CAR_Public/131211.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, December 11, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 245

                             Headlines


AAHA FOODS: Recalls Naturo Fruit Due to Undeclared Sulphites
ACADEMY SPORTS: Recalls Girls BCG Hooded Windsuits
ADVANTAGE HEALTH: Recalls Organic Traditions Dark Chocolate
ANZ BANK: Class Action Over Excessive Fees Begins in Australia
ARIAD PHARMA: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action

AVNET INC: Expects to Claim Up to $4MM in LCD Suit Settlement
B&G FOODS: Bid to Junk Suit Over Pirate Brands' Products Pending
BURGER KING: Faces Suit Over "Unsolicited" Advertisements
CANADA: Lawyers Say 60s Scoop Class Action Isn't Legal Issue
CANADIAN TIRE: Recalls Yardworks Electric Leaf Blower

CARFUL COMPANY: Unlicenced Laser Hair Removal Products Recalled
CASH AMERICA: To Pay Up to $36MM to Settle Ga. Suit Over Loans
DGSE COMPANIES: Accord in TX Suit Won Final Approval in October
DR HORTON: Can Require Employees to Sign Arbitration Agreements
EUROSTYLE: Recalls Perruzi Dresses Due to Flammability Hazard

EUROTRADE IMPORT-EXPORT: Recalls Edelweiss Fine Dark Chocolate
FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: March 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
FAMILY DOLLAR: Still Faces Wage and Hour Suits by Store Managers
FAMILY DOLLAR: Labor Suits Still Pending in State Courts
FAMILY DOLLAR: Mulls Options for "Scott" Lawsuit in N.C.

FREDERICK'S OF HOLLYWOOD: To Pay $365MM to Settle "Weber" Suit
FREDERICK'S OF HOLLYWOOD: Reaches Accord in "Harvey-Smith" Suit
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Still Faces Suits Over Underwriting Practices
HAWAII: Faces Class Action Over Inadequate Foster Parent Payments
HERBALIFE LTD: Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Bostick" Lawsuit

HURONIA REGIONAL: Judge Approves Abuse Class Action Settlement
INDEPENDENCE ENERGY: Second Circuit Revives TCPA Class Action
INGRAM MICRO: May Claim Up to $7MM in LCD Panel Suit Accord
INTEL CORP: Awaits Certification Ruling in AMD-Patterned Suit
INTEL CORP: 2014 Trial in High Tech Employee Antitrust Suit

INTEL CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal McAfee Shareholder Suit Ruling
LEAR CORP: Continues to Face Antitrust Suit in Michigan
LEAR CORP: Awaits Ruling on New Motion to Block Antitrust Claims
LEFT COAST: Recalls Lotus Foods Noodles Due to Mould
MANULIFE FINANCIAL: Responds to Caribbean Insurance Class Action

MCINNES COOPER: Settles Class Action Over Donation Tax Program
NORTHERN TRUST: Still Faces Suit Over Securities Lending Program
NOVA SCOTIA, CANADA: Sydney Tar Pond Certification Overturned
QUEEN CITY INVESTMENTS: Faces $50-Mil. Investor Class Action
RAMBUS INC: Paid $32.2MM to Indemnify Officers Facing Suits

RCI ENTERTAINMENT: Stripper Files Minimum Wage Class Action
SAINT JOHN, CANADA: Estabrooks' Sex Abuse Victims File Class Suit
SANTA MARIA: Recalls Prosciutto Ham Due to Listeria Risk
STARBUCKS CORP: Settles Class Action Over Hidden Coffee Charges
STOCKPOT INC: Recalls 1,864 Cases of Chicken Noodle Soup

TEREX CORP: Faces ERISA, Securities & Derivative Lawsuits
US AIRWAYS: Shareholder Lawsuit Over AMR Merger Pending
WELLPOINT INC: Summary Judgment in Suit v. Anthem Deferred
WELLPOINT INC: Out-of-Network "UCR" Rate Suit Still Pending
WEST BANCORP: Still Faces Suit Alleging Usurious Acts

XCEL ENERGY: Katrina-Related Lawsuit by "Comer" Now Closed


                             *********


AAHA FOODS: Recalls Naturo Fruit Due to Undeclared Sulphites
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 2, 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:           AAHA Foods
Distribution:             Alberta, Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8487

Affected products: 75 g. Naturo Fruit to go! Blueberry &
Pomegranate Fruit Bar with Code No: 2258


ACADEMY SPORTS: Recalls Girls BCG Hooded Windsuits
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Academy Sports + Outdoors, of Katy, Texas, announced a voluntary
recall of about 6,600 Girls BCG Hooded Windsuits.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The hooded windsuits have drawstrings in the hood around the neck
area that pose a strangulation hazard to young children.  In
February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines about drawstrings in
children's upper outerwear.  In 1997, those guidelines were
incorporated into a voluntary standard.  Then, in July 2011, based
on the guidelines and voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal
regulation.  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 involves Girls BCG Hooded Windsuits in sizes XS, S, M
and L.  The windsuits are made of water-resistant fabric and
include a jacket and pants.  The jacket has a front zip closure
and elastic cuffs.  The windsuits come in pink with black on the
jacket at the top shoulder and a black side strip on the pants,
gray with blue on the jacket at the top shoulder and a blue side
strip on the pants, and purple with lighter purple on the jacket
at the top shoulder and a pink strip on the pants.  The style
number is SGBCGA9001 and the following SKUs:

  Size      SKU
  ----      ---
  XS        0024229635, 0024229486, 0024229569
  S         0024229643, 0024229494, 0024229577
  M         0024229650, 0024229502, 0024229585
  L         0024229668, 0024229510, 0024229593

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Academy Sports + Outdoors stores and on the firm's
website at: http://www.academy.combetween September 2013 and
October 2013 for about $20.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstring from the
windsuits to eliminate the hazard, or return the garment to the
place of purchase for a full refund.


ADVANTAGE HEALTH: Recalls Organic Traditions Dark Chocolate
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 6, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Advantage Health Matters Inc.
Distribution:             Possibly National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Affected products:

   -- 227 g Organic Traditions Dark Chocolate Hazelnuts with
      8 54260 00701 5 UPC;

   -- 110 g Organic Traditions Dark Chocolate Hazelnuts with
      8 54260 01400 6 UPC;

   -- Organic Traditions Dark Chocolate Hazelnuts which is sold in
      Bulk;

   -- 227 g Organic Traditions Dark Chocolate Hazelnuts with Chili
      with 8 54260 00703 9 UPC;

   -- 110 g Organic Traditions Dark Chocolate Hazelnuts with Chili
      with 8 54260 01450 1 UPC;

   -- Organic Traditions Dark Chocolate Hazelnuts with Chili which
      is sold in bulk;

   -- 227 g Organic Traditions Dark Chocolate Almonds with
      8 54260 00705 3 UPC;

   -- 110 g Organic Traditions Dark Chocolate Almonds;

   -- Organic Traditions Dark Chocolate Almonds which is sold in
      Bulk;

   -- 227 g Organic Traditions Dark Chocolate Almonds with chili
      with 8 54260 00707 7 UPC;

   -- 110 g. Organic Traditions Dark Chocolate Almonds with chili
      with 8 54260 01550 8 UPC; and

   -- Organic Traditions Dark Chocolate Almonds with chili which
      is sold in bulk

Advantage Health Matters is recalling Organic Traditions brand
Dark Chocolate Hazelnuts and Dark Chocolate Almonds from the
marketplace because they contain milk which is not declared on the
label.  People with an allergy to milk should not consume the
recalled products described below.

The following products have been sold nationally.

If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of this product.

The recall was triggered by a Canadian Food Inspection Agency
(CFIA) test result.  The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products.  If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing the recalled
product from the marketplace.


ANZ BANK: Class Action Over Excessive Fees Begins in Australia
--------------------------------------------------------------
Agence France-Presse reports that Australia's largest-ever
consumer class action lawsuit, in which customers of several banks
are fighting for the return of more than AU$240 million (US$220
million) in fees, began in Melbourne on Dec. 3.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn is representing some 43,500 ANZ Bank
customers who believe a range of charges they paid were excessive,
in the first of several hearings planned as part of the case.

Their lawyers argue that the honor, dishonor, late payment and
over-limit fees -- usually an AU$25 to AU$35 charge -- were
exorbitant and unfair penalties rather than fees for services, and
did not reflect the actual cost to the banks.

An honor fee is levied when an informal overdraft facility is
exceeded.  A dishonor fee is charged when a regular payment to
another account cannot go through for lack of funds.

"So you might be a dollar over on your account or a day late in
your payment and the banks will slug you with a fee that's out of
all proportion to what it costs them for that minor
transgression," said Andrew Watson, a lawyer for Maurice
Blackburn.

"It's time for ANZ Bank customers to have their day in court."

The ANZ case relates to fees worth an estimated AU$57 million.

ANZ, the country's third largest bank, is the first of eight major
banks to go to court as part of the case, which involves more than
185,000 customers who are trying to recover the "excessive" fees.

The charges, which for some banks were as high as AU$60, often
left customers out of pocket by hundreds of dollars over the six
years up to 2010.

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

The Dec. 2 Federal Court action follows a ruling by the nation's
highest court in September that consumers could challenge a wide
range of fees, overturning an earlier lower court ruling that
limited the case to credit card charges.

The class actions are being funded by Bentham IMF (Australia), a
publicly listed litigation fund, which has said the case is the
world's largest class action in terms of participation.

The ANZ Bank has the highest number of customers involved and is
expected vigorously to defend itself, claiming it was entitled to
impose fees on customers.

The other banks involved are BankSA, Bankwest, Citibank,
Commonwealth Bank of Australia, National Australia Bank, St George
and Westpac.

In a similar case in Britain in 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in
favor of unauthorized overdraft charges.

Consumer groups were dismayed at the ruling, that allowed banks to
continue charging customers up to 35 pounds (US$57) each time they
were overdrawn without permission.

Mr. Watson said if the consumers were successful in the case
against ANZ, which is expected to last three weeks, it would have
implications for other financial institutions and companies.

"We have currently filed against eight major lending institutions,
starting with ANZ, and if we're successful against ANZ then the
same principles will be highly influential upon those other
cases," he said.

The case could "constitute a precedent not just for the banks that
we've used but for other financial institutions who are levying
similar fees and exceptions charges," he added.


ARIAD PHARMA: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP on Dec. 3 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit on December 3, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts.  The lawsuit was filed on behalf of
persons who purchased, otherwise acquired, or contracted to
acquire securities of Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. between December
12, 2011 and October 8, 2013, inclusive.

If you purchased, acquired, or contracted to acquire Ariad
securities during the Class Period, you may be able to seek
appointment as Lead Plaintiff.  Lead Plaintiff motion papers must
be filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts no later than December 9, 2013.  A lead plaintiff is
a court-appointed representative for absent members of the Class,
as defined below.  You do not need to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action.  If you
are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can
share in that recovery as an absent Class member.  You may retain
counsel of your choice to represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have
any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact David C. Erroll,
Esq. of Labaton Sucharow LLP, at (800) 321-0476 or (212) 907-0739,
or via email at derroll@labaton.com

If you are a member of the Class, you can view a copy of the
complaint and join this class action online at
http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/Newly-Filed-Cases.cfm

The complaint charges Ariad and certain of its officers with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder.  The complaint alleges that Defendants
made false and misleading statements and concealed material
information relating to the Company's most advanced drug,
ponatinib, trade-named Iclusig.  Specifically, Defendants assured
investors that Iclusig's side effects were easily managed and that
data from clinical drug trials did not indicate increased risk of
serious cardiovascular side effects, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Ariad securities.

Ariad, which is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is a
biotechnology company that focuses on the development of oncology
treatments, including Iclusig, which is intended to treat certain
types of leukemia.  The complaint alleges that, during the Class
Period, Defendants concealed the following facts from the
investing public: (1) serious cardiovascular side effects such as
arterial thrombotic events and strokes, some fatal, had occurred
in patients treated with Iclusig at increasingly significant rates
before and during the Class Period; (2) the Company's statements
regarding the use, value, and prospects for the commercialization
of Iclusig lacked a reasonable basis; and (3) as a result,
Defendants' statements regarding the safety and outlook for
Iclusig and regarding the prospects of the Company were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 9, 2013, Ariad issued a press release disclosing that,
based on analysis of ongoing trial data that showed evidence of
serious cardiovascular risks associated with Iclusig, the Company
had halted enrollment in all clinical trials for Iclusig and would
modify the dosing of patients currently enrolled in those trials.
In reaction to this disclosure, Ariad's stock price declined by
$11.31 per share, or 65.99 percent, to close at $5.83 per share on
heavy trading volume.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of persons who
purchased, otherwise acquired, or contracted to acquire securities
of Ariad during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is represented by
Labaton Sucharow LLP, which has extensive experience in
prosecuting securities class actions.

With offices in New York, New York and Wilmington, Delaware,
Labaton Sucharow LLP -- http://www.labaton.com-- represents
institutional investors in class action and complex securities
litigation, as well as consumers and businesses in class actions
seeking to recover damages for anticompetitive practices.


AVNET INC: Expects to Claim Up to $4MM in LCD Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Avnet, Inc. may receive up to an additional $4,000,000 from the
undistributed fund in the settlement of a suit that sought damages
from certain manufacturers of LCD flat panel displays, according
to the company's Oct. 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28,
2013.

The Company participated as a claimant in a class action
proceeding that sought damages from certain manufacturers of LCD
flat panel displays. A settlement was reached in the proceedings
and in the first quarter of fiscal 2014 the federal district judge
overseeing the proceeding issued an order approving the first
distribution of settlement funds to the class claimants.  In the
first quarter of fiscal 2014, the Company received an award
payment of $19,137,000, which is classified within "gain on legal
settlement, bargain purchase and other" in the consolidated
statements of operations.  The court has deferred distribution of
a portion of the settlement and the Company may receive up to an
additional $4,000,000 from the undistributed settlement fund in
the future depending on the extent to which subsequent, approved
claims are made on the fund.


B&G FOODS: Bid to Junk Suit Over Pirate Brands' Products Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss claims in cases that allege that Pirate
Brands' products are improperly labeled as "natural" is pending,
according to B&G Foods, Inc.'s Oct. 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 28, 2013.

Pirate Brands has been named as a defendant in six duplicative
putative class actions, two of which were filed prior to the
company's ownership of Pirate Brands.  The cases allege that
Pirate Brands' products are improperly labeled as "natural"
because they contain "genetically modified" and processed
ingredients.  The first case was filed in December 2012 in New
York.  A duplicative case was then filed in February 2013 in
California, which has been transferred to New York.  Identical
actions were then filed in July 2013 in Florida, Washington,
California and New Jersey.  Pirate Brands was successful in its
efforts to have all six cases transferred to New York to be
consolidated into a single proceeding.  No discovery has commenced
in any of the cases, and a motion to dismiss the claims is
pending.  Based upon information currently available, the company
does not believe the ultimate resolution of these actions will
have a material adverse effect on B&G Foods' consolidated
financial position, results of operations or liquidity.


BURGER KING: Faces Suit Over "Unsolicited" Advertisements
---------------------------------------------------------
Burger King Worldwide, Inc. faces a lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court of Maryland that alleges BKC and/or its agents sent
unsolicited advertisements by fax to thousands of consumers,
according to the company's Oct. 28, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

The putative class action lawsuit was filed against Burger King
Corporation on March 1, 2013, in the U.S. District Court of
Maryland. The complaint alleges that BKC and/or its agents sent
unsolicited advertisements by fax to thousands of consumers in
Maryland and elsewhere in the United States to promote its home
delivery program in violation of the Telephone Consumers
Protection Act.

The company said it is not possible at this time to determine the
likelihood of class certification in this case or reasonably
estimate the probability or amount of liability for monetary
damages on a class wide basis.


CANADA: Lawyers Say 60s Scoop Class Action Isn't Legal Issue
------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Mehta, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that lawyers
for the federal government questioned whether the courts were the
right place to grapple with the issue of aboriginal identity as
they sought permission on Dec. 4 to appeal the green-lighting of a
class action lawsuit on the matter.

Counsel for those behind the suit, however, suggested those
arguments be put forward at a trial and not at the leave to appeal
hearing that took place in a Toronto court.

The lawsuit at the centre of the arguments claims a devastating
loss of cultural identity was suffered by Ontario victims of the
so-called 60s Scoop.

It refers to a period of time between the 1960s and the 1980s when
thousands of aboriginal children were taken from their homes and
placed with non-native families by child welfare services.

"The issue is hugely important, there's no doubt about that, and
we've never said these people haven't suffered," Department of
Justice lawyer Owen Young said in an interview outside court.
"But when you drill down to the basics, the question is: 'Is that
a legal problem for the courts or is it a social-political
problem?"'

Justice Young suggested the Ontario judge who certified the
lawsuit this summer could have erred in his decision.

"We're dealing with the way it's presented to the court," he said
of the lawsuit.  "The legal tools to deal with this aren't very
good."

But lawyers for the representative plaintiffs said a leave to
appeal hearing wasn't the place for the government to be laying
out its arguments on the merits of the case.

"This was a procedural motion for certification," lawyer
Jeffery Wilson said outside court of the decision the government
wanted to appeal.

"The best place to test the legitimacy of this action -- that is
the merits -- is not at this point, when it's all based on
hypothetical arguments and submissions.  Rather, it should happen
once and when a judge has the opportunity to see people, to hear
the evidence . . . . Nothing is tested here."

The case has been working its way through the courts for over
three years.

Plaintiffs asked for permission to put the case forward as a class
action in February 2009, but the federal government successfully
appealed certification of the proceedings, largely on a procedural
point.  A new hearing was then ordered in January this year.  In
July, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the case
after dismissing a Crown motion asking for the suit to be quashed.

All the legal delays have made the plaintiffs determined to see
the case through, said Mr. Wilson.

"It's essential it go forward because their claim is about a lost
generation of children, about children who lost their cultural
identity and who as a result endured tremendous pain," he said.

That pain was still being felt by Marcia Brown Martel, the
representative plaintiff in the lawsuit who grew emotional as she
spoke of the toll the 60s Scoop had taken on her life.

The 50-year-old said she lost her distinct language, traditions
and ties to her community after being taken from her aboriginal
family and being adopted into a non-indigenous home.

"The negativity that came from that time period of being removed
as a 60s Scoop child for myself, that affects me as a person in my
community," she said.

The lawsuit has the potential to set a precedent, said Ms. Martel,
if only the federal government would allow it to proceed.

"Canada as a government chooses to appeal a fact of history, to be
able to say that they are not accountable for a historical wrong
that has had a current and a very current effect to a nation of
people," she said.

"Tradition, culture, children and language are the foundation of a
nation.  Once you remove one of those foundations, like a three
legged stool, it's off balance."

None of the lawsuit's claims have been proven in court.  The judge
hearing the government's application for leave to appeal will
deliver her decision at a later date.


CANADIAN TIRE: Recalls Yardworks Electric Leaf Blower
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 5, 2013
Posting date:             December 5, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-37063

Affected products: Yardworks 12A Electric Leaf Blower Vacuum

The voluntary recall involves the Yardworks 12A Electric Leaf
Blower Vacuum identified by product number 060-3874.

Leaf blowers with the following serial numbers are included in
this recall:

   -- CTS0610001-480;
   -- CTS1781777-1800;
   -- CTS0750001-350;
   -- CTS1870001-360;
   -- CTS0820001-480;
   -- CTS1870361-930;
   -- CTS0890001-480;
   -- CTS1781411-1776;
   -- CTS1720001-330;
   -- CTS1720651-1250;
   -- CTS0750351-480;
   -- CTS1720334-650;
   -- CTS1780731-1410; and
   -- CTS1870931-1410

This product is being voluntarily recalled as a precautionary
measure due to concerns that the motor in some units may overheat,
posing a potential safety hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor Canadian Tire has received any reports
of injury related to the use of this product.

Approximately 21,450 units of the recalled leaf blower vacuums
were sold at Canadian Tire stores across Canada.

The recalled leaf blowers were manufactured in China and sold from
March 2013 to November 2013.

Companies:

   Distributor     Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited
                   Toronto
                   Canada

Customers are asked to verify the serial number on their Yardworks
12A Electric Leaf Blower Vacuum (product number 60-3874) to
confirm if it matches the serial numbers listed above of impacted
units.  Customers who purchased a recalled leaf blower can return
it to any Canadian Tire store for a refund.


CARFUL COMPANY: Unlicenced Laser Hair Removal Products Recalled
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 5, 2013
Posting date:             December 5, 2013
Type of communication:    Information Update
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Unauthorized products
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-37119

Recalled hair removal products:

  Manufacturer           Name       Some Identified Points of sale
  ------------           ----       ------------------------------
  Carful Company Ltd.    SI-808         ebay, amazon,
                                        hisupplier.com, Carful
                                        Company Ltd., Ali Express
  BNB Medical Co. Ltd    Epsil BSL-10   ebay, BNB Medical Co.,Ltd,
                                        Honey Bay, Hareway

Health Canada testing has identified unlicenced medical devices
being sold on the Internet for hair removal that may pose a
serious risk to health, including significant eye damage and
blindness.

These devices have the potential to cause serious harm due to the
intensity of the radiation they emit and the lack of sufficient
safety features.  Momentary exposure to a direct or reflected beam
-- even for a fraction of a second -- may cause permanent eye
damage and serious burns.

Health Canada regulates laser and intense pulsed light devices
under the Radiation Emitting Devices Act, the Medical Devices
Regulations and the Food and Drugs Act.  These types of products
must be assessed for safety and effectiveness when used for their
licenced medical purposes and according to the manufacturers'
directions before they are authorized for sale in Canada.

The use of unlicenced lasers or intense pulsed light devices may
harm your health as they have not been assessed against Health
Canada's requirements for safety, effectiveness and quality.
Medical devices that have been licenced for sale in Canada can be
found on Health Canada's searchable Medical Devices Active Licence
Listing (MDALL) database.  Searches can be conducted by company,
licence or device.

Canadians may also wish to consult Health Canada's It's Your
Health article regarding the safe use of cosmetic laser treatments
before using these types of products.

Consumers who have health concerns related to the use of these
devices should speak with their healthcare professional. Health
Canada would also like to remind Canadians that while many
websites that sell medical devices are lawful businesses that
provide a useful service, others sell devices that may pose
serious health risks.

It is important to note that these devices may also be sold on
sites not on the list below.  Canadians are encouraged to monitor
the HealthyCanadians website for updates to the list and for
information on other products that may pose a serious risk to
their health.


CASH AMERICA: To Pay Up to $36MM to Settle Ga. Suit Over Loans
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cash America International, Inc. reached a memorandum of
understanding to settle a suit over alleged illegal short-term
loans in Georgia by paying up to $36.0 million to cover class
claims, according to the company's Oct. 28, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On August 6, 2004, James E. Strong filed a purported class action
lawsuit in the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia against Georgia
Cash America, Inc., Cash America International, Inc. (together
with Georgia Cash America, Inc., "Cash America"), Daniel R.
Feehan, and several unnamed officers, directors, owners and
"stakeholders" of Cash America.

