---

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

             Thursday, January 9, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 6

                             Headlines


ADVANCED BATTERY: February 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
AMERICAN ORIENTAL: Dismissal of Amended Securities Action Sought
ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Files Answer to Texas Securities Complaint
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Cal. Court Certifies Meal Period Subclass
CARDTRONICS INC: Facing Probe Over Compliance With Accord

COLUMBIA BANKING: Still Faces Suit Over West Coast Bancorp Merger
COMCAST CORP: Epstein Becker Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
CONSTELLIUM N.V.: Retirees, United Steelworkers File Lawsuit
DR HORTON: Class Action Waiver Ruling Setback for Workers
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Brower Piven Files Class Action in California

ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Bid to Junk Dynegy Shareholder Suit Pending
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Appeals Ruling by Pa. Court in AWP Lawsuit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Certification of Blood Reagent Suit Appealed
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Settlement Process in N.J. Stock Suit Ongoing
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: April Certification Hearing Set in BC Suit

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Suit Over Ethicon Pelvic Mesh Devices Ongoing
KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks to Dismiss N.Y. Securities Suit
LOCUS TELECOMS: Settles Class Action Over Prepaid Calling Cards
MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Lawsuits in Texas Court
MERGE HEALTHCARE: Appeals Court Upholds Ruling in Stock Suit

MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Faces Antitrust Lawsuits in U.S. & Canada
MORGAN STANLEY: Certification Motion Filed in Securities Lawsuit
MORGAN STANLEY: Plaintiffs in Suit v. IndyMac Want to Widen Class
MORGAN STANLEY: Court Dismisses Amended Complaint in "Ge Dandong"
NASH-FINCH COMPANY: Settles Lawsuits Over Spartan Stores Merger

NEW YORK: Cuomo Must Take Steps to Settle Hurrel-Harring Suit
PERRIGO COMPANY: Hearing in Eltroxin Cases in Israel Set in Dec.
REALOGY HOLDINGS: CBRBC Awaits Ruling on Appeal in "Bararsani"
ROCHESTER MEDICAL: Reaches Settlement in Merger Lawsuit
ROYAL HEALTH CARE: Agrees to Settle Overtime Action for $1.94MM

SINGAPORE AIRLINES: Cargo Unit Settles Class Action for $62.8MM
SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Puts $3MM in Humboldt Case Settlement Fund
SPARTAN STORES: Settles Lawsuits Over Nash-Finch Merger
STATE FARM: Seeks Mandamus Relief Against Racketeering Suit Ruling
SUPPORT.COM INC: Records $57,000 Benefit in Product Lawsuit

TARGET CORP: State Attorneys General Demand Answers Amid Suits
TENET HEALTHCARE: Enters MoU in Suits Over Vanguard Acquisition
TENET HEALTHCARE: Expects Court to Try Suit Over Patient Records
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Awaits Ruling in Hot Fuel Cases
TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Trial in Antitrust Suit to Begin August

WESTERN UNION: Class Members in Consumer Suit Appeal Settlement
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY: Plaintiffs in ERISA Suit Denied Cash Claims


                             *********


ADVANCED BATTERY: February 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs on Dec. 19 disclosed that, pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, that a hearing in In re Advanced Battery Technologies,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Consolidated Civil Action No. 11 Civ.
2279(CM) will be held on February 21, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., before
the Honorable Colleen McMahon, United States District Judge, at
the courthouse for the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, Courtroom 14C, Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., New York, New York 10007,
for the purpose of determining, among other things: (1) whether
the proposed Settlement of the Settlement Class's claims against
the ABAT Defendants for $275,000.00 should be approved as fair,
reasonable and adequate; (2) whether the Plan of Allocation is
fair and reasonable and should be approved; (3) whether the
application by Lead Counsel for an award reimbursing them for a
portion of their expenses should be approved; (4) whether the Lead
Plaintiff should be granted a compensatory award; and (5) whether
the Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice against the ABAT
Defendants as set forth in the Settlement Stipulation filed with
the Court.

THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT CLASS WILL CONSIST OF ALL PERSONS AND
ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED ABAT COMMON STOCK
(STOCK SYMBOLS: ABAT AND GBT) BETWEEN MAY 15, 2007, AND MARCH 29,
2011, INCLUSIVE.  Excluded from the Settlement Class are the ABAT
Defendants and Auditor Defendants, all current and former
directors and officers of ABAT during the Settlement Class Period,
and any family member, trust, company, entity or affiliate
controlled or owned by any of the excluded persons or entities
referenced above.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR
RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE
SETTLEMENT FUND.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to share in
the Settlement money, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release
form no later than March 22, 2014 establishing that you are
entitled to recovery.  As further described in the Notice of
Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action, you will be
bound by any judgment entered in the Litigation, regardless of
whether you submit a Proof of Claim, unless you exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, in accordance with the procedures set
forth in the Long Notice, by no later than January 31, 2014.  Any
objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or attorney's
expenses must be filed and served, in accordance with the
procedures set forth in the Long Notice, no later than January 31,
2014.  The Long Notice is available by: (1) visiting
http://www.berdonclaims.com/;or (2) contacting the Claims
Administrator by phone at: 800-766-3330, by fax at: 516-931-0810,
or by mail at: Advanced Battery Technologies, Inc. Securities
Litigation, c/o Berdon Claims Administration LLC, P.O. Box 9014,
Jericho, NY 11753-8914.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Long Notice or Proof of
Claim and Release form, may be made to Lead Counsel for the
Settlement Class at: Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross
LLP, Murielle J. Steven Walsh, Esq., 600 Third Avenue, New York,
NY 10016, Telephone: 212-661-1100; Toll-free: 888-476-6529.

INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE,
THE ABAT DEFENDANTS, OR ABAT DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL.

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.


AMERICAN ORIENTAL: Dismissal of Amended Securities Action Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a securities suit filed against American Oriental
Bioengineering Inc. are seeking to dismiss a third amended
complaint, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2013.

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

The served defendants (AOB, Brody, Wizel and Patti) moved to
dismiss the consolidated complaint, and on March 25, 2013 those
motions were granted with leave to amend. On April 15, 2013,
Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, which the served
Defendants moved to dismiss on May 15, 2013. In the interim, the
Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for leave to serve most of the
remaining Defendants by alternative means, and on May 15, 2013,
the parties entered into a stipulation consenting to the filing of
a Third Amended Complaint, deeming the TAC served on all
defendants, deeming the motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint interposed against the TAC, and reserving all rights of
the un-served Defendants. The defendants have moved to dismiss the
TAC, and the motion was scheduled to be heard November 7, 2013.


ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Files Answer to Texas Securities Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation filed its answer to a securities
complaint pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas - Houston Division (Texas District Court),
according to the company's Nov. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

Two separate class action complaints were filed in June and August
2010, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York (New York District Court) on behalf of purported purchasers
of the Company's stock between June 9, 2009, and June 12, 2010,
against Anadarko and certain of its officers. The complaints
allege causes of action arising pursuant to the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 for purported misstatements and omissions
regarding, among other things, the Company's liability related to
the Deepwater Horizon events. In November 2010, the New York
District Court consolidated the two cases.

In March 2012, the New York District Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas - Houston Division (Texas District
Court). In May 2012, the Texas District Court granted the
defendants' motion to transfer the consolidated action within the
district to Judge Keith P. Ellison. In July 2012, the plaintiffs
filed their First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The
defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss in the Texas District
Court in September 2012. In July 2013, the Texas District Court
dismissed the claims relating to all but one of the alleged
misstatements asserted in the plaintiffs' complaint. The Texas
District Court gave the plaintiffs 30 days to amend the complaint
to attempt to rehabilitate the claims that were dismissed. The
plaintiffs declined to amend the complaint. The Company filed its
answer to the complaint in September 2013.


BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Cal. Court Certifies Meal Period Subclass
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court granted the motion of former hourly
restaurant team members of Brinker International, Inc. to certify
a meal period subclass and denied the company's motion to
decertify the rest period subclass, according to the company's
Nov. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 25, 2013.

In August 2004, certain current and former hourly restaurant team
members filed a putative class action lawsuit against the company
in California Superior Court alleging violations of California
labor laws with respect to meal periods and rest breaks. The
lawsuit sought penalties and attorney's fees and was certified as
a class action by the trial court in July 2006. In July 2008, the
California Court of Appeal decertified the class action on all
claims with prejudice. In October 2008, the California Supreme
Court granted a writ to review the decision of the Court of Appeal
and oral arguments were heard by the California Supreme Court on
November 8, 2011. On April 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court
issued an opinion affirming in part, reversing in part, and
remanding in part for further proceedings. The California Supreme
Court's opinion resolved many of the legal standards for meal
periods and rest breaks in the company's California restaurants.
On September 26, 2013, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion
to certify a meal period subclass and denied the company's motion
to decertify the rest period subclass.

The company intends to continue the company's vigorous defense of
this lawsuit. Given the trial court's recent ruling, Management
believes it is reasonably possible that a loss has been incurred
but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated at this time given
there are significant issues to be resolved that will have a
material impact on the potential range of loss.


CARDTRONICS INC: Facing Probe Over Compliance With Accord
---------------------------------------------------------
An inquiry is being made to determine the extent of any non-
compliance by Cardtronics, Inc. with the agreements it entered
into to settle a suit originally filed against E*Trade Access,
Inc., according to Cardtronics' Nov. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2013.

Through its acquisition of the E*Trade ATM portfolio, the Company
became the sole defendant in the June 2003 lawsuit filed by the
National Federation of the Blind, the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, et al. and certain individuals representing a class
of similarly situated persons (the "Plaintiffs") against E*Trade
Access, Inc., et al. in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts ("Massachusetts District Court"): Civil
Action No. 03-11206-NMG (the "Lawsuit").  The Plaintiffs sought to
require, among other things, that ATMs deployed by E*Trade be
voice-guided.

In December 2007, the Company and Plaintiffs entered into a
settlement agreement (as modified in November 2010, the
"Settlement Agreement").  In 2011, the Plaintiffs filed a motion
of contempt with the Massachusetts District Court alleging that
the Company had failed to fully comply with the requirements of
the Settlement Agreement.  On December 15, 2011, the Massachusetts
District Court issued an order that required the Company to bring
all of its ATMs in compliance with the terms of the Settlement
Agreement by March 15, 2012.  In August 2012, the Plaintiffs filed
their second motion of contempt, which alleged, among other
things, that the Company had failed to meet the Massachusetts
District Court's deadline and sought a fine of $50 per ATM for
each month that the Massachusetts District Court determined the
Company was not in compliance.  The Company filed its response on
September 28, 2012.

In March 2013, the Court issued an order that stated that
sanctions would be imposed, but did not specify what violations
had occurred. In April 2013, the Court granted the parties'
request to appoint a special master to determine the extent of any
non-compliance with the agreements, any effect on accessibility of
the ATMs, and what sanctions might be appropriate.  On May 22,
2013, the Massachusetts District Court issued an order appointing
a special master, directing him to issue a report and
recommendation on those issues. The special master's report and
recommendation was due to be submitted by December 15, 2013.  The
Company is uncertain of the ultimate outcome of this matter, but
does not believe it will have a material adverse effect upon the
Company's financial statements.


COLUMBIA BANKING: Still Faces Suit Over West Coast Bancorp Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbia Banking System, Inc., is facing a lawsuit filed in the
Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah County over a
merger with West Coast Bancorp, according to Columbia Banking's
Nov. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On October 3, 2012, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of Multnomah
against West Coast, its directors, and the Company challenging the
merger: Gary M. Klein v. West Coast Bancorp, et al., Case No.
1210-12431.  The complaint names as defendants West Coast, all of
the former members of West Coast's board of directors, and the
Company.  The complaint alleges that the West Coast directors
breached their fiduciary duties to West Coast and West Coast
shareholders by agreeing to the merger at an unfair price. The
complaint also alleges that the merger was being driven by an
unfair process, that the directors approved provisions in the
merger agreement that constitute preclusive deal protection
devices, that certain large shareholders of West Coast were using
the merger as an opportunity to sell their illiquid holdings in
West Coast, and that West Coast directors and officers would
obtain personal benefits from the merger not shared equally by
other West Coast shareholders. The complaint further alleges that
West Coast and the Company aided and abetted the directors'
alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties.

Thereafter, a second lawsuit challenging the merger was filed in
the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Clackamas County:
Leoni v. West Coast Bancorp et al., Case No. CV12100728. The two
lawsuits have been consolidated for all purposes in the Circuit
Court of the State of Oregon for Multnomah County.


COMCAST CORP: Epstein Becker Discusses Supreme Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
William A. Ruskin, Esq. -- wruskin@ebglaw.com -- at Epstein Becker
Green reports that in Comcast Corp. v Behrend, 133 S.Ct. 1426
(March 27, 2013), the Supreme Court held that the lower court
erred in failing to consider flaws in plaintiffs' damages model
merely because the damages model would be pertinent on merits
issues . . . . . thus, "running afoul of our precedents requiring
precisely that inquiry".  It was up to the district court to
determine whether the expert's methodology was "just and
reasonable inference or speculative."

Citing the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, the court held
that the "first step in a damages study is the translation of the
legal theory of the harmful event into an analysis of the economic
impact of that event."

Pre-Comcast, plaintiffs generally focused on getting over the hump
of standing and/or alleging damages under various legal theories
at the pleading stage, without knowing how they would ever prove
up damages.  No more! The ground has shifted beneath the feet of
the plaintiff class action bar.  To cite the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals, the new judicial mantra is "No damages model, no
predominance, no class certification".

Despite Comcast's holding, some federal trial courts continue to
certify class actions of arguably questionable merit.  An example
of such a case is In re: Nexium (Esomeprazole) Antitrust
Litigation which was handed down by the District of Massachusetts
on November 14, 2013.

Plaintiffs alleged that they paid higher prices for Nexium because
less expensive generic versions of Nexium were prevented from
coming onto the market due to AstraZeneca's settlement with three
generic manufacturers.  The end-payors (as the plaintiffs called
themselves) sought to certify a sprawling Rule 26(b)(3) class
consisting of virtually every consumer (insured and uninsured),
commercial insurer, health plan and pharmacy benefit manager who
had paid any portion of the purchase price for Nexium for a six
year period in twenty-six states.

Although the district court referenced the Supreme Court's rulings
in Wal-Mart and Comcast, it certified a class despite plaintiffs'
adoption of a model that adopted the use of "aggregate damages
calculations."  The defendants properly objected to the damages
model because it failed to account for differences in injuries and
losses among class members.

The use of an "average" price differential, even if capable of
being proven, ignored the variations within the class and did not
identify which end-purchasers would have saved money and which
would have lost money if and when generic Nexium had entered the
market.  Even the district court acknowledged that under
plaintiffs' model certain class members who suffered no damages
whatsoever would remain in the class.

Applying the reasoning of the D.C. Circuit in In re: Rail Freight
Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig., one of the most important circuit
court decisions applying Comcast, class certification would most
likely have been denied because common questions of fact cannot
predominate where there exists no reliable means of proving
classwide injury in fact.

Plaintiffs' expert conceded that the proposed class included tens
of thousands of consumers who would continue to purchase branded
Nexium after generic entry due to preference or their physician's
recommendation.  Such brand loyalists would potentially have faced
higher Nexium prices had generic Nexium been available.

Other consumers were not injured because their co-pays were the
same for both generic and branded Nexium.  Plaintiffs' average
price differential model ignored variations within the class and
failed to distinguish between purchasers who would have lost money
if and when generic Nexium would have entered the market and those
who would not have lost money.

In an almost identical situation involving a similar set of facts
and the same plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Meredith Rosenthal, a
Philadelphia district court denied class certification in Sheet
Metal Workers Local 1141 Health and Welfare Plan v.
GlaxoSmithKline, No. 04-5898, 2010 WL 385552, at #27 (E.D.Pa. Sep.
30, 2010), class certification was denied by the Pennsylvannia
district court (pre-Comcast) which rejected an analogous damages
model proposed by Dr. Rosenthal in a case of alleged generic drug
suppression involving the drug Wellbutrin SR.  There, as in the
Nexium case, plaintiffs' model failed to exclude uninjured class
members. Because plaintiffs were unable to meet their burden of
Rule 26(b)(3) that questions of law or fact common to class
members predominated over any questions affecting only individual
members, the district court denied class certification.

It is difficult to understand how the Massachusetts district court
determined that the Nexium end-payors' damages model met the
"rigorous analysis" standard required by Comcast and
Wal-Mart, particularly as there are many thousands of plaintiffs
in the class who have not suffered injury.  Plaintiffs'
methodology indisputably failed to identify non-injured members of
the class.  Epstein Becker Green looks forward to the First
Circuit's analysis of the Rule 23(b)(3) issues presented by the
case, assuming that an appeal is in the offing.


CONSTELLIUM N.V.: Retirees, United Steelworkers File Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Constellium Rolled Products-Ravenswood LLC is facing a lawsuit
filed by five retirees and the United Steelworkers union in a
federal district court in West Virginia, according to the
company's Nov. 4, 2013, Amendment No. 1 to Form F-1 filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

On February 20, 2013, five retirees of Constellium Rolled
Products-Ravenswood LLC and the United Steelworkers union filed a
class action lawsuit against Constellium Rolled Products-
Ravenswood LLC in a federal district court in West Virginia,
alleging that Ravenswood improperly modified retiree health
benefits. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Constellium
Rolled Products-Ravenswood LLC was obligated to provide retirees
with health benefits throughout their retirement at no cost, and
that the company improperly capped, through changes that went into
effect in January 2013, the amount it would pay annually toward
those benefits.  In 2013, the caps will result in additional costs
of $5 per month for approximately 1,800 retiree health plan
participants.  The company believes that these claims are
unfounded, and that Constellium Rolled Products-Ravenswood LLC had
a legal and contractual right to make the applicable
modifications.


DR HORTON: Class Action Waiver Ruling Setback for Workers
---------------------------------------------------------
Julius Getman and Dan Getman, writing for Houston Chronicle,
report that class actions are the only practical way for ordinary
Americans to challenge corporate wrongdoing, since corporate
theft -- up to many thousands of dollars per person -- will rarely
justify the expense of an individual lawsuit.

Yet, it has become increasingly common for companies to write
clauses in their contracts with consumers and employees that
purport to forbid them making class action claims against the
company.  These clauses are often buried in the fine print of
"take it or leave it contracts" such as those dealing with cell-
phone service, banking, or job applications.

This language, if enforced by the courts, has the effect of
protecting corporate wrongdoing from any realistic legal redress
by ordinary citizens.  In 2011, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme
Court upheld the use of class action waivers to prevent consumer
class actions against corporate fraud. The decision was widely and
justly criticized.  Now a recent 2-1 ruling by a panel of the 5th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has extended the Supreme Court's
consumer class action ruling to the rights of workers.

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

The 5th Circuit's opinion subverted two federal laws that have
been the backbone of national labor policy for over 75 years.
These laws -- the National Labor Relations Act and the Norris
LaGuardia Act -- were enacted specifically to ensure that workers
had the right to engage in concerted activities for "mutual aid or
protection."  These laws benefitted all workers, not just those in
unions.  They were based on widespread public recognition of the
fact that unfettered free enterprise had led to an impoverished,
overworked citizenry.  It is generally agreed that these statutes
have played a significant role in upgrading the economic status
and dignity of American workers.

In the D.R. Horton case, the National Labor Relations Board issued
in 2012 a persuasive opinion reaffirming that class waivers in
arbitration agreements violate workers' rights under the law.  The
labor board's position was firmly rooted in the language of the
National Labor Relations Act and the Norris LaGuardia Act, which
specifically declare the right of workers to act in concert.

And the Norris LaGuardia Act also states that any promise in
conflict with the public policy granting employees the right to
engage in concerted activities "shall not be enforceable in any
Court of the United States."

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

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

The D.R. Horton decision can and should be reversed -- either by
the full 5th Circuit or by the Supreme Court.  Congress also could
reverse the effect of the decision by clarifying the Federal
Arbitration Act and similar state laws.

Consumers and workers must become aware of these class waivers,
avoid them wherever possible and demand that their legislators
take steps to prohibit them.

Julius Getman is the Earl E. Sheffield Regents Professor of Law at
the University of Texas School of Law.  Dan Getman is a founding
partner of Getman & Sweeney, a worker-side wage and hour law firm
in New Paltz, N.Y.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Brower Piven Files Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Parreno, writing for Gameranx, reports that Brower Piven,
based in Stevenson, Maryland, has filed a class action lawsuit in
the Northern District of California, on behalf of purchasers of
Electronic Arts common stock between July 24 and December 2, 2013.
This time, they do not provide details of the case they are
building up, and likewise, no class has been certified yet in the
abovementioned action.  When they determine the lead plaintiff,
that person will get to direct litigation, including naming
counsel, as well as members of the class.

Brower Piven alleges EA violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by failing to disclose the bugs, connectivity issues, and
other problems in the development of Battlefield 4 within the
class period.  These problems, having been uncovered on November
15, led EA to announce they would delay future projects until
these issues were fixed.

Mr. Parreno said "We may be hearing of even more cases in the near
future, since EA's investors would have been based around
different parts of the country, and different state laws and
regulations would require investors to go about suing EA in
different ways."


ICAHN ENTERPRISES: Bid to Junk Dynegy Shareholder Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to dismiss the case Silsby v. Icahn et al., including two
officers of Dynegy Inc. and certain directors, is pending in the
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York,
according to Icahn Enterprises Holdings L.P.'s Nov. 4, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On March 28, 2012 an action was filed in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York, entitled Silsby v. Icahn et al.
Defendants include Carl C. Icahn and two officers of Dynegy Inc.
("Dynegy") and certain of its directors.  As initially filed, the
action purports to be brought as a class action on behalf of
Dynegy shareholders who acquired their shares between September
2011 and March 2012.  The Complaint alleges violations of the
federal securities laws by defendants' allegedly making false and
misleading statements in securities filings which statements
artificially inflated the price of Dynegy stock.  The individual
defendants are alleged to have been controlling persons of Dynegy.
Plaintiff is seeking damages in an unspecified amount.

Subsequent to the filing of this action, Dynegy filed for
bankruptcy, and a U.S. bankruptcy court has approved a Plan of
Reorganization.  Plaintiff is proceeding with the action and has
filed an amended complaint that purports to be a class action on
behalf of Dynegy shareholders who acquired their securities
between July 10, 2011 and March 9, 2012.  The company believes
that it has meritorious defenses to the claims and filed a motion
to dismiss on July 19, 2013.  At present, the motion to dismiss
the case is pending.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Appeals Ruling by Pa. Court in AWP Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Johnson & Johnson Defendants in the Average Wholesale Price
(AWP) Litigation have appealed a ruling by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Court on claims made under the Pennsylvania Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, according to the
company's Nov. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 29, 2013.

Johnson & Johnson and several of its pharmaceutical subsidiaries
(the J&J AWP Defendants), along with numerous other pharmaceutical
companies, are defendants in a series of lawsuits in state and
federal courts involving allegations that the pricing and
marketing of certain pharmaceutical products amounted to
fraudulent and otherwise actionable conduct because, among other
things, the companies allegedly reported an inflated Average
Wholesale Price (AWP) for the drugs at issue. Payors alleged that
they used those AWPs in calculating provider reimbursement levels.
Many of these cases, both federal actions and state actions
removed to federal court, were consolidated for pre-trial purposes
in a Multi-District Litigation (MDL) in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The plaintiffs in these cases included three classes of private
persons or entities that paid for any portion of the purchase of
the drugs at issue based on AWP, and state government entities
that made Medicaid payments for the drugs at issue based on AWP.
In June 2007, after a trial on the merits, the MDL Court dismissed
the claims of two of the plaintiff classes against the J&J AWP
Defendants. In March 2011, the Court dismissed the claims of the
third class against the J&J AWP Defendants without prejudice.

AWP cases brought by various Attorneys General have proceeded to
trial against other manufacturers.  Several state cases against
certain subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson have been settled,
including Kentucky, Kansas, Mississippi and Louisiana.  Illinois
is set for trial in May 2014, and Alaska is set for trial in July
2014.  Other state cases are likely to be set for trial in due
course.

In addition, an AWP case against the J&J AWP Defendants brought by
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was tried in Commonwealth Court
in October and November 2010. The Court found in the
Commonwealth's favor with regard to certain of its claims under
the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
Law ("UTPL"), entered an injunction, and awarded $45 million in
restitution and $6.5 million in civil penalties. The Court found
in the J&J AWP Defendants' favor on the Commonwealth's claims of
unjust enrichment, misrepresentation/fraud, civil conspiracy, and
on certain of the Commonwealth's claims under the UTPL. The J&J
AWP Defendants have appealed the Commonwealth Court's UTPL ruling
to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Company believes that the
J&J AWP Defendants have strong arguments supporting their appeal.
Because the Company believes that the potential for an unfavorable
outcome is not probable, it has not established an accrual with
respect to the verdict.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Certification of Blood Reagent Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal against the certification of In re Blood Reagent
Antitrust Litigation by the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania is pending, according to Johnson
& Johnson's Nov. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 29,
2013.

In June 2009, following the public announcement that Ortho-
Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD)  had received a grand jury
subpoena from the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust
Division, in connection with an investigation that has since been
closed, multiple class action complaints were filed against OCD by
direct purchasers seeking damages for alleged price fixing.

These cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as
In re Blood Reagent Antitrust Litigation. In August 2012, the
District Court granted a motion filed by Plaintiffs for class
certification. In October 2012, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit granted OCD's petition for interlocutory
review of the class certification ruling. That appeal is pending.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Settlement Process in N.J. Stock Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson is in the process of settling a securities
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 29, 2013.

In September 2010, a shareholder, Ronald Monk, filed a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
seeking class certification and alleging that Johnson & Johnson
and certain individuals, including executive officers and
employees of Johnson & Johnson, failed to disclose that a number
of manufacturing facilities failed to maintain current good
manufacturing practices, and that as a result, the price of the
Company's stock declined significantly. Plaintiff sought to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to recover his
alleged economic losses. In December 2011, a motion by Johnson &
Johnson to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff moved the Court to reconsider part of the December 2011
ruling. In May 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration. In September 2012, Plaintiff filed a Second
Amended Complaint and Johnson & Johnson and the individual
defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint
in part. Following mediation, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle the case, and in July 2013, filed for
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. In August 2013,
the Court preliminarily approved the settlement and set a final
approval hearing for mid-November 2013.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: April Certification Hearing Set in BC Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
An April 2014 class certification hearing is scheduled for a
lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada
over McNeil infants' or children's over-the-counter medicines,
according to Johnson & Johnson's Nov. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 29, 2013.

In September 2011, Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Inc. and
McNeil Consumer Healthcare Division of Johnson & Johnson Inc.
received a Notice of Civil Claim filed by Nick Field in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada (the BC Civil Claim).
The BC Civil Claim is a putative class action brought on behalf of
persons who reside in British Columbia and who purchased during
the period between September 20, 2001 and the present one or more
various McNeil infants' or children's over-the-counter medicines
that were manufactured at the Fort Washington facility.

The BC Civil Claim alleges that the defendants violated the BC
Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and other Canadian
statutes and common laws, by selling medicines that were allegedly
not safe and/or effective or did not comply with Canadian Good
Manufacturing Practices. The class certification hearing is
scheduled for April 2014.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Suit Over Ethicon Pelvic Mesh Devices Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson continues to face a multi-district litigation in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia over Ethicon, Inc.'s pelvic mesh devices, according to
Johnson & Johnson's Nov. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 29,
2013.

Claims for personal injury have been made against Ethicon, Inc.
(Ethicon) and Johnson & Johnson arising out of Ethicon's pelvic
mesh devices used to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic
organ prolapse. The number of pending product liability lawsuits
continues to increase, and the Company continues to receive
information with respect to potential costs and the anticipated
number of cases. Cases filed in Federal courts in the United
States have been organized as a multi-district litigation in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia. In addition, a class action and several individual
personal injury cases or claims have been commenced in Canada,
Australia, England, Italy, Scotland, Venezuela, Israel and the
Netherlands seeking damages for alleged injury resulting from
Ethicon's pelvic mesh devices. The Company has established a
product liability accrual in anticipation of product liability
litigation associated with Ethicon's pelvic mesh products. Changes
to this accrual may be required in the future as additional
information becomes available.


KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks to Dismiss N.Y. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. is seeking to dismiss In re Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, which is pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
according to the company's Nov. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

On February 1, 2013, a lawsuit was filed against the company and
the company's chief executive officer on behalf of a putative
class of all of the company's shareholders (other than the
defendants) who acquired the company's shares between June 1, 2009
and April 1, 2012. Smith v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:13-CV-0755-TPG (S.D.N.Y.). On February 26, 2013, a
substantially similar lawsuit was filed against the company and
the company's chief executive officer as well as the company's
chief financial officer. Park v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:13-CV-1307-TPG (S.D.N.Y.). On June 10, 2013,
the Court entered an Order consolidating the two lawsuits and
appointing a lead plaintiff. The case is now styled In re Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:13-CV-
0755-KBF (S.D.N.Y.).

On July 10, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint that, in substance, repeated the claims alleged in the
consolidated lawsuits. The Consolidated Amended Complaint asserts
claims against (i) the company for alleged violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii) the company's chief
executive officer for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The claims in the
Consolidated Amended Complaint are premised on general allegations
that the company and the individual defendant participated
directly or indirectly in the preparation and/or issuance of
purportedly false and misleading earnings reports, SEC filings,
press releases, and other public statements, which allegedly
caused the company's stock to trade at artificially inflated
prices. The lead plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of damages.
On August 26, 2013, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint. On October 10, 2013, lead
plaintiff filed an opposition to the company's motion to dismiss.
The company's reply in further support of the company's motion to
dismiss is presently due on November 11, 2013.

The company believes the claims made in this action are without
merit, and intend to defend the consolidated action vigorously.
The company cannot, however, predict the outcome or effect, if
any, of the lawsuit on the company's business.


LOCUS TELECOMS: Settles Class Action Over Prepaid Calling Cards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Locus Telecommunications, Inc. on Dec. 20 disclosed that it has
reached a settlement with plaintiffs in a nationwide class action
lawsuit related to its sale of prepaid calling cards and prepaid
calling services.  In the lawsuit, plaintiffs alleged, among other
things, that Locus distributed or sold prepaid calling cards and
prepaid calling services to consumers without fully disclosing the
applicable rates and fees associated with those cards and
services.  As part of the settlement, Locus denies any wrongdoing
or liability.  The parties agreed to the settlement to avoid
further costs and uncertainties related to litigation.

The class action, Flores et al. v. Locus Telecommunications, Inc.
et al., Case No. BC492907, remains pending before the Superior
Court for the State of California for the County of Los Angeles,
Central District until the settlement agreement is given final
approval by the Court.  The settlement affects consumers who
purchased a Locus prepaid calling card or prepaid calling service
in the United States at any time between September 28, 2007 and
November 27, 2013.  The settlement will provide refund Personal
Identification Numbers ("PINs") to those who either submit proof
of purchase or a PIN of an eligible prepaid calling card/calling
service or submit a signed statement declaring that they were the
purchaser of an eligible Locus prepaid calling card/calling
service.  Locus agreed to provide refund PINs worth up to $1.4
million to eligible consumers of Locus prepaid calling cards and
prepaid calling services.  Eligible consumers are entitled to a
refund PIN with a value of $1.50 for domestic calls at $0.10 per
minute and international calls to certain destinations at $0.25 or
$0.50 per minute.  Rates are available at
http://www.locustelecom.com/settlement

Members of the settlement class can submit a claim by following
instructions at 888-572-6124, at Locus's website --
http://www.locustelecom.com/settlement-- or at the website of
plaintiffs' counsel -- http://www.c2lawgroup.com

Those requesting a refund PIN will be required to provide certain
identification information and prepaid calling card/calling
service information.  A list of eligible Locus prepaid calling
cards and prepaid calling services can be found at
http://www.locustelecom.com/settlement

Locus will then determine whether the member of the settlement
class is eligible for a refund based on confirmation of the
information provided and remaining funds in the pool.  If the
settlement receives final approval by the Court, Locus will
provide such eligible members of the settlement class with a
refund PIN; a claimant may not receive more than 10 refund PINs.

Members of the settlement class can also object to or be excluded
from the settlement if they adhere to the specific protocols by
February 3, 2014.  Information about objecting to or being
excluded from the class can be found by calling 888-572-6124 or by
visiting http://www.locustelecom.com/settlement

The plaintiffs in Flores et al. v. Locus Telecommunications, Inc.
et al. are represented by Plaintiffs' Counsel, Christopher Rudd of
C2 Law Group, P.C.  Class members may contact Class Counsel at
818-449-6400.  Locus Telecommunications, Inc. is represented by
Henry Wang and Aaron Kollitz of Lee Tran Liang & Wang, LLP.
Contact for Locus is 888-572-6124.


MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Lawsuits in Texas Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A purported shareholder of McDermott International, Inc. filed a
motion for consolidation of two securities actions filed against
the company in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On August 15, 2013 and August 20, 2013, two separate alleged
purchasers of the company's common stock filed purported class
action complaints against MII, Stephen M. Johnson and Perry L.
Elders in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas. Both of the complaints seek to represent a
class of purchasers of the company's stock between November 6,
2012 and August 5, 2013, and allege, among other things, that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by disseminating
materially false and misleading information and failing to
disclose material information relating to weaknesses in project
bidding and execution, poor risk evaluation, poor project
management and losses in each of MII's reporting segments. Each
complaint seeks relief, including unspecified compensatory damages
and an award for attorneys' fees and other costs. On October 15,
2013, an alleged purchaser of common stock during the relevant
time period filed a motion for consolidation of the two actions,
appointment as lead plaintiff, and approval of his choice of lead
counsel and liaison counsel.

The company believes the substantive allegations contained in the
complaints are without merit, and the company intends to defend
against these claims vigorously.


MERGE HEALTHCARE: Appeals Court Upholds Ruling in Stock Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the
federal district court, which ruled in favor of the motion by
Merge Healthcare Incorporated for summary judgment in relation to
securities complaints filed against it, according to the company's
Nov. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In January and February 2010, purported stockholder class action
complaints were filed in the Superior Court of Suffolk County,
Massachusetts in connection with AMICAS Inc.'s (AMICAS) proposed
acquisition by a third party.  In March 2010, because AMICAS had
terminated the merger agreement with that third party and agreed
to be acquired by Merge, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs'
claims as moot.  Subsequently, plaintiffs' counsel filed an
application for approximately $5,000 of attorneys' fees.

AMICAS opposed the fee petition, tendered the defense to its
insurers that provided coverage against such claims and retained
litigation counsel to defend the matter.  On December 4, 2010, the
Massachusetts court awarded plaintiffs approximately $3,200 in
attorneys' fees and costs.  AMICAS appealed this judgment to the
Massachusetts Court of Appeals.  After receipt of the
Massachusetts court's attorneys' fee award decision, AMICAS's
insurer denied policy coverage for approximately $2,500 of the fee
award and filed a declaratory judgment action to that effect
against AMICAS and Merge in Federal court for the Northern
District of Illinois. The company contested the insurer's denial
of coverage, asserted the company's rights under the applicable
insurance policies and filed a counterclaim against the insurer
seeking full payment of the Massachusetts court's fee award, plus
additional damages.  On April 30, 2012, the Illinois Federal court
ruled in favor of the company's motion for summary judgment, which
decision was appealed by the insurer to the United States Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals.

In late February 2013, the insurer settled the Massachusetts court
case by agreeing to pay $2,990 to plaintiffs' counsel and further
agreeing not to pursue AMICAS or Merge for any portion of the
amount paid.  As a result of the Massachusetts settlement, the
company recognized a gain of $2,500 within general and
administrative expense in the company's statement of operations
with respect to these matters in the first quarter of 2013 based
on the February 27, 2013 Massachusetts appellate court dismissal
date.  On July 16, 2013, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the Federal District court's decision in all respects and
entered Final Judgment.


MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Faces Antitrust Lawsuits in U.S. & Canada
------------------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. is facing lawsuits in the United States
and Canada over alleged antitrust laws violations in relation to
the manufacture of polyurethane foam products, according to the
company's Nov. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2013.

Starting in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits were
initiated in several U.S. federal courts alleging that certain
manufacturers of polyurethane foam products and competitors of the
Company's carpet underlay division had engaged in price fixing in
violation of U.S. antitrust laws. The Company has been named as a
defendant in a number of the individual cases (the first filed on
August 26, 2010), as well as in two consolidated amended class
action complaints, the first filed on February 28, 2011, on behalf
of a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products,
and the second filed on March 21, 2011, on behalf of a class of
indirect purchasers. All pending cases in which the Company has
been named as a defendant have been filed in or transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for
consolidated pre-trial proceedings under the name In re:
Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MDL-02196.

In these actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a
class of purchasers, seek three times the amount of unspecified
damages allegedly suffered as a result of alleged overcharges in
the price of polyurethane foam products from at least 1999 to the
present. Each plaintiff also seeks attorney fees, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, court costs, and injunctive relief against
future violations. In April 2011, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the class action claims brought by the direct purchasers,
and in May 2011, the Company moved to dismiss the claims brought
by the indirect purchasers. On July 19, 2011, the Court issued a
written opinion denying all defendants' motions to dismiss. In
December 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a Canadian
Class action, Hi! Neighbor Floor Covering Co. Limited v. Hickory
Springs Manufacturing Company, et al., filed in the Superior Court
of Justice of Ontario, Canada and Options Consommateures v.
Vitafoam, Inc. et.al., filed in the Superior Court of Justice of
Quebec, Montreal, Canada, both of which allege similar claims
against the Company as raised in the U.S. actions and seek
unspecified damages and punitive damages. The Company denies all
of the allegations in these actions and will vigorously defend
itself.


MORGAN STANLEY: Certification Motion Filed in Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in In re Morgan Stanley Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificate Litigation filed on September 6, 2013, a motion for
class certification, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.


MORGAN STANLEY: Plaintiffs in Suit v. IndyMac Want to Widen Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation
filed a motion on August 30, 2013, to expand the certified class
to include the reinstated offerings, according to Morgan Stanley's
Nov. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.


MORGAN STANLEY: Court Dismisses Amended Complaint in "Ge Dandong"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York denied defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in
Ge Dandong, et al. v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., et al. and
granted certification to a class in the suit, according to Morgan
Stanley's Nov. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On October 25, 2010, the Company, certain affiliates and Pinnacle
Performance Limited, a special purpose vehicle ("SPV"), were named
as defendants in a purported class action related to securities
issued by the SPV in Singapore, commonly referred to as Pinnacle
Notes. The case is styled Ge Dandong, et al. v. Pinnacle
Performance Ltd., et al. and is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY").

The amended complaint was filed on October 22, 2012 and alleges
that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to defraud
investors by structuring the Pinnacle Notes to fail and benefited
subsequently from the securities' failure. The amended complaint
also alleges that the securities' offering materials contained
misstatements or omissions regarding the securities' underlying
assets and the alleged conflicts of interest between the
defendants and the investors.

The amended complaint asserts common law claims of fraud, aiding
and abetting fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting
fraudulent inducement, and breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing. The court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint on August 22, 2013 and granted class
certification on October 17, 2013. Plaintiffs claim damages of
approximately $138.7 million, rescission, punitive damages, and
interest.


NASH-FINCH COMPANY: Settles Lawsuits Over Spartan Stores Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nash-Finch Company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
regarding the settlement of putative class actions filed over its
proposed merger transaction, according to the company's Nov. 4,
2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

As disclosed in the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus of
Nash-Finch and Spartan Stores filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 15, 2013, two putative class action
lawsuits challenging the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement were filed on behalf of a putative class consisting of
Nash-Finch stockholders.

On or about July 24, 2013, a putative class action complaint (the
"State Court Action") was filed in the District Court for the
Fourth Judicial District, State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin
(the "State Court"), by a stockholder of Nash-Finch in connection
with the pending transaction. The State Court Action is styled
Greenblatt v. Nash-Finch Co. et al., Case No. 27-cv-13-13710. That
complaint was amended on August 28, 2013 after Spartan Stores
filed a registration statement with the SEC containing a
preliminary version of the joint proxy statement/prospect of the
company. On September 9, 2013, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the State Court Action. On or about September 19, 2013, a
second putative class action complaint (the "Federal Court Action"
and, together with the State Court Action, the "Putative Class
Actions") was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota (the "Federal Court"), by a stockholder of
Nash-Finch. The Federal Class Action is styled Benson v. Covington
et al., Case No. 0:13-cv-02574.

The Putative Class Actions alleged that the directors of Nash-
Finch breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
approving a merger that provides for inadequate consideration
under circumstances involving certain alleged conflicts of
interest; that the Merger Agreement includes allegedly preclusive
deal protection provisions; and that Nash-Finch and Spartan Stores
allegedly aided and abetted the directors in breaching their
duties to Nash-Finch's stockholders. Both Putative Class Actions
also alleged that the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus
was false and misleading due to the omission of a variety of
allegedly material information. The complaint in the Federal Court
Action also asserts additional claims individually on behalf of
the plaintiff under the federal securities laws. The Putative
Class Actions sought, on behalf of their putative classes, various
remedies, including enjoining the merger from being consummated in
accordance with its agreed-upon terms, damages, and costs and
disbursements relating to the lawsuit.

Nash-Finch believes that these lawsuits are without merit and that
no further disclosure is required to supplement the joint proxy
statement/prospectus under applicable laws; however, to eliminate
the burden, expense and uncertainties inherent in such litigation,
Nash-Finch and Spartan Stores agreed, as part of settlement
discussions, to make certain supplemental disclosures requested by
the Putative Class Actions in the definitive joint proxy
statement/prospectus.  On October 30, 2013, the defendants entered
into the Memorandum of Understanding regarding the settlement of
the Putative Class Actions. The Memorandum of Understanding
outlines the terms of the parties' agreement in principle to
settle and release all claims which were or could have been
asserted in the Putative Class Actions.

In consideration for such settlement and release, Nash-Finch and
Spartan Stores acknowledged that the supplemental disclosures in
the joint proxy statement/prospectus were made in response to the
Putative Class Actions. The Memorandum of Understanding
contemplates that the parties will use their best efforts to agree
upon, execute and present to the State Court for approval a
stipulation of settlement within thirty days after the later of
the date that the Merger is consummated or the date that
plaintiffs and their counsel have confirmed the fairness,
adequacy, and reasonableness of the settlement.  Upon execution of
such stipulation, and as a condition to final approval of the
settlement, the plaintiff in the Federal Action shall withdraw the
claims in and cause to be dismissed the Federal Action, with any
individual claims being dismissed with prejudice.  The Memorandum
of Understanding provides that Nash-Finch will pay, on behalf of
all defendants, the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses,
subject to approval by the State Court, in an amount not to exceed
$550,000.

The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including approval by the State Court, which will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of such
settlement.  There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
State Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were
to enter into such stipulation. In such event, or if the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement are not
consummated for any reason, the proposed settlement will be null
and void and of no force and effect.


NEW YORK: Cuomo Must Take Steps to Settle Hurrel-Harring Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Whiteman -- MWhiteman@WOH.com -- a partner in Whiteman,
Osterman and Hanna, said "In 2001, I, along with former State
Sen. Warren Anderson and former Assemblyman Richard Bartlett, the
original authors of the legislation that provided for appointed
counsel to the poor in criminal cases, came together with all the
past presidents of the New York State Bar Association, clergy,
business leaders and others to form the Committee for an
Independent Public Defense Commission."

"We clearly saw that our efforts in the 1960s to establish a well-
run program of defense representation had gone off the rails, and
we introduced legislation that promoted the vision of state
oversight for a constitutional responsibility that was laid at the
state's feet 50 years ago in Gideon v. Wainwright, the hallmark
case establishing the right to counsel.

"Three years have passed since the 2010 establishment of the
Office of Indigent Legal Services; it lumbers along underfunded,
understaffed, longing for executive fidelity and observing but
glacial improvements.

"Meanwhile, the inefficient patchwork of services provided at the
county level remains seriously deficient.  Public defense services
are inadequately financed by the state, and New York State is the
lead defendant in Hurrell-Harring, the statewide class action
challenging the constitutionality of our state's public defense
system.

"A broad cross-section of legal and activist leaders -- including
the Legislature's Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic and Asian
Caucus -- continues to call upon the state to adequately and
creatively fund the system, to create an Independent Public
Defense Commission to carry out a state takeover of the current
system, and to promulgate statewide standards for caseload limits,
availability of investigative resources to the defense and other
ingredients necessary for competent representation.

"Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has a unique opportunity to heal this broken
system while acting to consolidate and reform the jerry-built
hodgepodge we call New York's public defense system.

"The governor is a progressive social leader capable of harnessing
public and private capital markets, redirecting resources,
building partnerships and redesigning government.  He can be a
voice for the imperative need to treat governmental adversaries
fairly. He can invite the bar and industry to the table.  He can
collegially bring opponents together.  Most importantly, he can
appreciate the need for competence, resources and professional
defender independence.

"The challenge of the moment is to act now to settle the Hurrell-
Harring lawsuit.  The trial is scheduled for March.  The governor
should lead the way."

Mr. Whiteman chairs the Committee for an Independent Public
Defense Commission.


PERRIGO COMPANY: Hearing in Eltroxin Cases in Israel Set in Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several hearing dates on whether or not to certify consolidated
application against Perrigo Company in Israel were scheduled for
December 2013, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 28, 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 patients' 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. Several hearing dates on
whether or not to certify the consolidated application are
scheduled for December 2013. 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.


REALOGY HOLDINGS: CBRBC Awaits Ruling on Appeal in "Bararsani"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company is awaiting a
decision by the California Court of Appeals on its Petition for a
Writ of Mandate seeking a discretionary review of a decision that
denied a Demurrer in the suit Bararsani v. CBRBC., according to
Realogy Holdings Corp.'s Nov. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

On November 15, 2012, plaintiff Ali Bararsani filed a putative
class action complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court, California,
against Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company ("CBRBC")
alleging that CBRBC had misclassified current and former
affiliated sales associates as independent contractors when they
were actually employees. The complaint, as amended, further
alleges that, because of the misclassification, CBRBC has violated
several sections of the California Labor Code including Section
2802 for failing to reimburse plaintiff and the purported class
for business related expenses and Section 226 for failing to keep
proper records.

The amended complaint also asserts a Section 17200 Unfair Business
Practices claim for misclassifying the sales associates. The
Plaintiff, on behalf of a purported class, seeks the benefit of
the California labor laws for expenses, wages and other sums, plus
asserted penalties, attorneys' fees and interest.  The Company
believes that CBRBC has properly classified the sales associates
as independent contractors and that it has and continues to
operate in a manner consistent with widespread industry practice
for many decades.

On July 31, 2013, CBRBC filed a Demurrer with the Court related to
the amended complaint. The Demurrer asserted that the claims
raised by the plaintiff were without basis under California law
because the California Business and Professions Code sets forth a
three-part test for classification of real estate sales associates
-- as independent contractors -- and all elements of the test have
been satisfied by CBRBC and the affiliated sales associates.
Plaintiff filed an Opposition on August 12, 2013 and a hearing was
held on August 28, 2013. The Court denied the Demurrer and stated
that it would look to the more complex multi-factor common law
test to determine whether the plaintiff was misclassified. CBRBC
filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandate with the California Court
of Appeals seeking its discretionary review of that decision on
September 30, 2013 and is still awaiting word from the Court of
Appeal on whether it will accept the Petition.

In the event the Court of Appeal denies the Petition, the case
will proceed and discovery on class and other claims will
commence. The case raises significant classification claims that
potentially apply to the real estate industry in general and for
which there is no California case authority. As with all class
action litigation, the case is inherently complex and subject to
many uncertainties. The company believes that CBRBC has properly
classified the current and former affiliated sales associates.
There can be no assurance, however, that if the action continues
and a large class is subsequently certified, the plaintiffs will
not seek a substantial damage award and other remedies. Given the
early stage of this case, the novel claims presented and the great
uncertainties regarding which sales associates, if any, may be
part of a class, if one is certified, the company cannot estimate
a range of reasonably potential losses for this litigation. The
Company believes it has complied with all applicable laws and
regulations and will vigorously defend this action.


ROCHESTER MEDICAL: Reaches Settlement in Merger Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Rochester Medical Corporation reached a settlement in In re
Rochester Medical Corp. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 55-CV-13-
6107, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2013, Form 8-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In September 2013, Rochester Medical announced it has entered into
a definitive merger agreement with C. R. Bard, Inc. at a price of
$20 per share, or approximately $262 million in the aggregate.
The Rochester Medical Board of Directors unanimously approved the
agreement and recommended that the Company's shareholders approve
the transaction.

Under the terms of the merger agreement, Rochester Medical
shareholders would receive $20 in cash for each share that they
hold at the closing of the merger, representing a 37 percent
premium over the Company's average closing price during the 90
trading days ended September 3, 2013.  The acquisition is subject
to certain closing conditions specified in the definitive
agreement, including regulatory approvals and the approval of
Rochester Medical's shareholders. The transaction was expected to
close in the fourth calendar quarter of 2013.

Three separate putative class actions challenging the proposed
merger were filed in the Olmsted County District Court, Third
Judicial District, State of Minnesota (the "Court"). A fourth
putative class action challenging the Merger has also been filed.
On November 1, 2013 the Court consolidated all four lawsuits.  The
consolidated action is captioned In re Rochester Medical Corp.
Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 55-CV-13-6107 (the "Litigation").

On November 4, 2013, after extensive negotiations, Rochester
Medical and the other defendants reached an agreement in principle
with the plaintiffs regarding settlement of the Litigation. In
connection with the settlement contemplated by that agreement in
principle, the Litigation and all claims asserted therein will be
dismissed with prejudice.

Rochester Medical believes that no further disclosure is required
to supplement the Proxy Statement under applicable laws and
Rochester Medical, Bard and the other defendants to the class
action continue to deny that the process by which the proposed
transaction was negotiated or is being executed was or is
insufficient in any way and that any defendant acted improperly;
however, to avoid the risk that the putative stockholder class
actions may delay or otherwise adversely affect the consummation
of the transactions and to minimize the expense of defending such
action, Rochester Medical has agreed, pursuant to the terms of the
proposed settlement, to make certain supplemental disclosures
related to the proposed transaction.

The agreement in principle contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to
customary conditions, including completion of the merger and court
approval following notice to Rochester Medical's shareholders, and
for the conditional certification of a class pursuant to Minnesota
Rule of Civil Procedure 23.01(a) and (b), for settlement purposes
only, that includes all common shareholders of Rochester Medical
from September 3, 2013 through and including the date of the close
of the Merger, including any and all of their respective
successors in interest, predecessors, representatives, trustees,
executors, administrators, heirs, assigns or transferees,
immediate and remote, and any person or entity acting for or on
behalf of, or claiming under, any of them, and each of them, and
the release of all asserted claims.

There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter
into a stipulation of settlement, that the Court will approve any
proposed settlement, or that any eventual settlement will be under
the same terms as those contemplated by the agreement in
principle. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated
by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated. By entering
into the proposed settlement, Rochester Medical, Bard and the
other defendants are in no way acknowledging that the allegations
contained in the Litigation have merit, and the defendants deny
any liability.


ROYAL HEALTH CARE: Agrees to Settle Overtime Action for $1.94MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reports that Royal Health Care
of Long Island LLC has agreed to pay $1.94 million to settle a
class action claiming it violated federal and state labor laws by
shorting some employees on overtime pay, according to a motion for
settlement approval filed in New York federal court on Dec. 18.

The plaintiffs' motion on Dec. 18 marks the near-conclusion of
allegations that the health care technology and business services
provider violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York labor
laws by classifying its marketing and retention representatives as
exempt from overtime pay.

The proposed settlement is an acceptable compromise in a case that
would require significantly more discovery and still carry a
significant chance of failure if it went to trial, according to a
memorandum in support of the motion for final approval filed by
the plaintiffs on Dec. 18.

"One major hurdle for plaintiffs would be establishing that
plaintiffs were not engaged in sales and thus not exempt under the
FLSA's outside sales exemption.  . . . Moreover, plaintiffs may
have difficulty establishing that they worked the hours they claim
to have worked," the memorandum said.

"The proposed settlement alleviates these uncertainties," it
added.

The settlement stems from claims brought in May 2012 by Royal
Health Care employees Chandrakalli Sukhnandan, Farhana Akter, Tara
Singh-Paltoo and Sonia Bailey that the company violated the FLSA
and New York labor laws by misclassifying its marketing and
retention representatives as overtime-exempt outside sales
workers.

After notice of the case was served in October 2012, 138 current
or former marketing and retention representatives opted in as
named plaintiffs, and the total class gathered 411 members,
according to the Dec. 18 memorandum.

The parties reached a deal in August 2013, agreeing that a $1.94
million settlement represented a fair compromise to resolve a case
that could have lasted years, according to the memorandum.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis gave preliminary approval to
the settlement Sept. 13 and scheduled a fairness hearing for
Jan. 6, 2014.

If approved, the Dec. 18 motion for final approval would resolve
the claims of all marketing and retention representatives who
worked for eight or more weeks at Royal Health Care from May 2006
to May 2013.

Under the proposed settlement, the $1.94 million will be
distributed proportionally among the class members based on number
of weeks worked at Royal Health Care.  The plaintiffs also
requested $10,000 in service awards for each of the four original
named plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' attorneys are seeking one-third of the total
settlement fund, or $649,666, in attorneys' fees.

Representatives for the plaintiffs declined to comment.

Representatives for Royal Health Care did not immediately respond
to a request for comment on Dec. 18.

The plaintiffs are represented by Joseph A. Fitapelli, Brian S.
Schaffer and Eric J. Gitig of Fitapelli & Schaffer LLP and Troy L.
Kessler and Marijana F. Matura of Shulman Kessler LLP.

Royal Health Care is represented by Jonathan Marc Kozak --
KozakJ@jacksonlewis.com -- and Noel P. Tripp --
TrippN@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson Lewis LLP.

The case is Chandrakalli Sukhnandan et al. v. Royal Health Care of
Long Island LLC, case number 1:12-cv-04216, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.


SINGAPORE AIRLINES: Cargo Unit Settles Class Action for $62.8MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gaurav Raghuvanshi, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports
that Singapore Airlines Ltd. on Dec. 20 said its cargo unit has
reached a settlement with plaintiffs in a class action case in the
U.S.

Under the terms of the settlement, Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte.
will pay US$62.8 million and make a corresponding provision in its
financial statements, according to a company statement.

Singapore Airlines said it hasn't admitted to any wrongdoing and
the settlement resolves any liability for the company from the air
cargo class action in the U.S.

The airline didn't name the plaintiffs in the statement but said
that in 2006, proposed class actions were started against several
airlines, including Singapore Airlines, on competitive aspects of
air cargo services.


SKILLED HEALTHCARE: Puts $3MM in Humboldt Case Settlement Fund
--------------------------------------------------------------
Skilled Healthcare Group, Inc. distributed $3.0 million to the
class settlement fund as required by a settlement agreement in the
"Humboldt County Action," according to the company's Nov. 4, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

In connection with the September 2010 settlement of the class
action litigation against Skilled and certain of its subsidiaries
related to, among other matters, alleged understaffing at certain
California skilled nursing facilities operated by Skilled's
subsidiaries (the "Humboldt County Action"), Skilled and its
defendant subsidiaries (collectively, the "Defendants") entered
into settlement agreements with the plaintiffs and intervenor and
agreed to an injunction. The settlement was approved by the
Superior Court of California, Humboldt County on November 30,
2010.

Under the terms of the settlement agreements, the defendant
entities deposited a total of $50.0 million into escrow accounts
to cover settlement payments to class members, notice and claims
administration costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and
certain other payments, including $5.0 million to settle certain
government agency claims and potential government claims that may
arise. Of the $5.0 million provided for such government claims,
$1.0 million was initially released by the court to the Humboldt
County Treasurer-Tax Collector on behalf of the People of the
State of California for their release of the Defendants. The
remaining $4.0 million was available for the settlement and
releases by the California Attorney General and certain other
District Attorneys.

However, in the event that any of these government authorities
were to instead file certain actions against the Defendants by the
second anniversary of the effective date of the settlement
agreement, which occurred in February 2013, the entire $4.0
million would have reverted to the Defendants upon their request
to the Settlement Administrator. No such actions were filed,
however, resulting in an additional $1.0 million distribution to
the Humboldt County District Attorney's Office and the remaining
$3.0 million was distributed to the class settlement fund, as
required by the settlement agreement.


SPARTAN STORES: Settles Lawsuits Over Nash-Finch Merger
-------------------------------------------------------
Spartan Stores, Inc. entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
regarding the settlement of putative class actions filed over its
proposed merger transaction, according to the company's Nov. 4,
2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

As disclosed in the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus of
Nash-Finch Company ("Nash Finch") and Spartan Stores, Inc.
("Spartan Stores") filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 15, 2013 (the "joint proxy
statement/prospectus"), two putative class action lawsuits were
filed on behalf of a putative class consisting of Nash-Finch
stockholders challenging the transactions contemplated by that
certain Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of July 21, 2013
(the "Merger Agreement"), by and among Nash-Finch, Spartan Stores,
and SS Delaware, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned
subsidiary of Spartan Stores ("Merger Sub"), providing for the
merger of Merger Sub with and into Nash-Finch, with Nash-Finch
surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Spartan Stores (the
"Merger").

Spartan filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC to report
a memorandum of understanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding")
regarding the settlement of certain litigation relating to the
Merger Agreement, and update the disclosure of such litigation
made in the joint statement/prospectus.

On or about July 24, 2013, a putative class action complaint (the
"State Court Action") was filed in the District Court for the
Fourth Judicial District, State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin
(the "State Court"), by a stockholder of Nash-Finch in connection
with the pending transaction. The State Court Action is styled
Greenblatt v. Nash-Finch Co. et al., Case No. 27-cv-13-13710. That
complaint was amended on August 28, 2013 after Spartan Stores
filed a registration statement with the SEC containing a
preliminary version of the joint proxy statement/prospectus. On
September 9, 2013, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
State Court Action. On or about September 19, 2013, a second
putative class action complaint (the "Federal Court Action" and,
together with the State Court Action, the "Putative Class
Actions") was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota (the "Federal Court"), by a stockholder of
Nash-Finch. The Federal Class Action is styled Benson v. Covington
et al., Case No. 0:13-cv-02574.

The Putative Class Actions alleged that the directors of Nash-
Finch breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
approving a merger that provides for inadequate consideration
under circumstances involving certain alleged conflicts of
interest; that the Merger Agreement includes allegedly preclusive
deal protection provisions; and that Nash-Finch and Spartan Stores
allegedly aided and abetted the directors in breaching their
duties to Nash-Finch's stockholders. Both Putative Class Actions
also alleged that the preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus
was false and misleading due to the omission of a variety of
allegedly material information. The complaint in the Federal Court
Action also asserts additional claims individually on behalf of
the plaintiff under the federal securities laws. The Putative
Class Actions sought, on behalf of their putative classes, various
remedies, including enjoining the merger from being consummated in
accordance with its agreed-upon terms, damages, and costs and
disbursements relating to the lawsuit.

Spartan Stores believes that these lawsuits are without merit and
that no further disclosure is required to supplement the joint
proxy statement/prospectus under applicable laws; however, to
eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties inherent in such
litigation, Nash-Finch and Spartan Stores agreed, as part of
settlement discussions, to make certain supplemental disclosures
requested by the Putative Class Actions in the definitive joint
proxy statement/prospectus.

On October 30, 2013, the defendants entered into the Memorandum of
Understanding regarding the settlement of the Putative Class
Actions. The Memorandum of Understanding outlines the terms of the
parties' agreement in principle to settle and release all claims
which were or could have been asserted in the Putative Class
Actions. In consideration for such settlement and release, Nash-
Finch and Spartan Stores acknowledged that the supplemental
disclosures in the joint proxy statement/prospectus were made in
response to the Putative Class Actions.

The Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that the parties will
use their best efforts to agree upon, execute and present to the
State Court for approval a stipulation of settlement within thirty
days after the later of the date that the Merger is consummated or
the date that plaintiffs and their counsel have confirmed the
fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the settlement. Upon
execution of such stipulation, and as a condition to final
approval of the settlement, the plaintiff in the Federal Action
shall withdraw the claims in and cause to be dismissed the Federal
Action, with any individual claims being dismissed with prejudice.
The Memorandum of Understanding provides that Nash-Finch will pay,
on behalf of all defendants, the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
expenses, subject to approval by the State Court, in an amount not
to exceed $550,000. The stipulation of settlement will be subject
to customary conditions, including approval by the State Court,
which will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of
such settlement.

Spartan said there can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
State Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were
to enter into such stipulation. In such event, or if the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement are not
consummated for  any reason, the proposed settlement will be null
and void and of no force and effect.


STATE FARM: Seeks Mandamus Relief Against Racketeering Suit Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Korris, writing for The Madison-St. Clair Record, reports
that automobile insurer State Farm has petitioned a federal
appeals court to stop a suit claiming it corrupted the Illinois
Supreme Court.

Attorney Timothy Eaton of Chicago sought mandamus relief for State
Farm on Dec. 17 at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit, 13 days after Chief District Judge David Herndon of East
St. Louis ruled that the suit could proceed.  Mr. Eaton wrote that
a determination on later appeal that jurisdiction is lacking would
not repair harm to State Farm's reputation.  He wrote that
allegations of tainted deliberations unfairly impugn the integrity
of the Illinois Supreme Court and the Illinois justice system.

"Plaintiffs have announced that they may depose Justice Karmeier,
a sitting justice on that Court," he wrote.

"Justice Karmeier faces a retention election in 2014. Thus, the
destructive effects of this lawsuit will likely extend to the
judicial election process as well."

Also on Dec. 17, State Farm asked Judge Herndon to stay
proceedings in his court while awaiting a decision from the
Seventh Circuit.

In that filing, attorney Patrick Cloud of Edwardsville wrote,
"Defendants should not be required to proceed with discovery in a
matter where it is clear that plaintiffs have no valid claim for
relief.

"Staying proceedings is also appropriate in light of the
extraordinarily inflammatory nature of plaintiffs' allegations."

Lead plaintiff Mark Hale claims the Supreme Court improperly
overturned a $1.05 billion judgment in a consumer class action,
Avery v. State Farm, in 2005.  He seeks triple damages under
racketeering law on behalf of a class identical to the one
Williamson County Associate Judge John Speroni certified for Avery
in 1998.

In 1999, Judge Speroni entered judgment that State Farm breached a
uniform contract and violated consumer fraud law by supplying
inferior parts for crash repairs.

Fifth District appellate judges affirmed the judgment in 2001.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in 2003, but had not reached
a decision when Southern Illinois voters elected Justice Karmeier.

Avery moved to recuse Justice Karmeier, due to State Farm's
support of his campaign.

The Justices denied the motion in March 2005, with Justice
Karmeier not participating.

Avery sought reconsideration, and the Justices vacated the
decision so they could enter a stronger one.  They held that
disqualification was "a decision exclusively within the
determination of the individual judge."  They wrote that Justice
Karmeier's decision not to recuse himself made the motion moot.

On Aug. 18, 2005, the Justices unanimously ruled that Judge
Speroni erred in certifying a national class under state law.
They ruled that he erred in defining different individual policies
as a single contract.  They ruled that class action could not work
even with subclasses.

Two Justices separately wrote that certifying subclasses might
have worked.

Avery moved for rehearing and the Justices denied it.

Avery petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review, and the Court
denied the petition in March 2006.

Avery returned to the Illinois Supreme Court in 2011, claiming new
evidence of State Farm's "extraordinary efforts and substantial
funding" in Justice Karmeier's campaign.

The Justices rejected the new evidence as old and decided against
reopening the case, with Justice Karmeier not participating.

Lawyers on the losing end filed the federal racketeering suit
against State Farm last year, on behalf of Hale, Todd Shadle and
Carly Morse.  They also named campaign figures Ed Murnane and
William Shepherd as defendants.

State Farm moved to dismiss, and Judge Herndon denied the motion
in March.

State Farm moved for reconsideration and Judge Herndon denied it.
He wrote that he agreed with plaintiffs that State Farm
mischaracterized their theories and factual allegations.  He wrote
that he agreed with plaintiffs that State Farm repeated and
rehashed previous arguments he rejected.

State Farm's petition at the Seventh Circuit argues that Hale's
allegations don't bridge the gap between Justice Karmeier's
participation and the overturning of the judgment.

"Whether the other justices might have voted differently if
Justice Karmeier had not participated is a matter of sheer
speculation," Eaton wrote.

"Between the purported cause and the alleged effect are the
individual thought processes of the Justices of the Illinois
Supreme Court.

"Those Justices have an absolute deliberative privilege and cannot
be compelled to disclose intra court communications made in the
course of the judicial decision making process and concerning the
court's official business."

He wrote that plaintiffs failed to allege facts indicating that
campaign contributions influenced Justice Karmeier's vote.  He
wrote that emails retrieved from trash, referenced in the
complaint, mentioned many donors but didn't mention State Farm.

Cloud's motion to stay proceedings in Judge Herndon's court states
that the parties have made no initial disclosures or discovery
requests.  He wrote that no scheduling conference has been set and
no discovery order issued.  He wrote that the suit would
undoubtedly give rise to discovery requests and subpoenas that
would implicate First Amendment privileges.  He wrote that it
might give rise to discovery that implicates attorney client
privilege and work product confidentiality.

"Given the slow pace at which plaintiffs have pursued their
purported claims, and the lengthy pretrial discovery period they
have sought in any event, plaintiffs cannot legitimately complain
of unfair prejudice if these proceedings are stayed," he wrote.

He wrote that if Judge Herndon doesn't wish to stay the
proceedings, he might wish to rule on class certification.

"Discovery is not needed at this time because the court already
has before it all the information necessary to dispose of the
pending class certification motion."

The Illinois Supreme Court decision overturning Avery sharply
curtailed class action litigation in Illinois.

State Farm lawyers have found Avery citations in 11 Illinois
Supreme Court decisions, 105 Illinois appellate court decisions,
and 148 decisions of federal courts in Illinois


SUPPORT.COM INC: Records $57,000 Benefit in Product Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Support.com, Inc. reversed a previous accrual of $57,000
associated with a product lawsuit and recorded a benefit in the
same amount within interest income and other, net in the condensed
consolidated statements of operations for the three and nine
months ended September 30, 2013, according to the company's Nov.
4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On February 7, 2012, a lawsuit seeking class-action certification
was filed against the Company in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, No. 12-CV-00609, alleging
that the design of one the Company's software products and the
method of promotion to consumers constitute fraudulent inducement,
breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, and
unjust enrichment. On the same day the same plaintiffs' law firm
filed another action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, No. 12-CV-0963, involving similar
allegations against a subsidiary of the Company and one of the
Company's channel partners who distributes the company's software
products, and that channel partner has requested indemnification
under contract terms with the Company. The law firm representing
the plaintiffs in both cases has filed unrelated class actions in
the past against a number of major software providers with similar
allegations about those providers' products.

On May 30, 2013, the Company received final court approval
relating to the terms of the settlement. Under the terms of the
settlement, the Company offered a one-time cash payment, covered
by the Company's insurance provider, to qualified class-action
members and the deadline to submit a claim form concluded on
February 28, 2013. In addition, the Company offered a limited free
subscription to one of its software products and the deadline for
redemptions concluded on August 31, 2013. Therefore, the Company
reversed a previous accrual of $57,000 associated with this action
and recorded a benefit in the same amount within interest income
and other, net in the condensed consolidated statements of
operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013.
The Company denies any wrongdoing or liability and entered into
the settlement to minimize the costs of defense.


TARGET CORP: State Attorneys General Demand Answers Amid Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth MacDonald, writing for Fox Business, reports that four
state attorneys general now say they are demanding answers from
Target, as the threat of class action lawsuits from customers
mounts.

Massachusetts attorney general Martha Coakley, who headed the
multi-state probe into the 2007 data breach of 90 million cards at
TJ Maxx, is now working with other state attorneys general to
determine whether Target (TGT) had proper safeguards.  New York
attorney general Eric Schneiderman is demanding answers.  The
attorneys general for South Dakota and Connecticut want answers,
too.

According to Target, credit and debit card information for
approximately 40 million customers who shopped in their stores may
have been hacked between Nov. 27 and Dec. 15.  Target has
indicated that the information involved included customer names,
credit or debit card numbers, and the card's expiration date and
CVV (the three-digit security code).  But Target says it has
determined that the hack involved credit card and debit card
information for purchases at its retail stores only; online
purchases were not affected.

Card holders are being asked to review their account statements,
and debit card holders are being urged to change their cards or
PIN numbers.

In a statement, Target says that it "is working closely with law
enforcement and financial institutions, and has identified and
resolved the issue."

Gregg Steinhafel, chairman, president and chief executive officer
of Target, said in the statement: "Target's first priority is
preserving the trust of our guests and we have moved swiftly to
address this issue, so guests can shop with confidence.  We regret
any inconvenience this may cause," adding, "we take this matter
very seriously and are working with law enforcement to bring those
responsible to justice."

A customer in California filed a class-action lawsuit against
Target late on Dec. 19, the first of what lawyers say could be
many.  The suit asks the court to ascertain whether "Target
unreasonably delayed in notifying affected customers of the data
breach," meaning Target could be liable and may have to foot the
bill reaching into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Target also faces potential fines due to alleged poor security
from MasterCard, Visa and American Express, which means a possible
increase in merchant fees.  So far, J.C. Penney, Wal-Mart, Best
Buy and Home Depot say they believe their systems had not been
compromised.  But retailers typically only know after the fact.

The state attorneys general could wring fines out of Target,
similar to how T.J. Maxx had to pay $9.75 million in fines over
its card security breach.  Massachusetts says it got "more than
$950,000 to aid efforts to protect consumers' personally-
identifiable information."

The Massachusetts attorney general also says her office has
"contacted Target to review the circumstances of the breach and
the steps the company is taking to address it," and that it "will
work with attorneys general across the country to determine
whether Target had proper safeguards in place to protect consumer
information."

The office of the New York attorney general says it has requested
"that Target offer each of the affected New York consumers, at a
minimum, one year free credit monitoring service."

The Connecticut attorney general, George Jepsen, is demanding
Target give his office answers to a list of 10 demands, including:
access to third party investigation reports; steps Target has
taken to protect customer information on its data networks; steps
it has taken to contact and protect his state residents affected
by the breach, and his office is asking for two years worth of
free credit monitoring and identity theft protection for state
residents.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Enters MoU in Suits Over Vanguard Acquisition
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle lawsuits over its acquisition of Vanguard
Health Systems, Inc., according to Tenet's Nov. 4, 2013, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On June 24, 2013, the company agreed to acquire Vanguard Health
Systems, Inc. ("Vanguard") for $21 per share in cash. On June 25,
2013, a Vanguard stockholder filed a class action lawsuit in the
Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee, captioned James A.
Kaurich v. Vanguard Health Systems, Inc., et al., and, on June 27,
2013, a second Vanguard stockholder filed a class action lawsuit
in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee, captioned
Marion Edinburgh TTEE FBO Marion Edinburgh Trust U/T/D/ 7/8/1991
v. Vanguard Health Systems, Inc., et al. Both complaints name as
defendants Vanguard, Tenet Healthcare Corporation, the merger
subsidiary formed for the purpose of completing the merger with
Vanguard, and the members of Vanguard's board of directors, and
allege, among other things, that the company aided and abetted
Vanguard's directors' breach of their fiduciary duties with
respect to the process and terms of the merger. Both complaints
seek to enjoin the merger and to create a constructive trust for
the purportedly improper benefits received by Vanguard's
directors.

On August 26, 2013, the company and the other defendants entered
into a memorandum of understanding ("MOU") with the plaintiffs
regarding the settlement of these lawsuits. Under the terms of the
MOU, which is subject to customary conditions and court approval,
Vanguard agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures related
to the merger and to extend the period for its stockholders to
exercise their appraisal rights. The MOU also contemplates that
the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement, and that
Vanguard will cover the fees and expenses of the plaintiffs'
counsel for an amount that is less than $1 million.

In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement. If the court ultimately approves the settlement, it
will resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or
could have been brought challenging any aspect of the merger and
any related disclosure, among other claims. There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the
settlement even if the parties do enter into such stipulation. If
the proposed settlement were not to be approved, the company would
continue to vigorously defend against each of these cases.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Expects Court to Try Suit Over Patient Records
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in Louisiana is
expected to set the matter Doe, et al. v. Jo Ellen Smith Medical
Foundation for trial in the near term, according to Tenet
Healtcare Corp.'s Nov. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30,
2013.

The company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit in which the
plaintiffs claim that in April 1996 patient identifying records
from a psychiatric hospital that the company closed in 1995 were
temporarily placed in an unsecure location while the hospital was
undergoing renovations. The lawsuit, Doe, et al. v. Jo Ellen Smith
Medical Foundation, was filed in the Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans in Louisiana in March 1997 and is currently
pending. The plaintiffs' claims include allegations of tortious
invasion of privacy and negligent infliction of emotional
distress. The plaintiffs contend that the class consists of over
5,000 persons; however, only eight individuals have been
identified to date in the class certification process.

The plaintiffs have asserted each member of the class is entitled
to common damages under a theory of presumed "common damage"
regardless of whether or not any members of the class were
actually harmed or even aware of the incident. The company
believes there is no authority for an award of common damages
under Louisiana law. In addition, the company believes that there
is no basis for the certification of this proceeding as a class
action under applicable federal and Louisiana law precedents.
However, the trial court has denied the company's motions for
summary judgment and the company's motion to decertify the
proceeding as a class action, and the company's attempts to appeal
the trial court's decisions have been unsuccessful. The court is
expected to set the matter for trial in the near term. At this
time, the company is not able to estimate the reasonably possible
loss or reasonably possible range of loss given: the small number
of class members that have been identified or otherwise responded
to the class certification process; the novel theories asserted by
plaintiffs, including their assertion that a theory of presumed
common damage exists under Louisiana law; and the failure of the
plaintiffs to provide any evidence of damages. The company intends
to vigorously contest the plaintiffs' claims.


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Awaits Ruling in Hot Fuel Cases
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas has not issued
a decision on class certification or motions for summary judgment
with respect to remaining claims in the California motor fuel
"temperature" case or with respect to the remaining cases that
have been consolidated against Travelcenters of America LLC,
according to the company's Nov. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2013.

Starting in December 2006, a series of class action lawsuits was
filed against numerous companies in the petroleum industry,
including the company's predecessor and the company's
subsidiaries, in U.S. district courts in over 20 states.  Major
petroleum refiners and retailers were named as defendants in one
or more of these lawsuits.  The plaintiffs in the lawsuits
generally allege that they are retail purchasers who purchased
motor fuel at temperatures greater than 60 degrees Fahrenheit at
the time of sale.  One theory alleges that the plaintiffs
purchased smaller amounts of motor fuel than the amount for which
defendants charged them because the defendants measured the amount
of motor fuel they delivered by volumes which, at higher
temperatures, contain less energy.

A second theory alleges that fuel taxes are calculated in
temperature adjusted 60 degree gallons and are collected by
governmental agencies from suppliers and wholesalers, who are
reimbursed in the amount of the tax by the defendant retailers
before the fuel is sold to consumers.  These "tax" cases allege
that, when the fuel is subsequently sold to consumers at
temperatures above 60 degrees, the retailers sell a greater volume
of fuel than the amount on which they paid tax, and therefore reap
unjust benefit because the customers pay more tax than the
retailer pays.  A third theory, advanced more recently in
connection with plaintiffs' request for class certification,
alleges that all purchasers of fuel at any temperature are harmed
because the defendants do not use equipment that adjusts for
temperature or disclose the temperature of fuel being sold, and
thereby deprive customers of information they allegedly require to
make an informed purchasing decision.

The company believes that there are substantial factual and legal
defenses to the theories alleged in these so called "hot fuel"
lawsuits.  The "temperature" cases seek nonmonetary relief in the
form of an order requiring the defendants to install devices that
display the temperature of the fuel and/or temperature correcting
equipment on their retail fuel pumps and monetary relief in the
form of damages, but the plaintiffs have not quantified the
damages they seek.  The "tax" cases also seek monetary relief.
Plaintiffs have proposed a formula (which the company disputes) to
measure these damages as the difference between the amount of fuel
excise taxes paid by defendants and the amount collected by
defendants on motor fuel sales.  Plaintiffs have taken the
position in Court filings that under this approach, the company's
damages for an eight-year period for one state would be
approximately $10,700,000.  The company denies liability and
disagree with the plaintiffs' positions.  All of these cases have
been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas pursuant to multi-district litigation procedures.

On May 28, 2010, that Court ruled that, with respect to two cases
originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, it would grant plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of
plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief (implementation of fuel
temperature equipment and/or posting of notices regarding the
effect of temperature on fuel).  On January 19, 2012, the Court
amended its prior ruling, and certified a class with respect to
plaintiffs' claims for damages as well.  A TA entity was named in
one of those two Kansas cases, but the Court ruled that the named
plaintiffs were not sufficient to represent a class as to TA.  TA
was thereafter dismissed from the Kansas case, and TA entities
have been dismissed voluntarily from several other cases as well.
Several defendants in the Kansas cases, including major petroleum
refiners, have entered into multi-state settlements.

Following a September 2012 trial against the remaining defendants
in the Kansas cases, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in
favor of those Kansas defendants, and the judge likewise ruled in
the Kansas defendants' favor on the sole non-jury claim.  In early
2013, the Court announced its intention to remand three cases
originally filed in federal district courts in California back to
their original courts.  A TA entity is named in one of these three
California cases.

On April 9, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the California cases.  On August 14, 2013, the
Court granted summary judgment for the defendants with respect to
all California claims in the California cases.  Since that time,
the parties have entered stipulations of dismissal with all but
one Plaintiff in one of the California cases, who continues to
assert claims based on purchases of fuel in states other than
California.  The Court has not issued a decision on class
certification or motions for summary judgment with respect to
those remaining claims in the California case or with respect to
the remaining cases that have been consolidated in the multi-
district litigation.  The company cannot estimate the company's
ultimate exposure to loss or liability, if any, related to these
lawsuits, but, the continued costs to defend these cases could be
significant.


TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Trial in Antitrust Suit to Begin August
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has set a schedule that provides trial in an antitrust suit by
truck stop owners against Travelcenters of America LLC to begin on
August 4, 2014, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On April 6, 2009, five independent truck stop owners, who are
plaintiffs in a purported class action suit against Comdata
Network, Inc., or Comdata, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, filed a motion to amend their
complaint to add the company as a defendant, which was allowed on
March 25, 2010.  The amended complaint also added as defendants
Ceridian Corporation, Pilot Travel Centers LLC and Love's Travel
Stops & Country Stores, Inc.  Comdata markets fuel cards which are
used for payments by trucking companies at truck stops.  The
amended complaint alleged antitrust violations arising out of
Comdata's contractual relationships with truck stops in connection
with its fuel cards.  The plaintiffs have sought unspecified
damages and injunctive relief.

On March 24, 2011, the Court dismissed the claims against TA in
the amended complaint, but granted plaintiffs leave to file a new
amended complaint.  Four independent truck stop owners, as
plaintiffs, filed a new amended complaint against the company on
April 21, 2011, repleading their claims.  On May 6, 2011, the
company renewed the company's motion to dismiss the complaint with
prejudice while discovery otherwise proceeded.  The Court denied
the company's renewed motion to dismiss on March 29, 2012, and the
company filed an answer to the complaint on April 30, 2012.  The
Court has set a schedule that provides that trial shall begin on
August 4, 2014.  The company believes that there are substantial
factual and legal defenses to the plaintiffs' claims against the
company.  The company cannot estimate the company's ultimate
exposure to loss or liability, if any, related to this lawsuit,
but the continued costs to defend this case could be significant.


WESTERN UNION: Class Members in Consumer Suit Appeal Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two class members filed notices of appeal against a settlement of
a suit alleging violation by The Western Union Company of various
consumer protection laws, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2013,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013.

The Company and one of its subsidiaries are defendants in two
purported class action lawsuits: James P. Tennille v. The Western
Union Company and Robert P. Smet v. The Western Union Company,
both of which are pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado. The original complaints asserted claims
for violation of various consumer protection laws, unjust
enrichment, conversion and declaratory relief, based on
allegations that the Company waits too long to inform consumers if
their money transfers are not redeemed by the recipients and that
the Company uses the unredeemed funds to generate income until the
funds are escheated to state governments. The Tennille complaint
was served on the Company on April 27, 2009. The Smet complaint
was served on the Company on April 6, 2010.

On September 21, 2009, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the Tennille complaint and gave the plaintiff leave to
file an amended complaint. On October 21, 2009, Tennille filed an
amended complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the Tennille
amended complaint and the Smet complaint. On November 8, 2010, the
Court denied the motion to dismiss as to the plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment and conversion claims. On February 4, 2011, the Court
dismissed the plaintiffs' consumer protection claims. On March 11,
2011, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that adds a claim
for breach of fiduciary duty, various elements to its declaratory
relief claim and Western Union Financial Services, Inc. ("WUFSI"),
a subsidiary of the Company, as a defendant. On April 25, 2011,
the Company and WUFSI filed a motion to dismiss the breach of
fiduciary duty and declaratory relief claims. WUFSI also moved to
compel arbitration of the plaintiffs' claims and to stay the
action pending arbitration.

On November 21, 2011, the Court denied the motion to compel
arbitration and the stay request. Both companies appealed the
decision. On January 24, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit granted the companies' request to stay the
District Court proceedings pending their appeal. During the fourth
quarter of 2012, the parties executed a settlement agreement,
which the Court preliminarily approved on January 3, 2013. On June
25, 2013, the Court entered an order certifying the class and
granting final approval to the settlement. Under the approved
settlement, a substantial amount of the settlement proceeds would
be paid from the Company's existing related unclaimed property
liabilities. During the final approval hearing, the Court
overruled objections to the settlement that had been filed by
several class members. In July 2013, two of those class members
filed notices of appeal. If the Court of Appeals sets aside the
settlement and another settlement is not completed or approved,
the Company and WUFSI intend to vigorously defend themselves
against both lawsuits.


WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY: Plaintiffs in ERISA Suit Denied Cash Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington dismissed the claim for money damages in a suit
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Security Act by
Weyerhaeuser Company, but the claim for injunctive relief remains
active, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2013.

On April 25, 2011, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of
a person alleged to be a participant in the company's U.S.
Retirement Plan for salaried employees.  The complaint alleges
violations of the Employee Retirement Security Act (ERISA) with
respect to the management of the plan's assets and seeks
certification as a class action.  On August 23, 2013, the Court
dismissed the claim for money damages, but the claim for
injunctive relief remains active. The company believes that its
pension plans have been consistently managed in full compliance
with established fiduciary standards and is vigorously contesting
the claim.


                             *********

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

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

Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

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

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

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



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *