CAR_Public/140108.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, January 8, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 5

                             Headlines



AIC LTD: Canada Supreme Court Upholds Class Action Certification
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Agrees to Settle Two Antitrust Class Actions
BELL POTTER: Court Rejects Attempt to Revive Class Action
CARNIVAL CRUISE: Refutes Claims in Triumph Class Action
CHEMED CORP: Insurer to Pay $6MM in Securities Lawsuit Accord

CHURCH & DWIGHT: Still Faces Suit Over ARM & HAMMER Deodorant Ad
DIEBOLD INC: March 19 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Wants Incentive Compensation Suit Nixed
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Court Agrees to Stay "Bushansky" Lawsuit
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Intends to Defend Securities Class Action

EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Provides Update on MERS-Related Suits
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Approves $40M Settlement of Stock Suit
GPT: Court Approves $8.5-Mil. Class Action Disbursements
KKR & CO: Del. Chancery Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Primedia Suit
KRR & CO: Shareholder Suits in Georgia Stayed Pending Del. Case

KRR & CO: Mass. Court Denied Summary Judgment Bid in Stock Suit
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Cert. Hearing in "Bezich" Suit in 1st Half 2014
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Response in Lawsuit v. BofA Due Mid 2014
MADISON SQUARE: N.Y. Antitrust Lawsuit Now in Discovery Phase
NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Ill. Court Certifies Class in Merger Suit

NVR INC: No Class Treatment in "Tracy" Labor Suit
OLD NATIONAL: Mediation Ordered in Suit v. Old National Bank
OLD REPUBLIC: Certification Ruling in "Ahmad" Suit Reversed
OLD REPUBLIC: No Class Certification Yet in Lawsuits Against RMIC
OLD REPUBLIC: Continues to Face "Friedman" Suit in California

PORTLAND GENERAL: March 2014 Oral Argument Set Over Refund Order
PVR PARTNERS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Pennsylvania
SANOFI: Lieff Cabraser Launches Class Action Over Lemtrada Drug
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: No Class Filing for Former Wichita Workers
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Boeing Still Faces "Harkness" Suit in Kansas

SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Motions to Name Lead Plaintiff Pending
TARGET CORP: JTB Law Group Files Data Breach Class Action
TARGET CORP: May Face Costly Consumer Class Suits Over Data Breach
TECO ENERGY: Denial of Class Certification in Suit v. PGS Upheld
TESLA MOTOR: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Medicis Suit Settlement Awaits Approval
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Hearing in Obagi Suit Continued to Jan 29
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Wellbutrin Suit Accord Wins Final OK
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Wants 13 Solodyn Suits Consolidated
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Jan. 16 Hearing Set in Suit Over Cold-FX

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Medicis Awaits DC Court's Okay of Accord
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Suits Over MoistureLoc Now Dismissed
VITAS HEALTHCARE: Settles Labor Suit for $10.3 Million


                             *********


AIC LTD: Canada Supreme Court Upholds Class Action Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Kain, Esq. -- bkain@mccarthy.ca -- at McCarthy Tetrault
LLP reports that the Supreme Court of Canada released two
judgments of interest to Canadian businesses and professions.

In the first, AIC Limited v. Fischer, 2013 SCC 69, the Court
upheld the certification of a class action by investors against
mutual fund managers, who alleged that they suffered losses when
the defendants engaged in "market timing" activities.  The issue
for the Court was whether a class action could be the preferable
procedure, as required under s. 5(1)(d) of Ontario's Class
Proceedings Act, 1992, when the defendants had already entered
into settlement agreements with the Ontario Securities Commission
that paid large sums to the investors.  The Court concluded that a
class action was the preferable procedure, because there was some
basis in fact to believe that procedural and substantive access to
justice concerns continued to remain after the settlements which a
class action could address.  In doing so, the Court substantially
reformulated the second branch of the preferable procedure test,
which asks whether a class action would be preferable to any other
reasonably available means of resolving the class members' claims.

The second decision of interest this week is IBM Canada Limited v.
Waterman, 2013 SCC 70.  In IBM, the Court held that pension
benefits which are paid to a wrongfully dismissed employee during
the legal notice period are not to be deducted from the employee's
wrongful dismissal damages.  The Court reasoned that pension
benefits are a form of deferred compensation and retirement
savings, and not an indemnity for wage loss due to unemployment.
As a result, the Court held they were analogous to private
insurance benefits, which are also not deductible from damages
awards.  While the majority's judgment is largely focused on the
"collateral benefits" principle, it also makes several important
observations of interest to contract law more generally, including
this statement regarding the role of reasonable expectations in
measuring contractual damages:

This is not to say, however, that the approach to damages does or
should ignore the underlying purposes of the substantive
obligations the breach of which they seek to remedy.  If, for
example, an important purpose of the law of contracts is to
protect the reasonable expectations of the parties to a contract,
it is appropriate to consider how well the award of damages
furthers that purpose in a particular case: see, e.g., A. Swan and
J. Adamski, Canadian Contract Law (3rd ed. 2012) at Sec. 1.27.
This consideration may be taken into account along with the other
principles of damages law in order to ensure that there is a good
"remedial fit" between the breach of obligation and the remedy.
(para. 72)


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Agrees to Settle Two Antitrust Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express on Dec. 19 disclosed that it has agreed to settle
two putative antitrust class actions filed by U.S. merchants that
challenged the company's Card acceptance agreements.  The
settlement agreement will address certain merchant concerns, while
helping to ensure that American Express Card Members are treated
fairly at the point of sale.  It will also limit the Company's
exposure to future legal claims.

The first lawsuit, In re American Express Anti-Steering Rules
Antitrust Litigation, challenges the Non-Discrimination Provisions
in the company's merchant contracts.  The lawsuit dates back to
2006 and is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.  The second lawsuit, In re Marcus
Corporation, challenges American Express' Honor All Cards
Provisions.  This lawsuit dates back to 2004 and is pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Under the terms of the agreement:

   -- Merchants continue to agree that if they decide to surcharge
their customers using credit or charge cards, any surcharge on
American Express Card transactions would be no more than the
surcharge on credit or charge card products issued on competing
networks.

   -- Similarly, merchants agree that if they surcharge customers
paying with prepaid or debit cards, they would not surcharge
American Express prepaid cards more than any competing prepaid or
debit cards issued on competing networks.

   -- Merchants would be allowed to surcharge charge and credit
cards, even if they do not surcharge prepaid and debit card
transactions.

   -- Merchants would agree not to pursue further legal challenges
to American Express' Non-Discrimination and Honor All Cards
Provisions for at least 10 years after these changes are
implemented.

   -- American Express would agree to pay reasonable attorneys
fees for both cases up to a maximum total of $75 million, as
approved by the Court.

   -- If merchants choose to pursue individual lawsuits or
arbitrations for alleged damages relating to the Non-
Discrimination and Honor All Cards Provisions, they would agree
that any potential recovery would be limited to damages for the
period prior to the implementation of the changes.

The company's card acceptance agreements will continue to require
merchants to honor all American Express cards with the exception
of U.S. issued traditional debit cards, should the company or its
affiliates or partners decide to issue them at a future date.  The
agreements will also continue to prohibit merchants from steering
customers away from using American Express cards to competing
products.

The changes to the Non-Discrimination and Honor All Cards
Provisions will take effect after the resolution of any appeals to
the final approval of the settlement, unless voluntarily
implemented by American Express at an earlier date.

If the settlement terms are approved by the Court, all merchants
who accept American Express cards in the United States will be
bound by the changes to American Express' Non-Discrimination and
Honor All Cards Provisions and by the agreement not to make any
future claims relating to these contract provisions for a period
of at least 10 years after the changes are implemented.

Tim Heine, Managing Counsel of American Express, said: "We believe
the terms of the settlement continue to balance the interests of
Card Members and merchants.

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

"Merchants choose to accept American Express because we help them
reach millions of customers who value the convenience, rewards,
and world class service that our payment products provide.  Unlike
Visa and MasterCard, we do not have market power.  We operate a
competitive, dynamic business with a unique business model.
Resolving these lawsuits will allow us to stay focused on helping
merchants build their business and strengthen their customer
relationships."

American Express will reimburse the class plaintiffs' costs of
notifying merchants of the settlement up to $2 million and will
provide an additional $2 million fund for plaintiffs to
communicate to merchants about the terms of the settlement.

The settlement agreement has been submitted to the Court for
approval.  Costs associated with the settlement will be recognized
in the fourth quarter.

American Express has been named in a number of separate merchant
cases.

American Express is a global services company, providing customers
with access to products, insights and experiences that enrich
lives and build business success.


BELL POTTER: Court Rejects Attempt to Revive Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Wilson Antoon, Esq., at King & Wood Mallesons, writing for The
Lawyer, reports that a Federal Court rejected an attempt to
reconstitute the Bell Potter class action as a representative
proceeding, finding that the person proposed as representative
applicant was not a group member and as such could not represent
the class: Meaden v Bell Potter Securities Ltd (No 6) [2013] FCA
1176.

While the court found that it had the power to make an order
reconstituting the class action, it could not exercise that power
in circumstances where the proposed new representative applicant
was never a group member in the class action.  The attempt to
reconstitute the class action illustrates the clear choice of
plaintiff law firms and litigation funders for class actions as a
vehicle for advancing related claims, over more traditional
procedures such as multi-applicant proceedings.

In October 2010, Ms. Meaden commenced the class action against
Bell Potter on behalf of a group of the stockbroking firm's
clients who acquired shares in Progen Pharmaceuticals.  The price
of the shares collapsed after trials of the company's drug were
suspended.  The proceedings alleged market manipulation and
misleading or deceptive conduct.


CARNIVAL CRUISE: Refutes Claims in Triumph Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
CruiseShipNews reports that it seems as though Carnival Cruise
Lines is not happy with some of the claims being made in regard to
the Carnival Triumph class-action lawsuit, as they have recently
refuted claims that have been made.  They were also unhappy with
how the issue was used in a recent CNN Anderson Cooper 360
segment.

New Carnival Triumph class-action lawsuit twist

The story of the Carnival Triumph has been well documented since
the fire broke out on the ship, and we also know that Carnival has
spent several hundred million dollars on making certain that such
an issue would not happen again.

However, that does not help the lawsuit because those issues were
not addressed, but things have taken a new twist because there are
confusing reports that the ship was already at risk from fuel
leaks because of how the fuel line was shielded.

It seems that the CNN report points out the fact that the affected
fuel line was not shielded, when it should have been following
issues that happened with a Costa ship before the Triumph
incident.

However, Carnival Cruise Lines says that this is not true and that
it was shielded where it needed to be, and if it were not then the
ship would not have been able to meet SOLAS requirements.

Cruise Critic takes an in-depth look into this lawsuit, and
explains why Carnival is refuting these latest claims.


CHEMED CORP: Insurer to Pay $6MM in Securities Lawsuit Accord
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chemed Corp. executed a Settlement Term Sheet to settle in full
and with prejudice In re Chemed Corp. Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 1:12-cv-28 (S.D. Ohio) for a payment of $6.0 million by
the company's insurer, 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 January 12, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against
the Company, Kevin McNamara, David Williams, and Timothy O'Toole,
In re Chemed Corp. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:12-
cv-28 (S.D. Ohio).  On June 18, 2012, an amended complaint was
filed alleging violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all Defendants, and
violation of Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against Messrs. McNamara, Williams, and O'Toole.  The suit's
allegations concern the VITAS hospice segment of the Company's
business.

Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of
Chemed Capital Stock, compensatory damages in an unspecified
amount and attorneys' fees and expenses, arising from Defendants'
alleged failure to disclose an alleged fraudulent scheme at VITAS
to enroll ineligible hospice patients and to fraudulently obtain
payments from the federal government.  Defendants filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which were
pending when the parties reached an agreement to settle the
action.  On June 7, 2013, following the filing of U.S. v. VITAS,
Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint.  Defendants oppose this motion. On September 16, 2013,
Plaintiffs, on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Chemed
Capital Stock between February 15, 2010, and May 3, 2013,
inclusive, executed a Settlement Term Sheet with Defendants
("Settlement"), reaching an agreement in principle to settle this
case in full and with prejudice, and to provide Defendants with
full releases of all claims that are or could have been asserted
by Plaintiffs in exchange for payment of $6.0 million by the
company's insurer into a settlement fund for the benefit of the
putative class.

The Settlement has been recorded as an accrual and offsetting
prepaid in the accompanying Balance Sheet. This Settlement is
subject to final documentation by the parties as well as Court
approval.  Defendants agreed to enter into this Settlement to
eliminate the burden, expense and distraction of further
litigation.


CHURCH & DWIGHT: Still Faces Suit Over ARM & HAMMER Deodorant Ad
----------------------------------------------------------------
Church & Dwight Co., Inc. continues to face suit alleging unfair,
deceptive and unlawful business practices with respect to the
advertising, marketing and sales of ARM & HAMMER ESSENTIALS
Natural Deodorant, 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 Company has been named as a defendant in a purported class
action lawsuit alleging unfair, deceptive and unlawful business
practices with respect to the advertising, marketing and sales of
ARM & HAMMER ESSENTIALS Natural Deodorant. Specifically, on March
9, 2012, Plaintiffs Stephen Trewin and Joseph Farhatt, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a complaint
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey alleging violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act, violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and
breach of implied warranty.

The original complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company used a marketing and advertising campaign that is centered
around the claim that the ARM & HAMMER ESSENTIALS Natural
Deodorant is a "natural" product that contains "natural"
ingredients and provides "natural" protection. The complaint
alleges the advertising and marketing campaign is false and
misleading because the product contains artificial and synthetic
ingredients.

Among other things, the complaint seeks an order certifying the
case as a class action, appointing Plaintiffs as class
representatives and appointing Plaintiffs' counsel to represent
the class. The complaint also seeks restitution and disgorgement
of all amounts obtained by the Company as a result of the alleged
misconduct, compensatory, actual, statutory and other unspecified
damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiffs and the purported class,
up to treble damages for alleged violation of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, punitive damages for alleged violations of the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, an order requiring the
Company to immediately cease its alleged wrongful conduct, an
order enjoining the Company from continuing the conduct and acts
identified in the complaint, an order requiring the Company to
engage in a corrective notice campaign, an order requiring the
Company to pay to Plaintiffs and all members of the purported
class the amounts paid for ARM & HAMMER ESSENTIALS Natural
Deodorant, statutory prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.


DIEBOLD INC: March 19 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP pursuant to an order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio Eastern Division:

LOUISIANA MUNICIPAL POLICE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.

KPMG, LLP, et al.,

Defendants.


No. 1:10-cv-01461-BYP
CLASS ACTION
Judge Benita Y. Pearson

TO:

ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED DIEBOLD, INC. ("DIEBOLD") COMMON
STOCK AND/OR PUT AND CALL OPTIONS BETWEEN JUNE 30, 2005 AND
JANUARY 14, 2008, INCLUSIVE

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that pursuant to an Order of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division, a hearing will be held on March 19, 2014, at 10:30 a.m.,
before the Honorable Benita Y. Pearson, at the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division, 313 Thomas D. Lambros United States Federal Building and
Courthouse, 125 Market Street, Youngstown, Ohio 44503, for the
purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement of the
Litigation for the sum of $31,600,000 in cash should be approved
by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether,
thereafter, this Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice
against the Defendants as set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement dated as of November 8, 2013; (3) whether the Plan of
Allocation of settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and therefore should be approved; and (4) the
reasonableness of the application of Lead Counsel for the payment
of attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in connection with this
Litigation, together with interest thereon.

If you purchased Diebold common stock, and/or put and call
options, between June 30, 2005 and January 14, 2008, inclusive,
your rights may be affected by this Litigation and the settlement
thereof.  If you have not received a detailed Notice of Proposed
Settlement of Class Action and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release form, you may obtain copies by writing to Diebold
Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co.
LLC, P.O. Box 5100, Larkspur, CA 94977-5100, or by downloading
this information at http://www.gilardi.com/dieboldinc

If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release form postmarked no later than April 21, 2014, establishing
that you are entitled to a recovery.  You will be bound by any
judgment rendered in the Litigation unless you request to be
excluded, in writing, to the Claims Administrator at the above
address, postmarked by March 5, 2014.

Any objection to any aspect of the settlement must be filed with
the Clerk of the Court no later than March 5, 2014, and received
by the following no later than March 5, 2014:

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
DEBRA J. WYMAN
JEFFREY D. LIGHT
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101

Lead Counsel for Class Representatives

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
JOHN J. CARNEY
FRANCESCA M. HARKER
45 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10111

Attorneys for Defendant Kevin J. Krakora

JONES DAY
JOHN M. NEWMAN, JR.
GEOFFREY J. RITTS
ADRIENNE FERRARO MUELLER
KRISTIN S.M. MORRISON
North Point 901 Lakeside Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44114

Attorneys for Defendant Diebold, Inc.

MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
STEVEN S. SCHOLES
WILLIAM P. SCHUMAN
JEFFREY A. ROSSMAN
JEFFREY BALTRUZAK
227 W. Monroe Street
Chicago, IL 60606-5096

Attorneys for Defendant Gregory T. Geswein

VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
DAVID J. TOCCO
RAJEEV K. ADLAKHA
2100 One Cleveland Center
1375 East Ninth Street
Cleveland, OH 44114-1742

Attorneys for KPMG LLP

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

DATED: November 20, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Wants Incentive Compensation Suit Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Education Management Corporation disclosed in its Nov. 1, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013, that a shareholder
derivative class action captioned Oklahoma Law Enforcement
Retirement System v. Todd S. Nelson, et al. was filed on May 21,
2012, against the directors of the Company in state court located
in Pittsburgh, PA. The Company is named as a nominal defendant in
the case. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated their
fiduciary obligations to the Company's shareholders due to the
Company's violation of the U.S. Department of Education's
prohibition on paying incentive compensation to admissions
representatives, engaging in improper recruiting tactics in
violation of Title IV of the HEA and accrediting agency standards,
falsification of job placement data for graduates of its schools
and failure to satisfy the U.S. Department of Education's
financial responsibility standards. The Company previously
received two demand letters from the plaintiff which were
investigated by a Special Litigation Committee of the Board of
Directors and found to be without merit.

The Company and the director defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the case with prejudice on August 13, 2012. In response, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint making substantially the
same allegations as the initial complaint on September 27, 2012.
The Company and the director defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the amended complaint on October 17, 2012. On July 16, 2013, the
Court dismissed the claims that the Company engaged in improper
recruiting tactics and mismanaged the Company's financial well-
being with prejudice and found that the Special Litigation
Committee could conduct a supplemental investigation of the
plaintiff's claims related to incentive compensation paid to
admissions representatives and graduate placement statistics. The
Special Litigation Committee filed a supplemental report on
October 15, 2013, finding no support for the incentive
compensation and graduate placement statistic claims. The Court
tentatively set argument on the defendants' supplemental motion to
dismiss the case for December 3, 2013.


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Court Agrees to Stay "Bushansky" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The federal district court in the Western District of Pennsylvania
granted the motion by Education Management Corporation to stay the
case Stephen Bushansky v. Todd S. Nelson, et al. in light of the
ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss the Oklahoma Law
Enforcement Retirement System case, according to Education
Management Corporation's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

On August 3, 2012, a shareholder derivative class action captioned
Stephen Bushansky v. Todd S. Nelson, et al. was filed against
certain of the directors of the Company in federal district court
in the Western District of Pennsylvania. The Company is named as a
nominal defendant in the case. The complaint alleges that the
defendants violated their fiduciary obligations to the Company's
shareholders due to the Company's use of improper recruiting,
enrollment admission and financial aid practices and violation of
the U.S. Department of Education's prohibition on the payment of
incentive compensation to admissions representatives. The Company
previously received a demand letter from the plaintiff which was
investigated by a Special Litigation Committee of the Board of
Directors and found to be without merit. The Company believes that
the claims set forth in the complaint are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself. The Company and the named
director defendants filed a motion to stay the litigation pending
the resolution of the Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System
shareholder derivative case or, alternatively, dismiss the case on
October 19, 2012. On August 5, 2013, the Court granted the
Company's motion to stay the case in light of the ruling on the
defendants' motion to dismiss the Oklahoma Law Enforcement
Retirement System case.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Intends to Defend Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Alex Wawro, writing for Gamasutra, reports that securities law
firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 17 filed a complaint
that will likely lead to a class action lawsuit against Electronic
Arts in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of Ryan Kelly and anyone else who purchased
EA stock between July 24 and December 4, 2013.

The complaint names EA as an entity as well as a few top EA men --
including Peter Moore, Andrew Wilson, and Blake Jorgensen -- as
defendants, alleging that they violated the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and knowingly or recklessly made false or misleading
public statements about the quality of Battlefield 4 in a gambit
to juice sales.

The complaint alleges that senior EA executives knew -- and did
not disclose to the public or public shareholders -- that
Battlefield 4 was a buggy, incomplete mess that would not be able
to function as advertised if it was released on schedule.

Instead, they continually asserted that the game was of excellent
quality, both in public interviews and during conference calls
with investors.

There are tons of quoted examples of these allegedly misleading or
reckless statements compiled in the legal paperwork, including
Peter Moore's statement -- during a call meant to update investors
on the quality of EA products -- that "We couldn't be happier with
the quality of the games our teams are producing or the early
reception those games are getting from critics and consumers," on
the evening of July 23, 2013, three months before Battlefield 4
came out.

When the game went live, players and critics quickly began
complaining of game-breaking bugs, including horrendous clipping
issues and the inability to reliably find and stay connected to a
multiplayer match.  It got so bad that DICE felt the need to
publish a public bug tracker that would let players know exactly
what problem(s) it was working on fixing, as well as the status of
said fix.

EA stock took a dive and the company went on the defensive
immediately, issuing public statements that it was pulling people
off other projects in order to focus its resources on fixing
Battlefield 4.  The complaint alleges that this decision ruined
EA's financial prospects for the coming quarters, costing
investors more lost revenue on top of the devalued stock.

Once again, there are a few good quotes cited in the complaint,
including a statement from an EA representative to Polygon's
Dave Tach that read: "First, we want to thank the fans out there
that are playing and supporting us with Battlefield 4.  We know we
still have a ways to go with fixing the game -- it is absolutely
our No. 1 priority. [. . .] We're not moving onto future projects
or expansions until we sort out all the issues with Battlefield 4.
We know many of our players are frustrated, and we feel their
pain.  We will not stop until this is right."

The complaint further alleges that EA senior executives sold stock
at inflated prices prior to the release of Battlefield 4, thus
profiting from hype surrounding the game.

For example, the complaint alleges that EA CEO Andrew Wilson sold
40,000 shares of stock at a share price of $25.50 on July 26, with
proceeds from the sale totaling more than $1 million --
$1,020,000, to be exact.

The complaint does not go into detail about exactly what portion
of the proceeds from sales of EA stock by the defendants is
alleged to be ill-gotten.  Gamasutra estimates that if Wilson had
tried to sell the same amount of stock three days earlier, before
EA's stock price jumped up in response to the aforementioned
(allegedly) misleading conference call that included Moore's
statement about the quality of Battlefield 4, proceeds would have
been roughly $953,200 -- or an estimated $50,000 in profit on
company stock traded at allegedly inflated prices.

EA disputes this complaint.  When reached for comment, EA Senior
Director of Corporate Communications John Reseburg told Gamasutra
via email that "We believe these claims are meritless.  We intend
to aggressively defend ourselves, and we're confident the court
will dismiss the complaint in due course."

For what it's worth, we couldn't find a lot of evidence in the
filing that anyone at EA knew that Battlefield 4 wasn't ready for
primetime when it came out in October.  Instead, it appears as
though the plaintiffs are alleging the defendants must have known
what state Battlefield 4 was in thanks to their senior positions,
thus rendering their positive statements about the game's quality
false and misleading.

The plaintiffs hope to make EA pay for all damages sustained as a
result of the defendants' wrongdoing -- which will be decided
during the course of the trial -- plus interest, on behalf of
everyone who bought EA common stock between July 24 and
December 4.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Provides Update on MERS-Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
In its Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013, Everbank
Financial Corp. provided updates on class action lawsuits filed
against it where the plaintiffs allege improper mortgage
assignment and, in some instances, the failure to pay recording
fees in violation of state recording statutes,

Mortgage Electronic Registration Services Related Litigation

MERS, EverHome Mortgage Company, EverBank and other lenders and
servicers that have held mortgages through MERS are parties to the
following class action lawsuits where the plaintiffs allege
improper mortgage assignment and, in some instances, the failure
to pay recording fees in violation of state recording statutes:
(1) State of Ohio, ex. rel. David P. Joyce, Prosecuting Attorney
General of Geauga County, Ohio v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage
Electronic Registration Services, Inc. et al. filed in October
2011 in the Court of Common Pleas for Geauga County, Ohio, later
removed to federal court and subsequently remanded to state court;
(2) State of Iowa, by and through Darren J. Raymond, Plymouth
County Attorney v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic
Registration Services, Inc., et al., filed in March 2012 in the
Iowa District Court for Plymouth County, later removed to federal
court and now on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit; (3) Boyd County, ex. rel. Phillip Hedrick,
County Attorney of Boyd County, Kentucky, et al. v. MERSCORP,
Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc., et al. f
iled in April 2012 in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky; (4) St. Clair County, Illinois v.
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., MERSCORP, Inc. et
al., filed in May 2012 in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth
Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois; (5) Macon County,
Illinois v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc., et al. filed in July 2012 in the Circuit Court of
the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon County, Illinois and later
removed to federal court; (6) County of Multnomah v. Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al., filed in December
2012 in an Oregon state court, later removed to federal court and
subsequently remanded to state court; (7) County of Union
Illinois, et al. v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic
Registration Services, Inc., et al. filed in April 2012 in the
Circuit Court for the First Judicial Circuit, Union County,
Illinois, later removed to federal court and now pending on appeal
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; (8)
County of Ramsey and County of Hennepin, Minnesota v. MERSCORP
Holdings, Inc., et al. filed in February 2013 in the Second
Judicial District Court, subsequently removed to the U.S. District
Court, District of Minnesota and now on appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; and (9) Jackson
County, Missouri v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic
Registrations Systems, Inc., et al., filed in April 2012 in the
Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri and later removed to
federal court where the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss, and now stayed due to the bankruptcy filing of defendant
GMAC.

In these class action lawsuits, the plaintiffs in each case
generally seek judgment from the courts compelling the defendants
to record all assignments, restitution, compensatory and punitive
damages, and appropriate attorneys' fees and costs.

The company believes the plaintiff's claims are without merit and
intend to contest all such claims vigorously.

EverBank was previously subject to one additional lawsuit: (1)
Christian County Clerk, et al. v. MERS and EverHome Mortgage
Company filed in April 2011 in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Kentucky, which was the subject of an
appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
that upheld the lower court's dismissal of the complaint.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Approves $40M Settlement of Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York approved a $40 million settlement of a securities suit filed
against General Electric Company, 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.

In March and April 2009, shareholders filed purported class
actions under the federal securities laws in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York naming as
defendants GE, a number of GE officers (including the company's
chief executive officer and chief financial officer) and the
company's directors.

The complaints, which were subsequently consolidated, sought
unspecified damages based on allegations related to statements
regarding the GE dividend and projected losses and earnings for
GECC in 2009. In January 2012, the District Court granted in part,
and denied in part, the company's motion to dismiss.  In April
2012, the District Court granted a portion of the company's motion
for reconsideration, resulting in the dismissal of plaintiffs'
claims under the Securities Act of 1933.  In July 2012, the
District Court denied plaintiffs' motion seeking to amend their
complaint to include the alleged claims under the Securities Act
of 1933.

In January 2013, plaintiffs attempted unsuccessfully to file a new
amended complaint.    Also in January 2013, the company filed a
motion for judgment on the pleadings. In April 2013, the parties
entered into a definitive settlement agreement under which (i) GE
has paid $40 million, inclusive of attorneys' fees and expenses
and the cost of notice to the putative settlement class and (ii)
all claims of the settlement class were fully and finally
released.

GE, as stated in the settlement agreement, continues to maintain
that the plaintiffs' claims were without merit, and has settled to
avoid the expenditure of significant litigation costs and
management burdens in connection with defense of the lawsuit.  In
September 2013, the District Court approved the settlement.


GPT: Court Approves $8.5-Mil. Class Action Disbursements
--------------------------------------------------------
Hugh Atkin, Esq., at King & Wood Mallesons, writing for The
Lawyer, reports that a Federal Court on November 15, 2013,
approved $8.5 million for costs and disbursements of the GPT class
action, some $770,000 less than had originally been claimed by
Slater & Gordon.  The litigation funder, Comprehensive Legal
Funding (CLF), was granted leave to intervene on the application;
however, its submissions were largely rejected.

As discussed in the Q3 issue of Class Action, Justice Gordon
approved the settlement of the GPT class action in June this year,
but was not satisfied that there was a proper basis to approve the
$9,338,865 claimed in respect of Slater & Gordon's fees and
disbursements or the $53,530.85 claimed for the applicant's (or
rather its director's) own time and expenses.  Instead, her Honour
referred those claims to the registry for assessment.  Registrar
Allaway reported back to the court on August 30 and Justice Gordon
heard the renewed application for approval on September 19.

The registrar rejected the 'expense' claim of $53,530.85 put
forward by the applicant's director, Mr. Robinson, and reported
that an amount of $10,000 would be fair and reasonable
compensation for the time he had committed to the representative
aspects of the proceeding.  Mr. Robinson did not seek to challenge
that determination before Justice Gordon.


KKR & CO: Del. Chancery Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Primedia Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware denied the motion
to dismiss a securities complaint against Primedia Inc. board
members, KKR & Co. L.P. and certain KKR affiliates, 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 May 23, 2011, KKR, certain KKR affiliates and the board of
directors of Primedia Inc. (a former KKR portfolio company whose
directors at that time included certain KKR personnel) were named
as defendants, along with others, in two shareholder class action
complaints filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
challenging the sale of Primedia in a merger transaction that was
completed on July 13, 2011.

These actions allege, among other things, that Primedia board
members, KKR, and certain KKR affiliates, breached their fiduciary
duties by entering into the merger agreement at an unfair price
and failing to disclose all material information about the merger.
Plaintiffs also allege that the merger price was unfair in light
of the value of certain shareholder derivative claims, which were
dismissed on August 8, 2011, based on a stipulation by the parties
that the derivative plaintiffs and any other former Primedia
shareholders lost standing to prosecute the derivative claims on
behalf of Primedia when the Primedia merger was completed.

The dismissed shareholder derivative claims included allegations
concerning open market purchases of certain shares of Primedia's
preferred stock by KKR affiliates in 2002 and allegations
concerning Primedia's redemption of certain shares of Primedia's
preferred stock in 2004 and 2005, some of which were owned by KKR
affiliates. With respect to the pending shareholder class actions
challenging the Primedia merger, on June 7, 2011, the Court of
Chancery denied a motion to preliminarily enjoin the merger. On
July 18, 2011, the Court of Chancery consolidated the two pending
shareholder class actions and appointed lead counsel for
plaintiffs. On October 7, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the
operative complaint in the consolidated shareholder class action.

The operative complaint seeks, in relevant part, unspecified
monetary damages and rescission of the merger. On December 2,
2011, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which
similarly alleges that the Primedia board members, KKR, and
certain KKR affiliates breached their respective fiduciary duties
by entering into the merger agreement at an unfair price in light
of the value of the dismissed shareholder derivative claims. That
amended complaint seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages.
On January 31, 2012, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.  On May 10, 2013, the Court of Chancery denied the
motion to dismiss the complaint as it relates to the Primedia
board members, KKR and certain KKR affiliates. On July 1, 2013,
KKR and other defendants filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings.


KRR & CO: Shareholder Suits in Georgia Stayed Pending Del. Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two shareholder class actions challenging the Primedia Inc. merger
were filed in Georgia state courts in May 2011, asserting similar
allegations and seeking similar relief as initially sought by the
Delaware shareholder class actions.  Both Georgia actions have
been stayed in favor of the Delaware action, according to KKR &
Co. L.P.'s Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

KKR, certain KKR affiliates and the board of directors of Primedia
Inc. (a former KKR portfolio company whose directors at that time
included certain KKR personnel) were named as defendants, along
with others, in two shareholder class action complaints filed on
May 23, 2011, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
challenging the sale of Primedia in a merger transaction that was
completed on July 13, 2011.  The Delaware actions allege, among
other things, that Primedia board members, KKR, and certain KKR
affiliates, breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the
merger agreement at an unfair price and failing to disclose all
material information about the merger. Plaintiffs also allege that
the merger price was unfair in light of the value of certain
shareholder derivative claims, which were dismissed on August 8,
2011, based on a stipulation by the parties that the derivative
plaintiffs and any other former Primedia shareholders lost
standing to prosecute the derivative claims on behalf of Primedia
when the Primedia merger was completed.


KRR & CO: Mass. Court Denied Summary Judgment Bid in Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
denied a motion for summary judgment filed by KKR & Co. L.P. in a
lawsuit by shareholders in certain public companies acquired by
private equity firms since 2003, according to KKR's Nov. 1, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In December 2007, KKR, along with 15 other private equity firms
and investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported
class action complaint filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts by shareholders in certain
public companies acquired by private equity firms since 2003. In
August 2008, KKR, along with 16 other private equity firms and
investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported
consolidated amended class action complaint.

The suit alleges that from mid-2003 defendants have violated
antitrust laws by allegedly conspiring to rig bids, restrict the
supply of private equity financing, fix the prices for target
companies at artificially low levels, and divide up an alleged
market for private equity services for leveraged buyouts. The
amended complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all persons
who sold securities to any of the defendants in leveraged buyout
transactions and specifically challenges nine transactions. The
first stage of discovery concluded on or about April 15, 2010. On
August 18, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to proceed
to a second stage of discovery in part and denied it in part.

Specifically, the court granted a second stage of discovery as to
eight additional transactions but denied a second stage of
discovery as to any transactions beyond the additional eight
specified transactions. On October 7, 2010, the plaintiffs filed
under seal a fourth amended complaint that includes new factual
allegations concerning the additional eight transactions and the
original nine transactions. The fourth amended complaint also
includes eight purported sub-classes of plaintiffs seeking
unspecified monetary damages and/or restitution with respect to
eight of the original nine challenged transactions and new
separate claims against two of the original nine challenged
transactions. On January 13, 2011, the court granted a motion
filed by KKR and certain other defendants to dismiss all claims
alleged by a putative damages sub-class in connection with the
acquisition of PanAmSat Corp. and separate claims for relief
related to the PanAmSat transaction. The second phase of discovery
permitted by the court is completed.

On July 11, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file
a proposed fifth amended complaint that seeks to challenge ten
additional transactions in addition to the transactions identified
in the previous complaints. Defendants opposed plaintiffs' motion.
On September 7, 2011, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part
and denied it in part. Specifically, the court granted a third
stage of limited discovery as to the ten additional transactions
identified in plaintiffs' proposed fifth amended complaint but
denied plaintiffs' motion seeking leave to file a proposed fifth
amended complaint.

On June 14, 2012, following the completion of the third phase of
discovery, plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint which, like
their proposed fifth amended complaint, seeks to challenge ten
additional transactions in addition to the transactions identified
in the previous complaints.  On June 22, 2012, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss certain claims asserted in the fifth amended
complaint.  On July 18, 2012, the court granted in part and denied
in part defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing certain
previously released claims against certain defendants. On March
13, 2013, the United States District Court denied defendants'
motion for summary judgment on the count involving KKR.  However,
the court narrowed plaintiffs' claim to an alleged overarching
agreement to refrain from jumping other defendants' announced
proprietary transactions, thereby limiting the case to a smaller
number of transactions subject to plaintiffs' claim.  Pursuant to
the court's grant of permission to re-file, KKR filed a renewed
motion for summary judgment on April 16, 2013, which the court
denied on July 18, 2013.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Cert. Hearing in "Bezich" Suit in 1st Half 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on class certification is expected in the suit Peter S.
Bezich v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company in the first
half of 2014, according to Lincoln National Corporation's Nov. 1,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On June 13, 2009, a single named plaintiff filed a putative
national class action in the Circuit Court of Allen County,
Indiana, captioned Peter S. Bezich v. The Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company ("LNL"), No. 02C01-0906-PL73, asserting he was
charged a cost-of-insurance fee that exceeded the applicable
mortality charge, and that this fee breached the terms of the
insurance contract.  The company disputes the allegations and are
vigorously defending this matter.  Plaintiffs have filed a motion
for class certification.  The company expects a hearing on class
certification in the first half of 2014.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Response in Lawsuit v. BofA Due Mid 2014
----------------------------------------------------------
The response of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company in
Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A.
et al., Adv. Pro. No. 10-03547 (JMP) and instituted under In re
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in the United States Bankruptcy
Court in the Southern District of New York is due by the middle of
2014, according to Lincoln National Corporation's Nov. 1, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On July 23, 2012, LNL was added as a noteholder defendant to a
putative class action adversary proceeding ("adversary
proceeding") captioned Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. v.
Bank of America, N.A. et al., Adv. Pro. No. 10-03547 (JMP) and
instituted under In re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in the United
States Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York.
Plaintiff Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. seeks to (i)
overturn the application of certain priority of payment provisions
in 47 collateralized debt obligation transactions on the basis
such provisions are unenforceable under the Bankruptcy Code; and
(ii) recover funds paid out to noteholders in accordance with the
note agreements.  The adversary proceeding is stayed through
January 20, 2014, and LNL's response is currently due by the
middle of 2014.


MADISON SQUARE: N.Y. Antitrust Lawsuit Now in Discovery Phase
-------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action antitrust lawsuits brought in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against The Madison Square Garden Company is now in the discovery
phase, 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.

In March 2012, the Company was named as defendant in two purported
class action antitrust lawsuits brought in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
National Hockey League and certain NHL member clubs, regional
sports networks and cable and satellite distributors. The
complaints, which are substantially identical, primarily assert
that certain of the NHL's current rules and agreements entered
into by defendants, which are alleged by the plaintiffs to provide
certain territorial and other exclusivities with respect to the
television and online distribution of live hockey games, violate
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The complaints seek
injunctive relief against the defendants' continued violation of
the antitrust laws, treble damages, attorneys' fees and pre- and
post-judgment interest.

On July 27, 2012, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaints (which have been consolidated for
procedural purposes). On December 5, 2012, the Court issued an
Opinion and Order largely denying the motion to dismiss and the
case is now in the discovery phase. The Company intends to
vigorously defend the claims against the Company. Management does
not believe this matter will have a material adverse effect on the
Company.


NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Ill. Court Certifies Class in Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Buchanan Camden, Esq., at McDermott Will & Emery reports
that Judge Edmond Chang of the Northern District of Illinois on
December 10, 2013, certified a class of plaintiffs who filed a
proposed class action against NorthShore University Health System
(formerly Evanston Northwestern Healthcare) on behalf of all end-
payors who purchased inpatient and outpatient healthcare services
directly from NorthShore.

In 2000, Evanston Northwestern acquired rival Highland Park
Hospital.  The FTC successfully challenged the consummated merger
in 2004, but did not order divestiture because the hospitals had
already been merged and was functioning as a single entity for
several years.  After the FTC's decision, the plaintiffs brought
their class action, alleging that NorthShore illegally monopolized
the market and caused the plaintiffs and the putative class to pay
artificially inflated prices for healthcare services.

A previously assigned judge denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to
satisfy the Rule 23(b)(3) "predominance" prerequisite to class
certification -- i.e., that there are questions of law or fact
common to class members that predominate.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b).
On interlocutory appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that the
plaintiffs did satisfy predominance, then vacated the district
court's order and remanded.

On remand, Judge Chang held that the only remaining issue as to
class certification was whether  the plaintiffs had satisfied the
Rule 23(b)(3) "superiority" prerequisite to class certification,
i.e., that a class action must be "superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).  NorthShore argued that  the plaintiffs
failed to satisfy the superiority prerequisite because: 1)
arbitration is superior to class action litigation (with respect
to the payors who NorthShore alleged are bound by arbitration
provisions in the payor contracts); 2) managed care organizations
have an interest in individually controlling any claim against
NorthShore; and 3) class certification would be unmanageable
because a trial would require "hundreds of mini-trials analyzing
many individual [NorthShore contracts with payors]".  Judge Chang
disagreed, finding, among other things, that the parties disagreed
as to whether all of NorthShore's contracts with payors even
contained arbitration provisions.  Moreover, Judge Chang noted
that the payors had not yet taken a position as to whether they
wanted to exercise their individual right to control the
litigation, despite ample opportunity to do so.  Finally, Judge
Chang commented that the "Seventh Circuit credited the ability of
the plaintiffs' expert . . . to use common evidence to show that
all of the class members suffered some antitrust impact," which
would eliminate the need for hundreds of mini-trials on liability.
Accordingly, Judge Chang found that the plaintiffs had satisfied
the superiority prerequisite and certified the class.

This is a unique case because most hospital mergers are challenged
pre-consummation, where an injunction is the only remedy available
to plaintiffs.  In fact, this is the first private antitrust class
action related to a hospital merger.


NVR INC: No Class Treatment in "Tracy" Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York ruled
that the claims asserted in Tracy v. NVR, Inc. were not
appropriate for class action treatment, 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 July 18, 2007, former and current employees filed lawsuits
against the Company in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania and Hamilton County, Ohio, in Superior Court
in Durham County, North Carolina, and in the Circuit Court in
Montgomery County, Maryland, and on July 19, 2007 in the Superior
Court in New Jersey, alleging that the Company incorrectly
classified its sales and marketing representatives as being exempt
from overtime wages. These lawsuits are similar in nature to
another lawsuit filed on October 29, 2004 by another former
employee in the United States District Court for the Western
District of New York captioned Tracy v. NVR, Inc. The lawsuits
filed in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey and North
Carolina have been stayed pending further developments in the
Tracy action.

The complaints seek injunctive relief, an award of unpaid wages,
including fringe benefits, liquidated damages equal to the
overtime wages allegedly due and not paid, attorney and other fees
and interest, and where available, multiple damages. While the
suits were filed as purported class actions, none of them have
been certified as such. On April 29, 2013, the Western District of
New York ruled that the claims asserted in the Tracy case were not
appropriate for class action treatment and dismissed a number of
individuals who had filed consents to join that action from the
case. The trial on the remaining individual plaintiff's claims was
held in October 2013. On October 23, 2013, the jury in that trial
ruled in the Company's favor that the plaintiff was an exempt
outside salesman.

On May 29, 2013, attorneys representing the individuals dismissed
from the Tracy action filed another lawsuit on behalf of those
individuals in the New York Supreme Court for Monroe County
captioned Anderson v. NVR, Inc. The Company removed the Anderson
action to the Western District of New York on June 18, 2013.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to stay the Anderson action
pending final disposition of the Tracy action, which the Company
opposed. The Company also filed a motion to sever the multitude of
individuals participating in the Anderson action, leaving each
plaintiff to pursue his or her claim individually to the extent
that they chose to do so.

The Company believes that its compensation practices in regard to
sales and marketing representatives are entirely lawful and in
compliance with two letter rulings from the United States
Department of Labor ("DOL") issued in January 2007. Courts that
have considered similar claims against other homebuilders have
acknowledged the DOL's position that sales and marketing
representatives were properly classified as exempt from overtime
wages and the only court to have directly addressed the exempt
status of such employees concluded that the DOL's position was
valid. In addition, the jury verdict in the Tracy v. NVR, Inc.
matter in October 2013 upheld the Company's classification of the
position. Accordingly, the Company has vigorously defended and
intends to continue to vigorously defend these lawsuits.  The
Company has not recorded any associated liabilities on the
accompanying consolidated balance sheets in conjunction with the
Anderson v. NVR, Inc. case or any other legal challenges to the
exempt status of the Company's sales and marketing
representatives.

In June 2010, the Company received a Request for Information from
the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") pursuant
to Section 308 of the Clean Water Act. The request sought
information about storm water discharge practices in connection
with homebuilding projects completed or underway by the Company in
New York and New Jersey. The Company cooperated with this request,
and provided information to the EPA. The Company was subsequently
informed by the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") that
the EPA forwarded the information on the matter to the DOJ, and
the DOJ requested that the Company meet with the government to
discuss the status of the case. Meetings took place in January
2012 and August 2012 with representatives from both the EPA and
DOJ. It is as yet unclear what next steps the DOJ will take in the
matter. The Company intends to continue cooperating with any
future EPA and/or DOJ inquiries. At this time, the Company cannot
predict the outcome of this inquiry, nor can it reasonably
estimate the potential costs that may be associated with its
eventual resolution.

On July 18, 2007, former and current employees filed lawsuits
against the company in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania and Hamilton County, Ohio, in Superior Court
in Durham County, North Carolina, and in the Circuit Court in
Montgomery County, Maryland, and on July 19, 2007 in the Superior
Court in New Jersey, alleging that the company incorrectly
classified the company's sales and marketing representatives as
being exempt from overtime wages. These lawsuits are similar in
nature to another lawsuit filed on October 29, 2004 by another
former employee in the United States District Court for the
Western District of New York captioned Tracy v. NVR, Inc. The
lawsuits filed in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey and
North Carolina have been stayed pending further developments in
the Tracy action.

The complaints seek injunctive relief, an award of unpaid wages,
including fringe benefits, liquidated damages equal to the
overtime wages allegedly due and not paid, attorney and other fees
and interest, and where available, multiple damages. While the
suits were filed as purported class actions, none of them have
been certified as such. On April 29, 2013, the Western District of
New York ruled that the claims asserted in the Tracy case were not
appropriate for class action treatment and dismissed a number of
individuals who had filed consents to join that action from the
case. The trial on the remaining individual plaintiff's claims was
held in October 2013. On October 23, 2013, the jury in that trial
ruled in the company's favor that the plaintiff was an exempt
outside salesman.


OLD NATIONAL: Mediation Ordered in Suit v. Old National Bank
------------------------------------------------------------
The Vanderburgh County Circuit Court ordered mediation in a suit
challenging Old National Bank's checking account practices,
according to Old National Bancorp's Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In November 2010, Old National was named in a class action lawsuit
in Vanderburgh County Circuit Court challenging Old National
Bank's checking account practices associated with the assessment
of overdraft fees. The theory set forth by plaintiffs in this case
is similar to other class action complaints filed against other
financial institutions in recent years and settled for substantial
amounts. On May 1, 2012, the plaintiff was granted permission to
file a First Amended Complaint which named additional plaintiffs
and amended certain claims. The plaintiffs seek damages and other
relief, including restitution. On June 13, 2012, Old National
filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which was
subsequently denied by the Court. On September 7, 2012, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which was
granted on March 20, 2013, and provides for a class of "All Old
National Bank customers in the State of Indiana who had one or
more consumer accounts and who, within the applicable statutes of
limitation through August 15, 2010, incurred an overdraft fee as a
result of Old National Bank's practice of sequencing debit card
and ATM transactions from highest to lowest."

Old National sought an interlocutory appeal on the issue of class
certification on April 2, 2013, which was subsequently denied. Old
National does not believe there is a cause of action under Indiana
law to support the plaintiffs' claims.

Accordingly, on June 11, 2013, Old National moved for summary
judgment. On September 16, 2013, a hearing was held on the summary
judgment motion and on September 27, 2013, the Court ordered the
parties to mediation and informed the parties that "Court will be
denying the motion for summary judgment upon receiving the report
of the mediator." The case is not currently set for trial.

Old National believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims
brought by the plaintiffs. At this phase of the litigation, it is
not possible for management of Old National to determine the
probability of a material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate
the amount of any loss.


OLD REPUBLIC: Certification Ruling in "Ahmad" Suit Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has reversed the
earlier class certification in Ahmad et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S.
District Court, Northern District, Texas, Dallas Division,
according to Old Republic International Corporation's Nov. 1,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

Purported class action lawsuits are pending against the Company's
principal title insurance subsidiary, Old Republic National Title
Insurance Company ("ORNTIC"), in federal courts in two states -
Pennsylvania (Markocki et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court,
Eastern District, Pennsylvania, filed June 8, 2006), and Texas
(Ahmad et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court, Northern District,
Texas, Dallas Division, filed February 8, 2008). The plaintiffs
allege that ORNTIC failed to give consumers reissue and/or
refinance credits on the premiums charged for title insurance
covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as required by rate
schedules filed by ORNTIC or by state rating bureaus with the
state insurance regulatory authorities. The Pennsylvania suit also
alleges violations of the federal Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act ("RESPA"). The Court in the Texas suit dismissed
similar RESPA allegations. Classes have been certified in the
Pennsylvania suit, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has
reversed the earlier class certification in the Texas case.


OLD REPUBLIC: No Class Certification Yet in Lawsuits Against RMIC
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class has not been certified in purported class action suits
alleging violations of The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
(RESPA) by Republic Mortgage Insurance Company; and RMIC has filed
motions to dismiss the cases, according to Old Republic
International Corporation'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 30, 2011 and on January 4, 2013, purported class
action suits alleging RESPA violations were filed in the Federal
District Court, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania targeting
RMIC, other mortgage guaranty insurance companies, PNC Financial
Services Group (as successor to National City Bank) and HSBC Bank
USA, N.A., and their wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiaries.
(White, Hightower, et al. v. PNC Financial Services Group (as
successor to National City Bank) et al.), (Ba, Chip, et al. v.
HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.). The lawsuits are two of twelve
against various lenders, their captive reinsurers and the mortgage
insurers, filed by the same law firms, all of which were
substantially identical in alleging that the mortgage guaranty
insurers had reinsurance arrangements with the defendant banks'
captive insurance subsidiaries under which payments were made in
violation of the anti-kickback and fee splitting prohibitions of
Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA. Ten of the twelve suits have been
dismissed. The remaining suits seek unspecified damages, costs,
fees and the return of the allegedly improper payments. A class
has not been certified in either suit and RMIC has filed motions
to dismiss the cases.


OLD REPUBLIC: Continues to Face "Friedman" Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Friedman v. Old Republic Home Protection Company, Inc. remains
pending in the Superior Court of California for Riverside County,
according to Old Republic International Corporation's Nov. 1,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On September 26, 2012 a purported national class action suit was
filed against Old Republic Home Protection Company in the Superior
Court of California for Riverside County. (Friedman v. Old
Republic Home Protection Company, Inc.). The suit alleges that the
Company operates in breach of its home warranty contracts, in
breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, in
violation of various provisions of the California Civil Code and
Business and Professions Code and is guilty of false advertising.
The stated class period is from November 24, 2004 through the
present. The suit seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief,
restitution, damages, costs and attorneys' fees in unspecified
amounts. The firm representing the plaintiff had previously filed
similar suits against the Company, which were unsuccessful. The
Company succeeded in having the case removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on October 24, 2012,
and believes it has strong defenses to the allegations and to the
certification of any class in this matter.


PORTLAND GENERAL: March 2014 Oral Argument Set Over Refund Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Supreme Court granted plaintiffs' petition seeking
review of the February 6, 2013 Oregon Court of Appeals decision
regarding refunds to customers of Portland General Electric
Company and oral argument is scheduled for March 4, 2014,
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.

OPUC issued an order in 2008 that required PGE to provide refunds,
including interest from September 30, 2000, to customers who
received service from the Company during the period from October
1, 2000 to September 30, 2001. The Company recorded a charge of
$33.1 million in 2008 related to the refund and accrued additional
interest expense on the liability until refunds to customers were
completed in the first quarter of 2010. The URP and the plaintiffs
in the class actions described separately appealed the 2008 Order
to the Oregon Court of Appeals. On February 6, 2013, the Oregon
Court of Appeals issued an opinion that upheld the 2008 Order. On
May 31, 2013, the Court of Appeals denied the appellants' request
for reconsideration of the decision. On October 18, 2013, the
Oregon Supreme Court granted plaintiffs' petition seeking review
of the February 6, 2013 Oregon Court of Appeals decision. Oral
argument is scheduled for March 4, 2014.

                            Class Actions

In two separate legal proceedings, lawsuits were filed in Marion
County Circuit Court against PGE in 2003 on behalf of two classes
of electric service customers. The class action lawsuits seek
damages totaling $260 million, plus interest, as a result of the
Company's inclusion, in prices charged to customers, of a return
on its investment in Trojan.

In 2006, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a ruling ordering the
abatement of the class action proceedings until the OPUC responded
to the 2002 Order. The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the
OPUC has primary jurisdiction to determine what, if any, remedy
can be offered to PGE customers, through price reductions or
refunds, for any amount of return on the Trojan investment that
the Company collected in prices.

The Oregon Supreme Court further stated that if the OPUC
determined that it can provide a remedy to PGE's customers, then
the class action proceedings may become moot in whole or in part.
The Oregon Supreme Court added that, if the OPUC determined that
it cannot provide a remedy, the court system may have a role to
play. The Oregon Supreme Court also ruled that the plaintiffs
retain the right to return to the Marion County Circuit Court for
disposition of whatever issues remain unresolved from the remanded
OPUC proceedings. The Marion County Circuit Court subsequently
abated the class actions in response to the ruling of the Oregon
Supreme Court.

As noted, on February 6, 2013, the Oregon Court of Appeals upheld
the 2008 Order. Because the Oregon Supreme Court has granted the
plaintiffs' petition seeking review of that decision, and the
class actions described remain pending, management believes that
it is reasonably possible that the regulatory proceedings and
class actions could result in a loss to the Company in excess of
the amounts previously recorded and discussed. Because these
matters involve unsettled legal theories and have a broad range of
potential outcomes, sufficient information is currently not
available to determine PGE's potential liability, if any, or to
estimate a range of potential loss.


PVR PARTNERS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 19 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all holders of
common units of PVR Partners, L.P. as of November 8, 2013, against
PVR Partners, PVR GP, Edward B. Cloues II, James L. Gardner,
Robert J. Hall, Thomas W. Hofmann, E. Bartow Jones, Marsha R.
Perelman, Williams H. Shea, Jr., John C. Van Roden, Jr., Andrew W.
Ward, Jonathan B. Weller, Regency Energy Partners LP, RVP LLC and
Regency GP LP for violations of state and federal law, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and/or breaches of express and implied contractual
duties, and/or aiding and abetting thereof, in connection with the
proposed sale of PVR Partners to Regency, pursuant to which PVR
Partners unitholders will receive a one-time cash payment valued
at approximately $40 million in the aggregate, as well as 1.02
Regency units, which values the total consideration at $28.68 per
common unit.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from December 16, 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, Mark S.
Reich of Robbins Geller at 631/367-7100, or via email at
mreich@rgrdlaw.com

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 Defendants with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and alleges that Defendants failed to
disclose material information in a proxy statement filed with the
SEC and publicly disseminated in connection with the proposed sale
of PVR Partners to Regency.  PVR Partners is a publicly traded
master limited partnership focused on owning and operating a
network of natural gas midstream pipelines and processing plants
and owning and managing coal and natural resource properties.  The
Partnership's midstream assets, located principally in Texas,
Oklahoma and Pennsylvania, provide gathering, transportation,
compression, processing, dehydration and related services to
natural gas producers.  Its coal and natural resource properties,
located in the Appalachian, Illinois, and San Juan basins, are
leased to experienced operators in exchange for royalty payments.

According to the complaint, the proxy statement was materially
false and misleading because it made numerous misleading
statements and material omissions about the process leading up to
the agreement between PVR Partners and Regency and the work
performed by PVR Partners' financial advisors, Evercore Partners
and Citigroup Global Markets, who were retained by PVR Partners to
evaluate the fairness of Regency's offer and to effectuate the
proposed acquisition.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all PVR Partners
unitholders as of November 8, 2013.  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
across ten offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and
multi-employer pension funds with combined assets under management
in excess of $2 trillion.


SANOFI: Lieff Cabraser Launches Class Action Over Lemtrada Drug
---------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Huet, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. law firm is
launching a class action against France's Sanofi over what it
calls misleading statements on the safety and efficacy of its
multiple sclerosis drug Lemtrada.

Sanofi acquired Lemtrada when it bought U.S. biotech firm Genzyme
for $20.1 billion in 2011.  The drug's prospects took center-stage
in a drawn-out takeover battle and led to a deal in which Genzyme
shareholders received listed contingent value rights (CVRs) linked
to Lemtrada's future success.

Law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP said on Dec. 20
it was bringing litigation on behalf of all purchasers of the CVRs
between March 6, 2012 and November 7, 2013.  The firm alleged that
over this period, Sanofi and some of its senior executives made
false and misleading statements about its business and the
prospects for Lemtrada, and misled investors over the design of
its clinical trials on the drug.

A spokesman for Sanofi said the company does not comment on
pending litigation.

The complaint comes after U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
experts voiced concerns in November over Lemtrada's safety and the
quality of its clinical studies, prompting CVRs on the drug to
shed over 60 percent of their value in one day.

Lemtrada, an injectable treatment also known as alemtuzumab, is
one of Sanofi's two new drugs for MS, an autoimmune disease that
attacks the central nervous system and affects more than 2 million
people worldwide.

The drug was approved by European regulators in September and the
FDA is expected to rule by December 27 on whether to approve the
treatment for marketing in the United States, the world's biggest
pharmaceutical market.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: No Class Filing for Former Wichita Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court in Wichita, Kansas has set certain
deadlines for certain prospective plaintiffs to bring individual
claims against Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. over an allege
age discrimination in the hiring of employees by Spirit when The
Boeing Company sold its Wichita commercial division to Onex Corp.,
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. 26, 2013.

In December 2005, a lawsuit was filed against Spirit, Onex and
Boeing alleging age discrimination in the hiring of employees by
Spirit when Boeing sold its Wichita commercial division to Onex.
The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in Wichita, Kansas
and sought class-action status, an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages and more than 1.5 billion dollars in punitive
damages. The asset purchase agreement from the Boeing Acquisition
requires Spirit to indemnify Boeing for damages resulting from the
employment decisions that were made by the company with respect to
former employees of Boeing Wichita, which relate or allegedly
relate to the involvement of, or consultation with, employees of
Boeing in such employment decisions.

On June 30, 2010, the U.S. District Court granted defendants'
dispositive motions, finding that the case should not be allowed
to proceed as a class action.  Following plaintiffs' appeal, on
August 27, 2012, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
District Court's ruling in all respects.  The district court has
now set certain deadlines for certain prospective plaintiffs to
bring individual claims.

In the event this litigation continues, the Company intends to
continue to vigorously defend itself. Management believes the
resolution of this matter will not materially affect the Company's
financial position, results of operations or liquidity.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Boeing Still Faces "Harkness" Suit in Kansas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas entered an
order dismissing all claims against Spirit AeroSystems Holdings,
Inc. in Harkness et al. v. The Boeing Company et al., but claims
against Boeing entities remain pending, 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. 26, 2013.

On February 16, 2007, an action entitled Harkness et al. v. The
Boeing Company et al. was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas. The defendants were served in early July 2007.
The defendants included Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., Spirit
AeroSystems, Inc., the Spirit AeroSystems Holdings Inc. Retirement
Plan for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
(IBEW), Wichita Engineering Unit (SPEEA WEU) and Wichita Technical
and Professional Unit (SPEEA WTPU) Employees, and the Spirit
AeroSystems Retirement Plan for International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) Employees, along with
Boeing and Boeing retirement and health plan entities. The named
plaintiffs are twelve former Boeing employees, eight of whom were
or are employees of Spirit. The plaintiffs assert several claims
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and general
contract law and brought the case as a class action on behalf of
similarly situated individuals.

The putative class consists of approximately 2,500 current or
former employees of Spirit. The parties agreed to class
certification. The sub-class members who asserted claims against
the Spirit entities are those individuals who, as of June 2005,
were employed by Boeing in Wichita, Kansas, were participants in
the Boeing pension plan, had at least 10 years of vesting service
in the Boeing plan, were in jobs represented by a union, were
between the ages of 49 and 55, and who went to work for Spirit on
or about June 17, 2005.

Although there were many claims in the suit, the plaintiffs'
claims against the Spirit entities, asserted under various
theories, were (1) that the Spirit plans wrongfully failed to
determine that certain plaintiffs are entitled to early retirement
"bridging rights" to pension and retiree medical benefits that
were allegedly triggered by their separation from employment by
Boeing and (2) that the plaintiffs' pension benefits were
unlawfully transferred from Boeing to Spirit in that their claimed
early retirement "bridging rights" are not being afforded these
individuals as a result of their separation from Boeing, thereby
decreasing their benefits. The plaintiffs initially sought a
declaration that they were entitled to the early retirement
pension benefits and retiree medical benefits, an injunction
ordering that the defendants provide the benefits, damages
pursuant to breach of contract claims and attorney fees. On June
20, 2013, the district court entered an order dismissing all
claims against the Spirit entities with prejudice.

Plaintiffs' claims against Boeing entities remain pending in the
litigation. Boeing has notified Spirit that it believes it is
entitled to indemnification from Spirit for any "indemnifiable
damages" it may incur in the Harkness litigation, under the terms
of the asset purchase agreement from the Boeing Acquisition
between Boeing and Spirit. Spirit disputes Boeing's position on
indemnity. Management believes the resolution of this matter will
not materially affect the Company's financial position, results of
operations or liquidity.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Motions to Name Lead Plaintiff Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Motions to name a lead plaintiff are pending in a securities suit
filed against Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas, 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. 26, 2013.

On June 3, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced
against Holdings, Jeffrey L. Turner, and Philip D. Anderson in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.  The named
plaintiff, who alleges that he is a purchaser of Holdings
securities, alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making material misrepresentations and
omissions in the Company's public disclosures about the
circumstances underlying the Company's accrual of $590 million in
forward loss charges in the third quarter of 2012.

The lawsuit seeks certification of a class of all persons other
than defendants who purchased Holdings securities between May 5,
2011 and October 24, 2012, and seeks an unspecified amount of
damages on behalf of the putative class.  Currently pending are
motions to name a lead plaintiff.  The Company intends to
vigorously defend against these allegations, and management
believes the resolution of this matter will not materially affect
the Company's financial position, results of operations, or
liquidity.


TARGET CORP: JTB Law Group Files Data Breach Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
JTB Law Group, LLC filed a class action on Dec. 19 against Target
for alleged compromising of 40 million customers credit card data.
The case was filed in Federal Court in Boston, Docket Number 1:13-
cv-13212, Tirado v. Target Corporation.  Target admitted via a
press release that, "Approximately 40 million credit and debit
card accounts may have been impacted between Nov. 27 and Dec. 15,
2013."  Consumer Advocate and Class Action Lawyer Jason T. Brown
stated that consumers who used their credit cards during that time
period need to be vigilant in monitoring their credit to make sure
no one has exploited their identity.  According to Attorney Brown
what is particularly troubling is that the thieves have had the
benefit of time, while the victims may still be unaware that their
identity and credit information has been compromised.

"I'm hoping that Target will do the right thing here and
immediately contact the specific individuals who have had their
data compromised and make sure the company has their back.
Identity fraud can be particularly devastating to someone who is
living on credit," Counselor Brown warned.  "Additionally, be
equally aware of anyone who calls up claiming to be from Target
and don't confirm or give any credit card information over the
phone."

Anyone with information regarding the data breach should call The
JTB Law Group, LLC at 1 (877) 561-0000 and also speak with the
authorities.  Similarly, any concerned customer who used their
credit card during that time period should call the office as
well.


TARGET CORP: May Face Costly Consumer Class Suits Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Sunnucks, writing for Phoenix Business Journal, reports that
Target Corp. could face costly class action lawsuits from
consumers as well as litigation from banks and state attorneys
general after its massive data breach in which hackers gained
access to credit and debit card data for as many as 40 million
customers.

Patrick Fowler -- pfowler@swlaw.com -- a partner and business
liability attorney with the Snell & Wilmer LLP law firm in
Phoenix, said the legal costs to Target could easily be in the
tens of millions of dollars.

"It is about as bad as it can get in terms of credit and debit
card information," Mr. Fowler said.

He said hackers may have been able to obtain unencrypted point-of-
sale information with consumers' personal information, account
numbers, credit card expiration dates and security codes.  He
cited a 2007 data breach case involving TJX Cos, the parent
company of T.J.Maxx and Marshalls. That hacking case compromised
45 million consumers and ended up costing the retailer $256
million, according to the Christian Science Monitor.

Consumers could sue Target if hackers rack up charges and impact
their credit.  Banks and credit card companies could take Target
to court over the costs of issuing new cards and dealing with
fraudulent purchases.

Target announced the breach started Nov. 27 and ran through Dec.15
and could impact U.S. customers who shopped at stores.  The
Minneapolis-based chain has 47 stores in Arizona and employs
thousands of people here.

"We have determined that the information involved in this incident
included customer name, credit or debit card number, and the
card's expiration date and CVV (the three-digit security code),"
the company said in a statement.

Mr. Fowler said the Target breach should also be a wake-up call
for small and midsize local businesses.  He said just because a
company is smaller and located in Phoenix does not mean hackers
will not go after credit and debit card data.

He said hackers are actually going after smaller companies more
because it can be easier and quicker to hack into systems and
computers.

"It's a path of least resistance for hackers," Mr. Fowler said.

Mr. Fowler is still not sure the hit Target will take with
customers.

"They'll never know which customers between now and the end of the
holiday season went to another store because of what happened,"
Mr. Fowler said.

                 Is a Lawsuit Really Necessary?

Jennifer LeClaire, writing for CIO Today, reports that a class
action suit against Target could open up a Pandora's Box. Security
industry analysts are waiting and watching, but it seems a class
action suit may be a reach considering the damages.

"I did some traditional shopping at Target between November 27 and
December 15, and so I am in the affected customer set.
Unfortunately, beyond canceling one's credit card -- which is a
hassle -- there is not much a customer can do in such a
situation," Wolfgang Kandek, CTO of Qualys, told CIO Today.

"I have started to log into my credit card account more frequently
and check my transactions, but otherwise I am trusting the fraud
detection algorithms that my credit card company uses, plus their
60-day claim guarantee.  It will be interesting to see how the
attackers got into the network Relevant Products/Services and what
technical countermeasures were in place, but that will take months
to surface as the forensics in such a case are extremely time
consuming," he said.

                  The Nature of Modern Threats

CIO Today asked Chris Petersen, CTO and co-founder of LogRhythm, a
log analysis firm, for his take on the breach.  He told CIO Today
Target has likely invested heavily in security, in technologies
and approaches many would consider modern and right.
Unfortunately, he added, today's threats are quickly outpacing
current security technologies and approaches -- what was recently
modern and right, is quickly becoming outdated and ineffective.

"Companies are in an arms race against determined foes, whether
they be cybercriminals, hacktivists or nation states,"
Mr. Petersen said.  "Their only hope of defending themselves is to
ensure their defenses are truly modern. In some cases, this might
mandate running next generation technologies in parallel with
their legacy counterparts."

As he sees it, one specific area of modern investment is an
analytics-driven defense.  Only until very recently could
companies leverage big data to root out threats they would
otherwise be blind to.

"When big data is combined with machine-based behavioral
analytics, the types of threats able to evade existing defenses
can be detected early, prior to a large scale Relevant
Products/Services breach occurring," Mr. Petersen said.  "When
networks are infiltrated and systems inappropriately accessed,
normal behaviors within the IT environment will shift.  When these
behavioral shifts are recognized early, data breaches can be
avoided."


TECO ENERGY: Denial of Class Certification in Suit v. PGS Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Lee County Circuit Court in Florida denied plaintiffs' motion
for reconsideration of the ruling that denied a motion for class
certification filed in a suit against Peoples Gas System over an
outage in the natural gas service to Lee and Collier counties,
Florida, according to Teco Energy, Inc.'s Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In June 2013, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and dismissed the plaintiffs' underlying claim. The
Court recently denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of
the ruling.

In November 2010, heavy equipment operated at a road construction
site being conducted by Posen Construction, Inc. struck a natural
gas line causing a rupture and ignition of the gas and an outage
in the natural gas service to Lee and Collier counties, Florida.
Two commercial PGS customers filed a purported class action in Lee
County Circuit Court, Florida against PGS on behalf of PGS
commercial customers affected by the outage, seeking damages for
loss of revenue and other costs related to the gas outage. Posen
Construction, Inc., the company conducting construction at the
site where the incident occurred, is also a defendant in the
action. In June 2013, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and dismissed the plaintiffs' underlying
claim. The Court recently denied plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of the ruling. PGS's suit against Posen
Construction in Federal Court for the Middle District of Florida
to recover damages for repair and restoration relating to the
incident remains pending, as does the Posen Construction counter-
claim against PGS alleging negligence. In addition, the suit filed
by the Posen Construction employee operating the heavy equipment
involved in the incident in Lee County Circuit Court against PGS,
Posen Construction and the engineering company on the construction
project, seeking damages for his injuries, also remains pending.


TESLA MOTOR: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Dec. 20
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Tesla
Motor, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed
in United States District Court, Northern District of California,
and docketed under 3:13-cv-05216, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Tesla securities between May 10, 2013 and November 6,
2013 both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover
damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Tesla securities during the
Class Period, you have until January 7, 2014 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

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

Tesla designs, develops, manufactures, and sells electric
vehicles, including its flagship Model S, and electric vehicle
powertrain components.  The Complaint alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Tesla's
business, including: (1) Tesla's statements about the Model S's
highest safety rating and its lack of prior fire incidents were
materially misleading, due to undisclosed puncture and fire risks
in its undercarriage and lithium ion battery pack; (2) the Model S
suffered from material defects which caused the battery pack to
ignite and erupt in flames under certain driving conditions; (3)
Tesla's future sales, its next generation Model X introduction,
and its stock price were extremely vulnerable to the inherent risk
posed by the Model S's undercarriage and battery pack design
flaws; (4) Tesla was unable to maintain a level of automobile
deliveries sufficient to satisfy analyst concerns and compensate
for other declining revenue streams; and, (5) as a result of the
foregoing, Tesla's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On October 2, 2013, a video of a Model S burning on the roadside
was widely circulated, which Tesla attributed to a collision with
road debris.  The same day, Tesla was downgraded by an analyst who
pointed to significant execution risks it faced.  On this news,
Tesla shares declined $12.05 per share, or more than 6%, to close
at $180.95.

On October 28, 2013 a second Model S fire occurred in Mexico,
which Tesla blamed on the car's rate of speed and its crash into a
tree.  On this news, Tesla shares fell $7.32 per share, or more
than 4.3% to close at $162.86 on October 28, 2013.

Tesla's stock closed at $176.81 on November 5, 2013.  That day,
after hours, Tesla announced its Q3 2013 results, which failed to
meet analyst expectations on key metrics, including rate of
vehicle deliveries.  On November 7, 2013, Tesla confirmed a third
Model S fire, caused by impact with road debris during normal
driving conditions.  On this news, Tesla shares opened at $154.81
on November 6, 2013 - $22.00 per share (12.44%) lower than the
prior day's closing price, and declined on November 6-7, 2013 to
$139.77.

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


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Medicis Suit Settlement Awaits Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is awaiting approval
by the Delaware Court of Chancery for the settlement of a
shareholder lawsuit filed over the company's acquisition of
Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, 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 Delaware actions (which were instituted on September 11, 2012
and October 1, 2012, respectively) were consolidated for all
purposes under the caption In re Medicis Pharmaceutical
Corporation Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 7857-CS (Del. Ch.).

Prior to the Company's acquisition of Medicis, several purported
holders of then public shares of Medicis filed putative class
action lawsuits in the Delaware Court of Chancery and the Arizona
Superior Court against Medicis and the members of its Board of
Directors, as well as one or both of Valeant and Merlin Merger Sub
(the wholly-owned subsidiary of Valeant formed in connection with
the Medicis Acquisition). The Delaware actions (which were
instituted on September 11, 2012 and October 1, 2012,
respectively) were consolidated for all purposes under the caption
In re Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation Stockholders Litigation,
C.A. No. 7857-CS (Del. Ch.). The Arizona action (which was
instituted on September 11, 2012) bears the caption Swint v.
Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, et. al., Case No. CV2012-
055635 (Ariz. Sup. Ct.).

The actions all alleged, among other things, that the Medicis
directors breached their fiduciary duties because they supposedly
failed to properly value Medicis and caused materially misleading
and incomplete information to be disseminated to Medicis' public
shareholders, and that Valeant and/or Merlin Merger Sub aided and
abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The actions also
sought, among other things, injunctive and other equitable relief,
and money damages. On November 20, 2012, Medicis and the other
named defendants in the Delaware action signed a memorandum of
understanding ("MOU") to settle the Delaware action and resolve
all claims asserted by the purported class.

In connection with the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs intend
to seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount to
be determined by the Delaware Court of Chancery. The settlement is
subject to court approval and further definitive documentation.
The plaintiff in the Arizona action agreed to dismiss her
complaint. On January 15, 2013, the Arizona Superior Court issued
an order granting the parties' joint stipulation to dismiss the
Arizona action.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Hearing in Obagi Suit Continued to Jan 29
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles continued the "Hearing on Order to Show Cause Re
Dismissal" in the suit filed against Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. over the acquisition of Obagi Medical
Products, Inc. until January 29, 2014, 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.

Prior to the acquisition of all of the outstanding common stock of
Obagi, the following complaints were filed: (i) a complaint in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, dated March 22, 2013,
and amended on April 1, 2013 and on April 8, 2013, captioned
Michael Rubin v. Obagi Medical Products, Inc., et al.; (ii) a
complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, dated March 22, 2013, and amended on March 27,
2013, captioned Gary Haas v. Obagi Medical Products, Inc., et al.;
and (iii) a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, dated March 27, 2013, captioned
Drew Leonard v. Obagi Medical Products, Inc., et al.

Each complaint is a purported shareholder class action and names
as defendants Obagi and the members of the Obagi Board of
Directors. The two complaints filed in California also name
Valeant and Odysseus Acquisition Corp. (the wholly-owned
subsidiary of Valeant formed in connection with the Obagi
acquisition) as defendants. The plaintiffs' allegations in each
action are substantially similar. The plaintiffs allege that the
members of the Obagi Board of Directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Obagi's stockholders in connection with the sale of the
company, and the California complaints further allege that Obagi,
Valeant and Odysseus Acquisition Corp. aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duties. In support of their
purported claims, the plaintiffs allege that the proposed
transaction undervalues Obagi, involves an inadequate sales
process and includes preclusive deal protection devices.

The plaintiffs in the Rubin case in Delaware and in the Haas case
in California also filed amended complaints, which added
allegations challenging the adequacy of the disclosures concerning
the transaction. The plaintiffs sought damages and to enjoin the
transaction, and also sought attorneys' and expert fees and costs.
On April 12, 2013, the defendants entered into an MOU with the
plaintiffs to the actions pending in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware and the Superior Court of the State of
California, pursuant to which Obagi and such parties agreed in
principle, and subject to certain conditions, to settle those
stockholder lawsuits. The settlement is subject to the approval of
the appropriate court and further definitive documentation. In
connection with the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs intend to
seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount to be
determined by the appropriate court.

On April 24, 2013, having received notice that the parties had
reached an agreement to settle the litigation, the California
Court scheduled a "Hearing on Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal"
for July 31, 2013. On July 31, 2013, the California Court
continued the matter for six months, until January 29, 2014,
pending completion of definitive documentation and approval
proceedings in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. If
the MOU is not approved or the applicable conditions are not
satisfied, the defendants will continue to vigorously defend these
actions.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Wellbutrin Suit Accord Wins Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted
final approval to a $49.25 million settlement of a suit in
relation to Wellbutrin XL Antitrust Class Actions, 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 April 4, 2008, a direct purchaser plaintiff filed a class
action antitrust complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against Biovail Corp., its subsidiary
Biovail Laboratories International SRL ("BLS") (now Valeant
International Bermuda), GlaxoSmithKline plc, and SmithKline
Beecham Inc. (the latter two of which are referred to here as
"GSK") seeking damages and alleging that Biovail, BLS and GSK took
actions to improperly delay FDA approval for generic forms of
Wellbutrin XL.

In late May and early June 2008, additional direct and indirect
purchaser class actions were also filed against Biovail, BLS and
GSK in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, all making similar
allegations. After motion practice, the complaints were
consolidated, resulting in a lead direct purchaser and a lead
indirect purchaser action, and the Court ultimately denied
defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaints.

The Court granted direct purchasers' motion for class
certification, and certified a class consisting of all persons or
entities in the United States and its territories who purchased
Wellbutrin XL directly from any of the defendants at any time
during the period of November 14, 2005 through August 31, 2009.

Excluded from the class are defendants and their officers,
directors, management, employees, parents, subsidiaries, and
affiliates, and federal government entities. Further excluded from
the class are persons or entities who have not purchased generic
versions of Wellbutrin XL during the class period after the
introduction of generic versions of Wellbutrin XL. The Court
granted in part and denied in part the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

After extensive discovery, briefing and oral argument, the Court
granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all but one
of the plaintiffs' claims, and deferred ruling on the remaining
claim. Following the summary judgment decision, the Company
entered into binding settlement arrangements with both plaintiffs'
classes to resolve all existing claims against the Company. The
total settlement amount payable is $49.25 million. In addition,
the Company will pay up to $500,000 toward settlement notice
costs. These charges were recognized in the second quarter of
2012, within Legal settlements and related fees in the
consolidated statements of (loss) income. The settlements require
Court approval. The direct purchaser class filed its motion for
preliminary approval of its settlement on July 23, 2012. The
hearing on final approval of that settlement took place on
November 7, 2012, with the Court granting final approval to the
settlement on that day. The hearing on final approval of the
settlement with the indirect purchasers took place in June 2013,
with the Court granting final approval to the settlement on July
22, 2013.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Wants 13 Solodyn Suits Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. filed a motion with
the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation seeking an order
transferring and consolidating 13 putative antitrust class action
cases over Solodyn, 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 July 22, 2013, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 &
Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, filed a civil
antitrust class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:13-CV-
04235-JCJ, against Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, the Company
and various manufacturers of generic forms of Solodyn, alleging
that the defendants engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to
exclude competition from the market for minocycline hydrochloride
extended release tablets, a prescription drug for the treatment of
acne marketed by Medicis under the brand name, Solodyn.  The
plaintiff further alleges that the defendants orchestrated a
scheme to improperly restrain trade, and maintain, extend and
abuse Medicis' alleged monopoly power in the market for
minocycline hydrochloride extended release tablets to the
detriment of plaintiff and the putative class of end-payor
purchasers it seeks to represent, causing them to pay overcharges.

Plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman
Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2, and of various state antitrust and
consumer protection laws, and further alleges that defendants have
been unjustly enriched through their alleged conduct.

Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and, where
applicable, treble, multiple, punitive and/or other damages,
including attorneys' fees.  Additional class action complaints
making similar allegations against all defendants, including
Medicis and the Company have been filed in various courts by other
private plaintiffs purporting to represent certain classes of
similarly-situated direct or end-payor purchasers of Solodyn
(Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., Case No. 2:13-CV-04270-JCJ
(E.D. Pa. filed July 23, 2013); Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund,
Case No. 2:13-CV-4642-JCJ (E.D.Pa. filed Aug. 9, 2013); Sheet
Metal Workers Local No. 25 Health & Welfare Fund, Case No. 2:13-
CV-4659-JCJ (E.D. Pa. filed Aug. 8, 2013); Fraternal Order of
Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, Case No.
2:13-CV-5021-JCJ (E.D. Pa. filed Aug. 27, 2013); Heather Morgan,
Case No. 2:13-CV-05097 (E.D. Pa. filed  Aug. 29, 2013); Plumbers &
Pipefitters Local 176 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, Case No. 2:13-
CV-05105 (E.D. Pa. filed Aug. 30, 2013); Ahold USA, Inc., Case No.
1:13-cv-12225 (D. Mass. filed Sept. 9, 2013); City of Providence,
Rhode Island, Case No. 2:13-cv-01952 (D. Ariz. filed Sept. 24,
2013); International Union of Operating Engineers Stationary
Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, Case No. 1:13-cv-
12435 (D. Mass. filed Oct. 2, 2013); Painters District Council No.
30 Health and Welfare Fund et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-12517 (D.
Mass. filed Oct. 7, 2013); Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund, Case
No. 13-cv-06266-JCJ (E.D. Pa. filed Oct. 25, 2013)).

On August 29, 2013, International Union of Operating Engineers
Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund voluntarily dismissed the class
action complaint it had originally filed on August 1, 2013, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, and on August 30, 2013, re-filed its class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:13-cv-05108). The
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and
Welfare Fund complaint makes similar allegations against all
defendants, including Medicis and the Company, and seeks similar
relief, to the other end-payor plaintiff complaints.  On October
11, 2013, Medicis and the Company filed a motion with the Judicial
Panel for Multidistrict Litigation seeking an order transferring
and consolidating the thirteen putative class action cases for
coordinated pretrial proceedings. The company is in the process of
evaluating the claims and plans to vigorously defend these
actions.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Jan. 16 Hearing Set in Suit Over Cold-FX
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An additional date was set for January 16, 2014, to finish
pleadings in a suit filed against Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. over Cold-FX, 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 March 9, 2012, a Notice of Civil Claim was filed in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia which seeks an order certifying a
proposed class proceeding against the Company and a predecessor,
Afexa. The proposed claim asserts that Afexa and the Company made
false representations respecting Cold-FX to residents of British
Columbia who purchased the product during the applicable period
and that the class has suffered damages as a result. The Company
filed its certification materials on February 6, 2013 and a
hearing on certification was held on September 3-6, 2013. An
additional date was set for January 16, 2014 to finish the
pleadings. The Company denies the allegations being made and is
vigorously defending this matter.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Medicis Awaits DC Court's Okay of Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia is
yet to approve settlement reached by Medicis Pharmaceutical
Corporation in a suit filed against it by female sales employees,
according to Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.'s Nov. 1,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In September, 2011, Medicis received a demand letter from counsel
purporting to represent a class of female sales employees alleging
gender discrimination in, among others things, compensation and
promotion as well as claims that the former management group
maintained a work environment that was hostile and offensive to
female sales employees. Related charges of discrimination were
filed prior to the end of 2011 by six former female sales
employees with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the
"EEOC"). Three of those charges have been dismissed by the EEOC
and the EEOC has made no findings of discrimination. Medicis
engaged in mediation with such former employees. On March 19,
2013, Medicis and counsel for the former employees signed an MOU
to settle this matter on a class-wide basis and resolve all claims
with respect thereto. In connection with the agreed-upon
settlement, Medicis would pay a specified sum and would pay the
costs of the claims administration up to an agreed-upon fixed
amount. Medicis would also implement certain specified
programmatic relief. The parties have signed a definite settlement
agreement in this matter. Approval of the settlement by the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia is pending.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Suits Over MoistureLoc Now Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
All matters under jurisdiction of the coordinated proceedings in
the Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina have
been dismissed, including individual actions for personal injury
and a class action purporting to represent a class of consumers
who suffered economic claims as a result of purchasing a contact
lens solution with MoistureLoc, according to Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.'s Nov. 1, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

Valeant also said that B&L has settled approximately 629 cases in
connection with MoistureLoc product liability suits. All but one
U.S. based fusarium claims have now been resolved and there are
less than five active fusarium claims involving claimants outside
of the United States that remain pending. The parties in these
active matters are involved in settlement discussions.


VITAS HEALTHCARE: Settles Labor Suit for $10.3 Million
------------------------------------------------------
Vitas Healthcare Corp. reached agreement subject to Court
approval, to settle a labor lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County for $10.3 million, 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.

VITAS is party to a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior
Court of California, Los Angeles County in September 2006 by
Bernadette Santos, Keith Knoche and Joyce White, Bernadette
Santos, et al. v. Vitas Healthcare Corporation of California,
BC359356.  This case alleges failure to pay overtime and failure
to provide meal and rest periods to a purported class of
California admissions nurses, chaplains and sales representatives.
The case seeks payment of penalties, interest and Plaintiffs'
attorney fees.

In December 2009, the trial court denied Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  In July 2011, the Court of Appeals affirmed
denial of class certification on the travel time, meal and rest
period claims, and reversed the trial court's denial on the off-
the-clock and sales representation exemption claims.  Plaintiffs
filed an appeal of this decision.  In September 2012, in response
to an order of reconsideration, the Court of Appeals reiterated
its previous rulings.  In March 2013, the Court granted summary
judgment dismissing the sales representatives' claims as they are
exempt employees.  In October 2013 the company reached agreement,
subject to Court approval, to settle the case for $10.3 million
plus applicable payroll taxes ($6.5 million after tax).  As such,
$10.5 million is recorded as other operating expense in the
quarter ended September 30, 2013 Statement of Income.


                             *********

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  * * *