/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/130718.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, July 18, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 140


ADVENTIST HEALTH: Suit Over Patient Data Breach Refiled
AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Suit in La. Over Defective Front Grills
AMERICAN ORIENTAL: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
APPLE INC: Norton Rose Discusses Privacy Class Action Ruling
APPLE INC: Porn Filter Suit Warning Sign of Class Actions

BAHRAIN AIR: Union Accuses Liquidator of Delaying Class Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Disputes HAMP Foreclosure Claims in Class Action
BARNHARDT MANUFACTURING: Judge Dismisses Spray Foam Class Action
BAYER INC: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Birth Control Device
BP PLC: Says Hundreds of Oil Spill Damage Claims Fictitious

CAFEPRESS INC: Being Investigated Over Securities Law Violations
CALIFORNIA: Sued Over Valley Fever That Kills Prisoners
CANADA: RCMP Veterans File Class Action Over Disability Benefits
CASH STORE: Faces Class Action in Quebec Over Internal Controls
CONNECTICUT COMMUNITY: Settles 2 Suits Over Madoff Scam

CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Continues to Defend Royalty Payments Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal From Fuel MDL Settlement Still Pending
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend "Ellis" Suit in California
DOLLAR THRIFTY: Court Refused to Dismiss Suit Over Extra Charges
EASYSAVER REWARDS: Center for Class Action Fairness Files Brief

EL GRECO: Two Workers File Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
ENVIVIO INC: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Suits in California
EXXON MOBIL: EPA Inspects Refinery Following Leak Complaints
FREDERICK'S OF HOLLYWOOD: Awaits Prelim. OK of "Weber" Suit Deal
FREDERICK'S OF HOLLYWOOD: In Talks With "Harvey-Smith" Parties

GENESIS HEALTHCARE: Ogletree Discusses FLSA Class Action Ruling
GRAND FALLS-WINDSOR: May Face Suit Over Salmon Festival Crowding
HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE: Norton Rose Discusses Accutane Suit Ruling
IGATE CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in California
INDIANA: BMV Starts to Issue Credits to Overcharged Hoosiers

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: NZ Woman Raises Awareness on Surgical Mesh Woes
LAC-MEGANTIC TRAIN: Rochon Genova Files Class Action
LAC-MEGANTIC TRAIN: Siskinds Mulls Class Action
LINN ENERGY: Kantrowitz Retained to File Securities Class Action
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: 6th Cir. Partially Revives Siding Class Action

LUCASFILM: Settles Class Action Over Anti-Poaching Conspiracy
MPG OFFICE: Levi & Korsinksy Files Class Action in Maryland
NAM TAI: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action in New York
NATIONAL FINANCIAL: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit
PILOT FLYING J: Prelim. Class Action Settlement Gets Court OK

PINELLAS COUNTY, FL: Sheriff Summoned in Lunch Break Suit Trial
PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Defends Consolidated Merger-Related Suit
PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN: Judge Rejects Driver Coverage Class Action
SAMSUNG TELECOM: Accused of Selling Defective Galaxy S Phones
SMARTHEAT INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit

ULTA SALON: Continues to Defend Employment Suit in California
UNITED STATES: Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae Shareholders File Suit
UROPLASTY INC: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in Minnesota
VODAFONE HUTCHISON: LCM Seeks "Ideal Plaintiffs" in Class Action
VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Continues to Defend "Oliveira" Suit vs. Unit

VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Still Awaits Decision in "Mato Grosso" Suit
VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Still Awaits Expert Report in Imbituba Suit
VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Still Awaits for Fla. AG and DOJs' Next Move
VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Still Defends Suit Alleging Cartel Formation
VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Still Negotiates to Settle Serra do Mar Suit

YELP INC: Business Owners Appeal Class Action Ruling

* Class Actions v. Asbestos Companies Not Possible in Russia
* Class Actions Challenge "Church Plan" Status of Pension Plans
* Class Actions Over Privacy Breach on the Rise
* Fraudsters Target Customers in Bank Fee Class Action
* Landscape of Arbitration Agreements Faces Significant Evolution


ADVENTIST HEALTH: Suit Over Patient Data Breach Refiled
Marianne Kolbasuk McGee, writing for HealthcareInfoSecurity,
reports that after a federal court dismissed a class action
lawsuit filed against Adventist Health System in the aftermath of
a data breach affecting 763,000 patients, another case was
immediately filed in a state court.

The lawsuit stems from a breach involving improper access by a
former emergency department worker to the electronic health
records of more than 763,000 patients.  Authorities say patient
information was sold for profit by the employee with a co-
conspirator to third parties who pitched legal and chiropractic
services to individuals injured in motor vehicle accidents.

The federal lawsuit sought unspecified damages for individuals
whose sensitive information was inappropriately accessed.  It also
asked the court to order Adventist to protect all data collected
in compliance with HIPAA and industry standards.  The suit filed
with a state court includes similar details.

In his July 3 order, Justice Roy B. Dalton of the U.S. District
Court, Middle District of Florida Orlando Division, dismissed the
lawsuit filed in the federal court in April, saying the matter
should be handled at the state level instead.  He cited "lack of
subject matter jurisdiction" related to the plaintiff's HIPAA

The attorneys who filed the federal lawsuit then immediately re-
filed the case in Orange County Circuit Court in Orlando on behalf
of Richard Faircloth against Adventist Health System/SunBelt Inc.

                       Not A Federal Case

"HIPAA does not provide a private right of action, so plaintiffs
generally bring health information privacy or security actions
under state law," explains privacy attorney Adam Greene, a partner
at Davis Wright Tremaine.  "The plaintiffs may allege that a
violation of HIPAA is evidence that the defendant violated state

Regarding the federal case filed against Adventist, Mr. Greene
says, "The court held that this implication of HIPAA is
insufficient to create jurisdiction in federal court."

In his ruling, Dalton wrote, "The plaintiff contends that this
[federal] court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this case
because his state law claims 'turn on substantial questions of
federal law, specifically whether [Adventist] violated HIPAA and
its associated regulations.'  The defendant argues that this court
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because the mere implication of
HIPAA in the plaintiff's state law claims does not mean that the
claims arise.  The court agrees with the defendant."

Many other class action lawsuits involving health data breaches
are pending in state, not federal, courts.  That includes a suit
against Sutter Health in California in the wake of a breach that
impacted 4.2 million patients.

Edmund Normand, an attorney for the plaintiff in the Adventist
case, told Information Security Media Group: "We will seek a
remedy for all state and federal violations in state court.  The
privacy of our medical and financial information is too important
to ignore massive security breaches, and our clients deserve the
privacy security that they paid for when they purchased the

Mayanne Downs, an attorney who's representing Adventist, declined
to comment on the lawsuit.

                         Center of Claim

The breach at the heart of Adventist lawsuit involved a former
emergency department worker at Florida Hospital Celebration, one
of 37 hospitals in Adventist's network.

Over a two-year period from 2009 to 2011, the worker improperly
accessed the electronic records of more than 763,000 patients
treated at several Florida Hospital locations and sold personal
information on about 12,000 patients to a co-conspirator, law
enforcement officials say.  That information was used to solicit
legal and chiropractic services for patients involved in motor
vehicle accidents, according to law enforcement officials.

The former hospital worker, Dale Munroe II, pleaded guilty and was
sentenced in January to a year in federal prison for selling
patient information he improperly accessed.

Two co-conspirators, Munroe's wife Katrina, who was a former
insurance worker at Florida Hospital Celebration, and Sergei
Kusyakov, who was involved with the operation of two Florida
chiropractic centers, also pleaded guilty.  Mr. Kusyakov, who
authorities allege paid Munroe for the stolen patient information,
was recently sentenced to four years in federal prison.  Katrina
Munroe is awaiting sentencing.

Mr. Normand did not provide a total for the number of individuals
expected to be part of the class action against Adventist.

"We do not have any class certified, but the related criminal
actions show many thousands were alleged to have had their data
integrity breached and some of them allegedly had data sold to
third parties according to the criminal allegations," he says.
"When a healthcare provider violates HIPPA and other medical
privacy laws, when they do not provide the acceptable standards
for data protection, then the health care provider has failed to
perform that aspect of the contract."

AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Suit in La. Over Defective Front Grills
David Schexnaydre, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. American Honda Motor Company Inc., Case No.
2:13-cv-05025-JTM-KWR (E.D. La., July 9, 2013), is brought on
behalf of a class of those who purchased or leased Honda Accord
and all other Honda models that have allegedly defective front
grills and air conditioning condensers.

According to the complaint, front grills are placed in front of
the condenser to protect it from damage by road debris.  However,
Mr. Schexnaydre contends, the Class Vehicles are defective in
design, construction and composition because the condenser is
placed in a position on the vehicles that is vulnerable to contact
from rocks, pebbles and other road debris during normal driving
conditions on paved roadways.  Despite the clear vulnerability of
the condenser and despite being on notice for many years about the
alleged defect, Honda failed to design and manufacture the Class
Vehicles in a manner that would provide protection to the
condenser, he argues.

David Schexnaydre is a resident of the City of Mandeville, in
Parish of St. Tammany, Louisiana.  He leased a 2011 Honda Accord
sedan on May 20, 2010.

Honda is an automobile design, manufacturing, financing and
servicing corporation doing business in all 50 states.  Honda
designs, manufactures, distributes, markets, services, repairs,
sells and leases passenger vehicles, including the Class Vehicles,

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Schexnaydre, Esq.
          68031 Capital Trace Row
          Mandeville, LA 70471
          Telephone: (985) 292-2020
          Facsimile: (985) 235-1089
          E-mail: dschexnaydre@pajares-schexnaydre.com

AMERICAN ORIENTAL: Awaits Order on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
American Oriental Bioengineering, Inc., awaits ruling on a motion
to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit pending in
California, according to the Company's June 11, 2013, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended December 31, 2012.

On June 22, 2012, a putative class action complaint was filed by
Kevin McGee against American Oriental Bioengineering Inc, Eileen
Brody, Binsheng Li, Yangchun Li, Tony Liu, Cosimo Patti, Xianmin
Wang, and Lawrence Wizel alleging violations of Section 10b of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and liability pursuant to Section
20(a) thereunder.  The gravamen of the complaint, as subsequently
amended centers on the accounting treatment of the sale of an
interest held by the Company's subsidiary, Nuo Hua Investment
Company Limited and the Company's Restatement filed on
November 14, 2011.  Several motions were filed for appointment as
lead plaintiff, and on October 16, 2012, the Court appointed lead
plaintiff, consolidated the cases, and ordered that a consolidated
complaint be filed, which occurred on November 19, 2012.  The
served defendants (AOB, Brody, Wizel and Patti) moved to dismiss
the consolidated complaint, and on March 25, 2013, those motions
were granted with leave to amend.

On April 15, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint, which the served Defendants moved to dismiss on May 15,
2013.  In the interim, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for leave to serve most of the remaining Defendants by alternative
means, and on May 15, 2013, the parties entered into a stipulation
consenting to the filing of a Third Amended Complaint ("TAC,"
setting forth no new paragraphs), deeming the TAC served on all
defendants, deeming the motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint interposed against the TAC, and reserving all rights of
the un-served Defendants.

American Oriental Bioengineering, Inc. -- http://www.bioaobo.com/
-- is a Beijing, China-based, vertically integrated pharmaceutical
company dedicated to improving health through the development,
manufacture and commercialization of a broad range of
pharmaceutical and healthcare products.  A majority of the
Company's current products are manufactured using plant based
materials.  The Company's business is comprised of prescription
pharmaceutical products, over-the-counter pharmaceutical products
and nutraceutical products.

APPLE INC: Norton Rose Discusses Privacy Class Action Ruling
Christine A. Carron, Esq. --
christine.carron@nortonrosefulbright.com -- at Norton Rose
Fulbright reports that the Quebec Superior Court recently
authorized a class action against Apple Inc. that is notable for
two reasons: first, it is one of the first Quebec class actions
based on alleged breaches of privacy and second, it sets a very
low bar for authorization.

In Gad Abilia c. Apple Inc. the court authorized a class action
alleging a deliberate breach of privacy by Apple.  Petitioner
claims Apple knowingly allowed third parties to design apps that
when downloaded would provide valuable personal information
without first informing users of this fact and obtaining their

This is one of the first class actions based on an infringement of
privacy rights outside the health sector.  In authorizing the
action, the court noted that if the allegations proved to be
correct, they would entitle class members to punitive damages,
even in the absence of compensatory damages.

The court also set the bar for certification extremely low.  In
doing so, it noted that the issue of which apps obtained informed
user consent prior to downloading personal information and which
invaded the privacy of users, are all issues that could be sorted
out on the merits.  Similarly, the fact the class was defined to
include all who had downloaded such apps, including those who
might have consented, was also an issue for the merits.

APPLE INC: Porn Filter Suit Warning Sign of Class Actions
Jon Hood, writing for Consumer Affairs, reports that Apple has
seen its share of litigation, but this may be the most interesting
suit yet.

Chris Sevier, 36 a Nashville lawyer and model, wants "all [of
Apple's] devices," including the iPhone, sold "in 'safe mode,'
with software preset to filter out pornographic content."

Mr. Sevier's trail of tears began when he bought a MacBook Pro,
which came with the web browser Safari already installed.
Mr. Sevier "accidentally misspelled 'facebook.com,'" according to
the complaint, "which lead [sic] him to 'fuc[*]book.com' and a
host of websites that caused him to see pornographic images that
appealed to his biological sensibilities as a male and lead [sic]
to an unwanted addiction with adverse consequences."

Mr. Sevier admits in the complaint that he "loves Apple . . . and
knows that it has good intent," and is certain that the company is
"concerned with the welfare of our Nation's children, while
furthering pro-American values."

Nevertheless, Mr. Sevier wants Apple to "set the example for all
device makers" and equip all of its devices with strict controls
on access to porn, requiring the user to "take proactive steps to
block pornographic images."

                  "Apple is hijacking great sex"

Among the reasons Mr. Sevier gives for his request are
"patriotism" ("American [sic] is in many respect [sic] a
lighthouse for the rest of the world to follow, arguably because
it was formed on Judeo-Christian values . . . Apple should set the
example for device makers all over the world . . ."); "knowledge"
("the burden to safe guard [sic] its consumers should fall on
Apple, not the purchasers who would otherwise not like to be
inflicted with the myriad of problems that stem from viewing
porn"); and that "Apple is hijacking great sex by failing to sell
its products in safe mode" ("pornography . . . obviously
encourages lust, which hijacks great sex, making the thrill of
engaging in deviant behavior the primary objective of

Whether any of these colorful opinions constitutes a legal cause
of action remains to be seen.

In his complaint, Mr. Sevier suggests that there will be a
groundswell of outrage if Apple does not comply with his
suggestion, writing that "Apple should see this lawsuit as a
warning sign of the class action lawsuits to follow in the event
Apple elects to resist the Plaintiff's reasonable request."

                  "Save . . . countless marriages"

Mr. Sevier insists in his complaint that he "is not a proponent of
legislating morality in the extreme," writing that "members of
society should not be prosecuted for 'being human.'" Nevertheless,
he says that porn controls on Mac devices could "save ...
countless marriages [and] impact generations to come."

The complaint, filed in federal court in Tennessee, alleges
fraudulent misrepresentation, products liability, outrageous
conduct and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and
negligent infliction of emotional distress.

BAHRAIN AIR: Union Accuses Liquidator of Delaying Class Action
Ahmed Al Omari, writing for Gulf Daily News, reports that a
liquidator has been accused of holding up a class action lawsuit
by hundreds of former Bahrain Air staff fighting for unpaid
severance packages.

Union leaders earlier agreed to a deal that would see staff get 24
days pay for every year they worked for the carrier, plus leave
and indemnity for foreign employees.

But 345 former employees are still waiting for half their money
six months after the airline went into voluntary liquidation.

The Bahrain Air Trade Union (BATU) planned to file a class action
lawsuit to increase pressure on shareholders to pay out.  But a
spokesman said it cannot be done without crucial documentation
that the legal liquidator, Mourad Consultancy, has not given them
access to.

"I have been trying for more than a week to file a single case
that includes all the 345 Bahrain Air staff but the court requires
several pieces of original documents," he said.

"The problem with that is that the legal liquidator has all the
original documents and, although we have the copies, the courts
require original documentation.

"The people at the court felt my frustration after multiple visits
and recommended that I get all Bahrain Air staff to file cases in
smaller groups of three to six people as less documentation will
be required.

"I have opened a case along with two other colleagues and I hope
all the other Bahrain Air staff do the same."

According to the unionist, more than 100 of the 345 Bahrain Air
staff are without work and morale is low as they believe the
country has turned its back on them.

"People seem to have forgotten about us and we have been lost in
all the bureaucracy," he said.

"The Labour Ministry was supposed to help us find alternative work
but it is a very long process and still there are so many of us
out of work -- more than 100 the last time I checked.

"It seems the company has done whatever it could to stop the
government from pressuring it to pay us.

"Although we have now begun to file cases, but because all the
cases are small there will be much less media coverage, and that
will make our cases go on for ages."

The airline earlier paid staff 40 per cent of their entitlement in
March and another 10pc in April, but BATU will now go to court as
the remaining 50pc was not handed over.

It is understood the outstanding severance packages amount to
BD1.1 million.

However, 34 former staff have not received any payout because they
filed compensation cases against the company before the liquidator
starting paying out settlements.

"When the settlement was signed with the liquidator at the Labour
Ministry it was made clear that all the staff would be paid their
remaining 50pc within three months following the sale of the
company assets, which are its spare parts," he said.

"That time has lapsed and the spare parts are still not sold so
what does that mean for all of us who put everything into this

Mourad Consultancy declined to comment on the class action

"For any information on any case you will have to ask the
employees themselves," said lawyer Mohammad Mourad.

BANK OF AMERICA: Disputes HAMP Foreclosure Claims in Class Action
Mark Gongloff, writing for The Huffington Post, reports that Bank
of America is fighting back in court against former employees who
claim the bank encouraged them to push homeowners into foreclosure
instead of the government's mortgage-relief program.

In a court filing on July 12 seeking to keep homeowners from
teaming up to file a class-action lawsuit, Bank of America's
lawyers said that the whistleblowers had "wildly misrepresented
their duties at the bank" and declared that the claims they made
were "impossible."

Last month, in support of the homeowners' lawsuit, seven former
bank employees filed sworn affidavits claiming that Bank of
America had encouraged them to push delinquent mortgage borrowers
looking for relief under the government's Home Affordable
Modification Program (HAMP) into foreclosures or in-house mortgage
modifications instead, so the bank could make more money.  Some of
the whistleblowers said that they had seen the bank offer rewards
to employees, including $500 cash bonuses and gift cards to Target
and Bed Bath and Beyond, for excellence in making borrowers' lives

Bank employees were encouraged to doctor bank records, delay HAMP
application processing and lie to customers in order to make this
happen, the whistleblowers claimed.  Bank employees who complained
about the system were fired, according to their affidavits.

In its response on July 12, Bank of America says the
whistleblowers had little or no involvement in processing HAMP
claims and so couldn't possibly have seen the kinds of things they
claim they saw. If such things existed, which they didn't, says
the bank.

"In sum, the declarants could not have witnessed what they claim
to have witnessed because they were not in a position to do so --
and would not have witnessed such things in any event because Bank
of America's actual practices were diametrically opposite," the
bank's court filing says.

The bank says that six of the seven whistleblowers were motivated
to lie because they had been fired for "inappropriate behavior,"
including threatening a coworker with violence, sending
inappropriate text messages and "bullying."

The whistleblowers could not immediately be reached for comment.

As Consumerist's Chris Morran points out, the bank does not try to
deny the claims of one ex-employee, who said she worked in
customer service and was instructed to tell every HAMP applicant
who called that their case was "under review," even if it had not
been touched in months or if their plea for loan modification had
already been rejected.

Bank of America was one of the big U.S. banks that settled federal
claims of abusive mortgage-foreclosure practices last year,
agreeing to pay nearly $12 billion and clean up its act.  In May,
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said he planned to sue
Bank of America and Wells Fargo for failing to live up to the
terms of that settlement in their handling of mortgages.

In its filing, Bank of America claims that "other employees" say
"the bank bent over backwards to help borrowers seeking HAMP
modifications" and that "employees were often contacted directly
by borrowers wishing to express thanks for their help on HAMP

BARNHARDT MANUFACTURING: Judge Dismisses Spray Foam Class Action
HarrisMartin reports that a federal judge has dismissed several
causes of action brought by homeowners against Barnhardt
Manufacturing Co. and an installer of Barnhardt's spray foam
insulation, but denied defendants' efforts to dismiss the class
action entirely or decline jurisdiction.

Judge DuBois of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania filed an order July 8 granting in part and denying
in part motions by Barnhardt and McGlaughlin Spray Foam
Insulation, but dismissed the individual causes of action without
prejudice and said plaintiffs could re-plead negligent
supervision, breach of express warranties and medical monitoring

BAYER INC: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Birth Control Device
Kevin Martin, writing for QMI Agency, reports that hundreds of
Alberta women may have been affected by an allegedly faulty birth-
control device, says a Calgary lawyer who has filed a class-action

Clint Docken said on July 12 the actual amount of damages in the
claim which currently seeks C$100 million will depend on how many
women come forward.

"We've heard from a number (already)," Mr. Docken said.  "I
suspect it's going to be in the hundreds."

The lawsuit, filed in Calgary Court of Queen's Bench on behalf of
a city woman, says the Mirena intrauterine device, marketed and
sold by Bayer Inc., has caused physical injuries.

"The biggest problem is this thing migrated right through the
uterus," Mr. Docken explained of the IUD's malfunction.

"That's a pretty arbitrary number," Mr. Docken said of the $100-
million figure.

The woman had the device inserted about two years ago, but had to
have it removed because of the discomfort and injuries she says it

BP PLC: Says Hundreds of Oil Spill Damage Claims Fictitious
Mica Rosenberg and Kathy Finn, writing for Reuters, report that
faced with hundreds of damage claims it says are fictitious and
inflated, BP must decide whether to dive into a protracted legal
battle it had sought to avoid when it settled a class action over
the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

The British oil giant asked the Fifth U.S. Circuit of Appeals in
New Orleans last week to halt the claims.  Should its challenge
before the three-judge panel fail, BP will face a choice: ask for
a hearing by all the court's judges, appeal to the U.S. Supreme
Court, or try picking off individual cases one by one, legal
experts say.

BP declined to comment on what its strategy would be.

At issue is how to interpret a 1,000-page settlement document BP
negotiated with a committee of lawyers working on behalf of
thousands of individuals and businesses affected by the Deepwater
Horizon rig explosion.  The blast killed 11 men and dumped
millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf in one of the country's
worst environmental disasters.

BP estimated the settlement, approved by a U.S. District Court in
Louisiana in 2012, would cost $7.8 billion, but the payouts may
end up ballooning to billions more.

The company has already paid more than $2 billion toward the
198,021 claims filed under the agreement.  Overall it says it
handed out over $10 billion to those affected by the spill and
around $14 billion in cleanup and response costs.

Several lawyers not involved in the case said BP should have known
it might be on the hook for more money and erred by agreeing to a
deal that had no payout cap.

BP said it stands by the settlement but insists the problem is the
person appointed by the court to dole out the money, Louisiana
trial lawyer Patrick Juneau.  The tussle is over how the
administrator is calculating the amount of business losses due to
the spill a claimant can be compensated for.  BP takes issue with
the time frame and the accounting methods Mr. Juneau is using.

Geoff Morrell, a BP spokesman, said Mr. Juneau's
"misinterpretation" of the agreement "has ignited a feeding frenzy
among trial lawyers attempting to secure money for themselves and
their clients that neither deserves."

In a statement, Mr. Juneau said, "the proper place to address
issues concerning the settlement agreement is in the courts."

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier of New Orleans, who is overseeing
the explosion of spill-related litigation, has repeatedly backed
Mr. Juneau's interpretation.

So BP appealed to the higher court.

                          Legal Options

At times during the oral arguments on July 8, the Fifth Circuit
judges threw tough comments at BP's lawyer Ted Olson, who served
as U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush.

"The parties can't come in and change the agreement after it's
been made," Judge James Dennis said.

There is no time limit for the Fifth Circuit to decide BP's
appeal.  If the three judges rule against BP, the company can ask
for what is called an "en banc" hearing at the same court but in
front of all the Fifth Circuit judges.

Fewer than 3 percent of en banc hearing requests are granted,
according to the Fifth Circuit's website.

Also built into the settlement agreement itself is an internal
appeal process that BP can use to challenge individual payments it
believes were excessive and victims can use if they feel they were
wrongly denied.

Internal appeal panels are chosen by Judge Barbier from a list of
nominees put forward by both sides.  Thousands of appeals have
already been filed this way. The process can be costly: There is a
filing fee, and if the ruling goes against BP, the company is
required to pay 5 percent over and above the original damage

If either side is not satisfied with the decision of the internal
panel, they can ask Judge Barbier to take up a discretionary
review on a case-by-case basis.

Joseph Rice, a lawyer who spent a year and a half debating the
settlement terms with BP on behalf of the plaintiffs, said BP has
taken a handful of cases to this stage, but Judge Barbier has not
chosen to hear them yet.

If all else fails, of course, there is always the highest court in
the land.  That would be a long shot for BP.

Arthur Miller, an expert on civil litigation at New York
University, doubts it will go that far, saying the Supreme Court
prefers to hear cases that set legal precedent and are not focused
on narrow contract questions.  "This is a one-off situation."

Settling in the first place was meant to help BP avoid drawn-out
litigation, like the 20-year legal brawl over the 1989 Exxon
Valdez spill off Alaska.  Claimants who opted in to BP's deal gave
up their right to sue the company later.

The contested settlement replaced a process overseen by Kenneth
Feinberg, an attorney who managed compensation for the victims of
the September 11 attacks.  Some plaintiffs were upset that damage
awards under Feinberg were not flowing fast enough, and both sides
agreed it would be better to settle.

Judge Barbier is also overseeing a separate, multi-billion-dollar
case to determine BP's federal pollution fines under the Clean
Water Act, with potentially much higher liabilities.  The second
phase of that trial begins in September.

CAFEPRESS INC: Being Investigated Over Securities Law Violations
Two law firms have announced that they are investigating CafePress
Inc. on behalf of those who purchased the Company's securities.
The Firms -- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith and Holzer Holzer &
Fistel, LLC -- are looking into whether the Company violated
securities laws by issuing false statements in connection with its
March 29, 2012 initial public offering.

                   Howard G. Smith's Statement

Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that it is investigating
potential claims on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
CafePress, Inc. ("CafePress" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:PRSS)
concerning possible violations of federal securities laws.  The
investigation focuses on allegations that certain statements
issued by the Company between March 28, 2012, and July 30, 2012,
regarding CafePress's business, operations and financial condition
were false and misleading.

CafePress operates an e-commerce platform enabling customers to
create, buy and sell various customized and personalized products
worldwide.  The investigation relates to the Company's July 30,
2012 announcement that the Company's net loss for the 2012 fiscal
second quarter had increased -- to $260,000, or 2 cents per share,
from $129,000, or 1 cent per share, a year earlier -- and that the
Company was lowering its guidance forecast moving forward.  On
this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $5.61 per share,
or 40.95%, to close on July 31, 2012, at $8.09 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

If you purchased CafePress's securities between March 28, 2012,
and July 30, 2012, if you have information or would like to learn
more about these claims, or if you wish to discuss these matters
or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard
G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol
Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at
(215) 638-4847, Toll Free at (888) 638-4847, or by e-mail to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit the firm's Web site at

               Holzer Holzer & Fistel's Statement

Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC is investigating whether CafePress
Inc. and/or certain of its officers complied with the federal
securities laws in issuing statements in connection with its
initial public offering of March 29, 2012.  Specifically, the
investigation focuses on statements issued by CafePress in its
Registration Statement and IPO Prospectus regarding competition
and the nature of its business.

If you purchased CafePress common stock between May 28, 2012, and
July 31, 2012, and suffered losses on that investment, you are
encouraged to contact Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC and its
attorneys Michael I. Fistel Jr., Esq. or Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
via e-mail at mfistel@holzerlaw.com, or mdees@holzerlaw.com, or
via toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 regarding your legal

Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC is an Atlanta, Georgia law firm that
dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders
and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder
class action and derivative litigation.  More information about
the firm is available through its Web site,
http://www.holzerlaw.com/and upon request from the firm.

CALIFORNIA: Sued Over Valley Fever That Kills Prisoners
Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reports that 40
people have died of valley fever in the past seven years in two
California prisons in the San Joaquin Valley, inmates say in a
federal class action.

Valley fever, Coccidioidomycosis, is an incurable, debilitating,
infectious lung disease caused by inhalation of an airborne

Seventy percent of the reported cases of valley fever in
California from 1991 through 1993 arose in the San Joaquin Valley,
according to a 1994 "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report" by the
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Seven inmates and former inmates who contracted the disease at
either Avenal State Prison or Pleasant Valley State Prison filed
the class action against Gov. Jerry Brown, the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation, and prison officials.

Avenal State Prison (ASP) and Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP)
are 10 miles away from each other in Avenal and Coalinga.

The plaintiffs claim that California has done nothing to prevent
high-risk prisoners, including African Americans and people 55 and
older, from contracting the disease.

The complaint states: "Coccidioidomycosis (commonly known as
'Valley Fever' or 'San Joaquin Valley Fever' or simply 'cocci')
has long been known as a serious infectious disease which is
contracted by the inhalation of an airborne fungus, 'Coccidioides
Immitis.'  Cocci is endemic in the soil of various areas of the
Southwest.  Nowhere is it more prevalent however, than in the San
Joaquin Valley of California; i.e., Fresno and Kings Counties....

"It is well known that disseminated Coccidioidomycosis is
progressive, painful, and debilitating, and that it is uniformly
fatal once it progresses to meningitis, if left untreated."

The disease does not have a vaccine or an absolute cure.
Treatments include surgical excision of tissue and bone, or taking
the drug Fluconazole every day for life, plaintiffs say.

"Epidemiological studies have established that, for unknown
reasons, African-Americans, persons over the age of 55, and those
in an immune-compromised state are at higher risk for developing
the disseminated form of Coccidioidomycosis.  [In fact, for
African-Americans, the risk is tenfold that of the general
population.]," plaintiffs say in the complaint.  (Brackets in

Plaintiffs sued on behalf of three subclasses: African Americans,
people 55 and older, and people who are immune-compromised who
have been incarcerated at Pleasant Valley or Avenal prisons since
July 8, 2009, and who have contracted Valley Fever.

The defendants have been aware since at least 2006 that Valley
Fever attacks prison inmates within these subclasses, but have
failed to take adequate steps to protect them from the disease,
plaintiffs say.

"Approximately 40 inmates in the custody and control of defendants
have died from cocci complications within the past seven years,"
according to the complaint.

A 2007 article in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
"pointed out that the construction of new prisons in affected
areas has led to a marked increase in the number of cocci cases
and identified the high infection rates at these facilities," the
complaint states.

It continues: "In the previous year, 2006, the California State
Public Health Department ('SPHD') published a formal study and
report on cocci.  Preventative measures were identified, however,
the great majority of these measures were never implemented at any
state prison facility, nor at either PSVP or ASP."

The state failed to screen for inmates who are at high risk for
valley fever and place them at facilities other than Pleasant
Valley and Avenal prisons, the plaintiffs say.

Without keeping high-risk individuals out of these prisons or
taking measures to prevent their exposure to the disease, "the
incarceration of the subclasses at PVSP and ASP was the equivalent
of conducting a human medical experiment on the inmates, without
their consent.  While the great percentage of inmates might be
expected to survive the disease, for an unacceptable percentage of
inmates, including the plaintiff subclasses identified here,
assignment to these facilities was a potential death sentence,"
plaintiffs say in the complaint.

Once infected people are released from the prison system, they are
on their own, without any compensation for the "additional
punishment that has been unfairly added to their sentences,"
plaintiffs say.

"Moreover, once released from defendants' custody, no health care
system or assistance is provided by defendants to assist the
plaintiff subclasses with the overwhelming cost and hazards
associated with their illness.  The defendants simply absolve
themselves of all responsibility, leaving these former inmates who
are African-Americans, over-55, and/or immune-compromised to fend
for themselves in their attempt to obtain health-care for an
illness that -- if left untreated -- is uniformly fatal,"
plaintiffs say in the complaint.

Two weeks ago, U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson ordered state
corrections officials to move 2,600 high-risk inmates out of
Avenal and Pleasant Valley prisons in an attempt to deal with the
Valley Fever problem.  The state has 90 days from the date of the
order to move the prisoners.

It is unclear whether this development will have any affect on
plaintiffs' lawsuit.

Named as defendants are the State of California, Gov. Edmund
Brown, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(CDCR), CDCR Secretary Matthew Cate, CDCR Secretary Jeffrey Beard,
PVSP Warden P.D. Brazelton, AVSP Warden James Hartley, and
California Correctional Health Care Services.

Plaintiffs seek punitive damages and a comprehensive, court-
supervised medical monitoring program for the subclasses.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Paul Gignac, Esq.
          Mike Montalban Arias, Esq.
          6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 670-1600
          Facsimile: (310) 670-1231
          E-mail: j.paul@aogllp.com

               - and -

          Ian Michael Wallach, Esq.
          Jason Kenneth Feldman, Esq.
          606 Venice Boulevard, Suite C
          Venice, CA 90291
          Telephone: (310) 577-2001
          Facsimile: (310) 564-2004
          E-mail: ian@feldmanwallach.com

The case is Jackson, et al. v. State of California, et al., Case
No. 1:13-cv-01055-LJO-SAB, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California.

CANADA: RCMP Veterans File Class Action Over Disability Benefits
The Canadian Press reports that wounded RCMP veterans are pressing
the federal government to stop clawing back their disability

Former Nova Scotia and Newfoundland Mountie David White has
launched a class-action lawsuit against the government to stop the

Mr. White says the clawback is costing him nearly $1,300 per
month.  Mr. White, who served for more than 20 years, is the
representative plaintiff in a class-action suit started in 2008.
It could represent up to 1,000 Mounties.  He suffered hearing loss
and developed sound sensitivity a decade ago in two service-
related accidents in the mid-1990s and 2001.

The incidents led to his involuntary release from the RCMP in
2002, for which he was given a pain and suffering pension from
Veterans Affairs and long-term disability for several hearing
impairments linked to his 30 years of service.

But Mr. White and other injured RCMP members say most of that
money is clawed back under a system similar to one that a judge
deemed harsh and unfair in a class-action lawsuit by military
veterans, but which still applies to the police veterans.

As months drag on, he says aging and injured RCMP veterans are
dying before they see any money returned to them.

"It's disappointing," Mr. White said at his lawyer's office in
downtown Halifax.

"Some of our veterans are suffering and the clawback being stopped
is definitely going to help them.  They're getting older and it
would be nice to have it resolved before too long."
RCMP want same consideration as injured military vets

Dan Wallace, Mr. White's lawyer, was set to meet with federal
attorneys on July 15 in the hopes of crafting a deal for injured
RCMP veterans who have seen their awards heavily skimmed off since

Mr. Wallace, who also handled the protracted military veterans'
case, said several meetings with Justice Department lawyers have
been cancelled over the last year and a settlement has not been
proposed for a class that could number around 800 people.

He says it's not clear why Ottawa has allowed the case to drag on
after a Federal Court judge ruled in May 2012 that Canadian Forces
veterans should not have their awards clawed back because the
money is not income.

"People need the money and people are dying, so it would be nice
for them to see the day when it ends," Mr. Wallace said.

"It's really a question of dignity for a lot of these folks, so we
hope the government will do the right thing."

The need to move it along became clear in 2009 with the death of
Gerard Buote, the man who initiated the case a year earlier.  Soon
after, White took over as the lead plaintiff.

Mr. Wallace says if the meeting fails to produce proposals to
settle the matter and end the clawback, the group will head to
court in the fall to have the case certified as a class action.
He says he's heard from about 200 people so far who want to join.

Pierre-Alain Bujold, a spokesman with the Treasury Board, said in
an email that he wouldn't comment on the case because it is before
the courts.

Both the Royal Canadian Legion and the Veterans Ombudsman have
urged Ottawa to end the practice, calling it unfair and
unnecessary in the wake of the Federal Court decision.

Mr. White was diagnosed with tinnitus, which causes a steady
ringing in his ears, hearing loss and hyperacusis, which
effectively makes every sound -- like the turning of a page or
water dripping -- extremely loud.

He wears several devices, including hearing aids, earplugs and a
machine, to deaden the sound but says nothing can take away the
steady thrum in his ears.

"I deal with this every day," he says.  "I was medically
discharged from the RCMP, I was unable to work, I can't go to
large sporting events or anything where there's noise.  But the
income that I'm supposed to get from a disability pension is
considered wage loss . . . and I lose it and that doesn't make
sense to me."

The government reduces RCMP veterans' long-term disability
benefits by the amount of their disability pension.

Mr. White was assessed by Veterans Affairs at being 42% disabled
and has $1,297 disability benefits.  He gets the remaining $67 per
month.  He estimates that he's lost $100,000 since he was released
from the force.

Mr. Wallace says he will ask for a return of all money that was
clawed back, with interest.

About 8,000 wounded military veterans were awarded a $887.8-
million dollar settlement after former army sergeant Dennis Manuge
launched a class-action suit against Ottawa in 2007.

CASH STORE: Faces Class Action in Quebec Over Internal Controls
The Cash Store Financial Services Inc. on July 16 disclosed that a
proposed class action proceeding has been commenced in Quebec
against the Company and certain of its present and former
directors and officers.  The claim is substantially similar to the
recently announced proposed class action proceedings in New York,
Alberta and Ontario and the previously disclosed complaint filed
by Globis Capital Partners L.P.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Company made
misrepresentations during the period from November 24, 2010 to
May 24, 2013 regarding the Company's internal controls and
financial reporting and the third-party loan portfolio

The Company plans to defend itself vigorously against what it
believes are unfounded allegations.

The Company acknowledges that substantially similar class actions
may continue to be commenced in Alberta, Ontario, New York and
Quebec, as well as other jurisdictions.  To the extent that such
substantially similar proceedings are commenced, the Company will
provide disclosure in its quarterly and annual filings.

                   About Cash Store Financial

Headquartered in Edmonton, Alberta, The Cash Store Financial is
the only lender and broker of short-term advances and provider of
other financial services in Canada that is listed on the Toronto
Stock Exchange (TSX: CSF).  Cash Store Financial also trades on
the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: CSFS).  Cash Store Financial
operates 512 branches across Canada under the banners "Cash Store
Financial" and "Instaloans".  Cash Store Financial also operates
25 branches in the United Kingdom.

Cash Store Financial is a Canadian corporation that is not
affiliated with Cottonwood Financial Ltd. or the outlets
Cottonwood Financial Ltd. operates in the United States under the
name "Cash Store".  Cash Store Financial does not do business
under the name "Cash Store" in the United States and does not own
or provide any consumer lending services in the United States.

Cash Store Financial employs approximately 1,900 associates.

CONNECTICUT COMMUNITY: Settles 2 Suits Over Madoff Scam
James Sterngold, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
in one of the first lawsuits to go to trial involving Bernard L.
Madoff's massive fraud, a group of investors is nearing a
settlement with a Connecticut bank that they said should have
uncovered the Ponzi scheme years before it collapsed, according to
a lawyer involved in the cases whose clients aren't settling.

The tentative settlement, reached just as the two sides were about
to deliver closing arguments, may return a fraction of the $60
million that the investors said they lost.  But any sums could be
a blow for the bank, Connecticut Community Bank and its branch,
Westport National Bank, which are controlled by William R.
Berkley, chairman of a large insurance company.

The bank, which has reported losses for the last four years, also
faces a $28 million lawsuit from the trustee overseeing the
liquidation of Mr. Madoff's securities firm and it is operating
under a formal order from the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency demanding operational improvements as a result of what
the regulator said were "unsafe and unsound" practices and
violations of the law, according to a notice on the comptroller's

Bill Mahone, the bank's general counsel, declined to comment on
any of the suits.  A spokesman for Mr. Berkley's insurance
company, W.R. Berkley Corp., and Mr. Berkley's son, W. Robert
Berkley Jr., who is the insurance company's president and a
shareholder in the bank, didn't return calls or emails.

The bank has maintained in the trial that it had few
responsibilities beyond keeping records based on the fictitious
accounts provided by Mr. Madoff's firm, handling occasional
requests for redemptions and collecting fees.

Mr. Madoff is serving a 150- year sentence in federal prison.  The
bankruptcy trustee, Irving Picard, has recovered $9.35 billion for
investors so far.  The customers of the Connecticut bank haven't
been able to seek any recovery from Mr. Picard because technically
they weren't direct customers of Mr. Madoff's firm

The bank held money as custodian from more than 100 customers and
had invested about $60 million in Mr. Madoff's firm, one of the
largest Ponzi schemes in history, according to the suits.  The
money was lost after Mr. Madoff admitted to the scheme in December
2008, and his fund collapsed.

Since the investors were legally customers of the bank, not Mr.
Madoff's firm, they sued Connecticut Community Bank, alleging that
it failed to take any steps to verify that Mr. Madoff actually
held their assets and was earning the steady returns he claimed.

The officer who oversaw the accounts testified in the trial, which
began in June in U.S. District Court in Hartford, that he had
received bundles of trading records from Mr. Madoff but had tucked
them in files without verifying them.

There were three separate federal suits by the customers, and a
fourth in state court in Connecticut.  The plaintiffs came from a
range of states including Florida, New York, Ohio and Texas.  The
three federal cases were tried together, and the state case is

Customers in two of the three federal suits agreed to settle
according to an email that was circulated on July 12, said Steven
Gard, a lawyer for the plaintiffs in the one case that declined a
settlement.  The tentative settlements include the state case.
The dollar amounts haven't been disclosed, Mr. Gard said, and
since one of the federal suits was a class action it would require
the judge's approval.

Closing arguments in Mr. Gard's case, which covers two bank
customers from Florida, are scheduled for Monday. His clients are
seeking the return of about $1.2 million, he said.

The other lawyers in the case, for the plaintiffs and the
defendants, declined to comment on a settlement.

The settlement and a possible verdict in the remaining lawsuit, as
well as the bankruptcy trustee's suit, could come at a bad time
for the bank.

It reported $39 million in capital as of March 31, according to
the latest data available on the website of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corp.  From 2009 through the first quarter of this year,
the bank, which operates in one of the wealthiest areas of the
Northeast, lost $21 million, according to the FDIC data.

