/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/131223.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, December 23, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 253


A-PLUS PAINTING: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Suit Says
ANZ BANK: Aware of Exorbitant Fee Issues, Court Documents Show
APPLE INC: Jan. 13 Claims Filing Deadline Set for iTunes Suit
BNSF RAILWAY: Faces Suit in Wash. for Equal Pay Act Violation
CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Immigrant Detention Policy

CANADA: Court Knocks Down Most Claims in CWB Class Action
CBRE GROUP: Misclassifies Class as Exempt Employees, Suit Says
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Wins Final Approval of Consolidated Suit Deal
COCA-COLA CO: Falsely Advertises Coke as All-Natural, Suit Claims
CUATRO CAMINOS: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Suit Says

EVERGREEN INT'L: Sued Over WARN Act Violations
FANNIE MAE: Wins Final OK of $153-Mil. Securities Suit Settlement
FIFTH THIRD: Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Class Action Appeal
FRANCESCA'S HOLDING: Faces Securities Class Suit in New York
GENERAL MILLS: Neighborhood Suffers Vapor Intrusion, Suit Says

GOOGLE INC: Recalls HP Chromebook 11 Power Supply/Charger
HERBS UNLIMITED: Class Seeks Unpaid Overtime and Minimum Wages
HUNTINGTON BANK: Arab American Group Sues Over Closed Accounts
KAISER PERMANENTE: Did HIV Tests Without Consent, Class Claims
LINKEDIN CORP: Says Users Allowed Siphoning of E-mail Contacts

MERACORD LLC: Charges Exorbitant and Abusive Fees, Customer Says
MIRAGE FASHIONS: Recalls Yoki Girls Faux Leather Jackets
MONSANTO CO: "Delta" Suit Transferred to District of Kansas
MONSANTO CO: Faces "Hyer" Suit Over Genetically Engineered Wheat
NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA: Sued Over Unlawful Teen Arrests

NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Moose Class Action Trial Set for April
OSI SYSTEMS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in California
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of Autism Coverage Class Action
QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA: Meeting Set in Flood Class Action
REXNORD CORP: Accord in Suit Over Zurn Brass Fittings Approved

SANOFI: Ryan & Maniskas Files Class Action in New York
SEACOR HOLDINGS: No Writ of Certiorari Filed in "Robin Case"
SEACOR HOLDNGS: "Wunstell" Action Continues in Louisiana Court
SEACOR HOLDINGS: No Decision Yet in Summary Motions by ORM, NRC
SEACOR HOLDINGS: Settlement by BP America on Appeal to 5th Cir.

SEASONAL SPECIALTIES: Recalls Pre-lit Christmas Trees
SENSA PRODUCTS: Accused of Misrepresenting Weight-Loss Products
STRYKER CORP: TCPA Suit Obtains Class Action Certification
TURQUOISE HILL: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Refused to Junk Claims by Taxi Drivers

VINTAGE SENIOR: Faces "Duran" Class Suit in Orange County, Cal.
VISA INC: Fails to Declare Exclusion for Zipcar Rental, Suit Says
WAHL CLIPPER: Recalls Total Care Aerosol Cleaner
YAUK'S SPECIALTY: Recalls Additional Meat and Poultry Products

* Bernstein Litowitz Atty Among Law360's 2013 Class Action MVPs
* High Court Allows Investors to Launch Class Action v. Fund Cos.


A-PLUS PAINTING: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Suit Says
Roberto Ramirez, Mario Gudino Tellez, and Sergio Payan Gonzalez,
and all others similarly situated v. A-Plus Painting, LLC, and
Jeffrey Yatooma, individually, Case No. 2:13-cv-14593-GER-MKM
(E.D. Mich., November 4, 2013), is Fair Labor Standards Act
collective action brought on behalf of individuals, who provide or
provided services to A-Plus Painting, LLC.

Among other things, A-Plus violated the FLSA by failing to pay its
workers minimum wage and overtime pay, the Plaintiffs contend.

A-Plus Painting, LLC is a limited liability company headquartered
in Walled Lake, Michigan.  A-Plus contracts with various companies
throughout the nation to provide residential and commercial
building services, including interior and exterior painting,
drywall hanging, finishing and repairs, plaster repairs, concrete
and wood staining, caulking, scraping, glazing, texturing, spray
brush and roll finishes, power washing and insulating.  Jeffrey
Yatooma is the owner and president of A-Plus.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Philo, Esq.
          Tony Paris, Esq.
          4605 Cass Avenue, Second Floor
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 993-4505
          Facsimile: (313) 887-8470
          E-mail: jphilo@sugarlaw.org

               - and -

          David M. Blanchard, Esq.
          Nakisha N. Chaney, Esq.
          101 N. Main Street, Suite 555
          Ann Arbor, MI 48114
          Telephone: (734) 663-7550
          Facsimile: (734) 633-7592
          E-mail: dblanchard@nachtlaw.com

ANZ BANK: Aware of Exorbitant Fee Issues, Court Documents Show
Amy Bainbridge, writing for ABC, reports that Federal Court
documents show the ANZ bank knew as far back as 2006 that it would
need to adjust the fees it charged customers, or risk being
exposed to legal action and growing consumer anger.

The internal ANZ documents, which include emails and board meeting
minutes, were obtained by lawyers representing the claimants of
the biggest class action in legal history.

Maurice Blackburn is representing 38,000 customers who are
disputing the fees they were charged over a seven-year period.

The central claim is that the excessive fees charged would be
considered penalties and therefore would be illegal.

The bank is alleged to have charged exorbitant fees of between $20
and $45 for services that would only cost a matter of cents or a
few dollars to administer.

Although some parts of the documents have been redacted because
they are commercially sensitive, they reveal the private
deliberations of ANZ's executive management team and board.

The documents trace the growing public campaign by consumer groups
and media reporting about the fees, and the legislative changes
that would cause the bank to change its fee structure.

One of the internal documents outlines the concerns the bank had
about adjusting its fees.  The revenue raising options to offset
losses included increasing account servicing fees.

In a document titled Exception Fees Strategy September 2008, the
executive summary says:

    Recent events overseas and in Australia are generating
heightened focus and increasing the risk of regulation on bank
fees, in particular exception fees

    Focus on strategy is to source additional income streams to
offset the potential loss of exception fees due to regulation

    Actions to address political concerns and improve customer
experience include -- new exception fee-free account, new ATM
warning message and low-balance text alerts

    Strategies to cover revenue gap include -- changing the mix of
honor and dishonored transactions, increasing the monthly account
service fee.

The same document outlines "long-term strategies" to make up for
any loss in exception fees.

    If exception fees were regulated/capped to cost recovery, the
approach would be to:

    Increase monthly account service fee ($0.13 for every $
reduction in per item fee applied on all active accounts or $0.25
for every $ in reduction if applied on fee paying accounts only)

    Increase proportion of dishonor transactions to over 50%

    Change exception fee charging methodology

Documents from 2006 outline the profitability of fees, and
discussions on how revenue would be affected if fees were reduced.

The confidential papers show how reliant the ANZ was on fees to
boost its profit margins.  A discussion paper from 30 June 2006
shows the bank raked in millions on fees alone.

    'Exception fees represent a significant part of the
Transaction Banking P&L.' (profit and loss)

    Exception fees currently:

        Consumer Honour Fees - $58m

        Consumer Dishonour Fees - $23m

        Consumer PP Non-Payment Fees - $12m

    Total $93m

    Fees in context

        Transaction Banking Earnings before Provisions - $208m

        Account Service Fees - $50m

    (Honour Fees are charged when a payment is presented against
an account with insufficient funds but the bank allows the payment
to go through. Dishonour Fees are applied in the same
circumstances but when the bank decides not to allow the payment
to go through.)

Even chief executive Mike Smith was carefully monitoring the
fallout from the banks fees policy, as was noted in the minutes of
a management board meeting in 2009.

At a meeting he chaired on September 7, it was acknowledged the
fees had become a major focus for "media, lobby groups and
politicians so change on consumer customers is mandatory".

The minutes went on to state that change would not be good for the
bank's bottom line, as regulatory change that would hamper its
ability to charge fees loomed.

    Recommended changes would remove revenue of $160m in Retail
and $9.5m in Commercial.

    Changes will be required to fees anyway due to the changes in
the regulatory environment come 1 Jan with the introduction of the
Unfair contracts legislation. We are taking into consideration
what is the highest fee we can charge when these changes come into

    Total exception fee income in Australian (sic) is $300m and we
are giving up ~50% of these in this recommendation.

Final submissions have been made in the court case and both
parties are awaiting a decision by Federal Court Judge Michelle

APPLE INC: Jan. 13 Claims Filing Deadline Set for iTunes Suit
Joe Ducey, writing for abc15.com, reports that Candy Crush is free
to download.  But it's been reported that the game still makes
hundreds of thousands of dollars daily.

Ok, so you're playing Candy Crush on your iPhone and you buy a
lollipop hammer to get further in the game.

You know what I'm talking about.

Well, if your child bought it, you may get some of that money

"The most popular apps on iTunes and most profitable are those
that are free or very inexpensive but allow you to buy gems or
tokens or new fish or farming equipment within the game itself,"
says Scott Hardy with Top Class Actions.

Mr. Hardy says you spend money to get those extras.

But a class action lawsuit alleges Apple didn't make that clear

"So people would download thinking it was free and then get hit up
to buy something repeatedly.  Some of these games make it
impossible to get past a certain level unless you buy," Mr. Hardy

If your minor child made in-game purchases without your knowledge
before May of this year, you may be due some money back.

It's part of Apple settling the class action suit.

You could get cash or iTunes credits.  Many games are included,
but you have to file a claim by January 13.

Find out if your game is on the iTunes settlement list.

If you don't play iTunes games, you can still get up to $28 back
if you use Organix skin and hair care.

A class action suit alleged the products were not wholly organic
as claimed.

Finally, Nasal Ease nasal spray is offering a full refund to some

"Nasal ease is one of those homeopathic remedies that make a lot
of promises but unfortunately may not have delivered," Hardy says.

A class action suit alleges that nasal ease does not relieve
allergy symptoms as claimed. You could get a full refund with a
receipt, up to $15 without one.

BNSF RAILWAY: Faces Suit in Wash. for Equal Pay Act Violation
One day after two gay employees sued BNSF Railway in Federal
Court, the National Railway Labor Conference announced that
freight carriers will begin providing insurance coverage to same-
sex spouses of railroad employees, beginning on New Year's Day,
according to June Williams, writing for Courthouse News Service.

"While this is not a benefit required by law or under current
collective bargaining agreements, the railroads agreed with labor
to provide this benefit in light of recent changes allowing same-
sex couples to access the same federal tax benefits provided to
other married couples," the NRLC said in a statement.

On December 6, 2013, Michael Hall, an engineer, and Amie Garrand,
a conductor, filed a class action under the Equal Pay Act,
claiming BNSF discriminated in refusing to provide their same-sex
spouses with health insurance.

BNSF has -- or had -- a "policy" of not paying such benefits
because "marriage is between one man and one woman," according to
the lawsuit.

Hall claims his spouse, Elijah Hall Uber, has been repeatedly
turned down for benefits "based solely on the fact Michael is

"BNSF has directly and through its apparent and authorized agent
United Healthcare stated its reason for not covering Elijah is it
has a 'policy' that 'marriage is one man, one woman'; although
Michael Hall and Elijah Hall have explained many times this
definition of marriage is not the law in Washington state, and
Elijah is the spouse and husband of Michael Hall, factually, and
legally," according to the complaint.

Washington legalized gay marriage last year.

"The one man/one woman definition of spouse used by BNSF to limit
its liability to cover spousal health benefits amounts to a BNSF
policy to discriminate against Michael Hall simply because he is
male; under this policy, if he were a female married to Elijah,
the benefit would be paid," the complaint states.

Hall was married in January and says he has "repeatedly requested
that BNSF cover Elijah's health care costs."

After he emailed BNSF's CEO and other managers about the
discrimination, Hall says, he received a threatening phone call at
home from a supervisor, who warned him it was going to be a "long
bumpy battle."

After numerous phone calls to United Healthcare, BNSF's insurance
provider, Hall says, he was finally sent a denial letter that
relied on a benefit booklet.  The booklet "stated that a 'wife' or
'husband' is covered and does exclude spouses in a legal same-sex
marriage," according to the complaint.

Loss of the benefits costs the couple thousands of dollars a
month, according to the complaint.  Hall Uber has monthly medical
bills of about $2,400, the complaint states.

Garrand claims she had a similar experience trying to sign up her
wife for benefits.

"Amie Garrand has several times requested that BNSF or United
Healthcare cover the health care costs of her spouse, Carol
Garrand, including costs the couple incurred relating to birth of
a son by Carol after the marriage in 2013.  BNSF has failed and
refused to cover the spousal health care costs, including through
communications from United Healthcare, citing its policy that
marriage is one man one woman," according to the complaint.

Garrand cites numerous conversations she had with various BNSF and
United Healthcare employees, and says she was finally able to add
her son to her policy, but not her spouse.

"At times BNSF or United Healthcare told Garrand that a collective
bargaining agreement forces them to deny coverage for Carol
Garrand. This was not true factually or legally.  The benefits
plan said 'Your wife or husband' is an eligible dependent and in
any event excluding same-sex spouses is illegal pay discrimination
based on the sex of the employee.  Union contracts are not a legal
way to excuse or justify discrimination," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs say BNSF violates the Equal Pay Act by denying
equal pay in the form of spousal health care benefits based on
sex.  They sought actual and punitive damages, an injunction and
order requiring BNSF to pay the benefits of any legal spouse,
regardless of sex.

Their attorney, Cleveland Stockmeyer, told the Seattle Times the
coverage announcement is "a step in the right direction," but BNSF
have to retroactively cover the benefits.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Duncan Calvert Turner, Esq.
          701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4750
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 621-6566
          Facsimile: (206) 621-9686
          E-mail: duncanturner@badgleymullins.com

               - and -

          Cleveland Stockmeyer, Esq.
          8056 Sunnyside Ave., N
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 419-4385
          E-mail: cleve@clevelandstockmeyer.com

The class action lawsuit is Hall, et al. v. BNSF Railway Company,
Case No. 2:13-cv-02160, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington (Seattle).

CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Immigrant Detention Policy
The Arab American News reports that Asian Americans Advancing
Justice - Asian Law Caucus ("Advancing Justice - Asian Law
Caucus") and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern
California (ACLU-NC), with co-counsel Keker Van Nest LLP, filed a
statewide class action lawsuit on Dec. 12 to challenge the current
federal policy of detaining certain immigrants without giving them
the opportunity to prove they pose no flight risk or danger to the

The advocates urge that immigrants are entitled to go before an
immigration judge to request release while they fight their
deportation cases.

"Many immigrants are being caught in a vast bureaucratic dragnet.
The sheer arbitrariness is breathtaking and the needless suffering
must be stopped." said Jon Streeter -- jstreeter@kvn.com -- lead
counsel on the case for Keker & Van Nest.  "What is perhaps most
troubling is the Department of Homeland Security's policy is in
clear contravention of the letter of the law.  This case
spotlights these practices, which are quietly devastating hundreds
of immigrant families."

Named plaintiff Eduardo Vega Padilla is one of the many in
California being detained without due process.  Mr. Padilla came
to the United States from Mexico in 1966 and received his green
card before he turned two.  During a difficult period in his life
over a decade ago, Mr. Padilla was convicted of two non-violent,
victimless crimes with potential immigration consequences.  He was
released from custody in 2002 and cleaned up his life to focus on
taking care of his family, including providing primary financial
support for his elderly mother, pregnant daughter, and grandson.

On August 15, 2013, over ten years after the last time he was in
criminal custody, immigration agents arrived at Mr. Padilla's home
and arrested him on civil immigration charges.  He is now detained
in the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center in Sacramento County
without any opportunity to go before a judge to be considered for
release on bond.

Mr. Padilla, like other immigrants represented in the case, has a
past conviction that potentially could result in deportation.  The
lawsuit proposes that Mr. Padilla and others like him should have
the opportunity to make an individualized case against their
unconditional detention.

"Mandatory immigration detention is an extraordinary deprivation
of physical liberty without procedural protections," said
Anoop Prasad of Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus.

"Like Mr. Padilla, many immigrants in mandatory detention are
longtime residents of our country who have rehabilitated
themselves, raised families, and given back to their communities.
They have been living in the community for years without incident
until immigration authorities arrest them on old convictions.
We're in court [Dec. 12] because families continue to be torn
apart and the lives of immigrants are unlawfully disrupted due to
the Department of Homeland Security's unauthorized policy and

Under the challenged policy, immigrants who are fighting
deportation can be locked up, irrespective of their circumstances,
for the months as their cases progress.

The suit was filed in the Northern District of California and
seeks a court ruling establishing that mandatory detention must be
reserved for the narrow group of individuals defined by law:
people who are transferred to immigration custody immediately upon
their release from criminal custody for specific, enumerated

"The government's excessive use of mandatory detention is not only
illegal, but violates our basic sense of fairness.  In the United
States, everyone should get a chance to see a judge to determine
if they pose some threat before their freedom is taken away," said
Julia Harumi Mass of the ACLU of Northern California.  "People who
have served their time, turned their lives around, and are now
supporting their families and contributing to their communities
should not be separated from their families and condemned to
mandatory lock-up," added Mass.

The Department of Homeland Security policy of mandatory detention
also comes at a tremendous expense to taxpayers.  DHS spends
approximately $164 per day to detain each person in its custody,
or about $60,000 per person per year.  Approximately 34,000
individuals across the country are detained each day, at an annual
cost to taxpayers of $2 billion each year.  For many men and
women, detention is unnecessary and alternatives like release on
bond or ankle monitors are equally effective and far less costly.

CANADA: Court Knocks Down Most Claims in CWB Class Action
Dave Bedard, writing for AGCanada.com Network, reports that a
Federal Court judge has knocked down most, but not all, of the
pillars of a proposed class-action suit against the federal
government over the deregulation of Prairie wheat and barley

Justice Daniele Tremblay-Lamer, in a decision released Nov. 29 in
Ottawa, has struck out most of the claims in the suit filed in
February last year by four Prairie farmers.  She also granted
costs to the federal government.

The four farmers -- Andrew Dennis of Brookdale, Man., Nathan
Macklin of DeBolt, Alta., Harold Bell of Fort St. John, B.C. and
former Canadian Wheat Board director Ian McCreary of Bladworth,
Sask -- had sought to launch a class action on behalf of Prairie
wheat and barley growers, claiming about C$17.06 billion for
damages they say stem from the end of the CWB's single marketing

The claim follows from the federal Marketing Freedom for Grain
Farmers Act, which took effect in August 2012, ending the Wheat
Board's monopoly on Prairie wheat, durum and barley exports and
dismissing the farmer-elected portion of its board of directors.

The former board now pools and markets wheat, barley, durum and
canola under the abbreviated name "CWB," through handling
arrangements with Prairie grain companies.

The four farmers, Justice Tremblay-Lamer wrote, claimed the
federal government has "unlawfully expropriated assets belonging
to the CWB in which the plaintiffs had an interest."

By that, she wrote, they mean the government "now has unfettered
control over all aspects of CWB operations, it has put the CWB on
the road to being wound up, and has committed its assets,
purchased from the proceeds of the sale of producers' grains, to
paying for the costs of dissolution, with any surplus going to the

To be sure, she wrote, "the Crown through legislation cannot take
away one's property without compensation unless the statute
clearly provides otherwise," but the farmers did not establish "a
de facto taking" that would involve compensation.

The claim, she wrote, showed neither "an acquisition of a
beneficial interest in the property" nor "removal of all
reasonable uses of the property."  Losing the single desk to
changes in the CWB regulatory scheme "is not enough in itself to
claim a loss of a property interest."

                       "No deprivation"

Justice Tremblay-Lamer also cited a previous suit, brought against
the government by Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board -- a group
which now backs the proposed class action.

Based on the outcome of that previous case -- which the FCWB lost
at the Federal Court of Appeal in June 2012 -- Justice Tremblay-
Lamer wrote that the government "cannot be said to have acted
wrongfully by enacting the (Act) and there has been no deprivation
of property."

Further, she wrote, since the Act "clearly sets out the uses for
the (CWB's) contingency fund, the change in the operations of the
CWB, and the transfer of assets in the case of an eventual
dissolution," and given the outcome of the FCWB case, "it cannot
be said that the changes following these provisions are unjust."

Justice Tremblay-Lamer's ruling also shot down the farmers' claim
of a "breach of trust" by the federal government.  The
government's previous regulation of the grain sector, she wrote,
could not be taken to imply a fiduciary duty to Prairie grain

"Rather, the government must respond to a wide variety of
interests when it regulates grain, including those of producers as
well as consumers.  Finding a fiduciary duty on these facts would
place the government in an untenable position where it would face
conflicting duties to both producers and Canadians in general."

The government, she wrote, is "balancing competing interests" in
regulating grain, and noted "the interests of the class themselves
are not homogeneous, as seen by the tension between those in favor
of and those opposed to the free market of grain."

Justice Tremblay-Lamer's ruling "underscored the right of Western
Canadian wheat and barley farmers to market their own grain,"
Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said in a release Thursday.

"While courts continue to strike down these frivolous lawsuits,
the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of Western grain
farmers have embraced marketing freedom and are capitalizing on
new economic opportunities that were impossible under the old
single desk."


The farmers' remaining claim alleges the federal government,
during the Wheat Board's 2011-12 pool period, "used monies that
should have been paid to producers (under the Canadian Wheat Board
Act) to cover substantial costs and losses" relating to CWB's
shift away from its role as a single-desk seller.

The farmers claim the government also "failed to establish a
reasonable price for grain remaining unsold after the 2011-12 pool
period . . . (and thus) caused an improper transfer from the
amount to be distributed to producers."

On that specific claim, Tremblay-Lamer wrote, government lawyers
presented "no arguments . . . to demonstrate that the claims are
untrue or could not succeed at trial."  Thus, she wrote, "the
mismanagement allegations should not be struck out."

Those claims, she wrote, "are allowed to continue."  She directed
the farmers and their lawyers to "serve and file a revised
statement of claim consistent with these reasons."

The plaintiffs are now considering whether to proceed with an
amended claim as Justice Tremblay-Lamer directed, or to instead
mount an appeal against her ruling, Stewart Wells of FCWB said in
an email Thursday.

The four farmers' suit, spearheaded by Winnipeg lawyer Anders
Bruun and Ottawa lawyer Steven Shrybman, is not the only proposed
CWB-related class action on the books.

Regina class-action lawyer Tony Merchant, working with a
Saskatchewan grower as his representative plaintiff, aims to seek
damages of C$15.42 billion from Ottawa, alleging the CWB's assets
"cannot simply be subsumed by the federal government."

CBRE GROUP: Misclassifies Class as Exempt Employees, Suit Says
Cathy Suriano; individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. CBRE Group, Inc., a Delaware
corporation; CBRE, Inc., a Delaware corporation; CB Richard Ellis,
Inc., an unknown business entity; and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive; Case No. BC529642 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
December 5, 2013), alleges that the Defendants employed the
Plaintiff in a salaried commercial/retail property management
position, misclassified her as "exempt" and paid her on a salary
basis, from June 2011 to approximately August 2013.

Ms. Suriano contends that the Defendants engaged in a uniform
policy and systematic scheme of wage abuse against her and the
other class members.  She notes that this scheme involved, inter
alia, misclassifying their positions as "exempt" employees for
purposes of the payment of overtime compensation when, in fact,
they were "non-exempt," non-managerial employees according to
California law.

The Corporate Defendants are Delaware corporations, and employers
whose employees are engaged throughout the state of California,
County of Los Angeles.  The true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Shenkman, Esq.
          Mary R. Hughes, Esq.
          28905 Wight Road
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Telephone: (310) 457-0970
          E-mail: kshenkman@shenkmanhughes.com

               - and -

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          Arby Aiwazian, Esq.
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
          E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com

CHILDREN'S PLACE: Wins Final Approval of Consolidated Suit Deal
Judge Claudia Wilken of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted final approval of The
Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc.'s settlement of a
consolidated class action lawsuit filed by Galina Seebrook, et al.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons, who between
February 17, 2010, and June 19, 2013, purchased merchandise from a
California The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc. store, used a
credit card to make the purchase, and whose personal
identification information was requested and recorded by
Children's Place.

The Company will issue a single Merchandise Certificate to each
class member, who was either sent notice by e-mail pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement or submitted a valid and timely claim form.
Class Counsel are awarded a total of $335,000.  Judge Wilken also
awarded $2,750 as an incentive to each of the Lead Plaintiffs --
Galina Seebrook, Maria Isabel Beltran, Nicolle DiSimone, Kristen
Hartman, and Mario Arellano.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
          Elaine W. Yan, Esq.
          Richard David Lambert, Esq.
          75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 235-7140
          Facsimile: (916) 235-7141
          E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com

               - and -

          Chad A. Saunders, Esq.
          H. Tim Hoffman, Esq.
          180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1550
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763-5700
          Facsimile: (510) 835-1311
          E-mail: cas@hlsblaw.com

               - and -

          James Richard Patterson, Esq.
          Matthew James O'Connor, Esq.
          402 W Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6994
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Christopher Paul Ridout, Esq.
          Caleb Lucas-Hansen Marker, Esq.
          Devon Marie Lyon, Esq.
          555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 500
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 216-7381
          Facsimile: (562) 216-7385
          E-mail: c.ridout@ridoutlyonlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel H. Qualls, Esq.
          Aviva N. Roller, Esq.
          Robin Gibson Workman, Esq.
          QUALLS & WORKMAN, L.L.P.
          177 Post Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 782-3660
          Facsimile: (415) 788-1028
          E-mail: dan@qualls-workman.com

               - and -

          Sunil Arvind Brahmbhatt, Esq.
          2700 N. Main Street, Suite 310
          Santa Ana, CA 92705
          Telephone: (714) 285-1092
          Facsimile: (714) 917-3130
          E-mail: sunil@sunillaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Beatriz Mejia, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          101 California Street, 5th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
          Telephone: (415) 693-2000
          Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
          E-mail: mejiab@cooley.com

               - and -

          Mazda Kersey Antia, Esq.
          Michelle Carrie Doolin, Esq.
          Bradley Aaron Lebow, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 550-6139
          Facsimile: (858) 550-6420
          E-mail: mantia@cooley.com

               - and -

          Jennifer Michele French, Esq.
          17901 Von Karman Avenue
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (714) 557-7990
          Facsimile: (714) 557-7991
          E-mail: jfrench@mrllp.com

The consolidated lawsuit is Seebrook, et al. v. The Children's
Place Retail Stores, Inc., Case No. 4:11-cv-00837-CW, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland).

COCA-COLA CO: Falsely Advertises Coke as All-Natural, Suit Claims
Mary Rankin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Coca-Cola Company and Coca-Cola Refreshments USA,
Inc., Case No. 4:13-cv-00690-KGB (E.D. Ark., December 2, 2013)
alleges that dales of Coca-Cola are fueled by false and deceptive
representations that Coca-Cola is not only a healthy product, but
one free of artificial flavoring and chemical preservatives.

Every container of Coca-Cola sold in the United States either
falsely states that it does not contain artificial flavoring and
chemical preservatives, or fails to affirmatively state -- as
required by state and federal law -- that it, in fact, contains
both artificial flavoring and chemical preservatives, Ms. Rankin

The Coca-Cola Company is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Atlanta, Georgia.  The Coca-Cola Company has the world's largest
beverage distribution system, and is the world's largest beverage
company.  Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc. is Delaware corporation
also headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.  Coca-Cola Refreshments is
The Coca-Cola Company's bottling and customer service organization
for North America.  Coca-Cola Refreshments manufactures,
distributes, and sells approximately 88% of The Coca-Cola
Company's unit case volume in the United States.  The Defendants'
product, Coca-Cola, is the world's most popular soft drink and is
one of the most well-known and trusted brand names in the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          Marcus N. Bozeman, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          Facsimile: (501) 374-2222
          E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          James M. Simpson, Jr., Esq.
          Martin A. Kasten, Esq.
          Regions Center
          400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3522
          Telephone: (501) 376-2011
          E-mail: simpson@fridayfirm.com

CUATRO CAMINOS: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Suit Says
Kayme Marquez and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(B) v. Alberto Suarez d/b/a Cuatro Caminos Cafeteria, Case No.
1:13-cv-23988-KMW (S.D. Fla., November 4, 2013), arises from the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Marquez alleges that she and similarly situated employees have
not been paid overtime and minimum wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours weekly.

Alberto Suarez, d/b/a Cuatro Caminos Cafeteria, is a
proprietorship doing business under an assumed name that regularly
transacts business within Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM

EVERGREEN INT'L: Sued Over WARN Act Violations
Christopher Tortorelli and Jens Schulz, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Evergreen International
Airlines, Inc., Evergreen International Aviation, Inc., And
Evergreen Holdings Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-02145-HZ (D. Ore.,
December 6, 2013) is brought on behalf of the Defendants'
similarly-situated former employees, who were terminated without
cause, as part of, or as the foreseeable result of, plant closings
or mass layoffs, and who were not provided 60 days advance written
notice of their terminations, as required by the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act.

On November 27, 2013, and within 90 days of that date, the
Defendants terminated without notice the employment of
approximately 160 full-time employees, the Plaintiffs assert.  The
Plaintiffs and all similarly-situated employees seek to recover 60
days wages and benefits, pursuant to the WARN Acts, from

Evergreen International Holdings Inc. and Evergreen International
Aviation, Inc. are Oregon corporations headquartered in
McMinnville, Oregon.  The Defendants are in the business of
operating airline services.  Evergreen International Holdings Inc.
owns 100% of the shares of Evergreen International Aviation, Inc.
Evergreen International Aviation, Inc. owns 100% of the shares of
Evergreen International Airlines, Inc. and Evergreen Aviation
Ground Logistics Enterprise, Inc. d/b/a Evergreen Eagle., both of
which operated at John F. Kennedy International Airport, in
Jamaica, New York.  Evergreen International Holdings Inc. is the
ultimate owner of Evergreen International Aviation, Inc.,
Evergreen International Airlines, Inc. and Evergreen Aviation
Ground Logistics Enterprise, Inc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Wade, Esq.
          44 Club Road, Suite 200
          P.O. Box 11230
          Eugene, OR 97440-3430
          Telephone: (541) 344-2174
          Facsimile: (541) 344-0209
          E-mail: davidw@gartlandnelsonlaw.com

               - and -

          Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
          Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
          3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 509-2054
          E-mail: jar@outtengolden.com

FANNIE MAE: Wins Final OK of $153-Mil. Securities Suit Settlement
Ryan Abbott, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that The
Federal National Mortgage Association and its former accountant,
KPMG LLP, will pay a class of the state-sponsored corporation's
shareholders $153 million to settle a decade-old securities fraud

The class sued Fannie Mae in 2004, claiming that it and three
executives issued false and misleading financial reports and other
statements that artificially inflated the price of Fannie Mae's

"After nearly a decade of litigation -- including more than five
years of extensive discovery, multiple rounds of briefing on
dispositive motions, several appeals to our Circuit Court, a
constitutional challenge to a regulation in a related proceeding,
and more than two years of mediation -- the parties now seek final
approval of a stipulated settlement agreement that would resolve
this action as to the Settlement Class and constitute the largest
securities class action settlement in the history of our Circuit
(since the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act . . . went
into effect in 1996)," writes U.S District Judge Richard Leon in
his ruling.

According to the ruling, the court certified the class of one
million purchasers and sellers of Fannie Mae stock options in

Lead plaintiffs Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and State
Teachers Retirement System of Ohio moved for approval of the
settlement, which will distribute $153 million among the class and
dish out $15.2 million to plaintiffs' counsel for attorneys' fees.

The settlement approval comes one year after Judge Leon ruled that
the class failed to prove that retired Fannie Mae senior executive
Franklin Raines was liable for securities fraud.  The judge also
ruled in favor of the other two officers named as defendants in
the case, including former senior vice president Leanne Spencer.

"There is not only no direct evidence that Raines intended to
deceive Fannie Mae's investors, there is no evidence that he even
knew his statements were false," Judge Leon wrote in 2012.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ronald L. Marmer, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          330 N. Wabash Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60611-7603
          Telephone: (312) 923-2688
          Facsimile: (312) 840-7688
          E-mail: rmarmer@jenner.com

               - and -

          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          Joshua S. Devore, Esq.
          Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
          1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 500 West
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Jeff A. Almeida, Esq.
          Christine M. MacKintosh
          Megan D. McIntyre
          1201 North Market Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000
          Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
          E-mail: jalmeida@gelaw.com

               - and -

          James R. Cummins, Esq.
          312 Walnut Street, Suite 1000
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 241-6400
          Facsimile: (513) 241-6464
          E-mail: jcummins@cumminsbrownlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul M. De Marco, Esq.
          Louise Malbin Roselle, Esq.
          1 West Fourth Street
          1513 Fourth & Vine Tower
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 621-0267
          E-mail: demarcoworld@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey David Lerner, Esq.
          Tania T. Taveras, Esq.
          A. Allen Hobbs, Esq.
          Emily Kern, Esq.
          10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 779-1414
          Facsimile: (212) 779-3218
          E-mail: lerner@bernlieb.com

               - and -

          Francis P. Karam, Esq.
          12 Desbrosses Street
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 489-3900
          Facsimile: (212) 779-3219
          E-mail: frank@fkaramlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          Joseph C. Merschman, Esq.
          Kathleen M. Donovan-Maher, Esq.
          One Liberty Square
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 542-8300
          Facsimile: (617) 542-1194
          E-mail: jblock@bermanesq.com

               - and -

          Phyllis E. Brown, Esq.
          119 East Court Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 241-0061
          Facsimile: (513) 621-7086
          E-mail: phyllis@pebrownlaw.com

               - and -

          Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
          Brett M. Weaver, Esq.
          402 West Broadway, 27th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0063
          Facsimile: (619) 230-1839
          E-mail: frankj@johnsonbottini.com

               - and -

          Robert W. Liles, Esq.
          4400 MacArthur Boulevard, NW, Suite 203
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 298-8750
          Facsimile: (202) 337-5804
          E-mail: rliles@lilesparker.com

               - and -

          Wilbert B. Markovits, Esq.
          Christopher D. Stock, Esq.
          119 East Court Street, Suite 530
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          E-mail: bmarkovits@msdlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David W. DeBruin, Esq.
          Jerome Louis Epstein, Esq.
          Larry Paul Ellsworth, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          1099 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 639-6015
          Facsimile: (202) 639-6066
          E-mail: ddebruin@jenner.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey William Kilduff, Esq.
          Michael J. Walsh, Jr., Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
          1625 Eye Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 383-5300
          Facsimile: (202) 383-5414
          E-mail: jkilduff@omm.com

               - and -

          Seth Alben Aronson, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
          400 South Hope Street, 15th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
          Telephone: (213) 430-7486
          Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
          E-mail: saronson@omm.com

               - and -

          Kevin Michael Downey, Esq.
          Alex Giscard Romain, Esq.
          Antony K. Haynes, Esq.
          Jefferey Dee Bailey, Esq.
          Joseph Marshall Terry, Jr., Esq.
          Michelle D. Schwartz, Esq.
          Samuel Bryant Davidoff, Esq.
          Edward Bennett Williams Building
          725 12th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005-5901
          Telephone: (202) 434-5460
          Facsimile: (202) 434-5029
          E-mail: kdowney@wc.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth G. Taylor, Esq.
          Caroline Elizabeth Reynolds, Esq.
          Cory T. Way, Esq.
          Ellen D. Marcus, Esq.
          Eric Robert Delinsky, Esq.
          Richard Miles Clark, Esq.
          Steven Mark Salky, Esq.
          1800 M Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 778-1876
          Facsimile: (202) 822-8106
          E-mail: etaylor@zuckerman.com

               - and -

          Laura E. Neish
          1540 Broadway, Suite 1604
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 704-9600
          Facsimile: (212) 704-4256
          E-mail: lneish@zuckerman.com

               - and -

          Logan Daniel Smith, Esq.
          3525 Del Mar Height Road, #766
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 444-0480
          Facsimile: (202) 822-8106
          E-mail: logan@alexandersmithlaw.com

               - and -

          David Sidney Krakoff, Esq.
          Adam B. Miller, Esq.
          Christopher F. Regan, Esq.
          Lauren R. Randell, Esq.
          1250 24th Street, NW, Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 349-7950
          Facsimile: (202) 349-8080
          E-mail: dkrakoff@buckleysandler.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth G. Oyer, Esq.
          STATE OF MD
          100 South Charles Street
          Tower II, 9th Floor
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 962-3962
          Facsimile: (410) 962-0872
          E-mail: eoyer@mayerbrownrowe.com

               - and -

          Heather H. Martin, Esq.
          777 6th Street, NW, Suite 1100
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 538-8000
          Facsimile: (202) 538-8001
          E-mail: heathermartin@quinnemanuel.com

               - and -

          Andrew Santo Tulumello, Esq.
          Claudia M. Barrett, Esq.
          Francis Joseph Warin, Esq.
          Lissa M. Percopo, Esq.
          Melanie L. Katsur, Esq.
          Michael Francis Flanagan, Esq.
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036-5303
          Telephone: (202) 955-8657
          Facsimile: (202) 530-9678
          E-mail: atulumello@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          George Howard Brown, Esq.
          1881 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 849-5300
          Facsimile: (650) 849-5309
          E-mail: gbrown@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Jonathan C. Dickey, Esq.
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 351-2399
          Facsimile: (212) 351-6399
          E-mail: jdickey@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          M. Byron Wilder, Esq.
          2100 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 698-3231
          Facsimile: (214) 571-2913

               - and -

          Monica K. Loseman-Barwind, Esq.
          1801 California Street, Suite 4200
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 298-5784
          E-mail: mloseman@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Fink, Esq.
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 3100
          San Francisco, CA 94104-4505
          Telephone: (415) 393-8267
          E-mail: sfink@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Jonathan K. Tycko
          2000 L Street, NW, Suite 808
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: jtycko@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Charles Simon Davidson, Esq.
          Brian E. Pumphrey, Esq.
          Christine Devey Mehfoud, Esq.
          J. William Boland, Esq.
          901 E. Cary Street
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-1059
          Facsimile: (202) 857-1737
          E-mail: cdavidson@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Charles William McIntyre, Esq.
          2001 K Street, N.W., Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 857-1742
          Facsimile: (202) 828-2967
          E-mail: cmcintyre@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Darren William Stanhouse, Esq.
          434 Fayetteville St., Suite 2600
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 755-6667
          E-mail: dstanhouse@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Neil A. Steiner, Esq.
          William K. Dodds, Esq.
          DECHERT, L.L.P.
          30 Rockefeller Plaza
          New York, NY 10112
          Telephone: (212) 698-3822
          Facsimile: (212) 698-3599
          E-mail: neil.steiner@dechert.com

               - and -

          James Hamilton, Esq.
          2020 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006-1806
          Telephone: (202) 373-6026
          Facsimile: (202) 373-6473
          E-mail: james.hamilton@bingham.com

               - and -

          David I. Ackerman, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          1301 K Street, NW, Suite 600 East Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-6400
          Facsimile: (202) 408-6399
          E-mail: david.ackerman@dentons.com

               - and -

          Cristen Sikes Rose, Esq.
          James D. Wareham, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          500 Eighth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 799-4532
          Facsimile: (202) 799-5000
          E-mail: cristen.rose@dlapiper.com

               - and -

          Julia Evans Guttman, Esq.
          BAKER BOTTS, LLP
          The Warner Building
          1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004-2400
          Telephone: (202) 639-7700
          Facsimile: (202) 585-1047
          E-mail: julia.guttman@bakerbotts.com

               - and -

          Lawrence S. Sher, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          1301 K Street, NW, Suite 1100-East Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 414-9200
          Facsimile: (202) 414-9299
          E-mail: lsher@reedsmith.com

               - and -

          David Smith, Esq.
          Dionna K. Litvin, Esq.
          Jonathan S. Liss, Esq.
          1600 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-7286
          Telephone: (215) 751-2190
          Facsimile: (215) 751-2205
          E-mail: dsmith@schnader.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Michael Stern, Esq.
          750 9th Street, NW, Suite 550
          Washington, DC 20001-4534
          Telephone: (202) 419-4202
          Facsimile: (202) 419-4252
          E-mail: jstern@schnader.com

               - and -

          Daryl Andrew Libow, Esq.
          1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20006-5866
          Telephone: (202) 956-7500
          E-mail: libowd@sullcrom.com

               - and -

          Michael T. Tomaino, Esq.
          Patrice A. Rouse, Esq.
          Richard H. Klapper, Esq.
          Jeremy C. Bates, Esq.
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558-4822
          E-mail: tomainom@sullcrom.com

Interested Party, Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,
is represented by:

          Jane M. Lyons, Esq.
          John Cuong Truong, Esq.
          Kenneth A. Adebonojo, Esq.
          555 Fourth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 252-2540
          Facsimile: (202) 252-2599
          E-mail: jane.lyons@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Joseph J. Aronica, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS
          505 Ninth Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 776-7824
          Facsimile: (202) 776-7801
          E-mail: jjaronica@duanemorris.com

Interested Party Deloitte & Touche LLP is represented by:

          Scott B. Schreiber, Esq.
          555 12th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 942-5672
          E-mail: scott.schreiber@aporter.com

Interested Party, the Executive Office of the President, is
represented by:

          Diane Kelleher, Esq.
          P.O. Box 883
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 514-4775
          Facsimile: (202) 616-8470
          E-mail: diane.kelleher@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Carl J. Nichols, Esq.
          1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 663-6226
          E-mail: carl.nichols@wilmerhale.com

Interested Parties, Gray Company, LLC, McSlarrow Consulting LLC,
Clark, Lytle & Geduldig, Johnson, Madigan, Peck, Boland & Stewart,
Inc., Ricchetti, Inc., Harold Ford Group, LLC, and Miller,
Hamilton, Snider & Odom, are represented by:

          Steven John Roman, Esq.
          1825 Eye Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 420-4759
          Facsimile: (202) 420-2201
          E-mail: romans@dicksteinshapiro.com

Interested Party Rust Consulting, Inc., is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Karlin, Esq.
          GRAY, PLANT, MOOTY
          600 New Hampshire Avenue, NW, Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 295-2207
          Facsimile: (202) 295-2257
          E-mail: jeffrey.karlin@gpmlaw.com

Interested Party, the Office of Inspector General of the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, is represented by:

          Jane M. Lyons, Esq.
          555 Fourth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 252-2540
          Facsimile: (202) 252-2599
          E-mail: jane.lyons@usdoj.gov

Interested Party Marks Paneth & Shron LLP is represented by:

          Kathleen Hall Warin, Esq.
          700 11th Street, NW, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 626-9089
          Facsimile: (202) 628-3606
          E-mail: kathleen.warin@wilsonelser.com

The Intervenor-Defendant Federal Housing Finance Agency is
represented by:

          David A. Felt, Esq.
          1700 G Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20552
          Telephone: (202) 414-3750

Movant, the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation, is represented

          Joshua S. Devore, Esq.
          1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: jdevore@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          One Liberty Square
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 542-8300
          Facsimile: (617) 542-1194
          E-mail: jblock@bermanesq.com

Movant CAFCO-Large Cap Funds, L.P. is represented by:

          Janet K. DeCosta, Esq.
          JANET K. DECOSTA, P.C.
          1825 Eye Street, NW, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 638-3344
          Facsimile: (202) 824-8126
          E-mail: jkdecosta@jkdcpc.com

               - and -

          Patrick Charles Smith, Esq.
          DEHAY & ELLISTON, L.L.P.
          36 South Charles Street, Suite 1300
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 783-7019
          Facsimile: (410) 783-7221
          E-mail: psmith@dehay.com

               - and -

          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: soddo@robbinsarroyo.com

               - and -

          Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
          Barbara L. Yates, Esq.
          Gerald L. Rutledge, Esq.
          ALFRED G. YATES, JR., PC
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Allegheny Building, Suite 519
          Pittsburgh, PA
          Telephone: (412) 391-5164
          E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com

               - and -

          Curtis V. Trinko, Esq.
          16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 490-9550
          E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com

Movant Cominvest Asset Management GmbH is represented by:

          Geoffrey J. Greeves, Esq.
          BAILEY LAW PC
          1155 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 663-9228
          E-mail: geoffrey.greeves@pillsburylaw.com

               - and -

          Darren J. Check, Esq.
          Richard S. Schiffrin, Esq.
          Sean M. Handler, Esq.
          Stuart L. Berman, Esq.
          Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          E-mail: dcheck@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Hal M. Hirsch, Esq.
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 801-9200

Movant Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP is represented

          Robert P. Parker, Esq.
          607 14th Street, NW, Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 783-6040
          Facsimile: (202) 783-6031
          E-mail: rparker@rfem.com

               - and -

          Alex Young K. Oh, Esq.
          2001 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 223-7334
          Facsimile: (202) 204-7375
          E-mail: aoh@paulweiss.com

               - and -

          Eryn Mead Starun, Esq.
          1615 L Street, NW, Suite 1300
          Washington, DC 20036-5694
          Telephone: (202) 223-7300

Movant, the Securities and Exchange Commission, is represented by:

          Kathleen A. Cody, Esq.
          100 F Street, NE
          Washington, DC 20549-9612
          Telephone: (202) 551-5126
          E-mail: codyk@sec.gov

Movant Center for Audit Quality is represented by:

          Joseph Ira Goldstein, Esq.
          Robert P. Howard, Jr., Esq.
          555 13th Street, NW, Suite 410 West
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 661-7013
          Facsimile: (202) 661-7047
          E-mail: jgoldstein@mmlawus.com

Movant Bernstein Liebhard LLP is represented by:

          Barry E. Cohen, Esq.
          Philip Thomas Inglima, Esq.
          1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004-2505
          Telephone: (202) 624-2997
          Facsimile: (202) 628-5116
          E-mail: bcohen@crowell.com

Movant Schertler & Onorato is represented by:

          Danny C. Onorato, Esq.
          Robert James Spagnoletti, Esq.
          575 7th Street, N.W., Suite 300 South
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 628-4199
          Facsimile: (202) 628-4177
          E-mail: donorato@schertlerlaw.com

The consolidated case is In Re Fannie Mae Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:04-cv-01639-RJL, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia (Washington, DC).

FIFTH THIRD: Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Class Action Appeal
Lawrence Hurley, writing for Reuters, reports that the U.S.
Supreme Court on Dec. 13 agreed to weigh whether Fifth Third
Bancorp can be sued for having put company stock in its employee
retirement plan ahead of the housing downturn.

The court will consider a lawsuit filed by two employees,
John Dudenhoeffer and Alireza Partovipanah, who alleged that the
bank and officers in charge, including its president and CEO,
Kevin Kabat, violated their fiduciary duties.

The plaintiffs said in the 2008 lawsuit that the bank, which they
claim took risks by issuing an increasing number of subprime
loans, should have made a determination about whether it was still
prudent to invest in company stock.  The bank would have known
that experts were warning that real estate delinquencies and
foreclosures were on the rise, the plaintiffs allege.

The bank's stock price subsequently declined 74 percent between
July 2007 and September 2009.

The legal question before the high court is whether the plaintiffs
were required to allege that the bank's fiduciary officers had
abused their discretion by continuing to put company stock in the
retirement plan.

The bank says the Employee Retirement Income Security Act presumes
that such investments are reasonable.

A federal judge in Cincinnati said the claims could not go forward
but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the case in a
September 2012 ruling.

The U.S. Justice Department urged the court to hear the case.

A ruling is expected before the end of June.

The case is Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, U.S. Supreme
Court, No. 12-751.

FRANCESCA'S HOLDING: Faces Securities Class Suit in New York
West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund and Taunton Contributory
Retirement System, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Francesca's Holding Corporation, John De
Merritt, Neill P. Davis, Gene Morphis, Kyong Gill, Mark Vendetti,
Greg Brenneman, Patricia A. Bender, Richard Emmett, Joseph
Scharfenberger, Richard Kunes, Marie Toulantis, Rich Zannino,
Theresa Backes, Kal Malik, Cynthia Thomassee, Sei Jin Alt, Randi
Sonenshein, Goldman, Sachs & Co., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC,
Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, Keybanc Capital Markets
Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, and Jefferies & Company, Inc.,
Case No. 1:13-cv-07804-RJS (S.D.N.Y., November 4, 2013) is a
federal securities class action lawsuit against Francesca's
Holding Corporation and certain of its officers and directors, and
the underwriters for violations of the securities laws.

Francesca's Holding Corporation is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Texas.  The Company is a specialty retailer
allegedly designed and merchandised to feel like independently-
owned, upscale boutiques selling a mix of women's apparel, jewelry
and accessories.  The Individual Defendants are directors and
officers of the Company.  The rest of the Defendants were
underwriters in the Company's public offerings.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Curtis Victor Trinko, Esq.
          C. William Margrabe, Esq.
          Jennifer E. Traystman, Esq.
          16 West 46th Street, Seventh Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 490-9550
          Facsimile: (212) 986-0158
          E-mail: ctrinko@gmail.com

               - and -

          Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
          Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE P.A.
          2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 394-3399
          Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
          E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com

GENERAL MILLS: Neighborhood Suffers Vapor Intrusion, Suit Says
Karl Ebert and Carol Krauze, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. General Mills, Inc., Case No. 0:13-
cv-03341-DWF-JJK (D. Minn., December 5, 2013), is brought on
behalf of owners of residential properties located in an area in
Minneapolis, Minnesota, that has a serious vapor intrusion problem
caused by contamination emanating from an industrial facility that
was previously owned and operated by General Mills, Inc.

The impacted area in Minneapolis, part of what is known as the
Como neighborhood, is a residential area comprised of family homes
as well as rental properties occupied by many students from the
nearby University of Minnesota, the Plaintiffs assert.  They
contend that the value of their homes and other properties
throughout the Class Area has been substantially diminished due to
the vapor intrusion contamination caused by GMI.

GMI is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Golden Valley,
Minnesota.  GMI owned and operated the Facility, located at 2010
East Hennepin Avenue in Minneapolis, from approximately 1930
through 1977.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Thieroff, Esq.
          SIEGEL BRILL, P.A.
          100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 1300
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 337-6100
          E-mail: MarkThieroff@siegelbrill.com

               - and -

          Shawn M. Collins, Esq.
          Edward J. Manzke, Esq.
          1770 N. Park Street, Suite 200
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630) 527-1595
          E-mail: shawn@collinslaw.com

               - and -

          Norman B. Berger, Esq.
          Michael D. Hayes, Esq.
          A Professional Corporation
          125 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 341-9400
          E-mail: NBerger@vblhc.com

GOOGLE INC: Recalls HP Chromebook 11 Power Supply/Charger
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Google Inc., of Mountain View, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of 145,000 units of HP Chromebook 11 power supply/charger.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The computer's charger can overheat and melt, posing fire and burn

Google has received nine reports of chargers overheating and
melting during use.  There is one report of a small burn to a
consumer and one report of minor property damage to a pillow from
an overheating charger.

The recall involves chargers that were sold with the HP Chromebook
11.  The charger is black with outlet pins, measures 1 3/4 inches
by 3/4 inches, and has a 6-foot long cord with a micro-USB
connector on the end.  The model number of the charger is MU15-
N1052-A00S, which is stamped on the face of the battery charger
that has the outlet pins.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Best
Buy stores nationwide and online at Amazon.com, bestbuy.com,
Google Play at play.google.com, and HP Shopping at shopping.hp.com
from October 2013 through November 2013 and included with the
Chromebook 11 which sold for about $280.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled charger for
the HP Chromebook 11 and contact Google for a free replacement

HERBS UNLIMITED: Class Seeks Unpaid Overtime and Minimum Wages
Omar Valdes and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(B) v. Herbs Unlimited, Inc., d/b/a Rock Garden South, Inc. and
Jeff Bruff, Case No. 1:13-cv-23984-DLG (S.D. Fla., November 4,
2013), brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, contends
that the Defendants have employed several other similarly situated
employees like him, who have not been paid overtime and minimum
wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Herbs Unlimited, Inc., d/b/a Rock Garden South, Inc. is a
corporation that regularly transacts business within Dade County.
The Company was the FLSA employer for the Plaintiff's respective
period of employment.  Jeff Bruff is a corporate officer, owner or
manager of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865-6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM

HUNTINGTON BANK: Arab American Group Sues Over Closed Accounts
The Arab American News reports that after receiving hundreds of
calls from Arab Americans about bank account closures, the Arab
American Civil Rights League is litigating a class-action lawsuit
filed against Huntington Bank on July 11, 2013.  Since March of
this year, hundreds of complainants have called the bank closure
hotline that was set up after members of the community began
receiving letters that their bank accounts were being closed with
no further explanation.

ACRL would like to remind the community that they are still
addressing this issue and the community hotline remains available
for new complaints.  If anyone has been affected by this illegal
and discriminatory practice by the banks, please call the
organization's hotline at 313-633-0890 or office at 313-633-0231.

The ACRL is still accepting complaints related to any banking
institutions that engaged in this practice.

KAISER PERMANENTE: Did HIV Tests Without Consent, Class Claims
Barbara Wallace at Courthouse News Service reports that Kaiser
Permanente did routine HIV screening on members between the ages
of 50 and 65, without telling them, and without offering them an
opportunity to "opt out," according to a class action lawsuit
filed in United States District Court for the District of Oregon,
Portland Division.

Barbara Kelley and William Pearse sued on behalf of themselves and
all persons similarly situated, for unfair trade practice, breach
of privacy and fraud.

According to the complaint, Kaiser's policy, as of April 11, 2013,
has been to conduct Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) testing for
members between the ages of 50 and 65 as part of their routine
care.  However, "From on or about April 11, 2013, and until on or
about May 5, 2013, defendants did not communicate this new
protocol to an estimated 6500 members," Kelley and Pearse allege.
"Defendants were obligated to allow members the option of 'opting
out' of HIV testing," but that did not happen, Kelley and Pearse
say.  They claim they were tested without their knowledge or
consent "on or about April 19, 2013."

According to the complaint, Kaiser and its agents, employees and
representatives "caused an estimated 6500 members, including
plaintiffs Kelley and Pearse, to be tested for HIV without consent
and unbeknown to the members."  Kelley and Pearse say they were
not informed until May, after they had been tested.

Kaiser also did not provide its members with a written explanation
of "what an HIV test is; behaviors that place a person at risk for
HIV infection; the potential risks of HIV testing; and/or the
limitations on disclosure or use of testing results obtained."

"Plaintiffs' autonomy, privacy, and confidentiality were violated
by defendants and they have experienced a loss of trust in Kaiser
defendants as a result of this unauthorized and unconsented to HIV
testing," the complaint states.

A June 2004 policy statement on HIV testing issued by the World
Health Organization (WHO) and the Joint United Nations Programme
on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), reads in part:

"The conditions of the '3 Cs', advocated since the HIV test became
available in 1985, continue to be underpinning principles for the
conduct of testing of individuals.  Such testing of individuals
must: 1) be confidential; 2) be accompanied by counseling; and 3)
only be conducted with informed consent, meaning that it is both
informed and voluntary."

This is not the first such case against Kaiser.  Last month,
Courthouse News reported a class action on the same issue, filed
in Clark County (Wash.) Superior Court on Oct. 28.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brad J. Moore, Esq.
          200 Second Ave. W.
          Seattle, WA 98119
          Telephone: (206) 448-1777
          E-mail: brad@stritmatter.com

               - and -

          Mark E. Griffin, Esq.
          Portland, OR 97232
          Telephone: (503) 224-2348
          E-mail: mark@markgriffin.com

The case is Kelley, et al. v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the
Northwest, et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-02120-BR, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Oregon (Portland).

LINKEDIN CORP: Says Users Allowed Siphoning of E-mail Contacts
LinkedIn urged a judge to toss claims that it sucked up users'
e-mail contacts and spammed them, saying members gave the
business-networking site permission to do so and were perhaps
"embarrassed" by it later, reports Annie Youderian, writing for
Courthouse News Service.

The company faces a federal class action in San Francisco accusing
it of hacking into users' external email accounts and extracting
email addresses, which it then barrages with promotional spam.

Users accused the company of violating California laws on
publicity rights and unfair competition, the Stored Communications
Act, the Wiretap Act and state penal code.

In a motion to dismiss filed December 6, 2013, LinkedIn said
"every one of these claims is groundless as a matter of law and
should be dismissed."

It claims users consented to the challenged actions by using
LinkedIn's "Add Connections" tool, which allows members to import
email addresses from external accounts.

"Plaintiffs acknowledge that LinkedIn members must click through a
series of permission screens when using Add Connections," LinkedIn
says.  "Any reasonably prudent Internet user who reviewed these
screens would understand that, by clicking buttons labeled 'Allow'
and 'Add Connections,' they were consenting to the challenged

Though users claimed these permission screens were deceptive,
LinkedIn claims the lead plaintiffs failed to specify how.

"[T]hey do not allege what screens they saw, how they were
supposedly deceived by the screens, and what actions they took in
reliance on them," the motion states.

LinkedIn further argued that the plaintiffs lack standing or
failed to sufficiently state their claims under California's laws
on publicity rights and unfair competition, and its penal code.

The false accusation that LinkedIn "hacked into" users' emails is
not only "conclusory and baseless," but also "highly prejudicial,"
the company claims.

"Whether class members misunderstood Add Connections permission
screens, or were embarrassed by a connection invitation, are
individualized issues that preclude class treatment of plaintiffs'
claims," the company argues.

It urged U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose to dismiss the
lawsuit and strike the class allegations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Larry C. Russ, Esq.
          Dorian Seawind Berger, Esq.
          Daniel Paul Hipskind, Esq.
          12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 826-7474
          Facsimile: (310) 826-6991
          E-mail: lruss@raklaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel Paul Hipskind, Esq.
          1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 203-7035
          E-mail: dhipskind@irell.com

LinkedIn Corporation is represented by:

          Jerome Cary Roth, Esq.
          Rosemarie Theresa Ring, Esq.
          560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2907
          Telephone: (415) 512-4000
          Facsimile: (415) 512-4077
          E-mail: Jerome.Roth@mto.com

The case is Perkins, et al. v. LinkedIn Corporation, Case No.
5:13-cv-04303-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Jose).

MERACORD LLC: Charges Exorbitant and Abusive Fees, Customer Says
Cheryl Anderson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Meracord LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
and Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, as a surety for:
Meracord LLC, Case No. 2:13-cv-02470-NVW (D. Ariz., December 3,
2013) accuses Meracord, formerly known as NoteWorld, of charging
"exorbitant and abusive" fees in connection with its debt-relief
services that were full of misrepresentations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Alan LaVoy, Esq.
          TIFFANY & BOSCO PA
          Camelback Esplanade II
          2525 E Camelback Rd., 3rd Floor
          Phoenix, AZ 85016-9239
          Telephone: (602) 953-2400
          E-mail: cal@tblaw.com

MIRAGE FASHIONS: Recalls Yoki Girls Faux Leather Jackets
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Mirage Fashions of NY LLC, announced a voluntary recall of about
758 Yoki Girls Faux Leather Jackets with Drawstrings.  Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer

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

There were no incidents that were reported.

The recall involves girl's hooded faux leather jackets with a
zipper front closure and bearing a Yoki Girls label at the neck.
They were sold in girl's sizes 7 through 16.  The jacket comes in
black or charcoal, with drawstrings through the neck area.  The
coats have snap button pockets on each side and a zippered pocket
on the top left chest area.  Both the black and charcoal colored
jackets have a grey hood.  Style number JK2503G is on the product
care label located on the lower left inside seam.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Burlington Coat Factory stores nationwide January
2012 through August 2013 for about $20.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
garment to eliminate the hazard or return the garment to Mirage
Fashions for a full refund.

MONSANTO CO: "Delta" Suit Transferred to District of Kansas
The class action lawsuit captioned Delta AG Group, LLC, on Behalf
of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Monsanto Company,
Case No. 4:13-cv-01371, was transferred on November 4, 2013, from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.  The Kansas
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:13-cv-02567-KHV-KMH to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from Monsanto's alleged failure, either by
itself or through its agents, to adequately warn wheat farmers of
the necessary precautions and limitations to prevent genetically-
modified ("GM") wheat from entering the food chains.  Delta also
asserts, among other things, that Monsanto's growing and other
dissemination of GM wheat with knowledge that the GM wheat was not
approved for human consumption yet was likely to contaminate non-
genetically manufactured wheat through cross-pollination or other

Delta Agriculture & Company, a Louisiana domiciled limited
liability company, owns and operates a family farming entity
headquartered in Mer Rouge, Louisiana.  The Plaintiff is a wheat
farmer, who has commercially cultivated or harvest non-genetically
modified wheat, including the planting and growing of 1,250 acres
of wheat in the 2012/2013 growing season.

Monsanto Company is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Saint
Louis, Missouri.  Monsanto was originally founded in 1901 by John
F. Queeny and soon thereafter began producing the artificial
sweetener saccharin.  By 1945 the original Monsanto Company had
moved on to producing agricultural chemicals and eventually went
on to form an agricultural division.  Monsanto actively engages in
the business of developing, manufacturing, licensing, and selling
of agricultural chemicals, seeds, products, and biotechnology
throughout the United States.  Monsanto developed, manufactured
and field tested genetically modified wheat seeds designed to be
resistant to the herbicide RoundUp(R).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Weldon N. Johnson, Esq.
          10 Moselle, Suite 100
          Florissant, MO 63031
          Telephone: (314) 479-4948
          Facsimile: (314) 558-2684
          E-mail: WeldonJohnson@att.net

               - and -

          Patrick W. Pendley, Esq.
          Nicholas R. Rockforte, Esq.
          Jessica H. Perez, Esq.
          24110 Eden Street
          Plaquemine, LA
          Telephone: (225) 687-6396
          Facsimile: (225) 687-6398
          E-mail: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com

               - and -

          Timothy Keller, Esq.
          300 North Monroe
          Marion, IL 62959
          Telephone: (618) 998-9988
          Facsimile: (618) 993-2565
          E-mail: Tkeller@quitamlaw.org

Monsanto Company is represented by:

          Christopher M. Hohn, Esq.
          One US Bank Plaza
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 552-6159
          Facsimile: (314) 552-7159
          E-mail: chohn@thompsoncoburn.com

MONSANTO CO: Faces "Hyer" Suit Over Genetically Engineered Wheat
Neil Hyer and Michelle Hyer, individually, and on behalf of those
similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 2:13-cv-02569-
KHV-KMH (D. Kan., November 4, 2013) is brought on behalf of
thousands of wheat farmers throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs, who are wheat farmers in Texas County, Oklahoma,
contend that they have lost money and their livelihood is now at
significant risk as a result of Monsanto's negligence or gross
negligence.  They allege that through the fault of Monsanto, its
genetically engineered wheat has been released into the
nongenetically modified wheat population.

Monsanto is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Saint Louis,
Missouri.  Monsanto is an agricultural company in the business of
developing, manufacturing, licensing and selling agricultural
chemicals, other agricultural products and agricultural

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bryan L. Wright, Esq.
          Douglas D. Dale, Esq.
          WRIGHT & DALE
          P.O. Box 591
          Guymon, OK 73942
          Telephone: (580) 338-6591
          Facsimile: (580) 338-8244
          E-mail: blwlaw@ptsi.net

               - and -

          Stephen D. Susman, Esq.
          560 Lexington Avenue, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10022-6828
          Telephone: (212) 336-8330
          Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
          E-mail: ssusman@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Warren T. Burns, Esq.
          Terrell W. Oxford, Esq.
          Daniel H. Charest, Esq.
          901 Main Street, Suite 5100
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 754-1900
          Facsimile: (214) 754-1933
          E-mail: wburns@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Isaac L. Diel, Esq.
          James C. Dodge, Esq.
          Kerry E. McQueen, Esq.
          SHARP McQUEEN, P.A.
          6900 College Blvd., Suite 285
          Overland Park, KS 66211
          Telephone: (913) 661-9931
          Facsimile: (913) 422-0307
          E-mail: idiel@sharpmcqueen.com

               - and -

          W. Greg Wright, Esq.
          Charles T. Schimmel, Esq.
          6900 College Blvd., Suite 285
          Overland Park, KS 66211
          Telephone: (913) 534-8534
          Facsimile: (913) 534-8536
          E-mail: greg@wrightschimmel.com

               - and -

          Gerald E. Meunier, Esq.
          2800 Energy Centre
          1100 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Telephone: (504) 521-7643
          Facsimile: (504) 528-9973
          E-mail: gmeunier@gainsben.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Esq.
          600 B. Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 398-4340
          E-mail: bgralewski@kmllp.com

NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA: Sued Over Unlawful Teen Arrests
Wendy Carlisle, writing for ABC Radio National, reports a class
action in the Supreme Court will look at whether NSW police
wrongfully arrested and detained a number of teens due to a long
standing glitch in the NSW Police computer system.  Lawyers say
hundreds more might also have been 'kidnapped' but NSW police have
declined to reveal the full extent of the problem.

In September the Supreme Court agreed to consider a class action
brought in NSW against police for wrongfully arresting and locking
up a number of young people most of them indigenous and

Lawyers from Maurice Blackburn and the Public Interest Advocacy
Centre and law believe hundreds of young people may have been
unlawfully arrested because of outdated information on the state's
police computer system.

One of them, Einpwy Amom, was wrongfully arrested and detained
three times in two weeks by the same police officer.

Mr. Amom came to Australia as a refugee from war-torn Sudan with
his mother and two siblings. In 2010 he was on bail, but his
curfew had been lifted.

The ABC is prevented from reporting his original offence by the
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), but it was not
sufficiently serious for him to be sent to juvenile detention.

The day after his curfew was lifted in court, Mr. Amom was in
Blacktown with his cousins when he was approached by a detective,
and later several other police officers.

"They came up to me they were like, 'Einpwy do you have any
curfew?'," Mr. Amom said.

"We went to the police station and from there they typed up my
name and everything and he checked it and in the computer it says
you've got curfew."

Mr. Amom was sent downstairs to the police cell, and from there he
was transferred to a juvenile detention centre overnight.  His
mother, Ashol Amom, had no idea where her son was.

The next morning he was brought before the court, where the judge
promptly agreed that he did not have a curfew, and dismissed him.

Six days later, he was back hanging out with his friends.

"I was kicking back near the taxi rank again, the same police
officer, one of them that was there that arrested me, he is like,
'Einpwy what are you doing? You got curfew?' And I am saying no I
don't.  And he said you do, and then boom, they arrested me

He was taken back to the police station, charged and transferred
to a Cobham juvenile detention centre overnight, and then brought
before the court.

"The second time when I went to court, the judge was a lady, she
was like, 'Why are you here? We're sorry what happened, you
shouldn't even be here.'  She even said sorry.  I said it's all
right Your Honour, and I got out on bail," said Mr. Amom.

A week later he was back at his usual hangout when a police
officer approached him.

"It was the same guy too, the same guy three times.  And he was
like 'Einpwy what are you doing?' I was like f**k man, you know? I
was angry and I knew the same routine what they were gonna do.
And boom, they handcuffed me and [took me] to the police station,
they searched me at the cells and then I went to Cobham again."

This was the third wrongful arrest and imprisonment by police of
Mr. Amom in less than two weeks.

His mother could not understand why the police were repeatedly
arresting and locking up her son.

Michelle Cohen, a senior solicitor from the Public Interest
Advocacy Centre (PIAC), spoke with Ms. Amom about her son's case,
which was referred to the PIAC by the Children's Legal Service.

Ms. Cohen had the job of explaining to Ms. Amom how this terrible
mistake had happened.

"It's really difficult to say it's because the computer systems
are out of date and even though they're wrongly arrested the first
time, they didn't think to correct the problem the second and
third time so it kept on happening because of incorrect
information," said Ms Cohen.

The most difficult part for the family to understand was how the
same police officers could repeatedly arrest Mr. Amom.

"The second time when it happened he should have known that Einpwy
wasn't on bail or done some serious checks because he knew what
had happened previously," said Ms Cohen.

Mr. Amom's repeated wrongful arrests have had a profound impact on
the family.  His mother believes race and color have played a part
in the incidents, while Mr. Amom no longer feels safe in his

"I feel like I'm not in a safe place, because when the police hate
the people how can you stay and who will help you?"

NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Moose Class Action Trial Set for April
VOCM reports that the provincial government has been granted a
delay in the moose-vehicle class action.  The trial will now begin
on April 1st, and not in January as was originally scheduled.
Ches Crosbie, who is spearheading the suit, says the province
wanted the delay to get its defense together and retain expert
reports.  Mr. Crosbie says the delay is a minor frustration.

Mr. Crosbie says the government got what it wanted, a chance to go
out and find new experts and a delay, but the day of reckoning is
inevitably coming.

Justice Marshall recently denied government's attempt to limit the
number of people able to be included in the lawsuit.  Justice
Marshall ruled on Dec. 10 that the claims of all Moose Class
Action members hospitalized after January of 2001 can go to trial.

OSI SYSTEMS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in California
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Dec. 12
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against OSI
Systems, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Central District of
California, and docketed under 13-cv-9171-MWF, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of OSI Systems between January 24,
2012 and December 6, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This class action
seeks to recover damages against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors as a result of alleged violations of the
federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated

If you are a shareholder who purchased OSI Systems securities
during the Class Period, you have until February 10, 2014 to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy
of the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

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

OSI Systems produces medical monitoring and anesthesia systems;
security and inspection systems; and lasers, optics, and
optoelectronic components.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company manipulated
operational test of its Advanced Imaging Technology by selectively
picking the best sensors, causing the test not to be
representative of the scanners already deployed at airports; (ii)
the Company's products raised strong privacy concerns and were
subject to disqualification for use in airport security
checkpoints; (iii) the Company manufactured its products with
parts that directly violated contracts with the TSA, thereby
risking cancellation of the contracts; and, (iv) as a result of
the above, the Company's financial statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On November 14, 2012, after the market closed, various news
sources, including Bloomberg News reported that a key congressman
disclosed the Company may have committed fraud by "knowingly
manipulating" the results of an operational test in connection
with the Company's Advanced Imaging Technology ("AIT"), otherwise
commonly known as body scanners.  Moreover, Bloomberg News cited
to an executive vice president of the Company who revealed that
its Rapiscan unit had received a so-called "show cause" letter
from the Transportation Security Administration ("TSA") on
November 9, 2012, seeking detailed information about the testing
of technology used in its body scanners.  On this news, OSI
Systems shares declined $21.40 per share or 28%, to close at
$54.89 per share on November 15, 2012.

On January 22, 2013, the TSA reported that it had ended its
contract with the Company, and that OSI Systems would have to bear
the costs of removing all Rapiscan full body scanners from
airports, because TSA administrators concluded the company could
not meet a congressional deadline to produce generic passenger
images.  On this news, the Company's shares fell $14.03 per share
to $57.33, a one day decline of over 19%.

Thereafter, on December 6, 2013, the United States Transportation
Security Administration canceled a $60 million contract for the
company's carry-on baggage screening equipment, with the
possibility of a future ban on contracting with the Department of
Homeland Security.  The reason for the canceled contract and
future ban is that a part in the company's baggage scanning
machine was manufactured in China, violating TSA security
policies.  On this news, the Company's shares fell $21.69 per
share to $43.63, a decline of over 33% on December 6, 2013.

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

PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of Autism Coverage Class Action
Christopher David Gray, writing for The Lund Report, reports that
Providence Health Plan may be making its last stand against paying
for autism treatment as the defendant in a lawsuit that played out
in the federal district court of Oregon.

In its latest volley, Providence asked Judge Michael H. Simon on
Dec. 11 to deny a class-action status to plaintiffs suing the
insurer for its denial of coverage.  A class-action would allow
the plaintiffs' lawyers to represent all Oregon Providence members
with autism spectrum disorder.  If the plaintiffs win a class-
action, Providence could be forced to pay for applied behavior
analysis treatment cases for many more children than the two
identified in the lawsuit.

The Catholic health insurance company is taking an increasingly
lonely and losing stand against paying for this costly and
intensive treatment.  Two other Oregon insurers cover the
treatment and a new law will bring all of them on board by 2016.
Applied behavior analysis can mean the difference between regular
school and a life of special education for some children with

Kaiser Permanente now explicitly offers applied behavior analysis
treatment after it lost a series of appeals with the Oregon
Insurance Division, and PacificSource stopped fighting such claims
after it lost a lawsuit over coverage.

Providence Health Plan, part of the Catholic non-profit ministry
Providence Health & Services, has also lost twice before on
appeals in front of an independent review board.  An independent
medical doctor twice rejected Providence's assertion that the
therapy was experimental and ordered it to pay for each child's

The new Oregon law requires applied behavior analysis coverage by
2016 for private health insurance plans, but public employees
qualify in 2015.  Since Providence administers the primary health
insurance plans for the Public Employees Benefit Board, it intends
to voluntarily offer autism coverage for all its members on
Jan. 1, 2015, according to its attorney, William Gary.

But Providence is clearly not ready to pay for the treatment
today.  And, in the insurance company's latest gambit, it has
denied two more claims for applied behavior analysis on the novel
argument that the insurer simply doesn't provide care for
developmental disabilities -- the issue now before the federal

Brenna Legaard, the mother of one of the children whom Providence
has refused to provide treatment, took her case to federal court
saying the insurer's decision violates the federal Mental Health
Parity Act as well as the federal employer-based insurance law,
ERISA.  An attorney herself, her family has Providence coverage
through the Multnomah Bar Association.

Other insurance companies, such as Regence BlueCross BlueShield,
have denied applied behavior analysis therapy on the assertion
that the treatment is experimental -- an allegation the faith-
based Providence has also made, but Providence is alone in its
latest argument.

If Providence loses the case, it could still deny coverage to
children on the experimental premise, but a doctor could overrule
that decision and order treatment as in the two earlier cases.
Ms. Legaard said the insurer had waived this option in the case of
her son and the other child named in the suit.

In his legal brief on behalf of Providence, attorney Arden Olsen
wrote that Providence chose its current tactic because the insurer
has no legal recourse if an independent review board physician
rules against them on experimental grounds.  The argument that
Providence does not cover developmental disabilities is a legal
question and not a medical question and gives them their day in

Oregon law does allow insurers to refuse coverage for many
developmental disabilities, such as tutors and special education.
But the law requires coverage for the treatment of autism spectrum
disorder, as Providence itself noted in its 2011 rate filing with
the Oregon Insurance Division:

"Providence believes we are able to exclude treatment for
developmental and learning disabilities, other than autism
spectrum disorders, under the mental health coverage of our plan
because the statutory definition of mental health, OAR 836-053-
1404, allows for such exclusion."

The merits of the case will be debated next year.  Judge Simon
only considered whether to grant the plaintiffs a class-action
case on Dec. 11.

The Providence attorneys argued that the plaintiffs were asking to
represent far too many people in their suit, since their requested
class, or affected group, includes autistic adults who have not
been prescribed applied behavior analysis therapy and would likely
never receive the treatment, since it is used primarily with
children.  They also said that including anonymous plan members
would cause those people to lose legal options if the plaintiffs
lose a class-action case on their behalf, but Simon seemed to
dismiss this second argument.

"I don't see how they are in any way harmed if I grant the class
status, regardless of how I rule on the merits," said Judge Simon,
whom President Obama appointed to the Oregon federal district
court in 2011.  He is the husband of Portland Congresswoman
Suzanne Bonamici.

Keith Dubanevich, the attorney for the autism advocates, argued
that Providence could continue to deny claims for other children
with autism if the class-action status is not granted, even if his
clients win their case.

At the end of the hearing, Simon said he plans to rule on whether
the case will proceed as a class action by Christmas.

QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA: Meeting Set in Flood Class Action
Kieran Banks, writing for Ipswich Queensland Times, reported that
a public meeting was scheduled last week in Ipswich over the
latest updates on the class action against the Queensland

Flood class action litigators Maurice Blackburn Lawyers were to
update victims from the 2011 flood on the legal case as the
February 28 deadline for joining edges closer.

The meetings were to be hosted by Maurice Blackburn principal
Damian Scattini and Bentham IMF's John Walker and Andrew Charles
at the Metro International Hotel, South St, from 7:00 p.m.

Among the victims are Tony Prentice, owner of the Weeroona Hotel
in Goodna which was completely inundated by Brisbane River flood
waters.  He has hoped the meeting will give some indication of the
timeframe litigators expect the class action to take.

Mr. Prentice was unable to get flood insurance because the pub
flooded in the 1974 flood.

Like many flood victims, he hopes the class action will deliver
the financial compensation they have been seeking since rebuilding
their lives.

Although a makeshift bar and drive-through was operating two weeks
after flood waters receded, it took two years and $1.5 million to
repair the hotel.

Mr. Prentice said he joined the class action because he believed
the flood water should not have reached his property.

"I'm looking forward to the meeting.  I believe the floods should
never have happened," he said.

He bought the pub in 1996 after recalling a conversation with
former Queensland Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen after the '74 flood,
who assured him Wivenhoe Dam would prevent a flood of that size
occurring again.

"It's a pretty hard ask when you're not covered by insurance," he

"The biggest problem is being able to survive with your cash flow,
but everywhere we turned we had support."

A legal spokesperson said the meeting would play an important role
in helping to update registrants on the next steps regarding the
class action.  It would also ensure residents and businesses have
a final opportunity to meet in person with the legal team.  The
meeting would be the first since plans for the class action were
first announced.

REXNORD CORP: Accord in Suit Over Zurn Brass Fittings Approved
The settlement of a suit filed against Rexnord Corporation's
subsidiaries over Zurn brass fittings received final court
approval in February 2013, according to the company's Oct. 28,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2013.

The Company's subsidiaries, Zurn PEX, Inc. and Zurn Industries,
LLC, were named as defendants in a number of individual and class
action lawsuits in various United States courts. The plaintiffs in
these suits claimed damages due to the alleged failure or
anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on the PEX plumbing
systems in homes and other structures.

In July 2012, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle the liability underlying this litigation.  The settlement
is designed to resolve, on a national basis, the Company's overall
exposure for both known and unknown claims related to the alleged
failure or anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on PEX
plumbing systems, subject to the right of eligible class members
to opt-out of the settlement and pursue their claims

The settlement utilizes a seven year claims fund, which is capped
at $20 million, and is funded in installments over the seven year
period based on claim activity and minimum funding criteria.  The
settlement also covers class action plaintiffs' attorneys' fees
and expenses totaling $8.5 million, which was paid in the first
quarter of fiscal 2014.

Historically, the Company's insurance carrier had funded the
Company's defense in the above referenced proceedings. The
Company, however, reached a settlement agreement with its insurer,
whereby the insurer paid the Company a lump sum in exchange for a
release of future exposure related to this liability.

The Company has recorded a reserve related to this brass fittings
liability, which takes into account, in pertinent part, the
insurance carrier contribution, as well as exposure from the
claims fund, opt-outs and the waiver of future insurance coverage.

SANOFI: Ryan & Maniskas Files Class Action in New York
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP on Dec. 12 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Sanofi
contingent value rights between March 6, 2012 and November 7,
2013, inclusive.

For more information regarding this class action suit, please
contact Ryan & Maniskas, LLP (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-
free at (877) 316-3218 or by email at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or
visit: http://www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/gcvrz

Sanofi is a global pharmaceutical group engaged in the research,
development, manufacture and marketing of healthcare products.
Many of the Company's products are regulated by the United States
Food and Drug Administration, which oversees the Company's
compliance with applicable rules and regulates the Company's
covered products such as vaccines and pharmaceuticals.

On or around February 16, 2011, Sanofi signed an agreement to
acquire Genzyme Corporation and substantially all of Genzyme's
assets.  One of the most important drugs in development by Genzyme
at the time of the acquisition was Lemtrada, a treatment for
multiple sclerosis.  Sanofi (and Genzyme as its subsidiary)
strongly touted the efficacy and safety of Lemtrada, by directing
investors' attention to two pivotal studies which the Company
claimed demonstrated the safety and efficacy of Lemtrada.  In
connection with the Genzyme acquisition, Sanofi agreed to amend
the outstanding tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding
shares of common stock of Genzyme in order to increase the price
per share from $69.00 to $74.00 in cash plus one CVR to be issued
by Sanofi, subject to and in accordance with a CVR Agreement, per
Genzyme Share.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose the following:  (a) that Defendants had
materially misrepresented the safety and efficacy of Lemtrada in
statements to investors and the public; (b) that the design of the
Lemtrada 323 and 324 trials had been materially misrepresented to
investors and the public, with Defendants failing to disclose that
the trials contained high levels of placebo effect and observer
bias, which tainted the results and thereby lowered the likelihood
of Lemtrada approval by the FDA; (c) that the Company lacked
adequate internal controls; and (d) that as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive
statements about Lemtrada and its prospects.

On November 8, 2013, the FDA Advisory Committee on Peripheral and
Central Nervous System Drugs issued a briefing report in advance
of its November 13, 2013 hearing.  The Briefing Report sharply
criticized the Company's submission to the FDA, and found that
"significant concerns exist regarding the safety profile of
alemtuzumab [Lemtrada] and the adequacy of the efficacy data."  On
this news, Sanofi's CVRs declined $1.23 per share, or nearly 62%,
to close at $0.77 per share on November 8, 2013 on volume of over
30 million shares.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than February
10, 2014, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of
the class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Ryan & Maniskas,
LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.

For more information about the case or to participate online,
please visit: http://www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/gcvrzor contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218, or by
e-mail at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com

For more information about class action cases in general or to
learn more about Ryan & Maniskas, LLP, please visit our website:

Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is a national shareholder litigation firm.
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to protecting the interests of
individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in
state and federal courts nationwide.

SEACOR HOLDINGS: No Writ of Certiorari Filed in "Robin Case"
Claimants in the suit Terry G. Robin, et al. v. Seacor Marine,
L.L.C., et al., No. 2:10-CV-01986 (E.D. La.) (the "Robin Case")
have not petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of
certiorari in relation to the dismissal of the case and their
deadline to do so has expired, according to SEACOR Holdings Inc.'s
Oct. 28, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On July 14, 2010, a group of individuals and entities purporting
to represent a class commenced a civil action in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Terry G. Robin, et
al. v. Seacor Marine, L.L.C., et al., No. 2:10-CV-01986 (E.D. La.)
(the "Robin Case"), in which they asserted that support vessels,
including vessels owned by the Company, responding to the
explosion and resulting fire that occurred aboard the semi-
submersible drilling rig, the Deepwater Horizon, were negligent in
their efforts to save lives and put out the fire and contributed
to the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon and subsequent oil spill.
The action was part of the overall multi-district litigation, In
re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon", MDL No. 2179
("MDL"). The complaint sought compensatory, punitive, exemplary,
and other damages. In response to this lawsuit, the Company filed
petitions seeking exoneration from, or limitation of liability in
relation to, any actions that may have been taken by vessels owned
by the Company to extinguish the fire. On June 8, 2011, the
Company moved to dismiss these claims (with the exception of one
claim filed by a Company employee) on various legal grounds. On
October 12, 2011, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss in its entirety, dismissing with prejudice all claims that
had been filed against the Company in the limitation actions (with
the exception of one claim filed by a Company employee that was
not subject to the motion to dismiss).

The Court entered final judgments in favor of the Company in the
Robin Case and each of the limitation actions on November 21,
2011. On December 12, 2011, the claimants appealed each of those
judgments to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
("Fifth Circuit"). The claimants' opening brief was submitted on
May 7, 2012, and the claimants filed a reply brief on June 1,
2012. Oral argument was not requested by the Fifth Circuit. On
December 13, 2012, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the
district court.

SEACOR HOLDNGS: "Wunstell" Action Continues in Louisiana Court
The suit John Wunstell, Jr. and Kelly Blanchard v. BP, et al., No.
2010-7437 (Division K) (the "Wunstell Action") continues before
the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in the State of
Louisiana, according to SEACOR Holdings Inc.'s Oct. 28, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On July 20, 2010, two individuals purporting to represent a class
commenced a civil action in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana, John Wunstell, Jr.
and Kelly Blanchard v. BP, et al., No. 2010-7437 (Division K) (the
"Wunstell Action"), in which they assert, among other theories,
that Mr. Wunstell suffered injuries as a result of his exposure to
certain noxious fumes and chemicals in connection with the
provision of remediation, containment and response services by
O'Brien's Response Management Inc. ("ORM"), a subsidiary of the
Company prior to the ORM Transaction (as defined in the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012).
The action now is part of the overall MDL. The complaint also
seeks to establish a "class-wide court-supervised medical
monitoring program" for all individuals "participating in BP's
Deepwater Horizon Vessels of Opportunity Program and/or Horizon
Response Program" who allegedly experienced injuries similar to
those of Mr. Wunstell.

The Company believes this lawsuit has no merit and will continue
to vigorously defend the action and pursuant to contractual
agreements with the responsible party, the responsible party has
agreed, subject to certain potential limitations, to indemnify and
defend ORM in connection with the Wunstell Action and claims
asserted in the MDL. Although the Company is unable to estimate
the potential exposure, if any, resulting from this matter, the
Company does not expect it will have a material effect on the
Company's consolidated financial position or its results of

SEACOR HOLDINGS: No Decision Yet in Summary Motions by ORM, NRC
Motions by O'Brien's Response Management Inc. (ORM) and National
Response Corporation ("NRC") for summary judgment in a suit
concerning the use of dispersants in clean up activities were
argued on July 13, 2012 and are still pending decision, according
to SEACOR Holdings Inc.'s Oct. 28, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

On December 15, 2010, O'Brien's Response Management Inc. (ORM) and
National Response Corporation ("NRC"), subsidiaries of the Company
prior to the ORM Transaction and SES Business Transaction (as
defined in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2012), respectively, were named as defendants
in one of the several consolidated "master complaints" that have
been filed in the overall MDL. The master complaint naming ORM and
NRC asserts various claims on behalf of a putative class against
multiple defendants concerning the clean-up activities generally,
and the use of dispersants specifically. By court order, the
Wunstell Action has been stayed as a result of the filing of the
referenced master complaint. The Company believes that the claims
asserted against ORM and NRC in the master complaint have no merit
and on February 28, 2011, ORM and NRC moved to dismiss all claims
against them in the master complaint on legal grounds. On
September 30, 2011, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss that ORM and NRC had filed (an amended
decision was issued on October 4, 2011 that corrected several
grammatical errors and non-substantive oversights in the original

Although the Court refused to dismiss the referenced master
complaint in its entirety at that time, the Court did recognize
the validity of the "derivative immunity" and "implied preemption"
arguments that ORM and NRC advanced and directed ORM and NRC to
(i) conduct limited discovery to develop evidence to support those
arguments and (ii) then re-assert the arguments.

The Court did, however, dismiss all state-law claims and certain
other claims that had been asserted in the referenced master
complaint, and dismissed the claims of all plaintiffs that have
failed to allege a legally-sufficient injury. A schedule for
limited discovery and motion practice was established by the Court
and, in accordance with that schedule, ORM and NRC filed for
summary judgment re-asserting their derivative immunity and
implied preemption arguments on May 18, 2012. Those motions were
argued on July 13, 2012 and are still pending decision. In
addition to the indemnity provided to ORM, pursuant to contractual
agreements with the responsible party, the responsible party has
agreed, subject to certain potential limitations, to indemnify and
defend ORM and NRC in connection with these claims in the MDL.
Although the Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure,
if any, resulting from this matter, the Company does not expect it
will have a material effect on the Company's consolidated
financial position or its results of operations.

SEACOR HOLDINGS: Settlement by BP America on Appeal to 5th Cir.
The Economic and Property Damages Class Action Settlement and the
Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement entered by BP Exploration
and BP America Production Company are currently on appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, according to SEACOR
Holdings Inc.'s Oct. 28, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,

On March 2, 2012, the Court announced that BP Exploration and BP
America Production Company ("BP America") (collectively "BP") and
the plaintiffs had reached an agreement on the terms of two
proposed class action settlements that will resolve, among other
things, plaintiffs' economic loss claims and clean-up related
claims against BP. The parties filed their proposed settlement
agreements on April 18, 2012 along with motions seeking
preliminary approval of the settlements. The Court held a hearing
on April 25, 2012 to consider those motions and preliminarily
approved both settlements on May 2, 2012.

A final fairness hearing took place on November 8, 2012. The Court
granted final approval to the Economic and Property Damages Class
Action Settlement on December 21, 2012, and granted final approval
to the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement on January 11,
2013. Both class action settlements are currently on appeal to the
Fifth Circuit. Although neither the Company, ORM, or NRC are
parties to the settlement agreements, the Company, ORM, and NRC
are listed as released parties on the releases accompanying both
settlement agreements.

As the releases for both settlements have been deemed valid and
enforceable by the district court, if the Fifth Circuit affirms
these decisions, class members who did not file timely requests
for exclusion will be barred from pursuing economic loss, property
damage, personal injury, medical monitoring, and/or other released
claims against the Company, ORM, and NRC. At this time, the
Company expects these settlements to reduce ORM's potential
exposure, if any, from some of the pending actions described, and
continues to evaluate the settlements' impacts on these cases.

SEASONAL SPECIALTIES: Recalls Pre-lit Christmas Trees
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Seasonal Specialties LLC, of Eden Prairie, Minn., announced a
voluntary recall of about 1,800 Pre-lit artificial Christmas
trees.  Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The electrical components of the tree's light strings can overheat
and melt, posing fire, burn, and shock hazards to consumers.

Menards has received two reports of the tree's light strings
overheating, melting or smoking.  No injuries have been reported.

The recall involves the Twinkling Pine pre-lit artificial
Christmas trees sold under the Enchanted Forrest brand.  The
Christmas trees are green and stand 7 1/2 feet tall.  They have
400 champagne-colored, slow-twinkling LED lights and a green metal
stand.  The recalled model number 287-1261 and UPC code
741895425478 are printed on the retail box and on a red tag
attached to a tree branch.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Menards stores nationwide and online at
http://www.menards.comfrom September 2013 through November 2013
for about $300.

Consumers should immediately unplug and stop using the Christmas
tree and return it to Menards for a refund.

SENSA PRODUCTS: Accused of Misrepresenting Weight-Loss Products
Courthouse News Service reports that Sensa Products pushes its
weight-loss products with bogus claims they are "clinically
proven" to stimulate the "satiety center" in the brain, a class
action claims in Superior Court.

The case is Meredith Pritchard-Malo v. Sensa Products LLC,
Intelligent Beauty Inc. and Sensa Inc., Case No. 37-2013-00078088-
CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., December 2, 2013).

STRYKER CORP: TCPA Suit Obtains Class Action Certification
Brad Perriello, writing for MassDevice, reports that a lawsuit
accusing Stryker Corp. of violating the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by faxing thousands of physicians wins class action

A lawsuit filed by a physician's group against Stryker recently
won its 3rd bid for class action status, after a federal judge in
Michigan agreed to set the terms for eligibility for the class.

The lawsuit, filed by Physicians Healthsource Inc. in July 2012,
alleges that Stryker and 3 of its subsidiaries broke the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by sending out more than 15,000 faxes,
aiming to entice doctors to attend seminars promoting Stryker's
hip and knee implant products, without including an opt-out option
as required by the TCPA.

Judge Robert Jonker of the U.S. District Court for Western
Michigan granted class certification Dec. 11, ruling that members
of the class include anyone who meets certain criteria.

The class consists of "All persons who: (1) on or after four years
prior to the filing of this action, (2) were subscribers of a fax
number that received, (3) a fax invitation to attend a
presentation for primary care physicians on advancements in
orthopaedics, arthritis, joint replacement, or joint treatment
options, (4) received from one or more of Defendants, and (5) that
did not display a proper opt-out notice," according to court

The plaintiff had asked for class certification twice before, with
Jonker denying the 1st bid in October 2012 and the 2nd in March
2013, court records show.

TURQUOISE HILL: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 13 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Turquoise Hill Resources, Ltd. common stock during the period
between May 14, 2010 and November 8, 2013.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from December 13, 2013.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiffs' counsel,
Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058,
or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at

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

The complaint charges Turquoise Hill and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Turquoise Hill is an international mineral exploration and
development company.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding
Turquoise Hill's financial performance and business prospects and
had overstated the Company's reported revenue, specifically for
its SouthGobi Resources Ltd. subsidiary, which produces coal at
the Ovoot Tolgoi mine in Mongolia.  As a result of defendants'
false and misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
high of $28.91 per share on February 7, 2011.

Then on November 8, 2013, Turquoise Hill issued a press release
disclosing that the Company would be restating its consolidated
financial results for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011,
2012 and the affected quarters, including 2013, due to errors
related to the timing of revenue recognition from sales to certain
distributors as a result of the SouthGobi subsidiary's decision to
change the way it recognizes revenue.  The Company further
disclosed that some sales were booked after delivery to the
customers' stockpiles at the Ovoot Tolgoi mine instead of upon
customer collection.  In addition, the Company stated that the
financial statements should no longer be relied upon.  On this
news, the Company's stock price dropped from $4.87 per share on
November 7, 2013 to close at $4.09 per share by November 14, 2013.
Subsequently, on December 4, 2013, after the Company announced a
rights offering, doubling the number of shares outstanding,
Turquoise Hill's stock price dropped to $3.41 per share.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Turquoise Hill common stock during the Class Period.  The
plaintiffs are represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise
in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.

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

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Refused to Junk Claims by Taxi Drivers
The maker of a taxi-service app for smartphones must face claims
that it charges a 20 percent gratuity that is not fully passed on
to cab companies and drivers, reports Rose Bouboushian at
Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling.

Taxi drivers Douglas O'Connor and Thomas Colopy filed a putative
class action accusing Uber Technologies of falsely advertising
that the tip is included in the fare when the full amount is not
passed along to drivers.

According to the complaint, the San Francisco startup sells a
smartphone app that enables customers to hail a driver "on

Though Uber claims in advertisements that there is no need to tip
the driver, drivers do not receive the full gratuity, the
plaintiffs say.

In some cases, Uber earmarks 20 percent of the fare as a driver
tip, but other times it does not say how much the driver will
receive, the complaint states.

The Californian plaintiffs seek to represent Uber drivers in all
states but Massachusetts.

Another class filed similar claims in Chicago last October,
accusing Uber of "false price advertising at its most pernicious."

The Californian drivers further claim that although Uber's
licensing agreement clearly states which fares will be collected
and disbursed to drivers after Uber extracts its fee, it does not
mention the handling of gratuities.

The agreement also misclassifies drivers as "independent
contractors" instead of employees, according to the complaint.
Because their services are "fully integrated" into Uber's
business, drivers say, they should be reimbursed for their job-
related expenses under the California Labor Code.

Uber moved to dismiss all claims, the non-Californian class
members, and the individually named defendants, Uber President
Travis Kalanick and Vice President Ryan Graves.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco partially denied
the motion December 5, 2013.  He said the complaint plausibly
alleges that an employment relationship exists.

"To be sure, a number of factors weigh against finding an
employment relationship, including the fact that the drivers
supply the instrumentalities of work -- their vehicles -- and are
paid by the job," Chen wrote.  "Perhaps potentially even more
persuasive, counsel for defendants represented at oral argument
that Uber has no control over the drivers' hours, which geographic
area they target for pickups, or even whether they choose to
accept a passenger's request for a ride.  If this proves to be the
case, plaintiffs' assertion of an employment relationship would
appear to be problematic.  Nonetheless, no such allegations are
contained in the complaint, and based on the allegations of the
complaint, plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim for purposes
of the motion to dismiss."

The judge rejected Uber's claim that the included tip constitutes
a mandatory "service charge" as defined by the Labor Code.

"Even if Uber did not subjectively intend for the gratuity to
benefit the drivers, the company 'must have understood that the
promisee [passengers] had such intent,' and the 'objectively
reasonable expectation of the promisee [passenger]' would be that
Uber intended to give the gratuity to the drivers," Chen wrote.

He refused to dismiss the non-Californian class members, finding
that applying California law to them would not violate the U.S.
Constitution's dormant commerce clause.

However, Chen agreed to dismiss Kalanick and Graves as defendants,
and to partially dismiss the claims for breach of implied-in-fact
contract, tortious interference and unlawful business practices.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Monique Olivier, Esq.
          100 Bush Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-0333
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6556
          E-mail: monique@dplolaw.com

               - and -

          Sara Smolik, Esq.
          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          100 Cambridge Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: ssmolik@llrlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robert Jon Hendricks, Esq.
          Stephen Luther Taeusch, Esq.
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
          E-mail: rhendricks@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          John C. Fish, Jr., Esq.
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 439-6265
          Facsimile: (415) 743-6685
          E-mail: jfish@littler.com

The case is O'Connor, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:13-cv-03826-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco).

VINTAGE SENIOR: Faces "Duran" Class Suit in Orange County, Cal.
Michele Duran accuses Vintage Senior Management, Inc. of failing
to pay all wages due to her and similarly situated employees.  She
adds that employees were sometimes paid with ATM cards, which were
"not fully cashable."

The case is Michele Duran v. Vintage Senior Management, Inc., Case
No. 30-2013-00690936-CU-OE-CXC, in the California Superior Court
for Orange County.

VISA INC: Fails to Declare Exclusion for Zipcar Rental, Suit Says
Ron Davis, an individual, on behalf of all himself and all others
similarly situated v. VISA, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
4:13-cv-05125-KAW (N.D. Cal., November 4, 2013), alleges claims
over VISA, Inc.'s implementation of an internal, uniform policy,
which resulted in a breach of its promise to provide VISA brand
credit cardholders with a benefit known as "Auto Rental Collision
Damage Waiver-Personal."

VISA markets and promises to its cardholders an Auto Rental CDW
benefit, Mr. Davis says.  Essentially, he explains, VISA offers to
reimburse cardholders for money owed for damage or theft related
to a car rental if the cardholder (a) pays for the rental with a
VISA card, and (b) declines the rental company's collision damage
waiver.  VISA, however, has a secret, uniform policy of declining
to extend the benefit to VISA cardholders, who rent cars through a
company known as Zipcar, Mr. Davis alleges.  He contends that VISA
fails to make any disclaimer or exclusion for rentals made through

VISA, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Foster
City, California.

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

          Charles D. Marshall, Esq.
          2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 290
          Walnut Creek, CA 92596
          Telephone: (925) 575-7105
          Facsimile: (855) 575-7105
          E-mail: cdm@marshall-law-firm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jaclyn Ann Blankenship, Esq.
          400 S. Hope St., 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
          E-mail: jblankenship@omm.com

WAHL CLIPPER: Recalls Total Care Aerosol Cleaner
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Wahl Clipper Corp., of Sterling, Ill., announced a voluntary
recall of 720,000 Total Care, Aerosol Cleaner, Lubricant &
Coolant.  Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

Vapors from the propellant in the Total Care product can ignite
upon contact with hair clippers, posing a burn hazard to

Wahl has received three reports of incidents of the product
igniting, including one report of minor burns.

The recall involves Wahl Total Care products used to clean and
lubricate hair clippers, trimmers and shavers.  The product was
sold in six ounce aerosol cans.  The white label on the can reads
"Wahl Total Care" and "Clipper, Trimmer, Shaver."  Model number
03772 is printed on the back of the can.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold at Meijer,
Walmart and other retail stores nationwide and online at
Amazon.com from June 2009 to October 2013 for about $5.

Consumers should immediately stop using the Total Care product and
contact Wahl for a replacement.

YAUK'S SPECIALTY: Recalls Additional Meat and Poultry Products
Yauk's Specialty Meats, a Windsor, Colo., establishment, is
expanding its recall to include an additional product that was
produced under insanitary conditions, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.
The products being recalled are in addition to the various meat
and poultry products that were recalled on Dec. 9 and Dec. 12,

The products subject to the expansion of the recall can be
identified by the establishment number "Est. 20309" inside the
USDA Mark of Inspection and include:

   -- "Corner Post Meats" brand hams and bacon;
   -- "Old Style Sausage" brand Smoked Andouille Sausage; and
   -- "Old Style Sausage" brand Smoked Kielbasa Sausage

Products previously included in the recall expansion on Dec. 12,
3013 can be identified by the following brand names and bear the
establishment number "Est. 20309" or "P-20309" inside the USDA
Mark of Inspection.  Products that do not bear the establishment
number "Est. 20309" or "P-20309" inside the USDA Mark of
Inspection would not be included in the recall.  Brands affected
by the Dec.12 recall expansion include:

   -- Four Sisters Farm;
   -- Heart Rock Bison;
   -- High Point Bison;
   -- Luc's Pizza;
   -- Mountain States Poultry & Meats;
   -- Open A Bar 2;
   -- Rocky Plains Quality Meats;
   -- Schmidt's Bakery & Deli;
   -- Wag's Livestock;
   -- Wayne's Specialty Meats;
   -- Windsor Dairy;
   -- Wyoming Pure Beef; and
   -- Yauk's Specialty Meats

These products were subject to the recall announced on Dec. 9:

   -- "Colorado's Best Beef" brand various fresh, smoked and
      shelf-stable meat products;

   -- "James Ranch" brand jerky and summer sausage;

   -- "Rocky Plains Meats" brand hams, bacon, raw and smoked
      sausage, jerky and raw poultry;

   -- "Long Family Farms" brand smoked pork products (product
      description has been corrected in this expansion);

   -- "Horned Beef" brand jerky; and

   -- "Mile High Hungarian Sausage" brand fresh and smoked bacon
      and sausage.

FSIS began a food safety assessment at the plant on Dec. 5, 2013,
and discovered that product was being produced under insanitary
conditions, including rodent activity in the production, storage
and retail areas of the property.  FSIS has suspended the
assignment of inspectors at the establishment, and the
establishment currently is not operating.  It was discovered
during the ongoing investigation that additional products should
be removed from commerce.

FSIS and the establishment have received no reports of illness due
to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to ensure that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.  When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Wayne Yauk at 970-686-9080.

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

* Bernstein Litowitz Atty Among Law360's 2013 Class Action MVPs
Stewart Bishop and Ama Sarfo, writing for Law360, report that as
co-lead counsel for a class of investors accusing Merck & Co. and
subsidiary Schering-Plough of concealing test results for their
anti-cholesterol drug Vytorin from investors, Salvatore J.
Graziano of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP secured a
landmark $688 million settlement, earning him a spot on Law360's
2013 Class Action MVPs.

A former assistant district attorney in Manhattan, Mr. Graziano
said he doesn't feel like he's ever left the prosecutor's chair, a
sentiment backed up by his 15-year record of holding corporations
accountable for alleged fraud and the recovery of billions of
dollars for his clients in securities class actions.

In the past, he has prevailed over high-profile companies such as
Raytheon Co. which capitulated to the tune of $460 million over
alleged accounting irregularities, as well as now-defunct
financial services company Refco and others in a Byzantine
accounting fraud suit that netted more than $400 million in
recoveries for investors.

More recently, Mr. Graziano and his team brought an end to nearly
five years of litigation as they were poised to go to trial over
allegations from Merck and Schering investors who said they lost
money when the results of a clinical study for the drug Vytorin
allegedly showed the drug wasn't more effective than an older
Merck drug, Zocor.

Vytorin is a so-called fixed-dose combination pill combining the
statin simvastatin, which inhibits the production of "bad"
cholesterol in the liver, with the drug Zetia, which stems the
absorption of cholesterol in food.

The combination drug was heavily marketed by a joint venture of
Merck and Schering, which later merged, and advertised as having a
more positive impact on cholesterol levels than other drugs.
What's more, Vytorin was touted as a possible breakthrough
treatment for arterial plaque associated with cardiovascular

The drug was the focus of a 2006 clinical study that sought to
prove it was more beneficial than simvastatin alone to combat
atherosclerosis, the disease process by which plaque builds up in
the walls of the arteries, according to court documents.

But Mr. Graziano and the lead plaintiffs contend that after Merck
and Schering found out that the study showed no significant
difference between their new star drug and Zocor, the brand name
for simvastatin, they kept the test results from the public to
protect their stock price, in violation of securities laws, and
Schering even conducted a stock offering during that time, raising
$4.08 billion from investors.

"Merck and Schering knew the trial had failed but they concocted
various reasons for not releasing the results," Mr. Graziano said.
"When the results were finally released, their stock price
significantly declined."

The marathon discovery process -- which involved more than
90 depositions, the review of 12 million pages of documents and
24 expert reports -- took Mr. Graziano across the globe to a
courtroom in Amsterdam, in order to depose key scientists who
oversaw the "Enhance" trial.

It was a high-risk move: if the scientists gave adverse testimony,
it could have been detrimental to the litigation.

"We're talking about Merck and Schering here.  These are very
large and serious companies that employ experts every day,"
Mr. Graziano said.  "We were litigating in their backyard, they
offered a very strong defense and didn't acknowledge any
wrongdoing whatsoever."

The gamble paid off, and Mr. Graziano and the Bernstein Litowitz
team went on to certify the class and beat back the defendants'
summary judgment motion and subsequent attempt for an
interlocutory appeal.

With every pretrial action complete, Merck and Schering finally
blinked and agreed to an eleventh-hour deal.  It was the second-
largest securities class action settlement ever in the Third
Circuit, and among the top 25 securities class action settlements
of all time, according to Bernstein Litowitz.

The special master in the case was even impressed, saying the deal
was "obtained through co-lead counsel's hard work, persistence and
skill, overcoming numerous difficult and novel legal and factual
challenges, which were litigated to the hilt by highly experienced
and first-rate defense counsel to the eve of trial."

Coincidentally, Merck hasn't seen the last of Mr. Graziano, as he
is currently taking on the drugmaker and some of its top brass
over claims concerning the company's purported false and
misleading statements regarding its osteoarthritis medication

The multidistrict case, which was consolidated in New Jersey in
2005, is part of the fallout from Merck's 2004 recall of Vioxx,
which allegedly caused the company's stock price to drop 27
percent, to $33 per share, before media reports about its alleged
attempts to conceal the drug's risks sent the price tumbling
another 9.7 percent.

After the case was initially dismissed, Mr. Graziano and his team
appealed to the Third Circuit, which reversed the dismissal on
statute of limitations grounds.  Merck appealed to the U.S.
Supreme Court, but ultimately to no avail, after oral arguments,
the high court decided unanimously in favor of Mr. Graziano's
clients and remanded the case.

Mr. Graziano contributes his successful track record in the
securities class action field in part to Bernstein Litowitz's
vigorous vetting process when it comes to the cases it takes on,
which includes multilayered procedures involving many attorneys as
well as second checks and balances to ensure the firm is convinced
the action has merit.

The process is necessary, Mr. Graziano said, especially given the
steep climb the firm faces as a nonpublic prosecutor of sorts.

"We don't have the power of government behind us, we don't have
the expectation that we should win like prosecutors do,"
Mr. Graziano said.  "It's like being a prosecutor, but more
demanding in different ways."

Of course, there's nothing like working on a contingency fee basis
to light a fire under oneself.

"I think that's a great motivator," he chuckled.  "Absolutely."

* High Court Allows Investors to Launch Class Action v. Fund Cos.
Advisor.ca reports that the Supreme Court has given the go-ahead
for investors to launch a class-action suit against fund companies
involved in market timing in the early 2000s.

That's despite the fact those companies settled with the Ontario
Securities Commission in 2004 and 2005 for a total of C$205
million (the OSC declined to comment on this case).  Investors
argue they're owed C$450 million, and are organizing class action
to get the remaining C$245 million.

Some could argue this ruling diminishes the perceived power of the
regulator: if a class action is possible regardless of a
regulatory settlement, why should the securities commission

But it's important to realize regulatory proceedings and class
actions are different, says Michael Feder, a partner at McCarthy
Tetrault in Vancouver.

"A regulator's purpose is to determine the public interest,
whereas the purpose of a class action is compensation," he says.
"While a regulator may consider the fact that investors can bring
a class action [when weighing whether to order disgorgement by a
firm or company], they've always been able to do so."

In fact, this ruling could strengthen the regulator's position.

"I think this will actually leave regulators less deterred,
because now they don't have to worry that they're foreclosing a
class action -- to the extent they were ever worried about it.
Now you know that even if you enter into a settlement agreement
with a fund company, you're not preventing investors from bringing
their own claims."

Going forward, Mr. Feder says people and companies that settle
with securities regulators must realize investors can also bring
class actions against them, and to earmark investor compensation
funds accordingly.

As well, respondents should be careful about admissions of guilt
in such settlements: "anytime you admit guilt, you potentially
have a problem in litigation.  People will use the admission to
sue you, including in a class action," he says.

Given the $245-million discrepancy between the OSC settlement and
the investor estimation, would it make sense for respondents to
settle in larger amounts up front to prevent future claims?
Mr. Feder says that would be unwise. "I don't think that's going
to deter plaintiff's counsel from bringing claims. You'll just end
up paying more."

He adds we'll probably see more securities-related class actions
in future.

"This case, which comes on the heels of other class-action
certification rulings in October by the Supreme Court, sets a
certification-friendly tone in Canada," warns Mr. Feder.

"Anybody who faces the prospect of class action should be worried.
The court is concerned with access to justice, and sees class
action as being a solution in that regard.  For the time being,
the threat to Canadian businesses is very real."


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  * * *