CAR_Public/131212.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, December 12, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 246

                             Headlines


23ANDME INC: Ankcorn Law Firm Files Deceptive Marketing Class Suit
24 HOUR FITNESS: FLSA Class Suit Must Be Arbitrated, Court Ruled
AMARIN CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in California
ANZ BANK: Charged Unfair Fees to Boost Profits, Court Hears
APPLE INC: "Lightning" Connectors Are Defective, Class Claims

ARCHER PRESSURE: Fails to Pay Field Engineers' OT, Suit Claims
BARCLAYS BANK: Manipulated WM/Reuters Rates, "Haverhill" Suit Says
BED BATH: Has Prelim. Okay of $415,000 Settlement of "Boring" Suit
BUCCANEERS LP: Judge Grant Motion to Dismiss TCPA Class Action
BUDDHA SUSHI: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage to Employees, Suit Says

CANADA: Breached Privacy of Medical Marijuana Patients, Suit Says
CARE FOR ALL: Faces "Covington" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
CREDIT ADJUSTMENTS: Jan. 13 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
CVS CAREMARK: Judge Refuses to Certify Calif. Wage Class Action
DEKALB COUNTY, GA: Teacher to Join Suit Over Retirement Funds

E.I. DUPONT: Conspired to Fix Prices of TiO2, Valspar Suit Claims
FANNIE MAE: Judge Approves $153-Mil. Class Action Settlement
FORGE GROUP: Possibility of Shareholder Class Actions Strengthens
GENERAL CABLE: Robbins Geller Rudman Files Class Action in N.Y.
GRANITE MAX: Sent Fax Blasts Without Prior Consent, Class Claims

GRUNENTHAL GMBH: Thalidomide Victory Major Battle for Peter Gordon
H&R BLOCK: "Cauthen" Suit Moved to IRS Form 8863 MDL in Missouri
H&R BLOCK: "Lefebvre" Suit Moved to IRS Form 8863 MDL in Missouri
H&R BLOCK: "Millett" Suit Moved to IRS Form 8863 MDL in Missouri
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Match.com, One Big Internet Fraud, Suit Says

INVESTORS GROUP: Court Approved Terms of Settlement Distribution
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Cleveland Woman Joins Mesh Class Action
LG ELECTRONICS: Judge Orders Mediation in Washer Class Action
MONTREAL MAINE: 1,200 People Join Lac Megantic Class Action
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Ray Hudson Joins Concussion Class Action

NIPPON YUSEN: "Camaj" Suit Moved to Vehicle Carrier Services MDL
NIPPON YUSEN: "Heilicher" Suit Moved to Carrier Services MDL
NYK LINE: "Reiber" Suit Moved to Vehicle Carrier Services MDL
OFFICE DEPOT: Wins Final Approval of "Provine" Suit Settlement
QUEEN CITY INVESTMENT: Cummins, Strauss Troy File Class Action

RANGER OFFSHORE: Hourly Offshore Employees Seek Unpaid OT Wages
RITE AID: Deceives Consumers of Health Supplements, Suit Claims
ROYAL BANK: Faces CPDO Investor Class Action in Netherlands
SHAWNEEQUARTERS ASSOCIATION: Jan. 21 Settlement Hearing Set
SHELBY COUNTY, AL: School Board Responds to Acker Abuse Suit

SIRIUS XM: Copyright Class Action to Remain in California
SONIA GANDHI: Faces Class Action in US Over 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots
UNITED STATES: Veterans Drug Testing Suit Goes to 9th Cir.
UNIVERSAL FIDELITY: Sued Over Fair Debt Collections Act Violation
VIOLIN MEMORY: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in California

WESTERN HEALTH: Class Certification Hearing Scheduled for February
WHOLE FOODS: Faces Class Action Over GMOs in Corn Flakes

* Highchair-Related Injuries Up 22% Despite Recalls


                             *********


23ANDME INC: Ankcorn Law Firm Files Deceptive Marketing Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ankcorn of the San Diego-based Ankcorn Law Firm PC has filed
a class action lawsuit against 23andMe, Inc. -- a Mountain View,
Calif., firm currently under scrutiny by the FDA -- alleging that
its marketing is deceptive, and that the results of its $99
genetic test are "not supported by any scientific evidence."

The suit, filed on behalf of tens of thousands of consumers across
the country who purchased the company's Personal Genome Service
(PGS) -- a personalized DNA test -- states that 23andMe has been
fraudulently marketing the product for years.  23andMe is part of
a fledgling industry that allows consumers to examine their
genetic code to learn about their ancestry, as well as future
health issues.

According to Mr. Ankcorn, 23andMe claims that by simply sending in
a saliva sample, it can provide health reports on more than 240
conditions and traits -- and most crucially tell if you're a
carrier for specific genetic diseases.

The problem, says Mr. Ankcorn, is that the company has marketed
the product as a diagnostic aid without first obtaining approval
from the FDA.  "The government has been asking for evidence to
support their claims for more than four years, but 23andMe has
stalled and continued to market and sell the product," Mr. Ankcorn
said.  "The company has been illegally marketing its Personal
Genome Service for years, despite a total lack of scientific
validation for its lofty claims."

According to a recently filed complaint, which seeks at least $5
million under various California state laws, 23andMe makes
unsupported claims about the tests' abilities to provide genetic
information about breast cancer, diabetes, lactose intolerance and
other diseases, as well as a person's response to various
prescription drugs including warfarin and clopidogrel.

The company, co-founded by and now run by Anne Wojcicki, wife of
Google founder Sergey Brin, has been in the spotlight since last
week, when the FDA released a letter stating 23andMe has been
marketing the tests without permission, and that its practices
could trigger major health risks such as unnecessary mastectomies.
The privately held company was founded in 2006 and named for the
23 pairs of chromosomes in a normal human cell.

The warning letter -- written on November 22 -- orders 23andMe to
immediately stop its advertising, warning that the company is
marketing the Personal Genome Service without clearance or
approval, in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
(the FD&C Act).

"This company has been under ongoing investigation by the FDA,
which has conducted more than 14 face-to-face and teleconference
meetings -- as well as hundreds of email exchanges and dozens of
written communications -- to share its concerns," Mr. Ankcorn
said. Alarmingly, the company has refused to provide the FDA with
any data, he added.

"We believe 23andMe has to return the money to the consumers who
purchased these genetic tests."


24 HOUR FITNESS: FLSA Class Suit Must Be Arbitrated, Court Ruled
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted 24 Hour Fitness, USA, Inc.'s motion
to compel arbitration but denied its motion to dismiss a class
action lawsuit filed by Teresa Fimby-Christensen and Vicky Shorts.
Judge Davila also ruled that the case is stayed pending the final
resolution of the arbitration.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and various California Labor Code provisions by,
inter alia, failing to pay for overtime compensation and missed
meal and rest period compensation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          Hannah R. Salassi, Esq.
          Matthew Roland Bainer, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE AND ASSOCIATES, APC
          1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 891-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891-7030
          E-mail: scole@scalaw.com
                  hsalassi@scalaw.com
                  mrbainer@scalaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gregory William Knopp, Esq.
          Jeremy Fine Bollinger, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 552-6436
          Facsimile: (310) 229-1001
          E-mail: gknopp@akingump.com
                  jbollinger@akingump.com

The case is Fimby-Christensen, et al. v. 24 Hour Fitness, USA,
Inc., et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-01007-EJD, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose).


AMARIN CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Dec. 11
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Amarin
Corporation, plc and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Southern District of
California , and docketed under 13-CIV-7882, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Amarin between August 8, 2012 and
October 16, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks to
recover damages against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal
securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder (see also Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross
LLP).

If you are a shareholder who purchased Amarin securities during
the Class Period, you have until January 3, 2014 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Amarin is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the
commercialization and development of drugs to improve
cardiovascular health.  Amarin's product development program
purports to leverage its extensive experience in lipid science and
the potential therapeutic benefits of polyunsaturated fatty acids.
Presently, Amarin's lead product is Vascepa(R) (icosapent ethyl)
capsules. Vascepa, known in scientific literature as AMR101, is a
patented, pure- EPA omega-3 fatty acid prescription product in a 1
gram capsule.  The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business in general, and the prospects for
FDA approval of Vascepa.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements, and/or failed to disclose material
facts, including: (1) the mineral oil used as the placebo in the
ANCHOR trial may not have been biologically inert, and therefore
may have skewed the results of the trial by exaggerating the
efficacy of Vascepa for the ANCHOR Indication; and (2) multiple
cardiovascular outcome studies completed after the execution of
the SPA covering the ANCHOR trial with the FDA in July 2009 failed
to demonstrate that reducing triglyceride levels (whether from
intake of omega-3 fatty acids or other compounds) translates into
a meaningful cardiovascular benefit.

On October 11, 2013, the FDA released its briefing document for
the EMDAC meeting scheduled for October 16, 2013.  In the Briefing
Document, the FDA repeatedly expressed concern that the mineral
oil used as a placebo in the ANCHOR trial may not be biologically
inert, and therefore may have skewed the trial results by causing
the efficacy of Vascepa to be exaggerated.  The Briefing Document
also highlighted that, since the signing of the SPA covering the
ANCHOR trial, several cardiovascular outcome trials had failed to
demonstrate meaningful cardiovascular benefit from a reduction in
triglyceride levels, thus calling into question whether Vascepa
offers any meaningful clinical benefit to patients with high
triglyceride levels.  On this news, Amarin shares fell $1.28 per
share, or more than 20%, to close at $5.09 on October 11, 2013.

On October 16, 2013, the Company disclosed that the EMDAC had
voted 9 to 2 against approval of Vascepa for the ANCHOR Indication
citing, among other things, concerns surrounding the mineral oil
placebo and the failure of recent cardiovascular outcome trials to
demonstrate meaningful cardiovascular benefit from reduction in
triglyceride levels.  On this news, Amarin shares fell $3.16 per
share, or more than 61%, to close at $2.01 on October 17, 2013.

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


ANZ BANK: Charged Unfair Fees to Boost Profits, Court Hears
-----------------------------------------------------------
News.com.au reports that the ANZ bank milked unfair penalty fees
from customers to generate more profits, a landmark class action
court case has heard.

A series of high-level internal documents exposed the bank was
deliberately charging "over and above" costs to protect revenue,
the Federal Court trial was told.

And the bank was worried about the potential "catastrophic" risk
of losing tens of millions of dollars from regulation that would
restrict fees to mere cost recovery.  It discussed the possibility
of jacking up other types of fees "to plug any revenue gaps",
Michael Lee, SC, said.

ANZ customers are seeking AUD57 million in compensation through a
class action funded by Bentham IMF (Australia) Ltd.  It is the
first major bank to go to trial as 185,000 Australians try to
recover AUD240 million from eight banks in the nation's biggest
class action.

Customers are claiming refunds for AUD20-AUD60 honor, dishonor,
late payment and over-limit banking and credit card fees that
plaintiff lawyers Maurice Blackburn argue are excessive, unfair
penalties rather than fees for services.

ANZ is defending the matter.

Mr. Lee said it was as "plain as pikestaff" that the bank was
charging more than costs to boost profit margins.

Bank strategy documents discussing proposed fee changes also
discussed how few customers did not switch banks on the basis of
exception fees, he said.  The fees were regarded as "a significant
part of transaction banking profit and loss".

The hearing, before Justice Michelle Gordon, was told dishonor
fees were "hardest to justify" to customers and regulators because
"no service is provided".

Mr. Lee said a planned 2009 redraft and renaming of fees was a
guise designed to continue to charge exception fees by creating
"essentially a fiction of providing a fee for service".

Documents showed one technical project manager "calling a spade a
spade" referred to penalty fees, he said.

The ANZ and other major banks have abolished or reduced various
fees in recent years.

The case, which is listed for three weeks, continues.


APPLE INC: "Lightning" Connectors Are Defective, Class Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rendell Roman, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 5:13-cv-05437-PSG (N.D. Cal.,
November 22, 2013) is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of
a nationwide class of individuals, who purchased an Apple product
that came equipped with the Apple Lightning connector from Apple,
Inc.  To date, the Apple products that can be charged and
connected to the computer exclusively by the Lightning include:
the iPhone 5, iPad (fourth generation), iPad Mini, iPod Nano
(seventh generation), and iPod Touch (fifth generation)
(collectively "Apple devices").

In Apple's press release and advertising videos, the Lightning
connectors were shown to easily plug in and out of the iPhone
device, without issues of deterioration, breakage, or failure, Mr.
Roman says.  However, he contends, contrary to Apple's
representations, advertisements and statements, the Lightning is
defective and is prone to fraying, breakage, deterioration, and
failure, and does substantially fray, break, deteriorate, and
fail.