The bank doesn't have liability insurance to cover any payments
made from the Madoff case, according to court documents.  Its
coverage was canceled in this case because of an exemption for
bankruptcies like Mr. Madoff's firm, according to court records.
The bank sued its insurer but lost and the judgment was upheld
after an appeal in 2011, according to the records.

In 2009, the bank signed a 26-page formal written agreement with
the Comptroller after an examination found unsafe and unsound
banking practices, relating to credit and compliance risk
management, and violations of the law at the bank, according to
the document.  The agreement doesn't detail the violations but it
requires better board oversight and improved operations in every
aspect of the business.

CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Continues to Defend Royalty Payments Suit
Constellation Energy Partners LLC continues to defend itself and a
subsidiary against a class action lawsuit over royalty payments,
according to the Company's May 31, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Jerry and Betty Wattenbarger, and Patricia Webb have filed a Class
Action petition against Constellation Energy Partners LLC (CEP),
Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent, Inc., and CEP Mid-Continent,
LLC (CEPMC), a subsidiary of the Company, alleging they own oil,
gas and mineral interests in lands and wells located in Nowata
County, Oklahoma, subject to oil and gas leases owned and operated
by Newfield, CEPMC or CEP and that the Defendants have underpaid
royalties due and owing on the true value received or that should
have been received by the Defendants for production from the
Wattenbargers' and Webb's mineral interests.  The lawsuit is
captioned Jerry and Betty Wattenbarger and Patricia Webb,
Individually and as Class Representatives on behalf of all
similarly situated persons v. Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent,
Inc., CEP Mid-Continent, LLC and Constellation Energy Partners,

The Wattenbargers and Webb have alleged, among other things,
breach of implied covenant to market; breach of express and
implied lease obligations; violation of statutory law; breach of
duty of good faith and fair dealing and of the duty to act as a
reasonably prudent operator; breach of fiduciary duty;
constructive fraud and failure to disclose facts surrounding
deductions made from royalty payments.  The Wattenbargers and Webb
seek certification of a statewide class of plaintiffs, specify
that class claims against CEPMC and CEP relate to the proper
payment for production occurring on or after February 1, 2007, and
limit damage claims against all Defendants to no more than $75,000
with respect to each Plaintiff and no more than $5 million in the
aggregate for the Plaintiffs and the individual putative class
members, in each case exclusive of interest and costs, but
inclusive of any attorneys' fees.

On December 1, 2011, this lawsuit was removed upon motion of the
Defendants from the District Court of Nowata County, Oklahoma, to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma.  CEPMC and CEP filed their Answer to the Plaintiffs'
petition on December 28, 2011, and filed a motion to defer class
certification filings and proceedings on November 2, 2012, pending
an appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals addressing class
certification orders in two royalty underpayment cases unrelated
to this lawsuit.  On November 28, 2012, the Northern District
Court granted CEPMC and CEP's motion to strike the Scheduling
Order and motion to stay with the parties free to discuss
settlement and to conduct discovery as to issues relevant to
settlement discussions and jurisdiction matters.

On January 21, 2013 CEPMC and CEP filed Responses to the
Wattenbargers and Webb's Second Request for Production of

CEPMC and CEP intend to vigorously defend themselves in the
lawsuit.  Until the matter progresses further, the Company is
unable to assess the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or to
estimate the amount or range of any possible loss to CEPMC or CEP.

Houston, Texas-based Constellation Energy Partners LLC is a
limited liability company formed in 2005 to acquire oil and
natural gas reserves.  All of the Company's oil and natural gas
reserves are currently located in the Mid-Continent region of the
United States, including the Cherokee Basin of Kansas and
Oklahoma, the Woodford Shale in Oklahoma, and the Central Kansas
Uplift in Kansas.

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal From Fuel MDL Settlement Still Pending
Numerous putative class actions have been brought around the
United States against motor fuel retailers, including Costco
Wholesale Corporation, alleging that they have been overcharging
consumers by selling gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60
degrees without adjusting the volume sold to compensate for heat-
related expansion or disclosing the effect of such expansion on
the energy equivalent received by the consumer.  The Company is
named in the following actions: Raphael Sagalyn, et al., v.
Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 7-430 (D. Md.); Phyllis
Lerner, et al., v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al., Case No.
7-1216 (C.D. Cal.); Linda A. Williams, et al., v. BP Corporation
North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 7-179 (M.D. Ala.); James
Graham, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
7-193 (E.D. Va.); Betty A. Delgado, et al., v. Allsups,
Convenience Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 7-202 (D.N.M.); Gary
Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 7-285 (D.
Nev.); Mark Rushing, et al., v. Alon USA, Inc., et al., Case No.
6-7621 (N.D. Cal.); James Vanderbilt, et al., v. BP Corporation
North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 6-1052 (W.D. Mo.); Zachary
Wilson, et al., v. Ampride, Inc., et al., Case No. 6-2582 (D.
Kan.); Diane Foster, et al., v. BP North America Petroleum, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 7-2059 (W.D. Tenn.); Mara Redstone, et al., v.
Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 7-20751 (S.D. Fla.); Fred
Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast Products LLC, et al., Case No. 7-
1534 (N.D. Cal.); J.C. Wash, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.;
Case No. 4:7cv37 (E.D. Mo.); Jonathan Charles Conlin, et al., v.
Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 7 317 (M.D. Tenn.); William
Barker, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 7-cv-293
(D.N.M.); Melissa J. Couch, et al. v. BP Products North America,
Inc., et al., Case No. 7cv291 (E.D. Tex.); S. Garrett Cook, Jr.,
et al., v. Hess Corporation, et al., Case No. 7cv750 (M.D. Ala.);
Jeff Jenkins, et al. v. Amoco Oil Company, et al., Case No. 7-cv-
661 (D. Utah); and Mark Wyatt, et al., v. B. P. America Corp., et
al., Case No. 7-1754 (S.D. Cal.).

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
assigned the action, entitled In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840, to Judge Kathryn Vratil
in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.
On April 12, 2009, the Company agreed to settle the actions in
which it is named as a defendant.  Under the settlement, the
Company agreed, to the extent allowed by law, to install over five
years from the effective date of the settlement temperature-
correcting dispensers in the States of Alabama, Arizona,
California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Nevada, New Mexico, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia.
Other than payments to class representatives, the settlement does
not provide for cash payments to class members.  On September 22,
2011, the court preliminarily approved a revised settlement, which
did not materially alter the terms.

On April 24, 2012, the court granted final approval of the revised
settlement.  A class member who objected has filed a notice of
appeal from the order approving the settlement.  The Plaintiffs
have moved for an award of $10 million in attorneys' fees, as well
as an award of costs and payments to class representatives.  The
Company has opposed the motion.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 11, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 12, 2013.

Costco Wholesale Corporation and its subsidiaries operate
membership warehouses based on the concept that offering members
low prices on a limited selection of nationally branded and select
private-label products in a wide range of merchandise categories
will produce high sales volumes and rapid inventory turnover.  The
Issaquah, Washington-based Company also operates online businesses
at costco.com in the U.S., costco.ca in Canada, and costco.co.uk
in the U.K.

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend "Ellis" Suit in California
Costco Wholesale Corporation continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit titled Shirley "Rae" Ellis v. Costco
Wholesale Corp., according to the Company's June 11, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended May 12, 2013.

A case brought as a class action on behalf of certain present and
former female managers, in which plaintiffs allege denial of
promotion based on gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and California state law, Shirley "Rae" Ellis
v. Costco Wholesale Corp., United States District Court (San
Francisco), Case No. C-4-3341-MHP.  The Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief,
interest, and attorneys' fees.  Class certification was granted by
the district court on January 11, 2007.  On September 16, 2011,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed
the order of class certification and remanded to the district
court for further proceedings.  On September 25, 2012, the
district court certified a class of women in the United States
denied promotion to warehouse general manager or assistant general
manager since January 3, 2002.  Currently the class is believed to
be approximately 1,150 people.  A trial has been set for January

Costco Wholesale Corporation and its subsidiaries operate
membership warehouses based on the concept that offering members
low prices on a limited selection of nationally branded and select
private-label products in a wide range of merchandise categories
will produce high sales volumes and rapid inventory turnover.  The
Issaquah, Washington-based Company also operates online businesses
at costco.com in the U.S., costco.ca in Canada, and costco.co.uk
in the U.K.

DOLLAR THRIFTY: Court Refused to Dismiss Suit Over Extra Charges
William Dotinga, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Dollar Rent a Car must face class-action claims that its practice
of tacking extra charges onto contracts violates consumer law, a
federal judge found.

Sandra McKinnon and Kristen Tool sued Dollar Thrifty Automotive
Group, an Oklahoma-based rental car company with more than 835
locations in the United States, after renting vehicles in Oklahoma
and California, respectively.

The women claimed that they orally declined additional services
like liability insurance, but that Dollar employees misled them
into checking boxes on the electronic pad that added the services
onto their contracts.  They claim in their class action that
Dollar relies "on the hustle and rush of airports to send their
customers away without having reviewed their rental charges,
thereby giving Dollar a basis for claiming that their customers
routinely agree to the add-on charges."

Additionally, McKinnon and Tool allege that Dollar built its
business model on incentivizing the practice, by paying its agents
minimum wage but offering a 12 percent commission on add-ons and
threatening to fire employees who fail to average 30 up-sales per
day.  The women brought actions for violations of California's
unfair competition law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, a
violation of a similar Oklahoma consumer law, and breach of
contract and implied covenant.

Dollar moved to dismiss the class action, largely on grounds that
California law does not apply to out-of-state companies and
transactions.  The Company also argued that the contract on which
McKinnon and Tool relied -- the online reservation -- does not
constitute a true and final contract, which the women received
when they picked up their vehicles.

U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti agreed that the unlawfulness
prong of California unfair competition claim cannot apply to out-
of-state transactions.  Since Dollar's business practices could
amount to a nationwide scheme to trick customers, however, that
defeats the presumption against extraterritoriality as to the
unfair and fraudulent prongs of the state law.

"Plaintiffs' pleadings have raised new facts suggesting that the
court's analysis should change -- specifically, plaintiffs explain
how Ms. McKinnon was harmed by reserving a car in California,
being promised a certain price, and then being defrauded by a
widespread scheme that defendants have engineered to produce
exactly the outcome she suffered," Conti wrote.

Dollar's alleged conduct in California "does not only amount to
the provision of a price quote and the completion of an automated
reservation process," the judge continued.  "Based on plaintiffs'
reasonably specific pleadings, defendants have a national scheme
involving providing low reservation rates and then tricking
customers into paying more once they pick up their cars.
Plaintiffs' second amended complaint sufficiently makes clear that
the presumption against extraterritoriality does not apply to
limit plaintiffs' action in this case, and that defendants'
conduct is more than mere endemic dishonesty -- it is actionable
under the unfair competition law as an unfair and fraudulent
business practice."

Conti also found that Dollar's confirmation of an online
reservation is a contract since it contains prices that must be

"Plaintiffs agreed, through a contract of adhesion, to pay what
they thought was a fair price -- after all, if they knew that
defendants would defraud them and make them pay more money, they
would have rented cars from a more honest dealer," Conti wrote.
"Defendants' refusal to honor the confirmation price in any way,
and in fact to convince plaintiffs of the price's validity and
then to alter it secretly, was a breach."

Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group is a Fortune 1000 company, formed
by Chrysler in 1990.  Hertz acquired the Company in late 2012 for
$2.3 billion.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          1 Sansome Street, 35th Floor, PMB #131
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 860-2503
          Facsimile: (888) 331-9633
          E-mail: alan@clgca.com

               - and -

          Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
          380 Madison Avenue, 23rd Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 447-7070
          Facsimile: (212) 447-7077
          E-mail: jwhatley@wdklaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
          60 State Street, 7th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 573-5118
          Facsimile: (212) 447-7077
          E-mail: psheehan@watleykallas.com

               - and -

          Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
          10200 Willow Creek Road, Suite 160
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (619) 308-5034
          Facsimile: (888) 341-5048
          E-mail: alan@clgca.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Peter S. Hecker, Esq.
          Four Embarcadero Center, Seventeenth Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
          Telephone: (415) 434-9100
          Facsimile: (415) 434-3947
          E-mail: phecker@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          John Ward, Esq.
          Ross B. Bricker, Esq.
          353 N. Clark St.
          Chicago, IL 60654-3456
          Telephone: (312) 222-9350
          Facsimile: (312) 840-7650
          E-mail: jward@jenner.com

               - and -

          Kenneth E. Keller, Esq.
          555 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 249-8330
          Facsimile: (415) 249-8333
          E-mail: kkeller@kksrr.com

The case is McKinnon, et al. v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-04457-SC, in U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

EASYSAVER REWARDS: Center for Class Action Fairness Files Brief
Ted Frank, an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute Center for
Legal Policy, in an article for PointofLaw.com, reports that in
February, the district court approved the coupon settlement in In
re EasySaver Rewards Litigation and an $8.85M attorney award, and
the Center for Class Action Fairness filed an appeal on behalf of
its objector client.  On July 12, the Center for Class Action
Fairness filed its opening brief, with the following issues

    1. The Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") expressly
contemplates and sets forth rules for coupon settlements that
include relief other than coupons. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1712.  Did the
district court err as a matter of law in holding that CAFA did not
apply to a coupon settlement because it also paid class members a
total of about $225,000 in cash?

    2(a). 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1712 requires that a court calculating an
attorney fee for a "proposed settlement in a class action [that]
provides for a recovery of coupons to a class member" to value the
coupons "based on the value to class members of the coupons that
are redeemed." Accord In re HP Inkjet Printer Litig., No. 11-
16097, -- F.3d --, 2013 WL 1986396 (9th Cir. May 15, 2013). Did
the district court commit an error of law in determining
attorneys' fees without determining the "value to class members of
the coupons that are redeemed" and ascribing a $20 value to a
coupon that was not stackable with already existing discounts?

    2(b). In the alternative, if the Class Action Fairness Act
does not apply, did the district court commit clear error in
finding that the value of the settlement was $38 million and
awarding $8.85 million in attorney awards, when the class would
receive only about $225,000 in cash plus coupons that were
unlikely to be redeemed and even less likely to be redeemed in
such a manner to provide the full face value to class members?

    3. Nachshin v. AOL, LLC, 663 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011), held
that it was error for cy pres to favor local charities when there
was a national class, and criticized the possibility of conflicts
of interest between class counsel and cy pres recipients.  Did the
district court commit an error of law or abuse its discretion in
approving a cy pres component of a settlement involving a national
class that favored the alma mater of class counsel, and only
distributed funds to local San Diego-area institutions?

    4(a). Under Klier v. Elf Atochem N. Am., Inc., 658 F.3d 468
(5th Cir. 2011), a settlement fund "belongs solely to the class
members."  Did the district court err as a matter of law in
approving a settlement that provided over $3 million for cy pres
but only about $225,000 for class members when there were class
members who had not been fully compensated and 99.8% of the class
had not made claims?

    4(b). In the alternative, if Klier does not apply, In re Baby
Products Antitrust Litig., 708 F.3d 163 (3d Cir. 2013), requires a
district court to consider the ratio of cy pres to actual class
recovery when evaluating the fairness of a settlement.  Did the
district court err as a matter of law in rejecting Perryman's
request that this factor be considered where cy pres recipients
would receive more than ten times as much cash as the class would
and class counsel would receive more than forty times as much?

As always, the Center is not affiliated with the Manhattan

EL GRECO: Two Workers File Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
Georgia Pabst, writing for the Journal Sentinel, reports that two
workers at El Greco Family Restaurant have filed a federal lawsuit
contending the business and its owner failed to pay them overtime.
The plaintiffs are seeking to make the case a class-action suit.

Omar Chavez worked as a dishwasher and chef's assistant.  Juan
Garcia was employed as a chef at the restaurant, 9143 W. Appleton

The restaurant and its owner, Gus Gliatis, are named as
defendants.  No one from the restaurant was available for comment.

In the complaint, the workers allege they and others who have
worked there as a chef, chef's assistant, cook and/or dishwasher
were not paid time and a half for working more than 40 hours in
any given week.  They say that when they worked more than 40 hours
a week they were paid at the regular pay rate and not paid
overtime, which means their wages fell below the minimum wage in
violation of wage laws.  Further, they contend that El Greco did
not maintain complete and accurate time records.

The complaint states that Mr. Gliatis "specifically was involved
in the decisions to implement certain policies that resulted in El
Greco failing to pay its chefs, chef's assistants, cooks and
dishwashers the minimum wage (and) overtime compensation . . . ."

It's not clear how many other workers might be affected if the
plaintiffs succeed in getting class-action status, according to
the complaint.

ENVIVIO INC: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Suits in California
Envivio, Inc., is defending itself against class action lawsuits
arising from its initial public offering, according to the
Company's June 11, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 30, 2013.

On October 5, 2012, a complaint captioned Wiley v. Envivio, Inc.,
et al. CIV-517185, was filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of San Mateo, naming as defendants the Company, each of its
directors, its chief executive officer, its chief financial
officer, and certain underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering.  The lawsuit purports to be a class action on behalf of
purchasers of shares issued in the IPO and generally alleges that
the registration statement for the IPO contained materially false
or misleading statements.  The complaint purports to assert claims
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seeks
unspecified damages and other relief.  On October 19, 2012, a
similar complaint captioned Toth v. Envivio, Inc. et al. CIV-
517481 was filed in the same court.  On November 2, 2012, the
defendants removed the cases to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California where they were assigned
case numbers 12-cv-05637-CRB and 12-cv-05636-CW.  A similar
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on December 20, 2012, entitled
Thomas v. Envivio, Inc., et al. C 12-06464.

The Company is, at this time, unable to assess whether any loss or
adverse effect on its financial condition is probable or remote or
to estimate the range of potential loss, if any.

San Francisco, California-based Envivio, Inc. is a provider of
software-based IP video processing and distribution solutions that
enable the delivery of high-quality video to consumers.  The
Company's research and development center is located in the
metropolitan area of Rennes, France, and it has a presence in
Australia, Austria, Brazil, China, England, India, Japan,
Singapore and the United Arab Emirates.

EXXON MOBIL: EPA Inspects Refinery Following Leak Complaints
Susan Buchanan, writing for Huffington Post, reports that
government agencies and neighbors are keeping an eye on Baton
Rouge's ExxonMobil complex, located next to the Mississippi River
on Scenic Highway north of the Governor's Mansion.  Neighbors want
the authorities and the plant to do more to lower emissions and to
alert them about hazardous discharges.  Meanwhile, the Louisiana
Dept. of Environmental Quality is deciding how it might penalize
ExxonMobil for not reporting changes in a June 2012 leak.  Last
month, New Orleans lawyers Smith Stag, LLC filed a class action
suit on behalf of residents affected by that leak.

Neighbors are watching the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
for its handling of findings from a surprise inspection of the
complex's refinery last July.

Tonga Nolan, secretary of the Standard Heights Community
Association, last week said her young daughter became violently
ill in the early hours of June 14, 2012 after a chemical leak at
ExxonMobil.  Standard Heights is directly south of the complex.
"We're footsteps from the Exxon plant, my daughter's bed was near
what you'd call a showcase window and the fumes got in," Ms. Nolan
said last week.  "She was vomiting and bleeding, and we rushed her
to the hospital."

Ms. Nolan said as a child she viewed Exxon, Honeywell and other
nearby plants as places where people made a living.  Since then,
she's become concerned about industrial threats.  "Our community
doesn't have a park, and our kids are playing outside with runny
eyes and noses, asthma and nosebleeds," she said.  Ms. Nolan
noticed a lot of what seem to be premature deaths and wonders why.
"In the last seven years, thirteen neighbors on my street of all
ages, up to 65, have died of emphysema, cancer, female and other
problems," she said.

Smith Stag, LLC in New Orleans filed a class action suit last
month of behalf of ten African American, Standard Heights
residents and seven minor children, sickened by the June 14, 2012
leak.  Early in the morning of the accident, a bleeder plug, which
slowly drains off gas and liquids at the complex's Aromatics
Production Unit, leaked benzene and other hazardous substances.

"On the day of the incident and in a report to DEQ six days later,
Exxon grossly underestimated the amount and types of hazardous
substances emitted," attorney Stuart Smith said last week.  The
suit, seeking compensation for personal injuries, pain and
suffering and property damage, will be tried in state district
court in East Baton Rouge in a year or two. Residents of Dixie and
other communities near the plant can join the petitioners, Smith
said.  "It's time that ExxonMobil faces the music, acknowledges
people's losses and then moves them out of that neighborhood," he

ExxonMobil reported its June 14, 2012 incident in a timely manner,
Louisiana Dept. of Environmental Quality spokesman Rodney Mallett
said last week.  But after that, the company failed to notify DEQ
of changes in the nature and rate of its discharges, he said.  DEQ
filed a compliance order and potential penalty notice against
ExxonMobil on July 19, 2012.  According to background information
in that order, the company discovered the leaking bleeder plug at
around 4:35 a.m. on June 14 and notified the Louisiana State
Police of an unauthorized discharge at around 5:04 a.m.
ExxonMobil reported that the release was controlled at 5:06 a.m.
and said the amount of benzene emitted had exceeded the state's
required, reportable quantity or RQ of ten pounds.  Then the
company reported it had surpassed the state's RQ of 1,000 pounds
for toluene.  The next day, ExxonMobil said that 1,364 pounds of
benzene had been emitted on June 14.

In a June 20, 2012 report submitted to DEQ, ExxonMobil detailed
pollutants released on June 14 as follows: 28,688 pounds of
benzene, 10,882 pounds of toluene, 1,100 pounds of cyclohexane,
1,564 pounds of hexane and 12,605 pounds of additional Volatile
Organic Compounds. Last August, the company admitted its June 14
releases had been greater than what it reported on June 20.

But according to ExxonMobil, the June 14, 2012 leak wasn't a
health threat.  "ExxonMobil conducted air monitoring at more than
a hundred points along our fence line on the day of the incident,
and with DEQ we continued to monitor air quality for two weeks
after the incident," Stephanie Cargile, public and government
affairs manager at ExxonMobil Baton Rouge, said last week.  "Four
types of air-monitoring equipment were used for a total of 236
readings.  With respect to the fence line along Scenic Highway,
all readings were well below the state's ambient air standard for
benzene.  Only two of the 236 readings taken detected any emission
readings at all.  These two readings were at the 0.20 parts per
million level, which is a fraction of the state's annual ambient
air standard for benzene and below standards set by the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration."

Ms. Cargile said ExxonMobil and DEQ received no community
complaints of odors or health impacts on June 14, 2012 or in the
week after the incident.  "Unfortunately, activist groups spread
misinformation after the plant incident, trying to incite fear and
concern by alleging that it had impacted the community," she said.

The company kept the community informed, Ms. Cargile said.  "On
the morning of the incident, we proactively notified local media
and elected officials," she said.  An ExxonMobil community phone
line was updated with incident information, and the company phoned
civic association contacts and members of its Community Dialogue
Group over the next few days.  Company managers talked with Baton
Rouge neighbors at face-to-face meetings, she said. "We provided
factual information and answers to clarify the misinformation
circulated by activists."

EPA made a surprise visit to the Baton Rouge refinery from July 16
to 20, 2012 to see if it was in compliance with the Clean Air Act.
An EPA report about the visit, obtained by the New Orleans-based
Louisiana Bucket Brigade in February under the Freedom of
Information Act, said the refinery contained heavily corroded
pipes and ruptured pipelines; pipes and other equipment were
overdue for internal inspection; and documentation for emergency
and shutdown procedures was incomplete.

"We have reviewed findings from the inspection with EPA to fully
understand each allegation," Cargile said last week.  EPA's report
wasn't a citation or notice of violation, she said, and the
company has given EPA additional information since the inspection
to address its concerns.  "The EPA is still reviewing the
inspection report to evaluate whether any of its observations
require enforcement action," she said.

Fast forward from last summer at the plant to this spring.  A leak
in a tail gas clean-up unit at ExxonMobil's refinery was reported
to DEQ on May 22.  DEQ issued a compliance order and notice of
potential penalties to ExxonMobil on May 24, and said an ongoing
leak from a pipe had released up to 24 tons of sulphur dioxide a
day.  The compliance order required ExxonMobil to take all steps
needed to meet air quality regulations; reduce production until
repairs were completed; conduct offsite monitoring; and control
sulphur dioxide emissions.

On May 30, the Louisiana Bucket Brigade did a door-to-door survey
of 92 residents in Standard Heights, asking about the impact of
the sulphur dioxide leak.  Thirty six percent said they had
suffered nausea, 22 percent reported headaches, 15 percent had
respiratory irritation, 7 percent had eye irritation and 4 percent
reported skin problems. Standard Heights residents phoned the
Bucket Brigade during the plant incident and reported foul smells,
the Brigade said.

Residents interviewed last week said they want to be notified
about excess emissions.  Tonga Nolan said she and her mother have
never received calls from ExxonMobil about imminent, hazardous

But Lois Dorsey, a retired school teacher who lives next to the
Exxon plant gate in Dixie, said she and her neighbors do receive
phone calls.  And Dorsey contacts the plant when she has concerns.
"Recently, I asked the plant if it was prepared for hurricane
season, and they said they were," she said last week.  Ms. Dorsey,
a 64-year-old retired school teacher, has grown up next to the
plant.  "I may be the longest resident near the plant in Dixie,"
she said.  Ms. Dorsey is asthmatic but hasn't had an attack in
years.  "The air is cleaner than it used to be," she said.  "I
watch my diet, have regular checkups and keep a log."  She also
keeps her windows closed.  Ms. Dorsey is a member of ExxonMobil's
Community Dialogue Group in Baton Rouge.  She said anyone can
attend the group's meetings.

Melanie Heck, a clerical worker and single mom of four raising two
kids in Standard Heights, said she constantly worries about her
children if they're home when she's at work.  Her big fear is
plant lockdowns.  "In an emergency, we're supposed to shut our
windows, turn off the air conditioning and stay in the house," she
said.  "The plant takes injured employees to the hospital but we
can't drive away."  If she's home, the moment she hears a siren
from the plant she gets her kids in the car and drives off before
the area is cordoned.  "The authorities lock us in here in ten
minutes," she said.

Mr. Mallet said any orders to shelter in place are made by local
law-enforcement authorities.  "We don't make that call at DEQ," he

Rhonda Swazer, a six-year resident of Standard Heights, last week
said if she threw a rock from her back door, it would hit the
ExxonMobil plant.  "Odors from the plant aren't bad every day,"
she said. "But when they are bad, it's like whoa," she exclaimed.
"Suddenly you're nauseated, have a killer headache and need to lie
down."  On those occasions, her 26-year-old son lies down and
coughs a lot.  "We'd like Exxon to warn us before they start
burning something so we can leave," Ms. Swazer said. She doesn't
receive warning calls from the plant.

Stephanie Anthony, a former Standard Heights resident who moved
away after Gustav damaged her home last August, said Standard
Heights, Dixie and other communities nearby, including nearby
schools, are polluted. "The company sends out newsletters about
how much they're doing to help the schools, and employees from the
plant do some tutoring," she said.  "But those are Band-Aid
approaches."  If ExxonMobil really wanted to do something
meaningful it would have clinics and asthma camps for kids in the
area, she said.

"Exxon's like a man who gives the image of being an ideal husband
and father to his fishing buddies but meanwhile he's not taking
care of his family," Ms. Anthony said.

Last week, Ms. Cargile said interaction between company employees
and residents is important.  "We regularly host Community Dialogue
Group meetings, where those who live near our plants can speak
directly with company management about our operations," she said.
"We maintain a 24-hour, information phone line with the current
status of our operations at 225-977-0410.  We distribute a
quarterly newsletter to about 26,000 households, participate in
civic and neighborhood meetings, and offer tours and employee
speakers for neighborhood groups."

Ms. Cargile said the company's Baton Rouge employees spend 40,000
hours a year volunteering in local schools and non-profits.  "They
roll up their sleeves at events like HOPE Fest, where more than
700 neighbors enjoy science demonstrations and learn about
community resources, and the United Way Day Action, in which
employees painted the cafeteria at Istrouma High School."  Both
events are sponsored by ExxonMobil.

She weighed in out-of-town environmental groups. "Visiting
activists who go from community to community to fund raise, spread
misinformation and use media stunts to garner attention simply
have no role here," Ms. Cargile said.

ExxonMobil's environmental performance in Baton Rouge continues to
improve, Ms. Cargile said.  "From 1990 to 2012, we saw a 75
percent decrease in VOC emissions, a 63 percent decrease in SO2
emissions, a 39 percent decrease in NOX emissions and a 73 percent
decrease in CO emissions," she said.  Flare VOC emissions at the
complex declined by more than 31 percent from 2010 to 2012.
"These improvements resulted from an investment of about $250
million per year in new projects locally to better protect the
environment," she said.

Safety continues to improve at ExxonMobil Baton Rouge, Ms. Cargile
also said.  "The Baton Rouge complex had its best-ever, personnel
safety performance in 2012, with a Total Recordable Incident Rate
down 35 percent from 2011 and down 75 percent from the previous
five-year period," she said.  "Over the past five years, we have
reduced the number of incidents that exceed a reportable quantity,
with an 86 percent reduction of events at our refinery and a 47
percent reduction at our chemical plant."

Among the neighbors interviewed for this story, however, all but
one felt ExxonMobil Baton Rouge needs to do more to reduce
emissions, increase plant safety and keep them informed.  And
residents don't want to be chastised for questioning conditions at
the Baton Rouge complex.  Tonga Nolan said speaking out about her
concerns and working as a neighborhood advocate got her fired from
her job as an attorney early this year. But she said safety of her
family and community is more important to her than her profession.
"I'm a mother, daughter and family member first and then an
attorney," she said.

FREDERICK'S OF HOLLYWOOD: Awaits Prelim. OK of "Weber" Suit Deal
Frederick's of Hollywood Group Inc. is awaiting preliminary
approval of its settlement of a class action lawsuit filed by
Michelle Weber, according to the Company's June 11, 2013, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended April 27, 2013.

On February 2, 2012, a former California store employee filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court,
County of San Francisco, naming Frederick's of Hollywood, Inc.,
one of the Company's subsidiaries, as a defendant (Michelle Weber,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v.
Frederick's of Hollywood, Inc., Case No. CGC-12-517909).  The
complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the
California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide
meal and rest periods and termination compensation and violations
of California's Unfair Competition Law.  The complaint seeks,
among other relief, collective and class certification of the
lawsuit (the class being defined as all California retail store
hourly employees), unspecified damages, costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court
might find just and proper.  The Company contests these
allegations and denies any liability with respect to the lawsuit.
On April 2, 2012, the Company answered the Plaintiff's first
amended complaint.

The parties agreed to stay discovery proceedings, engaged in
mediation, and on May 23, 2013, the parties entered into a Joint
Stipulation of Settlement and Release, which was filed with the
Court on May 31, 2013.  Without admitting or denying liability,
the Company has agreed to pay a gross settlement amount of
$365,000 in connection with the settlement.  The hearing for the
Court's preliminary approval of the settlement was scheduled for
June 26, 2013, at which time a final approval hearing date will be
set.  After preliminary approval, class members will receive
notice of the settlement and will have an opportunity to elect not
to participate or file objections to the settlement.  The Company
expects that funding of payment of the settlement will occur in
the second quarter of fiscal year 2014.

Frederick's of Hollywood Group Inc. -- http://www.fredericks.com/
-- through its subsidiaries, sells women's apparel and related
products under its proprietary Frederick's of Hollywood(R) brand
predominantly through U.S. mall-based specialty stores and through
its catalog and Web site.  The Company was incorporated in New
York and is headquartered in Hollywood, California.

FREDERICK'S OF HOLLYWOOD: In Talks With "Harvey-Smith" Parties
The class action lawsuit initiated by Kassandra Harvey-Smith has
been stayed while the parties discuss the possibility of
settlement, according to Frederick's of Hollywood Group Inc.'s
June 11, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 27, 2013.

On December 18, 2012, a former California store employee filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court,
County of Los Angeles, against the Company, Frederick's of
Hollywood, Inc. and Frederick's of Hollywood Stores, Inc.
(Kassandra Harvey-Smith, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Frederick's of Hollywood Group Inc. et al,
Case No. BC497673).  The complaint alleges, among other things,
violations of the California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime,
failure to provide meal and rest periods and termination
compensation, various additional wage violations and violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law.  The complaint seeks, among
other relief, collective and class certification of the lawsuit
(the class being defined as all California retail store hourly
employees), unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court might find
just and proper.  The Company contests these allegations and
intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit.  This lawsuit is in its
early stages and the Court has ordered a 90-day stay while the
parties discuss the possibility of settlement.  Accordingly, the
Company is unable to estimate its potential liability in the event
of an unfavorable outcome with respect to these allegations.

Frederick's of Hollywood Group Inc. -- http://www.fredericks.com/
-- through its subsidiaries, sells women's apparel and related
products under its proprietary Frederick's of Hollywood(R) brand
predominantly through U.S. mall-based specialty stores and through
its catalog and Web site.  The Company was incorporated in New
York and is headquartered in Hollywood, California.

GENESIS HEALTHCARE: Ogletree Discusses FLSA Class Action Ruling
Patrick F. Hulla, Esq. -- patrick.hulla@ogletreedeakins.com -- and
A. Craig Cleland, Esq. -- craig.cleland@ogletreedeakins.com -- at
Ogletree Deakins report that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that
a class-action lawsuit filed by a worker under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) was properly dismissed because the worker's
suit was moot when she failed to accept an offer of judgment from
her employer.

The offer was a dollar amount that the law entitled her to no more
and no less.  According to the Court, "the worker had no personal
interest in representing putative, unnamed claimants, nor any
other continuing interest that would preserve her suit from

Thus, the Court ruled, "the mere presence of collective-action
allegations in the complaint cannot save the suit from mootness
once the individual claim is satisfied."  In other words, once the
employer offered to pay her what it might legally owe her, she
could no longer pursue claims on behalf of other, unnamed workers.
(Genesis Healthcare, et al. v. Symczyk, No. 11-1059, Supreme
Court, 2013)

An offer not accepted

In 2009, Laura filed a lawsuit on behalf of herself and "all other
persons similarly situated," arguing that her employer violated
the FLSA.  Laura's employer made an offer of judgment under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, including a payment for
alleged unpaid wages, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.

It stipulated that if Laura did not accept the offer within 10
days, it would be deemed withdrawn. Laura never responded.

Her employer filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that because it
offered her complete relief on her individual damages claim, she
no longer had a personal stake in the outcome of the suit,
rendering her action moot.

The trial judge dismissed the suit, concluding that no one else
had joined the suit and that the Rule 68 offer of judgment fully
satisfied Laura's individual claim.

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the Rule 68 offer
mooted Laura's claim, but it reversed the lower court's finding
that the collective action is not moot.  The court explained that
"strategic" use of Rule 68 offers before certification could
"short-circuit the class action process."

High Court: Class-action moot

In the Supreme Court's decision, Justice Clarence Thomas noted
that to invoke federal court jurisdiction, a plaintiff must show
that he or she has a legally recognized interest or personal stake
in the outcome.  A corollary to this requirement is that an actual
controversy must exist at all stages of review and not merely when
the complaint is filed.  Otherwise, the action must be dismissed
as moot.

The Court assumed -- and Laura conceded -- that Laura's individual
claim was moot.

Instead, the Court focused on whether her class-action claims were
valid.  Since no other claimants had opted in, Thomas concluded,
Laura's suit "became moot when her individual claim became moot,
because she lacked any personal interest in representing others in
this action."  Thus, Laura's case was appropriately dismissed as

What it means for employers

Several trends may emerge from this decision.  First, for
collective actions in their infancy, expect more plaintiffs to
move for conditional collective-action certification to be filed
shortly after complaints are filed.

To avoid the court's ruling, more and more of these cases are
likely to be pleaded as hybrid class and collective actions.

Likewise, to avoid the Rule 68 bar, plaintiffs will likely begin
filing more cases in state court under state law.

Now, it would be ideal if the U.S. Supreme Court would consider
the incompatibility of hybrid cases, which may be more attractive
if substantially more wage-and-hour claims filed in federal court
include an analogous state law claim. Perhaps the court was
hinting at this eventuality by stating "Rule 23 actions are
fundamentally different from collective actions under the FLSA."

Several times the majority contrasted Rule 23 class actions (Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure cover most class
actions) and FLSA collective actions as "fundamentally different"
creatures.  For example, the Court noted that collective actions
are about "joining co-plaintiffs" (and, by implication, not about
representing absent class members), that conditional
certification's "sole" significance is sending court-approved
notice and that, whatever it means, conditional certification is
"not tantamount to" class certification.

GRAND FALLS-WINDSOR: May Face Suit Over Salmon Festival Crowding
CBC News reports that one concert-goer is so upset with last
weekend's Salmon Festival in central Newfoundland that she is
considering a class-action lawsuit.

Debbie Dwight drove from Toronto to attend the festival in Grand
Falls-Windsor, which featured the Eagles, the Tragically Hip and
other acts.

Ms. Dwight and her husband bought VIP tickets, which were supposed
to have provided prominent seating.  Instead, she said it was
oversold and unsafe.

"If there had been any incident there last night, there was no way
anybody anyone was getting in, and no way that anyone was getting
out," Ms. Dwight told CBC News.

"The people need to know when they go to a festival like that,
that their safety is primary, and it's not just about the bottom
line," she said.

Ms. Dwight's complaints about overcrowding in the VIP section were
reiterated by others in social media, with some saying their
experience was ruined as several thousand people were herded into
the area.

Many who attended were also upset about long lineups to buy water,
and an apparent shortage of water supplies at some points.

Ms. Dwight was astonished to hear announcers tell attendees at the
festival to stay hydrated, even amid the lineups.

"Obviously they didn't know there wasn't water to drink,"
Ms. Dwight wrote in a newly created Twitter account,

Ms. Dwight said she intended to "poll dissatisfied patrons" for a
possible class-action suit against the promoters and the Town of
Grand Falls-Windsor.

              Dehydration caused medical concerns

A physician who worked in the medical tent said dehydration was an
ongoing concern on July 13, as were problems caused by drinking
alcohol in blistering heat.  Temperatures soared above 30 C for
much of the afternoon.

Dr. Jared Butler said medical staff did what they could to help
concertgoers stay hydrated.

"We actually gave up our own supplies throughout the course of the
day," he told CBC News on July 15.

"All the staff [who] were on site there brought in their own water
for themselves, but at the end of the day, I know all my water was
given away to people who needed it.  So, you do what you can to
make sure [those] who need a drink of water can have one."

HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE: Norton Rose Discusses Accutane Suit Ruling
Dominic Dupoy, Esq. -- dominic.dupoy@nortonrosefulbright.com -- at
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, reports that claiming to act on
behalf of all Quebecers who have developed some form of
inflammatory bowel disease as a result of taking the drug
Accutane, Yann Lebrasseur filed a motion seeking certification of
a class action.  However, on June 27, 2013, the Quebec Superior
Court refused to allow the action to proceed.

In his motion, Mr. Lebrasseur alleged that he developed Crohn's
disease as a result of taking Accutane.  He accused the
manufacturer, Hoffmann-La Roche Limited, of placing a dangerous
product on the market and of failing to properly warn health
professionals and consumers about the risks associated with

The product monograph prepared by the manufacturer and approved by
Health Canada did mention numerous undesirable side effects of the
drug, more particularly, the risk of inflammatory bowel disease.

Justice Savard of the Quebec Superior Court dismissed the motion
on the ground that the facts alleged did not seem to justify the
conclusions sought and thus the action did not satisfy the test of
Article 1003(b) C.C.P.

Mr. Lebrasseur did not file any scientific articles showing or
suggesting any causal link between the use of the drug and the
onset of Crohn's disease.  Moreover, the Court found that the
undesirable side effects of Accutane had been properly disclosed
by the manufacturer in its monograph.  Justice Savard observed
that Mr. Lebrasseur had simply alleged a causal relationship
between taking Accutane and the onset of Crohn's disease without
providing any supporting evidence.

The Court also considered whether the claims of the members of the
proposed group raised identical, similar or related questions of
law or fact, within the meaning of Article 1003(a) C.C.P.

Justice Savard pointed out that certain questions are more
individual in nature.  For example, she mentioned the dosage and
the duration of treatment for each patient, the nature of each
member's disease, differing risk factors among patients, the
information communicated by the treating physicians about the
risks associated with the drug and the validity of the patients'
consent to take the drug.  She also observed that the amount of
moral and compensatory damages was an individual issue.

On the other hand, questions relating to the marketing of the
product or the manufacturer's failure to discharge its duty to
warn are common issues.

This decision confirms that the petitioner must have a personal
claim in order to bring a class action and that, to be certified,
a class action must be supported by solid evidence, not just
vague, general allegations.

IGATE CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in California
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit against iGATE Corporation and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Northern District of California, and docketed under CV 13
2737 PSG LHK, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of iGATE
between March 14, 2012 and May 21, 2013 both dates inclusive.
This class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged
violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased iGATE securities during the
Class Period, you have until August 13, 2013 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.  There is no out of pocket cost to you for your

iGATE offers a range of information technology ("IT") solutions to
large and medium-sized organizations using an offshore/onsite
model.  The Company's services include client/server design and
development, conversion/migration services, offshore outsourcing,
enterprise resource planning package implementation and
integration services, and software development.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's Chief Executive
Officer and President "Murthy" was involved in an improper
relationship with a subordinate employee in violation of iGATE's
explicit policies to the contrary; and (ii) Murthy's improper
conduct created a risk that he would be terminated from the
Company, jeopardizing the Company's future success.

On May 20, 2013, the Company disclosed that its Board of Directors
terminated the employment of President and CEO Phaneesh Murthy,
effective immediately, after an internal investigation revealed
that Murthy had a relationship "with a subordinate employee and a
claim of sexual harassment" in violation of iGATE's company
policies and Murthy's employment contract.  On this news, iGATE
securities declined $1.58 per share or nearly 10%, to close at
$14.82 per share on May 21, 2013.

On May 22, 2013, the Company further revealed that the termination
of the CEO was "'for cause,' and Mr. Murthy is not entitled to
severance payment under the terms of his Employment Agreement with
the Company."  In response to his termination, Defendant Murthy
acknowledged that he had a personal relationship with a Company
employee, which was against company policy stating, "[i]t was a
personal relationship.  The company policy states that any two
employees having a relationship have to inform the superiors."  On
this news, iGATE securities declined an additional $0.64 per share
or more than 4%, to close at $14.18 per share on May 22, 2013.

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

INDIANA: BMV Starts to Issue Credits to Overcharged Hoosiers
Rafael Sanchez, writing for TheIndyChannel.com, reports that the
Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles will credit Hoosiers for
overcharges that were discovered in a recent class-action lawsuit.

The BMV said on July 12 that credits will be applied to customers'
totals during online or in-branch transactions, effective

The organization announced lower fees in June after determining
that charges for new and renewed driver's licenses had been

The BMV cut the fees for standard operator's licenses by $3.50 on
June 28.  The new fees range from $14.50 for a four-year license
to $17.50 for a six-year license.

Every Hoosier who renewed or obtained a new license since March
2007 is due a credit, except drivers who were 75 and older when
they renewed the license.

The refunds are expected to impact tens of thousands of Hoosiers,
but the total figure on the refunds has not been released.

The BMV said each customer's credit will be capped at $9.

"We felt this was the most effective way that we can make Hoosiers
whole by immediately crediting their accounts," said BMV spokesman
Josh Gillespie.

Attorneys that filed the suit against the BMV said they think the
credits aren't enough and Hoosiers aren't getting all the money
they're owed.

The attorneys told the Call 6 Investigators that they plan to
continue the case.

"This is the ultimate example of the fox watching the henhouse for
the BMV to unilaterally announce that they've done the math,
they've got it figured out and they can be trusted to handle the
problem," said attorney Richard Schevitz, of the Cohen and Malad
law firm.  "The resolution of this case requires court oversight."

The next court date is scheduled for July 25.

According to Indianapolis Star's Kristine Guerra, a class-action
lawsuit filed last March stated that the BMV has "systematically
overcharged" Hoosiers for licenses since 2007, collecting as much
as $30 million to $40 million more than allowed under state law.
It alleged that the agency charged drivers under the age of 75
from $4 to $7 more than the state allows.

In a response to the suit, filed by Irwin B. Levin of the
Indianapolis law firm Cohen & Malad, the BMV later admitted that
it "may have inadvertently overcharged" a significant number of

Effective immediately, the BMV will return the overcharged fees in
the form of a credit.  This means, according to the agency, that
the next time an Indiana driver conducts a transaction at a local
BMV branch or through its website, the charge will reflect the
driver's credit.

"In order to make Hoosiers whole, we believe it is important to
return the overcharge directly to those who have been impacted,"
R. Scott Waddell, commissioner of the BMV, said.  "It is the right
thing to do."

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: NZ Woman Raises Awareness on Surgical Mesh Woes
Poppy Wortman, writing for Herald on Sunday, reports that one Kiwi
woman's crusade against surgical mesh manufacturers has prompted
others to join her online support group and share their stories.

Carmel Berry, from Auckland, New Zealand, has joined a class
action against five manufacturers in the United States, after
suffering complications from polypropylene mesh implanted during
surgery for a prolapsed uterus in 2004.

"ACC declined my claims, so this is an opportunity for me to get
compensation and hopefully make the manufacturers realize that
they've been negligent with their product," she said.

Last year, the Herald on Sunday revealed that hundreds of patients
had suffered complications after having surgical mesh inserted.

Made from pig collagen or polypropylene, the mesh is used in
hernia, prolapsed pelvic organs and incontinence operations.

Ms. Berry's lawyer, Rebecca Gilsenan, said the class action gave
Australians and New Zealanders their first chance to have their
voices heard.

"Women are continuing to come forward, and we are in the first
stage of sorting through whether they have eligible products or
not," she said.

"It goes to show there are a lot of women who have been implanted
with this product suffering terrible injuries and not knowing how
widespread the problem is."

Filing claims will be completed by the end of this week.

Ms. Gilsenan said a mistrial declared on July 10 in the United
States as a result of a witness' testimony about marketing claims
was an inconvenience but not a problem for the substance of the

Ethicon -- a Johnson & Johnson company and one of the
manufacturers of the mesh -- issued a statement saying: "Ethicon
is committed to advancing the standard of care for women's health.
For more than a decade, Ethicon have invested in the research,
development and clinical study of products to treat a wide range
of pelvic disorders."

Ethicon spokeswoman Meshlin Khouri said patient safety was the
first priority and the company encouraged all patients with
questions about their procedures to contact their surgeon.

Ms. Berry said her main aim was to raise awareness about the mesh
and connect people.

"For so long my doctor told me I was the only person to ever have
this problem, that it's so rare, that I was one of those
unfortunate, unlucky ones.  Yet I now have a support group of 58
women in it that have made contact with me."

Ms. Berry said hits on her meshdownunder website had gone
"ballistic" and the Facebook page had received 8,000 more views.

LAC-MEGANTIC TRAIN: Rochon Genova Files Class Action
Rochon Genova LLP disclosed that a class action proceeding (motion
for authorization) was filed on July 15 relating to the
Lac-Megantic train derailment and subsequent devastation suffered
by this small community.

Legal action is being brought to provide compensation to the many
Lac-Megantic victims who have suffered from very serious losses.
The action seeks recovery for damages sustained by those who have
lost loved ones in the explosion and on behalf of persons injured.
Claims for property loss and business losses are also included.

The proposed representative plaintiffs are Guy Ouellet, whose
partner, Diane Bizier died in the explosion.  Yannick Gagne, is
the second representative plaintiff and was the owner of
Musi-Cafe.  Three of M. Gagne's employees died in the fire which
completely destroyed his establishment.

Daniel Larochelle who has lived and practiced law in Lac-Megantic
for over 15 years knows many of the victims personally.  He
stated: "The suffering endured by this community and the suffering
that is still ongoing has been truly incomprehensible".  He added:
"I want this legal action to bring some hope to my community as we
start to rebuild".

Me Larochelle has assembled a team of class action lawyers to help
the community navigate through the legal challenges ahead.  Those
firms include: Consumer law Group in Montreal, Rochon Genova LLP
of Toronto and Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP of New
York and San Francisco.  These firms have extensive experience
pursuing large tort actions and in seeking compensation for
victims following disasters including the BP Gulf Oil Spill
litigation and in Exxon Valdez.

LAC-MEGANTIC TRAIN: Siskinds Mulls Class Action
CTV Montreal reports that the Lac-Megantic train disaster is
certain to yield a class-action lawsuit worth, possibly, hundreds
of millions of dollars and involve a number of defendants.

One law firm -- Siskinds LLP -- is weighing up whether to be the
first to launch a massive class action suit, which is certain to
come in the wake of a disaster that has seen 28 people lose their
lives with the toll expected to rise to 50.

While Maine, Montreal & Atlantic Railway Inc. is certain to be
included in any lawsuit as the railway company carrying the heavy
cargo of crude oil, its lack of apparent assets could mean that
several other parties be included in any suit.

Any lawsuit could include the following defendants:

   -- Maine, Montreal & Atlantic Railway Inc.;

   -- The Canadian government. If the federal government failed in
terms of regulations and oversight;

   -- Irving Oil. Irving owned the Western Bakken Crude oil from
North Dakota that would ultimately cause heavy explosions that
decimated the Eastern Townships town.  Irving could be included if
it's proven the company did not arrange for proper transport of
its hazardous product;

   -- The community of Nantes. The neighboring town, 13 kilometers
west of Lac-Megantic, may be included if the investigation reveals
the volunteer fire department did something to trigger the release
of the train.

"Given the scores of people killed and the infrastructure
destroyed, the businesses that undoubtedly have lost income
because of this event, one would imagine the damages ultimately
will be vastly in excess of a hundred million dollars and quite
possibly a multiple of that," said Dimitri Lascaris --
dimitri.lascaris@siskinds.com -- of Siskinds, which is a law firm
based in London, Ontario, but with an affiliate in Quebec.

Siskinds is seriously weighing whether to launch a massive class
action suit on behalf of the many victims.  If they do not,
another law firm surely will.

In Quebec, the first firm to file a class action suit is generally
given the entire case provided a judge feels the firm can handle

LINN ENERGY: Kantrowitz Retained to File Securities Class Action
The law firm of Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., on July 12
disclosed that it was retained to file a class action lawsuit on
behalf of purchasers of Linn Energy, LLC common stock concerning
possible violations of federal securities laws.  Linn is an
independent oil and natural gas company that engages in the
acquisition and development of oil and natural gas properties.

Through a series of articles, Barron's described the Company as
"the country's most overpriced large energy producer," for using
non Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") accounting
to mask considerable weakness in its distributable cash flows and
calling into question the sustainability of its dividend.
Further, Barron's questioned the Company's accounting for its
derivative contracts by, for example, excluding the cost of its
puts from its cash flow, while including the gains.

Then, on July 1, 2013, Linn disclosed that the Securities and
Exchange Commission commenced an informal investigation in
connection with the Company's hedging strategies, use of non-GAAP
financial measures, and that the Commission was looking into its
pending acquisition of Berry Petroleum Company.  Upon this news,
shares of Linn stock fell to their lowest price in three years by
Friday July 5, 2013, from a close of $33.29 per share on July 1,
2013, to a low of $21.23 early Friday, on heavy trading volume.

If you own common shares of Linn and would like to discuss this
action, or if you have any questions concerning your legal rights
or interests, please contact: Gary S. Graifman, Esq., at
Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., toll-free at 1-800-660-
7843 or via email at ggraifman@kgglaw.com or by writing to
Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, 747 Chestnut Ridge Road,
Chestnut Ridge, New York 10977.  The Kantrowitz, Goldhamer &
Graifman, P.C. firm has significant experience successfully
prosecuting complex securities fraud class actions on behalf of
defrauded investors.

LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: 6th Cir. Partially Revives Siding Class Action
Alex Lawson, writing for Law360, reports that the Sixth Circuit on
July 12 partially revived a putative class action alleging defects
in Louisiana-Pacific Corp.'s Trimboard house siding, ruling that
the product's 10-year warranty trumps Ohio's four-year statute of
limitations for bringing product liability claims.

A three-judge panel unanimously ruled that because the Trimboard's
guarantee contained an explicit promise of normal performance for
10 years after it was installed, plaintiff Jason Holbrook can
sufficiently claim that Louisiana-Pacific breached its express

"Because Holbrook filed suit within 10 years of the Trimboard's
installation on his home and less than two years after discovering
the defective Trimboard, his claim for breach of that express
warranty is not barred by the statute of limitations," the opinion

An Ohio federal court had dismissed Holbrook's claims, saying that
he had not shown that Louisiana-Pacific had made any express
warranty to him because he was the third party in a contract
between Louisiana-Pacific and a private contractor.

On appeal, the panel roundly rejected this argument, finding that
because Holbrook was the "ultimate consumer" of the product, he
did not need to show "privity of contract or third-party
beneficiary status to establish a breach-of-warranty claim."

Mr. Holbrook alleged that he installed the Trimboard siding on his
house in 2003, and first noticed that it was deteriorating in July
2010.  He filed his putative class action in July 2012.  The first
line of Trimboard's warranty protects it against delamination,
splitting, cracking and chipping for a period of 10 years from the
date of installation.

While reversing the lower court on the issue of express warranty,
the panel upheld the lower court's dismissal of implied warranty
and advertising-based warranty claims, as neither of those
contained an explicit guarantee that could push aside the statue
of limitations.

The judges also ruled that the district court was correct to
dismiss Mr. Holbrook's claims under the Ohio Products Liability
Act and the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

The panel said that because Mr. Holbrook's complaint alleged only
economic damages, he did not assert a plausible claim under the
OPLA, which only provides relief for physical injury or damage to
property other than the product in question.

Holbrook attempted to argue that the defectiveness of the
Trimboard might cause physical damage to his home, but his
complaint did not allege that the home had suffered any actual

As for the ODTPA, the judges deferred to precedent from the Ohio
Court of Appeals that holds that consumers do not have standing to
raise claims under that law because it is "substantially similar"
to the federal Lanham Act, which also prevents consumers from
bringing action.

"LP appreciates this thoughtful ruling from the Court -- in fact,
prior to the filing of the lawsuit, Louisiana-Pacific made an
offer through its warranty program consistent with the terms of
the Limited Warranty endorsed by the Court, and it now looks
forward to the opportunity to address the merits of the remaining
claim after remand," Kip T. Bollin, an attorney with Thompson Hine
LLP who represented Louisiana-Pacific.

Louisiana-Pacific is also defending Trimboard against similar
class action claims in North Carolina federal court.

Counsel for Mr. Holbrook declined to comment on July 12.

Judges Arthur L. Alarcon, John M. Rogers and Helene N. White sat
on the panel for the Sixth Circuit.

Mr. Holbrook is represented by Scott Moriarity --
samoriarity@locklaw.com -- of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP,
Charles J. Laduca -- charlesl@cuneolaw.com -- and Victoria O.
Romanenko -- vicky@cuneolaw.com -- of Cueno Gilbert & LaDuca LLP,
Jack Landskroner -- jack@lgmlegal.com -- and Drew T. Legando --
drew@lgmlegal.com -- of Landskroner Grieco Madden and Charles E.
Schaffer -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- of Levin Fishbein Sedran &

Louisiana-Pacific is represented by John Parker Sweeney, James E.
Weatherholtz and T. Sky Woodward of Womble Carlyle Sandridge &
Rice LLP and Kip T. Bollin and Conor A. McLaughlin --
Conor.McLaughlin@thompsonhine.com -- of Thompson Hine LLP.

The case is Holbrook et al. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., case
number 12-4166, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth

LUCASFILM: Settles Class Action Over Anti-Poaching Conspiracy
Howard Mintz, writing for San Jose Mercury News, reports that
Lucasfilm and Pixar have settled a class-action lawsuit alleging
they were part of a Silicon Valley conspiracy to not poach workers
from rival companies, according to a federal judge's order filed
on July 14.

In a brief order, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh indicated she has
received a letter from lawyers in the case disclosing the two
companies have settled their part of the hotly contested case,
leaving five companies in the litigation.  The order did not
disclose the terms of the settlement.

There was no indication in the order that the other companies
defending the anti-poaching claims have likewise settled.  The
lawsuit alleges that by agreeing not to poach from rivals'
workforces, the companies doused competition, costing employees a
chance to jump to better, higher-paying jobs in the valley's
competitive job market.

The remaining companies facing the anti-poaching allegations are
Apple, Intel, Intuit, Google Advertisement and Adobe.  The
companies are accused in the lawsuit of cutting deals with each
other to not hire away their coveted employees, particularly in
the engineering ranks.

In previous orders, Judge Koh has indicated that lawyers for an
estimated 100,000 employees impacted by the case have presented
strong evidence that top executives, including late Apple CEO
Steve Jobs and Google CEO Eric Schmidt, had side assurances to
steer clear of raiding rival workforces.  The companies have
repeatedly denied the allegations.

The companies did settle a similar case with the U.S. Justice
Department several years ago.  The federal government has a
separate case pending against eBay involving the identical anti-
poaching legal claims.

The case before Judge Koh is expected to go to trial next year if
the remaining five companies do not settle.

MPG OFFICE: Levi & Korsinksy Files Class Action in Maryland
Levi & Korsinsky LLP on July 12 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in The Circuit Court of Baltimore City,
Maryland on behalf of holders of MPG Office Trust, Inc. preferred
stock.  The complaint challenges the proposed merger between MPG
and affiliates of Brookfield Office Properties Inc. and a tender
offer proposed by Brookfield for MPG preferred shares.

Pursuant to the contract governing MPG preferred stock, said
shareholders are currently owed approximately $8.58 per share in
accrued and unpaid dividends.  Indeed, MPG has not paid dividends
to its preferred shareholders since 2008.  The April 25, 2013
tender offer by Brookfield, however, offers no compensation to
preferred shareholders for their accrued and unpaid dividends.

The filed complaint alleges that the proposed tender offer and
merger violate the terms of the contract governing the Preferred
stock, since the contract states that preferred shares would never
be converted without shareholder consent.  The complaint further
alleges that the terms of the tender offer are wrongfully coercive
and unlawful, since preferred shareholders would be forced to
choose between tendering their shares and foregoing the accrued
dividends owed to them, or converting their shares pursuant to the
terms of the merger.  The Court has scheduled a preliminary
injunction hearing for July 24, 2013 on the condition that the
closing of the tender offer and merger be held open pending a

Plaintiffs are represented by Donald J. Enright of Levi &
Korsinsky LLP.  To obtain additional information, contact
Mr. Enright or Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@zlk.com  or by telephone at (877) 363-5972, or visit

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York and
Washington D.C.  The firm has extensive expertise in prosecuting
securities litigation involving financial fraud, representing
investors throughout the nation in securities and shareholder

CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         Joseph Levi, Esq.
         Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
         Tel: 212-363-7500
         Toll Free: 877-363-5972
         Fax: 212-363-7171
         Web site: http://www.zlk.com

NAM TAI: Pomerantz Grossman Files Class Action in New York
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit against Nam Tai Electronics, Inc. and certain of
its officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 13 CV
3371, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Nam Tai
between August 6, 2012 and April 26, 2013, both dates inclusive.
This class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and
certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged
violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Nam Tai securities during
the Class Period, you have until July 16, 2013 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com

To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased. There is no out of pocket cost to you for your

Nam Tai is an electronics design and manufacturing services
provider to original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs").  The
Company manufactures cell phones, palm-sized PCs, personal digital
assistants, electronic dictionaries, calculators, digital camera
accessories, components including liquid crystal display modules
("LCMs") and panels, radio frequency modules, and flexible printed
circuit subassemblies.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
intense competition had forced the Company to lower its unit sales
prices, thereby threatening the Company's future profitability;
(2) anticipated cancellation and fluctuation of orders by its key
customers would cause it to halt capital investment into
technology platforms; (3) Due to declining margins and volatility,
the Company would have to halt its best quality LCM production
operations services in both its Shenzhen and Wuxi manufacturing
facilities in order to minimize further losses and preserve cash;
and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On April 29, 2013, the Company disclosed that customer orders for
its liquid crystal display modules were much lower than originally
anticipated.  The Company noted that it relies on a very small
number of customers forcing it to lower its prices to meet
customers' needs.  Furthermore, the Company disclosed that it was
considering halting its best quality LCM production operations
service in both its Shenzhen and Wuxi manufacturing facilities by
the end of June 2013 in order to minimize further losses and
preserve cash.  On this news, the Company's shares declined $3.58
per share, or over 31.6%, to close at $7.75 per share on April 29,

The Pomerantz Firm concentrates its practice in the areas of
corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.  The firm
has offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego.

NATIONAL FINANCIAL: Signs MOU to Settle Merger-Related Suit
National Financial Partners Corp. entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle a merger-related class action lawsuit,
according to the Company's June 11, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On May 21, 2013, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed against National Financial Partners Corp. (the "Company")
and the members of the Company's Board of Directors in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, captioned Gotham Investors, v.
Jessica Bibliowicz, et al., Index No. 651831/2013 (the "State
Action").  The complaint alleges that the members of the Company's
Board of Directors violated their fiduciary duties in connection
with (i) the Company's entry into the Agreement and Plan of
Merger, dated as of April 14, 2103 (the "Merger Agreement"), among
the Company, Patriot Parent Corp. ("Parent") and Patriot Merger
Corp., a direct wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"),
providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company
(the "Merger") and (ii) disclosures provided in the definitive
proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") by the Company on May 17, 2013 (the "Proxy Statement"), in
connection with the special meeting of the Company's shareholders
held on June 19, 2013.  Hearing on the plaintiff's motion to
preliminarily enjoin the June 19, 2013 special meeting was
scheduled on June 17, 2013.

On June 7, 2013, a second putative stockholder class action
lawsuit was filed against the Company and the Board of Directors
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, captioned Branch v. National Financial Partners Corp.,
No. 13 Civ. 3925 (SAS) (the "Federal Action").  The Federal Action
alleges that the Proxy Statement fails to include material
information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the
Company's Board of Directors violated their fiduciary duties in
connection with the Company's entry into the Merger Agreement and
the Company's filing of the Proxy Statement, and seeks both
injunctive relief and damages.  On June 11, 2013, counsel for the
plaintiff in the Federal Action notified counsel for the Company
that the plaintiff no longer intends to pursue his case and that
he will be dismissing the Federal Action.

On June 10, 2013, solely to avoid the burden, expense, and
disruption resulting from litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, the Company and the other named
defendants executed a memorandum of understanding ("MOU") with the
plaintiff in the State Action regarding an agreement in principle
that was reached to settle that case.  The MOU provides, among
other things, that the parties will seek to enter into a
stipulation of settlement that will provide for the release of all
claims concerning the Company's entry into the Merger Agreement,
the sale process leading up to the Company's entry into the Merger
Agreement, and the disclosures in the Proxy Statement, whether or
not those claims were asserted in the State Action and whether or
not those claims could have been asserted in the State Action.
The MOU also provides that the stipulation of settlement will
enjoin all members of the putative class from seeking to prosecute
actions challenging the Merger Agreement and the Proxy Statement
(or other disclosures concerning the Proxy Statement).  The MOU
further provides that the stipulation of settlement will provide
for the dismissal with prejudice of the State Action.  The subject
claims will not be released, and the State Action will not be
dismissed, unless and until the Merger is consummated and the
stipulation of settlement is approved by the court in the State
Action.  There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
court will approve such settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such stipulation.

Additionally, as part of the MOU, the Company has agreed to make
certain additional disclosures related to the proposed
transactions described in the Proxy Statement.

Founded in 1998 and headquartered in New York, National Financial
Partners Corp. -- http://www.nfp.com/-- and its benefits,
insurance and wealth management businesses provide a full range of
advisory and brokerage services to the Company's clients.  NFP
serves corporate and high net worth individual clients throughout
the United States of America and in Canada, with a focus on the
middle market and entrepreneurs.

PILOT FLYING J: Prelim. Class Action Settlement Gets Court OK
Cameron McWhirter, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports
that a federal judge approved a preliminary class-action
settlement on July 16 between Pilot Flying J, the largest truck-
stop chain in North America, and some of its trucking customers
who alleged the company defrauded them through a diesel-rebate

The settlement, worked out by Pilot and plaintiffs in eight of at
least 22 lawsuits pending against it, requires the company to have
auditors examine its trucking accounts and pay any money owed,
plus 6% interest.  It also calls for Pilot to assume all legal and
auditing costs.

The settlement requires Pilot to have auditors examine its

Judge James Moody approved the deal in the U.S. District Court in
Little Rock, Ark., where National Trucking Financial Reclamation
Services LLC, one of the plaintiffs, filed suit against Pilot in

Under the terms, other trucking firms that believe they were
shorted under the rebate plan can apply to become part of the
settlement or pursue their own legal action.  Though the
settlement heads off further litigation against Pilot in the cases
it covers, the plaintiffs can review and challenge any audits or

The settlement allows lawyers for Pilot Chief Executive Jimmy
Haslam III and other executives to turn their attention to a
federal criminal probe into allegations that some members of
Pilot's sales staff promised volume discounts to some of its
trucking customers that would be paid in the form of rebates, and
then shorted them on what was owed.

Five of the company's sales employees have pleaded guilty in
connection with the case and have agreed to cooperate with federal

Mr. Haslam has said repeatedly that he had no knowledge of the
alleged fraud scheme and has declined to comment on the whether
any of the company's employees committed crimes.  However, he told
The Wall Street Journal in May that some employees were guilty "of
violating how Pilot Flying J team members are supposed to act."

"We're glad that Mr. Haslam and his company stepped up and did the
right thing," said Michael Roberts, an attorney for National
Trucking Financial Reclamation.

The settlement agreement, worked out over a period of months,
doesn't specify an amount to be paid by the company, and any
payments are expected to vary by customer.

Since a separate federal investigation into Pilot became public in
April, the company has conducted its own internal audit of
accounts and has written checks to companies that it believes were
shorted on rebates.  Those companies, even if they haven't sued
Pilot, will be getting extra interest payments, said Pilot
spokesman Tom Ingram.

Mr. Ingram declined to provide specifics on how much money has
been paid out so far or how many companies may have been shorted.
But he said that "the numbers, while significant, represent a
relatively small percentage of the number of total customers and
total [diesel] revenues involved." Pilot officials have said they
have about 5,000 trucking-company customers.

"This is an unfortunate time for our customers and our company,"
Mr. Haslam said in a statement on July 16.  "But we remain
committed to making things 100% right with our customers, to put
systems in place to help ensure this does not happen again, and to
re-earn our customers trust."

The alleged fraud, which is also the subject of the criminal
probe, dates back to 2008 and in some cases earlier, according to
an affidavit filed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the
U.S. District Court in Knoxville, Tenn., where Pilot is based.
Though no charges have been filed from that investigation, FBI and
Internal Revenue Service agents executed search warrants April 15
at Pilot headquarters, as well as at the homes of company
salespeople in other parts of the country.  Agents seized
computers, reports and other material.

Pilot said on July 15 that six employees have been fired or
resigned as a result of the alleged fraud scheme, and another
three have been placed on administrative leave.

PINELLAS COUNTY, FL: Sheriff Summoned in Lunch Break Suit Trial
Curtis Krueger and Laura C. Morel, writing for Tampa Bay Times,
report that Pinellas County's sheriff and his two predecessors
will be summoned to court this week for a trial that could cost
the county millions of dollars.

It centers on an unlikely issue: lunch breaks.

Attorney Wil Florin says the class action lawsuit, which has
worked its way through the court system since 2006, is about much

The lawsuit contends that roughly 1,000 deputies who have worked
at the Pinellas County Jail since 2004 have been shortchanged
because they get paid for eight hours per shift, but work 8.5

"It's going to be about life inside that jail and how the sheriff
can't continue to take the position that these guys are not
working the entire time they're in there," Mr. Florin said.  "It's
an environment unlike any other."

The lawsuit was filed in 2006 by a retired detention deputy,
Douglas J. Morgan.  He said deputies were required to show up for
work half an hour before their shifts for a mandatory briefing.
He said he and other deputies weren't being paid for that half

The Sheriff's Office has said it does pay deputies for the
briefing, but not for their half-hour lunch breaks, according to
court records.

Most people probably don't get paid for lunch breaks.  But
Ms. Florin maintains that at the jail, lunch breaks are breaks in
name only.  Even on break, he said, deputies often have to listen
to radios, keep an eye on inmates and be prepared to jump back
into the job at any moment.

"There isn't such a thing as a break anytime when you're on the
inside," Ms. Florin said.  "If you go on break, you're not really
on break."

Often, he said, "their break consists of somebody bringing their
food to their post."

Sheriff Bob Gualtieri declined to speak about the pending lawsuit.
The attorney handling the case did not return calls.

The trial, which was scheduled to start on July 17, is expected to
last all week and part of the next.  It seeks compensation for
deputies over a nine-year period that covers all or part of the
administrations of Sheriff Gualtieri, and former sheriffs Jim
Coats and Everett Rice.

If the Sheriff's Office wins the case, Pinellas County won't have
to make a payout.  But if it loses, the county could potentially
have to pay millions in lost wages, interest and even adjustments
to retirements.  Sheriff's deputies currently earn from $41,284 to
$67,143 per year, a spokeswoman said.  About 750 deputies work at
the jail.

The case is a class action lawsuit, and covers all the jail
deputies who were affected by the pay policy during the nine-year
period.  It doesn't cover other employees or supervisors, unless
they used to be deputies.

Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge John A. Schaefer initially ruled that
for legal reasons, this case did not qualify as a class action
suit.  However the 2nd District Court of Appeal reversed that
decision, clearing the way for trial.

PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Defends Consolidated Merger-Related Suit
Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc., is defending itself against a
consolidated merger-related class action lawsuit, according to the
Company's May 31, 2013, Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December 31,

In December 2012, the Company entered into a definitive agreement
to acquire all of the outstanding common shares of Ameristar
Casinos Inc. ("Ameristar") in an all cash transaction valued at
$26.50 per share representing total consideration of $2.8 billion,
including assumed debt.  Ameristar operates these casinos:
Ameristar Casino Resort Spa St. Charles (serving the St. Louis,
Missouri metropolitan area); Ameristar Casino Hotel Kansas City
(serving the Kansas City metropolitan area); Ameristar Casino
Hotel Council Bluffs (serving the Omaha, Nebraska metropolitan
area and southwestern Iowa); Ameristar Casino Resort Spa Black
Hawk (serving the Denver, Colorado metropolitan area); Ameristar
Casino Hotel Vicksburg (serving Jackson, Mississippi and Monroe,
Louisiana); Ameristar Casino Hotel East Chicago (serving the
Chicagoland area); and Cactus Petes Resort Casino and The Horseshu
Hotel and Casino in Jackpot, Nevada (serving Idaho and the Pacific
Northwest).  The transaction is expected to close by the end of
the third quarter of 2013, subject to closing conditions and
regulatory approvals.

On December 24, 2012, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
related to the Company's proposed acquisition of Ameristar was
filed in Nevada District Court for Clark County, captioned Joseph
Grob v. Ameristar Casinos, Inc., et al. (the "Grob action").  The
complaint names Ameristar and members of Ameristar's Board of
Directors (the "Ameristar Defendants"); and Pinnacle
Entertainment, Inc., PNK Holdings, Inc., and PNK Development 32,
Inc. as defendants (the "Pinnacle Defendants").  The complaint
generally alleges that the Board of Directors of Ameristar, aided
and abetted by Ameristar and the Pinnacle Defendants, breached
their fiduciary duties owed to Ameristar's shareholders in
connection with Pinnacle's proposed acquisition of Ameristar.  The
action includes claims for, among other things, an injunction
halting the proposed acquisition of Ameristar by Pinnacle, and an
award of costs and expenses to the putative plaintiff shareholder,
including attorneys' fees.  Thereafter, other plaintiffs filed
additional complaints in the same court making essentially the
same allegations and seeking similar relief to the Grob action.

On January 15, 2013, the court issued an order consolidating the
actions, and any subsequently filed actions, into a single,
consolidated action.  The action is still in the initial stages
and there has been no discovery.  The Company believes that the
allegations directed against it lack merit and intends to defend
itself vigorously.

Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. -- http://www.pnkinc.com/-- is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada.  Pinnacle
is an owner, operator and developer of casinos and related
hospitality and entertainment facilities.

PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN: Judge Rejects Driver Coverage Class Action
Matt Fair, writing for Law360, reports that a Pennsylvania federal
judge axed a putative class action on July 10 accusing Progressive
Northern Insurance Co. of failing to let customers waive uninsured
motorist coverage for vehicles added to existing policies, ruling
state law only required a waiver for newly purchased policies.

U.S. District Judge Jan DuBois said that recent Pennsylvania
Supreme Court precedent held that so-called after-acquired-vehicle
clauses included in Progressive's auto insurance policies
automatically extended coverage terms and released the insurer
from having to ask customers if they wanted to waive so-called
stacked uninsured and underinsured motorist benefits which would
increase coverage limits whenever a new vehicle was added to a
preexisting policy.

"The Pennsylvania Supreme Court was clear in its ruling that an
insurer need not obtain a new stacking waiver when the insured
adds a new vehicle to an existing policy under a continuously
operating after-acquired-vehicle clause," Judge DuBois wrote.  "As
a result, [the plaintiff] is not entitled to stacked UM benefits,
and has not stated a claim for which relief can be granted.
Accordingly, Progressive's motion is granted and [the] complaint
is dismissed."

Judge DuBois said that the state Supreme Court's 2007 opinion in
Sackett v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., known as Sackett II,
held that the terms of a pre-existing policy -- including a waiver
of uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage -- automatically
extended to any new vehicles added to the policy.

The justices based their decision, which clarified an earlier
opinion in the case, in large part on an amicus brief submitted by
the commissioner of Pennsylvania's Insurance Department who
explained that the state did not treat the addition of a new
vehicle as a new purchase of coverage and thus did not require
insurers to execute new stacking waivers.

Alfred Seiple, whose suit was removed to federal court in April
after it was originally filed in the Philadelphia County Court of
Common Pleas, alleged that Progressive had violated the
Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law when it
only agreed to provide him with up to $100,000 for damages he
suffered after a May 2012 motorcycle accident.

He claimed that he would've been eligible to receive up to
$300,000 if he'd elected to extend uninsured motorist coverage to
all three of the motorcycles included on his policy.  However,
Progressive said in its motion to dismiss that Mr. Seiple's
decision to waive stacked insurance when he initially purchased
the policy in 2009 meant that the other motorcycles were not
eligible for coverage.

James Haggerty, an attorney with Haggerty Goldberg Schleifer &
Kupersmith PC representing Seiple, told Law360 on July 12 that he
intended to appeal the decision to the Third Circuit.  On appeal,
he suggested the Third Circuit could certify a question back to
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to clarify its decision in Sackett.

"We're hopeful that the Third Circuit will correct the errors made
by the trial judge," he said.

Mr. Seiple is represented by James Haggerty of Haggerty Goldberg
Schleifer & Kupersmith PC; and Vincent Margiotti of McMenamin &
Margiotti LLC.

Progressive is represented by G. Franklin McKnight IV --
fmcknight@nldhlaw.com -- of Nelson Levine DeLuca & Hamilton.

The case is Alfred Seiple v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co.,
case number 2:13-cv-01826, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

SAMSUNG TELECOM: Accused of Selling Defective Galaxy S Phones
Amira Anderson, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated California residents v. Samsung Telecommunications
America, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 8:13-
cv-01028-JVS-RNB (C.D. Cal., July 10, 2013) is brought on behalf
of California residents, who purchased an alleged defective
Samsung Galaxy S mobile phone.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's Galaxy S mobile phones
suffer from a software or hardware defect, which causes the phones
to randomly freeze, shut down, and power-off while in standby
mode, rendering the phones inoperable and unfit for their intended
use and purpose.  She asserts that she repeatedly attempted to
have her defective phone repaired or replaced under Samsung's
warranties prior to filing this action.  Instead, she contends,
Samsung and its authorized agents and resellers provided her and
the Class members with ineffective and damaging "software updates"
and phone resets and replacement Galaxy S phones suffering from
the same defect.

Ms. Anderson is a resident of San Diego County, California.  On
September 29, 2011, she purchased a Samsung Galaxy S Vibrant
through TMobile, acting as Samsung's authorized agent and
reseller.  Soon after she purchased her Galaxy S phone, she
experienced the defect alleged within all warranty periods.

Samsung is a Limited Liability Company incorporated under Delaware
law and headquartered in Richardson, Texas.  Samsung designed,
manufactured, distributed and sold consumer electronic products,
including the defective Samsung Galaxy S mobile phones.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
          Mark L. Knutson, Esq.
          William Richard Restis, Esq.
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
          San Diego, CA 92101-3593
          Telephone: (619) 238-1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238-5425
          E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com

SMARTHEAT INC: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
SmartHeat Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to
dismiss a securities class action lawsuit pending in New York,
according to the Company's June 11, 2013, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended
December 31, 2012.

On August 31, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit, Steven
Leshinsky v. James Wang, et. al., which purported to allege
federal securities law claims against the Company and certain of
its former offers and directors, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  Thereafter,
two plaintiffs filed competing motions to be appointed lead
plaintiff in the proceeding.  A lead plaintiff was appointed and
an amended complaint was filed on January 28, 2013, by the Rosen
Law Firm.  The amended complaint included Oliver Bialowons, the
Company's President, and Michael Wilhelm, the Company's former
Chief Financial Officer, as defendants in the proceeding though
they were not officers of the Company during the alleged class
period.  A second amended complaint was filed on April 8, 2013,
under the caption Stream Sicav, Dharanendra Rai et al. v. James
Jun Wang, Smartheat, Inc. et al., removing Messrs. Wilhelm and
Bialowons as defendants.  The second amended complaint alleges two
counts against the Company, both for violations of the federal
securities laws arising from alleged insider sales or management
sales of securities and alleged false disclosures relating to
those sales.  On May 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint on the grounds that the
plaintiffs did not, in fact, allege that a member of the Company's
senior management team had sold their shares.

In the event the motion to dismiss is not successful, the Company
says it intends to vigorously defend this action, as the Company
believes the allegations against it are without merit.  Any
adverse decision in this action, requiring the Company to pay
substantial damages to the plaintiffs could result in a material
adverse effect on its results of operations and could harm its
reputation.  The Company believes this lawsuit is frivolous and
without merit and will contest it vigorously.

                    Mr. Wilhelm's Resignation

On February 23, 2013, Michael Wilhelm resigned from his position
as the Company's Chief Financial Officer due to being "named
personally in a groundless shareholder suit, where the alleged
(unproven) actions in question are alleged to have taken place
long before [his] involvement with the company."  Mr. Wilhelm was
added as a defendant to the class action lawsuit filed against the
Company, its directors, and certain of its former officers,
originally captioned Steven Leshinsky v. James Wang, et. al, now
captioned Stream Sicav, Dharanedra Rai et al. v. James Jun Wang,
Smartheat Inc. et al., in an amended complaint filed by the Rosen
Law Firm on January 28, 2012.  The Company disclosed that it had
difficulty in retaining a suitable replacement for Mr. Wilhelm due
to the class action lawsuit.

In the interim, and so as to have a principal accounting officer
that could sign the certifications under Sections 302(a) and 906
of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 necessary to complete and file
this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the Company appointed Yangkai
Wang as its Acting Chief Accountant on June 7, 2013.  While Mr.
Yingkai Wang has served as a financial manager to the Company's
subsidiaries since 2007, he has limited relevant education and
training in U.S. GAAP and related SEC rules and regulations.

                      About SmartHeat Inc.

Founded by James Jun Wang, a former executive at Honeywell China,
SmartHeat Inc. -- http://www.smartheatinc.com/-- is a U.S.
company with its primary operations in China.  SmartHeat
manufactures heat exchangers, custom plate heat exchanger units
(PHE Units), heat meters and heat pumps.

ULTA SALON: Continues to Defend Employment Suit in California
On March 2, 2012, a putative employment class action lawsuit was
filed against Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. and certain
unnamed defendants in state court in Los Angeles County,
California.  On April 12, 2012, the Company removed the case to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.  The plaintiff and members of the proposed class are
alleged to be (or to have been) non-exempt hourly employees.  The
lawsuit alleges that Ulta violated various provisions of the
California labor laws and failed to provide the plaintiff and
members of the proposed class with full meal periods, paid rest
breaks, certain wages, overtime compensation and premium pay.  The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages and penalties as a result of
these alleged practices.  The Company denies the plaintiff's
allegations and is vigorously defending the matter.

No further updates were reported in the Company's June 11, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended May 4, 2013.

Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., provides one-stop
shopping for prestige, mass and salon products and salon services
in the United States.  The Company was incorporated in Delaware
and is headquartered in Bolingbrook, Illinois.

UNITED STATES: Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae Shareholders File Suit
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP disclosed that preferred
shareholders of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae on July 11 filed a
class action lawsuit challenging the US Government's appropriation
of their dividend, liquidation, and related distribution rights in
August 2012.

As part of the 2008 federal bail-out, mortgage giants Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac issued the US Department of Treasury $189 billion
of senior preferred stock.  These new securities entitled the
Government to be paid dividends on their investment in Fannie and
Freddie at a rate of 10% per year.  The junior preferred
shareholders received no dividends in the interim.

In 2012, as the real estate market stabilized and began to
improve, Fannie and Freddie began generating consistent and
growing profits, enabling them to repay the government and resume
dividend payments to junior preferred stockholders.  Instead, the
US Department of Treasury and the Federal Housing Finance
Administration -- both arms of the U.S. Government -- unilaterally
amended the Treasury's senior preferred stock agreements to grant
the Government the right to receive all of Fannie and Freddie's
profits and net worth as dividends (or as a liquidation
preference).  None of these dividend payments are being applied
towards paying down the principal of the senior preferred stock;
rather, the Government has structured the new contracts to
effectuate a "cash sweep" of all of Fannie and Freddie's profits
and keep these entitles in a perpetual state of distress.

Plaintiffs allege that the Government's unilateral amendment of
the senior preferred stock agreements constitutes a "taking" under
the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution requiring payment of
just compensation.  They seek to represent a class of Fannie and
Freddie junior preferred shareholders who owned their preferred
shares on August 17, 2012, and therefore suffered the complete
loss of their dividend and liquidation rights.

Plaintiffs are represented jointly by Hamish Hume of Boies
Schiller & Flexner and Lee Rudy and Eric Zagar of Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check.  Preferred shareholders interested in
participating in the lawsuit and protecting their right to receive
a recovery are urged to contact plaintiffs' counsel below.

                      About Boies Schiller

Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, founded in 1997, has grown to over
250 lawyers practicing in offices strategically located throughout
the United States.  Over the past ten years BSF has tried more
than 350 cases before juries and judges in federal and state
courts throughout the United States and participated in more than
150 international arbitration proceedings throughout the world.
The Firm regularly serves as lead counsel on complex, high profile
global matters.  Boies Schiller is currently litigating a class
action complaint against the United States related to the
appropriation of the economic and voting rights of AIG's

                       About Kessler Topaz

Kessler Topaz is a 100-lawyer firm based in Radnor, PA and San
Francisco, CA that specializes in class action litigation,
primarily on behalf of pension fund investors.  The firm has
recovered billions of dollars for investors, including most
recently as co-lead counsel in In re Bank of America Securities
Litigation (SDNY 2012) ($2.425 billion class settlement), and as
co-lead counsel in In re Southern Peru Copper (Del. Ch. 2011)
($2.1 billion trial verdict).

The full case caption for the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac class action
is Cacciapelle v. United States of America, 13-cv-00385-MMS.


          Hamish Hume, Esq.
          Telephone: (202) 237-2727
          E-mail: hhume@bsfllp.com

          Eric Zagar, Esq.
          Darren Check, Esq.
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          E-mail: ezagar@ktmc.com

UROPLASTY INC: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in Minnesota
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors Uroplasty,
Inc. on July 13 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
on behalf of a class comprising all purchasers of Uroplasty
securities between July 26, 2012 and June 13, 2013, inclusive.

9224, OR AT 212-682-5340, OR BY EMAIL TO

Uroplasty is a medical device company that engages in the
development, manufacture and marketing of products for the
treatment of voiding dysfunctions, including treatment of
overactive bladder.  The Complaint alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants issued false and/or misleading statements
and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations and prospects.  Specifically, defendants
misrepresented or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company lacked
adequate internal and financial controls; and (2) as a result, the
Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On June 14, 2013, the Company announced that it was delaying the
filing of its annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended March
31, 2013, until the completion of a review of its internal control
over financial reporting.  According the Company, in connection
with a review of employee expense reimbursements conducted at the
direction of the Audit Committee of the Company's board of
directors, the Company uncovered "issues related to the internal
controls surrounding the employee expense reimbursement approval
process," in addition to "issues in internal control related to
the recognition of orders and the payment of sales commissions at
the end of fiscal quarters."  As a result of this news, shares of
Uroplasty declined $0.26 per share, or 10.48%, to close on June
14, 2013, at $2.22 per share, on heavy trading volume.

If you are a member of the Class described above you may move the
Court no later than August 30, 2013 to serve as lead plaintiff;
however, you must meet certain legal requirements.  If you wish to
learn more about this action or if you purchased Uroplasty
securities prior to the Class Period or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact:

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Toll-Free at 888-773-9224

               - or -

          Gregory Linkh, Esq.
          Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
          122 E. 42nd Street, Suite 2920
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: 212-682-5340
          E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com
          Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com

If you inquire by email please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.

VODAFONE HUTCHISON: LCM Seeks "Ideal Plaintiffs" in Class Action
Adam Bender, writing for Computerworld, reports that the company
funding a class action lawsuit against Vodafone Hutchison
Australia has said it will issue the court case by the end of

The LCM Litigation Fund is currently scouring its list of more
than 10,000 unhappy former Vodafone customers who have joined the
lawsuit for "ideal plantiffs" for the case, according to an update
to the class action participants sighted by Computerworld

"Finding the right people to represent everyone is an important
part of this legal claim and it can't start without them," wrote
LCM managing director Patrick Coope.  "We are presently speaking
with a number of people who have indicated they are willing to
take on this role.  We expect to finish this part of the process
in the next few weeks."

"The lawyers will then need to finish preparing the necessary
court documents," he wrote.  "We will then need to speak to
Vodafone to comply with the rules of the Federal Court of

Law firm Piper Alderman initially announced plans in February to
serve Vodafone with the class action.  LCM stepped in after Piper
Alderman failed to secure funding for the class action.

Vodafone has been investing billions to upgrade its network.  The
company launched a 4G network last month and has just opened it to
new customers.

Vodafone didn't comment.

VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Continues to Defend "Oliveira" Suit vs. Unit
In August 2007, Marcelo Soares de Oliveira filed a class action
(acao popular) against Votorantim Cimentos S.A.'s subsidiary,
Votorantim Cimentos Norte e Nordeste S.A. (VCNNE), the legal
representative of Companhia de Mineracao do Tocantins -
Mineratins, the State of Tocantins, State Governor of Tocantins
and the President of the Permanent Commission for Tender Processes
of the Treasury Secretariat of State of Tocantins, claiming that
the tender process by means of which VCNNE won the rights to be
the assignee of the mineral rights related to the DNPM Process No.
860.933/1982 then held by Companhia de Mineracao do Tocantins -
Mineratins should be nullified due to failure in the tender
procedures which shall cause damages to the State Treasury.  It is
also requested an injunction in order to immediately suspend the
effects of the tender, which has not been decided by the court

In May 2008, VCNNE presented defense arguing that such lawsuit is
related (conexo) to another lawsuit and, therefore, this new one
should be judged together with the previously filed one and
requesting the lawsuit to be dismissed.  In April 2009, the State
Prosecutor agreed that the lawsuits are related and should be
judged together.  The expectation of loss under this claim is
considered possible and the Company has not recorded any provision
in connection with this claim.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 31, 2013,
Form F-1/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange

Votorantim Cimentos S.A. -- http://www.vcimentos.com.br/-- is a
global vertically-integrated heavy building materials company,
with operations in North and South America, Europe, Africa and
Asia.  The Company is headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Still Awaits Decision in "Mato Grosso" Suit
On December 11, 2000, the Public Prosecutor of Mato Grosso filed a
civil class action against Votorantim Cimentos S.A. seeking the
annulment of certain environmental licenses granted to the Company
and the suspension of its operations in the Paraguai/Parana River.
The court excluded the Company from the civil class action and the
Public Prosecutor has appealed.  In August 2007, a court, in a
unanimous decision, agreed that IBAMA correctly granted the
licenses to the Company.  The Company is awaiting a final decision
from a higher court.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 31, 2013,
Form F-1/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange

Based on the advice of its external legal counsel, the Company
believes the probability of loss under this claim is possible.
The Company has not recorded any provision with respect to this

Votorantim Cimentos S.A. -- http://www.vcimentos.com.br/-- is a
global vertically-integrated heavy building materials company,
with operations in North and South America, Europe, Africa and
Asia.  The Company is headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Still Awaits Expert Report in Imbituba Suit
Votorantim Cimentos S.A. is still waiting for an expert report to
be prepared and issued in the class action lawsuit alleging that
thestorage and transportation of petcoke in the Port of Imbituba
resulted in environmental damage, according to the Company's
May 31, 2013, Form F-1/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

In July 2011, the Associacao dos Moradores da Rua de Baixo, the
Instituto Conexao Ambiental and the Associacao de Surf de Imbituba
filed a class action against CRB Operacoes Portuarias S.A., or
CRB, the Company's indirect subsidiary, Companhia Docas de
Imbituba, the city of Imbituba and the Fundacao do Meio Ambiente,
or FATMA, claiming that the storage and transportation of petcoke
in the Port of Imbituba resulted in environmental damage and also
adversely affected the health of residents of the area.  The
plaintiffs also claim that CRB breached a conduct agreement (termo
de ajustamento de conduta) it entered into with the State
Attorney's Office, pursuant to which it: (1) would adopt steps
towards adequate storage of petcoke at the terminal of the Port of
Imbituba; (2) would adequately store petcoke in the terminal until
November 30, 2003; (3) would provide an environmental operating
permit to FATMA by the end of 2003; (4) would delay restrictions
on the use of the property of the city's fire department until the
end of the concession of the Port of Imbituba, intermediate with
the federal government the permanent transfer property ownership
to the facilities of the city's fire department and stimulate the
local business community by donating R$52,000 to the Fundo
Municipal do Corpo de Bombeiros, or FMCB, by the end of 2003; (5)
would donate R$100,000 to the FMCB for the acquisition of a
paramedical vehicle to be used in the city by the end of 2003; and
(6) the State Attorney would agree not to take any legal action
against the agencies, entities or individuals that signed the
conduct agreement in the event the conditions of the conduct
agreement were fulfilled during the applicable period.  In
addition, an injunction was issued against CRB and other
defendants that prohibited these companies from storing and
transporting petcoke in the Port of Imbituba.  CRB has provided
evidence demonstrating the renovations and investments made and
appealed the injunction that caused it to close its petcoke
operations at the port and appealed a daily fine of U.S.$100,000
in the event that CRB did not close its petcoke operations.  As a
result of the appeal, the injunction was temporarily suspended.

On December 12, 2011, the CRB and the plaintiffs reached a partial
agreement before the District Court of Imbituba, pursuant to which
CRB has undertaken to carry out six proposed improvements.
Moreover, on January 5, 2012, CRB entered into an adjustment of
conduct agreement (termo de ajustamento de conduta) with FATMA,
pursuant to which FATMA agreed to reduce certain previously
imposed penalties in light of the costs involved in implementing
the improvements.  In May 2012, the District Court of Imbituba
appointed expert testimony to provide support for the alleged
environmental damage arising from the storage of petcoke at the
terminal of the Port of Imbituba.  The District Court notified the
parties to present their inquiries and the names of their
technical assistants.

The Company is currently waiting for the expert report to be
prepared and issued by the court's expert.  Based on the advice of
its external legal counsel, CRB believes the probability of loss
under this claim is probable.  The Company has not recorded any
provision with respect to this claim because this claim is related
to an obligation to limit the emissions of solid particles with
respect to its future operations.  The amount in dispute is

Votorantim Cimentos S.A. -- http://www.vcimentos.com.br/-- is a
global vertically-integrated heavy building materials company,
with operations in North and South America, Europe, Africa and
Asia.  The Company is headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Still Awaits for Fla. AG and DOJs' Next Move
Prestige Concrete Products, a subsidiary of Votorantim Cimentos
S.A., was party to two consolidated civil class actions alleging
antitrust violations by a number of companies having cement and
ready-mix concrete operations in the state of Florida.  The court
dismissed certain of the claims and parties in motions to dismiss
and subsequently refused to certify any classes.  The cases were
all settled and/or voluntarily dismissed in February and March
2012.  Subsequent to the commencement of the civil class actions,
the Florida Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Justice
conducted investigations having, to the Company's knowledge,
similar subject matter but a narrower scope than the civil class
actions.  The last communications with either agency occurred in
May 2012 with no indication by either agency of any intention to
conduct further investigation or to file any charges.

No further updates were reported in the Company's May 31, 2013,
Form F-1/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange

Votorantim Cimentos S.A. -- http://www.vcimentos.com.br/-- is a
global vertically-integrated heavy building materials company,
with operations in North and South America, Europe, Africa and
Asia.  The Company is headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Still Defends Suit Alleging Cartel Formation
Votorantim Cimentos S.A. continues to defend itself against a
class action lawsuit alleging breach of Brazilian antitrust law as
a result of alleged cartel formation, according to the Company's
May 31, 2013, Form F-1/A filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Office of the Public Prosecutor of Rio Grande do Norte filed a
civil class action against Votorantim Cimentos S.A. (VCSA),
together with eight other defendants, including several of
Brazil's largest cement manufacturers alleging breach of Brazilian
antitrust law as a result of alleged cartel formation, and
seeking, among other things, that: (1) defendants pay an
indemnity, on joint basis, in the amount of R$5,600 million in
favor of the class action plaintiffs for moral and collective
damages; (2) defendants pay 10.0% of the total amount paid for
cement or concrete acquired by the consumers of the brands
negotiated by the defendants, between the years 2002 and 2006, as
compensation for damages to individual consumers; and (3)
defendants suffer the following penalties under Articles 23, Item
I and 24 of the Law No. 8.884/94: (i) in addition to the fine
referred to in item (1), a fine ranging from 1.0% to 30.0% of the
annual gross revenues relating to the fiscal year immediately
prior to the year in which the administrative proceeding was
initiated, which may never be in an amount less than the monetary
advantage gained; and (ii) ineligibility, for a period of at least
five years, to obtain financing from governmental financial
institutions or to participate in competitive government bidding
processes conducted by federal, state or municipal governmental
entities or with governmental agencies.

Because the total amount of the claims referred to in item (1)
above amounts to R$5,600 million and the claims allege joint
liability, the Company has estimated that, based on the Company's
market share, its share of the liability would be approximately
R$2,400 million.  However, there can be no assurance that this
apportionment would prevail and that the Company will not be held
liable for a different portion, which may be larger, or for the
entire amount of this claim.  The Company's expectation of loss
under this matter is considered possible, and the Company has not
established any provision for this claim.  Furthermore, there can
be no assurance that the Company will not be required to pay other
amounts as compensation for damages caused to consumers in
accordance with item (2), and/or the fine referred to in item (3).
The Company's expectation of loss under this matter is considered
possible, and the Company has not established any provision for
this claim.

Votorantim Cimentos S.A. -- http://www.vcimentos.com.br/-- is a
global vertically-integrated heavy building materials company,
with operations in North and South America, Europe, Africa and
Asia.  The Company is headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

VOTORANTIM CIMENTOS: Still Negotiates to Settle Serra do Mar Suit
The parties in the class action lawsuit alleging Votorantim
Cimentos S.A. and other defendants' operations are causing serious
environmental damage in the Serra do Mar region are still
currently negotiating a settlement with the Public Prosecutor of
the State of Sao Paulo, according to the Company's May 31, 2013,
Form F-1/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange

The Office of the Public Prosecutor of the State of Sao Paulo has
filed a civil class action against Votorantim Cimentos S.A.
("VCSA") and other companies alleging that their respective
operations are causing serious environmental damage in the Serra
do Mar region and consequently seeking indemnification to
compensate such damage.  The court has ordered expert testimony to
estimate the environmental damages in the Serra do Mar region.
However, this expert testimony has not yet been completed given
that the appointed expert has declined to testify.  This civil
class action was last suspended in May 2012 for a term of 90 days.
The suspension was renewed for another 90-day period commencing in
August 2012.  The parties are currently negotiating a settlement
with the Public Prosecutor of the State of Sao Paulo.  Based on
the advice of its external legal counsel, the Company believes the
probability of loss under this claim is probable, and the Company
has recorded a provision of R$1.8 million in connection with this

Votorantim Cimentos S.A. -- http://www.vcimentos.com.br/-- is a
global vertically-integrated heavy building materials company,
with operations in North and South America, Europe, Africa and
Asia.  The Company is headquartered in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

YELP INC: Business Owners Appeal Class Action Ruling
Christopher Zara, writing for International Business Times,
reports that a group of business owners suing Yelp Inc. for
extortion, filed an appeal in San Francisco's 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals on July 11, hoping to reverse a judge's earlier decision
that the crowd-sourced review giant is not liable for user reviews
that negatively impact businesses.

In 2011, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen ruled that, under the
Communications Decency Act of 1996, the much-maligned company is
not responsible for content written by its users.  It's a position
backed by free-speech advocates such as the Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF), which has come out in support of Yelp in the
case.  Specifically, EFF says the website -- and other user-
generated sites like it -- is protected under section 230 of the
act, which states the following:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be
treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by
another information content provider."

According to EFF, the clause is a vital tool in maintaining
freedom of expression on the Internet.  "In other words, online
intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against
a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally
responsible for what others say and do," the group said on its

Critics both in and out of the courtroom continue to go to great
lengths to characterize Yelp as an unscrupulous bully, bent on
wielding its influence to extort advertising revenue from small
businesses on the receiving end of the countless negative rants by
Yelp users.  In their lawsuit, the merchants claim that Yelp
offers to hide negative reviews and highlight positive ones in
exchange for advertising purchases.  Some merchants have also
accused Yelp of zapping positive reviews as retribution for
businesses that don't advertise.

Yelp has long denied such claims and said in a blog post in May
that "conspiracies" about its operations have been debunked by
independent studies.  The website also stands by its automated
review filter, which it says weeds out trolls and fake reviews to
create an unbiased picture of user consensus toward any particular

"It's an algorithm," Vince Sollito, Yelp's vice president of
corporate communications, told NBC Connecticut last year.  "It's
automatic and it takes into account all of the patterns of data
and signals we know about reviewers to help us to determine which
content is the most helpful and what we can show."

Nevertheless, anti-Yelp sentiment is rampant on the Internet and
social media.  Sites like YelpFiction.com, Yelp-Sucks.com and
YelpLawsuit.com offer Yelp critics both legal advice and a place
to vent their frustrations.  The "Tell Your Story" page on Yelp-
Sucks.com features hundreds of comments from entrepreneurs who say
Yelp has negatively affected their businesses.  On Facebook, pages
like Yelp Extortion and others feature similar stories.  Last
year, a Freedom of Information Act request filed with the FTC
revealed nearly 700 complaints against Yelp over the last four
years, with some business owners comparing the website to the

According to Entrepreneur magazine, which reported on the July 11
appeal, the case against Yelp is expected to be decided this week.

* Class Actions v. Asbestos Companies Not Possible in Russia
Andrew E. Kramer, writing for The New York Times, reports that the
city of Asbest in Russia -- city of about 70,000 people on the
eastern slopes of the Ural Mountains -- is a pleasant enough place
to live except for one big drawback: when the wind picks up,
clouds of carcinogenic dust blow through.

Asbest means asbestos in Russian, and it is everywhere here.
Residents describe layers of it collecting on living room floors.
Before they take in the laundry from backyard lines, they first
shake out the asbestos.  "When I work in the garden, I notice
asbestos dust on my raspberries," said Tamara A. Biserova, a
retiree.  So much dust blows against her windows, she said, that
"before I leave in the morning, I have to sweep it out."

The town is one center of Russia's asbestos industry, which is
stubbornly resistant to shutting asbestos companies and phasing in
substitutes for the cancer-causing fireproofing product.

In the United States and most developed economies, asbestos is
handled with extraordinary care.  Until the 1970s, the fibrous,
silicate mineral was used extensively in fireproofing and
insulating buildings in America, among other uses, but growing
evidence of respiratory ailments due to asbestos exposure led to
limits.  Laws proscribe its use and its disposal and workers who
get near it wear ventilators and protective clothes.  The European
Union and Japan have also banned asbestos. (A town called Asbestos
in Quebec, Canada, has stopped mining asbestos, though it hasn't
changed its name.)

But not here, where every weekday afternoon miners set explosions
in a strip mine owned by the Russian mining company Uralasbest.
The blasts send huge plumes of asbestos fiber and dust into the
air.  Asbest is one of the more extreme examples of the
environmental costs of modern Russia's deep reliance on mining.

"Every normal person is trying to get out of here,"
Boris Balobanov, a former factory employee, now a taxi driver,
explained.  "People who value their lives leave.  But I was born
here and have no place else to go."

Of the half-dozen people interviewed who worked at the factory or
mine, all had a persistent cough, a symptom of exposure to what
residents call "the white needles." Residents also describe
strange skin ailments.  Doctors interviewed at a dermatology ward
say the welts arise from inflammation caused by asbestos.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is a branch
of the World Health Organization, is in the midst of a multiyear
study of asbestos workers in Asbest.  Because of the large number
of people exposed in the city, the researchers are using the
location to determine whether the asbestos causes ailments other
than lung cancer, including ovarian cancer.  "All forms of
asbestos are carcinogenic to humans," the group said.

Standing on the rim of the world's largest open pit asbestos mine
provides a panoramic scene.  Opened in the late 1800s, it is about
half the size of the island of Manhattan and the source of untold
tons of asbestos. The pit descends about 1,000 feet down slopes
created by terraced access roads.  Big mining trucks haul out
fibrous, gray, raw asbestos.

The Uralasbest mine is so close by that a few years ago the
mayor's office and the company relocated residents from one
outlying area to expand its gaping pit.

So entwined is the life of the town with this pit that many
newlyweds pose on a viewing platform on the rim to have their
pictures taken.  The city has a municipal anthem called "Asbestos,
my city and my fate."  In 2002, the City Council adopted a new
flag: white lines, symbolizing asbestos fibers, passing through a
ring of flame.  A billboard put up by Uralasbest in Asbest
proclaims "Asbestos is our Future."

The class-action lawsuits that demolished asbestos companies in
the United States are not possible in Russia's weak judicial
system, which favors powerful producers.  Russia, which has the
world's largest geological reserves of asbestos, mines about a
million tons of asbestos a year and exports about 60 percent of
it.  Demand is still strong for asbestos in China and India, where
it is used in insulation and building materials.  The Russian
Chrysotile Association, an asbestos industry trade group, reports
that annual sales total about 18 billion rubles, or $540 million.
And the business is growing, mostly because other countries are
getting out of the business.

The mine and the factory Uralasbest owns are the principal
employers.  The town depends on the jobs that mining asbestos and
making asbestos products bring.  Nationwide, the industry employs
38,500 Russians directly while about 400,000 people depend on the
factories and mines for their livelihood, if supporting businesses
in the mining towns are counted. About 17 percent of Asbest
residents work in the industry.

Asbest is a legacy of the philosophy known as gigantism in Soviet
industrial planning. Many cities wound up with only one, huge
factory like this town's sprawling asbestos plant.  The cities,
known as monotowns, were an important engine of the economy.  A
Russian government study counted 467 cities and 332 smaller towns
that depend on a single factory or mine.  A total of 25 million
people out of Russia's population of 142 million people live in
towns with only one main industry that cannot close, even if it is

In a sign of just how scarce other employment options are in
Asbest, a guard requires cars leaving the factory to open their
trunks, lest anyone try to steal scrap metal for resale.  That is
about the only other way to make a meager living in Russia's old
industrial towns.

The trade association says that the type of asbestos mined in
Russia, called chrysotile, is less harmful than other types.  The
United States, though, has tightly restricted its use.  The
country imports about 1,000 tons of asbestos, mainly from Brazil,
for use in aerospace and automotive industries for items like
clutch pads.  "They consider it dangerous but we consider it
safe," said the association's spokesman, Vladimir A. Galitsyn.
Russia has three research institutes dedicated to studying uses
for asbestos.

"As a representative of the industry, I don't see any problem," he
said. Properly handled, asbestos is safe, he said, and it saves
lives in fires.  "We are not the enemy of our workers.  If they
died, then people would be afraid to work for us."

Valentin K. Zemskov, 82, worked at the mine for 40 years and
developed asbestosis, a respiratory illness caused by breathing in
asbestos fibers, which scar lung tissue.  "There was so much dust
you couldn't see a man standing next to you," he said of his
working years.  For the disability, the factory adds 4,500 rubles,
or about $135, to his monthly retirement check, which would be
enough to cover only a few restaurant meals.

Still, he said the city had no other choice.  "If we didn't have
the factory, how would we live?" he said, gasping for air as he
talked in the yard of a retirement home.  "We need to keep it open
so we have jobs."

A monument to residents who died was made, grimly, of a block of
asbestos ore, with the inscription "Live and Remember."

"Of course asbestos dust covers our city," said Nina A. Zubkova,
another resident of the retirement home.  "Why do you think the
city is named Asbest?"

* Class Actions Challenge "Church Plan" Status of Pension Plans
McDermott Will & Emery reports that recent complaints challenging
the "church plan" status of certain pension plans maintained by
church-sponsored hospital systems may signal the beginning of a
new wave of lawsuits challenging underfunded church pension plans.
Sponsors of church plans would be well advised to examine their
church plans and assess the risk associated with the plan's funded
status and the strength of their position that the plan qualifies
as a church plan.

At least five complaints have now been filed by plaintiffs' class
action law firms challenging the "church plan" status of certain
pension plans maintained by church-sponsored hospital systems.
Employee benefit plans that qualify as "church plans" generally
are exempt from many of the federal tax law and federal pension
law requirements (largely under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, or ERISA) that apply to other plans,
including minimum vesting rules, U.S. Department of Labor
reporting and disclosure rules, Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation premium payment and insurance protection, and (most
critically) minimum funding requirements for pension plans.

The objective of these class action lawsuits is a court order or
settlement that would force the targeted hospital systems to
provide additional funding for the plans, part of which funding
would end up as huge legal fees for the plaintiffs' lawyers.
According to the complaints, certain of the targeted plans are
notably underfunded when compared to the funding that would be
required for nonchurch pension plans subject to ERISA.  The
imposition of ERISA's funding requirements on pension plans having
projected liabilities that greatly exceed assets would impose a
significant financial hardship on the sponsors of those plans.


ERISA generally imposes extensive requirements on the sponsors of
employee benefit plans.  However, Section 33(3) of ERISA exempts
from ERISA's requirements any plan "established and maintained
. . . for its employees (or their beneficiaries) by a church or by
a convention or association of churches."  Many nonprofit hospital
systems originally founded by religious orders continue to
maintain frozen or active pension plans that have been ruled by
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to be, or are treated as being,
"church plans" and thus exempt from ERISA and its funding and
other requirements.  Recent complaints, filed on behalf of church
plan participants by two plaintiffs' class action firms, allege
that the pension plans of the named hospital systems do not
qualify as church plans, with the goal of subjecting those plans
to more stringent ERISA requirements and obtaining a court order
or settlement resulting in more funding of the pension benefits
earned under those plans.  By way of example, plaintiffs in one of
the recent complaints claim that the underfunding in that
particular pension plan is around $1.2 billion.

Substance of Complaints

The complaints attempt to overturn a well-settled IRS ruling
position on church plan status by making three arguments in each
case.  The first argument is that church plan status should not be
allowed at all for hospital-sponsored pension plans.  This
argument alleges that a church plan must be established by a
church or convention or association of churches, and not by a
hospital or hospital system (even if that hospital or hospital
system is a church-sponsored and church-affiliated organization).
For this allegation to succeed, the court reviewing the complaint
would have to disagree with more than 30 years of IRS and
Department of Labor rulings, as well as prior case law, holding
that an entity controlled by or associated with a church can
establish and maintain a church plan.  These rulings look at
several factors to determine whether the organization sponsoring
the church plan is controlled by or affiliated with a church, such
as the power of the church to appoint and replace the members of
the plan sponsor's governing board, the common religious bonds of
the plan sponsor and the church, and inclusion of the plan sponsor
in a directory or other listing of church-affiliated entities.
The complaints in essence say that this is a misreading of the law
and ask the court to find that a church plan may be sponsored only
by a church or by a convention or association of churches.

The second argument is that, even if the church plan could be
sponsored by the hospital system, the hospital system in each case
is insufficiently controlled by or associated with the church.
The complaints examine what they assert to be the hallmarks of
church control and church association, and allege that the
hospital system entities do not exhibit these hallmarks of control
and association sufficiently.  The complaints specifically allege
that each hospital "purports to share only some religious
convictions with the Catholic Church, while deliberately choosing
to distance itself from, and/or deny, other religious convictions
of the Catholic Church when it is in its economic interest to do
so."  Those economic interests include hiring non-Catholic
employees, performing or authorizing medical procedures prohibited
by the Catholic Church, providing spiritual support and
encouragement to patients that is divergent from and contrary to
the Catholic Church teachings, investing in business enterprises
not related to the Catholic Church and, for certain of the named
hospital systems, partnering in for-profit ventures with
organizations that do not require religious convictions common to
the Catholic Church.

The complaints conclude that, because the hospital systems are not
"associated with" the Catholic Church in this stricter sense,
"substantially all" of the employees participating in the plans
are not employees of a tax-exempt organization that is controlled
by or associated with a church or convention of churches, and as a
result the plans are not church plans.

The third argument is that the church plan exemption under ERISA
violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  This
argument essentially is that permitting an organization to avoid
the requirements of ERISA because of its control by or association
with a church is a means of establishing a religion in violation
of the First Amendment.  This argument is worded so broadly that,
if accepted, it would appear to invalidate the entire church plan
exemption from ERISA.  This appears to be a "reserve" argument
that plaintiffs' lawyers might pursue even if the other two
arguments are unsuccessful.

What's Next?

These recent complaints challenging church plan status likely are
the beginning of a new wave of lawsuits challenging underfunded
church pension plans.  Now that the number of these lawsuits is up
to five, sponsors of church plans would be well advised to examine
their church plans and assess both the risk associated with the
plan's funded status and the strength of their position that the
plan qualifies, and is being maintained and administered
consistently, as a church plan.  In this regard it is worth noting
that the IRS will rule, and is continuing to issue favorable
rulings, on the status of a plan as a church plan.

               Arbitration Clause Hinders Employees
                     From Joining Class Action

Alan Semuels, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that when
Jose Tadeo Gamez Flores realized that his employer had failed to
pay him for all the hours he was working as a janitor, he did what
many other employees might do in the same situation: He tried to
sue to recover the lost wages.  But Mr. Flores, 34, ran into an
obstacle when he tried to file a class-action lawsuit to get back
his and other janitors' wages.  He had signed away his right to
file a lawsuit against his employer.

After being hired, Mr. Flores had been presented with a pile of
papers to sign.  And he had unknowingly agreed not to take any
legal problem with his bosses to the courts, but instead go to a
private arbitrator handpicked by his employer.

"This is the equivalent to saying you have to give up your right
to vote in an election," said Ari Moss, Flores' attorney.  "It's
about punishing the poor and the weak, and saying you don't have
the right to come and seek redress."

Emboldened by a series of Supreme Court decisions and an
employers' job market, many companies are starting to require
workers to sign away their rights in return for a job.  It is a
trend that experts worry could further wear away employees' power
in the workplace.  The contracts make it harder for employees to
join class-action lawsuits, take their employers to court, or
leave to go work somewhere else.

"You can see this common thread of making it more difficult to
have your day in court," said David Yamada, a professor at Suffolk
University Law School in Boston.  "The legal climate for employees
is a tough one."

Employers defend arbitration agreements as a low-cost way to
resolve disputes while freeing up space in the overburdened court
system.  But some lawyers label arbitrators "corporate courts"
because the arbitrator is hired by the employer, and because
employers statistically win much more in arbitration than they do
in courts.

"It unevens the playing field," said Paul Bland, a senior attorney
at Public Justice.  "It used to be if you took away a right that
you would have under normal law, the courts would throw it out."

The use of these arbitration agreements has become more common
since a 2011 Supreme Court decision, AT&T Mobility vs. Concepcion,
that made it easier to prevent workers from participating in
class-action lawsuits, Mr. Bland said.  That further complicates
things for employees who have small claims that aren't big enough
for a lawyer to take on unless they turn into a class-action

Mazhar Saleem is bound to his employer by a number of contracts
that made it difficult to earn enough money to live, but also hard
to go work anywhere else.  He drives a town car for a company in
New York as an independent contractor, rather than as a full-time
employee.  That means he doesn't get benefits, never receives
overtime, and isn't guaranteed set hours.

But he also signed a non-compete contract when he started working,
meaning he can't drive a car for anyone else in New York.  So even
if his employer doesn't give him any work, he's not allowed to go
find it elsewhere, says his attorney, Michael Scimone, with the
law firm Outten and Golden.

"It ties into the larger theme of employers trying to use
contracts to alter pieces of the employment relationship that are
supposed to be governed by law," Mr. Scimone said.

Non-compete clauses, once a staple of the high-tech world, are
being extended to cover hairdressers, auto mechanics,
exterminators and other professions that courts would
traditionally not uphold them for, lawyers say.  They essentially
mean an employee can't leave a job to take another one nearby,
unless he or she wants to stop working for a year or so.

It's a way to keep promising employees from leaving, said Matt
Marx, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor who has
studied these contracts.

"Given the increased job mobility of today's world, companies are
saying, 'We can't count on people to be here forever. We have to
lock them up with contracts,'" he said.

In a recent case in Worcester, Mass., three women working at a
hair salon tried to leave after their conditions at work
deteriorated.  All three received cease-and-desist letters when
they started working elsewhere, because they had signed non-
compete clauses.  They had to wait a year for the clauses to
expire before they could work in the area again.

In other contracts being distributed at the workplace, employees
agree to pay the costs of litigation if they lose, and employers
shorten the amount of time in which employees can sue them.  All
of these contracts make it less likely for employees to win
against their bosses in court -- if they are even allowed to take
them to court.

That means lawyers will be more hesitant to take on workplace
cases because it has gotten more difficult for them to win them,
said Catherine Fisk, an employment law professor at the University
of California-Irvine's law school.

"The less likely an employee is to file a claim, the less
incentive a company has to extend money and other resources to
prevent the illegal discrimination from happening," she said.

Two recent Supreme Court decisions have made it harder for
employees to win discrimination suits.

Many employment lawyers say they're not surprised that courts have
made life tougher for employees. Since the beginning of the
Roberts court, experts say, the Supreme Court has issued decision
after decision cutting back employees' legal avenues to complain.

"Since the Warren court, employers have done well at the Supreme
Court, but in the Roberts court, they have done exceptionally
well," said Cynthia Estlund, a professor at New York University's
School of Law. John Roberts Jr. became chief justice in 2005.

Law historians trace the court's conservative leanings to the long
stretches of Republicans in the White House in the 1980s and 2000s
that allowed presidents to appoint more conservative judges to
lower courts and to the Supreme Court.

Adding up seven years of decisions, the workplace is getting to be
a tough place for many, said Cliff Palefsky, an employment lawyer
at McGuinn, Hillsman & Palefsky in San Francisco.  Employers
already can ask employees to work harder for less because the job
market is still so sluggish in many fields.  But in some cases,
employees who think they can find a better situation elsewhere are
going to have trouble doing so.

"The law is being undermined and it's putting some workers in a
bind," Mr. Palefsky said.  In some situations, when non-compete
clauses are mixed with arbitration agreements, he said, "We're one
step away from indentured servitude."

* Class Actions Over Privacy Breach on the Rise
Lawrence T. Gresser and Karen H. Bromberg, writing for New York
Law Journal, report that in one of the largest privacy class
action suits ever filed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit recently affirmed a federal district court decision
allowing a class action to proceed against comScore, an online
data research company, for alleged violations of federal privacy
statutes.  The class, which is likely to total well over one
million members, includes all individuals who have downloaded the
company's software since 2005.  At the heart of the complaint is
plaintiff's claim that comScore's software collects more personal
information about users than is disclosed in the company's terms
of service and that the company sells this information to third
parties, who in turn use the data for marketing research.

Historically, plaintiffs have had a difficult time showing that
they have sustained damages from alleged privacy violations, and
this has frustrated most attempts to bring privacy class actions.
However, in comScore, the lead plaintiffs were found to have
standing, and the purported class was certified, based on
statutory damages, not actual damages.  The comScore decision and
other recent decisions allowing privacy cases to proceed in the
absence of actual damages suggest that the legal landscape may be
changing, and that privacy could be the next significant frontier
in consumer class action litigation.

This article provides an overview of privacy actions, reviews the
defenses -- injury and standing -- that have made it difficult for
plaintiffs to prevail, and discusses recent case law and the
future of privacy class action litigation.

                     Consumer Privacy Actions

Security breaches involving personal information are occurring
more frequently and affecting many more people than in the past.
According to a June 2013 report from the Privacy Rights
Clearinghouse, "the total number of records containing sensitive
personal information involved in security breaches in the United
States is 608,087,870 in 3,763 data breaches since January 2005."
The result, unsurprisingly, has been an increase in privacy
litigation in general, and a rise in the frequency of privacy
class actions in particular.

Consumer privacy actions are typically based on allegations of
inappropriate collection of personal data resulting from: (i)
human error, theft, or malicious attacks; or (ii) the affirmative
acts of companies collecting personal data without appropriate
notice and consent.  These lawsuits have most often included
common law claims of negligence, breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, trespass to personal property/chattel, invasion of
privacy, and/or breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, as well as statutory claims under state consumer
protections acts and state data breach notification laws.  More
recently, plaintiffs have sued under federal statutory causes of
action such as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, an anti-hacking
statute (the CFAA).  But, as discussed infra, privacy plaintiffs
asserting these claims have confronted significant obstacles.
Common Obstacles: Standing and Injury

To bring a private action in federal court, a plaintiff must show
that he or she has suffered "injury in fact" sufficient to meet
the case or controversy requirement of Article III of the U.S.
Constitution.  This injury must be "concrete and particularized"
and "actual or imminent," not merely speculative.5 Absent concrete
allegations that a privacy plaintiff has suffered actual economic
losses from the disclosure or mishandling of personal information,
a number of courts have rejected allegations that plaintiffs
suffered injury in fact and have dismissed privacy class actions
on standing grounds.  Such was the case for the plaintiffs in In
re Google Street View Elec. Commc'ns Litig.  There, the court
dismissed plaintiffs' claims under California's consumer
protection statute because plaintiffs failed to plead facts
showing that Google's alleged collection of their Wi-Fi usage data
caused plaintiffs to lose or expend money.

A similar inability to allege actual damages resulted in the
dismissal of a $5 million class action lawsuit against the social
networking site LinkedIn, involving the alleged compromise of 6.5
million users' passwords.  Here, the plaintiffs pled a total of
nine causes of action including breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, breach of an implied contract to reasonably safeguard
user information, negligence and negligence per se.  Holding that
any damage to LinkedIn users was abstract and that plaintiffs
failed to provide evidence of injury that was concrete and
particularized, the court dismissed the complaint.

In LaCourt v. Specific Media, plaintiffs alleged that Specific
Media, an online third-party ad network, used flash cookies, which
cannot be deleted and never expire, to track users across websites
and to circumvent the privacy and security controls of users who
had set their browsers to block third-party cookies.  The
plaintiffs asserted state law claims for invasion of privacy,
consumer protection violations, unfair competition, trespass, and
unjust enrichment, and a federal claim for violation of the CFAA.
The federal district court in California found that plaintiffs,
who did not articulate how they were deprived of the economic
value of their personal information, failed to allege harm or
economic injury sufficient to demonstrate standing.

                       Changing Landscape?

Recent cases however, suggest that the legal landscape may be
changing.  In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit held in Edwards v. First Am.  that a plaintiff who had
suffered no monetary loss nonetheless had standing to challenge a
violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).
RESPA prohibits the payment of "any fee, kickback, or thing of
value" in exchange for business referrals.  The statute provides
that when a violation occurs, the defendant can be held liable in
an "amount equal to three times the amount of any charge paid for
such settlement service."  The court held that because RESPA gave
the plaintiff a statutory cause of action, the plaintiff had
standing to pursue claims against the defendants despite its
failure to allege any actual or concrete injury from the RESPA

Although Edwards arose in the narrow context of an alleged RESPA
violation, the implications of the decision for privacy litigation
have not been lost on plaintiffs' lawyers: They are increasingly
filing purported privacy class actions based upon alleged
violations of federal privacy laws with statutory damages
provisions, including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
(ECPA), also known as the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. Sections 2510, et
seq.), and the Stored Communications Act (SCA) (18 U.S.C. Sections
2701, et seq.). In addition to providing a potential avenue for
avoiding standing problems, the relatively modest statutory
damages available under these statutes can be enormous when
aggregated over a class.

               Privacy Class Actions After 'comScore'

The comScore decision shows that if plaintiffs are found to have
standing to bring privacy claims based solely on statutory
damages, with no need to make "concrete and particularized"
allegations of actual damages, the resulting class actions can be
enormous.  In comScore, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois certified a putative privacy class based on
the statutory damages available under the ECPA and the SCA and the
superiority of the class action mechanism for resolving
plaintiffs' CFAA claims, notwithstanding uncertainty about the
existence and amount of plaintiffs' actual damages.  Plaintiffs in
comScore brought claims for unjust enrichment and for violations
of the SCA, the ECPA, and the CFAA, alleging that defendants
improperly obtained and used personal information after consumers
downloaded and installed the company's software.  The crux of
plaintiffs' claims was that comScore's data collection violated
the terms of the User License Agreement and the Downloading
Statement.  The court denied class certification on the unjust
enrichment claim, but granted certification for the federal
statutory claims, rejecting comScore's argument that the issue of
whether each individual plaintiff suffered damage or loss from the
alleged privacy violations precluded class certification.  The
court ruled that the SCA and the ECPA provided statutory damages
for which only a violation must be established, and noted that
although the CFAA required proof of loss aggregating to at least
$5,000 in value, "individual factual damages issues do not provide
a reason to deny class certification when the harm to each
plaintiff is too small to justify resolving the suits

Courts in the Ninth Circuit have likewise permitted privacy class
actions to go forward based solely on claimed violations of
federal statutes with statutory damages provisions.  In Gaos v.
Google, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed the named plaintiff's common law claims but
allowed her claims under the SCA to survive, holding that "the SCA
provides a right to judicial relief based only on a violation of
the statute without additional injury."  See also In re Facebook
Privacy Litig. (plaintiffs established standing when they alleged
a violation of the ECPA); In re Zynga Privacy Litig.19 (holding
that "a violation of one's statutory rights under the SCA is a
concrete injury); Cousineau v. Microsoft (denying motion to
dismiss for lack of Article III standing where plaintiff alleged
an SCA violation).

However, the Fourth Circuit has reached the opposite conclusion.
In Van Alstyne v. Elec. Scriptorium the Fourth Circuit ruled that
a plaintiff must prove actual damages to recover a statutory award
under the SCA. See also Sterk v. Best Buy Stores, (claim for
violation of Video Privacy Protection Act based on alleged
disclosure of plaintiff's movie purchase history was insufficient
to confer Article III standing).

It is not too soon to wonder whether the emerging split between
courts permitting privacy cases to go forward based solely on
statutory damages and those requiring actual damages will
eventually be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court -- and to wonder
what might happen there.  The implications of this seemingly
narrow question for class action jurisprudence and for online
businesses are enormous: comScore suggests that if a lead
plaintiff in a purported privacy class action can overcome the
standing hurdle by citing statutory damages, then the class
certification hurdle may also be manageable.  The stakes are high.

* Fraudsters Target Customers in Bank Fee Class Action
Herald on Sunday reports that legal action on bank fees has given
fresh inspiration to scammers, the banking industry warns.

A large number of Australian customers have been contacted by
fraudsters who say if they make a small payment, the fees claimed
in the class action will be released to them.  Bankers'
association chief executive Kirk Hope said: "It's likely
fraudsters will capitalize on the group action in New Zealand to
obtain payments from customers or gain access to their personal
banking details."

He said it was a reminder customers should never give out
passwords or PINs to anyone.

Another email has also gone out claiming to be from Westpac,
asking customers to update their online banking details.  It gives
a link for customers to follow.  This should be ignored.

* Landscape of Arbitration Agreements Faces Significant Evolution
Christina M. Kennedy, Esq. -- ckennedy@foley.com -- at Foley &
Lardner, reports that the landscape of arbitration agreements and
their effect on class action matters has been an area of
significant evolution in recent years.  Indeed, just two weeks
ago, Foley & Lardner reported on the latest Supreme Court decision
that seemed to put a damper on the belief that arbitration
agreements might provide a helpful avenue to stemming the tidal
wave of employment and wage and hour class actions that has washed
over many employers in recent years.  And then, at the end of its
fall 2012 term, the Supreme Court has now reenergized that hope
with its decision in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors
Restaurant, where the Court ruled that express class action
waivers are enforceable, even where precluding claims from
proceeding on a class basis seems to make them economically non-

The "high" cost of arbitration is an oft-relied upon argument put
forth by individual plaintiffs when seeking to invalidate an
arbitration clause mandating either individual litigation or
arbitration, as opposed to class arbitration, of their claims.
Not persuaded by this claim, in American Express, the Court ruled
that merchants seeking to sue American Express were bound by the
terms of their agreements to arbitrate their claims on an
individual, non-class basis.  The Court reached this conclusion
despite the merchants' arguments that the cost of pursing the
antitrust claims on an individual basis was "too high" to
vindicate their rights, and the most any could hope to recover in
damages is $38,549, far less than the estimated million dollar
price tag it would take to gather the experts and evidence to
prove their case.  The merchants thus claimed that these cost
differentials essentially meant they could not "vindicate their
statutory rights" and should not be forced to arbitrate on an
individual basis.

The Court was not convinced, and in its opinion, it stated, "the
antitrust laws do not guarantee an affordable procedural path to
the vindication of every claim."  Rather, "courts must 'rigorously
enforce' arbitration agreements according to their terms."  This
is so, the Court further explained, even in the face of ". . . the
fact that it is not worth the expense involved in proving a
statutory remedy does not constitute the elimination of the right
to pursue that remedy."

American Express represents an important victory for those seeking
to enforce arbitration clauses with class action waivers, which a
trending number of employers have adopted since the Supreme
Court's decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.  Questions
nevertheless remain as to whether the Supreme Court, and lower
courts, would view claims other than antitrust claims in a
different light.  Would a court be more willing to look at the
cost for plaintiffs seeking to recover for unpaid wages or
discrimination? As those questions get fleshed out, in the
interim, the Supreme Court's most recent decision is certainly a
"win" in terms of employers fighting against cost challenges to
arbitration clauses and using such clauses as a potential
mechanism to fight off costly class action litigation.


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

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

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

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

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

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

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *