CAR_Public/131210.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, December 10, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 244

                             Headlines


2171 LIQUOR: Class Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid Overtime Wages
23ANDME INC: Faces Class Action Over DNA Test False Advertising
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Class Cert. Denial in "Phillips" Suit Reversed
BIG CITY GOURMET: Fails to Pay OT for Hours Above 40, Suit Says
BRIDGE COFFEE: Sued by Cook Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation

CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
CAVALRY SPV 1: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
CHALET NURSERY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Rate, Class Claims
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Ready to Defend Potential Bankwest Class Action
CREATIVE JUIICES: Recalls Champanades Due to Undeclared Sulphites

CROP PRODUCTION: "Heredia" Bias Suit Goes to C.D. Calif.
DAVID'S PLACE: Recalls Girl's Long Sleeve Hooded Jacket & Pant Set
DENVER GLOBAL: Recalls Multi-Purpose Yard Vehicles
DIRECTV INC: 9th Cir. Flips Order Denying Arbitration in Lombardi
ECOLAB INC: Removed "Icard" Employment Suit to N.D. California

ELECTROLUX HOME: Removed "Waters" Suit to N.D. West Virginia
FEDEX GROUND: Removed "Rangel" Employment Suit to C.D. Cal.
FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Vehicle Repurchase or Replacement Offer
GEICO GENERAL: Improperly Charged Insureds, Class Suit Claims
GRUNENTHAL GMBH: Settles Thalidomide Class Action for AUD89MM

HUXTABLE'S KITCHEN: Recalls Trader Joe's Butternut Squash Gratin
HYDROXATONE LLC: "Sabol" Suit Settlement Approved
IKO INDUSTRIES: Ontario Court Certifies Shingles Class Action
ING USA: Faces Annuities Fraud Class Action in California
IQ FORMULATIONS: Voluntarily Recalls HYDRAVAX 45-Capsule Bottles

IXIA: Buy Rating Reiterated Amid Class Action Threats
K2 SPORTS: Recalls Kickboards/Scooters Due to Fall Hazard
KEYS ARMORED: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
L&L ENERGY: Must Face Securities Class Action Over China Revenue
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Hearing Today on Structured Products Settlement

LEHMAN BROTHERS: Enters Into Settlement Agreement With Swan City
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Sub-Prime Class Action Nears Settlement
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Settles CDO Class Action for AUD300 Million
MANHATTAN GROUP: Recalls QuixelTM Baby Rattle Due to Choking Risk
MEDX INC: Owes OT Wages to Field Service Technicians, Suit Claims

NATIONAL BETTER: Sells Worthless & Junk Insurance, Suit Claims
NEW YORK: Court Won't Dismiss Suit v. Cops Over Occupy Wall St.
PNC BANK: Ticket-Padding Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Approval
POHANKA AUTO: Faces "Jones" Class Suit Over GAP Agreements
ROYAL CROWN: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Investor Scheme

S.E.B. SERVICE: Conditional Class Cert. Granted in Guards' Suit
SAFEGUARD OPERATIONS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Suit Says
SAM SCHWARTZ: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SEQWATER: Tully Urges Flood Victims to Join Class Action
SRAM LLC: Recalls Derailleurs for Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard

TOYOTA MOTOR: Kentucky Appeals Court Reverses Class Cert. Ruling
UNITED STATES: Cobell Suit Settlement Checks May Go Out in 2014
VIKING RANGE: Faces Class Action Over Refrigerator Defect
VIOLIN MEMORY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Calif.
WERNER CO: Accord in "Clemans" Suit Gets Final Court Approval

YELP INC: Reviewers' Action May Set Precedence for Similar Suits


                             *********


2171 LIQUOR: Class Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Agustin Munoz Flores, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. 2171 Liquor Corp. dba Third Avenue Wine and Liquor
Supermarket, Sophia Gutliboushy and Richard Gutliboushy, Case No.
1:13-cv-07727-KBF (S.D.N.Y., October 31, 2013) alleges that
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff is
entitled to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages and other relief.

Wine and Liquor Supermarket is a New York domestic corporation
based in New York City.  Sophia and Richard Gutliboushy is the
owners, officers, directors or managing agents of Wine and Liquor
Supermarket.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209-3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


23ANDME INC: Faces Class Action Over DNA Test False Advertising
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Rodriguez, Jeff Sistrunk and Jeff Overley, writing for
Law360, report that DNA tester 23andMe Inc. was hit with a
proposed class action on Nov. 27, in which the company is accused
of falsely advertising its saliva collection kit and personal
genome service product as accurately providing health reports on
more than 240 genetic medical conditions.

The Nov. 27 lawsuit followed the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration's decision to order 23andMe -- run by
Anne Wojcicki, the wife of Google Inc. co-founder Sergey Brin --
to halt sales of its genetic tests, saying the unapproved product
could result in dangerous false positives or negatives.

Plaintiff Lisa Casey alleges that 23andMe's advertisements tout
the kits' ability to test for "conditions and traits," "drug
response," "carrier status" and other things, while there is no
analytical or clinical validation for the kits' advertised uses.
In addition, Ms. Casey says 23andMe uses the information it
collects from consumers' DNA tests to generate databases and
statistical information that the company then markets to other
sources and the scientific community in general, even though the
test results are meaningless.

"Despite defendant's failure to receive marketing authorization or
approval from the Food and Drug Administration, defendant has
slowly increased its list of indications for the PGS, and
initiated new marketing campaigns, including television
advertisements in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act," the lawsuit says.

The PGS is a direct-to-consumer DNA genetic test sold by 23andMe,
according to the complaint.  After a consumer purchases the PGS
for $99, the company allegedly mails to the customer a packet
including a saliva depository, into which the customer spits,
thereby providing his or her DNA sample.

23andMe then allegedly runs a DNA test for the various conditions
and traits, and mails a report to the customer regarding the risks
or family history characteristics such as coronary heart disease
or rheumatoid arthritis.

"Defendant markets and advertises specific examples of diseases
and conditions for which the PGS can aid the consumer.  Further,
defendant claims, 'Get personalized recommendations.  Based on
your DNA, we'll provide specific health recommendations for you.'
Defendant offers information on a consumer's risk regarding such
serious diseases as diabetes, coronary heart disease and breast
cancer," the suit says.

But the company has marketed and sold the PGS to consumers for
years without any analytical or clinical data to support the
device's efficacy, and despite lacking the data to support its
claims, 23andMe has made material representations to customers,
according to Ms. Casey.

If the data is unknown or cannot be produced by researchers, then
the marketing claims are hollow, misleading and created with the
aim of drawing customers to purchase the product, the complaint
says.

In a Nov. 26 response to the FDA's demand, Ms. Wojcicki
acknowledged the company has been behind schedule on its responses
to the regulator, but stood by the tests' veracity.

23andMe declined to comment on the suit Dec. 2.

Ms. Casey is represented by Mark Ankcorn of Ankcorn Law Firm PC.

Counsel information for 23andMe was not available on Dec. 2.

The case is Casey v. 23andMe Inc., case number 3:13-cv-02847, in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.


ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Class Cert. Denial in "Phillips" Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
reversed a district court's denial of class certification in
PHILLIPS v. ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, and returned the case to the
district court for further proceedings.

The Seventh Circuit found that of 793 members the plaintiff wants
certified, all 343 Illinois residents appear to be proper class
members, adequately represented by plaintiff Gwendolyn Phillips
because the applicable statute of limitations is four years, so
that all the debt collection suits against the class members were
time-barred and hence violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act  -- unless it should turn out that the defendant can dock in
the safe harbor of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k(c) ("a debt collector
may not be held liable in any action brought under this subchapter
if the debt collector shows by a preponderance of evidence that
the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide
error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably
adapted to avoid any such error"); or that the defendant has
defenses, such as equitable tolling or equitable estoppel, to the
bar of the statute of limitations.

But all that remains for the district judge to do regarding
certification is to determine the proper scope of the class, ruled
the Seventh Circuit. It need not be limited to Illinois residents
or to claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. But how
far it extends (and whether subclasses should be created for
residents of different states because of differences among state
laws) remains to be determined, the Seventh Circuit added.

The case is GWENDOLYN PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ASSET
ACCEPTANCE, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 13-2251.

A copy of the Appeals Court's December 2, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/Y7tbdkfrom Leagle.com.


BIG CITY GOURMET: Fails to Pay OT for Hours Above 40, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Luis Miro, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Big City Gourmet Inc. (d/b/a Big City Gourmet) and
Maria Gissondi, Case No. 1:13-cv-07726-DLC (S.D.N.Y., October 31,
2013) alleges that the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate compensation for
the hours over 40 per week that he worked.

The Defendants own, operate and control a restaurant located in
White Plains, New York, under the name "Big City Gourmet."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


BRIDGE COFFEE: Sued by Cook Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julio Duran, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Bridge Coffee Shop Inc. (d/b/a Bridge Coffee Shop) and
Miguel Perez, Case No. 1:13-cv-06056-MKB-CLP (E.D.N.Y.,
October 31, 2013) alleges that the Plaintiff worked for the
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
compensation for the hours over 40 per week that he worked.

Mr. Duran, who was employed by the Defendants to work as a cook,
further alleges that the Defendants failed to keep accurate
records of his hours worked, and failed to pay him appropriately
for any hours worked over 40.

The Defendants own, operate, and control a restaurant located in
Brooklyn, New York, under the name "Bridge Coffee Shop."  Miguel
Perez serves or served as owner, manager, principal or agent of
Bridge Coffee Shop Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
          Lina Marcela Franco, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
          E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com
                  lfranco@faillacelaw.com


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Woods, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC and Cavalry SPV I, LLC, Case
No. 3:13-cv-01339-TJC-JRK (M.D. Fla., October 31, 2013) alleges
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex D. Weisberg, Esq.
          WEISBERG & MEYERS, LLC
          5722 S Flamingo Rd., Suite 656
          Cooper City, FL 33330
          Telephone: (954) 212-2184
          Facsimile: (866) 577-0963
          E-mail: aweisberg@attorneysforconsumers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew J. Devine, Esq.
          Robert Franklin Springfield, Esq.
          BURR & FORMAN, LLP
          200 S Orange Ave., Suite 800
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 540-6679
          Facsimile: (407) 650-2730
          E-mail: mdevine@burr.com
                  fspringf@burr.com


CAVALRY SPV 1: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------
Walter Henningsen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Cavalry SPV 1, LLC and Cavalry Portfolio Services,
LLC, Case No. 6:13-cv-03409-BCW (W.D. Mo., October 31, 2013)
alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul T. Krispin, Jr., Esq.
          SMITHMARCO, PC
          205 North Michigan Ave., Suite 2940
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (314) 667-4382
          Facsimile: (888) 418-1277
          E-mail: pkrispin@smithmarco.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joshua C. Dickinson, Esq.
          SPENCER, FANE, BRITT & BROWNE LLP-OMAHA
          12925 West Dodge Road, Suite 107
          Omaha, NE 68154
          Telephone: (402) 547-5519
          Facsimile: (402) 965-8601
          E-mail: jdickinson@spencerfane.com

               - and -

          Matthew Stromquist, Esq.
          PILGRIM CHRISTAKIS LLP
          53 W. Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1515
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 445-0488
          Facsimile: (312) 939-0983
          E-mail: mstromquist@pilgrimchristakis.com


CHALET NURSERY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Rate, Class Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Saul Del Rio, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. Chalet Nursery and Garden
Shop, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-07806 (N.D. Ill., October 31, 2013)
alleges that the Plaintiff and the proposed Class are entitled to
compensation for all hours worked and compensation at a rate not
less than one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any week, in addition to
being reimbursed for unauthorized deductions.

Chalet Nursery and Garden Shop, Inc., provides landscaping and
maintenance services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John William Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          120 S. State Street, Suite 400
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450
          Facsimile: (312) 853-1450
          E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com

               - and -

          Ana Dominguez, Esq.
          FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
          33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1800
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 784-3541
          E-mail: adominguez@fwadvocacy.org

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kathryn Montgomery Moran, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Rudd, Esq.
          Michael C. Stepien, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS LLP
          150 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2500
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 787-4949
          Facsimile: (312) 787-4995
          E-mail: kathryn.moran@jacksonlewis.com
                  jeffrey.rudd@jacksonlewis.com
                  michael.stepien@jacksonlewis.com


COMMONWEALTH BANK: Ready to Defend Potential Bankwest Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Australian Broker Online reports that Commonwealth Bank has
claimed it will "confidently defend" itself against allegations it
benefited from engineering Bankwest loan defaults.

CBA has been plagued by allegations it unfairly forclosed on some
of Bankwest's commercial customers since it bought Bankwest from
HBOS at just 0.8 times its 2007 book value, and the bank faces
possible class action next year.

CBA's group general counsel David Cohen told The Australian CBA
will "confidently defend its position" should class action occur.

Reports claimed that CBA benefited from windfall claims through
foreclosing on Bankwest's commercial customers and then invoking
the adjustment provisions against HBOS.

While this resulted in a AUD26 million increase in the Bankwest
purchase price, CBA claimed warranty claims resulted in a payment
to CBA of "less than AUD6 million".

"No price adjustment for impaired loans could be made through the
warranty regime, and none was made," Mr. Cohen said.

"There was only a minor level of warranty claims, for matters
unrelated to impaired loans, of less than AUD6 million."

The price adjustment mechanism could only be invoked up until
December 18, 2008 -- the last day of HBOS's ownership of
Bankwest -- said Mr. Cohen.

"So CBA's subsequent ownership had no influence on the level of
impaired loans that could result in a price adjustment for
Bankwest."


CREATIVE JUIICES: Recalls Champanades Due to Undeclared Sulphites
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            November 29, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Allergy Alert
Subcategory:              Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Creative Juiices
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8484

Affected products:

   -- 750 ml. Premium Red Champanade with UPC number 0 65435 00077
      3;

   -- 750 ml. Premium Peach Champanade with UPC number 0 65435
      00055 1;

   -- 750 ml. Premium Raspberry Champanade with UPC number 0 65435
      00044 5;

   -- 750 ml Premium White Champanade with UPC number 0 65435
      00066 7


CROP PRODUCTION: "Heredia" Bias Suit Goes to C.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
Crop Production Services Inc. removed the lawsuit styled Jaime
Vega Heredia, et al. v. Crop Production Services Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1456389, on October 31, 2013, from the Superior Court of
California, County Santa Barbara, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:13-cv-08053-DSF-SH to the proceeding.  The
Plaintiffs allege employment discrimination.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Allen K. Hutkin, Esq.
          Maria Lerman Hutkin, Esq.
          HUTKIN LAW FIRM
          1229 Higuera Street, 1st Floor
          San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
          Telephone: (805) 544-1500
          Facsimile: (805) 544-1532
          E-mail: ahutkin@hutkinlaw.com
                  mhutkin@hutkinlaw.com

               - and -

          James H. Cordes, Esq.
          JAMES H. CORDES LAW OFFICES
          831 State Street, Suite 205
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 965-6800
          Facsimile: (805) 965-5556
          E-mail: jim@jamescordes.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Allison C. Eckstrom, Esq.
          Patricia Ann Matias, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC
          695 Town Center Drive Suite 1500
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 800-7900
          Facsimile: (714) 754-1298
          E-mail: allison.eckstrom@ogletreedeakins.com
                  patricia.matias@ogletreedeakins.com

               - and -

          Evan R. Moses, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC
          400 South Hope Street Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239-9800
          Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
          E-mail: evan.moses@ogletreedeakins.com


DAVID'S PLACE: Recalls Girl's Long Sleeve Hooded Jacket & Pant Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
David's Place Off Price Clothing Co. Inc., a division of YMI
Jeans, of Los Angeles, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of
about 60 Girl's long sleeve hooded jacket and pant sets.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The jackets sold with the set have drawstrings through the hood
which pose a strangulation hazard to young children.  In February
1996, CPSC issued guidelines for children's upper outerwear.  In
1997, those guidelines were incorporated into a voluntary
standard.  Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines and
voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation. CPSC's
actions demonstrate a commitment to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on neck and waist drawstrings in
upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall includes Wearever Girl brand girl's long sleeve zip-up
100% cotton hooded jackets sold as a set with brown pants.  The
brown hooded jackets have thin aqua, light pink and light green
horizontal stripes and sold in girl's sizes 7 to 16.  There is a
brown, flat drawstring around the neck of the jackets.  "Wearever
Girl" is printed on a label on the back inside neck of the jackets
and on the pants.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/Jv9FpQ

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Burlington Coat Factory in August 2013 for about
$10.

Consumers should immediately take the jackets away from children
and remove the drawstrings to eliminate the hazard.  Consumers can
also contact David's Place to obtain a return address label and
instructions for returning the garment for a full refund.


DENVER GLOBAL: Recalls Multi-Purpose Yard Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Denver Global Products, of Lincolnton, N.C., announced a voluntary
recall of about 11,000 Multi-Purpose Yard Vehicles.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The mower blades can detach during use or start without being
activated by the operator and the vehicle can move forward
unexpectedly, posing a laceration hazard.  Also, the fuel lines
can leak, posing a fire hazard.

Denver Global Products has received 82 reports of blades
detaching, one of which resulted in lacerations and bruising to a
bystanders legs, and three reports of mower blades starting
without the operator activating them with no reported injuries.
There have also been three reports of unintended vehicle movement
with no reported injuries and 34 reports of fuel leaking with no
reported injuries.

The recalled products are Raven multi-purpose yard vehicles
manufactured between December 26, 2012 and May 7, 2013.  The
vehicles are gas-powered four-wheeled vehicles designed to be used
as a lawn mower, garden tractor or portable generator.  The
recalled vehicles have a cargo bed and a detachable 46-inch
cutting deck.  The vehicles are black with red grab-rails on
either side of the rear cargo bed, red center panels on the seat
and hood and red front suspension components.  The first six
digits of the serial number indicate the manufacture date in a
MM/DD/YY format.  The serial number is on an identification plate
attached to the lower right-hand chassis rail near the front
wheel.  "Denver Global Products Inc.," "Model # MPV710-001,"
"1-888-321-5700" and "www.denverglobal.com" can also be found on
the identification plate.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
exclusively at Lowe's Stores nationwide between January 2013 and
May 2013 for about $3,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled vehicles.
Turn off the key switch and remove the key, apply the parking
brake, and remove the green and the yellow fuses from the white
plastic fuse holders on the right hand side under the seat.
Return the unit to your nearest Lowe's store for a full refund.
The firm is contacting consumers directly.


DIRECTV INC: 9th Cir. Flips Order Denying Arbitration in Lombardi
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
a district court ruling denying a motion to compel arbitration in
LOMBARDI v. DirecTV, INC.

According to the Ninth Circuit, there is no evidence supporting
the Plaintiffs' contention that DirecTV charges an early
cancellation fee when a customer rejects the arbitration
agreement. In fact, DirecTV's confirmation letter explains that
disputes are subject to arbitration, provides a URL for the
Customer Agreement and informs the customer that it will issue a
full refund if service is cancelled before installation. Although
the arbitration agreement is an adhesion contract and "there are
circumstances . . . that evidence a degree of procedural
unconscionability," that degree "is insufficient to render the
arbitration provision unenforceable."

The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings.

The case is JOSEPH LOMBARDI; KATHLEEN O'BRIEN; ROBERTA PIFER;
EDWARD PIFER; CHRISTINE SCHUESSLER; CHRISTINE SLAKANS; GARY SMITH;
SANDRA JOHANNES; IRA BOSHNACK, Plaintiffs-counter-defendants-
Appellees, and TRACY TWYMAN; ANNETTE KAHALY; JOHN MULEA; MAUREEN
VAN METER; CAROLYN FORBES; LOUIS M. WILSON; PAUL CANNON; SEAN
MURRAY; HOYT McBROOM; PATRICIA WILSON; DOROTHY JONES; JOSHUA
FOLKERTH; RENATO CAPPUCCITTI; DAVID WARD; KEITH HARPER; JANA
HARPER; PAUL BRICE; KAREN BRICE; ALICE M. BRODE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated; JACK E. BRODE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; EBEN
PAGUIRIGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; TARA MURRAY, Plaintiffs-counter-defendants, v. DIRECTV,
INC., Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant, NO. 10-56602.

A copy of the Appeals Court's December 2, 2013 Memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/NDSkNLfrom Leagle.com.


ECOLAB INC: Removed "Icard" Employment Suit to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
James M. Icard, an individual; for himself and those similarly
situated and Roes 1 through 30,000 and the proposed class v.
Ecolab Inc., a Delaware Corporation; and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. CGC-09-495344 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., December 21, 2009) is brought on behalf of Ecolab employees,
who are or were Route Managers, who have worked in California, do
not cross state lines in performance of their duties, and have not
received full and correct pay for all hours worked.

Ecolab is a Delaware corporation doing business in the state of
California.

Ecolab 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 District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:13-cv-
05097-LB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Jay Palay, Esq.
          Jenna Holston Strauss, Esq.
          PALAY LAW FIRM
          1484 E Main Street
          Ventura, CA 93001
          Telephone: (805) 641-6600
          Facsimile: (805) 641-6607
          E-mail: djp@palaylaw.com
                  jhs@palaylaw.com

               - and -

          Alejandro Pedro Gutierrez
          LAW OFFICES OF HATHAWAY, PERRETT, WEBSTER, POWERS,
          CHRISMAN & GUTIERREZ
          Hathaway Building
          5450 Telegraph Road, #200
          Ventura, CA 93003
          Telephone: (805) 644-7111
          Facsimile: (805) 644-8296
          E-mail: agutierrez@hathawaylawfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael Anthony Strauss, Esq.
          STRAUSS LAW GROUP
          1484 E Main Street, Second Floor
          Ventura, CA 93001
          Telephone: (805) 641-9992
          E-mail: mas@palaylaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Arch Stokes, Esq.
          Peter B. Maretz, Esq.
          STOKES WAGNER HUNT MARETZ & TERRELL
          600 West Broadway, Suite 1150
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 232-4261
          Facsimile: (619) 232-4840
          E-mail: astokes@stokesroberts.com
                  pmaretz@stokesroberts.com

               - and -

          John R. Hunt, Esq.
          STOKES WAGNER HUNT MARETZ TERRELL
          3593 Hemphill Street
          Atlanta, GA 30337
          Telephone: (404) 766-0076
          E-mail: jhunt@stokeswagner.com


ELECTROLUX HOME: Removed "Waters" Suit to N.D. West Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------
Electrolux Home Products, Inc. removed the purported class action
lawsuit captioned Waters, et al. v. Electrolux Home Products,
Inc., Case No. 13-C-118, from the Circuit Court of Brooke County,
West Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:13-cv-00151-FPS to the proceeding.  The lawsuit asserts
product liability claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward Wallace, Esq.
          Michael H. Bowman, Esq.
          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
          E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  mhb@wexlerwallace.com
                  aek@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Charles M. McCallum, Esq.
          R. Brent Irby, Esq.
          MCCALLUM, HOAGLUND COOK & IRBY LLP
          905 Montgomery Highway, Suite 201
          Vestavia Hills, AL 35216
          Telephone: (205) 824-7767
          Facsimile: (205) 824-7768
          E-mail: birby@mhcilaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Holmstrand, Esq.
          FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH BONASSO, PLLC - WHEELING
          PO Box 6545
          Wheeling, WV 26003
          Telephone: (304) 230-6600
          Facsimile: (304) 230-6610
          E-mail: jholmstrand@fsblaw.com


FEDEX GROUND: Removed "Rangel" Employment Suit to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Rangel, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-02013-
00678062 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., September 24, 2013)
challenges the Defendants' alleged systemic illegal employment
practices resulting in violations of the California Labor Code,
Business and Professions Code and applicable wage orders against
the employees of the Defendants.

The Defendants have acted intentionally and with deliberate
indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all
employees in forfeiture of vacation wages, failure to reimburse
for all work related travel mileage expenses, failure to properly
compensate employees for minimum wages for all hours worked,
failure to pay all overtime wages due to incorrect calculation of
the regular rate of pay, failure to provide meal and rest breaks,
and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, Mr.
Rangel alleges.

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., was and is a Delaware
corporation doing business in the state of California.  The
Defendants own and operate locations in the state of California
including in or around Orange County and employ several hundred
non-exempt hourly employees like the Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff
does not know the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Company removed the lawsuit on October 31, 2013, from the
Superior Court of the state of California, County of Orange, to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.  FedEx argues that the removal is proper because
diversity is established because the Plaintiff and the proposed
class are citizens of California and none of the Defendants are
citizens of California.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 8:13-cv-01718-DOC-JCG to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter M. Hart, Esq.
          Travis Hodgkins, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART
          12121 Wiishire Blvd., Suite 205
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 478-5789
          Facsimile: (509) 561-6441
          E-mail: hartpeter@msn.com
                  thodgkins.loph@gmail.com

               - and -

          Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq.
          Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH H. YOON
          One Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-3383
          Telephone: (213) 612-0988
          Facsimile: (213) 947-1211
          E-mail: kyoon@yoon-law.com
                  syasuda@yoonlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ernest W. "Will" Klatte, III, Esq.
          Summer Young-Agriesti, Esq.
          Selwyn Chu, Esq.
          KLATTE, BUDENSIEK & YOUNG-AGRIESTI, LLP
          20341 SW Birch, Suite 200
          Newport Beach, CA 92660-1514
          Telephone: (949) 221-8700
          Facsimile: (949) 222-1044
          E-mail: ewklatte@kbylaw.com
                  syoung@kbylaw.com
                  schu@kbylaw.com


FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Vehicle Repurchase or Replacement Offer
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rex Potter, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 3:13-cv-
05095-SC (N.D. Cal., October 31, 2013) is brought on behalf of all
persons, who purchased or leased a Ford Motor Company vehicle in
the state of California and were offered vehicle repurchase or
replacement by the Company from four years prior to the filing of
the instant Complaint until class certification.

The Plaintiff alleges that Ford's improper deductions from, and
failure to reimburse and credit the Plaintiff and the other Class
Members for, their full statutory repurchase prices violate the
Song-Beverly Act, which only permits a single, narrowly-drawn
deduction for mileage offset.

Ford is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Dearborn,
Michigan.  Ford designs and manufactures motor vehicles, parts,
and other products for sale in the United States and throughout
the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Payam Shahian, Esq.
          Karen E. Nakon, Esq.
          STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC
          1875 CenturyPark East, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 277-1040
          Facsimile: (310) 943-3838
          E-mail: pshahian@slpattorney.com
                  knakon@slpattorney.com

               - and -

          Dara Tabesh, Esq.
          ECOTECH LAW GROUP, P.C.
          333 First Street, Suite C
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 230-5376
          Facsimile: (415) 651-8639
          E-mail: dara.tabesh@ecotechlaw.com


          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 564-2300
          Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
          E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com

Ford Motor Company is represented by:

          Amir M. Nassihi, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 2700
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 544-1900
          Facsimile: (415) 391-0281
          E-mail: anassihi@shb.com


GEICO GENERAL: Improperly Charged Insureds, Class Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Grete Carranza; and Dallis Hughes, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. GEICO General Insurance
Company; GEICO Indemnity Company; and Government Employees
Insurance Company, Case No. 3:13-cv-01932-HZ (D. Ore., October 31,
2013) is brought on behalf of all current and former holders of
automobile insurance policies from GEICO General Insurance
Company, GEICO Indemnity Company, and Government Employees
Insurance Company, who, from October 31, 2007, to the date of
trial, have insured more than one vehicle under the same policy
with the defendants that sustained damages or losses arising from
a single occurrence, but thereafter the Defendants improperly
charged their insureds more than one deductible.

GEICO General is an affiliate of GEICO Indemnity and Government
Employees.  GEICO Indemnity is an affiliate of GEICO General and
Government Employees.  Government Employees is an affiliate of
GEICO General and GEICO Indemnity.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steve D. Larson, Esq.
          Keil M. Mueller, Esq.
          STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.
          209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 227-1600
          Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
          E-mail: slarson@stollberne.com
                  kmueller@stollberne.com

               - and -

          Rodney F. Pillsbury, Esq.
          PILLSBURY & READ, P.A.
          1204 E. Washington St.
          Greenville, SC 29601
          Telephone: (864) 241-9828
          Facsimile: (864) 241-9818
          E-mail: rpillsbury@prlawpa.com


GRUNENTHAL GMBH: Settles Thalidomide Class Action for AUD89MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that a class action by
Australian victims of the morning sickness drug thalidomide
against its manufacturer has been settled for AUD89 million.

A lawyer for the victims, Peter Gordon, said the settlement, which
is subject to court approval, brought to an end a long battle for
compensation by the victims.

The agreement settles a class action against the drug's
distributor Diageo.

A class action against the drug's manufacturer Grunenthal will be
discontinued, a spokesperson said outside the Victorian Supreme
Court.

Mr. Gordon told the court the settlement was for AUD89 million and
said there was an additional AUD6.5 million in costs.

More than 100 group members in Australia and New Zealand will
receive compensation, he said.

Last year Diageo reached a multi-million dollar settlement with
Melbourne woman Lynette Rowe, who was born without arms and legs.

Thalidomide drugs were distributed in Australia and New Zealand
around 1960 and 1961 by Distillers, which became part of Diageo in
1997.

Mr. Gordon last year described Diageo as "good and responsible
corporate citizens".

Mr. Gordon on Dec. 2 said he was delighted to inform the court of
the class action settlement.

Several thalidomide victims were in court for the announcement.

They did not comment as they left court, but a press conference
was set to be held at the offices of their lawyers on Dec. 2.


HUXTABLE'S KITCHEN: Recalls Trader Joe's Butternut Squash Gratin
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 2 disclosed that
Huxtable's Kitchen Inc. of Vernon, California is voluntarily
recalling one specific lot of Trader Joe's Butternut Squash &
Creamed Spinach Gratin (SKU 96541) sold in the refrigerated
section with "Use By 12/13/13" date, because it may not list wheat
and egg in the ingredients.  People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to wheat and egg run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product.  No
illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall affects only Trader Joe's Butternut Squash & Creamed
Spinach Gratin bearing the "USE BY 12/13/13" date packaged in 16
oz. tray with a sleeve.  The Use By date is printed on the side of
the sleeve.  The 3270 trays possibly affected were distributed to
Trader Joe's stores located in Southern California, Utah, Southern
Nevada and Texas.  No other lots, products or stores are affected.
The same product bearing the "USE BY 12/13/13" date sold in other
regions is NOT affected.

The voluntary recall was initiated by Huxtable's Kitchen after
Trader Joe's discovered that affected packages bearing the label
for Butternut Squash & Creamed Spinach Gratin mistakenly contained
a corn product made with wheat and egg.

Customers who have purchased the Butternut Squash & Creamed
Spinach Gratin may return it to Trader Joe's for a full refund.
Customers with questions may contact Huxtable's Kitchen, Inc. at
323-923-2888 from 8 AM-4:30 PM PST, Monday-Friday.


HYDROXATONE LLC: "Sabol" Suit Settlement Approved
-------------------------------------------------
SUSAN SABOL, VALERIE DONE, and KATHLEEN KLODNER on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. HYDROXATONE LLC and ATLANTIC COAST MEDIA GROUP LLC, Defendants,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-04586-KM-MAH, (D. N.J.) is before the
Court on the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of a proposed
settlement, award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses,
and participation awards.

This class action lawsuit was commenced on August 8, 2011,
alleging deceptive customer service practices relating to
Hydroxatone's risk-free trial offers and auto-shipment of
products.

District Judge Kevin McNulty accepted voluminous proofs from the
parties and from a certain Ms. Margolis as objector, and held a
Fairness Hearing with respect to the proposed settlement. Ms.
Margolis is the named plaintiff in a separate putative class
action against the Defendants, which is assigned to District Judge
Chesler. Margolis v. Atlantic Coast Media Group LLC, No. 2:11-cv-
04355-SRC.

Before the hearing, Ms. Margolis received access to all discovery
produced by the parties, and all documents related to the
financial health of the Defendants exchanged by the parties during
confirmatory discovery, as well as information regarding the
Defendants' insurance coverage. With two potential exceptions, the
parties and Ms. Margolis waived the right to present testimony or
cross-examine, and relied on the documentary evidence and oral
arguments of counsel.

After considering Ms. Margolis's objection, along with all related
material and exhibits, including some that the Plaintiffs sought
to exclude from consideration, and giving due deference to the
negotiated settlement, and due consideration to the recommendation
of the highly regarded and experienced mediator in the case, Hon.
Stephen M. Orlofsky (ret.), Judge McNulty overrules Ms. Margolis'
objection, and grants final approval of the settlement agreement.

Judge McNulty held that the materials already provided to the
Court and the presentation at the Fairness Hearing provide more
than sufficient information to evaluate the fairness of the
settlement.

The total cash payment in the Common Fund of the Settlement
Agreement is $3 million. Attorney's fees and costs, participation
awards, administrative costs, and costs of the notice will be paid
out of the Common Fund prior to any distribution to the Settlement
Class.

A copy of the District Court's November 26, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/WtM5xxfrom Leagle.com.


IKO INDUSTRIES: Ontario Court Certifies Shingles Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Siskinds LLP on Dec. 2 disclosed that a national class action
related to IKO Organic Shingles has been certified by the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice.

IKO Organic Shingles mean all asphalt organic shingles
manufactured by or on behalf of IKO Industries Ltd., Canroof
Corporation Inc., or I.G. Machine.  See the full legal notice
(online at www.classaction.ca) for a list of brand names.  The
class action does not relate to IKO fiberglass shingles.

What the Class Action is About -- The representative plaintiff, on
behalf of himself and the Class, is claiming damages from the
defendants for the alleged negligent design and manufacture of IKO
Organic Shingles.  Specifically, the representative plaintiff
alleges that IKO Organic Shingles were negligently designed and
manufactured in a manner that, under normal conditions and usage,
would result in premature failure.  In addition, with respect to
persons in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec and/or
New Brunswick, the representative plaintiff alleges that the
defendants breached the consumer protection legislation by
representing that IKO Organic Shingles complied with industry
standards when he says they did not comply, or were not adequately
tested in order to determine whether they did comply.  The
representative plaintiff seeks damages, on behalf of himself and
the Class, for, among other things, the costs of removing and
replacing defective IKO Organic Shingles, including associated
labour costs.  The defendants deny all of the claims made in the
class action.  The allegations have not been proven in court.

The Class -- The certified class includes current or former owners
or lessees of buildings located in Canada that contain or
contained IKO Organic Shingles. See the full legal notice
available online at www.classaction.ca for the complete class
definition.

Common Issues -- The class proceeding will determine the common
issues relating to whether IKO Organic Shingles defendants were
negligent in the design and manufacturing of IKO Organic Shingles
and whether the defendants breached the relevant consumer
protection legislation.  See the full legal notice available
online at www.classaction.ca for a complete list of common issues.

Opting Out -- Persons can opt out (exclude themselves from) the
class action.  See the full legal notice available online at
www.classaction.ca for details about the consequences of opting
out or not opting out, and the process and deadline for opting
out.


ING USA: Faces Annuities Fraud Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------
BigClassAction.com reports that an annuities class action lawsuit
has been filed against ING by Ernest Abbit of California, alleging
the financial services firm indexed financial instruments that
failed to meet the advertised goals and that company officials
failed to properly advise seniors of the risks associated with
investing in the annuities.

According to the lawsuit, the stated goal of ING indexed
annuities, is to provide seniors in various age groups with
"protection of principal", which means reducing the risks of
investment while using various investments products aimed at
"fueling the value of our annuity" "to build up your retirement
savings."  Mr. Abbit claims ING failed to back up their claims.

Mr. Abbit alleges in the class action, that he, and others
similarly situated, have lost as much as 20 percent of their
savings, "on the first day" of investment, due to the lack of
information regarding what the product provided.  His returns are
allegedly a fraction of those an investor would have received by
investing in the S&P 500 as a whole, the index his annuity was
allegedly designed to mirror.

Specifically, the lawsuit, The ING Annuity Class Action Lawsuit,
entitled Ernest O. Abbit, et al. v. ING USA Annuity and Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 13-cv-2310, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of California, claims that ING's the financial
instruments are "wolves-in-sheep's clothing" and that their
statements are "opaque."  The lawsuit claims that not only did the
instruments fail to return as advertised, but that those
investments contained "embedded derivatives" similar to those that
led to the financial collapse in 2008.  ING indexed annuities were
structured, the lawsuit claims, so that the company would benefit
from any derivatives income while at the same time putting it
senior investors at risk for losses.

According to the class action, in 2005 the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority (FINRA), which is the financial services
industry's self-governing body operating as a private monitor,
warned that the products Abbit and others were invested in were
accompanied by sales material that "do not fully describe the
features and risks of the products.  "Maybe it's your stockbroker
Other insurance companies allegedly changing their annuity
obligations or not being able to meet those obligations are Aviva,
Transamerica, The Principal Financial Group, MetLife, Prudential,
Guggenheim and Genworth.  Variable annuity holders who purchased
their annuities in the past three years from those companies may
be eligible to file a claim against those companies.


IQ FORMULATIONS: Voluntarily Recalls HYDRAVAX 45-Capsule Bottles
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Nov. 29 disclosed that
IQ Formulations, of Sunrise, Florida is initiating a precautionary
and proactive recall of all lots of its 45-capsule bottles of
HYDRAVAX due to potential inclusion of an unlisted ingredient.
The FDA has advised IQ Formulations that an analysis of a sample
from one lot of HYDRAVAX (Lot # 2458, Exp # 07/16) revealed the
presence of an undeclared ingredient -- a diuretic.  Diuretics are
prescription drugs and thus, are not listed on the packaging label
for HYDRAVAX.  Consumers are hereby notified not to use the
product.

Possible effects of using a diuretic include an electrolyte
imbalance due to water loss. Symptoms include: polyuria, nausea,
vomiting, weakness, lassitude, fever, flushed face, and
hyperactive deep tendon reflexes.  Fluid and electrolyte
imbalances are the most important concern.  Excessive doses of
diuretics may elicit hyperkalemia, dehydration, nausea, vomiting
and weakness and possibly hypotension.  Overdosing with a diuretic
has been associated with hypokalemia, hypochloremia, hyponatremia,
dehydration, lethargy and gastrointestinal irritation.  People
experiencing these problems should seek immediate medical
attention.

No illnesses or consumer complaints have been reported to date in
connection with this issue.  Consumers should contact their
physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any
problems that may be related to taking or using this drug product.

The product comes in a 45 capsule bottle.  The recalled HYDRAVAX
was distributed nationwide in retail stores and mail order.

Production of the product has been suspended while the company
continues their investigation as to the source of the potential
unlisted ingredient.  IQ Formulations receives this product from
the manufacturer in sealed packages and with a certificate of
analysis that represents that the product contains only the lawful
and legitimate listed ingredients.

All consumers who have purchased HYDRAVAX 45 capsule bottles are
urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers and distributors with questions regarding this recall
should contact IQ Formulations Customer Service at
Recall@iqformulations.com or by phone at 800-626-1022 from Monday
through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST.  This recall
action is being conducted with the knowledge of the FDA.


IXIA: Buy Rating Reiterated Amid Class Action Threats
-----------------------------------------------------
Dan O'Shea, writing for Light Reading, reports that amid class
action lawsuit threats, a delayed SEC filing, and an embarrassing
CEO departure, at least one financial analyst is finding something
to like about the future of test and measurement firm Ixia.

James Kisner, vice president of communications infrastructure
equity research at Jefferies, reiterated his Buy rating on Ixia's
stock.  Mr. Kisner also says in a research note to investors that
Ixia stands to benefit from increasing activity in the 40G/10G
Layer 2-3 datacenter market, as well as LTE expansion projects,
VoLTE launches, and small cell developments.

Though Mr. Kisner made a downward adjustment to his fiscal year
2014 earnings per share estimate for Ixia from $1.05 to $1, he
cites Ixia's stable relationship with customer AT&T Inc. and
Ixia's cost-cutting efforts, such as office closures in Australia
and India, as positives.  He also says that doom-and-gloom
forecasts surrounding major Ixia customer Cisco Systems Inc. "may
be overdone," and that Cisco's Imsieme datacenter switch unit
likely will continue to need Ixia's test capabilities, as will
other vendors in the Layer 2-3 segment.

Still, another dark cloud around Ixia has to do with the departure
of former CEO Victor Alston after it was discovered he lied about
his academic achievements.  The scandal was a tough blow for a
company already struggling financially, and it caused Ixia to
delay its third-quarter 10Q filing with the SEC while the company
investigated further.  The issue also has inspired several class
action lawsuit sharks to circle Ixia during the past two weeks, a
period during which it also received a de-listing notice from
Nasdaq.

Yet, Mr. Kisner downplays the panic.  He writes that "the
company's auditors had to ensure that Alston's fraudulent behavior
didn't extend into his business activity.  Based on our
conversations with the company, we'd be surprised if we didn't see
the 10-Q filed in the next few weeks."

Ixia CFO Tom Miller has not currently replied to a request for
comment.


K2 SPORTS: Recalls Kickboards/Scooters Due to Fall Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
K2 Sports, of Seattle, Wash., announced a voluntary recall of
about 400 K2 Revo Kick kickboards/scooters.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The front assembly of the kickboards/scooters can break and the
handle can detach or partially detach, causing loss of control or
loss of balance.  This poses a fall hazard to the rider.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves K2 Revo Kick kickboards/scooters with item
code I10700100.  Revo Kick and the item code are printed on a
sticker on the underside of the deck.  The kickboard/scooter is
made of aluminum, has three wheels, a wooden deck and a vertical
handle with a round grip.  The kickboards/scooters measure about
32 inches long and 40 inches high.  The deck has a red, white and
blue design with K2 printed on it.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/Fv58tZ

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Sporting goods stores nationwide and online at K2skates.com from
March 2010 through September 2013 for about $200.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled
kickboards/scooters and contact K2 Sports for a full refund.


KEYS ARMORED: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Gonzalez Martinez, and other similarly-situated
individuals v. Keys Armored Express Inc, Elsa Degraffenreid, and
Arturo Cobo, individually, Case No. 4:13-cv-10159-JEM (S.D. Fla.,
October 31, 2013) is an action to recover money damages for unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Keys Armored Express Inc. is a Florida corporation headquartered
in Monroe County, Florida, where the Plaintiff worked for the
Defendant.  Keys Armored provides courier/armored car
transportation, for cash and valuables, vaulting, and other
related services.  Keys Armored employed the Plaintiff from
approximately March 2002 through August 17, 2012, as a non- exempt
"driver/guard" hourly employee.  The Individual Defendants were
and are directors or owners of Keys Armored.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
          Miami, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


L&L ENERGY: Must Face Securities Class Action Over China Revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene and Ian Thoms, writing for Law360, report that a
Seattle-based producer of coal from mines in China can't ditch a
securities class action alleging it lied about revenue on three
annual reports, triggering a plunge in the stock price when
investors found out, according to a ruling on Dec. 3.

U.S. District Judge Robert S. Lasnick on Dec. 3 found that
putative lead plaintiff Jeff Mills had sufficiently argued that
L&L Energy Inc.'s CEO, Dickson Lee, knew the company didn't own
two Chinese mines it claimed revenue from in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

Lee and the company had motive to lie about the revenue from the
mines, Judge Lasnick wrote in the Dec. 3 decision.

"Motive for the alleged misstatements exists in the fact that both
L&L Energy and defendant Dickson Lee stood to benefit from
inflated revenue statements to the extent that they resulted in
higher stock prices," Judge Lasnick wrote on Dec. 3.  "These
defendants sold or donated stock during the relevant period in
atypical fashion, making significant profit and/or garnering a
large tax deduction."

Mr. Mills claims L&L grossly overstated its revenue and profit in
filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission from 2009
to 2011, and misled investors with overly optimistic public
statements.  When shareholders learned of L&L's alleged
misstatements, the company's stock price plummeted, according to
the suit filed in Washington federal court in August 2011.

The company and its executives "engaged in acts, practices and a
course of business that operated as a fraud and deceit upon the
purchasers of the company's common stock in an effort to maintain
artificially high market prices for L&L's common stock," the
complaint said.

Mr. Mills, who seeks to represent investors who bought shares of
L&L common stock from Aug. 13, 2009, to Aug. 2, 2011, said that
the company acknowledged a "material weakness in internal control
over financial reporting" and admitted its revenue statements
might have been inaccurate.

The admission prompted a 16 percent drop in L&L's stock price,
according to the complaint.

L&L took another hit one month later when financial analyst
Glaucus Research Group issued a report that called into question
the company's SEC filings from 2009, according to the complaint.
The report said the company had overstated its revenue by $65
million and its profits by $19 million in 2009.  Glaucus also said
L&L had valued its assets at four times their actual worth.

After the Glaucus report, L&L's stock price fell more than 17
percent, according to the complaint.

In his third amended complaint, Mr. Mills argued in particular
that the company included revenue from two mines it claimed to
own, but didn't.

"Plaintiff's particularized allegations, including allegations of
breach and forgery, make it hard to imagine how the inclusion of
the mines' revenue in L&L Energy's 2009 10-K could have been an
innocent mistake or error on the part of anyone involved in the
operations of the company," Judge Lasnick wrote on Dec. 3.

While there is a possibility that L&L Energy simply misunderstood
the validity of its contracts or Chinese law, the much stronger
inference is that it knew of the defects in its claim of ownership
at the time it made the revenue statements in the 2009 10-K, the
judge wrote in rejecting the company's motion to dismiss the suit.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to
requests for comment on Dec. 3.

Mr. Mills is represented by Richard A. Smith and Knoll Lowney of
Smith & Lowney PLLC and by Laurence M. Rosen and Phillip Kim of
the Rosen Law Firm PA.

L&L is represented by Douglas W. Greene -- greened@lanepowell.com
-- Erin M. Wilson -- wilsonem@lanepowell.com -- Larry Steven
Gangnes -- gangnesl@lanepowell.com  -- and Ryan P. McBride --
mcbrider@lanepowell.com -- of Lane Powell PC.

The case is Jeff Mills v. L&L Energy et al., case number 2:11-cv-
01423, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Hearing Today on Structured Products Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York will hold a Settlement Hearing
today, December 10, 2013, at 4:30 p.m. at the Daniel Patrick
Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom
21B, New York, NY 10007, to consider whether the settlement in the
action entitled, In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities
Litigation, Case No. 09-MD-2017 (S.D.N.Y.), is fair, reasonable,
and adequate.  The Court also will consider a proposed Plan of
Allocation for the Net Settlement Fund and the application of
Class Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

The class action Settlement involves securities known as
structured products that were issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings
Inc. and underwritten and sold by UBS Financial Services Inc. in
2007 and 2008.  Structured products are a kind of security that
consists of a fixed income security and a type of derivative, such
as a basket of securities, options, commodities, or foreign
currencies.  Some of the structured products involved in the class
action also offered "principal protection."

The lawsuit alleges that UBSFS violated federal securities laws in
underwriting and selling the Structured Products.  The plaintiffs
contend, among other things, that the offering materials for the
Structured Products contained materially false and misleading
statements and omitted material information about Lehman's
financial condition and about the "principal protection" feature
of some of the Structured Products.  During the litigation, the
plaintiffs also inquired into the procedures by which UBSFS
structured, marketed, and sold the Structured Products, the sales
commissions earned, and communications between UBSFS financial
advisors and customers.  UBSFS denies that it did anything wrong,
or that any purchasers of Structured Products incurred losses due
to any alleged misrepresentations or omissions in the offering
materials.

A Settlement Fund of $120,000,000 (before deduction of attorneys'
fees and expenses and administrative costs) will be distributed to
certain investors who bought or acquired the securities during the
relevant time period, and who make a "Recognized Claim" under the
proposed Plan of Allocation.  Plaintiffs estimate that Settlement
Class Members who purchased or acquired Structured Products with a
total face value of approximately $892 million may have suffered
damages during the relevant time period.  Assuming all Settlement
Class Members submit valid and timely claims, plaintiffs estimate
that the average recovery per damaged Structured Product under the
Settlement is $1.34 for Structured Products with a face value of
$10.00 and $134.00 for Structured Products with a face value of
$1,000.00, before deduction of Court-awarded attorneys' fees and
expenses and administrative costs.

The Plan of Allocation is available at http://is.gd/Lctj28

                   IMPORTANT DATES AND DEADLINES

SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM            Postmarked no later than
                               February 4, 2014

EXCLUDE YOURSELF               Postmarked no later than
                               November 19, 2013

OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT       Received no later than
                               November 19, 2013

SETTLEMENT HEARING             December 10, 2013 at 4:30PM
                               United States District Court
                               for the Southern District of
                               New York

DO NOTHING                     Receive no payment and give up
                               your rights.

Claims Administrator may be reached at:

     In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation
     (Structured Products Litigation)
     Claims Administrator
     c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
     PO Box 170707
     Milwaukee, WI  53217
     Tel: 888-211-3565
     E-mail: info@LehmanSPSettlement.com

Class Counsel may be reached at:

     Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
     GIRARD GIBBS LLP
     601 California Street, 14th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94108

On the Net: http://www.lehmanspsettlement.com/


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Enters Into Settlement Agreement With Swan City
----------------------------------------------------------------
The West Australian's Yolanda Zaw and The Australian Associated
Press report that the City of Swan has reached a settlement
agreement in its class action against collapsed American
investment bank Lehman Brothers, paving the way for eight other WA
councils to seek damages of almost AUD50 million.