Apple Inc., a California corporation headquartered in Cupertino,
California, is licensed to, and is doing business in California
and throughout the United States.  Apple designed, manufactured,
promoted, marketed, distributed, and sold the Lightning with its
Apple devices throughout the United States and California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rose F. Luzon, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          401 West A Street, Suite 2350
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 235-2416
          Facsimile: (619) 234-7334
          E-mail: rluzon@sfmslaw.com


ARCHER PRESSURE: Fails to Pay Field Engineers' OT, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harold Burgess, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated
v. Archer Pressure Pumping LLC & Great White Pressure Pumping LLC,
Case No. 5:13-cv-01171-C (W.D. Okla., November 1, 2013), alleges
that the Defendants did not pay Field Engineer Trainees and Field
Engineers overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week.

Archer Pressure Pumping LLC and Great White Pressure Pumping LLC
are foreign limited liability companies headquartered in Oklahoma
City.  Great White is now owned and operated as part of Archer
Pressure.  Archer Pressure is part of an enterprise that operates
as "a global oilfield service provider specializing in drilling
services and well services."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin S. Locke, Esq.
          TAYLOR LUCAS LOCKE & CORBIN
          1132 N Broadway Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73103
          Telephone: (405) 232-8585
          Facsimile: (405) 232-8588
          E-mail: kevin.locke@taylorlucas.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Courtney K. Warmington, Esq.
          CROWE & DUNLEVY-OKC
          20 N Broadway Ave., Suite 1800
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 239-6671
          Facsimile: (405) 272-5217
          E-mail: warmingc@crowedunlevy.com


BARCLAYS BANK: Manipulated WM/Reuters Rates, "Haverhill" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Haverhill Retirement System, on Behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Barclays Bank PLC, Citigroup, Inc.,
Citigroup, N.A., Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank AG, JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase
Bank, National Association, Royal Bank of Scotland Group, PLC, UBS
AG and UBS Securities LLC, Case No. 1:13-cv-07789-ER (S.D.N.Y.,
November 1, 2013), alleges that the Defendants conspired to
manipulate WM/Reuters Rates, thereby, causing injury to the
business or property of the Plaintiff and the Class.

WM/Reuters Closing Spot Rates (4:00 p.m. UK fix), known as the
London close or London fix (11:00 a.m. in New York), provide a
standardized method of determining exchange rates at fixed
intervals for 160 different currencies.  WM/Reuters Rates are the
industry-wide, global standard for closing spot FX rates.

The Defendants are foreign exchange dealers and are responsible
for the vast majority of FX trading.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Peter Guglielmo, Esq.
          Donald A. Broggi, Esq.
          SCOTT + SCOTT, L.L.P.( NYC)
          405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
                  dbroggi@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
          Walter W. Noss, Esq.
          Kristen M. Anderson, Esq.
          SCOTT + SCOTT, LLP (CA)
          707 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
          E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com
                  wnoss@scott-scott.com
                  kanderson@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          George A. Zelcs, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 641-9750
          Facsimile: (312) 641-9751
          E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com

               - and -

          Steven M. Berezney, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-4844
          Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
          E-mail: sberezney@koreintillery.com

               - and -

          Daniel J. Mogin, Esq.
          Jodie M. Williams, Esq.
          Phillip E. Stephan, Esq.
          THE MOGIN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          707 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 687-6611
          Facsimile: (619) 687-6610
          E-mail: dmogin@moginlaw.com
                  jwilliams@moginlaw.com
                  pstephan@moginlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew Arthur Ruffino, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP(NYC)
          620 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018-1405
          Telephone: (212) 841-1000
          Facsimile: (212) 841-1010
          E-mail: aruffino@cov.com

               - and -

          Peter Sullivan, Esq.
          Rachel Alden Lavery, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP (NY)
          200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 351-5370
          Facsimile: (212) 351-6370
          E-mail: psullivan@gibsondunn.com
                  rlavery@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Joel Steven Sanders, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
          555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 393-8268
          Facsimile: (415) 374-8439
          E-mail: jsanders@gibsondunn.com


BED BATH: Has Prelim. Okay of $415,000 Settlement of "Boring" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bed Bath & Beyond of California Limited Liability Company received
preliminary approval of its $415,000 settlement of a class action
lawsuit commenced by Sean Boring.

The Plaintiff's operative complaint alleges Bed Bath failed to
reimburse its California Store Managers, Assistant Managers, and
Department Managers for the use of their personal vehicles for
business-related purposes and for gas mileage when they personally
transferred products between stores.  Mr. Boring was an assistant
manager at the Defendant's Oxnard, Ventura, and Thousand Oaks
locations from October 2005 through April 19, 2012.  He contends
that he used his personal vehicle to retrieve products or supplies
from other store locations to bring to his home store location.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig Justin Ackermann, Esq.
          Michael Malk, Esq.
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 277-0614
          Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
          E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com
                  mm@malklawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John S. Battenfeld, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
          E-mail: jbattenfeld@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Rebecca Dianne Eisen, Esq.
          Stephen Luther Taeusch, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
          One Market Plaza, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-1328
          Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
          E-mail: reisen@morganlewis.com
                  staeusch@morganlewis.com

The case is Boring v. Bed Bath & Beyond of California Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 3:12-cv-05259-JST, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco).


BUCCANEERS LP: Judge Grant Motion to Dismiss TCPA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew A. Luber, Esq., at Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, reports
that as recently discussed, in Stein, et al. v. Buccaneers LP,
No. 13-2136 (M.D. Fla.), the Bucs filed a motion to dismiss a
putative TCPA class action on the ground that its pre-
certification offer of judgment mooted the named plaintiffs'
claims.  In response to the motion to dismiss -- indeed, one day
later -- plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.
Although Judge Merryday immediately denied plaintiffs' class
certification motion as "premature" and lacking "evidentiary
support," he did not rule on the underlying motion to dismiss.

That no longer is the case.  Judge Merryday recently granted the
Bucs' motion to dismiss, concluding the "Rule 68 offers of
judgment preceded the motion to certify the class" and thus there
was a lack of a "jurisdictionally necessary case or controversy."
From the get-go, Judge Merryday was suspicious of the motives
behind the lawsuit; he candidly stated "something else must be
going on here."  That "something else," he explained, is the
attorneys' fees that "will soar astronomically" if the case
advanced as a class action:

The prospect of lawyers losing an opportunity to parlay a party's
right to an exiguous statutory fine into a chance to recover an
enormous fee is not a consideration worth considering.  The fact
that a fine, intended to remind a person not to send an
unsolicited or unwelcome facsimile, will not expand (at least in
this action) into a punitive penalty into the tens of millions is,
also, not a consideration worth considering.

Ouch! Judge Merryday also struggled with why, in a case where the
"sole injury is receipt of a facsimile advertising football
tickets," the plaintiffs desired to proceed notwithstanding the
Bucs offer of complete relief.

The Stein decision does, however, provide plaintiffs with a
defense to the so-called "pick off."  The Court largely adopted
the Seventh Circuit's analysis in Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662
F.3d 891(7th Cir. 2011).  In Damasco, a TCPA case, the Seventh
Circuit held that an offer of complete relief made before a
plaintiff moves for class certification moots a putative class
action, but an offer made after a plaintiff moves for class
certification does not.  Acknowledging that the result would be
class certification motions filed without a factual record --
which was the very concern that had animated his prior ruling --
Judge Judge Merryday noted that litigants can "ask the district
court to delay its ruling to provide time for additional discovery
or investigation."

Perhaps not surprisingly, the lawyers who filed the original suit
against the Bucs filed a nearly identical one a week later and
filed a contemporaneous motion for class certification along with
the new complaint.  It will be interesting to see how the Bucs
defend this rematch.  Stay tuned.


BUDDHA SUSHI: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage to Employees, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Kiriacon, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Buddha Sushi Bar, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, and Jackson Staak, individually, Case No. 1:13-
cv-23982-JAL (S.D. Fla., November 2, 2013) seeks unpaid wages,
liquidated damages or pre-judgment interest, post-judgment
interest, reasonable attorney's fee and costs from the Defendants.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants willfully violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate her at a rate
equal to the federal minimum wage requirement for work performed
while employed by the Defendants.

Buddha Sushi Bar, is a Florida limited liability company.  Jackson
Staak, a resident of Florida, owned and operated Buddha Sushi Bar,
where the Plaintiff was employed.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Militzok, Esq.
          MILITZOK & LEVY, P.A.
          The Yankee Clipper Law Center
          3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 727-8570
          Facsimile: (954) 241-6857
          E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com


CANADA: Breached Privacy of Medical Marijuana Patients, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Greer at Courthouse News Service reports that Canada
breached the privacy of thousands of medical marijuana patients by
identifying them in a mailer from Health Canada's Medical
Marijuana Access Program, a class action claims in British
Columbia Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Jason Wilcox claims that about 40,000 people
received a letter this month, with the return address:

     "Health Canada
     "Marihuana Medical Access Program
     "Health Canada
     "AL: 0300A
     "Ottawa ON K1A 0K9"

Wilcox claims that all previous correspondence from the program
was sent by private couriers, and never included the word
"marihuana" on the outside.

Canada's Deputy Minister of Health has apologized, saying it was
an error he "deeply regretted," according to the complaint.

Wilcox claims the letters effectively outed addressees as medical
marijuana users who are likely to possess or produce the drug.

By identifying them as participants in the program, the letters
disclosed sensitive health information and indicated that
addressees could be suffering from a host of diseases and
ailments, including AIDS, cancer, epilepsy or multiple sclerosis,
Wilcox claims.

He seeks costs and damages for negligence, breach of contract,
reckless intrusion upon seclusion, privacy invasion, breach of
duty of care, and acknowledgment that the government's conduct was
"high-handed, outrageous, reckless, wanton, entirely without care,
deliberate, callous, disgraceful, willful and/or in complete
disregard for the rights of the plaintiff and other class members,
and as such renders the defendant liable to pay punitive damages."

The lawsuit comes as Canada's medical marijuana system is gearing
up for an overhaul.  The federal government has sought to clamp
down on people who abuse the program by getting production
licenses and unloading excess yield onto the already massive black
market, worth several billions in British Columbia alone.

Next year, so-called personal production licenses will no longer
be allowed, in favor of commercial producers, in part due to city
governments, neighborhoods, police and fire departments wrestling
with a burgeoning network of home-based marijuana grow operations,
legal or otherwise.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ward Branch, Esq.
          Kate Saunders, Esq.
          Emily Unrau, Esq.
          BRANCH MACMASTER LLP
          1410-777 Hornby Street
          Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 1S4
          Telephone: (604) 654-2999
          Facsimile: (604) 684-3429
          E-mail: wbranch@branmac.com
                  ksaunders@branmac.com
                  eunrau@branmac.com


CARE FOR ALL: Faces "Covington" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Covington, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Care For All Homemaker and Companion Service
Inc., a Florida corporation, and Daniel L. Simmons, individually,
Case No. 0:13-cv-62400-RNS (S.D. Fla, November 2, 2013) arises
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Covington alleges that the Defendants violated the FLSA by
failing to compensate her at a rate equal to the federal minimum
wage requirement for work performed while employed by the
Defendants.  She seeks unpaid wages, liquidated damages or pre-
judgment interest, post-judgment interest, reasonable attorney's
fee and costs from the Defendants.

Care For All Homemaker and Companion Service is a Florida
corporation.  Daniel L. Simmons was a resident of Florida, who
owned and operated Care For All Homemaker and Companion Service,
where the Plaintiff was employed.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Militzok, Esq.
          MILITZOK & LEVY, P.A.
          The Yankee Clipper Law Center
          3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 727-8570
          Facsimile: (954) 241-6857
          E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com


CREDIT ADJUSTMENTS: Jan. 13 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
A federal court authorized this communication in the case of Diana
K. Spurlock, et al. v. Credit Adjustments, Inc., et al., United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
(Columbus), Case No. 2:11-cv-00970.  This is not a solicitation
from a lawyer.  If, between October 30, 2009 and November 20,
2013, you were sued on a consumer debt by Credit Adjustments, Inc.
and Howard E. Baumwell, you could receive money from a proposed
class action settlement.  If you believe that you are a class
member, you will need to provide class counsel with your name and
address. See contact information below.  If you are a class member
and you do not want to be legally bound by the settlement, you
must exclude yourself by January 13, 2014.  Contact class counsel
further information about excluding yourself.  If you stay in the
settlement class, you still may object to the settlement.  To be
valid, any objection must (1) be written, (2) specify Case No,
2:11-cv-00970, (3) state the reason(s) for the objection, (4)
include your printed name and address, (5) be signed by you, and
(6) be mailed with a postmark no later than March 4, 2014, to the
Clerk of Court, United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, 85 Marconi Blvd, Columbus, Ohio 43215 with a
copy sent to class counsel.  The Court will hold a fairness
hearing in Courtroom 3, on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 at 11:00 a.m.,
to consider whether to approve the settlement.  If you have
questions or need additional information about this case, you
should contact the attorneys who represent the class by writing,
calling, faxing or e-mailing: Edward A. Icove, Icove Legal Group,
Ltd., Terminal Tower, Ste, 627, 50 Public Square, Cleveland, Ohio
44113, (216) 802-0000 (phone), (216) 802-8002 (fax), e-mail
ed@icovelegal.com  or Daniel R. Freytag, 1320 Dublin Road, Suite
100, Columbus, Ohio 43215, (614) 264-6260, e-mail
danielfreytaglaw@yahoo.com


CVS CAREMARK: Judge Refuses to Certify Calif. Wage Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abigail Rubenstein, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal magistrate on Dec. 2 refused to certify a class of more
than 50,000 CVS Caremark Corp. workers in a lawsuit accusing the
pharmacy chain of violating state law by failing to pay employees
for time spent making deliveries between stores.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte denied the plaintiffs'
motion to certify the case as a class action on behalf of
employees in more than 1,000 CVS locations across California,
saying the members of the plaintiffs' three proposed subclasses
lacked commonality.

The suit, which was originally lodged in state court but removed
to federal court by CVS in November 2012, claims that CVS failed
to pay pharmacists and other store employees for delivering
merchandise between stores before their shifts began or after they
ended and further failed to reimburse employees for the mileage
these deliveries racked up on their personal vehicles.  It further
alleged that CVS required employees to perform company business
such as banking or training and only partially reimbursed them for
the mileage involved.

The plaintiffs sought to certify three sub-classes, but Judge
Laporte concluded that none of the three proposed groups met the
requirements for class certification.

The first subclass included nonexempt CVS employees who
transported merchandise or medicines between stores from September
2008 to the present and were not paid for their time, while the
second consisted of employees who were not reimbursed for mileage
for those trips.  Finally, the third proposed subclass comprised
workers who submitted mileage reimbursement requests and were not
paid back the full amount required by law.

In assessing whether the case was appropriate for class treatment,
Judge Laporte noted that CVS maintained a timekeeping policy that
required employees to be paid for all work performed and provided
them a way to report work done while not clocked into the
company's timekeeping system.  Similarly, CVS's reimbursement
policy required payment for reimbursable mileage, according to the
judge's order.

The judge determined that given these lawful policies and the fact
that CVS submitted testimony from workers who claimed they were in
fact paid for making interstore deliveries and were adequately
reimbursed for vehicle expenses, the putative class members had
varied experiences that rendered the plaintiffs' claims unsuitable
for class treatment, especially in light of the stringent
commonality standard laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dukes
v. Wal-Mart.

As for the third subclass, Judge Laporte found that any challenge
to CVS's mileage reimbursement method would require the plaintiffs
to show that the mileage reimbursement was less than class
members' actual expenses.  That showing would require myriad
answers to individualized questions for each class member, so
individual questions would overtake common ones, the judge said.

Having found none of the three proposed subclasses worthy of
certification, the court denied the plaintiffs bid to certify the
case as a class action.

"The plaintiffs came to court alleging that CVS had this practice
of not paying their nonexempt employees their wages for doing
these interstore transfers and not reimbursing their expenses, and
one of the reasons why court did not certify the class was that
there was evidence to the contrary," Michael D. Weil --
mweil@orrick.com -- of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, who
represents CVS, told Law360.  "So the decision not only confirms
our views on whether class certification was appropriate but also
on whether their accusations had any merit, and the court clearly
found that the company is compliant with California law."

Meanwhile, Randal Aiman-Smith, an attorney for the plaintiffs,
noted that much of the case had been stayed do to class
certification in another case and said the plaintiffs are are
considering their options for further prosecution of the case.

"Although it was essentially undisputed that many workers were
unpaid, or underpaid, for deliveries, and that CVS failed to pay
the statutory mileage reimbursement rate, CVS argued that its
violations were so widespread that it was not possible to sort
them out on a class wide basis:  it would require individual
inquiry to determine who it failed to pay and by how much it had
under-reimbursed for mileage," Mr. Aiman-Smith said.

"Plaintiffs claimed that CVS was required to keep track of which
employees were performing these deliveries while clocked out and
its failure to do so was a common policy," he said.  "Plaintiffs
believe that in denying class certification the Court erred by
failing to place the burden on CVS to keep accurate records of
time worked by employees delivering CVS merchandise[.]"

The plaintiffs are represented by Randall B. Aiman-Smith, Reed W.
L. Marcy, Hallie Von Rock and Carey E. James of Aiman-Smith &
Marcy.

CVS is represented by Michael D. Weil, Kimpo Ngoi --
kngoi@orrick.com -- Timothy J. Long -- tjlong@orrick.com -- and
Byron R. Lau -- blau@orrick.com -- of Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP.

The case is Ortiz et al v. CVS Caremark Corporation et al., case
number 3:12-cv-05859, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


DEKALB COUNTY, GA: Teacher to Join Suit Over Retirement Funds
-------------------------------------------------------------
Renee Starzyk, writing for CBS Atlanta News, reports that a
retired DeKalb County teacher said she would like to join a
lawsuit filed by two other teachers who have sued the district
over their frozen retirement funds.

A judge is expected to rule soon on whether to give the pension
fund lawsuit class-action status.

"I think I'm almost beyond angry," said retired special education
teacher Nelda Henderson.  "If I had known that there were two
people, I think I would have tried to join them if I could."

A teacher and school psychologist filed a lawsuit against the
district, alleging the school system illegally froze their pension
funds in 2009.  They are now asking that other educators be
allowed to join the lawsuit.

"They didn't want this just for themselves," attorney John Salter
said.  "They wanted this on behalf of all the teachers.  They felt
all of the teachers have been harmed."

Ms. Henderson said the district does not contribute to employees'
Social Security fund, so in addition to the freeze on her district
fund, it reduced the amount of money she was eligible for from the
government.

"As teachers, we don't get into it for the money, but we certainly
have to live," Ms. Henderson said.

Mr. Salter said the district failed to give employees a two-year
notice of the freeze, as policy requires.  He also said the school
board promised the 2009 freeze would last only one year.  It is
still in effect four years later.

"If you make a promise, you've got to keep it," Mr. Salter said.

A former school board member, who voted on the original policy in
1979, agreed the district has violated its terms.

"I felt that our motion made at that time would be honored with
future boards but they just didn't honor that," said Joe
Willingham, who is now an insurance agent.

The Georgia Federation of Teachers is closely following the
lawsuit.

"There is no way we can take care of kids without taking care of
teachers," GFT President Verdaillia Turn said.  "Every teacher
should be up in arms honestly."

A DeKalb County school spokesman told CBS Atlanta News the
district cannot comment on pending litigation.

Ms. Henderson said if a judge grants the case class-action status,
she is anxious to join the lawsuit.

"It is a lot of money.  A lot of money," said Ms. Henderson.


E.I. DUPONT: Conspired to Fix Prices of TiO2, Valspar Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that E.I. DuPont de Nemours and
Company and three other companies conspired to fix prices on
titanium dioxide, a billion-dollar chemical used in white paint,
plastics and paper, the paint company Valspar claims in court.

Valspar sued DuPont, Huntsman International, Kronos Worldwide and
Millennium Inorganic Chemicals, in Federal Court.  Valspar claims:
"Defendants and other non-party co-conspirators intentionally
conspired and agreed to manipulate, fix, raise, maintain, and
stabilize the market and price at which Titanium Dioxide is sold
in the United States."

A primary ingredient of white paint, titanium dioxide also is used
to make paper, plastics and cosmetics white; titanium dioxide
products are a multibillion-dollar industry.

The four defendants "own and supply more than 90% of the United
States' demand for titanium dioxide," Valspar says in its lawsuit.

Valspar states: "Defendants' unlawful conspiracy was initiated,
developed, and maintained by a course of anticompetitive conduct,
including agreements, secret meetings and communication between
and among defendants and their co-conspirators for the purpose of
artificially inflating the price of titanium dioxide and
allocating the United States marketplace.  While in secret
discussions, defendants exchanged commercially sensitive and
proprietary information relating to the sales, production, supply,
inventory, marketing and pricing of titanium dioxide, as well as
the raw materials necessary to manufacture titanium dioxide
itself."

Valspar opted out of two class actions against DuPont: Haley Paint
Co. v E.I. DuPont, filed Feb. 9, 2010 in Baltimore Federal Court;
and Los Gatos Mercantile et al. v. E.I. DuPont, filed March 15
this year in San Francisco Federal Court.

Valspar claims the conspiracy forced it to overpay for titanium
dioxide.

The lawsuit describes the titanium dioxide industry as "a price-
fixing cartel waiting to happen."

"The titanium dioxide industry has high barriers to entry," the
complaint states.  "For example, a new 'greenfield' one-hundred
kilotons-per-year plant has been estimated to cost approximately
$450-$500 million, and require a three-to-five-year lead time to
build.  The defendants also have cost advantages and proprietary
technologies that effectively deter new entrants.  Such barriers
are conducive to a conspiracy because they protect existing
suppliers from competition and maintain the high concentration of
the titanium dioxide industry. . . .

"Industries like the Titanium Dioxide industry, with few sellers
facing similar costs, low substitutability, competition primarily
based on price, and high barriers to entry are particularly
susceptible to price collusion.  Succinctly stated, the titanium
dioxide industry has all of the characteristics of a price-fixing
cartel waiting to happen.  This set the stage for an unlawful
conspiracy to manipulate, fix, maintain, and stabilize the price
of titanium dioxide which began to impact industry pricing on or
shortly before 2002."

Valspar seeks an injunction and penalties for restraint of trade,
price-fixing and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James P. McCarthy, Esq.
          Jessica L. Meyer, Esq.
          John C. Ekman, Esq.
          James M. Lockhart, Esq.
          LINDQUIST & VENNUM PLLP
          80 S 8th St., Suite 4200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 371-3238
          Facsimile: (612) 371-3207
          E-mail: jmccarthy@lindquist.com
                  jmeyer@lindquist.com
                  jekman@lindquist.com
                  jlockhart@lindquist.com

The case is The Valspar Corporation, et al. v. E.I. DuPont De
Nemours and Company, et al., Case No. 0:13-cv-03214-RHK-LIB, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.


FANNIE MAE: Judge Approves $153-Mil. Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Blog of Legal Times reports that a Washington federal trial
judge on Dec. 6 approved a $153 million settlement between Fannie
Mae and shareholders who sued the mortgage giant for securities
fraud.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon found the settlement and plan for
distributing it among the more than one million class members was
"fair, reasonable and adequate."  The case is the largest
securities class action settlement in the D.C. federal courts
since modern securities litigation laws went into effect in 1996.

The order ends nearly a decade of litigation against Fannie Mae
and its auditor, KPMG LLP.  The class members, led by the Ohio
Public Employees Retirement System and the State Teachers
Retirement System of Ohio, accused Fannie Mae and KPMG of
defrauding shareholders by manipulating earning and violating
guidelines known as generally accepted accounting principles.

The plaintiffs suffered a string of losses shortly before reaching
the settlement.  In 2012, Judge Leon dismissed three former Fannie
Mae executives as defendants, finding the plaintiffs failed to
present enough evidence they intended to deceive shareholders.
Other motions for summary judgment filed by Fannie Mae and KPMG
were pending when the parties announced the settlement in May.

Under the terms of the settlement, plaintiffs lawyers will receive
22 percent of the settlement fund in fees-approximately $29.1
million, after certain costs and expenses were subtracted-plus an
additional $15 million in expense reimbursements.  Markovits,
Stock & DeMarco in Cincinnati, Ohio served as lead class counsel,
along with Bernstein Liebhard and Cohen Millstein Sellers & Toll.

Until 2011, prominent lawyer Stanley Chesley led the plaintiffs'
legal team, but he stepped down in the face of disciplinary
proceedings in Kentucky.  He was disbarred in Kentucky in March.

Bradley Lerman, executive vice president and general counsel of
Fannie Mae, said in a statement that the "agreement is positive
for taxpayers and Fannie Mae, and we are pleased that the matter
is now fully resolved."

Markovits and a spokesman for the Ohio attorney general's office
could not immediately be reached for comment.  A spokeswoman for
Fannie Mae's conservator the Federal Housing Finance Agency
declined to comment.

A spokesman for KPMG said in a statement that the company "is
pleased that this long running litigation, related to matters at
Fannie Mae occurring more than a decade ago, has been resolved."

The $153 million settlement represented between 4 to 8 percent of
the $2 to $4 billion the plaintiffs estimated as their "best case
scenario" recovery at trial.  Judge Leon wrote that this
percentage fit with previous securities class action settlements
approved by the court.

Given the complexity of the case and the risks the plaintiffs
faced if the case went forward, Judge Leon said the settlement was
a "very positive outcome" for the class.  The recent dismissal of
the three former Fannie Mae executives created uncertainty about
whether the plaintiffs could survive the still-pending motions for
summary judgment, he said.

The settlement made even more sense, the judge said, given the
obstacles the plaintiffs might encounter even if they won.

