---

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

             Monday, January 13, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 8

                             Headlines


AIC LIMITED: Bennett Jones Discusses Class Action Ruling
ANGIE'S LIST: Execs Sold Shares After Inflating Price, Suit Says
ANGIE'S LIST: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Indiana
ARIZONA: Court Certifies LGBT Family Health Coverage Class Action
BAD ASS: Bronx Homeowners File Class Action Over Alleged Scam

BANK OF AMERICA: March 21 Settlement Claim Submission Deadline Set
BARCLAYS BANK: Manipulated Forex Rates for 8 Years, Suit Claims
CAMPBELL SOUP: Recalls About 300 Cases of Prego Italian Sauce
CAROUSEL SOFTOYS: Recalls Gingerbread Man Plush Toy
CNA FINANCIAL: Denied Claims for Assisted-Living Stays, Suit Says

COCA-COLA CO: Faces Class Action Over False "Natural" Claims
CVS PHARMACY: 9th Cir. Certified Questions to Cal. Supreme Court
DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls M2 Model Trucks Due to Transmission Defect
DTSC IMPORTS: Recalls Cuddly Cousins Plush Bear
EBAY INC: Settles "Featured Plus" Class Action for $4.75 Million

ETS OILFIELD: Class Work for 100 Hrs Weekly Without OT, Suit Says
FLAGSTAR BANK: Accused of Failing to Report Millions in Interest
FLEETWOOD: Recalls 30 Motorhomes Due to Defective Seat Belts
FORD MOTOR: 10,390 Light Trucks Recalled in Canada
HONDA MOTOR: Recalls 364 RLX Acuras Due to Loose Bolts

HULU LLC: Faces Setback in Privacy Class Action
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Settles Gas Mileage Class Action for $395 Million
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Recalls 121 Santa Fe SUVs Due to Defective Tires
ILLINOIS: Faces "Heaton" Suit Challenging Pension Reform Law
INDEPENDENCE ENERGY: Mayer Brown Discusses Class Action Ruling

JAYADE ENTERPRISE: Accused of Not Paying Minimum and OT Wages
JENERE SALES: Recalls Plush Toys From Chantilly Musical Collection
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: April 1 Settlement Opt-In Deadline Set
KKR FINANCIAL: Being Sold to KKR & Co. for Too Little, Class Says
L'OREAL: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action

MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Suit Over Denial of Bail Will Be Reheard
MAYO CLINIC: Dr. Van de Loo Among Defendants in Sexual Abuse Suits
MBLOX INC: Cellphone Spam Class Action Trimmed Down Further
MILO'S KITCHEN: Suit Over Chinese Dog Treats Sent to Arbitration
MONTREAL MAINE: Managers Aware of Bogus Oil Hazmat Classification

NAT'L FOOTBALL: 9 Former Chiefs Players Join Brain Injury Suit
NEWCREST MINING: Slater & Gordon to Launch Class Action
NFL PRODUCTIONS: Opt-Outs in "Dryer" Suit Deal Launched Own Suit
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Class Certified in Brake Failure Suit
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Alleging Mortgage-Servicing Fraud

ONTARIO: Settlements Reached in Two Residential Facilities Suits
PHILADELPHIA FLYERS: Settles Ticketholder Class Suit
R+L CARRIERS: Wins Initial Okay of $9.5-MM Drivers Suit Settlement
ROYAL BANK: Earl Jones' Fraud Victims to Get Settlement Checks
SIA CARGO: Settles Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing

STAR SCIENTIFIC: Gets FDA Warning Over Dietary Product Marketing
SUNTECH POWER: Court Dismissed Claims v. Execs in Securities Suit
TARGET CORP: At Least 15 Suits Filed Over December Data Breach
TARGET CORP: Faces "Purcell" Class Action Over Data Breach
TARGET CORP: Facing "Horton" & "Burkstrand" Suits Over Data Breach

TOTA-KASH GROUP: Sen. Klein Announces Homeowners' Class Action
UNITED FURNITURE: Accused of Failing to Pay Minimum and OT Wages
UNITED PARCEL: Sued Over Extra Declared Value Liability Coverage
UNITED STATES: Injunction Granted in Contraception Class Action
UNITED STATES: Clapper Seeks Dismissal of NSA Privacy Class Action

WAL-MART STORES: Recalls Donkey Meat at Some Outlets in China
WEINSTEIN PINSON: 15 Consumers File Class Action in Orlando
YRC WORLDWIDE: Sauk Villagers Mad at Vinyl Chloride Contamination

* Background Check-Related Class Actions on the Rise
* U.S. Supreme Court May Squash Shareholder Class Actions


                             *********


AIC LIMITED: Bennett Jones Discusses Class Action Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Eizenga, Esq. -- eizengam@bennettjones.com --
Ranjan K. Agarwal, Esq. -- agarwalr@bennettjones.com -- and Gannon
G. Beaulne, Esq. -- beaulneg@bennettjones.com -- at Bennett Jones
report that on December 12, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada
(SCC) released its fourth major class action decision in two
months: AIC Limited et al v Dennis Fischer et al (Fischer).  This
case concerns whether a class action is the preferable procedure
for resolving claims where regulatory proceedings relating to the
same conduct have already resulted in a substantial monetary
settlement.  The SCC held that a class action is the preferable
procedure where a comparative analysis indicates that class
proceedings can address procedural or substantive access to
justice concerns and that these concerns remain even after
considering alternative avenues of redress.

Background

In Fischer, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, five
mutual fund managers, had permitted "market timing" to occur in
the funds that they managed.  Market timers exploit short-term
discrepancies between stale values of securities in a mutual
fund's portfolio and the current market values of those
securities.  These discrepancies result from time-zone differences
and the fact that the value of mutual funds is calculated only
once a day.  Market timing, although not illegal, involves
profiting at the expense of long-term investors.

Beginning in 2003, the OSC conducted an in-depth investigation
into market timing in the mutual fund industry.  This
investigation led to the OSC commencing enforcement proceedings
against the defendants.  All five defendants entered into
settlement agreements with OSC staff under which investors in the
relevant mutual funds received a payment of $205.6 million.

After a panel of the OSC approved these settlements, the
plaintiffs moved for certification of a class action relating to
the very same market-timing activities.  The plaintiffs claimed
that the OSC settlements did not amount to full compensation and
that, based on an expert report, their actual damages could be as
high as $831.9 million.  The plaintiffs also claimed that, since
they had not participated in the OSC negotiations or signed the
OSC settlement agreements, they had not yet had their day in
court.

At the certification hearing, the plaintiffs argued that a class
action was the preferable procedure for resolving their claims.
The defendants responded that the OSC proceedings had been the
preferable procedure, and the motions judge agreed with the
defendants.  He found that the OSC proceedings and settlements had
fulfilled the purposes of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 (CPA),
namely, judicial economy, access to justice and behavior
modification.  Therefore, he dismissed the certification motion.

On appeal, the Divisional Court overturned this decision.  It
found that the OSC proceedings were not the preferable procedure
since the class action related to monetary damages well in excess
of the amount already recovered.  The Divisional Court accepted
that there was some basis for the plaintiffs' claim that they were
owed excess damages, and it concluded that a class action was the
only viable procedure for recovering the balance.

On further appeal, the Court of Appeal agreed with this result but
criticized the lower court's approach.  It found that the
Divisional Court had erred in focusing on the substantive outcome
of the OSC proceedings and whether the settlements had generated
all or substantially all of the monetary relief sought.  The
preferability inquiry, it cautioned, should not be reduced to an
ex post facto assessment of the adequacy of an award arrived at
through the alternative procedure. Instead, the inquiry must focus
on the alternative procedure's underlying purpose and nature as
compared with a class action.  Through the lens of the CPA's
goals, courts should consider: (a) the impartiality and
independence of the alternative forum; (b) the scope and nature of
the alternative forum's jurisdiction and remedial powers; (c) the
procedural safeguards that apply in the alternative proceeding;
and (d) the accessibility of the alternative proceeding.

After setting out this approach, the Court of Appeal concluded
that a class action is the preferable procedure for resolving the
plaintiffs' claims for two principal reasons.  First, the OSC's
jurisdiction is regulatory -- that is, protective and preventative
-- and not compensatory.  The OSC exercised its jurisdiction in a
different context and for a different purpose as compared with a
civil court's jurisdiction in a class action.  The OSC was not
empowered to order parties to make compensation or restitution or
to pay damages to affected investors, and thus its remedial powers
were insufficient to fully address the class members' claims.
Second, the OSC proceedings had not provided rights of
participation to the affected investors comparable to the
procedural rights available in a class action.  As a result, it
agreed with the Divisional Court that the proposed class action
should be certified.

The Supreme Court's Decision

The SCC confirmed that the preferability inquiry is a
fundamentally comparative analysis conducted through the lens of
the three principal goals of class actions: judicial economy,
access to justice and behavior modification.  However, the SCC
focused on access to justice.  The Divisional Court had been
mainly concerned with substantive access to justice, whereas the
Court of Appeal had been mainly concerned with procedural access
to justice.  In contrast, the SCC articulated a "Goldilocks"
approach subsuming both substantive and procedural components.

Class proceedings will serve the goal of access to justice where:
(1) there are access to justice concerns that a class action could
address; and (2) these concerns remain even when alternative
avenues of redress are considered.  To determine whether these
elements are present, the SCC proposed five questions to inform
the comparative analysis:

    What are the barriers to access to justice?
    What is the potential of the class proceedings to address
those barriers?
    What are the alternatives to class proceedings?
    To what extent do the alternatives address the relevant
barriers?
    How do the two proceedings compare?

The SCC noted that the most common access to justice barrier is
economic, namely, an individual cannot bring a claim because of
the high cost of litigation as compared with the claim's modest
value.  But psychological and social barriers could also exist.
On this case's facts, the SCC identified two potential barriers:
(1) an economic barrier arising from the nature of the claim; and
(2) a potential for no access to a fair process, geared towards
protecting the rights of class members, to seek a resolution of
the common issues for what could potentially be a class of over a
million members.

The proposed class action would address both barriers.  It would
make it possible to advance on behalf of the class a group of
claims that would otherwise not be economically feasible to pursue
and it would provide class members with a fair process to resolve
their claims.  The SCC accepted that the plaintiffs had no
realistic litigation alternative.  The only alternative procedure
was the OSC proceedings and settlements, and so the SCC turned to
whether that alternative procedure had addressed the access to
justice barriers and whether those barriers remain now that the
alternative proceedings are done.

The SCC considered both procedural and substantive dimensions of
access to justice.  It echoed the Court of Appeal's concern that
the OSC's jurisdiction was regulatory and that there was no way to
know how the OSC had arrived at the settlement agreements and the
quantums involved.  It accepted that the lack of investor
participation in the OSC proceedings weighed heavily in favor of
certifying the class action, but it cautioned that the Court of
Appeal was wrong to place almost exclusive weight on this
consideration.  It also rejected the Court of Appeal's
determination that the substantive outcome of the OSC proceedings
was irrelevant.  The SCC stated that access to justice requires
access to just results, not simply to process for its own sake.
But the substantive outcome must be examined through the
appropriate evidentiary lens.  Since the results of the OSC
proceedings were already known, the SCC found that the comparative
analysis cannot ignore whether a cost-benefit analysis supports
certifying the class action.

On the Fischer case's record, the SCC concluded that substantive
access to justice concerns still remain and that there is no
reason to believe that potential additional recovery would be
consumed by the costs of the proceedings.  Moreover, it concluded
that the plaintiffs had provided an appropriate basis to believe
that the proposed class action would overcome access to justice
barriers that remained after the OSC proceedings and that a cost-
benefit analysis supported that class proceedings were the
preferable procedure for the investors to pursue their claims.  As
a result, the correct legal principles required certification.
The Decision's Implications

Increasingly, defendants face the specter of both regulatory and
civil proceedings for the same impugned conduct.  Therefore, the
Fischer decision provides some clarity regarding the circumstances
in which a defendant may avoid a class action by participating in
a regulatory settlement.  The decision indicates that defendants
may have little success relying on regulatory proceedings as the
preferable procedure unless those alternative proceedings mitigate
concerns about procedural and substantive access to justice.  In
this sense, the decision is consonant with the SCC's plaintiff-
friendly trilogy of indirect-purchaser antitrust class action
decisions released on October 31, 2013.

Nonetheless, the Court has left defendants with room to argue in
appropriate cases.  For example, under section 128 of the
Securities Act, the OSC can apply to a judge of the Superior Court
for, among other things, an order for the payment of compensation
or restitution to the aggrieved parties or an order for the
payment of general or punitive damages.  The OSC could structure
regulatory settlements differently in the future, or it might
consider consulting with a committee of investors.  Could
different facts produce a different cost-benefit analysis? The SCC
decision leaves open this possibility.

In any event, the Fischer decision is a must-read for class action
counsel on both sides of the bar, particularly those who deal with
areas of law potentially subject to the actions of a regulator.


ANGIE'S LIST: Execs Sold Shares After Inflating Price, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal class action accuses Angie's List executives of selling
their own stock for more than $13 million after inflating the
share price through false and misleading statements about the
company, reports Kevin Koeninger, writing for Courthouse News
Service.

Lead plaintiffs Eva and Harold Baron sued Angie's List Inc., CEO
William S. Oesterle, Chief Marketing Officer Angela R. Hicks
Bowman, Controller and Interim CFO Charles Hundt, CFO Robert R.
Millard and Chief Technology Officer Thapar Manu.  They claim the
defendants inflated the company's share price throughout 2013 with
misleading statements about the company's growth and revenue.

At its peak, Angie's List stock traded at more than $28 per share
on July 18, the day on which "certain of the individual defendants
cashed in, with defendant Oesterle selling 486,400 shares of
Angie's List stock for more than $10.38 million, defendant Hicks
Bowman selling 21,000 shares for $487,500, defendant Hundt selling
40,000 shares for $880,850, and defendant Manu selling 67,370
shares for more than $1.34 million," according to the lawsuit.

The Barons claim that the company's growth and revenue forecasts
were false and misleading because they failed to disclose key
facts, including:

   "(a) that Angie's List was increasingly relying on providing
        free memberships in order to artificially boost its
        subscriber figures;

   "(b) that contrary to Angie's List's repeated class period
        statements that the online reviews providing the
        membership fees side of its business were unbiased
        because Angie's List did not permit service providers to
        buy ratings on its website ('You can't pay to be on
        Angie's List'), the company was consistently deriving
        more than half of its revenues from the service provider
        side of its business -- where it relied heavily on
        collecting fees for listing paid service providers more
        prominently;

   "(c) that because Angie's List charged services providers
        hundreds of dollars for 'hot leads,' service providers
        were faced with the Hobson's choice of charging above-
        market prices for basic, run-of-the-mill services that
        could be procured by consumers for cheaper prices in
        order to absorb the extraordinarily high referral fees
        Angie's List was charging -- or simply abandoning Angie's
        List;

   "(d) that the legitimacy of the service provider side of
        Angie's List's business model was dubious, as service
        providers were forced to pay Angie's List thousands of
        dollars a year in order to be listed as highly rated
        service providers, and if they did not, they would not
        get customer referrals from Angie's List;

   "(e) that Angie's List did not vet the service providers
        listed and recommended on its website, either for
        qualifications or for safety, leading many consumers to
        question the value of its recommendations, causing them
        to be unwilling to pay outsized membership fees."

The Barons claim the stock's tenuous position was exposed on
September 30, when defendant Manu was fired and the share price
dropped by 10 percent in one day, falling to $20.30 on Oct. 1.

The next day, The Wall Street Journal reported that Angie's List
was cutting its membership fees by up to 75 percent in some
markets, in a quest for new subscribers, resulting in a 17 percent
share price decrease on Oct. 3, according to the complaint.

After trading closed on Oct. 23, "Angie's List reported a loss of
$13.5 million, or $.23 a share, on revenue of only $65.5 million
. . . [when] analysts had been led to expect Angie's List to post
a loss of only $.20 a share on $66.1 million in revenues,"
according to the complaint.

The bad news continued on Oct. 24, when the stock blog
SeekingAlpha.com published a report headlined "Angie's List -- a
Deferred Revenue Train Wreck," which claimed "that Angie's List
had been receiving cash, booking it as 'deferred revenue,' then
rapidly spending it at a rate that, unless the company suddenly
became profitable, it would be unable to fulfill its commitments
and faced insolvency," the lawsuit states.  "The SeekingAlpha.com
report also stated that all of the analysts that had been serving
as cheerleaders to support the stock price -- rather than
providing critical analysis -- had conflicts of interest in that
they had served as underwriters in the company's IPO and follow-on
offerings and were unlikely to be critical as they sought
additional investment banking work from Angie's List in the
future."

Angie's List closed at $14.64 on Oct. 24, nearly 50 percent lower
than the price at which the defendants dumped their shares.

The Barons seek class certification and damages for securities
violations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James A.L. Buddenbaum, Esq.
          Michael L. Schultz, Esq.
          Travis W. Montgomery, Esq.
          PARR RICHEY OBREMSKEY FRANDSEN & PATTERSON LLP
          201 North Illinois Street, Suite 300
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 269-2500
          Facsimile: (317) 269-2514
          E-mail: jbuddenbaum@parrlaw.com
                  mschultz@parrlaw.com
                  tmontgomery@parrlaw.com

The case is Baron, et al. v. Angie's List, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:13-cv-02032-WTL-TAB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana (Indianapolis).


ANGIE'S LIST: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Indiana
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 23 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of purchasers of
Angie's List, Inc. common stock during the period between
February 14, 2013 and October 23, 2013.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from December 23, 2013.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

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

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

The complaint charges Angie's List and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Angie's List operates a website that provides subscription-based
reviews of local service providers, purportedly authored by other
locals, and referrals to local service providers to consumers
across the United States.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Angie's List
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
strength of the Company's business model and its financial
performance and future prospects and failed to disclose the
following adverse facts: (i) Angie's List had increased its
reliance on providing free memberships in order to artificially
boost its subscriber figures; (ii) that contrary to Angie's List's
repeated Class Period statements that the online reviews were
unbiased because Angie's List did not permit service providers to
buy ratings on its website ("You can't pay to be on Angie's
List"), the Company was consistently deriving more than half of
its revenues from the service provider side of its business --
where it relied heavily on collecting fees for listing paid
service providers more prominently; (iii) that because Angie's
List sometimes charged service providers hundreds of dollars for
"hot leads," those costs were being passed along to Angie's List
subscribers, increasing the prices consumers were paying and
decreasing the benefit to them of using the website; (iv) that the
legitimacy of the service provider side of Angie's List's business
model was called into question by Angie's List's practice of
forcing service providers to pay high fees to be listed as highly
rated service providers, knowing that if they did not, they would
not get customer referrals from Angie's List; (v) that because
Angie's List did not vet the service providers listed and
recommended on its website, either for qualifications or for
safety, many consumers were questioning the value of its
recommendations, making them unwilling to continue paying outsized
membership fees; and (vi) as a result of the foregoing, defendants
lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the
strength of Angie's List's business model and its business and
financial prospects during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that through a series of disclosures between
September 30, 2013 and October 24, 2013, investors learned that:
(i) Angie's List's Chief Technology Officer had been terminated --
without explanation or naming a replacement; (ii) Angie's List had
slashed membership prices by roughly 75% in several key markets,
in a bid to attract new members; (iii) the Company's third quarter
2013 financial results were much weaker than defendants had led
the market to expect, and the same declining business metrics had
forced Angie's List to issue weaker fourth quarter 2013 financial
guidance; and (iv) certain analysts were questioning the Company's
ability to meet its future financial obligations. On this news,
the price of Angie's List common stock declined precipitously,
erasing millions of dollars in market capitalization.

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

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


ARIZONA: Court Certifies LGBT Family Health Coverage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego Gay and Lesbian News reports that the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona on Dec. 23 certified as a class
action Lambda Legal's lawsuit on behalf of lesbian and gay Arizona
state employees fighting a move by the Arizona Legislature to
eliminate health care coverage for their families.

"We are pleased that the Court has certified this case as a class
action, and appreciate that the State of Arizona supported this
petition," said Tara Borelli, Lambda Legal staff attorney.

"With this certification, all lesbian and gay state employees who
are currently or will become eligible for family health coverage
for a committed same-sex partner or their partner's dependents
have become part of the fight against the State's discriminatory
effort to strip them of their vital family health insurance
coverage."

Lambda Legal represents five lesbian and gay state employees --
including from the State Department of Game and Fish and state
universities -- who are challenging a move by the Arizona
Legislature to eliminate the equal health care coverage that they
rely on to safeguard their families' health.

The equal health coverage plan had been put in place in 2008 under
former Gov. Janet Napolitano.  Arizona lawmakers subsequently
eliminated health coverage for domestic partners of state
employees while retaining access to spousal benefits for
heterosexual workers in a budget deal signed by Gov. Jan Brewer in
2009.

U.S. District Court Judge John W. Sedwick in July 2010 granted
Lambda Legal's request for a preliminary injunction to maintain
domestic partner coverage for lesbian and gay Arizona State
employees while the case proceeded in court.  The judge also
denied a motion to dismiss the case by Arizona State officials,
ordering that the case proceed on the merits of the plaintiffs'
equal protection claim.

Arizona state officials then appealed the injunction to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, which maintained the injunction and
denied a subsequent motion seeking an en banc rehearing.  The
State then filed a petition for certiorari seeking Supreme Court
review, which was denied in June 2013.

Joining Borelli as co-counsel on the lawsuit are Daniel C. Barr --
DBarr@perkinscoie.com -- Kirstin T. Eidenbach --
KEidenbach@perkinscoie.com -- and Jerica L. Peters --
JPeters@perkinscoie.com -- of the law firm of Perkins Coie LLP.


BAD ASS: Bronx Homeowners File Class Action Over Alleged Scam
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Maurer, writing for The Real Deal, reports that developer Bad
Ass Group was hit with an $18 million class action lawsuit over an
alleged scam involving low-quality homes.

A group of 12 Bronx homeowners alleged in New York State Supreme
Court that they were hurried into purchasing homes that were
poorly constructed.  Soon after moving in, they said they
encountered black mold, leaky roofs, broken boilers and plumbing
problems.  The eight individuals named in the suit -- including
real estate agents and architects -- failed to obtain permanent
certificates of occupancy for the properties, and referred the
complaining homeowners to lawyers who were tied to the scheme,
according to the plaintiffs, the New York Daily News reported.

The homeowners seek damages for alleged offenses such as fraud,
conspiracy, negligence, breach of contract and attorney
malpractice.  They also accused the city Department of Buildings
of being negligent in issuing temporary approvals before the homes
underwent inspection.


BANK OF AMERICA: March 21 Settlement Claim Submission Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you received a non-emergency mortgage or credit card default
servicing call or text on your cellular telephone from Bank of
America through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system
and/or a prerecorded voice, you could receive a payment from a
class action settlement.

A $32,083,905 Settlement has been reached in a class action
lawsuit claiming that Bank of America unlawfully used an automatic
telephone dialing system and/or an artificial prerecorded voice to
call or text cell phones without the prior express consent of the
recipients.  Bank of America denies that it did anything wrong and
the Court has not decided who is right.

Who's Included? The Court decided that the Settlement Class
includes all individuals who:

     (1) received one or more non-emergency default servicing
telephone calls from Bank of America regarding a Bank of America
Residential Mortgage Loan Account to a cellular telephone through
the use of an automatic telephone dialing system and/or an
artificial or prerecorded voice between August 30, 2007 and
January 31, 2013 (Mortgage Calls); or

     (2) received one or more non-emergency, default servicing
telephone calls from Bank of America regarding a Bank of America
Credit Card Account to a cellular telephone through the use of an
automatic telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or
prerecorded voice between May 16, 2007, and January 31, 2013
(Credit Card Calls); or

     (3) received one or more non-emergency, default servicing
text messages from Bank of America regarding a Bank of America
Credit Card Account to a cellular telephone through the use of an
automatic telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or
prerecorded voice between February 22, 2009, and December 31, 2010
(Credit Card Texts).  Those persons who also received a Credit
Card Call may make only one claim for either a Credit Card Call or
Credit Card Text.

What are the Settlement Terms? A Settlement Fund of $32,083,905
has been established to pay valid claims, attorney fees, service
awards, costs, expenses and settlement administration.
Additionally, Bank of America has enhanced its business practices
to ensure that a borrower has provided consent before being called
on a cell phone and that the Bank's loan servicing record reflects
the borrower's prior express consent to call his/her cell phone.

How can I get a Payment? To get a payment you must submit a claim.
You can submit your claim online, by mail or by calling the toll-
free number.  It is estimated that payments will be between $20
and $40 per claim and each Class Member may be eligible to file up
to two Claims.  The final cash payment amount will depend on the
total number of valid and timely claims filed by all Class
Members.  The claim deadline is March 21, 2014.

Your Other Options. If you don't want to be legally bound by the
Settlement, you must exclude yourself by March 21, 2014.  If you
do not exclude yourself, you will release your claims against Bank
of America.  You may object to the Settlement by March 21, 2014.
The Detailed Notice available on the website explains how to
exclude yourself or object.  The Court will hold a Hearing on
April 4, 2014 to consider whether to approve the Settlement and a
request for attorneys' fees up to $8,020,976 and service payments
of $2,000 each to the seven Class Representatives.  You may appear
at the hearing, either yourself or through an attorney hired by
your, but you don't have to.  For more information, call or visit
the website.

Website: www.BOATCPASettlement.com
Telephone: 1-877-919-9186


BARCLAYS BANK: Manipulated Forex Rates for 8 Years, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, on Behalf of
Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Barclays Bank PLC, BNP
Paribas Group, BNP Paribas North America Inc., Citigroup Inc.,
Citibank N.A., Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank AG, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Goldman
Sachs & Co., HSBC Holdings PLC, HSBC Bank PLC, HSBC North America
Holdings Inc., HSBC Bank USA, N.A., JPMorgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan
Chase Bank NA, Morgan Stanley, Royal Bank of Scotland Group, PLC,
UBS AG, and UBS Securities LLC, Case No. 1:13-cv-09080-UA
(S.D.N.Y., December 23, 2013) is brought to recover for injuries
to the Plaintiff and the proposed members of the Class caused by
the Defendants' alleged violations of the Sherman Act relating to
foreign exchange.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all persons, who traded
foreign currency directly with a Defendant in the United States of
America between August 1, 2005, and the present.  The Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants conspired to manipulate the WM/Reuters
Rates, which provide a standardized method of determining exchange
rates at fixed intervals for 160 different currencies.

The Defendants are FX dealers and are responsible for the vast
majority of FX trading.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald A. Broggi, Esq.
          Joseph Peter Guglielmo, Esq.
          SCOTT + SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, L.L.P.
          405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10174
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
          E-mail: dbroggi@scott-scott.com
                  jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
          Walter W. Noss, Esq.
          Kristen M. Anderson, Esq.
          SCOTT + SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, L.L.P.
          707 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-4565
          Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
          E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com
                  wnoss@scott-scott.com
                  kanderson@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          George A. Zelcs, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 641-9750
          Facsimile: (312) 641-9751
          E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com

               - and -

          Steven M. Berezney, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 450-4063
          Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
          E-mail: sberezney@koreintillery.com

               - and -

          Daniel Jay Mogin, Esq.
          Jodie M. Williams, Esq.
          Phillip E. Stephan, Esq.
          THE MOGIN LAW FIRM P.C.
          707 Broadway, Suite 1000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 687-6611
          Facsimile: (619) 687-6610
          E-mail: dmogin@moginlaw.com
                  jwilliams@moginlaw.com
                  pstephan@moginlaw.com


CAMPBELL SOUP: Recalls About 300 Cases of Prego Italian Sauce
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Vlastelica, writing for Reuters, reports that Campbell Soup
Co on Dec. 31 said it was voluntarily recalling about 300 cases of
its 24-ounce-sized Prego Traditional Italian sauce, citing a risk
of spoilage.  The Camden, New Jersey-based food company said
customers who had purchased the product should not eat it, though
no illnesses had been reported in connection with the recall.

Campbell said the affected jars could be identified by having a
best by date of June 16, 2015 "and a four-digit, military time
code ranging from 'CT BJ ZV 0330' through 'CT BJ ZV 0449" printed
on the lid of the product.


CAROUSEL SOFTOYS: Recalls Gingerbread Man Plush Toy
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 19, 2013
Posting date:             December 19, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Toys
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Choking Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-37301

Affected products: Gingerbread Man Plush toy

The recall involves a Gingerbread Man plush toy.  The plush toy is
covered in either a light brown or muted orange fabric, with
purple buttons on the stomach and white round plastic eyes.  The
toy also has a small cord loop attached to its head, which allows
the toy to be hung for display.

The eyes measure 1.7 centimetres (11/16 inch) in diameter and the
purple buttons are 2.1 centimetres (13/16 inch) in diameter.  The
stuffed toy is approximately 30 centimetres (12 inches) in height.
The product also has a label on the left leg, where the item
number 609-GM can be found.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has identified
that the hard eyes can detach from these plush toys.  These small
parts pose a choking hazard to young children.

Neither Health Canada nor Carousel Softoys has received reports of
incidents or injuries related to the use of this toy.

Approximately 960 units of the recalled plush toys were
distributed at these events:

   -- Western Fair, London, Ontario;
   -- Ancaster Fair, Hamilton, Ontario; and
   -- Brigden Fair, Brigden, Ontario

The recalled toys were manufactured in China and sold from
September 2013 to October 2013.

Companies:

  Importer     Carousel Softoys Inc.
               Boisbriand
               Quebec
               Canada

Consumers should immediately take the recalled toys away from
children and contact Caravan Concessions for a replacement product
or safely dispose of the toy, in regular household garbage, so
that it cannot be reused.


CNA FINANCIAL: Denied Claims for Assisted-Living Stays, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Christine Stuart reports that
insurance giant CNA hiked its rates by 30 percent even as it
abruptly changed its policy and began denying claims for stays in
assisted-living facilities in Connecticut, an elderly woman claims
in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Marie Gardner, 91, claims: "Defendants have engaged
in an illegal course of conduct designed to reduce its exposure to
costly long-term care claims by denying claims of elderly insureds
through a scheme of fraud, deception, and manipulation of policy
terms, while seeking massive premium increases at the expense of
these same insureds."

While denying claims from longtime policyholders such as Gardner,
"CNA subsequently sought a 45 percent rate increase -- which was
later approved at 30 percent -- from the state of Connecticut on
this very group of policies," Gardner says.

She sued CNA Financial Corp. and Continental Casualty Co.  She
claims they changed her policy to cover "nursing homes" only, when
it previously covered a range of assisted-living facilities.

Gardner says she had been paying for her insurance policy for 15
years broke her hip in 2008 and moved into an assisted-living
facility.  CNA approved her claim and began paying the monthly
benefit.

On Feb. 11, 2011 CNA terminated the payments, as Gardner's
condition had improved.  But on April 28, 2012, she fell down a
flight of stairs and fractured her sacrum. This time CNA denied
her claim.

The insurer told her that to qualify for benefits, the assisted-
living facility where she lived had to have a nurse on premises 24
hours a day.

Gardner says she pointed out that a settlement in a previous class
action requires that a nurse be on call 24 hours a day, and a
nurse be on site for more than five houses a day, seven days per
week.

"(A)t the time the CNA reached an alleged 'agreement' with the
Connecticut Insurance Department, CNA did not disclose to the
Insurance Department that it had previously been covering stays at
assisted living facilities under this same policy," Gardner says
in the lawsuit.

She says that CNA is now denying "new claims for stays at
assisted-living facilities, and this is true even if a previous
claim had been paid at an assisted-living facility, as is the case
with Ms. Gardner."

She claims that CNA used the remediation process in the previous
class action "as a way to invent new ways to avoid claim
liability."

"CNA is attempting to create a regulatory loophole where none
exists," the lawsuit says.

Gardner seeks class certification and an injunction preventing CNA
from excluding claims for stays in Connecticut assisted-living
facilities.  She also seeks monetary damages for class members who
have been denied stays based on the definition of an assisted-
living facility.

She estimates that the class includes at least 383 people in
Connecticut and at least 20,000 nationwide.

CNA Financial, based in Chicago, reported $9.5 billion in revenue
in 2012 -- $628 million net income and total assets of $58.5
billion, according to publicly available information.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean K. Collins, Esq.
          SEAN K. COLLINS, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          91 South Main St.
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 333-6399
          E-mail: sean@neinsurancelaw.com

The case is Gardner v. CNA Financial Corporation, et al., Case No.
3:13-cv-01918-JBA, in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut (New Haven).


COCA-COLA CO: Faces Class Action Over False "Natural" Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Friedman, writing for Arkansas Business News, reports that
Little Rock attorney Thomas Thrash of the Thrash Law Firm P.A. is
seeking class-action status for his client, Mary Rankin of Pulaski
County, who allegedly was deceived into thinking "that Coca-Cola
was natural and healthy when in fact it contained artificial
flavoring and chemical preservatives," he said in a lawsuit filed
Dec. 2 in U.S. District Court in Little Rock.

Mr. Thrash told Arkansas Business that several food producers have
misbranded products, "and Coke's one of them."

The number of consumer fraud class-action lawsuits filed against
food and beverage companies in federal courts nationwide has
jumped from about 20 in 2008 to more than 100 in 2012, according
to an October report by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal
Reform, which is an affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Thrash said that he plans to file lawsuits against other food
producers, but declined to name the companies.

Thrash told Arkansas Business the food companies make that
allegation "as opposed to explaining why they misbranded the
product, and why they say there's no artificial flavoring when
there is."

Coke, of Atlanta, didn't return a call for comment and hadn't
filed its answer in the case.  Coca-Cola Refreshments USA Inc. of
Atlanta, which manufactures, distributes and sells Coke, was also
named as a defendant.


CVS PHARMACY: 9th Cir. Certified Questions to Cal. Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that determining when
an employer must provide seats for clerks, cashiers, tellers and
other employees requires guidance from the California Supreme
Court, the 9th Circuit says.

In three questions certified to the state's high court on December
31, 2013, the federal appeals court requested its interpretation
of two California Wage Orders that could result in "penalties in
. . . the tens of millions of dollars."

The issue came up in two proposed class actions, one against CVS
Pharmacy and the other against JPMorgan Chase Bank.  In the first,
lead plaintiff Nykeya Kilby claimed that CVS had violated
California Wage Order 7-2001 Section 14(A) when it refused to
allow her sit down while working the cash register where she spent
about 90 percent of her shift.  Similarly, former bank tellers
Kemah Henderson, Taquonna Lampkins, Carolyn Salazar and Tamanna
Dalton claimed that JPMorgan had violated California Wage Order
4-2001 Section 14(A) by refusing to allow its tellers to sit down.

Federal judges denied class certification in both cases, adopting
a "holistic" reading of the wage orders by taking into account the
"entire range of an employee's duties" and the employer's
"business judgment."

Both wage orders require California employers to provide "suitable
seats" to employees "when the nature of the work reasonably
permits the use of seats."

Because CVS checkers do not spend all of their time at the
register, the District Court reasoned that the "nature of the
work" required standing.  This interpretation was later cited in
the denial of class certification in the JPMorgan case.

The workers have an entirely different view of the rules, however.

"In their view, if an employee is engaged in a task that can
objectively be performed while seated, the employer must provide
the employee with a suitable seat," the certification order
states.  "Under this interpretation, neither the employee's other
tasks nor the employer's business judgment would affect whether
the nature of the work reasonably permits the use of seats."

The appellate panel noted that "such liability could be imposed
upon a large number of employers throughout California, depending
on the interpretation given to Section 14."

"Indeed, in addition to the three employers now before this panel
facing potential penalties for violating Section 14, numerous
actions have been brought against other employers in California
state courts based on the same claim," the ruling continues.

Conservative estimates "put the potential penalties in these cases
in the tens of millions of dollars," the panel added.

Deferring to the state's high court to answer issues of obvious
importance and potentially far-reaching effect, the three-judge
panel certified the following questions:

   1. "Does the phrase 'nature of the work' refer to an
      individual task or duty that an employee performs during
      the course of his or her workday, or should courts construe
      'nature of the work' holistically and evaluate the entire
      range of an employee's duties?"  And "if the courts should
      construe 'nature of the work' holistically, should the
      courts consider the entire range of an employee's duties if
      more than half of an employee's time is spent performing
      tasks that reasonably allow the use of a seat?"

   2. "When determining whether the nature of the work
      'reasonably permits' the use of a seat, should courts
      consider any or all of the following: the employer's
      business judgment as to whether the employee should stand,
      the physical layout of the workplace, or the physical
      characteristics of the employee?"

   3. "If an employer has not provided any seat, does a plaintiff
      need to prove what would constitute 'suitable seats' to
      show the employer has violated Section 14(A)?"

Both cases are on hold pending the California Supreme Court's
ruling.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          James T. Hannink, Esq.
          James F. Clapp, Esq.
          Zachariah P. Dostart, Esq.
          DOSTART CLAPP & COVENEY, LLP
          4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 970
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 623-4200
          E-mail: Jim.Hannink@sdlaw.com
                  jclapp@sdlaw.com
                  Paul.Dostart@sdlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Rubin, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
          E-mail: mrubin@altshulerberzon.com

               - and -

          Kevin J. McInerney, Esq.
          MCINERNEY & JONES
          18124 Wedge Parkway
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 849-3811
          E-mail: Kevin@McInerneyLaw.net

               - and -

          Matthew Righetti, Esq.
          RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
          456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 983-0900
          E-mail: matt@righettilaw.com

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Timothy J. Long, Esq.
          ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP
          400 Capitol Mall
          Sacramento, CA 95814-4407
          Telephone: (916) 329-7919
          E-mail: tjlong@orrick.com

               - and -

          Michael Weil, Esq.
          ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          405 Howard Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 773-5794
          E-mail: mweil@orrick.com

               - and -

          Geoffrey Moss, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          777 S. Figueroa St.
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 629-2020
          E-mail: gmoss@orrick.com

The appellate case is Nykeya Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Case No.
12-56130, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  The original case is Nykeya Kilby v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.,
Case No. 3:09-cv-02051-MMA-KSC, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, San Diego.


DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls M2 Model Trucks Due to Transmission Defect
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 18, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Powertrain
Units affected:           5
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013448
TC ID number:             2013448
Manufacturer recall
number:                   FL-657

Affected products: 2012, 2013 Freightliner Business Class M2 model

On certain trucks equipped with Eaton Hybrid transmissions, a
software defect could result in unintended acceleration while
downshifting.  This could increase the risk of a crash causing
injury and/or damage to property.

Dealers will update transmission control software.


DTSC IMPORTS: Recalls Cuddly Cousins Plush Bear
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 20, 2013
Posting date:             December 20, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Toys
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Choking Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-37339

Affected products: Cuddly Cousins Plush Bear

The recall involves the Cuddly Cousins Plush bear.  These plush
bears are approximately 23 centimetres (9 inches) tall and come in
various shades of brown.  These plush bears can be identified by
the UPC code 639277959140 located on the label.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has revealed that
the hard plastic eyes can detach from these plush bears.  These
small parts pose a choking hazard to young children.

Neither Health Canada nor Dollar Tree has received reports of
incidents or injuries related to the use of these plush toys.

For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them
keep children safe when they play with toys, see Health Canada's
General Toy Safety tips.

Approximately 18,583 of the recalled plush toy identified were
sold in Canada.

The recalled plush toys were manufactured in China and sold from
February 2013 to December 2013 at Dollar Tree Canada and Dollar
Giant retailers across Canada.

Companies:

  Distributor     DTSC Imports
                  Burnaby
                  British Columbia
                  Canada

Consumers should immediately take the recalled plush toys away
from children and dispose of them in the regular household garbage
or return it to the store where purchased for a refund.


EBAY INC: Settles "Featured Plus" Class Action for $4.75 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ina Steiner, writing for EcommerceBytes.com, reports that Custom
LED LLC, a seller who filed a class action lawsuit against eBay
over its Featured Plus optional listing upgrade, has reached a
court-approved preliminary settlement with eBay.  The company,
while denying the allegations and not admitting fault, has agreed
to pay $4.75 million to settle the lawsuit, including $7,500 for
the seller who initiated the lawsuit.  eBay also has stopped
offering the feature.

Custom LED had sued eBay in January 2012 over Featured Plus, a
premium feature that buyers could purchase for up to $39.95 per
listing to boost their visibility.  Custom LED, which sold on the
eBay Motors channel, alleged that eBay promised Featured Plus
listings would appear at the top of search results on eBay's core
site as well as the stores section.  "eBay charges a high price
for Featured Plus listings because it knows sellers value listing
priority in search results," according to the complaint.  But
Custom LED said Featured Plus items would only appear at the top
of search results for queries that were initiated from a Motors
page and those that were confined to Motors listings, while also
excluding certain sorting criteria, such as price, listing date
and geography.  The plaintiff also claims the feature was entirely
non-functional for some period of time.

The court rejected an earlier settlement proposal in part over the
use of credits as opposed to cash, with the offsetting of credits
based on amounts that class members owed to eBay.  Now, sellers
can choose to receive a check instead by providing notice to the
claims administrator -- though the default method remains a credit
to sellers with active accounts.  The court approved the
settlement on November 20th, and sellers began receiving
instructions.

Under the terms of the revised settlement agreement, eBay has
agreed to pay $4.75 million to settle the claims.  The following
amounts will be subtracted from the Gross Settlement Fund:

     -- Custom LED's "enhancement award" of $7,500;

     -- Attorney's fees of "up to 25%" of the Gross Settlement
Fund, plus costs and expenses, which counsel for Custom LED
estimates to be $1,212,500;

     -- The costs of administering the settlement, which are not
itemized in the proposed settlement but counsel for Custom LED
estimates to be "approximately $300,000."

The remaining funds, estimated at $3,230,000, will be distributed
to the class, which the parties define as: "All natural persons
and entities who are United States residents and who, from January
23, 2008 to the present listed items for sale on eBay's websites
with the Featured Plus! upgrade, and incurred Featured Plus! Fees
in connection with such listings."

However, the settlement fund will be bifurcated by time period:
one-third of the fund will be allocated to the time period ranging
from January 23, 2008, to September 28, 2009 (period 1), and the
remaining two-thirds will be allocated to the period ranging from
September 29, 2009, to February 4, 2013 (period 2).

The justification for this bifurcated allocation is eBay's
contention that Featured Plus! worked exactly as described prior
to September 29, 2009, and that any alleged problems arose only
after that date, when eBay made certain changes to the
descriptions and functionality of Featured Plus!.

Sellers will receive approximately 1.8% of what they paid for
Featured Plus! in period 1, and will receive approximately 16% of
the total they paid for Featured Plus! in period 2.

Sellers who must update their information or wish to request a
check instead of credit have until March 20, 2014 to do so.  The
court will take a final look at the settlement in June before
funds will be disbursed.


Dealers will inspect and tighten the nuts if necessary.


ETS OILFIELD: Class Work for 100 Hrs Weekly Without OT, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Nixon, John Kirby, Lane Chapman, each individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. ETS Oilfield Services L.P.,
Devin Nevilles, and Joe Cox, individually and as Owners/Managers
of ETS Oilfield Services L.P., Case No. 4:13-cv-00726-SWW (E.D.
Ark., December 18, 2013) is a collective action brought to obtain
declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of employees
and former employees of the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiffs allege that each of them was generally made to work
far in excess of 40 hours per week, sometimes even as many as 100
hours or more hours in a week, but was not paid for all hours
worked.

Defendant ETS Oilfield Services L.P. is a foreign corporation
headquartered in Robstown, Texas.  ETS does business in Arkansas
and has operations in Kensett, Arkansas located in White County.
The Individual Defendants are owners or managers of ETS.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher R. Heil, Esq.
          Lloyd "Tre" Kitchens, Esq.
          THE BRAD HENDRICKS LAW FIRM
          500 C Pleasant Valley Drive
          Little Rock, AR 72227
          Telephone: (501) 588-0549
          Facsimile: (501) 661-0196
          E-mail: cheil@bradhendricks.com
                  tkitchens@bradhendricks.com

               - and -

          John Holleman, Esq.
          Maryna O. Jackson, Esq.
          HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          1008 West 2nd Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 975-5040
          Facsimile: (501) 975-5043
          E-mail: jholleman@johnholleman.net
                  maryna@johnholleman.net


FLAGSTAR BANK: Accused of Failing to Report Millions in Interest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Strugala, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf
of the class of all others similarly situated v. Flagstar Bank,
FSB, a Federal Savings Bank, Case No. 5:13-cv-05927-HRL (N.D.
Cal., December 23, 2013) alleges that Flagstar is knowingly and
intentionally failing to report millions of dollars in mortgage
interest on the Forms 1098 it issues to its borrowers, including
the Plaintiff.

The improper reporting has resulted in thousands of borrowers
losing millions of dollars in tax deductions to which they were
legally entitled, Ms. Strugala argues.

Flagstar is a federal savings bank with its corporate headquarters
located in Troy, Michigan.  Flagstar is one of the nation's
leading federal savings banks. As part of its business, it
originated (or acquired) thousands of "Negative Amortization"
loans, both in California and nationally.  "Negative Amortization"
loans generally provide the borrower the option in any given month
to pay a "Minimum Payment," which is generally, but not always,
less than the interest due for the month.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Vendler, Esq.
          MORRIS POLICH & PURDY LLP
          1055 West Seventh Street, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 417-5100
          Facsimile: (213) 488-1178
          E-mail: dvendler@mpplaw.com


FLEETWOOD: Recalls 30 Motorhomes Due to Defective Seat Belts
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 18, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Motorhome
Notification type:        Compliance Mfr
System:                   Seats and Restraints
Units affected:           30
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013449
TC ID number:             2013449

On certain motorhomes, the seat belt(s) may not comply with Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies.  Due to
a defect in manufacturing, seat belt buckles may not release as
required by the standard.  This could increase the risk of injury
to the driver in a crash.

Dealers will inspect and, if necessary, replace affected seatbelt
assemblies.

Affected products:

   Maker          Model                Model year(s) affected
   -----          -----                ----------------------
   FLEETWOOD      BOUNDER              2014
   FLEETWOOD      TIOGA MONTERA        2014
   FLEETWOOD      SOUTHWIND            2014
   FLEETWOOD      STORM                2014
   FLEETWOOD      PROVIDENCE           2014
   FLEETWOOD      AMERICAN EAGLE       2014
   FLEETWOOD      EXCURSION            2014
   FLEETWOOD      AMERICAN HERITAGE    2014
   FLEETWOOD      TIOGA RANGER         2014
   FLEETWOOD      JAMBOREE SPORT       2014
   FLEETWOOD      BOUNDER CLASSIC      2014


FORD MOTOR: 10,390 Light Trucks Recalled in Canada
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 18, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Light Truck & Van
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Tires
Units affected:           10390
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013450
TC ID number:             2013450
Manufacturer recall
number:                   13S15

On certain vehicles, the factory-installed Michelin LTX
LT225/75R16 tires may experience tread belt edge separation from
the tire.  This would result in ride vibration or irregular wear,
and could lead to a loss of tread or rapid loss of air pressure.
Tire failure could cause the driver to lose vehicle control, which
may result in a crash.  Also, during tire failure, rapid
deterioration can produce debris.  These issues could result in
property damage and/or personal injury.

Retailers will replace affected tires.

Affected products:

   Maker     Model                     Model year(s) affected
   -----     -----                     ----------------------
   FORD      E350                          2010, 2011, 2012
   FORD      E250                          2010, 2011, 2012
   FORD      E150                          2010, 2011, 2012
   FORD      E350 CUTAWAY CHASSIS CAB      2010, 2011, 2012
   FORD      E450 CUTAWAY CHASSIS CAB      2010, 2011, 2012


HONDA MOTOR: Recalls 364 RLX Acuras Due to Loose Bolts
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 18, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Car
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Suspension
Units affected:           364
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013447
TC ID number:             2013447

Affected products: 2014 RLX ACURA

On certain vehicles, rear lower control arm bolts may have been
insufficiently tightened at time of assembly and could loosen over
time.  This could result in the driver experiencing difficulty
maintaining steering control over the vehicle, increasing the risk
of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property.

Dealers will replace the bolts and tighten to specification.


HULU LLC: Faces Setback in Privacy Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that
Hulu LLC is fighting a consumer class action launched in July 2011
that alleges the video site shared users' viewing history with
third-party marketers.  The company co-owned by Disney, Fox and
NBCU argued in a summary judgment motion that plaintiffs needed to
demonstrate their actual injuries resulting from a statutory
violation of the VPPA.  However, a California magistrate judge
says that plaintiffs don't have to show actual injuries in a
lawsuit over information shared with advertisers.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Settles Gas Mileage Class Action for $395 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Shepardson, writing for The Detroit News, reports that
Hyundai Motor Corp. and Kia Motors said on Dec. 23 they reached a
$395 million deal to settle a class-action lawsuit with current
and former owners of vehicles for which gas mileage ratings were
overstated.

Kia said in a statement that as of December 23, 2013, it has
entered into an agreement with plaintiffs who are seeking to
represent all current and former owners and lessees of vehicles
affected by the November 2012 restatement of fuel economy ratings.
The proposed settlement would offer affected customers an
alternative to the reimbursement program with lump sum payment
options. Further information regarding the settlement will be
shared once the settlement is finalized and approved by the Court.
In the interim, customers affected by the restatement may still
participate in the existing lifetime reimbursement program.

According to Detroit News, after an investigation by the
Environmental Protection Agency, Hyundai and Kia Motors agreed to
restate expected gas mileage in November 2012 for 1.1 million
vehicles in North America.  The automakers admitted they after
overstated mileage claims on vehicle window stickers for 900,000
vehicles in the United States. The settlement impacts about
600,000 of Hyundai's 2011-13 models and about 300,000 of Kia's
2011-13 models in the U.S.

Hyundai and Kia -- controlled by the same Korean conglomerate but
with marketing arms run separately in the U.S. -- said in January
they had set aside more than $400 million to pay claims.
Hyundai's settlement is valued at up to $210 million, while Kia's
is valued at $185 million.

The precise figures are dependent on how many customers elect to
participate in the settlement's one-time lump sum payment option
or remain in the lifetime reimbursement program, the automakers
said.

At the time of the restatement in 2012, Hyundai and Kia agreed to
provide a lifetime reimbursement program to cover additional fuel
costs associated with the rating change -- plus a 15 percent
premium in acknowledgment of the inconvenience to customers.
Owners and drivers leasing vehicles are compensated based on their
actual mileage and the fuel costs for the region in which they
live; they must go to a dealership to have their odometers read.

The 2012 restatement reduced Hyundai-Kia's fleetwide average fuel
economy from 27 to 26 mpg for the 2012 model year.  Individual
ratings, depending on the car, will fall from 1 mpg to 6 mpg. Most
vehicles saw combined city-highway efficiency drop by 1 mpg.

The settlement will resolve more than 50 lawsuits filed across the
country to address the issue.

To address plaintiffs' claims, including that having to repeatedly
return to a dealership would deter participation in the
reimbursement program, KMA and the plaintiffs agreed to add lump-
sum payment options.

The civil settlement comes as the EPA continues an investigation
into the issue.  It's not clear if the investigation will be
resolved through a settlement or if the EPA will seek civil
penalties.

Both companies agreed to address complaints, including the
requirement to return to a dealership for mileage verification.
Hyundai agreed to add the option of taking a lump sum payment.
The proposed cash amount, which varies by vehicle model and
ownership type, will result in an average payment of $353 to
Hyundai owners and lessees.  For example, an owner of a 2012
Elantra would receive a lump sum payment of $320 minus any
previous reimbursement payments.

For Kia owners, the proposed average cash lump-sum amount will be
about $667.

Hyundai and Kia owners can also elect other options such as a
dealership credit of 150 percent of the lump sum amount, or a
credit of 200 percent of the cash amount toward the purchase of a
new Kia or Hyundai.

In February, Hyundai initially said it had reached a deal to
settle 38 class-action lawsuits over mileage claims.

A federal judge is expected to review the proposed settlement for
preliminary approval in early 2014.  Assuming preliminary approval
is granted, notices will be sent to individual class members.
Initial details of the settlement are available at
hyundaimpginfo.com or www.kiampginfo.com.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Recalls 121 Santa Fe SUVs Due to Defective Tires
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 18, 2013
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              SUV
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Tires
Units affected:           121
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2013446
TC ID number:             2013446

Affected products: 2014 Hyundai Santa Fe

Certain vehicles equipped with Continental Crosscontact LX tires
in P235/65R17 size, tire sidewall ply cords may have been damaged.
This could cause a sidewall bulge and/or gradual air loss, which
would result in ride vibration or irregular wear.  Continued
operation could also lead to a loss of tread or rapid loss of air
pressure, resulting in tire failure.  Tire failure could cause the
driver to lose vehicle control, which may result in a crash.
Also, during tire failure, rapid deterioration can produce debris.
These issues could result in property damage and/or personal
injury.

Dealers will replace affected tires.


ILLINOIS: Faces "Heaton" Suit Challenging Pension Reform Law
------------------------------------------------------------
Public schoolteachers filed the first class action challenging
Illinois' pension reform law, claiming the state's Dec. 5 fix of
its massively underfunded pension system violates the Illinois
Constitution, reports Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Doris Heaton sued Gov. Pat Quinn, Comptroller Judy
Baar Topinka, and the state Board of Trustees of the Teachers'
Retirement System in Cook County Chancery Court, on behalf of
working and retired public teachers.

They challenge the bill the Legislature passed on Dec. 5, to try
to patch up a $100 billion deficit in the state pension system.

"That legislation was known as Senate Bill 1 and now is Public Act
98-0599," the complaint states.  "It is not true reform.  It is an
unapologetic violation of the Pension Protection Clause of the
Illinois Constitution.  Public Act 98-0599 directly diminishes and
impairs the benefits of membership in a retirement system of the
state."

The law reduces cost-of-living increases for pensioners, gradually
raises the retirement age for employees, and caps their
"pensionable salary."

The state Senate approved the bill by 30-24 vote and the House by
62-53.

House Speaker Michael Madigan claimed the bill will save the state
$160 billion over 30 years.  This year, the state devoted 22
percent of its general revenue fund to public employee pension.

But the Illinois constitution protects state pensions from cuts,
the teachers say.

"When teachers and school administrators decided to continue
educating Illinois children instead of transitioning to careers in
the private sector or working elsewhere, when they decided where
to send their children to college, and when they decided when and
how to retire, they relied upon that guarantee," the lawsuit
states.  "Many of them can recite that constitutional guarantee by
heart.  Its words are clear and simple:

   "'Membership in any pension or retirement system of the state,
    any unit of local government or school district, or any
    agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable
    contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be
    diminished or impaired,'" the complaint states, quoting the
    Illinois Constitution.

The teachers also cite the ruling of the Illinois Supreme Court in
Jorgensen v. Blagojevich, 211 Ill. 2d 286, 316 (2004): "No
principle of law permits us to suspend constitutional requirements
for economic reasons, no matter how compelling those reasons may
seem."

But that's what the state did, the teachers say: "Many thousands
of livelihoods depend on consistent enforcement of the pension
protection clause.  Countless careers, retirements, personal
investments, and medical treatments have been planned in
justifiable reliance not only on the promises that were made in
collective bargaining agreements, employment agreements and the
Illinois pension code, but also on the guarantee of the pension
protection clause," the complaint states.

Illinois teachers contribute 9.4 percent of their salaries to the
retirement system, from which they receive benefits in lieu of
Social Security payments.

The median pay for a first-year teacher in Illinois was $35,913
for the 2011-2012 school year, according to "Illinois Teacher
Salary Study , 2011-2012," by the State Board of Education.  The
lowest first-year pay that year was $25,470, and the highest was
$55,091, according to the report.

All Illinois employees accrue 1.67 percent of their final average
salary each year they work for the state, and their benefits are
capped at 75 percent of their final average salary.

In 1970, the state's unfunded pension liabilities were about $2.5
billion, according to the complaint.  Lawmakers let it ride.

The teachers want the law enjoined as unconstitutional.  They say
it will affect nearly 500,000 working and retired teachers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gino DiVito, Esq.
          TABET DIVITO & ROTHSTEIN
          209 S LaSalle, 7th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 762-9450
          E-mail: gdivito@tdrlawfirm.com

The case is Doris Heaton, et al. v. Pat Quinn, et al., Case No.
2013-CH-28406, in the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County.


INDEPENDENCE ENERGY: Mayer Brown Discusses Class Action Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Bernard, Esq., and Kevin Ranlett, Esq., at Mayer Brown
report that the TCPA authorizes the recipients of certain
unsolicited telemarketing faxes, calls, and text messages to sue
for statutory damages of between $500 to $1,500 per violation.  If
those statutory damages are aggregated in a class action,
plaintiffs' counsel can threaten the targeted defendant with such
enormous liability -- sometimes in hundreds of millions or
billions of dollars -- that the defendant will have a powerful
incentive to agree to a blackmail settlement.

Until the Second Circuit's recent decision in Bank v. Independence
Energy Group LLC, defendants facing TCPA class actions in New York
had a strong defense.  That's because the TCPA permits suits only
"if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a State"
(47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(b)(3)), and a New York statute specifies that
a class action "may not be maintained" to recover a "penalty" or
statutory "minimum" damages (N.Y. CPL Sec. 901(b)).  The New York
ban on class actions seeking statutory damages forbids TCPA class
actions in state court.  And the Second Circuit previously had
held that the New York law also bars TCPA class actions in federal
court, because the TCPA itself forbids such suits when not
"permitted by the laws * * * of a State." See, e.g., Bonime v.
Avaya, Inc., 547 F.3d 497 (2d Cir. 2008).

The plaintiffs' bar has devoted years to attacking that approach.
Plaintiffs based their first major argument on the Supreme Court's
holding in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate
Insurance Co., 130 S. Ct. 1431 (2010), that the New York law did
not apply to class actions brought in federal court under the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.  But the Second Circuit held
firm, sensibly concluding that allowing plaintiffs a federal forum
for TCPA class actions in New York was irreconcilable with the
deliberately state-centric language of the statute, which
"delegate[d] * * * to the states [] considerable power to
determine which causes of action lie under the TCPA." Holster III
v. Gatco, Inc., 618 F.3d 214, 217 (2d Cir. 2010).

Plaintiffs tried again in the wake of the Supreme Court's
subsequent decision in Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC., 132
S. Ct. 740 (2012).  Mims resolved a circuit split on whether
federal courts had jurisdiction over TCPA lawsuits; the Court
concluded that they do, determining that there was "no convincing
reason to read into the TCPA's permissive grant of jurisdiction to
state courts any barrier to the U.S. district courts' exercise of
the general federal-question jurisdiction they have possessed
since 1875."

The plaintiffs' bar has had much more success invoking Mims; they
have persuaded the Second Circuit that Mims means that the "if
otherwise permitted" clause of the TCPA no longer may be
interpreted as imposing state procedural requirements on TCPA
lawsuits brought in federal court.  In its first post-Mims
decision, Giovanniello v. ALM Media LLC, the Second Circuit
concluded that a TCPA action in Connecticut federal court was
governed by the federal four-year catch-all statute of
limitations, not the shorter state limitations period.  At this
point, defense attorneys began bracing themselves for similar
treatment of the New York bar on class actions seeking statutory
damages.

Now, the other shoe has dropped. In Bank, the Second Circuit held
that Mims also deprives federal defendants of the protection of
the New York state statute.  Instead, the Second Circuit
explained, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 alone controls
whether a TCPA suit may proceed as a class action.  The quixotic
result is that in New York, the federal courts may be required to
entertain TCPA lawsuits that state courts cannot hear.

Mayer Brown continues to watch this issue.  In the meantime,
Mayer Brown noticed a common thread running throughout the Second
Circuit decisions cited here: the plaintiff's attorney, Todd C.
Bank, who represented the named plaintiffs in Holster and
Giovanniello -- and now himself in Bank.  Mr. Bank's recent
victories before the Second Circuit in TCPA cases stand in
contrast to his unsuccessful effort to persuade the Second Circuit
of his constitutional right to wear an "Operation Desert Storm"
baseball cap in Queens Civil Court.  Baseball cap or not, it will
be interesting to see whether Bank will be able to proceed with
his proposed class action given the long-standing rule that a
putative class counsel cannot also serve as class representative.


JAYADE ENTERPRISE: Accused of Not Paying Minimum and OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Davis, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v.  Jayade Enterprise, LLC, Jani-King
International, Inc., Jani-King Franchising, Inc., Starwood Hotels
& Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Royal Franchising, Inc., Andrew
Aldrich, Maria Peterson, and Jon McAlpine, Case No. 2:13-cv-01458-
CNC (E.D. Wisconsin., December 31, 2013) alleges that the
Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiff and the other
similarly situated employees proper wages for each hour worked, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Specifically, Ms. Davis asserts that she and the putative class
members are entitled to at least minimum wage for time worked and
overtime compensation for all work hours beyond 40 per workweek at
a rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay.

Jayade Enterprise is a Wisconsin business corporation with its
primary place of business at 3230 North 36th Street, in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, a residential property occupied by Maria Peterson.
Maria Peterson is the owner and operator of Jayade Enterprise.
Jani-King International is a Texas business corporation and is the
parent company of Jani-King Franchising, also organized and
existing under the laws of Texas.  Jani-King Franchising is the
parent company of Royal Franchising, Inc. d/b/a Jani-King of
Milwaukee.  All three corporations are engaged in commerce and
doing business in the state of Wisconsin in Brookfield, Wisconsin.
Jon McAlpine is the owner and operator of Jani-King Milwaukee.

Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. d/b/a Sheraton Milwaukee
Brookfield Hotel is a foreign corporation with a principal office
address of One Starpoint, in Stamford, Connecticut.  Andrew
Aldrich is the President and one of the owners of Sheraton
Milwaukee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          200 South Executive Drive, Suite 101
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com

               - and -

          Gian M. Fanelli, Esq.
          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          155 2nd Street, Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (201) 630-[00000]
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5297


JENERE SALES: Recalls Plush Toys From Chantilly Musical Collection
------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            December 18, 2013
Posting date:             December 18, 2013
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Toys
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Choking Hazard
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-37241

Affected products: Ghouls Gone Wild Squeezers

The recall involves Ghouls Gone Wild Squeezers.  These 28
centimetre plush toys come in three different monster styles from
the Chantilly Lane musical Collection.  These plush toys can be
identified by the UPC number 031635060060, and lot number
60062011.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has identified
that the hard plastic eyes on the plush toys can detach.  These
small parts pose a choking hazard to young children.

Health Canada has not received any reports of incidents or
injuries related to the use of this toy.

Approximately 120 of the recalled plush toys were sold across
Canada.

The recalled toys were manufactured in China and sold from
September 2013 to November 2013.

Companies:

  Distributor     Jenere Sales
                  Montreal
                  Quebec
                  Canada

Consumers should immediately take the recalled plush toys away
from children and dispose of them in the regular household
garbage.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: April 1 Settlement Opt-In Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Patrick E. Knie Law Offices disclosed that Johnson and Johnson
agreed to a massive $2.5 billion settlement regarding their DePuy
ASR metal on metal hip replacements.  There are two key deadlines.
The first is a January 6th, 2014 deadline to register your case.
The second is a April 1, 2014 deadline to opt-in to the
settlement.  There is much work to do for each deadline, so you
should contact an attorney IMMEDIATELY!  Qualified patients will
receive a base award of $ 250,000.  Although lawsuits continue
involving mayother metal on metal hip replacements such as Biomet
M2A Magnum, DePuy Pinnacle, Smith & Nephew, Stryker Rejuvenate,
Stryker ABGII Modular Neck System, Wright Conserve, Wright
Profemur, and Zimmer, those are not included in this settlement.
If you have questions call Patrick E. Knie Attorney toll free at
1-866-665-4995.


KKR FINANCIAL: Being Sold to KKR & Co. for Too Little, Class Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Parsons, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. KKR Financial Holdings LLC, Craig J. Farr, Paul M.
Hazen, Tracy Collins, Robert L. Edwards, Vincent Paul Finigan, R.
Glenn Hubbard, Ross J. Kari, Ely L. Licht, Deborah H. Mcaneny,
Scott C. Nuttall, Scott Ryles, Willy Strothotte, KKR & Co. L.P.,
KKR Fund Holdings L.P., and Copal Merger Sub LLC, Case No. 9210-CS
(Del. Ch. Ct., December 27, 2013) is brought on behalf of the
public stockholders of KKR Financial Holdings LLC ("KFN" or the
"Company") against KFN's Board of Directors for their breaches of
fiduciary duties arising out of their attempt to sell the Company
to KKR & Co. L.P. ("KKR") by means of an alleged unfair process
and for an unfair price.

KFN is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in San
Francisco, California.  The Company, a specialty finance company
traded on the New York Stock Exchange, is known for its expertise
in a wide range of asset classes.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

KKR is a Delaware limited partnership headquartered in New York.
KKR represents itself as a leading global investment firm with
over $90 billion in assets under management as of September 30,
2013.  Fund Holdings is an exempted limited partnership formed
under the laws of the Cayman Islands.  Merger Sub is a Delaware
limited liability company directly and wholly owned by Fund
Holdings, created for the purposes of effectuating the Proposed
Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
          Daniel P. Murray, Esq.
          O'KELLY ERNST & BIELLI, LLC
          901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 778-4000
          E-mail: rernst@oeblegal.com
                  dmurray@oeblegal.com

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com


L'OREAL: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Casie D. Collignon, Esq. -- ccollignon@bakerlaw.com -- at Baker &
Hostetler LLP reports that on Dec. 9, a New Jersey federal judge
denied a motion to dismiss for lack of standing in a deceptive
marketing class action in which the named plaintiffs had not
purchased a number of the named products.  This decision
effectively held that, in a class action, the appropriate time to
analyze standing is at the class certification stage, not at the
Rule 12 stage.  In In re L'Oreal Wrinkle Cream Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation, Civ. No. 2:12-03571 (WJM), 2013 WL 6450701
(D.N.J. Dec. 9, 2013), plaintiffs alleged that L'Oreal used false,
misleading, and deceptive marketing for a number of products in
its anti-wrinkle cream line. The popular cosmetic company
contested the plaintiffs' standing because they did not actually
purchase every product named in the suit.

Plaintiffs alleged that the company's marketing campaign for 30
anti-wrinkle creams falsely insinuated that the products were the
result of rigorous scientific research and testing.  However, the
named plaintiffs had only purchased 16 of the 30 creams.   L'Oreal
moved to dismiss the claims relating to the 14 unpurchased
products, theorizing that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue over
products they did not purchase.

The court declined to follow a line of cases that preclude
standing where the named plaintiffs did not purchase the products.
Instead, it acknowledged that the issue of standing can be delayed
if the plaintiffs meet a three-part test.  The court explained
that, in cases where (1) the basis for each claim is the same with
respect to the purchased and not purchased products, (2) the
products are closely related, and (3) the defendants are the same,
the court should put off its standing evaluation until class
certification.  The court found that plaintiffs met the three
elements since the advertising campaign for each product repeated
the same allegedly false and deceptive claims, the basis for
plaintiffs' claims were the same for all of the products, and all
the products were closely related because they were in the same
product lines.  The court denied L'Oreal's motion to dismiss and
deferred the standing issue until the class certification stage.

This case highlights the strategic challenges in deciding when to
challenge standing of the named class representative.  Generally
speaking, there are three options: (1) seek dismissal of the named
plaintiff's individual claims pre-certification; (2) seek to deny
certification on adequacy and typicality of the named class
representative based on standing grounds; or (3) seek dismissal of
the class claims based on standing after certification.  In
deciding which option to pursue, the following checklist should be
helpful:

    What is the law in the jurisdiction and the preferences of the
judge? Not only will this answer determine when standing
challenges should be made, this answer will also inform any
removal or venue choices to make.

    How easily can plaintiffs' counsel find more class reps that
do have standing? If counsel has the resources and reputation to
find more class representatives, efforts to dismiss the current
plaintiff may end up to be a waste of defense time and money.

    What is the strength of the other arguments against class
certification? If standing and variances in the purchases of
different products is your best class certification defense, then
raising standing in opposition to class certification may make
sense.  But if there are several defenses to class certification,
it may be best to seek dismissal on these standing grounds early.
Even if you are unsuccessful, there may be value in beginning to
educate the judge early about just how unsuitable the case is for
class treatment.

    Is there an opportunity to get a second bite at the apple?
Depending upon the case, jurisdiction, and judge, there may be
strategic reasons to try the standing arguments out in an early
motion to dismiss, and then take what is learned from that order
and re-package arguments for class certification.

    What is the settlement potential of the case? If early
settlement is being considered, then perhaps there is a strategic
reason to get an early motion to dismiss filed so that the
potential for an early win can be considered in any settlement
negotiations.


MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Suit Over Denial of Bail Will Be Reheard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Tim Hull reports that a
challenge to an Arizona law that denies bail to some illegal
immigrants will be reheard before an 11-judge panel of appellate
judges, the 9th Circuit said January 2, 2014.

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski announced in a brief order that a
majority of the circuit's active judges had voted to convene en
banc rehearing concerning the voter-approved law known as
Proposition 100, which prohibits bail for all suspected illegal
immigrants charged with certain serious felonies.

Angel Lopez-Valenzuela and Isaac Castro-Armenta challenged the law
in 2007 with a proposed class action against Maricopa County,
Sheriff Joe Arpaio and others.

Lopez-Valenzuela said he was denied bail for a drug-smuggling
charge, and Castro-Arementa for aggravated assault with a deadly
weapon, kidnapping, and assisting a criminal syndicate.
Represented by the ACLU, both men claimed that the law violated
their due-process rights set down in the Sixth, Eighth and 14th
Amendments.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled for the defendants in
Phoenix, and a divided three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit
affirmed in June 2013.  The panel found that the law had been
properly motivated by public safety concerns, despite being pushed
by then-Rep.  Russell Pearce, who would later be the driving force
behind the state's controversial S.B. 1070.

Writing in dissent to the panel ruling, Judge Raymond Fisher had
argued that "Rep. Pearce promoted the bill on the ground that 'all
illegal aliens in this country ought to be detained, debriefed and
deported.'"

Voters recalled Pearce from office in 2011.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          39 Drumm Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 343-0775

               - and -

          Dan Pochoda, Esq.
          ACLU OF ARIZONA
          3707 N. 7th Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85014
          Telephone: (602) 773-6003

               - and -

          Andre Segura, Esq.
          ACLU - AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2676

               - and -

          Kenneth J. Sugarman, Attorney
          RUDY, EXELROD, ZIEFF & LOWE, LLP
          351 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 434-9800

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Timothy James Casey, Esq.
          SCHMITT SCHNECK SMYTH CASEY & EVEN, P.C.
          1221 East Osborn Road
          Phoenix, AZ 85014-5540
          Telephone: (602) 277-7000
          E-mail: timcasey@azbarristers.com

               - and -

          Anne C. Longo, Esq.
          Bruce P. White, Esq.
          MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          222 North Central Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-2206
          Telephone: (602) 506-5269

The appellate case is Angel Lopez-Valenzuela, et al. v. County of
Maricopa, et al., Case No. 11-16487, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The original case is Angel Lopez-
Valenzuela, et al. v. County of Maricopa, et al., Case No. 2:08-
cv-00660-SRB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona, Phoenix.


MAYO CLINIC: Dr. Van de Loo Among Defendants in Sexual Abuse Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Christena T. O'Brien, writing for Leader-Telegram, reports that
Dr. David Van de Loo was named as a defendant in 14 additional
civil suits filed on Dec. 23 in Eau Claire County Court by former
patients who accuse him of sexually abusing them during
examinations.

Until September 2012, the 61-year-old pediatrician practiced at
Mayo Clinic Health System in Eau Claire, named as one of three
additional defendants in the lawsuits.  The others are the Injured
Patients and Families Compensation Fund and ProAssurance Casualty
Co., both based in Madison.

St. Paul attorney Mike Finnegan represents the 14 plaintiffs --
seven adult men and seven minor males.  All are Wisconsin
residents.

Brent Simerson, a Milwaukee attorney who represents Dr. Van de Loo
in similar civil suits previously filed against him, said on
Dec. 23 it is his firm's policy not to comment on ongoing cases.

Criminal charges filed in October 2012 accuse Dr. Van de Loo of
having inappropriate contact with 16 former male patients while
employed as a pediatrician and sports medicine physician for Mayo
Clinic Health System.  Since then, 26 former patients have filed
civil suits.

The remaining 13 plaintiffs accuse Dr.  Van de Loo of touching
their genitals after their parents were asked to leave the room,
according to court records.  Some of them claim the touching
occurred when they went to see the physician for unrelated
ailments, including stomach, respiratory, knee and back issues.

Mayo fired Van de Loo Sept. 12, 2012.  He was arrested on Oct. 10,
2012, and charged with two felonies after being accused of trying
to induce an erection in a 16-year-old boy three times during an
hour-long sports physical exam in August of that year.  Additional
criminal charges were filed later in 2012 and in 2013.

In the criminal case, which involves 17 felony charges against
Dr. Van de Loo, a jury trial is scheduled to start on Jan. 21 in
Douglas County.


MBLOX INC: Cellphone Spam Class Action Trimmed Down Further
-----------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
a once-massive class action against cellphone spammers shrank
further after a federal judge dismissed most claims against the
last remaining defendant, mBlox.

Lead plaintiffs Edward Fields, Cathie O'Hanks, Erik Kristianson,
Richard Parmentier, Kevin Brewster and Kristian Kunder originally
sued Wise Media in October 2012 after receiving unsolicited text
messages.  The texts contained information about the company's
subscription plans for flirting tips, horoscope updates, celebrity
gossip and weight-loss advice.

Through a process known as "cramming," Wise Media enlisted the
help of aggregators -- including co-defendants Mobile Messenger
Americas, mBlox Inc. and Motricity -- to act as middlemen between
itself and cellphone companies, according to the complaint.

The aggregators allegedly placed the charges on millions of
cellphone bills and monitored complaints -- for a piece of the
revenue pie -- regardless of whether users canceled or even
responded to the texts at all.

After a federal receiver in Georgia asked for a stay against now-
bankrupt Wise Media, the plaintiffs pressed ahead with their case
against the aggregators.  U.S. District Judge William Alsup
initially refused to dismiss claims against the companies, but the
action began to unravel last month when he found that the plethora
of individual experiences made it impossible to certify the class.

The plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed all the aggregator
defendants -- leaving Brewster and Kristianson to fight against
mBlox individually.  On December 23, 2013, however, Alsup
dismissed Brewster's claims of money had and received, conversion
unjust enrichment, negligence and unfair competition.

"Brewster states that he paid the subscription fee that appeared
on his cellphone bill and has not yet been refunded," Alsup wrote.
"Moreover, he refers to a billing note as evidence that his mobile
carrier remitted his payment to mBlox based on the short code
associated with the text message he received.  The billing note,
however, clearly indicates that the carrier did not actually pay
mBlox any money; due to a credit imbalance, mBlox paid the carrier
$105.57."

Brewster cannot prevail on such common counts by simply referring
to the specific amount of money that he lost, the court found.

"As there is no compelling evidence that his carrier ever remitted
his payment to mBlox, mBlox's motion for summary judgment as to
Brewster's claims for money had and received, unjust enrichment,
and conversion is granted," Alsup wrote.

Brewster's "inability to decipher his cellphone bill" also doomed
the negligence action, the court found.  And neither Brewster nor
Kristianson pursued unfair competition claims against mBlox in
their second amended complaint.

There is an issue of fact as to whether mBlox violated the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act with its alleged use of an
automated dialer, the court found.

"Plaintiffs argue that the focus should be on whether mBlox's
equipment has the capacity to dial numbers without human
intervention," Alsup wrote.

One expert testified that mBlox's automated system can send
millions of text messages per month with no human involvement
whatsoever, he added.

"While plaintiffs have not alleged that mBlox uses a predictive
dialer, mBlox's equipment functions similarly," the decision
states.  "Like predictive dialers, mBlox's equipment 'receives
numbers from a computer database,' namely Wise Media's text-
message platform, 'and then dials those numbers without human
intervention."

He added: "In sum, there are genuine disputes of material fact
regarding whether mBlox sent text messages to Kristianson and
Brewster using an automatic telephone dialing system."

Alsup will hold a final pretrial conference on the single
remaining count against mBlox on May 14.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey Michael Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Karl Stephen Kronenberger, Esq.
          Virginia Anne Sanderson, Esq.
          KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP
          150 Post Street, Suite 520
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 955-1155
          Facsimile: (415) 955-1158
          E-mail: Jeff@KRInternetlaw.com
                  karl@KRInternetlaw.com
                  ginny@KRInternetLaw.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Ryan, Esq.
          John J. Roddy, Esq.
          BAILEY AND GLASSER LLP
          125 Summer Street, Suite 1030
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 439-6730
          Facsimile: (617) 951-3954
          E-mail: eryan@baileyglasser.com
                  jroddy@baileyglasser.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Laura Elizabeth Miller, Esq.
          Michael Henry Page, Esq.
          DURIE TANGRI LLP
          217 Leidesdorff Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 362-6666
          Facsimile: (415) 236-6300
          E-mail: lmiller@durietangri.com
                  mpage@durietangri.com

               - and -

          Alan Daniel Sege, Esq.
          ALAN SEGE ESQ., PC
          6601 Center Dr W, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 957-3301
          E-mail: alan.sege@gmail.com

               - and -

          Ari N. Rothman, Esq.
          Molly Theresa Cusson, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          575 7th Street
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 344-4000
          Facsimile: (202) 344-8300
          E-mail: anrothman@venable.com
                  mtcusson@venable.com

               - and -

          Brett Alexander Garner, Esq.
          Melissa Caren Rose McLaughlin, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 229-0374
          E-mail: bgarner@venable.com
                  mcmclaughlin@venable.com

               - and -

          Joel Dashiell Smith, Esq.
          Janine Laura Scancarelli, Esq.
          CROWELL & MORING LLP
          275 Battery Street, 23rd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 986-2800
          E-mail: jsmith@crowell.com
                  jscancarelli@crowell.com

               - and -

          Steven D. Allison, Esq.
          CROWELL MORING LLP
          3 Park Plaza, 20th Floor
          Irvine, CA 92614-8505
          Telephone: (949) 263-8400
          Facsimile: (949) 263-8414
          E-mail: sallison@crowell.com

               - and -

          Annette Michele McGarry, Esq.
          MCGARRY & MCGARRY, LLC
          120 North LaSalle Street, #1100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 345-4600
          E-mail: amm@mcgarryllc.com

               - and -

          Matthew F. Miller, Esq.
          CARROLL BURDICK & MCDONOUGH LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 743-2216
          Facsimile: (415) 989-0932
          E-mail: mmiller@cbmlaw.com

The case is Fields, et al. v. Wise Media, LLC, et al., Case No.
3:12-cv-05160-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco).


MILO'S KITCHEN: Suit Over Chinese Dog Treats Sent to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
An arbitrator should determine whether the Chinese manufacturer of
allegedly poisonous Del Monte dog treats adhered to U.S. safety
standards, reports Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service,
citing a federal magistrate judge ruling.

The 2012 class action involves Lisa Mazur's claim that her healthy
7-year-old dog, Riley Rae, suffered kidney failure and had to be
euthanized after about a month of occasionally eating chicken
jerky treats sold by a Del Monte subsidiary, Milo's Kitchen.

The "defendants intentionally concealed known facts concerning the
safety of their dog treats in order to increase or maintain
sales," Mazur claims.

Despite a warning from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Del
Monte refused to recall the dangerous products or place warnings
on the packages, according to the complaint.

Though the company was one of a dozen manufacturers in a $24
million settlement in 2011 for wet pet food contaminated with
melamine and cyanuric acid, its legal troubles live on.

Another dog owner sued Milo's in Los Angeles last year, claiming
that the biscuits brought her dog "close to death" from kidney
failure.

Christopher Langone later filed a similar claim in San Francisco,
but voluntarily dismissed his case in February.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White agreed in April to transfer two
other Northern California cases to Pittsburgh, where Mazur's is
pending.

Mazur seeks punitive damages for the class for common law fraud,
unjust enrichment, negligence, product liability, unfair trade,
breach of warranty, failure to warn and defective manufacture or
design.

After Del Monte and Milo's moved to dismiss last year, U.S.
District Judge Cathy Bissoon adopted U.S. Magistrate Judge Maureen
Kelly's recommendation of dismissing the unjust enrichment claim
only.

Months later, the defendants filed a third-party complaint against
Nova World, the Chinese corporation that allegedly exclusively
manufactured the dog treats at issue.

Del Monte and Milo's said that Nova World breached their supply
agreement by failing to provide all the required ingredients,
material, and equipment necessary to manufacture the treats in
accordance with the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and state
regulations.

The American companies assert claims for contribution, contractual
and implied indemnification, breach of contract and express and
implied warranty.

Nova World moved to stay Del Monte and Milo's new claims and
compel arbitration on Oct. 17, and Judge Kelly recommended on
December 17 that the motion be granted.

The court tossed aside Del Monte's argument that although the
plaintiffs' claims "arise (whether in whole or part) out of Nova
World's conduct pursuant to the terms of the supply agreement,"
the dispute at hand has nothing to do with the contract.
(Parentheses in original).

"Del Monte has alleged, and the supply agreement provides, that
Nova World has agreed to indemnify Del Monte against any claim,
loss, damage, liability or expense for bodily injury, death,
property damage or damage to brand reputation . . . where such
injury, death or damage is caused by any products, ingredients or
materials furnished by [Nova World] . . . not in compliance with
specifications, and by any negligence of [Nova World], or by any
act or omission on part of [Nova World] . . . in violation of this
[supply agreement]," Kelly wrote.

The judge later added: "Under these circumstances it is difficult
to give any countenance to defendants' argument that their claims
brought against Nova World, fall outside the scope of the supply
agreement.  Because the dispute between Del Monte and Nova World
clearly fall within the scope of the supply agreement, they are
subject to the arbitration clause."

Although "it is not at all clear" why the parties failed to meet
within 10 days of the start of the dispute, as their contract
requires, Nova World's demand for arbitration is not premature,
Kelly ruled.

The parties have been given 14 days to appeal Kelly's order.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clayton S. Morrow, Esq.
          MORROW & ARTIM, PC
          304 Ross Street, 7th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-1250
          Facsimile: (412) 386-3184
          E-mail: cmorrow@allconsumerlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Catherine A. Ceko, Esq.
          Thomas E. Soule, Esq.
          EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC
          120 S LaSalle Street, Suite 1800
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 917-4521
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com
                  cceko@edcombs.com
                  tsoule@edcombs.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          Edmund S. Aronowitz, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 214-0001
          E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com
                  earonowitz@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Jamie E. Weiss, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq.
          Julie Diane Miller, Esq.
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC
          513 Central Avenue, Suite 300
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          E-mail: jamie@complexlitgroup.com
                  jeff@complexlitgroup.com
                  julie@complexlitgroup.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 564-2300
          Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
          E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Kara M. Wolke, Esq.
          Marc L. Godino, Esq.
          Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
          Gregory Bradley Linkh, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: kwolke@glancylaw.com
                  mgodino@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com
                  glinkh@glancylaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anita B. Weinstein, Esq.
          F. Brenden Coller, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          1900 Market Street
          The Atrium, 4th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 665-2059
          E-mail: aweinstein@cozen.com
                  bcoller@cozen.com

               - and -

          Maria Ciccia, Esq.
          Richard Fama, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          45 Broadway
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 908-1273
          Facsimile: (212) 509-9492
          E-mail: mciccia@cozen.com
                  rfama@cozen.com

Third Party Defendant, Nova World Inc., is represented by:

          Keith D. Heinold, Esq.
          MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN
          2000 Market Street, Suite 2300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 575-2640
          E-mail: kdheinold@mdwcg.com

               - and -

          Peter R. Glasser, Esq.
          Trevin E. Wray, Esq.
          HOLBROOK & OSBORN, P.A.
          7400 W. 110th Street, Suite 600
          Overland Park, KS 66210
          Telephone: (913) 342-2500
          Facsimile: (913) 342-0603
          E-mail: pglasser@holbrookosborn.com
                  twray@holbrookosborn.com

The consolidated case is In re Milo's Kitchen Dog Treats, Case No.
2:12-cv-01011-CB-MPK, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh).


MONTREAL MAINE: Managers Aware of Bogus Oil Hazmat Classification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Thomas, writing for Railway Age, reports that lawyers
developing a class action suit on behalf of the victims of the
July 6 calamity at Lac-Megantic say they have found disturbing
evidence that at least some managers in the oil industry knew
beforehand that the hazmat classification of mid-continent crude
oil for rail transport was systematically bogus.

What they found, hiding in plain sight on the Internet, is a
June 6, 2013 conference presentation by Irving Oil's quality
manager explicitly stating that the company knew high-volatility
oil from multiple sources was being comingled as it was
transferred to tank cars, and that no testing whatsoever was done
before the cargo was classified as the lowest-risk crude and sent
on its way by rail.

Evidence of systematic misclassification at loading terminals is
contained in a presentation by Irvings Oil's Gary Weimer to a
conference of the Crude Oil Quality Association in Seattle,
precisely one month before a cargo of Bakken crude exploded on its
way to Irving's Saint John refinery.

If true, the Irving Oil contentions would mean that North American
railroads have knowingly been given erroneous hazmat shipping
documents to accompany crude oil shipments.  As common carriers,
railroads are legally bound to accept crude oil certified by the
shipper to be correctly classified and legally contained.  The
railroads have no control over loading practices or the interior
condition of tank cars, which are owned and maintained by the
shippers and receivers.

Misrepresenting to railroads and customs officials the true nature
of hazardous material shipments is an offense in both Canada and
the U.S. Nonetheless, Irving's Weimer told his industry colleagues
that oilfield sampling of outbound crude "is almost non-existent."

In mid-December, Transport Canada criminal investigators obtained
a warrant to search Irving Oil's refinery offices for the results
of tests performed when crude is unloaded at Saint John.  At issue
is just who in the long chain of possession between loading
terminal and refinery was aware that crude oil was being
misclassified.

The implications extend beyond any criminal or civil liability for
Irving Oil, the importer of the doomed cargo that exploded upon
derailment of a runaway Montreal, Maine & Atlantic (MM&A) unit
train that fateful midsummer night in rural Quebec.  In all, 47
people were incinerated, some beyond identification.  Their
survivors are among those represented in the case, which is to be
presented to a Canadian court June 9, 2014, for judicial
authorization as a collective class action.

MM&A and the train's engineer are prospective defendants in the
proposed class action, but the lawyer for the engineer has said
his client's liability does not extend to the death and
destruction caused by the explosion of the cargo, but simply to
the immediate trackside impact of the derailment and the
subsequent foreseeable fire.  A long-standing legal principle says
defendants are not held responsible for the consequences of
something they had no reason to be aware of, according to lawyer
Thomas Walsh.  None of the investigating authorities has so far
suggested that anyone died as a result of the derailment itself.

The shipping documents presented to MM&A and its engineer
indicated that the cargo was of the lowest flammability
classification for crude oil -- Packing Group III -- not the
explosive mix it tragically turned out to be.  What the Irving
presentation shows is that the misclassification of the Lac-
Megantic cargo was not a procedural lapse but instead was
consistent with widespread disregard for hazmat law at the
transloading terminals where oil is received by truck or pipeline
and often comingled in holding tanks before being loaded into tank
cars, where it may be comingled again.

Testing at the receiving refinery is complicated by the separation
and layering of car contents during the journey, with water
settling at the bottom, and the highest-volatility liquids
floating at the top of the tanks, according to the Irving Oil
presentation.

One of the Irving Oil slides, titled "Railcars and Sampling
Current Practice," sets out (albeit in industry jargon and bullet-
point grammar) critical failings in the standard practice:

* "Sample at delivery point only of either single railcars,
multiple rail with common product or blended offloads."

* "Source sampling program is almost non-existent.  Only [done]
when issues arise or concerns have been raised.  Rely primarily on
established and sometimes outdated assays for purchase decisions."

The Irving Oil manager also presented photographic evidence that
tank cars were being used "as trash receptacles" and that "unknown
substances" were commonly found in the "heels" (residues) of
drained tank cars.

Mr. Weimer's presentation paints an unsettling picture of a crude
oil transloading sector casual in its duty to accurately inform
carriers what they are being asked to haul through vulnerable
towns and cities.  More upsetting revelations should be expected
as lawyers delve deeper into just what happens (and doesn't) at
the crude oil loading terminals.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: 9 Former Chiefs Players Join Brain Injury Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Hall of Famers Albert Lewis and
Art Still are among nine former Kansas City Chiefs players who
have joined a lawsuit that contends the team hid the risks of
permanent brain injuries from repeated concussions.  The
concussions happened between late 1987 and early 1993 when there
was no NFL collective bargaining agreement in place.

Five former players -- Former Chiefs players Leonard Griffin,
Chris Martin, Joe Phillips, Alexander Louis Cooper and Kevin
Porter -- filed the initial suit against the Chiefs, saying the
team ignored decades of scientific research indicating repeated
head trauma causes permanent brain damage.  In the amended suit
filed on Dec. 28 in Jackson County Circuit Court, the plaintiffs
said Arrowhead Stadium's artificial surface contributed to the
head injuries.

Also joining the lawsuit were Dino Hackett, Todd McNair, Fred
Jones, Tim Barnett, Walker Lee Ashley, Emile Harry and Chris
Smith, along with the wives of several of them.

Ken McClain, a lawyer whose firm is representing the plaintiffs,
said at least 10 more former Chiefs could join the suit by before
the end of the year.

Chiefs spokesman Ted Crews said the team had no comment.

In recent years, a string of former NFL players and other athletes
who suffered concussions have been diagnosed after their deaths
with chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE, including Junior
Seau and Ray Easterling, both of whom committed suicide.  In
August, the NFL reached a tentative $765 million deal to settle
lawsuits filed by more than 4,500 former players who developed
dementia or other concussion-related health problems they say were
caused by football.  The settlement, subject to approval by a
federal judge in Philadelphia, would apply to all past NFL players
and spouses of those who are deceased.

McClain called the national settlement -- which does not include
an admission from the NFL that it hid information from players
about head injuries -- insignificant and said it provides
compensation only to the former players with the most severe brain
injuries.  Rather than protecting players who sustained
concussions, the lawsuit said, the Chiefs increased their risks by
giving them "ammonia inhalants, caffeine cocktails and/or Toradol
to abbreviate the need for concussed employees to miss working
time due to a brain injury."  Toradol is an injectable, anti-
inflammatory drug used short term to treat moderate to severe
pain.

Players were even more prone to head injuries because of the
concrete-like AstroTurf surface that was in place until 1994, the
lawsuit said.  That surface made the players faster and was
cheaper than maintaining a grass field, the plaintiffs said.
Because of the heightened violence of high-speed hits, the suit
says, the game became more attractive to fans and increased the
team's revenue.

Missouri presented a "unique opportunity" to file the lawsuit
because a state workers' compensation statute was amended in 2005
to exclude cases of occupational injury that occur over an
extended time.  That exception more commonly applies in workplaces
where smoking is allowed and workers suffer lung problems because
of it.  Mr. McClain also represented workers at a Jasper popcorn
plant who were awarded millions of dollars in lawsuits.  They
contended they got cancer because of a chemical in butter
flavoring used at the plant.


NEWCREST MINING: Slater & Gordon to Launch Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Wilkins and Peter Ker, writing for BusinessDay, reported
that law firm Slater & Gordon has informed Newcrest Mining that a
class action is likely to arise from its investigations into the
market disclosure scandal.  The case will represent shareholders
who lost money during the first week of June, when the Newcrest
share price fell by more than 12 per cent without official
explanation from the company.

The Slater & Gordon action is based on the belief that Newcrest
may have engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct, and breached
its continuous disclosure obligations.

A spokeswoman for the law firm said institutional shareholders
were among those in the class action.

Newcrest's share register is dominated by big institutional
investors, including BlackRock, Vanguard, First Eagle and
Commonwealth Bank, but it is unclear whether any of those are
involved in the action.

US litigation funder Comprehensive Legal Funding is helping fund
the action.  It has worked with Slater & Gordon on the GPT
Management Holdings class action.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has also been
investigating the market disclosure scandal.  A second class
action appears to have been nullified, after law firm Maurice
Blackburn confirmed it would not be pursuing an action.

According to Business Spectator, Newcrest has confirmed it is the
target of a class action led by Slater & Gordon Lawyers.  In a
statement to the Australian Securities Exchange, the miner said it
had received notice from the law firm that it would proceed with a
Federal Court class action, as previously flagged on July 19, in
relation to Newcrest's June 7 market release.

Business Spectator reports that Slater & Gordon has invited the
miner to enter into "confidential and without prejudice
discussions into these matters" prior to the commencement
otherwise of legal proceedings, Newcrest said.

"Newcrest is considering its position in relation to this
approach," the miner said.

"Newcrest intends to defend any proceedings if they are
commenced."

The Australian Associated Press reports that Newcrest in June
downgraded its production forecasts and reduced the value of its
assets by more than $6 billion, partly due to the significant fall
in the gold price.  In the days leading up to the announcement,
three different analysts downgraded their investment views on
Newcrest, causing a fall in the company's share price, according
to The Australian Associated Press.

The corporate regulator is investigating possible breaches of
disclosure laws, due to speculation analysts were given market
sensitive information before it was released to the wider
investment market.

Newcrest has denied it breached any laws, and an investigation it
commissioned in July found no wrongdoing.


NFL PRODUCTIONS: Opt-Outs in "Dryer" Suit Deal Launched Own Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Curley Culp, John Riggins, Ron Yary, Dave Casper, Thomas Mack,
Phil Villapiano, Roman Gabriel, Jr., Willie Buchanon, Joseph Kapp,
and Mike Bass, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. NFL Productions LLC d/b/a NFL Films; and National
Football League, Case No. 1:13-cv-07815-NLH-JS (D.N.J.,
December 23, 2013) assert claims for damages and injunctive relief
on behalf of all of those former NFL professional football
players, and their heirs and assigns, that have opted-out of a
fully consummated class action settlement in litigation captioned
Dryer v. National Football League, Case No. 09-CV-2182 PAM, United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

NFL Films and NFL have engaged in a calculated and systematic
pattern and practice of widespread acts of unfair competition and
other violations of law adversely affecting the interests of
former NFL players, the Plaintiffs allege.  They add that those
acts include using Class Members' images, without their permission
or consent, in NFL Films' promotional materials and products to
increase revenue and profits for Defendants and their affiliated
entities.

NFL Productions LLC d/b/a NFL Films is a Delaware limited
liability company headquartered in Mt. Laurel, New Jersey.  NFL
Films is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NFL Ventures L.P.  The
National Football League is a tax-exempt association with its
headquarters located in New York.  The NFL as an enterprise
operates several business wings through which it, in part, carried
out the alleged misconduct.  The NFL is one of the largest
entertainment entities in the world with yearly revenue now
totally approximately $10 billion.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William J. Pinilis, Esq.
          PINILISHALPERN LLP
          160 Morris Street
          Morristown, NJ 07960
          Telephone: (973) 401-1111
          Facsimile: (973) 401-1114
          E-mail: wpinilis@consumerfraudlawyer.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Jon T. King, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Ave., Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          E-mail: jonk@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Jason A. Zweig, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 752-5455
          Facsimile: (917) 210-3980
          E-mail: jasonz@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Stein, Esq.
          BOB STEIN LLC
          6473 Beach Road
          Eden Prairie, MN 55344
          Telephone: (952) 829-1043
          Facsimile: (952) 829-1040
          E-mail: rastein66@aol.com


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Class Certified in Brake Failure Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Megan Gallegos at Courthouse News Service reports that drivers
whose brakes failed while they were behind the wheel can sue
Nissan as a class for unfair business practices, a federal judge
ruled.

Brandon and Erin Banks joined David Soloway in a complaint against
Nissan North America after they each experienced brake failure
while driving an Armada and Infiniti QX56, respectively.  Their
complaint in Oakland, Calif., alleges that the Delta Stroke Sensor
braking system in Nissan's 2004 to 2008 Titan models is defective.

The defect involves the vehicles' electronic computing unit
receiving erroneous information, which keeps the antilock braking
system from receiving the information necessary to assess and
apply power assist to the individual brakes.  The malfunctions
allegedly cause a 60 percent loss of braking power.

Soloway and the Banks claim that Nissan has received more than 300
complaints about its defective breaks from the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, which included "instances of
wrecks, injuries and death," but that the car manufacturer did not
notify consumers.

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton certified the class on
December 19 to include all "consumer residents in California who
own 2004-2008 Nissan Armada Titan (equipped with VDC) and Infiniti
QX56 vehicles manufactured before April 1, 2008 ('Affected
Vehicles') and all consumer residents in California who do not
presently own Affected Vehicles but incurred monetary loss caused
by the failure of the Delta Stroke Sensor in their Affected
Vehicles.  This definition specifically excludes any and all
persons who assert personal injury claims arising from or relating
to the failure of the Delta Stroke Sensor in their affected
vehicles."

Hamilton said the class deserves certification because it meets a
four-point criterion, which "requires that plaintiffs demonstrate
numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation
in order to maintain a class."

While it is true that the braking defects in some vehicles may
have been caused differently, there is commonality in the
allegation that Nissan knew of the defect and violated consumer
protection laws by not notifying consumers, according to the
ruling.

Hamilton also pointed out that "class-wide treatment 'will reduce
litigation costs and promote greater efficiency,'" though the
class could receive relief by going through a recall.

The class also has leave to file a fourth amended complaint,
according to the ruling.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clifford Lee Carter, Esq.
          Kirk J. Wolden, Esq.
          CARTER WOLDEN CURTIS, LLP
          1111 Exposition Blvd., Suite 602
          Sacramento, CA 95815
          Telephone: (916) 567-1111
          Facsimile: (916) 567-1112
          E-mail: cliff@cwclawfirm.com
                  kirk@cwclawfirm.com

               - and -

          F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
          Hirlye R. (Ryan) Lutz, III, Esq.
          CORY WATSON CROWDER & DEGARIS, P.C.
          2131 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328-2200
          Facsimile: (205) 324-7896
          E-mail: jtapley@cwcd.com
                  rlutz@cwcd.com

               - and -

          Michael Francis Ram, Esq.
          RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
          555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-4949
          Facsimile: (415) 433-7311
          E-mail: mram@rocklawcal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          George Charles Nierlich, III, Esq.
          Joseph Friedman Tartakovsky, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2933
          Telephone: (415) 393-8200
          Facsimile: (415) 393-8206
          E-mail: gnierlich@gibsondunn.com
                  JTartakovsky@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Timothy William Loose, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER
          333 S Grand Ave., Suite 5254
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229-7746
          E-mail: tloose@gibsondunn.com

The case is Banks, et al. v. Nissan North America, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 4:11-cv-02022-PJH, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (Oakland).


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Alleging Mortgage-Servicing Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Lou Vega, individually and on behalf of other members of the
public similarly situated v. Ocwen Financial Corporation, a
Florida corporation and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Case No. 2:13-cv-09445-JFW-RZ (C.D.
Cal., December 23, 2013) concerns alleged fraudulent practices
committed by Ocwen in connection with its home mortgage loan
servicing business.

Taking advantage of the economic downturn and the increasing
number of loans in default, Ocwen services loans according to
uniform practices designed to maximize fees assessed on borrowers'
accounts when they are behind on their payments, the Plaintiff
alleges.  She adds that Ocwen's practices are designed to avoid
detection even when examined in bankruptcy proceedings.

Ocwen Financial Corporation is a Florida corporation headquartered
in Atlanta, Georgia.  Ocwen Financial Corporation is a provider of
residential mortgage loan servicing, specializing in servicing
non-prime loans.  Headquartered in West Palm Beach, Florida, Ocwen
Loan Servicing, LLC, is Delaware limited liability company, and an
indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Ocwen Financial Corporation.
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC maintains operations in California
related to the activities at issue in this case, including
operations concerning the management of loans that are in default,
which are conducted from offices located in Burbank, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Alberstone, Esq.
          Roland Tellis, Esq.
          Mark Pifko, Esq.
          Michael Isaac Miller, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P .C.
          15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 839-2333
          Facsimile: (818) 986-9698
          E-mail: dalberstone@baronbudd.com
                  rtellis@baronbudd.com
                  mpifko@baronbudd.com
                  imiller@baronbudd.com

               - and -

          Philip F. Cossich, Jr.
          David A. Parsiola
          COSSICH, SUMICH, PARSIOLA & TAYLOR, L.L.C.
          8397 Highway 23, Suite 100
          Belle Chasse, LA 70037
          Telephone: (504) 394-9000
          Facsimile: (504) 394-9110
          E-mail: pcossich@cossichlaw.com
                  dparsiola@cossichlaw.com


ONTARIO: Settlements Reached in Two Residential Facilities Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky LLP on Dec. 23 disclosed that proposed Settlements
have been reached in two class action lawsuits involving the
Rideau Regional Centre and the Southwestern Regional Centre, which
were residential facilities operated by the Province of Ontario
that provided care and treatment to persons labeled with
developmental disabilities.

Rideau was located in Smith Falls, Ontario, and was open from 1951
to 2009.  Southwestern was located in Blenheim, Ontario and was
open from 1961 to 2008.

The lawsuits against each facility say the Province failed to
properly care for and protect the residents of Rideau and
Southwestern from physical and mental harm.  The Province denies
these claims and the Court has not decided whether the Class or
the Province is right.  Instead, both sides have agreed to a
settlement of each class action.  The proposed Settlements do not
mean that any law was broken or that the Province did anything
wrong.

These settlements come on the heels of a recent settlement between
the Province and residents of the Huronia Regional Centre, a
similar facility to Rideau and Southwestern that provided care and
treatment to persons with developmental disabilities.

The Court appointed the law firm of Koskie Minsky LLP from
Toronto, Ontario to represent the Classes as "Class Counsel".  In
a statement Class Counsel, Kirk Baert said, "This proposed
Settlement is fair, reasonable and in the best interests of all
class members.  After years of litigation, this Settlement finally
provides those members of the class who suffered harm while living
at the Rideau Regional and Southwestern Regional Centres with a
measure of vindication."  These two lawsuits were scheduled to go
to trial in March, 2015.

The Rideau Settlement is for $20,619,000.  The Southwestern
Settlement is for $12,081,000.  The different settlement amounts
as between Rideau and Southwestern reflects a difference in
population between the two facilities.  Both Settlements include a
written apology from the Premier to any former residents who
suffered harm while residents of Rideau or Southwestern.

The Rideau lawsuit affects people who were residents of Rideau any
time between 1963 and 2009 who were alive as of September 24,
2008.  The Southwestern lawsuit affects people who were residents
of Southwestern any time between 1963 and 2008 who were alive as
of December 29, 2008.

If the proposed Settlements are approved and become final, they
will provide benefits to eligible Class Members from two
Settlement Funds which are being paid for by the Province.  The
amount of benefits that Class Members can receive will depend on
the level of harm suffered.  If the Court approves the proposed
Settlements, Class Members will have to submit a Claim Form to
receive benefits.

Class Members who did not previously remove themselves from the
Classes will be legally bound by all orders and judgments of the
Court, and cannot sue the Province about the legal claims in these
cases.

The Settlement Funds received by individual Class Members will not
affect eligibility for, the amount, nature and/or duration of
social assistance programs administered by or on behalf of the
Province, including, but not limited to, the Ontario Disability
Support Program.  The Province will also send a letter to the
Federal Government and any other applicable provincial government
to request their agreement that any social assistance benefits
available to Class Members from those other governments will not
be affected by any settlement funds received by individual Class
Members.

The settlement is not effective until the court reviews it and
determines that it is fair, reasonable and in the best interest of
class members.  The parties will be seeking court approval in the
coming months.  Class members will be provided with advanced
notice of that settlement approval hearing.

Some Class Members may have difficulty reading, so we are asking
for the help from family members, caregivers and friends of former
residents in getting information to them.  Please show this notice
to people who are impacted by this lawsuit or to their caregivers.

Class Members who are having a difficult time dealing with the
issues in this lawsuit can call 1-866-879-4915 (TTY: 1-877-627-
7027) for assistance.


PHILADELPHIA FLYERS: Settles Ticketholder Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Frank Seravalli, writing for Philly.com, reports that on Dec. 20,
the Flyers announced the settlement of a class-action suit against
the team that could be worth up to $1.125 million for 2011-12
season ticketholders if approved by the District Court of New
Jersey.  The suit was originally filed on May 7, 2012 in United
States District Court involving the manner in which tickets to the
2012 Winter Classic at Citizens Bank Park were "packaged and
sold."

The complaint alleged the Flyers misled full season ticketholders
by excluding the Winter Classic -- a regular season game -- from
their contractual ticketholder agreement, which stated fans paid
for 44 home games (all 41 regular season home games and 3
preseason home games).  Instead, full-time season ticketholders
wishing to attend the Jan. 2, 2012 Winter Classic were forced to
purchase tickets to the Winter Classic in a three-pack, which also
included tickets to the Dec. 31, 2011 alumni game, an AHL Phantoms
regular season game on Jan. 6, 2012, and pay $41 in processing
fees per ticket.

The settlement will enable each Settlement Class Member to receive
either a cash substitute voucher for food and drink at Wells Fargo
Center worth $45.00 or a voucher for fan entertainment experience
with an estimated value of $75.00, for each season ticket that he
or she purchased.  The defendants also have agreed to not oppose
to paying attorney fees, court costs, expenses and incentive fees
awarded by the Court as long as it does not exceed $500,000.  In
exchange for accepting the settlement amount, the action will be
dismissed.

A final settlement hearing will be heard by Judge Douglas E.
Arpert on March 24, 2014.  The NHL (National Hockey League
Enterprises), under the supervision of lockout lawyer
Shepard Goldfein, also acted as a defendant in the case with
Comcast-Spectacor.

A copy of the Notice of Settlement of Class Action can be found
at:

     http://flyers.nhl.com/v2/ext/131220_RevisedClassNotice.pdf


R+L CARRIERS: Wins Initial Okay of $9.5-MM Drivers Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California approved, on a preliminary basis, R+L
Carriers, Inc. and R&L Carriers Shared Services, LLC's settlement
of a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of drivers.

The Defendants have agreed to pay the entire Settlement Amount of
$9,500,000, plus the employer's share of payroll taxes, to the
Class Members, Class Representatives, Class Counsel, the Claims
Administrator, and the State of California Labor Workforce and
Development Agency, in full satisfaction of the claims.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas Walker Falvey, Esq.
          Jon David Henderson, Esq.
          Michael Hagop Boyamian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY
          301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 800
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 795-0205
          Facsimile: (626) 795-3096
          E-mail: thomaswfalvey@gmail.com
                  hendersonj2004@gmail.com
                  mike.falveylaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Marvin Edward Krakow, Esq.
          Michael Scott Morrison, Esq.
          ALEXANDER KRAKOW & GLICK LLP
          401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 394-0888
          E-mail: mkrakow@akgllp.com
                  mmorrison@akgllp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Diana Marie Estrada, Esq.
          Daniel Hakmo Lee, Esq.
          David Stuart Eisen, Esq.
          WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER, LLP
          555 South Flower Street, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-5100
          Facsimile: (213) 443-5101
          E-mail: diana.estrada@wilsonelser.com
                  daniel.lee@wilsonelser.com
                  david.eisen@wilsonelser.com

The case is Mendez, et al. v. R+L Carriers, Inc., et al., Case No.
4:11-cv-02478-CW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (Oakland).


ROYAL BANK: Earl Jones' Fraud Victims to Get Settlement Checks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Sutherland, writing for The Montreal Gazette, reported that
the 125 victims of Ponzi schemer Earl Jones were slated to receive
settlement checks.  The report said the checks were sent Dec. 20
and were due to arrive before Christmas.

The checks represent the proceeds of a class action settlement
made by the Royal Bank of Canada to the victims Jones defrauded of
up to C$50 million in the two and a half decades he orchestrated
his financial fraud.

The class action suit was seeking C$40 million.  The bank
countered with C$17 million without admitting liability for the
claims it demonstrated "wilful blindness" to the way Mr. Jones was
operating.  After the fees for the lawyers, the payout to the
victims was C$12.2 million.

The payout is 44.1 cents on the dollar of victims' actual losses
as calculated by the claims adjusters.

The money should have been paid out months ago but for objections
from five clients who made their arguments at a public hearing on
June 5, 2013, at the Montreal courthouse.  They argued that their
adjusted claims were much lower than they should be.


SIA CARGO: Settles Class Action Over Alleged Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Chan, writing for The Straits Times, reports that cargo arm
of Singapore Airlines (SIA) has agreed to settle over the issue of
price fixing in the United States, without admitting to any
wrongdoing or liability.  Numerous airlines, including SIA Cargo,
were sued in 2006 following investigations by various competition
authorities on price fixing in air cargo services in the US.
After consulting its legal advisors and carefully weighing its
options, SIA Cargo decided to settle the class action for US$62.8
million.


STAR SCIENTIFIC: Gets FDA Warning Over Dietary Product Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that in a warning letter made public
on Dec. 31, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration told Star
Scientific Inc. that:

     -- two dietary supplement products contain a new ingredient
        that requires federal approval before it can be marketed;

     -- the company did not seek FDA approval before selling the
        dietary supplement Anatabloc and the smoking cessation
        product CigRx;

     -- the company's website unlawfully promotes Anatabloc as a
        drug by citing studies suggesting it can be used to treat
        various diseases, including ulcerative colitis, multiple
        sclerosis and Alzheimer's disease.

The substance that prompted the FDA warning is anatabine, a
tobacco alkaloid that the company touts as an anti-inflammatory
ingredient in Anatabloc.  The FDA said that anatabine, which also
occurs naturally in foods including cauliflower and eggplant, has
been authorized as an investigational new drug but is also
considered a "new dietary ingredient" that is subject to premarket
approval.

The FDA ordered the company to correct the violations within 15
days.  Warning letters are not legally binding, but the government
can take companies to court if they are ignored.

"The company is responding to the letter and has already advised
the agency that it intends to work cooperatively to resolve these
issues, including undertaking a review of the company's websites,"
Star Scientific said in a written statement.

The warning comes as state and federal authorities continue to
investigate the relationship between Gov. Bob McDonnell and former
Star Scientific CEO Jonnie R. Williams Sr., who sought state help
promoting the dietary supplement Anatabloc.  Gov. McDonnell, whose
four-year term ended Jan. 11, and some members of his family
received more than $145,000 in gifts and loans from Mr. Williams.
The governor has said Mr. Williams and Star Scientific received no
grants or other benefits from the state.


SUNTECH POWER: Court Dismissed Claims v. Execs in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Suntech Power Holdings shareholders stung after reports of a fraud
caused stock prices to plummet cannot hold the solar energy firm's
executives liable, reports Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News
Service, citing a federal court ruling.

Lead plaintiff Scott Bruce sued Suntech and the company's CEO
Zhengrong Shi, CFO David King and former CFO Amy Yi Zhang for
violation of the Securities and Exchange Act.  Julian Worley and
David Hogg are also named as defendants.  The class said Suntech
and its officers should have known that the $772 million in German
government bonds that a third party pledged as part of a Suntech
loan guarantee did not exist.  As such the class alleged that the
company and its executives made material misrepresentations about
the extent of Suntech's liabilities during the class period.

Suntech, based in China and incorporated in the Cayman Islands,
designs, manufactures and markets photovoltaic technology used to
provide electricity for residential, commercial, industrial and
public utility customers worldwide.

Suntech stocks dropped once word got out, causing prices to fall
by as much as 15.67 percent, closing at $1.13 on July 31, 2012.

Suntech's involuntary petition for bankruptcy led to an automatic
stay of the claims against it.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg meanwhile agreed December 26,
2013, to dismiss the claims against Shi and King, who are not
subject to the stay, for failure to state a claim.  He noted that
Zhang, the former CFO, had not joined the motion to dismiss
because she was never served.  The claim against King meanwhile is
weakened by the fact that he started working for Suntech a year
after the loan guarantee was consummated, according to the ruling.

"Plaintiff's non-specific allegations that King's position as CFO
gave him 'access to material non-public information' about the
true value and nature of the loan guarantee are insufficient to
show fraudulent intent," Seeborg wrote.

Suntech is one of three Chinese solar companies sued by Solyndra
under the Sherman Antitrust act in 2012.  The now bankrupt
American solar company alleges that Suntech, Trina Solar and
Yingli Green Energy conspired to corner the U.S. market by dumping
solar panels at less than cost.  Another bankrupt American solar
company, Energy Conversion Devices, filed a similar lawsuit in
October 2013, claiming the same companies engaged in unfair trade
practices.

Bruce has 30 days to amend the dismissed claims, according to the
ruling.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Casey Edwards Sadler, Esq.
          Lionel Zevi Glancy, Esq.
          Michael M. Goldberg, Esq.
          Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: csadler@glancylaw.com
                  lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Howard G. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
          3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
          Bensalem, PA 19020
          Telephone: (215) 638-4847
          Facsimile: (215) 638-4867
          E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Marc I. Gross, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  migross@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Louis C. Ludwig, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          Joshua B. Silverman, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: lcludwig@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
                  jbsilverman@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
          Elizabeth Aniskevibh, Esq.
          Joshua Michael Kolsky, Esq.
          Steven J. Toll, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue N.W.
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: dsommers@cohenmilstein.com
                  eaniskevich@cohenmilstein.com
                  jkolsky@cohenmilstein.com
                  stoll@cohenmilstein.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jerome Fortinsky, Esq.
          H. Miriam Farber, Esq.
          SHEARMAN AND STERLING, LLP
          599 Lexington Ave.
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 848-4900
          E-mail: jfortinsky@shearman.com
                  mfarber@shearman.com

               - and -

          Stephen D. Hibbard, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 3800
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 616-1100
          Facsimile: (415) 616-1199
          E-mail: shibbard@shearman.com

Movant TMI Capital Limited is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

Movant Bader A. Sarmast is represented by:

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3350
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com

Movant Olivier Resnik is represented by:

          Brian Joseph Barry, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN BARRY
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (323) 522-5584
          E-mail: bribarry1@yahoo.com

The case is Bruce, et al. v. Suntech Power Holdings Co., Ltd., et
al., 3:12-cv-04061-RS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


TARGET CORP: At Least 15 Suits Filed Over December Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reported that Target Corp. is facing at least 15 lawsuits
seeking class action status as a result of a cyber attack in
December.  The suits were filed by people who claim their
information was stolen and they allege that Target either failed
to properly secure the customer data, did not promptly notify
customers of the breach or both.

Target spokeswoman Molly Snyder said it was company policy not to
comment on litigation.

Target's general counsel, Timothy Baer, spoke with top state
prosecutors on Dec. 23 to address their concerns about a massive
data breach, as consumer lawsuits piled up against the retailer
and two U.S. senators called for a federal probe.  Attorneys
general from several states including Connecticut, Massachusetts
and New York have asked the company to provide more information
about the cyber attack, in which hackers stole data from as many
as 40 million credit and debit cards of shoppers who visited
Target stores during the first three weeks of the holiday shopping
season.

Target did not specify which state officials Mr. Baer spoke with
to "bring them up to date" on the data breach, the second-largest
in U.S. retail history.  The No. 3 U.S. retailer said the call
took place earlier on Dec. 23 but gave few details on the
discussion.

Reuters also reported that two Democratic U.S. Senators, Richard
Blumenthal of Connecticut and Chuck Schumer of New York, have
asked the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to investigate the breach.

"If Target failed to adequately protect customer information, it
denied customers the protection that they rightly expect when a
business collects their personal information," Mr. Blumenthal said
in a letter to FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirezon on Dec. 23.  "Its
conduct would be unfair and deceptive."

An FTC spokeswoman confirmed that the letters had been received
but said she could not comment on whether a probe was in the
works, citing a policy not to discuss ongoing investigations.

CBSNewYork, meanwhile, reports that Target is now the subject of
an investigation by the Department of Justice following a credit
and debit card security breach that affected millions of its
shoppers over the course of several weeks.  The retailer had
revealed that more than 40 million accounts had been hacked
between Nov. 27 and Dec. 15.

Target reiterated on Dec. 23 its responsibility in dealing with
the breach, telling CBS 2 "It's most important for our guests to
know they will bear absolutely no liability for any fraudulent
charges as a result of this breach."

CNNMoney also reports that a day after Target announced that 40
million of its customers had their credit and debit card data
breached, the retailer announced a 10% discount for all shoppers
at its stores on Dec. 21 and Dec. 22.

"We recognize this has been confusing and disruptive during an
already busy holiday season," Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel said in
a statement on Dec. 20.  "Our guests' trust is our top priority at
Target and we are committed to making this right."

CNNMoney reported lawyer Robert Ahdoot, part of a legal team in
California that has filed a lawsuit seeking class action status on
behalf of Target customers, said he had spoken to shoppers who
claimed thieves had used their debit card information to withdraw
money from ATMs.

"Target has an obligation to provide adequate security for the
financial information they collect," Mr. Ahdoot said.  He
recommended that consumers who suspect that their cards may have
been compromised change their PIN numbers as a precaution.

CNNMoney also reported that as a precaution, J.P. Morgan Chase &
Co. said it was temporarily limiting ATM withdrawals to $100 a day
and purchases to $300 a day for Chase customers in the U.S. whose
debit cards are at risk, the company said in a letter to affected
account holders.

Target is also monitoring its own card, the REDcard, for potential
unauthorized activity.  Mr. Steinhafel said the affected customers
"will not be held financially responsible for any credit and debit
card fraud."

"[T]o provide guests with extra assurance, we will be offering
free credit monitoring services," Mr. Steinhafel said.  "We will
be in touch with those impacted by this issue soon on how and
where to access the service."

To help answer questions about the incident, Target has set up a
hotline for customers.  Shoppers have been reporting long hold
times, so Target said it will beef up its staffing.


TARGET CORP: Faces "Purcell" Class Action Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
KGW.com reports that a Portland woman filed a class-action lawsuit
in a U.S. District Court on Dec. 20 against Target in the wake of
a recent data breach that may have affected 40 million credit and
debit card accounts.

The plaintiff, Lisa Purcell, filed the suit, which could exceed $5
million in damages from the Minnesota-based retail giant.  The
suit says Target "failed to implement and maintain reasonable
security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature and
scope of the information compromised in the data breach."

On Dec. 20, Target offered a one-time 10-percent discount to woo
customers back.  The Dec. 20 lawsuit, however, says Targets
actions, including how they notified customers, were too little,
too late.  By Dec. 21, however, Target had an "important notice"
banner posted at the top of its online shopping site addressing
the breach.

The suit was signed by Seattle-based attorney Jennifer Rust
Murray.


TARGET CORP: Facing "Horton" & "Burkstrand" Suits Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
David Hanners, writing for St. Paul Pioneer Press, reports that
two days after officials with Target Corp. acknowledged there had
been a major theft of customers' credit and debit card data, two
separate suits were filed on Dec. 20 in U.S. District Court in
Minnesota by three Target Corp. customers, saying they were suing
for all other people who might be affected, accusing the company
of negligence.  They also claim the Minneapolis-based retailer
failed to notify customers as soon as it learned of the theft.

Inver Grove Heights attorney Gregory McEwen, Esq., represents a
customer named Sarah Horton.

Minneapolis attorney E. Michelle Drake represents Theresa
Burkstrand of New Hope and Bryan Barth of Minneapolis.

A Target media representative said on Dec. 22 that the company
typically does not comment on pending litigation.

On Dec. 19, Target acknowledged that techno-thieves had accessed
its computers and stolen the credit and debit card information of
about 40 million customers.  The retailer, which has nearly 1,800
stores in the United States, says the stolen data involved
customers who shopped at the chain's stores between Nov. 27 and
Dec. 15.  The culprits got customer names, card numbers and
expiration dates.

Federal authorities are investigating the theft.

Brian Krebs, a former Washington Post reporter whose blog,
krebsonsecurity.com, focuses on Internet security issues, revealed
the breach on Dec. 18.

According to PropertyCasualty360's Anya Khalamayzer, Target
reported that hackers stole up to 40 million credit and debit card
records, including Target REDcards, of customers who shopped in-
store in the second-largest retail data breach on record.

Insurance Journal reports that attorneys general from New York,
Massachusetts and Connecticut have contacted the retailer seeking
more information about the breach and the steps being taken by
Target to protect consumers.  In New York, the state's Attorney
General Eric Schneiderman said there are already reported
incidents of identity theft affecting New York consumers.

"A lot of companies are purchasing specialized cyber insurance
policies so those have to be examined," said Joshua Gold --
jgold@andersonkill.com -- a New York-based attorney and
shareholder at law firm Anderson Kill, Insurance Journal reports.
Mr. Gold regularly represents corporate policyholders in insurance
coverage matters.  Such cyber insurance can be tailored to cover a
wide range of expenses, even costs for forensic accounting, credit
monitoring, crisis management, notification and setting up call
centers to respond to consumer inquiries.


TOTA-KASH GROUP: Sen. Klein Announces Homeowners' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
RealEstateRama reports that Senator Klein, joined by dozens of
Bronx homeowners and Assemblyman Marcos Crespo (D-Bronx),
announced that a lawsuit charging fraud, conspiracy, breach of
contract and negligence had been filed against members of an
elaborate scheme targeting first time, minority homeowners.
Homeowners allege that the defendants, working in concert,
(referenced to as the "Tota-Kash Group" in the complaint), bilked
them for millions of dollars by inducing them to purchase homes in
the Bronx without valid certificates of occupancy and with shoddy
workmanship.

When the homeowners first contacted Senator Klein's office earlier
in the fall, each homeowner reported a nearly identical timeline
of events, all punctuated with a series of interactions where
members of the Tota-Kash Group intentionally misrepresented the
true condition of their homes, conspired against the homeowners
ability to rectify defects and deficiencies and exploited each
victim's inexperience in financial matters.

Senator Klein said: "These hard-working New Yorkers were robbed of
the American Dream.  These families were caught in a perfect storm
of lies and deception that cost them not only their paychecks, but
of a safe and happy home this holiday season.  When scheming
contractors prey on aspiring homeowners, they need to know that we
will hold them accountable.

"This group's deception may not be limited to the Bronx.  That's
why I'm opening my office doors on January 16th to victims beyond
the Bronx who may have fallen victim to this same scheme.
Together, we can put an end to the unlawful and greedy actions of
this group, and prevent them from taking advantage of innocent
homeowners everywhere."

Working with Senator Klein's office and the homeowners' attorney,
the homeowners are requesting action on behalf of themselves and
any other victims of the Tota-Kash Group who come forward.  At the
press conference, Senator Klein urged any additional victims of
this scheme to contact his office.  In January, Senator Klein will
be hosting a meeting for additional victims who are seeking legal
action and are interesting in joining the lawsuit as plaintiffs.
It is largely believed that members of the Tota-Kash Group
continue to perpetrate this scheme in other areas of the Bronx and
Queens.

The scheme outlined in the lawsuit filed on Dec. 20 depicts an
elaborate plan to target homeowners who, as first time homebuyers,
were easier to push into transactions not favorable to them.  At
each closing, the Tota-Kash Group advised the plaintiff that the
house had a temporary certificate of occupancy and the final
certificate of occupancy would be available within 90 days of a
closing.  The homeowner would then sign the contract of sale and
made a substantial down payment towards the home.  While awaiting
a final certificate of occupancy, the homeowner became the subject
of several actions by the Department of Buildings regarding the
construction of their homes and their lack of certificates of
occupancy.

At the time of transfer to homeowners, the homes contained, and
continue to contain:

(i) deterioration of the roofs which caused water penetration
through the roofs into the walls and interiors of the buildings,
water damage, mold and leaks in the buildings and individual
apartments;

(ii) improper plumbing causing uneven heat, boiler leaks, rust and
low water pressure;

(iii)  improperly installed windows and doors which cause drafts
and results in excessive heating and cooling bills during the
winter and summer time;

(iv) insufficient sealants that allow water and mold contamination
and leakage every time it rains, causing severe structural damage;
and

(v) improperly installed sewage systems causing constant back
leakage of sewage, clogging and congestion of toilets.

Upon learning of these violations, the Tota-Kash Group would refer
the homeowner to the defendant attorneys, who would assure them
there was nothing to worry about and that the violations would be
dealt with properly.  At the urging of the Tota-Kash Group, the
homeowner would retain one of the defendant attorneys to represent
them before the Department of Building.  These attorneys would
then become non-responsive to plaintiffs, which led to substantial
fines and penalties from DOB.

The class action lawsuit makes the following legal claims:

(i) Civil RICO (i.e., defendants engaged in a criminal enterprise
to defraud these minority-homeowners);

(ii) breach of contract;

(iii) breach of implied warranty of habitability;

(iv) conspiracy;

(v) attorney malpractice; and

(vi) negligence.

Assemblyman Marcos A. Crespo said: "Consumers are under constant
attack by shady business operations.  The virtual collapse of the
housing market due to the fuzzy math of Walls Street executives
and ongoing scams targeted at homeowners needs increased
vigilance. Our courts system has been given the tools to help
homeowners fight these scams and abuse of consumers.  Homeowners
have my full support on this issue.  I applaud Senator Klein for
helping to raise public awareness of this problem and his ongoing
work to protect all consumers."

Attorney for Class Action Lawsuit, Andre Ramon Soleil, Esq: "The
litany of offenses committed against these innocent homeowners is
totally inexcusable.  I filed this class action lawsuit not just
for the plaintiffs listed in the complaint, but also on behalf of
their families and other victims who have been subject to the
illegal actions of the Tota-Kash Group. I believe that the facts
of the case will speak for themselves and that justice will
prevail."

Additional victims who are interested in learning more should call
Senator Klein's office at 718-822-2049.  Senator Klein will make
legal counsel available between 3:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. on
January 16 at the Hutchinson Metro Center in the Bronx.


UNITED FURNITURE: Accused of Failing to Pay Minimum and OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Brown Heffernan Bryant, Kenny Bryant, Anthony Brown,
Cleveland Woodrow Oliver, Jr., David L. Franks, Allie Everett and
Eric Thomas, on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated
v. United Furniture Industries, Inc., United Furniture Industries
CA, Inc., United Furniture Industries NC, LLC, and John Does 1-20,
Individually, Case No. 1:13-cv-00246-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss.,
December 30, 2013) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees a minimum wage,
and failed to pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

United Furniture Industries, Inc., is an Ohio Corporation while
United Furniture Industries CA, Inc., is a Mississippi
Corporation.  United Furniture Industries NC, LLC, is Mississippi
limited liability company.  The United Furniture Defendants are
headquartered in Chickasaw County, Mississippi.  John Does 1-20
are co-owners, managers or production managers, operators and
employers of the Plaintiffs and the Class.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          W. Howard Gunn, Esq.
          W. HOWARD GUNN & ASSOCIATES
          P. O. Box 157
          Aberdeen, MS 39730-0157
          Telephone: (601) 369-8533
          E-mail: whgunn@bellsouth.net


UNITED PARCEL: Sued Over Extra Declared Value Liability Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Solo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. United Parcel Service Co., Case No. 2:13-cv-09515-JAK-RZ (C.D.
Cal., December 27, 2013) seeks relief on behalf of all persons,
who used UPS's package delivery service and paid for additional
"Declared Value" liability coverage from UPS.

UPS has for years been systematically overcharging customers for
the first $100 of declared value coverage, which UPS in its
standardized published rates claims to provide for free for each
package sent, Mr. Solo alleges.

UPS is a Delaware corporation with its global headquarters located
in Atlanta, Georgia.  UPS is engaged in the transportation of
shipments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          1515 Market Street Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 564-2300
          Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
          E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq.
          Grant Lee, Esq.
          Complex Litigation Group LLC
          513 Central Avenue Suite 300
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
          E-mail: jeff@complexlitgroup.com
                  Grant@complexlitgroup.com


UNITED STATES: Injunction Granted in Contraception Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Don Byrd, writing Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty,
reports that a federal judge granted an injunction in the class
action suit brought by nearly 200 ministries challenging the
contraception coverage mandate in the Affordable Care Act.  Among
the plaintiffs is Guidestone Financial Services, which provides
health benefits to the Southern Baptist Convention.  The
injunction comes after the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear
similar challenges in the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga cases.


UNITED STATES: Clapper Seeks Dismissal of NSA Privacy Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Lee, writing for The Wire, reports that the director of
national intelligence has asked the courts to throw out a class
action suit against the U.S. government, saying that if the court
hears classified information from the program to prove its worth,
then the terrorists win.

The written affidavit from James Clapper Jr. comes in response to
a class-action lawsuit being waged in California by various civil
rights and social-justice groups, including the Electronic
Frontier Foundation, ostensibly to protect citizens' privacy.  In
the case, the judge requested proof that the spying program is
constitutional and has actually prevented terrorist attacks.  But
Mr. Clapper doesn't want to give that information over to the
courts.  By invoking the state secrets privilege, which would
block lawsuits for national security reasons, Mr. Clapper's
response is effectively the equivalent of "don't worry about it,
we need this."

"Disclosing or confirming further details about these activities
could seriously undermine an important tool -- metadata collection
and analysis -- for tracking possible terrorist plots," he wrote,
and could reveal methodology, thus "helping foreign adversaries
evade detection."


WAL-MART STORES: Recalls Donkey Meat at Some Outlets in China
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Wal-Mart Stores Inc., has recalled donkey
meat sold at some outlets in China after tests showed the product
contained the DNA of other animals, the U.S. company said.

Wal-Mart will reimburse customers who bought the tainted "Five
Spice" donkey meat and is helping local food and industry agencies
in eastern Shandong province investigate its Chinese supplier, it
said late on Jan. 1 in official posts on China's Twitter-like
Weibo.  The Shandong Food and Drug Administration earlier said the
product contained fox meat.

The scandal could dent Wal-Mart's reputation for quality in
China's $1 trillion food and grocery market where it plans to open
110 new stores in the next few years.  China is the largest
grocery market in the world and is set to grow to $1.5 trillion by
2016, according to the Institute of Grocery Distribution.

"This is another hit on Wal-Mart's brand, meaning wealthy shoppers
will start to lose the trust they had before," said Shaun Rein,
Shanghai-based managing director of China Market Research (CMR)
Group.  CMR estimates Wal-Mart's market share fell from 7.5
percent to 5.2 percent over the last three years.

Donkey meat is a popular snack in some areas of China, although it
only accounts for a tiny fraction of overall meat consumption.  In
2011 China slaughtered 2.4 million donkeys, according to country's
livestock industry yearbook.

Wal-Mart said it had set up an investigation team to look into the
incident, would strengthen food safety rules and take legal action
against the product supplier.  It added the person in charge at
the supplier factory had already been detained.


WEINSTEIN PINSON: 15 Consumers File Class Action in Orlando
-----------------------------------------------------------
N. James Turner, writing for Lawyers.com, reports that 15
consumers filed a Class Action Lawsuit against Weinstein, Pinson &
Riley in United States District Court in Orlando alleging
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  The Class
Action Complaint arises out of a number of student loan lawsuits
filed by Weinstein, Pinson & Riley on behalf of National
Collegiate Student Loan Trust.  The Consumers are alleging that
Weinstein, Pinson & Riley made misleading and deceptive statements
in the student loan lawsuits that were filed against them.

The case is, Ferrell, et al v Weinstein, Pinson & Riley, P.S.,
Case No. 6:13-cv-1965-Orl-36DAB.


YRC WORLDWIDE: Sauk Villagers Mad at Vinyl Chloride Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roadway Express and the owner-operators of an illegal 90-foot
high, 40-acre landfill contaminated drinking water with
carcinogenic vinyl chloride, residents of a far south suburb of
Chicago say in a class action, according to Jack Bouboushian,
writing for Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Kenneth Allen, of Sauk Village, sued YRC Worldwide,
Roadway Express, Arcadis U.S., and Lincoln Limited, in Cook County
Court.

Sauk Village, pop. 10,000, is near the Indiana border.  YRC
Worldwide and Roadway Express owned and operated a freight
transfer, maintenance and refueling facility there.  Less than
half a mile away, in Ford Heights, one of the nation's poorest
neighborhoods, Lincoln Limited operated an illegal, unlicensed 40-
acre landfill, charging truckers just $5 to dump a load of
garbage, according to Illinois Issues Online, a publication of the
University of Illinois.

The garbage reached 90 feet tall, so high the operators said they
would turn it into a ski hill, according to the Chicago Tribune.
Village officials said they ran the dump to raise money.  Sauk
Village's Well Number 3 was on the site, supplying residents with
drinking water for years.  In 2009, "it was found that the water
furnished by Well Number 3 had a high level of vinyl chloride, a
chemical that has been linked to cancer and other health risks,
and, as a result of the said finding, the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency . . . issued a directive to the managing
officers of Sauk Village to cease using water from that well," the
complaint states.

"Vinyl chloride is a highly toxic chemical, and exposure to it can
cause serious health effects.  Exposure to it increases a person's
risk of developing cancer -- including liver, lung, and several
other types of cancers.  Exposure to it can damage the nervous
system and cause changes in the immune system.  There are many
other additional health hazards reported to be associated with
exposure to vinyl chloride.

"Chemical spills on the property of the facility and of the
landfill were the source or a significant source of the vinyl
chloride found in Well Number 3," the class claims.

Plaintiffs seek class certification, damages for negligence,
trespass and nuisance, and want the defendants ordered to
establish a fund for medical monitoring.

The work of the final defendant, Arcadis, is not described in the
lawsuit.  It appears to be an engineering firm, a "surviving
corporation [that] acquired Geraghty & Miller, Inc.," and,
according to the plaintiffs, assumed its liabilities.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          S. Jerome Levy, Esq.
          S. JEROME LEVY& ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          33 North Dearborn, Suite 1617
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 832-1616
          Facsimile: 312-332-0270
          E-mail: sjlevy@jeromelevylaw.com

               - and -

          Edmund J. Scanlan, Esq.
          SCANLAN LAW GROUP
          8 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2700
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 422-0343
          Facsimile: (312) 422-0358

The case is Kenneth Allen v. YRC Worldwide Inc., et al., Case No.
2013-CH-28153, in the Illinois Circuit Court for Cook County.


* Background Check-Related Class Actions on the Rise
----------------------------------------------------
Les Rosen at Employment Screening Resources(R) on Dec. 24
disclosed that given the need for employers to exercise due
diligence in hiring and at the same time comply with the complex
legal environment regulating hiring, employers can expect to see
an increase in legal actions in 2014 -- including class action
lawsuits -- for failing to perform proper background checks or
failing to do them right.  This is Trend Number Four of the 7th
Annual Employment Screening Resources(R) (ESR) 'Top Ten Background
Check Trends' for 2014.

The number of class action lawsuits against both employers and
background firms that fail to comply with the federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) is on the increase, as employment attorneys
are becoming more familiar with the FCRA and the whole area of
background checks.  Conversely, lawsuits for negligent hiring for
an employer that fails to demonstrate due diligence in hiring or
does an inadequate background checks will also be subject to
litigation.  When a class action is brought, the potential
exposure, not to mention legal fees, can be enormous.

The importance of legal compliance and background checks was
underscored in several class action lawsuits in 2013.  In November
2013, two background check firms agreed to pay $18.6 million to
settle three class action lawsuits alleging violations of the FCRA
for "failing to take reasonable measures to ensure the accuracy of
background check report provided to prospective employers."  The
two background check firms were accused "of violating the FCRA by
providing incorrect, outdated or incomplete information to
potential employers."  The two companies also failed to provide
"consumers with copies of their consumer reports before delivering
them to prospective employers."  The two defendants have denied
all allegations in the class action lawsuits.

In September 2013, a tenant screening company that background
checks tenants for rental housing agreed to pay $150,000 to settle
a class action lawsuit over its screening practices.  The tenant
screening company did not admit to any wrongdoing under the
settlement but will pay $400 to each of the plaintiffs plus
$32,600 in attorney fees and other costs.  The lawsuit was filed
by a woman in Kent, Washington who was denied rental housing based
on drug convictions well over seven years old.  Under Washington
law, tenant background checks should only include cases where the
conviction, sentence, or parole period occurs within the past
seven years.

In August 2013, a class action lawsuit filed claimed a trucking
company allegedly failed to tell more than 10,000 job applicants
that they could "access the same information as the company for
background checks and question the information the company reviews
in making hiring decisions."  The plaintiff in the suit applied to
be a driver in 2012 but "was turned away due to his background
check."  The lawsuit claims the company allegedly violated the
federal FCRA for several years by not informing applicants that
they had a right to get a free copy of the background check report
used by the company and could also dispute any information
contained in the report.

In June 2013, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) filed lawsuits against two employers alleging they violated
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by implementing and utilizing a
criminal background check policy that resulted in employees being
fired or screened out for employment.  These two lawsuits filed by
the EEOC-the agency enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment
discrimination -- show the EEOC is starting to enforce its updated
'Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and
Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964' issued on April 25, 2012.

In February 2013, a large national retailer settled an employment
class action lawsuit for $3 million that alleged the company
violated the FCRA by failing to send proper notices to nearly
65,000 plaintiffs who were job applicants.  Although the original
complaint alleged other violations of the FCRA, the settlement was
based upon an allegation that the employer utilized an older
version of a form known as a "statement of rights" that an
employer must provide any applicant that is rejected for
employment based in any way upon a background check.  This is part
of the "adverse action" process under the FCRA.  Before an
employer utilizes a background check to take an adverse action,
such as not hiring someone, the employer has certain legal duties.
Those duties include sending an applicant a copy of the background
report as well as a statement of rights.  However, the lawsuits
alleged the statements of rights were not updated.

Class action lawsuits also always include claims for punitive
damages.  The U.S. Supreme Court in Safeco vs. Burr 551 U.S. 47
(2007) ruled that an entity can face punitive damages if it acts
willfully under the FCRA by either knowingly or recklessly
disregarding its statutory duty.  Even if a screening firm or
employer believes it is acting lawfully that is NOT a protection
from an allegation of willful violation of the FCRA and exposure
to punitive damages if the defendant should have known it was
acting out of compliance.


* U.S. Supreme Court May Squash Shareholder Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds Holding, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that the
U.S. Supreme Court is poised to muzzle shareholder class action
lawsuits.  While not part of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's official arsenal, they help deter fraud.  Congress
may allow the regulator to levy stiffer fines, which could fill
some gaps.  Clamping down on private litigation, though, will
remove serious bite.

Such suits are undeniably effective.  They produce more and bigger
settlements than SEC investigations do and force out more senior
executives, according to recent New York University and University
of Michigan research.

Most cases are based on the legal theory that investors assume
stock prices reflect all public information about listed
companies, including lies.  That excuses individual shareholders
from proving reliance on particular misrepresentations, allowing
them to sue en masse.

In March, though, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear
Halliburton Co.'s claim that this so-called "fraud on the market"
theory is unfounded, or at least can be rebutted with evidence
that an alleged lie didn't affect share value.  The argument
probably appeals to the nation's top court, whose justices
recently made it easier to toss out class actions, shielded mutual
fund managers from liability and blocked suits against third
parties involved in fraudulent schemes.

If Halliburton wins, Congress may offer a partial remedy.
Lawmakers are set to consider increasing by more than ten-fold the
penalties that individuals and companies must pay for violations.
The SEC would still have to prove its cases, of course, especially
at trial, where steely new Chairman Mary Jo White should be able
to improve its less than stellar record.

The outlook isn't totally bleak for securities fraud class
actions.  The law provides investors' lawyers plenty of wiggle
room.  No matter what happens at the Supreme Court this year,
suing over an omission -- the failure to reveal an important
fact -- still won't require proof of reliance on any particular
information.  And shareholders could start recasting lies as
failures to disclose the truth.

Forcing investors into such contortions is hardly ideal, though.
Efforts to hold fraudsters accountable have been sporadic at best
since the financial crisis.  By now it ought to be easier to bring
them to justice, not harder.


                             *********

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  * * *