The city, along with Parkes and Wingecarribee shire councils in
NSW, were the lead claimants in the class action that involved 72
councils, charities and churches.

The organizations sued Lehman Brothers Australia for AUD248
million, claiming the bank had failed to warn of risks in complex
financial derivatives, known as collateralized debt obligations.

On Dec. 2, a conditional settlement was reached, establishing that
company liquidators PPB Advisory distribute more than 50‹¨« in the
dollar to claimants.

The other WA councils -- Melville, Albany, Geraldton-Greenough,
Kwinana, Augusta-Margaret River, Coolgardie and Ravensthorpe and
the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council -- will now begin a
claims-resolution process for payouts.

City of Swan executive manager corporate Colin Cameron said the
council could receive up to AUD2.5 million from the settlement.

"We welcome the settlement and are relieved that the action has
finally come to resolution," he said.  "We have worked very hard
since this began in July 2007 to ensure that we get as much
compensation as possible, not just for our council but all
councils and organizations involved across Australia."

Mr. Cameron said there was one outstanding legal action the
council would pursue against rating agency Standard & Poor's.

PPB Advisory said they were hopeful of paying creditors in or
around the first quarter of next year.  "This will bring total
recoveries to more than $550 million, which is an excellent
outcome for local creditors caught up in what has been the largest
corporate collapse in history," it said.

The settlement will go to the Federal Court for ratification.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Sub-Prime Class Action Nears Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reports that a group of Australian councils, churches and
charities that lost millions of dollars in the US sub-prime
mortgage crisis are has reached a settlement with the liquidator
of the collapsed investment bank Lehman Brothers.

Publicly listed litigation funder Bentham IMF has told the share
market it expects to the four-year-long class action to culminate
in a settlement worth AUD170 million.

Bentham IMF, which until Nov. 30 was known as IMF Australia, says
it will earn between AUD30 million and AUD40 million for its role
in funding the proceedings.

John Walker from Bentham IMF says the 69 councils, churches and
charities involved should expect to receive about half of the
money they invested.

"The distribution from Lehman will only be around 50 cents in the
dollar of their loss," he said.

"We're seeking the other 50 cents from the ratings agency Standard
and Poor's, which we say was responsible, collectively with
Lehman.

"Our fee is around 35 cents in the dollar, and that would need to
be taken out of the money to be received from Lehman and hopefully
to be received from Standard and Poor's."

The settlement still requires court approval, but Mr. Walker
expects the distributions be paid between April and June next
year.

Bentham IMF's share price has climbed after the announcement.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Settles CDO Class Action for AUD300 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Dow Jones Newswires reports that a group of Australian towns,
charities and churches that purchased risky U.S. mortgage-backed
securities sold by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.'s Australian unit
settled its class-action lawsuit against the failed investment
bank, paving the way for the creditors to recover $300 million
Australian dollars (US$273 million) in the coming year.

PBB Advisory, the liquidators of Lehman Brothers Australia Ltd.,
said on Dec. 2 that creditors of dozens of Australian councils,
churches and charities that invested in collateralized-debt
obligations, or CDOs, with Lehman Brothers Australia could expect
to begin receiving checks early next year.

"We are hopeful of making distributions to all creditors in or
around the first quarter of 2014," said PBB's Marcus Ayres in a
statement.

The proposed A$300 million distribution would come on top of an
earlier A$250 million paid out directly to Australian councils and
charities from their Lehman-originated investments.

The latest settlement, which requires an Australian court's
approval, is expected to speed recoveries of more than 50 cents on
the dollar for the Australian investors that sunk hundreds of
millions of dollars into CDOs, a type of security backed by a mix
of bonds, loans and other assets, that later imploded.

An Australian court ruled last year that Lehman Brothers Australia
misled unsophisticated investors about the risks associated with
the CDOs and was responsible for the investors' losses.

John Walker, an executive director of Bentham IMF Ltd., which
funded a class-action lawsuit against Lehman, said in an interview
on Dec. 2 that about A$170 million is earmarked for about 70
Australian councils and charities that signed on to the lawsuit.
Bentham IMF expects to recover A$30 to A$40 million from the
distribution, he said.

Some 250 other small Australian investors, not part of the
lawsuit, with similar claims can also expect to recover about 50
cents on the dollar, he said.  He said the Australian litigation
funding company spent nearly A$11 million to pursue the lawsuit.

Previous attempts to settle the class-action lawsuit were hampered
by the risk of jeopardizing insurance recoveries.  But in October,
a group of insurers agreed to pay A$48 million to settle
Australian investors' CDO claims.

"Securing this insurance settlement was a critical first step in
unraveling the estate," Mr. Ayres said, adding that the investor
settlements likely will bring total recoveries to more than A$550
million, "which is an excellent outcome for local creditors caught
up in what has been the largest corporate collapse in history."

Lehman Australia filed for the equivalent of bankruptcy protection
in Australia in 2009 with a plan that liquidators would sell off
the unit's assets and wind down the business.

The collapse of Lehman's New York-based holding company in
September 2008 triggered foreign bankruptcy proceedings for more
than 80 of the bank's far-flung affiliates.  Lehman has reached
settlements on intercompany claims with virtually all of its
foreign affiliates, including those in the U.K., Switzerland,
Japan and Hong Kong.

Lehman's New York-based holding company has paid creditors nearly
$50 billion since officially exiting from bankruptcy protection in
March 2012.  That figure is expected to grow to more than $80
billion, Lehman said earlier this summer.

Although Lehman's holding company is out of bankruptcy, the
remnants of its estate continue to wrangle with creditors over
billions of dollars in disputed claims.  The case is expected to
continue for several more years as a New York-based team
liquidates the estate's assets.


MANHATTAN GROUP: Recalls QuixelTM Baby Rattle Due to Choking Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 4, 2013
Posting date:             December 4, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Toys
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Choking Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-37061

Affected products: Manhattan Toy QuixelTM Baby Rattle

The recall involves the Manhattan Toy QuixelTM Baby Rattle.  The
plastic rattles feature coloured arches (red, orange, green, and
blue) with sliding beads on each of the single arches.  The arches
are held together by a single string of red, white, and blue
elastic.  The rattle measures about 12.7 centimetres (5 inches) in
diameter.  The product was sold with or without a box.

The coloured arches can break near the ends, releasing a small
part which can pose a choking hazard to small children.

Health Canada has not received any reports of incidents or
injuries in Canada.

For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them
keep children safe when they play with toys, see General toy
safety tips.

Approximately 4,100 units of the recalled products have been sold
in Canada and about 8,300 have been sold in the United States at
specialty toy and baby stores and online at firm's website.

The recalled toys were manufactured in China and sold from
September, 2011 through October, 2013 in Canada and the United
States.

Companies:

   Distributor     Manhattan Group LLC
                   Minneapolis
                   Minnesota
                   United States

Consumers should immediately take these rattles away from young
children and return it to the store where purchased for a full
refund.


MEDX INC: Owes OT Wages to Field Service Technicians, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Basterash, Carl R. Clark, in his capacity as Trustee in
Bankruptcy for the estate of Larry D. Gasper, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. MEDX, Inc., MEDX,
LLC, Sean McDermott, and Eric Ellingson, Case No. 1:13-cv-07814
(N.D. Ill., October 31, 2013) seeks monetary damages for the
Defendants' alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 for failure to pay overtime wages in compliance with
the FLSA.

The Plaintiffs also seek monetary damages for the Defendants'
alleged wrongful termination of Larry D. Gasper immediately
following his complaints to the Defendants relating to their
failure to pay overtime compensation.

MEDX, Inc. and MEDX, LLC, both headquartered in Arlington Heights,
Illinois, are providers of new, remanufactured and refurbished
nuclear medicine equipment, accessories and parts.  MEDX, LLC
acquired the assets of MEDX, Inc. in a transaction which became
effective December 31, 2011.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          David E. Stevens, Esq.
          Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
          WERMAN LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  msalas@flsalaw.com
                  dstevens@flsalaw.com
                  sarendt@flsalaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin J. Dolley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC
          34 N. Brentwood Blvd., Suite 207
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314)645-4100
          Facsimile: (314)647-4300
          E-mail: kevin@dolleylaw.com


NATIONAL BETTER: Sells Worthless & Junk Insurance, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
predatory insurance group deceived thousands of consumers by
selling "junk insurance" plans with low caps and extremely limited
benefits, advertising it as comprehensive medical insurance,
consumers claim in a class action.

Lead plaintiff Jacquelyn Weaver sued The National Better Living
Association, Allied Health Benefits, The United States Life
Insurance Company in the City of New York, Albert Cormier
Solutions and Health Lead Systems, in Alabama Federal Court.

Weaver claims the companies targeted consumers who couldn't afford
employer-sponsored plans or did not qualify for them, and
persuaded them to buy worthless insurance policies and pay
"membership" fees to the association.

"This action challenges a deceptive and predatory 'association
plan' insurance scam designed to enrich defendants at the expense
of vulnerable consumers seeking individual health insurance," the
lawsuit states.  "The scheme is carried out by setting up a
dubious 'group association,' which is nothing more than a
subterfuge to evade regulatory oversight.  Then, as part of the
association's purported 'group benefit,' the defendants
deceptively market and sell certain worthless, junk insurance
under the auspices of comprehensive, major medical insurance to
consumers who cannot afford or are ineligible for credible
coverage.  In truth, the purported 'coverage' is extremely limited
and essentially worthless, often leaving consumers with
substantial unpaid medical bills and medical debt.  This scheme,
which has reaped substantial profits for the defendants, was
played upon the named plaintiff and thousands of other vulnerable
consumers across the United States."

The Norcross, Ga.-based National Better Living Association claims
to be a membership association that offers health and wellness
services, including medical insurance group benefits.

"Defendant The National Better Living Association was formed under
dubious circumstances with loose membership criteria for the sole
(and improper) purpose of soliciting and selling health insurance
nationally to the insurance buying public," the complaint states.
"The health insurance sold by NBLA and its agents is purposefully
bundled with other purported 'benefits,' such as travel discounts
or prepaid legal services, to obfuscate the Association's actual
purpose of soliciting and selling health insurance under the
auspices of a 'group association' or 'group benefit,' thus
fostering a belief in consumers that the association coverage is
'group' coverage with benefits and protections similar to job-
based group insurance."  (Parentheses in complaint).

Allied Health Benefits, which shares an address with The National
Better Living Association, promoted and sold the association's
membership and insurance products through contracts with third-
party telemarketers.  Defendants Albert Cormier Solutions and
Health Lead Systems acted as telemarketing agents for the
association, according to the complaint.

Tennessee-based Albert Cormier was dissolved in 2011 and its
assets were distributed, according to publicly available
information.

Health Lead Systems, a Texas corporation, could not be reached at
its former phone number.

The association and its agents sold so-called health policies with
poor coverage and limited benefits to consumers in Alabama and
other states.  By buying the policies, underwritten by AIG
subsidiary The United States Life Insurance Company in the City of
New York, consumers automatically became members of the
association and were charged association fees on top of the
insurance premiums, according to the complaint.

Weaver claims the defendants targeted people like her, who could
not afford comprehensive medical insurance from major providers.

In February 2009, Weaver says, she entered her information on one
of the defendants' Web site and received a quote for a purported
group-based health insurance policy.

Weaver says she believed she was dealing with a legitimate health
insurance company which would provide her comprehensive health
coverage.  She claims the defendants intentionally misrepresented
the policies as inexpensive health plans with great coverage, when
in fact they were so limited as to be worthless.

The association claimed the insurance would provide full coverage
for all pre-existing conditions and would offer group benefits
such as a major medical insurance plan, according to the
complaint.

In reality, Weaver says, the buyers paid out-of-pocket premiums
for useless coverage and ended up with substantial medical bills.
She claims the defendants took advantage of state regulators' lack
of authority over "limited benefit plans" and association coverage
to carry out their misleading marketing scheme.

Hundreds of defrauded consumers have filed online complaints and
other lawsuits against the defendants over their misleading
practices, and some states have shut down the scheme, according to
the complaint.

In February 2012, Montana's Commissioner of Securities and
Insurance announced a settlement with the National Better Living
Association and several of its affiliates, which relieved Montana
victims of more than $170,000 in medical debt that resulted from
the company's allegedly illegal marketing of health insurance
policies.

Weaver seeks class certification, restitution and damages for RICO
violations, conspiracy, breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

The National Better Living Association did not reply to a request
for comment November 21, 2013.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Brent Irby, Esq.
          MCCALLUM, HOAGLUND, COOK & IRBY LLC
          905 Montgomery Highway, Suite 201
          Vestavia Hills, AL 35216
          Telephone: (205) 824-7767
          Facsimile: (205) 824-7768
          E-mail: birby@mhcilaw.com

The case is Weaver v. National Better Living Association, Inc.,
The, et al., Case No. 4:13-cv-02112-VEH, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama.


NEW YORK: Court Won't Dismiss Suit v. Cops Over Occupy Wall St.
---------------------------------------------------------------
PHEOBE BERG, TOSHIRO KIDA, JOHN RIVERA, DANYA ROZENTAL and
JOHNATHAN JETTER, individually and on behalf of a class of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK CITY POLICE
COMMISSIONER RAYMOND KELLY, CHIEF OF NEW YORK CITY POLICE
DEPARTMENT JOSEPH ESPOSITO, et al., Defendants, NO. 12 CIV. 3391
(TPG), (S.D.N.Y.) alleges that officers of the New York City
Police Department (NYPD) violated plaintiffs' rights under the
First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution and their rights under the Constitution of the State
of New York. The alleged violations occurred on November 30, 2011.
Plaintiffs attended a protest as part of the Occupy Wall Street
movement, and NYPD officers allegedly refused to allow plaintiffs
to exit a barricaded area for approximately two hours.

On March 6, 2013, the Defendants moved for judgment on the
pleadings for failure to state a claim and failure to fulfill
conditions precedent to suit.

District Judge Thomas P. Griesa denied Defendants' motion to
dismiss, saying it is not appropriate at this stage to rule on the
merits of the case.

"However, a summary judgment motion, or cross-summary judgment
motions, may be appropriate in order to avoid a drawn-out
litigation with full discovery and trial," Judge Griesa added.
"The court will confer with counsel."

A copy of the District Court's November 21, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/t74VqBfrom Leagle.com.


PNC BANK: Ticket-Padding Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
concertgoers who paid extra fees at the PNC Bank Arts Center in
Holmdel, N.J., will get up to $38 million in free and reduced
admission under a settlement given preliminary approval on Dec. 2.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Douglas Arpert in Trenton certified the
class in Katz v. Live Nation Inc. and set a Feb. 7 fairness
hearing on the settlement.

The plaintiffs claim that Live Nation, the amphitheater's
operator, added arbitrary and unreasonable charges labeled as
"parking fee," "ticket fee" and "charity fee" to the ticket cost.

The $6 parking fee was charged regardless of whether the patron
arrived alone in a car, came in a carpool or took public
transportation.

The ticket fee of $6 to $12 allegedly was never explained, and no
services or consideration were provided for it.

The charity fee ranged from 25 cents to $1.25, but Live Nation
refused to name an organization that received it, the plaintiffs
claim.

The suit called the ticket and charity fees "a contrivance for
defendants to arbitrarily inflate ticket prices."

In addition, Live Nation offered a "No Service Fee Wednesdays"
promotion for online tickets but continued to charge a parking fee
and increased the base admission price on those tickets, hiding
rather than eliminating the fees, the suit claimed.

Under the settlement, Live Nation would pay at least $105 to
362,928 class members eligible for relief for online purchases
through livenation.com or ticketmaster.com from June 23, 2003, to
June 15, 2011.

Each class member would get three, free, lawn tickets to select
events at the PNC Bank Arts Center or the Susquehanna Bank Center
in Camden.

Each ticket would have an average face value of $33.25, plus a $5
discount code for online purchase of a ticket to a Live Nation
concert in any venue.

Lead plaintiff Michael Katz of Freehold bought nine tickets to a
Blink 182 concert on June 6, 2009, for a base admission price of
$7.75 per ticket.  He also was charged $6 for parking and a $6.25
ticket fee, which also encompassed the charity fee, for a total of
$20 per ticket.

On June 10, 2009, he bought seven more tickets to the same
concert, in the same section, on No Service Fee Wednesday.  That
day, the base admission was $29 per ticket, with no ticket fee but
a $6 parking fee, which added up to $35 per ticket.

The plaintiffs claim the fees violate the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act and the New Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty
and Notice Act.  They sought an injunction against the parking,
ticket and charity fees and against misleading no-service-fee
promotions.  The suit also sought statutory and treble damages and
attorney fees.

No injunction was included in the settlement, reached after more
than three years of mediation with Stephen Orlofsky, a former
federal judge now with Blank Rome in Princeton.

The class was represented by Andrew Wolf and Henry Wolfe of the
Wolf Law Firm in North Brunswick and Olimpio Lee Squitieri --
lee@sfclasslaw.com -- of Squitieri & Fearon in New York.

Mr. Wolf says the settlement did not provide injunctive relief
because that was "not something [Live Nation] would agree to."  He
said of the case, "It was a hard settlement.  And we believe in
the end we got a fair and reasonable settlement for the class."

Live Nation's lawyer, Philip Sellinger of Greenberg Traurig in
Florham Park, declines to comment, saying only "We look forward to
the final resolution of this matter."?


POHANKA AUTO: Faces "Jones" Class Suit Over GAP Agreements
----------------------------------------------------------
Eunice and Barbara Jones filed a complaint against the Pohanka
Automotive Group and Suntrust Bank for allegedly violating and
conspiring to violate statutory and common law obligations.

The Plaintiffs and the Class are persons, who entered into
expensive so-called "GAP Agreements" when financing their motor
vehicle purchases.  The GAP Agreements were represented as "debt
cancellation agreements" which Maryland law defines as agreements
"between a credit grantor and a borrower which provide[] for
cancellation of the remaining loan balance in the event of theft
or total destruction of the collateral for the loan after
application of the proceeds of any insurance maintained on the
collateral for the loan."  However, the Plaintiffs allege, the GAP
Agreements sold to them and the Class are phony debt cancellation
agreements -- not true debt cancellation agreements.  The
Plaintiffs argue that these GAP Agreements promise benefits that
are illusory and their terms are illegal.

Pohanka Auto North, Inc., a Maryland entity headquartered in
Marlow Heights, Maryland, owns and operates car dealerships and
whose subsidiaries own and operate car dealerships located in the
state of Maryland.  Pohanka Auto North, Inc. is primarily engaged
in selling new and used vehicles to consumers.  Pohanka Chevrolet,
Inc., a Maryland corporation headquartered in Gaithersburg,
Maryland, owns and operates car dealerships and whose subsidiaries
own and operate car dealerships located in the state of Maryland.
Pohanka Chevrolet, Inc. is primarily engaged in selling used
vehicles to consumers.  Pohanka Hyundai, Inc., a Maryland entity
headquartered in Marlow Heights, Maryland, owns and operates car
dealerships and whose subsidiaries own and operate car dealerships
located in the state of Maryland.  Pohanka Hyundai, Inc. is
primarily engaged in selling new and used vehicles to consumers.

Pohanka Imports, Inc., a Maryland entity headquartered in Marlow
Heights, Maryland, owns and operates car dealerships and whose
subsidiaries own and operate car dealerships located in the state
of Maryland.  Pohanka Imports, Inc. is primarily engaged in
selling new and used vehicles to consumers.  Pohanka MB, Inc., a
Maryland entity headquartered in Salisbury, Maryland, owns and
operates car dealerships and whose subsidiaries own and operate
car dealerships located in the state of Maryland.  Pohanka MB,
Inc. is primarily engaged in selling new and used vehicles to
consumers.  Pohanka NMH, Inc., a Maryland entity headquartered in
Marlow Heights, Maryland, owns and operates car dealerships and
whose subsidiaries own and operate car dealerships located in the
state of Maryland.  Pohanka NMH, Inc. is primarily engaged in
selling new and used vehicles to consumers.

Pohanka of Clarksville, Inc., a Maryland entity headquartered in
Marlow Heights, Maryland, owns and operates car dealerships and
whose subsidiaries own and operate car dealerships located in the
state of Maryland.  Pohanka of Clarksville, Inc. is primarily
engaged in selling used vehicles to consumers.  Pohanka of
Salisbury, Inc., a Maryland entity headquartered in Marlow
Heights, Maryland, owns and operates car dealerships and whose
subsidiaries own and operate car dealerships located in the state
of Maryland.  Pohanka of Salisbury, Inc. is primarily engaged in
selling new and used vehicles to consumers.

Pohanka Oldsmobile-GMC Truck, Inc., a Maryland entity
headquartered in Marlow Heights, Maryland, owns and operates car
dealerships and whose subsidiaries own and operate car dealerships
located in the state of Maryland.  Pohanka Oldsmobile-GMC Truck,
Inc. is primarily engaged in selling used vehicles to consumers
and is used as a central administrative hub through which the
Pohanka Automotive Group shares information, forms, expenses and
carries out its scheme to deny consumers disclosures about
vehicles known to have been previously repossessed.

Pohanka SHO, Inc., a Maryland entity headquartered in Marlow
Heights, Maryland, owns and operates car dealerships and whose
subsidiaries own and operate car dealerships located in the state
of Maryland.  Pohanka SHO, Inc. is primarily engaged in selling
new and used vehicles to consumers.  Pohanka TM, Inc., a Maryland
entity headquartered in Marlow Heights, Maryland, owns and
operates car dealerships and whose subsidiaries own and operate
car dealerships located in the state of Maryland.  Pohanka TM,
Inc. is primarily engaged in selling new and used vehicles to
consumers.

Suntrust Bank is a Georgia entity headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia.  Suntrust regularly purchases and accepts assignment of
retail installment vehicle financing contracts originated by car
dealers in Maryland, including the retail installment contracts of
the Plaintiffs and numerous other vehicle purchasers in Maryland.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard S. Gordon, Esq.
          Martin E. Wolf, Esq.
          Benjamin H. Carney, Esq.
          GORDON & WOLF, CHTD.
          102 W. Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 402
          Towson, Maryland 21204
          Telephone: (410) 825-2300
          E-mail: rgordon@gordon-wolf.com
                  mwolf@gordon-wolf.com
                  bcarney@gordon-wolf.com

               - and -

          Mark H. Steinbach, Esq.
          O'TOOLE, ROTHWELL, NASSAU & STEINBACH
          1350 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Ste 200
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 775-1550
          E-mail: writemhs@gmail.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
          Justin A. Browne, Esq.
          Sam M. Collings, Esq.
          JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
          1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165
          Baltimore, Maryland 21208
          Telephone: (410) 653-3200
          E-mail: RJenner@myadvocates.com
                  JBrowne@myadvocates.com
                  scollings@myadvocates.com

The case is Jones, et al. v. Pohanka Auto North, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 8:13-cv-03238-DKC (D. Md., Oct 31, 2013), in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt).


ROYAL CROWN: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Investor Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Hicks, writing for CBC News, reports that more than 460
investors from across the country hoped to cash in on undiscovered
gold in British Columbia's interior.

But instead of striking it rich, they are suing the mining company
for millions in a class action lawsuit after they say their money
disappeared and the Canada Revenue Agency ruled their income tax
deductions invalid.

"It's affected my ability to enjoy some of my retirement plans in
terms of travel, improvements around the house, acting as a
safeguard for my old age," Ed Walker of Winnipeg, who says he lost
tens of thousands of dollars in the alleged scheme, told the CBC
News I-Team in an interview.

Reynold Robertson, the lawyer representing investors, estimates
the lawsuit is worth at least C$10 million.

The investors --  who are mostly from Saskatchewan and Manitoba,
with some from Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and New
Brunswick -- are suing Royal Crown Gold Reserve Inc., its
president Douglas Stewart Scott and his associate Claude Taillefer
for deceit, misrepresentation, and breach of contract.   It also
said the prominent legal firm, McMillan LLP, and one of its
lawyers, Michael Friedman, were negligent.

"Our motto -- let's get the gold!" is how Scott signed off in a
2009 letter addressed to Royal Crown investors.

In order to get to the gold, the company needed money.  Through
sales agents, investors said Royal Crown sold them parts of the
mine at C$100,000 per unit.

Investors allege that Royal Crown, Messrs. Scott and Taillefer
lied to them about the mine's potential.

According to the claim, they only had to put down C$25,000 in cash
and the remaining C$75,000 could be covered by a promissory note,
which investors would pay back once the mine started making money.

In addition, investors said they paid four per cent interest per
year on the promissory note plus administration costs.  They also
said they expected to receive at least C$3,000 per year in
royalties.

But investing in a larger-than-life pot of gold wasn't the only
enticement for investors, according the lawsuit.  A document
produced by Royal Crown says investment in the mine, located 10
kilometres southwest of Cranbrook, B.C., qualified as a "Canadian
development expense" under the Income Tax Act.

This led investors to believe they could deduct 30 per cent of
their investment from their income taxes and could continue to do
so on a declining basis "until the entire cost [had] been written
off."

                     Tax shelter 'inducement'

"It was considered to be quite an inducement," said Mr. Robertson,
the Saskatoon lawyer representing investors.

Investors said sales agents provided them with a copy of a letter
from McMillan LLP addressed to Royal Crown and its president,
Mr. Scott, which said the tax write-off was valid.

In a letter dated Dec. 5, 2005, the firm wrote, "Based on the
facts outlined above, we are of the opinion that amounts paid by
investors to acquire legal and beneficial ownership of the Mining
Claim should constitute a 'Canadian development expense' for the
purpose of section 66.2 of the Tax Act."

One of Friedman and McMillan's lawyers, Keith Kilback of Kanuka
Thuringer LLP, said it "would not be appropriate to comment on the
matter at this time" due to ongoing court actions.

However, in Friedman and McMillan's statement of defense, he wrote
the letter was targeted to Royal Crown only and did not consider
any tax advantages that potential investors might receive.

The statement of defense stated that at the time the letter was
written, Royal Crown had not decided if it would sell parts of the
mine to investors and the law firm "never authorized the use of
its name or its opinion letters . . . in connection with the
marketing, promotion, or sale of Mining Claims."

"I thought there was a bona fide opportunity here," said
Mr. Walker.

The 65 year-old retiree purchased two units of Royal Crown, paying
out C$40,000 plus interest charges and administrative fees of
C$7,000.

After The CRA audited his tax returns, Mr. Walker said officials
ruled his deductions invalid.  Mr. Walker had to pay them back
with interest, totalling C$55,000.

Gold not uncharted territory for investor

Gold mine investment was not uncharted territory for Mr. Walker.
He had successfully invested in gold twice before.

But the retired telecommunications worker -- who has accepted that
his investment Royal Crown is gone -- is still hurt by the alleged
scheme.

"[I'm] very upset.  I don't necessarily show my emotions to a
degree.  But it's a loss of a fair amount of money," he said.

Mr. Walker is one of the investors already registered in the
lawsuit. He has not heard from Royal Crown or Scott since March
2012.

CBC News has tried to contact Royal Crown Gold Reserve Inc., as
well as Scott and Taillefer, but was unable to reach them.

In their statement of defense filed in 2010, they said "the
plaintiffs have not suffered any loss except their original
investment which is still an interest in property which Scott
intends to develop as a producing gold mine."

It goes on to state, "What the purchaser is now saying is that
such an investment does not meet his high expectations both from a
tax point of view and mining point of view and that he is desirous
of getting his money back, although he has no equitable or legal
right to do so."

          Some investors went bankrupt: lawsuit lawyer

Investors purchased the mine claims through sale agents.
According to the lawsuit, Winnipeg alternative investment adviser
Neil Friesen sold the majority of Royal Crown claims, 58.28 per
cent.  Saskatoon-based CDS Consulting Inc sold 32.23 per cent.

CBC News reached out to Mr. Friesen but has yet to hear back.  CDS
Consulting has since gone out of business and its chief executive
officer, Dean Stanzel, declined an interview request.

For some investors, the consequences have been devastating,
according to lawsuit lawyer Robertson.

"Some of them have gone broke, gone bankrupt, at an age and time
in life when it's the worst time to go bankrupt," he said.

Mr. Walker said when Mr. Scott came to Winnipeg to meet with
investors in December 2009, some of them were so worried about
their money, they were in tears.

They "were depending on this as an income stream for their
retirement and they're in very bad shape," Mr. Walker said.

"It's hurtful to see that go on.  I really think something needs
to be done about this."

                  Investor wants accountability

Mr. Walker said when investments fall apart, as he alleges has
happened in the case of Royal Crown, there is not enough
accountability.

"If you look to the U.S., you'll see there's much more aggressive
action on any of these kinds of activities, more so than we have
in Canada.  I think there's an opportunity there to make some
improvements to the public," he said.

The investors' lawyer said retirees are "prey" for potentially
high-risk and fraudulent schemes.

He believes, with an aging population, that we will see more cases
like Royal Crown.

"Retirees are looking to make investments and hopefully enhance
their retirement benefits as they go forward," said Mr. Robertson.

                  Investor held gold in his hand

Mr. Walker believes that some work was done to try and get the
mine operating.

He recalls the December 2009 meeting at the Clarion Hotel in
Winnipeg, when Scott tried to explain the progress of the mine.
Mr. Walker says Mr. Scott showed off a sample of gold that was
extracted from a road the company built to the mine.
Contact the I-Team

"Actually, I held it in my hand . . . several ounces of gold in a
pill bottle.  That was just what was presented as evidence there's
some progress, there's some gold even on the surface without
digging any further."

Through various letters, Mr. Walker said the company relayed
numerous reasons to investors as to why the mine was not producing
any gold.

"It was a zigzag pattern of 'gee whiz' frustration and then a bit
of euphoria -- 'We're going to be there, let's go, let's go, let's
hang on a little longer.'  And then at the end, disappointed," he
said.

Mr. Walker said he has not heard from Royal Crown since March
2012.  He said, to his knowledge, that little vial of gold was the
only gold ever extracted by the company.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

Commercial and corporate lawyer Maureen Ward from Bennett Jones
LLP said no amount of regulation can protect individual investors
alone.

"There's no real way to prevent other than to raise awareness,"
she said, adding that she believes this lawsuit is significant due
to the millions at stake.


S.E.B. SERVICE: Conditional Class Cert. Granted in Guards' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amadou Barry and Gungor Akcelik, plaintiffs in a putative
collective and class action, worked as security guards at S.E.B.
Service of New York, a company owned by Robert DiNozzi.  The
Plaintiffs sued SEB, alleging it violated the Fair Labor Standard
Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., the New York Labor Law
Sections 652, 663, Section 190 et seq., and New Jersey law by
failing to pay overtime and other required compensation to
similarly situated undercover and uniformed guards. Pending before
the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification
of their FLSA claims for nationwide classes of uniformed and
undercover guards.

The Honorable Sandra L. Townes referred the motion to Magistrate
Judge Joan M. Azracks for decision.

In a November 22, 2013 Memorandum and Order available at
http://is.gd/bFOf7ofrom Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge Azracks said
conditional certification for all undercover and uniformed guards
is warranted because the Plaintiffs' assertions that they were
paid at improper rates suggests that the guards are similarly
situated with respect to this practice and to Plaintiffs'
allegation of a general policy to deny overtime.

The Court conditionally certifies plaintiffs' claims based on
hours shorting and payment of overtime at improper rates.

Magistrate Judge Azracks ordered the parties to provide by
December 11, 2013, a revised proposed notice form to the Court and
for the Plaintiffs to file their amended complaint.

The case is AMADOU BARRY, Individually and on Behalf of All Other
Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. S.E.B. SERVICE OF NEW
YORK, INC., and ROBERT DINOZZI, Defendants, NO. 11-CV-5089 (SLT)
(JMA), (E.D. N.Y.).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Putative Class:

   Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
   Suzanne B. Leeds, Esq.
   Virginia & Ambinder LLP
   111 Broadway #1403
   New York City, NY 10006
   Telephone:(212) 943-9080

        - and -

   Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
   Jessica L. Parada, Esq.
   Leeds Brown Law, P.C.
   One Old Country Road, Suite 347
   Carle Place, NY 11514-1851
   Telephone: (800) 585-4658

Richard J. Rabin -- rrabin@akingump.com -- Anastasia Kerdock --
kerdock@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, New
York, NY, Attorneys for Defendants.


SAFEGUARD OPERATIONS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Alexander, individually and/or on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Safeguard Operations LLC; and Safeguard
Storage Properties, LLC d.b.a. Safeguard Self Storage, 1:13-cv-
06061-RRM-JMA (E.D.N.Y., October 31, 2013) is brought on behalf of
a putative class and collective action members, who were or are
employed by Safeguard Storage Properties, LLC and Safeguard
Operations LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Safeguard Properties,
both doing business under the trademark of "Safeguard Self
Storage."

Ms. Alexander alleges that she was denied minimum wage
compensation, "gap time" compensation, overtime premium
compensation for hours in excess of 40 in a workweek, and
reimbursement for the cost of purchasing and laundering mandatory
uniforms.

Safeguard Operations and Safeguard Properties are Delaware
domestic corporations doing business in New York and are
headquartered Atlanta, Georgia.  Safeguard Operations is an alter-
ego affiliate of Safeguard Properties with the same ownership,
management and corporate offices.  Safeguard operates 63 storage
facilities in six states: Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, New
Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.  There are 23 storage
facilities in New York State.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew B. Stoll, Esq.
          STOLL, GLICKMAN & BELLINA, LLP
          475 Atlantic Avenue, Third Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11217
          Telephone: (718) 852-3710
          Facsimile: (718) 852-3586
          E-mail: astoll@stollglickman.com


SAM SCHWARTZ: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
William Miller, Individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Sam Schwartz Engineering, PLLC, Sam
Schwartz, and John Does #1-10, Case No. 1:13-cv-07758-PGG
(S.D.N.Y., October 31, 2013) alleges that the Plaintiff and the
Class are allegedly entitled to, among other things, unpaid wages
from the Defendants for overtime work for which they did not
receive overtime premium pay as required by law.

Sam Schwartz Engineering, PLLC, is a New York corporation
headquartered in New York.  Sam Schwartz is an owner or part owner
and principal of Sam Schwartz Engineering.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Steven Samuel, Esq.
          David Stein, Esq.
          SAMUEL & STEIN
          38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 563-9884
          Facsimile: (212) 563-9870
          E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David Lenefsky, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID LENEFSKY
          One Columbus Place, Suite S48C
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 586-0088
          Facsimile: (212) 586-0066
          E-mail: david@lenefskylaw.com


SEQWATER: Tully Urges Flood Victims to Join Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Satellite reports that flood victims have been urged by
Cr Paul Tully to sign up to a potential AUD1 billion class action
that could see them compensated for damage to their homes and
businesses.

The class action, launched by litigation backer IMF Australia and
law firm Maurice Blackburn against the Queensland Government,
Sunwater and Seqwater, is now certain to go ahead.

Cr Tully has also rejected criticism of the class action by
Premier Campbell Newman.

Mr. Newman warned those signing up for the class action that
lawyers might end up being the major beneficiaries of the class
action.  He said "I would hate to see any sort of payout to them
(victims), if that ultimately happened, being gobbled up in legal
fees."

But Cr Tully said "Maurice Blackburn and IMF are on a maximum
takeout of about 30%".

"Campbell Newman was suggesting that if people get involved they
might end up with nothing, but he is just trying to scare people
out of lodging," Cr Tully said.

"But 70% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

"I am encouraging people to sign up because this is the only
opportunity for residents and business owners to be compensated
for their losses caused by the mismanagement of the Wivenhoe Dam
in 2011.

"The flood commission of inquiry found that the dam had not been
managed in accordance with the manual, and that will form one
element of the claim against the State Government."

IMF Australia and Maurice Blackburn are the ones taking the risk
on behalf of flood victims.

"They are in for millions of dollars already," Cr Tully said.

"There are very few flood victims who would be able to employ
engineers, hire experts and hydrologists from overseas and put
together a legal case against the State Government.

"Clive Palmer is about the only person in Queensland who could run
his own legal action."

Goodna was the hardest-hit suburb in south-east Queensland in
January 2011 with a total of 600 flood-affected properties.

Cr Tully lost his family home in the flood and said the
announcement the class action would go ahead was a "major ray of
hope for all flood victims".

He called on the State Government to enter negotiations in good
faith for a settlement of the class action without the need for
expensive legal trial proceedings.

"The State Government must act as a model litigant to ensure all
flood victims are fairly compensated for their losses," Cr Tully
said.

Flood victims must sign up for the class action by February 28,
2014.

Meetings for registrants will be held on Sunday, December 15, at
The Greek Club, South Brisbane, from 1:00 p.m., and on Monday,
December 16, at the Metro Hotel International, Ipswich, starting
at 7:00 p.m.

For more information about the meetings or to register for the
floods class action, visit www.imf.com.au/wivenhoe or phone
1800016464.


SRAM LLC: Recalls Derailleurs for Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
SRAM, LLC, of Chicago, Ill., announced a voluntary recall of about
1,700 bicycle chain derailleurs.  Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The rear derailleur's rear pivot pin can loosen or dislodge
causing the rear derailleur to jam or interfere with the wheel,
posing a fall hazard.

The firm has received reports of 43 incidents in the U.S. with one
report of scrapes and bruises.

The SRAM RED WiFLi Rear Derailleur is a device that moves a
bicycle chain gears on the rear wheel.  The name SRAM RED and the
serial number of the derailleur are located on the back of the
inner pulley wheel cage plate and visible when looking thru the
spokes of the bicycle wheel.  Serial numbers of affected products
begin with one of the following four-digit codes:

   -- 31T2, 37T2, 43T2, 49T2, 03T3, 09T3;
   -- 32T2, 38T2, 44T2, 50T2, 04T3, 10T3;
   -- 33T2, 39T2, 45T2, 51T2, 05T3, 11T3;
   -- 34T2, 40T2, 46T2, 52T2, 06T3;
   -- 35T2, 41T2, 47T2, 01T3, 07T3;
   -- 36T2, 42T2, 78T2, 02T3, 08T3

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/NCJ2Oa

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
specialty bicycle retailers nationwide from September 2012 to
November 2013 for approximately $380 as an aftermarket
installation.  They were also sold as original equipment on new
high-end bicycles.

Consumers should immediately stop using bicycles with the recalled
SRAM RED derailleurs and return the bicycles to the place of
purchase or any SRAM dealer for a free replacement, including
installation.  Consumers who bought the derailleurs as a stand-
alone product can take them to the place of purchase for a free
replacement or, for those who can make the equipment change
themselves, contact SRAM for instructions on how to return the
recalled product for the free replacement.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Kentucky Appeals Court Reverses Class Cert. Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Adkins, writing for Georgetown News-Graphic, reports that the
Kentucky Court of Appeals has reversed a Scott County circuit
judge's action certifying a class action in six Toyota employees'
lawsuit against the company.  Further, the court said Scott County
Circuit Judge Rob Johnson improperly reopened the case in 2007.


UNITED STATES: Cobell Suit Settlement Checks May Go Out in 2014
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lenzy Krehbiel-Burton, writing for Tulsa World, reports that for
some Native Americans across Oklahoma, the check will be in the
mail next year.

On Dec. 2, the Garden City Group, a court-appointed, third-party
claims administrator used in the Cobell vs. Salazar federal class-
action lawsuit, announced that settlement checks for the more than
500,000 trust administration class members could start going out
in early 2014, pending completion of identification confirmation
of all eligible class action members.

Earlier this year, the Garden City Group announced its intentions
to distribute settlement funds by year's end, but under the terms
of the settlement agreement, it cannot do so until all eligible
class-action members are identified.  Final eligibility appeal
paperwork was due in September.

The members of the trust administration class stand to make at
least $800 each, plus a share of the balance of the settlement
funds as calculated by the Department of the Interior using a
formula based on the activity in the individual trust accounts.

Once the eligible recipients are determined, it will take the
Department of the Interior about a month to calculate each
plaintiff's settlement amount, then an additional three weeks to
print and mail the checks.

Between its two beneficiary classes, the Cobell settlement will
pay out $1.5 billion to Native Americans across the country who
had ownership interest in land or funds held in trust by the
federal government generated by economic activity on trust land
between 1985 and Sept. 30, 2009.  Among the recipients are an
estimated 50,000 Oklahomans.

The 327,957 members of the first class each received $1,000 in
December 2012 for the historical accounting portion of the
settlement.

The remaining $1.9 billion will used to establish a fund for the
voluntary consolidation of trust land where the ownership has been
fractured as land was passed from generation to generation.  Up to
$60 million of the fund can be used to provide scholarships for
American Indians and Alaska Natives to attend college or vocation
school.


VIKING RANGE: Faces Class Action Over Refrigerator Defect
---------------------------------------------------------
Martin Bricketto, writing for Law360, reports that New Jersey
consumers have hit appliance maker Viking Range LLC and parent
company The Middleby Corp. with a putative class action over
allegedly defective door hinges on certain Viking refrigerators
that they say put users in harm's way.

In a Nov. 27 complaint in Morris County Superior Court, two
couples target 11 Viking refrigerator model numbers and cite
recalls that the U.S. Consumer Safety Product Commission announced
in 2009 and this year.  Viking, which Middleby acquired in
December 2012, didn't timely report the alleged defect, and
repairs after the first recall often failed to correct the
problem, according to the complaint.

The suit alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
and the New Jersey Products Liability Act and calls for a class of
New Jersey residents who have been injured or shouldered damages
because of the door hinges.

"[T]he refrigerators and its component parts were defective as to
the design and manufacture, in that the bolts and hinges used to
hold the refrigerator doors on the unit itself were defective and
would sheer off, causing the large heavy doors to fall off," the
complaint said, adding that, "Defendant Viking's refrigerators
were unsafe for their intended use as they caused an unreasonably
dangerous condition."

A Middleby representative did not immediately return a request for
comment.

The named plaintiffs are Ronald J. Piemonte, Suzzanne E. Piemonte,
Marianne A. Willis and William J. Willis.  Besides Viking and
Middleby, the suit also names Oberg & Lindquist Corp., a retail
kitchen and appliance center, and two appliance repair companies,
Morris County Appliance Repair and A & E Appliances & Repairs, as
defendants.

In 2009, Viking reported to the CPSC that door hinges on certain
refrigerators made between July 1999 and April 2006 had been
reported to loosen, causing the door to separate from the unit,
according to the complaint.  Viking had received 57 reports of
doors detaching, including four reports of injuries, the complaint
said.

The CPSC that year announced a recall of 45,000 Viking
refrigerators, and Viking in 2011 agreed to pay a $450,000 penalty
over allegations that it knew about the manufacturing defect for
several years before reporting it to the regulator, according to
the complaint.

Earlier this year, CSPC announced another recall of about 31,000
Viking refrigerators sold between November 2005 and August 2012
over problems with detached doors, the complaint said.  Viking had
received another 39 complaints of falling refrigerator doors,
including 12 reports of injuries such as fractures, bruises or
cuts, according to the complaint.

Plaintiff Suzzanne Piemonte claims that she was injured this year
when the door of her Viking refrigerator detached and landed on
top of her.  Two years earlier, one of the defendant repair
companies had purportedly fixed the refrigerator in compliance
with the 2009 recall, according to the complaint.  Ms. Piemonte
didn't break any bones, but the accident worsened other existing
medical conditions, the complaint said.

An attorney for the plaintiffs did not immediately return a
request for comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Kevin E. Barber --
kbarber@n-blaw.com -- of Niedweske Barber Hager LLC.

Counsel information for Viking and Middleby was not immediately
available.

The case is Piemonte et al v. Viking Range LLC et al, case number
L-3145-13 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County.


VIOLIN MEMORY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Dec. 2
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
Violin Memory, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District
of California, and docketed under 13-cv-05515, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Violin Memory between
September 27, 2013 and November 21, 2013 both dates inclusive.
This class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged
violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Violin Memory securities
during the Class Period, you have until January 27, 2014 to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy
of the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Violin Memory develops and supplies memory-based storage systems
for high-speed applications, servers and networks in the Americas,
Europe and the Asia Pacific.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Violin Memory's statements about the Company's projected revenues
for its flash memory sales were based on materially flawed
projections; (2) the Company could not in fact reach the revenue
goals it had touted to investors and, (3) as a result of the
foregoing, Violin Memory's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On November 21, 2013, the company announced its financial results
for the third fiscal quarter of 2014.  The company reported a
higher-than-expected net loss of $0.85 cents a share, and sales of
$28.3 million, which were below analysts' expectations.  In
addition, the company provided revenue guidance between $30
million and $32 million for its 2014 fiscal fourth quarter --
well-below consensus estimates in the range of $44 million.

During the earnings call that followed the announcement of
financial results, the Company's officers were barraged with
questions regarding how the Company could have missed its prior
guidance by such a large margin, and also questions regarding why
the Company did not inform investors earlier in time regarding the
large gap between the sales and revenue figures touted by the
Company in presentations to investors and the actual results.  On
this news, Violin Memory's stock price fell $3.16 per share or
more than 47%, from its $6.00 closing price on November 21, 2013,
trading as low as $3.18 per share in intraday trading on November
22, 2013.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.


WERNER CO: Accord in "Clemans" Suit Gets Final Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ronald B. Leighton granted final approval of class
settlement in the case captioned LLOYD CLEMANS, on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated persons and entities,
Plaintiffs, v. NEW WERNER CO. d/b/a WERNER CO., a Delaware
corporation; NEW WERNER HOLDING CO (DE), LLC d/b/a WERNER HOLDING
CO.; a Delaware corporation; LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC., a North
Carolina corporation; and LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC., a North
Carolina corporation Defendants, CASE NO. 3:12-CV-05186, (W.D.
Wash.)

The Settlement Class is defined as: all individual persons or
entities in the United States who currently own a Werner Model
S2208 or S2210 steel attic ladder designated as Marks 1, 2, 3 or 4
(an attic ladder which was manufactured from September 2003 to
September 2005 and contains one or more cast zinc hinges).

The Settlement provides all eligible Class Members with a free
comparable replacement ladder shipped directly to their homes. The
straight-forward claims process applies equally to all Class
Members, and assistance is available -- from Class Counsel and the
Claims Administrator -- for Class Members who need help in
establishing eligibility for relief under the Settlement.

A copy of the District Court's November 22, 2013 Order and Final
Judgment is available at http://is.gd/1mJYIyfrom Leagle.com.


YELP INC: Reviewers' Action May Set Precedence for Similar Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pierre Zarokian, writing for Search Engine Journal, reports that a
recent class action lawsuit filed in California could result in
getting unpaid wages for Yelpers, or Yelp Reviewers.  The lawsuit
states that the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") law has been
violated by Yelp.  Although the lawsuit seems ridiculous, the
attorneys of the case believe otherwise.  If the lawsuit is
successful it could set precedence for numerous similar lawsuits.
Next, people might sue any site that accepts free reviews or guest
article posts!

Mr. Zarokian spoke to Daniel Bernath, one of the attorneys at "The
Yelp Class-Action Law Firm," the law firm created just to bring
this lawsuit forward.  He felt that Yelp is violating current laws
by the way it treats its reviewers.  The lawsuit claims that
reviewers are encouraged to write free reviews and  instead of
payment, they are awarded badges, such as "Elite" Status, "First
to Review," "Review of the Day," "Duke," "Duchess, " "King," and
"Queen."  In addition, Yelp often holds parties for their Elite
reviewers where they offer them free drinks and food.  The lawsuit
also claims Yelp has a cult like environment.

Mr. Zarokian reached out to Yelp for commenting.  They called the
lawsuit "frivolous" and think the court system will be wasting its
time. Here is what their PR rep had to say:

"The argument that voluntarily using a free service equates to an
employment relationship is completely without merit, unsupported
by law and contradicted by the dozens of websites like Yelp that
consumers use to help one another."

Mr. Zarokian also talked to a couple of attorneys to get some
legal expertise regarding the chances of this lawsuit prevailing.

Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University School of
Law, feels that:

"This lawsuit is doomed to fail.  It's a broad-based attack on the
user-generated content (UGC) ecosystem, and there's no chance that
courts will say that every author publishing their content online
are employees of the publishing websites."

However Mr. Goldman feels that the Elite users may pose a more
serious challenge, as "its Elite members check off more factors on
the various multi-factor tests for classifying employees."

Mr. Goldman has written about a similar case.  In 2012, the
Huffington Post won a case brought forward by unpaid contributors.

Aaron Minc, a Defamation Attorney, has a detailed analysis of this
case on his blog.  He states:

"Yelpers sign up for Yelp pursuant to its "terms of use" and are
not "hired" or "fired."  Yelpers write content how, when, and
where they want.  Finally, Yelp users are neither given nor
promised any formal monetary compensation."

If this lawsuit prevails, many online review websites and news
websites that accept guest posts will need to revise their
business practices.  Review websites may actually have to start
paying reviewers a small fee or come up with some solid proof
agreements with their reviewers to avoid getting sued in the
future.

For those interested in joining the lawsuit or to learn more about
it, visit http://www.yelpclassaction.info


                             *********

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  * * *