq.
          Douglas John Clark, Esq.
          Ignacio Evaristo Salceda, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          650 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Telephone: (650) 493-9300
          Facsimile: (650) 565-5100
          E-mail: ncarvalho@wsgr.com
                  dclark@wsgr.com
                  isalceda@wsgr.com


H&R BLOCK: "Dreyling" Tax Suit Transferred to W.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Maighan O. Perry Dreyling, Richard
M. Dreyling, III, and Tanya M. Baez, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Case No. 3:13-cv-02011 (N.D. Cal.,
May 1, 2013) was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri on October 31, 2013.  The lawsuit is
now captioned Dreyling, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., Case
No. 4:13-cv-01065-FJG.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all individuals, who had U.S.
federal income tax returns, including Forms 8863 for the year
2012, prepared for them by the Defendants, which were filed before
February 22, 2013.  The Plaintiffs argues that the Forms 8863 in
H&R Block's tax software continued to permit certain lines to be
left blank, which has resulted in the delay of thousands of
refunds.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan Herschel Bornstein, Esq.
          BORNSTEIN & BORNSTEIN
          507 Polk Street, Suite 410
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 409-7611
          Facsimile: (415) 409-9345
          E-mail: jonathan@bornsteinandbornstein.com

               - and -

          Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4636
          E-mail: ssavett@bm.net
                  elechtzin@bm.net

               - and -

          Mark J. Geragos, Esq.
          GERAGOS & GERAGOS , APC
          644 S. Figueroa Street, 39th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3480
          Telephone: (213) 625-3900
          Facsimile: (213) 625-1600
          E-mail: geragos@geragos.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lin W. Kahn, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 626-3939
          Facsimile: (415) 875-5700
          E-mail: linkahn@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Kevin D. Boyce, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          901 Lakeside Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44114-1190
          Telephone: (216) 586-3939
          E-mail: kdboyce@jonesday.com


HALLIBURTON CO: Securities Class Action Ruling Hits Businesses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Business Insurance reports that companies should be happy to hear
the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear a major securities
class action case. Now, they can only hope the high court's ruling
goes their way.  At issue in Halliburton Co. and David Lesar v.
Eric P. John Fund Inc. FKA Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting
Fund Inc. is a controversial 1988 ruling by a divided Supreme
Court in Basic Inc. et al. v. Max L. Levinson et al.

In that 1988 case, the nation's highest court endorsed the "fraud-
on-the-market presumption theory," which basically says that
because of the capital market's efficiency, it is not necessary
for plaintiffs in class actions to prove individually that they
were affected by misrepresentations by the company.

The results of that decision, as pointed out in an amicus brief by
former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission members and
academics, have been horrific for businesses and led to the
creation of a "massive multibillion-dollar industry" for the
plaintiffs' bar.

Adding insult to injury in the 25-year-old ruling, the fraud-on-
the market theory has since been "subjected to withering scholarly
and empirical attack" and largely discredited, according to
Halliburton's petition asking the Supreme Court to review its case
against the Milwaukee archdiocese.

Legal experts say they are confident based on another recent
ruling that four Supreme Court justices -- Antonin Scalia, Samuel
Alito, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy -- will vote to at
least modify, if not entirely discard, the fraud-on-the market
presumption theory.

Assuming Chief Justice John Roberts goes along, this could lead to
a welcome reduction in directors and officers liability rates for
companies.

Of course, the creativity of the plaintiffs' bar should not be
underestimated.  It is likely those lawyers would find some way to
work around a Supreme Court ruling tossing out the fraud-on-the-
market theory.  Furthermore, institutional investors may feel
obligated to continue to pursue such litigation individually.

Nevertheless, the theory in question remains law for now.  And as
Halliburton states in its petition to the Supreme Court, "The
Basic majority erred by substituting economic theory for law --
and bad economic theory at that."

It is high time the Supreme Court corrects that mistake.


HARMONY GOLD: Opposes Silicosis Suit by Former Workers
------------------------------------------------------
Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited served and filed its notice of
intention to oppose the application of three former employees who
are requesting the South Gauteng High Court to be part of a class
action for silicosis sufferers, according to the company's Oct.
25, 2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended June 30, 2013.

On August 23, 2012, Harmony and all its subsidiaries were served
with court papers entailing an application by three of its former
employees requesting that the South Gauteng High Court certify a
class action. In essence, the applicants want the court to declare
them as representing a class of people for the purposes of
instituting an action for relief and to obtain directions as to
what procedure to follow in pursuing the relief required against
Harmony. Harmony has subsequently retained legal counsel in this
regard and on September 5, 2012, Harmony served and filed its
notice of intention to oppose the application as it is of the view
that the applicants cannot form part of a class as, according to
their own averments, they worked at different operations. At this
stage and in the absence of a Court decision on this matter, it is
uncertain as to whether the Company will incur any costs related
to silicosis claims in the near future. Due to the limited
information available on any claims and potential claims, and the
uncertainty of the outcome of these claims, no estimation can be
made for the possible obligation.


HARMONY GOLD: Consolidation of Two Suits Over Silicosis Planned
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidation of two applications to certify class actions on
behalf of Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited mine workers who
allegedly contracted silicosis and/or other occupational lung
diseases is being planned, according to the company's Oct. 25,
2013, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the year ended June 30, 2013.

On January 8, 2013, Harmony and its subsidiaries, alongside other
mining companies operating in South Africa (collectively the
respondents), were served with another application to certify a
class on behalf of classes of mine workers, former mine workers
and their dependents who were previously employed by, or who are
currently employed by, the respondents, who allegedly contracted
silicosis and/or other occupational lung diseases. Harmony has
filed notices of its intention to oppose both applications and has
instructed its attorneys to defend the claims. Following the
receipt of this application, Harmony was advised that there was a
potential overlap between the application of August 23, 2012 and
the application of January 8, 2013. After deliberation between the
respondents' attorneys and the applicants' attorneys, it was
resolved that the applicants' attorneys will consolidate the two
applications and serve an amended application which will be
considered by the respondents. The respondents are awaiting a
consolidated application of the two separate applications served.

At this stage, and in the absence of a court decision on this
matter it is uncertain as to whether the company will incur any
costs related to silicosis claims in the near future. Due to the
limited information available on any claims and potential claims
and the uncertainty of the outcome of these claims, no estimation
can be made for the possible obligation.


HARMONY GOLD: Settlement of ADR Holders' Lawsuit Faces Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
A member of a class in a suit filed on behalf of ADR and ADR
Option holders of Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited is asking
the United Stated Supreme Court to review the approval of the
settlement of the suit, according to the company's Oct. 25, 2013,
Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the year ended June 30, 2013.

The Company reached a mutually acceptable settlement with the
class plaintiffs during fiscal 2012 in a pending class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York in which certain ADR and ADR Option holders are seeking
damages against the company pertaining to the company's business
practices for the period April 25, 2007 to August 7, 2007. The
settlement was approved by the Court in November 2011 but a single
class member filed an appeal of the Court's order approving the
settlement. That appeal resulted in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit affirming the decision of the
District Court. The objecting plaintiff has asked the United
Stated Supreme Court to review the case and this is pending. The
settlement amount has been paid into escrow by the company's
insurers and will be distributed to the plaintiffs once the appeal
has been finalized.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Private Equity Holders Dump $7BB in Stock, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Ramirez, Jr., Individually and on Behalf Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., Mark P.
Frissora and Elyse Douglas, Case No. 2:13-cv-07050-SRC-CLW
(D.N.J., November 20, 2013) is a federal securities class action
on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Hertz between
February 25, 2013, and November 4, 2013, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' fraudulent scheme and
course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit on
purchasers of Hertz common stock was a success, as it: (i)
deceived the investing public regarding Hertz's prospects and
business; (ii) artificially inflated the price of Hertz common
stock; (iii) enabled Defendant Elyse Douglas to sell more than
$3.6 million of her personally-held Hertz common stock, and
Hertz's former private equity owners to sell another $4.44 billion
of their Hertz stock -- (cashing them out completely) to the
unsuspecting public; and (iv) caused the Plaintiff and other
members of the Class to purchase Hertz common stock at
artificially inflated prices.

Hertz, through its subsidiaries, engages in the car and equipment
rental businesses worldwide.  Headquartered in Park Ridge, New
Jersey, Hertz is one of the nation's largest automobile and
equipment rental companies.

Mark P. Frissora is, and was throughout the Class Period, the
Chief Executive Officer, a director of Hertz and Chairman of its
Board of Directors.  Elyse Douglas served as Senior Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of Hertz from the beginning
of the Class Period through and including October 1, 2013, when
she resigned.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
          COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
          Park 80 West-Plaza One
          250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
          Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
          Telephone: (201) 845-9600
          Facsimile: (201) 845-9423
          E-mail: psp@njlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Abraham, Esq.
          ABRAHAM FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 279-5050
          Facsimile: (212) 279-3655
          E-mail: jabraham@aftlaw.com


IGNITE RESTAURANT: "Moreno" Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Arana Moreno, Julian Cassanova Poot, Liborio Chan,
Luis Alberto Colli Perera, Edgar Diaz, Jose Mencia, Raul Enrique
Misek, Samir Roque, and Juan Antonio Saldivar, individually and on
behalf of others similarly aggrieved employees v. Ignite
Restaurant Group, Inc. dba Joe's Crab Shack and Crab Addison,
Inc., dba Joe's Crab Shack; and Does 1 to 20, Case No. CGC13-
533623 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., August 19, 2013)
alleges that the Defendants failed to, among other things, provide
meal and rest periods, and compensate the Plaintiffs for all hours
worked.

The Defendants removed the lawsuit on October 31, 2013, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of San
Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The Company argues that the removal is
proper because putative class exceeds 100 members and diversity of
citizenship exists.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:13-cv-05091-SI to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edris Wilder Izar Rodriguez, Esq.
          Karen C. Carreta, Esq.
          VILLEGAS CARRERA LLP
          170 Columbus Avenue, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Telephone: (415) 989-8000
          E-mail: edris@e-licenciados.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ted Allan Gehring, Esq.
          Michael Stuart Kun, Esq.
          EPSTEIN BECKER GREEN, P.C.
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2506
          Telephone: (310) 556-8861
          Facsimile: (310) 553-2165
          E-mail: tgehring@ebglaw.com
                  mkun@ebglaw.com


KAISER PERMANENTE: Faces Class Action Over HIV Screening
--------------------------------------------------------
Aimee Green, writing for The Oregonian, reports that two Portland
area residents are suing Kaiser Permanente for screening them for
HIV -- along with about 6,500 other Northwest members -- without
seeking their permission.

The plaintiffs -- identified in a federal lawsuit as Barbara
Kelley of Multnomah County and William Pearse of Clackamas County
-- are asking a judge to approve the suit as a class action suit
that could seek $6.5 million or more from Kaiser for the apparent
misstep.

Oregon law requires Kaiser to inform patients that they are about
to be tested for the virus that causes AIDS and give patients the
option of declining the testing.  But from April 11 to May 5,
Kaiser tested Oregon and Washington members who were ages 50 to
65, but it "did not communicate this new protocol" to them,
according to the suit.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Oregon on Nov. 27.
It claims invasion of privacy, unlawful trade practices and fraud.
The suit asks for $1,000 in damages each for Kelley and Pearse,
plus millions more if others who were tested are allowed to join
the litigation.

Kaiser performed the tests as the first phase in a plan to test
all members, ages 15 to 65, for the virus.

Kaiser's chief medical officer, Dr. Tom Hickey, said in a
statement emailed on Nov. 29 that his organization has taken steps
to ensure that members are given the opportunity to opt out of
future testing.

"We deeply regret that this lack of communication may have caused
unnecessary concern for our members," Dr. Hickey said in the
statement.  ". . . Kaiser Permanente is committed to continuing
its efforts to remain a national leader in HIV/AIDS care and early
detection.  HIV remains an epidemic in the United States, with
56,000 people infected each year."

Attorneys for Ms. Kelley and Mr. Pearse also couldn't be reached
for comment or declined comment on Nov. 29.

Last year, Oregon lawmakers lessened the consent requirements for
HIV tests, deciding that notifying patients in writing only --
rather than verbally, too -- was sufficient.  The law also
requires that patients be given the option of opting out of the
test.

Critics say written notification and the option of declining tests
can easily be buried in fine print -- leaving patients in the
dark.

Federal health officials recommended in April that virtually all
adults be tested for HIV, as long as they're given a chance to
decline the tests.  The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force had
previously recommended testing only for high-risk individuals,
such as gay men who had unprotected sex or intravenous drug users.


L&F INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 1,000 Mattresses Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
L&F International Trade, of Beltsville, Md., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,000 Mattresses and mattresses with foundations.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The mattresses fail to meet the mandatory federal open flame
standard for mattresses, posing a fire hazard to consumers.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves L&F International Trade's renovated (rebuilt)
twin, full, queen and king-size mattresses and mattresses with
foundations.  The used mattresses were stripped to the springs and
rebuilt by L&F International Trade.  They have an ivory knit
fabric cover with a botanical pattern.  The recalled mattresses
have a yellow tag with "L&F International Trade Inc., 10726A
Tucker St., Beltsville, MD 20705" printed on them.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/mJHE7j

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Best Buy Furniture, Takoma Park, Md.; Capital Discount,
Washington, D.C.; Carolina Furniture, Hyattsville, Md.; Easy Buy
Furniture, Washington, D.C. and Value Furniture, Bladensburg, Md.
from November 2011 through July 2012 for about $100.

Consumer should immediately contact L&F International Trade and
arrange to have the recalled mattress sets returned and have a
compliant rebuilt mattress or mattress set  delivered free of
charge.


LAND ROVER: Recalls 322 Range Rover SUVs Over Airbag Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 29, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              SUV
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Airbag
Units affected:           322
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013428
TC ID number:             2013428
Manufacturer recall
number:                   P037

Affected products: 2013 Land Rover Range Rover

On certain vehicles, airbag wiring connectors located in the front
seats may become disconnected, illuminating the airbag warning
light.  If the airbag light illuminates, the seat side airbags may
not deploy in the event of a crash, which could increase the risk
of injury.

Dealers will increase the clearance around the connectors.


LION BUS: Recalls 17 Trucks Due to Defective Seat Belt
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 2, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Seats and Restraints
Units affected:           17
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013429
TC ID number:             2013429

On certain buses, the driver's seat belt may not comply with
Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies.
Due to a defect in manufacturing, the seat belt buckle may not
release as required by the standard.  This could increase the risk
of injury to the driver in a crash.

Dealers will inspect and, if necessary, replace the seatbelt
assemblies.

Affected products: 2013 LION 360 model


LITHIA MOTORS: Settlement of Consumer Claims to Cost $3.8MM
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lithia Motors, Inc. expects to pay $3.8 million to settle all a
suit alleging violations of the Consumer Protection Act of
Alaska, according to the company's Oct. 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In December 2006, a suit was filed against the company (Jackie
Neese, et al vs. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc, et al,
Case No. 3AN-06-13341 CI), and in April, 2007, a second case
(Jackie Neese, et al vs. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc,
et al, Case No. 3AN-06-4815 CI) was filed against the company's in
the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial
District at Anchorage. These suits were subsequently consolidated.
In the suits, plaintiffs alleged that the company, through the
company's Alaska dealerships, engaged in three practices that
purportedly violate Alaska consumer protection laws: (i) charging
customers dealer fees and costs (including document preparation
fees) not disclosed in the advertised price, (ii) failing to
disclose the acquisition, mechanical and accident history of used
vehicles or whether the vehicles were originally manufactured for
sale in a foreign country, and (iii) engaging in deception,
misrepresentation and fraud by providing to customers financing
from third parties without disclosing that the company receive a
fee or discount for placing that loan. The suit sought statutory
damages of $500 for each violation or three times plaintiff's
actual damages, whichever was greater, and attorney fees and
costs.

In June 2013 the parties agreed to mediate the claims. The
mediation resulted in a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs
under which the company estimates it will pay $3.8 million to
settle all claims against the company and to pay plaintiffs' legal
fees. The estimated payment assumes a participation rate by
eligible class members based on historically experienced claim
rates. An increased claim rate would result in additional
payments. The estimated settlement amount was recorded as a
component of selling, general and administrative expense in the
company's Consolidated Statements of Operations and, as of
September 30, 2013, was included as a component of accrued
liabilities in the company's Consolidated Balance Sheets. The
settlement is subject to court approval and the company cannot
assure that the court will approve the settlement.


LUXURY LINK: Accused of Defrauding Vacation Booking Customers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey R. Krinsk initiated a class action lawsuit in the Superior
Court of California for San Diego County against Luxury Link LLC.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Company defrauded customers in a
vacation booking scheme.

The case is Jeffrey R. Krinsk v. Luxury Link LLC, Case No. 37-
2013-00076426-CU-BT-CTL, in the Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego.


METROCORP BANCSHARES: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Hsin-Hui Kuo, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. MetroCorp Bancshares, Inc., George M. Lee, Don J.
Wang, Y. Ping Sun, Helen F. Chen, May P. Chu, Shirley Liu Clayton,
John Lee, Charles L. Roff, David Tai, Joe Ting, Robert W. Hsueh,
Krishnan Balasubramanian, Daniel B. Wright, And East West Bancorp,
Inc., Case No. 4:13-cv-03198 (S.D. Tex., October 31, 2013) arises
from an announcement that MetroCorp and East West entered into a
definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger under which East West will
acquire all outstanding shares of stock of MetroCorp.

Both the value to MetroCorp stockholders contemplated in the
Proposed Transaction and the process by which the Defendants
propose to consummate the Proposed Transaction are fundamentally
unfair to the Plaintiff and all other public stockholders of the
Company, according to the complaint.

MetroCorp is a Texas corporation headquartered in Houston.
MetroCorp is a bank holding company.  MetroBank, N.A. and Metro
United Bank, as wholly owned subsidiaries of MetroCorp, offer
personalized banking services to the communities in the Houston,
Dallas, San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco metropolitan
areas.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of
the Company.

East West is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Pasadena,
California.  East West is a bank holding company.  East West
offers a range of personal and commercial banking services to
small and medium-sized businesses and individuals through its
subsidiary East West Bank.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
          THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
          700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 227-7720
          Facsimile: (713) 227-9404
          E-mail: tbilek@bileklaw.com

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com


MOBILE COUNTY, AL: Sued Over Killing of Pet Cat at Animal Shelter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Mobile County claims it holds
stray animals at the Mobile County Animal Shelter for five days
before killing them, but it killed a woman's lost kitten, Pork
Chop, less than an hour after arrival, she claims in a class
action in Mobile County Court.


NATIONAL HOCKEY: Players' Class Action Faces Uphill Battle
----------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Dater, writing for The Denver Post, reports that the class-
action lawsuit against the NHL, filed in a Washington court by 10
former players (one of whom, Rick Vaive, has already dropped out),
faces more of an uphill battle than the lawsuits that resulted in
former NFL players getting a huge settlement.

Some of the optics of the suit were just plain awkward, such as
the sentence: "When coupled with the NHL's refusal to protect
players by banning full-body checking or penalizing on-ice
fistfights, the league has created a dangerous atmosphere for
players."

Wait.  So, the NHL should have banned full-body checking? No
hitting of anybody? Might as well just pack the equipment bags and
turn out the lights, because hockey equals hitting.

Plus, the league has done a lot to make fighting harder, starting
with the instigator rule in 1992 and, this year, the
implementation of visors for every player coming into the league.

The one group of players who might have a case against the NHL are
the fighters, who were often told to just go back out on the ice,
no matter how beaten up they were.  But the fighters of the league
are the ones with the most pride, so don't expect to see many join
the lawsuit.  Case in point: ex-Avs enforcer Scott Parker, who
refuses to join the suit, despite probable cause stemming from
coaches who had little regard for his condition.

The NFL got in trouble because it tried to hide the medical
science, a sin akin to tobacco companies that said nicotine wasn't
addictive, though they knew it was.  That's why the NFL was forced
to settle.  The NHL is the league that first adopted a baseline
concussion test, in 1997.  Hence, beating the NHL in court won't
be as easy.


NETFLIX INC: Calif. Court Dismisses Amended Securities Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed with prejudice the first amended consolidated
complaint in In re Netflix, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:12-cv-00225-SC, according to the company's Oct. 25, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On January 13, 2012, the first of three purported shareholder
class action lawsuits was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its officers and directors. Two additional
purported shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the same
court on January 27, 2012 and February 29, 2012 alleging
substantially similar claims. These lawsuits were consolidated
into In re Netflix, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:12-cv-
00225-SC, and the Court selected lead plaintiffs. Lead plaintiffs
filed a consolidated complaint which alleged violations of the
federal securities laws on June 26, 2012. The Court dismissed the
consolidated complaint with leave to amend on February 13, 2013.
Lead plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated complaint on
March 22, 2013. The Court dismissed the first amended consolidated
complaint with prejudice on August 20, 2013, and judgment was
entered on September 27, 2013.


NIPPON YUSEN: "Stasik" Antitrust Suit Transferred to New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Stasik v. Nippon Yusen
Kabushiki Kaisha, Ltd. et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-01467, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.  The lawsuit is now captioned Stasik v. Nippon Yusen
Kabushiki Kaisha, Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-06591-ES-JAD.

Ross Stasik's and other related antitrust class actions have been
filed against companies that provide Vehicle Carrier Services to
original equipment manufacturers for the purpose of shipping cars,
trucks, or other four-wheeled vehicles across international
waterways.  Vehicle Carrier Service refers to the business of
providing ocean transportation of vehicles -- like cars, trucks,
or other four wheeled vehicles -- by use of large Vehicle Carriers
known as Roll On/Roll Off vessels, or RoRos.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Betsy Carol Manifold, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN AND HERZ
          750 B Street
          Symphony Towers, Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101-5050
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          E-mail: manifold@whafh.com

               - and -

          Randall S. Newman, Esq.
          RANDALL S. NEWMAN PC
          37 Wall Street, Penthouse D
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 797-3737
          Facsimile: (212) 797-3172
          E-mail: rsn@randallnewman.net


PACER INTERNATIONAL: Removes "Ruelas" Labor Suit to S.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pacer International, Inc. removed a case filed by an independent
contractor driver for Pacer Cartage to the Federal District Court
for the Southern District of California, according to the
company's Oct. 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On August 20, 2013 the company was served with a complaint styled
Manuela Ruelas Mendoza v. Pacer Cartage, California Superior
Court, San Diego, Case No. 37-2013-00063453CU-OE-CTL. Ruelas, an
independent contractor driver for Pacer Cartage, alleges that she
should be considered an employee under the California Labor Code,
and seeks pay for meal breaks, rest breaks and overtime, and
alleges certain violations of the California Labor Code. Ruelas
seeks to maintain the action as a class action on behalf of
similarly situated Pacer Cartage contractors. This lawsuit is in
the preliminary stages, and no discovery has been conducted. The
information available to the Company at September 30, 2013 does
not indicate that it is probable that a liability had been
incurred, and the Company could not reasonably estimate the
amount, or range of amounts, of any liability that would be
incurred if these claims were resolved against it. The company has
removed the case to Federal District Court for the Southern
District of California. The company believes this action is
without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend certification
of the class as well as the merits of the claims should the class
be certified.


PANERA BREAD: Pays $3.7MM Portion of Labor Lawsuit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Company paid the labor suit settlement amount of $3.7
million during the 13 weeks ended June 25, 2013, according to the
company's Oct. 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 24, 2013.

On December 9, 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Panera Bread Company and one of its subsidiaries by Nick
Sotoudeh, a former employee of a subsidiary of the Company. The
lawsuit was filed in the California Superior Court, County of
Contra Costa. On April 22, 2011, the complaint was amended to add
another former employee, Gabriela Brizuela, as a plaintiff. The
complaint alleged, among other things, violations of the
California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide
meal and rest periods and termination compensation and violations
of California's Business and Professions Code. The complaint
sought, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit,
unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees, and such other relief as the Court determines to be
appropriate. On November 17, 2011, the parties entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement regarding settlement of this purported
class action lawsuit and the purported class action lawsuit filed
by David Carter. Under the terms of the Memorandum of Agreement,
the parties agreed to settle this matter for a maximum aggregate
amount of $5.0 million for settlement payments to purported class
members, plaintiff's attorneys' fees, and costs of administering
the settlement. The Memorandum of Agreement contains no admission
of wrongdoing. The terms and conditions of the settlement were
preliminarily approved by the Court on June 8, 2012. On December
21, 2012, the Court approved the terms and conditions of the
settlement and the settlement payment amounts, and on February 5,
2013, the Court approved plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs.
The Company maintained a reserve of $3.7 million in accrued
expenses in the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet as of
December 25, 2012 and paid the settlement amount of $3.7 million
during the thirteen weeks ended June 25, 2013.


PANERA BREAD: Settlement Reached in Suit by Unit's Ex-Employee
--------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a suit filed by a former employee of a
subsidiary of Panera Bread Company, and Nikole Benavides, a
purported former employee of one of the Company's franchisees,
according to the company's Oct. 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
September 24, 2013.

On July 22, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Panera Bread Company and one of its subsidiaries by David
Carter, a former employee of a subsidiary of Panera Bread Company,
and Nikole Benavides, a purported former employee of one of the
Company's franchisees. The lawsuit was filed in the California
Superior Court, County of San Bernardino. The complaint alleged,
among other things, violations of the California Labor Code,
failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods
and termination compensation and violations of California's
Business and Professions Code. The complaint sought, among other
relief, collective and class certification of the lawsuit,
unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees, and such other relief as the Court determines to be
appropriate. This matter, as it relates to the subsidiary, was
consolidated with the lawsuit described in the immediately
preceding paragraph and was resolved under the Memorandum of
Agreement.


PEOPLES TRUST: Class Suit Launched in B.C. Over Privacy Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Sutts, Strosberg LLP, Charney Lawyers and Branch
MacMaster LLP announced on November 19, 2013, that they launched a
national class action against Peoples Trust Company.  The lawsuit
seeks damages arising from a privacy breach in which confidential
personal information stored in an online application database was
compromised by cybercriminals located in the People's Republic of
China.  Peoples Trust is a Canadian, wholly-owned trust company
regulated by the Trust and Loan Companies Act and supervised by
the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI).

On October 25, 2013, Peoples Trust sent about 12,000 to 13,000
letters to affected parties to notify them that a database
containing their personal information had been accessed by
unauthorized individuals in China.  The personal information in
that database included names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail
addresses, dates of birth and social insurance numbers.  Peoples
Trust discovered the breach when its customers complained of
"phishing" attempts -- text messages from an individual falsely
claiming to represent Peoples Trust and asking the message
recipient to provide their account details.

"The failure of companies to protect their customers' sensitive
personal information is a serious issue in the digital age.
Through this class action, the plaintiff seeks to hold Peoples
Trust accountable," said Harvey T. Strosberg, Q.C. of Sutts,
Strosberg LLP.

"We are shocked that Peoples Trust did not have sophisticated
security measures in place to keep their customers' sensitive
personal information safe. After all, Peoples Trust is essentially
a bank," said Ted Charney.

The national class action was commenced today on behalf of all
people whose personal information was compromised and claims $13
million in compensation.

Harvey Strosberg, Q.C., has been recognized as one of the foremost
class action litigators in Canada.  Ted Charney is a well-known
Toronto litigation lawyer with extensive experience in litigating
class action lawsuits.  Ward Branch is considered one of Canada's
top "Bet the Company" class action litigators.

Anyone who received the October 25, 2013 notice letter from
Peoples Trust or whose personal information contained in the
online application database was compromised is encouraged to
register at: http://www.peoplestrustprivacyclassaction.com/

For more information, please contact:

          David Robins, Esq.
          SUTTS, STROSBERG LLP
          600-251 Goyeau, Windsor
          ON N9A 6V2, Canada
          Telephone: (519) 561-6211
          E-mail: drobins@strosbergco.com

               - and -

          Theodore Charney, Esq.
          CHARNEY LAWYERS
          151 Bloor Street West, Suite 890
          Toronto, Ontario M5S 1P4
          Telephone: (416) 964-7950
          Facsimile: (416) 929-7416
          E-mail: tedc@charneylawyers.com

               - and -

          Ward Branch, Esq.
          BRANCH MACMASTER LLP
          1410 - 777 Hornby Street
          Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 1S4
          Telephone: (604) 654-2966
          E-mail: wbranch@branmac.com


PHILIPS MEDICAL: U.S. FDA Issues Warning on Defibrillators
----------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that U.S. regulators have warned that some
automated external defibrillators made by Philips Medical Systems
may be unable to deliver potentially life-saving shocks to the
heart in emergency situations, due to an electronic product
malfunction.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, in a safety advisory posted
on the agency's website, provides recommendations on how to better
inspect and monitor readiness of the previously recalled
HeartStart AEDs.

Many of them remain in schools, shopping malls, medical offices,
sports clubs and private homes, available for use by emergency
responders to jolt the heart back into normal rhythm in victims of
sudden cardiac arrest.

Philips, a unit of Dutch electronics company Royal Philips NV, in
August 2012 voluntarily began notifying its customers that some of
its more than 600,000 devices, almost half of them located in the
United States, might fail to work properly due to a flawed
internal electrical component.

The FDA the following month declared a Class II recall on the
devices, citing a "remote" chance of severe adverse consequences
or death due to the product flaw.

FDA spokeswoman Jennifer Rodriguez said the agency issued its
safety advisory on Dec. 3 because Philips has been unable to reach
a significant number of its customers, to point out the potential
risk.

"A lot of devices could be affected and we want to make sure
people are aware of this safety issue," Ms. Rodriguez said.

The FDA recommends that users, including consumers and first
responders, contact Philips immediately for a replacement AED
unit.

"Philips has not received any reports of patient harm due to this
issue," company spokesman Mario Fante said in an emailed statement
on Dec. 4.

"There have been 61 devices taken out of service for repair or
replacement due to this issue, out of the 605,000 deployed
worldwide," Mr. Fante said.

Mr. Fante said the devices, through an automated periodic self-
test feature, create an audible "triple-chirp alert" if the
electrical problem exists.

In that event, customers are advised to call company
representatives immediately, Mr. Fante said.  If the triple chirp
is heard during emergency use, customers are advised to follow all
voice instructions provided by the device.

The AEDs were distributed between 2005 and 2012 and sold under the
brand names HeartStartFRx, HeartStartHome and HeartStartOnsite.


QUALITY SYSTEMS: Faces Securities Class Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Deerfield Beach Police Pension Fund, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Quality Systems, Inc., Steven T.
Plochocki, Paul A. Holt, and Sheldon Razin, Case No. 8:13-cv-
01818-CJC-JPR (C.D. Cal., November 19, 2013) seeks to recover
damages caused by the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

QSI and its senior executives made a series of materially false
and misleading statements concerning the Company's purportedly
strong growth prospects and favorable earnings guidance for fiscal
years 2012 and 2013, the Plaintiff contends.

QSI is a California corporation that develops and markets practice
management software to medical and dental providers, including
software related to scheduling and billing capabilities.  QSI
maintains offices in Irvine, California.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blair A. Nicholas, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 793-0700
          Facsimile: (858)793-0323
          E-mail: Blairn@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
          John J. Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212)554-1400
          Facsimile: (212)554-1444
          E-mail: Jerry@blbglaw.com
                  Johnr@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
          KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN, JENSEN & LEVLNSON
          10059 Northwest 1st Court
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954)916-1202
          Facsimile: (954)916-1232
          E-mail: Bob@robertdklausner.com


RBS FINANCIAL: Wins Final OK of $1.75MM "Jordan" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
issued a final order approving RBS Financial Products Inc.'s $1.75
million settlement of a class action lawsuit captioned Jordan, et
al. v. Paul Financial, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-04496-SI
(N.D. Cal., August 30, 2007).

Judge Susan Illston also granted the application of the Class
Counsel for reimbursement of attorneys' fees and costs of 25% of
the Settlement Fund, or $437,500.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gerson H. Smoger, Esq.
          Steven M. Bronson, Esq.
          SMOGER & ASSOCIATES
          3175 Monterey Blvd
          Oakland, CA, 94602-3560
          Telephone: (510) 531-4529
          Facsimile: (510) 531-4377
          E-mail: Gerson@texasinjurylaw.com
                  steven.bronson@gmail.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey K. Berns, Esq.
          BERNS WEISS LLP
          20700 Ventura Blvd., Suite 140
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Telephone: (818) 961-2000
          Facsimile: (818) 999-1500
          E-mail: jberns@law111.com

               - and -

          Lee A. Weiss, Esq.
          BERNS WEISS LLP
          585 Stewart Avenue, Suite L-20
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 222-2900
          Facsimile: (818) 999-1500
          E-mail: lweiss@law111.com

               - and -

          David M. Arbogast, Esq.
          Chumahan B. Bowen, Esq.
          ARBOGAST BOWEN LLP
          11400 W. Olympic Blvd., 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 477-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 943-2309
          E-mail: david@arbogastbowen.com
                  cbowen@arbogastbowen.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Irene C. Freidel, Esq.
          Brian M. Forbes, Esq.
          David D. Christensen, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          State Street Financial Center
          One Lincoln Street
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 951-9154
          Facsimile: (617) 261-3175
          E-mail: irene.freidel@klgates.com
                  brian.m.forbes@klgates.com
                  david.christensen@klgates.com

               - and -

          Matthew Gordon Ball, Esq.
          Rachel Chatman, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 882-8200
          Facsimile: (415) 882-8220
          E-mail: matthew.ball@klgates.com
                  rachel.chatman@klgates.com

               - and -

          Phoebe S. Winder, Esq.
          KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART PRESTON GATES ELLIS LLP
          One Lincoln Street
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 261-3100
          Facsimile: (617) 261-3175
          E-mail: phoebe.winder@klgates.com

               - and -

          John Patrick Christian, Esq.
          Phillip R. Pollock, Esq.
          WEINTRAUB TOBIN CHEDIAK COLEMAN GRODIN LAW CORPORATION
          475 Sansome Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-1400
          Facsimile: (415) 433-3883
          E-mail: jchristian@weintraub.com
                  ppollock@weintraub.com

               - and -

          Paul S. Rosenlund, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          Spear Tower
          One Market Plaza, Suite 2200
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1127
          Telephone: (415) 957-3178
          Facsimile: (415) 520-5479
          E-mail: psrosenlund@duanemorris.com

               - and -

          Terrance James Evans, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          One Market, Spear Tower, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94105-1104
          Telephone: (415) 957-3000
          Facsimile: (415) 957-3001
          E-mail: tjevans@duanemorris.com

               - and -

          Fredrick Stuart Levin, Esq.
          BUCKLEYSANDLER LLP
          100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 424-3900
          E-mail: flevin@buckleysandler.com

               - and -

          Benjamin B. Klubes, Esq.
          Caitlin M. Kasmar, Esq.
          Michelle L. Rogers, Esq.
          BUCKLEYSANDLER LLP
          1250 24th Street, NW, Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 349-8000
          Facsimile: (202) 349-8080
          E-mail: bklubes@buckleysandler.com
                  ckasmar@buckleysandler.com
                  mrogers@buckleysandler.com


REAL TIME: Sued Over Offers of Scratch-and-Win Settlement Cards
---------------------------------------------------------------
A debt collector sent foreclosed homeowners unscrupulous offers
via so-called "scratch-and-win" settlement cards, to trick them
into paying on nonrecourse mortgage loans after they lost their
home, reports Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service, citing
a class action filed in Wisconsin Federal Court.

Kimberly Aker sued Real Time Resolutions, a Dallas-based company
that buys and collects on debts.

Aker claims that in March this year Real Time sent her a debt
collection letter about an alleged second mortgage on her home
that was foreclosed upon in 2010.

Aker says that debt was a non-recourse loan: satisfiable only by
seizure of the collateral, but not the assets of the borrower, so
she is not personally liable for the loan as the property secured
by the loan was sold at foreclosure.

Real Time's letter "purports to offer the consumer a chance to
settle her alleged debt at a discounted 'winning percentage,' the
amount of which is revealed by scratching the houses on an
enclosed 'scratch-and-win' card," according to the lawsuit.

A second letter offered Aker up to 88 percent off the same bogus
debt, via three settlement plans, she says.  "These great offers
expire on 10/15/13," the second letter said.

Aker says: "The 'scratch-and-win' card is a sham, intended to fool
class members into believing that they have won a significant
discount on a large outstanding obligation.  In fact, the class
members have won nothing.

"Upon information and belief, all of the 'scratch-and-win' cards
printed and mailed to the class members purport to offer 88% off
the alleged balance due.

"Additionally, [the letter] identifies the alleged debt at issue
in this action as a 'loan with no recourse.'  Plaintiff has no
obligation to pay the debts identified in [the letter] beyond
foreclosure of the property.

"Thus, [the letters] misrepresent to the consumer that paying 12
or 15 percent of the debt is a benefit because the consumer is not
obligated to pay anything."  (Bracketed words refer to exhibits.)

Because plaintiffs' loans are "without recourse," plaintiffs are
not liable for the debt beyond the forfeiture of the property that
secured the loan.

Finally: "The 'deadline' to respond to the settlement offer is a
sham. There is no actual deadline.  The sole purpose of the
purported deadline is to impart in the consumer a false sense of
urgency to pay," Akers says.

She seeks actual and statutory damages for violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, and costs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          David J. Syrios, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY LLP
          3620 E Layton Ave.
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  sademi@ademilaw.com
                  dsyrios@ademilaw.com

The case is Aker v. Real Time Resolutions Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-
01311-CNC, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin (Milwaukee).


SOUTH AFRICA: FSB May Face Suit Over Funeral Assurance Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angelique Arde, writing for IOL Business, reports that consumers
who have taken out funeral assurance policies are the victims of
illegal practices, says the advocate who was part of the legal
team that argued the bread price-fixing case in the Constitutional
Court earlier this year.

Abuses in the funeral assurance market are rife, and the Financial
Services Board (FSB) knows it.  It's a matter of time before a
class action is brought against the regulator or a life company.

This is the view of Advocate Chris Shone, who was part of the team
of advocates who argued the bread distribution price-fixing case
earlier this year in the Constitutional Court.  This was the first
class action to be fought successfully in South Africa.  Small-
scale bread distributors, represented by Imraahn Ismail Mukaddam,
brought the case against bread producers Pioneer Foods, Tiger
Brands and Premier Foods.

At a recent seminar hosted by consulting firm Burns-Hoffman and
Associates, Mr. Shone identified possible class actions that could
be brought against the FSB or the long-term insurance industry.

Mr. Shone says the bread cartel case has opened the way for class
actions in South Africa, and if a "class" or group of people who
meets the legal criteria to bring an action can be identified, it
is likely they will obtain a settlement from a party that is found
to be responsible for the damage or loss they suffered.

About 95 percent of class actions in the US in which a class is
certified -- in other words, meets the legal criteria of a
class -- are settled, Mr. Shone says.

"It's a very powerful threat," he says.

Obvious abuses in the funeral industry have been allowed to
continue for many years, but, until now, the victims have not been
able to take legal action, because the harm they have suffered has
been too small to justify individual claim.

A class action is one involving an abusive practice on a large
scale, and it is about "hundreds of Davids taking on Goliath, who
is pulling off small rip-offs on a large scale and making massive
profits", he says.

The funeral assurance market is ripe for class actions,
particularly in three areas where policyholders are the victims of
illegal practices, Mr. Shone says.

The Long Term Insurance (LTI) Act does not refer to "funeral
policies" but regulates them through "assistance policies", which
are life policies with a maximum benefit, Mr. Shone says.  The
maximum benefit was recently increased from R18 000 to R30 000,
because the FSB found that, with the lower limit, consumers were
being sold multiple policies.

"No person may conduct the business of an insurer without being
registered and authorized, meaning no person may issue an
assistance (funeral) policy unless registered as an insurer,"
Mr. Shone says.

He says the three areas where policyholders are victims of illegal
practices are:

     1. No cash benefit. Many funeral assistance schemes provide a
funeral only, but no cash benefit, and this is a contravention of
the LTI Act, Shone says.

"The LTI Act requires that any policy benefit expressed otherwise
than in a sum of money -- such as a funeral service -- must
nevertheless be available as a sum of money equal in value to the
cost the insurer would have incurred had the benefit been provided
otherwise than as a sum of money.  In short, a policy providing a
funeral benefit only is invalid, and a cash benefit must always be
available," he says.

Members of a funeral scheme where the benefit is a funeral service
only, without a cash alternative, would be capable of bringing a
class action, Mr. Shone says.

     2. No underwriting by a registered long-term insurer.  The
LTI Act stipulates that an entity must be registered and
authorized to conduct the business of an insurer, and if someone
has issued a policy that has not been underwritten, you, as the
policyholder, may cancel the policy and claim your money back from
the insurer.

Many funeral policies are issued by entities that are not
underwritten by a registered insurer, Mr. Shone says.

Many schemes are re-insured, rather than underwritten, but this
does not satisfy the requirements of the LTI Act, and such schemes
are therefore in breach of the Act, he says.

(In insurance terms, an underwriter would be the direct insurer,
and a re-insurer insures the underwriter's risk, Mr. Shone says.)

All members of any funeral scheme where the policy has not been
underwritten by a registered insurer could lodge a class action,
he says.

     3. Payment of benefits to the wrong person.  Insurers are
required by the LTI Act to pay cash benefits to a nominated
beneficiary or the deceased's estate, but many entities that offer
funeral assurance pay benefits directly to other parties, such as
undertakers.  This contravention of the law "is a real problem and
applies to illegal insurers, as well as registered insurers",
Mr. Shone says.

A class action could be brought by a beneficiary under a long-term
policy issued by a funeral scheme or assurer that has paid the
benefit to someone other than the beneficiary, such as an
undertaker.

It could also be brought by an executor of an estate where the
deceased held a long-term policy issued by a funeral scheme or
assurer where there was no beneficiary nomination and where the
benefit was not paid to the deceased's estate.

          Other Problems with Funeral Assurance Schemes

There are many problems with funeral assurance in addition to the
three that could be grounds for class actions.  Advocate Chris
Shone says the problems are:

* No contractual provision for premium increases.  Mr. Shone says
that life assurance companies can increase premiums with or
without notifying policyholders, while the benefit is not
increased.  "If your premium is going up by 15 percent a year and
it's R20 a month now, in five years it will be R40 a month, but
you still only get a lousy R5 000 funeral benefit," he says.

* Cover is from month to month.  "This means the cover can be
cancelled by the 'insurer' at any time, and that if the
policyholder fails to make payment, cover terminates and all is
lost," he says.

* No paid-up values.  Funeral assistance policies do not provide a
surrender value, Mr. Shone says.  "You stop paying, it's over.
With [some] other insurance products, you get a paid-up value or
surrender value when you stop paying.  A formula is applied to
work out the value; you don't lose everything.  In this game, you
lose it all."

* No insurable interest. Insurance companies in the United States
have been sued for not establishing whether, in fact, a person who
takes out a policy had an insurable interest in someone else's
life, Mr. Shone says.  "Here we don't care.  No one checks who has
an insurable interest in whom," he says.

* Double underwriting.  It is common for an undertaker who has
issued a funeral policy to approach two life assurers and re-
insure the policy twice, Mr. Shone says.

"The policyholder doesn't know this.  When the policyholder dies,
both insurers get a death certificate -- and you can get around
the originals, because everyone certifies everything these days.
The undertaker uses one payout to do the funeral and pockets the
other.  It happens a lot."

* Actuarially unsound premiums.  Mr. Shone says it is not uncommon
for a funeral scheme to consist of a bakkie, a hearse and a couple
of machines.  Apart from that, there are no assets and no
reserves.

"In the event of a flood of claims, the business would go bust and
there would be no means of recovering money for policyholders.
Long-term insurers have to have reserves or re-insurers -- not in
this business," he says.

* No "pre-paid" funeral plan.  Mr. Shone says an assistance policy
provides cash to meet the costs of a funeral, but it is not a
pre-paid funeral plan, which is the perception among many
consumers in this market.

* Excessive commissions.  Commissions in the funeral assistance
business are exorbitant -- they can exceed 30 percent of the
premium, Mr. Shone says.  Funeral assistance is the biggest sector
of the insurance industry, but the commissions are not regulated.

* Premiums are payable for life. "Generally, this is the case,
which is fundamentally flawed.  With an escalating premium, you're
going to be paying, at age 99, probably R5 000 a month for your R5
000 funeral benefit.  It makes no sense."

Mr. Shone suggests that premiums be made payable for a certain
term until the age of retirement, but that the benefits remain in
place until death.

          'FAILURE TO ACT EXPOSES FSB TO LEGAL ACTION'

The failure by the Financial Services Board (FSB) to take action
against unregistered funeral assurers exposes the regulator to a
class action from policyholders who have suffered damages,
Advocate Chris Shone says.

"Does the function of the FSB extend beyond simply issuing
warnings? Does the FSB not owe consumers a duty of care? By not
closing down unregistered 'insurers' of which it is aware, can the
FSB be held liable for any damages suffered by members of these
unregistered schemes?

"If the FSB is aware of an unregistered 'insurer', surely it is
bound to act? Failure to do so could give rise to a claim
consequent on an omission and a breach of the duty of care.
Damages would include any sums lost by members of the unregistered
insurer by paying premiums to the scheme," Mr. Shone says.

Jonathan Dixon, deputy executive for insurance at the FSB, says
that, in addition to warning the public about unregistered
insurers, the regulator "carries out inspections and takes
regulatory action" against illegal funeral scheme operators.

The FSB has concerns about the abuse of consumers who use funeral
schemes and is "looking at how to engage with insurers selling
products through funeral parlors", Mr. Dixon says.

National Treasury proposed a Microinsurance Act to regulate
funeral assurance, but, with the introduction of the "twin peaks"
model for regulating the financial services industry, a different
approach will be adopted.

"We're hoping to bring in provisions through rules by the middle
of next year.  These rules will provide for product standards to
define microinsurance; simpler solvency requirements; and more
proportionate fit-and-proper requirements under FAIS [the
Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act] for people
selling microinsurance products."

These provisions will make it easier for illegal operators to
comply with the law, Mr. Dixon says.

Mr. Shone says that a recent amendment to the Financial Services
Board Act is aimed at granting the FSB and its officials immunity
from liability for losses or damages caused in the performance of
their duties.

By removing from the Act the words "grossly negligent" -- with
reference to the regulator's conduct -- the FSB is essentially
absolved from most liability, Mr. Shone says.

But Mr. Dixon says the purpose of the amendment was to "bring the
Act in line with the norm for other regulators and is in no way
exceptional".

Shone says the FSB is not known for being proactive, "invariably
only getting involved when all has already been lost".

As an organ of state, the FSB can be held to account for failing
to discharge its statutory obligations adequately, he says.  "What
other purpose does the FSB have apart from regulating the
financial services sector?"

Mr. Dixon says the powers granted to the FSB are accompanied by
accountability.  "The FSB is subject to ongoing oversight by, and
accountability to, National Treasury, the Minister of Finance and
Parliament," he says.

                    UNDERSTANDING CERTIFICATION

To be able to bring a class action, "certification" is required,
which means the applicants (the would-be claimants) have to apply
to a court for the certification of a "class".  The criteria for
certification include:

* Numerosity.  Your class needs to be significant in size.
Considering that most funeral assistance schemes have more than 1
000 premium-paying members, this would not be a problem, Advocate
Chris Shone says.

* Commonality.  All class members must be in the same boat for the
class to be certified. For example, either the entire book is
underwritten, or nothing is underwritten, Shone says. "Policy
wordings are generally identical, the only difference being age-
related premium rates and waiting periods."

* Ascertainability.  Your members need to be "objectively
identifiable".

* Triability.  Your case must have a reasonable prospect of
success.

* Typicality.  A policyholder launching a claim must have a claim
typical of all other members of the scheme.

* Adequacy of representation.  An individual policyholder who
launches a claim should represent the interests of any class of
claimants, provided the claim is not unique to that individual.


STARBUCKS CORP: Shift Supervisors Allowed to Get Share of Tips
--------------------------------------------------------------
If you are a Starbucks barista living in New York seeking a
greater cut of your tips, it may be time to consider moving to
Massachusetts, reports Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service.

The 2nd Circuit, whose jurisdiction extends to New York, Vermont
and Connecticut, ruled against baristas in a class action claiming
that their shift supervisors should not be allowed to grab a cut
of their bounty under state labor law.

In 2008, baristas Jeana Barenboim and Jose Ortiz sued Starbucks
for more than $5 million on behalf of more than 5,000 of their
comrades serving at 400 New York stores.  They claimed that the
chain's euphemistic corporate structure made them share their
hard-earned tips with their "shift supervisors," whom they alleged
to be actually their bosses.  This put the company in violation of
New York Labor Law, according to the lawsuit.

Starbucks, on the other hand, countered that shift supervisors
spend the bulk of their time performing the same duties as
baristas: serving food and drinks to customers.  They also assign
baristas to certain positions during shifts, administer break
periods, direct the flow of customers, and give feedback to
baristas.

In addition, shift supervisors have the authority to open and
close stores, change the cash-register tills and deposit money in
the bank.

Even though they cannot hire or fire staff, shift supervisors can
discipline baristas, report their job performances to managers,
and coordinate their breaks and schedules, Barenboim noted.

On November 21, 2013, the 2nd Circuit found in a 5-page, unsigned
summary order that these duties were not enough to qualify shift
supervisors as employers under state law.  The three-judge panel's
ruling upheld U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain's granting of
summary judgment to Starbucks.

Almost exactly one year ago, the Boston-based 1st Circuit reached
precisely the opposite conclusion when it upheld a $14 million
judgment against Starbucks in a class action of 2,500 baristas
suing under the Massachusetts Tip Act.

That decision scorched Starbucks practices and praised
Massachusetts for being "in the regulatory forefront on these
cutting-edge issues" of gratuities law.

Unlike New York Labor Law, the Massachusetts Tip Act mandates that
only employees with "no managerial responsibility" can qualify as
"wait staff."

"'No' means 'no,' and we interpret that easily understood word in
its ordinary sense: 'not any,'" Judge Bruce Selya had written for
the 1st Circuit.

Hammering home the point, the decision cites the entries for "no"
in Merriam-Webster, the American Heritage Dictionary and Random
House Dictionary.

By contrast, New York State Labor Law's states in Section 196-D:
"No employer or his agent or an officer or agent of any
corporation, or any other person shall demand or accept, directly
or indirectly, any part of the gratuities, received by an
employee, or retain any part of a gratuity or of any charge
purported to be a gratuity for an employee."

The statute did not define the level of managerial responsibility
made someone an employer.

When the 2nd Circuit originally heard Barenboim's appeal, the
court originally punted that question the New York Court of
Appeals, which limited tip collecting to employees who are
"ordinarily engaged in customer service."

Daniel Kirschenbaum, who represents Barenboim for the firm Joseph,
Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum, did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.  The lawyers typical success advocating for
restaurant workers drove New York Magazine to ask, "Why Are New
York's Chefs Afraid of This Man?"

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
          233 Broadway, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10279
          Telephone: (212) 688-5640
          Facsimile: (212) 688-2548
          E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com

               - and -

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          100 Cambridge Street
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Daniel L. Nash, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 887-4067
          Facsimile: (202) 887-4288
          E-mail: dnash@akingump.com

               - and -

          Samidh Guha, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          1 Bryant Park
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 812-1000
          E-mail: sguha@akingump.com

               - and -

          Rex S. Heinke, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          2029 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 229-1030
          Facsimile: (310) 229-1001
          E-mail: rheinke@akingump.com

The appellate case is Jeana Barenboim, et al. v. Starbucks
Corporation, Case No. 10-4912, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The original case is Jeana
Barenboim, et al. v. Starbucks Corporation, Case No. 08-cv-3318,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.


SUMMERLIN HOSPITAL: Allowed TB Mom Into Neonatal ICU, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Gallegos at Courthouse News Service reports that a Las Vegas
hospital allowed a tubercular mother into its neonatal intensive
care unit, putting at risk more than 100 babies, visitors and
hospital staff, eight people claim in a class action.

Lead plaintiff Lara Snyder et al. sued Summerlin Hospital Medical
Center, Valley Health System, Universal Health Services and five
hospital managers and administrators, in Clark County Court.

Plaintiffs include two patients, several family members who
visited patients, and hospital staff members.

In July, Vanessa White, "a 25-year-old postpartum woman, was
transferred from Summerlin Medical Center ('Summerlin') to a Los
Angeles, California hospital, where she passed away," according to
the complaint.  "Ms. White was subsequently diagnosed as having
been infected with tuberculosis.  She was never tested for the
disease while she was a patient at Summerlin."

The lawsuit continues: "White had been previously admitted in May
2013 to Summerlin where she delivered premature twins, Emma and
Abigail.  She had been ill to varying degrees prior to and after
the birth of her twins, returning to Summerlin for treatment after
delivering the twins.  Her condition worsened, and eventually she
was transferred to the Los Angeles hospital for a higher level of
care.  The autopsy revealed that the woman had been infected with
tuberculosis.  She was never tested for the disease before her
death, and she was admitted to Summerlin with no precautions or
quarantine measures whatsoever taken by Summerlin with regard to
her tuberculosis.

"The twins, Emma and Abigail, were hospitalized at Summerlin's
Neonatal Intensive Care Unit ('NICU') from birth until their
deaths, also with no precautions or quarantine measures whatsoever
taken by Summerlin with regard to their tuberculosis.  Emma died
in June 2013 without being tested for tuberculosis.  Abigail was
diagnosed with tuberculosis after California health officials
reported White's infection to Nevada health officials, who in turn
informed Summerlin.  Despite receiving treatment, Abigail
succumbed to the disease in August 2013, her death certificate
listing tuberculosis as the cause of death.

"White repeatedly visited her babies in the Summerlin NICU for
hours at a time during a period when she was suffering from
undiagnosed active tuberculosis infection and was highly
contagious, coming into direct contact with hospital employees and
staff, patients, family members, vendors, contractors and
visitors.  Summerlin administrators and staff allowed her
unfettered access to the hospital and those within it, did not
require her to wear standard protective garb, such as masks, gowns
or gloves, and did not screen or test her tuberculosis, despite
the fact that she exhibited multiple symptoms that Summerlin
administrators and staff knew or should have known called for
appropriate testing and precautionary measures.

"Despite White's multiple symptoms, defendants failed to screen
her, diagnose her, or take appropriate precautions to isolate or
quarantine her.  Moreover, defendants failed to issue any warnings
or take any other measures to protect the safety of hospital
staff, patients, family members, visitors, contractors, vendors
and/or members of the general public.

The plaintiffs say Summerlin sent a letter to the parents of 140
babies who may have been affected, but only after the Southern
Nevada Health District got word of the outbreak and a report was
filed with the Nevada Bureau of Health Care Quality and
Compliance.

More than 400 people have been tested and the testing is
continuing, the plaintiffs say.

They seek class certification, medical monitoring, an injunction
and damages and punitive damages for negligence, fraud,
misrepresentation and concealment, and infliction of emotional
distress.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew Q. Callister, Esq.
          CALLISTER + ASSOCIATES
          823 Las Vegas Boulevard South, 5th Floor
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Telephone: (702) 333-3334
          Facsimile: (702) 385-2899
          E-mail: mqc@neonlawyer.com

The case is Lara Snyder, et al. vs. Summerlin Hospital Medical
Center LLC, Case No. A-13-691831-C, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada, Clark County.


TEXAS: Faces "Zahrn" Suit Over Denial of Same-Sex Marriage
----------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Zahrn, Catherine Zahrn, Alexius Augustine, and Andrew
Simpson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Rick Perry, in his official capacity as Governor of Texas; Greg
Abbott, in his official capacity as Attorney General of Texas; and
Dana DeBeauvoir, in her official capacity as County Clerk of
Travis County, Texas, Case No. 1:13-cv-00955-SS (W.D. Tex.,
October 31, 2013) alleges that the state of Texas, through Article
I, Section 32 of the Texas Constitution and Sections 2.001 and
6.204 of the Texas Family Code, imposes inequality on gays and
lesbians in exactly the same way that the Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA) did -- by denying the Class the basic right to marry.

The Plaintiffs, hence, ask the Court to protect and enforce their
rights and the rights of the Class under the United States
Constitution, by declaring Article I, Section 32 and Sections
2.001 and 6.204 unconstitutional, and by enjoining permanently the
enforcement of these and any other provisions of Texas law that
would seek to deny same-sex couples equal access to civil marriage
in Texas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason P. Steed, Esq.
          BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP
          3232 McKinney Ave., Suite 1400
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 740-1411
          Facsimile: (214) 740-5711
          E-mail: jasons@bellnunnally.com

               - and -

          James J. Scheske, Esq.
          JAMES J. SCHESKE PLLC
          5501-A Balcones #109
          Austin, TX 78731
          Telephone: (512) 371-1790
          Facsimile: (512) 323-2260
          E-mail: jscheske@austin.rr.com

               - and -

          S. Leigh Jorgeson, Esq.
          Ian Pittmanv, Esq.
          JORGESON PITTMAN LLP
          4505 Spicewood Springs Road, Suite 335
          Austin, TX 78759
          Telephone: (512) 320-0999
          Facsimile: (512) 320-0025
          E-mail: leigh@jptexaslaw.com


TREX COMPANY: Settles Product Defect Suits by Cohen & Malad
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trex Company, Inc. reached a settlement for two lawsuits filed by
Cohen & Malad, LLP alleging certain defects in the Company's
products and alleged misrepresentations relating to mold growth,
according to the company's Oct. 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

On December 15, 2010, a purported class action case was commenced
against the Company in the United States District Court, Western
District of Kentucky, by Cohen & Malad, LLP ("Cohen & Malad") on
behalf of Richard Levin and similarly situated plaintiffs in
Kentucky, and on June 13, 2011, a purported class action was
commenced against the Company in the Marion Circuit/Superior Court
of Indiana by Cohen & Malad on behalf of Ellen Kopetsky and
similarly situated plaintiffs in Indiana. On June 28, 2011, the
Company removed the Kopetsky case to the United States District
Court, Southern District of Indiana. (On September 3, 2013, the
two lawsuits commenced by Cohen & Malad were settled.) On August
11, 2011, a purported class action was commenced against the
Company in the 50th Circuit Court for the County of Chippewa,
Michigan on behalf of Joel and Lori Peffers and similarly situated
plaintiffs in Michigan. On August 26, 2011, the Company removed
the Peffers case to the United States District Court, Western
District of Michigan. On April 4, 2012, a purported class action
was commenced against the Company in Superior Court of New Jersey,
Essex County by the lead law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody (the
"Stull Group") on behalf of Caryn Borger, M.D. and similarly
situated plaintiffs in New Jersey. On May 1, 2012, the Company
removed the Borger case to the United States District Court,
District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs in these purported class
actions generally allege certain defects in the Company's products
and alleged misrepresentations relating to mold growth.


TREX COMPANY: Dec. 13 Final Approval Hearing
--------------------------------------------
Trex Company, Inc. reveals the material terms of a nationwide
settlement it entered with the law firm of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP that would settle the case pending in the United
States District Court, Northern District of California, according
to the company's Oct. 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2013.

On April 5, 2013, the Company signed a settlement agreement with
Hagens Berman that would settle the case pending in the United
States District Court, Northern District of California on a
nationwide basis, and the parties filed for preliminary approval
of such settlement (the "nationwide settlement"). The material
terms of the nationwide settlement, as amended by an amended
settlement agreement signed on September 3, 2013, are as follows:

   (1) Trex will make a one-time cash payment or the opportunity
to receive other relief, including a rebate certificate on its
newer-generation shelled product (Trex Transcend and Trex
Enhance). This relief would be available for any consumer whose
first-generation composite decking product has a certain defined
level of mold growth, color fading or color variation.

   (2) Trex agreed to discontinue the manufacture of non-shelled
products (Trex Accents ) by December 31, 2013.

   (3) Trex agreed to provide a video demonstrating cleaning
instructions for non-shelled products on its website, and to
distribute warranty pads to retailers.

   (4) The cost to Trex will be capped at $8.25 million plus $1.45
million in attorneys' fees to be paid to the Plaintiffs' counsel
upon final approval of the nationwide settlement by the Court.

The settlement agreement provides that the nationwide settlement
would apply to any Trex first-generation non-shelled composite
decking product purchased between August 1, 2004 and the date of
preliminary approval of the nationwide settlement.

On August 27, 2013, the Court entered an Order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, and set a
hearing for final approval on December 13, 2013. The settlement is
not final until the Court grants final approval of the settlement
agreement. The Court may, in its sole discretion determine not to
accept the settlement. If the Court does not grant final approval
of the settlement, the settlement agreement will not be binding on
the parties.

The Company denies all liability with respect to the facts and
claims alleged. However, the Company is aware of the substantial
burden, expense, inconvenience and distraction of continued
litigation, and agreed to settle the litigation to avoid these. As
of September 30, 2013, the Company has accrued a $3.3 million
liability related to this litigation. It is reasonably possible
that the Company may incur costs in excess of the recorded
amounts; however, the Company expects that the total net cost to
resolve the lawsuit will not exceed approximately $10 million.

The Company has other lawsuits, as well as other claims, pending
against it which are ordinary routine litigation and claims
incidental to the business. Management has evaluated the merits of
these other lawsuits and claims, and believes that their ultimate
resolution will not have a material effect on the Company's
consolidated financial condition, results of operations, liquidity
or competitive position.


TREX COMPANY: Still Faces Lawsuits Alleging Product Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------
In its Oct. 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013, Trex
Company, Inc. provided updates on suits that allege certain
defects in the Company's products.

As reported in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2012, on January 19, 2009, a purported
class action case was commenced against the Company in the
Superior Court of California, Santa Cruz County, by the lead law
firm of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and certain
other law firms (the "Lieff Cabraser Group") on behalf of Eric
Ross and Bradley S. Hureth and similarly situated plaintiffs.
These plaintiffs generally allege certain defects in the Company's
products, and that the Company has failed to provide adequate
remedies for defective products. On February 13, 2009, the Company
removed this case to the United States District Court, Northern
District of California. On January 21, 2009, a purported class
action case was commenced against the Company in the United States
District Court, Western District of Washington by the law firm of
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP ("Hagens Berman") on behalf of
Mark Okano and similarly situated plaintiffs, generally alleging
certain product defects in the Company's products, and that the
Company has failed to provide adequate remedies for defective
products. This case was transferred by the Washington Court to the
California Court as a related case to the Lieff Cabraser Group's
case.

On July 30, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California preliminarily approved a settlement of the
claims of the lawsuit commenced by the Lieff Cabraser Group
involving surface flaking of the Company's product, and on March
15, 2010, it granted final approval of the settlement.

On March 25, 2010, the Lieff Cabraser Group amended its complaint
to add claims relating to alleged defects in the Company's
products and alleged misrepresentations relating to mold growth.
Hagens Berman has alleged similar claims in its original
complaint. In its Final Order approving the surface flaking
settlement, the District Court consolidated these pending actions
relating to the mold claims, and appointed Hagens Berman as lead
counsel in this case. On December 3, 2010, Hagens Berman filed an
amended consolidated complaint in the United States District
Court, Northern District of California relating to the mold growth
claims (now on behalf of Dean Mahan and other named plaintiffs).


UNITIL CORP: Denial of Certification in "Bellerman" Reviewed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is reviewing the denial
of certification in Bellerman et al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric
Light Company, according to Unitil Corporation's Oct. 25, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against
Unitil Corporation's (the "Company") Massachusetts based utility,
Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company (Fitchburg), in
Massachusetts' Worcester Superior Court (the "Court"), (captioned
Bellerman et al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company). The
Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including the
cost of temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional
and physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly
incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric
service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in
December, 2008. The Complaint, as amended, includes M.G.L. ch. 93A
claims for purported unfair and deceptive trade practices related
to the December 2008 ice storm.

On September 4, 2009, the Court issued its order on the Company's
Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, granting it in part and denying
it in part. Following several years of discovery, the plaintiffs
in the complaint filed a motion with the Court to certify the case
as a class action. On January 7, 2013, the Court issued its
decision denying plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class
action. As a result of this decision, the lawsuit would now
proceed with only the twelve named plaintiffs seeking damages;
however, the plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the "SJC"). The SJC has
accepted the matter for review. The Town of Lunenburg has also
filed a separate action in Massachusetts Worcester County Superior
Court arising out of the December 2008 ice storm. The parties to
this action have agreed to put this matter on hold pending the
decision of the Supreme Judicial Court in Bellermann. The Company
continues to believe these suits are without merit and will
continue to defend itself vigorously.


WESTLAKE SERVICES: "Duchene" Suit Removed to W.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------
At Westlake Services, LLC's behest, the class action lawsuit
styled Pierce Duchene, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Westlake Services, LLC d/b/a Westlake
Financial Services, Case No. 2:13-cv-05654-TJS (E.D. Pa.,
September 26, 2013) was transferred to the U.S. District Court
Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh).

The new case is Pierce Duchene v. Westlake Services, LLC d/b/a
Westlake Financial Services, Case No. 2:13-cv-01577-MRH (W.D. Pa.,
October 31, 2013).

The lawsuit seeks damages resulting from the alleged illegal
actions of Westlake.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant
negligently, knowingly, and willfully placed automated calls to
his cellular phone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Westlake is a California business entity headquartered in Los
Angeles, California.  Westlake is a technology-based, privately
held finance company that specializes in the acquisition and
servicing of prime to subprime automotive retail installment
contracts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jody B. Burton, Esq.
          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          LEMBERG & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          1100 Summer Street
          Stamford, CT 06905
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
          E-mail: jburton@lemberglaw.com
                  slemberg@lemberglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Seth A. Schaeffer, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          One James Center
          901 E. Cary Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-1174
          Facsimile: (804) 698-2167
          E-mail: sschaeffer@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Laura A. Lange, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          625 Liberty Avenue, 23rd Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 667-7941
          Facsimile: (412) 667-7961
          E-mail: llange@mcguirewoods.com


* Canada SC Clarifies Limitation Period for Secondary Proceedings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada has recently provided clarity on the
limitation period applicable to "secondary proceedings" in the
securities enforcement context.  Subject to a few exceptions,
these proceedings, brought in the public interest against persons
who have agreed with another jurisdiction's securities regulator
to be subject to regulatory action, must not be commenced more
than six years after the date of "the events" that gave rise to
the proceeding.

In McLean v. British Columbia (Securities Commission) -- see
http://is.gd/UDDlDf-- released earlier on Dec. 5, 2013, the
Supreme Court upheld the B.C. Securities Commission's (BCSC's)
reciprocal order, issued against an individual director in 2010
for conduct that occurred in Ontario in 2001 and for which the
director entered into a settlement agreement with the Ontario
Securities Commission in 2008.

The "event," as found by the BCSC and affirmed by the Supreme
Court, was the fact of having agreed with a securities regulator
to be subject to regulatory action.

According to Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, the decision is
noteworthy because the Supreme Court has clarified the standard of
review for a tribunal when interpreting its own statute and
reaffirms that deference is owed to administrative decision makers
on interpretative matters.  At the same time, the decision leaves
open the possibility that other provincial and territorial
securities commissions may arrive at different interpretations of
their own statutory limitation periods.  The decision also leaves
open the prospect, albeit remote, of provinces "piggy-backing"
reciprocal orders sequentially, with the result that a person may
be subject to lengthy regulatory action.


                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman,
Editors.

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *