/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/130924.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, September 24, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 189


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Class Action Over Meridia Drug Can Proceed
ALTIUS SPICES: Recalls Encore Gourmet Ground Cinnamon
AMERICAN HONDA: Settles Class Action Over Accord Vehicle Defect
ARNOLD PALMER: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action Over Unpaid Tips
AUSTRALIA: Six Closed Queensland Schools Mull Class Action

BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Denies HAMP Class Action Certification
BANK OF AMERICA: "Hammill" Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Amends Order Approving Labriola Suit Deal
BELL MOBILITY: Lerner Discusses Ruling on 911 Fee Class Action
BIOGEN IDEC: Faces Suits Over Tysabri MS Side Effects

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Dist. Court Dismisses "McQueen" Class Suit
BOLIDEN MINERAL: Faces Class Action Over Arsenic Poisoning
CINNABAR SERVICE: Appeals Class Status of Picher Landowners' Suit
CITICORP CREDIT: Bid to Certify FLSA Collective Action Denied
COLORTYME INC: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Spyware Class Action

DISH NETWORK: Hacker Murphy Files Wage-and-Hour Class Action
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Antitrust Suit Settlement Under Appeal
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Continues to Face Suits Over Use of Images
ENERGY PLUS: $14.3MM Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court OK
FACEBOOK INC: King & Wood Discusses Changes in Terms of Use

FACEBOOK INC: Cato Institute Criticizes Beacon Settlement
GMX RESOURCE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Action
HOYA CORPORATION: Gas/Water Feeding Valve Recalled in Canada
HURONIA REGIONAL: Abuse Class Action Settled for C$35 Million
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Depuy Hip Implant Trial in Ohio Starts Today

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Central Coast Women Sues Over Prolapse Mesh
LCD MAKERS: Nov. 6 Supreme Court Hearing in Price-Fixing Suit
LIBERTY SILVER: To Defend Proposed Securities Class Action
LINKEDIN CORP: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Marketing Practices
LOS LUNAS, NM: Settles Class Action Over Prison Seating Policy

MACMILLAN GROUP: Oct. 1 Deadline for Claim Forms in E-Book Accord
MERRILL LYNCH: Wins Dismissal of New Jersey Securities Suit
MERRILL LYNCH: Settlement of Securities Suit Under Appeal
MILFORD WATER: Class Action Trial Scheduled for Next Year
MONTREAL, CANADA: Class Suit Over Mass Arrests of Students Okayed

MOORE CAPITAL: Settles "Banging" Class Action for $48.4 Million
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Concussion Class Action Lawyers Seek Mediation
NEW YORK: Remedial Phase Class in "Gulino" Suit Certified
NEW YORK: Judge Refuses Bid to Stay Stop-and-Frisk Monitoring
NEWFOUNDLAND, CANADA: Jan. 2014 Moose Class Action Trial Set

NORTHERN TRUST: Ill. Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit
NV ENERGY INC: Faces Four Lawsuits Over MidAmerican Merger
OLD NATIONAL: Trial in Overdraft Fees Lawsuit Set for October
OVASCIENCE INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Mass.
PHILIP MORRIS: Provides Updates on Tobacco-Related Suits

PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal to Brazil's Supreme Tribunal Still Pending
PILOT FLYING J: No Sentencing Date Yet for Seven Employees
REPUTATION.COM: Settles Overtime Class Action for $1 Million
ROYAL BANK: Blue-Chip Investors May Join Rights Issue Class Action
RURAL METRO: November 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

SCREEN ACTORS: Oct. 7 Hearing Set for Class Action Dismissal Bid
SOUTHERN HEALTH: Obtains Favorable Ruling in "Freeman" Suit
SOUTHERN OCEAN: Settles Class Action Over Abalone Virus Outbreak
SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Has Settlement in Overdraft Lawsuit
SYNGENTA CROP: Protective Order Dispute Must Await 7th Cir. Ruling

UBS AG: 3rd Cir. Tosses Pension Fund's Securities Class Action
UBS AG: Plaintiffs Need Not Plead Compliance With Securities Act
UNITED STATES: Flores' "Torture" Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
WATERS CORPORATION: XEVO TQ-S IVD Mass Spectrometer Recalled

* Labor Dep't Allows Use of Unpaid Interns for Pro Bono Work
* Osler Hoskin Outlines Class Action Settlement Guidelines


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Class Action Over Meridia Drug Can Proceed
The Canadian Press reports that the B.C. Supreme Court has ruled a
class-action lawsuit against the makers of the anti-obesity drug
Meridia can go ahead.

Six people were fighting for the right to launch a class action
against drug makers Abbott Laboratories and generic manufacturer
Apotex, arguing the drug caused them dire health effects,
including heart attacks and a stroke.

Justice Robert Johnston agreed the six met the test of whether a
case should be considered a class action.

"Those who took the drug and who allege harm as a result have a
rational relationship to the negligence, failure to warn, and some
claims pleaded under the Business Practices and Consumer
Protection Act and the Competition Act," Justice Johnston wrote in
a ruling released on Sept. 17.

Of those named in the case who were prescribed the drug, two had
heart attacks, one suffered a stroke while on a trial sample of
the drug and another had shortness of breath and chest pains
before stopping the drug.

Justice Johnston said the lawsuit will be able to examine whether
the drug contributes to heart attacks, strokes and arrhythmia and
whether the drug companies recklessly or negligently breached a
duty to warn patients about harm from the use of the drug.

However, Justice Johnston also ruled lawyers for the group did not
offer enough facts to allow the lawsuit to include claims the drug
companies negligently manufactured Meridia.

And he concluded the issue of whether the warnings included with
the drug alerted patients sufficiently to its dangers will be a
matter for trial "where the evidentiary record will be more
complete, and proper decisions as to weight can be made."

The lawyer for the group, Tony Merchant, said in a news release
the judge's decision is also important because he allowed the suit
to go ahead against the generic version of the drug.

"Generics are pressed upon Canadians through the provincial health
care systems in Canada," Mr. Merchant said.

The ruling notes that between January 2003 and March 2009, a
clinical trial was conducted examining sibutramine -- the
ingredient in Meridia -- and its long-term impacts on
cardiovascular health and death.

The results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine
on Sept. 2, 2010 and concluded those with "pre-existing
cardiovascular conditions had an increased risk of nonfatal
myocardial infarction and nonfatal stroke, but not of
cardiovascular death."

In October 2010, Abbott and Apotex Inc. withdrew their sibutramine
products from the market in Canada.

In 2009, worldwide sales of Meridia topped $300 million.

ALTIUS SPICES: Recalls Encore Gourmet Ground Cinnamon
Starting date:            September 18, 2013
Starting date:            September 16, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Other
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Altius Spices and Seasonings Inc.
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    8307

Affected products: Encore Gourmet 60 g. of Ground Cinnamon with
MA 2016/FEB/11 code.

AMERICAN HONDA: Settles Class Action Over Accord Vehicle Defect
David McAfee, Bibeka Shrestha and Sean McLernon, writing for
Law360, report that American Honda Motor Co. Inc. has agreed to
settle a putative class action over allegedly defective Accord
vehicle models that quickly burn oil, agreeing to provide
"valuable benefits" to settlement class members to resolve the
litigation, according to papers filed in California federal court
on Sept. 13.

In exchange for the dismissal of the litigation with prejudice,
AHM agreed to extend the Powertrain Limited Warranty of each
settlement class vehicle to cover engine misfire until eight years
after the original sale or lease of the vehicle with no mileage

AHM also agreed not to contest class counsel attorneys' fees not
exceeding $800,000 and to allow settlement class members who paid
for repairs as a result of engine misfire to submit a claim for
reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, according to the
settlement agreement.

Plaintiffs also filed an uncontested second amended complaint on
Sept. 13 to define the class to include only owners and lessees
whose vehicles may have experienced engine misfire, to include
only allegations that pertain to engine misfire, and to
voluntarily dismiss claims pertaining only to excessive oil
consumption in 4-cylinder accords.

Steven Berk of Berk Law PLLC, counsel to the plaintiffs, hailed
the settlement.

"We are proud that we were able to obtain full relief for over a
million affected Honda owners," Mr. Berk told Law360 on Sept. 16

The agreement, which still requires court approval, comes after a
California judge refused to force arbitration in the dispute last
October.  Honda had argued that the contract signed by plaintiff
Vince Eagen and American Honda Finance Corp. allowed the car
company to enforce the agreement's clause allowing either party to
choose arbitration over jury trial to settle a dispute, but U.S.
District Judge Susan Illston said that AHM was a third-party non-
signatory and could not compel arbitration under the terms of the

Mr. Eagen and fellow named plaintiff Alex Soto accused Honda in
March 2012 of refusing to honor warranties for defective Honda
Accords that quickly run out of oil and require frequent spark
plug replacements.  Accords from model years 2008, 2009 and 2010
have a design defect that allows oil to enter the engine's
combustion chamber and cause excessive oil consumption, premature
corrosion of spark plugs and engine malfunction, according to the

The plaintiffs claimed in the suit that Honda refused to correct
the defect despite hundreds of online complaints and the car
company's issuance of a technical service bulletin directing
maintenance crews to check for symptoms of the defect.  The
defective engines required repairs within the time outlined in
warranties, but the automaker refused to replace the parts for
free, according to the complaint.

Messrs. Soto and Eagen said that Honda told its customers they
should inspect their vehicles' oil levels every time they purchase
gasoline.  Mr. Eagen has needed to replenish his car with a quart
of oil each month, while his spark plugs had to be replaced twice
within 55,000 miles of driving because they were prematurely
corroded, according to the suit.

The settlement class is represented by Steven Berk and Matthew
Bonness -- matt@berklawdc.com -- of Berk Law PLLC; Beth Terrell --
bterrell@tmdwlaw.com -- and Kimberlee L. Gunning --
kgunning@tmdwlaw.com -- of Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie PLLC;
Michael Ram -- mram@rocklawcal.com -- and Jeffrey B. Cereghino --
jbc@rocklawcal.com -- of Ram Olson Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP; and
Lawrence Deutsch -- ldeutsch@bm.net -- Shanon Carson --
scarson@bm.net -- and Eugene Tompkins -- gtompkins@bm.net -- of
Berger & Montague PC.

Representatives for AHM didn't immediately return requests for
comment on Sept. 16.

AHM is represented by Michael Lawrence Mallow -- mmallow@loeb.com
-- and Darlene Mi-Hyung Cho of Loeb & Loeb LLP.

The case is Alex Soto et al. v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc.,
case number 3:12-cv-01377, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

ARNOLD PALMER: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action Over Unpaid Tips
Arnold Palmer Golf Management, a business name used by Century
Golf Partners, L.P. has been pocketing tips and service charges
intended for its service staff in violation of New York law,
according to a complaint recently filed in Niagara County by the
Wage Theft Division of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP.

According to the Palmergolf.com website maintained by defendants,
"Arnold Palmer Golf Management operates golf courses in the true
spirit of Arnold Palmer -- with pride, consideration and honor."
However, according to the complaint the company tells patrons of
the Arnold Palmer clubs that its tipping policy includes a 20%
service charge automatically added to the banquet bill.  What it
doesn't tell those patrons is that the Arnold Palmer clubs do not
pass those service charges on to the hardworking waiters and
bartenders providing services at these banquets.  Instead, the
Arnold Palmer clubs keep the money.

Plaintiffs in the case are a former bartender and former server at
the Fox Valley Club located in Lancaster, New York.  The club is
owned and operated by Arnold Palmer Golf Management.  Plaintiffs
seek to recover unpaid gratuities for themselves and all servers
and bartenders who worked catered events at the Arnold Palmer
clubs in New York catered during the last six years.  Those clubs
include: the Fox Valley Club; the Briarwood Country Club in
Hamburg, New York; and the Tan Tara Golf Club in North Tonawanda,
New York.

"New York law is clear that under these circumstances the service
charges are gratuities and they must be paid to the service
staff," noted Adam Gonnelli, head of the Faruqi firm's Wage Theft
Division.  "For every catered event held at the Arnold Palmer
clubs, Arnold Palmer Golf Management is collecting thousands of
dollars in gratuities, which belong to the bartenders and servers.
While this may not amount to a lot of money for a large company
like Arnold Palmer Golf Management, it can really mean a lot to
the service workers."

Sally Greenberg, Executive Director of the National Consumers
League in Washington, D.C., said of the case, "The National
Consumers League applauds efforts to ensure that workers get the
compensation they are entitled to.  The allegations that this
company is charging customers a service charge and then pocketing
the cash that should be going to the workers is outrageous.  If
true, it rips off both workers and customers, and is utterly
dishonest.  We look forward to seeing the outcome of this case."

Daisy Chung, the Executive Director of the Restaurant
Opportunities Center of NY, a non-profit dedicated to improving
working conditions in New York's restaurant industry, noted that
"Unfortunately wage theft is not uncommon in the restaurant
industry.  At least 59% of restaurant workers in NYC have
experienced wage theft. Our goal is to help restaurant workers
organize so that they can stop such injustices in their

                    About Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP is a national law firm which represents
investors and individuals in class action litigation.  The firm is
focused on providing exemplary legal services in complex

The Wage Theft Division vindicates the rights of workers who are
not properly paid by their employers.  The practice includes
fighting tip stealing, failure to pay overtime, working off-the-
clock and misclassification of employees as managers or
independent contractors. Working on the case are Adam Gonnelli,
the Head of the Wage Theft Division, and Christopher Marlborough,
recently named a "rising star" by Super Lawyers.

For more information, please contact Adam Gonnelli at 212.983.9330
or agonnelli@faruqilaw.com

AUSTRALIA: Six Closed Queensland Schools Mull Class Action
Nathan Paull, writing for The Australian Associated Press, reports
that six Queensland schools closed by the state government are
considering legal action.

Three schools in Brisbane, two in the Darling Downs region and one
in Townsville will not operate in 2014 after Education Minister
John Paul Langbroek on Sept. 18 declared them unviable.  But
parents and staff at the schools are considering their options,
including a possible class action spearheaded by those at Stuart
State School in Townsville.

"The other five schools have come on board and we're all just at
the moment sort of pooling resources," parent Penny Teale said.

Leauarne Adams, who has a daughter at Old Yarranlea State School
on Brisbane's Griffith University campus, says her community is
eager to join any possible class action.

Despite only having a population of only 18 students, Ms. Adams
says she's convinced the school should remain if only because of
an agreement between Education Queensland and Griffith University
that says 12 months' notice must be given.

"In terms of fighting closure, the 12 months notice issue is the
most tangible thing we've got at the moment -- it's in writing,"
Ms. Adams, who has lead a campaign to save the school, told AAP.

"People deserve to know why we're closing.

"(Education Minister John Paul) Langbroek hasn't even visited our
school . . . and then gets into the media and misrepresents

But a spokeswoman for Mr. Langbroek says guidelines stipulate
there needs to be consultation between the principal, P&C and the
university for any termination of alteration of the agreement.

"The community consultation process, including the Old Yarranlea
State School Consultation Plan and consultation with Griffith
University met these guidelines," she said in a statement.

Mr. Langbroek earlier said there was no appeal process.

"My decision is final," he said.

Opposition Leader Annastacia Palaszczuk said the schools' unique
circumstances hadn't been considered.

Ms. Palaszczuk said there [are] concerns the closure of Nyanda
State High School could be enough for some of its multicultural
students to drop out altogether.

"I just don't think the way this whole issue was handled by the
government was a success at all," she told reporters.

Ms. Palaszczuk said families would need more financial support,
namely the $500 to $750 grants the government was offering, to
help students change schools.

Almost 500 students and almost 100 staff have been affected.

Fortitude Valley State School in Brisbane and Toowoomba South
State School and Charlton State School in the Darling Downs will
also go.

BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Denies HAMP Class Action Certification
David Dayen, writing for The American Prospect, reports that in
June, six former employees of Bank of America's loan-modification
department testified in court that since 2009, they had been
instructed to lie to struggling homeowners, hide their financial
documents, and push them into foreclosure.  In the most egregious
example, the employees said they were offered Target gift cards as
a bonus for more foreclosures, which generated lucrative fees for
the bank.  The employees, who were in charge of implementing the
government's Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) at the
bank, described the same deceptive practices across the country.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Court Judge Rya Zobel dismissed
the case, denying class-action certification to 43 homeowners in
26 states who suffered because of similar conduct.  "Plaintiffs
have plausibly alleged that Bank of America utterly failed to
administer its HAMP modifications in a timely and efficient way,"
Zobel agreed, adding that vulnerable homeowners had to wade
through a "Kafkaesque bureaucracy," and that the legal claims of
missing documents, arbitrary denials, and deliberate
misinformation "may well be meritorious."  But she would not grant
class-action status because of differences in the individual
cases.  Homeowners are now free to pursue cases on their own, but
the advantage of class-action suits is that they put expensive and
burdensome litigation within reach for victims; if these
homeowners had the money to sue powerful banks, they probably
wouldn't have needed a loan modification in the first place.

A decade ago, homeowners may not have faced the same hurdles in
litigation.  But a more stringent test for class-action
certification, formed by precedents reaching all the way to the
Supreme Court, has become another tool for large corporations to
resist accountability.  Class-action suits can have a societal
benefit, exposing systemic wrongdoing and bringing an end to it.
But if nobody can acquire class-action status, the courthouse
doors have been effectively shut to a large number of Americans.

Without class actions, individuals face the hurdle of asymmetrical
legal warfare, pitting a resource-constrained victim against a
deep-pocketed corporation.  And because individual damages are far
lower than in a case affecting thousands or millions of people, it
becomes difficult to find a lawyer willing to take the case.
"Low-value claims mean a lot to individuals living paycheck to
paycheck," said Michelle Schwartz, an attorney at the Alliance for
Justice, a progressive organization focused on the judiciary.
"But banding together is the only way to get into court.  A
personal lawyer on a mission might take the case, but they would
have to bankrupt themselves in order to do it."

The most dramatic example of how courts have restricted class-
action suits is the 2011 Supreme Court ruling, Wal-Mart v. Dukes.
Led by former store-greeter Betty Dukes, 1.5 million women banded
together to argue gender discrimination in pay and promotion
policies at the world's largest retailer.  They pursued class-
action status to sanction Wal-Mart because they could better show
the reduced pay and fewer opportunities for advancement for women
as a pattern and practice.  "Standing on their own, you might not
see the pattern, but when you see this has happened to hundreds or
thousands -- or in the case of Wal-Mart, 1.5 million people -- you
can make the case that it's not an isolated incident," says
Ms. Schwartz.

But the Supreme Court reversed three lower-court rulings and
denied class-action status in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, essentially
arguing that the retailer had discriminated against so many women
that they couldn't possibly have all faced the exact same type of
marginalization.  Moreover, the Court set a precedent that limits
class-action certification.  Whereas before, class-action
certification mainly hinged on whether the claims boiled down to a
common question -- whether gender discrimination had occurred, for
example -- in the Wal-Mart v. Dukes ruling, the Court said
plaintiffs must prove whether the commonality of those claims was
the most important factor in the case.  That required law firms to
obtain evidence, previously confined to the discovery phase,
showing that the similar nature of the claims was the most
relevant factor in the case.  This adds to the expense of the
class action at the outset, and heightens the burden on the
plaintiffs in order to get certification for a class-action suit.

This has led to predictable consequences. Circuit Courts of Appeal
have followed the Wal-Mart precedent, denying class-action status
in multiple cases.  Class actions involving securities law hit a
14-year low in 2012, and accounting class actions last year were
nearly cut in half.  In 2012, employers settled fewer class-action
discrimination suits than at any time over the past decade, and
the top ten settlements of the year totaled $48.65 million,
compared with $346.4 million in 2010, before Wal-Mart.  Meanwhile,
the Wal-Mart women started pursuing claims 12 years ago, and none
of them have had their day in court yet.

In the Bank of America case, Judge Zobel determined that
individual borrowers had to jump through so many hoops in the
loan-modification process -- certifying they lived in the
residence and could not afford their monthly payments, documenting
their income, making required trial payments, and potentially
seeking credit counseling -- that no two cases were similar enough
to grant certification as a class.  In other words, the very
convoluted nature of the process at Bank of America protected the
company from the suit.  Additionally, Judge Zobel cited
discrepancies on whether certain members of the class actually
made their trial payments on time, turned in the correct
documents, or lived in the homes being foreclosed upon, arguing
that these inconsistencies would have to be litigated
individually.  But that grants tremendous discretion to the bank
to simply muddy up the records (which they are in fact accused of
doing) and evade class action on the larger question of denying
eligible borrowers a loan modification.  In a tragicomic example,
Bank of America claimed that one plaintiff, Aissatou Balde, did
not seek credit counseling when required; Ms. Balde claims that
she never obtained credit counseling because the phone number Bank
of America gave to her for their credit counselor was faulty.

While the judge cited the proliferation of mortgage-related cases
working through courts to argue that "individual plaintiffs are
normally well-motivated to bring any claims they might have in
order to save their homes," the reality is that almost all of
these plaintiffs don't have the funds to pursue a case against
Bank of America on their own.

Judge Zobel cited the Wal-Mart case near the end of her ruling to
bolster her argument that "there is no commonality where
plaintiffs did not suffer the same injury from the same practice."
But Wal-Mart is far from the only example of the Supreme Court
limiting class-action cases.  The 2011 ruling in AT&T Mobility v.
Concepcion allowed companies to make their customers sign
contracts forcing any complaints to go through a "mandatory
arbitration" process, taking away an individual's right to sue
whether alone or in a class action.  Numerous other cases have
constrained class actions in recent years.  "They're creating an
impenetrable fortress around corporations and the Supreme Court is
helping them do it," said Ms. Schwartz.  As Elizabeth Warren noted
in a speech last week at the AFL-CIO convention, a recent study
found that the five conservative Justices are among the top ten
most pro-corporate in the past 50 years, and that Justices Samuel
Alito and John Roberts are numbers one and two.  "Sooner or later,
you'll end up with a Supreme Court that functions as a wholly
owned subsidiary of big business," Ms. Warren said.

Class-action suits are an imperfect way to get restitution for a
group of individuals.  The real remedy to stop homeowners from
being snookered by banks is for law enforcement to start throwing
executives in jail.  But class actions can bring to light
systematic illegal activities and can lead to legitimate changes
in corporate behavior.  Reforms to the tobacco industry and auto
safety have come from class actions.  "They're really acting as a
private Attorneys General, bringing cases on behalf of the public,
and it's often a way you can bring an end to wrongdoing," says
Ms. Schwartz of the Alliance for Justice.

Sadly, the actual attorney general has walked off the playing
field when it comes to prosecuting financial fraud.  In the Bank
of America case, the ex-employees delivered a road map for what
the company did and how they did it, even naming specific
executives who directed the conduct and citing documentary
evidence in the form of email communications.  But it took victims
attempting to certify a class-action suit, not a federal
investigation, to bring these misdeeds to light.  And because of
the way in which big business has pushed the courts to their side,
even that class action will amount to nothing.

BANK OF AMERICA: "Hammill" Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
NEAL HAMMILL, AMY JO HAMMILL, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-0117 ERIE, (W.D. Pa.), is a
putative class action for the recovery of damages caused by
purportedly unlawful mortgage foreclosure lawsuits.  Plaintiffs
Neal and Amy Jo Hammill, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, allege that defendant Bank of America
initiated a foreclosure suit against them in Pennsylvania state
court without first sending them a proper foreclosure notice or
giving them a chance to cure their loan deficiency in violation of
the Pennsylvania Loan Interest and Protection Law, 41 Pa. Stat.
Ann. Section 101 et seq., and the Emergency Mortgage Assistance
Act, 35 Pa. Stat. Ann. Section 1680.401c.  As a result, the
Hammills were forced to spend money defending their interests in
state court. They seek damages, injunctive and declaratory relief,
attorney's fees, and costs.

BOA filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).

Chief District Judge Joy Flowers Conti granted BOA's motion to
dismiss saying the complaint will be dismissed with prejudice.

A copy of the District Court's August 29, 2013 Memorandum Opinion
is available at http://is.gd/ToisVJfrom Leagle.com.

NEAL HAMMILL, Plaintiff, is represented by Patrick J. Loughren --
patrick@loughren.com -- Loughren, Loughren & Loughren and:

   D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
   Peirce Law Offices
   707 Grant Street, Suite 2500
   Pittsburgh, PA 15219
   Toll Free: 866-273-1941
   Fax: 412-281-4229

AMY JO HAMMILL, Plaintiff, represented by D. Aaron Rihn, Peirce
Law Offices & Patrick J. Loughren, Loughren, Loughren & Loughren.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant, represented by K. Issac deVyver
-- kdevyver@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith, Thomas L. Allen --
tallen@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith, Andrew J. Sove --
asoven@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Marc A. Goldich --
mgoldich@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP & Nellie E. Hestin --
nhestin@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP.

BANK OF AMERICA: Court Amends Order Approving Labriola Suit Deal
District Judge Claudia Wilken issued an amended order granting
preliminary approval of a class settlement in LABRIOLA v. BANK OF

The Court provisionally certified for settlement purposes only the
Class defined as:

All persons employed by Defendant as financial advisors in
California (a) whose employment with Defendant terminated from
December 2, 2008 through December 31, 2011 (the "Class Period"),
and (b) who received a payment for incentive compensation wages
(also referred to as "commissions" or "commission wages") after
their last day of employment if they were involuntarily
terminated, or more than 72 hours after their resignation if they
resigned. The Plaintiff Class does not include the Court or any
members of the Court's family.

Plaintiff John LaBriola is approved as Class Representative.

Quadra & Coll, LLP is appointed Class Counsel.

Epiq Systems, Inc. is appointed as the Claims Administrator.

The proposed cy pres recipient, the Legal Aid Society --
Employment Law Center is approved.

The Final Approval Hearing will be held in Courtroom 2 of the
Federal District Court for the Northern District of California at
2:00 p.m. on October 17, 2013, to consider the fairness, adequacy
and reasonableness of the proposed Settlement Agreement,
preliminarily approved, and to consider the application of Class
Counsel for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation
expenses incurred, and the request for and enhancement payment to
class representative John LaBriola.

The case is JOHN ROBERT LABRIOLA, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated, Plaintiff; v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL
OF AMERICA CORPORATION; and Does 3-50, inclusive, Defendant, CASE
NO. 4:12-CV-00079-CW, (N.D. Cal.)

A copy of the District Court's August 29, 2013 Amended Order is
available at http://is.gd/6NtB9rfrom Leagle.com.

JAMES A. QUADRA -- jquadra@quadracoll.com -- State Bar No. 131084,
REBECCA M. COLL -- rcoll@quadracoll.com -- State Bar No. 184468,
QUADRA & COLL, LLP, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for John
LaBriola on Behalf of Himself and Those Similarly Situated.

BELL MOBILITY: Lerner Discusses Ruling on 911 Fee Class Action
Yola S. Ventresca, Esq., and Tanya Jawa, student-at-law at Lerners
report that in the Northwest Territories, Yukon and Nunavut,
cellular service agreements between Bell Mobility and its
customers provided that all monthly service charges included a 911
emergency service fee.  However, except in the city of Whitehorse,
when a Bell Mobility customer dialed 911, he or she would be re-
routed to a recorded message stating that there are no 911
services available and to please hang up and dial zero.  Dialing
zero connected the customer to another recorded message, directing
the customer to hang up and dial 911.  Customers were never able
to reach a 911 operator.

In Anderson v Bell Mobility Inc., 2013 NWTSC 25, Justice Veale
considered whether Bell Mobility was liable to the class of
plaintiffs (Bell Mobility's customers in the Northwest
Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut) for charging this monthly service
fee when, in fact, there was no such service available.  This four
day class action trial dealt with seven certified common issues
surrounding Bell Mobility's obligations under the service
agreements and any potential liability to the class members on the
bases of breach of contract, unjust enrichment or waiver of tort,
or for punitive or exemplary damages.

Common issues 1 to 5 addressed Bell Mobility's contractual
obligations to the class members.  Justice Veale considered
whether the service agreements expressly or impliedly required
Bell Mobility to provide 911 live operator service to class
members. He found that the phrase "911 emergency service" in the
agreements meant live operator service, which Bell Mobility
conceded in an Agreed Statement of Facts had not been provided.
Justice Veale held that, pursuant to the service agreements, Bell
Mobility was not required to provide this live operator service,
but that it could not charge the fee in the absence of the
service.  Therefore, he held that Bell Mobility had breached the
agreements with the class members.  He also found that there had
been a lack of consideration by Bell Mobility, and concluded that
Bell Mobility had been unjustly enriched by charging the fee when
there had been no service provided.

Common issue 6 addressed whether Bell Mobility could be held
liable to the class members on the basis of waiver of tort.
Although this had been certified as a common issue in the class
action, Justice Veale stated that the fundamental premise of
waiver of tort is that the defendant must have committed a tort.
As this class action was based solely upon the service agreements
between Bell Mobility and the class members, and no tort was
alleged, waiver of tort was not applicable.

Finally, Justice Veale considered whether Bell Mobility could be
liable to the class members for punitive or exemplary damages.  He
held that, while Bell Mobility's conduct seemed to be leaning
toward the high-handed end of the spectrum, it was not a marked
departure from the "ordinary standards of decent behavior", and
did not rise to the level of "reprehensible conduct" required for
an award of punitive damages.

BIOGEN IDEC: Faces Suits Over Tysabri MS Side Effects
Robert Weisman, writing for Boston Globe, reports that despite
living with multiple sclerosis since 1997, Kimberley A. Yout kept
a busy schedule, working full time as a money manager for a Boston
bank and modeling in her spare time.

That changed on Aug. 28 of last year when Ms. Yout, 45, was
diagnosed with a rare brain infection that developed as a side
effect of Tysabri, a drug she took for six years to keep her MS in
check.  Ms. Yout's speech became slurred, her gait unsteady, and
her future uncertain.

"I was a very successful businesswoman," said Ms. Yout, who lives
in Hanover.  "Today, I can't even balance my checkbook, I can't
use an ATM, I can't see out of one eye.  I had to move back in
with my mother.  I've lost my independence.  I've lost

Now, she is suing the two companies that marketed Tysabri --
Biogen Idec Inc. of Weston and the Irish drug maker Elan
Pharmaceuticals Inc. -- in Middlesex Superior Court in Woburn.
Her complaint, filed on Sept. 6, alleges they failed to adequately
warn patients of the risks some face from prolonged use of

The lawsuit is one of at least a half-dozen pending in
Massachusetts and federal courts in three other states.  In each
case, plaintiffs are seeking more than $1 million in punitive
damages from Biogen Idec and Elan on behalf of patients or their
families.  After taking Tysabri, the patients developed
progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, known as PML, an
infection of the brain's white matter that can cause death or
severe disability.

Many doctors consider Tysabri highly effective in slowing the
progression of relapsing forms of MS, a neurodegenerative disease,
in adults for whom other drugs have stopped working. That's why
many of them take it, despite the risks.

Biogen Idec has been working to move beyond nearly a decade of
controversy over Tysabri.  Last year, it altered the drug's label
to include new safety information and introduced blood tests to
help doctors identify patients' risk level for PML.  But the new
suit and those pending are again raising questions about the
drug's safety.

Tysabri was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2004.
But Biogen Idec and Elan pulled it from the market in 2005 after
several PML cases, two of which resulted in death.  The companies
reintroduced the drug in 2006, with the approval of regulators,
along with a "risk management" program that trains physicians
prescribing Tysabri and requires them to monitor patients monthly
under strict guidelines.

The approval for Tysabri, despite its chance of causing brain
infections, was not unique.  Regulators sometimes allow
potentially dangerous drugs on the market if the disease they seek
to ameliorate is severe, and they determine the benefits outweigh
the risks.

"Based on the available information to date, the FDA continues to
believe that the benefits of taking Tysabri outweigh the potential
risks," said FDA spokeswoman Stephanie Yao.

In recent years, Tysabri has become Biogen Idec's second-largest-
selling therapy, generating 2012 revenue of $1.6 billion, and is
used by about 118,000 patients globally.  But cases of PML
continue to turn up in the United States and around the world.  As
of August, there were 395 confirmed cases of Tysabri-associated
PML, including 92 deaths, according to Biogen Idec's data.

Biogen Idec spokeswoman Kate Niazi-Sai declined to address
Ms. Yout's complaint specifically, citing company policy.  More
generally, she defended Tysabri and Biogen Idec's response to the
brain infection.

"We take PML very seriously," Ms. Niazi-Sai said. "And we're doing
everything we can to educate doctors and patients on the benefits
of Tysabri and also the risks.  Tysabri is extremely effective for
MS, but it's got to be the right choice for patients in
consultation with their physicians."

Biogen Idec's studies, resulting in the tests to gauge PML
vulnerability, identified three risk factors for MS patients,
Ms. Niazi-Sai said.  The company found those most susceptible to
the infection have taken immunosuppressant drugs previously, have
used Tysabri for at least two years, or have contracted the JC
virus.  That virus is latent in as much as half of the general
population, but is almost always suppressed by the immune system.
Immunosuppressant drugs, such as Tysabri, can compromise the
immune system, allowing the virus causing PML to replicate in the

Elan sold its interest in Tysabri to Biogen Idec earlier this year
for $3.2 billion, but still collects royalties.  A representative
of Elan declined to discuss the lawsuit.  "The company doesn't
comment on matters of litigation," said Jamie Tully, a New York-
based spokesman.

Ms. Yout's lawsuit levels six charges against the two companies,
including failure to warn patients of Tysabri's risks and
negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation of the drug in product

"Tysabri was unaccompanied by adequate warnings of the risk of
PML, either known or reasonably scientifically knowable at the
time of distribution," her suit alleges.

"It's important for patients to know the risks of taking this kind
of drug," said Sofia E. Bruera, a Houston lawyer representing
Ms. Yout and other MS patients who lodged state and federal
complaints against Biogen Idec and Elan in Massachusetts, New
York, New Jersey, and Utah.  "Our clients weren't adequately
warned about the risks, and it ruined their lives."

One of the other cases filed in Middlesex Superior Court involves
Marla Fair, 40, a Greenfield, Ind., woman who was diagnosed with
MS in 2002 and five years later began taking Tysabri.  Two years
after that, she was diagnosed with PML.  Today, Ms. Fair walks
with a cane and uses a wheelchair outside the home.  Monday
through Friday, she lives with her parents in Frankton, Ind.,
about 35 miles from her own home, while her husband, Terry, works
in an auto parts plant to help pay for her 24-hour care.

"When she tries to talk to you, she'll say things in a backward
manner," Terry Fair said of his wife.  "They did not warn us that
the longer you take this drug, the more likely you are to get PML.
. . . I just want to get my wife home.  I'm not looking to win a
billion dollars or anything. I just want them [Biogen Idec and
Elan] to help me take care of her."

Ms. Yout and Terry Fair contend Tysabri should not be on the
market, arguing that despite its benefits, the risks to some
patients can be devastating.

"It's like playing Russian roulette," Ms. Fair said.

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Dist. Court Dismisses "McQueen" Class Suit
In the case MONICA MCQUEEN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-6674 (SRC), (D. N.J.), District Judge Stanley
R. Chesler granted defendant BMW NA's motion to dismiss the first
amended class action complaint for failure to state a claim.  BMW
NA's motion to dismiss the class allegations was denied for

A copy of the District Court's August 29, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/bWvembfrom Leagle.com.

MONICA MCQUEEN, Plaintiff, is represented by:

   5 Becker Farm Road
   Roseland, NJ 07068
   Phone: 973-994-1700
   Fax: 973-994-1744

        - and -

   550 Broad Street
   Newark, NJ 07102
   Telephone: (973) 639-9100

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER
J. DALTON -- christopher.dalton@bipc.com -- BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL &
ROONEY, PC & ROSEMARY JOAN BRUNO -- rosemary.bruno@bipc.com --

BOLIDEN MINERAL: Faces Class Action Over Arsenic Poisoning
Christian Molinari, writing for BNamericas, reports that more than
700 residents of a town in northern Chile have filed a
SEK90 million (US$13.9 million) class action lawsuit against
Swedish mining firm Boliden for health problems due to mismanaged
toxic waste coming from the miner's smelters.

In 1984-85, Boliden delivered some 20,000t of smelter residue to
Chilean firm Promel, for the latter to treat and process the
material in Chile's northernmost city of Arica.

"The exports complied with all applicable laws and regulations and
were conducted under the supervision of the Swedish and Chilean
authorities," Boliden said in a statement.  "Boliden ensured, as
far as possible, that the material would be processed in the
correct manner."

However, Promel later claimed financial difficulty to treat the
waste and applied for permission to leave the material in an
undeveloped industrial part of Arica.  Promel has since declared
bankruptcy and ceased to exist.

In the meantime, Chilean authorities in 1990 began to develop the
land for low-cost housing near the piles of toxic waste.

It is the families that were living in these low-cost houses that
are now pressing suit against Boliden.  Legal proceedings in Chile
ruled that Promel and Chilean health authorities were responsible
for what happened, according to Boliden.  Damages were paid to the
victims and the area was evacuated in 2009.

However the former residents claim that the dumped waste caused
arsenic poisoning, which in turn led an unusual number of cancers,
birth defects, and miscarriages.

On September 16, the group Arica Victims KB filed a writ of
summons against Boliden Mineral AB before the district court of

"You close your eyes and pay and then never hear about it again,"
Johan Oberg, one of the lawyers representing affected Chileans,
was quoted as saying by the TT news agency.

The incident in Arica "is truly tragic," Boliden said.  "We regret
what happened, and the consequences for the victims . . . and
which may be attributable to material delivered from Boliden."
However the mining firm insisted that it is not to blame for
material that "was obviously not handled correctly at the second
and third stages of the chain."

CINNABAR SERVICE: Appeals Class Status of Picher Landowners' Suit
Wally Kennedy, writing for The Joplin Globe, reports that whether
262 former residents of Picher will proceed as a class in a
lawsuit that alleges their properties were intentionally
undervalued by appraisers working for the Lead-Impacted
Communities Relocation Assistance Trust is now in the hands of the
Intermediate Court of Appeals.

Cinnabar Service Co. Inc., of Tulsa, an appraisal company and a
defendant in the class action, is appealing a decision by
Judge Dana Kuehn, with Tulsa County District Court, to certify the
former residents of the town as a class.

In a hearing on March 1, Cinnabar objected to certification on
grounds that the element of "predominance/superiority" was not
present.  Joe Fears, an attorney with Barber & Bartz, of Tulsa,
which filed the appeal for Cinnabar, argued that each plaintiff --
instead of one representative case of the plaintiffs -- must prove
that the value of the properties was "lowballed" by the appraiser.

After receiving written arguments from lawyers on both sides,
Judge Kuehn said the actual loss in value for each property did
not have to be proven, only whether there was a conspiracy among
appraisers and the insurance companies to defraud the plaintiffs
with low appraisals.

Another defendant is Van Tuyl & Associates, a Tulsa appraisal firm
that has filed for bankruptcy.

John Wiggins -- jwiggins@wsolaw.net -- with Wiggins, Sewell &
Ogletree, of Oklahoma City, who is representing the former
residents, said in an email obtained by the Globe: "The status of
Cinnabar's appeal is that everything has been briefed and sent to
the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court has assigned the handling of
the case to the Intermediate Court of Appeals.  Everything has
been done.  We now await a decision."

The plaintiffs have dismissed the trust and two named individuals
as defendants.  The individuals are Larry Roberts, operations
manager for the trust, and J.D. Strong, former Oklahoma secretary
of the environment.

                          Trust formation

The Lead-Impacted Communities Relocation Assistance Trust was
formed in 2006 after a study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
found that the abandoned mines under Picher, Cardin and
Hockerville had a high risk of caving in.  More than 700 pieces of
property were involved in the buyout.

CITICORP CREDIT: Bid to Certify FLSA Collective Action Denied
Chief District Judge B. Lynn Winmill denied a motion to
conditionally certify a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act in LISA BROWN, Plaintiff, v. CITICORP CREDIT
SERVICES, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 1:12-CV-00062-BLW, (D. Idaho).

A copy of the District Court's August 29, 2013 Memorandum Decision
and Order is available at http://is.gd/X6e0W5from Leagle.com.

Lisa Brown, Plaintiff, represented by:

   Franklin David Azar, Esq.
   Keith Richard Scranton, Esq.
   Franklin D. Azar & Associates, P.C.
   14426 East Evans Avenue
   Aurora, CO 80014
   Telephone: 1-800-916-2005
   Fax: (303) 759-5203

      - and -

   James Marshall Piotrowski, Esq.
   Marty Durand, Esq.
   Herzfeld & Piotrowski, LLP
   713 West Franklin
   PO Box 2864
   Boise, ID 83701
   Tel: 208-331-9200
   Fax: 208-331-9201

Citicorp Credit Services, Inc. (USA), Defendant, represented by
Katherine E Kenny -- kkenny@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis &
Bockius, LLP, Christopher J Boran -- cboran@morganlewis.com --
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, Pamela Simmons Howland --
phowland@hollandhart.com -- HOLLAND & HART & Sari M Alamuddin --
salamuddin@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS.

COLORTYME INC: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Spyware Class Action
Stephanie Russell-Kraft, writing for Law360, reports that a
Pennsylvania federal judge on Sept. 17 refused to dismiss a
putative class action accusing ColorTyme Inc. and its Washington
franchisee CMG Rentals LLC of selling computers enabled to
intercept customer communications, saying that the companies
routed information through Pennsylvania and so gave her
jurisdiction to hear the case.

U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon denied the defendants' motions
to dismiss the suit, nixing ColorTyme and CMG's claims that their
ties to Pennsylvania were not strong enough for them to be sued

Plaintiff Leslie Arrington, a Washington state resident who rented
and then purchased a laptop computer in 2011 from the ColorTyme
store in Clarkston, Wash., had alleged that software designed by
DesignerWare LLC, a now-defunct Pennsylvania-based company, was
installed on the computer to monitor her in her home and
intercepted her private communications.

Judge Bissoon ruled that since the information gathered by the
software had been collected in DesignerWare's Pennsylvania
servers, ColorTyme and CMG could be tried in Pennsylvania.

"In light of how fiber optics have changed the way people interact
with (and potentially injure) each other across state lines, a
rigid application of specific jurisdiction principles . . . would
ignore the fact that CMG obtained a tangible benefit every time it
interacted with its commercial partner here," Judge Bissoon wrote
in the opinion.

Judge Bissoon also said that the defendants provided no
affirmative proof other than "just general denial" that they had
no ties to Pennsylvania and that Arrington's claims were false.
Their motion to dismiss the case provided "no evidentiary
support," she found.

Arrington filed the class action against ColorTyme and CMG Rentals
LLC in October 2012 for allegedly violating the Federal Wiretap
Act, as amended by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, by
selling computers with the PC Rental Agent software on it.  She
also alleged that images had been taken of her by her webcam and
distributed without her knowledge.

The suit seeks damages on behalf of persons who have purchased,
leased or rented to own computers from ColorTyme and whose data
was monitored or intercepted by DesignerWare's software on those

In September 2012, DesignerWare and several rent-to-own
franchisees, including some ColorTyme franchisees, settled with
the U.S. Federal Trade Commission over the software, which the FTC
said could log keystrokes, capture screen shots and take
photographs using a computer's webcam.  It also presented a fake
software program registration screen that tricked consumers into
providing their personal contact information.

Ms. Arrington is represented by Frederick S. Longer --
flonger@lfsblaw.com -- Arnold Levin -- alevin@lfsblaw.com -- and
Daniel L. Levin -- dlevin@lfsblaw.com -- of Levin Fishbein Sedran
& Berman, by John H. Robinson of Jamieson & Robinson LLC, by G.
Bryan Ulmer III, Mel C. Orchard III and R. Daniel Fleck of The
Spence Law Firm and by Maury A. Herman -- mherman@hhklawfirm.com
-- Andrea S. Hirsch -- ahirsch@hermangerel.com -- and Christopher
V. Tisi of Herman Gerel LLP.

CMG is represented by Brian M. Mancos -- bmmancos@burnswhite.com
-- of Burns White LLC and by William Woodward Webb of Edmisten
Webb & Hawes.

ColorTyme is represented by Ansley S. Westbrook II --
ansley.westbrook@dinsmore.com -- of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.

The case is Leslie Arrington v. ColorTyme Inc. et al., number
1:12-cv-00264 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania.

DISH NETWORK: Hacker Murphy Files Wage-and-Hour Class Action
Dish Network and a satellite installation company, Dish Country,
Inc., are facing a class action lawsuit for violations of State
and Federal wage and hour laws.

The lawsuit, filed on September 13, 2013 in Federal District
Court, alleges that Dish Country, Inc. and Dish Network engaged in
the practice of employee misclassification, in which Dish Country,
Inc. would repeatedly and routinely misclassify their employees as
"independent contractors" to avoid having to follow State and
Federal labor laws.

The class action lawsuit also alleges that defendants routinely
made arbitrary illegal deductions from the employees paychecks;
deprived employees of a 30 minute uninterrupted lunch break;
failed to compensate employees for all hours worked; failed to
provide employees with mandatory disclosures concerning their rate
of pay; failed to provide employees with mandatory disclosures
related to wage deductions; deprived employees of overtime;  and
wrongfully denied the misclassified employees from several ERISA
benefit plans.

The class action lawsuit is filed on behalf of all non-exempt
employees that worked as a misclassified satellite installation
technician for Dish Country, Inc.

The case is being prosecuted by Hacker Murphy, LLP, an Albany, NY
based litigation firm.  For more information please contact Hacker
Murphy at classaction@hackermurphy.com or (800)213-3843.

ELECTRONIC ARTS: Antitrust Suit Settlement Under Appeal
A class member in an antitrust suit against Electronic Arts Inc.
has appealed a ruling by the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granting final approval of the
settlement reached in that lawsuit, according to the company's
Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In June 2008, Geoffrey Pecover filed an antitrust class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that EA obtained an illegal monopoly in a
discreet antitrust market that consists of "league-branded
football simulation video games" by bidding for, and winning,
exclusive licenses with the NFL, Collegiate Licensing Company and
Arena Football League.

In December 2010, the district court granted the plaintiffs'
request to certify a class of plaintiffs consisting of all
consumers who purchased EA's Madden NFL, NCAA Football or Arena
Football video games after 2005. In May 2012, the parties reached
a settlement in principle to resolve all claims related to this
action. As a result, the company recognized a $27 million accrual
for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012 associated with the
potential settlement.

In May 2013, the district court granted its final approval of the
settlement, following which the company paid $27 million into a
settlement fund. The district court's decision has been appealed
by a class member. None of the $27 million paid into the
settlement fund will be disbursed until this appeal is resolved.

ELECTRONIC ARTS: Continues to Face Suits Over Use of Images
Electronic Arts Inc. is a defendant in several actions that allege
the company misappropriated the likenesses of various college
athletes in certain of the company's college-themed sports games,
according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June
30, 2013.

     (1) The company is defending a putative class action lawsuit
brought by Ryan Hart, a former college football player, in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in
June 2009, which alleges that the company misappropriated his
likeness in the company's college-themed football game. The
complaint seeks actual damages and other unspecified damages,
which have not been quantified. In September 2011, the district
court granted the company's motion to dismiss the complaint. On
May 21, 2013, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the
district court's decision and remanded the case back to the
district court.

     (2) The In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing
litigation pending in United States District Court for the
Northern District of California involves two groups of common
claims brought by several different former collegiate student-
athletes in 2009.

These various actions were consolidated into one action in
February 2010. The first group of claims is a class action against
the company, the NCAA and the Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC)
alleging that the company's college-themed videogames
misappropriated the likenesses of collegiate student-athletes
without their authorization. This group of claims seeks actual
damages, statutory damages and other unspecified damages, which
have not been quantified.

On July 31, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
trial court's denial of the company's motion to strike the
complaint. The company intends to appeal this decision. The second
group of claims is a federal antitrust class action against the
company the NCAA and the CLC that challenges NCAA/CLC licensing
practices and the NCAA By-Laws and regulations. This group of
claims seeks unspecified damages, which have not been quantified.
In June 2013, the plaintiffs in this second group of claims have
asked the district court to certify the case as a class action.
The district court has not ruled on their request.

ENERGY PLUS: $14.3MM Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court OK
Kat Greene, Daniel Wilson and Dietrich Knauth, writing for Law360,
reports that a New York federal judge on Sept. 17 granted final
approval to a settlement worth up to $14.3 million for a class of
Energy Plus Holdings LLC customers that had accused the power
provider of luring them into contracts with false promises.

U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley approved the deal,
overruling concerns raised by several states attorneys general
who, in a July amicus brief, protested that the class wouldn't be
compensated enough after attorneys' fees were taken into account.

Attorneys' fees were settled at $3.3 million, or about a quarter
of the total possible value of the settlement, in spite of the
protests.  Judge Pauley found the fees to be fair and in line with
similar settlements, according to the approval order filed on
Sept. 17.

"Class counsel and counsel in the other Energy Plus lawsuits have
devoted more than 2,600 hours to litigating the action and
achieving the settlement," Judge Pauley wrote in the Sept. 17
order. "The court finds that the award of attorneys' fees, costs
and expenses is reasonable when viewed as percentage of the common

New York resident Angela Wise, who was an Energy Plus customer
until July 2011, sought to represent tens of thousands of New York
consumers who had switched to Energy Plus based on offers of
rewards like cash back or travel reward points, according to her
complaint filed in New York federal court in October 2011.
Gideon Romm was added as a lead plaintiff in an amended complaint
in January 2012.

Energy Plus' ads touted the value of its rewards program while
promising to charge competitive, market-based electricity rates,
according to the complaint.  The allegedly deceptive advertising
was made possible by a 1996 deregulation of the electricity
industry by the New York Public Service Commission, which was
meant to promote competition and give consumers greater choice,
according to the complaint.

But under the deregulation plan, which allowed companies like
Energy Plus to compete with utilities for energy delivery service
customers, Energy Plus does not have to inform state regulators of
the rates it charges or the methods it uses to calculate them.

The company consistently charges two or three times the amount
charged by local utilities like Consolidated Edison of New York,
more than making up for the relatively low value of its rewards
programs, and keeps its higher rates secret from customers and
regulators, the complaint says.  Ms. Wise alleges that in June,
Energy Plus charged her 22.49 cents per kilowatt hour of
electricity, while Con Ed charged Manhattan customers 12.07 cents
per kilowatt hour of energy during the same month.

The complaint charged Energy Plus with deceptive business
practices and unjust enrichment under New York law, and sought
trebled damages and attorneys' fees.

Pauley granted preliminary approval to a settlement in March.
Several state attorneys general filed an amicus brief objecting to
it in June.  The attorneys general argued that the attorneys'
fees, which at one point represented nearly a third of the total
settlement for the class, were exorbitant, and that the settlement
didn't do enough to compensate class members.

The settlement approved on Sept. 17 includes up to $11 million for
the members of the class, as well as attorneys' fees of $3.3
million.  Ms. Wise and Mr. Romm will each receive a $4,000
incentive for their role as lead plaintiffs, according to the

The plaintiffs are represented by D. Greg Blankinship --
gblankinship@mpnsb.com -- and Todd S. Garber -- tgarber@mpnsb.com
-- of Meiselman Packman Nealon Scialabba & Baker PC.

Energy Plus is represented by Dana B. Klinges --
dklinges@duanemorris.com -- and Charles M. Hart --
chart@duanemorris.com  -- of Duane Morris LLP.

The case is Angela Wise et al. v. Energy Plus Holdings LLC, case
number 1:11-cv-07345, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

FACEBOOK INC: King & Wood Discusses Changes in Terms of Use
Olivia Lewis, Esq. at King & Wood Mallesons reports that
Facebook's proposed refresh of its advertising and data use policy
(as a result of a $20 million class action settlement) means your
big break might be just around the corner.  However, the catch is,
you won't be paid for it, nor be aware of what you are endorsing.

These issues are what concerned the plaintiffs in the class action
against Facebook, when they realized that Facebook was putting
users' names and faces in "Sponsored Story" ads without their
permission.  Ultimately, a settlement was reached in which the US
District Court of Northern California ordered Facebook to pay $20

So what is a "Sponsored Story" and could you be in one? Sponsored
Stories are essentially paid advertisements.  Facebook members'
actions, such as "liking" a particular product, are turned into
what appears to be a personally endorsed advertisement on their
friends' Facebook pages.  Often members are unaware that "Likes"
are being used by Facebook as an endorsement of those advertisers,
products, services or brands in a manner solely determined by
Facebook and for which Facebook is paid for.

The Class alleged two key issues:

   * lack of consent, including lack of consent of parents where
minors were involved; and

   * that Facebook engaged in misleading and deceptive business

The Facebook terms of use, set out primarily in the Statement of
Rights and Responsibilities (SRR), were argued to have misled
members into believing that they could control the use of their
name and pictures in advertising.  In fact, said the Class, there
is no way of preventing a Sponsored Story from featuring a member.

Amongst other things, the Class complained about the nature of the
unique language used by Facebook, for example, Facebook "News",
Facebook "Stories", Facebook "Likes" and Facebook "Sponsor", all
of which have a different meaning to the ordinary English
Dictionary.  The Class criticized the lack of express consent to
the Terms of Use and notification to members when changes are

The fact this matter has settled means that limits of social media
terms of use and enforceability of automatic user consent have
again gone untested by the Court.  However, as part of the
settlement Facebook is required to make changes to the SRR to
address some of the issues raised and to implement additional
mechanisms to give users greater information and control.

The amendments were open for user comment until September 7, 2013
and Facebook has indicated it will provide an update shortly.
Reports suggest that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is now
investigating Facebook's proposed changes to ensure the revisions
comply with a 2011 settlement that Facebook made with the FTC in
which it agreed to get explicit approval from users before
changing its privacy controls.

Whilst Facebook contends that it was always clear in its policies,
Part 10 of the proposed SRR has been amended to provide "further
clarification" on Sponsored Stories, which are here to stay
(whether you like it or not):

"You give us permission to use your name, profile picture, content
and information in connection with commercial, sponsored, or
related content (such as a brand you like) served or enhanced by
us.  This means, for example, that you permit a business or other
entity to pay us to display your name and/or profile picture with
your content or information, without any compensation to you."

In response to the issue of gaining consent from minors
highlighted by the class action, Part 10 also notes:

"If you are under the age of eighteen (18), or under any other
applicable age of majority, you represent that at least one of
your parents of legal guardians has also agreed to the terms of
this section (and of the use of your name, profile picture,
content, and information) of your behalf."

[Eds: We query how many minors are likely to read all the way
through to Part 10 of the SRR, let alone invite a parent or
guardian to peek over their shoulder to read and agree to a
certain aspect of the terms!]

Facebook has also clarified other aspects of its activities,
identifying how privacy settings can be individually tailored. So
whilst you may not be able to prevent your guest appearance on a
Sponsored Story, you may be able to limit your fame by being aware
of some other developments by Facebook:

The use of facial recognition software that uses an algorithm to
calculate a unique number, also called a "template", based on
someone's facial features.  These templates are used to provide
"tagging" suggestions, and are only created from photos you have
been tagged in.  However, if you un-tag yourself from a photo this
photo cannot be used to create a template.  Therefore to avoid the
facial recognition software you will have to un-tag yourself from
all photos.

A new feature is being introduced called "Graph Search" which
allows users to search general topics across Facebook. Facebook
gives the example that if you search for "Photos of Tokyo" you
will be able to see photos your friends have taken in Tokyo (if
their privacy settings allow), as well as all Public photos in
relation to Tokyo.  This is a default feature and Facebook has
explicitly noted that the availability of your material to others
depends on how it categorized in your privacy settings.

So if you are reconsidering your fame and fortune on Facebook make
sure you read the fine print.  By using Facebook, you agree to the
SRR.  Further, if the terms are updated, your continued use of
Facebook constitutes acceptance any amendments.

FACEBOOK INC: Cato Institute Criticizes Beacon Settlement
Wendy Davis, writing for Daily Online Examiner, reports that the
libertarian organization Cato Institute is backing the Center for
Class Action Fairness in its effort to convince the Supreme Court
to scuttle Facebook's $9.5 million settlement of a class-action
privacy lawsuit stemming from the Beacon debacle.

Cato argues that the deal -- like other class-action settlements
where defendants donate to charities instead of paying consumers
-- violates consumers' rights.

The settlement requires Facebook to pay around $6.5 million to
create a new privacy organization, the Digital Trust Foundation.
The new foundation will be directed by a three-person board -- and
Facebook will have a major say in selecting those people. (One of
the board members was supposed to be Facebook's former public
policy director, Tim Sparapani, but he left the company before the
foundation was created.) The lawyers who brought the case on
behalf of the consumers -- including New York attorney
Scott Kamber and Texas lawyer Joseph Malley -- stand to receive
around $2.3 million.

The settlement, which was okayed earlier this year by the 9th
Circuit, resolves allegations that Facebook violated users'
privacy with the 2007 Beacon program.  The short-lived Beacon
initiative shared information about people's e-commerce activity
with their friends.

The lawsuit's resolution was always controversial, with critics
arguing that Facebook's users -- whose privacy allegedly was
violated by Beacon -- won't necessarily benefit from the new
organization.  Now, the Cato Institute is raising another point --
one that could affect many class-action settlements.  The
organization says that allowing companies to settle class-action
lawsuits by donating to nonprofits violates the free-speech rights
of the consumers who were harmed, given that they won't
necessarily be aligned with the nonprofits on policy issues.

Cato argues it would be truly extraordinary if members of the
class were uniform in their preferences for charitable giving.

"Some class members could be misanthropes, preferring to avoid all
philanthropy.  Most class members might agree with the notion of
charitable giving generally, but would disagree as to the type of
organizations that were worthy of financial support," Cato argues.
"It is inappropriate for class counsel to presume to select a
'worthy' charitable organization to be the recipients of funds
that represent damages owed to class members."

Cato adds that companies get a big benefit when they agree to make
donations to nonprofits in order to settle a class-action lawsuit:
The deal allows those companies to burnish their public-relations
images by funding charitable efforts with the money that
rightfully belongs to the class."  The group says the Supreme
Court should take the case.

For its part, Facebook filed papers opposing the request.  The
company argues that the courts correctly approved the settlement,
which it says resulted from "months of protracted, good faith

GMX RESOURCE: Loses Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Action
Kathryn Brenzel and Matt Chiappardi, writing for Law360, report
that an Oklahoma federal judge on Sept. 16 denied a bid to dismiss
a proposed class action against bankrupt GMX Resource Inc.'s
underwriters, including Merrill Lynch, finding that they aided in
certain securities sales and therefore could potentially be liable
for any alleged misrepresentations of the oil and gas producer's
financial health.

U.S. District Court Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti rejected a motion to
dismiss the proposed class action, finding that plaintiffs
adequately alleged securities fraud claims against the
underwriters and some of GMX's leaders, including CEO
Ken Kenworthy Jr., according to the Sept. 16 order.  The
underwriters qualify as "statutory sellers," and Mr. Kenworthy
could be liable as a "controlling person," according to the order.

Attorneys for the defendants could not immediately be reached for

Plaintiffs, including the Northumberland County Retirement System,
filed the latest version of their complaint in August 2012,
seeking a class of investors who purchased GMX stock between
May 13, 2009, and October 22, 2009, according to court documents.
The time frame correlates with two secondary offerings of common
stock, when the company sold roughly 5.8 million shares for $69
million and 7 million shares for $104 million, according to court

The proposed class was allegedly misled by financial materials
released prior to these offerings, which stated the company's 2008
net loss to be $81.7 million, according to plaintiffs.  In 2010,
the company revealed that its calculation had failed to take into
account the effects of deferred income taxes or deferred income
tax benefits, according to court documents.  The company restated
its losses as $124.6 million.

GMX and two of its affiliates, Diamond Blue Drilling Co. and
Endeavor Pipeline Inc., filed for Chapter 11 protection in
April, citing low natural gas prices.  Holders of $324 million in
senior secured notes had, at the time of the filing, already
agreed to extend the company a $50 million debtor-in-possession
loan that would allow them to take over the company when it exits
bankruptcy.  The unsecured creditors weren't pleased, dubbing the
loan terms "an attempt to hijack the bankruptcy process."

GMX Resources estimated it had $281 million in total assets and
$459 million in total liabilities, according to its petition.

The Sept. 16 order applied to the underwriters and the company's
leaders, not GMX itself, which has already been dismissed from the
proposed class action, according to court documents.
Representatives for plaintiffs did not immediately return calls
for comment.

Defendants are represented by Joe M. Hampton and Amy J Pierce --
apierce@corbynhampton.com -- of Corbyn Hampton PLLC.

Plaintiffs are represented by Bradley Earl Beckworth of Nix
Patterson & Roach LLP.

The case is Northumberland County Retirement System et al. v. GMX
Resources Inc. et al., case number 5:11-cv-00520, in U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

HOYA CORPORATION: Gas/Water Feeding Valve Recalled in Canada
Starting date:            September 18, 2013
Posting date:             September 18, 2013
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type I
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-35831

Recalled Products: Gas/Water Feeding Valve - OF-B194 with more
than 10 numbers of lot or serial number.

PENTAX Upper/Lower G.I. Endoscopes are provided with an Air/Water
Valve.  As an alternative, the optionally available OF-B194
Gas/Water Feeding Valve may be used in place of the standard
Air/Water Valve to deliver a non-explosive gas (C02) for
insufflation.  Health Canada has been informed about a product
issue involving the OF-B194 Gas/Water Feeding Valve.  The reported
defect may cause improper stoppage of the supply of CO2 gas during
an endoscopic procedure with the potential for serious hazard to
the patient (i.e. increased risk of perforation due to continuing
flow of CO2 gas).  PENTAX Medical has discovered a manufacturing
assembly failure, which cannot be corrected at the user facility
and therefore the OF-B194 Gas/Water Feeding Valve must be removed
from use immediately.


  Manufacturer     Hoya Corporation
                   2-7-5 Naka-Ochiai, Shinjuku-ku
                   Tokyo, Tokyo-to 161-8525

HURONIA REGIONAL: Abuse Class Action Settled for C$35 Million
Paola Loriggio, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that for
decades, those who lived at an Ontario institution for the
developmentally disabled waited for the province to acknowledge
the abuse and neglect they said they endured at the government-run

Now the province has vowed to formally apologize to thousands of
former residents of the Huronia Regional Centre, part of a last-
minute settlement in a class-action lawsuit into the allegations.

The C$35-million settlement, read out in a Toronto court on
Sept. 17 just as the trial was set to begin, falls short of the
C$2 billion the plaintiffs sought.

But the money seemed almost an afterthought for many of the
plaintiffs, who welcomed what they considered long-overdue
recognition of their suffering.

"They should've done that a long time ago.  Why did they take 50
years to say that?" said Edgar Riel, who spent six years at the
centre he described as his own personal hell.

Patricia Seth, 55, one of the lead plaintiffs, said the apology
would help bring closure.

"I'm just elated to . . . not necessarily put the past at rest but
put it on the back burner, because you can never forget something
like that," she said.

"We can move forward now, tell our stories.  People believe us

The settlement is a "very close approximation" of what the
plaintiffs would likely have won at trial, said Kirk Baert, who
represented Ms. Seth and roughly 3,700 others in the suit.

It will also spare former residents from testifying and reliving
the abuse they were subjected to for so many years, he said
outside court.

"Giving evidence in court is very difficult.  You have to sit
there and be exposed, you have to be cross-examined by the other
side's lawyer, you may or may not end up being believed . . . and
you may not always win," he said.

Some expressed regret, however, that they wouldn't get the chance
to finally lay bare the memories that have haunted them since

"I'm sad because I think they should listen to the stories," said
Carrie Ford.

Ms. Ford said she arrived at Huronia at age 13 and stayed until
she was 28.  During that time, she said, staff repeatedly
threatened to have her sterilized.

Part of the agreement aims to chronicle what happened at the
center -- a grim history some feared would be wiped clean should
the case not go to trial.

A commemorative plaque to be placed on the Huronia grounds will
allude to the "conditions" at the center.  The cemetery where
hundreds of children were buried will be maintained, the names of
the dead catalogued.

Researchers will also be allowed to visit the now-closed center
and retrieve artifacts they deem historically important.

The facility opened in 1876 as the Orillia Asylum for Idiots and
was operated by the province for 133 years before it shut down in

The suit alleged residents suffered almost daily humiliation and

Some said they worked in the fields for little or no money, and
recalled being forced to walk around with no pants on as
punishment for speaking out of turn.

The suit covered those institutionalized at the center between
1945 and 2009, many of whom are now aged or dying.

For that reason, "we want to pay the money out as quickly as
possible," Mr. Baert said.

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne would only say she was glad an
agreement could be reached.

"There are a number of steps that have to take place before that
settlement is finalized so I won't comment further, but it's a
history that obviously families needed to grapple with and there
needed to be some closure on that," she said.

"My hope is the settlement will be finalized and that there will
be some closure for those families."

If approved by the court, the agreement will see the money divided
based on how much each plaintiff suffered.

Those who were harmed the most will receive more money, while
those who choose not to describe what they went through will only
be eligible for up to C$2,000, Mr. Baert said.  The maximum
individual payout would be C$42,000.

Should there be fewer claims than expected, or fewer requiring a
larger payout, up to C$5 million of the surplus would go to
organizations that help people with developmental disabilities,
Mr. Baert said.

Plaintiffs will be allowed to voice their concerns over the
settlement at the approval hearing, which has not yet been

Two similar class actions against the province are pending over
alleged abuses at the Rideau Regional Centre, in Smith Falls,
Ont., and the Southwestern Regional Centre, outside Chatham, Ont.

Mr. Baert said he hopes those cases can also be resolved outside

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Depuy Hip Implant Trial in Ohio Starts Today
As DePuy ASR lawsuit claims continue to move forward in the U.S.,
Bernstein Liebhard LLP notes that a court in Ontario, Canada,
recently certified a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of
Canadian citizens who were allegedly affected by the DePuy ASR
recall.  According to court documents filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice on August 27, 2013, the DePuy ASR class
action lawsuit seeks damages, including medical monitoring and
emotional distress, for all persons implanted with the recalled
hip system.  Attorneys for plaintiffs estimate that as many as
4,000 Canadians could be included in the class. (Crisante, et al.
v. DePuy Orthopaedics Inc., et al., No. CV-10-415755-00CP)

"Prior to the DePuy ASR recall, this hip replacement system was
sold all over the world, so the legal action in Canada is not
surprising.  The allegations put forth in the class action
complaint echo many of those made by our own DePuy ASR lawsuit
clients here in the U.S.," says Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a
nationwide law firm representing the victims of defective drugs
and medical devices, including hundreds of clients in DePuy ASR
lawsuits.  The Firm continues to offer free legal evaluations to
anyone who suffered serious complications associated with the
DePuy ASR recall.

                         DePuy ASR Recall

DePuy Orthopaedics issued a worldwide recall for the ASR hip
replacement system in August 2010, after the metal-on-metal hips
were found to be failing in an unacceptably high number of
recipients within just a few years of implantation.*  Since then,
court documents indicate that more than 11,500 DePuy ASR lawsuits
have been filed on behalf of U.S. plaintiffs, all whom are alleged
to have suffered metallosis, early device failure, or other
serious complications due to the ASR's metal-on-metal design.
Most of these complaints are pending in a multidistrict litigation
now underway in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio,
where Bernstein Liebhard LLP is actively filing claims.  The first
trial in the federal litigation is scheduled to begin on
September 24, 2013. (In re: DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. ASR Hip
Implant Products Liability Litigation - MDL 2197)

While the federal litigation has yet to hold its first trial, two
DePuy ASR lawsuits have already been heard by U.S. juries at the
state level.  In March, a plaintiff was awarded more than $8
million after a Los Angeles Superior Court jury found that the hip
implant was defectively designed. (Kransky v. DePuy, BC456086,
California Superior Court, Los Angeles County) However, a jury in
Chicago found for Johnson & Johnson in a second trial just one
month later. (Strum v. DePuy, 2011-L-9352, Circuit Court of Cook

The DePuy ASR recall prompted the U.S. Food & Drug Administration
(FDA) to begin a safety review of the entire class of metal-on-
metal hip implants in February 2011.  In January 2013, after
determining that all-metal hips were more likely to fail
prematurely compared to devices made from other materials, the FDA
advised metal-on-metal hip replacement recipients to undergo
medical screening if they experienced any symptoms that could be
an indication that their implant was not performing as it should .
The FDA has also proposed a new rule which would subject metal-on-
metal hips to greater regulatory oversight.

                   About Bernstein Liebhard LLP

Bernstein Liebhard LLP is a New York-based law firm exclusively
representing injured persons in complex individual and class
action lawsuits nationwide since 1993, including those who have
been harmed by dangerous drugs, defective medical devices and
consumer products.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Central Coast Women Sues Over Prolapse Mesh
Denice Barnes, writing for Central Coast Gosford Express Advocate,
reports that 12 Central Coast women are part of a class action
against pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson.

Brisbane-based Shine Lawyers commenced a prolapse mesh class
action in 2012 on behalf of 300 Australian women, including the
12 locals.

Prolapse mesh is a synthetic surgical mesh designed to repair
pelvic organ prolapse, most typically following childbirth.

Johnson & Johnson removed its mesh product from the Australian
market in 2012.

Further class actions against the company are also underway in
America and Canada.

Earlier this year a prolapse mesh action went to trial in the US
and resulted in AU$11.1 million in compensation being awarded to
the victims.

Shine Partner Rebecca Jancauskas is representing the 300
Australian women.

"The mesh is used to repair a prolapse and urinary incontinence
and most commonly used after childbirth," Ms. Jancauskas said.

"We believe it's been used in at least 30,000 women in Australia,
so there is likely to be many more affected women out there.

"We are seeing more and more women coming forward with

The mesh has shown to erode and invade various organs, and shrink
and contract causing great pain.

Ms. Jancauskas said surgery to remove the mesh was complex and
many surgeons were reluctant to perform the operation.

"It's had a devastating impact on women all around the country."

She said women about to undergo a mesh implant should see their
health professional as a first step.

"There are mesh products made by other manufacturers, the only
litigation is against Johnson & Johnson."

Several Central Coast women taking part in the class action were
willing to talk to the Express Advocate about their experience,
but all were reluctant to be named or photographed because of the
sensitive nature of the complaint.

                    Mum struggled with pain
                          Susan's Story

Susan (not her real name) from northern Wyong Shire, said the mesh
implant had changed her life completely.

She underwent the procedure six months after the birth of her baby
in 2011.  The labor was long and difficult with a lot of
complications, resulting in prolapsed bladder.

Susan underwent a minor procedure to repair the problem was it
wasn't successful.  Her specialist then recommended a mesh
implant, a major procedure.

Susan did some research and found there were two methods used to
correct the problem, but her specialist said he only used the

"I was living in a rural town in Victoria at the time and there
weren't many specialists," she said.

"Within six months the operation had completely failed and I was
in exactly the same position as when I started."

"I was very disappointed and quite depressed, and it's not
something you want to talk to a lot of people about."

Her relationship with her baby's father broke down and she became
"horribly depressed".

"It's uncomfortable and impacts on your everyday life," she said.

More recently another specialist has suggested exactly the same
operation and a full hysterectomy.

"I'm not going to have the same operation.

"I will keep searching until I find the right solution for me, I
am very positive I will find it.

"If more women talked about there would be more research because
I'm sure there's plenty of other women out there in the same

LCD MAKERS: Nov. 6 Supreme Court Hearing in Price-Fixing Suit
The Associated Press reports that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear
oral arguments on Nov. 6 on Mississippi Attorney General
Jim Hood's price-fixing lawsuit against liquid crystal display
screen manufacturers.

Mr. Hood sued several major suppliers of LCD screens alleging that
consumers paid extra because of price fixing in violation of the
Mississippi Consumer Protection Act.  The lawsuit seeks damages,
restitution and civil penalties for actions from 1996 to 2006 by
companies in Japan, Korea and Taiwan, plus their U.S.
counterparts.  The companies have paid out millions to settle
class-action lawsuits and still face other lawsuits in the United
States and around the world.

"We are pleased that the court granted the state's petition and
look forward to having the case heard on the merits," Mr. Hood
told the Mississippi Business.

"Corporations have abused federal jurisdiction by using the Class
Action Fairness Act to remove consumer actions from state court to
federal court.  During Senate debate on the Class Action Fairness
Act, even the senators supporting the act stated on the record
that it would not apply to actions brought by attorneys general.
I anticipate a vast majority of attorneys general joining in an
amicus brief supporting our position, which three federal Circuit
Courts of Appeals upheld."

Mr. Hood brought the action in Hinds County Chancery Court, under
the parens patriae theory, which allows a state's top law
enforcement officer to sue on behalf of his constituents.

The defendants removed the case to federal court.  They argued the
Class Action Fairness Act, passed by Congress in 2005, allowed the
change in venue because the plaintiffs were the people of
Mississippi, not Mr. Hood.

The CAFA defines a "mass action" as litigation with a lot of
plaintiffs, similar to class action lawsuits.  The law allows for
the removal of mass actions to federal court.

Mr. Hood countered that the case belonged in state court. U.S.
District Judge Carlton Reeves of Jackson agreed with Hood, and
sent the case back to chancery court.

The defendants appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,
which ruled that the case belonged in federal court.

The Supreme Court is expected to determine who the actual
plaintiff is -- Mr. Hood, or the people he sued LCD manufacturers
on behalf of.

Consumer interest group Public Citizen has filed "friend of the
court" brief supporting Hood's position.  The Washington, D.C.-
based group says the removal of parens patriae cases to federal
"departs from the plain language and intent" of the law.

Forty-six states have filed briefs supporting Mr. Hood's position
to go with the AARP and the Center for State Enforcement of
Antitrust and Consumer Protection Laws.

LIBERTY SILVER: To Defend Proposed Securities Class Action
Liberty Silver Corp. on Sept. 16 disclosed that it has become
aware that the Company and its Chief Executive Officer have been
named as defendants in a proposed class action lawsuit filed
against Robert Genovese, certain individuals alleged to have
collaborated with Mr. Genovese, and an offshore investment firm
allegedly controlled by Mr. Genovese.  The action contains various
claims alleging violations of the United States Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and rules thereunder relating to anomalous
trading activity and fluctuations in the Company's share price
from August through October 2012.  The plaintiff purports to bring
suit on behalf of all who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common shares from April 1, 2008, through and including
October 5, 2012.

The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, and, to the Company's knowledge,
neither the Company nor its Chief Executive Officer have yet been
served with the complaint.

If a complaint is served, Liberty and its Chief Executive Officer
intend to fully investigate the complaint and will undertake a
vigorous defense.

                   About Liberty Silver Corp.

Liberty Silver Corp. -- http://www.libertysilvercorp.com-- is
focused on exploring and advancing mineralproperties located in
North America.

LINKEDIN CORP: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Marketing Practices
Hal M. Bundrick, writing for MainStreet, reports that Facebook has
had its share of privacy concerns, and just recently the FTC has
begun yet another probe into the social network's privacy policy.
But LinkedIn, the business version of Facebook, is rapidly gaining
ground as the creepiest social network.

As David Veldt, a digital marketing consultant, says on his blog,
"The primary reasons LinkedIn is the mustached, trench coat and
wire frame glasses wearing mouth breather of the Internet are the
'People You May Know' and 'People Also Viewed' features.  Even
though I have no shared connections, school, company, or industry,
LinkedIn is using the search and viewing history of other people
to make assumptions on who I may know."

Mr. Veldt is not alone in feeling a bit violated by a lurking
LinkedIn.  A nationwide class-action lawsuit has just been filed
regarding LinkedIn's "disturbing practice" of accessing users'
third-party email accounts without consent.

The suit, filed in San Jose Federal Court in the Northern District
of California, claims the service "harvests email addresses and
sends multiple reminder emails, ostensibly on behalf of the user,
advertising LinkedIn to non-members."  Contrary to reassurances on
LinkedIn's website that it will not send emails "without your
permission," the filing claims LinkedIn promotes its service by
downloading email addresses from members' external email accounts
and repeatedly emailing the addresses requesting they join

To enhanced the effectiveness of this particular marketing
campaign, the suit states that the endorsement emails contain the
name and likeness of the existing users from whom Linkedln
"surreptitiously" obtained the list of email addresses.

"The law recognizes this type of repeated emailing -- using
members names, to advertise LinkedIn's service, without consent --
is unacceptable," says Larry Russ, an attorney for the four
plaintiffs named in the suit.  "These advertising emails give the
impression that the member is endorsing LinkedIn.  Through this
class action, LinkedIn's members can band together and compel
LinkedIn's compliance with the law."

The plaintiffs allege LinkedIn's marketing practices violate
California's Common Law Right of Publicity, the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, the Stored Communications Act,
California's Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud Act, California's
Invasion of Privacy Act, and the California Consumer Remedies Act.

The filing is seeking to define the plaintiff class as any member
registered with LinkedIn prior to May 15, 2013 "who had their
names, photographs, likenesses, or identities associated with that
account used in an endorsement email sent to third parties by
Linkedln."  LinkedIn did not immediately respond to MainStreet's
request for comment, though our inquiry was forwarded to the
"Trust and Safety Team."

LOS LUNAS, NM: Settles Class Action Over Prison Seating Policy
Patrick Lohmann, writing for Albuquerque Journal, reports that
officials at the Los Lunas prison and a class of more than 470
current and former inmates have reached a settlement agreement
that would pay out $750,000 to inmates allegedly forced to strip
down and sit front to back for long periods in 2009 and early

The agreement, which a judge still has to approve, also calls for
a change in the so-called "controlled seating" policy -- a
practice plaintiffs' attorneys claim was referred to in the prison
as "nuts to butts" -- that would mandate a 1-foot-wide gap between
inmates if they're told to sit and straddle each other in times of
unrest or emergency.

The class-action lawsuit was filed in 2011 after inmates claimed
they were subjected to the practice at least four times in 2009
and 2010 at the Los Lunas Correctional Facility.

In court documents, inmates described being guarded by gun-
wielding corrections officers wearing face masks, being forced to
strip to their underwear and sitting single file on the gymnasium
floor with their genitals touching the next inmate.

Inmates said they were held in this position for several hours
without access to a bathroom, the lawsuit claims.  In one
instance, an inmate urinated on the prisoner in front of him, and
several prisoners were forced to sit in the urine, the lawsuit

The lawsuit, filed in the 13th Judicial District Court, alleged
violation of constitutional rights against cruel and unusual
punishment and to due process and equal protection under the law.

It named correctional officers as defendants, in addition to then-
warden Anthony Romero, who allegedly yelled during one event that
the inmates were his "bitches," according to the lawsuit.

As part of the proposed agreement, inmates and their lawyers would
divvy up the settlement, and the "correctional seating" policy
would change to include a section that reads, "No inmate shall be
made to sit straddling another inmate with less than approximately
one foot gap between the inmates."

Under the proposed agreement, the inmates' attorneys will take
one-third of the settlement, the three named plaintiffs will get
$10,000 apiece, and the rest of the 472 inmates in the class will
get between $528 and $2,115, depending on how many times they were
subjected to the alleged abuse.

The inmates' attorneys said that 83 of the 472 inmates will be
difficult to find for various reasons.

The "nuts to butts" events allegedly happened June 1, June 18 and
Dec. 29, 2009, and Jan. 26, 2010.

The agreement was reached after several months of negotiations and
two mediations, according to court documents, one of which took
place in Albuquerque and required the transport of several current
inmates to the negotiation table.

Alex Tomlin, a spokeswoman for the state Department of
Corrections, said she could not comment on the agreement because
it hadn't yet been finalized. She did say that "controlled
seating" operations are very rare but are still an option for
corrections officers who are trying to take control of a chaotic

"It's not something that we would use often," she said.  "There
are several ways that we would go about it.  It's a case-by-case

Should the judge approve the agreement, Mr. Tomlin said, the
proposed policy change should take effect almost immediately.

Matthew Coyte, one of the inmates' attorneys, said the case has
been a sprawling endeavor over the past two years, and he said
corrections officials repeatedly denied that the incidents
occurred while meanwhile changing their policies.  Surveillance
footage from the dates in question was destroyed, according to
court documents.

"We've come a long way," Mr. Coyte said.  "It took two years to
get to this point, in the face of repeated denials that it
happened at all."

MACMILLAN GROUP: Oct. 1 Deadline for Claim Forms in E-Book Accord
WSYR-TV reports that if you have purchased an ebook from one of
multiple prominent publishers, you could be entitled to money as
part of a class-action lawsuit.

If you bought an ebook from MacMillan, Penguin, Hachette, Harper-
Collins, or Simon and Schuster, you may be entitled to part of a
multi-million-dollar class action lawsuit over alleged price

To qualify, the book should have been purchased between April 1,
2010 and May 21, 2012.

If the court approves your claim, you will receive either a credit
from the retailer or a check.

Some claimants are pre-qualified.  Others will have to file a
claim form before Oct. 1.

For more information or to fill out a form, visit
ebooksagsettlements.com or call 1-866-621-4153.

MERRILL LYNCH: Wins Dismissal of New Jersey Securities Suit
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted a
motion by Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. to dismiss a securities suit
filed against it, according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On January 30, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey in a case styled Rescue Mission of El Paso., Inc., et
al. v. John J. Nicola, et al., the Company, its subsidiary,
K-Sea Transportation Partners L.P. ("K-Sea"), and current and
former officers and directors of K-Sea were named defendants in a
putative class action complaint asserting that during the period
of January 30, 2009 to January 27, 2010, K-Sea allegedly failed to
disclose certain facts regarding K-Sea's operations and financial
condition, and asserting violations of Sections 10(b)(5) and 20(a)
of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5

Plaintiff sought class certification, compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff filed its Amended
Consolidated Complaint on behalf of the class on July 9, 2012. The
Company filed a motion to dismiss in response to the Complaint. On
June 18, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
the case.

MERRILL LYNCH: Settlement of Securities Suit Under Appeal
Certain members of the securities class in the Consolidated
Securities Class Action against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. have
appealed the district court's final approval of the settlement to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, according to the
company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

MILFORD WATER: Class Action Trial Scheduled for Next Year
Lindsay Corcoran, writing for Milford Daily News, reports that the
class action suit against the Milford Water Company, filed
following an August 2009 incident in which E. coli was found in
the town's water supply, will head to trial next year.

Attorneys were in court on Sept. 17 arguing over what will be
allowed at the trial, originally scheduled for Oct. 5, but pushed
back to March 6, 2014.

James O'Connor, one of the attorney's representing the plaintiffs,
said the trial has been delayed to allow both sides to complete
the discovery process.

The suit was certified as a class action in January, after 10
plaintiffs sued the company, alleging it failed to provide potable
water and adequate service Aug. 5-21, 2009.  During that period,
the state Department of Environmental Protection had instated a
boil-water order for the town because samples taken from the
company tested for E. coli bacteria.  The plaintiffs allege they
suffered personal injury and sickness from the contaminated water.

An entire class of water company customers can participate in the
suit.  A judge has defined the class as "all individual customers
of defendant Milford Water Company . . . individual members of the
customers' households, dependents and other individual users of
water who sustained damage or injury on or about Aug. 5-21, 2009
and thereafter as a result of the boil-water order."

Under state law, the case will proceed without a dollar amount set
for damages.

The 2009 incident also led to the conviction of former water
company manager Henry Papuga on tampering with water samples after
it was ruled he attempted to get lifted the boil-water order the
town was under.  Mr. Papuga admitted to adding bleach to samples
following his conviction and was sentenced to five years of
probation and community service.

On Sept. 17, both sides presented arguments on whether the company
should be tried on the breach of commercial code counts.

"The purpose is to revive some of the counts that were dismissed
. . . early in the case, some, not all, of the charges were
dismissed," Mr. O'Connor said.

Besides the charge being debated in Sept. 17, Mr. O'Connor said
the case is moving forward on charges of unfair and deceptive
practices, negligence, gross negligence, breach of contract, and
breach of common law warrantees.

MONTREAL, CANADA: Class Suit Over Mass Arrests of Students Okayed
Marian Scott, writing for The Montreal Gazette, reports that
Quebec Superior Court has authorized a class action suit against
the city of Montreal for the kettling and mass arrests of students
on May 23, 2012, at the height of protests against university
tuition hikes.

Lawyer Marc Chetrit Rieger filed the case in July 2012 on behalf
of Jean-Pierre Lord, a social work student at the Universite du
Quebec a Montreal.

Mr. Lord is seeking C$2,500 in damages and interest and the same
amount for others who were arrested that night.

An estimated 5,000 demonstrators took part in the 30th student
protest of 2012 on May 23.  At about 1 a.m., police kettled a
group of more than 500 on St. Denis St., arrested them and
detained them in 17 city buses.

Mr. Lord was among demonstrators who were fined C$634 under a
municipal bylaw requiring protesters to disclose the route of
their demonstration to police.

In his motion, Mr. Lord alleges the protesters were detained for
seven hours with their hands tied behind their backs and no access
to water or washrooms.

Mr. Rieger described the police action as "harrowing" and

Mr. Lord stated he joined the march heading east on Ste. Catherine
St. at about 10:00 p.m. because the Montreal police Twitter feed
suggested the force was letting the march continue even though it
contravened Bill 78, a special law restricting student protests.
He alleges that at 10:31 p.m., the police tweeted that if the
demonstrators entered the Viger tunnel they would be arrested, and
that the marchers obeyed.  But when the crowd marched south on St.
Denis St., the police riot squad blocked the marchers.

Mr. Lord said he tried to leave the march by heading west on
Sherbrooke St. but was blocked by police, who began throwing tear
gas and pepper-spraying demonstrators and reporters.  He said he
didn't know what was going on because police allegedly never gave
an order to disperse.  About 500 people were rounded up, searched,
handcuffed, loaded into a city bus and taken to a police station,
the motion alleges.

The motion claims that one woman, unable to wait any longer for a
toilet, urinated at the back door of the bus.

Mr. Lord said that at about 5:00 a.m. he had to pull down his
pants with his hands still cuffed in order to urinate in the bus
because police refused to take him to a toilet.

The motion also alleges that protesters were illegally searched
and some suffered from health problems like heart disease or
hypoglycemia, and that tight handcuffs cut off their blood

In his ruling, judge Marc-Andre Blanchard dismissed arguments by
the city of Montreal that the allegations were frivolous and

MOORE CAPITAL: Settles "Banging" Class Action for $48.4 Million
ValueWalk reports that Moore Capital Management has agreed to pay
$48.4 million to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging that the
hedge fund manipulated the platinum and palladium markets.

The deal ends more than three years of litigation and will
purportedly compensate purchasers of futures tied to the metals.

                Settle "Banging The Close" Suit

The settlement relates to a lawsuit that accused Louis Bacon's
Moore Capital Management of banging the close in Nymex platinum
and palladium markets in 2007 and 2008.

Banging the close is a strategy in which a trader enters buy
orders in the last seconds of a trading day to drive up future
settlement prices.

A spokesman of the New York-based hedge fund declined to comment.
CFTC Fined Moore Capital $25 Million

In April 2010, Moore Capital paid the Commodities Futures Trading
Commission a $25 million penalty to settle charges of attempted
manipulation of the Nymex contracts, and also submitted to
restrictions on its trading in the PGM markets.

The CFTC said Welsh routinely received market-on-close buy orders
from Pia with the understanding that the latter wanted to buy at
higher prices.  To achieve the objective, Welsh allegedly devised
and implemented a trading strategy to attempt to maximize the
price impact by trading during the two-minute closing periods of
the palladium and platinum futures contracts markets.

Apart from the fine, CFTC also restrained the hedge fund's trading
activities for three years, including a two-year restriction on
its trades within 15 minutes of, and during, the close in the
platinum and palladium futures and options markets.  However, the
hedge fund neither admitted nor denied the charges, according to
the U.S. commodity regulator.

Last month, law firm Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP
confirmed that it was able to extract a further $48.4 million from
the hedge fund, Moore Capital, to settle a class-action suit filed
in New York related to the alleged price manipulation.

Lovell Stewart Halebian also shot into prominence last month when
it launched a class-action lawsuit against Goldman Sachs, Metro,
the London Metal Exchange and others on behalf of aluminum-
consumers, accusing the defendant.

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Concussion Class Action Lawyers Seek Mediation
Jon Solomon, writing for al.com, reports that lawyers representing
one class-action lawsuit against the NCAA over concussions asked a
Tennessee judge to order mediation with separate concussion
plaintiffs from Illinois in order to cover the most at-risk
college football players.

Plaintiffs in the 2-year-old Adrian Arrington lawsuit in Illinois
are scheduled for a November mediation with the NCAA, which is
accused of not properly handling concussions in college sports.
Earlier this month, three former college football players filed
the Chris Walker suit in Tennessee with similar complaints against
the NCAA.

The Arrington lawyers filed documents asking for the Walker case
to be dismissed, merged or delayed, claiming the allegations are
"effectively the same" with different plaintiffs.

The Walker lawyers filed documents this week arguing that the
Arrington case excludes the most at-risk former college football
players, those who are approximately 33 and older.  They say that
Arrington's proposed class-action class -- named after a former
Eastern Illinois football player -- excludes most of the members
of the Walker class.

At stake is which law firms control litigation against the NCAA in
the aftermath of the NFL's $765 million concussion settlement with
former pro players.  Thousands of former college athletes could
join either suit if they are certified.

Walkers' lawyers suggested a mediator for the dispute could be
retired U.S. District Judge Layn Phillips, who recently finished
mediation in the NFL concussion case.  The lead lawyer for the
Walker case is Richard Lewis, a partner at Hausfeld LLP, which is
trying to certify a 4-year-old, class-action suit against the NCAA
over the use of college athletes' names, images and likenesses.

The Arrington suit seeks medical-monitoring relief on behalf of
all male and female players in football, wrestling, basketball,
field hockey, ice hockey, lacrosse or soccer since 2004 in 18
states.  Arrington's attorneys, Hagans Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
and Siprut PC, argue that certifying its case would include all
present or former college athletes in those contact sports since

The Walker suit seeks medical monitoring in all 50 states for all
living former college football players who didn't reach the NFL.
Walker lawyers say their class representatives -- former Tennessee
players Walker and Ben Martin and former N.C. State player Dan
Ahern -- would be excluded from the Arrington class.

Tennessee is not a covered state in the Arrington class and Ahern
played before 2004, according to Walker's lawyers. They wrote that
all but one Big 12 school, the vast majority of the SEC (including
schools in Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee and Mississippi), and half
of the Big Ten are ineligible for relief in the Arrington suit.

Walker's lawyers also argue that college football players who
played before 2004 are those currently at the greatest risk to
brain injury and have the greatest present need for medical

"This heightened scrutiny is required because settlement with one
set of counsel who have not obtained a class certification order
runs the risk of excluding divergent and essential interests in
the potential class settlement," Walker's lawyers wrote.

Walker's lawyers are asking U.S. District Judge Curtis Collier in
Tennessee to order mediation and a joint report by both plaintiffs
that includes a mediation schedule and a method for choosing a

NEW YORK: Remedial Phase Class in "Gulino" Suit Certified
District Judge Kimba M. Wood granted Plaintiffs' motion to certify
a remedial phase class in GULINO, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. THE BOARD
Defendant, NO. 96 CV 8414 (KMW), (S.D.N.Y.).

The Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in
the New York City public school system, filed the action in 1996.
Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant, the Board of Education of the
City School District of the City of New York, violated Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq.,
by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain racially discriminatory
standardized tests in order to obtain a license to teach in New
York City public schools.  Judge Constance Baker Motley, to whom
the case was originally assigned, certified the plaintiff class on
July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(2).  On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the
Plaintiff class to the extent it sought damages and individualized
injunctive relief in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011).  The class
survived, however, to the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may
be awarded under Rule 23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment
regarding liability and classwide injunctive relief.

The Plaintiffs moved to certify a "remedy-phase class," seeking
classwide backpay and other individualized relief, pursuant to
Rule 23(b)(3).

A copy of the District Court's August 29, 2013 Opinion & Order is
available at http://is.gd/oNjVYOfrom Leagle.com.

Elsa Gulino, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara J. Olshansky --
bj.olshansky@gmail.com -- Stanford Law School Center for Internet
& Society & Joshua Samuel Sohn -- joshua.sohn@dlapiper.com -- DLA
Piper US LLP.

Mayling Ralph, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara J. Olshansky,
Stanford Law School Center for Internet & Society & Joshua Samuel
Sohn, DLA Piper US LLP.

Peter Wilds, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara J. Olshansky,
Stanford Law School Center for Internet & Society & Joshua Samuel
Sohn, DLA Piper US LLP.

New York State Board of Regents, Movant, represented by Bruce
Burton McHale, Office of New York State Attorney General.
Richard Mills, Movant, represented by Bruce Burton McHale, Office
of New York State Attorney General.

New York State Education Department, Movant, represented by
Antoinette W Blanchette, New York State Office of the Attorney
General & Bruce Burton McHale, Office of New York State Attorney

Board of Education of the New York City School District of the
City of New York, Defendant, represented by Bryan David Glass --
bg@teacherslawyer.com -- New York State United Teachers, Benjamin
Welikson -- bwelikson@law.nyc.gov -- The New York City Law
Department & Eamonn F. Foley -- efoley@law.nyc.gov -- The New York
City Law Department.

Board of Education of the New York City School District of the
City of New York, Cross Claimant, represented by Bryan David
Glass, New York State United Teachers.

NEW YORK: Judge Refuses Bid to Stay Stop-and-Frisk Monitoring
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
Southern District Judge Shira Scheindlin has refused to stay her
order installing a monitor for the New York Police Department to
oversee reforms of police stop-and-frisk tactics.

Judge Scheindlin rejected a request by the attorneys with the New
York City Law Department to stay her orders in the case of Floyd
v. City of New York, 08 Civ. 1034, pending its appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The judge defended her decisions in Floyd and said the city was
unlikely to prevail in the circuit as it challenges remedies she
imposed in August following a trial in which she found the police
department was engaged in the widespread practice of violating the
Fourth Amendment's requirement for reasonable suspicion in making
stops and violating the Equal Protection Clause because a
disproportionate number of those stopped are black and Hispanic.

"Contrary to statements by certain high-level city officials and
pundits, this Court did not order an end to the practice of stop
and frisk," Judge Scheindlin said in a 17-page opinion and order.
"Rather, this Court ordered that such activity be conducted in
accordance with well-established controlling law from both the
United States Supreme Court and the Second Circuit Court of

After finding the city liable, Judge Scheindlin on Aug. 12
appointed Peter Zimroth -- Peter.Zimroth@aporter.com -- a partner
with Arnold & Porter, as monitor to ensure the department's
policies comport with the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments; named
Nicholas Turner of the VERA Institute of Justice as facilitator to
meet with all "stakeholders" in the litigation and the community
to suggest reforms; and directed the police to start a one-year
pilot project in one precinct in each borough where body cameras
are worn to record stop encounters.

She also ordered longer-term reforms in the recording of stops, in
the training, supervision, monitoring and discipline of officers
and in other areas, but with few measures to be immediately

The city in its request for a stay said Judge Scheindlin erred in
finding violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments and
"any actionable widespread pattern or practice deliberate
indifference or causation," under Monell v. Department of Social
Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).

It also claimed that the judge's injunctive relief in Floyd was
"not narrowly tailored or clear enough to address found wrongs,
particularly as it has no discernible end point or standards to
measure success".

Judge Scheindlin in her opinion said she found this argument
"particularly troubling" and said the Floyd plaintiffs classified
this a problem of "ripeness" "non-finality," and "non-

"Regardless of the legal basket in which the argument is placed,
the result is the same," she said. "It takes time to fashion
appropriate remedies."

"In short, the only activity at this stage is discussion between
the Monitor, the Facilitator, and the parties to develop the
remedies described above," she said, thus leaving the city with
little chance of success at the circuit, because "The only action
required of the City to date is attendance at meetings with the

Judge Scheindlin said the hundreds of thousands of people subject
to unconstitutional stops would suffer "irreparable harm" had she
issued a stay.  She also criticized the city for claiming that
"public interest" required a stay.  "The City dramatically
declares that if this Court's orders are not stayed, the 'long-
standing record of crime reduction in this city' will be
reversed," she said.  She faulted the city for noting in its
papers arguing for a stay that the number of stops has fallen
precipitously in the last year, a fact the city said could not be

"There is little doubt that the decrease in stops from the zenith
in 2011 to today is due, in part, to this Court's orders over the
past several years, as well as the criticism of the City's stop
and frisk practices from diverse sources throughout the City," she
said.  "Ordering a stay now would send precisely the wrong

Darius Charney of the Center for Constitutional Rights, one of the
lead lawyers for the plaintiffs, said, "I think the judge hit the
nail on the head numerous times in the decision . . . We really
hope the city will shift its attitude here from one of obstruction
and litigiousness to one of more problem solving and cooperation
because that's what the remedy process is really about."

Judge Scheindlin took note of politicians who submitted papers
arguing against a stay, including City Council Speaker Christine
Quinn and Public Advocate and now-Democratic nominee for mayor,
Bill de Blasio.

The decision leaves the city ready to take its stay request to the
Second Circuit.

Corporation Counsel Michael A. Cardozo, in a statement said, "The
city remains committed to reversing the District Court's
underlying decision as expeditiously as possible, as evidenced by
papers filed . . . in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals seeking
an expedited appeal.  The plaintiffs have opposed that motion,
apparently preferring to keep police officers in limbo for the
foreseeable future.  We cannot afford such delay, as public safety
is of paramount concern to the mayor and the police commissioner."

NEWFOUNDLAND, CANADA: Jan. 2014 Moose Class Action Trial Set
VOCM.COM reports that there's an update on a class action suit
launched on behalf of people injured as the result of moose-
vehicle collisions in the province.  Ches Crosbie Barristers has
filed for class action with a trial date set for January of 2014.

Lawyer Ches Crosbie told VOCM Open Line with Bill Rowe that on
Sept. 30 they will argue what the limitation period should be for
the class action.  Mr. Crosbie says they'd like to see a
limitation period of 10 years rather than two.

Because 10 years would allow Ben Bellows, an outspoken advocate
for reducing the number of moose-vehicle collisions, to be
included in the class action.  Mr. Bellows was rendered paraplegic
following a moose-vehicle accident on the west coast in 2003.

NORTHERN TRUST: Ill. Court Dismisses Securities Lawsuit
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
entered an order dismissing a securities class action filed
against Northern Trust Corporation

On August 24, 2010, a lawsuit (the "Securities Class Action") was
filed in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois
against the Corporation and three of its present or former
officers, including the present and former Chief Executive
Officers of the Corporation, on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of Corporation stock during the period from October 17,
2007 to October 20, 2009.

The amended complaint alleges that during the purported class
period the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by allegedly taking insufficient provisions for
credit losses with respect to the Corporation's real estate loan
portfolio and failing to make sufficient disclosures regarding its
securities lending business. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages
in an unspecified amount.

In March 2013, the court dismissed the Securities Class Action
with leave to amend. Plaintiffs decided not to file an amended
complaint and in May 2013, the court entered an order dismissing
the case with prejudice.

NV ENERGY INC: Faces Four Lawsuits Over MidAmerican Merger
NV Energy, Inc. faces several suits related to its merger with
MidAmerican, according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Following the announcement of the proposed acquisition of NVE by
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company through its subsidiary Silver
Merger Sub, Inc. on May 29, 2013, several complaints were filed by
alleged NVE shareholders in the Eighth Judicial District Court in
Clark County, Nevada, challenging the MidAmerican Merger.

On June 6, 2013, a complaint was filed on behalf of a putative
class of NVE public shareholders, naming NVE, its BOD, and Silver
Merger Sub, Inc., as defendants. This complaint was amended on
July 16, 2013.

The amended complaint generally alleges that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed MidAmerican Merger, including by approving the
transaction on allegedly unfair terms, at an allegedly unfair
price and pursuant to an allegedly inadequate process; allegedly
acting with conflicts and in their own personal interests rather
than those of shareholders; and making inadequate disclosures in
connection with requested shareholder approval of the proposed
MidAmerican Merger.  The amended complaint also alleges that
Silver Merger Sub. Inc., NVE and MEHC aided and abetted the
individual defendants in breaching their fiduciary duties.

Three additional complaints were filed on June 7, 2013, June 10,
2013 and July 12, 2013, respectively.  These complaints contain
claims and allegations similar to the amended July 16, 2013
complaint and seek similar relief on behalf of the same putative

The outcome of these lawsuits is uncertain.  An adverse judgment
could have a material adverse effect on the operations of NVE,
including the possibility of delaying or permanently enjoining the
MidAmerican Merger.  NVE and its BOD intend to vigorously defend
the lawsuits.

OLD NATIONAL: Trial in Overdraft Fees Lawsuit Set for October
A suit against Old National Bancorp over the assessment of
overdraft fees on checking accounts is currently scheduled for
trial on October 7, 2013, according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In November 2010, Old National was named in a class action lawsuit
in Vanderburgh County Circuit Court challenging Old National
Bank's checking account practices associated with the assessment
of overdraft fees. The theory set forth by plaintiffs in this case
is similar to other class action complaints filed against other
financial institutions in recent years and settled for substantial

On May 1, 2012, the plaintiff was granted permission to file a
First Amended Complaint which named additional plaintiffs and
amended certain claims. The plaintiffs seek damages and other
relief, including restitution. On June 13, 2012, Old National
filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which was
subsequently denied by the Court.

On September 7, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which was granted on March 20, 2013, and provides
for a class of "All Old National Bank customers in the State of
Indiana who had one or more consumer accounts and who, within the
applicable statutes of limitation through August 15, 2010,
incurred an overdraft fee as a result of Old National Bank's
practice of sequencing debit card and ATM transactions from
highest to lowest."

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

Accordingly, on June 11, 2013, Old National moved for summary
judgment and this motion is now pending with the Court. The case
is currently scheduled for trial on October 7, 2013, although this
trial date is subject to the completion of discovery and the
ruling on the pending motion for summary judgment. Old National
believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims brought by the
plaintiffs. At this phase of the litigation, it is not possible
for management of Old National to determine the probability of a
material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any

OVASCIENCE INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Mass.
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Sept. 16
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against
OvaScience, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court, District of Massachusetts,
and docketed under 13-cv-12286, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Microsoft between February 25, 2013 and September
10, 2013 both dates inclusive.  This class action seeks to recover
damages against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal
securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated

If you are a shareholder who purchased OvaScience securities
during the Class Period, you have until November 15, 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

OvaScience is a life sciences company focused on the discovery,
development and commercialization of new treatments for
infertility.  The Company's patented technology is based on the
discovery of egg precursor cells (EggPCSM), which are found in the
ovaries.  By applying proprietary technology to identify and
purify EggPCs, AUGMENTSM aims to improve egg quality and increase
the success of in vitro fertilization.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and operations.  Specifically, OvaScience
represented to the FDA and investors that it believed that AUGMENT
qualified for designation as a 361 HCT/P, which allows human
cellular and tissue based products to be tested and marketed
without FDA licensure.  Yet despite this representation,
OvaScience never qualified for this designation.

On September 10, 2013, the Company disclosed that it was
suspending enrollment of AUGMENT in the U.S. after receiving an
"untitled" letter from the FDA "questioning the status of AUGMENT
as a 361 HCT/P and advising the Company to file an Investigational
New Drug (IND) application."

On this news, OvaScience shares declined $3.33 per share or more
than 23%, to close at $10.95 per share on September 11, 2013.

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

PHILIP MORRIS: Provides Updates on Tobacco-Related Suits
Philip Morris International Inc., in its Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013, disclosed the number of tobacco-
related cases pending against it and/or its subsidiaries or
indemnitees as of August 1, 2013, 2012 and 2011:

Type of Case: Individual Smoking and Health Cases
Number of Cases Pending as of August 1, 2013: 63
Number of Cases Pending as of August 1, 2012: 74
Number of Cases Pending as of August 1, 2011: 94

Type of Case: Smoking and Health Class Actions
Number of Cases Pending as of August 1, 2013: 11
Number of Cases Pending as of August 1, 2012: 10
Number of Cases Pending as of August 1, 2011: 10

Type of Case: Health Care Cost Recovery Actions
Number of Cases Pending as of August 1, 2013: 15
Number of Cases Pending as of August 1, 2012: 14
Number of Cases Pending as of August 1, 2011: 11

Type of Case: Lights Class Actions
Number of Cases Pending as of August 1, 2013: 1
Number of Cases Pending as of August 1, 2012: 2
Number of Cases Pending as of August 1, 2011: 2

Type of Case: Individual Lights Cases (small claims court)
Number of Cases Pending as of August 1, 2013: 1
Number of Cases Pending as of August 1, 2012: 7
Number of Cases Pending as of August 1, 2011: 9

Type of Case: Public Civil Actions
Number of Cases Pending as of August 1, 2013: 4
Number of Cases Pending as of August 1, 2012: 3
Number of Cases Pending as of August 1, 2011: 4

Since 1995, when the first tobacco-related litigation was filed
against a PMI entity, 412 Smoking and Health, Lights, Health Care
Cost Recovery, and Public Civil Actions in which the company
and/or one of the company's subsidiaries and/or indemnitees were a
defendant have been terminated in the company's favor. Ten cases
have had decisions in favor of plaintiffs.  Eight of these cases
have subsequently reached final resolution in the company's favor
and two remain on appeal.

PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal to Brazil's Supreme Tribunal Still Pending
In its Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013, Philip
Morris International Inc. provides a list of the verdicts and
post-trial developments in the following cases where verdicts were
returned in favor of plaintiffs:

Date: Pending 2004
Location of Court/Name of Plaintiff: Brazil/The Smoker Health
Defense Association
Type of Case: Class Action

Verdict: The Civil Court of Sao Paulo found defendants liable
without hearing evidence. The court did not assess moral or actual
damages, which were to be assessed in a second phase of the case.
The size of the class was not defined in the ruling.

Post-Trial Developments: In April 2004, the court clarified its
ruling, awarding "moral damages" of R$1,000 (approximately $440)
per smoker per full year of smoking plus interest at the rate of
1% per month, as of the date of the ruling. The court did not
award actual damages, which were to be assessed in the second
phase of the case. The size of the class was not estimated.

Defendants appealed to the Sao Paulo Court of Appeals, which
annulled the ruling in November 2008, finding that the trial court
had inappropriately ruled without hearing evidence and returned
the case to the trial court for further proceedings. In May 2011,
the trial court dismissed the claim. Plaintiff has appealed. In
addition, the defendants filed a constitutional appeal to the
Federal Supreme Tribunal on the basis that the plaintiff did not
have standing to bring the lawsuit. This appeal is still pending.

PILOT FLYING J: No Sentencing Date Yet for Seven Employees
Clarissa Hawes, writing for Land Line, reports that a joint motion
has been filed in federal court seeking a judge's approval to
delay scheduling a sentencing date for seven Pilot Flying J
employees who have pleaded guilty to their roles in an alleged
fuel rebate scheme.

According to court documents filed in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District in Knoxville, Tenn., Assistant U.S. Attorney
Trey Hamilton III and Edward M. Yarbrough, attorney for
Arnold Ralenkotter, have filed a joint motion to reset the status
conference originally scheduled for Sept. 30 until Feb. 3, 2014.

In July, U.S. District Court Judge Amul R. Thapar had originally
ordered the status conferences for the seven Pilot employees to be
combined and scheduled for Sept. 30.  The Pilot employees who have
pleaded guilty to criminal charges include Ashley Judd, a regional
account executive; James S. Stinnett, senior regional sales
manager; Holly Radford, an accounts representative; Kevin Clark,
regional sales manager; Michael Scott Fenwick, regional sales
manager; Janet Welch, a senior regional account representative;
and Mr. Ralenkotter, director of sales for the Northeast region.

Mr. Ralenkotter pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud
and wire fraud in late May.  This was after a criminal
investigation was launched by federal investigators, alleging that
certain members of Pilot's sales staff entered into rebate or
discount programs with trucking companies for purchasing a certain
volume of fuel each month, but then manually reduced the amounts
the companies were owed.

The alleged scam was known to Pilot insiders as "jacking the
discount" or "managing the discount."  More than two dozen
lawsuits have been filed in state and federal court since the
criminal investigation was announced in April.

According to the 120-page FBI affidavit unsealed in mid-April,
Mr. Ralenkotter explained in a recorded conversation with an FBI
informant about the discount system he used to manually reduce
rebate checks and reminded sales staff to be "careful" not to
raise customers' suspicion by having months where customers
received a large rebate check, then another month where they
received a small rebate check.

"If the guy's been getting $100,000, $100,000, $100,000, now you
send him $180,000, and then the next month you send him $75,000
. . ."

He is interrupted by John Freeman, who was the vice president of
sales for Pilot, who added, "He thinks you're (expletive) 'em."

Mr. Ralenkotter then stated, "He thinks you're (expletive) 'em.
So you might as well be (expletive) 'em."

According to the joint motion filed on Monday, Sept. 16, ". . .
neither party is requesting the court to schedule a sentencing
date in this case at this time."

REPUTATION.COM: Settles Overtime Class Action for $1 Million
Alex Lawson, writing for Law360, reports that online public
relations firm Reputation.com has agreed to pay $1 million to
settle a class action in California federal court over the
company's alleged failure to pay overtime wages to sales
representatives, according to court documents filed on Sept. 17.

The class of 93 current and former employees, led by named
plaintiffs George Marchelos and Amy Kassenbrock, asked U.S.
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers to grant final approval to
the settlement at the parties' next scheduled hearing on Oct. 22.

"With an average award of over $7,000, the settlement provides
substantial relief for class members," the plaintiffs told the
court.  "The settlement also provides class members a recovery
now, without the delays attendant with further litigation."

The suit was launched in April 2012 against the site, which sells
PR services to businesses and individuals to counteract
unflattering content on the Internet.

The company's sales representatives claimed that, since 2010, they
were required to work in excess of eight hours per day and 40
hours per week, but were not compensated for overtime hours, so
they filed a suit asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and California state laws.

After extensive discovery, the parties entered into discussions in
October 2012 with a mediator, who set up the basic outline for the
settlement, which the court has now been asked to approve -- the
judge granted preliminary approval to the deal in April 2013.

In their motion for final approval, the plaintiffs pointed out
that class members have responded favorably to the pending
settlement, with 86 of the 93 class members submitting claim forms
and with no members objecting to or opting out of the settlement.

Included in the $1 million settlement fund is $300,000 to be set
aside for attorneys' fees and costs arising out of the legal
action.  Payments to class members will be made according to the
number of weeks each claims to have worked without overtime,
taking into account the amount of his or her commission.

The plaintiffs added that this agreement is far superior to
further prolonging the litigation.

"Particularly given the very real risks associated with continued
litigation, the parties' settlement easily satisfies the 'fair,
reasonable and adequate' standard for final approval," the
plaintiffs said.

Attorneys for both parties did not immediately respond to requests
for comment on Sept. 18.

The plaintiffs are represented by Michael Rubin --
mrubin@altshulerberzon.com -- and Peder J. Thoreen --
pthoreen@altshulerberzon.com -- of Altshuler Berzon LLP; and Cliff
Palefsky and Keith Ehrman of McGuinn, Hillsman & Palefsky.

Reputation.com is represented by Kristen Garcia Dumont --
kdumont@goodwinprocter.com -- of Goodwin Procter LLP.

The case is Marchelos et al. v. Reputation.com, case number 4:12-
cv-01899, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of

ROYAL BANK: Blue-Chip Investors May Join Rights Issue Class Action
James Salmon, writing for This Is Money, reports that Royal Bank
of Scotland faces a bruising legal battle with some of Britain's
biggest blue-chip investors over the bank's disastrous GBP12
billion rights issue at the height of the financial crisis.

On Sept. 17 it emerged that Prudential has joined forces with
Standard Life and Legal & General.  They are all considering
whether to throw their considerable weight behind a class action
spearheaded by ordinary investors.

Also spoiling for a fight is the Universities Superannuation
Scheme, a pension fund with more than GBP38 billion under

The powerful group is being represented by solicitors
Quinn Emmanuel.  They are considering whether to lodge a new claim
or join a class action headed by the RBoS Shareholder Action
Group, which represents 12,500 private shareholders and is suing
for GBP4.5 billion.

Investors claim that RBS and its former directors misled them over
its financial strength just before the June 2008 rights issue,
coaxing them to buy more shares just months before the bank was
bailed out with GBP45.5 billion of taxpayers' money.

Those who could find themselves in the dock include former chief
executive Fred Goodwin, former investment banking chief Johnny
Cameron and former chairman Sir Tom McKillop.

The latest revelations emerged during a preliminary hearing at
London's High Court before Mr. Justice Hildyard.  He ordered RBS
to lodge its defense by November 29 and confirmed that he favored
a class lawsuit rather than separate cases.

A further case management hearing is expected to take place in
January.  The development came as it emerged RBS has rejected an
offer for 315 branches headed by some of the UK's leading blue
chip companies.

The swoop for the branches is now thought to be a two horse race
featuring private equity consortia, led by US firms Corsair
Capital and Blackstone.  The news is an embarrassing blow for
former Tesco finance chief Andy Higginson, who is leading a bid on
behalf of 25 financial backers including Schroders and

It comes just weeks after the GBP15 million stockmarket float of
its bidding vehicle W&G Investments.  At the time, a bullish
Higginson described his initial GBP1.1 billion offer as the 'only
real bid on the table'.

On Sept. 17, W&G said it was still in "constructive dialogue" with
RBS.  RBS (down 4p to 362.5p) is understood to favor the other two
offers because they will allow it to keep a stake in the separated
business for a period, meaning it will benefit from any future
increase in the value of the bank.

The lender was forced to sell the 315 branches by the European
Commission as a condition of its GBP45.5 billion bail out from
British taxpayers in 2008 and 2009.  A deal to sell the branches
to Santander collapsed last year.

RURAL METRO: November 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP pursuant to an order of The Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware.


        In re: RURAL METRO CORPORATION   )   Consolidated
        SHAREHOLDERS LITIGATION          )   C.A. no. 6350-VCL




YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, dated September 4, 2013, that
Lead Plaintiff and the Settling Defendants in the above-captioned
class action lawsuit, challenging the acquisition of Rural/Metro
Corporation by an investor group led by investment funds
controlled by Warburg Pincus, LLC have entered into a proposed
settlement of the Action.(2)

The complete terms of the Settlement are set forth in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement between
Lead Plaintiff, the Rural/Metro Defendants and Moelis & Company
LLC dated as of August 3, 2013.  The Stipulation can be obtained
at http://www.gilardi.com

A settlement hearing is scheduled to be held in the Court of
Chancery, New Castle County Courthouse, 500 North King Street,
Wilmington, Delaware 19801, on November 6, 2013, at 2:00 p.m. to,
among other things: (a) determine whether the Court should approve
the Settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate and in the best
interests of the Class; (b) determine whether the Judgment should
be entered dismissing the Action as to the Settling Defendants
with prejudice; (c) consider the application by Co-Lead Counsel
for attorneys' fees and payment of expenses; (d) hear and
determine any objections to the Settlement or the application of
Co-Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses; and
(e) rule on such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate.

not received the full printed Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Settlement of Class Action, you may obtain a copy of the
Stipulation, Notice and/or the Proof of Claim by contacting
Rural/Metro Shareholder Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o
Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 5100 Larkspur, CA 94977-5100, 1-(888)-
283-8029, http://www.gilardi.comor Co-Lead Counsel:

         Bouchard Margules & Friedlander, P.A
         Joel E. Friedlander, Esq.
         222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1400
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         E-mail: jfriedlander@bmf-law.com

         Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
         Randall J. Baron
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a Class member you will be bound by any judgment
entered in the Action.  Any objections to the Settlement and/or
application for attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed with
the Court and delivered to all counsel listed in the Notice such
that they are received no later than October 23, 2013, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  Class
members who do not object need not appear at the Settlement
Hearing or take any other action to indicate their approval.

(1) On August 4, 2013, Rural/Metro Corporation and certain
affiliates filed Voluntary Petitions for Relief under Chapter 11
of Title 11 of the United States Code in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 13-11979,
and jointly administered under In re Rural/Metro Corporation, et
al., Case No. 13-11952 (KJC).  Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 362, inter
alia, the filing of the Petitions operates as a stay of the
commencement or continuation of judicial, administrative or other
actions or proceedings against Rural/Metro Corporation and the
other Debtors as of the Petition Date.  The Debtors have not
asserted that the bankruptcy filing and automatic stay prevents
the Court from proceeding with the partial settlement as to the
individual defendants or Moelis & Company LLC.

(2) The proposed settlement does not resolve any claims of the
Class against RBC Capital Markets LLC.  Lead Plaintiff Tried her
case against RBC Beginning on May 6, 2013 and ending on May 9,
2013.  Post-trial oral arguments between Lead Plaintiff and RBC
are scheduled to be held on September 26, 2013.

THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the litigation or
the Settlement, you may contact Co-Lead Counsel:

Dated: September 4, 2013


                      About Rural/Metro Corporation

Headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona, Rural/Metro Corporation --
http://www.ruralmetro.com-- is a national provider of 911-
emergency and non-emergency interfacility ambulance services and
private fire protection services, operating in 21 states and
nearly 700 communities.

Rural/Metro Corp. and 59 affiliates sought Chapter 11 protection
on Aug. 4, 2013, before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District
of Delaware.

SCREEN ACTORS: Oct. 7 Hearing Set for Class Action Dismissal Bid
Dave McNary, writing for Variety, reports that Ed Asner and the
15 other plaintiffs in the SAG-AFTRA lawsuit over $130 million in
unpaid funds from foreign royalties and residuals have blasted the
union's efforts to dismiss the action, alleging that leaders are
"clearly indifferent" to federal requirements of accountability
and transparency.

"These requirements have been ignored deliberately, placing the
pecuniary interests of the union above those of its members," the
filing said.

The union's dismissal motion is set to be heard Oct. 7 before U.S.
District Court Judge Manual Real in Los Angeles.

The suit was filed May 24 and alleges extensive misconduct in
handling of foreign levies and residuals they are owed.  The union
has repeatedly brushed off the suit, denying wrongdoing and
asserting that it was "very proud" of its unclaimed residuals and
foreign royalties program and that actors would not have received
their funds without the union's efforts.

SAG-AFTRA responded on July 31 by asserting that most of the
plaintiffs -- who filed as members of the United Screen Actors
Committee -- lack the standing to litigate the issue and that the
issues raised by the suit have already been resolved in the 2010
settlement of a class-action lawsuit filed by "Leave It to Beaver"
actor Ken Osmond.

The plaintiffs responded on Sept. 16 with their opposition to the
dismissal motion.  "This case is about a blatant refusal of SAG-
AFTRA and their predecessors to account for and distribute
residuals as well as foreign residuals/foreign levies to their
rightful owners for what has turned out to be more than a decade,"
the motion said.

The filing also said the Osmond case never involved a claim that
federal labor laws were violated, did not involve issues about
residuals and did not involve AFTRA, which merged with SAG last

"AFTRA's receipt and distribution of Residuals as well as Foreign
Royalties Foreign Levies has never been challenged, while AFTRA
had not even merged into SAG when the Osmond Class Action
Settlement was sanctioned by the state court.  Had AFTRA been
included, the notice which would have to have been given would
have more than doubled," the filing said.

"Lastly, the class action settlement was not fairly  negotiated
with due process violations, including inadequate notice and a
refusal to account for funds received and disbursed while also
denying access to agreements upon which the settlement was based,"
it added.

SAG-AFTRA has accused the plaintiffs of making "florid and
disconnected allegations" and asserted that they are making a
"speculative claim by no more than 17 of the 160,000 members of
SAG-AFTRA that they may be owed a very small amount of money."

On July 27, Chief Administrative Officer and General Counsel
Duncan Crabtree-Ireland reported the union's foreign royalties
program has distributed more than $17.5 million to performers
since inception -- $3.5 million higher than what SAG-AFTRA
disclosed in May, when it said that it had distributed over $14
million in foreign royalties.

The foreign funds began to flow two decades ago as compensation
for reuse, such as taxes on video rentals, cable retransmissions
and purchases of blank videocassettes and DVDs.

SOUTHERN HEALTH: Obtains Favorable Ruling in "Freeman" Suit
Defendants, CASE NO. 3:12-CV-00990, (M.D. Tenn.), alleges that the
Defendant is failing to provide safe, sanitary jail conditions and
is engaging in malpractice in its medical procedures, in violation
of the Eighth Amendment rights of the inmates at the Sumner County
Jail.  The Plaintiff, an inmate housed at the Sumner County Jail,
seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

Southern Health Partners filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on
July 10, 2013, alleging that it is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law because: (1) Plaintiff can provide no evidence that
it was deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need of his;
(2) respondeat superior is not a basis for the imposition of
liability under Section 1983, and Plaintiff has failed to show
that his alleged constitutional violations resulted from a custom,
practice, or policy of Defendant; and (3) Plaintiff has failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C.
Section 1997(e)(a).

Magistrate Judge E. Clifton Knowles said he recommends that the
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted.

"Inasmuch as Plaintiff claims that he filed his Complaint as a
class action lawsuit, this action has not been so certified," the
Court held.  "Plaintiff has not alleged particularized personal
injury and Plaintiff lacks standing to assert generalized claims
regarding alleged violations of the constitutional rights of the
other Jail inmates."

"Because Plaintiff cannot establish Defendant violated his
constitutional rights, Defendant is entitled to a judgment as a
matter of law," Judge Clifton concluded.

A copy of the District Court's August 29, 2013 Report and
Recommendation is available at http://is.gd/0rVECvfrom

Robert Freeman, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Southern Health Partners, Defendant, represented by Daniel F.
Beasley -- dbeasley@lfsp.com -- Lanier, Ford, Shaver & Payne, P.C.

Sumner County, Tennessee, Defendant, represented by Alvin Scott
Derrick -- sderrick@gsrm.com -- Gullett, Sanford, Robinson &
Martin, Leah May Dennen -- leahmay@sumnercountylaw.com -- Sumner
County Law Department & Thomas B. Russell -- trussell@gsrm.com --
Gullett, Sanford, Robinson & Martin.

SOUTHERN OCEAN: Settles Class Action Over Abalone Virus Outbreak
Jared Lynch, writing for The Age, reports that one of the
defendants in an AU$82 million class action over the wipeout of
one-third of Australia's abalone industry has settled ahead of a
Supreme Court trial.

Southern Ocean Mariculture, the abalone farm that unleashed the
herpes-like virus in 2006, has reached an in-principle agreement
with 10 abalone license holders.

Before the outbreak the license holders controlled about 32 per
cent of Victoria's abalone exports, which generated about AU$70
million a year.  Many have had their life savings eroded, with the
cost of commercial licenses plunging from about AU$6 million in
2006, to less than AU$1 million.

Maurice Blackburn principal Jacob Varghese, acting on behalf of
the license holders, said the terms of the settlement were
confidential and still being finalized.

Southern Ocean Mariculture was one of two defendants in the class
action, the other being the Victorian government, which has been
accused of failing to control the spread of the disease.

Mr. Varghese welcomed the settlement and said it gave the firm a
clear focus to pursue the state government.

''This settlement does not affect the outstanding issues in the
class action still being run against the state government, which
has always been the primary respondent,'' he said.

Southern Ocean Mariculture reported the outbreak to the Department
of Primary Industries, but the DPI failed to shut down the farm,
allowing it to continue to pump contaminated water into the ocean,
Mr. Varghese said.  The disease hit wild abalone and soon spread
from near the Victorian-South Australian border to Cape Otway.

The trial is to begin in the Victorian Supreme Court on Sept. 23.

SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Has Settlement in Overdraft Lawsuit
Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. is in the process of settling a suit
filed against it over its charging of checking account overdraft
fees, according to the company's Aug. 2, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.

On July 29, 2011, Susquehanna Bank was named as a defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit filed by two New Jersey customers
of the bank in the United States District Court of Maryland.  The
suit challenges the manner in which checking account overdraft
fees were charged and the policies related to the posting order of
debit card and other checking account transactions.

The suit makes claims under New Jersey's consumer fraud act and
under the common law for breach of contract, breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability,
conversion and unjust enrichment. The case was transferred for
pretrial proceedings to pending multi-district litigation in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

To avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation
and without admitting any of the allegations in the complaint,
Susquehanna in good faith participated in mediation with
plaintiffs' counsel and as a result of negotiations following from
the mediation, on December 20, 2012, Susquehanna and counsel for
plaintiffs entered into a Summary Agreement agreeing to settle the
suit for $3,680,000, subject to preliminary and final approval of
the settlement and dismissal of the action with prejudice by the

Management, after consultation with legal counsel, currently does
not anticipate that the aggregate settlement amount arising out of
this proceeding will have a material adverse effect on the
company's results of operation, financial position, or cash flows.

SYNGENTA CROP: Protective Order Dispute Must Await 7th Cir. Ruling
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reports
that Belleville lawyer Michael Weilmuenster can't immediately
intervene in a closed class action to obtain confidential
information of Syngenta Crop Protection, U. S. District Judge Phil
Gilbert ruled on Sept. 13.

Judge Gilbert found he lacked jurisdiction over an intervention
motion that Mr. Weilmuenster filed on behalf of Jane Doe on
Sept. 9.  Ms. Doe wants Judge Gilbert to modify a protective order
he signed in 2011, but it can't happen now because nature groups
appealed the order to the U.S. Seventh Circuit in Chicago.

"Any disputes regarding the protective order must await a decision
by the Court of Appeals," he had written in denying previous
intervention motions on Aug. 30.

Mr. Weilmuenster's client claims her drinking water contained
atrazine, a weed killer that Syngenta produces.  She claims it
caused her son's urethra to open on the wrong part of his penis.
She seeks documents that St. Louis lawyer Stephen Tillery obtained
from Syngenta, arguing she can't afford to repeat his discovery.

Belleville lawyer Bob Sprague and Joseph Power of Chicago offered
the same argument in their Jane Doe motion on Aug. 16.  They had
sued Syngenta in St. Clair County circuit court on
Aug. 14.

Circuit Judge Andrew Gleeson sealed the file.

Joseph Siprut and Gregg Barbakoff of Chicago moved to intervene on
Aug. 30, pleading they couldn't afford to repeat the discovery.

UBS AG: 3rd Cir. Tosses Pension Fund's Securities Class Action
Linda Chiem, Erica Teichert and Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360,
report that the Third Circuit on Sept. 17 tossed for being time-
barred a securities class action against UBS AG subsidiaries over
a pension fund's losses from mortgage-backed securities purchases,
clarifying that a discovery standard starts the clock on the one-
year statute of limitations.

In a precedential decision, a three-judge panel for the Third
Circuit took up a matter of first impression by considering the
propriety of a rule requiring securities plaintiffs to
specifically plead in their complaints compliance with the
applicable statutes of limitations laid out in Section 13 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

The panel also addressed the issue of whether a discovery or an
inquiry notice standard comes into play to determine when the
clock starts running on that statute of limitations.  Section 13
requires plaintiffs to file a complaint within one year of their
discovery of a securities law violation.

In the instant case, the panel ruled that the New Jersey federal
court erred in requiring the lead plaintiff Pension Trust Fund for
Operating Engineers to plead compliance with the statute of
limitations in booting its complaint against UBS.  However, the
panel ultimately affirmed the dismissal of the class action,
saying the claims in the original February 2010 complaint were
brought too late.

"In sum, we hold that a Securities Act plaintiff need not plead
compliance with Section 13 and that the timeliness of Securities
Act claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 should be measured
against a discovery standard," the panel said.  "We conclude,
however, that the claims in the original complaint were untimely."

The class action accused UBS, which underwrote the MBS offerings
it obtained from loan originators Countrywide Home Loans Inc. and
IndyMac Bank FSB, of failing to verify that registration documents
had not contained any material misstatements, causing the pension
fund to incur approximately $5 million in losses when homeowners
defaulted on their payments in the run-up to the mortgage crisis
of 2008.

The panel ruled the securities fraud claims could have been
investigated well before February 2009 in light of reports,
articles and previous MBS lawsuits giving rise to "storm warnings"
that effectively put the plaintiffs on notice.  Moreover, the lead
plaintiff in the suit and others had filed an amended complaint in
California state court in September 2008 launching similar
securities claims against Countrywide and UBS.

"A reasonably diligent plaintiff would have discovered the untrue
statements or the omissions about the certificates in the offering
documents in November 2008, two months after she was alerted by
the complaint filed in California Superior Court in September 2008
to the possibility that she might have claims," the panel said.
"Because a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have been able to
plead viable Securities Act claims in November 2008, the Section
13 statute of limitations would have run, at the latest, in
November 2009.  Therefore, the original complaint, which was not
filed until February 2010, was untimely."

Lawrence J. Zweifach of Gibson Dunn, who argued the case for UBS
and the defendants, told Law360 on Sept. 17 that his client was
pleased with the ruling.

"UBS is very pleased that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has
affirmed the dismissal of this securities class action," he said.

Counsel for the plaintiffs were not immediately available on
Sept. 17 for comment.

Circuit Judges Julio Fuentes, D. Michael Fisher and Michael A.
Chagares sat on the panel.

The plaintiffs are represented by Douglas S. Wilens --
DWilens@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and
Peter S. Pearlman -- psp@njlawfirm.com -- of Cohn Lifland Pearlman
Herrmann & Knopf LLP.

The defendants are represented by Lawrence J. Zweifach --
lzweifach@gibsondunn.com -- Brian Lutz -- blutz@gibsondunn.com --
Jonathan Austin -- jbaustin@gibsondunn.com -- and Kristin Carlson
-- kcarlson@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson Dunn and Liza M. Walsh --
lwalsh@connellfoley.com -- and Rukhsanah Singh --
rsingh@connellfoley.com -- of Connell Foley LLP.

The case is Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers v.
Mortgage Asset Securitization Transactions Inc. et al., case
number 12-3454, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third

UBS AG: Plaintiffs Need Not Plead Compliance With Securities Act
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that although it decided the class action suit against UBS
alleging that the bank misled investors about mortgage-backed
securities is time-barred, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit split with three other circuits by ruling that plaintiffs
need not plead compliance with the statute of limitations in the
Securities Act.

The pleading issue is a matter of first impression in the circuit,
as is the court's decision to replace the inquiry-notice standard
previously held in the circuit with a discovery standard for
starting the clock on the statute of limitations for Securities
Act claims.

These two precedents came from a union pension fund's appeal from
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in which it
argued that the trial judge had erred in holding it to pleading
compliance with the one-year statute of limitations in Section 13
of the Securities Act.

"We agree with the Seventh Circuit's analysis in Tregenza, which
is consistent with our statute of limitations precedent," Third
Circuit Judge D. Michael Fisher wrote on behalf of the three-judge
panel, referring to the 1993 opinion in Tregenza v. Great American
Communications, where the Seventh Circuit threw out the pleading
rule followed elsewhere.

"We have also repeatedly held that because a statute of
limitations is an affirmative defense, 'the burden of establishing
its applicability to a particular claim rests with the
defendant,'" Judge Fisher said, quoting from his own court's 2010
opinion in Drennen v. PNC Bank.

"Indeed, requiring a plaintiff to plead compliance with a statute
of limitations would effectively ensure that a timeliness issue
would always appear on the face of a complaint, thereby shifting
the burden to the plaintiff to negate the applicability of the
affirmative defense.  Therefore, we hold that a Securities Act
plaintiff need not plead compliance with Section 13," Judge Fisher

Weighing the point at which the plaintiffs should have been aware
of potential fraud, the district court had looked to existing
Third Circuit precedent and applied an inquiry-notice standard.

"In applying this standard, the district court refused to extend
the Supreme Court's holding in Merck that a discovery standard
applies to the Exchange Act's statute of limitations,"
Judge Fisher said, referring to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010
opinion in Merck & Co. v. Reynolds.  "The court reasoned that the
discovery standard 'applied to a securities fraud action under
[the Exchange Act], and not to . . . claims under the Securities
Act,' and that 'while some other circuits have adopted the Merck
standard for [Securities Act] claims, the Third Circuit has yet to
do so.'"

It made that change with this opinion.

Explaining the U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning in adopting the
discovery standard, Judge Fisher said, "The court explained that
inquiry notice 'is not necessarily the point at which the
plaintiff would already have discovered . . . "facts constituting
the violation."'"

"For this reason, the inquiry notice standard conflicts with the
text of the statute, which 'says that the plaintiff's claim
accrues only after the "discovery" of [the facts constituting the
violation],' and 'contains no indication that the limitations
period should occur at some earlier moment before "discovery,"
when a plaintiff would have begun investigating,'" he said.

Examining the facts of this case under those standards, the court
held that the plaintiffs would have reasonably become aware of the
statements and omissions from UBS in 2008, after a similar suit
was filed in the California Superior Court.  So, the statute of
limitations would have run by 2009, making this suit, filed in
2010, untimely.

Fisher concluded the opinion with the court's new standards: "In
sum, we hold that a Securities Act plaintiff need not plead
compliance with Section 13, and that the timeliness of Securities
Act claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 should be measured
against a discovery standard.

"We conclude, however, that the claims in the original complaint
were untimely.  Therefore, we will affirm the district court's
order dismissing the second amended complaint with prejudice," he

Also on the panel were Judges Julio M. Fuentes and Michael A.

Douglas Wilens -- DWilens@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd in Boca Raton, Fla., represented the pension fund and
couldn't be reached for comment.

Lawrence Zweifach -- lzweifach@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson Dunn in
New York, represented UBS and couldn't be reached for comment.

UNITED STATES: Flores' "Torture" Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
District Judge Derrick k. Watson issued an order dismissing a
complaint filed against the U.S. attorney general with prejudice,
and denying as moot the plaintiff's application to proceed without
prepayment of fees.

The Plaintiff, Eric Flores, alleges in the Complaint that unnamed
federal government employees have directed genetic code-altering
satellite transmissions from outer space at Mexican-Americans. He
seeks to file a class action, with himself as the representative,
for the class of Mexican-American citizens who are being targeted.

Mr. Flores filed an Application to Proceed without Prepayment of
Fees on August 1, 2013, in conjunction with his 117-page Complaint
captioned "Federal Tort Complaint Against Torture".

(D. Hawaii).

A copy of the District Court's August 29, 2013 Order is available
at http://is.gd/FtLjZ7from Leagle.com.

Eric Flores, Petitioner, Pro Se.

WATERS CORPORATION: XEVO TQ-S IVD Mass Spectrometer Recalled
Starting date:            September 9, 2013
Posting date:             September 18, 2013
Type of communication:    Medical Device Recall
Subcategory:              Medical Device
Hazard classification:    Type III
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Medical Devices
Audience:                 General Public, Healthcare
                          Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number:    RA-35777

Recalled Product: XEVO TQ-S IVD Mass Spectrometer

The scroll backing pumps on the mass spectrometer are fitted with
PTFE composite tip seals that wear down over time, generating a
fine dust which is removed through routine maintenance.  However,
under certain conditions, excessive amounts of dust may be drawn
into the analyser housing and may lead to a loss in sensitivity.


  Manufacturer     Waters Corporation
                   34 Maple Street
                   Milford 01757
                   United States

* Labor Dep't Allows Use of Unpaid Interns for Pro Bono Work
Karen Sloan, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
law firms don't need to pay law student interns -- as long as
those interns only work on pro bono matters that do not directly
benefit the firm.

The U.S. Department of Labor has clarified that the Fair Labor
Standards Act does not prohibit law students from performing
unpaid pro bono work at law firms, subject to certain
restrictions.  That clarification was issued on September 12,
three months after former American Bar Association president
Laurel Bellows requested a clearer interpretation of the law.

While the FLSA doesn't generally allow people to volunteer at
for-profit entities like law firms, pro bono work is an exception,
according to Solicitor of Labor M. Patricia Smith.  "Under certain
circumstances, law students who perform unpaid internships with
for-profit law firms for the students' own educational benefit may
not be considered employees entitled to wages under the FLSA," she

The six criteria that must be met in order for an unpaid law firm
internship to past legal muster are:

   * The training is similar to what students would get in school.

   * The internship is for the benefit of the intern.

   * The intern is closely supervised and does not displace
     existing staff.

   * The firm does not directly benefit from the intern's work.

   * The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job afterward.

   * Both the intern and firm understand that the intern is not
     entitled to wages.

"Accordingly, where a law student works only on pro bono matters
that do not involve potential fee-generating activities, and does
not participate in a law firm's billable work or free up staff
resources for billable work that would otherwise be utilized for
pro bono work, the firm will not derive an immediate advantage
from the student's activities, although it may derive intangible,
long-term benefits such as reputational benefits associated with
pro bono work," Ms. Smith wrote.

However, Ms. Smith clarified that recent law school graduates who
have not yet been admitted to the bar may not perform unpaid pro
bono work as if they were still students.

A number of class actions filed on behalf of unpaid interns have
cast scrutiny on the practice.

"The ABA agrees that exploitation of law students and other
interns is unacceptable; however, the FLSA uncertainty inhibits
law firms from offering students the opportunity to work on pro
bono matters in a real-life practice setting," wrote Mr. Bellows
in late May.  "It also reduces the potential supply of legally
trained women and men willing to spend their time working on
behalf of persons without resources to pay for legal counsel."

With fewer paid summer clerk opportunities at law firms, students
would gain experience and mentorship opportunities from working
with practicing attorneys on pro bono matters, she added.

Sitting ABA President James Silkenat said the organization
welcomed the guidance.  "This clarification will assist law
students seeking to gain legal experience and increase their
volunteerism.  It also will ensure law firms can continue to help
the many people in need of legal assistance through pro bono
efforts," he said.

* Osler Hoskin Outlines Class Action Settlement Guidelines
Larry Lowenstein -- llowenstein@osler.com -- and Luiz Arthur
Bihari at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP report that other than for
the individual issues trial in a class action, an individual
litigant loses the right to settle the action when he or she is a
class member in a proceeding. After certification of the class,
the right to receive and accept offers on behalf of class members
is reserved exclusively for the representative plaintiffs or
defendants. Consequently, other class members do not generally
have a right to be informed of settlement offers that have been
rejected by the representative litigant.

Class proceedings permit multiple parties to settle a matter all
at once, saving everyone time and money. However, not everyone has
an equal voice or access to information exchanged during
settlement negotiations.

The Ontario Supreme Court confirmed in Berry v. Pulley the
following guidelines for settlement offers in class proceeding
during the period after the certification motion and before the
individual action stage:

   * Any party to the class action may make settlement offers as
they may be advised.

   * If the offer is made to a class of plaintiffs or defendants,
the offer must be made by delivery of it to the representative
plaintiff or representative defendant who is acting on behalf of
the class members.

   * The terms of the offer may treat class members including the
representative plaintiff or representative defendant differently.

   * If the offer is acceptable to the representative plaintiff or
representative defendant to whom it is made, it may be accepted,
and the resulting settlement will be subject to court approval.

   * If the offer is unacceptable to the representative plaintiff
or representative defendant to whom it is delivered, then the
representative plaintiff or representative defendant, as the case
may be, need not disclose the offer to class members for their


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  * * *