In August 2006, James H. Greene and Mennie Johnson were permitted
to join the lawsuit as named plaintiffs, and in June 2009, the
court agreed to the removal of James E. Strong as a named
plaintiff. The lawsuit alleges many different causes of action,
among the most significant of which is that Cash America made
illegal short-term loans in Georgia in violation of Georgia's
usury law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act and Georgia's Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). First National
Bank of Brookings, South Dakota ("FNB") and Community State Bank
of Milbank, South Dakota ("CSB") for some time made loans to
Georgia residents through Cash America's Georgia operating
locations. The complaint in this lawsuit claims that Cash America
was the true lender with respect to the loans made to Georgia
borrowers and that FNB and CSB's involvement in the process is "a
mere subterfuge."

Based on this claim, the suit alleges that Cash America was the
"de facto" lender and was illegally operating in Georgia. The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's fees,
punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory damages. In
November 2009 the case was certified as a class action lawsuit.

This case was scheduled to go to trial in November 2013, but on
October 9, 2013, the parties agreed to a memorandum of
understanding (the "Settlement Memorandum"). Pursuant to the
Settlement Memorandum, the parties filed a joint motion containing
the full terms of the settlement (the "Settlement Agreement") to
the trial court for approval on October 24, 2013. The Settlement
Agreement requires a minimum payment by the Company of $18.0
million and a maximum payment of $36.0 million, to cover class
claims (including honorarium payments to the named plaintiffs) and
the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs (including the costs of
claims administration) (the "Class Claims and Costs"), all of
which will count towards the aggregate payment for purposes of
determining whether the minimum payment has been made or the
maximum payment has been reached. The actual payout will depend on
the number of claimants who submit claims for payment.

If the Company does not pay at least $18.0 million towards the
Class Claims and Costs, the Settlement Agreement requires the
Company to pay, into a cy pres (non-profit) fund approved by the
court, an amount equal to $18.0 million less the aggregate amount
the Company pays towards the Class Claims and Costs.

In accordance with ASC 855-10-55-Subsequent Events and ASC-20-50,
Contingencies, the Company recognized a liability during the third
quarter of 2013 in the amount of $18.0 million, which it deems the
most probable payment amount. The Company denies all of the
material allegations of the lawsuit and denies any and all
liability or wrongdoing in connection with the conduct described
in the lawsuit. If the Settlement Agreement is not approved by the
court, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation.


DGSE COMPANIES: Accord in TX Suit Won Final Approval in October
---------------------------------------------------------------
DGSE Companies, Inc. issued a press release on October 24, 2013,
announcing that the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas has granted final approval of the proposed
settlement of class action and derivative litigation previously
pending before the Court, in the two filed cases entitled Grant
Barfuss, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
vs. DGSE Companies, Inc.; L. S. Smith, John Benson and William
Oyster (Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-3664), and Jason Farmer,
Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant DGSE Companies, Inc.,
Plaintiff, v. William H. Oyster, James D. Clem, William Cordeiro,
Craig Alan-Lee, David Rector, L. S. Smith, and John Benson,
Defendants, and DGSE Companies, Inc., Nominal Defendant (Civil
Action No. 3:12-cv-3850).


DR HORTON: Can Require Employees to Sign Arbitration Agreements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kent Hoover, writing for The Business Journals, reports that
companies can force employees to sign arbitration agreements that
prohibit class action lawsuits, a federal appeals court ruled on
Dec. 3.

The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals overturned the National
Labor Relations Board, which decided that home builder D.R. Horton
Inc. violated its workers' rights by forcing them to agree to
resolve all employment-related disputes individually through
arbitration.  The arbitration agreement prohibited workers from
making class action claims against the Fort Worth, Texas-based
company.

The NLRB concluded the company's mandatory arbitration agreement
violated the National Labor Relations Act because it required
employees to waive their right to join together to challenge
company decisions.  The board also ruled that the agreement would
lead employees to believe that they couldn't file unfair labor
charges with the NLRB.

The appeals court, however, overturned the NLRB's decision,
concluding the agency failed to give "proper weight" to the
Federal Arbitration Act, which requires that arbitration
agreements be enforced "according to their terms" unless Congress
has specified otherwise.  But the court agreed with the NLRB that
D.R. Horton must clarify that the arbitration agreement does not
preclude employees from pursuing claims of unfair labor practices
with the NLRB.

The court's decision to allow D.R. Horton to include a ban on
class actions in its arbitration agreement is significant because
many employers have taken this step in response to a boom in
employment-related class action lawsuits.

"This is an enormous victory for employers as they attempt to
prevent the ongoing onslaught of class action lawsuits," said
Ogletree Deakins' Ron Chapman -- ron.chapman@ogletreedeakins.com
-- the lead attorney for D.R. Horton in this case.

Many business groups filed amicus briefs supporting D.R. Horton's
position.  The NLRB decision, if allowed to stand, "would have the
practical effect of eliminating employment arbitration as a fast,
fair and efficient alternative to costly litigation," contended
the National Chamber Litigation Center.

Karen Harned, executive director of NFIB's Small Business Legal
Center, said the court's ruling "is a major setback for the NLRB,
which continues to rely on controversial policies to invalidate
class action waivers.  However, it is a victory for small business
owners, who lack the in-house resources to defend employment
disputes in court."

"Arbitration provides an expeditious process for resolving these
disputes without costly legal fees and reduces the likelihood of
catastrophic class action liability," Ms. Harned said.


EUROSTYLE: Recalls Perruzi Dresses Due to Flammability Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 6, 2013
Posting date:             December 6, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Clothing and Accessories
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Flammability Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-37113

Affected products: Perruzi brand dresses

The recall involves Peruzzi brand silk dresses manufactured in
Italy by Dressline SRL and sold by Eurostyle Distribution.  The
dresses are pink or blue and have an inner layer made of 94%
viscose and 6% elastane and an outer layer made of 100% silk with
lace appliques.  The dresses are identified by the number S12177;
CA07113.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has established
that the silk dresses do not meet the flammability requirements
under Canadian law.

Neither Health Canada nor Distribution Eurostyle has received any
reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of this
product.

15 units of the recalled dresses were sold in Canada.

The dresses were manufactured in Italy and sold in various stores
from March 2012 to November 2013.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     Dressline SRL
                    Capri
                    Italy

   Distributor      Eurostyle
                    Montreal
                    Quebec
                    Canada

Consumers should stop wearing the dresses and contact Eurostyle
Distribution's customer service at 1-800-363-4987 for information
on return and refund procedures.


EUROTRADE IMPORT-EXPORT: Recalls Edelweiss Fine Dark Chocolate
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 6, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Eurotrade Import-Export
Distribution:             Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail

Affected products: 80 g. Edelweiss Fine Dark Chocolate with 0
59807 40058 2 UPC

Eurotrade Import-Export is recalling Edelweiss brand Fine Dark
Chocolate from the marketplace because it contains milk which is
not declared on the label.  People with an allergy to milk should
not consume the recalled product described below.

The following product has been sold in Ontario.

If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled
product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of this product.

The recall was triggered by a Canadian Food Inspection Agency
(CFIA) test result.  The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products.  If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing the recalled
product from the marketplace.


FALCONSTOR SOFTWARE: March 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Dec. 4 disclosed that the United
States District Court Eastern District of New York has approved
the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement
that would benefit purchasers of common stock of FalconStor
Software, Inc.:

SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE COMMON STOCK OF FALCONSTOR
SOFTWARE, INC. DURING THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 12, 2008 AND SEPTEMBER
29, 2010, INCLUSIVE.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY
THE SETTLEMENT OF A LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an order of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, that Court-appointed
Lead Plaintiff, William Burns, represented by the Rosen Law Firm,
P.A., on behalf of himself and the Court-certified Class, have
reached a proposed settlement of the above-captioned securities
class litigation, with defendants FalconStor Software, Inc., and
James Weber for five million dollars ($5,000,000), that, if
approved, will settle Plaintiffs' claim in this Litigation.(1)

A hearing will be held on March 3, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. in courtroom
8A before the Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District
Judge of the Eastern District of New York, 225 Cadman Plaza East,
Brooklyn, New York 11201 for the purpose of determining: (1)
whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair,
reasonable and adequate; (2) whether all Settled Claims should be
dismissed with prejudice; (3) whether an order approving the
Settlement should be entered; (4) whether the allocation of the
Gross Settlement Fund should be approved; (5) whether the
application for an award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses should be
approved; and (6) other matters as the Court may deem appropriate.
The Court may change the date of the hearing without providing
additional notice to the Settlement Class Members.

If you purchased FalconStor common stock during the period of
March 12, 2008 through September 29, 2010, inclusive, you may be a
member of the Class described above, and your rights may be
affected by the Settlement of this Litigation.

If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of
Claim and Release, you may obtain copies of these documents by
contacting the Claims Administrator at:

          FalconStor Software Securities Litigation
          c/o Strategic Claims Services, Claims Administrator
          600 North Jackson Street--Suite 3
          P.O. Box 230
          Media, PA 19063

Or by visiting the Claim Administrator's website,
http://www.strategicclaims.net

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release postmarked no later than January 20, 2014, establishing
that you are entitled to recovery, in the manner and form
explained in the Notice.  If you are a Class Member and do not
submit a proper Proof of Claim Form, you will not be eligible to
share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement,
but you will be bound by any judgment or orders entered by the
Court in the Litigation, whether or not you submit a claim.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion received no later than January 20,
2014, in the manner and form explained in the Notice.  All members
of the Settlement Class who do not request exclusion will be bound
by any judgment entered in the Litigation.

Any objections to the Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation,
or Lead Plaintiff's Counsel's application for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses must be postmarked
by February 10, 2014 and mailed to the addresses below:

COURT

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Eastern District New York
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, NY 11201

PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL

Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Class Counsel for Plaintiffs

DEFENSE COUNSEL

Daniel J. Kramer, Esq.
James L. Brochin, Esq.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, & Garrison LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019

Counsel for FalconStor Defendants

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to the Claims Administrator at the contact information
identified above.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: NOVEMBER 1, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

(1) All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have
the same meanings as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement, dated May 6, 2013.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Still Faces Wage and Hour Suits by Store Managers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. continues to face wage and hour
lawsuits alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), according to the company's Oct. 28, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2013.

Since 2004, certain individuals who held the position of store
manager for the Company have filed lawsuits alleging that the
Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and/or
similar state laws, by classifying them as "exempt" employees who
are not entitled to overtime compensation. Some of the cases also
seek to proceed as collective actions under the FLSA or as class
actions under state laws. Plaintiffs seek recovery of overtime
pay, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and court costs.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Labor Suits Still Pending in State Courts
--------------------------------------------------------
In its Oct. 28, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2013,
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. provided updates on state lawsuits
alleging that store managers should be non-exempt employees under
various state laws.

The Company is currently a defendant in six additional class
action lawsuits in six states alleging that Store Managers should
be non-exempt employees under various state laws. The plaintiffs
in these cases seek recovery of overtime pay, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and court costs. Of these six cases, Family
Dollar has defeated class certification in one of the cases, one
of the cases is preliminarily resolved, one of the cases is
currently certified as a class action, and the other three cases
are in the early stages of litigation.

     (1) Cook, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores of Connecticut,
Inc., was filed in Superior Court in the State of Connecticut on
October 5, 2011, seeking unpaid overtime for a class of current
and former Connecticut Store Managers for alleged violations of
the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act. In December 2012, briefing on
class certification was completed. On March 19, 2013, the Court
denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Company
filed individual summary judgment motions as to each of the three
named plaintiffs. On May 23, 2013, the Court denied the Company's
summary judgment motion as to Cook, and has not ruled on the
remaining plaintiffs. There is no trial date currently set for any
of the individual plaintiffs.

     (2) Farley, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores of Colorado, Inc.,
was filed in the United States District Court for Colorado on
January 7, 2012, seeking unpaid overtime compensation for a class
of current and former Colorado Store Managers. On March 21, 2013,
the district court granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification. Class notice was issued in June 2013. Class
discovery concludes in December 2013. The final pre-trial hearing
is currently scheduled for February 2014.

     (3) Hegab v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
March 3, 2011. Plaintiff seeks recovery for himself and allegedly
similarly situated Store Managers under New Jersey law. Currently,
this matter is administratively dismissed without prejudice, and
no class has been certified. Despite the current procedural
status, the counsel for the class has indicated he intends to
pursue the case.

     (4) Itterly v. Family Dollar Stores of Pennsylvania, Inc.,
which was formerly pending in the N.C. Federal Court, was remanded
back to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania on February 8, 2012. Plaintiffs are seeking unpaid
overtime for a class of current and former Pennsylvania Store
Managers whom plaintiffs claim are not properly classified as
exempt from overtime pay under Pennsylvania law. Discovery closed
in June 2012. The Company has a pending motion for summary
judgment before the Court.

     (5) Premo v. Family Dollar Stores of Massachusetts, Inc., was
filed in Worcester County Superior Court in the State of
Massachusetts for alleged violations of the Massachusetts overtime
law on April 26, 2013. Plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime for
a class of current and former Massachusetts Store Managers whom
plaintiffs claim are not properly classified as exempt from
overtime under Massachusetts law. The Company removed the case to
federal district court in Massachusetts on May 28, 2013.
Plaintiffs have challenged the removal to federal court. The Court
has not made a final ruling on this issue.

     (6) Walters et. al. v. Family Dollar Stores of Missouri,
Inc., alleging violations of the Missouri Minimum Wage Law, was
originally filed on January 26, 2010, and is pending in the
Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri (the "Circuit Court").
On May 10, 2011, the Circuit Court certified the class under the
Missouri Minimum Wage Law and common law. The Company appealed the
class certification ruling, but neither the Missouri Court of
Appeals nor the Missouri Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal.
In July 2013, the parties entered a preliminary agreement to
resolve this matter on a claims-made basis for a maximum of $2.5
million. All deadlines have been stayed pending finalizing this
preliminary agreement. A hearing for preliminary approval of the
settlement was set for November 7, 2013.

Given the multiple dismissals obtained by the Company of the cases
pending in the MDL and the preliminary stage of the other state
court wage and hour cases, no reserve is appropriate for any of
these cases, except for Walters, which is the subject of a
preliminary settlement agreement, the Company said.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Mulls Options for "Scott" Lawsuit in N.C.
--------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. is considering its options regarding
additional review of the ruling by the Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit regarding whether the suit Luanna Scott, et al. v.
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. should proceed as a class action,
according to the company's Oct. 28, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Aug. 31, 2013.

On October 14, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court in Birmingham, Alabama captioned Scott, et al. v. Family
Dollar Stores, Inc. alleging discriminatory pay practices with
respect to the Company's female Store Managers. This case was pled
as a putative class action or collective action under applicable
statutes on behalf of all Family Dollar female Store Managers. The
plaintiffs seek recovery of compensatory and punitive money
damages, recovery of attorneys' fees and equitable relief. The
case was transferred to the Federal District Court, Western
District of North Carolina.

Presently, there are 48 named plaintiffs in the Scott case. On
January 13, 2012, the trial court granted the Company's Motion to
Strike the class allegations asserted in the Complaint based in
part upon the United State Supreme Court's ruling in Dukes v. Wal-
Mart. The plaintiffs' filed an appeal of the Court's dismissal of
the class allegations to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit.

On October 16, 2013, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals partially
reversed the trial court's ruling. While the Fourth Circuit agreed
that the original Complaint should not proceed as a class action,
it remanded the case and instructed the trial court to allow the
amendment of the complaint, and then consider whether the case
based upon the amended complaint should proceed as a class action.
The Company is considering its options regarding additional review
of the Fourth Circuit's ruling.

The Company has tendered the matter to its Employment Practices
Liability Insurance ("EPLI") carrier for coverage under its EPLI
policy. At this time, the Company expects that the EPLI carrier
will participate in any resolution of the case. The Company has
exceeded its insurance retention and any additional legal fees and
settlements should be covered by the EPLI carrier. No reserve is
appropriate due to the preliminary status of the case.


FREDERICK'S OF HOLLYWOOD: To Pay $365MM to Settle "Weber" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick's of Hollywood Group Inc. agreed to pay a gross
settlement amount of $365,000,000 to settle a labor suit filed by
Michelle Weber, according to the company's Oct. 25, 2013, Form 10-
K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended July 27, 2013.

On February 2, 2012, a former California store employee filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court,
County of San Francisco, naming Frederick's of Hollywood, Inc.,
one of the company's subsidiaries, as a defendant (Michelle Weber,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
Frederick's of Hollywood, Inc., Case No. CGC-12-517909). The
complaint alleged, among other things, violations of the
California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide
meal and rest periods and termination compensation and violations
of California's Unfair Competition Law. On May 23, 2013, the
parties entered into a Joint Stipulation of Settlement and
Release, which was filed with the Court on May 31, 2013 and
finally approved by the Court on October 2, 2013. Without
admitting or denying liability, the company agreed to pay a gross
settlement amount of $365,000,000 which was paid in full on
October 10, 2013.


FREDERICK'S OF HOLLYWOOD: Reaches Accord in "Harvey-Smith" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick's of Hollywood Group Inc. agreed to pay a gross
settlement amount of $95,000,000 to settle a labor suit filed by
Kassandra Harvey-Smith, according to the company's Oct. 25, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On December 18, 2012, a former California store employee filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court,
County of Los Angeles, against the Company, Frederick's of
Hollywood, Inc. and Frederick's of Hollywood Stores, Inc.
(Kassandra Harvey-Smith, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Frederick's of Hollywood Group Inc. et al,
Case No. BC497673). The complaint alleges, among other things,
violations of the California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime,
failure to provide meal and rest periods and termination
compensation, various additional wage violations and violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law. The first amended complaint
seeks, among other relief, collective and class certification of
the lawsuit (the class being defined as all California part-time
sales associates), unspecified damages, costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court
might find just and proper. The parties agreed to stay discovery
proceedings, engaged in mediation, and on September 25, 2013, the
parties entered into a Joint Stipulation of Settlement and
Release.

Without admitting or denying liability, the company agreed to pay
a gross settlement amount of $95,000,000. The hearing for the
Court's preliminary approval of the settlement has not yet been
scheduled, but is expected to occur within the next 60 to 90 days,
after which a final approval hearing date will be set. After
preliminary approval, class members will receive notice of the
settlement and will have an opportunity to elect not to
participate or file objections to the settlement. The company
expects that funding of payment of the settlement will occur in
the second half of fiscal year 2014.


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Still Faces Suits Over Underwriting Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. continues to face
putative state and federal class actions seeking certification of
a state or national class alleging, among others, underpayment of
claims or improper underwriting practices, according to the
company's Oct. 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

The Hartford is also involved in other kinds of legal actions,
some of which assert claims for substantial amounts. These actions
include, among others, and in addition to the matters described
below, putative state and federal class actions seeking
certification of a state or national class.  The putative class
actions have alleged, for example, underpayment of claims or
improper underwriting practices in connection with various kinds
of insurance policies, such as personal and commercial automobile,
property, disability, life and inland marine. The Hartford also is
involved in individual actions in which punitive damages are
sought, such as claims alleging bad faith in the handling of
insurance claims or other allegedly unfair or improper business
practices. Like many other insurers, The Hartford also has been
joined in actions by asbestos plaintiffs asserting, among other
things, that insurers had a duty to protect the public from the
dangers of asbestos and that insurers committed unfair trade
practices by asserting defenses on behalf of their policyholders
in the underlying asbestos cases.

Management expects that the ultimate liability, if any, with
respect to such lawsuits, after consideration of provisions made
for estimated losses, will not be material to the consolidated
financial condition of The Hartford. Nonetheless, given the large
or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these actions, and
the inherent unpredictability of litigation, the outcome in
certain matters could, from time to time, have a material adverse
effect on the Company's results of operations or cash flows in
particular quarterly or annual periods.


HAWAII: Faces Class Action Over Inadequate Foster Parent Payments
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Tanaka, writing for HawaiiNewsNow, reports that Raynette
Nalani Ah Chong is passionate about helping foster children and
parents.  That's why she is bringing a class action lawsuit
against the state of Hawaii for failing to pay foster parents
enough for them to care for the children in their homes.

The state has failed to increase monthly payments since 1990.
Currently, it is $529 per month as it was over 20 years ago.

Adjusted for inflation, that figure would be $950 per month.

There are approximately 1000 foster parent in Hawaii whose
interests are being represented in the suit, by the non-profit
firm Hawaii Appleseed Center for Law and Economic Justice, and the
law firm of Alston Hunt Floyd and Ing.  Global law firm Morrison &
Foerster LLP is also involved in the case.

Hawaii has one of the highest costs of living in the country, yet
monthly payments to foster parents rank well below states like
Tennessee and Kentucky, which have some of the lowest costs of
living in the country.


HERBALIFE LTD: Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Bostick" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
denied a motion by Herbalife Ltd. to dismiss the suit Bostick v.
Herbalife International of America, Inc., et. al, according to the
company's Oct. 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

Herbalife has been named as a defendant in a purported class
action lawsuit filed April 8, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (Bostick v. Herbalife
International of America, Inc., et al) challenging the legality of
the company's network marketing program under various state and
federal laws. On May 30, 2013, the company filed a motion to
dismiss the lawsuit on a variety of grounds. On October 11, 2013,
after plaintiff indicated his intention to dismiss certain claims
brought under federal law, the Court denied the company's motion
to dismiss the remaining state claims. The company believes the
suit is without merit and plan to defend the suit vigorously.


HURONIA REGIONAL: Judge Approves Abuse Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paola Loriggio, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that a
C$35-million settlement will better serve the former residents of
an Ontario institution for the developmentally disabled than a
long and difficult trial into alleged abuse at the facility, a
Superior Court judge ruled on Dec. 3.

Justice Barbara Conway approved the deal after hearing emotional
submissions from former residents of the Huronia Regional Centre
in Orillia, Ont., as well as a detailed account of the centre's
grim history.

With the plaintiffs growing older and no guarantees of winning at
trial, "the benefits of an immediate and certain settlement cannot
be overstated," she told the Toronto court.

The agreement, which also calls for the province to formally
apologize for what happened at the now-shuttered facility, was
signed in September just hours before the case was scheduled to go
to trial.

The two lead plaintiffs in the case told the court on Dec. 3 that
while no amount of money can erase the years of abuse they
suffered as children at the facility, the settlement funds will
help ensure former residents of the institution get justice.

"We appreciate the apology, but no amount of money will give us
our lives back," said Marie Slark, flanked by her longtime friend
and co-plaintiff Patricia Seth.

She raised concerns about the claim process, saying many
plaintiffs will need help to fill out forms and navigate the
system.

Those fears were repeated as others took the stand.  Only a
handful opposed the deal, though many more voiced their worries in
written statements filed with the court.

Charles Fannon, who spent seven years at Huronia, condemned what
he called paltry compensation for what he and his peers suffered.
He also objected to having legal fees paid out from the settlement
fund, arguing the province should cover those costs along with
those incurred processing the claim.

"Thirty-five million is 35 million and that's what it should be,"
Mr. Fannon said.

Kirk Baert, who represents the plaintiffs, acknowledged the amount
fell short of the C$2 billion the plaintiffs sought, and that no
sum could make up for the abuse and neglect they allegedly
endured.

"There's no settlement that I know of that can make us go back in
time and make these things not happen," he said.

"We have to look at what is achievable in reality."

The suit covered those institutionalized at the centre between
1945 and 2009, many of whom are now aged or dying.  It alleged
residents suffered almost daily humiliation and abuse at the
overcrowded facility, which closed in 2009.  Some said they worked
in the fields for little or no money, and recalled being forced to
walk around with no pants on as punishment for speaking out of
turn.

The case's last-minute resolution meant former residents weren't
called to testify -- a boon for some but a bitter disappointment
for those eager to have their experiences come to light.

Some seized their chance on Dec. 3, recalling painful details of
their childhood before a courtroom packed with those who share
their harrowing memories of the centre.

"Every time these survivors get together, there are more horrible
stories about what happened to them," said Marilyn Dolmage,
Ms. Slark's litigation guardian.

It's important that all those who were harmed at the facility
receive the help they need to access the settlement, she said.

Ms. Seth and Ms. Slark were both awarded a C$15,000 honorarium for
shouldering the burden of representing the plaintiffs to the
public.  However, the money will only be doled out if any funds
remain after all other claims have been filled.

Details of the claim process, including wording of the claim form,
will be determined at a future hearing, as will the amount to be
paid in legal fees and where that money will come from.

Meanwhile, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne is scheduled to make her
formal apology Dec. 9 at the provincial legislature.

Asked what she would like to hear from the premier, Dolmage
wouldn't venture any suggestions, saying she wants it to be "from
her heart."


INDEPENDENCE ENERGY: Second Circuit Revives TCPA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sean McLernon and Allison Grande, writing for Law360, report that
the Second Circuit on Dec. 3 revived a proposed Telephone Consumer
Protection Act class action against an energy supply firm, ruling
that a U.S. Supreme Court decision from January 2012 allows such
suits to be brought in New York federal court.

The appeals court decided that U.S. District Judge William F.
Kuntz II erred in saying the high court's ruling in Mims v. Arrow
Financial Services LLC did not conflict with a Second Circuit
decision barring TCPA actions in the state.

While the Second Circuit had previously allowed state courts to
set the terms of TCPA claims, such changed with the Supreme
Court's Mims decision, according to the Dec. 3 decision.

The three-judge panel thus decided that New York attorney and
named plaintiff Todd C. Bank could bring his suit accusing
Independence Energy Group LLC of placing unsolicited marketing
calls to thousands of consumers.

"The Supreme Court's decision . . . uprooted much of our TCPA
jurisprudence by concluding that . . . there was 'no convincing
reason to read into the TCPA's permissive grant of jurisdiction to
state courts any barrier to the U.S. district courts' exercise of
the general federal-question jurisdiction,' " the Dec. 3 opinion
said.

Bank lodged the suit against Independence Energy in March 2012,
claiming the company violated the TCPA by placing an automated
call to his home phone to advertise Independence Energy's
electricity-related services.

Independence Energy made similar calls to at least 10,000
residential telephone lines during the four years preceding the
suit, according to the complaint.  Because the recipients never
gave their express permission to receive the calls, the
advertisements amount to a violation of the TCPA, the suit
maintained.

Judge Kuntz concluded in March that New York state's ban on class
actions seeking statutory damages prevented consumers like Bank
from pursuing TCPA suits.

Bank argued on appeal that the Supreme Court's Mims ruling
established that TCPA suits would always be governed by federal
law and that any state statute was trumped by the decision.
However, Judge Kuntz ruled in May that the decision didn't allow
consumers to skirt state law restrictions and bring TCPA suits in
New York.

In its unanimous Mims decision, the high court held that the
TCPA's provision allowing private citizens to seek redress for
violations of the act or its accompanying regulations "in an
appropriate court of [a] state" does not deprive U.S. district
courts of their authority to adjudicate claims "arising under the
laws of the U.S." under Section 1331 of the federal code.

Following the high court ruling, the Second Circuit recognized
that its prior interpretation of laws governing TCPA suits no
longer held true.

"Mims 'emphasizes that [the U.S.] Congress had a strong federal
interest in uniform standards for TCPA claims in federal court,' "
the Dec. 3 decision said.

The Second Circuit thus reversed Judge Kuntz's March decision and
remanded the suit for further proceedings.

Attorneys for both parties didn't immediately respond to requests
for comment on Dec. 3.

Circuit Judges John M. Walker Jr., Jose A. Cabranes and Barrington
D.Parker sat on the Second Circuit panel.

Bank is representing himself pro se.

Independence Energy is represented by Aurora Francesca Parrilla --
aparrilla@lowenstein.com -- of Lowenstein Sandler PC.

The case is Todd C. Bank et al. v. Independence Energy Group LLC
et al., case number 13-1746, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.


INGRAM MICRO: May Claim Up to $7MM in LCD Panel Suit Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ingram Micro Inc. may receive up to an additional $7,000,000
as claimant in a class action proceeding seeking damages from
certain manufacturers of LCD flat panel displays, according to the
company's Oct. 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2013.

The company has been a claimant in a class action proceeding
seeking damages from certain manufacturers of LCD flat panel
displays.  On July 12, 2013, the federal district judge overseeing
the proceeding issued an order approving a plan of distribution to
the class claimants. In July 2013, the company received a
distribution of $29,500,000 net of all attorney fees and expenses,
which was reflected as a reduction of selling, general and
administrative expenses.  The court has deferred distribution of a
portion of the settlement fund.  Accordingly, the company may
receive up to an additional $7,000,000 from the remaining escrowed
settlement fund in the future depending on the extent to which
subsequent, approved claims are made on the fund.


INTEL CORP: Awaits Certification Ruling in AMD-Patterned Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation is awaiting the decision of the U.S. District
Court in Delaware on the class certification issues in a suit
alleging the company engaged in various actions in violation of
the Sherman Act, according to the company's Oct. 28, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2013.

At least 82 separate class-action lawsuits have been filed in the
U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of California,
Southern District of California, District of Idaho, District of
Nebraska, District of New Mexico, District of Maine, and District
of Delaware, as well as in various California, Kansas, and
Tennessee state courts. These actions generally repeat the
allegations made in a now-settled lawsuit filed against the
company by AMD in June 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware (AMD litigation). Like the AMD litigation,
these class-action lawsuits allege that the company engaged in
various actions in violation of the Sherman Act and other laws by,
among other things: providing discounts and rebates to the
company's manufacturer and distributor customers conditioned on
exclusive or near-exclusive dealing that allegedly unfairly
interfered with AMD's ability to sell its microprocessors;
interfering with certain AMD product launches; and interfering
with AMD's participation in certain industry standards-setting
groups. The class actions allege various consumer injuries,
including that consumers in various states have been injured by
paying higher prices for computers containing the company's
microprocessors. The company disputes these class-action claims
and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously.

All of the federal class actions and the Kansas and Tennessee
state court class actions have been transferred by the
Multidistrict Litigation Panel to the U.S. District Court in
Delaware for all pre-trial proceedings and discovery (MDL
proceedings). The Delaware district court appointed a Special
Master to address issues in the MDL proceedings, as assigned by
the court. In January 2010, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action
filed a motion for sanctions for the company's alleged failure to
preserve evidence. This motion largely copies a motion previously
filed by AMD in the AMD litigation, which has settled. The
plaintiffs in the MDL proceedings also moved for certification of
a class of members who purchased certain PCs containing products
sold by us.

In July 2010, the Special Master issued a Report and
Recommendation (Report) denying the motion to certify a class. The
MDL plaintiffs filed objections to the Special Master's Report,
and a hearing on those objections was held in March 2011. In
September 2012, the court ruled that an evidentiary hearing will
be necessary to enable the court to rule on the objections to the
Special Master's Report, to resolve the motion to certify the
class, and to resolve a separate motion to exclude certain
testimony and evidence from the MDL plaintiffs' expert. The
hearing occurred in July 2013, and the company is awaiting the
court's decision on the class certification issues.

All California class actions have been consolidated in the
Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County. The plaintiffs
in the California actions have moved for class certification,
which the company is in the process of opposing. At the company's
request, the court in the California actions has agreed to delay
ruling on this motion until after the Delaware district court
rules on the similar motion in the MDL proceedings. Given the
procedural posture and the nature of these cases, including the
fact that the Delaware district court has not determined whether
the matters before it may proceed as a class action, the company
is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or
range of losses, if any, arising from these matters.


INTEL CORP: 2014 Trial in High Tech Employee Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trial is scheduled to begin in late May 2014 for In re High Tech
Employee Antitrust Litigation, according to the company's Oct. 28,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2013.

Between May and July 2011, former employees of Intel, Adobe
Systems Incorporated, Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intuit Inc.,
Lucasfilm Ltd., and Pixar filed antitrust class action lawsuits in
the California Superior Courts alleging that these companies had
entered into a conspiracy to suppress the compensation of their
employees. The California Superior Court lawsuits were removed to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California and were consolidated. The plaintiffs' allegations
referenced the 2009 and 2010 investigation by the Department of
Justice (DOJ) into employment practices in the technology
industry, as well as the DOJ's complaints and subsequent
stipulated final judgments with the seven companies named as
defendants in the lawsuits. The plaintiffs allege that the
defendants entered into certain unlawful agreements not to cold
call employees of particular other defendants and that there was
an overarching conspiracy among the defendants. Plaintiffs assert
one such agreement specific to Intel, namely that Intel and Google
entered into an agreement starting no later than September 2007,
not to cold call each other's employees.

In September 2011, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, captioned In re High Tech Employee Antitrust
Litigation, which asserts the same state law claims as the state
court complaints, and also asserts claims under Section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act.
In April 2012, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' state law claims but denied defendants' motion to
dismiss the Sherman Act and Clayton Act claims.

In October 2013, the court certified a class consisting of
approximately 66,000 current or former employees of the seven
defendants. This so-called "technical class" consists of a group
of current and former technical, creative, and research and
development employees at each of the defendants. Plaintiffs'
consolidated amended complaint seeks a declaration that the
defendants' alleged actions violated the antitrust laws; damages,
trebled as provided for by law under the Sherman Act or Clayton
Act; restitution, and disgorgement; and attorneys' fees and costs.
Trial is scheduled to begin in late May 2014. Given the procedural
posture and the nature of this case, the company is unable to make
a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if
any, that might arise from this matter. The company disputes the
plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.


INTEL CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal McAfee Shareholder Suit Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the McAfee Inc. Shareholder Litigation is appealing
the grant of summary judgment to Intel Corp., according to the
company's Oct. 28, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2013.

On August 19, 2010, the company announced that the company had
agreed to acquire all of McAfee's common stock for $48.00 per
share. Four McAfee shareholders filed putative class-action
lawsuits in Santa Clara County, California Superior Court
challenging the proposed transaction. The cases were ordered
consolidated in September 2010. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that named former McAfee board members, McAfee and Intel
as defendants, and alleged that the McAfee board members breached
their fiduciary duties and that McAfee and Intel aided and abetted
those breaches of duty.

The complaint requested rescission of the merger agreement, such
other equitable relief as the court may deem proper, and an award
of damages in an unspecified amount. In June 2012, the plaintiffs'
damages expert asserted that the value of a McAfee share for the
purposes of assessing damages should be $62.08.
In January 2012, the court certified the action as a class action,
appointed the Central Pension Laborers' Fund to act as the class
representative, and scheduled trial to begin in January 2013. In
March 2012, defendants filed a petition with the California Court
of Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse the class certification
order; the petition was denied in June 2012. In March 2012, at
defendants' request, the court held that plaintiffs were not
entitled to a jury trial, and ordered a bench trial. In April
2012, plaintiffs filed a petition with the California Court of
Appeal for a writ of mandate to reverse that order, which the
court of appeal denied in July 2012. In August 2012, defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted that
motion in November 2012, and entered final judgment in the case in
February 2013. In April 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.
Because the resolution of the appeal may materially impact the
scope and nature of the proceeding, the company is unable to make
a reasonable estimate of the potential loss or range of losses, if
any, arising from this matter.  The company disputes the class-
action claims and intends to continue to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.


LEAR CORP: Continues to Face Antitrust Suit in Michigan
-------------------------------------------------------
The antitrust suit filed against Lear Corporation in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
continues after the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss,
according to the company's Oct. 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 28, 2013.

On October 5, 2011, a plaintiff filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan against the Company and several other global
suppliers of automotive wire harnesses alleging violations of
federal and state antitrust and related laws. Since that time, a
number of other plaintiffs have filed substantially similar class
action complaints against the Company and these and other
suppliers and individuals in a number of different federal
district courts, and it is possible that additional similar
lawsuits may be filed in the future. Plaintiffs purport to be
direct and indirect purchasers of automotive wire harnesses
supplied by the Company and/or the other defendants during the
relevant period. The complaints allege that the defendants
conspired to fix prices at which automotive wire harnesses were
sold and that this had an anticompetitive effect upon interstate
commerce in the United States. The complaints further allege that
defendants fraudulently concealed their alleged conspiracy. The
plaintiffs in these proceedings seek injunctive relief and
recovery of an unspecified amount of damages, as well as costs and
expenses relating to the proceedings, including attorneys' fees.

On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation entered an order transferring and coordinating the
various civil actions, for pretrial purposes, into one proceeding
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan. On May 14, 2012, three purported classes of plaintiffs -
- direct purchasers of automotive wire harnesses; automotive
dealers that indirectly purchased automotive wire harnesses or
vehicles containing such harnesses; and indirect purchasers that
purchased or leased vehicles containing automotive wire harnesses
(or purchased replacement automotive wire harnesses for their
vehicles) -- filed consolidated amended complaints in the
consolidated proceeding. With respect to the Company, the
consolidated amended complaints are substantially similar to the
individual complaints that had been filed in the various
jurisdictions. On July 13, 2012, the Company filed a motion to
have these actions dismissed. On June 6, 2013, the District Court
entered an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss and, on
September 6, 2013, denied the Company's motion to certify the June
6, 2013 order for interlocutory appeal.


LEAR CORP: Awaits Ruling on New Motion to Block Antitrust Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lear Corporation is awaiting a decision on its renewed request
that the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District
of New York enjoin antitrust class action plaintiffs from seeking
damages against the Company for the period prior to November 9,
2009, according to the company's Oct. 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 28, 2013.

Beginning in early 2012, single putative class action complaints
were filed in the Superior Courts of Justice in Ontario, Quebec
and British Columbia against the Company and several other global
suppliers of automotive wire harnesses alleging violations of
Canadian laws related to competition. The allegations in the
complaints are substantially similar to those complaints that have
been filed in the United States.

On November 17, 2011, the Company filed a motion with the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
seeking entry of an order enforcing the Company's 2009 Plan of
Reorganization and directing dismissal of the pending class action
complaints. The bankruptcy court heard oral argument on the motion
and, on February 10, 2012, ruled that claims against the Company
alleging violation of antitrust law are enjoined to the extent
that they arose prior to the Company's emergence from Chapter 11
bankruptcy proceedings on November 9, 2009. The bankruptcy court
further held that the District Court was the appropriate forum to
address antitrust claims arising after the Company's emergence
from Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The Company appealed the
bankruptcy court's decision on this issue, and in November 2012,
the appellate court ruled in favor of the Company and remanded for
consideration by the bankruptcy court the possible effects of
certain alleged antitrust claims arising after November 9, 2009.
This issue was stayed by the bankruptcy court until a decision was
entered with respect to the Company's motion to dismiss the
underlying class action complaints in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Following the District
Court's June 6, 2013 order denying the Company's motion to
dismiss, the Company renewed its request that the bankruptcy court
enjoin the antitrust class action plaintiffs, and any similarly
situated potential plaintiffs, from seeking damages against the
Company for the period prior to November 9, 2009. The bankruptcy
court heard oral argument on this matter on September 10, 2013,
and the Company awaits a decision.


LEFT COAST: Recalls Lotus Foods Noodles Due to Mould
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 2, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Non harmful
                          (Quality/Spoilage)
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Left Coast Naturals
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8485

Affected products:

   -- 80 g. Lotus Foods Forbidden Rice Ramen with Miso Soup with
      UPC 7 08953 60101 4;

   -- 80 g Lotus Foods Jade Pearl Rice Ramen with Miso Soup with
      UPC 7 08953 60102 1;

   -- 80 g Lotus Foods Millet and Brown Rice Ramen with Miso Soup
      with UPC 7 08953 60103 8;

   -- 283 g Lotus Foods Organic Forbidden Rice Ramen 4-Pack with
      UPC 7 08953 60201 1;

   -- 283 g Lotus Foods Organic Jade Pearl Rice Ramen 4-Pack with
      UPC 7 08953 60202 8;

   -- 283 g Lotus Foods Organic Millet and Brown Rice Ramen 4-Pack
      with UPC 7 08953 60203 5


MANULIFE FINANCIAL: Responds to Caribbean Insurance Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Fletcher, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that
Manulife Financial Corp.'s court battle with former insurance
policy holders in the Caribbean is heating up again. Canada's
largest insurer by market cap was in the Ontario Court of Appeal
to respond to arguments made in a class action lawsuit brought on
behalf of 8,000 Barbadians, demanding $81-million plus interest.
A lower court ruled in favor of Manulife in the summer of 2012.


MCINNES COOPER: Settles Class Action Over Donation Tax Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Erskine, writing for The Chronicle Herald, reports that
prominent Nova Scotia tax lawyer Edwin Harris and a number of Nova
Scotia law firms recently reached a multimillion-dollar settlement
in an Ontario class action.

"It's settled," said McInnes Cooper general counsel John Kulik.
"The money has been paid by our insurers."

McInnes Cooper, Patterson Palmer, also known as Patterson Palmer
Law, Patterson Kitz (Halifax), Patterson Kitz (Truro) and Harris,
identified collectively in court documents as the law firm
defendants, agreed to a settlement worth between C$23 million and
C$27 million.

The settlement represents a resolution of disputed claims, and the
settling defendants do not admit any wrongdoing or liability in
connection with the lawsuit.

Mr. Harris, a McInnes Cooper lawyer and former chair of the
Canadian Tax Foundation, was cited for alleged negligence for
endorsing ParkLane Financial Group Ltd.'s Donations for Canada
Charitable Gift Program.

The charitable donation tax program generated C$144 million in
contributions from 10,000 participants between 2005 and 2009.

ParkLane allegedly offered the program as a charitable tax shelter
sold to Canadians through financial advisers.

Participants were allegedly told that for every C$2,500 donation
they made, a Canadian charity would receive C$10,000 and the donor
would receive a charitable tax receipt for C$10,000.

Canada Revenue Agency disallowed the deductions.

Funds for Canada Foundation, Mary-Lou Gleeson, Matt Gleeson and
Gleeson Management Associates Inc. agreed to a C$950,000
settlement in the class action.

The class action continues against ParkLane Financial Group Ltd.,
Trafalgar Associates Ltd., Trafalgar Trading Ltd., and Appleby
Services Bermuda Ltd. as trustee for the Bermuda Longtail Trust.


NORTHERN TRUST: Still Faces Suit Over Securities Lending Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Trust Corporation continues to face suits in relation to
the management of its securities lending program, according to the
company's Oct. 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

A number of participants in the company's securities lending
program, which is associated with the Corporation's asset
servicing business, have commenced putative class actions in which
they claim, among other things, that the company failed to
exercise prudence in the investment management of the collateral
received from the borrowers of the securities, resulting in losses
that they seek to recover. The cases assert various contractual,
statutory and common law claims, including claims for breach of
fiduciary duty under common law and under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA). Based on the company's review of
these matters, the company believes the company operated the
company's securities lending program prudently and appropriately.
At this stage of these proceedings, however, it is not possible
for management to assess the probability of a material adverse
outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any potential loss.


NOVA SCOTIA, CANADA: Sydney Tar Pond Certification Overturned
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal
has overturned the certification of a class-action lawsuit by
Cape Breton residents who claimed the Sydney tar ponds exposed
them to contaminants.

The court issued its decision following several days of hearings
last March between the claimants and the provincial and federal
governments.

Lawyers for the two levels of government argued that the
provincial Supreme Court judge erred in certifying the case
because there are too many differences in the individual cases for
the matter to be heard as a class-action lawsuit.

The appeal court judges agreed, finding that there was too much
variance in the issues affecting the class members and that a
class-action suit was not the best way to proceed.

The original lawsuit was filed by local residents Neila MacQueen,
Joe Petitpas, Ann Ross and Iris Crawford, who are seeking
compensation and a medical monitoring fund for contamination
resulting from the operation of the steel plant between 1967 and
2000.

There was no demand for personal injury compensation.

The plaintiff claims have not been proven in court.


QUEEN CITY INVESTMENTS: Faces $50-Mil. Investor Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Amber Hunt, writing for Cincinnati.com, reports that a longtime
Cincinnati money manager already targeted in several civil suits
is also being sued in federal court on allegations he bilked about
200 investors out of more than $50 million.

The class-action suit, filed on Dec. 3 in U.S. District Court in
downtown Cincinnati, likely will slow the progress of the already-
complex civil suits that began this summer.  Like the earlier
suits, the latest filing targets not only Glen Galemmo, but his
wife, Kristine Galemmo; alleged business partners Edward C.
Blackledge and Wiley B. Kyles; and a slew of limited liability
corporations that Mr. Galemmo formed.

The latest suit is filed on behalf of two Cincinnati men --
John Capannari and John Anderson -- who claim to be among 200
investors who were "fraudulently and unlawfully induced . . . to
invest over $50 million of their money from pension plans, IRAs,
retirement accounts and other personal investment accounts in one
of the largest Ponzi schemes in the history of Hamilton County."

Messrs. Capannari and Anderson invested a combined $1.5 million on
Oct. 29, 2012, according to the suit.  The men allege that
Mr. Galemmo and his cohorts repeatedly assured them that their
money was safely invested, but in reality the defendants used the
investments as "their own personal 'cookie jar,' withdrawing
whatever they personally needed."

Investors learned via email July 17 that Queen City Investments, a
Galemmo hedge fund, was being investigated by the IRS and had been
shut down.  After that, the suit alleges that Mr. Galemmo
disappeared, his offices went dark, his entities were shuttered
and investors' money is "most likely lost."

Court documents indicate that Mr. Galemmo moved from his East
Walnut Hills home to North Carolina.

Jason Kuhlman, one of Mr. Galemmo's civil defense lawyers, said on
Dec. 3 that he expects some resolution in the county cases soon.
First, though, he asked that Hamilton County Judge Carl Stich stay
the civil cases while the federal case gets under way.

Judge Stich agreed to stay one of the cases but held off on other
rulings requested on Dec. 3 in the county Common Pleas Court.  He
said he'd rule soon on Kuhlman's motions to dismiss Kristine
Galemmo and Mr. Kyles as defendants on the civil front.
Mr. Kuhlman said that the court filings were inappropriately vague
because they broadly said the former St. Mary School teacher
helped her husband solicit investments without specifying which
investors or how she would help.

"She doesn't know most of the plaintiffs in this case," Kuhlman
said of Kristine Galemmo.

Plaintiff lawyers Brian O'Connor and Charles Reynolds argued that
the charges should stand -- particularly those against Kristine
Galemmo, whose role in the investments had earned her the nickname
"Kris the Closer," according to court filings.

Judge Stich said he expects to schedule another hearing to update
the status of the civil cases in February.

The federal case is more detailed in its allegations, claiming
that Kyles filed fraudulent tax returns on behalf of the Galemmos.
It names shell corporations through which Glen Galemmo allegedly
filtered money.  An initial court date hadn't been scheduled as of
early on Dec. 2.


RAMBUS INC: Paid $32.2MM to Indemnify Officers Facing Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
As of September 30, 2013, Rambus Inc. made cumulative payments of
approximately $32.2 million on behalf of primarily former officers
and some current officers to satisfy indemnification agreements
that arose out of several lawsuits, including securities fraud
class actions, according to the company's Oct. 25, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

Several securities fraud class actions, private lawsuits and
shareholder derivative actions were filed in state and federal
courts against certain of the Company's current and former
officers and directors related to the stock option granting
actions. As permitted under Delaware law, the Company has
agreements whereby its officers and directors are indemnified for
certain events or occurrences while the officer or director is, or
was serving, at the Company's request in such capacity. The term
of the indemnification period is for the officer's or director's
term in such capacity. The maximum potential amount of future
payments the Company could be required to make under these
indemnification agreements is unlimited. The Company has a
director and officer insurance policy that reduces the Company's
exposure and enables the Company to recover a portion of future
amounts to be paid. As a result of these indemnification
agreements, the Company continues to make payments on behalf of
primarily former officers and some current officers. As of
September 30, 2013, the Company had made cumulative payments of
approximately $32.2 million on their behalf, with no payments made
in the quarter ended September 30, 2013. As of September 30, 2012,
the Company had made cumulative payments of approximately $32.1
million on their behalf, including $0.1 million in the quarter
ended September 30, 2012. These payments were recorded under costs
of restatement and related legal activities in the condensed
consolidated statements of operations.


RCI ENTERTAINMENT: Stripper Files Minimum Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Keahey, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that a
stripper has filed a lawsuit against a New Orleans club claiming
that she and more than 300 exotic dancers were not paid minimum
wages as required by law.

Kelly Moncheski filed suit against RCI Entertainment of Louisiana
Inc., Rick's Cabaret International Inc., and ABC Insurance Co. on
Nov. 11 in federal court in New Orleans.

Ms. Moncheski filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself and all
individuals who worked for the defendants as exotic dancers.  She
worked at Rick's Cabaret Club located on Bourbon Street in New
Orleans from February to August of this year.

The defendants are accused of misclassifying Ms. Moncheski and
other exotic dancers as independent contractors, as opposed to
employees.  As a result of the alleged misclassification, the
defendants failed to pay Ms. Moncheski, and more than 300
different women who worked as exotic dancers, minimum wage as
required by federal law.  Further, the defendants are accused of
violating laws relating to overtime pay and the collection of
tips.

According to the lawsuit, the dancers were told to ask for $60 per
private dance and were required to pay the club $10.  In addition,
the dancers were required to pay a minimum commission payment to
the club, which is a percentage of the employee's tips from stage
dances.

The defendants are accused of violating the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Ms. Moncheski is seeking an award of damages for back pay,
liquidated damages, civil penalties, attorney's fees, interest,
and court costs.

The plaintiff is represented by Alexandra E. Mora and Walter Wolf
of Law Office of Alexandra Mora in New Orleans.  A jury trial is
requested.

U.S. District Judge Jane Triche Milazzo assigned to the case.

Case No. 2:13-cv-06388


SAINT JOHN, CANADA: Estabrooks' Sex Abuse Victims File Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bobbi-Jean MacKinnon, writing for CBC News, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the City of Saint John by
alleged sexual abuse victims of former city police officer
Kenneth Estabrooks.

Robert (Bobby) Hayes filed the notice of action and statement of
claim with the Court of Queen's Bench on Dec. 4 on behalf of
himself and other class members.

The Saint John Police Commission and the Saint John Police
Department are also listed as defendants.

"Estabrooks' power, authority, and fiduciary duty over the
plaintiff and the class members were created and encouraged by the
City, the Commission and the SJPD," the nine-page document states.

The defendants kept complaints about Mr. Estabrooks secret and
failed to warn and protect children, the lawsuit alleges.

Their conduct was "disgraceful, repugnant and reprehensible," the
court document states.  They have "behaved with arrogance and
high-handedness and have shown callous disregard and complete lack
of care for the plaintiff and the class members."
Seeking damages, apology

The class action is seeking general damages, special damages,
aggravated and punitive damages, as well as costs and pre-judgment
interest, although no dollar amount is stated.

It is also seeking an apology and declaration of legal
responsibility by all three defendants for the actions of
Mr. Estabrooks and the injuries suffered by the plaintiff and
class members, a validation and compensation program to assist the
victims.

As many as 263 youths may have been sexually abused by the late
Mr. Estabrooks during a three-decade period dating back to the
1950s, a private investigator hired by the city to look into
allegations announced in September.

It could be one of the worst cases of sexual abuse in Canadian
history, according to Halifax lawyer John McKiggan, who is
representing the alleged victims.

"For more than 30 years, Kenneth Estabrooks preyed on children and
youth in Saint John.  Persons in authority turned a blind eye, or
worse, covered up his sexual activities," Mr. McKiggan said in a
statement issued on Dec. 4.

"Estabrooks can no longer be held accountable for his actions.
But today the Estabrooks survivors are taking control of their
lives. They are demanding answers and accountability from the
institutions and employers that allowed Estabrooks to destroy so
many young lives."

Original investigation 'substandard'

Mr. Estabrooks, a former sergeant, was found guilty in September
1999 of indecent assault against four children, in cases dating
back to the 1950s.  The abuse included fondling and oral sex.

He was sentenced to six years in prison.

Mr. Estabrooks had admitted in 1975 to sexually abusing children,
but he wasn't charged or fired.  Instead, he was transferred out
of the police department into the city works department, where he
was in charge of tire maintenance for city vehicles until he
retired.

It was only in 1997, after new complainants came forward, that
another investigation began, resulting in his conviction.

In 1999, the New Brunswick Police Commission found the original
investigation was substandard and that the police force acted
unprofessionally in "allowing a serious sex offence to go
unpunished" so that "he continued to sexually assault children."

Mr. Estabrooks died in 2005.

Ongoing pain, suffering

The lawsuit covers the period between 1953 and 1998.

Hayes says he was sexually assaulted by Mr. Estabrooks, starting
when he was a minor.  The abuse continued for five years,
according to the statement of claim.

Mr. Hayes says the abuse caused him and the other alleged victims
to suffer:

    Nervous shock
    Anxiety
    Sexual dysfunction
    Post-traumatic stress disorder
    Depression
    Emotional trauma
    Decreased social ability
    Decreased income earning ability
    Insomnia
    Low self-esteem
    Impaired interpersonal relationships
    Psychological injuries

They continue to endure pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of
life and loss of amenities, the court documents claim.


SANTA MARIA: Recalls Prosciutto Ham Due to Listeria Risk
--------------------------------------------------------
Santa Maria Foods, a Brampton, Ontario, establishment, is
recalling approximately 2,600 pounds of whole boneless ham
prosciutto product due to possible contamination with Listeria
monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The ham product was shipped to California and Michigan for further
distribution.  Case labels bear the Canadian establishment number
"473A" within the Canadian mark of inspection.

Product subject to recall:

   -- Approximately 50-lb. boxes labeled "PROSCIUTTO x 4 GOLD"
      with the case codes BR031356 or BR031374, produced on
      Nov. 14 and Nov. 15, 2013.  Each box contains 4 individually
      packaged hams with the case codes BR031341 or BR031354.

The problem was discovered by FSIS sampling collected during
routine reinspection.  The sampled product was held, but further
investigation by Santa Maria Foods revealed that additional
potentially implicated product had been released into commerce.
FSIS and the company have received no reports of illnesses
associated with consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned
about an illness should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumption of food contaminated with L. monocytogenes can cause
listeriosis, a serious infection that primarily affects older
adults, persons with weakened immune systems, and pregnant women
and their newborns. Less commonly, persons outside these risk
groups are affected.

Listeriosis can cause fever, muscle aches, headache, stiff neck,
confusion, loss of balance and convulsions sometimes preceded by
diarrhea or other gastrointestinal symptoms.  An invasive
infection spreads beyond the gastrointestinal tract.  In pregnant
women, the infection can cause miscarriages, stillbirths,
premature delivery or life-threatening infection of the newborn.
In addition, serious and sometimes fatal infections in older
adults and persons with weakened immune systems.  Listeriosis is
treated with antibiotics.  Persons in the higher-risk categories
who experience flu-like symptoms within two months after eating
contaminated food should seek medical care and tell the health
care provider about eating the contaminated food.

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

Media with questions regarding the recall can contact Stephanie
Gillis-Paulgaard at 780-863-7754.  Consumers with questions
regarding the recall can contact the company's consumer hotline at
888-886-4428.

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


STARBUCKS CORP: Settles Class Action Over Hidden Coffee Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ducey, writing abc15.com, reports that Starbucks and Naked
Juice have just settled class action lawsuits.

Starbucks agreed to settle claims that it charged a hidden fee if
you bought less than a pound of bulk coffee at one of their
stores.

The company did not admit any wrong doing.

The affected dates are December 2007 to November 2011.

While the company settled for 1.7 million dollars, you can get $5
back.  If you don't have a rewards card, you need to file a claim
by December 23.

Ever heard of Barbara's Bakery?

They make everything from cereals to crackers and they're supposed
to be all natural with no artificial additives.

But a class action lawsuit claims the company used genetically-
modified ingredients.

The company settled that suit but claimed no wrong doing.

You could get up to $100 with this one if you bought the products
between 2008 and this year.  The deadline to file claims is
January 1.

Read more about the Barbara's bakery suit at topclassactions.com.

Finally, there was a similar claim filed against a different
company.

It involves Naked Juice.  Allegations are that from September 2007
until August of this year, the juice contained ingredients that
were synthetic and from genetically-modified crops.

The company settled the suit, but claimed no wrong doing.

Depending on what proof of purchase you have, you could claim up
to $75 if you file by December 17.


STOCKPOT INC: Recalls 1,864 Cases of Chicken Noodle Soup
--------------------------------------------------------
StockPot, Inc., an Everett, Wash. establishment, is recalling
1,864 cases (approximately 22,368 pounds) of chicken noodle soup
due to misbranding and an undeclared allergen.  The Classic
Chicken Noodle Soup product is formulated with wheat, a known
allergen.  However, the product was released with a Loaded Baked
Potato Style Soup side label, which does not declare this
allergen.

Product subject to recall:

   -- 24-oz. plastic tub of Wholesome@Home "Classic Chicken Noodle
      Soup."  The establishment number "P-18235" is located on the
      label on the lid.

The products were produced on October 25 and 26, 2013, with a use-
by date of February 17 and 18, 2014.  The product was shipped to
distribution centers in the following states: Arizona, California,
Colorado, Indiana, Oregon, Texas, Utah and Washington.  The
product was sold at retail only.

The problem was reported by a supermarket employee who noticed the
labeling error while stocking shelves.  The problem occurred when
a subset of the labels provided by the label printing company were
assembled incorrectly.  FSIS and the company have received no
reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products.
Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare
provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to ensure that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Susan
Baranowsky at 1-866-270-9303.  Media with questions about the
recall should contact Carla Burigatto, a company media contact, at
856-342-3737.

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

     http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


TEREX CORP: Faces ERISA, Securities & Derivative Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
According to Terex Corporation's Oct. 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2013, the Company has received complaints seeking
certification of class action lawsuits in an ERISA lawsuit, a
securities lawsuit and a stockholder derivative lawsuit as
follows:

     (1) A consolidated complaint in the ERISA lawsuit was filed
in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut on
September 20, 2010 and is entitled In Re Terex Corp. ERISA
Litigation.

     (2) A consolidated class action complaint for violations of
securities laws in the securities lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court, District of Connecticut on November 18,
2010 and is entitled Sheet Metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund and
Ironworkers St. Louis Council Pension Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, et
al.

     (3) A stockholder derivative complaint for violation of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty,
waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment was filed on April
12, 2010 in the United States District Court, District of
Connecticut and is entitled Peter Derrer, derivatively on behalf
of Terex Corporation v. Ronald M. DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman, Thomas
J. Riordan, G. Chris Andersen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs,
William H. Fike, Donald DeFosset, Helge H. Wehmeier, Paula H.J.
Cholmondeley, Oren G. Shaffer, Thomas J. Hansen, and David C.
Wang, and Terex Corporation.

These lawsuits generally cover the period from February 2008 to
February 2009 and allege, among other things, that certain of the
Company's SEC filings and other public statements contained false
and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the
Company, the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class
when they purchased the Company's securities and in the ERISA
lawsuit and the stockholder derivative complaint, that there were
breaches of fiduciary duties and of ERISA disclosure requirements.
The stockholder derivative complaint also alleges waste of
corporate assets relating to the repurchase of the Company's
shares in the market and unjust enrichment as a result of
securities sales by certain officers and directors. The complaints
all seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages,
costs and expenses. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate
a possible loss or a range of losses for these lawsuits. The
stockholder derivative complaint also seeks amendments to the
Company's corporate governance procedures in addition to
unspecified compensatory damages from the individual defendants in
its favor.


US AIRWAYS: Shareholder Lawsuit Over AMR Merger Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
The suit Dennis Palkon, et al. v. US Airways Group, Inc., et al.,
No. CV2013-051605 has been stayed pending the outcome of the
antitrust lawsuit filed by the United States government, according
to the company's Oct. 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2013.

On March 1, 2013, a complaint captioned Plumbers & Steamfitters
Local Union No. 248 Pension Fund v. US Airways Group, Inc., et
al., No. CV2013-051605, was filed as a putative class action on
behalf of the shareholders of US Airways Group in the Superior
Court for Maricopa County, Arizona. On July 3, 2013, an amended
complaint, captioned Dennis Palkon, et al. v. US Airways Group,
Inc., et al., No. CV2013-051605, was filed with the same court.
The amended complaint names as defendants US Airways Group and the
members of its board of directors, and alleges that the directors
failed to maximize the value of US Airways Group in connection
with the Merger [with with AMR Corporation] and that US Airways
Group aided and abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The
relief sought in the amended complaint includes an injunction
against the Merger, or rescission in the event it has been
consummated. The court in the above-referenced action denied the
plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order that had
sought to enjoin the Company's Annual Meeting of Stockholders. The
action has been stayed pending the outcome of the antitrust
lawsuit filed by the United States government and various states
on August 13, 2013. The Company believes this lawsuit is without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against the allegations.


WELLPOINT INC: Summary Judgment in Suit v. Anthem Deferred
----------------------------------------------------------
The court deferred a final ruling on Wellpoint, Inc.'s motion for
summary judgment in Ronald Gold, et al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al.,
according to Wellpoint's Oct. 25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

The company is defending a certified class action filed as a
result of the 2001 demutualization of Anthem Insurance Companies,
Inc., or AICI. The lawsuit names AICI as well as Anthem, Inc., or
Anthem, n/k/a WellPoint, Inc., and is captioned Ronald Gold, et
al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al. AICI's 2001 Plan of Conversion, or the
Plan, provided for the conversion of AICI from a mutual insurance
company into a stock insurance company pursuant to Indiana law.
Under the Plan, AICI distributed the fair value of the company at
the time of conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, or ESMs,
in the form of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for their
membership interests in the mutual company. Plaintiffs in Gold
allege that AICI distributed value to the wrong ESMs.

Cross motions for summary judgment were granted in part and denied
in part on July 26, 2006 with regard to the issue of sovereign
immunity asserted by co-defendant, the state of Connecticut, or
the State. The court also denied the company's motion for summary
judgment as to plaintiffs' claims on January 10, 2005. The State
appealed the denial of its motion to the Connecticut Supreme
Court. The company filed a cross-appeal on the sovereign immunity
issue.

On May 11, 2010, the Court reversed the judgment of the trial
court denying the State's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims
under sovereign immunity and dismissed the company's cross-appeal.
The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted on December
15, 2011. The company and the plaintiffs filed renewed cross-
motions for summary judgment on January 24, 2013. Argument on the
renewed motions was held on April 19, 2013. On August 19, 2013,
the court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The
court deferred a final ruling on the company's motion for summary
judgment, instead requesting supplemental argument which is
scheduled to occur on November 7, 2013. The company intends to
vigorously defend the Gold lawsuit; however, its ultimate outcome
cannot be presently determined.


WELLPOINT INC: Out-of-Network "UCR" Rate Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
In re WellPoint, Inc. Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates Litigation
continues in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, according to the company's Oct. 25, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

The company is currently a defendant in eleven putative class
actions relating to out-of-network, or OON, reimbursement that
were consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In
re WellPoint, Inc. Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates Litigation that is
pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The lawsuits were filed in 2009. The
plaintiffs include current and former members on behalf of a
putative class of members who received OON services for which the
defendants paid less than billed charges, the American Medical
Association, four state medical associations, OON physicians,
chiropractors, clinical psychologists, podiatrists,
psychotherapists, the American Podiatric Association, California
Chiropractic Association and the California Psychological
Association on behalf of a putative class of all physicians and
all non-physician health care providers.

In the consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the
defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, or RICO, the Sherman Antitrust Act, ERISA,
federal regulations, and state law by relying on databases
provided by Ingenix in determining OON reimbursement. A
consolidated amended complaint was filed to add allegations in the
lawsuit that OON reimbursement was calculated improperly by
methodologies other than the Ingenix databases. The company filed
a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint, which
motion was granted in part and denied in part. The court gave the
plaintiffs permission to replead many of those claims that were
dismissed.

The plaintiffs then filed a third amended consolidated complaint
repleading some of the claims that had been dismissed without
prejudice and adding additional statements in an attempt to
bolster other claims. The company filed a motion to dismiss most
of the claims in the third amended consolidated complaint, which
was granted in part and denied in part. The plaintiffs then filed
a fourth amended consolidated complaint and the company filed a
motion to dismiss most of the claims asserted in the fourth
amended consolidated complaint. In July 2013 the court issued an
order granting in part and denying in part the company's motion.
The court held that the state and federal anti-trust claims along
with the RICO claims should be dismissed in their entirety with
prejudice. The court further found that the ERISA claims, to the
extent they involved non-Ingenix methodologies, along with those
that involved the company's alleged non-disclosures should be
dismissed with prejudice. The court also dismissed most of the
plaintiffs' state law claims with prejudice. The only claims that
remain after the court's decision are an ERISA benefits claim
relating to claims priced based on Ingenix, a breach of contract
claim on behalf of one subscriber plaintiff, a breach of implied
covenant claim on behalf of one plaintiff, and one subscriber
plaintiff's claim under the California Unfair Competition Law. The
plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the motion to
dismiss order, which the court granted in part and denied in part.

The court ruled that the plaintiffs adequately allege that one
Georgia provider plaintiff is deemed to have exhausted
administrative remedies regarding non-Ingenix methodologies based
on the facts alleged regarding that plaintiff. Fact discovery is
complete. Earlier in the case, in 2009, the company filed a motion
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, or the Florida Court, to enjoin the claims brought by the
medical doctors and doctors of osteopathy and certain medical
associations based on prior litigation releases, which was granted
in 2011. The Florida Court ordered the plaintiffs to dismiss their
claims that are barred by the release. The plaintiffs then filed a
petition for declaratory judgment asking the court to find that
these claims are not barred by the releases from the prior
litigation. The company filed a motion to dismiss the declaratory
judgment action, which was granted. The plaintiffs appealed the
dismissal of the declaratory judgment to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but the dismissal was upheld.
The enjoined physicians have not yet dismissed their claims. The
Florida Court found the enjoined physicians in contempt and
sanctioned them in July 2012. The barred physicians are paying the
sanctions and have appealed the Florida Court's sanctions order to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Oral
argument on that appeal is scheduled for October 2013. The company
intends to vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate
outcome cannot be presently determined.


WEST BANCORP: Still Faces Suit Alleging Usurious Acts
-----------------------------------------------------
West Bancorporation, Inc. continues to face a lawsuit asserting
usurious practices under Iowa law, according to the company's Oct.
25, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On September 29, 2010, West Bank was sued in a purported class
action lawsuit that, as amended, asserts that nonsufficient funds
fees charged by West Bank to Iowa resident noncommercial customers
on bank debit card transactions, but not checks or Automated
Clearing House items, are usurious under Iowa law, rather than
allowable fees, and that the sequence in which West Bank formerly
posted items for payment in consumer demand accounts violated
various alleged duties of good faith.

As West Bank understands the current claims, plaintiffs are
seeking alternative remedies that include injunctive relief,
damages (including treble damages), punitive damages, refund of
fees, and attorney fees. West Bank believes the lawsuit
allegations are factually and legally incorrect in multiple
material ways and is vigorously defending the action. The amount
of potential loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated now
because the multiple alternative claims involve different time
periods and present different defenses related to potential
liability, class certification, and damages.


XCEL ENERGY: Katrina-Related Lawsuit by "Comer" Now Closed
----------------------------------------------------------
The suit Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc. et al. is now close after
plaintiffs elected not to seek further review of the dismissal of
the case, according to the company's Oct. 25, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In May 2011, less than a year after the initial Comer vs. Xcel
Energy Inc. et al. lawsuit was dismissed, plaintiffs in this
purported class action lawsuit filed a second lawsuit against more
than 85 utility, oil, chemical and coal companies in the U.S.
District Court in Mississippi.  The complaint alleges defendants'
CO2 emissions intensified the strength of Hurricane Katrina and
increased the damage plaintiffs purportedly sustained to their
property.  Plaintiffs base their claims on public and private
nuisance, trespass and negligence.  Among the defendants named in
the complaint are Xcel Energy Inc., SPS, PSCo, NSP-Wisconsin and
NSP-Minnesota.  The amount of damages claimed by plaintiffs is
unknown.  The defendants believe this lawsuit is without merit and
filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  In March 2012, the U.S.
District Court granted this motion for dismissal.  In April 2012,
plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit.  In May 2013, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal of this lawsuit. Plaintiffs elected not
to seek further review of this decision, which brings this
litigation to a close.  No accrual was recorded for this matter.


                             *********

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  * * *