/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/131217.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, December 17, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 249


23ANDME INC: $99 DNA Saliva Test a Bogus, California Class Claims
AFFLUENT ADS: Sued Over "Text Enhance" Malware
ALLSTAR VENDING: Recalls Puffer Balls Due to Strangulation Hazard
ANZ BANK: Class Action Over Bank Fees "Game Changer"
APPLE INC: Class Suit by iPhone Apps Indirect Purchasers Junked

ASI LIMITED: Court Certifies Class in "Shepherd" WARN Act Suit
AT&T INC: Wins Final Approval of "Nwabueze" Suit Settlement
BANK OF AMERICA: House Inspections Were Unnecessary, Class Claims
BH S&B HOLDINGS: 2nd Cir. Revives Suit by Steve & Barry's Workers
BRISTOL-MEYERS: Faces Class Action Over Secret Life Insurance

CANADA: Appeals Class Certification in Aboriginal Children Suit
CANADA: Sued by 4 Citizens for Right to Grow Their Own Marijuana
COBY USA: Recalls Coby 32-Inch Flat Screen TV Due to Fire Hazard
DOODLEBUTT: Recalls 1,500 Water-Absorbing Toys Over Ingestion Risk
EBAY INC: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over "Buy It Now" Fees

EFT HOLDINGS: Accused of Orchestrating Fraudulent Pyramid Scheme
EFT HOLDINGS: Faces 2nd "Li" Suit Over Fraudulent Pyramid Scheme
EMAK USA: Recalls Gas Trimmers Due to Fire Hazard
EXMARK MANUFACTURING: Recalls Commercial Walk-Behind Mowers
FLEXTRONICS GLOBAL: Recalls Solar Panels Due to Invisible Defects

HALCON ENERGY: Schnader Harrison Discusses Third Circuit Ruling
HILTON HOTELS: Atty. Fee and Incentive Award to be Paid From Fund
HOBBY LOBBY: Recalls Accent Chairs Due to Injury Risk
IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Children's Wall-Mounted Lamps
INLAND AMERICAN: Court Dismisses "Becker" Class Action Suit

INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Court Appoints Hawaii ERS as Lead Plaintiff
KINDER MORGAN: Wins Final Approval for Copano Shareholders' Suit
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Still Faces Suit Over "Unfair" Practices
MASSEY ENERGY: Settles Investor Class Action for $265 Million
NEW YORK, NY: Class Action Over Taxi of Tomorrow Settled

NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Recalls NV200 Vehicles Over Stalling Issues
PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Customer Refunds
QUALITY SYSTEMS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action in California
SERVICON SYSTEMS: Bid for Rehearing in "Johnson" Suit Denied
SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Has Initial OK of $425,000 Technicians Suit Deal

ST FRANCIS MARKETING: Owners Sued Over Timeshare Compensation Con
THERACLONE SCIENCES: Sued Over Later-Terminated Merger Deal
TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 2013-2014 Tacoma Pickups Over Engine Defect
UNITED CONTINENTAL: Faces Suit Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
WHOLE FOODS: Faces Suit Over "Nothing Artificial" Product Labels


23ANDME INC: $99 DNA Saliva Test a Bogus, California Class Claims
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that a
California company is selling a bogus $99 DNA saliva test that it
falsely claims can identify 240 health conditions and risks, a
class action claims in Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Lisa Casey sued 23andMe Inc., a Delaware
corporation based in Mountain View, Calif.

Casey claims the company -- apparently named for the 23 human
chromosomes -- "falsely and misleadingly advertises their Saliva
Collection Kit/Personal Genome Service 'PGS') as providing 'health
reports on 240+ conditions and traits,' 'drug response', 'carrier
status', among other things, when there is no analytical or
clinical validation for the PGS for its advertised uses."

The lawsuit continues: "In addition, defendant uses the
information it collects from the DNA tests consumers pay to take
to generate databases and statistical information that it then
markets to other sources and the scientific community in general,
even though the test results are meaningless.

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

People who buy the contraption are instructed to spit into a
container and send it to the defendant, which allegedly analyzes
the spit to calculate the person's risk for diseases such as
coronary heart disease and rheumatoid arthritis.

The defendants' ads include false claims that users can "learn
hundreds of things about your health, . . . find out if your
children are at risk for inherited conditions . . . [and] arm your
doctor with information on how you might respond to certain
medications," according to the complaint.

Casey claims the so-called DNA tests are a sham, and provide no
real insight into consumers' health or genetic risk factors.

Casey claims the FDA has weighed in on the company: that "after
more than 14 face-to-face meetings, hundreds of email messages,
and dozens of written communications between defendant and FDA
concerning the public health consequences of inaccurate results
from the PGS device, FDA has concluded, '. . . even after these
many interactions with 23andMe, we still do not have any assurance
that the firm has analytically or clinically validated the PGS for
its intended uses,'" according to the lawsuit.

Casey seeks class certification and damages for unfair and
deceptive trade, false advertising and unjust enrichment.  She
claims the defendant has been pushing its product for more than
five years without being able to back up its claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark D. Ankcorn, Esq.
          PENFIELD, LLP
          110 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1811
          Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
          E-mail: mark@cglaw.com

The case is Casey v. 23andMe, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-
02847-H-JMA, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California (San Diego).

AFFLUENT ADS: Sued Over "Text Enhance" Malware
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Iulia Filip reports that a
software company used its "Text Enhance" malware as a Trojan horse
to infiltrate thousands of computers to steal sales leads worth
millions of dollars, according to a federal class action.

Dan Halperin sued Affluent Ads dba Leadnomics and its affiliate
International Web Services (IWS) dba Amazing Apps.

"Defendant Leadnomics is a sales-lead generator company and has a
sister company, defendant IWS, that provides software products and
services," Halperin says in the lawsuit.

"Defendants have developed an especially sinister practice in
which they utilize malware to act as a Trojan horse and infiltrate
thousands of consumers' computers.  The malware converts text on
Internet websites viewed by consumers into hyperlinks that direct
consumers to non-affiliated websites."

Leadnomics and IWS dba Amazing Apps are both based in
Philadelphia, according to the complaint.

Halperin, of Cook County, claims Leadnomics designed the Text
Enhance malware and used it to infiltrate computers and hijack
Internet traffic, with help from its sister company.

Malware refers to software programs that covertly install
themselves on computers without users' consent and perform
unauthorized tasks, including capturing passwords, recording
browsing choices, causing pop-up windows and reporting personal
information to servers.  Malware also can be used for identity
theft and credit-card fraud.

"Consumer Reports estimated that malware cost U.S. consumers $2.3
billion and caused them to replace 1.3 million PC's in 2010," the
complaint states.  "Another study estimated that in 2006, the
worldwide economic damages from malware exceeded $13 billion."

Halperin claims that malware threatens national security and the
economy, and is designed to steal Internet traffic, in exchange
for millions of dollars in fees.

In a scheme recently uncovered by the FBI, seven people used
malware to hijack web traffic and redirect it to their clients'
websites, making $14 million in illegal advertising revenue
through the use of "pay per click" and "pay per impression" fee
models, according to the complaint.

"Defendant Leadnomics specializes in 'lead generation,'" the
complaint states.  "This is the practice of supplying businesses
with viable sales leads for a fee.  According to its Web site,
Leadnomics 'generates millions of premium leads every year for
financial institutions & insurance companies in the US & UK.'  In
2010, Leadnomics reportedly generated some $5.8 million in
revenue.  In or around 2010, Leadnomics created a sophisticated
piece of malware known as Text Enhance.

"Knowing that Text Enhance was entirely illegal, Leadnomics could
not inform the public that it created the malware.  Indeed,
Leadnomics had a reputation to uphold -- that of a progressive,
cutting-edge technology company.  Therefore, Leadnomics put Text
Enhance under the umbrella of its relatively unknown sister
company -- defendant IWS.

"Text Enhance was designed to generate millions of new sales
leads.  Specifically, Text Enhance was designed to steal web
traffic, which monetize.  In short, defendants intentionally
designed Text Enhance to steal and peddle sales leads for millions
of dollars."

Using a "pay per click" or "pay per impression" model, Text
Enhance infects consumers' computers, causing ads to appear on web
pages they visit.  When consumers click on the ads, they are taken
to websites of companies pay fees to the defendants, according to
the lawsuit.

Halperin says Text Enhance is hard to find and remove, and it
affects computers so that they can no longer be used for their
intended purposes.

The malware causes computers to slow down, hurts their
performance, uses up memory and bandwidth, and causes loss of
data, according to the complaint.

Halperin claims consumers waste time and money to detect and
remove the malware and to fix the loss of performance and

He claims it harms legitimate businesses whose Web sites are
turned into "billboards for their competition" after they spend
hundreds of millions of dollars to drive traffic to them.

Halperin seeks class certification, an injunction and damages for
violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and
the Computer Tampering Act.

Leadnomics did not reply to a request for comment Monday,
December 2, 2013.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          Ismael Tariq Salam, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 N. State St., Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 878-1342
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com

The case is Halperin v. International Web Services, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 1:13-cv-08573, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois.

ALLSTAR VENDING: Recalls Puffer Balls Due to Strangulation Hazard
Starting date:            December 12, 2013
Posting date:             December 12, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Toys
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Strangulation Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-37179

The recall involves puffer yo-yo balls that are 10 centimetres
(4 inches) in diameter.  They are made of soft stretchy plastic
and have a stretchable plastic cord with finger loop.  There are
two types of puffer balls, flashing and non-flashing.  Each ball
has a smiley face and come in assorted colours.

Yo-yo type balls and similar products are banned in Canada because
they present a hidden risk of strangulation to children.

Health Canada has not received any reports of incidents or
injuries to Canadians related to the use of these recalled yo-yo

20,000 of the recalled toys were imported and sold in vending
machines across Canada.

The recalled toys were manufactured in China and sold in Canada
from February 2012 to November 2013.


   Importer     Allstar Vending

Consumers should cut off the stretchy cords from the affected toys
and call Allstar Vending at 1-800-685-7066 to receive a full

ANZ BANK: Class Action Over Bank Fees "Game Changer"
Jennifer Duke, writing for Property Observer, reports class action
lawsuits against eight banks over 'unfair fees' has Finder.com.au
saying this will be a 'game changer' for the industry.

Citing fees between AUD20 and AUD45 for overdraft and over the
limit charges, spokesperson for Finder.com.au, Michelle Hutchison,
said that the class action lawsuits show the power of public
pressure, with a potential shake-up of bank fees across the entire
industry if the cases do win.

"In fact, last year, we collectively paid our banks over AUD11
billion in bank fees -- over $4 billion of which was from
households," said Ms. Hutchison.

However, she said that it's worth considering voting with your own
wallet and switching yourself.

Observer Christopher Joye recently wrote about how to avoid bank
fee traps, and went into the reasons some of these fees crop up.

"But we can't rely on financial institutions to charge fair fees
or drop their fees altogether.  The only way we will make real
changes to the banking industry is if more Australians compared
their financial products and switched.  This will force
institutions to be more competitive."

Statistics from their site note that there are 105 home loans with
no annual service fees, and 101 home loans where redraw fees are
not charged.

"It's up to more Australians to take on the responsibility with
their financial products by reviewing their options and comparing
deals," she said.

"It will not only force competition between banks but also will
save consumers potentially thousands of dollars every year."

The proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia were initially
issued against the ANZ bank in September 2010, over repayment of
fees they have charged their customers over the past six years.
These were issued by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers.  The fees
including honor and dishonor fees on bank accounts, over limit
fees and late payment fees on credit cards.

Proceedings were then issued against Citibank, Commonwealth Bank,
NAB and Westpac (December 16, 2011), St George and BankSA
(February 1, 2012) and BankWest (April 18, 2012) with more than
170,000 Australians who were charged these fees signing up online
to be part of the case, with the claim size estimated at more than
$220 million.

The case went to trial this month and is scheduled to run for
three weeks, Maurice Blackburn Lawyers notes.

Maurie Blackburn will claim that the bank charged exorbitant fees
(those being the AUD20 to AUD45) for services that cost minimal
amounts (a few cents or dollars) to provide.  Fees are able to be
considered a penalty charged by the bank rather than a fee for

In other words, we will claim that the bank charged exorbitant
fees of between AUD20- AUD45 for a service that cost them only a
matter or cents or a few dollars at the most to administer.

APPLE INC: Class Suit by iPhone Apps Indirect Purchasers Junked
Apple does not have to face claims that it monopolized the market
for iPhone applications by charging developers a 30 percent
commission, reports Chris Marshall at Courthouse News Service,
citing a federal court ruling.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found that a class of
iPhone users lacked standing to sue Apple for antitrust violations
because they were indirect purchasers of the apps in question and
could not show that Apple fixed the price of applications.

The plaintiffs claimed in a 2011 lawsuit that Apple charged app
developers an annual $99 fee to submit apps for distribution,
collecting 30 percent of the sale of each application that it does
not give away for free while the developer received the other 70

Gonzalez Rogers dismissed the claims with leave to amend in
August.  The class then filed a second amended complaint in

The class tried to argue in court filings that Apple imposed the
30 percent fee on top of the cost for apps, that they bought the
apps directly from and paid the fee directly to Apple, and that
Apple kept the entire fee for itself.  The class also argued that
since they are the only party in the chain that buys the price-
fixed products, they are "straightforward direct purchasers."

Rogers was not convinced, however, finding that "at best,
plaintiffs allege that the ultimate price paid by them is somehow
'fixed' across the board at a level 30% higher than it would
otherwise be if not for Apple's conduct."

"Despite plaintiffs' best efforts, the [second amended complaint]
is fairly read to complain about a fee created by agreement and
borne by the developers to pay Apple 30% from their own proceeds -
- amount which is passed-on to the consumers as part of the
purchase price," she added.  "Plaintiffs' attempt to recast
themselves as the sole purchasers of the apps because Apple
collects the entire purchase price is unavailing.  To find
otherwise would require the court to ignore the other allegations
in the [second amended complaint], which identify the developers'
obligation to pay or share the thirty percent with Apple.
Consequently, the court finds the [second amended complaint] does
not allege facts from which Plaintiffs can be classified as direct

The plaintiffs also could not show any price-fixing by Apple,
which would be required to have standing as indirect purchasers,
according to the ruling.

"To the extent that plaintiffs intimate that developers would
necessarily charge only 70% of the purchase price if not for
Apple, such conclusion requires the court to speculate into
developers' pricing structure, their costs, ability to find a
distribution chain, and/or desired profits or rates of return,"
Brown wrote.  "Simply put, the court cannot assume, as plaintiffs
do, that developers charging 99 cents for an app would necessarily
have charged 70%, or 69 cents, if not for the agreement with Apple
to pay them 30% of the purchase price.  Further, the [second
amended complaint] lacks allegations of a conspiracy of any kind."

The judge added that the "30% figure for which plaintiffs complain
is not a fixed fee, but a cost passed-on to consumers by
independent software developers.  As such, any injury to
plaintiffs is an indirect effect resulting from the software
developers' own costs.  Given that none of the exceptions to the
Illinois Brick doctrine apply, plaintiffs are barred from bringing
claims because they are indirect purchasers."

Derived from a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court case, the Illinois Brick
doctrine requires a price be paid directly for the price to be
fixed.  A passed-on price cannot be fixed under the doctrine.

Gonzalez dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice.

Alexander Schmidt, Esq., attorney for the plaintiffs, told
Courthouse News that he plans to appeal the ruling.

"We think the 9th Circuit case law is very clear that consumers
who buy a monopoly-priced product directly from the monopolist are
direct purchasers," Schmidt said.  "The fact that Apple told app
developers in advance that it would charge 30 percent doesn't
change the direct purchase status of our clients.  App developers
are not purchasers.  They're sellers.  They can't be direct

Christopher Yates, Esq., of Latham & Watkins in San Francisco
represents Apple.  Frank Pizzuro, a spokesman for the firm,
declined to comment.  He noted that Daniel Wall and Sadik Huseny,
also from the firm's San Francisco office, joined Yates as lead
partners in the case.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alexander Schmidt, Esq.
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4723
          Facsimile: (212) 545-4794
          E-mail: schmidt@whafh.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher Yates, Esq.
          Daniel Wall, Esq.
          Sadik Huseny, Esq.
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
          Telephone: (415) 391-0600
          Facsimile: (415) 395-8095
          E-mail: chris.yates@lw.com

ASI LIMITED: Court Certifies Class in "Shepherd" WARN Act Suit
District Judge Sarah Evans Barker granted class certification in
the case captioned ANDREW SHEPHERD, Plaintiff, v. ASI, LIMITED,
00167-SEB-DML, (S.D. Ind.).

The Court certifies the class defined as:

All individuals who were nominally employed by ASI, Limited
("ASI"), who worked at or reported to ASI's facility located at
Whitestown, Indiana (the "Facility"), and who were terminated
and/or laid off without cause on their part from their employment
on or within thirty days of December 22, 2011, or thereafter, as
part of, or as the reasonably expected consequence of, the mass
layoff or plant closing at the Facility that occurred on or about
December 22, 2011, as defined by the WARN Act, who do not file a
timely request to opt out of the class.

Andrew Shepherd is designated as the representative Plaintiff for
the certified class and, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(g), the Court designated the law firms of Lankenau &
Miller, LLP; the Gardner Firm, P.C.; and Fillenwarth, Dennerline,
Groth & Towe, LLP as class counsel for the certified class.

Judge Barker ordered class counsel to file with the Court a status
report along with a schedule of subsequent steps they intend to
take in litigating this matter, preferably following a conference
with Defendants' counsel. If a hearing or meeting is deemed
desirable before the assigned Magistrate Judge, a request for such
should be made to that judicial officer at the earliest time after
the need arises, Judge Barker added.

A copy of the District Court's November 18, 2013 Order is
available at http://is.gd/xVaS3gfrom Leagle.com.

AT&T INC: Wins Final Approval of "Nwabueze" Suit Settlement
Judge Susan Illston of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted final approval of AT&T
Inc.'s settlement of a class action lawsuit initiated by Joy
Nwabueze.  All objections to the Settlement are overruled.

The lawsuit was brought in early 2009 against AT&T on behalf of a
purported class of current and former AT&T landline customers, who
had allegedly been billed by AT&T for unauthorized charges placed
on their bills by billing aggregators on behalf of third-party
providers.  This practice of placing unauthorized charges on
customers' monthly phone bills is known as "cramming."

Under the Settlement, AT&T has agreed to pay 100% of all
unauthorized third-party charges incurred by customers, who submit
claims.  In addition, AT&T no longer permits any third-party
charges for enhanced services, and has agreed to provide
information to its current customers regarding precisely what
kinds of third-party billing it still permits.  Moreover, AT&T
will be required to pay the costs of notice and settlement
administration, as well as Class Counsels' attorneys' fees and
expenses in an amount up to $5,500,000.

In her order granting final approval, Judge Illston directed the
Class Counsel to provide the Court with more detailed information
regarding the tasks performed by each attorney and the expenses
each firm incurred, to aid the Court in accurately calculating
fair and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses.  The Class
Representatives are each awarded $5,000 as an incentive award.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey Farley Keller, Esq.
          1965 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 543-1305
          Facsimile: (415) 543-7861
          E-mail: jfkeller@kellergrover.com

               - and -

          John G. Jacobs, Esq.
          Bryan G. Kolton, Esq.
          122 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1850
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 427-4000
          Facsimile: (312) 427-1850
          E-mail: jgjacobs@jacobskolton.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
          Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
          Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
          1331 Lamar, Suite 1070
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 751-0400
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
          E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com

               - and -

          David Schachman, Esq.
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 2970
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 427-9500
          Facsimile: (312) 268-2425
          E-mail: ds@schachmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (347) 390-2187
          E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
          Embarcadero Center West
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: msobol@lchb.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Roxane Alicia Polidora, Esq.
          Post Office Box 2824
          San Francisco, CA 94126
          Telephone: (415) 983-1976
          Facsimile: (415) 983-1200
          E-mail: roxane.polidora@pillsburylaw.com

               - and -

          Connie Jean Wolfe, Esq.
          Douglas Ray Tribble, Esq.
          501 W Broadway #1100
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 234-5000
          Facsimile: (619) 236-1995
          E-mail: connie.wolfe@pillsburylaw.com

               - and -

          Wesley Michael Spowhn, Esq.
          50 Fremont St.
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 983-1877
          E-mail: wesley.spowhn@pillsburylaw.com

               - and -

          Walid Samir Abdul-Rahim, Esq.
          525 Market Street, Room 2005
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 778-1356
          E-mail: walid.1@att.com

The case is Nwabueze v. AT&T Inc., et al., Case No. 3:09-cv-01529-
SI, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco).

BANK OF AMERICA: House Inspections Were Unnecessary, Class Claims
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Bank of America charged hundreds of thousands of distressed
homeowners millions of dollars for unnecessary house inspections
that forced them to default on mortgages, according to a RICO
class action.

John Cirino sued Bank of America, BAC Home Loans Servicing fka
Countrywide Home Loans Servicing and Bank Home Loans Servicing in
a federal RICO complaint.

Cirino, of Mississippi, claims Bank of America charged millions of
dollars to borrowers who "can least afford" it.

Mortgage servicing companies, unlike lenders who have an interest
in home loans, make their money from managing loan accounts,
Cirino says, and earn fees when borrowers go into foreclosure.

For that reason, he says, servicing companies are less concerned
about whether borrowers are keeping up with payments on their

"Financial institutions like defendants see opportunity where
investors see failure, because borrowers are captives to companies
who service their loans," the lawsuit states.  "Accordingly, when
borrowers go into default and defendants unilaterally decide to
instruct third parties to perform default-related services,
borrowers have no option but to accept defendants' choice of

That's where loan inspections come in, Cirino claims, and it
exemplifies "how America's lending industry has run off the

Bank of America uses two computerized loan-management systems to
order home inspections automatically from outside vendors when a
homeowner goes into default, even when an inspection is
unnecessary.  Bank of America uses automated systems designed by
(nonparties) IBM and LPS, according to the lawsuit.

Cirino claims fees assessed to borrowers' accounts are concealed
on mortgage statements with "cryptic descriptions, such as 'fees

"Defendants' automated loan management system is set up to order
property inspections and assess fees against borrowers when they
are a certain number of days late on their mortgage, regardless of
whether the assessment of such fees is reasonable or necessary,"
the complaint states.  "Although such inspections purportedly are
conducted to guard against property loss, defendants' practices
are designed to ensure that these fees are charged to as many
accounts as possible, even if the inspections are unnecessary."

Cirino claims that Bank of America's computer systems order repeat
inspections "without human intervention" if accounts are overdue,
even if a previous inspection report showed that a property is
occupied and maintained.

He estimates that "hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting borrowers
are cheated out of millions of dollars," driving already-
distressed borrowers into default.

He seeks class certification, disgorgement, compensatory and
treble damages, and an injunction requiring Bank of America to
identify "victims of its conduct" and pay them restitution.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark P. Pifko, Esq.
          Daniel Alberstone, Esq.
          Michael I. Miller, Esq.
          Roland K. Tellis, Esq.
          15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 839-2333
          Facsimile: (818) 986-9698
          E-mail: MPifko@baronbudd.com

               - and -

          Philip F. Cossich, Jr., Esq.
          David A. Parsiola, Esq.
          8397 Highway 23, Suite 100
          Belle Chasse, Louisiana 70037
          Telephone: (504) 394-9000
          Facsimile: (504) 394-9110
          E-mail: pcossich@cossichlaw.com

The case is John Cirino v. Bank of America NA, et al., 2:13-cv-
08829-PSG-MRW (C.D. Cal.., November 27, 2013).

BH S&B HOLDINGS: 2nd Cir. Revives Suit by Steve & Barry's Workers
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
reinstated a class action lawsuit against BHY S&B HoldCo, LLC,
which acquired Steve & Barry's, a chain of retail apparel stores
that filed for bankruptcy, for alleged violations of the Worker
Adjustment Retraining and Notification Act.

Michael Guippone, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, took an appeal from decisions and orders of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(McMahon, J.) dismissing his putative class action claim brought
against the defendants for WARN Act violations.

The Second Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary
judgment to BHY S&B HoldCo, entered Dec. 15, 2011, finding that
there is a material question of fact as to whether HoldCo was a
single employer with its closely held subsidiary within the
meaning of WARN.  The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's
dismissal of the complaint against the remaining defendants for
failure to state a claim, entered May 18, 2010.

Steve & Barry's Industries, Inc., which owned and operated the
retail apparel chain, filed for protection from its creditors
pursuant to Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in July 2008.
One group of defendants in this action comprises investment firms
Bay Harbour Management LC and its related entities Bay Harbour
Master Ltd. and BH S&B Inc.; and York Capital Management L.P. and
YSOF S&B Investor LLC.

Bay Harbour and York Capital created a series of interrelated
entities to purchase and manage Steve & Barry's after it filed for
bankruptcy protection. One of the entities, HoldCo, served as the
holding company and sole managing member of another entity, BH S&B
Holdings LLC.

Holdings was funded with $70 million from Bay Harbour and York
Capital, and an additional $125 million in financing from Ableco
Finance LLC.  Holdings employed Guippone and the putative class
members.  In August 2008, with approval from the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, Holdings
bought Steve & Barry's assets.

S&B INVESTOR, LLC,1 Defendants-Appellees, No. 12-183-cv (2nd

A copy of the Second Circuit's Dec. 10, 2013 decision is available
at http://is.gd/3lwdnofrom Leagle.com.

Michael Guippone is represented by:

     Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
     Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
     3 Park Avenue
     New York, NY 10016

BHY SBHoldCo LLC is represented by Owen Cyrulnik, Esq. --
ocyrulnik@graisellsworth.com -- at Grais & Ellsworth LLP.

Justin S. Antonipillai, Esq., and Robert A. Stolworthy,
Jr., Esq. -- justin.antonipillai@aporter.com and
robert.stolworthy@aporter.com -- at Arnold & Porter, LLP,
YSOF S&B Investor LLC and York Capital Management, L.P.

Headquartered in Port Washington, New York, Steve and Barry's LLC
-- http://www.steveandbarrys.com/-- was a national casual apparel
retailer that offered high quality merchandise at low prices for
men, women and children.  Founded in 1985, the company operated
276 anchor and junior anchor shopping center and mall-based
locations throughout the U.S.  The discount clothing chain's
brands included the BITTEN(TM) collection, the first-ever apparel
line created by actress and global fashion icon Sarah Jessica
Parker, and the STARBURY(TM) collection of athletic and lifestyle
apparel and sneakers created with former NBA (R) star Stephon
Marbury.  When the Debtors filed for bankruptcy, they disclosed
$693,492,000 in total assets and $638,086,000 in total debts.

BRISTOL-MEYERS: Faces Class Action Over Secret Life Insurance
AllGov reports that an Illinois woman who discovered that her
deceased husband's employer had taken out a secret life insurance
policy on him has filed a class action lawsuit against drug giant
Bristol-Meyers Squibb (2012 revenue: $17.6 billion) alleging that
the company lacked an insurable interest in her husband's life and
took out the life insurance policy without his consent.  Filed on
November 26 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, the lawsuit seeks the proceeds from Bristol-Meyers'
insurance policy and certification as a class action for all of
the company's employees.

After Bruce Simmons died on August 16, 2012, his wife, Gigi
Simmons, had to borrow money to cover funeral costs because his
life insurance benefits had not yet arrived, according to the
lawsuit.  When a funeral director contacted Bristol-Myers Squibb
on her behalf, he was told "that there was a $6,000,000 policy on
Mr. Simmons' life," but when the funeral director started asking
questions, "the employee refused to give . . . any additional
information and said she probably 'was not supposed to have said
anything about it.'"

That employee was right to clam up.  It is unlawful for a person
or corporation to buy life insurance on someone's life unless
there is a strong familial or financial reason "to expect some
kind of benefit or advantage from the continuance of the life of
the assured."  Thus close relatives -- spouses, parents and
children -- may insure one another because they have a strong
interest in one another's lives.  Otherwise, the Supreme Court
ruled in 1881, "the contract is a mere wager, by which the party
taking the policy is directly interested in the early death of the
assured.  Such policies have a tendency to create a desire for the
event.  They are therefore, independently of any statute on the
subject, condemned as being against public policy." Warnock v.
Davis (1881).

In the case of employers, courts have held that they may have an
insurable interest in highly-placed, key employees like a CEO or
other corporate officers.  Arguing that Bristol-Meyers' life
insurance policy on Mr. Simmons was invalid because the company
"did not have an insurable interest" in his life, the complaint
states that he "was not an officer of Bristol-Myers.  He was not a
member of the company's board of directors and was not a key
employee. He was not indebted to the company and was not related
to Bristol-Myers by blood or marriage.  Mr. Simmons was a rank-
and-file employee of the company.  He was never informed about any
policy of corporate-owned life insurance that insured his life and
he never consented to such a policy."

While the case is pending, the $6,000,000 insurance payout is
being held by the company as a trustee on behalf of Mr. Simmons'
estate.  Mrs. Simmons' lawsuit asks that other employees
unlawfully insured by Bristol-Meyers be allowed either to cancel
the policies and receive the moneys paid in their name or to
assume the payments and name the beneficiary themselves.

CANADA: Appeals Class Certification in Aboriginal Children Suit
The Winnipeg Free Press reports that the federal government wants
to halt an aboriginal lawsuit for loss of cultural identity.  It's
currently appealing an Ontario court's certification of a class-
action suit by aboriginal children who were forcibly fostered or
adopted into non-native families.  The government is wrong to try
to cut off their access to the courts.

From the 1960s through the 1980s, child-welfare agencies removed
thousands of aboriginal children from their homes and placed them
with non-native families.  Proverbially known as the Sixties
Scoop, the children were placed with non-indigenous families and
as a result lost their cultural identity.  Best estimates of the
number of children taken range between 16,000 and 20,000, the vast
majority of whom still survive.

The lawsuit's representative plaintiffs maintain their loss of
cultural identity has left them, and others like them, in a
cultural identity no man's land -- feeling they don't fit in
either aboriginal or mainstream society.

For years, the federal government, rightly, resisted calls for it
to simply open the public purse and pay compensation for loss-of-
culture claims.

Faced with that refusal, a group of affected individuals launched
a class-action lawsuit that was finally certified in Toronto last
summer by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

This was their second attempt to launch a class action.  An
earlier attempt in 2009 was unsuccessful. But after years of legal
wrangling, a new certification hearing was ordered that resulted
in the suit's certification July 16 of this year.

The federal government should abandon its appeal of certification
of the class action.  Any group that believes it has a lawful
basis for seeking compensation should be allowed to put its claims
before the courts for validation and quantification. It's entitled
to furnish evidence and proof its claim is factual and founded in

The success of the aboriginal group's claim for loss of cultural
identity is far from certain.  Unlike land claims, fishing rights
and hunting rights, claims for loss of cultural identity are

And the federal government has seized on this novelty.

It has taken the position that the claim for loss of cultural
identity isn't known in law.  It has even gone so far as to admit
that though the children swept up in the Sixties Scoop suffered,
their claims aren't the kind the courts should deal with.  The
Department of Justice's lawyer conducting the appeal maintains
existing legal tools aren't up to the task of adjudicating these
kinds of claims, and the issue might be better relegated "to a
socio-political discussion."

The federal government's position ignores the fact that our courts
frequently validate pioneering claims.  And more and more
regularly, courts are being asked to assess historical wrongs and
quantify damages for what's inherently difficult to quantify.

The federal government's appeal of the certification amounts to a
blatant attempt to prevent the aboriginal group from getting a
full and fair hearing of their grievances.  The Sixties Scoop
group should be allowed its day in court.

CANADA: Sued by 4 Citizens for Right to Grow Their Own Marijuana
Darryl Greer at Courthouse News Service reports that Canada's plan
to prohibit medical marijuana patients from growing their own
medicine is unconstitutional, four citizens claim in a class
action in British Columbia.

Neil Allard, et al., sued Her Majesty the Queen in Federal Court,
claiming that changes to Canada's "Marihuana for Medical Purposes
Regulations" will unreasonably restrict "access to their medicine
by way of a safe and continuous supply."

The changes, set to take effect on March 31, 2014, will limit
marijuana production to licensed commercial producers.  Patients
today may grow their own or designate someone to grow it for them.

Of approximately 40,000 patients authorized to possess marijuana,
24,000 to 30,000 have "personal production licenses," according to
the complaint.

Allard claims he's been medically retired since 1999 and suffers
from depression and myalgic encephalomyelitis.  He grows pot
indoors and outdoors and is authorized to consume 20 grams a day.

Plaintiff Tanya Beemish says she's on a disability pension and
suffers from type-1 diabetes and gastroparesis.

Plaintiff David Hebert, Beemish's common-law husband, is her
designated grower.  Both say they are "concerned about losing
control over the production of her medicine in a secure and safe
manner at a reasonable cost."

Plaintiff J.M. has been on disability since 1979 after a cliff
diving accident left him wheelchair-bound.  He produces built a
wheelchair-accessible facility to grow organic marijuana and
claims he can't afford to buy pot on the black market or from
gray-market dispensaries.

Under the new scheme, patients will pay more for medical pot,
which today costs from $1.80 to $5 a gram.  The plaintiffs expect
the price to rise to around $7.60 to $8.80 a gram.  The plaintiffs
say they produce their own pot for between $1 and $4 per gram.
There are 28.4 grams in an ounce.

"All of them fear the loss of control over the safe continuous
production of their own medicine at reasonable cost, including use
of their developed specific effective strains," the complaint

They seek class certification and a permanent injunction or
exemption preserving their right to produce their own marijuana
under Canada's "Medical Marihuana Access Regulations."

The Plaintiffs are represented by

          John W. Conroy, Esq.
          CONROY & COMPANY
          59 Pauline St.
          Abbotsford, BC
          Canada V2S 3S1
          Telephone: (604) 852-5110
          Facsimile: (304) 859-3361
          E-mail: office@johnconroy.com

COBY USA: Recalls Coby 32-Inch Flat Screen TV Due to Fire Hazard
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Coby USA which is out of business, announced a voluntary recall of
about 8,900 Coby 32-inch flat screen televisions. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer

An electronic component can fail, catch fire and ignite nearby
items, posing fire and burn hazards.

CPSC has received reports of six incidents involving the
televisions overheating, smoking or catching fire.  One incident
involved a television catching on fire and scorching a wall.
Another involved a fire that was limited to the television.  No
injuries have been reported.

The recall involves black Coby 32-inch flat screen televisions
with model number TFTV3229 and serial numbers beginning with LG
and that have M07 or M10 in the 9th, 10th and 11th position of the
serial number.  The model and serial numbers are printed on a
label on the back of the televisions and Coby is printed on the
front.  Coby USA is out of business.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at ABC
Warehouse, Fry's Electronics, h.h. gregg, Nebraska Furniture Mart,
P.C. Richard & Son, Sears/Kmart, Toys R Us and online at
BestBuy.com, dealtree.com, techliquidators.com and
bestbuy.dtdeals.com, and other stores and sites nationwide, from
August 2011 through November 2013 for between $170 and $260.

Consumers should immediately turn off and unplug the recalled
televisions and contact the participating retailer where their
television was purchased for instructions on the remedy available
from that retailer, which could be a refund, store credit, gift
card or replacement TV.  Because the importer/distributor Coby USA
is out of business, the retailers are providing the remedy.  The
remedy and terms vary between the retailers.

DOODLEBUTT: Recalls 1,500 Water-Absorbing Toys Over Ingestion Risk
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Doodlebutt, Lehigh Acres, Fla., announced a voluntary recall of
about 1,500 Water-absorbing polymer toys.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

These soft and colorful products can be mistaken by a child for
candy.  When swallowed, they can expand inside a child's body and
cause intestinal obstructions, resulting in severe discomfort,
vomiting, dehydration and could be life threatening.  Similar toys
have not shown up on x-rays and needed surgery to be removed from
the body.

There were no incidents that were reported.  CPSC is aware of one
incident with a similar water-absorbing polymer ball product in
which an 8-month-old girl ingested the ball and it had to be
surgically removed and two cases outside of the U.S. with one

The recall involves Doodlebutt Jelly BeadZ Jumbo BeadZ and Magic
Growing Fruity Fun water-absorbing polymer toys.  The toys can
absorb from 300 to 500 times their weight in water and can grow up
to eight times their original size.

Jumbo BeadZ toys are marble-sized water-absorbing balls.  They
were sold in a package consisting of three separate 2.5-inch x
2-inch clear, resealable bags inside a 3.5-inch x 4-inch clear,
resealable bag.  Each smaller bag had eight to 12 water balls of
slightly different sizes.  The balls came in clear, blue, red,
orange, yellow, green and purple colors.  The front of the larger
bag had a multi-colored label with the words "Jelly BeadZ," "Easy
to follow directions" and had instructions for use.

Magic Growing Fruity Fun toys are water-absorbing polymers in the
shapes of apples, bananas, butterflies, cherries, grapes,
pineapples, roses and strawberries.  They were sold in 3.5-inch x
4-inch, clear, resealable bag with seven assorted shapes in it.
They came in blue, green, orange, pink, red and yellow.  The label
on the front of the bag has the words "For 'Kidz' of All Ages,"
"Jelly BeadZ," "Bouncy and Beautiful," "Colorfast," "Non Toxic,"
"Safe for the Environment," and other words that describe uses for
the product.  The back of the package has two smaller labels.  One
label contains instructions for use and the other has a barcode
with "XU00EC1JRN" beneath it.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Amazon.com from February 2012 through September 2013 for about $9.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled polymer
products and take them away from small children.  Consumers should
contact Doodlebutt for a full refund.

EBAY INC: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over "Buy It Now" Fees
Alex Lawson, writing for Law360, reports that EBay Inc. on Dec. 6
urged a California federal judge to throw out a proposed class
action brought by a man claiming that the company removes items
from its listings too soon and doesn't compensate the sellers,
arguing that the seller is seeking relief to which he is not
entitled under eBay's user contract.

The online auction giant said that the complaint from Luis Rosado
alleges a series of fraud-based claims to reclaim listing fees the
company charges to its sellers while at the same time
acknowledging that those fees are nonrefundable.

"Plaintiff does not allege breach of contract at all," eBay told
the court.  "Instead, he asserts a variety of claims in an effort
to manufacture new obligations that go beyond, and conflict with,
the contract he agreed to."

The complaint, filed last year, targets eBay's policy of
automatically and permanently removing an item from its listings
once a customer clicks on the "Buy It Now" option to initiate the
selling process.  In Mr. Rosado's case, he did not complete a sale
of his car with a prospective buyer who had clicked on the "Buy It
Now" button.

Mr. Rosado claims that even though eBay is clear that fees are not
refundable, a reasonable customer would have no reason to think
that they would lose a portion of the listing time to which they
are entitled when putting an item up for sale.

But in its motion to dismiss the case, eBay claimed that its
policies are fully consistent with the contract and the extensive
disclosures on its website, rejecting Mr. Rosado's arguments that
these contract terms were merely a "hodgepodge" of isolated
disclosures at various unrelated places on the website.

"Rather, the user agreement and fees schedules directly link to,
and incorporate by reference, specific Web pages accessible to any
eBay user," eBay said.

The online auction giant also pointed out that it has remedies and
procedures in place to deal with the situation that prompted
Rosado's suit, where a prospective buyer does not complete a
payment, pointing out that Rosado either did not qualify or did
not take advantage of those processes.

The complaint at the center of eBay's dismissal attempts is
Rosado's third overall complaint filed in the case.  Despite
having the opportunity to tailor its new complaint specifically to
eBay's rebuttals, the company said Rosado has done little more
than "superficially tinker" with his allegations and urged the
court to end the case for good.

"Plaintiff's continuing inability to plead any viable claim
confirms that the defects of his lawsuit are incurable," eBay
said.  "This litigation should not be prolonged any further, after
well over a year of legal briefing and three failed efforts to
plead a sufficient complaint."

Attorneys for both parties did not immediately respond to requests
for comment on Dec. 9.

EBay is represented by John C. Dwyer -- dwyerjc@cooley.com --
Michael G. Rhodes -- rhodesmg@cooley.com -- Whitty Somvichian --
wsomvichian@cooley.com -- and Maco Stewart --
maco.stewart@cooley.com -- of Cooley LLP.

Mr. Rosado is represented by Jordan L. Lurie --
Jordan.Lurie@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Tarek H. Zohdy --
Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com -- and Cody R. Padgett of Capstone
Law APC and D.J. Morgado of Feldman Fox & Morgado PA.

The case is Rosado v. eBay Inc., number 5:12-cv-04005, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

EFT HOLDINGS: Accused of Orchestrating Fraudulent Pyramid Scheme
Shuxin Li, Yongpu Cheng, Miaozhou Zhu, and Zhanyuan Tong, on
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Jack J.
Qin: individually and as President, Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board of Directors of EFT Holdings, Inc., EFT
Holdings Inc., Visman Chow, Norman Ko, William Sluss, Pyng Soon,
Case No. 2:13-cv-08832-DSF-CW (C.D. Cal., November 27, 2013)
alleges that the Defendants have orchestrated a fraudulent pyramid
scheme pursuant to which the Plaintiffs and tens of thousands of
other Chinese and American consumers paid the Defendants tens of
millions of dollars in United States' currency in exchange for the
right to purchase nutritional supplements and other products and
obtain an ownership interest in EFT.

Jack J. Qin promised them that the value of their ownership
interests in EFT would increase substantially over time as company
sales increased, the Plaintiffs allege.  They contend that a key,
but unspoken part, of the Defendants' scheme was that in order for
the Plaintiffs to realize the promised lucrative rewards from
their EFT investments, they had to recruit others to purchase
EFT's products and ownership interests in the company.

EFT is a publicly-traded Nevada Corporation headquartered in City
of Industry, California.  EFT, through its subsidiaries, engages
in the merchandising and sale of EFT-brand products over the
Internet.  The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of
the Company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ronie M. Schmelz, Esq.
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 860-8700
          Facsimile: (310) 860-3800
          E-mail: rschmelz@edwardswildman.com

EFT HOLDINGS: Faces 2nd "Li" Suit Over Fraudulent Pyramid Scheme
Shuxin Li and Julia Leung on Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated v. EFT Holdings Inc., a Nevada Corporation,
Jack J. Qin, and Dies 1-10, Case No. 2:13-cv-08835-BRO-E (C.D.
Cal., November 27, 2013) is a class action against EFT Holdings,
Inc. and its founder, Jack J. Qin for orchestrating a fraudulent
pyramid scheme pursuant to which the Plaintiffs and tens of
thousands of other Chinese and American consumers paid the
Defendants tens of millions of dollars in United States' currency
in exchange for the right to purchase nutritional supplements and
other products and obtain an ownership interests in EFT.

The Defendants' entire business model was based on the recruitment
of unsuspecting consumers, who were promised the highest quality
products and an ownership interest in a vibrant, growing, and
legitimate company if they purchased EFT products, rather than on
actual sales of EFT products to consumers, the Plaintiffs contend.

EFT is a publicly-traded Nevada Corporation headquartered in City
of Industry, California.  EFT, through its subsidiaries, engages
in the merchandising and sale of EFT-brand products over the
Internet.  Mr. Qin is a California resident, who founded EFT in
1998 and, since its inception, has served as the Company's Chief
Executive Officer, President, and Chairman of the Board.  The true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown
to the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ronie M. Schmelz, Esq.
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 860-8700
          Facsimile: (310) 860-3800
          E-mail: rschmelz@edwardswildman.com

EMAK USA: Recalls Gas Trimmers Due to Fire Hazard
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Emak USA, Inc., of Wooster, Ohio, announced a voluntary recall of
about 1,400 in the U.S. and 166 in Canada efco brand Gas Trimmers
from Emak USA.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The muffler on the trimmer's engine can break during use and pose
a fire hazard.

The firm has received eight reports of incidents, including one
resulting in singed hair.  No serious injury or property damage
have been reported.

The trimmers are used in both residential and professional
applications for cutting grass and light brush.  The cutting
attachments include a trimmer head and metal blade.  The trimmers
are about 72 inches long.  They are colored red and gray with
either a bike or loop handle configuration.  Three models are
recalled in two engine sizes measured in cubic centimeters.  They
are: 36cc models 8371 S and 8371 T, and a 40.2cc model 8421 T
engine displacement.  The brand name "efco" and model number are
printed on the front of the engine and the brand name also appears
on the wand.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
authorized efco dealers at both retail stores and online, and
Menards stores between June 2009 and July 2013 for about $400.

Consumers should stop using the recalled trimmers immediately and
return them to an authorized efco dealer for a free muffler
replacement kit.

EXMARK MANUFACTURING: Recalls Commercial Walk-Behind Mowers
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Exmark Manufacturing Company, Inc., from Beatrice, Neb., announced
a voluntary recall of about 6,900 in the United States and 330 in
Canada commercial walk-behind mowers.  Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The mower's blade can break and injure the user and others nearby.

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves 2013 Exmark Commercial 30" Walk-Behind Mowers,
model ECKA30 and serial numbers ranging from 313605897 to
313660824.  The phrases "Commercial 30" and "Exmark" are printed
on the front of the black and red mower.  "Exmark" is also printed
on the side of the mower.  The model and serial numbers are
located on a decal affixed to the engine base above the left rear

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold at
Exmark dealers nationwide from November 2012 through October 2013
for about $1,800.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled mowers and
contact Exmark for a free repair.

FLEXTRONICS GLOBAL: Recalls Solar Panels Due to Invisible Defects
Starting date:            December 12, 2013
Posting date:             December 12, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Fire Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-37153

The recall involves MEMC solar panels with model numbers
MAP280ACA, MAP280CAI and MAP280CAH.  The panels were manufactured
in 2011 and 2012 and have serial numbers beginning with either
FCX11 or FCX12.

Certain panels have internal invisible defects that could create
hot spots or cause a short circuit current posing fire or burn

Some panels could have a tear, hole or cut in their backsheet.
This tear may expose conductors that if touched, could cause an
electric shock or electrocution to an individual.  No incidents or
injuries have been reported.

Health Canada has not received any reports of incidents or
injuries related to the use of these solar panels.

Approximately 1,000 of the solar panels were sold in Canada by
Electronic Distributors International Inc. (EDI).  The recalled
units were identified by the manufacturer as defective during
internal quality control reviews.  The panels were sent to a
third-party service for destruction, not for sale.

Panels with the same model and serial numbers as noted in the
product description are not covered by this recall if they were
sold by a distributor other than EDI, as they do not pose a

The solar panels were Manufactured in Canada and distributed from
October 2012 to February 2013.


   Manufacturer     Flextronics Global Services Canada, Inc.

   Distributor      SunEdison

   Distributor      Electronic Distributors International Inc.
                     (EDI Inc.)

Consumers should stop using the solar panels immediately, ask a
licensed electrical contractor to disconnect any installed panels
and call SunEdison (formerly MEMC) for further information on how
to obtain a refund for uninstalled panels or removal and
replacement services for any installed panels.

HALCON ENERGY: Schnader Harrison Discusses Third Circuit Ruling
Monica C. Platt, Esq. -- mplatt@schnader.com -- and John K.
Gisleson, Esq. -- jgisleson@schnader.com -- at Schnader Harrison
Segal & Lewis LLP, report that the Third Circuit recently
clarified the home state and local controversy exceptions to the
Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), remanding proceedings in a case
involving Marcellus Shale oil and gas leases to a Pennsylvania
trial court.

Plaintiffs in Vodenichar v. Halcon Energy Properties, Inc. were
various Pennsylvania-domiciled landowners in Mercer County,
Pennsylvania, seeking to lease their oil and gas rights to Halcon
(a Texas domiciliary), with the assistance of the defendant law
firm Morascyzk & Polochak (M&P) (a Pennsylvania domiciliary) and
defendant marketing company Co-eXprise (a Pennsylvania
domiciliary).  Halcon entered a letter of intent to lease up to
60,000 acres of oil and gas rights from the landowners, but
ultimately accepted leases for only approximately half of the
acreage, rejecting the balance of the leases.  Plaintiffs are the
landowners whose leases Halcon rejected.

Plaintiffs filed their initial breach of contract class action in
federal court against Halcon only based on diversity of
citizenship.  Plaintiffs later sought to join M&P and Co-eXprise
as defendants, based on Halcon's assertions that they had altered
one of the lease documents and that the alteration gave Halcon a
right to reject the leases.  Knowing that joinder of two
Pennsylvania entities would destroy diversity, the plaintiffs
filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the federal suit without
prejudice so that it could bring all of its claims in one state
court action in Mercer County.  Plaintiffs filed their class
action complaint in state court concurrently with the motion to
dismiss the federal action.  Halcon opposed the motion to dismiss,
arguing that, while all four sets of litigants would benefit from
being heard in the same case, that case should be in federal court
based on CAFA, and because of the amount of discovery that had
already been produced and of the ongoing ADR activities in the
federal forum.  The district court dismissed the suit for lack of
diversity jurisdiction and because the plaintiffs did not allege
CAFA jurisdiction, but ordered the parties to retain the discovery
already produced and complete the ADR process.

Halcon then removed the state court action based on CAFA
jurisdiction back to the federal court, and the plaintiffs moved
for remand based on CAFA's local controversy exception.  The
district court denied remand on that basis, but granted remand
based on CAFA's home state exception.  The Third Circuit affirmed
remand, finding that the local controversy exception applied but
not the home state exception.

CAFA's home state exception to federal jurisdiction applies when
at least two-thirds of the putative class members and the
"primary" defendants are citizens of the state in which the action
was filed.  Because Halcon (a Delaware corporation headquartered
and principally doing business in Texas) denied liability in its
Answer to the Complaint and claimed that M&P and Co-eXprise were
liable for any damages, the district court found that Halcon was
not a "primary" defendant.  The Third Circuit explained that
liability must be assumed to exist and that a "primary defendant"
is one whose alleged liability is "principal," "fundamental," or
"direct."  The proper focus addresses whether (1) the defendant is
the "real target" of the plaintiff's accusations; (2) the
plaintiffs seek to hold the defendant liable for its own actions
(as opposed to seeking vicarious liability for the actions of
others); and (3) the defendant is potentially exposed to liability
to a significant portion of the class and would sustain
substantial loss compared to other defendants if found liable.
Because the Mercer County plaintiffs alleged that each defendant
was directly and equally liable, and sought similar relief against
all defendants, Hal- should have been considered a primary
defendant.  Because Halcon is a Texas domiciliary, and the home
state exception requires remand only if all primary defendants are
home state citizens, the Third Circuit rejected application of the
home state exception.

In contrast, the local controversy exception in CAFA allows a
federal court to decline jurisdiction when more than two-thirds of
purported class members are citizens of the state in which the
action was initially filed; at least one defendant is a defendant
from whom "significant relief" is sought, whose alleged conduct
forms a significant basis for the claims asserted, and who is a
citizen of the state in which the action was originally filed; and
the principal injuries were incurred in the state in which the
action was originally filed.  For the exception to apply, no other
class action asserting the same or similar factual allegations
against any of the defendants may have been filed in the three
years prior to the filing of the case at issue.

The Third Circuit found that this exception was met and warranted
remand. Although the plaintiffs had filed an earlier class action
in federal court that they had dismissed, the Third Circuit
determined that it was not a similar class action that would bar
application of the exception.  The court found that the intent
behind CAFA was to provide one forum in which to resolve similar
claims.  Moreover, the exception was to ensure that all but truly
local controversies were heard in federal court and to prevent the
defendants from being subjected to copycat suits in multiple
forums.  The test is whether there are multiple class actions
making similar factual allegations such that defendants are facing
separate, distinct lawsuits, without regard to the procedural
posture of the earlier filed cases or whether the putative classes
overlap, or their claims arise from an identical event or involve
the same causes of action or legal theories.

The Third Circuit found that the district court's dismissal of the
first action without prejudice and order that the parties continue
ADR and retain discovery for their current dispute showed that it
considered the second action a continuation of the first -- in
essence, it was akin to filing an amended complaint joining new
parties.  Such treatment of the second-filed action was consistent
with the intent behind the local controversy exception and did not
subject the defendants to similar claims in different forums or to
copycat litigation.  Because the first filed action was not an
"other case" for the purposes of CAFA, the local controversy
exception applied, and the Third Circuit affirmed remand to the
state court.

HILTON HOTELS: Atty. Fee and Incentive Award to be Paid From Fund
District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly granted in part and denied
in part a motion for attorneys' fees and incentive award filed by
plaintiffs in the case captioned JAMAL J. KIFAFI, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HILTON
1517 (CKK), (D.D.C.).

This action sought recovery for violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") of 1974, as amended, 29
U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq., in the Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan.
Defendants are the Plan, the individual members of the Committee
of the Plan, the Hilton Hotels Corporation, and individual Hilton
officers or directors. On May 15, 2009, the Court granted-in-part
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding that Defendants
had violated ERISA's anti-backloading provision, 29 U.S.C. Section
1054(b)(1), and had violated the Plan's vesting provisions with
respect to the rights of four certified subclasses.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly ordered that Class Counsel be paid 15% of the
common fund in attorneys' fees. The Court further ordered that
Class Counsel be paid $603,000 in expenses and that the named
Plaintiff, Jamal Kifafi, be awarded $50,000 as an incentive award,
both awards to be paid from the common fund recovery.

The Defendant does not contest the Plaintiff's request of an
incentive award. Accordingly, the Court finds that the requested
amount of $50,000 is reasonable, ruled Judge Kollar-Kotelly.

A copy of the District Court's November 18, 2013 Memorandum
Opinion is available at http://is.gd/CNVULlfrom Leagle.com.

HOBBY LOBBY: Recalls Accent Chairs Due to Injury Risk
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., of Oklahoma City, Okla., announced a
voluntary recall of about 1,400 Accent Chair.  Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer

The front legs on the chair can loosen and detach, posing a fall
hazard and risk of injury to the consumer.

Hobby Lobby has received one report of the chair collapsing.

The recall involves black wooden accent chairs with a shaped wood
top rail and center back splat.  The chairs have a black and white
chevron print seat cushion.  Item number 5218300 and PO number
9099294 are printed on the chair's hang tag and a tag affixed to
the underside of the chair.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Hobby Lobby Stores nationwide from March 2013 to
August 2013 for about $180.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chair and
return it to the nearest Hobby Lobby store.  Consumers with a
purchase receipt will receive a full refund and consumers without
a receipt will receive a store credit.

IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Children's Wall-Mounted Lamps
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in cooperation
with IKEA North America, of Conshohocken, Pa., is announcing the
recall for repair of children's wall-mounted lamps due to a
strangulation hazard.  A 16-month-old child in a crib died after
getting entangled in the lamp's cord.  In a separate incident, a
15-month-old child in a crib became entangled in the lamp's cord
and nearly strangled.  In both incidents, which occurred in
Europe, the lamp cord was pulled into the crib by the infants.
There were 2.9 million of the recalled lamps sold in the United
States.  In addition, 1.1 million were sold in Canada.  There was
a total of 23 million sold worldwide.

The recalled IKEA children's SMILA-series wall-mounted lamps were
sold in eight designs, including a blue star, yellow moon, pink
flower, white flower, red heart, green bug, blue seashell and an
orange seahorse.  The blue star is the STJARNA model with article
numbers 501.944.49 or 500.108.79.  The yellow moon is the MANE
model with article numbers 701.944.48 or 700.108.40.  The pink
flower is the BLOMMA model with article numbers 901.944.47 or
000.979.50.  The white flower is the BLOMMA model with article
number 300-746-50.  The red heart is the HJARTA model with article
numbers 202.256.59 or 801.993.13.  The green bug is the BAGGE
model with article numbers 101.944.46 or 700.728.71.  The blue
seashell is the SNACKA model with article number 400-982-50.  The
orange seahorse is the SJOHAST model with article number 900-982-

The model name is printed on a label on the inside back of the
lamp near the light bulb.  The article number is printed on the
lamp's packaging.

The plastic wall-mounted children's lamps measure about 11 inches
high by 11 inches wide.  They have a 7 ft. long electrical cord
with an in-line switch and take a 25-watt light bulb.

They were sold exclusively at IKEA stores nationwide, in IKEA's
catalog and online at ikea-usa.com from July 1999 through May 2013
for between $10 and $13.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled lamp and
contact IKEA for a free repair kit.  Do not use the lamp until the
repair kit is installed.  The repair kit has self-adhesive
fasteners for attaching the lamp's cord to the wall as well as
safety instructions.  Contact IKEA toll-free at (888) 966-4532
anytime or online at http://www.ikea-usa.comand click on the
Recall link at the top of the page for more information.

The lamps were made in the United States, Lithuania and China.

INLAND AMERICAN: Court Dismisses "Becker" Class Action Suit
JAMES BECKER and SASANNA BECKER, on Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. INLAND AMERICAN REAL
SABAN and WILLIAM J. WIERZBICKI, Defendants, CASE NO. 13 C 3128,
(N.D. Ill.) involves real estate investment trusts (REITs). A REIT
is an entity that combines the capital of many investors to
acquire or invest in commercial real estate; that allows investors
to invest in a real estate portfolio under professional management
through the purchase of shares; that must pay distributions to its
stockholders equal to at least 90% of its income; and is not
typically subject to federal income taxes.

The Plaintiffs bring three counts in this class action proceeding:
Count I for breach of fiduciary duty against the Director
Defendants; Count II for Constructive Trust against Inland; and
Count III for Unjust Enrichment against Inland. The Defendants
have responded with a Motion to Dismiss.

District Judge Harry D. Leinenweber finds that the Plaintiffs have
failed to allege any facts that would entitle it to relief.  "The
mere act of a Board, exercising its managerial power to establish
a price for its stock, even if obviously wrong, would not amount
to a breach of a fiduciary duty owed to its shareholders," he
said.  "The Plaintiffs' theory of liability is not only
implausible but non-existent. Count I is dismissed."

In Count II, the Plaintiffs seek to impose a constructive trust
against Inland on the funds and Count III seeks a claim for unjust
enrichment. Both of these claims are in equity and rest upon
Plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary duty, which the Court
has determined did not occur. "Here Plaintiffs executed a
Subscription Agreement which governed their stock purchase. They
believe they made a poor decision. They cannot seek a remedy in
equity. Accordingly, Counts II and III are dismissed," Judge
Leinenweber concludes.

A copy of the District Court's November 18, 2013 Memorandum
Opinion and Order is available at http://is.gd/yvyWxZfrom

INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Court Appoints Hawaii ERS as Lead Plaintiff
Presently before the court in the securities class action
captioned SPENCER ABRAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. INTUITIVE SURGICAL, INC., et
al., Defendants, CASE NO. 5:13-CV-01920-EJD, (N.D. Cal.) is
Plaintiff the Employees' Retirement System of the State of
Hawaii's (Hawaii ERS) Motion for Consolidation of Related Actions,
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff, and Approval of Selection of Lead

In the complaint, Hawaii ERS alleges that it purchased Intuitive
securities during the class period based upon Defendants'
misrepresentations and omissions. Like all members of the Class,
Hawaii ERS seeks recovery for losses resulting from this reliance,
and does so by advancing the same legal theories as other class

Against this backdrop, District Judge Edward J. Davila denied
Hawaii ERS's motion for consolidation but grants Hawaii ERS's
motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of its
selection of lead counsel.

The court appointed the law firm of Labaton Sucharow LLP as Lead
Counsel in the action.

All future filings will be in 5:13-CV-01920-EJD and shall bear the
caption: "In re Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation." The
clerk shall rename this case accordingly, ruled Judge Davila.

On or before December 18, 2013, Lead Plaintiff in In re Intuitive
Surgical Securities Litigation must file an Amended Class Action
Complaint, he added.

The court scheduled a Case Management Conference in In re
Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation for January 24, 2014 at
10.00 a.m. The parties are directed to file a Joint Case
Management Statement, in compliance with the Court's standing
orders, on or before January 17, 2014.

A copy of the District Court's November 18, 2013 Order is
available at http://is.gd/pvZKZ6from Leagle.com.

KINDER MORGAN: Wins Final Approval for Copano Shareholders' Suit
The Delaware Chancery Court held a settlement hearing and issued a
final order approving the settlement of a suit filed against a
merger plan by Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., according to
the company's Oct. 28, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,

Three putative class action lawsuits were filed in connection with
the company's merger with Copano: (i) Schultes v. Copano Energy,
L.L.C., et al. (Case No. 06966), in the District Court of Harris
County, Texas, which is referred to as the Texas State Action;
(ii) Bruen v. Copano Energy, L.L.C., et al. (Case No. 4:13-CV-
00540) in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, which is referred to as the Texas Federal
Action; and (iii) In re Copano Energy, L.L.C. Shareholder
Litigation, Case No. 8284-VCN in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, which is referred to as the Delaware Action,
which reflects the consolidation of three actions originally filed
in the Court of Chancery.

The Actions name Copano, R. Bruce Northcutt, William L. Thacker,
James G. Crump, Ernie L. Danner, T. William Porter, Scott A.
Griffiths, Michael L. Johnson, Michael G. MacDougall, Kinder
Morgan G.P., Inc., KMEP and Javelina Merger Sub LLC as defendants.
The Actions were purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class
seeking to enjoin the merger and allege, among other things, that
the members of Copano's board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell Copano for inadequate and
unfair consideration and pursuant to an inadequate and unfair
process, and that Copano, KMEP, Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. and
Javelina Merger Sub LLC aided and abetted such alleged breaches.
In addition, the plaintiffs in each of the Texas State Action and
the Delaware Action alleged that the Copano directors breached
their duty of candor to unitholders by failing to provide the
unitholders with all material information regarding the merger
and/or made misstatements in the preliminary proxy statement. The
plaintiffs in the Texas Federal Action also asserted a claim under
the federal securities laws alleging that the preliminary proxy
statement omits and/or misrepresents material information in
connection with the merger.

On April 21, 2013, the parties in all the Actions executed a
Memorandum of Understanding pursuant to which Copano agreed to
make certain additional disclosures concerning the merger in a
Form 8-K, which Copano filed on April 22, 2013, and the plaintiffs
agreed to enter into a stipulation of settlement providing for
full settlement and dismissal with prejudice of each of the
Actions. The parties then prepared and filed a Stipulation of
Settlement with the Delaware Chancery Court, and on June 28, 2013,
Copano announced that the company had reached an agreement with
the plaintiffs to settle all claims asserted against all
defendants. The settlement does not require the defendants to pay
any monetary consideration to the proposed settlement class.
Following notice to the putative class, the Delaware Chancery
Court held a settlement hearing and issued a final order approving
the settlement on September 9, 2013. The order, among other
things, dismissed the Delaware Action with prejudice and provided
for a release in favor of all of the defendants for any and all
claims by any of the putative class members arising out of the
merger. The order also awarded plaintiffs' counsel in the Delaware
action $450,000 for their fees and expenses, to be paid by
defendants. The plaintiff in the Texas Federal Action dismissed
his case on May 13, 2013 and intervened in the Texas State Action
on August 12, 2013 for the sole purpose of advancing a joint
motion and petition for attorneys' fees and expenses. On October
11, 2013, the court in the Texas State Action entered an order and
final judgment denying plaintiffs' joint motion for fees and

LABORATORY CORPORATION: Still Faces Suit Over "Unfair" Practices
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings continues to face the
suit Yvonne Jansky v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al.,
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
San Francisco, alleging that the defendants committed unlawful and
unfair business practices, according to the company's Oct. 28,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On June 7, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Yvonne Jansky v. Laboratory Corporation of
America, et al., filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Francisco. The lawsuit alleges that the
defendants committed unlawful and unfair business practices, and
violated various other state laws by changing screening codes to
diagnostic codes on laboratory test orders, thereby resulting in
customers being responsible for co-payments and other debts. The
lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, as
well as recovery of attorney's fees, and legal expenses. The
Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit.

MASSEY ENERGY: Settles Investor Class Action for $265 Million
Chris Reidy, writing for The Boston Globe, reports that Massey
Energy Co., which is now doing business as Alpha Appalachia
Holdings Inc., has agreed to a $265 million settlement of a
class-action lawsuit that alleged that the coal mining company
misled investors, including the state's pension fund, officials in
the Massachusetts Treasury and the attorney general's office said
on Dec. 9.

The Massachusetts state pension fund served as lead plaintiff in a
case brought by many investors.  The size of the pension fund's
share of the settlement has yet to be determined, a spokesman

The defendant did not admit to any wrongdoing in the settlement.

According to the lawsuit, Massey made misrepresentations about its
safety record that artificially inflated its stock price.  When a
2010 mine explosion killed 29 employees, an ensuing investigation
uncovered hundreds of safety violations that caused the company's
stock to plunge, a press release from the office of state
Treasurer Steven Grossman said.

In a separate statement, Attorney General Martha Coakley said,
"Businesses must be truthful and honest with investors, and our
office will continue working to ensure we protect these important
public funds."

NEW YORK, NY: Class Action Over Taxi of Tomorrow Settled
Charisma L. Miller, Esq., writing for Brooklyn Daily Eagle,
reports that Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman on Dec. 6
applauded New York City's agreement to dramatically increase the
number of accessible cabs.  The agreement, which settles a
class-action lawsuit brought by advocates for the disabled, means
that half of the city's 13,000 yellow cabs will be accessible to
people with disabilities by 2020.

In April, a federal court cleared the way for a major class-action
lawsuit brought by New Yorkers who use wheelchairs to challenge
the Taxi of Tomorrow.  Judge Daniels of the Southern District of
New York District Court allowed plaintiffs to supplement and amend
their complaint to include challenges to the legality of the Taxi
and Limousine Commission's (TLC) selection of the Nissan NV200 van
as the exclusive taxi vehicle of New York City for the next

The NV200 van is not accessible to New York City's 170,000
residents with mobility disabilities who use wheelchairs, the suit
alleged.  Plaintiffs' supplemental amended complaint alleges that
use of the NV200 van as a taxi vehicle violates the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Under Title III of the ADA, when a provider of taxi service
purchases or leases a vehicle other than an automobile (such as a
van), the vehicle is required to be accessible.  As a licensing
and regulatory agency, the TLC has an obligation to issue rules
which comply with the law.

However, the TLC's approval of the non-accessible version of the
Nissan Van means that taxi medallion owners who follow the TLC's
rules will be in violation of Title III of the ADA.

"[The] agreement is an important step to ensuring equal access to
taxis for all New Yorkers, including those with disabilities.  Its
implementation would also meaningfully address issues under
investigation by my office.  Upon approval of the accessibility
rule, which should not impose new burdens on riders or drivers, my
office will consider the suspension of our investigation into taxi
accessibility issues," said Mr. Schneiderman.

Because only a fraction of medallion cabs are wheelchair-
accessible, Attorney General Schneiderman's Civil Rights Bureau
has been reviewing accessibility requirements under the Americans
With Disabilities Act.  The bureau sent a letter to U.S.
Department of Transportation in relation to this investigation.

NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Recalls NV200 Vehicles Over Stalling Issues
Matt Mercuro, writing for Auto World News, reports that Nissan
North America is recalling its 2013 Nissan NV200s due to an issue
with the battery terminal fuse, which may blow, causing the
vehicle to stall completely.

The 2,529 affected vehicles were built between Feb. 6, 2013 and
Aug. 2, 2013, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety

"Due to the routing of the wiring harness that connects the
fusible link to the battery fuse terminal, the wiring harness may
wear through its protective covering, allowing the wires to touch
the bracket that holds the fusible link," said NHTSA regarding the
issue.  "If the wires and the bracket make contact, a short
circuit may result, causing the battery terminal fuse to blow.

No injuries or accidents have been linked to the recall, said
Steve Yaeger, a Nissan spokesman, according to Edmunds.

"If the fuse blows while driving, the fuel pump will stop and
cause the engine to stop running, increasing the risk of a crash,"
said the NHTSA.

Nissan dealers are being instructed to reposition the wiring
harness and then apply a protective covering, according to the

The recall is expected to start by mid-December.

Owners with more questions can contact Nissan at 1-800-647-7261.

PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Customer Refunds
Partner Communications Company Ltd., an Israeli communications
operator, on Dec. 9 disclosed that it was served with a lawsuit
and a motion for the recognition of this lawsuit as a class
action, filed against Partner on December 2, 2013 in the Central
District Court.

The claim alleges that Partner did not fulfill its commitment
regarding the grant of refunds for cellular equipment starting
from the first month of the customer agreement and that Partner
unlawfully charged its customers for the Orange2 service, and
thereby breached the agreements with its customers and the
provisions of its license, and profited unlawfully.

If the lawsuit is recognized as a class action, the total amount
claimed is estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS603

Partner is reviewing and assessing the lawsuit and is unable, at
this preliminary stage, to evaluate, with any degree of certainty,
the probability of success of the lawsuit or the range of
potential exposure, if any.

QUALITY SYSTEMS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action in California
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz on Dec. 9 disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Quality
Systems, Inc., between May 26, 2011, and July 25, 2012, inclusive.
In a release, Wolf Haldenstein stated: Quality Systems Inc.
develops and sells practice management software to medical and
dental providers, including software related to scheduling and
billing.  During the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse information concerning the Company's business, operations
and prospects.  On May 10, 2012, Quality Systems Inc.,
pre-announced its 2012 fiscal results including EPS figures well
below the Company's guidance.  In the weeks that followed,
Defendants continued to make positive statements regarding the
Company's growth rate and issued guidance for EPS growth of 20
percent-25 percent for fiscal year 2013.  Defendants affirmed this
guidance numerous times including in proxy materials issued on
July 23, 2012.  Just three days after affirming that guidance, on
July 26, 2012, the Company issued its poor first quarter results
with first quarter EPS declining 19 percent year-over-year.
Further, Defendants represented that the previous guidance was
being retracted and no new guidance would be provided due to the
results.  The market reacted swiftly with analysts downgrading
Quality Systems Inc.'s stock and the stock price collapsed,
falling from $23.63 per share to $15.95 per share on July 26,
2012.  The Company suffered a $330 million market capitalization
loss on this 33 percent single-day decline.  In the months prior,
the Company's Chief Executive Officer sold 88,500 shares or 92
percent of his holdings at $43.99 per share, reaping proceeds of
$3,893,115 while Quality Systems Inc.'s common stock was trading
at artificially inflated levels.  If you purchased Quality Systems
Inc., securities during the Class Period, you may, no later than
January 21, 2014, request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff of the class.  If you are a shareholder of Quality
Systems Inc., and would like additional information concerning
your shareholder rights in this matter, please contact us at:
Benjamin Y. Kaufman or Patrick Donovan Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz 270 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10016

SERVICON SYSTEMS: Bid for Rehearing in "Johnson" Suit Denied
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Five
issued an order modifying its opinion filed October 21, 2013, in
the case captioned CLARENCE B. JOHNSON, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v. SERVICON SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant and Respondent, NO. B245201.

Judgment was not revised but the opinion was modified to insert on
page 5 in the second sentence of the third paragraph after the
word "waive" the following italicized words "in an arbitration

The opinion was further modified to insert the following before
the final sentence in the third paragraph: "Defendant has taken a
series of decisions involving class action waivers in arbitration
agreements and mystically asserts they apply to a case with no
class action waiver. And defendant only sought to compel
arbitration of plaintiff's individual claims. There was no motion
to compel arbitration of the class claims."

The California Appeals Court also denied an amended rehearing
petition saying Servicon Systems, Inc., had an adequate
opportunity to brief the application of Gentry v. Superior Court
(2007) 42 Cal.4th 443, 450 to the case. Gentry, a decision
involving the enforceability of a class action waiver, and its
progeny have nothing to do with the dismissal of class claims as
occurred in this case, the Appeals Court pointed out. No good
cause existed to allow post-submission briefing in this preference
case, it added. Further, the class representative analysis
appearing in the rehearing petition was not litigated in the trial
court or on appeal and has been forfeited, ruled the Appeals

Mr. Johnson had appealed from an order compelling arbitration and
dismissing all of his class claims. Servicon Systems filed a
petition to compel arbitration of plaintiff's individual claims
only. The petition sought dismissal of all class claims. On
October 26, 2012, the trial court dismissed the purported class
claims. But the court granted defendant's petition to compel
arbitration of plaintiff's individual claims.

The Calif. Appeals Court concluded that the trial court should not
have dismissed the class claims.

A copy of the Appeals Court's November 21, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/7UgU3Efrom Leagle.com.

Rastegar Law Group, Farzad Rastegar -- farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com
-- and Thomas S. Campbell, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Jackson Lewis, Mindy S. Novick -- NovickM@jacksonlewis.com --
Sherry L. Swieca -- SwiecaS@jacksonlewis.com -- Sandra J. McMullan
-- Sandra.McMullan@jacksonlewis.com -- and Adam Y. Siegel --
SiegelA@jacksonlewis.com -- for Defendant and Respondent.

SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Has Initial OK of $425,000 Technicians Suit Deal
Siemens Industry, Inc., wins preliminary approval of its $425,000
settlement of a class action lawsuit commenced by Albert Ching in

The Plaintiff brought the class action on behalf of a class of
persons consisting of Service Technicians, who were employed to
install, inspect, repair, and maintain fire systems by Siemens in
California at any time from August 19, 2007, through December 31,
2012.  In his First Amended Complaint, Mr. Ching asserts claims
for, among other things, failure to pay prevailing wages and
overtime under California Labor Code and failure to pay wages and
overtime under the Labor Code.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant has agreed to
pay up to $425,000 to settle and release all claims asserted by
the Plaintiff on behalf of the proposed class.  The Settlement
Agreement provides for these payments: (1) up to $5,000 to the
Plaintiff for his services and participation as class
representative; (2) up to 30% of the Maximum Gross Settlement
Amount, which amounts to $127,500, to Class Counsel for attorneys'
fees and up to $9,000 for litigation costs; (3) $5,000 to the
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency for penalties
pursuant to the Labor Code; (4) $13,500 for the costs of claims
administration; (5) Defendant's share of payroll taxes on the
settlement awards; and (6) the employee share of payroll taxes on
the settlement awards.  The amount remaining in the Maximum Gross
Settlement Amount after the deductions have been made will be
distributed to Class Members, who submit timely and valid claim

The Final Approval Hearing is set for March 27, 2014, at 10:00

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Harmik Yeremian, Esq.
          535 N Brand Blvd., Suite 705
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230-8380
          Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
          E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alison S. Hightower, Esq.
          Laura Emily Hayward, Esq.
          R. Brian Dixon, Esq.
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 288-6309
          Facsimile: (415) 743-6642
          E-mail: ahightower@littler.com

The case is Ching v. Siemens Industry, Inc., Case No. 3:11-cv-
04838-MEJ, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco).

ST FRANCIS MARKETING: Owners Sued Over Timeshare Compensation Con
Exeter Express and Echo reports that a pair of timeshare salesmen
targeted the victims of their own mis-selling with a scheme to get
them to pay to free themselves from the deals, a jury has been

Michael Girvin and Niel Mendoza lured timeshare owners to their
Exeter offices by posing as a legal firm taking a class action
against holiday firms.  They used scare tactics to convince them
that they and their families could face huge maintenance charges
for decades to come unless they bought themselves out of the
contracts, Exeter Crown Court was told.

The entrepreneurs took up to GBP8,000 from clients for a service
which actually cost just GBP800 and they lined their own pockets
by taking GBP45,000 in 'dividends' in just six months, the jury

Mr. Girvin, aged 53, of Salterton Road, Exmouth, and Mendoza, aged
59, of Cordery Road, Exeter, deny fraudulent trading and three
charges of breaching consumer protection legislation.

All the charges relate to late 2011 and early 2011 when they ran
companies called Class Action and Devon Based Associates from
offices in Marsh Barton, Exeter.  They allege they misled
customers by failing to tell them their true purpose, by posing as
lawyers, making false promises of compensation and over estimating
the future liabilities which owners faced.

Alan Fuller, prosecuting, said the companies purported to be
seeking unhappy timeshare customers for a class action but the
real purpose was to overcharge them for advice on how to get out
of contracts.

Mr. Girvin had previously been convicted of mis-selling while a
director of a timeshare firm called St. Francis Marketing where
Mendoza was the sales manager but had not been prosecuted.  After
the firm collapsed a number of clients took a successful group
legal action against the finance companies which had facilitated
their deals and this gave Messrs. Girvin and Mendoza the idea for
their new scheme.  They used their lists of customers from St
Francis to offer what appeared to be legal advice but was in
reality a scheme to get clients into their offices where they were
subjected to a hard sell.  They were told they would get GBP10,000
or more through a class action but told it would only happen when
25,000 customers signed up, which could take several years.

The sales pitch then turned to scare tactics with the timeshare
owners being warned of escalating maintenance and interest charges
which would carry on indefinitely and be a burden on their
children and grandchildren.  The final part of the sales pitch was
to suggest they pay the company to hell them buy themselves out of
the timeshare contracts.

Mr. Fuller said:"This is an intriguing case and involves the
cunning methods of these defendants who operated a system to take
advantage on unfortunate individuals who had previously been
misled into purchasing timeshares.

"Both had been involved in the past in selling timeshare and in
fact Girvin was prosecuted for mis-selling and that was followed
by a civil action.

"They told people they could gain significant sums through similar
action.  These defendants are not lawyers.  They did not act for
lawyers or get any legal advice.

"Their real purpose was to soften people up and make them
responsive for the sales pitch which was for an expensive and
overpriced service to rid them of their timeshares.

"Often those who were targeted were people who had been sold
timeshare by the company Girvin was a director of.  On some
occasions the service they offered was actually available for

"We say the whole business model was founded on a trick.  There
was a false promise to get them through the door and they were
then hit with inflated prices.

"These were slightly less painful if people had just been told
they were going to get thousands in compensation.

"These two defendant worked together to trick people to coming to
meetings at which they were misled about their rights.  The
purpose was to sell them something that was overpriced."

He said posters hung up in the office helped scare customers into
using their service with quotes from timeshare victims saying how
their lives had been ruined.

In the six months before the company was raided by trading
standards officers, it had a turnover of GBP150,000 and Mr. Girvin
was paid GBP20,000 and Mr. Mendoza and his wife Vanessa GBP25,000.

Mr. Mendoza and his wife were the only directors but Mr. Fuller
told the jury Mr. Girvin was an integral part of the organization,
although he claimed to be a salesman on commission.

THERACLONE SCIENCES: Sued Over Later-Terminated Merger Deal
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Theraclone
Sciences, Inc. are not giving shareholders sufficient information
to determine whether a proposed merger with PharmAthene Inc. is
fair, investors say in a direct and derivative complaint in
Delaware Chancery Court.

However, on December 2, 2013, PharmAthene announced that it has
terminated its definitive merger agreement with Theraclone with
consent from Theraclone.  The agreement provided for the merger of
a wholly-owned subsidiary of PharmAthene into Theraclone in an
all-stock, merger-of-equals transaction.  Accordingly, PharmAthene
cancelled the Special Meeting of Stockholders scheduled on
December 3, 2013, and will pay Theraclone a $1 million termination

TOYOTA MOTOR: Recalls 2013-2014 Tacoma Pickups Over Engine Defect
Charles McGregor, writing for Associated News, reports that based
on the reports by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Toyota is recalling a small number of vehicles for engine

For around 3,795 4-cylinder Toyota Tacoma pickups models starting
from 2013 and 2014, the valve springs in the engine can corrode
and crack, which can lead to rough engine performance, noise or a
complete failure.  According to the company, the problem was first
discovered in June from an owner in Japan.

As per the reports passed by the company, the springs in the
engine of the affected vehicles may have been contaminated with
chloride during production, which as result can lead to small
corrosive pits on the surface, and eventually, a crack in the
spring itself, which further could lead to a complete failure.

Though no other reports of failed springs have been received by
the company, and the problem is restricted only to the Tacoma's
4-cylinder engine, according to the Japanese automaker.  Dealers
will replace the valve springs with new ones and customers have
already been notified about the same.

Looking up at the company's history of recalling the vehicles,
Toyota had recalled around 342,000 Tacoma pickups for seatbelt
pre-tensioners that could come loose, in August.

The company had to recall around 150,000 Tacoma pickups from 2001-
2004 for rusting frames.  In 2008, the automaker was forced to
extend corrosion warranties and even repurchase Tacoma pickups
from the 1995-2000 and 2001-2004 model years, which was a span
covering around 800,000 vehicles, only because entire frames were
rotting out.

UNITED CONTINENTAL: Faces Suit Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
Benjamin Castro v. Inc., United Airlines Inc. and Does 1 Through
100, Case No. BC529105 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
November 27, 2013) alleges that the Defendants failed to provide
accurate wage statements to the Plaintiff and similarly situated

The Plaintiff is represented by:


WHOLE FOODS: Faces Suit Over "Nothing Artificial" Product Labels
Courthouse News Service reports that Whole Foods mislabels its
private-label products as containing "nothing artificial," a class
action claims in Texas Federal Court.


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,

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  * * *