Fannie Mae was placed in conservatorship in 2008 during the
financial crisis.  The congressionally appointed conservator, the
Federal Housing Finance Agency, adopted a rule that would have
allowed the agency's director to bar Fannie Mae from paying
securities fraud claims.  The plaintiffs were in the process of
challenging that rule when they reached the settlement.  If the
rule stood, Judge Leon said, the plaintiffs wouldn't get anything
even if they prevailed at trial.

"I find that this unusual circumstance tilts this factor further
in support of approval here," the judge wrote.

Judge Leon found the settlement was the product of good-faith
negotiations.  The parties began mediation in 2011, with Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius partner Fred Fielding serving as the mediator. The
judge noted the plaintiffs got a "bargain" for the mediation,
paying $71,776 for Fielding's services over the past two years.

The class reaction to the settlement was almost overwhelmingly
positive, Judge Leon said.  There were four objections filed.
Only one of the objectors addressed the substance of the
settlement -- the others challenged the attorney fees and the plan
to divide the money -- and Judge Leon found he lacked standing.

The 22 percent award of attorney fees, Judge Leon said, was
appropriate. "In the Court's view . . . the lawyering in this case
has been, by any standard, exceptional," he wrote.

"Plaintiffs' counsel wrestled with highly complex accounting
issues and Fannie Mae's placement into conservatorship, as well as
initiated a parallel proceeding challenging an FHFA rule that
compounded their risks by potentially cutting off any recovery
even in the event they succeeded at trial -- all while facing off
against skilled defense lawyers," he wrote.  "In the Court's view,
this case was extraordinary in many respects and merits a
substantial fee award."

O'Melveny & Myers served as lead counsel for Fannie Mae.  Duane
Morris represented the Federal Housing Finance Agency.  Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher served as lead counsel for KPMG.


FORGE GROUP: Possibility of Shareholder Class Actions Strengthens
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Williams, writing for The West Australian, reports that the
chances of Forge Group facing class actions from shareholders have
strengthened after the engineering firm admitted management became
aware of project problems a month before they were revealed.

Forge's share price has fallen more than 80 per cent since it
resumed trading with news of a AUD127 million profit writedown and
bank bailout.

The company first disclosed there were potential losses on two
power station projects when it went into a trading halt on
November 4.

Forge on Dec. 4 told the Australian Securities Exchange that
project review meetings in late September had identified a risk of
"significant margin erosions" on the Diamantina and West Angelas
power stations because of cost over-runs and delays.

It said management took about a month to re-forecast the cost and
complete complex project negotiations.  The board was briefed on
possible writedowns in late October.

The contractor argued to the ASX that it was not clear the
projects would suffer losses until mediation with client
Diamantina Power Station and a subcontractor was completed.

"Throughout this process, management remained of the view there
was a reasonable likelihood that a material writedown of the
projects would not be necessary," company secretary Glen Smith
said in a letter to the ASX.

Mr. Smith said after mediation ended late on Friday, November 1,
the leadership concluded the DPS project in Queensland would lose
money but could not yet determine the size of the blowout.  The
board decided over that weekend to put the stock in a trading
halt.

The shares closed at $4.18 on November 1.  They finished on Dec. 4
at 64.5Ac, up 14 per cent for the day.

The Forge letter came in response to an ASX query last Friday on
whether the contractor had met continuous disclosure obligations.

Australian Shareholders Association spokesman Stephen Mayne
described Forge's case as a classic class action situation.

"Shareholders who bought shares in the period leading up to the
profit warning would have a pretty strong case for saying that the
board hadn't fully informed the market at the time they bought
shares," Mr. Mayne said.

"There'll be a bit of a race on between the competing litigation
funders and law firms to lodge in the case of Forge because it's a
wipe-out on a scale with few precedents."

On potential shareholder action, Forge chairman David Craig said:
"I'm very comfortable that the board has done the right thing."


GENERAL CABLE: Robbins Geller Rudman Files Class Action in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 4 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of General Cable Corporation
securities during the period between May 2, 2011 and November 4,
2013.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from October 21, 2013.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058,
or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/generalcable/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges General Cable and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  General Cable is engaged in the development, design,
manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and
fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy,
industrial, construction, specialty and communications markets.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding
General Cable's financial performance and business prospects and
overstated the Company's reported revenue.  As a result of
defendants' false and misleading statements, the Company's stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period,
trading as a high of $47.90 per share on May 2, 2011.

On October 15, 2013, General Cable filed a Form 8-K with the SEC
disclosing that the Company would be restating previously issued
financial statements for fiscal years 2008 through 2012 and the
interim periods during those years and the financial statement for
the three fiscal months ended March 29, 2013, related to the
Company's value added tax and revenue recognition in connection
with historical "bill and hold" transactions for aerial
transmission projects in Brazil.  The Company further disclosed
that the financial statements should no longer be relied upon.
On this news, the Company's stock price dropped $1.63 per share on
October 15, 2013, to close at $32.24 per share.  Then, on
November 4, 2013, General Cable issued a press release announcing
disappointing preliminary results for its third quarter of 2013,
reporting that its "[e]stimated net sales . . . were lower than
expected principally due to demand in North America for aluminum
based products including aerial transmission, construction and rod
and strip as well as the impact of changes in 'bill and hold'
revenue recognition accounting for aerial transmission projects in
Brazil."  On this news, the Company's stock price dropped $5.95
per share on November 5, 2013, to close at $28.46 per share, a
one-day decline of 17% and a 40% decline from its Class Period
high of $47.90 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
General Cable securities during the Class Period.  The plaintiff
is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in
prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  With nearly 200 lawyers in
ten offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-
employer pension funds with combined assets under management in
excess of $2 trillion.


GRANITE MAX: Sent Fax Blasts Without Prior Consent, Class Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Absolute Architecture P.C., an Illinois corporation, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Granite Max,
Inc., an Illinois corporation, Case No. 1:13-cv-07840 (N.D. Ill.,
November 1, 2013) arises from alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

In an effort to market its products and services, the Defendant
sent unsolicited junk faxes in bulk -- "fax blasts" -- to
unwilling recipients with deficient opt-out notices, the Plaintiff
alleges.  The Plaintiff contends that it and the Class never
consented, authorized, desired or permitted the Defendant to send
them faxes.

Granite Max, Inc., is an Illinois corporation headquartered in Elk
Grove, Illinois.  The Company was involuntarily dissolved on
May 10, 2013.  The Company is a corporation that offers custom
fabrication and installation of granite countertops for use in
residential and commercial buildings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          Gregg M. Barbakoff, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 948-9196
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
                  gbarbakoff@siprut.com


GRUNENTHAL GMBH: Thalidomide Victory Major Battle for Peter Gordon
------------------------------------------------------------------
LawFuel.com reports that the thalidomide victory was a major
battle for Australian lawyer and former Slater & Gordon partner
Peter Gordon.

It is 50 years since Sydney doctor William McBride alerted medical
authorities to the appalling side-effects of the drug marketed by
the German company, Grunenthal, whose name was to become
synonymous with the drug whose name strikes as sinister.

The class action against Grunenthal has been discontinued, along
with the agreement to end another class action against the drug's
distributor, Diageo, which inherited the action from a company
takeover, but has accepted a corporate and moral responsibility.
Grunenthal never did, to its great discredit.

The settlement in the Victorian Supreme Court for the more than
100 surviving Australian and New Zealand thalidomiders, as they
are known, was for $89 million with another $6.5 million in costs.
The claim first arose half a century ago when Sydney doctor
William McBride sounded the warning about the drug's appalling
side effects.

Now, the class action against Grunenthal has been discontinued,
along with the agreement to end another class action against
Diageo, which inherited the action from a company takeover.
Grunthenthal, which already has a blackened history with its
shadowy Nazi Party links, has never accepted any corporate
responsibility for the shocking drug, nor any moral
responsibility.  Melbourne lawyer Peter Gordon launched his
landmark class-action suit on after he met Lynne Rowe and her
parents.

This is a long-overdue outcome for innocents whose lives have been
blighted by the failures of the Grunenthal company with its former
shadowy links to the Nazis.  Mr. Gordon describes thalidomide as
the "worst pharmaceutical disaster in the history of the world"
and that its "real dimension" has been "vastly underestimated,
underreported and underrated".  This and his compassion for its
victims and their families motivated him to take on a company that
was arrogant in its treatment of those who are still suffering
from its failure in a basic duty of care to investigate the
appalling side-effects of the drug it manufactured and saw
distributed by other companies under other names.

"Most of the records about what Grunenthal had done had, following
a (failed) criminal trial in Germany, been stored away in the
Dusseldorf archive."  They had never been translated.  But the
documents were copied into English for the first time and more and
more Australian and New Zealand victims were traced.


H&R BLOCK: "Cauthen" Suit Moved to IRS Form 8863 MDL in Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Cauthen v. H&R Block, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:13-cv-02142, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri.  The case is
now captioned Cauthen v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:13-
cv-01067 (W.D. Mo., November 1, 2013).

The Defendants moved to transfer the lawsuit to Missouri to
centralize the litigation under In Re: H&R Block IRS Form 8863
Litigation, Master Case No. 4:13-MD-02474-FJG.

In his complaint, Nicholas Cauthen states that the lawsuit is
brought on behalf of all persons in the United States of America
against H&R Block Inc. and its subsidiaries alleging breach of
contractual obligations, resulting from the Defendants' erroneous
and negligent preparation of 600,000 tax returns, resulting to
delay in tax refunds for up to six weeks beyond the time when the
refunds would have been paid.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lin W. Kahn, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 875-5844
          Facsimile: (415) 963-6825
          E-mail: linkahn@jonesday.com


H&R BLOCK: "Lefebvre" Suit Moved to IRS Form 8863 MDL in Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Lefebvre, et al. v. H&R Block,
Inc., et al., Case No. 8:13-cv-01196, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri.  The case is
now titled Lefebvre, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., Case No.
4:13-cv-01068 (W.D. Mo., November 1, 2013).

The Defendants moved to transfer the lawsuit to Missouri to
centralize the litigation under In Re: H&R Block IRS Form 8863
Litigation, MDL Master Case No. 4:13-MD-02474-FJG.

In their original complaint, Robert Lefebvre, et al., state that
the lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons in Florida against
H&R Block Inc. and its subsidiaries alleging breach of contractual
obligations, resulting from the Defendants' erroneous and
negligent preparation of 600,000 tax returns, resulting to delay
in tax refunds for up to six weeks beyond the time when the
refunds would have been paid.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennifer Leah McCarthy, Esq.
          Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN, LLP
          3301 Bonita Beach Road, Ste 101
          Bonita Springs, FL 34134
          Telephone: (239) 390-1000
          Facsimile: (239) 390-0055
          E-mail: jmccarthy@yourlawyer.com
                  jchaikin@yourlawyer.com

               - and -

          R. Seth Crompton, Esq.
          HOLLAND, GROVES, SCHNELLER & STOLZE
          300 N. Tucker, Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-8111
          Facsimile: (314) 241-5554
          E-mail: scrompton@allfela.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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


H&R BLOCK: "Millett" Suit Moved to IRS Form 8863 MDL in Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Millett, et al. v. H&R Block,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-00346, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri.  The
lawsuit is now styled Millett, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 4:13-cv-01070 (W.D. Mo., November 1, 2013).

The Defendants moved to transfer the lawsuit to Missouri to
centralize the litigation under In Re: H&R Block IRS Form 8863
Litigation, MDL Master Case No. 4:13-MD-02474-FJG.

Ursula Millett and Jeanine M. Sanlorenzo argued in their complaint
that the lawsuit is brought on behalf of all individuals, who had
U. S. federal income tax returns including Forms 8863 for the year
2012 prepared for them by the Defendants, which were filed before
February 22, 2013, and where H&R Block determined that the tax
payers were entitled to refunds.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 West Monroe, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
          E-mail: aek@wexlerwallace.com
                  eaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  kaw@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          Sherrie R. Savett, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, PC
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3038
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: elechtzin@bm.net
                  ssavett@bm.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          W. Jason Rankin, Esq.
          HEPLERBROOM LLC - EDWARDSVILLE
          130 North Main Street
          P.O. Box 510
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 307-1138
          Facsimile: (618) 656-1364
          E-mail: wjr@heplerbroom.com

               - and -

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


IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Match.com, One Big Internet Fraud, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Iulia Filip, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Match.com is "one of the biggest conspiracies ever executed on the
Internet," using thousands of photos of people who have nothing to
do with the dating service in fake "profiles" to lure customers,
citing a class action filed in New York Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Yuliana Avalos sued IAC/InterActiveCorp and its
subsidiaries Match.com and People Media.

Manhattan-based IAC operates a string of online dating Web sites,
including Match.com, Singlesnet.com and OKCupid.com, and has 128
subsidiaries.  IAC and its subsidiaries make about $350 million a
year from their online dating websites, according to the lawsuit.

"Defendants' illegal business practices center around the knowing
and intentional unauthorized use of plaintiff's photographs in
hundreds if not thousands of fraudulent profiles posted on several
of the 25 dating sites owned and operated by the defendants over
the past six years, and the use of thousands if not millions of
photographs of class members in fraudulent profiles on most if not
all of defendants' sites during the same period," the complaint
states.

"While defendants masquerade as the premier dating site network in
the United States, the reality is that a high percentage of
profiles posted on defendants' dating sites are fraudulent
profiles created by criminals (aka 'scammers') in international
locations for criminal purposes that use the photographs of
plaintiff and other non-members of defendants' sites.

"Defendants knowingly and intentionally conspire with criminals
operating from locations including Internet cafes in Nigeria,
Ghana, and Russia, who manually and through the use of software
and other computer devices, submit a high percentage of profiles
on defendants' web sites incorporating photographs of plaintiff
and members of the class.

"Defendants are aware of this as their computer servers in New
York, Texas, and other locations in the United States receive and
approve fraudulent profiles by the thousands that 'ping' from
international IP addresses, which are the computer equivalent of
area codes.

"Furthermore, defendants specifically approve, edit content, and
post every profile, making these fake profiles created abroad
available to consumers in the United States.

"Plaintiff's investigation has revealed that defendants, their
subsidiaries, joint venturers, and/or subcontractors, also create
fake profiles on defendants' sites."

Avalos, a model from Florida, seeks to represent thousands of
people, including models, Hollywood celebrities and military
servicemen and -women, whose photos have been used to promote fake
profiles on Match.com and associated dating websites since
November 2007.  She claims the fake profiles, which have reached
millions of subscribers and potential subscribers, have also used
photos pirated from Facebook.

"Unknown thousands or millions of defendants' members subscribe to
defendants' websites in the hope of meeting plaintiff and members
of the class, who are not and never were members of defendants'
websites," the complaint states.

"The tragedy of this case is twofold, as the American victims of
Internet fraud on defendants' sites, (estimated to be at least
thousands), mostly widows, widowers, and divorcees age 50 and
over, have been defrauded out of as much as hundreds of millions
of dollars over the past six-plus years through fraudulent dating
profiles on defendants' sites, and those of its competitors.

"In addition to the financial and emotional toll, these scams
destroy relationships, families, and result in suicides,
abductions and murder of victims in foreign countries."
(Parentheses in complaint).

Avalos claims that Match.com et al. refuse to screen unauthorized
photos from their sites or address complaints about fraudulent
profiles that use the class members' photos.  She adds:
"Defendants could easily and inexpensively stop these illegal
practices through the implementation of photograph recognition
software which can scan billions of images nearly instantaneously
to maintain the integrity of defendants' websites, through IP
address screening of international IP addresses, and through
manual and software screening of profiles that have 'red flags,'
but defendants refuse to do so as these fake profiles are a large
part of what makes defendants' match segment such a commercial
success."

Avalos claims that unlike consumers who already have sued
Match.com et al, she and other class members never signed an
agreement with the defendants.  She claims that IAC's other sites
make money from cross-promotion through IAC's "match segment,"
based on a large percentage of fraudulent profiles that use the
class members' photos and likeness.

Avalos seeks class certification, an injunction, $500 million in
compensatory damages and $1 billion in punitive damages for Lanham
Act and RICO violations, fraud, copyright infringement,
negligence, unjust enrichment, and state law violations.

The complaint includes 35 pages of exhibits of allegedly fake
profiles that use photos of class members.

A Match.com spokesman said in a statement: "The real scam here is
this meritless lawsuit, which is filled with outlandish conspiracy
theories and clumsy fabrications in lieu of factual or legal
basis. We're confident that our legal system is as adept as we are
at detecting scammers and will dismiss this case in short order."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan Spencer, Esq.
          EVAN SPENCER ATTORNEY AT LAW
          305 Broadway
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (347) 931-1814
          E-mail: evanspenceresq@aol.com

The case is Avalos v. IAC/Interactivecorp., et al., Case No. 1:13-
cv-08351-JMF, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (Foley Square).


INVESTORS GROUP: Court Approved Terms of Settlement Distribution
----------------------------------------------------------------
By Order dated September 19, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted final approval to the
parties' settlement of the class action lawsuit initiated by Jay
Ralston against Mortgage Investors Group, Inc.; Mortgage Investors
Group, a general partnership; Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and
Does 3-10.  Under the terms of the Settlement, the amount of the
Consideration to be distributed to each eligible Class Member, who
is not a Successful Opt-Out is dependent upon a number of
variables, including some that could not be finally determined
until after the date of the Final Approval Order.  As a result,
only estimated distribution amounts were provided in the Class
Notice approved by this Court and mailed to the Class Members.

Judge Jeremy Fogel stated that the Court received no objection or
comment to this aspect and content of the Class Notice.  He noted
that all of the variables relating to the Consideration are now
known and the Court has been advised of the basis and calculations
for (a) the final amounts of the Consideration, and (b) the final
distribution categories.  These final amounts and categories are,
as they always have been under the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, based on the original principal balance of each
eligible Class Member's Loan and the length of time during which
that Class Member made payments on that Loan.  Judge Fogel ruled
that the final amounts of the Consideration and final distribution
categories are:

                          Time Period of Active Loan Payments
                        ---------------------------------------
Original Loan          0 to 23.9   24 to 59.9
Balance                  months      months     60 months-plus
-------------          ---------   ----------   --------------
$0 to $299,999.99       $238.14      $647.53       $1,176.37
$300,000 to $450,000    $641.09      $888.59       $2,141.14
$450,000.01-plus        $816.64    $1,469.33       $2,578.67

The Representative Plaintiff and Class Counsel agree with Counsel
for the Defendants that the adjustment of the estimated
Consideration amounts and distribution categories previously set
forth in the Class Notice to the final Consideration amounts and
distribution categories is necessary and appropriate.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey K. Berns, Esq.
          BERNS WEISS LLP
          20700 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 140
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Telephone: (818) 961-2000
          Facsimile: (818) 936-0232
          E-mail: jberns@law111.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Lori Erin Andrus, Esq.
          Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
          ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
          155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 986-1400
          Facsimile: (415) 986-1474
          E-mail: lori@andrusanderson.com
                  jennie@andrusanderson.com

               - and -

          Chumahan Benjamin Bowen, Esq.
          David M. Arbogast, Esq.
          ARBOGAST BOWEN
          11400 W. Olymipc Blvd., 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (818) 961-2000
          E-mail: david@arbogastbowen.com
                  cbowen@arbogastbowen.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          James Mark Moore, Esq.
          SPIRO MOORE LLP
          11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 235-2468
          Facsimile: (310) 235-2456
          E-mail: mark@spiromoore.com

               - and -

          Jessica Moy, Esq.
          BERMAN DEVALERIO
          One California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
          E-mail: jmoy@bermandevalerio.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Mark R. Cuker, Esq.
          WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 557-0099
          Facsimile: (215) 557-0673
          E-mail: mcuker@wcblegal.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Bowse, Esq.
          BROWNE GEORGE ROSS LLP
          2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 274-7100
          Facsimile: (310) 275-5697
          E-mail: mbowse@bgrfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Roland Paul Reynolds, Esq.
          PALMER, LOMBARDI & DONOHUE LLP
          888 West 6th Street, 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 688-0430
          Facsimile: (213) 688-0440
          E-mail: rreynolds@pldlawyers.com

               - and -

          Peter John Marshall, Esq.
          PALMER, LOMBARDI DONOHUE LLP
          1 Post Street, Suite 2750
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 489-4801
          Facsimile: (415) 489-4820
          E-mail: pmarshall@pldlawyers.com

               - and -

          Brooks Russell Brown, Esq.
          Steven A. Ellis, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          601 S. Figueroa Street, 41st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 426-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 623-1673
          E-mail: bbrown@goodwinprocter.com
                  sellis@goodwinprocter.com

               - and -

          Matthew S. Sheldon, Esq.
          Sabrina M. Rose-Smith, Esq.
          Thomas M. Hefferon, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          901 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 346-4000
          Facsimile: (202) 346-4444
          E-mail: msheldon@goodwinprocter.com
                  srosesmith@goodwinprocter.com
                  thefferon@goodwinprocter.com

               - and -

          Robert Bader, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 733-6055
          Facsimile: (415) 677-9041
          E-mail: rbader@goodwinprocter.com

               - and -

          Wendy M. Garbers, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 268-6664
          E-mail: wgarbers@mofo.com

The case is Ralston v. Mortgage Investors Group, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 5:08-cv-00536-JF, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Jose).


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Cleveland Woman Joins Mesh Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Judith Kerr, writing for Bayside Bulletin, reports that a
Cleveland woman has joined more than 400 other Australian women in
a class action against medical giant Johnson & Johnson.

Mother-of-four Beverley Gibbs, 73, decided to act against the
company after enduring years of pain following the insertion of
its pelvic floor mesh to correct a prolapsed uterus.  The mesh
punctured her bladder, forcing her to permanently rely on a
catheter bag.

Mrs. Gibbs is the second person from Cleveland to join a class
action against Johnson & Johnson.

In 2011, retired engineer Bob Lugton spearheaded an international
class action against the company's DePuy artificial hip implant,
which left him with a permanent limp and cobalt poisoning.

Mrs. Gibbs said her trouble started when her uterus collapsed
after giving birth to four children in 1958, 1960, 1962 and 1973.

In 2006, she had surgery to have the Johnson & Johnson mesh
implant inserted into her pelvis to support the collapsed muscles.

Four years later, she was in dire pain, suffering bleeding,
constant infection and difficulty going to the toilet.

Since then, the events assistant has been on a merry-go-round of
surgery, hospital visits and doctors' appointments to get the mesh
implant removed.

Last year, she had three lots of surgery to get the implant
removed and more surgery this year.

Mrs. Gibbs vowed to fight to save other women from the same
debilitating experience.

Last month, she joined the Australian Federal Court class action
against Johnson & Johnson's mesh implant and another product, a
pelvic-floor tape to stop incontinence.

Johnson & Johnson voluntarily withdrew its mesh implant from the
Australian market in June last year, but four of the tape products
are still available in Australia.

Shine Lawyers partner Rebecca Jancauskas, leading the class
action, said an estimated 39,000 Johnson & Johnson mesh implants
were used in Australia, paving the way for possibly one of the
largest product class actions in Australia's legal history.

It is the third class action the medical giant has faced in
Australia in three years and follows Mr. Lugton's DePuy hip case
and similar action in 2010 over its knee replacement products.

His action goes to trial in Federal Court in June.


LG ELECTRONICS: Judge Orders Mediation in Washer Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Ryan, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey federal
judge ordered LG Electronics USA Inc. and a group of consumers
into mediation on Dec. 2 in a proposed class action over the
company's washing machines, which allegedly have a design defect
that causes them to grow moldy.

U.S. District Judge Faith Hochberg's order comes at the class
certification stage of the lawsuit, which was launched in
January 2008.  The judge instructed the plaintiffs to file a
renewed certification motion in July, after she denied LG's
request to toss the testimony of two of the plaintiffs' experts.

The plaintiffs' allegations are similar to claims against
Whirlpool Corp. and other makers of front-loading washers in
courts across the country.  The Sixth and Seventh circuits have
backed class certification in similar actions against Whirlpool
and Sears Roebuck & Co., respectively. The two companies have
asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the rulings.

Mediating the dispute "would conserve resources and be in the best
interests of the court and the parties," Judge Hochberg said in
her order.

The judge selected Resolutions LLC principal Eric Green, the
co-founder of the mediation heavyweight JAMS/Endispute, as
mediator. The mediation sessions should not exceed two days and
should take place within 30 days, she said.  The parties are to
split the cost of mediation.

An LG spokeswoman and an attorney for the plaintiffs could not be
immediately reached on Dec. 4 for comment on the order.

In August, the plaintiffs in the case urged Judge Hochberg to
allow them to produce expert testimony on damages in response to
the Supreme Court's landmark Comcast ruling, even though discovery
has already closed.  The Supreme Court held in Comcast in March
that an antitrust class action should not have been certified
because the plaintiffs had not shown that common issues
predominated on the issue of damages.

The plaintiffs made the request in a letter to the judge after LG
said Comcast demonstrated that the proposed class should not be
certified.  The plaintiffs argued that if LG is correct that
Comcast requires plaintiffs to present a classwide damages model
in order to win certification, then the decision represents a
change in law, and they have good cause to produce expert
testimony after the close of discovery.

The plaintiffs are represented by Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, by Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello PC
and by Complex Litigation Group LLC, among other firms.

LG is represented by Scott Glauberman, James Richter and Melissa
Steedle Bogad of Winston & Strawn LLP.

The case is Harper et al. v. LG Electronics USA Inc. et al., case
number 2:08-cv-00051, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.


MONTREAL MAINE: 1,200 People Join Lac Megantic Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Peplowski, writing for CJAD News, reports that the
Lac Megantic lawyer, who's own office was destroyed when a runway
fuel train derailed and exploded in Lac Megantic last summer says
more than 1200 residents have signed on as plaintiffs in a
class-action lawsuit against the Montreal Maine & Atlantic
Railway, chairman Edward Burkhardt, President Robert Grindrod and
the train operator Thomas Harding.

Daniel Larochelle filed the motion to launched a class action
lawsuit one week after the accident last July 6th.

Mr. Larochelle says 300-people signed on in the past three weeks
after he publicized an appeal to have more people join the
lawsuit.

The plaintiffs include people who were injured, the families of
the 47 people who died, people who lost their jobs as a result of
the destruction of the downtown core and people who lost property
or income.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Ray Hudson Joins Concussion Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Bergen Baucom, writing for WJHG-TV, reports that from 2000-20004,
Ray Hudson was the star running back for the crimson tide under
head coach, Mike Shula.  For him, the opportunity was a dream come
true.

"He was a good coach.  I like the scheme he brought in. It was fit
for running backs" Mr. Hudson said laughing.  "You feel like
you're king of the hill [playing for Alabama.]"

And for a while, Hudson was king of the hill.  "I was leading the
sec in rushing before I got hurt," he said.

In 2004, he suffered a career ending knee injury.  "I broke my
fibula, tibia, and femur all up under my knee cap.  Tears just
started coming.  I knew I was done."

Nearly 10 years later, Mr. Hudson said his current aches and pains
from years in the game were mental, not physical.  He suffered
several concussions that he claims are now causing psychological
problems.

"I second guess myself all the time," he said.  "I feel like I
can't do nothing right.  I don't know whether I'm coming or going.
Like -- memory loss, headaches, depression.  The other day my son
was over here and I was trying to sing the ABC's to him.  I forgot
what came after T.  I was so embarrassed."

Embarrassed, but not alone.   Mr. Hudson was just one he's one of
many former football players involved in a class action lawsuit
against the NCAA.  He's seeking medical monitoring and
compensation.

"People need to know that football is a dangerous sport," he said.
But even so, Hudson was quick to add, "I love the game of
football.  And even with the injuries I have and concussions and
anything like that, I still would go back and play football again.
And, I would play harder than what I played it, because you don't
never know when your last play is coming."


NIPPON YUSEN: "Camaj" Suit Moved to Vehicle Carrier Services MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
conditionally transferred the class action lawsuit captioned
Camaj, et al. v. Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha, Ltd., et al., Case
No. 3:13-cv-03874, from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey to be part of an antitrust multidistrict litigation.
The "Camaj" case is transferred to New Jersey for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings in the case known as In Re
Vehicle Carrier Services Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2471.  The
case in New Jersey is now styled Camaj, et al. v. Nippon Yusen
Kabushiki Kaisha, Ltd., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-06624-ES-JAD
(D.N.J., November 1, 2013).

The "Camaj" case is one of several related antitrust litigations
filed against companies that provide Vehicle Carrier Services to
original equipment manufacturers for the purpose of shipping cars,
trucks, or other four wheeled vehicles across international
waterways.  "Vehicle Carrier Services" refers to the business of
providing ocean transportation of vehicles -- like cars, trucks,
or other four wheeled vehicles -- by use of large Vehicle Carriers
known as Roll On/Roll Off vessels, or "RoRos."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David E. Azar, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 617-1200
          Facsimile: (213) 624-0643
          E-mail: dazar@milberg.com

               - and -

          Diana Gjonaj, Esq.
          Paul F. Novak, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          One Kennedy Square
          777 Woodward Avenue, Suite 890
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 309-1760
          Facsimile: (313) 447-2038
          E-mail: dgjonaj@milberg.com
                  pnovak@milberg.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Megan Dixon, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 374-2300
          Facsimile: (415) 374-2499
          E-mail: megan.dixon@hoganlovells.com


NIPPON YUSEN: "Heilicher" Suit Moved to Carrier Services MDL
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
conditionally transferred the class action lawsuit captioned
Heilicher, et al. v. Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha, et al., Case
No. 3:13-cv-03000, from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey to be part of an antitrust multidistrict litigation.
The "Heilicher" case is transferred to New Jersey for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the case known as In Re
Vehicle Carrier Services Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2471.  The
case in New Jersey is now styled Heilicher, et al. v. Nippon Yusen
Kabushiki Kaisha, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-06618-ES-JAD (D.N.J.,
November 1, 2013).

The "Heilicher" case is one of several related antitrust
litigations filed against companies that provide Vehicle Carrier
Services to original equipment manufacturers for the purpose of
shipping cars, trucks, or other four wheeled vehicles across
international waterways.  "Vehicle Carrier Services" refers to the
business of providing ocean transportation of vehicles -- like
cars, trucks, or other four wheeled vehicles -- by use of large
Vehicle Carriers known as Roll On/Roll Off vessels, or "RoRos."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven Noel Williams, Esq.
          COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
          E-mail: swilliams@cpmlegal.com


NYK LINE: "Reiber" Suit Moved to Vehicle Carrier Services MDL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
conditionally transferred the class action lawsuit captioned
Reiber, et al. v. NYK Line (North America) Inc., et al., Case No.
3:13-cv-03233, from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey to be part of an antitrust multidistrict litigation.
The "Reiber" case is transferred to New Jersey for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings in the case known as In Re
Vehicle Carrier Services Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2471.  The
case in New Jersey is now styled Reiber, et al. v. NYK Line (North
America) Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-06619-ES-JAD (D.N.J.,
November 1, 2013).

The "Reiber" case is one of several related antitrust litigations
filed against companies that provide Vehicle Carrier Services to
original equipment manufacturers for the purpose of shipping cars,
trucks, or other four wheeled vehicles across international
waterways.  "Vehicle Carrier Services" refers to the business of
providing ocean transportation of vehicles -- like cars, trucks,
or other four wheeled vehicles -- by use of large Vehicle Carriers
known as Roll On/Roll Off vessels, or "RoRos."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Esq.
          ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL MASON & GETTE
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 693-0700
          E-mail: fscarpulla@zelle.com

               - and -

          Daniel R. Shulman, Esq.
          GRAY, PLANT, MOOTY, MOOTY & BENNETT, P.A.
          500 IDS Center
          80 South 8th St.
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 632-3335
          Facsimile: (612) 632-4335
          E-mail: daniel.shulman@gpmlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Megan Dixon, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 374-2300
          Facsimile: (415) 374-2499
          E-mail: megan.dixon@hoganlovells.com


OFFICE DEPOT: Wins Final Approval of "Provine" Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted final approval to Office Depot,
Inc.'s $350,000 settlement of a class action lawsuit commenced by
Howard David Provine, et al.

The Court also awarded 33% of the settlement fund, or $115,500, to
the Class Counsel for attorneys' fees plus costs of $13,473.  An
enhancement payment of $5,000 is awarded to the Named Plaintiff.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
          KARASIK LAW FIRM
          11835 W Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1275
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312-6800
          Facsimile: (310) 943-2582
          E-mail: greg@karasiklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Alexander Isaac Dychter, Esq.
          DYCHTER LAW OFFICES, APC
          1010 Second Ave., Suite 1835
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 487-0777
          Facsimile: (619) 330-1827
          E-mail: alex@dychterlaw.com

               - and -

          Dennis Frank Moss, Esq.
          DENNIS F. MOSS, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          15300 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 207
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 784-2923
          E-mail: dennisfmoss@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Robert Ira Spiro, Esq.
          SPIRO MOORE LLP
          11377 W. Olympic Blvd., Fifth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 235-2468
          Facsimile: (310) 235-2456
          E-mail: ira@spiromoore.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jennifer Lea Bradford, Esq.
          Barbara Jean Miller, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          5 Park Plaza, Suite 1750
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 399-7000
          Facsimile: (949) 399-7001
          E-mail: jbradford@morganlewis.com
                  barbara.miller@morganlewis.com

The case is Provine, et al. v. Office Depot, Inc., Case No. 3:11-
cv-00903-SI, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco).


QUEEN CITY INVESTMENT: Cummins, Strauss Troy File Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cummins & Brown LLC and Strauss Troy Co., LPA on Dec. 5 disclosed
that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on
behalf of a class including the firms' clients, John Capannari and
John A. Anderson.  The class is comprised of investors who
invested in Defendants' fraudulent investment scheme between
January 1, 2002 and July 17, 2013, inclusive, and who were damaged
thereby.  The defendants named are Glen Galemmo, Queen City
Investment Fund II, LLC, Queen City Advisors, LLC, Galemmo
Investment Group, Queen City Investment Funds, Queen City
Investments, Queen City Hedge Fund, AC Power Strategies Fund II,
LLC, QC Power Strategies Fund Sweep Account, LLC, QC Power
Strategies Fund, LLC, Sentinel Property Holdings, LLC, Glen Rock,
LLC, Sentinel Strategy Fund, LLC, QFC, LLC, Midwest Hoops at
SportsPlus, LLC, Midwest Hoops Sports Complex, LLC, Cincinnati
Royals, Inc., Rugged Power Management LLC, Rugged Power
Investments LLC, PSIF LLC, W. Bernard Kyles & Co., Inc., Wiley B.
Kyles, and Charles G. Simon.  The action, which is captioned John
Capannari and John A. Anderson v. Glen Galemmo, et al., 1:13-CV-
883, United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio,
asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, 15 U.S.C. 77k and 77o, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b) and 78t(a), and
SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
violated provisions of the federal securities laws by providing
manipulated, fraudulent materials to investors to perpetuate a
sham investment scheme that did little more than funnel money to
Defendants for their personal use.  As alleged in the Complaint,
Defendants' elaborate deception misled Plaintiffs and other
members of the class for over 10 years into investing substantial
funds in a program whose purported goal was to generate
significant returns at low risk.

If you wish to remain a member of the class, you need to do
nothing at this time.  However, any member of the proposed class
may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of
his or her choice.  If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the
Class, you must file a motion with the Court no later than 60 days
from December 5, 2013.  Accordingly, the deadline for filing a
motion for appointment as lead plaintiff is February 3, 2014.

John Capannari and John A. Anderson are represented by Strauss
Troy and Cummins & Brown, Cincinnati firms comprised of attorneys
with over 20 years' experience prosecuting securities fraud
actions.  Members of the Strauss Troy and Cummins & Brown teams,
as lead and co-lead attorneys, have recovered nearly $1 Billion in
settlements and judgments in securities fraud matters.

Firm Contacts: James R. Cummins, Esq.
               Cummins & Brown
               Telephone: (513) 241-6400
               E-mail: jcummins@cumminsbrownlaw.com

               Richard S. Wayne, Esq.
               Strauss Troy
               Telephone: (513) 621-2120 or
               E-mail: rswayne@strausstroy.com


RANGER OFFSHORE: Hourly Offshore Employees Seek Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
David S. Ralston, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Ranger Offshore, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-
00397 (S.D. Tex., November 1, 2013) is a collective action to
recover unpaid overtime wages brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  The Putative Class Members are current and former
hourly offshore employees of Ranger.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS &JOSEPHSON, L.L.P.
          1150 Bissonnet
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713)751-0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fhl-law.com
                  adunlap@fhl-law.com

               - and -

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          BOHRER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 925-5297
          E-mail: Phil@bohrerlaw.com


RITE AID: Deceives Consumers of Health Supplements, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
John J. Gross, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Rite Aid Corporation, Case No. 1:13-cv-06627-RBK-KMW
(D.N.J., November 1, 2013) is brought on behalf of those who
purchased health supplements containing glucosamine and
chondroitin manufactured and marketed by Rite Aid and sold under
its own house-brand label.  The Plaintiff alleges that he and
members of the proposed Class have purchased Rite Aid products
that do not perform as advertised.

Rite Aid is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Camp Hill,
Pennsylvania.  Rite Aid is a national retailer/pharmacy with
approximately 4,600 stores in 31 states and the District of
Columbia.  Rite Aid sells its name-brand products in its stores
and online via its Web site.  In addition to brand-name products,
Rite Aid manufactures and sells a housebrand line of products
under the "Rite Aid" label, including joint health dietary
supplements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Bahuriak, Esq.
          BAHURIAK LAW GROUP
          210 Haddon Avenue
          Westmont, NJ 08108
          E-mail: bahuriaklawgroup@gmail.com

               - and -

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          Stephanie Goldin, Esq.
          Jamisen Etzel, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH LTD
          PNC Park
          115 Federal Street, Suite 210
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
                  sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com
                  jetzel@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
          DEL SOLE CAVANAUGH STROYD LLC
          200 First Avenue, Suite 300
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 261-2393
          Facsimile: (412) 261-2110
          E-mail: bsweet@dscslaw.com
                  ekilpela@dscslaw.com


ROYAL BANK: Faces CPDO Investor Class Action in Netherlands
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kit Chellel, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Royal Bank
of Scotland Group Plc and Standard & Poor's were sued in the
Netherlands by 16 investors over a complex derivative product that
fell in value by as much as 90 percent during the financial
crisis.

The class-action lawsuit relates to so-called constant-proportion
debt obligations created by RBS's ABN Amro unit and rated AAA by
McGraw Hill Financial Inc.'s S&P, according to Bentham IMF Ltd.
(IMF), the company which is funding the case.  The investors are
seeking about $250 million.

CPDOs were "among the worst-of-the-worst leveraged synthetic
derivatives, causing billions of dollars to be lost by banks and
pension funds reliant upon high ratings that had no reasonable
basis," John Walker, executive director of Bentham IMF, said in a
statement.

They didn't identify any of the claimants other than to say they
were institutional investors from Germany, Austria and
Switzerland.  The lawsuit was filed in the District Court of
Amsterdam on December 4 by Stichting Ratings Redress, an entity
created to manage the class action, Bentham IMF said.

CPDOs, hailed by ABN Amro as a "breakthrough in synthetic credit
investments" in a 2006 marketing report, rapidly lost value in the
market turmoil that followed the collapse of Lehman Brothers
Holdings Inc. in 2008.  The companies that created and rated them
now face a series of investor lawsuits.

                      'Considerably Riskier'

Bentham IMF also funded a claim against ABN and S&P by Australian
towns and districts that lost nearly everything they invested in
the securities.  The municipalities won about A$20 million ($18
million) in a trial in Sydney last year when federal court Justice
Jayne Jagot said S&P's ratings were "misleading and deceptive."

The rating company has appealed the ruling and a 10-day hearing is
scheduled to start in Sydney Mar. 3.

Entities that control the failed lender WestLB AG sued RBS in the
U.K. in September for about 32 million euros, saying the
Edinburgh-based lender sold CPDOs that were rated with faulty
models and were "considerably riskier" than advertised.

Banks including UBS AG, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Lehman Brothers
sold more than $4 billion of CPDO notes between 2006 and 2007 to
investors in six currencies, according to data compiled by
CreditSights Inc.

CPDO vehicles sold default insurance linked to company indexes,
offering yields as much as twice that of similar structured
finance bonds.  Because they borrowed money, losses were amplified
when the value of the underlying credit-default swaps fell during
2008 and 2009.

                        'Landmark Case'

The Dutch lawsuit may increase in size as more investors join the
class action, or group lawsuit, according to Steffen Hennig, a
partner at Fideres Partners LLP, a London-based distressed-asset
consulting firm that is working with Bentham IMF and Netherlands-
based law firm BarentsKrans NV on the claim.

"This is a landmark case in many respects," said Mr. Hennig.  It's
"the first time that a European court has been asked to take a
stand on the responsibility of a rating agency for losses incurred
on toxic financial products."

Bentham IMF, based in Sydney, is a litigation funding company that
pays a claimant's legal fees in return for a share of any damages
or compensation.  The firm said S&P wants the CPDO case to be
heard in London, and it planned to oppose any bid to move
proceedings to the U.K.


SHAWNEEQUARTERS ASSOCIATION: Jan. 21 Settlement Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF

COMMON PLEAS OF

MONROE COUNTY

FORTY-THIRD JUDICIAL

DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF

PENNSYLVANIA

CLASS ACTION

NO. 1809 CIVIL 2012

LEWIS F. PETTY, ROSY McMAHAN, LARRY DAIS,
EWA CIUPAK and DAVID J. ZIOBRO, Plaintiffs

vs.

SHAWNEEQUARTERS ASSOCIATION INC.,
individually and on behalf of all members,
individuals and/or entities claiming
interest in the SHAWNEEQUARTERS ASSOCIATION
INC. and/or the NORTHSLOPE II
QUARTERSHARES, Defendants

ORDER

AND NOW, this 21st day of November, 2013, following consideration
of the Plaintiffs' Petition for Approval of Plan of Settlement,
and following a hearing on the petition held on November 13, 2013,
at which time the Plaintiffs and the Class Representative, Shawnee
Quarters Association, Inc. appeared with counsel and presented a
join Plan of Settlement and testimony in support of the Plan, IT
IS ORDERED as follows:

1. Notice of the proposed Plan of Settlement shall be given to all
members of the class within fourteen days by:

a. mailing a copy of this order and the Legal Notice attached to
this order as Exhibit "A" to the last known addresses of
all members of the class;

b. posting a true and correct copy of this order and the proposed
Plan at the office of the Class Representative; and,

c. publishing notice of this order and notice of where a copy of
the proposed plan may be obtained by interested persons one
time in the Pocono Record and one time in the Monroe Legal
Reporter.

2. Any member of the class who wishes to object to the proposed
Plan must file their objection in writing, using the caption of
this case, with George J. Warden, Prothonotary of Monroe County,
Monroe County Courthouse, 3rd Floor, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania
18360 by January 3, 2014 at 4:00 p.m.

3. A hearing shall be held on the question of whether the Plan of
Settlement should be confirmed on the on the 21st day of January
2014, at 1:30 o'clock p.m. in Courtroom No. 5, Monroe County
Courthouse, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.  All those members of the
class who have filed and objection to the proposed Plan of
Settlement must appear and will be heard by court.

BY THE COURT,

Arthur L. Zulick, J

NOTICE TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS -- A copy of the proposed plan
may be obtained by contracting WACB Property Management, 404 Park
Avenue, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania 18360, telephone number 570-421-
5409.


SHELBY COUNTY, AL: School Board Responds to Acker Abuse Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Paepcke, writing for WVTM-TV, reports that the Shelby County
School Board has responded to a Class Action status request made
by Daniel Acker, Jr's sexual assault victims in October.

Victims of the former Shelby County teacher had asked a federal
judge to allow their lawsuit to include any current or former
female student in the Shelby County School District who feels they
were sexually abused by Acker or witnessed any such conduct.

On Dec. 4, the Shelby County School Board filed their response,
which opposes the class certification.

The 45 page filing, a link to which is available to the right,
outlines the School Board's argument why the victim's request is
"fatally flawed" and should be denied.

"These Defendants emphatically do not condone Acker's criminal
conduct but the law does not permit these very individual wrongs
to be rectified in a class proceeding," School Board attorneys
argued.

Lawyers for the School Board added that adding dozens of
plaintiffs to the case would bog it down because the judge would
have to weigh the merits of each victim's sex abuse claims, one at
a time.

"Trying every class member's claim individually -- as will be
unavoidable here -- is neither efficient [n]or manageable.  Class
treatment is inappropriate here," the attorneys stated.

The original motion filed by Acker's victims in October cites what
Mr. Acker told Alabaster Police Department investigator
Grant Humphries on January 4, 2012 when Mr. Acker confessed, "that
during his time as a teacher in the Shelby County School System he
had sexually molested over twenty female students by touching
various body parts, including their buttocks for his own sexual
gratification."

Attorneys for Mr. Acker's victims, claim based on the number of
female students Mr. Acker taught or rode on the school buses he
drove, "there are potentially hundreds of plaintiffs, and likely
more than forty (40)."

Mr. Acker pleaded guilty in May 2012 to sexually assaulting about
a half a dozen of his former students and is currently serving a
17 year prison sentence.


SIRIUS XM: Copyright Class Action to Remain in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene, Alex Lawson and Carolina Bolado, writing for Law360,
report that a California federal judge on Dec. 3 refused to allow
Sirius XM Radio Inc. to move a $100 million putative class action
alleging it illegally played songs recorded before 1972, finding
the broadcaster hadn't sufficiently argued in favor of
transferring the suit to New York.

U.S. District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez ruled against moving the
suit, saying the putative class led by members of the American
rock band The Turtles wasn't addressing the same laws as another
action in New York.

The Turtles' class action in California addresses how the state's
laws will treat songs recorded before 1972, for which there is no
federal copyright protection, the judge found on Dec. 3.  There is
no precedent for the case, which means the court's decision in the
suit could ultimately alter how California's state law is
interpreted.

"The fact that this case appears to present a question of first
impression regarding the meaning and scope of California law
weighs heavily against transfer," Judge Gutierrez wrote on Dec. 3.
"The parties' arguments suggest that this case will principally
turn on a legal dispute over a matter of first impression in
California law, which could have far-reaching effects.
Accordingly, California's interest in having such an issue decided
in a California court carries considerable weight."

The founding members of The Turtles, Mark Volman and Howard
Kaylan, alleged in August that Sirius has misappropriated pre-1972
songs by the band and other artists in violation of California
civil law, which provides for exclusive ownership of such songs
until the year 2047.

Messrs. Volman and Kaylan sued Sirius under the umbrella of their
company Flo & Eddie Inc., which has exclusive ownership rights the
catalog of 100 original master recordings of The Turtles' songs,
including their 1967 hit "Happy Together."

According to the complaint, Sirius has violated California and
common law by reproducing and distributing the band's original
recordings by making them available through satellite digital
transmission and other services.

There is no federal copyright protection for song recordings made
prior to Feb. 15, 1972, but several states, including California
and New York, extend exclusive ownership rights to pre-1972
recordings.  The suit alleges that the damages will be proven at
trial and will exceed $100 million.

Flo & Eddie is seeking to represent owners of pre-1972 recordings
that have been reproduced, performed, distributed or otherwise
exploited by Sirius in California since Aug. 1, 2009.

Since filing their California suit, Messrs. Volman and Kaylan have
also filed similar suits against Sirius addressing the state laws
regarding pre-1972 copyrights in New York and Florida.

Sirius also faces two similar suits: one, in California state
court, is substantially similar to the Turtles' suit, with five
major recording labels as lead plaintiffs.  The other, in
Washington federal court, was brought by SoundExchange Inc., the
federally appointed nonprofit that manages copyright and trademark
royalty terms.

Flo & Eddie is represented by Henry D. Gradstein, Maryann R.
Marzano and Robert Edward Allen of Gradstein & Marzano PC and Evan
Seth Cohen of Cohen & Cohen.

Sirius is represented by Christopher J. Cox -- chris.cox@weil.com
-- of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP.

The case is Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., case number
2:13-cv-05693, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.


SONIA GANDHI: Faces Class Action in US Over 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Times of India reports that an amended class action complaint
was filed in US federal court against Congress President Sonia
Gandhi -- for which she appeared though her counsel -- for
allegedly shielding, protecting and rewarding the perpetrators of
the anti-Sikhs riots in November 1984, on Dec. 4 by the rights
group Sikhs for Justice (SFJ) along with victims of the massacre.

Alleging that since Sonia Gandhi is liable for protecting and
shielding those who committed the 1984 Sikh genocide, the
complaint claims that federal court in US has jurisdiction over
the case based on Alien Tort Statute, 28 USC 1350; the Torture
Victim Protection Act of 1992; 28 USC 1331 and Federal Common Law.

The complainants have demanded jury trial against Ms. Gandhi while
alleging that her conduct towards perpetrators of November 1984
"Sikh Genocide" caused the victims, survivors and the Sikh
community serious pain and suffering.  The complaint states that
Sonia Gandhi's acts and omissions were deliberate, wilful,
intentional, wanton and malicious and should be punished by an
award of compensatory and punitive damages.  The complaint against
her was filed in first week of September this year when Gandhi was
in US for medical examination.  The SFJ claimed that on
September 9, 2013 summons were served on her through staff of the
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre in New York, where she had
gone for treatment but her counsel had denied the service.

Laying out the role of Sonia Gandhi before the US Court, SFJ's
amended complaint states that the carnage was carried out by the
killer mobs from November 1 to 4, 1984 in 18 states of India ruled
and controlled by Congress and "it organized, directed, controlled
and/or purposefully aided and abetted the 1984 Sikh Genocide."
"At that time, Rajiv Gandhi was President of the Congress party
and Prime Minister of the country and Sonia Gandhi was full
partner in her husband's decision making," the complaint alleges.

The amended complaint lists the name of Congress leaders and
police officials who lead and facilitated the death squads who
attacked Sikh in November 1984.  The complaint has gone in
exhaustive details to point out specific instances of impunity,
promotions and party tickets to Congress leaders and police
officials who perpetrated the killings or connived with the mobs.
The complaint alleges Sonia's Gandhi's complicity in patronizing
and rewarding the perpetrators of 1984 Sikh Genocide.

Seeking the Class Action certification and US Court intervention
on behalf of 1984 Sikh Genocide survivors, the complaint by
Plaintiffs Jasbir Singh and Mohender Singh states "Congress along
with its senior leadership including defendant Gandhi, has acted
in a concerted effort to protect their former and, in some cases,
current leaders against charges of human rights abuses."

Calling Sonia Gandhi "Mother of Perpetrators", SFJ legal advisor
Gurpatwant Singh Pannun said that Congress President was
continuing to extend political patronage and protection from
prosecution to those party leaders who were involved in Genocide
of Sikhs.  "The case before US Court will expose that November
1984 killing of Sikhs was intentional and organized violence by
Congress party and not "anti-Sikh Riots" as portrayed for the last
29 years," he claimed.


UNITED STATES: Veterans Drug Testing Suit Goes to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------
Veterans subjected to Cold War-era drug experiments asked the 9th
Circuit on November 26, 2013, to grant them more relief than
ordered on November 19, 2013, by a federal judge, Barbara Leonard
at Courthouse News Service reports.

The notice of appeal comes four years after Vietnam Veterans of
America led a class action against various government entities,
claiming that at least 7,800 soldiers had been used as guinea pigs
in Project Paperclip.  Soldiers were allegedly administered at
least 250 and perhaps as many as 400 types of drugs, among them
Sarin, one of the most deadly drugs known, amphetamines,
barbiturates, mustard gas, phosgene gas and LSD.

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

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken certified the plaintiffs as a
class last year, a status that could make thousands of veterans
eligible for relief.  Though the defendants succeeded in tossing
claims against Attorney General Eric Holder and the CIA, the
Department of Defense and Department of the Army remained on the
hook.  The crux of the veterans' argument is that Administrative
Procedure Act obligates the defendants to provide notice to test
subjects and to provide them medical care.  They also cite a 1962
Army regulation involving the use of volunteers as research
subjects.  Updated in 1990, that regulation allegedly requires the
Army to notify test subjects about possible side effects "even
after the individual volunteer has completed his or her
participation in research."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The notice of appeal filed Tuesday, November 26, 2013, cites that
opinion as well as any "any and all adverse orders and rulings."

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          James P. Bennett, Esq.
          Eugene Illovsky, Esq.
          Stacey M. Sprenkel, Esq.
          Ben Patterson, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: JBennett@mofo.com
                  EIllovsky@mofo.com
                  SSprenkel@mofo.com
                  BPatterson@mofo.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Stuart F. Delery, Esq.
          Assistant Attorney General

          Kathleen Harnett, Esq.
          Deputy Assistant Attorney General

          Melinda L. Haag, Esq.
          United States Attorney

          Anthony J. Coppolino, Esq.
          Deputy Branch Director

          Joshua E. Gardner, Esq.
          Assistant Director

          Brigham John Bowen, Esq.
          Kimberly L. Herb, Esq.
          Lily Sara Farel, Esq.
          Ryan B. Parker, Esq.
          Trial Attorneys

          CIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P.O. Box 883
          Washington, D.C. 20044
          Telephone: (202) 305-7583
          Facsimile: (202) 616-8202
          E-mail: joshua.e.gardner@usdoj.gov

The appellate case is Vietnam Veterans of America, et al. v.
Central Intelligence Agency, et al., Case No. 13-17430, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The
original case is Vietnam Veterans of America, et al. v. Central
Intelligence Agency, et al., Case No. 4:09-cv-00037-CW, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.


UNIVERSAL FIDELITY: Sued Over Fair Debt Collections Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shifra Stone v. Universal Fidelity LP, Case No. 1:13-cv-06076-JBW-
CLP (E.D.N.Y., November 1, 2013) is brought for damages arising
from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act, which prohibits debt collectors from
engaging in abusive, deceptive and unfair practices.  The action
seeks redress for these alleged illegal practices.

Universal Fidelity LP is an active Texas business, which caused
the collection letter complained of in the case to be sent within
the county of Kings, New York.  The Defendant is regularly engaged
in the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence Katz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE KATZ ESQ.
          445 Central Avenue, Suite 201
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 374-2118
          Facsimile: (516)706-2404
          E-mail: lkatz@lawkatz.com


VIOLIN MEMORY: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 4 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Violin Memory, Inc. common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
Violin Memory's September 27, 2013 initial public stock offering.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from November 26, 2013.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/violinmemory/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing at this time and remain an absent class member.  Any
purchaser of Violin Memory is invited to contact us concerning
their eligibility to serve as a lead plaintiff in this action,
regardless of the date of their purchase.

The complaint charges Violin Memory, certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters of the IPO with violations of the
Securities Act of 1933.  Violin Memory develops and supplies
memory-based storage systems to enhance storage performance with
high-speed applications, servers, and networks in the Americas,
Europe, and the Asia Pacific.

The complaint alleges that Violin Memory conducted its IPO during
the lead-up to the 2013 U.S. government shutdown, which was of
significant importance to Violin Memory because the U.S.
government is a large indirect customer of the Company.  According
to the complaint, the Registration Statement and Prospectus used
by defendants to sell Violin Memory shares in the IPO (and
thereafter) were negligently prepared and contained false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, among other
things, that at the time of the IPO Violin Memory's sales had
already been adversely affected by the looming government
shutdown.  Moreover, the complaint alleges the Company's sales and
research and development expenses had significantly grown during
the third quarter 2013, increasing its cash burn-rate to an
unsustainably high rate based on the Company's cash on hand.
Thus, the complaint alleges that Violin Memory's sales growth and
profit margins were declining, bringing its profits down at the
time of the IPO.

The complaint alleges that due to these misstatements and
omissions, the IPO was successful for the defendants and the
Company sold 18 million shares of Violin Memory common stock to
the public at $9 per share, raising $162 million in gross proceeds
for the Company.  However, the complaint alleges that Violin
Memory stock currently trades around $3.30 per share, a 65%
decline from the IPO price, and that analysts have slashed their
ratings and price targets on the stock following disclosures,
among other things, that "[a]s a result of unexpected
reprioritization of budgets ahead of the federal government
shutdown, some . . . forecasted [sales] were cancelled and others
were deferred to future quarters pending funds being allocated to
the project[s]," and that Violin Memory incurred increased sales
and marketing costs during the third quarter of 2013.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Violin Memory common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
Violin Memory's September 27, 2013 IPO.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and
international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  With nearly 200 lawyers in
ten offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi-
employer pension funds with combined assets under management in
excess of $2 trillion.


WESTERN HEALTH: Class Certification Hearing Scheduled for February
------------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Crocker, writing for The Western Star, reports that a
certification hearing to determine if a class-action lawsuit that
names Western Health as the sole defendant can proceed has been
postponed until February.

The parties in the suit, launched following a breach of privacy
involving the files of 1,043 people, appeared in Supreme Court in
Corner Brook on Dec. 5.  At that time Justice William Goodridge
indicated that the certification hearing would not go ahead at the
request of lawyer Bob Buckingham.

Mr. Buckingham is lead counsel for the plaintiffs named in the
class-action and appeared via video conference.

Justice Goodridge said the postponement was asked for because of a
delay in the filing of briefs required for the certification
hearing.

The plaintiffs originally had until Oct. 18 to file the documents
necessary for the hearing. The defendant then had until Nov. 8 to
file its response.

However, Justice Goodridge said a request for an extension to Oct.
25 had been granted for the plaintiffs.  That then pushed the time
for the defendant to file ahead to Nov. 15.

Mr. Buckingham told the court that he wasn't expecting some of the
things contained in the brief filed by Western Health's lawyers
and needed more time to respond to that before the certification
hearing takes place.

Meanwhile, Western Health's lawyer Daniel Boone, who also appeared
via video, said he was in agreement with granting the delay, but
countered that while the defendant's brief was "comprehensive," he
did not think it contained "anything startling.

"I think we filed what would be expected."

Mr. Boone said the brief would be the only one filed by Western
Health.  He later noted that it is his intention to file a Nova
Scotia court of appeal decision that recently overturned the
certification of a class-action lawsuit in that province.

Justice Goodridge tended to agree with Buckingham on the need to
file a response and said he didn't anticipate some of the issues
that were raised in the Western Health brief.  He gave
Mr. Buckingham until Jan. 15 to file his response.

Andrew May -- amay@brothersandburden.com -- of Brothers and Burden
Law Office was present in court for the Dec. 5 proceedings.  The
Corner Brook law firm is acting as co-counsel for the plaintiffs
in the case.

After court May agreed with Boone that Western Health's brief was
comprehensive.

"It dealt with novel treatment of the provincial privacy
legislation and it really requires us to respond to every point,"
he said.

"It's important to note that our statement of claim proceeds on a
number of different legal grounds and each ground has been
challenged by Western Health and therefore we need to reply.

May said what has been filled by Western Health so far only
relates to the certification of the class-action, so that's all
the plaintiffs are addressing at this time.

"Western Health has not yet filed a defense, so we don't really
have too many reference points in terms of what their legal
position is at this point."

The certification hearing will now be held on Feb. 6 and 7 in
Supreme Court in Corner Brook.


WHOLE FOODS: Faces Class Action Over GMOs in Corn Flakes
--------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that the day
before Thanksgiving, two plaintiffs sued Whole Foods Markets Inc.
and some of its subsidiaries in federal court in Houston.

"[T]esting by an independent laboratory found that more than 50%
of Whole Foods' 365 Everyday Value Corn Flakes were genetically
modified," the plaintiffs allege in their complaint in Uri Gedalia
v. Whole Foods Market Services.  They also seek class
certification.

"It's company policy that we don't comment on pending litigation,
so I don't have any additional information for you on this," wrote
Robin Kelly, a corporate spokeswoman for Whole Foods, in an email.

Yvette Golan of The Golan Firm in Houston represents the two named
plaintiffs, a Houston surgeon and a California mother of two young
children.  Ms. Golan said she took this case after successfully
representing other plaintiffs in California federal courts.

Those plaintiffs sued other food manufacturers and distributors,
alleging they had made false and misleading representations about
their products' ingredients.  Ms. Golan said she is experienced in
developing evidence about the chemical composition of processed
food.

In the Nov. 27 complaint the plaintiffs allege that the company
and its subsidiaries, including some that are unnamed, engaged in
"false and misleading misrepresentations regarding the ingredients
in its private label products."

The 74-page complaint also includes numerous other allegations of
chemical additives in foods sold by Whole Foods under their store-
brand labels and identified as "all natural," including Whole
Foods' 365 Organic Almond Milk, 365 Real Dairy Whipped Topping and
365 Morning O's cereals.  The plaintiffs seek to represent a class
of all who purchased the products with the alleged false labeling
between November 2008 and until a time when a court certifies a
class.  The plaintiffs cite among other causes of action breaches
of express and implied warranties, fraud and misrepresentation.
They seek disgorgement and attorney fees.


* Highchair-Related Injuries Up 22% Despite Recalls
---------------------------------------------------
Allie Bidwell, writing for US News and World Report, reports that
injuries related to highchairs continue to rise, with more than
9,400 children treated each year in American emergency rooms for
bumps, bruises and head injuries caused by highchairs, according
to a study released on Dec. 9 from the Research Institute at
Nationwide Children's Hospital.

Despite the fact that millions of defective highchairs have been
recalled in recent years, researchers at the hospital's Center for
Injury Research and Policy found that the number of children under
the age of 3 who were treated in emergency departments between
2003 and 2010 increased by 22 percent.  On average, one child each
hour was treated for such an injury, according to the study,
published in the journal Clinical Pediatrics.

"Families may not think about the dangers associated with the use
of high chairs," said Gary Smith, director of the Center for
Injury Research, in a statement.  "High chairs are typically used
in kitchens and dining areas, so when a child falls from the
elevated height of the high chair, he is often falling head first
onto a hard surface such as tile or wood flooring with
considerable force.

Most often, the children seen were treated for closed head
injuries, which include concussions and internal head injuries.
More than one-third of the children injured (37 percent) were
treated for closed head injuries.

Not only were closed head injuries the most common injury
associated with highchairs, but they were also the type that saw
the greatest increase between 2003 and 2010 -- up nearly 90
percent, from 2,558 in 2003 to 4,789 in 2010.

Additionally, 33 percent were treated for bumps and bruises, and
19 percent were treated for cuts associated with falls from
highchairs.  Overall, 93 percent of the injuries involved a fall
from a highchair or booster seat.

When information was available for what children were doing just
before a fall from a highchair or booster seat, two-thirds of them
were climbing or standing in the chair, which suggests that the
chair's safety restraints were either not being used or were
ineffective.

According to the study, millions of highchairs have been recalled
in recent years.  Most recently, BabyHome USA Inc. recalled about
1,100 of its Eat model highchairs in March, due to a
"strangulation hazard."  According to the recall notice, the front
opening between the tray and seat bottom was wide enough for a
child's body to pass through.

And in October 2012, Graco Children's Products Inc. recalled about
86,000 wood highchairs in the United States, and about 3,400 in
Canada, because of a fall hazard.  The company received 58 reports
of the highchairs' seats "loosening or detaching from the base,"
according to the recall notice.  Additionally, at the time of the
recall, there had been nine reports of children falling from the
chair, and one report of a concussion in Canada.

"The number one thing parents can do to prevent injuries related
to high chairs is to use the safety restraint system in the
chair," Mr. Smith said in the statement.  "Buckling your child in
every time you use the high chair can help keep them safe."


                             *********

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  * * *