CAR_Public/131226.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, December 26, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 255

                             Headlines


AMARIN CORPORATION: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Settles Two Antitrust Class Actions
AMERICAN FEDERATION: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Regular and OT Wages
B & R SUPERMARKET: Sued by Assistant Manager for Unpaid OT Wages
BERNSTEIN SHUR: Arbitration Clause Applies to Malpractice Claims

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Calif. Class Action
CAPRI INSTITUTE: Internships Ruse for Free Labor, Suit Claims
CEPHALON INC: Illegally Promotes Unsafe Drug, Suit Says
CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls Certain Vehicles Over Transmission Issues
DB STRUCTURED: Wins Dismissal of $330MM Mortgage Securities Suit

EAST WEST BANK: Sued by Salaried Employees Over Unpaid Wages
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Lidocaine Patch
FIRSTMED EMS: Laid Off 2K Workers Without Right Notice, Suit Says
FOX FACTORY: Recalls Mountain Bike Suspension Forks Over Fall Risk
HEALTH MATTERS: Recalls Chocolates Over Milk Allergy Risk

HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS: Settles Hip Implant Product Liability Suits
INNOTRAC CORP: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholder Claims
INT'L PAPER: Settles Class Action Over 401(k) Plans for $30 Mil.
IXIA: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action in California
LEE BROS: Recalls Sausage Products Over Dangerous Toxins

MATTEO'S LANDSCAPING: Class Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
MERCK & CO: Accused of Inflating Share Price Over Zetia & Vytorin
MONSANTO CO: Removes "Bass" Suit to Kansas District Court
NASDAQ OMX: Claims Over Botched Facebook IPO Can Proceed
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Maryland to Get $88 Mil. From Settlement

OCWEN FINANCIAL: Homeowners to Get $2 Bil. in Principal Reductions
OGDEN CAP: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Rent Abatements
ORGANON: Many Women Suffer From NuvaRing Side Effects
PANASONIC CORP: April 3 Final Approval Hearing in ODD Suit Accord
PERFORMANCE BROADBAND: Has Misclassified Employees, Suit Claims

PHILIP MORRIS: Court Refuses to Recognize Medical Monitoring Claim
PROCTOR AND GAMBLE: Court Junked Mislabeling Claims vs. Kellogg
SEQWATER: Defends Actions During Queensland Floods
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Antitrust Suit Related to Aggrenox
TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Action Settlement Notification Program Begins

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Likely Forced Drivers to Drop Rights, Ct. Says
UNILIFE CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
UNITED STATES: "Bagnall" Suit Dismissal Appealed to 2nd Cir.
VICAL INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action in California
WAL-MART STORES: 2 Bay Area Lawyers Win Arbitration Battle

* China Rejects Tons of Imported U.S. Corn Over MIR162 Strain
* Class Action Arbitration Attracts Increasing Interest


                             *********


AMARIN CORPORATION: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Amarin
Corporation plc on Dec. 13 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 a class comprising all
persons who purchased the common stock, call options or sold put
options of Amarin between July 9, 2009 and October 15, 2013.
Members of the foregoing Class have until January 3, 2014, to file
a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the shareholder
lawsuit.

A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IS AVAILABLE FROM THE COURT OR FROM GLANCY
BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP. PLEASE CONTACT US AT (212) 682-5340, TOLL-
FREE AT (888) 773-9224, OR AT SHAREHOLDERS@GLANCYLAW.COM TO
DISCUSS THIS MATTER OR IF YOU PURCHASED AMARIN SECURITIES PRIOR TO
THE CLASS PERIOD. IF YOU INQUIRE BY EMAIL PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR
MAILING ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER AND NUMBER OF SHARES PURCHASED.

Amarin is a biopharmaceutical company, focused on the development
and commercialization of therapeutic products for the treatment
for cardiovascular diseases.  The Company's lead product Vascepa
is an adjunct to diet to reduce triglyceride levels in adult
patients and also for the treatment of patients with high
triglyceride levels who are also on statin therapy for elevated
low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (the "Anchor" indication).

The Complaint alleges that defendants issued materially misleading
statements concerning Amarin's business, operations and financial
prospects.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that:

   -- Defendants misrepresented the prospects for Food and Drug
Administration approval of Vascepa for the ANCHOR indication.

   -- Defendants failed to disclose that the FDA had informed
Amarin that there was a lack of prospective, controlled clinical
trial data demonstrating that pharmaceutical reduction of
triglycerides significantly reduces residual cardiovascular risk.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than January 3, 2014, to serve as lead plaintiff;
however, you must meet certain legal requirements.  To be a member
of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may
retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class.

To learn more about this action, or if you purchased Amarin
securities prior to the Class Period and have any questions
concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100,
Los Angeles, California 90067, Toll-Free at (888) 773-9224, or
contact Gregory Linkh, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP at
122 E. 42nd Street, Suite 2920, New York, New York 10168, at (212)
682-5340, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our
website at http://www.glancylaw.com


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Settles Two Antitrust Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that American Express has reached a
settlement in two antitrust class action lawsuits filed by
merchants over its policies.

Retailers have argued that transaction fees and other rules set by
credit card companies have driven up merchants' costs for
accepting cards. Some retailers argue they should have more
freedom to tack on surcharges for customers who pay with a credit
card to help cover these costs.

Under the agreement announced late on Dec. 19, American Express
will drop its ban on retailers charging a surcharge to cover
transaction fees.  The settlement is still needs court approval.

Visa and Mastercard reached similar settlements recently.

American Express will also pay for attorneys' fees of up to $75
million under the settlement.  It will pay up to $2 million for
the costs of notifying merchants of the settlement, plus another
$2 million for a fund for plaintiffs to let merchants know about
the terms of the settlement.

American Express said the settlement gives merchants some
"additional flexibility."  It also continues to prohibit merchants
from steering customers away from using American Express cards to
competing products.

Friedman Law Group, which represented some of the merchants, said
the agreement marks a major milestone.  The firm says as a result
of the agreement, merchants can keep prices lower for all
consumers by offering incentives to use debit cards, cash or
checks instead of credit cards that carry high swipe fees.

American Express said the settlement is in the best interest of
cardholders and merchants.

"While the modification of our contract provisions gives merchants
some additional flexibility, many merchants continue to believe,
as we do, that surcharging is fundamentally anti-consumer,"
Tim Heine, managing counsel of American Express, said in a
statement.  "Few merchants have taken advantage of earlier
opportunities to surcharge out of concern that it could risk
alienating customers, and drive them to patronize competitors who
do not surcharge."


AMERICAN FEDERATION: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Regular and OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Hernandez and other similarly situated individuals v.
American Federation Of Police, Inc., Southern Security &
Investigation, Inc., South Florida Security & Consultant Services,
Inc. f/k/a Southern Security and Investigation Services, Inc., and
Robert Torres, individually, Case No. 1:13-cv-24002-KMW (S.D.
Fla., November 4, 2013) seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
wages and retaliatory discharge under the laws of the United
States and for breach of contract under the common law of the
state of Florida.

Ms. Hernandez alleges that while she was employed by Federation as
an office clerk, she routinely worked 60 to 70 hours per week, but
she was not paid for the work she performed for the Federation.
Thus, she asserts, she is owed regular and overtime wages.

American Federation Of Police, Inc., is a Florida Non-Profit
Corporation, conducting business in Miami-Dade County, Florida,
where the Plaintiff worked for Federation.  Southern Security &
Investigation, Inc. is a Florida Profit Corporation, having its
main place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida, where the
Plaintiff worked for Southern Security.  South Florida Security &
Consultant Services, Inc. is a Florida Profit Corporation,
conducting business in Miami-Dade County, Florida, where the
Plaintiff worked for South Florida Security.  Robert Torres is a
resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida.  Mr. Torres is an officer
of Federation, Southern Security and South Florida Security and
acts under the authority of the Corporate Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503-5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
          E-mail: msaenz@saenzlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Peter Neil Andresky, Esq.
          THE ANDRESKY LAW FIRM, P.A.
          9121 N. Lake Park Circle
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 348-4546
          Facsimile: (954) 342-1988
          E-mail: pandresky@andreskylawfirm.com


B & R SUPERMARKET: Sued by Assistant Manager for Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dolly Pretty Calvo and other similarly situated individuals v. B &
R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam's Market, Case No. 1:13-cv-24000-
KMM (S.D. Fla., November 4, 2013) seeks to recover money damages
for unpaid wages under the laws of the United States.

While employed by Milam's, Ms. Calvo asserts that she routinely
worked in excess of 40 hours per week without being compensated as
a rate of not less than one and one half times the regular rate at
which she was employed.  Ms. Calvo was employed as an assistant
manager, performing the same or similar duties as that of those
other similarly situated assistant managers, whom she observed
working more than 40 hours per week.

B & R Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Milam's Market, is a Florida Profit
Corporation conducting business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
          THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
          20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (305) 503-5131
          Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
          E-mail: msaenz@saenzlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Peter Neil Andresky, Esq.
          THE ANDRESKY LAW FIRM, P.A.
          9121 N. Lake Park Circle
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 348-4546
          Facsimile: (954) 342-1988
          E-mail: pandresky@andreskylawfirm.com


BERNSTEIN SHUR: Arbitration Clause Applies to Malpractice Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Maine law firm Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson's contract
requiring a former client to arbitrate all claims applies to
malpractice claims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit has ruled.

In Bezio v. Draeger, the court on Dec. 16 affirmed U.S. District
Court Judge Nancy Torresen's July 2013 dismissal of the case.

According to court records, Douglas Bezio hired Bernstein Shur to
defend him in an action brought by the Maine Office of Securities.
His contract with the firm held that either side could opt for
binding arbitration to settle a fee dispute or "any other dispute
that arises out of or relates to this agreement or the services
provided by the law firm."

In December 2012, Mr. Bezio sued the firm and three lawyers:
Scot Draeger, the firm's securities and financial services
industry practice leader, of counsel John Paterson and associate
Caleb DuBois.

Chief Judge Sandra Lynch wrote for herself, Judge Juan Torruella
and Senior Judge Norman Stahl, who missed oral argument but signed
the opinion.

"It is clear that Maine professional responsibility law for
attorneys permits arbitration of legal malpractice claims so long
as there is no prospective limitation of the firm's liability,"
Judge Lynch wrote.  "It is also clear that Maine law, like the
[Federal Arbitration Act], evidences no hostility to the use of
the arbitral forum, and Maine would enforce this arbitration of
malpractice claims clause."

The ruling is "intellectually and factually dishonest," said
Mr. Bezio's attorney, Valeriano Diviacchi, a Boston solo
practitioner.

"If this issue ever reaches the Maine Law Court, I hope that it
will have more respect for what is at stake instead of engaging in
this simple-minded self-fulfilling prophecy that jury trials are
expensive and cumbersome while arbitration by the chosen few in
private without judicial oversight is efficient and simple," he
said.

George Dilworth -- tdilworth@dwmlaw.com -- a partner at Drummond
Woodsum in Portland, Maine who argued for Bernstein Shur, referred
questions to his client.  Bernstein Shur partner and general
counsel Andru Volinsky -- avolinsky@bernsteinshur.com -- said the
firm would have no comment.

In the securities enforcement action, Mr. Bezio signed a
stipulation that he would not contest the state's conclusion that
he "engaged in unlawful, dishonest or unethical practices in the
securities, commodities, investment, franchise, banking, finance
or insurance business," according to court records.

He complained that the law firm never advised him that the finding
could end his career with a Massachusetts securities firm.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Calif. Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on Dec. 13 refused to toss a proposed class action
accusing BMW of North America LLC of selling a sports car with
crack-prone alloy wheels, finding that the plaintiff's warranty
claims held up under scrutiny.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White issued an order denying BMW's
motion to dismiss the suit -- which concerns the company's Z4
sports car -- rejecting the automaker's position that plaintiff
Barry Jekowsky failed to properly plead claims for breach of
warranty under the California Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

While the judge did throw out Mr. Jekowsky's claims under the
state's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, he
did so without prejudice and gave the plaintiff until Jan. 10 to
amend the complaint.

"Having carefully reviewed the parties' papers and considered
their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause
appearing, the court denies BMW's motion to dismiss," the judge
wrote.

In his May complaint, Mr. Jekowsky alleged that BMW Z4s from model
years 2007-12 have alloy wheels that easily crack under regular
use, creating a safety hazard.  The defect often forces owners to
replace the wheels, and sometimes the tires, in as little as
20,000 miles, but BMW refuses to honor its 50,000-mile warranty
for the problem, according to the suit.

The carmaker argued in its motion to dismiss that, because the
plaintiff did not discover the alleged defect until a year after
he leased his Z4, he had no claim for breach of implied warranty
under the Song-Beverly Act.  But Judge White disagreed, finding
that the date a latent defect is discovered has no bearing on
whether it was there all along.

"The fact that plaintiff did not discover the cracking until
February 2012 does not necessarily mean that plaintiff cannot
prove the existence of a defect within the one-year duration
period," he wrote.

BMW also challenged Mr. Jekowsky's claim for breach of express
warranty, arguing the complaint only addresses design defects,
while the warranty is limited to manufacturing defects.  But Judge
White ruled that the plaintiff had pled sufficient facts to
support that it was a manufacturing defect, and the broader
question of whether this claim can be asserted on a classwide
basis can't be addressed at this early stage in the case.

In dismissing the plaintiff's UCL and CLRA claims, Judge White
said the plaintiff failed to adequately allege "reliance."
Mr. Jekowsky claimed he wouldn't have purchased the Z4 at the
price he paid had the defect been disclosed -- or would have
bought a model with different wheels -- but the judge said he
failed to allege facts suggesting that he would have been aware of
such a disclosure.

Eric Kizirian -- Eric.Kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com -- of Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, an attorney for BMW, declined to
comment on the ruling, citing firm and client policy.

According to the complaint, Mr. Jekowsky leased a new 2011 BMW Z4
in February 2011, but in September 2012, after the car had been
driven fewer than 19,300 miles, he discovered one of its rear
wheels was cracked in several places.

A BMW dealer told him the wheel and tire would need to be
replaced, and the plaintiff went through a similar ordeal in
December 2012, the complaint said.  He alleges he was told both
times that the wheel and tire damage was not covered under
warranty and that he was obligated to pay for the repairs, which
cost him roughly $2,000.

The plaintiffs are represented by Mark A. Chavez --
mark@chavezgertler.com -- of Chavez & Gertler LLP and Bryan
Kemnitzer of Kemnitzer Barron & Krieg LLP.

BMW is represented by Eric Y. Kizirian and Michael K. Grimaldi --
Michael.Grimaldi@lewisbrisbois.com -- of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP.

The case is Jekowsky v. BMW of North America LLC, case number
3:13-cv-02158, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


CAPRI INSTITUTE: Internships Ruse for Free Labor, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Journal, reports that
students of a New Jersey beauty school have joined in a putative
class action claiming they were put to work at commercial
establishments without pay in violation of federal and state law.

The suit alleges that the internships Capri Institute mandates for
its students are devices for staffing clinical salons at its
campuses in Paramus, Clifton, Kenilworth and Brick, which provide
hair, makeup and manicure services to the public.

In order to graduate, Capri Institute students must put in 300
hours of classroom time and 900 hours in salon work.  Students are
pulled out of class when the salons get busy, says plaintiff
lawyer Stephen DeNittis -- sdenittis@denittislaw.com -- of
DeNittis Osefchen in Marlton.

According to the suit, students would gain needed experience if
the school provided services to the public for free or at a
nominal fee to cover the cost of materials, but instead Capri
salons are run as a profit center.

Customers at Capri's four salons pay fees ranging from $4 for an
upper lip waxing and $7 for a haircut to $20 for a permanent wave,
according to the company website.

"In my mind, I don't believe it's a true internship," says
Mr. DeNittis.  "It seems like [Capri Institute] is having its cake
and eating it too."

He says that students cutting customers' hair are not closely
supervised and must provide their own supplies and equipment.

The suit, Atkins v. Capri Training Center Inc., was brought on
behalf of all Capri Institute students required to work without
pay at one of the company's for-profit New Jersey salons between
Nov. 8, 2010 and the present.

The class is believed to contain several hundred members and each
claim is estimated at $5,000, says Mr. DeNittis.

The class members allege they have an employment relationship with
the defendants for the purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law because they made it
unnecessary for the defendants to employ paid workers, and because
they perform janitorial and clerical duties that do not confer any
educational benefit.

The suit, filed Nov. 12, names as defendants the school and its
owner and principal, Anne Muenster-Sinton.  The defendants have
not yet filed answers.  No lawyer has entered an appearance.

Ms. Muenster-Sinton did not return a phone message left at the
school's administrative office.  A person who answered the phone
there said no one else was available to discuss the suit.

Mr. DeNittis's cocounsel are his partner, Joseph Osefchen, and
Las Vegas attorney Leon Greenberg.

The three raised similar claims in a suit filed Nov. 12 in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Jean Madeline Aveda
Institute of Philadelphia.

The issue of unpaid internships gained a higher profile in June
when U.S. District Judge William Pauley III, in the Southern
District of New York, certified a class action against Fox
Searchlight Pictures and held that the company violated the FLSA
by not paying its interns.  The ruling in that case, Glatt v. Fox
Searchlight Pictures, is on appeal.

Judge Pauley relied in part on a U.S. Department of Labor fact
sheet describing when internships may be unpaid.  Among other
criteria set forth, an employer may not derive any benefit from an
unpaid internship.


CEPHALON INC: Illegally Promotes Unsafe Drug, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
Indiana/Kentucky/Ohio Regional Council of Carpenters Welfare Fund
v. Cephalon, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Case No.
2:13-cv-07167-HB (E.D. Pa., December 9, 2013) alleges that the
Defendants' scheme to illegally promote Fentora(R), a highly-
dangerous drug, was to aggressively promote the drug for the
treatment of non cancer pain, even though it only is approved for
the treatment of "breakthrough cancer pain."  Thus, the Plaintiff
contends, Cephalon's general pain sales force -- not its oncology
sales force -- promoted Fentora to thousands of doctors, who do
not treat cancer patients at all.

The Defendants' alleged conduct is particularly troubling because
Fentora is a very dangerous drug with potentially fatal side
effects, the Plaintiff argues.  The Plaintiff adds that Fentora
also happens to be substantially more expensive than other opioid
therapies.

Founded in 1987, Cephalon, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Frazer, Pennsylvania.  Cephalon employs
approximately 4,000 people throughout the United States and
Europe, and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Teva.  Cephalon is
engaged in the promotion, distribution, commercialization, and
sale of products for central nervous system, inflammatory disease,
pain, and oncology therapeutic areas.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in North Wales, Pennsylvania.  Teva purchased
Cephalon in October 2011.  Together with Cephalon, Teva has
illegally marketed and sold Fentora off-label with the intention
that the off-label sales would be paid or reimbursed by third
party payors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
          SPECTOR, ROSEMAN, KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
          1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
          E-mail: jkodroff@srkw-law.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1144 West Lake Street, Suite 400
          Oak Park, IL 60301
          Telephone: (708) 628-4949
          Facsimile: (708) 628-4950
          E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          William N. Riley, Esq.
          PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY
          301 Massachusetts Avenue
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 633-8787
          E-mail: wriley@price-law.com

               - and -

          J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
          HUDSON, MALLANEY, SHINDLER & ANDERSON, P.C.
          5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
          West Des Moines, IA 50265
          Telephone: (515) 223-4567
          E-mail: jbgoplerud@hudsonlaw.net


CHRYSLER GROUP: Recalls Certain Vehicles Over Transmission Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erick Ayapana, writing for Motor Trend WOT, The Chrysler Group has
issued a recall affecting model year 2013 Chrysler 300, Dodge
Charger, and Ram 1500 vehicles.  Affected vehicles may have faulty
transmission output shafts that could fracture.

The Problem: The automaker says that affected vehicles may have
transmission output shafts that were formed with a two-stage
forging process.  Those shafts could fracture, resulting in
powertrain damage and an accident.

The Fix: The two-stage forging process has since been replaced
with a single-stage method.  Chrysler will inspect and test the
transmission shafts in the affected vehicles, and will replace the
shafts if needed.

Number of Vehicles Potentially Affected: The recall affects about
5663 vehicles.  Chrysler said the recall includes vehicles
equipped with 4x4 (or all-wheel drive), an 8-speed automatic
transmission, and a six-cylinder engine. Source: Chrysler


DB STRUCTURED: Wins Dismissal of $330MM Mortgage Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Freifeld, writing for Reuters, reports that a unit of
Deutsche Bank AG won dismissal on Dec. 19 of a $330 million
mortgage securities lawsuit, in a victory for banks who claim the
statute of limitations has expired on many such cases.

A New York state appeals court found that the case was barred by
the state's six-year statute of limitations, ruling that the clock
began to run when the contract was executed in 2006.

The decision reversed a May 13 ruling by a lower court, which had
found that the statute of limitations did not begin until the bank
refused investor demands that it repurchase the defective loans.

Marc Kasowitz, who represented ACE Securities Corp, the bondholder
who brought the case, said in an email that he looked forward to
"a successful appeal" of the Dec. 19 ruling.

David Woll, who represented the Deutsche unit, DB Structured
Products Inc, declined to comment.

The decision is a victory for some banks facing claims by
bondholders over residential mortgage-backed securities issued in
the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis.

The ruling "will have an impact on numerous existing cases as well
as limiting new cases because most of the securitizations at issue
occurred more than six years ago," Scott Musoff, a lawyer who is
involved in similar cases, said in an interview.

Mr. Musoff is not involved in the DB Structured Products case, but
represents other financial institutions facing similar claims.

In the Dec. 19 decision, a unanimous four-judge appeals panel
ruled that the lower court "erred in finding that plaintiff's
claims did not accrue until defendant either failed to timely cure
or repurchase a defective mortgage loan."

To the contrary, "the claims accrued on the closing date" of the
mortgage loan purchase agreement, according to the decision, which
was unsigned.

The court also found the action was not timely for other reasons.
For one thing, the bondholders didn't give the bank the 60 and 90-
day periods to cure or repurchase the underlying mortgages before
filing their summons in March 2012, as the agreement required.

For another, the court ruled the investors whose bonds were held
in a trust lacked standing to commence the action on behalf of the
trust.

The bondholders later substituted the trustee as plaintiff, but
that did not make the September 2012 complaint timely, the court
said.

The case is ACE Securities Corp v DB Structured Products Inc., New
York state Supreme Court, Appellate Division, No. 11384 and M-
5893, M-6111 and M-6133.


EAST WEST BANK: Sued by Salaried Employees Over Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Doris Winstead; individually, and on behalf of other aggrieved
employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act
v. East West Bank, a California corporation; and Does 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. BC529882 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., December 9, 2013) alleges that the Defendants engaged in a
uniform policy and systematic scheme of wage abuse against their
salaried branch-level employees, including Assistant Branch
Managers, Assistant Branch Service Managers, Branch Service
Managers, Branch Managers, Relationship Managers, and hourly
paid/non-exempt employees.

This scheme involved failing to pay the employees for all hours
worked, missed meal periods and rest breaks in violation of
California law, the Plaintiff contends.

East West Bank is a California corporation and an employer whose
employees are engaged throughout the state of California, County
of Los Angeles.  The true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff.

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


ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Lidocaine Patch
---------------------------------------------------------------
Greater Metropolitan Hotel Employers - Employees Health And
Welfare Fund; Minnesota Cement Masons Health & Welfare Fund; and
Roofers Local 96 Health And Welfare Fund, on their behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Endo Pharmaceuticals
Inc.; Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc.; Teikoku Seiyaku Co. Ltd.; Actavis,
Inc.; Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Watson Laboratories, Inc.;
Anda, Inc.; Anda Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Valmed
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 0:13-cv-03399-PJS-TNL (D. Minn.,
December 10, 2013) is a civil antitrust action brought on behalf
of a proposed class of end-payors, who indirectly purchased,
reimbursed or otherwise paid for lidocaine patch 5%, sold by Endo
under the brand name Lidoderm.

Lidoderm is a lidocaine-containing pain patch for the treatment of
pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia.  The Plaintiffs seek
overcharge damages arising out of Endo/Teikoku's alleged
overarching anticompetitive scheme that illegally delayed the
availability of less expensive generic versions of Lidoderm, an
order enjoining the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, and other
relief.

Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania.  Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a
specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the research,
development, sale and marketing of prescription pharmaceuticals
used primarily to treat and manage pain.

Teikoku Seiyaku Co., Ltd. is a Japanese corporation headquartered
in Kagawa, Japan.  Teikoku Seiyaku is a special pharmaceutical
company that develops and makes enhanced pharmaceutical products
based on its transdermal drug delivery technologies.  Teikoku
Seiyaku's drug delivery technologies include the technology used
in the Lidoderm patch.  Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc. is a California
corporation headquartered in San Jose, California.  Teikoku Pharma
USA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Teikoku Seiyaku Co., Ltd.
Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc., and Teikoku
Sieyaku Co., Ltd. are involved in a marketing enterprise that
covers the distribution and marketing of Lidoderm in the United
States.

Actavis, Inc. is a Nevada corporation headquartered in Parsippany,
New Jersey.  Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Nevada corporation
headquartered in Parsippany, New Jersey.  Effective on January 24,
2013, Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. changed its name to Actavis,
Inc.  Watson Laboratories, Inc. is a Nevada corporation
headquartered in Corona, California.  Watson Laboratories, Inc. is
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which
is now Actavis, Inc.  Actavis is engaged in the worldwide
marketing, production and distribution of generic pharmaceutical
products.

Anda, Inc. is a Florida corporation headquartered in Weston,
Florida.  Anda, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which is now Actavis, Inc.  Anda
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Florida corporation headquartered in
Groveport, Ohio.  Anda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which is now Actavis,
Inc.  Valmed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a New York corporation
headquartered in Grand Island, New York.  Valmed Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
now Actavis, Inc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Woodward, Esq.
          Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone: (612) 338-4605
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
          E-mail: dwoodward@heinmills.com
                  rsteiner@heinsmills.com

               - and -

          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Ryan McEwan, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  rmcewan@saverilawfirm.com


FIRSTMED EMS: Laid Off 2K Workers Without Right Notice, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Branden Engle, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. FirstMed EMS, LLC, Case No. 7:13-cv-00263-BR
(E.D.N.C., December 10, 2013) alleges that beginning December 6,
2013, and within 90 days of that date, FirstMed terminated without
notice the employment of approximately 2,000 full-time employees.

The Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of himself, and other
similarly situated former employees, who were terminated without
cause by FirstMed, 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.

Mr. Engle worked at the Defendant's facility located at 745
MedCorp Drive, in Toledo, Ohio, until his termination on
December 6, 2013.

FirstMed EMS, LLC is a North Carolina corporation headquartered in
Wilmington, North Carolina.  The Company is in the business of
providing emergency medical services and transportation.  FirstMed
does business under various names, including MedCorp, TransMed,
and Life Ambulance.  Enhanced Equity Fund II, LLP owns 100% of the
shares of FirstMed and is the ultimate owner of FirstMed.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
          Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (212) 977-4005
          E-mail: JAR@outtengolden.com
                  RSR@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Algernon L. Butler, III, Esq.
          BUTLER & BUTLER, L.L.P.
          P. O. Box 38
          Wilmington, NC 28402
          Telephone: (910) 762-1908
          Facsimile: (910) 762-9441
          E-mail: albutleriii@butlerbutler.com


FOX FACTORY: Recalls Mountain Bike Suspension Forks Over Fall Risk
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Fox Factory is recalling
thousands of mountain bike suspension forks over a safety issue
that could put riders at risk for a fall.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission said on Dec. 18 that
the Watsonville, Calif., company is recalling Evolution 2013
suspension forks because the fork's damper cylinder and piston can
separate, causing the front wheel to detach.

The company has received one report of a related shoulder injury.

Fox Factory is recalling 11,250 of these devices in the U.S. and
1,250 in Canada.  The forks were sold between August and October
as original equipment on 15 brands of 2013 mountain bikes: BMC,
Cannondale, Commencal, Diamondback, GT, Kona, Lapierre, Norco,
Orbea, Raleigh, Rocky Mountain, Santa Cruz, Scott, Specialized and
Trek.  A small quantity of suspension forks were sold to retailers
or distributors as aftermarket accessories.

The recalled suspension forks can be identified by the serial
number, which is found on the underside of the crown after
removing the front wheel.

Consumers should stop using the bikes and take them to their place
of purchase for a free repair.

For more information: Contact Fox at (855) 360-3488 or online at
http://www.ridefox.comand click on the recall link for more
information.

Consumers can check their serial number at http://www.ridefox.com
and follow the link at the lower left of the page.


HEALTH MATTERS: Recalls Chocolates Over Milk Allergy Risk
---------------------------------------------------------
Health Matters America Inc. of Cheektowaga, N.Y., is recalling
specific lots of ORGANIC TRADITIONS DARK CHOCOLATE HAZELNUTS,
ORGANIC TRADITIONS DARK CHOCOLATE HAZELNUTS WITH CHILI, ORGANIC
TRADITIONS DARK CHOCOLATE ALMONDS, and ORGANIC TRADITIONS DARK
CHOCOLATE ALMONDS WITH CHILI because they were found to contain
undeclared milk.  People who have an allergy to milk run the risk
of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products.

ORGANIC TRADITIONS DARK CHOCOLATE HAZELNUTS, ORGANIC TRADITIONS
DARK CHOCOLATE HAZELNUTS WITH CHILI, ORGANIC TRADITIONS DARK
CHOCOLATE ALMONDS, and ORGANIC TRADITIONS DARK CHOCOLATE ALMONDS
WITH CHILI were distributed through retail stores in Arizona,
California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina,
New York, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Virginia.

The recall applies to 3.5 oz. (100 g) and 8 oz. (227 g) consumer
size bags as follows:

ORGANIC TRADITIONS DARK CHOCOLATE HAZELNUTS Lot numbers 41.12,
17.13, 04.13, 02.13; NET WT. 3.5 oz. UPC 8 54260 01400 6, and NET
WT. 8 oz. UPC 8 54260 00701 5;

ORGANIC TRADITIONS DARK CHOCOLATE HAZELNUTS WITH CHILI Lot numbers
41.12, 02.13, 16.13; NET WT. 3.5 oz. UPC 8 54260 01450 1, and NET
WT. 8 oz. UPC 8 54260 00703 9;

ORGANIC TRADITIONS DARK CHOCOLATE ALMONDS Lot numbers 39.12,
03.13, 16.13; NET WT. 3.5 oz. UPC 8 54260 01500 3, and NET WT. 8
oz. UPC 8 54260 00705 3;

ORGANIC TRADITIONS DARK CHOCOLATE ALMONDS WITH CHILI Lot numbers
40.12, 16.13; NET WT. 3.5 oz. UPC 8 54260 01550 8, and NET WT. 8
oz. UPC 8 54260 00707 7.

The products were also distributed in cartons containing 2 x 12
lbs. bulk bags (totaling 24 lbs.).

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered by the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) that ORGANIC TRADITIONS DARK
CHOCOLATE HAZELNUTS had tested positive for milk and was
distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of milk.
Testing of the other products by CFIA also revealed the presence
of undeclared milk.  The problem may have been caused through
cross contamination during production and processing at the
foreign manufacturer.

Consumers who have purchased the above lots of ORGANIC TRADITIONS
brand DARK CHOCOLATE HAZELNUTS, DARK CHOCOLATE HAZELNUTS WITH
CHILI, DARK CHOCOLATE ALMONDS, or DARK CHOCOLATE ALMONDS WITH
CHILI are urged to return the product to the place of purchase for
a full refund.  Consumers with questions may contact the company
at 1-888-343-3278, Monday-Friday, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. ET.


HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS: Settles Hip Implant Product Liability Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Rieders, Esq., at Rieders, Travis, Humphrey, Harris Waters &
Waffenschmidt, reports that an agreement has been reached to
settle four Stryker Rejuvenate hip implant products liability
cases as part of early mediation efforts, of the approximately
1000 cases pending against Stryker's parent, Howmedica Osteonics
Corp.  The cases concern problems with Styker's Rejuvenate and ABG
II hip implants which were recalled in July 2012.

Unlike traditional hip implants, which feature a single femoral
component, the Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II are modular neck-
stems, consist of two pieces that fit inside each other to allow
the surgeon to customize the length of the femoral component based
on the patient.  However, the design has been linked to an
increased risk of problems that may result from the release of
microscopic metal debris as the chromium-cobalt neck rubs against
the titanium femoral stem.

About half of the cases currently filed against Stryker have been
filed in New Jersey state court in a consolidated multi-county
proceeding before Judge Brian Martinotti.  The other half of the
cases have been field in federal court as part of a multi-district
litigation in the District of Minnesota.  These cases are being
presided over by Judge Donavan Frank.

According to an order issued on December 16 in the New Jersey
multi-county litigation, the four cases that settled were mediated
in the state court proceeding.  A pool of ten cases had previously
been selected for early negotiations.  Four of the original ten
cases still need to be mediated, and those mediations will resume
in January. Details of the four settlements have not been
disclosed.

If you were injured by a recalled Stryker Rejuvenate or ABG II hip
implant and had or will need to have the defective device
surgically removed, contact Cliff Rieders, Esq. of the Rieders
Travis Firm to determine whether you may have a claim.


INNOTRAC CORP: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholder Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Innotrac Corporation is being sold for an unfair price of $8.20,
according to a class action lawsuit filed in the Georgia Superior
Court for Fulton County.

On November 14, 2013, Innotrac Corporation announced that it has
entered into a definitive merger agreement with an affiliate of
Sterling Partners, providing for the acquisition of all of the
outstanding shares of Innotrac for $8.20 per share in cash.

Following the announcement, several law firms declared that they
are investigating the proposed merger.  Among them are:

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Levi, Esq.
          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad Street - 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: jlevi@zlk.com


          Willie Briscoe, Esq.
          THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          8150 North Central Expressway, Suite 1575
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 239-4568
          Facsimile: (281) 254-7789
          E-mail: WBriscoe@TheBriscoeLawFirm.com

               - and -

          Zach Groover, Esq.
          POWERS TAYLOR LLP
          8150 North Central Expressway, Suite 1575
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 239-8900
          E-mail: shareholder@powerstaylor.com

               - and -

          Charles J. Piven, Esq.
          BROWER PIVEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          1925 Old Valley Road
          Stevenson, MD 21153
          Telephone: (410) 332-0030
          Facsimile: (410) 685-1300
          E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com

               - and -

          Jason L. Brodsky, Esq.
          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602
          Bala Cynwyd, PA
          E-mail: jbrodsky@brodsky-smith.com
                  esmith@brodsky-smith.com


INT'L PAPER: Settles Class Action Over 401(k) Plans for $30 Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit regarding
two of the 401(k) plans sponsored by International Paper Company
that is now pending in the United States District Court of the
Southern District of Illinois.

Who Is Included?

Class members include anyone who participated in the International
Paper Company Hourly Savings Plan or the International Paper
Company Salaried Savings Plan from January 1, 1997, through
May 31, 2008 as well as their beneficiaries and alternate payees.
Class Members also include certain participants in the Plans who
invested in the Company Stock Fund or the Large Cap Stock Fund
during the Class Period and up until May 24, 2011.

What Is The Case About?

The lawsuit was filed against International Paper Company and
other defendants alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and
prohibited transactions which resulted in the Plans paying
excessive fees and investing in certain allegedly imprudent
investments.  The case has been pending for over seven years.
While the parties have decided to settle the case, the defendants
deny any wrongdoing.

What Does The Settlement Provide?

The settlement, which must be approved by the court, creates a $30
million settlement fund.  After payment of court approved
attorneys' fees and expenses, money will be distributed to the
members of the class based upon the length of participation in the
plans.  For current participants in the Plan, your portion will be
deposited in your 401(k) account.  For former participants or
beneficiaries who no longer participate in the Plan, a check will
be mailed to the address you give to the Settlement Administrator.

What Do You Need To Do?

If you participated in one of the Plans at any point in time
during the Class Period or invested your Plan account in the
Plans' Large Cap Stock Fund or Company Stock Fund between
January 1, 1997 and May 24, 2011 (or if you are the beneficiary of
someone who had an account in one of the 401(k) Plans during this
time) and you no longer have an account balance with one of the
Plans as of September 30, 2013, you must submit a claim form by
January 16, 2014 in order to receive any settlement payment.  Call
or visit the website below to get a claim form and obtain
information about the proposed settlement.  Current participants
in the Plans (people with Plan accounts as of September 30, 2013)
do not need to submit a claim form; any amount to them will be
deposited into their plan account unless they withdraw from the
Plans before the settlement payments are distributed, in which
case they will receive their settlement payments by check.

If you are included in the settlement, important information about
your rights and options, and the deadlines to exercise them, are
explained in the Notice available at the following website:
http://www.ip401ksettlement.comor by calling 1-855-332-3411.


IXIA: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Dec. 13
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Ixia
and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United
States District Court, Central District of California, and
docketed under 2:13-cv-8440, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired IXIA
securities between April 29, 2010 and October 24, 2013 both dates
inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages against
Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Ixia securities during the
Class Period, you have until January 14, 2014 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

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

Ixia delivers information technology solutions to a wide variety
of organizations, through real-time monitoring, real-world
testing, and rapid assessment of networks and systems.  The
Company's tools are purportedly used to provide "end-to-end
visibility" and complete understanding into user behavior,
security vulnerabilities, network capacity, application
performance, and IT resiliency.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company
improperly recognized revenues related to its warranty and
software maintenance contracts; (2) The Company's Chief Executive
Officer "CEO" misstated his academic credentials and employment
history; (3) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On March 19, 2013, Ixia announced that it had filed a Form 12b-25
with the SEC relating to the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2012, and that the Company needed
to delay the filing of its Annual Report, "to correct an error
related to the manner in which [Ixia] recognizes revenues for its
warranty and software maintenance contracts."

On April 3, 2013, Ixia announced that after a further evaluation
of the Company's finances, and identifying an additional error in
the Company's revenue recognition practices that required
correction, the Company's management recommended to the audit
committee of the Company that the Company restate previously
issued financial statements for the fiscal years ended
December 31, 2011 and 2010, and the fiscal quarters ended
March 31, 2011, June 30, 2011, September 30, 2011, March 31, 2012,
June 30, 2012, and September 30, 2012; and, that the financial
statements from the Restated Periods should no longer be relied
upon.  On this news, the Company's shares declined $1.94 per
share, or over 9.5%, to close on April 4, 2013, at $18.37 per
share.

On October 24, 2013, the Company disclosed "Vic Alston has
resigned as its President and CEO and as a member of its board of
directors following a determination by the Ixia audit committee
that although he had attended Stanford University, he had
misstated his academic credentials, incorrectly claiming to have
received a B.S. and a M.S. in Computer Science, and had misstated
his age and early employment history."  On this news, the
Company's shares declined $0.78 per share, or nearly 5%, to close
on October 25, 2013, at $14.94 per share.

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.


LEE BROS: Recalls Sausage Products Over Dangerous Toxins
--------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a Northern California company is
recalling 740 pounds of its sausage products because they may be
contaminated with dangerous toxins.

An FSIS inspector discovered during a safety assessment that the
water level in the product may have been high enough to allow for
the production of Staphylococcus aureus enterotoxin.

The United States Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service said on Dec.19 that Lee Bros. Foodservice Inc.
of San Jose is recalling 16-ounce packages of Lee's Sandwiches
brand pork sausages produced on Feb. 11 with the identifying code
"042P" and 16-ounce packages of pork and chicken sausages produced
on Feb. 12 with the code "043PC."

The sausages were sold at outlets in Arizona, California, Nevada,
Oklahoma and Texas as well as online.

There have been no reports of illnesses.


MATTEO'S LANDSCAPING: Class Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rudy Aleman v. Matteo's Landscaping Co, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-
23987-FAM (S.D. Fla., November 4, 2013) is brought on behalf of
the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees for overtime
compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Matteo's Landscaping Co., Inc., owns and operates a landscaping
company and maintains a corporate office in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Dennis Card Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
          2501 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 100
          Hollywood, FL 33020
          Telephone: (954) 921-9994
          Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
          E-mail: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com


MERCK & CO: Accused of Inflating Share Price Over Zetia & Vytorin
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Merck, formerly known as
Schering Plough, inflated its share price by misrepresenting the
benefits of its cholesterol drugs Zetia and Vytorin, shareholders
claims in a federal class action.


MONSANTO CO: Removes "Bass" Suit to Kansas District Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Monsanto Company removed the purported class action lawsuit styled
Bass, et al. v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 13-L-99, from the
Circuit Court for the First Judicial Circuit, Williamson County,
Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
(Kansas City).  The Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:13-cv-02570-KHV-KMH to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arises from the discovery of Monsanto's genetically-
modified wheat in an Oregon wheat field.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patrick W. Pendley, Esq.
          PENDLEY BAUDIN & COFFIN
          PO Box 71
          Plaquemine, LA 70765-0071
          Telephone: (225) 687-6396
          Facsimile: (225) 687-6398
          E-mail: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com

               - and -

          Timothy Keller, Esq.
          ASCHEMANN KELLER LLC
          108 W. Jackson St.
          Marion, IL 62959
          Telephone: (618) 998-9988
          Facsimile: (618) 998-0796
          E-mail: tkeller@quitamlaw.org

Monsanto Company is represented by:

          Christopher M. Hohn, Esq.
          Matthew S. Bober, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN LLP - ST. LOUIS
          One US Bank Plaza
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 552-6159
          Facsimile: (314) 552-7159
          E-mail: chohn@thompsoncoburn.com
                  mbober@thompsoncoburn.com


NASDAQ OMX: Claims Over Botched Facebook IPO Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that shareholder claims against Nasdaq OMX Group Inc. over
Facebook Inc.'s botched IPO will move forward after a federal
judge found that the exchange was not immune from liability over
the technical glitches that occurred that day.

U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet of the Southern District of New
York refused to dismiss about a dozen lawsuits against the
exchange, which argued it was protected from lawsuits as a
"self-regulatory organization" under U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission rules.  The exchange also argued that investors, who
have no contractual relationship with the exchange, cannot sue
under New York's economic loss doctrine.

Judge Sweet disagreed on Dec. 12, upholding claims that Nasdaq was
negligent for the technical problems.

"Nasdaq's software is an integral part of Nasdaq's overall
business package, intended to create a market for new, revenue-
producing IPO business, not in furtherance of any purported
regulatory function," he wrote.

But he dismissed other claims, calling Nasdaq's decision not to
halt trades "a quintessentially regulatory function" that
immunized the exchange from liability.

He scheduled a hearing for Feb. 3.

Judge Sweet, overseeing all the litigation over the Facebook IPO,
which was coordinated for pretrial purposes, has not yet ruled on
separate motions to dismiss about 30 other lawsuits filed against
Facebook and its executives, including chief executive officer
Mark Zuckerberg, and various underwriters of the offering.

Douglas Thompson -- dthompson@finkelsteinthompson.com -- co-lead
counsel for the negligence cases against Nasdaq and a partner at
Washington's Finkelstein Thompson, said in an email to The
National Law Journal that he "is gratified that Judge Sweet, in a
well-reasoned opinion, rejected Nasdaq's over-broad and sweeping
claims of regulatory immunity from liability for its own
negligence in connection with the Facebook IPO. Retail investors
will now have the opportunity to proceed with discovery and
litigation to recoup losses caused by the Nasdaq system failures."

Nasdaq attorney Stephen Kastenberg -- kastenberg@ballardspahr.com
-- a partner at Ballard Spahr in Philadelphia, did not respond to
a request for comment.

On May 8, 2012, Facebook's public offering price of $38 per share
plummeted soon after its debut, causing millions of dollars in
investor losses.  The exchange paid $10 million to settle claims
brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and another
$62 million to member companies over its handling of the IPO.

The suits against The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC and its parent,
Nasdaq OMX Group Inc., claim the exchange was negligent in the
design, testing and implement of its software system, the failure
of which caused $500 million in losses in premarket and
aftermarket orders during Facebook's IPO.

The negligence cases also name the exchange's CEO, Robert
Greifeld, and Anna Ewing, its chief information officer, claiming
that Nasdaq officials, driven by competition for business, went
ahead with Facebook's IPO despite being aware of "unresolved
technical issues" with its electronic trading system.

Judge Sweet noted that "irreconcilable conflict" in granting
immunity to exchanges that now make profits.  "While the doctrine
of SRO must continue to ensure regulatory independence, it cannot
be applied to allow blanket protection for exchanges when they
fail to exercise due care in their pursuits of profit," he wrote.

Judge Sweet also upheld securities fraud claims over statements
about the exchange's technical capabilities that Nasdaq officials
made before, but not during, Facebook's IPO.  Vincent Cappucci --
vcappucci@entwistle-law.com -- of New York's Entwistle & Cappucci,
lead plaintiffs attorney in the securities claims, did not respond
to a request for comment.

U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet also refused to dismiss claims
against the Facebook defendants and the underwriters of its IPO.
In his Dec. 12 ruling, which was made public late on Dec. 17,
Judge Sweet concluded that Facebook's executives were negligent
and made material misrepresentations in its registration filings
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission by stating that
mobile phone use would impair the company's projected advertising
revenues when, in fact, it already had.  Such "generalized and
indefinite terms," he wrote, "fail to constitute sufficient
disclosure."  A Facebook spokesperson said, "We continue to
believe this suit lacks merit and look forward to a full airing of
the facts."


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Maryland to Get $88 Mil. From Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Sherman, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that
Maryland expects to receive about $88 million of a $2.1 billion
national settlement reached with Ocwen Financial Corp. over
"systematic misconduct" in the mortgage servicer's handling of
loans.

Announced on Dec. 19, the deal settles a federal complaint brought
by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and officials from
Washington, D.C., and every state except Oklahoma.  It alleged
Ocwen, the largest non-bank servicer of home mortgages, committed
a range of unlawful acts, including improperly rejecting loan
modifications, charging customers inappropriate fees and failing
to maintain accurate account statements.

The agreement brings a non-bank servicer under federal oversight
and requires Ocwen, which specializes in servicing subprime and
delinquent loans, to provide $2 billion toward principal
reductions and $125 million in cash payments to about 185,000
borrowers nationwide who lost their homes to foreclosure between
2009 and 2012.

"This will bring relief to Ocwen victims and it will improve
conditions in the mortgage market by reducing the number of
foreclosures," said Richard Cordray, director of the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, in a conference call announcing the
deal.

In November, Maryland had the third-highest foreclosure rate in
the nation, according to RealtyTrac, a real estate data firm.

Under the proposed court order, which must be approved by a
federal judge, Maryland is expected to receive about $86 million
for principal reduction, the sixth-highest amount among the
states, or 4.3 percent of the relief available, according to
Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler.  There also are
2,461 borrowers in Maryland who lost homes to foreclosure who are
eligible for cash payments, with disbursements expected to be more
than $1,000 each.

The complaint concerns loans serviced by Atlanta-based Ocwen,
subsidiary Ocwen Loan Servicing, and two companies acquired by
Ocwen, Homeward Residential Inc. and Litton Loan Servicing LP.

The settlement is the biggest since the $25 billion agreement
reached in 2012 with the nation's five largest bank servicers:
Ally/GMAC, Bank of America/Countrywide, Citi, JPMorgan Chase/WaMu
and Wells Fargo/Wachovia.  To date, that settlement has provided
about $1.5 billion in relief for more than 27,000 families in
Maryland, Mr. Gansler said.

"At the time we made the settlement, we talked about how in the
future we were going to continue to work with our federal partners
to go after other companies that participated in the subprime
[lending] and insidious conduct of the banks at that time,"
Mr. Gansler said.  "This is one of them."

In addition to financial penalties, the order imposes new
standards on Ocwen for communicating with customers and processing
modification requests.  It also forbids business policies that
"disfavor" particular places or classes of borrowers.

In a statement, Ocwen said it is pleased with the agreement and
the requirements bring "welcome clarity and certainty concerning
best industry practices."

"The agreement, which is subject to court approval, is in
alignment with the same ultimate goals that we share with the
regulators -- to prevent foreclosures and help struggling families
keep their homes," it said.

Joseph A. Smith, who was appointed to monitor bank compliance with
the 2012 settlement, also will monitor implementation of this
agreement. Smith's most recent report found that Bank of America,
JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup continued to violate terms of that
agreement.

Marceline White, executive director of the Maryland Consumer
Rights Coalition, praised the Ocwen settlement for its focus on
principal reduction, and for not protecting the company from other
criminal or civil suits.  But she said she wants to have access to
data showing which customers are receiving help to ensure the
relief is not used on a smaller number of high-figure reductions.

"It's very positive," Ms. White said.  "We really do believe that
with this settlement they should go a step farther and make sure
that you can see how the relief is being distributed."


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Homeowners to Get $2 Bil. in Principal Reductions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Ellen Podmolik, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that
Ocwen Financial Corp. will provide $2 billion in principal
reductions to underwater borrowers as well as refund $125 million
to almost 185,000 borrowers who have already lost their homes to
foreclosure, under the terms of a settlement designed to resolve
allegations against the nation's largest nonbank servicer of home
mortgages.

The proposed consent decree addresses what the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau called a "systemic misconduct" by Atlanta-based
Ocwen.

Struggling homeowners in Illinois will receive more than $91
million in primary mortgage principal reductions, and more than
7,900 borrowers will be eligible for cash payments, according to
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan.

"Similar to the national mortgage settlement, this settlement will
provide loan refinancing and direct payments to harmed borrowers,"
she said.

The proposed order was filed in U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
and the attorneys general of Illinois and 48 other states and
Washington, D.C.  It is the latest settlement to address robo-
signing allegations and other fraudulent practices in mortgage
servicing, and comes almost 22 months after a similar $25 billion
national settlement with the nation's five largest banks.

"Deceptions and shortcuts in mortgage servicing will not be
tolerated," said CFPB Director Richard Cordray, in a statement.
"Ocwen took advantage of borrowers at every stage of the process."

The company will contact affected borrowers directly but they can
also contact the company at 1-800-337- 6695, or Madigan's
homeowner's help line, 1-866-544-7151.

Ocwen is the fourth-largest mortgage servicer in the nation,
having made several acquisitions in recent years.  Along with its
purchase of competitors Homeward Residential Holdings LLC,
formerly called American Home Mortgage Servicing Inc., and Litton
Loan Servicing LP, it has acquired large mortgage servicing
portfolios from some of the nation's largest banks.


OGDEN CAP: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Rent Abatements
------------------------------------------------------------
Kaitlin Ugolik, writing for Law360, reports that a New York judge
dismissed a proposed class action on Dec. 11 filed by three
Manhattan tenants aiming to secure rent abatements from the
landlords of all New York state renters for warranty of
habitability violations in the wake of Superstorm Sandy.

Justice Shirley Kornreich found that since the damages sought
depended on so many distinct and specific situations across the
state -- including where buildings are located, how badly each was
affected by the storm and what each landlord did to mitigate those
impacts -- a class action would not be the proper way to
adjudicate.

While certain factors like electricity outages can be determined
on a classwide basis thanks to the availability of public data, it
would be impossible to make similar determinations about the
impacts that outages had on each member of the class, according to
the opinion.

"Inquiries do not get more fact-specific than this," Justice
Justice Kornreich said.

If the class were to move forward, landlords who took great pains
to accommodate their tenants and keep their buildings inhabitable
would be lumped in with those who made no effort at all, leaving
the responsible landlords to effectively subsidize those who
failed, the opinion said.

Even the smallest possible class including only tenants in a
single building would also not likely be viable, the judge said,
because even in the same building, damages and mitigation would
likely vary by apartment.

"The court was really trying to send a clear message that a class
action litigation with respect to 235b claims, especially in the
context of Hurricane Sandy, is really not the appropriate means of
adjudicating a claim for a rebate on rent," Herrick Feinstein
LLP's Mara Levin, an attorney for the defendants, told Law360 on
Dec. 13.

Justice Kornreich agreed, however, to consider a class limited to
specific buildings where plaintiffs can prove they endured similar
conditions and received the same treatment from landlords.  And
she granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their petition and
agreed to allow one plaintiff -- Briana Adler -- to file an
amended complaint within 20 days.

But the plaintiffs are prohibited from asserting claims against
the property managers listed as defendants in the current proposed
action, since they are not landlords and are therefore not
responsible for damages related to breaches of warranty of
habitability.

The judge dismissed all claims against Ogden Cap Properties LLC,
Solil Management LLC and Sol Goldman Investments LLC, noting that
as nonlandlords they could not be held accountable as third
parties for the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims either.

Justice Kornreich also tossed out two of the plaintiffs'
complaints because they chose to leave their apartments before
Sandy hit in order to avoid it, not because their homes became
uninhabitable afterward.

"A rent rebate would be a windfall, not compensation for lacking a
habitable residence" in these cases, and plaintiffs Lauren
Schoenfeld and Perri Steiner would not be representative of their
proposed classes, the judge said.

Counsel for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests
for comment on Dec. 13.

The plaintiffs are represented by Barbara J. Hart --
bhart@lowey.com -- Thomas Skelton -- tskelton@lowey.com -- and
Scott V. Papp -- spapp@lowey.com -- of Lowey Dannenberg Cohen &
Hart PC and the Law Office of Harold M. Hoffman.

The defendants are represented by Mara Levin and Janice Goldberg
of Herrick Feinstein LLP.

The case is Adler et al. v. Ogden Cap Properties LLC et al., case
number 650292/2013, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York.


ORGANON: Many Women Suffer From NuvaRing Side Effects
-----------------------------------------------------
Dallas Hartman, Esq., at Dallas W. Hartman P.C. reports that in
2002, the Dutch drug manufacturer, Organon, released NuvaRing, one
of the most popular contraceptive drugs in history.  The multi-
billion dollar product, NuvaRing, was marketed as the first
hormonal contraceptive ring in the entire world.  Banking on
convenience, it was allowed women to refrain from taking the pill
and was hailed as the greatest advancement in birth control
technology since the sixties.

However, before NuvaRing could be sold in the United States, it
had to meet federal Food and Drug Administration guidelines.
Needless to say, the FDA voiced some concerns, but the product
went to market anyway, despite several notable risks.

It was known during preliminary testing the hormonal
contraceptives carried a heightened risk of blood clotting.  This
risk was compounded in women who were over the age of thirty-five
or who smoked, however, some tests showed healthy women in their
twenties developing blood clots and most experts agreed that this
was likely in part due to the use of the NuvaRing.

As a result of these finding, the FDA did not disapprove the
product, but did advise Organon to include a written statement in
NuvaRing's packaging, warning them and their physicians of the
possible risk of blood clots.  Administrative executives from
Organon, which is now a subsidiary of the giant drug conglomerate
Merck & Company, opposed these written warnings as they assumed it
would be a huge hit to their potential billions in profits.  "We
should . . . try to get it out of the text" wrote one
administrator in an email to a coworker in 2000.

The give-and-take between the FDA and drug manufacturers and what
they are supposed to have on their labels and in their packaging
is skewed in favor of drug companies, many argue.  The FDA relies
heavily on the manufacturers to provide the clinical trial results
and other reliable data.  In fact, 70% of the money for FDA
reviews comes directly from the drug industry.  As a result, when
a company puts as much stock into a drug or product like NuvaRing,
public safety can often be foregone in the shadow of what a
company stands to make from sales of a product.

As the FDA and NuvaRing makers went back and forth, the battle
eventually wore itself out and the FDA conceded that NuvaRing's
users' increased chances of blood clots was "unknown."  Even after
Organon basically got its way, providing minimal risk warnings to
the package of NuvaRing, there director of marketing told
colleagues "I am still unhappy . . . What are the chances that
this section can be removed altogether?"

Thirteen years later, many women have fallen victim to the adverse
side effects of the NuvaRing and some have even died from using
the product.


PANASONIC CORP: April 3 Final Approval Hearing in ODD Suit Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The final approval hearing of the settlement reached with
Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North America
in the case, In re Optical Disk Drive Antitrust Litig.; Case No.
M:10-cv-2143 RS, originally set for March 27, 2014, has been
continued to April 3, 2014, at 1:30 p.m. in U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California in San Francisco.
District Judge Richard Seeborg oversees the case.

Other important dates related to the Panasonic settlement:

    October 31, 2013: Preliminary Approval Date

    January 27, 2014: Deadline to Object to the Settlement
                      (must be postmarked by this date)

    January 27, 2014: Deadline to Request Exclusion/Opt Out
                      from the Settlement (must be postmarked
                      by this date)

    April 3, 2014
    at 1:30 p.m.:     Fairness Hearing

The Settlement with Panasonic provides for payment of $5,750,000
in cash, plus interest.  The Settlement also provides for the
production of witnesses.  In addition, Panasonic Corporation and
Panasonic Corporation of North America sales remain in the case
for the purpose of computing damages against the remaining Non-
Settling Defendants.  Finally, the Settlement provides that
$750,000 of the $5,750,000 Settlement Fund, subject to Court
approval, may be used to pay expenses incurred in the litigation
for prosecution of the action on behalf of the Settlement Class
against Non-Settling Defendants.

Plaintiffs claim that Defendants and co-conspirators engaged in an
unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the
prices of ODDs.  Plaintiffs further claim that direct purchasers
from the Defendants of laptop and notebook computers that contain
ODDs may recover for the effect that the ODD conspiracy had on the
prices of these devices.  Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of
the unlawful conspiracy involving ODDs, they and other direct
purchasers paid more for ODDs than they would have paid absent the
conspiracy.  Defendants deny Plaintiffs' claims.

ODD stands for "Optical Disk Drive."  ODDs are any device which
reads and/or writes data from and to an optical disk, including
but not limited to, CD-ROMS, CD-recordable/rewritable, DVD-ROM,
DVD-recordable/rewritable, Blu-Ray, Blu-Ray recordable/rewritable,
HD-DVD, Super Multi-Drives and other combination drives, and
optical disk drives designed to be attached externally to
computers or other devices.  "Optical Disk Drive Devices" or "ODD
Devices" include desktop computers, mobile/laptop computers,
videogame consoles, CD players/recorders, DVD players/recorders,
and Blu-Ray disc players/recorders incorporating ODDs.

The lawsuit alleges that Defendants and Co-Conspirators engaged in
an unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the
prices of ODDs.  Plaintiffs further claim that direct purchasers
from the Defendants of ODD Devices manufactured by a Defendant may
recover for the effect that the alleged ODD conspiracy had on the
prices of ODDs and ODD Devices.  Plaintiffs allege that, as result
of the unlawful conspiracy involving ODDs, they and other direct
purchasers paid more for ODDs and ODD Devices than they would have
absent the conspiracy.  Defendants deny Plaintiffs' claims.

The Defendant companies include: Sony Corporation, Sony Optiarc
Inc., NEC Corporation, Sony NEC Optiarc Inc., Sony Optiarc America
Inc., Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc., Sony Electronics,
Inc., LG Electronics Inc., LG Electronics USA, Inc., Hitachi,
Ltd., Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc., Hitachi-LG Data Storage
Korea, Inc., Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America Information
Systems, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics
America, Inc., Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp., Toshiba
Samsung Storage Technology Corp. Korea, Lite-On IT Corp. of
Taiwan, Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., Philips & Lite-On
Digital Solutions Corp., Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions USA,
Inc., BenQ Corporation, BenQ America Corporation, TEAC
Corporation, TEAC America, Inc., Quanta Storage, Inc., Quanta
Storage America, Inc., Panasonic Corporation, and Panasonic
Corporation of North America.

Only two of the Defendants have agreed to settle the lawsuit at
this time -- Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of
North America. The Court has previously approved a settlement with
Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc., Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea,
Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics USA, and Hitachi, Ltd.

Additional money may become available in the future as a result of
a trial or future settlements, but there is no guarantee that this
will happen.

The Settlement includes all persons and entities who, between
January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2011, directly purchased an ODD
or ODD Device in the United States from any defendant or
subsidiary or affiliate thereof.

The Hitachi-LG Settlement provided for the payment of $26,000,000
in cash, plus interest, to the Settlement Class.  The Settlement
provided that $500,000 of the Settlement Fund, subject to Court
approval, may be used to pay expenses incurred in the litigation
for prosecution of the action on behalf of the Class against the
non-released Defendants.

The Court has appointed the law firm of Saveri & Saveri, Inc. as
Interim Lead Class Counsel, to represent Direct Purchaser Class
members.  The firm may be reached at:

     Guido Saveri, Esq.
     R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
     Geoffrey C. Rushing, Esq.
     Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
     SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
     706 Sansome Street
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     E-mail: guido@saveri.com
             rick@saveri.com
             grushing@saveri.com
             cadio@saveri.com

Counsel for Panasonic:

     Jeffrey L. Kessler, Esq.
     A. Paul Victor, Esq.
     David L. Greenspan, Esq.
     George E. Mastoris, Esq.
     WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
     200 Park Avenue
     New York, NY 10166
     E-mail: jkessler@winston.com
             pvictor@winston.com
             dgreenspan@winston.com
             gmastoris@winston.com

The ODD Claims Administrator is Gilardi & Co. LLC.

For more details, call toll free 1-888-270-0759, visit
www.ODDDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com, or write to ODD
Direct Settlement, P.O. Box 6002, Larkspur CA 94977-6002


PERFORMANCE BROADBAND: Has Misclassified Employees, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Thomas, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Performance Broadband Solutions, LLC; and Joseph E.
Enwanns, Case No. 5:13-cv-01006 (W.D. Tex., November 4, 2013)
alleges that the Defendants paid the Plaintiff on a piece rate
basis depending on the type of work performed, but did not pay him
overtime pay for hours at the overtime rate required under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Plaintiff adds that he also was not
compensated at the FLSA required minimum wage.

Mr. Thomas contends that the Defendants accomplished this
underpayment by misclassifying their employees as independent
contractors, thereby, denying the employees the benefits and
protections of the FLSA.

Performance Broadband Solutions, LLC is a domestic limited
liability company headquartered in San Antonio, Texas.  Joseph E.
Enwanns is the president, owner, and manager of Performance
Broadband Solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Galvin B. Kennedy
          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
          711 W. Alabama St.
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: Gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com
                  dfoty@kennedyhodges.com


PHILIP MORRIS: Court Refuses to Recognize Medical Monitoring Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Stashenko, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a
divided Court of Appeals refused on Dec. 17 to recognize a
New York cause of action that would force Philip Morris to pay for
perpetual medical tests for current and former smokers to detect
the first signs of cancer.

The majority in the 4-2 decision conceded that there were
"significant policy reasons" for recognizing a medical monitoring
cause of action.  But it said that taking such an action could
flood the courts with the claims of tens of millions of smokers
worried about the health effects of their tobacco use.

In addition, allowing plaintiffs without symptoms to "recover
medical monitoring costs without first establishing physical
injury would lead to the inequitable diversion of money away from
those who have actually sustained an injury as the result of the
exposure," Judge Eugene Pigott Jr. wrote for the majority in
Caronia v. Philip Morris USA, 227.

The Legislature is in a far better position than the court to
determine the "impact and consequences" of creating a medical
monitoring cause of action in New York, Judge Pigott wrote.  He
said that includes quantifying the "costs of implementation and
the burden on the courts in adjudicating such claims."

The majority said that Appellate Division Departments in New York
have consistently held that medical monitoring is an element of
damages that may only be recovered after a physical injury has
been proven, citing the precedent-setting Abusio v. Consolidated
Edison of New York, 238 AD2d 454 (2d Dept. 1997).

But Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman said in a dissent that the
majority was taking an "indefensible" position.

"The majority resolutely stands frozen in time as it denies
plaintiffs the opportunity to take advantage of life-saving
technology," Judge Lippman wrote in an opinion in which he was
joined by Judge Jenny Rivera.

Judge Lippman argued that developing a practical system of medical
monitoring for smokers was not as imposing a task as the majority
claimed it was.  He said state courts in Florida and Maryland have
recognized workable systems for conducting ongoing examinations of
people exposed to toxic substances.

"Where, as here, it is within the Court's power to provide a
vehicle for plaintiffs to seek equitable relief capable of
forestalling profound suffering and death, judicial hesitance and
legislative deference only serve to thwart the ends of justice,"
Judge Lippman wrote.

Judge Lippman said the reality of lung cancer, which is attributed
to smoking in the overwhelming majority of cases, is that its
victims cannot wait until the disease manifests itself.

"Plaintiffs are unlikely to manifest symptoms of lung cancer
unless and until the disease is at an advanced stage, at which
point mortality rates are high and the only treatments available
would be aimed at extending their lives, not saving them,"
Judge Lippman said.

Judges Victoria Graffeo, Susan Phillips Read and Sheila
Abdus-Salaam joined Pigott to form the majority.

Judge Robert Smith did not take part in the ruling.

Kenneth Parsigian -- kenneth.parsigian@lw.com -- of Latham &
Watkins in Boston represented Philip Morris.

Murray Garnick, associate general counsel of Philip Morris USA's
parent company, Altria, said in a statement, "We believe that the
New York Court of Appeals correctly held that there is no basis
under the law that supports creating a medical monitoring claim."

Victoria Phillips of Phillips & Paolicelli in Manhattan, who
argued for the plaintiffs, said the dissenters "really got it
right."

"Given Philip Morris' profound wrongdoing in this case and the
fact that the plaintiffs and the class members are at an increased
risk for contracting cancer, we think they should have been able
to pursue an independent cause of action for medical monitoring,"
she said in an interview.

Ms. Phillips said the medical monitoring cause of action in a
class-action case in Massachusetts similar to Caronia, Donovan v.
Philip Morris USA, 455 Mass 215 (2009), has so far been upheld by
courts in that state.

Judge Lippman cited Donovan and advances in imaging technology
through Low-Dose Computerized Tomography scanning of the chest to
detect early-stage malignancies when making his argument for
adopting the new cause of action.

Phillips said the success of the Massachusetts case would not
benefit the three plaintiffs in Caronia, Marcia Caronia, Linda
McAuley and Arlene Feldman.

All three women sued Philip Morris in 2006, contending that its
cigarettes had significantly increased their risk of developing
lung cancer.  The Caronia plaintiffs sought for Philip Morris to
establish a court-supervised program of medical monitoring for
current and former smokers.

The case came to the Court of Appeals in the form of a certified
question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The circuit asked for guidance about whether New York state law
would permit the independent cause of action for medical
monitoring.  The federal court upheld the dismissal of other
claims against Philip Morris USA for negligence, strict liability
and breach of warranty in the putative class action.

Eastern District Judge Carol Bagley Amon had dismissed all the
claims, including the medical monitoring claim, in Caronia v.
Philip Morris USA, 11-0316-cv.

                         Police Testimony

In another ruling on Dec. 17, the Court of Appeals decided in
People v. Smith, 226, that a police officer may be allowed to
testify about the description a crime victim gave about his or her
attacker, if that testimony does not tend to mislead the jury.

The court said its 6-1 ruling represents an expansion of People v.
Huertas, 75 NY2d 487 (1990), in which the court held that crime
victims could testify to their own descriptions of their
attackers.

The majority said in a ruling by Smith that it could see no reason
why the rule of Huertas, like CPL 60.30's hearsay exception for
prior eyewitness identifications, is limited to a witness' account
of his or her own previous statement.

"We see nothing to justify such a limitation," Smith wrote. "A
statement that is not hearsay when the declarant testifies to it
does not become hearsay when someone else does so."

Judges Lippman, Graffeo, Read, Pigott and Abdus-Salaam agreed.

In a dissent, Rivera argued that officers' testimony about the
victim's description of an assailant would tend to unfairly
"bolster" the veracity of the victim's testimony by being repeated
by other witnesses in violation of People v. Caserta, 19 NY2d 18
(1966).

"The majority states that its decision should not be read 'as
giving carte blanche to the presentation of redundant police
testimony that accomplishes no useful purpose,' but I can see no
other result from the decision," Rivera wrote, quoting Caserta.

The case concerned whether testimony by two police officers was
properly admitted at Torrel Smith's trial for a gunpoint robbery
in Yonkers.  Both officers' testimony of how robbery victim Hector
Velez described his assailant was consistent with Velez's own
statements to police after the crime, the court said.

Assistant Westchester District Attorney Maria Wager argued for the
prosecution.  Salvatore Gaetani of the Legal Aid Society of
Westchester County represented Smith.


PROCTOR AND GAMBLE: Court Junked Mislabeling Claims vs. Kellogg
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honorable Paul S. Grewal, United States Magistrate Judge, granted
in part and denied in part motions to dismiss a class action
lawsuit initiated by Sarah Samet and Jay Peters against Procter &
Gamble Company, Kellogg Company and Kellogg Sales Company.

The Plaintiffs' cause of action under the California's Unfair
Competition Law's unlawful prong against Pringles reduced fat and
100 calorie pack labels is dismissed with prejudice and without
leave to amend, as are their claims against all Pringles labels
that stem from "healthy and wholesome" allegations.  All causes of
action against Fruity Snacks are dismissed with prejudice and
without leave to amend.  The Defendants' motion to dismiss is
denied with respect to all other products and causes of action.

The Plaintiffs, Sarah Samet and Jay Peters, bought chip, riblet,
and fruit snack products made and sold by the Defendants.  The
Plaintiffs allege that each product they bought had labels with
various nutritional content claims, like the amount of trans fat,
the use of evaporated cane juice, and a description of the product
as "healthy."  The Plaintiffs seek in their complaint to hold the
Defendants accountable for what they say are allegedly misleading
representations in these content claims and others.

P&G is a multinational company that manufactures and sells a
variety of packaged food products, including Pringles potato chip
snacks.  Kellogg also sells packaged food products.  Since the
initial filing of the lawsuit on June 1, 2012, Kellogg acquired
from P&G the Pringles brand and business.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
          PRATT & ASSOCIATES
          1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
          San Jose, CA 95126
          Telephone: (408) 369-0800
          Facsimile: (408) 369-0752
          E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com

               - and -

          Dewitt Marshall Lovelace, Sr., Esq.
          Alex Peet, Esq.
          LOVELACE LAW FIRM, P.A.
          12870 U.S. Highway 98 West, Suite 200
          Miramar Beach, FL 32550
          Telephone: (850) 837-6020
          Facsimile: (850) 837-4093
          E-mail: courtdocs@lovelacelaw.com

               - and -

          Ananda N. Chaudhuri, Esq.
          Frank Karam, Esq.
          Keith M. Fleischman, Esq.
          FLEISCHMAN LAW FIRM
          565 Fifth Avenue, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 880-9567
          E-mail: achaudhuri@fleischmanlawfirm.com
                  fkaram@fleischmanlawfirm.com
                  keith@fleischmanlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Brian K. Herrington, Esq.
          David Malcolm McMullan, Jr., Esq.
          John W. (Don) Barrett, Esq.
          Katherine B. Riley, Esq.
          DON BARRETT, P.A.
          P.O. Box 927
          404 Court Square North
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
          E-mail: bherrington@barrettlawgroup.com
                  dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Carol Nelkin, Esq.
          Jay P. Nelkin, Esq.
          Stuart M. Nelkin, Esq.
          NELKIN, NELKIN & KROCK, PC
          5417 Chaucer Dr.
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 526-4500
          Facsimile: (281) 825-4161
          E-mail: c.nelkin@nelkinpc.com
                  jnelkin@nelkinpc.com
                  snelkin@nelkinpc.com

               - and -

          Charles F. Barrett, Esq.
          CHARLES BARRETT, P.C.
          6518 Highway 100, Suite 210
          Nashville, TN 37205
          Telephone: (615) 515-3393
          Facsimile: (615) 515-3395
          E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com

               - and -

          David Shelton, Esq.
          P.O. Box 2541
          1223 Jackson Avenue East, Suite 202
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 281-1212
          E-mail: david@davidsheltonpllc.com

               - and -

          J. Price Coleman, Esq.
          COLEMAN LAW FIRM
          1100 Tyler Avenue, Suite 102
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 236-0047
          Facsimile: (662) 513-0072
          E-mail: colemanlawfirmpa@bellsouth.net

               - and -

          Richard Barrett, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD R. BARRETT, PLLC
          2086 Old Taylor Rd., Suite 1011
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 380-5018
          Facsimile: (866) 430-5459
          E-mail: rrb@rrblawfirm.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian G. Selden, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          1755 Embarcadero Rd.
          Palo Alto, CA 94303
          Telephone: (650) 739-3939
          E-mail: bgselden@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Craig Ellsworth Stewart, Esq.
          Robert Allan Mittelstaedt, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 626-3939
          Facsimile: (415) 875-5700
          E-mail: cestewart@jonesday.com
                  ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Bruce Berman, Esq.
          JONES DAY REAVIS & POGUE
          51 Louisiana Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20001-2113
          Telephone: (202) 879-3939
          Facsimile: (202) 626-1700
          E-mail: jberman@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Dean N. Panos, Esq.
          JENNER AND BLOCK LLP
          353 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654-3456
          Telephone: (312) 222-9350
          E-mail: dpanos@jenner.com

               - and -

          Kenneth Kiyul Lee, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          633 West 5th Street, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239-5152
          Facsimile: (213) 239-5162
          E-mail: klee@jenner.com

The case is Samet, et al. v. Proctor and Gamble Company, et al.,
Case No. 5:12-cv-01891-PSG, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Jose).


SEQWATER: Defends Actions During Queensland Floods
--------------------------------------------------
News.com.au reports that Australia's largest class action brought
by victims of the 2011 southeast Queensland floods will come down
to conflicting interpretations of Queensland Flood Inquiry
findings.

As lawyers behind the lawsuit resumed community meetings with
flood victims around Brisbane, Queensland's top water body,
Seqwater released a formal statement defending its actions during
the flood.  Seqwater said it was prepared for a courtroom showdown
with Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, which is pursuing the lawsuit
backed by IMF Australia.  It said it would rely on Queensland
Flood Inquiry findings to back its position.

The inquiry, which released its final report in March 2012, "in no
way concluded there was any negligence in its management of the
January 2011 flood event", Seqwater said.

Maurice Blackburn partner Rod Hodgson has said the class action
would use the same report to back its case.

Mr. Hodgson said the Flood Inquiry Report found the flood
engineers failed to operate the dam in accordance with the dam
operating manual.

"In essence, the findings confirm that too much water was allowed
to accumulate in Wivenhoe Dam and the strategy for water releases
was botched," Mr. Hodgson said.

Seqwater said it still believed Wivenhoe operations during the
January 2011 event and the release strategies adopted by its
engineers significantly mitigated the flood.

"This position has not changed."

Seqwater said independent experts retained by the Commission
concluded that, in light of the information available at the time
and the requirements of the Wivenhoe manual, the flood engineers
achieved close to the best possible flood mitigation result for
the January event.

"Furthermore, four other highly respected independent experts who
appeared at the Commission supported Seqwater's view that releases
actually made by the flood engineers were appropriate and
reasonable."

An independent review of Seqwater's report into the flood by the
United States Bureau of Reclamation and United States Army Corps
of Engineers also strongly supported the decisions made and
actions undertaken by Seqwater.

"Seqwater remains acutely aware of the impact of the floods and
the devastation caused, which is ongoing for so many in our
community.

"However it is important not to lose sight of the significant
magnitude and rarity of the January event, which was effectively
twice the size of the 1974 flood."

Seqwater said while no formal claim had been lodged against the
organization, it remained "confident that its position will be
justified if the matter ever comes before a court".


TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Antitrust Suit Related to Aggrenox
--------------------------------------------------------------
Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, an
Israeli corporation, Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Barr Laboratories Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Duramed Pharmaceuticals Inc. (n/k/a Teva Women's Health Inc.), a
Delaware corporation, Duramed Pharmaceuticals Sales Corp., a
Delaware corporation, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, a
German limited partnership, Boehringer Ingelheim International
GmbH, a German limited liability company, and Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:13-cv-
07068-MSG (E.D. Pa., December 4, 2013) is a class action, alleging
violation of civil antitrust laws on behalf of a Class of indirect
purchasers of the drug Aggrenox since August 14, 2009.

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its affiliates
developed Aggrenox, combining extended-release dipyridamole with
acetylsalicylic acid, aspirin, to lower the risk of stroke in
patients, whose blood clots have caused a transient ischemic
attack or stroke.  In violation of federal and state antitrust
laws, the Plaintiff alleges that Boehringer conspired with certain
generic pharmaceutical manufacturers to pay them not to produce
and sell a generic equivalent of Aggrenox.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Teva
Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, is a Delaware corporation
based in North Wales, Pennsylvania.  Teva Pharmaceuticals
manufactures and distributes generic drugs for sale throughout the
United States at the direction, under the control, and for the
direct benefit of its parent company.  Teva Pharmaceuticals
Industries Limited is an Israeli corporation headquartered in
Petach Tikva, Israel.  Teva is a leading manufacturer of generic
drugs, and is one of the largest sellers of generic drugs in the
United States.  Teva purchased Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. on
December 23, 2008.

Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered
in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.  Barr Laboratories, Inc. is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.
On December 23, 2008, Barr became a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Teva.

Duramed Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.  Until 2008, Duramed
was a subsidiary of Barr.  In December 2008, when Teva purchased
Barr, Duramed became a subsidiary of Teva and is now known as Teva
Women's Health Inc.  Duramed Pharmaceuticals Sales Corp. is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey.
Duramed Pharmaceuticals Sales Corp. was a subsidiary of Barr until
December 2008, when it became a subsidiary of Teva.

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG is a German limited
partnership headquartered in Ingelheim, Germany.  Boehringer
Ingelheim International GmbH is a German limited liability company
also headquartered in Ingelheim, Germany.  Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Ridgefield, Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stewart L. Cohen, Esq.
          Robert L. Pratter, Esq.
          Michael Coren, Esq.
          Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
          COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.
          Two Commerce Square, Suite 2900
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 567-3500
          E-mail: scohen@cprlaw.com
                  rpratter@cprlaw.com
                  mcoren@cprlaw.com
                  jgoldberg@cprlaw.com

               - and -

          Stephen C. Richman, Esq.
          MARKOWITZ & RICHMAN
          123 South Broad Street,
          Philadelphia, PA 19109
          Telephone: (267) 528-0121
          E-mail: srichman@markowitzandrichman.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Action Settlement Notification Program Begins
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rochon Genova LLP disclosed that a notification program began on
Friday, December 13, 2013, as ordered by Mr. Justice Perell of the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, M. Justice Castiglio of the
Superior Court of Quebec, Mr. Justice Zarzeczny of the
Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench and Mr. Justice MacDougall of
the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, to alert Canadian residents of a
proposed settlement related to certain Toyota vehicles.  This
notification program is also to advise affected Canadians of the
proposed certification/authorization of several lawsuits as class
actions and of Class Members' rights related to that proposed
certification/authorization and the proposed Settlement.

The settlement, which requires Court approval, relates to class
actions about whether the Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered
economic loss arising from Toyota and Lexus vehicles equipped with
an Electronic Throttle Control System (ETCS).

The classes will include anyone living in Canada who currently, or
at any time on or before the date of approval of the proposed
settlement by the Courts, owned, purchased, acquired and/or leased
a Toyota or Lexus vehicle equipped with ETCS which was sold or
leased in Canada.  The settlement does not involve claims for
personal injury or property damage.

The proposed settlement provides for a cash payment of $62.50 for
each subject vehicle not otherwise eligible under the settlement
to receive free installation of a brake override system (BOS);
free installation of a BOS on certain vehicles; a customer support
program to correct any defects in materials or workmanship of
certain vehicle parts related to ETCS; and scholarships totalling
$600,000.

The proposed settlement is not an admission of liability on the
part of Toyota, nor has there been any finding of liability by the
Courts against them.  The defendants deny the allegations made in
the lawsuits.

Class Members may submit a claim for a cash payment under the
proposed settlement to the Claims Administrator at
http://www.toyotaELsettlement.caor they can exclude themselves
from the proceedings by opting out.  Class Members may also submit
a written objection to the proposed settlement and may attend at
the Settlement Approval Hearings which are scheduled to proceed as
follows:

    In Nova Scotia on January 28, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. at The Law
Courts, 1815 Upper Water Street, Halifax;

    In Ontario on January 31, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. at the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice, 361 University Avenue, Toronto;

    In Quebec on February 3, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., at the Superior
Court of Quebec, 1 Notre-Dame East, Montreal; and

    In Saskatchewan on February 5, 2013, at 10:00 a.m., at the
Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan, 2425 Victoria Avenue,
Regina.

Class Members who wish to submit a written objection to the
proposed settlement must do so to the Claims Administrator by
Friday, January 24, 2014.  Class Members who wish to opt out of
the proposed settlement, if approved, must do so by filing an Opt-
Out Form with the Claims Administrator by the Opt Out Deadline
which will be 45 days following such approval of the proposed
settlement.

Further information relating to the proposed settlement, including
submitting a claim for cash payment, the Notice, the settlement
documents, Claim Forms and Opt Out Forms, is available at:
http://www.toyotaELsettlement.cafrom the Claims Administrator by
phone at 1-855-823-0650 or by writing to the following address:

         Toyota Economic Loss Claims Administrator
         Crawford Class Actions Services
         c/o Crawford Class Action Services
         3-505, 133 Weber St N
         Waterloo, ON  N2J 3G9

The law firms of Rochon Genova LLP, Kim Orr Barristers PC and
Merchant Law Group LLP represent the Ontario National Classes, the
law firm of Merchant Law Group LLP represents the Saskatchewan and
Nova Scotia classes, and the law firms of Consumer Law Group LLP
represents the Quebec Classes.

For further information:

Rochon Genova LLP
900-121 Richmond St. W
Toronto, ON M5H 2K1
E-mail: schiodo@rochongenova.com

Merchant Law Group
100-2401 Saskatchewan Dr.
Regina, SK S4P 4H8
E-mail: emerchant@merchantlaw.com

Kim Orr Barristers PC
19 Mercer Street, 4th Floor
Toronto, ON M5V 1H2
E-mail: mbm@kimorr.ca

Consumer Law Group
4150 Ste.-Catherine St. West, Suite 330
Montreal, Quebec, H3Z 2Y5
E-mail: jorenstein@clg.org


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Likely Forced Drivers to Drop Rights, Ct. Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that the maker
of a taxi-service smartphone app likely forced non-English-
speaking drivers to drop their rights to accuse the company of
withholding their tips, a federal judge ruled.

In a putative class action, taxi drivers Douglas O'Connor and
Thomas Colopy claim that Uber Technologies discourages riders from
tipping by falsely stating that gratuity is included in the fare.

Through the San Francisco startup's "on demand" smartphone
application, customers may request rides from the driver nearest
them.  And while ads say the fare includes the tip, drivers do not
get the full amount, the plaintiffs say.

The California plaintiffs seek to represent Uber drivers in all
states but Massachusetts, where a similar suit was filed in state
court last year, along with another in Illinois.

While the state court suits were pending, Uber informed drivers on
July 22, 2013, that in order to keep using the cellphone app, they
would have to approve new licensing agreements.

One agreement contained an arbitration provision, of which users
were given 30 days to opt out by sending a letter via hand
delivery or overnight mail to Uber's counsel.

Less than a week after the California drivers sued Uber on
August 16, 2013, they filed an emergency motion for protective
order to strike arbitration clauses or alternatively provide
notice of the class action and more time to opt out.

On Thursday, December 5, 2013, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in
San Francisco dismissed as defendants Uber's president and vice
president, but refused to dismiss the non-Californian plaintiffs.

In a separate ruling filed the next day, Chen found that there is
"a distinct possibility" that Uber hoped its new arbitration
provision would block the pending class actions.

"The risk of interfering with the pending class action and the
need for a limitation on communication with the class that
adversely affects their rights is palpable," Chen wrote.

The class action waivers "were shrouded under the confusing title
'How Arbitration Proceedings Are Conducted,'" the judge later
added.  "Despite the title's innocuous wording, only a single
paragraph is devoted to discussing the what and how-to of
arbitration."

Because the arbitration clause was not conspicuous or presented as
a standalone agreement, "Uber drivers likely did not know the
consequences of assenting to the licensing agreement," Chen wrote.
"Many likely were not aware they were losing the right to
participate in this or any other lawsuit.  Indeed, Uber drivers
have no meaningful way of learning of the current lawsuit since
there has been no class notice.  Although Uber characterizes some
of its drivers as large, sophisticated 'transportation companies,'
they do not dispute plaintiffs' factual contention that many, if
not the majority of Uber drivers are smaller outfits run by
immigrants for whom English is not their native language."

Uber's "extremely onerous" opt-out method "goes beyond simply
ensuring receipt," the ruling states.

In addition, the opt-out clause is "ensconced in the penultimate
paragraph of a 14-page agreement presented to Uber drivers
electronically in a mobile phone application interface," Chen
wrote.  "In sum, it is an inconspicuous clause in an inconspicuous
provision of the licensing agreement to which drivers were
required to assent in order to continue operating under Uber."

The judge declined, however, to rule on the claim that the
arbitration provision is unconscionable -- and therefore
unenforceable -- under California law.

The court ordered the parties to meet within seven days to discuss
corrective notices, and gave them an extra week to submit their
respective proposals.

Uber cannot issue current or prospective drivers any new licensing
agreement with class action waivers until the court sends out
revised notices and procedures, Chen concluded.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Monique Olivier, Esq.
          DUCKWORTH PETERS LEBOWITZ OLIVIER LLP
          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.
          LICHTEN AND LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          100 Cambridge Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: ssmolik@llrlaw.com
                  sliss@llrlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

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

               - and -

          John C. Fish, Jr., Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
          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).


UNILIFE CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Dec. 13
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Unilife
Corporation and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed
in United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania,
and docketed under 13-cv-02690, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Unilife between July 13, 2011 and September 9, 2013
both dates inclusive.   This class action seeks to recover damages
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors as a
result of alleged violations of the federal securities laws
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Unilife securities during
the Class Period, you have until December 31, 2013 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

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

Unilife designs and manufactures medical devices.  The Company
produces retractable syringes.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
the Company's Unifill syringes failed to comply with the Food and
Drug Administration's validation processes (2) the Company's
Quality Management System failed to comply with FDA regulations;
(3) the Company purposefully increased its purchases of Unifill
component parts to make suppliers believe that Unilife was
producing at increased volumes despite the fact that there was no
customer demand or manufacturing capacity to support such
purchases; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On August 30, 2013, a former Unilife employee named Talbot Smith
filed a complaint against the Company alleging that Unilife
terminated his employment for reporting various regulatory
violations to the appropriate authorities.  For example, Mr. Smith
alleges that the Company purposefully ran fake production at the
Company's facility in order to lead visiting investors to believe
that demand for the Company's products were high.  Moreover,
according to Mr. Smith, the Company purposefully suppressed
internal reports demonstrating that the cost of developing the
Company's syringes were higher than the price the Company was able
to sell to customers.

On September 3, 2013, Forbes published an article concluding that
the Company's main manufacturing facility was operating at 3% of
capacity, or roughly 2 million syringes per annum.  On this news,
Unilife securities declined $0.52 per share or more than 14%, to
close at $3.03 per share on September 4, 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.


UNITED STATES: "Bagnall" Suit Dismissal Appealed to 2nd Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Barrows, Michael Savage, George Renshaw, Sarah Mulcahy,
Shirley Burton, Denise Rugman, Ann Pelow, Executor of Estate of
Richard Bagnall, Louis Dziadzia, Loretta Jackson, Martha LeYanna,
Charles Holt, Irma Becker, Jessie Ruschmann, Representitive of the
Estate of Frederick Ruschmann and Christina Alexander,
Represenative of Estate of Bernice Morse, appealed to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from an order
granting Kathleen Sebelius' motion to dismiss the class action
lawsuit captioned Bagnall, et al. v. Sebelius, Case No. 11-cv-
1703, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
(New Haven).

Kathleen Sebelius is the Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.

The "Bagnall" case seeks declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus
relief against the Secretary as the official responsible for
implementing and enforcing the Medicare program.  The Plaintiffs
are Medicare beneficiaries, who received inpatient hospital
services, but were deprived of Medicare Part A coverage by being
improperly classified as outpatients.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Alice Bers, Esq.
          CENTER FOR MEDICARE ADVOCACY, INC.
          P.O. Box 350
          Willimantic, CT 06226
          Telephone: (860) 456-7790

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Sandra Slack Glover, Esq.
          ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
          UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, DIST. OF CONNECTICUT
          157 Church Street
          New Haven, CT 06510
          Telephone: (203) 821-3700

The appellate case is Bagnall, et al. v. Sebelius, Case No. 13-
04179 (2d Cir., November 4, 2013).


VICAL INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Dec. 13
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Vical
Incorporated and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed
in United States District Court, Southern District of California,
and docketed under 13-cv-02653, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Vical between February 8, 2012 and August 12, 2013
both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover damages
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors as a
result of alleged violations of the federal securities laws
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Vical securities during the
Class Period, you have until December 31, 2013 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

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

Vical is a biopharmaceutical company that researches and develops
products based on patented DNA delivery technologies for the
prevention and treatment of serious and life-threatening
illnesses, including cancer.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
Defendants repeatedly touted the importance and potential success
of Allovectin, an immunotherapy vaccine that targets cancer.
Investors were led to believe that Allovectin would receive
approval from the FDA through Defendants' dissemination of
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Phase 3
trial design and results.  Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements concerning Allovectin's efficacy and
likelihood of success in the Phase 3 trial and the overall current
and future business prospects for Allovectin and the Company. As a
result of Defendants' misleading statements, Vical's stock traded
at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

On August 12, 2013, Vical announced the results of the Phase 3
Allovectin trial, which showed that the vaccine failed to
demonstrate an improvement over chemotherapy.  The company further
announced that since "Allovectin simply did not provide the
expected benefits," the program would be terminated.  On this
news, Vical shares fell $2.05 per share or more than 57%, to close
at $1.53 on August 12, 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.


WAL-MART STORES: 2 Bay Area Lawyers Win Arbitration Battle
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Graham, writing for The Recorder, reports that two Bay Area
plaintiff lawyers have won an arbitration battle but lost a bitter
$28 million fee war.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on Dec. 17
that Carolyn Burton and Robert Mills may challenge the allocation
of legal fees in multidistrict litigation against Walmart, even
though they had previously agreed to "non-appealable" arbitration.

"Permitting parties to contractually eliminate all judicial review
of arbitration awards would not only run counter to the text" of
the Federal Arbitration Act, Judge Milan Smith Jr. wrote in In re
Wal-Mart, "but would also frustrate Congress's attempt to ensure a
minimum level of due process for parties to an arbitration."

But exercising that judicial review, the Ninth Circuit rejected
the attorneys' fiercely contested claims that arbitrator
Layn Phillips colluded with Frederick Furth and another plaintiffs
attorney to get more Walmart mediation work, and then stiffed
Ms. Burton and Mr. Mills on fees to punish them for refusing to
play ball.

"There are mounds of allegations and claims and excoriations,"
Judge Smith observed at oral argument Oct. 8.  "You've said some
horrible things about him."

Judge Smith and Judges Dorothy Nelson and Sandra Ikuta turned away
those claims on Dec. 17 in a separate, unpublished opinion.  "The
district court correctly concluded that the arbitrator's decision
was not procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means," their
opinion stated.  "The district court also correctly concluded that
the arbitrator was not evidently partial or actually biased."

The upshot is that San Ramon's Ms. Burton, San Rafael's Mr. Mills
and co-counsel Carol LaPlant of Berkeley will receive about $6.7
million in fees, while New Hampshire attorney Robert Bonsignore
will keep $11 million.  The remainder of the $28 million goes to
some 40 state and local counsel who helped negotiate an $85
million settlement of wage-and-hour claims in multidistrict
litigation across 30 states.

Bad blood in the case dates back to 2007, when Ms. Burton left the
Furth Firm, accusing the famed attorney of cheating her out of
bonuses and selling out the multidistrict litigation to get a
better settlement of his California state court case.  The federal
litigation settled in 2008 for $85 million, and Phillips was
chosen to arbitrate the division of the $28 million in fees.

While that decision was pending, Mr. Mills and Ms. Burton allege,
Mr. Furth and Mr. Bonsignore retained Mr. Phillips to help settle
a similar Massachusetts state court case against Walmart.
Mr. Mills and Mr. Burton objected, and the Massachusetts judge
rejected the deal.  Mr. Mills and Ms. Burton claim Mr. Phillips
then punished them by allocating the lion's share of the MDL fees
to Mr. Bonsignore.

Mr. Phillips, a former federal judge who's now a partner at
Irell & Manella, told the Daily Journal in 2011 that Mr. Mills and
Ms. Burton's claim was "frivolous," which the attorneys cited as
another example of Mr. Phillips' alleged bias against them.

The Ninth Circuit rejected all of the bias claims.  Instead,
Judge Smith seemed more interested in a provision of the MDL
settlement agreement that provided arbitration would be binding
and non-appealable.  "This appeal presents a question of first
impression in this circuit: Is a non-appealability clause in an
arbitration agreement that eliminates all federal court review of
arbitration awards, including review under Section 10 of the FAA,
enforceable?" he wrote.  "We conclude it is not."

The Federal Arbitration Act explicitly limits grounds for judicial
review of arbitration awards, and the U.S. Supreme Court has made
clear that parties cannot expand them via contract, Mr. Smith
noted.  The same reasoning "compels the conclusion that these
grounds are not waivable, or subject to elimination by contract."


* China Rejects Tons of Imported U.S. Corn Over MIR162 Strain
-------------------------------------------------------------
China has rejected 545,000 tons of imported U.S. corn found to
contain an unapproved genetically modified strain, the country's
product safety agency announced on Dec. 13.

China's government is promoting genetically modified crops to
increase food production.  But it faces opposition from critics
who question their safety, especially those imported from the
United States.

An unapproved strain called MIR162 was found in 12 batches of corn
at six inspection stations, according to the Administration of
Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine.  It said the
shipments would be returned to the United States.

In a statement, the agency called on U.S. authorities to
strengthen controls on corn exports to ensure unapproved strains
are not sent to China.

China allowed its first imports of a genetically modified crop,
soybeans, in 1997.  Authorities are trying to develop others that
produce bigger yields or can resist insects without use of
pesticides.

An announcement in June that regulators had approved imports of
three new types of modified soybeans prompted an outcry by
opponents who said they might be dangerous.  The Ministry of
Agriculture has launched a publicity campaign to dispel concerns
and says the criticisms are unfounded.

U.S. officials were in Beijing for trade talks.  One participant,
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, said earlier that U.S.
officials hope they "help open even more markets for U.S.
exports."


* Class Action Arbitration Attracts Increasing Interest
-------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Peacock, writing for Mediate.com, reports that class
arbitrations have primarily been viewed as an instrument of the US
legal system.  However, given the international capability and
procedural flexibility of arbitration, the scope that they offer
for collective redress by consumers is attracting increasing
interest.

The appeal of class arbitration

Consumer product disputes, by the nature of the claimants and the
subjects of the disputes, can vary dramatically in their scale and
take place across the full spectrum of value, from an individual
claiming a breach of warranty on their iPhone to the consequences
of the mass recall of Toyota cars.

Class action litigation is well established in many jurisdictions
as a means of resolving grievances of a large number of claimants.
It allows a group of claimants who have suffered the same or
similar loss to join their claims in court together against a
common defendant or defendants.  This mechanism is particularly
well suited to consumer products disputes, as the defendant is
likely to have provided the same service or product to a large
number of consumers who may all suffer a small, but similar, loss.

Collective or class arbitration, by contrast, is a relatively new
development.  Arbitration sits outside the national court system,
offering a neutral forum for dispute resolution around
international transactions and an opportunity to address large
scale claims through a single mechanism and without a jury.  From
the perspective of the claimants, class arbitration offers the
ability to seek satisfaction of claims that may be too expensive
to pursue individually, as well as awards that are potentially
enforceable in a broad range of jurisdictions.  Arbitration
clauses are being included as a dispute resolution mechanism of
choice in a wide variety of consumer products contracts.

While at present class arbitration is largely confined to the
United States, the specter of its spread to other jurisdictions
makes it worth monitoring elsewhere; both in the development of
class arbitration and the availability of class arbitration waiver
clauses to limit its use.

The conceptual challenge

The concept of class arbitration has sat uneasily with the
fundamental requirement in the arbitral process for contractual
consent by the parties.  The notion of mass proceedings has been
accepted in some arbitrations brought under investment treaties,
notably Abaclat v Argentina, which involved 60,000 bondholders as
claimants.  But it has been more of a challenge to make the class
action model fit around commercial arbitration claims based on an
arbitration clause in a contract.

An agreement to arbitrate excludes the recourse to the courts to
which the parties would otherwise be entitled.  The extent to
which arbitration can be used is limited by the scope of the
consent given by the parties to the arbitration.  The arbitration
clause should be interpreted in a way that gives effect to the
parties' intention.  Arbitration clauses which do not expressly
provide for class actions have, in certain circumstances, been
interpreted as lacking the consent required to compel the
defendant to submit to class arbitration.  For example, in Stolt-
Nielsen SA v Animal Feeds Int'l Corp (April 2010)., the US Supreme
Court held that a class arbitration could not be run because it
was of a fundamentally different nature to the bilateral
arbitration to which the parties had consented.  Notwithstanding
this, the concept of class arbitration has been upheld as
legitimate in other instances as a means of resolving large scale
disputes, with several hundred class arbitrations having been
administered in recent years by the American Arbitration
Association (both domestic and international).  Consequently,
claimants in several jurisdictions have started considering the
potential of class arbitration.

Jurisdictional variations

The United States is the jurisdiction most readily associated with
the development of class arbitration.  However, judicial opinion
in the United States has been somewhat unsettled on the issue of
whether class arbitration should be allowed to proceed where the
contract does not explicitly provide for it.  While the Stolt-
Nielsen case (mentioned above) placed strict limits on the use of
class arbitrations on policy grounds, in the recent case of Oxford
Health Plans v Sutter (July 2013), the United States Supreme Court
affirmed an arbitrator's decision to accept an arbitration brought
by 20,000 doctors against an insurance company, even in the
absence of clear language indicating consent to class arbitration.

Nevertheless, there remains a deep-seated skepticism among the US
judiciary about whether class actions are compatible with the
mechanism of arbitration and the position is not yet settled.

Outside the United States, case law in Canada and Colombia has
indicated that class arbitrations may be possible in principle,
while the German Federal Court of Justice's finding that
shareholder disputes are arbitrable has provoked discussion about
the development of class or collective arbitration (along with the
publication of specialized rules for large-scale arbitration by a
major German arbitral institution).  There was also consideration
of the suitability of class arbitration in Luxembourg for
investors harmed by the Madoff scheme.  In Hong Kong, the concept
of a class action in any form is a recent development; however,
mechanisms for bringing class action litigation have been
developed for consumer goods cases and there is speculation that
the recent changes may have unlocked the door to collective
arbitration.

Enforcement of awards

The difference in approach between jurisdictions has important
consequences for the enforcement of awards made in class
arbitrations.  Jurisdictions which do not recognize the legitimacy
of class arbitrations may decline to enforce an award resulting
from such an arbitration on the grounds of public policy or a lack
of due process.  Some of these due process concerns include the
difficulty of giving notice of arbitration to members of the
relevant class and addressing whether individuals will opt in or
out of the arbitration, the confidentiality of proceedings and
consent to the appointment of arbitrators.  The size of the
classes involved sits uneasily with many of the assumptions upon
which arbitrations have traditionally been based.

Institutional response

The response of arbitration institutions to the development of
class arbitration has been mixed.  The American Arbitration
Association (AAA) and the Deutsche Institution fuer
Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit (DIS) have specialized rules to cover class
or collective arbitration, but they are in the minority. The
procedural rules of many arbitral institutions make tacit
provision for class arbitrations by allowing the joinder and/or
consolidation of multi-party claims even in the absence of consent
from all the parties, including the rules of the International
Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the London Court of International
Arbitration (LCIA) and the Hong Kong International Arbitration
Centre (HKIAC).  The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The
Hague has also resolved a number of private claims using its
long-standing mass dispute mechanisms, which may provide a
template for future collective arbitrations.

Avoiding class arbitration

Companies often wish to preclude the possibility of class
arbitration, due to a perception that class actions increase the
cost, frequency and complexity of legal actions brought by
consumers.  This is generally attempted either by choosing an
institution whose rules do not provide for class arbitration or
consolidation of claims, or by a waiver clause in the arbitration
agreement expressly excluding the use of class arbitrations.

Judicial opinion in the United States on the validity of class
action waiver clauses has been widely varied, with many close
majority decisions being accompanied by strident and resolutely
conflicting dissents.  Some courts have given effect to the
parties' freedom to contract.  Others, citing strong policy
concerns, view the clauses as unenforceable on the basis that they
are an unconscionable bar on consumer redress options.  The most
recent statement of principle on this issue was the June 2013
Supreme Court case of American Express Co. v Italian Colours
Restaurant, where a group of merchants brought an arbitration
against American Express in relation to certain card charges.  The
court upheld the class action waiver clause in the arbitration
agreement, concluding that American Express could not be compelled
to participate in class arbitration where it had been specifically
excluded. However, the court observed that where claimants are
forced to undertake individual arbitrations, the costs can be so
prohibitive as to prevent the suits being brought at all.  While
those concerns were not sufficient to prevent the waiver being
effective here, they have led to a wider debate (particularly,
relevant to consumer product disputes) around consumer access to
justice and the ability of companies to effectively remove
themselves from judicial redress.  However, there has been no
congressional response to clarify how consumer rights should
interact with United States courts' largely pro-arbitration
stance, although some courts have applied this case with
reluctance.  It is yet to be seen how this matter will be dealt
with in other jurisdictions.

The view ahead

Whilst there is currently a lack of uniformity of approach to
class arbitration across jurisdictions, arbitration increasingly
has the potential to play a role in the landscape of collective
redress.  Those with an interest in the consumer goods industry
should monitor developments in other jurisdictions, in particular
the treatment of class action waivers in the United States, to
consider the potential impact of collective arbitration in the
industry in the coming years.




                             *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Noemi Irene
A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman,
Editors.

Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *