CAR_Public/140106.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, January 6, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 3

                             Headlines


AETNA INC: March 18 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Moves to Junk Securities Suit in California
ALLY FINANCIAL: To Settle Borrower Discrimination Suit for $100MM
BELO CORP: Court Approved Voluntary Dismissal of 3 Delaware Suits
CNO FINANCIAL: Awaits Final OK of Accord in "Lifetrend" Suit

CNO FINANCIAL: Conseco Life Fights Former Policyholders' Suit
CNO FINANCIAL: Summary Judgment Granted to "Ruderman" Plaintiff
COLLECTO INC: McGuireWoods Discusses Court Ruling in FDCPA Suit
COMPUTER SCIENCES CORP: Court Approved $97.5 Million Settlement
CONSOL ENERGY: CNX Gas to Appeal Certification of "Hale" Suit

CONSOL ENERGY: CNX Gas to Appeal Certification of "Addison" Suit
CONSOL ENERGY: Settlement of CNX Gas Shareholder Suit Now Paid
CONSOL ENERGY: No Appeal Filed in "Comer"; Case Now Closed
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $8 Million
DAVID RANDALL: Judge Certifies Junk-Fax Suit as Class Action

DR HORTON: Class Action Waiver Ruling Should Be Reversed
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in California
EXPEDIA INC: Canada Court to Hear Summary Judgment Bid in March
EXPEDIA INC: Policeman's Annuity Seeks to Consolidate Complaints
FORD MOTOR: Wins Favorable Verdict in Truck Sales Class Action

FORD MOTOR: Appeals Court Remanded Apartheid Litigation
HULU LLC: Users Get Favorable Ruling in Privacy Suit
IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Okay
INDIANA: Motorists Can Get Refunds Under BMV Settlement
INFOCISION INC: March 28 Settlement Public Fairness Hearing Set

LONG BEACH MEDICAL: Former Employees File Benefits Class Action
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action in Va.
METROPOLITAN AMBULATORY: Father & Son Sued Over Investor Fraud
MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: Enters MoU to Settle Lawsuit Over Merger
NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: Attorney Discusses Steroid MDL Settlement

NQ MOBILE: Scott+Scott File Securities Class Suit
PDC ENERGY: Class Action Scheduled for Jury Trial in May 2014
PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Enters Settlement in "Higgins" Lawsuit
PINNACLE WEST CAPITAL: Defendant in Consumer Complaint
PLAYTEX: Recalls Hip Hammock Infant Carriers Over Fall Hazard

PNM RESOURCES: Appeal of Navajo Nation Allottees Dismissed
REALTY INCOME CORP: State Court Approved ARCT Settlement
SUFFOLK BANCORP: Insurer Paid $2.8-Mil to Escrow Account
SUNPOWER CORP: Court Approved $19.7-Mil Class Action Settlement
TOYOTA MOTOR: Lawyers Begin Acceleration Suit Settlement Process

TOYOTA MOTOR: 9th Cir. Strikes Down Atty Fees Award in Prius Suit
TREX COMPANY: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
TUESDAY MORNING: Trial for Certified Class Set in May 2014
TURQUOISE HILL: Trinko Law Firm Files Class Action
UNITED STATES: D.C. Cir. May Review NSA Surveillance Suit Ruling

VICTORIA: No Appeal Filed in Abalone Class Action
WHITEWAY FOODS: Ruling Focuses on "Reasonable Consumer" Issue
XEROX CORP: Retirees Edge Closer to Securing Final Benefits
ZIMMER INC: Faces Suit Over Defective Product Failure

* Judge Defers Venue Ruling in La. Wetland Damages Suit
* New York Attorney Calls for Class Action Registration Fees


                             *********


AETNA INC: March 18 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------

                   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                      DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

                    IN RE: AETNA UCR LITIGATION
                This Document Relates to: ALL CASES
                           MDL NO. 2020
                    MASTER DOCKET NO. 07-3541

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND FINAL SETTLEMENT
HEARING

A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT INVOLVING AETNA, INC. AND ITS
SUBSIDIARIES AND AFFILIATES WILL PROVIDE CASH PAYMENTS TO AETNA
PLAN MEMBERS WHO RECEIVED SERVICES AND SUPPLIES FROM OUT-OF-
NETWORK HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS AND GROUPS; AND OUT-OF-NETWORK
HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS AND GROUPS WHO PROVIDED THOSE SERVICES OR
SUPPLIES

YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED WHETHER OR NOT YOU ACT.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.

A court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a
lawyer.

* If you were or are:

A "Subscriber," meaning Persons who, at any time from March 1,
2001 through August 30, 2013 (a) were Aetna Plan Members; (b)
received a Covered Service or Supply from an Out-of-Network Health
Care Provider or Out-of-Network Health Care Provider Group; and
(c) whose resulting claims for reimbursement included Partially
Allowed Claims, OR

A "Provider," meaning Persons or entities who, at any time from
June 3, 2003 through August 30, 2013 (a) were Out-of-Network
Health Care Providers or Out-of-Network Health Care Provider
Groups; (b) provided Covered Services or Supplies to Aetna Plan
Members; and (c) whose resulting claims for reimbursement
included Partially Allowed Claims,

you are a member of the Settlement Classes and may be eligible for
a payment if you qualify and submit a valid Claim Form.
* An Out-of-Network Facility (which includes hospitals, ambulatory
surgical centers and skilled nursing facilities) is an Out-
of- Network Provider Group under the Settlement if and only to the
extent that it has (a) bills submitted by the Out-of-Network
Facility for Covered Services or Supplies provided by an Out-of-
Network Health Care Provider; or (b) the Allowed Amount for
the Out-of-Network Facility's fees or charges for specific claims
was based on an Ingenix database under a Plan that is based in
New Jersey.

* The Ingenix Databases are the Prevailing Healthcare Charges
System ("PHCS") database and the MDR Payment System database.

* The Aetna subsidiaries and affiliates included in this
Settlement do not include Coventry Health Care, Inc.

         YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THIS SETTLEMENT

SUBMIT A PROOF OF CLAIM FORM

The way to get a payment if you qualify. You must fill out and
return the attached Claim Form (with any necessary supporting
documentation) by first class mail, postmarked no later than
March 28, 2014.

ASK TO BE EXCLUDED

Get no payment. The only option that allows you to individually
sue Aetna over the claims resolved by this Settlement.

OBJECT

Write to the Court about why you do not agree with the Settlement.

GO TO A HEARING

The Final settlement Hearing will be held on March 18, 2014 at
10:00 a.m., at which time the Federal Court Judge will make a
final decision as to whether the Settlement is fair to all members
of the Settling Classes. If you wish, you may attend the hearing
and ask to speak to the Court about the Settlement.

DO NOTHING

Get no payment and give up your right to sue Aetna over the claims
resolved by this Settlement.

* These rights and options -- and the deadlines to exercise them
-- are explained in this Notice.

* The Settlement will resolve all claims against the Company (also
referred to herein as "Aetna") as explained in the
Settlement Agreement. The Court in charge of this case still has
to decide whether to approve the Settlement. Payments will only
be made if the Court approves the Settlement and any appeals are
resolved. Please be patient.


BASIC INFORMATION

I. WHY DID I RECEIVE THIS NOTICE?

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
authorized this Notice because you have a right to know about
a proposed Settlement of the Actions, including the right to claim
money, and about all of your options, before the Court decides
to give "final approval" to the Settlement. If the Court approves
the Settlement, payment will be made to everyone who submits a
valid Claim Form and qualifies. This Notice explains the Actions,
the Settlement, your legal rights, what benefits are available,
who may be eligible for them, and how to get them.

Your rights may be affected by a proposed Settlement in the class
action lawsuits consolidated under the case caption In re
Aetna UCR Litigation, pending in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, Master Docket No. 07-3541 (the
"Actions"). The Representative Plaintiffs have agreed to settle
all claims against Aetna in the Actions in exchange for a
Settlement involving payments by Aetna of up to $120 million,
including a General Settlement Fund of $60 million and up to $60
million in additional monies that may be paid out to Settlement
Class Members who submit valid claims. The Court did not decide in
favor of either side. Rather, both sides agreed to settle all
claims that were or could have been asserted against Aetna in the
Actions in exchange for monetary consideration. That way, the
parties avoid the uncertainties and cost of a trial and possible
appeal, and the affected members of the Settlement Classes who
qualify will receive compensation now.

The Court has scheduled a hearing to consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement, to be held on
March 18, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. at the United States Courthouse,
United States District for the District of New Jersey, 50 Walnut
Street, Newark, New Jersey (the "Final Settlement Hearing").

You may elect to opt-out of the Settlement Classes and the
Settlement, as explained below. You also have a right to object to
the Settlement or to the application for attorneys' fees that
counsel for the Settlement Classes intends to make to the Court,
but only if you comply with the procedures described in this
notice. If you do not opt out of the Settlement Classes and the
Court approves the Settlement, you will be entitled to receive the
benefits of the Settlement, and you will be bound by the
Settlement's provisions, including the release of claims against
Aetna. Because your right to pursue certain types of claims
against Aetna may be affected by the Settlement, you should read
this notice carefully.

II. WHAT IS THIS LITIGATION ABOUT?

The Actions were brought against Aetna by the individual
Subscriber and Provider Class Representative Plaintiffs, as well
as a number of Associations. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
provided insufficient reimbursement for Covered Out-of-Network
Services or Supplies, including by:

* Using the Ingenix Databases in determining reimbursement for
Covered Out-of-Network health benefits;

* Using certain Out-of-Network reimbursement policies to reduce
reimbursement amounts improperly for Covered Out-of-Network health
benefits; and

* Inadequately disclosing the use of the Ingenix Databases and
their Out-of-Network reimbursement policies in determining
reimbursement amounts for Covered Out-of-Network health benefits.
The Out-of-Network reimbursement policies include utilizing a
percentage of Medicare, Fair Health, Average Wholesale Price
(AWP), adjustments for co-surgeon charges, adjustments for
multiple surgical procedures, and behavioral health tiering
policies.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated various statutes,
including the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"),
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") Act,
the Sherman Antitrust Act, and other laws. Defendants deny all
of Plaintiffs' allegations. To obtain further information about
the claims asserted in the Actions, you may review a copy of the
Consolidated Amended Complaint filed in the Actions on the
websites www.aetnaucrsettlement.com, or www.berdonclaims.com
Certain other filings and orders from the Court are also available
to you on these websites.

III. WHAT IS A CLASS ACTION, AND WHY IS THIS CASE A CLASS ACTION?

In a class action, under the federal rules, one or more persons,
called Class Representatives, sue on behalf of others with similar
legal claims. All of these people together are called a Class or
Class Members. One court resolves the issues for all Class
Members, except for those who specifically ask to be excluded from
the Class, since the claims that are alleged by the Class
Representatives apply similarly to all Class Members.

These Actions were filed as class actions because the
Representative Plaintiffs believed that Aetna's method of making
Out-of-Network reimbursement determinations resulted in a number
of Subscribers and Providers receiving less than they were
entitled to, in violation of ERISA, the Sherman Antitrust Act,
RICO, and other laws. The Court preliminarily ordered that whether
all members of the Settlement Classes have been under-reimbursed
by Aetna's use of the Ingenix Databases and its other
reimbursement policies represents a claim that should be treated
on a class basis.

IV. WHY IS THERE A SETTLEMENT?

The Court did not decide in favor of either side. Rather, both
sides agreed to settle all claims that were or could have been
asserted against Aetna in the Actions in exchange for monetary
consideration. That way, the parties avoid the uncertainties and
cost of a trial and possible appeal, and the affected members of
the Settlement Classes who qualify will receive compensation.

V. WHAT ARE THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT?

In the Settlement Agreement, the individual Representative
Plaintiffs agreed to settle all claims that were or could have
been asserted against Aetna in exchange for monetary
consideration. The terms of the Settlement Agreement are
summarized in this notice, and a copy of the entire Settlement
Agreement, dated December 6, 2012, may be reviewed on the websites
www.aetnaucrsettlement.com , or www.berdonclaims.com

A. Settlement Consideration

If the Settlement is finally approved by the Court, the Settlement
Agreement provides for monetary benefits to be provided by
Aetna to members of the Settlement Classes who have
Not opted-out of the settlement.

1. The General Settlement Fund. The Settlement establishes a
General Settlement Fund in the amount of $60,000,000. If the
Settlement is finally approved by the Court, members of the
Settlement Classes who submit timely and valid claims under this
fund will be entitled to payments from the General Settlement Fund
as described in the Settlement Agreement and Claim Form. Various
expenses, such as the costs of notice, claims administration, and
attorneys' fees and expenses for Settlement Class Counsel, as well
as service payments to the individual Representative Plaintiffs,
also will be paid out of the General Settlement Fund.

2. Subscriber Settlement Fund. The Settlement establishes a
Subscriber Settlement Fund in the amount of up to $40,000,000
to be paid to Subscriber Class Members who submit timely and valid
Claims for reimbursement as described in the Settlement
Agreement and Claim Form.

3. Provider Settlement Fund. The Settlement establishes a Provider
Settlement Fund in the Amount of up to $20,000,000
to be paid to Provider Class Members who submit timely and valid
Claims for reimbursement as described in the Settlement
Agreement and Claim Form.

4. Treatment of Balances Remaining in Funds. In the event the
General Settlement Fund is not exhausted after the payment of
all claims for reimbursement, fees, and expenses described above,
any remaining funds shall be allocated equally to the Subscriber
and Provider Settlement Funds. However, if one Settlement Fund is
exhausted and the other is not, the remaining funds from the
General Settlement Fund will be allocated to the exhausted
Settlement Fund. In the event the Subscriber Settlement Fund is
not exhausted after all claims have been paid, and if the eligible
claims submitted to the Provider Settlement Fund exceed the amount
allocated to it, up to $5,000,000 from the Subscriber Settlement
Fund will be allocated to the Provider Settlement Fund. In the
event the Provider Settlement Fund is not exhausted after all
claims have been paid, and if the eligible claims submitted to the
Subscriber Settlement Fund exceed the amount allocated to it, up
to $5,000,000 from the Provider Settlement Fund will be allocated
to the Subscriber Settlement Fund. If the Subscriber and/or
Provider Settlement Fund is not exhausted after all claims have
been made, any leftover amounts in that Fund shall remain with
Aetna and will not be paid out under the Settlement.

B. The Release and Dismissal with Prejudice

If the Settlement Agreement is finally approved, the Actions will
be dismissed with prejudice as to Aetna. In addition, Aetna
will be released and discharged of any and all claims, up through
August 30, 2013 in this case, that are, were, or could have been
asserted against Aetna based on or arising from the factual
allegations made by Plaintiffs. Members of the Settlement Classes
will be barred from suing Aetna and the other released persons for
claims that are covered by the releases.

The release and covenant not to sue provisions of the Settlement
Agreement affect your legal rights and you should
review these provisions carefully.

VI. HOW WILL THE SETTLEMENT FUNDS BE ALLOCATED?

There are several terms that appear frequently in this section:
"Allowed Amount" means the amount Aetna determined to be eligible
for reimbursement for a Plan Member's Covered
Services or Supplies billed by an Out-of-Network Health Care
Provider or Provider Group, before the application of co-
insurance, deductibles, and coordination of benefits for coverage
under another plan.

"Assignment" means a Plan Member's election to permit an Out-of-
Network Health Care Provider or Provider Group to bill
and receive reimbursement from Aetna directly.

"Balance Bill" means a demand for payment from an Out-of-Network
Health Care Provider or Provider Group to a Plan
Member for the difference between the Billed Charge and the
Allowed Amount for a Covered Service or Supply. It does not
include a bill for Denied Claims, co-insurance, or deductibles.

"Billed Charge" means the amount billed to Aetna for a Covered
Service or Supply by an Out-of-Network Health Care Provider
or Provider Group.

"Denied Claim" means any claim line for which the Allowed Amount
equals $0. Denied Claims are not included in this
Settlement.

"Out-of-Network Health Care Provider" means any health care
provider who did not have a valid written contract with Aetna to
provide Covered Services or Supplies to Aetna Plan Members when
the health care provider provided Covered Services or Supplies
to a Plan Member.

"Out-of-Network Health Care Provider Group" means a corporation,
partnership, or other legal entity that did not have a valid
written contract with Aetna to provide Covered Services or
Supplies to Aetna Plan Members when it provided or billed for
Covered Services or Supplies. An Out-of-Network Facility is an
Out-of-Network Health Care Provider Group only when it (a)
submitted bills for Covered Services or Supplies provided by an
Out-of-Network Health Care Provider; or when (b) the Allowed
Amount for its fees or charges for specific claims was based on
the Ingenix Databases under a Plan that was based in New Jersey.

"Partially Allowed Claims" mean any claim line for a Covered
Service or Supply that is not a Denied Claim for which the
Allowed Amount is less than the Billed Amount. Partially Allowed
Claims are the only claims eligible for reimbursement in this
Settlement.

All members of the Settlement Classes must submit a Claim Form to
be eligible to share in the Settlement Fund. You may submit
a Claim Form for Covered Out-of-Network Services or Supplies
received or furnished up through August 30, 2013.

There are two types of Settlement Class members -- Subscriber
Class Members and Provider Class Members.  The options available
to Subscribers under the Settlement are different than those
available to Providers and Provider Groups. The options for
Subscribers are set out in the Subscriber Claim Form. The options
for Providers are listed in the Provider Claim Form. A copy of
the Claim Forms is attached to this Notice.

Options for Subscribers

Option 1 - Simplified Claim Form for Subscribers.
You may complete the Subscriber Claim Form requesting Option 1,
and you are only required to provide certain information,
including the number of years, during the period from March 1,
2001 to August 30, 2013, that you were a Aetna Plan Member and
received Covered Services or Supplies from an Out-of-Network
Provider or Provider Group. This information is in Section A of
the Claim Form.

If you select this option and your claim is eligible for payment,
you are entitled to receive up to $40 for each year you received
Covered Services or Supplies from an Out-of-Network Provider or
Out-of-Network Provider Group that resulted in a Partially
Allowed Claim. Your total settlement payment may be reduced on a
pro rata basis.

Option 2 - Claim for Subscribers.
You are eligible to participate as a claimant in Option 2 only if
you paid to your Provider some portion of a Balance Bill for
Partially Allowed Claims for Covered Out-of-Network Services or
Supplies. If you select this option and your claim is eligible for
payment, you are entitled to receive up to 5% of the Allowed
Amount (or up to 3% for certain claims) on each valid Partially
Allowed Claim for which you provide the necessary Supporting
Documentation, as described in the Subscriber Claim Form. Your
total settlement payment from the Subscriber Settlement Fund may
be reduced on a pro rata basis. The aggregate amount of Balance
Bill payments constituting your claim against the Subscriber
Prove-Up Fund must exceed $200. Any submissions involving $200 or
less will be declared ineligible for reimbursement from the
Subscriber Settlement Fund and no payment will be issued.
Subscriber Claims declared ineligible will be considered for
eligibility under the General Settlement Fund.

Options for Providers and Provider Groups

Option 1 - Simplified Claim Form for Providers.
You may complete the Provider Claim Form requesting Option 1, and
you are only required to provide certain information, including
the number of years, during the period from June 3, 2003 to
August 30, 2013, that you provided and billed for Covered Services
or Supplies to an Aetna Plan Member. This information is in
Section A of the Claim Form.

If you select this option and your claim is found to be eligible
for payment, you are entitled to receive up to $40 for each year
you provided Covered Services or Supplies as an Out-of-Network
Provider or Out-of-Network Provider Group and you received a
Partially Allowed Claim. Your total settlement payment may be
reduced on a pro rata basis.

Option 2 - Claim for Providers. You are eligible to participate as
a claimant in Option 2 only if you (a) received an Assignment
from an Aetna Plan Member, and (b) sent the Aetna Plan Member a
Balance Bill for Partially Allowed Claims and did not receive
full payment of such bill. If you select this option and your
claim is found to be eligible for payment, you are entitled to
receive up to 5% of the Allowed Amount (or up to 3% for certain
claims) on each valid Partially Allowed Claim for which you
provide the necessary Supporting Documentation, as described in
the Provider Claim Form. Your total settlement payment from the
Provider fund may be reduced on a pro rata basis. The aggregate
amount of Balance Bills constituting your claim against the
Provider Settlement Fund must exceed $750 for individual Out-of-
Network Providers and $1,000 for Out-of-Network Provider Groups.
Any submissions involving less than these amounts will be declared
ineligible for reimbursement from the Provider Settlement Fund and
no payment will be issued. Provider Claims declared ineligible
will be considered for eligibility under the General Settlement
Fund.

Important information. In order to assist Subscribers and
Providers in filing their Option 1 and Option 2 claims, Aetna
has made available to the Settlement Administrator certain claims
information within the class periods. You may request such
information from the Settlement Administrator and use it to
complete your Claim Form. Please use attached Claims Information
Request Authorization Form for this purpose. Should this
information not be available for your claim, you must provide this
information from other sources.

VII. WHAT WILL HAPPEN AT THE FINAL SETTLEMENT HEARING?

The Final Settlement Hearing will be held on March 18, 2014 at
10:00 a.m. at the United States Courthouse, United States
District for the District of New Jersey, 50 Walnut Street, Newark,
New Jersey. The hearing, however, may be adjourned by the Court
without additional notice to the Settlement Classes, other than an
announcement in open court. Members of the Settlement Classes
who support the Settlement do not need to be present at the
hearing or take any action to indicate their approval, as Class
Counsel for the Settlement Classes will be present to address any
questions or concerns raised by the Court.

At the Final Settlement Hearing, the Court will consider:

1. whether the Settlement of the Action that is reflected in the
Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the
members of the Settlement Classes;

2. whether the Court should unconditionally certify the Settlement
Classes in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23;

3. whether to approve payment of service fees to the
Representative Plaintiffs; and

4. what attorneys' fees and expenses should be paid to Settlement
Class Counsel from the Settlement Fund.

VIII. MAY I PARTICIPATE IN THE FINAL SETTLEMENT HEARING?
Any Settlement Class Member who objects to the Settlement, the
Settlement Agreement, the application for attorneys' fees and
expenses, or the other matters to be considered at the Final
Settlement Hearing may appear and present such objections. You may
also appear by counsel, if you wish. In order to be permitted to
do so, however, you must, on or before February 26, 2014:

* file with the Court a notice of your intention to appear,
together with a statement setting forth your objections, if any,
to the matters to be considered and the basis for those
objections, along with any documentation that you intend to rely
upon at the Final Settlement Hearing; and

* serve copies of all such materials, either by hand delivery or
by first-class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following counsel:

Counsel for the Settlement Class

          James E. Cecchi
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068

          Joe R. Whatley, Jr.
          Edith M. Kallas
          WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
          380 Madison Avenue, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10017

          D. Brian Hufford
          Robert J. Axelrod
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016

          Stephen A. Weiss
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          77 Water Street, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10005

          Christopher M. Burke
          Joseph P. Guglielmo
          SCOTT + SCOTT LLP
          405 Lexington Ave, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10174

Defense Counsel

          Richard J. Doren
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071

          Geoffrey M. Sigler
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036

If you do not comply with the foregoing procedures and deadlines
for submitting written objections and/or appearing at the
Final Settlement Hearing, you may lose substantial legal rights,
including, but not limited to: (a) the right to appear and be
heard at the Final Settlement Hearing; (b) the right to contest
approval of the proposed Settlement or the application for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses; and (c) the right to
contest any other orders or judgments of the Court entered in
connection with the Settlement. You cannot both request exclusion
from the Settlement Classes and object to the Settlement. Only
members of the Settlement Classes may object to the Settlement.
You should consult the Court's Preliminary Approval Order for
additional information on the requirements for objecting to the
proposed Settlement or participating in the Final Settlement
Hearing.

A copy of the Order may be reviewed on the websites
www.aetnaucrsettlement.com or www.berdonclaims.com

IX. HOW DO I FILE A CLAIM FOR PAYMENT?

The Settlement provides for payments to members of the Settlement
Classes who qualify and timely submit Claim Forms to
the Claims Administrator. In order to qualify for a settlement
payment, you must complete the enclosed Claim Form, sign it, and
mail it to:

          Aetna UCR Litigation
          c/o Berdon Claims Administration LLC
          P.O. Box 15000
          Jericho, NY 11853-0001

YOUR CLAIM FORM MUST BE POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN MARCH 28, 2014.
Whether or not you mail in a Claim Form, if you are a member of
the Settlement Classes you will be bound by all orders and
judgments entered in connection with the Settlement and Settlement
Agreement, including the release, covenant not to sue, and
dismissal with prejudice provisions described above, unless you
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class.

X. WHAT IF I DO NOT WANT TO BE PART OF THE SETTLEMENT?

If you do not want to be a Settlement Class Member and participate
in the Settlement (including being eligible to receive
monetary payments), then you must send a signed Request for
Exclusion by mail stating: (a) your name, address, and federal
Social Security Number or Tax Identification Number, and (b) a
statement that you wish to be excluded from the Settlement Class.
Requests for Exclusion must be mailed to the following:

          Aetna UCR Litigation - Exclusions
          c/o Berdon Claims Administration LLC
          P.O. Box 15000
          Jericho, NY 11853-0001

YOUR REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION MUST BE POSTMARKED NO LATER THAN
FEBRUARY 26, 2014.

By requesting to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you will
not share in the Settlement, and you may maintain any claim
you believe you have against the Defendants by filing your own
lawsuit at your own expense.

XI. DO I HAVE A LAWYER IN THIS CASE?

The Court has appointed the attorneys listed in Section VIII as
Settlement Class Counsel for settlement purposes to represent
you and other members of the Settlement Classes.
You do not have to pay Settlement Class Counsel. If you want to
have your own lawyer, and have that lawyer appear in court
for you in this case, you must hire one at your own expense.

XII. HOW WILL THE LAWYERS BE PAID?

Since the beginning of this litigation in 2007, Class Counsel have
not received any payment for their services in prosecuting
the Action or to reimburse them for out-of-pocket expenses. If the
Court approves the proposed Settlement, Settlement Class
Counsel will apply to the Court for an award of attorneys' fees in
an amount not to exceed 33-1/3% of the Settlement Fund and
reimbursement of expenses not to exceed $3,000,000. Any attorneys'
fees and expenses awarded by the Court will be paid from
the General Settlement Fund. In addition, Settlement Class Counsel
may apply to the Court for the approval of a service fee to each
of the Representative Plaintiffs not to exceed $20,000 each.

XIII. WHAT IF I DO NOTHING AT ALL?

If you do nothing, you will get no money from the Settlement. But
unless you exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you
will be bound by the release and covenant not to sue provisions of
the Settlement Agreement described above.

XIV. HOW DO I GET MORE INFORMATION?

This Notice is a summary and does not describe all details of the
Settlement. Complete copies of the Settlement Agreement,
the complaints filed in the Actions, the Preliminary Approval
Order, and certain other court orders in this case, except for
those filed under seal, may be examined and copied during regular
office hours, and subject to customary copying fees, at the Clerk
of the Court's Office, United States District Court, District of
New Jersey. Certain of these documents may also be obtained on the
websites www.aetnaucrsettlement.com or
www.berdonclaims.com

You may also obtain additional copies of this Notice and its
attachments, as well as responses to frequently asked questions
(FAQ's) on the Settlement Administrator's website, at the mailing
address above, by toll-free phone at 800-600-3079, by fax at
516-393-0031, and by e-mail at aetna@berdonclaimsllc.com

DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT OR THE CLERK OF THE COURT FOR
INFORMATION OR LEGAL ADVICE.
Dated: December 28, 2013

BY ORDER OF HON. KATHERINE S. HAYDEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Moves to Junk Securities Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss an amended
securities complaint filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, according to the company's
Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On November 28, 2012, plaintiff City of Dearborn Heights Act 345
Police & Fire Retirement System filed a lawsuit against Align,
Thomas M. Prescott ("Mr. Prescott"), Align's President and Chief
Executive Officer, and Kenneth B. Arola ("Mr. Arola"), Align's
former Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
company's common stock (the "Securities Action"). On July 11,
2013, an amended complaint was filed, which names the same
defendants, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
company's common stock between January 31, 2012 and October 17,
2012. The amended complaint alleges that Align, Mr. Prescott and
Mr. Arola violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that Mr. Prescott
and Mr. Arola violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Specifically, the amended complaint alleges that during the
purported class period defendants failed to take an appropriate
goodwill impairment charge related to the April 29, 2011
acquisition of Cadent Holdings, Inc. in the fourth quarter of
2011, the first quarter of 2012 or the second quarter of 2012,
which rendered the company's financial statements and projections
of future earnings materially false and misleading and in
violation of GAAP. The amended complaint seeks monetary damages in
an unspecified amount, costs and attorney's fees. Align filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint on August 22, 2013. The
hearing on this motion has been scheduled for November 20, 2013.

Align intends to vigorously defend itself against these
allegations. Align is currently unable to predict the outcome of
this amended complaint and therefore cannot determine the
likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss.


ALLY FINANCIAL: To Settle Borrower Discrimination Suit for $100MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
According to an article posted by Jenna Greene at The Blog of
Legal Times, a major auto lender will pay nearly $100 million to
settle charges by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the
U.S. Department of Justice that it unintentionally discriminated
against minority borrowers, charging them more for loans than
white applicants with comparable credit.

In the federal government's largest auto loan discrimination
settlement to date, Ally Financial Inc. and Ally Bank will pay $80
million to consumers in restitution, as well as an additional $18
million civil penalty.  According to the government, Ally
overcharged more than 235,000 black, Hispanic and Asian/Pacific
Islander consumers by an average of $200 to $300 for loans issued
between April 2011 and December 2013.

But the lender -- which was formerly known as GMAC Inc. and
received a $17.2 billion bailout from the Treasury Department
during the financial crisis -- didn't do it on purpose, the
government admits.

"Whether or not Ally consciously intended to discriminate makes no
practical difference," said CFPB Director Richard Cordray in a
conference call with reporters.  "In fact, we do not allege that
Ally did so.  Yet the outcome, and the harm to consumers, is the
very same here."  Jocelyn Samuels, acting assistant attorney
general for the Civil Rights Division, added: "All qualified
borrowers deserve equal access to fair and responsible lending."

The complaint and proposed settlement, both filed on Dec. 20 in
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, stemmed
from a CFPB examination that began in September 2012.

According to the government, Ally, which works 12,000 auto dealers
to offer third-party vehicle financing, would set a minimum
interest rate for the dealer to charge the customer.  But Ally
also allowed the dealer to jack up the rate, and the two entities
would share the profits from the dealer markup.

The markups "are not connected to the consumer's creditworthiness
or other objective criteria related to borrower risk," according
to the complaint, which alleges Ally violated the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act.  "Ally has not provided adequate constraints or
monitoring across its portfolio of loans to prevent discrimination
from occurring."

No dealers were named in the complaint -- the CFPB does not have
jurisdiction over them, although DOJ does.  "This case focuses on
the impact of Ally, not individual dealers," said Eric Halperin,
special counsel for fair lending in DOJ's Civil Rights Division.

Ally did not admit or deny the allegations -- common in government
civil proceedings.  But here, the company's protestations went
further, sounding at times more like a press release than a
consent order.

"Ally has treated all of its customers fairly and without regard
to race or national origin," the proposed settlement states.
"Ally enters this settlement for the purpose of avoiding contested
litigation with the Department of Justice and to instead devote
its resources to serving its customers."

Ally also stated that "the alleged policy by Ally is common in the
industry and has been for decades," and that "Ally has not been
informed that the United States contends that Ally or any of its
employees engaged in any intentional discrimination or disparate
treatment of minorities."

An Ally spokeswoman declined to identify the company's outside
counsel.  The complaint lists Ally Financial general counsel
Robert Neaton and Ally Bank general counsel Hu Benton.


BELO CORP: Court Approved Voluntary Dismissal of 3 Delaware Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery on September 30, 2013, approved the
voluntary dismissal of the Delaware their lawsuits challenging
Belo Corp.'s Merger Agreement with Gannett Co., Inc., according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filed on October 31, 2013, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2013.

On June 14, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by a
purported individual shareholder of the Company in the 68th
Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, against the
Company, Gannett Co., Inc., and members of the Company's board of
directors. On June 17, 2013, June 24, 2013, and July 16, 2013,
respectively, three similar lawsuits were filed by other purported
shareholders of the Company in the Chancery Court of the State of
Delaware against the Company, members of the Belo board, Gannett
Co., Inc. and Gannett's merger subsidiary. All four lawsuits arise
out of the Company's Merger Agreement with Gannett Co., Inc.,
announced on June 13, 2013. The four lawsuits challenge the
Merger, asserting claims of breach of fiduciary duty against the
individual defendants and aiding and abetting breach of this duty
against the corporate defendants. The Delaware Court of Chancery
ordered the consolidation of the three Delaware actions, and on
July 11, 2013, Delaware plaintiffs filed an amended, consolidated
complaint. On September 30, 2013, the Delaware plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the Delaware action without prejudice, which
dismissal the Delaware Court of Chancery approved. The plaintiff
in the Texas action has indicated that he intends to file an
amended petition and has agreed that the defendants are not
required to answer or otherwise respond to the current petition.
The Company believes the lawsuits complaints are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against them.

Belo Corp. (Belo or the Company), a Delaware corporation, began as
a Texas newspaper company in 1842 and today is a publicly-traded
pure-play television company. The Company owns 20 television
stations (nine in the top 25 U.S. markets) that reach more than 14
percent of U.S. television households, including ABC, CBS, NBC,
FOX, CW and MyNetwork TV (MNTV) affiliates, and their associated
Web sites, in 15 highly-attractive markets across the United
States. The Company also has three local and two regional news
channels.


CNO FINANCIAL: Awaits Final OK of Accord in "Lifetrend" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a consolidated suit over life products sold
primarily under the name "Lifetrend" by Conseco Life and Conseco,
Inc. is awaiting final court approval, according to CNO Financial
Group, Inc.'s according to the company's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On December 24, 2008, a purported class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Cedric Brady, et al. individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Conseco, Inc. and Conseco Life Insurance
Company Case No. 3:08-cv-05746.

The plaintiffs allege that Conseco Life and Conseco, Inc.
committed breach of contract and insurance bad faith and violated
various consumer protection statutes in the administration of
various interest sensitive whole life products sold primarily
under the name "Lifetrend" by requiring the payment of additional
cash amounts to maintain the policies in force and by making
changes to certain non-guaranteed elements ("NGEs") in their
policies.  On April 23, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint adding the additional counts of breach of fiduciary
duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conversion and
declaratory relief.  On May 29, 2009, Conseco, Inc. and Conseco
Life filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On July 29,
2009, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to
dismiss.  The court dismissed the allegations that Conseco Life
violated various consumer protection statutes, the breach of
fiduciary duty count, and dismissed Conseco, Inc. for lack of
personal jurisdiction.

On July 2, 2009, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Bill W.
McFarland, and all those similarly situated v. Conseco Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 3:09-cv-598-J-32MCR.  The plaintiff
alleges that Conseco Life committed breach of contract and has
been unjustly enriched in the administration, including changes to
certain NGEs, of various interest sensitive whole life products
sold primarily under the name "Lifetrend." The plaintiff seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive
damages and attorney fees.

Conseco Life filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL"), seeking the establishment of an
MDL proceeding consolidating the Brady case and the McFarland case
into a single action.  On February 3, 2010, the Judicial Panel on
MDL ordered these cases be consolidated for pretrial proceedings
in the Northern District of California Federal Court. On July 7,
2010, plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification
of a nationwide class and a California state class.

On October 6, 2010, the court granted the motion for certification
of a nationwide class and denied the motion for certification of a
California state class.  Conseco Life filed a motion to decertify
the nationwide class on July 1, 2011. On December 20, 2011, the
court issued an order denying Conseco Life's motion to decertify
the class as to current policyholders, but granted the motion to
decertify as to former policyholders. On March 5, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction requesting
that the court enjoin Conseco Life from imposing increased cost of
insurance charges until trial with regard to 157 members of the
class, and on July 17, 2012, the court granted a preliminary
injunction as to 100 members of the class and denied the
plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction as to the other 57
members. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial
summary judgment on their breach of contract claim, Conseco Life
filed a motion to decertify the nationwide class, and Conseco Life
filed a motion for summary judgment. On January 29, 2013, the
court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for
partial summary judgment and denied Conseco Life's motions. The
parties have entered into a settlement agreement. On July 12,
2013, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement.
Final approval of the settlement is subject to a court fairness
hearing, currently set for November 8, 2013, after notice to
policyholders covered by the settlement as well as other
conditions. An estimated liability has been established consistent
with the terms of the settlement.


CNO FINANCIAL: Conseco Life Fights Former Policyholders' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco Life Insurance Company is seeking to dismiss a suit that
was formerly filed as a purported nationwide class action on
behalf of various Lifetrend policyholders who since October 2008
have surrendered their policies or had them lapse, according to
the company's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2013.

On October 25, 2012, a purported nationwide class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, William Jeffrey Burnett and Joe H. Camp v. Conseco
Life Insurance Company, CNO Financial Group, Inc., CDOC, Inc. and
CNO Services, LLC, Case No. EDCV12-01715VAPSPX.

The plaintiffs bring this action under Rule 23(B)(3) on behalf of
various Lifetrend policyholders who since October 2008 have
surrendered their policies or had them lapse. Such policyholders
are no longer members of the class covered by the MDL litigation
described in the previous paragraph after the court in the MDL
litigation granted Conseco Life's motion to decertify as to former
policyholders. Additionally, plaintiffs seek certification of a
subclass of various Lifetrend policyholders who accepted optional
benefits and signed a release pursuant to the regulatory
settlement agreement. The plaintiffs allege breach of contract and
seek declaratory relief, compensatory damages, attorney fees and
costs. On November 30, 2012, Conseco Life and the other defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The company believes this
case is without merit and intend to defend it vigorously.


CNO FINANCIAL: Summary Judgment Granted to "Ruderman" Plaintiff
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the
summary judgment granted in favor of the plaintiff as to the
(B)(2) class in the suit Sydelle Ruderman individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated v. Washington National
Insurance Company, Case No. 08-23401-CIV-Cohn/Selzer, according to
the company's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2013.

On December 8, 2008, a purported Florida state class action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Sydelle Ruderman individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Washington National Insurance Company, Case
No. 08-23401-CIV-Cohn/Selzer. The plaintiff alleges that the
inflation escalation rider on her policy of long-term care
insurance operates to increase the policy's lifetime maximum
benefit, and that Washington National Insurance Company breached
the contract by stopping her benefits when they reached the
lifetime maximum.  The Company takes the position that the
inflation escalator only affects the per day maximum benefit.  On
January 5, 2010, the district court granted the plaintiff's motion
for class certification.

The court certified a (B)(3) Florida state class alleging damages
and a (B)(2) Florida state class alleging injunctive relief.  The
parties reached a settlement of the (B)(3) class in 2010, which
has been implemented. The amount recognized in 2010 related to the
settlement was not significant to the Company's consolidated
financial condition, cash flows or results of operations. The
plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment as to the (B)(2)
class which was granted by the court on September 8, 2010.  The
Company has appealed the court's decision and the appeal is
pending.  On February 17, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals referred the case to the Florida Supreme Court.

On July 3, 2013, the Florida Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision,
ruled the inflation escalation rider applied to the lifetime
maximum benefit.  The Florida Supreme Court transferred its ruling
to the Eleventh Circuit, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the
summary judgment granted in favor of the plaintiff as to the
(B)(2) class.


COLLECTO INC: McGuireWoods Discusses Court Ruling in FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew J. Trask, Esq. -- atrask@mcguirewoods.com -- at
McGuireWoods LLP, reports that Ellen Delgado sued collection
agency Collecto, Inc., accusing it of violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act by sending her an improper debt
collection letter.  After she filed suit (but before she moved for
class certification), Collecto made an offer of judgment for Ms.
Delgado's full damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.  It
then, some minor procedural maneuvering aside, moved to dismiss
the case as moot.

These facts should sound familiar to readers of this blog; they're
part of the ongoing battle over whether a defendant can moot a
named plaintiff's claims in a class action by offering judgment
under Federal Rule 68.

In this case, Delgado v. Collecto, Inc., No. 8:13-cv-2511-T-33TBM,
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171607 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2013), the Court
decided that the offer did moot the named plaintiff's claims.  As
it held:

After hearing from the parties, the Court determines that Delgado
no longer maintains a personal stake in this action.  The Rule 68
offer of judgment tendered by Collecto offered her full relief,
and her counsel candidly conceded this point during oral argument.
Delgado asserts that this action is not moot because she
represents a putative class of individuals who have been harmed by
Collecto's alleged violations of the FDCPA and FCCPA.  However,
Delgado has yet to file a Motion for Class Certification.

But what is particularly interesting about this opinion is that
the court decided the case based in part on the Supreme Court's
opinion in Genesis Healthcare v. Symczyk.

The Court recognizes that the Genesis decision was handed down in
the context of a FLSA collection action, rather than a Rule 23
putative class action.  However, the Court can see no reason to
confine the Supreme Court's discussion of constitutional
principles narrowly so as to encompass only FLSA cases, as
Ms. Delgado suggests.  Rather, the prudential doctrines of
standing and mootness apply to all cases brought in this Article
III Court with equal force.

So what's the takeaway here? It may be worth dusting off the offer
of judgment; it appears that some courts at least have begun to
recognize that if an offer of judgment can moot a collective
action, it can likely do the same to a class action under Rule 23.


COMPUTER SCIENCES CORP: Court Approved $97.5 Million Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. federal district court on September 20, 2013, entered a
Final Order and Judgment, which, among other things, approved a
$97.5 million Settlement between Computer Sciences Corporation and
lead plaintiff, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on
October 31, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2013.

Between June 3, 2011, and July 21, 2011, four putative class
action complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, entitled City of Roseville
Employee's Retirement System v. Computer Sciences Corporation, et
al. (No. 1:11-cv-00610-TSE-IDD), Murphy v. Computer Sciences
Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-00636-TSE-IDD), Kramer v.
Computer Sciences Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-00751-TSE-IDD)
and Goldman v. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al. (No. 1:11-cv-
777-TSE-IDD). On August 29, 2011, the four actions were
consolidated as In re Computer Sciences Corporation Securities
Litigation (No. 1:11-cv-610-TSE-IDD) and Ontario Teachers' Pension
Plan Board was appointed lead plaintiff. A consolidated class
action complaint was filed by plaintiff on September 26, 2011, and
names as defendants CSC, Michael W. Laphen, Michael J. Mancuso and
Donald G. DeBuck. A corrected complaint was filed on October 19,
2011.

The complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding
the business and operations of the Company. Specifically, the
allegations arise from the Company's disclosure of the Company's
investigation into certain accounting irregularities in the Nordic
region and its disclosure regarding the status of the Company's
agreement with the NHS. Among other things, the plaintiff seeks
unspecified monetary damages. The plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification with the court on September 22, 2011, and the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 18, 2011. A
hearing was held on November 4, 2011. On August 29, 2012, the
court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and
denying in part the motion to dismiss. The court granted the
motion to dismiss with respect to the plaintiff's claims in
connection with alleged misrepresentations and omissions
concerning the Company's operations in the Nordic Region. The
court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss
with respect to the plaintiff's claims in connection with alleged
misrepresentations and omissions concerning the Company's internal
controls and the Company's contract with the NHS. The court also
granted the plaintiff leave to amend its complaint by September
12, 2012, and maintained the stay of discovery until the
sufficiency of the amended complaint had been decided. The court
further denied plaintiff's motion for class certification without
prejudice. On September 12, 2012, the plaintiff filed a notice
advising the Court that it had determined not to amend its
complaint and renewed its motion for class certification. On
September 21, 2012, the court issued an Order setting the hearing
on the motion for class certification for October 12, 2012,
directing the parties to complete discovery by January 11, 2013
and scheduling the final pretrial conference for January 17, 2013.
On October 9, 2012, the defendants filed their answer to the
plaintiff's complaint. On October 12, 2012, the hearing on the
motion for class certification was rescheduled to November 1,
2012. On October 31, 2012, the parties filed a joint motion with
the court requesting that the hearing on the motion for class
certification be rescheduled to a later date. On November 1, 2012,
the court issued an order setting the hearing for class
certification for November 15, 2012. On November 30, 2012, the
court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. On
December 14, 2012, defendants filed with the Fourth Circuit a
petition for permission to appeal the class certification order
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f). Plaintiff's
response to the petition was filed on February 20, 2013. On March
5, 2013, the Fourth Circuit denied the petition for permission to
appeal the class certification order. On December 14, 2012, the
court issued an order extending the expert discovery deadline to
February 25, 2013. On December 20, 2012, the court issued an order
extending the fact discovery deadline to February 11, 2013 and the
expert discovery deadline to March 25, 2013.

On January 13, 2013, the court issued an order extending the
expert discovery deadline to April 1, 2013. Motions for summary
judgment were filed on March 18, 2013. On May 15, 2013, the
Company entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement
with the lead plaintiff to settle all claims in the lawsuit for
$97.5 million, which was accrued for as of March 29, 2013 and
included in accrued expenses and other current liabilities on the
Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet. As of March 29, 2013, the
Company has also recorded a receivable of $45 million, which
represents the amount recoverable under the Company's corporate
insurance policies, and is included in receivables on the
Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet. The agreement was subject to
approval by the court. On May 24, 2013, the Court entered a
Preliminary Approval Order Providing for Notice and Hearing in
Connection with Proposed Class Action Settlement. On September 19,
2013, a Settlement Hearing was held before the Court. On September
20, 2013, the Court entered a Final Order and Judgment, which,
among other things, approved the Settlement in all respects.

Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) is engaged in the information
technology (IT) and professional services industry. The Company's
clients consist of governments and commercial enterprises, which
rely upon the use of information services and associated systems
for the conduct of their operations. These clients engage with
industry specialists for the development, deployment, and ongoing
operation of IT services and IT-enabled business operations. CSC
offers a range of services to clients in the commercial and
government markets and specializes in applying contemporary
practices towards the employment of IT. CSC's service offerings
include IT and business process outsourcing; emerging services,
such as cloud computing and cyber-security protection, and a range
of other IT and professional services. Effective August 6, 2013,
Computer Sciences Corp acquired Infochimps Inc, an Austin-based
provider of online data access services.


CONSOL ENERGY: CNX Gas to Appeal Certification of "Hale" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
CNX Gas Company believes that the case filed by forced-pooled
unleased gas owners in the U.S. District Court in Abingdon,
Virginia, cannot properly proceed as a Rule 23 class action and
intends to appeal a class certification Order to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, according to Consol Energy's Nov.
1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2010
in the U.S. District Court in Abingdon, Virginia styled Hale v.
CNX Gas Company, et al.  The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff
class consists of forced-pooled unleased gas owners whose gas
ownership is in conflict, the Virginia Supreme Court and General
Assembly have decided that coal-bed methane (CBM) belongs to the
owner of the gas estate, the Virginia Gas and Oil Act of 1990
unconstitutionally provides only a 1/8 net proceeds royalty to CBM
owners for gas produced under the forced-pooled orders, and CNX
Gas Company relied upon control of only the coal estate in force
pooling the CBM notwithstanding decisions by the Virginia Supreme
Court. The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of ownership of
the CBM and that the entire net proceeds of CBM production (that
is, the 1/8 royalty and the 7/8 of net revenues since production
began) be distributed to the class members.

The lawsuit also alleges CNX Gas Company failed to either pay
royalties due to conflicting claimants, or deemed lessors or paid
them less than required because of the alleged practice of
improper below market sales and/or taking alleged improper post-
production deductions. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation in which she recommended that the District Judge
decide that the deemed lease provision of the Gas and Oil Act is
constitutional as is the 1/8 royalty. The Magistrate Judge
recommended against the dismissal of certain other claims. The
District Judge affirmed the Magistrate Judge's recommendations in
their entirety. An amended complaint was filed, which added
additional allegations that include gas hedging receipts should
have been used as the basis for royalty payments, severance tax
should not be allowed as a post-production deduction from
royalties, and damages incurred because gas was produced prior to
the entry of pooling orders. A motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint was filed and denied. The Magistrate Judge issued a
Report & Recommendation on June 5, 2013, recommending that the
District Judge grant plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

CNX Gas Company filed its extensive Objections to the Report &
Recommendation on July 3, 2013. The District Judge heard argument
on the Objections on September 12, 2013, and on September 30,
2013, entered an Order overruling the Objections, adopting the
Report & Recommendation and certifying the class with a modified
class definition. CNX Gas believes this case cannot properly
proceed as a Rule 23 class action and intends to appeal the class
certification Order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit. Discovery is proceeding in this litigation. CONSOL Energy
believes that the case has meritorious defenses and intends to
defend it vigorously. The company established an accrual to cover
the company's estimated liability for this case. This accrual is
immaterial to the overall financial position of CONSOL Energy and
was included in Other Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated
Balance Sheet.


CONSOL ENERGY: CNX Gas to Appeal Certification of "Addison" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNX Gas Company believes that a case filed in the United States
District Court in Abingdon, Virginia by gas lessors whose gas
ownership is in conflict cannot properly proceed as a Rule 23
class action and intends to appeal the class certification Order
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, according to
Consol Energy's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2013.

A purported class action lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2010 in
the United States District Court in Abingdon, Virginia styled
Addison v. CNX Gas Company, et al.  The lawsuit alleges that the
plaintiff class consists of gas lessors whose gas ownership is in
conflict. The lawsuit alleges that the Virginia Supreme Court and
General Assembly have decided that the plaintiff owns the gas and
is entitled to royalties held in escrow by the Commonwealth of
Virginia or CNX Gas Company. The lawsuit also alleges CNX Gas
Company failed to either pay royalties due these conflicting
claimant lessors or paid them less than required because of the
alleged practice of improper below market sales and/or taking
alleged improper post-production deductions.

Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment regarding ownership, an
accounting and compensatory and punitive damages for breach of
contract; conversion; negligence (voluntary undertaking) for
improperly asserting that conflicting ownership exists, negligence
(breach of duties as an operator); breach of fiduciary duties; and
unjust enrichment. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending dismissing some claims and allowing
others to proceed. The District Judge affirmed the Magistrate
Judge's recommendations in their entirety. An Amended Complaint
was filed which added an additional allegation that gas hedging
receipts should have been used as the basis for royalty payments.
A motion to dismiss those claims was filed and was denied.

The Magistrate Judge issued a Report & Recommendation on June 5,
2013, recommending that the District Judge grant plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification. CNX Gas Company filed its
extensive Objections to the Report & Recommendation on July 3,
2013. The District Judge heard argument on the Objections on
September 12, 2013, and on September 30, 2013, entered an Order
overruling the Objections, adopting the Report & Recommendation
and certifying the class with a modified class definition. CNX Gas
believes this case cannot properly proceed as a Rule 23 class
action and intends to appeal the class certification Order to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Discovery is
proceeding in this litigation. CONSOL Energy believes that the
case has meritorious defenses and intends to defend it vigorously.
The company established an accrual to cover the company's
estimated liability for this case. This accrual is immaterial to
the overall financial position of CONSOL Energy and was included
in Other Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet.


CONSOL ENERGY: Settlement of CNX Gas Shareholder Suit Now Paid
--------------------------------------------------------------
There were no appeals against the approval of the settlement of In
Re CNX Gas Shareholders Litigation (C.A. No. 5377-VCL) and the
settlement was paid in October 2013, according to Consol Energy's
Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

CONSOL Energy was named as a defendant in four putative class
actions brought by alleged shareholders of CNX Gas Corporation
challenging the tender offer by CONSOL Energy to acquire all of
the shares of CNX Gas common stock that CONSOL Energy did not
already own for $38.25 per share. The two cases filed in
Pennsylvania Common Pleas Court have been stayed and the two cases
filed in the Delaware Chancery Court have been consolidated under
the caption In Re CNX Gas Shareholders Litigation (C.A. No. 5377-
VCL).  A third case filed in Delaware was voluntarily dismissed by
the plaintiff in 2010.

All four actions generally allege that CONSOL Energy breached
and/or aided and abetted in the breach of fiduciary duties
purportedly owed to CNX Gas public shareholders, essentially
alleging that the $38.25 per share price that CONSOL Energy paid
to CNX Gas shareholders in the tender offer and subsequent short-
form merger was unfair. Among other things, the actions sought a
permanent injunction against or rescission of the tender offer,
damages, and attorneys' fees and expenses. Following a mediation,
the parties to the Delaware litigation have agreed in principle to
a settlement and release of all of the claims of the plaintiff
class (as defined in a January 20, 2011 order of certification) in
exchange for defendants' agreement to establish a settlement fund
in the amount of $42,730,000 for distribution to class members, of
which CONSOL Energy is responsible for $19,200,000. On May 8,
2013, the parties executed and filed with the Court a Stipulation
and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement. A Settlement Hearing
was held by the Court on August 23, 2013, and the settlement was
approved. There were no appeals, and the settlement was paid in
October 2013.


CONSOL ENERGY: No Appeal Filed in "Comer"; Case Now Closed
----------------------------------------------------------
Comer, et al. v. Murphy Oil, et al. (Comer I) in which CONSOL
Energy is a defendant, is now concluded after plaintiffs in the
suit did not file a certiorari petition before the ordered
deadline, according to Consol Energy's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In 2005, plaintiffs Ned Comer and others filed a purported class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi against a number of companies in energy,
fossil fuels and chemical industries, including CONSOL Energy
styled, Comer, et al. v. Murphy Oil, et al. (Comer I). The
plaintiffs, residents and owners of property along the Mississippi
Gulf coast, alleged that the defendants caused the emission of
greenhouse gases that contributed to global warming, which in turn
caused a rise in sea levels and added to the ferocity of Hurricane
Katrina, which combined to destroy the plaintiffs' property. The
District Court dismissed the case and the plaintiffs appealed.

The Circuit Court panel reversed and the defendants sought a
rehearing before the entire court. A rehearing before the entire
court was granted, which had the effect of vacating the panel's
reversal, but before the case could be heard on the merits, a
number of judges recused themselves and there was no longer a
quorum. As a result, the District Court's dismissal was
effectively reinstated. The plaintiffs asked the U.S. Supreme
Court to require the Circuit Court to address the merits of their
appeal. On January 11, 2011, the Supreme Court denied that
request. Although that should have resulted in the dismissal being
final, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit on May 27, 2011, in the same
jurisdiction against essentially the same defendants making nearly
identical allegations as in the original lawsuit (Comer II). The
trial court dismissed this case, and the dismissal was appealed.
On May 14, 2013, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding res judicata arising from Comer I
bars the plaintiffs' claims in Comer II. On June 5, 2013, the
Fifth Circuit issued its mandate. August 12, 2013, was the
deadline by which Plaintiffs had to file a certiorari petition
with the Supreme Court of the United States. They did not do so.
This matter is now concluded.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Agrees to Settle Class Action for $8 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abigail Rubenstein and Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, report
Costco Wholesale Corp. on Dec. 17 agreed to cough up $8 million
and update its policies to resolve a class action in California
federal court accusing the bulk retailer of overlooking women for
promotions to certain warehouse management positions.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the long-running suit filed a
motion asking the court to grant preliminary approval to the deal,
saying it provides classwide programmatic relief addressing the
alleged practices at issue in the case, as well as establishing an
expedited claims procedure for the class members to tap into the
$8 million settlement fund to resolve their individual claims.

The motion notes that Costco continues to deny that it has
discriminated against female warehouse employees through its
promotion policies and practices and states that any additional
recovery that could be obtained through continued litigation "is
far outweighed by the risk, delay, and expense associated with a
stage one pattern-or-practice trial."

The litigation dates back to 2004, when plaintiff Shirley "Rae"
Ellis first filed suit claiming that Costco discriminates against
female warehouse employees by using a uniform, corporate-directed
system that fails to promote equally or better qualified women
into the positions of assistant general manager and general
manager.

And the nearly decade-long litigation has had its fair share of
twists and turns.

The court certified a class of female employees in the case in
January 2007, but the Ninth Circuit later vacated that
certification, ordering the court to reconsider in light of the
U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes.

On remand, U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen granted hybrid
certification for an injunctive relief class and a monetary relief
class in September 2012, finding that the suit focused its claims
on the company's promotion policies to only the general manager
and assistant general manager positions, in contrast to the Dukes
case in which the Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs hadn't
identified a uniform discriminatory company policy to support
sweeping claims that they had faced bias in pay and promotion
decisions.

The settlement makes changes to the policies challenged in the
case.

These changes include: the use of an industrial organizational
psychologist to conduct job analyses, evaluate promotion
processes, and develop selection criteria and tools for assistant
general manager and general manager promotions; a posting process
for assistant general manager promotions; a registration of
interest system for general manager promotions; a merchandising
training class for senior staff managers; a promotion process for
assistant general manager positions, including comprehensive
records maintenance; and  internal training and communication
concerning the newly implemented programs.

The deal also calls for Costco to shell out $8 million to a
settlement fund.

The fund will be used to pay out claims made by class members who
prevail under the claims process laid out in the settlement and
will also cover settlement administration costs and any service
payments awarded by the court to the named plaintiffs in the case.

Under the claims process, each claimant may challenge up to three
promotions, depending on their length of tenure at Costco.

Funds not used to pay class members will be used to pay the
industrial organizational psychologist and donated to educational
programs addressing the advancement of women to leadership roles
in retail management.

In a separate motion, attorneys for the class asked the court to
award them $4.3 million in attorneys' fees for work on the case
through November 2013, nearly 634,000 in costs, and $300,000 for
administering the settlement and fees for work done on the fee
motion itself in an amount to be provided later. These funds will
not come out of the $8 million, according to court papers.

An attorney for the plaintiffs said the parties had agreed not to
comment on the settlement.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jocelyn D. Larkin and Robert
Schug of The Impact Fund, Bill Lann Lee and Lindsay Nako --
lnako@lewisfeinberg.com -- of Lewis Feinberg Lee Renaker & Jackson
PC, Kelly M. Dermody and Daniel M. Hutchinson of Leiff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Steve Stemerman and Elizabeth A. Lawrence
-- eal@dcbsf.com -- of Davis Cowell & Bowe LLP, and James M.
Finberg -- jfinberg@altshulerberzon.com -- of Altshuler & Berzon
LLP.

Costco is represented by Lorie Almon, Kenwood Youmans, David
Kadue, David Ross, Gerald Maatman, Annette Tyman and Thomas
Wybenga of Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

The case is Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, case number
3:04-cv-03341, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


DAVID RANDALL: Judge Certifies Junk-Fax Suit as Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Journal, reports that a
federal judge in Camden has certified a junk-fax class-action suit
despite objections that class counsel acted unethically in
obtaining information about potential plaintiffs and soliciting
their participation.

Chief U.S. District Judge Jerome Simandle called some of the
lawyers' actions 'curious," "clumsy" and even a violation of New
Jersey ethics rules but said "courts must disregard 'petty issues'
manufactured by defendants" to distract the judge from the "proper
focus" -- whether counsel will serve class interests with
competence and loyalty.

The suit, City Select Auto Sales, Inc. v. David Randall
Associates, is one of more than 50 such actions filed against
companies in various states that utilized Business to Business
Solutions (B2B), a fax advertising company.

According to the complaint, B2B sent 44,382 faxes to 29,113 fax
numbers between March and May of 2006 on behalf of David Randall &
Associates, a commercial roofing company in Harleysville,
Pennsylvania.

With statutory damages set at $500 per fax, recovery could exceed
$20 million, and damages can be trebled if the court finds a
willful violation.

Randall allegedly had an arrangement with B2B that it would send
the faxes on rainy days to persons and companies situated in
specified zip codes.

The faxed flyers read: "Roof Leaks??? Repairs Available." and
provided Randall's name and contact information.

A hard drive subpoenaed from B2B by the law firm of Anderson &
Wanca in Rolling Meadows, Ill., in an earlier suit, contained
copies of the ads B2B had faxed for its customers, including
Randall, and the fax numbers to which the ads were sent.

The Anderson firm has been using the information on the drive to
find clients for junk-fax class-action suits, including plaintiff
City Select Auto Sales, a used car dealership with sales lots in
the cities of Burlington and Camden.

Randall opposed class certification on the ground that the firm
behaved unethically in dealing with B2B owner Caroline Abraham, of
Brooklyn, N.Y., and in contacting potential plaintiffs.

Randall claims class counsel not only misused the hard drive but
obtained it by deceit, falsely promising Ms. Abraham that they
would keep the contents confidential and that they would protect
her from being sued, contrary to the interests of the class.

Class counsel did not sue B2B, and when Randall added Ms. Abraham
as a third-party defendant and then sought to enter a default
against her, class counsel unsuccessfully argued against it.

Judge Simandle saw the decision not to sue Ms. Abraham as
strategic given that she was insolvent, and although the attempt
to block the default was "curious," it did not impact the
adjudication or show any disloyalty to the class and thus, did not
prevent class certification, he found.

Randall made an issue of a $5,000 check sent by the Anderson firm
in 2009 to Ms. Abraham's attorney, Eric Rubin of Rubin, Winston,
Diercks, Harris & Cooke in Washington, D.C.  It was sent without a
cover letter and bore the notation "document retrieval."

The Anderson firm claimed the money was meant to compensate
Ms. Abraham and her son for their time and expenses in responding
to document requests and testifying in 10 to 50 lawsuits over B2B
junk faxes.

Mr. Rubin refused to accept the money, however, saying, "I regard
this attempt to pay my client for their cooperation in providing
you with information or documents . . . at the very least, to be
of questionable propriety."

Judge Simandle did not see the check as meant to "corrupt the
process" because it was consistent with a course of dealing in
which the firm had been paying small reimbursement sums to
Mr. Rubin.  It claimed the single large check was meant to
simplify matters.

Though the firm's solicitation letter to City Select did not
contain the language mandated by New Jersey ethics rules,
Judge Simandle said it was not deceptive.  The purpose of the
solicitation rules is to protect clients, "not to help defendants
combat potentially meritorious claims," he noted.

Judge Simandle also dispatched Randall's attack on the adequacy of
City Select as plaintiff.  Its president, Louis Pelligrini
testified that he did not know who represented him, had not read
the complaint and did not recall signing the retainer with the
Anderson firm and its cocounsel, Bock & Hatch, of Chicago.

Judge Simandle found Mr. Pelligrini had sufficient knowledge and
motivation, given his testimony that junk faxes were a "pet
peeve."

In response to the defense contention that class counsel were the
actual parties in interest and were controlling the litigation,
Judge Simandle said that is typical of class actions, adding,
"Every experienced federal judge knows that any statement[] to the
contrary is sheer sophistry."

At oral argument, Anderson & Wanca dropped out of the case,
leaving Bock & Hatch to be certified as class counsel along with
Sherman, Silverstein, Kohl, Rose & Podolsky in Moorestown.

Anderson's David Oppenheim says his firm stepped aside in order
not to "complicate the process" but he believes certification
would have been granted anyway.

He says there are almost 10 other rulings rejecting similar
attacks on the adequacy of class counsel, including one in
New Jersey by U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler on Nov. 21, in
A.L. Industries v. P. Cippolini.

Randall's lawyer, F. Emmett Fitzpatrick III of Flamm Walton in
Blue Bell, Pa., did not return a call.

Mr. Rubin declines comment.


DR HORTON: Class Action Waiver Ruling Should Be Reversed
--------------------------------------------------------
The Dallas Morning News reports that class actions are the only
practical way for ordinary Americans to challenge corporate
wrongdoing, since corporate theft -- up to many thousands of
dollars per person -- will rarely justify the expense of an
individual lawsuit.  Yet it has become increasingly common for
companies to write clauses in their contracts with consumers and
employees that purport to forbid them making class-action claims
against the company.

These clauses are often buried in the fine print of "take it or
leave it contracts" such as those dealing with cellphone service,
banking or job applications.  This language, if enforced by the
courts, has the effect of protecting corporate wrongdoing from any
realistic legal redress by ordinary citizens.

In 2011, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court upheld the use of
class-action waivers to prevent consumer class actions against
corporate fraud.  The decision was widely and justly criticized.
Now a recent 2-1 ruling by a three-member panel of the 5th Circuit
Court of Appeals has extended the Supreme Court's consumer class-
action ruling to the rights of workers.

This ruling threatens to take U.S. labor law back to pre-New Deal
days of corporate dominion.  The case, D.R. Horton Inc. vs. the
National Labor Relations Board, decided earlier this month, allows
companies to ban class actions by employees.  Employee class
actions typically are brought to address minimum wage and overtime
violations, discrimination or theft of pensions.

The 5th Circuit's opinion subverted two federal laws that have
been the backbone of national labor policy for over 75 years.
These laws -- the National Labor Relations Act and the Norris
LaGuardia Act -- were enacted specifically to ensure that workers
had the right to engage in concerted activities for "mutual aid or
protection."

These laws benefited all workers, not just those in unions.  They
were based on widespread public recognition of the fact that
unfettered free enterprise had led to an impoverished, overworked
citizenry.  It is generally agreed that these statutes have played
a significant role in upgrading the economic status and dignity of
American workers.

In the D.R. Horton case, the National Labor Relations Board issued
in 2012 a careful and persuasive opinion reaffirming that class
waivers in arbitration agreements violate workers' rights under
the law.  The board's position was firmly rooted in the language
of the Labor Relations and Norris LaGuardia acts, which
specifically declare the right of workers to act in concert.  And
the Norris LaGuardia Act also states that any promise in conflict
with the public policy granting employees the right to engage in
concerted activities "shall not be enforceable in any court of the
United States."

The 5th Circuit's decision gives priority to an expansive and
unjustified reading of the Federal Arbitration Act, according to
which arbitration clauses must be enforced by the federal courts
"according to their terms."  This conclusion ignores the explicit
language of the Norris LaGuardia Act that any promise not to act
collectively "shall not" be enforced by the courts.

Under the 5th Circuit's ruling, corporations can now break federal
labor law secure in the knowledge that the courts will protect
their self-bestowed immunity from the law.  The ruling takes labor
law back to the 1800s when employers could set any terms of
employment and workers could either take it or go without a job.

The D.R. Horton decision can and should be reversed -- either by
the full Fifth Circuit or by the Supreme Court.  Congress also
could reverse the effect of the decision by clarifying the Federal
Arbitration Act and similar state laws.  Consumers and workers
must become aware of these class waivers, avoid them wherever
possible and demand that their legislators take steps to prohibit
them.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 17 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Electronic Arts, Inc. common stock during the period between
July 24, 2013 and December 4, 2013.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from December 17, 2013.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

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

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

The complaint charges Electronic Arts and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Electronic Arts develops, markets, publishes and
distributes video game software content and services that can be
played by consumers on a variety of Internet-based electronic
devices for video game consoles, personal computers, mobile
phones, tablets and electronic readers.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements highlighting the
purported strength of the Company's rollout of version 4 of its
all-important Battlefield video game series, which had provided
approximately 11% of its revenues in fiscal 2012.  Based on the
purported strength of the Battlefield 4 rollout then underway,
defendants issued strong fiscal 2014 financial guidance for the
Company and actually increased that guidance on October 29, 2013.
The price of Electronic Arts' stock steadily climbed on these
statements, reaching a Class Period high of $28.13 per share by
August 23, 2013 and allowing certain of Electronic Arts' senior
executives to sell their Electronic Arts stock at artificially
inflated prices.

The complaint further alleges that, on November 15, 2013, the day
Sony released its new Play Station 4 ("PS4") console, it was
disclosed that players of Electronic Arts' games were being
subjected to multiple glitches and significant crashes when
attempting to play Electronic Arts' titles on PS4.  The price of
Electronic Arts stock fell on these disclosures, declining more
than 7% from a close of $25.96 per share on November 14, 2013 to
close at $24.06 per share on November 15, 2013.  Then, on
December 4, 2013, it was disclosed through discussions defendants
had with video game bloggers that due to bugs, connectivity
issues, server limitations, and various other problems plaguing
Battlefield 4, Electronic Arts had been forced to indefinitely
halt the Battlefield 4 rollout and other projects until the
problems with Battlefield 4 could be fixed.  The price of
Electronic Arts shares declined on this news from a close of
$22.34 on December 4, 2013 to close at $21.01 on December 5, 2013,
sending the share price down more than 28% from its Class Period
high.

According to the complaint, defendants' Class Period statements
were materially false and misleading because they failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts which were
known to or recklessly disregarded by defendants: (a) Battlefield
4 was riddled with bugs and multiple other problems, including
downloadable content that allowed players access to more levels of
the game, a myriad of connectivity issues, server limitations,
lost data and repeated sudden crashes, among other things; (b) as
a result, Electronic Arts would not achieve a successful holiday
season 2013 rollout of Battlefield 4; (c) the performance of the
Electronic Arts unit publishing Battlefield 4 was so deficient
that all other projects that unit was involved in had to be put on
hold to permit it to focus its efforts on fixing Battlefield 4;
and (d) as a result, Electronic Arts was not on track to achieve
the financial results it had told the market it was on track to
achieve during the Class Period.

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

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


EXPEDIA INC: Canada Court to Hear Summary Judgment Bid in March
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Canadian court on May 8, 2013, dismissed Expedia Canada
Corporation from a Class Action Litigation.  On June 7, 2013,
Expedia, Inc. filed a notice of motion for summary judgment on the
remaining claims in the case. The court has scheduled a hearing on
that motion for March 26, 2014, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filed on October 31, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2013.

Expedia, Inc. and its subsidiaries provide travel products and
services to leisure and corporate travelers in the United States
and abroad as well as various media and advertising offerings to
travel and non-travel advertisers.


EXPEDIA INC: Policeman's Annuity Seeks to Consolidate Complaints
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Policeman's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago on October 28,
2013, filed a motion to consolidate complaints against Expedia,
Inc., asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on October
31, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2013.

On August 27, 2013, a purported shareholder class action,
Manriquez v. Expedia, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-01535, was
commenced in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington against Expedia, Inc., and certain of its
officers, alleging violations of the federal securities laws.
Since then, a second lawsuit containing substantially similar
allegations has been filed, Thomas v. Expedia, et al., Case No.
2:13-cv-01735 (Western District Washington). The complaints
generally allege that the Company misrepresented or failed to
disclose adverse information relating to its commercial
relationship with TripAdvisor and the financial performance of
Hotwire. The complaints purport to assert claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seek damages in an unspecified
amount. The plaintiffs seek to bring the actions on behalf of a
class of shareholders who, in the aggregate, purchased Expedia
common stock between July 27, 2012 and July 25, 2013. On October
28, 2013, the Policeman's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago
filed a motion for consolidation, appointment as lead plaintiff
and approval of selection of counsel.

Expedia, Inc. and its subsidiaries provide travel products and
services to leisure and corporate travelers in the United States
and abroad as well as various media and advertising offerings to
travel and non-travel advertisers.


FORD MOTOR: Wins Favorable Verdict in Truck Sales Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The retrial in September 2013 of the Medium/Heavy Truck Sales
Procedure Class Action resulted in a verdict in Ford Motor
Company's favor, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on
October 31, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2013.

Medium/Heavy Truck Sales Procedure Class Action is pending in the
Ohio state court system and alleges that Ford breached its Sales
and Service Agreement with Ford truck dealers by failing to
publish to all Ford dealers all price concessions that were
approved for any dealer. A first trial during 2011 resulted in a
judgment of approximately $2 billion, which was reversed on appeal
in 2012 and remanded for a new trial. The retrial in September
2013 resulted in a verdict in Ford's favor. The plaintiffs have
filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new
trial.

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is a producer of automobiles. The
Company together with its subsidiaries is engaged in other
businesses, including financing vehicles. The Company operates in
two segments: Automotive and Financial Services. Automotive
includes Ford North America, Ford South America, Ford Europe, and
Ford Asia Pacific Africa region. Financial services include Ford
Motor Credit Company and Other Financial Service. The Company
manufactures or distributes automobiles across six continents. Its
automotive brands include Ford and Lincoln. Other Financial
Services includes a range of businesses, including holding
companies and real estate. Effective September 26, 2013, Ford
Motor Company acquired Livio, a developer of software.


FORD MOTOR: Appeals Court Remanded Apartheid Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals in August 2013 remanded lawsuits against
Ford Motor Company, alleging that the defendant companies aided
and abetted the apartheid regime and its human rights violations,
to the District Court with instructions to dismiss, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filed on October 31, 2013, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2013.

The Company states: "we and two other prominent multinational
companies are defendants in purported class action lawsuits
seeking unspecified damages on behalf of South African citizens
who suffered violence and oppression under South Africa's
apartheid regime. The lawsuits allege that the defendant companies
aided and abetted the apartheid regime and its human rights
violations. These cases, collectively referred to as In re South
African Apartheid Litigation, were initially filed in 2002 and
2003, and are being handled together as coordinated "multidistrict
litigation" in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York. The District Court dismissed the cases in 2004, but
in 2007 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed
and remanded the cases to the District Court for further
proceedings. Amended complaints were filed during 2008; motions to
dismiss were granted in part and denied in part, and defendants
appealed. In August 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals remanded the
cases to the District Court with instructions to dismiss. The
plaintiffs have filed a petition for rehearing. As requested by
the U.S. Court of Appeals, we have filed a response to plaintiffs'
petition for rehearing."

Ford Motor Company (Ford) is a producer of automobiles. The
Company together with its subsidiaries is engaged in other
businesses, including financing vehicles. The Company operates in
two segments: Automotive and Financial Services. Automotive
includes Ford North America, Ford South America, Ford Europe, and
Ford Asia Pacific Africa region. Financial services include Ford
Motor Credit Company and Other Financial Service. The Company
manufactures or distributes automobiles across six continents. Its
automotive brands include Ford and Lincoln. Other Financial
Services includes a range of businesses, including holding
companies and real estate. Effective September 26, 2013, Ford
Motor Company acquired Livio, a developer of software.


HULU LLC: Users Get Favorable Ruling in Privacy Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Scott Graham, writing for The Recorder, reports that users of
video streaming site Hulu do not have to prove they were actually
injured by disclosure of their viewing habits to win statutory
damages under a 1980s video privacy law, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Laurel Beeler [of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California] ruled on Dec. 20.

"The plain language of the statute shows that Congress considered
a consumer to be an 'aggrieved person' under the [Video Privacy
Protection Act] if a video tape service provider wrongfully
discloses that consumer's personally identifiable information,"
Beeler wrote, denying summary judgment in In re Hulu Privacy
Litigation.

It's the latest Northern District opinion on the issue of damages
in a privacy case.  But class counsel in Hulu are in a strong
position because the video law -- enacted in 1988 after a Supreme
Court nominee's Blockbuster video rentals were disclosed in a
newspaper article -- specifically provides a minimum $2,500 in
liquidated damages per violation.

Judge Beeler has already ruled that Hulu meets the definition of a
"video tape service provider."

Class counsel led by Parisi & Havens, KamberLaw and Strange &
Carpenter allege that Hulu disclosed its users' viewing selections
to Facebook and to metrics company ComScore.  Hulu says it
transmits only anonymized information to ComScore, but plaintiffs
say it would be easy enough for ComScore to reverse-engineer
individual identities.

Even if that were true, Hulu's attorneys at O'Melveny & Myers
argued in their motion for summary judgment, Hulu users can't show
they're "aggrieved" under the VPPA because they haven't shown any
injury.  When asked at deposition how they'd been harmed, class
members responded simply that "my privacy has been violated."

On Dec. 20, Judge Beeler ruled that is enough.  Hulu had cited
Sterk v. Best Buy, a Northern District of Illinois decision that
said consumers could not sue a Best Buy store for revealing video
rental information to parent company Best Buy Co.  Judge Beeler
ruled that Sterk is inconsistent with Ninth Circuit case law on
injury-in-fact.  In another case involving the same plaintiff,
Sterk v. Redbox Automated Retail, Judge Richard Posner's reasoning
for the Seventh Circuit supported the conclusion that disclosure
is an injury, Beeler added.

"The issue in this motion is whether -- assuming an unauthorized
disclosure in violation of the VPPA -- Plaintiffs must show
"actual injury" evidence beyond the unauthorized disclosure as a
prerequisite to obtaining any damages (actual or statutory),"
Beeler wrote.  "The court holds that they do not."

A similar suit against Netflix settled last year for $9 million.

            HULU Opposed Users' Privacy Class Cert. Bid

David McAfee, Drew Singer and Allison Grande, writing for Law360,
report that Hulu LLC hit back at a putative class action accusing
the company of wrongfully disclosing users' information to third
parties like Facebook Inc. and comScore Inc., saying on Dec. 16
that a class certification motion asks the court to accept
"unsupported assumptions that are contrary to the facts."

Hulu's opposition to class certification comes just a month after
the proposed class of users urged a California judge to reject the
company's contention that the plaintiffs must allege an actual
injury to collect damages under the Video Privacy Protection Act,
arguing that the statute is intended to cover both tangible and
intangible privacy violations.  Hulu now says the plaintiffs' two
class theories cannot be resolved without entangling the court in
fact questions, "the answers to which will vary from one class
member to another."

"The gravamen of a VPPA violation is the knowing disclosure by a
video service provider of a customer's name linked to the title of
a video the customer watched.  Plaintiffs know that Hulu did not
engage in this conduct," Hulu's motion says.  "It is undisputed
that when Hulu sent video titles to comScore they were accompanied
only by anonymous numerical user IDs, such as 50253776.  Thus,
plaintiffs' case and class motion depend on whether someone at
comScore could have figured out the name of user '50253776' and
then linked that to the video information to identify what that
user watched."

The plaintiffs' other class theory, concerning the Facebook "datr"
cookie, also turns on whether someone at Facebook could have used
the alphanumerical data contained in that cookie to reverse
engineer the name of a Hulu user and the title of the video the
user watched, Hulu says.

In the 2011 privacy suit, Hulu users alleged the website violated
the VPPA by wrongfully disclosing their video viewing selections
and personal identification information to third parties such as
online advertising networks, metrics and data-tracking companies,
and social networks without ever getting their consent.

The VPPA, which Congress passed in 1988 after the Washington City
Paper published the video rental records of failed U.S. Supreme
Court nominee Robert Bork, permits any "aggrieved" person to
collect "actual damages but not less than liquidated damages in an
amount of $2,500."

In 2011, Hulu originally argued that its business didn't fall
under the scope of the VPPA at all because its video-streaming
website isn't a brick-and-mortar store dealing in videotapes.  But
U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler denied Hulu's motion to
dismiss for lack of standing, saying Congress had enacted the law
in 1988 because it was concerned with protecting the
confidentiality of private information about viewing preferences
regardless of the business model or media format involved.

Robert M. Schwartz -- rschwartz@omm.com -- of O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, counsel to Hulu, said Hulu did not violate the statute.

"The named plaintiffs have no claim and no damages.  Their class
motion is riddled with legal and factual defects," Mr. Schwartz
told Law360 on Dec. 17.  "So no matter how many times you multiply
the zero value of their claims on a class basis, it still equals
zero."

Representatives for the plaintiffs declined comment on Dec. 17.

The plaintiffs are represented by David C. Parisi --
dparisi@parisihavens.com -- and Suzanne Havens Beckman --
shavensbeckman@parisihavens.com -- of Parisi & Havens LLP; Scott
A. Kamber -- skamber@kamberlaw.com -- David A. Stampley --
dstampley@kamberlaw.com -- and Grace E. Tersigni -- Grace Tersigni
gtersigni@kamberlaw.com -- of KamberLaw LLC; and Brian R. Strange
and Gretchen Carpenter of Strange & Carpenter.

Hulu is represented by Robert M. Schwartz -- rschwartz@omm.com --
Steven Dunst -- sdunst@omm.com -- Matthew D. Powers --
mpowers@omm.com -- and Katherine M. Robison -- krobison@omm.com --
of O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

The case is In re: Hulu Privacy Litigation, case number 3:11-cv-
03764, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Holdings, Inc., on Dec. 17 disclosed that it received
final court approval to settle its pending class action and
derivative litigation.

On December 16, 2013, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida entered an order approving the class
action settlement and on December 17, the Circuit Court of the
15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida
entered an order approving the derivative action settlement.

Antony Mitchell, CEO of Imperial, commented, "We are very pleased
to be able to put this litigation behind us as we continue our
turnaround efforts."

                  About Imperial Holdings, Inc.

Imperial -- http://www.imperial.com-- is a specialty finance
company that, through its operating subsidiaries, provides
customized liquidity solutions to owners of illiquid financial
assets.


INDIANA: Motorists Can Get Refunds Under BMV Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Rod Rose, writing for The Lebanon Reporter, reports that with a
few mouse clicks, many Indiana motorists can receive a stocking-
stuffer present from the Indiana Department of Motor Vehicles.

Marion Superior Court Judge Heather Welch on Nov. 12 issued a
settlement in a class action lawsuit that claimed the BMV had
overcharged drivers from $3 to $15 for new or renewed driver's
licenses between March 7, 2007 and June 27 this year.  She ordered
the BMV to pay back $30 million of those overcharges.

Refunds will be automatically credited to those drivers who
qualify the next time they visit the BMV for a driver's license,
license plate renewal or other business.  The refunds can also be
requested by calling 800-248-0084, or going to
http://www.in.gov/bmv/3158.htand clicking on the BMV Class Action
Lawsuit Check Request link.  The deadline to request a check is
Dec. 15, 2016.

Several Lebanon Reporter staff members applied for the online
credit: Their refunds ranged from $3 to $9.78.

Those over 75 are not eligible for refunds because the BMV did not
overcharge anyone in that age group.


INFOCISION INC: March 28 Settlement Public Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
IF YOU RECEIVED A TELEPHONE CALL FROM, OR PLACED A CALL TO,
INFOCISION ON BEHALF OF A CHARITY BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 27, 2008 AND
TODAY AND DONATED MONEY TO -- OR VOLUNTEERED ON BEHALF -- OF THE
CHARITY, YOU MAYBE AFFECTED BY A PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

A proposed Settlement has been reached in a class action case
regarding calls that InfoCision, Inc. and/or InfoCision Management
Corporation, aka IMC (collectively "Defendants") handled on behalf
of charities.  The name of the case is Oatman v. InfoCision, Inc.
et al., Case No. 12-cv-02770.  It is pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

What is the lawsuit about?

The lawsuit alleges that while soliciting money or volunteers for
charities, Defendants misrepresented or omitted material facts
about various topics, including about how the charities allocate
donations.  The Defendants deny that they did anything wrong.

What are the terms of the proposed Settlement?

Defendants have agreed to pay $1,700,000 -- less attorneys' fees,
reimbursement of litigation expenses, a participation award, and
up to $50,000 in costs to publish notice -- to the charities to
which the Class Members had agreed to donate time or money.  This
advertisement contains only a summary of the Settlement terms.
You can receive additional details regarding the proposed
Settlement, including a copy of the Settlement Agreement at
www.infocisionclassactionsettlement.com or by reviewing the
Court's files.

The Court will hold a public fairness hearing on March 28, 2014 at
8:30 a.m. to consider (1) whether to give Final Approval to the
Settlement, (2) whether to approve class counsel's request for
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses; and, (3) whether to
approve a participation award for the Class Representative.

What are my rights?

    * If you do not want to be a member of the Class, you must
send a letter and ask to be excluded.  Your request must be
postmarked by no later than February 12, 2014 to Margaret Murray,
Murray & Murray Co., L.P.A., 111 E. Shoreline Drive, Sandusky,
Ohio 44870; and Sam Camardo, Baker & Hostetler LLP, 3200 PNC
Center, 1900 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44114.  If you
don't exclude yourself and the Settlement is approved, you agree
never to sue Defendants for the claims covered by this Settlement.
All requests to be excluded must be made in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

    * You can tell the Court if you do not like this proposed
Settlement or some part of it if you do not exclude yourself.  To
object, you must file an object with the Court by February 12,
2014, and you must appear at the fairness hearing.  You may also
hire your own lawyer, at your own cost, to appear at the fairness
hearing.  All objections must be made in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Settlement Agreement.

For more information, go to
www.infocisionclassactionsettlement.com


LONG BEACH MEDICAL: Former Employees File Benefits Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ridgely Ochs, writing for Newsday, reports that 11 former
employees of Long Beach Medical Center have filed a class-action
lawsuit against the shuttered hospital for vacation time and other
benefits they say are owed them.

The hospital has laid off about 670 of its 1,200 employees since
the badly flooded hospital closed last October after superstorm
Sandy.

The suit, filed Dec. 9 in State Supreme Court in Mineola, claims
the hospital owes its former and current employees money accrued
from vacation time and other benefits.

Long Beach attorney Michael Berman, who represents the employees,
said he estimated the money owed to be "in the many millions."

"They're looking for Long Beach Medical Center to do the right
thing," he said.  But hospital administrators said in a statement
that, while "we certainly want to provide these funds to our
former employees," the medical center doesn't have the money.

"The medical center receives very limited revenue while continuing
to incur the costs of maintaining its facilities," it said.
"Consequently, the medical center does not currently have the
financial means to pay all of its employees their accrued vacation
time."

The hospital's nursing home reopened in February, providing work
for 240 of the 1,200 employees.  Another 190 have returned to work
in the mental health clinic, the family care center, the home care
agency, medical records, maintenance and engineering and in
administration, hospital spokeswoman Sharon Player said.

The hospital, financially strapped before the storm, has been in
talks since June -- at the state's urging -- with South Nassau
Communities Hospital in Oceanside about a merger.

Plaintiffs in the suit said it was less about the money per se
than the feeling that they have been mistreated by the hospital
administration.

"I don't think they have been very forthcoming with us," said
Elaine Peck, 73, a nurse who worked 29 years at the hospital and
said she is owed $19,800 for vacations she never took.  "A lot of
us didn't look for employment because they said they were opening
soon."

Chief executive Douglas Melzer, also named in the class-action
lawsuit, initially predicted that the hospital would be able to
reopen within months.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Class Action in Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Koenig, writing for Woodworking Network, reports that a
class action lawsuit filed against Lumber Liquidators Inc. claims
the hardwood flooring company failed to disclose to investors the
allegations of CARB formaldehyde and Lacey Act violations,
resulting in inflated stock purchase prices.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP filed the securities class action lawsuit
in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on
Dec. 17.  Brought on behalf of investors who purchased stock
between  Feb. 22, 2012 and Nov. 21, 2013, the suit alleges Lumber
Liquidators' did not disclose that some branded flooring imported
from China and sold in California was more than three times the
maximum legal limit for formaldehyde emissions, despite being
labeled as CARB compliant.  "On this news, Lumber Liquidators
shares declined, over the course of two trading sessions, by $9.40
per share or nearly 11%, to close at $76.63 per share on June 21,
2013," the statement says.

Also alleged in the complaint is that Lumber Liquidators imported
illegally harvested lumber from Russia, a violation of the Lacey
Act and which enabled the company to "maintain its unbelievably
high margins and thus inflate its revenues."

"On September 26, 2013, agents from the Department of Homeland
Security, the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Department of
Justice executed sealed search warrants at Lumber Liquidators'
corporate offices in Toano and Richmond, Virginia, related to the
importation of certain wood products."  Shares fell more than 5%
on September 27, to close at $107.13, and continued falling, to
$99.29 per share in November, the statement by the law firm
claims.

"As a result of the foregoing violations, the company faces the
risk of large fines, penalties, forfeitures, judgments and/or
settlements in connection with government regulatory actions
and/or consumer class actions; and as a result of the foregoing,
the company's statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times."

This marks the latest lawsuit to hit the multi-channel retailer of
hardwood flooring and accessories.  A similar suit against Lumber
Liquidators also was filed by Holzer Holzer & Fistel earlier this
month.

Lumber Liquidators projects end of year net sales in the range of
$994 million to $1.0 billion, up from a previous range of $985
million to $995 million.  The company forecasts net sales between
$1.15 billion and $1.20 billion in 2014.


METROPOLITAN AMBULATORY: Father & Son Sued Over Investor Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Lynn, writing for NorthJersey.com, reports that a father
and son from Bergen County have been accused of defrauding 26
investors of $3.5 million, which they allegedly spent on a
Ferrari, two Maseratis and three homes, among other expenses.

According to the N.J. Bureau of Securities, from 2009 to July 2013
George J. Bussanich, 55, of Park Ridge and his son, George
Bussanich, 34, of Upper Saddle River, sold promissory notes in
Metropolitan Ambulatory Surgical Center LLC in Cliffside Park,
promising returns of 6 percent to 8 percent.  But the investments
were not registered with the state, and the Bussaniches were not
registered to sell the notes, authorities said in a suit filed in
Superior Court in Newark.

The lawsuit says said the "surgical center" was not a medical
office, but a holding company for five other businesses, most in
Cliffside Park, controlled by the elder Bussanich: Bridgeview
Physical Therapy, Northeast Anesthesia Management Group, Palisades
Rehab and Spinal Care Group, Metropolitan Sleep and Diagnostic
Testing and Palisades Anesthesia Associates.

According to the lawsuit, the Bussaniches used most of the
investors' $3.5 million as a "personal slush fund" for themselves
and other relatives, spending money on the Ferrari, two Maseratis,
a Land Rover, a Mercedes and a Range Rover, as well as homes in
Surf City and Upper Saddle River.

The suit also says that George J. Bussanich gave his daughter,
Melanie Whitney, more than $850,000 of investors' money to buy a
house in Surf City and $191,000 toward a house in Upper Saddle
River.  Property records show that in 2009, Whitney, who was among
several family members also named in the suit, paid $850,000 for a
Surf City house and $1.3 million for an Upper Saddle River house.
According to authorities, George J. Bussanich also took $420,000
of investors' money for a down payment on a house for himself in
Surf City.

In their lawsuit, state officials asked the court to prohibit the
Bussaniches from engaging in the securities business or offering
securities for sale in the state.  The suit also seeks penalties
for alleged violations of the state's securities laws.
Authorities also revoked the securities registration of the
younger Bussanich.

"This was not a legitimate investment gone bad, but a scam by the
defendants to line their pockets and live the high life," Acting
Attorney General John J. Hoffman said in a statement.

George Bussanich previously worked for Kovack Securities Inc. in
Cliffside Park, which fired him when it discovered his work with
his father's business.  FINRA, the financial services industry's
self-regulatory agency, recently barred the younger Bussanich from
associating with any FINRA member for the same reason.

Lawyers for the two men could not be reached for comment.


MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: Enters MoU to Settle Lawsuit Over Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a suit filed against Midamerican Energy Holdings
Company over its planned merger, entered into a memorandum of
understanding providing for the settlement of the lawsuits,
according to the company's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

The complaints were filed on behalf of a putative class of NV
Energy public shareholders, naming NV Energy, its board of
directors, MEHC and Silver Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub"), an
indirect wholly owned subsidiary of MEHC. The complaints, as
amended, generally allege that the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger, and
that NV Energy, Merger Sub and MEHC aided and abetted the breach
of fiduciary duties by the individual defendants. The amended
complaints seek, among other things, an order preliminarily and
permanently enjoining the acquisition, disclosure of certain
information relating to the acquisition, damages, and plaintiff's
expenses.

On September 4, 2013, the parties to the lawsuits entered into a
memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of the
lawsuits, subject to certain confirmatory discovery by the
plaintiffs in the lawsuits and subject to the approval of the
Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada. Pursuant
to the terms of the memorandum of understanding, NV Energy made
certain supplemental disclosures to its proxy statement.

Absent the court approval, injunctive relief or an adverse
determination in the shareholder class actions could result in a
cash judgment or settlement and affect MEHC's ability to complete
the acquisition with NV Energy.  MEHC intends to vigorously defend
the lawsuits.


NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: Attorney Discusses Steroid MDL Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
a year into its Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, the New England
Compounding Center's owners and insurers agreed to a $100 million
settlement for victims of tainted steroids linked to 64 deaths and
more than 700 illnesses, with more than half of the cash coming
from the owners.

The agreements in principle would resolve claims against the
company and its insurers over fungal meningitis and other
infections from the drugs.  They include claims in federal
multidistrict litigation launched in Boston in February.  The
agreements are subject to bankruptcy court approval.  Other
parties, including clinics accused of administering the drugs,
that also face liability are not part of this settlement.

David Molton, a New York partner at Boston's Brown Rudnick who
represents the creditors committee, spoke with The National Law
Journal about the deal and what's next.  The remarks below have
been edited for length and clarity.

NLJ: Is the settlement structure unusual?

Molton: Here the individual [company owners'] contribution is in
excess of 50 percent of the aggregate pot.  Normally in a tort
case, you first fund with insurance.  In extraordinary
circumstances, you sometimes get a non-insurance contribution by
an insured party.  Some of the more creative aspects are a tax
refund component and proceeds from the sale of a related
company -- we're going to be receiving tax refunds that insiders
might have a right to in connection with their cash contributions
to settlement funds.

NLJ: What were some of the challenges in the negotiation?

Molton: The large number of deaths and injuries and manifestations
of those injuries that are still not necessarily clear to the
treating doctors.  It was very important to us to garner a
settlement of sufficient assets and at the same time to arrive at
a conclusion relatively quickly.

NLJ: What's next?

Molton: We are actively engaged in trying to bring the other
entities into settlement talks.  Those include the medical care
providers and clinics that administered the drugs, and companies
that provided services to the debtor such as the sanitation vendor
and environmental testing company.  We're reaching out in order to
come to a negotiated and mediated resolution with these non-debtor
defendants that will supplement the $100-plus million dollar pot.

NLJ: How many other parties face litigation?

Molton: There are dozens of medical care providers and pain
clinics that have been sued or may be sued for their involvement
in the administration of tainted product they received from debtor
in Michigan, Virginia, Tennessee, Indiana and New Jersey.  That
includes state court cases and cases that have been transferred to
the multidistrict litigation.  It's in excess of 500 cases --
federal and state -- and the applicable statute of limitations has
not yet run out in many states.

NLJ: What incentives do the clinics and doctors have to settle or
not settle?

Molton: If they settle and it's approved in the Chapter 11 plan,
they will basically receive releases that will end this litigation
for them.  From the clinics' point of view, it's fair to say,
their first reaction is sometimes, 'We were victims too.'  Many
are nonetheless facing a huge amount of claims on alleged facts
that don't paint a nice picture.

NLJ: Is the settlement likely to help NECC owners with an ongoing
coordinated criminal investigation by Boston U.S. Attorney Carmen
Ortiz and Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette?

Molton: I don't know if that matters at all to the government.
One of the government's objectives is criminal forfeiture.  The
fact that a Chapter 11 plan is being developed to provide remedies
is a good thing and something we think the government should view
with satisfaction.


NQ MOBILE: Scott+Scott File Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law LLP on November 14, 2013, filed a
class action complaint against NQ Mobile Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The complaint, which
seeks remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, was filed on behalf of those persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired NQ American
Depositary Shares: (i) between May 5, 2011 through October 24,
2013, inclusive; and/or (ii) pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement issued in connection with the Company's
initial public offering that commenced on May 5, 2011. The
complaint alleges that NQ issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and financial
prospects during the Class Period and in connection with the
Company's IPO.

Investors who purchased NQ American Depositary Shares during the
Class Period or in the Company's IPO and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff in the class action were required to move the Court no
later than December 27, 2013.  Members of the investor class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain absent class
members in the lawsuit.  If you wish to view the complaint,
discuss the NQ litigation, or have questions concerning this
notice or your rights, please contact Michael Burnett of
Scott+Scott --mburnett@scott-scott.com -- (800) 404-7770, (860)
537-5537) or visit the Scott+Scott website for more information:
http://www.scott-scott.com

There is no cost or fee to you.

Founded in 2005 and headquartered in Beijing, PRC, NQ provides
various mobile Internet services.  The company was formerly known
as NetQin Mobile Inc. and changed its name to NQ Mobile Inc. in
April 2012.

On May 5, 2011 NQ commenced its IPO of American Depositary Shares.
The shares were priced at $11.50 per share.  Following the IPO,
and during the Class Period, NQ share prices increased
significantly, climbing to nearly $25 per share in October 2013.

Then, on October 24, 2013, equity research firm Muddy Waters LLC
initiated coverage on NQ with a "Strong Sell" rating and a
projected target price of less than $1.  Among other things,
Muddy Waters' research report states: (i) at least 72% of NQ's
reported $32.2 million in 2012 China security software revenue is
fraudulent, NQ's real security revenue was $2.5 million to $7.7
million; (ii) NQ's largest customer is actually an empty shell
company controlled by NQ; (iii) NQ's real market share in China is
only about 1.4%, versus the approximately 55% it reports; (iv)
NQ's international revenues are wildly overstated; and (v) the
vast majority of the $127.9 million cash and investments NQ
reported having as of December 31, 2012 is not actually in the
Company's accounts.

Upon the release of this information, on October 24, 2013, NQ
shares declined 47% to $12.09 per share from $22.88 per share, on
unusually heavy volume of 29.3 million shares traded, resulting in
millions of dollars in losses to NQ shareholders.

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States.  The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide.


PDC ENERGY: Class Action Scheduled for Jury Trial in May 2014
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action against PDC Energy, Inc., and its subsidiary is
scheduled a jury trial in May 2014, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filed on October 31, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2013.

On December 21, 2011 the Company and its wholly-owned merger
subsidiary were served with an alleged class action on behalf of
certain former partnership unit holders, related to its
partnership repurchases completed by mergers in 2010 and 2011. The
action was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California and is titled Schulein v. Petroleum Development
Corp. The complaint primarily alleges that the disclosures in the
proxy statements issued in connection with the mergers were
inadequate, and a state law breach of fiduciary duty. On June 15,
2012, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss and
approved a litigation schedule including a jury trial in May 2014.
The Company has not recorded a liability for claims pending
because it believes it has good legal defenses to the asserted
claims and because the plaintiffs have not specified damages and
it is not possible for management to reasonably estimate what, if
any, monetary damages could result from this claim.

PDC Energy, Inc. (PDC) doing business as PDC Energy, is a domestic
independent exploration and production company, which acquires,
develops, explores, and produces natural gas, natural gas liquids
(NGLs), and crude oil. Its Western Operating Region is focused on
development in the Wattenberg Field in Colorado, particularly in
the liquid-rich horizontal Niobrara play and on the ongoing
development of refractures and recompletions of its Wattenberg
wells. In its Eastern Operating Region, it is focused on
development activity in the liquid-rich portion of the Utica Shale
play in Ohio. The Company owns an interest in approximately 7,200
gross producing wells and maintained an average production rate of
135.6 One million cubic feet of natural gas volume (MMcfe) per day
for the year ended December 31, 2012, which was comprised of 65.3%
natural gas, 10.2% NGLs and 24.5% crude oil. On June 18, 2013, PDC
Energy Inc announced that it has sold its non-core Colorado
natural gas assets.


PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Enters Settlement in "Higgins" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. reached a tentative settlement
agreement with the plaintiff in the suit John Higgins, et al, v.
Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc., according to the company's Nov.
1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

During the fourth quarter of 2011, a customer of Pinnacle Bank
filed a putative class action lawsuit (styled John Higgins, et al,
v. Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc., d/b/a Pinnacle National
Bank) in Davidson County, Tennessee Circuit Court against Pinnacle
Bank and Pinnacle Financial, on his own behalf, as well as on
behalf of a purported class of Pinnacle Bank's customers within
the State of Tennessee alleging that Pinnacle Bank's method of
ordering debit card transactions had caused customers of Pinnacle
Bank to incur higher overdraft charges than had a different method
been used. Pinnacle Financial and Pinnacle Bank reached a
tentative settlement agreement with the plaintiff during the
second quarter of 2013.

Although the settlement has not yet been finalized, Pinnacle
Financial does not believe that any liability arising from this
legal matter will have a material adverse effect on Pinnacle
Financial's consolidated financial condition, operating results or
cash flows.


PINNACLE WEST CAPITAL: Defendant in Consumer Complaint
------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation and its subsidiary are
defendants in a purported consumer class action complaint seeking
damages for loss of perishable inventory and sales as a result of
interruption of electrical service, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filed on October 31, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2013.

On September 6, 2013, a purported consumer class action complaint
was filed in Federal District Court in San Diego, California,
naming APS and Pinnacle West as defendants and seeking damages for
loss of perishable inventory and sales as a result of interruption
of electrical service. The Company and its subsidiary, Arizona
Public Service Company, intend to file a motion to dismiss the
complaint.

Pinnacle West Capital Corporation (Pinnacle West) is a holding
company that conducts business through its subsidiaries. Pinnacle
West derives its revenues and earnings from its wholly owned
subsidiary, Arizona Public Service Company (APS). APS is a
vertically-integrated electric utility that provides either retail
or wholesale electric service to most of the State of Arizona. APS
provides electric service to approximately 1.1 million customers.
The Company owns or leases approximately 6,340 megawatts of
regulated generation capacity and it holds a mix of both long-term
and short-term purchased power agreements for additional capacity,
including a variety of agreements for the purchase of renewable
energy. The Company's subsidiaries include El Dorado Investment
Company (El Dorado) and SunCor Development Company (SunCor). On
August 19, 2011, the Company sold APS Energy Services Company,
Inc., a subsidiary of the Company.


PLAYTEX: Recalls Hip Hammock Infant Carriers Over Fall Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
WFMY News 2 reports that the Consumer Product and Safety
Commission issued recalls on infant carriers and children's eating
utensils.

Playtex recalled their hip hammock infant carriers due to the
buckles on the waist and shoulder straps cracking and breaking,
which poses a fall hazard to the child.

The company says it has received 87 reports of the buckles
cracking or breaking.  This includes two reports of injuries,
where one infant required emergency room treatment.

Consumers are advised to stop using the carrier immediately and
contact Playtex at (800) 522-8230 or online for a full refund.

The carriers were sold at Burlington Coat Factory, Target,
Walmart, and other stores nationwide.

Edoche recalled their Cubetensils children's eating utensils due
to the utensil's handle detaching, causing a choking hazard.

The company says this affects about 1,100 spoon and fork sets that
were sold at major retailers nationwide and online.

They say they have received one report of the utensil's handle
detaching and a baby putting it in his/her mouth. No injuries have
been reported.

Consumers are advised to immediately take the utensils away from
children and contact Edoche at (774) 295-0170 or online for a full
refund.


PNM RESOURCES: Appeal of Navajo Nation Allottees Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
The Interior Board of Indian Appeals decided that the Navajo
Nation allottees had failed to perfect their appeals against the
dismissal of their claims against PNM Resources, Inc. et al., and
dismissed the allottees' appeals, without prejudice, according to
the company's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2013.

A putative class action was filed against PNM and other utilities
in February 2009 in the United States District Court for the
District of New Mexico. Plaintiffs claim to be allottees, members
of the Navajo Nation, who pursuant to the Dawes Act of 1887, were
allotted ownership in land carved out of the Navajo Nation and
allege that defendants, including PNM, are rights-of-way grantees
with rights-of-way across the allotted lands and are either in
trespass or have paid insufficient fees for the grant of rights-
of-way or both.  In March 2010, the court ordered that the
entirety of the plaintiffs' case be dismissed. The court did not
grant plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, finding that they
instead must pursue and exhaust their administrative remedies
before seeking redress in federal court.

In May 2010, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Bureau
of Indian Affairs ("BIA"), which was denied by the BIA Regional
Director. In May 2011, plaintiffs appealed the Regional Director's
decision to the DOI, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Interior
Board of Indian Appeals. Following briefing on the merits, on
August 20, 2013, that board issued a decision upholding the
Regional Director's decision that the allottees had failed to
perfect their appeals, and dismissed the allottees' appeals,
without prejudice.

PNM continues to participate in this matter in order to preserve
its interests regarding any PNM-acquired rights-of-way implicated
in the appeal. PNM cannot predict the outcome of the proceeding or
the range of potential outcomes at this time.


REALTY INCOME CORP: State Court Approved ARCT Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
In its Form 10-Q filed on October 31, 2013, with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2013, Realty Income Corporation reported that at the
settlement hearing on October 24, 2013, the Maryland state court
certified the class, approved the settlement set forth in the
stipulation as fair, reasonable, and adequate to ARCT's
shareholders, and entered final judgment dismissing the
consolidated class action in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland captioned In re American Capital Realty Trust, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, No. 24-C-12-005306.

By order dated July 23, 2013, the Maryland state court
preliminarily approved the settlement set forth in the stipulation
of the parties, preliminarily certified the class, and set a
settlement hearing for October 24, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. Pursuant to
the Maryland state court's preliminary approval order, ARCT
provided notice to its stockholders regarding the proposed
settlement. At the settlement hearing on October 24, 2013, the
Maryland state court certified the class, approved the settlement
set forth in the stipulation as fair, reasonable, and adequate to
ARCT's shareholders, and entered final judgment dismissing the
Maryland State Action with prejudice. In addition, the Maryland
state court approved $512,751 in plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
expenses, to be paid pursuant to the parties' stipulation, of
which, approximately 25% would be paid by Realty Income and the
remainder to be paid by ARCT's insurer.

Realty Income Corporation (Realty Income) is an equity real estate
investment trust (REIT). The Company is engaged in acquiring and
owning freestanding retail and other properties that generate
rental revenue under long-term lease agreements (primarily 10 to
20 years). The Company has in-house acquisition, leasing, legal,
credit research, real estate research, portfolio management and
capital markets. At December 31, 2011, it owned a diversified
portfolio of 2,634 properties with an occupancy rate of 96.7%, or
2,547 properties leased and only 87 properties available for
lease. It leased properties to 136 different retail and other
commercial enterprises doing business in 38 separate industries.
It properties are located in 49 states, with over 27.3 million
square feet of leasable space, and with an average leasable space
per property of approximately 10,400 square feet. In January 2013,
it acquired American Realty Capital Trust.


SUFFOLK BANCORP: Insurer Paid $2.8-Mil to Escrow Account
--------------------------------------------------------
Suffolk Bancorp's insurer paid the sum of $2.8 million to an
escrow account for the benefit of Class Members on August 1, 2013,
in accordance with the parties' settlement agreement and the
court's preliminary approval order, according to Suffolk Bancorp's
Form 10-Q filed on October 31, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2013.

On October 20, 2011, a putative shareholder class action, James E.
Fisher v. Suffolk Bancorp, et al., No. 11 Civ. 5114 (SJ), was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York against the Company, its former chief executive officer, and
a former chief financial officer of the Company. The complaint
alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by knowingly or recklessly
making false statements about, or failing to disclose accurate
information about, the Company's financial results and condition,
loan loss reserves, impaired assets, internal and disclosure
controls, and banking practices. The complaint seeks damages in an
unspecified amount on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock between March 12, 2010 and August 10, 2011 (the "Class
Members"). On October 15, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint. On April 8, 2013, the parties entered into
an agreement to settle the action, subject to the approval of the
court, and on April 10, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed an
unopposed motion requesting an order preliminarily approving the
proposed settlement, directing dissemination and publication of
notice of the proposed settlement to Class Members, and scheduling
a hearing on whether the settlement should be finally approved by
the court. On July 18, 2013, the court granted the motion. On
August 1, 2013, in accordance with the parties' settlement
agreement and the court's preliminary approval order, the
Company's insurer paid the sum of $2.8 million to an escrow
account for the benefit of Class Members. A final settlement
approval hearing had been scheduled for November 13, 2013.
Management does not believe that the ultimate resolution of this
matter will have a material adverse impact on the consolidated
financial statements.

Suffolk Bancorp (Suffolk) is a bank holding company for Suffolk
County National Bank (the Bank). The Company provides banking
services to its commercial and retail customers in Suffolk County,
on Long Island, New York. As of December 31, 2011, the Bank
operated 30 full-service branch offices in Suffolk County, New
York. It offers a range of domestic retail and commercial banking
services, and wealth management services. The Bank offers a range
of services, such as checking accounts, time and savings
certificates, money market accounts, negotiable-order-of
withdrawal accounts, and individual retirement accounts; secured
and unsecured loans, including commercial loans to individuals,
partnerships, and corporations, installment loans to finance small
businesses, and automobile loans; home equity and real estate
mortgage loans; trust and estate services; the sale of mutual
funds and annuities, and maintenance of a master pension plan for
self-employed individuals' participation.


SUNPOWER CORP: Court Approved $19.7-Mil Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. federal court on July 3, 2013, granted final approval of
the agreement in principle between SunPower Corporation and the
plaintiffs to settle the consolidated securities class action
lawsuit for $19.7 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filed on October 31, 2013, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 29, 2013.

Three securities class action lawsuits were filed against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a class consisting of those
who acquired the Company's securities from April 17, 2008 through
November 16, 2009. The cases were consolidated as In re SunPower
Securities Litigation, Case No. CV-09-5473-RS (N.D. Cal.), and
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel were appointed on March 5, 2010.
Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on May 28, 2010.
The actions arise from the Audit Committee's investigation
announcement on November 16, 2009, regarding certain
unsubstantiated accounting entries. The consolidated complaint
alleges that the defendants made material misstatements and
omissions concerning the Company's financial results for 2008 and
2009, seeks an unspecified amount of damages, and alleges
violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The court held a hearing on the defendants' motions to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on November 4, 2010. The court dismissed
the consolidated complaint with leave to amend on March 1, 2011.
An amended complaint was filed on April 18, 2011. The amended
complaint added two former employees of the Company as defendants.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on May
23, 2011. The motions to dismiss the amended complaint were heard
by the court on August 11, 2011. On December 19, 2011, the court
granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss,
dismissing the claims brought pursuant to sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and the claims brought against the two
newly added former employees. On December 14, 2012, the Company
announced that it reached an agreement in principle to settle the
consolidated securities class action lawsuit for $19.7 million.
The Company recorded a charge in its fiscal fourth quarter of 2012
in the same amount which is further classified within "Accrued
liabilities" on the Company's Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets as of December 30, 2012. On July 3, 2013, the court granted
final approval of the settlement and entered an order of final
judgment and dismissal with prejudice.

SunPower Corporation operates in two business segments: the
Utility and Power Plants (UPP) Segment and the Residential and
Commercial (R&C) Segment. The UPP Segment refers to its solar
products and systems business, which includes power plant project
development and project sales, turn-key engineering, procurement
and construction (EPC) services for power plant construction, and
power plant operations and maintenance (O&M) services. The R&C
Segment focuses on solar equipment sales into the residential and
small commercial market through its third-party global dealer
network, as well as direct sales and EPC and O&M services in the
United States and Europe for rooftop and ground-mounted solar
power systems for the new homes, commercial and public sectors. In
January 2013, the Company MidAmerican Solar acquired the 579-
megawatt Antelope Valley Solar Projects (AVSP), two co-located
projects in Kern and Los Angeles Counties in Calif. In November
2013, the Company acquired Greenbotics, Inc.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Lawyers Begin Acceleration Suit Settlement Process
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that days after an Oklahoma City jury returned a $3 million
verdict in a lawsuit involving the crash of a 2005 Camry that
injured the driver and killed a passenger, Toyota attorney
John Hooper -- jhooper@reedsmith.com -- called plaintiffs attorney
W. Daniel "Dee" Miles -- dee.miles@beasleyallen.com

Within about three months, according to Mr. Miles, he and
Mr. Hooper, a partner in Reed Smith's New York office, along with
other lead plaintiffs attorneys suing Toyota Motor Corp., hashed
out a process to possibly settle the remaining 450 cases alleging
sudden-acceleration defects.

"I can't tell you what he said because the negotiations are
confidential," said Mr. Miles, head of the consumer fraud section
at Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles in Montgomery,
Ala. "I can't say that -- but the timing of it is obvious."

Mr. Hooper did not respond to a request to verify the
conversation.  But on Dec. 12, he, Mr. Miles and other plaintiffs
attorneys outlined their proposed "intensive settlement process."
U.S. District Judge James Selna in Santa Ana, Calif., overseeing
most of the litigation against Toyota, has scheduled a Jan. 14
hearing on the matter.

Hundreds of lawsuits followed Toyota's 2009 and 2010 recalls for
defective accelerator pedals and floor mats that could cause cars
to suddenly accelerate.  Last year, the company reached a $1.6
billion settlement of economic damages claims related to the
recalls.  The remaining cases were filed on behalf of people who
were injured or died.

In the Oct. 24 Oklahoma state court verdict, jurors found Toyota's
actions "reckless."  The company settled the case for a
confidential sum before jurors could award punitive damages.  The
trial was the first to present evidence that defects in the
electronic throttle control system -- not floor mats or
accelerator pedals -- were responsible for sudden acceleration.

                       Electronics On Trial

By putting electronics on trial, the Oklahoma jurors served as a
"focus group" on whether juries could be convinced that software
defects caused sudden acceleration, W. Mark Lanier of The Lanier
Law Firm in Houston wrote in an email to the NLJ.  Mr. Lanier,
preparing for a March 4 trial in a case before Judge Selna, and
plaintiffs attorneys at Charleston, W.Va.'s Bailey & Glasser,
facing a Feb. 19 trial in state court in Flint, Mich., had planned
to put the same electronics software experts on the stand. Both
trials involved a 2005 Camry.

Electronics were not at issue in the first major trial against
Toyota.  In that case, a jury in Los Angeles found on Oct. 10 that
Toyota was not liable for the death of Peter Uno's wife, Noriko
Uno, whose 2006 Camry crashed into a tree.  Plaintiffs attorneys
blamed Toyota's failure to install a brake override system.
Jurors, in rendering a $10 million verdict, instead blamed the
driver of another car that hit Uno's vehicle prior to the crash.

Despite the Oklahoma verdict, Toyota has continued to defend the
electronics in its cars.  Spokeswoman Carly Schaffner wrote that
"reliable scientific evidence and multiple independent evaluations
have confirmed the safety of Toyota's electronic throttle control
systems."

That may be true, but it might not matter to jurors, said
Gregory Keating, professor at the University of Southern
California Gould School of Law.

"One thing it suggests is the plaintiffs don't have to be able to
identify the specific electronic failure that is causing the
sudden acceleration," he said of the Oklahoma verdict.  "The
plaintiffs are prevailing without having to prove that.  They're
able to prevail if they show there isn't any other cause we can
attribute sudden acceleration to -- like operator error or
collision by a third party."

Moreover, Toyota lost the case in a fairly conservative
jurisdiction.  In 2014, the company faced trial beyond Santa Ana.
Los Angeles County, Calif., Superior Court Judge Lee Smalley Edmon
had lined up several trials in cases filed in California's state
courts.  "So if they persuaded one jury in a conservative
jurisdiction, you can imagine what might happen in California,"
said Carl Tobias, professor at the University of Richmond School
of Law.  "The law is better for plaintiffs in California, and the
juries will be, too."

Under the proposed settlement process, a first stage would involve
"all parties and their counsel" in each case.  Cases that are not
settled would go to mediation in a second phase.  If cases still
aren't settled, they would be sent to the court in which they were
filed for trial.  Ms. Schaffner called the process "a clear path
forward for those claims that cannot be resolved outside of
trial."

By coming up with a process, rather than a global settlement,
plaintiffs attorneys acknowledged how disparate the facts of each
case are.  "You had some people with no injuries but problems with
their car," Mr. Miles said.  "And then you had people who had a
horrible death.  Some died in the car when it caught fire, some
just had a fender bender.  It was hard to make that many
categories for each and every circumstance."

Judge Selna has given attorneys across the country until Jan. 8 to
respond to the proposal.  If successful, the process could help
Toyota resolve the litigation by calculating how much each case is
worth -- while keeping dollar amounts secret.

"The public may never know what the total bill is," Mr. Miles
said.  "But I'm not sure they had a right to know that anyway."


TOYOTA MOTOR: 9th Cir. Strikes Down Atty Fees Award in Prius Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has again
struck down an award of attorney fees in a class action
settlement, this time over allegedly defective headlights in
Toyota Prius vehicles.

Plaintiffs firms had petitioned the court to reverse a federal
district judge's rejection of their proposed $4.7 million in
attorney fees.

U.S. District Judge Manuel Real had called the fee request "highly
unreasonable" for such a simple case and awarded $760,000, which
he said represented 20 percent of the settlement's estimated $3.8
million value.

On Dec. 16, the Ninth Circuit panel found that Judge Real had
abused his discretion in calculating fees based on a percentage of
the settlement, rather than the lodestar method, which is the
actual amount billed.

"We're pleased with the outcome, and obviously we hope that it
leads us to a resolution of a reasonable fee on the case," said
Eric Gibbs -- ehg@GirardGibbs.com -- a partner at San Francisco's
Girard Gibbs, which took the lead in the case.  He said it was
unclear whether he would seek the same amount on remand.

Toyota spokeswoman Carly Schaffner wrote in a statement via email:
"The Court's opinion does not change the fact that plaintiffs'
counsel sought fees that far exceeded the relief provided to the
class.  Toyota looks forward to addressing the issue in the
district court on remand."

In its Ninth Circuit brief, Mr. Gibbs had argued that Judge Real
should not have applied the percentage method in the cases brought
under California law.  Judge Real also failed to take into account
the lodestar calculation, wrote Mr. Gibbs, who estimated the firm
billed $1.25 million.  Three additional plaintiffs firms --
Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten of Tarzana, Calif.; Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll in Washington; and Los Angeles-based Arias
Ozzello & Gignac -- joined in the appeal.  A fifth firm,
Initiative Legal Group of Los Angeles, filed a separate brief.

Toyota defended Judge Real's ruling, calling the request by
plaintiffs attorneys "grossly excessive."

The case drew parallels to the In re Bluetooth Headset Products
Liability Litigation opinion in 2011, in which the Ninth Circuit
found that U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer had failed to
cross-check the lodestar amount against what plaintiffs attorneys
would have received on a percentage basis when determining the
fairness of a $800,000 fee request in a class settlement.

But in the Prius litigation, the Ninth Circuit grappled with
whether California statutes -- rather than federal case law --
defined the fees calculation.

"To some degree what CAFA has done has introduced some uncertainty
into where the state law applies and where it doesn't," Mr. Gibbs
said, referring to the U.S. Class Action Fairness Act.  "Here, the
Ninth Circuit clarified that in this instance it's the underlying
state law that governs rather than the federal standard."


TREX COMPANY: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trex Company, Inc. disclosed that on December 16, 2013, the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California granted
final approval of a settlement that resolves a nationwide class
action lawsuit alleging certain misrepresentations and defects in
Trex's first-generation composite products relating to mold growth
and color issues.  The claim resolution process, the settlement
agreement and class notice are available on
http://www.trex.com/legal/2013classactionsettlement.aspx

Under the terms of the settlement, Trex will provide to qualified
claimants a one-time cash payment or the opportunity to receive
other relief, including a rebate certificate on its newer-
generation shelled products (Trex Transcend(R) and Trex
Enhance(R)).  This relief is available for any qualified claimant
who purchased first-generation Trex composite product between
August 1, 2004 and August 27, 2013 having a certain level of mold
growth, color fading or color variation, and who meets certain
other requirements as set forth in the settlement agreement.

"We are pleased to have a final resolution of this matter, with
terms we feel are fair to both Trex and our consumers," said
Ronald W. Kaplan, chairman, president and CEO of Trex.  "This
settlement allows Trex to focus its attention on delivering our
next generation of award-winning, high-performance outdoor living
products."

The cost to Trex under the settlement is capped at $8.25 million
plus $1.475 million in attorneys' fees to be paid to the
Plaintiffs' counsel.

                         About Trex Company

Trex Company -- http://www.trex.com-- is the world's largest
manufacturer of high performance wood-alternative decking and
railing, with more than 20 years of product experience.  Stocked
in more than 6,000 retail locations worldwide, Trex outdoor living
products offer a wide range of style options with fewer ongoing
maintenance requirements than wood, as well as a truly
environmentally responsible choice.


TUESDAY MORNING: Trial for Certified Class Set in May 2014
----------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is continuing and trial has been set for May 2014
related to the motion certifying a class comprised of current and
former Senior Sales Associates who worked for Tuesday Morning
Corporation in California, and who were required to take meal
breaks "on duty" at any point from April 1, 2005 to the present,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed on October 31, 2013,
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2013.

The Company is defending against a class action lawsuit filed in
California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, on December 5, 2008
-- Julia Randell, et. al., v. Tuesday Morning, Inc., No. BC403298
(Cal. Super. Ct.) -- in which the original complaint alleged
violations of California's meal and rest period laws. The named
plaintiffs, who are former employees of the Company, subsequently
amended the complaint three times. Narrowing their class
allegations, the two named plaintiffs moved on March 14, 2012 to
certify a class on the issue of whether the Company's alleged
practice of providing "on-duty" meal periods to Senior Sales
Associates violates the California Labor Code.  The Court granted
that motion on June 20, 2012, certifying a class comprised of
current and former Senior Sales Associates who worked for the
Company in California, and who were required to take meal breaks
"on duty" at any point from April 1, 2005 to the present. The
Company filed motions to decertify the class and for summary
judgment on January 4, 2013, which the Court denied on March 29,
2013.  Discovery is continuing and trial has been set for May
2014.  The Company believes the claims are without merit and will
continue to vigorously defend against them.

Tuesday Morning Corporation -- http://www.tuesdaymorning.com/--
is a closeout retailer of upscale decorative home accessories,
housewares, and famous-maker gifts in the United States. During
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012, the Company operates 852
stores in 43 states. The Company's merchandise primarily consists
of lamps, rugs, furniture, kitchen accessories, small electronics,
gourmet housewares, linens, luggage, bedroom and bathroom
accessories, toys, pet products, stationary and silk plants, as
well as crystal, collectibles, silver serving pieces, men, women
and children's apparel and accessories.


TURQUOISE HILL: Trinko Law Firm Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP disclosed that on
December 13, 2013, it had filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The lawsuit is filed on behalf of purchasers of securities
of Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. between May 14, 2010 and
November 8, 2013, inclusive.

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

On November 8, 2013, TRQ issued a press release indicating that it
would be restating its consolidated financial results for the
years ended December 31, 2010, 2011, 2012, and part of 2013, due
to errors related to the timing of revenue recognition from sales
to certain distributors.  The Company further disclosed that some
sales were booked after delivery to the customers' stockpiles at
the Ovoot Tolgoi mine instead of upon customer collection.  And,
the Company stated that the financial statements should no longer
be relied upon.  On this news, the Company's stock price dropped
from $4.87 per share on November 7, 2013 to close at $4.09 per
share by November 14, 2013.  Subsequently, on December 4, 2013,
the Company announced another rights offering, doubling the number
of shares outstanding, causing TRQ's stock price to drop to $3.41
per share.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may move the
Court, not later than February 11, 2014 to serve as Lead
Plaintiff.  A Lead Plaintiff is a representative chosen by the
Court who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  You do not need to be a Lead Plaintiff to be included
in the class.  If you purchased TRQ securities and wish to discuss
this litigation, any questions concerning this Notice or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
us.

Contact: Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP
         Curtis V. Trinko, Esq.
         Telephone: 212-490-9550
         E-mail: ctrinko@trinko.com


UNITED STATES: D.C. Cir. May Review NSA Surveillance Suit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Tillman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
the National Security Agency's bulk collection of Americans' phone
records is bound for review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit -- just as the court is set to undergo significant
change.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled that the government's
surveillance efforts "almost certainly" violated the Fourth
Amendment.  Judge Leon was caustic in his criticism of the phone
data collection -- James Madison "would be aghast," the judge
wrote -- and skeptical of the argument that protection of the
national security justifies the program.

The judge blocked the collection of phone record information of
lawyer and activist Larry Klayman and another challenger.  He
stayed that order pending a government appeal.

The D.C. Circuit would become the first federal appeals court to
confront the NSA metadata program in the post-Edward Snowden
world.  Mr. Snowden, the former NSA contractor, disclosed to
reporters a cache of documents detailing the scope of surveillance
efforts -- triggering privacy suits in federal courts across the
country and calls for reform.

Three new judges appointed by President Obama could be sitting on
the D.C. Circuit by the time a panel is chosen to review Leon's
68-page ruling, giving the court a new dynamic.

"It makes it that much more likely you might see a range of
opinions," said Stephen Vladeck, a professor at American
University Washington College of Law.  Greater diversity on the
bench, he said, meant a greater likelihood of disagreement among
judges about Fourth Amendment issues in the case.  Lawyers might
be more willing to pursue en banc review of a one-sided panel
ruling, he added.  However, Mr. Vladeck warned it would be "too
much of an overstatement to think it would affect the outcome."

D.C. Circuit Senior Judge Douglas Ginsburg recently challenged any
assertion that the court is a "political partisan."  The
"overriding ideology in the D.C. Circuit is that of agency
deference, not policy preference," Ginsburg wrote in a paper, "The
Behavior of Federal Judges: A View from the D.C. Circuit."
Judge Leon was appointed to the bench in 2002.

A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice, Andrew Ames, said
in an email that the government was reviewing Judge Leon's
decision.  "We believe the program is constitutional as previous
judges have found," Mr. Ames said.

Mr. Klayman was triumphant.  "It didn't come as a surprise because
this is the largest abuse of constitutional rights in American
history," he said, calling Leon "an American hero."  Mr. Klayman
last week asked Judge Leon for additional time to file papers
seeking class certification.

Mr. Klayman's suit, seeking an injunction to block the
government's collection of phone records, accused the NSA of
violating constitutional rights and exceeding its authority under
the Administrative Procedure Act.

                        'Almost-Orwellian'

For more than seven years, Leon noted, the government had
collected telephone records that revealed information about what
phone numbers made and received calls, when the calls took place
and how long they lasted.  The government said it used the
metadata to identify connections to terrorists and didn't include
information about who made the calls or what they discussed.

Describing the government's surveillance efforts as "almost-
Orwellian," Judge Leon concluded the challengers were likely to
succeed on their privacy claims.

The judge said he had "serious doubts" about the effectiveness of
the telephone record-collection program in aiding time-sensitive
terrorism investigations.  As a result, he said, the plaintiffs
showed their privacy interests likely outweighed the government's
interest in the data.

"I cannot imagine a more 'indiscriminate' and 'arbitrary invasion'
than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of
personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of
querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval,"
Judge Leon wrote.

Judge Leon dismissed the government's argument that the 1979
Supreme Court case Smith v. Maryland -- which involved the
warrantless use of a "pen register" -- permitted the bulk
collection of telephone metadata. (The authorities use pen
registers to record dialed numbers.)The judge said he was
"convinced that the surveillance program now before me is so
different from a simple pen register that Smith is of little value
in assessing whether the Bulk Telephony Metadata Program
constitutes a Fourth Amendment search."

"To the contrary," Judge Leon wrote, "I believe that bulk
telephony metadata collection and analysis almost certainly does
violate a reasonable expectation of privacy."

Judge Leon said the technology that enabled the government to
store and analyze the metadata of every telephone user in the
United States "is unlike anything that could have been conceived
in 1979."  The judge added that the amount of information
contained in phone records today is greater as well.  He said he
could no longer use "as my North Star a case that predates the
rise of cell phones."  Mr. Klayman isn't the only plaintiff
fighting the NSA in court.  As his case moves toward a likely
appeal, lawsuits are pending in several federal trial courts. On
Nov. 22, U.S. District Judge William Pauley III in New York heard
arguments in one of those cases, American Civil Liberties Union v.
Clapper.  Judge Pauley, according to press reports, expressed
skepticism over the notion that Congress -- in reauthorizing the
Patriot Act -- knew it had approved the bulk collection of
billions of phone records.

ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer, who argued in the ACLU
case, praised Judge Leon's ruling.  "This is a strongly worded and
carefully reasoned decision that ultimately concludes, absolutely
correctly, that the NSA's call-tracking program can't be squared
with the Constitution," Mr. Jaffer said.

Other lawyers who are closely following constitutional challenges
to NSA surveillance were not as convinced on the legal soundness
of Leon's conclusion.

Orin Kerr, a Fourth Amendment scholar who teaches at George
Washington University Law School, wrote on The Volokh Conspiracy
blog last week that Leon's finding that Smith couldn't apply
because it came down in a precellphone era was "deeply
unpersuasive."

Regardless of what cellphones can do, Kerr said, the NSA was only
collecting the basic phone data that was at issue in Smith.
Still, Mr. Kerr said, an appeal could open the door to a new
review by the D.C. Circuit -- and potentially the Supreme Court --
of how earlier Fourth Amendment cases apply to NSA surveillance
programs.

"My view of Judge Leon's decision is that it's unpersuasive in its
reasoning," Mr. Kerr wrote, "but that it starts a conversation
that might lead to some very interesting places."


VICTORIA: No Appeal Filed in Abalone Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Mandi Jacobson and Peta Stevenson, writing for The Lawyer, report
that the factual scenario underlying the abalone class action had
many of the hallmarks of a profitable class action enterprise -- a
single 'contravening act' that caused loss to multiple parties on
a mass scale, with causation provable without reference to
uncertain, individual evidence.  The recent dismissal of the
claim, however, highlights the particular difficulties found in
class actions advancing environmental claims founded in
negligence.  The decision to dismiss the claim, which was funded
by Omni Bridgeway, has not been appealed.

In 2010, Maurice Blackburn commenced proceedings on behalf of a
closed class of 194 group members associated with 44 abalone
fishery access licenses.  The plaintiff alleged that the State of
Victoria and Southern Ocean Mariculture negligently allowed the
release of a herpes-like virus from an abalone aquaculture farm
operated by Southern Ocean Mariculture to the wild abalone
population, causing loss and damage to the group members.

While a settlement was reached with Southern Ocean Mariculture
just prior to the scheduled September 2013 trial date, the trial
against the Victorian government and related entities proceeded.


WHITEWAY FOODS: Ruling Focuses on "Reasonable Consumer" Issue
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn G. Lammi, writing for Forbes, reports that in commentaries
on regulation-by-litigation of food labeling, one issue has
predominated this year: What is a "reasonable consumer"?

Two court decisions recently issued on consecutive days, one from
the infamous Food Court (the Northern District of California) and
the other from the Southern District of Florida, turned in large
part on that issue and indicate that judges will continue
addressing the question in 2014.

You Mean They're Not from Cows? Ang v. Whiteway Foods, authored by
Judge Conti of the ND of California, involved consumer fraud
claims against the maker of soymilk/almond milk/coconut milk and
related yogurt products.  The plaintiffs challenged the use of the
term "milk" in the products as well as ingredient references to
"evaporated cane juice" (ECJ).

Judge Conti found that an earlier settlement in a similar Florida
lawsuit barred Mr. Ang's ECJ-based claims due to res judicata.  He
then turned to the soy/almond/coconut "milk" claims.  He first
found that federal labeling rules preempt Mr. Ang's claims.
Federal rules do not prescribe how the plant-based beverages must
be labeled, and the rules relating to "milk" only "pertain to what
milk is, rather than what it is not."  In such situations, federal
rules require that products use "the common or usual name" for the
food.  Judge Conti found that the "Silk" drink makers did that,
and thus Mr. Ang's suit would improperly impose rules beyond what
FDA requires.

The judge also found that the claims "fail for the additional
reason that they are simply not plausible" under California
consumer protection statutes and federal pleading standards.  Yes,
the word "milk" is there, Judge Conti agreed.  But that the
plaintiffs could entirely disregard the words prior to milk
"stretches the bounds of credulity."  He added:

"Under Plaintiffs' logic, a reasonable consumer might also believe
that veggie bacon contains pork, that flourless chocolate cake
contains flour, or that e-books are made out of paper."

Judge Conti then mercifully dismissed Mr. Ang's claims with
prejudice.

Cane as in Sugar, not as in Walking Stick. In Reilly v. Amy's
Kitchen, the plaintiff alleged that the term "evaporated cane
juice" in the ingredient lists of Amy's Kitchen products like
veggie burgers, pizzas, and enchilada's misled her and others into
paying a premium for those products.  After refusing to dismiss
the claims under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, Judge Cohn
then considered whether the term ECJ was misleading under Florida
consumer protection laws.

Judge Cohn punted on that issue, ruling that he could not decide
the factual question of "whether reasonable consumers were
actually deceived by the use of the term ECJ" on a motion to
dismiss.  While rejecting the defendant's arguments, Judge Cohn
possibly revealed his thoughts on the matter by referencing a 2009
FDA "Draft Guidance" and several warning letters relating that ECJ
was "false and misleading."

We think Judge Cohn should have taken the lead of Judge Conti in
Ang and ruled that as a matter of law, no reasonable consumer
would think that evaporated cane juice is anything but a sugar-
based sweetener.  It "stretches the bounds of credulity" that
anyone, upon viewing the food label and seeing that products
contain sugar, would fail to understand that cane juice = sugar.
This is especially true in south Florida, the heart of America's
cane sugar-producing region, where they know cane in food means
sugar, and not a walking stick.

We must, however, applaud Judge Cohn for his ruling on the issue
of standing.  Ms. Reilly admitted that she only purchased 3 of the
60 products her suit challenges. Despite that, she claimed to have
standing to bring claims based on all 60 products because the
other 57 purchased by unnamed class members were "nearly
identical" to the 3 she bought.  Judge Cohn rejected this
argument, applying a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit precedent which demands that the named plaintiff establish
standing for each and every claim.

One resolution The Legal Pulse hopes the Ninth Circuit has for the
New Year is to establish a similar precedent on unpurchased goods.
In the mislabeling suits filed in The Food Court and the other
California federal districts, named plaintiffs can sue based on
alleged harms from products they never bought as long as those
products are "substantially similar across the product line."
That flies in the face of the basic constitutional principle that
one can only seek redress in court for actual harms.

One and a half good rulings: perhaps a good sign for the year
ahead.


XEROX CORP: Retirees Edge Closer to Securing Final Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Caher, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that after
14 years of litigation, several dozen Xerox retirees have taken a
significant step forward in securing final benefits as a federal
appellate decision on Dec. 23 described the company's
interpretation of the pension plan as "unreasonable" and contrary
to the notice provisions of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

The matter decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, Frommert v. Conkright, 12-67-cv, centered on the
calculation of benefits owed to employees who retired with a
pension and then were rehired.  At issue was how to determine the
final retirement benefit, taking into account the amount paid the
first time the employee retired.

Since 1999, the case has navigated through the courts, with three
trips to Foley Square and one to Washington, D.C., where the U.S.
Supreme Court in 2010 ruled on a matter involving the deference
owed to the plan administrator's interpretation of the pension
program.  And it's not over yet: The Second Circuit sent it back
to the trial court to determine the remedy.

The plaintiffs are Xerox retirees who left the company in the
1980s, accepting lump-sum distributions for the benefits they had
earned to that point, and were then later rehired.  To take into
account the prior distributions, the plan administrator initially
utilized the so-called "phantom account" method, basing the
calculation on a hypothetical investment.

But the Second Circuit shot that down since phantom offset was not
included in the plan when it was created and was never added in as
an amendment.  The matter eventually returned to Western District
Judge David Larimer for consideration of an appropriate offset.

Judge Larimer deferred to the plan administrator, but on Dec. 23
the Second Circuit said that would yield "an absurd and
contradictory result" where the rehired employees would be worse
off than newly hired employees.

"To be sure, ERISA plans may be constructed to change the risk
borne by rehired employees or reduce such employees' benefits in a
manner that treats them worse than newly hired employees, provided
that such terms exist in the plan," the circuit said in an opinion
by Judge Rosemary Pooler and joined by judges Amalya Kearse and
Chester Straub.  "No provision in the Xerox Plan defines the
offset in accordance with the method the Plan Administrator
advocates."

Additionally, the court said the plan violates ERISA's notice
provisions because the summary plan description states only that a
lump sum distribution "may" reduce benefits under one of the three
components of the pension program, the retirement income guarantee
plan, which is used to calculate an annuity.

"We do not see how a beneficiary would know, given the [summary
plan description's] use of the word 'may,' that a prior
distribution from an account would reduce his benefit under a
formula unless the [summary] made clear the interaction between
the two," Judge Pooler wrote.  "Thus, any interpretation of the
plan that necessarily reduces the [retirement income guarantee
plan] benefit would violate ERISA's notice requirements."

Peter Stris -- peter.stris@strismaher.com -- of Stris & Maher in
Gardena, Calif., representing the retirees, said the ruling
represents "a tremendous victory for us."

Mr. Stris said the dispute had two main tentacles, one involving
what is essentially a contractual question on how to interpret the
plan, and the other focusing on the notice issue.  He said his
clients shared a total of about $10 million to date, but the
amount could nearly triple under the Second Circuit's holding.

"What the court here has said on the contract argument, the
do-over interpretation Xerox advanced in the second round and that
Judge Larimer accepted was arbitrary and capricious, as we have
been saying all along," Mr. Stris said.  "At the simplest level,
the court said Xerox's interpretation results in people getting
paid less than if they were newly hired, which just doesn't make
sense."

Margaret Clemens -- mclemens@littler.com -- of Littler Mendelson
in Rochester appeared for Xerox.  Ms. Clemens declined comment.

The appeal was argued Nov. 15, 2012.


ZIMMER INC: Faces Suit Over Defective Product Failure
-----------------------------------------------------
Shelly Slater, writing for WFAA, reports that Zimmer Inc. faces
suit over product failure.

Meet Sgt. Don Gustafson; a dad, grandpa, and former prison
sergeant for the State of Texas.

"Sgt. Gus" went from training officers on defense tactics, to now
walking with a cane.

A 2007 motorcycle accident broke both bones in his lower leg.

"I did 10 years in the Marine Corps and seven in the Navy Reserve,
military police for both of them.  When you look up and you're in
a wheelchair, then from wheelchair, you go from walker, to this.
You're able to finally stand up.  These people don't understand
the half of what they've done to me," Sgt. Gustafson said.

'Those people' are with Zimmer Inc., a medical device company
selling everything from knee to hip devices, with worldwide
earnings around $4 billion per year.

Sgt. Gustafson said it was a Zimmer plate doctors used to
stabilize his fractures.  But it didn't work.  The plate broke.

He called Zimmer to make them aware.

"All they could tell me is there was nothing wrong with their
product," he said.

And he believed it, enough to head back into the operating room to
get an identical plate screwed into his bones.  But about a year
later, his pain led to an X-ray.

According to a lawsuit filed by Sgt. Gustafson, the plate broke
again.

"I can see something happening with one plate, but two plates?" he
said.

So Sgt. Gustafson said he started asking questions, from Zimmer to
the FDA.

"You have no idea what they're putting in you," he said.  "You
trust your surgeon, you trust the manufacturer that makes the
plate, and that they actually done some type of testing to ensure
that this plate going into a human body is safe."

Turns out the FDA was questioning Zimmer, too.

It sent a letter to Zimmer see if they had "received similar
complaints on this device?" Zimmer replied no.

But how could that be? Five months prior, a Zimmer employee was in
the operating room to take a picture of Sgt. Gustafson's broken
plate. But according to records from the lawsuit, it wasn't
reported within the 30 days required by the FDA.

Gustafson's lawyer, Chris Hamilton, argues Zimmer should have
reported this earlier.

"When Sgt. Gus reported the second device failure, Zimmer --
knowing the FDA was hot on their trail at that point -- didn't
report to the FDA until after the lawsuit was followed," Hamilton
said.

With two product failures on file, Sgt. Gustafson's plate made the
list of top trauma implant complaints at the time.

Deposition documents show a corporate representative from Zimmer,
who trains sales associates, doesn't believe it's Zimmer policy to
report all adverse events to the FDA. He admitted to seeing
products fail, and then not telling the FDA, with one exception.

Lawyer Chris Hamilton: "So your understanding from Zimmer is that
unless a physician tells you, you don't have any obligation to
report an adverse event involving a product failure or product
breaking."

Corporate Zimmer Representative: "That's correct."

"Zimmer has a practice of not properly reporting adverse events or
product failures to the FDA," Mr. Hamilton said.  "So the long and
short of it is, because Zimmer doesn't follow the rules and hasn't
followed the rules on reporting these devices to the FDA that
don't work, there is no way to know."

But Sgt. Gustafson knows. He asked that his plate be returned as
proof of his problem.

"Well, when you contact the FDA and you ask them if they're having
problems with this product.  Of course they're not, if doctors are
throwing them away," he said.  "The people don't have the plates
to turn in."

Gustafson said Zimmer also questions the plates thickness, its
strength, and testing.

Internal and confidential Zimmer documents show "concern" about
its product; worries that "the plate construct was not being
tested."  Doctors on their team "vote for added thickness . . ."
and ". . . preference to adding strength."

But Zimmer, knowing its "plate is 20 percent weaker" than others,
decided to go with "how the current models are already finished."

Zimmer told News 8 it "denies that the plates are either defective
or unreasonably dangerous," saying the plates went through
"rigorous design and development process that involved extensive
testing and analysis" and that "no product implanted into the
human body can ever be guaranteed for any period of time, and it
is common knowledge that implants can fail for a variety of
reasons unrelated to product defect."

"We reiterate that the FDA cleared these plates for use over eight
years ago, and the plates continue to be used successfully by
surgeons today," Zimmer said in a statement.

Sgt. Gustafson understands things can fail, but doesn't get why
Zimmer would keep putting these plates in people's bodies, knowing
what they know.

It was so bad before his third surgery doctors discussed
amputation with him.

"So when I was put under that last time, I didn't know if I would
have a leg when I came out," Sgt. Gustafson said.

But he did.  With a rod in it.

After three surgeries, Sgt.  Gustafson leads a life with major
limits, something he says the truth could have prevented.

The trial for this case is set for January in Collin County.


* Judge Defers Venue Ruling in La. Wetland Damages Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Mark Schleifstein, writing for NOLA.com, reports that a wetland
damages lawsuit filed by the east bank levee authority against
nearly 100 oil, gas and pipeline companies should remain in
federal court because the authority's claims are made under
federal laws, attorneys for the companies argued on Dec. 18.

Not so, said attorneys representing the Southeast Louisiana Flood
Protection Authority-East, in arguments aimed at convincing U.S.
District Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown to return the suit to
New Orleans Civil District Court, where it was originally filed in
July.

Judge Brown didn't make a ruling on Dec. 18.

The levee authority lawsuit asks that the energy companies restore
damage they did to a "buffer zone" of wetlands outside the east
bank levee system or pay for damage that can't be repaired, with
the money going to improve levees.  The authority contends the
wetland losses resulting from the dredging of canals and pipeline
pathways have reduced the ability of levees to protect residents.

The energy companies divided their arguments between attorneys
representing oil and gas companies and attorneys representing
pipelines.

Robert Meadows, an attorney representing the oil and gas
companies, argued that the authority bases its complaints on
allegations the companies violated one of three federal laws, the
Rivers and Harbor Act, the Clean Water Act, or the Coastal Zone
Management Act.  Of the 200 permits for wetland work cited in the
suit, he said, 84 were issued by federal agencies.  The suit
contends that the energy companies violated state law by not
following the restrictions outlined in those permits.  He said
that if the authority were successful, each restoration project
also would require a permit from the federal Army Corps of
Engineers.

Mr. Meadows also argued that the case should be governed by
federal maritime law, since earlier rulings by the U.S. 5th
Circuit Court of Appeals have found that dredging operations are
governed by maritime law.

Mr. Meadows also argued that the case falls under a federal law
governing class action lawsuits because the levee authority is
acting as the agent for thousands of residents and businesses that
would be affected by the reduced levee protection.

Ewell Eagan Jr., representing the pipeline operators, argued that
only the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has the authority to
regulate pipeline operations "from cradle to grave," and thus the
levee authority's actions usurp that federal agency's authority.

But Jim Swanson, an attorney representing the levee authority,
countered that the lawsuit focuses specifically on the companies'
violations of state law.  In some cases, the state law requires
the companies to comply with the three federal laws, he said, but
it's still the violation of state laws that should govern the
case.

Mr. Swanson also countered Mr. Meadows' class action federal law
argument, saying it's the authority alone that is filing the suit
and that the wetland restoration and money the suit requests would
go only to the authority.

Mr. Swanson also disagreed with Mr. Eagan's conclusion that only
FERC can regulate pipeline companies, pointing to U.S. Supreme
Court cases that found only two other federal agencies had such
exclusive authority to pre-empt state regulation.

Attorney Alonzo Wilson, also representing the levee authority,
told Brown that another argument of the energy companies -- that
the lawsuit includes land and water areas under the exclusive
control of the federal government -- was incorrect.  The energy
attorneys had argued that the Chandeleur and Breton islands and
parts of the Delta National Wildlife Refuge should be considered
under sole federal ownership.  But Mr. Wilson said none of the
wells or other facilities cited in the lawsuit fall within those
areas.

When Mr. Meadows suggested that if the levee authority would limit
its suit to areas included in a map that excluded those areas, the
energy companies would agree to that stipulation, levee authority
attorney Gladstone Jones said that he'd have to discuss that
limitation with the authority.

At the end of the arguments, Mr. Brown took no immediate action on
whether to return the suit to state court.  She gave no indication
when she may rule on the matter.


* New York Attorney Calls for Class Action Registration Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
New York attorney Michael Johnson has given the legal profession a
very strong signal the days of contingent fee (commonly referred
to as "no win no fee") lawsuits may be coming to an end.

"We are seeing growing resistance in the judiciary to 'no win no
fee' lawsuits because judges believe they encourage spurious and
exaggerated claims," said Mr. Johnson.  "You could say the legal
profession is a victim of its own success because now nearly
everyone knows there is a zero risk way to try and get compensated
for a perceived wrong.  The lack of financial risk can encourage
people to seek compensation they don't really deserve and this
wastes expensive law resources."

Mr. Johnson believes courts and attorneys face a major challenge
in finding a solution that continues to ensure justice for all
members of society.

"If we set the bar too high for people seeking justice it's
inevitable many of the poorer members of society will no longer
have access to legal representation," Mr. Johnson pointed out.
"On the other hand, the system cannot continue as it is, so rules
governing contingent fee cases must change."

A partial solution proposed by Michael Johnson is that plaintiffs
are charged a registration fee in advance for contingent fee
lawsuits, even though this could be viewed as a contradiction in
terms.  From January 1, 2014, The Law Office of Michael Johnson
plans to charge a registration fee of $325 for contingent fee
class action lawsuits.  The fee has been calculated based on one
week's typical earnings for those working at New York minimum wage
levels.

"People on low incomes are not going to risk the equivalent of a
week's wages unless they genuinely feel they can prove they have a
grievance and deserve compensation," claimed Mr. Johnson.  "This
charge weeds out a lot of the dubious cases and allows the courts
to devote more resources to providing justice."

The Law Office of Michael Johnson is taking a risk by pioneering
this approach, but Mr. Johnson feels the longer term benefits will
outweigh any short term drop in business.  His approach is that
once his law office gains a reputation for filing suits by sincere
and committed plaintiffs, courts will be more favorably disposed
towards their cases.

"Justice may be blind, but the people who dispense it are not,"
quipped Mr. Johnson.  "There is no getting around the fact that
all of us in the legal profession get a reputation, and if ours is
one of filing only lawsuits with merit the courts are going to be
much more positive towards us.  Ultimately, this can only help our
clients in their quest for justice.  I believe we are setting a
trend that will become standard practice within a few years.  The
end of the 'no win no fee' suit is nigh."


                             *********

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 G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2014. 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  * * *