---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, October 3, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 196

                             Headlines


ABBOTT LABS: Blakes Discusses Meridia Class Action Certification
AGNICO EAGLE: Dismissal of US Securities Lawsuit Under Appeal
AGNICO EAGLE: Continues to Face Ontario Securities Lawsuit
AGNICO EAGLE: No Hearing Date Yet in Quebec Securities Suit
ALPHA NATURAL: Class Suit Over UBB Explosion Remains Pending

ALPHA NATURAL: Defends NCI Employee Class Litigation vs. Unit
ALPHA NATURAL: Discovery in Suit v. Massey Stayed Until Jan. 2014
ALPHA NATURAL: Discovery Stay in Del. Suit Extended to Jan. 2014
ALPHA NATURAL: June '14 Trial Date Set in Massey Stockholder Suit
AMERICAN FAMILY: Bid to Vacate Court Rulings in "Nero" Suit Denied

ANGLO AMERICAN: Settles 23 Silicosis Claims; Faces Class Action
AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Defends Shareholder Suits in Massachusetts
BAYER CORP: Alston & Bird Discusses 3rd Cir. Class Action Ruling
BLUE COAT: "Scandlon" Suit Dismissed Without Leave to Amend
CELLULAR SALES: Day Pitney Discusses Class Action Waiver Ruling

CHOBANI: Judge's Yogurt Suit Ruling Seen as Significant Step
COLORTYME INC: Court Refused to Dismiss Suit Over "Spy" Software
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Merger-Related Suits Now Concluded
DOLE FOOD: Court Narrows Claims in False Labeling Class Action
DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL: Abandoned Translators in Kuwait, Suit Says

ELECTRONIC ARTS: O'Bannon Agrees to Settle Likeness Class Action
ERNST & YOUNG: Hodgson Russ Discusses Class Action Waiver Ruling
FLEETMATICS GROUP: Bid to Dismiss "Brevard Extraditions" Pending
FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in N.Y.
GPT: Plaintiffs Laud AU$75-Mil. Class Action Settlement

HURONIA REGIONAL: Class Action Settlement Seen as "Hush Money"
INERGY MIDSTREAM: Defends Consolidated Merger-Related Suit
JBI INC: Agrees to Issue Shares to Settle Shareholder Lawsuit
JUNCTION PIZZA: Recalls Frozen Pizza Products Due to Misbranding
KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS: Calif. Securities Suit in Discovery Phase

KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Gainesville Plant-Related Suit Remains Pending
KRAFT FOODS: Interim Approval of Workers' Suit Deal Granted
LHC GROUP: Continues to Defend "Omaha" Class Suit in Louisiana
LIBERTY SILVER: Federman & Sherwood Amends Class Action Complaint
MARS PETCARE: Faces Class Action Over Phosphine Gas Levels

MAXIMUM HUMAN: Faces Class Action Over Supplement False Claims
MILES INDUSTRIES: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay
MIMEDX GROUP: Ryan & Maniskas Files Securities Class Action
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Ex-Athlete Says Concussion Settlement Not Enough
PERIGO COMPANY: Class Cert. Hearing in Eltroxin Suit Set for 2014

PERIGO COMPANY: U.S. Securities Litigation Now Concluded
PHOENIX LIFE: N.Y. Court Certifies Suit Over Insurance Rate
PRIMO WATER: Wins Dismissal of North Carolina Securities Suit
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Awaits OK of Closed-End Funds Suit Settlement
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Defends Suit Over Sale of Municipal Bonds

REGIONS FINANCIAL: Securities Suit Remains Stayed in Alabama
SAFEWAY: Recalls Several Varieties of Angel Food Cake
SIEMENS HEARING: Settles Class Action Over HearUSA Stock Price
SMARTHEAT INC: Still Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in N.Y. Court
SPARK NETWORKS: Faces "Werner" Class Action Suit in California

STERLING BANCORP: Faces Additional Shareholder Lawsuit in N.Y.
STERLING BANCORP: Accused of Unfairly Charging Overdraft Fees
SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY, PA: Jailhouse Strip-Search Draws Concern
T-MOBILE US: Defends Six MetroPCS Merger-Related Class Suits
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: 9th Cir. Upholds Remand Order in "Romo" Suit

TOWERS WATSON: Accord Reached in May Remains Subject to Approval
TOYS R US: Recalls Journey Girl Travel Trunks
UNITED STATES: Plaintiff's Attorney Seeks to Revive FCRA Suit
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Settlement of Stock Suit Could Cost Up to $95MM
WAL-MART STORES: Dukes Ruling Reshapes Legal Landscape

WARNER MUSIC: Discovery in Digital Download Prices Suit Ongoing
WARNER MUSIC: Still in Talks to Resolve Suits Over Royalties
WINDSTREAM CORP: Final Hearing on Ky. Suit Settlement on Oct. 31
ZAGG INC: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Shareholder Suit


                             *********


ABBOTT LABS: Blakes Discusses Meridia Class Action Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Sullivan, Esq., -- james.sullivan@blakes.com -- and
Robin Reinertson, Esq., -- robin.reinertson@blakes.com -- at
Blakes report that in a September 17, 2013, decision of the
British Columbia Supreme Court, Charlton v. Abbott Laboratories
Ltd., the court certified a class action regarding the diet drug
Meridia, containing sibutramine hydrochloride monohydrate
(sibutramine), against both the brand-name and generic
manufacturers and confirmed that the bar for certification remains
very low in British Columbia -- and may now be the lowest in
Canada.

Quebec has historically been perceived as the haven for class
actions in Canada due to its low statutory threshold and the lack
of an evidentiary requirement for certification.  However, while
the statutory criteria have remained the same since Quebec enacted
its class proceedings legislation, the procedural landscape has
evolved in the last few years.  Recent decisions have demonstrated
a shift to a stricter and more thorough analysis of the proposed
class representative's personal claim and involvement in the
proceedings.  While there have been some recent signs that courts
in Quebec have started to take a harder look at certification of
class actions (several proposed class actions regarding medicines
and medical devices have been denied authorization to proceed in
that province), the B.C. courts continue to certify similar
claims.

                              Facts

Meridia was approved by Health Canada for use as part of a weight-
loss regime in late 2000.  Abbott distributed and sold Meridia in
Canada from 2001 until the withdrawal of the drug from the market
in October 2010 after publication of the results from the
Sibutramine Cardiovascular Outcome Trial (the SCOUT Study)
regarding the long-term effects of sibutramine on the rates of
cardiovascular adverse events.  Apotex distributed its own generic
version of a weight-loss drug containing sibutramine from March to
October 2010.

             B.C. Supreme Court Decision in Charlton

Johnson J., the chambers judge in Charlton, found that the
plaintiffs had adequately pleaded causes of action for breach of
the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, breach of the
Competition Act, in negligence, including a breach of the duty to
warn and a duty to not to market or recall the drug, and in waiver
of tort (except with respect to the U.S. parent of Abbott
Laboratories Ltd.).  The chambers judge declined to certify the
claims regarding negligent design and negligent manufacture but
did not strike those allegations.  Although Abbott asserted that
the product monograph contained adequate warnings of
cardiovascular risks, Johnston J. concluded that the adequacy of
the warning is a matter of trial where the evidentiary record will
be "more complete".

The chambers judge in Charlton certified the action against both
Abbott and Apotex based on substantially the same claims, with
little or no material facts pleaded differently, without any
significant discussion of whether there was any basis in fact for
the various common issues proposed against each of the defendants.
The question of entitlement to a disgorgement of revenues from the
sale of sibutramine (i.e., waiver of tort) was certified without
commenting on the B.C. Court of Appeal's decision in Koubi v.
Mazda, which held that a breach of the Business Practices and
Consumer Protection Act cannot provide the basis for an action or
remedy of restitution founded in waiver of tort.  For more on this
decision, see our July 2012 Blakes Bulletin on Class Actions:
British Columbia Court of Appeal Restricts Waiver of Tort.

                   Parallel Decisions in Quebec

Notably, the British Columbia Supreme Court decision in Charlton
is inconsistent with previous decisions in Quebec.  Authorization
of a proposed class action regarding Meridia was denied by the
Quebec Superior Court in MacMillian v. Abbott Laboratories, which
was upheld by the Quebec Court of Appeal, on the basis that some
of the petitioner's allegations were contradicted by his own
evidence and the remaining allegations were insufficient to
establish a prima facie right or claim.  The Quebec courts did not
find either the voluntary withdrawal of sibutramine or the results
of the SCOUT study to be sufficient evidence of a colour of right.

Further, the B.C. court rejected Abbott's argument that the
proposed class definition was fatally flawed, as it did not
exclude Quebec residents, and/or that it would be an abuse of
process to allow a class action to include Quebec residents
notwithstanding the decision in MacMillian.  The British Columbia
Supreme Court concluded that the Quebec decision was with respect
to a different plaintiff and different evidence, and ultimately
included Quebec residents within the class definition that was
certified. (However, the B.C. Class Proceedings Act requires
residents of other provinces to opt in to a B.C. class action).

This is not the first class action to be certified in British
Columbia but denied authorization in Quebec.  In actions commenced
in both provinces regarding children's and infants' over-the-
counter cold medicines, certification of the proposed class action
was granted by the British Columbia Supreme Court in Wakelam v.
Johnson & Johnson, but authorization to institute a class
proceeding was denied by the Quebec Superior Court (which was
upheld by the Court of Appeal), in Perreault v. McNeil PDI, based
on the finding that the petitioner's action was "bereft of any
chance of success."  The certification of the B.C. action is
currently under appeal.

                          Implications

While courts in Quebec appear to be subjecting proposed class
proceedings regarding medicines and medical devices to increased
scrutiny at the certification stage, these actions continue to be
certified in British Columbia.  It now appears that British
Columbia is the most plaintiff-friendly province for class actions
in Canada.


AGNICO EAGLE: Dismissal of US Securities Lawsuit Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities suit against Agnico Eagle
Mines Limited are appealing the dismissal of the suit to the
United States Court for Appeals for the Second Circuit, according
to the company's Aug. 16, 2013 Amendment No. 1 to FORM F-10 filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On November 7, 2011 and November 22, 2011, the Company and certain
current and former senior officers, who also are or were directors
of the Company, were named as defendants in two putative class
action lawsuits, styled Jerome Stone v. Agnico-Eagle Mines Ltd.,
et al., and Chris Hastings v. Agnico-Eagle Mines Limited, et al.,
respectively, which were filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

On February 6, 2012, the Court ordered that the two complaints be
consolidated under the caption In re Agnico-Eagle Mines Ltd.
Securities Litigation, and lead counsel was appointed. On April 6,
2012, a Consolidated Complaint was issued against the Company and
certain of its current and former senior officers who also are or
were directors of the Company. The Consolidated Complaint alleges
that the Company had violated federal securities law in connection
with its disclosure related to the Goldex mine.

The Consolidated Complaint seeks, among other things, damages on
behalf of persons who purchased or acquired securities of the
Company during the period July 28, 2010 to October 19, 2011. The
Consolidated Complaint has not been certified as a class action,
and the Company intends to vigorously defend it. On January 14,
2013, Judge Oetken granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint and all claims therein and denied the
plaintiffs' request for leave to amend the Consolidated Complaint.
On February 12, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to
the United States Court for Appeals for the Second Circuit. The
appeal is scheduled to be heard on September 24, 2013.


AGNICO EAGLE: Continues to Face Ontario Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Agnico Eagle Mines Limited continues to face a securities lawsuit
filed against it in Ontario court, according to the company's Aug.
16, 2013 Amendment No. 1 to FORM F-10 filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.

On March 8, 2012 and April 10, 2012, a Notice of Action and
Statement of Claim (collectively, the "Ontario Claim") were issued
by William Leslie, AFA Livforsakringsaktiebolag and certain other
entities against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers, some of whom also are or were directors of the Company.

On September 27, 2012, the plaintiffs issued a Fresh as Amended
Statement of Claim. The Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim
alleges that the Company's public disclosure concerning water flow
issues at its Goldex mine was misleading. The Ontario Claim was
issued by the plaintiffs on behalf of all persons and entities who
acquired securities of the Company during the period March 26,
2010 to October 19, 2011, excluding persons resident or domiciled
in the Province of Quebec at the time they purchased or acquired
such securities. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages
of C$250 million and to certify the Ontario Claim as a class
action.

On April 17, 2013 an Order was granted on consent certifying a
class action proceeding and granting leave for the claims under
Section 138 of the Securities Act (Ontario) to proceed. The
Company intends to vigorously defend the action on the merits.


AGNICO EAGLE: No Hearing Date Yet in Quebec Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
No date has been set for the hearing to argue an amended Quebec
Motion seeking leave to commence an action under the Securities
Act (Quebec) in addition to seeking authorization to institute a
class action against Agnico Eagle Mines, according to the
company's Aug. 16, 2013 Amendment No. 1 to FORM F-10 filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

On March 28, 2012, the Company and certain of its current and
former senior officers, some of whom also are or were directors of
the Company, were named as respondents in a Motion for Leave to
Institute a Class Action and for the Appointment of a
Representative Plaintiff (the "Quebec Motion").

The action is on behalf of all persons and entities with fewer
than 50 employees resident in Quebec who acquired securities of
the Company between March 26, 2010 and October 19, 2011. The
proposed class action is for damages of C$100 million arising as a
result of allegedly misleading disclosure by the Company
concerning its operations at the Goldex mine.

On October 15, 2012, the plaintiffs served an amended Quebec
Motion seeking leave to commence an action under the Securities
Act (Quebec) in addition to seeking authorization to institute a
class action. No date has been set for the hearing to argue the
Quebec Motion. The Company intends to vigorously defend the action
on the merits.


ALPHA NATURAL: Class Suit Over UBB Explosion Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed by one of the families of the
miners that died in the UBB Explosion remains pending, according
to Alpha Natural Resources, Inc.'s August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On April 5, 2010, before the acquisition of Massey Energy Company
by the Company, an explosion occurred at the Upper Big Branch
("UBB") mine, resulting in the deaths of 29 miners.  The Federal
Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA"), the Office of
Miner's Health, Safety, and Training of the State of West Virginia
("State"), and the Governor's Independent Investigation Panel
("GIIP") initiated investigations into the cause of the UBB
explosion and related issues.  Additionally, the U.S. Attorney for
the Southern District of West Virginia (the "Office") commenced a
grand jury investigation.  The GIIP published its final report on
May 19, 2011; MSHA released its final report on December 6, 2011;
and the State released its final report on February 23, 2012.

Twenty of the twenty-nine families of the deceased miners filed
wrongful death lawsuits against Massey and certain of its
subsidiaries in Boone County Circuit Court and Wyoming County
Circuit Court.  In addition, as of July 19, 2013, two seriously
injured employees had filed personal injury claims against Massey
and certain of its subsidiaries in Boone County Circuit Court
seeking damages for physical injuries and/or alleged psychiatric
injuries, and thirty-nine employees had filed lawsuits against
Massey and certain of its subsidiaries in Boone County Circuit
Court and Wyoming County Circuit Court alleging emotional distress
or personal injuries due to their proximity to the explosion.  On
April 19, 2012, the Company filed a motion to transfer the Wyoming
County lawsuits to Boone County.

On October 19, 2011, the Boone County Circuit Court ordered that
the cases pending before it be mediated by a panel of three
mediators.  These mediations are, per order of the court, strictly
confidential.  The Company reached agreements to settle with all
twenty-nine families of the deceased miners as well as the two
employees who were seriously injured.  The settlements reached
with the families of the deceased miners have received court
approval.  The settlements relating to the two serious injuries
did not require court approval.

On May 4, 2012, the Boone County Circuit Court ordered that the
remaining personal injury and emotional distress claims continue
to be mediated through July 6, 2012.  Until that date, a stay was
in place for all remaining cases until further order from the
court.  The stay was lifted on July 6, 2012, but mediation was
ordered to continue.  On July 20, 2012, the stay was reinstated
for discovery-related activities at the request of the United
States Attorney and by agreement of the parties.  This stay is
expected to remain in effect until the United States' criminal
investigation of the UBB explosion is completed.  Mediation
efforts in August 2012 successfully resolved all but two of the
personal injury and emotional distress claims.  On June 26, 2013,
the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss in part,
dismissing plaintiffs' claims alleging the tort of outrage and
negligent infliction of emotional distress.  Two of plaintiffs'
claims remain pending.  The Wyoming County lawsuits were settled
and dismissed prior to the court ruling on the Company's motion to
transfer.

On April 5, 2012, one of the families of the deceased miners filed
a class action lawsuit in Boone County Circuit Court, purportedly
on behalf of the families that settled their claims prior to the
mediation, alleging fraudulent inducement into a contract, naming
as defendants Massey, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries,
the Company's CEO and the Company's Board of Directors.

Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. -- http://www.alphanr.com/-- is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Bristol, Virginia.  The
Company is a supplier and exporter of metallurgical coal for use
in the steel-making process and a supplier of thermal coal to
electric utilities and manufacturing industries across the United
States of America as well as a growing exporter of thermal coal.


ALPHA NATURAL: Defends NCI Employee Class Litigation vs. Unit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc., is defending a subsidiary against a
class action lawsuit in West Virginia known as the NCI Employee
Litigation, according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In December 2004, prior to the Company's acquisition of Nicewonder
Contracting, Inc. in October 2005, the Affiliated Construction
Trades Foundation ("ACTF"), a division of the West Virginia State
Building and Construction Trades Council, brought an action
against the West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division
of Highways ("WVDOH") and Nicewonder Contracting, Inc. ("NCI"),
which became the Company's wholly-owned indirect subsidiary as a
result of the Nicewonder acquisition, in the United States
District Court in the Southern District of West Virginia.  The
plaintiff sought a declaration that the contract between NCI and
the State of West Virginia related to NCI's road construction
project was illegal as a violation of applicable West Virginia and
federal competitive bidding and prevailing wage laws and sought to
enjoin performance of the contract, but did not seek monetary
damages.

On September 30, 2009, the District Court issued an order that
dismissed or denied for lack of standing all of the plaintiff's
claims under federal law and remanded the remaining state claims
to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, for
resolution.  On May 7, 2010, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County
entered summary judgment in favor of NCI.  On June 22, 2011, the
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals reversed the Circuit Court
order granting summary judgment in favor of NCI, and remanded the
case back to the Circuit Court for further proceedings.  Following
remand, ACTF filed a motion for summary judgment, which the
Circuit Court denied on November 9, 2011.  ACTF challenged the
order denying its summary judgment motion to the West Virginia
Supreme Court of Appeals.

On June 21, 2012, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
issued an opinion finding that ACTF has standing to pursue its
claims and remanded the case back to the Circuit Court of Kanawha
County, West Virginia for further proceedings.  NCI's portion of
the highway project under the contract is complete.

The case is now pending in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County,
West Virginia.  A settlement between NCI and ACTF was agreed upon
in early January 2013, prior to the scheduled trial date,
January 14, 2013.  The Company does not expect to incur any out-
of-pocket expenditures in connection with the settlement.  The
trial proceeded among the remaining parties.

On February 7, 2013, the Company received notice of a purported
class action lawsuit against NCI filed in the Circuit Court of
Mingo County, West Virginia by a former NCI employee (the "NCI
Employee Litigation").  The plaintiff in the NCI Employee
Litigation is represented by the same attorney who represents the
plaintiff in the ACTF litigation, and the complaint's allegations
raise issues similar to those in the ACTF litigation.

On February 26, 2013, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County ruled
that the contract in dispute in the ACTF litigation, as well as
the awarding and implementation, of the contract were in violation
of West Virginia law.  The Company is reviewing the Court's ruling
and evaluating its implications in relation to the NCI Employee
Litigation.  The Company believes that NCI has meritorious
defenses to the claims asserted in the NCI Employee Litigation.

NCI filed its answer to the complaint in the NCI Employee
Litigation on March 4, 2013.  On April 23, 2013, the Circuit Court
of Kanawha County, West Virginia, granted NCI's motion to transfer
and entered an agreed order transferring the NCI Employee
Litigation from the Circuit Court of Mingo County to the Circuit
Court of Kanawha County.

Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. -- http://www.alphanr.com/-- is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Bristol, Virginia.  The
Company is a supplier and exporter of metallurgical coal for use
in the steel-making process and a supplier of thermal coal to
electric utilities and manufacturing industries across the United
States of America as well as a growing exporter of thermal coal.


ALPHA NATURAL: Discovery in Suit v. Massey Stayed Until Jan. 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the consolidated class action lawsuit against Massey
Energy Company is stayed until January 15, 2014, according to
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc.'s August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.

On April 29, 2010, and May 28, 2010, two purported class actions
that were subsequently consolidated into one case were brought
against, among others, Massey Energy Company ("Massey"), now the
Company's subsidiary Alpha Appalachia Holdings, Inc. ("Alpha
Appalachia"), in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia in connection with alleged violations of
the federal securities laws.  The lead plaintiffs allege,
purportedly on behalf of a class of former Massey stockholders,
that (i) Massey and certain former Massey directors and officers
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by
intentionally misleading the market about the safety of Massey's
operations and that (ii) Massey's former officers violated Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act by virtue of their control over persons
alleged to have committed violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act.  The lead plaintiffs seek a determination that this
action is a proper class action; certification as class
representatives; an award of compensatory damages in an amount to
be proven at trial, including interest thereon; and an award of
reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert
fees.

On February 16, 2011, the lead plaintiffs moved to partially lift
the statutory discovery stay imposed under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  On March 3, 2011, the United
States moved to intervene and to stay discovery until the
completion of criminal proceedings allegedly arising from the same
facts that allegedly give rise to this action.  On July 9, 2012,
the Court entered an order maintaining the stay of discovery until
the earlier of either the completion of the United States'
criminal investigation of the explosion in Upper Big Branch
("UBB") or January 15, 2013.  The Court has extended the stay
several times; most recently, on July 18, 2013, the Court further
extended the existing discovery stay until January 15, 2014.

On April 25, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss the operative
complaint.  On March 27, 2012, the court denied the defendants'
motion to dismiss.  On July 16, 2012, the Company filed its answer
to the consolidated amended class action complaint.

Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. -- http://www.alphanr.com/-- is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Bristol, Virginia.  The
Company is a supplier and exporter of metallurgical coal for use
in the steel-making process and a supplier of thermal coal to
electric utilities and manufacturing industries across the United
States of America as well as a growing exporter of thermal coal.


ALPHA NATURAL: Discovery Stay in Del. Suit Extended to Jan. 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------
The existing discovery stay in the litigation brought in Delaware
on behalf of Massey Energy Company's stockholders is further
extended until the earlier of the completion of the criminal
investigation of the UBB explosion or January 15, 2014, according
to Alpha Natural Resources, Inc.'s August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In a case filed on April 23, 2010, in Delaware Chancery Court, In
re Massey Energy Company Derivative and Class Action Litigation
("In re Massey"), a number of purported former Massey Energy
Company stockholders (the "Delaware Plaintiffs") allege,
purportedly on behalf of Massey, that certain former Massey
directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties by failing
to monitor and oversee Massey's employees, allegedly resulting in
fines against Massey and the explosion at Upper Big Branch
("UBB"), and by wasting corporate assets by paying allegedly
excessive and inflated amounts to former Massey Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer Don L. Blankenship as part of his retirement
package.  The Delaware Plaintiffs also allege, on behalf of a
purported class of former Massey stockholders, that certain former
Massey directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to
the Massey Acquisition.  The Delaware Plaintiffs allege that
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to secure
the best price possible, by failing to secure any downside
protection for the acquisition consideration, and by purportedly
eliminating the possibility of a superior proposal by agreeing to
a "no shop" provision and a termination fee.  In addition, the
Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants agreed to the Massey
Acquisition to eliminate the liability that defendants faced on
the Delaware Plaintiffs' derivative claims.  Finally, the Delaware
Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to fully disclose all
material information necessary for Massey stockholders to cast an
informed vote on the Massey Acquisition.

The Delaware Plaintiffs also name the Company and Mountain Merger
Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary
created for purposes of effecting the Massey Acquisition, which,
at the effective time of the Massey Acquisition, was merged with
and into Massey, as defendants.  The Delaware Plaintiffs allege
that the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted the former
Massey directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and agreed to
orchestrate the Massey Acquisition for the purpose of eliminating
the former Massey directors' potential liability on the derivative
claims.  Two additional putative class actions were brought
against Massey, certain former Massey directors and officers, the
Company and Merger Sub in the Delaware Court of Chancery following
the announcement of the Massey Acquisition, which were
consolidated for all purposes with In re Massey on February 9,
2011, and February 24, 2011, respectively.

The Delaware Plaintiffs seek an award against each defendant for
restitution and/or compensatory damages, plus pre-judgment
interest; an order establishing a litigation trust to preserve the
derivative claims asserted in the complaint; and an award of
costs, disbursements and reasonable allowances for fees incurred
in this action.  The Delaware Plaintiffs also sought to enjoin
consummation of the Massey Acquisition.  The court denied their
motion for a preliminary injunction on May 31, 2011.

On June 10, 2011, Massey moved to dismiss the Delaware Plaintiffs'
derivative claims on the ground that the Delaware Plaintiffs, as
former Massey stockholders, lacked the legal right to pursue those
claims, and the Company and Alpha Appalachia Merger Sub moved to
dismiss the purported class action claim against them for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  On June 10,
and 13, 2011, certain former Massey director and officer
defendants moved to dismiss the derivative claims and filed
answers to the remaining direct claims.

On September 14, 2011, the parties submitted a Stipulation Staying
Proceedings, which stayed the matter until March 1, 2012, without
prejudice to the parties' right to seek an extension or a
termination of the stay by application to the court.  The court
approved the stipulation and entered the stay that same day.  The
Court has extended the stay several times; most recently, on
July 29, 2013, the Court further extended the existing discovery
stay until the earlier of the completion of the United States'
criminal investigation of the UBB explosion or January 15, 2014.

Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. -- http://www.alphanr.com/-- is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Bristol, Virginia.  The
Company is a supplier and exporter of metallurgical coal for use
in the steel-making process and a supplier of thermal coal to
electric utilities and manufacturing industries across the United
States of America as well as a growing exporter of thermal coal.


ALPHA NATURAL: June '14 Trial Date Set in Massey Stockholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A preliminary trial date of June 24, 2014, is set in the class
action lawsuit brought on behalf of former Massey Energy Company
stockholders, according to Alpha Natural Resources, Inc.'s
August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On July 13, 2012, a purported class action brought on behalf of a
putative class of former Massey Energy Company stockholders was
filed in Boone County, West Virginia Circuit Court.  Massey is now
the Company's subsidiary Alpha Appalachia Holdings, Inc.  The
complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, against the Company and certain of its officers and
current and former directors, and generally asserts that the
defendants made false statements about the Company's Emerald mine
in its public filings associated with the acquisition of Massey by
the Company (the "Massey Acquisition").  The plaintiff seeks,
among other relief, an award of compensatory damages in an amount
to be proven at trial.

On August 16, 2012, the defendants removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.
On August 30, 2012, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the
case back to the Circuit Court of Boone County, West Virginia.  On
September 13, 2012, the defendants filed an opposition to the
plaintiff's motion to remand.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action on October 19,
2012, and the plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion on
November 2, 2012.  On November 5, 2012, the federal court remanded
the case back to the Boone County Circuit Court (without ruling on
the pending motion to dismiss).  The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint in the Boone County Circuit Court on February 6, 2013.
The defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on
March 22, 2013, and March 29, 2013, which motions are currently
pending. The Boone County Circuit Court has set a preliminary
trial date of June 24, 2014.

Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. -- http://www.alphanr.com/-- is a
Delaware corporation headquartered in Bristol, Virginia.  The
Company is a supplier and exporter of metallurgical coal for use
in the steel-making process and a supplier of thermal coal to
electric utilities and manufacturing industries across the United
States of America as well as a growing exporter of thermal coal.


AMERICAN FAMILY: Bid to Vacate Court Rulings in "Nero" Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Philip A. Brimmer denied a plaintiff's motion to
vacate court orders entered in the case captioned JAMES L. NERO,
individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-CV-02717-PAB-MJW, (D. Colo.)

Mr. Nero's motion to vacate the court's September 28, 2012 and
October 2, 2012 Orders, for leave to file a third amended
complaint and to stay the Court's October 2, 2012 order is denied,
says Judge Brimmer.

The Court's September 28, 2012 Order granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's individual claims for failure to
state claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Court's
October 2, 2012 Order entered judgment in the case.

Judge Brimmer also granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's motion for attorneys' fees pursuant to C.R.S. Section
13-17-201. The Court directed Mr. Nero to pay attorneys' fees in
the amount of $48,563.50 to defendant American Family Mutual
Insurance Company.

Copies of the District Court's September 23, 2013 Orders are
available at http://is.gd/i74q1Land http://is.gd/2eBu0Nfrom
Leagle.com.


ANGLO AMERICAN: Settles 23 Silicosis Claims; Faces Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Geoff Candy, writing for mineweb.com, reports that having only
barely dispensed with the plummeting gold price, increasingly
demanding shareholders and some of the tensest wage negotiations
in memory, the South Africa's gold producers were probably hoping
for a little respite.  But, instead, find themselves staring at
the looming presence of a silicosis class action suit that seems
to be growing inexorably larger with each passing month.

Right now, there are three separate class action matters pending
against the country's gold miners but, the three teams of lawyers
have just applied to the courts to consolidate these various
claims into a single one that will be defended by 31 companies,
which include all of the country's gold miners and their various
operating entities as well as Anglo American South Africa and
African Rainbow Minerals, who no longer operate gold mines but did
so when some of the claimants contracted the lung disease in
question.

It should be noted that Anglo American SA announced on Sept. 25 it
has just settled 23 silicosis claims brought against it for an
undisclosed sum and no admission of liability.  These claims are
completely unrelated to the class action matters mentioned earlier
and have been ongoing for almost 10 years.

According to Anglo American, "Considering the long-standing nature
of the SA arbitration claims, all parties agreed that the time was
right to reach a settlement agreement that is in the interests of
all stakeholders involved."

While the firm maintains that the decision to settle was made for
the benefit of the claimants and credit must be given to the firm
for providing medical treatment to the plaintiffs, while the
claims were being considered, one can't help but wonder (albeit a
little cynically) if there is not at least a hint of a clearing of
the legal decks to the settlement, ahead of what Anglo itself
admits is a much more complicated set of claims?

As Anglo American spokesman, Pranill Ramchander told Mineweb,
"AASA, along with many other companies, is now facing class action
litigation ostensibly involving several thousand claimants.  This
litigation is far more complex and is concerned with issues which
go far beyond the scope of the stand-alone claims.  The company
has not been informed of the names of those involved or where they
worked or the nature of their medical condition.  As a result,
AASA will continue to defend these claims, which are wholly
unrelated to the arbitration claims."

To put it more starkly into perspective, across the table from the
31 defendants are currently upwards of 27,000 claimants.  And,
according to public interest attorney, Richard Spoor, one of the
chief organizers of the class action suit, if the class action is
certified then, it will embrace all workers, whether current
clients or not, that fit the criteria.

Those criteria are, Mr. Spoor told Mineweb, that the worker can
demonstrate "exposure to silicon dust on the mines of the
defendants which are identified in the papers and having
contracted silicotuberculosis or in the case of the second class,
tuberculosis."

The end game

According to Mr. Spoor, a class action is a mechanism conducive to
the achievement of a settlement.

As he explained to Mineweb, "It's a process -- important issues
that are common to the claims are determined and settled in an
incremental way, piece by piece.  And so every step that it moves
along, both parties get a better and better sense of how strong or
how weak their case is because critical points are decided and
that tends to bring parties together.  So our expectation is that
some of the key issues will be determined and then that will
prompt some kind of settlement, and that certainly is our
objective."

It is also important to note that, as yet, these are still only
allegations and, while there is legal precedent for silicosis
claims against a mining company, the strength of the current case
remains to be tested in court.  But, as Mr. Spoor points out,
while conceptually the matter could be dragged out for a very long
time it is unlikely that either party would like that to happen.

And, he adds, the advantage of a settlement to the gold sector is
that, it would have to be something to which both parties agree
and, thus should be something they would be able to afford.

"If they get hit with individual claims and are compelled to pay
the full value of those claims, it's very unlikely that the
industry could sustain and pay those kinds of damages.  So I don't
think that the full value of these claims be realized, I suspect
it might bankrupt the industry whereas a settlement would by
definition be something that is sustainable and could be done.

He goes on, "I think the actual value of the claims is largely
academic.  There are estimates of the number of claimants out
there, in excess of 100,000 people and if you conservatively asses
the value of every claim at R1m, well it's a staggering sum.  A
settlement scheme would . . . but that would be the consequence
for the industry if they chose to fight every individual claim on
its merits where there is not going to be any discount for a
settlement or accommodation.  So it's really a question of what
the industry afford, what can it do, what is realistic."

According to Spoor pleading is likely to close early in the new
year and, he expects a hearing to begin around March or April 2014
these timelines could well be extended.

What, is certain, however, is that the South African gold sector
is likely to be hearing the word silicosis a great deal more in
the next few months and the outcome of this latest trial could
have a major bearing on the longevity of the sector.


AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Defends Shareholder Suits in Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is defending two shareholder class
action lawsuits in Massachusetts, according to the Company's
August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Two class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company and
certain of the Company's officers in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, one on May 9, 2013,
captioned Paul Sanders v. Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No.
1:13-cv-11157-JLT, and the other on May 31, 2013, captioned
Christine Krause v. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-
cv-11320-JLT, respectively.  Each complaint purports to be brought
on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock
between January 3, 2012, and May 1, 2013.  Each complaint
generally alleges that the Company and certain of the Company's
officers violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the
phase 3 trial design and results for the Company's TIVO-1 study in
an effort to lead investors to believe that the drug would receive
approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA").  Each
complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and other costs.  The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing
and intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits.  However,
there is no assurance that the Company will be successful in
defense or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund
any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of these
actions.  Moreover, the Company is unable to predict the outcome
or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time.

AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which does business as AVEO
Oncology(TM), is a cancer therapeutics company committed to
discovering, developing and commercializing targeted cancer
therapies to impact patients' lives.  The Company's product
candidates are directed against important mechanisms, or targets,
known or believed to be involved in cancer.  AVEO was incorporated
in Delaware and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.


BAYER CORP: Alston & Bird Discusses 3rd Cir. Class Action Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Krasinski, Esq., -- brendan.krasinski@alston.com -- at
Alston & Bird LLP reports that in a recent decision, the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a district court's order
certifying a statewide consumer fraud class action.
Interestingly, in its decision the Third Circuit seemed to suggest
that the plaintiffs would need to produce some form of objective
proof of purchase (i.e., retailer records, receipts, or product
packaging) in order to satisfy Rule 23's ascertainability
requirement.

In Carrera v. Bayer Corp., plaintiffs brought a class action
against Bayer Corporation and Bayer Healthcare, LLC, claiming that
Bayer falsely and deceptively advertised its One-A-Day WeightSmart
product as having metabolism-enhancing effects.  It was undisputed
that class members were unlikely to have documentary proof of
purchase (such as packaging or receipts) and that, because Bayer
did not sell directly to consumers, it did not have a list of
purchasers.  The plaintiffs moved for class certification of a
class of all persons who purchased WeightSmart in Florida, and
Bayer challenged plaintiff's motion on the grounds that, inter
alia, the class members were not ascertainable. The district
court, in rejecting Bayer's argument, certified a class,
characterizing the ascertainability issue raised by Bayer as one
of manageability.  The Third Circuit granted Bayer's interlocutory
appeal.

On appeal, plaintiffs argued that the class could be ascertained
in one of two ways. First, plaintiffs argued that records from
retailers could be used to identify WeightSmart purchasers in
Florida.  Second, plaintiffs argued that they could obtain
affidavits from class members attesting to their purchase of
WeightSmart.  The Third Circuit rejected both of these proposed
methods of ascertaining class members.

The Third Circuit rejected plaintiffs' argument that retailer
records could be used to prove class membership.  Although the
Third Circuit recognized that "retailer records may be a perfectly
acceptable method of proving class membership," it concluded that
"there is no evidence that a single purchaser of WeightSmart could
be identified using records of customer membership cards or
records of online sales" in the present case.

In rejecting the notion that class members could be determined
though affidavits, the Third Circuit noted that allowing
determination of class membership through affidavits would not
permit Bayer the opportunity to challenge class membership short
of deposing each and every class member.  The Third Circuit also
noted that using unsubstantiated affidavits to prove class
membership might also result in fraudulent claims.

Having rejected the notion that a consumer's own testimony could
be used to ascertain membership in a class, the Third Circuit
seems to have suggested that absent "proof of purchase" -- whether
in the form of a receipt, product packaging, or records maintained
by a retailer or manufacturer -- class certification may not be
possible.  If the Third Circuit indeed went so far in its
decision, consumer fraud class actions based on small ticket
consumable products, such as dietary supplements, foods, and
beverages, may now be significantly more difficult to certify in
the Third Circuit.


BLUE COAT: "Scandlon" Suit Dismissed Without Leave to Amend
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Seeborg dismissed without leave to amend
the case captioned ROBERT A. SCANDLON, JR., On behalf of Himself
and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. BLUE COAT
SYSTEMS, INC., BRIAN M. NESMITH and GORDON C. BROOKS, Defendants,
NO. C 11-4293 RS, (N.D. Cal.).

This shareholders' putative class action arises from a steep
decline in the share price of Blue Coat Systems, Inc. in May of
2010, the day after the company released financial results and
provided forward-looking guidance that was less optimistic than
had been anticipated. The complaint was previously dismissed for
failure to plead with adequate specificity the supposed
misrepresentations on which the claims were based, or facts
showing scienter and loss causation. The Second Amended Complaint
relies on virtually the same set of factual allegations as to what
the alleged misrepresentations were, and why scienter purportedly
may be inferred. The only substantial change is that the class
period has been extended to August of 2010, when the company made
a further public announcement and the stock price experienced a
further, although more modest, decline.

Judge Seeborg held that the amendments fail to cure the
inadequacies. As before, he said, (1) it is unclear what, if any,
arguably actionable misrepresentations were made, (2) there is
insufficient basis to infer scienter, and, (3) the alleged facts
do not support loss causation.

"The motion to dismiss will be granted," Judge Seeborg concluded.
"Because there is no indication further amendment would be
fruitful, leave to amend will not be granted."

A copy of the District Court's September 23, 2013 Order is
available at http://is.gd/jYQQ8cfrom Leagle.com.


CELLULAR SALES: Day Pitney Discusses Class Action Waiver Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin J. Skelly, Esq., -- kskelly@daypitney.com -- at Day Pitney
LLP reports that In Cellular Sales of Missouri LLC, an NLRB
administrative law judge ("ALJ") invalidated a class action waiver
because of the NLRB's prior D.R. Horton decision, which held that
employers cannot require employees to waive their right to engage
in class or collective actions as a condition of employment.

The Cellular Sales NLRB decision was preceded by the filing of a
class action lawsuit in November 2012 in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Missouri.  Plaintiff
John Bauer filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated current and former sales professionals of
Cellular Sales of Missouri, LLC and Cellular Sales of Knoxville,
Inc.  Mr. Bauer alleged that the companies violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Kansas Wage Payment Law by failing to pay
their sales professionals minimum wage and overtime pay.

The companies filed a motion to stay the litigation and compel
arbitration pursuant to the terms of the arbitration agreement
that Bauer and other sales professionals signed as a condition of
their employment.  The arbitration agreement provided that all
employment-related claims must be resolved through binding
individual arbitration.  The agreement specifically prohibited
class or collective arbitrations.

While the lawsuit was pending, Bauer filed a charge with the NLRB,
alleging that the arbitration agreement violates Section 8(a)(1)
of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") by interfering with
employees' right to engage in protected concerted activity. The
NLRB issued a complaint based on Bauer's charge, which went to a
hearing before an ALJ.  Relying on the D.R. Horton decision, the
ALJ concluded that the arbitration agreement violated Section
8(a)(1) by requiring employees to waive their right to engage in
collective or class actions or arbitrations.

Since the D.R. Horton decision in January 2012, the NLRB has
invalidated numerous arbitration agreements that contained class
action waivers.  Day Pitney previously posted about several of
these recent NLRB decisions.  The companies argued that the
Supreme Court's recent decision in American Express Co. v. Italian
Colors Restaurant rendered D.R. Horton invalid, but the ALJ
rejected that argument, finding American Express distinguishable
since it did not specifically address employees' rights under the
NLRA.

Unless and until the D.R. Horton decision is overturned on appeal,
employers who maintain mandatory arbitration policies may want to
review their arbitration agreements to ensure that they do not
prevent employees from exercising their right to engage concerted
activity protected by Section 7 of the NLRA.


CHOBANI: Judge's Yogurt Suit Ruling Seen as Significant Step
------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn G. Lammi, writing for Forbes, reports that with new,
strikingly similar class actions being filed seemingly every day,
the litigation industry's crusade against food and beverage
companies for "fraudulent" or "misleading" labeling has almost
become monotonous.  Thankfully, the occasional mini-saga breaks
the tedium.  The latest involves the humble, though now
ubiquitous, Greek yogurt, and a suit against producer Chobani.
Kane v. Chobanihas had many twists and turns, but with a recent
ruling, the plot may be moving to a fulfilling denouement.

Good Enough for Kids. Before getting into the Kane saga, we must
note a delicious irony.  Contrary to the opinion of Ms. Kane and
her unnamed (and unknowing) class of plaintiffs, the federal
government is quite a fan of the protein-packed product.  The U.S.
Department of Agriculture announced in July that it will be
purchasing Greek yogurt for schools participating in a federally
assisted program that subsidizes school lunches.

Previous Developments. On July 12, Northern District of California
Judge Lucy Koh dismissed one of Ms. Kane's claims but allowed the
majority of her complaint to survive.  Three days later, Judge Koh
denied Kane's preliminary injunction against Chobani's sale of
products with "evaporated cane juice" on the label.  On July 25,
she agreed to Chobani's request to vacate the July 12 order.
Then, on August 2, the judge ordered the disqualification of one
of Kane's expert witnesses, but refused to disqualify Kane's
lawyers.

September 19 Order. In her recent decision, Judge Koh reexamined
Kane's claims that Chobani's use of the term "evaporated cane
juice" (ECJ), its "no sugar added" claims, and its "all-natural"
label statements were false or misleading under California law.

On the use of ECJ, the court found that Kane had disavowed the
legal theory that Judge Koh endorsed in her July 12 ruling: Kane
had reasonably believed that ECJ was healthier than refined sugars
or syrups.  Upon reconsidering Kane's ECJ claim, Judge Koh found
that Kane could not sufficiently plead reliance and thus lacked
standing to sue.  As reflected in her complaint, Kane understood
that dried cane syrup was a form of sugar, so it was unreasonable
to think that Kane didn't understand that cane juice was a also
form of sugar.  Kane's complaint did not explain that lack of
understanding, nor did it describe what cane juice was if it
wasn't sugar. Kane will unfortunately have another crack at that,
since Judge Koh dismissed the claim without prejudice.

Judge Koh also found that Kane could not plead reliance on
Chobani's no sugar added claims on its website because Kane did
not establish that she actually viewed Chobani's website.  The
court also dismissed that claim without prejudice.  The court
similarly dismissed, without prejudice, all claims based on
products that Kane did not actually purchase, as Kane failed to
show the non-purchased products were "substantially similar" to
the purchased products.

Finally, Judge Koh turned to the all-natural ingredients claim.
Kane argued that had she known that Chobani colored its yogurt
"artificially" with "fruit or vegetable juice concentrate" (thus
rendering the product not "all natural"), she wouldn't have bought
it. Judge Koh reminded Kane that she purported to have read the
yogurt's label, and that the ingredients clearly include "Fruit
and Vegetable Juice Concentrate (For Color)."  Thus Kane could not
have reasonably relied on Chobani's "all natural" statements.
Judge Koh offered Kane an opportunity to cure her pleadings on
this point, but it's hard to see how she'll be able to do that.

Judge Koh's conclusion that Kane had to consider the all-natural
claim in the larger context of the label, including the
ingredients, is quite notable.  It seemingly runs counter to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's Williams v. Gerber
Products ruling.  In Williams, the court refused to consider
information in the ingredients list when determining whether a
consumer was reasonably deceived by a food label's
representations.  Kane is not the first case to appear at odds
with Williams.  Last May, in Hairston v. South Beach Beverage,
Judge Walter of the Central District of California dispelled
Hairston's claim that the label statement "all natural" was
deceptive by making reference to the ingredients.  An August 2012
Law360 article offers an interesting explanation for why Hairston
may not necessarily conflict with Williams.

The Saga Continues? Kane and her lawyers will undoubtedly amend
the complaint and initiate another round of motions, necessitating
more legal fees and costs for Chobani, and requiring more
taxpayer-funded court time.  But Judge Koh's September 19 order is
a very significant step forward, especially if her "all natural"
holding inspires other judges to assess all the information on a
product label when determining reliance under California consumer
protection law.

If nothing else, Chobani's perseverance and forceful defense sends
a message that companies can contest and win lawsuits in "The Food
Court."


COLORTYME INC: Court Refused to Dismiss Suit Over "Spy" Software
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that a company
dealing in rent-to-own computers must face claims about software
that takes secret photographs and captures keystrokes, a federal
judge ruled.

Leslie Arrington signed a rent-to-own contract for a personal
laptop computer with ColorTyme Inc. and its franchisee, CMG
Rentals LLC, in Clarkston, Wash., on March 31, 2011.  She claims
that the Rent-A-Center subsidiary had secretly installed on the
computer an "invisible or generally undetectable" program called
PC Rental Agent, "which could monitor [Arrington] in her home, and
intercept her private communications."

The program, manufactured by the now defunct Pennsylvania-based
DesignerWare, automatically logs in at a WiFi hotspot while its
"detective mode" component secretly gathers photos, keystrokes and
screenshots that is then transferred to the franchisee, in this
CMG, according to the complaint.

CMG can allegedly "cause Detective Mode to record data every two
minutes until prompted to stop doing so."  As long as it leaves
the program on, CMG gets emails about the collected data from
DesignerWare, Arrington says.

ColorTyme gave franchisees access to DesignerWare via a link on
its message board, as well as email sent through its corporate
server, according to the complaint.  DesignerWare, in turn,
allegedly provided the franchisees with routine customer service.

Arrington says she never consented to the software's installation,
and that upon information and belief, CMG and ColorTyme took
images of her remotely and stole her private communications.  She
hopes to represent a class in the complaint against ColorTyme,
CMG, and 100 other franchisees under the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act (ECPA).  Arrington also seeks damages and declaratory
relief for invasion of privacy, conspiracy, and aiding and
abetting.

ColorTyme and CMG moved to dismiss, but U.S. District Judge Cathy
Bissoon in Pittsburgh denied the motions September 17.

"Although DesignerWare's software and servers facilitated the
acquisition and transmission of plaintiff's communications, CMG
allegedly set the process in motion," Bissoon wrote.  "The
complaint further alleges that DesignerWare, according to its
arrangement with CMG, would then forward this information to CMG
at its designated email accounts through ColorTyme's servers, who
provided its franchisees access to PC Rental Agent in the first
place and facilitated its use.  These allegations, if true, would
subject CMG and ColorTyme to liability under the ECPA for
procuring DesignerWare's services in intercepting plaintiff's
private communications."

CMG also failed to convince the court that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction to hear the case.

"Because the complaint's allegations regarding plaintiff's private
communications are sufficient to plead the occurrence of an
'intercept' under the ECPA, the federal cause of action survives,
regardless of whether the screenshots, keystrokes and webcam
photographs were in transmission," Bissoon wrote.  "Furthermore,
given the sophistication of the technology at issue, it is
entirely possible that discovery will reveal that the screenshots,
keystrokes and pictures were in some state of 'transmission' as
envisaged by the statute when they were obtained by PC Rental
Agent.

Rent-A-Center Inc., ColorTyme's parent, reported $3.083 billion in
revenue in 2012.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frederick S. Longer, Esq.
          LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: flonger@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Andrea S. Hirsch, Esq.
          HERMAN GEREL
          230 Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 2260
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 880-9500
          Facsimile: (404) 880-9605
          E-mail: ahirsch@hermangerel.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ansley S. Westbrook II, Esq.
          DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP
          One Oxford Centre
          301 Grant Street, Suite 2800
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-5000
          Facsimile: (412) 281-5055
          E-mail: ansley.westbrook@dinslaw.com

               - and -

          Brian M. Mancos, Esq.
          BURNS WHITE LLC
          Four Northshore Center
          106 Isabella Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 995-3000
          Facsimile: (412) 995-3300
          E-mail: bmmancos@burnswhite.com

               - and -

          William Woodward Webb, Esq.
          THE EDMISTEN WEBB & HAWES LAW FIRM
          PO Box 1509
          Raleigh, NC 27602
          Telephone: (919) 831-8700
          Facsimile: (919) 831-8749
          E-mail: woodywebb@ew-law.com

The case is Arrington v. Colortyme, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:12-
cv-00264-CB-SPB, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania (Erie).


CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Merger-Related Suits Now Concluded
---------------------------------------------------------------
The merger-related class action lawsuits against Consolidated
Communications Holdings, Inc. are now concluded, according to the
Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

The Company completed the acquisition of SureWest Communications
on July 2, 2012.

Prior to the completion of the SureWest Merger on July 2, 2012,
six putative class action lawsuits were filed by alleged SureWest
shareholders challenging the Company's proposed merger with
SureWest in which the Company, WH Acquisition Corp. and WH
Acquisition II Corp., SureWest and members of the SureWest board
of directors have been named as defendants.  Five shareholder
actions were filed in the Superior Court of California, Placer
County, and one shareholder action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California.  The
actions are called Needles v. SureWest Communications, et al.,
filed February 17, 2012, Errecart v. Oldham, et al., filed
February 24, 2012, Springer v. SureWest Communications, et al.,
filed March 9, 2012, Aievoli v. Oldham, et al., filed March 15,
2012, and Waterbury v. SureWest Communications, et al., filed
March 26, 2012, and the federal action is called Broering v.
Oldham, et al., filed April 18, 2012.  The actions generally
allege, among other things, that each member of the SureWest board
of directors breached fiduciary duties to SureWest and its
shareholders by authorizing the sale of SureWest to the Company
for consideration that allegedly was unfair to the SureWest
shareholders and agreed to terms that allegedly unduly restrict
other bidders from making a competing offer.  The complaints also
allege that the Company and SureWest aided and abetted the
breaches of fiduciary duties allegedly committed by the members of
the SureWest board of directors.  The Broering complaint also
alleges, among other things, that the joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on March 28, 2012, did not
make sufficient disclosures regarding the merger, that SureWest's
board should have appointed an independent committee to negotiate
the transaction and that SureWest should have gone back to another
bidder to create a competitive bid process.  The lawsuits seek
equitable relief, including an order to prevent the defendants
from consummating the merger on the agreed-upon terms and/or an
award of unspecified monetary damages.

On March 14, 2012, the Placer County Superior Court entered an
order consolidating the Needles, Errecart and Springer actions
into a single action under the caption In re SureWest
Communications Shareholder Litigation.  Under the terms of this
order, all cases subsequently filed in the Superior Court for the
State of California, County of Placer, that relate to the same
subject matter and involve similar questions of law or fact were
to be consolidated with these cases as well.  This included the
Aievoli and Waterbury cases.  On April 10, 2012, the plaintiff in
Waterbury filed a request for voluntary dismissal of her complaint
without prejudice.  On May 18, 2012, pursuant to the parties'
stipulation, the federal Court entered an order staying the
Broering action for 90 days.  The federal Court subsequently
extended the stay of the Broering action until June 1, 2013.  On
June 1, 2012, the parties entered into a proposed settlement of
all of the shareholder actions without any admission of liability
by the Company or the other defendants.  Pursuant to the proposed
settlement, SureWest agreed to make, and subsequently made,
certain additional disclosures in a Current Report on Form 8-K
filed with the SEC in advance of the special meeting of SureWest
shareholders held on June 12, 2012.  The proposed settlement also
provided that plaintiffs' counsel collectively are to receive
attorneys' fees of $0.525 million, to be paid by the Company and
SureWest and its insurer.  On December 20, 2012, the court issued
a ruling preliminarily approving the proposed settlement.  Notice
of the proposed settlement was thereafter given to the SureWest
shareholders.  Eight shareholders representing approximately 4,500
shares of SureWest stock opted-out of the settlement class.

A final hearing on the proposed settlement was held before the
court on March 28, 2013.  On April 5, 2013, the court issued a
final judgment for $0.525 million, of which the Company was to pay
approximately $0.2 million, with the balance to be paid by
SureWest and its insurer.  In accordance with the terms of the
final judgment, on April 17, 2013, the Company disbursed its
portion of the settlement.  Pursuant to the settlement and the
terms of the final judgment, the consolidated state court actions
are now concluded, and the claims of all shareholders who did not
opt-out of the settlement have been released and discharged.  In
accordance with the settlement, the Broering action pending in
federal court was voluntarily dismissed on April 16, 2013.

Headquartered in Mattoon, Illinois, Consolidated Communications
Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.consolidated.com/-- is a Delaware
holding company with operating subsidiaries providing a wide range
of communications services to residential and business customers,
including local and long-distance service, high-speed broadband
Internet access, video services, digital telephone service, custom
calling features, private line services, carrier grade access
services, network capacity services over the Company's regional
fiber optic networks, directory publishing and Competitive Local
Exchange Carrier services.


DOLE FOOD: Court Narrows Claims in False Labeling Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh granted in part and denied in part a
motion to dismiss a second amended complaint (SAC) and a motion to
strike filed in BRAZIL v. DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC.

Dole Food Company and Dole Packaged Foods, LLC filed the Motion to
Dismiss and Motion to Strike Plaintiff Chad Brazil's Second
Amended Complaint. In his complaint, Mr. Brazil alleges that Dole
makes numerous representations concerning their products -- both
on the products' labels and on Defendants' website, the address of
which (www.dole.com) appears on many of the products' labels --
that are unlawful, as well as false and misleading, under federal
and California law. Mr. Brazil seeks to bring this putative class
action, on behalf of "[a]ll persons in the United States, or
alternatively California, who since April 11, 2008, purchased one
or more of [the Purchased Products or Substantially Similar
Products]."

Judge Koh granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the SAC's
claims based on website statements Mr. Brazil did not view with
prejudice, but otherwise denied the Motion to Dismiss. In
addition, the Court granted the Defendants' Motion to Strike the
SAC's claims based on the Defendants' alleged affirmative duty to
disclose regulatory violations on their food product labels with
prejudice. The remainder of Defendants' Motion to Strike was
denied.

The case is CHAD BRAZIL, an individual, on his own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DOLE FOOD
COMPANY, INC., DOLE PACKAGED FOODS, LLC, Defendants, CASE NO. 12-
CV-01831-LHK, (N.D. Cal.)

A copy of the District Court's September 23, 2013 Order is
available at http://is.gd/F9zfYLfrom Leagle.com.


DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL: Abandoned Translators in Kuwait, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Abbott, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
DynCorp got its military translators thrown into Kuwaiti prisons
after coercing them into signing false confessions, and owes them
money too, 19 American-Arab translators claim in a federal class
action.

Lead plaintiff Ramzi Zinnekah, of Dallas, sued Dyncorp
International, LLC and its joint ventures Global Linguists
Solutions (GLS) and AECOM in Federal Court, accusing them of Fair
Labor Standards Act violations, conspiracy and tortious
interference.

The class claims that DynCorp, a military contracting giant, duped
them into signing confessions that they violated Kuwaiti
immigration laws, landing some in jail and stiffing all of them
for paychecks.

DynCorp, through GLS, hired the American linguists to translate
for the U.S. military, then forced them to undergo training for
which none were paid, according to the lawsuit.

"Neither plaintiffs or absent class members have any control over
the nature or the manner in which the work is to be performed
during these training periods," the complaint states.  "In fact,
during the mandatory training periods, plaintiffs and absent
contractors are confined within a DynCorp training facility and
are not free even to come and go at their own will.  Moreover, as
GLS translators, many plaintiffs have been confined to GLS
facilities and are not permitted to leave GLS facilities."

Things got worse when they got to Kuwait, which requires a
domestic corporate sponsor for all foreign workers.

According to the complaint, GLS entered into a deal with Kuwaiti
company Al Shora International General Trading & Contracting
Company to sponsor the linguists -- but backed out of the deal
without telling the Americans that they were there in violation of
Kuwaiti immigration law.

"Al Shora provided multiple warnings to defendants about the
consequence of ending the sponsorship relationship between GLS and
Al-Shora with respect to the immigration status of plaintiffs,"
the complaint states.

"Defendants, for the most part, ignored the warnings made by Al
Shora regarding the effect of ending the sponsorship relationship
with respect to the immigration status of plaintiffs."

Al Shora informed the Kuwait government, which "began arresting
certain plaintiffs," the class claims.

GLS failed to tell its linguists they were vulnerable to arrest,
and several plaintiffs were thrown into Kuwaiti prisons for
violating labor and immigration laws, the class says.  After the
initial arrests, more plaintiffs were "trapped" on U.S. bases for
fear of arrest.

"GLS has acknowledged that representations that plaintiffs have
engaged in wrong-doing or criminal conduct while in Kuwait are
false," the class claims.

"On or about September 7, 2013, GLS management presented documents
to certain plaintiffs.  They informed these plaintiffs that they
were required to sign the documents immediately.  The documents
stated that the plaintiffs had committed crimes, specifically
immigration crimes, in Kuwait.  Such statements were untrue as
these plaintiffs had not committed any crimes.  GLS insisted that
these plaintiffs execute confessions to illegal conduct as a
condition to being released from Kuwait and returning home.  Some
plaintiffs, under duress, signed these statements.  Other
plaintiffs, insisting that they not be forced to sign documents
that admitted to facts that were inaccurate and crimes that they
had not committed, refused to sign the documents.

"Notwithstanding having signed documents that admitted to criminal
activity -- criminal activity they did not commit -- the
plaintiffs who signed such documents were not released from
detention and were not allowed to return home.

"The plaintiffs who refused to sign the confessions were told that
GLS could no longer advocate for them and that 'they were on their
own.'  Thus, the plaintiffs who refused to sign false confessions
are now in limbo in Kuwait as GLS has abandoned them."

The 19 named plaintiffs say they are all U.S. citizens, some with
"exemplary service in the U.S. military."

They accuse DynCorp, GLS and AECOM of employing a business model
that denied them compensation under both American and Kuwaiti
labor laws, of coercing some into signing false confessions that
sent them to jail, and keeping others in "virtual house arrest --
confined to U.S. military bases (Camp Buehring and Camp Arifjan)
for over three months without the ability to leave Kuwait, cut off
from their families, cut off from adequate medical care, and
unable to work."

They seek compensatory and punitive damages.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Joseph Beins, Esq.
          BEINS GOLDBERG & HENNESSEY LLP
          2 Wisconsin Cir., Suite 700
          Chevy Chase, MD 20815
          Telephone: (240) 235-5040
          Facsimile: (240) 235-5038
          E-mail: jbeins@bghllp.com

The case is Zinnekah, et al. v. Global Linguists Solutions, et
al., Case No. 1:13-cv-01185-AJT-JFA, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria).


ELECTRONIC ARTS: O'Bannon Agrees to Settle Likeness Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael McCann, writing for SI.com, reports that Ed O'Bannon's
class action lawsuit against the NCAA, Electronic Arts and the
Collegiate Licensing Company took a major step forward on
Sept. 26.  Mr. O'Bannon has agreed to a settlement with EA, which
has published top-selling college football and basketball video
games, and CLC, which represents more than 200 colleges,
universities, conferences and bowl games in licensing contracts.
The terms of the proposed settlement remain confidential but are
poised to accomplish a key goal: compensate college athletes for
their image and likeness in video games and retail sales.  The
NCAA remains a defendant in the case.

The proposed settlement

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken will have to approve the
settlement.  She is likely to do so, especially since she has
urged the parties to reach an agreement out-of-court.  But before
she approves any settlement, Judge Wilken will demand details
about how the settlement would impact college athletes.  She will
want to know, for instance, which players are entitled to benefit
from the settlement and what methodology will be used to determine
how much money each player receives.  Timing of payments will also
be of interest to Judge Wilken, such as whether current college
players are compensated immediately or whether they have to wait
until their NCAA eligibility expires.  Judge Wilken will want
assurance that the settlement is, on average, fair to those who
would gain from it. Along those lines, she will likely consider
whether a star player deserves more than a typical player for the
use of their image and likeness.

Judge Wilken will also want specifics as to how the settlement
would be administered.  It has been long rumored that a settlement
or players' victory in O'Bannon would lead to the creation of an
administrated plan to collect and distribute money.  The so-called
"Former College Athletes Association" is referenced in a lawsuit
filed by former O'Bannon attorney Jon King against Mr. O'Bannon's
law firm, Hausfeld LLP.  Kenneth Feinberg, who has administered
the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund and BP Deepwater
Horizon Disaster Victim Compensation Fund, is thought to be a
candidate to administer an O'Bannon-related fund.

As with any class action settlement, class members -- in this case
former and potentially current college players -- will have an
opportunity to opt-out of the settlement and preserve their right
to sue EA and CLC.  Many players, however, would likely be
deterred by the potential wait and associated expense of
litigating.  Keep in mind, the O'Bannon case began in 2009.
Barring a settlement between Mr. O'Bannon and the NCAA, the case
could last several more years.

By settling prior to Judge Wilken's decision on class
certification, EA and CLC are likely paying either a discount or
premium depending on how Judge Wilken decides.  Here's why: the
price tag of settlement from Mr. O'Bannon's vantage point would be
higher if Judge Wilken certifies his class.  A certified class
would mean potentially tens of thousands of plaintiffs are suing
EA and CLC instead of merely the handful of plaintiffs named by
Mr. O'Bannon.  Conversely, if Judge Wilken declines to certify
Mr. O'Bannon's class, the case would become smaller and EA and CLC
may have then paid more to settle than necessary.  An analysis by
SI.com of Judge Wilken's prior certification decisions suggests
she will likely certify Mr. O'Bannon's class.  If she does, it
would reflect well upon EA and CLC's decision to settle.

The remaining litigation

The NCAA is the primary target of the O'Bannon litigation.  It
remains so after this proposed settlement.  The NCAA insists it
will continue to wage a fight in court and continue to challenge
the legal merits of Mr. O'Bannon's claims.  It is a fight,
especially with appeals, that could last years.

While the NCAA presents a fighting spirit to the public, it has
likely adopted a more nuanced approach behind closed doors.  The
truth is the O'Bannon case was and remains unlikely to go to
trial.  The litigation is a potentially massive class action
lawsuit that, in a worst-case scenario, could cause the NCAA and
its members to collectively pay billions of dollars.  Not only
would a loss in a trial threaten massive damages, but the NCAA
would not control when payments are required.  With a settlement,
the NCAA would likely pay much less and over a longer period of
time.  A settlement could also be portrayed as "win" for everyone.
Perhaps most important, a settlement would provide the NCAA
valuable time to gradually implement changes to the economics of
college sports and to address subsequent legal issues, such as how
male basketball and football players could be compensated without
running afoul of Title IX.

The NCAA may also be concerned by the kind of information that
would be shared by EA and CLC in a settlement with Mr. O'Bannon.
As a condition of the settlement, Mr. O'Bannon's lawyers are
likely demanding information that would help them advance legal
claims against the NCAA.  A settlement with EA and CLC, in other
words, makes one with the NCAA more likely.  Along those lines,
schools that are not represented by CLC and thus are not parties
to an O'Bannon-CLC settlement may become more vocal advocates of
an O'Bannon-NCAA settlement.  Non-CLC members include several
schools with major programs, such as Ohio State, the University of
Southern California, Oregon, Michigan State, Baylor, Northern
Illinois and Virginia Tech.

Also paying attention to the proposed settlement are broadcast and
media companies that Mr. O'Bannon or other players could next
target.  Companies which entered into lucrative television and
other media contracts to broadcast college players may represent
the next phase of the O'Bannon litigation.

Impact of proposed settlement on video games

Earlier on Sept. 26, EA Sports announced it would not publish a
college football video game next year, and it cited legal concerns
for the decision.  The timing of the EA Sports announcement and
news of the proposed O'Bannon settlement suggests they may be
connected.  EA Sports not publishing a college football game next
year means the company will not "damage" players who would have
arguably appeared in the game.

                           *     *     *

Dennis Dodd, writing for CBSSports.com, reports that Electronic
Arts Inc. and Collegiate Licensing Co. settled a series of wide-
ranging class-action lawsuits on Sept. 26 regarding college
players' likenesses for an undetermined amount.  The settlement
will affect more than 100,000 current and former college players
who have appeared in the basketball and football versions of EA
Sports' video games since 2003. It was not immediately clear if
the eligibility of current players will be affected by accepting
settlement checks.

Before the settlement filing, EA announced earlier in the day it
would no longer manufacture the popular football game.

"I'm disappointed in that because there should be a game," said
plaintiffs' attorney Eugene Egdorf.  "All that has to happen is
the NCAA allow players to be paid and there would be a game.  This
is Step 1 to players being paid that should.

"There will be players who play Saturday who should be paid [for
their services] as they should be."

The settlement affects lawsuits brought by former Rutgers
quarterback Ryan Hart, former Nebraska and Arizona State
quarterback Sam Keller and former UCLA basketball star O'Bannon.
The settlement does not include the NCAA's ongoing battle with
O'Bannon and other plaintiffs in the fight over the rights to
player likenesses.

Essentially each player who has appeared in the football and
basketball games marketed by EA in the last decade --
approximately 125,000 men -- are eligible for settlement money.
According to court documents filed on Sept. 26 and obtained by
CBSSports.com the settling parties are in the process of preparing
documents for the court to approve in order to disburse the money.

The NCAA did not immediately offer a rules interpretation. In
other words, would the NCAA view that money as jeopardizing
current players' amateur status?

"We learned of this national settlement [Thurs]day," NCAA chief
legal officer Donald Remy said.  "We have asked for, but have not
yet received, the terms so we cannot comment further."

In such class-action settlements, the monies awarded can range
from very little to very large. It depends on how the money is
disbursed.  But those players will now be compensated by EA using
their likenesses in the game without their permission.  It is not
known yet from the formal settlement if EA is admitting any guilt.

EA annually manufactured the popular college football game which
includes the numbers -- but not the names -- of at least every
school in FBS.

EA has maintained throughout that any none of the players'
attributes or physical qualities or likenesses is based on an
actual player.  However, one SB Nation reader found former Florida
quarterback Tim Tebow's name in Florida's playbook in the 2010
version of the football game.

As a condition of eligibility, the NCAA requires players to sign a
document that allows it to profit from the athletes' likenesses in
perpetuity.  After leaving school, players are allowed to profit
from their likenesses and images.  Example: The annual
anticipation over what player would adorn the cover of EA's NCAA
Football.

The three main plaintiffs are Ryan Hart, Sam Keller, Ed O'Bannon.

The Hart case was filed in New Jersey.  O'Bannon and Keller were
consolidated in California.

In related news, CBSSports.com confirmed the NCAA is headed to
mediation in a landmark concussion case.


ERNST & YOUNG: Hodgson Russ Discusses Class Action Waiver Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter C. Godfrey, Esq., -- pgodfrey@hodgsonruss.com -- Joshua
Feinstein, Esq., -- josh_feinstein@hodgsonruss.com -- and Emina
Poricanin, Esq., -- eporican@hodgsonruss.com -- at Hodgson Russ
LLP reports that the Second Circuit recently issued two decisions
holding that class action waivers may be enforceable in Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) actions.  These decisions, Sutherland v.
Ernst & Young LLP, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16513 (2d Cir. 2013) and
Raniere v. Citigroup Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16765 (2d Cir.
2013), represent a substantial victory for employers.

Southerland and Raniere involved employees who had signed
employment documents agreeing to pursue any claim against their
employers through individual arbitration.  In both cases, the
employees subsequently filed putative class actions against their
employers for alleged violations of wage and hour laws. The
employers in Southerland and Raniere sought to enforce the class
action waivers in accordance with the employment agreements the
employees had signed.  The plaintiffs countered that the waivers
were unenforceable because the right to proceed as a collective
action under the FLSA cannot be waived.  The plaintiffs also
argued that the waivers were unenforceable because the costs of
pursuing individual claims would effectively preclude them from
vindicating their rights since the recovery sought would be
substantially exceeded by the costs of individual arbitration.

In both cases, the Second Circuit rejected both arguments and held
that the right to proceed as a collective action under the FLSA
may be waived contractually.  Citing the Supreme Court's decision
in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 133 S. Ct.
2304 (2013), the Second Circuit also held that the "effective
vindication" argument cannot be used to invalidate class action
waivers where the recovery sought is exceeded by the costs of
individual arbitration.  Notably, the Second Circuit, along with
the Ninth and the Eighth Circuits, have rejected the National
Labor Relations Board's D.R. Horton decision, holding that a
waiver of the collective right to pursue an FLSA claim violates
the National Labor Relations Act.

The Bottom Line for Employers

Carefully drafted employment agreements with class action waivers
and arbitration provisions should mitigate employers' exposure to
certain class action claims.


FLEETMATICS GROUP: Bid to Dismiss "Brevard Extraditions" Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fleetmatics Group PLC's motion to dismiss a complaint alleging
that it intercepted, recorded, disclosed, and used thousands of
telephone calls in violation of Florida Statutes Section 934.03 is
pending before the district court, according to the Company's Form
F-1 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
September 16, 2013.

The Company states: "On August 14, 2012, a putative class action
complaint was filed in the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Pinellas
County, Florida, entitled U.S. Prisoner Transport, et al. v.
Fleetmatics USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 1200-9933 CI-20. We removed
the case to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on September 13, 2012, U.S. Prisoner
Transport, et al. v. Fleetmatics USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:12-
CV-2079.  We moved to dismiss the complaint on September 20, 2012.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 4, 2012 and
changed the case caption to Brevard Extraditions, Inc., d/b/a U.S.
Prisoner Transport, et al. v. Fleetmatics USA, LLC, et al.

"The amended complaint alleges that we intercepted, recorded,
disclosed, and used thousands of telephone calls in violation of
Florida Statutes Section 934.03. The amended complaint seeks
certification of a putative class of all individuals and
businesses residing in Florida who spoke with any representatives
of our offices in Florida on the telephone and had their telephone
conversations recorded without their consent or advance notice,
from the date of the earliest recording by us through the present.

"The amended complaint seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief,
attorney fees, costs and interest. Florida Statutes Section 934.10
permits an aggrieved person to recover 'liquidated damages
computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation or
$1,000, whichever is higher.' We moved to dismiss the amended
complaint on October 18, 2012; plaintiffs filed an opposition on
November 1, 2012; and we filed a reply on June 4, 2013, after the
court granted leave to do so.

"Our motion to dismiss is pending before the court. Given the
early procedural stages of this matter and the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, we are unable to estimate a
reasonably possible range of loss, if any, at this time, but there
can be no assurance that this matter will not have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition, operating
results, and cash flows.

Fleetmatics Group PLC provides fleet management solutions
delivered as software-as-a-service (SaaS). The Company offers Web-
based and mobile application solutions, which provide fleet
operators with visibility into vehicle location, fuel usage, speed
and mileage and other insights into their mobile workforce.  The
Company's FleetMatics-branded solutions sold under the FleetMatics
or SageQuest names. Its solutions are accessed through a Web
browser or mobile application and provide its customers with
actionable business intelligence. Its SaaS offering consists of
the easy-to-use components: Tracking Alerts, Route Replay,
Geofencing and Landmarks, FleetTracking Dashboard, Fleet Reports,
Mobile App, Speed Limits, Panoramic Reporting and Benchmarking.
Effective August 8, 2013, Fleetmatics Group PLC a unit of
Fleetmatics Investor Holdings LP, acquired Connect2Field Holdings
Pty Ltd.


FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Sept. 27 disclosed that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of Francesca's Holdings Corporation common stock during
the period between March 20, 2013 and September 3, 2013.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from September 27, 2013.  If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

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

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

The complaint charges Francesca's and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Francesca's operates a chain of 429 retail boutiques and a retail
website offering fashion apparel, jewelry, accessories, and gifts.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance and future prospects.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts: (i)
that unseasonably rainy and cold spring and summer weather had
diminished the mall traffic Francesca's relied upon to drive same-
store sales growth; (ii) that a competitive back-to-school retail
environment weighed on same-store sales growth; (iii) that same-
store sales were declining, forcing Francesca's to rely upon new
store openings to increase sales; (iv) that Francesca's had been
forced to engage in promotional selling at significant discounts
during its first quarter 2013 in order to meet its financial
targets; (v) that Francesca's had been forced to increase
promotional activity during the second quarter of 2013; (vi) that
Francesca's concealed the impact sales terms and margins with its
suppliers would have on its ability to maintain above-average
profit margins; and (vii) that, as a result, the Company was not
on track to achieve the financial results defendants had led the
market to expect during the Class Period.  As a result of
defendants' false and misleading statements during the Class
Period, certain company insiders were able to sell hundreds of
millions of dollars of Francesca's stock at artificially inflated
prices.

On September 4, 2013, the Company announced dismal second quarter
2013 financial results and third quarter 2013 guidance.  On this
news, the price of Francesca's common stock, which had traded
above $32 per share during the Class Period, plummeted more than
44% from that level to close at $17.79 per share on September 4,
2013.

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

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


GPT: Plaintiffs Laud AU$75-Mil. Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Chris Merritt, writing for The Australian, reports that Victoria's
Bob and Elsa Valastro are the type of clients law firms and
litigation funders love.  They are more than happy to pay about
25% of their share of the AU$75 million settlement in the GPT
class action to the litigation funder that financed the case
brought by Slater & Gordon.

"I was really happy to have someone batting on my behalf and on
behalf of other people like me," Mr. Valastro said.  "Government
bodies that are meant to oversee the behavior of large
corporations have not done enough to protect the savings of people
who don't have so much and cannot fund huge legal proceedings.

"I was really grateful that there was an opportunity to join a
class action so we could get some justice."

The Valastros' share of the GPT settlement comes to about
AU$20,000 but about AU$5500 will go in fees to Comprehensive Legal
Funding, a company based in Nevada in the US that is advised by
Gordon Legal, whose principal is Peter Gordon, formerly of Slater
& Gordon.

After paying CLF, the family will be left with about AU$14,000,
which amounts to most of what it claimed in the class action, but
is a tiny proportion of what Mr. Valastro said was actually lost.
He said his family's total losses on GPT shares amounted to about
AU$110,000.  But he said Slater & Gordon examined the family's
transaction records and felt there was only sufficient evidence to
support a claim for AU$20,000.

The class action, which was settled before judgment in the Federal
Court, alleged that between February 27 and July 6, 2008, GPT was
aware of market-sensitive material that it failed to disclose,
leading to losses for those who bought shares during that period.
GPT maintained its denial of liability.

Mr. Valastro said a larger payout would have been preferable but
he was happy with the outcome of his involvement in the class
action.  "I'm delighted to be getting something back," he said.

"These class actions give some legal teeth to small people and I
really appreciate that possibility."

While GPT agreed in May to settle the claim, the Valastros will
not receive their money until all the supporting documentation for
their claim has been verified.  They expect to receive a check
before the end of the year.


HURONIA REGIONAL: Class Action Settlement Seen as "Hush Money"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Alamenciak, writing for Toronto Star, reports that when
Doug Turner visits his twin sister Tracy, she often puts her
forehead against his and gazes into his eyes.  He thinks she's
trying to tell him something, but she can't.  She just looks.

Tracy's mind is that of a 4-year-old.  The memories of her time at
Huronia Regional Centre are locked inside -- she's not able to
communicate through words or pictures.

The memories express themselves in the way she plays with her
stuffed animals.  At times they're like her children, kept in a
row lovingly arranged on her bed.  Other times they bite.  A
reflection of 14 violent years spent at Huronia, Turner thinks.

The only evidence Mr. Turner has of her years there are the
frequent bruises, broken fingers and missing teeth the family
would see on Tracy when they went there to visit her.

"She didn't take anything away from that place, other than
nightmares," said Mr. Turner.

The institution was recently the subject of a C$35-million class-
action settlement between the provincial government and former
residents, but Turner laments that the case didn't go to a full
hearing, where the story would have been made public.

"These people need a voice; they need to be heard.  This is just
like hush money for me," he said.  "It's like, 'Shut up and go
away.' "

As part of the settlement, 65,000 documents will be released to
the Archives of Ontario, including police reports, internal
inspections, witness accounts and letters from concerned
relatives.  But the documents will be shielded by provincial
freedom of information laws, meaning requesters may receive
incomplete documents or outright refusals, on privacy grounds or
for other reasons.

Many of these documents would have come out in court had the
province not agreed to a settlement.  In its statement of defense,
the province denied that any abuse or mistreatment happened at the
institution.

There are about 2,000 former residents buried in the graveyard at
Huronia Regional Centre-- 1,440 of them lie in unmarked or
numbered graves.

Tracy, who is 55 now, was sent to Huronia on June 15, 1962, at the
age of 5.  It was a decision agonizingly made by their parents,
after she proved too difficult to care for at home.  Huronia was
billed as a great place for kids.

"They said, 'Don't think of it as an institution, think of it as a
happy place . . .' They played this up to be a wonderful place
where your children would be safe," said Mr. Turner.  "That was
just a promotional little ditty to try and stick kids in there.
It was the furthest thing from the truth."

Mr. Turner remembers pulling up to the vast Orillia campus for a
visit and seeing his sister outside with several other residents.
They were sitting in a circle, their shoelaces tied together so
they couldn't run away.  Their institutional pants were soiled.

"It was like survival of the fittest there.  It was like a
jungle," said Mr. Turner.  "I can't imagine that people were
treated that way.  You could smell the place when you walked by.
It just reeked."

Many of the injuries, Mr. Turner suspects, were inflicted by other
residents.  Tracy had a deep fear of losing what little she had
with her in the institution.

"When we would go to see her, what few possessions she did have,
you had to guard them with your life.  She would put them in a
pillowcase and tie knots in the pillowcase so people couldn't
steal them," Mr. Turner said.

Their parents were distraught over leaving their daughter in that
institution, but there were no other options at the time, he said.

Switching her to a different institution might not have helped
matters -- Rideau Regional Centre and Southwest Regional Centre,
two other homes for the developmentally delayed, are also the
subject of class-action lawsuits.

After 14 years in Huronia, Tracy was sent to a care home in
Oakville in 1975, where she remains today.

"For me, it was a godsend when she was sent there in 1975.  I
think it probably saved her life," Mr. Turner said.

But Tracy's time at Huronia left its mark.  When Mr. Turner asks
to see something, such as a stuffed animal, Tracy is still
reluctant to let it go.  She has just a few teeth left, partly the
result of poor oral hygiene, but also from violence at Huronia.
Her mental functioning hasn't improved at all, despite attempts
from the staff at the home.

"I wonder if Huronia somehow stole that from my sister, that she
wasn't able to grow," said Mr. Turner.  "I think she could have
been more than she is now."


INERGY MIDSTREAM: Defends Consolidated Merger-Related Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Inergy Midstream, L.P., is defending itself against a consolidated
merger-related lawsuit pending in Texas, according to the
Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On May 5, 2013, Inergy and certain of its affiliates entered into
a series of definitive agreements with Crestwood Holdings, LLC
("Crestwood Holdings") and certain of its affiliates under which,
among other things, (i) Inergy agreed to distribute to its common
unitholders all of the Company common units owned by Inergy; (ii)
Crestwood Holdings agreed to acquire the general partner of
Inergy; (iii) Crestwood Holdings agreed to contribute to Inergy
ownership of Crestwood Midstream Partners LP's (NYSE:CMLP)
("CMLP") general partner and incentive distribution rights; and
(iv) CMLP agreed to merge with a subsidiary of the Company in a
merger in which CMLP unitholders will receive 1.07 common units of
the Company for each common unit of CMLP they own. As part of the
merger, CMLP's unaffiliated unitholders will also receive a one-
time $35 million cash payment at the closing of the merger, $25
million of which will be payable by the Company and $10 million of
which will be payable by Crestwood Holdings.  The Company expects
to complete the CMLP merger in calendar 2013.  The business
combination resulting from these transactions is hereinafter
referred to as the Crestwood business combination.

Five putative class action lawsuits challenging the Crestwood-
Inergy merger have been filed, four in federal court in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas: (i)
Abraham Knoll v. Robert G. Phillips, et al. (Case No. 4:13-cv-
01528); (ii) Greg Podell v. Crestwood Midstream Partners, LP, et
al. (Case No. 4:13-cv-01599); (iii) Johnny Cooper v. Crestwood
Midstream Partners LP, et al. (Case No. 4:13-cv-01660); and (iv)
Steven Elliot LLC v. Robert G. Phillips, et al. (Case No. 4:13-cv-
01763), and one in Delaware Chancery Court, Hawley v. Crestwood
Midstream Partners LP, et al. (Case No. 8689-VCL).  All of the
cases name Crestwood, Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC, Crestwood
Holdings LLC, the current and former directors of Crestwood Gas
Services GP LLC, Inergy, L.P., Inergy Midstream, L.P., NRGM GP,
LLC, and Intrepid Merger Sub, LLC as defendants.  All of the
lawsuits are brought by a purported holder of common units of
Crestwood, both individually and on behalf of a putative class
consisting of holders of common units of Crestwood.  The lawsuits
generally allege, among other things, that the directors of
Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC breached their fiduciary duties to
holders of common units of Crestwood by agreeing to a transaction
with inadequate consideration and unfair terms and pursuant to an
inadequate process.  The lawsuits further allege that Inergy,
L.P., Inergy Midstream, L.P., NRGM GP, LLC, and Intrepid Merger
Sub, LLC aided and abetted the Crestwood directors in the alleged
breach of their fiduciary duties.  The lawsuits seek, in general,
(i) injunctive relief enjoining the merger, (ii) in the event the
merger is consummated, rescission or an award of rescissory
damages, (iii) an award of plaintiffs' costs, including reasonable
attorneys' and experts' fees, (iv) the accounting by the
defendants to plaintiffs for all damages caused by the defendants,
and (v) such further equitable relief as the court deems just and
proper.  Certain of the actions also assert claims of inadequate
disclosure under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the Elliot case also names Citigroup
Global Markets Inc. as an alleged aider and abettor.

The plaintiff in the Hawley action in Delaware filed a motion for
expedited proceedings but subsequently withdrew that motion and
then filed a stipulation voluntarily dismissing the action without
prejudice (which has not yet been approved by the Court).  The
plaintiffs in the Knoll, Podell, Cooper, and Elliot actions filed
an unopposed motion to consolidate these four cases, which the
Court granted.  The plaintiff in the Elliot action filed a motion
for expedited discovery, which remains pending.  These lawsuits
are at a preliminary stage.  Crestwood, Inergy Midstream and the
other defendants believe that these lawsuits are without merit and
intend to defend against them vigorously.

Based in Kansas City, Missouri, Inergy Midstream, L.P., is a
predominantly fee-based, growth-oriented limited partnership that
develops, acquires, owns and operates midstream energy assets.
The Company owns and operates natural gas and natural gas liquid
storage and transportation facilities, a salt production business
located in the Northeast region of the United States, and a crude
oil loading and storage terminal in North Dakota.


JBI INC: Agrees to Issue Shares to Settle Shareholder Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
JBI, Inc. entered a stipulation agreement in a potential
settlement of a shareholder lawsuit filed against it, according to
the company's Aug. 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On July 28, 2011, certain of the Company's stockholders filed a
class action lawsuit against the Company and Messrs. Bordynuik and
Baldwin on behalf of purchasers of its securities.  In an amended
complaint filed on July 10, 2012, these stockholders sought to
represent such purchasers during the period from August 28, 2009
through January 4, 2012.

The original and amended complaints in that case, filed in federal
court in Nevada, allege that the defendants made false or
misleading statements, or both, and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and
prospects in press releases and filings made with the SEC.

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the defendants made false
or misleading statements or failed to disclose material
information, or a combination thereof regarding: (1) that certain
media credits ("Media Credits") were substantially overvalued; (2)
that the Company improperly accounted for acquisitions; (3) that,
as such, the Company's financial results were not prepared in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and (4)
that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls.

During the quarter ended June 30, 2012, a lead plaintiff was
appointed in the case and an amended complaint was filed. The
defendants' answer to the amended complaint was filed during the
fourth quarter of 2012.

On August 8, 2013, JBI, Inc., (the "Company") entered a
stipulation agreement (the "Stipulation Agreement") in potential
settlement of the previously reported class action lawsuit filed
by certain stockholders of the Company against the Company and
Messrs. Bordynuik and Baldwin (both former officers of the
Company) on behalf of a settlement class consisting of purchasers
of the Company's common stock during the period from August 28,
2009 through January 4, 2012 (the "Proposed Class Period").

Under the Stipulation Agreement, the Company would agree to issue
shares of its common stock that will comprise a settlement fund.
The number of shares to be issued will be dependent on the price
per share of the Company's common stock during a period preceding
the date of the Court's entry of final judgment in the case (the
"Judgment Date").  If the price of the Company's common stock is
less than $0.50 per share based upon the average closing price for
the 90 trading days preceding the Judgment Date, the Company would
issue 3 million shares of its common stock. If the price of the
Company's common stock is between $0.50 and $0.70 per share, based
upon the same 90-day average closing price, the Company would
issue 2.5 million shares of its common stock.  If the price of the
Company's common stock is more than $0.70 per share based upon the
same 90-day average closing price the Company will issue 1.75
million shares of its common stock.  The shares will not be
distributed to class members in kind.

At any time after final approval by the Court, class counsel would
have the option to sell all or any portion of such shares for the
benefit of class members, subject to certain volume limitations.
Plaintiff's counsel's attorneys' fees, subject to Court approval,
would be paid out of the settlement fund.  The Company would also
pay settlement-related costs up to a maximum of $200,000.  The
plaintiffs and each of the class members who purchased the
Company's common stock during the Proposed Class Period and
alleged they were damaged would be deemed to have fully released
all claims against the Company and other defendants upon entry of
judgment.


JUNCTION PIZZA: Recalls Frozen Pizza Products Due to Misbranding
----------------------------------------------------------------
Junction Pizza, a Grey Eagle, Minn. establishment, is recalling
approximately 17,194 pounds of frozen pizza products that contain
soy lecithin, a known allergen, which is not declared on the
product labels, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The products subject to recall include:

   -- 30.5-ounce packages of "The Junction Pizza, Italian Sausage
      Thick Crust";

   -- 20-ounce packages of "The Junction Pizza, Italian Sausage
      Thin Crust" 31.5-ounce packages of "The Junction Pizza,
      Bacon Cheeseburger Thick Crust";

   -- 23-ounce packages of "The Junction Pizza, Bacon Cheeseburger
      Thin Crust"

   -- 32-ounce packages of "The Junction Pizza, Canadian Bacon
      Pineapple Thick Crust"

   -- 22.5-ounce packages of "The Junction Pizza, Canadian Bacon
      Pineapple Thin Crust"

   -- 29-ounce packages of "The Junction Pizza, Breakfast Pizza"

   -- 29.4-ounce packages of "The Junction Pizza, Pepperoni Thick
      Crust"

   -- 18.9-ounce packages of "The Junction Pizza, Pepperoni Thin
      Crust"

   -- 31-ounce packages of "The Junction Pizza, Canadian Bacon
      Thick Crust"

   -- 35.1-ounce packages of "The Junction Pizza, Chicken Alfredo
      Thick Crust"

   -- 24.6-ounce packages of "The Junction Pizza, Chicken Alfredo
      Thin Crust"

   -- 39-ounce packages of "The Junction Pizza, BBQ Chicken Thick
      Crust"

   -- 24.6-ounce packages of "The Junction Pizza, BBQ Chicken Thin
      Crust"

   -- 31.3-ounce packages of "The Junction Pizza, Bacon Chicken
      Ranch Thick Crust"

   -- 20.8-ounce packages of "The Junction Pizza, Bacon Chicken
      Ranch Thin Crust"

The recalled products bear the establishment number "EST. 40038"
or "P-40038" inside the USDA mark of inspection, and a "made on
date" between "3 27 13" and "9 23 13" that appears on a sticker on
the back of the product.  The products were produced between
March 27 and Sept. 23, 2013, and shipped to retail stores in the
Grey Eagle, Minn., area.

The problem was discovered by FSIS inspection personnel during a
routine label review.  FSIS personnel are responsible for
verifying that establishments are actively labeling the eight most
common food allergens.  The undeclared soy lecithin is used as a
releasing agent in the pizza crust, which was purchased from an
outside source.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products.  Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Stephanie Austing, the company owner, at (320) 304-4768.


KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS: Calif. Securities Suit in Discovery Phase
----------------------------------------------------------------
On November 15, 2011, the Rosen Law Firm filed a class action
suit, alleging Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc. violated federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements and omitting material facts with regard to disclosure
of related party transactions and effectiveness of internal
controls in past public filings.

The case is currently at the discovery stage, located in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, and the company believes there is no basis to the suit
filed by the Rosen Law Firm and intend to contest the case
vigorously, according to the company's Aug. 15, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Gainesville Plant-Related Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit arising from the operations of Koppers
Holdings Inc.'s former plant in Gainesville, Florida, remains
pending, according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

Koppers Inc. operated a utility pole treatment plant in
Gainesville from December 29, 1988, until its closure in 2009.
The property upon which the utility pole treatment plant was
located was sold by Koppers Inc. to Beazer East, Inc. in 2010.

In November 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit located in Alachua
County, Florida, by residential real property owners located in a
neighborhood west of and immediately adjacent to the former
utility pole treatment plant in Gainesville.  The complaint named
Koppers Holdings Inc., Koppers Inc., Beazer East and several other
parties as defendants.  The Plaintiffs define the putative class
as consisting of all persons who are present record owners of
residential real properties located in an area within a two-mile
radius of the former Gainesville wood treating plant.  The
Plaintiffs further allege that chemicals and contaminants from the
Gainesville plant have contaminated real properties within the two
mile geographical area, have caused property damage (diminution in
value) and have placed residents and owners of the putative class
properties at an elevated risk of exposure to and injury from the
chemicals at issue.  The amended complaint seeks damages for
diminution in property values, the establishment of a medical
monitoring fund and punitive damages.

The case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Florida in December 2010.  Koppers Holdings
Inc. filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the Court lacks
personal jurisdiction over it.  The Court has not yet ruled on
Koppers Holdings Inc.'s motion to dismiss.  The Court has not yet
scheduled a class certification hearing or trial.  In April 2013,
the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss their claims against 24
trucking company defendants without prejudice, and that motion has
been granted.  On May 31, 2013, the Court entered a Scheduling
Order for Class Certification, which sets out discovery deadlines
leading up to motions for class certification and opposition to
those motions.

The Company has not provided a reserve for this matter because, at
this time, it cannot reasonably determine the probability of a
loss, and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated.  The timing of resolution of this case cannot be
reasonably determined.  Although the Company is vigorously
defending this case, an unfavorable resolution of this matter may
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.

Based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Koppers Holdings Inc. was
incorporated in November 2004 as a holding company for Koppers
Inc.  The Company is an integrated global provider of carbon
compounds and commercial wood treatment products and services.


KRAFT FOODS: Interim Approval of Workers' Suit Deal Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Anthony W. Ishii issued an interim order
granting final approval of a class action settlement in the case
captioned DOLORES OWENS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KRAFT FOODS GROUP, INC. doing
Trial business as KRAFT FOODS, INC. and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendant, CASE NO. 1:10-CV-02062-AWI-SMS, (E.D. Cal.).

Class Members "includes all persons who were employed as Cultured
Packaging Technicians at the Tulare facility and at the Fresno
(South Orange Ave.) facility, Filler Operators who previously
worked, or currently work on the Capri Production line, and Filler
Operators who previously worked or currently work on the Kool Aid
Burst production line at any time between September 22, 2006
through the date of preliminary approval."

The Court said it finds the $870,000 in maximum settlement
consideration provided for under the Agreement to be fair and
reasonable.

The Court confirms Labor Law Office, A.P.C., and Westrup Klick,
LLP as Class Counsel.

The Court awards Class Counsel fees in the amount of $290,000 and
costs of $8,137.39 to be paid from the Settlement as final payment
for and complete satisfaction of any and all attorneys' fees and
costs incurred by and/or owed to Class Counsel as set forth in the
Agreement.

The Court also confirms Plaintiff Dolores Owens as Class
Representative and authorizes payment to her in the amount of
$7,500 from the Settlement Fund.

The Court orders that a Claims Administration Payment in the
amount of $13,500.00 be paid to the Claims Administrator, CPT
Group, Inc., from the Settlement Fund for the costs of
administration.

The Court further finds and orders under the California Labor
Code's Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code
Sections 2699, et seq., that the PAGA payment amount of $8,000 is
reasonable and apportions that payment as follows: to the Labor
and Workforce Development Agency, the sum of $6,000 and $2,000 to
the Claimants, to be distributed pursuant to the claims process
defined in the Agreement.

The proceeds from any uncashed checks will be sent to
www.hirepatriots.com or, in the alternative,
www.woundedwarrior.com after 180 day after issuance and within 20
days thereafter, the Claims Administrator will file a declaration
of compliance with the Court.

There are approximately 58 additional individuals (the "Subclass")
who meet the criteria to be Class Members but who have not yet
been sent a class notice. Based on data provided by Defendant to
Class Counsel concerning the number of workweeks worked in Covered
Positions by the Subclass, the Parties have stipulated, and the
Court orders that $117,000.00 of the $870,000.00 Settlement Fund
will be set aside by the Claims Administrator to be used as a
separate settlement fund for the Subclass, and will not be used by
the Claims Administrator to calculate and pay Settlement Awards to
Class Members who, to date, have been sent Class Notices in
accordance with the terms of the Agreement.

Such Class Members' Settlement Awards (i.e., the awards for Class
Members who, to date, have been sent Class Notices) will be
calculated based on a Total Settlement Amount of $753,000.00,
which Settlement Awards will be distributed by the Claims
Administrator as soon as is practicable. The Settlement Awards
paid to members of the Subclass will be determined based on a
Total Settlement Amount of $117,000, in accordance with the terms
of paragraph 36(g) of the "Stipulation of Settlement and Release"
filed with the Court on February 8, 2013.

Subclass Members have until November 4, 2013, to submit a Claim
Form, Exclusion, or Objection. All Claim Forms, Exclusions, or
Objections must be received by the Claims Administrator by
November 4, 2013, in order to be valid.

The Court sets a hearing on final approval of settlement as to the
Subclass for November 18, 2013, at 1:30 p.m.

The parties have agreed Dolores Owens is authorized to act as
Class Representative of the proposed Subclass.

A copy of the District Court's September 20, 2013 Order is
available at http://is.gd/LNMvAD from Leagle.com.

DOUGLAS J. FARMER -- doug.farmer@ogletreedeakins.com -- State Bar
No. 139646, CHRISTOPHER M. AHEARN --
christopher.ahearn@ogletreedeakins.com -- State Bar No. 239089,
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., San Francisco, CA,
Attorneys for Defendant, KRAFT FOODS GROUP, INC. dba KRAFT FOODS,
INC.


LHC GROUP: Continues to Defend "Omaha" Class Suit in Louisiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
LHC Group, Inc. continues to defend itself against a class action
lawsuit initiated by the City of Omaha Police & Fire Retirement
System, according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On June 13, 2012, a putative shareholder securities class action
was filed against the Company and its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana, styled City of Omaha Police & Fire
Retirement System v. LHC Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:12-cv-
01609-JTT-CMH.  The action was filed on behalf of LHC shareholders
who purchased shares between July 30, 2008 and October 26, 2011.
Plaintiff generally alleges that the defendants caused false and
misleading statements to be issued in violation of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder and that the Company's Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer is a control person under Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.  On November 2, 2012, Lead Plaintiff City of
Omaha Police & Fire Retirement System filed an Amended Complaint
for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws ("Amended
Complaint") on behalf of the same putative class of LHC
shareholders as the original Complaint.  In addition to claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, the Amended
Complaint added a claim against the Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer for violation of Section 20A of the Exchange Act.  The
Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to
defend this lawsuit vigorously.  On December 17, 2012, the Company
and the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer filed a motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint, which was denied by Order dated
March 15, 2013.  The Company cannot predict the outcome or effect
of this lawsuit, if any, on the Company's financial condition and
results of operations.

Headquartered in Lafayette, Louisiana, LHC Group, Inc. --
http://www.lhcgroup.com/-- provides post-acute health care
services to patients through its home nursing agencies, hospices
and long-term acute care hospitals.


LIBERTY SILVER: Federman & Sherwood Amends Class Action Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On September 27, 2013, Federman & Sherwood filed its Amended Class
Action Complaint against Liberty Silver Corp., Robert Donald Bruce
Genovese, William Tafuri, Geoffrey Browne, BG Capital Group Ltd
and Look Back Investments, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, updating and revising the Class
Period for this litigation, which now includes those investors who
purchased common shares of Liberty Silver Corp. between the dates
of February 10, 2010 through October 5, 2012.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Liberty Silver
shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period
and are therefore a member of the Class as described above.  You
may move the Court no later than Tuesday, November 12, 2013 to
serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class.  However, in order
to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information or
participate in this litigation, or should you have any questions
or concerns regarding this notice or preservation of your rights,
please contact:

Contact: K. Lynn Nunn
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         E-mail to: kln@federmanlaw.com

Or, visit the firm's website at http://www.federmanlaw.com


MARS PETCARE: Faces Class Action Over Phosphine Gas Levels
----------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Aubey, writing for KOAM TV 7, reports that Mars Petcare is
defending itself after some former workers in Southeast Kansas
file a class action lawsuit.  Mars Petcare makes Pedigree and
other pet foods sold at many major retailers.

A former employee at one of Mars Petcare's manufacturing
facilities in Galena, Kansas doesn't want his identity released.

"Retaliation from the company," says the former worker.  "It's
huge.  It's going to be the biggest thing to hit this area.  It's
going to be a corporate killer."

Court documents filed in Jasper County, Missouri claim the pet
food company should have known about the danger condition of
phosphine gas levels, but failed to warn of that condition or
remove it.

"It causes respiratory and intestinal damage," says the former
worker.  "We don't know how much.  We know there was stuff coming
in that was fumigated and was not listed as being fumigated that
went straight into making pet food."

Mars Petcare tells us in a statement that their associates are
their top priority, and we're confident our on-site programs meet
all federal safety standards.  Both their OSHA and independent
third party testing results confirm their phosphine levels to be
well below OSHA guideline standards.

The plaintiff we interviewed says he and others found out about
the alleged high levels of toxins in 2012, when Mars gave them
handheld air monitors.

"They said the way the drought is, the farmers would be putting
stuff under gas to kill the bugs.  And that's when they gave us
the meters.  They would have logs where they kept track of what
the readings were, and they started taking those.  They wouldn't
let us know, and they forged our signatures, saying the levels
were at zero," says the former worker.

The plaintiff says some grains were rejected at Mars because of
high levels of toxins.

"It would go to pig farms and the grain drivers would also take it
to chicken factories," says the former worker.

Mars officials tell us the case is still in its beginning phase.


MAXIMUM HUMAN: Faces Class Action Over Supplement False Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP reports that a California resident has
filed a putative nationwide consumer-fraud class action against a
company that makes "Dark Rage," "Anadrox" and "Trac- Extreme"
work-out supplements, alleging that laboratory tests show they
lack the key ingredients purportedly responsible for their claimed
muscle, energy, vascular, fat loss, and strength effects.
Janovick v. Maximum Human Performance, Inc., No. 13-2129 (U.S.
Dist. Ct., S.D. Cal., filed September 11, 2013).

According to the plaintiff, "Dark Rage" does not contain L-
Arginine AKG and the other two products do not contain l-
citrulline or citrulline malate.  While the company apparently
promotes the efficacy of the "next generation ingredients" in its
products, the plaintiff contends that lacking the specific
ingredients for which the products were tested renders the
efficacy claims "completely false."  He alleges that he relied on
the advertisements and would neither have purchased the products
nor paid as much as he did for them had he known they lacked these
ingredients.

Alleging violations of California's false advertising law and
unlawful, fraudulent and unfair business practices, the plaintiff
seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, interest,
attorney's fees, and costs.


MILES INDUSTRIES: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Okay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Class Action Administration, Inc. on Sept. 27 disclosed that the
United States District Court, Northern District of California has
granted preliminary approval to a proposed settlement in a class
action lawsuit involving sealed glass-fronted gas fireplaces that
were manufactured and distributed by Miles Industries, of North
Vancouver, Canada.  The case is Rotandi v. Miles Industries Ltd.
No. 3:11-cv-02146-EDL.

The lawsuit claimed that Miles Industries concealed that the glass
fronts of these fireplaces get hot enough to cause serious burns.
Miles Industries denies that it did not warn consumers and it
denies that it did anything wrong.

Settlement Benefits

Under the terms of the settlement, owners of residences in which
Valor fireplaces were installed from January 2007 to August 16,
2013 are eligible to make a claim for a barrier screen.  The
screen complies with the new CSA/ANSI standard that all gas
fireplaces manufacturers will have to meet by 2015.

Who is Eligible?
Class Members are any individual who lives in the United States
and owns a home or other residential dwelling that you bought for
personal, family or household purposes and that home has one or
more Valor brand sealed glass-fronted fireplace(s) manufactured
and distributed by Miles Industries, Ltd. of North Vancouver,
Canada between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2012 and that was
installed between January 1, 2007 and August 16, 2013.

How to Receive a Benefit
To receive a benefit, you must complete and return a claim form to
the Settlement Administrator.   The deadline to submit a claim
form is February 10, 2014.

A copy of the claim form can be found on the settlement website --
http://www.MilesFireplaceSettlement.com-- or requested from the
Settlement Administrator at 1-866-859-7390.

Class Members can exclude themselves from the class so that they
are not legally bound by the Settlement.  The deadline to exclude
yourself is October 25, 2013.  If you do not exclude yourself, you
will not be able to sue the Defendant for any claim related to the
lawsuit.

If you stay in the settlement, you may object to it by October 25,
2013.  The court will hold a hearing on December 10, 2013 to
consider whether to approve the settlement and a request for
attorneys' fees and expenses up to $1,890,000.

For more information, visit
http://www.MilesFireplaceSettlement.comor call the Settlement
Administrator toll free at 1-866-859-7390.  Please do not contact
the Court.


MIMEDX GROUP: Ryan & Maniskas Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP on Sept. 26 disclosed that it has filed a
securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
MiMedx Group, Inc. on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of the Company during the
period from October 26, 2011 through September 4, 2013.

For more information regarding this class action suit, please
contact Ryan & Maniskas, LLP (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-
free at (877) 316-3218 or by email at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or
visit: http://www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/mdxg

MiMedx is a developer, manufacturer and marketer of patent
protected regenerative biomaterial products and allografts process
from human amniotic membranes.  The Company sells its products
directly, as well as through a network of third party sales agents
and stocking distributors in the United States and
internationally.

The complaint brings forth claims for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The Complaint alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) the Company was in violation of the Public
Health Service Act by unlawfully manufacturing and marketing
certain unapproved biologics products; and (2) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On September 4, 2013, the Food and Drug Administration posted on
its website an "Untitled Letter" sent to MiMedx on August 28,
2013, which stated that MiMedx's Surgical Biologics unit violated
the Public Health Service Act by unlawfully manufacturing and
marketing drugs at one of its plants, thereby marketing unapproved
biologics products.  On this news, MiMedx securities declined
$2.21 per share or more than 36%, to close at $3.85 per share on
September 4, 2013.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than
November 8, 2013, request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff of the class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court
must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the
claims of other class members, and that the class member will
adequately represent the class.  Under certain circumstances, one
or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff."
Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by
the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may
retain Ryan & Maniskas, LLP or other counsel of your choice, to
serve as your counsel in this action.

For more information regarding this, please contact:

           Ryan & Maniskas, LLP
           Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire
           995 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 311
           Wayne, PA 19087
           Telephone: 484-588-5516
                      877-316-3218
           E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com
           Web site: http://www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/mdxg

Ryan & Maniskas, LLP -- http://www.rmclasslaw.com-- is a national
shareholder litigation firm.  The firm is devoted to protecting
the interests of individual and institutional investors in
shareholder actions in state and federal courts nationwide.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Ex-Athlete Says Concussion Settlement Not Enough
----------------------------------------------------------------
WFTS reports that in August, the National Football League reached
a tentative settlement in a class-action lawsuit regarding
concussions and other injuries.  But former NFL athlete Henry
Lawrence says, "I don't think that it's enough."

When the NFL agreed to pay out more than $760 million to
tentatively settle a class-action lawsuit involving some 18,000
players, Mr. Lawrence couldn't help but think of all the players
over the years that have helped to make the league the success
that it is today.

"Finally it's recognized.  And guys have had problems over the
years there have been guys that have had serious problems.  Some
guys there not here with us now."

Mr. Lawrence was a two-time pro bowl player during his thirteen
seasons in the national football league.  He also won three super
bowls with the Oakland Raiders; one of them coming right here in
Super Bowl XVIII at the old Tampa stadium."

"That was probably one of the extreme highlights of my NFL
career," Lawrence said.

Mr. Lawrence's playing days are long over.  He's become an
accomplished blues singer and is active in the Sarasota community.
But when his thoughts turn to football, he's well aware that the
NFL admitted no wrongdoing in the settlement over concussions,
accused of withholding injury information from players.

He says it shouldn't have come to a lawsuit.

"They should have said, 'well look, you know, we need to help
these guys'; and just write a check.  But that would never
happen."

Eric Seidel, NFL players' settlement attorney said, "it might not
be as much as the players, or the players union wants, but it is
there."

"I think people can sit back, they can look at this, they can say
yes the NFL does see that this is a problem.  And they're moving
forward here with positive steps to try to prevent damage that
comes from concussions," Mr. Seidel said.

Despite his views on the settlement, Mr. Lawrence says he's
grateful for his years in the NFL and what it's done for his life.


PERIGO COMPANY: Class Cert. Hearing in Eltroxin Suit Set for 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on whether or not to certify the consolidated
application in a suit against Perigo Company over the drug
Eltroxin is scheduled for March 2014, according to the company's
Aug. 15, 2013, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 29, 2013.

During October and November 2011, nine applications to certify a
class action lawsuit were filed in various courts in Israel
related to Eltroxin, a prescription thyroid medication
manufactured by a third party and distributed in Israel by Perrigo
Israel Agencies Ltd. The respondents include Perrigo Israel
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd., the
manufacturers of the product, and various health care providers
who provide health care services as part of the compulsory health
care system in Israel.

The nine applications arose from the 2011 launch of a reformulated
version of Eltroxin in Israel. The applications generally alleged
that the respondents (a) failed to timely inform patients,
pharmacists and physicians about the change in the formulation;
and (b) failed to inform physicians about the need to monitor
patients taking the new formulation in order to confirm patients
were receiving the appropriate dose of the drug.

As a result, claimants allege they incurred the following damages:
(a) purchases of product that otherwise would not have been made
by patients had they been aware of the reformulation; (b) adverse
events to some patients resulting from an imbalance of thyroid
functions that could have been avoided; and (c) harm resulting
from the patient's lack of informed consent prior to the use of
the reformulation.

All nine applications were transferred to one court in order to
determine whether to consolidate any of the nine applications. On
July 19, 2012, the court dismissed one of the applications and
ordered that the remaining eight applications be consolidated into
one application.

On September 19, 2012, a consolidated motion to certify the eight
individual motions was filed by lead counsel for the claimants.
Generally, the allegations in the consolidated motion are the same
as those set forth in the individual motions; however, the
consolidated motion excluded the manufacturer of the reformulated
Eltroxin as a respondent. A hearing on whether or not to certify
the consolidated application is scheduled for March 2014. As this
matter is in its early stages, the Company cannot reasonably
predict at this time the outcome or the liability, if any,
associated with these claims.


PERIGO COMPANY: U.S. Securities Litigation Now Concluded
--------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder lawsuit against Perigo Company is now concluded
after a settlement of the suit was finally approved, according to
the company's Aug. 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On March 11, 2009, a purported shareholder of the Company named
Michael L. Warner ("Warner") filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors, including the
President and Chief Executive Officer, Joseph Papa, and the Chief
Financial Officer, Judy Brown, among others.

The plaintiff sought to represent a class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the period between November 6, 2008,
and February 2, 2009. The complaint alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

The plaintiff generally alleged that the Company misled investors
by failing to disclose, prior to February 3, 2009, that certain
auction rate securities held by the Company, totaling
approximately $18.0 million in par value (the "ARS"), had been
purchased from Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. ("Lehman").

The plaintiff asserted that omission of the identity of Lehman as
the seller of the ARS was material because after Lehman's
bankruptcy filing, on September 15, 2008, the Company allegedly
became unable to look to Lehman to repurchase the ARS at a price
near par value. The complaint sought unspecified damages and
unspecified equitable or injunctive relief, along with costs and
attorneys' fees.

On June 15, 2009, the Court appointed several other purported
shareholders of the Company, rather than Warner, as co-lead
plaintiffs (the "Original Co-Lead Plaintiffs"). On July 31, 2009,
these Original Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The
amended complaint dropped all claims against the individual
defendants other than Joseph Papa and Judy Brown, and added a
"control person" claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the members of the Company's Audit Committee. The amended
complaint asserted many of the same claims and allegations as the
original pleading. It also alleged that the Company should have
disclosed, prior to February 3, 2009, that Lehman had provided the
allegedly inflated valuation of the ARS that the Company adopted
in its Form 10-Q filing for the first quarter of fiscal 2009,
which was filed with the SEC on November 6, 2008. The amended
complaint also alleged that some portion of the write-down of the
value of the ARS that the Company recognized in the second quarter
of fiscal 2009 should have been taken in the prior quarter,
immediately following Lehman's bankruptcy filing.

On September 28, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
all claims against all defendants. On September 30, 2010, the
Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.

The Court dismissed the "control person" claims against the
members of the Company's Audit Committee, but denied the motion to
dismiss as to the remaining claims and defendants.

On October 29, 2010, the defendants filed a new motion to dismiss
the amended complaint on the grounds that the Original Co-Lead
Plaintiffs (who were the only plaintiffs named in the amended
complaint) lacked standing to sue under the U.S. securities laws
following a then-recent decision of the United States Supreme
Court holding that Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act does not
apply extraterritorially to the claims of foreign investors who
purchased or sold securities on foreign stock exchanges.

On December 23, 2010, a purported shareholder named Harel
Insurance, Ltd. ("Harel") filed a motion to intervene as an
additional named plaintiff. On January 10, 2011, the original
plaintiff, Warner, filed a motion renewing his previously
withdrawn motion to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff to replace the
Original Co-Lead Plaintiffs.

On September 28, 2011, the Court granted defendants' renewed
motion to dismiss. The Court (i) dismissed the claims of the
Original Co-Lead Plaintiffs; (ii) ruled that any class that might
ultimately be certified could only consist of persons who
purchased their Perrigo shares on the NASDAQ market or by other
means involving transactions in the United States; (iii) granted
Harel's motion to intervene as a named plaintiff; and (iv) ruled
that Warner would also be treated as a named plaintiff.

On October 7, 2011, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on
behalf of both Harel and Warner, alleging the same claims as in
the amended complaint but on behalf of a purported class limited
to those who purchased Perrigo stock on the NASDAQ market or by
other means involving transactions in the United States. On
October 27, 2011, the Court approved a stipulation appointing
Harel and Warner as co-lead plaintiffs (the "Co-Lead Plaintiffs").

On November 21, 2011, the defendants answered the second amended
complaint, denying all allegations of wrongdoing and asserting
numerous defenses. On September 7, 2012, the Court, pursuant to a
stipulation, dismissed all claims against Joseph Papa and Judy
Brown.

Although the Company believed that it had meritorious defenses to
this lawsuit, the Company engaged in settlement discussions with
counsel for the Co-Lead Plaintiffs in an effort to move the matter
to a quicker resolution and avoid the costs and distractions of
protracted litigation. As a result of these discussions, the
Company and the Co-Lead Plaintiffs reached an agreement to settle
the case with payment by the Company's insurer of $1.8 million to
cover all costs of the settlement, subject to Court approval. On
December 27, 2012, the Company and the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a
Stipulation of Settlement and a motion for preliminary approval of
the proposed class action settlement.

On January 28, 2013, the Court preliminarily approved the proposed
class action settlement and ordered that notice of the proposed
settlement be provided to the members of the proposed shareholder
class and set a deadline for class members either to object to the
settlement or to exclude themselves (or "opt out") of the
settlement class. On May 17, 2013, the Court held a hearing and
determined that the settlement was fair, reasonable and adequate
and thus merited final approval. On May 20, 2013, the Court issued
a Judgment and Order of Final Approval granting final approval to
the settlement and entering a final judgment dismissing the suit
with prejudice. Accordingly, this suit is now concluded.


PHOENIX LIFE: N.Y. Court Certifies Suit Over Insurance Rate
-----------------------------------------------------------
By order dated July 12, 2013, two separate classes were certified
in an action pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (C.A. No. 1:11-cv-08405-CM-JCF (U.S.
Dist. Ct; S.D.N.Y.)) brought by Martin Fleisher and another (the
"Fleisher Litigation"), on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, against Phoenix Life Insurance Company
("Phoenix Life"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Phoenix
Companies, Inc., according to The Phoenix Companies' Aug. 15,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The complaint in the Fleisher Litigation challenges two cost of
insurance rate ("COI") adjustments implemented by Phoenix Life,
which Phoenix Life maintains were based on policy language
permitting such adjustments.  The complaint seeks damages for
breach of contract.  The classes certified in the court's July 12,
2013 order are limited to holders of Phoenix Life policies issued
in New York and subject to New York law.


PRIMO WATER: Wins Dismissal of North Carolina Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the securities
class action lawsuit brought against Primo Water Corporation,
according to the company's Aug. 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

On August 14, 2013, the United States District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss the securities class action lawsuit brought against
Primo Water Corporation (the "Company"), Billy D. Prim, Mark
Castaneda, David J. Mills, Richard A. Brenner, David W. Dupree,
Malcolm McQuilkin, David L. Warnock, Jack C. Kilgore, Culligan
International Company, Andrew J. Filipowski, Carl V. Santoiemmo,
Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc., BB&T Capital Markets, Janney
Montgomery Scott, LLC, and Signal Hill Capital Group LLC.

The plaintiffs' complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and asserted such claims on behalf of a
class of persons who acquired the Company's common stock in or
traceable to the Company's initial public offering and secondary
offering as well as purchasers of common stock between November 4,
2010 and August 10, 2011.  The Court dismissed all claims asserted
in the case with prejudice, and entered judgment in favor of all
defendants.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Awaits OK of Closed-End Funds Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regions Financial Corporation is awaiting a final order approving
a settlement in the closed-end Funds class-action and shareholder
derivative case, according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On January 11, 2012, Regions entered into a stock purchase
agreement to sell Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. ("Morgan Keegan")
and related affiliates to Raymond James Financial, Inc. ("Raymond
James").  The transaction closed on April 2, 2012.  Regions
Investment Management, Inc. (formerly known as Morgan Asset
Management, Inc.) and Regions Trust were not included in the sale.
In connection with the closing of the sale, Regions agreed to
indemnify Raymond James for all litigation matters related to pre-
closing activities.

Beginning in December 2007, Regions and certain of its affiliates
have been named in class-action lawsuits filed in federal and
state courts on behalf of investors, who purchased shares of
certain Regions Morgan Keegan Select Funds (the "Funds") and
shareholders of Regions.  These cases have been consolidated into
class-actions and shareholder derivative actions for the open-end
and closed-end Funds.  The Funds were formerly managed by Regions
Investment Management, Inc. ("Regions Investment Management").
Regions Investment Management no longer manages these Funds, which
were transferred to Hyperion Brookfield Asset Management
("Hyperion") in 2008.  Certain of the Funds have since been
terminated by Hyperion.  The complaints contain various
allegations, including claims that the Funds and the defendants
misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts relating to
the activities of the Funds.  The Plaintiffs have requested
equitable relief and unspecified monetary damages.  These cases
are in various stages and no classes have been certified.
Settlement discussions are ongoing in certain cases, and the Court
has granted preliminary approval of a settlement in the closed-end
Funds class-action and shareholder derivative case.

A hearing for final approval of the closed-end Funds class actions
was held on April 12, 2013.  As of June 30, 2013, a final order
was pending.  Certain of the shareholders in these Funds and other
interested parties have entered into arbitration proceedings and
individual civil claims, in lieu of participating in the class
actions.  These lawsuits and proceedings are subject to the
indemnification agreement with Raymond James.

Regions Financial Corporation -- http://www.regions.com/-- is a
financial holding company.  The Birmingham, Alabama-based Company
provides traditional commercial, retail and mortgage banking
services, as well as other financial services in the fields of
investment banking, asset management, trust, mutual funds,
securities brokerage, insurance and other specialty financing.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Defends Suit Over Sale of Municipal Bonds
------------------------------------------------------------
Regions Financial Corporation is defending a securities class
action lawsuit brought on behalf of retail purchasers of municipal
bonds, according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.

On January 11, 2012, Regions entered into a stock purchase
agreement to sell Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. ("Morgan Keegan")
and related affiliates to Raymond James Financial, Inc. ("Raymond
James").  The transaction closed on April 2, 2012.  Regions
Investment Management, Inc. (formerly known as Morgan Asset
Management, Inc.) and Regions Trust were not included in the sale.
In connection with the closing of the sale, Regions agreed to
indemnify Raymond James for all litigation matters related to pre-
closing activities.

The SEC and the states of Missouri and Texas are investigating
alleged securities law violations by Morgan Keegan in the
underwriting and sale of certain municipal bonds.  An enforcement
action was brought by the Missouri Secretary of State on April 4,
2013, seeking monetary penalties and other relief.  A civil action
was brought by institutional investors of the bonds on March 19,
2012, seeking a return of their investment and unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages.  A class action was brought on
behalf of retail purchasers of the bonds on September 4, 2012,
seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.  These
actions are in the early stages.  These matters are also subject
to the indemnification agreement with Raymond James.

While the final outcome of litigation and claims exposures is
inherently unpredictable, management is currently of the opinion
that the outcome of pending and threatened litigation will not
have a material effect on Regions' business, consolidated
financial position, results of operations or cash flows as a
whole.  However, in the event of unexpected future developments,
it is reasonably possible that an adverse outcome in any of the
matters could be material to Regions' business, consolidated
financial position, results of operations or cash flows for any
particular reporting period of occurrence.

Regions Financial Corporation -- http://www.regions.com/-- is a
financial holding company.  The Birmingham, Alabama-based Company
provides traditional commercial, retail and mortgage banking
services, as well as other financial services in the fields of
investment banking, asset management, trust, mutual funds,
securities brokerage, insurance and other specialty financing.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Securities Suit Remains Stayed in Alabama
------------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action lawsuit remains stayed in Alabama,
according to Regions Financial Corporation's August 8, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

In October 2010, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed by
Regions' stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama against Regions and certain former officers of
Regions.  The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities
laws, including allegations that statements that were materially
false and misleading were included in filings made with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC").  The plaintiffs have
requested equitable relief and unspecified monetary damages.  On
June 7, 2011, the trial court denied Regions' motion to dismiss
this lawsuit.  On June 14, 2012, the trial court granted class
certification.  The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is reviewing
the trial court's grant of class-action certification.  The case
is now stayed pending that review.

Regions Financial Corporation -- http://www.regions.com/-- is a
financial holding company.  The Birmingham, Alabama-based Company
provides traditional commercial, retail and mortgage banking
services, as well as other financial services in the fields of
investment banking, asset management, trust, mutual funds,
securities brokerage, insurance and other specialty financing.


SAFEWAY: Recalls Several Varieties of Angel Food Cake
-----------------------------------------------------
Safeway is voluntarily recalling six (6) Angel Food Cake products
because they contain the undeclared allergens soy and milk.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to soy or milk
run the risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume these products.

The following recalled products with the indicated Sell By Dates
are found in the Bakery department only:

  Product Name                        Sell By Dates
  ------------                        -------------
  Angel Food Cake (UPC# 2113010510)   9/1/13 to 10/1/2013
  Holiday Decorated Angel Food Cake   9/1/13 to 10/1/2013
  Angel Food Cups 4 Count             9/1/13 to 10/1/2013
  Cake Angel Food Loaf                9/1/13 to 10/1/2013
  Angel Food Cake Loaf 2 CT           9/1/13 to 10/1/2013
  Angel Food Cake Fruit Topped        9/1/13 to 10/2/2013

The Sell By Date can be located on the product label or the white
scale label.

No illnesses or injuries have been reported.

The recalled Angel Food Cake products were sold in all Safeway,
Carrs, Dominick's, Genuardi's, Pak 'N Save, Pavilions, Randalls,
Tom Thumb and Vons stores throughout the United States.

Customers are asked to discard the product or return it to their
local store for a full refund.  Customers who have questions about
the recall can contact Safeway 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at
1-877-SAFEWAY.


SIEMENS HEARING: Settles Class Action Over HearUSA Stock Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
Siemens Hearing Instruments Inc. on Sept. 26 settled a putative
class action filed by former HearUSA stockholders who accused
Siemens of artificially deflating HearUSA's stock price to acquire
the bankrupt company on the cheap, according to an order filed in
New Jersey federal court.

MTB Investment Partners LP, a New York-based investment fund, has
struck a tentative agreement with Siemens Hearing over its claim
that Siemens sunk HearUSA's stock price by claiming in public
filings that it had no intent to acquire the company, according to
an order issued on Sept. 26 by U.S. District Court Judge Susan D.
Wigenton.  In fact, according to MTB's January 2012 complaint, a
buyout was well in the works at the time Siemens claimed
otherwise.  Siemens acquired the hearing aid distributor for
$129.3 million in an August 2011 bankruptcy sale.

Judge Wigenton dismissed MTB's suit without prejudice and without
costs, allowing 60 days for the parties to finalize details of the
settlement.  Terms of the deal were not immediately available.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to
requests for comment on Sept. 26.

MTB, which sued on behalf of itself and other HearUSA
shareholders, sold stock between January and July 2011 based on
filings Siemens made with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission claiming the company was not brokering a deal to
acquire HearUSA and had no plans to do so, according to the
complaint.

MTB said Siemens also falsely claimed that if it did want to
acquire HearUSA, it could do so with no consideration of
shareholders because of debts owed to it by the company.  Siemens
exaggerated the debt and misrepresented the credit agreement
between the companies, according to the complaint.  Siemens also
said it was concerned about HearUSA's future prospects, despite
its knowledge of a deal the company had struck to become the
exclusive hearing aid provider of the AARP.

The market responded accordingly: HearUSA stock plummeted from 90
cents a share on Jan. 18 to 35 cents a share on July 28, the
complaint said.

"Siemens effectively told the market that HearUSA stock was
worthless," the document said.  "As a result of Siemens' actions,
many investors had sold HearUSA stock in the interim at greatly
reduced prices."

The investors sought to recover the money they lost selling the
stock for less than its fair market value.

HearUSA filed for bankruptcy in May 2011, driven there by Siemens'
fraud, according to the investors.  The bankruptcy attracted a
rival to Siemens, and HearUSA entered bankruptcy with a
prepetition plan to sell its assets to Denmark-based William
Demant Holdings for $80 million.

Siemens prevailed at the bankruptcy auction that August, acquiring
HearUSA for $129.3 million.  The investors said that
notwithstanding Siemens' scheming, it was still unable to acquire
HearUSA for less than its fair price.  HearUSA stock prices then
returned to their fair market value, the investors said.

MTB is represented by Nicole M. Acchoine of Schnader Harrison
Segal & Lewis LLP.

Siemens Hearing is represented by Stephen M. Orlofsky --
Orlofsky@BlankRome.com -- David C. Kistler --
Kistler@BlankRome.com -- and Rachel J. Gallagher --
RGallagher@BlankRome.com -- of Blank Rome LLP and James P.
Gillespie -- james.gillespie@kirkland.com -- and Brant W. Bishop
-- brant.bishop@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

The case is MTB Investment Partners LP, et al., v. Siemens Hearing
Instruments Inc., case number 2:12-cv-00340, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey.


SMARTHEAT INC: Still Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in N.Y. Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Smartheat Inc. continues to face a securities lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, according to the company's Aug. 15, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2013.

On August 31, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit, Steven
Leshinsky v. James Wang, et. al., which purported to allege
federal securities law claims against the Company and certain of
its former officers and directors, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Thereafter, two plaintiffs filed competing motions to be appointed
lead plaintiff in the proceeding.  A lead plaintiff was appointed
and an amended complaint was filed on January 28, 2013, by the
Rosen Law Firm. The amended complaint included Oliver Bialowons,
the President, and Michael Wilhelm, former Chief Financial
Officer, as defendants in the proceeding though they were not
officers of the Company during the alleged class period.

A second amended complaint was filed on April 8, 2013, under the
caption Stream Sicav, Dharanendra Rai et al. v. James Jun Wang,
Smartheat, Inc. et al., removing Messrs. Wilhelm and Bialowons as
defendants.  The second amended complaint alleges two counts
against the Company, both for violations of the federal securities
laws arising from alleged insider sales or management sales of
securities and alleged false disclosures relating to those sales.
On May 8, 2013, the company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not, in
fact, allege that a member of the senior management team had sold
their shares.


SPARK NETWORKS: Faces "Werner" Class Action Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Networks, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit initiated by
Aaron Werner in California, according to the Company's August 8,
2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

On July 19, 2013, Aaron Werner ("Plaintiff"), on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated individuals, filed a putative
class action Complaint in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Los Angeles alleging a single claim seeking
an injunction and statutory, general and compensatory, treble and
punitive damages as well as attorneys' fees and costs and pre-
judgment interest based on the allegation that Spark Networks'
ChristianMingle Web site violates California's Unruh Civil Rights
Act by allegedly discriminating based on sexual orientation.  The
lawsuit is captioned Werner, et al. v. Spark Networks, Inc. and
Spark Networks USA, LLC.

Spark Networks, Inc. -- http://www.spark.net/-- is Delaware
corporation headquartered in Los Angeles, California.  The Company
is a global media business, focused on creating iconic niche-
focused brands that build and strengthen the communities they
serve.  Core properties are primarily online dating Web sites
accessible via desktop and mobile devices that enable adults to
meet, participate in a community and form relationships with like-
minded individuals by utilizing many features on its Web sites.


STERLING BANCORP: Faces Additional Shareholder Lawsuit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Bancorp faces another securities lawsuit filed in a New
York court, 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 April 9, 2013, the first of seven actions, captioned Altman v.
Sterling Bancorp, et al., Index No. 651263/2013 (Sup. Ct., N.Y.
Cnty.), was filed on behalf of a putative class of the Company's
shareholders against the Company, its current directors, and
Provident.

All seven putative class actions were filed in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, New York County. On May 17, 2013, the
seven actions were consolidated under the caption In re Sterling
Shareholders Litigation, Index No. 651263/2013 (Sup. Ct., N.Y.
Cnty.).

On June 21, 2013, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated and
amended class action complaint alleging that the Company's board
of directors breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to the
proposed Merger transaction and by failing to disclose all
material information to shareholders. The consolidated and amended
complaint also alleges that Provident has aided and abetted those
alleged fiduciary breaches. The action seeks, among other things,
an order enjoining the defendants from proceeding with or
consummating the Merger, as well as other equitable relief and/or
money damages in the event that the transaction is consummated.
The defendants believe that the claims are without merit.

On June 5, 2013, a substantially similar litigation was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, captioned Miller v. Sterling Bancorp, et al., No. 13-3845,
against the Company, its current directors, and Provident on
behalf of the same putative class of the Company's shareholders.

The complaint alleges the same breach of fiduciary duty and aiding
and abetting claims against defendants, and also alleges
defendants' preliminary proxy statement was inaccurate or
incomplete in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff in this action has
agreed to coordinate this case with the earlier-filed New York
State court actions. The defendants also believe that the claims
are without merit.


STERLING BANCORP: Accused of Unfairly Charging Overdraft Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Bancorp and Sterling National Bank are named in a
purported class action lawsuit filed on July 18, 2013 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
customers of the bank who incurred 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.

The lawsuit alleges that the bank's practices with respect to
processing debit transactions resulted in customers being unfairly
assessed overdraft fees, and asserts claims for breach of
contract, conversion, unjust enrichment and deceptive trade
practices. The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages and
other relief, including injunctive relief, restitution and
punitive damages. The defendants intend to vigorously defend
against the claims.


SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY, PA: Jailhouse Strip-Search Draws Concern
------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Rose Bouboushian reports that
despite the Supreme Court's recent endorsement of blanket
jailhouse strip-search policies, a federal judge found that one
jail's policy may be "unnecessary or unjustified."

Edwin Blaisure brought the challenge in a class action against
Susquehanna County and Warden Nicholas Conigliaro, alleging Fourth
and 14th Amendment violations for unreasonable searches, as well
as humiliation and emotional distress.

The complaint alleges that Susquehanna County Correctional
Facility in Montrose, Pa., subjected Blaisure to a strip search
and a visual body-cavity search of his mouth, genitals and
buttocks, when he was first brought in on August 25, 2010.

Five days later when Blaisure needed to leave jail for a hearing
appearance, said he was allegedly searched in the same way.
Although Blaisure wore leg shackles and handcuffs, and armed
probation officers escorted him, he was subjected to a second
strip search upon returning to jail, according to the complaint.
Blaisure said he faced the same searches to attend another hearing
and a dentist appointment the next month.  He seeks to represent
all inmates and arrestees charged with nonindictable offenses who
were processed, housed, or held over and searched at Susquehanna
County since November 11, 2008, though nothing indicated they were
concealing contraband, drugs or weapons.

U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo dismissed the Fourth
Amendment claims for arrestees in 2011, but he refused to dismiss
those filed on behalf of inmates.

The defendants later admitted that they had searched Blaisure as
he had alleged, and that they have "a blanket policy of strip
searching every inmate upon leaving and reentering the prison
during the time of their incarceration."

The prison claimed its policy "promotes the legitimate penalogical
[sic] interest of protection of officers transporting prisoners;
the protection of court personnel, including judges; the
protection of healthcare professionals; [and] avoiding escapes."

Months later, a divided Supreme Court affirmed the 3rd Circuit's
decision to toss aside similar claims filed by Albert Florence, a
man subjected to strip searches and visual body-cavity searches in
2005 at two New Jersey prisons before the charges against him were
dismissed.

The dissenting justices cited a long list of individuals arrested
and strip-searched for minor offenses -- including a nun, women
who were lactating or menstruating, victims of sexual violence,
and others detained for driving with a noisy muffler and the like.

Judge Caputo refused Thursday, September 19, 2013, to grant
Susquehanna judgment on the pleadings in Blaisure's case.  The
fact that Blaisure was restrained and escorted every time he left
or entered the prison may show that Susquehanna County's "blanket
policy of strip searching prisoners each time they re-enter the
facility is unnecessary or unjustified," the ruling states.

Caputo later added: "Further, the Supreme Court's holding in
Florence, that 'the search procedures at the Burlington County
Detention Center and the Essex County Correctional Facility struck
a reasonable balance between inmate privacy and the needs of the
institutions,' is narrower than the issue here.  Florence involved
searching inmates upon initial admission to the facility, while
the disputed policy here involves searching all inmates both when
they leave and when they re-enter the facility.  This court
already held that 'room for further factual inquiry' into the
reasonableness of [Susquehanna County Correctional Facility's]
SCCF's search policy existed in light of the earlier decision of
the 3rd Circuit in Florence.  Now that this decision has been
affirmed by the Supreme Court, this room for factual inquiry
remains.  Therefore, Blaisure's allegations are sufficient to
survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barry H. Dyller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF BARRY H. DYLLER
          88 North Franklin St.
          Gettysburg House
          Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701
          Telephone: (570) 829-4860
          E-mail: barry.dyller@dyllerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          Twining Office Center, Suite 211
          715 Twining Rd.
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael J. Donohue, Esq.
          KREDER, BROOKS, HAILSTONE & LUDWIG
          220 Penn Avenue, Suite 200
          Scranton, PA 18503
          Telephone: (570) 346-7922
          E-mail: mdonohue@kbh-law.com

The case is Blaisure v. Susquehanna County, et al., Case No. 3:10-
cv-02336-ARC, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Pennsylvania (Scranton).


T-MOBILE US: Defends Six MetroPCS Merger-Related Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
T-Mobile US, Inc. is defending six class action lawsuits arising
from its business combination with MetroPCS Communications, Inc.,
according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2013.

T-Mobile is involved in six putative stockholder derivative and
class action lawsuits challenging the business combination with
MetroPCS.  These lawsuits include:

   * Paul Benn v. MetroPCS Communications, Inc. et al., Case No.
     C.A. 7938-CS filed on October 11, 2012, in the Delaware
     Court of Chancery;

   * Joseph Marino v. MetroPCS Communications, Inc. et al., Case
     No. C.A. 7940-CS filed on October 11, 2012, in the Delaware
     Court of Chancery;

   * Robert Picheny v. MetroPCS Communications, Inc. et al., Case
     No. C.A. 7971-CS filed on October 22, 2012, in the Delaware
     Court of Chancery;

   * James McLearie v. MetroPCS Communications, Inc. et al., Case
     No. C.A. 8009-CS filed on November 5, 2012, in the Delaware
     Court of Chancery;

   * Adam Golovoy et al. v. Deutsche Telekom et al., Cause No.
     CC-12-06144-A filed on October 10, 2012, in the Dallas,
     Texas County Court at Law; and

   * Nagendra Polu et al. v. Deutsche Telekom et al., Cause No.
     CC-12-06170-E filed on October 10, 2012 in the Dallas, Texas
     County Court at Law.

The lawsuits allege that the various defendants breached fiduciary
duties, or aided and abetted in the alleged breach of fiduciary
duties, to the MetroPCS stockholders by entering into the
transaction.  In addition, on March 28, 2013, another lawsuit
challenging the transaction and related disclosures, and alleging
breaches of fiduciary duty to MetroPCS shareholders was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
entitled The Merger Fund et al. v. MetroPCS Communications, Inc.
et al.  T-Mobile intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously and
does not expect resolution of these matters to have a material
adverse effect on T-Mobile's financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.

T-Mobile US, Inc. -- http://www.T-Mobile.com/and
http://www.MetroPCS.com/-- is a national provider of mobile
communications services capable of reaching over 280 million
Americans.  The Company's brands include T-Mobile, MetroPCS, and
GoSmart.  The Company is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.


TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: 9th Cir. Upholds Remand Order in "Romo" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
a district court's remand order entered in ROMO v. TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.

This case presents the issue of whether removal was proper under
the "mass action" provision of the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005 (CAFA), Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (2005), when
plaintiffs moved for coordination pursuant to California Code of
Civil Procedure section 404.  CAFA authorizes federal removal for
mass actions when "monetary relief claims of 100 or more persons
are proposed to be tried jointly on the ground that the
plaintiffs' claims involve common questions of law or fact. . . ."
28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(11)(B)(i).

The Ninth Circuit concluded that this CAFA jurisdictional
requirement was not met under the totality of the circumstances in
the case.

The case is JUDITH ROMO; VINCENT TALDONE; ROBIN TAYLER; MARGARET
TAYLOR; RANDY TAYLOR; RAY TEETS; LAWRENCE TELLS; KATHRYN TEMCHACK;
CHARLES TERRY; VERONICA TERRY; ROBERTA THORNE; MARGARET TIVIS;
LINDA TODD; DELORES TOOHEY; DEBRA TOURVILLE; DENA TSOUALS; ALLEN
TURNER; CAROLYN TURNER; WANDA TURNER; STARLET TYRONE; GLORIA
UNDERWOOD; HENRY UNDERWOOD; JANICE VANISON; WILLIAM VERHEYEN;
CHARLES VILDIBILL; SHARON WALLGREN; PAM WALSH; SHARON WALSH;
KEESHA WARRIOR; LATANGA WASHINGTON; DARLENE WATT; JAMES WEISS;
WESLEY WELBORNE, III; DEBRA WHEELER; MARSHA WHITT; CAROLYN WHYNO;
CECILIA WILCKENS; SANDRA WILEMON; STELLA WILKERSON-CLARK; JOANN
WILLIAMS; JOYCE WILLIAMS; ROSE WILLIAMS; SHANTAS WILLIAMS; MARY
WILSON; ROSE WILSON; PATSY WINZEY; JIMMIE WISE; RUTH WOLFSON;
JUANITA WOODSON; LYNNE WYSOCKY, single individuals, Plaintiffs-
Appellees, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Defendant-Appellant,
NO. 13-56310.

A copy of the Appeals Court's September 24, 2013 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/6VnRnqfrom Leagle.com.

Karin Bohmholdt -- bohmholdtk@gtlaw.com -- (argued), Ginger Pigott
-- pigottg@gtlaw.com -- Amy Alderfer -- alderfera@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Los Angeles, California; Lori G. Cohen --
cohenl@gtlaw.com -- Victoria D. Lockard -- lockardv@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; Elliot H. Scherker --
scherkere@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, PA, Miami, Florida, for
Defendant-Appellants.

For Plaintiffs-Appellee, Stuart B. Esner -- sesner@ecbappeal.com
-- (argued), Esner, Chang & Boyer, Pasadena, California; Elise R.
Sanguinetti -- esanguinetti@kbsslaw.com -- Khorrami Boucher
Sumner, Oakland, California, and:

   J. Paul Sizemore, Esq.
   The Sizemore Law Firm
   2101 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 3290
   El Segundo, CA 90245
   Toll Free: (888) 975-3476
   Office: (310) 322-8800
   Fax: (310) 322-8811

        - and -

   Matthew J. Sill, Esq.
   The Sill Law Group PLLC
   14005 N. Eastern Ave.
   Edmond, OK 73013
   Phone: 405-509-6300
   Fax: 405-509-6268
   Toll-Free: 855-329-8276

Kate Comerford Todd, Tyler R. Green, National Chamber Litigation
Center, Inc., Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Chamber of
Commerce of the United States.

James M. Spears, Melissa B. Kimmel, PHRMA, Washington, D.C.,
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae PHRMA.


TOWERS WATSON: Accord Reached in May Remains Subject to Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Towers Watson & Co. disclosed in its Aug. 15, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013, that during mediation held on May 7,
2013, the parties in certain lawsuits commenced by former Towers
Perrin shareholders reached agreement on confidential settlement
terms.  The settlement remains subject to several conditions,
including entry into a formal settlement agreement, the approval
of the individual settlement class members, and judicial approval
of the settlement terms.

Towers Watson continues to believe the claims are without merit
and, if the settlement conditions are not satisfied, intends to
continue to vigorously defend against the actions. If the cases
are not settled, the company would continue to incur significant
costs defending against these claims. The outcome of these legal
proceedings is inherently uncertain and could be unfavorable to
Towers Watson.

On November 5, 2009, certain former Towers Perrin shareholders
commenced a legal proceeding in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the "Dugan Action")
against Towers Perrin, members of its board of directors, and
certain members of senior management.

Plaintiffs are former members of Towers Perrin's senior management
who left Towers Perrin at various times between 1995 and 2000.
They seek to represent a class of former Towers Perrin
shareholders who separated from service on or after January 1,
1971, and who also meet certain other specified criteria. Although
the complaint in the Dugan Action does not contain a
quantification of the damages sought, on December 9, 2009,
plaintiffs made a settlement demand on Towers Perrin of $800
million to settle the action on behalf of the proposed class.
Plaintiffs requested that Towers Perrin communicate the settlement
demand to Watson Wyatt.

On December 17, 2009, four other former Towers Perrin
shareholders, all of whom voluntarily left Towers Perrin in May or
June 2005 and all of whom are excluded from the proposed class in
the Dugan Action, commenced a separate legal proceeding (the
"Allen Action") in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging the same claims in
substantially the same form as those alleged in the Dugan Action.
A fifth plaintiff joined this action on August 29, 2011. These
plaintiffs are proceeding in their individual capacities and do
not seek to represent a proposed class.

On January 15, 2010, another former Towers Perrin shareholder who
separated from service in March 2005 when Towers Perrin and
Electronic Data Systems, Inc. launched a joint venture that led to
the creation of a corporate entity known as ExcellerateHRO
("eHRO"), commenced a separate legal proceeding (the "Pao Action")
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, also alleging the same claims in substantially the
same form as those alleged in the Dugan Action. Towers Perrin
contributed its Towers Perrin Administrative Solutions ("TPAS")
business to eHRO and formerly was a minority shareholder (15%) of
eHRO. The plaintiff in this action, in which Towers Watson also is
named as a defendant, seeks to represent a class of former Towers
Perrin shareholders who separated from service in connection with
the formation of eHRO and who are excluded from the proposed class
in the Dugan Action.

Pursuant to the Towers Perrin Bylaws in effect at the time of
their separations, the Towers Perrin shares held by all plaintiffs
were redeemed by Towers Perrin at book value when these
individuals separated from employment. The complaints allege
variously that there either was a promise that Towers Perrin would
remain privately owned in perpetuity (Dugan Action) or that in the
event of a change to public ownership plaintiffs would receive
compensation (Allen and Pao Actions). Plaintiffs allege that by
agreeing to sell their shares back to Towers Perrin at book value
upon separation, they and other members of the putative classes
relied upon these alleged promises, which they claim were breached
as a result of the consummation of the Merger between Watson Wyatt
and Towers Perrin. The complaints assert claims for breach of
contract, breach of express trust, breach of fiduciary duty,
promissory estoppel, quasi-contract/unjust enrichment, and
constructive trust, and seek equitable relief including an
accounting, disgorgement, rescission and/or restitution, and the
imposition of a constructive trust. On January 20, 2010, the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania consolidated the three actions for all purposes.

On February 22, 2010, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaints in their entireties. By order dated September 30, 2010,
the court granted the motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claim for a
constructive trust and denied the motion with respect to all other
claims alleged. Pursuant to the court's September 30 order,
defendants also filed answers to plaintiffs' complaints on October
22, 2010. The parties have completed fact discovery. Neither the
plaintiffs in Dugan nor Pao has moved for class certification.
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims in
all actions on December 23, 2011. The court heard argument on June
19, 2012, and on December 11, 2012 granted defendants' motion, and
entered judgment in favor of defendants on all claims.

On January 10, 2013, plaintiffs filed a joint notice of their
intent to appeal the court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit. On February 13, 2013, the parties were
notified that the appeal had been assigned for mediation pursuant
to the Third Circuit's mediation program.


TOYS R US: Recalls Journey Girl Travel Trunks
---------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Toys R Us Inc., of Wayne, N.J., announced a voluntary recall of
about 12,650 Journey Girl Travel Trunk.  Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The blue metal handle on the trunk can be sharp, presenting a
laceration hazard to the user.

Toys R Us has received six reports of incidents involving the
handle on the trunk, including one report of a consumer who
received stitches as a result of a laceration.

The recall involves the Journey Girl Travel Trunks used to carry
18-inch-tall toy dolls.  The 21-inch tall curved top trunks are
purple with a blue pattern and a blue metal handle.  The trunks
were sold with three clothes hangers and two pull out drawers for
storage.  Travel trunks included in the recall have
UPC # 48970277965070 and model number 5F5F79E.  The model number
is printed on the bottom of the travel trunk next to the UPC code.

Pictures of the recalled products are available at:
http://is.gd/yBjWyL

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Toys R Us stores nationwide and online at
http://www.toysrus.comfrom October 2012 through February 2013 for
about $30.

Consumers should immediately stop using the travel trunk, put it
out of reach of children and return it to a Toys R Us store for a
full refund or store credit.


UNITED STATES: Plaintiff's Attorney Seeks to Revive FCRA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Duroni and Richard Vanderford, writing for Law360, report
that an attorney asked the Seventh Circuit on Sept. 27 to revive
his class action against the U.S. government seeking damages under
the Fair Credit Reporting Act for the alleged unlawful disclosure
of his credit card information, arguing the law clearly waives the
government's sovereign immunity.

During oral arguments in Chicago, counsel for plaintiff
James X. Bormes rejected the government's position that Congress
never intended to subject the government to the same liability
imposed on businesses under the FCRA for printing sensitive credit
card data on a receipt.

Mr. Bormes' suit claims the government violated the FCRA by
revealing his credit card expiration date on an online receipt
after he signed up for the Public Access to Court Electronic
Records system.

The case has taken a circuitous route through every level of the
federal court system, with its most recent stop at the U.S.
Supreme Court, which ruled last November that the Federal Circuit
erred when it revived the case in 2010.  The high court found that
the so-called Little Tucker Act does not waive the government's
sovereign immunity in the FCRA context, but kicked the suit back
to the Seventh Circuit to decide whether the FCRA itself waives
that immunity.

However, at the Sept. 27 hearing, a three-judge panel grilled
Bormes' attorney about a separate question that could doom the
lawsuit regardless of the government's immunity.  A 1996 amendment
to the FCRA explicitly prohibits "printing" a receipt with any
credit card information beyond the last four digits of the card
number, but makes no mention of electronic receipts.

"How does an email equal printing something?" Circuit Judge Frank
H. Easterbrook asked.

John G. Jacobs -- jgjacobs@jacobskolton.com -- of Jacobs Kolton
Chtd., who represents Mr. Bormes, responded that, in a world
rapidly shifting to e-commerce, it makes no sense for the FCRA to
only apply only to physical receipts -- particularly with respect
to a statute intended to prevent identity theft.

"No one is seriously going to suggest that a physical piece of
paper is more subject to interception or theft than an email," he
said.

When a lawyer for the government took the podium, the appeals
panel shifted the discussion to the sovereign immunity issue,
questioning why it needs to weigh the legislative history of the
FCRA when the plain text of the law appears to include the
government and waive its immunity.

U.S. Department of Justice attorney Henry C. Whitaker said the
record is silent about any debate in Congress on whether the 1996
FCRA amendment should apply to the government, arguing that
lawmakers use caution before exposing the government to
potentially huge claims for damages.  The $1,000 statutory fines
the FCRA allows per infraction can balloon damages in suits like
Mr. Bormes', where a large entity like the government is allegedly
responsible for the wrongdoing.

"Congress would not have subjected the nation's largest employer
and creditor to massive new liability" without extensive
discussions on the matter, he said.

The appeals panel took the case under advisement after oral
arguments concluded.

Judges Frank H. Easterbrook, Diane P. Wood and William J. Bauer
sat on the panel for the Seventh Circuit.

Bormes is represented by John G. Jacobs and Bryan G. Kolton of
Jacobs Kolton Chtd. and Jeffrey Grant Brown.

The case is Bormes v. U.S., case number 13-1602, in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Settlement of Stock Suit Could Cost Up to $95MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On August 9, 2013, VeriFone Systems, Inc. entered into a
stipulation of settlement in the consolidated shareholder class
action captioned In re VeriFone Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. C 07-6140, pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Class
Action Litigation") with and among the other defendants and the
lead plaintiff therein, according to the company's Aug. 15, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended June 30, 2013.

The Class Action Litigation is described in more detail in the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter
ended April 30, 2013 (the "10-Q"). The settlement is subject to
various customary conditions, including preliminary approval by
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "Court"), notice to class members, class member
opt-out thresholds and final approval by the Court.

If the settlement becomes final, the total settlement
consideration paid for the benefit of the settlement class would
be $95 million plus a potential Contingent Adjustment. The Company
has coverage by its insurance carriers for this settlement
consideration in the amount of approximately $34 million. The net
amount of approximately $61 million (excluding the Contingent
Adjustment) will be paid by the Company and is covered by the
accrual previously established by the Company for this matter as
discussed in the 10-Q.


WAL-MART STORES: Dukes Ruling Reshapes Legal Landscape
------------------------------------------------------
Nina Martin, writing for ProPublica, reports that when the U.S.
Supreme Court issued its 5-4 decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes in
June 2011, no one needed a Richter scale to know it was a Big One.
In throwing out a mammoth lawsuit by women employees who claimed
that they'd been systematically underpaid and underpromoted by the
world's biggest corporation, the ruling upended decades of
employment discrimination law and raised serious barriers to
future large-scale discrimination cases of every kind.

Employers rejoiced.  Others predicted serious setbacks for women
and minorities, especially in employment discrimination cases
brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  That
landmark law had opened the way to the use of the class-action
lawsuit as a potent weapon for people who could not stand up for
their rights on their own.

Two years later, it's becoming clear just how much the ruling has
reshaped the American legal landscape.

The Dukes decision has already been cited more than 1,200 times in
rulings by federal and state courts, a figure seen by experts as
remarkable.  Jury verdicts have been overturned, settlements
thrown out, and class actions rejected or decertified, in many
instances undoing years of litigation.  The rulings have come in
every part of the country, in lawsuits involving all types of
companies, including retailers (Family Dollar Stores), government
contractors (Lockheed Martin Corp.), business-services providers
(Cintas Corp.), and magazines (Hearst Corp.).  The aftershocks
have been felt in many kinds of lawsuits beyond the employment
field, as well.

Many of the rulings since 2011 have not been surprising.  Some
have been relatively narrow.  But others have tread into
unexpected territory.

This past August, for example, a federal appeals court in
Philadelphia upheld the dismissal of a $7 million settlement
between the former National City Bank and 153,000 black and
Hispanic borrowers who claimed that the bank had discriminated
against them in how it charged mortgage points and fees during the
housing bubble.  Neither side had sought to revisit the 2010
accord, but the courts did so anyway, ruling that because the
class action probably wouldn't have been certified under Dukes,
the settlement was suspect, too "That is pretty extraordinary,"
said Gerald Maatman Jr. of Seyfarth Shaw in Chicago, one of the
leading law firms in the country defending businesses and
employers against class actions.  "It shows how much the standards
have changed."

Courts in prior decades had typically rubber-stamped such
settlements, he said.

"It's a whole new world," Mr. Maatman said.

One measure of that change is the difference in the size of
employee discrimination settlements as reported in Mr. Maatman's
widely read Workplace Class Action Blog.  In 2010, the year before
the Dukes decision, the top 10 settlements totaled $346 million;
in 2012, the first year after Dukes, that total plummeted 87
percent, to $45 million.

Another measure, lawyers representing women and minorities say, is
the drop-off in new employment discrimination class-action
lawsuits being filed.  Before Dukes, it was normal to see 25 or 30
such cases every year, said Jocelyn Larkin, executive director of
the Impact Fund, a law firm/national litigation resource center
based in Berkeley, Calif., which helped bring the Wal-Mart suit in
2001.  Now, Ms. Larkin said, the number of new cases is closer to
10 or 12 a year.  Even in this new world, there have been some
class-action victories.  On Sept. 6, Bank of America and its
Merrill Lynch unit settled a sex discrimination class action with
female brokers for $39 million.  The week before, Merrill agreed
to pay another $160 million for discriminating against African-
American brokers, the largest class-action settlement ever in a
race-bias case.  Merrill and Bank of America had tried to argue
that the Wal-Mart ruling meant that the lawsuits should not be
allowed to proceed as class actions -- an argument that, in these
instances, a federal court didn't buy.

But for advocates for women and minority workers, the mood is
mostly dispirited. Economic disparities -- between people of color
and whites and between men and women -- have been widening and
complaints of mistreatment in the workplace are common.
San Francisco's Equal Rights Advocates, another firm involved in
the Dukes case, has seen a tripling of calls to its nationwide
hotline, said executive director Noreen Farrell.  Many of the
calls are from low-wage women facing discrimination on the job and
elsewhere.

Even before Dukes, "they already had many obstacles," Farrell
said.  To fight these battles individually, "it's often
impossible."

Edith Arana, now in her early 50s, was a mother of five with 10
years of retail experience when she started working at a Duarte,
Calif., Wal-Mart store in the 1990s for $7 an hour.  In six years,
she received excellent performance reviews but never rose beyond a
low-level "support manager."  When she began pressing for a
promotion, her supervisors cut her hours, she claimed, finally
forcing her out of her job.

"I thought to myself, no one's going to believe you -- you're just
one person," Ms. Arana said.

Eventually, though, Ms. Arana found her way to Equal Rights
Advocates. The firm had heard many similar stories.  Their lawsuit
was filed in San Francisco in 2001.

Wal-Mart had a written anti-discrimination policy and insisted
that it "does not condone discrimination of any kind."  It also
noted that "women hold positions of significant responsibility" at
the company.  But it left most employment decisions to the
discretion of local managers at thousands of stores across the
country.  That led to systemic discrimination, the women and their
lawyers claimed.  Wal-Mart's own wage and promotion data seemed to
show pronounced, persistent wage disparities between male and
female employees at every level, from hourly workers to senior
managers.

"Wal-Mart has had a strong policy against discrimination in place
for many years and we continue to be a great place for women to
work and advance," the company said in a statement to ProPublica.

"The opportunities left a lot of discretion to managers to make
decisions based on their own personal views and predilections and
idiosyncrasies and biases," said Joseph M. Sellers --
jsellers@cohenmilstein.com -- a partner at the Washington, D.C.,
firm Cohen Milstein who eventually helped argue the case before
the Supreme Court.

It was a theory that had underpinned many successful employment
discrimination cases over the last 50 years.  In 2004, the federal
judge overseeing the case certified it as the largest sex and
employment discrimination class action in U.S. history.  The Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals twice affirmed that ruling.

The Supreme Court ultimately thought otherwise.  In his opinion,
Justice Antonin Scalia rejected the notion that such a vast
company should be held responsible for the workplace decisions of
thousands of local managers exercising their own discretion, even
if those actions ended up having a disparate impact on female
employees.

"What the Supreme Court said is that you can't group dozens and
dozens of different classes into one class action and say, 'Oh
everyone's an employee and everyone's fighting gender
discrimination, so they belong together,'" said Ted Frank, an
adjunct fellow with the Manhattan Institute's Center for Legal
Policy.

Other experts blamed the plaintiffs for overreaching, and in the
process inviting a more conservative Supreme Court to register one
of its most significant pro-business rulings.

"When plaintiffs seek to maximize their leverage by suing on a
companywide, 'mega' basis, they invite judicial reversal,"
Columbia law professor John Coffee wrote soon after the decision.
"Hubris leads to disaster, and Wal-Mart presents the paradigmatic
case of such a train wreck."

Other aspects of the ruling were also far-reaching. In particular,
the court rejected a 35-year-old framework for calculating
monetary damages in employment discrimination class actions.
Instead of using a statistical formula that assessed damages for
the whole class, plaintiffs now had to have individual trials.
Many lawyers didn't see this coming, especially when liberal
justices joined conservatives to make that part of the ruling
unanimous.

One predictable casualty was the Dukes case itself.  This August,
the San Francisco federal judge overseeing the lawsuit concluded
that even a scaled-back version of the lawsuit, covering only
Wal-Mart workers in California, could not move forward.  A Texas
judge said the same thing last fall about a version of the suit
filed there.

Ms. Arana, one of the original plaintiffs, lamented the clear
implications for female workers like her.

"It can't just be you out there," Ms. Arana said.  "No one person,
no one attorney, no one support system is enough."

Wal-Mart, in its statement, said: "The allegations from these five
plaintiffs are not representative of the positive experiences that
hundreds of thousands of women have had working at Wal-Mart."

Beyond Dukes, the greatest disruption has been to what are
sometimes called "legacy cases" -- the sizable and often
significant class-action lawsuits that began before Dukes was
decided.  The fate of a race discrimination lawsuit against a
South Carolina steel factory owned by Nucor Corp. is one example
of the ripple effects of the Dukes decision.

The lawsuit, brought by seven black Nucor employees in 2004 on
behalf of more than 100 coworkers, alleged a widespread pattern of
racist acts and promotion practices at the factory.  White
supervisors and employees reportedly referred to their black
colleagues as "yard apes" and "porch monkeys."  Racial epithets
were supposedly broadcast over the plantwide radio system, along
with "Dixie," "High Cotton" and monkey noises in response to the
communications of black workers.  The lawsuit said the Confederate
flag was displayed throughout the plant and even emblazoned next
to Nucor's logo on items sold in the plant's gift shop. Yet
another allegation was that whites circulated emails showing black
people with nooses around their necks.

In court documents, Nucor denied the allegations and said that all
employment decisions were made for "legitimate, non-discriminatory
business reasons."

In nine years, courts have weighed in at least seven times on
whether the case should be certified as a class action, with the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond -- not known for being
particularly sympathetic to workers -- finally deciding that there
was ample evidence to let the case proceed as a class action.
Then, after Dukes, the class was again decertified for all claims
except hostile work environment; earlier in September, Nucor's
lawyers were once again in court arguing that even that limited
class action should be thrown out because most of the alleged
racist acts were limited to one department.

"The problem with the length of this case is that as the case goes
on, the Supreme Court keeps drilling more nails into the coffin of
effective civil rights law," said Armand Derfner, a Charleston,
S.C., lawyer representing the workers.  "The practical effect of
decertification is that even if we win, there will not be the kind
of change that Title VII was designed to create.  A handful of
people will win," but the company "won't have to make fundamental
changes that they don't want to make."

For all of its force, the Dukes decision contained some ambiguity
as well.  For instance, the decision said that for a class-action
lawsuit to proceed, plaintiffs would now have to show "significant
proof of a general policy of discrimination" on the part of the
employer. What exactly constituted "a general policy" was left
unclear.

"The ruling used some new language which nobody quite knew what it
meant," said Joseph Sellers, the Washington lawyer who had helped
argue the Dukes case.  "This has injected a new level of
uncertainty into cases that were already challenging and expensive
and time-consuming to bring."

The uncertainty spawned by the Dukes decision has been compounded
by other Supreme Court decisions.  All of it has left plaintiffs
trying to "reboot" their various cases with new arguments, and
defense lawyers responding with "novel" theories of their own,
said Mr. Maatman, the Chicago lawyer who represents employers.
And many lawyers on both sides are watching to see if the Dukes
decision gets invoked in major pending cases, including a class-
action lawsuit brought against BP for the 2010 Deep Water Horizon
drilling disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

The explicit and enduring ramifications of Dukes, then, are still
to be determined.

"We're still seeing employee class actions -- those haven't died,"
said Ted Frank of the Manhattan Institute.  "We're seeing consumer
class actions and securities class actions -- those haven't died.
Certainly some bad class actions were slapped down, but the
legitimate class actions are going forward."

Indeed, in perhaps the biggest victory for workers in the post-
Dukes era, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago last
year refused to throw out the 2005 lawsuit brought by George
McReynolds and other black brokers against Merrill Lynch -- the
case that led to the record $160 million settlement.  Writing for
a three-judge panel, Judge Richard Posner, a conservative who has
displayed a fierce independent streak as well as a willingness to
clash with Justice Scalia in a number of recent writings, said
Merrill Lynch's pay and promotion policies were fundamentally
different from Wal-Mart's in how they encouraged systematic bias.

The McReynolds ruling, then, shows one possible way forward for
employees and their lawyers, Mr. Maatman said.

"You're seeing plaintiffs' lawyers recalibrate, making classes
much smaller, focusing on an issue that might be doable on a
classwide basis, not trying to certify, as they did in Dukes, the
whole enchilada," he said.

Perhaps the next high-profile test of this strategy will come in
March 2014 in San Francisco, where Obama appointee Edward Chen --
formerly an ACLU attorney specializing in discrimination cases,
and now, after a two-year confirmation battle, a U.S. district
judge -- is set to preside in a trial against Costco and its
promotion policies.  Citing McReynolds, Judge Chen ruled in 2012
that the sex discrimination suit, brought by 700 of the retailer's
female workers, could move forward as a class.

In the post-Dukes world, "there's trepidation," acknowledged
Emily Martin, vice president and general counsel for the National
Women's Law Center, which has been closely monitoring the case and
its aftermath.  "But it's not as though everyone is rolling up
their tents and going home."


WARNER MUSIC: Discovery in Digital Download Prices Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Music Group Corp. disclosed in its August 8, 2013, Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013, that the consolidated lawsuit in New
York over pricing of digital music downloads is currently in
discovery.

On December 20, 2005, and February 3, 2006, the Attorney General
of the State of New York served the Company with requests for
information in connection with an industry-wide investigation as
to the pricing of digital music downloads.  On February 28, 2006,
the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice served
the Company with a Civil Investigative Demand, also seeking
information relating to the pricing of digitally downloaded music.
Both investigations were ultimately closed, but subsequent to the
announcements of the investigations, more than thirty putative
class action lawsuits were filed concerning the pricing of digital
music downloads.  The lawsuits were consolidated in the Southern
District of New York.  The consolidated amended complaint, filed
on April 13, 2007, alleges conspiracy among record companies to
delay the release of their content for digital distribution,
inflate their pricing of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads.
The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and treble
damages.  On October 9, 2008, the District Court issued an order
dismissing the case as to all defendants, including the Company.
However, on January 12, 2010, the Second Circuit vacated the
judgment of the District Court and remanded the case for further
proceedings and on January 10, 2011, the Supreme Court denied the
defendants' petition for Certiorari.

Upon remand to the District Court, all defendants, including the
Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss challenging, among
other things, the plaintiffs' state law claims and standing to
bring certain claims.  The renewed motion was based mainly on
arguments made in defendants' original motion to dismiss, but not
addressed by the District Court.  On July 18, 2011, the District
Court granted defendants' motion in part, and denied it in part.
Notably, all claims on behalf of the CD-purchaser class were
dismissed with prejudice.  However, a wide variety of state and
federal claims remain, for the class of Internet Music purchasers.
The parties have filed amended pleadings complying with the
court's order, and the case is currently in discovery.

The Company says it intends to defend against these lawsuits
vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of these
lawsuits.  Regardless of the merits of the claims, this and any
related litigation could continue to be costly, and divert the
time and resources of management.  The potential outcomes of these
claims that are reasonably possible cannot be determined at this
time and an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of
loss cannot presently be made.

New York-based Warner Music Group Corp. was formed in November
2003.  The Company is the direct parent of WMG Holdings Corp.,
which is the direct parent of WMG Acquisition Corp.  Acquisition
Corp. is one of the world's major music-based content companies.


WARNER MUSIC: Still in Talks to Resolve Suits Over Royalties
------------------------------------------------------------
Settlement discussions are still ongoing to resolve a consolidated
class action lawsuit alleging Warner Music Group Corp. improperly
calculated royalties from sales of digital music, according to the
Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

Five putative class action lawsuits have been filed against the
Company in Federal Court in the Northern District of California
between February 2, 2012, and March 10, 2012.  The lawsuits, which
were brought by various recording artists, all allege that the
Company has improperly calculated the royalties due to them for
certain digital music sales under the terms of their recording
contracts.  The named plaintiffs purport to raise these claims on
their own behalf and, as a putative class action, on behalf of
other similarly situated artists.  The Plaintiffs base their
claims on a previous ruling that held another recorded music
company had breached the specific recording contracts at issue in
that case through its payment of royalties for music downloads and
ringtones.  In the wake of that ruling, a number of recording
artists have initiated lawsuits seeking similar relief against all
of the major record companies, including the Company.  The
Plaintiffs seek to have the interpretation of the contracts in
that prior case applied to their different and separate contracts.

On April 10, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss various
claims in one of the lawsuits, with the intention of filing
similar motions in the remaining lawsuits, on the various
applicable response dates.  Meanwhile, certain plaintiffs' counsel
moved to be appointed as interim lead counsel, and other
plaintiffs' counsel moved to consolidate the various actions.  In
a June 1, 2012 Order, the court consolidated the cases and
appointed interim co-lead class counsel.  The Plaintiffs filed a
consolidated, master complaint on August 21, 2012.  All deadlines
were stayed until August 29, 2013, to allow for settlement of this
dispute.  If a settlement has not been reached by that date and if
the parties agree that further settlement discussions would be
fruitful, the parties can file a joint statement/stipulation
seeking additional time for further settlement negotiations.  In
the alternative, the parties would file a joint
statement/stipulation with the Court alerting the Court to the
fact that settlement could not be reached and resetting a
litigation schedule.  Settlement discussions are ongoing.

Regardless of the merits of the claims, this and any related
litigation could continue to be costly, and divert the time and
resources of management.  Based on an evaluation of potential
outcomes of these claims that are reasonably possible and an
estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss
possible, the Company has recorded what it believes is an
appropriate reserve related to these cases, which amount is not
material.

New York-based Warner Music Group Corp. was formed in November
2003.  The Company is the direct parent of WMG Holdings Corp.,
which is the direct parent of WMG Acquisition Corp.  Acquisition
Corp. is one of the world's major music-based content companies.


WINDSTREAM CORP: Final Hearing on Ky. Suit Settlement on Oct. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the final approval of Windstream Corporation's
settlement of a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of current
and former customers in Kentucky is currently set for October 31,
2013, according to the Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2013.

On June 22, 2009, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
Kentucky federal district court on behalf of current and former
customers in Kentucky.  The complaint alleged that the Company
overcharged customers because it collected a gross receipts
surcharge ("GRS") in violation of state and federal statutes and
tariffs and common law.  The court referred the state tariff
issues to the Kentucky Public Service Commission ("Kentucky PSC").
In 2011, the federal court ruled that the GRS was a rate that
should have been listed in the Company's federal tariffs prior to
its collection and that class certification was proper.  Based on
that ruling, in the third quarter 2011, the Company accrued an
amount that was not material and that represented the amount of
loss estimable and probable at the time.  On May 4, 2012, the
Kentucky PSC issued an order also finding the GRS was a rate that
should have been in the Company's local retail tariff before being
assessed on certain types of services.  The Company appealed the
order to state court in Franklin County, Kentucky, primarily
asserting that the Kentucky PSC erred in classifying the GRS as a
rate.  Additionally, on July 22, 2012, the federal court formally
certified a class of all retail and wholesale Windstream customers
assessed the GRS on services subject to the Company's federal
tariff.  The Company filed an interlocutory appeal of the class
certification with the Sixth Circuit.  On November 1, 2012, the
Sixth Circuit denied the appeal, holding that the matter was not
ripe for a decision.

On March 29, 2013, the Company entered into a proposed class
settlement and the settlement terms are subject to objections from
individual class members and approval of the federal court.  The
settlement was preliminarily approved by the court on June 14,
2013.  The court established a notice plan to class members about
the proposed settlement, a deadline for objections of October 11,
2013, and a final hearing date on October 31, 2013.  The final
settlement is not expected to be material in excess of the amount
the Company currently has accrued.

Windstream Corporation is a provider of advanced communications
and technology solutions, including managed services and cloud
computing, to businesses nationwide.  In addition to business
services, the Company offers broadband, voice and video services
to consumers in primarily rural markets.  Windstream is a Delaware
corporation headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas.


ZAGG INC: Awaits Ruling on Plea to Dismiss Shareholder Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
ZAGG Inc. is awaiting a court decision on its motion to dismiss a
consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit, according to the
Company's August 8, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,
2013.

On September 6, and 10, 2012, two putative class action lawsuits
were filed by purported Company shareholders against the Company,
Randall Hales, Brandon O'Brien, Edward Ekstrom, and Cheryl
Larabee, as well as Robert G. Pedersen II, the Company's former
Chairman and CEO, and Shuichiro Ueyama, a former member of the
Company's Board of Directors.  The lawsuits are captioned James H.
Apple, et al. v. ZAGG Inc, et al., U.S. District Court, District
of Utah, 2:12-cv-00852; and Ryan Draayer, et al. v. Zagg Inc, et
al., U.S. District Court, District of Utah, 2:12-cv-00859.  These
lawsuits were subsequently amended by a complaint filed on May 6,
2013.  The plaintiffs seek certification of a class of purchasers
of the Company's stock between October 15, 2010, and August 17,
2012.  The plaintiffs claim that as a result of Mr. Pedersen's
alleged December 2011 margin account sales, the defendants
initiated a succession plan to replace Mr. Pedersen as the
Company's CEO with Mr. Hales, but failed to disclose either the
succession plan or Mr. Pedersen's margin account sales, in
violation of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a), and SEC Rules 10b-5
and 14a-9, under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").  On March 7, 2013, the U.S. District Court for
the District of Utah consolidated the Apple and Draayer actions
and assigned the caption In re: Zagg, Inc. Securities Litigation,
and on May 6, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint.
On July 5, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.  The Company intends to vigorously defend against the
lawsuit.

ZAGG Inc. -- http://www.zagg.com/and http://www.ifrogz.com/--
headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah, designs, produces and
distributes creative product solutions, such as protective
coverings, keyboards, keyboard cases, earbuds, mobile power
solutions, and device cleaning accessories for mobile devices
under the family of ZAGG brands.  Within the family of ZAGG brand
are products sold under these brand names: invisibleSHIELD(R),
ZAGGskins(TM), ZAGGbuds(TM), ZAGGsparq(TM), ZAGGfolio(TM),
ZAGGmate(TM), ZAGGkeys(TM), ZAGGkeys PRO(TM), ZAGGkeys PRO
Plus(TM), ZAGGkeys PROfolio, ZAGGkeys PROfolio+, ZAGGkeys MINI 7,
and ZAGGkeys MINI 9.


                             *********

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

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

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

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

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

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



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *